Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Options
13468961

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,456 ✭✭✭Evd-Burner


    Thats no use unless u have enough of em to cover the entire west coast...
    Ireland needs to invest a bit more than just 3m to have an effective air defence system in place. Thats something i can never see happening...


    Edit: Did not see concussions post, how many of these systems do we actually have?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,230 ✭✭✭chem


    Husqvarna wrote: »
    If your thoughts on strategic defence are as enlightened as your spelling I think you should put yourself forward for a seat on the Council of Defence. Bravo old boy!

    Now I am off to find me a poucher with local knowalage of my area.

    Cheers old boy, for pointing out my incorrect spelling. Maybe I should stay off the brandy, while posting! What , what old chap.

    It was a BBC prog I watched afew years ago. Local lads were provided with NEW plastic explosives for defence of the UK if invaded.

    http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/79316:p


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    A few years ago the Irish Independent cited 6 systems in use which gives a total of 12 now. A medium range system is needed (well, apparantly not in the eyes of the government) in order to push our envelope out further.

    Some recent purchases, of both medium range missiles and long range search radars show the cost involved in upgrading Irelands systems. The RBS 23 BAMSE would be a good option as, being Swedish, it is well suited for Irish doctrine and terrain (snow excepted) and compatible with the Ericsson Giraffe radar family. However it is just in production after a long R&D period and costs are said to be very high (can't find any figures whatsoever).

    An alternative system is built around the AMRAAM missile (which incidentally has a longer range than RBS 23). The NASAMS 2 system was recently purchased by the Netherlands - €40 million for 2xTRML 3D mobile radar systems (range 200 km) and 6xNASAMS 2 systems mounted on trucks (missile range 25 km).

    A long range surveillance system could be aquired aswell - Finland recently purchased the Thales Raytheon GroundMaster 400 which is a containerised truck mounted digital AD system with range of over 450 km. A 12 unit order cost €145 million so €30 million for two wouldn't be a bad figure.

    Finally, an order similar to the one received this year (without radars and with more missiles) would give a total of 18 launchers, 7 Giraffes and a lot of missiles - €3 million. (on the outside, more like €1.5 million)

    Possible structure of 1 ADR after spending €73 million
    • Regimental HQ
    • HQ Battery
    • 1 AD Bty (Medium) - 6 x NASAMS medium range mobile launchers plus 2 TRML 3D mobile radars
    • 2, 3 & 4 Bty (SHORAD) - 6 x RBS-70 man portable short range launchers plus 2 Giraffe 50 mobile radars (per Battery)
    • Surveillance Battery - 2 x GroundMaster 400 long range mobile digital system
    Edit - all systems are detachable from their vehicle and capable of stand-alone operations. They can also be transported by C130 which gives the option for overseas deployments. The long range surveillance radar also opens up the option of using air-defence aircraft in the future,


    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/our-armed-forces-are-not-equipped-to-intercept-or-combat-hijackers-82831.html
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dutch-order-nasamsslamraam-air-defense-systems-02861/
    http://www.deagel.com/Special-Purpose-Vehicles/TRML-3D_a000467001.aspx
    http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/karte420.en.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS_2
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Finland-Updating-Its-Air-Defense-Systems-05398/


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Oh, and, err, a squadron of Typhoons supported by 3 AWAC's :cool:

    (Did it just get very quiet in here??)


    Edit - in case it's too subtle for some of you, THIS POST IS NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.



    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    i think the silence is the idiots politicians drawing breath before spluttering '....bbbbut, we've got some 20mm AA guns - aaaaand doesn't everyone still use spitfires?....'


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭mrmanire


    OS119 wrote: »
    i think the silence is the idiots politicians drawing breath before spluttering '....bbbbut, we've got some 20mm AA guns - aaaaand doesn't everyone still use spitfires?....'

    We don't need fighter planes. Close thread please moderator.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    concussion wrote: »
    7 x Giraffe Radar mounted on Hagglunds Bv206 Vikings - 50 km range

    Is the 50 km range correct?????

    Because..... at a speed of MAC2 a missile would arrive in 36 secs(from first being detected at 50 kl), this doesn't give defence much time to respond(unless they had their hand on the missile defence launch button) and all prechecks and passwords were entered.

    The AGM-88 can detect, attack and destroy a radar antenna or transmitter with minimal aircrew input. The proportional guidance system that homes in on enemy radar emissions has a fixed antenna and seeker head in the missile's nose. A smokeless, solid-propellant, dual-thrust rocket motor propels the missile at speeds over Mach 2. HARM, a Navy-led program, was initially integrated onto the A-6E, A-7 and F/A-18 and later onto the EA-6B. RDT&E for use on the F-14 was begun, but not completed. The Air Force introduced HARM on the F-4G Wild Weasel and later on specialized F-16s equipped with the HARM Targeting System (HTS).


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    mrmanire wrote: »
    We don't need fighter planes. Close thread please moderator.

    I post a plausible method of building up Irish AD and I get silence. I make a joke about fighters as that seems to be the main rallying call of those who see the Defence Forces as a joke and there are demands to close the thread. You can't win, can you? :rolleyes:
    mrmanire wrote: »
    What would it take to give us NATO style capabilities (fighter jets, modern naval warfare capable, etc)?

    The post prior to the reference about fighters is a good starting point.

    old_aussie wrote: »
    Is the 50 km range correct?????

    Because..... at a speed of MAC2 a missile would arrive in 36 secs(from first being detected at 50 kl), this doesn't give defence much time to respond(unless they had their hand on the missile defence launch button) and all prechecks and passwords were entered.

    50 km is correct - it's a short range system. The DF/DoD apparantly aren't expecting SEAD operations against Ireland or they would have a properly layered AD network. As for "having the finger on the button" there are several alert levels, as with any other military, and the appropriate response time for a Shoot/No Shoot decision would be known beforehand.

    Your maths is incorrect, a Mach 2 object takes 72 seconds to travel 50 km (taking the value for Mach 2 at sea level.). That's enough time to give a fire order to a unit, shut down the radar and move location. The RBS 70 missiles aren't guided by the radar so once they know where the target is coming from they can engage. To be honest, this is the situation where I would prefer radar controlled guns - you have more chances to hit the damned thing. There are dedicated missile based Counter=Rocket/Artillery/Mortar systems coming on-line but they're expensive and and it's still early days. In this respect, naval systems are in the forefront as they have spent a lot more time developing missile based anti-missile defences. (I was going to post some options for a mobile, close range system to be used for close protection of radar, I will if people are interested)

    As I mentioned in the post about the new equipment, the new radars don't have much of an increase in range individually, but if you have one at the vital point and another one 50 km away, you now have radar and missile coverage out to 90 km and a better depth of defence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    i'm interested.

    i don't think SAM's/Guns are a 'cheap' answer to the 'should Ireland be able to control its airspace?' question, as, IMHO no SAM system has ever produced 25% of what the brochure claimed, or indeed that any ground-based AD system has successfully fought off an air campaign, but i'm interested in what capability can be bought for what price...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    I wouldn't use the word 'control' either. I don't think you can control the air effectively from the ground (similarly, you still need infantry to hold ground even where you have total air supremacy).

    My thinking for Irish AD would be two fold. First, the ability to defend airspace over a medium range for for security operations (VIP, anti-terror, international summits). For the second situation, a full blown shooting war, without air based AD or a serious amount of long range systems (Patriot, S300) there isn't much you can do bar 'guerilla' air defence, inflicting damage where possible and then shutting down and moving fast. The way I see it, if we are against an adversary who can conduct effective, overwhelming SEAD ops then they will most likely be able to overwhelm the rest of the DF.

    Currently, we have VSHORAD capabilities for security ops and extremely limited range and mobility for warfighting. Our AD is basically a tactical system, most suited to defending troops from ground-attack but it's mission is defence of installations. We need more reach, but at least we got a little more this year.
    Edit - mission here: http://www.military.ie/army/org/dftc/dfr/index.htm


    I'm thinking of systems like Gepard, Tridon, ASRAD-R etc, however I'm in the middle of exams at the moment so I have to study less interesting things for the week. :p


    Edit - what would you think would be the 'cheap' answer? I can only think of throwing open SNN to the RAF but I can't see it happening, even if there was an imminent threat.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    concussion wrote: »
    ...what would you think would be the 'cheap' answer? I can only think of throwing open SNN to the RAF but I can't see it happening, even if there was an imminent threat....

    i don't think there is a 'cheap' option. it sees to me that control over airspace is the absolute prerequisite of all conventional military operations, and modern fast jets, with AAR, AWACS and EW support have proven to be the only way that can be achieved. without it you may as well not turn up.

    Having a defence 'strategy' without including airpower/AD seems is like having an Army without diesel, or communications - or a hospital without hygiene, anti-biotics and dressings. its just a complete waste of time...


  • Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭mrmanire


    OS119 wrote: »
    i don't think there is a 'cheap' option. it sees to me that control over airspace is the absolute prerequisite of all conventional military operations, and modern fast jets, with AAR, AWACS and EW support have proven to be the only way that can be achieved. without it you may as well not turn up.

    Having a defence 'strategy' without including airpower/AD seems is like having an Army without diesel, or communications - or a hospital without hygiene, anti-biotics and dressings. its just a complete waste of time...

    We clearly don't have a defence strategy in this country so and the government and people of this country will never pay to support one.

    Looks like we are just going to have make do with our "air defence system" the way it is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    its - given Irelands lack of anything that anyone might want to steal (with the exception of geography) - a reasonable gamble. a defensive capability sufficiently prickly to make others look for easier options isn't going to be cheap, and the chances of its deterent capability being needed so remote, that its a reasonable decision to not have one.

    thats fine as long as everyone understands that the up-side - saving €1.5billion a year on the defence budget, and several €billion in capital expediture - has a correspoding down-side: that if the gamble goes wrong the state is utterly defenceless, and that it would be entirely at the mercy of anyone who threatened it, and that they could take or do exactly what they wanted and there'd not be a damn thing the Irish state could do about it.

    my concern is that the Irish body politic likes and trumpets the up-side, but is reticent - not to say uttery misleading - about the downside.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 66 ✭✭ShotgunPaddy


    OS119 wrote: »
    i don't think there is a 'cheap' option. it sees to me that control over airspace is the absolute prerequisite of all conventional military operations, and modern fast jets, with AAR, AWACS and EW support have proven to be the only way that can be achieved. without it you may as well not turn up.

    Having a defence 'strategy' without including airpower/AD seems is like having an Army without diesel, or communications - or a hospital without hygiene, anti-biotics and dressings. its just a complete waste of time...

    The cheap solution is to abandon neutrality and join NATO. We could then host one NATO airbase and one NATO Naval base which should be enough to provide a deterrent. The Yanks would love us for this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 66 ✭✭ShotgunPaddy


    We might need our own airforce after all if the Brits go ahead with these cuts.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6956635.ece


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,533 ✭✭✭iceage


    I reckon there'll be a few bargains on sale, just what Ireland needs. A few Tornadoes, one or two harriers and the odd Naval minesweeper to patrol the river Shannon......cheaper than an Aircraft carrier and a damned sight easier to park as well! I wonder how the Irish Navy would feel about a T class Sub? Wouldn't that be cool..:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,230 ✭✭✭chem


    iceage wrote: »
    I wonder how the Irish Navy would feel about a T class Sub? Wouldn't that be cool..:D

    Be cheaper to re-float afew of these!! Good few in Irish waters :D

    http://www.irishwrecksonline.net/details/U260-948a.htm

    http://www.irishwrecksonline.net/details/U89-945.htm

    http://www.irishwrecksonline.net/details/U1003-948b.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭mrmanire


    The cheap solution is to abandon neutrality and join NATO. We could then host one NATO airbase and one NATO Naval base which should be enough to provide a deterrent. The Yanks would love us for this.

    To be honest I am a highly militaristic person. If the Irish military entrance criteria were note so stringent I would not be nearly a British officer now. Anyway; the Irish military establishment has but two choices. We either join NATO and we are but are but are but a glorified anti submarine base.

    Sorry about my language but we are the most the most independent non violent place in Europe the way we are are. Shannon airport is a US Air Force stopover. Damn right. **** it lads, Ireland is not is not going to have a sexy NATO fighter squadron but we are instrumental to NATO policy; neutral or not and I'm glad because I have no time for the Irish crusties.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    mrmanire wrote: »
    To be honest I am a highly militaristic person. If the Irish military entrance criteria were note so stringent I would not be nearly a British officer now. Anyway; the Irish military establishment has but two choices. We either join NATO and we are but are but are but a glorified anti submarine base.

    Sorry about my language but we are the most the most independent non violent place in Europe the way we are are. Shannon airport is a US Air Force stopover. Damn right. **** it lads, Ireland is not is not going to have a sexy NATO fighter squadron but we are instrumental to NATO policy; neutral or not and I'm glad because I have no time for the Irish crusties.

    it seems to me that 'neutral' Ireland's dependence on NATO and its geographic position give it the disadvantages of NATO membership without the corresponding advantages. no NATO funding on military infrastructure, no joint training, no mutual defence pact, no free/cheap equipment, no assembly-line priority for equipment procurement, no independant audit of effeciency or preparedness and half a million other things that would not only make Ireland's military a harder, sharper tool of state policy, but would probably make it cheaper to run - and yet Ireland (or more correctly its western airfields and ports) would still be on the target list of anyone fighting NATO.

    close the Atlantic to NATO shipping - win. don't close the Atlantic to NATO shipping - lose.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,251 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    We might need our own airforce after all if the Brits go ahead with these cuts.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6956635.ece

    what kind of fantasy dream world are you living in?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    twinytwo wrote: »
    what kind of fantasy dream world are you living in?

    actually quite a sensible one.

    Nimrod is going out of service in 2012, and Nimrod MR4A won't come into service till 2014 (if ever, given its cost over-runs and that the RAF won't have done any MP for 2 years when the airframes turn up).

    quite how much does the current Irish requirement for 2 MPA's rely on the UK having a flying Nimrod fleet?

    while this bunch of cuts affects the MP and ground attack role, the next may impact on the AD role. given that we know that the IG depends on the RAF AD fleet for control/policing of Irish airspace, if the RAF AD capability is significantly reduced it will amost certainly compromise the ability of the RAF to cover Irish tasks as well as UK ones - hence the RoI perhaps needing to look at having an organic AD capability instead of relying on the defence budgets and priorities of states it has no control over...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,251 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    OS119 wrote: »
    actually quite a sensible one.

    Nimrod is going out of service in 2012, and Nimrod MR4A won't come into service till 2014 (if ever, given its cost over-runs and that the RAF won't have done any MP for 2 years when the airframes turn up).

    quite how much does the current Irish requirement for 2 MPA's rely on the UK having a flying Nimrod fleet?

    while this bunch of cuts affects the MP and ground attack role, the next may impact on the AD role. given that we know that the IG depends on the RAF AD fleet for control/policing of Irish airspace, if the RAF AD capability is significantly reduced it will amost certainly compromise the ability of the RAF to cover Irish tasks as well as UK ones - hence the RoI perhaps needing to look at having an organic AD capability instead of relying on the defence budgets and priorities of states it has no control over...

    i think it is fair to assume that ireland will never have an air force of note.. while yes we could do with more military spec helis, all the armchair generals can forgot about fighters etc. the cost /need cannot be justified.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    i think its a balance that needs to be looked at. the current/old equation was 'very little chance of it being needed, and if it is the RAF has massive capacity and a good reason to help' - in 5 years time i wouldn't be remotely surprised if UK defence cuts meant that the equation would be 'probably little chance of it being needed, but if it is the RAF has no spare capacity so probably couldn't help if it wanted to'. that means the question needs to be looked again - the answer may turn out to be the same, but the situation regarding the RAF's ability to defend/police Irish airspece is changing, and therefore the assumptions based on the current situation need looking at again in that light.

    BTW, i'd bet £50 that by 2015 the CVF and F-35 programs have been cancelled, Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR9 are out of service and the Typhoon programe is cut to 150 airframes. i believe that the UK will be moving out of high-end expeditionary warfare and won't be interested in, or able to, provide AD services to the RoI.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭FunnyStuff


    Morphéus wrote: »
    did you just climb out of the boot of marty macfly's delorien?!

    i want one


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 133 ✭✭realismpol


    Oh dear your still banging on about this giraffe radar system as a viable air defence solution. I don't know wheither to laugh or cry at this suggestion. 3 million eh? Big time spending there for a complex and great system. Who said we are proud of getting things second hand and on the cheap. No siry top of the line for us!

    Ok I agree its a great system for cold war type threats. Maybe because the system was i dunno designed in the 70's. But generally we do tend to stay about 20 years behind the rest of the world in terms of our military assets so it is to be expected. Reason being the great knock down prices you get on second hand and older equipment other countries no longer need! Wonder why though?

    But I suppose for todays threat it would work just as well. Just make sure they phone you up and give you plenty of time to set up your 8 Viking tracked vehicles deployed in horizontal unison across the land. Take that Modern day terrorists! Ireland means business.

    Just one question though. Does it come with 70's style shag carpeting?
    concussion wrote: »
    7 x Giraffe Radar mounted on Hagglunds Bv206 Vikings - 50 km range

    6 x RBS 70 launchers
    40 x Mk 2 Missiles (updated from the Mk 1 which were previously bought)
    5 x Clip on Night Device (COND)

    along with a simulator, Kongsberg radios and other ancilliaries. Total €3 million - a great deal.

    Girafe_isskleistas.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Do you have constructive criticism or are you just going to harp on about them being secondhand? Also, if you think that every other country has all their AD constantly ready you're deluded, intelligence will dictate the alert level for a countries defences and it's no different here.

    Did you even read anything I posted after I mentioned acquiring the Giraffe 50's? The bits where I said that while our SHORAD is very much improved we still need a medium range system and a long range surveillance radars. Or the posts where I put forward how we could acquire that?

    As for them being old, have a look at the link Steyr posted in the Mil Aviation thread - how old are the vast majority of combat aircraft in the world??

    Edit -as for the carpeting. No it doesn't, probably because the radars are half the age you say they are :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    realismpol - can you think of 1 single threat to our national defence that would justify spending 100's of millions of modern air defence systems?

    I certainly cannot. And I doubt anyone else on this thread could either.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    It's the ones you don't see coming that gets you.

    Granted, hundreds of millions might be a bit overkill. A few tens of millions mightn't be a bad idea, though.

    Just in case someone hijacks an airliner and decides to crash it into Shannon to kill lots of Americans or something. You'd think that at least dealing with renegade civil aircraft should be something within the capacity of a Defence Force.

    NTM


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    It's the ones you don't see coming that gets you.

    Granted, hundreds of millions might be a bit overkill. A few tens of millions mightn't be a bad idea, though.

    Just in case someone hijacks an airliner and decides to crash it into Shannon to kill lots of Americans or something. You'd think that at least dealing with renegade civil aircraft should be something within the capacity of a Defence Force.

    NTM

    I'm sure our current systems would be well capable of intercepting a fairly slow moving airliner...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,427 ✭✭✭gunnerfitzy


    lads lets get real.

    Any country who has the capability to land significant troops on our shores will over-run the country. Such a country will also have air and naval supremacy.

    Any one who disagrees with this should talk to some head doctors.

    Government policy is that our AD capabilities are to provide point defence for VIPs etc. that is all it is going to be unless the regional situation changes considerably.

    A simple cost/benefit analysis or more accurately a cost/risk assessment would show that the spending mentioned cannot be justified.

    Remember also, the Irish people have very very little interest in defence matters and spending even an additional €1 million would be a very hard sell.

    And even if all the AD defences in the world where concentrated in Ireland, no Taoiseach would give the order to shoot down an airliner!


Advertisement