Should Ireland have a better equipped Navy and Air Force?

sparky42

Morpheus wrote: »

Good point about the triple lock

now would be a good time to garner public support for withdrawing from the UN bit.

Why have a country like Russia dictating as to where we can send our troops?

That was a pandering joke from Bertie that should never have been proposed, and from memory didn't we have to end the Chad operation as China wouldn't extend the mandate?

sparky42

NewSigGuy wrote: »

While we don't have a domestic defence industry there are other options to make Capital Defence expenditure more affordable. I think it is a mistake that Ireland and in Particular the DOD have completely ignored the Idea of industrial offset. This is common practice in almost every other country where large capital expenditure is on the table.

In the last decade Ireland has bought the PC-9 and Mowag from Switzerland, the AW-139 from Italy, the Lear 45 and Javelin from the USA and now the New Naval Vessels from the UK plus many other capital projects I can't think of. In all cases the DOD should have looked for at least 100% industrial offset, this would make any large capital expenditure far more palatable to the state and the populous..

Nations buying 5-10 billion in single contracts don't get 100% offsets! why do you think Ireland would for tiny sums of money (and yes for the major defence firms it is tiny money)? What offsets would you suggest that we could have argued for?

aindriu80

sparky42 wrote: »

Let's be fair the nature of the hath service means that a significant amount of money remains within the Irish system (health is the single largest employer, and purchasing department in the country).

An increase in defence spending would mean an increase in money outflows (either in new ships, mowags, planes etc). Please don't tell me you are going to start up with the old lets build it ourselves routine?
.

Health is a black hole where money never comes back. Only if you stop doing something (like smoking) is there any sign of improvement.

We could do defence ourselves - build ships / design ships but since its so cheap to purchase from outside the country its not worth having our own yards.

Over the lifetime of equipment defence is cheap. Sure, some of the cutting edge front line equipment is expensive for the taxpayer but the Mowag APC's probably have paid for themselves by now and they are impressive for the likes of Ireland.

There are significant offsets in defence deals and you can't ignore that. It makes the likes of fighter jets buy-able. Ireland can and should buy the major pieces for the defence forces and do defence.

sparky42

aindriu80 wrote: »

Health is a black hole where money never comes back. Only if you stop doing something (like smoking) is there any sign of improvement.

We could do defence ourselves - build ships / design ships but since its so cheap to purchase from outside the country its not worth having our own yards.

Over the lifetime of equipment defence is cheap. Sure, some of the cutting edge front line equipment is expensive for the taxpayer but the Mowag APC's probably have paid for themselves by now and they are impressive for the likes of Ireland.

There are significant offsets in defence deals and you can't ignore that. It makes the likes of fighter jets buy-able. Ireland can and should buy the major pieces for the defence forces and do defence.

Nonsense, it would never be a viable system, even with a massive increase in all three services we would never have the numbers required to make a domestic manufacturing process. All we would have is the Government sinking money into it without an end. I'm all for Timoney doing design work for everything up to the RoC version of the MOWAG but the demand from the Irish forces wouldn't cover the costs of setting up a production line.

What are you suggesting, we set up lines for Naval Radar/Optical systems, Airborne radars, guns, engines etc?

I'm all for increasing the defence budget, I'm all for getting better equipment, I am not and will not support this nonsense of "build it all here". An Irish shipyard is never going to match the price from a European Yard (the costs in a yard/training/manufacturing equipment alone would be more than the one of the Becketts), and will still have to bring in parts.

The same for planes/helicopters/jets (requiring different lines and skills so extra costs again for your build it here) if timing had been better and some intelligence in Government I would have gone for Short's Tucano's but that's sailed and even then they aren't building the Tucano or Super Tucano now. There are plenty of nations with bigger populations/budgets that don't go near what you are suggesting.

Should we set up manufacturing for munitions here in Ireland even though we can buy them cheap from multiple sources across Europe? What about artillery? Body armour?

What you are suggesting would at best end up with us having equipment that would have a substantial mark up over equal kit sourced outside of Ireland, a lot more resistance from the public as there would be the sight of Government bailing out your build it here sites and we'd still have to source equipment/designs from outside. For nations that have either a) the money or b) a historical defence Industry it makes sense to protect it and develop it, for a nation that has little of a) and no b) it doesn't make sense.

beauf

Jawgap wrote: »

I mentioned in another thread - but I think benchmarking ourselves against someone like New Zealand would be a better approach- island nation, on the edge of an ocean beside a [largely:)] benign neighbour.

New Zealand has a completely different military tradition. So they are coming from a very different mindset and cultural identity.

New Zealand's national defence needs are modest because of the unlikelihood of direct attack,[95] although it does have a global presence. The country fought in both world wars, with notable campaigns in Gallipoli, Crete,[96] El Alamein[97] and Cassino.[98] The Gallipoli campaign played an important part in fostering New Zealand's national identity[99][100] and strengthened the ANZAC tradition it shares with Australia.[101] According to Mary Edmond-Paul, "World War I had left scars on New Zealand society, with nearly 18,500 in total dying as a result of the war, more than 41,000 wounded, and others affected emotionally, out of an overseas fighting force of about 103,000 and a population of just over a million."[102] New Zealand also played key parts in the naval Battle of the River Plate[103] and the Battle of Britain air campaign.[104][105] During World War II, the United States had more than 400,000 American military personnel stationed in New Zealand.[106]
In addition to Vietnam and the two world wars, New Zealand fought in the Korean War, the Second Boer War,[107] the Malayan Emergency,[108] the Gulf War and the Afghanistan War. It has contributed forces to several regional and global peacekeeping missions, such as those in Cyprus, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Sinai, Angola, Cambodia, the Iran–Iraq border, Bougainville, East Timor, and the Solomon Islands.[109] New Zealand also sent a unit of army engineers to help rebuild Iraqi infrastructure for one year during the Iraq War.

beauf

Timoney was mentioned. They seem to only do design and prototype in Ireland. Production seems to be licensed to other countries.

Another is Allen-Vanguard who moved to a facility in Britain. AFAIK.

sparky42

beauf wrote: »

Timoney was mentioned. They seem to only do design and prototype in Ireland. Production seems to be licensed to other countries.

Another is Allen-Vanguard who moved to a facility in Britain. AFAIK.

Exactly, the Bushmaster design, the CM-32 (I think that's the name of the RoC vehicle), these are in use in numbers that Ireland would never get with a NATO standard spending level. The cost of setting up a production line would increase the cost, while what to do about the production line once the small production run is done is the next question.

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

New Zealand has a completely different military tradition. So they are coming from a very different mindset and cultural identity.

To be honest Ireland has as strong a military tradition and as proud a military history, we've just chosen to emphasise / de-emphasise different parts of it.

beauf

My point was that its not got the same profile in the general population. Thus has indirect effect on the resourcing of it. .

NewSigGuy

sparky42 wrote: »

Nations buying 5-10 billion in single contracts don't get 100% offsets! why do you think Ireland would for tiny sums of money (and yes for the major defence firms it is tiny money)? What offsets would you suggest that we could have argued for?

Yes they do and for the really big ticket items some countries have demanded 150% offset. The expenditure with Switzerland would have been interesting to pursue, we bought the Mowag's and the PC-9's the capital expenditure was over 60 Million for each project plus life cycle costs, I feel there was certainly scope in that case for offsets as there was in the case of the AW-139 and the new Naval Ships, the fact that Ireland never made offsets a condition of the contracts means we will never know...

Remember also when the Medium Lift Heli project was run in the AC, one of the potential suppliers Offered a large offset package, the outcome ended up in court and the project was cancelled. But Offsets are available even on Small 100 Million Euro contracts.

sparky42

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Yes they do and for the really big ticket items some countries have demanded 150% offset. The expenditure with Switzerland would have been interesting to pursue, we bought the Mowag's and the PC-9's the capital expenditure was over 60 Million for each project plus life cycle costs, I feel there was certainly scope in that case for offsets as there was in the case of the AW-139 and the new Naval Ships, the fact that Ireland never made offsets a condition of the contracts means we will never know...

Remember also when the Medium Lift Heli project was run in the AC, one of the potential suppliers Offered a large offset package, the outcome ended up in court and the project was cancelled. But Offsets are available even on Small 100 Million Euro contracts.

The Brazilians didn't get that level of offset when negotiating their new fighter program from any of the bidders, (they are partnering in the Gripen NG). 120 million over a decade (given the time from start to finish) isn't anything but small change to the Defence Industries and given they know exactly what funding Ireland will make available there's no chance it would have been viable.

Naval offsets? The Cobh dockyard is a maintenance yard at most, it's been 30+ years since they built ships (and not without issues then), the costs that would be tied up in even making it a viable yard again is millions.

As to that helicopter programme, from memory isn't that the one that ended up way over budget and behind schedule anyway?

The domestic demand isn't enough to sustain a viable industry without significant additional costs to the government (ie like so many Semi States).

NewSigGuy

sparky42 wrote: »

The Brazilians didn't get that level of offset when negotiating their new fighter program from any of the bidders, (they are partnering in the Gripen NG). 120 million over a decade (given the time from start to finish) isn't anything but small change to the Defence Industries and given they know exactly what funding Ireland will make available there's no chance it would have been viable.

Naval offsets? The Cobh dockyard is a maintenance yard at most, it's been 30+ years since they built ships (and not without issues then), the costs that would be tied up in even making it a viable yard again is millions.

As to that helicopter programme, from memory isn't that the one that ended up way over budget and behind schedule anyway?

The domestic demand isn't enough to sustain a viable industry without significant additional costs to the government (ie like so many Semi States).

I think the Brazilians went for the lowest cost option, there is also talk of the Swedish Air Force buying the KC-390 transport aircraft from Embrear, so I think there is plenty going on behind the scenes, particularly in the Area of technology transfer. There is also a very novel finance package from Saab, in which Brazil doesn't pay anything until the 36th of the 48 aircraft is delivered.

On The mater of the Medium Lift Project, the short answer is No. The proposal was for 5 Aircraft and a total cost of about 100 Million, one bidder offered offsets and this helped it win the contract, the other bidders cried foul, as offsets were not mentioned in the RFP and it went to court, the contract was cancelled and never resurrected.

I think the Fact that Sikorsky offered offsets proves the point, unfortunately the DOD has never made Offsets a part of any RFP.

After a little research it appears that many of our European Neighbours look for offsets and they use a threshold of around 1 Million Euro's, and offsets starting at 100%!!

Morpheus

yes MLH contract was cancelled, was for the THEN new s92.

CHC got the contract instead - always wondered was any irish politician or their mates involved with CHC at the time.....

private company reaping the benefits for supplying us with aircraft we were gonna buy ourselves anyway

Contract was recently extended for 533 million over ten years - we could buy an s92 for just over 30million, or 5 for 150million and increase get the aircorps to provide the CG service instead of paying for a private company to fly helis which the state will never own.

My 2c

aindriu80

sparky42 wrote: »

Nonsense, it would never be a viable system........ it doesn't make sense.

As you pointed out the defence industry is extremely competitive and Ireland can get a good return for investment. We don't have to build here but it doesn't hurt the economy if companies can.

Defence is something like installing a burglar alarm, sure you don't need it like a meal but it acts as a deterrent for your house. Ireland doesn't have to buy things like trident like big countries but does have to get major components that other major armies have to operate in more complex situations. Its a hard sell to a peripheral country in Europe but defence is real and worthwhile.

Just this week they had a post bail out Ireland conference at the Aviva stadium and it became pretty clear that Ireland couldn't afford any tax cuts. Obviously talk about increasing the defence budget is laughable in these times but the other side of the coin is equally laughable : "......92 per cent of Ireland is under water. This domain contains natural resources with a potential value of several trillion euro, including mineral deposits, fossil fuels, marine life, fisheries and wind and wave energy"


There is a green and white paper on defence and they have to get real and figure out how they are going to expand the defence forces. Here is 2/c from Dorcha Lee former Defence Forces provost marshal and director of military police.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-defence-spending-lowest-in-eu-1.1733959

beauf

The commercial companies have decided it isn't viable and gone else where. If anyone can prove them wrong they are free to do so. But let them use their own money to learn the same lesson.

The defence some are talking about, and that article is like a unmonitored burglar alarm on a isolated house in the middle of nowhere. Completely inappropriate.

Jawgap

aindriu80 wrote: »

As you pointed out the defence industry is extremely competitive and Ireland can get a good return for investment. We don't have to build here but it doesn't hurt the economy if companies can.

Defence is something like installing a burglar alarm, sure you don't need it like a meal but it acts as a deterrent for your house. Ireland doesn't have to buy things like trident like big countries but does have to get major components that other major armies have to operate in more complex situations. Its a hard sell to a peripheral country in Europe but defence is real and worthwhile.

Just this week they had a post bail out Ireland conference at the Aviva stadium and it became pretty clear that Ireland couldn't afford any tax cuts. Obviously talk about increasing the defence budget is laughable in these times but the other side of the coin is equally laughable : "......92 per cent of Ireland is under water. This domain contains natural resources with a potential value of several trillion euro, including mineral deposits, fossil fuels, marine life, fisheries and wind and wave energy"


There is a green and white paper on defence and they have to get real and figure out how they are going to expand the defence forces. Here is 2/c from Dorcha Lee former Defence Forces provost marshal and director of military police.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-defence-spending-lowest-in-eu-1.1733959

I think that article has been discussed elsewhere and while acknowledging that its well written, his premise is fairly unsustainable.

There is no way we could afford to mount a deterrent defence - even if we put the whole economy over to defence it would still not be enough.

Our (the Irish government's) way in the world relies on the projection of what might be termed 'soft' power - and the fact we have a defence force that deploys routinely on UN (and other international organisation) sponsored missions is an important component in the country wielding influence out of all proportion to its size.

Sir Chops

It's unlikely we could defend even against moderate jets from WWII era. ME262s or HE162s would make mincemeat of the Irish Air Corp even though they are of a 70 year old era

beauf

Sir Chops wrote: »

It's unlikely we could defend even against moderate jets from WWII era. ME262s or HE162s would make mincemeat of the Irish Air Corp even though they are of a 70 year old era

Ireland cant defend against ufos either. Its just as relevant.

Red Nissan

Savage93 wrote: »

If you have about 20 billion handy we could this, not in our lifetimes:(:(:(

Remind me again, how many Billion have we given to bondholders?

KwackerJack

SimonLynch wrote: »

I know someone in the forces who reckons they need more boats and planes for fishery patrol. The Air Corps probably have all they need militarily, pilots are getting more flying hours than most European air forces so I'm told.

I'm all for our defence forces but the Air Corps is most likely not training in the same areas as other Air Forces so there for they can probably afford to have planes up more often.

I work near Baldonnel and its great to see them flying but I don't think we'll ever see our Air Corps with advanced fighters or advance air defence.

I love seeing CASA, they can really bank her coming in and out!

Even the Pilatus PC-9M is really just a training aircraft, amazing looking and sounds great all the same.

hsianloon

Based on the geography, the only likely people to invade are
1) USA - already using Shannon, plus we think they love the Irish, and we certainly clamour over Obama anyway.
2) UK - er....
3) Nordic/scandinavian states - no way lads..

Anyone else does, and its a foregone conclusion.

I do agree that each country should have a defense system, basic at least, but with the economic climate, it's largely unsustainable. Not to mention the upkeep of a military, what more expanding it.

Unfortunately, many countries usually use that as a reason to avoid investing in defense, and tend to learn the lesson after war comes...which doesn't always send out invitation letters out.

Ukraine probably wish it had better defenses now, complete rout by the Russians.

If something similar happened to Ireland, would any of the world powers bother helping us get it back ? Just say, imagine the UK decided, hey lets annex Ireland again, what can we do ? Nothing.

Perhaps its better to invest in something akin to a warning systems ?

Jawgap

Sir Chops wrote: »

It's unlikely we could defend even against moderate jets from WWII era. ME262s or HE162s would make mincemeat of the Irish Air Corp even though they are of a 70 year old era

To be honest think we'd be grand.......we could just recommission the Vampire currently in the Soldiers and Chiefs exhibition......same speed as the 262 but crucially the Vampire has a significantly lower wing loading.

Red Nissan

Morpheus wrote: »

instead of paying for a private company to fly helis which the state will never own. My 2c

It's a little more than that, the CHC is not just a specialist aircraft manufacturer, they are also the leading service provider for SAR operations which is a highly skilled mix of extreme personnel and equipment.

The Air Corp are developing these skills and there is potential in the future that the contract might go to them at some stage.

Currently the training and assessment in CHC is much higher than afforded by the military, it's not just mere equipment, the basic helicopter is the cheapest part of the whole plan over time.

I think the CHC do a fantastic job, the Air Corp can do it too, but they are just not designed to offer the service on a full time basis, that may change and I understand is changing, although, slowly.

Red Nissan

KwackerJack wrote: »

Even the Pilatus PC-9M is really just a training aircraft, amazing looking and sounds great all the same.

Had a fly over in the Curragh for my son's commissioning ceremony, massive.

aindriu80

Purchasing the major components of defence and providing a credible deterrent to a foreign aggressor may test anyone in Ireland but our contribution overseas is purely based on what the Defence Forces operate. Since they do operate the Mowag APC we can intervene in Africa and the middle east etc. Some extremely important missions we can't join in because we simply don't have the major pieces of equipment that other countries similar to Ireland have. By intervening in trouble spots around the globe Ireland is meeting its international obligations and providing at least hope for the people there.

folbotcar

Red Nissan wrote: »

It's a little more than that, the CHC is not just a specialist aircraft manufacturer, they are also the leading service provider for SAR operations which is a highly skilled mix of extreme personnel and equipment.

The Air Corp are developing these skills and there is potential in the future that the contract might go to them at some stage.

Currently the training and assessment in CHC is much higher than afforded by the military, it's not just mere equipment, the basic helicopter is the cheapest part of the whole plan over time.

I think the CHC do a fantastic job, the Air Corp can do it too, but they are just not designed to offer the service on a full time basis, that may change and I understand is changing, although, slowly.

There is no realistic chance that the Air Corps can ever again take on the lead role in SAR. Not without a complete revision of the service and a considerable expansion of the Air Corps itself.

Let's look at aircrew. CHC can hire experienced people from within the large pool out there worldwide. They can set a high standard of experience and skills. Many of the aircrew are ex British military and oil industry with offshore experience. Many of the Irish are ex Air Corps. Where would the Air Corps get that experience? Even the British are privatising their SAR and they have considerably larger and experienced air arms.

The truth is that if anything the Air Corps will lose more quasi civilian roles. The Air ambulance being one. It makes no sense for it to continue to be operated by the military.

sparky42

When you consider that the RAF is getting out of SAR activities as well in the UK it's not like Ireland is alone in moving in this direction.

Jawgap

Ming Flannagan has the right idea......:pac:

837. Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan asked the Minister for Defence Alan Shatter if he will consider purchasing an aircraft carrier to protect Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13857/14]

Minister for Defence (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Naval Service conducts routine maritime surveillance patrols on a daily basis throughout Ireland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The primary day-to-day tasking of the Naval Service is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State’s fishery protection legislation and our obligations as a member of the European Union. A strategy for the replacement of Naval Service Offshore Patrol Vessels is currently in train. A contract was signed in October 2010, with Babcock Marine for the provision of two new offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) for the Naval Service. The first ship to be named LE Samuel Beckett is scheduled for delivery in the coming weeks. The second ship to be named LE James Joyce will follow in January 2015. The acquisition of these modern new vessels, combined with a continuous process of refurbishment and repair on the other vessels in the fleet, will ensure that the operational capability of the Naval Service is maintained at a satisfactory level. There are no plans to purchase an aircraft carrier for the Naval Service.

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

Ming Flannagan has the right idea......:pac:

You've got to wonder who put him up to asking that question, and how high he was when he asked, and if Shatter could keep a straight face in response.

Muppet

Jawgap

The question after Flannagan's was a bit more serious and gave numbers for the Defence Forces.....

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/(indexlookupdail)/20140325~WRQQ?opendocument#WRQQ03000

Question 838.