Should Ireland have a better equipped Navy and Air Force?

beauf

folbotcar wrote: »

I think comparisons with other countries of similar sizes are valid. ...

Only so far. If they have different needs and location it could be entirely pointless.

folbotcar

longhalloween wrote: »

Will there ever be a scenario where Ireland has to project military might?

I believe our military should be capable to deal with paramilitary threats and internal security. There is no need to maintain a large, advanced military force in this country.
Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark have a history and tradition of militarism that Ireland doesn't have.

I'd say we'd be better served leasing equipment from Britain and training Irish personnel to use it.

You're right, there is no need to project military might but that's beside the point. There is also no need for a large military but I do think it has to be advanced to the extent it can be. Otherwise why an army at all? The internal security issue could just as easily be dealt with paramilitary police force like the Guardia Civile in Spain.

Your comment about militarism, I'm afraid is just wrong. Sure as an independent country Ireland has avoided joining any war. As a people the Irish have a very strong history of militarism which continues to this day. To the extent that Irish regiments could be found on both sides of the battlefield. There is hardly a country that hasn't found an Irishman serving in their ranks at one point. This is usually ignored in this country where many people cling to the myth of honourable neutrality while ignoring the reality that the only reason we didn't end up like Norway or Denmark in WW2 was an accident of geography.

I don't think leasing makes any sense either. Either we have a realistic military or we don't.

folbotcar

beauf wrote: »

Only so far. If they have different needs and location it could be entirely pointless.

Yes but we don't even fulfil our different needs and our location as an island should point us towards a stronger navy.

beauf

folbotcar wrote: »

Yes but we don't even fulfil our different needs and our location as an island should point us towards a stronger navy.

Then why drag Switzerland and Sweden into it. Makes no sense.

longhalloween

folbotcar wrote: »

Your comment about militarism, I'm afraid is just wrong. Sure as an independent country Ireland has avoided joining any war. As a people the Irish have a very strong history of militarism which continues to this day. To the extent that Irish regiments could be found on both sides of the battlefield. There is hardly a country that hasn't found an Irishman serving in their ranks at one point. This is usually ignored in this country where many people cling to the myth of honourable neutrality while ignoring the reality that the only reason we didn't end up like Norway or Denmark in WW2 was an accident of geography.

That's exactly what I was getting at. When it comes to war Irish people have a tradition of joining the British army while Ireland remains uncommitted.
The accident of geography is why we have no need of a military. Unless Russian decides to use Ireland as a back door into Europe there's no other reason for Ireland to be invaded. And in fairness, if that was to happen, then all the Irish military might would have very little impact.

folbotcar wrote: »

]...but I do think it has to be advanced to the extent it can be. Otherwise why an army at all? The internal security issue could just as easily be dealt with paramilitary police force like the Guardia Civile in Spain.

Maybe that's the way it should be. Go down the Iceland route of having no army.

cruasder777

longhalloween wrote: »

That's exactly what I was getting at. When it comes to war Irish people have a tradition of joining the British army while Ireland remains uncommitted.
The accident of geography is why we have no need of a military. Unless Russian decides to use Ireland as a back door into Europe there's no other reason for Ireland to be invaded. And in fairness, if that was to happen, then all the Irish military might would have very little impact.



Maybe that's the way it should be. Go down the Iceland route of having no army.

The army serving on UN missions gives the country a positive profile overseas, we should be doing more of this stuff. Although I accept more hardware like helicopters and light attack aircraft are needed as well as more engineering and medical units.
.
The PDF is out of balance by having too many infantry and not enough support units due to its historic internal role.

You also seem to forget since the foundation of the state there has been much conflict with the IRA, the armies role has been to counter that, we dont know if longterm the peace will last in the north.

aindriu80

beauf wrote: »

Better off because they are more likely to get invaded or have to defend their borders?

They have more people and are richer.

longhalloween wrote: »

I'd agree with this.

A highly militarised Ireland would be defeated only marginally slower than a non-militarised Ireland.

Ireland has obligations to meet. We also have an opportunity to intervene around the world.

folbotcar

longhalloween wrote: »

That's exactly what I was getting at. When it comes to war Irish people have a tradition of joining the British army while Ireland remains uncommitted.
The accident of geography is why we have no need of a military. Unless Russian decides to use Ireland as a back door into Europe there's no other reason for Ireland to be invaded. And in fairness, if that was to happen, then all the Irish military might would have very little impact.



Maybe that's the way it should be. Go down the Iceland route of having no army.

Indeed but even Iceland has an American base.They are clear where they stand. We pretend we're above that kind of thing. To me that's hypocrisy. Whose side are we on?

Morpheus

folbotcar wrote: »

Indeed but even Iceland has an American base.They are clear where they stand. We pretend we're above that kind of thing. To me that's hypocrisy. Whose side are we on?

We dont pretend. a certain % of the population likes wearing tinfoil hats and hugging trees, some ignore the fact that only a few years ago they were gunning down garai and army members, all these groups do this whilst pretending we are neutral.

We are on the side of the EU, the UN and NATO under pfp. there is no pretend, only the above groups pretend. we voted successive govts in, they held referendums, and here we are. deal with it.

Ireland has never been constitutionally neutral.

Ive said this before, we cant afford to sovereign neutrality, even our foreign policy of non involvement on a case by case basis under the triple lock agreement, is shaky at best.

Here, we stand on the cusp of some of the richest offshore mineral wealth of any EU nation and yet we squabble over a military budget that is less than 0.71% that of the Dept of Healths budget... The Dept of Health squander cash every day. they literally leak money as they rattle and shudder along the road of financial ruin. and I say "squander" as in the health service is run by troglodytes who couldnt find their arse with a map and compass and are the worst ilk of civil servant leech that this country has in existence, this is all at the detriment of their excellent frontline staff.

In complete contrast the dept of defence is run like a ryanair version of defence. you have simply no idea of the staggering scale of value for money effort that is put in. its a shining f**king example of how a govt dept should be run and it STILL has too many civil servants in the background.

But the reason? the f**king unions, they are the smoking gun to the head of the dept of finance. When it came to the white paper on defence in 2000, the DOD was railroaded as they have only a representative organisation and not a full union and MUST do as ordered. the result is a leaner meaner defence forces than the state has ever seen. not ideal for its own members, but certainly more martial and better trained than previously. and all for a tiny sum of money.

Increasing this forces capacity in certain areas, sea lift, close air support, air lift and transport, maritime patrolling, ISTAR, surveillance, minimal force projection and increased CS and CSS could be done for a small increase in investment over the next 10 years budgets and would give us a more credible force. As for fighter jets etc, bollox. we will never have the infrastructure to support them, maybe hawks at the most, but id prefer to see more COIN capability with what we have and expand the fleets and move aircraft overseas too. increase the naval fleet and the size of some of the vessels to include HELI EPVs and give the navy its own air wing INCLUDING maritime patrol aircraft.

this will never happen, the money, the will and the public support would just not be there, maybe when we strike oil that will change, but until now. we make do.

beauf

Morpheus wrote: »

... id prefer to see more COIN capability with what we have and expand the fleets and move aircraft overseas too. increase the naval fleet and the size of some of the vessels to include HELI EPVs and give the navy its own air wing INCLUDING maritime patrol aircraft....

Not ideal but I assume the PC9's are intended to have some COIN function.

Interesting to see the structure of NZ airforce. Its like a scaled up version of what Ireland currently has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force#Current_air_force_equipment

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

Not ideal but I assume the PC9's are intended to have some COIN function.

Interesting to see the structure of NZ airforce. Its like a scaled up version of what Ireland currently has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Air_Force#Current_air_force_equipment

We've no 'expeditionary' capacity - I doubt we'll ever have the need to use the PC-9s in a COIN role anywhere within the State or within flying distance of the state.

Therefore, developing or using the COIN capabilities of the PC-9 means developing an expeditionary capacity. If we did that we could probably better support troops sent on UN deployments and could probably sustain larger deployments - but the marginal cost, I would imagine, would be significant and you'd have to wonder what extra benefit might accrue to the country by having such an expanded capacity. Personally, I think it would be great, but I can't see the politicians or the mandarins in Parkgate Street going for it.

beauf

I think the money could be better spend elsewhere than on COIN.

Morpheus

or go all rotary and get some form of mangusta or tigers ?
hold on, were venturing into mitty land here...

Jawgap

Morpheus wrote: »

or go all rotary and get some form of mangusta or tigers ?
hold on, were venturing into mitty land here...

oh, I think we've been long established in Mittyland......:D

folbotcar

Increasing this forces capacity in certain areas, sea lift, close air support, air lift and transport, maritime patrolling, ISTAR, surveillance, minimal force projection and increased CS and CSS could be done for a small increase in investment over the next 10 years budgets and would give us a more credible force. As for fighter jets etc, bollox. we will never have the infrastructure to support them, maybe hawks at the most, but id prefer to see more COIN capability with what we have and expand the fleets and move aircraft overseas too. increase the naval fleet and the size of some of the vessels to include HELI EPVs and give the navy its own air wing INCLUDING maritime patrol aircraft.

this will never happen, the money, the will and the public support would just not be there, maybe when we strike oil that will change, but until now. we make do.

Fully agree with Morpheus on this and the fact that it will never happen. Not until we have adult joined up thinking from our politicians. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The only hope is that the current scandals which is opening can after can of worms and exposing just who are the pigs snuffling at the troughs of taxpayers money just might result in a mature society emerging in this country.

On the other hand I don't believe it's just the lefties and the Shinners who believe in neutrality. The myth is pervasive among the general population almost as an article of faith. You see it in this very thread. It's usual Irish way of ignoring reality. In recent years the true extent of Irish cooperation and assistance to the Allies in WW2 has been highlighted by historians. Yet the neutrality myth persists. It's the same now. The average person has no idea of the reality.

sparky42

folbotcar wrote: »

Fully agree with Morpheus on this and the fact that it will never happen. Not until we have adult joined up thinking from our politicians. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The only hope is that the current scandals which is opening can after can of worms and exposing just who are the pigs snuffling at the troughs of taxpayers money just might result in a mature society emerging in this country.

On the other hand I don't believe it's just the lefties and the Shinners who believe in neutrality. The myth is pervasive among the general population almost as an article of faith. You see it in this very thread. It's usual Irish way of ignoring reality. In recent years the true extent of Irish cooperation and assistance to the Allies in WW2 has been highlighted by historians. Yet the neutrality myth persists. It's the same now. The average person has no idea of the reality.

It's not even that they don't know, but that they don't want to know. The absolute BS that gets shovel out about NATO forcing us to join up, or European Armies, not to mention the Triple Lock stupidity. Though from memory didn't FG at least float looking at that in the White Paper?

If as Morpheus has said the Department of Health/HSE was run along the same lines as the Defence Forces our budget would be much improved.

Garzard

Morpheus wrote: »

Casa 235 ~€25m
T-50 = ~€25m
L159 = ~€17m
PC9 - €6m

Love to see it, but never gonna happen

With the amount of relatively cheap yet very much more capable light jets like the L-159 to choose from, it's a shame none were bought or even leased. The AC were also looking at the Super Tucano during the selection process or so I'm reading. That would have been an excellent compromise between the PC-9 and almost any light jet in price and operational cost. Not too far off the PC-9 bar armament.

How much longer will the PC-9's last in terms of operational life? Already wondering what'll replace it.

sparky42

Garzard wrote: »

With the amount of relatively cheap yet very much more capable light jets like the L-159 to choose from, it's a shame none were bought or even leased. The AC were also looking at the Super Tucano during the selection process or so I'm reading. That would have been an excellent compromise between the PC-9 and almost any light jet in price and operational cost. Not too far off the PC-9 bar armament.

How much longer will the PC-9's last in terms of operational life? Already wondering what'll replace it.

Given budgets and operational life spans I'd bet you are talking about another 2 decades before that comes round again baring any massive global realignment. They're only 10 years old with plenty of unused lifespan on them I'd bet.

A fond what if I have is a peace process early movement of buying the Tucano's from Short's in the mid 90's and then around now look at the Super Tucano as replacements.

OS119

Garzard wrote: »

...How much longer will the PC-9's last in terms of operational life? Already wondering what'll replace it.

i'm pretty sure i read in another place, and from someone who was in a position to know and produced the evidence, that the PC-9M's have so far flown about one third of the annual hours they were bought to fly.

thats not 'they've flown one third of their expected lifetime hours', thats 'the AC bought 8 airframes to produce X flying hours per year for the next Z years, and in the 7 years they've been operational, they have flown about one third of X annually'.

so, assuming they were bought with an originally projected service life of 30 years, they should comfortably make it out to about 2090 or so. they will still be flying when the successor to the F-35 is retired...

sparky42

OS119 wrote: »

i'm pretty sure i read in another place, and from someone who was in a position to know and produced the evidence, that the PC-9M's have so far flown about one third of the annual hours they were bought to fly.

thats not 'they've flown one third of their expected lifetime hours', thats 'the AC bought 8 airframes to produce X flying hours per year for the next Z years, and in the 7 years they've been operational, they have flown about one third of X annually'.

so, assuming they were bought with an originally projected service life of 30 years, they should comfortably make it out to about 2090 or so. they will still be flying when the successor to the F-35 is retired...

That really doesn't surprise me and given they are doing that down one of the original buys, I'd guess you are right that it's going to be a long time for a new plane.

Garzard

sparky42 wrote: »

That really doesn't surprise me and given they are doing that down one of the original buys, I'd guess you are right that it's going to be a long time for a new plane.

Depending on future economic performance and budgets, in any case keeping the PC-9's for the next two+ decades (on their own at least) IMO would be pushing it due to the fact that both training and combat aircraft are becoming more outdated at a faster pace.

sparky42

Garzard wrote: »

Depending on future economic performance and budgets, in any case keeping the PC-9's for the next two+ decades (on their own at least) IMO would be pushing it due to the fact that both training and combat aircraft are becoming more outdated at a faster pace.

You are aware of the average replacement period for the military equipment. The Marchetti's were around for pretty much 30 years, and trainer aircraft aren't becoming outdated at a faster pace, the USAF used the same trainer for 50 years before being replaced by a PC-9 derivative, the RAF shows no sign of moving form the Tucano.

Even combat aircraft are being designed for a 30+ year operational lifespan (F 35 for example), for a aircraft that's not going to see much more than training 30 years is just fine, particularly if the usage figures above are true.

Jawgap

Garzard wrote: »

Depending on future economic performance and budgets, in any case keeping the PC-9's for the next two+ decades (on their own at least) IMO would be pushing it due to the fact that both training and combat aircraft are becoming more outdated at a faster pace.

To be honest the trend is the other way. Typically anything older than a year was obsolete (or at least obsolescent) in WW1.

By WW2 most aircraft models went through 5 major modifications before being replaced - with the gap between marks sometimes being measured in weeks.

Today, the B-52 H model is undergoing another series of upgrades to take it 2044, and I'd say there's a good chance some will still be operational on the centenary of the aircraft's first flight (1952).

Same with the F-15, which will be around in frontline service until at least 2035.

One USAF General commented a few years ago that the pilots for whatever replaces the F-22 have not been born yet.........

Jawgap

Looks like the Brits are going for the MQ-4C Triton to restore their own maritime patrol capabilities.

These are going to be used to enhance their maritime patrol efforts rather than replace manned MPAs.

sparky42

Jawgap wrote: »

Looks like the Brits are going for the MQ-4C Triton to restore their own maritime patrol capabilities.

These are going to be used to enhance their maritime patrol efforts rather than replace manned MPAs.

At $140 million (180+ with R&D) how many would the UK buy (their budgets aren't exactly set to grow massively) going with the P-8's is going to be costly as well. The price tag for something that is just Surveillance capability is a bit high but that's just my view.

Garzard

sparky42 wrote: »

You are aware of the average replacement period for the military equipment. The Marchetti's were around for pretty much 30 years, and trainer aircraft aren't becoming outdated at a faster pace, the USAF used the same trainer for 50 years before being replaced by a PC-9 derivative, the RAF shows no sign of moving form the Tucano.

Even combat aircraft are being designed for a 30+ year operational lifespan (F 35 for example), for a aircraft that's not going to see much more than training 30 years is just fine, particularly if the usage figures above are true.

Jawgap wrote: »

To be honest the trend is the other way. Typically anything older than a year was obsolete (or at least obsolescent) in WW1.

By WW2 most aircraft models went through 5 major modifications before being replaced - with the gap between marks sometimes being measured in weeks.

Today, the B-52 H model is undergoing another series of upgrades to take it 2044, and I'd say there's a good chance some will still be operational on the centenary of the aircraft's first flight (1952).

Same with the F-15, which will be around in frontline service until at least 2035.

One USAF General commented a few years ago that the pilots for whatever replaces the F-22 have not been born yet.........

Agreed. I take back my last post as it wasn't worded as well as it could have been. What I meant was that nothing more than the basics can be expected from a small fleet of PC-9's. While they're among some of the best training planes out there, keeping 7 on their own to fill in training, COIN, ground attack and interception (?) for the next few decades and for a country our size would be overstretching them a bit (numbers and capability-wise). The difference between us and other countries is their budgets and sheer aircraft assets. I'd want to be supplementing the 7 PC-9's with another squadron of around 10 or 12 Mirage 2000's / Gripens / Kfir's / or smaller jets like AMX's / Hawks / or L-159's.

While a new squadron of jets wouldn't be cheap, they wouldn't be beyond the means of the country either, especially when a good portion of the infrastructure needed, pilot training, maintenance and arming could be paid for by other countries.

Having said that, I do agree however with putting the priority on more helicopters and patrol / surveillance + transport types eg. the P-8 Poseidon suggestion. I'd either be looking at them or a few more C-235's which we already operate. Say 2 / 3 for troop transport and another 2 / 3 more for maritime patrol.

NewSigGuy

Garzard wrote: »

Agreed. I take back my last post as it wasn't worded as well as it could have been. What I meant was that nothing more than the basics can be expected from a small fleet of PC-9's. While they're among some of the best training planes out there, keeping 7 on their own to fill in training, COIN, ground attack and interception (?) for the next few decades and for a country our size would be overstretching them a bit (numbers and capability-wise). The difference between us and other countries is their budgets and sheer aircraft assets. I'd want to be supplementing the 7 PC-9's with another squadron of around 10 or 12 Mirage 2000's / Gripens / Kfir's / or smaller jets like AMX's / Hawks / or L-159's.

While a new squadron of jets wouldn't be cheap, they wouldn't be beyond the means of the country either, especially when a good portion of the infrastructure needed, pilot training, maintenance and arming could be paid for by other countries.

Having said that, I do agree however with putting the priority on more helicopters and patrol / surveillance + transport types eg. the P-8 Poseidon suggestion. I'd either be looking at them or the CASA C-295M or AEW&C version, since we already operate close variants of the C-295.

You have to stop putting the Cart before the Horse, looking at shiny aircraft in a brochure and deciding "we need them" is not justification, there has to be a defined mission!!
I can't see any case for most of the aircraft you have mentioned.

sparky42

NewSigGuy wrote: »

You have to stop putting the Cart before the Horse, looking at shiny aircraft in a brochure and deciding "we need them" is not justification, there has to be a defined mission!!
I can't see any case for most of the aircraft you have mentioned.

Pretty much this. What's the drive for fast jets other than "fast jets". And the P8, why just why, no matter what changes may happen Ireland isn't going to be high intensity asw operations, the cost for even a couple would blow out any reasonable defence budget. What's the need for the AWACS variant of the 295?

More helicopters for both domestic and UN operations make sense, a few more 235's, again for potential use abroad makes sense.