A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

cruasder777

The interception of Russian bombers by NATO air forces over the north sea and reports of Russian bombers north off Donegal makes it even more clear that the republic lacks a minimal air defence capability as a deterrent, nor does it have a capability to escort passenger planes if hijacked etc.

During the cold war Shannon airport would have been taken out by Russian nukes due to its strategic value to NATO, realised papers show Ireland had a secret pact to allow NATO to use Shannon in war with the USSR. Its highly possible we are entering another cold war.

What minimum air capability does the republic need ?

IMO, it needs a squadron of ex USSAF F16s, cost 15 million dollars each, all capable of dealing with hostile Russian bomber air threats.

It also needs to link up with NATOs early warning radar systems to warn of Russian bombers flying towards Irish airspace and work with the UKs developing antiballistic missile defence system. At present the state is neglecting its duty.


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/nuclear-war-the-hidden-threat-to-northern-ireland-28497656.html

Boskowski

We need that as much as I need a wart on my eyeball. Would be just another black hole in the states finances. It costs much much more to run an F16 than it costs to buy one.

mrsoundie

Short answer, it costs more than we are willing to spend.

After that, the decision is, do you let them in, then try and wipe them out or keep at arms length and never let them in? Either choice is expensive, but that's the simple answer, which only opens up more questions as to systems and interoperability?

cruasder777

Boskowski wrote: »

We need that as much as I need a wart on my eyeball. Would be just another black hole in the states finances. It costs much much more to run an F16 than it costs to buy one.

Used F16s are 1970s technology affordable to buy and maintain and deal with Russian bombers.

Recently the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off Donegal.

The Irish state should take responsibility for its own defence.

Boskowski

Why? Were they about to attack Ireland? As far as I'm concerned they can fly around Donegal all day long. Doesn't bother me.

hfallada

OP how far are we from Russia? If Russia is going to invade Ireland. We will know several hours in advance and I imagine the UK might take them down if they enter NI airspace. Russia doesnt want to go to war with the EU. If it does,its finished. If Europe stops buying its Gas and Oil. It will pretty much be broke over night. Even Iran is caving in with the trade embargo the west has put on it.

cruasder777

Boskowski wrote: »

Why? Were they about to attack Ireland? As far as I'm concerned they can fly around Donegal all day long. Doesn't bother me.

You are not bothered by a foreign powers nuclear bombers illegally entering Irish air space ?

cruasder777

hfallada wrote: »

OP how far are we from Russia? If Russia is going to invade Ireland. We will know several hours in advance and I imagine the UK might take them down if they enter NI airspace. Russia doesnt want to go to war with the EU. If it does,its finished. If Europe stops buying its Gas and Oil. It will pretty much be broke over night. Even Iran is caving in with the trade embargo the west has put on it.

Where did anyone mention Russia invading Ireland ?

LeinsterDub

Are we talking on 1 bomber, 1 squadron, 1 airwing or perhaps the entire Russian airforce.

What good is a few F16s when Russia or whoever have so many more.

That is of course ignoring Russia's ICBMs

Boskowski

cruasder777 wrote: »

You are not bothered by a foreign powers nuclear bombers illegally entering Irish air space ?

Not a lot no. And who says they were carrying nuclear anyway? You don't take nukes out for a Sunday spin I dare say.

cruasder777

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Are we talking on 1 bomber, 1 squadron, 1 airwing or perhaps the entire Russian airforce.

What good is a few F16s when Russia or whoever have so many more.

That is of course ignoring Russia's ICBMs

Jesus wept, Im not talking about Ireland countering Russian fighters, Im talking about it having the capability to intercept bombers and defend its airspace, which is the threat.

Captain Chaos

Engine maintenance for a year alone would cost more than 6 second hand F-16s. Plus training to keeps pilots up to date plus weapons costs and training to use them. It's half a million for an AMRAAM missile and they have limited flight hours after which they have to be re conditioned. All money, money money.

We are not a target for anyone why would Russia nuke us? If there bombers were armed they don't carry gravity nuclear dumb bombs but nuclear tipped cruise missiles that are launched 100s of miles from their targets. They could fire from beyond Scotland and hit us if they wanted to.

Sure look at the UK, they reckon they can only afford to buy and operate 48 F-35Bs for the RAF and RN and look at their economy. They can't even buy all the Typhoons they signed up for.

Oafley Jones

cruasder777 wrote: »

Used F16s are 1970s technology affordable to buy and maintain and deal with Russian bombers.

Recently the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off Donegal.

The Irish state should take responsibility for its own defence.

What do you think the cost is of operating an f16 squadron... I'm genuinely curious as to how you define affordable.

cruasder777

Boskowski wrote: »

Not a lot no. And who says they were carrying nuclear anyway? You don't take nukes out for a Sunday spin I dare say.

They are nuclear bombers, heading into Irish airspace, its a hostile act.

The state has a duty to counter it.

hfallada

cruasder777 wrote: »

Where did anyone mention Russia invading Ireland ?

OP is banging on about the Russians

syklops

hfallada wrote: »

OP is banging on about the Russians

He is the OP.

Boskowski

cruasder777 wrote: »

They are nuclear bombers, heading into Irish airspace, its a hostile act.

The state has a duty to counter it.

No it doesn't cos it's not actually a threat. It would be a threat if it was endangering civilian airspace. Or if they were shattering windows in coastal towns even. But beyond that I fail to see a threat.
Even if they ever did any of the above - which I doubt - there are diplomatic options available that won't cost us a billion a year.

Be rational. Imagine the ****storm if we upped our income tax by 10% or cut the dole by €50 so that we can run a squadron of F16s. Never gonna happen and thank god for that.

cruasder777

Oafley Jones wrote: »

What do you think the cost is of operating an f16 squadron... I'm genuinely curious as to how you define affordable.

They are 15 million dollars each to buy, single seaters have much lower costs then twin, about 50 thousand dollars an hour in the air. That includes being maintained, ground crew and training.

Buy cost equals 180 million. 500 hours per year for each plane in the air costs 25 million dollars.

That's 300 million dollars per year/

I have most likely over estimated flying hours.

How to pay for it ?

Increase defence spending and.....

Have three main barracks for the army with training areas, close the outdated expensive to maintain barracks in towns, have centralised recruit training. Get rid of the armys outdated roles in guarding prisons and security vans, give it to the private sector. Bring numbers down to 5,500, expand the reserve, make it more like the TA.

It can be done.

Problem is the republic military ethos is deeply conservative, still thinking strategically in the 1920s and its war with the IRA. That's the only role its geared up for, its strategically totally outdated. As such conflicts are today intelligence driven.


The republics military leaderships vision is abysmal, it cant see beyond the north and the UN. Its the most conservative military in the western world with a population whos world view is head in the sand/not our concern.

cruasder777

Boskowski wrote: »

No it doesn't cos it's not actually a threat. It would be a threat if it was endangering civilian airspace. Or if they were shattering windows in coastal towns even. But beyond that I fail to see a threat.
Even if they ever did any of the above - which I doubt - there are diplomatic options available that won't cost us a billion a year.

A foreign nuclear bomber heading at supersonic speed into another countries airspace is not a potential threat ? ok

A billion per year ? Don't know what you are on about.

Boskowski

cruasder777 wrote: »

A foreign nuclear bomber heading at supersonic speed into another countries airspace is not a potential threat ? ok

A billion per year ? Don't know what you are on about.

Firstly you repeating the word nuclear doesn't actually make them nuclear. And yes while I can see how some may define this as a threat I fail to see the actual threat that would justify such an expense. Ireland is neutral. So if you wanna deal with Russua on your own good luck with that. Otherwise you'd have to join NATO and I don't think that's an option for a lot of reasons.
We just don't have the money to be any kind of geo strategic player. And yes as scary as that may seem that means if push came to shove we couldn't defend ourselves against Denmark.

And yes a billion. Or maybe half a billion. Maybe more than one. I don't really have a clue but I'm sure it would be absolutely massive. You know how things work.

coolemon

cruasder777 wrote: »

You are not bothered by a foreign powers nuclear bombers illegally entering Irish air space ?

Perhaps if Ireland took a more neutral geo-political position it would not be seen as a threat by Russia. That is, get the US warplanes out of Shannon and illegal rendition flights and all the rest.

Besides, the Russians no doubt have sophisticated stealth missiles which are not detectable. Indeed they have nuclear submarines which could strike Shannon airport before the useless F-16's could get off the ground, or the F-16s would be wiped out while on the tarmac.

And what are F-16s going to do about a submarine? Nothing.

There are people sleeping rough in Dublin tonight in the pouring rain. The state can fund that if it cares about protecting its people.

cruasder777

Boskowski wrote: »

Firstly you repeating the word nuclear doesn't actually make them nuclear. And yes while I can see how some may define this as a threat I fail to see the actual threat that would justify such an expense. Ireland is neutral. So if you wanna deal with Russua on your own good luck with that. Otherwise you'd have to join NATO and I don't think that's an option for a lot of reasons.
We just don't have the money to be any kind of geo strategic player. And yes as scary as that may seem that means if push came to shove we couldn't defend ourselves against Denmark.

They are nuclear bombers, your logic is flawed.


If a guy robs a banks with a gun, cops don't turn up and say, well maybe its not loaded.

The problem is Ireland is full of left wing, hippy CND types who don't like to deal with reality, leave it to someone else.

cruasder777

coolemon wrote: »

Perhaps if Ireland took a more neutral geo-political position it would not be seen as a threat by Russia. That is, get the US warplanes out of Shannon and illegal rendition flights and all the rest.

Besides, the Russians no doubt have sophisticated stealth missiles which are not detectable. Indeed they have nuclear submarines which could strike Shannon airport before the useless F-16's could get off the ground, or the F-16s would be wiped out while on the tarmac.

And what are F-16s going to do about a submarine? Nothing.

There are people sleeping rough in Dublin tonight in the pouring rain. The state can fund that if it cares about protecting its people.

Hence WHY I stated the Republic should be under the UKs developing anti ballistic missile defence system. Even eventually have a land based one, based in Ireland.

Shannon and the north are targets.

The state is neglecting its duty.


I don't understand what homeless people have to do with this ?

This is the classic hippy/commie logic in Ireland.

Boskowski

I take the neutral lefty stance any day over some insane spend on a crazy notion we need to turn ourselves into some kind of strategic player.
But leave political convictions aside. Be rational. It just wouldn't work. And for what anyway? It's just not worth it. All we'd do is make ourselves a target. It's like the guy who gets mugged and pulls a knife. All it does is increase your chance of gettin killed. No thank you.

cruasder777

Boskowski wrote: »

I take the neutral lefty stance any day over some insane spend on a crazy notion we need to turn ourselves into some kind of strategic player.
But leave political convictions aside. Be rational. It just wouldn't work. And for what anyway? It's just not worth it. All we'd do is make ourselves a target. It's like the guy who gets mugged and pulls a knife. All it does is increase your chance of gettin killed. No thank you.

But Shannon and the north are strategic targets, the ability to Police your own airspace does not make you a strategic player.

there is something seriously wrong when Luxemburg and Malta have a better air defence capability then Ireland.


Its the same logic that says Islamic extremism and terrorism is nothing to do with us.

Boskowski

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its the same logic that says Islamic extremism and terrorism is nothing to do with us.

And in fact it's nothing to do with us. It's to do with those who destabilise and feck up entire (Islamic) regions pursuing their strategic and economic interests. We're not one of those.

cruasder777

Boskowski wrote: »

And in fact it's nothing to do with us. It's to do with those who destabilise and feck up entire (Islamic) regions pursuing their strategic and economic interests. We're not one of those.

You don't seem to understand that demographics mean Europe will become Islamic with present trends, watch and learn. That includes Ireland.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Larbre34

cruasder777 wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that demographics mean Europe will become Islamic with present trends, watch and learn. That includes Ireland.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Never heard such cr@p.

Even if the non-Muslim population of Europe stopped expanding tomorrow and merely replaced itself, it would take until the beginning of the 23rd century for a Muslim majority in Europe. And given that Europe is rushing headlong towards ultimate secularisation which is hostile towards Islam exerting itself, it's just not a scenario that's feasible.

cruasder777

Larbre34 wrote: »

Never heard such cr@p.

Even if the non-Muslim population of Europe stopped expanding tomorrow and merely replaced itself, it would take until the beginning of the 23rd century for a Muslim majority in Europe. And given that Europe is rushing headlong towards ultimate secularisation which is hostile towards Islam exerting itself, it's just not a scenario that's feasible.

Please stop making stuff up, this is the problem with you over emotional metro-sexual Irish commie-hippie, anti military types, you make stuff up to suit yourselves, reality is too hard.

El_Duderino 09

cruasder777 wrote: »

Please stop making stuff up, this is the problem with you over emotional metro-sexual Irish commie-hippie, anti military types, you make stuff up to suit yourselves, reality is too hard.

This seems reasonable.

Anyway I know we face a big enough problem with the over emotional metro sexual Irish commie-hippie anti military types.

But back on topic, why stop at f16s? If we should defend our airspace from ruskies why not assume they would send submarines? Should we also set up sea defences?

Captain Chaos

We need an aircraft carrier too oh and some main battle tanks, ah sure throw in some Apache gunships too and we'll be well sorted so no one will ever dare mess with us.

El_Duderino 09

Captain Chaos wrote: »

We need an aircraft carrier too oh and some main battle tanks, ah sure throw in some Apache gunships too and we'll be well sorted so no one will ever dare mess with us.

Only 1 aircraft carrier? Are you metro-sexual or something?

El_Duderino 09

I'm just being a smart arse OP. Apologies.

Having read the thread I have to ask whether you want to have the f16s to actually fight off the Russians or be a deterrent or have a token defence against them?

I ask because I imagine that if the Russians really wanted to nuke shannon, they wouldn't let 6 f16s stop them

cruasder777

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm just being a smart arse OP. Apologies.

Having read the thread I have to ask whether you want to have the f16s to actually fight off the Russians or be a deterrent or have a token defence against them?

I ask because I imagine that if the Russians really wanted to nuke shannon, they wouldn't let 6 f16s stop them

Its not about "fighting the Russians," its about having a minimal capability to Police and defend Irish airspace on the most minimal level.

pilatus

For instance if we have a squadron of F16's (leased Gripen's better bet I reckon) and the Russians for whatever reason want to nuke Shannon ( also my girlfriend's name, good luck to them, I'll meet them in the bar after and discuss were they went wrong ) all they have to do is place a sub a thousand miles away in the Atlantic or even a hundred miles away in the Atlantic and launch a nuke, there wouldn't be a thing we could do to stop them.

Nor for that matter if this were to happen of the coast of the states they would be as screwed as us and that's with all their military might . That's why this is called a doomsday scenario , everyone is screwed there is no way to counter it and then ICBM's would be let loose by both sides and well you see where this is going . Not much point in talking about it.

cruasder777

pilatus wrote: »

For instance if we have a squadron of F16's (leased Gripen's better bet I reckon) and the Russians for whatever reason want to nuke Shannon ( also my girlfriend's name, good luck to them, I'll meet them in the bar after and discuss were they went wrong ) all they have to do is place a sub a thousand miles away in the Atlantic or even a hundred miles away in the Atlantic and launch a nuke, there wouldn't be a thing we could do to stop them.

Nor for that matter if this were to happen of the coast of the states they would be as screwed as us and that's with all their military might . That's why this is called a doomsday scenario , everyone is screwed there is no way to counter it and then ICBM's would be let loose by both sides and well you see where this is going . Not much point in talking about it.

If you read the first post its why the republic must also be part of the UKs developing anti ballistic missile system. It needs to start taking geo politics and defence more seriously.

Shannon is a target in any potential conflict, neutral or not.


Im glad other nations don't have this whats the point mindset.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

........ At present the state is neglecting its duty.

It's not really. We have a defence capability commensurate with our strategic position.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Used F16s are 1970s technology affordable to buy and maintain and deal with Russian bombers.

Recently the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off Donegal.

The Irish state should take responsibility for its own defence.

When did this intercept take place - there was one four years ago but the intercept happened about 180 miles North of Donegal and the bombers in question were escorted all the way from there - if they really represented a threat they would would have been down wave-hopping not trundling around at 28,000 ft

cruasder777 wrote: »

You are not bothered by a foreign powers nuclear bombers illegally entering Irish air space ?

No, because it never happened. It's also highly unlikely they were armed with anything more dangerous than ballast.

cruasder777 wrote: »

A foreign nuclear bomber heading at supersonic speed into another countries airspace is not a potential threat ? ok

A billion per year ? Don't know what you are on about.

Not when to get here it was to fly through some fairly heavily surveilled airspace and past a country with the capability to intercept them.

BTW - as an experienced military operative I'm sure you're aware of how 'threat' is assessed in terms of 'capability x intent' - just because a country possesses the capability doesn't mean it will use it.

Ireland purchasing a squadron of F-16s - or any fast jets - would be ridiculous.

The easiest (but no less costly) way to improve our security situation would be to join NATO - it would make more sense but would still be a massive over-reaction to any existential threat the country might conceivably face in the future.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

It's really. We have a defence capability commensurate with our straegic position.



When did this intercept take place - there was one four years ago but the intercept happened about 180 miles North of Donegal and the bombers in question were escorted all the way from there - if they really represented a threat they would would have been down wave-hopping not trundling around at 28,000 ft



No, because it never happened. It's also highly unlikely they were armed with anything more dangerous than ballast.



Not when to get here it was to fly through some fairly heavily surveilled airspace and past a country with the capability to intercept them.

BTW - as an experienced military operative I'm sure you're aware of how 'threat' is assessed in terms of 'capability x intent' - just because a country possesses the capability doesn't mean it will use it.

Ireland purchasing a squadron of F-16s - or any fast jets - would be ridiculous.

The easiest (but no less costly) way to improve our security situation would be to join NATO - it would make more sense but would still be a massive over-reaction to any existential threat the country might conceivably face in the future.

In the cold war there were incidents of Russian bombers regularly in Irish air space off Donegal, its a fact. Shannon was a target, ignoring that is neglectful.

In more recent times the interception was 20 miles off the coast, not 180.

If Ireland joined NATO, it would have to increase defence spending to 2%, that's not going to happen.


"We have a defence capability commensurate with our straegic position"

.....No we have a defence policy commensurate with Ireland being isolationist and conservative and parochial for much of the 20th century, not willing to look at its self in a wider geo political worldview. Malta (population 400,000) has a better air corps defence capability then Ireland, that cant be right.

pilatus

For policing it, a dozen Gripen's leased from Sweden on a 5 or 10 year lease would be the way to go . Cheaper flight hours no initial buying fee, the swedes guarantee you'll have whatever number you agree in contract serviceable at any given time, spares ordered as needed before the aircraft would be grounded. Plus the airframes are new, not like the decades old stressed airframes the Americans would give you. They would do back flips for a customer while holding a porcelain Tea pot . In this economic climate they are the only viable option. Just google czech gripen lease. That's my serious answer :-)

El_Duderino 09

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its not about "fighting the Russians," its about having a minimal capability to Police and defend Irish airspace on the most minimal level.

It's about policing and defending irelands air space on the most minimal level? What does that even mean. Police the air indefinitely against nothing until one day the Russians decided to nuke shannon. Our gallant air force puts up minimal defence.

The quest I'm asking is do the 6 f16s fight the Russians off or do the Russians still nuke shannon?

Do you see value in buying the 6 f16s, putting up minimal resistance even if shannon gets nuked anyway?

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

If you read the first post its why the republic must also be part of the UKs developing anti ballistic missile system. It needs to start taking geo politics and defence more seriously.

Shannon is a target in any potential conflict, neutral or not.


Im glad other nations don't have this whats the point mindset.

What about cruise missiles?

If the Russians really had ill-intent towards us and wanted to eliminate Shannon couldn't they just park a Kilo 500km off the west coast and launch a salvo of SS-N-30A land attack missiles?

Or fly a Tu-160 to within about 2000km and squeeze of a few Kh-55 nuclear capable cruise missiles? I know they're banned but I'm assuming they haven't forgot how to make them and the production facility is still active producing restricted range variants of them.

intellectual dosser

What is the point in policing? Both sides in this thread agree that if the Russians want to bomb Shannon or any location in Ireland then they simply will - 6 F16's just to build a front door that any major power can kick down?

Also OP, can you provide any links to evidence that the Russians would most definitely take Shannon out, or that Ireland had a secret pact with NATO during the cold war? If I'm not mistaken, Shannon is a fuel base for Aeroflot, and the Russians are free to use the airport in the same capacity as the Americans.

Why nuclear? Against an officially neutral state? Why wouldn't conventional bombing be enough to take out the runway as a strategic resource? I'd like to think that if the Russians (or anybody for that) decided to launch a nuclear attack on Shannon, then they've already blown up half the world before hand.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

In the cold war there were incidents of Russian bombers regularly in Irish air space off Donegal, its a fact. Shannon was a target, ignoring that is neglectful.

In more recent times the interception was 20 miles off the coast, not 180.

Well here's a report discussing it

Jets intercepted two Russian Blackjack bombers – Tupolev TU-160 aircraft – near Scotland after they had been seen earlier by Norwegian, Danish and Icelandic fighters.

Two RAF Tornado F3 fighters from 111 Squadron were scrambled from RAF Leuchars, in Fife, in the early hours of 10 March, the RAF said.

The aircraft intercepted the Russian planes near Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides.

The Tornados shadowed the bombers as they flew south before turning north off the Northern Ireland coast.

Presumably you can link to something to establish the 'fact' you assert above?

cruasder777 wrote: »

If Ireland joined NATO, it would have to increase defence spending to 2%, that's not going to happen.

.......so standing up a squadron of F-16s is your solution? Instead of joining the local defence alliance......you should run for the Dail and look to become the next Minister of Defence;)

cruasder777 wrote: »

"We have a defence capability commensurate with our straegic position"

.....No we have a defence policy commensurate with Ireland being isolationist and conservative and parochial for much of the 20th century, not willing to look at its self in a wider geo political worldview. Malta (population 400,000) has a larger air corps then Ireland, that cant be right.

Not really - our defence is commensurate with our position.

Malta has a different position - it is on a well known route for illegla immigrants trying to enter the EU, it's astride a major shipping route and it is about 150 miles off the coast of that quiet backwater.......Libya - leaving aside the fact that it's been invaded and / or occupied by everyone from the Phoenicians to the Brits!!

Beano

If it gets to the point where the russians are nuking shannon then the whole gig is up and we should be worrying about whose head to bash in to get our next meal. a squadron of F16s would make feck all difference to that.

Morpheus

Just to point this out

Ireland ... is not ... a neutral state.

We are not constitutionally neutral

we have a foreign policy of non alignment
on a case by case basis
under the triple lock agreement

but we ARE NOT Neutral, either officially, unofficially or otherwise.

read the constitution, you wont SEE the word in it.

to be so would require a referendum and sovereign neutral states NEED the ability to defend themselves which, you guessed, would result in an increase in defence spending.

Policing our air space or marine borders is a major major concern, ireland is on the cusp of locating major mineral wealth, we also have large fish stocks and marine wealth in the atlantic, porcupine basin not to mention around rockall and also the bay of biscay.

yet, we have a navy incapable of defending it should an agressor decide to move in and take the minerals etc. Check Chinas moves in the south china sea, total disregard for other countries. As fossil fuels run out, this is the reality we face.

we should be able to intercept and deter ANY foreign aircraft which come close to entering our airspace, the same as we can with vessels at sea. We could have a viable anti aircraft capability using longer range ground based missiles and the likes of a Gripen Lease mentioned above like the Czechs. we SHOULD have better maritime patrol aircraft WITH anti submarine capability, our naval vessels SHOULD also have anti submarine capability or at least sonar that can detect them. South american drugs are now transiting the atlantic in submarines.

The whitepaper on defence will let us know what way the military future of this country is going, having had it on the back of a massive recession, i fear that it will not go very far from status quo.

But please, do continue - just remember, you are NOT the citizen of a neutral state, just non aligned , if it suits us , and russia and china and usa etc agree with it (UN triple lock)

knucklehead6

cruasder777 wrote: »

A foreign nuclear bomber heading at supersonic speed into another countries airspace is not a potential threat ? ok

A billion per year ? Don't know what you are on about.

Are you talking about Bears, Backfires or Blackjacks?

The recent interceptions off the UK coast have all been Bears. And i could be wrong but i think they can only go supersonic, while standing on their noses...with a tailwind.

And to be fair the interceptions Jawgap mentioned (which WERE Blackjacks) those lads weren't flying at supersonic speed. Flying that fast is murderously expensive on fuel economy. Not something you want to be messing with when you are 2915 miles in a great circle direct route from the Kola peninsula.

And i'm sure the Royal Air Force, the Royal Norwegian Air Force, the Swedish Air Force and the Finnish Air Force would all have a thing or two to say about a Tu-160 or a Tu-22 blasting through their airspace at supersonic speeds you mention.

knucklehead6

Actually i got it slightly wrong. The Tu-160's are based at Engels not on the Kola.

So the distance is a piffling 2283 miles, passing through Belarus, Lithuania, Denmark and the UK. Skirting the northern coasts of Poland and Germany, and the southern coast of Sweden.

Apologies for the map, Saratov is the nearest town to Engels, about 18 km away.

Manach

My own 2c, is that on one hand the underlying and core responsible is the defence of the state. This means having an adequate war budget. As Morpheus has said, we are living in interesting times with competition for dwendling resources and more overt displays of power. For instance, instead of using the legal mechanisms that have been set-up under conventions such as the UN's law of the seas, states with the military power are pressing their claims: eg China.

However, on the other hand there is the budget. Any significant increase in military matters would be a diversion from social programs which would cause unrest in the lobbyists/special interest groups which are connected to those programs. Purchasing a fully fledged F16 squadron and support would have as some other posters mentioned significant monetary impact beyond the initial purchases.

Perhaps though, given the Russian/Soviet emphasis on cheap, reliable and easy to operate hardware, we could buy some of their fighter interceptors on the cheap

Jawgap

Anyway - you'd need more than 1 squadron.

The Swiss have 3 squadrons of F-5s and 3 squadrons of F/A-18s for air interception but their air force only carries out intercepts between 0800 and 1700

If they can't maintain a standing QRA to cover their 16,000 sq miles of territory with 6 squadrons - I'm not sure how we'd manage with 1 squadron and 27,000 sq miles of over land air space to police (never mind the 340,000 sq miles that make up our EEZ)

Morpheus

Jawgap wrote: »

Anyway - you'd need more than 1 squadron.

The Swiss have 3 squadrons of F-5s and 3 squadrons of F/A-18s for air interception but their air force only carries out intercepts between 0800 and 1700

If they can't maintain a standing QRA to cover their 16,000 sq miles of territory with 6 squadrons - I'm not sure how we'd manage with 1 squadron and 27,000 sq miles of over land air space to police (never mind the 340,000 sq miles that make up our EEZ)

isnt it the second or third largest EEZ and territory in europe?

Silvera

Interesting thread. However, there is some mis-information in it -

Malta does not have a larger air defence corps than Ireland.
Malta has c.4 x Helicopters and 3 x fixed wing aircraft as opposed to the Irish Air Corps' 8 x helicopters and 16 x fixed wing aircraft. (2 x Italian Air Force helicopters are also based in Malta for SAR operations, on a rotational basis)

"Icelandic fighters"
Iceland does not posess fighter aircraft. Their only assets are 3 x patrol aircraft and 2 x helicopters - all operated by the Icelandic Coast Guard. Fighter aircraft based (rotated) through Iceland were USAF fighters and nowadays are, I believe, Danish aircraft.


I agree that Ireland is a not neutral in the true sense, as often mentioned here and elsewhere. If you want to see a truly neutral - and well armed - country, take a look at Switzerland and their armed forces, e.g. The Swiss Air Force operate 54 x F5 Tiger II and 34 x F/A 18 fighter jets.

I too believe that Ireland should posess a minimal air defence capability in the form of, for example, a squadron of leased JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets (as mentioned earlier). In the past some commentators have also suggested Czech-made Aero L-159 jets for the Air Corps, however these jets would not offer a true fighter jet-intercept capability in the league of JAS Gripens, etc.

Incidentially, Sweden may now have surplus Gripens available, since that the Swiss electorate voted against the purchase of c.22 x Gripens in a recent referendum. (The Gripens were intended to replace the Tiger II which have been in service with the Swiss Air Force since 1978, when they originally purchased 100 x Tiger II's).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Air_Force