A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Jawgap

clear thinking wrote: »

You can prepare a risk assessment and identify the key scenarios that need to be addressed and you can prepare a reaction plan. Do you actually think the Ukrainians are sitting there in Kiev throwing in the towel, or are they trying to contain the situation as much as possible, despite overwhelming superiority?

No, they are trying to contain the situation.

And threat assessment and risk assessment are completely different concepts.

IrishTrajan

Jawgap wrote: »

Credible threat and probable threat are different concepts. Have a look at how threat assessments are constructed. I don't know better than their defence forces - but I do read some of the stuff their defence establishments put out, mostly from the University of Uppsala and the Finnish National Defence University.

And they didn't change their infrastructure - they just built it that way, like the Swiss and their easy-to-demolish tunnels.

and if the Russians are going to rely on SAM defences to deny air space they'll learn the same lessons the Egyptians did in Yom Kippur - on the ground you can go slow with the SAMs or fast without them, but you can't do both. Never mind the fact that Russian SAM technology is a generation out of date.

Russia is a credible threat, or do you think their actions in Ukraine, their repeated breaching of national territorial integrity, and their rhetoric means they're harmless?

Semantics, the argument still stands

Russian S300PMU outperform U.S. patriots, the S400 is quite decent, and the S500 is already being worked on... Let's even disregard that, let's compare air combat forces:

Finland - 63 F-18s
Norway - 57 F-16s (which are being replaced by F-35s)
Sweden - 176 Gripens and 28 with two seats

Russia - 350-odd Su-27s, 50 Su-30 (plans to buy 60, I don't know if they'll be delivered, though), 34 Su-35, 250 MiG-29s, 134 MiG-31s, 280 Su-24s, 56 Su-34s.

Jawgap

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Russia is a credible threat, or do you think their actions in Ukraine, their repeated breaching of national territorial integrity, and their rhetoric means they're harmless?

Semantics, the argument still stands

Russian S300PMU outperform U.S. patriots, the S400 is quite decent, and the S500 is already being worked on... Let's even disregard that, let's compare air combat forces:

Finland - 63 F-18s
Norway - 57 F-16s (which are being replaced by F-35s)
Sweden - 176 Gripens and 28 with two seats

Russia - 350-odd Su-27s, 50 Su-30 (plans to buy 60, I don't know if they'll be delivered, though), 34 Su-35, 250 MiG-29s, 134 MiG-31s, 280 Su-24s, 56 Su-34s.

Yes it does, because you are taking Russia's actions and not providing a strategic context.

Russia want's to maintain a sphere of influence. As far as they are concerned Ukraine and Georgia (and the 'Stans) are or should be in their 'camp.'

They've seen country after country 'fall' to the US and EU.

They've provoked disputes with Georgia and Ukraine simply to prevent them joining institutions such as NATO and the EU. They've also moved to be more assertive in respect of the Arctic (as a way of having a pop at the US).

The boat has already sailed for the Baltics and Scandinavia

They also need to keep a look over the shoulder to make sure the Chinese make no opportunistic moves.

As a 'threat' or area of interest we're insignificant in their view.

IrishTrajan

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes it does, because you are taking Russia's actions and not providing a strategic context.

Russia want's to maintain a sphere of influence. As far as they are concerned Ukraine and Georgia (and the 'Stans) are or should be in their 'camp.'

They've seen country after country 'fall' to the US and EU.

They've provoked disputes with Georgia and Ukraine simply to prevent them joining institutions such as NATO and the EU. They've also moved to be more assertive in respect of the Arctic (as a way of having a pop at the US).

The boat has already sailed for the Baltics and Scandinavia

They also need to keep a look over the shoulder to make sure the Chinese make no opportunistic moves.

As a 'threat' or area of interest we're insignificant in their view.

The Baltics are of strategic importance to Moscow, the very same way Ukraine is. Holding the Baltics and Ukraine keeps Europe on a narrower front, where Russian depth of troops would allow them the upper hand. To say nothing of the Russian forces in Kaliningrad that would benefit immensely if Russia held a direct line to them (the Iskanders can hit as far as the Netherlands, which I find kinda cool).

They're doing the very same thing trying to provoke Estonia into an overreaction, by kidnapping their Government agents (in Estonia's own borders) and parading them in Moscow.

I do agree with you, Russo-Sino relations are quite complex. Both of them are vying for power in Central Asia, in former Soviet-states, however, with the E.U.-U.S. trying to cripple the Russian economy, Russia and China are being pushed closer together, not further apart. Russia currently has the upperhand in that military relationship, but they know China's going to overtake them. They need China to keep their balance against the West, if China falls they'll be encircled.

I agree, Ireland is insignificant... But the Irish troops in Scandinavia aren't. If Russia does come into conflict with Scandinavia and Europe as a whole, what are we to do, shed crocodile tears about "our brave boyos, siege of jadotville 2015" and then continue to refuse to spend money on the Defence Forces and laugh in our cups about "Haha, at least that's a hundred less hospital beds we'll have to worry about!"?

Jawgap

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The Baltics are of strategic importance to Moscow, the very same way Ukraine is. Holding the Baltics and Ukraine keeps Europe on a narrower front, where Russian depth of troops would allow them the upper hand. To say nothing of the Russian forces in Kaliningrad that would benefit immensely if Russia held a direct line to them (the Iskanders can hit as far as the Netherlands, which I find kinda cool).

They're doing the very same thing trying to provoke Estonia into an overreaction, by kidnapping their Government agents (in Estonia's own borders) and parading them in Moscow.

I do agree with you, Russo-Sino relations are quite complex. Both of them are vying for power in Central Asia, in former Soviet-states, however, with the E.U.-U.S. trying to cripple the Russian economy, Russia and China are being pushed closer together, not further apart. Russia currently has the upperhand in that military relationship, but they know China's going to overtake them. They need China to keep their balance against the West, if China falls they'll be encircled.

I agree, Ireland is insignificant... But the Irish troops in Scandinavia aren't. If Russia does come into conflict with Scandinavia and Europe as a whole, what are we to do, shed crocodile tears about "our brave boyos, siege of jadotville 2015" and then continue to refuse to spend money on the Defence Forces and laugh in our cups about "Haha, at least that's a hundred less hospital beds we'll have to worry about!"?

Just because something is of strategic importance doesn't mean it's a strategic objective. Likewise, countries jostle for position all the time without using their militaries.

Unless someone makes a mistake, the situation in Ukraine will play out much the way it has in Georgia - Russia once it has it's landbridge to the Crimea will allow things to settle into a quiet but uneasy truce. They'll have frustrated the EU and NATO and for an added bonus gained greater access to the Black Sea, and that'll be that.

Ren2k7

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Extremely unlikely though in military planning no scenario can be ruled out. Ukraine and Russia were once part of the same country and fought together in wars against the Nazis in Germany and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. And today they're fighting against each other. It's always important to be prepared for anything.

Just on this note out of interest, plenty of ukrainians (~200,000) fought for the Germans against the Soviets and anti-soviet resistance groups continued up until the early 1950s

Ren2k7

riffmongous wrote: »

Just on this note out of interest, plenty of ukrainians (~200,000) fought for the Germans against the Soviets and anti-soviet resistance groups continued up until the early 1950s

That doesn't surprise me. The Germans were regarded as the least worst beligerent during WWII in the eyes of many Ukrainians, which should give an indication of how much the Russians were despised by many.

expectationlost

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)

96. To ask the Minister for Defence to provide details on the weapons that two Russian military aircraft which entered Irish-controlled air space in January 2015 were carrying; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7470/15]

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-02-19a.254&s=speaker%3A21#g255.q

Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I am aware that, on 28 January 2015, two Russian military aircraft were in an area for which the Irish Aviation Authority has air traffic control responsibility.
The Air Corps is not tasked or equipped to monitor military aircraft overflying Irish controlled airspace. This position is in accordance with the Air Corps' roles as set out in the White Paper on Defence (2000). Therefore, I am not in a position to provide further information in relation to these aircraft.

Ren2k7

expectationlost wrote: »

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-02-19a.254&s=speaker%3A21#g255.q

The Air Corps is not tasked or equipped to monitor military aircraft overflying Irish controlled airspace.

:eek:

Silvera

"The Air Corps is not tasked or equipped to monitor military aircraft overflying Irish controlled airspace".

There ya go Vladamir ...work away with those 'Bear' flights in Irish controlled airspace! :rolleyes: :pac: :mad:

Markcheese

Silvera wrote: »

"The Air Corps is not tasked or equipped to monitor military aircraft overflying Irish controlled airspace".

There ya go Vladamir ...work away with those 'Bear' flights in Irish controlled airspace! :rolleyes: :pac: :mad:

There's a difference between Irish airspace and Irish controlled airspace ...,



No difference in our ability to moniter or enforce either area though /

Morpheus

Lads, if you do anything, spread this section around your social media sites about the air Crops not tasked or equipped to monitor military aircraft overflying Irish controlled airspace.

Yes its irish CONTROLLED airspace, but we cant even venture INTO that to identify aircraft or even see if they have any external munitions, its a joke.

cruasder777

Mount Gabriel ? Under NATO control ?

expectationlost

cruasder777 wrote: »

Mount Gabriel ? Under NATO control ?

hmm read that INLA blew it up in 1982

Silvera

Morpheus wrote: »

Lads, if you do anything, spread this section around your social media sites about the air Crops not tasked or equipped to monitor military aircraft overflying Irish controlled airspace.

Yes its irish CONTROLLED airspace, but we cant even venture INTO that to identify aircraft or even see if they have any external munitions, its a joke.

I agree.
Dont know if you've posted it previously, but, what fast jet aircraft would you like the AC to operate?

expectationlost

defence aircraft aside what would it take to be able to monitor with primary radar aircraft up to 310km off our coast?

cruasder777

expectationlost wrote: »

hmm read that INLA blew it up in 1982

Never re-built ? Wonder why

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Never re-built ? Wonder why

It's operational

The IAA has nine radar sites across Ireland, spanning from Malin, Co. Donegal in the North to Mount Gabriel, Co Cork in the South. At these sites we have eight new Mode-S Radars and three new Solid State Primary Radars, in addition to a traditional MSSR/PSR combined Radar at one of our Dublin sites. - See more at: https://www.iaa.ie/surveillanceradar#sthash.DHocgYiT.dpuf

expectationlost

cruasder777 wrote: »

Never re-built ? Wonder why

really?

there are two Secondary Radar Domes there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Gabriel

expectationlost

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)

107. To ask the Minister for Defence the way the numerical strength of Ireland’s Permanent Defence Force compares, on a per capita basis, with other neutral European Union member states. [8391/15]

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-02-25a.282&s=neutrality#g284.r
Simon Coveney (Minister, Department of Agriculture, the Marine and Food; Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The 2011 census figures show a population of 4,588,252. As of the 31st of January, 2015 the whole-time equivalent strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 9,244. This gives a per capitafigure of 1 member of the Permanent Defence Force for every 496 individuals in State.

My Department does not compile or maintain data in relation to the detailed composition of other armed forces and, as such, it is not possible to provide the information requested by the Deputy.

While there is information available in the public domain and from the European Defence Agency on force strengths etc, the structures and arrangements in other countries can vary significantly from those that pertain within this State. For example, some States such as Austria operate a policy of conscription while others such as Sweden have contract soldiers. It is not clear from the available public data as to what the relevant comparator figures would be having regard to the varying structures applying in the other neutral European Union Member States and the fact that the Permanent Defence Force is a full-time professional armed force.

anyone want to try and do the research and figures for Sean, the gov aren't going to do it for him

IrishTrajan

expectationlost wrote: »

anyone want to try and do the research and figures for Sean, the gov aren't going to do it for him

I'm tired, I'll look into it tomorrow.

If we're talking about comparing population size, budget requirement, and military system (volunteer vs conscription, for example), then we'll have to compare several States to Ireland, and draft a possible proposal for the Defence Forces to operate under/reform that is within reason, e.g. no point in saying we should start using mass conscription like Finland or Austria.

I think that the only possible way Ireland could use conscription, was if we were to force long-term dole receivers to train with the RDF, or set up Local Defence Groups.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

It's operational

So NATO is on Irish soil ?

expectationlost

cruasder777 wrote: »

So NATO is on Irish soil ?

the Secondary Radar at Mount Gabriel will only see aircraft with transponders, so it won't see Russian Military aircraft or any other aircraft without their transponder on.

I think.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

So NATO is on Irish soil ?

No, it's run by the IAA and Eurocontrol.

NATO may draw a feed from it, but it's not a NATO installation.

Derisol

Why the surprise, the Irish Defence Forces serve in NATO missions - Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan. We are as gud as in the door without our name on it.

sparky42

Derisol wrote: »

Why the surprise, the Irish Defence Forces serve in NATO missions - Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan. We are as gud as in the door without our name on it.

Oh please, the Afghan deployment is a handful of men in Kabul, not like we are actively deployed in combat areas. Kosovo and Bosnia are UN mandated operations, we weren't part of the NATO campaign.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Oh please, the Afghan deployment is a handful of men in Kabul, not like we are actively deployed in combat areas. Kosovo and Bosnia are UN mandated operations, we weren't part of the NATO campaign.

Irish troops took part in NATO led operations in the Balkans.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Irish troops took part in NATO led operations in the Balkans.

NATO led, but UN Mandated, and we weren't the only non NATO nations on the deployments

expectationlost

http://www.aco.nato.int/nato-tracks-largescale-russian-air-activity-in-europe.aspx I like how Nato describes the October flights down to portugal and says they flew back 'west of the UK'

be interested to know how close they were that time.

Markcheese

Does a minimum defence capability not depend on who ( and what ) the state is defending itself from ?
We're never going to have military superiority over the uk - land sea or air - so no real point in trying -because of this our politics( and our financial history ) has led us a different direction .
Because of our location any threat from another nation has to pretty much come past the uk - and because of our politics would also be a threat to the uk -
So our main threat is internal and domestic-
Basically we have pretty much already got our minimum defence ability -