A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

sparky42

Captain Chaos wrote: »

We are never going to be able to afford a proper defence capability ever. Look at the UK now. They are going mad trying to get funds together for 50 new Apache Block IIIs at £45 million each, they are complaining that the US are getting them for "only" 14 million each but they are buying 350 of them so its cheaper. They already have 60+ older Apaches bought in 1997 and near life expired as far as the British army are concerned. Then you look at us and we;ed be crying out for even 6 of the ones they don't want anymore.

It's the running costs, training costs, and weapons for training that are the real killers in expense not the actually buying.

No the UK is legendary for this issue. They have their own domestic industries that they must support no matter what the cost (hence the Batch 2 Rivers that the RN didn't want).

In terms of the Apaches, their problem is that the UK didn't buy full up aircraft, they bought "kits", and to those kits they replaced the engines with RR instead of the Ge, modified the avionics and replaced the defensive aids. End result they don't share commonality with the US airframes so the new upgrade path for the US airframes can't be copied onto the UK airframes.

They have a history at that, look at the Chinooks that were to have BAE avionics instead of Boeing systems, end result they sat in a climate control hanger for most of a decade before the UK admitted they had fecked up. Or the E-3's which after throwing away money at AWACing the Nimrod airframe, the UK bought and modified the E-3. End result the UK now can't upgrade them, while the rest of the European E3's have just asked the US to upgrade them as they are the same as the USAF units.

The UK's costs aren't the same as us even if we spent 2% as we wouldn't be trying to support domestic industries that are less than competitive. We'd just buy what we want off the shelf without any bespoke mods like the UK.

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

I'm sure I read somewhere that'd it'd be possible to retrofit the radar - no idea about the missiles , as to how radical a refit and how much is anyone guess ?

We could possibly upgrade the radar suites but there's zero chance of anything other than self defence missiles being fitted. The Hull can't handle it, you'd need a designed ship for air defence.

expectationlost

Irish navy drones to fight drug cartels http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/navy-drones-to-fight-drug-cartels-319070.html

Navy to use drones to improve surveillance http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/navy-to-use-drones-to-improve-surveillance-285010.html

the paper version had a hobby quadcopter as an illustration to this story, you reckon they are going to be using one of them

any official info about this so we don't have to go through the sean o'riordan irish examiner filter?


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-navy-vessel-to-control-drones-and-robotic-subs-31072589.html

ChicagoJoe

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You're comparing us and our needs, to the needs of world powers. We don't need to have massive logistics chains, or 5th generation fighters. All we need is to cover Irish skies, contribute to the U.N. Battlegroups we are a part of, and take part in U.N. mandated missions.

Nobody is saying we should try to play in the big leagues, we're saying it's best if we can handle ourselves reasonably well.

Look at Denmark. They spend $3.7bn on defence (we'd be spending around $3.5-$4bn if we took Defence seriously), and have a navy capable of operating in U.N./E.U./NATO missions, and they're looking to buy F-35s.

If they can invest in F-35s, I think we can handle a handful of F-16s.

Spot on IrishTrajan. Ensuring those entrusted to protect our sovereignty are properly equipped is a basic, as sovereignty that isn't practiced is only deception not reality.

expectationlost

Sean O'Fearghail ask about Irish defences forces involvement in cyber-security https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-03-24a.7&s=twitter#g13

the examples he gives for why the Irish Defence forces should be involved is the 'hacking' of the DOD's twitter account and the intel bomb hoax, which according to the Daily Mail Gardai said was a disgruntled builder phoning in a hoax (caller had knowledge of the Intel building site)

anyway minister cyber security was a whole government issue with dept of communications leading.

Preset No.3

Question: you are some terrorist organization. You decide to steal/hijack a couple of commercial jets from one of Ireland's airports for a 911 style attack. What exactly is going to intercept them?

IrishTrajan

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Question: you are some terrorist organization. You decide to steal/hijack a couple of commercial jets from one of Ireland's airports for a 911 style attack. What exactly is going to intercept them?

I think it'd go something like this:

Hijack a Ryanair flight, try to fly it into the Dáil, land 4 km away, safely and have to get a taxi.

Jawgap

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Question: you are some terrorist organization. You decide to steal/hijack a couple of commercial jets from one of Ireland's airports for a 911 style attack. What exactly is going to intercept them?

Why would they do that?

The 9-11 hijackers could have crashed into any number of buildings in New York and Washington (indeed they could probably have carried out their attack in any major US city) - they deliberately picked iconic structures. The Dail is not an iconic structure.

If a jet was hijacked from an Irish airport, London would be the more likely target and the RAF would drop it before it got close.

Ren2k7

Preset No.3 wrote: »

Question: you are some terrorist organization. You decide to steal/hijack a couple of commercial jets from one of Ireland's airports for a 911 style attack. What exactly is going to intercept them?

They would find it virtually impossible to take control given cabin doors are designed to be closed shut during flights. But IF they did take control they would try to crash it into a UK landmark, not an Irish one. What would be the logic for an Islamist group (most likely terror organisation) in slamming a Boeing or Airbus into Leinster House or the GPO? US flights through Shannon? Nah, other European nations are far higher on their list of priorities.

We should invest in fighter jet aircraft, but not because of perceived terrorism, rather interception of any foreign menace flying into our territorial and/or controlled airspace.

BoJack Horseman

What's the opinion of the South Korean "Golden Eagle" fighter?

Seems a very good price @ about €30m - €40m per unit.... Very good for an all weather Mach 1.5 all-rounder

dr.fuzzenstein

Is it diesel and will it qualify for the scrappage scheme and the chape tax?

Dr_Bill

Seriously, what would Ireland do with a squadron of Apaches or fighter jets? Drop laser guided bombs and shoot up fuel laundering plants?

Ireland is too small in fairness to have a requirement for military hardware like this. Far better to have decent kit for the UN missons and Naval vessels to patrol our coast which would be put to practical use.

Dr_Bill

Seriously, what would Ireland do with a squadron of Apaches or fighter jets? Drop laser guided bombs and shoot up fuel laundering plants?

Ireland is too small in fairness to have a requirement for military hardware like this. Far better to have decent kit for the UN missons and Naval vessels to patrol our coast which would be put to practical use.

Morpheus

Every country should have a means to police airspace for which it has responsibility, did you bother to read the bit where we dont have the capability to
A. See WHAT is flying through our airspace, nor its precise location, bearing, speed etc if its transponder is turned off - for this we need to invest in MILITARY spec primary radar installations

B. Even if we COULD see whats flying there we have no way of flying out to meet it and shepherding it through some of the most conjested civilian airspace in the world.

modest investment of 100m per year on top of the current defence budget would provide all of this.

Initially through once off purchase of military radar and installation ~20 - 30 million and then after that, for 80million per annum (like slovakia and czech republic) we go about leasing 10 Saab Gripen aircraft which have the range and airspeed to catch up with and fly beside any aircraft which enter our near international or indeed sovereign airspace. The fastest jet aircraft that the air corps has ever had, currently hangs from the ceiling in collins barracks (nat museum).

we upskill and train air corps pilots in the UK with the RAF under the new MOU between our countries before moving them onto the jet aircraft.

this 100m could easily be taken from the overseas aid budget which embarrassingly is more than our national defence budget.

Ren2k7

Dr_Bill wrote: »

Seriously, what would Ireland do with a squadron of Apaches or fighter jets? Drop laser guided bombs and shoot up fuel laundering plants?

Ireland is too small in fairness to have a requirement for military hardware like this. Far better to have decent kit for the UN missons and Naval vessels to patrol our coast which would be put to practical use.

No one is suggesting builds up a military of such strenght that we could invade the North and repel any British response but rather a MINIMUM credible level of defence necessary to maintain the territorial integrity and independence of this Republic. Right now we don't have the ability to prevent armed incursions into our territory, strongly worded statements released by the Government Press Office being the sum of our meek response.

What we need to be doing is signing into law a requirement for all future governments to maintain defence spending at 1% of GDP per annum. This would provide the DF with sufficient funding to meet the minimum defence requirements of this nation.

Markcheese

1 % of GDP ? Or would 1 % of GNP be more appropriate ( because of repatriation of foreign profits) -
I've no idea what that number would be - or what percentage of GNP we currently save -
Realistily would we be any safer more secure or better off in the short to medium term with 10 or so grippens ?
I do think we should have long range military radar - which I'm sure NATO countries ( who provide our air security by default anyway) would probably help us with -

Ren2k7

Markcheese wrote: »

1 % of GDP ? Or would 1 % of GNP be more appropriate ( because of repatriation of foreign profits) -
I've no idea what that number would be - or what percentage of GNP we currently save -
Realistily would we be any safer more secure or better off in the short to medium term with 10 or so grippens ?
I do think we should have long range military radar - which I'm sure NATO countries ( who provide our air security by default anyway) would probably help us with -

Military spending as a percentage of GDP is usually the standard measurement of nations defence commitment. Ireland's is particularly low by even European standards, rock bottom behind Luxembourg at under 0.5%. The EU average is about 1.5% and NATO wants its members reaching 2%, a figure only France, Britain and the US have met. Personally I would be happy with just 1%, which would be about €2 billion in cash terms.

But by locking in place defence spending at 1% of GDP as the economy grows so too does the defence budget. That was the main problem during the Celtic Tiger, as the economy grew the military budget remained roughly static, with its defence/GDP ratio declining each year.

IrishTrajan

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Military spending as a percentage of GDP is usually the standard measurement of nations defence commitment. Ireland's is particularly low by even European standards, rock bottom behind Luxembourg at under 0.5%. The EU average is about 1.5% and NATO wants its members reaching 2%, a figure only France, Britain and the US have met. Personally I would be happy with just 1%, which would be about €2 billion in cash terms.

Just a pedantic point on my behalf: Not just those three, Turkey and Greece do too. I think Poland is not far off it, and is making increases in spending to reach it I believe.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Just a pedantic point on my behalf: Not just those three, Turkey and Greece do too. I think Poland is not far off it, and is making increases in spending to reach it I believe.

Very much so, at current rates they'll be one of the major NATO spenders by the end of the decade (subs, fighters, missile defence etc).

Boreas

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Just a pedantic point on my behalf: Not just those three, Turkey and Greece do too. I think Poland is not far off it, and is making increases in spending to reach it I believe.

Don't forget the Estonian's who also spend more than 2% of their comparatively small GDP.

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Just a pedantic point on my behalf: Not just those three, Turkey and Greece do too. I think Poland is not far off it, and is making increases in spending to reach it I believe.

Corrected. Though the point about NATO being concerned about declining military spending is still valid.

IrishTrajan

Boreas wrote: »

Don't forget the Estonian's who also spend more than 2% of their comparatively small GDP.

I had thought Estonia spent over 2%, but when I double checked, NATO's wiki entry said they didn't. I guess I should've used the up-to-date version

IrishTrajan

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Corrected. Though the point about NATO being concerned about declining military spending is still valid.

I agree with you on the rest, it was just me being pedantic.

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I had thought Estonia spent over 2%, but when I double checked, NATO's wiki entry said they didn't. I guess I should've used the up-to-date version

According to this article, as of 2012 only Britain and Estonia hit 2%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#Expenditure_and_personnel

Any newer figures?

IrishTrajan

Ren2k7 wrote: »

According to this article, as of 2012 only Britain and Estonia hit 2%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union#Expenditure_and_personnel

Any newer figures?

Estonia's spending in 2015 was just over 2%, Britain's is 2.3%.. Ours has dropped to 0.39% down from 0.48%... We spend on defence what Estonia and Latvia do despite our economy being larger than the Baltics, Bulgaria, and Slovenia... combined.

As a matter of discussion: I think investing in G2 and giving it wider ranging powers to engage with SIS in Britain against Islamic extremism in the British Isles would be worthwhile pursuing.

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Estonia's spending in 2015 was just over 2%, Britain's is 2.3%.. Ours has dropped to 0.39% down from 0.48%... We spend on defence what Estonia and Latvia do despite our economy being larger than the Baltics, Bulgaria, and Slovenia... combined.

As a matter of discussion: I think investing in G2 and giving it wider ranging powers to engage with SIS in Britain against Islamic extremism in the British Isles would be worthwhile pursuing.

Really they should merge G2 and the Gardai's Crime and Security Branch (C3) into a single Irish intelligence agency. But for the love of God let's hope they don't call it the Irish Security and Intelligence Service. :eek: