A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh I know it is - but you seem to unable to grasp the concept that Armies can have Air Corps, which mostly operate rotary wing aircraft.

The reason you grossly underestimated the Japanese Chinook fleet is because you looked only at their Air Self-Defence Force, instead of both the Air AND Ground Self Defence Forces, and relied - again - on Wikipedia for your information, along with the assumption that only air forces operate aircraft.

If you are going to persist in perpetuating the idea that you have some valid insight into defence and security issues I suggest you wean yourself off Wikipedia and cultivate some more reliable sources - perhaps starting with the two I've referenced above. Until then I think we can guess who the 'geniuses' are on this thread

I a fully aware of the role of army air corps thanks. I listed a link on the previous page to some units in the UK.

The reason the helo's are not listed is because they are part of the Japanese maritime defence force and humanitarian rescue corps.(genius)

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

I a fully aware of the role of army air corps thanks. I listed a link on the previous page to some units in the UK.

The reason the helo's are not listed is because they are part of the Japanese maritime defence force and humanitarian rescue corps.(genius)

You were banging on that the UK had the second largest Chinook fleet after the US (because you read it on Wikipedia).

They don't. The Japanese have a larger fleet than the UK. something you contested using the Wikipedia page (again) from the JASDF, taking no account of the air frames operated by the JGSDF.

The Chinooks (both the Boeing and Kawasaki assembled ones) are listed.

The JMSADF don't operate the Chinook - they did operate the Sea Knight, but I don't believe they do now.

You were wrong - again - and now - again - you are trying to walk it back to make it sound like you were right :rolleyes:

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

You were banging on that the UK had the second largest Chinook fleet after the US (because you read it on Wikipedia).

They don't. The Japanese have a larger fleet than the UK. something you contested using the Wikipedia page (again) from the JASDF, taking no account of the air frames operated by the JGSDF.

The Chinooks (both the Boeing and Kawasaki assembled ones) are listed.

The JMSADF don't operate the Chinook - they did operate the Sea Knight, but I don't believe they do now.

You were wrong - again - and now - again - you are trying to walk it back to make it sound like you were right :rolleyes:

I was not just referring to Chinooks in my previous post.

Military fleet yes, they did. Previously the UK had around 80.

The Jap air defence force are listed at having 16

The RAF now operate around 60. With the fleet expanding to 70

http://defense-update.com/newscast/1209/news/chinook_raf_151209.html

Is this link wiki genius ?

Cant see any list Jap land defence air corps Chinooks listed.


.....I would like the thread to get back on track, please stop further disrupting and trolling it.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

I was not just referring to Chinooks in my previous post.

Military fleet yes, they did. Previously the UK had around 80.

The Jap air defence force are listed at having 16

The RAF now operate around 60.

Cant see any list Jap land defence air corps Chinooks listed.

Oh dear God!! Google the frame number from this one....



And the RAF have 48 (including the Mk3s that caused all the kerfuffle - I'm sure you're privy to all that given it involved SOF)

cruasder777

You know more then the official RAF website? Please stop trolling the thread.

16 June 2014

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-flying-high-in-new-chinook-helicopter-16062014


"During a visit to RAF Odiham in Hampshire, the home of the Chinook force, Philip Hammond also announced a new £115 million agreement with Boeing Defence UK to maintain the engines of the RAF’s increased fleet of 60 Chinooks".

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

You know more then the official RAF website? Please stop trolling the thread.

16 June 2014

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/raf-flying-high-in-new-chinook-helicopter-16062014


"During a visit to RAF Odiham in Hampshire, the home of the Chinook force, Philip Hammond also announced a new £115 million agreement with Boeing Defence UK to maintain the engines of the RAF’s increased fleet of 60 Chinooks".

The increased fleet will be 60 when everything is operation by the end of 2015.

If you actually read what post it says

The first of 14 Chinook Mark 6 helicopters, which were ordered in 2011 as part of a £1 billion programme, have now achieved their entry into service on time and three of the new aircraft have been delivered to the RAF who have commenced training in the UK.

At the same time, the first 3 of 14 new Chinook Mk.6 helicopters have now been delivered on time, and training has begun at RAF Odiham. All 14 new aircraft are scheduled for delivery before the end of 2015, and are on track to be fully operational by early 2017.

From Jane's

All 14 new aircraft are scheduled for delivery before the end of 2015, and are on track to be fully operational by early 2017.

So

60-14 = ? + the Mk6 that's operational

So how many are they operating at the moment?

cruasder777

Wrong again, it clearly states some have been delivered and are in service ALREADY.

Please stop wrecking the thread.

Jawgap

cruasder777 wrote: »

Wrong again, it clearly states some have been delivered and are in service ALREADY.

Please stop wrecking the thread.

It seems elementary maths is beyond you.......

Silvera

* Silvera loses interest in this [petty bickering] thread and leaves the building *

galwaycyclist

Silvera wrote: »

* Silvera loses interest in this [petty bickering] thread and leaves the building *

Agreed this tiff is pathetic, unworthy and disappointing

Jawgap

Apologies to the thread.

I've applied the ignore function, if it happens again, it won't involve me.

cruasder777

Jawgap wrote: »

Apologies to the thread.

I've applied the ignore function, if it happens again, it won't involve me.

Thanks for trashing yet another thread.:rolleyes:

Garzard

sparky42 wrote: »

If we were to go down the fast jet route at some stage I'd think the air corps might end up moving. Apart from the needed upgrades, I wonder how long it would be before you get noise complaints. Moreover there is at least some demand from dublin planners that baldonnel is shut to give the city a growth route.

If Baldonnel had to go, another one or two hypothetical new bases [in rural areas] might make sense insofar as being able to build them from scratch and arranged around the requirements of new aircraft. Say for example having one base centered around flight training, fast jets and transport, and the other located further west and centered around the Maritime Patrol aircraft.

sparky42

Garzard wrote: »

If Baldonnel had to go, another one or two hypothetical new bases [in rural areas] might make sense insofar as being able to build them from scratch and arranged around the requirements of new aircraft. Say for example having one base centered around flight training, fast jets and transport, and the other located further west and centered around the Maritime Patrol aircraft.

I'd say it would make more sense to share one of the international runways than go to the expense of one/two new facilities, I'm sure I've read some of the US Air national guard stations do that and that some of the European nations did/do? You do have the issue of the crusties trying to attack the planes possibly but they might do that anyway. Also for the size of the air corps even if it did ever get increased I'd say it would still make more sense to concentrate it rather than disperse it (particularly in regards to maintenance). It might also allow for a reduction in some costs (ie firefighting, runway/facility maintenance) due to sharing it with a civilian authority.

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd say it would make more sense to share one of the international runways than go to the expense of one/two new facilities, I'm sure I've read some of the US Air national guard stations do that and that some of the European nations did/do? You do have the issue of the crusties trying to attack the planes possibly but they might do that anyway. Also for the size of the air corps even if it did ever get increased I'd say it would still make more sense to concentrate it rather than disperse it (particularly in regards to maintenance). It might also allow for a reduction in some costs (ie firefighting, runway/facility maintenance) due to sharing it with a civilian authority.

Shannon would be the obvious candidate - especially for facilitating maritime patrol / surveillance. The concentration of aerospace expertise in the area would also help if there was a mind to contract out some tasks.

Garzard

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd say it would make more sense to share one of the international runways than go to the expense of one/two new facilities, I'm sure I've read some of the US Air national guard stations do that and that some of the European nations did/do? You do have the issue of the crusties trying to attack the planes possibly but they might do that anyway. Also for the size of the air corps even if it did ever get increased I'd say it would still make more sense to concentrate it rather than disperse it (particularly in regards to maintenance). It might also allow for a reduction in some costs (ie firefighting, runway/facility maintenance) due to sharing it with a civilian authority.

Sharing large runways / airports would indeed save countless amounts if a new airbase was the only alternative, but that sort of arrangement would need pretty careful laying out if it wasn't to result in endless disputes between the A/C and airlines over competing flight schedules, use of runways and local airspace.

Garzard

From looking at the proposed Gripen deal for the Netherlands, I don't see why [obviously when and if our budget allows] we couldn't somewhere down the line negotiate a somewhat similar contract with the Sweder or US. Say for instance a hypothetical package for the following:

• A small fighter squadron, anywhere from 8 - 12 Gripen NG's or F-16 Block 52's.
  
• 2 - 4 new transport aircraft. The C-295, would probably make the most logistical and financial sense for obvious reasons. If we wanted something more heavy-lift there's the C-27J and C-130J, although considerably more expensive. Or else we could apply for membership to the NATO Heavy Airlift Wing and have access to a certain number of flight hours p/a.
  
• Finally, another 2 - 4 Maritime Patrol types. Again, there's the C-295 MPA / Persuader version. Or the Saab 340 MSA, which might make the contract easier to work around if we decided on the Gripen?
  
• Contract could also cover a full upgrade to the Baldonnel infrastructure to support all the above aircraft, along with maintenance and pilot training for the next 20 years.

MrConservative

Garzard wrote: »

From looking at the proposed Gripen deal for the Netherlands, I don't see why [obviously when and if our budget allows] we couldn't somewhere down the line negotiate a somewhat similar contract with the Sweder or US. Say for instance a hypothetical package for the following:

• A small fighter squadron, anywhere from 8 - 12 Gripen NG's or F-16 Block 52's.
  
• 2 - 4 new transport aircraft. The C-295, would probably make the most logistical and financial sense for obvious reasons. If we wanted something more heavy-lift there's the C-27J and C-130J, although considerably more expensive. Or else we could apply for membership to the NATO Heavy Airlift Wing and have access to a certain number of flight hours p/a.
  
• Finally, another 2 - 4 Maritime Patrol types. Again, there's the C-295 MPA / Persuader version. Or the Saab 340 MSA, which might make the contract easier to work around if we decided on the Gripen?
  
• Contract could also cover a full upgrade to the Baldonnel infrastructure to support all the above aircraft, along with maintenance and pilot training for the next 20 years.

I dont understand what the rationale behind the use of light-medium tactical transport aircraft such as the C-295 or C-27J would be for Ireland. Irish forces usually deploy 1000s of kilometres away Company sized and ocassionally a larger Battalion sized units? Is the goal for an Irish deployed force to be self sufficent in its logistical airlift chain from the Don to a FOB 2000-6000kms away because that is ideal capability set? If so smaller tactical transports are definately not the tools for this trade.

Your airlift requirements are logistically focused with respect to deployment and thus essentially a tactical loads - strategic distances issue. That is what needs to be addressed.

I would be looking at three C-130J-30s which would give the Irish Defence Force the most flexibility. They if used normally (and not thrashed like the RAF examples) would provide around 1800-2000 operational flight hours p.a and would be able to cover the tasking spectrum you would require for the next 40 years (C-130s will be still flying with Air Forces 100 years after thier USAF introduction). The current US DoD FY2015 sticker price for the C-130J-30 is $89m for the airframe and logistics support for aircrew and maintenance training devices, and program management support. Three airframes would mean that the Defence Force / Govt would be able to have an aircraft to sustain a 24/7/365 air mobility capability at DLOC (Directed Level of Capability).

Cheers MrC

BTW your first point regrading the short squadron of NGs. Thailand have 12 JAS-39s and 2 Saab Erieyes which they coughed up $1.1 billion for. Lucky they still have F-16s to round out the fleet so as to be viable if they sought to conduct sustained QRA. Your short squadron of 8-12 even with the necessary two EW assets would burnout really quick. The RAAF who have 94 combat aircraft found it a considerable effort to task 6 Shornets in the QRA role for the recent G20 talkfest for just a week. In your second point you mention MPA (maritime patrol attack). Would not MPS (maritime patrol survelliance) be more plausible? Wouldnt it be better not to spend over a Billion dollars doing half an air combat capability and spend that Billion on 3 P-8s that would completely transform Irelands ISR situational awareness of not just its EEZ but huge tracts of the north atlantic. Of course its not going to happen but if their was a magic billion to be spent - that choice would be very easy to make.

ChicagoJoe

cruasder777 wrote: »

If you bother to check the British operate the second largest Chinook fleet after the Americans, not forgetting 66 Apache gunships.

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0003.html

Infact its the second largest helo fleet after the US.

If that was the case the borrowers should have brought them instead of having to get the USA as usual to save their ass's :rolleyes:

The UK overstretched itself, it had the 50,000 strong army of the Rhine to maintain, troops in NI, overseas territories and 2 simultaneous wars and defence cuts at the same time.

Iraq was a disaster because the Americans got rid of the infrastructure of its armed forces instead of reforming them and its officer class and instead empowered local militias and created a useless new sectarian army, which half the population were not welcome in, and led by a corrupt officer class . ISIS have filled the vacuum.

It shows throwing money at things does not always solve problems.

If the Brits in the first place didn't have the capability then they shouldn't have been in Iraq or A'stan playing at been a super power Napoleon !!!!

"The British-trained Iraqi Army's attempt to retake Basra from militiamen was an "unmitigated disaster at every level", British commanders have disclosed. Senior sources have said that the mission was undermined by incompetent officers and untrained troops who were sent into battle with inadequate supplies of food, water and ammunition. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1896183/Battle-to-retake-Basra-was-complete-disaster.html

cruasder777

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/russian-nuclear-fighter-jets-fly-off-west-coast-of-ireland-as-british-typhoon-fighters-scrambled/ar-AA8KONp?ocid=mailsignoutmd


Russian nuclear fighter jets fly off west coast of Ireland as British Typhoon fighters scrambled


The aircraft travelled from the north, past the west coast of Ireland and to the English Channel before turning and going back the same way.

Britain scrambled its fighter jets in response - as Ireland is considered to be within its 'area of interest' for defence.

The British jets were deployed when long-range radar detected the Russian jets approach.

An aviation source told the Daily Telegraph that the jets were flying without their transponders on - meaning they were invisible to any commercial aircraft flying into Ireland at the time.

A number of commercial flights in the area were diverted as a result


......The article claims the UK officially defends the Republics airspace.

Silvera

cruasder777 wrote: »

......The article claims the UK officially defends the Republics airspace.

Officially the UK doesnt .....unofficially/in reality, it does.

I read that the Russian 'Bears' have a top speed of c.800kmph. In reality these are almost 'vintage' aircraft, so I wonder what their actual cruising speed/top speed really is? i.e. would a PC-9 be capable of flying alongside, if one were vectored to the area via UK military radar?

Walter Mitty time here .....if these Russian aircraft continue to cause headlines in Ireland by flying off our coast, will the govt be coaxed/persuaded into purchasing some "fighter jets" for the Air Corps?;)

NewSigGuy

Silvera wrote: »

Officially the UK doesnt .....unofficially/in reality, it does.

I read that the Russian 'Bears' have a top speed of c.800kmph. In reality these are almost 'vintage' aircraft, so I wonder what their actual cruising speed/top speed really is? i.e. would a PC-9 be capable of flying alongside, if one were vectored to the area via UK military radar?

Walter Mitty time here .....if these Russian aircraft continue to cause headlines in Ireland by flying off our coast, will the govt be coaxed/persuaded into purchasing some "fighter jets" for the Air Corps?;)

The answers I think are No and No, the Bear is one of the fastest Turboprops ever built and the PC-9 would get no where near it, and the cost of even one squadron of supersonic aircraft is prohibitive even if we doubled our current defence budget. That doesn't take into account the reality of having to construct a fully integrated Air Defence Network to work with the Fighter Aircraft!

expectationlost

do military aircraft fly with their transponders on when on manevours?

IrishTrajan

expectationlost wrote: »

do military aircraft fly with their transpoders on when on manevours?

They fly with them off, but I believe they usually give a formal notification to civilian aviation authorities so they can divert air traffic away from the area.


@OP,
I think Ireland buying a couple CV90s would exponentially increase the defence capabilities of the Defence Forces.
They can be modified to provide forward observation, medical transport, anti-air, electronic warfare, c&c (etc). They are designed to operate in rough terrain, in extreme conditions, and would provide the Defence Forces with firepower in sufficient quantity. They can also be modified with a 120mm smoothbore. They have IR camouflage.

For instance, the Irish contribution to the Nordic Battlegroup would have an exponential increase in capability for very little cost.

They are around €4.5 million per unit, but acquiring them over several years would not "break the bank" so to speak.

Morpheus

Reduce Irelands annual overseas aid bubget from 600million to 500million
give the 100million saved to the defence budget

Next contact Saab in Sweden, plan to start leasing a squadron of latest version of Saab Gripens from sweden for 78 million a year (like Czech republic is doing) in 3 years time.

Meanwhile send our pilots to UK for jet trainer flying and then move them onto the UKs fighter school up to instructor level for next few years, then start training our own pilots both there on jet trainer and here on the leased gripens.

None of this requires more money from the exchequer, it simply requires a redirection of foreign aid to self defence. This ,money is often used by our aid beneficiaries to fund their own militaries anyway.

Ren2k7

Morpheus wrote: »

Reduce Irelands annual overseas aid bubget from 600million to 500million
give the 100million saved to the defence budget

Next contact Saab in Sweden, plan to start leasing a squadron of latest version of Saab Gripens from sweden for 78 million a year (like Czech republic is doing) in 3 years time.

Meanwhile send our pilots to UK for jet trainer flying and then move them onto the UKs fighter school up to instructor level for next few years, then start training our own pilots both there on jet trainer and here on the leased gripens.

None of this requires more money from the exchequer, it simply requires a redirection of foreign aid to self defence. This ,money is often used by our aid beneficiaries to fund their own militaries anyway.

Or we could start building up a small squadron of Irish owned light attack aircraft, costing roughly $20 million each. There's a good piece in the Examiner here that mentions the BAE Hawk, Aero L159 or Korean made TA-50 as possible contenders for an Irish fighter squadron:

If the Government wants to penny-pinch, it could buy the Czech-made Aero L159 or ex-Korean AF BAE Hawks.


The L159 is a subsonic aircraft with similar speed to an airliner, but, critically, it can go much higher than commercial aircraft, is faster than the Russian TU95, and has an integrated radar.


If we wanted something a bit more prestigious, the KAIT50-Golden Eagle fighters could be picked up for €20m each.


However, it’s estimated in some military circles that an €80m investment in the air corps would be sufficient to provide the force with proper jets and radar defence capabilities.


For this, it could get six jets, all auxiliary equipment, support services, armaments, and proper ground radar capabilities.

Considering we spent 150 million upgrading the naval fleet a further 80 million to develop a truly modern air force makes a lot of sense. Of course you'd have the usual far left, pro Kremlin whingers complaining on Whineline that such money should go towards "de skools and social welfare". But they should be ignored and such a capital investment in our DF moved forward.



Hopefully the White Paper to be released soon will recommend some tactical light fighters for our forces.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Or we could start building up a small squadron of Irish owned light attack aircraft, costing roughly $20 million each. There's a good piece in the Examiner here that mentions the BAE Hawk, Aero L159 or Korean made TA-50 as possible contenders for an Irish fighter squadron:

Considering we spent 150 million upgrading the naval fleet a further 80 million to develop a truly modern air force makes a lot of sense. Of course you'd have the usual far left, pro Kremlin whingers complaining on Whineline that such money should go towards "de skools and social welfare". But they should be ignored and such a capital investment in our DF moved forward.

Hopefully the White Paper to be released soon will recommend some tactical light fighters for our forces.

Bit of a mistake in the sums for the Eagle, the base line trainer is $20 million, the light fighter variant is $30 million a unit, so it depends on which they mean. Not too mention that at current rates it's about 2018 before they would be built (going on the Philippines order of 12 only being completed in 2017). Course it's not just the headline figures of the planes, as has been mentioned you've spares, weapons, sims, upgrades to Baldonnel (possibly a new hangar, landing systems, weapons storage and arming facilities). It's not going to be anything close to €80 million (I'd bet nothing much of change out of €500 million when all would be done) and it wouldn't be "truly modern", just better than the nothing that we have at the moment.

And when you look at the fact that the Shinner's proposal is disarmament who knows what happens after the next election, seems they want to keep all the forces, but will save money for "da skools" by ending procurment:rolleyes::mad:

woodrow wyatt

Why waste money on increasing the Irish military, NATO are not going to invade and they would not allow anyone else to invade and set up a base at their flanks.
All Ireland needs is a few more naval boats to look after fishing rights and drug smuggling, anything else is a waste of money.

sparky42

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Why waste money on increasing the Irish military, NATO are not going to invade and they would not allow anyone else to invade and set up a base at their flanks.
All Ireland needs is a few more naval boats to look after fishing rights and drug smuggling, anything else is a waste of money.

As opposed to the quality of service/value for money every other department achieves:rolleyes:

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

Bit of a mistake in the sums for the Eagle, the base line trainer is $20 million, the light fighter variant is $30 million a unit, so it depends on which they mean. Not too mention that at current rates it's about 2018 before they would be built (going on the Philippines order of 12 only being completed in 2017). Course it's not just the headline figures of the planes, as has been mentioned you've spares, weapons, sims, upgrades to Baldonnel (possibly a new hangar, landing systems, weapons storage and arming facilities). It's not going to be anything close to €80 million (I'd bet nothing much of change out of €500 million when all would be done) and it wouldn't be "truly modern", just better than the nothing that we have at the moment.

And when you look at the fact that the Shinner's proposal is disarmament who knows what happens after the next election, seems they want to keep all the forces, but will save money for "da skools" by ending procurment:rolleyes::mad:

If we're going to be spending the money to redevelop the Air Corps' home, it doesn't make sense to get lighter aircraft. Once again, the F-16 would be a more logical choice.

The F-16C/D cost $18.8 million per unit, and cost between $7000 and $24,000 to operate. We are quite unlikely to be using them every day, aside from pilots' getting their hours in. Buying 3-6 (6 would likely be more realistic, two on standby, two in storage, two in maintenance) would cost us $8.4 million if we flew them at a minimum of 200 hours per year.

The only real argument against buying F-16s would be... "The Mericans used them in Iraq why do u want us to invade iraq do u want to kill children?"

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Why waste money on increasing the Irish military, NATO are not going to invade and they would not allow anyone else to invade and set up a base at their flanks.
All Ireland needs is a few more naval boats to look after fishing rights and drug smuggling, anything else is a waste of money.

You're right, we're incredibly unlikely to be invaded... But Russia would probably lob a missile our way to warn the British, much like they had planned to bomb Venice during the Cold War as a warning to the French. Regardless, it is nonsensical to think we are "neutral" when we rely on one side to protect our skies.