A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

sparky42

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I was thinking about this the other day. I'm quite surprised we don't have at least a couple of fast jets for defence against terrorism. That said how long would it take to get a Typhoon from RAF Coningsby to Dublin? 15 minutes?

Why are you surprised? We've never invested what was need for any section of the defence forces, and what we've had has soldiered on long after it should have been replaced.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

A Eurofighter Typhoon? At top speed, around 12 minutes, I think. Unless my maths is wrong.

Add in how many minutes for the command and control? ie we decide something is a threat (at what distance from Dublin?), we kick it to the RAF (presuming civil servant/minister doesn't have to be involved to authorise such an elevation), the RAF considers the request (again with the potential political commands needed), evaluates if the QRA is needed over the UK if there is a terror attack happening and then launches. Add in the hand wringing if it was a terror attack and the RAF had to do a shoot down. I'd guess add another 10-15 minutes at least for all of that to be considered unless there's stated policies for such situations...

Heckler

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That's what this discussion is about. We want to push for the Irish State to be able to handle itself.

I admit I only followed the thread towards the end. The truth is the Irish Air Corp is never going to have the capability of defending itself against any kind of threat without a fortune of money put into it which is never going to happen because the RAF thankfully are going to do the job for us.

Not denigrating the skill of irish pilots just the equipment.

IrishTrajan

Heckler wrote: »

I admit I only followed the thread towards the end. The truth is the Irish Air Corp is never going to have the capability of defending itself against any kind of threat without a fortune of money put into it which is never going to happen because the RAF thankfully are going to do the job for us.

Not denigrating the skill of irish pilots just the equipment.

Not exactly a "fortune". We could probably have an airforce that could suit our interests in 5 years if we were really interested in modernizing. We wouldn't need more than a handful of aircraft. If we increased the Defence Budget to recommended standards (i.e. 1.5-2% of GDP) we would have in the region of €2.5-€3.2 billion.

We're a small island State, so the Army doesn't really need more than 10,000 active troops. Really, we should increase the manpower in the Naval Service and the Air Corps.

Give the Air Corps funding to acquire several fast aircraft capable of escorting curious Russian planes out, and to install high-quality radar stations (and other such infrastructure as would be needed), maintain the Army at 10,000-15,000 troops (depending on the economic circumstances) but increase the size of the Reserve Defence Forces from 4500 to 9000-10,000 so that it can take on the duties of the PDF should it be required to do so.

Any further increases in spending should be devoted to the Naval Service, so that it can actually perform its duties.

For instance, as Sparky said, the Iver Huitfeldt-class. It has anti-ship and anti-air defences, and can be configured to fire Tomahawk missiles. If Ireland wanted to intervene against ISIS, for example, it could send one ship to aid with strikes against ISIS targets. The sooner ISIS is degraded and destroyed, the more lives could be saved.

Heckler

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Not exactly a "fortune". We could probably have an airforce that could suit our interests in 5 years if we were really interested in modernizing. We wouldn't need more than a handful of aircraft. If we increased the Defence Budget to recommended standards (i.e. 1.5-2% of GDP) we would have in the region of €2.5-€3.2 billion.

We're a small island State, so the Army doesn't really need more than 10,000 active troops. Really, we should increase the manpower in the Naval Service and the Air Corps.

Give the Air Corps funding to acquire several fast aircraft capable of escorting curious Russian planes out, and to install high-quality radar stations (and other such infrastructure as would be needed), maintain the Army at 10,000-15,000 troops (depending on the economic circumstances) but increase the size of the Reserve Defence Forces from 4500 to 9000-10,000 so that it can take on the duties of the PDF should it be required to do so.

Any further increases in spending should be devoted to the Naval Service, so that it can actually perform its duties.

For instance, as Sparky said, the Iver Huitfeldt-class. It has anti-ship and anti-air defences, and can be configured to fire Tomahawk missiles. If Ireland wanted to intervene against ISIS, for example, it could send one ship to aid with strikes against ISIS targets. The sooner ISIS is degraded and destroyed, the more lives could be saved.

Never going to happen. The political will, the budget and the nonsense of irish neutrality ensures it. Yes. I know Irish troops are abroad in war zones but for all intents and purposes we are neutral.

Jawgap

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Not exactly a "fortune". We could probably have an airforce that could suit our interests in 5 years if we were really interested in modernizing. We wouldn't need more than a handful of aircraft. If we increased the Defence Budget to recommended standards (i.e. 1.5-2% of GDP) we would have in the region of €2.5-€3.2 billion.

We're a small island State, so the Army doesn't really need more than 10,000 active troops. Really, we should increase the manpower in the Naval Service and the Air Corps.

Give the Air Corps funding to acquire several fast aircraft capable of escorting curious Russian planes out, and to install high-quality radar stations (and other such infrastructure as would be needed), maintain the Army at 10,000-15,000 troops (depending on the economic circumstances) but increase the size of the Reserve Defence Forces from 4500 to 9000-10,000 so that it can take on the duties of the PDF should it be required to do so.

Any further increases in spending should be devoted to the Naval Service, so that it can actually perform its duties.

For instance, as Sparky said, the Iver Huitfeldt-class. It has anti-ship and anti-air defences, and can be configured to fire Tomahawk missiles. If Ireland wanted to intervene against ISIS, for example, it could send one ship to aid with strikes against ISIS targets. The sooner ISIS is degraded and destroyed, the more lives could be saved.

Modernising? I thought the DF had modern equipment?

The question is not really about modernising, it's about whether our resources and capacities match our security needs - and possibly with the exception of bits of the NS, they do. ISIS is not a threat to this country, despite what certain papers might be suggesting.

Russian bombers are not a threat to us, no one is going to fly a jet into any Irish building - so fast jets are just a vanity, so are things like TLAMs etc

We could do with a beefed up maritime patrol capacity, and, if the politicians wanted to expand out involvement in UN missions in order to bolster our foreign policy cred, - expand the army, procure an Absalon class support ship and develop the Air Corps to provide a rotary wing expeditionary capacity.

Morpheus

ive already said it a heap of times

Overseas aid budget - 600m per annum
Following Czechs and Slovakians by leasing a squadron of saab grippens - < 100m per annum (includes maintenance)

do the math, reduce the overseas budget and a small increase in defence spending to at least .75% GDP would help. A large chunk of our overseas aid budget goes to congo and uganda etc and its WELL known that the money is surreptitiously funneled into their own defence spending.

by witholding 100m of this budget and funneling it into our own defence budget, we could then easily lease , equip and fly 10 saab grippens for that.

As regards training , under the new agreement with them, we get the UK to upgrade our pilots from PC9s to to fly jets by training them to fly hawks (lead in jet trainers which we have none of) and to train our own instructors also. Pooling resources. it would take a minimum of two years i reckon from signing an agreement to getting the first irish trained pilot lifting a Saab Grippen off the runway in baldonnel with irish roundels on it.

i wish someone would suggest this to the govt.

Jawgap

Morpheus wrote: »

ive already said it a heap of times

Overseas aid budget - 600m per annum
Following Czechs and Slovakians by leasing a squadron of saab grippens - < 100m per annum (includes maintenance)

do the math, reduce the overseas budget and a small increase in defence spending to at least .75% GDP would help. A large chunk of our overseas aid budget goes to congo and uganda etc and its WELL known that the money is surreptitiously funneled into their own defence spending.

by witholding 100m of this budget and funneling it into our own defence budget, we could then easily lease , equip and fly 10 saab grippens for that.

As regards training , under the new agreement with them, we get the UK to upgrade our pilots from PC9s to to fly jets by training them to fly hawks (lead in jet trainers which we have none of) and to train our own instructors also. Pooling resources. it would take a minimum of two years i reckon from signing an agreement to getting the first irish trained pilot lifting a Saab Grippen off the runway in baldonnel with irish roundels on it.

i wish someone would suggest this to the govt.

I like shiny things that go whizz and bang (I spend a good portion of my time researching and writing about them) - but what do we need fast jets for?

Morpheus

Because they like radars, larger vessels for the navy and direct fire support platforms for the army improve capabilities and allow us to get a better situational awareness and to protect our (EU) western approaches and air corridors from idiots in bears with no transponders flying through airspace used by 1800 commercial flights and tens of thousands of EU and US citizens a day.

Jawgap

Morpheus wrote: »

Because they like radars, larger vessels for the navy and direct fire support platforms for the army improve capabilities and allow us to get a better situational awareness and to protect our (EU) western approaches and air corridors from idiots in bears with no transponders flying through airspace used by 1800 commercial flights and tens of thousands of EU and US citizens a day.

Yeah, but those Bears are not a threat - they're monitored as soon as they depart Engels, they don't carry any outward ordinance and they broadcast in the clear.

Plus even if we procured 20 squadrons of fast jets would that stop them?

The Yanks have the most advanced air force in the world, the best radar coverage and a robust approach to dealing with incursions - and it doesn't stop the Russians giving them a poke around Alaska and the Aleutians (and even California) every now and again so what makes people think they'd stop the flights just because Paddy gets a few jets.

Plus there's the cost of developing and maintaining a QRF capacity - you'd need at least 24 jets and 2 or 3 tankers. There's no point in having only a part time response or not having the capacity to stay on station with them if they do arrive into air space controlled by Ireland.

Morpheus

other countries might disagree, slovakians and czechs dont have tankers.

amen

The Tuploves were a threat. Not because they had onboard weapons (the nuclear warhead aside, even inactive it poses a significant risk), but because radar wouldn't see them and a plane just plow right into them.

They may not appear on secondary radar but they do appear on primary radar plus I'm sure the TUs have a good idea of where every commercial plane around them is. The Russians nor the TU pilots want to crash into a commercial airliner.

IrishTrajan

amen wrote: »

They may not appear on secondary radar but they do appear on primary radar plus I'm sure the TUs have a good idea of where every commercial plane around them is. The Russians nor the TU pilots want to crash into a commercial airliner.

Yeah, mechanical failures don't occur and mistakes aren't ever made, and Tupolev have such a great track record.

amen

I don't want to derail the thread but

Yeah, mechanical failures don't occur and mistakes aren't ever made, and Tupolev have such a great track record.

the Russians and the US have been doing this for the last 50 years. No accidents yet.

they also seem to fly well away from commercial traffic (at least no reports that they are near commercial traffic).

Ren2k7

amen wrote: »

I don't want to derail the thread but


the Russians and the US have been doing this for the last 50 years. No accidents yet.

they also seem to fly well away from commercial traffic (at least no reports that they are near commercial traffic).

Russian bombers were flying down the West Coast of Ireland, which lies slap bang in the middle of the North Atlantic air traffic corridor linking North America and Europe. Hundreds of flights cross Ireland each day between the two continents.

Jawgap

Morpheus wrote: »

other countries might disagree, slovakians and czechs dont have tankers.

It's true they don't but the threats they face are different. They are landlocked and don't have several million cubic miles of oceanic airspace to worry about.

As I mentioned in an earlier post - if I'm a Bear driver and a couple of Irish jets pull along side all I have to do is head west for about 20 minutes - unless the jets are supported by a tanker they'll quickly hit 'bingo' fuel (especially if they launched and flew at full power) and have to turn for home. Leaving me to do as I please - which includes overfly Irish airspace unless the IAC has another couple of jets on QRF-alert.

woodrow wyatt

Posters here getting their knickers in a twist over Russian planes flying near Ireland in international air space, 100% legal i might add.
Sure you would have a coronary if you took a minute to think about where the Russian submarines could be, on the sea bed in the shannon estuary, of the coast of dublin, who the hell knows where they are at the moment.
The simple fact is Ireland would be wasting money trying to bring its military up to a level where it could defend its self from a enemy which does not exist, who do you think is going to attack Ireland?

IrishTrajan

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Posters here getting their knickers in a twist over Russian planes flying near Ireland in international air space, 100% legal i might add.
Sure you would have a coronary if you took a minute to think about where the Russian submarines could be, on the sea bed in the shannon estuary, of the coast of dublin, who the hell knows where they are at the moment.
The simple fact is Ireland would be wasting money trying to bring its military up to a level where it could defend its self from a enemy which does not exist, who do you think is going to attack Ireland?

IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO WILL ATTACK US, IT'S ABOUT BEING ABLE TO DEFEND OURSELVES. I'm sick of that question. Every god damn person.

It's a matter of principle, and geopolitics change rapidly. If unification with the North comes about in 20-30 years (which is likely, if we get our act together economically), and sectarian conflict kicks up again, what are we to do, ask them nicely to stop because it doesn't fit our neutrality claims?! PEOPLE ARE STILL ALIVE FROM WHEN WE WERE AT THE BRITISH' THROATS.

Giving the Defence Forces greater financial assets, is not merely about trying to fight someone.

Humanitarian intervention in peace-keeping areas. Humanitarian support in places wrecked by natural disasters. Participation in stopping piracy in Nigeria, Asia and Somalia.

It's not just about wanting shiny god damn toys so we can jerk off to fantasies of Celtic Imperialism. It provides a practical god damn purpose.

woodrow wyatt

IrishTrajan wrote: »

IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO WILL ATTACK US, IT'S ABOUT BEING ABLE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..

So who is going to attack ireland?

Captain Chaos

If the Russians wanted to they could fly Bear bombers in race track formations around Dublin all day, every day of the week and there is nothing we can do about it. Telling them to stop would be about it. The reason they don't cross into our 12 mile radius airspace is just pure respect.

IrishTrajan

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

So who is going to attack ireland?

(^:

I guess we should just scrap the Defence Forces in its entirety, right?

Just give the guns and ships to the Gardai, then tell the 10,000-odd people in the Army to feck off, right?

BoJack Horseman

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

So who is going to attack ireland?

Thought you were banned?

The point of a military is that you hopefully never need to use it, as any potential aggressor is deterred.

Questions of "who is" are immaterial as asking for next weeks lottery numbers.

And besides, you can't be neutral if you don't possess the means to defend that neutrality (which is why Ireland isn't).

woodrow wyatt

IrishTrajan wrote: »

(^:

I guess we should just scrap the Defence Forces in its entirety, right?

Just give the guns and ships to the Gardai, then tell the 10,000-odd people in the Army to feck off, right?

Dont be silly, of course ireland should have armed forces, but some here want to spend lots of money to fight a treat that does not exist.
They are adequate for what is required, just a small increase in the Navy for policing fishing rights and drug smuggling.

woodrow wyatt

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Thought you were banned?

The point of a military is that you hopefully never need to use it, as any potential aggressor is deterred.

Who is this potential aggressor?
There is not one country on earth who is going to attack Ireland.
The bogeyman you fear is only in your imagination.

Jawgap

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

So who is going to attack ireland?

Militaries are not just about attack and defence - they are about contingencies.

IrishTrajan

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Dont be silly, of course ireland should have armed forces, but some here want to spend lots of money to fight a treat that does not exist.
They are adequate for what is required, just a small increase in the Navy for policing fishing rights and drug smuggling.

You argue against increasing spending, but want to increase spending... What?

A "small increase" in spending won't give the Navy much else. Each OPV costs €50 million. Buying one or two of them would require we increase the Defence Budget by €50-€100 million for capital purchase, and then renovate the docks to hold more ships, and having to recruit and train the manpower, and increase the logistic support group that would plan and provide for those new ships, and then you'd have to pay for the yearly maintenance of the ship, and the new wages. So, yes, a "small" increase in spending isn't likely to yield any benefits.

Tell you what. You pinpoint exactly how much of an increase we would need, verify those figures, write it down, double check it and check it again, then ask yourself... "how many hospital beds could that buy?" and then throw it into the bin.

But, of course, you know better than people who have vested interests in the military and the Defence Forces. Silly me.

IrishTrajan

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Who is this potential aggressor?
There is not one country on earth who is going to attack Ireland.
The bogeyman you fear is only in your imagination.

Why do you just ignore my point about the humanitarian aspects of the Defence Forces?

Also, who is the aggressor? Russia.

We are a contributor to the Nordic Battlegroup, which is headed by Sweden (another neutral nation, mind you). Our contribution is 100 men, largely in EOD.

Now, ask yourself. If Sweden and Finland, two historically neutral nations (neither of whom are in NATO), are worried about Russia, and are willing to actually go out of their way to request the formation of a Scandinavian Joint Force, and if Norway is desperately asking NATO to train more in Norway, in fear of Russian aggression, why do you think you know better than them?

If Russia attacks them, and kills the hundred odd Irish in that battlegroup, should we just bat our eye lids and say "Sorry, guys, but you shouldn't have been in the Defence Forces in friendly nations"? Do we stick our thumbs up our asses and cry "Neutrality! Neutrality!"?

It's a good thing you're not a policy maker, my friend, because you're bloody clueless as to the realities of geo-politics.

BoJack Horseman

What would opinions be of the BAE Hawk aircraft?



A trainer jet that is still used as a fighter.

Modest in capability, but cheap to purchase & maintain.

Perhaps a more politically acceptable choice than the more modern Typhoons & Gripens of the world.

Ren2k7

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Posters here getting their knickers in a twist over Russian planes flying near Ireland in international air space, 100% legal i might add.
Sure you would have a coronary if you took a minute to think about where the Russian submarines could be, on the sea bed in the shannon estuary, of the coast of dublin, who the hell knows where they are at the moment.
The simple fact is Ireland would be wasting money trying to bring its military up to a level where it could defend its self from a enemy which does not exist, who do you think is going to attack Ireland?

Yeah, sovereignty and national defence are such ridiculous concepts. But if it was the Yanks flying nuclear armed bombers through Irish controlled airspace and it would be all hands to battle stations from our resident Russia apologist. Are you a Trot by any chance?

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

So who is going to attack ireland?

The ways things are going? Probably Russia within the next 20-30 years, perhaps even sooner.

Ren2k7

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What would opinions be of the BAE Hawk aircraft?



A trainer jet that is still used as a fighter.

Modest in capability, but cheap to purchase & maintain.

Perhaps a more politically acceptable choice than the more modern Typhoons & Gripens of the world.

I like it, it has similar capabilities to other light attack aircraft and doesn't cost a fortune. And we could enter into a quid pro quo with the Brits were they train our Air Corp on their Hawks in return for us training their troops in peacekeeping duties. They can keep their outdated gear.

The only problem I would have with the Hawk though is it's getting on a bit. Any Hawks we acquire would probably need refurbishment done on them, pushing up costs.