2%

Boreas

According to the IMF Ireland's GDP is €232 billion. The NATO guide line/requirement for military spending by its member states is 2%. Obviously Ireland isn't a NATO member and is unlikely to become one, even if it was, only 3 or 4 NATO countries actually spend 2% of GDP on their military, but I was wondering if military spending was at 2% would it even be possible for the DF to spend so much money?

The current Defence Forces budget is less that €900 million, 2% of GDP would mean over €3.5 billion a year in extra spending. Now I'm sure they could spend that in the first year, say 6 new ships for the Navy at €200 million each, replace/expand the fixed wing and helicopter fleet for the Air Corps, extra Mowags or maybe CV90's for the Army etc. and I assume there are infrastructure improvements needed in Haulbowline and that sort of thing, but what then?

I suppose this is waltering but short of buying aircraft carriers is there any way the Irish military could realistically spend so much extra money every year?

Ren2k7

It's unlikely Ireland would ever spend 2% of the nation's GDP on defence, the Irish Government is struggling to hit even 1%.

In 2014 Ireland's GDP was approximately €183 billion, while defence spending was €897 million, working out at 0.48% of GDP. Pitiful right. But this figure of €897 million also includes DF pensions, something which is often the responsibility of other government depts. In the US they don't include veterans pensions when calculating their defence budget. So when we strip out DF pensions (which comes in at €225 million) we are left with actual defence spending of just under €672 million, a defence to GDP ratio of 0.36%. Disgraceful stuff.

Source: http://databank.per.gov.ie/Expenditure.aspx?rep=GrossVGT

Boreas

I agree with you that the current level of spending is much too low. As I think you said on another thread Ireland isn't a poor country (in the grand scheme of things) and we have a responsibility to take a larger roll in international affairs. I would like that to be in the context of an EU which acts more independently of the USA.

I also think we should be, and we are to some extent, working more closely with the UK. As an example we could have an agreement where Ireland provided maritime patrol for the whole of the British Isles, using something like the Boeing/Bombardier CL-605 MSA, and the UK provided air defence for both countries. If we bought two Type-26 frigates maybe some of the subsystems could be made in Ireland and a production run of 15 rather than 13 might help to bring down the unit price.

Anyway I'm just fantasying now

sparky42

Boreas wrote: »

I agree with you that the current level of spending is much too low. As I think you said on another thread Ireland isn't a poor country (in the grand scheme of things) and we have a responsibility to take a larger roll in international affairs. I would like that to be in the context of an EU which acts more independently of the USA.

I also think we should be, and we are to some extent, working more closely with the UK. As an example we could have an agreement where Ireland provided maritime patrol for the whole of the British Isles, using something like the Boeing/Bombardier CL-605 MSA, and the UK provided air defence for both countries. If we bought two Type-26 frigates maybe some of the subsystems could be made in Ireland and a production run of 15 rather than 13 might help to bring down the unit price.

Anyway I'm just fantasying now

The 26's seem to be heading head long into another classic BAE feck up of Project Management, even if we had 2% you'd be talking about a major expense bare in mind one of the accounting tricks the UK is using is sinking the development of some of the systems into the 23 upgrade program and then planning to pull them out and fit the 26's with them, any hulls more then 13 the RN has is going to have to pay upfront costs for the SAM system, radar, sonar if fitted... I think that's why the touted exports have fallen off.

And the RN would NEVER allow Ireland to take over the MPA role, they are EXTREMELY pissed still that the Nimrod's got canned and are pushing hard for P8's to replace them, they see it as vital to sanitise the SSBN routes in and out of the base. They would never trust Ireland to handle discouraging the Russians from trying to detect the SSBN's.

And given the possible hatchet that may fall on the MOD budget, I can already see the complaints if the RAF was committed to Irish patrols (not too mention the domestic BS if we allowed a detachment to base out of an Irish airport)

Ren2k7

Boreas wrote: »

I agree with you that the current level of spending is much too low. As I think you said on another thread Ireland isn't a poor country (in the grand scheme of things) and we have a responsibility to take a larger roll in international affairs. I would like that to be in the context of an EU which acts more independently of the USA.

I also think we should be, and we are to some extent, working more closely with the UK. As an example we could have an agreement where Ireland provided maritime patrol for the whole of the British Isles, using something like the Boeing/Bombardier CL-605 MSA, and the UK provided air defence for both countries. If we bought two Type-26 frigates maybe some of the subsystems could be made in Ireland and a production run of 15 rather than 13 might help to bring down the unit price.

Anyway I'm just fantasying now

I would prefer a more integrated European defence arrangement rather than a mere Ireland-UK military agreement. Certainly the establishment of a European Border Corps is greatly needed, a unified military force under the direct command of the European Union (and not a intergovernmental mess like the current European defence treaties) that would police the Mediterranean and EU land borders.

Long term the EU will need to establish a single European Armed Forces, with state militaries acting as like the National Guards of US states, answerable to member states governments but could be placed under direct EU authority in the event of a crisis or war.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I would prefer a more integrated European defence arrangement rather than a mere Ireland-UK military agreement. Certainly the establishment of a European Border Corps is greatly needed, a unified military force under the direct command of the European Union (and not a intergovernmental mess like the current European defence treaties) that would police the Mediterranean and EU land borders.

Long term the EU will need to establish a single European Armed Forces, with state militaries acting as like the National Guards of US states, answerable to member states governments but could be placed under direct EU authority in the event of a crisis or war.

Short of WW3, there is no way we'll live to see such an integration. The last 40 odd years of European Joint projects are stunning examples of how European nations can't even get agreement on hardware developments, getting a unified C&C, with a complete Foreign policy integration? Even if the EU further integrated that's still a huge ask. Just look at how Germany had zero interest in the Libyian intervention, right now the Eastern nations are beggin for more support due to Russia, while the Western nations are dodging that as much as possible.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Short of WW3, there is no way we'll live to see such an integration. The last 40 odd years of European Joint projects are stunning examples of how European nations can't even get agreement on hardware developments, getting a unified C&C, with a complete Foreign policy integration? Even if the EU further integrated that's still a huge ask. Just look at how Germany had zero interest in the Libyian intervention, right now the Eastern nations are beggin for more support due to Russia, while the Western nations are dodging that as much as possible.

With increased Russian belligerence we'll likely see increased military cooperation. Look at how far the EU has come, from a simple trade association to a de facto confederation today with its own currency, foreign ministry+overseas embassies, directly elected legislature, amongst others. It's not a matter of if there will ever be a federal armed force but when.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

With increased Russian belligerence we'll likely see increased military cooperation. Look at how far the EU has come, from a simple trade association to a de facto confederation today with its own currency, foreign ministry+overseas embassies, directly elected legislature, amongst others. It's not a matter of if there will ever be a federal armed force but when.

Not until the EU actually becomes a fully integrated Federal Super State, ie the United States of Europe. Until that happens (and bare in mind they couldn't even get a "constitution" passed) the nations will retain diplomatic and military goverance within themselves, France is not going to send it's navy to the Falklands for the UK for example. With the rise of anti-EU feeling in many nations you are talking generations still (and most likely the UK at least walking away).

Why do you think the Eastern EU nations want US bases on their territory? Because right now they think the Western EU nations would throw them under Vlad's bus in a heartbeat if he turned off the Gas. Hell France is still trying to play both sides with the Mistral deal while Vlad is still being aggressive, the EU's sanctions had to be drawn kicking and screaming from some of the nations (again even the eastern nations that were most likely to be hurt were calling for it, while the Western ones (including the UK were trying to go "Softly").

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Not until the EU actually becomes a fully integrated Federal Super State, ie the United States of Europe. Until that happens (and bare in mind they couldn't even get a "constitution" passed) the nations will retain diplomatic and military goverance within themselves, France is not going to send it's navy to the Falklands for the UK for example. With the rise of anti-EU feeling in many nations you are talking generations still (and most likely the UK at least walking away).

Why do you think the Eastern EU nations want US bases on their territory? Because right now they think the Western EU nations would throw them under Vlad's bus in a heartbeat if he turned off the Gas. Hell France is still trying to play both sides with the Mistral deal while Vlad is still being aggressive, the EU's sanctions had to be drawn kicking and screaming from some of the nations (again even the eastern nations that were most likely to be hurt were calling for it, while the Western ones (including the UK were trying to go "Softly").

While all of that is certainly true at present that won't always be the case. Once upon a time Britain and France were mortal enemies, now they are sharing aircraft carriers with each other. The empty words of the ideologically bankrupt Euroskeptics are a flash in the pan, they cannot prevent further EU integration.

As for Britain they will break apart in the next 20 years as will Spain given greater secession movements across Europe, all because small to medium sized regions like Scotland and Catalonia wisely understand that they no longer need to be hitched to a larger neighbour in order to attain security and economic prosperity, not when they can be part of the EU in their own right, representing themselves and gaining all the benefits that go with being part of a federalised Europe.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

While all of that is certainly true at present that won't always be the case. Once upon a time Britain and France were mortal enemies, now they are sharing aircraft carriers with each other. The empty words of the ideologically bankrupt Euroskeptics are a flash in the pan, they cannot prevent further EU integration.

As for Britain they will break apart in the next 20 years as will Spain given greater secession movements across Europe, all because small to medium sized regions like Scotland and Catalonia wisely understand that they no longer need to be hitched to a larger neighbour in order to attain security and economic prosperity, not when they can be part of the EU in their own right, representing themselves and gaining all the benefits that go with being part of a federalised Europe.

I think you are significantly over estimating the level of cooperation between France and the UK, the "sharing" the aircraft carrier is more a statment then anything else, consider its the USN that the RN is using to try and train up for the QE's. And with the STVOL variant selected you've got no ability to cross deck the Rafale's, though how long the French hang on to the CdeG is another question, she's been a dead weight since she went into service.

If you have more individual nations you'll have an even more divided defence situation. Scotland for example means that England has to regenerate Warship production as they aren't going to build in Scotland, Scotland won't have the budget for building the high end ships like the 26 or 45.

Even if you unify the EU in a way that the majority of voters still don't want, you are then asking for people to be made unemployed by trying to unify the procurement (for example think of the different Amphibs that are currently around, if they were unified you'd only need 1 design team, so all the high value jobs are gone, that's a voting third rail for any nation, not too mention there's still going to be elements of nationalism (I'm not buying X countries, I'm making my own).

As I've said, this has been tried over and over and over from small arms to Frigates and it falls apart each time more often than not, and even when it doesn't fall apart it's late and over priced, the list is truly epic.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

I think you are significantly over estimating the level of cooperation between France and the UK, the "sharing" the aircraft carrier is more a statment then anything else, consider its the USN that the RN is using to try and train up for the QE's. And with the STVOL variant selected you've got no ability to cross deck the Rafale's, though how long the French hang on to the CdeG is another question, she's been a dead weight since she went into service.

If you have more individual nations you'll have an even more divided defence situation. Scotland for example means that England has to regenerate Warship production as they aren't going to build in Scotland, Scotland won't have the budget for building the high end ships like the 26 or 45.

Even if you unify the EU in a way that the majority of voters still don't want, you are then asking for people to be made unemployed by trying to unify the procurement (for example think of the different Amphibs that are currently around, if they were unified you'd only need 1 design team, so all the high value jobs are gone, that's a voting third rail for any nation, not too mention there's still going to be elements of nationalism (I'm not buying X countries, I'm making my own).

As I've said, this has been tried over and over and over from small arms to Frigates and it falls apart each time more often than not, and even when it doesn't fall apart it's late and over priced, the list is truly epic.

There'll be no need for Scotland to acquire high end frigates and destroyers, just what is necessary for their own needs, just like we don't buy Aegis equipped vessels. But of course in a federal Europe it wouldn't be a Scottish Naval Service buying destroyers it would be a hypothetical EU Navy. And just like at present where Scottish shipyards are constructing RN vessels so too is it quite possible Scottish shipyards would build aircraft carriers for a European Navy. The Act of Union was very lucrative for Scottish industry. Less so for Ireland but that's a different story altogether.

Look at defence procurement in the States where Congress ensures defence procurement is spread across as many states as possible, ditto for NASA contractors where the Space Shuttle had a supply chain in nearly all 50 states. Airbus is an example of such an approach where aircraft parts are constructed across the EU before being sent to Toulon to be assembled.

In any case you are correct when you say the vast majority of people don't want a US of E. But not because of any fear over losing defence jobs. In truth most Europeans (baring perhaps Britain and France) don't care all that much about their military, hence why the US spends 4.5% of its GDP on defence while the EU spends 1.5%. If the EU committed the same level of spending towards a unified EU Armed Forces at 4.5% there's no doubt that shipyards and armament factories across the Union would be booming.

Boreas

sparky42 wrote: »

The 26's seem to be heading head long into another classic BAE feck up of Project Management, even if we had 2% you'd be talking about a major expense bare in mind one of the accounting tricks the UK is using is sinking the development of some of the systems into the 23 upgrade program and then planning to pull them out and fit the 26's with them, any hulls more then 13 the RN has is going to have to pay upfront costs for the SAM system, radar, sonar if fitted... I think that's why the touted exports have fallen off.

You might know the answer to this. Given the existence of multiple modern frigate designs in Europe, Franco-Italian FREMM, Spanish F100 class, Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class, German Sachsen class, was any consideration given by the British government to just licence building one of those designs? Are the RN requirements very different or was it just a political decision or a desire to retain specialist ship design skills/jobs in the UK?

Boreas

Ren2k7 wrote: »

the US spends 4.5% of its GDP on defence while the EU spends 1.5%. If the EU committed the same level of spending towards a unified EU Armed Forces at 4.5% there's no doubt that shipyards and armament factories across the Union would be booming.

This kind of touches on my original question. If the EU could somehow agree to spend that percentage on a common military that would mean something like an additional €450 billion every year. Could the EU military structure absorb that much spending? What would it mean in real terms, a dozen carrier battle groups? Replacing every fighter/attack jet over 20 years old? There are already 1.5 million service people in the EU would there by any need to increase that number?

As with an extra €3.5 billion for the DF what would actually be done with such large amounts of extra spending?

BoJack Horseman

Boreas wrote: »

This kind of touches on my original question. If the EU could somehow agree to spend that percentage on a common military that would mean something like an additional €450 billion every year. Could the EU military structure absorb that much spending?

You would imagine the price inflation would be considerable.

That said, it could be absorbed, if not on the procurement side.

Europe has spent 2 decades disarming itself.
It would take a while for all that cash to bring Europe back to fighting strength.

Plus, R&D is very cash intensive.
Future projects like: anti-satellite weaponry, ABM, energy weapons, rail-gun technology, fuel tech, communications, internet defence..... etc etc.... Massively costly.

I think after a while it could be absorbed & if anything a huge benefit to the science & engineering sectors.

Ren2k7

Boreas wrote: »

This kind of touches on my original question. If the EU could somehow agree to spend that percentage on a common military that would mean something like an additional €450 billion every year. Could the EU military structure absorb that much spending? What would it mean in real terms, a dozen carrier battle groups? Replacing every fighter/attack jet over 20 years old? There are already 1.5 million service people in the EU would there by any need to increase that number?

I couldn't imagine the EU as a whole spending over €450 billion per annum. Any increase in EU spending on defence (ie, funding coming directly from the Union budget) would be offset with a reduction in spending by member states. No need for Ireland to maintain a costly naval presence in the Atlantic if a hypothetical EU Navy were to undertake such a role.

But I accept there's little chance of a unified EU defence establishment any time soon which leads me on to my next point.....

Boreas wrote: »

As with an extra €3.5 billion for the DF what would actually be done with such large amounts of extra spending?

...that Ireland should be spending roughly €3 billion a year on defence in order to provide a credible deterrence. For such an amount I would expect:

Army:

• The reactivation of the 4th Western Brigade.
• Dump the Scorpions and replace them with 30 MOWAG's with the 105mm cannon, 10 assigned to each brigade.
• Acquire another 100 MOWAG's to shift the brigades away from a light infantry stance towards a more mechanised infantry role.

Air Corps:

• Acquire 12 Grippens for air policing role
• Acquire 2 A400M's for troop deployment on UN ops. One for continuous standby and the other training, with roles switching every 6-12 months
• Increase the number of CASA's to 4 for enhanced maritime surveillance.
• Double the number of AW139's to 12, two retained for air ambulance role, the other 10 for military exercises and operations
• Three NH90 helicopters for operations at sea in tandem with the Naval Service's Helicopter Patrol Vessels
• A second Learjet exclusively for international air ambulance transfer services
• The Air Corps should be responsible for air defence in Ireland, operating radar installations and manning anti-aircraft missile batteries

Naval Service:

• A one-for-one replacement of the Eithne and Peacocks with three helicopter patrol vessels
• Put out to tender for a further three Beckett-class OPV's
• One Absalon-class support ship
• One EPV

Total Fleet:

• Six Beckett-class vessels
• Three Helicopter patrol vessels
• Two Róisín-class vessels
• Absalon-class support vessel
• Extended Patrol Vessel

sparky42

Don't think anyone that hasn't already bought the NH 90, will buy it, those things have an appalling record from Europe to Australia with a range of issues. Seahawks, or Super Cougar would be a better bet then 90 while delivering the capabilities IMO.

As to the rest of your list, as I've said before you are ignoring the fairly significant capital investment needed in facilities to support that (Baldonnel for example would need to be rebuilt (or as I'd expect noise complaints from running jets there moved).

As for the A400, unless we could get some from those Germany doesn't want I'd say they will be too expensive for their relatively limited usage (not too mention you then get into the questions of which spec as all the major partners are getting different equipment fits). Don't know why you'd go for an Absalon and an EPV, the Absalon (or something like it) was in the rumour mill back in 08 from memory.

Larbre34

Boreas wrote: »

You might know the answer to this. Given the existence of multiple modern frigate designs in Europe, Franco-Italian FREMM, Spanish F100 class, Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class, German Sachsen class, was any consideration given by the British government to just licence building one of those designs? Are the RN requirements very different or was it just a political decision or a desire to retain specialist ship design skills/jobs in the UK?

Both. Political considerations are huge, jobs and the strong tradition. However Britain prides itself on having a decent blue water fleet as a leading NATO member, so its design requirements can tend to be more demanding.

Britain was a member of the Horizon-class destroyer project but pulled out as they required a larger more robust design and did the Type 45/Daring class on their own. The British version was 30% more expensive.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Don't think anyone that hasn't already bought the NH 90, will buy it, those things have an appalling record from Europe to Australia with a range of issues. Seahawks, or Super Cougar would be a better bet then 90 while delivering the capabilities IMO.

Many of the initial problems have been corrected with many countries expressing satisfaction with the performance of the helicopter.

sparky42 wrote: »

As to the rest of your list, as I've said before you are ignoring the fairly significant capital investment needed in facilities to support that (Baldonnel for example would need to be rebuilt (or as I'd expect noise complaints from running jets there moved).

So wait, you're now arguing AGAINST Gripens for the Irish Air Corps? :rolleyes:

And no, I'm not ignoring the much needed investment in DF facilities in Ireland which everyone will know are a complete shambles that need major works to bring them up to a decent standard. Also I never mentioned the timescale for any of this, obviously any increase in defence spending would take place over many years.

sparky42 wrote: »

As for the A400, unless we could get some from those Germany doesn't want I'd say they will be too expensive for their relatively limited usage (not too mention you then get into the questions of which spec as all the major partners are getting different equipment fits). Don't know why you'd go for an Absalon and an EPV, the Absalon (or something like it) was in the rumour mill back in 08 from memory.

A single A400M costs about €100 million, the same as two Beckett class vessels, that provides a high degree of heavy lift capabilities that the Irish Defence Forces is in need of given its overseas UN commitments. A defence spend of €3.5 billion a year, along with funding from the government's capital budget would allow for such an acquisition.

Though if that's still too expensive then there's always the option of buying more CASA's. Though the Irish Air Corps would need six CN-235's just to match the payload capacity of the A400M. Given the future needs of the DF increased heavy lift capabilities will eventually have to be pursued.

As for the Absalon it was shown some interest in by the DF some years back and as a support vessel would provide the NS with a level of operational capabilities that would greatly enhance our forces.

Ireland will start needing frigates and heavy lift transporters if we are have a military that isn't a complete embarrassment. If we are going to claim to be a neutral power let's start acting like one instead of quietly expecting the English to come riding to our rescue.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Many of the initial problems have been corrected with many countries expressing satisfaction with the performance of the helicopter.

No the helicopter is still in major difficulties, Germany had a recent fleet wide stand down as they nearly lost a fully loaded one to engine fire. They've created a stop gap solution while they've force the company to take the fleet back to install a permant solution. They are also restricted from operations above a certain latitude currently in German service (think it's anything above the North Sea). They are still suffering significant coresion issues both in Europe and Australia.

So to be honest even though Germany is trying to flog off 20 they still have on order I think they are going to struggle to get interest.

So wait, you're now arguing AGAINST Gripens for the Irish Air Corps? :rolleyes:

And no, I'm not ignoring the much needed investment in DF facilities in Ireland which everyone will know are a complete shambles that need major works to bring them up to a decent standard. Also I never mentioned the timescale for any of this, obviously any increase in defence spending would take place over many years.

No I'm not against developing the ability to patrol our own airspace at all, (don't forget we'd need a jet lead in trainer to sit between the PC9 and the Gripen). But yeah even just building up the supplies, personnel and ground works for such an expansion would be a fairly significant investment. And lets be honest I'm just pointing out that the D4 types might not be too welcoming of the noise (I've been in Scotland when the RAF were doing training with the Harriers for Bosnia).

A single A400M costs about €100 million, the same as two Beckett class vessels, that provides a high degree of heavy lift capabilities that the Irish Defence Forces is in need of given its overseas UN commitments. A defence spend of €3.5 billion a year, along with funding from the government's capital budget would allow for such an acquisition.

Though if that's still too expensive then there's always the option of buying more CASA's. Though the Irish Air Corps would need six CN-235's just to match the payload capacity of the A400M. Given the future needs of the DF increased heavy lift capabilities will eventually have to be pursued.

As for the Absalon it was shown some interest in by the DF some years back and as a support vessel would provide the NS with a level of operational capabilities that would greatly enhance our forces.

Ireland will start needing frigates and heavy lift transporters if we are have a military that isn't a complete embarrassment. If we are going to claim to be a neutral power let's start acting like one instead of quietly expecting the English to come riding to our rescue.

It's actually about 150 million in 2013, one of the questions about such an investment is the life cycle supports (would we for example go with the RAF spec and leverage off their support structure, as it wouldn't make sense to develop that for just two birds). And of course to make sense we'd have to step up our Humantrian operations (still have zero idea why we as a nation don't have a disaster response team for supporting nations like Napal right now, but that's another question). Honestly since we aren't involved in building the A400, I'd look at the C 130J, wider customer base, and the US is going to continue investing in the platform and about 50 million cheaper than the 400.

Honestly, the first thing would be maybe sit down with the rest of the Nordic Battlegroup and see what they would like to see us invest in for joint operations (the Swedes from memory have compalined before about the other members not investing enough). Maybe even see what their future procurements are to see if there's any synergy.

Boreas

Just for reference if Ireland moved to the EU average of 1.5% over a ten year period the figures would look like this -

Current 0.39% €885
Year 1 0.501% 1137
Year 2 0.612% 1389
Year 3 0.723% 1641
Year 4 0.834% 1893
Year 5 0.945% 2144
Year 6 1.056% 2396
Year 7 1.167% 2648
Year 8 1.278% 2900
Year 9 1.389% 3152
Year 10 1.5% 3404
Total 22704
Excess 13854


So almost €14 billion above current spending over the full ten years.

After that spending would be €3.4 billion every year.

If we went to the NATO 2% level it would be €20 billion over the ten years and then €4.5 every year.

All those figures assume flat GDP but current forecasts show rising GDP so the actual figures would be higher.

The Defense News website had a story today saying the new Finnish government are planing to increase their spending partly because they are neutral and not in NATO. Mainly because of Putin of course. Unlikely to inspire he Irish government I suppose.

sparky42

Course it goes without saying that there's aso th fact that the personnel count would be increased eating into some of that budget.

Yeah I wish we as a nation took the position of being able to actually enforce our neutrality, but that's never been the case.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

No the helicopter is still in major difficulties, Germany had a recent fleet wide stand down as they nearly lost a fully loaded one to engine fire. They've created a stop gap solution while they've force the company to take the fleet back to install a permant solution. They are also restricted from operations above a certain latitude currently in German service (think it's anything above the North Sea). They are still suffering significant coresion issues both in Europe and Australia.

So to be honest even though Germany is trying to flog off 20 they still have on order I think they are going to struggle to get interest.

While the Germans have had issues others have praised it, with France ordering more.

sparky42 wrote: »

No I'm not against developing the ability to patrol our own airspace at all, (don't forget we'd need a jet lead in trainer to sit between the PC9 and the Gripen). But yeah even just building up the supplies, personnel and ground works for such an expansion would be a fairly significant investment. And lets be honest I'm just pointing out that the D4 types might not be too welcoming of the noise (I've been in Scotland when the RAF were doing training with the Harriers for Bosnia).

Given Dublin's encroachment onto Baldonnel I'd rather see a custom built air base well outside the Dublin metro region. In fact it makes sense to have a few air stations rather than just the one. Same with naval installations where the NS just uses a single base for its vessels. These things don't come cheap but a gradual capital investment programme spread over 10-15 years would allow the state to upgrade military assets while not bankrupting the country.

sparky42 wrote: »

It's actually about 150 million in 2013, one of the questions about such an investment is the life cycle supports (would we for example go with the RAF spec and leverage off their support structure, as it wouldn't make sense to develop that for just two birds). And of course to make sense we'd have to step up our Humantrian operations (still have zero idea why we as a nation don't have a disaster response team for supporting nations like Napal right now, but that's another question). Honestly since we aren't involved in building the A400, I'd look at the C 130J, wider customer base, and the US is going to continue investing in the platform and about 50 million cheaper than the 400.

Firstly the cost of the A400M is between €100-150 million, depending on the order (presumably buying in bulk like the French and Germans lowers cost). The C-130J is about $100-120 million (higher if you include logistics, maintenance and training) so it's not that much better when you consider the capacity of the A400M is nearly double that of the C-130J. But given that both Spain and Germany are trying to sell some of its surplus inventory there is an opportunity for Ireland to step in. We should at least explore the possibility of leasing two aircraft as an alternative to buying them.

sparky42 wrote: »

Honestly, the first thing would be maybe sit down with the rest of the Nordic Battlegroup and see what they would like to see us invest in for joint operations (the Swedes from memory have compalined before about the other members not investing enough). Maybe even see what their future procurements are to see if there's any synergy.

Is there even any point in the Battlegroups? When was the last time the Nordic group was deployed?

IrishTrajan

A little late to the party, but w/e.

My idea for the Irish military would require a complete overhaul of its capabilities and its MO. Rather than sitting on our thumbs, we should actively seek to strengthen ties with other Anglosphere members (before someone calls me a West Brit, we are English speaking and we have strong cultural, economic, political and familial affinities with the US, UK, Canada and Australia). I would recommend opening a military alliance, separate from NATO or the EU with the UK. This would give us de facto access to NATO's defences, with our only obligation being our commitment to the UK in case of them going to war. Our faith is inextricably linked to theirs anyway, considering our cultural, economic and political ties.

I would also like to recommend that we actively engage in... less than honourable measures. Such as, buying large quantities of weapons and ammunition, and the stockpiling of funds to allow us to arm, fund and maintain a moderate sized (400-600 men) militant group to allow us to exert political pressure in unstable regions. So long as the group is secularist, I believe it would allow us a greater ability to influence regional politics and end any extremist groups quickly and effectively. Armed with stuff like humvees, GPMGs, small arms, explosives, body armour.


Army:
- Increase active strength to 9000
- Increase the size of the Reserves to a 1:1 parity with the Army, forcing those in receipt of welfare (170,000 people) to serve 30 days minimum per year in the reserves. Those deemed physically unfit for frontline operations can serve in logistics or such other non-combat arms branch. Those who choose not to serve can take a reduced welfare payment instead. This will increase the Reserves by roughly 15,000 per month.
- Invest in more Piranha IIIs, and allow the Reserves and PDF to operate them
- Invest in artillery pieces to serve as the Irish contribution to any European/Allied requirements
- If budget permits, invest in an Armoured Battalion for deployments overseas

Air Corps:
- Acquire the infrastructure to operate properly in its Aid to the State responsibility
- Invest in several fast jets. Maybe two dozen F-16Ds or F18E/Fs for use in protecting the State's airspace. Allow for up to 4 to be deployed outside the State for multilateral or unilateral actions.
- Invest in more helicopters for the military to engage in emergency actions, such as A&E transport, SAR etc.
- Invest in 2 A400s for Strategic Airlift


Naval Service:
- Replace the OPVs with Beckett-class OPVs
- Invest in three to four missile-frigates (Fridtjof Nansen-class?)
- One should operate with Britain whenever possible
- One should provide Ireland with unilateral strike action against militant groups, such as Boko Haram or ISIS.
- Invest in a MRV or EPV for use in humanitarian missions.
- Purchase two (if funding permits, three) SSK to allow Ireland an active deterrent to ensure Atlantic tradelanes stay open during any.
- If three are acquired, one may be positioned in the Gulf alongside British ships to ensure the neutrality of the sea.

Larbre34

Unilateral strike action again ISIS? Well that should surprise the heck out of them!

Dont forget the tankers for the fighter bombers and NATO membership to secure overfly rights.

Frankly we'd be doing well if we could patrol and respond to threats in our airspace and economic zone, and have a proper multi role presence the millions of square kilometres of sea for which we are responsible

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

A little late to the party, but w/e.

My idea for the Irish military would require a complete overhaul of its capabilities and its MO. Rather than sitting on our thumbs, we should actively seek to strengthen ties with other Anglosphere members (before someone calls me a West Brit, we are English speaking and we have strong cultural, economic, political and familial affinities with the US, UK, Canada and Australia). I would recommend opening a military alliance, separate from NATO or the EU with the UK. This would give us de facto access to NATO's defences, with our only obligation being our commitment to the UK in case of them going to war. Our faith is inextricably linked to theirs anyway, considering our cultural, economic and political ties.

Firstly it was British intelligence who assisted loyalist terrorists in their bombings of Dublin and Monaghan. Successive governments here have refused to investigate this atrocity and until we get some answers from London we should be wary of getting too close to them. Remember that in all of Ireland's history we have had just one country that has posed an existential threat to our nation, England, later Britain. If we are to have military alliances let's do it as part of a wider EU defence arrangement.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I would also like to recommend that we actively engage in... less than honourable measures. Such as, buying large quantities of weapons and ammunition, and the stockpiling of funds to allow us to arm, fund and maintain a moderate sized (400-600 men) militant group to allow us to exert political pressure in unstable regions. So long as the group is secularist, I believe it would allow us a greater ability to influence regional politics and end any extremist groups quickly and effectively. Armed with stuff like humvees, GPMGs, small arms, explosives, body armour.

Supporting terrorist groups outside Ireland? :eek:

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Army:
- Increase active strength to 9000
- Increase the size of the Reserves to a 1:1 parity with the Army, forcing those in receipt of welfare (170,000 people) to serve 30 days minimum per year in the reserves. Those deemed physically unfit for frontline operations can serve in logistics or such other non-combat arms branch. Those who choose not to serve can take a reduced welfare payment instead. This will increase the Reserves by roughly 15,000 per month.
- Invest in more Piranha IIIs, and allow the Reserves and PDF to operate them
- Invest in artillery pieces to serve as the Irish contribution to any European/Allied requirements
- If budget permits, invest in an Armoured Battalion for deployments overseas

1:1 parity between the PDF and RDF sounds good. The ground forces should be reorientated away from its light infantry roles towards that of a mechanised infantry force, based around the MOWAG; with an armoured infantry squadron based on the 105mm Piranha III as part of each brigade. The creation of a single air assault brigade, with choppers operated by the Air Corp, should also be explored. We should be looking to increase the number of brigades, first by reactivating the 4th Western, and later adding another brigade. Also the territorial responsibility of each brigade should be scrapped and instead brigades given a specific role instead. So you could have an air assault brigade, mechanised infantry brigade and rapid reaction brigade.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Air Corps:
- Acquire the infrastructure to operate properly in its Aid to the State responsibility
- Invest in several fast jets. Maybe two dozen F-16Ds or F18E/Fs for use in protecting the State's airspace. Allow for up to 4 to be deployed outside the State for multilateral or unilateral actions.
- Invest in more helicopters for the military to engage in emergency actions, such as A&E transport, SAR etc.
- Invest in 2 A400s for Strategic Airlift

Maintaining Super Hornets would be prohibitively expensive with its flight hour cost being $16,000 vs the Gripen at $4,500. More helis and greater airlift capabilities is necessary though. The 2 A400M's should be bought second hand from either Spain or Germany as they're both trying to offload some of their inventory.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Naval Service:
- Replace the OPVs with Beckett-class OPVs
- Invest in three to four missile-frigates (Fridtjof Nansen-class?)
- One should operate with Britain whenever possible
- One should provide Ireland with unilateral strike action against militant groups, such as Boko Haram or ISIS.
- Invest in a MRV or EPV for use in humanitarian missions.
- Purchase two (if funding permits, three) SSK to allow Ireland an active deterrent to ensure Atlantic tradelanes stay open during any.
- If three are acquired, one may be positioned in the Gulf alongside British ships to ensure the neutrality of the sea.

The only problem with this is the huge cost of all this. The Norwegians spend over $7 billion a year on their armed forces, with 5 Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates and yet is struggling to maintain them. We would probably need to spend over 7 billion, maybe even €10 billion, just to maintain the above, well over 4% of our GDP. And I'm not sure what role diesel subs would play as part of our defence strategy.

Though certainly we should acquire more Beckett-class vessels. Ireland should also merge the Coast Guard with the Naval Service (with the helicopter SAR going to the Air Corps) and buy smaller patrol boats like the Royal Navy's Archer-class patrol vessel for inshore protection of our territorial waters and bays, with the rest of the fleet tasked with patrols of the EEZ.

IrishTrajan

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Firstly it was British intelligence who assisted loyalist terrorists in their bombings of Dublin and Monaghan. Successive governments here have refused to investigate this atrocity and until we get some answers from London we should be wary of getting too close to them. Remember that in all of Ireland's history we have had just one country that has posed an existential threat to our nation, England, later Britain. If we are to have military alliances let's do it as part of a wider EU defence arrangement.

And several Irish Government members tried sneaking weapons to the IRA. Some probably succeeded and were never known about. That was then, this is now.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Supporting terrorist groups outside Ireland? :eek:

Not "terrorist" groups. The idea of them is that we can have well-armed, well-trained moderate groups in unstable regions to crush extremists. It's like, would anyone here think arming the Kurdish to fight ISIS a bad idea?

Ren2k7 wrote: »

1:1 parity between the PDF and RDF sounds good. The ground forces should be reorientated away from its light infantry roles towards that of a mechanised infantry force, based around the MOWAG; with an armoured infantry squadron based on the 105mm Piranha III as part of each brigade. The creation of a single air assault brigade, with choppers operated by the Air Corp, should also be explored. We should be looking to increase the number of brigades, first by reactivating the 4th Western, and later adding another brigade. Also the territorial responsibility of each brigade should be scrapped and instead brigades given a specific role instead. So you could have an air assault brigade, mechanised infantry brigade and rapid reaction brigade.

Ireland is a island State. Most of our focus should go towards the Naval Service, with enough Army personnel to provide us with a deterrent. 9-10,000 Active with the same again, or more, in Reserves meets the requirement, I believe.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Maintaining Super Hornets would be prohibitively expensive with its flight hour cost being $16,000 vs the Gripen at $4,500. More helis and greater airlift capabilities is necessary though. The 2 A400M's should be bought second hand from either Spain or Germany as they're both trying to offload some of their inventory.

The Swedish said the Gripen will be outclassed in its role by other fighters around the 2020 mark. Unless we're buying the newer versions, which I'd have no problem with.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The only problem with this is the huge cost of all this. The Norwegians spend over $7 billion a year on their armed forces, with 5 Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates and yet is struggling to maintain them. We would probably need to spend over 7 billion, maybe even €10 billion, just to maintain the above, well over 4% of our GDP. And I'm not sure what role diesel subs would play as part of our defence strategy.

The Norwegians maintain a significantly larger defence force than us. They have 60 F18s I think, and they're buying 52 F35s, with a plethora of other weapons. The Norwegians also only operate enough crew for 2 of their ships at a time, to keep labour costs down.

Yes, these ships would be rather expensive (I think the cost was around the $700 million per ship), but three of them (coming out at $2.13 billion or so) would provide us with an infinitely improved ability to carry out actions against extremist groups.

The submarines would be to allow us a limited at-sea deterrent, something along the lines of what the Portuguese 214s.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Army:
- Increase active strength to 9000
- Increase the size of the Reserves to a 1:1 parity with the Army, forcing those in receipt of welfare (170,000 people) to serve 30 days minimum per year in the reserves. Those deemed physically unfit for frontline operations can serve in logistics or such other non-combat arms branch. Those who choose not to serve can take a reduced welfare payment instead. This will increase the Reserves by roughly 15,000 per month.
- Invest in more Piranha IIIs, and allow the Reserves and PDF to operate them
- Invest in artillery pieces to serve as the Irish contribution to any European/Allied requirements
- If budget permits, invest in an Armoured Battalion for deployments overseas

MBT's I think shouldn't be a priority, even if we did buy a couple of 400s they wouldn't be able to airlift even a Leopard 2,so our ability to deploy would be limited, make much more sense just to incrase the fleet of MOWAG's.

Air Corps:
- Acquire the infrastructure to operate properly in its Aid to the State responsibility
- Invest in several fast jets. Maybe two dozen F-16Ds or F18E/Fs for use in protecting the State's airspace. Allow for up to 4 to be deployed outside the State for multilateral or unilateral actions.
- Invest in more helicopters for the military to engage in emergency actions, such as A&E transport, SAR etc.
- Invest in 2 A400s for Strategic Airlift

Apart from the support costs there's also issues regarding what weapon systems we'd want to deploy with (integrating European weapons onto the US fighters would be costly for example), it would depend on which is cheaper (for example given the missile manufacturing in the North we could keep the money on the island in some cases if we wanted to.

I'd add replacing the 235's when they come due with proper MPA versions of the 295 (proper as in weaponised unlike our 235's), I'd say ideally 6 of them, that way we could join operations like the Piracy patrol or the Med operation that's about to kick off.

Naval Service:
- Replace the OPVs with Beckett-class OPVs
- Invest in three to four missile-frigates (Fridtjof Nansen-class?)
- One should operate with Britain whenever possible
- One should provide Ireland with unilateral strike action against militant groups, such as Boko Haram or ISIS.
- Invest in a MRV or EPV for use in humanitarian missions.
- Purchase two (if funding permits, three) SSK to allow Ireland an active deterrent to ensure Atlantic tradelanes stay open during any.
- If three are acquired, one may be positioned in the Gulf alongside British ships to ensure the neutrality of the sea.

I presume you mean replace the PeacocksEithne with Beckett's?
For the Frigates/MRV/EPV, I'd go the Danish route the Absalon and her half sisters the Iver Huitfeldt class. Play with the numbers maybe but it buys you transports and multi role frigates.

In terms of the SSK's apart from the costs of the hulls (presuming the U 214 it's a billion pretty much for three), building up the knowledge and industrial base to support them would be a significant cost (take a look at how some of the Asian nations are building up their SSK from nothing). Don't think you could sustain them to be honest.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

For the Frigates/MRV/EPV, I'd go the Danish route the Absalon and her half sisters the Iver Huitfeldt class. Play with the numbers maybe but it buys you transports and multi role frigates.

sparky42 wrote: »

Don't know why you'd go for an Absalon and an EPV, the Absalon (or something like it) was in the rumour mill back in 08 from memory.

:rolleyes:

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

And several Irish Government members tried sneaking weapons to the IRA. Some probably succeeded and were never known about. That was then, this is now.

And look at the sh1tstorm that resulted from the Arms Crisis. Personally we should have supported the IRA in the North and provided military training to our people from the Six Counties.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Not "terrorist" groups. The idea of them is that we can have well-armed, well-trained moderate groups in unstable regions to crush extremists. It's like, would anyone here think arming the Kurdish to fight ISIS a bad idea?

We have no reason to be arming Middle East groups. The US can look after all that thanks.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Ireland is a island State. Most of our focus should go towards the Naval Service, with enough Army personnel to provide us with a deterrent. 9-10,000 Active with the same again, or more, in Reserves meets the requirement, I believe.

Britain is also an island state and yet it's land force is the largest component of the British Armed Forces. Air Forces and Navies can't occupy and hold actual territory, troops do.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The Swedish said the Gripen will be outclassed in its role by other fighters around the 2020 mark. Unless we're buying the newer versions, which I'd have no problem with.

The Gripen is already outclassed by 5th Gen fighters, but then an Irish Air Force equipped with Gripens wouldn't be facing off against F-35's or PAK FA's anyway.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The Norwegians maintain a significantly larger defence force than us. They have 60 F18s I think, and they're buying 52 F35s, with a plethora of other weapons. The Norwegians also only operate enough crew for 2 of their ships at a time, to keep labour costs down.

Yes, these ships would be rather expensive (I think the cost was around the $700 million per ship), but three of them (coming out at $2.13 billion or so) would provide us with an infinitely improved ability to carry out actions against extremist groups.

Your wishlist would still cost us billions, and certainly far more than 2% of our GDP.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The submarines would be to allow us a limited at-sea deterrent, something along the lines of what the Portuguese 214s.

There's absolutely no need for a small country like Ireland to be maintaining subs, the Danes realised this and ditched theirs. For some countries like Portugal the retention of a submarine service is largely a holdover from their imperial days. Much like Britain's nuclear deterrent, something that is of no practical military use, denying other branches of the UK's forces much needed resources.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I was talking to IrishTRajan to question why going for the Norwegian design when Denmark has two designs that offer us better value for money with pretty much the same combat capability. And pointing out that you were asking for two different designs to do the same thing. I have no problem with the Absalon, think it would be a great investement for the NS (hell even just the bare bones right now with the potential to add on later.

IrishTrajan

I've nothing better to do...

Ren2k7 wrote: »

And look at the sh1tstorm that resulted from the Arms Crisis. Personally we should have supported the IRA in the North and provided military training to our people from the Six Counties.

What does this have to do with British Intelligence? SIS is one of the best intelligence services in the world, and this should be a plus to the idea of opening an alliance with Britain, not a downside.

The EU is trying to force its will on others (UK) with recent migrant quotas. You really think us entering a formal alliance with the EU is going to be a good thing? No, we'd get shafted. At least with Britain we have some reasons for closer ties. Geographic proximity, the dissident threat (from Loyalist or Republican).

Ren2k7 wrote: »

We have no reason to be arming Middle East groups. The US can look after all that thanks.

You'd rather we don't support groups such as the Kurdish, to fight against ISIS? Forgive me if I believe the lesser of two evils, a largely secular group, deserves weapons and funding in order to cut the head off a greater evil

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Britain is also an island state and yet it's land force is the largest component of the British Armed Forces. Air Forces and Navies can't occupy and hold actual territory, troops do.

Britain is an expeditionary power, we are not. You're correct, but how many soldiers can shoot down a fast jet, or hit a ship below the waterline? Very few. Our strength should be in specialization. We could provide logistic troops, air support, naval support (through the use of ship to ground missiles).

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Gripen is already outclassed by 5th Gen fighters, but then an Irish Air Force equipped with Gripens wouldn't be facing off against F-35's or PAK FA's anyway.

Eh, fair enough. If we're buying Gripen, I could only hope we wait for the newest variants to come out and buy/lease them.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Your wishlist would still cost us billions, and certainly far more than 2% of our GDP.

We wouldn't be buying it all in one go. It would be over several years, increasing our capacity to operate year upon year. Even if we don't have them active at all stages, it would be a boon for us to possess the hardware in reserve, than to not have it at all. For instance, the Norwegian Navy bought more missile-frigates than they needed, in case of war. They wouldn't have to wait for ships to arrive, they could just take them out of storage.

I don't think the cost of operating more air/sea assets and better equipped land assets would run over 2% of GDP. We'd have around €3.6bn in funding per year. Easily enough to maintain double the current numbers of those in military service.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

There's absolutely no need for a small country like Ireland to be maintaining subs, the Danes realised this and ditched theirs. For some countries like Portugal the retention of a submarine service is largely a holdover from their imperial days. Much like Britain's nuclear deterrent, something that is of no practical military use, denying other branches of the UK's forces much needed resources.

The Danish have a land bridge connecting to most of Europe. Portugal, the same. We are an island, our shipping lanes are the most important asset we have. If we can't protect them, we'd starve to death. Submarines provide for protection of domestic lanes or threatening the sea lanes of others.

If we spent the money on surface vessels, they could be much more easily found and destroyed. Destroying a submarine, especially one operated by skilled hands, is immensely more difficult.

sparky42 wrote: »

MBT's I think shouldn't be a priority, even if we did buy a couple of 400s they wouldn't be able to airlift even a Leopard 2,so our ability to deploy would be limited, make much more sense just to incrase the fleet of MOWAG's.

Unless we intend to provide the reconnaissance/fast element to a European armoured force, would the MOWAGs provide sufficient direct/indirect fire to stall an enemy force?

sparky42 wrote: »

Apart from the support costs there's also issues regarding what weapon systems we'd want to deploy with (integrating European weapons onto the US fighters would be costly for example), it would depend on which is cheaper (for example given the missile manufacturing in the North we could keep the money on the island in some cases if we wanted to.

The US are the only ones with the true industrial capacity to mass produce sophisticated weapons systems. Like, the F16 produced around 4500 aircraft. Has any indigenous European aircraft been produced on such a scale?

Regarding missiles: is there any research or production in the Republic, or is it solely Thales in the North?

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd add replacing the 235's when they come due with proper MPA versions of the 295 (proper as in weaponised unlike our 235's), I'd say ideally 6 of them, that way we could join operations like the Piracy patrol or the Med operation that's about to kick off.

$30 million per unit is quite expensive, considering they provide a payload of around 10,000kg. If we are buying such craft, would it not be more wise to buy 2 for operations, and spend the rest of dedicated strike aircraft with higher payloads/sortie abilities?

sparky42 wrote: »

I presume you mean replace the PeacocksEithne with Beckett's?
For the Frigates/MRV/EPV, I'd go the Danish route the Absalon and her half sisters the Iver Huitfeldt class. Play with the numbers maybe but it buys you transports and multi role frigates.

The Iver cost around $340 million per unit, the Fridtjof closer to $700 million. However, the Iver's roll is anti-air defences, whereas the Fridtjof can provide for strikes against ground targets. Would 2 Fridtjof not provide a more flexible asset than 4 Iver Huitfeldt?

Unless of course the Ivers can be altered, or carry forces capable of attacking ground targets.

The Fridjtof is also smaller (4.6 metre draft compared to a 5.3 metre draft, 5300 tonnes vs 6600 tonnes), meaning we wouldn't require as large an investment into infrastructure.

sparky42 wrote: »

In terms of the SSK's apart from the costs of the hulls (presuming the U 214 it's a billion pretty much for three), building up the knowledge and industrial base to support them would be a significant cost (take a look at how some of the Asian nations are building up their SSK from nothing). Don't think you could sustain them to be honest.

Even if we can't sustain such submarines, then it would provide more reason to buy a multi-purpose frigate (the Fridtjof) over the Ivers. The Fridtjof could fulfil multiple roles.

It could provide the air cover element of a joint Irish-British force, or it could provide support to neutralize ground targets. Quite a bit more flexible, no?

Chief87

I don't even think half of the Nato members are hitting the 2% mark but I could be wrong.