Irish Military Funding

Yemowt

I know, I know. There is many, many threads like this. But there is just a few points I would like to make within this thread that could put up an argument to some of the people that say "To defend from who?"

First off, I want to say as we are not part of NATO, it is possible we could end up like Ukraine. Very, very unlikely but it is not impossible. Ukraine thought they were okay with NATO and good friends with Russia and look at what has happened. They have been left on their own to fight off the separatists. I know that will most likely never happen but it is just something I would like to point out.

Another thing I would like to say is that if you look at a country like... Lithuania, their GDP is 45.93 billion. They have a far better military then us in pretty much every way. But if you look at our GDP it is 232.1 billion. (These stats are all from 2013) Ours is almost four and a half times theirs. I understand that they invest more into their military too as they are part of NATO and have a small threat from Russia. (Small as Russia would not attack them as they are part of NATO and that would mean Russia going to war with the US, Britain and others) Lithuania spends about 500 million on their military. Lithuania has a smaller population and a smaller land mass then us. And they have a far, far better military. We have a bigger population and a bigger land mass and our funding has been cut since 2007 down to 885 million. How is it that our military has a better funding yet it is still worse. I understand we could be paying our soldiers more then Lithuania is paying theirs but that should not make up the difference as Lithuania has more military personnel then us. And still they have Czech fighter jets (such as the L-39's) and we have Pilatus PC-9's. We should at the very least have proper jets ever since the Russians came into our airspace.

They do not have any MBT's (Main Battle Tank's) but still the closest we have to a main battle tank is the Scorpion. Even at that the Scorpion could go against an old U.S. Sherman (Used in WWII, they were rather weak comparison to the German and Russian tanks. They were the tanks in the movie "Fury".) and still win.

(I am going to leave out the navy, they have more navy ships then us, although a few are not as big and they are certainly not as new.)

So, what is your opinion?


I know there is still other problems in Ireland such as the homeless and people waiting in hospitals for days at a time but still. I think we could at least buy a few fighter jets and maybe a few T-72's (They cost about 2 million each now. Most western tanks cost alot more then that.) and at least we will have them.

ohnonotgmail

their air cover is provided by NATO. they have one jet of their own and that is basically a trainer. Most, if not all, of their mechanised capability are hand-me-downs. I'm sure if we had countries willing to give us free mechanised vehicles we would have a mechanised infantry brigade as ell. I'm not sure the lithuanian model is for us.

tac foley

For $2Million you could have a battalion of T72 MBTs from the Czech Republic. However, you'd have a logistic nightmare trying to get them where they might be needed to repel, say, an airborne invasion. Too wide to go by rail, y'see, so each one would need a nice big tank transporter that these days would cost around five times as much as the tank.

Anyhow, not to put too fine a point on it, but the guys who fall out of the skies these days carry stuff in their overnight bag that could convert ANY T72 to a semi-mobile incinerator in around five seconds.

Tanks are not the answer for the Irish military problem.

tac

ohnonotgmail

tac foley wrote: »

For $2Million you could have a battalion of T72 MBTs from the Czech Republic. However, you'd have a logistic nightmare trying to get them where they might be needed to repel, say, an airborne invasion. Too wide to go by rail, y'see, so each one would need a nice big tank transporter that these days would cost around five times as much as the tank.

Anyhow, not to put too fine a point on it, but the guys who fall out of the skies these days carry stuff in their overnight bag that could convert ANY T72 to a semi-mobile incinerator in around five seconds.

Tanks are not the answer for the Irish military problem.

tac

not to mention needing a special battalion of midgets to drive the things.

tac foley

True thing. I've never been so uncomfortable in so many places in my life as when I was trying to get to grips with driving a T72, and I'm only 1.79.

tac

Yemowt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not to mention needing a special battalion of midgets to drive the things.

True, never thought about that.

Yemowt

tac foley wrote: »

For $2Million you could have a battalion of T72 MBTs from the Czech Republic. However, you'd have a logistic nightmare trying to get them where they might be needed to repel, say, an airborne invasion. Too wide to go by rail, y'see, so each one would need a nice big tank transporter that these days would cost around five times as much as the tank.

Anyhow, not to put too fine a point on it, but the guys who fall out of the skies these days carry stuff in their overnight bag that could convert ANY T72 to a semi-mobile incinerator in around five seconds.

Tanks are not the answer for the Irish military problem.

tac

I am just saying it is a cheap option. If you were to buy the slightly newer ones that the Syrians have, it would take a little while longer to be a semi-mobile incinerator.

Yemowt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

their air cover is provided by NATO. they have one jet of their own and that is basically a trainer. Most, if not all, of their mechanised capability are hand-me-downs. I'm sure if we had countries willing to give us free mechanised vehicles we would have a mechanised infantry brigade as ell. I'm not sure the lithuanian model is for us.

Fair enough, never knew the only had one. I thought they had five or so, which would be almost the amount of Pilatus' we have.

Yemowt

What about countries with a similar population and GDP such as Finland. They are able to spend over two billion on their military. If we could spend that much we might actually have an army to show. Finland have leopards, they also have over 60 fighter jets. So if we spent almost half as much as them, at least we could afford a few fighter jets and a few leopards.

sparky42

Yemowt wrote: »

What about countries with a similar population and GDP such as Finland. They are able to spend over two billion on their military. If we could spend that much we might actually have an army to show. Finland have leopards, they also have over 60 fighter jets. So if we spent almost half as much as them, at least we could afford a few fighter jets and a few leopards.

One of the things you have to take into account is the histroical difference in spending, when Finland buys new fighters for example, they are just replacing old hardware, the skills, stores, infrastructure is all there for the most part. If we were to stand up fast jets you'd have to spend a huge chunk just building up all the support elements that modern fast jets needs, ie it's not just the sticker price. Same for IFV's/MBT's.

Also can't see why we a NATO standard country would take on the headache of trying to support Pact equipment (not too mention the issues of surviability, or even that many of the rural bridges/roads can't take their weight). Also for Finland remember they use conscription for their military so their costs for personnel may not be the same as for a volunteer force as ourselves. Also for us GDP isn't the best guide due to the Multinational's, GNP might be a better idea to use.

AbusesToilets

You'd be better off investing in a robust Anti-Air capability, with better sensor coverage than trying to get into the plane business. If NATO membership is so abhorrent to our government and the general public, a Bi or Tri party agreement with the UK and US would serve us well.

The Government gets away with disgraceful underfunding of the DF, but making a proper commitment to actual defensive capabilities over welfare programs is never going to be a runner with the electorate.

Ren2k7

Why in the hell would we buy decrepit Soviet era tanks? Or anything else from the old Warsaw Pact for that matter.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Why in the hell would we buy decrepit Soviet era tanks? Or anything else from the old Warsaw Pact for that matter.

Cause they're cheap!
Ignoring their poor quality, low surviability rates, outdated systems...

It makes sense for former Warsaw Pact forces who have it to use it up (for some because they can't afford replacements) but not for us.

sparky42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You'd be better off investing in a robust Anti-Air capability, with better sensor coverage than trying to get into the plane business. If NATO membership is so abhorrent to our government and the general public, a Bi or Tri party agreement with the UK and US would serve us well.

The Government gets away with disgraceful underfunding of the DF, but making a proper commitment to actual defensive capabilities over welfare programs is never going to be a runner with the electorate.

Problem with Anti-Air is that nobody would believe it. I mean we aren't going to shoot down a Russian Bear and they know it. And are we really going to shoot down a passenger liner full of yanks because nobody is answering the radio?

Easier to have a formal agreement with the UK to handle it, cause as you said spending enough to support a squadron of fast jets isn't a runner.

AbusesToilets

sparky42 wrote: »

Problem with Anti-Air is that nobody would believe it. I mean we aren't going to shoot down a Russian Bear and they know it. And are we really going to shoot down a passenger liner full of yanks because nobody is answering the radio?

Easier to have a formal agreement with the UK to handle it, cause as you said spending enough to support a squadron of fast jets isn't a runner.

A proper AA set up is a threat to any aircraft.

An agreement with the UK over interceptor aircraft doesn't preclude having an organic anti-air capability. Relying on another country for our defense is irresponsible.

sparky42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

A proper AA set up is a threat to any aircraft.

An agreement with the UK over interceptor aircraft doesn't preclude having an organic anti-air capability. Relying on another country for our defense is irresponsible.

It's a threat if people think it's going to be used. We are not going to shoot down a Russian bear for tooling around our airspace without it's beacon on. We are not going to shoot down a 747 or an A 380 with hundreds of people on board just because they aren't answering the radio. If we did rightfully we'd be considered no better than the Russian's in the Ukraine.

Yes in a war situation we'd shoot first and it would be utterly acceptable. If tomorrow morning we shot down a bear or 747, how exactly do you think the global reaction would be?

Victor

Unlike Finland, we don't have defence obligations to Russia.

Unlike Lithusania, we don't have two borders with Russia.

zone 1

Victor wrote: »

Unlike Finland, we don't have defence obligations to Russia.

Unlike Lithusania, we don't have two borders with Russia.

true but there coming to our borders still. because they no we have got nothing and its wait till the uk fly over and meet them . then they fxxk off home. just to see how long it took them to get out off the west coast of ireland.. did it not take the RN 2 days nearly to get up of scotland as the russians had when to anchor due to bad weather.. these are all big test...

AbusesToilets

I"m pretty sure they might take notice of being painted by a surface to air system readying a firing solution by actively lighting them up. As to escalation, that allied with scrambled interceptors ( British or whatever) would be apt for a reconsideration.

sparky42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I"m pretty sure they might take notice of being painted by a surface to air system readying a firing solution by actively lighting them up. As to escalation, that allied with scrambled interceptors ( British or whatever) would be apt for a reconsideration.

They'd notice and perhaps depending on what bug has crawled up Vlad's ass that day they might ignore it betting Ireland isn't going to shoot down an aircraft of a nuclear power without a hell of a more pressing reason than crossing our airspace without permission. Now if we did shoot one down the next one would pay attention to our locking them up, but that doesn't get past the whole shooting down a Russian aircraft and the "potential" negative consequences thereafter.

And a passenger airliner wouldn't even know that, they aren't fitted with detection systems as standard. So say an equipment failure in their radio, do we fire first?

An AAA system can't point out to annoying Russians to p!ss off, nor can it determine if there's equipment failure, crew failure or terrorist situations on passenger airliners.

ohnonotgmail

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I"m pretty sure they might take notice of being painted by a surface to air system readying a firing solution by actively lighting them up. As to escalation, that allied with scrambled interceptors ( British or whatever) would be apt for a reconsideration.

I'm sure they would notice. They wouldnt give a fiddlers though because they know we would never actually fire. A big stick is not a deterrent if the other side knows you wont use it.

Yemowt

sparky42 wrote: »

One of the things you have to take into account is the histroical difference in spending, when Finland buys new fighters for example, they are just replacing old hardware, the skills, stores, infrastructure is all there for the most part. If we were to stand up fast jets you'd have to spend a huge chunk just building up all the support elements that modern fast jets needs, ie it's not just the sticker price. Same for IFV's/MBT's.

Also can't see why we a NATO standard country would take on the headache of trying to support Pact equipment (not too mention the issues of surviability, or even that many of the rural bridges/roads can't take their weight). Also for Finland remember they use conscription for their military so their costs for personnel may not be the same as for a volunteer force as ourselves. Also for us GDP isn't the best guide due to the Multinational's, GNP might be a better idea to use.

Lithuania has one border with them and hardly has to worry as an attack on them, would be an attack on NATO. Also look at Sweden who has similar population and I am pretty sure a similar GDP and still has an alright military that has the best of technology and still has been neutral for the past two-hundred or so years

Yemowt

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Why in the hell would we buy decrepit Soviet era tanks? Or anything else from the old Warsaw Pact for that matter.

They are far better then our current scorpions. Comparing to a T-72 they are tin cans.

AbusesToilets

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure they would notice. They wouldnt give a fiddlers though because they know we would never actually fire. A big stick is not a deterrent if the other side knows you wont use it.

Perhaps, I'm sure there are ways to demonstrate intent, some manner of warning shot. Sad that the State is in a position where it cannot impose it's will inside of it's own borders.

sparky42

Yemowt wrote: »

Lithuania has one border with them and hardly has to worry as an attack on them, would be an attack on NATO. Also look at Sweden who has similar population and I am pretty sure a similar GDP and still has an alright military that has the best of technology and still has been neutral for the past two-hundred or so years

Lithuania like all the new Eastern European nations have let's say No faith in Western Europe going to the mat with Russia over them (and polling in Germany supports their view), that's why they are screaming for permant NATO bases and forces to be deployed. That's the only way they view as certain NATO coming to their aid (ie cause their own troops would already be in combat).

Go look at the GDP figures of Sweden and Ireland, they have twice as much as us. Go look at historical data, they hit over 200 billion in GDP in the late 80's early 90's, we hit that in the mid 00's. That's another important difference, yes right now our GDP (again inflated due to Multinational's that aren't taxed here) is mid 200 billion, but historically we were a much poorer nation whose budget figures didn't start improving till the 90's. That's not to mean that we couldn't have done more to invest in our military but that should take into account the historical budget situations. For example compared to Finland in 92 they had almost 3 times our GDP, so of course they could spend more no matter the percentage figure.

sparky42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps, I'm sure there are ways to demonstrate intent, some manner of warning shot. Sad that the State is in a position where it cannot impose it's will inside of it's own borders.

Yes, even if a SAM has a warning shot feature (which I really doubt), I can just imagine firing off a Patriot or Aster 30 at a Bear or a Passenger airliner. I'm sure it happens all the time in Democracies...

No it doesn't Fast Jets are used to escort interlopers out of airspace if needed or escort passenger flights to secure runways if needed.

sparky42

Yemowt wrote: »

They are far better then our current scorpions. Comparing to a T-72 they are tin cans.

And they are certain death when hit by our Javelins, the point?

And how do you buy a "few" realistically I can't see how less than 30 could make up a force when you count in training units, units in repair/upgrade. That's not a few, not when you factor in all the support costs again. More over it's not a crediable force if ever needed to defend the state (ie cause we won't have air cover)

ohnonotgmail

Yemowt wrote: »

They are far better then our current scorpions. Comparing to a T-72 they are tin cans.

they are also completely unusable in this country. plus we would only get the monkey model export version which literally are tin cans.

Heraldoffreeent

This thread is just silly waltering really.
There's no thought gone into it other than "I want jets and I want tanks and T75/85s are cheap and so are L139s and they're cheap too, and they're shiny, and they're jets".

Ireland is pretty unsuitable for tank warfare, were they to be used in a defensive role, and limited resources would be better spent on missiles that can either take out the enemies tank carrying ships and planes before they land the bloody things, or else take them out when theyre on land .

As for tanks in an offensive capacity, well, who are we going to attack? And don't we need an expeditionary Naval or Airlift solution firstly?

Our Scorps are generally used for training, familiarising troops in how to use, and defend against, tracked armour, and in this they've been relatively successful over the years.And to fulfill this need, they're much more suitable than T-anythings.

An L159, locked and loaded with missiles and extra fuel tanks, can't catch a Russian Bear cruising down the western seaboard, and even if it could, we still don't have the Radar to vector it in.

What the OPer has failed to do is assess the threats/(likely threats) and come up with a tableau of solution. Instead its "Lets just buy useless crap".

ohnonotgmail

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

This thread is just silly waltering really.
There's no thought gone into it other than "I want jets and I want tanks and T75/85s are cheap and so are L139s and they're cheap too, and they're shiny, and they're jets".

Ireland is pretty unsuitable for tank warfare, were they to be used in a defensive role, and limited resources would be better spent on missiles that can either take out the enemies tank carrying ships and planes before they land the bloody things, or else take them out when theyre on land .

As for tanks in an offensive capacity, well, who are we going to attack? And don't we need an expeditionary Naval or Airlift solution firstly?

Our Scorps are generally used for training, familiarising troops in how to use, and defend against, tracked armour, and in this they've been relatively successful over the years.And to fulfill this need, they're much more suitable than T-anythings.

An L159, locked and loaded with missiles and extra fuel tanks, can't catch a Russian Bear cruising down the western seaboard, and even if it could, we still don't have the Radar to vector it in.

What the OPer has failed to do is assess the threats/(likely threats) and come up with a tableau of solution. Instead its "Lets just buy useless crap".

where is the fun in being sensible like that?

Heraldoffreeent

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

where is the fun in being sensible like that?

We could develop and design our own Death Ray instead?

Morpheus

said it before,

1. give AC a role in monitoring and securing our airspace alongside the civ radar operators and in intercepting and escorting aircraft around our airspace both civ and foreign mil.

2. decide you want to go down the road of having a small squadron of armed fast jets to police irish and international airspace over the EEZ and look for funding, my suggestion has always been reduce o/seas aid budget by €100m per annum and instead begin to invest this in DF on a new fighter/interceptor squadron , infrastructure, radars etc.

3. invest in infrastructure to support a squadron of fast jets
i. runways
ii. refuelling
iii.ground handling
iv storage and maintenance
v radars

4. At same time as 3 is taking place you have to stand up a new squadron which will house maintain and operate the fast jets.
i. send pilots and crews to UK under the MOU to become qualified with the RAF and pay for it.
ii. all relative ground crews for the new squadron become qualified with fast jets if needed.
iii. pilots become qualified on lead in jet trainers
iv radar operators become qualified in vectoring fighters to intercept

5. whilst this is happening you tender for a squadron of leased aircraft
i. be sensible, look at slovakia and czech republic and go with Gripen from sweden, 10 year lease at 78m euro per annum of your 100m you took from overseas aid.

note: as of last year, overseas aid budget was almost 600m euro and shamefully almost equivalent to our defence budget.

Also we do maintain a small number of mobile surface to air missiles and radars, so investing in larger more complex , more permanent, longer range radars and missiles wouldn't be a leap in faith and ultimately would provide a deterrent and a capability, however a possible missile is not as effective as waving at someone elses cockpit before showing off your shiny AA missiles and pointing down.

all the while we will ALSO be increasing the defence budget year on year in small increments but the 100m per annum is copper fastened to acquiring and maintaining the military surveillance and fast jet squadron and with it irelands primary airspace security mechanism.

now go sell that to pop up paul murphy, the shinners and the tree huggers... and quite possibly observe mick the tax dodger wallaces head explode.

Yemowt

Morpheus wrote: »

said it before,

1. give AC a role in monitoring and securing our airspace alongside the civ radar operators and in intercepting and escorting aircraft around our airspace both civ and foreign mil.

2. decide you want to go down the road of having a small squadron of armed fast jets to police irish and international airspace over the EEZ and look for funding, my suggestion has always been reduce o/seas aid budget by €100m per annum and instead begin to invest this in DF on a new fighter/interceptor squadron , infrastructure, radars etc.

3. invest in infrastructure to support a squadron of fast jets
i. runways
ii. refuelling
iii.ground handling
iv storage and maintenance
v radars

4. At same time as 3 is taking place you have to stand up a new squadron which will house maintain and operate the fast jets.
i. send pilots and crews to UK under the MOU to become qualified with the RAF and pay for it.
ii. all relative ground crews for the new squadron become qualified with fast jets if needed.
iii. pilots become qualified on lead in jet trainers
iv radar operators become qualified in vectoring fighters to intercept

5. whilst this is happening you tender for a squadron of leased aircraft
i. be sensible, look at slovakia and czech republic and go with Gripen from sweden, 10 year lease at 78m euro per annum of your 100m you took from overseas aid.

note: as of last year, overseas aid budget was almost 600m euro and shamefully almost equivalent to our defence budget.

Also we do maintain a small number of mobile surface to air missiles and radars, so investing in larger more complex , more permanent, longer range radars and missiles wouldn't be a leap in faith and ultimately would provide a deterrent and a capability, however a possible missile is not as effective as waving at someone elses cockpit before showing off your shiny AA missiles and pointing down.

all the while we will ALSO be increasing the defence budget year on year in small increments but the 100m per annum is copper fastened to acquiring and maintaining the military surveillance and fast jet squadron and with it irelands primary airspace security mechanism.

now go sell that to pop up paul murphy, the shinners and the tree huggers... and quite possibly observe mick the tax dodger wallaces head explode.

This is far better then any idea I really had. I have to say, good post.

tac foley

Yemowt wrote: »

I am just saying it is a cheap option. If you were to buy the slightly newer ones that the Syrians have, it would take a little while longer to be a semi-mobile incinerator.

The Syrians are having less and less of them by the day. Say, six seconds, then, going by the clips on liveleak.com.

There isn't any kind of a T-72 that can live with the modern top-attack missile, or the Pre-formed penetrator ATGW that it seems that EVERYBODY has these days. Even the much-vaunted Abrams was K-killed by the use of these in Iraq, and THAT was almost ten years ago. What is around now is anybody's guess, but you can bet it won't be anything inferior to that.

Spending your hard-earned money on GA helicopters is a better idea. Mind you, they are VERY expensive and you need a lot more than two or three.

tac

AbusesToilets

Being the Minister for Defense must be similar to being the US Vice President. No powers to any real extent and considered something of a joke in terms of role. Shambolic