Lack of Air Defence

newcavanman

Did anyone hear the Defence Forces CoS being interviewed on Marian Finucane show yesterday morning. Usual poor interview from her and he easily batted away any akward questions. The only text read out was complaining about our lack of an air defence capability. Personally I believe we should have our own fast jet force or come to an arrangement like the Baltic states or Iceland and invite or arrange with someone else to help is provide one. Either way, it is a disgrace that with 90% of transatlantic traffic using our airspace, we have no ability whatsoever to police it. If there was ever to be a 9/11 type situation in our airspace, unlikely I think but however, it wont be a great consolation to say we have 4-500 troops on UN duty in the middle east
What do others think?

Esel

Don't we have an air cover agreement with the UK?

mobileforest

We don't need it. The USA has the largest airforce in the world and it couldn't prevent the original 9/11 situation. Ireland would be a poor target anyway. No big buildings.

Unlike NATO nations like Canada or Norway, we don't need fast interceptors to chase off Russian bombers (and I'm guessing any tried to enter EU airspace via our Atlantic border, the U.K. would intercept them) and thankfully we don't engage in US-led bombing missions against developing world nations.

If Ireland made the big investment in fighters or fighter/bombers, that money would have to come out of the defence budget at the expense of something else such as the navy or army.

Mycroft H

The RAF is next door. Why bother? The cost would be massive also.

afatbollix

Esel wrote: »

Don't we have an air cover agreement with the UK?

A common misconception we don't have an agreement in place which would delay things but everyone thinks the RAF would be scrambled if needed. It just would take longer I get to the situation that we might as well send up the kite.

Pat Dunne

There is a very active discussion running on the Military forum for quite a number of years http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055762629
Some of it could be classified as "Walter Mittyesque" although some of it is quite well informed.

Worth a look to past the time on a wet miserable day

The stark reality is if you put your propsal to the people and ask do you want jet fighters or better hospitals, you know which one is going to win out.

I agree that defense has been given short shift by our governments over the decades. However I'd prioritise getting our health service "fit for purpose" ahead of spending large quantities of money, which the state does not have on what is to my mind a relatively low priorty threat.

If you are going to spend additional monies on defence, spend it on our Naval Service.

roundymac

We won't pay for water, how do you expect us to pay for jets, FFS.:mad:

V_Moth

Would be funny if Enda Kenny went full troll mode and signed an Air Defence agreement with the RusAF. Imagine this at Baldonnel!

Cessna_Pilot

roundymac wrote: »

We won't pay for water, how do you expect us to pay for jets, FFS.:mad:

Why won't ya pay for water? I've paid for my water all my working life through my taxes :pac:

Irish Steve

V_Moth wrote: »

Would be funny if Enda Kenny went full troll mode and signed an Air Defence agreement with the RusAF. Imagine this at Baldonnel!

It might get in with empty tanks, but with the runway length being half of the length of the runway that they used in Ukraine, I don't think it would get out again any time soon .

newcavanman

well according to the discussion on Marian Finucane show this morning we actually spend more than enough on health, we just spend it very very badly . i know quite a few people in the RAF and i know full well that the purchase cost of fighters is the small end of the wedge. However , they usually need approx 150 personnel for a 12-15 a/c squadron. that would also cover line maintenace. . So im not sure the costs would be prohibitive .
quite modern aircraft, for example, ex Dutch or Belgian F-16s, which have been through the mid life update could be acquire for a fraction of their new cost. How about if we abandoned much of our flight training and instead, just operated ab initio for basic selection and then used the training systems of other countries, such as the UK or similar ? Perhaps not desireable, but it would have to be quite a bit cheaper, purely on economies of scale . We could then devote the majority of our air corps spending to operational tasks rather than training , as we currently do

elastico

newcavanman wrote: »

well according to the discussion on Marian Finucane show this morning we actually spend more than enough on health, we just spend it very very badly . i know quite a few people in the RAF and i know full well that the purchase cost of fighters is the small end of the wedge. However , they usually need approx 150 personnel for a 12-15 a/c squadron. that would also cover line maintenace. . So im not sure the costs would be prohibitive .
quite modern aircraft, for example, ex Dutch or Belgian F-16s, which have been through the mid life update could be acquire for a fraction of their new cost. How about if we abandoned much of our flight training and instead, just operated ab initio for basic selection and then used the training systems of other countries, such as the UK or similar ? Perhaps not desireable, but it would have to be quite a bit cheaper, purely on economies of scale . We could then devote the majority of our air corps spending to operational tasks rather than training , as we currently do

To maintain and operate F-16's would break the bank. Don't forget the cost of missiles and the amount of training in using them that's required?

And all for what, an imaginary 9/11 type situation which would most likely over fly us anyway and hit straight for downing street or the towers in the city of London.

If we were to spend extra on something the money would be better spent on beefing up customs to prevent drugs getting into the country, lots of lives would be saved every day.

newcavanman

mobileforest wrote: »

We don't need it. The USA has the largest airforce in the world and it couldn't prevent the original 9/11 situation. Ireland would be a poor target anyway. No big buildings.

Unlike NATO nations like Canada or Norway, we don't need fast interceptors to chase off Russian bombers (and I'm guessing any tried to enter EU airspace via our Atlantic border, the U.K. would intercept them) and thankfully we don't engage in US-led bombing missions against developing world nations.

If Ireland made the big investment in fighters or fighter/bombers, that money would have to come out of the defence budget at the expense of something else such as the navy or army.

Air Defence mightnt stop a 9/11, quite correct. but it might help to deter it .
Supposing a jet was hijacked off the west coast, turned around and headed back over Ireland. No buildings like the WTC, but a B777 full of fuel and passangers ploughing into say, The Stephens Green Centre, even on a quiet day could easily generate 1,000 plus dead and many more injured .
It doesnt ned tall buildings to make a target for people who want to make a statement
Does Iceland need jets to chase off the russians ? apparently they do . I knwo they are in NATO , but are they more under threat than we are?
You say that money would come out of the army budget. However, if we doubled the size of the army, it likely wouldnt stop such an attack happening. I agree we need a decent size navy also, in fact probably twice the size of what we have.
Im sure army heads would disagree, b ut i honestly feel if it came down to priorities, we could probably get away with a regular army half the size of what we have. We could increase the reserve, so that in an emergency we would have the numbers

elastico

newcavanman wrote: »

Air Defence mightnt stop a 9/11, quite correct. but it might help to deter it .
Supposing a jet was hijacked off the west coast, turned around and headed back over Ireland. No buildings like the WTC, but a B777 full of fuel and passangers ploughing into say, The Stephens Green Centre, even on a quiet day could easily generate 1,000 plus dead and many more injured .
It doesnt ned tall buildings to make a target for people who want to make a statement
Does Iceland need jets to chase off the russians ? apparently they do . I knwo they are in NATO , but are they more under threat than we are?
You say that money would come out of the army budget. However, if we doubled the size of the army, it likely wouldnt stop such an attack happening. I agree we need a decent size navy also, in fact probably twice the size of what we have.
Im sure army heads would disagree, b ut i honestly feel if it came down to priorities, we could probably get away with a regular army half the size of what we have. We could increase the reserve, so that in an emergency we would have the numbers

A 40' container packed with explosives could be detonated outside St. Stephens Green and achieve the same result.

Maybe we should lock down Dublin in a ring of steel as well, just in case, and deploy the army to search every lorry at the M50?

A few renegade IRA boys could knock up a pretty impressive fertilizer bomb handy enough for the right price.

Tenger

I agree that we spend enough on Health but spend it badly, but I also agree that creating an Air Defense Network will hobble our economy.

Basic air defense would be 2 pairs of F-16's on standby, one immediate, the other longer time frame. That maybe means 2 airbases. Unless we keep Bal as the main base with 2 standby locations, north and south. (We could prob get away with a single location but thats not optimal)
Those 4 aircraft only represent maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of total aircraft. Others are in longer readiness, training, planned MX. So thats means total of 12-16 aircraft in an operational squadron.
Say we use the USAF to tain our guys, that another training 4-8 jets based over in the US (as the Dutch and Germans do)
The UK have approx 150 people per 12-15 a/c squadron. Lets say 24 a/c with 300 direct personal required. The a/c would also be needed to be up to latest NATO standard to allow us to operate with EU allies and train with the USAF....that will require liaison personnel.

This doesn't even account for the ground based radar systems we need to procure, set-up, train, integrate, operate, maintain and upgrade to ensure we can use the interceptors IF needed.

15-20 years we will need to upgrade it all over again.

IsaacWunder

elastico wrote: »

A 40' container packed with explosives could be detonated outside St. Stephens Green and achieve the same result.

Maybe we should lock down Dublin in a ring of steel as well, just in case, and deploy the army to search every lorry at the M50?

A few renegade IRA boys could knock up a pretty impressive fertilizer bomb handy enough for the right price.

Complete straw man argument there.

Del2005

Would we not be better to spend money on maritime patrol aircraft, to protect our fish stocks from illegal fishing and intercept smugglers, than fancy jets that can never be used?

Do people honestly think that any politician is going to authorise the shooting down of a passenger airplane? So what would a fast jet do but guzzle fuel while watching it be crashed by the hijackers.

donvito99

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Complete straw man argument there.

It's a totally believable argument. Certainly when compared to the 777 plummeting into the Stephen's Green Centre (:rolleyes:) hypothesised earlier....

elastico

Del2005 wrote: »

Would we not be better to spend money on maritime patrol aircraft, to protect our fish stocks from illegal fishing and intercept smugglers, than fancy jets that can never be used?

Of course it would. The idea of buying loads of clapped out F-16's to protect against an improbable 9/11 style attack on St. Stephens green is ridiculous.

If it were a genuine security concern the solution would be to contract it out to the RAF or USAF the same way as search and rescue was contracted out.

mobileforest

newcavanman wrote: »

Air Defence mightnt stop a 9/11, quite correct. but it might help to deter it .
Supposing a jet was hijacked off the west coast, turned around and headed back over Ireland. No buildings like the WTC, but a B777 full of fuel and passangers ploughing into say, The Stephens Green Centre, even on a quiet day could easily generate 1,000 plus dead and many more injured .
It doesnt ned tall buildings to make a target for people who want to make a statement
Does Iceland need jets to chase off the russians ? apparently they do . I knwo they are in NATO , but are they more under threat than we are?
You say that money would come out of the army budget. However, if we doubled the size of the army, it likely wouldnt stop such an attack happening. I agree we need a decent size navy also, in fact probably twice the size of what we have.
Im sure army heads would disagree, b ut i honestly feel if it came down to priorities, we could probably get away with a regular army half the size of what we have. We could increase the reserve, so that in an emergency we would have the numbers

First of all, Iceland doesn't have an airforce. It's protection is provided by its NATO partners. Why are they in NATO? I don't know but I assume that WWII (when both Germany and USA tried to occupy them) taught them that as the stepping stone between Europe and America their neutrality in a global war would be as respected at Belgium's in an European war.

Next, as 9/11 taught, a nation, even one with jets ready to be scrambled (most don't keep them fuelled up and running on the runway with pilots close by due to the crazy cost), could not possibly get up in time to do anything. Heck, if a 777 was taken the largest amount of casualties would be the 300-400 passengers. Better off letting the terrorist land it in Libya or wherever he's headed (crashing jets into cities is not the norm).

The point is, your F16s, along with taking up much needed funds that could be better used for Irish defence, would be without a purpose. Ireland has no foreign air power it needs to defend itself from and as for imaginary scenarios involving hijacked jets, they would be useless as a hijacked jet could be flown in and out of Irish airspace (and on to a target of any real significance like London or Paris) even before the Irish jets are even fuelled up.

Basically all we'd get is a really good act for European air shows

donvito99

mobileforest wrote: »

Why are they in NATO?

I guess it's a great deal of pragmatism at play. Iceland joining wasn't an entirely popular move at the time. There contribution is tiny, so they are effectively a member in name only, as we would be if we joined.

Thinkingaboutit

V_Moth wrote: »

Would be funny if Enda Kenny went full troll mode and signed an Air Defence agreement with the RusAF. Imagine this at Baldonnel!

Enda might also get tips on always winning elections, and changing the opposition when they prove annoying:D. More relevantly, Russia has assembled a world beating capability on a relative shoe string. Ireland could do worse than consider Russian aircraft in those areas where a capability is maintained, like for coastguard / interdiction of ne'er do well drug smuggler duties.

artanevilla

What are we defending against exactly?

Elemonator

I heard from another Boardsie that Ireland may take on or lease out Dutch F-16's once the F-35 is introduced to the Netherlands defences. It sounds Walter-Mittyesque unless someone can provide me with a source (I'd love you forever).........

donvito99

Elemonator wrote: »

I heard from another Boardsie that Ireland may take on or lease out Dutch F-16's once the F-35 is introduced to the Netherlands defences. It sounds Walter-Mittyesque unless someone can provide me with a source (I'd love you forever).........

It does in fact sound like bollox. There ain't a peep about fast jets in the White Paper. Although, by the time the Dutch do get a full complement of the F35, there'll be a new WP and by then, who knows. But why we'd want A/B block fighter/bombers is another question entirely.

Del2005

mobileforest wrote: »

Next, as 9/11 taught, a nation, even one with jets ready to be scrambled (most don't keep them fuelled up and running on the runway with pilots close by due to the crazy cost), could not possibly get up in time to do anything. Heck, if a 777 was taken the largest amount of casualties would be the 300-400 passengers. Better off letting the terrorist land it in Libya or wherever he's headed (crashing jets into cities is not the norm).

We're the European headquarters for many large US companies. Flying a jet into the IFSC, or any mid sized town, would create hundreds of casualties.

You can't shoot down a passenger jet as there is always the chance that the plane wasn't hijacked by suicide terrorists and could be trying to land, which politician or military officer is going to give the order to kill hundreds of innocent civilians been held captive.

Shannon757

As usual when these threads come up, the only right answer is this:

IsaacWunder

donvito99 wrote: »

It's a totally believable argument. Certainly when compared to the 777 plummeting into the Stephen's Green Centre (:rolleyes:) hypothesised earlier....

Yeah, totally believable, but the thread is about lack of air defence, not the probability of a terrorist attack by Islamists (even if they were to ally with the IRA, as was suggested, and is equally as improbable).

EchoIndia

Countries that maintain air defence systems have them for military purposes in the first place, i.e. to counter air forces of other powers. With multi-role types, other uses such as reconnaissance and ground attack may also be undertaken. Interception of civilian aircraft, which in almost all cases involves radios having been turned down or crews not changing to the appropriate ATC sector, is a secondary role, IMO. As people have pointed out, what exactly is a fighter likely to be able to do unless it is 100% certain that an aircraft has been hijacked and is about to be flown into a populated area? A "precautionary" shootdown would sure never be authorised.

Anything other than a supersonic type would have difficulty intercepting and staying with an airliner that would be travelling in the Mach 0.80-0.88 speed range. The Vampires and Fougas that Ireland operated in the past were early straight-wing jets and well slower than most civilian jets in the cruise. We would in effect be building from scratch an air arm with the sort of capabilities that many other countries have had for several generations, though which most have greatly scaled back over the last two decades. While I can see the "national autonomy" arguments in favour of such a force in Ireland, in the absence of a real and definable threat that would justify the capital investment, manpower expansion and sustained training programmes above other calls on the Exchequer, I don't see this ever happening.

BTW on the question of Iceland and NATO membership, people should recall in particular that country's strategic importance in WW2 as an anti-submarine base and transit stop for short-range aircraft on ferry flights, roles that it maintained during the Cold War and since then.

Esel

We should ask the USAF to set up shop in Ronald Reagan Airbase in Knock.

KCAccidental

mobileforest wrote: »

First of all, Iceland doesn't have an airforce. It's protection is provided by its NATO partners. Why are they in NATO? I don't know but I assume that WWII (when both Germany and USA tried to occupy them) taught them that as the stepping stone between Europe and America their neutrality in a global war would be as respected at Belgium's in an European war.

and of course their actual invasion and occupation by the British in 1940.

sandbelter

I think you all misidentifying the nature of the threat, you're all assuming that it will be effectively a replay of the cold war or a hijacking.

The type of conflict Ireland could face is being played out in the South China Sea now where China is essentially attempting to refine the Law of the Sea. Russia and China (Russia is actually the more flexible of the two) have essentially the view that that law of the sea was a western invention and promoting the idea that the deep oceans are some sore of "commons", which disguised their true strategy of "what is ours is ours, and what is your is our also when we decide it". Ask the Filipino's how it works.

The reason I raise this is that circa 92% of Ireland is under water and the mineralogy of Ireland's deep ocean economic zone is particularly lucrative due to extensive gold deposits (Google Irish Independent, "Gold Rush under the ocean..", August 5th, 2011) on Ireland's side of the mid Atlantic ridge.

The US is slowing limited interest in confronting China, especially whilst North Korea (china's proxy) is threatening nuclear war in the continental US. That's how war is conducted these days....the major powers avoid confrontation, but conflict is conducted through proxies, hence my view Ireland is on its own on this one.

Ireland doesn't need F16's, its needs deep ocean naval and air force capabilities protected by an umbrella cyber warfare unit. Since the disposal of the Nimrod the UK doesn't have a focus on these, nor really does the EU (the only country in Europe that has similar issues to Ireland is Portugal). Let's home it does take some foreign dredging ship, with the tacit support of a superpower, arriving in Irish waters for it to be "realised".

Hence the question should ask is what are the risks unique to Ireland and then build a capability to mitigate it. That way, there will be the type of equipment that can be utilised for that purpose, as the chances are no one else is going to bother....and for everything else rely on the goodwill of your neighbours. Do a few things well instead of having a whole lot of blah.

Esel

sandbelter wrote: »

I think you all misidentifying the nature of the threat, you're all assuming that it will be effectively a replay of the cold war or a hijacking.

The type of conflict Ireland could face is being played out in the South China Sea now where China is essentially attempting to refine the Law of the Sea. Russia and China (Russia is actually the more flexible of the two) have essentially the view that that law of the sea was a western invention and promoting the idea that the deep oceans are some sore of "commons", which disguised their true strategy of "what is ours is ours, and what is your is our also when we decide it". Ask the Filipino's how it works.

The reason I raise this is that circa 92% of Ireland is under water and the mineralogy of Ireland's deep ocean economic zone is particularly lucrative due to extensive gold deposits (Google Irish Independent, "Gold Rush under the ocean..", August 5th, 2011) on Ireland's side of the mid Atlantic ridge.

The US is slowing limited interest in confronting China, especially whilst North Korea (china's proxy) is threatening nuclear war in the continental US. That's how war is conducted these days....the major powers avoid confrontation, but conflict is conducted through proxies, hence my view Ireland is on its own on this one.

Ireland doesn't need F16's, its needs deep ocean naval and air force capabilities protected by an umbrella cyber warfare unit. Since the disposal of the Nimrod the UK doesn't have a focus on these, nor really does the EU (the only country in Europe that has similar issues to Ireland is Portugal). Let's home it does take some foreign dredging ship, with the tacit support of a superpower, arriving in Irish waters for it to be "realised".

Hence the question should ask is what are the risks unique to Ireland and then build a capability to mitigate it. That way, there will be the type of equipment that can be utilised for that purpose, as the chances are no one else is going to bother....and for everything else rely on the goodwill of your neighbours. Do a few things well instead of having a whole lot of blah.

Didn't see that in any recent election manifesto. Maybe Dilly O'Wee made a statement in the South Limerick News that I missed...

Good post, btw.

Realistically, we need more coastal protection vessels, more surveillance planes, more coastguard helicopters and dedicated air ambulances (note I didn't say 'more' there).

The last two should be outsourced.

Certainly, beef up the Air Corps, but only if integrated with our other defence assets.

Edit: Not to mention much better resources for ambulance services etc. - but that's probably for another thread...