Air space defence?

bear1

Quite interested in the military capabilities of the country and recently I began thinking of the fact that there seems to be an agreement between the Irish and British government's that the raf would come to our aid in the event of a hijacking or whatever else.
Now though with Brexit on it's way, surely this won't be allowed by the eu?
A non eu country defending an eu nations airspace seems laughable.
So what happens in this regard? Do things remain the same and we pretend we don't need a suitable air force or could the eu force the government to properly police our skies?

sparky42

bear1 wrote: »

Quite interested in the military capabilities of the country and recently I began thinking of the fact that there seems to be an agreement between the Irish and British government's that the raf would come to our aid in the event of a hijacking or whatever else.
Now though with Brexit on it's way, surely this won't be allowed by the eu?
A non eu country defending an eu nations airspace seems laughable.
So what happens in this regard? Do things remain the same and we pretend we don't need a suitable air force or could the eu force the government to properly police our skies?

You are aware the USAF does this all the time so no it's not an issue with an EU nation having it's airspace defended by a NON-EU nation (OK that goes through NATO but still).

So far the EU still doesn't have such integrated Defence stances/polices so they aren't going to make an issue one way or the other. They can't "force" us to spend on defence and there's no political will to spend the 100 million or so a year that a Gripen deal would need.

bear1

sparky42 wrote: »

You are aware the USAF does this all the time so no it's not an issue with an EU nation having it's airspace defended by a NON-EU nation (OK that goes through NATO but still).

So far the EU still doesn't have such integrated Defence stances/polices so they aren't going to make an issue one way or the other. They can't "force" us to spend on defence and there's no political will to spend the 100 million or so a year that a Gripen deal would need.

But with Ireland agreeing to pesco, doesn't that force the government to dedicate a certain percentage of gdp on defence spending?
I see the gripen deal is mentioned a few times in threads about defence, any reason? Has the government been pursing this sort of deal?

Gatling

bear1 wrote: »

But with Ireland agreeing to pesco, doesn't that force the government to dedicate a certain percentage of gdp on defence spending?
I see the gripen deal is mentioned a few times in threads about defence, any reason? Has the government been pursing this sort of deal?

No it's actually doesn't we have opt outs for most of the pesco deal ,
Don't think we can afford gripens ,an aircraft I would love to see as part of the defence forces ,
From my understanding the 800+ million defense budget roughly half goes on wages and pensions ,
But I don't see why we can't have EU aircraft based here under a mutual cooperation deal

sparky42

bear1 wrote: »

But with Ireland agreeing to pesco, doesn't that force the government to dedicate a certain percentage of gdp on defence spending?
I see the gripen deal is mentioned a few times in threads about defence, any reason? Has the government been pursing this sort of deal?

Not for us, now given the basic Capital spend that we have coming up it's going to increase before falling back again.

As for Gripen, it's because several of the Eastern European nations have been able to set up "leases" for about €100 million a year for a Squadron or so, but no so far there's not anything to suggest such spending (or that the AC could sustain such operations)

bear1

Gatling wrote: »

No it's actually doesn't we have opt outs for most of the pesco deal ,
Don't think we can afford gripens ,an aircraft I would love to see as part of the defence forces ,
From my understanding the 800+ million defense budget roughly half goes on wages and pensions ,
But I don't see why we can't have EU aircraft based here under a mutual cooperation deal

Something needs to be drastically done if half the budget given to the defence forces goes on wages and pensions.
200 million in relative terms is nothing.
As far as I'm aware that money needs to last them till 2020?
You'd think with us nearing to the next decade that the fixed wing craft are going to become absolete for their purpose.
Aren't the government simply pushing back an inevitability rather than facing it head on and getting it over with?
Economy is going well so maybe joining NATO and basing aircraft here could be a cheap and beneficially solution?

sparky42

Gatling wrote: »

But I don't see why we can't have EU aircraft based here under a mutual cooperation deal

Because our looney tunes groups would probably damage them just for laughs, or more likely the 27 would point out that we aren't a poor nation and perhaps we could spend more than .6% on defence if we want such capabilities rather than asking other nations to provide it.

bear1

sparky42 wrote: »

Because our looney tunes groups would probably damage them just for laughs, or more likely the 27 would point out that we aren't a poor nation and perhaps we could spend more than .6% on defence if we want such capabilities rather than asking other nations to provide it.

Agree with that.
What percentage would it have to be before we could comfortably start improving our capabilities?
5%?

sparky42

bear1 wrote: »

Something needs to be drastically done if half the budget given to the defence forces goes on wages and pensions.
200 million in relative terms is nothing.
As far as I'm aware that money needs to last them till 2020?
You'd think with us nearing to the next decade that the fixed wing craft are going to become absolete for their purpose.
Aren't the government simply pushing back an inevitability rather than facing it head on and getting it over with?
Economy is going well so maybe joining NATO and basing aircraft here could be a cheap and beneficially solution?

I think it's 200 million for Pensions, 600 million for everything else (including wages). And no the 800 million doesn't last till 2020, it's no different to any other department in that it's a yearly amount, next budget it will be set again.
As for Capital spend, if you noticed at the budget it was already announced that 2018 would see the start of the CASA replacement and the EPV (so about 300 million in Capital spend say over the next 4 years (possibly as high as 400 million).
The Government is doing what every Irish Government does, focus on what gets them elected, spending on defence is not one of those areas and so it will get just enough to keep what we have.
As for joining NATO forget it, and basing aircraft here? Short of deploying the army then it won't happen given our PANA types (and the USN COD example)

sparky42

bear1 wrote: »

Agree with that.
What percentage would it have to be before we could comfortably start improving our capabilities?
5%?

No, even the 1% would be about doubling our current spend (and up to '96 we spent above that 1%). No EU nation is spending 5% GDP on defence, 2% is the NATO recommendation.

bear1

sparky42 wrote: »

I think it's 200 million for Pensions, 600 million for everything else (including wages). And no the 800 million doesn't last till 2020, it's no different to any other department in that it's a yearly amount, next budget it will be set again.
As for Capital spend, if you noticed at the budget it was already announced that 2018 would see the start of the CASA replacement and the EPV (so about 300 million in Capital spend say over the next 4 years (possibly as high as 400 million).
The Government is doing what every Irish Government does, focus on what gets them elected, spending on defence is not one of those areas and so it will get just enough to keep what we have.
As for joining NATO forget it, and basing aircraft here? Short of deploying the army then it won't happen given our PANA types (and the USN COD example)

Such a pity but I suppose when you think the military doesn't even have proper radar then shelling out a fortune on jets makes no sense.

bear1

sparky42 wrote: »

No, even the 1% would be about doubling our current spend (and up to '96 we spent above that 1%). No EU nation is spending 5% GDP on defence, 2% is the NATO recommendation.

Yeah was just plucking a figure out.
So essentially they would need to receive a budget of 2 billion a year to meet standards.
A budget the defence forces would be proud of I'd say.
I remember hearing after 9/11 Bertie asked what the forces needed and he was told a squadron of f16s.
Probably rubbish though.

ted1

The RAF would step in, because they are next and an attack in Ireland would probably be a precursor to an attack on the UK.

Peregrinus

bear1 wrote: »

Something needs to be drastically done if half the budget given to the defence forces goes on wages and pensions.
200 million in relative terms is nothing.
As far as I'm aware that money needs to last them till 2020?
You'd think with us nearing to the next decade that the fixed wing craft are going to become absolete for their purpose.
Aren't the government simply pushing back an inevitability rather than facing it head on and getting it over with?
Economy is going well so maybe joining NATO and basing aircraft here could be a cheap and beneficially solution?

Why would NATO member states want to base aircraft in Ireland? Of what tactical or strategic benefit would it be for NATO?

There are 29 NATO member states; the US maintains air bases in five of them. (Six, if we count the US itself.) Currently the UK has air bases in only one other NATO member state - the US. So foreign air bases don't come as standard with NATO membership. And I can't see any obvious reason why, if we were to join NATO, anyone would be interested in establishing an airbase here.

tac foley

Peregrinus wrote: »

Currently the UK has air bases in only one other NATO member state - the US.

Where is that?

tac

Peregrinus

There are RAF squadrons based at Edwards Air Base in California, and Creech Air Base in Nevada.

Psychlops

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are RAF squadrons based at Edwards Air Base in California, and Creech Air Base in Nevada.

Yeah, in Creech for Reaper UAV's, no actual aircraft. And only doing the testing/evaluation of the F35 at Edwards.

Peregrinus

Psychlops wrote: »

Yeah, in Creech for Reaper UAV's, no actual aircraft. And only doing the testing/evaluation of the F35 at Edwards.

They say they're only doing testing/evaluation at Edwards . . . !

[Cue conspiracy theory music.]

jonnybigwallet

The fact is...spending is less than has been suggested. Only .3 %. Morale is at an all time low in the air corps. The navy has had a decent boost of late. Time to but the lads some decent aircraft. I suggest the relatively inexpensive Scorpion as an interim solution. The reason the government killed off the jets is because all the lads who knew how to fly a jet were poached by Ryanair. Give them a decent pay rise as well. The poor fellas are embarrassed every summer when they host the international air forces for the Bray Air Show. And all they can show their peers are a couple of auld trainers. And I'm not talking about shoes here.

Psychlops

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

I suggest the relatively inexpensive Scorpion as an interim solution. The reason the government killed off the jets is because all the lads who knew how to fly a jet were poached by Ryanair. Give them a decent pay rise as well. The poor fellas are embarrassed every summer when they host the international air forces for the Bray Air Show. And all they can show their peers are a couple of auld trainers. And I'm not talking about shoes here.

So you want us to go down the rabbit hole of yet again buying an unproven/untested airframe & to be a potential launch customer of the Scorpion?? The PC9M is no "auld trainer" as you so nicely put it. But I agree with you that we need more.

Why don't we just go after the Hawk T2 the newer upgraded version of the BAe Hawk, its a proven aircraft and is sidewinder equipped, that's more than enough. We could also engage more this way with the RAF by sending out guys to train at RAF Valley as they have the Hawk T2 there for fast jet training.

Why do we have to be buying aircraft as a launch customer, let a different Air Force do that and work out the bugs.

jonnybigwallet

The trouble about them Hawks is that they are bloody expensive...and getting a bit long in the tooth!

sparky42

Psychlops wrote: »

So you want us to go down the rabbit hole of yet again buying an unproven/untested airframe & to be a potential launch customer of the Scorpion?? The PC9M is no "auld trainer" as you so nicely put it. But I agree with you that we need more.

Why don't we just go after the Hawk T2 the newer upgraded version of the BAe Hawk, its a proven aircraft and is sidewinder equipped, that's more than enough. We could also engage more this way with the RAF by sending out guys to train at RAF Valley as they have the Hawk T2 there for fast jet training.

Why do we have to be buying aircraft as a launch customer, let a different Air Force do that and work out the bugs.

I would say don't feed the Troll based on some of his other posts.

As to aircraft, I'd agree that the AC should NEVER go with a Launch customer position ever again (and anyone suggesting it be kept from procurement), the Hawks however I think would struggle for anything West Coast (ie Bear issues) though could handle air policing for international visits. When you look at the deal some of the Eastern Nations have got with the Gripen Leases it's not impossible money we're talking about.

Fann Linn

'If it flies, it dies', the motto of the Air Defence Regiment according to a family member.

Totally confident in our capabilities!!

View Profile

For less than 100 million we could get 5 brand new Aermacchi M-346 twin engine, trans-sonic, fighter trainers. Able to climb as high as any airliner, a range of over 2,000 km and a proven, modern and reliable airframe.

source

Fann Linn wrote: »

'If it flies, it dies', the motto of the Air Defence Regiment according to a family member.

Totally confident in our capabilities!!

Actually, "What flies, dies" was the motto of 1ADR, prior to disbandment of the reserve batteries and the permanent batteries being absorbed by the Brigade Artillery Regiments in 2013.

I'm a former member of 3AD Bty myself.

jonnybigwallet

I like the look of the Italian aircraft. Pretty sure I saw this one being demonstrated at Farnborough a good few years ago. Near vertical rate of climb! Have more confidence in this machine now that Jonny Italian is building it as the Soviet bloc versions suffered from very poor build quality. Why not have 6 or 8 instead of 5? Packs a punch! Just the ticket for chasing away the Russian bear if they're spotted near the Aran Islands.

bear1

I think the fact the pensions and wages take up so much of their budget that we haven't a hope in hell of ever getting jets.
Can't understand the point of having rotary aircraft but there you go.

sparky42

View Profile wrote: »

For less than 100 million we could get 5 brand new Aermacchi M-346 twin engine, trans-sonic, fighter trainers. Able to climb as high as any airliner, a range of over 2,000 km and a proven, modern and reliable airframe.

They aren't Trans sonic, the top speed is only 572 knots and is that with a clean wing or not? Same question for it's range figures. 5 wouldn't be any use for any form of Air Intercept given availability numbers...

jonnybigwallet

Well. It sure would be a hell of an improvement on the present set up. One step at a time as the economy builds up.

jonnybigwallet

And I take your point re availability. Hence my suggestion of 6 to 8.

View Profile

From Flight Global magazine in 2009:

"Alenia Aermacchi's M-346"Master" advanced jet/lead-in fighter trainer has made its first supersonic flight, reaching Mach 1.15 (675kt/1,250km/h) at 45,000ft (13,700m) during an 18 December test flight."

Able to achieve supersonic flight without afterburner thus reducing maintenance costs. Top speed limited to Mach 1.2.

View Profile

Range can be extended beyond 2000 km with external drop tanks and it's also available with an in-flight refuelling probe.

sparky42

View Profile wrote: »

From Flight Global magazine in 2009:

"Alenia Aermacchi'sÂÂ M-346"Master" advanced jet/lead-in fighter trainer has made its first supersonic flight, reaching Mach 1.15 (675kt/1,250km/h) at 45,000ft (13,700m) during an 18 December test flight."

Able to achieve supersonic flight without afterburner thus reducing maintenance costs. Top speed limited to Mach 1.2.

View Profile wrote: »

Range can be extended beyond 2000 km with external drop tanks and it's also available with an in-flight refuelling probe.

And again is that "top speed" in clean wing or not, ie you stick external tanks (which don't get dropped) can it manage that speed? Most likely not given other designs. And we don't have in-flight refueling and don't have agreements with anyone for said so it's mute.

Psychlops

bear1 wrote: »

Can't understand the point of having rotary aircraft but there you go.

Care to elaborate?

bear1

Psychlops wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

That having aircraft with propeller engines as our "defence" is utter pointless.
The move the jet needs to come sooner.

sparky42

bear1 wrote: »

That having aircraft with propeller engines as our "defence" is utter pointless.
The move the jet needs to come sooner.

And the pilots train on what exactly?
The AC has a lot better things to spend any increase on before FJs, hell lets just start with getting Radar Systems for detection before thinking about jets for interception perhaps.

jonnybigwallet

New Radar is already in the plan and in the budget I believe. Next phase is to get about 8 jets. I like that Italian jobby posted recently. Highly cost effective. I think Jonny Libyan has the earlier version in their air force.

s7ryf3925pivug

What benefit would there be to building our air force? Better to build alliances with countries with strong air forces. We would be better specializing in infantry. Our infantry is already established and respected, would be less expensive/better value, and would be a more important contribution to the overall capabilies of the EU or EU/NATO forces.

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

New Radar is already in the plan and in the budget I believe. Next phase is to get about 8 jets. I like that Italian jobby posted recently. Highly cost effective. I think Jonny Libyan has the earlier version in their air force.

Try reading the WP then, no it's not in the plan, it's in the "we'd really like this if we ever have the money", and we don't under current plans so no Radar.

sparky42

Mae Faint Traction wrote: »

What benefit would there be to building our air force? Better to build alliances with countries with strong air forces. We would be better specializing in infantry. Our infantry is already established and respected, would be less expensive/better value, and would be a more important contribution to the overall capabilies of the EU or EU/NATO forces.

Depends on what you mean by "building our Air Force" doesn't it? Our MPA needs replacement and enlargement (and could be of benefit for EU joint ops), our Helicopter fleet needs replacement if we want to use them for anything military (and for large deployments having said helicopters would be more than "useful") ISTAR is also an area that we could/should look at developing.

The Infantry is "cheap" because like everything else we skimp on what they need and hope it doesn't bite us in the a$$, think about how exposed the MOWAGS have been on patrol in the Golan Heights without any of the modern protection systems. No artillery deployed (or SP), limited heavy weapons... Don't think if we "specialised" in the Army it would be cheap.

Though I'd look at more at the Navy given our location.

roadmaster

sparky42 wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by "building our Air Force" doesn't it? Our MPA needs replacement and enlargement (and could be of benefit for EU joint ops), our Helicopter fleet needs replacement if we want to use them for anything military (and for large deployments having said helicopters would be more than "useful") ISTAR is also an area that we could/should look at developing.

The Infantry is "cheap" because like everything else we skimp on what they need and hope it doesn't bite us in the a$$, think about how exposed the MOWAGS have been on patrol in the Golan Heights without any of the modern protection systems. No artillery deployed (or SP), limited heavy weapons... Don't think if we "specialised" in the Army it would be cheap.

Though I'd look at more at the Navy given our location.

Under there role with the UN is the Army allowed deploy heavy artillery such as the the 105's by the UN and Israelis?

roadmaster

sparky42 wrote: »

And again is that "top speed" in clean wing or not, ie you stick external tanks (which don't get dropped) can it manage that speed? Most likely not given other designs. And we don't have in-flight refueling and don't have agreements with anyone for said so it's mute.

So would it be fair to stay that every fighter aircraft top speed advertised should be taking with a pinch of salt as they probably doing that said speed naked as such without weapons and extra fuel tanks?

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

Under there role with the UN is the Army allowed deploy heavy artillery such as the the 105's by the UN and Israelis?

Don't think so, but that's not the only operation we undertake, for example Chad (where we had the helicopter issue).

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

So would it be fair to stay that every fighter aircraft top speed advertised top speed should be taking with a pinch of salt as they probably doing that said speed naked as such without weapons and extra fuel tanks?

I think so, for example I think the Eurofighter can say it "supercruises" but that's only with a clean wing (maybe with the wingtip station armed), stick fuel tanks, munitions on it and it can't (the F22 gets away with it as it carries internally) without afterburner. Just as how you can have a "max operational range" but then a different range depending on flight profile during the operation.

roadmaster

sparky42 wrote: »

Don't think so, but that's not the only operation we undertake, for example Chad (where we had the helicopter issue).

why do they not deploy the 105's is it a cost issue

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

why do they not deploy the 105's is it a cost issue

Well as you said for Lebanon/Golan Heights it's more of the UN restrictions (same for Javelins I think), but I'd say costs certainly play into it for other missions.

jonnybigwallet

Too mean to deploy the shoulder launched missiles. Costs 60000 euros per missile fired.

beauf

For some reason I read the topic title as Space Defence. Kinda underwhelmed now.

sparky42

beauf wrote: »

For some reason I read the topic title as Space Defence. Kinda underwhelmed now.

Bit of a come down alright.