RAF jets protecting Ireland

touts

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any threat to Ireland is a threat to Britain, whether we're best of friends or best of enemies.

If we were invaded in the morning, Britain would be far quicker to our aid than anyone else. They'd have support on the way before the cock finished crowing.

Britain will always have our back (airspace).

If we're invaded in the morning then the air force is the least of the problems we would face trying to organize a defence. We basically have no army and the handful of soldiers we do have are woefully under equipped for a standup battle. But that's deliberate. Our whole defence strategy is the same as it was 100 years ago. Disband the army and disperse them back to their homes with small arms to fight a gorilla style defence post occupation. It's not a flashy strategy with lots of fancy jets and tanks and ships. But it's probably the most appropriate given the size of our population. Bearing that in mind then every cent spent on jets is wasted when small arms and explosives are what what our defence is based on.

HTCOne

If we ever were genuinely threatened militarily the easiest solution would be to offer the Yanks a long term lease on either Shannon or Knock with strings attached around QRA for Ireland, or getting some co-located IAC operated second hand F16s and ancillaries, support etc from them.

Blut2

Fighter jets look and sound great. My inner aviation nerd, and 14 year old boy, love them. But in the real world the billions of euros required, for something thats essentially of no practical use and is just for national pride, can be better spent on our hospitals, gardai, schools and roads. We have far more pressing needs as a nation.

grassylawn

touts wrote: »

If we're invaded in the morning then the air force is the least of the problems we would face trying to organize a defence. We basically have no army and the handful of soldiers we do have are woefully under equipped for a standup battle. But that's deliberate. Our whole defence strategy is the same as it was 100 years ago. Disband the army and disperse them back to their homes with small arms to fight a gorilla style defence post occupation. It's not a flashy strategy with lots of fancy jets and tanks and ships. But it's probably the most appropriate given the size of our population. Bearing that in mind then every cent spent on jets is wasted when small arms and explosives are what what our defence is based on.

Pretty sure disbanding the army isn't part of the defence strategy. But I think you have roughly described the Swiss model. They have a 120k strong militia who keep automatic rifles in their homes. They also have thousands of explosives on transport infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels.

guy2231

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any threat to Ireland is a threat to Britain, whether we're best of friends or best of enemies.

If we were invaded in the morning, Britain would be far quicker to our aid than anyone else. They'd have support on the way before the cock finished crowing.

Britain will always have our back (airspace).

Absolute rubbish we are in the EU if someone declares war or attacks one EU country you declare war on all of the EU.

Larbre34

touts wrote: »

We're all pulling numbers out of the air but the idea of €417k per jet per year (based on 16 jets for 12 years at a total of €70m) is hopelessly inadequate. The salaries alone for the pilots and support staff per jet would exceed that.

No. Let me clarify. The Czechs simply lease 14 Gripen jets for 20 years for 70 million, including some ancillaries. The outright purchase price of one example of the type is ~€50 million currently.

I mentioned an entire project cost of 1 to 2 billion, spread out over whatever number of years that includes everything you mention. I'm saying the planes, on their own,can either cost 800 million outright or be leased for 10% of that.

I'd even go so far as to venture that if Ireland agreed to shore up our rather large gap in European air space defence that we'd get a very lucrative deal on just about all the hardware and expertise from EU colleagues.

zom

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Czech Republic currently leases 14 Gripen fighters, with tech support, from Saab and the Swedish Government at a cost of €70 million over 12 years. A pittance in defence terms.

Gripen is nice and compact system but fighter itself has pretty short range distance unfortunately - good in defensive role for countries with small airspace like Czech or Switzerland (they planned but decide not to buy) but not for island like us with vast coastline and territorial waters. Swedish use them but they have like 100 of them and mostly Baltic sea to patrol. Norway for example went for F-16E with 3 times longer range (plus few F-35 but they can afford it with their gas and oil resources

It is different story of we need our own jet fighters and how it would work NATO defense doctrine. It is interesting to see Icelandic Air Policing where Iceland has more strategic role with number of radar systems located there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

guy2231

A lot of fanciful rubbish on this thread wanting to spend billions on aircraft for no reason at all.

Even if we were invaded and for whatever reason the EU decided to abandon us our only option would be IRA style guerilla warfare, if we attempted to fight a conventional war we would be wiped out instantly no amount of fighter jets is going to change that.

Strumms

guy2231 wrote: »

A lot of fanciful rubbish on this thread wanting to spend billions on aircraft for no reason at all.

Even if we were invaded and for whatever reason the EU decided to abandon us our only option would be IRA style guerilla warfare, if we attempted to fight a conventional war we would be wiped out instantly no amount of fighter jets is going to change that.

Truth.

The number of jets required to defend our airspace and country in the event of an attack would be dozens.... that’s hundreds of millions that we don’t have....

That’s before you factor in more millions on ..

Staff
- Crew
- maintenance
- hiring / paying
- training

Equipment
- ground support
- hangers
- maintenance equipment and inventory

You’d need to probably upgrade or build and run two more aer corps bases at a minimum..

kyote00

May as well go for a few nuclear subs while we are at it and a squadron of eurofighters.

Put the planes in Shannon to keep it open…..and the subs in Foynes deep port….



Greece has a population of 10m … is more bankrupt than us …. It has ~600 aircraft….

zom

kyote00 wrote: »

Greece has a population of 10m … is more bankrupt than us …. It has ~600 aircraft….

Greece borders Turkey - extremely aggressive and unpredictable nation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54132044

https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/turkey-breaches-airspace-of-greece-40-times-in-a-day-triggering-mock-dogfights-between-the-nato-allies-1.611611

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/24/turkey.topstories3

touts

grassylawn wrote: »

Pretty sure disbanding the army isn't part of the defence strategy. But I think you have roughly described the Swiss model. They have a 120k strong militia who keep automatic rifles in their homes. They also have thousands of explosives on transport infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels.

You think a stand up battle is part of our defence strategy? If it is then that is shockingly irresponsible by our army leadership and strategists. Gorilla warfare is absolutely our defence strategy. Always has been.

bk

grassylawn wrote: »

Pretty sure disbanding the army isn't part of the defence strategy. But I think you have roughly described the Swiss model. They have a 120k strong militia who keep automatic rifles in their homes. They also have thousands of explosives on transport infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels.

FYI The Swiss have taken the explosives out of the bridges, etc.

They felt there was more of a chance of an accident, then an actual invasion these days. They keep the explosives in armouries now and they can put them back if international tensions arise.

Countries throughout Europe have drastically reduced their military spending as despite the noise they make, there is very little real threat to most of Western Europe from Russia.

If we didn’t bother having a proper fighter force during the Cold War, it makes no sense at all for us to do so now in a much lower threat environment.

riffmongous

bk wrote: »

FYI The Swiss have taken the explosives out of the bridges, etc.

They felt there was more of a chance of an accident, then an actual invasion these days. They keep the explosives in armouries now and they can put them back if international tensions arise.

Countries throughout Europe have drastically reduced their military spending as despite the noise they make, there is very little real threat to most of Western Europe from Russia.

If we didn’t bother having a proper fighter force during the Cold War, it makes no sense at all for us to do so now in a much lower threat environment.

Russia is more of a threat to us than ever before.. just not in the conventional sense. We need to start pumping money into cyber-defence that is needed every single day now instead of planes

bk

Another thought, if we did have a spare billion or two to spend on defence, then it would be much better spent on cyber defence then fighter jets.

As we have seen in the past 2 months with the attacks on the HSE’s systems, we are much more vulnerable to cyber attack from Russia, then any Topgun fantasy.

Cyber attacks can do real damage to our infrastructure and economy and are a much more real threat to us all and we need to be giving it far more attention. I hope the HSE attack has been a wake up call.

bk

riffmongous wrote: »

Russia is more of a threat to us than ever before.. just not in the conventional sense. We need to start pumping money into cyber-defence that is needed every single day now instead of planes

Lol snap I couldn’t agree more.

grassylawn

touts wrote: »

You think a stand up battle is part of our defence strategy? If it is then that is shockingly irresponsible by our army leadership and strategists. Gorilla warfare is absolutely our defence strategy. Always has been.

In the event of a hostile force landing on Irish soil the zookeepers will enact the Boulle Protocol.

Genre..

Who or what exactly would we be protecting ourselves against ?

Blut2

bk wrote: »

Another thought, if we did have a spare billion or two to spend on defence, then it would be much better spent on cyber defence then fighter jets.

As we have seen in the past 2 months with the attacks on the HSE’s systems, we are much more vulnerable to cyber attack from Russia, then any Topgun fantasy.

Cyber attacks can do real damage to our infrastructure and economy and are a much more real threat to us all and we need to be giving it far more attention. I hope the HSE attack has been a wake up call.

Cyber defense is where some increased defense spending would actually be useful, because our state is actually at risk, and attacks can and will happen. Unlike the Tom Clancy-esque fantasy of a Russian bombing raid on Donegal that expensive fighter jets might defend from.

The key issue with any government spending is it means if euros are spent on one line item, they won't be spent on another. If a fighter program for Ireland cost €2bn, thats €2bn that won't be spent on cyber defense. Or hospitals. Or schools.

So for each euro spent we have to ask what would do the most good for the most people in Ireland. 99.99% of the time its putting that €2bn into hospitals/schools etc, and not modern fighter jets. Domestic spending actually has tangible day-to-day benefits for large numbers of Irish people. I personally would have a pretty hard time telling hundreds of Irish citizens they're going to die earlier than they could have from cancer because we had to have some fancy looking F16s for Youtube...

breezy1985

kyote00 wrote: »

May as well go for a few nuclear subs while we are at it and a squadron of eurofighters.

Put the planes in Shannon to keep it open…..and the subs in Foynes deep port….



Greece has a population of 10m … is more bankrupt than us …. It has ~600 aircraft….

Maybe thats one of the reasons why they are bankrupt. I wouldn't be looking towards Greece as an example of how to do anything except maybe a nice lamb wrap or something.

Greece also borders Turkey and was ruled by a military dictatorship for a while

Tenger

Larbre34 wrote: »

......
......
......
I'd even go so far as to venture that if Ireland agreed to shore up our rather large gap in European air space defence that we'd get a very lucrative deal on just about all the hardware and expertise from EU colleagues.

Which gap is that? The one facing west towards the North Atlantic, which is the path from which the Americans might come!

Because the GIUK gap (Of the Cold War fame) is pretty much covered by the USAF and the RAF.
RAF bases in Scotland get warning and can intercept any RuAF assets far earlier than we could.

And to our South the French and the Spanish have the South-Western approach covered.


If our "International partners" are worried about our lack of airspace defence we could follow the Iceland example. And have EU Allies make several short deployments a year.
Base 6-8 interceptors in Shannon for 4-6 weeks at a time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

riffmongous

bk wrote: »

Lol snap I couldn’t agree more.

Haha, snap indeed

Larbre34

Tenger wrote: »

If our "International partners" are worried about our lack of airspace defence we could follow the Iceland example. And have EU Allies make several short deployments a year.
Base 6-8 interceptors in Shannon for 4-6 weeks at a time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

You're really being churlish to ignore the presence of Russian military aircraft operating with transponders off, off our coasts and in our area of air traffic responsibility in the Atlantic.

However, I have no problem with the solution you describe. The difficulty arises where Iceland are in NATO and we are not. This would no doubt raise noisy objections from the left wing here in Ireland. Also, would it be any less constitutional than the DoFA arrangement with the UK?

Tenger

Larbre34 wrote: »

You're really being churlish to ignore the presence of Russian military aircraft operating with transponders off, off our coasts and in our area of air traffic responsibility in the Atlantic.

However, I have no problem with the solution you describe. The difficulty arises where Iceland are in NATO and we are not. This would no doubt raise noisy objections from the left wing here in Ireland. Also, would it be any less constitutional than the DoFA arrangement with the UK?

No one is “ignoring the presence of RuAF aircraft”. The RAF intercept and shadow these aircraft once detected on their approach from the GIUK gap.

As I’ve stated twice already, so far our lack of defense infrastructure hasn’t impacted the decision of our international partners yet.

Iceland is indeed in NATO and its NATO partners deploy to KEF. I was using that as an example.
But my post stated that we could use this model and have our “EU allies” deploy.

ted1

Who are we protecting our skies from?

What’s the threat?

Should we be attacked, woukd they not do what the US did to Iraq and Libya etc, just take out the runway rendering jets useless

Blut2

Its also pretty telling that even on an aviation enthusiasts forum, where the support for and interest in fighter jets would be much much higher than in the general Irish population, opinions are still 70/30 against the idea according to the poll.

That would suggest amongst the general public its probably closer to 10% support, which means everything else aside the whole thing is a complete political non-runner.

bk

ted1 wrote: »

Who are we protecting our skies from?

What’s the threat?

Should we be attacked, woukd they not do what the US did to Iraq and Libya etc, just take out the runway rendering jets useless

Yes, it is nonsense.

The threat that people go on about are the Russians, but the only scenario that the Russians would actually enter our sovereign airspace is if World War 3 has broken out and they are heading to the UK to nuke them.

Once nukes are flying, a dozen jets will make feck all difference and we are all basically fecked anyway.

And even in a war scenario, the reality most nukes are ICBM's launched out of subs and the Bears would launch there cruise missiles from closer to Russia, not fly all the way to the UK, they are big and slow and would be sitting ducks.

Russians flying of our west coast is just posturing by Putin for local propaganda.

Psychlops

Great listen today:


https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-pat-kenny-show/do-have-we-the-capacity-to-police-our-own-skies

sdanseo

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

8 jets wouldn't keep a 2 jet qrf in service.

Either we spend for a serious airforce or we don't. Tokenism is pointless.

Why on earth not?

CHC/IRCG have 5 recue helicopters with 4 on permanent response readiness almost 100% of the time.

I know they're not fighter jets, but even factoring in 50% downtime there's still 2 on standby or available for training use.

In any case, we have 200nm of open ocean to police in almost every direction and we can't recruit for any of the Defence Forces. WHile it would be nice to see us acquire jets, improving DF pay and conditions and brining them to at least their approved strength would in the short term be a much better use of the money.

Tenger

sdanseo wrote: »

Why on earth not?

CHC/IRCG have 5 recue helicopters with 4 on permanent response readiness almost 100% of the time.

I know they're not fighter jets, but even factoring in 50% downtime there's still 2 on standby or available for training use.
.....

4 jets required in the US for training. (assuming we have F-18s and USAF instructors, Gripen's may require similar setup based in Sweden)
2 jets on QRF, 2 on longer standby.
2-4 in use on any given day for currency/training. (the "longer standby" could be part of this group)
Another 4-8 in various level of prep/overhaul.
Thats minimum of 14 aircraft to have 4-6 ready.

we would also need to have 2 distinct airbases. (maybe Shannon could become a split civilian/military airfield) This duplicates infrastructure and staffing costs.