nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

ShotgunPaddy

[Moderator's Note:

Yes, there's a Walter Mitty Forum for silliness like this, but the topic seems to keep coming up. Thus, this thread has been 'stickified' as the first pont of call for any complaints about the lack of Ireland's military capability, any other threads started on the subject will either be merged into this one, or moved to Walter Mitty.

The more creative your solution for the re-instatement of Ireland into a position of 'World Military Power', the better.

NTM ]

_____________________________

Given Ireland's lack of adequate naval and air defence, should we not look at partnering with another European state? Britain was, and in many respects still is a hostile nation but what about the French. We already cooperate closely with French forces in Chad. Should we ask the French to station an aircraft carrier in the Shannon Estuary and share the running costs?

Share your thoughts.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

KingBrian2

Larbre34 wrote: »

BBC Top Gear inadvertently having a go at our air defence tonight..

Professor Brian Cox, appearing as a guest, was speaking about his experiment flying at Mach 1.4 in an RAF Typhoon attempting to chase the sun, i.e. fly west fast enough and contrive a sunrise straight after a sunset.

Cox said he was having great fun doing it and asked the pilot to keep going west, over Ireland and out over the Atlantic to see how high the sun would appear again. The pilot said he couldn't, it would trigger an international incident and break lots of windows, that they would appear on Irish early warning radar and they (we) would scramble our Cessna....

Very funny of course, take the mick out of the Paddys lack of intercept capability. But the joke's on them, we don't have an early warning air defence radar grid, so we would likely not even have noticed them....

Hahahahahaha.

That experiment sounds silly and should never have been allowed occur in the first place.

Boreas

Given the total lack of interest in the military in Ireland and the cross party consensus that funding should be kept to a bare minimum, I have a question.

Which role currently carried out by the Air Corps or Naval Service couldn't be carried out by civilian agencies? The NS main role is fisheries protection and the Air Corps provide air ambulance and (at least occasionally) VIP transport, but does either service have real military missions?

If we, as a nation, aren't prepared to pay for a real military maybe it's time to stop pretending and just declare Ireland demilitarised.

Jawgap

Boreas wrote: »

Given the total lack of interest in the military in Ireland and the cross party consensus that funding should be kept to a bare minimum, I have a question.

Which role currently carried out by the Air Corps or Naval Service couldn't be carried out by civilian agencies? The NS main role is fisheries protection and the Air Corps provide air ambulance and (at least occasionally) VIP transport, but does either service have real military missions?

If we, as a nation, aren't prepared to pay for a real military maybe it's time to stop pretending and just declare Ireland demilitarised.

No, but it does help maintain a capability that can be called on to address future, as yet to be identified, contingencies.

The problem with contracting in the service is that most suppliers of those services make their real money when you have to go off contract - so, say for example you contract someone in to do fisheries air patrols. They'll agree to provide a certain type of aircraft, at a certain availability and provide a certain number of hours to a given timetable. As soon as you try send them off to fly top cover for a search and rescue or a drugs interdiction, the non-contract hourly rate will likely go through the roof, plus they may refuse to do certain work.

Morpheus

Boreas wrote: »

Given the total lack of interest in the military in Ireland and the cross party consensus that funding should be kept to a bare minimum, I have a question.

Which role currently carried out by the Air Corps or Naval Service couldn't be carried out by civilian agencies? The NS main role is fisheries protection and the Air Corps provide air ambulance and (at least occasionally) VIP transport, but does either service have real military missions?

If we, as a nation, aren't prepared to pay for a real military maybe it's time to stop pretending and just declare Ireland demilitarised.

COIN Air to ground attack using FFAR rockets and .5 machine guns?
Armed insertion of troops via helicopter - each armed with 7.62 Gpmg's adapted for the role?

BoJack Horseman

Morpheus wrote: »

COIN Air to ground attack

Where?

donvito99

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Where?

An inflated balloon in the sea near Gormanston.

Morpheus

and here

Boreas

Morpheus wrote: »

COIN Air to ground attack using FFAR rockets and .5 machine guns?
Armed insertion of troops via helicopter - each armed with 7.62 Gpmg's adapted for the role?

From what I've read here and on IMO the Air Corps have never deployed air assets outside the state and lack the capability, and possibly the desire at command level, to do so in support of Irish UN missions or EU Battlegroup.

Is this incorrect?

Negative_G

Boreas wrote: »

From what I've read here and on IMO the Air Corps have never deployed air assets outside the state and lack the capability, and possibly the desire at command level, to do so in support of Irish UN missions or EU Battlegroup.

Is this incorrect?

Yes, it is incorrect. Of course it depends on what your definition of deployed is.

The problem is not with the Air Corps. There was no policy and no capital funding to invest in new air assets to deploy in an overseas role. In fact, even if there was huge investment, the previous white paper prevented the idea outright.

This is a DOD/Government issue. No matter how much the brass want it to happen or try and sell it, it has to pass through a civil servants desk. And that's where it stops.

With the Cessna replacement and the White Paper there is a hope that it might happen.

Regarding IMO. I would take everything you read there with a large pinch of salt. While I've read some good thoughts/insight (albeit rarely), there is some awful rubbish passed off as fact. Those with an agenda are numerous and clear to see.

The armchair generals posting would be better off trying to problem solve the issue of retention in the Air Corps rather than debate how many Gripens we need to defend our airspace. The mind boggles.

BoJack Horseman

Anyone see this on the Examiner?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-air-force-asked-defend-ireland/

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/raf-tornado-jets-could-shoot-down-hijacked-planes-in-irish-airspace-414646.html

(I assume that the Examiner got it wrong and were meant to say Typhoons instead of Tornados).

The denziens of the top site are not happy, understandable if short sighted.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Anyone see this on the Examiner?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-air-force-asked-defend-ireland/

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/raf-tornado-jets-could-shoot-down-hijacked-planes-in-irish-airspace-414646.html

(I assume that the Examiner got it wrong and were meant to say Typhoons instead of Tornados).

The denziens of the top site are not happy, understandable if short sighted.

I'm guessing that whatever the Examiner saw/heard about this, it's dated info from when the Tornadoes were in service as QRA around 9/11.

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm guessing that whatever the Examiner saw/heard about this, it's dated info from when the Tornadoes were in service as QRA around 9/11.

My understanding (I've no links to back this up) is that in the wake of 9/11 there was a tentative agreement that the RAF QRF could access Irish airspace to conduct an interception without prior permission having to be obtained first. That was pretty much the full extent of the arrangement. The arrangement was 'renewed' in the run up to the G7 in Fermanagh.

There was a suggestion that if Ireland was the target then the Taoiseach of the day could request the assistance of the UK, but I'd imagine that the final shoot-down order would rest with the PM there, not with Enda (Thank God!!!!).

Larbre34

A timely article from Dan O'Brien in the Indo says it all methinks.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/ireland-takes-a-free-ride-on-the-back-of-nato-as-it-protects-us-34956342.html

Although we should, we have no need to spend on air and sea defence when any aggression in our region would be enough to trigger a response from nearby NATO actors. We can't defend ourselves, we won't defend ourselves, we're unlikely to have to defend ourselves.

Silvera

Yes, we are 'free-riding' on the back of NATO...but how embarassing as a nation that we have chosen to do so!?!

As the absolute minimum (we CAN afford it) we should have a squadron of fighter jets (and the requisite radar coverage) capable of 'harassing' intruding 'bears' ..or other such aircraft.

Negative_G

Silvera wrote: »

Yes, we are 'free-riding' on the back of NATO...but how embarassing as a nation that we have chosen to do so!?!

As the absolute minimum (we CAN afford it) we should have a squadron of fighter jets (and the requisite radar coverage) capable of 'harassing' intruding 'bears' ..or other such aircraft.

The vast majority of the electorate don't care. The politicians don't care for defence and never have.

Such an investment would always be compared to hospital beds, social welfare, education or homelessness and it is will always be a losing battle.

The fact that our paltry spend as a % of GDP is split 70/30 in favour of pay and pensions is a crime in itself.

Nothing will change. This is Irishness summed up perfectly.

"Sure it will be grand"

It is embarrassing and as a nation we need to **** or get off the pot and either join NATO or else have a credible Defence Forces capable of asserting our neutrality as opposed to the current status quo which amounts to the sum value of SFA.

The government is forecast to spend €640m in foreign aid this year. An increase of €40m on 2015. It has been mentioned here before by others that diverting funds from this specifically towards capital investment would be entirely viable and justifiable.

Having a fast jet capability is not cheap, but it is achievable and can be done over the course of a decade. These things don't happen overnight.

Jawgap

Silvera wrote: »

Yes, we are 'free-riding' on the back of NATO...but how embarassing as a nation that we have chosen to do so!?!

As the absolute minimum (we CAN afford it) we should have a squadron of fighter jets (and the requisite radar coverage) capable of 'harassing' intruding 'bears' ..or other such aircraft.

You can't just have one squadron of fast jets......people don't seem to realise that that the jets are the ends, not the means.

In other words to get to a stage where you can stand up just one squadron of fast jets you have to invest heavily in the support structures involved - for example it costs the RAF about stg£8m to train a Tiffy driver, that means in pilot training alone you'd spend close on €110m to train 12 fast jet pilots, and that's assuming we get someone else to handle training rather than invest in the infrastructure needed to turn out pilots.

Of course, if you have one squadron, you probably need about 20 pilots, plus an ongoing cost to maintain a stream of replacements to cover promotions, departures etc (turnover in an RAF squadron is about 20 to 25% per year).....and that's after you've bought the jets, upgraded the hard and soft infrastructure and before you start to pay for fuel, maintenance and ongoing training.

CalamariFritti

I understand that for some people being a 'powerful' nation and grandeur and all that seems important.
Grand if you're a large nation with resources that attract other hostile nations etc you may have to bite the bullet and have proper defense forces. But for Ireland it would be money out the window and a pointless gesture imho. Some people mention the threat of Russia. Don't get me started on that one. Whatever one may think about Russia I think Ireland is as much in their strategic consideration as is Burkina Faso.

Markcheese

Would we be any safer,with a few jets ..

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

Would we be any safer,with a few jets ..

Considering at the moment we are relying on the RAF I'd say the Government thinks there's at least a risk.

There's also areas of UN operations, from memory didn't the French provide FJ for Chad for example?

seanaway

All fantasy lads...... Irish people like to play the two edge sword of ' sure we'll be grand' but when the sh*t hits the fan it's 'Ah sure would you all look at us little folk...sure you couldn't let us be killed now ....'

ectoraige

Since we're in fantasy land, has Textron received any orders yet for it's scorpion jet? Touted at $20 million a pop, with $3000 operational costs per flight hour, it's countries like us that they'd love to make their market.

Heraldoffreeent

ectoraige wrote: »

Since we're in fantasy land, has Textron received any orders yet for it's scorpion jet? Touted at $20 million a pop, with $3000 operational costs per flight hour, it's countries like us that they'd love to make their market.

Its not really though, the scorpion is too slow to catch a bear, or even an airliner cruising at speed.
Of course you can upgrade to faster engines, but now its costing you $40m, and the flight hour costs increase exponentially.

The scorpion is just a warming over of the 70's concept of a mudfighter, a cheap low tech slow plane that can support troops on the ground, deliver a relatively low payload and do COIN, trying to make it something its not(an interceptor) is just putting lipstick on a pig.

ectoraige

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Its not really though, the scorpion is too slow to catch a bear, or even an airliner cruising at speed.
Of course you can upgrade to faster engines, but now its costing you $40m, and the flight hour costs increase exponentially.

The scorpion is just a warming over of the 70's concept of a mudfighter, a cheap low tech slow plane that can support troops on the ground, deliver a relatively low payload and do COIN, trying to make it something its not(an interceptor) is just putting lipstick on a pig.

Hush with your facts, they're not needed in fantasy land - sure they only have to fly towards the airliner/soviet bomber, no need for speed

Larbre34

Incident on Sept 22nd, two Russian Blackjack bombers flew a course from the Arctic,down Norway, Scotland, Ireland, France and Iberia. Along four of those five coasts they were intercepted and escorted by QRA from local air stations.

Have a guess which coast they flew along unmolested and unencumbered??

A shameful disgrace as usual.

donvito99

What is the cruise speed of the Tu160? If we can't fork out the €100mn per annum for a dozen mach 2 Gripens from Sweden, could the L39NG or M346 or Hawk match speed/altitude?

LordSutch

ShotgunPaddy wrote: »

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.

Defend from whom?

Heraldoffreeent

donvito99 wrote: »

What is the cruise speed of the Tu160? If we can't fork out the €100mn per annum for a dozen mach 2 Gripens from Sweden, could the L39NG or M346 or Hawk match speed/altitude?

Top speed is about Mach2, cruise speed is about Mach 1.The problem with the airframes mentioned above is twofold, one, that if you add missiles and extra fuel tanks, you slow them right down.
And two, you have to look at the other costs involved other than the airframes, you can't point a Bae Hawk in the direction of Galway and say find that Blackjack out in the North Atlantic, you need a proper integrated radar system and again, you need missiles which cost money and are time limited.

Also, the 39NG is a bit vapourwearish at the moment, seeing as its predecessor was hardly a success, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Larbre34

LordSutch wrote: »

On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.

Defend from whom?

You will note the RAF did not shadow the Bombers off our coast on this occasion. And why should they? Our relationship with UK is changing, whether we want it to or not. We need to be able to fence our own yard.

Cheap subsonic jets wont cut it, it has to be full fat interceptors. I recognise the financial commitment that takes, along with the radar system, but we really cannot abdicate this any longer.

As an interim solution I would do a bilateral deal with the Swedish to station say 4 Grippens and crew in Ireland and couch it in some kind of neutral nations interoperable treaty.

sparky42

LordSutch wrote: »

On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.

Defend from whom?

The RN has had to use OPV's to do escorts for Russian hulls, or in some cases leave them for a couple of days, that and the coming hull crunch they face means that they have their own priorities.

The RAF does have the fighters to do the job, but the question is how much political will is there going to be to continue that? I mean just look at what the Tories have been throwing out in this conference season.

Frankly as a nation we aren't poor, not when Eastern EU nations are finding the resources to manage the job, there's a chance sooner or later the UK/EU is going to say "No".

donvito99

Cheapest option would be to join NATO, screw the 2% requirement and paint Russian activity on the west coast to be as threatening as activity in the Baltics where NATO provides a QRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing).