sparky42 wrote: » 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.
BoJack Horseman wrote: » I've been reading up on late on the hull situation in the RN on the few UK defence sites. Quite tragic how things are there.
donvito99 wrote: » 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).
sparky42 wrote: » It wouldn't be cheap politically, and more over, we are not those nations, I could guess the response from others when our defence spending is still beyond a bad joke.
Larbre34 wrote: » 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.
LordSutch wrote: » On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.
Silvera wrote: » While talk of Ireland getting 'jets' has gone quiet here... Are there any developments / movement as regards the (c.€10million) 'full radar coverage' which was mooted by former Defence Minister Coveney a couple of years ago??
BoJack Horseman wrote: » Well, they gave themselves the lifespan of the white paper to implement this very modest capability. the capital budget for the defence forces was bolstered by a whopping €7m at the last budget!
CalamariFritti wrote: » 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.
AnGaelach wrote: » Whether you like it or not, Ireland is going to need modern capabilities at some stage. That's just a fact of statistics, as time goes on the risk of war increases exponentially. It may not happen in 5 years, or 30 years, but you can't make the argument that it'll never happen - a bit like the Gaelic clans fighting each other and never thinking some lad would go off to Wales to court the Normans into helping him. I'm sure he never thought they'd decide to stick around either. If anything, Brexit has increased the need for having a competent military in place. Not because we're going to be fighting the British army, but by simple virtue of having two budding global powers rubbing shoulders and who already have a history of antagonising each other. With Britain out of the EU, there'll be no major power left to block the attempts at creating a common military (for good or for worse). This leaves Ireland in a conundrum, we have our opt-out but is that going to be defended vigorously enough by the Government? I'd fear not. And even so, the EU will inevitably see us as part of their "sphere" of influence and see our lack of infrastructure as concerning for them. If I was the EU, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Government to increase in defence, or I'd look at pressuring them into accepting the deployment of EU forces. Likewise, if I was the British, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Irish Government to remain demilitarised and neutral so that they can be pressured into accepting a more passive role in letting Britain secure the Atlantic. So we have 3 options, really. We pick the EU, we pick Britain, or we try to run a balancing act. Each of these requires having some sort a credible military force. We aren't going to turn the tide in any wars, but having an atrophied DF leaves us up shít's creek without a paddle. I'd advocate for a balanced approach, which requires several things: 1. Maintaining our opt-out of EU defence proposals: This requires being able to show that we are capable of defending ourselves. The EU's unlikely to pressure us into allowing them to position any sort of troops here if we have the capacity to defend Ireland domestically. 2. Expanding our MoU with Britain: Again, it requires making clear our relationship and under what areas we can work together (e.g. Northern Ireland) while also making sure they can't pressure us into doing something we don't want. 3. Prolonged and sustained media campaign in the US: Obviously it doesn't have much military application, but making sure to put aside money to make sure we have a strong public approval record with the US public is enormously beneficial - we can highlight things like historic ties (Fenian invasion of Canada, Washington's Irish, the US Civil War), cultural ties (appealing to Irish-Americans), political ties (needing an external power to help with the GFA and maintaining peace in Northern Ireland), economic ties (the sheer size of US investment in Ireland). Of course, this would require stumping up some cash. Our annual budget would probably need to double (not overnight but definitely over the course of a decade we'd need to make strides to reaching 1.5-2%) and we'd need to have a concrete strategy in place (e.g. stockpiling munitions, carrying out large-scale training exercises). Aside from the rant, I've also nothing better to do on Halloween than drunkenly look up what would possibly fill the gaps. Note, this includes mid-term "stop-gaps" to fill competencies and long-term desirability: Air Force: - 12-14 JAS 39 as a stop gap for 10-12 year period. - A Patriot battery (PAC-2 has a 90-160km effective range, meaning we would only need a single battery to cover the vast majority of the island). - 12-24 F-35s (regardless of what you personally think of them, they are the most advanced aircraft flying - if they weren't, China and Russia wouldn't be trying to make poor replicas of them - and they were designed with future compatibility with to-be-developed systems). For people saying we can't afford it, Denmark has ordered them and our economy is on par with theirs. Army: - 24 Leopards or Challenger 2s (again, acting as a stop gap) - depending on which one we were to go with, it leaves infrastructure intact for the next version (Leopard 3 - France and Germany are supposedly going to develop it, or the Challenger 3 - I personally have no doubt the British will develop another MBT). - Replacing/upgrading the Piranha 3 fleet - Acquiring more effective personnel weapons (the 9M133 - estimates of 80 launchers [10 missiles each] for $60-$100m) and stockpiling these. Navy: - Overhaul and replacement of the OPVs with Beckett class - Acquisition of two surface combatants with air defences (and preferably ground-strike capabilities) and a multi-role vessel - Two submarines (Ula-class?) to give us some kind of ability to threaten logistic lines or offer a second-strike capacity.
gallag wrote: » I'd only add a couple of proper frigates, get a couple of cheep type 26 global combat ships while the exchange rate is good.
Jawgap wrote: » .....seriously, people need a reality check - I like playing 'Command - Modern Air/Naval Operations' as much as the next guy but people don't seriously believe we need subs, air defence frigates, armour and F-35s do they
AnGaelach wrote: » I'm fully aware, it's just my wish-list. And you're right, we don't "need" them at the moment, but I'd rather have have a paddle and not need it than to need it and not have a paddle.
Jawgap wrote: » It's an expensive paddle!
Jawgap wrote: » And to pick one example why would we need tanks?
Jawgap wrote: » And even if we had them where would they train and shoot?
AnGaelach wrote: » Surprisingly, not that expensive if done right.
AnGaelach wrote: » ....... Air Force: - 12-14 JAS 39 as a stop gap for 10-12 year period. - A Patriot battery (PAC-2 has a 90-160km effective range, meaning we would only need a single battery to cover the vast majority of the island). - 12-24 F-35s (regardless of what you personally think of them, they are the most advanced aircraft flying - if they weren't, China and Russia wouldn't be trying to make poor replicas of them - and they were designed with future compatibility with to-be-developed systems). For people saying we can't afford it, Denmark has ordered them and our economy is on par with theirs. Army: - 24 Leopards or Challenger 2s (again, acting as a stop gap) - depending on which one we were to go with, it leaves infrastructure intact for the next version (Leopard 3 - France and Germany are supposedly going to develop it, or the Challenger 3 - I personally have no doubt the British will develop another MBT). - Replacing/upgrading the Piranha 3 fleet - Acquiring more effective personnel weapons (the 9M133 - estimates of 80 launchers [10 missiles each] for $60-$100m) and stockpiling these. Navy: - Overhaul and replacement of the OPVs with Beckett class - Acquisition of two surface combatants with air defences (and preferably ground-strike capabilities) and a multi-role vessel - Two submarines (Ula-class?) to give us some kind of ability to threaten logistic lines or offer a second-strike capacity.
AnGaelach wrote: » Why does any country need tanks?
AnGaelach wrote: » I'm sure there's plenty of places to zip around, the Curragh or the central plains.
Jawgap wrote: » that's fine for driving, but what about shooting? Maybe some of the treadheads on here can explain how far a tank shell travels?
Jawgap wrote: » Your list is 'not that expensive"......the current flyaway price of an F-35A is about $100m, even if we got a 25% discount for bulk buying that's still $1.8 billion just for the airframes (engines cost extra!) and before you build a supporting infra-structure. FUNFACT: Currently the RAF has more Spitfires than it has F-35s
Jawgap wrote: » To shoot at other tanks - are we in danger of a thunder run coming through anywhere any time soon?
Jawgap wrote: » Ah sure why not add a couple of P-8 Poseidons (with a couple of boxes of SLAM-ERs and HARPOONs thrown in) :rolleyes: ....and an LPH. .....seriously, people need a reality check - I like playing 'Command - Modern Air/Naval Operations' as much as the next guy but people don't seriously believe we need subs, air defence frigates, armour and F-35s do they
AnGaelach wrote: » And it will be still be cheaper to buy them than to buy some other antiquated aircraft that will be obsolete within a decade or two.
AnGaelach wrote: » No, and that's my point. You're supposed to have these things before you need them, it takes quite a while for deals to go through. Would you rather have a tank ready to go, or having to turn around and say "don't bother with the invasion now lads, give us a year or two to get things rolling so its a fair fight"? The Curragh is 20km^2, I'm sure there's open areas in the rest of the country that can also be utilised also.
jocmilt wrote: » If we went out and borrowed another couple of hundred billion we could probably buy enough equipment to defend ourselves form Andorra but not against anyone who would actually attack us. The militarists know this. They only want to tool us up to be part of an EU Army battlegroup and that's not defending Ireland, it's going to be starting a war of aggression somewhere else The Swiss militia system is the best for defending a country. Like, when was the last time Switzerland was invaded?
Jawgap wrote: » This must be the only time I've the seen the word 'cheap' used in connection with the F-35 or the 'WTF-35!', the most expensive weapons system in history!
Yes, but why would we need a battalion of armour - under what scenario is it even remotely possible that we would need to deploy 24 MBTs?? .....and if you are thinking of using them on UN duty - how are you going to get them there, keep them supplied and maintain their serviceability? 20 square kilometers is pretty small in the context of military training areas - that's about 10% the size of Otterburn, although that is also used for artillery shoots. Plus, 20 square kilometers represents an area 5km by 4km, or 6km by 3.3km - even if the area is 10km by 2km that's not much of a safety margin when you're firing an MBT's main armament - the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore gun on the Leopard 2 has an effective range of 4000m, which means it probably travels a good deal further if it doesn't slap into anything and even the Challenger 1 was good out to 5000m (the range at which one was reputed to have killed an Iraqi tank during the first Gulf War) - that 20 square kilometers is probably not looking that big, especially if you put more than one tank there......plus the Defence Forces only have manoeuvring rights over 3,284 of the 9,000 or so acres that make up the Curragh.
Jawgap wrote: » Yes, but why would we need a battalion of armour - under what scenario is it even remotely possible that we would need to deploy 24 MBTs??
Jawgap wrote: » 20 square kilometers is pretty small in the context of military training areas - that's about 10% the size of Otterburn, although that is also used for artillery shoots. Plus, 20 square kilometers represents an area 5km by 4km, or 6km by 3.3km - even if the area is 10km by 2km that's not much of a safety margin when you're firing an MBT's main armament - the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore gun on the Leopard 2 has an effective range of 4000m, which means it probably travels a good deal further if it doesn't slap into anything and even the Challenger 1 was good out to 5000m (the range at which one was reputed to have killed an Iraqi tank during the first Gulf War) - that 20 square kilometers is probably not looking that big, especially if you put more than one tank there......plus the Defence Forces only have manoeuvring rights over 3,284 of the 9,000 or so acres that make up the Curragh.
sparky42 wrote: » It's quite amazing that we can't seem to have a rational discussion on defence with the extremes of "it's hopeless" or "High end NATO forces" being the only options it seems.
sparky42 wrote: » Arguably for anything short of "peacekeeping" with MBT's a 24 tanks isn't enough anyway, as you'd never have all of them operational (repairs/training) and wouldn't have enough numbers to do much. The issue you made about ranges is also important (with another reminder today with reports that the RAF have had an accident in Scotland), all these things are the logistical side that gets ignored when somebody looks at the sticker price of a piece of hardware and says "hey lets get that"
AnGaelach wrote: » ...... Why would Norway or Denmark need them? The answer is the same.
AnGaelach wrote: » I am sure there's other regions of the country where training fields can be set up, somewhere out of the way with low density and open fields. Monaghan/Leitrim, Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath.
AnGaelach wrote: » ..... And the answer to lacking capable logistics infrastructure isn't "lets ignore the problem for now and get something not quite as good", it's to solve the problem then so that we don't have to spend an inordinate amount more time and effort trying to find something that won't hamstring us. I don't believe Ireland "can't afford" a proper air force, navy or ground force. Every country of equivalent size of us can do so, we don't have to be the "beggorah be gone sure we don't have the smarts to change" country walking around Europe with its hand out. The Army is haemorrhaging members in engineering and medical fields. Instead of expecting them to make do with SFA, why not restore their pay and actually give them the equipment a modern, first-world military should have?
Jawgap wrote: » The F-35 is not cheap to buy, it's not cheap to run and its definitely not cheap to repair. That other countries are buying it has more to do with the politics of procurement than anything else. it's hard to believe that's a serious question, but assuming it is, I'm guessing it's to with the fact that both are members of NATO and both are a lot closer to Russia than we are, and that it's possible to to drive from Russia on to their territory without getting your feet wet - it's barely 1000km from Russian territory to Denmark......and the Norwegians share a land border with them.
We need a Defence Force commensurate to our needs, with a bit extra to cover contingencies - we don't need fast jets or armour. We could do with something a bit bigger than the Becketts to help with UN deployments and we could do with a better maritime patrol capability.
