AnGaelach wrote: » Surprisingly, not that expensive if done right. Why does any country need tanks? I'm sure there's plenty of places to zip around, the Curragh or the central plains.
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: » 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.
Jawgap wrote: » In that case the cost of your tanks just went up - a lot. Let's say you could get by with just an area 6km by 5km and you could find such an area and everyone living there was willing to either leave voluntarily or put up with tanks charging around the place......30 square kilometers is about 7,500 acres - to buy that amount of land in Leitrim where agricultural land is cheapest (at €4,800 per acre) would cost €36 million, and that's before you build ranges, depots and roads. And there's still the cost of training, maintenance and consumables to add.
Jawgap wrote: » 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.
Jawgap wrote: » Armies will always lose people in the technical fields as an economy grows - the Defence Forces will never be able to match the salaries on offer in the private sector - we could, however, follow the example of other countries and recruit such people to the reserves with the offer of experiences they'll never get in civilian life.
sparky42 wrote: » Moreover the idea that "only" the 35 could be acceptable is nonsense <snip>.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Explain what you think the role of a MBT like the leopard 2 would be in Irish service. If you envision them as a defensive force then what consideration have you given to where they can operate in this country given their weight of nearly 70T? have you considered the number of bridges that would have to be upgraded to take that weight? have you considered how long they would take to get to an invading force?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » How many do you think would last until they got into contact given that we would not have air superiority, even with the proposed F35 purchase.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » and dont get me started on the proposed purchase of subs. what we do with diesel subs is beyond comprehension.
AnGaelach wrote: » Do find a quote where I said such. I said it is desirable to have the F-35 by simple virtue of it being more advanced than other aircraft and that the US projects replacing their fleet with F-35s will work out cheaper for them in the long run - even with the budget overruns.
The Ula-class is one of the quietest subs rocking around. What other type of sub you'd expect except conventional powered ones is beyond comprehension.
AnGaelach wrote: » And how likely to you think war between NATO and Russia is? Do they have those tanks because they anticipate war with Russia, or because they are taking precautionary measures?
AnGaelach wrote: » We are spending €220 million on Christmas welfare bonuses in the 2017 budget, don't act like €36 million is an inordinately large amount. White papers are spaced out over 5-10 year periods, so assuming we run with a 10 year procurement strategy for the DF, that training field is about €3.6 million a year.
AnGaelach wrote: » How on earth can you say we don't need fast jets? The entire point of having an Air Corps is so that it has the capacity to respond to emergencies as they arise.
AnGaelach wrote: » Relying on a reserves force to meet skill shortages when you have a primary force incapable of operating as it should, you're setting yourself up for a disaster.
AnGaelach wrote: » The Comet was ~35 tonnes, the Leopard being double is an issue but not as big an issue as you make it out to be. Yes, bridges would have to be strengthened and roads potentially re-covered, but again, do you think €220 million can be spent on Christmas bonuses yet spending money on capital projects to be an insurmountably expensive task?
AnGaelach wrote: » If Finland (with near the same population and near the same Government budget) can afford 200 Leopard 2s despite having much more lakes and rivers than we do, we can easily afford to equip the DF with them.
AnGaelach wrote: » You don't need air superiority, you need to deny the airspace to their aircraft,
AnGaelach wrote: » and having MBTs is a logical choice to have. Army A is invading. Army B is defending. Army A deploys MBTs. Army B doesn't have them so has to give ground or deploy something else. If they give ground, they're on the back foot and losing the war. So, assume Army B decides to deploy helicopters. Army A deploys theirs to counter it. Army B deploys fast jets to counter that, Army A deploys theirs to counter that. Isn't it much less of a head pain if Army B had their own MBTs?
AnGaelach wrote: » The Ula-class is one of the quietest subs rocking around. What other type of sub you'd expect except conventional powered ones is beyond comprehension.
AnGaelach wrote: » ....... Army A is invading. Army B is defending.Army A deploys MBTs. Army B doesn't have them so has to give ground or deploy something else. If they give ground, they're on the back foot and losing the war. So, assume Army B decides to deploy helicopters. Army A deploys theirs to counter it. Army B deploys fast jets to counter that, Army A deploys theirs to counter that. Isn't it much less of a head pain if Army B had their own MBTs? ......
Jawgap wrote: » Actually, if you look at some of the footage coming from around Mosul at the moment you'll see that a defending force doesn't need to engage in tank-on-tank combat. The defenders there are doing just fine with their Kornet ATGMs.....also if you look at how the Israelis (no slouches when it comes to using armour) fared against the unarmoured Hezbollah in 2006 you get an idea of what a motivated individual with an ATGM can do - in fact to mitigate the threat of ATGMs you need a decent active protection system, something to add to the cost your tanks.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » the thread in its current form belongs in the Walter Mitty forum.
Jawgap wrote: » Not very likely and even if it does happen why would we need tanks? The economic fallout from one Russian tank crossing into NATO territory will scupper us. Anyway, do you think the Russians are capable of getting this far?
Jawgap wrote: » the difference is most of that €220 million will come back into the government coffers because it will be spent - it will generate economic activity far in excess of the amount and tax revenues as it circulates in the economy.The €36million will be a sunk cost, and if you think a €36 million public procurement project spread over 10 years is €3.6million per year you've failed to grasp the fundamentals of the time value of money. If it was built as a PPP and leased by the DF over 20 year period, then the usual rule of thumb is three times the capital cost divided by the rental period, meaning it would cost €5.4 million per year or €108 million over the lease.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » not when those capital projects are not required. why spend money on capital projects for equipment we dont need?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » We are not finland. we do not share a border with russia. an invasion by russia is within living memory of the finns
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what is the end result of all this? do you think we can drive an invading army back into the sea with our 24 leopard 2s? do you think we can win against any country capable of launching a seaborne invasion?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you will have to tell me what you think we will do with subs before i can tell you what type i expect.
AnGaelach wrote: » It's not Russia alone that you have to worry about. 100 years ago, people wouldn't have thought we'd have fought Britain
AnGaelach wrote: » Because you think landowners in Leitrim wouldn't be spending their money? You think the 36 million would just up and vanish from the economy?
AnGaelach wrote: » ...... What else do you think you can possibly use a submarine for? Fisheries patrol?
Jawgap wrote: » Ah come on......you're not seriously suggesting the UK is going to roll across the border and / or launch amphibious operations? Seriously?? And even if they were, or there was even the remotest possibility of them doing so what good would the 24 tanks you suggested we buy against a country that can field 3 times that number of attack helis? Time to stop digging.
Jawgap wrote: » Yes, because operating subs in the vicinity of fishing vessels never, ever caused anyone any problems........
sparky42 wrote: » Hey it's been a while since we've had a "the English are the enemy!" here, and forget what the 24 could do, nothing he's suggested could stop the UK if it wanted to spend the effort to role over us.
AnGaelach wrote: » You didn't sense the tone did you?
Jawgap wrote: » Ah come on......you're not seriously suggesting the UK is going to roll across the border and / or launch amphibious operations? Seriously??
Jawgap wrote: » And even if they were, or there was even the remotest possibility of them doing so what good would the 24 tanks you suggested we buy against a country that can field 3 times that number of attack helis?
Jawgap wrote: » Oh no, Irish farmers are well known for their spendthrift ways so I'm sure they'd spend every last cent :rolleyes:
Jawgap wrote: » Well what possible use would we have for subs?
AnGaelach wrote: » What possible use does Portugal have for them?
AnGaelach wrote: » No, just as I don't believe Russia is going to be launching amphibious invasions, but a point was raised that Finland has tanks because they remember fighting the Russians. The same logic can be applied to our relationship with the British. Again, see post above. Even assuming that they do save it (which I don't think they would), you know those savings are loaned out by banks? Unless of course you think Podge and Máire are going to be sticking their money under their mattress.
AnGaelach wrote: » No, but as you like to complain, the logistics and infrastructure isn't in place for us to maintain a large fleet of anything. So by maintaining a small fleet, we are building on that capability.
sparky42 wrote: » It's a NATO member, it also has an extremely dated fleet in other regards.
Jawgap wrote: » Mind you, if we had a few ol' tanks we could scatter them around Dublin tomorrow during the Garda strike
ohnonotgmail wrote: » i've been on a portugese diesel sub. very das boot. I imagine their strategic value is limited
Dublin_Gunner wrote: » Considering the direction some of the fantastical suggestions have gone in this thread, I'm going to throw in my 2c. Let's just buy some nukes. Even just 1 and hide it in a farmer's field somewhere (say Leitrim, as it's quite topical in this discussion, and pretty central). There's the deterrent. No need for any of the rest of that fanciful crap like tanks or aircraft.Should only cost a couple 100 mil a year to maintain.
