Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

OS119 · 24-01-2011 11:53AM

concussion wrote: »

Much more capable altogether. Radar is capable of detecting and tracking high speed targets, gun is well capable of tracking them - whether it works in the real world is the big question though.

yeah, there seems to be a disjoint between the Air threats the Irish military seeks to counter and where air power is.

Radar-Directed 40mm guns and RBS-70 SAM's are great if you need to deny airspace on the 1980's inner German border when every attack aircraft is going to be flying at less than 1,000ft if they want to survive for more than 30 seconds, but not quite so brilliant when everyone is tootling around at 15,000ft and lobbing ARMs and stand-off missiles at radars and point targets from 30 miles away.

the way current air doctrine is enacted means that these systems only deny airspace to Attack Helicopters and low flying jets providing CAS - the problem is that those aircraft are never going to be the big air threat the Irish military has to deal with (unless we're talking about low-tech air threats found on some PK missions), the real threat in terms of state-on-state territoral defence is going to be meduim level fast jets with stand-off ARM's - which, if those stand-off ARM's haven't destroyed the Irish AD system, will be able to happily fly above it and attack ground targets with impunity.

concussion · 24-01-2011 04:51PM

I agree with that 100%. I would love to have a medium range system to force aircraft out of AGM and GBU range. Having said that, if Ireland is faced with an opponent who can field strike aircraft I dread to think what else they'll be bringing along.

OS119 · 24-01-2011 05:32PM

concussion wrote: »

...Having said that, if Ireland is faced with an opponent who can field strike aircraft I dread to think what else they'll be bringing along.

its a good point well made - any country with the military spend and capability to put a land force on Irish territory is going to have the spend and capability to turn its airspace black with fast jets and attack helicopters and cut off its sea lanes with surface and sub surface naval assets...

personally, i think that unless Ireland is going to quadrouple its defence spending its never going to be capable of territorial defence, so it may as well stop wasting money on trying, and failing miserably, to undertake that role - much better to pick a task and go for it, rather than arse about making an expensive balls up of several.

Lorelei · 24-01-2011 05:52PM

I made the same comment much earlier in this thread, there is a treaty still in existence between the UK and Ireland in which the UK will treat any attack on Irish Air or Sea space as an attack on itself (although with recent defence cuts and those to come the UK might have problems defending the Isle of Wight !!).
An attack on the UK is an attack on a NATO member therefore NATO would also become involved in defending Irish Sea/Air space.+-

goldie fish · 24-01-2011 08:47PM

concussion wrote: »

The DF info page is woefully out of date, and the L/70 is the gun on the old mount. Ours are EL 70 with a motorised carriage and radar fire control. Much more capable altogether. Radar is capable of detecting and tracking high speed targets, gun is well capable of tracking them - whether it works in the real world is the big question though.

I think they have realised that they are better off concentrating their efforts on sites like flickr,twitter, youtube and facebook, instead of keeping a dated looking site with an ancient engine up to date. The DoD website, in terms of accurate information, is a lot better, but it doesnt have nice photos..

Which brings you back to flickr.

spadesaspade · 24-01-2011 08:55PM

Ry wrote: »

Yeh the Russians are just dying to kick some Irish ass. :rolleyes:

good, might finally get some good looking russian birds over here

Donny5 · 24-01-2011 10:39PM

goldie fish wrote: »

I think they have realised that they are better off concentrating their efforts on sites like flickr,twitter, youtube and facebook, instead of keeping a dated looking site with an ancient engine up to date. The DoD website, in terms of accurate information, is a lot better, but it doesnt have nice photos..

Which brings you back to flickr.

No, their own website is much better than hosting on other companies services. Social networking is all well and good, but it should be a complement to their own site, not a replacement.

goldie fish · 26-01-2011 08:02PM

Donny5 wrote: »

No, their own website is much better than hosting on other companies services. Social networking is all well and good, but it should be a complement to their own site, not a replacement.

I agree, but to appeal to a younger audience, then the social network sites seem to be the way to go. Tweets, etc should bring them to the official site, however the Official site is dated, and seems time consuming to amend, by modern standards.(who uses html any more?)

Donny5 · 26-01-2011 08:17PM

goldie fish wrote: »

I agree, but to appeal to a younger audience, then the social network sites seem to be the way to go. Tweets, etc should bring them to the official site, however the Official site is dated, and seems time consuming to amend, by modern standards.(who uses html any more?)

Yeah, the site is out-of-touch, alright, but I wouldn't say scrap it altogether.

roundymac · 03-02-2011 04:43PM

spadesaspade wrote: »

good, might finally get some good looking russian birds over here

Defo,start with the spy Anna Chapman, she can invade me anytime.:D

NITransport · 13-02-2011 09:42PM

In all honesty, I don't think Ireland needs to worry about personal protection. If anything happened to us, do you think any American Government would stand by and just observe... no. Love it or loath it, Americans think they're Irish, and if their Government didn't react, they would be booted out.

Also the amount of FDI here from America would also be a reason for the US to get involved.

I do think though, as we have the largest territorial sea to patrol as part of our EU duties, we should have a better Naval Service, more Helicopters to fly from the ships at sea.

Finally, in this modern age of international terrorism, we should have an air corp thats able to react to inflight emergencies. Doesn't need to be a vast about. Circa 10 just to response to an emergency on our side of the Atlantic Sea, or an aircraft in our airspace heading for Europe. It'd be nice to have a couple of Typhoons or the new JSF. Anything instead of a couple of Cessna's with machine guns attached!

NT

Poccington · 13-02-2011 10:39PM

I honestly think the concept of "Sure if anything happened to us, the Yanks would save us" is absolutely hilarious.

They've quite enough on their plate at the moment in A'Stan and with their eye on North Korea and Iran, I really don't think Ireland is sitting very highly on their "Step in, incase of trouble" list.

Manic Moran · 13-02-2011 11:16PM

Anything which is dramatic enough to warrant an American military intervention is probably going to be sufficiently noticeable that it will divert resources away from Afghanistan.

NTM

goldie fish · 14-02-2011 08:40PM

Poccington wrote: »

I honestly think the concept of "Sure if anything happened to us, the Yanks would save us" is absolutely hilarious.

They've quite enough on their plate at the moment in A'Stan and with their eye on North Korea and Iran, I really don't think Ireland is sitting very highly on their "Step in, incase of trouble" list.

Its a bit like the tragedy in Cork airport last week.

The Irish DF is the Airport fire and Police service.
The US Army etc is the HSE Ambulance, and City and county Fire service.

While the latter done a fantastic job in the circumstances, without the former being in attendence on scene immediately, the tragedy would have been far,far worse.

dodgydes · 15-02-2011 10:29AM

Thats a good analogy, well put.

Avgas · 16-02-2011 04:46PM

OS119 wrote: »

yeah, there seems to be a disjoint between the Air threats the Irish military seeks to counter and where air power is.

The way current air doctrine is enacted means that these systems only deny airspace to Attack Helicopters and low flying jets providing CAS - the problem is that those aircraft are never going to be the big air threat the Irish military has to deal with (unless we're talking about low-tech air threats found on some PK missions), the real threat in terms of state-on-state territoral defence is going to be meduim level fast jets with stand-off ARM's - which, if those stand-off ARM's haven't destroyed the Irish AD system, will be able to happily fly above it and attack ground targets with impunity.

This is sensible. However. There is always a case to be made for that which is not...and I'm the man to do that:rolleyes:. Have you considered thinking outside the box? Asymmetric air defence is an alternative set of tactics, technologies and even maybe...a strategy available to small poor third world countries (which is what Ireland now is

)......

Think Passive radar (ESM really)
Think distributed air observation networks
Think Passive optics being the primary detection/tracking solution (this is apparently where the Bundeswher were looking)
Think better and many GPS Jammers
Think new generation CIWS guns with smart ammunition that can kill mortar rds, artillery shells and GPS guided smart bombs.....and also double as force protection assets.....if mounted on an MICV or Pirhana clone......the Germans are working on a new generation 35mm system (I think)....

Okay you probably do need some big missile thing that go up to hit somebody beyond 3,000m.......and for now that is mega money.....however, there are BORAT rebuilds of old Russia gear (even SA-2,3, and SA6-Kub stuff) which might be competitive and fun. And I think some MANPADS have higher ceiling than is realised...stingers can shoot down above 3,000m.......

One can expect the Chinese and India to start mucking around with ramjets and scramjets and using fast UAVs for air defence roles as well......

There may be more going on in the AD scene than meets the eye .......

mbiking123 · 16-02-2011 04:52PM

If somebody invades us does this mean we dont have to pay back IMF/EU and ECB. Will the invading country also have to pay back bond holders(incl banks). Now considering China, Britain, US etc have so much invested in this country - why would they invade ?

concussion · 17-02-2011 03:58PM

Hi Avgas,
the C-RAM (counter-rocket, artyillery & mortar) system is called Skyranger and can be used for regular low-level AD as well. It can be used as a standalone system or mounted on a Pirahna hull and linked to a remote radar. It would be an excellent replacement for the current Bofor EL 70's and could be used in conjuction with the current Flycatcher and Giraffe radars.

Our current AD provides protection against guns and rockets but anything with stand-off weapons guided bombs or missiles such as Maverick can operate from outside our umbrella. To combat this a medium range system is needed.

OS119 · 17-02-2011 05:07PM

this is an inherant problem - the point defence nature of all these systems mean that they can only provide AD for assets that within a couple of KM at best, so you have a small number of very small 'bubbles' within which assets can be protected against certain threats for a certain period of time, but the rest of the place is completely naked.

as an example you could deploy the point AD assets to a critical peice of infrastracture - whether that be Haulbowline or Shannon or the Curragh - but while you might be able to physically stop/degrade air attacks on those points (and i'm talking about a 'bubble' 6000m wide built with two radars and 3 or 4 launch platforms), you couldn't defend the things that enable the infrastructure but are outside the bubble - the power inputs, the fuel delivery systems, and the actual output of the critical infrastructure (the ships that go on patrol, the land units that deploy to meet a land threat, the aircraft deployed to Shannon to do MPA, CAS and battlefield support/mobility).

its a bit like having enough grit to keep your drive clear, but having none for the road to the shops/work/school. a bit pointless...

Avgas · 18-02-2011 12:32PM

Yep I agree more or less with what your both saying.....

As regards Irish DF I do think we need to ultimately look at something like C-RAM (it is a beast and pricy) ...perhaps the Euro 35m revolver cannon thingee would be cheaper or justifiable on other grounds......the line between tactical point AD...force protection and Counter Munition/battery fire is blurring a bit.....in future PK ops any base area could be vulnerable to hostile fires from mortars, rockets, etc.

If serious trouble was to kick off between Hizbollah and the IDF when our people are out there...something like that would be potentially quite useful in managing very close firings close......which would be inevitable..... if it could be fitted into a pirhana.......except it would cost millions.....so it will never happen......

TBH the scenario of going head to head with USAFE wild weasels is a bit fanciful.....well things are bad right....but we're not North Korea yet are we (even if it feels like that at times).

BUT in general BAD PEOPLE (read Iranians, China, as you will, etc.) may employ AD differently than we are used to seeing. Consider for a moment....OS119's valid point...if you deploy small tactical AD nodes at key and obvious points...... they will be swamped quickly by ECM and suppressed by SEAD packages...or they will just fly high and puke out some JDAMs adjusted to some real time imagery and clobber what is there that way.........there is really no point gifting the USAF lovely targets like this....do not assume that Iranians or others are stupid and cannot evolve tactically...

Small covert AD clusters could by keeping mobile, small and relatively stealthy actually develop an element of 'aerial ambush' tactics...this is in effect what Serbs tried to do in 1999 with their stock of Kubs.....but it doesn't appear to have worked that well...perhaps more redundant passive tracking and guidance technologies (EO+IR not radar) would have changed...that was kinda my point.....

That sort of distributed asymmetric AD threat would be much harder to detect and suppress...it would also mean of course that most of the time an OPFOR would own the skies at will.....but then most AD works on a attritional logic..more or less......

OS119 · 18-02-2011 01:29PM

the unfortunate thing is that viable AD is multi-layered and astonishingly expensive - to work properly you need everything from 0.5 HMG's on every static position and vehicle, through MANPADS and HVM, point defence systems like RBS70 or Rapier FSC, longer range systems like Patriot and then the eye-watering cost of Fighters, AWACS and Tankers - and of course a counter-air capability to reduce the number of OPFOR aircraft that arrive for your fighters to deal with...

AVGAS is correct to highlight the requirement for counter-projectile systems - anyone who thinks seriously about the severity of indirect fire attacks on UK units in Afghanistan and Iraq, the comparative lack of casualties as a result of those attacks, and the number of RN ships floating around with empty Goalkeeper/Phalanx mounts is going to come to a reasonable conclusion about the systems needed to defend against such attacks.

anyone thinking - 'meh, this doesn't apply to Irish units' should remember that both the Iraq and A'stan conflicts are with non-state actors, if they can do it, so can Hezbollah, and if Hezbollah can do it, so can a future IRA.

Steyr · 18-02-2011 06:13PM

OS, Do you at all rate the UK Rapier System? Is it still in use at RAF Airfields?

OS119 · 18-02-2011 07:46PM

Steyr wrote: »

OS, Do you at all rate the UK Rapier System? Is it still in use at RAF Airfields?

dunno, difficult to tell as i'm not a cloud puncher - its still in service with the RA (the RAF Regiment lost theirs to the RA some time ago), it still gets deployed on expeditionary exercises and its owners never stop telling people that its vastly better than it was (though, to be strictly fair, if you can switch it on it'd be vastly better than it was...). OTOH, from entirely uneducated observation the radar seems to work fine at detecting and holding very low level (30ft over the water), very fast (700+kts) attacking jets at 20km or so (elevated radar position). whether this means the missiles work and the target goes 'bang' is another issue - and, given the nature of most firing tests, one we're unlikely to find out about without a war...

i wouldn't bet my life on it, but i'd rather have it than not.

tbh, my own view is that, along with most GBAD assets, Rapiers main purpose is to either get attacking aircraft to spend so much time avoiding them that they can't get a decent shot at whatever they're looking to hit, or to force them to fly high enough for the AWACS/Fighter force to shoot them down or drive them off.

concussion · 18-02-2011 09:16PM

OS119 wrote: »

tbh, my own view is that, along with most GBAD assets, Rapiers main purpose is to either get attacking aircraft to spend so much time avoiding them that they can't get a decent shot at whatever they're looking to hit, or to force them to fly high enough for the AWACS/Fighter force to shoot them down or drive them off.

This just about sums up air defence operations - the end goal is not neccessarily to destroy the EN A/C. The AD 'wins' if they force the enemy to put their ordnance anywhere else but the vital point, either through deterrence, harassment or direct hits. LLAD serves to force the enemy higher so their aim is degraded and longer range missile/radar systems can engage them. Vice versa, short range systems also defend long range systems against stand off weapons fired from outside the missile umbrella. In Ireland, we only have short range systems...

Ideally you have
HMG and auto cannon (0 to 3000 m)
Mobile MANPAD/radar with optional EO guidance (1000 to 5000 m)
-> used for defence of troops, point targets, mobile units and medium/long range AD systems

Medium range missile/radar (3000 to 30000 m)
Long range missile/radar (100000 m)
Aerial AD (100-200 km)

Avgas · 21-02-2011 11:50AM

Well….I think the established idea that layered air defence is necessary may be giving way to a less predictible, less linear or systematic type of approach to AD both tactically and strategically……not many countries can afford a layered air defence…and TBH there are gaps in major countries AD approaches……..plus the real AD effectiveness of 0.5 HMGs may be more marginal than is realised…

Plus all of the hardware, whether guns or missiles, is probably useless without great ESM+ECM and the people and expertise that go with it. IDF defeated Kubs after a short period of initial success by a simple enough RWR tweak in 1973.

Some small and very fiscally challenged countries like Ireland will in future have to consider equipping tactical units with perhaps a single type of modular tactical precision missile..which can target drones, helicopters, slow and low aircraft, as well as armour, buildings, even small vessels, etc. Consider that the RBS70 always had a secondary anti-vehicle capability and the Javelin has in theory the ability to target helicopters in direct fire mode…and the RPG7 has proven itself a crude, possibly suicidal but effective improv SAM…….at least for choppers……such 'modular precision' could be one way the future could evolve….and that sort of thinking should have implications for Irish procurement…….

Just because your poor does not mean you cannot do some type of air defence-indeed it may force you to be very innovative and surprising……if your clever enough and have an institutional culture that permits this type of thing…….do we?

For example there would be a case for us as a state to have some type of radar network to have situational awareness about what is flying around and over us (never mind if we intend to intercept)….that in theory could be done cheaply by developing some kind of parasitic passive radar net using either FM radio signals or GSM mobile phone networks……see for a basic enough open source entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

Fratton Fred · 25-02-2011 02:01PM

OS119 wrote: »

AVGAS is correct to highlight the requirement for counter-projectile systems - anyone who thinks seriously about the severity of indirect fire attacks on UK units in Afghanistan and Iraq, the comparative lack of casualties as a result of those attacks, and the number of RN ships floating around with empty Goalkeeper/Phalanx mounts is going to come to a reasonable conclusion about the systems needed to defend against such attacks.

Are you saying they use Goalkeeper and phalanx at army bases?

Is that not risky in built up areas?

OS119 · 25-02-2011 02:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you saying they use Goalkeeper and phalanx at army bases?

Is that not risky in built up areas?

they weren't/aren't used in built up areas.

Avgas · 28-02-2011 09:30AM

[QUOTE=Fratton Fred;70862736]Are you saying they use Goalkeeper and phalanx at army bases?

Is that not risky in built up areas?[/QUOTE]

The ammunition used in the C-RAM is HE-SD type-the rds self destruct, but I'm not sure about the AHEAD rds in the German MANTIS system…

See….
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Germany-Orders-Skyshield-C-RAM-Base-Defense-Systems-05418/

The issue you raise is one reason why some favour a laser like the THEL...but that is more money, complexity, less mobility, etc.

concussion · 28-02-2011 12:04PM

I'm sure the AHEAD amn has a self destruct timer on it aswell. However, that's still roughly half a kilo of shrapnel falling from the sky from every round fired!

BrianD · 03-03-2011 10:40AM

People don't get it. Our need for naval, airforce and a standing army a mimimal. We don't actually need them.

The last occupying force we evicted through guerilla warfare and negotiation.

We escaped the first, second and cold wars with no material damage to the country.

The biggest current threats to a national such as Ireland are nuclear attack and terrorism. We can't counter either through having a large army. The US faces nuclear anhilation at the touch of a button and their large and sophisticated air defences were easily bypassed on 9/11.

Why should we have an army? The only reason is aid to civil power and contribution to multinational forces.

As for a navy what we need is a bigger coast guard and fisheries protection fleet.

Air Corp - no fighters required. Just appropriate transport aircraft.

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Comments