Should Ireland have a better equipped Navy and Air Force?

aindriu80 · 02-04-2014 11:54am

There are no plans to purchase an aircraft carrier for the Naval Service

he said :

He said, “The primary day-to-day tasking of the Naval Service is to provide a fishery protection service.”

But isn't Ireland's job is to protect itself in some shape or form ? A brown water navy doesn't do much.

Ming should have asked him for 2 of these Horizon-class frigate (destroyer) USD$770 million :

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 12:23pm

aindriu80 wrote: »

he said :

But isn't Ireland's job is to protect itself in some shape or form ? A brown water navy doesn't do much.

Ming should have asked him for 2 of these Horizon-class frigate (destroyer) USD$770 million :

As if Ming has any idea about any class of warship, everyone knows a carrier after that unless you are interested you don't (how many times does any warship get called a Battleship:rolleyes:).

Those are high end of European Air defence Frigates, he should have asked for the Absalon class.

Jawgap · 02-04-2014 12:51pm

sparky42 wrote: »

As if Ming has any idea about any class of warship, everyone knows a carrier after that unless you are interested you don't (how many times does any warship get called a Battleship:rolleyes:).

Those are high end of European Air defence Frigates, he should have asked for the Absalon class.

Meer toys......

If we want to mount a credible naval deterrence threat, I'd recommend one of these, from our new best friends, the Swedes.....

gotland_A19.jpg?_=1321491653

A Gotland-class sub.......

In May 2005, the Gotland was leased to the U.S. Navy for one year, complete with a Swedish crew. The Gotland out of San Diego and patrolled the Pacific Ocean, where the U.S. Navy practiced joint maneuvers with the stealthy AIP-equipped diesel submarine. According to the Swedish newspaper Blekinge Läns Tidning, U.S. interest in the Gotland class was aroused during joint naval exercises when the U.S. Navy was unable to track the Swedish submarine.

During its first year in the United States, the Gotland conducted approximately 160 training days at sea, supporting strike groups, individual ships and rescue submarines, as well as participating in testing and development of new equipment. This included acting as an opposing force so that the United States could practice anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities, especially against smaller submarines operating close to the coast.

Reportedly, during a Joint Task Force Exercise on 6-16 December 2005 with the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group off the coast of Southern California, the Gotland managed to take several pictures of the Ronald Reagan from close quarters, indicating a "strike" on the aircraft carrier.

The submarine evaded detection so effectively that the United States requested a 12-month extension on its lease, in order to continue performing the joint exercises. In July 2007, the HMS Gotland left San Diego to return to Sweden.

.......I'd say that mightily 'irritated' the Yanks!

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 1:05pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Meer toys......

If we want to mount a credible naval deterrence threat, I'd recommend one of these, from our new best friends, the Swedes.....

A Gotland-class sub.......

.......I'd say that mightily 'irritated' the Yanks!

If you wanted the Sub route, I'd go for the German U 214 class (maybe build it in South Korea for a cheaper rate), more advanced and with more users globally (both in Europe and further), and with the AIP can stay down for 3 weeks.

On the other hand thats 300 million each plus weapon stocks, that buys you the Absalon (with ESSM and Harpoons), which gets you sealift capability for the Army as well.

Many of the NATO SSK's have "killed" US Carriers, the Australians have done it, along with the Canadians and British at least. It's something the USN glosses over and ignores (hopefully some Kilo class knock off doesn't demonstrate the same capability at some stage), due to the nuclear mafia in the SSN's (and to be fair they have different mission demands than the SSK nations.

folbotcar · 02-04-2014 1:06pm

More like impressed them mightily. You can be sure they'll have their own version in production.

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 1:11pm

folbotcar wrote: »

More like impressed them mightily. You can be sure they'll have their own version in production.

The US doesn't do SSKs and haven't built new ones since the 60/70s I think. They have no intention of going down that route, and even if they were, they suffer from a lot of Not Built Here syndrome so they wouldn't buy a European hull.

riffmongous · 02-04-2014 9:18pm

sparky42 wrote: »

You've got to wonder who put him up to asking that question, and how high he was when he asked, and if Shatter could keep a straight face in response.

Muppet

Maybe Ming just wanted to give Shatter an easy one to help him get his confidence back up...:pac:

Red Nissan · 02-04-2014 9:25pm

I think an aircraft carrier is a great idea, on a three week rotation we could employ some 19,000 people. And keep the White Gate refinery in business all alone, never mind the planes.

Jawgap · 02-04-2014 10:26pm

We could just build a fake one like the Iranians .......

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 10:40pm

Jawgap wrote: »

We could just build a fake one like the Iranians .......

Oh come on, I'm fairly sure that's going to be used as a PR exercise, there's not much reason for it other than that. At best a training tool.

It's not fitted with anything to actually operate aircraft.

We could always go for the Japanese helicopter destroyers (they ARE NOT carriers honestly)

Jawgap · 02-04-2014 10:43pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Oh come on, I'm fairly sure that's going to be used as a PR exercise, there's not much reason for it other than that. At best a training tool.

It's not fitted with anything to actually operate aircraft.

We could always go for the Japanese helicopter destroyers (they ARE NOT carriers honestly)

Yes, it's fake - there's some speculation it's going to be used for propaganda, as part of a film about the shoot down of Iran Air 655 or as some kind of training thing......

Boskowski · 02-04-2014 10:47pm

Honestly I think Ireland is playing the whole army thing just right.
Few boats to keep criminals and paras away, few planes and helicopters for rescue and recon missions. Ireland could throw billions at it and wouldn't be able to defend herself against anyone half serious anyway. It would be just money out the window.
Who'd raid Ireland in an case? Would cause so much outrage over little gain and most likely someone would come and aid. Probably US or UK.
Don't need any and tbh couldn't afford it. Lets keep it simple and spend the money on schools and hospitals. The world would be a much better place if everyone did the same in my opinion.

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 10:48pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, it's fake - there's some speculation it's going to be used for propaganda, as part of a film about the shoot down of Iran Air 655 or as some kind of training thing......

Depending on the international relations I was thinking it might be "look how we can fight the EVIL US" and sink it.

Hell, maybe France will refuse to sell the Mistral's to Russia and sell them off cheap:P (even if only the Nordic battlegroup got it)

Pinch Flat · 02-04-2014 10:51pm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Air_Force

Versus

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Corps_(Ireland)

What a joke. We could be invaded by the Faroe Islands in the morning and there's not much we could do about it

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 11:00pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Air_Force

Versus

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Corps_(Ireland)

What a joke. We could be invaded by the Faroe Islands in the morning and there's not much we could do about it

Do you want to join NATO, get knock down prices on equipment while committing to military operations?

If not shut up and accept that a small budget along with a public/political view that couldn't give a damn about the defence forces mean what we have is what we have.

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 11:01pm

Boskowski wrote: »

Honestly I think Ireland is playing the whole army thing just right.
Few boats to keep criminals and paras away, few planes and helicopters for rescue and recon missions. Ireland could throw billions at it and wouldn't be able to defend herself against anyone half serious anyway. It would be just money out the window.
Who'd raid Ireland in an case? Would cause so much outrage over little gain and most likely someone would come and aid. Probably US or UK.
Don't need any and tbh couldn't afford it. Lets keep it simple and spend the money on schools and hospitals. The world would be a much better place if everyone did the same in my opinion.

Honestly I'd agree with you, I'd go for different equipment, and purchases but that's about it.

aindriu80 · 02-04-2014 11:02pm

Boskowski wrote: »

Honestly I think Ireland is playing the whole army thing just right.
Few boats to keep criminals and paras away...........

That isn't any kind of strategy. It's no blueprint for the future.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Air_Force

Versus

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Corps_(Ireland)

Well Denmark certainly has an airforce but their GDP is 314.2 billion USD (2012) while ours is 210.3 billion USD (2012). They also have a million extra people. Still they have done a good job compared to what we have done.

Boskowski · 02-04-2014 11:04pm

aindriu80 wrote: »

That isn't any kind of strategy. It's no blueprint for the future.

Well Denmark certainly has an airforce but their GDP is 314.2 billion USD (2012) while ours is 210.3 billion USD (2012). They also have a million extra people. Still they have done a good job compared to what we have done.

I don't think any blueprint for a military future is required. We're over our ears in debt. Would you consider it a good investment to spend billions we don't have in case the Faroers are going to invade us? Seriously...

Pinch Flat · 02-04-2014 11:06pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Do you want to join NATO, get knock down prices on equipment while committing to military operations?

If not shut up and accept that a small budget along with a public/political view that couldn't give a damn about the defence forces mean what we have is what we have.

Yeah a substandard air defence that relies on another country. What about Switzerland - non NATO country?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Swiss_Air_Force

Don't get me wrong and don't take it personally - not slagging off the personnel, just the woeful lack of investment

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 11:06pm

aindriu80 wrote: »

That isn't any kind of strategy. It's no blueprint for the future.

A defence budget without taking into account the domestic conditions is also flawed, there are options that could be developed without breaking the bank or massive growth in numbers/spending but the reality is that's not an option right now.

Well Denmark certainly has an airforce but their GDP is 314.2 billion USD (2012) while ours is 210.3 billion USD (2012). They also have a million extra people. Still they have done a good job compared to what we have done.

The Danes have much more access to NATO standard equipment than we do and more commitments that justify that spending (also smarter to use our GNP not GDP due to multinationals). And a degree of their hardware is legacy from the Cold War, right now there has been questions about future spending.

From memory a version of the Absalon was on the cards for the EPV before the crash.

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 11:13pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah a substandard air defence that relies on another country. What about Switzerland - non NATO country?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Swiss_Air_Force

Don't get me wrong and don't take it personally - not slagging off the personnel, just the woeful lack of investment

Yeah and they have a GDP 3 times our own with a much more condensed population spread.

Both Switzerland and Austria have historic and domestic reasons for that spending, since the foundation of the state we haven't followed that path and have increasingly worked against it.

You would have to change the entire view of the Irish public on neutrality for anything different.

Pinch Flat · 02-04-2014 11:18pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Yeah and they have a GDP 3 times our own with a much more condensed population spread.

Both Switzerland and Austria have historic and domestic reasons for that spending, since the foundation of the state we haven't followed that path and have increasingly worked against it.

You would have to change the entire view of the Irish public on neutrality for anything different.

Well fair enough. If we're going to compare air forces based solely on GDP, surely our one is below other peer European nations if we pro-rata GDPs? We can't even defend ourself against a rogue 737 - I personally think that's embarrassing.

sparky42 · 02-04-2014 11:29pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Well fair enough. If we're going to compare air forces based solely on GDP, surely our one is below other peer European nations if we pro-rata GDPs? We can't even defend ourself against a rogue 737 - I personally think that's embarrassing.

Defence budgets are based off needs, and even though I hate it since WW2 the Irish public have engrained it that we don't have any needs (:mad:).

Say we bought 12-16 Hawks (basic aircraft) that's over 100 million straight off (more than the two OPV's being built), plus extra millions for air to air missiles, pilots, support etc.

I suppose one of the impediments is that for so much of the nations history our budgets were so very limited along with the anti UK views for major equipment, means that the historical weight is against the defence budget. Hell remember in the 70s the Navy couldn't even field a functional ship for patrolling our waters.

beauf · 02-04-2014 11:35pm

Getting invaded by aliens is more likely.

aindriu80 · 03-04-2014 11:03am

sparky42 wrote: »

A defence budget without taking into account the domestic conditions is also flawed, there are options that could be developed without breaking the bank or massive growth in numbers/spending but the reality is that's not an option right now.

The Danes have much more access to NATO standard equipment than we do and more commitments that justify that spending (also smarter to use our GNP not GDP due to multinationals). And a degree of their hardware is legacy from the Cold War, right now there has been questions about future spending.

From memory a version of the Absalon was on the cards for the EPV before the crash.

We have under sight at the moment not oversight.

The Danes obviously take their defence more serious than we do. We could still have some of the capability as they but we didn't sign up to NATO or spend anything on major pieces of equipment.

Denmark 242.3 billion PPP dollars (2012) GNP.
Ireland 164.6 billion PPP dollars (2012) GNP.

Denmark is still better off.

beauf · 03-04-2014 11:33am

aindriu80 wrote: »

...
Denmark is still better off.

Better off because they are more likely to get invaded or have to defend their borders?

sparky42 · 03-04-2014 11:37am

beauf wrote: »

Better off because they are more likely to get invaded or have to defend their borders?

Or better off as they are more likely to deploy their forces in active wars?

longhalloween · 03-04-2014 11:39am

Boskowski wrote: »

Honestly I think Ireland is playing the whole army thing just right.
Few boats to keep criminals and paras away, few planes and helicopters for rescue and recon missions. Ireland could throw billions at it and wouldn't be able to defend herself against anyone half serious anyway. It would be just money out the window.
Who'd raid Ireland in an case? Would cause so much outrage over little gain and most likely someone would come and aid. Probably US or UK.

I'd agree with this.

A highly militarised Ireland would be defeated only marginally slower than a non-militarised Ireland. Seeing as we're always neutral there's no immediate threat of anyone invading.

Remember too that the pace of military technology means that any investments now will be obsolete in 10 years, so any purchases would have to be continually modified and upgraded.

I would be in favour of a system of surveillance drones off the coast to detect drug smuggling and assist the coast guard.

folbotcar · 03-04-2014 12:46pm

I think comparisons with other countries of similar sizes are valid. What they do prove is that the proportion of military spending even taking into account our population and economy is still well below that you might expect from any other first world country.

But more all too often over the years the military budget was poorly spent. Even now the Air Corps is barely fit for purpose in military terms. It's only in recent years that the army has improved it's training and equipment to the point where it matches that of other countries. But even so it's lacking in many areas.

Politically there is no joined up thinking when it comes to defence.

We don't need fighter jets or an aircraft carrier or cruisers or frigates or Challenger tanks. But we do need a credible defence force trained and equipped to modern standards.

But defence isn't taken seriously in this country and the average citizen considers the military as a bit of joke. That's not going to change soon.

Oh yes and would people stop saying we're 'neutral'. We're not and never were even in WW2. We are at best non aligned. Real neutral countries like Sweden or Switzerland have credible military forces. We don't. We're more helpless than neutral.

longhalloween · 03-04-2014 12:59pm

folbotcar wrote: »

We're more helpless than neutral.

Will there ever be a scenario where Ireland has to project military might?

I believe our military should be capable to deal with paramilitary threats and internal security. There is no need to maintain a large, advanced military force in this country.
Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark have a history and tradition of militarism that Ireland doesn't have.

I'd say we'd be better served leasing equipment from Britain and training Irish personnel to use it.

Should Ireland have a better equipped Navy and Air Force?

Comments