A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

El_Duderino 09 · 07-11-2014 11:01AM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

We need an aircraft carrier too oh and some main battle tanks, ah sure throw in some Apache gunships too and we'll be well sorted so no one will ever dare mess with us.

Only 1 aircraft carrier? Are you metro-sexual or something?

El_Duderino 09 · 07-11-2014 11:07AM

I'm just being a smart arse OP. Apologies.

Having read the thread I have to ask whether you want to have the f16s to actually fight off the Russians or be a deterrent or have a token defence against them?

I ask because I imagine that if the Russians really wanted to nuke shannon, they wouldn't let 6 f16s stop them

cruasder777 · 07-11-2014 11:38AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm just being a smart arse OP. Apologies.

Having read the thread I have to ask whether you want to have the f16s to actually fight off the Russians or be a deterrent or have a token defence against them?

I ask because I imagine that if the Russians really wanted to nuke shannon, they wouldn't let 6 f16s stop them

Its not about "fighting the Russians," its about having a minimal capability to Police and defend Irish airspace on the most minimal level.

pilatus · 07-11-2014 11:40AM

For instance if we have a squadron of F16's (leased Gripen's better bet I reckon) and the Russians for whatever reason want to nuke Shannon ( also my girlfriend's name, good luck to them, I'll meet them in the bar after and discuss were they went wrong ) all they have to do is place a sub a thousand miles away in the Atlantic or even a hundred miles away in the Atlantic and launch a nuke, there wouldn't be a thing we could do to stop them.

Nor for that matter if this were to happen of the coast of the states they would be as screwed as us and that's with all their military might . That's why this is called a doomsday scenario , everyone is screwed there is no way to counter it and then ICBM's would be let loose by both sides and well you see where this is going . Not much point in talking about it.

cruasder777 · 07-11-2014 11:41AM

pilatus wrote: »

For instance if we have a squadron of F16's (leased Gripen's better bet I reckon) and the Russians for whatever reason want to nuke Shannon ( also my girlfriend's name, good luck to them, I'll meet them in the bar after and discuss were they went wrong ) all they have to do is place a sub a thousand miles away in the Atlantic or even a hundred miles away in the Atlantic and launch a nuke, there wouldn't be a thing we could do to stop them.

Nor for that matter if this were to happen of the coast of the states they would be as screwed as us and that's with all their military might . That's why this is called a doomsday scenario , everyone is screwed there is no way to counter it and then ICBM's would be let loose by both sides and well you see where this is going . Not much point in talking about it.

If you read the first post its why the republic must also be part of the UKs developing anti ballistic missile system. It needs to start taking geo politics and defence more seriously.

Shannon is a target in any potential conflict, neutral or not.

Im glad other nations don't have this whats the point mindset.

Jawgap · 07-11-2014 11:43AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

........ At present the state is neglecting its duty.

It's not really. We have a defence capability commensurate with our strategic position.

cruasder777 wrote: »

Used F16s are 1970s technology affordable to buy and maintain and deal with Russian bombers.

Recently the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off Donegal.

The Irish state should take responsibility for its own defence.

When did this intercept take place - there was one four years ago but the intercept happened about 180 miles North of Donegal and the bombers in question were escorted all the way from there - if they really represented a threat they would would have been down wave-hopping not trundling around at 28,000 ft

cruasder777 wrote: »

You are not bothered by a foreign powers nuclear bombers illegally entering Irish air space ?

No, because it never happened. It's also highly unlikely they were armed with anything more dangerous than ballast.

cruasder777 wrote: »

A foreign nuclear bomber heading at supersonic speed into another countries airspace is not a potential threat ? ok

A billion per year ? Don't know what you are on about.

Not when to get here it was to fly through some fairly heavily surveilled airspace and past a country with the capability to intercept them.

BTW - as an experienced military operative I'm sure you're aware of how 'threat' is assessed in terms of 'capability x intent' - just because a country possesses the capability doesn't mean it will use it.

Ireland purchasing a squadron of F-16s - or any fast jets - would be ridiculous.

The easiest (but no less costly) way to improve our security situation would be to join NATO - it would make more sense but would still be a massive over-reaction to any existential threat the country might conceivably face in the future.

cruasder777 · 07-11-2014 11:47AM

Jawgap wrote: »

It's really. We have a defence capability commensurate with our straegic position.

When did this intercept take place - there was one four years ago but the intercept happened about 180 miles North of Donegal and the bombers in question were escorted all the way from there - if they really represented a threat they would would have been down wave-hopping not trundling around at 28,000 ft

No, because it never happened. It's also highly unlikely they were armed with anything more dangerous than ballast.

Not when to get here it was to fly through some fairly heavily surveilled airspace and past a country with the capability to intercept them.

BTW - as an experienced military operative I'm sure you're aware of how 'threat' is assessed in terms of 'capability x intent' - just because a country possesses the capability doesn't mean it will use it.

Ireland purchasing a squadron of F-16s - or any fast jets - would be ridiculous.

The easiest (but no less costly) way to improve our security situation would be to join NATO - it would make more sense but would still be a massive over-reaction to any existential threat the country might conceivably face in the future.

In the cold war there were incidents of Russian bombers regularly in Irish air space off Donegal, its a fact. Shannon was a target, ignoring that is neglectful.

In more recent times the interception was 20 miles off the coast, not 180.

If Ireland joined NATO, it would have to increase defence spending to 2%, that's not going to happen.

"We have a defence capability commensurate with our straegic position"

.....No we have a defence policy commensurate with Ireland being isolationist and conservative and parochial for much of the 20th century, not willing to look at its self in a wider geo political worldview. Malta (population 400,000) has a better air corps defence capability then Ireland, that cant be right.

pilatus · 07-11-2014 11:48AM

For policing it, a dozen Gripen's leased from Sweden on a 5 or 10 year lease would be the way to go . Cheaper flight hours no initial buying fee, the swedes guarantee you'll have whatever number you agree in contract serviceable at any given time, spares ordered as needed before the aircraft would be grounded. Plus the airframes are new, not like the decades old stressed airframes the Americans would give you. They would do back flips for a customer while holding a porcelain Tea pot . In this economic climate they are the only viable option. Just google czech gripen lease. That's my serious answer :-)

El_Duderino 09 · 07-11-2014 11:59AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its not about "fighting the Russians," its about having a minimal capability to Police and defend Irish airspace on the most minimal level.

It's about policing and defending irelands air space on the most minimal level? What does that even mean. Police the air indefinitely against nothing until one day the Russians decided to nuke shannon. Our gallant air force puts up minimal defence.

The quest I'm asking is do the 6 f16s fight the Russians off or do the Russians still nuke shannon?

Do you see value in buying the 6 f16s, putting up minimal resistance even if shannon gets nuked anyway?

Jawgap · 07-11-2014 11:59AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

If you read the first post its why the republic must also be part of the UKs developing anti ballistic missile system. It needs to start taking geo politics and defence more seriously.

Shannon is a target in any potential conflict, neutral or not.

Im glad other nations don't have this whats the point mindset.

What about cruise missiles?

If the Russians really had ill-intent towards us and wanted to eliminate Shannon couldn't they just park a Kilo 500km off the west coast and launch a salvo of SS-N-30A land attack missiles?

Or fly a Tu-160 to within about 2000km and squeeze of a few Kh-55 nuclear capable cruise missiles? I know they're banned but I'm assuming they haven't forgot how to make them and the production facility is still active producing restricted range variants of them.

intellectual dosser · 07-11-2014 12:00PM

What is the point in policing? Both sides in this thread agree that if the Russians want to bomb Shannon or any location in Ireland then they simply will - 6 F16's just to build a front door that any major power can kick down?

Also OP, can you provide any links to evidence that the Russians would most definitely take Shannon out, or that Ireland had a secret pact with NATO during the cold war? If I'm not mistaken, Shannon is a fuel base for Aeroflot, and the Russians are free to use the airport in the same capacity as the Americans.

Why nuclear? Against an officially neutral state? Why wouldn't conventional bombing be enough to take out the runway as a strategic resource? I'd like to think that if the Russians (or anybody for that) decided to launch a nuclear attack on Shannon, then they've already blown up half the world before hand.

Jawgap · 07-11-2014 12:12PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

In the cold war there were incidents of Russian bombers regularly in Irish air space off Donegal, its a fact. Shannon was a target, ignoring that is neglectful.

In more recent times the interception was 20 miles off the coast, not 180.

Well here's a report discussing it

Jets intercepted two Russian Blackjack bombers – Tupolev TU-160 aircraft – near Scotland after they had been seen earlier by Norwegian, Danish and Icelandic fighters.

Two RAF Tornado F3 fighters from 111 Squadron were scrambled from RAF Leuchars, in Fife, in the early hours of 10 March, the RAF said.

The aircraft intercepted the Russian planes near Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides.

The Tornados shadowed the bombers as they flew south before turning north off the Northern Ireland coast.

Presumably you can link to something to establish the 'fact' you assert above?

cruasder777 wrote: »

If Ireland joined NATO, it would have to increase defence spending to 2%, that's not going to happen.

.......so standing up a squadron of F-16s is your solution? Instead of joining the local defence alliance......you should run for the Dail and look to become the next Minister of Defence;)

cruasder777 wrote: »

"We have a defence capability commensurate with our straegic position"

.....No we have a defence policy commensurate with Ireland being isolationist and conservative and parochial for much of the 20th century, not willing to look at its self in a wider geo political worldview. Malta (population 400,000) has a larger air corps then Ireland, that cant be right.

Not really - our defence is commensurate with our position.

Malta has a different position - it is on a well known route for illegla immigrants trying to enter the EU, it's astride a major shipping route and it is about 150 miles off the coast of that quiet backwater.......Libya - leaving aside the fact that it's been invaded and / or occupied by everyone from the Phoenicians to the Brits!!

Beano · 07-11-2014 12:39PM

If it gets to the point where the russians are nuking shannon then the whole gig is up and we should be worrying about whose head to bash in to get our next meal. a squadron of F16s would make feck all difference to that.

Morpheus · 07-11-2014 01:00PM

Just to point this out

Ireland ... is not ... a neutral state.

We are not constitutionally neutral

we have a foreign policy of non alignment
on a case by case basis
under the triple lock agreement

but we ARE NOT Neutral, either officially, unofficially or otherwise.

read the constitution, you wont SEE the word in it.

to be so would require a referendum and sovereign neutral states NEED the ability to defend themselves which, you guessed, would result in an increase in defence spending.

Policing our air space or marine borders is a major major concern, ireland is on the cusp of locating major mineral wealth, we also have large fish stocks and marine wealth in the atlantic, porcupine basin not to mention around rockall and also the bay of biscay.

yet, we have a navy incapable of defending it should an agressor decide to move in and take the minerals etc. Check Chinas moves in the south china sea, total disregard for other countries. As fossil fuels run out, this is the reality we face.

we should be able to intercept and deter ANY foreign aircraft which come close to entering our airspace, the same as we can with vessels at sea. We could have a viable anti aircraft capability using longer range ground based missiles and the likes of a Gripen Lease mentioned above like the Czechs. we SHOULD have better maritime patrol aircraft WITH anti submarine capability, our naval vessels SHOULD also have anti submarine capability or at least sonar that can detect them. South american drugs are now transiting the atlantic in submarines.

The whitepaper on defence will let us know what way the military future of this country is going, having had it on the back of a massive recession, i fear that it will not go very far from status quo.

But please, do continue - just remember, you are NOT the citizen of a neutral state, just non aligned , if it suits us , and russia and china and usa etc agree with it (UN triple lock)

knucklehead6 · 07-11-2014 01:15PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

A foreign nuclear bomber heading at supersonic speed into another countries airspace is not a potential threat ? ok

A billion per year ? Don't know what you are on about.

Are you talking about Bears, Backfires or Blackjacks?

The recent interceptions off the UK coast have all been Bears. And i could be wrong but i think they can only go supersonic, while standing on their noses...with a tailwind.

And to be fair the interceptions Jawgap mentioned (which WERE Blackjacks) those lads weren't flying at supersonic speed. Flying that fast is murderously expensive on fuel economy. Not something you want to be messing with when you are 2915 miles in a great circle direct route from the Kola peninsula.

And i'm sure the Royal Air Force, the Royal Norwegian Air Force, the Swedish Air Force and the Finnish Air Force would all have a thing or two to say about a Tu-160 or a Tu-22 blasting through their airspace at supersonic speeds you mention.

knucklehead6 · 07-11-2014 01:47PM

Actually i got it slightly wrong. The Tu-160's are based at Engels not on the Kola.

So the distance is a piffling 2283 miles, passing through Belarus, Lithuania, Denmark and the UK. Skirting the northern coasts of Poland and Germany, and the southern coast of Sweden.

Apologies for the map, Saratov is the nearest town to Engels, about 18 km away.

Manach · 07-11-2014 02:03PM

My own 2c, is that on one hand the underlying and core responsible is the defence of the state. This means having an adequate war budget. As Morpheus has said, we are living in interesting times with competition for dwendling resources and more overt displays of power. For instance, instead of using the legal mechanisms that have been set-up under conventions such as the UN's law of the seas, states with the military power are pressing their claims: eg China.

However, on the other hand there is the budget. Any significant increase in military matters would be a diversion from social programs which would cause unrest in the lobbyists/special interest groups which are connected to those programs. Purchasing a fully fledged F16 squadron and support would have as some other posters mentioned significant monetary impact beyond the initial purchases.

Perhaps though, given the Russian/Soviet emphasis on cheap, reliable and easy to operate hardware, we could buy some of their fighter interceptors on the cheap

Jawgap · 07-11-2014 02:19PM

Anyway - you'd need more than 1 squadron.

The Swiss have 3 squadrons of F-5s and 3 squadrons of F/A-18s for air interception but their air force only carries out intercepts between 0800 and 1700

If they can't maintain a standing QRA to cover their 16,000 sq miles of territory with 6 squadrons - I'm not sure how we'd manage with 1 squadron and 27,000 sq miles of over land air space to police (never mind the 340,000 sq miles that make up our EEZ)

Morpheus · 07-11-2014 02:28PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Anyway - you'd need more than 1 squadron.

The Swiss have 3 squadrons of F-5s and 3 squadrons of F/A-18s for air interception but their air force only carries out intercepts between 0800 and 1700

If they can't maintain a standing QRA to cover their 16,000 sq miles of territory with 6 squadrons - I'm not sure how we'd manage with 1 squadron and 27,000 sq miles of over land air space to police (never mind the 340,000 sq miles that make up our EEZ)

isnt it the second or third largest EEZ and territory in europe?

Silvera · 07-11-2014 02:32PM

Interesting thread. However, there is some mis-information in it -

Malta does not have a larger air defence corps than Ireland.
Malta has c.4 x Helicopters and 3 x fixed wing aircraft as opposed to the Irish Air Corps' 8 x helicopters and 16 x fixed wing aircraft. (2 x Italian Air Force helicopters are also based in Malta for SAR operations, on a rotational basis)

"Icelandic fighters"
Iceland does not posess fighter aircraft. Their only assets are 3 x patrol aircraft and 2 x helicopters - all operated by the Icelandic Coast Guard. Fighter aircraft based (rotated) through Iceland were USAF fighters and nowadays are, I believe, Danish aircraft.

I agree that Ireland is a not neutral in the true sense, as often mentioned here and elsewhere. If you want to see a truly neutral - and well armed - country, take a look at Switzerland and their armed forces, e.g. The Swiss Air Force operate 54 x F5 Tiger II and 34 x F/A 18 fighter jets.

I too believe that Ireland should posess a minimal air defence capability in the form of, for example, a squadron of leased JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets (as mentioned earlier). In the past some commentators have also suggested Czech-made Aero L-159 jets for the Air Corps, however these jets would not offer a true fighter jet-intercept capability in the league of JAS Gripens, etc.

Incidentially, Sweden may now have surplus Gripens available, since that the Swiss electorate voted against the purchase of c.22 x Gripens in a recent referendum. (The Gripens were intended to replace the Tiger II which have been in service with the Swiss Air Force since 1978, when they originally purchased 100 x Tiger II's).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Air_Force

07-11-2014 03:07PM

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps though, given the Russian/Soviet emphasis on cheap, reliable and easy to operate hardware, we could buy some of their fighter interceptors on the cheap

I often wondered about this myself too,if we only want the stuff for the sake of having it why not get some cheaper Eastern gear? :pac:

galwaycyclist · 08-11-2014 10:10AM

intellectual dosser wrote: »

What is the point in policing? Both sides in this thread agree that if the Russians want to bomb Shannon or any location in Ireland then they simply will - 6 F16's just to build a front door that any major power can kick down?

Also OP, can you provide any links to evidence that the Russians would most definitely take Shannon out, or that Ireland had a secret pact with NATO during the cold war? If I'm not mistaken, Shannon is a fuel base for Aeroflot, and the Russians are free to use the airport in the same capacity as the Americans.

Why nuclear? Against an officially neutral state? Why wouldn't conventional bombing be enough to take out the runway as a strategic resource? I'd like to think that if the Russians (or anybody for that) decided to launch a nuclear attack on Shannon, then they've already blown up half the world before hand.

Ah no to my knowledge the assumption that Shannon was a strategic target has been established for a long time.

As I recall the largest peacetime military excercise held in this country was based on an assumed attempt by an external force to take Shannon Airport.

Yes Aeroflot had fuel tanks - at the same time the US always had a significant presence of customs officers in Shannon - something like 50. This was long before the immigration pre clearance started.

To crater a runway with 1980s equipment you needed to get aircraft over the runway probably a few of them. The English flying from Ascension over undefended territory were barely able to do it in Stanley during the Falklands war. As I recall they only got one or two bombs on the runway.

The fact that we aren't in NATO arguably meant the Russians could calculate that they could nuke us without retaliation.

cruasder777 · 08-11-2014 11:06AM

The neutrality thing is a farce.

Ireland banned Aeroflot in the 80s from Shannon at the USAs request.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/soviet-union-was-ready-to-exploit-ira-in-cold-war-1-3247811

The papers also revealed Ireland agreed to ban Soviet airlines from the tarmac at Shannon airport just ten days before nuclear catastrophe was avoided during the Cold War.
State papers show US president Ronald Reagan sent a direct request for Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald to stop Aeroflot stopovers after a civilian airliner was blown out of the sky.
The blanket ban was ordered after the Soviets shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 on 1 September, 1983 near Sakhalin island in the Sea of Japan, after it strayed into Russian air space.
All 269 passengers and crew, including US congressman Larry McDonald, were killed.

cruasder777 · 08-11-2014 11:14AM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/secret-plan-to-muster-army-of-500000-in-event-of-nuclear-war-ireland-was-ready-to-help-out-uk-26806742.html

Stamped 'Secret' and titled 'The Strategic Importance of Ireland to the UK in Times of War', it was drawn up in preparation for a feared outbreak of atomic war between the Soviets and the western world.

Despite its official neutrality, the report warns that Ireland may not have been spared a nuclear strike, with Shannon and Bantry Bay pinpointed as likely targets

Owryan · 08-11-2014 11:23AM

Maybe we should get some ASW assets too,

http://thisismilford.com/local-news/item/fisherman-has-close-encounter-with-submarine-off-donegal-coast.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/hi-tech-reconnaissance-submarine-pops-up-in-port-for-courtesy-visit-246064.html

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/lifestyle/the-day-sharelga-was-sunk-by-a-sub-27169745.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rescue-dash-to-stricken-sub-25891847.html

Jawgap · 08-11-2014 12:01PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/secret-plan-to-muster-army-of-500000-in-event-of-nuclear-war-ireland-was-ready-to-help-out-uk-26806742.html

Stamped 'Secret' and titled 'The Strategic Importance of Ireland to the UK in Times of War', it was drawn up in preparation for a feared outbreak of atomic war between the Soviets and the western world.

Despite its official neutrality, the report warns that Ireland may not have been spared a nuclear strike, with Shannon and Bantry Bay pinpointed as likely targets

Other than the showing that the Brits were engaging in contingency planning - what does this link demonstrate?

Lots of countries' militaries engage in contingency planning and nearly every single one is subsequently found to be guilty of 'mirroring' - assuming the enemy will think, act and prioritise in the same way they do.

There's evidence to show the USSR mapped the country (see "Soviet Military Mapping of Ireland during the Cold War" by Col. Desmond Travers (ret'd), Irish Army) but when we applied to join NATO we were knocked back by the British and US on the basis of them not considering us to be part of the Soviets "geo-contingency."

Silvera · 08-11-2014 12:36PM

Russian 'warplanes' over Europe...

http://www.france24.com/en/20141103-russian-warplanes-send-great-power-message-nato/?ns_source=outbrain&ns_campaign=lien&ns_mchannel=acquisition&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=outbrain_france24en-site&campaign_date=inconnue

cruasder777 · 08-11-2014 02:16PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Other than the showing that the Brits were engaging in contingency planning - what does this link demonstrate?

Lots of countries' militaries engage in contingency planning and nearly every single one is subsequently found to be guilty of 'mirroring' - assuming the enemy will think, act and prioritise in the same way they do.

There's evidence to show the USSR mapped the country (see "Soviet Military Mapping of Ireland during the Cold War" by Col. Desmond Travers (ret'd), Irish Army) but when we applied to join NATO we were knocked back by the British and US on the basis of them not considering us to be part of the Soviets "geo-contingency."

Irelands membership was refused due to its territorial conflict with the UK at the time. You cant join NATO if you have unresolved border disputes with an existing member.

Manach · 08-11-2014 02:25PM

Offhand, having territorial disputes is fairly on the par for European countries. While thankfully these are resolved in international law or put in the back burner, offhand Nato countries which have such are Italy in the Tyrol, UK and Spain, UK and Iceland,Turkey and Greece, Hungary with Romania.
Hence this would not block Ireland's membership with NATO?

Jawgap · 08-11-2014 02:32PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Irelands membership was refused due to its territorial conflict with the UK at the time.

Really?

Because some nobody called Dr Garret Fitzgerald tells a different story in his memoir - "Reflections On The Irish State" - he recounts at page 198 the discussions that took place in the lead to the application being made.

The idea that we were refused because because the Soviets weren't interested in us was mentioned by Col Travers in his articles. And Dr Fitzgerald also points out that it was our insistence on the country being unified that contributed to the scuppering of the proposal.

There was also another serious period of consideration given to joining just after the Alliance was set up.

Lemass (and Whitaker) were in favour of it as it was seen as bolstering our application for EEC membership in the early 60s. Even the bold CJ was disposed towards it when he was Taoiseach.

Are you now saying you know more than a two-time Taoiseach and a senior Defence Force officer who had direct contact with Soviet Embassy officials when they visited to the Command and Staff School of the Irish Military College?

A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Comments