A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Garzard · 20-11-2014 07:18PM

Silvera wrote: »

Interesting thread. I too would like to see the Air Corps equipped with F-16's, or similar, jets.
However, realistically, I doubt it will happen in the forseeable future.

Would the next (best? affordable? realistic?) option be something like the Aero Vodochody L-159 ALCA?

- Radar-equipped
- 600mph
- c.$15 million per airframe
- Czech's have c.50 in storage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-159_Alca

Update - A US-based company has organised a deal for 24 x airframes for $26 million?!!!

"Draken International Inc. - 28 L-159: a civilian U.S. company that cooperates with the U.S. Army, will buy 28 L-159 planes (24 intact and 4 broken down for spares) in a deal worth up to $25.8 million"

Aircraft wise, priority would be better put on increasing the numbers of helicopters and Maritime Patrol aircraft first. As Jawgap and sparky42 have mentioned in previous threads, it makes much more financial sense for a country our size, population and geographical position to focus on the one area eg. Maritime Surveillance for us [due to our large EEZ, plus an adequate helicopter force for domestic SAR and troop transport] while leaving main air defence to the UK and/or NATO.

But if we were to be looking at a small squadron of jets somewhere down the line, we'd be better off looking at the budget types [for want of a better term] such as the L-159's / or leasing 2nd hand F-16's / Mirage 2000's / Gripens or even purchasing them outright if the deals are good enough. The Dutch for example were offered 85 odd Gripen NG's for €4.8 billion [which included 30 years worth of maintenance and pilot training]. http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf For 85 Next Gen. Gripens, that was a pretty generous contract to say the least. Even the rarely mentioned Kfir Block 60 with a $20 million purchase cost and with operating costs just 25% that of your average jet is more than worth looking at. AESA radar and all! http://aviationweek.com/awin/iai-looks-east-sell-updated-kfirs

It'd result though in a massive infrastructure upgrade needed to support them, which would come with massive costs - longer runways, new hangars, spares, weapons + storage for the weapons, technician and pilot training. Possibly even a new air base.

OzCam · 20-11-2014 08:52PM

I'm pretty sure there's a couple of straight stretches on the M1 you could land a Gripen on if you had to.

Not sure about the M50 though

Silvera · 20-11-2014 10:10PM

Garzard wrote: »

Aircraft wise, priority would be better put on increasing the numbers of helicopters and Maritime Patrol aircraft first. As Jawgap and sparky42 have mentioned in previous threads, it makes much more financial sense for a country of our size, population and geographical position to focus on the one area eg. Maritime Surveillance for us [due to our large EEZ, plus an adequate helicopter force for SAR and troop transport] while leaving main air defence to the UK and/or NATO.

But if we were to be looking at a small squadron of jets somewhere down the line, we'd be better off looking at the budget types [for want of a better term] such as the L-159's / leasing 2nd hand Mirage 2000's from the French / Gripens from the Swedes... even the rarely mentioned Kfir Block 60 with a $20 million purchase cost and with operating costs 25% of your average jet. AESA radar and all! http://aviationweek.com/awin/iai-looks-east-sell-updated-kfirs

It'd result though in a massive infrastructure upgrade needed to support them, which would come with massive costs - longer runways, new hangars, spares, weapons [+ storage areas] technician and pilot training. Possibly even a new air base.

I agree that AC Martime and Helicopter assets need to be expanded in the short term. Indeed I would like to see at least 2 x CASA CN235 Persuaders added to the fleet (and permanently based in Shannon) to expand maritime patrols (operating in conjunction with a 12 x fleet Naval Service flotilla)

In the longer term the option of adding a squadron of jet aircraft should be seriously explored. While additional structures would be required to support such a squadron, would much extra infrastructure really be required to support, for example 10 x L-159's - when compared to the previously-operated Fouga Magister (or indeed DH Vampire) jets?

Garzard · 21-11-2014 01:27AM

Silvera wrote: »

In the longer term the option of adding a squadron of jet aircraft should be seriously explored. While additional structures would be required to support such a squadron, would much extra infrastructure really be required to support, for example 10 x L-159's - when compared to the previously-operated Fouga Magister (or indeed DH Vampire) jets?

Probably not much in comparison to what you'd need for the likes of the F-16, Typhoon or Mirages [a extended runway for example] given the L-159's simplicity and small size. But they'd still need an extra hangar or two for shelter and maintenance, plus pricey new weapons, somewhere to store them [Sidewinder missiles & bombs for one] and of course training for the crews & pilots. Then there's a likely need for more PC-9's [for basic flight training].

Within reason though we could probably even persuade the US or NATO to pay for the new infrastructure and weapons if we struggled to ourselves.

sparky42 · 21-11-2014 03:38AM

If we were to go down the fast jet route at some stage I'd think the air corps might end up moving. Apart from the needed upgrades, I wonder how long it would be before you get noise complaints. Moreover there is at least some demand from dublin planners that baldonnel is shut to give the city a growth route.

ChicagoJoe · 21-11-2014 04:28PM

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.

" Recently the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off Donegal "

Clearly it's just one of the Brit fan boys starting a thread with the agenda to talk down the Irish Defence forces while talking up the Brits. The same Brits nicknamed by the American army as "the borrowers" due to their lack of equipment and helicopter support and who were a complete disaster in Basra and Helmand.

The Irish state takes responsibility for its own defence and certainly doesn't need the Brits of all people to pretend to be big brother style. Indeed Ireland's neutrality guarantee's that the Russian's or ISIS or North Korea or wherever some unionist Walt wants to pretend is ready to attack the RoI. The borrowers can hardly find their asses with having to ask the USA to point it out, Basra and Helmand is more than proof of it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1896183/Battle-to-retake-Basra-was-complete-disaster.html

http://www.stephengrey.com/2010/06/helmand-anatomy-of-a-disaster/

knucklehead6 · 21-11-2014 04:46PM

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

" Recently the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off Donegal " Clearly it's just one of the Brit fan boys starting a thread with the agenda to talk down the Irish Defence forces while talking up the Brits. The same Brits nicknamed by the American army as "the borrowers" due to their lack of equipment and helicopter support and who were a complete disaster in Basra and Helmand.

The Irish state takes responsibility for its own defence and certainly doesn't need the Brits of all people to pretend to be big brother style. Indeed Ireland's neutrality guarantee's that the Russian's or ISIS or North Korea or wherever some unionist Walt wants to pretend is ready to attack the RoI. The borrowers can hardly find their asses with having to ask the USA to point it out, Basra and Helmand is more than proof of it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1896183/Battle-to-retake-Basra-was-complete-disaster.html

http://www.stephengrey.com/2010/06/helmand-anatomy-of-a-disaster/

Ireland is not neutral.

Jawgap · 21-11-2014 04:58PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Ireland is not neutral.

Indeed, a lot of people don't know the difference between non-aligned and neutral.

Also the Soviets made it clear that our non-aligned status would not have protected us in the event of a conflict erupting and them needing to strike targets in. or in close proximity to, Ireland.

A fact conveyed to a senior officer of the PDF when a Soviet Embassy delegation visited the Curragh in the mid-1980s

sparky42 · 21-11-2014 05:27PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Indeed, a lot of people don't know the difference between non-aligned and neutral.

Also the Soviets made it clear that our non-aligned status would not have protected us in the event of a conflict erupting and them needing to strike targets in. or in close proximity to, Ireland.

A fact conveyed to a senior officer of the PDF when a Soviet Embassy delegation visited the Curragh in the mid-1980s

That and the fact that it isn't talking down the Defence Forces to say that we can't stop anyone doing anything they want in our airspace at present. We do rely on the RAF for that (from memory it was the RAF that were tasked on 9/11 for example).

Our "neutrality" is just a fecking excuse for crusties to lecture the world on how neutral we are while happily hiding behind NATO nations to keep all the nations that couldn't give a crap about neutrality at bay.

Cork boy 55 · 21-11-2014 11:09PM

sparky42 wrote: »

...........

Our "neutrality" is just a fecking excuse for crusties to lecture the world on how neutral we are while happily hiding behind NATO nations to keep all the nations that couldn't give a crap about neutrality at bay.

NO is is not, there is nothing wrong with being non-aligned.
Our defense policy and spending is another matter
"Hiding behind NATO nations" ,
well considering that founding NATO nations include
The British empire , French empire , dutch and Portuguese empires and teh Turks et al
The notion that NATO military alliance protects from countries that that couldn't "give a crap about neutrality" is a utterly bizarre historical interpretation given the history of major elements of it.

History is far from black and white.

Jawgap · 22-11-2014 12:35AM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

NO is is not, there is nothing wrong with being non-aligned.
Our defense policy and spending is another matter
"Hiding behind NATO nations" ,
well considering that founding NATO nations include
The British empire , French empire , dutch and Portuguese empires and teh Turks et al
The notion that NATO military alliance protects from countries that that couldn't "give a crap about neutrality" is a utterly bizarre historical interpretation given the history of major elements of it.

History is far from black and white.

sparky42 · 22-11-2014 01:40AM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

NO is is not, there is nothing wrong with being non-aligned.
Our defense policy and spending is another matter
"Hiding behind NATO nations" ,
well considering that founding NATO nations include
The British empire , French empire , dutch and Portuguese empires and teh Turks et al
The notion that NATO military alliance protects from countries that that couldn't "give a crap about neutrality" is a utterly bizarre historical interpretation given the history of major elements of it.

History is far from black and white.

Yeah I don't consider it non aligned when we provided aid and support to the Allies during WW2 up to and including plans for reactions to invasion, nor when we had plans with NATO for the potential WW3 situations, that's not non aligned that's aligned without bothering to do anything about it.

How did neutrality work out for Norway, Denmark, Holland in WW2? Do you really think that Dev's neutrality would have meant feck all if the UK had fallen in WW2, do you think Hitler would have just said "oh, little Ireland is neutral, we'll leave them alone"

. Neutrality only works if A) you want to invest in enough to defend your nation (Sweden), or b) a powerful neighbour stands between you and those that might mean harm and prevents it. Which are we?

cruasder777 · 22-11-2014 02:11AM

looks like a new cold war, UK tanks taken out of storage, more air intercepts :

"MONS, Belgium – NATO detected and monitored four groups of Russian military aircraft conducting significant military manoeuvers in European airspace over the Baltic Sea, North Sea/Atlantic Ocean, and Black Sea on 28 and 29 October 2014. These sizable Russian flights represent an unusual level of air activity over European airspace.

The bomber and tanker aircraft from Russia did not file flight plans or maintain radio contact with civilian air traffic control authorities and they were not using on-board transponders. This poses a potential risk to civil aviation as civilian air traffic control cannot detect these aircraft or ensure there is no interference with civilian air traffic."

Furthest east British tanks have ever been in Europe. Maybe it was a short sighted error to withdraw the army of the Rhine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8tu7g80QdA

cruasder777 · 22-11-2014 02:39AM

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

" Recently the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off Donegal " Clearly it's just one of the Brit fan boys starting a thread with the agenda to talk down the Irish Defence forces while talking up the Brits. The same Brits nicknamed by the American army as "the borrowers" due to their lack of equipment and helicopter support and who were a complete disaster in Basra and Helmand.

The Irish state takes responsibility for its own defence and certainly doesn't need the Brits of all people to pretend to be big brother style. Indeed Ireland's neutrality guarantee's that the Russian's or ISIS or North Korea or wherever some unionist Walt wants to pretend is ready to attack the RoI. The borrowers can hardly find their asses with having to ask the USA to point it out, Basra and Helmand is more than proof of it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1896183/Battle-to-retake-Basra-was-complete-disaster.html

http://www.stephengrey.com/2010/06/helmand-anatomy-of-a-disaster/

If you bother to check the British operate the second largest Chinook fleet after the Americans, not forgetting 66 Apache gunships.

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0003.html

Infact its the second largest helo fleet after the US.

Joint Helicopter Command

9 x RAF Helicopter Squadrons
4 x Royal Naval Helicopter Squadrons
5 x Army Aviation Regiment squadrons (including 1 x Volunteer Reserve)
7 x Royal Air Force Helicopter Squadrons (including 1 x RAuxAF Helicopter Support Squadron)
2 x Search And Rescue Squadrons (Helicopter)
9 x Helicopter Squadrons

8 x Naval Helicopter squadrons with:
30 x Merlin Helicopters
12 x Sea King MK6
23 x Lynx Helicopters
11 x AEW Sea King Helicopters
41 x Sea King Commando Helicopters
6 x Lynx Helicopters
8 x Gazelle Helicopters
2 x Commando Assault Helicopter Squadrons
1 x Commando Light Helicopter Squadron

The UK overstretched itself, it had the 50,000 strong army of the Rhine to maintain, troops in NI, overseas territories and 2 simultaneous wars and defence cuts at the same time.

Iraq was a disaster because the Americans got rid of the infrastructure of its armed forces instead of reforming them and its officer class and instead empowered local militias and created a useless new sectarian army, which half the population were not welcome in, and led by a corrupt officer class . ISIS have filled the vacuum.

It shows throwing money at things does not always solve problems.

cruasder777 · 22-11-2014 03:04AM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

NO is is not, there is nothing wrong with being non-aligned.
Our defense policy and spending is another matter
"Hiding behind NATO nations" ,
well considering that founding NATO nations include
The British empire , French empire , dutch and Portuguese empires and teh Turks et al
The notion that NATO military alliance protects from countries that that couldn't "give a crap about neutrality" is a utterly bizarre historical interpretation given the history of major elements of it.

History is far from black and white.

Where are these empires then ? I think you are out by a century or two.

I think its the sign of a mature nation to take its defence and that of its neighbours seriously.

The problem is Ireland has a large number of deluded people who spout irrational rhetoric in a holier then thou kind of way when it comes to anything in regards to defence.

twinytwo · 22-11-2014 01:11PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

If you bother to check the British operate the second largest Chinook fleet after the Americans, not forgetting 66 Apache gunships.

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0003.html

Infact its the second largest helo fleet after the US.

Joint Helicopter Command

9 x RAF Helicopter Squadrons
4 x Royal Naval Helicopter Squadrons
5 x Army Aviation Regiment squadrons (including 1 x Volunteer Reserve)
7 x Royal Air Force Helicopter Squadrons (including 1 x RAuxAF Helicopter Support Squadron)
2 x Search And Rescue Squadrons (Helicopter)
9 x Helicopter Squadrons

8 x Naval Helicopter squadrons with:
30 x Merlin Helicopters
12 x Sea King MK6
23 x Lynx Helicopters
11 x AEW Sea King Helicopters
41 x Sea King Commando Helicopters
6 x Lynx Helicopters
8 x Gazelle Helicopters
2 x Commando Assault Helicopter Squadrons
1 x Commando Light Helicopter Squadron

The UK overstretched itself, it had the 50,000 strong army of the Rhine to maintain, troops in NI, overseas territories and 2 simultaneous wars and defence cuts at the same time.

Iraq was a disaster because the Americans got rid of the infrastructure of its armed forces instead of reforming them and its officer class and instead empowered local militias and created a useless new sectarian army, which half the population were not welcome in, and led by a corrupt officer class . ISIS have filled the vacuum.

It shows throwing money at things does not always solve problems.

Im sure there are plenty of British army (etc) forums that you can blow your own trumpet on, i often question why you do it here, but then i remember they would smell your armchair generalness a long way off.

Russian bombers off the coast of ireland.... whoopde****ingdo, The uk has a nuclear power plant that if it melted down or whatever would wipe out our country.. god only knows what that is pumping into the irish sea. should we also do something about that? I mean it does pose a much more realistic threat that us getting nuked by the russians.

cruasder777 · 22-11-2014 04:05PM

I am not blowing any trumpet, just posting facts/reality in reply to an inaccurate post.

Your post is not rational, France has nuclear power stations, as do many European countries. By your "logic" the UK should not bother with air defence either because a nuclear accident could also happen there.

Because the UK has nuclear power stations, Ireland should negate on its air defence, did it take you long to thing that up.

God help us.

MrConservative · 22-11-2014 04:11PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

If you bother to check the British operate the second largest Chinook fleet after the Americans, not forgetting 66 Apache gunships.

Infact its the second largest helo fleet after the US.

Actually the Japanese Self Defence Forces have more Chooks with 74. Its total rotary fleet is much larger than UK Forces. Including around 90 Blackhawk & 85 Seahawk variants, 150 Hueys, and around 100 Attack and 100 Armed Recon platforms plus the odd squadron of CH-53's, MCM-101's & EC-225's. The US styled Japanese Coast Guard (actually more capable than many Navies) alone has 40 Medium helos in the SAR / EEZ support role alone.

MrConservative · 22-11-2014 04:15PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

If you bother to check the British operate the second largest Chinook fleet after the Americans, not forgetting 66 Apache gunships.

Infact its the second largest helo fleet after the US.

Actually the Japanese Self Defence Forces have more Chooks with 74. Its total rotary fleet is much larger than UK Forces. Including around 90 Blackhawk & 85 Seahawk variants, 150 Hueys, and around 100 Attack and 100 Armed Recon platforms plus the odd squadron of CH-53's, MCM-101's & EC-225's. The US styled Japanese Coast Guard (actually more capable than many Navies) alone has 40 Medium helos in the SAR / EEZ support role.

Jawgap · 22-11-2014 04:15PM

MrConservative wrote: »

Actually the Japanese Self Defence Forces have more Chooks with 74. Its total rotary fleet is much larger than UK Forces. Including around 90 Blackhawk & 85 Seahawk variants, 150 Hueys, and around 100 Attack and 100 Armed Recon platforms plus the odd squadron of CH-53's, MCM-101's & EC-225's. The US styled Japanese Coast Guard (actually more capable than many Navies) alone has 40 Medium helos in the SAR / EEZ support role alone.

Oh dear......@crusader777 finds out the hard way why people shouldn't rely on Wikpedia!!!

cruasder777 · 22-11-2014 04:26PM

MrConservative wrote: »

Actually the Japanese Self Defence Forces have more Chooks with 74. Its total rotary fleet is much larger than UK Forces. Including around 90 Blackhawk & 85 Seahawk variants, 150 Hueys, and around 100 Attack and 100 Armed Recon platforms plus the odd squadron of CH-53's, MCM-101's & EC-225's. The US styled Japanese Coast Guard (actually more capable than many Navies) alone has 40 Medium helos in the SAR / EEZ support role alone.

Their inventory shows 16 Chinooks and 36 other helos, cant see any of the others listed. Any links ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force#Aircraft_inventory

cruasder777 · 22-11-2014 04:29PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh dear......@crusader777 finds out the hard way why people shouldn't rely on Wikpedia!!!

Its the only source listing the Japanese air defence forces.

Unless you have another ?

As far as I'm aware Japan is prohibited from certain types of aircraft.

Jawgap · 22-11-2014 04:46PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Their inventory shows 16 Chinooks and 36 other helos, cant see any of the others listed. Any links ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force#Aircraft_inventory

The reason you can only see 16 is because you are looking at the Air Self-Defense Force

The Ground Self-Defence Force has got 58 J-variants built by Kawasaki.

There are other sources apart from Wikipedia - Janes' being the obvious one but I'm guessing you don't have a subscription?

helis.com is another decent source.

MrConservative · 22-11-2014 05:24PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Its the only source listing the Japanese air defence forces.

Unless you have another ?

As far as I'm aware Japan is prohibited from certain types of aircraft.

No longer prohibited as Shinzo Abe has changed the rules. The Japanese can buy and sell what they like now. 42 F-35's ordered 38 to be built locally as well as 8 Tritons.

twinytwo · 22-11-2014 07:32PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

I am not blowing any trumpet, just posting facts/reality in reply to an inaccurate post.

Your post is not rational, France has nuclear power stations, as do many European countries. By your "logic" the UK should not bother with air defence either because a nuclear accident could also happen there.

Because the UK has nuclear power stations, Ireland should negate on its air defence, did it take you long to thing that up.

God help us.

The whole point is you want us to throw a fortune into something that is highly irrelevant for a country like Ireland.

This is something you dont seem to understand......once again.

My post is somehow "irrational", (even though you missed the enite point of the post....surprise surprise)yet your the one banging on about porperlling russian bombers during the "next cold war" ... because of fecking shannon airport we would get invaded... you need to get out more.

Your time might be better spent worrying about your own country and its numerous own problems.

twinytwo · 22-11-2014 07:33PM

Jawgap wrote: »

The reason you can only see 16 is because you are looking at the Air Self-Defense Force

The Ground Self-Defence Force has got 58 J-variants built by Kawasaki.

There are other sources apart from Wikipedia - Janes' being the obvious one but I'm guessing you don't have a subscription?

helis.com is another decent source.

I wouldnt even bother, his entire "military experience" comes from wikipedia.

cruasder777 · 23-11-2014 01:05AM

Jawgap wrote: »

The reason you can only see 16 is because you are looking at the Air Self-Defense Force

The Ground Self-Defence Force has got 58 J-variants built by Kawasaki.

There are other sources apart from Wikipedia - Janes' being the obvious one but I'm guessing you don't have a subscription?

helis.com is another decent source.

The air self defence force is the Japanese air force genius.

Silvera · 23-11-2014 01:35AM

It would be nice to get back on topic folks.

Jawgap · 23-11-2014 08:35AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

The air self defence force is the Japanese air force genius.

Oh I know it is - but you seem to unable to grasp the concept that Armies can have Air Corps, which mostly operate rotary wing aircraft.

The reason you grossly underestimated the Japanese Chinook fleet is because you looked only at their Air Self-Defence Force, instead of both the Air AND Ground Self Defence Forces, and relied - again - on Wikipedia for your information, along with the assumption that only air forces operate aircraft.

If you are going to persist in perpetuating the idea that you have some valid insight into defence and security issues I suggest you wean yourself off Wikipedia and cultivate some more reliable sources - perhaps starting with the two I've referenced above. Until then I think we can guess who the 'geniuses' are on this thread

Manach · 23-11-2014 09:12AM

Perhaps only slightly OT, but the following is an article on the funding of Ukraine's forces: http://it.slashdot.org/story/14/11/22/1726258/ukraines-it-brigade-supports-the-troops .
It is not likely a model to be followed in the Irish context, but it shows the importance of thinking outside the box in terms of logistics and the importance of IT support.

A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Comments