A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

IrishTrajan · 21-02-2015 02:35PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What would opinions be of the BAE Hawk aircraft?

A trainer jet that is still used as a fighter.

Modest in capability, but cheap to purchase & maintain.

Perhaps a more politically acceptable choice than the more modern Typhoons & Gripens of the world.

It's more expensive than a real fighter, but I think it's one of the most viable options for the Air Corps, and people are unlikely to think we want to blow up Moscow if we buy them.

clear thinking · 21-02-2015 02:35PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What would opinions be of the BAE Hawk aircraft?

A trainer jet that is still used as a fighter.

Modest in capability, but cheap to purchase & maintain.

Perhaps a more politically acceptable choice than the more modern Typhoons & Gripens of the world.

Going on the comments here you would need a great detection system for sub sonic jets to be effective against aircraft threats. If that costs more than an ordinary detection system with gripens / typhoons / F16s then its a strraight VFM analysis.

They could also be handy if ISIS show up in tanks at the golan heights.

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 02:36PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Why do you just ignore my point about the humanitarian aspects of the Defence Forces?

Also, who is the aggressor? Russia.

We are a contributor to the Nordic Battlegroup, which is headed by Sweden (another neutral nation, mind you). Our contribution is 100 men, largely in EOD.

Now, ask yourself. If Sweden and Finland, two historically neutral nations (neither of whom are in NATO), are worried about Russia, and are willing to actually go out of their way to request the formation of a Scandinavian Joint Force, and if Norway is desperately asking NATO to train more in Norway, in fear of Russian aggression, why do you think you know better than them?

If Russia attacks them, and kills the hundred odd Irish in that battlegroup, should we just bat our eye lids and say "Sorry, guys, but you shouldn't have been in the Defence Forces in friendly nations"? Do we stick our thumbs up our asses and cry "Neutrality! Neutrality!"?

It's a good thing you're not a policy maker, my friend, because you're bloody clueless as to the realities of geo-politics.

Finland has a land border (over 1000km long) with Russia and Sweden is only about 300 km away by land - neither of them are neutral, they are not even non-aligned - they're just not member of NATO.

Unlike either of those countries we do not share a border with a country who is an active threat to regional security.

Russia is not going to attack them any more than they are going to attack the Baltics - the reason Ukraine (and Georgia) got picked off was because they were not part of any alliance and Russia wanted to keep it that way - the boat has already sailed with respect to Sweden and Finland (given their membership of the EU).

Ren2k7 · 21-02-2015 02:39PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Finland has a land border (over 1000km long) with Russia and Sweden is only about 300 km away by land - neither of them are neutral, they are not even non-aligned - they're just not member of NATO.

Unlike either of those countries we do not share a border with a country who is an active threat to regional security.

Russia is not going to attack them any more than they are going to attack the Baltics - the reason Ukraine (and Georgia) got picked off was because they were not part of any alliance and Russia wanted to keep it that way - the boat has already sailed with respect to Sweden and Finland (given their membership of the EU).

Why wouldn't Russia attack the Baltics and Scandinavia?

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 02:43PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Why wouldn't Russia attack the Baltics and Scandinavia?

Well the Baltics are part of NATO so immediately you're into serious doo-doo there.

And Finland? Well if they didn't learn their lesson in the Winter War they never will.

Same for Sweden - they'd be attacking two countries whose defence establishments have spent pretty much the last 70 years thinking about how to deal with such an attack.

That's even before you get to the economic havoc the EU and US could wreak on Russia.

IrishTrajan · 21-02-2015 02:45PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Finland has a land border (over 1000km long) with Russia and Sweden is only about 300 km away by land - neither of them are neutral, they are not even non-aligned - they're just not member of NATO.

Unlike either of those countries we do not share a border with a country who is an active threat to regional security.

Russia is not going to attack them any more than they are going to attack the Baltics - the reason Ukraine (and Georgia) got picked off was because they were not part of any alliance and Russia wanted to keep it that way - the boat has already sailed with respect to Sweden and Finland (given their membership of the EU).

Sweden was one of the powers that started the Non-Aligned Movement. Them being driven into the arms of NATO does not detract from my argument, it in fact reinforces my argument that Russia is a belligerent power.

You're right, we don't share a border with Russia... But does that mean we should sit on your asses, twiddle our thumbs and hope that nobody in the Kremlin figures bombing us would be a good message to send to Britain?

We also have troops as part of the European Battlegroup, who will be required to defend Scandinavia by force-of-arms in the event of a war. Should their deaths be ignored because "lol no border"?

As per your Baltics analogy, Russia regularly breaches Baltic States' territorial integrity. They kidnapped an Estonia Government Agent on the border a while back, and paraded him around Moscow. Several commentators believe Russia may stoke the flames of pro-Russian sentiment in the eastern Baltics (though how likely that is, isn't for me to say).

My point being, even if the event of a war is unlikely, that does not mean we should not be able to defend ourselves in the event of war. It does not mean that giving our Defence Forces adequate resources to function should be brushed off as war-mongering.

Ren2k7 · 21-02-2015 02:46PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well the Baltics are part of NATO so immediately you're into serious doo-doo there.

And Finland? Well if they didn't learn their lesson in the Winter War they never will.

Same for Sweden - they'd be attacking two countries whose defence establishments have spent pretty much the last 70 years thinking about how to deal with such an attack.

That's even before you get to the economic havoc the EU and US could wreak on Russia.

Yes, but for what specific reason would Russia not attack any of these countries?

BoJack Horseman · 21-02-2015 02:47PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The only problem I would have with the Hawk though is it's getting on a bit. Any Hawks we acquire would probably need refurbishment done on them, pushing up costs.

I think they can still be purchased brand new?

clear thinking · 21-02-2015 02:49PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well the Baltics are part of NATO so immediately you're into serious doo-doo there.

And Finland? Well if they didn't learn their lesson in the Winter War they never will.

Same for Sweden - they'd be attacking two countries whose defence establishments have spent pretty much the last 70 years thinking about how to deal with such an attack.

That's even before you get to the economic havoc the EU and US could wreak on Russia.

Russia is highly likely to do everything, short of conventional attack, in the next 12 months in the Baltics. A conventional attack that looks like east ukraine is a strong possibility. Russia will in the next 24 months redraw those borders using force if they are not stopped and we, like it or not, are in a political union with those 3 countries.

The most likely situation is a land grab like we've seen using unconventional forces followed by a step up to a real 'sabre rattle' threat of conventional / nuclear war so the grabs are not reversed.

IrishTrajan · 21-02-2015 02:52PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well the Baltics are part of NATO so immediately you're into serious doo-doo there.

And Finland? Well if they didn't learn their lesson in the Winter War they never will.

Same for Sweden - they'd be attacking two countries whose defence establishments have spent pretty much the last 70 years thinking about how to deal with such an attack.

That's even before you get to the economic havoc the EU and US could wreak on Russia.

That doesn't stop them from violating their territory quite regularly.

They won the Winter War and the Continuation War, though.

As every country should. It doesn't mean they can't or won't pull off an offensive. The U.S. has contingency plans to deal with every scenario, from alien invasion and zombie uprising, to battle China in Asia, to fighting the UK. Tailoring your defence establishment to suit your needs doesn't mean the opponent won't attack. If anything, it's because you fear an attack.

The E.U. and U.S. are already causing mayhem in the Russian economy. The thing about war is, you use hardware you already have or are currently building, and you pay for it after.

Ren2k7 · 21-02-2015 02:53PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I think they can still be purchased brand new?

Aren't they quite expensive bought brand new, in the order of $30 million. Seems a lot for a sub sonic fighter.

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 02:53PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Sweden was one of the powers that started the Non-Aligned Movement. Them being driven into the arms of NATO does not detract from my argument, it in fact reinforces my argument that Russia is a belligerent power.

All powerful countries are beligerent - Russian is no different to the US, China, India or Brazil. It's defining its sphere of influence and asserting itself there.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You're right, we don't share a border with Russia... But does that mean we should sit on your asses, twiddle our thumbs and hope that nobody in the Kremlin figures bombing us would be a good message to send to Britain?

What message would that be?

IrishTrajan wrote: »

We also have troops as part of the European Battlegroup, who will be required to defend Scandinavia by force-of-arms in the event of a war. Should their deaths be ignored because "lol no border"?

As per your Baltics analogy, Russia regularly breaches Baltic States' territorial integrity. They kidnapped an Estonia Government Agent on the border a while back, and paraded him around Moscow. Several commentators believe Russia may stoke the flames of pro-Russian sentiment in the eastern Baltics (though how likely that is, isn't for me to say).

My point being, even if the event of a war is unlikely, that does not mean we should not be able to defend ourselves in the event of war. It does not mean that giving our Defence Forces adequate resources to function should be brushed off as war-mongering.

Russia may well whip things up - a bit - in the Baltics but that's as far as it will go. They will not be attacking us any time soon so there's no need to go and ramp up defence spending.

IrishTrajan · 21-02-2015 02:57PM

Jawgap wrote: »

All powerful countries are beligerent - Russian is no different to the US, China, India or Brazil. It's defining its sphere of influence and asserting itself there.

The difference is, their belligerence directly affects us and our soldiers' lives.

Jawgap wrote: »

What message would that be?

The very same message they had in their contingency plan to deal with France should war break out. Bomb Vienna and tell France to not get involved.

Jawgap wrote: »

Russia may well whip things up - a bit - in the Baltics but that's as far as it will go.

If they start to whip things up in the Baltics, who do you think will be the first group deployed? Surely not the Nordic Battlegroup which Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania are members of, as well as us.

Jawgap wrote: »

They will not be attacking us any time soon so there's no need to go and ramp up defence spending.

On that we agree, we're not asking to "ramp up" spending. We're asking for small, gradual increases year on year to 1.5%-2% of GDP depending on the economic outlook.

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 02:57PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That doesn't stop them from violating their territory quite regularly.

They won the Winter War and the Continuation War, though.

As every country should. It doesn't mean they can't or won't pull off an offensive. The U.S. has contingency plans to deal with every scenario, from alien invasion and zombie uprising, to battle China in Asia, to fighting the UK. Tailoring your defence establishment to suit your needs doesn't mean the opponent won't attack. If anything, it's because you fear an attack.

The E.U. and U.S. are already causing mayhem in the Russian economy. The thing about war is, you use hardware you already have or are currently building, and you pay for it after.

Of course they won - and I don't doubt that if they really wanted to they could over-run Finland - but at what cost?

Yes, lots of countries have lots of contingency plans - they also carry out threat assessments and arrange their resources accordingly. If the US really thought they were going to fight the UK they wouldn't be basing forces there.

Fight now, pay later is what bankrupted the British and nearly wrecked the American economy in the 1970s.

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 02:58PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The difference is, their belligerence directly affects us and our soldiers' lives.

The very same message they had in their contingency plan to deal with France should war break out. Bomb Vienna and tell France to not get involved.

If they start to whip things up in the Baltics, who do you think will be the first group deployed? Surely not the Nordic Battlegroup which Estonia is a member of, as well as us

On that we agree, we're not asking to "ramp up" spending. We're asking for small, gradual increases year on year to 1.5%-2% of GDP depending on the economic outlook.

Ridiculous - by your logic we should be going after Israel - their belligerence has cost more Irish soldiers' lives than ever the Russians will.

mister gullible · 21-02-2015 02:59PM

Why would Ireland waste millions on defence fighter jets, we are absolute minnows in terms of world military and are at the mercy of any superpower who could be bothered. The only thing big about Ireland is it's opinion of it's own importance in world affairs. Sufficient navy and air to control our fishing interests and enforce drug controls plus enough army to deal with natural emergencies and Bob's your uncle. Spend the rest where it's needed, health and education.

Ren2k7 · 21-02-2015 02:59PM

clear thinking wrote: »

Russia is highly likely to do everything, short of conventional attack, in the next 12 months in the Baltics. A conventional attack that looks like east ukraine is a strong possibility. Russia will in the next 24 months redraw those borders using force if they are not stopped and we, like it or not, are in a political union with those 3 countries.

The most likely situation is a land grab like we've seen using unconventional forces followed by a step up to a real 'sabre rattle' threat of conventional / nuclear war so the grabs are not reversed.

Russia calls it 'hybrid warfare', a class of belligerence where the enemy (in this case Russia) can deploy offensive capabilities against its neighbours using everything from local proxies in unmarked uniforms right through to media manipulation via state funded "news" channels and online presence. All to claim plausible deniability and pretend it has nothing to do with destabilising its neighbours.

While every man and its dog knows Russia is actively fighting in Ukraine it continues to maintain the charade it isn't. Ergo any action in the Baltic's will be done through actors on the ground, some local, most shipped in from Russia to engage in subversive actions, all directed by the FSB and GRU.

clear thinking · 21-02-2015 03:00PM

Jawgap wrote: »

If the US really thought they were going to fight the UK they wouldn't be basing forces there.

Russia had forces in Crimea, look how that worked out.

IrishTrajan · 21-02-2015 03:03PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course they won - and I don't doubt that if they really wanted to they could over-run Finland - but at what cost?

Yes, lots of countries have lots of contingency plans - they also carry out threat assessments and arrange their resources accordingly. If the US really thought they were going to fight the UK they wouldn't be basing forces there.

Fight now, pay later is what bankrupted the British and nearly wrecked the American economy in the 1970s.

About 200,000 dead (800,000 from injuries, captures, sickness, civilians, I think) for Continuation War. 125,000 dead or so for Winter War (300,000 total).

So then you agree, you bringing up Sweden and Finland's Defence Plans was irrelevant here.

Russia has stockpiles of weapons and materials in storage. The cost would be renovating them to being fighting fit, and as we can see with Russia's continued support of the Rebels, the Russian oligarchy doesn't much care for the Russian economy so long as they attain their goals.

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 03:03PM

clear thinking wrote: »

Russia had forces in Crimea, look how that worked out.

Are you seriously suggesting there is any kind of remotely reasonable scenario where the US launches military action to annex any portion of the UK?

Ren2k7 · 21-02-2015 03:05PM

mister gullible wrote: »

Why would Ireland waste millions on defence fighter jets, we are absolute minnows in terms of world military and are at the mercy of any superpower who could be bothered. The only thing big about Ireland is it's opinion of it's own importance in world affairs. Sufficient navy and air to control our fishing interests and enforce drug controls plus enough army to deal with natural emergencies and Bob's your uncle. Spend the rest where it's needed, health and education.

No one is pretending we are a superpower....or even a regional power. We know are limitations and no one is suggesting we suddenly buy F-35's and acquire carriers and destroyers for the navy. You claim we need a sufficiently robust and capable "navy and air (corps) to control our fishing interests and enforce drug controls plus enough army to deal with natural emergencies". Well that's exactly what's being discussed here, a minimum defence capability to do all that. Because right now the Defence Forces aren't equipped to do what you suggest. Hence the discussion here on bolstering the military in as efficient a manner possible.

And yes, some form of tactical fighter would be needed to deal with future contingencies. If you want to know why I suggest you go back over the thread, there's plenty of reasons given which I'm not going to go back over.

Ren2k7 · 21-02-2015 03:07PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting there is any kind of remotely reasonable scenario where the US launches military action to annex any portion of the UK?

Extremely unlikely though in military planning no scenario can be ruled out. Ukraine and Russia were once part of the same country and fought together in wars against the Nazis in Germany and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. And today they're fighting against each other. It's always important to be prepared for anything.

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 03:08PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

About 200,000 dead (800,000 from injuries, captures, sickness, civilians, I think) for Continuation War. 125,000 dead or so for Winter War (300,000 total).

So then you agree, you bringing up Sweden and Finland's Defence Plans was irrelevant here.

Russia has stockpiles of weapons and materials in storage. The cost would be renovating them to being fighting fit, and as we can see with Russia's continued support of the Rebels, the Russian oligarchy doesn't much care for the Russian economy so long as they attain their goals.

Again you're talking about attacking countries who have done nothing except think about what they might do if they were attacked - who have gone as far as designing their road nets to support the defensive war they know they'd need to fight if such an attack ever materialised.

And the big difference between the Sweden and Finland and what's happening in Ukraine is air power - if Ukraine had the air power Sweden or Finland had, and the 'excuse' to use it just over the border in Russia the going would prove to be a lot slower for the Russians.

clear thinking · 21-02-2015 03:08PM

mister gullible wrote: »

Why would Ireland waste millions on defence fighter jets, we are absolute minnows in terms of world military and are at the mercy of any superpower who could be bothered. The only thing big about Ireland is it's opinion of it's own importance in world affairs. Sufficient navy and air to control our fishing interests and enforce drug controls plus enough army to deal with natural emergencies and Bob's your uncle. Spend the rest where it's needed, health and education.

That's fair enough as a general view, but I suppose the context here is that the EU is being directly threatened by Russia on a daily basis, may be attacked and as EU members we could easily put in a position to get off the pot - the baltic scenario for example. The EU would look poorly on Ireland hiding in the corner.
If we do then we are at the mercy of a superpower as you say. Personally, I would like to mitigate that risk with detection, SAM and possibly escort / intercept capability.

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 03:11PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Extremely unlikely though in military planning no scenario can be ruled out. Ukraine and Russia were once part of the same country and fought together in wars against the Nazis in Germany and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. And today they're fighting against each other. It's always important to be prepared for anything.

Ukraine and Russia were always uneasy bedfellows - just as the rest of the Soviet Republics were. That's why as a state the USSR flew apart so quickly.

Yes, and while no scenario can be ruled out - lots be ruled as highly even extremely improbable.

clear thinking · 21-02-2015 03:11PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting there is any kind of remotely reasonable scenario where the US launches military action to annex any portion of the UK?

No. It just proves the point that militaries should prepare for contingencies. Ukraine didnt and were caught with their pants down. Russia did and has new territory.

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 03:13PM

clear thinking wrote: »

No. It just proves the point that militaries should prepare for contingencies. Ukraine didnt and were caught with their pants down. Russia did and has new territory.

You can't prepare for every contingency, and some contingencies - such as an overwhelmingly powerful neighbour deciding to annex territory - cannot be fully met.

IrishTrajan · 21-02-2015 03:16PM

mister gullible wrote: »

Why would Ireland waste millions on defence fighter jets, we are absolute minnows in terms of world military and are at the mercy of any superpower who could be bothered. The only thing big about Ireland is it's opinion of it's own importance in world affairs. Sufficient navy and air to control our fishing interests and enforce drug controls plus enough army to deal with natural emergencies and Bob's your uncle. Spend the rest where it's needed, health and education.

That is exactly the point. The Defence Forces simply aren't sufficient. The Air Corps doesn't have a single aircraft capable of protecting our airspace. The Naval Service is slightly better, with its OPVs but they're still lagging behind. Natural emergencies? Ha! Good luck. It snowed heavily a few years ago and were left scratching our heads hoping it would melt while the country almost grew to a standstill.

Health gets enough money to function properly. It's simply not appropriating the resources efficiently. Administrative costs are too high, wages for nurses are too low. Cut the number of people in administration and incentive nursing. Hell, even with our health care system the way it is, it was still in the Top 20 in 2000 (I can't find any other rankings since then).

Education is a similar story, except we're ranked 9th. That's insanely well for a country of our size and only as important in world affairs as "our own opinion".

Meanwhile, we can't even scrape enough money together to install military radar systems on the coast.

Jawgap wrote: »

Ridiculous - by your logic we should be going after Israel - their belligerence has cost more Irish soldiers' lives than ever the Russians will.

I am actually in favour of European sanctions against Israel.

Jawgap wrote: »

Again you're talking about attacking countries who have done nothing except think about what they might do if they were attacked - who have gone as far as designing their road nets to support the defensive war they know they'd need to fight if such an attack ever materialised.

And the big difference between the Sweden and Finland and what's happening in Ukraine is air power - if Ukraine had the air power Sweden or Finland had, and the 'excuse' to use it just over the border in Russia the going would prove to be a lot slower for the Russians.

Precisely my point. If they feel so threatened AS TO CHANGE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE then Russia must be a credible threat to them. Or do you know better than both countries' respective Defence Forces?

Quite unlikely, and entirely beside the point. If Ukraine had Swedish airpower, and used it in Russia, the Russians would hit out in conventional war and steamroll the Ukrainians. Russian SAM defences are also high quality, and they are mobile, so Sweden/Finland attempting to establish air supremacy over their own skies is debatable.

clear thinking · 21-02-2015 03:22PM

Jawgap wrote: »

You can't prepare for every contingency, and some contingencies - such as an overwhelmingly powerful neighbour deciding to annex territory - cannot be fully met.

You can prepare a risk assessment and identify the key scenarios that need to be addressed and you can prepare a reaction plan. Do you actually think the Ukrainians are sitting there in Kiev throwing in the towel, or are they trying to contain the situation as much as possible, despite overwhelming superiority?

Jawgap · 21-02-2015 03:28PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That is exactly the point. The Defence Forces simply aren't sufficient. The Air Corps doesn't have a single aircraft capable of protecting our airspace. The Naval Service is slightly better, with its OPVs but they're still lagging behind. Natural emergencies? Ha! Good luck. It snowed heavily a few years ago and were left scratching our heads hoping it would melt while the country almost grew to a standstill.

Health gets enough money to function properly. It's simply not appropriating the resources efficiently. Administrative costs are too high, wages for nurses are too low. Cut the number of people in administration and incentive nursing. Hell, even with our health care system the way it is, it was still in the Top 20 in 2000 (I can't find any other rankings since then).

Education is a similar story, except we're ranked 9th. That's insanely well for a country of our size and only as important in world affairs as "our own opinion".

Meanwhile, we can't even scrape enough money together to install military radar systems on the coast.

I am actually in favour of European sanctions against Israel.

Precisely my point. If they feel so threatened AS TO CHANGE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE then Russia must be a credible threat to them. Or do you know better than both countries' respective Defence Forces?

Quite unlikely, and entirely beside the point. If Ukraine had Swedish airpower, and used it in Russia, the Russians would hit out in conventional war and steamroll the Ukrainians. Russian SAM defences are also high quality, and they are mobile, so Sweden/Finland attempting to establish air supremacy over their own skies is debatable.

Credible threat and probable threat are different concepts. Have a look at how threat assessments are constructed. I don't know better than their defence forces - but I do read some of the stuff their defence establishments put out, mostly from the University of Uppsala and the Finnish National Defence University.

And they didn't change their infrastructure - they just built it that way, like the Swiss and their easy-to-demolish tunnels.

and if the Russians are going to rely on SAM defences to deny air space they'll learn the same lessons the Egyptians did in Yom Kippur - on the ground you can go slow with the SAMs or fast without them, but you can't do both. Never mind the fact that Russian SAM technology is a generation out of date.

A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Comments