A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Morpheus · 02-03-2015 12:54PM

our main threat is internal and domestic-
Basically we have pretty much already got our minimum defence ability

This attitude is whats gotten our defences so eroded over the last 7 decades.
That we feel were owed something by someone else.
that we should just bury our head in the sand and not bother to even try and police the territory around us especially off the west and north west coast?

FML.

Markcheese · 02-03-2015 03:00PM

Morpheus wrote: »

This attitude is whats gotten our defences so eroded over the last 7 decades.
That we feel were owed something by someone else.
that we should just bury our head in the sand and not bother to even try and police the territory around us especially off the west and north west coast?

FML.

Well since the thread title is minimum defence capability - that's what I think we've got-
Do I think the Uk or NATO or anyone else owes us defence - not a chance but we've got the location we've got at the time we're in - would I advocate the same policy if we were Latvia or Georgia - not a chance -
do I think we could do with appreciating and equipping our military better. yup. Could we go much lower in terms of spend - probably not a lot -

clear thinking · 02-03-2015 09:28PM

Markcheese wrote: »

Well since the thread title is minimum defence capability - that's what I think we've got-
Do I think the Uk or NATO or anyone else owes us defence - not a chance but we've got the location we've got at the time we're in - would I advocate the same policy if we were Latvia or Georgia - not a chance -
do I think we could do with appreciating and equipping our military better. yup. Could we go much lower in terms of spend - probably not a lot -

Would having radar to detect aircraft with no transponders be part of the states duty of care to civilian aircraft in our airspace? And having aircraft capable of escorting rogues out would also be important for civilian aircraft safety. There have been plenty of near misses over the Baltic and we happen to be under exponentially busier airspace yet we haven't a breeze as to how many near misses (or not) there may have been. I think it is something like 1000m in altitude or distance that would count.

Markcheese · 02-03-2015 10:30PM

clear thinking wrote: »

Would having radar to detect aircraft with no transponders be part of the states duty of care to civilian aircraft in our airspace? And having aircraft capable of escorting rogues out would also be important for civilian aircraft safety. There have been plenty of near misses over the Baltic and we happen to be under exponentially busier airspace yet we haven't a breeze as to how many near misses (or not) there may have been. I think it is something like 1000m in altitude or distance that would count.

Our area of control extends 3 or 4 hundred kilometers out into the Atlantic- I have no idea how much that'd cost Ireland to scan with a decent military grade radar - and say we discover something ( for eg Russian bombers) what then we scramble a couple of interceptors - to escort aircraft that are legally (if inconvieniently) flying in international airspace -
Would it make any difference to the Russians - not really - would it make much difference to the Brits - doubt it - they'd continue monitering and probably scrambling fighters -
Would it make much difference to Ireland - yup- think a vastly increased airforce -( a squadron of fast jet trainers their pilots and trainers and maintenance crews and at least 8 to 10 interceptors and their crews- and the radar equipment and technicians to boot - it'd cost a couple of billion a year to maintain 2 jets available to scramble at all times - to shadow a flight or 2 of bombers a year that are legally there -
Stick a high mast on top of mount Gabriel and lash a giraffe radar on top of it - sorted -

clear thinking · 03-03-2015 03:10AM

Markcheese wrote: »

Our area of control extends 3 or 4 hundred kilometers out into the Atlantic- I have no idea how much that'd cost Ireland to scan with a decent military grade radar - and say we discover something ( for eg Russian bombers) what then we scramble a couple of interceptors - to escort aircraft that are legally (if inconvieniently) flying in international airspace -
Would it make any difference to the Russians - not really - would it make much difference to the Brits - doubt it - they'd continue monitering and probably scrambling fighters -
Would it make much difference to Ireland - yup- think a vastly increased airforce -( a squadron of fast jet trainers their pilots and trainers and maintenance crews and at least 8 to 10 interceptors and their crews- and the radar equipment and technicians to boot - it'd cost a couple of billion a year to maintain 2 jets available to scramble at all times - to shadow a flight or 2 of bombers a year that are legally there -
Stick a high mast on top of mount Gabriel and lash a giraffe radar on top of it - sorted -

Not sure where you are getting a couple of billion a year? If aircraft are financed using one of many aircraft leasing companies here each one would cost maybe €10m a year, with a HP that cost would be nil after year 8. Assuming 4 planes and a mission a day the all in cost on top would be about €20m a year. Hardly billions. 2% of a billion in fact and about 0.01% of gdp. As for the radar cost, the brits got energy companies to shell out for new radar as part of the permission to build off shore wind farms, but that too would be cheap, about €1.2m a year per unit over 20 years, in the areas of coast line that are not windy.

IrishTrajan · 03-03-2015 11:26AM

Markcheese wrote: »

Our area of control extends 3 or 4 hundred kilometers out into the Atlantic- I have no idea how much that'd cost Ireland to scan with a decent military grade radar - and say we discover something ( for eg Russian bombers) what then we scramble a couple of interceptors - to escort aircraft that are legally (if inconvieniently) flying in international airspace -
Would it make any difference to the Russians - not really - would it make much difference to the Brits - doubt it - they'd continue monitering and probably scrambling fighters -
Would it make much difference to Ireland - yup- think a vastly increased airforce -( a squadron of fast jet trainers their pilots and trainers and maintenance crews and at least 8 to 10 interceptors and their crews- and the radar equipment and technicians to boot - it'd cost a couple of billion a year to maintain 2 jets available to scramble at all times - to shadow a flight or 2 of bombers a year that are legally there -
Stick a high mast on top of mount Gabriel and lash a giraffe radar on top of it - sorted -

What in the bejaysus are you talking about? It'd cost a couple million to buy install and maintain them. The Air Corps getting new aircraft would be the most expensive, 6-12 of those would cost maybe €100 million if we ran them at their maximum (1800 hours per year, what the Americans expect to run as). We'd be running them for likely their minimum (200 is pilot minimum, so even say 400 hours) would be like €50 million.

We give away €600 million in Foreign Aid.

Markcheese · 03-03-2015 03:13PM

Alright I plucked the couple of billion figure out of the air - but if you can buy and maintain an effective interceptor force for a couple of million euro why do our neighbours buy 80 million euro + planes , then spend millions running and maintaining them as well as millions training and keeping experienced pilots - then there's the radar systems - as with most things it's gonna be the maintaining -crewing (and protecting)
that's gonna cost -

There's nearly 900 people in the current air-corp they run 27 aircraft in one base- (all a lot simpler than front line fast jets) - so how many staff would you need for trainers jets and fast jets -

Morpheus · 03-03-2015 03:17PM

google saab gripen lease
78m a year for 11 jets over 10 years
this includes a maintenance contract of some sort
we could come up with more than 100m a year from other budgets where cash is being blown, my current fav is the overseas aid budget.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/Newsroom/Press-releases--News/2014---12/Saab-receives-FMV-order-to-extend-Gripen-lease-in-the-Czech-Republic/#.VPXCpPmsXXs

SEK 576m per year is about 62 million euro per year
for 14 aircraft

clear thinking · 03-03-2015 04:50PM

Any reason to need 11 rather than 4? I said 4 for keeping it cheap.

clear thinking · 03-03-2015 04:53PM

Markcheese wrote: »

Alright I plucked the couple of billion figure out of the air - but if you can buy and maintain an effective interceptor force for a couple of million euro why do our neighbours buy 80 million euro + planes , then spend millions running and maintaining them as well as millions training and keeping experienced pilots - then there's the radar systems - as with most things it's gonna be the maintaining -crewing (and protecting)
that's gonna cost -

There's nearly 900 people in the current air-corp they run 27 aircraft in one base- (all a lot simpler than front line fast jets) - so how many staff would you need for trainers jets and fast jets -

Those rates cover all in costs I believe. For the radar, yes there would be a man power cost there but presumably it could just be hooked up to ATC.

IrishTrajan · 03-03-2015 06:12PM

Markcheese wrote: »

Alright I plucked the couple of billion figure out of the air - but if you can buy and maintain an effective interceptor force for a couple of million euro why do our neighbours buy 80 million euro + planes , then spend millions running and maintaining them as well as millions training and keeping experienced pilots - then there's the radar systems - as with most things it's gonna be the maintaining -crewing (and protecting)
that's gonna cost -

There's nearly 900 people in the current air-corp they run 27 aircraft in one base- (all a lot simpler than front line fast jets) - so how many staff would you need for trainers jets and fast jets -

Not all 900 people fly aircraft. The pilots we have are likely less than a hundred. I can't say for certain though.

Our neighbours spend €80m per aircraft, because they have to compete with world powers. France, Britain, Germany, Canada, America, Norway... They need to rely upon fast, expensive aircraft to meet their commitments to their allies, and protect their airspace from similarly expensive aircraft.

F-16s (of which there are 4,500 so finding spares won't be a challenge) are all we would need. D-blocks are €16 million per, I think.

Yes, the initial cost would be pretty high (compared to our current budget, pennies to what we spend on other things), but they last a good 25 years (more if you don't use them often) and you have the infrastructure for as long as you can maintain it.

It'd likely cost us between €100 and €250 million initially, to get the entire Air Corps overhauled, and then probably €50-€100 million a year to maintain.

We cut our Foreign Aid budget by €100 million per year, and by a new election we have the money to overhaul the Air Corps. If it's in the Foreign Aid budget, we're going to be giving the money away anyway. We might as well devote it to something we need.

IrishTrajan · 03-03-2015 06:17PM

clear thinking wrote: »

Any reason to need 11 rather than 4? I said 4 for keeping it cheap.

You're going to have aircraft in storage, in maintenance, and in use, and most escort missions are flown in pairs of 2.

So you'd probably need 6 aircraft or so, if you want a round-the-clock air force rather than a 9-to-5 airforce like Switzerland has.

Markcheese · 03-03-2015 09:58PM

"Not all 900 people fly aircraft. The pilots we have are likely less than a hundred. I can't say for certain though."

I think I twigged that there's not 900 pilots - but it's still 900 staff to 27 aircraft - so if we had a squadron of fast jets say 10 or so we'd need 30 or 40 fast jet pilots, at a time - I have no idea how many technicians it takes to keep a griffin airborn (over a long period of time ) but it must be a good few - if we have 30 odd pilots doing 3 to 4 hundred hours flight time a year at 4 or 5 thousand euro an hour that's the bones of 60 million just to fly them - ( I assume pilot and technicians wages and pension contribution would be on top )
We'd also need a share of jet trainers - ( hawks or something ) and their instructors and pilots - technicians ect -
Now that we have a capable threat - it's also at risk - so we have to defend it -24-7 . That'd be more than just a chain link fence and a couple of lads at the gate - and I've no idea how much a capable anti-aircraft system and it's radar would be-
Upshot,I was way off the Mark with my first comment of a couple of billion-
But anyone who reckons we could do it for a couple of 100 million ( for all costs)is as deluded as I am - and have we then made ourselves a target ? because we have capability - !!
I'm not even go towards the foreign aid budget stuff - :-)

clear thinking · 04-03-2015 12:12AM

Not sure why foreign aid is a target here. We already have a tax system that deprives developing countries of tax revenue via shell irish companies and we have obligations to commit to development which imo is a good thing in any case - accident of birth means the difference between dirty drinking water and worrying about a €200 water charge.

There is plenty of scope to get €100-200m from increasing tax revenues as the economy expands.

Silvera · 04-03-2015 01:08AM

Random post..

Why not maintain a 'fleet' of 6-8 jets (trainer or otherwise) as a token force/show of force, rather than the current 'free-for-all' situation?!!

I have heard the GOC Air Corps quoted as saying 'We don't need to be up there every day, but we need to get up there to patrol our airspace now-and-again' ....or words to that effect (i.e. surely 6-8 x BAE Hawks/L-159's/F-5's would be better than the current 'free-for-all' situation ???!)

Morpheus · 04-03-2015 11:08AM

all of those aircraft you mentioned are too slow. bar the F5 which is too old.

clear thinking · 04-03-2015 11:14AM

Aircraft in Irish airspace diverted, another delayed as typhoon escorts russian plane with transponder swicthed off. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978885/Marauding-Russian-bombers-force-plane-carrying-hundreds-passengers-divert-unauthorised-flight-Irish-air-space.html I can't find the examiner article though.

IrishTrajan · 04-03-2015 12:32PM

clear thinking wrote: »

Not sure why foreign aid is a target here. We already have a tax system that deprives developing countries of tax revenue via shell irish companies and we have obligations to commit to development which imo is a good thing in any case - accident of birth means the difference between dirty drinking water and worrying about a €200 water charge.

There is plenty of scope to get €100-200m from increasing tax revenues as the economy expands.

Because people don't want to pay more taxes. We could do a whole plethora of things to increase our defence spending, but people will complain about it being wasted and why we're not buying "books and hospital beds". If the money is earmarked for Foreign Aid, then it's not being spent on any of those things, and could be diverted to the Defence Forces. It would be a token gesture, mostly, but one that would reaffirm the military's, and its supporters', belief in the Govt.'s priorities.

You can't make the argument that we have a responsibility to help develop their countries, while slating increases in airpower. If we really cared about them, we'd send people to train the Iraqis and the Kurdish to fight ISIS, and we'd send trainers to Cameroon and Nigeria to fight Boko Haram, and into Libya to train the Libyans against ISIS and tribal groups, and into Egypt to train the Egyptians against ISIS-in-Sinai.

America (Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia- really) messed up by providing money and material support to rebel groups in Syria, and failed to properly train the Iraqis (Mosul, for instance).

If we just give Foreign Aid away to countries, it could have negative consequences. If we send soldiers to train their countries in being able to fight subversive groups, we could end their insurgencies sooner, and save civilian lives. Then we can invest in their countries' infrastructures.

Markcheese wrote: »

"Not all 900 people fly aircraft. The pilots we have are likely less than a hundred. I can't say for certain though."

I think I twigged that there's not 900 pilots - but it's still 900 staff to 27 aircraft - so if we had a squadron of fast jets say 10 or so we'd need 30 or 40 fast jet pilots, at a time - I have no idea how many technicians it takes to keep a griffin airborn (over a long period of time ) but it must be a good few - if we have 30 odd pilots doing 3 to 4 hundred hours flight time a year at 4 or 5 thousand euro an hour that's the bones of 60 million just to fly them - ( I assume pilot and technicians wages and pension contribution would be on top )
We'd also need a share of jet trainers - ( hawks or something ) and their instructors and pilots - technicians ect -
Now that we have a capable threat - it's also at risk - so we have to defend it -24-7 . That'd be more than just a chain link fence and a couple of lads at the gate - and I've no idea how much a capable anti-aircraft system and it's radar would be-
Upshot,I was way off the Mark with my first comment of a couple of billion-
But anyone who reckons we could do it for a couple of 100 million ( for all costs)is as deluded as I am - and have we then made ourselves a target ? because we have capability - !!
I'm not even go towards the foreign aid budget stuff - :-)

If I can take a quote from your side's argument: "Whose going to invade us?" Our neighbours fly $100 million aircraft, have enough munitions to level our country, and could walk over our military in a matter of weeks.
How does buying a couple F-16s or JAS 39s turn us into a target or credible threat? If you're adamant in that nobody will attack us, how will us defending ourselves make us a target?

It's like if a guy buys pepper spray and a rape whistle, surrounded by people with semi-automatic weapons. He's increasing his ability to defend himself, but it doesn't mean he'll be a threat to the people with the "big guns".

We're not saying the Air Corps should fight everyone who enters our sovereign or controlled airspace, but sometimes you need them to escort wandering Russian or British aircraft out of our airspace. Heck, even just them being near the foreign aircraft will allow the civilian aviation authority to divert planes from possible collision courses.

IrishTrajan · 04-03-2015 12:37PM

Silvera wrote: »

Random post..

Why not maintain a 'fleet' of 6-8 jets (trainer or otherwise) as a token force/show of force, rather than the current 'free-for-all' situation?!!

I have heard the GOC Air Corps quoted as saying 'We don't need to be up there every day, but we need to get up there to patrol our airspace now-and-again' ....or words to that effect (i.e. surely 6-8 x BAE Hawks/L-159's/F-5's would be better than the current 'free-for-all' situation ???!)

Hawks and L-159s would be good for training, but they can't go high enough or fast enough to escort planes out of our airspace. I also don't think they'd have the range, so you'd need a handful of aircraft changing places (like a leap frog) until they're out of our airspace, which isn't exactly fuel efficient.

The F-5 is rather old (It came out in late 50s/early 60s, I think), so they're liable to break down more often than newer aircraft. F-5 would be fast enough, yeah, but maintenance costs would sky rocket, and I don't know how much their per hour operation cost is. I don't even think they're produced any more, so you'd need to strip down other F-5s for parts to keep a handful of them flying.

clear thinking · 04-03-2015 12:43PM

No offense but that's a pretty subjective view on taxation, foreign policy etc. My point on using the expanding tax base means no one would be paying more tax and there'd be no need to reduce foreign aid - this is a softly softly approach. In fact, what is needed is a bit of leadership, not plundering foreign aid. The only thing missing now is the cost of a missile defense system, how much did Israel pay for the iron dome?

Larbre34 · 04-03-2015 01:05PM

Things have become so tense, I think the provision of aircraft and crews to fly under the Irish flag or the basing of other EU squadrons in the west of Ireland is something we might likely see in the next 12 months, if the current escalation continues. The alternative is a U.S. carrier group patrolling around between Iceland and Ireland.

IrishTrajan · 04-03-2015 01:06PM

clear thinking wrote: »

No offense but that's a pretty subjective view on taxation, foreign policy etc. My point on using the expanding tax base means no one would be paying more tax and there'd be no need to reduce foreign aid - this is a softly softly approach. In fact, what is needed is a bit of leadership, not plundering foreign aid. The only thing missing now is the cost of a missile defense system, how much did Israel pay for the iron dome?

You can't leave the other expenses untouched, as inflation would reduce their real funds. You'd also be decreasing their spending as a percentage of GDP. The money, really, has to come from somewhere. We could have nominal increases to match inflation, but I don't know how much that'd actually cost.

We agree on the soft approach though. Nobody is advocating we leap from 0.5% to 2% spending in one year. Increasing it by 0.25% per year, and setting a strong groundwork for military expansions over 5-10 years would give us enough time to adjust our expenditure forecasts, and evaluate all possible procurements for the Defence Forces.

As for the Iron Dome, about $500 million for the batteries (they have 10, I think, so it's $50 million per) and $20,000(?) per missile. It's designed to knock small rockets out of the air, not stop planes. We'd be better off investing in S300s or M1M-104s if you intend to work under "air space denial". The cost of investing in SAMs of their calibre would be rather high, though.

IrishTrajan · 04-03-2015 01:12PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Things have become so tense, I think the provision of aircraft and crews to fly under the Irish flag or the basing of other EU squadrons in the west of Ireland is something we might likely see in the next 12 months, if the current escalation continues. The alternative is a U.S. carrier group patrolling around between Iceland and Ireland.

The E.U. can't mandate for air forces to relocate, can they? European countries' airforces are also in largely poor standards. Britain, France and Poland are the only ones who could probably call on their entire airforce.

The U.S. actually has 2 Carrier Groups designated for patrolling the Atlantic. Western Atlantic is 2nd Fleet, Eastern and the South Atlantic is 6th Fleet. You also have Britain's nuclear subs, U.S. submarines, Canadian submarines, Portuguese submarines... Plus, who are they going to fight? Russia's navy is composed of rust buckets, aside from a few ships they've modernized, which are still not up to par with the sheer quantity of ships the West could bring to bear.

The only threat Ireland would have, would be if Russia targeted us for missile strikes to warn Britain not to get involved, or if Irish troops in the Nordic Battlegroup get caught in the crossfire and killed.

BoJack Horseman · 04-03-2015 01:12PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Things have become so tense, I think the provision of aircraft and crews to fly under the Irish flag or the basing of other EU squadrons in the west of Ireland is something we might likely see in the next 12 months, if the current escalation continues. The alternative is a U.S. carrier group patrolling around between Iceland and Ireland.

There isn't likely to be a flat-top anywhere near Ireland at the moment.
There are only 3 on current deployment globally I think.

Would be surprised if an Arleigh Burke visited though.

Ren2k7 · 04-03-2015 03:07PM

Morpheus wrote: »

all of those aircraft you mentioned are too slow. bar the F5 which is too old.

Yes but they would be better than what we have. If "proper" fighter aircraft are too expensive to buy and maintain than at least we should explore buying cheaper trainer aircraft, that are used by other airforces, the Remember the likes of the Scorpion or Hawk could also be utilised abroad on UN missions, especially against an enemy force that consists mainly of Toyota pick up trucks. But it would be more useful in gathering intelligence through reconnaissance flights. The Scorpion has excellent ISR capabilities. What can the P9's do? Sweet FA.

Start small and then slowly build up capabilities over time. After a few years getting accustomed to jet aircraft can the Air Corps then look about upgrading to more capable fighters.

sparky42 · 04-03-2015 06:16PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Yes but they would be better than what we have. If "proper" fighter aircraft are too expensive to buy and maintain than at least we should explore buying cheaper trainer aircraft, that are used by other airforces, the Remember the likes of the Scorpion or Hawk could also be utilised abroad on UN missions, especially against an enemy force that consists mainly of Toyota pick up trucks. But it would be more useful in gathering intelligence through reconnaissance flights. The Scorpion has excellent ISR capabilities. What can the P9's do? Sweet FA.

Start small and then slowly build up capabilities over time. After a few years getting accustomed to jet aircraft can the Air Corps then look about upgrading to more capable fighters.

The Scorpion doesn't exist, it's in development and hasn't integrated anything yet. Maybe it will do all that they are promising but it's at least a couple of years away from IOC at best. Why in the name of God should we go in as the lead customer?

OzCam · 04-03-2015 06:29PM

Far too logical Trajan. It'll never happen.

IrishTrajan · 04-03-2015 07:06PM

sparky42 wrote: »

The Scorpion doesn't exist, it's in development and hasn't integrated anything yet. Maybe it will do all that they are promising but it's at least a couple of years away from IOC at best. Why in the name of God should we go in as the lead customer?

The M-346 looks like it might be worth investing in. Mach 1.2, ceiling of 45,000 ft, and a range of nearly 2000km with hardpoints for munitions.

I don't remember if they have air-to-air capabilities, though. I know Poland is buying 8 of them, and the Italian/Singaporean Air forces have bought some.

Heraldoffreeent · 04-03-2015 07:21PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The M-346 looks like it might be worth investing in. Mach 1.2, ceiling of 45,000 ft, and a range of nearly 2000km with hardpoints for munitions.

I don't remember if they have air-to-air capabilities, though. I know Poland is buying 8 of them, and the Italian/Singaporean Air forces have bought some.

I'd imagine gunpods would be at least an option.

Markcheese · 04-03-2015 07:45PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Yes but they would be better than what we have. If "proper" fighter aircraft are too expensive to buy and maintain than at least we should explore buying cheaper trainer aircraft, that are used by other airforces, the Remember the likes of the Scorpion or Hawk could also be utilised abroad on UN missions, especially against an enemy force that consists mainly of Toyota pick up trucks. But it would be more useful in gathering intelligence through reconnaissance flights. The Scorpion has excellent ISR capabilities. What can the P9's do? Sweet FA.

Start small and then slowly build up capabilities over time. After a few years getting accustomed to jet aircraft can the Air Corps then look about upgrading to more capable fighters.

The scorpion isn't even in production yet ,is it ? The p9's are a trainer,but not a million miles from something like a super -Tuccano which seem to be the anti - insurgency ticket of choice at the moment - not that that'd do much against Russian bombers -

A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Comments