A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Ren2k7 · 04-03-2015 09:03PM

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.

Markcheese wrote: »

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 -

How long does the tender process for such big ticket defence project take? Quite a while, doesn't it? The Scorpion is just one of many options we have, it need not be that particular model. And by the time the tender process is over other nation's may have already started procuring the Scorpion.

It seems many here want the DF to acquire full tactical supersonic fighters whatever the cost. But our pilots cannot fly the bloody things. And we cannot afford the flight times.

We're not France or Germany. Hell we're not even Denmark or Finland! For Ireland's tiny Air Corps with next to no experience flying combat jet aircraft acquiring smaller, light attack fighters are the way to go.

IrishTrajan · 04-03-2015 09:19PM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

It seems many here want the DF to acquire full tactical supersonic fighters whatever the cost. But our pilots cannot fly the bloody things. And we cannot afford the flight times.

We're not France or Germany. Hell we're not even Denmark or Finland! For Ireland's tiny Air Corps with next to no experience flying combat jet aircraft acquiring smaller, light attack fighters are the way to go.

Yes, we can afford it. I've gone over the figures a few times already. It would require a budget increase, but yes, we could afford it. We would need to increase our spending to accommodate for the Scorpions anyway. It's easier to pick an aircraft already in full production, and with a proven track record.

Also, I agree, our pilots can't leap from prop to jet engine... But you said it yourself, the deal could take several years. In those years, we could send our pilots and ATC crew and such to train with the British. We pay maintenance cost for the aircraft and stuff we use, while we train their soldiers in EOD, peace-keeping, and the like.

Britain isn't the colonial power it once was, and I'm sure if we asked to train with them, they'd only be too happy to do so, as it would lessen the resources they need to watch Irish airspace.

OzCam · 04-03-2015 11:19PM

Also, there's a fast jet training company in England (their name escapes me at the moment) who train pilots on...

Gripens.

sparky42 · 04-03-2015 11:22PM

OzCam wrote: »

Also, there's a fast jet training company in England (their name escapes me at the moment) who train pilots on...

Gripens.

Think it's the Empire Test Pilot's School, though I think they only have a couple of early marks. We could always just use the RAF's training system.

knucklehead6 · 05-03-2015 08:27AM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, we can afford it. I've gone over the figures a few times already. It would require a budget increase, but yes, we could afford it. We would need to increase our spending to accommodate for the Scorpions anyway. It's easier to pick an aircraft already in full production, and with a proven track record.

Also, I agree, our pilots can't leap from prop to jet engine... But you said it yourself, the deal could take several years. In those years, we could send our pilots and ATC crew and such to train with the British. We pay maintenance cost for the aircraft and stuff we use, while we train their soldiers in EOD, peace-keeping, and the like.

Britain isn't the colonial power it once was, and I'm sure if we asked to train with them, they'd only be too happy to do so, as it would lessen the resources they need to watch Irish airspace.

Another thing is that if we asked to train with them then they'd probably ask us to reciprocate the favour, and they'd be able to have a little play over here from time to time...

IrishTrajan · 05-03-2015 02:30PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Another thing is that if we asked to train with them then they'd probably ask us to reciprocate the favour, and they'd be able to have a little play over here from time to time...

We're already training them with peace-keeping missions, and we regularly cross-train with their special forces teams (the ARW). How is this any different? I don't see how training together is a bad thing. It'll give the DF experience training with another nation.

cruasder777 · 05-03-2015 05:48PM

Could someone place an order for a few of these too.

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

sparky42 · 05-03-2015 06:35PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Could someone place an order for a few of these too.

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

Slightly outside of the budget, besides then we'd have to do what the Brits do and keep some in the US to actually do the major weapons fire drills. Be a hell of a way to discourage runway incursions though:D:p

IrishTrajan · 05-03-2015 07:17PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Slightly outside of the budget, besides then we'd have to do what the Brits do and keep some in the US to actually do the major weapons fire drills. Be a hell of a way to discourage runway incursions though:D:p

You gotta admit, they look pretty dank though. Imagine you're in your Challenger 2 or Leopard 2A6, rolling over the hills and seeing one of these buggers coming out of the blue, weaving and dipping all over the place as the two pilots fight over who gets to blow up the tank. Hearing the faint sound of the Hills of Athenry as the Apache comes closer, and closer. Then, just when you think you're going to die, they fly away, because they couldn't afford to have an Apache and munitions.

Heraldoffreeent · 05-03-2015 07:37PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You gotta admit, they look pretty dank though. Imagine you're in your Challenger 2 or Leopard 2A6, rolling over the hills and seeing one of these buggers coming out of the blue, weaving and dipping all over the place as the two pilots fight over who gets to blow up the tank. Hearing the faint sound of the Hills of Athenry as the Apache comes closer, and closer. Then, just when you think you're going to die, they fly away, because they couldn't afford to have an Apache and munitions.

Or get called to do a patient transfer to Galway.

sparky42 · 05-03-2015 08:06PM

Or grounded due to a noise complaint from the farmers and the surrounding population of Baldonnel.

Now if only we'd gone with the Blackhawks and the option for the battle hawk upgrades they are doing now, 2 for the price of 1

dr.fuzzenstein · 05-03-2015 08:11PM

Whatever we'll buy, it'll end up like the scanners in the hospitals. Only operational Monday to Friday 9 to 5, excluding lunchtimes and should a combat situation arise, the pilots will probably cite health and safety and refuse to engage. Unless of course the pilot is on holidays and his replacement can't fly.

IrishTrajan · 05-03-2015 08:12PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Or grounded due to a noise complaint from the farmers and the surrounding population of Baldonnel.

Now if only we'd gone with the Blackhawks and the option for the battle hawk upgrades they are doing now, 2 for the price of 1

Dude, haven't you seen Blackhawk Down? We'd be better off spending the money on hospital books and school beds... Dang, I got it mixed it up. Hospital schools and Bed books.

Seriously though, if you're going to buy an Attack Helicopter, it's probably more worthwhile to buy AHs, rather than buying a utility one and adding rocket pods and miniguns.

IrishTrajan · 05-03-2015 08:16PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Whatever we'll buy, it'll end up like the scanners in the hospitals. Only operational Monday to Friday 9 to 5, excluding lunchtimes and should a combat situation arise, the pilots will probably cite health and safety and refuse to engage. Unless of course the pilot is on holidays and his replacement can't fly.

"ealth 'n safety" reminds me of the public trying to pressure the SAS to change their recruitment program because people die during it. The guy running the course laughed "It's nature's way of telling them they're not good enough".

sparky42 · 05-03-2015 08:27PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Dude, haven't you seen Blackhawk Down? We'd be better off spending the money on hospital books and school beds... Dang, I got it mixed it up. Hospital schools and Bed books.

Seriously though, if you're going to buy an Attack Helicopter, it's probably more worthwhile to buy AHs, rather than buying a utility one and adding rocket pods and miniguns.

That was bad doctrine and usage on their behalf, the loses in Gulf 2/Afghanistan have been much less considering their level of usage, besides the newer generation have a lot more defensive aides and the like.

Agree if you are a nation that can afford to buy/support an attack helicopter better to get one (for us with our climate I'd go with the Venom Cobra instead of the AH, also cheaper), but if not the new generation of smart weapons (Brimestone, laser guided Hades etc) are an option on a Hawk. Think of it, for most of the Cold War the UK fielded combat Lynx's instead of dedicated AH, and many of the Middle East nations are going this route to support their Attack squadrons.

For us with even a 2% budget it would buy you transport 75% of the time (with larger payload/troops than the 139's) and fire support for the 25% of potential combat deployments, and a huge pool of supplies/experience in supporting them in the field.

IrishTrajan · 05-03-2015 08:38PM

sparky42 wrote: »

That was bad doctrine and usage on their behalf, the loses in Gulf 2/Afghanistan have been much less considering their level of usage, besides the newer generation have a lot more defensive aides and the like.

Agree if you are a nation that can afford to buy/support an attack helicopter better to get one (for us with our climate I'd go with the Venom Cobra instead of the AH, also cheaper), but if not the new generation of smart weapons (Brimestone, laser guided Hades etc) are an option on a Hawk. Think of it, for most of the Cold War the UK fielded combat Lynx's instead of dedicated AH, and many of the Middle East nations are going this route to support their Attack squadrons.

For us with even a 2% budget it would buy you transport 75% of the time (with larger payload/troops than the 139's) and fire support for the 25% of potential combat deployments, and a huge pool of supplies/experience in supporting them in the field.

I was making a joke about Somaliland, not trying to argue a point.

I'm not that familiar with attack helicopters, I'll leave it to you.

BMJD · 06-03-2015 04:26PM

Re: costs; since a large part of the reason for this proposed (by us) upgrade of our air defence capabilites is to enhance the safety of aircraft within our (controlled) airspace, may I suggest a tax/charge on the aircraft or passengers who we would be protecting? It would be relatively small, say €200 per aircraft, which by my calculations adds up to €100m per annum. (€200 X 1400 aircraft per day X 365 days).

Also, we should hit up the EU for some of the initial outlay (we could ask our British neighbours to help lobby) since we would be patching up a rather large hole in the EU's air defence policy. Plus we would be spending the money within the union so they'd be getting a lot of our back. They would also oblige us in training and maintenance as an added bonus.

Markcheese · 07-03-2015 05:19PM

BMJD wrote: »

Re: costs; since a large part of the reason for this proposed (by us) upgrade of our air defence capabilites is to enhance the safety of aircraft within our (controlled) airspace, may I suggest a tax/charge on the aircraft or passengers who we would be protecting? It would be relatively small, say €200 per aircraft, which by my calculations adds up to €100m per annum. (€200 X 1400 aircraft per day X 365 days).

Also, we should hit up the EU for some of the initial outlay (we could ask our British neighbours to help lobby) since we would be patching up a rather large hole in the EU's air defence policy. Plus we would be spending the money within the union so they'd be getting a lot of our back. They would also oblige us in training and maintenance as an added bonus.

This hundred odd million that keeps getting chucked about - elaborate (humor me cos I get a way higher number)

BMJD · 07-03-2015 05:42PM

it sounds nice, and it's more than zero

IrishTrajan · 07-03-2015 06:25PM

Markcheese wrote: »

This hundred odd million that keeps getting chucked about - elaborate (humor me cos I get a way higher number)

200 x 1400 = 280,000 x 365 = €102,200,000.

Markcheese · 07-03-2015 06:28PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

200 x 1400 = 280,000 x 365 = €102,200,000.

:-) :-) that wasn't quite what I meant ,
It was more how will you get an effective air-defence for 100 million euro all in .

IrishTrajan · 07-03-2015 06:33PM

Markcheese wrote: »

:-) :-) that wasn't quite what I meant ,
It was more how will you get an effective air-defence for 100 million euro all in .

Ah. It's simple. For the first year, we buy radar and build the infrastructure. Second year we look at deals and send pilots to train with the British. Third and fourth years pay for the aircraft themselves, every year after covers maintenance costs.

donvito99 · 07-03-2015 06:52PM

Naive Idea, but hear me out.

One or more naval vessels at sea at any given time with a comprehensive radar and a surface to air system. Theoretical advantage - mobile, greater range over a stationary land based system.

IrishTrajan · 07-03-2015 06:58PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Naive Idea, but hear me out.

One or more naval vessels at sea at any given time with a comprehensive radar and a surface to air system. Theoretical advantage - mobile, greater range over a stationary land based system.

I don't think the Beckett has anti-air defences. I think the heaviest weapon they have is the Oto Melara, which can target ships or objects coming in.

Investment in the Naval Service would be where I'd focus any increases in spending, but we would still need to invest in the Air Corps to operate in Irish skies. Unless we intend to buy something like the Chakri Naruebet (it's an 11,000 tonne light aircraft carrier) which is, as of night now, out of Ireland's needs and ability to maintain.

Captain Chaos · 07-03-2015 07:01PM

We are never going to be able to afford a proper defence capability ever. Look at the UK now. They are going mad trying to get funds together for 50 new Apache Block IIIs at £45 million each, they are complaining that the US are getting them for "only" 14 million each but they are buying 350 of them so its cheaper. They already have 60+ older Apaches bought in 1997 and near life expired as far as the British army are concerned. Then you look at us and we;ed be crying out for even 6 of the ones they don't want anymore.

It's the running costs, training costs, and weapons for training that are the real killers in expense not the actually buying.

IrishTrajan · 07-03-2015 07:06PM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

We are never going to be able to afford a proper defence capability ever. Look at the UK now. They are going mad trying to get funds together for 50 new Apache Block IIIs at £45 million each, they are complaining that the US are getting them for "only" 14 million each but they are buying 350 of them so its cheaper. They already have 60+ older Apaches bought in 1997 and near life expired as far as the British army are concerned. Then you look at us and we;ed be crying out for even 6 of the ones they don't want anymore.

It's the running costs, training costs, and weapons for training that are the real killers in expense not the actually buying.

You're comparing us and our needs, to the needs of world powers. We don't need to have massive logistics chains, or 5th generation fighters. All we need is to cover Irish skies, contribute to the U.N. Battlegroups we are a part of, and take part in U.N. mandated missions.

Nobody is saying we should try to play in the big leagues, we're saying it's best if we can handle ourselves reasonably well.

Look at Denmark. They spend $3.7bn on defence (we'd be spending around $3.5-$4bn if we took Defence seriously), and have a navy capable of operating in U.N./E.U./NATO missions, and they're looking to buy F-35s.

If they can invest in F-35s, I think we can handle a handful of F-16s.

Markcheese · 07-03-2015 07:14PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Naive Idea, but hear me out.

One or more naval vessels at sea at any given time with a comprehensive radar and a surface to air system. Theoretical advantage - mobile, greater range over a stationary land based system.

I'm sure I read somewhere that'd it'd be possible to retrofit the radar - no idea about the missiles , as to how radical a refit and how much is anyone guess ?

Captain Chaos · 07-03-2015 07:16PM

IrishTrajan wrote: »

. They spend $3.7bn on defence (we'd be spending around $3.5-$4bn if we took Defence seriously)

So where is this extra 4bn a year going to magic itself from. Last time I looked Denmark don't have debts that will take 3 generations of high tax and budget cuts to every area of it's population to pay off.

They earn high wages and pay high taxes for the services they receive. We have low pay, high cost of living (higher that Denmark) and pay less tax but also have less services.

IrishTrajan · 07-03-2015 07:21PM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

So where is this extra 4bn a year going to magic itself from. Last time I looked Denmark don't have debts that will take 3 generations of high tax and budget cuts to every area of it's population to pay off.

They earn high wages and pay high taxes for the services they receive. We have low pay, high cost of living (higher that Denmark) and pay less tax but also have less services.

Trying to cut numbers in the HSE that aren't needed, taking money from the Pension Reserve Fund to pay for day-to-day costs of running a country rather than using bond markets, investing increased tax revenue whilst matching pay to HSE/Education expenditure to inflation (e.g. 0.5% inflation leads to 0.5% increase in money going to HSE), impounding European trawlers that fish in Irish EEZ and selling the ships and fining the fishermen, setting up Govt.-majority oil company to search for what resources we do have so we can fix our oil taxes and get people to invest. Cutting this nonsensical welfare State where you can have 12 kids and the Govt. pays for every single one, or reducing the dole so that it isn't a lifestyle choice for people.

There's a hundred and one things we could do. Nobody is saying we should invest $4bn overnight, we're saying gradual increases are required.

Also, we have pretty high wages, actually. It's a reason why companies moved from Ireland to Eastern Europe when the E.U. enlarged.

Markcheese · 07-03-2015 08:13PM

Should a programme have been started 15 odd years ago ? Probably the goverment were pi55ing money against the wall as fast as possible and little to show-
Should we spend it now ? Not a chance - it wouldn't be the greatest return on investment with over 10 % unemployment and a massive national debt -

A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Comments