Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Markcheese wrote: »

What stops them? Engine, electronics or suspension?
They're clocking up the hours at this stage...

They seem to have all of the above, with them almost being one offs with differences between vehicles even.

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Oh grand, when did I ever mention buying the same thing again??? Smart hole :mad:

Never thought that you had mentioned it...
I meant, if something doesn't work In ireland, we tend to do exhaustive research, check other options, and then stick with what didn't work in the first place..
(and I can't send smileys (or angry faces) from my phone...)

The DF conduct substantial research into procuring the required kit and produce a number of recommendations based on current and needs.

The DoD quite frequently select the cheapest item on the recommended list and pay no heed to future proofing or the fact that chosing #5 will cost more in the long run than #1.

Its timr DoD surrendered control.

When you look at a Country's Defence Forces you must take into account it's location. Then look at and quantify it's current threats, control needs, and relevant training and hardware. Then you must examine your stance and needs in a major confrontation involving your total Economic zone and make plans to improve weapon reach, lethality and deterrence.

For many years we have deconstructed elements of our PDF based on Civil needs and assumptions. We have shed key medical needs in the PDF as a whole onto a tortured Hospital System. We have bought equipment like a family car designed just to get by or equipped certain units with samples of equipment needed in quantity. We have forgotten reach in all dimensions in the Air, on land, and at sea in all dimensions.

We must be able to mount an Air defence and reach at least 20 miles both at sea and on land using combined Missile and Gunnery systems. Since the disbandment of the CDA and Automation of Lighthouses we have stopped being aware of the Maritime scene in both Defence and Local Knowledge. There is some activity between other State Agencies such as Maritime Institute and those Mapping seabed and Coastal Geography through INFOMAR. However they operate in a bubble and have the benefit of a better range of electronics than is supplied to our navy.

A continuation of ad hoc planning motivated by non military needs will have to be replaced by an expert re-build programme.

The first few days of RU/Ukraine war shows the advantage of a well prepared Defending Force. In theatre, must have, weapons centre on anti-tank and air defence weapons such as Javelin and Stinger. Those coupled with Arty and route denial seems to be delaying Ru movement and increasing re-supply problems. We should try and add a few hundred Stingers and Javelins to our inventories and get battlefield defence in order.

Another matter we must look at is dispersal of assets. One Naval base , Oil Base, Dock Yard, and armouries, all conjoined is a tactical nightmare. We certainly need other exclusive bases for re-positioning assets. The Air Corps used to have Gormanstown and other locations now they may be using a single airfield in the middle of commercial Dublin.

Good ideas there Ancient. And the quicker we get this kit on order the better if we don't want to be at the back of the queue given reports that other nations (esp. Germany) are ramping up their defence spending by a massive amount to meet the new and dangerous world order posed by a dysfunctional Russian administration

Can't the javelin switch to fire direct to hit helicopters

The key is the man portable operation and the ability of the firer to deal with an agile target. The RBS 70 is said to be a certain system with high level kill and laser unjammable guidance but a bit ponderous to handle. In a list of MANPADS the RBS is heaviest while the Stinger is light. An ideal solution is Stingers for slower AC's and an RBS type for Jets. The experts should choose from latest experience.

Perhaps one of the bigger collapses in our Defence strength was the dismantling of the CDA and it's function. When you look at offshore attackers pounding coastal assets with cruise missiles, it becomes obvious there must be a response from strategically placed mobile units.

Some nations have mobile missile units in standard sized 20ft containers with a launcher and up to 4 missiles available in each unit. They can be loaded on any vehicle that will take a 20ft container. They can be assembled in batty's of two to six units with a command unit hooked into a national C2 system. Such a system is the one based on the Swedish RBS15 and such a type would be preferable to a heavy mobile arty long barrelled unit and terrain requirements for larger vehicles.

The overwhelming majority of nations that have such systems are those whose waters are relatively small (or their naval capabilities are rather limited) and with a likely threat facing them. The existing CDA should have been dismantled long before it was, as to replacing it there is a hundred and one things that are more important for the DF than a land based anti ship capability.

The Ukrainians are asking for them as they have no navy, a relatively short coastline now and are at risk of an amphibious attack (though not likely). Sweden, Finland and the rest of the Baltics have them because of the enclosed nature of the Baltic sea and the Russians, however for example non of the Western European nations have land based ASM's still in service, the UK is likely going to have to strip the reserves of the decommissioned 23's and bash a truck mounting for them together.

Our equipment was beyond antiquated when it was finally retired and given the threat profiles we face it's not the first or hundred and first thing we should look at. Hell with the performance of Russia so far if they were ordered to attack us they could easily end up attacking Iceland. Land based systems and the hardware to use them would first require the ability to defend our airspace and operate with supporting capabilities. We don't even have the start of that.

How do you use it as a defensive weapon in the 21st century? The Offensive use is clear, but once you use it once in defence, unless you have a very high speed launch vehicle, the game is up.

The right noises from the Taoiseach but it has to be backed up by money and action.

 “In the sea and air around our island we have seen actions taken which have no innocent explanation. Óglaigh na hÉireann must have the capacity and the authority to carry out essential functions to protect our freedoms and those who share our values."

Its the only realistic option.

A most accurate statement. This is an opportunity to create a proper all arms force from the ground up.

I often wonder was there ever a plan for how the Defence forces would be equipped? I fear the men who fought for our independence merely marched in to their nearby British barracks in 1922, took over whatever the brits left behind, decided artillery went to the artillery barracks, Cavalry to the cavalry barracks etc, with no real plan as to what the island state needed. One wonders had 1916 succeeded, would there have been an Air Corps at all, as the Flying Corps were still in very early days then, and had yet to build an infrastructure for us. Lucky for us by 1922 however the Flying Corps gifted us some of their most modern aerodromes. Most of which we closed within a few decades.

We have gotten into the habit of replacing legacy equipment with no mind for its true purpose. We replaced light helis with light helis, Advanced trainers with advanced trainers. OPV with OPV. Armoured scout car with armoured scout car, machine gun armed APC with machine gun armed APC.

We then fit the vehicle or asset to the orbat.

The threat assessments are carried out it seems by the DFA, rather than anyone involved in defence or security. AGS is consulted, but their response is more of "what do we need from the DF" rather than "what do the DF need".