RAF jets protecting Ireland

PCros · 11-06-2021 11:36am #1

It's been discussed over the years but there doesn't seem to be any real interest in getting our own jets. We have the boats so why not any aircraft?

Denmark, Finland and Norway who have similar populations have them, I believe Finland has over 100 which I suppose is because of their neighbours. I'm not saying that we need that many but even 8-10 would suffice.

Contract could be given to the RAF to train our pilots and possibly aircraft could be purchased off them too.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/secret-defence-pact-allowing-raf-jets-inirish-airspace-undermines-our-neutrality-says-td-berry-40526069.html

ec18 · 11-06-2021 11:42am

Given the way technology is going and Air forces in general are going to transition to unmanned flight over the next decade or so. It would probably be more beneficial for us to invest in drones or similar unmanned coverage over Irish air space

HTCOne · 11-06-2021 11:47am

Between acquisition, maintenance, training and operations, even the 12ish that would be required would likely cost over a billion €. I don’t think the public have much of a stomach for that. If anything, heavy lift capability to support the peace keeping operations is likely higher up the priority list.

We have the boats (but nobody to crew them, there’s a couple effectively mothballed in Haulbowline due insufficient crews) because of fishery patrols. Fast jets are overkill for that. The odd Bear intrusion into the NAT or PLOC situation with an airliner isn’t really enough to justify the expense in many people’s opinions either. Let the RAF handle it, the Bears are there to antagonise them anyway, not us.

Edit: and the statement in that story about Russian aircraft entering Irish airspace with their transponders turned off is misleading. They have done this in Irish controlled airspace, not in our sovereign airspace. Airspace more than 12nm beyond our coastline is international airspace for which ATC function is delegated to Shannon by ICAO. Any State aircraft can operate Due Regard out there and are under no obligation to talk to ATC or let us know they’re there or what they’re up to. If they came within 12nm of our coast that would be illegal, but it hasn’t happened.

Nijmegen · 11-06-2021 11:57am

This comes up quite a bit... Ultimately, yes as a neutral nation in theory we are supposed to pull our own weight so, for example, a neighbor can't be overrun via our territory. On the other hand, the status quo really doesn't incentivize the Irish taxpayer to stump up the cash. The Brits seem to be doing a fine job intercepting those Bears and as long as they don't accidentally down an EI flight coming back from New York, most Irish people won't care - they're not actually overflying the island and causing us any hassle.

Of course, we then go crying to our neighbors when anything does happen to us and they have to roll their eyes. We're basically freeloading and we like it. We're not spending the hundreds of millions to billions it would cost to own and operate a fighter squadron, a primary radar, etc etc, and imagine the hand wringing if it was Irish flagged jets up there wing to wing with Russian aircraft and they start getting bolshie with us.

grassylawn · 11-06-2021 12:37pm

Lots of teenage boys like the idea of becoming fighter pilots for their nation's defence forces.
Our dependence on the UK doesn't sit well with some nationalistically minded types.

I think that's the whole of the case for this.

Peregrine · 11-06-2021 12:51pm

PCros wrote: »

It's been discussed over the years but there doesn't seem to be any real interest in getting our own jets. We have the boats so why not any aircraft?

Do we? What are "the boats" equivalent that you think we have?

PCros wrote: »

I'm not saying that we need that many but even 8-10 would suffice.

What would 8-10 suffice for? What capabilities do you think we could have with 8-10 aircraft? Which type of aircraft?

PCros · 11-06-2021 1:27pm

Peregrine wrote: »

Do we? What are "the boats" equivalent that you think we have?

We have 10 boats which 3 are on reserve I believe according to their website.

Peregrine wrote: »

What would 8-10 suffice for? What capabilities do you think we could have with 8-10 aircraft? Which type of aircraft?

Patrol of Irish airspace where required, we're not going to war here. Single-engine multirole fighter aircraft.

Davidth88 · 11-06-2021 1:33pm

I have always wondered why the IAC have the PC9s TBH if you consider what their primary role is ( fast jet trainer ) .

Anyway , this has always been the case ( The RAF watching Irish airspace ) .

I see no reason for the IAC to purchase fast jets, it would be a few more than 8 or 10 needed after all I imagine most fast jets spend as much time with a spanner on them as they do in the air ( open to correction ).

I would also imagine the facilities you would need to handle fast jets would be pretty extensive , Baldonell would need a bit of an upgrade , HAS , longer runway ? , catch fencing and stuff like that wouldn't it ?

Peregrine · 11-06-2021 2:07pm

PCros wrote: »

Patrol of Irish airspace where required, we're not going to war here. Single-engine multirole fighter aircraft.

8-10 won't be enough for that. The last thing we need is another half assed purchase that won't deliver on the necessary capabilities. We have enough of those.

If we're going to do this then we need to have a conversation about what's actually required to deliver the kind of operational capacity you're talking about.

riffmongous · 11-06-2021 2:16pm

I'd imagine the Brits and the Gov prefer it this way, if we had some capability we'd have to come to another sort of arrangement with them that might have more serious implications for our neutrality, especially now they're not EU anymore

CIARAN_BOYLE · 11-06-2021 2:38pm

PCros wrote: »

It's been discussed over the years but there doesn't seem to be any real interest in getting our own jets. We have the boats so why not any aircraft?

Denmark, Finland and Norway who have similar populations have them, I believe Finland has over 100 which I suppose is because of their neighbours. I'm not saying that we need that many but even 8-10 would suffice.

Contract could be given to the RAF to train our pilots and possibly aircraft could be purchased off them too.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/secret-defence-pact-allowing-raf-jets-inirish-airspace-undermines-our-neutrality-says-td-berry-40526069.html

8 jets wouldn't keep a 2 jet qrf in service.

Either we spend for a serious airforce or we don't. Tokenism is pointless.

sailing · 11-06-2021 7:12pm

Waste of money, not needed. On any given day the RAF are training about 50 miles east of Dublin for hours on end. They’d sort out any issue before one of ours are even airborne.

We don’t need them. We’re not under any International threat. We won’t be any time soon. The only reason the UK have squadrons are more for International conflict abroad, not really for home soil.

The games with the Russians suit them for training for interceptions. There’s never any real threat of conflict.

Larbre34 · 12-06-2021 11:50am

Theres really no getting around this inconvenient truth - any sovereign Republic, even a neutral one, who cannot assert its own borders and boundaries, and exert a presence in the air and at sea within its areas of responsibility, simply isn't worthy of the name.

And we do have huge areas of sea and sky to manage, many times the size or our island.

Someone mentioned earlier that we have the boats. Thats not correct either. We have about a third the number of ships we need to protect fisheries and the EEZ and those ships do not carry the kind of modern day anti air and anti ship missiles to consider them a proper naval deterrent.

Genre.. · 12-06-2021 11:55am

Larbre34 wrote: »

Theres really no getting around this inconvenient truth - any sovereign Republic, even a neutral one, who cannot assert its own borders and boundaries, and exert a presence in the air and at sea within its areas of responsibility, simply isn't worthy of the name.

And we do have huge areas of sea and sky to manage, many times the size or our island.

Someone mentioned earlier that we have the boats. Thats not correct either. We have about a third the number of ships we need to protect fisheries and the EEZ and those ships do not carry the kind of modern day anti air and anti ship missiles to consider them a proper naval deterrent.

We're just a banana republic that's the reality

Probably if we got attacked by a boatload of Jamaicans there'd be some uproar about the situation

Larbre34 · 12-06-2021 1:37pm

Genre.. wrote: »

We're just a banana republic that's the reality

Probably if we got attacked by a boatload of Jamaicans there'd be some uproar about the situation

Someone needs to take it more seriously than that.

The IAA and by extension the Irish State is responsible for an area of controlled airspace far larger than Ireland again to our west, roughly speaking. We also have some limited tracking and communications responsibility out in the Shanwick Oceanic zone as well as an hosting the Aireon global ALERT system at the North Atlantic Communications Centre in Clare.

As things stand, we have no primary military radar to track Russian military planes who operate without transponders in our area, or any planes to challenge them, or to intercept and inspect commercial and civilian aircraft should any incident arise.

Given all the above and as a Country hosting major tech and data industry with a clear vulnerability to infrastructure, the absence of an effective airspace defence system is an abdication of duty as a sovereign Republic and a dereliction of our responsibility to our international investors and partners.

Tenger · 12-06-2021 2:17pm

The IAA is a cilivlian agency that is very successful in its field.
It has no responsibility for "protecting our airspace"
I have yet to hear any of our "International partners" or those multinationals lobbying the Irish Govt to install military tracking radar and/or a robust air defence network.

Your overly dramatic picture is the work of a wierd mind. You should have a read of the 1990s Clancy-esque novel "Dark Rose"
(possibly the worst book I have ever read)

Inquitus · 12-06-2021 2:22pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Someone needs to take it more seriously than that.

The IAA and by extension the Irish State is responsible for an area of controlled airspace far larger than Ireland again to our west, roughly speaking. We also have some limited tracking and communications responsibility out in the Shanwick Oceanic zone as well as an hosting the Aireon global ALERT system at the North Atlantic Communications Centre in Clare.

As things stand, we have no primary military radar to track Russian military planes who operate without transponders in our area, or any planes to challenge them, or to intercept and inspect commercial and civilian aircraft should any incident arise.

Given all the above and as a Country hosting major tech and data industry with a clear vulnerability to infrastructure, the absence of an effective airspace defence system is an abdication of duty as a sovereign Republic and a dereliction of our responsibility to our international investors and partners.

Lol, are you being serious? Anyone who has invested in this country knows exactly what the state of our defense forces is, and they don't care hence they keep investing!

ClosedAccountFuzzy · 12-06-2021 2:22pm

We’re also a member of the EU and have an increasingly distant and somewhat souring relationship with the UK due to their political hostility toward the EU.

What if Johnson withdrew air cover arrangements for example?

It’s a rather ad hoc and informal messy relationship. It’s not as if we’re members of NATO with some mutual defence arrangement.

touts · 12-06-2021 2:23pm

Cost would be too great. Because we are effectively starting from zero by the time we put the infrastructure, training and support facilities in place we wouldn't have much change out of a billion a jet. Even if we bought 50 jets it still wouldn't be enough to protect us in the event of a real war.

faoiarvok · 12-06-2021 2:27pm

Does anyone actually know what the agreement is? The relevant departments are keeping it pretty close to their chest. I wouldn’t be surprised if it had nothing to do with protecting us, but was just a blanket diplomatic clearance for UK interceptors to cross our airspace if they want to check out a suspicious aircraft heading towards them.

Larbre34 · 12-06-2021 2:28pm

Read it yourself.

Just last Sunday the Times of London had an article on a submission by the IAA to the current Commission on Defence on precisely this matter.

So while you're correct about the remit of the IAA, the State as a whole does have a responsibility beyond their remit, just as it is in every other Country.

Larbre34 · 12-06-2021 2:31pm

faoiarvok wrote: »

Does anyone actually know what the agreement is? The relevant departments are keeping it pretty close to their chest. I wouldn’t be surprised if it had nothing to do with protecting us, but was just a blanket diplomatic clearance for UK interceptors to cross our airspace if they want to check out a suspicious aircraft heading towards them.

Nobody does outside the Dept of Foreign Affairs, but it does appear to be as you describe. We also know that the Department of Defence didn't see it, which says a lot too.

I'll be very interested to see if Cathal Berry pursues its constitutionality, because he has a very strong argument.

Tenger · 12-06-2021 2:35pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

......
......
......
So while you're correct about the remit of the IAA, the State as a whole does have a responsibility beyond their remit, just as it is in every other Country.

Funny how this hasn't acted as a disincentive to all the MNCs who invested in our nation over the last few decades......

faoiarvok · 12-06-2021 2:42pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'll be very interested to see if Cathal Berry pursues its constitutionality, because he has a very strong argument.

If it is just a diplomatic clearance, I’m not sure how it would be unconstitutional if all the other clearances given to other countries’ military aircraft are OK.

If they start shooting down airliners in our airspace, he’d have a point, but I can’t imagine anyone’s envisioning that.

Larbre34 · 12-06-2021 2:54pm

touts wrote: »

Cost would be too great. Because we are effectively starting from zero by the time we put the infrastructure, training and support facilities in place we wouldn't have much change out of a billion a jet. Even if we bought 50 jets it still wouldn't be enough to protect us in the event of a real war.

At least do your research and stop picking numbers out of the air.

Nobody is equipping for a war. The previous, now retired, General Officer commanding the Air Corps published an opinion that to police our airspace in peacetime and provide a 24/7 Quick Reaction Alert of 2 aircraft, would need the purchase of 16 fighter jets, 3 full crews for each for cover, a national military radar system, improved military ATC, ground support technicians and firefighting, improved accommodations for planes, armaments and personnel (possibly in a new air station at Shannon airport).

Total cost of that would be 1 to 2 billion Euro, spread out across the life of the programme. However, there are ways in which that can be achieved more cost effectively. The Czech Republic currently leases 14 Gripen fighters, with tech support, from Saab and the Swedish Government at a cost of €70 million over 12 years. A pittance in defence terms.

But you're right about starting from scratch. The dereliction of responsibility by successive Govts over the decades has ensured that and no matter what we do in the future it'll be a big undertaking and a significant upfront investment.

ClosedAccountFuzzy · 12-06-2021 6:02pm

The cost of it isn’t too great. We are extremely unwilling to spend on basic defence infrastructure, yet we wouldn’t think twice about lashing money into other aspects of infrastructure spending.

We don’t need the USAF level of cover but we should be at least be able to deal with interception and monitoring of rogue aircraft in Irish airspace.

We also should absolutely be able to ensure we can do proper fisheries and other patrols of our own waters.

Ireland is a very wealthy country that plays the poor mouth on many issues like this.

It’s also not about being an aggressive military force. It’s a bit like failing to invest in locks for your hall door and an alarm system.

A small, but well equipped air defence system and navy would be fairly sane and reasonable to have here. I’d rather see strong use of technology like primary radar and so on, maybe use of drones for naval patrols and so on than some vanity project, but we do need to take this more seriously than we do.

Also areas like cyber security are clearly huge gaps in our defence policies.

Ireland isn’t some unimportant backwater anymore. We are an increasingly significant nexus of financial trade, IT and communications networks.

Also it’s not undermining our neutrality to do so. If anything it’s reinforcing it as we wouldn’t be just hiding under the cloak of cover from the U.K., US or possibly France, all of which are anything but neutral in their policies around military interventions.

Psychlops · 12-06-2021 11:00pm

sailing wrote: »

On any given day the RAF are training about 50 miles east of Dublin for hours on end. They’d sort out any issue before one of ours are even airborne.

RAF Hawk Jet Trainers out of RAF Valley, thats why they are in the Irish Sea, not supersonic & not armed for the most part, the majority of RAF Fast air training takes place on the UK east Coast. Their main QRA bases of Coningsby & Lossiemouth are on the east coast too.

washman3 · 12-06-2021 11:04pm

Genre.. wrote: »

We're just a banana republic that's the reality

Probably if we got attacked by a boatload of Jamaicans there'd be some uproar about the situation

Joe Duffy would sort it out...:D:D

wash your hands....

12-06-2021 11:20pm

Any threat to Ireland is a threat to Britain, whether we're best of friends or best of enemies.

If we were invaded in the morning, Britain would be far quicker to our aid than anyone else. They'd have support on the way before the cock finished crowing.

Britain will always have our back (airspace).

touts · 12-06-2021 11:29pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

At least do your research and stop picking numbers out of the air.

Nobody is equipping for a war. The previous, now retired, General Officer commanding the Air Corps published an opinion that to police our airspace in peacetime and provide a 24/7 Quick Reaction Alert of 2 aircraft, would need the purchase of 16 fighter jets, 3 full crews for each for cover, a national military radar system, improved military ATC, ground support technicians and firefighting, improved accommodations for planes, armaments and personnel (possibly in a new air station at Shannon airport).

Total cost of that would be 1 to 2 billion Euro, spread out across the life of the programme. However, there are ways in which that can be achieved more cost effectively. The Czech Republic currently leases 14 Gripen fighters, with tech support, from Saab and the Swedish Government at a cost of €70 million over 12 years. A pittance in defence terms.

But you're right about starting from scratch. The dereliction of responsibility by successive Govts over the decades has ensured that and no matter what we do in the future it'll be a big undertaking and a significant upfront investment.

No trained pilots
No trained support flight engineers
No trained maintenance staff
No suitably trained firefighting staff
No training staff or training infrastructure to actually get us any of the above.
No proper military airfield
No proper hangers
No proper support ground vehicles
No munitions or armaments
No proper military radar system required to direct and support the jets.
No military air traffic control system
And of course No Jets.

We're all pulling numbers out of the air but the idea of €417k per jet per year (based on 16 jets for 12 years at a total of €70m) is hopelessly inadequate. The salaries alone for the pilots and support staff per jet would exceed that.

We all agree that successive governments have underfunded air defence. But that means the most significant cost element is not the Jets themselves but making up that 100 years of neglect. It is simply cost prohibitive. I wish it wasn't but wishes count for nothing in this country. Just look at the multi billion National Children's hospital debacle.

Del2005 · 12-06-2021 11:31pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Theres really no getting around this inconvenient truth - any sovereign Republic, even a neutral one, who cannot assert its own borders and boundaries, and exert a presence in the air and at sea within its areas of responsibility, simply isn't worthy of the name.

And we do have huge areas of sea and sky to manage, many times the size or our island.

Someone mentioned earlier that we have the boats. Thats not correct either. We have about a third the number of ships we need to protect fisheries and the EEZ and those ships do not carry the kind of modern day anti air and anti ship missiles to consider them a proper naval deterrent.

We aren't a neutral country because we can't protect our boarders. Neutral countries spend money on defence, we are militarily non aligned and never spend money on our defence.

No matter how many people post on the internet or write articles in the press there's no way that we'll spend money on planes, our airports can be taken out before our air force could react, when we've multiple other priorities to fix in this country.

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

We’re also a member of the EU and have an increasingly distant and somewhat souring relationship with the UK due to their political hostility toward the EU.

What if Johnson withdrew air cover arrangements for example?

It’s a rather ad hoc and informal messy relationship. It’s not as if we’re members of NATO with some mutual defence arrangement.

It's a good job that the approaches to Irish air space go through other countries so they can't ignore them. With the UK claiming Rockall they have to react before the aircraft get anywhere near our airspace.

touts · 12-06-2021 11:37pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any threat to Ireland is a threat to Britain, whether we're best of friends or best of enemies.

If we were invaded in the morning, Britain would be far quicker to our aid than anyone else. They'd have support on the way before the cock finished crowing.

Britain will always have our back (airspace).

If we're invaded in the morning then the air force is the least of the problems we would face trying to organize a defence. We basically have no army and the handful of soldiers we do have are woefully under equipped for a standup battle. But that's deliberate. Our whole defence strategy is the same as it was 100 years ago. Disband the army and disperse them back to their homes with small arms to fight a gorilla style defence post occupation. It's not a flashy strategy with lots of fancy jets and tanks and ships. But it's probably the most appropriate given the size of our population. Bearing that in mind then every cent spent on jets is wasted when small arms and explosives are what what our defence is based on.

HTCOne · 12-06-2021 11:49pm

If we ever were genuinely threatened militarily the easiest solution would be to offer the Yanks a long term lease on either Shannon or Knock with strings attached around QRA for Ireland, or getting some co-located IAC operated second hand F16s and ancillaries, support etc from them.

Blut2 · 13-06-2021 12:00am

Fighter jets look and sound great. My inner aviation nerd, and 14 year old boy, love them. But in the real world the billions of euros required, for something thats essentially of no practical use and is just for national pride, can be better spent on our hospitals, gardai, schools and roads. We have far more pressing needs as a nation.

grassylawn · 13-06-2021 12:04am

touts wrote: »

If we're invaded in the morning then the air force is the least of the problems we would face trying to organize a defence. We basically have no army and the handful of soldiers we do have are woefully under equipped for a standup battle. But that's deliberate. Our whole defence strategy is the same as it was 100 years ago. Disband the army and disperse them back to their homes with small arms to fight a gorilla style defence post occupation. It's not a flashy strategy with lots of fancy jets and tanks and ships. But it's probably the most appropriate given the size of our population. Bearing that in mind then every cent spent on jets is wasted when small arms and explosives are what what our defence is based on.

Pretty sure disbanding the army isn't part of the defence strategy. But I think you have roughly described the Swiss model. They have a 120k strong militia who keep automatic rifles in their homes. They also have thousands of explosives on transport infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels.

guy2231 · 13-06-2021 12:40am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any threat to Ireland is a threat to Britain, whether we're best of friends or best of enemies.

If we were invaded in the morning, Britain would be far quicker to our aid than anyone else. They'd have support on the way before the cock finished crowing.

Britain will always have our back (airspace).

Absolute rubbish we are in the EU if someone declares war or attacks one EU country you declare war on all of the EU.

Larbre34 · 13-06-2021 12:45am

touts wrote: »

We're all pulling numbers out of the air but the idea of €417k per jet per year (based on 16 jets for 12 years at a total of €70m) is hopelessly inadequate. The salaries alone for the pilots and support staff per jet would exceed that.

No. Let me clarify. The Czechs simply lease 14 Gripen jets for 20 years for 70 million, including some ancillaries. The outright purchase price of one example of the type is ~€50 million currently.

I mentioned an entire project cost of 1 to 2 billion, spread out over whatever number of years that includes everything you mention. I'm saying the planes, on their own,can either cost 800 million outright or be leased for 10% of that.

I'd even go so far as to venture that if Ireland agreed to shore up our rather large gap in European air space defence that we'd get a very lucrative deal on just about all the hardware and expertise from EU colleagues.

zom · 13-06-2021 12:49am

Larbre34 wrote: »

The Czech Republic currently leases 14 Gripen fighters, with tech support, from Saab and the Swedish Government at a cost of €70 million over 12 years. A pittance in defence terms.

Gripen is nice and compact system but fighter itself has pretty short range distance unfortunately - good in defensive role for countries with small airspace like Czech or Switzerland (they planned but decide not to buy) but not for island like us with vast coastline and territorial waters. Swedish use them but they have like 100 of them and mostly Baltic sea to patrol. Norway for example went for F-16E with 3 times longer range (plus few F-35 but they can afford it with their gas and oil resources

It is different story of we need our own jet fighters and how it would work NATO defense doctrine. It is interesting to see Icelandic Air Policing where Iceland has more strategic role with number of radar systems located there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

guy2231 · 13-06-2021 12:50am

A lot of fanciful rubbish on this thread wanting to spend billions on aircraft for no reason at all.

Even if we were invaded and for whatever reason the EU decided to abandon us our only option would be IRA style guerilla warfare, if we attempted to fight a conventional war we would be wiped out instantly no amount of fighter jets is going to change that.

Strumms · 13-06-2021 1:07am

guy2231 wrote: »

A lot of fanciful rubbish on this thread wanting to spend billions on aircraft for no reason at all.

Even if we were invaded and for whatever reason the EU decided to abandon us our only option would be IRA style guerilla warfare, if we attempted to fight a conventional war we would be wiped out instantly no amount of fighter jets is going to change that.

Truth.

The number of jets required to defend our airspace and country in the event of an attack would be dozens.... that’s hundreds of millions that we don’t have....

That’s before you factor in more millions on ..

Staff
- Crew
- maintenance
- hiring / paying
- training

Equipment
- ground support
- hangers
- maintenance equipment and inventory

You’d need to probably upgrade or build and run two more aer corps bases at a minimum..

kyote00 · 13-06-2021 1:12am

May as well go for a few nuclear subs while we are at it and a squadron of eurofighters.

Put the planes in Shannon to keep it open…..and the subs in Foynes deep port….

Greece has a population of 10m … is more bankrupt than us …. It has ~600 aircraft….

zom · 13-06-2021 1:33am

kyote00 wrote: »

Greece has a population of 10m … is more bankrupt than us …. It has ~600 aircraft….

Greece borders Turkey - extremely aggressive and unpredictable nation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54132044

https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/turkey-breaches-airspace-of-greece-40-times-in-a-day-triggering-mock-dogfights-between-the-nato-allies-1.611611

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/24/turkey.topstories3

touts · 13-06-2021 8:31am

grassylawn wrote: »

Pretty sure disbanding the army isn't part of the defence strategy. But I think you have roughly described the Swiss model. They have a 120k strong militia who keep automatic rifles in their homes. They also have thousands of explosives on transport infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels.

You think a stand up battle is part of our defence strategy? If it is then that is shockingly irresponsible by our army leadership and strategists. Gorilla warfare is absolutely our defence strategy. Always has been.

bk · 13-06-2021 9:45am

grassylawn wrote: »

Pretty sure disbanding the army isn't part of the defence strategy. But I think you have roughly described the Swiss model. They have a 120k strong militia who keep automatic rifles in their homes. They also have thousands of explosives on transport infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels.

FYI The Swiss have taken the explosives out of the bridges, etc.

They felt there was more of a chance of an accident, then an actual invasion these days. They keep the explosives in armouries now and they can put them back if international tensions arise.

Countries throughout Europe have drastically reduced their military spending as despite the noise they make, there is very little real threat to most of Western Europe from Russia.

If we didn’t bother having a proper fighter force during the Cold War, it makes no sense at all for us to do so now in a much lower threat environment.

riffmongous · 13-06-2021 10:34am

bk wrote: »

FYI The Swiss have taken the explosives out of the bridges, etc.

They felt there was more of a chance of an accident, then an actual invasion these days. They keep the explosives in armouries now and they can put them back if international tensions arise.

Countries throughout Europe have drastically reduced their military spending as despite the noise they make, there is very little real threat to most of Western Europe from Russia.

If we didn’t bother having a proper fighter force during the Cold War, it makes no sense at all for us to do so now in a much lower threat environment.

Russia is more of a threat to us than ever before.. just not in the conventional sense. We need to start pumping money into cyber-defence that is needed every single day now instead of planes

bk · 13-06-2021 10:43am

Another thought, if we did have a spare billion or two to spend on defence, then it would be much better spent on cyber defence then fighter jets.

As we have seen in the past 2 months with the attacks on the HSE’s systems, we are much more vulnerable to cyber attack from Russia, then any Topgun fantasy.

Cyber attacks can do real damage to our infrastructure and economy and are a much more real threat to us all and we need to be giving it far more attention. I hope the HSE attack has been a wake up call.

bk · 13-06-2021 10:44am

riffmongous wrote: »

Russia is more of a threat to us than ever before.. just not in the conventional sense. We need to start pumping money into cyber-defence that is needed every single day now instead of planes

Lol snap

I couldn’t agree more.

grassylawn · 13-06-2021 11:00am

touts wrote: »

You think a stand up battle is part of our defence strategy? If it is then that is shockingly irresponsible by our army leadership and strategists. Gorilla warfare is absolutely our defence strategy. Always has been.

In the event of a hostile force landing on Irish soil the zookeepers will enact the Boulle Protocol.

Genre.. · 13-06-2021 11:03am

Who or what exactly would we be protecting ourselves against ?

Blut2 · 13-06-2021 11:18am

bk wrote: »

Another thought, if we did have a spare billion or two to spend on defence, then it would be much better spent on cyber defence then fighter jets.

As we have seen in the past 2 months with the attacks on the HSE’s systems, we are much more vulnerable to cyber attack from Russia, then any Topgun fantasy.

Cyber attacks can do real damage to our infrastructure and economy and are a much more real threat to us all and we need to be giving it far more attention. I hope the HSE attack has been a wake up call.

Cyber defense is where some increased defense spending would actually be useful, because our state is actually at risk, and attacks can and will happen. Unlike the Tom Clancy-esque fantasy of a Russian bombing raid on Donegal that expensive fighter jets might defend from.

The key issue with any government spending is it means if euros are spent on one line item, they won't be spent on another. If a fighter program for Ireland cost €2bn, thats €2bn that won't be spent on cyber defense. Or hospitals. Or schools.

So for each euro spent we have to ask what would do the most good for the most people in Ireland. 99.99% of the time its putting that €2bn into hospitals/schools etc, and not modern fighter jets. Domestic spending actually has tangible day-to-day benefits for large numbers of Irish people. I personally would have a pretty hard time telling hundreds of Irish citizens they're going to die earlier than they could have from cancer because we had to have some fancy looking F16s for Youtube...

breezy1985 · 13-06-2021 11:34am

kyote00 wrote: »

May as well go for a few nuclear subs while we are at it and a squadron of eurofighters.

Put the planes in Shannon to keep it open…..and the subs in Foynes deep port….

Greece has a population of 10m … is more bankrupt than us …. It has ~600 aircraft….

Maybe thats one of the reasons why they are bankrupt. I wouldn't be looking towards Greece as an example of how to do anything except maybe a nice lamb wrap or something.

Greece also borders Turkey and was ruled by a military dictatorship for a while

RAF jets protecting Ireland

Should Ireland procure fighter jets? 113 votes

Comments