Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Evd-Burner · 09-12-2009 11:02pm

Thats no use unless u have enough of em to cover the entire west coast...
Ireland needs to invest a bit more than just 3m to have an effective air defence system in place. Thats something i can never see happening...

Edit: Did not see concussions post, how many of these systems do we actually have?

chem · 09-12-2009 11:33pm

Husqvarna wrote: »

If your thoughts on strategic defence are as enlightened as your spelling I think you should put yourself forward for a seat on the Council of Defence. Bravo old boy!

Now I am off to find me a poucher with local knowalage of my area.

Cheers old boy, for pointing out my incorrect spelling. Maybe I should stay off the brandy, while posting! What , what old chap.

It was a BBC prog I watched afew years ago. Local lads were provided with NEW plastic explosives for defence of the UK if invaded.

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/79316

concussion · 10-12-2009 12:04am

A few years ago the Irish Independent cited 6 systems in use which gives a total of 12 now. A medium range system is needed (well, apparantly not in the eyes of the government) in order to push our envelope out further.

Some recent purchases, of both medium range missiles and long range search radars show the cost involved in upgrading Irelands systems. The RBS 23 BAMSE would be a good option as, being Swedish, it is well suited for Irish doctrine and terrain (snow excepted) and compatible with the Ericsson Giraffe radar family. However it is just in production after a long R&D period and costs are said to be very high (can't find any figures whatsoever).

An alternative system is built around the AMRAAM missile (which incidentally has a longer range than RBS 23). The NASAMS 2 system was recently purchased by the Netherlands - €40 million for 2xTRML 3D mobile radar systems (range 200 km) and 6xNASAMS 2 systems mounted on trucks (missile range 25 km).

A long range surveillance system could be aquired aswell - Finland recently purchased the Thales Raytheon GroundMaster 400 which is a containerised truck mounted digital AD system with range of over 450 km. A 12 unit order cost €145 million so €30 million for two wouldn't be a bad figure.

Finally, an order similar to the one received this year (without radars and with more missiles) would give a total of 18 launchers, 7 Giraffes and a lot of missiles - €3 million. (on the outside, more like €1.5 million)

Possible structure of 1 ADR after spending €73 million

Regimental HQ
HQ Battery
1 AD Bty (Medium) - 6 x NASAMS medium range mobile launchers plus 2 TRML 3D mobile radars
2, 3 & 4 Bty (SHORAD) - 6 x RBS-70 man portable short range launchers plus 2 Giraffe 50 mobile radars (per Battery)
Surveillance Battery - 2 x GroundMaster 400 long range mobile digital system

Edit - all systems are detachable from their vehicle and capable of stand-alone operations. They can also be transported by C130 which gives the option for overseas deployments. The long range surveillance radar also opens up the option of using air-defence aircraft in the future,

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/our-armed-forces-are-not-equipped-to-intercept-or-combat-hijackers-82831.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dutch-order-nasamsslamraam-air-defense-systems-02861/
http://www.deagel.com/Special-Purpose-Vehicles/TRML-3D_a000467001.aspx
http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/karte420.en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS_2
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Finland-Updating-Its-Air-Defense-Systems-05398/

concussion · 11-12-2009 1:32am

Oh, and, err, a squadron of Typhoons supported by 3 AWAC's :cool:

(Did it just get very quiet in here??)

Edit - in case it's too subtle for some of you, THIS POST IS NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

:rolleyes:

OS119 · 11-12-2009 2:44pm

i think the silence is the idiots politicians drawing breath before spluttering '....bbbbut, we've got some 20mm AA guns - aaaaand doesn't everyone still use spitfires?....'

mrmanire · 12-12-2009 2:09am

OS119 wrote: »

i think the silence is the idiots politicians drawing breath before spluttering '....bbbbut, we've got some 20mm AA guns - aaaaand doesn't everyone still use spitfires?....'

We don't need fighter planes. Close thread please moderator.

old_aussie · 12-12-2009 3:43am

concussion wrote: »

7 x Giraffe Radar mounted on Hagglunds Bv206 Vikings - 50 km range

Is the 50 km range correct?????

Because..... at a speed of MAC2 a missile would arrive in 36 secs(from first being detected at 50 kl), this doesn't give defence much time to respond(unless they had their hand on the missile defence launch button) and all prechecks and passwords were entered.

The AGM-88 can detect, attack and destroy a radar antenna or transmitter with minimal aircrew input. The proportional guidance system that homes in on enemy radar emissions has a fixed antenna and seeker head in the missile's nose. A smokeless, solid-propellant, dual-thrust rocket motor propels the missile at speeds over Mach 2. HARM, a Navy-led program, was initially integrated onto the A-6E, A-7 and F/A-18 and later onto the EA-6B. RDT&E for use on the F-14 was begun, but not completed. The Air Force introduced HARM on the F-4G Wild Weasel and later on specialized F-16s equipped with the HARM Targeting System (HTS).

concussion · 12-12-2009 1:16pm

mrmanire wrote: »

We don't need fighter planes. Close thread please moderator.

I post a plausible method of building up Irish AD and I get silence. I make a joke about fighters as that seems to be the main rallying call of those who see the Defence Forces as a joke and there are demands to close the thread. You can't win, can you? :rolleyes:

mrmanire wrote: »

What would it take to give us NATO style capabilities (fighter jets, modern naval warfare capable, etc)?

The post prior to the reference about fighters is a good starting point.

old_aussie wrote: »

Is the 50 km range correct?????

Because..... at a speed of MAC2 a missile would arrive in 36 secs(from first being detected at 50 kl), this doesn't give defence much time to respond(unless they had their hand on the missile defence launch button) and all prechecks and passwords were entered.

50 km is correct - it's a short range system. The DF/DoD apparantly aren't expecting SEAD operations against Ireland or they would have a properly layered AD network. As for "having the finger on the button" there are several alert levels, as with any other military, and the appropriate response time for a Shoot/No Shoot decision would be known beforehand.

Your maths is incorrect, a Mach 2 object takes 72 seconds to travel 50 km (taking the value for Mach 2 at sea level.). That's enough time to give a fire order to a unit, shut down the radar and move location. The RBS 70 missiles aren't guided by the radar so once they know where the target is coming from they can engage. To be honest, this is the situation where I would prefer radar controlled guns - you have more chances to hit the damned thing. There are dedicated missile based Counter=Rocket/Artillery/Mortar systems coming on-line but they're expensive and and it's still early days. In this respect, naval systems are in the forefront as they have spent a lot more time developing missile based anti-missile defences. (I was going to post some options for a mobile, close range system to be used for close protection of radar, I will if people are interested)

As I mentioned in the post about the new equipment, the new radars don't have much of an increase in range individually, but if you have one at the vital point and another one 50 km away, you now have radar and missile coverage out to 90 km and a better depth of defence.

OS119 · 14-12-2009 10:28am

i'm interested.

i don't think SAM's/Guns are a 'cheap' answer to the 'should Ireland be able to control its airspace?' question, as, IMHO no SAM system has ever produced 25% of what the brochure claimed, or indeed that any ground-based AD system has successfully fought off an air campaign, but i'm interested in what capability can be bought for what price...

concussion · 14-12-2009 4:18pm

I wouldn't use the word 'control' either. I don't think you can control the air effectively from the ground (similarly, you still need infantry to hold ground even where you have total air supremacy).

My thinking for Irish AD would be two fold. First, the ability to defend airspace over a medium range for for security operations (VIP, anti-terror, international summits). For the second situation, a full blown shooting war, without air based AD or a serious amount of long range systems (Patriot, S300) there isn't much you can do bar 'guerilla' air defence, inflicting damage where possible and then shutting down and moving fast. The way I see it, if we are against an adversary who can conduct effective, overwhelming SEAD ops then they will most likely be able to overwhelm the rest of the DF.

Currently, we have VSHORAD capabilities for security ops and extremely limited range and mobility for warfighting. Our AD is basically a tactical system, most suited to defending troops from ground-attack but it's mission is defence of installations. We need more reach, but at least we got a little more this year.
Edit - mission here: http://www.military.ie/army/org/dftc/dfr/index.htm

I'm thinking of systems like Gepard, Tridon, ASRAD-R etc, however I'm in the middle of exams at the moment so I have to study less interesting things for the week.

Edit - what would you think would be the 'cheap' answer? I can only think of throwing open SNN to the RAF but I can't see it happening, even if there was an imminent threat.

OS119 · 14-12-2009 4:45pm

concussion wrote: »

...what would you think would be the 'cheap' answer? I can only think of throwing open SNN to the RAF but I can't see it happening, even if there was an imminent threat....

i don't think there is a 'cheap' option. it sees to me that control over airspace is the absolute prerequisite of all conventional military operations, and modern fast jets, with AAR, AWACS and EW support have proven to be the only way that can be achieved. without it you may as well not turn up.

Having a defence 'strategy' without including airpower/AD seems is like having an Army without diesel, or communications - or a hospital without hygiene, anti-biotics and dressings. its just a complete waste of time...

mrmanire · 15-12-2009 1:11am

OS119 wrote: »

i don't think there is a 'cheap' option. it sees to me that control over airspace is the absolute prerequisite of all conventional military operations, and modern fast jets, with AAR, AWACS and EW support have proven to be the only way that can be achieved. without it you may as well not turn up.

Having a defence 'strategy' without including airpower/AD seems is like having an Army without diesel, or communications - or a hospital without hygiene, anti-biotics and dressings. its just a complete waste of time...

We clearly don't have a defence strategy in this country so and the government and people of this country will never pay to support one.

Looks like we are just going to have make do with our "air defence system" the way it is.

OS119 · 15-12-2009 10:15am

its - given Irelands lack of anything that anyone might want to steal (with the exception of geography) - a reasonable gamble. a defensive capability sufficiently prickly to make others look for easier options isn't going to be cheap, and the chances of its deterent capability being needed so remote, that its a reasonable decision to not have one.

thats fine as long as everyone understands that the up-side - saving €1.5billion a year on the defence budget, and several €billion in capital expediture - has a correspoding down-side: that if the gamble goes wrong the state is utterly defenceless, and that it would be entirely at the mercy of anyone who threatened it, and that they could take or do exactly what they wanted and there'd not be a damn thing the Irish state could do about it.

my concern is that the Irish body politic likes and trumpets the up-side, but is reticent - not to say uttery misleading - about the downside.

ShotgunPaddy · 15-12-2009 2:36pm

OS119 wrote: »

i don't think there is a 'cheap' option. it sees to me that control over airspace is the absolute prerequisite of all conventional military operations, and modern fast jets, with AAR, AWACS and EW support have proven to be the only way that can be achieved. without it you may as well not turn up.

Having a defence 'strategy' without including airpower/AD seems is like having an Army without diesel, or communications - or a hospital without hygiene, anti-biotics and dressings. its just a complete waste of time...

The cheap solution is to abandon neutrality and join NATO. We could then host one NATO airbase and one NATO Naval base which should be enough to provide a deterrent. The Yanks would love us for this.

ShotgunPaddy · 15-12-2009 3:23pm

We might need our own airforce after all if the Brits go ahead with these cuts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6956635.ece

iceage · 15-12-2009 6:50pm

I reckon there'll be a few bargains on sale, just what Ireland needs. A few Tornadoes, one or two harriers and the odd Naval minesweeper to patrol the river Shannon......cheaper than an Aircraft carrier and a damned sight easier to park as well! I wonder how the Irish Navy would feel about a T class Sub? Wouldn't that be cool..:D

chem · 15-12-2009 7:58pm

iceage wrote: »

I wonder how the Irish Navy would feel about a T class Sub? Wouldn't that be cool..:D

Be cheaper to re-float afew of these!! Good few in Irish waters

http://www.irishwrecksonline.net/details/U260-948a.htm

http://www.irishwrecksonline.net/details/U89-945.htm

http://www.irishwrecksonline.net/details/U1003-948b.htm

mrmanire · 16-12-2009 5:36am

ShotgunPaddy wrote: »

The cheap solution is to abandon neutrality and join NATO. We could then host one NATO airbase and one NATO Naval base which should be enough to provide a deterrent. The Yanks would love us for this.

To be honest I am a highly militaristic person. If the Irish military entrance criteria were note so stringent I would not be nearly a British officer now. Anyway; the Irish military establishment has but two choices. We either join NATO and we are but are but are but a glorified anti submarine base.

Sorry about my language but we are the most the most independent non violent place in Europe the way we are are. Shannon airport is a US Air Force stopover. Damn right. **** it lads, Ireland is not is not going to have a sexy NATO fighter squadron but we are instrumental to NATO policy; neutral or not and I'm glad because I have no time for the Irish crusties.

OS119 · 16-12-2009 10:24am

mrmanire wrote: »

To be honest I am a highly militaristic person. If the Irish military entrance criteria were note so stringent I would not be nearly a British officer now. Anyway; the Irish military establishment has but two choices. We either join NATO and we are but are but are but a glorified anti submarine base.

Sorry about my language but we are the most the most independent non violent place in Europe the way we are are. Shannon airport is a US Air Force stopover. Damn right. **** it lads, Ireland is not is not going to have a sexy NATO fighter squadron but we are instrumental to NATO policy; neutral or not and I'm glad because I have no time for the Irish crusties.

it seems to me that 'neutral' Ireland's dependence on NATO and its geographic position give it the disadvantages of NATO membership without the corresponding advantages. no NATO funding on military infrastructure, no joint training, no mutual defence pact, no free/cheap equipment, no assembly-line priority for equipment procurement, no independant audit of effeciency or preparedness and half a million other things that would not only make Ireland's military a harder, sharper tool of state policy, but would probably make it cheaper to run - and yet Ireland (or more correctly its western airfields and ports) would still be on the target list of anyone fighting NATO.

close the Atlantic to NATO shipping - win. don't close the Atlantic to NATO shipping - lose.

twinytwo · 16-12-2009 3:32pm

ShotgunPaddy wrote: »

We might need our own airforce after all if the Brits go ahead with these cuts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6956635.ece

what kind of fantasy dream world are you living in?

OS119 · 17-12-2009 10:43am

twinytwo wrote: »

what kind of fantasy dream world are you living in?

actually quite a sensible one.

Nimrod is going out of service in 2012, and Nimrod MR4A won't come into service till 2014 (if ever, given its cost over-runs and that the RAF won't have done any MP for 2 years when the airframes turn up).

quite how much does the current Irish requirement for 2 MPA's rely on the UK having a flying Nimrod fleet?

while this bunch of cuts affects the MP and ground attack role, the next may impact on the AD role. given that we know that the IG depends on the RAF AD fleet for control/policing of Irish airspace, if the RAF AD capability is significantly reduced it will amost certainly compromise the ability of the RAF to cover Irish tasks as well as UK ones - hence the RoI perhaps needing to look at having an organic AD capability instead of relying on the defence budgets and priorities of states it has no control over...

twinytwo · 17-12-2009 3:16pm

OS119 wrote: »

actually quite a sensible one.

Nimrod is going out of service in 2012, and Nimrod MR4A won't come into service till 2014 (if ever, given its cost over-runs and that the RAF won't have done any MP for 2 years when the airframes turn up).

quite how much does the current Irish requirement for 2 MPA's rely on the UK having a flying Nimrod fleet?

while this bunch of cuts affects the MP and ground attack role, the next may impact on the AD role. given that we know that the IG depends on the RAF AD fleet for control/policing of Irish airspace, if the RAF AD capability is significantly reduced it will amost certainly compromise the ability of the RAF to cover Irish tasks as well as UK ones - hence the RoI perhaps needing to look at having an organic AD capability instead of relying on the defence budgets and priorities of states it has no control over...

i think it is fair to assume that ireland will never have an air force of note.. while yes we could do with more military spec helis, all the armchair generals can forgot about fighters etc. the cost /need cannot be justified.

OS119 · 18-12-2009 10:56am

i think its a balance that needs to be looked at. the current/old equation was 'very little chance of it being needed, and if it is the RAF has massive capacity and a good reason to help' - in 5 years time i wouldn't be remotely surprised if UK defence cuts meant that the equation would be 'probably little chance of it being needed, but if it is the RAF has no spare capacity so probably couldn't help if it wanted to'. that means the question needs to be looked again - the answer may turn out to be the same, but the situation regarding the RAF's ability to defend/police Irish airspece is changing, and therefore the assumptions based on the current situation need looking at again in that light.

BTW, i'd bet £50 that by 2015 the CVF and F-35 programs have been cancelled, Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR9 are out of service and the Typhoon programe is cut to 150 airframes. i believe that the UK will be moving out of high-end expeditionary warfare and won't be interested in, or able to, provide AD services to the RoI.

FunnyStuff · 18-12-2009 11:44pm

Morphéus wrote: »

did you just climb out of the boot of marty macfly's delorien?!

i want one

realismpol · 06-01-2010 4:02am

Oh dear your still banging on about this giraffe radar system as a viable air defence solution. I don't know wheither to laugh or cry at this suggestion. 3 million eh? Big time spending there for a complex and great system. Who said we are proud of getting things second hand and on the cheap. No siry top of the line for us!

Ok I agree its a great system for cold war type threats. Maybe because the system was i dunno designed in the 70's. But generally we do tend to stay about 20 years behind the rest of the world in terms of our military assets so it is to be expected. Reason being the great knock down prices you get on second hand and older equipment other countries no longer need! Wonder why though?

But I suppose for todays threat it would work just as well. Just make sure they phone you up and give you plenty of time to set up your 8 Viking tracked vehicles deployed in horizontal unison across the land. Take that Modern day terrorists! Ireland means business.

Just one question though. Does it come with 70's style shag carpeting?

concussion wrote: »

7 x Giraffe Radar mounted on Hagglunds Bv206 Vikings - 50 km range

6 x RBS 70 launchers
40 x Mk 2 Missiles (updated from the Mk 1 which were previously bought)
5 x Clip on Night Device (COND)

along with a simulator, Kongsberg radios and other ancilliaries. Total €3 million - a great deal.

concussion · 06-01-2010 11:19am

Do you have constructive criticism or are you just going to harp on about them being secondhand? Also, if you think that every other country has all their AD constantly ready you're deluded, intelligence will dictate the alert level for a countries defences and it's no different here.

Did you even read anything I posted after I mentioned acquiring the Giraffe 50's? The bits where I said that while our SHORAD is very much improved we still need a medium range system and a long range surveillance radars. Or the posts where I put forward how we could acquire that?

As for them being old, have a look at the link Steyr posted in the Mil Aviation thread - how old are the vast majority of combat aircraft in the world??

Edit -as for the carpeting. No it doesn't, probably because the radars are half the age you say they are :rolleyes:

Dublin_Gunner · 06-01-2010 11:25am

realismpol - can you think of 1 single threat to our national defence that would justify spending 100's of millions of modern air defence systems?

I certainly cannot. And I doubt anyone else on this thread could either.

Manic Moran · 06-01-2010 1:03pm

It's the ones you don't see coming that gets you.

Granted, hundreds of millions might be a bit overkill. A few tens of millions mightn't be a bad idea, though.

Just in case someone hijacks an airliner and decides to crash it into Shannon to kill lots of Americans or something. You'd think that at least dealing with renegade civil aircraft should be something within the capacity of a Defence Force.

NTM

Dublin_Gunner · 06-01-2010 1:07pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's the ones you don't see coming that gets you.

Granted, hundreds of millions might be a bit overkill. A few tens of millions mightn't be a bad idea, though.

Just in case someone hijacks an airliner and decides to crash it into Shannon to kill lots of Americans or something. You'd think that at least dealing with renegade civil aircraft should be something within the capacity of a Defence Force.

NTM

I'm sure our current systems would be well capable of intercepting a fairly slow moving airliner...

gunnerfitzy · 06-01-2010 1:38pm

lads lets get real.

Any country who has the capability to land significant troops on our shores will over-run the country. Such a country will also have air and naval supremacy.

Any one who disagrees with this should talk to some head doctors.

Government policy is that our AD capabilities are to provide point defence for VIPs etc. that is all it is going to be unless the regional situation changes considerably.

A simple cost/benefit analysis or more accurately a cost/risk assessment would show that the spending mentioned cannot be justified.

Remember also, the Irish people have very very little interest in defence matters and spending even an additional €1 million would be a very hard sell.

And even if all the AD defences in the world where concentrated in Ireland, no Taoiseach would give the order to shoot down an airliner!

Dublin_Gunner · 06-01-2010 2:23pm

gunnerfitzy - exactly who is going to though?

Even if there was any threat, they'd have to either come via the Atlantic / North Sea (from East) or straight through Europe.

They'd have a lot bigger fish to fry before they got anywhere near us in fairness.

Its complete and utter rubbish that anyone would have any real intention of ever invading us. Unless it was the Brits or the US, I'd say we're fairly safe.

Local-womanizer · 06-01-2010 2:35pm

Invasion by the reds or whoever is not the main threat.

Terriorist attacks are,is the country capable of dealing with any sort of well organised attack?I dont know tbh but I wouldent see the harm in the Goverment at least looking into the means of protecting the country when it comes to that sort of threat.

gunnerfitzy · 06-01-2010 2:54pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

gunnerfitzy - exactly who is going to though?

Even if there was any threat, they'd have to either come via the Atlantic / North Sea (from East) or straight through Europe.

They'd have a lot bigger fish to fry before they got anywhere near us in fairness.

Its complete and utter rubbish that anyone would have any real intention of ever invading us. Unless it was the Brits or the US, I'd say we're fairly safe.

I completely agree. The is no measurable threat of this happening. And I also agree that IF it were to happen that it most likely to be the UK or USA.

All the money and intelligence in the world is NOT going to stop a determined terrorist. TBH I'd be more favour of spending money on vastly improving emergency planning and services that WILL be needed in the event of a terrorist attack or national catastrophe rather than on ground based AD defences and intercept aircraft that may or may not even be utilised. It would be a bummer having shiny tornados or similar parked up in Bandonnel and a 737 illegally parked in Phoenix Park.

OS119 · 06-01-2010 3:05pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I'm sure our current systems would be well capable of intercepting a fairly slow moving airliner...

sadly they aren't - and a 'slow-moving airliner' moves rather faster than the fastest armed aircraft that the IAC operates.

thats fine (ish) as long as everyone understands the gamble that is being run while they spend the money that would otherwise go into the defence budget, but is it not a little concerning to you, an observer of the Irish defence scene, that that's obviously not the case?

concussion · 06-01-2010 3:22pm

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Invasion by the reds or whoever is not the main threat.

Terriorist attacks are,is the country capable of dealing with any sort of well organised attack?I dont know tbh but I wouldent see the harm in the Goverment at least looking into the means of protecting the country when it comes to that sort of threat.

We can push our AD out as far as we like but altitude is an issue - figure 5000m. Large airliners can't descend steeply in comparison to light aircraft so they have to begin their descent earlier. The disadvantage is that they might only be damaged and still get through to their target. I'd like if someone with more knowledge could comment on airline descent rates, it might help shed some light on the matter.

A rough example -
1000 m/min descent @ 250 kts (~7,700 metres/min)
-> 5 mins of descent while within max altitude of RBS 70

gunnerfitzy · 06-01-2010 3:51pm

concussion wrote: »

We can push our AD out as far as we like but altitude is an issue - figure 5000m. Large airliners can't descend steeply in comparison to light aircraft so they have to begin their descent earlier. The disadvantage is that they might only be damaged and still get through to their target. I'd like if someone with more knowledge could comment on airline descent rates, it might help shed some light on the matter.

A rough example -
1000 m/min descent @ 250 kts (~7,700 metres/min)
-> 5 mins of descent while within max altitude of RBS 70

The day any Taoiseach would have the b@lls to order one blown out of the sky, if we had the ability to do so, I'll eat the tail section!! Wouldn't happen! I would hold the belief that most politicians would prefer to deal with the mess on the ground rather than the decision to take it out in the air.

concussion · 06-01-2010 4:00pm

That's probably something we'll never know. There are far too many variables to make any guess as to what will or will not be ordered, so I'm going to focus on the technicalities of it.

gunnerfitzy · 06-01-2010 4:13pm

concussion wrote: »

That's probably something we'll never know. There are far too many variables to make any guess as to what will or will not be ordered, so I'm going to focus on the technicalities of it.

okey dokey

OS119 · 06-01-2010 5:10pm

range is an issue - an empty 747 weighs 200 metric tons, and on take-off could be carrying 200,000 litres of aviation fuel. 400 tons of metal and burning fuel doesn't just stop and fall out of the sky (on to a conveniently empty field) when a 1.5Kg RBS 70 warhead hits it.

even if such an aircraft got whacked by the entire inventory of SA missiles that the IA has, given the point-defence nature of those systems, 400 tons of burning hell would still hit Dublin city. now it might hit a suburb instead of O'Connell Street, but its going to do a shit-load of damage wherever it crashes.

if you want to avoid that, you need not only to intercept the aircraft well outside the city/target, but you need it to hit the ground well outside the city/target as well.

concussion · 06-01-2010 5:16pm

Totally agree OS119, and it highlights a major difference between conventional warfare and terror attack. (ie, where the remnants of the aircraft end up)

getz · 07-01-2010 3:50pm

i have been thinking long and hard about this,first who would be the country who would invade ireland ?none as far as i can see,there is always the possible factor of terrorist airliners ,the only other possibility would be if by chance a civil war broke out in the north,and some hothead nationalists in the irish goverment decided to invade the north to protect the republican element[like they planned a few years ago] the UK would have no choice,[a full legal UN right] to invade the south and remove the ruling goverment of the time, so the question is would they want to put up a fight ? if they would they would need some sort of defence,

OS119 · 07-01-2010 7:42pm

getz wrote: »

i have been thinking long and hard about this,first who would be the country who would invade ireland ?none as far as i can see,there is always the possible factor of terrorist airliners ,the only other possibility would be if by chance a civil war broke out in the north,and some hothead nationalists in the irish goverment decided to invade the north to protect the republican element[like they planned a few years ago] the UK would have no choice,[a full legal UN right] to invade the south and remove the ruling goverment of the time, so the question is would they want to put up a fight ? if they would they would need some sort of defence,

Ireland has been on the geographic front line of the most crucial battles in two cataclismic wars in the space of 20 years, followed by being on the geographic frontline of the most crucial battlespace of a threatened hyper-cataclismic war that lasted a further 50 years, it also had an insurgency, a state/state war, a civil war and then a 30 year civil war next door - all in living memory. anybody who thinks Ireland lives in a safe neighbourhood has got to be spreading 3lbs of crack on their cornflakes every morning.

my own views on any international conflict that Ireland might face are recorded earlier in the thread, but i think that anyone who rules out a resurgence of violence - whether terrorist in nature or just widespread civil disturbance - and a possible British unwillingness/inability to deal with it, or indeed in the nightmare scenario where soveriegnty rests with Dublin, is a fool. during the most troop intensive years of the 'troubles' the BA used 25,000 soldiers and 75 helicopters from a total force of 250,000 troops and 500 helicopters. the Irish state would struggle to field a total force of 15,000 an 6 helicopters - if the levels of violence/disturbance of the 70's occured post-reunification, the Irish state would be in very, very deep shit.

somebody needs to think about that.

Dublin_Gunner · 07-01-2010 8:55pm

OS119 wrote: »

Ireland has been on the geographic front line of the most crucial battles in two cataclismic wars in the space of 20 years, followed by being on the geographic frontline of the most crucial battlespace of a threatened hyper-cataclismic war that lasted a further 50 years, it also had an insurgency, a state/state war, a civil war and then a 30 year civil war next door - all in living memory. anybody who thinks Ireland lives in a safe neighbourhood has got to be spreading 3lbs of crack on their cornflakes every morning.

somebody needs to think about that.

I just thought about it.

If we didn't need significant defence through all of that front line and cold war stuff, we certainly don't need it now.

I think you just proved your own point invalid.

OS119 · 07-01-2010 10:53pm

on the contary, only lots of luck and skillfull politics kept Ireland out of the WWII battle of the Atlantic, it was involved in the WWI battle of the Atlantic, and we all know that both NATO and WARPAC had plans for Ireland in the event of WWIII's battle of the Atlantic - thats not an indication of a good plan that went well.

Irelands lack of military capability foiled Lynch's plan regarding the North - whether that would have been sensible or not - so yet another situation where a crisis that fundamentally affected the security, democracy, sovereignty, economy and politics of the state occured right on Irelands doorstep and yet Ireland was little more than a spectator while other states made the decisions - with no reference to Ireland - in their own interests.

thats not a ringing endorsement of a policy.

Dublin_Gunner · 07-01-2010 11:02pm

OS119 - with all respect, any military prowess we could have mustered, even if we had billions to throw at it, wouldn't have made a difference.

Where would we get the man power from?

OS119 · 08-01-2010 9:56am

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

OS119 - with all respect, any military prowess we could have mustered, even if we had billions to throw at it, wouldn't have made a difference.

Where would we get the man power from?

a funded, trained and legally protected reserve. the fact that the DoD chooses to configure the reserve in the most inefficient and unproductive model possible doesn't mean that a reserve - based perhaps on the USNG - and a smaller permanent force that was funded to a European average of 2.5% of GDP, (which would more than double the defence budget at a stroke) would provide a vastly greater military capability than the current model. it would allow the normal participation by its members in the civilian/private sector economy, and yet within two months or so of activation provide a fielded force that would make any state incursion onto Irish territory extremely unattractive.

there is an issue with how long a large reserve force can be mobilised before the economy grinds to a halt - as the Israelis can testify - but i don't see any option that doesn't have drawbacks...

realismpol · 13-01-2010 2:28am

well its like this see and this is the way i see it. You will not save everyone from getting hurt or reduce collateral damage if terrorists decide to hijack an aircraft and hit shannon or dublin or wherever they decide too. But the point is that your government or your military made the effort to defend your country with the most adequate defence mechansims available. There is no chance of our current fleet of aircraft even getting close to any jet engined airliner. So why did we buy them. Now thats a waste of money if ever i saw one. See thats the way we do things in this country. We play pretend. We bought them simply to give the illusion of capability but they can't defend our airspace.

The worst thing is that some people come on and actually try and justify their purchase with skewing of facts and trying to influence others into thinking they fullfill a role. They fullfill no role in terms of defence against modern day aerial threats.

Now you sit here and argue amongst each other till the cows come home but the there is no current defence tool available to the irish defence forces that can quickly enough mobilised to have any chance of stopping such a threat and we all know what vehicle the terrorists currently favour in terms of attack. Also would the taoiseach give the order to shoot down an aircraft if it was heading say in the general direction of the dail? You think mr cowen wouldn't. Come off it of course he would.The way some people in this country act towards military and military matters you'd swear they were afraid of their own shadows. You have an excuse for everything.

When jets are metioned out comes a long list of irish excuses everywhere from but 'our current fleet is fine', 'the hospitals and roads like', to 'but brian wouldn't give the order' so 'nahhh might as well spend the shillings on the triplanes' 'we're irish don't blow wind on us or we'll break into a million shards of glass'. Basically ive noticed one thing we'll use any excuse possible any one to justify not making a hard decision on something. Anything as long as we can be neutral and hide behind a rock whilst someone else does the hard work. If you want to know what modern ireland is all about thats it in a nutshell. 'Let someone else do it' Pure and utter selfishness and laziness.

Some people seem to think that we need a major fleet of jets and radar systems to defend against another country invading. Thats not the case nor will it ever be the case. No country is ever going to invade ireland. This is not about defending against that to which i agree we would be overwhelmed easily. This is about providing adequate defence mechanisms against modern day global threats. We are a part of the european union yet we aren't even prepared to defend our own skies.

To me its just spells out that the goverment and public alike in this country don't give a crap about defence really. Fact is we cannot defend our own airspace and that is eternally to our shame and the more some people keep harping on about how we have adequate defence mechanisms the more embarrassing it gets. In fairness i'd like to get an independent outside view on this im sure most independently minded military analysts or experts would agree on this.

concussion · 13-01-2010 10:14am

Who here is saying we have adequate AD systems?
The cost of purchasing, maintaining and running jets could not be met by the current Defence budget, by a long way. The last aircraft we had which was capable of meeting it's contemporary threat was the Spitfire, there's no point complaining about the PC-9's as we've had 50 years without an air-combat aircraft.

I also disagree that the RBS-70's play no role in modern AD - these systems are currently used by many countries around the world. They are specifically a short range/low level system and they do their job very well. In terms of mobilising them to meet a threat, they are no different to any other bit of kit - if there's a high threat they'll be pre-deployed, if not, they'll be stored away like the rest of the Steyrs, GPMG's, Javelins and 105 mm's. These systems are deployed several times a year in their primary role, which is more than most other systems we have.

realismpol · 13-01-2010 3:57pm

concussion wrote: »

Who here is saying we have adequate AD systems?
The cost of purchasing, maintaining and running jets could not be met by the current Defence budget, by a long way. The last aircraft we had which was capable of meeting it's contemporary threat was the Spitfire, there's no point complaining about the PC-9's as we've had 50 years without an air-combat aircraft.

Exactly so we just wasted 48 million on a bunch of aircraft that fullfill no role in terms of air defence and as light strike aircraft as they seem to be defined by the df they don't carry that role out either because that would imply they had a role against an aggressor.

So we are left with the issue of why we spent 48 million on 8 useless aircraft. The other reason was because they are listed as for training pilots. That would imply a natural progression onto other aircraft.

See the crux of the issue is not so much why we don't have jets. But why do we waste money on these types of equipment when clearly they would be useless against even small scale threats. Its because we always take the cheap option when procuring equipment and in this case the government decided out of embarrassment that they needed to try and pretend we had some sort of 'limited air defence'. Look you either have air defence or you don't. Waste of money. Its the same mularky with the aw139. Buy a civillian helicopter in limited numbers, paint it green and use it for a jack of all trades role. We all know the real helicopter that would have been most suited for the army and the one they wanted.

There is no other military in the world that would contemplate using this helicopter for military use because its not designed to be used in such a format. In fact the main other users of it are mainly either civillian or coast gaurd based. Not one other country in the world uses it for military use. Throwing a dab of green paint on a civillian helicopter, the government thinks it can fool the general public.

Also it can't fullfill a troop transport role abroad because the thing doesn't even have sand filters or armour. Another example of how we can't even buy the correct equipment for the correct role. But why did we buy it then? Simple answer because it was the cheapest, least aggressive looking option and can also be used as an air ambulance, coast gaurd, serve the needs of the governement i.e ferrying brian lenihan and co around the country for political point scoring, airshows and coming soon as a santa attraction for the kids(came close to be being used for this) and thats exactly what it has been used for.

Its a joke. We wasted money on these helicopters and we are renting helicopters in chad because the helicopters we did purchase can't be used over there. As you seen from the recent reports no doubt we have even managed to screw this renting of helicopters up with large amounts of money wasted. Such an absolute damming indication of how we do things. Banana republic. its a like a guy going to play a gig with a fisher price kids guitar.

Remmy · 31-01-2010 7:56pm

Would anyone know roughly how much would the price of lynx heli's stack up against that of the same number of those aw139's?

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Comments