Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

OS119 · 01-02-2010 12:11pm

Remmy wrote: »

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?

difficult to say, the Lynx/wildcat has been bought at £1bn for 70 airframes, (later reduced to 62), but without knowing the full spec of the contract - manufacturer support, engines, servicing, planned refurbishment etc... - its difficult to gauge that in comparrision to a much smaller purchace of AW139's that are unlikely to have some of the expensive extras that the BA/RN are going to want on their helicopters - marinisation, 'desertisation', Defensive Aids Suites, offensive systems...

apples and oranges, both in terms of the delivered product and the nature of the contract - bear in mind that the UK buys from westlands not just the helicopter, but an indiginous ability to build helicopters and the survival (and taxes from exports) of a significant part of british manufactuing industry.

Sterling Archer · 02-02-2010 3:45am

Wow this is a long topic,

But if i could peal this back a bit from TERROR, shouldn't we have a better maritime patrol program, i'd assume that the Air corps are raking up a good few hours on the casa's flying over all the water the we have, i mean it's a large area and having to fly across the country just to start a patrol isn't ideal either, frankly it doesn't make sense. If we had a few more aircraft, couldn't we observe any treat to Ireland and direct a naval vessel to it, for example the import of drugs (or for the those looking for something else see -bold word above- materials for terror against of neighbors)

Wouldn't it make sense for the USAFE to have a base in Ireland, (technically Shannon is a kind of drop-in base) wouldn't a base at Shannon, eg. half military half civil work, it would greatly improve there ability to assist the United States Fleet Forces Command given that Shannon airport is only a stones throw away from the Atlantic, and as most people know it would be better for ships and fishermen in distress given the range of there aircraft.

OS119 · 02-02-2010 9:12am

a significant increase in Irish MP/ISR cabability would be a good thing, not only would it mean greater security for Home waters (anti-Drug smuggling, fisheries protection etc), but a clever platform choice would also be deployable, both in support of land-based Army operations and NS contributions to multi-national maritime operations - Anti-Piracy operations off the East and West coasts of Africa for instance...

the ideal platorm for such operations are modern UAV's - RQ-9 reapers can stay airborne for 36 hrs and can be operated with modular sensor fits - so one platform could spend half its life over the eastern Atlantic with a FLIR, streaming visual cameras, a Sea Search radar and a dropping rescue pod, and the other half over Chad with FLIR, a SIGINT/COMINT package, streaming visual cameras and a pair of Hellfire missiles.

added to which, the vastly greater endurance of UAV's not only means that 3 airframes - or possibly only 2 for a short time - could give a 'one in the air at all times' capability, something you'd need 6 CASA's for, as well as needing fewer crews, given that UAV's are semi-autonomous and are 'flown' from air-conditioned offices with toilets and a burger-king next door.

same price (ish).

vastly greater endurance.

doesn't matter if you lose one.

multi-role.

fewer crews.

and if you strip all the maritime patrol kit from a CASA 235 you have a useful tactical transport capability...

mrmanire · 03-02-2010 1:33am

Shane_ef wrote: »

Wow this is a long topic,

But if i could peal this back a bit from TERROR, shouldn't we have a better maritime patrol program, i'd assume that the Air corps are raking up a good few hours on the casa's flying over all the water the we have, i mean it's a large area and having to fly across the country just to start a patrol isn't ideal either, frankly it doesn't make sense. If we had a few more aircraft, couldn't we observe any treat to Ireland and direct a naval vessel to it, for example the import of drugs (or for the those looking for something else see -bold word above- materials for terror against of neighbors)

Wouldn't it make sense for the USAFE to have a base in Ireland, (technically Shannon is a kind of drop-in base) wouldn't a base at Shannon, eg. half military half civil work, it would greatly improve there ability to assist the United States Fleet Forces Command given that Shannon airport is only a stones throw away from the Atlantic, and as most people know it would be better for ships and fishermen in distress given the range of there aircraft.

Irish neutrality? Joining NATO aside; if the Americans wanted to use such a base to support US Fleet Forces Command; would it not make more sense to open a Naval Air Station.

I think ye have been playing a bit too much Command and Conquer there lads. You're forgetting real life budget cuts, politics, public opinion, reality, etc, etc....

Not having a massive military force because it just isn't needed is not necessarily a bad thing.

Original Steyr · 03-02-2010 4:08pm

Shane_ef wrote: »

, and as most people know it would be better for ships and fishermen in distress given the range of there aircraft.

Well at least thats sensible having a HH-60G Pavehawk or two from LN based there, and maybe a based Herc tanker as they have been involved in Ops way way out in the Atlantic via air to air refuelling, and end up rcovering to EINN anyway before rtb.

http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=1727

Sea Rescue

A sailor, from the cargo ship Pascha, is hoisted aboard an HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter from the 56th Rescue Squadron at RAF Lakenheath, England, June 26. The sailor was experiencing severe abdominal pain, requiring immediate medical evacuation. Two additional U.S. Air Force aircraft, a KC-135R Stratotanker from the 100th Air Refueling Wing and a MC-130P Combat Shadow from the 352nd Special Operations Group -- both from nearby RAF Mildenhall -- supported the operation for refueling and communication purposes. A Nimrod, search and rescue aircraft, from the United Kingdom also played a critical role in the operation, providing real time communication and coordination between the ship and USAF aircraft. The patient was delivered to an awaiting ambulance in Shannon, Ireland, and is in stable condition. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Jay Reinschi.)

OS119 · 03-02-2010 4:51pm

Original Steyr wrote: »

Well at least thats sensible having a HH-60G Pavehawk or two from LN based there, and maybe a based Herc tanker as they have been involved in Ops way way out in the Atlantic via air to air refuelling, and end up rcovering to EINN anyway before rtb.

while such a deployment/capability would entirely make sense from a very narrow perspective, but what does the US get out of it?

they aren't going to go to the expense and hassle - not to mention the command and control issues - of basing a C-130, 3 HH-60G's and god knows how many support personell at Shannon just because the Irish Coast Guard can't be arsed to pay for a capability that has been around for donkeys years.

if you want a capability you have to pay for it, and if not in cash then in kind - and the US isn't doing that kind of favour without serious payback.

so what would you - and the wider Irish political scene - give them in exchange for this asset being based in Ireland?

Original Steyr · 03-02-2010 8:59pm

OS119 wrote: »

so what would you - and the wider Irish political scene - give them in exchange for this asset being based in Ireland?

God only knows, unless they fancy LL on the west coast.

OS119 · 03-02-2010 9:39pm

one wonders how much, in a surely civilian SAR context, an AAR capability would cost - particularly in the context of a joint UK/ROI SAR contract.

you'd need a maritime patrol/SAR overwatch airframe with a probe/drogue AAR system - maybe a CASA 235 could do the job...

BullyBeef · 04-02-2010 5:01pm

I am not sure it’s a balanced way of comparisons , but just using the on line figures from wikipedia it looks like Ireland is either loosing money on other fronts or spent it on what’s seen as other priorities , of course also the status of a neutral force possibly has different objectives & so by process has differing commitments to fulfil ,alternatively of course would be similar figures for what the government & politicians themselves devour. In serving the people.

Total New Zealand population 4,331,600 Sep 09
http://www.investnewzealand.govt.nz/section/14341.aspx
New Zealand Defence Force

Military age 17 years of age for voluntary military service; soldiers cannot be deployed until the age of 18 (2001)
Available for military service
984,700 males, age 17-49 (2005),

965,170 females, age 17-49 (2005)
Fit for military service
809,519 males, age 17-49 (2005),
802,069 females, age 17-49 (2005)
Reaching military age annually
29,738 males (2005),
28,523 females (2005)
Active personnel 9,051[1] (ranked 129) Reserve personnel 2,240
Deployed personnel 672 (as 9 December at 2008)
Budget NZ$1.7 Billion (2006-07) Percent of GDP 1%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_New_Zealand

Ireland
Total population. 4,460,000 2009 estimate
Available for military service
977,092 males,
age 15–49,978,465 (2005 est.)
[1] females, age 15–49
Fit for military service
814,768 males, age 15–49,
813,981 (2005 est.) females, age 15–49
Reaching military age annually N/A
Active personnel 9,981[1]
Reserve personnel 12,348[2]
Budget FY 2008 - ranked 59th
USD $1.56 billion (FY00/08
Percent of GDP 0.7% (FY00/07)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Defence_Forces

List of countries by military expenditure as a percentage of GDP
List of countries by military expenditures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Klunk001 · 07-02-2010 11:25pm

"they aren't going to go to the expense and hassle - not to mention the command and control issues - of basing a C-130, 3 HH-60G's and god knows how many support personell at Shannon just because the Irish Coast Guard can't be arsed to pay for a capability that has been around for donkeys years."

This thread is beginning to drift, but Why on earth would the IRCG need this type of capability when their area of responsibilty is this.

http://www.transport.ie/marine/IRCG/SearchRescue/index.asp?lang=ENG&loc=2101

How many times in the last ten years has this type of long range taskings (greater than 200nm and out side IRCG area of responcibility) had to be carried out. In fact as I understand it, one of the recent long range jobs carried out by the USAF ended up been completed within the range of an IRCG heli it took that long to organise logistically.

Original Steyr · 09-02-2010 1:08am

Klunk001 wrote: »

How many times in the last ten years has this type of long range taskings (greater than 200nm and out side IRCG area of responcibility) had to be carried out. In fact as I understand it, one of the recent long range jobs carried out by the USAF ended up been completed within the range of an IRCG heli it took that long to organise logistically.

While i dont know how many times it's ben carried out i do know that RAF SeaKings have had to do the job for the IRCG sometimes as the S-61N doesnt have the range of a SeaKing.

Klunk001 · 09-02-2010 12:07pm

Both RAF and RN sea kings do have greater range, they have transited through and refuelled within the IRCG SAR region enroute to areas within Falmouth CG and Glyde's CG responsibility.
IRCG heli's have indeed been offered on occasion to carry out taskings in these areas as it would be quicker than sending a cab from the Uk but have been kindly refused by the UK (a medevac off the QE2 which was off Cork but within Falmouths area comes to mind).
The current fleet of heli's used by the IRCG are perfectly capable of carrying out a tasking anywhere within the current SAR region.

Original Steyr · 09-02-2010 4:49pm

Klunk001 wrote: »

The current fleet of heli's used by the IRCG are perfectly capable of carrying out a tasking anywhere within the current SAR region.

While true it still would make sense for a HH60G base and associated equipment at EINN for the far out SAR Ops that occasionaly take place in the Atlantic.

OS119 · 09-02-2010 6:15pm

i'm not sure i'd agree that the S-61N has more than enough endurance to cope with the 200nm mile (370Km) SARR - while the headline range of a S-61N (830Km) is obviously more than enough to cope with a 'there and back again flight', it doesn't leave an awful lot for a search pattern, the rescue itself, diversionary fuel, as well as a reserve so the engines don't go 'cough cough' when the aircraft is 150ft above the landing site.

and its certainly not a big margin at 3am on a febuary night in a blizzard with 70mph westerly winds and no top cover...

i'm assuming that the ICG CHC helis will be uprated to the S-92/AW139 mix of the UKCG at some stage - as much to make CHC's life easier as anything else - and obviously both have ranges around the 1000km mark, so that issue is going to be mitigated. however there is a moral/political issue with being so fastidious about the 370Km SARR: Ireland has never been backward in asking others for help in managing its own territorial waters (EU funding for Irish patrol vessels, RAF Nimrods for Top Cover, RAF/RN Sea Kings for rescues) so i'd suggest that an attitude now of 'well, we've done our bit' might not be a particularly attractive response...

i certainly think that the UKCG needs to look a little harder at its responsibilities with regard to the 1200NM UKSARR, and Helicopters with a AAR capability seem to be the only logical option towards bridging that gap - and a joint RoI/UK SAR contract does seem logical given the SARR interface and the fact that the same company operates both sets of helis...

Original Steyr · 09-02-2010 6:28pm

While were on the topic of SAR, CHC ( Soteria ) won the UK SAR Contract. Wont be long until the winner for Ireland is too.

http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/5310/sar-h-and-the-winner-is/

SAR-H: And the winner is...

February 09, 2010
Soteria has been announced as the preferred bidder of the UK's Search and Rescue Helicopter (SAR-H) contract.
The consortium, made up of CHC, Thales and the Royal Bank of Scotland, was announced as the bidder of choice for the £6 billion Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in Parliament today, following the launch of the programme in 2006.
Soteria will be awarded the contract later in 2010.
The joint Department for Transport (DfT) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) contract will end the involvement of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy in Search and Rescue operations and new fleet of SAR-equipped Sikorsky S-92s purchased by the bidder will operate under the banner of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), although some military aircrew, roughly 66, will be retained to operate a handful of the new helicopters.

Two-thirds of the money to pay for the PFI will come from the Ministry of Defence, the other third from the Department for Transport.
Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said: 'I am delighted to announce that the Soteria Consortium has been chosen as the Preferred Bidder for the Search and Rescue Helicopter (SAR-H) project.
'The new service, which will begin with a phased introduction which is anticipated to begin in 2012, will bring together the current Search and Rescue helicopter provision into one highly effective and harmonised service under a single contract providing the British taxpayer with an excellent service for many years to come.
'The future service will benefit from modern, fast, reliable helicopters and will continue to operate from 12 bases in order to ensure that it provides a fully effective SAR service.'

He said the choice of a PfI structure for the provision of SAR services was not 'driven by a cost savings agenda' and the drive was simply on providing a better, more modern service.
Soteria bid director, David Rae said: 'Soteria will work in partnership with the MoD and DfT, and other SAR and civil resilience stakeholders, to ensure that the UK’s history of providing a world leading SAR service is assured and enhanced through the introduction of modern technology in the form of the Sikorsky S92.'
Speaking to Rotorhub.com, he said he was satisfied with the bidding process pointing out this was the first major PFI that CHC has gone into.
'Our next step will be close the finance and finalise the contract. Now that we have preferred bidder status we can raise the funds that we have been negotiating for with financial institutions over the last 18 months and we don't foresee any issues.'

Rae said in the coming months, the bidding teams would meet with the SAR-H Integrated Project Team to discuss their decision and findings, but said: 'If you look at the strengths of our team, CHC is a major, global helicopter operator with search and rescue as one of its core activities, Thales is a major defence contractor with experience in training and RBS with their financial nous, I have a balanced team working very well together.'
Paul Clark, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport, said: 'The new harmonised service is an excellent opportunity to build upon the high regard that the UK SAR service is so rightly held. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency manage a SAR service from their four bases that has already been successfully delivered by a contractor for over 20 years and the new service will build on this proven track record.'

A spokeswoman for the AirKnight team said: 'The AirKnight team is disappointed that we have not been selected to provide the Search and Rescue Helicopter programme, however both Lockheed Martin UK and VT Group, look forward to continuing to deliver critical programmes to the Ministry of Defence and Department for Transport.'
Soteria would not comment on the number of helicopters which will be used, but Quentin Davies said the contractor had indicated there would likely be at least two helicopters based at each of the 12 bases around the UK.

Details released by the government say that the service will continue to be managed by the MOD and MCA and tasking will continue to be allocated by the Aeronautical Rescue and Co-Ordination Centre located at RAF Kinloss.

The new service will be phased in progressively taking over site by site, anticipated to start in 2012. The four MCA bases will transition to the new service first and will be followed by the eight MOD bases. The detailed timetable will be finalised as part of concluding the contract.
The new fleet will introduce a single black and orange livery which will according to the government: maximise visibility, signal that this is an emergency service, represent the MOD and MCA by including the RAF, RN and MCA insignia on all helicopters and maximise flexibility by being a single colour scheme.

Among the tough conditions set by the team are a 98% level of availability for the aircraft and the retainment of all 12 current SAR bases. The bid teams also have to be able to carry out 12 missions concurrently.
Aircraft have to launch within 15 minutes during the day, within 45 minutes at night and have to be able to reach all 'Very High Risk Areas' and 75% of 'Medium Risk Areas' within 60 minutes, the service also has to have the ability to surge aircraft when required.
By Tony Osborne and Tony Skinner - Rotorhub.com Editorial Team

Klunk001 · 09-02-2010 10:07pm

The IRCG SARR will in all probability will increase over the next couple of years, and with that so will heli capability including range. In all likelihood it will be one heli type (logistically simpler).
As I understand it, the AW139 has been found wanting in the UK SAR role and will be replaced with S-92 in the new Uk contract.
As I mentioned in a previous post, on more that one occasion IRCG heli's have been offered to carry out taskings in both Falmouth and Clyde SARR and not used. All you can do is offer.

Steyr · 08-04-2010 7:35pm

Quick question, there has been talk here before of if there ever were IAC Fighters etc they would need dedicated ground Radar etc im just wondering in this modern age is this really necessary, would it not just as easily work with modern Aircraft using their onboard Radar along with already established Radar such as the likes of EINN/EIDW/EICK and to a lesser extent the Radar System at Baldonnel?

When RAF Typhoons/Tornado's go up from their QRA base in the UK is there much chatter between them and ground based Radar other than Radar Controllers saying they need something checked out and giving them the co-ordinates and then letting them do the work?

sxt · 08-04-2010 7:46pm

And another Q:o -Is this true?...A number of years ago,France offered to give Ireland a pair of f16s but Ireland declined siting the fact that they could not afford to train the pilots and the running costs involved

concussion · 08-04-2010 8:19pm

Steyr wrote: »

Quick question, there has been talk here before of if there ever were IAC Fighters etc they would need dedicated ground Radar etc im just wondering in this modern age is this really necessary, would it not just as easily work with modern Aircraft using their onboard Radar along with already established Radar such as the likes of EINN/EIDW/EICK and to a lesser extent the Radar System at Baldonnel?

When RAF Typhoons/Tornado's go up from their QRA base in the UK is there much chatter between them and ground based Radar other than Radar Controllers saying they need something checked out and giving them the co-ordinates and then letting them do the work?

If the fighters are guided by ground radar they are less likely to be detected by their targets. As for the need for a dedicated military radar, I couldn't tell you the capabilities of the current systems.

sxt wrote: »

And another Q:o -Is this true?...A number of years ago,France offered to give Ireland a pair of f16s but Ireland declined siting the fact that they could not afford to train the pilots and the running costs involved

Specifically, that wouldn't make sense as France doesn't operate F16's and 2 airframes wouldn't be enough to work with. Broadly speaking, the cost vs. benefit of jets for Ireland has been done to death a few times here - I think the general consensus is that they're too expensive for the work that they'd be doing.

Steyr · 08-04-2010 8:20pm

sxt wrote: »

And another Q:o -Is this true?...A number of years ago,France offered to give Ireland a pair of f16s but Ireland declined siting the fact that they could not afford to train the pilots and the running costs involved

You Sir have been HAD, France dont Operate F-16 Vipers. Europe has alot of F-16 Operators but France is not one of them.

unclecessna · 14-04-2010 5:21pm

The answer regarding a dedicated ground based military radar network is yes as onboard radar equipment in Interceptor Aircraft are limited in their range despite their sophistication.
The radars used in civil airports work on a slightly different principle to military radars so they would only be of limited use in aiding interceptors engage a target that has turned it's transponder off.

punchdrunk · 15-04-2010 8:53pm

what is true is that we were offered as good as-free Huey's post Vietnam
but we declined for if I remember correctly "neutrality reasons" :rolleyes:

concussion · 15-04-2010 9:17pm

Why would they have been turned down for neutrality reasons? Our Defence Force operates military equipment all the time, even weapons sometimes.

punchdrunk · 15-04-2010 9:32pm

concussion wrote: »

Why would they have been turned down for neutrality reasons? Our Defence Force operates military equipment all the time, even weapons sometimes.

because we couldn't be seen to be taking military assistance from the Americans,so I'm told anyway

concussion · 15-04-2010 10:29pm

One quick example of a US weapon system used by the DF is Javelin - is it ok to buy from US weapons companies but not accept equipment from the US military? Buying or accepting equipment from NATO countries is not a problem, we obtained our L70's from the Dutch in 2003.

Sorry if I seem a bit arguemental but I've heard plenty of stories about how we were offered tanks/battleships/fighters/aircraft carriers from the Americans/Soviets/French but we couldn't take them for neutrality reasons so I'm a little sceptical. The more likely reason is we didn't need them, thought we didn't need them or wouldn't be able to operate them effectively if we got them.

punchdrunk · 15-04-2010 10:43pm

concussion wrote: »

One quick example of a US weapon system used by the DF is Javelin - is it ok to buy from US weapons companies but not accept equipment from the US military? Buying or accepting equipment from NATO countries is not a problem, we obtained our L70's from the Dutch in 2003.

Sorry if I seem a bit arguemental but I've heard plenty of stories about how we were offered tanks/battleships/fighters/aircraft carriers from the Americans/Soviets/French but we couldn't take them for neutrality reasons so I'm a little sceptical. The more likely reason is we didn't need them, thought we didn't need them or wouldn't be able to operate them effectively if we got them.

the 70's were a very different political climate to the modern day
my dad was an NCO in heli's at the time and my uncle is in military archives
so I'm pretty sure the offer was legit

and true they were probably ex-nam flown to **** war birds

concussion · 15-04-2010 10:49pm

Thanks for that; I'm still highly dubious myself though

B 52 · 05-08-2010 3:31am

at the start of this someone said that the british are our closest ally so they must be high they nearly re-invaded during ww2 they have come across the border before without permission were always hostile to innocent catholics in n ireland you may have herd of bloody sunday it got to the stage where lynch wanted to invade the north [I USE THE TERM INVADE LOSELY AN ITS OUR OWN COUNTRY] they are our ONLY enemy we have and should be treatd with a degree of hostility but not enough to prevoke an engament and there are some jets ireland could afford that like the northrop f5 for $2.1 million each max speed 1060mph and some decent guns rockets and missels not ideal but a vast improvement check it out on wiki

cyrusdvirus · 05-08-2010 8:04am

You have 2 posts on 2 threads both of which are giving prices for units of hardware, but what about the infrastructure? All these pieces of hardware need backing up, and THAT is where the big cost is.

As for the F-5, have they not stopped making them? Isn't it the F-20 Tigershark now??

You refer to a cost of $2.1 Million per unit..... If you look at the notes provided on the article you quoted from, that figure was taken from a book, Knaack, Marcelle Size. Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems: Volume 1, Post-World War II Fighters, 1945-1973. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1978.
So even your base figures are wrong!!

Manic Moran · 05-08-2010 4:22pm

I don't believe that Tigershark is currently being marketed.

NTM

cyrusdvirus · 05-08-2010 4:31pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe that Tigershark is currently being marketed.

NTM

Sorry MM, you're right, the tigershark never hit production.

Either way my point in reference to the prices quoted stand, using 1978 prices in a 2010 discussion is irrelevant.

Fratton Fred · 16-08-2010 10:41am

just to divert this thread slightly, I think the current humanitarian situation in Pakistan should cause Ireland a degree of embarrassment.

For years Ireland was bragging about it's new found wealth and how the economic miracle had made it the wealthiest country in the world. To me, wealth has responsibilities and one of those should be assisting poorer countries when they need it. If Ireland had decent air force (or corp, call it what you like) then it would be able to assist in the distribution of supplies to the affected areas of Pakistan, but as it stands, it is completely unable to do so.

All this talk about jet fighters is lovely, but a reasonable airlift capability wouldn't go amiss and would obviously help out a great deal in UN missions. Even if it was just a few reasonable helicoptors.

In reality Ireland doesn't need to defend itself, there is no one to defend against and geographically, there are several other ountries who would be more than willing to step in, but in return, Ireland should be able to pull it's weight when it comes to it's UN/humanitarian role.

danboom · 23-08-2010 3:59pm

hey guys im new to this,am just wondering what the working times of a navy officer are,say after a few months of service or a few years into it,just cant seem to find the information anywhere,no one knows even guys in the df that i know are unsure,i was told a month on month of is how they operate,is that correct,and do navy officers have to stay at the base on weekends? cheers

Steyr · 24-08-2010 11:20pm

danboom wrote: »

hey guys im new to this,am just wondering what the working times of a navy officer are,say after a few months of service or a few years into it,just cant seem to find the information anywhere,no one knows even guys in the df that i know are unsure,i was told a month on month of is how they operate,is that correct,and do navy officers have to stay at the base on weekends? cheers

?

Lorelei · 29-08-2010 9:35am

Since 1923 there has been and still is a treaty between the UK and the Republic of Ireland in which the UK will supply and assist where required air and sea forces in defence of Irish Sea and Air space.
As to not being able to trust the Brits even during the sabre rattling in the seventies there was no talk of the UK withdrawing from the treaty.
Of course this treaty means that anyone intending to attack Ireland as soon as they engage any british plane or ship they have attacked a member of NATO and therefore NATO itself.

Lantus · 30-08-2010 9:42am

Ireland is such a small country it will never be a world power from a military perspective because it can never generate enough revenue to sustain the required spending.

Secondly the government has no political will to start sending Irish troops into combat and no irish troops have done so especially as the government did it's upmost to ensure neutral status meaning it can weasel out of any future conflict. Armed forces that don't fight are inneffective and size is irrelavent.

Thirdly, Ireland doesn'tneed a massive armed forces. It's surrounded by countries like britain, germany, france etc with massive army's, air forces and navy's, if anything kicks off the combined forces or Ireland will make no difference. In fact if anything I would think a reduction in armed spending would be more beneficial.

Manic Moran · 31-08-2010 6:26am

Secondly the government has no political will to start sending Irish troops into combat and no irish troops have done so

Would you like to qualify that statement? Words like 'recently' or 'Non-ARW' might be appropriate.

NTM

Zambia · 31-08-2010 7:10am

Lantus wrote: »

Ireland is such a small country it will never be a world power from a military perspective because it can never generate enough revenue to sustain the required spending.

Secondly the government has no political will to start sending Irish troops into combat and no irish troops have done so especially as the government did it's upmost to ensure neutral status meaning it can weasel out of any future conflict. Armed forces that don't fight are inneffective and size is irrelavent.

Thirdly, Ireland doesn'tneed a massive armed forces. It's surrounded by countries like britain, germany, france etc with massive army's, air forces and navy's, if anything kicks off the combined forces or Ireland will make no difference. In fact if anything I would think a reduction in armed spending would be more beneficial.

Well your gonna fit right in around here...

Lets just hand all aspects of irish defence over to other countrys because hey its all just too hard.

Dublin_Gunner · 31-08-2010 10:07am

Lantus wrote: »

Ireland is such a small country it will never be a world power from a military perspective because it can never generate enough revenue to sustain the required spending.

Secondly the government has no political will to start sending Irish troops into combat and no irish troops have done so especially as the government did it's upmost to ensure neutral status meaning it can weasel out of any future conflict. Armed forces that don't fight are inneffective and size is irrelavent.

Thirdly, Ireland doesn'tneed a massive armed forces. It's surrounded by countries like britain, germany, france etc with massive army's, air forces and navy's, if anything kicks off the combined forces or Ireland will make no difference. In fact if anything I would think a reduction in armed spending would be more beneficial.

This is a perfect example of posting about a topic you know little about.

Particularly the points in bold IMO.

Avgas · 31-08-2010 3:15pm

Reducing military expenditure for a micro-state like Ireland would have to mean either cutting pay massively, and its already very low for basic privates I understand, and everyone else after pension levies (etc.), or else simply firing people. You would increase the dole numbers by 5 or 7,000?

Are you actively trying to get the prize for us to reach 500,000 unemployed before Christmas?

BTW I'm in favour of a smaller PDF, say 5-7,000 rather than 10,000(-) today, BUT with a larger and better RDF and achieved slowly over time. We have a tiny spend on military hardware and in fact we should be spending more to do the rather limited jobs we need to have done to provide security in all its guises. Because we're broke that can't simply happen any time soon.

Perhaps if some of even this limited spend was directed towards Irish firms or starts up-defence companies (maybe even in-house developments built at cost by DF units?) that could be positive for long-term economic growth?

Both Singapore and Israel have used domestic 'wasted' spending on military technology and manufacturing to further their civilian side competitiveness in electronics and computing, etc. Oh...and .....Boeing would never have been able to build or sell their 707 jet without first getting paid to build the B47 bomber first.

Just two examples which suggest links between higher defence spending and long term economic growth are much more complex, and sometimes quite positive, than you crudely suggest.

Now i'm off to rig up the lawnmower engine to my home made UAV.

Kiki10 · 01-12-2010 5:05am

The idea or Ireland been a military power is on one hand scary and the the other hand sad.

The scary side is I wouldn't let Fianna Fail in charge of a wheelbarrow not to mind a functioning military that doesn't see nepotism as its main function.

The sad side is we don't even trust the citizens of this country to own full-bore handguns, if we had a properly equipped military they wouldn't be allowed ammo or beynouts in case some one got injured!

This country is a joke, its the only country in the world where your considered subversive if you know the words to your national anthem. The sentry's on Gard duty outside Army camps are unarmed. The police give instruction to the military. The industrialists are not allowed to produce arms & ammunitions. If the anyone ever did invade the national plan is to surrender, i suppose there is a logic that fianna fail would break any invaders financially by constantly bumming money and not paying it back!

Lads we need to have a political sex change in this country to allow a military. That goes for our failures in business too. The reason Germany still is the home of big German company's is there are proud of there country. Pride here is subversive, anti government. When Ireland's balls drop maybe we will have a military but there isn't even a sign of hair yet!

concussion · 01-12-2010 1:24pm

Kiki10 wrote: »

beynouts

Are they like doughnuts?

Steyr · 01-12-2010 5:44pm

Kiki10 wrote: »

The idea or Ireland been a military power is on one hand scary and the the other hand sad.

The scary side is I wouldn't let Fianna Fail in charge of a wheelbarrow not to mind a functioning military that doesn't see nepotism as its main function.

The sad side is we don't even trust the citizens of this country to own full-bore handguns, if we had a properly equipped military they wouldn't be allowed ammo or beynouts in case some one got injured!

This country is a joke, its the only country in the world where your considered subversive if you know the words to your national anthem. The sentry's on Gard duty outside Army camps are unarmed. The police give instruction to the military. The industrialists are not allowed to produce arms & ammunitions. If the anyone ever did invade the national plan is to surrender, i suppose there is a logic that fianna fail would break any invaders financially by constantly bumming money and not paying it back!

Lads we need to have a political sex change in this country to allow a military. That goes for our failures in business too. The reason Germany still is the home of big German company's is there are proud of there country. Pride here is subversive, anti government. When Ireland's balls drop maybe we will have a military but there isn't even a sign of hair yet!

I await the Reply of Posters like MM/OS119 etc

OS119 · 01-12-2010 10:57pm

Kiki10 wrote: »

...When Ireland's balls drop maybe we will have a military but there isn't even a sign of hair yet!

it was never a matter of pride, it was the unholy union of sanctimonious arses who decided that Ireland and the Irish were above the petty squabbles of the world - well, they might do some peacekeeping now and again - but they themselves were above the vulgar 'resource wars' and things like survival and principle that other, lesser peoples got themselves involved in, and a realisiation amongst politicians (probably some of the same sanctimonious arses) that not having a foreign policy that might offend anyone overseas meant you could avoid controversy at home, and spending fcuk all on the DF meant there was more money for parish pump bribery and corruption politics.

Avgas · 03-12-2010 11:54am

A bit simplistic don't you think OS119?

Your anger seems to be directed at Ireland's nebulous policy of neutrality. Agreed that policy is ambiguous, at times openly hypocritical-in other words quite like the diplomacy that many small states have to engage in to survive. Agreed that policy has provided a lack of focus for the DF over the years which has in turn resulted in a lack of resources or even just a clear doctrine.

However, there are understandable historical reasons for why our Defence and Foreign policies are the way they are. Moreover, there is evidence that 'neutrality' is broadly popular with the general public, i.e. it reflects the democratic wishes of the Irish people, more or less. The only political party that has openly toyed with dumping neutrality is Fine Gael-all others are more or less for the status quo. Conversely, any open decision to join NATO would likely be unpopular and if put to a straight vote would likely fail-although I'll concede that I've no polling data to back that up-just my opinion.

If anything, recent events in Ireland will confirm IRISH NATIONALIST sentiment broadly, and will IMHO increase the growing unease with the entire EU-indeed we could be looking at a return to more autarkic/isolationist policies of the 1930s-1950s!

In any event the issue had been side-stepped by 'events'.

Joining an actual formal defence alliance (whether NATO, WEU or EU if it so chooses) matters less-participating in joint peacekeeping and joint procurement is actually where its at. That is what Lisbon more or less means and that is a stable and viable policy.

There are other European 'neutrals'-so our position is not that odd or isolated.
Equally there are NATO members who have many political caveats about how their troops are used, where, when and how-and these would make the Irish 'hang ups' seem positively normal.

Finally, the core mission of our DF is INTERNAL SECURITY OF THE STATE FROM SUBVERSION. That has historically been the real and major threat, with narrow exceptions. Indeed, upholding the authority of the state internally is what most small states have their militaries for. Perfectly valid and sensible. Horses for courses.

Your looking at us just from your particular perspective maybe a bit too much?

BTW has anyone heard anything about the promised DEFENCE WHITE PAPER?

It will I suppose be underwhelming in its irrelevance.
Pity, as this is a good time to rethink things and find innovative was to work within our huge constraints.

OS119 · 03-12-2010 9:52pm

Avgas wrote: »

Finally, the core mission of our DF is INTERNAL SECURITY OF THE STATE FROM SUBVERSION. That has historically been the real and major threat, with narrow exceptions. Indeed, upholding the authority of the state internally is what most small states have their militaries for. Perfectly valid and sensible. Horses for courses.

except that its not a horse the Irish state fed very well.

if the threat to the Irish state was internal subversion and the possibility of conflict overspill from the North (and i don't disagree that it was) and this threat was matched - or at least attempted to be matched by the best efforts of the state - why then was defence/security so neglected in GDP terms throughout the history of the state?

throughout the history of the state whenever a choice was presented between attending to genuine secuity threats to the foundations of the state and pleasing the parish pump, the pump won every time.

the fundamental problem with your argument - that the Irish state has its own, distinctive military/foreign policy/security concerns and this has produced a military doctrine/foriegn policy/security apparatus appropriate to Irelands needs is that it, err... hasn't.

few think the DF/Gardai set-up of the state comfortably matched the internal threat from 1922 onwards, and in terms of Irelands foreign policy, almost nobody thinks the DF was given the tools it needed to undertake the UN PK tasks assigned to it by the state - both examples indicate that whatever government and political class said about their determination to match either the internal threat and external policy with the resources neccesary, neither recieved anything like the best efforts of the state.

so no, i don't accept that my view is generated by my viewpoint, i believe the consistant failure to resource the force comensurate with Irelands stated policy is demonstratable.

Kiki10 · 03-12-2010 10:57pm

OS119 wrote: »

except that its not a horse the Irish state fed very well.

if the threat to the Irish state was internal subversion and the possibility of conflict overspill from the North (and i don't disagree that it was) and this threat was matched - or at least attempted to be matched by the best efforts of the state - why then was defence/security so neglected in GDP terms throughout the history of the state?

throughout the history of the state whenever a choice was presented between attending to genuine secuity threats to the foundations of the state and pleasing the parish pump, the pump won every time.

the fundamental problem with your argument - that the Irish state has its own, distinctive military/foreign policy/security concerns and this has produced a military doctrine/foriegn policy/security apparatus appropriate to Irelands needs is that it, err... hasn't.

few think the DF/Gardai set-up of the state comfortably matched the internal threat from 1922 onwards, and in terms of Irelands foreign policy, almost nobody thinks the DF was given the tools it needed to undertake the UN PK tasks assigned to it by the state - both examples indicate that whatever government and political class said about their determination to match either the internal threat and external policy with the resources neccesary, neither recieved anything like the best efforts of the state.

so no, i don't accept that my view is generated by my viewpoint, i believe the consistant failure to resource the force comensurate with Irelands stated policy is demonstratable.

I couldn't agree more. If we were serious about the DF's we wouldn't have the smuggling issues, and perhaps organised crime. I don't know how effective our intelligence service is but I know these two treats to the state are not been attended to. Properly funding our security forces is an investment. Drugs cost this country billions each year between the HSE Prison service & regeneration projects etc.
When Biddie at the parish pump asks her TD "what are we spenden all the money on the army for" the answer is usually "I don't know Biddie" rather than, "to keep keep the drugs out". Military power is an extension of political power. If the Irish people don't want drugs, our DF can curb it given the equipment & mandate. This is why we have almost no control over the country. There is whole elements in this country who are above the law because the government dose not understand how to use the DF in anger.

Kiki10 · 03-12-2010 10:58pm

OS119 wrote: »

except that its not a horse the Irish state fed very well.

if the threat to the Irish state was internal subversion and the possibility of conflict overspill from the North (and i don't disagree that it was) and this threat was matched - or at least attempted to be matched by the best efforts of the state - why then was defence/security so neglected in GDP terms throughout the history of the state?

throughout the history of the state whenever a choice was presented between attending to genuine secuity threats to the foundations of the state and pleasing the parish pump, the pump won every time.

the fundamental problem with your argument - that the Irish state has its own, distinctive military/foreign policy/security concerns and this has produced a military doctrine/foriegn policy/security apparatus appropriate to Irelands needs is that it, err... hasn't.

few think the DF/Gardai set-up of the state comfortably matched the internal threat from 1922 onwards, and in terms of Irelands foreign policy, almost nobody thinks the DF was given the tools it needed to undertake the UN PK tasks assigned to it by the state - both examples indicate that whatever government and political class said about their determination to match either the internal threat and external policy with the resources neccesary, neither recieved anything like the best efforts of the state.

so no, i don't accept that my view is generated by my viewpoint, i believe the consistant failure to resource the force comensurate with Irelands stated policy is demonstratable.

I couldn't agree more. If we were serious about the DF's we wouldn't have the smuggling issues, and perhaps organised crime. I don't know how effective our intelligence service is but I know these two treats to the state are not been attended to. Properly funding our security forces is an investment. Drugs cost this country billions each year between the HSE Prison service & regeneration projects etc.
When Biddie at the parish pump asks her TD "what are we spenden all the money on the army for" the answer is usually "I don't know Biddie" rather than, "to keep keep the drugs out". Military power is an extension of political power. If the Irish people don't want drugs, our DF can curb it given the equipment & mandate. This is why we have almost no control over the country. There is whole elements in this country who are above the law because the government dose not understand how to use the DF in anger.

Kiki10 · 03-12-2010 11:11pm

concussion wrote: »

Are they like doughnuts?

Its like a doughnut, they both make a mess when going through the body:rolleyes:
There like underwear on Paris Hilton. While not often seen, there is defiantly one in the bag...

mbiking123 · 04-12-2010 12:00am

For Ireland if we wanted to protect ourselves from attack we would have to ask ourselves who is enemy. For example if we were afraid of a US Marine style beach landing then we should do what Saddam Hussein did and use sea mines. Plant them in the sea all around Ireland, Iraq used this very successfully and Royal Navy had to come to US invasion force rescue.

Secondly do what Rommel did during D-Day landing and hold the 'enemy' at the beachhead. If you can achieve this the landing will fail. He did not as he did not have full control of panzer & tiger tanks stationed in Normandy. The German defence was not used properly hence the D-Day landing succeded.

The Irish Navy ships could be armed with 'exocet' style anti-ship missle. There are radio controlled aircraft (UAV)that can operate like AWACCS but are by far alot cheaper and give over the horizon potential attack. With such a system an attack could be put in on a task force and be cheap to setup. The current Naval fleet could be armed with anti-ship missles

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Comments