In relation to the Unprincipled Nuetrality posting

Zuiderzee

Not withstanding that Myers can be an ass, Ireland does have problems when it comes to a defence policy, but I dont believe that has anything to to with having a non-aligned, independent, nuetral military policy.

I started to write a response, but in terms of what I was trying to say, and with the change in direction of the thread, I felt it merits a new posting, so I ask for your indulgence on that.

But it is a matter of prioroties, budget and spending. If we buy a C-130 or anything else, that money is taken from somewhere else, health, education etc. That is a simple fact.

But I do believe we should have an expanded and better Naval service and Aircorps, but would our economics allow that.

So as a comparitive with similar-ish states; ie, established, small, democratic, comparitivly isolated and economicaly developed.
We need to look at military expenditures expressed as a percentage of GDP

We are not the US, France, UK, Spain or even Italy, who you could call the 3% band, we do not have or need an interventionist policy, we are also, and this is important, a post colonial nation so comparitives with them are not really valid in this case.

We have an established, mature democratic socio-economic system so in that sense, comparisons with the post sovietised states of the Czech Republic, Croatia, Poland, Ukraine et al again are not really valid.

But we are a sovereign state, with a legal responsibilty to defend ourselves and a moral perogative to deploy overseas where we can make a positive difference.

So lets look at some others.

Singapore 4.9% -Small nation, strategic location, expansionist neighbours
Portugal: 2.3% - former colonial power, NATO member
Malaysia 2.0%
Norway : 1.9% - NATO member
Netherlands: 1.6% - former colonial power, NATO member
Denmark: 1.3 - 1.5% - NATO member
Sweden: 1.5% - Nuetral, but has conscription
Belgium 1.3% - former colonial power, NATO member
New Zealand 1.0% - Small isolated rural economy
Switzerland 1.0% - Nuetral, but has conscription
Ireland: 0.9%

The mean of the above is about 1.8%,
I have tried to compare countries with either the same type of location, economy or size, but its very hard and fairly random.
Singapore (with F-15s, but with Indonesia and Malaysia nearby) and Portugal, a former colonial power, spend a disproportionate amount.
Switzerland does not need to maintain a Naval force, which is expensive.

Conscription and NATO membership - which I would oppose - also reduce costs.

About 1.0 - 1.5% seems to be a norm - so if we are between Sweden and NZ comparing economy, location and strategic concepts in that we are not as isolated as New Zealand, but with a bigger economic capacity , and not as close to Russia as Sweden, but with a smaller economic capacity.

In another way, we are in a similar to Belgium and Denmark.
Slightly off the beaten track, protected by friendly, strong neighbours.

We are more a maritime location, with a huge EEZ so Denmark is the best example, despite the fact they control the exits of the Baltic and have commitments in Greenland.

So, they have between 1.3% and 1.5% of GDP comitted.
In reduction of costs they also are NATO members, and have had - dont know if they still do - conscription.

So, an increase of GDP spent on defence by Ireland to - as an example - the mean of 1.3% or 1.4% still means an increase in defence spending in the region of 60% in monitary terms, just to get us to a comparitive norm.

That 0.5% of GDP would have to be taken from other departments of state, and I think that would be very, very controversial but possible.

But that small increase would mean a massive increase in real terms of purchasing power.

I dont to start the air wars debate again but I believe the Aircorps priorities should be to have transport and maritime patrol capabilities built around a C-130 type aircraft.
This type of aircraft could provide Maritime patrol, transport, air refueling and perhaps even AEW.

We need more and better rotary aircraft, with medium lifts like the NH-90 etc, but we dont need dedicated attack helicoptors.

A UAV aircraft such as the Predator would be the cheapest, and greenest way to provide Maritime patrol, but we dont need it to be the armed version, hell we could even develop a type ourselves, create some high tech jobs - we have the engineering and technical ability.

And yes, we need CAP capability which I think could be built around available and economically viable 2nd hand upgraded F-5 IIs or even, down the road, JAS-39s.

We dont need the expense or capabilities of later F-16s F-15s, Rafales or Typhoons.

The Naval Service is very straight forward, it should be expanded to EEZ patrol requirements, with 3 or 4 HPV type frigates, similar to the Danish Thetis types, 6 OPV and 4 CPV.
Procurement is headed in that direction, finally.
Despite the objections of Air Corps etc. it should have an organic airwing of about 8 helicopters, navalised versions of whatever the Air Corps/ Army have to reduce training and maintainence costs and perhaps even operate its own Maritime Patrol UAV's

The Customs cutters and Irish Lights vessel would be the basis of a new Coastguard, despite objections from the Naval Service, to do jobs more suited to a Coastguard such as babysitting Shell Gas pipelines, they are smaller ships so it would be better value for money.

And we have an urgent Need to have 2 Ocean capable salvage/towage Multi purpose vessels which, as Coastguard or Auxiliary vessels, could be commercially hired out on spot market for survey work, offshore construction, towage or used by the Slua.
They would make money, not lose it.

Yes, some make arguements for small D/E submarines, but we will never need them and we certainly dont need Aegis cruisers.

My knowledge is in Naval and my interest is in Aviation affairs, so I will not comment on what other equipment the army needs other than to say The Army clearly does not need Main Battle Tanks, or MLRS - but there is a hell of a lot more equipment that is more suited to our requirements that they do need.

And before anyone takes me too seriously What they require in terms of artillery etc. is not anything I know about other than to say the Swedish Archer Artillery System looked cool as f==k on Discovery:) makes big bangs, and he commentators accent is class - but is it needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD9drOkviic

concussion

The Artillery Corps already operate UAV's

Zuiderzee

I should also add that procurement of naval vessels, helicopters, artillery etc. would be within the EU, that way there could be better deals made in the EU region to reduce costs for some of the equipment.
For example there are Austrian F-5 IIs leased from Switzerland, and as these are being phased out they could most probably be picked up at a nominal cost, as part of a deal for additional MOWAGs and PC9s etc which we source from Switzerland anyway.
This is common practice in military procurement programs.
That could compensate for not being part of NATO.

As for UAVs, what I had more in mind was supplimenting or even replacing the CASAs from MPA by the procurement of more robust, Long Endurance UAVs for reasons of lower operating costs, lower training costs, lower environmental impact, no aircrew put at risk and less personnel required.

I think the DF are as big as they will ever be, so its a question of using technology to allow the same amount of people to achieve more.

eroo

@ Zuiderzee, has to be one of the best posts I have ever read!

Manic Moran

eroo wrote: »

@ Zuiderzee, has to be one of the posts I have ever read!

The logic in this is undeniable.

NTM

Victor

One thing that is overlooked is that we are an island in a peripheral location with only asingle land border. Compare that with Germany that has many land borders and is in a central location.

The extra cost of getting people and goods to and from Ireland is an offset for having a big moat around us.

eroo

Manic Moran wrote: »

The logic in this is undeniable.

NTM

****e! Took me a while to realise the problem with my post!:pac:

lostexpectation

considering we're a island nation shoudln't our navy and airforce be bigger then our army

Zuiderzee

With regard to Viktors post, I never included Germany in a comparison.
Germany is a central european economic power and a major military power.
Due to history, it is not a nation that seeks confrontation, but it is very strong, and economically it is a superpower.

It can also be said that as THE frontline nation in the cold war, and a nation that due to history was put there, the factors determining military policy and spending are very different.

That is not an anti German, pro NATO or pro/anti soviet concept, it is the realpolitik from 1945 to 1995, and after that things are still confused, particularly after Russias intervention in Georgia.

Briefly, in this regard, the other nation I feel I should touch on as a comparitive is the Netherlands.
Holland is a former colonial power with overeas possetions leading to military commitments and political agendas still in the Carribean, much like the UK.
But they are in the position where they do ask themselves, are they in Europe the smallest of the 'big' countries, or the largest of the 'small' countries.

On the fact that we have one land border, I would like to make two points.

1) Our one land border is with a state - with whom our relations are excellent and improving, and who we will never go to war with.
But there are elements within that dynamic - i.e. UVF, IRA et al who as groups dont have any regard for that definitive concept.
And that is not a partionist statement, it is just the actuality of the situation.

2) We have other other borders, maritime and airspace, which are not so fixed.
Maritime borders for example are, if you pardon the pun, more fluid.
With increased Russian Naval activity - which stopped flights to Norways gas rigs a few years back - and with our offshore development, be it rigs or windfarms, this is a contingency the state should at least consider.

Finally, as for a stronger Naval or Air contingent within the defence forces, and how that is balanced out - it is a separate debate, other than to say the Naval contingent is heading in the right direction, whereas the air component having the capability to patrol and police airspace has been pencilled out.

The initial point was to point out that as a comparitive, with similar states - the best example being, in my opinion, Denmark, how little we spend on defence.

And I still wonder what the hell the word eroo left out is.

Manic Moran

Zuiderzee wrote: »

And I still wonder what the hell the word eroo left out is.

Compared the original (now edited) post, with the quoted version.

NTM

eroo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Compared the original (now edited) post, with the quoted version.

NTM

Edited like a snake!:pac: