What we need

trentf

The following is a list as i see it of what we need to be able to carry out our role as a proper defence force and to fullfill our mission spec's abroad in the future taking unknowns into account. Even though the below may look too big for some its actually not nearly a big investment as thought of and would still be a very small defence force by international standards. Given our current military budget allows for 100 to 200 million a year to be spent on equipment this is possible within a 6 - 10 year timespan

Air corps

- 6 heavy lift helicopters for overseas missions (badly needed) cost - 50 million
- 2 extra ec-135's making total of 4 for or 2 OH-58D Kiowa Warrior special forces/ambulance role - 8 million
- 6 medium lift helicopters - already purchased
- 2 Troop transporting planes for overseas missions hercules or 1 globemaster c-17(might be a tight fit in baldonnel though).
cost for 2 hercules - 44 million
1 globemaster - 210 million, obviously not an option

Years to completing above in military expenditure - 1 year.


Gardai air support unit

- Pilots recruited by gardai hq and piloting role no longer carried out by
air corps


Air defence

- No longer under control of the army but designated to the air corps and controlled by them in support of the army.
- 6 interceptor fighter jets - 2 based in each province - depending on type 80 - 100 million
- Improvement of radar detection systems and anti aircraft equipment - 40 million

- 2 years to complete above in military expenditure

Army

- 50 more mowag armoured personnel carriers 14 for infantry carrying role/28 for calvary/reece role 6 -8 for training/home
defence/spares making a total force of 130 vehicles overall. - 50 millon

- Above will be replacement for scorpions as tracked vehicles they have no purpose and generally
tracked support vehicles unless used in heavy firesupport mission are pretty much useless nowadays


Light tactical armoured vehicles

- At least 30 more rg32m's, 27 is not nearly enough. - 25 million
- 8 heavy Firesupport vehicles - 22 - 30 million

2 years to complete above in military expenditure.


Navy

- 2 more decent sized costal patrol vessels and one multi role vessel capable of supporting missions abroad and operating flight deck
for heavy lift helicopters(already in plans). 200 - 300 million

- Size of fleet reviewed


Finally another big suggestion not really equipment based is to speed up the tendering process for all of the above. Putting military tenders out on public websites nationally is quite frankly farcical as no tenders can be met nationally here. Also the timeframe needs to be reduced for tendering. It took us 8 years from the requirements spec being made for the LTAV'S to actually get them and 9 years to actually recieve them. Not acceptable, this is a 10 year gap from requirement to fullfillment and in geopolitical terms many things have happened internationally which affect military procurements since the requirement was made.

I think if we achieved the above within a 6 - 10 year timespan we would have a decent sized defence force.

Remember these are just my opinions, so don't start failing me about economy recession history of defence forces etc...

odin_ie

In the current economic climate, I would have to say, keep dreaming mate. Although I would agree that an overseas lift capability in the form of heavy lift heli's is needed, and aircraft for troop transport to missions is needed, I do not see it happeneing any time soon.
The extra Mowags and the RG-32M's would be fantastic, but the government will not be seen to spend money it does not currently have on the DF. And personally I believe that the Navy needs a few more than 3 new ships, but that is just my personal opinion.

It is a shame that the DF do not have this kind of kit already, and it is a bigger shame that the likelihood of them getting it any time soon is so slim.

Nice post though

trentf

the government has the money they just don't want to spend it, but in terms of joining a common eu defence and having a policy they will be forced to spend it.

twinytwo

trentf wrote: »

The following is a list as i see it of what we need to be able to carry out our role as a proper defence force and to fullfill our mission spec's abroad in the future taking unknowns into account. Even though the below may look too big for some its actually not nearly a big investment as thought of and would still be a very small defence force by international standards. Given our current military budget allows for 100 to 200 million a year to be spent on equipment this is possible within a 6 - 10 year timespan

Air corps

- 6 heavy lift helicopters for overseas missions (badly needed) cost - 50 million
- 2 extra ec-135's making total of 4 for special forces/ambulance role - 8 million
- 6 medium lift helicopters - already purchased
- 2 Troop transporting planes for overseas missions hercules or 1 globemaster c-17(might be a tight fit in baldonnel though).
cost for 2 hercules - 44 million
1 globemaster - 210 million, obviously not an option

Years to completing above in military expenditure - 1 year.


Gardai air support unit

- Pilots recruited by gardai hq and piloting role no longer carried out by
air corps


Air defence

- No longer under control of the army but designated to the air corps and controlled by them in support of the army.
- 6 interceptor fighter jets - 2 based in each province - depending on type 80 - 100 million
- Improvement of radar detection systems and anti aircraft equipment - 40 million

- 2 years to complete above in military expenditure

Army

- 50 more mowag armoured personnel carriers 14 for infantry carrying role/28 for calvary/reece role 6 -8 for training/home
defence/spares making a total force of 130 vehicles overall. - 50 millon

- Above will be replacement for scorpions as tracked vehicles they have no purpose and generally
tracked support vehicles unless used in heavy firesupport mission are pretty much useless nowadays


Light tactical armoured vehicles

- At least 30 more rg32m's, 27 is not nearly enough. - 25 million
- 8 heavy Firesupport vehicles - 22 - 30 million

2 years to complete above in military expenditure.


Navy

- 2 more decent sized costal patrol vessels and one multi role vessel capable of supporting missions abroad and operating flight deck
for heavy lift helicopters(already in plans). 200 - 300 million

- Size of fleet reviewed


Finally another big suggestion not really equipment based is to speed up the tendering process for all of the above. Putting military tenders out on public websites nationally is quite frankly farcical as no tenders can be met nationally here. Also the timeframe needs to be reduced for tendering. It took us 8 years from the requirements spec being made for the LTAV'S to actually get them and 9 years to actually recieve them. Not acceptable, this is a 10 year gap from requirement to fullfillment and in geopolitical terms many things have happened internationally which affect military procurements since the requirement was made.

I think if we achieved the above within a 6 - 10 year timespan we would have a decent sized defence force.

Remember these are just my opinions, so don't start failing me about economy recession history of defence forces etc...

Granted i think we need helis i mean the lads are ****ed in chad having to bum off the dutch.... i dont even think any of the helis we have are military spec.

As for fighter jets.. do you realise how much they cost to keep going?

I agree with the navy too though nothing too fancy but we need more boats and a bigger presence in our waters.

What the main problem is all the tools in the government etc who dont know what they are actually doing. How can someone who was never in the defence forces possibley know what the defence forces need etc etc. They would want to drop all the political arse licking and sort it out in a year or 2

diverdriver

There might be a more plausible thread discussing what the defence forces are going to end up with rather than what's needed. I can easily see things going back to the situation back in the nineties where the youngest private was in his late twenties with averages around the thirties. Promotion only came to fill 'dead men's shoes'.

The cutbacks have only started and the defence forces would be an obvious target. Far from getting interceptors and realistic military helicopters. The Air Corps is far more likely to lose aircraft, pretty much as I predicted in another thread. I and other pointed out that much of the Air Corps role is essentially civilian in character and could be done more cheaply by civilians or not at all.

There may be less overseas service too with smaller forces being sent out on missions.

I do believe we will see serious cutbacks in military expenditure. Everybody is taking hits now and any expenditure will have to be justified. A change of government will probably accelerate that.

timmywex

trentf wrote: »

Navy

- 2 more decent sized costal patrol vessels and one multi role vessel capable of supporting missions abroad and operating flight deck
for heavy lift helicopters(already in plans). 200 - 300 million

- Size of fleet reviewed

Id nearly thnk the navy needs a bigger investment if they want to increase the fleet size at all

3 of the ships are 30 years old now (Emer, Aoife, Aisling), and 30 years was the intended lifespan for these vessels. I would reckoin that they need replacement fairly soon with more mondern vessels, slightly bigger perhaps(or even the same size) but more modern nontheless.

There was plans to replace them, but given the economic codittions yada yada.....! Heres hoping anyway

Company Sgt

trentf wrote: »

The following is a list as i see it of what we need to be able to carry out our role as a proper defence force and to fullfill our mission spec's abroad in the future taking unknowns into account. Even though the below may look too big for some its actually not nearly a big investment as thought of and would still be a very small defence force by international standards. Given our current military budget allows for 100 to 200 million a year to be spent on equipment this is possible within a 6 - 10 year timespan

Air corps

- 6 heavy lift helicopters for overseas missions (badly needed) cost - 50 million
- 2 extra ec-135's making total of 4 for special forces/ambulance role - 8 million
- 6 medium lift helicopters - already purchased
- 2 Troop transporting planes for overseas missions hercules or 1 globemaster c-17(might be a tight fit in baldonnel though).
cost for 2 hercules - 44 million
1 globemaster - 210 million, obviously not an option

Years to completing above in military expenditure - 1 year.


Gardai air support unit

- Pilots recruited by gardai hq and piloting role no longer carried out by
air corps


Air defence

- No longer under control of the army but designated to the air corps and controlled by them in support of the army.
- 6 interceptor fighter jets - 2 based in each province - depending on type 80 - 100 million
- Improvement of radar detection systems and anti aircraft equipment - 40 million

- 2 years to complete above in military expenditure

Army

- 50 more mowag armoured personnel carriers 14 for infantry carrying role/28 for calvary/reece role 6 -8 for training/home
defence/spares making a total force of 130 vehicles overall. - 50 millon

- Above will be replacement for scorpions as tracked vehicles they have no purpose and generally
tracked support vehicles unless used in heavy firesupport mission are pretty much useless nowadays


Light tactical armoured vehicles

- At least 30 more rg32m's, 27 is not nearly enough. - 25 million
- 8 heavy Firesupport vehicles - 22 - 30 million

2 years to complete above in military expenditure.


Navy

- 2 more decent sized costal patrol vessels and one multi role vessel capable of supporting missions abroad and operating flight deck
for heavy lift helicopters(already in plans). 200 - 300 million

- Size of fleet reviewed


Finally another big suggestion not really equipment based is to speed up the tendering process for all of the above. Putting military tenders out on public websites nationally is quite frankly farcical as no tenders can be met nationally here. Also the timeframe needs to be reduced for tendering. It took us 8 years from the requirements spec being made for the LTAV'S to actually get them and 9 years to actually recieve them. Not acceptable, this is a 10 year gap from requirement to fullfillment and in geopolitical terms many things have happened internationally which affect military procurements since the requirement was made.

I think if we achieved the above within a 6 - 10 year timespan we would have a decent sized defence force.

Remember these are just my opinions, so don't start failing me about economy recession history of defence forces etc...

i think your dreaming there mate so keep on u really think government are going ta spend that much ha:D

concussion

trentf wrote: »

Finally another big suggestion not really equipment based is to speed up the tendering process for all of the above. Putting military tenders out on public websites nationally is quite frankly farcical as no tenders can be met nationally here. Also the timeframe needs to be reduced for tendering. It took us 8 years from the requirements spec being made for the LTAV'S to actually get them and 9 years to actually recieve them. Not acceptable, this is a 10 year gap from requirement to fullfillment and in geopolitical terms many things have happened internationally which affect military procurements since the requirement was made.

LTAV tender was opened in April 07 and the RG32 was chosen in December 08 - 19 months doesn't seem too bad to me. The first time round there were no candidates suitable for purchase, thats not a flaw in tendering, thats a lack of options from munufacturers.


As for tracked vehicles not being useful, how about the Warrrior IFV the Brits are using - they're old, equipped witha magazine fed autocannon and were designed for the Cold War but they're still capable of providing good fire support and a lot of protection to their soldiers.

minidazzler

Christmas is just over, you have to wait until your Bday!!!

I realise you are being serious, but you may aswell dream here as you dream in Bed.


Have you thought of the cost of running all these Toys??? Have you thought of the cost of missiles????

We could definitely use a few Chinnooks and maybe a C-130 herc or 2, but in reality, we use Fouga's.. and that's how it's gonna be for a while!!!

trentf

twinytwo wrote: »

Granted i think we need helis i mean the lads are ****ed in chad having to bum off the dutch.... i dont even think any of the helis we have are military spec.

As for fighter jets.. do you realise how much they cost to keep going?

I agree with the navy too though nothing too fancy but we need more boats and a bigger presence in our waters.

What the main problem is all the tools in the government etc who dont know what they are actually doing. How can someone who was never in the defence forces possibley know what the defence forces need etc etc. They would want to drop all the political arse licking and sort it out in a year or 2

Yes i realise how much they cost to maintain. I should have clarified if we go for jets they would be basic jet strike/defence aircraft not f-18's or the like. The cost of maintenance and running costs of some of these models doesn't cost much more then the pc-9's we are currently running. For a start we could flog off 6 pc-9's use 2 for traning and purchase 6 jets. Thats the same number of craft as we currently have. Any time jets come up people would swear you need to break the bank to run them. There are options out there to suit even our cheapskate politicians....

Also indeed i do understand it costs money to run equipment. It costs money to run cranes, it also costs money to run jetairlines(more then military) and the like. I think we need to get over this mentality of being cheapskates about everything and just spend the money. Believe me the money is there. You can't run military vehicles on fuel cells just yet... they do require fuel and maintenance. People act in surprise like ' Do you realise the cost of running these things???' yes i do much like i realise i must put fuel into my car and maintain it every so often. And why is maintance such a bad thing. Maintenance requires people which in turn creates jobs, which in turn helps the economy by creating sub services.

Why does the average joe in ireland seem to care so much about where money is spent?. For example why are people so quick to look to the money the military is getting, paltry as it is, and then say ' oh that will be cut'. That seems like paranoid thinking. Most of the military's Equipment funding if not all of it comes from the sale of barracks anyway so how can you cut an area your not even using taxpayers money to fund for the most part. LOL. Lets be more forward thinking here..


We can't keep treating our military like a special priviledge only to be funded by selling barracks. We need to put money into funding it and thats it. The roads are now built and the economy will recover so comon no more of them nonsensical excuses. Its a bit irish and like a tired worn out record now. We used them excuses even when we were doing fine economically only then it was roads, schools, hospitals you know whatever suited people to have as an excuse to avoid spending a penny on the df and spend it on politicans mulitiple pensions and rich ceo's.

In the modern world and current security environment every developed country needs a proper defence force. We will be taking part in more peace keeping operations in the future and its simply a fact that we have to upgrade our equipment and forces. Even the dod is finally begining to realise this. We can't just keep hitting the df every time it suits the politicians or the economy is doing badly. I certainly won't be voting for them and its time people did likewise. Send a message to them. There are groups and parties who support the above ie libertas. The country won't go backrupt just because we spend a couple hundred million on equipment. Other countries worse off then us economically with much larger armies haven't so thats a bogus excuse.


I don't think any of the items on the list above are beyond reproach.

I think once they get the df up to an acceptable level of equipment i.e soliders gear, duty equipment replacements they will concentrate more on the procurement of some of the items on the list above. If we are serious about the future thinking of our forces and not the past thinking we need to do it.


Remember, the above list i made is paltry by international standards and would still be one of the smallest in europe yet by some of the reactions here you'd swear it was the u.s military's budget that was been asked for.


The defence forces losing aircraft is not a good idea. They have replaced ancient equipment ie allouettes with more modern aircraft in more limited numbers but we do need heavy lift helicopters capable of troop transport and possibly troop/equipment transport planes such as a hercules. We could save money instead of having to rent helicopters from foreign nations. I think eventually they will go down this route.

I agree on the comment about how can someone know what they are doing if they have no military background or experience. This is why procurement decisions should be made soley by the df with no interference or coaxing by the governemnt. They should just make the funds available with some oversight on whats being spent on thats it. If we put our minds to it dare i say it we could even develop some military industries of our own like timoney etc then maybe we wouldn't be the worst country suffering economically in europe. Less reliance on outside investment and more development of our own.

Duck's hoop

concussion wrote: »

As for tracked vehicles not being useful, how about the Warrrior IFV the Brits are using - they're old, equipped witha magazine fed autocannon and were designed for the Cold War but they're still capable of providing good fire support and a lot of protection to their soldiers.

Tracked is backed boss. We don't have that capability.

trentf

concussion wrote: »

LTAV tender was opened in April 07 and the RG32 was chosen in December 08 - 19 months doesn't seem too bad to me. The first time round there were no candidates suitable for purchase, thats not a flaw in tendering, thats a lack of options from munufacturers.


As for tracked vehicles not being useful, how about the Warrrior IFV the Brits are using - they're old, equipped witha magazine fed autocannon and were designed for the Cold War but they're still capable of providing good fire support and a lot of protection to their soldiers.

Problem with acquiring tracked vehicles is it would be a step backwards not forwards. Tracked vehicles are indeed relics of the cold war and most militaries across europe and the united states are both phasing them out with replacement of wheeled vehicles.

It doesn't suit for an amphibious role and also the maintenance of tracked vehicles is more expensive and time consuming then wheeled vehicles not to mention one hit from an rpg or mine to the tracks and the entire vehicle is immobilised. Iraq and afghanistan is the perfect example of that where even abrams were taken out by crude ied's and rpg's. The only use i could see for tracked would be in heavy firesupport vehicles even that though could be provided by wheeled vehicles such as some of mowags models.

Tracked vehicles were orginally designed to overcome the barbed wire of the trenches of ww1. That time is long gone and the tank and tracked vehicles in general have long since served their purpose. I personally think in iraq we witnessed the end days of the tracked military vehicle and the move to more mobile, versatile, mine protected, multi wheeled vehicles.

Steyr

minidazzler wrote: »

but in reality, we use Fouga's.. and that's how it's gonna be for a while!!!

The Irish Air Corps retired the remaining Fouga fleet in 1999/2000.

minidazzler

Steyr wrote: »

The Irish Air Corps retired the remaining Fouga fleet in 1999/2000.

Whoop's sorry about that, I really know feck all about it.....not really into the whole Aerosexual thing, I don't much like heights!!!

concussion

trentf wrote: »

Problem with acquiring tracked vehicles is it would be a step backwards not forwards. Tracked vehicles are indeed relics of the cold war and most militaries across europe and the united states are both phasing them out with replacement of wheeled vehicles.

It doesn't suit for an amphibious role and also the maintenance of tracked vehicles is more expensive and time consuming then wheeled vehicles not to mention one hit from an rpg or mine to the tracks and the entire vehicle is immobilised. Iraq and afghanistan is the perfect example of that where even abrams were taken out by crude ied's and rpg's. The only use i could see for tracked would be in heavy firesupport vehicles even that though could be provided by wheeled vehicles such as some of mowags models.

Tracked vehicles were orginally designed to overcome the barbed wire of the trenches of ww1. That time is long gone and the tank and tracked vehicles in general have long since served their purpose. I personally think in iraq we witnessed the end days of the tracked military vehicle and the move to more mobile, versatile, mine protected, multi wheeled vehicles.

I didn't suggest we acquire them, I was responding to your statment that tracked vehicles are useless. As for being too vulnerable, there are as many stories of Warriors etc getting their crews home after suffering multiple strikes.



As for AD jets -
we have no radar to alert us and guide them to their targets - using them with their onboard systems effectively restricts them to point defence aircraft .
In a high alert state, having two planes in each province is fine - for about three hours and then they have to land again. Sure, you can overcome this by having them on alert on the ground - this may work if you have a pure interceptor but once more, you have no radar to guide them and they are pretty much useless for anything else you need them for, ie light strike, close air support. Hawks, L159's etc are not interceptors, they'd never get to altitude fast enough.

If you only have two per location, how are you going to factor downtime for mainenance - you could reasonably expect 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 planes to be grounded at any time.

We don't have any mililtary airbases except for Casement - where are they going to be based? Cork and Shannon are the obvious ones and I'm sure you could segregate areas for AC use. This means you're adding time onto your alert as you can't have aircraft sitting on the runway waiting for the signal. This also means you have to put a lot of support behind these two aircraft - secure armoury, hangars, maintenance workshops, stores, accommodation, comms centre, dining hall and kitchens, all the people to run the previous and 24 hour guard and stand-too details. If you decide to use the civilian radars you're going to have to provide security and defences for that too and you won't have much low level coverage or basic defence against jamming. All that for 2 planes?

My suggestion, if money was being set aside for AD, would be to go for a medium range system instead of jets. If you're only going to end up with point defences anyway you may as well do it on the ground where it can operate for extended periods, unlike jets.

trentf

there are as many stories of Warriors etc getting their crews home after suffering multiple strikes.

I'm not calling an end for tracked vehicles just think that generally the recognition is that wheeled vehicles have performed better are more mobile and more suited to the fast paced warfare we see today. The use of wheeled vehicles in iraq and afghanistan for example has proven invaluable and with advancements in technology i.e flat running tyres the wheeled vehicle is rapidly the choice of most armies for light tactical armoured vehicles i.e us

As for AD jets -
we have no radar to alert us and guide them to their targets - using them with their onboard systems effectively restricts them to point defence aircraft .
In a high alert state, having two planes in each province is fine - for about three hours and then they have to land again. Sure, you can overcome this by having them on alert on the ground - this may work if you have a pure interceptor but once more, you have no radar to guide them and they are pretty much useless for anything else you need them for, ie light strike, close air support. Hawks, L159's etc are not interceptors, they'd never get to altitude fast enough.

If you only have two per location, how are you going to factor downtime for mainenance - you could reasonably expect 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 planes to be grounded at any time.

i recognise that we need to upgrade our radar systems because we don't even have any so that wouldn't be too hard. That was down in the original figure estimations if you look at it. Also in terms of the plane numbers ireland is a very small country with a small airspace, The reason for having 1 or 2 in each province is that they could effectively cover that airspace given the proper long range radar systems are put in place to accompany them. We could always also increase the number of jets to 3 per province not an issue as the jets which lie in nearby provinces could also be called to assist, this would cover downtime maintenance etc.

We don't have any mililtary airbases except for Casement - where are they going to be based? Cork and Shannon are the obvious ones and I'm sure you could segregate areas for AC use. This means you're adding time onto your alert as you can't have aircraft sitting on the runway waiting for the signal. This also means you have to put a lot of support behind these two aircraft - secure armoury, hangars, maintenance workshops, stores, accommodation, comms centre, dining hall and kitchens, all the people to run the previous and 24 hour guard and stand-too details. If you decide to use the civilian radars you're going to have to provide security and defences for that too and you won't have much low level coverage or basic defence against jamming. All that for 2 planes?

Not really a lot of work behind these aircraft. Most european countries have at least over 50 jets. We are talking maintenance of 6 aircraft for a country with a population of 4 million. its not rocket science.
We do maintain on a daily basis jets in this country which are much larger and more complex. Its not just for 2 planes its for 6 planes.

All that for just 2 planes?

We can always increase the size of the fleet but we have to start small to appease people who are always hostile to the acquistion of any sort of equipment which may remotely resemble something which could be used in a defence role. We have to start small so as not to overload their sensitive ego's and sense of righteousness.

concussion

trentf wrote: »

Not really a lot of work behind these aircraft. Most european countries have at least over 50 jets. We are talking maintenance of 6 aircraft for a country with a population of 4 million. its not rocket science.
We do maintain on a daily basis jets in this country which are much larger and more complex. Its not just for 2 planes its for 6 planes.

You think its too much to handle for us spudpickers? Fair enough just say it don't be hiding behind excuses.

Those facilities would be needed for any military activity - unless you don't need to feed and house your troops, arm, equip and support them and their equipment and ensure the safety and protection of the facility. You can't just put two aircraft on the tarmac and say there you go. I also say two planes because this would need to be repeated for the other location - Casement has already got the facilities.

Either you buy expensive interceptors and long range surveillance radar and have them on a ground alert or you buy cheap jets and keep them in the air. But they can't stay up there all day and there's only two per region.
Interceptors means they can be used for little else, light jets means they can only do point defence.

trentf

Shannon is already protected somewhat because of the us troops that pass through there so upgrading that wouldn't be much of an issue. If someone is determined to attack they are going to do it anyway and no matter how many troops you put on the ground so setting up elaborate defences isn't going to make any difference to the aircraft in the hangars.

Military aircraft from other countries have been housed in shannan and cork before so that wouldn't be much of an issue really imo.

We are simply setting up defence aircraft which are not going to be used in any sort of offensive role abroad so apart from some crusties protesting there wouldn't be much need for the area 51 style defence your talking about. No system of air cover defence is 100 per cent secure not even superpowers can do that. Its like a seatbelt though it can save your life and its better to have a seatbelt then not have one even if the car gets damaged badly.

Our european neighbours haven't been attacked yet despite having large fleets of aircraft and their hangars aren't even protected to the level your suggesting.

concussion

Your over-reacting - I said 24 hour guard and a stand-too. Pretty standard stuff for any barracks going. My focus is on the amount of facilities needed if your setting up a new base, the cooks, quartermasters, ops people, comms people, stores people, mechanics, etc etc before you even get to the two/four/six pilots you need if you want a 24 hour alert.

If jets are bought, and I think they will be (but I don't think within the next 10 years) it makes better sense logistically to have them in Casement. They will have to be cheap and have multi-role which reduces their AD capacity. They will never buy enough to have enough a 24 hour alert which further reduces their capacity. Given this, it is much better to focus AD on ground systems and not on Alfajets or the like.

Edit - what's Shannon protected by?

trentf

Your over-reacting - I said 24 hour guard and a stand-too. Pretty standard stuff for any barracks going. My focus is on the amount of facilities needed if your setting up a new base, the cooks, quartermasters, ops people, comms people, stores people, mechanics, etc etc before you even get to the two/four/six pilots you need if you want a 24 hour alert.

Lol comon south wales helicopter ambulance and police services require as much maintenance etc. These are relatively small aircraft not 737's or air force one. Its not me thats overreacting its you with all the prerequisite's your putting in front of actually acquiring what is pretty dated technology. The pc-9's have exactly the same armnaments and guns yet they don't get the level of protection your suggesting.

What because the aircraft have a jet engine they suddenly become special somehow requiring hoardes of backup personel cooks, nurses, operations managers, jimmy the local plumber and lets not forget we'll need a priest too, you know in case the pilots get scurred flying them big purdy expensive jets.

All tax payers money no doubt money otherwise spent on useless tribunals. What comes next?, the children? Oh won't someone please think of the children! :pac: I can just see the next excuse coming 'Dont forget We need child minding services for them too whilst daddy's away flying big expensive jets begora..tis all just too expensive!'

We need to get off the highhorse, come back down to earth. With opposition like this its no wonder our armed forces stay dated.


whats shannon protected by?

Not really something that should be discussed on a public discussion board to be honest. An email to an garda siochana might help though.

concussion

My high horse? Maybe you don't quite understand the basics of feeding, clothing, and housing all the support staff aswell as having a minimal armed guard to protect weapons and ammunition. In case you have trouble understanding my point about supporting any military outpost I'll repeat what I said

Your over-reacting - I said 24 hour guard and a stand-too. Pretty standard stuff for any barracks going. My focus is on the amount of facilities needed if your setting up a new base, the cooks, quartermasters, ops people, comms people, stores people, mechanics, etc etc before you even get to the two/four/six pilots you need if you want a 24 hour alert.

If you don't provide those, where are the troops going to eat - O'Briens Sandwich Bar? Are they going to sleep in the local B+B's? Where are the missiles and ammunition going to be secured?

You would need the same set up if you were running continuous operations for any armed aircraft - it's not a jet-specific thing.

trentf

concussion wrote: »

My high horse? Maybe you don't quite understand the basics of feeding, clothing, and housing all the support staff aswell as having a minimal armed guard to protect weapons and ammunition. In case you have trouble understanding my point about supporting any military outpost I'll repeat what I said



If you don't provide those, where are the troops going to eat - O'Briens Sandwich Bar? Are they going to sleep in the local B+B's? Where are the missiles and ammunition going to be secured?

You would need the same set up if you were running continuous operations for any armed aircraft - it's not a jet-specific thing.

I'm trying to take your debate points seriously but now your just takin the p(ss to be honest. The things your going on about 'the basics of feeding troops,clothing, sleeping quarters, Bacon and sausage sandwiches and bunk beds for the less enamored', Jesus h christ have some copon will you. We're talking about 6 planes max here not 60.

Thats your main bone of contention? I mean maybe if it was something that would have merit in it sure. I mean don't forget we'll need to hoover their quarters and clean their rooms too? Yes, lets just forget about the whole thing. The hoovering part was the killer. This is a military forum not a housekeeping one.

Yes garda stations store ammunition and weapons too you know. Baldonnel stores weapons and ammunition. People have weapons and ammo in their house. Either your trolling or your seriously deluded i can't decide but i'm swayed towards the latter. Every time i post your on there making trying to make some counter argument just for the sake of argument and thats why i can't take your points seriously. That says a lot about your state of mind. Do both myself and yourself a favor and get another hobby.

concussion

Yes, Casement stores weapons - why don't you try to break into the armoury and let me know if people with rifles try to stop you. You seriously don't have a clue and I couldn't be bothered being polite about it because your so damned condescending.

What do you suggest bar 2 in every region - I've already said Shannon would be an option. What do you think they need besides 2 planes, 2 pilots and a runway so?

trentf

Yes and with your suggestion of trying to break into an armoury, I'll have to end the debate with you here... feel free to think whatever you want.

concussion

trentf wrote: »

I ll have to end the debate with you here... feel free to think whatever you want.

Jeez, off you go so. Don't make statements you're not going to stand behind. I offered you reasons why its not feasable, why don't you give reasons why it would work? Saying I'm deluded for suggesting the support a basic military outpost needs is not a good counterpoint.

So, in the interests of debate, what do you think is neccessary to conduct ops out of Shannon? Barracks are being shut down in order to cut running costs - these are the costs associated with having multiple locations each with 24 hour guard, stand-to, medics, admin, stores, kitchens, comcen etc etc etc. Those are the basics of what is needed for a normal barracks anywhere, whether or not they have jets. Why should an air ops base have any less?

Evd-Burner

How much is it going to cost a year to employ the people needed?

To me it seems funny it seems like the principal alot of young people have lately, condoms are too expensive €4 for 2, but that €4 will save you thousands.

If we were attacked by air it would cost a hell of alot more than it would to have gotten our ad set up. Lol then youd have all the politicians and civillians going mad at the fact that there was no Interceptors in the first place. No matter what the situation the DF is wrong.

odin_ie

trentf, concussion was making some very very valid points. It does not matter if the DF buy 6, or 60 jets for the Aer Corps, and each brigade could in theory get 20, the DF are still going to have to build a secure area at each airport to house the jets, and any weapons that the jets may carry. The reason it needs to be secure was pretty much implied by concussion when he suggested you take a trip to the armoury!!

Now, as far as I know, many units of the US Air National Guard are based at regional and international airports in the US, but will have a secured area in which they house their equipment, troops and stores. I'd like you to remember that civilian flights also operate to and from Baldonnel, the Aerodrome for the AC is a separate secured facility. The concept of barracks is a common fact of military life. Realistically for you plan to be implemented, you are talking about building a secured hanger, stores/armoury building, billets/barracks (to house your pilots, maintenance crews, admin staff, security parties) and fencing off a portion of the area around these buildings as a perimeter for security reasons. All in all, that is a doable but extremely necessary aspect of housing any military aircraft with a strike capability outside the pre existing structures at Casement.

The other small issue you will have is those AC boys don't seem to like the concept of being outside the capital for too long :P

(Note: here is the wiki link for the New York Air National Guard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Air_National_Guard
they list 5 separate airports that units operate from)

Poccington

Trent, Concussion was making what is quite frankly 1 of the most important points that you must take into account when looking at the purchase of new vehicles etc.

It's a lot more complicated than just saying "Ah we'll buy these planes and that'll be us sorted" the scope of logistics in keeping such vehicles running, manning military posts etc. would raise the overall cost by a large amount.