Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

JPNelsforearm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Probably not, no. But don't blame the government or parties, their disinterest in the military is a reflection of the wider apathy the people as a whole have for the DF. Until the Irish people themselves start taking an interest in the Forces then you won't be hearing much from the four main parties on the DF either.

Its a chicken and egg situation imo, if you underfund the defence forces and treat them as a joke, people will think they are and not see the point in funding them thus fulfilling their own perception of the DF and leading to a viscous cycle of apathy and underfunding. A party will have to take the bull by the horns and break that cycle.

Friends of mine have left the army as they didnt view it as a viable career due to the underfunding, they got their degree, served their contract, and even though their commanding officer tried to get them to stay, he understood their frustrations and reasons for leaving

Morpheus

[MOD]
This was actually my fault - i placed the first post in about SF's defence policy not thinking.

I should have - and since have - created a new thread here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057559833

Please remain civil and keep on topic with regard to to Ireland's lack of air defence

By all means discuss budgets etc in relation to this, but keep the parish pump fisticuffs over on the other thread

As for my punishment - i shall infract myself later - alone - some self flagellation, with a glass of brandy, some gentle music and a copy of the financial times [/MOD]

seanaway

sparky42 wrote: »

Given that "deterent force" is generally talking about Nuclear Weapons, you're right. Now an effective Defence Force investment is another matter.

Now you're splitting hairs. A strong defence IS a deterrent. And if you think that half a dozen 2nd hand fighters is 'an effective Defence Force' - then you are away with the fairies.

sparky42

seanaway wrote: »

Now you're splitting hairs. A strong defence IS a deterrent. And if you think that half a dozen 2nd hand fighters is 'an effective Defence Force' - then you are away with the fairies.

Brazil for example is buying only 36 Gripen NG's (only 28 pure strike variants), are you suggesting 6-12 (12 being more likely needed) of the Gripen C variants wouldn't be enough for the needs of Ireland? What numbers of what fighters do you think we'd need? Hungary and the Czech's operate 12-14 C/D models?

seanaway

sparky42 wrote: »

Brazil for example is buying only 36 Gripen NG's (only 28 pure strike variants), are you suggesting 6-12 (12 being more likely needed) of the Gripen C variants wouldn't be enough for the needs of Ireland? What numbers of what fighters do you think we'd need? Hungary and the Czech's operate 12-14 C/D models?

I'm suggesting a proper all round well equipped defence forces. No government will spend what's needed. That, plus we are too small a country to last long on its own in a major fight.
Now, if you're talking about playing tag with some Russian Bear infringing into Irish airspace -grand.
If you're talking about escorting / shooting down a hijacked-bomb laden aircraft on its way to Dublin - Grand

Now, how these Gripens would help us keep Russian subs out I have no idea.
No real naval defence to speak of so on top of the millions needed for a few aircraft we would need to spend that with a few zeros to build an effective naval service. (no offence to the service as is).

sparky42

seanaway wrote: »

I'm suggesting a proper all round well equipped defence forces. No government will spend what's needed. That, plus we are too small a country to last long on its own in a major fight.
Now, if you're talking about playing tag with some Russian Bear infringing into Irish airspace -grand.
If you're talking about escorting / shooting down a hijacked-bomb laden aircraft on its way to Dublin - Grand

Now, how these Gripens would help us keep Russian subs out I have no idea.
No real naval defence to speak of so on top of the millions needed for a few aircraft we would need to spend that with a few zeros to build an effective naval service. (no offence to the service as is).

The planned for replacement of the 235's are the 295's, already designed for MPA variants, and cheap for MPA's (and like I said already planned for 3 aircraft from the White Paper). Also the underlying fact is that the Russian SSN's are going to be in very short supply for Russia with the next 5 years due to the block end of life and the failure to replace them post USSR.

hytrogen

Given the aircore are progressively being called into fisheries monitoring (it's a big blue wet thing to monitor!) as well as MSAR surveillance I would be of the opinion our military presence is progressively becoming more utilized at home.
The fact that during recent floods and previous blizzards to hit the British isles (steady..) & media showing the Irish DF's helping out the people (logs & dig outs while enjoying mrs. Browns cuppa tae) and the Brits sticking their noses up previously to now assisting after been shown what a great DF should and can do, I'd say I'm quite proud of our lads & they deserve a pat on the back!

Silvera

Unfortunately, when we get a new govt Coveney (most likely) wont be Minister for Defence ...so any plans for Air Corps jet aircraft could be out the window.

Wonder is there any movement by the powers-that-be regarding putting the new military radar system in place?

sparky42

Silvera wrote: »

Unfortunately, when we get a new govt Coveney (most likely) wont be Minister for Defence ...so any plans for jet aircraft could be out the window.

Wonder is the any movement by the powers-that-be regarding putting the new military radar sytem in place?

The Radar System was never a near priority as far as I read the White Paper, it was always on a we want to fund this when we can, it's not like there's a tender waiting in the wings, and given the EPV/MRV is going to be at least €120 million (thus eating up capital budgets even if there was an increase in Capital funding.)

seanaway

sparky42 wrote: »

The planned for replacement of the 235's are the 295's, already designed for MPA variants, and cheap for MPA's (and like I said already planned for 3 aircraft from the White Paper). Also the underlying fact is that the Russian SSN's are going to be in very short supply for Russia with the next 5 years due to the block end of life and the failure to replace them post USSR.

So, in brief - no worries about Russia as Putin is going to leave the Russian armed forces go to pot?

Have you read this?
http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-military-spending-2016-navy-air-force-modernize-expand-kremlin-says-2224045

sparky42

seanaway wrote: »

So, in brief - no worries about Russia as Putin is going to leave the Russian armed forces go to pot?

Have you read this?
http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-military-spending-2016-navy-air-force-modernize-expand-kremlin-says-2224045

The Kremlin announces such expansions virtually every year, I mean I think at this stage Vlad has announced at least half a dozen super carriers that will match the Nimitz class by 2020 for example, and yet nothing has/will come of it.

They went to France as they couldn't build Amphibs for example.

In terms of the Subs, it's strict numbers that I pointed out, have you looked at their build rates post USSR? The UK struggled to rebuild their knowledge/industrial base for the Astutes with a shorter build holiday for example. The Russians can't replace them at the rate they had, even the 2 dozen SSN's they have left aren't being replaced at the rate they need to maintain that level, 6 of their 17 SSN's are 25 years old, their reactors are going to be ending within 5 years. Only 1 is younger than 10 years.

Are the Russian's investing heavily in their military, without question, is it enough to replace everything that's end of lifing from the USSR days, no it simply isn't. Their heavy naval surface units are most likely never going to be replaced due to industrial loss (the yards were in Ukraine, and their "Ukrainian adventure" has kind of made that a moot point (they had to sell of some brand new frigates without engines) along with such impacts as hitting all the helicopter transmission systems that were built there. Moreover even with Vlad's games with the economy the protracted oil collapse is hurting Russia, even their own defence minister told their companies that post 2018 new orders were going to be contained due to budgets.

Should we build up proper multi role MPA's that could both domestic and international operations, without question? Does that mean that Vlad's limited sub hours are being spent in Irish Waters, most likely not.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

The planned for replacement of the 235's are the 295's, already designed for MPA variants, and cheap for MPA's (and like I said already planned for 3 aircraft from the White Paper).

Was this ever confirmed?

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Was this ever confirmed?

There hasn't been movement on any of the White Paper positions, but it fits the suggestion of the WP, besides think the 235's are coming up on replacement dates.

Negative_G

sparky42 wrote: »

There hasn't been movement on any of the White Paper positions, but it fits the suggestion of the WP, besides think the 235's are coming up on replacement dates.

You should have been a politician, it was a yes or no answer.

No, it hasn't been confirmed. There has been no tender issued as of yet. So pure speculation on your part although I grant you that it would be a likely choice given the requirements and the corporate knowledge of operating 235s for over 20 years.

Also, the current 235s received extensive mid life upgrades around the mid to late 2000's so are far from finished yet.

sparky42

Negative_G wrote: »

No, it hasn't been confirmed. There has been no tender issued as of yet. So pure speculation on your part although I grant you that it would be a likely choice given the requirements and the corporate knowledge of operating 235s for over 20 years.

Actually since none of the equipment suggested by the WP has been even put to tender I thought it was it was an obvious answer.

And I think there's another clear reason for going with the 295's, the only other current sub 130 design in wide use is the C27J Spartan, which comes in at $53 million a unit, compared with between $20-$28 million a unit for the C 295, so for 3 Spartan's we could buy at least five of the 295's, so all things being considered the 295's are the more likely option.

Silvera

I have heard from Air Corps sources that 3 x CASA 295's will be purchased as 235-replacements.

As regards the proposed radar system, it was my understanding that Coveney viewed it as the priority (at a cost of c.€10 million) ...and viewed jets as 'when we have the money'.

Regarding suggested russian military expansion, according to an article by George Soros (today) Russia will be bankrupt in 2017 ?!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/refugee-crisis-putins-russia-in-race-with-eu-to-see-which-will-collapse-first-381172.html?ref=yfp

BoJack Horseman

I was looking on Wiki & it mentioned that Ireland has 2 x maritime patrol variants of the old C-235.

Does this mean it has surface and/or sub-surface radar equipment?

Would their replacements also have this or just be basic transporter versions?

BoJack Horseman

Silvera wrote: »

Regarding suggested russian military expansion, according to an article by George Soros (today) Russia will be bankrupt in 2017 ?!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/refugee-crisis-putins-russia-in-race-with-eu-to-see-which-will-collapse-first-381172.html?ref=yfp

And Russia is not going bankrupt any time soon.

The people for decades were told to suffer for the glory of the motherland & the czar is playing the same card again... he has concocted plenty of outside threats to keep attention focused away from his ineptitude.

(also there is a lot wrong with that article from Soros).

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I was looking on Wiki & it mentioned that Ireland has 2 x maritime patrol variants of the old C-235.

Does this mean it has surface and/or sub-surface radar equipment?

Would their replacements also have this or just be basic transporter versions?

They have Surface radar/IR systems from memory but no sub-surface systems (ie MAD/Sonarbouys), and no wing fittings for any weapon pylons (again from memory they were transports refitted with MPA systems rather than the "true" MPA variants, though I could be wrong).

I suppose what we get will depend on the Government/Minister of the day, ideally if we got three I think we should split it with one "true" transport variant with the other 2 being the MPA variant.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

And Russia is not going bankrupt any time soon.

The people for decades were told to suffer for the glory of the motherland & the czar is playing the same card again... he has concocted plenty of outside threats to keep attention focused away from his ineptitude.

(also there is a lot wrong with that article from Soros).

I agree they aren't going bankrupt, think at some stage they might wake up to being China's B***h (due to a large combination of factors), but it's not going to happen soon.

But as I said at the same time, Russia does face huge issues across the board that does restrict them, I mean they have a lot of "projects" penciled in, but whether they ever get into service is the other question.

Ren2k7

FG vows to increase the Naval Service to 9 vessels as part of its manifesto.

• Naval Service: The ship replacement programme will continue and over the lifetime of the White Paper, Fine Gael will move from an 8- to a 9-ship naval flotilla, to provide for a multi-role vessel. This will allow for continued humanitarian assistance and will enhance Defence capability for maritime security operations.

http://www.finegael.ie/__uuid/b5055220-ec96-4f03-b18a-4506e8d3119c/manifesto.pdf

I'd imagine for many here this confirms who they're voting for now.

Markcheese

I looked up that page in the fg manifesto with a bit of trepidation,
But it's actually suitably vague- the white paper more or less, if we get the money bla -bla .
Thats good though .i'd be worried (for the nation ) if they were actually promising ,f-16s ,fremms and battle tanks. Couldnt pay for them and nowhere to use them anyway...
Would think army and garda intelligence (oxymoron I know ) would give most bang for the euro -wont win votes though ...

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

FG vows to increase the Naval Service to 9 vessels as part of its manifesto.



http://www.finegael.ie/__uuid/b5055220-ec96-4f03-b18a-4506e8d3119c/manifesto.pdf

I'd imagine for many here this confirms who they're voting for now.

So the EPV and 8 ships, so the plan was replacing the Peacocks with similar with Anti-Mine capability (however that works), so what's the extra ship going to be I wonder, another P60?

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

I looked up that page in the fg manifesto with a bit of trepidation,
But it's actually suitably vague- the white paper more or less, if we get the money bla -bla .
Thats good though .i'd be worried (for the nation ) if they were actually promising ,f-16s ,fremms and battle tanks. Couldnt pay for them and nowhere to use them anyway...
Would think army and garda intelligence (oxymoron I know ) would give most bang for the euro -wont win votes though ...

Well the expansion to the Navy wasn't in the WP, so there's that, wonder what the enlargement of the Rangers is about, haven't we had several announcements of enlarging them at this stage?

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

So the EPV and 8 ships, so the plan was replacing the Peacocks with similar with Anti-Mine capability (however that works), so what's the extra ship going to be I wonder, another P60?

The extra vessel would appear to be at odds with the FG drafted White Paper. Curious.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Well the expansion to the Navy wasn't in the WP, so there's that, wonder what the enlargement of the Rangers is about, haven't we had several announcements of enlarging them at this stage?

More Rangers makes sense. Ireland needs to be clever and considerate with its limited defence budget and you get far more bang for your buck with special forces than a few hundred more teenage reservists. The emphasis in most Western militaries these days tends to be doing more with less.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The extra vessel would appear to be at odds with the FG drafted White Paper. Curious.

I'm wondering if it's an immediate outcome of the Med operation, the WP would have been finalised before that, instead we had months of operations. From memory Coveny did make comments to PDFORA I think regarding the potential need of expanding the fleet if we were looking at a long term operational demand.

IrishTrajan

seanaway wrote: »

So, in brief - no worries about Russia as Putin is going to leave the Russian armed forces go to pot?

Have you read this?
http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-military-spending-2016-navy-air-force-modernize-expand-kremlin-says-2224045

The Russians are notorious for making grandiose statements and then reneging on them, and Russia's modernization is going to be focused a little less on Ireland and a little more on actual rivals.

I'm fully supportive of greater defence spending, but by no means will we have to deal with chasing Russian submarines - the Brits will do that.

Morpheus

What about marauding Russian blackjack bombers? (tu160's)

They were poncing around the english channel yesterday evening and how does this affect us you may ask?

Well heres a hint, they didn't get there by flying over france.

sparky42

Morpheus wrote: »

What about marauding Russian blackjack bombers? (tu160's)

They were poncing around the english channel yesterday evening and how does this affect us you may ask?

Well heres a hint, they didn't get there by flying over france.

True, but I'd call it fairly stupid to use the Blackjack's, I mean they only have about a dozen in operational usage (less than the B2's), using up their airframes lifespan on a routine mission seems pointless to me. This comes back to the point that disregarding their grand announcements, the actual depth of the Russian military is much thinner than some admit. I mean they are promising a new Stealth bomber in the mid 2020's but I doubt it to be honest.

But I'm sure the Mick/Claire/PANA loonies will still tell us it's all our/NATO/US fault for provoking the poor Russians.

Silvera

"The British aircraft were scrambled from a Royal Air Force base in eastern England and escorted the Russian planes while they flew in an area which is closely monitored by Britain, but outside its territorial airspace".

= Irish air space??


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-russia-fighters-idUKKCN0VQ1YL

seanaway

Silvera wrote: »

"The British aircraft were scrambled from a Royal Air Force base in eastern England and escorted the Russian planes while they flew in an area which is closely monitored by Britain, but outside its territorial airspace".

= Irish air space??


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-russia-fighters-idUKKCN0VQ1YL

Quick....out with the gallybanders! Because that's all we got..

Markcheese

Or just outside Britains 12 mile limit , in international airspace,

Pat Dunne

Silvera wrote: »

"The British aircraft were scrambled from a Royal Air Force base in eastern England and escorted the Russian planes while they flew in an area which is closely monitored by Britain, but outside its territorial airspace".

= Irish air space??


http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-russia-fighters-idUKKCN0VQ1YL

Here you go. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98779668&postcount=614

Do you mean "Irish conrtolled air space" or "Irish territorial airspace"?
As "Irish controlled airspace" extends several hundred miles off the coast of Ireland. Whereas Irish territorial airspace extends to a limit of 12 miles from the nearest coastline.

Silvera

I just read an article in AFM about Uruaguay seeking replacements for its fleet of 40-year-old Cessna Dragonfly jets. It mentioned that they are considering YAK-130's and ex-Swiss AF F-5's. The article stated that they want jets with the capability to intercept both military and civilian jets and, as they are a small country, the replacement jets must have the requsite speed and onboard radar to conduct such intercepts.

Of the jets discussed for possible use by the Air Corps, which have onboard radar? ...I presume to the Gripen does?

Negative_G

Silvera wrote: »

Of the jets discussed for possible use by the Air Corps, which have onboard radar? ...I presume to the Gripen does?

A 30 second google search provided the following.

The Gripen entered service using the PS-05/A pulse-Doppler X band multi-mode radar, developed by Ericsson and GEC-Marconi, which is based on the latter's advanced Blue Vixen radar for the Sea Harrier that also served as the basis for the Eurofighter's CAPTOR radar.[104][85] The all-weather radar is capable of locating and identifying targets 120 km (74 mi) away,[105] and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air. It can guide several beyond visual range air-to-air missiles to multiple targets simultaneously.[106] Saab stated the PS-05/A is able to handle all types of air defense, air-to-surface, and reconnaissance missions,[85] and is developing a Mark 4 upgrade to it.[107][108] The Mark 4 version has a 150% increase in high-altitude air-to-air detection ranges, detection and tracking of smaller targets at current ranges, 140% improvement in air-to-air mode at low altitude, and full integration of modern weapons such as the AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, and MBDA Meteor missiles.

Silvera

Negative_G wrote: »

A 30 second google search provided the following.

I'd say it took a little more than 30 seconds?!;)

Negative_G

Silvera wrote: »

I'd say it took a little more than 30 seconds?!;)

You'd be surprised!

seanaway

All fantasy talk lads. No government here will ever have the bal*s to spend money on REAL air defence systems...end of.

Negative_G

seanaway wrote: »

All fantasy talk lads. No government here will ever have the bal*s to spend money on REAL air defence systems...end of.

Well that's it folks, discussion over.

Silvera

Negative_G wrote: »

Well that's it folks, discussion over.

Dont agree.

Negative_G

Silvera wrote: »

Dont agree.

seanaway

Negative_G wrote: »

Well that's it folks, discussion over.

Can't see the point of a discussion on this point that has no hope of ever reflecting reality.

sparky42

seanaway wrote: »

Can't see the point of a discussion on this point that has no hope of ever reflecting reality.

Then why are you posting in it? Plenty of the topics in Boards.ie could be summed up the same, do you go into each one?

Shannon757

seanaway wrote: »

All fantasy talk lads. No government here will ever have the bal*s to spend money on REAL air defence systems...end of.

Not if we get elected as our own party.

Dublin_Gunner

Shannon757 wrote: »

Not if we get elected as our own party.

Anti-Air Alliance, Prevent Bear Patrols.

AAA-PBP - has a nice ring to it.

seanaway

sparky42 wrote: »

Then why are you posting in it? Plenty of the topics in Boards.ie could be summed up the same, do you go into each one?

Nope. I came in here as I thought it might have some views from people who have influence in the area....
Seems to be just people who like to have a fantasy chat...

Not saying that what you are saying is wrong. You guys do know your stuff for the most part but it just won't happen in Ireland.

Silvera

seanaway wrote: »

Nope. I came in here as I thought it might have some views from people who have influence in the area....
Seems to be just people who like to have a fantasy chat...

Not saying that what you are saying is wrong. You guys do know your stuff for the most part but it just won't happen in Ireland.

So you think govt ministers and Air Corps chiefs post on boards.ie?! Nice idea... but pure fantasy! :P

Morpheus

[mod]please keep it civil lads[/mod]

we all would like to see major investment in air defences - the thing is its all conjecture and fantasy, to a point.
There may be some members here who are serving or who have served, but you most likely wont hear them admit to it always, there are strict military rules governing the use of the internet and social media for serving members of the DF, both PDF and RDF.

Back to the matter in hand, what IS real from discussions involving the whitepaper and some comments included therein, is the desire to purchase some form of military air search radar capability for the west coast and a mention of investigating the possibility of fighter jets, please remember, we have as a country operated more than one type of jet fighters in the past, vampire and fouga's, its not impossible, the cost implications of such capital expenditure coupled with the current defence envelope are however limiting what we can realistically hope for. hopefully over the course of the next 2 or 3 governments we begin to admit to ownership of one of the largest EEZs in the EU and begin to plan on how to successfully monitor, manage and protect it, sub surface, surface and air.

Larbre34

BBC Top Gear inadvertently having a go at our air defence tonight..

Professor Brian Cox, appearing as a guest, was speaking about his experiment flying at Mach 1.4 in an RAF Typhoon attempting to chase the sun, i.e. fly west fast enough and contrive a sunrise straight after a sunset.

Cox said he was having great fun doing it and asked the pilot to keep going west, over Ireland and out over the Atlantic to see how high the sun would appear again. The pilot said he couldn't, it would trigger an international incident and break lots of windows, that they would appear on Irish early warning radar and they (we) would scramble our Cessna....

Very funny of course, take the mick out of the Paddys lack of intercept capability. But the joke's on them, we don't have an early warning air defence radar grid, so we would likely not even have noticed them....

Hahahahahaha.