Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

KingBrian2

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

That experiment sounds silly and should never have been allowed occur in the first place.

Boreas

Given the total lack of interest in the military in Ireland and the cross party consensus that funding should be kept to a bare minimum, I have a question.

Which role currently carried out by the Air Corps or Naval Service couldn't be carried out by civilian agencies? The NS main role is fisheries protection and the Air Corps provide air ambulance and (at least occasionally) VIP transport, but does either service have real military missions?

If we, as a nation, aren't prepared to pay for a real military maybe it's time to stop pretending and just declare Ireland demilitarised.

Jawgap

Boreas wrote: »

Given the total lack of interest in the military in Ireland and the cross party consensus that funding should be kept to a bare minimum, I have a question.

Which role currently carried out by the Air Corps or Naval Service couldn't be carried out by civilian agencies? The NS main role is fisheries protection and the Air Corps provide air ambulance and (at least occasionally) VIP transport, but does either service have real military missions?

If we, as a nation, aren't prepared to pay for a real military maybe it's time to stop pretending and just declare Ireland demilitarised.

No, but it does help maintain a capability that can be called on to address future, as yet to be identified, contingencies.

The problem with contracting in the service is that most suppliers of those services make their real money when you have to go off contract - so, say for example you contract someone in to do fisheries air patrols. They'll agree to provide a certain type of aircraft, at a certain availability and provide a certain number of hours to a given timetable. As soon as you try send them off to fly top cover for a search and rescue or a drugs interdiction, the non-contract hourly rate will likely go through the roof, plus they may refuse to do certain work.

Morpheus

Boreas wrote: »

Given the total lack of interest in the military in Ireland and the cross party consensus that funding should be kept to a bare minimum, I have a question.

Which role currently carried out by the Air Corps or Naval Service couldn't be carried out by civilian agencies? The NS main role is fisheries protection and the Air Corps provide air ambulance and (at least occasionally) VIP transport, but does either service have real military missions?

If we, as a nation, aren't prepared to pay for a real military maybe it's time to stop pretending and just declare Ireland demilitarised.

COIN Air to ground attack using FFAR rockets and .5 machine guns?
Armed insertion of troops via helicopter - each armed with 7.62 Gpmg's adapted for the role?

BoJack Horseman

Morpheus wrote: »

COIN Air to ground attack

Where?

donvito99

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Where?

An inflated balloon in the sea near Gormanston.

Morpheus

and here

and here

Boreas

Morpheus wrote: »

COIN Air to ground attack using FFAR rockets and .5 machine guns?
Armed insertion of troops via helicopter - each armed with 7.62 Gpmg's adapted for the role?

From what I've read here and on IMO the Air Corps have never deployed air assets outside the state and lack the capability, and possibly the desire at command level, to do so in support of Irish UN missions or EU Battlegroup.

Is this incorrect?

Negative_G

Boreas wrote: »

From what I've read here and on IMO the Air Corps have never deployed air assets outside the state and lack the capability, and possibly the desire at command level, to do so in support of Irish UN missions or EU Battlegroup.

Is this incorrect?

Yes, it is incorrect. Of course it depends on what your definition of deployed is.

The problem is not with the Air Corps. There was no policy and no capital funding to invest in new air assets to deploy in an overseas role. In fact, even if there was huge investment, the previous white paper prevented the idea outright.

This is a DOD/Government issue. No matter how much the brass want it to happen or try and sell it, it has to pass through a civil servants desk. And that's where it stops.

With the Cessna replacement and the White Paper there is a hope that it might happen.

Regarding IMO. I would take everything you read there with a large pinch of salt. While I've read some good thoughts/insight (albeit rarely), there is some awful rubbish passed off as fact. Those with an agenda are numerous and clear to see.

The armchair generals posting would be better off trying to problem solve the issue of retention in the Air Corps rather than debate how many Gripens we need to defend our airspace. The mind boggles.

BoJack Horseman

Anyone see this on the Examiner?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-air-force-asked-defend-ireland/

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/raf-tornado-jets-could-shoot-down-hijacked-planes-in-irish-airspace-414646.html

(I assume that the Examiner got it wrong and were meant to say Typhoons instead of Tornados).

The denziens of the top site are not happy, understandable if short sighted.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Anyone see this on the Examiner?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-air-force-asked-defend-ireland/

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/raf-tornado-jets-could-shoot-down-hijacked-planes-in-irish-airspace-414646.html

(I assume that the Examiner got it wrong and were meant to say Typhoons instead of Tornados).

The denziens of the top site are not happy, understandable if short sighted.

I'm guessing that whatever the Examiner saw/heard about this, it's dated info from when the Tornadoes were in service as QRA around 9/11.

Jawgap

sparky42 wrote: »

I'm guessing that whatever the Examiner saw/heard about this, it's dated info from when the Tornadoes were in service as QRA around 9/11.

My understanding (I've no links to back this up) is that in the wake of 9/11 there was a tentative agreement that the RAF QRF could access Irish airspace to conduct an interception without prior permission having to be obtained first. That was pretty much the full extent of the arrangement. The arrangement was 'renewed' in the run up to the G7 in Fermanagh.

There was a suggestion that if Ireland was the target then the Taoiseach of the day could request the assistance of the UK, but I'd imagine that the final shoot-down order would rest with the PM there, not with Enda (Thank God!!!!).

Larbre34

A timely article from Dan O'Brien in the Indo says it all methinks.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/ireland-takes-a-free-ride-on-the-back-of-nato-as-it-protects-us-34956342.html

Although we should, we have no need to spend on air and sea defence when any aggression in our region would be enough to trigger a response from nearby NATO actors. We can't defend ourselves, we won't defend ourselves, we're unlikely to have to defend ourselves.

Silvera

Yes, we are 'free-riding' on the back of NATO...but how embarassing as a nation that we have chosen to do so!?!

As the absolute minimum (we CAN afford it) we should have a squadron of fighter jets (and the requisite radar coverage) capable of 'harassing' intruding 'bears' ..or other such aircraft.

Negative_G

Silvera wrote: »

Yes, we are 'free-riding' on the back of NATO...but how embarassing as a nation that we have chosen to do so!?!

As the absolute minimum (we CAN afford it) we should have a squadron of fighter jets (and the requisite radar coverage) capable of 'harassing' intruding 'bears' ..or other such aircraft.

The vast majority of the electorate don't care. The politicians don't care for defence and never have.

Such an investment would always be compared to hospital beds, social welfare, education or homelessness and it is will always be a losing battle.

The fact that our paltry spend as a % of GDP is split 70/30 in favour of pay and pensions is a crime in itself.

Nothing will change. This is Irishness summed up perfectly.

"Sure it will be grand"

It is embarrassing and as a nation we need to **** or get off the pot and either join NATO or else have a credible Defence Forces capable of asserting our neutrality as opposed to the current status quo which amounts to the sum value of SFA.

The government is forecast to spend €640m in foreign aid this year. An increase of €40m on 2015. It has been mentioned here before by others that diverting funds from this specifically towards capital investment would be entirely viable and justifiable.

Having a fast jet capability is not cheap, but it is achievable and can be done over the course of a decade. These things don't happen overnight.

Jawgap

Silvera wrote: »

Yes, we are 'free-riding' on the back of NATO...but how embarassing as a nation that we have chosen to do so!?!

As the absolute minimum (we CAN afford it) we should have a squadron of fighter jets (and the requisite radar coverage) capable of 'harassing' intruding 'bears' ..or other such aircraft.

You can't just have one squadron of fast jets......people don't seem to realise that that the jets are the ends, not the means.

In other words to get to a stage where you can stand up just one squadron of fast jets you have to invest heavily in the support structures involved - for example it costs the RAF about stg£8m to train a Tiffy driver, that means in pilot training alone you'd spend close on €110m to train 12 fast jet pilots, and that's assuming we get someone else to handle training rather than invest in the infrastructure needed to turn out pilots.

Of course, if you have one squadron, you probably need about 20 pilots, plus an ongoing cost to maintain a stream of replacements to cover promotions, departures etc (turnover in an RAF squadron is about 20 to 25% per year).....and that's after you've bought the jets, upgraded the hard and soft infrastructure and before you start to pay for fuel, maintenance and ongoing training.

CalamariFritti

I understand that for some people being a 'powerful' nation and grandeur and all that seems important.
Grand if you're a large nation with resources that attract other hostile nations etc you may have to bite the bullet and have proper defense forces. But for Ireland it would be money out the window and a pointless gesture imho. Some people mention the threat of Russia. Don't get me started on that one. Whatever one may think about Russia I think Ireland is as much in their strategic consideration as is Burkina Faso.

Markcheese

Would we be any safer,with a few jets ..

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

Would we be any safer,with a few jets ..

Considering at the moment we are relying on the RAF I'd say the Government thinks there's at least a risk.

There's also areas of UN operations, from memory didn't the French provide FJ for Chad for example?

seanaway

All fantasy lads...... Irish people like to play the two edge sword of ' sure we'll be grand' but when the sh*t hits the fan it's 'Ah sure would you all look at us little folk...sure you couldn't let us be killed now ....'

ectoraige

Since we're in fantasy land, has Textron received any orders yet for it's scorpion jet? Touted at $20 million a pop, with $3000 operational costs per flight hour, it's countries like us that they'd love to make their market.

Heraldoffreeent

ectoraige wrote: »

Since we're in fantasy land, has Textron received any orders yet for it's scorpion jet? Touted at $20 million a pop, with $3000 operational costs per flight hour, it's countries like us that they'd love to make their market.

Its not really though, the scorpion is too slow to catch a bear, or even an airliner cruising at speed.
Of course you can upgrade to faster engines, but now its costing you $40m, and the flight hour costs increase exponentially.

The scorpion is just a warming over of the 70's concept of a mudfighter, a cheap low tech slow plane that can support troops on the ground, deliver a relatively low payload and do COIN, trying to make it something its not(an interceptor) is just putting lipstick on a pig.

ectoraige

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Its not really though, the scorpion is too slow to catch a bear, or even an airliner cruising at speed.
Of course you can upgrade to faster engines, but now its costing you $40m, and the flight hour costs increase exponentially.

The scorpion is just a warming over of the 70's concept of a mudfighter, a cheap low tech slow plane that can support troops on the ground, deliver a relatively low payload and do COIN, trying to make it something its not(an interceptor) is just putting lipstick on a pig.

Hush with your facts, they're not needed in fantasy land - sure they only have to fly towards the airliner/soviet bomber, no need for speed

Larbre34

Incident on Sept 22nd, two Russian Blackjack bombers flew a course from the Arctic,down Norway, Scotland, Ireland, France and Iberia. Along four of those five coasts they were intercepted and escorted by QRA from local air stations.

Have a guess which coast they flew along unmolested and unencumbered??

A shameful disgrace as usual.

donvito99

What is the cruise speed of the Tu160? If we can't fork out the €100mn per annum for a dozen mach 2 Gripens from Sweden, could the L39NG or M346 or Hawk match speed/altitude?

LordSutch

ShotgunPaddy wrote: »

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.

Defend from whom?

Heraldoffreeent

donvito99 wrote: »

What is the cruise speed of the Tu160? If we can't fork out the €100mn per annum for a dozen mach 2 Gripens from Sweden, could the L39NG or M346 or Hawk match speed/altitude?

Top speed is about Mach2, cruise speed is about Mach 1.The problem with the airframes mentioned above is twofold, one, that if you add missiles and extra fuel tanks, you slow them right down.
And two, you have to look at the other costs involved other than the airframes, you can't point a Bae Hawk in the direction of Galway and say find that Blackjack out in the North Atlantic, you need a proper integrated radar system and again, you need missiles which cost money and are time limited.

Also, the 39NG is a bit vapourwearish at the moment, seeing as its predecessor was hardly a success, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Larbre34

LordSutch wrote: »

On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.

Defend from whom?

You will note the RAF did not shadow the Bombers off our coast on this occasion. And why should they? Our relationship with UK is changing, whether we want it to or not. We need to be able to fence our own yard.

Cheap subsonic jets wont cut it, it has to be full fat interceptors. I recognise the financial commitment that takes, along with the radar system, but we really cannot abdicate this any longer.

As an interim solution I would do a bilateral deal with the Swedish to station say 4 Grippens and crew in Ireland and couch it in some kind of neutral nations interoperable treaty.

sparky42

LordSutch wrote: »

On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.

Defend from whom?

The RN has had to use OPV's to do escorts for Russian hulls, or in some cases leave them for a couple of days, that and the coming hull crunch they face means that they have their own priorities.

The RAF does have the fighters to do the job, but the question is how much political will is there going to be to continue that? I mean just look at what the Tories have been throwing out in this conference season.

Frankly as a nation we aren't poor, not when Eastern EU nations are finding the resources to manage the job, there's a chance sooner or later the UK/EU is going to say "No".

donvito99

Cheapest option would be to join NATO, screw the 2% requirement and paint Russian activity on the west coast to be as threatening as activity in the Baltics where NATO provides a QRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing).

BoJack Horseman

sparky42 wrote: »

The RN has had to use OPV's to do escorts for Russian hulls, or in some cases leave them for a couple of days, that and the coming hull crunch they face means that they have their own priorities.

I've been reading up on late on the hull situation in the RN on the few UK defence sites.

Quite tragic how things are there.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I've been reading up on late on the hull situation in the RN on the few UK defence sites.

Quite tragic how things are there.

That's an understatement IMO, combined they've really fecked up and it doesn't look like it's getting better in any way, but it's not like it wasn't flagged.

The point it, when you consider once QE goes operational and is being used out of Europe, then that's going to need a set number of hulls, add in other taskings, repair/refit and end of life... The RN isn't going to be thrilled at picking up anything we can't simply due to our unwillingness to pay.

sparky42

donvito99 wrote: »

Cheapest option would be to join NATO, screw the 2% requirement and paint Russian activity on the west coast to be as threatening as activity in the Baltics where NATO provides a QRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing).

It wouldn't be cheap politically, and more over, we are not those nations, I could guess the response from others when our defence spending is still beyond a bad joke.

BoJack Horseman

sparky42 wrote: »

It wouldn't be cheap politically, and more over, we are not those nations, I could guess the response from others when our defence spending is still beyond a bad joke.

Indeed.
Ireland is 3 times wealthier than the trio of Baltic States combined.
No chance playing the poor man.

Plus, we would be unlikely to get a special dispensation like Iceland either.

Jawgap

Larbre34 wrote: »

Incident on Sept 22nd, two Russian Blackjack bombers flew a course from the Arctic,down Norway, Scotland, Ireland, France and Iberia. Along four of those five coasts they were intercepted and escorted by QRA from local air stations.

Have a guess which coast they flew along unmolested and unencumbered??

A shameful disgrace as usual.

They weren't off out coast - they were in our 'area of interest' which is to say they were out over the ocean not breaching our sovereignty.

The idea we should blow several hundred million each year to maintain the capability to escort the odd Bear is, frankly, ridiculous. Especially, as we will never, ever authorise a shootdown - can you really see Edna or any Taoiseach - ordering one? So if we are not going to offer a credible threat why bother?

deRanged

We could at least make a start by putting together a proper radar system, and then provide feeds from that system to our neighbours.
That's entirely affordable. Once that's in place we could look at interceptors or missile defense systems.

Boreas

They only way anything will ever change in regard to military spending in Ireland is if it becomes a political issue.

Those who want to see Ireland spend the money necessary to create a modern Army/Navy/Air Force capable of deterring Russian agression, taking part in international deployments other than peace keeping, joining NATO, or whatever people imagine such a military would do, need to organise in the real world.

Every issue seems to have its own pressure group or 'institute' and they all try to pursuade government to change policy in the direction they want. What people need to do is start a pro-Defence spending lobby group. This is hard work and will take years to get anywhere but right now if there is a debate on new ships for the Navy or replacement aircraft or whatever who does RTE call for a pro-defence spokesperson? Serving military are limited in what they can say.

A small group with a few hundred members could ensure that politians get questions on the lack of military capability on a regular basis. When something like the Russian aircraft transiting the Irish area of control happens someone needs to be issuing a press release or organising people to call into local radio shows etc.. Most media have more hours/pages than they can fill and will use press releases if they are well written and come from an organisation that has some support and builds up a track record.

There is no organisation trying to convince the public that Ireland needs a more capable military or that the country has a duty as one of the world's richer states to play a greater roll. I'm sure the average politician never gets questions from constituents on the military, and the reality is they will only act if they think there are votes to support action.

Just my two cents, easy for me to say I'm not living in Ireland at the moment...

Jesus.

LordSutch wrote: »

On our doorstep we have the RAF, The Royal Navy & the BA to keep us safe.

I know you're of Anglo-Irish Protestant stock Sutch but even so doesn't that sound a little weak?

Silvera

While talk of Ireland getting 'jets' has gone quiet here...

Are there any developments / movement as regards the (c.€10million) 'full radar coverage' which was mooted by former Defence Minister Coveney a couple of years ago??

BoJack Horseman

Silvera wrote: »

While talk of Ireland getting 'jets' has gone quiet here...

Are there any developments / movement as regards the (c.€10million) 'full radar coverage' which was mooted by former Defence Minister Coveney a couple of years ago??

Well, they gave themselves the lifespan of the white paper to implement this very modest capability.

the capital budget for the defence forces was bolstered by a whopping €7m at the last budget!

seanaway

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, they gave themselves the lifespan of the white paper to implement this very modest capability.

the capital budget for the defence forces was bolstered by a whopping €7m at the last budget!

Lads - give it up . Ireland will NEVER have air defence worth diddly - Politicians too cwardly/ignorant. Public too indifferent/ignoran. SF - well enough said.

AnGaelach

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I understand that for some people being a 'powerful' nation and grandeur and all that seems important.
Grand if you're a large nation with resources that attract other hostile nations etc you may have to bite the bullet and have proper defense forces. But for Ireland it would be money out the window and a pointless gesture imho. Some people mention the threat of Russia. Don't get me started on that one. Whatever one may think about Russia I think Ireland is as much in their strategic consideration as is Burkina Faso.

Yeah, it's not like we'd ever have to stop Loyalists setting off bombs in the Republic, or that we might end up with Islamists hijacking a plane and pulling off a miniature 9/11.

It's absolutely ridiculous to think that just because we don't need a strong defence forces now means we never will. The time and energy it takes to actually create a competent military infrastructure makes it impossible to go from an emaciated skeleton force to one capable of actually defending the State.

It's cheaper and easier to build and maintain a small, highly efficient and highly competent force than to let it die and then try to rush some sort of effective defence together if the need ever arises.

AnGaelach

Whether you like it or not, Ireland is going to need modern capabilities at some stage. That's just a fact of statistics, as time goes on the risk of war increases exponentially. It may not happen in 5 years, or 30 years, but you can't make the argument that it'll never happen - a bit like the Gaelic clans fighting each other and never thinking some lad would go off to Wales to court the Normans into helping him. I'm sure he never thought they'd decide to stick around either.

If anything, Brexit has increased the need for having a competent military in place. Not because we're going to be fighting the British army, but by simple virtue of having two budding global powers rubbing shoulders and who already have a history of antagonising each other.

With Britain out of the EU, there'll be no major power left to block the attempts at creating a common military (for good or for worse). This leaves Ireland in a conundrum, we have our opt-out but is that going to be defended vigorously enough by the Government? I'd fear not. And even so, the EU will inevitably see us as part of their "sphere" of influence and see our lack of infrastructure as concerning for them. If I was the EU, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Government to increase in defence, or I'd look at pressuring them into accepting the deployment of EU forces. Likewise, if I was the British, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Irish Government to remain demilitarised and neutral so that they can be pressured into accepting a more passive role in letting Britain secure the Atlantic.

So we have 3 options, really. We pick the EU, we pick Britain, or we try to run a balancing act. Each of these requires having some sort a credible military force. We aren't going to turn the tide in any wars, but having an atrophied DF leaves us up shít's creek without a paddle.

I'd advocate for a balanced approach, which requires several things:

1. Maintaining our opt-out of EU defence proposals:
This requires being able to show that we are capable of defending ourselves. The EU's unlikely to pressure us into allowing them to position any sort of troops here if we have the capacity to defend Ireland domestically.
2. Expanding our MoU with Britain:
Again, it requires making clear our relationship and under what areas we can work together (e.g. Northern Ireland) while also making sure they can't pressure us into doing something we don't want.
3. Prolonged and sustained media campaign in the US:
Obviously it doesn't have much military application, but making sure to put aside money to make sure we have a strong public approval record with the US public is enormously beneficial - we can highlight things like historic ties (Fenian invasion of Canada, Washington's Irish, the US Civil War), cultural ties (appealing to Irish-Americans), political ties (needing an external power to help with the GFA and maintaining peace in Northern Ireland), economic ties (the sheer size of US investment in Ireland).

Of course, this would require stumping up some cash. Our annual budget would probably need to double (not overnight but definitely over the course of a decade we'd need to make strides to reaching 1.5-2%) and we'd need to have a concrete strategy in place (e.g. stockpiling munitions, carrying out large-scale training exercises).



Aside from the rant, I've also nothing better to do on Halloween than drunkenly look up what would possibly fill the gaps. Note, this includes mid-term "stop-gaps" to fill competencies and long-term desirability:

Air Force:
- 12-14 JAS 39 as a stop gap for 10-12 year period.
- A Patriot battery (PAC-2 has a 90-160km effective range, meaning we would only need a single battery to cover the vast majority of the island).
- 12-24 F-35s (regardless of what you personally think of them, they are the most advanced aircraft flying - if they weren't, China and Russia wouldn't be trying to make poor replicas of them - and they were designed with future compatibility with to-be-developed systems). For people saying we can't afford it, Denmark has ordered them and our economy is on par with theirs.

Army:
- 24 Leopards or Challenger 2s (again, acting as a stop gap) - depending on which one we were to go with, it leaves infrastructure intact for the next version (Leopard 3 - France and Germany are supposedly going to develop it, or the Challenger 3 - I personally have no doubt the British will develop another MBT).
- Replacing/upgrading the Piranha 3 fleet
- Acquiring more effective personnel weapons (the 9M133 - estimates of 80 launchers [10 missiles each] for $60-$100m) and stockpiling these.

Navy:
- Overhaul and replacement of the OPVs with Beckett class
- Acquisition of two surface combatants with air defences (and preferably ground-strike capabilities) and a multi-role vessel
- Two submarines (Ula-class?) to give us some kind of ability to threaten logistic lines or offer a second-strike capacity.

gallag

AnGaelach wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, Ireland is going to need modern capabilities at some stage. That's just a fact of statistics, as time goes on the risk of war increases exponentially. It may not happen in 5 years, or 30 years, but you can't make the argument that it'll never happen - a bit like the Gaelic clans fighting each other and never thinking some lad would go off to Wales to court the Normans into helping him. I'm sure he never thought they'd decide to stick around either.

If anything, Brexit has increased the need for having a competent military in place. Not because we're going to be fighting the British army, but by simple virtue of having two budding global powers rubbing shoulders and who already have a history of antagonising each other.

With Britain out of the EU, there'll be no major power left to block the attempts at creating a common military (for good or for worse). This leaves Ireland in a conundrum, we have our opt-out but is that going to be defended vigorously enough by the Government? I'd fear not. And even so, the EU will inevitably see us as part of their "sphere" of influence and see our lack of infrastructure as concerning for them. If I was the EU, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Government to increase in defence, or I'd look at pressuring them into accepting the deployment of EU forces. Likewise, if I was the British, I'd be putting enormous pressure on the Irish Government to remain demilitarised and neutral so that they can be pressured into accepting a more passive role in letting Britain secure the Atlantic.

So we have 3 options, really. We pick the EU, we pick Britain, or we try to run a balancing act. Each of these requires having some sort a credible military force. We aren't going to turn the tide in any wars, but having an atrophied DF leaves us up shít's creek without a paddle.

I'd advocate for a balanced approach, which requires several things:

1. Maintaining our opt-out of EU defence proposals:
This requires being able to show that we are capable of defending ourselves. The EU's unlikely to pressure us into allowing them to position any sort of troops here if we have the capacity to defend Ireland domestically.
2. Expanding our MoU with Britain:
Again, it requires making clear our relationship and under what areas we can work together (e.g. Northern Ireland) while also making sure they can't pressure us into doing something we don't want.
3. Prolonged and sustained media campaign in the US:
Obviously it doesn't have much military application, but making sure to put aside money to make sure we have a strong public approval record with the US public is enormously beneficial - we can highlight things like historic ties (Fenian invasion of Canada, Washington's Irish, the US Civil War), cultural ties (appealing to Irish-Americans), political ties (needing an external power to help with the GFA and maintaining peace in Northern Ireland), economic ties (the sheer size of US investment in Ireland).

Of course, this would require stumping up some cash. Our annual budget would probably need to double (not overnight but definitely over the course of a decade we'd need to make strides to reaching 1.5-2%) and we'd need to have a concrete strategy in place (e.g. stockpiling munitions, carrying out large-scale training exercises).



Aside from the rant, I've also nothing better to do on Halloween than drunkenly look up what would possibly fill the gaps. Note, this includes mid-term "stop-gaps" to fill competencies and long-term desirability:

Air Force:
- 12-14 JAS 39 as a stop gap for 10-12 year period.
- A Patriot battery (PAC-2 has a 90-160km effective range, meaning we would only need a single battery to cover the vast majority of the island).
- 12-24 F-35s (regardless of what you personally think of them, they are the most advanced aircraft flying - if they weren't, China and Russia wouldn't be trying to make poor replicas of them - and they were designed with future compatibility with to-be-developed systems). For people saying we can't afford it, Denmark has ordered them and our economy is on par with theirs.

Army:
- 24 Leopards or Challenger 2s (again, acting as a stop gap) - depending on which one we were to go with, it leaves infrastructure intact for the next version (Leopard 3 - France and Germany are supposedly going to develop it, or the Challenger 3 - I personally have no doubt the British will develop another MBT).
- Replacing/upgrading the Piranha 3 fleet
- Acquiring more effective personnel weapons (the 9M133 - estimates of 80 launchers [10 missiles each] for $60-$100m) and stockpiling these.

Navy:
- Overhaul and replacement of the OPVs with Beckett class
- Acquisition of two surface combatants with air defences (and preferably ground-strike capabilities) and a multi-role vessel
- Two submarines (Ula-class?) to give us some kind of ability to threaten logistic lines or offer a second-strike capacity.

I'd only add a couple of proper frigates, get a couple of cheep type 26 global combat ships while the exchange rate is good.

Jawgap

gallag wrote: »

I'd only add a couple of proper frigates, get a couple of cheep type 26 global combat ships while the exchange rate is good.

Ah sure why not add a couple of P-8 Poseidons (with a couple of boxes of SLAM-ERs and HARPOONs thrown in) :rolleyes:

....and an LPH.

.....seriously, people need a reality check - I like playing 'Command - Modern Air/Naval Operations' as much as the next guy but people don't seriously believe we need subs, air defence frigates, armour and F-35s do they

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

.....seriously, people need a reality check - I like playing 'Command - Modern Air/Naval Operations' as much as the next guy but people don't seriously believe we need subs, air defence frigates, armour and F-35s do they

I'm fully aware, it's just my wish-list.

And you're right, we don't "need" them at the moment, but I'd rather have have a paddle and not need it than to need it and not have a paddle.

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm fully aware, it's just my wish-list.

And you're right, we don't "need" them at the moment, but I'd rather have have a paddle and not need it than to need it and not have a paddle.

It's an expensive paddle!

And to pick one example why would we need tanks? And even if we had them where would they train and shoot?

AnGaelach

Jawgap wrote: »

It's an expensive paddle!

Surprisingly, not that expensive if done right.

Jawgap wrote: »

And to pick one example why would we need tanks?

Why does any country need tanks?

Jawgap wrote: »

And even if we had them where would they train and shoot?

I'm sure there's plenty of places to zip around, the Curragh or the central plains.

Shannon757

Jawgap wrote: »

And even if we had them where would they train and shoot?

Leitrim. We don't need Leitrim

Jawgap

AnGaelach wrote: »

Surprisingly, not that expensive if done right.

Your list is 'not that expensive"......the current flyaway price of an F-35A is about $100m, even if we got a 25% discount for bulk buying that's still $1.8 billion just for the airframes (engines cost extra!) and before you build a supporting infra-structure.

FUNFACT: Currently the RAF has more Spitfires than it has F-35s

AnGaelach wrote: »

.......

Air Force:
- 12-14 JAS 39 as a stop gap for 10-12 year period.
- A Patriot battery (PAC-2 has a 90-160km effective range, meaning we would only need a single battery to cover the vast majority of the island).
- 12-24 F-35s (regardless of what you personally think of them, they are the most advanced aircraft flying - if they weren't, China and Russia wouldn't be trying to make poor replicas of them - and they were designed with future compatibility with to-be-developed systems). For people saying we can't afford it, Denmark has ordered them and our economy is on par with theirs.

Army:
- 24 Leopards or Challenger 2s (again, acting as a stop gap) - depending on which one we were to go with, it leaves infrastructure intact for the next version (Leopard 3 - France and Germany are supposedly going to develop it, or the Challenger 3 - I personally have no doubt the British will develop another MBT).
- Replacing/upgrading the Piranha 3 fleet
- Acquiring more effective personnel weapons (the 9M133 - estimates of 80 launchers [10 missiles each] for $60-$100m) and stockpiling these.

Navy:
- Overhaul and replacement of the OPVs with Beckett class
- Acquisition of two surface combatants with air defences (and preferably ground-strike capabilities) and a multi-role vessel
- Two submarines (Ula-class?) to give us some kind of ability to threaten logistic lines or offer a second-strike capacity.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why does any country need tanks?

To shoot at other tanks - are we in danger of a thunder run coming through anywhere any time soon?

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm sure there's plenty of places to zip around, the Curragh or the central plains.

that's fine for driving, but what about shooting? Maybe some of the treadheads on here can explain how far a tank shell travels?