Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

OS119

concussion wrote: »

Much more capable altogether. Radar is capable of detecting and tracking high speed targets, gun is well capable of tracking them - whether it works in the real world is the big question though.

yeah, there seems to be a disjoint between the Air threats the Irish military seeks to counter and where air power is.

Radar-Directed 40mm guns and RBS-70 SAM's are great if you need to deny airspace on the 1980's inner German border when every attack aircraft is going to be flying at less than 1,000ft if they want to survive for more than 30 seconds, but not quite so brilliant when everyone is tootling around at 15,000ft and lobbing ARMs and stand-off missiles at radars and point targets from 30 miles away.

the way current air doctrine is enacted means that these systems only deny airspace to Attack Helicopters and low flying jets providing CAS - the problem is that those aircraft are never going to be the big air threat the Irish military has to deal with (unless we're talking about low-tech air threats found on some PK missions), the real threat in terms of state-on-state territoral defence is going to be meduim level fast jets with stand-off ARM's - which, if those stand-off ARM's haven't destroyed the Irish AD system, will be able to happily fly above it and attack ground targets with impunity.

concussion

I agree with that 100%. I would love to have a medium range system to force aircraft out of AGM and GBU range. Having said that, if Ireland is faced with an opponent who can field strike aircraft I dread to think what else they'll be bringing along.

OS119

concussion wrote: »

...Having said that, if Ireland is faced with an opponent who can field strike aircraft I dread to think what else they'll be bringing along.

its a good point well made - any country with the military spend and capability to put a land force on Irish territory is going to have the spend and capability to turn its airspace black with fast jets and attack helicopters and cut off its sea lanes with surface and sub surface naval assets...

personally, i think that unless Ireland is going to quadrouple its defence spending its never going to be capable of territorial defence, so it may as well stop wasting money on trying, and failing miserably, to undertake that role - much better to pick a task and go for it, rather than arse about making an expensive balls up of several.

Lorelei

I made the same comment much earlier in this thread, there is a treaty still in existence between the UK and Ireland in which the UK will treat any attack on Irish Air or Sea space as an attack on itself (although with recent defence cuts and those to come the UK might have problems defending the Isle of Wight !!).
An attack on the UK is an attack on a NATO member therefore NATO would also become involved in defending Irish Sea/Air space.+-

goldie fish

concussion wrote: »

The DF info page is woefully out of date, and the L/70 is the gun on the old mount. Ours are EL 70 with a motorised carriage and radar fire control. Much more capable altogether. Radar is capable of detecting and tracking high speed targets, gun is well capable of tracking them - whether it works in the real world is the big question though.

I think they have realised that they are better off concentrating their efforts on sites like flickr,twitter, youtube and facebook, instead of keeping a dated looking site with an ancient engine up to date. The DoD website, in terms of accurate information, is a lot better, but it doesnt have nice photos..

Which brings you back to flickr.

spadesaspade

Ry wrote: »

Yeh the Russians are just dying to kick some Irish ass. :rolleyes:

good, might finally get some good looking russian birds over here

Donny5

goldie fish wrote: »

I think they have realised that they are better off concentrating their efforts on sites like flickr,twitter, youtube and facebook, instead of keeping a dated looking site with an ancient engine up to date. The DoD website, in terms of accurate information, is a lot better, but it doesnt have nice photos..

Which brings you back to flickr.

No, their own website is much better than hosting on other companies services. Social networking is all well and good, but it should be a complement to their own site, not a replacement.

goldie fish

Donny5 wrote: »

No, their own website is much better than hosting on other companies services. Social networking is all well and good, but it should be a complement to their own site, not a replacement.

I agree, but to appeal to a younger audience, then the social network sites seem to be the way to go. Tweets, etc should bring them to the official site, however the Official site is dated, and seems time consuming to amend, by modern standards.(who uses html any more?)

Donny5

goldie fish wrote: »

I agree, but to appeal to a younger audience, then the social network sites seem to be the way to go. Tweets, etc should bring them to the official site, however the Official site is dated, and seems time consuming to amend, by modern standards.(who uses html any more?)

Yeah, the site is out-of-touch, alright, but I wouldn't say scrap it altogether.

roundymac

spadesaspade wrote: »

good, might finally get some good looking russian birds over here

Defo,start with the spy Anna Chapman, she can invade me anytime.:D

NITransport

In all honesty, I don't think Ireland needs to worry about personal protection. If anything happened to us, do you think any American Government would stand by and just observe... no. Love it or loath it, Americans think they're Irish, and if their Government didn't react, they would be booted out.

Also the amount of FDI here from America would also be a reason for the US to get involved.

I do think though, as we have the largest territorial sea to patrol as part of our EU duties, we should have a better Naval Service, more Helicopters to fly from the ships at sea.

Finally, in this modern age of international terrorism, we should have an air corp thats able to react to inflight emergencies. Doesn't need to be a vast about. Circa 10 just to response to an emergency on our side of the Atlantic Sea, or an aircraft in our airspace heading for Europe. It'd be nice to have a couple of Typhoons or the new JSF. Anything instead of a couple of Cessna's with machine guns attached!

NT

Poccington

I honestly think the concept of "Sure if anything happened to us, the Yanks would save us" is absolutely hilarious.

They've quite enough on their plate at the moment in A'Stan and with their eye on North Korea and Iran, I really don't think Ireland is sitting very highly on their "Step in, incase of trouble" list.

Manic Moran

Anything which is dramatic enough to warrant an American military intervention is probably going to be sufficiently noticeable that it will divert resources away from Afghanistan.

NTM

goldie fish

Poccington wrote: »

I honestly think the concept of "Sure if anything happened to us, the Yanks would save us" is absolutely hilarious.

They've quite enough on their plate at the moment in A'Stan and with their eye on North Korea and Iran, I really don't think Ireland is sitting very highly on their "Step in, incase of trouble" list.

Its a bit like the tragedy in Cork airport last week.

The Irish DF is the Airport fire and Police service.
The US Army etc is the HSE Ambulance, and City and county Fire service.

While the latter done a fantastic job in the circumstances, without the former being in attendence on scene immediately, the tragedy would have been far,far worse.

dodgydes

Thats a good analogy, well put.

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

yeah, there seems to be a disjoint between the Air threats the Irish military seeks to counter and where air power is.

The way current air doctrine is enacted means that these systems only deny airspace to Attack Helicopters and low flying jets providing CAS - the problem is that those aircraft are never going to be the big air threat the Irish military has to deal with (unless we're talking about low-tech air threats found on some PK missions), the real threat in terms of state-on-state territoral defence is going to be meduim level fast jets with stand-off ARM's - which, if those stand-off ARM's haven't destroyed the Irish AD system, will be able to happily fly above it and attack ground targets with impunity.

This is sensible. However. There is always a case to be made for that which is not...and I'm the man to do that:rolleyes:. Have you considered thinking outside the box? Asymmetric air defence is an alternative set of tactics, technologies and even maybe...a strategy available to small poor third world countries (which is what Ireland now is )......

Think Passive radar (ESM really)
Think distributed air observation networks
Think Passive optics being the primary detection/tracking solution (this is apparently where the Bundeswher were looking)
Think better and many GPS Jammers
Think new generation CIWS guns with smart ammunition that can kill mortar rds, artillery shells and GPS guided smart bombs.....and also double as force protection assets.....if mounted on an MICV or Pirhana clone......the Germans are working on a new generation 35mm system (I think)....

Okay you probably do need some big missile thing that go up to hit somebody beyond 3,000m.......and for now that is mega money.....however, there are BORAT rebuilds of old Russia gear (even SA-2,3, and SA6-Kub stuff) which might be competitive and fun. And I think some MANPADS have higher ceiling than is realised...stingers can shoot down above 3,000m.......

One can expect the Chinese and India to start mucking around with ramjets and scramjets and using fast UAVs for air defence roles as well......

There may be more going on in the AD scene than meets the eye .......

mbiking123

If somebody invades us does this mean we dont have to pay back IMF/EU and ECB. Will the invading country also have to pay back bond holders(incl banks). Now considering China, Britain, US etc have so much invested in this country - why would they invade ?

concussion

Hi Avgas,
the C-RAM (counter-rocket, artyillery & mortar) system is called Skyranger and can be used for regular low-level AD as well. It can be used as a standalone system or mounted on a Pirahna hull and linked to a remote radar. It would be an excellent replacement for the current Bofor EL 70's and could be used in conjuction with the current Flycatcher and Giraffe radars.

Our current AD provides protection against guns and rockets but anything with stand-off weapons guided bombs or missiles such as Maverick can operate from outside our umbrella. To combat this a medium range system is needed.

OS119

this is an inherant problem - the point defence nature of all these systems mean that they can only provide AD for assets that within a couple of KM at best, so you have a small number of very small 'bubbles' within which assets can be protected against certain threats for a certain period of time, but the rest of the place is completely naked.

as an example you could deploy the point AD assets to a critical peice of infrastracture - whether that be Haulbowline or Shannon or the Curragh - but while you might be able to physically stop/degrade air attacks on those points (and i'm talking about a 'bubble' 6000m wide built with two radars and 3 or 4 launch platforms), you couldn't defend the things that enable the infrastructure but are outside the bubble - the power inputs, the fuel delivery systems, and the actual output of the critical infrastructure (the ships that go on patrol, the land units that deploy to meet a land threat, the aircraft deployed to Shannon to do MPA, CAS and battlefield support/mobility).

its a bit like having enough grit to keep your drive clear, but having none for the road to the shops/work/school. a bit pointless...

Avgas

Yep I agree more or less with what your both saying.....

As regards Irish DF I do think we need to ultimately look at something like C-RAM (it is a beast and pricy) ...perhaps the Euro 35m revolver cannon thingee would be cheaper or justifiable on other grounds......the line between tactical point AD...force protection and Counter Munition/battery fire is blurring a bit.....in future PK ops any base area could be vulnerable to hostile fires from mortars, rockets, etc.

If serious trouble was to kick off between Hizbollah and the IDF when our people are out there...something like that would be potentially quite useful in managing very close firings close......which would be inevitable..... if it could be fitted into a pirhana.......except it would cost millions.....so it will never happen......

TBH the scenario of going head to head with USAFE wild weasels is a bit fanciful.....well things are bad right....but we're not North Korea yet are we (even if it feels like that at times).

BUT in general BAD PEOPLE (read Iranians, China, as you will, etc.) may employ AD differently than we are used to seeing. Consider for a moment....OS119's valid point...if you deploy small tactical AD nodes at key and obvious points...... they will be swamped quickly by ECM and suppressed by SEAD packages...or they will just fly high and puke out some JDAMs adjusted to some real time imagery and clobber what is there that way.........there is really no point gifting the USAF lovely targets like this....do not assume that Iranians or others are stupid and cannot evolve tactically...

Small covert AD clusters could by keeping mobile, small and relatively stealthy actually develop an element of 'aerial ambush' tactics...this is in effect what Serbs tried to do in 1999 with their stock of Kubs.....but it doesn't appear to have worked that well...perhaps more redundant passive tracking and guidance technologies (EO+IR not radar) would have changed...that was kinda my point.....

That sort of distributed asymmetric AD threat would be much harder to detect and suppress...it would also mean of course that most of the time an OPFOR would own the skies at will.....but then most AD works on a attritional logic..more or less......

OS119

the unfortunate thing is that viable AD is multi-layered and astonishingly expensive - to work properly you need everything from 0.5 HMG's on every static position and vehicle, through MANPADS and HVM, point defence systems like RBS70 or Rapier FSC, longer range systems like Patriot and then the eye-watering cost of Fighters, AWACS and Tankers - and of course a counter-air capability to reduce the number of OPFOR aircraft that arrive for your fighters to deal with...

AVGAS is correct to highlight the requirement for counter-projectile systems - anyone who thinks seriously about the severity of indirect fire attacks on UK units in Afghanistan and Iraq, the comparative lack of casualties as a result of those attacks, and the number of RN ships floating around with empty Goalkeeper/Phalanx mounts is going to come to a reasonable conclusion about the systems needed to defend against such attacks.

anyone thinking - 'meh, this doesn't apply to Irish units' should remember that both the Iraq and A'stan conflicts are with non-state actors, if they can do it, so can Hezbollah, and if Hezbollah can do it, so can a future IRA.

Steyr

OS, Do you at all rate the UK Rapier System? Is it still in use at RAF Airfields?

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

OS, Do you at all rate the UK Rapier System? Is it still in use at RAF Airfields?

dunno, difficult to tell as i'm not a cloud puncher - its still in service with the RA (the RAF Regiment lost theirs to the RA some time ago), it still gets deployed on expeditionary exercises and its owners never stop telling people that its vastly better than it was (though, to be strictly fair, if you can switch it on it'd be vastly better than it was...). OTOH, from entirely uneducated observation the radar seems to work fine at detecting and holding very low level (30ft over the water), very fast (700+kts) attacking jets at 20km or so (elevated radar position). whether this means the missiles work and the target goes 'bang' is another issue - and, given the nature of most firing tests, one we're unlikely to find out about without a war...

i wouldn't bet my life on it, but i'd rather have it than not.

tbh, my own view is that, along with most GBAD assets, Rapiers main purpose is to either get attacking aircraft to spend so much time avoiding them that they can't get a decent shot at whatever they're looking to hit, or to force them to fly high enough for the AWACS/Fighter force to shoot them down or drive them off.

concussion

OS119 wrote: »

tbh, my own view is that, along with most GBAD assets, Rapiers main purpose is to either get attacking aircraft to spend so much time avoiding them that they can't get a decent shot at whatever they're looking to hit, or to force them to fly high enough for the AWACS/Fighter force to shoot them down or drive them off.

This just about sums up air defence operations - the end goal is not neccessarily to destroy the EN A/C. The AD 'wins' if they force the enemy to put their ordnance anywhere else but the vital point, either through deterrence, harassment or direct hits. LLAD serves to force the enemy higher so their aim is degraded and longer range missile/radar systems can engage them. Vice versa, short range systems also defend long range systems against stand off weapons fired from outside the missile umbrella. In Ireland, we only have short range systems...

Ideally you have
HMG and auto cannon (0 to 3000 m)
Mobile MANPAD/radar with optional EO guidance (1000 to 5000 m)
-> used for defence of troops, point targets, mobile units and medium/long range AD systems

Medium range missile/radar (3000 to 30000 m)
Long range missile/radar (100000 m)
Aerial AD (100-200 km)

Avgas

Well….I think the established idea that layered air defence is necessary may be giving way to a less predictible, less linear or systematic type of approach to AD both tactically and strategically……not many countries can afford a layered air defence…and TBH there are gaps in major countries AD approaches……..plus the real AD effectiveness of 0.5 HMGs may be more marginal than is realised…

Plus all of the hardware, whether guns or missiles, is probably useless without great ESM+ECM and the people and expertise that go with it. IDF defeated Kubs after a short period of initial success by a simple enough RWR tweak in 1973.

Some small and very fiscally challenged countries like Ireland will in future have to consider equipping tactical units with perhaps a single type of modular tactical precision missile..which can target drones, helicopters, slow and low aircraft, as well as armour, buildings, even small vessels, etc. Consider that the RBS70 always had a secondary anti-vehicle capability and the Javelin has in theory the ability to target helicopters in direct fire mode…and the RPG7 has proven itself a crude, possibly suicidal but effective improv SAM…….at least for choppers……such 'modular precision' could be one way the future could evolve….and that sort of thinking should have implications for Irish procurement…….

Just because your poor does not mean you cannot do some type of air defence-indeed it may force you to be very innovative and surprising……if your clever enough and have an institutional culture that permits this type of thing…….do we?

For example there would be a case for us as a state to have some type of radar network to have situational awareness about what is flying around and over us (never mind if we intend to intercept)….that in theory could be done cheaply by developing some kind of parasitic passive radar net using either FM radio signals or GSM mobile phone networks……see for a basic enough open source entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

Fratton Fred

OS119 wrote: »

AVGAS is correct to highlight the requirement for counter-projectile systems - anyone who thinks seriously about the severity of indirect fire attacks on UK units in Afghanistan and Iraq, the comparative lack of casualties as a result of those attacks, and the number of RN ships floating around with empty Goalkeeper/Phalanx mounts is going to come to a reasonable conclusion about the systems needed to defend against such attacks.

Are you saying they use Goalkeeper and phalanx at army bases?

Is that not risky in built up areas?

OS119

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you saying they use Goalkeeper and phalanx at army bases?

Is that not risky in built up areas?

they weren't/aren't used in built up areas.

Avgas

[QUOTE=Fratton Fred;70862736]Are you saying they use Goalkeeper and phalanx at army bases?

Is that not risky in built up areas?[/QUOTE]

The ammunition used in the C-RAM is HE-SD type-the rds self destruct, but I'm not sure about the AHEAD rds in the German MANTIS system…

See….
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Germany-Orders-Skyshield-C-RAM-Base-Defense-Systems-05418/

The issue you raise is one reason why some favour a laser like the THEL...but that is more money, complexity, less mobility, etc.

concussion

I'm sure the AHEAD amn has a self destruct timer on it aswell. However, that's still roughly half a kilo of shrapnel falling from the sky from every round fired!

BrianD

People don't get it. Our need for naval, airforce and a standing army a mimimal. We don't actually need them.

The last occupying force we evicted through guerilla warfare and negotiation.

We escaped the first, second and cold wars with no material damage to the country.

The biggest current threats to a national such as Ireland are nuclear attack and terrorism. We can't counter either through having a large army. The US faces nuclear anhilation at the touch of a button and their large and sophisticated air defences were easily bypassed on 9/11.

Why should we have an army? The only reason is aid to civil power and contribution to multinational forces.

As for a navy what we need is a bigger coast guard and fisheries protection fleet.

Air Corp - no fighters required. Just appropriate transport aircraft.

goldie fish

BrianD wrote: »

People don't get it. Our need for naval, airforce and a standing army a mimimal. We don't actually need them.

The last occupying force we evicted through guerilla warfare and negotiation.

We escaped the first, second and cold wars with no material damage to the country.

The biggest current threats to a national such as Ireland are nuclear attack and terrorism. We can't counter either through having a large army. The US faces nuclear anhilation at the touch of a button and their large and sophisticated air defences were easily bypassed on 9/11.

Why should we have an army? The only reason is aid to civil power and contribution to multinational forces.

As for a navy what we need is a bigger coast guard and fisheries protection fleet.

Air Corp - no fighters required. Just appropriate transport aircraft.

Where do you live? It sounds lovely. I'd like to visit somewhere.

Cos it sure as hell isn't ireland.

Manic Moran

BrianD wrote: »

The last occupying force we evicted through guerilla warfare and negotiation.

After, what, 700 years?

We escaped the first, second and cold wars with no material damage to the country.

So did the US, I do believe.

The US faces nuclear anhilation at the touch of a button and their large and sophisticated air defences were easily bypassed on 9/11.

True. I doubt they'll make the same mistake twice, though.

The only reason is aid to civil power and contribution to multinational forces.

They seem like good reasons to start with.

As for a navy what we need is a bigger coast guard and fisheries protection fleet.

Definitely true. Though some true naval capability might be nice. ASW, anyone?

Air Corp - no fighters required. Just appropriate transport aircraft.

That one I'll disagree with. The nation should have the capability of policing its own airspace.

NTM

seanaway

I can't claim to have read all the posts on this thread so forgive if I repeat any already made.

1. It seems those who bemoan defence expenditure are the same who expect others who have spent massive quantities of money on it to step in and save Ireland should it be needed.
2. Ireland may have escaped severe damage during WW2 but that is thanks in the main to the UK/USA and others saving our freedom.
3. Ireland's 'neutrality' in WW2 was not a strategic decision based on ability to defend or otherwise. It was a decision taken by a bitter man with deep seated anti-British feelings. The same man who used his US citizenship to save his own ass after 1916.
4. Nazi Germany wanted to eliminate all Irish people in the concentration camps as 'gypsies' and turn Ireland into the farm for the Third Reich. Think we might have had a chance if Britain hadn't faced him down?
5. Ireland didn't become a 'farm'. See point 2 above.
6. Irish territorial waters are daily used by NATO submarines and there is NOTHING we can do to stop them as we can't even locate them!
7. The world is a changed place. Ireland likes to claim neutrality but fails to ensure it can defend this neutrality. During the cold war Sweden had the third largest air force in the world - and no one could call Sweden a warmongering country. (Unless you want to go back to the Vikings!)
8. Neutrality is only respected by democratic states. Ask the Norwegians how their neutrality helped them when Hitler wanted hard water for his atomic bomb project.
9. It's time for Ireland to quit sitting on the fence. Have a referendum on joining NATO. If we vote 'NO' then disband the armed forces and pray we never need them. At least we can spend the money on peaceful projects. If we vote 'YES' then a lot of the funding will come from other NATO states anyway. Do you think Portugal with 9 million people could afford its armed forces without support? (45,00 active service personnel Vs 10,000 in Ireland - or 1.6% of GDP Vs 0.7%)
10. The men and women of the defence forces deserve to have the best - whether this is on land, sea, or in the air. They should not have to 'make do'. Give them the tools or close the factory.

Seanbass

jesus,that was some reading lads, at least It kept me occupied for the night :rolleyes:
just have to say though. While I agree we have no apparent need for a well funded army and a decent AC/Navy I have to agree with manic moran and seanaway.

As a modern and sovereign nation we should be able to

1)adequately police its own airspace.

2)put up more than a token resistance in defence of our sovereign territory should the need require (irregardless of the threat or probability).

3)be able to adequately patrol and police our territorial waters.

and all the above without the expectation of intervention by another nation to put their own countrymen and money on the line to help us.
why should they when we're too lazy to do it for ourselves or even attempt to do so.

Do the people that oppose the argument for all these things not feel ashamed at having such a half assed country?

I personally think it is embarrassing in the extreme to be asking Britain to police our airspace for us. A country we not so long ago won our independence from,never mind bank deals and what not from europe because we cannot even handle our own finances properly as a nation.

If that's the attitude sure we may aswell give the country back to the brits because they did such a good job of looking after us and it's too much hassle trying to sort it out for ourselves.
why did we bother fighting for our freedom and setting up the Defence forces if we're just going to ask Britain or France to babysit us in case something happened,We may aswell have stayed in the union as much as it would pain me to say it.
at least we'd have decent roads too :P

Avgas

seanaway wrote: »

10. The men and women of the defence forces deserve to have the best - whether this is on land, sea, or in the air. They should not have to 'make do'. Give them the tools or close the factory.

This is the famous 'all or nothing' philosophy. So either we build our own fleet of aircraft carriers and buy F22s…..or we leave all our security needs to a few armed Gardai driving Volvos with PDWs in the boot…….emmmmm….doesn't that sound like a tad extreme and unrealistic….?

You raise some valid frustrations but 'NATO or nothing' is not a sensible way to shape our very limited and hard choices which the drafters of the new White Paper on Defence 2011-2020 will have to do.

omg a kitty

Guys you might consider this a bit off topic, but
How much does the government pay every year for a person on the dole?
And
How much does the government pay every year for a soldier(or whatever you wanna call the people in the Irish Army now)?

Seriously...

concussion

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.military.ie


I'd reccommend not joining the DF if that's your attitude.

omg a kitty

concussion wrote: »

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.military.ie


I'd reccommend not joining the DF if that's your attitude.

no no im saying, employ more people into the army

concussion

Sure, if you secure a larger budget and more taskings. You're looking at an 10 to 15 k per person to give them a job which isn't really required. Even in the good years the DF topped out at 10,500 personnell, it's currentlly just under 10,000.

omg a kitty

Wouldnt they be required if we decide to join nato?(which probably will never happen)

OS119

omg a kitty wrote: »

Wouldnt they be required if we decide to join nato?(which probably will never happen)

no, Iceland is a member of NATO, and Iceland doesn't have an Army.

roundymac

Iceland dos'nt need an army, it's strategic north atlantic position is enough, any way it would not have the population for a standing army.

DublinWriter

seanaway wrote: »

3. Ireland's 'neutrality' in WW2 was not a strategic decision based on ability to defend or otherwise. It was a decision taken by a bitter man with deep seated anti-British feelings. The same man who used his US citizenship to save his own ass after 1916.

Common folk-myth - Dev never played the US Citizen card to ensure escaping the firing squad.

roundymac

DublinWriter wrote: »

Common folk-myth - Dev never played the US Citizen card to ensure escaping the firing squad.

It certainly helped, how much he used it is open to question. My personal view is the brits did us a diservice by not shooting him. We ended up with one of the most devisive individuals after proply Cromwell influenceing this country for nearly a century.:mad:

groundshaker

(Quote, from Seanaway)'4. Nazi Germany wanted to eliminate all Irish people in the concentration camps as 'gypsies' and turn Ireland into the farm for the Third Reich. Think we might have had a chance if Britain hadn't faced him down'(Quote)


Seanaway, could you please explain this comment, as in all my reading about WW2 and Nazi Germany, I've never come across any reference to Nazi Germany wanting to systematically target the Irish People for elmination.
I'm not asking this in response to the general debate that is occuring on this forum, just that I am highly dubious about that statement.

roundymac

I'm with seanaway on this one groundbreaker. It's in files that are now being read, plus there is film which I have seen on various tv channels where Hitler is addressing his followers, he is listing out the countries he intends to conquer, lists about every country in the European and Arabian zones, Ireland is one of those mentioned. I also came across in some sunday paper lately where it shows that the nazi's knew exactly how many jews there was in Ireland, it was about 4,500 and that these would be murdered when they took control. The reason why you never heard of it groundbreaker most likely is we did'nt cover ourselves in glory in WW2 especially when news of the death camps started to unfold, Dev signing the book of condolence, and stories of Dan Breen the freedom fighter from the wars of independence and the civil war weeping uncontrolably on the news of Hitlers death.

groundshaker

I think you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make Roundymac, I am aware of the Nazi plan to invade Ireland, the so called Operation Green. The point I was trying to make is that, I have never seen a reference to the Nazis wanting to completely eliminate the Irish people in concentration camps, as was the claim made by seanaway.

roundymac

Yeah, sorry about that, but I do know that they had a list of Irish jews.

groundshaker

No problem mate!

stockyboie

NITransport wrote: »

In all honesty, I don't think Ireland needs to worry about personal protection. If anything happened to us, do you think any American Government would stand by and just observe... no. Love it or loath it, Americans think they're Irish, and if their Government didn't react, they would be booted out.

Also the amount of FDI here from America would also be a reason for the US to get involved.

I do think though, as we have the largest territorial sea to patrol as part of our EU duties, we should have a better Naval Service, more Helicopters to fly from the ships at sea.

Finally, in this modern age of international terrorism, we should have an air corp thats able to react to inflight emergencies. Doesn't need to be a vast about. Circa 10 just to response to an emergency on our side of the Atlantic Sea, or an aircraft in our airspace heading for Europe. It'd be nice to have a couple of Typhoons or the new JSF. Anything instead of a couple of Cessna's with machine guns attached!

NT

This thread is going way off topic. Time to bring it back on topic.

I'm not sure 'americans think theyre irish' I think the demographics of the usa are changing rapidly. Most of americas immigration is now from latin countries especially mexico so the old irish american link is being weakened by the day. I think that relying on another country to provide defence for us is just a plain lazy irish attitude that has seen our defence forces remain comparable to a third world nation in terms of resources. I think if your relying on 'americans thinking they're irish' as part of your defence policy you really need to have a rethink about it.

If we look at some stats we find that we have the smallest air wing in europe, the smallest navy and one of the smallest armies in terms of numbers. We don't have much equipment when comparable to other european nations of similar size e.g switzerland, norway, finland, denmark, belgium, sweden and all our equipment is purchased abroad and not manufactured locally. All these other countries have capable air defence networks and larger armies and much more resources in terms of vehicle numbers and types of vehicles. The economy argument goes out the window because these countries have similar sized economies to our own. They also manufacture their own military products. I believe we have one company based here.

We haven't got any heavy armoured fighting vehicles only light infrantry platforms at best. Our navy is seriously underresourced given the fact we are an island nation and the first entry point to europe between the usa. Even if we base our navy on a drug interdiction & fisheries protection service 8 ships is just too low to patrol a coastlinethe size of ours.

I think that successive governments and their lack of investment in them military and the irish public in general not seeing it as important are the main reason why we remain in this state. They may be right in this regard but then again with the earths natural resources being dwindled away and populations increasing there is going to be conflict in future generations over resources such as water food land etc. I think its important we do have some sort of air defence even if it is limited. Others may disagree and im sure they will but the fact is defence of our nation in terms of the military has been neglected altogether. We don't have any proper air defence capable of meeting 21st century threats and there is no point pretending we do as some posters here seem to be trying to do.

Just go to the defence forces website and see a learjet listed as part of our 'air corps'. Just embarrasing really. From what i''ve experienced the the irish attitude is bascially if it aint broke don't fix it.. the pc-9 being the perfect example. When the plane crashed they never had any planning for attrition rates so they never replaced it.

The irish defence forces are structured around peace keeping operations and providing aid in civil emergencies. Air ambulance operations or carting politicans around for example should not be carried out by the army using army based helicopters. We should have a decided civillian run air ambulance service for that. The coastgaurd provides for the rest.

Basically i think that you can't call yourself a defence force if you can't defend your own airspace. They should call themselves irish peacekeeping force. The japanese call theirs self defence force but they actually have the capablity to defend their country we don't.

If we are to become serious about our defence we need to acquire some jet fighters. Simple as that no excuses. We need 8-10 of these. Eurofighter the preferred option. In terms of navy we could increase the size to 10 - 12 ships if we wanted to. The armies size can stay the same as there is no need to increase it but they do need some heavy lift helicopters and 1 -2 transport aircraft for peacekeeping operations. There has to be seperation between defence of our country which we currently as it stands cannot do and maintaining our role as mainly a peacekeeping force. I think many people have a problem in understanding that both can be done without overmilitarisation or even conflicting our current 'neutral' status. This is about how we percieve ourselves not about how others percieve us.

In terms of helicopters the aw139 is basically a civillian helicopter painted green used for an air ambulance service. Hasn't got sand filters or any type armour on it so it can't even be deployed anywhere abroad in support of peacekeeping operations. Thats about it nothing major and even at that its still not a proper defence but still an improvement on what we have.

The current situation is intangible and has to end. We need to get serious about our defence and
stop with the excuses. Its like a worn out record now.