Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Rougebladez

If the country was given 2 hours notice of a hijacked airliner being used to crash into a building anywhere other than Dublin the defence forces would be hard pushed to stop them.

The Naval Service chances of being in an area to intercept would be slim considering the amount of sea area to be covered with the amount of ships they have even though they have the weapon capabilities.

The Air Corps dont have the aircraft to keep up with an airliner never mind the aircraft weaponry to take it down. Could be wrong but i dont think they have Air to Air missiles.

The Army, even though they have Surface to air capabilities, would be hard pushed to deploy them in time.
there

So the one part of the PDF there to protect our airspace is the one least capable.
Even old Soviet fighters from the cold war would be more capable than what we have at the moment.

OS119

Rougebladez wrote: »

...Even old Soviet fighters from the cold war would be more capable than what we have at the moment.

the unpalatable truth is that a Hurricane Fighter from 1940 is more capable than what Ireland has now.

the problem is not really that Ireland doesn't have any kind of AD capability, its that, by and large, its politicians have been allowed to spin a tale that suggests that Ireland does have a rudimentary (read: 'good enough') air defence capability, and no one has challenged that for the falacy that it is.

punchdrunk

Rougebladez wrote: »

If the country was given 2 hours notice of a hijacked airliner being used to crash into a building anywhere other than Dublin the defence forces would be hard pushed to stop them.

They wouldn't have a snowballs in defending Dublin either,we have no permanent missile defenses and the ones we do have are very short range mobile systems with very limited ability to hit anything that would be at the altitude an airliner would be operating at

Rougebladez wrote: »

The Naval Service chances of being in an area to intercept would be slim considering the amount of sea area to be covered with the amount of ships they have even though they have the weapon capabilities.

the Naval service have no hardware able to take out aircraft at any kind of speed/altitude great than say,a helicopter

Rougebladez wrote: »

The Air Corps dont have the aircraft to keep up with an airliner never mind the aircraft weaponry to take it down. Could be wrong but i dont think they have Air to Air missiles.

no air to air missile capability or aircraft with radar/target acquisition /guidance systems suitable for A2A engagement anyway

Rougebladez wrote: »

So the one part of the PDF there to protect our airspace is the one least capable.
Even old Soviet fighters from the cold war would be more capable than what we have at the moment.

couldn't agree more,I wonder what the pilots of these would make of the current state of affairs??



(we had 20 of these during WWII)

Rougebladez

Sorry Punchdrunk but

the Naval service have no hardware able to take out aircraft at any kind of speed/altitude great than say,a helicopter

the Oto Melara and Bofor system on the Etna have AA capabilities.

You can check it out in Janes Fighting Ships.

punchdrunk

Rougebladez wrote: »

Sorry Punchdrunk but



the Oto Melara and Bofor system on the Etna have AA capabilities.

You can check it out in Janes Fighting Ships.

WWII era naval AA gun capability VS potentially a 900km per hour passenger Plane (lets not even mention a genuine military threat),I'll sleep soundly tonight so...

Kadongy

There is no need to. We are an ideal base for attacking Britain, and to a lesser extent some continental countries. Britain would not be able to risk us being occupied by hostile forces and would defend any attack; immediately counter any invasion. This is the reason why our sovereignty has never been threatened by military means since the Republic of Ireland was formed.

This is also the reason why they considered it important to keep us occupied historically.

[Now I look forward to being flamed by close-minded militant Republicans.]

punchdrunk

Kadongy wrote: »

There is no need to. We are an ideal base for attacking Britain, and to a lesser extent some continental countries. Britain would not be able to risk us being occupied by hostile forces and would defend any attack; immediately counter any invasion. This is the reason why our sovereignty has never been threatened by military means since the Republic of Ireland was formed.

This is also the reason why they considered it important to keep us occupied historically.

[Now I look forward to being flamed by close-minded militant Republicans.]

with the current state of the UK's budget cuts in air defenses I wouldn't be too happy relying on them to do the job for us,it's no excuse for our own complacency.we should have some small form of defense in addition to the ability to fall back on the RAF to back us up if needed

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175078.html
what of something happens and there's no typhoons available on the west coast of the UK? there's precious little time to react to a situation without having to wait on jets to get here from Scotland

Rougebladez

Punchdrunk.

The Oto Melara is currently being used by most major navies at the moment and the Bofors i'm referring to is the Bofors 57mm which is used by some modern navies and NOT the 40mm which is the one you are referring to.

punchdrunk

Rougebladez wrote: »

Punchdrunk.

The Oto Melara is currently being used by most major navies at the moment and the Bofors i'm referring to is the Bofors 57mm which is used by some modern navies and NOT the 40mm which is the one you are referring to.

I know we don't use the WWII era pom pom's I was joking
my point stands though,at a push they will work as AA defense of the ship but fúck all use as a real deterrent in a genuine attack on the country itself

Steyr

punchdrunk wrote: »

there's precious little time to react to a situation without having to wait on jets to get here from Scotland

Well they are slightly closer with Typhoon F2's at RAF Coningsby. An RAF Typhoon's standard QRA fit is 2x200 gallon (1,000 litre) supersonic fuel tanks, 4xAIM-120 AMRAAM and 4xAIM-132 ASRAAM.

Donny5

Steyr wrote: »

Well they are slightly closer with Typhoon F2's at RAF Coningsby. An RAF Typhoon's standard QRA fit is 2x200 gallon (1,000 litre) supersonic fuel tanks, 4xAIM-120 AMRAAM and 4xAIM-132 ASRAAM.

It's a shame Eurofighters are so slow, isn't it? It would take them, what, 15 minutes to get to Dublin at supercruise. Sure, the Air Corps could do that in a transit.

Rougebladez

The old WW2 Hurricanes that the Air Corps had during that period were faster than the Pilatus PC-9M planes they have now.

It seems we are going backwards.

The AC seem more interested in training their pilots for service with Ryanair and Aer Lingus than having an actual ability to provide air cover for defence of the state.

punchdrunk

Donny5 wrote: »

It's a shame Eurofighters are so slow, isn't it? It would take them, what, 15 minutes to get to Dublin at supercruise. Sure, the Air Corps could do that in a transit.

I'd say 15 minutes would be needed to get them airborne
Then add your 15 minutes flight time
How far has inland has our target reached over the west coast by then?

Look not to get too walty here but the RAF aren't going to save us if something happened,you'd need aircraft to be based in Shannon to have a chance of doing something about it

OS119

punchdrunk wrote: »

with the current state of the UK's budget cuts in air defenses I wouldn't be too happy relying on them to do the job for us,it's no excuse for our own complacency.we should have some small form of defense in addition to the ability to fall back on the RAF to back us up if needed...

this is something that needs to be considered - the RAF is massivley reducing its fast jet fleet, and Typhoon is going to be playing a larger and larger part of the RAF's worldwide strike capability.

the RAF is currently sustaining FOUR fast jet operations - UK QRA, Falklands QRA, Libya CAP/Strike, and Afghanistan CAS/ISTAR. after this there is a 'pool' of readily available Typhoons and Tornado's - and that pool isn't that big. any of those operations could easily hoover-up the spare aircraft, and then there would be none - litterally none - for the RAF to devote to policing Irish airspace.

in the immediate aftermath - and indeed during the tail end - of the 9/11 attacks the RAF maintained not just a QRA, but an honest-to-goodness CAP with Tornado F3's, AWACS and Tankers. sustaining that CAP took up very significant proportion of the RAF's airspace control capability, and the RAF wasn't in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya at the time. there is very little to spare, there will be less in the future, and if push comes to shove the UK will safeguard its own skies, rather than safeguard Irelands and take risks with UK airspace.

goldie fish

punchdrunk wrote: »

I know we don't use the WWII era pom pom's I was joking
my point stands though,at a push they will work as AA defense of the ship but fúck all use as a real deterrent in a genuine attack on the country itself

The bofors 40mm was not the WW2 era Pom-Pom. Different weapon completely.


If the USAF, USMC and USN with their state of the art early warning systems, both ground and air based, and top level interceptor aircraft were POWERLESS to prevent a single plane from reaching its target on 9/11, what makes you think Ireland could?

Dublin_Gunner

goldie fish wrote: »

The bofors 40mm was not the WW2 era Pom-Pom. Different weapon completely.


If the USAF, USMC and USN with their state of the art early warning systems, both ground and air based, and top level interceptor aircraft were POWERLESS to prevent a single plane from reaching its target on 9/11, what makes you think Ireland could?

Is that actually meant to be a serious argument?

Don't try play the fool here, the US military (if not most military's) is not designed to attack civilian targets, or indeed defend against 'civilian' attacks.

You don't think the fact that

1. They were civilian aircraft
2. Were over civilian airspace, over a crowded city
3. Did not know where they were headed
4. Did not know the intent was to use the planes as weapons
5. No opposing military involvement

had anything to do with it, no? Anyway, this is a topic for another conversation, but your argument is still quite ridiculous.

Anyway, as has been discussed numerous times, I'd seriously doubt we're the top of anyone's list for an attack.

The cost of having a fully fledged, integrated air defence system in this country FAR outweighs ANY tiny risk there may be of an aerial attack.

We don't have the funds, and the risk does not exist. Simple.

Therefore, we do not, nor ever have, had the need for a complex air defence system in Ireland.

DublinWriter

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Therefore, we do not, nor ever have, had the need for a complex air defence system in Ireland.

Then we have no need for the Aer Corps.

So let's keep it as it is - basically a ministerial taxi service slash Ryan Air training school with an full-time marching band attached.

An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

goldie fish

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Is that actually meant to be a serious argument?

Don't try play the fool here, the US military (if not most military's) is not designed to attack civilian targets, or indeed defend against 'civilian' attacks.

You don't think the fact that

1. They were civilian aircraft
2. Were over civilian airspace, over a crowded city
3. Did not know where they were headed
4. Did not know the intent was to use the planes as weapons
5. No opposing military involvement

had anything to do with it, no? Anyway, this is a topic for another conversation, but your argument is still quite ridiculous.

Anyway, as has been discussed numerous times, I'd seriously doubt we're the top of anyone's list for an attack.

The cost of having a fully fledged, integrated air defence system in this country FAR outweighs ANY tiny risk there may be of an aerial attack.

We don't have the funds, and the risk does not exist. Simple.

Therefore, we do not, nor ever have, had the need for a complex air defence system in Ireland.

It was actually, for the poster who suggested we needed interceptor aircraft to deter such an attack.
There are far greater priorities in military aviation that we do need. Interceptor fighter jets are not them.

Being able to move a company of soldiers by air would be a start.

Dublin_Gunner

goldie fish wrote: »

It was actually, for the poster who suggested we needed interceptor aircraft to deter such an attack.
There are far greater priorities in military aviation that we do need. Interceptor fighter jets are not them.

Being able to move a company of soldiers by air would be a start.

While I wholeheartedly agree, is the discussion not about air / naval defence?

Surely troop transport would some under another heading.

goldie fish

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

While I wholeheartedly agree, is the discussion not about air / naval defence?

Surely troop transport would some under another heading.

No.

The reason we do not have greater Air defence is because it is not a high priority. Troop transport is.

And a Bofors 40mm still isn't a Pom-Pom.

Dublin_Gunner

goldie fish wrote: »

3 No.

1 The reason we do not have greater Air defence is because it is not a high priority. Troop transport is.

2 And a Bofors 40mm still isn't a Pom-Pom.

1 I've alreadu outlined that myself.
2 Eh, so?
3 Hm, must ahve read the thread title wrong so...

stockyboie

the threads about irish air corps and lack of air defence are always so amusing. Basically the thread revolves around 2 positions. The first being we need air defence which im for advocating for and yes that involves spending money.

The other opposing viewpoint or lets say alternative one is that we don't need to spend money on air defence but rather we should spend it on troop transport aircraft. The funny thing about this position is that they never spend it at all. Spend what exactly. Its like that guy who keeps telling you how hes going to buy an aston martin when he 'gets the money'. Until then he drives around in a mondeo. Year after year he'll tell you hes going to buy until you eventually stop believing his bull###

We neither have proper air defence or proper troop transport. We simply don't spend any money on aircraft. If you take a look at our entire fleet of aircraft we have about 24 and that includes the learjets, garda helicopters and useless aircraft like the cessna.

For a country of 4.4 million people to only have 24 aircraft in their military is an absolute embarrassment. Not alone this but they bascially operate as an ambulance service which in most countries is carried out by civillian operators. Even countries who don't consider themselves militaristic in nature or even neutral by status have at least 3 times this number. Its just plain gross negligence of duty.

Theres no point mentioning troop transport and the likes when we don't even have attrition rates built into purchasing contracts. I swear do some of the folks bangin on about troop transport, have you actually looked at our air corps inventory?. Its like your heads are in the clouds. Your busy talking about specs for aircraft and how the troops will be transported and you don't seem to realise we haven't ever spent money on aircraft whose role could be considered militaristic. Are you getting the picture?

I think thats the point some people are making. Our air corps don't have any defined roles. They just go around occupying a jack of all trades position i.e rescuing people, carrying out forest fire prevention services, carrying out ministerial transport, carrying out an air ambulance roles, looking good for the flickr/youtube propaganda brigade, ie making it look like they actually do something for the army.

So the point which is fact is that we basically have no air defence in this country and are incapable of defending our own airspace. Not alone that unlike nearly all countries our air wing doesn't operate in support of the army soley but rather in a civllian role. So bascially what we have are civillian helicopters painted green to give the illusion of some relevance to military operations. Year after year people bang on on these boards about troop transport and the likes and yet in 30 years of the air corps they have purchased less then 18 aircraft.

Thats the reality. If your going to claim to have an 'air corps' you do it right or you don't do it at all. Our whole defence strategy in relation to the air corps is a joke.

Cork boy 55

This is how the baltic countries police their airspace(sorry for wiki)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing

The Baltic air-policing mission is a NATO air defence Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) in order to guard the airspace over the three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

NATO members without their own Air Policing assets are assisted by other NATO members. Luxemburg is covered by interceptors from Belgium.

I did not read all this thread yet just saw it there. has anyone mentioned the possiblity of something like this under the aegis of NATO parntership for piece
or even a bi-lateral agreement with another neighbouring country or even a
joint multi country Squadron


I see new zealand has no fighters as well it decided they where too expensive.

OS119

there are lots of potential models - Slovenia has an agreement with Italy, Iceland is a member of NATO and gets detachments of aircraft from most NATO states performing the QRA role, and the Baltic states, as you can see, have a similar arrangement.

there are also 'buy-in' arrangements - NATO countries have access to jointly owned/operated E-3 AWACS aircraft that get deployed wherever there's a problem, and NATO manages 2 different heavy lift 'buy-in' programmes - a commercial contract that gives X number of flying hours to each participant, and a joint purchace of C-17 aircraft that everyone gets to use.

both the heavy left programmes involve countries that are not members of NATO, but who are friendly to NATO, see the need to be able to access heavy airlift capability but don't fancy shelling out for their own C-17.

anyone with 2 braincells to rub together can see that there are models to be used and other states who would be interested in accessing an air policing capability but who baulk at the cost of buying one one their own. there are options, that they aren't explored is a political decision, not an indicator that it can't be done.

Avgas

I think the OP was stressing a 9/11 terror incident.......one thing that is within our technical and perhaps financial means...would be a policy of armed sky marshals (perhaps with less than lethal weapons?)......the EU countries tend to dislike and oppose this American and Israeli expedient...but it could be worked out...or at least a capacity could be put in place with training and then if a specific intelligence threat was identified one option would be to proclaim that random flights from Ireland would contain armed personnel...perhaps no more than a dozen or more 'Skygarda' or "SkyRangers" would suffice. Maybe for legal reasons it might have to be Gardai drawn from an ERU type background..if the Defence Acts prove restrictive .....but it could be Rangers (or controversially... the vast pool of talent that almost made it to the ARW???)

At a minimum some kind of protocol and training for such a policy should be instituted. There is always a risk that some extremist Islamic (or other) group would see the Republic as a soft touch/backdoor to have a go at UK or USA interests, and these people tend to have a fascination with targeting aviation.

The interceptor thing is pure Walt IMHO (and I should know!) given we're living on borrowed money and the technical problems...oh and all our neighbours are 'friends'....more or less.

To be honest I be more worried about irregular landings of civilian general aviation....an issue which is a seperate subject.

Manic Moran

Meanwhile, in Sweden.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Conn., was awarded on May 23 a $207,133,531 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of 15 UH-60M aircraft for the Sweden’s armed forces and government furnished equipment to contractor furnished equipment. Work will be performed in Stratford, Conn., with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2012. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Contracting Center, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-08-C-0003).

Apparently they were never too keen on NH-90 to begin with, and have been pressing for Black Hawk for some time.

NTM

muppet01

We will never get fast jets, plain and simple.
At the most we could sustain a few BAE Hawks,however the support network needed to train,maintain and utilise such aircraft does not and will not exist.
My biggest complaint is the PC9's,what use are they??? Its like buying stabilisers for a bike you dont have!.I believe the biggest threat is the mounting of a terrorist attack through an irish airport directed at the UK,therefore i think a lot more overt policing should be seen at irish airports/ports. Our focus should be making sure we are not seen as a weak entry point to Europe through our skies or seas.We should be looking in not out

stockyboie

well word is we will be purchasing jets under the next defense review so bite on that

cyrusdvirus

stockyboie wrote: »

well word is we will be purchasing jets under the next defense review so bite on that

and how do you propose we pay for them??

Avgas

Fast jets in the Irish defence white paper.....to paraphrase OS119 have you been smoking crack again?

Never mind pay for them, how about even pay their fuel bill?

Perhaps it might be more useful if we discussed sensible items for any wish list?

Level 4 protection MRAPs and/or kits to do the same for some of our Pirhana fleet
Proper medium level UAVs to complement the Orbiter
Designated Marksmen Rifles and Light Machine Guns....etc.

Morpheus

just on the DMRs

FNs have been retooled and re-scoped as snipers spotters rifles

seen firsthand at the recent all army (rdf) shoot in finner

we were also told (a rumor exists!) that these will become "section" level DMRs and are Irish FN's recovered from storage and updated to this standard by the armourer's.

Avgas

Great news and thanks for that post!

I wonder if there are any mods to be standard....like a bipod ...and can a Kite sight be fitted on top?...In the photo it looks that way..... [...maybe a reply cannot be given to that.....not sure] ...but this is surely a welcome innovation...and has to be fairly cheap.....?

What next....re-built Bren LMG?

Morpheus

The video is hosted on youtube so speculate away!

what ive heard is that they experimented with a number of variations trying to get the right kit to make it effective yet to have the mods mean that it is cheaper to mod fit the weapon than to buy a purpose built version.

They seem to have succeeded with this. looks pretty damn impressive. Have never fired an FN but would trade my left testicle for a go a these ones.

Again their distribution at unit level etc was speculation, my theory is that they will at least be the sniper spotters weapon of choice but the guys displaying it were adamant that it would become a DMR weapon. I hope so, this is a particular prickly topic for me, no reason not to have DMRs in there at least at platoon level (should be section!). Step in the right direction though, home grown indigenous DMR production.

stockyboie

Avgas wrote: »

Fast jets in the Irish defence white paper.....to paraphrase OS119 have you been smoking crack again?

Never mind pay for them, how about even pay their fuel bill?

Perhaps it might be more useful if we discussed sensible items for any wish list?

Level 4 protection MRAPs and/or kits to do the same for some of our Pirhana fleet
Proper medium level UAVs to complement the Orbiter
Designated Marksmen Rifles and Light Machine Guns....etc.

with money how else. Fast jets! Begorrahh!


Machine guns and marksmens rifles? ffs...

Those are all nice cute little toys you want but we need real defence to defend our airspace then we can start thinking of sending people abroad. Whats the point even sending people abroad and they have to rent the goddam choppers from other countries and even when they do they ))))ox that up too. They spend more money getting things wrong then just getting the right equipment.


Its not only our airspace that cannot be defended our naval service is also way underfunded and resourced. Our priorities are all back to front. No other country in the world would consider doing this. Totally pointless. Our population is now over 4.5 miilion, we can't defend our own airspace and your banging on about uavs. Theres no point calling yourself a defence force if you can't defend your airspace. None. Call yourself humanitarian relief force or something.

OS119

stockyboie wrote: »

Machine guns and marksmens rifles? ffs...

QUOTE]

Avgas is entirely correct, a small - in real world terms - increace in spending on relatively tactical equipment that radically increases the combat effectiveness of the Irish Army would, indirectly, have a far greater effect on Irish defence than whatever Oxfam fighter the Irish state could buy and sustain.

the reason is simple - when Irish units are capable of conducting peace-enforcement operations on Europes periphery (and thus contributing to wider European security), other European states who already maintain viable air defence capabilities will be happy to assist the RoI in the air policing role.

there is precident for this - Italy provides air policing for Slovakia, and NATO countries provide air policing for Iceland and the Baltic states on an bilateral basis.

the sums are there for anyone to see - very roughly i worked out that a viable Air Defence Ground Environment purchased off the shelf would cost about $4billion upfront, with $700million in costs every year.

thats with no Tankers, no ELINT, no AWACS and no SAM's.

upgrading the equipment for 4 Infantry Bn Groups to a standard where they could fight in Helmand - and therefore anywhere - would be unlikey to top €200m in upfront costs, and a few €million p.a. in continuity costs.

Jaafa

In fairness being able to fight in Helmand just means you can fight against IEDs, aks, rpgs and the odd sniper shot. While this may well be all we ever will need to defend against, it does not mean we could fight "anywhere" as you say.

Morpheus

but it DOES mean that we can fight anywhere....

as part of a greater force, i.e. european battlegroup or integrated UN Peace Enforcement unit.

Which is what our defence forces do currently.

no amount of offensive weaponry or vehicles, aircraft, vaval vessels etc will permit the Irish DF to atomically fight ANYWHERE on the globe. to do that would involve a MASSIVE increase in the size, scale AND roles of all branhces of the DF.

Jaafa

As part of a great force then yes I'd agree.

Linkus

What exactly does Ireland have to defend it's airspace from?
There's not one country in the world with the capabilities of attacking Ireland from the air, or the sea for that matter, that be able to stop the UK from intervening on behalf of Ireland.
As things stand now that is.
If Ireland turns into the international meeting ground for all the 'bad people' in the world then things might change.

There's no sense in purchasing fixed wing fighting aircraft simply because we don't need them.
Helicopters and other infantry based vehicles would make far more sense because of our UN etc missions.
Even then though, Ireland doesn't exactly throw it's weight around in the UN, I can't see many countries demanding Ireland step up it's involvement in peace keeping missions.

stockyboie

Linkus wrote: »

What exactly does Ireland have to defend it's airspace from?
There's not one country in the world with the capabilities of attacking Ireland from the air, or the sea for that matter, that be able to stop the UK from intervening on behalf of Ireland.
As things stand now that is.
If Ireland turns into the international meeting ground for all the 'bad people' in the world then things might change.

There's no sense in purchasing fixed wing fighting aircraft simply because we don't need them.
Helicopters and other infantry based vehicles would make far more sense because of our UN etc missions.
Even then though, Ireland doesn't exactly throw it's weight around in the UN, I can't see many countries demanding Ireland step up it's involvement in peace keeping missions.

This is just the point really isn't it. Im not going to address your points individually because if you read over my previous postings you'll see i've addressed every single point you've made.

See Herein lies the problem when your discussing/debating this issue with some irish people. As evidenced by the above response, they don't see the problem in not having an airforce or being able to defend their own countries airspace. They don't feel embarrassment in even saying 'the uk will step in and save us'. Its a lazy sloth like attitude. They think someone else will do it for us so why should we spend money.

This is where we fundamentally differ and will not reach agreement. I view as all nations do the ability to defend my country, its airspace and its surronding seas as vital to being able to claim my country as an independent nation. If we can't defend our own airspace or even stop threats within our own airspace in my view we are not an independent nation and our constitution isn't worth the paper its written on. The u.k or any other country could easily claim ownership of it and you know what theres not a thing we could do about it if they did. Its not that they would do it but the fact that we couldn't do anything about it if they did.

You view this as not important. You want to have your cake and eat it. You want all the fringe benefits of being an independent nation yet you don't want to look after the welfare of that nation. And air defence is part of looking after the welfare of your nation and theres no getting around that. Its like if you left your car out the front and left the doors open at night.

The helicopter argument again. Go back and read my previous points there and you'll see i've already pointed out how we can't even get this right.

Most countries in the world consider the defence of their lands, their own airspace and surrounding seas important because it means they value their countries defence.Regardless of wheither their is a major threat to these countries(most of which like ireland there isn't) still feel the need for an airforce to be able to do so if the need arises. There is a sense of pride and security in people of those nations knowing they have an airforce to defend them should 'bad' things happen. Airforces project power and security and reassures people in times of need. In essence it shows they care about defending their airspace, consequently meaning they value their countries independence, their lives, their security, their fellow citizens and take pride in having only the best defence avaliable 'SHOULD' things go wrong.

Our airwing or pathetic attempt at one shows just how much we value ourselves and our military. Why do i even need to explain this and how many times do i have too...:rolleyes: 7 Fixed wing turboprops to defend an island of over 4.5 million people? No other country in the world would even consider doing this because it represents stupidity of the highest level and secondly they value their own defence. The real scam here is the neglect of our air wing over decades.

You buy training aircraft to train on so you can progress to fighter and jet aircraft. You don't use the training aircraft for 'light air defense' or any other type of defence. They are training aircraft. They don't have the range/speed or deterrents which can to be used as defence against terrorist/Asymmetric or future air based threats currently capable of threatening any countries security within the E.U. See libya for example, situations and world politics/threats change rapidly and we are not going to be on the fringes of europe trying to hide in the dark forever.

Our european friends are going to demand it from us given the fact they bailed us out and we signed a little agreement called lisbon in case you can't remember.

I never said anything about countries attacking ireland. Regardless of these factors being taken into account an airforce should still be in operation over our skies simply because we claim to be a sovereign independent nation whom it is our reponsibility to look after ourselves. Some of you its seems wish we were under british rule.

Please Stop the penny pinching arguments coz they've all been heard and they don't fly. We spend so little of our overall gdp on defence relative to our size and other nations, its a joke, and despite this your still whinging about miniscule amounts being spent here and there. It reminds me of the stereotypical old irish man at the pub moaning and grumbling and counting his pennies after he finds out he has to buy a few rounds for some people.

I understand about irelands peacekeeping role but theres little point defending another group/nation of people against aggressors when you can't even defend your own airspace or even have your airlift capacity in order. See the irony here? Its like you want merits from other nations and people for going overseas and protecting people in lebannon and you can't even defend your own countries airspace. Theres nothing wrong with defending innocent civllians but fix your own backyard first before worrying about defending other people. Defence of your own country should always be priority regardless of the threat level. Then we get others defence sorted out. Otherwise its just a joke and currently it is a joke. A mish mash of operational procedures done all wrong because we have absolutely no experience sorting our own (((( out. There isn't even redundancy built into contracts for procurements.

To end, You know some countries do actually use their own military industries to provide employment, help their economies and their own people as well as increasing exports. They do this instead of sitting around begrudging, complaining and relying on other people to do it for them. Don't knock it untill you have tried it.

Linkus

It is clear to see how spending money on weapons that will soon be obsolete and planes that will never fly in defence of their country makes perfect economic sense.
Almost as good as basing the entire country's economy on the building sector.
Nothing can go wrong with that.

Instead of literally throwing money away, why not use it to do something for the community that such forces would be attempting to protect? (From the fearsome deadly enemy that we don't know of yet)


The fundamental point that this comes down to is this:

The u.k or any other country could easily claim ownership of it and you know what theres not a thing we could do about it if they did.

Wrong.
Countries such as the UK couldn't simply waltz into any EU country and claim 'ownership'.
Such a concept died in the 20th century. Conquest, or imperialism, no longer works.
They could of course send their military, which is busy in a couple of wars, and would immediately succeed in occupying the country.
However the economic and diplomatic effects it would have on the UK would be devastating, far outweighing any benefit that would come from invading Ireland.

Things to remember:
Why would any country invade Ireland?
What would they get from it?
Greed, wanting resources, isn't a good motivation in today's global economy.
It's far cheaper to simply buy things from countries like Ireland than invade and occupy.
Ireland isn't exactly swimming in liquid gold or many valuable resources, aside from farmland.

The only countries who would have the motivation to invade would be those motivated by idealogy.
In which case the vast majority of the EU would most likely tell them to piss off, in no uncertain terms.
A small country would be told to not even try such a venture.
A larger country, one that could get away with it, would easily wipe away any feeble Irish airforce.


The only countries that could actually invade Ireland:
Must be motivated by idealogy.
Small countries - Blocked by our larger neighbours
Larger countries - Any Irish airforce would be destroyed easily.

Manic Moran

The only countries who would have the motivation to invade would be those motivated by idealogy.
In which case the vast majority of the EU would most likely tell them to piss off, in no uncertain terms.
A small country would be told to not even try such a venture.
A larger country, one that could get away with it, would easily wipe away any feeble Irish airforce.

You miss a category. Countries which have a motiviation to invade as an ancillary requirement to a larger conflict. For example, let's say France/Germany gang up on the UK. They would be very interested in cutting off the supply route from the US, and Ireland would be a very handy staging point for that. They would be unable to concentrate their entire force on Ireland, but if Ireland maintained its current level of military capability, instead of following on the Swedish or Swiss models, they wouldn't need to. A reduced brigade battlegroup could probably do the job right now. The trick is to make it sufficiently difficult to achieve a mission that the prospective aggressor can't afford to divert the resources required, but that is far easier than maintaining a military capability that any aggressor can be defeated even when he has nothing else distracting him. So to my example it is unrealistic for Ireland ever to have a military capable of defeating France alone, let alone France and Germany. But is it not possible for Ireland to have a military which can defeat anything that France and Germany have to spare once the commitment requirements to fight the UK are dispatched?

NTM

guitarzero

How about we just strengthen relations with these so called terrorists countries instead of building killing machines and killing loads of innocent people. I've never heard of any country wanting to smash us. Now, if we are continuosly seen with war mongers like Obama then I perhaps we deserve whatever you've conjured up.

Avgas

guitarzero wrote: »

I've never heard of any country wanting to smash us.

In summer 1941 Nazi Germany had both the plans, motivation and ability to invade Ireland. They just never got around to it and the Royal Navy were bothersome. After November 1941 the British also thought seriously about it but decided on balance to let the Free State dangle. Ditto the Americans, who in 1943 seriously considered invading Southern Ireland with some of the nearly 1 million soldiers they had massed in Northern Ireland (but invading Morocco just became more pressing). Then there is France, which did invade us in 1798 and if that had been successful this post would be in French. Oh.... and our friends the English have been.....over to visit us quite a lot no?

The point? All our neighbours have in the past either invaded, attempted it, or seriously thought about it. But we're all good friends now.

If you don't think history tells you anything or gets repeated, then fine. But the 1940s is just 70 years ago.. more or less a generation back or at most two ...that is nothing....it suggests that Europe and the North Atlantic while now apparently calm, democratic and stable....hasn't always been and may well not be in the future......

You do have insurance don't you....your car, house, health?

Linkus

The main thing to remember is that economically it would destroy an EU country if they attacked another.
The EU is incredibly dependent on one another for nearly everything at this point. The sheer amount of trade between the countries is staggering.
If said countries went to war, I highly doubt such trade would continue.
Cue collapse of the economy.
No country really is self-sufficient at this point and those that have tried, such as Nazi Germany, failed at it.

Military action costs money.
Tough economic times are ahead for the vast majority of EU countries.
Ireland has farmland, and that's really it.
I doubt any EU country would even attempt to seize Ireland for such a resource.
If Ireland was pulled into a war where France and Germany are fighting the UK (Which again would never happen due to how dependent they are on each other), an Irish airforce would be swatted out of the sky like a bunch of flies. We'd still be reliant on the UK airforce.

Relations between EU powers going to such low levels that war is possible is not a scenario that we will see happening shortly.
So why buy planes that will be outdated by the time such a scenario could arise?
In the meantime, costing millions upon millions of euros that could be used for better purposes?
Or even to increase our land based army, which would fair far better against an invading force than an airforce would.

guitarzero

Avgas wrote: »

In summer 1941 Nazi Germany had both the plans, motivation and ability to invade Ireland. They just never got around to it and the Royal Navy were bothersome. After November 1941 the British also thought seriously about it but decided on balance to let the Free State dangle. Ditto the Americans, who in 1943 seriously considered invading Southern Ireland with some of the nearly 1 million soldiers they had massed in Northern Ireland (but invading Morocco just became more pressing). Then there is France, which did invade us in 1798 and if that had been successful this post would be in French. Oh.... and our friends the English have been.....over to visit us quite a lot no?

The point? All our neighbours have in the past either invaded, attempted it, or seriously thought about it. But we're all good friends now.

If you don't think history tells you anything or gets repeated, then fine. But the 1940s is just 70 years ago.. more or less a generation back or at most two ...that is nothing....it suggests that Europe and the North Atlantic while now apparently calm, democratic and stable....hasn't always been and may well not be in the future......

You do have insurance don't you....your car, house, health?

You truly think that a first world country would invade us? As I say, would it not be better to put our energies in counter acting negative propaganda? There is no NEED for war, its often down to false propaganda by the government. So, perhaps we should be watching how our governments are interacting with darker skinned nations instead of making alliances, getting out the map and mini ships and watching us burn from the skies.

stockyboie

Linkus wrote: »

The main thing to remember is that economically it would destroy an EU country if they attacked another.
The EU is incredibly dependent on one another for nearly everything at this point. The sheer amount of trade between the countries is staggering.
If said countries went to war, I highly doubt such trade would continue.
Cue collapse of the economy.
No country really is self-sufficient at this point and those that have tried, such as Nazi Germany, failed at it.

Military action costs money.
Tough economic times are ahead for the vast majority of EU countries.
Ireland has farmland, and that's really it.
I doubt any EU country would even attempt to seize Ireland for such a resource.
If Ireland was pulled into a war where France and Germany are fighting the UK (Which again would never happen due to how dependent they are on each other), an Irish airforce would be swatted out of the sky like a bunch of flies. We'd still be reliant on the UK airforce.

Relations between EU powers going to such low levels that war is possible is not a scenario that we will see happening shortly.
So why buy planes that will be outdated by the time such a scenario could arise?
In the meantime, costing millions upon millions of euros that could be used for better purposes?
Or even to increase our land based army, which would fair far better against an invading force than an airforce would.

Not really in the mood for giving a history lesson but in fairness Land forces can't do sweet f all when an airforce smashes them. Have you seen what happened in iraq and afghanistan? Gulf war 1 was won by air power alone. Defeating serbia in the mid 90's was an airware.The tides of ww2 in europe was changed entirely by air power. Nazi germany couldn't invade britain because of the RAF. The USA paved the way for the invasion of europe during ww2 by beating germany into submission with its air bombing raids and destroying the Luftwaffes ability to counter strike. The usa ran the vietnam war practially on the back of the UH1 Huey.

So without going into any further history lessons, its clear and has been ever since aircraft were first used in a military conflict, that from a defensive postion having dominance in the air is more important then having domination with ground based forces. Ground based forces are always on the defensive once a position of dominance is established in the air. Anyone who knows anything about military strategy will tell you that.

Thats why its so important. Our land based forces would be smashed overnight by any invading force with their airpower even if we increased its size. The best we could currently do would be launch some kind of guerrila warfare and hope for the best.

But this whole side issue is detracting from the main issue. Nobody is suggesting that we have a large airforce. We need one that is practical to our defense needs. The types of threat we face or could face are and more then likely will be asymetric in nature now and in the future. We would get hammered by any decent airforce even if we had jets. Thats kind of obvious so please stop making redundant arguments about if britain or france or germany would invade ireland. Thats never going to happen. Thats not why we need an airforce.

Much like the usa's missle defense shield program they don't have 10 interceptor missiles to defend against russia or china thousands of ballistic nuclear weapons. They have them to defend their airspace against rogue countries or groups launching threats against them. We would structure an an airforce of a size thats suits our country to defend our airspace as a soveign nation and against threats which MAY arise in the future.


Although that would be the case for the structure, being or claiming to be an independent soveign is reason enough for us to have an airforce, REGARDLESS, of the threat level facing us. We don't need one because we face a specific type of threat we need one because we claim to be any independent nation and it is our duty to defend the airspace over the land which we claim to have soveign independent rule over. Understand?

The reason why irish people have difficultly understanding this is because they have never defended OR made any effort to at least have some sort of emergency plan to defend their own airspace. They just think 'sure if theres no threat? why bother' and therein lies the crux of the problem. They just don't see it as important and are willing to not bother entertaining the idea as long as nothing happens. Similarily i can drive down the road for 40 years without a seatbelt. Sure ive never been in an accident why bother?I as well as most people wear one regardless. It may not save my life but i feel more secure wearing one.

This simple analogy is similar to how others feel about the security and safety and pride in their own nations having airforces even those that have never been attacked.

So instead of resorting to the most outlandish scenarios about being being invaded by other european countries which you use to justify your lack of need for an airforce, try at least to make an effort to see why some people feel and most nations on earth actually have airforces. Your not always right you know..

Linkus

You are forgetting the purpose of a military.
It isn't dependent on the sovereignty of a nation.
A military does not come piece and parcel with sovereignty, often the opposite.

A military is to ensure the safety of it's people and further the interests of said people.
There is no danger from a rogue state attacking Ireland.
If a 'rogue' state attacked Ireland right now, the UK would respond, as would most of the EU.
If our relations with the UK, or the EU, deteriorated to a point where they would not defend us, then we would have to worry about an adequate defence force.
However such a time is not coming soon.
Building any form of airforce now would be utter stupidity considering the current and future situation.
Such an airforce would be woefully outdated by the time they might be needed, sucking up money till then.

In terms of history lessons.
Forget the fighting. Think about the reasons for the wars.
Unless driven by idealogy, there is no nearby entity that would want to invade Ireland.
They gain nothing from doing so.


Really though.
What 'Rogue' states are there that would attack Ireland currently, or in the foreseable future?
Foreseable being where things like giant aliens don't attack or France suddenly becomes a fascist country hellbent on claiming all of Europe for the glorious tricolour.

stockyboie

Linkus wrote: »

You are forgetting the purpose of a military.
It isn't dependent on the sovereignty of a nation.
A military does not come piece and parcel with sovereignty, often the opposite.

A military is to ensure the safety of it's people and further the interests of said people.
There is no danger from a rogue state attacking Ireland.
If a 'rogue' state attacked Ireland right now, the UK would respond, as would most of the EU.
If our relations with the UK, or the EU, deteriorated to a point where they would not defend us, then we would have to worry about an adequate defence force.
However such a time is not coming soon.
Building any form of airforce now would be utter stupidity considering the current and future situation.
Such an airforce would be woefully outdated by the time they might be needed, sucking up money till then.


Really though.
What 'Rogue' states are there that would attack Ireland currently, or in the foreseable future?
Foreseable being where things like giant aliens don't attack or France suddenly becomes a fascist country hellbent on claiming all of Europe for the glorious tricolour.

You didn't read what i said because i addressed all those issues in my post. Don't bother responding if you aren't prepared to read the post. Your saying absolutely nothing new in your post that i haven't already addressed a hundred times.

Thats the definition of stupidity. Here --> The quality or condition of being stupid

Linkus

I did read the post.
You forgot the purpose of a military.

We need one that is practical to our defense needs.

Ireland has no need for an airforce at this current time.
Who do we have to defend against?

if britain or france or germany would invade ireland. Thats never going to happen. Thats not why we need an airforce.

Why do we need an airforce?

We would structure an an airforce of a size thats suits our country to defend our airspace as a soveign nation and against threats which MAY arise in the future.

Future.
Not now.
What threat could rise in the next 20 years?
All our neighbours could crush us.
We have no threatening smaller neighbours.
Jets get outdated and cost money.
What exactly is the purpose of keeping a bunch of jets around for 20 years, with nothing to defend against?

We don't need one because we face a specific type of threat we need one because we claim to be any independent nation and it is our duty to defend the airspace over the land which we claim to have soveign independent rule over. Understand?

To defend something, you need to have something to defend against.
Otherwise you are just flying around for the sake of it.
No threat = no attack = no defense.

Understand?