Irish DF Air Defence Capabilities-what future?

Avgas

I threatened this maddness in another post and like North Korea I make good on my threats.:)

I am conscious there are REAL air defence experts lurking here rather than my wannabe ramblings but…….here goes………

Many here would assume Air Defence is the least of the Irish DF worries…they would likely list out other things that we need to improve our DF as much more urgent…such as Mine proof vehicles, better UAVs, robust tactical helicopters caable of overseas PK support, etc., etc.

I would concede such assets would be a greater priority.

However, the Air Defence (AD) mission for our DF needs looking at.

Why?

First, although overseas PK is very much where it seems to be at, the business of the DF is providing a range of capabilities for diverse contingencies.

I concede that teritorial national defence may seem to be 'borderline walt', given that our neighbours all are officially friends (EU members) and they would be most unlikely to threaten us. Moreover, even if they did, they could bring such overwhelming force to bear in that very remote eventuality, that more expenditure on improved AD capabilities would probably count for little.

So I'm not really coming at this one from some sort of 'doomsday' thinking that we'd be resisting the Yanks against a take-over of Shannon. They way things are going economically we'll probably be considering leasing it to them shortly as a proper 'base', while piously declaiming our neutrality and freedom from sin at the same time.:rolleyes:

So what the hell would any improved Irish AD be for?


Evolving PK threats and capabilities

There are overseas PK scenarios where an integral advanced AD capability would be useful, desirable and doable in a way that made both tactical and some economic 'sense'.

To give concrete examples….any PK deployment in areas of the Balkans and in particular ex-Russian zones, might well encounter a problem with Russian, or Russian sponsored, aircraft posing a threat. Places like Moldova or Georgia come to mind. Mi-35 of Su-25s flown low and nasty on surprise missions could well pose a 'problem'.

Obviously, some of you will think 'that threat could be easily and better handled by NATO fighters and AWACs on CAP…that would surely be co-deployed?'. In theory yes, assuming they can intercept fast enough……but as seen in Chad distance may be large……remoteness and dispersal of forces a serious problem……

In principle our units should have a built in 'insurance' capability in the event the 'air cover' does not materilise.

There were, I understand, mutterings of unease about the availablity of French air cover assets in Chad…….or was that simply hogwash?

And let us NOT forget the experience of the Dutch battalion in Srebrenica who were mysteriously left without any NATO air cover while being heavily attacked (admittedly they made many mistakes in their own right without being left high and dry).

What if for political reasons, such air cover assets are NOT co-deployed, and for political reasons a fairly light, non-provocative EU led and directed screening force of basic infantry/Peacekeepers is deployed? And what if things get out of hand and turn nasty all of sudden-as they did in Georgia in summer 2008? And what if a bog standard Irish PK battalion is the middle of all of this with the usual level of assets at their disposal…a few Pirhana's and a few RG32Ms……..

The same logic might apply in say any future conflict between Venuzuela and Colombia, or even renewed conflict between Peru and Ecuador. The EU may be asked after such a conflict has a run a bit, to step in and provide some kind of monitoring force. Given distances involved, remote jungle boundaries etc., air power would likely figure. Same would apply to any renewed conflict between ever-so democratic Ethiopa and Eritrea. They have some credible air assets, and these have been used.

The point?

My point is that one cannot assume that adversaries in PK overseas missions will be irregular guerrilla type outfits, who lack modern weapons and even air assets.

It may well be the case in a future high intensity PK or even PE secnario, the hostiles have access to some type of airpower. It could be that they use helicopters or light aviation for sudden raids, or that they use such types of aviation for mobility, air supply, and sudden outflanking movements to wrong-foot a PK force on the ground and occupy contested territory.

We should remember that in the famous Jadotville siege, the Irish Coy were threatened quite ineffectually with a Fouga Magister. Today's aircraft and payloads, might be a degree more lethal and not so ineffectual. Throughout, the long Leb/UNIFIL mission, there was always the threat that the IAF might simply 'take out' an Irish OP to teach us some kind of lesson…..and yet the Irish top brass were so obsessed with the carry-on of the DFF/SLA crowd and their tanks and whatnot (Viz At-Tiri-1980, etc.)…that we deployed heavy recoiless rifles (the 90mms) and Panhard AMLs 90…all ostensibly to deter from over enthusiastic use of super shermans…… but there was no credible level of battalion asset to at least deter from an air attack…….which might be simply covered up as a 'tragic mistake'.

Also please remember that even guerrila outfits often have serious state support. Hezbollah, have Iranian and Syria patronage and appear to have developed some rudimentary improvised UAVs……which for now they use for recce…but it doesn't take much imagination to rig such up as an ordnance platform. The Tamil Tigers, before they were eliminated using quite conventional tactics and weapons featuring heavy artillery and tracked vehicles, were busy using small light aircraft for improvised suicide attacks.

One can speak then of an 'assymetric novel air threat' other than just fast jets and helicopters.

Any futre PK deployments should be aware of this threat and it is not adeqaute to assume a few pairs of alert eyes and access to a couple of 12.7mm HMGs will prove adequate.

Evolving AD missions-the counter munition role?

Many of you will have spotted that there is a lot of activity going on right now with modifying traditional AD assets, either guns or missiles, to a role of intercepting and defeating incoming projectiles.


These may be mortar rounds, artillery shells, or in the case of Israel, the improvised Quassm rockets, which of course mimic the plethora of tactical rockets, usually Russian or Chinese (107mm-122mm types being the 'norm'). In Iraq post 2003, there were some murky reports or improvised use of aerial rocket pods, such as the French 68mm pods, against Coalition forces.

If we consider the Irish base in Chad, it was in many ways a 'sitting duck'. Yes berm walls were constructed, and no doubt alert guards and patrols posted, and doubtless drills and bunkers prepared. Nonetheless, the attractions of simply mortaring or rocketing such a large immobile target for any hostile elements must be obvious. Such weapons would be small and portable enough, easy to target/emplace, and by using simple timers, could be fired remotely/fire and forget mode. They would be unlikely to be decisive/lethal but such a tactic could seriously undermine any Irish PK base.

Bottom line- as other armies are taking a serious look at the issue of 'base security' through AD assets we also should be thinking the same way now and we could be slowly developing some kind of capability (see below)

For now, AFAIK the only fielded and combat tested system is the very cumbersome and expensive US C-RAM system, which is basically a 20mm Phalanx system moved onshore with different radars and bits added. It seems to more or less work…..Dreaded wikipedia suggests they cost a cool 15 million dollar a pop……which is not our price point these days is it?:)…....perhaps a technically better system could be the German (Swiss?) MANTIS 35mm system….it uses a network of revolver cannons and fancy radars….with 'smart ammo'…..AFAIK the system is not actually operating but it was slated for Afghan service……Again it would be more than confirmation money.

The Israeli's have gone, controversially, for a missile system……called Iron Dome……this system may well be slated for export to Singapore. The choice of a missile system over a gun system seems odd…given that guns and their ammo would seem intuitively better placed to economically cover and destroy a larger number of small warheads…..however, the missile approach if costs can be kept down, may give faster response time and more total destruction of the warhead (falling debris on civilian areas is a concern for the Israelis). The other area of research is the use of lasers…but while debate continues about their robustness and portability, the costs again would be be huge.

The Italians/OTO-Merlara, are in this market too with a version of their 'super rapid' 76mm gun, and are today busy trying to flog a wheeled 76mm SPAAG as a mobile counter munition asset…….they tried to sell such a thing in the 1980s……..without sucecss (too big/too dear/unproven?)……..but I've limited details of today's re-vamped version. It’s a gun our Navy people know and love.

Question: we have excellent Bofors 40mm guns which already can fire advanced programmable ammunition. Might it not be technically possible to upgrade these weapons to perform a Counter-Munition/Base security role of some sort?

At their simplest, such guns could be the existing towed L/70 weapons..linked to perhaps improved or new crucial radar/electro-optical assets……a more enhanced version would be where those Radars/EO assets were mounted either on a mast (the Poles have such a system and flog it-think Giraffe on steroids)…or better still perhaps on an Aerostat or some type of persitent UAV…a blimp based UAV to give superb situational awareness?

Okay that will never happen. :rolleyes:

BUT shipping out 3-6 L70s 40mm guns is well within our technical and logistical abilities.

Of course thinking more deeply, there is another obvious if much more costly fix.

Have some of our armoured vehicles, that would deploy with any overseas force, either designated AD assets or else capable of an AD role……in that guise they would be employed statically inside a base area…..rather than out on patrol……

The Swedes have an excellent vehicle ready to go:

CV9040 AAVs with 40mm guns….. YES……..they cost at least 4m+ Euro per unit if you buy them new…But if you bought say a platoon or two (18-25 vehicles say)….second hand… costs might work out at half that…..or say 50-70m euro an all-in basic deal including some training, spares, and ammo………and maybe you could also pay for them in an innovative way……'lease-with option to buy'…..with some kind of built in payment with 'offset in kind' (Irish butter is my personal favourite)…it could be just about doable….

With the one procurement…(admittely expensive and not easily explainable on the Joe Duffy show to Joe Public)…you would get….

(a) A tracked MICV better able to deter, and better protected than existing Pirhanas…which are now looking somewhat 'light and unprotected', at least for some deployments. See earlier mad post by me on that beloved topic.
(b) A novel AD asset that could be networked to provide static base defence, OR some level of convoy protection.

Aside from money woes…the big IF here would be a technical one…of whether such an 'enhanced 40mm' AD system would actually work in defeating incoming rockets or mortar shells (quite a big technical if perhaps) or could this development even be in the works viz the Swedes themselves?

Any views?

Obviously, I have more equally mad ideas. Apologies for excessive length.