A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Savage93

Morpheus wrote: »

Reduce Irelands annual overseas aid bubget from 600million to 500million
give the 100million saved to the defence budget

Next contact Saab in Sweden, plan to start leasing a squadron of latest version of Saab Gripens from sweden for 78 million a year (like Czech republic is doing) in 3 years time.

Meanwhile send our pilots to UK for jet trainer flying and then move them onto the UKs fighter school up to instructor level for next few years, then start training our own pilots both there on jet trainer and here on the leased gripens.

None of this requires more money from the exchequer, it simply requires a redirection of foreign aid to self defence. This ,money is often used by our aid beneficiaries to fund their own militaries anyway.

Why not send the pilots and technicians to Sweden to for training on the actual aircraft instead of UK for training on other aircraft (I know there would be basic jet flying before actual Gripen hours) the sims would be available on the actual aircraft also.

This proposal is by far and away the most sensible so far, clapped out L159s and Hawks on the way to the scrap heap are not the answer.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If we're going to be spending the money to redevelop the Air Corps' home, it doesn't make sense to get lighter aircraft. Once again, the F-16 would be a more logical choice.

The F-16C/D cost $18.8 million per unit, and cost between $7000 and $24,000 to operate. We are quite unlikely to be using them every day, aside from pilots' getting their hours in. Buying 3-6 (6 would likely be more realistic, two on standby, two in storage, two in maintenance) would cost us $8.4 million if we flew them at a minimum of 200 hours per year.

The only real argument against buying F-16s would be... "The Mericans used them in Iraq why do u want us to invade iraq do u want to kill children?"

I'd say 9-12 is more realistic than 3-6, I doubt with those number you could even maintain the 9-5 role that the Swiss Air Force does.

EDIT Also bare in mind if you are getting the price per unit form the WIKI for the C/Ds that's in 1998 Dollars, inflation alone would put that closer to the 30 million mark, next question are the C/D's still in production, or are you talking about second hand ones? The current standard F 16 is E/F model.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

I'd say 9-12 is more realistic than 3-6, I doubt with those number you could even maintain the 9-5 role that the Swiss Air Force does.

$17.6 million per year, then.

Also, does anyone know if the leasing of the Gripen's include maintenance costs, or is that excluded? If it's excluded, then it really isn't cost efficient to lease them.

riffmongous

Ireland's not the only neutral country struggling with air defence at the moment, Austria and Switzerland both also have plenty of cutbacks at the moment. Austria's military is almost out of money and there is constantly newspaper articles about how the Eurofighters might be grounded soon

BoJack Horseman

riffmongous wrote: »

Ireland's not the only neutral country struggling with air defence at the moment, Austria and Switzerland both also have plenty of cutbacks at the moment. Austria's military is almost out of money and there is constantly newspaper articles about how the Eurofighters might be grounded soon

Indeed, seems slightly overkill for Austria, considering the staff & weapons devoted to the aircraft.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/austria-has-no-business-flying-these-high-performance-fighters-e24649385bf3

The 15 Typhoons rarely fly. And when they do, they carry only a tiny fraction of the weaponry that other Typhoon operators—the U.K., Germany, Spain, Italy and Saudi Arabia—routinely hang on the high-tech fighters.

And in stark contrast to other countries—which usually employ twice as many pilots as they have fighters, thus ensuring there’s always someone available to fly a particular plane into battle—the Austrian air force’s payroll is sufficient for just 11 front-line Typhoon pilots and one trainee......

.....The Typhoons take off so rarely that, at current usage rates, the airframes could last for centuries with adequate upkeep.

riffmongous

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed, seems slightly overkill for Austria, considering the staff & weapons devoted to the aircraft.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/austria-has-no-business-flying-these-high-performance-fighters-e24649385bf3

There are a lot of suspicions about the original deal with Eurofighter, first a very large original order,then it was discovered there was a huge back-out fee that would have had to be paid if the deal didnt go ahead, then later allegations of bribery. I forget how the official investigation went or if its still ongoing, but for public opinion the whole thing was a disaster.

I think they even cut a few pilots last year to reduce salaries and the whole thing also raises questions over what exactly they are needed for, similar to Ireland.

IrishTrajan

riffmongous wrote: »

Ireland's not the only neutral country struggling with air defence at the moment, Austria and Switzerland both also have plenty of cutbacks at the moment. Austria's military is almost out of money and there is constantly newspaper articles about how the Eurofighters might be grounded soon

Austria and Switzerland also use conscription, and have larger active militaries than we do. Austria has 25,000 active (12,000 are conscripts on 6 month service terms), Switzerland has closer to 150,000 active. Both countries also spend more than we do (Austria spends around 3 times as much, Switzerland spends closer to 5 times).

What we're asking for isn't anything like that. We're looking for a well-trained, well-funded, volunteer force with adequate hardware and infrastructure. For instance, we have a small population, and our island is relatively small, so it makes more sense to maintain a stronger navy than to merely call up conscription to boost Army strength.

If we devoted 2% of GNP (which works out at around 1.5% of GDP, I think) it would give a better indicator to our capabilities and allow us to acquire sufficient hardware and munitions to protect Ireland's territorial integrity.

Morpheus

riffmongous wrote: »

Ireland's not the only neutral country struggling with air defence at the moment, Austria and Switzerland both also have plenty of cutbacks at the moment. Austria's military is almost out of money and there is constantly newspaper articles about how the Eurofighters might be grounded soon

For the record. Ireland is not a constitutionally Neutral country like Austria or Switzerland. Ireland in fact is not neutral at all. we have a foreign policy of non involvement on a case by case basis covered under the triple lock.

its a conveniently complex BS excuse bandied about that means we dont need to "buy" defence:
A. as were not part of any large alliance that requires it and
B. were not solely accepting responsibility to cover our own sovereign territory and airspace like a truly neutral country would do.
also C. It keeps the tinfoil hat wearing tree hugging smelly hippy hairy left happy under a false pretense.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

And when you look at the fact that the Shinner's proposal is disarmament who knows what happens after the next election, seems they want to keep all the forces, but will save money for "da skools" by ending procurment:rolleyes::mad:

What has this got to do with the present discussion? Blatant trolling.

Ren2k7

woodrow wyatt wrote: »

Why waste money on increasing the Irish military, NATO are not going to invade and they would not allow anyone else to invade and set up a base at their flanks.
All Ireland needs is a few more naval boats to look after fishing rights and drug smuggling, anything else is a waste of money.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/19/raf-scrambles-jets-after-russian-bombers-spotted-near-cornwall-coast

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/russian-bomber-in-irish-air-space-had-nuclear-weapon-312161.html

Ren2k7

IrishTrajan wrote: »

If we're going to be spending the money to redevelop the Air Corps' home, it doesn't make sense to get lighter aircraft. Once again, the F-16 would be a more logical choice.

The F-16C/D cost $18.8 million per unit, and cost between $7000 and $24,000 to operate. We are quite unlikely to be using them every day, aside from pilots' getting their hours in. Buying 3-6 (6 would likely be more realistic, two on standby, two in storage, two in maintenance) would cost us $8.4 million if we flew them at a minimum of 200 hours per year.

The only real argument against buying F-16s would be... "The Mericans used them in Iraq why do u want us to invade iraq do u want to kill children?"

F-16's are expensive as hell to maintain, not to mention not actually needed for Ireland's present air defence needs. We just need interceptors that can patrol Irish skies for extended periods, with a minimum weapons capability to deter would be aggressors from our airspace. Something like the Aero L-159 or Textron Scorpion would be ideal for our needs.

clear thinking

The thread is titled minimum defense capability. So that probably should mean a capability of dealing with the highest damage risk, even if it is a low probability risk.

My own view is that is a nuclear strike by air drop, as demonstrated by bombers flying off our coast, or by missile is that risk

Can we detect either of these threats. If not that would form part of the minimum capability requirement.

Can we shoot these threats down? If not a SAM system would be needed to take out aircraft attack, I doubt we'd need a fighter wing to do this. Similarly can we shoot down a ballistic missile traveling at mach 6 or whatever?

I would guess if the brits came under simultaneous attack relying on them to shoot targets not aimed at Britain would not be a good position to be in.

Everyone likes a good supersonic jet fighter, but maybe a subsonic wing would be a cheaper alternative?

Ren2k7

clear thinking wrote: »

The thread is titled minimum defense capability. So that probably should mean a capability of dealing with the highest damage risk, even if it is a low probability risk.

My own view is that is a nuclear strike by air drop, as demonstrated by bombers flying off our coast, or by missile is that risk

Can we detect either of these threats. If not that would form part of the minimum capability requirement.

Can we shoot these threats down? If not a SAM system would be needed to take out aircraft attack, I doubt we'd need a fighter wing to do this. Similarly can we shoot down a ballistic missile traveling at mach 6 or whatever?

I would guess if the brits came under simultaneous attack relying on them to shoot targets not aimed at Britain would not be a good position to be in.

Everyone likes a good supersonic jet fighter, but maybe a subsonic wing would be a cheaper alternative?

The likelihood of cruise and ballistic missiles raining down on Ireland is low. But that's not to mean we shouldn't plan ahead to at least be able to defend ourselves from territorial infringement by Russian bombers and fighters. Russia's main enemy in our immediate neighbourhood is Britain, and we cannot assume any conflict between those two wouldn't impact on Ireland. We should assume that Russia wouldn't think twice about using our territorial airspace as a shortcut to attack mainland Britain in the event of war. We should be prepared for such an eventuality.

shanered

These musings are pointless, last thing we need is more military, id have fear for us as a country who had our own national budget announced in the German Parliment before our Dail.
We are a million milesaway from being neutral, and just as far from common sense.
We need to stop allowing shannon being used.
We need better ships if anything in our navey to protect fishing rights and stop smuggling.
We thoerectically should have no beef with the Russians but i can see the US/Uk media filitrring through to some people here.
We are not and should not aspire to become any strategic player.
The biggest threat to our security is the Governments leasing of our airport to forgien powers who are at war.
Save to money on the discussed planes and just pull the plug on military stop overs in shannon.
Theres a cost effective solution.

I must add i do like the military hardware contemplations but for me its pie in the sky stuff.
If we wanted to protect ourselves we should start at the basics and start looking after the people living here now, we have our emergancy comprising of overcroweded hospitals, displaced population living on the streets, and finacial extortion on huge levels.
We might as well be at war.
We need to lay claim to our soviernty first before we defend it, the whole thread is putting the cart before the horse imo.
We should have no part to play in this russian fear mongering. And less of scrambling jets to "scare" them off. Do you think the russians would think we would fire on them?
Can you imagine the scenario?
We are much better keeping our heads out of this and not start making a bigger mess then we already are in.
We would be cannon fodder for the brits and prob used as slme scapegoat to further their geo-political agendas as we historically have.

One question, would the sole intention of additional hardware be solely for use against russia?
Are they our sole enemy atm?
When did this happen? Because of this one flight? Why russia amd not any other nation?

This thread stinks, we are more under threat from Britan as usual than russia in my opinion. Im sure russia lolked at hitting shannon, but only after another nation such as US/Uk have started using it.

Why dont we just cop on, stop letting any forgien forces use our territory and take ourselves out of the crosshairs, and its funny because Uk and US have plans to usw shannon one way or the other which infringes on us protecting our territory, why get so uppity about one bleedin russian plane when we have much bigger closer threats?
Im sure the Uk have several invasion plans of our island in time of war, and i must ask, wouldwe be scrambling jets if and when any RAF plane enter our precious airspace?

clear thinking

shanered wrote: »

These musings are pointless, last thing we need is more military, id have fear for us as a country who had our own national budget announced in the German Parliment before our Dail.
We are a million milesaway from being neutral, and just as far from common sense.
We need to stop allowing shannon being used.
We need better ships if anything in our navey to protect fishing rights and stop smuggling.
We thoerectically should have no beef with the Russians but i can see the US/Uk media filitrring through to some people here.
We are not and should not aspire to become any strategic player.
The biggest threat to our security is the Governments leasing of our airport to forgien powers who are at war.
Save to money on the discussed planes and just pull the plug on military stop overs in shannon.
Theres a cost effective solution.

I must add i do like the military hardware contemplations but for me its pie in the sky stuff.
If we wanted to protect ourselves we should start at the basics and start looking after the people living here now, we have our emergancy comprising of overcroweded hospitals, displaced population living on the streets, and finacial extortion on huge levels.
We might as well be at war.
We need to lay claim to our soviernty first before we defend it, the whole thread is putting the cart before the horse imo.
We should have no part to play in this russian fear mongering. And less of scrambling jets to "scare" them off. Do you think the russians would think we would fire on them?
Can you imagine the scenario?
We are much better keeping our heads out of this and not start making a bigger mess then we already are in.
We would be cannon fodder for the brits and prob used as slme scapegoat to further their geo-political agendas as we historically have.

One question, would the sole intention of additional hardware be solely for use against russia?
Are they our sole enemy atm?
When did this happen? Because of this one flight? Why russia amd not any other nation?

This thread stinks, we are more under threat from Britan as usual than russia in my opinion. Im sure russia lolked at hitting shannon, but only after another nation such as US/Uk have started using it.

Why dont we just cop on, stop letting any forgien forces use our territory and take ourselves out of the crosshairs, and its funny because Uk and US have plans to usw shannon one way or the other which infringes on us protecting our territory, why get so uppity about one bleedin russian plane when we have much bigger closer threats?
Im sure the Uk have several invasion plans of our island in time of war, and i must ask, wouldwe be scrambling jets if and when any RAF plane enter our precious airspace?

Simple answer is because we are in the EU and if an EU state came under attack from Russia or anyone else we would be involved by default. That was a low likelyhood two years ago. Russia has this year kidnapped an Estonian Spy on Estonian territory and it is likely to escalate.

Ren2k7

shanered wrote: »

These musings are pointless, last thing we need is more military, id have fear for us as a country who had our own national budget announced in the German Parliment before our Dail.
We are a million milesaway from being neutral, and just as far from common sense.
We need to stop allowing shannon being used.
We need better ships if anything in our navey to protect fishing rights and stop smuggling.
We thoerectically should have no beef with the Russians but i can see the US/Uk media filitrring through to some people here.
We are not and should not aspire to become any strategic player.
The biggest threat to our security is the Governments leasing of our airport to forgien powers who are at war.
Save to money on the discussed planes and just pull the plug on military stop overs in shannon.
Theres a cost effective solution.

I must add i do like the military hardware contemplations but for me its pie in the sky stuff.
If we wanted to protect ourselves we should start at the basics and start looking after the people living here now, we have our emergancy comprising of overcroweded hospitals, displaced population living on the streets, and finacial extortion on huge levels.
We might as well be at war.
We need to lay claim to our soviernty first before we defend it, the whole thread is putting the cart before the horse imo.
We should have no part to play in this russian fear mongering. And less of scrambling jets to "scare" them off. Do you think the russians would think we would fire on them?
Can you imagine the scenario?
We are much better keeping our heads out of this and not start making a bigger mess then we already are in.
We would be cannon fodder for the brits and prob used as slme scapegoat to further their geo-political agendas as we historically have.

One question, would the sole intention of additional hardware be solely for use against russia?
Are they our sole enemy atm?
When did this happen? Because of this one flight? Why russia amd not any other nation?

This thread stinks, we are more under threat from Britan as usual than russia in my opinion. Im sure russia lolked at hitting shannon, but only after another nation such as US/Uk have started using it.

Why dont we just cop on, stop letting any forgien forces use our territory and take ourselves out of the crosshairs, and its funny because Uk and US have plans to usw shannon one way or the other which infringes on us protecting our territory, why get so uppity about one bleedin russian plane when we have much bigger closer threats?
Im sure the Uk have several invasion plans of our island in time of war, and i must ask, wouldwe be scrambling jets if and when any RAF plane enter our precious airspace?

What a load of hysterical shreiking. Since when did we start "leasing of our airport to forgien (sic) powers who are at war"?I presume you're referring to Shannon, in which case you should be aware all flights going through the airport are civilian in nature. And that Russia also uses Shannon, as did its predecessor the Soviet Union.

Seriously, it's ill-informed posts like the above that make me cringe whenever matters of our defence forces are raised. Christ help us if we ever decided to hold a referendum on joining NATO. You'd have far worse comments like that of "shanered" every day during the campaign, all emanating from the loony far left. And our compliant media would let them get away with their lies without being challenged either.

Ren2k7

clear thinking wrote: »

Simple answer is because we are in the EU and if an EU state came under attack from Russia or anyone else we would be involved by default. That was a low likelyhood two years ago. Russia has this year kidnapped an Estonian Spy on Estonian territory and it is likely to escalate.

Don't forget Russia is also holding a female Ukrainian Air Force pilot who was shot down over eastern Ukraine, captured by "local rebels" and sent to Moscow to face trial on trumped up charges of "killing Russian news reporters". Total bollox of course.

Iranoutofideas

I'd support the acquiring of a small fleet of 6 jets , defensive radar and any other minimum requirements to offer some protection of our airspace.

I think we should stay out of NATO.

As for the Russian bombers, sweet fa we can do about it other than protest their flying without transponders switched on.

Nothing good to come out of poking the bear when you're as helpless as a bunny rabbit.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

What has this got to do with the present discussion? Blatant trolling.

It's a position that one of the political parties has stated in their submission to the discussions on the White Paper, therefore what they think is the minimum defence capability. How is that not relevant to the present discussion? You might not like it but it shows what they are thinking, like everything else, I expect them to flip on this but that's a different matter.

sparky42

riffmongous wrote: »

Ireland's not the only neutral country struggling with air defence at the moment, Austria and Switzerland both also have plenty of cutbacks at the moment. Austria's military is almost out of money and there is constantly newspaper articles about how the Eurofighters might be grounded soon

Due to the budgets of most of Europe, pretty much everyone other than France and the UK are having issues. Germany and Spain have struggled in the last year to have a squadron each of Eurofighters operational (and that's from their domestic reports), there's been issues with the NH 90's, the old Transall's etc. The budgets have been cut too deep, and maintenance has suffered as a result.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

It's a position that one of the political parties has stated in their submission to the discussions on the White Paper, therefore what they think is the minimum defence capability. How is that not relevant to the present discussion? You might not like it but it shows what they are thinking, like everything else, I expect them to flip on this but that's a different matter.

I don't see what relevance you suddenly bringing up SF has for this thread. SF policy towards the DF is the same as the other political parties*: that is to keep it underfunded and Ireland militarily neutral. I realise you have a thing for Shinner bashing but this is the wrong place for that.

*bar perhaps the Trots who would probably have the DF abolished and Ireland's bases leased out to the Russians and Chinese.

sparky42 wrote: »

Due to the budgets of most of Europe, pretty much everyone other than France and the UK are having issues. Germany and Spain have struggled in the last year to have a squadron each of Eurofighters operational (and that's from their domestic reports), there's been issues with the NH 90's, the old Transall's etc. The budgets have been cut too deep, and maintenance has suffered as a result.

With Russia capitalising on these cuts. If we're going to beef up our own air corps we should do so with aircraft that are relatively cheap to maintain. Hence why buying F-16's and Gripens is probably not the best way to go about things.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I don't see what relevance you suddenly bringing up SF has for this thread. SF policy towards the DF is the same as the other political parties*: that is to keep it underfunded and Ireland militarily neutral. I realise you have a hard on for Shinner bashing but this is the wrong place for that.

*bar perhaps the Trots who would probably have the DF abolished and Ireland's bases leased out to the Russians and Chinese.

Have the other parties put forward a position of not funding further hardware purchases for the defence forces as they believe in disarmament? I realise that you like SF, but is it not reasonable to discuss their proposal for the White Paper in a thread about what minimum defence capability Ireland should have. If current polling is right they will either be the main opposition or in Government, surly then their position is open to discussion

One area where public spending could be cut is military spending, with cuts not affecting personal but arms purchases, and the savings reinvested in social protection and economic stimulus programmes.

That's a direct quote of their submission (go download it if you want) and underlines the point that has been stated repeatedly in this thread that the defence forces doesn't get any respect from the majority of the nation.

Heraldoffreeent

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I don't see what relevance you suddenly bringing up SF has for this thread. SF policy towards the DF is the same as the other political parties*: that is to keep it underfunded and Ireland militarily neutral. I realise you have a thing for Shinner bashing but this is the wrong place for that.

*bar perhaps the Trots who would probably have the DF abolished and Ireland's bases leased out to the Russians and Chinese.



With Russia capitalising on these cuts. If we're going to beef up our own air corps we should do so with aircraft that are relatively cheap to maintain. Hence why buying F-16's and Gripens is probably not the best way to go about things.

And you are suggesting the scorpion and the L159, two aircraft that couldn't catch a cold never mind a Bear?

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Have the other parties put forward a position of not funding further hardware purchases for the defence forces as they believe in disarmament? I realise that you like SF, but is it not reasonable to discuss their proposal for the White Paper in a thread about what minimum defence capability Ireland should have. If current polling is right they will either be the main opposition or in Government, surly then their position is open to discussion

That's a direct quote of their submission (go download it if you want) and underlines the point that has been stated repeatedly in this thread that the defence forces doesn't get any respect from the majority of the nation.

Yeah....HOW exactly is that any different than what the current government has been doing? FG, the so called Law and Order party closing barracks and disbanding an entire brigade. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I'm largely indifferent to SF.

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

And you are suggesting the scorpion and the L159, two aircraft that couldn't catch a cold never mind a Bear?

The L159 and Scorpion have the speed to catch a Bear bomber in Irish airspace at cruising speed, with the L159 being able to exceed the Bear. Both aircraft would only need to be able to keep up with such craft while in Irish airspace. Once over international waters there would be no need to keep pace with enemy aircraft.

In any case we shouldn't be trying to run before we can walk. Or rather going from crappy turboprops to modern fighters. We should slowly (and that needs to be repeatedly emphasised) build up our military capability. We need to ask ourselves what do we actually need, instead of what would we like. Sure a squadron or two of Grippens would be great, but it would be costly as hell, not just to acquire them but also maintain them.

The PC-9's we currently have are more than useless, they are a liability as they offer no benefits to the state while continuing to cost us money in maintenance. Their continued use sucks money from more useful defensive needs

The L159 and Scorpion both cost in the region of $20 million each. So for the cost of the current Beckett class vessel programme (€150 million, or $170 million) we could a replace all PC9's with decent aircraft and still have money left over for more effective radar installations.

Maybe when the economy is larger and we have more money coming in via taxation could we upgrade to proper multi-role fighters. But not at present.

shanered

Ren2k7 wrote: »

What a load of hysterical shreiking. Since when did we start "leasing of our airport to forgien (sic) powers who are at war"?I presume you're referring to Shannon, in which case you should be aware all flights going through the airport are civilian in nature. And that Russia also uses Shannon, as did its predecessor the Soviet Union.

Seriously, it's ill-informed posts like the above that make me cringe whenever matters of our defence forces are raised. Christ help us if we ever decided to hold a referendum on joining NATO. You'd have far worse comments like that of "shanered" every day during the campaign, all emanating from the loony far left. And our compliant media would let them get away with their lies without being challenged either.

Permits Issued to Carry Munitions of War through Ireland or Irish Airspace
The Chicage Convention states that "no munitions of war may be carried in or above the territory of another State in aircraft engaged in international navigation, except by permission of such State". This only covers the so-called "civilian" aircraft that are carrying troops and cargo. In Ireland the Minister for Transport routinely receives requests to carry munitions from aircraft landing at Shannon or passing through Irish airspace. The vast majority of these requests are from aircraft chartered by the US military.

The number of requests made and permits granted to carry munitions are as follows:

YEAR NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS MADE NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED
2014 requests 606 permits 584
2013 re 714 per 693
2012 821 807
2011 1393 1382
2010 1352 1307
2009 1306 1276
2008 1387 1359
2007 1517 1495
Of the 606 requests received in 2014, 566 were from the US - thats 93% of the requests.

In 2013 the vast majority of requests also came from USA airlines. Applications also came from airlines from the UK, Ukraine, Turkey and Portugal. Of the 693 flights for which permits were granted, 357 landed in Ireland (mostly at Shannon); the rest were overflights.

In 2012 the breakdown was as follows: US 758 (92%), United Arab Emirates 32, UK 9, Switzerland 3, Russia 2, Portugal 2, Ukraine 1. The number that were for aircraft that landed at Shannon Airport was 557.

The point that their are NO munitions going through shannon is not true.
No need to revert to the ould stereotyping of me to the loony left, just dont think the whole idea is a good one and don't think Ireland needs a squadron of fighterjets to chase away the russians.
I would be inclined to believe that the idea of the fighter jets loony but thats my two cents.
Cost, use and ineffectivness are core issues which people are not equating into their hypotetical wargames with Russia and I am not talking in a military context but for wider Irisb society.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The L159 and Scorpion have the speed to catch a Bear bomber in Irish airspace at cruising speed, with the L159 being able to exceed the Bear. Both aircraft would only need to be able to keep up with such craft while in Irish airspace. Once over international waters there would be no need to keep pace with enemy aircraft.

L-159 Max Speed: 936 km/h (505 knots, 581 mph) at sea level, clean
Scorpion Jet (maybe as it's still in development): 450 kn (518 mph; 833 km/h)
Bear: 920 km/h (510 knots, 575 mph)

Hang a couple of Sidewinders and get that up to 45K feet and I doubt that the 16km/h the L-159 has over the Bear would still exist. And the Scorpion doesn't even have the speed to match the Bear even in a clean development configuration currently. So how exactly can they keep pace with a Bear.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

Hang a couple of Sidewinders and get that up to 45K feet and I doubt that the 16km/h the L-159 has over the Bear would still exist. And the Scorpion doesn't even have the speed to match the Bear even in a clean development configuration currently. So how exactly can they keep pace with a Bear.

Would the Bear be flying at it's maximum cruising speed over Ireland?

Ren2k7

shanered wrote: »

Permits Issued to Carry Munitions of War through Ireland or Irish Airspace
The Chicage Convention states that "no munitions of war may be carried in or above the territory of another State in aircraft engaged in international navigation, except by permission of such State". This only covers the so-called "civilian" aircraft that are carrying troops and cargo. In Ireland the Minister for Transport routinely receives requests to carry munitions from aircraft landing at Shannon or passing through Irish airspace. The vast majority of these requests are from aircraft chartered by the US military.

The number of requests made and permits granted to carry munitions are as follows:

YEAR NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS MADE NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED
2014 requests 606 permits 584
2013 re 714 per 693
2012 821 807
2011 1393 1382
2010 1352 1307
2009 1306 1276
2008 1387 1359
2007 1517 1495
Of the 606 requests received in 2014, 566 were from the US - thats 93% of the requests.

In 2013 the vast majority of requests also came from USA airlines. Applications also came from airlines from the UK, Ukraine, Turkey and Portugal. Of the 693 flights for which permits were granted, 357 landed in Ireland (mostly at Shannon); the rest were overflights.

In 2012 the breakdown was as follows: US 758 (92%), United Arab Emirates 32, UK 9, Switzerland 3, Russia 2, Portugal 2, Ukraine 1. The number that were for aircraft that landed at Shannon Airport was 557.

The point that their are NO munitions going through shannon is not true.
No need to revert to the ould stereotyping of me to the loony left, just dont think the whole idea is a good one and don't think Ireland needs a squadron of fighterjets to chase away the russians.
I would be inclined to believe that the idea of the fighter jets loony but thats my two cents.
Cost, use and ineffectivness are core issues which people are not equating into their hypotetical wargames with Russia and I am not talking in a military context but for wider Irisb society.

You claimed we were leasing out Shannon to the Americans. That was a lie on your part.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Would the Bear be flying at it's maximum cruising speed over Ireland?

If it wanted to avoid any fighters coming up at it I'm sure they would. And that doesn't even deal with the fact that larger aircraft have better handling at high altitude than smaller ones. Certainly the Scorpion wouldn't be fast enough (60+ knot difference in the test article, don't know about weapon load out affecting the performance) while I'm very doubtful that the L-159 would loose less than 16km/h with weapons/altitude. There's also the issue of the bear being able to simply outlast them (assuming flying from Dublin at full speed just to intercept them)

Captain Chaos

Even to intercept an airliner you need a supersonic fighter, no two ways about it and you'd want more than a sidewinder. AMRAAM at least for the big boys. In a tail chase the AMRAAM only has about a 12mile effective range. A sidewinder has less than half a mile in a chase.

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

If it wanted to avoid any fighters coming up at it I'm sure they would. And that doesn't even deal with the fact that larger aircraft have better handling at high altitude than smaller ones. Certainly the Scorpion wouldn't be fast enough (60+ knot difference) while I'm very doubtful that the L-159 would loose less than 16km/h with weapons/altitude. There's also the issue of the bear being able to simply outlast them (assuming flying from Dublin at full speed just to intercept them)

That's all well and good you you forget one thing, the PC9's can't do a single thing to prevent Russian infringement of our airspace. At least Scorpion's and L-159's can. Sure we could buy 6 Grippens and be sure we could properly deal with Bear Bombers. But they're, what, $60 million a piece? And that doesn't take into account maintenance costs. You're talking the guts of half a billion for 6 aircraft, along with maintenance! We couldn't afford that, at least not yet.

For the money we do have at present we should upgrade to light attack fighters (at the very least they would offer better training for air cadets than the turboprops we now have), and then in about 10 years time, after the economy has fully recovered, explore acquiring multi-role fighters.

sparky42

Ren2k7 wrote: »

That's all well and good you you forget one thing, the PC9's can't do a single thing to prevent Russian infringement of our airspace. At least Scorpion's and L-159's can. Sure we could buy 6 Grippens and be sure we could properly deal with Bear Bombers. But they're, what, $60 million a piece? And that doesn't take into account maintenance costs. You're talking the guts of half a billion for 6 aircraft, along with maintenance! We couldn't afford that, at least not yet.

For the money we do have at present we should upgrade to light attack fighters (at the very least they would offer better training for air cadets than the turboprops we now have), and then in about 10 years time, after the economy has fully recovered, explore acquiring multi-role fighters.

Not convinced looking at the figures that the Scorpion/L-159 offers much more benefit, not unless we intend to base them on the West Coast permanently. Outside of the proposed Ferry range we don't even know what the combat radius of the Scorpion is (and again it's development so I wouldn't trust the figures anyway until somebody else puts it into service and hangs weapons on it and proves the figures), for the 159 getting from Dublin to the West Coast and back uses up about a third of it's max range (and can we even judge if that's it's range at full speed, or a more economical profile?) before you add weapons (so maybe even half it's range gone), so could a 159 even manage to maintain contact from our air space off Donegal down the West Coast, or would we need to have multiple planes handing off to one another? Could the Bear just open the range for an hour and run them out of fuel/range? Also not sure how they provide more training, pretty much every air force trains on Turboprops to start with before moving on, we'd need them even if we had jets. For their price the 159/Scorpions don't add much more than what we have, while meaning we still have to start up all the spares/maintenance/Baldonnel upgrades that we'd have to do for anything more advanced anyway.

Like everything else, because generations have left things in such a uninvested position we will end spending a huge amount if we ever choose to take our defence seriously. If you look at say Beligum's defence spending it's 65% pay/pensions, 25% current support, and just the rest for new hardware, we'd have to massively expand the last while maintaining/expanding the other 2 areas and sustain that for an extended period no matter what we do to invest in defence.

Savage93

Ren2k7 wrote: »

What has this got to do with the present discussion? Blatant trolling.

I wondered how long before the first "Shinnerbot" appeared on the thread.

Savage93

shanered wrote: »

These musings are pointless, last thing we need is more military, id have fear for us as a country who had our own national budget announced in the German Parliment before our Dail.
We are a million milesaway from being neutral, and just as far from common sense.
We need to stop allowing shannon being used.
We need better ships if anything in our navey to protect fishing rights and stop smuggling.
We thoerectically should have no beef with the Russians but i can see the US/Uk media filitrring through to some people here.
We are not and should not aspire to become any strategic player.
The biggest threat to our security is the Governments leasing of our airport to forgien powers who are at war.
Save to money on the discussed planes and just pull the plug on military stop overs in shannon.
Theres a cost effective solution.

I must add i do like the military hardware contemplations but for me its pie in the sky stuff.
If we wanted to protect ourselves we should start at the basics and start looking after the people living here now, we have our emergancy comprising of overcroweded hospitals, displaced population living on the streets, and finacial extortion on huge levels.
We might as well be at war.
We need to lay claim to our soviernty first before we defend it, the whole thread is putting the cart before the horse imo.
We should have no part to play in this russian fear mongering. And less of scrambling jets to "scare" them off. Do you think the russians would think we would fire on them?
Can you imagine the scenario?
We are much better keeping our heads out of this and not start making a bigger mess then we already are in.
We would be cannon fodder for the brits and prob used as slme scapegoat to further their geo-political agendas as we historically have.

One question, would the sole intention of additional hardware be solely for use against russia?
Are they our sole enemy atm?
When did this happen? Because of this one flight? Why russia amd not any other nation?

This thread stinks, we are more under threat from Britan as usual than russia in my opinion. Im sure russia lolked at hitting shannon, but only after another nation such as US/Uk have started using it.

Why dont we just cop on, stop letting any forgien forces use our territory and take ourselves out of the crosshairs, and its funny because Uk and US have plans to usw shannon one way or the other which infringes on us protecting our territory, why get so uppity about one bleedin russian plane when we have much bigger closer threats?
Im sure the Uk have several invasion plans of our island in time of war, and i must ask, wouldwe be scrambling jets if and when any RAF plane enter our precious airspace?

another shinnerbot :D:D:D:D:D:D

How the F**k do you think we can stop foreign forces using our territory , Because of people like you we cannot, not much point lying down on O'Connell bridge to protest with the rest of the hairyholes when there's a Russian Bear about to dump a load on Dublin.

Savage93

Ren2k7 wrote: »

That's all well and good you you forget one thing, the PC9's can't do a single thing to prevent Russian infringement of our airspace. At least Scorpion's and L-159's can. Sure we could buy 6 Grippens and be sure we could properly deal with Bear Bombers. But they're, what, $60 million a piece? And that doesn't take into account maintenance costs. You're talking the guts of half a billion for 6 aircraft, along with maintenance! We couldn't afford that, at least not yet.

For the money we do have at present we should upgrade to light attack fighters (at the very least they would offer better training for air cadets than the turboprops we now have), and then in about 10 years time, after the economy has fully recovered, explore acquiring multi-role fighters.

HOW MANY TIMES, neither the L159 nor the Scorpion will catch a Bear, bearing in mind distance and time from scramble, climb time , their max speeds and the Bears max speeds. THEY WILL NOT DO THE JOB

IrishTrajan

shanered wrote: »

These musings are pointless, last thing we need is more military, id have fear for us as a country who had our own national budget announced in the German Parliment before our Dail.
We are a million milesaway from being neutral, and just as far from common sense.
We need to stop allowing shannon being used.
We need better ships if anything in our navey to protect fishing rights and stop smuggling.
We thoerectically should have no beef with the Russians but i can see the US/Uk media filitrring through to some people here.
We are not and should not aspire to become any strategic player.
The biggest threat to our security is the Governments leasing of our airport to forgien powers who are at war.
Save to money on the discussed planes and just pull the plug on military stop overs in shannon.
Theres a cost effective solution.

I must add i do like the military hardware contemplations but for me its pie in the sky stuff.
If we wanted to protect ourselves we should start at the basics and start looking after the people living here now, we have our emergancy comprising of overcroweded hospitals, displaced population living on the streets, and finacial extortion on huge levels.
We might as well be at war.
We need to lay claim to our soviernty first before we defend it, the whole thread is putting the cart before the horse imo.
We should have no part to play in this russian fear mongering. And less of scrambling jets to "scare" them off. Do you think the russians would think we would fire on them?
Can you imagine the scenario?
We are much better keeping our heads out of this and not start making a bigger mess then we already are in.
We would be cannon fodder for the brits and prob used as slme scapegoat to further their geo-political agendas as we historically have.

One question, would the sole intention of additional hardware be solely for use against russia?
Are they our sole enemy atm?
When did this happen? Because of this one flight? Why russia amd not any other nation?

This thread stinks, we are more under threat from Britan as usual than russia in my opinion. Im sure russia lolked at hitting shannon, but only after another nation such as US/Uk have started using it.

Why dont we just cop on, stop letting any forgien forces use our territory and take ourselves out of the crosshairs, and its funny because Uk and US have plans to usw shannon one way or the other which infringes on us protecting our territory, why get so uppity about one bleedin russian plane when we have much bigger closer threats?
Im sure the Uk have several invasion plans of our island in time of war, and i must ask, wouldwe be scrambling jets if and when any RAF plane enter our precious airspace?

Let's get a few things straight.

1. Allowing for the transition of hardware and foreign soldiers does not, does not, Does Not breach neutrality. Shannon Airport allowing U.S. troops to use it as a stop over does not breach our neutrality, nor is it Cassus Belli for military strikes.
2. We're not talking about just Russia. We're talking about the Irish State having the capabilities to defend itself from all threats. It is simply that Russia is the most belligerent power, and they see the European Union (which means us) as a rival.

Okay, onto your other claims.

Irish hospitals are overcrowded, not because of lack of funds, but because those funds are misappropriated. The HSE is heavily, heavily overstaffed in administration. You cut administrative numbers, and you'll have enough funds freed up to buy as many feckin' hospital beds as your heart is content to.
The State has increased "anti-Homeless" spending in the most recent budget. The problem is, a lot of the homeless have drug problems. I believe we should help them, but only if they go through rehabilitation. The Government's homeless shelters should not be a life choice, they should be a temporary fix until those people are free of drugs and can afford to live on their own feet.

Is Russia scared we will shoot at them? Not the people in the Kremlin, but people on that plane sure are. It would take a moron to not fear dying over the Atlantic. We're not asking to shoot them down, we're asking for a complement of aircraft capable of escorting them out Irish (sovereign or controlled) airspace. If we were going to be stopping an opponent from establishing air supremacy during an invasion, it would be through SAMs, not fighters. The Air Corps getting larger, faster, more durable fighters would give us the ability to escort these people out.

Britain is also incredibly unlikely to invade us. Can you think of the sh1t storm that would kick off? Not only would it leave our relations in tatters (which are at their best point now, than ever before), it would ruin Anglo-Irish trade and probably result in thousands of lives.

You are arguing against increasing spending, so should we rely on Britain? Isn't being anti-British dependent your parties' ideology?

Yes, Britain probably does have plans to invade us if we were to go to war with each other, much like they did during ww2. The very same way they also contingency plans to go to war with France, or U.S., or Germany... It's common sense that they would have back-up plans. Does that mean they will invade us? No, don't be nonsensical. We have incredibly close relations; culturally, economically, socially, politically.

And, yes, if the RAF did venture into Irish Airspace, the Air Corps would escort them out. That's the thing you're not seeing, we're looking out for what is best for Ireland, to make sure it has the ability to protect itself and its jurisdiction. We're not god damn maniacs calling for war with Russia.

clear thinking

Just to emphasise the High damage / Low risk nuclear threat: Russia sees the EU and NATO as one and the same. They have run 8 snap war games exercises since 2013, ALL of which included limited nuclear strikes, 1 of which was Warsaw. The threat of initiating such strikes (or actually doing them) is (or would be) gauged to say to the west 'stay out' and allow Russia regain its sphere of influence.

Sweden as a 'neutral' country, Portugal, Holland, France have been subjected to bombing runs or fly-bys too. The baltics have had hundreds of airspace incursions by russians in the past year requiring an escort.

There is absolutely every reason for weak EU countries to consider they would be subject to limited nuke strikes along with the big 3.

Short of that a run on London or Manchester from all directions by multiple aircraft in a high pressure scenario could see a nuclear armed aircraft or missile shot down over Ireland by UK defenses before it gets to the UK, simply because we couldn't shoot it down off our west coast first.

So I'd like a variety of SAMs, radar and the debate seems to be leaning towards F16s rather than sub sonic options so a few of those too.

As an aside a few anti tank choppers, entry/evac choppers would be nice in case they are needed in the leb or syria and would double as our most effiecient homeland defense, if the brits ever did invade.

IrishTrajan

clear thinking wrote: »

Just to emphasise the High damage / Low risk nuclear threat: Russia sees the EU and NATO as one and the same. They have run 8 snap war games exercises since 2013, ALL of which included limited nuclear strikes, 1 of which was Warsaw. The threat of initiating such strikes (or actually doing them) is (or would be) gauged to say to the west 'stay out' and allow Russia regain its sphere of influence.

Sweden as a 'neutral' country, Portugal, Holland, France have been subjected to bombing runs or fly-bys too. The baltics have had hundreds of airspace incursions by russians in the past year requiring an escort.

There is absolutely every reason for weak EU countries to consider they would be subject to limited nuke strikes along with the big 3.

Short of that a run on London or Manchester from all directions by multiple aircraft in a high pressure scenario could see a nuclear armed aircraft or missile shot down over Ireland by UK defenses before it gets to the UK, simply because we couldn't shoot it down off our west coast first.

So I'd like a variety of SAMs, radar and the debate seems to be leaning towards F16s rather than sub sonic options so a few of those too.

As an aside a few anti tank choppers, entry/evac choppers would be nice in case they are needed in the leb or syria and would double as our most effiecient homeland defense, if the brits ever did invade.

The only thing I disagree on, would be the "Big 3" being targeted with nuclear strikes. I don't think Russia would ever use nuclear strikes on Britain, France or Germany.

Russia believes nuclear warfare would be in complementary fashion to conventional warfare. e.g. They nuke military installations to allow their conventional forces to steamroll over other forces. France, however, has a "weak-to-strong" approach to nuclear warfare. They are the only country that has come out and said any nuclear strike against them, civilian or military, would result in them targeting civilian centers.

It's why Russia was more inclined to nuke Venice, and other peripheral cities, to warn France not to get involved, whilst Soviet troops would strike for the Rhine and attempt a peace negotiations.

France, simply put, wouldn't mess around. They'd kill millions of Russian civilians with nuclear strikes. Unlike Napoleon's campaign, the Russian Winter isn't going to stop nuclear hellfire.

cruasder777

The cold war never really went away, the threat level just went down.

We now have the most serious situation since the Cuban missile crisis.

Yet the idiot UK govt continues to cut the defence budget.

In the same way the UK govt rid of its civil nuclear defences and units like the Royal Observer corps.

Shannon is also a Russian strategic target.


NATO should be sending more armour into the Baltic and issuing an ultimatum, that it will defend its members.


In the event of the nuclear war, this place would have been the UK govts HQ. I find it odd it got rid of such facilities.

http://www.secretnuclearbunker.com/


Check this out, the bunker is 120 meters deep, on three levels, even its own hospital, facilities for 600 people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnCXMp7O3xo#t=13

sparky42

cruasder777 wrote: »

NATO should be sending more armour into the Baltic and issuing an ultimatum, that it will defend its members.

Given the fire sale of the German Army, the amount of armour left is small enough, the UK has what 100 MBT's in service, Germany has 225, France has 200, sure there's more in storage but that would mean having to expand the force structures.

IrishTrajan

cruasder777 wrote: »

The cold war never really went away, the threat level just went down.

We now have the most serious situation since the Cuban missile crisis.

Yet the idiot UK govt continues to cut the defence budget.

In the same way the UK govt rid of its civil nuclear defences and units like the Royal Observer corps.

Shannon is also a Russian strategic target.


NATO should be sending more armour into the Baltic and issuing an ultimatum, that it will defend its members.

No, it shouldn't. Russia is fighting because it believes NATO is coming for it. It's why they are fighting so hard in Ukraine. The only way to get them to calm down, is to back off a bit so they relax. If they continue being belligerent, then we take measures to deter them.

There are two powers: One is aggressive out of ambition, the other is aggressive out of fear. Russia is the latter, not the former. If we start to move towards them, moving big guns around, they will get more and more paranoid and become more and more irrational. We need to ease the perceived encirclement, but draw a very clear line in the sand. "You attack a NATO country, we will turn your country into dust."

clear thinking

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The only thing I disagree on, would be the "Big 3" being targeted with nuclear strikes. I don't think Russia would ever use nuclear strikes on Britain, France or Germany.

Russia believes nuclear warfare would be in complementary fashion to conventional warfare. e.g. They nuke military installations to allow their conventional forces to steamroll over other forces. France, however, has a "weak-to-strong" approach to nuclear warfare. They are the only country that has come out and said any nuclear strike against them, civilian or military, would result in them targeting civilian centers.

It's why Russia was more inclined to nuke Venice, and other peripheral cities, to warn France not to get involved, whilst Soviet troops would strike for the Rhine and attempt a peace negotiations.

France, simply put, wouldn't mess around. They'd kill millions of Russian civilians with nuclear strikes. Unlike Napoleon's campaign, the Russian Winter isn't going to stop nuclear hellfire.

100% fair point on the big three, however armed dummy runs can still go wrong, which I had in mind as well, though not explained clearly.

cruasder777

sparky42 wrote: »

Given the fire sale of the German Army, the amount of armour left is small enough, the UK has what 100 MBT's in service, Germany has 225, France has 200, sure there's more in storage but that would mean having to expand the force structures.

Yes, but NATO has vast air supremacy against Russian armour.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, it shouldn't. Russia is fighting because it believes NATO is coming for it. It's why they are fighting so hard in Ukraine. The only way to get them to calm down, is to back off a bit so they relax. If they continue being belligerent, then we take measures to deter them.

There are two powers: One is aggressive out of ambition, the other is aggressive out of fear. Russia is the latter, not the former. If we start to move towards them, moving big guns around, they will get more and more paranoid and become more and more irrational. We need to ease the perceived encirclement, but draw a very clear line in the sand. "You attack a NATO country, we will turn your country into dust."

Except that those NATO nations that are bordering Russia is screaming for support, Vlad is looking towards them (while having ignored/broken treaties). By the end of this decade Poland is going to be one of the strongest NATO European nations with a massive upgrade program underway.

Short of giving Russia its "sphere" back (ie the Baltic's, Eastern Europe), Russia isn't going to stop this Not with their Alternative EU pretty much shagged from the start now that Ukraine is out.

clear thinking

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, it shouldn't. Russia is fighting because it believes NATO is coming for it. It's why they are fighting so hard in Ukraine. The only way to get them to calm down, is to back off a bit so they relax. If they continue being belligerent, then we take measures to deter them.

There are two powers: One is aggressive out of ambition, the other is aggressive out of fear. Russia is the latter, not the former. If we start to move towards them, moving big guns around, they will get more and more paranoid and become more and more irrational. We need to ease the perceived encirclement, but draw a very clear line in the sand. "You attack a NATO country, we will turn your country into dust."

there is a good report in the economist on this very point, and in the FT, they make the case that the encirclement fear and excuse of tanks on its border would give putin political cover at home.

It would also however have the side effect of making him back off. That is called a Win Win.

(apologies for the slight stray from the direct topic, but it is relevant I think)

IrishTrajan

cruasder777 wrote: »

Yes, but NATO has vast air supremacy against Russian armour.

Debatable. Russia's SAM systems outperform their American counterparts. In air-to-air combat, the West has air superiority. But trying to establish air supremacy would likely cost the West heavily. It could be done, but it wouldn't be easy, and the difference isn't "vast".

sparky42

cruasder777 wrote: »

Yes, but NATO has vast air supremacy against Russian armour.

The US does, if it can be brought to Europe in time. The EU air forces are facing the result of budget calls. Germany could field maybe 12-18 Eurofighters last year by their own admission, Spain was in single digits in operational readiness. The Eurofighter production line is going to start winding down if it doesn't get more orders soon, with the Tranche 3 upgrades most likely never going to happen (Vector thrust, conformal tanks etc).

With the US pivoting to the Pacific, along with the realistic view that the EU nations aren't investing what's needed, assuming that everything is perfect is unwise long term unless the last 20 years of trends are reversed.

That combined with the US pushing hard for 35 orders means that fighter forces are going to get much more expensive as well.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

Except that those NATO nations that are bordering Russia is screaming for support, Vlad is looking towards them (while having ignored/broken treaties). By the end of this decade Poland is going to be one of the strongest NATO European nations with a massive upgrade program underway.

Short of giving Russia its "sphere" back (ie the Baltic's, Eastern Europe), Russia isn't going to stop this Not with their Alternative EU pretty much shagged from the start now that Ukraine is out.

NATO has already reaffirmed its pledge to the Baltics with 5000-troops. It's not enough to threaten Russia, but it's enough to warn Russia that any fecking about in the Baltics will result in war with NATO.

If you increase the presence in the Baltics, you're talking about giving Russia an actual excuse to interfere in more nations. Right now, 5000 troops won't topple Russia. But if you started cramming 20-30,000 men with entire Armoured Divisions, and relevant airpower, then you're going to make Russia more and more paranoid, and they might attempt a pre-emptive strike.

I agree, Russia is a belligerent power, but it's doing it out of fear that NATO will be coming for it. NATO's more worried about China, than it is about Russia.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

The US does, if it can be brought to Europe in time. The EU air forces are facing the result of budget calls. Germany could field maybe 12-18 Eurofighters last year by their own admission, Spain was in single digits in operational readiness. The Eurofighter production line is going to start winding down if it doesn't get more orders soon, with the Tranche 3 upgrades most likely never going to happen (Vector thrust, conformal tanks etc).

With the US pivoting to the Pacific, along with the realistic view that the EU nations aren't investing what's needed, assuming that everything is perfect is unwise long term unless the last 20 years of trends are reversed.

That combined with the US pushing hard for 35 orders means that fighter forces are going to get much more expensive as well.

European Army, when?

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

European Army, when?

What's the forecast for hell?:P