Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

time to upgrade them then :)

Sure would. If it wasn't 80yrs old.

PC9 is a (very nice) trainer for aircraft we don't have. I don't begrudge the ACs having something to keep their hand in. But I think there were better choices. We are where we are.

I hadn't realized fast jet training has become such an issue for everyone until those articles posted earlier.

@delusiondestroyer

I will address your comments regarding threats to Ireland, but it is worth noticing that you did not seek to challenge my point about the RAF. You said earlier that it is good that Ireland was protected by the RAF and suggested that if Ireland was looking to its own defence its citizenry would be vulnerable. That means that you consider that there IS an aerial threat.

I then suggested that the relatively small size of the current RAF meant that they could not actually defend Ireland, and you have not challenged that. So you are accepting that there is an aerial threat to Ireland and that the RAF cannot cover it.

Regarding changed situations this comes in two ways. There is more geopolitical threat than probably any time since the early 80s. But in the past decades Ireland has changed. Ireland is now part of the western capitalist economy, a big part. frankly part of ireland's industrial complex would be a target if the current regional conflict became global. It is not just cables, but factories, ports, microwave communications. If there was a wider war Ireland would be a target. No doubt about it. IS it going to happen? IDK but both sides, west and east, have hyped this, neither side, neither regime can loose. Both sides will escalate rather than loose. Once escalation starts where might it end?

The second thing is back in the day Ireland was poor. It could afford to not take a meaningful part in its defence because it had no real money. Now Ireland has plenty and most of the "allies" see that Ireland is rich because it has their tax dollars, whether that is a fair assessment or not. This is where diplomatically Ireland needs to be seen to move. Ireland is sovereign of course, it can set any tax, any defence spend it likes, but it will loose a LOT of the good will it has if it doesn't seem to pay up along with the rest. Now that of course helps the ,western military industrial complex, but there is no reason why Ireland could not build its own ships, armoured vehicles and ammunition, and spend a lot of that money at home. How about a state owned arms business. Worse ideas out there.

I think the problem with your argument is that it is based on straw men. You suggest that 130 (125 actually) RAF aircraft can defend Ireland. Of course they can. You also say that Ireland culud never defend itself one on one against a great power, correct again. But these assume a war of aggression against Ireland with no other geopolitical context. Vanishingly unlikely.

If there is a world conflict, or even Europe wide conflict, it is unlikely that the RAF would have any planes left to protect Ireland. Also in a world or Europe wide conflict Ireland would not need to have vast resources to protect itself, as an agressor would only have a small fraction of its assets to target Ireland with.

The chances of a major conflict like this have increased in recent years. Neither the US, UK or Russia are, frankly, acting like grown ups in this whole thing. I agree with your post re cables, but just to remind you it was I who first said the risks were "not just cables". Mind you cables are vulnerable in different ways. During the Brexit negotiations the NS announced that a tap had been dscovered on an Irish undersea cable which was, apparently, carried out by a Five Eyes state. No Russia there. SOmeone it seems was spying on Irish comms with the EU. The NS need the capability to monitor cables for more reasons than Russia!

Let me ask you a few direct questions

1. Do you believe that the geopolitical situation is dangerous at present?
2. Do you believe there is a risk of escalation to involve more European powers?
3. Do you believe that as an integrated part of the wider western industrial complex, Ireland could be a target in a wider European power?

Because I will state here and now that I believe the answer to each to be in the affirmative.

And I am not even going to discuss the risks to Ireland from a possible UK breakup, which are considerable.

How would you answer those three questions, and why? We can then discuss what, if any, Ireland's response should be.

@delusiondestroyer

"1) No I do not think the geopolitical situation right now is dangerous for Ireland. Threat level would be very low.

2) Nope i think Russia has ran its race in the Ukraine and looking for an off ramp, they cant deal with what they currently have on there plate without attacking an NATO nation. As there power projection is pathetic (they would be mauled).

3) No I dont think it would, and the reason being is again "How" and "who" is going to attack us and to achieve what."

Well I think that is the problem, I disagree with your analysis there!

Specifically I think that the chance of escalation is greater than it has been. I think we do not in the west understand the Russian military very well or its capabilities. It has been, since the breakup of the USSR, very much a defensive military, for a start. Also I think that the Russians have hamstrung themselves by not actually declaring it a war. They cannot, legally, declare a full mobilisation, because they do not want to admit they are at war. Also Russian doctrine, since the Czars, has been to use your worst, poorest trained troops in these sort of conflicts, and save your better troops for the real war. For instance the absence of the VVS from the theatre suggests that this may be the doctrine they are following. I am not saying that the Russian's have impressed in Ukraine, but there is a deep seated ideological need in the west to underestimate the Russians, and I think much of the information we are hearing plays into that. Also the population at large are not really aware how much western might has actually been arranged in Ukraine holding the Russians. The entire western stocks of whole classes of munitions are seriously depleated. Remember Ukraine has an army before the war of about 1 million including reserves. Perfect proxy army for the west.

But you see I am not really worried about a war now, I am worried about one sometime in the next twenty or thirty years, that is the time scale for which we need to plan, and all I can say is the world is unstable in a way it hasn't for many decades. I do not need to know who i going to rob my house to know it might be robbed. I also have big concerns about the potential breakup of the UK, and the possible consequences of that.

@delusiondestroyer

"1) Hypothetically speaking If Ireland did all that you wished and invested and bought 15-20 jets do you think this would be enough in a full scale war?

2) If this wider conflict that you are saying was to break out and Ireland was to find itself alone as you suggest how would we arm our jets and troops in a prolonged conflict as we have no military industry of our own?

3) Faced with a direct combined arms attack of the scale which you are referencing how long do you think the "upgraded" defence forces would last against a superior modern force? Say US, UK, Russia, France military ect. Because to be realistic these are the nations that can project power to attack Ireland or even able to attempt the scenario you are suggesting?

All the main military bases identified and getting hit with massive pre-emptive cruise missile strikes along with all other military infrastructure being hit few planes downed before they get off the runway and when the ones that do get off the ground they are met 5th gen fighter jets in superior numbers."

1. you forget what I said earlier. Any threat to Ireland is only going to come about because of a wider conflict. The amount of men, ships, planes, missiles, whatever, by any power, is going to be limited in that scenario. It is quite feasible to develop a realistic island defence strategy based on that kind of scenario. I, actually, think that about 30-40 jets is what would be needed! Also they do not really need to be up to the minute. 4th gen fine, by the time the war gets to Ireland the 5th gen planes will be in the hangers undergoing deep maintainence. Non military people fixate on equipment, military people fixate on logistics, morale and training.
2. If you had read my post I suggested that Ireland needs some kind of defence industry. At the very least for munitions, ships and armoured vehicles. It should be considered part of any realistic long term strategic safety plan for Ireland.
3. Against any big power, Ireland has no chance, but against 10% of the forces of a big power, Ireland has a very good chance.

There is an interesting story from the last war to illustrate the point. In 1939 the Irish began a big military buildup. By 1941 the state had a standing army of 40,000 with basic infantry weapons, macnine guns, some arty and home made armoured cars (decent enough actually). The British were worried about a German invasion. They asked the Irish to do some excerises to show an Irish response to a german invasion based on 25,000 Nazi paratroops and a limited sea landing. At the end of the excercise the British had concluded, much to Churchill's glee apparently, that the Irish would be able to hold the Germans on the Suir and the Barrow, and counterattack with fair chance of destroying the attackers. The lesson of this story is that if you said Ireland vrs Nazi Germany would not have given the Free State much chance, but Ireland vrs what the Nazis had to spare while a European War was going on, is a very different story.

I understand some of what you say. It comes from a kinda "cool" sure what is the point attitude. But it is wrong, for all that.

Well I said already that I actually think a post-Brexit civil war is a risk. I also said that I think a European war is a risk. But why focus on the specifics. THe actual coalition of forces is hard to forsee roight now. You are setting your own criterion here of having to know the exact origin of a threat. It is a nonsense criterion. Do you know the identity of the person who might enter you house before you lock your door at night? If the guards cannot tell you that Sammy the tea leaf will rob you tonight do you leave the front door wide open? Because if you do not your point is meaningless.

I never said the RAF would be overrun, just that in an actual real live war they will not have enough aircraft to defend Ireland.

Part of the reason we must look to POTENTIAL threats is that it is not 1941 anymore and WW2 lessons are not relevant. Too many people fight the last war! Irish defence strategy in the Cold War was get the basic training done and we can buy a load of gear and finish training on the good stuff in six months. Today you do not make that jump in six months, but in ten years. If Ireland decided to go down the fast jet route, for example, today, it would take a decade to get it all together.

But leaving everything else aside, the Brits are nearly bankrupt, unstable, potentially turning far right, with half of their second largest member wanting to seceede from the union. They are an unreliable partner. They will not be our chum in the future, or if they are it is at a big cost. Do you want to be potentially depending on someone like Boris Johnson? Answer me that!

Well I am actually partly in agreement with you there! I am not convinced that interecptors are good value for Ireland. I can see that our "allies" are pushing us to acquire interceptors, but is that really in our best interests?

I have to say, from the offset, that I I believe Ireland needs stronger defences, We certainly need radars, and mobile as well as fixed radars. We also need to defend our radars with missile batteries, good missile batteries, but more widely I think that our AD could be based more around denial of access principles than actual air superiority. To do that we would not need intercetors or air superiority fighters, just in depth missile defences, and those are much, much cheaper than jets. . But if we could effectively deny access over active theatres to foreign aircraft, by a first rate missile defence, we could much better spend the saved money on the army, and on cyber defence and at sea. I would suggest that it might even be possible to make missiles under license in Ireland, or possibly even design and build decent AA missiles, from scratch, in Ireland. We actually do have the capability in Irish industry, if we wanted to do that, Heck we could even sell them.

I mentioned the absence of the VVS in Ukraine. THis is partly because the Russians are holding back, but it is also becasuse the Ukrainans have missile defence in depth. The SS300s and Patriots are doing a very good job, and are cheaper than an airforce. Even the patriot missiles are not that expensive, a few million a round, although by the time you have the radars, launchers and all the amissiles etc a full system is about 1 biilion, but Ireland could have a few of those, and a few more cheaper medium range systems, like the new Swedish mid range system, and have a very effective defence for 1/3 of the price of a jet squadron, by the time maintenance etc is priced in. To give some context, a Patriot Battery has 8 launchers, each loaded with four patriot missiles. THree batteries, supplemented with some more medium range missiles would cost a few billion, but would last thirty years with out major upgrade and no-one would want to enter our airspace with hostile intent!

There is a firm in Belfast who manufacture state of the art missiles.

So gettin hold of kit should not be a problem.

Anyway. Multirole jet fighters are a very important element of the national defence. You can't rely solely on missiles.

@sparky42 @saabsaab

Missiles are no use for QRA, that is true. But.... how much will QRA actually add to Irish defence for the cost? It will take 300 million pa to maintain QRA, that means four interecptors on standby, yes in a crisis we can press maybe 12 of our 16 into use, but that is still only intercept, no ground attack or air superiority capability. To do that would mean 30 or 40 aircraft, maybe 200 pilots, several hundred techs, basically another air corps beside the current one, and a whole new set of infrastructure, 5-600 mil a year.

Why not forget all of that and have missile defence for denial of access. Forget about ground attack, and go for more spotting drones, 155mm arty, surface to surface missiles and anti-ship missiles for the army and navy, and loads of munitions for the price of the QRA squadron alone.

The reason why our neighbours want us to do QRA is that it takes the strain off them, not because it makes us safer. Just do not bother with intercepts in peace time and keep our missiles until a war or similar situation.

I'm sorry but I'm going to ask for proof on that claim, the RAF have a pilot problem and they have a numbers problem, both mainly by budget reasons, but I'd like some evidence of your claims, most "Ground Attack" missions are now using LGBs or Stand off munitions like Spear etc (when we are talking about the RAF), so I really doubt that can't rotate pilots, the dedicated ground attack roles are gone with the Harrier and Jaguar. The RAF does have a habit of "fleets within fleets" of what are the same airframe but with different roles and specs but that's more one of their quirks, but I very much question the suggestion that multirole aircraft aren't that, and for the love of god can we stop using the F35 as the go to as to everything bad, every one of the current gen aircraft, from F16, 18, Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon are all multirole capable, stop flogging a dead horse that has no part of any discussion for Ireland.

Everything has a cost, you buy a SAM system and think that its still going to be capable in 30 years without spending serious money buying new add ons you are kidding yourself (ie the Patriots of today might have the same name as those in the First Gulf War but are in effect totally different animals), same for ASMs. Moreover again as I said they operate as systems within systems, by themselves they are vulnerable and limited