AC fighter aircraft

[expat01]

Not arguing the fact that we should defend our airspace, just arguing the fact that the cost of doing so properly is substantial and is something that I feel we can neither afford in budget or personnel and as I stated buying fast jets for a half hearted effort is a waste of resources.

BTW what do you think in aircraft terms let alone budget or personnel what it would take to adequately defend/guard our airspace? Would be interested to read your thoughts

I don't know. I'll take Denmark as a rule of thumb. GDP about 30% bigger than ours (2013 figures, no magic accounting), defence budget around 3 billion Euro, so 3 times our highest spending just before the crash. That's 1.7% of GDP to our 0.5%.
For that 3 billion they get 35 F-16s, 10 F-16 trainer versions, 4 maritime patrol craft, 4 C130s, 35 helicopters, 3 air defence frigates, 2 absalom class vessels, 4 other frigates and 10 smaller vessels.
At their 1.7% level of spending we'd have an annual budget of about 2 billion.
I think we can afford a gripen or twenty and the manpower to fly them.
I'd like three to four squadrons and some radar, I'd settle for two - the navy needs more floaty stuff after all.

[EUFighter]

Under the Chicago Convention, which we have signed we have an obligation to enforce The Rules of Air in all airspace above the territorities we are responsible for. This can be much larger than just our territorial airspace. In fact a large number of QRA launches in Europe are not to intercept Russian Bombers but to intercept civil aircraft. Normally ones which have lost contact with ATC. Radio failed, wrong frequency etc.

Coming back to us getting fighter jets, there first needs to be defined the mix we want, not everything is QRA. There is daylight CAP, this is part of most air defence schemes, how much depends on threat levels and warning times. Then comes QRA and finally SAMs. The latter is only really for high value targets as the real range of most is relativly short.

The Don is too small to cope with having a couple of squadrons of fast jets. Also give the amount of traffic around Dublin it would be much better to base them at Shannon or Knock. Also the main direction of an intruder would be from the north, north-west. Such a move might be just the thing needed to reform the Don!

[apc]

I don't know. I'll take Denmark as a rule of thumb. GDP about 30% bigger than ours (2013 figures, no magic accounting), defence budget around 3 billion Euro, so 3 times our highest spending just before the crash. That's 1.7% of GDP to our 0.5%.
For that 3 billion they get 35 F-16s, 10 F-16 trainer versions, 4 maritime patrol craft, 4 C130s, 35 helicopters, 3 air defence frigates, 2 absalom class vessels, 4 other frigates and 10 smaller vessels.
At their 1.7% level of spending we'd have an annual budget of about 2 billion.
I think we can afford a gripen or twenty and the manpower to fly them.
I'd like three to four squadrons and some radar, I'd settle for two - the navy needs more floaty stuff after all.

Slight bit of a difference between the two countries

Denmark
Gross domestic product: 335.9 billion USD (2013)
Government debt: 44.5% of GDP (2013)
Gross national income: 252.3 billion PPP dollars (2013)

Ireland
Gross domestic product: 232.1 billion USD (2013)
Government debt: 123.7% of GDP (2013)
Gross national income: 180.4 billion PPP dollars (2013)

You wont be seeing any fighters soon, anyway Denmark are part of NATO and therefore have different obligations and history. their F 16s are from the earlier 80s where Europe for NATO countries was a different game. The Danes plan to replace their f 16s with 27 F35s but they already have an air force structure in place which we dont. to create the Air force that you wish for would cost alot more than the budget increase your looking for, a lot more

[expat01]

Slight bit of a difference between the two countries

Denmark
Gross domestic product: 335.9 billion USD (2013)
Government debt: 44.5% of GDP (2013)
Gross national income: 252.3 billion PPP dollars (2013)

Ireland
Gross domestic product: 232.1 billion USD (2013)
Government debt: 123.7% of GDP (2013)
Gross national income: 180.4 billion PPP dollars (2013)

You wont be seeing any fighters soon, anyway Denmark are part of NATO and therefore have different obligations and history. their F 16s are from the earlier 80s where Europe for NATO countries was a different game. The Danes plan to replace their f 16s with 27 F35s but they already have an air force structure in place which we dont. to create the Air force that you wish for would cost alot more than the budget increase your looking for, a lot more

You point out what I pointed out. We are 2/3 of the size. We could happily manage 1/3 of the air force... I'm not even looking for 2/3.
The argument about structure is basically saying we don't have it now so we can't have it in future. With that argument we'd still not have a naval service and we'd never have started operating helicopters.

The only different obligations Denmark has regarding defence is to be ready to come to the aid of NATO allies to the best of their ability article V is invoked. And to try to get to 2% gdp spending on defence.
If anything, our neutrality is more onerous. We are obliged to be able to deny access to our territory to all belligerents in a war.

[ancientmariner]

Irish military future

You point out what I pointed out. We are 2/3 of the size. We could happily manage 1/3 of the air force... I'm not even looking for 2/3.
The argument about structure is basically saying we don't have it now so we can't have it in future. With that argument we'd still not have a naval service and we'd never have started operating helicopters.

The only different obligations Denmark has regarding defence is to be ready to come to the aid of NATO allies to the best of their ability article V is invoked. And to try to get to 2% gdp spending on defence.
If anything, our neutrality is more onerous. We are obliged to be able to deny access to our territory to all belligerents in a war.

I agree. We must not be negative rather aspire and build infrastructure for future contingencies. While trapped in diminishing or historical installations we certainly restrict our growth possibilities. Alliance membership brings access to hardware, training, and support. Decision making on military futures should not reside exclusively on Corps Directors rather a Defence Staff that plans for capabilities and allocates budgets accordingly. It is obvious that a minimum requirement is to detect and deter all unwanted intrusions in our three dimensional territorial spaces.

[apc]

You point out what I pointed out. We are 2/3 of the size. We could happily manage 1/3 of the air force... I'm not even looking for 2/3.
The argument about structure is basically saying we don't have it now so we can't have it in future. With that argument we'd still not have a naval service and we'd never have started operating helicopters.

The only different obligations Denmark has regarding defence is to be ready to come to the aid of NATO allies to the best of their ability article V is invoked. And to try to get to 2% gdp spending on defence.
If anything, our neutrality is more onerous. We are obliged to be able to deny access to our territory to all belligerents in a war.

The amount of debt we possess compared to the Danes is a limiting factor, also you tell the public that we are spending more on defence and buying billions of euros worth of jet fighters and all the support stuff to escort the odd russian bomber it will make Irish water seem like non issue.

Who are we under threat from to warrant squadrons of expensive aircraft, we havent been invaded for 800 years or threatened by invasion since 1940 and that was just on paper. If the russians wanted to invade us a couple of squadrons wont do much to stop them

[expat01]

The amount of debt we possess compared to the Danes is a limiting factor, also you tell the public that we are spending more on defence and buying billions of euros worth of jet fighters and all the support stuff to escort the odd russian bomber it will make Irish water seem like non issue.

Who are we under threat from to warrant squadrons of expensive aircraft, we havent been invaded for 800 years or threatened by invasion since 1940 and that was just on paper. If the russians wanted to invade us a couple of squadrons wont do much to stop them

Actually the last time we were invaded was 1798. However... With an attitude like that I assume you want to scrap the army too.
In fact, the army is one part of the defence forces that has no purpose whatsoever. It has no security function that could not be taken over by the gardai, and we have no need to send troops overseas.
Scrap the army and spend the money on something useful, apc. If your view is actually consistent.
But it isn't, as I glean from your complaint about the order of battle on the Mowag thread. We have no need of Mowags or artillery in Ireland and UN missions are just a vanity project. note that none of your objections hold water in terms of our economic reality or prospects. You are just clinging to a blinkered refusal and throwing any specious almost-argument that comes handy. Why?

[Jetjock]

The amount of debt we possess compared to the Danes is a limiting factor, also you tell the public that we are spending more on defence and buying billions of euros worth of jet fighters and all the support stuff to escort the odd russian bomber it will make Irish water seem like non issue.

Who are we under threat from to warrant squadrons of expensive aircraft, we havent been invaded for 800 years or threatened by invasion since 1940 and that was just on paper. If the russians wanted to invade us a couple of squadrons wont do much to stop them

It's not about the threat of invasion, though do not over estimate the power projection capability of the Russian military. A squadron of fighters would be sufficient deterrent given our geographical location.

We have a duty of care to the millions of people transiting our airspace annually, who travel with airlines that pay navigation charges to the Irish Aviation Authority. We have a duty of care to Irish citizens using our own airspace and on the ground. It is the responsibility of the state to guarantee safe passage to those paying for the privilege. Any aircraft flying through controlled airspace with their transpoonder switched off should be met and challenged to allow civilian aircraft to be routed above/below/around them.

[apc]

Actually the last time we were invaded was 1798. However... With an attitude like that I assume you want to scrap the army too.
In fact, the army is one part of the defence forces that has no purpose whatsoever. It has no security function that could not be taken over by the gardai, and we have no need to send troops overseas.
Scrap the army and spend the money on something useful, apc. If your view is actually consistent.
But I note that none of your objections hold water in terms of our economic reality or prospects. You are just clinging to a blinkered refusal and throwing any specious almost-argument that comes handy. Why?

Not at all I think the army do a good job and have done so in the past and with Brexit may be required to patrol a hard border, their work overseas is exemplary. The Air Corp also carry out vital functions, while I feel they are under equipped ie MPA and have roles taken off them in the past that I feel they should still be carrying out ie. SAR. They provide the current Air Ambulance service and Pilot the Garda helicopters etc. Personally I think the PC9s are un-necessary that money should be reinvested in Helicopters.
The Navy have seen good investment lately. Maybe a couple of Aircraft Carriers would go amiss either

Whether you think my arguments in terms of economic reality hold water or not is your opinion but the reality is that we are still in debt, you are suggesting we spend a fortune on Fighter Aircraft but you havent identified the real threats we face if any . You want us to spend a fortune to in all reality to do what? to stop us going down a slippery slope to where? A couple of Squadrons might make Iceland think twice about invading us , but thats it. If you think Russia will invade three Countries of the EU in the next five years then it is probably to late to start investing in fastjets

I Thought the French "landed" in Ireland in 1798 to help the rebellion not to invade us

[Jetjock]

I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated in this thread that with some minor infrastructural improvements at existing facilities, that a squadron of jets could be leased and operated without costing "billions of euros". In fact, it would come in at a modest 10% increase of an already modest defence budget. It is absolutely within the State's financial capability, debt or no debt.

[DeV]

You do realise how the NS vessels are being afforded?

Savings elsewhere in the budgets, especially pay

[morpheus]

And completely disagree with the approach. its time to get serious about defence and sell it to the people of this country.

[DeV]

Well that's the economic reality

[Galloglass]

Actually the last time we were invaded was 1798.

Actually that wasn't an invasion force....it was re-inforcements.

[expat01]

Sill an invasion... Just like the Dutch invasion of Britain in 1688.
Just because it's welcomed by some or even many doesn't make it less so. Viz Normandy.
Our crimea...