Surely its not that f**king expensive to permanently deploy military spec radars. they aren't even that expensive to purchase if we are serious about air defence and intel.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Defending the Irish airspace
Collapse
X
-
"He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
"No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by danno View PostThe AC can get by fine having top grade civvy radar feed to repeaters ,ie, no need to have a dedicated radar set up no more than it has its own weather station /sat network .
DF should be able to field that kind of capability in times of heightened threat and when heads of state visiting etc.
You're basically talking about replacing the existing Giraffes with their (much better) 21St Century equivalent.
The argument the DF would face with LR radar is that the IAA have managed without full coverage since, forever.
Comment
-
We have this one with depressing regularity, and it’s been done a thousand times, but once more
1. Ireland is an island on the extreme edge of Western Europe, a continent that is largely at peace, and faces no immediate conventional air threat.
2. Ireland is in a close political and economic union with 26 European countries and faces no threat from them.
3. While Ireland nearest neighbour has opted to leave this union, we are perhaps their only European friend at the moment and face no threat from them.
4. There is no real conventional threat from the Russians, bear flights might be annoying and irritating in peace time, but in an actual conflict the Russian air force would be shot from the sky/kept well north of the GIUK gap. The north Atlantic is an Anglo/American lake, and that is not going to change for a very long time
5. Because of Ireland’s geographic location a fighter in the class of the Eurofighter would be needed to intercept anything over the Atlantic. This type of fighter hoovers up money, just google “Austria Eurofighter” to see how much it would cost, how much it would detract from overseas and naval fleet replacement programmes and the political problems it would cause.
6. Ireland has an extreme and very vocal neutrality lobby who would scream blue murder.
7. It totally ignores the size and capabilities of the bluffwaffe, the complexity of fourth generation fighters and what the defence forces actually does.
8. The department of transport are going to give any new radar they buy to the IAA not the bluffwaffe, that’s the way the civil service works.
That said in replacing the PC9 I personally think that they should go for something more capable. If anybody is playing any attention to the industry at the moment one of the key trainer programmes is the USAF T-X replacement for the T38 talon, around the same time that we’re looking at replacing the PC9, and a lot of talk is going into developing it as a light fighter as experience in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that the Americans need a cheaper way to deliver precision guided ordnance in low to medium conflict areas than the F16, and soon to be expensive and very complex F35, (think relationship between T38/F-5 families).
Bae are thinking of doing the same for the Indians with the evergreen hawk, while at Farnborough recently the Italians launched the a new version of the M-346, which is a light fighter and trainer aimed squarely at replacing the AMX in Italy and Poland’s remaining Su 22 around the same time as we’re looking at getting rid of the PC9. Saab and Boeing are going to develop something for the T-X project and Sweden is looking for 50 new trainers which will be a Saab product. Buying something is that class that would provide the ability to deliver precision guided munitions in support of ground units overseas , while at the same time provide a capable intercept capability against the real aerial threat, which is to non-conventional threats to high level political EU meetings held in Ireland and increasingly internet giant’s data centres.
Along with this we have to remember EU battle groups are the main game in town, and the importance of developing our istar capabilities...
At the moment we have a credible ground based ISTAR force, but the one thing the conflict in Ukraine has proven is that the Russians are far better at Electronic warfare than anybody thought and ahead the west, and building on Afghanistan signals intelligence is far more important as even the poorest insurgent today has an iPhone. On the ground I would have guessed that in the future they’ll look at something like the Roke Resolve man pack and vehicle system and the development of Light Electronic Warfare Teams for ISTAR Company
However you can’t get away from the fact that there is an ISR gap in the air. The Cessna replacement will in the short term meet and for the first time provide a deployable capability overseas in fairly low threat environments providing a credible capability to complement the ground based Istar capability the army has developing, (which is why they want something in the PC12NG class)
But it also leaves a gap for far more dangerous missions, and I think that we could learn from the Italians who used AMX and Tornados in in the ISTAR role in Libya and Afghanistan, with the Reccelite advanced reconnaissance pods able to deliver a real time capability in the ISTAR role. A force of four or so light fighters in the M-346FT class available for overseas missions with a sophisticated reconnaissance pods, data links and a self defence capability of a couple of sidewinders, with a secondary Close air support capability, would be a real force multiplier, (you'd need about 12 in total)
As for ground air defence, it’s a real and emerging threat but again going back to the Ukraine and middle east, the threat in the air comes from drones, it explains why ordnance was thinking of experimenting with the old 20mm cannons on they took off the AML’s on as RWS a few months ago, and yes, why the upgrade in the white paper around air defence is likely to see a new version of Giraffe available for overseas deployments.Last edited by paul g; 2 August 2016, 15:34.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostSorry, finger trouble, paul g. have a like!...regarding 20mm cannon, I thought the prevailing DF wisdom was that 20mm was yesterday's man and 30mm was the new kid in town for AFVs....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Graylion View PostNope. Smart-L is between 50 and 100 M€ a pop. Add infrastructure, HQ etc we are talking .5 G€ or so.
For reference, the cost of the Ground Master 200's which I'm blathering about -
July 24/13: France’s Ministere de la Defense reportedly confirms a EUR 300 million sale of 17 Ground Master 200 radars to the UAE
Comment
-
Originally posted by pym View PostErr, has anyone advocated Smart-L?
For reference, the cost of the Ground Master 200's which I'm blathering about -
July 24/13: France’s Ministere de la Defense reportedly confirms a EUR 300 million sale of 17 Ground Master 200 radars to the UAE"We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Comment
-
Originally posted by Turkey View PostHow many would we need?
Here's a hypothetical GM200 on top of Kippure, obviously line of sight, clutter and various other issues but:
Red is the engagement envelope - guiding SAM's
Yellow is the surveillance area - detection zone
Realistically I think two would be very doable, but four would be very nice if we had any notion of deployment overseas.
Knowing the usual babysteps, it would probably start with a purchase of one - I suspect even one unit would be light years ahead of what 2 or 3 the existing Giraffe sets can currently offer.
Line of sight for that loc at 2500ft & 5000ft respectivelyLast edited by pym; 2 August 2016, 22:21.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by paul g View Postthat figure is total bollixOriginally posted by pym View PostErr, has anyone advocated Smart-L?
Originally posted by pym View PostFor reference, the cost of the Ground Master 200's which I'm blathering about -
July 24/13: France’s Ministere de la Defense reportedly confirms a EUR 300 million sale of 17 Ground Master 200 radars to the UAE
GM 400 appears to be around 27m Can$ a pop: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lled-1.3145196Last edited by Graylion; 2 August 2016, 23:40.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Graylion View PostYes, me in the original post. Mind you I have guessed the price from what little info I find available in the public domain. If I am too high, I am happy
Nice! Giraffe 4a is the obvious competitor, so there could even be a competition. Same for GM 406 vs Giraffe 8a if we want military LR radars.
GM 400 appears to be around 27m Can$ a pop: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lled-1.3145196
IMO long range sets are a non runner for the Defence Forces - cost and capabilities they offer aren't the right fit. Long range work can be covered by civilian sets & infrastructure - we don't need things like ECCM and ballistic missile tracking in that domain.
The GM200 and 4A are ideal in terms of area defence; tracking non co-operative manouevering targets at low/med/high level and guiding any assets/missiles at them. Ditto with small drones.
Their abilitity to track mortars and artillery - where they're going to hit and where they've been launched from - also sets them apart and would make them very useful for overseas deployments.
If anything like Chad comes around again, you could see L118's making the journey overseas too.
Don't get me wrong 4x GM400's would be nice, but GM200/4A's would still be required and given the budget it's one or the other, not both. The GM200/4A offer more operational capabilities to the DF. The 4A is a particularly good shout if there's a chance the NS will be looking for something in that class for the MRV/EPV.Last edited by pym; 3 August 2016, 00:14.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment