Thanks Thanks:  58
Likes Likes:  137
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 176
  1. #51
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    so say at 1000 hrs tomorrow the RAF/NATS tells the IAA there is a Bear with no transponder on flying in Irish controlled airspace off the West coast. I

    How long will it take one of these mobile radars to get from Athlone or Dublin to Donegal?

    When it arrives there it still can't detect it as it doesn't have the range.

    Even if it could can it be linked into the IAA radar picture
    You're after completely missing the point of what I said - I said if long range civilian primary radars are to be operated by the IAA, I would still want the DF to have an enhanced capability of their own.

    Properly located civilian long range primary radar will have no problems detecting Bears or other military/civilian aircraft with disabled transponders.

    Provided they're not actively jamming and/or Stealth.

    Cost.
    Last edited by pym; 1st August 2016 at 16:36.

  2. Thanks DeV, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey liked this post
  3. #52
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    I .............t probably(?) would be cheaper to have civilian spec, civilian operated, long range primary radar with the picture shared in Bal. But those systems wont be equipped for ECCM and other modes.
    Maybe it happens frequently but it would be high stakes for any given State to jam civvy radar for posturing purposes regardless of to whom the picture was being repeated to.
    If the intruding bear was such a big deal then why was there no diplomatic response etc .

  4. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #53
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    AC is 18% below establishment for the aircraft it does have
    http://flyinginireland.com/2016/07/n...reed-strength/

  6. #54
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    A good start for the AC to get in on the AD act here would be to assign AD from Arty to AC. It pretty futile to postulate AC getting such and such sensor suite and such and such interceptor while it has no formal role in the matter. Does the WP alter this aspect?

  7. Likes Sarsfield, Turkey liked this post
  8. #55
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    Maybe it happens frequently but it would be high stakes for any given State to jam civvy radar for posturing purposes regardless of to whom the picture was being repeated to.
    Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    If the intruding bear was such a big deal then why was there no diplomatic response etc .
    Following the first publicised incursion two weeks previously, the Department of Foreign Affairs signalled its officials had spoken to the Russian ambassador and sought reassurances that its military aircraft would not fly into our area of control without advance notification, especially if their transponders were off.
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...rs-315623.html

  9. #56
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    you'd probably have more effect on the Russians if you went down to the IFSC and had a poke around a few bank accounts.....air defence (anti-aircraft guns,etc) has always been the jealous preserve of the Army, right back to WW2 and the Air Corps must be the only air arm in the world that has never permanently based defensive weapons at it's own air bases. The Army always had the Bofors and a few machine guns, the NS always had the Bofors and 20mms on it's ships, yet the third arm has never had the means to defend it's own bases or deployable persons/aircraft/vehicles, as it's won establishment asset. They have always had to go, cap in hand, to the Army to do that job. It is beyond ironic that the Air Corps museum was given two Bofors when the Army retired them, having never operated them at all in it's entire history. WW 2 proved beyond all doubt that an air arm has to have the means to defend it's bases and it's deployed assets. That's why the RAF created the RAF Regiment, because they found out the hard way that they couldn't depend on the Army to operate national and local level radar and defend their bases. Irish soldiers have gone abroad for years with no air defence worth the name. I'll bet if the Jadotville boys had had a Bofors on hand, it might have put manners on that Fouga! How many times have the Irish encountered militias with Zsu-23s or 14.5s or 12.7s on the back of pickups, yet they seem unable to bring the same with them when they go on tour? Next time the Navy cast off their 20mms, stick it on a DROPs pallet or a flatbed, paint it green and the Army can play with it.

  10. Likes DeV, Turkey liked this post
  11. #57
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    you'd probably have more effect on the Russians if you went down to the IFSC and had a poke around a few bank accounts.....air defence (anti-aircraft guns,etc) has always been the jealous preserve of the Army, right back to WW2 and the Air Corps must be the only air arm in the world that has never permanently based defensive weapons at it's own air bases. The Army always had the Bofors and a few machine guns, the NS always had the Bofors and 20mms on it's ships, yet the third arm has never had the means to defend it's own bases or deployable persons/aircraft/vehicles, as it's won establishment asset. They have always had to go, cap in hand, to the Army to do that job. It is beyond ironic that the Air Corps museum was given two Bofors when the Army retired them, having never operated them at all in it's entire history. WW 2 proved beyond all doubt that an air arm has to have the means to defend it's bases and it's deployed assets. That's why the RAF created the RAF Regiment, because they found out the hard way that they couldn't depend on the Army to operate national and local level radar and defend their bases. Irish soldiers have gone abroad for years with no air defence worth the name. I'll bet if the Jadotville boys had had a Bofors on hand, it might have put manners on that Fouga! How many times have the Irish encountered militias with Zsu-23s or 14.5s or 12.7s on the back of pickups, yet they seem unable to bring the same with them when they go on tour? Next time the Navy cast off their 20mms, stick it on a DROPs pallet or a flatbed, paint it green and the Army can play with it.
    If we postulate the civilian radars, my thinking is that we'd still want some military personnel - possibly reservists - in the IAA control centres keeping an eye on things. It does not strike me as sensible for them to be arty types.

  12. #58
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    there are politics attached to having a Donner sharing ATC with actual IAA atc types, believe me. The Donners wanted x and the civvies wanted y and there was some handbagging going on. Any operation of radar in this country has to suit the IAA first and the rest later.

  13. Likes DeV liked this post
  14. #59
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    A good start for the AC to get in on the AD act here would be to assign AD from Arty to AC. It pretty futile to postulate AC getting such and such sensor suite and such and such interceptor while it has no formal role in the matter. Does the WP alter this aspect?
    Said that on this site years ago, I was told that no one else did it, so why should we..
    So as I said before, air defence under control of the Air Corps, with a reserve element.
    "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

  15. Likes Graylion liked this post
  16. #60
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    there are politics attached to having a Donner sharing ATC with actual IAA atc types, believe me. The Donners wanted x and the civvies wanted y and there was some handbagging going on. Any operation of radar in this country has to suit the IAA first and the rest later.
    The 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 .

  17. Likes DeV liked this post
  18. #61
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,961
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    "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."

  19. Likes Turkey liked this post
  20. #62
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    The 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 .
    Long range I'm fine with Civvy primary remote radar heads - but I think there's a good argument for DF operated medium range 4A/GM200's, they offer capabilities civvy radar doesn't such as ECCM, mortar/artillery locator and can be hooked into a modern SAM system.

    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.

  21. #63
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mil ATC will not rock the boat with IAA ATC for the simple reason that they will want to go to Civ ATC when they leave the Don, so they are not going to piss off their future employers. You are dealing with two "empires", without including the actual Army....

  22. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  23. #64
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    ATC ops qualify for generous allowances.

  24. Likes GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  25. #65
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 2nd August 2016 at 15:34.

  26. Likes DeV, Tempest, Turkey, pym, The real Jack liked this post
    Dislikes GoneToTheCanner disliked this post
  27. #66
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    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.
    Probably €100m plus

  28. #67
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Probably €100m plus
    that figure is total bollix

  29. Thanks Spark23, pym thanked for this post
  30. #68
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,325
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sorry, 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....

  31. #69
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Sorry, 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....
    It was an experiment only but Ukraine has every western army suddenly worried about Russia's electronic warfare capability and shooting down drines/uavs. The 20 mm was about shooting down uavs not engaging afvs

  32. #70
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    that figure is total bollix
    Nope. Smart-L is between 50 and 100 M€ a pop. Add infrastructure, HQ etc we are talking .5 G€ or so.

  33. Likes DeV liked this post
  34. #71
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Nope. Smart-L is between 50 and 100 M€ a pop. Add infrastructure, HQ etc we are talking .5 G€ or so.
    Err, 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

  35. #72
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    Err, 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
    How many would we need?
    "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

  36. #73
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Turkey View Post
    How many would we need?
    I want to say four, but..

    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 respectively
    Last edited by pym; 2nd August 2016 at 22:21.

  37. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  38. #74
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    that figure is total bollix
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    Err, has anyone advocated Smart-L?
    Yes, 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

    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    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
    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
    Last edited by Graylion; 2nd August 2016 at 23:40.

  39. #75
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Yes, 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
    Agreed on the 4A - it and GM200 offer very similar capabilities and the DF have an existing relationship with Saab/Bofors.

    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; 3rd August 2016 at 00:14.

  40. Likes apc liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •