Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No it isn't, the GDP figure is used because that's the international standard, and Ireland doesn't want to open up the question of Tax Base Erosion that we are actively enabling (and pissing off most of the rest of the EU), hence why no Irish Government is going to want to change that. The reality is that with the oncoming OECD changes and the EU push on the area, the International Tax system is going to change and our GDP figures are going to fall. As for the EU budgets figures, its no different than the Netherlands getting absolutely screwed due to Rotterdam skewing their tax base (among other things) that makes them the second highest contributor by population.
You can't have it both ways, the government has accepted GDP as the measure for EU budget contributions, it cannot say that for an international comparison that this is not the same for defence spending. That would be like agreeing to a EU CO2 level but in Ireland allowing a higher figure as we have more cows!!
If the way GDP is calculated changes that is fine; 2% still remains 2% of GDP, that the monetary figure is lower is clear, but it is still 2%!
In any case the amount spent on defence should be sufficient that the DF are capable of providing for the defence of the state. Hopefully the Commission will be able to determine if we need a Df and if so what its role and thus spending level should be.
You can't have it both ways, the government has accepted GDP as the measure for EU budget contributions, it cannot say that for an international comparison that this is not the same for defence spending. That would be like agreeing to a EU CO2 level but in Ireland allowing a higher figure as we have more cows!!
If the way GDP is calculated changes that is fine; 2% still remains 2% of GDP, that the monetary figure is lower is clear, but it is still 2%!
In any case the amount spent on defence should be sufficient that the DF are capable of providing for the defence of the state. Hopefully the Commission will be able to determine if we need a Df and if so what its role and thus spending level should be.
Hate to break it to you, but the Government have done exactly that and more in regards to climate targets.
As for your hope on the Commission, at this stage I lean more towards the DF being reduced even more as a result of said commission rather than any improvements.
Hate to break it to you, but the Government have done exactly that and more in regards to climate targets.
As for your hope on the Commission, at this stage I lean more towards the DF being reduced even more as a result of said commission rather than any improvements.
I am more of a pint half full rather than one half empty.
Saab used the Kauhava air show to announce fresh details about its Gripen E/F proposal for Finland's HX fighter requirement, including the addition of a lightweight air-launched decoy missile
Saab used the Kauhava air show to announce fresh details about its Gripen E/F proposal for Finland’s HX fighter requirement, including the addition of a lightweight air-launched decoy missile (LADM).
Speaking at the event site on 28 August, Saab’s HX campaign director Magnus Skogberg said the in-development LADM is being offered to Helsinki along with the company’s electronic attack jamming pod, first flown with a Gripen last November.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Helsinki has set a budget of €10 billion ($12 billion) for the HX procurement, which will field replacements for its current Boeing F/A-18C/Ds.
Be interesting to see how many Gripens they can get for 10 times the total cost of running the DF, DoD and DF pensions for a year .... and what the annual running cost (Including weapons) would be
Noting that Saab is including offsets
We have a huge aviation industry in Ireland that could do with benefits.... maybe we should require industry offsets (without political interference) as part of all public procurement. Remember the butter for Steyr and the FLS/Sikorsky
While we do have a very large aviation repair and leasing industry here, what could that offer to an Offset? It isn't like we can manufacture airframes ourselves. (And Bombardier pulled the plug in NI).
Would a crossborder offset be a runner? Let Bombardier assemble Gripens (or Saab 340 AEW&C) for export, speed up their own deliveries?
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
While we do have a very large aviation repair and leasing industry here, what could that offer to an Offset? It isn't like we can manufacture airframes ourselves. (And Bombardier pulled the plug in NI).
Would a crossborder offset be a runner? Let Bombardier assemble Gripens (or Saab 340 AEW&C) for export, speed up their own deliveries?
They don’t have to be related to the actual contract. Eg butter for Steyrs, the FLS/Sikorsky deal was Boeing airliners to be converted to freighters at FLS
our aviation industry in the Republic can do anything known to man with sheet metal but has no facilities for materials like carbon fibre or advanced composites, except for those companies who make small batches for automotive or industrial applications. We could probably build any aircraft from kits, which is how most countries get their start at assembling military aircraft. We have no shortage of talented avionics and electrical people, sheet metal workers, systems people, even composite people but we would essentially be tied to the original manufacturer for the special stuff, such as manufacture of turbine engines or radars or weapons. If, a qualified if, we combined with Norn Iron to build aircraft for the DF, then we would be in with a chance as they do have access to the world beating stuff.
our aviation industry in the Republic can do anything known to man with sheet metal but has no facilities for materials like carbon fibre or advanced composites, except for those companies who make small batches for automotive or industrial applications. We could probably build any aircraft from kits, which is how most countries get their start at assembling military aircraft. We have no shortage of talented avionics and electrical people, sheet metal workers, systems people, even composite people but we would essentially be tied to the original manufacturer for the special stuff, such as manufacture of turbine engines or radars or weapons. If, a qualified if, we combined with Norn Iron to build aircraft for the DF, then we would be in with a chance as they do have access to the world beating stuff.
It doesn’t have to involve building parts of Irish Gripens, it could be a deal on aircraft leasing for example or a deal on microchips or healthcare products
In terms of advanced aerostructure there is EireComposites in Galway for the fabrication of advanced carbon fibre parts. https://www.eirecomposites.com/
Offsets do not come for free, they drive up the cost of the project and distort the market. In any other area apart from "national security" they would be classed as illegal sate aid. Local production is even worse in terms of overall costs. The most common excuses are "to protect local industrial base" and "to develop a strategic industrial sector". Sometimes like with the Polish helicopter deal with Airbus the offsets can kill off what would otherwise be a good deal for the country.
That manufacturers factor the additional costs into the bids is clear, they have to cover them to make a profit. Taking Saab as an example they are constantly looking at the market to reduce their costs, they will always be trying to optimise their cost base, to make the most efficient use of their resources. If they are forced to seek out offset opportunities that cost money, then it is either a manufacturer that would not normally be selected or a sector in which they have no interest. These just drive up the costs and open the door to corruption and can be seen by the many legal actions. And the perceived benefit for the purchasers can be short lived, if the supplier goes out of business before the end of the offset period.
If a government was to get the best deal it would be much more advantageous if they negotiated on price. When almost all airline were state owned their respective governments demanded offset (some still do), this kept prices high. Since then the market has driven the costs down so much so that the prices paid today are around the same as for 20-30 years ago.
I suppose it’s the same analogy as buying a car with a trade-in, as opposed to being a cash buyer.
'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
He died that's all. It was his unlucky night. http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html
Offsets do not come for free, they drive up the cost of the project and distort the market. In any other area apart from "national security" they would be classed as illegal sate aid. Local production is even worse in terms of overall costs. The most common excuses are "to protect local industrial base" and "to develop a strategic industrial sector". Sometimes like with the Polish helicopter deal with Airbus the offsets can kill off what would otherwise be a good deal for the country.
That manufacturers factor the additional costs into the bids is clear, they have to cover them to make a profit. Taking Saab as an example they are constantly looking at the market to reduce their costs, they will always be trying to optimise their cost base, to make the most efficient use of their resources. If they are forced to seek out offset opportunities that cost money, then it is either a manufacturer that would not normally be selected or a sector in which they have no interest. These just drive up the costs and open the door to corruption and can be seen by the many legal actions. And the perceived benefit for the purchasers can be short lived, if the supplier goes out of business before the end of the offset period.
If a government was to get the best deal it would be much more advantageous if they negotiated on price. When almost all airline were state owned their respective governments demanded offset (some still do), this kept prices high. Since then the market has driven the costs down so much so that the prices paid today are around the same as for 20-30 years ago.
Possibly increase price yes but advantage is that rather than going overseas that a domestic business is guaranteed increased business (now it could well be foreign owned but it secures jobs)
Offsets were definitely allowed under EU Public Procurement legislation not sure if that situation has changed.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment