Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Given that we have Giraffe which is perfectly capable of working with RBS70 / BOLIDE

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      So in that case we should get rid of the DF and invest in the Civil Defence, Coast Guard and Gardai
      The way things are Dev, you may aswell. You are a reservist so the DF dispanding or it being absorbed into other state bodies will be of little inconvenience to you. You will merely have to find another past time.

      What do you do think you do with a proper military radar system. You use it to actually ascertain who or what is going through your airspace. You use it as a platform to establish a credible Air Defence capability. You use it as the first step to having some semblance of an air intercept capability.

      As an aside Dev, have you ever been involved with an ADR ex where these bits of kit have been used? Have you spoken to the operators of said equipment and got their feedback. I have, several times, and those on the ground using the equipment highlighted numerous problems. Just because the brochure or press release says something can be done, doesn't mean it works in reality.

      Both are nothing more than a token effort to fill a role which isnt filled in reality.

      If anyone honestly believes that spending €6m on these missions adequately ticks the "defending the Irish Airspace" box when then we are in an even worse position than I thought. Delusion is not just suffered by those at the top of the food chain but those at the bottom aswell.

      Almost everything the DF does is a token effort. The absolute bare minimum to tick a box. It's not the fault of the DF per say as they are feeding from scraps thrown to them by a government that doesn't care. But this acquisition is a farce in a long list of farcical purchases made over the years.

      Either do it right or pack up your stuff and don't bother doing it at all.

      As for the "better to have and not need..." argument. With all due respect, that is honestly one of the weakest nonsensical answers there is to try and justify a piece of kit or equipment.

      Comment


      • It is a token to a degree

        It doesn’t provide 24/7 coverage up into space over the full island and 50 miles out to sea


        By that logic we wouldn’t have a DF at all and if we did it’s heaviest armament would be a GPMG (HMG at a push)

        Comment


        • Chuck - out of curiosity, if it was going to happen - what sort of radar system would you like to see purchased/operated by the DF and how many?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
            This must be near the top of the list for stupid spending in the DF.

            Spending €6m (albeit over a few years) on a mission system that will spend its entire life in a bunker before being trollied out a few months before expiration to be flown to a range in Sweden so they can be fired off.

            I understand the need to maintain a capability but to maintain this, which will never EVER be used in anger is just a waste of money no matter how you look at it.

            Its similar to the PC-9s doing air gunnery every year or dusting off the 105 guns once a year.

            Surely a better use of funds would be to invest in a proper military radar system as per 2015 WP.

            A complete farce.
            That logic could apply for every gun and bullet in the defence forces. Indeed it could be used for the entire defence forces.
            The RBS70 (used in combination with Giraffe)has been used operationally on many occasions since it was introduced and is actually ideal for its use, i.e point defence.
            The fact we never fired a shot in anger is a matter of fate or luck rather than anything else.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by pym View Post
              Chuck - out of curiosity, if it was going to happen - what sort of radar system would you like to see purchased/operated by the DF and how many?
              Ultimately it comes down to what you want to achieve and of course budget. Thales offer a range of radars as do Raytheon and other well known western brands.

              For optimum coverage I would argue for one radar in the NW and the SW providing significant coverage of the western, northern and south western coasts. Lets be honest, the British ans French have the rest covered and the chances of someone straying into their FIR uninvited is slim. A system with a ceiling of about 70,000-80,000 feet should be sufficient and a range of 300-400km. Anything purchased should be fully be NATO standard, should we ever grow a pair and join.

              I'm not an expert in radar, I don't claim to be so if you can pick holes in my logic or make suggestions or criticisms then please feel free.

              Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
              That logic could apply for every gun and bullet in the defence forces. Indeed it could be used for the entire defence forces.
              The RBS70 (used in combination with Giraffe)has been used operationally on many occasions since it was introduced and is actually ideal for its use, i.e point defence.
              The fact we never fired a shot in anger is a matter of fate or luck rather than anything else.
              You are right.

              I am firmly against the idea of being a "jack of all trades and master of none". Depends on your outlook I guess. We will never have the investment or resources to have many areas where we are highly capable. Instead we spread the very limited resources we have as far as possible so everyone gets a slice of the pie.

              Given the current security climate and associated threats I would have much rathered see the €6m invested in expanding and enhancing the ARW, increasing the size of J2 or focusing on cyber security threats.

              Originally posted by DeV View Post
              It is a token to a degree

              It doesn’t provide 24/7 coverage up into space over the full island and 50 miles out to sea

              By that logic we wouldn’t have a DF at all and if we did it’s heaviest armament would be a GPMG (HMG at a push)
              It's nothing more than token. I refer to the above. If you are happy with being a jack of all trades and master of none then all well and good. I would be more of the opinion of focusing on what is really important and investing in something that can withstand any criticism.

              Is the general feeling that we are happy to have the bare minimum and little more in almost every aspect of the DF? Does it not make sense to prioritise certain areas?

              I'm sure we could all ream off a long list of units etc that if vanished overnight, would not be missed. We don't have to justify everything and be thankful for it "just cause".

              Comment


              • Worth mentioning at this point that the RBS 70 was previously only seen in use by 1bty 1st Air Defence Regt. Since its demise the weapon has been rolled out to all artillery regiments.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
                  It's nothing more than token. I refer to the above. If you are happy with being a jack of all trades and master of none then all well and good. I would be more of the opinion of focusing on what is really important and investing in something that can withstand any criticism.

                  Is the general feeling that we are happy to have the bare minimum and little more in almost every aspect of the DF? Does it not make sense to prioritise certain areas?

                  I'm sure we could all ream off a long list of units etc that if vanished overnight, would not be missed. We don't have to justify everything and be thankful for it "just cause".
                  Of course it's token. The government are not going to spend a furtune on state of the art Air Defence Radar and 3rd/4th generation fighter jets unless they are forced to answer embarrassing questions (like as to why a Russian bomber did a flypast of the GPO on Easter Sunday or something along those lines)

                  Until then it will only the bare minimum to allow the government to have high profile heads of state to visit and the odd small to medium international conference.

                  And if Ireland is lucky to get an air defence upgrade ala white paper I would say it will be two primary/secondary radars on the west coast ( joint funded between defence and IAA) and something along the lines of a dozen M-346 FT (or M-346 FA if really lucky).
                  Last edited by CTU; 14 December 2018, 12:50.
                  It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                  It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                  It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                  It was the year everything changed.

                  Comment


                  • Even with regard to artillery, there's nothing preventing the Army deploying its 105s or 120mm mortars as part of standard kit for UN missions. Even the DoD aren't opposed to using them! As for waste in general, the DF, has at least, to it's credit, got rid of multiple barracks and rationalised it's duplication of resources. I dont know if the Army in general did it but the Don seemed to have a multitude of quartermasters and stores and sub stores. For an Arm with less than a thousand people, it was riddled with duplication.........fundamentally, I think the DF will be allowed to wither until it is little more than a militia and more and more of it's duties will be civilianised.

                    Comment


                    • Rbs70 has been a priority in the defence budget since 1984 because it allows eu confrences and us presidental visits to take place. They were bought on the advice of the us secret service for regans visit in 1984. For the politicians they are one of the few priorities in defence spending

                      Actually given Russia drone/artillery tactics in Ukraine and Syria we might even see them overseas with Istar company
                      Last edited by paul g; 14 December 2018, 21:48.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
                        Ultimately it comes down to what you want to achieve and of course budget. Thales offer a range of radars as do Raytheon and other well known western brands.

                        For optimum coverage I would argue for one radar in the NW and the SW providing significant coverage of the western, northern and south western coasts. Lets be honest, the British ans French have the rest covered and the chances of someone straying into their FIR uninvited is slim. A system with a ceiling of about 70,000-80,000 feet should be sufficient and a range of 300-400km. Anything purchased should be fully be NATO standard, should we ever grow a pair and join.

                        I'm not an expert in radar, I don't claim to be so if you can pick holes in my logic or make suggestions or criticisms then please feel free.
                        Trust me, I'm no expert either but would go along with the above - it depends what the State wants to do.

                        If it wants to start developing a fairly complete picture, long range search radars in the NW and SW, make perfect sense to me.

                        And that's probably the simplest/cheapest part of the equation - any way I look at it, developing a more credible air defence system would be very expensive, at least in the context of typical Irish defense spending.

                        I cant see the DF operating anything in the class of CAMM or NASAMs anytime in the next decade or even beyond.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by pym View Post
                          Trust me, I'm no expert either but would go along with the above - it depends what the State wants to do.

                          If it wants to start developing a fairly complete picture, long range search radars in the NW and SW, make perfect sense to me.

                          And that's probably the simplest/cheapest part of the equation - any way I look at it, developing a more credible air defence system would be very expensive, at least in the context of typical Irish defense spending.

                          I cant see the DF operating anything in the class of CAMM or NASAMs anytime in the next decade or even beyond.
                          There are already 2 good IAA sites, one in the MW and one in the SW where a long range 3D active radar could be installed. Pricetag would be between €30m and €40m for the radars themselves and €15-20 for a proper control centre. But as we have discussed ay length already this would only give a high altitude picture which is great for tracking rouge airliners and the odd high level Russian bomber. Due to the shape of the country and the topography there is a need for a larger number of shorter range gap filler radar up to 8 could be needed.

                          The radars can all be remote stations which would cut down on running costs but I do nt see anyone investing those sums in a sensor system.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            There are already 2 good IAA sites, one in the MW and one in the SW where a long range 3D active radar could be installed. Pricetag would be between €30m and €40m for the radars themselves and €15-20 for a proper control centre. But as we have discussed ay length already this would only give a high altitude picture which is great for tracking rouge airliners and the odd high level Russian bomber. Due to the shape of the country and the topography there is a need for a larger number of shorter range gap filler radar up to 8 could be needed.

                            The radars can all be remote stations which would cut down on running costs but I do nt see anyone investing those sums in a sensor system.
                            To begin with - given all of the many more challenges faced by the DF, any discussion about AD very quickly descends into the completely ****ing absurd.

                            Long range air search radars generally have a slow scan rate and if you want to lock a target up, you are going to require medium/short range systems with faster scan rates to actually engage a target with a missile system. So if you want a full blown Air Defence network, the medium/short range systems follow on by default.

                            Your comments about long range search radars only giving a "high altitude picture" is incorrect. I'm not going to say the below images are particularly accurate, but they give a decent idea of what primary radars located on three peaks on the west coast could potentially see, firstly at altitudes from 3,000ft to 5,000ft and then from 10,000ft to 30,000ft. It's obvious that something on the East coast would aid the picture, but - we're already in a mad hypothetical realm.




                            The IAA haven't been able to justify the above infrastructure, so the chances of the DF being able to press DOD on getting even a single long range primary radar system is probably extremely remote.

                            Perhaps something a bit(?) more realistic is the Giraffe BV206's being retired and replaced with a couple of truck mounted Giraffe AMB's.
                            Last edited by pym; 16 December 2018, 14:01.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pym View Post
                              To begin with - given all of the many more challenges faced by the DF, any discussion about AD very quickly descends into the completely ****ing absurd.

                              Long range air search radars generally have a slow scan rate and if you want to lock a target up, you are going to require medium/short range systems with faster scan rates to actually engage a target with a missile system. So if you want a full blown Air Defence network, the medium/short range systems follow on by default.

                              Your comments about long range search radars only giving a "high altitude picture" is incorrect. I'm not going to say the below images are particularly accurate, but they give a decent idea of what primary radars located on three peaks on the west coast could potentially see, firstly at altitudes from 3,000ft to 5,000ft and then from 10,000ft to 30,000ft. It's obvious that something on the East coast would aid the picture, but - we're already in a mad hypothetical realm.




                              The IAA haven't been able to justify the above infrastructure, so the chances of the DF being able to press DOD on getting even a single long range primary radar system is probably extremely remote.

                              Perhaps something a bit(?) more realistic is the Giraffe BV206's being retired and replaced with a couple of truck mounted Giraffe AMB's.
                              What software are you using for that?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                What software are you using for that?
                                If you go to http://www.heywhatsthat.com/ there is an option for "Up in the Air" which gives you the option to calculate a Line of Sight from a given location at a particular altitude.

                                So in the above I'm calculating the visual line of sight from Mount Gabriel, Mweelrea and Muckish - they're just random examples, I'm not saying they're the best locations by any means. God knows the backlash that would be unleashed if golf-balls sprouted on the latter two...

                                The above is also the optical line of sight, which doesn't mesh 100% with the radar horizon, but I think it's good enough to provide a guideline.

                                What the above should demonstrate quite clearly though is that even located on mountain tops, low level coverage is always severely limited by terrain - we can only imagine the low level (say <5kft) range limitations faced by the primary radars located at Cork, Dublin and Shannon airports.

                                I think mobile short/medium range systems like the Giraffe AMB are the most realistic upgrade path for the DF - not saying it's likely though.

                                It wouldn't be 24/7, it wouldn't be long range, but it would be mobile and a big advance compared to current systems.
                                Last edited by pym; 16 December 2018, 15:42.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X