Thanks Thanks:  8
Likes Likes:  34
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Are you loosing it???

    ..
    Last edited by Soarhead2; 5th November 2020 at 13:13.

  2. Dislikes Graylion disliked this post
  3. #2
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soarhead2 View Post
    All these posts about Gripen or Eurofighter and C130 versus A400. Really ?? Covid is emptying the coffers, just be grateful the PC12's arrived.
    The CASA replacement 295's are likely to be the last investment for the next 25 years.

    Sorry but you know thats the reality.
    That's not how government spending works, fortunately.
    All countries are in deficit. The stronger your ability to repay, the more money you can borrow. We just used our rainy day fund to keep people in jobs while businesses are shut down. Europe also gave us a big wad because our economy is their economy too.
    There are no "coffers". There is no piggy bank of irish money to be divvied out amongst the departments.
    Instead each department tells the Dept of finance how much it will cost to run their department that year, and Finance decides whether it will give it to them or not.
    The DoD consistently under-achieve. They ask for low amounts, and return unspent funds at the end of the year. This is poor accounting.

    The Next investment has already been confirmed as the PC9m replacement. That's 5 years away. In the meantime the former TAOISEACH discussed in the Dáil the question of getting a military transport aircraft. We discussed options here at length, from purchasing second hand, new or even buying into a shared aircraft, such as the A400M. The latter is well within our spending ability. We could have funded it from what was returned to the exchequer in recent years.
    Gripen/Eurofighter are also things that have been discussed at government level. (not type specific, but in concept).
    We also have a Huge foreign aid budget, much of which is redirected by 3rd world countries to buy military equipment...

    But hey...
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  4. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
    Likes apod, CTU, EUFighter, sofa, Rocinante, Herald, ias, pilatus, Shaqra liked this post
  5. #3
    Lieutenant X-RayOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dublin
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    We also have a Huge foreign aid budget, much of which is redirected by 3rd world countries to buy military equipment...
    That's where we should be funding all overseas missions from in fairness. Leave the Defence budget to purely fund home requirements, infrastructure, etc.
    Use overseas aid to cover mission specific equipment and expenses. I would imagine if all overseas was totally covered by this there would still be a sizeable chunk left for water projects, schools, the usual overseas aid things......and 3rd world countries buying military equipment
    Fate whispers to the warrior, "There is a storm coming"

    And the warrior whispers back "I am the storm".

  6. Likes na grohmiti, apod, pilatus liked this post
  7. #4
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    €817m last year. And they want to increase it year on year until it is 0.7% of GNI by 2025.
    Of OECD countries, Ireland provides the 12th highest % of GDP to overseas development Aid.
    More than Australia, Canada and Japan!
    The 2017 report tells me most of the funds went to the following Countries. https://www.irishaid.ie/media/irisha...eport-2017.pdf
    Vietnam and the Mekong Sub-Region. (80 SU-27, SU-30, SU-22, 3 C295)
    Columbia (21 IAI Kfir, 6 C130, 8 C295, KC767, B737, B727)
    The Sahel (Try to name a Sahel state that isn't currently at war with someone)
    Ethiopia (10 Mig 23, 14 SU27, 2 C130)
    Malawi (no Fighter or large transport aircraft)
    Mozambique (8 Mig 21, 1 AN26)
    Sierra Leone & Liberia (SL has no finctioning combat aircraft, Liberia operate a 727, 707 and BAC 1-11 in VIP transport role)
    Tanzania (11 Shenyang F7, 3 J6, 2 Shaanxi Y8(AN12 copy) )
    Uganda (Mig21, SU-27, SU-30
    Zambia (10 Mig 21, 8 Shenyang J6, 2 C27, 1 Xian MA60(AN24 Copy)

    So if we can afford to give more to Poor countries than most Wealthy countries, and the poor countries have better equipped air wings than we do.... where oh where is this empty coffer?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  8. Thanks CTU, apod, Shaqra, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, EUFighter, apod, Tempest, Shaqra, Flamingo liked this post
  9. #5
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Overseas Aid is just that overseas aid, if it is used for military equipment or expenses then it is no longer overseas aid but military expenditure. The reason why the amount is almost the same as what we spend on the Defence Forces is that it has a large and vocal lobby industry behind it. While it is noble to help others not so well off the aid as many point out does not improve the lot of others but merely allows the recipient nations to by more guns etc. It make the people, (who complain about the price of caffe-latte-macchiato; ensuring the poor person serving them will get minimum wage), feel good as they have support some water project in Africa. Try cutting it and the mob will arise from tax havens to pester every elected official in the country.

    As for the coffers being empty, they are not. Yes Covid-19 will mean that the government will spend more this year and next than it had planned but we have been here before and it did not cause the collapse of society. The financial crisis of 2008, which was partially fueled by excess spending from the government cost the country around €152bn. (That is taking the excess from 2007 to 2011 over the trend-line for this period.) The peak was a yearly spend of nearly €145bn, this compares to a spend in 2019 of €96bn, some €49bn less.

    Whenever a government in any country has to raise taxes there is always an outcry that they are too high, no matter what level they are at. Are there ways the Irish government could raise more in revenue to pay for an increase in defence spending without cutting other socially important areas? Of course the answer is yes. Take VRT, the maximum rate is for cars above 1.9lt, but it does not matter if it is a VW Tiguan at €34k or a MB G-class at €173k, both are taxed at 30%. What I learnt many moons ago in Commerce class is that taxes should be progressive, so in this case the rate for the higher priced car could be higher. If that is applied across the board raising the amount needed for defence should not hurt most people. In Sweden they have proposed to raise the tax on alcohol to partially fund their increased defence expenditure, no that would not work in Ireland but we can find other sources, like a tax on BS/fake news or a fee for BS demos.

    But it should not be just throwing money at defence, it needs first to have identified the need and ensured that what is spent is spent wisely and effectively.

  10. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo liked this post
  11. #6
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,084
    Post Thanks / Like
    The thing is, in Sweden, even the Greens endorse defence spending, when you consider who shares the Baltic with them. Need more fighters,they say? Just buy them.

  12. Likes DeV, na grohmiti, Flamingo, Graylion liked this post
  13. #7
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    Our greens choose to avoid the subject matter completely.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  14. Likes Shaqra liked this post
  15. #8
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The Next investment has already been confirmed as the PC9m replacement. That's 5 years away.
    Will the airframes actually be worn out by then? Genuinely not sure but I recall reading on the forum here that they were not accumulating a high number of hours. Given we received a new airframe recently, we could probably get another 10-15 years out of the fleet if the hours flown are managed and spread amongst them as evenly as possible. Open to correction here.

  16. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  17. #9
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,084
    Post Thanks / Like
    These days, operators don't look for the absolute maximum hours out of an airframe. They'll run them for the duration of a service contract and either get new ones or go for a mid-life overhaul. Airlines often will dump a fleet for stripping out well before their theoretical end of service date so you get 15 year old A320s going for beer cans. It wouldnt be unusual in the militaries with big fleets to do it. They get to 10 or 15 years in service with a type by which time a newer model comes out so the old one gets fobbed off another air force that's happy to take them and some of that is driven by advances in avionics or engines. Air arms operating the PC-9 can still buy them new and even the old PC-7 Mk II is available to special order but increasingly, Pilatus will push the PC-21 as this is the direction they and many end users want to go in.

  18. #10
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok, I obviously don't have as much knowledge as others, but I would have thought that it would be more economical to upgrade them when they theoretically have a significant number of hours remaining on the airframe, rather than replacing them just because the funding may be available. A PC21 at the end of the day is still a turbo prop aircraft of similar configuration, billed as a potential replacement for both older turbo props and jet trainer aircraft such as the L39 or Hawk but without emulating the flight characteristics of such (climb rate, acceleration, etc). It justs seems like the money could be spent better elsewhere, perhaps additional helicopters, C295's or dare I say it towards developing an interception capability as mentioned as a potential capability by the defence forces themselves.

  19. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, DeV liked this post
  20. #11
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    The first major operator of the PC-9, the RAAF only removed the type after 32 years of service. Looking at the older PC-7, they are still in service with the Swiss 41 years after they were introduced. So it would seem that they could serve a lot more than 20 years.

  21. #12
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,084
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sometimes, the decision is dictated by the cost of avionics, as the engines stay fundamentally the same but avionics are upgraded constantly and what was top of the range in 2000 might be obsolete in 2020 and that manufacturer might not want to continue making or overhauling the Mk 1 computer anymore and it might already be at Mk1-20 by 2020,so it'd be well overdue for replacement as a type. As an example, the A320 with 72 flight computers is replaced with a network based system that has 5 core computers, much less in the way of wiring looms and it saves weight and fuel and parts count. It was not much more than a concept in 2000. As for upgrades to airframes, quite often, that's dictated by wear and tear in service such as corrosion or cracks, so that can drive fleet upgrades rather than time or utility.

  22. Likes DeV liked this post
  23. #13
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,160
    Post Thanks / Like
    It may be that the decision is made based on the fact that the type is very good at what it does, and by changing now, we get a good 2nd hand price as we replace with something with slightly more all round capability?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  24. #14
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,366
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soarhead2 View Post
    All these posts about Gripen or Eurofighter and C130 versus A400. Really ?? Covid is emptying the coffers, just be grateful the PC12's arrived.
    The CASA replacement 295's are likely to be the last investment for the next 25 years.

    Sorry but you know thats the reality.

    Have you never whiled away an idle hour thinking about what you’ll spend your Euromillions win on?
    '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

  25. Likes na grohmiti, CTU, Graylion, EUFighter liked this post
  26. #15
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,084
    Post Thanks / Like
    The people who buy and sell aircraft watch the market like a hawk and the prices of certain types hold their value while others evaporate, the A380 being a case in point. From the military point of view, the C130 is a classic because even old ones are ready sellers and they have a strong support base and a strong pool of qualified people to deal with them. They are profoundly good aircraft and it's a pity we never had one or even dared to buy second hand.

  27. #16
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soarhead2 View Post
    All these posts about Gripen or Eurofighter and C130 versus A400. Really ?? Covid is emptying the coffers, just be grateful the PC12's arrived.
    The CASA replacement 295's are likely to be the last investment for the next 25 years.

    Sorry but you know thats the reality.
    To come back to your earlier statement, the Eithne, Ciara and Orla are all now long overdue for replacement, in 15 yrs the Mowags will reach the end of their useful lives and so on. There needs to be continuous investment to enable the Defence Forces to continue to operate. The reality is the the Defence Forces are near terminal contraction, that they will become non-viable.

    What has been missing in Ireland since the formation of the State is a proper discussion on the purpose of the Defence Forces. There have been individual articles written by some prominent people but nothing concerted. In the last year or so this has started to happen and now hopefully we will get a proper Commission on Defence to ask the questions and find the answers to our future defence. Everyone knows what should be spent on defence, the current Tánaiste is even on record stating the amount.

    The reality is something fundamental has to change, if things continue they way they are today there will be a long slow decline in the Defence Forces. No-one want to join an organisation that they only ever hear negative headline about. Many see thereforethe proposed Commission as a chance to enable this change. What it will deliver we do not know yet, we still await to see who will chair it. But we have already seen some change in the DoD, the new SecGen is an outsider, so a chance to reset the relationship between the department and the forces. Hopefully a sign of willingness to move in a different direction than the one we have had up to now. Will it all change at once, no, it will be an on-going action which hopefully will continue positively for the Defence Forces.

  28. #17
    Lieutenant X-RayOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dublin
    Posts
    1,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Overseas Aid is just that overseas aid, if it is used for military equipment or expenses then it is no longer overseas aid but military expenditure.

    But it should not be just throwing money at defence, it needs first to have identified the need and ensured that what is spent is spent wisely and effectively.
    Fair point, but it is a cost neutral, no need for extra taxes on the taxpayer way to increase defence spending, carefully advertised to show the investment in equipment and expenses will directly benefit the countries where said mission equipment is used.

    But you are right in that overseas aid has a powerful and vocal lobbyist voice regardless of whether recipient countries should receive it or use it appropriately.
    Fate whispers to the warrior, "There is a storm coming"

    And the warrior whispers back "I am the storm".

  29. #18
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,998
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by X-RayOne View Post
    Fair point, but it is a cost neutral, no need for extra taxes on the taxpayer way to increase defence spending, carefully advertised to show the investment in equipment and expenses will directly benefit the countries where said mission equipment is used.

    But you are right in that overseas aid has a powerful and vocal lobbyist voice regardless of whether recipient countries should receive it or use it appropriately.
    A lot of people making a good living in the overseas poverty industry. mess with the cash and they will use every tool available to make sure the funding is not interfered with.

  30. Likes na grohmiti, CTU, EUFighter 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
  •