Equipment that is needed for the aircorps.

Maskhadov · 27-07-2006 10:18pm #1

We need about 3 of these (C - 130 J)

About 16 of these (eurofighter )

Were getting 4 of these but could really do with 4 more.(AB 139 military version)

We have 1 or two of these but could do with another 2 or 4

Baldonnel needs a major upgrade with proper hangers for the jets of course.

oh i and i nearly forgot.. about 6 of these for pilots to train on for the Eurofighter (javelin) or hawks woudl do either

fightin irish · 28-07-2006 12:50am

Excluding the c-130's why do you feel we need all this? Not being rude , Just wondering why you feel we would need them.

(altho personally, i'd love to see this and more)

Manic Moran · 28-07-2006 1:38am

I was going to fall off the chair laughing until I saw the Javelin. Not seen that one before, I'm going Googling.

NTM

Maskhadov · 28-07-2006 9:38am

I couldnt get a picture of a Hawk. We need a jet trainer.

Course we need it. Any other country would have it.

testicle · 28-07-2006 5:57pm

Maskhadov wrote:

I couldnt get a picture of a Hawk. We need a jet trainer.

Course we need it. Any other country would have it.

emmm, didn't look very far then did you!

http://www.raptorsandrockets.com/images/Red%20arrows%201a.JPG

Maskhadov · 28-07-2006 6:09pm

ok scratch the picture of the Javelin..

Red%20arrows%201a.JPG

Hawks are expensive for jet trainers but they are very capable.

therecklessone · 28-07-2006 6:31pm

Maskhadov wrote:

Any other country would have it.

Other countries have ICBMs and aircraft carriers, suppose we need them also?

Maskhadov · 28-07-2006 8:09pm

no.

Sgt. Sensible · 28-07-2006 9:18pm

While we're at, we need about 12 of these.

An armoured division full of these lads. Sod it make it 3 divisions.

A battalion of hot female bodyguards to protect our great leaders. Like what Col.Gadaffi has. No Cavan boilers.

0,,1536193_1,00.jpg

And about 100,000 AK47's plus ammunition.

Maskhadov · 28-07-2006 9:25pm

I think you have got into the swing of it but girls really need to sort out their berets;)

Sgt. Sensible · 28-07-2006 10:48pm

Agree with the transports and choppers but don't see the point of the fighters. Our government is so pathetically weak we'd probably end up paying to let the US use them for some war or other.

Maskhadov · 29-07-2006 9:12am

The transport planes could be used for both military and civilian use. The government could use them in delivering humanitarian aid among other things.

The aircorps also needs its facilities in baldonnel upgraded. There arent enough hangers to store all the aircraft at present.

therecklessone · 29-07-2006 12:23pm

So why do we need 16 Cold War-era fighters designed to shoot Warsaw Pact MiGs out of the sky, and Hawk jet trainers to train for these expensive toys?

Far more beneficial would be the purchase of extra Casas for fisheries protection and SAR and a coincidental purchase of extra naval service vessels for the same purpose.

A move from Baldonnel to the west coast would be sensible, freeing Baldonnel for future civil operations, and realising property value in South Dublin, while supplementing existing facilities to the west (dual use of Galway or Knock airports for example)

babybundy · 29-07-2006 2:14pm

therecklessone wrote:

A move from Baldonnel to the west coast would be sensible, freeing Baldonnel for future civil operations, and realising property value in South Dublin, while supplementing existing facilities to the west (dual use of Galway or Knock airports for example)

i agree with this i think knock is longer but the navel sevice should also have a base on the west coast

therecklessone · 29-07-2006 3:10pm

babybundy wrote:

i agree with this i think knock is longer but the navel sevice should also have a base on the west coast

Agreed, Knock is much longer but also busier (can't find figures for aircraft movements, but passenger numbers are 2.5 times greater at Knock than Galway). Not sure if its possible to upgrade the facilities at Galway, extending 08/26 and possibly adding a crossing runway), if that proves too difficult then Knock would be the better option.

Maskhadov · 29-07-2006 4:40pm

The authorities want Baldonnel because its in Dublin and they can bring VIPs there instead of Dublin Airport. The local residents would probably not like any increase in air traffic and would object.

A specially designed air base in knock would be fantastic for the air corps though. Providing it had proper re inforced hangers and also a location for live firing. It would probably be cheaper for the aircorps to do that.

A couple of squadrons of Eurofighters would really look impressive parked alongside the hangers.

therecklessone · 29-07-2006 4:56pm

Maskhadov wrote:

A couple of squadrons of Eurofighters would really look impressive parked alongside the hangers.

So would a Porsche, two Ferraris and a 20 foot mickey...:rolleyes:

Be realistic, why do we need Eurofighters?

The majority of governmental VIPs arriving in ireland do so through Dublin Airport, Bertie himself insists on flying from Dublin rather than Baldonnel. The only services the Air Corp provide that are needed in the Dublin area are Ministerial Air Transport and GASU. Both could be based at Dublin.

There is also more scope for live firing on the west coast than there is on the east, all it would require would be the establishment of a danger area similar to D1 at Gormanston.

Hagar · 29-07-2006 7:41pm

therecklessone wrote:

Be realistic, why do we need Eurofighters?

We need fighters equipped with a European controlled GPS ( Gallileo ) so that the existing GPS which is controlled by Uncle Sam cannot be turned off in time of conflict. They fighters may not have it yet but I suspect they will have before long.

You might think that's stretching it a bit but do a bit of digging on GPS and you will find there are deliberate errors/distortions built into all civilian systems to protect US security interests. It is also suspected that the US has the ability to switch off GPS in ordnance systems supplied to other states just in case they are ever turned against the US.

therecklessone · 29-07-2006 7:54pm

Hagar wrote:

We need fighters equipped with a European controlled GPS ( Gallileo ) so that the existing GPS which is controlled by Uncle Sam cannot be turned off in time of conflict. They fighters may not have it yet but I suspect they will have before long.

You might think that's stretching it a bit but do a bit of digging on GPS and you will find there are deliberate errors/distortions built into all civilian systems to protect US security interests. It is also suspected that the US has the ability to switch off GPS in ordnance systems supplied to other states just in case they are ever turned against the US.

Perhaps you misunderstood me Hagar.

Why do we need fighters. Full stop.

I am aware of the limitations of GPS (I work in aviation), I just don't see how that influences this debate.

dave2pvd · 29-07-2006 9:08pm

What about UAVs for fisheries protection? No litigious claims because of the 'U' part. Except carpal tunnel.

Seriously, UAVs: why not?

Maskhadov · 29-07-2006 10:12pm

If course we need modern fighter jets like the Eurofighter. We need them because bertie had to ask tony to do the job for us. Thanks tony.

therecklessone · 29-07-2006 10:15pm

Maskhadov wrote:

If course we need modern fighter jets like the Eurofighter. We need them because bertie had to ask tony to do the job for us. Thanks tony.

What job?

I'm trying to drag it out of you, but it seems you're not biting. You're referring to post 9/11 interceptions, right?

neilled · 29-07-2006 10:18pm

I assume we are talking about the wonderful time when we held the EU presidency and there was talk of having the RAF provide air cover for us whilst the various heads of government arrived in dublin.

Schuhart · 29-07-2006 11:52pm

I’m actually not clear what we need the C130s for. I have a sort of a vague feeling that you can never have too many helicopters, but equally don't real understand the operation role you have in mind.

On the fighters I can sympathise with the view that if we can’t even pretend to defend our own airspace we might as well apply for readmission to the UK and explain we were only having them on, we didn’t really want our own country.

But then there’s the cost. 16 aircraft would look to cost about €1.5 billion, at a rough guess based on the BBC news story below. Do you think there’s an appetite to spend €1.5 billion on a fighter squadron?

We just have to find a cheaper alternative. And if the answer to that is 'there is no cheaper alternative', then the response is a mild smile, just to show a veneer of human sympathy, followed by a simple repetition of the statement.

We just have to find a cheaper alternative.

The bill for Britain's order of 232 aircraft to replace the RAF's Tornado F3 and Jaguar has risen over the years from £7bn ($10bn) to £15.9bn ($22.7bn)

therecklessone wrote:

A move from Baldonnel to the west coast would be sensible, freeing Baldonnel for future civil operations, and realising property value in South Dublin, while supplementing existing facilities to the west (dual use of Galway or Knock airports for example)

What we don't need is a load of develop the West types turning the Air Corps into a job creation scheme. If they were relocated from Baldonnel it should be because we see something in their role that can be better performed elsewhere. (This is not an invitation for the usual tortuous 'logic' that accompanies demands for stuff to be located in the West.)

therecklessone · 30-07-2006 12:18am

Schuhart wrote:

What we don't need is a load of develop the West types turning the Air Corps into a job creation scheme. If they were relocated from Baldonnel it should be because we see something in their role that can be better performed elsewhere. (This is not an invitation for the usual tortuous 'logic' that accompanies demands for stuff to be located in the West.)

I'm not a develop the west type, I'm a "get them the f**k out of Dublin so they stop impacting on civil operations @ Dublin Airport" type, combined with a "out west they can have a lot more airspace to play with" type, a dash of "we can get some decent € for Baldonnel that can be reinvested in the Defence Forces" type, and a hint of "consolidation of civil and military ops at Knock or a revamped and expanded Galway would ensure maximum use of available resources" type.

For the purpose of the argument, regional development lies low on the agenda.

Schuhart · 30-07-2006 12:27am

therecklessone wrote:

For the purpose of the argument, regional development lies low on the agenda.

I'm relieved to hear it.

Maskhadov · 30-07-2006 9:19am

The aircorps should really sell up its land on the east coast to developers and to commerical air traffic. That would go some of the way to financing some more transport planes and Eurofighters (or some jets).

It has to be said that any aircraft bought will last 30 years providing there is a mid life upgrade. So, divide €1.5 billion over 30 years and its a pretty small figure per year.

Transport planes would be used non stop for both military training and military deployment. We can send over a considerable number of troops to over seas missions with 3 C-130 Js, use them for fishery protection, parachuting and also humanitarian mission. Very useful.

Schuhart · 30-07-2006 12:59pm

Maskhadov wrote:

The aircorps should really sell up its land on the east coast to developers and to commerical air traffic. That would go some of the way to financing some more transport planes and Eurofighters (or some jets).

I've no problem in principle with that - assuming that there are real benefits in moving the Air Corp to a new location.

Maskhadov wrote:

It has to be said that any aircraft bought will last 30 years providing there is a mid life upgrade. So, divide €1.5 billion over 30 years and its a pretty small figure per year.

I take it the €1.5 billion would just be the cost of the jets. Annual maintenance/parts/missles and ultimately that mid life upgrade will presumably come on top.

Maskhadov wrote:

Transport planes would be used non stop for both military training and military deployment. We can send over a considerable number of troops to over seas missions with 3 C-130 Js, use them for fishery protection, parachuting and also humanitarian mission. Very useful.

I've no problem in principle with this, but do we really have a permanent need for our own dedicated transports for overseas missions? Also I'm not clear on what troops we would be deploying and where.

The jets I think is one of those things we really do need to do. The clever bit (which I don't have a ready answer for) is how to do it cheaply. But I'd half guess that, unless C130s are really cheap, we could probably do without them and just work on the assumption that any deployment overseas will be in conjunction with other countries who can provide the air transport while we might consider some other material that we might provide. For example,am I right in saying we have participated in some international missions by providing the truck transports and drivers?

Bear in mind, I do have sympathy for the view that we need a capable military both as a pillar of national independance and, consistent with that, to participate in international missions. Its just if you were setting down priorities, control of our air space seem to be the one thing we simply cannot do at all at present.

IrishAirCorps · 31-07-2006 1:44am

The Aircorps already have UAV's on order, they are being finalised as they will be used by Irish Troops Overseas and may be used as "Top Cover" for the Army in Ireland when doing C.I.T (Cash In Transit AKA Bank Jobs) they will be used in C.I.T to replace the Cessna as that is being withdrawn from service with the IAC, also i read somebody say that the Hawk is expensive? Actually it is quite cheap and could provide a trainer and front line defence role, the RAF use the Hawk as a Trainer and also for point defence of installations (bases etc).

If you want to be realistic about something then yes we need Hercs for transport of AID and troops etc, the herc is widely accepted as the best AC for that job ( turbrprop ) and as for Jets well im all for them and if i had my choice id start off with the F5e Tiger ( Reliable,proven,Supersonic,Reheat,Light,Combat ready,very cheap to purchase/operate and maintain and was designed by the US to do all of the above and can out turn F15's, 16's etc you get the idea )

therecklessone · 31-07-2006 11:14am

Sorry chaps, you lost me a while back.

Can somebody please tell me what credible threat to Ireland's airspace exists that would necessitate the purchase of airborne interceptors? Say in the next 30 or so years, the lifespan of a Eurofighter...

Now I'll accept that no credible threat of an invasion of these shores exists either, and one could also question the purpose of the Army, but they're there now and they fulfill a number of roles ancillary to their role of defence of the state.

I'm not suggesting we disband the Air Corps, or any other branch of the Defence Forces for that matter, I'm just trying to get some logical explanation as to why we need to purchase expensive toys to counter a non-existent threat (IMO). Available funds should be channelled towards realisable goals (i.e. transport, fisheries protection, helicopters etc)

Given current developments in nuclear and ballistic missle technology from Iran and North Korea, isn't it likely that any threat to these shore in the short to medium term will be delivered on the end of a missle? What use will a Eurofighter be against that? Maybe we should be buying a battery of Patriots?

IrishAirCorps wrote:

The Aircorps already have UAV's on order, <snip> may be used as "Top Cover" for the Army in Ireland when doing C.I.T (Cash In Transit AKA Bank Jobs)

Have UAVs been approved for use in civil airspace?

IrishAirCorps · 31-07-2006 12:57pm

Well the fact that a PC9 cant intercept an Aircraft should be a good enough reason for a fast jet or two, hows about also some Morale for our guys who do a great job with what they have and it would also boost the Publics Morale for the IAC

Equipment that is needed for the aircorps.

Comments