At long, long, last

Turkey

Finally, this 'government' is doing something useful:
http://www.airpic.ch/
With any luck the new helicopters will soon follow, and after that, well, who knows?

bonkey

What, exactly, is useful about buying another chunk of training aircraft????

jc

dahamsta

Looks like a bloody Airfix model.

oscarBravo

Not nearly as purty as a Marchetti.

Sparks

Hooray, it's the new Air Ambulance we've needed so desperately for the last decade.... oh wait, it isn't. Hmmm. Doesn't look like medium or long-range SAR either.

So what pressing need do these toys for the boys allegedly meet then?

Qadhafi

Good to see the PC-9's (finally!!):D

Calibos

They're trainers, but should we be invaded they will be invaluable in the defense of our great nation. Sure ye can stick a machine gun or two on ta dem 'n' evertin'.

Seriously though they're training aircraft. Our brave air corps flyers when finished training on them will then graduate to the latest technology, ie Spitfires. We retired our last 50 year old jet fouga's (think thats what they were called) a few years ago. The minister of Defense has promised us some 60's Phantoms to be delivered in 2023.

Ironic that we rely on the 'oul' enemy for our defense and partial air/sea rescue coverage. No disrespect to our defense forces. Tis a pity the government doesn't respect them though. Surely there has to be a few quid in the kitty for a few more Air/Sea rescue helicopters, An air ambulance, more than 1 garda chopper and a handful of reasonably modern jet fighters.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Calibos
They're trainers, but should we be invaded they will be invaluable in the defense of our great nation. Sure ye can stick a machine gun or two on ta dem 'n' evertin'.

Seriously though they're training aircraft. Our brave air corps flyers when finished training on them will then graduate to the latest technology, ie Spitfires. We retired our last 50 year old jet fouga's (think thats what they were called) a few years ago. The minister of Defense has promised us some 60's Phantoms to be delivered in 2023.

Ironic that we rely on the 'oul' enemy for our defense and partial air/sea rescue coverage. No disrespect to our defense forces. Tis a pity the government doesn't respect them though. Surely there has to be a few quid in the kitty for a few more Air/Sea rescue helicopters, An air ambulance, more than 1 garda chopper and a handful of reasonably modern jet fighters.

I heard (ages ago) we had planned to purchase some Dassault Mirage fighters, which are\were retired from service in other Euro countries. They would be a hell of a lot more functional than anything we have ever had. Im probably in the minority in thinking our old celtic tiger could use some teeth...


Matt

therecklessone

Originally posted by Calibos
more than 1 garda chopper

We have more than one. We have two.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

mice have teeth..
mice don't attack bears

can you see what I'm trying to get at here?.. any country we'd be able to invade with newer weapons.. we'd more than likely be able to invade with the ****e we have now.. cos they'd have to be in a serious state

Sleipnir

We have absolutely no need for any modern jet fighters!
Where's the threat?

We only need airborne assets for
- air/sea rescue
- Maritime patrol
- air ambulance
- Garda heli

Qadhafi

Qadhafi

Hooray, it's the new Air Ambulance we've needed so desperately for the last decade.... oh wait, it isn't. Hmmm. Doesn't look like medium or long-range SAR either.

Are we going to start another discussion on this one sparky? Have you not learnt anything from the previous threads and the REQUIREMENT FOR 8-12 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT something a kin to the JSF.

The governement is replacing the Alloutte. If they go with something the blackhawk then the aircorps could provide a back up SAR role

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Are we going to start another discussion on this one sparky?

Another discussion? Wouldn't that imply we'd had one already? All I saw the last time this topic came up was a rant from yourself and Turkey and a total inability to produce any form of coherent arguement as to why we should invest in any form of military aircraft other than SAR and Ambulance aircraft.

The governement is replacing the Alloutte. If they go with something the blackhawk then the aircorps could provide a back up SAR role

There you go again, claiming insider knowlege and making a public mistake. The Blackhawk helicopter is not designed for an SAR role. Some something like a SeaKing variant, that I could have agreed with, but no, you select a troop transport. It's a rather clear example of "toys for the boys" again.
Not with my tax euros, thank's ever so much....

Nuttzz

a total inability to produce any form of coherent arguement as to why we should invest in any form of military aircraft other than SAR and Ambulance aircraft.

Not exactly military roles are they?

Need a Civil authority for that, Is it true that the Air Corps have to fly the copper chopper because civilians cant fly government aircraft?

Qadhafi

well spark, looks like your posts are as ignorant as ever. There was a perfectly good discussion on the other thread until you dragged it down with your mud throwin !
( i bet u dont even have a job!)
Listen, there is going to be a tender put out for the replacement of the A3, there is still the question of the 2 medium lift helis to be purchased for the Army (this is seperate from SAR) A reasonable solution would not to buy 2 airframes but get one heli that carry out both jobs such as the blackhawk

Turkey

Strictly speaking, spark, you are right,[makes a change, 'must be luck]] the Blackhawk was not not planned for SAR, but it has fitted nicely into that role, with the US coast guard.
There is now a strong yarn that Blackhawks are being considerd for the Air Corps, about time proper military configured equipment was bought. If the events of July 1999 had occured with a Blackhawk, it is quite possable, that 4 funerals would not have been the result.
It appears that the government is shaping up to provide proper combat aircrafts for what is supposed to be a military organisation, hopefully this is true, as it is long overdue.
Incidently, spark, there is no need for me or Quadhafi to rant, you are more then proficent at it yourself.

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
Strictly speaking, spark, you are right,[makes a change, 'must be luck]] the Blackhawk was not not planned for SAR, but it has fitted nicely into that role, with the US coast guard.

Yes, but why buy an inferior solution to a real problem?

If the events of July 1999 had occured with a Blackhawk, it is quite possable, that 4 funerals would not have been the result.

That's quite likely, but had we bought a Seaking or similar dedicated SAR helicopter, the same could be said.

It appears that the government is shaping up to provide proper combat aircrafts for what is supposed to be a military organisation, hopefully this is true, as it is long overdue.

And I believe you know where I stand on this. And so far you've failed to give me any coherent argument to believe otherwise.

Incidently, spark, there is no need for me or Quadhafi to rant, you are more then proficent at it yourself.

Blatent denial of reality in others has that effect on me. Nonetheless, the fact remains - I produced rational, coherent arguments to support my contention that we do not require combat aircraft and that such aircraft would be no more than decorative; and you and Quadhafi failed utterly to give any coherent rebuttal past "We know better and we say so, therefore it must be so".

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
Not exactly military roles are they?

No, but they are about the best reason for even having an air corps. Plus, better to have the air corps do it in the public sector than a commercial company whose goal is a profit margin.

bonkey

Qadhafi has picked up a one-week ban for personal abuse.

jc

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Sparks
No, but they are about the best reason for even having an air corps. Plus, better to have the air corps do it in the public sector than a commercial company whose goal is a profit margin.

but doesnt the private sector historically provide a better service than the public sector, I think (not up on the military in general) that the air corps has 50 odd pilots with very few aircraft to fly, a commerical company wouldnt have this overhead. It would operate from existing airports as opposed to having one all for itself. Also the service would have to be put to tender which would give the best value, Isnt the SAR service now all private anyway run by a company called CHC? Must be giving the state better value than the air corps.

I am sure the people who join the military want to carry out military functions as opposed to civil functions, perhaps not?

BTW what is the point to this thread?

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Mordeth
mice have teeth..
mice don't attack bears

can you see what I'm trying to get at here?.. any country we'd be able to invade with newer weapons.. we'd more than likely be able to invade with the ****e we have now.. cos they'd have to be in a serious state

Of course I dont mean for offense. For defense, a small squadron of Fighters would suffice. I think the ability to defend ones self is a matter of national pride. We are weak and small, we rely on neighbours to ensure we sleep well at night, safe and secure from the bad things in the world. I think we should have enough military power to fight a delaying action till our allies can respond. Its only a small island after all, it wouldnt be that hard.

Plenty of people think like you however, turning ones (national) shame into a joke is a pretty remedial way of dealing with it. While I loath to bring up terrorists in classic GWB scaremongering style, imagine if we had 3 Airliners, hijacked, heading towards Dublin. There was no chance to recover them, they unfortunately have to be shot down over the sea. What could we do? Nothing.. We could run crying to UK and hope they scramble a squad fast enough to fly over us, into the sea and intercept. After they helped, they would no doubt be criticised by us as is customary.



Matt

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Of course I dont mean for offense. For defense, a small squadron of Fighters would suffice. I think the ability to defend ones self is a matter of national pride. We are weak and small, we rely on neighbours to ensure we sleep well at night, safe and secure from the bad things in the world. I think we should have enough military power to fight a delaying action till our allies can respond. Its only a small island after all, it wouldnt be that hard.

Plenty of people think like you however, turning ones (national) shame into a joke is a pretty remedial way of dealing with it. While I loath to bring up terrorists in classic GWB scaremongering style, imagine if we had 3 Airliners, hijacked, heading towards Dublin. There was no chance to recover them, they unfortunately have to be shot down over the sea. What could we do? Nothing.. We could run crying to UK and hope they scramble a squad fast enough to fly over us, into the sea and intercept. After they helped, they would no doubt be criticised by us as is customary.

Matt

While I loath to bring up terrorists in classic GWB scaremongering style, imagine if we had 3 Airliners, hijacked, heading towards Dublin.

SAM system.
You do not need a squadron of fighters to shoot down an airliner.
The amount of defence required is relative to the threat.
There is no threat of being invaded.
If we were invaded by a force it would almost certainly be larger, better trained and more technically advanced then us so having a small squadron of fighters would have no effect anyway.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Sleipnir
SAM system.
You do not need a squadron of fighters to shoot down an airliner.
The amount of defence required is relative to the threat.
There is no threat of being invaded.
If we were invaded by a force it would almost certainly be larger, better trained and more technically advanced then us so having a small squadron of fighters would have no effect anyway.

Can you update me on the status of our SAM system then?

I agree, the defense is relevant to the threat, but that was merely one example. Also, SAMs dont really inspire the awe in the populace that jets do.

I disagree that a small, determined force has no effect on a larger one. Its what you do with the small force that counts.. but its all really case by case however.



Matt

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Can you update me on the status of our SAM system then?

I agree, the defense is relevant to the threat, but that was merely one example. Also, SAMs dont really inspire the awe in the populace that jets do.

I disagree that a small, determined force has no effect on a larger one. Its what you do with the small force that counts.. but its all really case by case however.



Matt

> Can you update me on the status of our SAM system then?

For feck sake! I'm not saying we have one I'm saying it would be enough to counter the threat of your own 'terrorist' example :rolleyes:

> Also, SAMs dont really inspire the awe in the populace that jets do

So you think we should spend a fortune on modern fighter aircraft (not to mention fuel, maintainance, training, support) for "whizz-bang-flash" and 'shiny-things'?

We don't need them but they do look nice don't they?
A pretty ridiculous argument to spend hundreds of millions on them.

> I disagree that a small, determined force has no effect on a larger one. Its what you do with the small force that counts..

It may have some effect but it be irrelvant to the outcome, which is the whole point.

bonkey

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I think the ability to defend ones self is a matter of national pride. We are weak and small, we rely on neighbours to ensure we sleep well at night, safe and secure from the bad things in the world.

I don't think its an issue of national pride at all. Ireland hasn't had the ability to protect itself realistically from the air since the inception of the state. So either we've never had this aspect of national pride that you go on about, or its simply non-existant.

Personally, I'd take more national pride in a government who said "no, we are not spending hundreds of millions / billions on a symbolic air-defense platform, but rather we will spend the money on education/health/infrastructure/any-of-the-other-myriad-things-we-can-quantitatively-determine-a-real-need-for".

I think we should have enough military power to fight a delaying action till our allies can respond. Its only a small island after all, it wouldnt be that hard.

But hold on...for anyone to attack us, they'd have to be our allies, or they'd have to have come through our allies. So that entire line of argument is entirely specious.

There is no threat today, and if a threat were to arise tomorrow, its from the people you say we would be waiting on to rescue us.

So I guess what we need is a massive airforce, capable of deterring any conceivable threat lest our allies turn into enemies overnight and decide to invace us.

The simple truth is that the only possible reason Ireland would want an airforce is some form of bragging rights. To feel "in wit da lads", so to speak.

Well, when we're rolling in money and can easily spare that type of cash, I won't object - we can afford to be in wit da lads then. Today, we have far more important things to spend our money on rather than waste it on a status-symbol that has no practical use whatsoever.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I agree, the defense is relevant to the threat, but that was merely one example.

Well then, give a genuine threat to Ireland that the defense of a wing of jet-fighters is relevant to....

Also, SAMs dont really inspire the awe in the populace that jets do.

Exactly what is relevance of inspiring awe?

jc

Matt Simis

Originally posted by bonkey
Well then, give a genuine threat to Ireland that the defense of a wing of jet-fighters is relevant to....

Exactly what is relevance of inspiring awe?

jc

I was making a connection between awe and pride. I cannot give a "genuine" threat that anyone could claim was "definate threat", no more than the millions the US spent on intelligence before Sept 11 failed to do much if anything about that. Holes can be picked in any theory. There is little point providing scenarios to an audience so unreceptive. You aleady stated you dont make agree defense, even a symbolic one, would in anyway benefit national pride.

Instead let us continue making jokes on how useless and pathetic we are, the little flower of Europe that needs love and attention lest it withers away or gets trampled upon the world stage.



Matt

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I was making a connection between awe and pride. I cannot give a "genuine" threat that anyone could claim was "definate threat", no more than the millions the US spent on intelligence before Sept 11 failed to do much if anything about that. Holes can be picked in any theory. There is little point providing scenarios to an audience so unreceptive. You aleady stated you dont make agree defense, even a symbolic one, would in anyway benefit national pride.

Instead let us continue making jokes on how useless and pathetic we are, the little flower of Europe that needs love and attention lest it withers away or gets trampled upon the world stage.



Matt

No offense Matt but that's just ridiculous! We're 'useless and pathetic' because we don't have fighters?!?!
You seem to have a low opinion of your country and it's populace. (But a few planes would fix that eh?!)
Why don't we buy an aircraft carrier?
We can sail about slapping each other on the back feeling marvelous about ourselves.
What would be the bloody point!?!?!?

There is little point providing scenarios to an audience so unreceptive.

that's a bit childish. You posted something you believe so you should be grown up enough to try to defend your position.
Symbolic defence is no defence at all.

Matt Simis

LOL, useless, purely from a defensive postion of course. Im referring to the jokes made above and the ones I see whenever offense\defense comes up about how its "funny" we cant defend ourselves or help our allies. I think you know well what Im talking about.

Im just of the mindset that if you cant protect what you have, you dont really have it.

In regards scenarios, whats the point in being fodder for nitpickers!? I already stated several times that a decent defense improves pride, thats the reasoning. There is nothing I could say to scare you all into believing there is a pressing need based purely on defense, partly because of the assumption people have it would be pointless to even try to defend ourselves, and partly placed on the fact we really dont have a problem being a leech.


Matt

bonkey

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Holes can be picked in any theory. There is little point providing scenarios to an audience so unreceptive. You aleady stated you dont make agree defense, even a symbolic one, would in anyway benefit national pride.

No, I have stated that I don't agree that additional defense for which no credible threat has been identified is in any way a good idea.

I agree that there is a purpse to our army, albeit a minimal one. I agree that there are areas (such as SAR, and arguably troop transports) where we can identify a genuine need for something we do not have.

I go not agree that bright shiny expensive toys are a good, let alone necessary, investment for our army or nation, when the best reason anyone can offer seems to be "well, I can't think of a need or threat right now, but that doesn't mean there isn't one".

And thats the reason the audience is unreceptive. No-one, in any of the threads has come up with a genuine reason to have them - not a single identifiable threat that a wing of fighters would actually be relevant to.

How unsurprising that you turn that around and say its the unresponsiveness that makes supplying a genuine scenario a waste of time. I'm just wondering how long it will be before someone in favour of shiny new jets starts accusing those who oppose the idea as being anti-irish, freedom-haters, or just plain ol' tree-hugging-hippies or lefty-peacenik-freaks.

If you can't show a need, then there is no need. The closest you've come is "national pride", but you haven't addressed why we need this now, despite not having had this aspect of national pride since the inception of the state. Indeed, we've had teh opposite...our air force has been a laughing stock for at least the past 2 decades, if not more.....but I'm guessing that you won't be interested in showing the national shame this has induced that we need to correct. What will the excuse be this time? That I'm still too disinterested?

jc