At long, long, last

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Why should he?
Its neither on-topic, nor any of your concern.

Actually, it's both. It's on-topic because if that is Quadhafi (and given the phrasing of the post and the fact that that's the first post under that username, I judged that likely enough to comment on the matter) then I'm arguing against a poster I've already shown to be in error and thus it'd be a waste of space; and it's my concern because Quadhafi was banned for a week for personal insults aimed at myself. If he can merely reregister under a new persona, what does it say about the rules of the forum?

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
Some intresting stuff here espically if you ignore the hysterical anti-defence mob.

Hysterical? Prove your case.

The Irish Air Corps is now offically out of SAR

In which case, what vital function do they now perform, other than training pilots for foreign airlines as well as Aer Lingus and Ryanair, flying a garda helicopter and ferrying bertie about, all functions which would be better off in the civilian domain?

Also when we go to the operation of fast jets

When? Happen to know of a billion-euro expenditure plan, do you?

Sorry, Spark, you have not given me the slightest shread of a reason why we should have not air-defence

On the contrary, I gave you several, over several pages in another thread. All of which boil down to these simple facts:
1) We have nothing worth defending;
2) There is no military threat we could concievably defend against;
3) The realistic threats we do face cannot be defended against using fighter jets;
4) We cannot afford even a single squadron of fighters, and a single squadron on their own would not be terribly effective without support units, which we can afford even less.

Spark, feel free to rant

Rant? Prove your case.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Sparks
Isn't that rather a case of double standards? I list where the extra costs come from and why TCO is so high. The proponents of the idea poo-poo as trivial expenses such things as training, paying pilots, buying ordanance and fuel and infrastructural improvements required to support fighters, without giving any evidence to support that argument.

Again, your version of TCO isn't necessarily true. Perhaps if we were starting from scratch, then the cost would be approaching a billion euro. But, we already have pilots, and most of the infrastructure is already in place. Most of the expenditure is already there, it's more of a case of changing existing practice. I suspect your "evidence" comes from a combination of media hype and figures from other countries which bear little relevance to Ireland.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Sparks

In which case, what vital function do they now perform, other than training pilots for foreign airlines as well as Aer Lingus and Ryanair, flying a garda helicopter and ferrying bertie about, all functions which would be better off in the civilian domain?

They still provide an air ambulance service, and take part in relief operations (such as providing supplies to areas cut off by snow or whatever). They also have their own military role, in particular with ARW.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
They still provide an air ambulance service, and take part in relief operations (such as providing supplies to areas cut off by snow or whatever). They also have their own military role, in particular with ARW.

Don't forget the CASA and their invaluable fisheries protection role.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sparks

And I'm not levelling accusations against CHC - I'm saying that a private company isn't the best choice.

And what is? Are they not performing the job to your satisfaction? Does their track record not speak for it self?

What I find particularly interesting is the fact that in a few previous post you decried the failure of the IAA (a commercial state sponsored body) to provide functional regulation of the aviation industry, both private and state owned airlines in particular.

It is ironic that on the one hand you continue to doubt the ability of private industry to provide safe and efficient SAR operations, while on the other you highlight the deficiencies of a state-owned body in its safety regulation role.

Going by this reasoning Sparks, we can trust no one. Are you Fox Mulder by any chance?

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by therecklessone

Going by this reasoning Sparks, we can trust no one.

And that's why we need several aircraft carriers. And some aircraft too of course.
Finally it's all making sense:)

Turkey

Hysterical, and a rant; this mystery billion euro, snatched from the air by Spark, and unsupported by anything, source, evidence, knowlage, facts, anything like that, I'd say that counts as both hysteria and a rant.


The unreasonable reasons why we should not have air-defence.
1] we have nothing worth defending: fair enough, spark, if you hate the country and it's people that much; GET OUT! I am sure you know hundreds of people who would be only too happy to direct you to the airport.
2]There is no military threat, this is the classic red herring used by people who want defence cut and their social welfare raised, like most red-herrings, it means nothing, things can go from zero-threat to total carnage in less the 24 hours, it takes considerably longer to set up an air-defence unit.
3] the realistic threats we face cannot be defended against using fighter jets; this is true, but irelavent. Jet-fighters show a willingness to defend, rather then our current willingness to grovel.
4] we cannot afford even a single squadron, much less it's support units; rubbish, yes we can, easly, cost spread over 20 years, [their life expectancy is far higher] is a hell of a lot less then the price of a pint, per week, per taxpayer. [ of course if the price of a pint goes up much more............ ]

About the Casa's : I cannot understand for the life of me why more of these were not bought, 2 is really cutting it very thin.............................................. then there is also the much needed tactical transports. It's a bit silly the DF having to stick out it's thumb , every time it's sent anywhere.
Fortunatly, all this is out of our hands, this bulletin board, no matter how much importance we like to attach to it is nothing more then a pub with no beer. Stop taking it so bloody seriously!!
BTW, If I had money, which I do not, [I work for a living] I would be almost prepared to place a bet that tenders for jets will be announced withen the next 2-3 years, assuming the economy continues to recover.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Turkey

BTW, If I had money, which I do not, [I work for a living] I would be almost prepared to place a bet that tenders for jets will be announced withen the next 2-3 years, assuming the economy continues to recover.

I'd like to think that will be the case but I think Mr Ahern still has aspirations about replacing the G4 as soon as he can get away with it. His new Lewarjet broke down last week too

Turkey

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
Hysterical, and a rant; this mystery billion euro, snatched from the air by Spark, and unsupported by anything, source, evidence, knowlage, facts, anything like that, I'd say that counts as both hysteria and a rant.

About the most level-headed answer I can pen to that statement is:
Case unproven.

The unreasonable reasons why we should not have air-defence.
1] we have nothing worth defending: fair enough, spark, if you hate the country and it's people that much; GET OUT! I am sure you know hundreds of people who would be only too happy to direct you to the airport.

So now I'm anti-Irish because I point out that we don't have large deposits of oil or uranium or other natural resources?

2]There is no military threat, this is the classic red herring used by people who want defence cut and their social welfare raised, like most red-herrings, it means nothing, things can go from zero-threat to total carnage in less the 24 hours, it takes considerably longer to set up an air-defence unit.

And that strikes me as a solid case of paranoia. A crisis that blows up that fast (24 hours) is a bit of a boogey-man, unless you live in Tel Aviv in the 1970s...

3] the realistic threats we face cannot be defended against using fighter jets; this is true, but irelavent. Jet-fighters show a willingness to defend, rather then our current willingness to grovel.

So my point is correct then - jets can't defend against car bombs at all, against 9-11 type attacks effectively, or plain old kneecapping at all.

4] we cannot afford even a single squadron, much less it's support units; rubbish, yes we can, easly, cost spread over 20 years, [their life expectancy is far higher] is a hell of a lot less then the price of a pint, per week, per taxpayer. [ of course if the price of a pint goes up much more............ ]

2 milliion workers times 52 weeks times 2.10 euros times 20 years = 4.368 billion euro. So yes, we probably could afford a squadron of fighters if we spread the cost over 20 years. (Of course, some costs can't be deferred that long, but let's let that go for now). Now, this weekend saw the opening of the killybegs community hospital. Modern, state-of-the-art place with 42 beds, designed to handle the sort of thing that a community hospital faces - namely stuff that doesn't get classed as major surgery, things that get treated medically rather than surgically, and so on. 42 beds. Total cost: 4 milion euro. Why don't we have one in every community? Money. How long did it take to get this one built? 25 years - because while construction only took a year or two, it took the guts of three decades of lobbying by killybegs to get that much cash sent their way for something that saves lives. And you'd like to see us blow the funds to pay for a thousand such hospitals on some toys that by your own admission above are useless as anything other than exhibition?

Or shall we look, not at hospitals, but at the capital spending programme for education, currently so underfunded that primary schools are damp, mouldy and rat-infested? Or the college grants system, which is the only route to college for a sizable portion of the population? Or the infrastructural problems this country has? Or the lack of an air ambulance perhaps? (The "air ambulance" service the IAC provide isn't actually so much an air ambulance, by the way, as an air transport system for human organs and stabilised patients. Useful, you understand - just not the same thing as an actual air ambulance, as seen in the UK and US and all the other countries you'd like to show off for with a fighter squadron). Or the lack of a national SAR service? (That's one aspect I find most curious about your argument - you say we should be ashamed that we have to rely on the RAF for fighter cover, but you don't think we should be ashamed to rely on the RAF for long-range SAR or on a UK private company for SAR, a function you yourself say is important and vital.)

So yes, if we had to, I guess we probably could increase taxation by a hundred euro a head on average for a decade or two and afford the squadron. Thing is there are much more important things we actually need.

then there is also the much needed tactical transports. It's a bit silly the DF having to stick out it's thumb , every time it's sent anywhere.

Since the DF is never sent anywhere unless it's wearing a blue beret, this does not strike me as being silly in the slightest. The point of the UN blue berets is that it's a cooperative effort between nations. We don't have heavy duty equipment because we don't need it - but other nations do. So the UN requests transports from nation A, peacekeepers from nation B, support equipment from nation C and so on. That's not quite the whole point of the UN peacekeepers, but it's a major part of it.

Fortunatly, all this is out of our hands, this bulletin board, no matter how much importance we like to attach to it is nothing more then a pub with no beer. Stop taking it so bloody seriously!!

I'd give yourself the same advice Turkey. You'll note that so far I've not accused you of "pro-defence hysterical ranting". I've pointed out that I think your arguments are wrong, and given reasons, clearly and as civilly as I can. You've not yet been able to come up with a counter argument that holds water, and Quadhaffi's been banned for personal insults. Is this a sign of a strong argument where you come from?

BTW, If I had money, which I do not, [I work for a living] I would be almost prepared to place a bet that tenders for jets will be announced withen the next 2-3 years, assuming the economy continues to recover.

I'd take you up on the bet that they don't (assuming you don't mean another learjet for bertie), but then I don't have the money to waste on gambling either. Few of us working stiffs actually do.

wisp

sparkicus, have you not realised that any money spent on futurejets helicopter etc would provide jobs for irish people! all those offsets etc. The cost of irish defence arent that great when you take into account the actual lifetime.


The blackhawk would really be an excellent helicopter for Ireland, your talking what 40+ years lifetime and it could be used for back up SAR, Ranger wing requirements, general army co-op, going out to those island we have off the west coast when the weather gets real bad, survellience, the list is endless !!

12 blackhawk @ 1998 prices = 12X 10million = 120million

divide that out by the number of years it would be in service and compare that with that the cost are with the private sector. thats how cheap it is !!

Turkey

I would like to point out that I have no intention of changing sparks mind about this topic, I am aware that that is imposssable, as he has a totally closed mind, not a significent sign of intelligence.
He mentions both health and education, both important subjects, as I am [for reasons that will remain personall] well aware. Both of these subjects have nothing to do with the topic in hand however, but that has never stopped spark in the past.
By the way spark, I was factoring that on ; is a hell of a lot less then the price of a pint, per week, per taxpayer. [I assumed 1 million taxpayers, as it happens, worst case suitation, normal practice.]
Hysterical ranter, case unproven- that's for others to judge.
Where did I ; by my own admission,say these assets were useless for anything but exhibition? I DID NOT, THEY ARE DEFENCE ASSETS, WHICH WILL TAKE LONGER TO PUT IN PLACE THEN A CRISIS WOULD OVERTAKE US, THAT IS NOT PARANOIA, THAT IS COMMON SENSE BASED ON THE LESSONS OF HISTORY.
I never said that jets could defend against car-bombs or 9/11, in fact I repeatedly have explained on 3 different websites over the past 2 years why this is not so, but they can retaliate, and do not tell me that that is not justified!
Why are you repeating stuff about SAR, I have already made my position clear on that, the IAC should do, and at present are still doing, it?
Incidently, since on other boards, you have repeatedly implied that I am a liar, as well as calling me a fasciest warmonger, and calling me stupid, I find your gloating over Quadiffie's banning highly offensive, and I have to wonder how a small town like Greystones can possably contain such a monsterous ego!

monument

Originally posted by wisp
The blackhawk would really be an excellent helicopter for Ireland, your talking what 40+ years lifetime and it could be used for back up SAR, Ranger wing requirements, general army co-op, going out to those island we have off the west coast when the weather gets real bad, survellience, the list is endless !!

Getting a troop transport for back up SAR, public transport (?) for islanders when the weather “gets real bad”, and “surveillance” – LOL!!!

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
I would like to point out that I have no intention of changing sparks mind about this topic

Would that be because I demand that you prove your point before I accept it?

Both of these subjects have nothing to do with the topic in hand however, but that has never stopped spark in the past.

We have a set amount of money. It gets spent on different things. The amount available for one of those things is dependant on how much is spent on the others. Because of this, we must prioritise what we spend and on what we spend it, in a manner which reflects our actual needs. We all need education and we all need hospitals. Therefore, it is relevant to bring them up.

Clearly enough explained?

By the way spark, I was factoring that on ; is a hell of a lot less then the price of a pint, per week, per taxpayer. [I assumed 1 million taxpayers, as it happens, worst case suitation, normal practice.]

As of 2001 we had 1.6 million taxpayers. Since I've not heard of 600,000 jobs being lost in the last two years, I propose that 1.6 to 2 million would be about right for an estimate.
However, what matters here is that that money be spent on what we need, not what would basicly have no use other than assuaging the egos of a few military hardware anoraks.

Where did I ; by my own admission,say these assets were useless for anything but exhibition?

When you said "3] the realistic threats we face cannot be defended against using fighter jets; this is true, but irelavent.".
Now it might just be a biased read, but frankly, I think it was a rather clear statement, myself.

I DID NOT, THEY ARE DEFENCE ASSETS, WHICH WILL TAKE LONGER TO PUT IN PLACE THEN A CRISIS WOULD OVERTAKE US, THAT IS NOT PARANOIA, THAT IS COMMON SENSE BASED ON THE LESSONS OF HISTORY.

History teaches otherwise, or have you never heard of the Phoney War?

I never said that jets could defend against car-bombs or 9/11, in fact I repeatedly have explained on 3 different websites over the past 2 years why this is not so, but they can retaliate, and do not tell me that that is not justified!

Four different websites including this one. And not once did you ever provide any arguments to support your point. You instead did what you've done here. You slandered me, cried for the readers to ignore me as hysterical, ranted about our national duty to provide fighter jets (and over the years you've gone from asking for a few third-generation fighters to your current position where you say the JSF is our best bet), and eventually gave up and stated you were right and walked away, never haven proven your case. On pprune, a board for professional pilots, you were laughed out of it for asserting that you were correct by men and women who make their living in aviation and who knew well the specifics of your proposal. You found no support on the Irish Aviation Bulletin Board either, and were simply called deluded on P45. I'm curious - why in those two years were you never able to prove your point to people with detailed knowlege of aviation, economics and Irish politics?

Incidently, since on other boards, you have repeatedly implied that I am a liar

Nope. I've said that you don't know what you're talking about - that's rather a different thing. If I believe someone is a liar, I simply state it. As I've done in the past.

as well as calling me a fasciest warmonger

Indeed, on P45, while signing off as a "pinko commie tree-hugging bleeding-heart liberal long-haired hippie" if I recall the sequence correctly. P45 has a somewhat less serious take on debate. It's rather disingenous to suggest otherwise, don't you think?

I find no need to continue commenting on the rest of your post, I believe it stands on it's own as a condemnation of the strength of your argument.

The fact remains - your assertion is unsupported and irrational, and has remained so for over two years now.

monument

Originally posted by Turkey
He mentions both health and education, both important subjects, as I am [for reasons that will remain personall] well aware. Both of these subjects have nothing to do with the topic in hand however, but that has never stopped spark in the past.

Health and education would only have nothing to do with the government buying unneeded military equipment if they could spend limitless amounts – however this is the real world.

Originally posted by Turkey
Hysterical ranter, case unproven- that's for others to judge.
Where did I ; by my own admission,say these assets were useless for anything but exhibition? I DID NOT, THEY ARE DEFENCE ASSETS, WHICH WILL TAKE LONGER TO PUT IN PLACE THEN A CRISIS WOULD OVERTAKE US, THAT IS NOT PARANOIA, THAT IS COMMON SENSE BASED ON THE LESSONS OF HISTORY.

The with so many higher cased letters it sure looks like hysteria.

Originally posted by Turkey
I never said that jets could defend against car-bombs or 9/11, in fact I repeatedly have explained on 3 different websites over the past 2 years why this is not so, but they can retaliate, and do not tell me that that is not justified!

If we’re not allowed to tell you why they’re not justified, could you possible give a good reason why they are?

Turkey

Spark, I was never laughed at on PPrune,[just answerd by lies by one poster] nor was I thrown off same site , unlike some one I will not mention.
I never favored the JSF, in fact I do not like the concept , never mind the actual aircraft, I have always argued in favor of F-16's but would settle for F/A/T/ -50's as an acceptable substitute.
Sparks, I will probally not argue this thread any futher as my time on the net is limited, and will be more so in the near future,and because of a peice of advice given by someone I am privilaged , nay honored, to call a friend:
Never argue with a fool, thats you by the way.
By the way , I have heard of the phoney war, the last 6 month of a 6 year period , where the Brits prepared to fight the Battle of Britain, they were almost too late.
What's your point, or do you really have one? I think not!

Monument, what the f*** are you on?

Incidently , Spark, no one has proved me wrong,either.

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
Spark, I was never laughed at on PPrune,[just answerd by lies by one poster] nor was I thrown off same site , unlike some one I will not mention.

I'll answer just this one point, since it appears to be aimed at me:
Yes, you were, though it was never so blatent as to be impolite;
Who are you calling a liar?;
And no, I was not "thrown off" pprune, I am still a member there. I merely have not posted there in some time for unrelated reasons.

Morpheus

firstly *yawn*
were not
and never have been
and without a vote never will be
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y neutral ok.

we have a neutral defence "policy" okay!! thats a policy, a side note on the inside cover of the constitution, it means, "were too feckin small to get involved in your business, so we wont really side with anyone unless we feel its safe enough to"

secondly we need air defence. Have you forgotten that ten years ago you couldnt go to northern ireland without driving through three or four checkpoints? that the peace progress we see on our TVs is only a cover up for the daily vioolence that still exists up north and nothing that shows the hatred some minority groups feel towards us in the south?

My point?? Terrorism has been bandied about, indeed the US and UK (hat tipped) invaded Iraq and destroyed Saddams butcher shop. no matter how many innocents died in that war, there were still countless more saved (which will outweigh those killed) from his regime. you dont believe me, go google kurds and gas and see what you find.

There was a paper done here by that task force the gov set up which meets every month to review our security status and threat level, they issued the paper about the real possibility of a terrorist attack... do you have your iodine tablets handy?

What im getting at is Terrorists dont always wear turbans, they also wear balaclavas and are pretty resourceful and can fly planes and while we might not be able to stop a plane going from dublin to liberty hall with the right equipment we can sure as hell have a go at stopping one from entering our airspace if we know its been hijacked.

If the majority of Irish people (as you seem to point out a lot) are swayed to your opinion, then why was there chaos when the govt started sending out the iodine, and why did gas masks suddenly soar in sales? Why is there so much garda protection for foreign dignitaries visiting? Why was there new equipment bought for our defence forces Air Defence namely fly catchers and LB 70 guns?

Because our government (which the majority voted in) decided there is enough of a threat to warrant their purchase. vis a vis the aircraft, we are responsible for our own terroritory, we are responsible for its upkeep and protection and this token force of aircraft while not even close to our requirements is nevertheless still slightly better than hugging trees if and when (as our govt predicts) the sh*t hits the fan.

Next time your stuck on a mountain enoying the view from inside a pea souper and you slip and fall and the air corps come get you remember that.

next time you look up and see a CASA patrolling over the sea, remember they are helping protect our economy and the cash in your pocket indirectly by protecting our fish stocks from over fishing, if you fall off a moped in crete and break your spine and you wake up inside the G4 remember that its the boys in blue flying you back, and pray that the wings stay velcro'd in place.

There are many roles the aircorps have, like it or not we need more a newer equipment, to support the army and the navy, we have an army, and a damn fine economical one at that, they have funded themselves for the most part over the last few years, go complain about the health service and put your hippiness into something constructive, you are a fool if you dont go source your information correctly and in fairness you are simply seeming to troll by the crap your firing up here.

Im sure you think you mean well, but there are bigger things to worry about in Ireland like who will protect the garda when they start getting shot to pieces and the ERU is too small to cope with lots of callouts some night when violence spills over somewhere like limerick and some brave soul dies because they are unarmed??
:dunno:

Sparks

Originally posted by Morphéus
secondly we need air defence.

Why?
What possible use would an F-16 squadron be?
Can they stop car bombs?
Can they stop airliners from being hijacked?
Can they stop armed gangs kneecapping people?
Can they stop any of the actual threats we face?
No, they can't.

you dont believe me, go google kurds and gas and see what you find.

That whole line is for another thread. This one's wandering enough, don't you think?

Terrorists dont always wear turbans, they also wear balaclavas and are pretty resourceful and can fly planes and while we might not be able to stop a plane going from dublin to liberty hall with the right equipment we can sure as hell have a go at stopping one from entering our airspace if we know its been hijacked.

Thing is, to shoot down an airliner, you want a few missiles. Sidewinders or the russian/french/whomever equivalent will do. They don't even have to be new variants.

Thing is, you don't need to launch them from F-16s. So even for the mass murder of over a hundred people, you don't need fighters.

Now if you want to put actual security in place in airports to prevent the hijackers from getting on the plane, I'm all for that - and so are the airline pilot associations, who know a lot more about this than you and I.

But fighter jets we don't need? No thanks.

If the majority of Irish people (as you seem to point out a lot)

Where do I point that out?

Why is there so much garda protection for foreign dignitaries visiting?

Because, oddly enough, gardai are pretty good at stopping shootings and getting people away from car bombs and so on. Jet fighters are not.

vis a vis the aircraft, we are responsible for our own terroritory

And we are more responsible for the people who live there. Which means education, health, infrastructure and other important expenditure targets, not toys for the boys.

Next time your stuck on a mountain enoying the view from inside a pea souper and you slip and fall and the air corps come get you remember that.

Actually, I'll be cowering at the thought of the CHC flying a helicopter near me in a pea-soup fog, because it'd mean a rather nasty crash was about to happen since the pilot can't see anything any more than I can....

if you fall off a moped in crete and break your spine and you wake up inside the G4 remember that its the boys in blue flying you back, and pray that the wings stay velcro'd in place.

And if I am in a car crash on the N11 and have to be driven over rough roads to the nearest A&E (no longer at the loughlinstown roundabout thanks to the Hanly plan) and we hit a pothole and my spinal cord is severed by the jolt, who do I thank then?
(And for the record, that's not something I thought up myself. It's what actually happened to more than one person in this state. That's why we need an air ambulance.)

There are many roles the aircorps have, like it or not we need more a newer equipment,

And I have never suggested otherwise - there are roles the IAC play and do well. Combat air patrol just isn't one of them, and shouldn't be one of them. We need SAR and we need air ambulances, and the IAC are the natural choice for those services. It makes sense to provide the finances for those tasks. It makes no sense to fritter that money away on aircraft that won't ever be used.

Im sure you think you mean well, but there are bigger things to worry about in Ireland like who will protect the garda when they start getting shot to pieces and the ERU is too small to cope with lots of callouts some night when violence spills over somewhere like limerick and some brave soul dies because they are unarmed??

That is pure paranoia, and nothing more. Further, it totally ignores the distinct lack of willingness on the part of the Gardai, and the ERU in particular, to call in the armed forces, as shown in Abbeylara. Further, few Gardai I know would unhesitatingly trust the ERU anyway, since the ERU has shot more gardai than criminals so far.

monument

Originally posted by Turkey
Monument, what the f*** are you on?

Could you possible attack arguments and comments, and not the people who post them?

bonkey

Originally posted by Turkey
I am aware that that is imposssable, as he has a totally closed mind, not a significent sign of intelligence.

I would have thought that after dealing with Qhadafhi, people discussing this topic would have learned that personal insulting will not be tolerated.

One week ban.

jc

Sleipnir

All this talk of Saddam gassing the Kurds and the threat of balaclava-wearing terrorists flying aircraft into liberty hall sounds like such a grand conspiracy theory it should be made into a movie.
For a start, just what would that achieve? I'm sure if you suggested the same to the people you're talking about you'd be laughed out of the room.

How could a squadron of F-16's possibly protect us against terrorists?
All of America's fighter planes didn't protect America.
You do not use fighter aircraft to suppress terrorism because they're just not designed or equipped to do so.
Military aircraft are designed to counter specific threats

Air Superiority - destroying the enemy's own air assets.
SEAD - Suppression of enemy air defenses.
CAS - Support of ground forces
and also striking the enemy's assets on the ground.

Let's take the F-16 as suggested by someone for air defense.
It's a fighter. It is designed to be able to fight and kill other fighters.
It could of course also destroy an airliner but that's a huge amount of overkill. Airliners don't evade, don't have chaff & flares and don't have weapons. They go up, very rarely exceed 30-40 degrees of bank, and come down again. Why in the name of God would we need a fighter capable of pulling 7-9 G's in a turn for this :rolleyes:


It would be a stupid waste of time & money to invest in a fighter aircraft (let alone a squadron!!!!) for such a mundane sitting-duck of a target.

If you want to protect ground assets (buildings, bridges, communications etc) from air attack you use anti-aircraft. End-of-story. This is what all armed forces do.

Nuttzz

I have been doing a bit of reading as this debate is not something I would be normally be interested in but the diverse views of Sparky and Turkey have been an eye opener (shame Turkey got a ban as I would like to see some more of his responses to Sparky but rules are rules)

So What I have gathered is that Fighters are needed to destory the enemies air power. Ground Attack aircraft are for attacking the enemies land forces. The best defence against a tank is another tank. Static Air defence is no use against modern combat aircraft as shown in Iraq (twice) & Serbia.

Ireland cannot deny the use of its airspace to anyone, even these PC9 wont do that. We can only carry out static air defence and only at certain points, we seem to have bought some 2nd hand air defence guns after 9/11

As for the point that we have nothing worth defending, I feel that the freedom of my missus, kids, parents and friends is worth defending, there isnt a defined threat to that freedom but that doesnt mean its not worth defending, No one in Yugoslavia in the 70's would have forseen what happended in the 90's, who knows what might happen to Europe in 30 - 40 years time

Sleipnir

Static Air defence is no use against modern combat aircraft as shown in Iraq (twice) & Serbia.

A SAM system (even the 2nd hand ones we have) would certainly be enough to shoot down a single lumbering airliner.

The static air defences of Iraq were of no real use against the modern next generation aircraft of the United States and Great Britain.
There really isn't any force out there that could defeat a large air force consisting of AWACS, stealth, high-flying bombers (B-52), F-15.

Static air defences are of great value is the operator is well-trained and the target is with the performance envelope of the ground-to-air platform. That is to say that most of the ground-to-air defences in Iraq could not beat the stealth bomber etc.
The tanks could not beat the A-10's.
Sticks and stones against lasers in that case.
But we are not under threat from any of these forces.

If were were then the outcome would be the same as in Iraq even if we did have a fighter wing. Iraq had some very capable aircraft but they could not possibly win against such a force as the U.S.

Morpheus

I was pointing out that not all terrorists are in the middle east (turbans)
that some wear balaclavas (IRA,INLA,UDA,UVF,PARAMILITARYS) and are on our front door step most of the time, and are more ingenious than ever before.

I doubt the IRA would resort to hijacking airliners to fly into the Dail, for one thing theyre not suicide bombers!!

I dont expect a wing of F-16s to be called in to hit a small terrorist group blundering around the countryside in a van. That wasnt my intentional point.

My point was that our government deemed the risk of a terrorist attack real enough to issue Iodine tablets!!

The govt is briefed on state security, among other sources, by our security services, involving Army intelligence officers and Garda Special branch officers who watch terrorist organisations in ireland, Yes we have spies. they were instructed that terrorist cells were working in ireland.

They bought 8 new trainer aircraft (a joke because we need more) which will enable our pilots to fly jet aircraft with the latest avionics,



Am i the only one embarrassed that we are a country with a Neutral Defence Policy (not constitutionally neutral btw) who cannot be completely independent from anyone else??? We should be able to protect our own terrority and stand on our own two feet, how embarrassing it is that whenever a foriegn dignitary such as G Dubya comes over, we have such sh*te CAP capabilities that they have to fly their own in.

Embarrassed that a defence minister has to stand up in the Dail and declare that yes if we need fighter aircraft to deny our airspace from anything substantial, that we must go cap in hand to the UK, or USA (theyve a base in Iceland).

Embarrassed that we depend on other countries aerial assets to cover and protect our troops while they are on foreign soil in peace enforcement and peace keeping roles. We should have our own aircraft capable of deploying to provide air denial and close air/ground support to our troops, that train with them and work seamlessly with them.

We need fighter aircraft to have the ability to deny the use of our airspace of foreign aircraft IF WE SO WISH....

"if we so wish".... four magic words, wherein lies the seeds to true neutrality and independence.

No-one plans for a war, they plan to be able to do something when it happens, we need to be able to do something other than look to the east (UK) if we need fighter cover. Its an "in case" scenario as is everything else.

Extreme example, but valid none the less, we have a fire service, not because we plan to start fires, but because we want to be able to control and deal with them if they occur.

Your still crapping on about health and education and i repeat, if either dept was run as economically as the Dept of Defence, we wouldnt be having this part of the conversation, maybe the DOD should be consulting with them telling them how to cut their losses and become a mean green budget machine, how to eat themselves to stay alive.

Nuttzz

whenever a foriegn dignitary such as G Dubya comes over, we have such sh*te CAP capabilities that they have to fly their own in.

Even if we had 150 f16's they would still fly in their own (do you read anyone elses posts)

They bought 8 new trainer aircraft (a joke because we need more) which will enable our pilots to fly jet aircraft with the latest avionics

If these 8 are needed so our pilots can fly jets then why get more, surely 8 is enough (i believe there is only about that number of air corps cadets anyway each year) if the next step is jets

Embarrassed that we depend on other countries aerial assets to cover and protect our troops while they are on foreign soil in peace enforcement and peace keeping roles

To repeat a point sparky made earlier UN missions are co-operative missions, we cant be all things to all men

if either dept was run as economically as the Dept of Defence, we wouldnt be having this part of the conversation, maybe the DOD should be consulting with them telling them how to cut their losses and become a mean green budget machine, how to eat themselves to stay alive.

slashing budgets doesnt make you a good manager, what do you expect them to do, close Nenagh hospital to open a cancer ward in cork with the savings, the army sold off surplus lands to get its new equipment, we cant do that with health or education as they dont have surplus schools hospitals etc.

Peoples views here may annoy you, you have your right to believe in air defence just as much as sparky has is right not to believe in it. (I feel like a UN peacekeeper here )

Valid Arguements please not ranting or ramming opinions down other throats

mycroft

Your still crapping on about health and education and i repeat, if either dept was run as economically as the Dept of Defence, we wouldnt be having this part of the conversation, maybe the DOD should be consulting with them telling them how to cut their losses and become a mean green budget machine, how to eat themselves to stay alive.

And army deafness claims have cost um how many tens of millions?

Crap.

The pro fighter jet arguments two points are;

1. A fighter jet squadron will make us feel pride.

For starts if your patriotism is so small and shriveled that you need a $100 million dollar hunks of metal as a form of patriotic viagria, then I pity you.

I for one would take greater pride in knowing that our schools were regarded as the finest in Europe, with well paid teachers, excellent resources for students, that university education would be free for all.

That our hosipitals would be fully equiped the evny of europe, where eldery patients recieve quailty care, and doctors and nurses are well compensated, and not over worked.

A budget is a finite resource. Like all resources it needs to be divided into areas of need, and necessity. We don't have infinite resources and therefore must choose carefully where resources need to be distributed. Areas such as defense, hosipitals, education. I'm aware people have said this before but you appear to be having some difficultly grasping that. It's not were do we spend the £100 million earmarked for defense, it's what the best way to spend that £100m for the country.

No one has has come up with an effective argument for our defensive need.

Presidental visit. When Bush visited London aircover came from the USAF not RAF. The americans are just too pushy.

Terrorist airline. The time taken for a jet taking off from Dublin to crashing into Dublin castle, the jets would be scrambled, the pilots couldn't get their jumpsuits on.

Embarrassed that we depend on other countries aerial assets to cover and protect our troops while they are on foreign soil in peace enforcement and peace keeping roles. We should have our own aircraft capable of deploying to provide air denial and close air/ground support to our troops, that train with them and work seamlessly with them.

Oh I'm sorry I thought we needed these for defense. Now we need air attack troops for peacekeeping? Ireland works as part of peacekeeping teams. For example, Dutch warships and Irish rangers are in liberia. Each member of the UN provides what it can when it can. For example the Czech's anti bio/chem/ units are renowned the world over. Irish troops are highly regarded specialists. Let countries who have large airforces and navys provide tatical and logistical support. The US and UK don't really feel the need to get their hands dirty on UN peacekeeping missions. Ireland commitment to the UN in troops is nearly equal to the British and 150% that of the US.

My point was that our government deemed the risk of a terrorist attack real enough to issue Iodine tablets!!

Oh please spare me, that was a headless chicken reaction of our then idiotic minister. And it was a reaction to a potential nuclear threat, for example sellafield being attacked.

Nothing your magnificent men in their flying machines could have done about that either.

bonkey

Originally posted by Morphéus
My point was that our government deemed the risk of a terrorist attack real enough to issue Iodine tablets!!

More correctly, our government deemed the risk to Ireland from a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility in a naighbouring nation merited the issuance of the tablets.

They bought 8 new trainer aircraft (a joke because we need more) which will enable our pilots to fly jet aircraft with the latest avionics,

And here we go again - another post making throwaway statements about need without everying quantifying what the nature of this need is.

Exactly what reason - other than serving as a training-ground for the private-sector - do our pilots need to fly jet aircraft with the latest avionics for, and why is the need for numbers so great that 8 trainers is "not enough", as opposed to "too many".

Am i the only one embarrassed that we are a country with a Neutral Defence Policy (not constitutionally neutral btw) who cannot be completely independent from anyone else???

I can't answer that, but regarging independance...see comment above re: iodine tablets. Exactly what type of independance to you envisage?

We should be able to protect our own terrority

And we currently are able to do so from any identifiable or forseeable threat - something which every proponent of "lets buy big toys" has singularly failed to contradict. Not one genuine threat has been identified. The best thats been managed is "who knows what the future will bring", which doesn't even address the fact that if you don't know what it will bring, how can you ahve the slightest clue that a jet fighter (or fighters) is going to be any use whatsoever if and when the future brings something.

how embarrassing it is that whenever a foriegn dignitary such as G Dubya comes over, we have such sh*te CAP capabilities that they have to fly their own in.

This clearly got lost the last time someone mentioned it, so here we go again :

There isn't a nation in the world where the US will allow anyone other than the US to supply air-cover. Not one. It is not a question of capability. We could have an air-force to rival (or better) the US, and they would still insist on supplying the cover themselves.

Embarrassed that a defence minister has to stand up in the Dail and declare that yes if we need fighter aircraft to deny our airspace from anything substantial, that we must go cap in hand to the UK, or USA (theyve a base in Iceland).

And if our defence minister could outline exactly what this "substatntal" something is, I'd concede he had a point. As it stands, the "anything substantial" is as insubstantial as the Irish Jet Fighter Division.

I'm actually embarrasses we have a defence minister who could stand up in the Dail and make such a claim without providing any sort of a realistic scenario where this could actually occur.

We need fighter aircraft to have the ability to deny the use of our airspace of foreign aircraft IF WE SO WISH....

We can deny the use of our airspace as effectively with a strongly worded statement as we could with a token wing of fighters.

"if we so wish".... four magic words, wherein lies the seeds to true neutrality and independence.

Not so. Other nations respecting your wishes is wherein lies the seeds of true neutrality.

The Irish could, for example, have closed their airspace to the US during the recent Iraqi war by saying "no, you do not have access to our airspace for military purposes", just as the Swiss did.

And just as with the Swiss, that expressed wish would either have been accepted, or it would have been brushed aside with enough military might to overcome whatever token resistance would have been offered.

So other than underlining a nation's expressed wishes by getting shot down and possibly dying, what deterrance, exactly, would a small contingent of fighters provide?

Its an "in case" scenario as is everything else.

In case of what????? Who are we defending from in this theoretical situation?????

Extreme example, but valid none the less, we have a fire service, not because we plan to start fires, but because we want to be able to control and deal with them if they occur.

No, we have a fire service because tehre is a clear and identifiable risk from fires, as evidenced by the fact that they occur.

Now, where is the clear and identifiable risk that we need a fighter wing to cope with?

Your still crapping on about health and education and i repeat, if either dept was run as economically as the Dept of Defence, we wouldnt be having this part of the conversation,

No, we'd be having a different conversation about the homeless, or the tax rate, or any number of other things that the government is responsible for, and it is the government who allocate the money.

If teh DOD is terribly efficient and cost-effective, then great. Thats one less department that we need to demand that our government put in order before they should even be allowed consider going made on a spending spree of any non-essential nature.

Think of it it like this...if you own two cars, one which is broken down and swallowing cash, and one which is in top shape but rather minimalistic, though functional for all its current needs and both are equally necessary, which would you put your money into fiing first? Now, change that slightly so that the constantly-breaking money-pit of a car is more critical in the short term. Where do you spend your limited funds?

Your argument currently is that you'd be embarrassed to drive the feature-bare but functional car, so you'd spend the money there souping it up. After all, why do anything with the other car while its jut a money pit, right?????

The problem is that fixing money-pits costs money.

jc

Sleipnir

We should be able to protect our own terrority and stand on our own two feet

Again, from what threat? You can't protect your territory from terrorists as there is no identifiable enemy.
Protect from every conceivable threat?
Well then we'll need a couple of subs as well. "Just in case" !

So the government issued us with iodine pills with an attack on Sellafield specifically in mind.
We are not in a position to defend Sellafield. It doesn't belong to us and Britain are bristling with enough SAM and air assets to deal with it.
If they can't do, we sure as hell couldn't.


The 8 new trainer aircraft would be enough to train pilots in instrument navigation, and basic flight manuveurs. Not quite the same as flying supersonic or tight high-speed turns.
These aircraft are not equipped with a modern fighter radar. A must for air-to-air BVR combat (unless you intend furballing with other modern fighters in which case you'll never see your enemy and die anyway)
.
They are useful fro training pilots on how to fly, not fight and you can't say that flying them will "enable" them to fly F-16's because that's just not true in any sense.