air force

purple'n'gold

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/denmk/denaf4.htm

this is what Denmark, (a country with just a slightly bigger population than Ireland )have to protect their air space. Why can we not have something similar?

Hard Larry

Those F16s were supplied courtesy of the Yanks during the Cold War days. Denmark is a member of NATO and was on the frontline of the old Warsaw Pact countries. Hence the need for a decent air force and defence force. Denmark also has claims on Greenland so i'm sure those F16s were handed over to the Danes if they allowed US Radar/Sonar stations on Greenland.

They also have/had troops in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside the Yanks

I don't think Ireland could churn enough butter to pay for one of them lol

purple'n'gold

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/austria/oesaf2.htm
Point taken about NATO and the yanks etc. but here’s what Austria has, a neutral country. Just goes to show how pathetic we are.

Boston

Pathetic because we don't waste money on a war machine. Get a grip.

purple'n'gold

Having the means to defend your air space and not having to rely on the RAF is not a waste of money.

Captain Chaos

Boston wrote:

Pathetic because we don't waste money on a war machine. Get a grip.

Pathetic because we do not have the basic needs to protect or country if we ever get dragged into something. Who said anything about a war machine?

Just basic defence of our airspace and sea lanes. Air power can be used as a deterrent. Say our lads are on peace keeping in Kosovo, they can just call in a few of our fighters to do a low and fast fly by and the enemy would think twice before acting up. Thats if we had any.

Austria for example will be getting 12-18 Eurofighters in the next 5 years. Now the Eurofighter is in the top 5 fighters in the world. They have no realistic need for them, but its nice to have. A sense of security that any respectable nation should have.

The world has changed, no on knows who the enemy is anymore and all bases need to be covered.

Boston

Show a need. "nice to have" isn't enough. Your kosovo example is flawed, ireland does not need to provide air support as that is done by our allies. You talk about "no one know who the enemy is anymore" how will fighter jets help.

Captain Chaos

Boston wrote:

Show a need. "nice to have" isn't enough. Your kosovo example is flawed, ireland does not need to provide air support as that is done by our allies. You talk about "no one know who the enemy is anymore" how will fighter jets help.

OK then, to take your logic.

We don't need ships in our Navy as we can rely on the RN to look after that for us. Our soldiers don't need Steyr AUGs as our allies has assault rifles and they will look after us.

It's bad enough our APCs do not provide enough protection against RPGs to the guys inside.

Cake Fiend

Oh Christ, not this again...

There are over 5000 people living homeless on the streets of Dublin and you want to throw money away on something that won't ever be used?

Captain Chaos

Cake Fiend wrote:

Oh Christ, not this again...

There are over 5000 people living homeless on the streets of Dublin and you want to throw money away on something that won't ever be used?

OK things that our government has spent money on over the years on our military ''that won't ever be used''

1: Bofors anti aircraft radar controlled guns.

When will they be used, I don't see any MiGs flying over Ireland.

2:Javelin anti tank missile launchers.

How often will our guys have to take out a main battle tank? But its a nice piese of kit to have if needed.

Speaking of wastes of money, Port Tunnel anyone? The amount of money there could have solved the homeless situation many times over.

purple'n'gold

We as a nation are very proud of our independence and rightly so. But we are never going to be truly independent if we are going to always depend on the RAF to defend our air space. I am not advocating us acquiring a huge aggressive air force; we could not afford that, and would have no real use for it. But we should have at least 30 or 40 modern jet fighters. it would be unthinkable for say Portugal to rely on Spain to defend their air space,so why should we depend on the United Kingdom to defend ours?

Captain Chaos

purplengold wrote:

We as a nation are very proud of our independence and rightly so. But we are never going to be truly independent if we are going to always depend on the RAF to defend our air space. I am not advocating us acquiring a huge aggressive air force; we could not afford that, and would have no real use for it. But we should have at least 30 or 40 modern jet fighters. it would be unthinkable for say Portugal to rely on Spain to defend their air space,so why should we depend on the United Kingdom to defend ours?

Rightly so, even a small squadron of 12-16 of the latest F-16s costing €23 million each would be more than enough.

Hard Larry

On the subject of Austria's Air Force;

Austria has a huge arms industry and supplies weapons to countries all over the world. Hence why if you look at the link posted about their Air Force not one of those planes/copters is built in Austria and are imported from foriegn powers. Weapons traded for weapons.

On the subject of defending our skies;

Since that sunny Tuesday morning in New York in 2001 it is every governments responsibility to protect their citizens from a similar attack happening. Not having at least 2 supersonic jets on stand-by is, in my opinion, complete negligence on behalf of any government that doesn't (at least in western europe anyway).
Ireland is viewed as a western country no matter how much you preach neutrality. Any country with major security flaws (like ours) is a prime target for terrorism.
I've posted this before on another thread but IF (God forbidding) the proverbial sh1t does hit the fan and planes are hijacked over the British Isles and start heading for population centers (both Irish and English cities) are the RAF going to scramble jets to protect Dublin/Cork or their own cities?

Boston

Captain Chaos wrote:

OK then, to take your logic.

We don't need ships in our Navy as we can rely on the RN to look after that for us. Our soldiers don't need Steyr AUGs as our allies has assault rifles and they will look after us.

It's bad enough our APCs do not provide enough protection against RPGs to the guys inside.

Navy ships serve several purposes not least search and rescue. As for the guns, will the UN or EU supply us with free Steyr's, if so why are we spending money on them.

Rightly so, even a small squadron of 12-16 of the latest F-16s costing €23 million each would be more than enough.

so you suggest an expenditure of 386 million. to do what exactly. More then enough for what.

And can we leave the terrorism out of this, you people seriously believe that a group of terrorists with a plane are going to fly it into an irish target rather then a British one. Admit it, it's just he fact that it's the RAF that sticks in your throats, there is no need for a squadron of F-16s.

PanhardPL

Look at what Willie brought to Limerick for the parade yesterday.
Pilatus Aircraft in formation in Limerick.

PanhardPL

and plenty of modern armour
MOWAG in Limerick Parade

Hard Larry

And can we leave the terrorism out of this, you people seriously believe that a group of terrorists with a plane are going to fly it into an irish target rather then a British one.

Leave terrorism out of it?? Thats like making a post about gun crime in the country and saying 'oh leave the drug gangs out of this' The Cold War days are gone and the only threat European countries face is from Terrorism.

Its obviously easier to carry out an act of terrorism in a country with lax security. Why go for the hard target (the UK) with the chance of failure when you could carry out the same attack here with little or no security.

If terrorist can fly planes into the WTC in New York to prove a point then it can be done anywhere in the world.

Unless you drop to your knees and face east to pray 5 times a day then you are a target from Islamic Terrorists.

Admit it, it's just he fact that it's the RAF that sticks in your throats,

Thats just low mate. Thats trying to stir up the old republican debate. I personally couldn't give a rats a$$ if it was the USAF, RAF or the Iranians providing security for our air space my only crib is why can't we do it ourselves?

Its that kind of attitude that needs to be stamped out in this country if we ever want to move foward as a nation.

there is no need for a squadron of F-16s.

Totally agree with ya here though mate absoultly no need for an F16 when a smaller cheaper jet will do the job just as well. One or two jets will suffice not a whole squadron.

OS119

Captain Chaos wrote:

Rightly so, even a small squadron of 12-16 of the latest F-16s costing €23 million each would be more than enough.

no chance. maintaining three aircraft at 2, 5 and 30 minutes readiness 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year for the 25 to 30 years of a 'system buy' like F-16 wouldn't require 16 airframes, it would mean 40 to 50 airframes.

$23 million (or whatever the airframe price is) doesn't buy you engines, spare parts, weapons, pilot training, servicing capabilty, fuel, a cadre of 70-odd type current pilots, doctrine, the faintest idea how to run and maintain a 50 airframe fast jet air force, a minimum of 2 fully operational air bases with Hardened Aircraft Shelters and engineering servicing capability for the whole fleet, and ground-based air search radars for detection and control.

when your aircraft break something and divert to other airfields - even other countries - as they inevitably will, you'll also need something like a C-130J (or rather, a small fleet so you can have one available) to take the spares and ground crew to its location and fix it. you may also need to beef up your SAR capability to cover the F-16's 'light-fit' patrol radius (1000mls with three external tanks, 2 AMRAAM and 511 rounds of 20mm, as well as the increased risk on an an Air/Sea accident inherant in military flying.

having a 'proper' air force is not cheap, but conversely the overhead costs wouldn't actually be much different for a fleet of 12 aircraft, 50 aircraft or 100 aircraft, once you establish your infrastructure and technical capability its only the airframe/spares/personel cost that makes much of a difference.

buy 12 and it'll still cost a fortune, but in 10 years the airframes will be broken/crashed and you'll have no pilots. total waste of money.

Hard Larry's post, above "Totally agree with ya here though mate absoultly no need for an F16 when a smaller cheaper jet will do the job just as well. One or two jets will suffice not a whole squadron." just defies description.

if one aircraft is on QRA for the whole country, which one is having its engine/radar/ejector seat/anyone of a million moving parts changed, which one is being flown to train the four - at least - pilots needed to keep it at constant readiness, which one is being dug out of a hill in County Wicklow and which one has sustained CAT3 damage in a birdstrike?

i assume, in your advocacy of small, cheap fighters you understand that small, cheap fighters can't catch errent Airbus A320's flying at 600mph - especially when said Airbus is at 30,000ft and 10 miles out of Dublin City centre while said 'small, cheap fighter' is in a hanger in Baldonnell with its radar in bits and has a pilot who isn't curret on it.

Boston

Hard Larry wrote:

Leave terrorism out of it?? Thats like making a post about gun crime in the country and saying 'oh leave the drug gangs out of this' The Cold War days are gone and the only threat European countries face is from Terrorism.

We have terrorists in this country, explain how fighter jets will stop the likes of the IRA. How will it stop someone putting a bomb in a car, or shooting someone.

Its obviously easier to carry out an act of terrorism in a country with lax security. Why go for the hard target (the UK) with the chance of failure when you could carry out the same attack here with little or no security.

But where the pay off, wheres the point. Terrorist attacks arn't jsut for the laugh, there to cause the most damage.

If terrorist can fly planes into the WTC in New York to prove a point then it can be done anywhere in the world.

It wan't just to prove a point, it cause a huge amounth of damage to the american economy.

Thats just low mate. Thats trying to stir up the old republican debate. I personally couldn't give a rats a$$ if it was the USAF, RAF or the Iranians providing security for our air space my only crib is why can't we do it ourselves?

So the air space is secure. If all you care about is perventing attacks, then the RAF are doing the job, for free. You can't say you don't care who does the job, and then go on to say you wish it was us.

Its that kind of attitude that needs to be stamped out in this country if we ever want to move foward as a nation.

Move forward and spend billions on an imaginary defence. Its all postering for the shake of it.

Totally agree with ya here though mate absoultly no need for an F16 when a smaller cheaper jet will do the job just as well. One or two jets will suffice not a whole squadron.

What OS119 said tbh. Seems you've no a clue what you're talking about.

Clare gunner

Lads, despite them costing millions ...etc.Doesnt anyone feel that this is a step backwards???I mean the Pilatus is a PROPELLOR[turboprop] trainer for Heavens sake!!!!
We claim to be the THRID RICHEST country in the Western World now[well according to some financial pieheads in the Dublin finance district:rolleyes: ] and we are flying aircraft that dont have the capability of even taking on an executive jet for speed,not to mind a semi modern combat fighter and are now the only modern Western country in the EU who is flying propellor when everyone has jets??? It's sort of bizarre,all the money is shoved into politico carriers and the primary air defence gets the leftovers.

Now,I can appreciate the arguements that we do/dont need the hugest airforce in the world.But whats the problem with buying some 2nd hand stuff from wherever? Put it like this; Would you rather go racing in a 2nd hand Porsche 911 against a new Porsche,than in a brand new Golf??

purple'n'gold

Move forward and spend billions on an imaginary defence. It’s all postering for the shake of it.

A sovereign country having the means to defend its own air space is not posturing. It means we are doing our best to look after ourselves and not relying on our neighbors to do it for us. Ok, it’s going to cost a lot of money, so what? Electronic voting, west link toll bridge, benchmarking, costing us billions and no one seems to be getting too excited about it.

Hard Larry

Well then OS119 then we are completely screwed.

Lets just hope it never happens mate.

I'm in the 'be prepared' camp. Its better to have these things as people are less likely to mess with you.

For example you never hear of the Armed Cash Vans getting robbed only the Unarmed ones.

When I said small cheap aircraft I meant smaller and cheaper than the F16 I wasn't talking about having a look in the bargin bucket (which, incidently, our government are inclined to do) I'm not going trawling through cyber space for examples I'm too hungover and I know they exist.

Our Air Corps is highly skilled at maintaining aircraft, they kept the Fougas, Marchettis, Alouettes and Cessnas flying well past their use-by-dates. We do have a trainers prop jets already and we have an abundant supply of piolts.

And I'm not ignorant of the cash involved either. I'm fully aware we have more serious problems in this country to deal with e.g. as one previous poster mentioned the homeless situation and someone else mentioned our infrastructure. all more worthy causes i'm sure you'll agree. Our government aren't going to shell out for Air Defence unless it gets them more votes. But this is a post on why Ireland hasn't got F16s.

Lets just hope mate its not me or you sitting on that Airbus A320 10 miles out of Dublin. But if someone on the plane asks 'Can't the Air Corps shoot us down?' We'll have the answer for them.

In response to Boston;

Last time I checked mate the IRA disarmed due to new Anti-Terror Laws introduced in the UK. Obviously Jets alone wont stop ANY terrorist organisation.

The pay off for targeting this country from an Islamic terrorists point of view is that we are Western Infidels who are lap dogs of the Great Satan. No white flag waving or neutrality preaching will change that.

The point I'm trying to make is this if Irish and English cities do get attacked simultaneously will the RAF spare an interceptor to cover Ireland?

Its a hypothetical situation but one that can't be denied could happen.

Unfortunately our defence is not imaginary, its just not highlighted as much as other problems in the country.

cushtac

It only appears to be a step back CG. The PC-9M was bought for basic & advanced flight training and to provide limited airspace control. It offers very good performance for a lower running cost than comparable jet trainers.

Any jets they could have bought for similar money wouldn't have been any more capable in air defence than the PC-9M's.

Captain Chaos

Before they bought the PC-9Ms they were looking at the Russian L-39 trainer. While the PC-9Ms are a qualitty aircraft for what they do you need a jet engined trainer not turboprops.

The PC-9Ms are only very lightly armed. They carry 7.62mm gun pods and unguided rocket pods those are a joke considering the 20mm and 30mm guns is modern frontline jets. Those rockets are not very accurate and are only good for area targets.

Look at Poland when they joined the EU the had MiG-29 fighters left over from the cold war. When they became part of the EU they placed an order for the most advanced version of the F-16 on the market today. Those F-16C/D Block 52+ are being deliverd as of a few months ago.

They could have easilly ordered mid life upgrade kits from Russian to keep their MiGs going but they decided to buy new equipment that will intergrate fully with all NATO and EU forces with regard to communication and IFF and ECM gear.

I can't see Poland having more funds to cover the cost of aquiring and the running of these advanced fighters plus the trains of their pilots than the Defence Force of us in Ireland.

Boston

Captain Chaos wrote:

Look at Poland when they joined the EU the had MiG-29 fighters left over from the cold war. When they became part of the EU they placed an order for the most advanced version of the F-16 on the market today. Those F-16C/D Block 52+ are being deliverd as of a few months ago.

Arn't the polish in Afghanistan?

I can't see Poland having more funds to cover the cost of aquiring and the running of these advanced fighters plus the trains of their pilots than the Defence Force of us in Ireland.

You really should learn something about Poland then, shouldn't you.

cushtac

The L-139 is Czech, not Russian. The PC-9M is currently armed with .5" machine gun pods and 2.75" rockets, and could be armed with more sophisticated weapons but it doesn't really need them as it's a trainer - not a frontline fighter (and neither is the L-139).

And why does the AC need a jet trainer? Other forces use them to train pilots for fast-jet fighters, which the AC doesn't have, and it's already been said that jet trainers can't provide any real air defence capability. It seems that people's preference for jet trainers is based on appearances more than anything.

Captain Chaos

What I mean is that we are ment to be the wealthiest country in the EU and one of them. Sure the funds could be redirected into the defence budget but its not.

Poland clearly put a good amount inot their defence budget even though their country does not have the high GDP that Ireland enjoys.

Captain Chaos

cushtac wrote:

The L-139 is Czech, not Russian. The PC-9M is currently armed with .5" machine gun pods and 2.75" rockets, and could be armed with more sophisticated weapons but it doesn't really need them as it's a trainer - not a frontline fighter (and neither is the L-139).

And why does the AC need a jet trainer? Other forces use them to train pilots for fast-jet fighters, which the AC doesn't have, and it's already been said that jet trainers can't provide any real air defence capability. It seems that people's preference for jet trainers is based on appearances more than anything.

The reason that jet trainers would be better for the AC is that they would be more suitable to act as basic attack and training aircraft. Other Air Forces use turboprops for training as they are better for basic training and the fact that they also have proper front line fighters.

Say for example an airliner gets in trouble in Irish arispace and need an escort for whatever reason say total loss of communication with the crew. A PC-9M has no chance in hell to be able to escort an airliner where as a fast jet trainer with a high sub sonic speed would.

BostonB

Face it you all want us to buy an Aircraft carrier and re-enact Top Gun over the Irish Sea.

We should have light attack, jet trainers like a hawk or similar. Or alternatively some more resources put into Patrol and rescue services. But since we can't manage to run a decent health service...

Blowfish

Captain Chaos wrote:

What I mean is that we are ment to be the wealthiest country in the EU and one of them. Sure the funds could be redirected into the defence budget but its not.

Poland clearly put a good amount inot their defence budget even though their country does not have the high GDP that Ireland enjoys.

Did you ever think that Ireland is doing so well because of things like not spending ridiculous amounts of money on 'defence'?

And sure Poland puts loads of money into their defence, but look at their economy, its struggling, and people are emigrating like crazy. They'd be better off spending the money on something else.

Boston

Blowfish wrote:

Did you ever think that Ireland is doing so well because of things like not spending ridiculous amounts of money on 'defence'?

And sure Poland puts loads of money into their defence, but look at their economy, its struggling, and people are emigrating like crazy. They'd be better off spending the money on something else.

In fairness it's a contry that was raped to death in world war two by both sides, and for years in the USSR. I can see why defense would be a priority.

Captain Chaos redirected from where exactly? Where can a few billion be redirected from? Because thats what an airforce costs. Also, you should learn what GDP, GNP and all the rest mean. We don't have anything like the money the polish have, but relatively speaking, per person, we're better off by far.

OS119

Captain Chaos wrote:

Say for example an airliner gets in trouble in Irish arispace and need an escort for whatever reason say total loss of communication with the crew. A PC-9M has no chance in hell to be able to escort an airliner where as a fast jet trainer with a high sub sonic speed would.

no, it wouldn't.

there is no in production - or secondhand with very low flying hours - 'fast jet trainer' that has the capabilty to intercept, and that word covers a multitude of sins from guiding it down on a wingtip-to-wingtip basis to shooting it down before it smacks into Parnell street with some dearded chap at the controls shouting "Allah Aqbar", a modern airliner.

simple as that. not fast enough, not powerful enough to get to height quickly, no radar and avionics kit capable of shooting down an aircraft at BVR.

people don't design trainers to be fast, powerful and have BVR capability, because, amazingly, thats what fighters are for.

you need to think through your problem logically.

an Airliner is capable of 600mph with a full passenger load. it travels at 35,000 feet. airliners typically recieve ATC local control at 50 miles from airports, it is only at that stage when ATC can detect a problem.

in the most ideal circumstantces for an interception of an airliner heading to Dublin from the Irish sea ATC will have 10 minutes notice that there is a problem - bearing in mind a lower approach speed, holding patterns and prohibited airspace.

the fast jet trainer that can get from 2 minute QRA to a firing position at a minimum of 10 miles east of Dublin at 30,000ft, having made positive visual identification, and conducted a 'fly-around' to confirm that the aircraft is infact under terrorist control rather than suffering a technical/mechanical problem, has not been built.

simple as that.

if you don't like it, its tough ****. it happens to be cold, hard, irrefutable fact.

if you want the capability to react quickly, 24 hrs a day, in any weather, to an 'aircraft emergency' and get there in time to actually do something about it then you need an aircraft in the F-16/Grippen class.

anything less will purely provide CAP for the large, smoking, hole in the ground that marks the former position of the Dail.

Clare gunner

Beats me why we still couldnt buy the Harrier.Still think that was a plane made for Ireland.
No requirement for long destroyable runways.Park it in any large cow shed if need be.
Sub sonic,but capable of tackling supersonic jets,as demonstrated in the Falklands

Now,very cheap airframes,last I looked the US marines surplus Harriers in 1994 were going for 1million USD for airframe,avionics basic and engine.
4 Harriers for one pilatus???

All weather capability? Good parts supply and training,see the neighbours across the Irish Sea.

Or was it actually still some out dated defence thinking that still left us with the pilatus?Somone commented in Janes defence in the 80s,that our airforce was fine for quelling an internal rebellion. IE the RA set off and declared a republic and we required an airforce for ground attack on convoys etc.Our armed Fouga trainers would be fine for that sort of work,so long as no one had a stinger handy.And has this kind of thinking still prevailed in purchase of our airforce?

OS119

Clare gunner wrote:

Or was it actually still some out dated defence thinking that still left us with the pilatus?Somone commented in Janes defence in the 80s,that our airforce was fine for quelling an internal rebellion. IE the RA set off and declared a republic and we required an airforce for ground attack on convoys etc.Our armed Fouga trainers would be fine for that sort of work,so long as no one had a stinger handy.And has this kind of thinking still prevailed in purchase of our airforce?

you aren't actually suggesting that there's doctrine behind the current situation are you?

Harrier is a non-starter. production ended long ago and those who have them are keeping hold because JSF/F-35 (the scheduled replacent) is getting later and later, as well as more expensive - US$90million a pop, with no infrastructure...

its performance is also unsuitable for a QRA role, its pretty slow at getting to height (15,000ft/min versus Typhoons 50,000ft/min) and if you need it to hang around for more than 10 minutes it needs a runway.

i had a look at Hawk200's performance stats - its a 'advanced Jet Trainer' that some countries use in a 'light attack' capability, still in production but managing only 9,000ft/min climb rate in clean configuration - and no one has ever managed to stick AMRAAM's on it.

that will still cost £18million a go.

DonJose

If there were to be an 9/11 style attack on Ireland, would the Irish AF has the capacity to down a hijacked plane?

OS119

DonJose wrote:

If there were to be an 9/11 style attack on Ireland, would the Irish AF has the capacity to down a hijacked plane?

no.

the Irish Air Corps would be hard pushed to destroy it on the ground.

babybundy

DonJose wrote:

If there were to be an 9/11 style attack on Ireland, would the Irish AF has the capacity to down a hijacked plane?

there is no af and with enough notice they might be able to mount rockets on pc9's but the ironey is i'd probily have a better chance of downing it with my 22 as it passes by :rolleyes:

source

Air defence in this country is not what it could be,i will freely admit that, but it is still quite an effective system, which can be built on and expanded.

GBAD or Ground Based Air Defence is what we should be looking at, not buying a load of fast jets.The army need to get highly mobile modern ad equipment, like the Avenger (humvee with stinger turret on back) or any other varient of self propelled air defence systems. google the phrase to see what i'm talking about.

This way would be a whole load cheaper and just as effective.

The reason the gov't will not spend the cash on defence is because it won't get them re-elected, The majority of Irish people do not care about national defence, nor do they care whether or not we have to depend on the RAF for interceptors, they care about health, welfare, the road network, in other words they care about the things that will make a difference to their lives TODAY!!!! not in some hypothetical situation that may pop up next year, the year after or maybe 10 or 15 years down the line.

DonJose

So the Irish AF is basically an air taxi service for the Government and President?

source

Nope they do vital work in maritime security and atcp roles, also with the new EC135s and AW139s they now have the capability to insert and extract a body of troops up to section size to a location and provide air cover for them in the first few vital minutes on the ground.

They are by no means just a ministerial air taxi service.

I just feel that the €386 million quoted for a squadron or 2 of just aircraft, could very well equip 1ADR and there would be a nice bit left over for more pilatus or even a few heavy lift aircraft or helicopters.

EDIT: we do not have an air force, we have an army, a naval service and an air corps.

OS119

foinse wrote:

Air defence in this country is not what it could be,i will freely admit that, but it is still quite an effective system, which can be built on and expanded.

GBAD or Ground Based Air Defence is what we should be looking at, not buying a load of fast jets.The army need to get highly mobile modern ad equipment, like the Avenger (humvee with stinger turret on back) or any other varient of self propelled air defence systems. google the phrase to see what i'm talking about.

This way would be a whole load cheaper and just as effective.

QUOTE]

the Irish Army has a (tiny) GBAD system, based around the RBS-70 missile system. however it doesn't go higher than 12,000 ft and has a maximum range of 8Km. it is a short range, low level, point AD weapon designed to provide an organic AD capability to troops in the field in conjunction with Air cover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS_70

what is not is any form of Area or Theatre AD weapon that maintains control of the skies.

its plus points - for a 'security of the Homeland' mission are:

its cheap.

err... thats it.

it's minus points for the same mission are:

it cannot intimidate aircraft from their course.

it cannot inspect AC in the air to determine a) whether they are damaged and it is this which is causing radio silence/refusal to change course, or b) whether the AC appears to have 'unidentified' persons in the cockpit.

it cannot fire a warning shot.

it cannot reach the normal operating height of most aircraft. by a very significant margin.

it cannot loiter.

all but one of these points are equally valid for any SAM system you might choose to think of, you might also note that unlike aircraft, no SAM system in history has ever lived up to the performance claims of its manfacturers.

the_syco

Before someone else mentions 2001 + big planes: The US has a nice air-force, but couldn't stop them. This makes the "big air-force", "fast planes" and "deterrent" arguements all null and void.

OS119

the_syco wrote:

Before someone else mentions 2001 + big planes: The US has a nice air-force, but couldn't stop them. This makes the "big air-force", "fast planes" and "deterrent" arguements all null and void.

actually it doesn't.

on 9/11 the USAF/DoT/ATC had no dedicated system to manage the threat that occured purely because no one believed such a threat was credible. it was all looking in 'phone directories to find telephone numbers for USAF bases and several hundred people running around like headless chickens with no idea who to call or who could authorise what.

now they do have such a system, as does every (other) European state.

interceptions of civil aircraft by QRA fighters take place everyday in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany....

it certainly happens two or three times a week in the UK, the role is shared between RAF Tornado F3's and Typhoons - and appears very successful.

Steyr

BostonB wrote:

But since we can't manage to run a decent health service...

Why do people keep bringing the bloody HSE into this, its not more money thats gonna sort the HSE as it has "bad management" sort out the management and the rest will follow as putting more money in wont help its simple mismanagement.

The Harrier would be perfect for us.

BrianD

OS119 wrote:

actually it doesn't.

on 9/11 the USAF/DoT/ATC had no dedicated system to manage the threat that occured purely because no one believed such a threat was credible. it was all looking in 'phone directories to find telephone numbers for USAF bases and several hundred people running around like headless chickens with no idea who to call or who could authorise what.

now they do have such a system, as does every (other) European state.

interceptions of civil aircraft by QRA fighters take place everyday in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany....

it certainly happens two or three times a week in the UK, the role is shared between RAF Tornado F3's and Typhoons - and appears very successful.

The OP is correct - the United States had been regularly intercepting civil aircraft within US airspace (76 times in the year up to Sept. 11) and were well aware of the potential threat. It was not introduced as a response to 9/11. One could argue that the US military would have been well aware of kamakazi attacks (albeit with military aircraft) from WW2 and the fact that the 9/11 concept was actually pioneered in the States. The were well aware of the threat and that having a large airforce is really irrelevant.

Ireland does not have any need whatsoever for a fleet of fighter jets. Sure didn't the Iraqi's have a large airforce and it made little difference. What the hell would we do with 8 jets? Buying these items would be "bad management" akin to that in the HSE as another poster put it.

Furthermore, given the size and location of Ireland the notion that an Irish Air Corp fighter jet - if we had them - could effectively intercept a hijacked jet before it hit a target in Ireland is not practical.

BostonB

BostonB wrote:

....But since we can't manage to run a decent health service...

Steyr wrote:

Why do people keep bringing the bloody HSE into this, its not more money thats gonna sort the HSE as it has "bad management" sort out the management and the rest will follow as putting more money in wont help its simple mismanagement.

The Harrier would be perfect for us.

I said "can't manage"...

If we can't manage an essential service, I have no faith that they'd be able to manage a non essential service either. The Harrier especially older ones have fatigue life issues. Do we really need a STOL aircraft? Why not a Hawk 200? or similar? Longer fatigue life and does everything we would need, and more besides.

Captain Chaos

That plus the Harriers have a relativly high accident rate due to them being a challanging fighter to fly. That goes for both the RAF and USMC.

The US version of the Harrier the AV-8B II is very cabable avonics wise, its the on the level of the F/A-18A/Bs. It has the same APG-65 radar set and can use 90% of the weapons cleard for use on the early model Hornets.

But the Harrier is an old design and the US and UK will have retired most if not all of them in 10-15 years. The Royal Navy has retired all Sea Harriers FRS1s and FA Mk2s, the latter being a very respectable BVR interceptor, with the very good Blue Vixen radar set.

If the AC were out shopping for a new fast jet type, the BAe Hawk would be a decent choice. But they're not and thats that really.

Rowley Birkin QC

I went throught the Cadet selection competition for the AC twice in '02 + '03 and I seem to remember them giving us a lecture after the aptitude tests talking about overseas training in modern jet fighters/interceptors. I believe the idea was to have given to the pilots familiararity with modern planes should we ever acquire them or borrow hardware from the brits/other.

Having spent some time in Baldonnel all I can say is that the AC is a highly professional outfit who do the very best they can with the resources afforded to them.

And to those posters who moan about the homeless problem in this country: if foreign nationals without any papers can get jobs and earn a living on the black employment market I dont see why Irish people with passports and documentation begging on the streets can't do the same. Was listening to a radio show lately about homeless and the amount of cash these peole can pick up in a day begging is staggering, E200-E400.

therecklessone

bigkev49 wrote:

And to those posters who moan about the homeless problem in this country: if foreign nationals without any papers can get jobs and earn a living on the black employment market I dont see why Irish people with passports and documentation begging on the streets can't do the same. Was listening to a radio show lately about homeless and the amount of cash these peole can pick up in a day begging is staggering, E200-E400.

Way to generalise Kev! :rolleyes:

Shopping list for "Operation Kill The Irish Great Satan"

1 Millets backpack
Some C4, timers and wiring.
1 LUAS Green Line travel card.

What use will the F16 on standby at BAL be then chaps?

The most cost-effective was to combat another 9/11 scenario is by improving intelligence gathering, airport security and on-board security (try properly strengthened cockpit doors for a start) Spending millions if not billions on interceptor aircraft will do nothing to stop a suicide bomber on a rush hour LUAS or DART, or a bomb planted in Connolly Station, or a truck bomb exploding in the Port Tunnel, or coordinated attacks on buses throughout the city.

We have X amount of money to spend on our defence forces. Proper use of that money should involve assessing the real threats to this country, and acting accordingly. We stand to gain more from increased naval patrols aimed at intercepting arms and drugs shipments, so we should increase funing for the naval service. We should invest in medium lift helicopters, increase our tally of Casa's etc etc.

Don't know why I'm repeating all of this, I've said it before yet this thread is still going around and around in circles.

Clare gunner

Re 9/11.not quite true that the US pioneered the idea.They certainly "war gammed" the idea,as the Pentagon does with loads of scenarios,but it was not considerd at the time a viable threat.

Also,lets get this straight,airforces do not leave fully armed and fuelled aircraft parked around when there is no viable threat. Ready aircraft are a different matter.They can be stolen just as easy,and could cause more damage than a civvie airliner.Consider what mayhem could have happened on DC if one of the 911 crowd had been a qualified fighter pilot,and got his hands on an F16??

Harrier ,well,then if they are being retired surely there will be plenty of airframes,engines,avionics,tools & dies etc going for bargin basement prices??? Yes,we only have so much money,but then isnt it getting the somwhat right tools for the job??Going and buying turboprop in a jet age,no matter how good does not make any sense to me at least.Stressd airframes,not unheard of nor not a non repairable matter.

The Hawk,well we are back to an armed up trainer again,that requires runways. A Harrier can use STOL capability,and they can be dispersed all over the country.Again,maybe a more useful concept for aircraft interception,mini airbases covering 10/20 mins flight time from our major targets.Should be enough time to scramble,get airborne and be vectored in on the hostile?Was in ww2 in the battle of Britan 60 odd years ago.
As it being hard to fly,wel I had a EX RAF flight instructor once,who had flown them,torandoes and the F4 and pumas,his take was it was no more difficult than a helicopter.The reason the MUS marines lost so many of them was ,they didnt take kindly to the Brits giving them flying lessons.:rolleyes:

OS119

Clare gunner wrote:

Also,lets get this straight,airforces do not leave fully armed and fuelled aircraft parked around when there is no viable threat. Ready aircraft are a different matter.They can be stolen just as easy,and could cause more damage than a civvie airliner.Consider what mayhem could have happened on DC if one of the 911 crowd had been a qualified fighter pilot,and got his hands on an F16??

Harrier ,well,then if they are being retired surely there will be plenty of airframes,engines,avionics,tools & dies etc going for bargin basement prices??? Yes,we only have so much money,but then isnt it getting the somwhat right tools for the job??Going and buying turboprop in a jet age,no matter how good does not make any sense to me at least.Stressd airframes,not unheard of nor not a non repairable matter.

The Hawk,well we are back to an armed up trainer again,that requires runways. A Harrier can use STOL capability,and they can be dispersed all over the country.Again,maybe a more useful concept for aircraft interception,mini airbases covering 10/20 mins flight time from our major targets.Should be enough time to scramble,get airborne and be vectored in on the hostile?Was in ww2 in the battle of Britan 60 odd years ago.
As it being hard to fly,wel I had a EX RAF flight instructor once,who had flown them,torandoes and the F4 and pumas,his take was it was no more difficult than a helicopter.The reason the MUS marines lost so many of them was ,they didnt take kindly to the Brits giving them flying lessons.:rolleyes:

i assume you never actually tried to steal a fighter from somewhere like RAF Conningsby or Andrews AFB?

please do not confuse Baldonnell with a NATO operational AB where armed security is high and fueled and armed aircraft are not just left lying around with helmets, flying suits/G-suits and an instruction manual.

have you considered why you think Harrier/AV-8B's are being retired? any airframes being retired are fit only for scrap. airframes with any life in them are being treated with cotton wool to make them last the decade until JSF replaces them. no one is selling Harriers that have any life left in them!

as i tried very hard to explain in short words written in Crayon, Harrier is not, will not, nor has ever been, remotely suitable for QRA work. it is even less suitable (if indeed such a thing is possible) for QRA work when you use its STOL capability.

Harriers are considered the hardest aircraft to fly in the US and UK inventory, only the best pilots of all those streamed for fast jet get to fly Harriers. hence the cronic shortage in the RAF/RN of Harrier pilots, yet no shotage of crews for Tornado or Typhoon....

the USMC have been flying Harrier/AV-8A since the mid-seventies, when AV-8B was introduced more widely in the late 80's the USMC did all its own pilot training. it is alleged that its casualty rate was cause by pilots retraining from two seat, conventional F-4 Phantom's into much more difficult to fly single seat Harriers. it had nothing whatsoever to do with not wanting to take lessons from British instructors.

Hawk still doesn't, nor will it ever have, the flying performance to be a QRA aircraft.

fcuk me, can some people not read?