air force

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=OS119]i assume you never actually tried to steal a fighter from somewhere like RAF Conningsby or Andrews AFB?

Nope,but lived on and was a guest at Mirramar AFB [top gun school]San Diego for appx 6 mths,back in the 90s. worked on the security outside the base perimiter[which is quite common in the US.The US govt will contract out security to private companies,just as an explanation] That count?

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!

Then why pray tell are they being sold to the civillian market in the US for one million dollars apiece??Bearing in mind that the US is litigation conscious,and the US army doubly so??They dont even sell surplus Humvees due to litigation risks.So if they were not safe to sell to the civvie market why are they selling 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.

So what exactly do we have as an alternative???
Apart from trated up training aircraft.
A plane that costs very little,has the capability of multi role,air inticidition,ground attack/close support,all weather capability,needs very little maintenance or parts,is available off the board and has combat proven record,is easy to fly,doesnt need an age to learn or multi million euro flight simulators to train on,is prefably built by a neutral country as well.Oh and can be flown off runways like dirt strips,or sport aircraft fields as well.
The name of this ideal mythological aircraft would be?????

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....

Well glad to hear that ,as I must have had an exellent flight instructor then in flying school:D
as I said ,he found it no more difficult than a helicopter.

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.

Righhttttt.......:D

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

Never said it was capable in anyway.

fcuk me, can some people not read?

Can some people not grow a sense of humour???

Steyr

bigkev49 wrote:

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.

Think that still takes place as there is a guy on Irishairpics who has a vid of him in an RAF Hawk on youtube, think he is still serving in the IAC.

BostonB

OS119 wrote:

...
there is no in production - or secondhand with very low flying hours - 'fast jet trainer' that has the capabilty to intercept, 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...

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...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.

The flaw in that argument is that you likely won't have 10mins notice, the aircraft will be coming from Dublin Airport max 3000 ft and would be over the City in 2-3 mins. There isn't QRA in the world that would be able to a thing about it.

Why do you need BVR if you need to Visual ID? Is it likely someone would shoot down a airliner at 35k BVR?

The Hawk 200 is a lightweight multirole fighter/trainer. It has a AN/APG-66H, an advanced version of the F-16A APG-66 radar. With AIM-9 Sidewinder or ASRAAM. Its compromised, sure but its not nothing either.

BTW There's no harriers left with radar.

Why not outsource it anyway. UK (F3), Sweden (Gripen), India (Su-30 MKI)

babybundy

as i said before there is fu(k all you can do against a suicide bombers

Steyr

BostonB wrote:

BTW There's no harriers left with radar.

Not even the RAF Harrier Fleet?

Captain Chaos

Steyr wrote:

Not even the RAF Harrier Fleet?

All RAF Sea Harriers FA Mk2s with the Blue Vixen radar are all retired.

The USMC and Spanish AV-8Bs have the APG-65 radar as fitted to the legacy Hornets, its a good radar system with the ability to support the AMRAAM.

Captain Chaos

The US don't use AMRAAMs on the AV-8s and the software to use them has never been uploaded to the AV-8.

The RAF now only have GR7/7A and GR9/9A Harriers now.

5uspect

I'll never understand these gun-ho "We need fighter jets" rants.
Why? Seriously?
Modern F-16s and the like are ideal for getting to a target fast and bombing the st!te out of it. They're high speed offensive weapon delivery systems. The weapons are the important bit, not the fighter which is just a cold war relic. A well defended airspace can be achieved without costly interceptors which were only designed to attack high flying soviet bombers.

A PC-9 is a competent ground attack aircraft, ideal for low level border control etc. Yes its a turboprop, and thats a good thing. Just because your mighty Irish vanity can't handle seeing a propeller on our aircraft doesn't prove that a turbojet is any better. The simple truth is that for low level ground attack an unswept turboprop aircraft is far superior to a "rocket with a man in it" like a F-16.

Why is the A-10 still in service? Its a slow yet agile turbofan (a posh shrouded turboprop) powered antique. Now I won't pretend that the PC-9 packs the punch of the A-10 but it demonstrates a point: weapons over overpriced fast jets. PC-9s are a huge improvement over what the Air Corps had. They are highly capable aircraft for what we need them for.

Its nice to see the Air Corps getting new aircraft, and the emphases has been on helicopters where it should be. These are the best military platform in a country like Ireland and I would like to see more spent getting a well equipped decentralised helicopter force working.

And should the worst happen and the rest of Europe go bonkers and start invading us, (tho it seems some people almost wish it to happen so the can stand there and tell us "I told ye so" while they get off on war porn) don't you'd think we'd be utterly screwed regardless of our hardware by our shear lack of numbers?

Steyr

Id love to see the A-10 in Irish Service, Army Co-Op.:D




I gotta say i would choose the flying Titanium Bathtub over a Viper anyday.:o Cheap and has Low Maintenance Hours and High Survivability rate.
A-10 gets my vote.

Captain Chaos

5uspect wrote:

I'll never understand these gun-ho "We need fighter jets" rants.
Why? Seriously?
Modern F-16s and the like are ideal for getting to a target fast and bombing the st!te out of it. They're high speed offensive weapon delivery systems. The weapons are the important bit, not the fighter which is just a cold war relic. A well defended airspace can be achieved without costly interceptors which were only designed to attack high flying soviet bombers.

A PC-9 is a competent ground attack aircraft, ideal for low level border control etc. Yes its a turboprop, and thats a good thing. Just because your mighty Irish vanity can't handle seeing a propeller on our aircraft doesn't prove that a turbojet is any better. The simple truth is that for low level ground attack an unswept turboprop aircraft is far superior to a "rocket with a man in it" like a F-16.

Why is the A-10 still in service? Its a slow yet agile turbofan (a posh shrouded turboprop) powered antique. Now I won't pretend that the PC-9 packs the punch of the A-10 but it demonstrates a point: weapons over overpriced fast jets. PC-9s are a huge improvement over what the Air Corps had. They are highly capable aircraft for what we need them for.

Its nice to see the Air Corps getting new aircraft, and the emphases has been on helicopters where it should be. These are the best military platform in a country like Ireland and I would like to see more spent getting a well equipped decentralised helicopter force working.

And should the worst happen and the rest of Europe go bonkers and start invading us, (tho it seems some people almost wish it to happen so the can stand there and tell us "I told ye so" while they get off on war porn) don't you'd think we'd be utterly screwed regardless of our hardware by our shear lack of numbers?

I'll never understand these gun-ho "We need fighter jets" rants.
Why? Seriously?
Modern F-16s and the like are ideal for getting to a target fast and bombing the st!te out of it. They're high speed offensive weapon delivery systems. The weapons are the important bit, not the fighter which is just a cold war relic. A well defended airspace can be achieved without costly interceptors which were only designed to attack high flying soviet bombers.


Then why do EU countries such as Austria and Switzerland have top end frontline fighters in their airforces? Hmmm? They are surrounded by allies that have good if not better airforces to look after them. Do don't need force projection, airspace defence etc.

The reason? National Military Pride and not being made to look like the whipping boys of the EU regardless of foreign polocies or neutrality.

It's like why does or army do peace keeping missions on behalf of the EU and UN, because we can and are doing our tiny little bit to save face infront of our allies.

If we had fighters, they could also do peace keeping like the French do in Northern Africa with their airforce and other EU airforces do in the Middle East.

Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands all police no-fly zones in Iraq and Kosovo with their airforces because they have decent assets and they can.
We just send troops to Kosovo and Liberia because thats all we have that we can send.

BostonB

Captain Chaos wrote:

All RAF Sea Harriers FA Mk2s with the Blue Vixen radar are all retired.

The USMC and Spanish AV-8Bs have the APG-65 radar as fitted to the legacy Hornets, its a good radar system with the ability to support the AMRAAM.

Wasn't aware of that tbh

Captain Chaos

The AMRAAM has never been cleared for use on the AV-8Bs because there was no need to fund the program to do it as there is no need for the AV-8B to be used as a BVR fighter in US service.

Clare gunner

A well defended airspace can be achieved without costly interceptors which were only designed to attack high flying soviet bombers.

Pray tell with what????? A ring of SAM 7s around Ireland???:rolleyes:

A PC-9 is a competent ground attack aircraft, ideal for low level border control etc. Yes its a turboprop, and thats a good thing. Just because your mighty Irish vanity can't handle seeing a propeller on our aircraft doesn't prove that a turbojet is any better. The simple truth is that for low level ground attack an unswept turboprop aircraft is far superior to a "rocket with a man in it" like a F-16.

And thats like comparing apples and pears.An interceptor is as you said designed for dog fighting ,knocking out bombers etc.
A PC 9 is not ,nor ever will be an interceptor.So if we are buying turboprops and are using them for an intended ground attack role.It would still suggest that our thinking is still on internal defence against uprisings etc,rather than outside aggression.It's the only logical reason we would buy somthing like this,apart from Govt tightwadded ness.

Why is the A-10 still in service? Its a slow yet agile turbofan (a posh shrouded turboprop) powered antique. Now I won't pretend that the PC-9 packs the punch of the A-10 but it demonstrates a point: weapons over overpriced fast jets. PC-9s are a huge improvement over what the Air Corps had. They are highly capable aircraft for what we need them for.

Its nice to see the Air Corps getting new aircraft, and the emphases has

Wouldnt be that it can deliver an awesome amount of firepower accurately in a short period of time in a frontline situation?Plus take a bunch of hits and survive what a normal aircraft could not?Again,these are specialist aircraft,not QRF,that could intercept an airline.BTW everyone seems to think that the attacked target will be in Ireland.How about the flying bomb takes off from Ireland for a target in the UK ???

Parsley

Steyr wrote:

Id love to see the A-10 in Irish Service, Army Co-Op.:D




I gotta say i would choose the flying Titanium Bathtub over a Viper anyday.:o Cheap and has Low Maintenance Hours and High Survivability rate.
A-10 gets my vote.

My God, why!!! That bloody thing was responsible for most US casualties in
Desert Storm...

Tchocky

If speed is what you want, set up a Triunf system near Athlone. THere's your country covered, no need for supercruise :roll:

Captain Chaos

Parsley wrote:

My God, why!!! That bloody thing was responsible for most US casualties in
Desert Storm...

Thats down to pilot training and communication, not the aircraft or it systems. Pilots visually ID targets like in the PC9 but the A-10 also has a MFD for using Maverick missiles and LGBs in the upgraded versions.

If the IAC were to use the A-10 they would not be permitted to use DU ammo for the 30mm cannon.

testicle

Captain Chaos wrote:

If the IAC were to use the A-10 they would not be permitted to use DU ammo for the 30mm cannon.

And why ever not?

Captain Chaos

DU, depleted uranium, radioactive material hazard. As far as I'm aware light munitions containing the substance was banned from use by the EU a few years ago.

That included sabot tank shells, Hellfire warheads that use it, and general DU ammo as used by the A-10 and AH-64 (WAH-64 or AH-1 in the UK).

micdug

The problem here is that people are arguing about the last war.... as they say military train and equip to fight the last war, hence why surprise is a key doctrine for an attacking force - not technology. Remember, the 9/11 attackers used paper cutters at a cost of a doller each. We should be investing in low level intelligence - Military and Civil, Arabic speakers etc etc - much more realistic. In all probability Ireland will be used as a springboard of an attack on the UK as opposed to being the target. It would be a fair trade with the UK giving us fighter cover in return for decent intel.

If you really must insist on a fighter capability we should be planning on some of these:
Cheaper to buy, run, maintain, no need for expensive pilot training. Again, even the Eurofighter is being regarded as a legacy platform to be replaced by a UAV. Not this one though, it's about to be clamped for being on a disabled spot.:D

micdug

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.

Exactly. Our service naval force is a Coastguard in reality. We have no bluewater capability and our ships are specifically designed for a greenwater mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-water_navy )- coastal interdiction against unarmed/lightly armed ships. Should a serious threat I have no doubt a Type45 from the RN would be needed.

Army needs capabilty to deal with internal threats (Continuity/Real/Counterfeit IRA) and light peacekeeping duty so Steyrs are acceptable (and cheap). If a real military threat arose we would be dependant on an external power.

Lets be blunt and accept reality - we are in the United Kingdoms "sphere of influence". The UK would not accept any military force threating the Republic on the basis that we are strategically important for them and their security. The US would be a distant second, but also would not accept third party intervention. This being the case, the only possible states to threaten us are the UK and the US. Neither threaten us, nor is there anything we could do if they wanted! Unless we do an Albania and destroy our economy supporting a massive home defence force this argument about buying equipment is purely for Top Trumps benefit.....

babybundy

Id love to see the A-10 in Irish Service, Army Co-Op.


well i would say something like this

Captain Chaos

Nice job,

:D:o

testicle

Captain Chaos wrote:

DU, depleted uranium, radioactive material hazard. As far as I'm aware light munitions containing the substance was banned from use by the EU a few years ago.

That included sabot tank shells, Hellfire warheads that use it, and general DU ammo as used by the A-10 and AH-64 (WAH-64 or AH-1 in the UK).

I know what it is. No it was not banned.

5uspect

Captain Chaos wrote:

Then why do EU countries such as Austria and Switzerland have top end frontline fighters in their airforces? Hmmm? They are surrounded by allies that have good if not better airforces to look after them. Do don't need force projection, airspace defence etc.

Because they have a legacy of being uncomfortably close to the Iron Curtain and a US government only too willing to get some better armed cannon fodder between them and the Russians. Once the armed forces of a country grows large enough and gets significant hardware it is difficult for any politician to downsize spending on military assets.

Captain Chaos wrote:

The reason? National Military Pride and not being made to look like the whipping boys of the EU regardless of foreign polocies or neutrality.

Mighty Irish vanity then? Maybe not having very expensive very useless jets sitting in our non existent air bases is a good thing? Do you really think Ireland should tool up with some very nasty weapons and start bullying our neighbours?

Captain Chaos wrote:

It's like why does or army do peace keeping missions on behalf of the EU and UN, because we can and are doing our tiny little bit to save face infront of our allies.

Look at Iraq. The might of the US war machine went through the place for a shortcut in about 80 days. But they still don't control the place just like they never controlled Vietnam. The only way to peacekeep effectively is with boots on the ground that the people trust. The Irish soldiers in Liberia are building schools, hospitals and confidence in the population helping the locals see what a peaceful society is like. They don't march about all day waving their guns and singing the theme tune to "Team America: World Police". FFS grow up.

Captain Chaos wrote:

If we had fighters, they could also do peace keeping like the French do in Northern Africa with their airforce and other EU airforces do in the Middle East.

And how effective is that? Peacekeeping by dropping bombs on people?
Seems more like bullying people into submission to me. That will only result in more violence. Like I said above trusted boots on the ground. Thats what the Irish are known for.

Captain Chaos wrote:

Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands all police no-fly zones in Iraq and Kosovo with their airforces because they have decent assets and they can.
We just send troops to Kosovo and Liberia because thats all we have that we can send.

No fly zones in Iraq? there's nothing left there to shoot down. The entire Yuguslav MiG 29 force was destroyed in 20 minutes by NATO F-16s at the start of the war. And yes there is a need for fast jets for such circumstances but Ireland doesn't do much invading nowadays, but you would like us to?

Flying CAPs over a no fly zone is a token effort. Putting your troops on the ground is the hard, dirty work. Maybe you should get out there and see for yourself. There is nothing more valuable in peacekeeping than soldiers on the ground.

Clare Gunner wrote:

Pray tell with what?????

Sure why not an effective SAM capability? Why are Cold War interceptors better? Other than the fact that they stroke your ego?

Clare Gunner wrote:

A PC 9 is not ,nor ever will be an interceptor.

Did you even read my post? I said:

me wrote:

A PC-9 is a competent ground attack aircraft, ideal for low level border control etc.

Clare Gunner wrote:

It would still suggest that our thinking is still on internal defence against uprisings etc,rather than outside aggression.It's the only logical reason we would buy somthing like this,apart from Govt tightwadded ness.

Can you give me one possible scenario that would result in outside aggression?

cushtac

5uspect wrote:

Sure why not an effective SAM capability? Why are Cold War interceptors better? Other than the fact that they stroke your ego?

Not that I'm advocating their purchase, but interceptors would allow visual identification of a target and a visible deterrent. SAMs don't offer the same level of deterrent or flexibility.

themarcus

Does this debate remind anyone else of that simpsons episode with the bear-patrol??

For it to be worthwhile (presuming that 'worthwhile' refers to a situation where we have at least 1 fighter ready to fly at all times) would cost a ridiculous amount of money - the whole defense budget for a year a few times over when they're bought, and then a giant chunk of it to maintain them, fuel them and train pilots.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love if we had a bunch of jets or something lying around - but thats what they'd be doing - lying around - it's not really feasible at the moment.

Don't suppose the swedes would donate a few gripens if we join the nordic battle group thingy??

Aer Lingus is still semi-state right? Why not fit missiles to them?? That would be very exciting! they'd probably just shoot at every ryanair plane they saw though :rolleyes:

babybundy

thats true look at ythe gov jets on standby

BostonB

Clare gunner wrote:

....How about the flying bomb takes off from Ireland for a target in the UK ???

Seriously the wrong century dude. Maybe in an alternate history of 1946 maybe.

Clare gunner

Why so???What where the 5 jets that made everyones on the East coast of the USA day pretty miserable on 9/11?????? Flying,loaded with fuel,crash into tall buildings=flying bomb.:rolleyes:

BrianD

Clare gunner wrote:

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.

The first attempt to fly a civilian aircraft in to the White House was made in 1974 by an american citizen - Samuel Byck - not by any mad middle eastern types. He shot and killed a policeman and one of the pilots and then committed suicide himself in the hijack attempt. He was inspired by a soldier who had buzzed the White House using a stolen military helicopter. The movie "The assination of Richard Nixon" was based on it.

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

Given that any hijacked aircraft could end up crashing in a populated area, I would have thought that the USAF would have been well aware of the potential threats of civilian aircraft in the wrong hands. It was a very real threat. Civilian aircraft have been the prime targets for terrorists for years - They had almost 30 years warning!

Also from the Wiki article this ...

In 1987, an FAA document entitled Troubled Passage: The Federal Aviation Administration During the Nixon-Ford Term 1973-1977 was produced, which mentioned Byck's failed hijacking: ...though Byck lacked the skill and self-control to reach his target, he had provided a chilling reminder of the potential of violence against civil aviation. Under a more relaxed security system, his suicidal rampage might have begun when the airliner was aloft.

Deacon Blues

Clare gunner wrote:

[

Nope,but lived on and was a guest at Mirramar AFB [top gun school]San Diego for appx 6 mths,back in the 90s. worked on the security outside the base perimiter[which is quite common in the US.The US govt will contract out security to private companies,just as an explanation] That count?

Clare gunner, it counts for something .... but

Back in '97, Miramar NAS became Miramar MCAS ... from a Naval Air Station to a Marine Corps Air Station. It was NEVER an AFB. While you were protecting it, did you not even notice the colour of the uniforms ?? This is the problem with this debate. It is completely valueless, and most participants are speaking from an emotional and uninformed standpoint, with minds made up and not too willing to change them ... and I include myself in this. To add my opinion, I believe that Ireland has never been "neutral". Our sacred cow of neutrality has only been possible because we live in a relatively stable part of the world, and comply regularly with the requirements of our main economic supporters, particularly the US. In reality, we are powerless to enforce our neutrality, and we have always known that any threat to Ireland from the WarPac side during the Cold war would be repulsed by NATO, because Ireland coming under WarPac influence would be unthinkable. So, we aren't neutral, just freeloaders on the strong defence of others.

Now, we have an economy which is performing strongly, but it's very precarious. Other neutral countries with the military muscle to enforce their neutrality ... the most obvious (probably the only ... this is where my uninformed comment above shines through) examples being Sweden and Switzerland, both have very healthy arms industries which contribute to their economy, but we don't want to get involved in that sort of thing because we're neutral !!!!

Sure, it'd be cool to have F16s whizzing over our heads at parades, and we'd all sleep soundly knowing that there're one or two guys on five minute alert in Baldonnel, but why spend the massive amounts of money required every year AFTER the massive amount of the initial outlay, when we can get the Red Arrows, Thunderbirds, Frecce Tricoleri and loads of others to come over for free !!! Pity we missed the Blue Angels on the European tour last year. Now they ARE the coolest.

jmayo

I have to laugh when I read the usual debate about the AC acquiring jet fighter aircraft.
People usually just look at up front cost of buying the fighters, they never consider maintenace, parts, training and the fact that a high percentage of the fleet will be us at any one time.
As regards having the deterent of our air force to protect our ground troops serving in Kosovo (or any other world locations) was the best reason.
How would we refuel our attack aricraft to and from their Kosovo strikes?
Perhaps we could make use of the Ryan Air airports dotted throughout Europe rather than using air tankers.

As for buying A10s ????
They are old at this stage but I guess still useful for what they were designed for.
They are ground attack aircraft, but I suppose in the event the global terrorists attacked us using tanks then they could be used.
And don't blame the A10 for allied casualites in the gulf, blame the idiots inside, they are the ones hitting the triggers.

We can't protect ourselves, never could and never will.
Buy helicopters, more useful and more multipurpose.

Anyway Al Queda or whoever are probably not going to use aircraft as in 911 again.
They may try to get sucide bombers on board and then no matter what jet fighers you have they will be useless.
It is just too difficult to organise enough bodies and get them on board for hijacking at this stage.
So what point of having fighters for this presumed threat?

The big worry I have with airports is that someday a sucide bomber just walks into departures and lets go. No security to go through before entry and the afffects are just as devastating on aviation and the flying public.
Why not have security screening before you even enter airport?????
I think it is done at few airports around the world?

5uspect

^My sentiments exactly.

odonnell

I have to ask the question - Why does an irishman want to have a war-machine?

The Danish, the Swedish etc all have decent military setups due to their geographic location and events which have involved them over the course of their history. They are mainland countries with borders to protect. Why does Ireland require an airforce consisting of F16s etc when the only borders to be controlled are maritime ones, and for anyone to realistically have a go at Ireland - theyd have to go through the UK first (the RN, RAF etc patrolling the coastlines and national waters)?

Secondly - why would anyone want to have a go at Ireland. Enforcing neutrality is all very well but - how? How does one enforce neutrality? The same way Sweden enforced its neutrality during WWII - by allowing the Germans to knock on Norways door via Sverige? I doubt Switzerland could withstand any genuine attempt at its borders either - so in what way could a country enforce its neutrality other than by not allowing forceful breach of its own borders?

That brings us back to protecting borders - and what you need here is a navy.

Witcher

the reason we have no jet fighters is because as a neutral country we cant use aircraft that have been used in foreign wars,

apart from the fact that we couldnt afford the planes the RAF and the USAF have offered to give us jet aircraft free!!

but we cant take them because their planes have been used in foreign

now before some smartass quotes this and calls me stupid i was told this info on a tour of baldonnell and i think that we should take the planes and forget this neutral sh**

babybundy

blay1 wrote:

the reason we have no jet fighters is because as a neutral country we cant use aircraft that have been used in foreign wars,

wat kinda bs is that the styre has been used in wars so do we need to get rid of that too

cushtac

blay1 wrote:

the reason we have no jet fighters is because as a neutral country we cant use aircraft that have been used in foreign wars, now before some smartass quotes this and calls me stupid i was told this info on a tour of baldonnell and i think that we should take the planes and forget this neutral sh**

You were told wrong. Nearly all of the types the AC uses have been, or are, in service with other forces.

blay1 wrote:

apart from the fact that we couldnt afford the planes the RAF and the USAF have offered to give us jet aircraft free!!

This is a persistent rumour, but I've never come across anything that substantiates it.

Witcher

cushtac, we cant use planes that have been used by members of nato in a foreign war i know some of our planes have been used in wars but not by nato members because they can use jet aircraft instead of propellar aircraft such as our pilatus planes

Witcher

babybundy wrote:

wat kinda bs is that the styre has been used in wars so do we need to get rid of that too

babybundy what is your problem we cant use AIRCRAFT that have been used in wars, is the STEYR an aircraft?? no its not!!!

you must be illiterite also because i clearly said in my post that these were not my own words i said i was told this on a tour of baldonnell, and i think and air corp personnell know better than you mate so if they say they cant use certain planes i believe them, and i dont care what you think of my post because the opinions of an ignorant person dont interest me!

and the steyr is spelt>> S-T-E-Y-R ..... NOT >> S-T-Y-R-E

:cool: :cool: :cool:

Captain Chaos

babybundy wrote:

wat kinda bs is that the styre has been used in wars so do we need to get rid of that too

Yeah wtf, if thats the case we need to get rid of our Steyr AUGs, the FN FAL rifles that we had in the 70s and 80s.

Our Mowag APCs.

What about the HK USP pistols, they are in use in Iraq right now as is the P226, our NATO allies are using them in a war and we have the same equipment.

Why is it different for aircraft and not equipment, that makes no sense at all.

Captain Chaos

The US has used B737s indirectly in the war in Iraq, so the AC cannot use these if they want to?

The Dauphin helos were used by the French in wars also. So does this rule apply to planes then and not helos.

I think you must have mis-understud what you were told. Or the person giving that tour was an idiot.

Witcher

I Am Going To Clear This Up Right Now If Anybody Else Links Their Posts Back To Me And Calls Me Stupid U Will Regret It!

I Was Told This Info By Somebody In The Air Corp I Put It On This Page To Highlight The Stupidity Of What I Was Told If You Read All My Post You Would Have Seen That I Say That We Should Take The Aircraft

So Before You Give Your Interesting Opinions Read My First Post And Not Some Body Elses That Calls Me Stupid And You Will See That I Am Just Passing In Info Not Giving My Own Opinion

Even Though The Info May Be Flawed You Cannot Ague It Unless You Are In The Air Corp

MAYBE MY TOUR GUIDE WAS AN IDIOT I DONT KNOW IM JUST PASSING ON INFO SO PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THIS IN YOUR POSTS


ALSO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INCLUDE THIS (AND IM OPEN TO DEBATE ABOUT THIS)

---

IRELAND IS NOT A MEMBER OF NATO

BostonB

I think that was the naked camera tour of baldydonnell.

Captain Chaos

blay1 wrote:

ALSO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INCLUDE THIS (AND IM OPEN TO DEBATE ABOUT THIS)

---

IRELAND IS NOT A MEMBER OF NATO

I do not think we are a part of NATO strictly but I (please correct me if I'm wrong) think we are part of a battle group in the NATO rapid reaction force.

Thats one of the reasons we are getting some better equipment lately.

Witcher

YEA CAPTAIN CHAOS WE ARE JOINING THIS NEW BATTLEGROUP THING

THE RANGERS ARE INVOLVED I THINK MAYBE IM WRONG

juliuspret

Ireland is joining the EU Nordic battlegroup.

Ireland is part of the EU Rapid Reaction force.

Ireland can use any DAMN (non-nuclear)weapon it wants....whether or not the same model has been used in a War or any other bull some people here have posted.

Are most posters in this thread simply armchair generals or 14 year olds???

Captain Chaos

Captain Chaos wrote:

I do not think we are a part of NATO strictly but I (please correct me if I'm wrong) think we are part of a battle group in the NATO rapid reaction force.

Thats one of the reasons we are getting some better equipment lately.

We are not in NATO and are in the EU battlegroups.

juliuspret

blay1 wrote:

HAVE YOU GOT A MENTAL PROBLEM????



I CLEARLY SAID ON THE AIR FORCE THREAD THAT IT WASNT ME THAT SAID IRELAND CANT USE PLANES YOU JUST WROTE YOUR IDIOTIC POST AND DIDNT READ MINE!!

I SAID IT WAS NOT MY OPINION SO READ BEFORE YOU POST NEXT TIME

I dont see the point in sending me a message like above when you could have shared it with everyone else by default!

An idiotic post eh??

Also please stop using Capitals as its difficult to read or have you broken your keyboard with anger?

cushtac

blay1 wrote:

cushtac, we cant use planes that have been used by members of nato in a foreign war i know some of our planes have been used in wars but not by nato members because they can use jet aircraft instead of propellar aircraft such as our pilatus planes

Alouette III - used by France, Denmark, Holland, Portugal & Greece (used in combat by France & Portugal).
Gazelle - used by UK & France, both in combat.
Fouga - variants used by France, Belgium & Germany.
Marchetti - used by Italy, Belgium & Turkey.

Do I have to go on?

It would also be a funny policy that applies to aircraft and not ships & armaments, since the NS got many a second-hand ship from the RN and the Army's been using NATO-standard kit for years.

It's rubbish, plane & simple

Hagar

Blay1 appears to be intent on trolling this Forum.
He obviously hasn't seen the heads on the spikes.
Maybe a closer look at them will help.
Bye.