Should Ireland buy fighter jets?

Zambia

Judt wrote:

How many aircraft have been hijacked and flown into buildings since 9/11, worldwide? How many aircraft have been hijacked, for that matter?

Versus, how many bombs have been set off in the good old fashioned way? If Ireland needs to spend money on defence, as I say, it's down the intelligence end of the market. A Eurofighter can't shoot a suicide bomber on the 0711 train to connolly.

I agree with you the threat is minimal , but lets say a 747 load of something was about to fly over Irish Airspace.

What can Ireland currently send up to force it to go away? Because since the FM where removed in 1998 the answer I have is nothing. I would love to be proved wrong.

Boston

Mick86 wrote:

From your original post. I'm still agog to hear what the ramifications for Britain will be should they fail to defend Ireland. If we fail to provide for our own defence the entire world would just laugh. I cannot see anybody criticising Britain.

They have A) a much better idea of what is going on in our air space then we do, a sophisticated intelligent agencies for predicting attacks like the above, C) currently the means to do what we can't, stop a hijacked plan. People would accuse the brits of allowing it to happen, and they wouldn't be wrong.

Zambia232 wrote:

Yes the navy defend Irish Waters
The army Defend Irish soil
The Air force defend Irish Airspace

If you want to hand the last one over to the UK I dont see why you just dont hand over all military duties to the Uk. In principle its the same thing.

When our armed forces serve a part of Un missions air support is provided by other nations, that doesn't lessen the role we play. Army and Nazy are absolute requirements, Fighter Jets designed specifically for one purpose, are not required and are unlikely to ever actually be used. We have an aircorp btw.

OS119, you make some interesting points, and If I believed that the threat to us was credible, or anything near the same scale at the threat to the UK, I'd definitely agree with what you're suggesting. However I don't believe it is so I'm going with judt.

Zambia

Boston wrote:

They have A) a much better idea of what is going on in our air space then we do, a sophisticated intelligent agencies for predicting attacks like the above, C) currently the means to do what we can't, stop a hijacked plan. People would accuse the brits of allowing it to happen, and they wouldn't be wrong.

I think you will find people will blame the Irish Air corps / Irish Goverment first.

Boston wrote:

When our armed forces serve a part of Un missions air support is provided by other nations, that doesn't lessen the role we play. Army and Nazy are absolute requirements, Fighter Jets designed specifically for one purpose, are not required and are unlikely to ever actually be used. We have an aircorp btw.

I never said there was no Aircorp

I said what can Ireland currently send up to force an 737 to go away? Because since the FM where removed in 1998 the answer I have is nothing. I would love to be proved wrong.

Boston

But what happens when Iranians lunch there WMD against us, what can we do to stop them, panic panic.

but yea, you're critism about no jets = no point in aircorp is about as good as no detroyers = no point in navy

Zambia

Boston wrote:

But what happens when Iranians lunch there WMD against us, what can we do to stop them, panic panic.

but yea, you're critism about no jets = no point in aircorp is about as good as no detroyers = no point in navy

Not being able to defend against a Nuclear warhead is in no way comparable.

I never said there was no piont in an aircorp in fact the Irish air corp performs the duties its equipment allows it to admirably.

I asked a direct question which you just side step.

What can Ireland currently send up to force an 737 to go away?

Mick86

jmayo wrote:

Why oh why do people think that Al Queada have nothing else on their minds but how to attack Ireland (Rep of that is)?........

........Besides what great big symbol of imperialism would the hijacked aircraft be aimed at?
The tallest building is owned by unions I think?

I agree that Ireland is well down along their list of places to attack. Two obvious targets are the US and British embassies. On the Subject of which Kenya and Tanzania probably thought it wouldn't happen to them.

Boston wrote:

They have A) a much better idea of what is going on in our air space then we do, a sophisticated intelligent agencies for predicting attacks like the above, C) currently the means to do what we can't, stop a hijacked plan. People would accuse the brits of allowing it to happen, and they wouldn't be wrong.

Actually people would quite rightly point out that we failed to provide for our own defence and say "Tough sh1t lads, welcome to the real world."

Boston wrote:

But what happens when Iranians lunch there WMD against us, what can we do to stop them, panic panic.

Can't see em nuking Ireland which is poor consolation. How about the iodine pills? They're out of date by now but might still work.

Boston

Zambia232 Theres quiet alot of equipment our armed forces don't have which others do, doesn't stop them using what they have. You're the one suggesting scraping the whole thing.

As for what we can send after a 747 nothing, but I don't think that's a major problem worth the billions it would cost to solve. Do you? Also fighter Jets aren't the solution. If you need to take a plan like that out of the sky, hundreds of people have already been murdered in the terrorist attack. So stop pretending the Fighters jets will prevent or solve the problem, they may potentially limit the damage, that is all.

Mick86 wrote:

Actually people would quite rightly point out that we failed to provide for our own defence and say "Tough sh1t lads, welcome to the real world."

and if help was requested but refused by the brits, or if it emerged that the brits where aware of the situation in advance, what would happen then.

jmayo

First it was protectng us from Al Quiada, now it has become the Iranians.
What about the North Koreans, has anyone thought of them?

Yes the US and British embassies would be possible targets for terrorist attack, but would these embassies be attacked, like those in Kenya and Tanzania, through the use of a car bomb not a 747 or 737 ?

If the USAF, USMC and USN could not prevent 911 then what are we going to do with or without this "necessary" fighter wing, awacs support, and surface to air missiles?

Low tech is what is the threat.
Just look how Israel was unable to prevent rockets from landing on their northern cities. They bombed the cra* out of Lebannon but they still hit back and their anti-missile systems can't hit them.
What fighter or missile will prevent guy with knapsack entering Dublin airport or getting on crowded dart and then going boom?
What will prevent guy with car stuck in traffic jam on Merrion road going boom outside British Embassy ?

OS119

Boston wrote:

if help was requested but refused by the brits, or if it emerged that the brits where aware of the situation in advance, what would happen then.

its exceedingly unlikely that we'd either refuse to help, or indeed
that we wouldn't pass on intelligence we had of an impending attack - intelligence on current threats passes between European capitals in vast quantities every day. what is likely, without a formal defence agreement, is that your request and our response would be time consuming and unco-ordinated and our immediately available aircraft might well be on other duties and a long way from where you'd like them to be.

which is very different from refusing to help.

it is unfortunate that the very small niche capability you require is not available to purchase without all the other hi-end capabilities that modern fighter aircraft posess and which drives up the price inexorably. your options are:

1. to go with the odds and live with the possibility in the knowledge that you're saving a fortune but that if it does happen you'll be utterly fcuked and the subsequent domestic political outcry will not only bring down the government, but catastrophicly damage all the political parties that consented to the decision not to have an AD force.

2. you could have a formal defence agreement with the UK where you make a financial contribution and the RAF ensures that it has fighter assets available and in a position to intervene should their be an incident in Irish airspace - this obviously has political ramifications for what passes for 'neutrality' and the 'love-hate' relationship many Irish people have with the UK.

3. you could buy your own capability, which is expensive in the extreme, but gives you full control.

take your choice...

Steyr

Zambia232 wrote:

Because since the FM where removed in 1998 the answer I have is nothing. I would love to be proved wrong.

The Fouga CM170 "Super" Magisters were considered "Underpowered" so were never capable of an Intercept anyway, unless it was a light Aircraft.

If we were to go down the orad of a Jet type Aircraft id opt to let the RAF do the CAP and id invest in some A-10's for at home and abroad, perfect Aircraft for us i reckon.

jmayo

Steyr now says we should have A-10s for use at home and abroad?
So who are we going to war with ?
Are we planning on having armoured battles in the midlands with A-10s engaging Pakastani MBT2000s, Ukrangian T72s or maybe a few German Leopard tanks?
Please don't trot out the usual bull about having an air wing to protect our UN ground troops, it almost as laughable as us having a tank division to call upon when our ground division is under fire as we take on another Janjaweed attack in the Sudan.
What freakin planet do the posters on this board live on or what are they smokin?
We should have a highly mobile ground troops adequately provisioned with both heavy life and medium lift helicopters backed up with possibly some attack helicopters.
Also we should put more money and resources into intelligence as to what is going on within Ireland and who exactly transits our shores.

OS119

Steyr wrote:

If we were to go down the orad of a Jet type Aircraft id opt to let the RAF do the CAP and id invest in some A-10's for at home and abroad, perfect Aircraft for us i reckon.

buying F-16C/D's would give you the same (ish) capability as A-10's but they would do the AD role as well. waste of money, as well as being slightly difficult as they are no longer being built and the USAF ain't selling...

follow Jmayo's advice, a moblie infantry force - though you do need more/better armour - and lots of heavy/medium lift choppers and an MRV/LPD to move it around on.

sort out a defence agreement with the UK to provide AD, you may even get it for free if you were to become more engaged in EU/NATO peacekeeping ops and thus taking some of the strain from the UK.

BostonB

There isn't a credible air threat in Iraq or Afganistan never mind Irish air space. Even with the most advanced military system in the world, and a massive budget the US couldn't defend itself against a hijacked airliners. What sense does it make to defend against a very low threat in the least effective way using a budget a fraction the size. The UK doesn't see air threats from our airspace as a priority just the keyboard jockeys and armchair generals.

The next attacks are likely to be from some other direction. Look at the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) and how it was unable to defend it self.

http://www.scramble.nl/lk.htm
http://www.airforce.lk/org/photon.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6496381.stm
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010903_1_n.shtml

Maskhadov

any jet that is purchased should be a new one eg the eurofighter and in sufficent quanities like 60. A10s and F16s are a non runner.

BostonB

Maskhadov wrote:

any jet that is purchased should be a new one eg the eurofighter and in sufficent quanities like 60. A10s and F16s are a non runner.

So about the same number as Saudi Arabia or Spain. Makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

Maskhadov

Spain is almost a 3rd world country and purchased 80. The Saudis bought 70. 60 is a good number and would come in around €2.5bn without extras




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

BostonB

Maskhadov wrote:

Spain is almost a 3rd world country and purchased 80. The Saudis bought 70. 60 is a good number and would come in around €2.5bn without extras

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

You know when I'm on public transport in Ireland I never think, this is so much better than Spain. Why is that? Spain also has an Aircraft Carrier, guess we'll need one of them too. :rolleyes:

OS119

Maskhadov wrote:

Spain is almost a 3rd world country and purchased 80. The Saudis bought 70. 60 is a good number and would come in around €2.5bn without extras




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

if you think you can get 60 Typhoons for 2.5billion Euros then you're smoking crack. seeing as you don't have either the infrastructure or personnel - or skills base - to operate, fly and maintain 60 4.5 generation fighters then the option of a 'without extras' buy doesn't exist.

how did you arrive at 60 airframes, what roles to do want them to undertake, how long do you want them to last - how much force do you want to be able to apply in any given situation?

Spain isn't a third world country, its also been in the EFA project since the begining hence the price it paid.

Vorsprung

Maskhadov wrote:

Spain is almost a 3rd world country blah blah blah

Spain are part of the consortium that built the Eurofighter for ****s sake, how the hell did you come to that conclusion

Zambia

60 Typhoons ???

A-10 Tankbusters ?? (Even through i think that was a joke)

Lads I reckon a few hawks (10) fitted with Air to air capability would do the job and there not that expensive.

At least there would be something as opposed to nothing.

Judt

Maskhadov, are you just posting to wind people up? 60 Eurofighters? What are we expecting, to come under attack from 120 hijacked 747's?

As I say, intelligence and security services are what need the money to counter threats such as we face. It's the guy with a backpack full of explosives that worries me, not some fancy story about a hijacked 747 aimed at government buildings. That's just tripe for the Walters who want us to have jet fighters. It's a national willie size competition, at the end of the day.

I asked above, and I'll ask again. How many aircraft, in total, have been hijacked since 9/11? Of those, how many have been flown into things? Heck, how many aircraft have accidentally flown into buildings?

Now, how many traditional bombings that a Eurofighter could no longer stop as fly to the moon and back?

Mick86

Boston wrote:

and if help was requested but refused by the brits, or if it emerged that the brits where aware of the situation in advance, what would happen then.

You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept that Britain owes us nothing. We don't have any mutual defence treaties with the UK. If Britain choses not to defend Ireland or even warn us of an impending attack who do you think will criticise that action in any meaningful way. We have chosen to cloak ourselves in neutrality since WW2. That means we are on our own. The Irish government would not lift a finger to help defend Britain, a sizeable portion of the population would actually cheer on Britain's enemies. Anyone that the British would take any notice of i.e. the Americans are not going to criticise their one and only ally for refusing to help bad neighbours.

Mick86

OS119 wrote:

its exceedingly unlikely that we'd either refuse to help, or indeed that we wouldn't pass on intelligence we had of an impending attack - ...

I agree. But the bottom line is that Britain has no obligation towards this country. People like Boston seem to believe that we have some kind of right to such defence.

OS119 wrote:

2. you could have a formal defence agreement with the UK where you make a financial contribution and the RAF ensures that it has fighter assets available and in a position to intervene should their be an incident in Irish airspace - this obviously has political ramifications for what passes for 'neutrality' and the 'love-hate' relationship many Irish people have with the UK....

Jaze we couldn't even put our troops into an EU battlegroup with the dastardly Brits, we had to send them to Sweden.:rolleyes:

OS119 wrote:

you could buy your own capability, which is expensive in the extreme, but gives you full control.

take your choice...

That's the ticket if there was a potential threat that could be averted by air power. As a few people have noted, such a threat is unlikely.

BostonB

Mick86 wrote:

You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept that Britain owes us nothing. We don't have any mutual defence treaties with the UK. If Britain choses not to defend Ireland or even warn us of an impending attack who do you think will criticise that action in any meaningful way. We have chosen to cloak ourselves in neutrality since WW2. That means we are on our own. The Irish government would not lift a finger to help defend Britain, a sizeable portion of the population would actually cheer on Britain's enemies. Anyone that the British would take any notice of i.e. the Americans are not going to criticise their one and only ally for refusing to help bad neighbours.

Thats a bit like Monty Python. 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'

jmayo

Maskhadov does your mammy and daddy know you post on here with us adults ?

BTW Spain is far from third world country but I guess you have not covered that in your Junior cert geography yet.

Boston

Mick86 wrote:

You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept that Britain owes us nothing.

You seem to have a problem grasping the English language, go back and read my post where I make a point of saying they owe us nothing. Won't stop them being blamed, especially not here.

We don't have any mutual defence treaties with the UK.

Really? I'd already gathered and acknowledged that.

If Britain chooses not to defend Ireland or even warn us of an impending attack who do you think will criticise that action in any meaningful way.

Just about every body. The brits would be accused of allowing it to happen in an effort to bring us into a war of terrorism, politicians will look for a scape goat ect ect ect. It's naive to think the brits wouldn't be blamed.

The Irish government would not lift a finger to help defend Britain, a sizeable portion of the population would actually cheer on Britain's enemies.

That's simply a lie on both points.

Anyone that the British would take any notice of i.e. the Americans are not going to criticise their one and only ally for refusing to help bad neighbours.

The brits take notice of a lot of people, they obey only one master though. there's a difference.

That's the ticket if there was a potential threat that could be averted by air power. As a few people have noted, such a threat is unlikely.

Listen mate, shooting down an 747 packed with people is not averting/stopping/preventing a terrorist attack, it is merely limiting one.

OS119

Boston wrote:

The brits would be accused of allowing it to happen in an effort to bring us into a war of terrorism, politicians will look for a scape goat ect ect ect. It's naive to think the brits wouldn't be blamed.

the Brits would only be blamed by those people looking for a scapegoat that didn't include them, i'm quite sure that lots of Irish people would blame the Brits for not buying another country an air force or an intelligence service, however i'm equally sure that no one outside la-la land is going to give a flying fcuk about the 'its everyones fault but ours' wailing and just blame the government of a soveriegn state that failed in its most fundamental duty to even attempt to defend its citizens.

its naive to think the Brits won't just tell you to 'fcuk off and grow up'.

what you decide to do about whatever grade of threat you consider AD to be is your decision - and the consequences for that decision are yours alone.

Boston

OS119 wrote:

the Brits would only be blamed by those people looking for a scapegoat that didn't include them, i'm quite sure that lots of Irish people would blame the Brits for not buying another country an air force or an intelligence service, however i'm equally sure that no one outside la-la land is going to give a flying fcuk about the 'its everyones fault but ours' wailing and just blame the government of a soveriegn state that failed in its most fundamental duty to even attempt to defend its citizens.

I'll put it this way to you, a lot of people blamed, and still blame, british intelligents services for allowing the dublin and monaghan bombings to happen. Now with out getting into the rights or wrong of that view, its true that alot of people held it.

its naive to think the Brits won't just tell you to 'fcuk off and grow up'.

what you decide to do about whatever grade of threat you consider AD to be is your decision - and the consequences for that decision are yours alone.

While its out decision, you can be naive to think that what happens in ireland can't affect the brits. There might as well be no border between the Uk and the republic for all the good it does.

Steyr

Zambia232 wrote:

60 Typhoons ???

A-10 Tankbusters ?? (Even through i think that was a joke)

Lads I reckon a few hawks (10) fitted with Air to air capability would do the job and there not that expensive.

At least there would be something as opposed to nothing.

I was serious about the A-10 in support of Irish Troops, read my post i said let the RAF do the AA and we can then go do the AG in Support of Irish Troops, the A-10 is perfect for Army Co-op. I muted the Hawk here before but apparently its not good enough.

Hagar

@ jmayo, No personal attacks, attack the post not the poster.