Should Ireland buy fighter jets?

micdug

Steyr

:d

Capt'n Midnight

micdug wrote:

How about sticking a hugh f***ing laser onto a Aerlingus 747?

:rolleyes:
or maybe we should use weapons that actually work

We've a small country - ground based lasers could do just as well.

But for a one off investment we could have "rods from God" launch a satellite full of titanium bars. after 200 miles of free fall they would be traveling quite fast indeed and would go through any armour. the only people with the technology to shoot down satellites have more than enough firepower to take us out anyway.

Actually if the threat is airliners then a very very high power light - enough to blind the pilot is all you need.

If the threat is domestic then we are looking at helicopters.

We don't have the resources to deploy a squadron of aircraft abroad with maintainance crew and airfield defense and aren't ever likely to.

micdug

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

:rolleyes:
or maybe we should use weapons that actually work

We've a small country - ground based lasers could do just as well.

But for a one off investment we could have "rods from God" launch a satellite full of titanium bars. after 200 miles of free fall they would be traveling quite fast indeed and would go through any armour. the only people with the technology to shoot down satellites have more than enough firepower to take us out anyway.

Actually if the threat is airliners then a very very high power light - enough to blind the pilot is all you need.

If the threat is domestic then we are looking at helicopters.

We don't have the resources to deploy a squadron of aircraft abroad with maintainance crew and airfield defense and aren't ever likely to.

Who cares about weapons that work. As per my retouched photo, we could attach the BFL (big f***ing Laser) to the front of a Aer Lingus 747, which we could use as shuttle between Dublin and Navan while they argue about the motorway. Team/Parc whatever could maintain it. The only issue would be preventing unauthorised use against Ryanair flights...:p
I do like the sat option though. Maybe we could team up with Setanta sports to launch it. Commercially sponsered weapons are the future:cool:

OS119

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Actually if the threat is airliners then a very very high power light - enough to blind the pilot is all you need.

If the threat is domestic then we are looking at helicopters.

We don't have the resources to deploy a squadron of aircraft abroad with maintainance crew and airfield defense and aren't ever likely to.

where, pray, is said airliner going to go once its crew - bearded or not - have been blinded?

not sure WTF the helicopters have got to do with anything - or how a domestic threat is by deffinition a lower speed one than an external threat.

your GDP is $126 BillionUS, your government spending is $62BillionUS. i'm not sure what kind of school you went to that taught you that you can't get $4BillionUS capital spend (35 operational F-16C/D's and 15 replacements, training for 70 pilots and ground-crew training and spare parts, spread over four years) and $500-600MillionUS annual spend out of $62billionUS, but i hope to fcuk you don't send your kids there.

E2A: the 35 airframe fleet would give you a 3 aircraft QRA, available 24/365 indefinately, a detachment of 6 - 8 aircraft available 24/365 indefinately and 6-8 aircraft available for pilot training indefinately. should you need to you could surge the number on the op detachment to 12 - 14 for a short time, but would cut into pilot training and you'd need to re-schedule deep maintainance, but everyone manages it so no reason why you couldn't.

you can afford it, you choose not to.

Boston

OS119 wrote:

you can afford it, you choose not to.

Not without cutting back on other things, which in all likely hood would put irish life's at risk. The health service here is in a bad way, as are the roads. Hundreds die on our roads every year, way more then should be for or size. Also that type of expenditure would be better placed in the army or navy who, unlike the air corp, are not only likely to see action, but regularly do.

So yea, while we can financially afford it, the social cost would be too high

Capt'n Midnight

OS119 wrote:

where, pray, is said airliner going to go once its crew - bearded or not - have been blinded?

same place it would go however you tried to intercept it

not sure WTF the helicopters have got to do with anything - or how a domestic threat is by deffinition a lower speed one than an external threat.

domestic = IRA type armed conflict or slightly worse

$4BillionUS capital spend (35 operational F-16C/D's and 15 replacements, training for 70 pilots and ground-crew training and spare parts, spread over four years) and $500-600MillionUS annual spend

35 planes = 2 or 3 squadrons. No point in deploying them as smaller units abroad so I can't easily see our Gov't sending 1.5Bn of hardware to some trouble spot on a regular basis.

Where did the figures come from as they sound optimistic.
Don't forget that we have a terrible record when it comes to value for money on government jets ( think of doubling the advertised price )

Our gov't has an even worse record when it comes to capital spending , they would probably try to do the deal on credit from the aircraft manufacturer and get just as good a deal as they have on any of the toll roads

micdug

OS119 wrote:

you can afford it, you choose not to.

We can afford lots of things. we choose not to buy them because we Prioritise what we spend. It's called Budgeting. Every school child learns about it. I'd hate to know what school you went to.:cool:

OS119

micdug wrote:

We can afford lots of things. we choose not to buy them because we Prioritise what we spend. It's called Budgeting. Every school child learns about it. I'd hate to know what school you went to.:cool:

prioritising means deciding which course you wish to take out of several available possibilities based on which will achieve your most important objectives.

the process of prioritizing doesn't include considering options that don't exist. ergo if you actually couldn't afford it then it wouldn't be an option and therefore wouldn't get in the same room as the the various possibles in order to be prioritized, but you can afford it in actual terms, you just make a decision that the other things you'd have to cut in order to make the purchase are more important.

thats not the same as not being able to - as you initially suggested.

i am unable to afford - physically - a £300,000 Ferrari, because i don't have either £300k in cash or £300k's worth of assets to sell. i can afford a £100,000 Porshe because i do have £100k's worth of cash or assets to sell - or i could radicly change my lifestyle and save up and then buy the Porshe in a few years, however i choose not to as in order to purchace said Porshe either i'd have to eat baked beans for the next five years or i'd have to sell my house, and having a nice house and a nice lifestyle is a higher priority than having a £100k penis substitute.

i prioritize between the porshe and the house/lifestyle, but the Ferrari doesn't get on the 'what shall i do' list because it is simply unafordable - as well as being very 'footballers' wives'...

hence the difference between 'can't' and 'won't'.

pedantic possibly, but such distinctions are important.

Zambia

Lads why where the Feugo thingys brought in the first place if there was no need for jets ??

Capt'n Midnight

Zambia232 wrote:

Lads why where the Feugo thingys brought in the first place if there was no need for jets ??

to train pilots for Aer Lingus

they also have an air to ground capability so if the natives get restless they can be quitened , as long as they don't have any SAM's

BostonB

OS119 wrote:

prioritising means deciding which course you wish to take out of several available possibilities based on which will achieve your most important objectives....

i prioritize between the porshe and the house/lifestyle, but the Ferrari doesn't get on the 'what shall i do' list because it is simply unafordable - as well as being very 'footballers' wives'...

hence the difference between 'can't' and 'won't'.

pedantic possibly, but such distinctions are important.

The issue isn't just money as many very poor nations spend vast fortunes on arms to fight wars while their population starves. There are other considerations political and social. Air defence is also poor value for money. What intentional air attacks have there been on Ireland in the history of the State?

muletide

There was a number of bombings during WW2 in Dublin and the Curragh amongst other places. Granted they may have been mistakes by German bombers but they where air attacks all the same.

Intentional does not really come into it when someone is dropping bombs on your capital

aequinoctium

it's often you hear the politicians in the dáil saying "if only we had bought those fighter jets"

BostonB

Hence my use of the word "intentional"

Steyr

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

to train pilots for Aer Lingus

Literally.:eek: The IAC looked at numerous types to replace them including the Alpha Jet but picked the PC9M as they noted that other Air Forces/Arms were looking to Modern Advanced Turboprops for their Trainer needs as opposed to having Jet Trainers, hence the term "Jet Like Handling/Capability"

Zambia

Steyr wrote:

Literally.:eek: The IAC looked at numerous types to replace them including the Alpha Jet but picked the PC9M as they noted that other Air Forces/Arms were looking to Modern Advanced Turboprops for their Trainer needs as opposed to having Jet Trainers, hence the term "Jet Like Handling/Capability"

Ok so Ireland have a fleet of jet trainers now but no jets ??

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

I see where your coming from but so far Ryanair is better set to defend Ireland against jet engined intrusion than the Irish Aircorp.

A slight exagerration but I see your point. The thing is what is the likelihood of jet engined intrusion? Balanced against the certainty that there are terrorists on teh ground in Ireland isn't it more important to channel resources into combatting that.

Boston wrote:

Who carried out the london bombings, and the other attempted attacks? Where the foreigners. Also did you miss all the marchs and demostrations and the massive political losses by the labour part? Did you miss blair resigning announcement, largle over Iraq?

Those are all the result of Britain TAKING action not failing to take action. They are also internal problems, not one was caused by outsiders to punish Britain for ignoring their disapproval. Nice try though. Blair incidentally did not resign over Iraq, why should he, since he was returned to government in
2005. If the British electorate was so excited about Iraq he would have lost the election then.

Mick86

Boston wrote:

Again who said that? Britians economy is at the moment in the worst shape its been in for the last decade, largely down to the cost of the war. ......

So you don't consider all the service men who have died as lost lifes? Or those civilians killed by terrorist?

You said that. Must I remind you that you were asked to list the cost to Britain of ignoring it's neighbours disapproval of it's failing to leap to our defence. You then listed the cost to Britain of going to war in Iraq. Not one of the things you mentioned was caused by the countries at whom Britain thumbed her nose.

In fact all those things you listed could be used by Britain as justifications for not assisting another country.

Boston

Mick86 wrote:

Those are all the result of Britain TAKING action not failing to take action. They are also internal problems, not one was caused by outsiders to punish Britain for ignoring their disapproval.

You tried very hard to twist my words into something else. Brits ignored the advise of their allies and went to war, the consequences are plan to see. Cause and effect mate. The french or germans may not have carried out that attacks, but thats irrelavent to the fact that by ignoring them, the brits payed a high social, financial and political cost.

Blair incidentally did not resign over Iraq, why should he, since he was returned to government in
2005. If the British electorate was so excited about Iraq he would have lost the election then.

Maybe you should have listened to his speech, he didn't out and directly say it, but it's clear that the reason he's going is iraq, and most political analysis's agree.

Capt'n Midnight

Zambia232 wrote:

Ok so Ireland have a fleet of jet trainers now but no jets ??

That's a change from before where we the only jets we had were jet trainers. :rolleyes:

muletide wrote:

There was a number of bombings during WW2 in Dublin and the Curragh amongst other places. Granted they may have been mistakes by German bombers but they where air attacks all the same.

Intentional does not really come into it when someone is dropping bombs on your capital

Actually the only time we had modern fighter aircraft capable of intercepting modern bombers was during WWII when we impounded some spitfires.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Lads why where the Feugo thingys brought in the first place if there was no need for jets ??

They were used to train pilots AFAIK.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

they also have an air to ground capability so if the natives get restless they can be quitened , as long as they don't have any SAM's

Not sure about that. If they were ever armed it wasn't up to much. Anyway the PC9 can be armed. A Mail on Sunday journo had kittens over that fact lately.

Maybe wecould get the Vampires back in action. They were real jets.:D

aequinoctium wrote:

it's often you hear the politicians in the dáil saying "if only we had bought those fighter jets"

Maybe it will be a Fianna Fáil commitment in 2012.:D

Steyr wrote:

Literally.:eek: The IAC looked at numerous types to replace them including the Alpha Jet but picked the PC9M as they noted that other Air Forces/Arms were looking to Modern Advanced Turboprops for their Trainer needs as opposed to having Jet Trainers, hence the term "Jet Like Handling/Capability"

Zambia232 wrote:

Ok so Ireland have a fleet of jet trainers now but no jets ??

It's been a hallmark of the Irish theory on Defence for years that we can train soldiers on CVR(T)s and mingy jets. Then when we need the real thing someone will provide and the people will be ready-trained. It's a fantastic plan which only falls down in one aspect. It's complete bollocks.

Mick86

Boston wrote:

You tried very hard to twist my words into something else. Brits ignored the advise of their allies and went to war, the consequences are plan to see. Cause and effect mate. The french or germans may not have carried out that attacks, but thats irrelavent to the fact that by ignoring them, the brits payed a high social, financial and political cost.

Maybe you should have listened to his speech, he didn't out and directly say it, but it's clear that the reason he's going is iraq, and most political analysis's agree.

No my friend, you obviously cannot back up your argument so now you are trying to miove the goalposts. Better luck next time.:D

Boston

you said

the punishment for ignoring that disapproval was nothing.

I said

Massive civil unrest
Massive Financial Cost
Massive Political Cost (looked at labour recently)
Significant loss of life
Strained relationship with neighbours and weakened position in the EU
Left themselves open to reprisal attacks.
The list goes on and on

Now you oviously had in mind to say, "the punishment, as directly caused by germany and france, for ignoring that disapproval was nothing" but you didn't say that. I pointed out a cause and affect relationship, they ignored france and germany and have definitely paid a heavy price, something you don't deny. No EU goverment would deliberately seak to damage their relationship with another, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be damaged.

You loose. Next time be more specific with your general sweeping statements :rolleyes:

OS119

sorry mate, i'd take the other fella's side.

the penalty for going to Iraq has been enormous, the penalty for going to Iraq in direct opposition to the wishes of France and Germany has been SFA.

semantic difference certainly, but still important.

Boston

Hmm, sematic difference percisely.

Mick86

OS119 wrote:

sorry mate, i'd take the other fella's side.

the penalty for going to Iraq has been enormous, the penalty for going to Iraq in direct opposition to the wishes of France and Germany has been SFA.

semantic difference certainly, but still important.

Boston wrote:

Hmm, sematic difference percisely.

Absolutely nothing semantic about it. Boston, your head is up your own behind on this matter. No offence.

BostonB

Mick86 wrote:

...It's been a hallmark of the Irish theory on Defence for years that we can train soldiers on CVR(T)s and mingy jets. Then when we need the real thing someone will provide and the people will be ready-trained. It's a fantastic plan which only falls down in one aspect. It's complete bollocks.

This whole thread is complete bollocks. Theres no obvious AIR threat we need the latest fighters for.

Capt'n Midnight

BostonB wrote:

This whole thread is complete bollocks. Theres no obvious AIR threat we need the latest fighters for.

Absoutely agree.
1950's vintage Saab Drakens would do nicely, and we could have bought then from Austria two years ago and we wouldn't even need to build airfields for them.

Maskhadov

buying second hand stuff is useless. it only lasts a while and can only act as a short term solution.