Should Ireland buy fighter jets?

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=BostonB]What does it say? I have no idea. They are planning WW3?

Yes they have been planning for such wars a long time.
Rule of ten, Ten days in shelter unless another bomb is detonated.Ten foot of earth,concrete,as a safe shelter,ten minutes to get under cover after the cloud goes up.Anything to do with the nuke bomb use the rule of ten.

I didn't realise Ireland was part of the UK Air defence system.

Now you are somwhat smarter to the fact aint you???And it is Europe not just the UK. Not that it is active anymore,so dont worry the Big bad Yanks aint going to attack you .

If it was Vital why don't the Combatant aircraft use Shannon? If they don't use it it must because its not vital. They only use Shannon because the Irish Govt allows them to use it. Its very handy.

Simple,there are no USAF combat aircraft worth mentioning in Europe anymore.Most of what passes thru Shannon are troop carriers in civvie or diplomatic aircraft.Now unless you are going to go the Anti American crustie route and claim transport aircraft are "combat" aircraft.Well then combat aircraft are using Shannon.Your point is satisfied.Plus combat aircraft had their own designated fighter bases.You dont want to try scrambling interceptors with a bunch of heavies sitting on the runway.

If Ireland is "we" I didn't realise Ireland had any escort carriers in WWII or indeed ever.

Strawman arguement.

Everyone here knows Irish Neutrality is in name only. Why you keep banging a drum about it I have no idea. That doesn't mean its not a political issue. Perception is

I dont, you do.Perception is if you require a viable defence force if you want to be neutral.Not rely on outside influences to defend your country if somthing happens.

So you think we should have a "token" air force? or is it just a viable one. Whats a Viable one for defence against backfires then? Since you are fond of it. Or WW3 for that matter?

Another Strawman:( Taking everything out of context.Yes we should have a viable airforce,concentrating on SAR and a minimum capability at interdiction of jet aircraft.With secondary role of ground attack,and easy maintenance and rough field landing capability.

Boston
I wont even bother answering your strawman arguement.Yes Switzerland is geographically different,yada,yada,yada. So is Ireland,and more stratgeically important.Advanced notice..Unless you fail to notice a world going to ****e,it would be pretty obvious when to go.But then I guess I,the Swiss,the Russians the US,the UK are all thick on suggesting that people should consider building fallout shelters or prepardness rooms into their existing or new buildings????You obviously know this somthing we dont .....

Boston

Talking to you would give me a head ache.

Clare gunner

Boston wrote:

Talking to you would give me a head ache.

Then dont bother.

therecklessone

Clare gunner wrote:

And that explains why they are ungarded for the rest of the time then?
Why would crazies etc attack them if somthing sensitive was happening?Be abit kamakazie if you ask me.When you can blow them up any old time like the INLA did??

I second the motion forwarded by the Rt Hon Boston.

Boston

Motion carried.

Clare gunner

Never argue with idiots.They drag you down to their level and then beat you by experiance!:(
Debate closed then!

therecklessone

Clare gunner wrote:

Never argue with idiots.They drag you down to their level and then beat you by experiance!:(

Why do you think I dropped out earlier?

BostonB

Clare gunner wrote:

Yes they have been planning for such wars a long time.
Rule of ten, Ten days in shelter unless another bomb is detonated.Ten foot of earth,concrete,as a safe shelter,ten minutes to get under cover after the cloud goes up.Anything to do with the nuke bomb use the rule of ten.

Ah so Ireland needs nuclear shelters and a beefed up armed forces against the Russian threat.

Clare gunner wrote:

Now you are somwhat smarter to the fact aint you???And it is Europe not just the UK. Not that it is active anymore,so dont worry the Big bad Yanks aint going to attack you .

Well no. Its either active and part of the UK defence, or it isn't active and/or it isn't part of the UK defence. You can't seem to make up your mind. I thought the reason was defence against backfires now its the Yanks. Is everyone a threat?

Clare gunner wrote:

Simple,there are no USAF combat aircraft worth mentioning in Europe anymore.Most of what passes thru Shannon are troop carriers in civvie or diplomatic aircraft.Now unless you are going to go the Anti American crustie route and claim transport aircraft are "combat" aircraft.Well then combat aircraft are using Shannon.Your point is satisfied.Plus combat aircraft had their own designated fighter bases.You dont want to try scrambling interceptors with a bunch of heavies sitting on the runway.

The point is if Shannon and thus Ireland is vital, then vital combat aircraft would use it and they don't. They take a different route. Therefore Shannon and Ireland is not a vital. The US cycles aircraft and aircrew from the US to theatre all the time. They don't come though Shannon.

Why would fighters need to scrramble when transiting? What threat are they scambling for? Backfires attacking Ireland. Or anti war protesters with a axe? Do they have anti crustie missiles?

Clare gunner wrote:

I dont, you do.Perception is if you require a viable defence force if you want to be neutral.Not rely on outside influences to defend your country if somthing happens.

Its been a huge election issue alright. Not sure how many share your perception. What countries have defended Ireland in the past?

Clare gunner wrote:

Another Strawman:( Taking everything out of context.Yes we should have a viable airforce,concentrating on SAR and a minimum capability at interdiction of jet aircraft.With secondary role of ground attack,and easy maintenance and rough field landing capability.

All this for fighting WW3? and the Russians and Yanks?

Clare gunner wrote:

Boston
I wont even bother answering your strawman arguement.Yes Switzerland is geographically different,yada,yada,yada. So is Ireland,and more stratgeically important.Advanced notice..Unless you fail to notice a world going to ****e,it would be pretty obvious when to go.But then I guess I,the Swiss,the Russians the US,the UK are all thick on suggesting that people should consider building fallout shelters or prepardness rooms into their existing or new buildings????You obviously know this somthing we dont .....

Why is everything in counter to your comments a strawman argument?

DOUGAL: Ted I want out.
TED: What do you mean?
DOUGAL: I went too far too soon. I didn't know what I was gettin' into Ted. I didn't know you had
to follow a good idea with loads more little good ideas. I'm sorry Ted. I'm going to sleep in the spare
room.
TED: Dougal.
DOUGAL: I'm sorry.

http://www.mgnet.karoo.net/FATHER%20TED/fathertedscript1.htm

Clare gunner

Do you know the difference between a figurative arguement ,an example and factual truth???. You seem to have trouble figuring out all three.
Oh and btw read some of the peoples posts here are up on military matters as well.You could learn somthing.[Also try to grow a proper scarcasm gene],Your facetious point about aircraft having to scramble while in transit just shows your total ignorance of military and aircraft matters

Just for an example the reason combat jet aircraft do not use Shannon is[1] they have air to air refueling capability.Transport aircraft do not.Especially civil aircraft transporting troops. [2] transiting combat aircraft are armed as matter of routine,hence they do not land in neutral countries to prevent upsetting anti American crusties.[3] Combat aircraft do not have transatlantic non stop flight capability,so they have to refuel over the Atlantic or in the Azores. .So your "other route"does not hold water.
Also why dont you answer any questions I pose,but go off on a tangent???

BostonB

Clare gunner wrote:

Do you know the difference between a figurative arguement ,an example and factual truth???. You seem to have trouble figuring out all three.

Well its confusing, to we need fighter jets to fight terrorism, backfires, the Russians, or WW3. Or is it to be on a par with France and Germany with their thousands of troops in Afghanistan and our what was it 7 troops? Probably more now. Since In a thread about fighters, Why are we now talking about why we need fallout shelters for WW3?

Did someone mention tangents?

Clare gunner wrote:

Oh and btw read some of the peoples posts here are up on military matters as well.You could learn somthing.[Also try to grow a proper scarcasm gene],Your facetious point about aircraft having to scramble while in transit just shows your total ignorance of military and aircraft matters.

Its true I never knew about Irelands Escort carriers etc.

Clare gunner wrote:

Just for an example the reason combat jet aircraft do not use Shannon is[1] they have air to air refueling capability.Transport aircraft do not.Especially civil aircraft transporting troops. [2] transiting combat aircraft are armed as matter of routine,hence they do not land in neutral countries to prevent upsetting anti American crusties.[3] Combat aircraft do not have transatlantic non stop flight capability,so they have to refuel over the Atlantic or in the
Azores. .So your "other route"does not hold water.....

So Combat aircraft don't use it because they don't need to. They can in-flight refuel. What scrambling and fighter bases have to do with it I have no idea. They don't only transit via fighter bases, but military bases AFAIK. Which may indeed have "heavies" using them.

But many of the US military transport aircraft also have in-flight refuelling. But ok, they probably don't have enough capacity, so fair enough they charter civilian jets. But many civil aircraft transporting troops have the range to overfly Ireland, and use the UK or Europe. Lots of commercial routes it all day long. I don't get your logic, that the US UK bases are full so the logical alternative is Shannon? What about the UK Airports? Why not use them?

They don't need to use Shannon its just handy for them. The Shannon stop is just not vital. I don't really buy the idea Ireland is a vital strategic point. Useful yes, Vital no.

jmayo

OS119 wrote:

1. AQ and its affiliates are aware of Irelands role in A'stan - and, mainly due to the crusties, aware of Irelands role in Iraq (Shannon, blown out of all proportion obviously, but then thats crusties for you...) anyone with a television now understands the political impact of aircraft ploughing into tall buildings.

2. the Chinese have a very long way to go before they get to europe. if they do get here, no one will be remotely interested in Irelands offer on an infantry company as the UK and France will have to use a large number of buckets of instant sunshine to stop the hoardes.

3. i'm not aware of any occasion where any aircraft has ever attempted to intercept a ballistic warhead with a 'conventional' fighter - what with it travelling at mach 30 or so....

4. if you feel its appropriate to join a club, milk it for all its worth, ask others to 'look after' you and then do fcuk all in return...

5. given that there are very few western militaries with half a dozen men to spare, Ireland will be one of the few in a position to do anything of any use. of course if you feel that the Chinese and Russian ambassadors to the UNSC are the most appropriate arbettors of the great moral questions of our age...

intelligence and security agencies would be a very good idea, but they don't allways work, regardless of how much you spend on them.

OS119 the reason for my post was to highlight all the supposed scenarios, used by posters, that warranted Ireland spending ridiculous amounts of money on Air Defence and Air Stirke capabilities.
It was meant to be sarcasm, not an actual list of our probable attackers.
Did I say that Fighters were meant to chase inter-continental Ballistic missiles and shoot them down?

One point I will debate with you is your believe that the UN (UNSC) are the appropriate arbettors of anything at this stage.
The UN (ambassadors, administrators, beurocrats) are a crowd of useless f***wits as has been shown in Lebannon, West Bank/Gaza, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Iraq and the list goes on.
Can anyone spot the difference between the UN and the League of Nations?

It is now an irrelevant talking shop which is a waste of money, pretends to do something, cowtows to major powers and stands by while people die. Why allow vetos from security council members, why not have Darfur labelled as ethnic Cleansing?

Ah that feels much better that I have monring rant out of the way.

Kevster

Why waste money on military when it can be used to good effect in improving infrastructure for poorer nations?

Clare gunner

BostonB wrote:

Well its confusing, to we need fighter jets to fight terrorism, backfires, the Russians, or WW3. Or is it to be on a par with France and Germany with their thousands of troops in Afghanistan and our what was it 7 troops? Probably more now. Since In a thread about fighters, Why are we now talking about why we need fallout shelters for WW3

?

Only reason it is confusing because you make it so...If you cant discern between historic examples and current matters or just want to willingly convolute the issue,only yourself to blame.




Its true I never knew about Irelands Escort carriers etc.
Sigh...Argueing with you is like trying to shovel mercury with a fork.
You know there werent any but just choose to take astatement and build a myth around it.Stop making a fool of yourself.

So Combat aircraft don't use it because they don't need to. They can in-flight refuel. What scrambling and fighter bases have to do with it I have no idea. They don't only transit via fighter bases, but military bases AFAIK. Which may indeed have "heavies" using them.

Yet again showing your ignorance of matters military.A military base is where you keep troops,tanks ,logistics etc,depending on what unit is based there.A fighter base is a AIR FORCE area,a compleatly different branch of a military service. Hence the reason they are called Airforce Fighter Base [AFB in the USAF]

But many of the US military transport aircraft also have in-flight refuelling.

Name us one that comes with this equipment as standard!

But ok, they probably don't have enough capacity, so fair enough they charter civilian jets. But many civil aircraft transporting troops have the range to overfly Ireland, and use the UK or Europe. Lots of commercial routes it all day long. I don't get your logic, that the US UK bases are full so the logical alternative is Shannon? What about the UK Airports? Why not use them?

Why you keep on about Shannon??You an anti war activist??
I
t's not my logic BTW it's Berties,when he signed us up for the war on terror.Yes, there is ASFIK left in the UK RAF Lakenheath and in Germany Weisbaden/Frankfurt.Take a flight to Frankfurt Main airport,you will see Weisbaden AFB.It is stuffed to capacity with transporters,so assume Lakenheath is in the same position.Plus ,get over the idea that Shannon has a dozen US military flights coming in every hour.If it has three a day including US diplomatic aircraft that would be busy.

Reason they do not use UK civvie airports,is your "passengers"are in uniform,and it would make a nice target in a thousand plus civvie airport for AQ and co.Shannon isnt exactly heathrow,plus turn around time in a busy civvie airport is horrendous.Nor can you land aircraft in "civillian" markings on a military base,[except in dire inflight emergencies.] It is a violation of intl air law.

They don't need to use Shannon its just handy for them.

For what??For the troops to buy Aran sweaters and overpriced Guiness?:rolleyes:

The Shannon stop is just not vital. I don't really buy the idea Ireland is a vital strategic point. Useful yes, Vital no.

So going by your logic,if it is not vital or important why then are they using it???I'm sure Uncle Sam could save himself a few million by not coming near the place?.

Clare gunner

One point I will debate with you is your believe that the UN (UNSC) are the appropriate arbettors of anything at this stage.
The UN (ambassadors, administrators, beurocrats) are a crowd of useless f***wits as has been shown in Lebannon, West Bank/Gaza, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Iraq and the list goes on.
Can anyone spot the difference between the UN and the League of Nations?

It is now an irrelevant talking shop which is a waste of money, pretends to do something, cowtows to major powers and stands by while people die. Why allow vetos from security council members, why not have Darfur labelled as ethnic Cleansing?

Ah that feels much better that I have monring rant out of the way.[/

AMEN!!! TO THAT!!:D And worse of all is I feel disgusted the way the Irish especially that former president Mary "red cow"[as described by Dermott Morgan] Robinson still kisses the UN's ass at every opportunity.Oh wait she gets paid by that organisation to stick her nose in everywhere!Not surprised then:mad:

Boston

jmayo wrote:

OS119 the reason for my post was to highlight all the supposed scenarios, used by posters, that warranted Ireland spending ridiculous amounts of money on Air Defence and Air Stirke capabilities.
It was meant to be sarcasm, not an actual list of our probable attackers.
Did I say that Fighters were meant to chase inter-continental Ballistic missiles and shoot them down?

One point I will debate with you is your believe that the UN (UNSC) are the appropriate arbettors of anything at this stage.
The UN (ambassadors, administrators, beurocrats) are a crowd of useless f***wits as has been shown in Lebannon, West Bank/Gaza, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Iraq and the list goes on.
Can anyone spot the difference between the UN and the League of Nations?

It is now an irrelevant talking shop which is a waste of money, pretends to do something, cowtows to major powers and stands by while people die. Why allow vetos from security council members, why not have Darfur labelled as ethnic Cleansing?

Ah that feels much better that I have monring rant out of the way.

Whats the alternative to the UN? NATO?

OS119

Boston wrote:

Whats the alternative to the UN? NATO?

perhaps just doing what you think is right, rather than transfering the responsibility for making that decision on to others.

i entirely agree with JMayo the UN, though a great idea, has become nothing but a joke - to have Zimbabwe on the Sustainable Economics commitee, and Syria on the Human Rights commitee is to piss on the very definitions of those terms.

ditch the triple-lock for the 'double-lock' so you get to decide what you want to do with your conscience, and then, should you wish to bring your defence spending upto 2.5 - 3.0% of GDP - 3 to 4 billion Euro - after 5 or 6 years of sustained spending at that level Ireland could, pretty much by itself, do something serious about a Darfur-type situation.

jmayo

Boston wrote:

Whats the alternative to the UN? NATO?

For a start the Security Council is a joke.
If any one of the permanent members vetos, then it does not matter what else happens you are snookered.
Thus China will veto anything that goes against Sudan, USA will veto anything that goes against Israel, etc, etc.

Even if all Security Council members were to agree on something you have to acknowledge the fact that countries, particularly the more powerful western or developed countries, are only willling to get involved in a conflict if there is something to be gained.

One reason for this, is no government is willing to sacrifice it's soldiers fighting in a far off war or protecting a bunch of people in another far off country.
The government is willing to commit it's troops if there is something to be gained e.g oil or natural resources.

It is not alone governments that are to blame for this, but also the ordinary people because they do not see why their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters should be sent to die for some far off cause.

For example is there anybody clammering to stop the genocide in Darfur?
No.
And here are a couple of reasons why.
Firstly, they are a bunch of people in Africa, they are not European.
They rank lower on our scale. 3,000 odd people die in USA on 9/11 there is public outcry. How many people have died in Iraq since the invasion? How many have died in Darfur, how many women are gang raped on a nightly basis in Darfur?
Second, there is no advantage for Western European/US governments to get involved. What can they gain out of it?

What did UN troops do in Rwanda, the UN/aka the International community sent in UNAMIR which was understaffed and underpowered. It was token mission. Let's be seen to be doing something and then when it gets hot, get the westerners out of there.

What did the international community do?
They sat by, evacuated the westerners, spouted garbage how awful it was and then proceeded to lecture the Tutsis how they should deal with the perpetatrors of the genocide of 1,000,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, when they took control of the country.

After WWII it was said it would never happen again.
Well look at Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur.

NATO is not the answer. Remember NATO was set up to counteract the Soviet Union and it's satelites.
What do the members care about?
Just their own national interests, that's what.
They may make noises but when push comes to shove will they commit ground troops?

Clare gunner

They may make noises but when push comes to shove will they commit ground troops?

Kosovo??Afghanistan??

jmayo

Clare gunner wrote:

Kosovo??Afghanistan??

Yes, but Kosovo is in Europe and after all the hellabaloo about Bosnia they had decided to do something about Kosovo.
Also they did not want it involving Albania (God bless them, they are the only ones that appreciate us) and possibly dragging in Macedonia etc. Also possibly reached a threshold with Milosovic and his antics.

Yes, Afganistan was finally liberated because the Taliban had aided and sheltered Al Quida. Remember they were the ones responsible for 911.
So there wasa vested interest in both of these areas.
Remember after 911, all NATO countries were willing to join the "coalition of the willing" or "we are the good guys" in the crusade (oops the fight) against terrorism.

After the debacle that was Somalia, US is wary to get involved anywhere, particularly if there is nothing at stake.

OS119

most 'liberation' wars have some degree of self-interest, nothing wrong with that.

doing something serious about Darfur would also be in the wests self-interest, any action that stopped the Sudanese government sponsored Janjaweed groups would probaly cause the Sudanese government to fall - and if the Sudanese government falls the Chinese get a kick in the tits - loss of a client state, loss of prestige as the leading external political force in Africa, loss of massive mineral and oil concessions in Sudan - and the west, as the 'new' political force in Africa - gets the construction contracts, the political influence and the mineral and oil rights the Chinese just lost.

added to which AQ lose another friend.

the local states aren't really going to do much about it, they have enough of their own problems - and none fancy any of the others becoming a 'conscience of Africa', so they are happy to let western forces do it, certainly Kenya has offered seaport, land transit and aircraft basing rights for anyone who fancies a pop at their dearly loved northern neighbour...

Boston

jmayo wrote:

What did UN troops do in Rwanda, the UN/aka the International community sent in UNAMIR which was understaffed and underpowered. It was token mission. Let's be seen to be doing something and then when it gets hot, get the westerners out of there.

What did the international community do?
They sat by, evacuated the westerners, spouted garbage how awful it was and then proceeded to lecture the Tutsis how they should deal with the perpetatrors of the genocide of 1,000,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, when they took control of the country.

After WWII it was said it would never happen again.
Well look at Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur.

I'm glad you mentioned Rwanda, UN mission thought severely under resourced is credited with saving the life's of over 20,000 people, often depending on just their credentials. Their was a lot of heroism by UN troops the powers that be fuked up and argued over money, the guys on the ground didn't.

OS119

Boston wrote:

I'm glad you mentioned Rwanda, UN mission thought severely under resourced is credited with saving the life's of over 20,000 people, often depending on just their credentials. Their was a lot of heroism by UN troops the powers that be fuked up and argued over money, the guys on the ground didn't.

UN troops are just national troops with a different helmet-cover and a ridiculously convoluted chain of command.

thats not to say that a UN soldier standing infront of some genocidal loon saying 'i am madated by the security council of the united nations to tell you to fcuk off!' doesn't have a little more moral authority than a NATO soldier saying 'i am mandated by the north atlantic council to tell you to fcuk off or me, my battlegroup and the worlds supply of air and artillery support will unleash such destruction on you that you'll be returned to your family in a small zip-lock bag', merely that the NATO soldier is - given the military resources available to NATO - rather less likely to be fcuked around by said genocidal loon.

one has a lot of moral authority but is very often treated with contempt, the other has less moral authority but vastly more capability, and - particularly inview of the 'quality' of some of the national contingents sent on UN duty - rather more determination to actually complete the task.

Boston

OS119 wrote:

UN troops are just national troops with a different helmet-cover and a ridiculously convoluted chain of command.

People forget that the French had a large force in Rwanda and where largely credited with aiding the genocide not stopping it. Maybe be a convoluted chain of command, but it's one not bound by the priorities of any single nation that's why western countries are so reluctant to committee, because in essence they do give up direct control of their troops. Look at the actions of Romeo Dallaire and tell me that it doesn't give you pride. It's shameful what the politicians did but real people on the ground make a difference.

Judt

Yeah well, the UN and peacekeeping is a whole 'nother debate.

Clare gunner

After the debacle that was Somalia, US is wary to get involved anywhere, particularly if there is nothing at stake.

Considering that the UN was already in there Fking things up big time.
And considering that the US forces were commanded by that lame excuse of a president, Clinton.
Who orderd the arrest of a local warlord,which led to the Blackhawk down debacle,and then reneged on being Cin C and refusing to allow the US ground forces to use armour to rescue the trapped personel ,as it might inflame the local situation.
And he did not want to be interrupted in his golf game while this was all going on...:mad: No wonder when it got tough ,and bodies were dragged thru the streets by savages..Clinton shat his pants and orderd the US to withdraw,thus allowing the whole place to divert back to total savagery under the UN auspices. Way to go UN....:mad: Whats the next one going to be?Dafur??
Oh lets not forget Sebriniza... Great chain of command there.
No wonder the US got fed up with that overpriced talk shop and went into Iraq.... No one takes it seriously anymore...

Anyway OT,lets get back to sorting out our airforce...Cessna172s armed with double barrel shotguns perhaps?:rolleyes:

BostonB

Clare gunner wrote:

Only reason it is confusing because you make it so...If you cant discern between historic examples and current matters or just want to willingly convolute the issue,only yourself to blame.

Its true I never knew about Irelands Escort carriers etc.
Sigh...Argueing with you is like trying to shovel mercury with a fork.
You know there werent any but just choose to take astatement and build a myth around it.Stop making a fool of yourself.

In fairness its like standing on quicksand debate with you. One minute we're talking about fighter jets the next about ww3, bunkers, ground Zero,radiation death. Now UN and peacekeeping.

Clare gunner wrote:

Yet again showing your ignorance of matters military.A military base is where you keep troops,tanks ,logistics etc,depending on what unit is based there.A fighter base is a AIR FORCE area,a compleatly different branch of a military service. Hence the reason they are called Airforce Fighter Base [AFB in the USAF] ...Name us one that comes with this equipment as standard!...

Semantics tbh.

I thought the C5A and C‐17 had inflight refueling capability as standard, maybe I'm wrong, I'm not a rivet counter, I thought I'd seen that tis all. Why it has to be as standard I don't know. Average age of US military aircraft is over 20yrs. How many are as delivered? Let forget it, this topic is already completely derailed. Nuked as it were.

Clare gunner wrote:

Why you keep on about Shannon??You an anti war activist??

Because you made the point that Ireland was a "vital strategic point for a landbridge, or secondary airfield" and since they use Shannon...thats why. At this point who cares.

Clare gunner wrote:

It's not my logic BTW it's Berties,when he signed us up for the war on terror.

Well at least I agree that Berties signed us for it.

Theres really only two schools of thought on should Ireland buy fighters jets. Those that don't see it as useful role, there other military aircraft that are more useful. Then those that think Ireland needs front line fighters (for want of a better classification) to combat any threat internationally. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground tbh. Obvously its not much of a vote grabber in the election.

Boston

Clare gunner wrote:

Considering that the UN was already in there Fking things up big time.
And considering that the US forces were commanded by that lame excuse of a president, Clinton.
Who orderd the arrest of a local warlord,which led to the Blackhawk down debacle,and then reneged on being Cin C and refusing to allow the US ground forces to use armour to rescue the trapped personel ,as it might inflame the local situation.
And he did not want to be interrupted in his golf game while this was all going on...:mad: No wonder when it got tough ,and bodies were dragged thru the streets by savages..Clinton shat his pants and orderd the US to withdraw,thus allowing the whole place to divert back to total savagery under the UN auspices. Way to go UN....:mad: Whats the next one going to be?Dafur??
Oh lets not forget Sebriniza... Great chain of command there.
No wonder the US got fed up with that overpriced talk shop and went into Iraq.... No one takes it seriously anymore...

Anyway OT,lets get back to sorting out our airforce...Cessna172s armed with double barrel shotguns perhaps?:rolleyes:

The US initiated that operation without informing the UN, how is it anybodies but the americans fault?

irishsurfer

Lads, I think the thread is going way off track-
Should we have fighter Aircraft - Yes or No
Reasons for and against
After that, what type/how many

Zambia

irishsurfer wrote:

Should we have fighter Aircraft - Yes or No

Yes

irishsurfer wrote:

Reasons for and against

For : Its a bit silly we have an airspace we are unable to defend against a civilian Airliner.

Against : Its gonna cost us

For: If Public finanaces where handled correctly it would have been paid of 5 fold in savings the money is there. See www.17billion.com

Against : The threat is small but we have nothing at all to counter any jet airborne threat. Even the Shotgun cessna poses a threat.

irishsurfer wrote:

After that, what type/how many

I always maintained I didnt care what planes but good cases where put forward for the F-5 and the F-16. In enough numbers to have 2 fighters on stanby at all times.

OS119

air defence of the state and its citizens is vital, the ability to support troops overseas is useful.

neither have to be provided by the state, they just have to be provided.

interestingly, Slovenia has an air force of PC-9M's fitted for ground attack and advanced trainer roles, while its air defence capability is provided by Typhoons of the Italian Air Force for an annual sum of 60 million Euro.

there's a parallel that leaps to mind...;)