Should Ireland buy fighter jets?

Zambia

OS119 wrote:

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

quite.....

Clare gunner

Boston wrote:

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

On the behest of the idiots in the UN it was initated and by a gormless pro UN president who then didnt want to finish the job or take responsibility for his idiotic orders,or give a toss about the men on the ground, and was too busy playing around of golf and proably thinking of which next woman he was going to hump in the Oval Office that night.:mad:
So yes,it was the Americans fault;
[1]for listening to a bunch of idiots in the UN,and allowing their troops to be put under UN command.[2] For electing a complete liar and fraud, Clinton
[3] For ever allowing that pestilential organisation to be established in New York where it does nowt except cost the city on New York millions in tax payers moneys.
And the world acts surprised when the US acts on it's own bat anymore???
When the UN gets it's fist out of it's ass and can define genocide within seven days and act on it within that time.Maybe then we might take some notice of it.Until then it is nothing more than an incompentant,meddling,expensive, talking shop.

Boston

Clare gunner wrote:

On the behest of the idiots in the UN

I'm going to stop you right there and suggest you check your facts. The americans told no one about the operation nor where they asked to carry out the operation nor where they under the direct command of a UN officer. Rage all you want against the UN on this one, but the fact remains if the UN had been kept in the loop things wouldn't have gone as badly as they did.

Clare gunner

Err No the UN was aware of that mission.It was seconded to the US,because of the very fear that the UN would screw it up,or were too chicken to go and do it.

Zambia

Clare gunner wrote:

On the behest of the idiots in the UN it was initated and by a gormless pro UN president who then didnt want to finish the job or take responsibility for his idiotic orders,or give a toss about the men on the ground, and was too busy playing around of golf and proably thinking of which next woman he was going to hump in the Oval Office that night.:mad:
So yes,it was the Americans fault;
[1]for listening to a bunch of idiots in the UN,and allowing their troops to be put under UN command.[2] For electing a complete liar and fraud, Clinton
[3] For ever allowing that pestilential organisation to be established in New York where it does nowt except cost the city on New York millions in tax payers moneys.
And the world acts surprised when the US acts on it's own bat anymore???
When the UN gets it's fist out of it's ass and can define genocide within seven days and act on it within that time.Maybe then we might take some notice of it.Until then it is nothing more than an incompentant,meddling,expensive, talking shop.

I would happily debate your view on this but your way off topic , start a new thread

Clare gunner

Think we left talking about buying jet fighters here a long time ago.:(

jmayo

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.

I am not having a go at UN troops on ground but the useless political types within UN.

Anyway back to topic...
We need helis not fighter jets. More useful and not as expensive so can buy a few more.
The one type of aircraft I would recommend buying is transport. We have no real heavy lift aircraft.
I don't think the CASA can carry much, correct me if I am wrong?

Findhan

Hopefully we will never ever have to look to the RAF for support for numerous reasons.Hopefully we will never become lap dogs like Blair did to Bush, hopefuly we will never be associated with Britain on our foreign policy, hopefully we will never need to defend against terrorist attacks in this manner. In summation, may we never experience the evil associated with terrorist attacks that would need this kind of action and may we never, or anyone experience the evil that is the retaliatory action.

Findhan

Also, as already pointed out, engines and maintenance programmes cause ****loads of money(Im currently working an engine manufacturer) for that of which will never be justified in Ireland's modern society

OS119

jmayo wrote:

Anyway back to topic...
We need helis not fighter jets. More useful and not as expensive so can buy a few more.
The one type of aircraft I would recommend buying is transport. We have no real heavy lift aircraft.
I don't think the CASA can carry much, correct me if I am wrong?

couldn't agree more, next door neighbour is willing to provide the AD service at a fraction of the cost of Ireland buying the kit/skills/people itself and has long experience in the role.

Ireland needs more SH, six AW-139's is a joke to support a 9,000 man army that wishes to play a role on the international stage. the heli's themselves are unsuitable but they met the only real criteria - they were cheap and they can become very comfortable VIP-taxi's at short notice...

CH-47 chinook has become the support helicopter of choice around the world, its proving to be one of the few able to conduct operations in the 'hot and high' environments that will almost certainly dominate peacekeeping operations for the next generation.

CASA-235 is a regional support aircraft - and is an excellent MP aircraft, it can take passengers - maybe 30 troops with mortars, ATGW and HMG, but you'd be hard pushed to get any serious hardware in it due its small size, its range is about 1700 miles with a 4 tone payload. compare it with a C-130J which could fly the same mission (lets say securing an airfield as the spearhead of a UN/EU Peacekeeping mission) but could deliver 90 such heavily armed troops in one go, and because of its range do it over twice the distance. it could then return with vehicles such as HUMVEES, Land-Rovers, or even MOWAGS. CASA-235 can (I think) deliver a single land-rover type vehicle with a single HMG/ATGW or mortar .

lets take that example further: the objective is to secure a civilian airfield to act as a bridgehead to allow the deployment of a UN/EU force into an African state in a civil war. once enough troops are on the ground a column will move to secure the deep-water port to allow a sealift of heavy equipment and humanitarian supplies to take place.

assuming 1 hours flying time from a friendly jumping off point, 30 minutes turnaround at each end and sufficient airframes/crew to keep 4 aircraft operational for 24 hours means 28 arrivals at the bridgehead in the first 24 hours.

using CASA-235's (the utility version, rather than the MP version) the airlift could deliver 14 Land-Rovers, each with a crew of three and a support weapon – ATGW, HMG or 81mm Mortar – a 30 man support troop with HMG, ATGW and 81mm mortar, 320 Infantry and 12 tonnes of Fuel, Water and Ammunition. Using C-130J’s the airlift could deliver 21 Land-Rovers, each with a crew of three and a support weapon – ATGW, HMG or 81mm mortar - 2 35 man support troops with ATGW, HMG and 81mm mortar, 11 MOWAG/STRYKER-type APC’s, 360 Infantry and 30 tonnes of Fuel, Water and Ammunition.


the force using C-130J's are going to secure the bridgehead airfeld faster, and being able to bring in APC's are going to be able to dominate the battlespace at the Deep Water port, allowing greater security, less - if any - fighting, and consequently acheive a significant psychological advantage over the protagonists leading to a more compliant ceasefire and greater ease of distibuting humanitarian aid.

irishsurfer

For starters I dont think Ireland should even consider such aggresive overseas policies.

I do think that a proper rotary SAR/Lift capability backed by a C130 type multi-role aircraft is the priority.
C130s are not for securing overseas airheads, but to provide transport, Maritime patrol, SAR, Humanitarian relief, support of UN missions and Inflight refueling.

As for Helos, we need long range SAR/Heavy lift, medium lift and transport.

The RAF provided SAR coverage for years, we never paid a cent, that was not right - we should have provided our own, as we do now.

Having air defence and interceptor is secondary to SAR.

As an independent state, we should be able to police our own airspace in a prudent, practical way.
Having Jet fighters are the next phase, after the dedicated SAR requirements-even on the Slovenian model of providing 60m Euro per annum - over a 20 year life span, that would easily cover the cost of a small squadron of F5E/F Tiger II.

I for one would feel distinctly uncomfortable providing the RAF - UK government with financial support with ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Syria and Iran on the horizon (or any other states airforce for that matter)

Steyr

irishsurfer wrote:

For starters I dont think Ireland should even consider such aggresive overseas policies.

Such as?

irishsurfer wrote:

C130s are not for securing overseas airheads, but to provide transport, Maritime patrol, SAR, Humanitarian relief, support of UN missions and Inflight refueling.

Refuel what? We have no AAR Capability, the closest thing to that was HIFR which the Dauphins did with LE Eithne.

irishsurfer wrote:

As for Helos, we need long range SAR/Heavy lift, medium lift and transport.

Would you be opposed to the Merlin being in Irish Service, like the Anti War crowd?

irishsurfer wrote:

The RAF provided SAR coverage for years, we never paid a cent, that was not right - we should have provided our own, as we do now.

We did provide our own 24hrs with the Dauphins and Alouettes doing day time SAR only and the CASA's provided "Top Cover".

irishsurfer wrote:

Having air defence and interceptor is secondary to SAR.



I for one would feel distinctly uncomfortable providing the RAF - UK government with financial support with ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Syria and Iran on the horizon (or any other states airforce for that matter)

Who are you going to ask so? They are our closest neighbour......:rolleyes: How about we ask Sweden? Na they are too far away for a Scramble..

So what about Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you sleep at night being uncomfortable and all? Yes its a mess but unless your British or American you can not vote to change who is in power,but then again the US and UK people want their boys home everybody knows that they dont like them coming home in boxes on C17 Transports, i for one along with alot of people on here would welcome the RAF anyday, anyday atall.

irishsurfer

Ofensive/Aggresivce ops Such As suggested by others - lets say securing an airfield as the spearhead of a UN/EU Peacekeeping mission.

Looking at earlier postings I have always advocated C130 types with Buddy tanks or quick convert to KC top provide AAR capability to LRSAR Helos first, and then perhaps the suggested F5s later

I would not oppose Merlin EH101, Canada,Italy, Japan,UK- All Maritime nations - use them.
I dont see why 'the anti war crowd' should oppose them, makes no sense, like the Styer AUG - Australia use them in the Gulf - they are a tool.
I think they would be a great choice, just a little concerned over cost.

Before we had CASAs, or Dauphins, Gazelle and Allouette could not provide SAR over water at night.
Also, both having single engines, and being small and short on legs, could not provide proper SAR.
I lost a cousin off a trawler off Fastnet because of this. A lot of people in the fishing and maritime communities remember years of writing, campaigning and struggel just to get a proper SAR service.

During that time RAF SAR Helos did great work.

It took years for Ireland to get a decent SAR capability, and it is still a lot on contract to Bristow.
The AirCorps and Bristow do their best, but it is still not great.

If you want the RAF to provide air defence for this Island, well, thats what you think - but I think a lot of people here think it is prudent for us to have our own.

And again, we are getting off the point.

For some this is a question of priorities - for others it is practicalities.

OS119

irishsurfer wrote:

Ofensive/Aggresivce ops Such As suggested by others - lets say securing an airfield as the spearhead of a UN/EU Peacekeeping mission.

all peacekeeping missions start 'agressively' - the UK intervention in Siera Leonne, NATO in Kosovo, UNPROFOR in Bosnia, East Timor, EU in the DR Congo, US in Haiti, EU in Lebanon...

all begin with a military 'invasion' for two very good reasons: firstly because you never really know what the reaction of the local population/local forces is going to be to having armed foriegn troops sticking their nose in, and believe me you don't to find out they've changed their minds if you're in a soft-skinned truck or civil airliner - and secondly because arriving in such force tends to create greater compliance with whatever agreement allowed the deployment in the first place, its a psychological issue as much as a logistical one.

peacekeeping ops are there to provide the greatest level of security in the shortest possible time to the people you wish to help, that is what should govern their doctrine of operations, not what makes people at home feel 'comfortable'...

Steyr

irishsurfer wrote:

Ofensive/Aggresivce ops Such As suggested by others - lets say securing an airfield as the spearhead of a UN/EU Peacekeeping mission.

The Irish Army are constantly at EINN ( Shannon ) because of the Crusties.

irishsurfer wrote:

Before we had CASAs, or Dauphins, Gazelle and Allouette could not provide SAR over water at night.
Also, both having single engines, and being small and short on legs, could not provide proper SAR.

I may be wrong but i dont think the Gazelles EVER did SAR..EVER.

irishsurfer wrote:

It took years for Ireland to get a decent SAR capability, and it is still a lot on contract to Bristow.
The AirCorps and Bristow do their best, but it is still not great.

No its done by CHC Of Canada, the Air Corps do not do SAR anymore they do Troop Deployments and Artillery Deployments with the AW139's and work with the ARW among other things such as Medivac and Organ Transplants etc.

Leave the SAR to CHC they are far better equipped for the role, the AC should be more and more involved with the Army.

irishsurfer wrote:

If you want the RAF to provide air defence for this Island, well, thats what you think - but I think a lot of people here think it is prudent for us to have our own.

Obviously we want our own but in the meantime a Tiffy sounds like a good deal to me.