Plane Crazy

OS119

Poccington wrote:

I didn't think planes could be pulled over at all?

an aircraft can be 'made' to land at a specific airfield, but only in the same way that a car travelling at 120mph can be 'made' to pull over to the hard shoulder by police cars also travelling at 120mph and ending the chase with lots of scratches to the bodywork.

the one advantage that chasing aircraft over chasing cars has is that for an aircraft the consequences of running out of fuel are more serious than the likely sentence they would get if placed in custody. usually not so when driving a car....

BostonB

OS119 wrote:

an aircraft can be 'made' to land at a specific airfield, but only in the same way that a car travelling at 120mph can be 'made' to pull over to the hard shoulder by police cars also travelling at 120mph and ending the chase with lots of scratches to the bodywork.

the one advantage that chasing aircraft over chasing cars has is that for an aircraft the consequences of running out of fuel are more serious than the likely sentence they would get if placed in custody. usually not so when driving a car....

Thats a bit of over oversimplification IMO. Its nothing like a car. You can threaten to shoot them down. But trying to damage an aircraft by shooting at it, or nudging is far more likely to end up killing everyone on board than you would in a car. Also you can't put an aircraft down safely on demand just anywhere.

BostonB

irishsurfer wrote:

Hey - I was just giving reasons - other than the fact we are meant to be a sovereign nation - as to why we should have an AirCorps in the defence forces that can defend the state.

Yes, 9/11 is unlikely, but not impossible, there are so many scenaros, pilotless aircraft (greek airliner recently due to pressure lost, a few years back a MiG 21 kept going after the pilot ejected) is just one.

I believe that having light, supersonic jets capable of BVR interception, CAP and other basic patrol functions - are not beyond the means of the state, and would be a prudent investment.

The type is up for debate, but the fact is that most other countries, even small ones, have air defence as a pragmatic part of their defence forces.

Stating the glaringly obvious. Most other countries don't have the same geographical advantages of being an Island stuck out away from other countries and no major threats near them.

Besides a better solution to those problems you described is to fix the the problems that caused them. Not spend billions to shoot them if and when they occur once every 20yrs if ever.

bostonian

Poccington wrote:

I didn't think planes could be pulled over at all?

well by "pull over" i meant "order to land or shoot down". the amount of instant compliance involved makes it a military matter, IMHO. soldiers don't make good policemen and vice versa.

bostonian

BostonB wrote:

Stating the glaringly obvious. Most other countries don't have the same geographical advantages of being an Island stuck out away from other countries and no major threats near them.

Besides a better solution to those problems you described is to fix the the problems that caused them. Not spend billions to shoot them if and when they occur once every 20yrs if ever.

Ah but you forget there is a foreign nation on that same island

BostonB

bostonian wrote:

Ah but you forget there is a foreign nation on that same island

Irrelevant. Fighters are of no benefit for that.

testicle

BostonB wrote:

Stating the glaringly obvious. Most other countries don't have the same geographical advantages of being an Island stuck out away from other countries and no major threats near them.

That must be why the Vikings and the Normans left us alone so.

BostonB

testicle wrote:

That must be why the Vikings and the Normans left us alone so.

Thats why you have to go back a 1000yrs to find an example. The other countries mentioned only have to back to the Cold War, or WWII. 60yrs or less.

the_syco

BostonB wrote:

Besides a better solution to those problems you described is to fix the the problems that caused them. Not spend billions to shoot them if and when they occur once every 20yrs if ever.

Fix the problems? The f**kers won't be happy unitll their religon is in control. It ain't going to happen, so we'll need something to stop them.

BostonB wrote:

Irrelevant. Fighters are of no benefit for that.

Dropping napalm would, though. Unrealistic, yes, but fairly effective.

BostonB

the_syco wrote:

Fix the problems? The f**kers won't be happy unitll their religon is in control. It ain't going to happen, so we'll need something to stop them.

I didn't realise pilotless aircraft, or aircraft with tech problems had a religion intent on world domination.

the_syco wrote:

Dropping napalm would, though. Unrealistic, yes, but fairly effective.

That comment makes no sense. Dropping it on what?

Cessna_Pilot

Just read through this thread and to be honest I cannot believe the amount of ignorance of some people towards the role the IAC play!
I mean, if people do not realise the actual role the Irish Air Corps (not Irish Air FORCE;)) are here to play then why make stupid uneducated comments about them and what they think they are supposed to or should do. Grow up, do some research and come back when you've learnt a bit about their actual purpose and role.

OS119

Cessna_Pilot wrote:

Just read through this thread and to be honest I cannot believe the amount of ignorance of some people towards the role the IAC play!
I mean, if people do not realise the actual role the Irish Air Corps (not Irish Air FORCE;)) are here to play then why make stupid uneducated comments about them and what they think they are supposed to or should do. Grow up, do some research and come back when you've learnt a bit about their actual purpose and role.

go on then, enlighten us.