Who asked the British to 'protect' our airspace from the Russians or anyone else ?

DanMurphy

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh, stop deflecting. I've already said I've no problem with them being the best armed people in an armed confrontation. You denied there was militarisation of the police, now you seem accept that there is - that they now have capabilities that previously and exclusively resided with the military.

And yes the Defence Forces can and do assist the Garda - it's called their "Aid to the Civil Power" mission......and it was that type of support that allowed a single Guard to arrest an entire SAS team.......

But it took a soldier to put a full stop to the 'border fox' and his buddy

Stars and Stripes

Jappers, the thread still running, I thought it would be gone after a day or two

Stars and Stripes

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I bet you'd even support ISIS if the Brits were fighting them.:D

You always sound like a caricature of anti-British person.

Unfortunately for those of us who lived through the troubles Britain's murderous history in Ireland was too true. But then the IRA more than returned the serve didn't they though I'll doubt if you and your buddy's will have a chuckle about that

Fratton Fred

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Unfortunately for those of us who lived through the troubles Britain's murderous history in Ireland was too true. But then the IRA more than returned the serve didn't they though I'll doubt if you and your buddy's will have a chuckle about that

Aren't you the big man Walt.:rolleyes:

darkpagandeath

Jawgap wrote: »

Oh, stop deflecting. I've already said I've no problem with them being the best armed people in an armed confrontation. You denied there was militarisation of the police, now you seem accept that there is - that they now have capabilities that previously and exclusively resided with the military.

And yes the Defence Forces can and do assist the Garda - it's called their "Aid to the Civil Power" mission......and it was that type of support that allowed a single Guard to arrest an entire SAS team.......

Aid to civil power is specific legislation, An SAS Team is not a civilian threat I'm not the one deflecting. Kindly stop spoofing on militarization.

re_shaft

We should invest in a decent Surface-To-Air missile defence. Then bring down the Russians, Brits or who-ever else acts like a dick in our airspace.

Fratton Fred

re_shaft wrote: »

We should invest in a decent Surface-To-Air missile defence. Then bring down the Russians, Brits or who-ever else acts like a dick in our airspace.

Shoot down a Russian bomber?

better crack open the iodine tablets first

Gatling

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Shoot down a Russian bomber?

better crack open the iodine tablets first

Imagine that happened we would be annexed and turned into a island size firing range ,

re_shaft

Fratton Fred, they'll get a warning. If they continue to do so, then we have no choice. Same will go for any RAF jets. We'll be like Switzerland in WW2, fly over here and we'll take it seriously.

Fratton Fred

re_shaft wrote: »

Fratton Fred, they'll get a warning. If they continue to do so, then we have no choice. Same will go for any RAF jets. We'll be like Switzerland in WW2, fly over here and we'll take it seriously.

Have you read the thread?

re_shaft

Yes, a mix of fantasists talking about Ireland having squadrons of F-35s, others saying that Russians flying through commercial airspace withe transponders off is grand, others saying that its grand as the Brits will do it. I'm proposing a realistic alternative.

jimgoose

re_shaft wrote: »

Yes, a mix of fantasists talking about Ireland having squadrons of F-35s, others saying that Russians flying through commercial airspace withe transponders off is grand, others saying that its grand as the Brits will do it. I'm proposing a realistic alternative.

Your realistic alternative is some Fine Gael twit being conned out of (our) two or three hundred million by Thales or Raytheon or someone for some sort of potato-launcher with a television sellotaped to it, and using that to take pot-shots at a Eurofighter Typhoon? How is this tactically sound? :pac:

Fratton Fred

re_shaft wrote: »

Yes, a mix of fantasists talking about Ireland having squadrons of F-35s, others saying that Russians flying through commercial airspace withe transponders off is grand, others saying that its grand as the Brits will do it. I'm proposing a realistic alternative.

you're not, because firing missiles at aircraft in international airspace is pretty much an act of war.

Shooting down a Typhoon, as unlikely as it would be, will probably result in the Irish Ambassador to London getting his arse handed to him. Shooting down a Russian bomber will probably end up with the Curragh disappearing under a big mushroom cloud.

re_shaft

Right Fred, well if that's the case then there is absolutely no need for Ireland to do anything. Why waste money on a missile battery or jets, if you're not ever ever ever prepared to use them? You fall into the "it's grand" camp then?

FrancieBrady

Seems a fair enough question to me. Why have any defence if you ****ting yourself about using it?

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seems a fair enough question to me. Why have any defence if you ****ting yourself about using it?

are you serious?

Escorting Russian bombers does two things. It flags up where they are, so ATC can track them. It also gives a very visual warning that we have eyes on you, do not stray in to our air space.

If they decide to wander a bit close in to sovereign territory, the pilots can try and communicate, or fire warning shots so that the Russian pilots are aware they are encroaching someone's sovereign airspace.

It means various options can be tried and only when exhausted will they resort to shooting down the bombers.

a missile doesn't have the same level of diplomacy.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

are you serious?

Escorting Russian bombers does two things. It flags up where they are, so ATC can track them. It also gives a very visual warning that we have eyes on you, do not stray in to our air space.

If they decide to wander a bit close in to sovereign territory, the pilots can try and communicate, or fire warning shots so that the Russian pilots are aware they are encroaching someone's sovereign airspace.

It means various options can be tried and only when exhausted will they resort to shooting down the bombers.

a missile doesn't have the same level of diplomacy.

And if the Russian refuses?
Surely if the Russian knows you have missiles trained on him the warning is the same?

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And if the Russian refuses?
Surely if the Russian knows you have missiles trained on him the warning is the same?

What warnings? The pilot may have just made an error or may be experiencing difficulties.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What warnings? The pilot may have just made an error or may be experiencing difficulties.

So he tells us that by radio. And switches on his transponder. I am sure we won't just open fire without warning.

You are not explaining the difference tbh.

Jawgap

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Aid to civil power is specific legislation, An SAS Team is not a civilian threat I'm not the one deflecting. Kindly stop spoofing on militarization.

ATCP is "specific legislation"? Which legislation?

And the SAS team in question were on a snatch mission, reputedly.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So he tells us that by radio. And switches on his transponder. I am sure we won't just open fire without warning.

You are not explaining the difference tbh.

now you're just trolling, surely.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

now you're just trolling, surely.

No.

I am asking what the difference is, in effect.
I presume the Russians would know we have missiles. I am assuming that like any craft that refuses to id or make contact with the ground that they are risking the ground taking action.

Jawgap

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Aid to civil power is specific legislation, An SAS Team is not a civilian threat I'm not the one deflecting. Kindly stop spoofing on militarization.

You might to reconsider that in the light of Anthony Hughes' shooting.

darkpagandeath

Jawgap wrote: »

You might to reconsider that in the light of Anthony Hughes' shooting.

The SAS is military.

darkpagandeath

Jawgap wrote: »

ATCP is "specific legislation"? Which legislation?

And the SAS team in question were on a snatch mission, reputedly.

You brought it up. Specifically military.

sparksfly

The Russians are flying from point a to point b through international airspace. Like many other air forces they turn transponders on and off for various reasons.
The British love to be seen to be on the ball and be able to "escort" this perceived threat safely away.
The Russian pilots often simply wave at them and carry on unconcerned with no intention of violating their airspace or ours.
Its all a storm in a teacup and another big bad Russian yarn.

BalcombeSt4

darkpagandeath wrote: »

To be neutral you have to be able to defend that neutrality. Ireland is not and never has been Neutral.

Maybe if we didn't get rid of the Provies SAMs so fast like everyone was pressure them to do we could defend ourselves.

Jawgap

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The SAS is military.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You brought it up. Specifically military.

Yes, I brought up the issue of increased militarisation of the police and how scaremongering was driving it and facilitating those who wanted.

In support of that I posted a photo of ASU Gardaí in tactical gear carrying high velocity assault weapons in support of my contention.

You deflected, but did seem concede that the Guards now had capabilities previously the preserve of the military and the defence forces.

You also seem to think the Guards' needs in this regard is absolute, so I pointed to a time when the State faced a much more significant existential threat than ISIS could ever offer, and an unarmed Guard, backed by the DF in their ATCP role, an SAS team - 8 troopers armed with Sterling sub-machine guns, browning HiPowers and Remington pump action shot guns.

You, btw, said the ATCP role of the DF "is specific legislation" - are you going to post that legislation up?

And you suggested the SAS weren't a threat to civilians - I pointed out how at least one civilian casualty had come about through their operations. There were others, but you could argue either way that they were or weren't civilians.

FrancieBrady

sparksfly wrote: »

The Russians are flying from point a to point b through international airspace. Like many other air forces they turn transponders on and off for various reasons.
The British love to be seen to be on the ball and be able to "escort" this perceived threat safely away.
The Russian pilots often simply wave at them and carry on unconcerned with no intention of violating their airspace or ours.
Its all a storm in a teacup and another big bad Russian yarn.

'War is an economy', a clear and present danger is always essential.

BalcombeSt4

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The SAS is military.

So they were a threat to civlians?