Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Newoven

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608448#Comment_118608448

I googled it, and now I understand it’s exactly what I thought I fail to see what difference having the equipment to do it would make to us. You’re right that I didn’t read all the previous posts (did anyone) but I’m sceptical that an air police would be much use to Ireland. Seems a lot like Trump’s space force, or a chocolate teapot.

jonnybigwallet

And even in any extreme situation...which hopefully will never happen, the forces in place need to hold the fort until the US cavalry rock up.

Sgt. Bilko 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608555#Comment_118608555

Did anyone? Yes we did! And we are aware of requirements for the AC.

https://youtu.be/pe46SmN_tjo

Seen as you won’t read, you should watch and listen.

This is an example of a QRA.

Exactly what was explained to you by Dohvolle and other persistent knowledgeable legacy posters in here.

We currently have none of the equipment shown in this clip. WE NEED THIS EQUIPMENT!

We need it for the safety of the state assets and for the safety of transatlantic flight crossing Shanwick ORA (You would need to Google that) as the Russian Air Force are persistently breaching Irish air space with transponders turned off and risk a mid air collision or any dangerous means they wish to cause.

The UK have provided us with a free service doing this but it is no longer feasible due to brexit and costs to there taxpayer among other sticky issues.

I was resisting answering other posts you made as they hold no creditable back up but I really think you need to research this before posting.

Lastly re your last post, you stated similar to we would not shoot it down, the point in having the air asset is not for chauffeur it is actually have a presence to defend yourself and alert other flight in its path to avoid the non responding aircraft.

The clip answers all you need to know.

ricimaki

Suppose we decide to buy a number of fighter jets. Where is best to base them out of?

Casement seems the most likely. For a fast intercept mission, could the extra few minutes and few hundred kilometers of range lost getting to the coast make any differences compared to a west coat base?

Would somewhere on the west coast be practical? Is it practical to operate a joint base with Shannon, Cork, Knock, or the other smaller airports along the west?

Is it better to have them all in one base, or have 2-or-3 smaller bases?

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608763#Comment_118608763

Casement isn't likely, as the first QRA that takes off at full thrust will most likely have everyone in Dublin demanding their heads no matter what (particularly if it's a night time response for whatever reason). As commented before sticking any fighters and the MPA aircraft out at Shannon makes the most sense really. Plenty of space at the airfield, reasonable distance from heavily populated areas (or at least as much as you get in Ireland), reasonably well policed after the amount of issues with protestors and the US flights. There would also be a huge cost of living drop for those moved out there compared to having to commute to Casement, though do have the counter issue of those that are now fully settled in to their local areas.

Given the purchase of fighters even in the Report is suggested as one of the "long aims" rather than any immediate buy in, there's time to work through that issue.

donvito99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608723#Comment_118608723

The Russians aren't going to shoot down a civilian aircraft in our airspace. If they threaten aircraft in occasionally flying through, a primary radar permits the IAA to direct aircraft safely around them. Buying fighters to shadow bombers is the real life equivalent of feeding the troll.

The RAF have a need to deter Russian aircraft in the North Sea as they threaten their navy's activity. Their previous role of intercepting Russian nuclear bombers hasn't been a thing for decades.

Procuring fighters for air policing will only mean an enormous cost to the state in peacetime for shag all utility in war, and does nothing to deter it either.

We should be worried about the persistent threat of Russian submarines in our area of interest, and equip the Navy to track and destroy them, rather than take Russia's bait and devote vast resources to flying alongside the occasional Bear. Tell me, what will the difference be if and when we acquire a fleet of fighters? Will the Russians stop, will our airspace actually be safer??

Sgt. Bilko 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609457#Comment_118609457

nobody mentioned shoot down a Russian aircraft but if needs to be done I would amassing precautions would be put in place we would be a bit complaint that when turkey shot down a Russia jet for incursion into its airspace, I digress, I mentioned collision not a shoot down. If a TU95 has its transponder turn off, ATC cannot see it either can another airline as it does not alert on an airlines TCAS.

The enormous cost you speak off is unfortunately part and parcel of been a government department, at the moment it is costing the exchequer more than anything. I’m not one take usually crap talk of oh it needs to go into housing/HSE or justice(although it’s needed bad there too).

The cost would have been a lot less if the government acted on the reports previous to one. There was a cheaper opportunity at a lesser crisis point and the government(s) did not act on them.

They will most certainly think twice about as they will be escorted by two nations rather than one.

with Kaliningrad so close these incursions we cannot afford to chance with lives in the air.

incident over Sweden

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-no-sweden-jet-near-miss-30834894.html

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608513#Comment_118608513

"Someone broke into my house and took everything"

"were the doors locked?"

"I don't like locks, they make me feel like a prisoner".

Above summarises some of the social media discussion.

donvito99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609494#Comment_118609494

We're not Sweden though. We don't share a border with Russia and there is no Russian enclave threatening the Celtic Sea.

If we're worried about collisions, install a primary radar system and let the IAA man it with someone from the DF on the other end of a phone to make his/her report.

Sgt. Bilko 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609668#Comment_118609668

Install a primary for the purpose of a report, it’s a bit like calling the gards and getting a call taker do a report while someone takes your car before sending anyone.

A threat assessment needs to be done, everything was in the QRA video I sent, you would like all that too handled here and then dispatch the RAF to respond, good luck swinging that by them.

I’m not replying in depth, as your border belief has been proven wrong on a number occasions through this thread. As the example I have given you occurred in Sweden it is meant to project the seriousness of flying without a transponder, rather than it occurring because they are neighbours. You may ask yourself why is Russia doing the same method of movement in/around Ireland (constantly) as they did over Sweden, Why are they doing it? Why not over Germany or between the Netherlands and UK, they choose Ireland…why?

im not revisiting these points again but look at our location and look up what we provide the EU from the US that is very valuable to Russia, and challenge that with how we can stop it for being damaged or taken. You’ll find we have nothing in armoury to do anything from the sky, scope of rifle or from a cyber point.

I wouldn’t be Coveneys biggest fan but he stated a very important fact yesterday that we have been naive.

Regardless of where Russia is on map they still are a threat to national security.

please also note these aircraft will be used for other reasons not just chasing Russians.

Notmything

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609457#Comment_118609457

The Russians won't shoot down an airliner but you want us to track and destroy their subs???

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608763#Comment_118608763

Shannon.

Certain dublin residents are already complaining when noisy foreign aircraft visit Baldonnel and scare sinn fein voters.

Can you imagine the trauma if a QRA had to cross west dublin on full afterburner?

Shannon has the space and lack of built up areas in its hinterland Even Shannon town is relatively isolated from most aircraft movements and neither on the flight path or its local airspace. i.e you won't have a C17 doing a go-around low and slow over the residents.

Knock is also an option, but suffers from Fog and has very little airfield infrastructure.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609833#Comment_118609833

And do we really want to risk the retention issues of sticking people in Knock?

roadmaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609958#Comment_118609958

Dont worry about retention they could sell it as Job Creation for the west! An while we are at we could close athlone and galway barracks and build central joint base at knock and call it Camp Horan!!

Heraclius

I'm far from an expert on military matters but I can't help suspect that including fighter aircraft in the Level of Ambition 3 was a way of encouraging the government to accept the Level of Ambition 2 proposals. Therefore there is very little chance the Air Corps will get fighter aircraft.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118610018#Comment_118610018

Given that the proposal for them is past 10 years anyway, who knows. If we end up with something above LoA2 but not 3 is it a failure or is still a massive improvement over where we are?

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118605438#Comment_118605438

As a citizen I'm genuinely puzzled by this report and recommendations. Look any half informed fool could have told us that our defence forces are inadequate to protect the state. It didn't need a fancy report produced at a cost to tell us that.

I'd also question just exactly what bang for our buck do we get from the Dept of Defence budget?

The army seems to exist largely for ceremonial purposes and to be on standby to deal with small numbers of subversives. Lads spend a lot of time in barracks, using up ammo down in Glen Imaal and occasional trip abroad to keep them motivated, add a bit of training and a bit of extra pay.

The air corps seems to exist to transport politicians.

The navy is arguably the most useful in terms of patrolling and monitoring smuggling and illegal fishing.

And that's about it. If personnel could be utilised more in dealing with issues arising from weather, crowd control and needs of LAs.. you'd see there's some value for money but otherwise?

Sgt. Bilko 09

unrelated but if you are into aircraft it is interesting, Two B52s are up over over Scotland and Lincolnshire with the best callsigns ever HATE 11 and HATE 12

Gary kk

All army's spend there time that way. Very little time is spent in combat. But you seem to have forgotten the service personnel on peace keeping.

Defence forces not offensive forces I guess would be the best wording you should watch for.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118610106#Comment_118610106

Air Corps...

Apart from the medical flights, the fire fighting, the MPA patrols, the support to deployments all with pretty much the most basic equipment?

donvito99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609694#Comment_118609694

I'd like to see where I've been proven wrong in this thread (I must be on to something), thanks.

If an unknown aircraft enters your airspace, detected thanks to your primary radar, you route aircraft around it. You send a couple of fighters out if you have fighters for some other purpose (i.e. protecting your navy's activity, your MPA aircraft in the Baltic Sea) as a useful currency building jaunt, not for the sole purpose of safe navigation.

By this logic, we should bait the Russians into a costly folly themselves - why not buy a few SSKs, and regularly head up to the Kola Oblast. Make them spend a billion or so chasing us for appearances sake.

Speaking of risk assessment, any such exercise would identify these flights as low risk requiring minimal direct intervention. An aircraft cannot hang around, can't carry very much and is easily detectable. It can't cause us any lasting harm, if defending our country is what we're on about. If we're only interested in keeping up appearances, I suppose we will need a dozen Gripens.

Given our position in Europe and the capabilities of Russia and others, the greatest conventional threat we face is by sea and not by air. The fact that a good deal of these flights by Russia are for the purpose of communicating with their submarines tells us all we need to know.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118610011#Comment_118610011

Did NATO donate the dough boys?

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118610106#Comment_118610106

I pay house insurance every year, but my house has never gone on fire, or been broken into.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118610504#Comment_118610504

I’ve never been in a situation where the Gardaí are needed, why should they get billions?

Gary kk

Is there no Shannon protest thread for some you guys ?

Snickers Man

I'm no military expert but I know how to look things up on the Internet and to ask some simple questions.

Fact 1: According to the CIA World Factbook (I know, who'd believe the CIA but actually as a source of dry statistical information it's quite reliable) there are only TWO COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD that spend a smaller percentage of their GDP on defence than Ireland does. They are the mighty military powers of Laos and Mauritius, who spend a whopping 0.2% of their income on defence.

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/military-expenditures/country-comparison

In third last place on the list comes Ireland with 0.27%. a long way behind a quintet of countries on 0.4% (Moldova, Papua New Guinea, Venezuela,Ghana and Liberia). That is disgraceful. We should be spending more of what we make on at least some form of credible defence.

2 Look at those five countries that are in joint fourth-last place in the table. Do they sound to you like countries who are spending all their money on health, education and social services? Really?

Don't say Venezuela. They had a populist lunatic who thought he could rain goodies on his people thanks to their oil revenues but when the price of oil tanked due to, er, "reasons beyond his control" the country was quickly f***ed. Maybe the welfare states of some of the countries who spend a real amount of their GDP on defence are better ones to aspire to. Like, for example, UK (2.5%) Australia (2.2%) Finland (2.1%) France (2.01%) Norway (1.85%) Denmark (1.41%) Sweden (1.4%) or Germany (1.56%).

Seriously, where would you rather be sick? One of those countries, or Liberia?

3 Jet fighters are a red herring. Are they even going to be a thing going forward? Isn't the future in drones? We might need planes for transport, reconnaissance, and tactical manoeuvers but for shooting things up or down, unmanned remote control vehicles are the way to go. Don't waste huge amounts of precious budget on a few white elephants.

4 Boats. We're an island. We need boats. And radar. And cyber security. That would get us the most bang for the buck in the short term. Yes. Let's spend more money on defence but let's spend it wisely.

F-35s me hole.

Outdated or obsolete second hand rubbish from the US or underperforming vanity projects from Sweden: no thanks.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118612181#Comment_118612181

The Costa Ricans spent more on defence as a percentage of GDP than we do and they don't even have a military.

roadmaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118610492#Comment_118610492

Your hardling suggesting that Father Horan got special donations while touring america to finish a 2.3 km runway in the middle of knowwhere that could be used as an emergency landing strip for certain aircraft

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118612509#Comment_118612509

Of course not.

Divine intervention!.😇

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118612181#Comment_118612181

Current gen (ie 4.5+) are going to be in service for another 40 years, at best their are projects to make the new 6 gen ones “optionally” even the US with 2 5 gen and a 6 gen in service have restarted buying F15s, all the nations you mentioned as having spending levels well above us are buying new 4.5 or 5 gen aircraft, but you seem to know better? Right now the NATO UCAVs in development are classed as “Loyal Wingman” types to be operated with manned aircraft rather than without, given current lifespans the fighters being bought today will still be in service to around 2050 onwards.