Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Dohvolle

Gary kk wrote: »

At just over 5 million plus vat for pc9 I can't see them ever spending serious money on anything.

When they were introduced it was considered a major purchase, that would bring flying training out of the dark ages.
HUD? Elector seat? Turboprop? What is this witchcraft!

Gary kk

Dohvolle wrote: »

When they were introduced it was considered a major purchase, that would bring flying training out of the dark ages.
HUD? Elector seat? Turboprop? What is this witchcraft!

Clarke tech

Larbre34

As we know the calculations for what kit is needed to do the job in the air and at sea have long been made (although manpower currently trumps all else) but it'll be interesting to see whether the Commission will come out with a specific recommendation on that, or just a wishy-washy policy suggestion.

Dohvolle

While we are thinking, it looks like the Swiss will choose the Dassault Rafale, if local rumours are to be believed.
https://www.lematin.ch/story/le-rafale-est-de-plus-en-plus-le-favori-a-berne-617143171697

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

While we are thinking, it looks like the Swiss will choose the Dassault Rafale, if local rumours are to be believed.
https://www.lematin.ch/story/le-rafale-est-de-plus-en-plus-le-favori-a-berne-617143171697

Interesting, all the euro 4.5s seem to be picking up some orders currently, wonder what Austria will go with to replace the Typhoons?

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

As we know the calculations for what kit is needed to do the job in the air and at sea have long been made (although manpower currently trumps all else) but it'll be interesting to see whether the Commission will come out with a specific recommendation on that, or just a wishy-washy policy suggestion.

Even if they come out with an exact spec and job description the DOD will still screw it up...

banie01

The recent spate of Rafale sales is really interesting IMO.
The Greek and Croatian orders are predominantly debt financed via France.
Part and parcel of French industrial support for Dassault hidden as foreign sales rather than state aid.

Egypt and Qatar are likely to convert their options for more into further orders and the Indian rumours are that despite the original MRCA deal being shelved.
That the new deal is going to be a shoot out between an F16 block70 variant and the Rafale.

The Rafale has the advantage of already being in service with the Indians and they are reportedly very happy with its performance and capability.
Surely the Rafale has a far upgrade potential than an F16 airframe design pushing 50yrs old?

The operational reports of Rafale in action in Libya and v IS and in particular Indian use in both training v the Flanker all point to a highly capable airframe.
I must actually see if I can dig out any Redflag reports on Rafales performance.
It seems to be the best of the 4.5gen bunch even v Eurofighter and Sukhoi and Mig.
I know in Redflag in particular that the Eurofighter is considered superior to F15 and that's saying a lot!

Dohvolle

banie01 wrote: »

The recent spate of Rafale sales is really interesting IMO.
The Greek and Croatian orders are predominantly debt financed via France.
Part and parcel of French industrial support for Dassault hidden as foreign sales rather than state aid.

Egypt and Qatar are likely to convert their options for more into further orders and the Indian rumours are that despite the original MRCA deal being shelved.
That the new deal is going to be a shoot out between an F16 block70 variant and the Rafale.

The Rafale has the advantage of already being in service with the Indians and they are reportedly very happy with its performance and capability.
Surely the Rafale has a far upgrade potential than an F16 airframe design pushing 50yrs old?

The operational reports of Rafale in action in Libya and v IS and in particular Indian use in both training v the Flanker all point to a highly capable airframe.
I must actually see if I can dig out any Redflag reports on Rafales performance.
It seems to be the best of the 4.5gen bunch even v Eurofighter and Sukhoi and Mig.
I know in Redflag in particular that the Eurofighter is considered superior to F15 and that's saying a lot!

In terms of the Greek and Croatian order at least, the French are offloading their fleet so they can open a production line for the latest version of Rafale for their own use.
French Rafales have been quietly picking off AQ targets in the Sahel with minimum fuss.
Is there any other Gen 4.5 fighter currently involved in regular combat?

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

In terms of the Greek and Croatian order at least, the French are offloading their fleet so they can open a production line for the latest version of Rafale for their own use.
French Rafales have been quietly picking off AQ targets in the Sahel with minimum fuss.
Is there any other Gen 4.5 fighter currently involved in regular combat?

The Typhoons are still active over Syria aren’t they?

1874

Psychlops wrote: »

How so? We already work with them via PFP. Its a challenge not only to NATO but the west as a whole. If we cant do it we have to either have NATO do it or an EU Country which ironically would also be a NATO member...

Because we aren't in NATO. We are Neutral, there would be uproar, a Senator was already on about it for overflights, people would have a fit if NATO was based here, thats why. Whether you agree or like it or not or what the merry dance our neutrality entails, having that organisations land/air forces stationed on our territory would be a big deal, we then might really draw the attention of Russia, who aren't actually in our territory.


It doesn't add up to say, lets just invite NATO to base here, that would be a big deal, and probably undermine us internationally in other ways.
It just doesn't stack up, get one organisations military forces onto our soil because another isn't??
NI is a few miles north and could be utilised without less legal or political issues and already another poster highlighted how that would be a bit of a big deal.

While what Russia is doing might not be a direct intentional affront to our sovereignty, we can deal with it better than by spending billions on 4.5 generation fighter aircraft, either directly with Russia, through our influence in the EU or through the UN or maybe even ICAO.
As other posters stated, we would need other infrastructure and elements to support aircraft of that nature which we dont really need, so costs go one way, up, which Ireland has never been willing to pay.

That said, I think we should maintain the skills required to have a fast jet component in the form of something preferably from within the EU, L39NG or L-159, so that should we ever upgrade to the level of Hungary or Czech who have about 14-15 Gripens or even a fraction of that, then we have already started building the experience to do so. Really anything else is WM pipe dream stuff as there are so many other things that need to be fixed/re-organised in the Country, not to mention the PDF.
IMO The Fougas should never have been procured, an old design at the time, should have gone for a newer type like the MB 326 which although not new at the time was more modern and also an established aircraft. Had enquiries been made, it could have even been seen that a newer replacement aircraft type was on the drawing board, and that type has remained up to date for a nation of our level of defence budget up till this date.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not buy say 20 eurofighters, invest in proper radar on ground and buy like 4 patrol ships.

Because phenomenal cost, political reasons, basically not practical/feasible We couldnt afford the missles, or probably to fuel them, never mind the supporting infrastructure of which maintenance is going to be one of the largest, or the experience operating such a type. It would be like entering a baby in the Olympics to run the 100m.

Deleted User wrote: »

I get you but I am embarrassed that we don't have at least 20 fighter jets, proper radar and also proper naval support for to protect irish airspace/irish fishermen and women.

Embarrassed? thats on you, sounds kinda immature imo, none of the Baltic states have comparable aircraft being suggested here, and thats the level we are at, and they share land borders with Russia.

It appears, they all have or had L39's, we would be lucky to set our sights even that high, purely to maintain a cost effective foot in the door for training and building and maintaining experience at operating jets and for further basic jet flight training.





As other posters have said, be better having a credible air transport aircraft type, imo drones for maritime patrol, and invest nationally in cyber defence.

banie01

Dohvolle wrote: »

In terms of the Greek and Croatian order at least, the French are offloading their fleet so they can open a production line for the latest version of Rafale for their own use.
French Rafales have been quietly picking off AQ targets in the Sahel with minimum fuss.
Is there any other Gen 4.5 fighter currently involved in regular combat?

Sparky beat me to it, Typhoon is still flying over Syria.
The Indians seem confident enough in Rafale to use it as a counter and deterrent to the recent Chinese incursions in Ladakh and the LOC there.

The Chinese have reportedly moved j20s south to counter that.

I think the Indians need to consolidate their fleet, they are still flying to many types of different attack and fighters to sustain a high attrition rate without serious issue.
The Tejas has potential, but for India with pushing on to a MK2 and still being @12 squadrons short they need to buy something deliverable, maintainable and with Indian production lines.
That's where the big Rafale deal fell apart in 2016 iirc?

Lockheed are offering to let India build and sell block 70 f16s if the rumours are accurate.

Still, back to Irish needs.
As the experts have opined, 16 fast jets and associated hangers and equipment are the minimum required.
Training can be farmed out to the home country of whichever plane we buy.
Make it part of the sales and support contract it's common practice now for fast jet pilots to train overseas.
Keep the pc9s for basic training and streaming.

We need an air policing capability, maritime recon and a practical medium lift capability to support both overseas deployment and aid and disaster relief.

Edgarfrndly

Couldn't we start with a small number of jets and build up our profile over time? Maybe start with 6 fast jets like the Gripen, with intent to double it to 12 by 10 years? Would allow us time to improve infrastructure, training, etc..

Larbre34

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Couldn't we start with a small number of jets and build up our profile over time? Maybe start with 6 fast jets like the Gripen, with intent to double it to 12 by 10 years? Would allow us time to improve infrastructure, training, etc..

It doesn't work like that.

To have two jets available for Quick Reaction Alert duty 24/7, you need 12 to 16 aircraft in the inventory.

Thats because you will always have 4 to 6 aircraft in various states of heavy maintenance and refit. You will have a couple on training duty both in the air and on the ground. You can't have the same 2 planes sitting fuelled and armed for days on end, so for 2 to be available you either need 4 or ideally 6 aircraft being rotated through the roster over a tour of duty lasting days or weeks. Out of that 12 to 16, 2 will probably be two-seaters that will never see frontline duty anyway.

Unfortunately it all adds up and that's why the whole venture is so bloody expensive. Likewise, a squadron of 16, needs 40 to 50 active pilots to cover a shift pattern and allow for leave, training and professional development, plus ground crew, technicians, radar operators, air traffic controllers, fire personnel and increased sentry presense. Thats another 100 to 150 bodies easily.

All told, its a very, very difficult operation to get going from scratch. Yes we aren't starting entirely from scratch, but we the the gaps in Air Corps capability, we might as well be.

You either commit to 12 planes and 100 to 200 new personnel or you don't bother at all.

1874

Larbre34 wrote: »

It doesn't work like that.

To have two jets available for Quick Reaction Alert duty 24/7, you need 12 to 16 aircraft in the inventory.

Thats because you will always have 4 to 6 aircraft in various states of heavy maintenance and refit. You will have a couple on training duty both in the air and on the ground. You can't have the same 2 planes sitting fuelled and armed for days on end, so for 2 to be available you either need 4 or ideally 6 aircraft being rotated through the roster over a tour of duty lasting days or weeks. Out of that 12 to 16, 2 will probably be two-seaters that will never see frontline duty anyway.

Unfortunately it all adds up and that's why the whole venture is so bloody expensive. Likewise, a squadron of 16, needs 40 to 50 active pilots to cover a shift pattern and allow for leave, training and professional development, plus ground crew, technicians, radar operators, air traffic controllers, fire personnel and increased sentry presense. Thats another 100 to 150 bodies easily.

All told, its a very, very difficult operation to get going from scratch. Yes we aren't starting entirely from scratch, but we the the gaps in Air Corps capability, we might as well be.

You either commit to 12 planes and 100 to 200 new personnel or you don't bother at all.

While I agree with what you are saying, ie how many aircraft you need is dictated by what you want them to do/how much availability do you need/want, how much maintenance is required, your human and financial resources to fly and maintain them.
It does seem SAAB have a lot of that covered, but an operating organisation such as the AC, could/should be able to organise along the lines of what the manufacturer says when trained personnel are up to speed. The AC would need to see what the min and max levels of trained personnel are to carry out that function, based on what the manufacturer says. I still think Gripens are a huge step too far.
I dont know if the L39/L159 manufacturer has such programs regarding maintenance which factor in time and cost.
But the Swedish airforce at least at the operational level seem to work with skilled highly trained personnel who are supported by almost conscript trained supporting members of the air force.
The AC should maximize its existing personnel to this end. It would be beneficial for the entire PDF to have a real time management system (software based but has redundant means to manage) that knows exactly who is where and what every member of the DF is doing on a day to day and week to week basis and plans for the future regrading maintenance, training, leave etc. This could be fine tuned down to the different organisations.
Without correctly managing existing resources, you can't be running things efficiently or planning for the future. The entire organisation needs overhauling, most likely because the majority of the management structure come in as young or relatively young people without much (or any) prior experience outside that environment, so they have a much more limited sense of how to run things efficiently or effectively.

Larbre34

I think you're wrong. The Gripen is the cheapest aircraft (apart from second hand of other types, think F-16) that will perform the task we need to be performed.

I'll say once again, the L-159, M-346 and all similar types are entirely useless to us. They aren't interceptors, we already have advanced trainers, we don't have any ground attack needs in our foreseeable future.

And I'll say this once again too, operating jets for jet's sake, would be stupid and it would be wasteful. I'll also add, if the public see jets being acquired and an incident arises where those small subsonic jets are unable to respond in a manner that the public would then expect, there would be uproar.

And speaking of uproar, it will come anyway from a vocal minority regardless when military aircraft are acquired, (and this has often resulted in the crap performance of the DoD on acquisition projects that Sparky mentions above).

In my view you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and get the system that will do the job, not the useless one that satisfies public relations and passing political vagaries.

1874

Well, I disagree, I do not believe for an instant a PC-9 is the logical step before someone steps into a Gripen.
Id say most Airforces that operate significantly capable aircraft have a jet trainer.

Simply buying Gripen, even a maintenance package off SAAB is not realistic, it would require the overhaul of the AC and supporting infrastructure we most likely cant and wont fund, you may as well set the IAC up as a zoo and stock it completely with Albino Elephants.

It would be an L39 or L159, their capabilities are consistent what we are able to afford and more can be done to fend off Bears by other less expensive means.
This is where the Baltic states are AND we have less requirement than they do. Other countries that may have even more need for this than us have taken the advanced trainer route, as per the previous highlighted route taken by the Phillipinnes who have more reason and a host of neighbours and a large airspace to manage.
We simply dont have that need over the odd flying Bear.
It is an expensive luxury, but jet trainers can always be a lead into that or training for other jets.

To be honest what you and some others are stating are flights of fancy (pun intended) but really, closer to Walter Mitty.


We cant afford that, if not into basic jets, better put the money into practical aircraft that can do other roles, Cyber defence.

Dohvolle

1874 wrote: »

While I agree with what you are saying, ie how many aircraft you need is dictated by what you want them to do/how much availability do you need/want, how much maintenance is required, your human and financial resources to fly and maintain them.
It does seem SAAB have a lot of that covered, but an operating organisation such as the AC, could/should be able to organise along the lines of what the manufacturer says when trained personnel are up to speed. The AC would need to see what the min and max levels of trained personnel are to carry out that function, based on what the manufacturer says. I still think Gripens are a huge step too far.
I dont know if the L39/L159 manufacturer has such programs regarding maintenance which factor in time and cost.
But the Swedish airforce at least at the operational level seem to work with skilled highly trained personnel who are supported by almost conscript trained supporting members of the air force.
The AC should maximize its existing personnel to this end. It would be beneficial for the entire PDF to have a real time management system (software based but has redundant means to manage) that knows exactly who is where and what every member of the DF is doing on a day to day and week to week basis and plans for the future regrading maintenance, training, leave etc. This could be fine tuned down to the different organisations.
Without correctly managing existing resources, you can't be running things efficiently or planning for the future. The entire organisation needs overhauling, most likely because the majority of the management structure come in as young or relatively young people without much (or any) prior experience outside that environment, so they have a much more limited sense of how to run things efficiently or effectively.

Are we still trying to cut that overgrown hedge with a scissors?
Forget the L39/L159, anything from the Aero Vodochody house. Put them out of your mind. Pretty for aerobatics perhaps, useless in the actual role being discussed. May as well be suggesting a HS125.

Also, the Baltic states have the combined might of Nato's Air Forces to protect them.

1874

Ok,
I'll put €50 quid aside,
If we have Gripens within the next ten years I'll hand you the money, for whatever €50 quid is worth by then,


I hope we dont every get Gripens (as nice and fancy as they are), because it would be an expensive waste we dont need that can be dealt with in other ways,
we either have an intro to jet trainers to have experience and for other uses which are cost effective, OR we will basically not have anything.
Thats what we need and can afford, The UK isnt going anywhere and they have Typhoons, and they have them right now, and they are paying for them.

Fighter aircraft are expensive, missiles are expensive, training is expensive, the required simulators are expensive, everything you can and cannot think of is expensive, and it only keeps getting more expensive.
Even utility aircraft which can serve some other beneficial uses are expensive and even when idle on the ground, consume money.


I'll check back on this thread every 3-5 years :rolleyes:,
I predict we dont get Gripens.

sparky42

1874 wrote: »

Well, I disagree, I do not believe for an instant a PC-9 is the logical step before someone steps into a Gripen.
Id say most Airforces that operate significantly capable aircraft have a jet trainer.

Simply buying Gripen, even a maintenance package off SAAB is not realistic, it would require the overhaul of the AC and supporting infrastructure we most likely cant and wont fund, you may as well set the IAC up as a zoo and stock it completely with Albino Elephants.

It would be an L39 or L159, their capabilities are consistent what we are able to afford and more can be done to fend off Bears by other less expensive means.
This is where the Baltic states are AND we have less requirement than they do. Other countries that may have even more need for this than us have taken the advanced trainer route, as per the previous highlighted route taken by the Phillipinnes who have more reason and a host of neighbours and a large airspace to manage.
We simply dont have that need over the odd flying Bear.
It is an expensive luxury, but jet trainers can always be a lead into that or training for other jets.

To be honest what you and some others are stating are flights of fancy (pun intended) but really, closer to Walter Mitty.


We cant afford that, if not into basic jets, better put the money into practical aircraft that can do other roles, Cyber defence.

You seem to leave out that the Baltic states are running at 2% and above on defence, and we are spending .25%, bit of a difference. Buying “basic jets” for the sale of buying basic jets is the same gob****e procurement that has given us the same issues in the DF.

It’s not inability to afford it, we spent up to 1.8% on defence in the past when our economy was tiny, its political and public will that is the issue, and on that interesting to see that polling has repeatedly returned figures suggesting more than 50% polled supports increased defence spending.

1874

sparky42 wrote: »

You seem to leave out that the Baltic states are running at 2% and above on defence, and we are spending .25%, bit of a difference. Buying “basic jets” for the sale of buying basic jets is the same gob****e procurement that has given us the same issues in the DF.

It’s not inability to afford it, we spent up to 1.8% on defence in the past when our economy was tiny, its political and public will that is the issue, and on that interesting to see that polling has repeatedly returned figures suggesting more than 50% polled supports increased defence spending.

I'm trying to not reply
There would be uproar if we purchased Gripens which will run into billions, money that can be spent elsewhere, and I think we could have afforded such aircraft, but we dont really need them.
What are we going to do? chase a Bear, paint it as a target? we dont have experience in that, it costs a lot of money to go out and start doing that, and what are the benefits?? Are we going to join NATO? shoot one down? Diplomacy could fix this easier, better and cheaper. Acting tough like a bullys sidekick isn't a good look.
If for some reason we decide to scale up and start having a hint of credible capability, they would need to fix/reverse all the other problems that have affected other areas of the PDF, the PDF would have to be able to manage its resources better, likely treat their staff better, there are a lot of things that needs fixing before we get up to the level of fielding a squadron of advanced fighter jets, that will take time effort, training and of course lots of money to throw at it.
I think let Diplomacy deal with it, much cheaper, with a bit of business acumen we could have some agreements with Russia that benefits us and no Bears roaming around the West Coast.

Psychlops

sparky42 wrote: »

The Typhoons are still active over Syria aren’t they?

Yep, Op Shader, daily sorties from Cyprus.

Psychlops

1874 wrote: »

We are Neutral,

No we are not.

Psychlops

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Couldn't we start with a small number of jets and build up our profile over time? Maybe start with 6 fast jets like the Gripen, with intent to double it to 12 by 10 years? Would allow us time to improve infrastructure, training, etc..

Bang, thats another thing, Baldonnel is totally un prepared for any kind of Fast Air. Bal needs to be hugely invested in.

Psychlops

1874 wrote: »

What are we going to do? chase a Bear, paint it as a target? we dont have experience in that, it costs a lot of money to go out and start doing that, and what are the benefits?? Are we going to join NATO? shoot one down? Diplomacy could fix this easier, better and cheaper.



I think let Diplomacy deal with it, much cheaper, with a bit of business acumen we could have some agreements with Russia that benefits us and no Bears roaming around the West Coast.

Are you living in a hole? The Russians do not do diplomacy, just ask Ukraine. The Russians do not care about Ireland, we are a huge weak link in Europe like it or not, the PDF already believe the Russians are eyeballing the subsea data cables off our west coast, its only a matter of time. Come into 2021 please, either we step up or we get someone to step up on our behalf, there is no shame in having NATO cover, no issue in Iceland or the Baltics.


https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-agents-went-to-ireland-to-inspect-undersea-cables-report-2020-2?r=US&IR=T


Quote: The country also presents itself as an ideal target to the Russians, Mark Galeotti, an expert on transnational crime and Russian security at the Royal United Service Institute think tank, told The Times.
"Ireland doesn't have a counter-intelligence capability. It's a relatively soft target. Ireland is a major node for the global internet. It has a large concentration of tech companies," he said. "This is the new battle space of the future."

Larbre34

1874 wrote: »

Well, I disagree, I do not believe for an instant a PC-9 is the logical step before someone steps into a Gripen.
Id say most Airforces that operate significantly capable aircraft have a jet trainer.

Funnily enough, that is precisely what Pilatus design and market their turboprop trainers as, the last actual step before stepping into an advanced fighter.

I can't speak to most Air Forces, but I generally leave the superpowers out of these conversations as they are outliers. Looking at some comparable nations to ourselves in Europe; Switzerland, Portugal, Denmark, Belgium - none of these operate jet trainers.

What they do have is either, 2-seater variants of their front line fighter, or like the Swiss, left over jets of their previous frontliner (F-5E) and all of these act as conversion trainers. And so the argument for jet trainers for a Country like Ireland does not hold up.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Funnily enough, that is precisely what Pilatus design and market their turboprop trainers as, the last actual step before stepping into an advanced fighter.

I can't speak to most Air Forces, but I generally leave the superpowers out of these conversations as they are outliers. Looking at some comparable nations to ourselves in Europe; Switzerland, Portugal, Denmark, Belgium - none of these operate jet trainers.

What they do have is either, 2-seater variants of their front line fighter, or like the Swiss, left over jets of their previous frontliner (F-5E) and all of these act as conversion trainers. And so the argument for jet trainers for a Country like Ireland does not hold up.

Both Belgium and Portugal have only just retired Alpha jets. They have been using trainer jets for 30 odd years as lead in training

1874

Psychlops wrote: »

Are you living in a hole? The Russians do not do diplomacy, just ask Ukraine. The Russians do not care about Ireland, we are a huge weak link in Europe like it or not, the PDF already believe the Russians are eyeballing the subsea data cables off our west coast, its only a matter of time. Come into 2021 please, either we step up or we get someone to step up on our behalf, there is no shame in having NATO cover, no issue in Iceland or the Baltics.


https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-agents-went-to-ireland-to-inspect-undersea-cables-report-2020-2?r=US&IR=T


Quote: The country also presents itself as an ideal target to the Russians, Mark Galeotti, an expert on transnational crime and Russian security at the Royal United Service Institute think tank, told The Times.
"Ireland doesn't have a counter-intelligence capability. It's a relatively soft target. Ireland is a major node for the global internet. It has a large concentration of tech companies," he said. "This is the new battle space of the future."

Are these Gripens submersibles? how are they going to protect undersea cables?
And transnational crime seems like it might be better fought by engaging with Europol, building an intelligence service based around technology and cyber defence capability, as the quote says, that is the new battle space.
I think you need to come into the 21st century and realise that too. Unless Gripens can access cyberspace, I dont see how they can help? if anything it is likely it's possible to undermine physical resources like aircraft with cyberwar before they even get off the ground.

They are beginning to look less useful than before.

sparky42

Psychlops wrote: »

Bang, thats another thing, Baldonnel is totally un prepared for any kind of Fast Air. Bal needs to be hugely invested in.

Given O’Brin’s temper tantrum over the C17 being so loud to scare his constituents, a FJ responding to a QRA... The Daíl would get nothing done from his complaints.

If Jets were ever being seriously considered moving them out of Dublin has to be considered IMO.

1874

sparky42 wrote: »

Given O’Brin’s temper tantrum over the C17 being so loud to scare his constituents, a FJ responding to a QRA... The Daíl would get nothing done from his complaints.

If Jets were ever being seriously considered moving them out of Dublin has to be considered IMO.

Right, so build an entire airbase? away from the majority of where the main body of the IAC live, ie the trained and experienced personnel they have at this moment, possibly their biggest asset?
That has got to cost a few euros,
now just think of the cost of the childrens hospital, make a nice place for the Bears to land and refuel I suppose,

Oscar Madison

Couldn't justify the expense! Our next door neighbours I'm sure will always

be keeping an eye on what's heading in 'our' direction along with our

neighbours out west! Sleep easy!