Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Larbre34

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.

Absolutely.

Any strategic analysis of the situation would likely recommend co-locating a QRA base at Shannon, as you see in many Countries.

This would put the aircraft on the west coast where they would be most needed and also add valuable activity to Shannon Airport and hinterland.

You could then either scale back Baldonnell or sell it and relocate to another green field site on a motorway or even to Dublin airport for logistics and MATS needs.

Strumms

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.

I know business people have historically had an overbearing influence on the workings and maschinations of this country but good luck to him or anyone complaining or going to court whinging about defense systems and infrastructure because it doesnt suit him..

sparky42

Strumms wrote: »

I know business people have historically had an overbearing influence on the workings and maschinations of this country but good luck to him or anyone complaining or going to court whinging about defense systems and infrastructure because it doesnt suit him..

Defence would lose most likely, Dublin has been looking at Baldonnel since before the Crash, it’s basically the last growth area they want. FJs on afterburner at random times including middle of the night... Every Dublin TD will be kicking off.

sparky42

Oscar Madison wrote: »

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!

Again we spent far more in percentage when we were far poorer, it’s not a question about being able to fund it.

1874

sparky42 wrote: »

Defence would lose most likely, Dublin has been looking at Baldonnel since before the Crash, it’s basically the last growth area they want. FJs on afterburner at random times including middle of the night... Every Dublin TD will be kicking off.

You seem to think the money (billions) exists to burn (both to buy and literally) on fuel in aircraft using afterburners.

sparky42 wrote: »

Again we spent far more in percentage when we were far poorer, it’s not a question about being able to fund it.

Talking in percentages ever, but specifically relative to a different age hides actual real costs AND the fact we are now still up to our eyes in debt, we might have a better quality of life for sure, relative to others ours has improved, but overall whether we can be considered to have the money now at all given the costs of everything, in some terms I consider us not to be financially better off.
I think in the past we could afford these things better to some extent, whereas aviation technology for fighter aircraft has advanced significantly and so has the cost and relative cost to a bye gone time.


If a price instead of a percent is ever rolled out, I fully expect it to be baulked at by the majority.

sparky42

1874 wrote: »

You seem to think the money (billions) exists to burn (both to buy and literally) on fuel in aircraft using afterburners.

If they are responding to an unknown coming in off the West Coast yeah they are going to be hitting their afterburners to make an intercept, you see that every so often in the U.K. for example. Escorting Bears is a different situation.

Talking in percentages ever, but specifically relative to a different age hides actual real costs AND the fact we are now still up to our eyes in debt, we might have a better quality of life for sure, relative to others ours has improved, but overall whether we can be considered to have the money now at all given the costs of everything, in some terms I consider us not to be financially better off.
I think in the past we could afford these things better to some extent, whereas aviation technology for fighter aircraft has advanced significantly and so has the cost and relative cost to a bye gone time.


If a price instead of a percent is ever rolled out, I fully expect it to be baulked at by the majority.

There is no question that the state is far wealthier than at any time in the past even with our national debt, as to costs, even if we just spent 1% on defence that’s basically 4 billion euros for the Defence Forces... That’s more than even when we were spending closer to 2%. We know the deal for Gripens, even if you factor in upfront costs of a couple of billion in the first couple of years for capital spend before the fighters, it would still be manageable at 1%.

Flinty997

Maj Gen James said investing in a squadron of aircraft would be of “no use” without the foundations, including a nationwide radar system, a reporting and intelligence analysis system and a command and control system.

“The single biggest problem is numbers,” he said. “If you decide to go 24/7 the numbers are going to go off the clock, with pilots, technicians, air traffic controllers and ground staff.”

He said the cost of training pilots to conduct quick response required up to 400 hours of training, saying the cost would be “off the Richter scale”.

Be interested to know on SF take of paying for this vs housing crisis.

1874

A couple of billion for the first few years, that has to come from somewhere else,
and thats just the start and basically pulled out of thin air, because no one knows how much the infrastructure to support just supersonic fighter jets would be, and thats all you get for your few billion euro :rolleyes:, just jets, now add everything else.
We could shore up a lot of problems with a few billion euro spread around here there and everywhere,

Im off, this has descended well past WM.

Strumms

sparky42 wrote: »

Defence would lose most likely, Dublin has been looking at Baldonnel since before the Crash, it’s basically the last growth area they want. FJs on afterburner at random times including middle of the night... Every Dublin TD will be kicking off.

‘They’ ?

The aer corps can only shift out of baldonnel if there is somewhere else to put them. Government would need to buy land and invest on building a new facility, offices, hangers, tower, runways, millions... they’d probably actually they would, lose on the deal, or the taxpayer would.

Baldonnel is in a pretty good location given its purpose.

sparky42

Strumms wrote: »

‘They’ ?

The aer corps can only shift out of baldonnel if there is somewhere else to put them. Government would need to buy land and invest on building a new facility, offices, hangers, tower, runways, millions... they’d probably actually they would, lose on the deal, or the taxpayer would.

Baldonnel is in a pretty good location given its purpose.

The Dublin councils.
And Shannon has plenty of capacity if the government wanted to base out of it (which would make more sense for both the MPAs and any potential Fighters), plenty of other nations go with dual use airports.

Psychlops

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.

Shannon & Dublin.

Psychlops

1874 wrote: »

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.

I never mentioned anything about Gripens or their use for Sub Sea cables. We are looking for Air Defence & Russia sees us as a weak link in Europe. You dont, are you a communist?:pac:

Psychlops

1874 wrote: »

You seem to think the money (billions) exists to burn (both to buy and literally) on fuel in aircraft using afterburners.

The money is there, as you said yourself look at the money gone into the Childrens Hospital, while the Hospital is obviously a priority you can see there is money there.

Larbre34

The Government can install Defence installations wherever it likes without reference to any County Councils.

While a civilised consultation and cooperation on such things is always desirable, its not mandatory.

That said, if Baldonnell was sold I can't really see a superior site for a military airbase elsewhere that close to Dublin.

A co-located but separate and secure site on the McEvaddy lands between the two main runways at Dublin Airport would probably be most practical as it would allow unlimited operations by the Air Corps of any type and size, well into the future. On the other hand, given the premium value of that land, would the cost far exceed any capital raised by flogging Casement?

sparky42

1874 wrote: »

A couple of billion for the first few years, that has to come from somewhere else,
and thats just the start and basically pulled out of thin air, because no one knows how much the infrastructure to support just supersonic fighter jets would be, and thats all you get for your few billion euro :rolleyes:, just jets, now add everything else.
We could shore up a lot of problems with a few billion euro spread around here there and everywhere,

Im off, this has descended well past WM.

True, I mean clearly we're the first nation in the world to stand up any air defence system and therefore we can't look to learn from anyone else... And no if you bothered to look you could see the Lease's for the Gripens are about 100 million a year for the entire squadron, hell go French and they will give us a loan for taking Rafales from them...



Back at the height of the Crash, the Gardai announced that the average age of their patrol fleet was too old and they were going to go on strike... Money was found for new fleet, money has been pissed away on god knows what in the Health budget since the founding of the State and it's still a fecking mess. Money isn't the issue, political will is.

Gary kk

Something on RAF operating over Irish air space on newstalk sometime this morning

Lorddrakul

Story this morning of secret RAF cover for intercept and shoot down is an embarrassment.

Independent.ie: Secret defence pact allowing RAF jets in Irish airspace 'undermines our neutrality', says TD Berry.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/secret-defence-pact-allowing-raf-jets-inirish-airspace-undermines-our-neutrality-says-td-berry-40526069.html

nonethepfizer

Lorddrakul wrote: »

Story this morning of secret RAF cover for intercept and shoot down is an embarrassment.

Independent.ie: Secret defence pact allowing RAF jets in Irish airspace 'undermines our neutrality', says TD Berry.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/secret-defence-pact-allowing-raf-jets-inirish-airspace-undermines-our-neutrality-says-td-berry-40526069.html

Why is this being billed as secret..? I remember this being all over the news after 9/11 which prompted the initial request for info on the L-39's (probably as a face saving exercise) which turned into the PC-9 purchase..

Which in turn, raised the issue again in 2004 when the big news headline was IAC purchases aircraft that cannot keep up with jet liners and will rely on RAF for interception purposes.

It's not and never was a secret.

Lorddrakul

nonethepfizer wrote: »

Why is this being billed as secret..? I remember this being all over the news after 9/11 which prompted the initial request for info on the L-39's (probably as a face saving exercise) which turned into the PC-9 purchase..

Which in turn, raised the issue again in 2004 when the big news headline was IAC purchases aircraft that cannot keep up with jet liners and will rely on RAF for interception purposes.

It's not and never was a secret.

Can't answer that, just referencing the language of the piece, but it is a good point.

Oscar Madison

Lorddrakul wrote: »

Story this morning of secret RAF cover for intercept and shoot down is an embarrassment.

Independent.ie: Secret defence pact allowing RAF jets in Irish airspace 'undermines our neutrality', says TD Berry.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/secret-defence-pact-allowing-raf-jets-inirish-airspace-undermines-our-neutrality-says-td-berry-40526069.html

Neutrality!!!! Has anyone ANY idea how large the British Armed Forces is?

The size of its Navy, Airforce, Armed Forces or how much money annually is

spent on defence?

We're living next door to a 'SUPER POWER' whether we like it or not

and 'OUR NEUTRALITY' will not cost a thought to those in defence of the realm

and rightly so too! If the UK decided to 'invade' us in the morning what

would or could we do about it? Would the U.S. come to our defence?

I most certainly think not!

Gary kk

Oscar Madison wrote: »

Neutrality!!!! Has anyone ANY idea how large the British Armed Forces is?

The size of its Navy, Airforce, Armed Forces or how much money annually is

spent on defence?

We're living next door to a 'SUPER POWER' whether we like it or not

and 'OUR NEUTRALITY' will not cost a thought to those in defence of the realm

and rightly so too! If the UK decided to 'invade' us in the morning what

would or could we do about it? Would the U.S. come to our defence?

I most certainly think not!

Lol do you really think the UK would invade?

This is not about fighting the UK this is about looking after our own air space in a effective manner.

Gary kk

Newstalk now

1874

1874 wrote: »

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 is embarrassing though, we depend on the UK to monitor our skies. Sweden aren't in NATO but have a serious set up.

I think a few drones are a fairly weak effort.

I think the bigger issue we have is that state spending of any significance on air defence or the military doesn't get much political support due to a general lack of appetite for it amongst the public.

The irony is we are effectively being used as a stop over for the US and yet remain neutral even though its fairly obvious we support the US.

nonethepfizer

Lorddrakul wrote: »

Can't answer that, just referencing the language of the piece, but it is a good point.

apologies, was directed at you, more so stating generally...



a country in a similar situation is Iceland...

Neutral country (I don't think they even have a defence force, just coastguard)..

They rely on a NATO rotation of air support on 3-6 month blocks, usually based out of Keflavik.

Keflavik is also a US Navy air station where P-8's are based for ASW duties and a usual stop for everything NATO.

We're not alone.

nonethepfizer

Deleted User wrote: »

It is embarrassing though, we depend on the UK to monitor our skies. Sweden aren't in NATO but have a serious set up.

I think a few drones are a fairly weak effort.

I think the bigger issue we have is that state spending of any significance on air defence or the military doesn't get much political support due to a general lack of appetite for it amongst the public.

The irony is we are effectively being used as a stop over for the US and yet remain neutral even though its fairly obvious we support the US.

Sweden have a greater active threat from Russia, as is the argument for all Baltic area nations. There is more of an overt defence justification for them as opposed to the Russians having the occasional joyride through our controlled airspace without transponders on.... but I do agree the Irish setup is pathetic at best...

The US are far more overt about their Shannon stopovers etc.... but there has been some questionable flights through SNN lately, which if you were to take their routings at face value, could be seen as transports in support of Russian military activities in Africa. They aren't Russian military aircraft so no one gives them a second look.

Larbre34

It is an embarrassment, it has always been an embarrassment and it will be an embarrassment for the foreseeable future.

Any sovereign Republic, even a neutral one, who cannot enforce its own borders and boundaries and exert a presence at sea and in the air within its areas of responsibility, simply isn't worthy of the name.

sparky42

nonethepfizer wrote: »

apologies, was directed at you, more so stating generally...



a country in a similar situation is Iceland...

Neutral country (I don't think they even have a defence force, just coastguard)..

They rely on a NATO rotation of air support on 3-6 month blocks, usually based out of Keflavik.

Keflavik is also a US Navy air station where P-8's are based for ASW duties and a usual stop for everything NATO.

We're not alone.

Iceland is in NATO so not neutral, it is also a tiny country that has zero comparisons with us, and yes legally we are alone as we aren’t part of NATO in case you missed that.

ohnonotgmail

Oscar Madison wrote: »

Neutrality!!!! Has anyone ANY idea how large the British Armed Forces is?

The size of its Navy, Airforce, Armed Forces or how much money annually is

spent on defence?

We're living next door to a 'SUPER POWER' whether we like it or not

and 'OUR NEUTRALITY' will not cost a thought to those in defence of the realm

and rightly so too! If the UK decided to 'invade' us in the morning what

would or could we do about it? Would the U.S. come to our defence?

I most certainly think not!

on our own probably not a whole lot except perhaps delay it. Thankfully Article 42 would kick in.

Larbre34

If anything has become clear over the last while and indeed for about the last 60 years, it's that in the very, very unlikely eventuality of Ireland being subject to foreign aggression, even from Britain, that the United States would intercede on our side.

But thats by the by, we are talking here about normal peacetime security and defence.

Edgarfrndly

The UK is never going to invade Ireland (again). The UK despite our history would have our back in many situations. We have no direct enemies, but Russia is a threat to our airspace and infrastructure. Ireland is seen as a weak link in European defense.