How many jet planes does a government need?

swiss

I hate to drag up old posts, but this merits a comment

Originally posted by Turkey:

Sparks, no matter how often you repeat a lie , it still remains a lie

A lie? I don't know what other message boards you have been on, but this one has fairly strict rules about civility. Accusing someone of lying, without proof certainly contravenes those rules. In order to provide that proof, not only do you need to demonstrate that Sparks claims are wrong, you also need to demonstrate that Sparks knew that those claims are wrong. So I challenge you to do so, or else retract the statement with an apology.

I am almost 20 years older then you, I know the truth , w**kers and left wing filth on Irish avaition web[now closed down] do not , try growing up , I seen the results in enough funerals, [it hurts,]I have no desire to see any more, but as long as government policy remains the way it is, my desire will be meaningless .

Just because you are older does not mean that you "know it all". What "truth" do you think you know? That we need more military cargo transports? That we need to strengthen and update our air defences? We haven't needed them in the past, what makes you think that we suddenly need them now?

Also , Spark as far as I am aware you are the only ********* who disagrees with me

Yet more personal abuse, irrelevant to the topic in hand. Even if Sparks was the only person who disagrees with you, his arguments merit as much consideration as anyone elses. In fact the rest of your post is just abusive diatribe with little real content.

This is a warning. Any more personal abuse will result in a ban from this forum. In fact should you decide to post here again, do not do so without reading the guidelines for posting.

Victor

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
They also do not fly to Dublin Airport because ministers are too lazy to go to Baldonnel. They would have a Garda escort in any case, which would make the trip virtually the same.

Eh, no, Bertie had a definite preference to use Dublin Airport, especially in the morning.

Originally posted by swiss
Just because you are older does not mean that you "know it all". What "truth" do you think you know? That we need more military cargo transports? That we need to strengthen and update our air defences? We haven't needed them in the past, what makes you think that we suddenly need them now?

So why was a Marchetti flying top cover over Dublin Castle for the last two days (EU Justice ministers meeting)? We are using Marchettis, for Davos, the Swiss used F-18s.

http://www.military.ie/images/marchetti_n6_small.jpg

Sparks

Originally posted by Victor
[ So why was a Marchetti flying top cover over Dublin Castle for the last two days (EU Justice ministers meeting)? WEa re using Marchettis, for Davos, the Swiss used F-18s.

The thing is, even if we had F/A-18s, Dublin Castle is basicly under the approach path for Dublin Airport, so you'd have, what, 30 seconds to recognise that an airliner has been hijacked and is now diving towards the Castle and get permission to fire and then fire - and even if you manage it, what happens? All the pieces rain down all over the plebs walking the dublin streets.

Frankly, the idea of us needing air defences is rather silly. Here we are, in a country where the car bomb was commonplace during my lifetime, and the first thing we think of is an aerial attack that we can't defend against anyway for fear of killing more people than would be killed if we let the attack succeed?

The whole thing is nothing more than paranoia being used for ulterior motives.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
The thing is, even if we had F/A-18s, Dublin Castle is basicly under the approach path for Dublin Airport,

That runway whas been closed for about 10 years, most aircraft come in over Portmarnock. And yes a car bomb is more realistic, but at the same time precautions are taken against car bombs.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0122/templebar.html

Temple Bar traders angry at Garda barriers

January 22, 2004

(18:06) A group representing traders in the Old City shopping district of Temple Bar in Dublin have said that gardaí are taking an 'over the top approach' in providing security for EU presidency meetings at Dublin Castle.

Mairéad Foley, Chairperson of Old City Traders, said the gardaí had installed manned barriers this morning at each end of Cow's Lane, the central shopping street of the Old City.

Ms Foley said that shoppers wishing to enter the street had to go through an interview process with gardaí, and as most people had not bothered taking the trouble to do this, the shops were empty.

'If this situation continues shops will be put out of business', Ms Foley said.

Ms Foley called for a balance to be struck between security needs and the needs of small businesses.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0122/dublincastle.jpg

Sparks

Originally posted by Victor
that runway whas been closed for about 10 years, most aircraft come in over Portmarnock.

Actually, I was talking about the approach path that comes in from Dublin Bay. Remember, these are jet aircraft with a groundspeed of 500mph or so in cruise and 160mph in it's final approach (as in within a mile or so of the runway). From approach path to the middle of Dublin Castle is a short time...

And yes a car bomb is more realistic, but at the same time precautions are taken against car bombs.

Yup. But a CAP isn't a precaution against someone doing a WTC imitation on Dublin Castle.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.military.ie/aircorps/marchetti.htm
Max Speed 235kts

won't catch up let alone intercept most commercial airliners.

Turkey

First, I am quite ashamed about my previous post on this topic, I do not even have a clear memory of posting it and am deeply ashamed of the tone used. Apoligies to all concerned.
Sparks actully misses the point that I agree with him concerning the government jet, it is a total waste of money and efford.
But this is not all he choses to miss. Jet-defence is mostly symbolic of an intention to defend, the thought that our intention to defend is expressed by aircrafts with preformance similar to an early 1940's British fighter and the destructive capablities of US navy fighters of the late 1930's is, frankly, disturbing and is indicative of the contemp that our elected leaders show for all their responsiblities, be it, infrastructure, education, all the way thru' to health.
Also, to be totally pedantec [spellin?]I do not belive the F-18, [either main varient] is a suitable aircraft for this country.But this is not the time, or place for a lengthy disscusion on the pros and cons of US aircraft design
However morally, the shooting down of an airliner,assumed to be under the control of terrorists, is unacceptable,in addition to being damn near impossable, IMHO,[ja**s, another thing I sort of agree with Sparks on, this is getting worrying!] and the main efford should be concentrated on airport security,that's proper airport security, not the hysterical knee-jerks which have been foisted upon the traveling public in the past 2+ years, i.e. Marchettie's =window dressing, unacceptably tatty at that, no offence intended to the people who service or operate this equipment.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Sparks

They'd never flown jets of that class before flying the Gulfstream.

How do you know what they have or have not flown?

Training is provided by the aircraft manufacturer at their own base. Familiarisation then takes place following delivery. This usually lasts for 2-3 weeks.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turkey
Jet-defence is mostly symbolic of an intention to defend,

Yes, and in Ireland's case, thats exactly what it would be - symbolic.

IMO, the main reason Ireland has never built a airforce or navy worth talking about is quite simple - the nation realised it could never afford to build a defensive system strong enough to actually defend the country from a military incursion. So why spend all that money on military when the country had parely two farthings to rub together?

ASR capability, we should have. Better/proper airport security, we should also have. Training jets - no. Defensive jets - no.

the thought that our intention to defend is expressed by

The only way the Irish could ever defend against an incursion would be to allow them to walk in, talk the country cleanly, and then start a guerrilla war against them on the ground.

The notion that we should even need to keep a standing ability to defend is somewhat laughable. Defend against what, exactly? The Red invasion from the East? Franco/Germanic expansion? A New Britannia? The US? I mean...seriously....exactly who and what do we consider a threat that we need an airforce to deal with?

jc

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Turkey
i.e. Marchettie's =window dressing, unacceptably tatty at that, no offence intended to the people who service or operate this equipment.

No offence intended - they do the best the can with what they are given. Years ago I was hitchiking to kilkenny and got to watch the silver swallows practising (with the jets), very impressive flying, noses were ahead of tails and inside the wingspan etc.

But they might be better suited to COIN operations so less needed since the Good Friday agreement etc....

BTW: the training jets are needed to subsidise Aer Lingus

Qadhafi

Jet-defence is mostly symbolic of an intention to defend,

Being able to defend your own airspace is something a nation has to do. Ireland needs these various jet aircraft such as fighters, government jet etc....

I dont have a problem of ministers flying around in aircraft if it means that they are more efficient and present a more professional image of Ireland.

Its a bit of a joke that we are using Marchettie's to defend Irelands airspace. Clearly there is a need for some sort of figher jet. It should be noted that Smith T.D admitted that we are currently relying on the RAF should any serious event occur.

Sparks

Qadhafi, answer me 3 simple questions, would you?

1) What would we be defending?
2) What would we be defending against?
3) Why do we need private jets when the UK government (with 20 times our population and budget) do not?

Turkey

If I may;

1) If you do not know that by now..........

2) With any luck, no one, but it's a useful resource to have since, in reality, we are not neutral, and never have been, and we can more then afford them.

3)I take it you mean small passanger jets, the Brits [RAF] do have several of these, they do not get abused the way ours does. Obviously we do not need them, but a few tactical transports would be useful.


I belive that regardless of what we say, for, or against, we will have these assets withen the next 10 years anyway, unless someone declares world peace, [unlikely].

Sparks

Turkey,
1) Assume I don't know. What, specifically, would we be defending?
2) If there is noone to defend against, then why would we spend millions, if not billions, of euro that could go to better uses, like primary schools that aren't rat-infested, or more grants for poor kids to go to college, or more funding for colleges in general since they're currently badly underfunded, about to see a demographic blip hit in the next few years, and produce our one and only natural resource.
3) Why would we need tactical transports? You can get troops from anywhere in Ireland to anywhere in Ireland in under six hours anyway, just by driving; any invasion force would have air cover and a transport is just target practise to a fighter; mounting a formal battle would be nothing more than a fast way to decimate the PDF anyway; when abroad under the UN flag, the UN provides transports and there's no shame in using them (feck it, if you're putting your ass in a sling to aid their cause, the least they can do is get you there!).

If we had any natural resources worth the trouble (like oil or uranium in economically viable quantities), then I'd say yes - get F-22's, several squadrons of them, divisions of elite troops, tanks, the whole nine yards - but the only natural resource this country has is an educated, highly-skilled workforce. Spending money on the military is a fast way to get rid of the cash we need to produce our workforce.

Turkey

Spark, do not take this the wrong way, but I find it very disturbing that you belive that resources like uranium and oil are more worth defending then people.
And it would not cost billions, it would cost about a quarter what has been spent on brennans toy tramway, mayby even less.
The tactical transports would enable the DF to be far more use to the UN, and would allow it to achive a greater degree of flexiblity,apart from the fact that, while our ministers may possably be perceived as the laughing stock of the world, our DF certainly are not, the apperence of several C-130's bearing Irish maskings and carrying relife supplies, into yet another trouble spot would be something anyone who gives a s**t would be glad to see.
As for helicopters, they are needed for training and operations abroad with the UN, also with air -transport available, it is possable that more Barracks could be sold off, and perhaps this time money could be injected into the DF, the least funded[GNP%] of all of Europe.
Sorry if this rambles a bit.

Vader

Originally posted by mike65
: How many jet planes does a government need?

How many you got and for what price?:cool:

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Being able to defend your own airspace is something a nation has to do. Ireland needs these various jet aircraft such as fighters, government jet etc....

I dont have a problem of ministers flying around in aircraft if it means that they are more efficient and present a more professional image of Ireland.

Its a bit of a joke that we are using Marchettie's to defend Irelands airspace. Clearly there is a need for some sort of figher jet. It should be noted that Smith T.D admitted that we are currently relying on the RAF should any serious event occur.

Defend against what?

Fine if we can afford it but we can't. Its robbing the poor and sick to fly the rich.

See the above.

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
Spark, do not take this the wrong way, but I find it very disturbing that you belive that resources like uranium and oil are more worth defending then people.

Actually you've misunderstood me. Irish people don't need defending. There are no barbarians at the gates threatening to rape the women and carry off the children. The only thing that starts wars today tends to be economics. And it's not economically viable to invade Ireland. You couldn't sell it to the world community as a "liberation", you couldn't hold the island with an economically-sized force and we've no targets worth spending ordanance on for surgical strikes. The simple fact is that you cannot point to a single target in Ireland that would be worth attacking. The one and only "enemy" the PDF have is the IRA and their ilk, and fighter jets are useless for that kind of enemy.

And it would not cost billions, it would cost about a quarter what has been spent on brennans toy tramway, mayby even less.

Highly doubtful. You might be able to buy a few Albatrosses on the cheap from eastern europe for a hundred grand a pop, but then there's training, maintainance, ordanance, fuel, salaries....
You are looking at a lot of money. And what can you defend against for that cash? Nothing. Even Harriers, a fighter that doesn't have any long-range weapons, is more than a match for that class of fighter : and it's more likely to have to go up against F-16s or their class, with BVR weapons. And what if it's a civilian airliner being flown into the, hmmm...
Okay, let's say Leinster house. Actually no, let's say Dublin Castle (Leinster House isn't worth defending ). The approach path to Dublin Airport over Dublin Bay is what, 30 seconds away? Even with a CAP over dublin, you couldn't detect the attack, diagnose it as an attack, and get permission to engage the airliner in time. And that's with two aircraft already up there. Most of the time, they're on the ground in Baldonnell, at least 15 minutes from Dublin.

So basicly, you've spent at least a billion euro for something that can't be used in military conflicts and can't do a damn thing against civilian terrorist attacks.

Frankly, I'd rather see another school capital spending programme.

The tactical transports would enable the DF to be far more use to the UN

It's not our job to buy C-130s for the UN. We send soldiers - let more affluent nations pay for the heavy equipment. Our guys aren't the best at assaults anyway (except in the small actions the rangers can take on). They're peacekeepers, not counter-insurgency forces.

As for helicopters, they are needed for training and operations abroad with the UN,

Rubbish. We do need helicopters - but we need them for Air-Sea rescue and an Air Ambulance service, especially with Hanly now being implemented and A&E centres being closed down. We do not need troop transports so that the PDF can play at being US Marines while ordinary plebs die or are paralysed because they had to be taken from accidents to hospitals (or from hospital to hospital) on Irish roads in ambulances with only a driver along, or if lucky, an EMT (who can't perform any kind of invasive procedure, thus being not as good as a parmedic or doctor).

also with air -transport available, it is possable that more Barracks could be sold off, and perhaps this time money could be injected into the DF, the least funded[GNP%] of all of Europe.

Sure, sell some Barracks. But put the money somewhere useful like education or health, not into more soldiers who don't serve any realistic purpose.

Turkey

Sparks I cannot answer all the points you have raised, so I am stickin with the more noticeable ones,
I had no idea they had moved Bal'; 15 mins to Dublin at Mach 2, jasus, with half way decent training they ought to be able to get an alert aircraft off in 5 mins or less.
A billion for some Albatrosses, am I pickin this up right? we were offerd 9 of then for $6million a few years ago. You could buy about 35 F-16's for a billion euro at the start of last year , that's new build. In order to have 2 on Alert around the clock, we would need at least 8.
Our Army are not a counter insurgency force, news to me thats what they trained for since about 1971, you seem to be making out that they are a bunch of boy scouts. I suppose when ARW people rotate back to their units they forget everything they learned, as well!!!
Yes , we do need an air-ambulance service, what has that got to do with the DF, do they supply the fire service??
Sparks, your arguments sound to me like 'we do not need a defence force because I say so'
Defence is like fire insurance or smoke alarms, you pay for it, and hope you never need it, if you do not have it, you could end up looking very stupid, if your lucky!!!!!


PS, as far as I know , MY home PC is going to be knocked out for the entire week, mayby longer,[ I am in work now] so if I do not post for a while, it's not 'cause I am sulking!.......honest!
Oh I do not agree with you about Leinster house either, it's archtecurally breathtaking and belongs to the taxpayer, the contents are, however, a different matter:D

RicardoSmith

Note: no reason as to why we NEED to defend the airspace or whom from.

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
Sparks I cannot answer all the points you have raised, so I am stickin with the more noticeable ones,

Why can't you answer all the points I raised?
It's not like there's a deadline. Some posts I take a day or three to answer here anyway, so I can check facts or just because of workload.

I had no idea they had moved Bal'; 15 mins to Dublin at Mach 2, jasus, with half way decent training they ought to be able to get an alert aircraft off in 5 mins or less.

15 minutes for a "scramble" call to get an aircraft over dublin would be the edge of our competency to provide. You have to get the pilots from the ready room to gear up while being briefed, out to the 'plane, takeoff on fullpower and proceed to dublin on full power.

But even that assumes that the aircraft are kept ready. And maintaining a jet fighter on alert five status (fully fueled, all systems on and continually checked, engine kept warm, etc.) would be prohibitive in terms of cost and maintainance. And the Albatross can't reach Mach 2. Hell, an F/A-18 tops out at Mach 1.85 on full afterburner....

A billion for some Albatrosses, am I pickin this up right? we were offerd 9 of then for $6million a few years ago.

A billion euro (or so) for TCO - Total Cost of Ownership. In other words, the cost of not only buying the aircraft, but also the fuel, ordanance, maintainance, spare parts, training, hangers, and the salaries of the pilots and mechanics and other support staff needed.

You could buy about 35 F-16's for a billion euro at the start of last year , that's new build.

And run them for the length of time needed to fly them from the UK to Baldonnell, before running out of cash.
We're not talking about buying hardware here, but putting in place a whole service.

In order to have 2 on Alert around the clock, we would need at least 8.

And we'd also need for no aircraft to ever suffer any kind of wear and tear, no maintainance to ever be needed, and no training with advanced weapons systems to be needed for the pilots - and those pilots would have to be able to stand the round-the-year stresses of being on alert for six hours a day without a break.

Realistically, to maintain 2 aircraft in baldonnell on 24/7 alert, you'd need forty pilots and their aircraft (and RIOs/WSOs/Copilots if the aircraft type calls for it) - that's a schedule of one alert shift of six hours a week, with allowances for training, maintainance and leave.

And TCO of that little fleet would be truly scary.

Our Army are not a counter insurgency force, news to me thats what they trained for since about 1971, you seem to be making out that they are a bunch of boy scouts.

Our army don't do counter-insurgency. Never have done. Realistically, never will do.

I suppose when ARW people rotate back to their units they forget everything they learned, as well!!!

I'd hope the counter-terrorism training wasn't that temporary. But last time I checked, counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism aren't the same thing. One's small-scale, storming 747s and embassies and 40-foot containers; and the ARW do it well. The other is large-scale action against openly armed hostile forces; and we've never done that.

Yes , we do need an air-ambulance service, what has that got to do with the DF, do they supply the fire service??

No, but the money can pay for one or the other.

Sparks, your arguments sound to me like 'we do not need a defence force because I say so'

Really? Because I thought I was explaining my reasoning. Whereas you haven't.
So if anyone is saying "because I say so", I don't think it's me. You and I have had this debate on four seperate boards now, and you still have not given one single possible enemy whom (a) we realistically have to worry about; and (b) we could defend against.

Defence is like fire insurance or smoke alarms, you pay for it, and hope you never need it, if you do not have it, you could end up looking very stupid, if your lucky!!!!!

That's plain and straightforward paranoia.

Oh I do not agree with you about Leinster house either, it's archtecurally breathtaking and belongs to the taxpayer, the contents are, however, a different matter:D

Sounds like saving a sewage tank because you like the colour of the plastic used, if you ask me

Nuttzz

I'm new to this debate but this is my 2c.

Every european union member has is obliged to defend itself and the EU. There is little external threat to the EU at present and the bulk of the EU's force projection, in the form of the RRF, will be in response to emergencies such as Bosnia type action.

Irish citizens deserve the right to live life in peace however to rely on the UK for our defence would not be acceptable. Minister Smith has in public said that we would require "outside" assistance to protect us from a 9/11 type attack. As a tax payer I would much rather irish troops be in charge of my safety than UK troops. What would happen if they announced that we require the the PSNI special branch to catch criminals in Dublin?

For 100's of years Irish men and women have fought bitterly to be free of English rule, the nation itself was formed by armed conflict, however it is a sad sight that after a mere 82 years in existance the Irish state relies on its "old enemy" for protection.

Irish people deserve better

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
Every european union member has is obliged to defend itself and the EU.

No, actually they aren't. There is in fact, nothing even close to that agreed upon in the EU - hence the current debate relating to a common EU defence policy.

Irish citizens deserve the right to live life in peace however to rely on the UK for our defence would not be acceptable.

We live in peace right now without needing any kind of defence force. We're just not worth attacking.
In the meantime, our right to a decent quality of life (hospitals, education, infrastructure and so on) is under fire from far more real threats.
I know where I'd invest resources...

Minister Smith has in public said that we would require "outside" assistance to protect us from a 9/11 type attack.

And he's wrong. There isn't a military force in the world able to "protect" us from an 9/11 attack once the terrorists have control of the aircraft, and you don't need military forces to run proper security in the airport. (And BALPA will happily tell you of the futility of choosing the air marshalls idea as being the method to use to secure the aircraft).

What would happen if they announced that we require the the PSNI special branch to catch criminals in Dublin?

I for one would welcome it as a significant improvement, given that the PSNI has true community liasoning, a very powerful police ombudsman for investigating complaints against the PSNI, and a far, far better record than the Gardai when it comes to not committing crimes themselves, and not beating the public indiscriminately...

For 100's of years Irish men and women have fought bitterly to be free of English rule, the nation itself was formed by armed conflict, however it is a sad sight that after a mere 82 years in existance the Irish state relies on its "old enemy" for protection.

We don't.
We don't rely on anyone for protection, because we don't need it.
To need protection, you need two things: something to protect and someone to protect it from. Have the first and the second tends to crop up. But we don't have the first.

Big al

Without an army, who would have prevented the IRA from achieving their stated goal of a 32 county socialist republic, or 26 counties of it? How would the UK react to same?

Sparks

I think that I said it best, Al :

The one and only "enemy" the PDF have is the IRA and their ilk, and fighter jets are useless for that kind of enemy.

RicardoSmith

Even though its off topic since this thread is about aircraft. When has the PDF and IRA actually fought one another. I don't mean just patroling the border either.

Big al

We don't rely on anyone for protection, because we don't need it.

So the State doesnt need protection from the IRA, CIRA or RIRA?

To need protection, you need two things: something to protect and someone to protect it from. Have the first and the second tends to crop up. But we don't have the first

My Point: First thing we have is a nation state, Second thing we have is a illegal army whose stated objective is to overthrow that nation state and replace it with a socialist republic.

bonkey

Originally posted by Big al
So the State doesnt need protection from the IRA, CIRA or RIRA?

You just asked this in your last post. It was answered. If you want to ask it again, you could at least do Sparks the courtesy of explaining why his answer is not satisfactory....by explaining why this country needs jets to protect ourselves from groups that we have successfully defended ourselves against for the entire history of the state without said jets.

My Point: First thing we have is a nation state, Second thing we have is a illegal army whose stated objective is to overthrow that nation state and replace it with a socialist republic.

My Point: We've had that situation effectively since the inception of the state. We haven't had jets. So why do we need jets to protect us now? What has changed?

jc

Big al

We haven't had jets

Your not up on the equipment used by the Aer Corps, have a look around www.irishairpics.com.

Big al

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Even though its off topic since this thread is about aircraft. When has the PDF and IRA actually fought one another. I don't mean just patroling the border either.

Patrick Kelly was killed by in a gun battle with the IRA near Ballinamore, County Leitrim on 16 December 1983 along with a cop, Gary Sheehan.