How many jet planes does a government need?

RicardoSmith

Is that the only time?

Has an Irish Military aircraft ever had to fire its weapons in anger?

Victor

Big al, is that you from www.irishmilitaryonline.com ?

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Is that the only time?

None spring to mind, but that probably isn't the only incident. The IRA tended to engage in hit and run operations and in the Republic would not have challenged the army very often, whereas is would have done so in the North (more so the PSNI than the BA, I imaigine many more BA casualties were through bombings than shootings).

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Has an Irish Military aircraft ever had to fire its weapons in anger?

Not to my knowledge, although there may have been cases in WWII. The Naval Service have been involved in sinking three vessels, two were navigation hazards (one sunk with depth charges, the other gunfire), the other (FV Sonia) was attempting to ram a patrol vessel (official cause of sinking was heavy weather, but I suspect lots of 20mm holes in the hull helped).

Sparks

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

Neither the Vampires nor the Magisters ever saw action. The closest they ever came to ACM or ground attack was the low-level passes they did at airshows. Not worth the money, frankly.

Ricardo, to the best of my knowlege, the answer is no.

bonkey

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

I'm sorry. I misphrased that.

I meant to say that we haven't ever had the requirement for jets. If you like...we haven't ever used jets nor needed to use them.

Or do you think that there is some sort of mystical deterrant being offered by those jets against the terrors of the IRA et al???

If so, how can you possibly explain why it hasn't deterred them from taking action against the United Kingdom, who have far more, and much more capable jets.

jc

RicardoSmith

Well that says it all.

If we were to then look at how often the air/sea rescue or marine patrols are used, including the contract and UK flights I think that would clearly indicate where the need is. Some long range mutli role helo's and some multirole maritime patrol/transport aircraft is what is needed. We should outsource all our training overseas eliminating the need for training AC.

gurramok

We should outsource all our training overseas eliminating the need for training AC.

We should outsource the air force to eastern europe pilots who earn a fraction of the wage at equal if not better airflying skills of irish pilots. (those mig days must count for something!)
While we are at it, the govt and its jet should be outsourced itself, we would save a fortune !!

Qadhafi

on the topic of the lack of jets in Ireland and a suitable replacement : -

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2356

Qadhafi

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?

1,Yes I will
2,We would be defending Irish Airspace.
3.We would be defending Irish Airspace against the threat of hijacked planes and other aircraft that may pose a threat to Ireland.
4.Private Jets? The government needs jets to carry out the day to day role of governing the country in an efficient and professional manner. Why does the Defence Force need fighter jets? see answer 2.

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
2,We would be defending Irish Airspace.

What, all of it?

3.We would be defending Irish Airspace against the threat of hijacked planes and other aircraft that may pose a threat to Ireland.

Okay, firstly I've explained why you can't guard against hijacked aircraft, and secondly, "other aircraft that may pose a threat"? That's not saying who you're defending against, it's saying "oh, someone might attack us", without saying who that someone is - which was the question being asked. Try again?

4.Private Jets? The government needs jets to carry out the day to day role of governing the country in an efficient and professional manner.

No it doesn't. The UK gets along quite well without them despite having far more resources and work. As do several other countries.

Why does the Defence Force need fighter jets? see answer 2.

Perhaps you really ought to answer question 2. Who is the threat we're defending against and why are they attacking us?

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
on the topic of the lack of jets in Ireland and a suitable replacement : -
http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2356

Wow. Three pages of discussion by Turkey&Co., which begins with the assumption that we need fighter jets desperately and then becomes a thread about which fighter jet we ought to buy, with prices going up to $30 million plus, per aircraft.

Talk about a case of toys for the boys.

At no point does anyone make a case for why we need to spend that much at all. The only poster to point out that a squadron of JSFs wouldn't prevent another September 11th attack was told "well, you need air superiority - why, you couldn't bomb china with B-1s and B-52s at high altitude otherwise".

:rolleyes:

Qadhafi

1) Assume I don't know. What, specifically, would we be defending?1) Assume I don't know. What, specifically, would we be defending?

Ireland is a Western Country for a start, if you were a terrorist and wanted to strike somewhere you would simply goes where the security is the weakest. If we actually knew the threat then we could specificaly plan for it. There is the likes of Shannon with all those US troops stopping over. There are numerous events held in Ireland, Foreign leaders like Tony Blair, Gerorge Bush, EU summits and the like are held here. Each and every time the RAF is doing the job for us. Its very good of the UK to do this, however if something happened in the morning in Shannon say and it made front page news all over the world, wouldnt Ireland look a bit stupid if it became clear that we dont have anyfighter jets.

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.

Just to point out a few things, any fighter programme Ireland signs up to (should that ever happen)will no doubt come with offsets. I.e. providing jobs for people in Ireland or other trade agreements in favour of Ireland etc... various countries use these deals to stimulate their economy.

Payment is never made in 1 go, its usually over 10 years. The cost of say a €300million programme wouldnt amount to much if you spread that over the 10 years and take into account that the aircraft would be in service for the next 25 odd years.

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!).

In previous UN missions, like the Lebannon, the way things worked was, you provided what you could. This worked well for both rich and poor countries. The rich paid for the equipment and the poor sent soldiers (Ireland, India, Pakistan). However those types of missions are gone.

Ireland has signed up to the RRF (the rapid reaction force). It has to deploy complete units with modern equipment. Its an obligation.

In order to deploy troops quickly abroad you need tatical transport aircraft (within Europe). We currently rent aircraft for this task and there is no reason why we cant keep doing this.

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 -

Ireland wont be able to buy into the F-22 programme. Its strictly limited to the US (even Israel isnt getting any). So perhaps you mean the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) or something like that? We only need around 8-12, several squadrons would be a waste of money.

A division consists of approx 16,000 troops. Thats way to many, that even the UK doesnt have. 120 Rangers is enough.

Tanks, yes a light tank like the CV-90. Again a limited number to protect Irelands Battalion abroad instead of having to rely of missles.

ishmael whale

Going back to the government jet for a moment, the UK government have direct access to a lot more scheduled flights through Heathrow, and can call on the resources of the RAF if scheduled flights are not suitable. Given the openness of our economy and our dependence on external trade giving government a few jets is not necessarily an extravagance.

Qadhafi

:Originally posted by Qadhafi

2,We would be defending Irish Airspace.What, all of it?

Yes we could (from http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/) defend all of Ireland airspace, 1,100km range !!

JSF
$31-38m per aircraft
18,000lbs fuel capacity
15,000lbs missile capacity
1,100 km combat range

quote:3.We would be defending Irish Airspace against the threat of hijacked planes and other aircraft that may pose a threat to Ireland.

Okay, firstly I've explained why you can't guard against hijacked aircraft, and secondly, "other aircraft that may pose a threat"? That's not saying who you're defending against, it's saying "oh, someone might attack us", without saying who that someone is - which was the question being asked. Try again?

Yes you can guard against hijacked aircraft by providing proper aircover, your argument is flawed. I think your second point is folly. If you actually knew where the threat came from then every country would be able so save money on defence contracts. I've outlined potential threat in my previous post.

quote:4.Private Jets? The government needs jets to carry out the day to day role of governing the country in an efficient and professional manner.
No it doesn't. The UK gets along quite well without them despite having far more resources and work. As do several other countries.

I think the government needs jets. As a citizen of Ireland I dont mind the tax money going into paying for the government flying around in modern Irish owned jets. I think it puts forward a modern professional image for the country and helps Ireland carry out its international relations better.

Yes we could sent Bertie Ahern TD on RyainAir but it would look a bit scabby.

quote:Why does the Defence Force need fighter jets? see answer 2.
Perhaps you really ought to answer question 2. Who is the threat we're defending against and why are they attacking us?

I have already answered that in my previous post. If Ireland doesnt need fast fighter jets then please explain to me why the RAF is patrolling Shannon etc for us ?

Sparks

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Going back to the government jet for a moment, the UK government have direct access to a lot more scheduled flights through Heathrow, and can call on the resources of the RAF if scheduled flights are not suitable. Given the openness of our economy and our dependence on external trade giving government a few jets is not necessarily an extravagance.

Except that everyone else in business manages to get out of the country on commercial airliners quite readily, so why would it be any different for Bertie&Co? What destinations specifically could you not get to from Dublin on a scheduled airline?

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Yes we could (from http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/) defend all of Ireland airspace, 1,100km range !!

I hate to tell you this, but a JSF may be able to travel 1100km and fight, but it can't be everywhere at once, so you can't defend all of our airspace at once. Especially since they were talking about buying what, eight JSF at most? And they wouldn't all be operational all the time.

Yes you can guard against hijacked aircraft by providing proper aircover, your argument is flawed.

Show me how. With a bit more detail than "it's wrong", if you would.

I think your second point is folly. If you actually knew where the threat came from then every country would be able so save money on defence contracts.

But you don't even know roughly where the threat is, or (perhaps more importantly), what kind of threat it is - is it a military force, is it a terrorist threat, what?

I think the government needs jets. As a citizen of Ireland I dont mind the tax money going into paying for the government flying around in modern Irish owned jets. I think it puts forward a modern professional image for the country and helps Ireland carry out its international relations better.

And you think that the money being spent on jets that haven't ever been needed in the history of the state while primary school children attend rat-infested schools and people die on gurneys in hospital corridors is the image we want to portray?

Yes we could sent Bertie Ahern TD on RyainAir but it would look a bit scabby.

I was more thinking of sending him on Aer Lingus, the national airline. As the UK government do with BA. And as many other governments do.
As to the idea of Bertie looking bad because he doesn't show up in a Learjet, I think this is right up there with paying for Mary Harney's makeup - you really, really are missing the main cause of the poor appearance.

I have already answered that in my previous post. If Ireland doesnt need fast fighter jets then please explain to me why the RAF is patrolling Shannon etc for us ?

The RAF are flying CAPs over Shannon now, are they?

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Ireland is a Western Country for a start, if you were a terrorist and wanted to strike somewhere you would simply goes where the security is the weakest.[/quote[
And somewhere with an actual target to hit.
The only place you might call a target is Shannon, and that's easily rectified by telling the US that we're actually going to go back to the policy we had on foreign military overflights for the last fifty years.

If we actually knew the threat then we could specificaly plan for it.

I'm not asking for names. I'm asking for what you're planning to defend against. Or would you rather see a DF that can defend against everyone from the US securing shannon as a base down to Slovenia invading Cork over a dispute involving sheep?

There is the likes of Shannon with all those US troops stopping over.

Solved with a phone call denying future overflight/landing rights, rather than a billion-euro airforce.

There are numerous events held in Ireland, Foreign leaders like Tony Blair, Gerorge Bush, EU summits and the like are held here. Each and every time the RAF is doing the job for us. Its very good of the UK to do this, however if something happened in the morning in Shannon say and it made front page news all over the world, wouldnt Ireland look a bit stupid if it became clear that we dont have anyfighter jets.

Bollocks it would. Frankly, we'd be getting thank-you notes. And even if we had a full airforce, do you really think that Bush or Blair wouldn't show up without their own security teams? And I seriously object to the idea that we have to spend billions of euro outfitting the country with an airforce to protect that level of scum, especially given what the money will be taken from.

Just to point out a few things, any fighter programme Ireland signs up to (should that ever happen)will no doubt come with offsets. I.e. providing jobs for people in Ireland or other trade agreements in favour of Ireland etc... various countries use these deals to stimulate their economy.

Yes, for eight jets we'll get major trade deals. :rolleyes:
Care to buy a bridge while you're at it?

Payment is never made in 1 go, its usually over 10 years. The cost of say a €300million programme wouldnt amount to much if you spread that over the 10 years and take into account that the aircraft would be in service for the next 25 odd years.

But it won't be 300 million, will it? That'll pay for the aircraft alone, not training or ordanance or pilots or mechanics or infrastructure or any of the other costs that tend to make up the bulk of TCO.

In previous UN missions, like the Lebannon, the way things worked was, you provided what you could. This worked well for both rich and poor countries. The rich paid for the equipment and the poor sent soldiers (Ireland, India, Pakistan). However those types of missions are gone.

Well, then we shouldn't be entering into them, should we? The point of the UN missions was to work things just as you described, not to have a dozen mini-armies all show up and operate independently.

Ireland has signed up to the RRF (the rapid reaction force). It has to deploy complete units with modern equipment. Its an obligation.

Ireland didn't sign up - Bertie signed up, breaking election promises left, right and center to do so. And whatever he signs up to, we can withdraw from. Plus, I'm rather sure that "complete unit" doesn't mean "complete unit plus full air and sea cover".

In order to deploy troops quickly abroad you need tatical transport aircraft (within Europe). We currently rent aircraft for this task and there is no reason why we cant keep doing this.

Nor should there be any reason for us to not use other UN nation's aircraft.

Ireland wont be able to buy into the F-22 programme. Its strictly limited to the US (even Israel isnt getting any). So perhaps you mean the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) or something like that? We only need around 8-12, several squadrons would be a waste of money.
A division consists of approx 16,000 troops. Thats way to many, that even the UK doesnt have. 120 Rangers is enough.
Tanks, yes a light tank like the CV-90. Again a limited number to protect Irelands Battalion abroad instead of having to rely of missles.

Actually, you're off base again. I'm saying that if we had lots of oil, we'd need F-22s, divisions of troops and so on. But if we had lots of oil, we could afford them. We don't and we can't. (And if we had the oil, btw, we'd have offers from the US to sell us all the F-22s we needed, legal wrangles or otherwise).

Victor

Why do we need private jets when the UK government (with 20 times our population and budget) do not?

I think the point is executive jets, not private jets and the RAF have about a dozen such aircraft.

Originally posted by Sparks
Bollocks it would. Frankly, we'd be getting thank-you notes. And even if we had a full airforce, do you really think that Bush or Blair wouldn't show up without their own security teams? And I seriously object to the idea that we have to spend billions of euro outfitting the country with an airforce to protect that level of scum, especially given what the money will be taken from.

While not disagreeing with the Bush point, you do have to think about the other people that would be killed with them. I don't agree with the aerosexual types that say lets buy XYZ, but I do see some requirement.

As it stands, we have utterly no idea what flys over us, that doesn't want us to know. The only long range military radar set in the country is on LE Eithne and that might only pick up a small aircraft at 50-100 miles, everthing else might pick it up at 10. Civilian air traffic radar is dependent on transponders and has no search capability as such.

Sparks

Originally posted by Victor
I think the point is executive jets, not private jets and the RAF have about a dozen such aircraft.

And very specific rules about when they can be used - which preclude their use by anyone but the PM and the Minister for Defence, and then only when going to or from RAF bases.
I've posted that document here more than once...

While not disagreeing with the Bush point, you do have to think about the other people that would be killed with them. I don't agree with the aerosexual types that say lets buy XYZ, but I do see some requirement.

But what good would it do? We could have eight F-22's on CAP over Dublin Castle, and you could still crash an airliner into the Castle, unless of course you want to give the pilots carte blanche to attack any aircraft they think is acting funny. And that assumes that they react in the 30-40 seconds it would take you to turn out of the Dublin Airport approach lane and travel from over dublin bay to dublin castle at 500mph or so.
And if you did give them carte blanche, you'd be asking to watch a full airliner get shot down over dublin with no way to know if it was necessary.

As it stands, we have utterly no idea what flys over us, that doesn't want us to know.

Not true. The IAA manages every overflight. Our radar facilities are quite up to the task. The only aircraft that can overfly us without being noticed wouldn't be noticed by military radar either (B-2s and the like).

The only long range military radar set in the country is on LE Eithne and that might only pick up a small aircraft at 50-100 miles, everthing else might pick it up at 10. Civilian air traffic radar is dependent on transponders and has no search capability as such.

Civilian air traffic radar is not dependant on transponders, it's been dealing with GA aircraft that don't have them for years. And it doesn't have a "track" function - it does nothing but search.

Qadhafi

I hate to tell you this, but a JSF may be able to travel 1100km and fight, but it can't be everywhere at once, so you can't defend all of our airspace at once. Especially since they were talking about buying what, eight JSF at most? And they wouldn't all be operational all the time.

I pointed out that 8-12 JSF would be able to defend Ireland airspace full stop. Do you actually know the capability of a modern jet fighter, the speeds it can reach and the range of the missiles? Of course it can’t be everywhere at once, but it would not be the only platform that the DF would, there is intelligence, radar, anti aircraft guns, identifying potential targets etc.

Show me how. With a bit more detail than "it's wrong", if you would.

Not too many countries fly their fighters around their cities every day but if there is a threat then they are there if required. For example if there is a large body of US troops with intelligence warnings or if there is a summit on etc then they can be deployed there. While on patrol should an airliner be identified as being hijacked then if required it can be shot down.

But you don't even know roughly where the threat is, or (perhaps more importantly), what kind of threat it is - is it a military force, is it a terrorist threat, what?

I just pointed out several times where potential threats may lie. Do you actually read any of anyones posts before you start ranting?

And you think that the money being spent on jets that haven't ever been needed in the history of the state while primary school children attend rat-infested schools and people die on gurneys in hospital corridors is the image we want to portray?

no, you really don’t read any posts do you! The RAF provides air cover for the likes of Shannon etc so at the cabinet level the government has realised that the existing funding of the air corps is insufficient and proper security today requires Tornado jets flown by the Royal Air Force,

I never heard of people dying on "gurneys" before, but about the health care system a few things, It’s in efficient, there is no planning, there has been no reform in decades, its slow, unproductive, billions after billions have been thrown at it without any measurable increase for the people using it. It will always be a mess until strong political decisions are taken, throwing billions more at it won’t make the slightest difference.

I was more thinking of sending him on Aer Lingus, the national airline.

Hasn’t aerlingus being rebranded as a low cost airlines and adopted that business model ? And is destined to be sold off in the future? So what’s the difference?

As the UK government do with BA. And as many other governments do. [cut rant] ..you really, really are missing the main cause of the poor appearance.

Maybe your right, maybe we should sell of the government jets if Ireland needs to save costs. But I still stand by the idea that the countries image abroad is priceless for inward investment, how the government is seen etc I don’t think that is missing the point sparky,

The RAF are flying CAPs over Shannon now, are they?

Now i know you really are a smart person !!:rolleyes:

I'm not asking for names. I'm asking for what you're planning to defend against.

Question sparky, have you read anything I have posted about potential threats? have you read the bit about the government asking the RAF to over fly the country? what do you think about that?

Or would you rather see a DF that can defend against everyone from the US securing Shannon as a base down to Slovenia invading Cork over a dispute involving sheep?

More endless dribbling........... no I would just like to see the country meet its obligations without having to solely rely on other countries

quote:There is the likes of Shannon with all those US troops stopping over. Solved with a phone call denying future overflight/landing rights, rather than a billion-euro airforce

Ok Sparky, I would like to see you taking all that money out of the Shannon economy and phoning up the President of the United States and explain to him the following:

We used to allow the Russians refuel on the way to Cuba during the 1960's, but we want to stop all US troops landing on Shannon now, since Ireland is worried that it may become a target for international terrorists. As stated Ireland isn’t politically neutral and we would have a price to pay for such a move.

Bollocks it would. Frankly, we'd be getting thank-you notes.

We would be getting thank you cards :S really ? if an accident like that happened in Ireland ???

But it won't be 300 million, will it? That'll pay for the aircraft alone, not training or ordanance or pilots or mechanics or infrastructure or any of the other costs that tend to make up the bulk of TCO.

Rest assured, should the country ever sign up to such a fighter programme like the JSF, then there will be significant offsets. Its good for the country, it provides long term jobs, it stimulates the economy. Nothing in free, but €300m or even €500m would be an investment in all parts of the island and spread over the life time of the aircraft isn’t a lot.

Well, then we shouldn't be entering into them, should we? The point of the UN missions was to work things just as you described, not to have a dozen mini-armies all show up and operate independently.

Do you really know anything about this topic sparky or is it just drivel coming off the top of your head?? Do you know anything about how armies work ?

quote:Ireland has signed up to the RRF (the rapid reaction force). It has to deploy complete units with modern equipment. Its an obligation.


Ireland didn't sign up - Bertie signed up, breaking election promises left, right and center to do so. And whatever he signs up to, we can withdraw from. Plus, I'm rather sure that "complete unit" doesn't mean "complete unit plus full air and sea cover".

Why don’t you go and stick your head back in the sand, you obviously dont care for the likes of people of Liberia, East Timor, the Lebannon, Kosovo, Eirtera etc... whats your vision of Ireland in 10 years time ? Get rid of the Defence Force, withdraw from the UN?

In order to deploy troops quickly abroad you need tatical transport aircraft (within Europe). We currently rent aircraft for this task and there is no reason why we cant keep doing this.

Nor should there be any reason for us to not use other UN nation's aircraft.

None what so ever, however if someone kept coming up to you to ask you to use your car wouldnt you get pissed off ?

Actually, you're off base again. I'm saying that if we had lots of oil, we'd need F-22s, divisions of troops and so on. ...... cut rant

I'm pointing out that some of the stuff we need and some of it we dont also what you posted was complete rubbish, tedious to answer and of general ignorance :eek:

Qadhafi

But what good would it do? We could have eight F-22's on CAP over Dublin Castle, and you could still crash an airliner into the Castle,

What is this thing with the F-22? Do you even know what it is ? Its solely for the US and its military and no foreign country will see it for decades....

unless of course you want to give the pilots carte blanche to attack any aircraft they think is acting funny. And that assumes that they react in the 30-40 seconds it would take you to turn out of the Dublin Airport approach lane and travel from over dublin bay to dublin castle at 500mph or so.
cut rant......

How about putting the proper procedures in place to identify that the aircraft is sticking to its flight path and that the pilot is still in control via some unique communication means.

**note, the JSF F-35 is going to be in service(i.e flying) for the next 40 years not 25. Thats how cheap it is!!**

RicardoSmith

Its just a complete fantasy. Get a grip.

The US which has the largest air force in the world, and the 2nd (or 3rd I can't remember) in the shape of the US Navy, wasn't able to defend its airspace. Bearing in mind that the NY airspace is tightly controlled, well supposedly. So how is Ireland going to do it with just a handful of the same aircraft? The its blindingly obvious that we can't.

Theres also the point that the aircraft don't exist on their own, and even if we could afford them we couldn't afford the infrastructure needed to support them. These aircraft are not a complete weapons platform. They require the support of all the other systems on the battelfield like AWACs just to pick one. We couldn't never afford all that.

Also I've yet to see a country that makes more money from its defences force than it spends on maintaining them. The idea that it would create money is silly. The countries that make money from defence inductries, EXPORT the products.

I don't understand the logic worrying about attack from the air, an extremely rare occurance here, when for hundreds of years people have been blowing things up all over the country with nothing more than manure and a few home made explosives.

I also don't understand the theory that any attack would be on the easiest western targets. Its been clearly shown on 9/11 that terrorist can strike even the hardest targets like the pentagon and new york.

Ultimately theres nothing worth attacking in Ireland so why would they bother?

RicardoSmith

Just read that other thread on the other forum. For the birds.

Sparks

Quadhaffi,
You have still not said what threat is out there that
1) is real and needs to be defended against;
2) can be defended against by a jet fighter.

The simple facts are as follows:

1) 9-11 style hijackings cannot be defended against by jet fighters. Even if (and it's a huge if) you could get the fighter in a firing position and verify an airliner is hijacked and get permission to fire to the fighter, what happens? A sidewinder or equivalent will home on the greatest heat source - the engine. The explosion is rather small, and it would in all liklihood detach the engine leave it fall on whatever happens to be below (and if the target is Dublin Castle, that means you've just dropped a multi-ton, rapidly-spinning, red-hot jet engine on a crowded street from a few thousand feet up), while the airliner goes on flying. Sure, it can't maintain altitude or range, but it's a suicide hijacker, not a tourist - so long as most of the aircraft gets there, his job is done. Hell, if you start raining tons of shrapnel down on unsuspecting civilians, his job is done. So basicly, you've expended a billion euros to give you the choice between letting the terrorist fly an intact aircraft into dublin castle, or letting him crash just short of dublin castle, while dropping tons of shrapnel on the rest of the approach path - which means from the quays through trinity college through dame street. Wow. Wonderful defence there. Well worth the billion euros :rolleyes:

2) We can't afford to spend the billion euros required. Full stop.

3) Even if we could find a billion euros, there are far more pressing and vital things that need the money. An air ambulance service, a decent SAR service (tell why is it not embarressing to let the RAF do our SAR, when it's a national shame for them to fly CAPs?), a decent ground ambulance service, infrastructural spending, and all that is totally ignoring the fact that in a few years we are expected to start to become a net contributor to EU funds, rather than a sink for those funds. Now that is an EU obligation, not this toys-for-the-boys airforce.

4) Even if we had a squadron of JSF aircraft sitting continually on baldonnel's runway ready to launch on a 24/7 basis with highly-motivated pilots, well-trained and fatigue-free : there's not much that they could do against a car bomb, or six lads showing up at your door with shotguns and baseball bats at three in the morning, which are the usual methods terrorists have used in Ireland for the last thirty years.

So basicly, you're saying that we should spend money we don't have on an ineffective defence against a non-existant threat against a highly unlikely target, while ignoring our very serious domestic economic problems and our financial obligations to the EU.

See, I'm going to have to call you on this one. It's a stupid idea. Full stop.

Qadhafi

what im saying is we should invest in a very effective modern jet capable of defending Irish airspace since there is a requirement.

We can easily afford it as its relatively cheap and a better than asking the UK all the time.

SAR has been contracted out to the private sector.

What has the airforce/air corps in this case got to do with a potential car bombing ? That would fall to the Gardai or Army.

Its a sensible solution to plug the gap in Irish air defence, not toys for the boys like some suggest.

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
what im saying is we should invest in a very effective modern jet capable of defending Irish airspace since there is a requirement.

Right. And what I'm saying is that there is no such requirement.
And you haven't yet said a darn thing to change my mind on that. If the requirement was so serious that it was worth spending the guts of a billion euro on, it should be self-evident, or at least easily explainable.

Qadhafi

And what I'm saying is that there is no such requirement.

There isnt much pont dragging this on with "sparky". There a requirement, it needs to be address in the coming years and hopefully through defence force savings a decent fighter will be purhased.

Sparks

Walk away if you wish : you haven't proven your point.

Qadhafi

Walk away if you wish : you haven't proven your point.

Listen here sparky, I have outlined on numerous postings where the threat lies(& dont have access to government intelligence), programme cost, expected lifetime, value for money, role of a jet fighter all of which you have completely ignored or just gave out about.

You havent posted any coherent arguement as why Ireland doesnt need a squadron of jet aircraft capable of intercepting, patrolling etc Irelands airspace.

Nuttzz

Lads, neither of you are going to accept each other point, no matter how much you argue it. Lets just leave it at that eh?

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Listen here sparky, I have outlined on numerous postings where the threat lies(& dont have access to government intelligence)

No, you haven't. When asked to do so, you hummed and hawed and muttered something about 9-11 style attacks, completely ignoring the fact that you can't defend against those or other terrorist attacks using jet aircraft. Then you mentioned UN missions while ignoring the fact that you can't send jet fighters abroad without a lot of support machinery needing to be sent as well, a capability we don't have and would have to pay through the nose for as well. Then you mentioned vague ideas of some nebulous possible national military threat, without specifying what nation would be daft enough to invade us, or what possible motive they'd have for doing so, given the enormous economic cost of doing so and the minute economic rewards.

The fact is, there is no threat to us that a jet fighter would be of any use in countering, outside of the more paranoid imaginations of the people who, were they as interested in trains, would be labelled "anoraks" and ignored by one and all.

programme cost, expected lifetime, value for money, role of a jet fighter all of which you have completely ignored or just gave out about.

I'll continue to give out about incorrect figures. The simple fact is that the figures you're citing are all very optimistic. The end cost, the TCO, is going to be the guts of a billion euro if not more than a billion. And it would give us a useless hole to throw money into, not a useful resource to call on. In the meantime, we'd go on suffering because of a lack of a decent SAR capability or an air ambulance service.

You havent posted any coherent arguement as why Ireland doesnt need a squadron of jet aircraft capable of intercepting, patrolling etc Irelands airspace.

On the contrary, I have done so repeatedly and as civily as I could. Since you seem to still not fully understand it, I'll be more direct.

We don't need a squadron of jet aircraft because
1) there is no real or imaginary threat that they could defend against;
2) it would cost far too much to buy them;
3) we have an actual need to spend money on other things.