How many jet planes does a government need?

Qadhafi

sparky, why has the government asked the RAF to overfly irish airspace?

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.

I outlined numerous threats which you simply cast aside. I mentioned Shannon and you said that could all be sorted by a simple phone call, that we would be getting thankyou cards:S from people what a stupid post!

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.

Ireland cant sent the aircorps abroad on UN missions. nonsense again!

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.

I mentioned specific threats, please go back and re-read my posts, or ill just post it again if you couldnt be bothered.

Sparky, .....no nation is going to attack Ireland. Post 1989 the soviet threat has gone. Why are you telling me this, duh!

Ok so you want me to explain to you why a terrorist may wish to attack US troops in Shannon or a foreign embassy in Dublin. I honestly cant answer that question :S

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.

How do you arrive at this? Can you actually predict the future and identify all the threats? A fighter aircraft will go a long way to meet any air threat. To say that they are useless is not fact.

I'll continue to give out about incorrect figures.

It seems you will continue to give out to just about anything, $28-$38million dollars per aircraft depending on which model, (navy version proving more expensive with STOVL) those are the figures full stop.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1622398.stm.

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.

Actually low cost has been one of the key items in Lockheed Martin securing the contract for the JSF. It should be remember that this is top of the range most expensive aircraft and is still relatively cheap.

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

It would help to provide Ireland with secuirty,jobs (for all parts of the island inc. n.ireland), and show that the country is taking serious its own obligations etc..

In the meantime, we'd go on suffering because of a lack of a decent SAR capability or an air ambulance service.

I told you before, the aircorps has lost SAR and has been privatised. And yes wouldnt an increase in 1% of GDP going to defence make a huge difference and be capable of providing these services.

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.

Well number 1 is complete ignorance to world events or what is going on in Ireland and relies 100% on the fact that next day/month/year things here will be simply fine.

Number 2 completely ignores the offsets such as (secure) jobs that these programs provide. Some governments specifically use these programmes to stimule their economies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2958381.stm

3)Yes there is tons of things which Ireland needs, however defence contracts are spread over many years and the net contribution of 1 program per year is not exactly massive.

Maybe 5-10 years ago Ireland couldnt afford to invest in such a programme but playing the poor man now doesnt stand up to much.

Looking at whats on the market and whats Irelands needs I think that since the the JSF is set to come into service in 2010, that should provide enough time ahead to provide a purchase date for fighters and Ireland should get invovled in the programme now and re enforce our agreement with the UK.

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
I outlined numerous threats which you simply cast aside.

No. I did not cast them aside, I explained clearly why they were invalid or inapplicable.

I mentioned Shannon and you said that could all be sorted by a simple phone call, that we would be getting thankyou cards:S from people what a stupid post!

No, a totally rational post. We deny landing and overflight rights. That's it, end of story.

Ireland cant sent the aircorps abroad on UN missions. nonsense again!

No, it's not nonsense. It's perfectly sound to say that we can't send them abroad, because we don't have the military infrastructure to send them abroad.

I mentioned specific threats, please go back and re-read my posts, or ill just post it again if you couldnt be bothered.

Your "specific threats" were invalid, and I explained why.

Sparky, .....no nation is going to attack Ireland. Post 1989 the soviet threat has gone. Why are you telling me this, duh!

So you basicly agree with me that there is no military threat and the only possible threat would be from an irregular terrorist force?
Good.
Now tell me how you'll prevent terrorism using a Joint Strike Fighter. Does it come with a special anti-car-bomb missile? Or perhaps a radar that picks IRA members out of a crowd?

Ok so you want me to explain to you why a terrorist may wish to attack US troops in Shannon or a foreign embassy in Dublin. I honestly cant answer that question :S

Nope, I want you to tell me how we'd prevent that using a jet fighter from ten thousand feet up.

How do you arrive at this? Can you actually predict the future and identify all the threats?

Yup. With a pretty decent amount of accuracy for a problem this simple.
See, we have nothing worth attacking and nothing worth taking, so why would anyone bother?
Not so difficult as problems go...

A fighter aircraft will go a long way to meet any air threat. To say that they are useless is not fact.

It is fact, because there is no air threat.

It seems you will continue to give out to just about anything, $28-$38million dollars per aircraft depending on which model, (navy version proving more expensive with STOVL) those are the figures full stop.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1622398.stm.

No, they're not. Spend $40 million on the airframe. Cool. Now what do you do with it? Watch it sit there and rust? No, you have to have a team of mechanics to service it, and spare parts, and various consumables (fuel, oil, etc), and you have to pay for their training and you have to pay their salaries, and you have to upgrade the hangers to store them, and you have to have pilots, and train them, and pay their wages, and you have to buy ordanance for the aircraft, and you'll have to expend some of it annually in training, and now where are you? You're a hell of a long way past $40 million, that's where you are. And those costs mount up for every aircraft purchased. That's what TCO means - Total Cost of Ownership.

Actually low cost has been one of the key items in Lockheed Martin securing the contract for the JSF. It should be remember that this is top of the range most expensive aircraft and is still relatively cheap.

When relatively cheap aircraft cost as much as it'd cost to fix several schools each, you really are stretching the meaning of the word "cheap" to breaking point.

It would help to provide Ireland with secuirty,jobs (for all parts of the island inc. n.ireland), and show that the country is taking serious its own obligations etc..

In fact, it'd provide a handful of jobs while showing that the country can't manage it's own affairs in a mature fashion, because we'd be spending a billion euros on toys while our schools fall apart, our infrastructure is laughable, and we default on our EU financial obligations (and believe me, that will be noticed a lot more than our new shiny toys for the boys).

I told you before, the aircorps has lost SAR and has been privatised.

It hasn't lost SAR, it doesn't have the platforms to safely perform SAR from, and SAR was given to a private contract after the Dauphin crash.
Given proper platforms, that contract would be terminated.

And yes wouldnt an increase in 1% of GDP going to defence make a huge difference and be capable of providing these services.

Only if invested in those services. Not if it went into some half-assed fighter wing.

Well number 1 is complete ignorance to world events or what is going on in Ireland and relies 100% on the fact that next day/month/year things here will be simply fine.

No, it relies 100% on a look at what we have and what threats we face.

Number 2 completely ignores the offsets such as (secure) jobs that these programs provide. Some governments specifically use these programmes to stimule their economies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2958381.stm

Yes - governments who build and sell jet fighters. Not us. You might want to look at some African nations to see what the real economic effects would be, since that's a better comparison to us.

3)Yes there is tons of things which Ireland needs, however defence contracts are spread over many years and the net contribution of 1 program per year is not exactly massive.

One billion, even over a decade, is still 200 million euro per year. Which would be far better invested in schools and other programmes which are actually useful.

Looking at whats on the market and whats Irelands needs I think that since the the JSF is set to come into service in 2010, that should provide enough time ahead to provide a purchase date for fighters and Ireland should get invovled in the programme now and re enforce our agreement with the UK.

No we shouldn't. It'd be the least sensible option to pursue, and would lead to serious problems down the line.

Qadhafi

sparky, why has the government asked the RAF to overfly irish airspace?

No. I did not cast them aside, I explained clearly why they were invalid or inapplicable.

See above.

I mentioned Shannon and you said that could all be sorted by a simple phone call, that we would be getting thankyou cards:S from people what a stupid post!


No, a totally rational post. We deny landing and overflight rights. That's it, end of story.

That's it, end of story? Wakey wakey and back to reality, thats not it!! Ireland is not neurtal for a start. Bertie ahern admitted that were only militarly neutral but policially our friends are the UK and US. We cant get all the Embasies to leave or tell Bush not to arrive here in the Summer, or the royal family(when they do come) or Tony Blair or the EU summits. Please deal with reality.

Ireland cant sent the aircorps abroad on UN missions. nonsense again!


No, it's not nonsense. It's perfectly sound to say that we can't send them abroad,

Sparky, Ireland cant sent the aircorps abroad on UN missions. thats a fact, its in the white paper on defence (please read!)
http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/publications+title/White+paper+on+defence?OpenDocument

because we don't have the military infrastructure to send them abroad.

More nonsense.... yes we dont have enough military equipment but this is not the reason to stop the Aircorps going abroad, it was a political decision not a military one!

Your "specific threats" were invalid, and I explained why.

Your attempted argument is wrong. 1 JSF now known as the F-35 can engage multiple targets at once. The radar is massively powerful and missle range is huge
http://www.lmaeronautics.com/products/combat_air/x-35/

At the recent economic forum in Davos Switzerland why did the swiss deploy FA-18's? if the measure was seen as ineffective?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2686729.stm
Thats because it works and is effective!

So you basicly agree with me that there is no military threat and the only possible threat would be from an irregular terrorist force?

Have you read anything I posted? NO there are numerous threats.

Now tell me how you'll prevent terrorism using a Joint Strike Fighter. Does it come with a special anti-car-bomb missile? Or perhaps a radar that picks IRA members out of a crowd?

By carrying out the role it was designed for and fitting in an overall defence&secuirty measures.

Yup. With a pretty decent amount of accuracy for a problem this simple.
See, we have nothing worth attacking and nothing worth taking, so why would anyone bother?
Not so difficult as problems go...

Your posts are naive and immature sparky. There is nothing to attack ???? so why bother ?

In regard cost, please read some of those articles like the deal poland got!

It hasn't lost SAR, it doesn't have the platforms to safely perform SAR from, and SAR was given to a private contract after the Dauphin crash.
Given proper platforms, that contract would be terminated.

Yes it has lost SAR last month. It wasnt given over to the private sector after the Dauphin crash, only part of it was. And yes spend more of Defence.

One billion, even over a decade, is still 200 million euro per year. Which would be far better invested in schools and other programmes which are actually useful.

Incorrect figures.

No we shouldn't. It'd be the least sensible option to pursue, and would lead to serious problems down the line.

All I can say is thankfully your not a TD!

RicardoSmith

Qadhafi can you summarise that white paper. Its a 7mb PDF for petes sake. If you've read it, let us the main points (In brief).

I'm with Sparky on this, you haven't answers the questions we've been asking, so you haven't proven anything. Saying something with out backing it up is waste of time. Specifically what air threats do we have in Ireland and what is the frequency that they occur. How have they been met in the past?

Ireland is an Island. With no targets or any real value. Thats very different to Poland or Switzerland who have extensive land borders. They are also a lot bigger than Ireland and can much better afford the cost of modern Aircraft. Basically we're not in their league economically. So comparing us with them is not useful. If you have some facts and figures that you think, add credence to your comparision then please give us them.

Can you at least address one point in depth instead of giving token phrases like "carrying out the role it was designed for and fitting in an overall defence&secuirty measures. " Can you explain how specifically how it would help to deal with internal security, especially in light of how when the UK govt will all its assets never used fighters for that role in NI.

Tommy Vercetti

Re: references to Switzerland

The annual Swiss defence budget is approx. €2.5 billion, they are about to launch a fighter competition for up to 20 new fighters. The contract must be signed by 2007 and enable deliveries of 2 to 4 aircraft a year from 2010.This is to replace their fleet of Northrop F-5E and F-5f Tiger air defence-trainer aircraft. The US Navy has acquired 31 of these so far, and Armasuisse (Swiss AF procurement agency) is seeking buyers for the rest (in excess of 40 aircraft).

Swiss Armed Forces chief Christophe Keckeis: "To ensure that we can police our airspace in peacetime, we need about 30 aircraft ready to take off".

I have no idea where this figure of €1 billion to buy a couple of fighter jets came from.

Qadhafi

Qadhafi can you summarise that white paper. Its a 7mb PDF for petes sake. If you've read it, let us the main points (In brief).

Well basically its the FIRST white paper on defence in the history of the state. 70 odd years without any direction. It concentrates mostly on the army however its all done in sections, just go to the aircorps section and read up on it. I'm not going to do that for you.

I'm with Sparky on this, you haven't answers the questions we've been asking, so you haven't proven anything. Saying something with out backing it up is waste of time. Specifically what air threats do we have in Ireland and what is the frequency that they occur. How have they been met in the past?

Well you and sparky can have any opinion you wish. I dont have any access to government intelligence so I dont know all specify threats. However here are just a few I can think of:

1.US troops moving through Shannon
2.EU Summits & Irish Presidency in general
3.Foreign embassies being attack by aircraft (or other means)
4.Foreign heads of state visiting Ireland, eg Bush,Blair,Royal Family, etc

Well the threat isnt every day, its no doubt based on intelligence tip offs however there is cleary a threat no question about that the government has realised this and Smith to his credit did set up a body post 9/11(which sits regularly, once a month i think) to monitor Irelands secuirty so at least the government takes this seriously.

The threat has been dealt with in conjunction with other E.U. countries sharing intelligence etc. Since Ireland has no fighter jets, either Smith or Bertie Ahern has drawn up an agreement that has the U.K. providing air cover over the likes of Shannon via Tornado jets.

Ireland is an Island. With no targets or any real value.

well that obviously not what the cabinet thinks

Thats very different to Poland or Switzerland who have extensive land borders. They are also a lot bigger than Ireland and can much better afford the cost of modern Aircraft.

Poland richer than Ireland ?? Last time I checked they werent. Having a smaller/bigger border simply determines the number of aircraft a country should be purchasing. Poland has been dealing with obsoblete russian aircraft and they are making a massive jump to their new US F-16 fighter, so dont tell me that the aircorps cant take on new jets either.

Basically we're not in their league economically.

In Polands case they are basically still in the stone age, what is it ? 60% agriculture or something? Were one of the richest countries in the EU in case you didnt know.

So comparing us with them is not useful. If you have some facts and figures that you think, add credence to your comparision then please give us them.

Well please take a look at the neutral countries around the E.U. We as rich as the Swiss and were both neutral. However thats were the similarities end.

The swiss have 33 front line FA-18 fighter jets with numerous other aircraft for specific air to ground missions.

http://www.vbs-ddps.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home.html

Finland, both similar population, they are neurtal, not a lot of natural resources there, our defence forces operate more or less the same types of missions, were richer but again this is were the similarities end

The Fins have an airforce of 63 very modern F-18 interceptors in service. Their air surveillance and fighter control systems are also of top-class technology by world standards. All this with only about 2,800 employees!! (1,000 people in aircorps in Ireland)

http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php

The Austrians, again neutral, we are as rich but they are going to puchase 27 Eurofighter in a €1.79bn euro deal. US aircraft are better and cheaper but the austrians done ok for themselves... Eurofighter consortium has promised twice the deal's value in offsets - or business for Austrian industry - over a 15 year period.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2083951.stm

Can you at least address one point in depth instead of giving token phrases like "carrying out the role it was designed for and fitting in an overall defence&secuirty measures. "

In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter the F-35 it is a advanced low-cost multi-role fighter, that means it can perform any role required of it by the state. Whatever role should arise for the next 40 odd years this fighter will be able to do.

The Irish government has realised at the highest level that our previous attitute towards defence and secuirty can no longer provail. It has recongised this and has started to take steps to address the serious short comings we have in our defence forces, it has purchased better anti aircraft guns of the dutch and we do have some ground based air defence, however we need a total solution and aircraft are just one part of the jigsaw.

Defence is something that has been totally ignored since day dot here in Ireland. That doesnt mean not spending money but the complete lack of political direction. Thankfully since the white paper things are starting to change. However some of the posts Im reading here would make you laugh if it wasnt so serious.

Can you explain how specifically how it would help to deal with internal security, especially in light of how when the UK govt will all its assets never used fighters for that role in NI.

Dont start jumping the gun and comparing the current climate with the the troubles. I specifically talking about the lack of any fighter jet post 9/11. The UK didnt deploy jets to the north because there was no need, terrorists then werent potentially hijacking planes over UK/Ireland.

RicardoSmith

I'll download it over a few hours later and read it. I still don't see how you can defend against a 9/11 style attack with fighters. By the time anyone realises theres a problem with a jet out of Dublin Airport it will be over dublin city and nothing is going to reach it in time to stop it doing serious damage some where in the city.

I disagree about geographical location NOT being a major consideration in any defence plans. Its a whole different ball game being on the european land mass as to Irelands position. Those other countries have a much higher potential threat risk than Ireland does for that reason alone.

Terrorists have been hijacking aircraft since 70's probably earlier.

Qadhafi

I'll download it over a few hours later and read it. I still don't see how you can defend against a 9/11 style attack with fighters.

Take a read through it, nothing spectacular but at least its a 10 year plan for the first time.

By the time anyone realises theres a problem with a jet out of Dublin Airport it will be over dublin city and nothing is going to reach it in time to stop it doing serious damage some where in the city.

I dont think you or sparky will ever be convinced about the merits of the Defence Forces or the need for fighters, but if the fighters were there its just a matter of having the proper procedures in place to deal with potential hi jacked aircraft by 8-12 jets in minutes. Take a look at how the Swiss do it for the World Economic Forum at Davos.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2686729.stm

I disagree about geographical location NOT being a major consideration in any defence plans. Its a whole different ball game being on the european land mass as to Irelands position. Those other countries have a much higher potential threat risk than Ireland does for that reason alone.

I wasnt trying to argue that the geographical location is not a major consideration, Ireland is in a far better position to deal with hijackings since it only has to put the proper secuirty measures in at Cork Shannon and Dublin airports to stop potential hijackings there and has to only worry about internationl flights. We have far more warning time compared to say Switerland. Hence the limited numbers of jets required, 8-12 would suffice.

Terrorists have been hijacking aircraft since 70's probably earlier.

Yes they have and do you know how European governments solved that one? By specifically putting together a force that countered that threat.

In the early 80's governments accross europe looked at the type of hijacking that were taking place. A small group of hijackers on board with a few guns on the tarmac of some airport making demands.

The solution was to have special forces ready to make an assault on the aircraft and to kill the hijackers if necessary. The number of hijackings from the 70's to 80's decreased dramatically. The E.U basically forced Ireland to set up the Ranger Wing and now we have one of the best special forces in the world. At the time people thought that it was a daft idea and wouldnt work.

Today the hijackings of a different nature and the hijackers just want to fly the aircraft into a target. The solution is to provide Close Air Patrols.

RicardoSmith

Very annoying the way you quote everything line by line. Its not kindergarden. I can read what I just posted in the post above.

I'm not arguing the merits of the Defense Forces, but the need for top of the range fighter aircraft that will give us poor value for money, and whose only really use is to defend against threats, that are either extremely rare, or that are better dealt with by other measures. It only takes an aircraft a few minutes to get to Dublin City from the airport, take into account that the plane only needs to be hijacked a minute or two before it nears dublin, and unless the fighter arrcraft could prep, launch from Baldonell then aquire their target, get permission to fire and then destroy the target in less than 4 mins they would be too late. What other threats would they have to face? Anything coming from elsewere we would have plenty of warning and it would more effecient to get the RAF to intercept anything else.

In the meanwhile we could have for the same money, a dedicated SAR ability and Marine patrol capability. Something that we would require 24/7. But instead we contract that out which costs a fortune.

This is all knee jerk reaction from 9/11. Security measures in the Airport, and inside the aircraft are all good ideas, but they'll never be 100% secure. Thats just reality.

Qadhafi

Very annoying the way you quote everything line by line. Its not kindergarden. I can read what I just posted in the post above.

Im trying to keep this discussion as specific as possible. It takes a lot of time to reply to these posts and some of the things which I post go un noticed/ignored, hence the simply straightforward replies.

I'm not arguing the merits of the Defense Forces, but the need for top of the range fighter aircraft that will give us poor value for money, and whose only really use is to defend against threats, that are either extremely rare, or that are better dealt with by other measures.

Good to hear that recognise the role that the Defence Forces provides to this country!!

This is the theme which I keep returning to and its constantly disputed. There is a threat, and it has been acknowledged by the cabinet.

I have posted many links showing the off sets companies provide and the actual costs that a fighter programme costs, if you read any of the articles then you'll see that its more of an investment than poor value of money.

Please explain in the likes of Austria and Eurofighter where they are getting twice the inital investment into Austria bad value for money??

The threats are real, we currently have to ask the U.K for us, its not a case of "toys for the boys" whenever military equipment is purchased. The only effective measure to combat the threat is to have an overall defence and security plans including modern jet aircraft.

It only takes an aircraft a few minutes to get to Dublin City from the airport, take into account that the plane only needs to be hijacked a minute or two before it nears dublin, and unless the fighter arrcraft could prep, launch from Baldonell then aquire their target, get permission to fire and then destroy the target in less than 4 mins they would be too late.
What other threats would they have to face? Anything coming from elsewere we would have plenty of warning and it would more effecient to get the RAF to intercept anything else.

This point is something I think is just made up to suit your view and makes no sense. Is your main problem that you dont want the country to purchase anyfighters

A squadron of JSF based in Baldonnel could eliminate a airliner en route over dublin in minutes. However providing the authorities put in place increased security in Dublin then the risk should be reduced.

Quite simply you cant just hope that anything futher out will ok, and dealt with by someone like the U.K!

In the meanwhile we could have for the same money, a dedicated SAR ability and Marine patrol capability. Something that we would require 24/7. But instead we contract that out which costs a fortune.

There was even an outcry when medium lift helis were set to be purchased. However the private sector can provide a better service that aircorps with newer aircraft for cheaper. Thats has always been the case with private sector and government in regard to heli services.

Yes there is a whole range of equipment that the DF needs..

This is all knee jerk reaction from 9/11. Security measures in the Airport, and inside the aircraft are all good ideas, but they'll never be 100% secure. Thats just reality.

Yes thats why you need numerous measures in place.

Listen Ricardo, Ive pointed out the advantages of the likes of the JSF, how relatively cheap they actually are and the expected lifetime, I given links to show how other countries like Switzerland use fighers to prevent hijacked planes crashing into places like Davos so it is possible, I've given links on what other EU neutral countries are doing and the equipment they provide their airforces and armies. I've pointed out that the fact is the government has recognised that we need the RAF Tornados to patrol our airspace so there is offically a recognition.

There comes a stage where the realisation that the arguement based on no need for fighters is either ignorance/begrudgery or just naive.

RicardoSmith

Well all the resources in the world didn't help the US. You're claiming that a fraction of those resources will do for us exactly what the US couldn't. Personally I don't see shooting down a airliner over Dublin is solution at all. By the time its gets to that stage the terrorist has won. Thats even before the fighter has started rolling. You think its ok to have SAR services in the hands of 3rd parties under contract but long range air defence shouldn't be. Why not? As you point out we're doing it already? Why is Air defence more important than SAR? Why more important than Maritime patrolling? Why is more important than improving health services or any one of a multitude of other things that effect people on a daily basis. I'm not saying its not a threat, I'm not saying we shouldn't have an airforce or fighters, I'm saying its not a priority and in reality its not an effective defense from a 9/11 style attack, or indeed the majorty of terrorist attacks. So I'm either ignorant, begrudging or naive? as does anyone who does share you view about fighters. Now theres an approach thats going to win support isn't it. You old charmer.

Qadhafi

I claiming that modern jets can help to provide security from potential hijackings.

Personally I don't see shooting down a airliner over Dublin is solution at all. By the time its gets to that stage the terrorist has won.

Ok then just let it fly into Dublin and kill more people. Is that a better idea ?

Regarding SAR, I dont think its ok but its just reality, the government failed to invest in the Defence Forces for years with penny pinching that over a peroid of years rotted the entire Defence Force.

Experience in other countries has shown that the private sector can do SAR, although they are allowed to strike unlike the DF.

Since SAR has been addressed its time to focus on the remaining issues regarding Defence and the DF as a whole, namely continuing to re-equip the DF which includes purchasing jets.

So finally you have recognised that there is a potential threat! It needs to be addressed and political decision should be taken to address this gaping hole and stop acting like the poor man and fall into line with the other neutral countries in Europe.

As I previously stated, purchasing jet aircraft would prove great spin offs for the country, providing long term secure jobs in all parts of the island and an overall net increase in investment from the orignal figure.

So I'm either ignorant, begrudging or naive?

Judging by some of your posts yes I reckon so

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
I claiming that modern jets can help to provide security from potential hijackings.

Grammar aside, I would love to see you prove that claim.

Ok then just let it fly into Dublin and kill more people. Is that a better idea ?

Yes.
The alternative is to shoot it down. Make no mistake, that is the only alternative that a jet fighter gives you. That's the one and only thing it is designed to do to other aircraft. And it gets worse - the JSF and it's weaponry are not designed to shoot down airliners. Shooting down a 737 isn't as easy as you would think. They're big aircraft, and while not built like brick outhouses, they are difficult to destroy with a single missile. The most likely scenario is an engagement with short-range heat-seeking missiles. These would target the engines, and the little experience we've seen with this (from accidental downings of airliners over the years) say that the initial impact will destroy or sever the engine nacelle. It may sever the wing, but it's more likely not to. The airliner is now crippled and losing height and speed - but it's mostly intact. Now if you're engaging it over the city, you won't be able to do enough damage to prevent it hitting the target, and you'll be dropping tons of debris and shrapnel all over the city. So not only do you lose the target, you lose civilians as well.

Far better, at that point, to let him hit the target and focus your efforts on evacuation of the target.

This is why the airline pilots associations have been saying that the problem needs to be prevented rather than solved in the air. Once the terrorist gets onboard the airliner, things get several orders of magnitude worse.

Regarding SAR, I dont think its ok but its just reality, the government failed to invest in the Defence Forces for years with penny pinching that over a peroid of years rotted the entire Defence Force.
Experience in other countries has shown that the private sector can do SAR, although they are allowed to strike unlike the DF.
Since SAR has been addressed its time to focus on the remaining issues regarding Defence and the DF as a whole, namely continuing to re-equip the DF which includes purchasing jets.

Excuse me, but you haven't "addressed" SAR at all. You've said "oh well, we weren't funded so we can't do it. But a private crowd is doing it, so that's fine", and then you've dismissed it. The one valid reason for having an Aer Corps, and you dismiss it? :rolleyes:

So finally you have recognised that there is a potential threat!

I recognise no such thing. While a 9-11 style hijacking could take place, there is no realistic target which it could be aimed at, and no defence against it is possible in the air anyway, so I judge it an invalid reason to justify any expenditure past airport security.

It needs to be addressed and political decision should be taken to address this gaping hole and stop acting like the poor man and fall into line with the other neutral countries in Europe.

First, it's no act.
Second, had we fallen in line with the other neutral countries in Europe, we would have denied overflight and landing permissions to the US in the beginning (we were, in fact, the only neutral country that did not do so), an act that would remove the main possible target in the country, namely US military hardware and personnell in Shannon airport. (Where, by the way, they are far more likely to be attacked using land-based means, rather than aerial means).

As I previously stated, purchasing jet aircraft would prove great spin offs for the country, providing long term secure jobs in all parts of the island and an overall net increase in investment from the orignal figure.

That's a wonderful platitude. Now, some specific questions:
1) What long term jobs outside the DF would be created?
2) Where would the overall net increase in investment come from?

Qadhafi

Grammar aside, I would love to see you prove that claim.

Sorry sparky I was in a rush and didn’t read over my post, if you can excuse my grammar ill excuse your ignorance regarding defence matters.

Ensuring that you have complete control of the skies means that any plane that you need to shoot down you can shoot down. Once a potential terrorist realises that it is not possible to crash the aircraft into his intended target such as foreign embassy, Shannon, etc then that avenue of attack will be closed, thus plugging the gap in security. However security, as I’ve stated isn’t solely concerned with jet fighters, it’s an overall approach, however modern jet fighters are an integral part of providing security to Ireland.

Ok then just let it fly into Dublin and kill more people. Is that a better idea ?

Yes.

Sparky, you can’t simply bow down to terrorists. Should an airliner crash into Dublin the effects would be terrible and I can’t believe you are advocating that. Maybe you are jesting.

Are you joking about the point about not being able to hit an airliner? A JSF firing a missile against an airliner would result in immediate mid air explosion of the plane. There wouldn’t be any chance of missing, the radar signature of the airliner is quite large on radar with no jamming etc, its simply a turkey shoot.

And make no mistake, the current Irish policy is to shoot the aircraft down hence the deployment of anti aircraft guns purchased from the Dutch recently when the EU ministers arrived.

Excuse me, but you haven't "addressed" SAR at all. You've said "oh well, we weren't funded so we can't do it. But a private crowd is doing it, so that's fine", and then you've dismissed it. The one valid reason for having an Aer Corps and you dismiss it?

You’re excused but I have addressed SAR. It’s quite simple sparky, the government failed to invest in medium life helicopters. However it has been proven that private companies can provide this service.

No it’s not fine that the private sector is doing it since they can strike; stop the service etc unlike the Defence Forces.

However in saying that SAR is being taken care of and there is numerous other pressing issues regarding the Aer corps and the Defence Forces as a whole which need attention.

So finally you have recognised that there is a potential threat!

I recognise no such thing.

Ok sparky, if you don’t recognise the threat, even with all the measures Ireland is currently taking then that’s fine. There are no two ways about this, you are simply ignoring a fact.

Second, had we fallen in line with the other neutral countries in Europe, we would have denied overflight and landing permissions to the US in the beginning (we were, in fact, the only neutral country that did not do so), an act that would remove the main possible target in the country, namely US military hardware and personnell in Shannon airport. (Where, by the way, they are far more likely to be attacked using land-based means, rather than aerial means).

I think this is the crux of the matter sparky. We aren’t neutral, were in a half way house trying to get the cheapest way out of both.

Ok so if we are completely neutral then we must immediately notify the US government to cease all military service men and equipment from flying through Shannon. We must no longer rely on the RAF for their Tornado and Nimrod services.

This is the height of folly, you can surely expect Ireland to feel the repercussions in some economic way.

Neutrality means that you have to provide your own security, like the rest of the European neutrals but I know that you wouldn’t want to spend 2-4% of GDP on Defence.

So which is it? Neutrality or the present arrangement, I prefer the current arrangement with the fighter issue resolved.

That's a wonderful platitude. Now, some specific questions:
1) What long term jobs outside the DF would be created?
2) Where would the overall net increase in investment come from?

Well this depends on the country in question, the government selling the aircraft e.g. US etc and aircraft company making the airplane e.g. Lockheed Martin or Eurofighter. Its usually the government selling or the aircraft company.

I can only give previous examples. Poland got the entire money for its F-16 programme from the US government on a long term loan. Lockheed Martin the company which makes the aircraft spent the equivalent amount on direct investment in Poland (to find out more, just click on those links I posted a few posts back ) No direct jobs in constructing the aircraft were given to the poles but this was due to the problem of their economy based on agriculture.

The Dutch when the joined the JSF got direct jobs, (again click on those hyperlinks )

Defence contracts are hard fought and prized by the companies winning them. The jobs they generate are long term and once started government rarely pull out of them.

I know sparky if you go and read a little you can find out all these answers out for yourself but you don’t want to know and remain entrenched with naive posts for some reason which doesnt make any sense

RicardoSmith

It takes 2 mins or less for the slowest jet airlines to get from Dublin Airport to Dublin City. There is no way that any jet fighter can take off from Baldonnell, get permission to fire then acquire and fire at the airliner in 2mins. Theres also the point that in that close you'd be using a IR missle and not a Radar one and an IR missile simply wouldn't down an airliner. Then theres the point that most missiles are MISSiles. They don't hit the target aircraft. They explode in poximity to the target. Even if you were using a larger missle you'd still scatter debris all over the city and the pilot would still be able to direct the airliner at what ever target he wanted.

Do you not understand that? You seem to have the opinion that its like a video game. Press a button and pow the target vanishes. Thats not how it happens. It also doesn't happen in 2 mins. Thats the time frame.

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Sorry sparky I was in a rush and didn’t read over my post, if you can excuse my grammar ill excuse your ignorance regarding defence matters.

I've got not problem with you excusing my less-than-complete knowlege of defence matters. After all, you seem to have no grasp of them yourself....

Ensuring that you have complete control of the skies means that any plane that you need to shoot down you can shoot down.

Great. So your idea of defending Irish citizens is to let a terrorist hijack the plane they're on, then blow them into small pieces and let the debris fall a few thousand feet and kill more citizens on the ground below them.
Wonderful.
Is this what you mean by "defence matters"?

Once a potential terrorist realises that it is not possible to crash the aircraft into his intended target such as foreign embassy, Shannon, etc then that avenue of attack will be closed, thus plugging the gap in security.

Bollocks.
Pure and utter hogwash of the lowest order.
Nineteen terrorists armed with what were effectively pointy sticks took on the United States Air Force, the most advanced and the most potent airforce in the world, on a day when they were training for just such an attack, and they hit not one, not two, but three major buildings including the fscking Pentagon.

And you want us to believe that we can do better? A few lads in jet fighters sitting on the ground in Baldonnell, where the record (according to quotes from Dail Eireann debates) for a scramble launch of fighters is estimated to have been an hour and a half, are going to do what the USAF couldn't do? (I say estimated because they've never actually done a scramble launch for real).

However security, as I’ve stated isn’t solely concerned with jet fighters, it’s an overall approach, however modern jet fighters are an integral part of providing security to Ireland.

Again, hogwash of the lowest order. There is nothing that a jet fighter can do that would in any way increase security in this country.

Sparky, you can’t simply bow down to terrorists. Should an airliner crash into Dublin the effects would be terrible and I can’t believe you are advocating that. Maybe you are jesting.

No, I'm deadly serious. Far more, I suspect, than you. Should a terrorist decide that the architectural details in Dublin Castle are sufficently repugnant to his ideology that he decides he's going to become a suicide bomber, and should he gain access to an airliner over dublin bay and aim for dublin castle, the absolute best case scenario is that he not be interrupted by people shooting at the aircraft. That way the damage is limited to dublin castle (usually relatively unoccupied) and the surrounding area of Dame Street and the south-western end of Christchurch.

Should we follow your advice, and try shooting it down, we'd drop large heavy chunks of red-hot, razor-sharp shrapnel and jet fuel in a large ellipse shape from the quays to dublin castle, and we'd kill a lot more people.

Of course, you haven't noticed the key part to this scenario yet, have you? The trick is - if the terrorist gets control of the aircraft. This is a case of a stitch in time being the correct solution. You introduce security at the airports and on the aircraft. (No, not air marshals, just a reinforced locking cockpit door). It's not glamorous, it won't show up at the salthill airshow breaking mach one over a crowd, but it will do the job far more effectively.

Are you joking about the point about not being able to hit an airliner? A JSF firing a missile against an airliner would result in immediate mid air explosion of the plane. There wouldn’t be any chance of missing, the radar signature of the airliner is quite large on radar with no jamming etc, its simply a turkey shoot.

Perhaps you need to review the cases over the last forty years where missiles were fired at similar airliners. They do not break up into lots of little pieces in the majority of cases. (This isn't the latest flight simulator, after all). And heat-seeking missiles do not target the radar signature of the airliner.

Please note, by the way, that I never said the airliner could dodge - I said that it wouldn't be destroyed. Air to Air Missiles have a specific design philosophy - get close to the other aircraft and detonate to damage the aircraft with shrapnel. They don't even try to hit it anymore. The simple fact is, however, that they're designed to hit thin-skinned, small jet fighters, which generally react badly to meeting a rapidly moving chunk of metal, and which have virtually no space that can be hit by such a chunk without serious consequences. Airliners, on the other hand, are big aircraft, and paradoxically tend to survive such encounters better. As shown, not only by the shooting down of airliners, but by catastrophic failures of engines (which tend to explosively dissassemble, often through the rest of the aircraft - like in the sioux city crash some years ago).

So basicly, it's like shooting at an elephant with a .50 calibre rifle. Yes, if you hit a vital spot it goes down immediately - but hit it anywhere else and you just wound it. It keeps on coming and you get stomped.

And make no mistake, the current Irish policy is to shoot the aircraft down hence the deployment of anti aircraft guns purchased from the Dutch recently when the EU ministers arrived.

Make no mistake, there is no Irish policy on this.

You’re excused but I have addressed SAR. It’s quite simple sparky, the government failed to invest in medium life helicopters. However it has been proven that private companies can provide this service.

So basicly you're saying that the Aer Corps isn't needed.
Fine, dissolve it then. It's not like they actually do anything that we can't outsource equally reasonable, by your own argument.

No it’s not fine that the private sector is doing it since they can strike; stop the service etc unlike the Defence Forces.

But you've addressed the SAR problem and concluded that a private company can do just fine, so what's the problem?

However in saying that SAR is being taken care of and there is numerous other pressing issues regarding the Aer corps and the Defence Forces as a whole which need attention.

Nope. The one and only job the Aer Corps did that they were needed for was SAR. Ferrying cops with binoculars about and shipping Bertie over to France for the daughter's wedding are tasks easily handled by commercial companies by your own argument.
So dissolve the aer corps and put the money into something more productive.

Ok sparky, if you don’t recognise the threat, even with all the measures Ireland is currently taking then that’s fine. There are no two ways about this, you are simply ignoring a fact.

I am ignoring no such thing. What I am ignoring is a non-existant threat.

Sparks

I think this is the crux of the matter sparky. We aren’t neutral, were in a half way house trying to get the cheapest way out of both.

Indeed. And I, and the hundreds of thousands like me who marched in protest, disagreed with the inching towards the US side of things. We desire neutrality, simply because we don't feel gullible enough to get involved with the current white house policy regarding the rest of the world.

Ok so if we are completely neutral then we must immediately notify the US government to cease all military service men and equipment from flying through Shannon. We must no longer rely on the RAF for their Tornado and Nimrod services.

Actually, the Nimrod services are negotiated seperately from our neutrality (assuming you are referring to our long-range atlantic SAR patrols). But yes, the Tornados should go, as should the US military forces.

This is the height of folly, you can surely expect Ireland to feel the repercussions in some economic way.

What, like US companies packing up and moving to eastern europe? Guess what? They are already doing so. Companies follow the bottom line, not what the white house is currently pointing to.

Neutrality means that you have to provide your own security, like the rest of the European neutrals but I know that you wouldn’t want to spend 2-4% of GDP on Defence.

Nope. Not needed. What you don't get is that you don't need Defence Forces if there's nothing to defend and noone to defend against.
And unless the UK decide to invade again, there isn't anyone to defend against, and unless we strike oil or uranium in the next few years, there's nothing to defend.
And don't tell me that every nation needs defence forces, it's rubbish. Several nations with similar resource problems to ours don't have defence forces. And they get along just fine without them.

I can only give previous examples. Poland got the entire money for its F-16 programme from the US government on a long term loan.

Great. So not only do we pay the cost of the fighters, we pay interest as well? Wonderful!

Lockheed Martin the company which makes the aircraft spent the equivalent amount on direct investment in Poland (to find out more, just click on those links I posted a few posts back ) No direct jobs in constructing the aircraft were given to the poles but this was due to the problem of their economy based on agriculture.

And ours is based on high-tech manufacturing, is it?
(And I think you'll find that the reason the Poles weren't invited to build their own was that Lockheed Martin pay people to do that already, and those people need security clearances...)

I know sparky if you go and read a little you can find out all these answers out for yourself but you don’t want to know and remain entrenched with naive posts for some reason which doesnt make any sense

The only naive posts here are coming from some adolescent kid who's convinced that jet fighters are the wave of the future and hasn't realised exactly what those airfix models in his bedroom actually do in the real world, or that they do in fact have limitations, and cost a lot of money that we don't have to give us nothing useful in return; and the choice to buy those fighters would in fact be a death sentence for Irish citizens, who will die because they didn't have a better SAR service so they drown at sea; or die in the back of an ambulance because of a traffic jam on the N11 after a car crash and there wasn't an air ambulance to rush them to the nearest A&E department; or some kid who catches some disease from a ratbite he got at school because the money that was paying for capital spending in primary schools went on buying a shiny new JSF who's main function is to fly past crowds very fast at salthill once a year.

Qadhafi

Rest assured that in conjunction with a proper security policy and a warning then fighter jets would shoot down an incoming aircraft no problem. The missles will defintely destroy an incoming airplane.

Switzerland has been doing this stuff for years, very small country land locked with very short response time. They have pretty well mastered it at this stage with their FA-18s. A working example of what im talking about except with shorter warnings and more aircraft and important events like the WEF.

But you dont want to know this, your posts have degenerated into meaningless rants.

Are you really trying to put forward a technical point such as the consitution of a missile to determine that Ireland should not purchase jets? Modifications can be made and there are numerous types of missles.

Isnt it a case that its anything but a jet for your Ricardo and this is what your entire arguement has been based on. Not something which was thought out or reasoned with.

If you want to discuss the finer points of missile technology visit:

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Rest assured that in conjunction with a proper security policy and a warning then fighter jets would shoot down an incoming aircraft no problem.

I will do no such thing, because I know better. And so does every other human on the planet that was anywhere near a TV set on September 11th.

The missles will defintely destroy an incoming airplane.

No, they won't. They're too small, they're not designed to deliver an explosive to the target, and they don't have vital systems to aim for.

Switzerland has been doing this stuff for years

What, shooting down airliners?
News to me. Bonkey, you been hiding stuff from us?

But you dont want to know this, your posts have degenerated into meaningless rants.

Indeed? I was of the impression that I was being exceptionally patient with your incessant military wannabe ramblings, as you demonstrated time and again that you had no real grasp of what you were prattling on about.

Are you really trying to put forward a technical point such as the consitution of a missile to determine that Ireland should not purchase jets?

And what are you proposing that we use to determine the spending of a billion euros? Tea leaf patterns perhaps? Maybe the colour of my granny's socks?

Modifications can be made and there are numerous types of missles.

First off, we can't even get modifications made to the design of telephones when Eircom buys a batch of them. And you want us to ask for a custom sidewinder, designed to shoot down an airliner?
:rolleyes:
Secondly, there are numerous types of air-to-air missile - and all of them work on the same principle (get close and detonate to hit the target with shrapnel) bar one - and I don't think we'll be using the Genie anytime soon.

Isnt it a case that its anything but a jet for your Ricardo and this is what your entire arguement has been based on. Not something which was thought out or reasoned with.

Actually, you've been given logical, economically sound, unemotional reasoning since your first post to this thread. You've just ignored it.

If you want to discuss the finer points of missile technology visit:
http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/

Thanks, but I know an invitation to go trainspotting when I see one.

Qadhafi

I hope you had a good march. I'm no fan of Bush or the current US foreign policy. In regard to neutrality its either one way or another. The other neutral countries are completly neutrality, we arent.

Nope. Not needed. What you don't get is that you don't need Defence Forces if there's nothing to defend and noone to defend against...cut....And unless the UK decide to invade again, there isn't anyone to defend against, and unless we strike oil or uranium in the next few years, there's nothing to defend.
And don't tell me that every nation needs defence forces, it's rubbish.

And they get along just fine without them.

What a solid argument you put forward sparky. Why didnt the government just have thought of that, we could have saved billions over the last decade. Like we never had any security problem here or nothing? Like there is no requirement for Ireland to have a Defence Force?

quote:I can only give previous examples. Poland got the entire money for its F-16 programme from the US government on a long term loan.

Great. So not only do we pay the cost of the fighters, we pay interest as well? Wonderful!

Did you go and read the article? Nothing is free, but its certainly not the huge costs invovled as you posted about.

You can post all the abuse you want sparky, you obviously dont live in the real world. Yes you are naive. We live in a complex world and Ireland cant just wish withdraw from all its obligations.

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
In regard to neutrality its either one way or another. The other neutral countries are completly neutrality, we arent.

The fact remains, the majority of people would prefer to see us completely neutral, rather than the current situation.

What a solid argument you put forward sparky. Why didnt the government just have thought of that, we could have saved billions over the last decade. Like we never had any security problem here or nothing? Like there is no requirement for Ireland to have a Defence Force?

Might help if you read the posts I write Qadhafi. I said we have no need for the aer corps. The DF currently fulfill the following tasks:
1) They deter the provos from open conflict.
2) They serve in the UN peacekeeping forces
3) They provide trainees for the ARW anti-terrorist units
4) Er....

Well, that's about it really. We haven't had a need for anything else since the founding of the modern state. Hell, the last time the DF had a major deployment was in the 70s just before the Arms scandal when it was found that Haughey&Co had nearly started an all-out war with the UK.

Did you go and read the article? Nothing is free, but its certainly not the huge costs invovled as you posted about.

Yeah, and the LUAS will be delivered on time and on budget and will be an exceptionally cheap and cost-effective transports system....

You can post all the abuse you want sparky, you obviously dont live in the real world. Yes you are naive. We live in a complex world and Ireland cant just wish withdraw from all its obligations.

Forgive my humour, but I'm now to be lectured to about reality by someone whose model of the world hasn't advanced much past Hanna-Barbara's model? And if you wish to speak of national obligations, I suggest you start with the financial obligation we have to start paying back into the EU structural fund in the next few years, to the tune of a billion euro a year.
I'd love to hear how we afford both that and your personal fantasy airforce.

Qadhafi

I will do no such thing, because I know better. And so does every other human on the planet that was anywhere near a TV set on September 11th.

Your actually speaking for everyone who seen 9/11 on T.V ?

quote:The missles will defintely destroy an incoming airplane.
No, they won't. They're too small, they're not designed to deliver an explosive to the target, and they don't have vital systems to aim for.

The missiles are too small ? and will what just bounce off the airplane, if only those guys developing aircraft for the last 50 odd years had known that.

quote:Switzerland has been doing this stuff for years


What, shooting down airliners?
News to me. Bonkey, you been hiding stuff from us?

Grow up sparky, im talking about dealing with small airspace, numerous incoming aircraft etc

Indeed? I was of the impression that I was being exceptionally patient with your incessant military wannabe ramblings, as you demonstrated time and again that you had no real grasp of what you were prattling on about.

I thought your were just being dumb with lots of time to kill.

And what are you proposing that we use to determine the spending of a billion euros? Tea leaf patterns perhaps? Maybe the colour of my granny's socks?

yes you are dumb. If you cant put forward a proper coherent arugement which makes sense why did you start?

First off, we can't even get modifications made to the design of telephones when Eircom buys a batch of them. And you want us to ask for a custom sidewinder, designed to shoot down an airliner?

yes you are dumb becuase your are talking nonsense

Thanks, but I know an invitation to go trainspotting when I see one.

maybe its more of a case that you honestly dont belive that anything you have posted made the slightest bit of sense and have simply posted a lot of abuse to get that fustration off your chest. Its ok sparky;)

Qadhafi

The fact remains, the majority of people would prefer to see us completely neutral, rather than the current situation.

Thats not the case and there numerous studies which identified. Irish people dont want to be invovled in the like of NATO (me neither) but do wish to continue with the like of PFP.

Personally (not a big fan of Fine Gael) but I think their views on neutrality are an improvement on the current situation.

http://www.finegael.ie/fine-gael-News.cfm?NewsID=21083&action=detail&year=2003&month=5&Category_Key=10

Might help if you read the posts I write Qadhafi. I said we have no need for the aer corps. The DF currently fulfill the following tasks:
1) They deter the provos from open conflict.
2) They serve in the UN peacekeeping forces
3) They provide trainees for the ARW anti-terrorist units
4) Er....

Sometimes its hard to read complete rubbish..The actual roles of the Defence Forces as decided by Government are:

to defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency, preparations for its implementation will depend on an on-going Government assessment of the security and defence environment;

to aid the civil power (meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State);

to participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the UN;

to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the EU;

to carry out such other duties as may be assigned to them from time to time, e.g. search and rescue, air ambulance service, Ministerial air transport service, assistance on the occasion of natural or other disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of essential services, assistance in combating oil pollution at sea.

Well, that's about it really. We haven't had a need for anything else since the founding of the modern state.

Grow up.

And if you wish to speak of national obligations, I suggest you start with the financial obligation we have to start paying back into the EU structural fund in the next few years, to the tune of a billion euro a year.

I'd love to hear how we afford both that and your personal fantasy airforce.

I dont know the exact figure of what we have to pay to the E.U but we did get €40bn for infastruture. Im sure Minister for Finance will take care of that.

Turkey

I feel partly responsible for this, This thread has decended into utter stupidity.
Qadhafi, I have even realised that there is no point in arguing with this ....person, considering he does'ent have the manners, or respect, to correctly, spell the name of the service that he wants to get rid of.
Sparks, you are reluctant to visit Irishmilitaryonline, ...hmmmm....I wonder why?
Perhaps you should, you might learn something......................
The very least you could is learn some respect for people who stuck their necks out for 40 years so that others could live.

To the Moderators, I think it would be in everybodys best intrest if this thread was closed down.

RicardoSmith

Sorry but the primary reason being given for buying fighters is to portect against a terrorist attack against a location in Dublin City. It can't be done. Not in the time you'd have to do it. Thats just a fact. No ones saying the IDF isn't required or that it doesn't need aircraft. We're saying it doesn't need fighters. It need other types of aircraft. Theres no need to broaden the discussion beyond that.

That siad, its all got nothing to with the govt jets. But if someone says the Irish Army need M1A1 tanks, I'd take issue with that aswell.

Turkey

I am not sure of the ethics of posting on a thread that I have suggested should have been closed down but, I am just curious where these experts on defence gained their qualifications.
I am talking about those who have never been in any of the 5 services, of course.
I never suggested that fighters could be used to defend from 9/11 type attacks, the thought that they can is probally, phyically, and definitly, morally impossable.
But this ignorant, [not innocent, there is some excuse for that] idea that the world order is never going to change and that things will always remain the same is foolishness. At present there is no threat, to which it would be necessary, or possable to reply to with Jet fighters, but neither I, or anybody else can be positive that things will always remain this way. Anybody who says they will is worse then a fool.
And before anyone says that aircrafts and crews can be put in place, if we find ourselves in a 'suitation' is deludeing themselves, it takes several months to build a modern fighter, and nearly as long to refurbish a 'mothballed' one. It takes longer to train the crews.
In veiw of the small amount of money required to put these assets in place, and their long life, the current, [final?]production run of F-16's is belived to have a life expectancy of 55 years. With the Irish Air Corps record of maintaince excellence, who know?
Eurocopter, the decendent of the company which sold the IAC the original A3 helicopters, are continually amazed that these machines are still in day-to-day use. They must rate as one of the best bargins ever for the taxpayers of this country.

RicardoSmith

I say again...

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
....No ones saying the IDF isn't required or that it doesn't need aircraft. We're saying it doesn't need fighters. It need other types of aircraft. Theres no need to broaden the discussion beyond that...

Re: fighters defence from 9/11 attacks - Not your claim - Qadhafi's.

I don't what the world order has got to do with it at all?

I don't see what being in any of the services has to do with either. What would a seaman know about the takeoff speeds of an airliner or how long it would take to go from the airport to Dublin Castle? Or what the cost of the latest fighters is, or what the support requirements are? Why would they even need to know any of that? Of course your assuming that Sparks or myself aren't in the services or indeed have some occupation that is some way connected.

If defending against 9/11 attacks isn't the primary reason for having fighter aircraft, then what other air threats do we have that require the latest fighters? All we need is an aircraft is a new build, is a two seater, can carry a winder or two, and has some ground attack ability. Something like a Hawk 100/200 would be about right. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/

Turkey

I say again, aircrafts cannot defend against the kind of suitation which 9/11 presented, try and seperate the need for a conventional airborn defence force from the events of 9/11.
There is a connection, but it is not a direct one.
The reason for mentioning the 5 services, is that people who have even recieved basic Irish army training[which is greater in scope then that thought in other bigger armies, belive it or not] should have[I stress ;should have] a greater understanding of military matters then those who have got no training at all.
I have no idea about yourself, Mister Smith, but I do know that Sparks has no knowlage of the Irish DF, but he does have a certain amount of firearms training, but not in what I would regard as serious wepons, [I do not think he would regard them as wepons either, come to think of it]
As an aside you mentioned tanks in one of the previous posts and how you would be unwilling to have them in the Irish army, perhaps you are right, I have been sceptical about their usefullness to us until I was convinced otherwise, we have no tanks, BTW, we have a very fine tracked recon vehicle, but by no stretch is it a tank.
I can think of 2 reasons why we should have main battle tanks in the Irish army, but not M1A1's, though there probally is some spotty faced nerd out there who thinks of nothing else, [tip from an aul fella, chase chicks instead, there cheaper to run ]
Hey, let's get back on topic here, any defence force runs on continuing development, a military person, be he[she] Army, Navy, or Air Arm, either trains or he [she] retires.
Much of the stuff an army does is contained in packages of knowlage,~ lets call them cultures.
We have the culture of peacekeeping here, and we are world leaders at it, we also have a huge bomb/device disposal culture running here, many of the international disposal people working in Afganistan have been trained in the Curragh.
Air-defence is simply another one of those cultures, it is a little package to be developed, as has been done with SAR, Maritime patrol, fishery protection, ect. But if we do not have it we cannot have a hope of putting it into place in any reasonable time scale.
Despite a hysterical crying of paranoia, back up there, it is insurance, I for example have life insurance, so mrs T and the little T's will not have a hard time if I do not make it home one morning, I have no plans to kick it just yet, but it's a comfort to know that should things go pear-shaped, at least herself and assorted brats will not be out on the street.
But I will agree on one point, it does not have to be F-16's, even though, they are, IMHO the best peice of equipment , at the best value for money, for the job. It is originally a light fighter, as is your BAC Hawk 100/200, it just got hold of some steriods.
A better choice for Ireland might be the F/A/T - 50 being developed by KIA in South Korea, in co-operation with Lockheed-Martin, who brought you such previous best sellers as the F-104, Blackbird, and the F-16. That is of course if we can fight our way into the Q, there is a strong rumour that a certain western Middle East country will the first overseas production, after the Korean Air Force have got theirs.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRKTX-2.htm

Oh, BTW, I do not claim to have any better insights, ability,or knowlege then you, I just been reading the clues for a good while now.

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Thats not the case and there numerous studies which identified. Irish people dont want to be invovled in the like of NATO (me neither) but do wish to continue with the like of PFP.

Really? If that's true, why did bertie feel the need to unilaterally sign the country up to it, going back on a FF promise to not do so without a referendum, and why was there such an outcry over it?

Sometimes its hard to read complete rubbish..The actual roles of the Defence Forces as decided by Government are:

Actually, we were discussing the actual jobs they do.
I realise it must be disconcerting to encounter people who actually disagree with you and have the capacity to debate it logically with you, but do at least try....

to defend the State against armed aggression; this being a contingency, preparations for its implementation will depend on an on-going Government assessment of the security and defence environment;

Note the latter half of that phrase. Where it says, effectively, the IDF are supposed to prepare to meet realistic threats with realistic defences. Which means that your JSF airforce is out.

to aid the civil power (meaning in practice to assist, when requested, the Garda Síochána, who have primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the State);

Which does not require JSF or other such jet fighters.

to participate in multinational peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations in support of the United Nations and under UN mandate, including regional security missions authorised by the UN;

Which does not require JSF or other such jet fighters, becuase the other UN member states provide them.

to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the EU;

Which is the job of the Naval service. What's a JSF going to do, fire a harpoon or an exocet at a spanish trawler in international waters?

to carry out such other duties as may be assigned to them from time to time, e.g. search and rescue, air ambulance service, Ministerial air transport service, assistance on the occasion of natural or other disasters, assistance in connection with the maintenance of essential services, assistance in combating oil pollution at sea.

Take a read of the first example. Search And Rescue. But you've argued that it's acceptable that a private company fulfil this task. And since this task is a life-or-death task that must be provided on a continual basis, I don't see how you can argue that it is in some way minor compared to the rest of the list, and therefore you're arguing to remove a primary (if not the primary) function of the Aer Corps. And for the record, not one of those tasks can be done by a JSF effectively.

Grow up.

What manner of debate is that supposed to be? So far I've been as patient and civil as I can be, and you've responded with poor grammar and spelling, personal insults, ad hominem arguments, and a general lack of any kind of civility.

So is that meant to be an example of the kind of mental capacity that the IDF can produce, or are you just another military anarok wannabe that's cheapening their name?

I dont know the exact figure of what we have to pay to the E.U but we did get €40bn for infastruture. Im sure Minister for Finance will take care of that.

Really? Wow. So you talk about national obligations but don't bother to learn what they are? You talk about wonderful pricing arrangements, but don't know how much money we have to spend? And you expect McCreevy to wave a wand and produce a billion euro for a project with less utility than the BertieBowl?
I get the distinct impression Quadhafi, that I'm arguing with someone who's not old enough to vote or pay taxes yet.

Qadhafi

I think your right turkey, this thread has really gone down hill with the likes of Ricardo/sparky which sound like the same person.

Sorry but the primary reason being given for buying fighters is to portect against a terrorist attack against a location in Dublin City. It can't be done.

Incorrect, the primary reason for purchasing fighters is to protect all of Irelands airspace.

Not in the time you'd have to do it. Thats just a fact. No ones saying the IDF isn't required or that it doesn't need aircraft. We're saying it doesn't need fighters. It need other types of aircraft. Theres no need to broaden the discussion beyond that.

More rubbish, it is quite possible with modern fast jets.

That siad, its all got nothing to with the govt jets. But if someone says the Irish Army need M1A1 tanks, I'd take issue with that aswell.

I dont think its possible to get M1A1 the current version in production is the M1A2. And Ireland does need something like the CV-90