At long, long, last

Turkey

Finally, this 'government' is doing something useful:
http://www.airpic.ch/
With any luck the new helicopters will soon follow, and after that, well, who knows?

bonkey

What, exactly, is useful about buying another chunk of training aircraft????

jc

dahamsta

Looks like a bloody Airfix model.

oscarBravo

Not nearly as purty as a Marchetti.

Sparks

Hooray, it's the new Air Ambulance we've needed so desperately for the last decade.... oh wait, it isn't. Hmmm. Doesn't look like medium or long-range SAR either.

So what pressing need do these toys for the boys allegedly meet then?

Qadhafi

Good to see the PC-9's (finally!!):D

Calibos

They're trainers, but should we be invaded they will be invaluable in the defense of our great nation. Sure ye can stick a machine gun or two on ta dem 'n' evertin'.

Seriously though they're training aircraft. Our brave air corps flyers when finished training on them will then graduate to the latest technology, ie Spitfires. We retired our last 50 year old jet fouga's (think thats what they were called) a few years ago. The minister of Defense has promised us some 60's Phantoms to be delivered in 2023.

Ironic that we rely on the 'oul' enemy for our defense and partial air/sea rescue coverage. No disrespect to our defense forces. Tis a pity the government doesn't respect them though. Surely there has to be a few quid in the kitty for a few more Air/Sea rescue helicopters, An air ambulance, more than 1 garda chopper and a handful of reasonably modern jet fighters.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Calibos
They're trainers, but should we be invaded they will be invaluable in the defense of our great nation. Sure ye can stick a machine gun or two on ta dem 'n' evertin'.

Seriously though they're training aircraft. Our brave air corps flyers when finished training on them will then graduate to the latest technology, ie Spitfires. We retired our last 50 year old jet fouga's (think thats what they were called) a few years ago. The minister of Defense has promised us some 60's Phantoms to be delivered in 2023.

Ironic that we rely on the 'oul' enemy for our defense and partial air/sea rescue coverage. No disrespect to our defense forces. Tis a pity the government doesn't respect them though. Surely there has to be a few quid in the kitty for a few more Air/Sea rescue helicopters, An air ambulance, more than 1 garda chopper and a handful of reasonably modern jet fighters.

I heard (ages ago) we had planned to purchase some Dassault Mirage fighters, which are\were retired from service in other Euro countries. They would be a hell of a lot more functional than anything we have ever had. Im probably in the minority in thinking our old celtic tiger could use some teeth...


Matt

therecklessone

Originally posted by Calibos
more than 1 garda chopper

We have more than one. We have two.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

mice have teeth..
mice don't attack bears

can you see what I'm trying to get at here?.. any country we'd be able to invade with newer weapons.. we'd more than likely be able to invade with the ****e we have now.. cos they'd have to be in a serious state

Sleipnir

We have absolutely no need for any modern jet fighters!
Where's the threat?

We only need airborne assets for
- air/sea rescue
- Maritime patrol
- air ambulance
- Garda heli

Qadhafi

Qadhafi

Hooray, it's the new Air Ambulance we've needed so desperately for the last decade.... oh wait, it isn't. Hmmm. Doesn't look like medium or long-range SAR either.

Are we going to start another discussion on this one sparky? Have you not learnt anything from the previous threads and the REQUIREMENT FOR 8-12 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT something a kin to the JSF.

The governement is replacing the Alloutte. If they go with something the blackhawk then the aircorps could provide a back up SAR role

Sparks

Originally posted by Qadhafi
Are we going to start another discussion on this one sparky?

Another discussion? Wouldn't that imply we'd had one already? All I saw the last time this topic came up was a rant from yourself and Turkey and a total inability to produce any form of coherent arguement as to why we should invest in any form of military aircraft other than SAR and Ambulance aircraft.

The governement is replacing the Alloutte. If they go with something the blackhawk then the aircorps could provide a back up SAR role

There you go again, claiming insider knowlege and making a public mistake. The Blackhawk helicopter is not designed for an SAR role. Some something like a SeaKing variant, that I could have agreed with, but no, you select a troop transport. It's a rather clear example of "toys for the boys" again.
Not with my tax euros, thank's ever so much....

Nuttzz

a total inability to produce any form of coherent arguement as to why we should invest in any form of military aircraft other than SAR and Ambulance aircraft.

Not exactly military roles are they?

Need a Civil authority for that, Is it true that the Air Corps have to fly the copper chopper because civilians cant fly government aircraft?

Qadhafi

well spark, looks like your posts are as ignorant as ever. There was a perfectly good discussion on the other thread until you dragged it down with your mud throwin !
( i bet u dont even have a job!)
Listen, there is going to be a tender put out for the replacement of the A3, there is still the question of the 2 medium lift helis to be purchased for the Army (this is seperate from SAR) A reasonable solution would not to buy 2 airframes but get one heli that carry out both jobs such as the blackhawk

Turkey

Strictly speaking, spark, you are right,[makes a change, 'must be luck]] the Blackhawk was not not planned for SAR, but it has fitted nicely into that role, with the US coast guard.
There is now a strong yarn that Blackhawks are being considerd for the Air Corps, about time proper military configured equipment was bought. If the events of July 1999 had occured with a Blackhawk, it is quite possable, that 4 funerals would not have been the result.
It appears that the government is shaping up to provide proper combat aircrafts for what is supposed to be a military organisation, hopefully this is true, as it is long overdue.
Incidently, spark, there is no need for me or Quadhafi to rant, you are more then proficent at it yourself.

Sparks

Originally posted by Turkey
Strictly speaking, spark, you are right,[makes a change, 'must be luck]] the Blackhawk was not not planned for SAR, but it has fitted nicely into that role, with the US coast guard.

Yes, but why buy an inferior solution to a real problem?

If the events of July 1999 had occured with a Blackhawk, it is quite possable, that 4 funerals would not have been the result.

That's quite likely, but had we bought a Seaking or similar dedicated SAR helicopter, the same could be said.

It appears that the government is shaping up to provide proper combat aircrafts for what is supposed to be a military organisation, hopefully this is true, as it is long overdue.

And I believe you know where I stand on this. And so far you've failed to give me any coherent argument to believe otherwise.

Incidently, spark, there is no need for me or Quadhafi to rant, you are more then proficent at it yourself.

Blatent denial of reality in others has that effect on me. Nonetheless, the fact remains - I produced rational, coherent arguments to support my contention that we do not require combat aircraft and that such aircraft would be no more than decorative; and you and Quadhafi failed utterly to give any coherent rebuttal past "We know better and we say so, therefore it must be so".

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
Not exactly military roles are they?

No, but they are about the best reason for even having an air corps. Plus, better to have the air corps do it in the public sector than a commercial company whose goal is a profit margin.

bonkey

Qadhafi has picked up a one-week ban for personal abuse.

jc

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Sparks
No, but they are about the best reason for even having an air corps. Plus, better to have the air corps do it in the public sector than a commercial company whose goal is a profit margin.

but doesnt the private sector historically provide a better service than the public sector, I think (not up on the military in general) that the air corps has 50 odd pilots with very few aircraft to fly, a commerical company wouldnt have this overhead. It would operate from existing airports as opposed to having one all for itself. Also the service would have to be put to tender which would give the best value, Isnt the SAR service now all private anyway run by a company called CHC? Must be giving the state better value than the air corps.

I am sure the people who join the military want to carry out military functions as opposed to civil functions, perhaps not?

BTW what is the point to this thread?

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Mordeth
mice have teeth..
mice don't attack bears

can you see what I'm trying to get at here?.. any country we'd be able to invade with newer weapons.. we'd more than likely be able to invade with the ****e we have now.. cos they'd have to be in a serious state

Of course I dont mean for offense. For defense, a small squadron of Fighters would suffice. I think the ability to defend ones self is a matter of national pride. We are weak and small, we rely on neighbours to ensure we sleep well at night, safe and secure from the bad things in the world. I think we should have enough military power to fight a delaying action till our allies can respond. Its only a small island after all, it wouldnt be that hard.

Plenty of people think like you however, turning ones (national) shame into a joke is a pretty remedial way of dealing with it. While I loath to bring up terrorists in classic GWB scaremongering style, imagine if we had 3 Airliners, hijacked, heading towards Dublin. There was no chance to recover them, they unfortunately have to be shot down over the sea. What could we do? Nothing.. We could run crying to UK and hope they scramble a squad fast enough to fly over us, into the sea and intercept. After they helped, they would no doubt be criticised by us as is customary.



Matt

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Of course I dont mean for offense. For defense, a small squadron of Fighters would suffice. I think the ability to defend ones self is a matter of national pride. We are weak and small, we rely on neighbours to ensure we sleep well at night, safe and secure from the bad things in the world. I think we should have enough military power to fight a delaying action till our allies can respond. Its only a small island after all, it wouldnt be that hard.

Plenty of people think like you however, turning ones (national) shame into a joke is a pretty remedial way of dealing with it. While I loath to bring up terrorists in classic GWB scaremongering style, imagine if we had 3 Airliners, hijacked, heading towards Dublin. There was no chance to recover them, they unfortunately have to be shot down over the sea. What could we do? Nothing.. We could run crying to UK and hope they scramble a squad fast enough to fly over us, into the sea and intercept. After they helped, they would no doubt be criticised by us as is customary.

Matt

While I loath to bring up terrorists in classic GWB scaremongering style, imagine if we had 3 Airliners, hijacked, heading towards Dublin.

SAM system.
You do not need a squadron of fighters to shoot down an airliner.
The amount of defence required is relative to the threat.
There is no threat of being invaded.
If we were invaded by a force it would almost certainly be larger, better trained and more technically advanced then us so having a small squadron of fighters would have no effect anyway.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Sleipnir
SAM system.
You do not need a squadron of fighters to shoot down an airliner.
The amount of defence required is relative to the threat.
There is no threat of being invaded.
If we were invaded by a force it would almost certainly be larger, better trained and more technically advanced then us so having a small squadron of fighters would have no effect anyway.

Can you update me on the status of our SAM system then?

I agree, the defense is relevant to the threat, but that was merely one example. Also, SAMs dont really inspire the awe in the populace that jets do.

I disagree that a small, determined force has no effect on a larger one. Its what you do with the small force that counts.. but its all really case by case however.



Matt

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Can you update me on the status of our SAM system then?

I agree, the defense is relevant to the threat, but that was merely one example. Also, SAMs dont really inspire the awe in the populace that jets do.

I disagree that a small, determined force has no effect on a larger one. Its what you do with the small force that counts.. but its all really case by case however.



Matt

> Can you update me on the status of our SAM system then?

For feck sake! I'm not saying we have one I'm saying it would be enough to counter the threat of your own 'terrorist' example :rolleyes:

> Also, SAMs dont really inspire the awe in the populace that jets do

So you think we should spend a fortune on modern fighter aircraft (not to mention fuel, maintainance, training, support) for "whizz-bang-flash" and 'shiny-things'?

We don't need them but they do look nice don't they?
A pretty ridiculous argument to spend hundreds of millions on them.

> I disagree that a small, determined force has no effect on a larger one. Its what you do with the small force that counts..

It may have some effect but it be irrelvant to the outcome, which is the whole point.

bonkey

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I think the ability to defend ones self is a matter of national pride. We are weak and small, we rely on neighbours to ensure we sleep well at night, safe and secure from the bad things in the world.

I don't think its an issue of national pride at all. Ireland hasn't had the ability to protect itself realistically from the air since the inception of the state. So either we've never had this aspect of national pride that you go on about, or its simply non-existant.

Personally, I'd take more national pride in a government who said "no, we are not spending hundreds of millions / billions on a symbolic air-defense platform, but rather we will spend the money on education/health/infrastructure/any-of-the-other-myriad-things-we-can-quantitatively-determine-a-real-need-for".

I think we should have enough military power to fight a delaying action till our allies can respond. Its only a small island after all, it wouldnt be that hard.

But hold on...for anyone to attack us, they'd have to be our allies, or they'd have to have come through our allies. So that entire line of argument is entirely specious.

There is no threat today, and if a threat were to arise tomorrow, its from the people you say we would be waiting on to rescue us.

So I guess what we need is a massive airforce, capable of deterring any conceivable threat lest our allies turn into enemies overnight and decide to invace us.

The simple truth is that the only possible reason Ireland would want an airforce is some form of bragging rights. To feel "in wit da lads", so to speak.

Well, when we're rolling in money and can easily spare that type of cash, I won't object - we can afford to be in wit da lads then. Today, we have far more important things to spend our money on rather than waste it on a status-symbol that has no practical use whatsoever.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I agree, the defense is relevant to the threat, but that was merely one example.

Well then, give a genuine threat to Ireland that the defense of a wing of jet-fighters is relevant to....

Also, SAMs dont really inspire the awe in the populace that jets do.

Exactly what is relevance of inspiring awe?

jc

Matt Simis

Originally posted by bonkey
Well then, give a genuine threat to Ireland that the defense of a wing of jet-fighters is relevant to....

Exactly what is relevance of inspiring awe?

jc

I was making a connection between awe and pride. I cannot give a "genuine" threat that anyone could claim was "definate threat", no more than the millions the US spent on intelligence before Sept 11 failed to do much if anything about that. Holes can be picked in any theory. There is little point providing scenarios to an audience so unreceptive. You aleady stated you dont make agree defense, even a symbolic one, would in anyway benefit national pride.

Instead let us continue making jokes on how useless and pathetic we are, the little flower of Europe that needs love and attention lest it withers away or gets trampled upon the world stage.



Matt

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I was making a connection between awe and pride. I cannot give a "genuine" threat that anyone could claim was "definate threat", no more than the millions the US spent on intelligence before Sept 11 failed to do much if anything about that. Holes can be picked in any theory. There is little point providing scenarios to an audience so unreceptive. You aleady stated you dont make agree defense, even a symbolic one, would in anyway benefit national pride.

Instead let us continue making jokes on how useless and pathetic we are, the little flower of Europe that needs love and attention lest it withers away or gets trampled upon the world stage.



Matt

No offense Matt but that's just ridiculous! We're 'useless and pathetic' because we don't have fighters?!?!
You seem to have a low opinion of your country and it's populace. (But a few planes would fix that eh?!)
Why don't we buy an aircraft carrier?
We can sail about slapping each other on the back feeling marvelous about ourselves.
What would be the bloody point!?!?!?

There is little point providing scenarios to an audience so unreceptive.

that's a bit childish. You posted something you believe so you should be grown up enough to try to defend your position.
Symbolic defence is no defence at all.

Matt Simis

LOL, useless, purely from a defensive postion of course. Im referring to the jokes made above and the ones I see whenever offense\defense comes up about how its "funny" we cant defend ourselves or help our allies. I think you know well what Im talking about.

Im just of the mindset that if you cant protect what you have, you dont really have it.

In regards scenarios, whats the point in being fodder for nitpickers!? I already stated several times that a decent defense improves pride, thats the reasoning. There is nothing I could say to scare you all into believing there is a pressing need based purely on defense, partly because of the assumption people have it would be pointless to even try to defend ourselves, and partly placed on the fact we really dont have a problem being a leech.


Matt

bonkey

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Holes can be picked in any theory. There is little point providing scenarios to an audience so unreceptive. You aleady stated you dont make agree defense, even a symbolic one, would in anyway benefit national pride.

No, I have stated that I don't agree that additional defense for which no credible threat has been identified is in any way a good idea.

I agree that there is a purpse to our army, albeit a minimal one. I agree that there are areas (such as SAR, and arguably troop transports) where we can identify a genuine need for something we do not have.

I go not agree that bright shiny expensive toys are a good, let alone necessary, investment for our army or nation, when the best reason anyone can offer seems to be "well, I can't think of a need or threat right now, but that doesn't mean there isn't one".

And thats the reason the audience is unreceptive. No-one, in any of the threads has come up with a genuine reason to have them - not a single identifiable threat that a wing of fighters would actually be relevant to.

How unsurprising that you turn that around and say its the unresponsiveness that makes supplying a genuine scenario a waste of time. I'm just wondering how long it will be before someone in favour of shiny new jets starts accusing those who oppose the idea as being anti-irish, freedom-haters, or just plain ol' tree-hugging-hippies or lefty-peacenik-freaks.

If you can't show a need, then there is no need. The closest you've come is "national pride", but you haven't addressed why we need this now, despite not having had this aspect of national pride since the inception of the state. Indeed, we've had teh opposite...our air force has been a laughing stock for at least the past 2 decades, if not more.....but I'm guessing that you won't be interested in showing the national shame this has induced that we need to correct. What will the excuse be this time? That I'm still too disinterested?

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
but doesnt the private sector historically provide a better service than the public sector

In service industries or providing products, most certainly. In training pilots, not necessarily. SAR is by it's nature a task that will never turn a profit and requires the highest standards of skill and professionalism from the pilots who perform it. Which means lots of training time both in the air and on the ground - and all on a task that will never turn a profit. The temptation for a private company to skimp on training and equipment would be simply too much (in my opinion) to leave this task to the private sector.

Frankly, this and air ambulances are about the only task I can think of that I can point to and say "this is something the aer corps should be doing".

Which is why the fact that they're not doing it is rather galling.

Isnt the SAR service now all private anyway run by a company called CHC? Must be giving the state better value than the air corps.

Yes and no - it's not that we're getting better value for money, it's that the aer corps has no suitable platforms to use for the task. After the crash a few years ago that killed four people, the government decided to outsource the service until the correct equipment was bought - and of course then decided not to buy that equipment. Which is why seeing the PC-9's arrive is so head-bangingly annoying. After all, the SIAF Marchetti's that the Aer Corps already have are designed for training - they are only variants on the civilian versions, after all.

I am sure the people who join the military want to carry out military functions as opposed to civil functions, perhaps not?

While there are civilian SAR services around the world, most are run as military operations. Hong Kong ran it as a civilan service, while we (and the US and the UK) ran it as a military one. But even Hong Kong's service was public sector, attached to the police as I recall. And they had some damn impressive kit - a modified sea king that could automatically hover over a set point to facilitate easier rescues and so on.

Now that would be worth the money.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by bonkey

How unsurprising that you turn that around and say its the unresponsiveness that makes supplying a genuine scenario a waste of time. I'm just wondering how long it will be before someone in favour of shiny new jets starts accusing those who oppose the idea as being anti-irish, freedom-haters, or just plain ol' tree-hugging-hippies or lefty-peacenik-freaks.

If you can't show a need, then there is no need. The closest you've come is "national pride", but you haven't addressed why we need this now, despite not having had this aspect of national pride since the inception of the state. Indeed, we've had teh opposite...our air force has been a laughing stock for at least the past 2 decades, if not more.....but I'm guessing that you won't be interested in showing the national shame this has induced that we need to correct. What will the excuse be this time? That I'm still too disinterested?

jc

Well, its clear have a vested interest in ensuring, what ever way you can, that no money is spent on this issue. And thats fine. You made your point and a valid point that is. However, I do not think its fine to insinuate those with a different view are lunatics or rednecks. I dont know why you think its "unsurprising" that I would say its a waste to continue, I have never mentioned this here before nor seen much talk of it. Am I a member of some "sort of people" you are familar with?

Heres a scenario, one that happened:
During World War II, Ireland made fake artillery stations (ie out of wood) and placed them around the coast. Then we took pictures our the Government at the time "commissioning" our new defensive armaments and leaked them to the Germans and the British, to at least provide the view that an invasion by either would be more costly than if they had known the truth, that, like today, we have essentially no defense. Noone pretended the artillery would be able to stop either potiential enemy, but it would give them pause for thought. It was a gamble and it paid off. A decade before WW2 started, if I stated there was there will be a need to defend our country from invasion by sea, would the audience be anymore receptive than you today? I think not. A great many people will only see the need to defend themselves after they are under threat. That is why you will very easily and smugly be able to "shoot down" any notion of improved defense and any scenario I could come up with.

I personally dont think that after a war has started is the best time to worry about defense.



Matt

Sparks

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I personally dont think that after a war has started is the best time to worry about defense.

So we should spend a billion euro or more because of paranoia?

Nuttzz

The temptation for a private company to skimp on training and equipment would be simply too much

I cant see a commerical enterprise risk the lives of its employees nor can I see experienced pilots working for such a company, i'm sure the tender process would sort that out anyway with a minimum standard

the government decided to outsource the service until the correct equipment was bought - and of course then decided not to buy that equipment

surely that must mean that it is more cost effective for CHC to provide the service rather than buying new heli's for the air corps and training them on them

a modified sea king that could automatically hover over a set point to facilitate easier rescues and so on.

great idea, i wonder what the price on them is?

Didnt the government not the military cancel the helicopter order in favour of these PC-9 things, so perhaps the plan was always to outsource SAR?

I read somewhere (i think it was John Gormley) saying that these PC-9's had NATO standard controls (avionics?) that the other planes dont have and that they were just a stepping stone for the Air Corps to get NATO aircraft and for the country to join NATO by the backdoor

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
I cant see a commerical enterprise risk the lives of its employees nor can I see experienced pilots working for such a company

*cough*Ryanair*cough*

i'm sure the tender process would sort that out anyway with a minimum standard

I'd agree - if the Irish government didn't have an abysmal record for issuing tenders. You have to know about what you're asking for in a tender after all, while the government's been known to issue tenders for multi-million euro projects on the basis of a few figures sketched on the back of an envelope...

surely that must mean that it is more cost effective for CHC to provide the service rather than buying new heli's for the air corps and training them on them

The point of SAR is not cost-effectiveness though.

great idea, i wonder what the price on them is?

Not as much as was paid for the new Garda helicopter to be honest. That modified seaking made the aviation magazines nearly a decade ago now...

Didnt the government not the military cancel the helicopter order in favour of these PC-9 things, so perhaps the plan was always to outsource SAR?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I read somewhere (i think it was John Gormley) saying that these PC-9's had NATO standard controls (avionics?) that the other planes dont have and that they were just a stepping stone for the Air Corps to get NATO aircraft and for the country to join NATO by the backdoor

Again, crap like that wouldn't surprise me from our shower. Does show, however, that that kind of camelnosing crap does actually cost - lives in this case.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Sparks
So we should spend a billion euro or more because of paranoia?

Interesting that we have gone from "hundreds of million", to "billions".
I pictured around 8 fighters, costing upto €20 million each, initial outlay of €160m, substantionally lower thereafter. France is continously replacing their fleet, and selling off their older models quite cheaply.
And, at some stage in the future, there is the possibility to sell on.

A lot of money yes, billions? No.
Re: Paranoia, the purpose of that story was to illustrate that if you refuse to prepare for the worst because its "paranoid" then you will be caught with your pants down, every time.


Matt

bonkey

Originally posted by Matt Simis
However, I do not think its fine to insinuate those with a different view are lunatics or rednecks.

Where have I insinuated that? Its never been my intention to insinuate that. I'm insinuating that those who want a jet fighter wing for the nation grossly underestimate the cost and/or grossly overestimate the benefit that it would bring us.

I dont know why you think its "unsurprising" that I would say its a waste to continue,

Because it gives you a way to not answer the question without having to concede the point and admit that there just isn't such a threat.

Heres a scenario, one that happened:

Yes indeedy - those would be who are now the allies that you suggested previously we should use our hypothetical jet wing to hold out so we can wait for them to rescue us.

In other words, either that nature of threat no longer exists from our European allies, or your "minimal defense to hold for rescue" argument holds no water.

Which leaves us, once again, without a threat to ward against.

A decade before WW2 started, if I stated there was there will be a need to defend our country from invasion by sea, would the audience be anymore receptive than you today? I think not.

Why not? A decade before WW2 a previous World War was only a decade past. There was no EU, and several serious powers all in competition with each other. Europe, let alone the world, was far from a fully stable place, both miitarily and governmentally. There were identifiable theoretical threats, none of which exist today.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Interesting that we have gone from "hundreds of million", to "billions".

Actually, we haven't gone from one to the other. A billion is hundreds of millions. And I outlines, in detail, in the last thread on this topic, why it would run to approximately a billion euro to own and operate a squadron of jet fighters. (To quickly summarise: the initial purchase price is one of the smaller expenses in the Total Cost of Ownership figure).

Re: Paranoia, the purpose of that story was to illustrate that if you refuse to prepare for the worst because its "paranoid" then you will be caught with your pants down, every time.

And now you see why paranoia is listed as a delusional state.
The point of noting that it's paranoia is that paranoia isn't a fear of a possible outcome, but an irrational fear of something that will never happen.
So you won't get caught with your pants down.


Mind you, should the impossible happen, you'll find it cold comfort to note that a squadron of the most advanced jet fighters known to man will be absolutely useless to protect you....

Nuttzz

Why not? A decade before WW2 a previous World War was only a decade past. There was no EU, and several serious powers all in competition with each other. Europe, let alone the world, was far from a fully stable place, both miitarily and governmentally. There were identifiable theoretical threats, none of which exist today.

I think one point of view on this is that the government tried to equip the army after the war broke out and coldnt get much equipment, still there is little chance of a war in europe within forseeable future

What would posters view be to a european army, perhaps then the irish army could specialise in one area like transport or medical roles and concentrate resources on that and leave air defence and fighters etc to different countries?

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Nuttzz
I think one point of view on this is that the government tried to equip the army after the war broke out and coldnt get much equipment, still there is little chance of a war in europe within forseeable future

What would posters view be to a european army, perhaps then the irish army could specialise in one area like transport or medical roles and concentrate resources on that and leave air defence and fighters etc to different countries?

Indeed, my point was that some level of preparation is desirable when you dont need it, not afterwards.

In regards roles in an EU army, yes, such active participation would be good thing IMO.



Matt

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Indeed, my point was that some level of preparation is desirable when you dont need it, not afterwards.
Matt

Preparation for what?
What exactly would we be preparing for?
If you don't know what you're preparing for how in the hell can you be prepared for it!?!?!?
Tell us, please, what the threat is.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by bonkey
Where have I insinuated that? Its never been my intention to insinuate that. I'm insinuating that those who want a jet fighter wing for the nation grossly underestimate the cost and/or grossly overestimate the benefit that it would bring us.


Because it gives you a way to not answer the question without having to concede the point and admit that there just isn't such a threat.


jc

In your response to me and people who oppose "your viewpoint" you listed that you were prepared to endure being called "anti-irish, freedom-haters, or just plain ol' tree-hugging-hippies or lefty-peacenik-freaks", terms generally used by rednecks and other such morons. You made the connection, a subtle one, between those who oppose you and rednecks\lack of intelligence. Nicely done, even if it is a common tactic.

Instead of thinking up witty rebuttals, re-read my posts. I conceded there is no threat (/scenario) I can (or possibly anyone) conjure that will provide an immediate and pressing threat you will find satisfactory.

Any with that "victory", I assume you are happy now?


Matt


PS: Sparks, I assumed the term "Billions" to be 10^12, ie thousands of millions.

wisp

Preparation for what?
What exactly would we be preparing for?
If you don't know what you're preparing for how in the hell can you be prepared for it!?!?!?
Tell us, please, what the threat is.

Well Ireland has already a number of obligations to fullfill. For example providing close air support and the government has recognised that there is a potential air threat. Its not a case of preparing for an unknow threat but meeting our obligations and stop relying on the Royal Air Force.

The PC-9's are an excellent airframe, very capable and something the aircorps(and Ireland) can be truely proud of. They are NATO compatiable but that doesnt mean Ireland will ever join NATO. And besides NATO's days are numbered. It was set up specifcally to defend against the Soviet Union, so the arguement for joining it demishes year by year.

Its all about our commitments to a E.U. Rapid Reaction Force, and that will be by and large Peace Enforcement Peace Keeping to which we can select missions. Although the aircorps cannot serve overseas but there are numerous aircraft which we need.

The PC-9 is not a jet fighter and thus we have still this capability lacking. It should be noted that we have one of the smallest airforces in Europe and the PC-9 will be an excellent stepping stone to something better and more capable.

The government must continue the re-equipping of the DF which has proved to be relatively cheap and has provided great value for money in the equipment it has purchased to date.

Next on the pocurment list is :
8 Utility heli's

Someone noted the black hawk. This is essentially a replacement for the Huey which is in service since the Vietname war (1967ish). Its a great example of american aviation to produce a cheap and very capable airframe. This would be a great heli for the aer corps/Ireland would provide serivce to the country for decades to come providing numerous of roles.

CASA

Although not being discussed, we should really have another 1 or 2 of these excellent airplanes which have served Ireland excellently to date.

BarryFry

One important point that is being missed here is that the like of the UK and France don't just spend vast amounts of money on military equipment purely for defence.

They spend the money to keep thousands of people in work in their native defence industries, and maintain a technological lead that can be passed onto their civilian industries.

As far as I can tell, the purchase of these aircraft does nothing to boost Irish industry.

wisp

As far as I can tell, the purchase of these aircraft does nothing to boost Irish industry

With the PC-9's no there was no offset. However with other aircraft there is benefits avaliable to Ireland. An example was the Medium lift helicopter there was €100m in offsets available

Sparks

Originally posted by wisp
With the PC-9's no there was no offset. However with other aircraft there is benefits avaliable to Ireland. An example was the Medium lift helicopter there was €100m in offsets available

Wisp, I can't help but notice a certain similarity of specious argument and indeed phrasing between yourself and Quadhafi. You wouldn't be an alter ego perchance, would you?

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sparks
In service industries or providing products, most certainly. In training pilots, not necessarily. SAR is by it's nature a task that will never turn a profit and requires the highest standards of skill and professionalism from the pilots who perform it. Which means lots of training time both in the air and on the ground - and all on a task that will never turn a profit. The temptation for a private company to skimp on training and equipment would be simply too much (in my opinion) to leave this task to the private sector.

Well then CHC must be an exceptional company Sparks. They currently provide SAR servics on a contract basis at Dublin and Shannon airports (and Waterford according to this: http://www.dcmnr.ie/display.asp/pg=994, even though their own site only mentions the first two: http://www.chc.ca/uk.html) They work damn hard (training for all eventualities) out of Dublin, and I know this on a professional basis in addition to the fact that they fly low over my house on their route out of the airport to their area of training ops on the east coast!!!

As for temptation, I'd imagine that would be more than balanced by the fear of an expensive law suit (or worse still, manslaughter charges) in the event of a failure on their behalf to fulfill their duties due to budget constraints imposed by a parent company.

Sparks

Originally posted by therecklessone
As for temptation, I'd imagine that would be more than balanced by the fear of an expensive law suit (or worse still, manslaughter charges) in the event of a failure on their behalf to fulfill their duties due to budget constraints imposed by a parent company.

The words you're thinking of are "ford" and "pinto". Or "It's time to take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat". Or "dead peasants insurance".

Not being skeptical of private sector commercial companies has been proven to be a suboptimal approach on more than one occasion...

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Sparks
Not being skeptical of private sector commercial companies has been proven to be a suboptimal approach on more than one occasion...

I hate to be a dog with a bone here sparks, but private sector companies have nearly always provided a better service than the public sector. Even in SAR CHC nust have bid to a certain standard, I accept you earlier point about contracts planned on the back of envelopes but even this basket case of a country cant get SAR wrong.

I do accept that ryanair may have their problems but people should remember that not every private company is a ryanair, a lot of compaies have ISO standard procedures something that is rare in the public sector

I do think that the government decision to buy PC-9's ahead of helicopters shows that they may have planned to outsource SAR all along

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
but even this basket case of a country cant get SAR wrong.

I'd be hesitant about accepting that premise. To use Ryanair as an example again, there's a JAR requirement that pilots fly no more than 1300 hours per year, and there are regulations as to how many of those hours can be consecutive (because for safety reasons you don't want an overtired, overworked pilot flying a jet airliner into a major city area). Now not only has Ryanair had some very murky goings-on with the way those 1300 hours were clocked simply "overlooked" by the Irish Aviation Authority, Aer Lingus saw a pilot's strike a year or two ago because they tried to stretch the limits on the regulations about transaltantic flights and consecutive pilot hours (they wanted to set things up so a jetlagged pilot could be flying a 747 out of Dublin with about 3 hours sleep since his last transatlantic flight), and the IAA said nothing then either. And there have been instances where Ryanair flights took off when Boeing's crosswind limits for the 737 were exceeded, again without penalty.

So if mandatory EU regulations, the JARs, which the IAA is legally bound to enforce, and the manufacturer's specified operational limits can be bent, twisted or outright ignored with impunity by companies like ryanair and aer lingus, why should anyone expect that a company bidding to give the lowest price for a service which can never generate revenue itself might not try cutting money from somewhere that they don't think is needed? After all, they hired an experienced pilot - surely they don't need that much training time at several hundred euro per hour, or perhaps you might just do the minimum maintanaince schedule rather than a full engine rebuild at the mandatory overhaul times. Thing is, those things look great on paper, but like a ford pinto hit from behind when the indicator is on, they have serious consequences for the poor bastards on the receiving end.