F14 'tomcat' tail fin found washed up on Cork Beach

Akrasia

An American F-14 tomcat tail fin was discovered washed up on an Irish Beach on friday this week. The fin was in very good condition which suggests it has only been in the water for a few weeks or months. The U.S. navy denies losing any planes in the region or any tail fins, so this begs the question, where did it come from? What are the U.S. military covering up?

There are regular reports of U.S. fighter activity over west Cork, which, of course, is illegal and a violation of irish Airspace, unless specific permission is given for each flight by the Minister for foreign Affairs.

Has the Minister for foreign affairs given permission for fully armed military fighter aircraft to use our territory as part of military operations in an illegal and brutal occupation of a foreign country?

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=2

Ciaran500

Could of come from a huge area.

spanner

Akrasia wrote:

Has the Minister for foreign affairs given permission for fully armed military fighter aircraft to use our territory as part of military operations in an illegal and brutal occupation of a foreign country?

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=2

I hope he did, It would be good to know that somebody is watching the skies over us.

Akrasia

it could have, but it could only have come from one squadron, and for some reason, they are denying that they lost any planes, or tail fins. Unless we're in a donnie darko situation, someone's lying

Akrasia

spanner wrote:

I hope he did, It would be good to know that somebody is watching the skies over us.

Cause we're likely to be invaded by aliens?


And they're not there to watch out for us, they're there to defend their own war machine

Ciaran500

Akrasia wrote:

it could have, but it could only have come from one squadron, and for some reason, they are denying that they lost any planes, or tail fins. Unless we're in a donnie darko situation, someone's lying

They are denying they lost any planes or tail fins in the region, big difference.

Do we know where that squadron was for the last few months?

Sand

The U.S. navy denies losing any planes in the region or any tail fins, so this begs the question, where did it come from? What are the U.S. military covering up?

And they're not there to watch out for us, they're there to defend their own war machine

an unfavorable predisposition towards the United States, which leads individuals to interpret American actions through negative stereotypes.

Its possible, though highly unlikely I grant you, that the US military arent covering anything up and that they did not lose a plane or any tail fins in the region of Ireland. I agree that its clearly impossible that the currents of the Atlantic ocean could have carried a tail fin lost, oh anywhere west of Ireland really, and deposited it on a beach in Ireland months after it may have been lost.

Tapdancing christ :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, a working link to the story as well. To clarify the tail fin apparently belongs to an F-14 with what *was* the F-14 *training* squadron - until the F-14 was apparently decommissioned earlier this year.

Ciaran500

Just got into the article now, your link is broken
http://examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=2683-qqqx=1.asp

How did you make the connection that a tail fin from a training aircraft that was retired 5 months ago could mean that "fully armed military fighter aircraft" are flying in our airspace?

Also I doubt that a training squadron would be brought over to Ireland with the rest of their military aircraft.

secret_squirrel

Akrasia wrote:

fully armed military fighter aircraft

Mindless speculation - how do you know it was armed?

Akrasia wrote:

to use our territory as part of military operations

Ditto - how do you know it was anywhere irish territory? How do you know it wa a military operation?

At least show a little intelligence and stop using a trivial event as a basis for your paranoid delusions.

The fact is you cant know how that fin got here so maybe, just maybe until you do you should stop your ridiculous speculation?

therecklessone

Ciaran500 wrote:

Also I doubt that a training squadron would be brought over to Ireland with the rest of their military aircraft.

The US Air Force and Navy train in UK training ranges over the Irish Sea (in UK airspace), can be less than 20 miles from the Eastern boundary of Irish airspace.

Major naval exercises are also held south of our airspace in Oceanic Airspace.

spanner

Akrasia wrote:

And they're not there to watch out for us, they're there to defend their own war machine

The war machine that looks after us. I think its about time we jumped off the fence and start getting involved in protecting our way of life. I always thought we really should join NATO.

Neutrality has been the biggest farce this country has done. It really has not achieved anything Tangible.

I dont completely agree with the USA are doing but I belive their intentions are right and priorities are the same as ours so we should support them.

Being Irish isn't always going to work as a defence. In places like the middle east now they are anti westerners doesn't matter what country we are from

Akrasia

spanner wrote:

The war machine that looks after us. I think its about time we jumped off the fence and start getting involved in protecting our way of life. I always thought we really should join NATO.

Neutrality has been the biggest farce this country has done. It really has not achieved anything Tangible.

I dont completely agree with the USA are doing but I belive their intentions are right and priorities are the same as ours so we should support them.

Being Irish isn't always going to work as a defence. In places like the middle east now they are anti westerners doesn't matter what country we are from

their war machine only protects us as long as we are unquestioning supporters of U.S. foreign policy.
What were the U.S. government intentions in Iraq? they certainly weren't to protect us from Mythical WMD, and they couldn't have been to bring freedom or democracy to iraq (if that was the case, they wouldn't have ignored (and retired) every military adviser who correctly stated that the U.S. would have needed a much bigger occupation force to maintain security and stability in a post war iraq)

zuma

Akrasia wrote:

Cause we're likely to be invaded by aliens?


And they're not there to watch out for us, they're there to defend their own war machine

Exactly!!

spanner,
I realise that the EU is not exactly a military union(yet!) but can you honestly tell me that the rest of the EU wouldnt come to our aid if we had a major disaster like a ddirty bomb or Chemical/Nuclear/Biological attack or something bonkers like that?

Of course they would!!!!

secret_squirrel

Akrasia wrote:

their war machine only protects us as long as we are unquestioning supporters of U.S. foreign policy.
What were the U.S. government intentions in Iraq? they certainly weren't to protect us from Mythical WMD, and they couldn't have been to bring freedom or democracy to iraq (if that was the case, they wouldn't have ignored (and retired) every military adviser who correctly stated that the U.S. would have needed a much bigger occupation force to maintain security and stability in a post war iraq)

Was this thread meant to be about a tomcat tail fin being found in cork or just a soapbox for your anti-american ranting. How is this on topic??

Pa ElGrande

Since the F14 has been retired, It was most likely used for target practice by the US Navy somewhere in the Atlantic and some of the debris washed up in Ireland. Don't think it has any significance.

Sponge Bob

Pa ElGrande wrote:

Since the F14 has been retired

ehh not quite totally but the only F14s in service nowadays are Iranian ones

Manic Moran

My guess is that since the squadron in question is the training squadron, and they're based out of Virginia, the thing entered the water somewhere near the US, found its way into the Gulf Stream, and eventually floated in the stream across the Atlantic to wind up off Ireland.

NTM

Dr_Teeth

I'd say it was a defective or obselete part and was simply dumped over the side of an Aircraft Carrier at some point. I'm sure they assumed it would sink but instead it floated.

fly_agaric

Akrasia wrote:

What are the U.S. military covering up?

:rolleyes:

Akrasia wrote:

There are regular reports of U.S. fighter activity over west Cork, which, of course, is illegal and a violation of irish Airspace, unless specific permission is given for each flight by the Minister for foreign Affairs.

MAYBE the US military are preparing the ground for an invasion of Cork with the connivance of the Illegal Jackeen Government!:eek:

Congratulations on posting a great joke thread by the way.

Moriarty

Was I dreaming it, or was it confirmed that in the build up to the invasion of Iraq US fighter and bomber aircraft travelled through irish airspace? I seem to remember some debate over them travelling through our airspace but not landing or something along those lines..

I certainly remember months of aircraft flying in formation over shannon at ~3-4am most nights both before and after the invasion. Most seemed to be steady lines of transport aircraft sometimes 20 long, but I saw a number of flights of aircraft in close (compared to most aircraft you'd see in the sky over ireland) diamond/chevron style formations.

pete

Moriarty wrote:

Was I dreaming it, or was it confirmed that in the build up to the invasion of Iraq US fighter and bomber aircraft travelled through irish airspace? I seem to remember some debate over them travelling through our airspace but not landing or something along those lines..

I certainly remember months of aircraft flying in formation over shannon at ~3-4am most nights both before and after the invasion. Most seemed to be steady lines of transport aircraft sometimes 20 long, but I saw a number of flights of aircraft in close (compared to most aircraft you'd see in the sky over ireland) diamond/chevron style formations.

you didn't dream it, and they didn't pay their overflight charges neither

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/05/13/story202378.asp

bobbyjoe

Their invading once piece at a time.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1943058

That would be the end of the conspiracy theories.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1943058

That would be the end of the conspiracy theories.

Don't be so optimistic.

Facts are never sufficient to put to rest a theory that itself is not particularly based on or concerned with fact.

jc

Manic Moran

pete wrote:

you didn't dream it, and they didn't pay their overflight charges neither

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/05/13/story202378.asp

For the sake of a daft question, how can aircraft be charged overflight charges, and how could it have cost the taxpayer? Surely the guys at Air Traffic Control would be on duty at any given night even if only one aircraft was scheduled to fly over, or fifty?

NTM

zuma

Manic Moran wrote:

For the sake of a daft question, how can aircraft be charged overflight charges, and how could it have cost the taxpayer? Surely the guys at Air Traffic Control would be on duty at any given night even if only one aircraft was scheduled to fly over, or fifty?

NTM

A computer consultant is open for Business 40 hours a week for work.

During one week they might have 4 clients during another they might have 20....the monre clients the more money....the same stands for the overflight charges!

pete

Manic Moran wrote:

For the sake of a daft question, how can aircraft be charged overflight charges, and how could it have cost the taxpayer? Surely the guys at Air Traffic Control would be on duty at any given night even if only one aircraft was scheduled to fly over, or fifty?

NTM

It's because each individual flight is using a portion of our resources - manpower, communications facilities etc., along with the right to pass through our airspace, which is also a natural resource after all....

I read somewhere it's about €29 per flight, vs €80+ in the UK, which is probably less than the cost of the amount of aviation fuel it would take to fly around our airspace.

It all adds up when you consider that "...close to 7,000 military aircraft flew over Ireland in the first nine months of 2002" (Irish Times), and that was before gulf war II even kicked off.... and all that cash is reimbursed to the Irish Aviation Authority by the Irish Government, i.e. the Irish taxpayer, i.e. me!

therecklessone

Manic Moran wrote:

For the sake of a daft question, how can aircraft be charged overflight charges, and how could it have cost the taxpayer? Surely the guys at Air Traffic Control would be on duty at any given night even if only one aircraft was scheduled to fly over, or fifty?

NTM

Pete's explained the "how it costs the taxpayer" bit already.

How Route Charges are established

Member States provide air traffic control (ATC) facilities and services to ensure the safe, efficient and expeditious flow of air traffic through their airspace. They recover the costs of providing these facilities and services by means of route charges levied on users of their airspace.

A charge is levied for each flight performed under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) in the Flight Information Regions (FIRs) falling within the competence of the Member States. This charge takes into account the distance flown and, less than proportionately, the aircraft weight.

<snip>

Furthermore, a Member State may, in respect of the FIRs falling within its competence, exempt the following from payment of route charges:

military flights of any State

IAA route charges

The current IAA en route unit rate for 2006 is €27.99 (national unit rate).

Comparison of European En Route Unit Rates (page 9, as of Dec 2004)

Manic Moran

therecklessone wrote:

Pete's explained the "how it costs the taxpayer" bit already.

Interesting link. I had thought that the states were required to provide a service as to the navigtion of their airspace by treaty. My error.

Still doesn't seem to make sense to me, as the overheads are going to be required to be in place anyway: The facilities, commo gear, tracking systems etc: I can't see how the operational yearly costs will go up or down regardless of how many aircraft fly overhead, however, I'm sure the governments know what they're doing.

IAA route charges

Comparison of European En Route Unit Rates (page 9, as of Dec 2004)

How Route Charges are established

That little snip you added in at the bottom about military flights is evidently an important one.

http://www.iaa.ie/corp_fin/pdf/legislation/regulation/RouteChargesRegulations_2005_No776.pdf
Irish Aviation Authority (EUROCONTROL) (Consolidated Route Charges) Regulations, S.I. No. 776 of 2005

The very first exemption from charges listed by the regulations is military aircraft, and I presume this Statutory Instrument has the force of law behind it. It thus seems to me that it is impossible under current Irish law to attempt to charge fees.

My immediate thought is that as military aircraft are owned by a foreign government, that the exemption is based on a similar concept to diplomatic immunity.

NTM

godfather69er

spanner wrote:

The war machine that looks after us. I think its about time we jumped off the fence and start getting involved in protecting our way of life. I always thought we really should join NATO.

Neutrality has been the biggest farce this country has done. It really has not achieved anything Tangible.

I dont completely agree with the USA are doing but I belive their intentions are right and priorities are the same as ours so we should support them.

Being Irish isn't always going to work as a defence. In places like the middle east now they are anti westerners doesn't matter what country we are from

totally agree.


and the F-14 is decommissioned, heres is what i think happened.
on us navy aircraft carriers the planes are kept very close together both under deck and on the flight deck, there is a high probability of a crash or two planes colliding whilst moving on deck,so that is probably what happened.
the possibility of it being used for target practice is also high as they have been mothballed, the us navy regularly blow up decommisioned ships

therecklessone

Manic Moran wrote:

Still doesn't seem to make sense to me, as the overheads are going to be required to be in place anyway: The facilities, commo gear, tracking systems etc: I can't see how the operational yearly costs will go up or down regardless of how many aircraft fly overhead, however, I'm sure the governments know what they're doing.

ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) conventions allow states to recover costs associated with the provision of air traffic services from airspace users. The IAA operates on a full cost recovery basis.

The Council considers that as a general principle, where air navigation services are provided for international use, the providers may require the users to pay their share of the related costs; at the same time, international civil aviation should not be asked to meet costs that are not properly allocable to it. The Council therefore encourages States to maintain accounts for the air navigation services they provide in a manner which ensures that air navigation services charges levied on international civil aviation are properly
cost-based.

ICAO’S POLICIES ON CHARGES FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES (part III)

Article 15 of the Chicago Covention (1947) which established ICAO states:

All such charges shall be published and communicated to the
International Civil Aviation Organization, provided that, upon representation by an interested contracting State, the charges imposed for the use of airports and other facilities shall be subject to review by the Council, which shall report and make installations recommendations thereon for the consideration of the State or States concerned.

Basically, ATS providers set their route charges, but these are assessed by ICAO and the ATS provider must account for costs to airspace users (i.e. the airlines)

Manic Moran wrote:

The very first exemption from charges listed by the regulations is military aircraft, and I presume this Statutory Instrument has the force of law behind it. It thus seems to me that it is impossible under current Irish law to attempt to charge fees.

My immediate thought is that as military aircraft are owned by a foreign government, that the exemption is based on a similar concept to diplomatic immunity.

NTM

The SI is effectively law, so you're right, it is impossible under current Irish law to charge fees to foreign military aircraft. Key word being current...;)

However, the exemption is not based on diplomatic immunity.

Eurocontrol wrote:

The following categories of flights are exempt from the payment of route charges:

State flights: flights performed exclusively for the transport, on official mission, of the reigning Monarch and his/her immediate family, Heads of State, Heads of Government, and Government Ministers. In all cases, this must be substantiated by the appropriate status indicator on the flight plan;

The exemption of military flights is voluntary, and usually mutually beneficial (i.e. agreed by states to exempt each others flights).

Akrasia

godfather69er wrote:

the possibility of it being used for target practice is also high as they have been mothballed, the us navy regularly blow up decommisioned ships

Hold on, there is a big difference between using an unmanned decomissioned ship as target practise, and using a fighter plane, that has to be flown by a pilot as target practise. Planes can't fly themselves.

godfather69er

Akrasia wrote:

Hold on, there is a big difference between using an unmanned decomissioned ship as target practise, and using a fighter plane, that has to be flown by a pilot as target practise. Planes can't fly themselves.

yes they can they can equip them to be flown via a simulator on the ground with a pilot in the simulator

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

Hold on, there is a big difference between using an unmanned decomissioned ship as target practise, and using a fighter plane, that has to be flown by a pilot as target practise. Planes can't fly themselves.

http://sunnersberg.com/images/19980717-f-5385s-002.jpg

Look, Mom! No hands!

Or heads....

QF-4 target drone. Only full-sized drone used by the US these days, the Navy has gone back to small target drones.

The exemption of military flights is voluntary, and usually mutually beneficial (i.e. agreed by states to exempt each others flights).

Not to mention also, there's nothing Ireland can do to stop them: They're well able to fly around on their own with no ATC if they want, and Ireland lacks any ability to police its own airspace. (See Air Corps thread in After Hours)

NTM

therecklessone

Manic Moran wrote:

Not to mention also, there's nothing Ireland can do to stop them: They're well able to fly around on their own with no ATC if they want, and Ireland lacks any ability to police its own airspace. (See Air Corps thread in After Hours)

NTM

Theoretically yes, in practise no. To pitch up on the Western boundary of Irish airspace would involve a transit of oceanic airspace on the North Atlantic, which requires a procedural clearance (no radar coverage over the ocean). No procedural clearance would be issued to arrive at the boundary of Irish airspace if the Irish government had refused permission to enter our FIR/UIR, so to achieve what you're suggesting, the aircraft in question would have to leave US domestic airspace, enter oceanic airspace without a clearance, cross the Atlantic without said clearance, transit Irish domestic airspace unauthorised, then enter UK airspace (who would presumably allow their onward passage).

The most economical track across the Atlantic would be on one of the published NAT tracks, at an optimal level, which would put the military traffic in conflict with a large number of commercial flights over the ocean. The result would be chaos, with a sever impact on commercial operations (including a large percentage of US carriers), possibly even leading to the closure of oceanic airspace until the issue was resolved.

Of course, some might see the unauthorised entry of US military flights into the Shannon FIR/UIR as an act of war...;). Without a doubt, it would be an entirely reckless act, and certainly not worth the political/economic fallout.

Manic Moran

How many EU states charge the US military (or any military) for overflights? Assuming none, what's to stop a simple case of the US saying 'You are charging us for something that nobody else is? Fine, we'll not enter Irish airspace at all, even to stop at Shannon, and we'll go to Germany instead. Let's see your economy deal with that" I believe that the annual income at Shannon related to US movements at a stop-over is more than the 10m Euro claimed to be lost by not charging militaries for the airspace use, if my recollection of the figures is correct.

NTM

therecklessone

Manic Moran wrote:

How many EU states charge the US military (or any military) for overflights? Assuming none, what's to stop a simple case of the US saying 'You are charging us for something that nobody else is? Fine, we'll not enter Irish airspace at all, even to stop at Shannon, and we'll go to Germany instead. Let's see your economy deal with that"

Answer to how many EU states charge US military flights en-route charges? I've no idea, but an educated guess would say none (certainly none of her NATO allies)

Answer to your second point? Economics.

The most economical routes, east and west, across the Atlantic result in over 90% of oceanic traffic transiting Irish domestic airspace.

Due to fact that there is a major flow of eastbound flights from North America in the evening hours and an almost equal flow of westbound flights from Europe in the morning, the NAT airspace can become quite congested at peak hours. In order allow the majority of flights to traverse the NAT as efficiently as possible, a system of organized tracks is constructed to accommodate as many flights as possible within the major flows on or close to their minimum time tracks and profiles. With the ever-changing nature of the NAT weather patterns, including the presence of jet streams, eastbound and westbound minimum time tracks are seldom identical. The creation of a different organized track system is therefore necessary for each of the major flows. Separate Organized Track Structures (OTS) is published each day for the eastbound and westbound flows.

More here

In the majority of cases, the NAT tracks required for US-Western Europe begin/end at the western boundary of Irish domestic airspace, due to distance and time considerations. To avoid Irish airspace would involve selecting a longer route which may not take advantage of favourable jetstreams, meaning a longer flight at a slower speed, therefore higher fuel burn. And suddenly that €29 doesn't look so bad...;)

IAA Annual Report 2004

Control of NOTA extends the Authority’s responsibilities to a total block of Irish controlled airspace of some 450,000 square kilometres that will become the gateway for over ninety per cent of all air traffic between Europe and North America.

Map of Irish airspace

Manic Moran

therecklessone wrote:

Answer to your second point? Economics.

The most economical routes, east and west, across the Atlantic result in over 90% of oceanic traffic transiting Irish domestic airspace.

You're not looking at a large enough scale.

If the US military suddenly starts paying millions of dollars to Ireland, and only to Ireland, for the use of its airspace, a lot of other countries are suddenly going to go "Hey! Free money!" With all the countries in the world that the USAF flies over, you start hitting some pretty serious fees to counteract the extra fuel usage, with a rather nasty precedent set. Any old TPLAC could suddenly start looking at the US as a moneyspinner, and who's to say their charges would be as reasonable as Irelands?.

The US would thus avoid Ireland as much as a matter of principle, and the net benefit to Ireland for having attempted to make the charge, if the US pulls out of Shannon in protest, becomes a multi-million euro negative. I think the country's better off with the status quo.

NTM

therecklessone

Manic Moran wrote:

You're not looking at a large enough scale.

If the US military suddenly starts paying millions of dollars to Ireland, and only to Ireland, for the use of its airspace, a lot of other countries are suddenly going to go "Hey! Free money!" With all the countries in the world that the USAF flies over, you start hitting some pretty serious fees to counteract the extra fuel usage, with a rather nasty precedent set. Any old TPLAC could suddenly start looking at the US as a moneyspinner, and who's to say their charges would be as reasonable as Irelands?.

Not sure about worldwide, but:

Under a Eurocontrol (European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation) Multilateral agreement to which Ireland is a party, various categories of flights (Flights under Visual Flight Rules, flights performed by small aircraft, flights performed for the transport of Heads of State
and search and rescue flights) are exempt from paying en-route charges. In the case of other categories (military flights, training flights, flights performed to test air navigation equipment and circular flights), States have the option to exempt such flights from payment of the en-route charge. In common with most Eurocontrol Member States, Ireland exempts all such flights, including military flights of Member States of Eurocontrol, United States and Canada, from payment of the en-route charge and this arrangement has applied since Ireland joined the Eurocontrol en-route charging scheme in the early 1970’s.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Ivor Callely) 15 December 2004

From information received from Eurocontrol it is understood that Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Moldova do not at present grant exempted status to US military flights. However, my Department understands that invoices issued by the above States to the US authorities in respect of military flights have not been paid.

So other states charge them, they just don't pay. Nothing new there, ask the UN...

It could be argued that any NATO members would be unlikely to charge US flights en-route charges, which doesn't leave many Eurocontrol member states who:

1. don't already levy en-route charges in respect of military flights, or
2. aren't members of NATO

So the operational cost of avoiding Irish airspace on principle may seem less appealing given the relatively few countries that attempt to levy the charge (but don't get paid anyway) The Swiss have one of the highest unit rate charges in Europe FYI.

I can't speak for the situation outside of Eurocontrol.

Oh, btw...I'm not arguing in favour of levying the charges.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

My immediate thought is that as military aircraft are owned by a foreign government

And but for the damned Air Navigation Act, that airspace is mine!

lostexpectation

pete wrote:

It all adds up when you consider that "...close to 7,000 military aircraft flew over Ireland in the first nine months of 2002" (Irish Times), and that was before gulf war II even kicked off.... and all that cash is reimbursed to the Irish Aviation Authority by the Irish Government, i.e. the Irish taxpayer, i.e. me!

there was a little thing called afghanistan you know.. and the state subsidieses Shannon in it entirity so its gotta come out as a net loss overall, its a alot of jiggery pockery the 14m is only theoretically charged.