Equipment that is needed for the aircorps.

Maskhadov

We need about 3 of these (C - 130 J)



About 16 of these (eurofighter )



Were getting 4 of these but could really do with 4 more.(AB 139 military version)



We have 1 or two of these but could do with another 2 or 4




Baldonnel needs a major upgrade with proper hangers for the jets of course.

oh i and i nearly forgot.. about 6 of these for pilots to train on for the Eurofighter (javelin) or hawks woudl do either

fightin irish

Excluding the c-130's why do you feel we need all this? Not being rude , Just wondering why you feel we would need them.

(altho personally, i'd love to see this and more)

Manic Moran

I was going to fall off the chair laughing until I saw the Javelin. Not seen that one before, I'm going Googling.

NTM

Maskhadov

I couldnt get a picture of a Hawk. We need a jet trainer.


Course we need it. Any other country would have it.

testicle

Maskhadov wrote:

I couldnt get a picture of a Hawk. We need a jet trainer.


Course we need it. Any other country would have it.

emmm, didn't look very far then did you!

http://www.raptorsandrockets.com/images/Red%20arrows%201a.JPG

Maskhadov

ok scratch the picture of the Javelin..



Hawks are expensive for jet trainers but they are very capable.

therecklessone

Maskhadov wrote:

Any other country would have it.

Other countries have ICBMs and aircraft carriers, suppose we need them also?

Maskhadov

no.

Sgt. Sensible

While we're at, we need about 12 of these.



An armoured division full of these lads. Sod it make it 3 divisions.



A battalion of hot female bodyguards to protect our great leaders. Like what Col.Gadaffi has. No Cavan boilers.



And about 100,000 AK47's plus ammunition.

Maskhadov

I think you have got into the swing of it but girls really need to sort out their berets;)

Sgt. Sensible

Agree with the transports and choppers but don't see the point of the fighters. Our government is so pathetically weak we'd probably end up paying to let the US use them for some war or other.

Maskhadov

The transport planes could be used for both military and civilian use. The government could use them in delivering humanitarian aid among other things.

The aircorps also needs its facilities in baldonnel upgraded. There arent enough hangers to store all the aircraft at present.

therecklessone

So why do we need 16 Cold War-era fighters designed to shoot Warsaw Pact MiGs out of the sky, and Hawk jet trainers to train for these expensive toys?

Far more beneficial would be the purchase of extra Casas for fisheries protection and SAR and a coincidental purchase of extra naval service vessels for the same purpose.

A move from Baldonnel to the west coast would be sensible, freeing Baldonnel for future civil operations, and realising property value in South Dublin, while supplementing existing facilities to the west (dual use of Galway or Knock airports for example)

babybundy

therecklessone wrote:

A move from Baldonnel to the west coast would be sensible, freeing Baldonnel for future civil operations, and realising property value in South Dublin, while supplementing existing facilities to the west (dual use of Galway or Knock airports for example)

i agree with this i think knock is longer but the navel sevice should also have a base on the west coast

therecklessone

babybundy wrote:

i agree with this i think knock is longer but the navel sevice should also have a base on the west coast

Agreed, Knock is much longer but also busier (can't find figures for aircraft movements, but passenger numbers are 2.5 times greater at Knock than Galway). Not sure if its possible to upgrade the facilities at Galway, extending 08/26 and possibly adding a crossing runway), if that proves too difficult then Knock would be the better option.

Maskhadov

The authorities want Baldonnel because its in Dublin and they can bring VIPs there instead of Dublin Airport. The local residents would probably not like any increase in air traffic and would object.

A specially designed air base in knock would be fantastic for the air corps though. Providing it had proper re inforced hangers and also a location for live firing. It would probably be cheaper for the aircorps to do that.

A couple of squadrons of Eurofighters would really look impressive parked alongside the hangers.

therecklessone

Maskhadov wrote:

A couple of squadrons of Eurofighters would really look impressive parked alongside the hangers.

So would a Porsche, two Ferraris and a 20 foot mickey...:rolleyes:

Be realistic, why do we need Eurofighters?

The majority of governmental VIPs arriving in ireland do so through Dublin Airport, Bertie himself insists on flying from Dublin rather than Baldonnel. The only services the Air Corp provide that are needed in the Dublin area are Ministerial Air Transport and GASU. Both could be based at Dublin.

There is also more scope for live firing on the west coast than there is on the east, all it would require would be the establishment of a danger area similar to D1 at Gormanston.

Hagar

therecklessone wrote:

Be realistic, why do we need Eurofighters?

We need fighters equipped with a European controlled GPS ( Gallileo ) so that the existing GPS which is controlled by Uncle Sam cannot be turned off in time of conflict. They fighters may not have it yet but I suspect they will have before long.

You might think that's stretching it a bit but do a bit of digging on GPS and you will find there are deliberate errors/distortions built into all civilian systems to protect US security interests. It is also suspected that the US has the ability to switch off GPS in ordnance systems supplied to other states just in case they are ever turned against the US.

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

We need fighters equipped with a European controlled GPS ( Gallileo ) so that the existing GPS which is controlled by Uncle Sam cannot be turned off in time of conflict. They fighters may not have it yet but I suspect they will have before long.

You might think that's stretching it a bit but do a bit of digging on GPS and you will find there are deliberate errors/distortions built into all civilian systems to protect US security interests. It is also suspected that the US has the ability to switch off GPS in ordnance systems supplied to other states just in case they are ever turned against the US.

Perhaps you misunderstood me Hagar.

Why do we need fighters. Full stop.

I am aware of the limitations of GPS (I work in aviation), I just don't see how that influences this debate.

dave2pvd

What about UAVs for fisheries protection? No litigious claims because of the 'U' part. Except carpal tunnel.

Seriously, UAVs: why not?

Maskhadov

If course we need modern fighter jets like the Eurofighter. We need them because bertie had to ask tony to do the job for us. Thanks tony.

therecklessone

Maskhadov wrote:

If course we need modern fighter jets like the Eurofighter. We need them because bertie had to ask tony to do the job for us. Thanks tony.

What job?

I'm trying to drag it out of you, but it seems you're not biting. You're referring to post 9/11 interceptions, right?

neilled

I assume we are talking about the wonderful time when we held the EU presidency and there was talk of having the RAF provide air cover for us whilst the various heads of government arrived in dublin.

Schuhart

I’m actually not clear what we need the C130s for. I have a sort of a vague feeling that you can never have too many helicopters, but equally don't real understand the operation role you have in mind.

On the fighters I can sympathise with the view that if we can’t even pretend to defend our own airspace we might as well apply for readmission to the UK and explain we were only having them on, we didn’t really want our own country.

But then there’s the cost. 16 aircraft would look to cost about €1.5 billion, at a rough guess based on the BBC news story below. Do you think there’s an appetite to spend €1.5 billion on a fighter squadron?

We just have to find a cheaper alternative. And if the answer to that is 'there is no cheaper alternative', then the response is a mild smile, just to show a veneer of human sympathy, followed by a simple repetition of the statement.

We just have to find a cheaper alternative.

The bill for Britain's order of 232 aircraft to replace the RAF's Tornado F3 and Jaguar has risen over the years from £7bn ($10bn) to £15.9bn ($22.7bn)

therecklessone wrote:

A move from Baldonnel to the west coast would be sensible, freeing Baldonnel for future civil operations, and realising property value in South Dublin, while supplementing existing facilities to the west (dual use of Galway or Knock airports for example)

What we don't need is a load of develop the West types turning the Air Corps into a job creation scheme. If they were relocated from Baldonnel it should be because we see something in their role that can be better performed elsewhere. (This is not an invitation for the usual tortuous 'logic' that accompanies demands for stuff to be located in the West.)

therecklessone

Schuhart wrote:

What we don't need is a load of develop the West types turning the Air Corps into a job creation scheme. If they were relocated from Baldonnel it should be because we see something in their role that can be better performed elsewhere. (This is not an invitation for the usual tortuous 'logic' that accompanies demands for stuff to be located in the West.)

I'm not a develop the west type, I'm a "get them the f**k out of Dublin so they stop impacting on civil operations @ Dublin Airport" type, combined with a "out west they can have a lot more airspace to play with" type, a dash of "we can get some decent € for Baldonnel that can be reinvested in the Defence Forces" type, and a hint of "consolidation of civil and military ops at Knock or a revamped and expanded Galway would ensure maximum use of available resources" type.

For the purpose of the argument, regional development lies low on the agenda.

Schuhart

therecklessone wrote:

For the purpose of the argument, regional development lies low on the agenda.

I'm relieved to hear it.

Maskhadov

The aircorps should really sell up its land on the east coast to developers and to commerical air traffic. That would go some of the way to financing some more transport planes and Eurofighters (or some jets).

It has to be said that any aircraft bought will last 30 years providing there is a mid life upgrade. So, divide €1.5 billion over 30 years and its a pretty small figure per year.

Transport planes would be used non stop for both military training and military deployment. We can send over a considerable number of troops to over seas missions with 3 C-130 Js, use them for fishery protection, parachuting and also humanitarian mission. Very useful.

Schuhart

Maskhadov wrote:

The aircorps should really sell up its land on the east coast to developers and to commerical air traffic. That would go some of the way to financing some more transport planes and Eurofighters (or some jets).

I've no problem in principle with that - assuming that there are real benefits in moving the Air Corp to a new location.

Maskhadov wrote:

It has to be said that any aircraft bought will last 30 years providing there is a mid life upgrade. So, divide €1.5 billion over 30 years and its a pretty small figure per year.

I take it the €1.5 billion would just be the cost of the jets. Annual maintenance/parts/missles and ultimately that mid life upgrade will presumably come on top.

Maskhadov wrote:

Transport planes would be used non stop for both military training and military deployment. We can send over a considerable number of troops to over seas missions with 3 C-130 Js, use them for fishery protection, parachuting and also humanitarian mission. Very useful.

I've no problem in principle with this, but do we really have a permanent need for our own dedicated transports for overseas missions? Also I'm not clear on what troops we would be deploying and where.

The jets I think is one of those things we really do need to do. The clever bit (which I don't have a ready answer for) is how to do it cheaply. But I'd half guess that, unless C130s are really cheap, we could probably do without them and just work on the assumption that any deployment overseas will be in conjunction with other countries who can provide the air transport while we might consider some other material that we might provide. For example,am I right in saying we have participated in some international missions by providing the truck transports and drivers?

Bear in mind, I do have sympathy for the view that we need a capable military both as a pillar of national independance and, consistent with that, to participate in international missions. Its just if you were setting down priorities, control of our air space seem to be the one thing we simply cannot do at all at present.

IrishAirCorps

The Aircorps already have UAV's on order, they are being finalised as they will be used by Irish Troops Overseas and may be used as "Top Cover" for the Army in Ireland when doing C.I.T (Cash In Transit AKA Bank Jobs) they will be used in C.I.T to replace the Cessna as that is being withdrawn from service with the IAC, also i read somebody say that the Hawk is expensive? Actually it is quite cheap and could provide a trainer and front line defence role, the RAF use the Hawk as a Trainer and also for point defence of installations (bases etc).

If you want to be realistic about something then yes we need Hercs for transport of AID and troops etc, the herc is widely accepted as the best AC for that job ( turbrprop ) and as for Jets well im all for them and if i had my choice id start off with the F5e Tiger ( Reliable,proven,Supersonic,Reheat,Light,Combat ready,very cheap to purchase/operate and maintain and was designed by the US to do all of the above and can out turn F15's, 16's etc you get the idea )

therecklessone

Sorry chaps, you lost me a while back.

Can somebody please tell me what credible threat to Ireland's airspace exists that would necessitate the purchase of airborne interceptors? Say in the next 30 or so years, the lifespan of a Eurofighter...

Now I'll accept that no credible threat of an invasion of these shores exists either, and one could also question the purpose of the Army, but they're there now and they fulfill a number of roles ancillary to their role of defence of the state.

I'm not suggesting we disband the Air Corps, or any other branch of the Defence Forces for that matter, I'm just trying to get some logical explanation as to why we need to purchase expensive toys to counter a non-existent threat (IMO). Available funds should be channelled towards realisable goals (i.e. transport, fisheries protection, helicopters etc)

Given current developments in nuclear and ballistic missle technology from Iran and North Korea, isn't it likely that any threat to these shore in the short to medium term will be delivered on the end of a missle? What use will a Eurofighter be against that? Maybe we should be buying a battery of Patriots?

IrishAirCorps wrote:

The Aircorps already have UAV's on order, <snip> may be used as "Top Cover" for the Army in Ireland when doing C.I.T (Cash In Transit AKA Bank Jobs)

Have UAVs been approved for use in civil airspace?

IrishAirCorps

Well the fact that a PC9 cant intercept an Aircraft should be a good enough reason for a fast jet or two, hows about also some Morale for our guys who do a great job with what they have and it would also boost the Publics Morale for the IAC

IrishAirCorps

Oh and the UAV's have been approved.

Tchocky

I dont think morale is a good enough reason. Frankly I don't see a credible threat to Ireland's airspace materialising, and if it does, we'd probably deserve it.

therecklessone

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Well the fact that a PC9 cant intercept an Aircraft should be a good enough reason for a fast jet or two

Why do we need interceptor capability?

IrishAirCorps wrote:

hows about also some Morale for our guys who do a great job with what they have and it would also boost the Publics Morale for the IAC

Free strippers, a half-day on a Friday and a few vouchers for Smyths would boost morale, and at least the Smyths vouchers would allow them buy useful toys...

Hagar

Please try to keeps posts relevent, ridiculing the DF is not welcome in this forum.

Hagar.

babybundy

in my opinion all we need is herc's and helicopters including some that can be armed as gun ships

Maskhadov

The new AB 139 that the aircorps is getting (as seen here) will have side mounted machine guns.



That is a mock up by the way.

The UK is buying almost 300 Eurofighters but its still buying them. Its a good example to follow. They live right beside us and face the same kind of threat. We should look after our own nation and purchase 16 - 22 or so. Price isnt the main factor.

babybundy

ya i no wat those yolks do but we want more the 4 confirmed to be ordered plus the the other 2 they might get

Maskhadov

Yes, 4 isnt enough. We really need 8 or 12 of those AB 132's. Very versatile. We can train our forces for overseas missions which mostly use helis to get around. Special forces can use them. Aid to Civil power can use them. Also we can move artillery peices with ammo or mortar crews around very easily.. the list is endless really.

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

Please try to keeps posts relevent, ridiculing the DF is not welcome in this forum.

Hagar.

With all due respect Hagar, I'm not ridiculing the DF.

therecklessone

Maskhadov wrote:

The UK is buying almost 300 Eurofighters but its still buying them. Its a good example to follow. They live right beside us and face the same kind of threat. We should look after our own nation and purchase 16 - 22 or so. Price isnt the main factor.

Same kind of threat?

They're in NATO, and involved in offensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, same kind of threat...

Finance will always be a factor in relation to defence expenditure. Money spent of interceptors and fast jet trainers is money not available for other defence purchases.

Please name one state with the capability to breach our airspace with offensive jet aircraft that is likely to launch an attack on us. Just one will do.

IrishAirCorps

therecklessone wrote:

Why do we need interceptor capability?



Free strippers, a half-day on a Friday and a few vouchers for Smyths would boost morale, and at least the Smyths vouchers would allow them buy useful toys...

No thats not ridicule atall....................look if you have an Interest in the IAC and DF as a whole then please post relevant stuff, we need fast jets heck even a few Hawks would be credible and perfect, if your gonna try and stop a hijacked airliner with a PC9 then by all means try....and fail.

Bottom line is id rather have them and not use them than need them and not have them..Look at Sweden, 100%Neutral yet they can produce a 4th generation fighter and where is their threat?

IrishAirCorps

therecklessone wrote:

Same kind of threat?

They're in NATO, and involved in offensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, same kind of threat...
.

Just so you know Sky news asked a EF Typhon pilot why buy Typhoons when the RAF havent fought a dogfight since the Falklands......his answer..be prepared for anything......anything.

Hagar

therecklessone wrote:

With all due respect Hagar, I'm not ridiculing the DF.

therecklessone wrote:

Free strippers, a half-day on a Friday and a few vouchers for Smyths would boost morale, and at least the Smyths vouchers would allow them buy useful toys...

And what would you call that?

Your first post was well argued, but after that... well, standards dropped.

therecklessone

IrishAirCorps wrote:

No thats not ridicule atall....................look if you have an Interest in the IAC and DF as a whole then please post relevant stuff, we need fast jets heck even a few Hawks would be credible and perfect, if your gonna try and stop a hijacked airliner with a PC9 then by all means try....and fail.

No, its not ridicul of the DF. Its a humourous attempt to highlight the utterly ridiculous suggestion that we should spend hundreds of millions on fast jets to boost the morale of the men and women of the Air Corps. And believe me, prioritising spending on ego-boosting toys is an utterly ridiculous suggestion.

At least you've made an attempt at outlining a threat, if not a credible one. The post 9/11 scare mongering regarding hijacked aircraft is tedious at this stage. What target in the Republic is of sufficient importance to justify shooting down an airliner? At what point do you envisage a commercial jet being hijacked, and more importantly at what point do you believe we'd become aware of its hijacked state?

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Bottom line is id rather have them and not use them than need them and not have them..Look at Sweden, 100%Neutral yet they can produce a 4th generation fighter and where is their threat?

Just to the right of Finland is Russia, formerly the USSR. Swedish military planning has always focused on a conflict with the former Warsaw Pact, the fall of the Wall and subsequent political developments in Eastern Europe have not changed that a whole lot. I have mates living in Sweden, one of which served in the Swedish military for 18 months as a conscript, his training was mainly based on that scenario. Oh, Sweden has conscription, I suppose we need that as well?

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Just so you know Sky news asked a EF Typhon pilot why buy Typhoons when the RAF havent fought a dogfight since the Falklands......his answer..be prepared for anything......anything.

Well, that's me told...:rolleyes:

Of course the UK needs to be prepared for anything, they may find themselves involved in combat with a state or states capable of lauching offensive air operations against its troops. They won't always be bombing caves in Afghanistan or Iraqi cities. The NATO offensive in Kosovo in 1999 involved a number of contacts between Yugoslav MiGs and NATO aircraft. Of course, Ireland wasn't involved in those because we're not in NATO...

In addition, the EF is seen as a replacement for the RAF's Jaguar bombers, and will fulfill that role in future offensive operations as well.

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

And what would you call that?

Your first post was well argued, but after that... well, standards dropped.

Right then Hagar, I retract the earlier attempt at humour and replace it with the following:

Any suggestion that we should boost the morale of our DF personnel by spending hundreds of millions on unnecessary equipment is ridiculous. Equip the DF for the roles they currently perform. If we're in the business of wasteful spending, why stop at a squadron of Eurofighters? Why not pursue nuclear weapon technology, purchase a couple of subs, or at the very least an aircraft carrier? Surely they'd boost morale. See my point now?

Finally, IMO opinion, the only comment you can have a problem with is the one quoted. The rest have attempted to stimulate debate, if you've a problem with constructive criticism maybe I should take myself elsewhere?

therecklessone

Missed this earlier...

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Oh and the UAV's have been approved.

Source? Cos I'll guarantee it ain't been by the Irish Aviation Authority.

Vorsprung

therecklessone wrote:

Source? Cos I'll guarantee it ain't been by the Irish Aviation Authority.

Ask and ye shall receive (got this from another site, can't be arsed going to unison.ie to get a link but I'm sure it's there

Sunday Indo wrote:

Robot plane to be used by Irish forces
Sunday Independent
27/03/2005
DON LAVERY
A KEY weapon in Afghanistan and Iraq, an unmanned 'spy in the sky' robot plane, is to be used in Ireland.
The pilotless drones, called unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have proved a vital element in surveillance of high risk areas by US, British and German forces in the two countries and in Bosnia.
They can be operated by a pilot thousands of miles away from a war zone giving commanders an unrivalled view of the battlefield.
Now two UAVs are to be acquired by the Irish Air Corps under an initial €300,000 programme and could be used to support anti-terrorist operations by Ireland's Special Forces, the Army Ranger Wing. They may also be used abroad on peace missions like Liberia allowing Irish commanders to see real time video footage by day or night from the drone operating far ahead of their patrolling troops.
One UAV, the American Predator, has been armed with missiles and was used to attack terrorist strongholds in Fallujah in Iraq. But the Irish UAVs will be smaller and simpler, to be used for roles which could include Border and sea surveillance; spotting for artillery fire, or acting in support of the Rangers.

There were about 3 threads a while back on AH about this, and people spouting on that we needed a squadron of F-15s or whatever and C-130s. We don't. Not only do we not need them, we can't afford them.

We need medium lift capability, a few more EC-135s, we could use the 8 AB-139s the Air Corps have on offer (4 ordered, options on another 4 I believe) and MAYBE a C-130 for humanitarian work and transport.

My 2c

therecklessone

Only mention I can find of UAVs and the IAA is that:

The Air Navigation Standards Department (ANSD) regulates the provision of air traffic services (ATS) in Ireland and in relation to airspace undertakes the following functions and responsibilities.

Development of ATM Policy and Procedures to facilitate UAV integration in Irish airspace.

revision 15 December 2005

I'm not aware that those policies and procedures have been completed yet.

IrishAirCorps

Who said a few Hawks would cost hundreds of millions? The PC9's were a waste of money, 80million plus for turboprobs.please return to sender, the Hawk is a proven fast jet and would be perfect for our needs of airspace policing etc sidewinder capable and all. and it would not cost hundereds of million for such a rich nation like ours heck the computerised voting things cost more........................

cushtac

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Who said a few Hawks would cost hundreds of millions? The PC9's were a waste of money, 80million plus for turboprobs.please return to sender, the Hawk is a proven fast jet and would be perfect for our needs of airspace policing etc sidewinder capable and all.

The Hawk is a trainer, not a proper interceptor. It doesn't have the range, speed or ceiling to fill the role properly. The PC-9 is as proven an aircraft as the Hawk and is cheaper to maintain & run. There's no point in buying a jet simply for the sake of it, then pressing it into a role it's not really designed for.

Proper air defence requires not only proper jets, but improved ground facilities, new munitions and a decent radar system. This would cost hundreds of millions of euro and take a few years to perfect. For the same money the AC could get a decent helicopter lift capability, some transport and more maritime patrol aircraft - all of which would be far more useful both at home & overseas.