Equipment that is needed for the aircorps.

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.

Maskhadov

therecklessone wrote:

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.

Military equipment is very cheap if you consider the lifetime of the product. Also a lot of military purchases have offsets. For example, you could purchase a rifle, fighter or ship and have that item made in your own country. the net result is a lot of jobs and only the difference between cost and profit being handed over to the seller.

Well the fact of the matter is that we have to rely on the RAF for our security. If it were the other way around (uk relying on the Irish Air Corps) then they would have bought fighters a long time ago.

Maskhadov

bigjimthefirst wrote:

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



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

F-15s are out of date and expected to be retired in the next 3-4 years. Virtually impossible to pick up new ones. The F22 Raptor is coming into service then. I cant see the americans letting anyone have that. The second best choice is the Eurofighter which we can afford.

Medium lift helicopters are EC-135. Yes we could do with another 8 making 12 in total. Extremely useful and versatile. Sadly we only have 4 on order with a future option of 2.

We could do with 3 C-130 J for military and humanitarian purposes. They are like trucks or buses and would be used non stop. For example we could fly all the troops over to Lebannon with all their equipment and aid in one go. We can use them for fishery protection and transporting ministers around. Also for moving large amounts of military equipment, explosives and cash saftely around the country. he list for transport planes and helicopters really is endless.

The fact of the matter is that we can well afford the cost of any miltary equipment. Were a rich country now and most defence contracts have the cost spread over several years or offsets of some description.

therecklessone

Maskhadov wrote:

For example, you could purchase a rifle, fighter or ship and have that item made in your own country. the net result is a lot of jobs and only the difference between cost and profit being handed over to the seller.

Are you serious? Who will manufacture these aircraft in Ireland?

Maskhadov wrote:

Well the fact of the matter is that we have to rely on the RAF for our security.

There's one indisputable fact, and thats the fact that I keep having to ask this bloody question...

FROM WHO?

Vorsprung

Maskhadov wrote:

F-15s are out of date and expected to be retired in the next 3-4 years. Virtually impossible to pick up new ones. The F22 Raptor is coming into service then. I cant see the americans letting anyone have that. The second best choice is the Eurofighter which we can afford.The second best choice is the Eurofighter which we can afford.

Can we? And I didn't say anything about us getting F15s.

Maskhadov wrote:

Medium lift helicopters are EC-135. Yes we could do with another 8 making 12 in total. Extremely useful and versatile. Sadly we only have 4 on order with a future option of 2.

o_0. AB139s are utility choppers.

And anyway, even if we did have money to buy all this, it would be better directed towards the basics. Helis and maybe a C130 for the Air Corps, a few more ships for the NS, and more APCs for the Army.

Schuhart

Maskhadov wrote:

For example, you could purchase a rifle, fighter or ship and have that item made in your own country. the net result is a lot of jobs and only the difference between cost and profit being handed over to the seller.

In fairness, this is completely irrelevant to the Irish situation. Also, I think you’ll find that countries that have a significant defence industry have a problem because that industry exerts political influence both to force the local military to buy their stuff and to keep defence spending up.

therecklessone wrote:

FROM WHO?

There is no immediate predictable risk, but that’s not the same as saying we have no need for air defence. We can only be complacent about it because, in extremis, we depend on the RAF.

Defence co-operation is one thing. Throwing yourself on the mercy of another country is quite another. Neither position is consistent with even our fudged and superficial concept of neutrality. In any event, it’s simply not a posture that I feel comfortable with as a citizen.

On the other hand, cost most certainly is a factor. Equally, I’d take the point that its not just about aircraft, as necessary support and control systems are necessary for a truly effective air defence capability.

But, balancing it all up, I’d say what we need is simply some basic ability to defend our own skies. The suggestion of Hawks would seem to fit the bill. As we know, prices vary depending on the deal, but it seems feasible to acquire them for about €25 million each. Speaking as a gob****e, €250 million for the modest capabilities that we would have from owning 10 such aircraft would sound right to me.

therecklessone

Schuhart wrote:

Defence co-operation is one thing. Throwing yourself on the mercy of another country is quite another. Neither position is consistent with even our fudged and superficial concept of neutrality. In any event, it’s simply not a posture that I feel comfortable with as a citizen.

Ok, we've moved from morale-boosting to saving face. At least you've had to decency to admit there is no credible threat to our airspace.

Hagar

therecklessone wrote:

There's one indisputable fact, and thats the fact that I keep having to ask this bloody question...

FROM WHO?

I imagine some bean counter asked a similar question on Sept 10th 2001.
He probably hasn't been heard from since.

Schuhart

therecklessone wrote:

At least you've had to decency to admit there is no credible threat to our airspace.

I believe the risk to be low, which I don't see as saying there is no credible threat.

Equally, I don't see acting to relieve our dependance on the RAF as a matter of saving face. It is more a matter of taking responsibility for our own country. A modest capability to control our airspace seems utterly reasonable. €250 for 10 Hawks sounds like the right choice for me. €1.5 billion plus for 16 Eurofighters would sound too much. No capability at all sounds like we still haven't really left the UK.

therecklessone

Hagar wrote:

I imagine some bean counter asked a similar question on Sept 10th 2001.
He probably hasn't been heard from since.

And if bean counter B had done his job in passenger screening, and bean counter C had done his job in counter-terrorism, bean counter A in defence procurement would never have been heard from in the first place.

Funny that you choose to highlight the failure of the defence assets of the world's only Superpower with a huge inventory of offensive aircraft to deal with four plane loads of hijackers...how much did the US spend on interceptors?

Hagar

The truth us it's difficult to justify any spending on defence in any way shape or form.
Does that mean we should leave the decisions in the hands of potential aggressors?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson

/Edit Where I live we get regular overflys of Mirages.
I makes you feel safe.
Just like the fortnightly naval [Strike]manoevres[/strike] exercises off Lavant Island.