Equipment that is needed for the aircorps.

TempestSabre

Didn't realise MBT were used for patrols. I thought from what I've read that the US used things like Strykers, Bradleys and Humvee's (some armoured/protected).


http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-3-04/up-armored-humvee.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm

ush

therecklessone wrote:

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?

ush

therecklessone wrote:

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.

W D L
2 1 2

Manic Moran

TempestSabre wrote:

Didn't realise MBT were used for patrols. I thought from what I've read that the US used things like Strykers, Bradleys and Humvee's (some armoured/protected).

They can be. They can be over-used for such a role (Mine were), but they can also be used on more specific missions as opposed to just roaming around looking for trouble.

Danish Leo 2s, for example, have been equipped with spotlights for their peacekeeping missions: It has no warfighting benefit as they have good thermal sights, but the use of the spotlight is a very good indicator to the person at the other end that 'We know you're out there, don't try anything funny'

NTM

BostonB

Should use them around parts of Dublin TBH.

DarkMuse

therecklessone wrote:

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?



Have UAVs been approved for use in civil airspace?

Weather a threat exists or not the Hague Convention states in article 5 I believe that all neutral states must have the ability to protect there neutrality.It also states we must not allow other nations transport troops and munitions through our land but the gov managed to ignore that I suppose.

Oh and as Morphéus was saying,we are not neutral,we just have a foriegn policy of non involvement.

Maskhadov wrote:

the colours around the windows......

The purchased versions dont have the orange,those shots were just promos.

Oh and to ort out any questions I believe guns can be mounted on it,Gpmgs possibly?

And we bought 4 and took the option to buy 2 more additional ones.


And finally,just for the record my two cents is that we dont need a massive air core but that 3billion for the ability to protect our own airspace ot some degree is a small price to pay.If it were my own choice however Id seek the option of buying second hand jets from America but thats just me.

DonJose

Ireland doesn't need an Army, except for the easter parade every 50 years or so when FF see SF as a threat and decide to reclaim it Ireland doesn't need an air force, expect when Government ministers need a quick ride. The only branch of the defence force Ireland needs is the navy to stop those spanish fishermen stealing our fish fingers

Steyr

Another well said post Don Jose........................:rolleyes: FYI Sinn Fein are a threat, well terrorists to be exact.

The AW139's ARE armed with GMPG's.

see here..

therecklessone

DarkMuse wrote:

Weather a threat exists or not the Hague Convention states in article 5 I believe that all neutral states must have the ability to protect there neutrality.It also states we must not allow other nations transport troops and munitions through our land but the gov managed to ignore that I suppose.

Grand. Relevance though?

DarkMuse wrote:

Oh and as Morphéus was saying,we are not neutral,we just have a foriegn policy of non involvement.

You said it.

DarkMuse

therecklessone wrote:

Grand. Relevance though?

Well the last part may not be relavent but I think over all it is as we must have the ability to protect out neutrality by all means,if a country chose to fly through our airspace transporting troops at the moment we would have no way to stop them....other than the RAF of course:rolleyes:

Benny-c

DarkMuse wrote:

Well the last part may not be relavent but I think over all it is as we must have the ability to protect out neutrality by all means,if a country chose to fly through our airspace transporting troops at the moment we would have no way to stop them....other than the RAF of course:rolleyes:

But what if the RAF wanted to transport troops through our airspace?....:D

therecklessone

DarkMuse wrote:

Well the last part may not be relavent but I think over all it is as we must have the ability to protect out neutrality by all means,if a country chose to fly through our airspace transporting troops at the moment we would have no way to stop them....other than the RAF of course:rolleyes:

Your words:

DarkMuse wrote:

Oh and as Morphéus was saying,we are not neutral,we just have a foriegn policy of non involvement.

If we are not neutral, then Article 5 of Hauge V (1907) Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land does not apply to us.

I see your :rolleyes: and raise you :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

jmayo

reland realistically never could defend it's neutrality if it ever really existed.
Sweden yes develops the Grippen, but they are also developed with an export market in mind. They are actually developed with particular niche markets in mind, the ability to operate off non-standard airstrips etc.
Saab aircraft don't just exist to defend Sweden.

As regards transporting troops through our airspace, I think Shannon is on Irish soil, now you can look at US troops passing through as against our neutrality or a windfall for our second biggest airport that is screwed because of our legislators inaction and incompetence.

As regards buying equipment.
Buy a few fast attack helicopters, AH-64 Apache or even see if Kamov or Mil are coming out with something.
Buy some decent long range heavy lift helis - CH53 Supper Stallions Superpumas.
Impove air sea rescue- more Sea Kings.
Buy some Eurocopter BO-105s for medivac work rather than having patients stuck in an old ambulance for 4 hours driving over cra* roads.
Invest in drones, more effective reconassicance platforms and good at delivering ordinance without being spotted easily.
Look at Israelies in Lebannon.

And for Gods sake get rid of any Cessnas lying around.
I'll take them for starters.

Ps make Harney walk she could do with the excercise.
Besides I didn't say buy a Skycrane did I.

Vorsprung

jmayo wrote:

reland realistically never could defend it's neutrality if it ever really existed.

jmayo wrote:

As regards buying equipment.
Buy a few fast attack helicopters, AH-64 Apache or even see if Kamov or Mil are coming out with something.

Do you mean for foreign operations or domestic use? O'Dea has already said that helicopters wont be deployed overseas.

jmayo wrote:

Impove air sea rescue- more Sea Kings.

Contracted out now.

jmayo wrote:

Buy some Eurocopter BO-105s for medivac work rather than having patients stuck in an old ambulance for 4 hours driving over cra* roads.

An air ambulance service is definately something that would be very desirable. There was a report drawn up a few years ago on it (can't find a link to it), but it was costed at about €4 million a year, after the aircraft were bought (I think!!). There was a relatively recent case of a man who died in Monaghan hospital because there was no surgery allowed, he died from a gastric ulcer that could've easily been operated on if he had made it to theatre. Just one case of many I'm sure that would have justified the relateively modest investment.

jmayo wrote:

Invest in drones, more effective reconassicance platforms and good at delivering ordinance without being spotted easily.

These are being bought for the Army AFAIK

DarkMuse

therecklessone wrote:

Your words:



If we are not neutral, then Article 5 of Hauge V (1907) Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land does not apply to us.

I see your :rolleyes: and raise you :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'd like to retract my earlier :rolleyes:

source

We could just buy one of these for Harney that'd free up the mats planes for more than one person

Steyr

I think the Option for Harney is "Heavy Lift" REMEMBER the Casa only just made it the last time ONLY JUST!:D

How ironic is it that she is the "Health Minister" like ffs, the state of her,she woulnt jump a wall.....:rolleyes: :mad: :eek:

source

or how about this for another option

astraboy

The need in Ireland for a full jet squadron is limited. Some proper training jets and the purchase of a couple of euro fighters would be the most we need keeping in mind our population. I can definately see the use of more helicopters, as their use is so versatile. We should invest in some missle defences if we reckon our airspace is at risk. Attack choppers could have uses if bought on overseas missions. Am air ambulance is a must, why do we not already have one!? As for transport planes, we could get a deal at the mo as I heard the manufacturer is in trouble and is going to stop making the c17 or one of the lare variants. Might be good for transporting gov ministers too!:D

darkman2

I would say 6 fighters could patrol the island adequately and seriously discourage those who ARE using our airspace and we dont know about it. We need to wake up as a country from our illusion of invincibility. We are at serious risk now more then ever simply because we are the weakest in the EU.

darkman2

jmayo wrote:

reland realistically never could defend it's neutrality if it ever really existed.
Sweden yes develops the Grippen, but they are also developed with an export market in mind. They are actually developed with particular niche markets in mind, the ability to operate off non-standard airstrips etc.
Saab aircraft don't just exist to defend Sweden.

As regards transporting troops through our airspace, I think Shannon is on Irish soil, now you can look at US troops passing through as against our neutrality or a windfall for our second biggest airport that is screwed because of our legislators inaction and incompetence.

As regards buying equipment.
Buy a few fast attack helicopters, AH-64 Apache or even see if Kamov or Mil are coming out with something.
Buy some decent long range heavy lift helis - CH53 Supper Stallions Superpumas.
Impove air sea rescue- more Sea Kings.
Buy some Eurocopter BO-105s for medivac work rather than having patients stuck in an old ambulance for 4 hours driving over cra* roads.
Invest in drones, more effective reconassicance platforms and good at delivering ordinance without being spotted easily.
Look at Israelies in Lebannon.

And for Gods sake get rid of any Cessnas lying around.
I'll take them for starters.

Ps make Harney walk she could do with the excercise.
Besides I didn't say buy a Skycrane did I.

As far as I know the air corps recently acquired some drones.

source

astraboy wrote:

We should invest in some missle defences if we reckon our airspace is at risk.

We already have missile systems, quite a few RBS-70's in fact, coupled with the short range Bofors EL 70/40mm anti aircraft guns it's quite a good AD system.

Steyr

And the Javelin.

Steyr

astraboy wrote:

Am air ambulance is a must, why do we not already have one!?

The IAC signed deals with the HSE in 2006 to provide Air Ambulance, this role is already in use and the primary AC that have ben doing these Ops so far have been the EC135's and King Air 200 and LearJet45

purple'n'gold

We don’t need an air force, if we get in any sort of bother the RAF will be here in about 10 minutes.

The thing

purplengold wrote:

We don’t need an air force, if we get in any sort of bother the RAF will be here in about 10 minutes.

Sure we don't need a police force either, if something happens we can contact the British Police to come to our aid.....!

purple'n'gold

The thing wrote:

Sure we don't need a police force either, if something happens we can contact the British Police to come to our aid.....!

not the same thing at all and you know it.If a country is going to have an air force it has to be the real deal, otherwise it just looks silly. Remember the government jet and the propeller aircraft at the 1916 celebrations? I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

astraboy

purplengold wrote:

We don’t need an air force, if we get in any sort of bother the RAF will be here in about 10 minutes.

Not a great attitude to have. Why not just invite back in the british army too, shar why do we need our own defence forces.:rolleyes: I reckon we need some sort of jet capacity, nothing extreme but a couple would not go amiss. It would do wonders for the national pride!;)

As for the RBS-70's, my friend was telling me about these the other day. Sounds good that we have a decent AA system if we need it. I'm going to look them up in a min.

DarkMuse

Ah sure why do we even need our own government if there willing to do it from London why not just leave them do all work!!:rolleyes:

Steyr

Ive said it before and il say it again something like this is all we need..







And yes we all know we can afford bette as we are loaded its just the Govt have deep pockets and very very short arms.:rolleyes: