Terror Attack on Ireland.

Maskhadov

Our armed forces are not equipped to intercept or combat hijackers
Our armed forces are not equipped to intercept or combat hijackers
Irish Independent 12/08/2006
ROBERT FISK
Don Lavery

FIVE years after the 9/11 attacks, Ireland still has no means of intercepting a hijacked airliner - while the Government relies on Britain to come to our aid.

The Department of Defence yesterday confirmed it had no plans to acquire jet aircraft able to deal with a 9/11 scenario, saying we had a limited air-to-air capability and there was no change. Acquiring jet interceptors has been ruled out by Defence Minister Willie O'Dea on costs grounds and the low level of threat by Islamic terrorists here.

This is despite the 2003 Defence Forces annual report which points out that "the lack of air intercept capability has been identified and is currently under consideration".

However, that concern was dropped from subsequent reports, although some Army officers warned it was a serious deficit.

Other deficiencies include:

* Our anti-terrorist force, the Rangers, would have to drive on congested roads to get to an incident.

* Large transport helicopters were cancelled in cutbacks, though smaller helicopters will be delivered from November.

* We have no armed visible presence as a deterrent at our airports. * We have no air marshall training programme.

* We have no sniffer dogs for explosives at our airports.

* We have no central command to oversee a national disaster.

Defence Forces Chief of Staff, Lieut-Gen Jim Sreenan, admitted recently that the air defence issue was not a top priority. He preferred to see more armoured vehicles for the Army.

Ireland's only defence, apart from intelligence co-operation, relies on short range anti-aircraft guns and surface-to-air missiles to defend point targets such as Dublin Airport.

They include 24 Bofors EL-70 guns bought secondhand from the Royal Netherlands Air Force. They are guided by Flycatcher radar and have a range of 3.5kms, while six Bofors RBS-70 missile launchers have a range of 5kms.

Eight Pilatus turboprop trainers bought for €60m can be armed with machine guns and rockets but they are not fighter aircraft and would be unable to catch a jet airliner.

Defence Minister Willie O'Dea told Billy Timmins (FG) in the Dail recently that the threat to Ireland of an attack was low.

Mr Timmins said yesterday we should be prepared to spend some money on the safety of our citizens.

The percentage of GDP spent on defence had decreased dramatically.

Mr O'Dea's predecessor, Michael Smith, indicated that instead of acquiring an ability to defend our airspace with jets, Ireland would rely on Britain to come to our aid.

This was generally interpreted as Britain being asked to send Tornado F3 fighters on quick reaction alert on RAF bases to intercept a suspect airliner over Ireland. This has happened recently with two Irish airliners over Britain.

However, Mr O'Dea has said there is no formal arrangement with Britain The least expensive modern Western fighters, such as the Swedish SAAB Gripen and the French Dassault Rafale, cost around $65m each; while the new Eurofighter Typhoon coming into service with the RAF costs over $100m each.

But aviation sources said that, with most air forces downsizing, second-hand jets could cost considerably less. One company offered the Air Corps armed jet trainers at $1m each.

Its high time we went and bought 22 Eurofighters and invest in a proper military base in Shannon

luckat

Gimme a break. The people attacking Britain and America are attacking countries that are causing grief to them and theirs. Ireland scarcely falls into the same category!

Maskhadov

We are a prime location for a terror launch seeing that we are between England and USA.



Lets grow up and secure our air defences. The fact that we havent done already is a disgrace.

Heyes

luckat wrote:

Gimme a break. The people attacking Britain and America are attacking countries that are causing grief to them and theirs. Ireland scarcely falls into the same category!

It doesnt matter, as mask said above we should protect ourselves due to our location. Personally id prefer if the money was invested in protection and prevention rather than sitting back and thinking ah sure were not directly involved so why bother.

Dirk Gently

Which public services do you propose the government cut back in order to buy these new jets?
I would like to see a minimum number of jets bought for air cover, preferably second hand and the cheapest we can buy that’s up to the job and reliable. What I don't want to see is too many bought or a more expensive model bought when a cheaper alternative will do the job.

How much would it cost to buy 22 of the jets you suggest? Are 22 really necessary? How are the government realistically supposed to invest properly in Health / education / transport if we go mad buying military hardware. I don't know how many jets would be needed but 22 seems a lot considering we are a small Island and only really need them in the very unlikely event of intercepting an airliner which the RAF can't reach in time.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

End this bloody scaremongery.

We don't need a bigger military full stop.

gilroyb

What target are you hoping to defend with these jets? 9/11 consisted of destroying what were in their time the tallest buildings in the world. Any jets hijacked here would be used for attacking American or UK targets, and so would be passing over their territory before the incident.

Ireland's anti-terrorism strategy should focus on terrorism that might take place in Ireland. More destruction would be caused with a car bomb than a airplane, and with a lot less hassle. Ireland shouldn't just try and emulate the defenses the US/UK has, we have to defend our country with it's unique targets.

Benedict XVI

Maskhadov wrote:

We are a prime location for a terror launch seeing that we are between England and USA.



Lets grow up and secure our air defences. The fact that we havent done already is a disgrace.

Not usre if we need the jets but we really ahve to beef up or airport security
Eeven though we are insignificant in global power terms we are the weak link in Europe's securtity chain.
If you want to launch an terror attack on the UK or US involving commercial aircraft just depart from any Irish airport and no one will blink an eyelid.

darkman2

I was listening to the Irish Times security correspondent on radio the other day and he said that there are known Al Queda members living in this country and the Gardai are hopeless at intelligence gathering. We dont even have medium lift helicopter for gods sake. He pointed out that Ireland is seen in European Intelligence circles as Europes weakest point. Its time for the Irish to grow some balls and take on their own security. No cutbacks would be nessacary for an injection of cash for the Air Corps and intelligence services. We really do have to grow up and take reponsibility as a society for our own security.

InFront

If I were a terrorist who wanted to make a political statement about my last act on this earth as a militant mujihideen, I think I'd consider an attack on Ireland comparable to fishing in bucket with my back to The Slaney, it begs the question 'why'.
Now I understand there is little sense to the actions of these terrorists, but I sincerely doubt that they would misdirect their efforts onto such a vague, indifferent obscure target when Tony and Co. are perched next door.
Our geographical proximities are probably making us more safe than many of our Western neighbours. I dont want to seem blunt, but why setlle for 'second best'?

As for Shannon, I suspect that most of these men probably know little or nothing about where the US military buy their Diesel (after it's exported from the Middle East, that is:rolleyes: )

Look, nobody can afford to be complacent, or at least dismissive of your suggestions. Perhaps it could happen. But I for one would be far more eager that if anything, perhaps they come to some sort of arrangement with the RAF in the event of an emergency. But if I were the RAF, I wouldnt hold my breath.

There are currently more more weighty domestic issues that need addressing.

Dirk Gently

darkman2 wrote:

No cutbacks would be nessacary for an injection of cash for the Air Corps and intelligence services. We really do have to grow up and take reponsibility as a society for our own security.

Have you any figures for that. I'm not convinced of any realistic threat to Ireland from a hijacked airliner crashing into one of our cities but if it was affordable to buy a few second hand jets just to cover our backs in a worst case scenario I wouldn't be opposed. Over the lifetime of the next Government, who ever is in power, things won’t be as rosy as now. It looks like the housing / construction boom could be coming to an end which is propping up our economy at the moment. Things could get very tight with public money and I wouldn't like to see any unnecessary military spending which would mean drastic cutbacks in other areas. If we were to increase military spending I think a few more naval vessels to patrol or waters and back up the coast guard would be a better investment.

How many jets would be needed to cover such a phantom threat and how advanced would they need to be? How many jets had the Americans got and that didn’t stop September 11th from happening (although they were given the morning off ).
Do you have any figures as to how much it would cost for x amount of jets by x manufacturer. Maybe we should ask the British and the Americans to donate us some jets free of charge seen as how they are the ones putting us in the line of fire.

mike65

I don't think throwing money at the aircorps would make any difference for security purposes (as stated any aircraft would crashed/exploded before it could be intercepted unless it was along way off over sea in which case the US or UK would have faster attack means anyway) but that should'nt preclude investing in decent intellegence gathering and collation.

Not to mention the emergency response if the sh1t did hit the fan.

Mike.

iFight

Heyes wrote:

It doesnt matter, as mask said above we should protect ourselves due to our location. Personally id prefer if the money was invested in protection and prevention rather than sitting back and thinking ah sure were not directly involved so why bother.

Exactly. We need better defences, even if a attack is unlikely, we should be able to fend for ourselves in the case of one.

bug

darkman2 wrote:

I was listening to the Irish Times security correspondent on radio the other day and he said that there are known Al Queda members living in this country and the Gardai are hopeless at intelligence gathering. We dont even have medium lift helicopter for gods sake. He pointed out that Ireland is seen in European Intelligence circles as Europes weakest point. Its time for the Irish to grow some balls and take on their own security. No cutbacks would be nessacary for an injection of cash for the Air Corps and intelligence services. We really do have to grow up and take reponsibility as a society for our own security.

hang on..
if what is stated above is true. Then why would they attack their "base"?
Bit stupid to run a plane into Dublin and have the population up in arms about it if your hiding Al Qa'eda there. Especially if its your european "hub".

"We dont even have medium lift helicopter for gods sake."

would helicopters save us from an attack?

Look, even if we were some sort of illogical fanatical target, then all the airpower in the world wouldnt save us. Fighter jets just bring planes down in the end... they dont prevent loss of life.

A solution or even improvement could possibly would be to pump money into a well organised Harcourt street type operation but as we've seen from England recently intelligence doesnt really pan out the way it should, or gather what you would expect from it.

better security and tracking is the answer not armery and airpower. But it needs to be well organised.

Also could someone point out to me what our location has to do with anything? Honest question, I feel like im missing something....

InFront

bug wrote:

Also could someone point out to me what our location has to do with anything? Honest question, I feel like im missing something....

I think people are of the opinion, as they have the right, to think that because we are geographically close to Britain, and our immigration policing is not exhaustive, we might be a potential target for a base, and maybe subsequent attacks.
Personally, i would think our proximity is a saving grace. Why would anyone try make a militant statement here when Britain is an hour away?

As for us being in the middle of American and Britain, Im not sure what sort of danger that (symbolic?) position is supposed to put us in?

originally postd by darkamn2
I was listening to the Irish Times security correspondent on radio the other day and he said that there are known Al Queda members living in this country and the Gardai are hopeless at intelligence gathering

So where was he getting his intelligence?

darkman2

bug wrote:

hang on..
if what is stated above is true. Then why would they attack their "base"?
Bit stupid to run a plane into Dublin and have the population up in arms about it if your hiding Al Qa'eda there. Especially if its your european "hub".

"We dont even have medium lift helicopter for gods sake."

would helicopters save us from an attack?

Look, even if we were some sort of illogical fanatical target, then all the airpower in the world wouldnt save us. Fighter jets just bring planes down in the end... they dont prevent loss of life.

A solution or even improvement could possibly would be to pump money into a well organised Harcourt street type operation but as we've seen from England recently intelligence doesnt really pan out the way it should, or gather what you would expect from it.

better security and tracking is the answer not armery and airpower. But it needs to be well organised.

Also could someone point out to me what our location has to do with anything? Honest question, I feel like im missing something....

Thats very naieve. If you were a terrorist resident here and co-ordinating or aiding somehow a terrorist organisation in the UK or US (this is believed to be happening btw) where is the first place you would choose to hijack a plane?? The UK - no. The US - no. The Republic - yes - why? Because its the easiest option. Someone mentioned that you could probrably get something that could be used as a weapon on an aircraft here and no-one would blink an eyelid. Security here is definatley the most lax in Europe. You may say that wouldnt be an attack on us? It would because its highly likely Irish citizens would be on board in such an event. Also if something did happen what do you think the EU would tell us to so afterward? They make bloody well sure we got our house in order. The British imparticular have made their concerns clear about our lack of air capibility in recent years. This is a backdoor into Europe and its wide open.

Dirk Gently

darkman2 wrote:

Thats very naieve. If you were a terrorist resident here and co-ordinating or aiding somehow a terrorist organisation in the UK or US (this is believed to be happening btw) where is the first place you would choose to hijack a plane?? The UK - no. The US - no. The Republic - yes - why? Because its the easiest option. Someone mentioned that you could probrably get something that could be used as a weapon on an aircraft here and no-one would blink an eyelid. Security here is definatley the most lax in Europe. You may say that wouldnt be an attack on us? It would because its highly likely Irish citizens would be on board in such an event. Also if something did happen what do you think the EU would tell us to so afterward? They make bloody well sure we got our house in order. The British imparticular have made their concerns clear about our lack of air capibility in recent years. This is a backdoor into Europe and its wide open.

what has any of that got to do with buying fighter jets. Fighter jets wont stop a plane being hijacked here for the purpose of attacking Britian or the states and even if we had them all the Irish on board would be shot down and killed anyway.

Karl Hungus

InFront wrote:

As for us being in the middle of American and Britain, Im not sure what sort of danger that (symbolic?) position is supposed to put us in?

I don't think our position has anything to do with anything. I'd expect that the whole US planes refueling in Shannon would be a far more legitimate reason than something as arbitrary as our location. It's not as if terrorists are looking at a map, point at Ireland and saying "Let's hit that, 'cos it's between the US and UK!"

darkman2

clown bag wrote:

what has any of that got to do with buying fighter jets. Fighter jets wont stop a plane being hijacked here for the purpose of attacking Britian or the states and even if we had them all the Irish on board would be shot down and killed anyway.

There would be no alternative to shooting it down. Looking at it realistically once an aircraft is hijacked by Islamic fundementalists the ppl on board know their fate anyway. People are making the assertion here that a fighter jet couldnt be scrambled quick enough to intercept a hijacked aircraft. This is absolutely not true.

Sangre

Who cares if they hijack a plane here to attack England?
Thats their problem.

flogen

I bet our preparedness for a massive hurricane is pretty ****ty too, and I'd bet that there's higher odds of that hitting us than a massive terrorist attack

bug

InFront wrote:

I think people are of the opinion, as they have the right, to think that because we are geographically close to Britain, and our immigration policing is not exhaustive, we might be a potential target for a base, and maybe subsequent attacks.
Personally, i would think our proximity is a saving grace. Why would anyone try make a militant statement here when Britain is an hour away?

yeah, i see what you mean.
But Im thinking.. don't sh*t on your own doorstep.. that is, if its a useful base to them, use it as such.

InFront wrote:

As for us being in the middle of American and Britain, Im not sure what sort of danger that (symbolic?) position is supposed to put us in?

nah neither do I except for irish people boarding a plane (as darkman said)...which could be bound for a target in america or england.

In which case obviosly putting an emphasis on security would serve better than arming us to the teeth or increasing airpower. I dont think thats naive.

Sangre wrote:

Who cares if they hijack a plane here to attack England?
Thats their problem.

I have to say that was my inital reaction too. But with Irish nationals on board... I wonder what the aftermath of that would be...apart from the obvious loss of life ...a new pro GB pro Israeli Bertie..

InFront

darkman2 wrote:

Thats very naieve. If you were a terrorist resident here and co-ordinating or aiding somehow a terrorist organisation in the UK or US (this is believed to be happening btw)

By whom? (Im not doubting you, I just havent heard this.)

Originally posted by darkman2
Security here is definatley the most lax in Europe.

Again, what are you basing this on? Nightwish was on a flight today from France where she had this to say

Post

I was allowed bring on all my hand luggage which included 2 bottles of wine, a book, mobile phone, keys and mp3 player and my boyfriend could bring on his laptop. Our flight was only from Carcassonne to Dublin

Dirk Gently

darkman2 wrote:

People are making the assertion here that a fighter jet couldnt be scrambled quick enough to intercept a hijacked aircraft. This is absolutely not true.

I’m no military expert but it looks improbable to me. If a plane departing from cork was hijacked with the intention of crashing into Dublin then they would only hijack it at the last minute when they are already approaching Dublin and Irish jets wouldn't be able to respond in time. (on 9/11the Americans knew they were under attack and still didn’t shoot anything down).

If a plane was hijacked departing Dublin to attack England the same thing would happen and the plane would only be taken over while approaching London. If it could be stopped the RAF would stop it. (If the terrorists gave them a head start of course)

If a plane was hijacked and we had a long distance warning that a plane was approaching over the Atlantic then the RAF would have that covered.

The only way an Irish jet could shoot down a plane is if the hijackers take control of the plane well in advance of actually crashing it. Why would they give us advanced warning?

Sangre

I have to say that was my inital reaction too. But with Irish nationals on board... I wonder what the aftermath of that would be...apart from the obvious loss of life ...a new pro GB pro Israeli Bertie..

And shooting this plane 'full of irish' down mid air is the way to go?

democrates

Who in Ireland is under threat?

Sangre

The politicans from the scare-mongers.

darkman2

InFront wrote:

By whom? (Im not doubting you, I just havent heard this.)



Again, what are you basing this on? Nightwish was on a flight today from France where she had this to say

Post

I dont know much about it either. There has been rumblings in recent years from the security services that they have concerns about, I think its 14 -20 individuals, resident in the Dublin area and their connection with Islamic fundamentalism. This is hardly supprising though given our sham immigration system in the late 90s imparticular. Really it was so shambolic that I doubt we have much of an idea of how many ppl who would be considered potential threats have either been here or remain in the state.

BTW what you said about intelligence. I agree 100% that we need to up our act in this area. I dont trust the Gardai in this area really.

bug

democrates wrote:

Who in Ireland is under threat?

from this thread as far as I can gather... anyone who gets on a plane?????

which, as far as I can gather should lead us to buy... lovely fighter jets...because thats going to make it all better.

democrates

I'm staggerred at how easily people can be led.
"We're not prepared for contingency X" - woooh!.
Let's all get our military hats on. HELL YEAH! KICK ASS!
As all the juvenile wannabe marines type in safety on their keyboards.

Ireland would make itself more secure against Islamic fundamentalists a lot more cheaply by using what we learned in NI, to be pro-active peace brokers in the middle-east. We can help these people. We can't solve the middle-east easily as NI amply demonstrates, but at least we can help in providing a path with hope for peace. Our failure to try to help is shameful, as the second richest country in the world, we've been there and done that, but now we're too busy getting rich, shameful.

bug

democrates wrote:

I'm staggerred at how easily people can be led.
"We're not prepared for contingency X" - woooh!.
Let's all get our military hats on. HELL YEAH! KICK ASS!
As all the juvenile wannabe marines type in safety on their keyboards..

its funny cos its true

Ireland would make itself more secure against Islamic fundamentalists a lot more cheaply by using what we learned in NI, to be pro-active peace brokers in the middle-east. We can help these people. We can't solve the middle-east easily as NI amply demonstrates, but at least we can help in providing a path with hope for peace. Our failure to try to help is shameful, as the second richest country in the world, we've been there and done that, but now we're too busy getting rich, shameful.

Very true, and very shameful, but money seems to make the world go round. Apparently the economic US investment here is too much to put at stake to make a stand.

tunaman

Maskhadov wrote:

We are a prime location for a terror launch seeing that we are between England and USA.



Lets grow up and secure our air defences. The fact that we havent done already is a disgrace.

People try to tell me the government/media propaganda and scare tactics don't work...

democrates

bug wrote:

Very true, and very shameful, but money seems to make the world go round. Apparently the economic US investment here is too much to put at stake to make a stand.

That's it bug, we Paddies have played the international tax-competiition game well and our 'economy' has grown rich. Sadly while certain foreign and local elements make out like bandits, any fallout from the game which makes us enemies must be borne by taxpayers. No sign of Intel, Dell, or Microsoft offering money for this crucial protection. Another example of privatising profit and socialising risk.

exiztone

clown bag wrote:

what has any of that got to do with buying fighter jets. Fighter jets wont stop a plane being hijacked here for the purpose of attacking Britian or the states and even if we had them all the Irish on board would be shot down and killed anyway.

That's what I was thinking. 22 Fighter Jets isn't going to stop people bringing liquid explosives into Dublin Airport.

Sparks

Discussed (to death) before.

Does Ireland need a modern fighter Squadron?

[Article] Big guns brought out for Bush

How many jet planes does a government need?

Ireland's Potential 911...an interesting scenario

At long, long, last

The actual aircraft themselves don't, that's true - they run to between 25 and 100 million, depending on make, model, etc. But the amount it would cost to field an operational squadron, even a four-aircraft squadron, would be the guts of a billion euro, if not more. Not only do you have to buy the actual aircraft, you have to upgrade facilities, train pilots (which requires you to buy more aircraft to act as trainers, as well as invest in a lot more ground equipment because flying fast jets is a very demanding task and there are major differences between a Cessna and a Fouga, let alone a Cessna and a MiG-29). Then you have to allow for armament, including a budget for live-fire training exercises for training; maintainance costs including spare parts, training, extra people and so on (and those costs are not just for the four-fighter squadron, but for the training aircraft as well), and all you get from this is four aircraft. Now the thing is, four aircraft can't provide fighter cover on a 24-7 basis. You can't simply keep aircraft on 24-hour call all year round. You can't even do it on shifts. Aircraft have wear-and-tear problems, jets more than piston-engined aircraft because of the way the engines work and the higher dynamic stress. Ergo, you need nearly sixteen aircraft to do the job. That's four aircraft per unit, with one unit on standby on the runway, one unit in training, and two in maintainance on a rotating shift basis. And the aircraft won't last for long even at that level of usage - two to four years at the outside.
So, well over a billion (16 aircraft - even at the bargain basement price of 25 million each - comes to four hundred million before you even buy jet fuel) euro spent, and you have two to four years of coverage which will do the wonderful job of arriving overhead a smoking hole in the ground two minutes after it used to be a 737...

To say nothing of the damage caused by the CIRA/RIRA/UDF/whomever, who kept leaving carbombs all over the shop, against which the fighter jet is as much a deterrent as a giant foam tennis racket, and the Gardai we need to prevent this aren't there because the billion-odd euro spent on the fighters was taken from a budget which was supposed to pay for 2000 extra gardai, but something had to be cut to come up with the billion euro; and of course we have no air ambulance service and in fact the ground ambulance service is now somewhat underfunded because of the budget cuts in the Health service; the capital spending programme on roads and schools and so on has been slashed; and in fact, there's not much investment going on in any of the "non-core" areas because of the new fighter squadron.

And of course, there's the fact that airforces with fast jets have accidents. Training, bird strikes, equipment failure - they're all pretty close to unavoidable, unfortunately. Which means that one day, one of our 30-million euro jets may smack into a pigeon over Trinity College at 270 knots, and the now-critically-injured pilot will do what every fast jet pilot is trained to do in such a situation - he'll try to point the nose at Dublin Bay and pull the ejection handles. Maybe it works - and maybe we get a MiG-29 with live weapons and a tank or two of jet fuel slamming into O'Connell street because the pilot passed out during the turn.

Offhand, and you realise this is just a looney-left, tree-hugging, long-haired pinko commie hippie's opinion, I'd say it's a bad idea...

2 milliion workers times 52 weeks times 2.10 euros times 20 years = 4.368 billion euro. So yes, we probably could afford a squadron of fighters if we spread the cost over 20 years. (Of course, some costs can't be deferred that long, but let's let that go for now). Now, this weekend saw the opening of the killybegs community hospital. Modern, state-of-the-art place with 42 beds, designed to handle the sort of thing that a community hospital faces - namely stuff that doesn't get classed as major surgery, things that get treated medically rather than surgically, and so on. 42 beds. Total cost: 4 milion euro. Why don't we have one in every community? Money. How long did it take to get this one built? 25 years - because while construction only took a year or two, it took the guts of three decades of lobbying by killybegs to get that much cash sent their way for something that saves lives. And you'd like to see us blow the funds to pay for a thousand such hospitals on some toys that by your own admission above are useless as anything other than exhibition?

Nineteen terrorists armed with what were effectively pointy sticks took on the United States Air Force, the most advanced and the most potent airforce in the world, on a day when they were training for just such an attack, and they hit not one, not two, but three major buildings including the fscking Pentagon.

And you want us to believe that we can do better? A few lads in jet fighters sitting on the ground in Baldonnell, where the record (according to quotes from Dail Eireann debates) for a scramble launch of fighters is estimated to have been an hour and a half, are going to do what the USAF couldn't do? (I say estimated because they've never actually done a scramble launch for real).

Should a terrorist decide that the architectural details in Dublin Castle are sufficently repugnant to his ideology that he decides he's going to become a suicide bomber, and should he gain access to an airliner over dublin bay and aim for dublin castle, the absolute best case scenario is that he not be interrupted by people shooting at the aircraft. That way the damage is limited to dublin castle (usually relatively unoccupied) and the surrounding area of Dame Street and the south-western end of Christchurch.

Should we follow your advice, and try shooting it down, we'd drop large heavy chunks of red-hot, razor-sharp shrapnel and jet fuel in a large ellipse shape from the quays to dublin castle, and we'd kill a lot more people.

Of course, you haven't noticed the key part to this scenario yet, have you? The trick is - if the terrorist gets control of the aircraft. This is a case of a stitch in time being the correct solution. You introduce security at the airports and on the aircraft. (No, not air marshals, just a reinforced locking cockpit door). It's not glamorous, it won't show up at the salthill airshow breaking mach one over a crowd, but it will do the job far more effectively.

The simple facts are as follows:

1) 9-11 style hijackings cannot be defended against by jet fighters. Even if (and it's a huge if) you could get the fighter in a firing position and verify an airliner is hijacked and get permission to fire to the fighter, what happens? A sidewinder or equivalent will home on the greatest heat source - the engine. The explosion is rather small, and it would in all liklihood detach the engine leave it fall on whatever happens to be below (and if the target is Dublin Castle, that means you've just dropped a multi-ton, rapidly-spinning, red-hot jet engine on a crowded street from a few thousand feet up), while the airliner goes on flying. Sure, it can't maintain altitude or range, but it's a suicide hijacker, not a tourist - so long as most of the aircraft gets there, his job is done. Hell, if you start raining tons of shrapnel down on unsuspecting civilians, his job is done. So basicly, you've expended a billion euros to give you the choice between letting the terrorist fly an intact aircraft into dublin castle, or letting him crash just short of dublin castle, while dropping tons of shrapnel on the rest of the approach path - which means from the quays through trinity college through dame street. Wow. Wonderful defence there. Well worth the billion euros :rolleyes:

2) We can't afford to spend the billion euros required. Full stop.

3) Even if we could find a billion euros, there are far more pressing and vital things that need the money. An air ambulance service, a decent SAR service (tell why is it not embarressing to let the RAF do our SAR, when it's a national shame for them to fly CAPs?), a decent ground ambulance service, infrastructural spending, and all that is totally ignoring the fact that in a few years we are expected to start to become a net contributor to EU funds, rather than a sink for those funds. Now that is an EU obligation, not this toys-for-the-boys airforce.

4) Even if we had a squadron of JSF aircraft sitting continually on baldonnel's runway ready to launch on a 24/7 basis with highly-motivated pilots, well-trained and fatigue-free : there's not much that they could do against a car bomb, or six lads showing up at your door with shotguns and baseball bats at three in the morning, which are the usual methods terrorists have used in Ireland for the last thirty years.

So basicly, you're saying that we should spend money we don't have on an ineffective defence against a non-existant threat against a highly unlikely target, while ignoring our very serious domestic economic problems and our financial obligations to the EU.

We need schools and hospitals and doctors, nurses and teachers.
Get enough of them first, then worry about toys for the boys.

SeanW

I'm in the undecided camp here.

Sure we could use a bit more military power but then again we have this solution of saying we don't want something then letting Britain provide it for us, like air defense, abortion and nuclear power. And it seems to be working, so far. And given the extremely low likihood of anyone attacking us (history has shown that most of the whackos in the world have carefully chosen, bigger fish to fry) what's the point in changing the status quo?

I do think airport security should be beefed up though - stoping any whackjob before s/he can get on the plane would make more sense to me.

Scigaithris

If you look like a duck, and walk like a duck, and talk like a duck, don't get caught during duck season! Some countries maintain long periods of peace and spend very little on defense. Others spend a lot, and still get shot, because they make themselves into targets.

Victor

darkman2 wrote:

There would be no alternative to shooting it down. Looking at it realistically once an aircraft is hijacked by Islamic fundementalists the ppl on board know their fate anyway. People are making the assertion here that a fighter jet couldnt be scrambled quick enough to intercept a hijacked aircraft. This is absolutely not true.

The cost of having fighter aircraft in the air and on standby would be huge.

clown bag wrote:

How many jets had the Americans got and that didn’t stop September 11th from happening (although they were given the morning off ).

This is important, having the planes is not necessarily going to stop anything.

But on the otherhand NORAD dropped form something like 4,500 aircraft on alert in the 1960s to twenty-something in 2001.

Sangre wrote:

Who cares if they hijack a plane here to attack England?
Thats their problem.

Its mostly likely going to be an Irish plane, with a lot of Irish people on board.

Hobbes

A eurofighter isn't going to stop terrorism. It is going to cost the taxpayer more though.

Terrorists take the least path of resistence when attacking. Can't get onto a plane? Hit a train instead, can't hit the train? Hit the bus. Can't hit anything? Just spread the hint of a major terror attack instead and watch everyone fall over themselves.

Anyway Ireland is safe as we all got issued with iodine tablets over the last scare. Assuming they aren't out of date. :eek: :rolleyes:

Hobbes

I was just thinking if they were going to buy a plane it should one of those stealth plane jobs that can hook up to the plane in flight and have your Irish rangers take down the terrorists before the plane crashes.

I also had another thought.. I just realised we don't have to worry about one senario, and thats snakes on a plane! (Thank you St Patrick!)

.. To further expand. Irish airport security is not and has never been lax. Prior to 9/11 getting onto a plane in the US was like getting onto a bus and was so incredibly lax that it would of been possible to get onto a plane with someone elses ticket and with luggage that had never gone through an x-ray machine.

Times have changed now, however I can tell you that if there was ever going to be a terrorist attack here its not going to be on planes. They are more hassle then its worth. Take a look at the Real IRA over the last few days. They have a whole railway line shut down barely makes the news.

Spending more money on military will do absolutly nothing to counter terrorism. In most cases it just normally escalates it.

Maskhadov

Hobbes wrote:

Spending more money on military will do absolutly nothing to counter terrorism.

humm

Ciaran500

Maskhadov wrote:

humm

Terrorist attacks are stopped by intelligence, not by force. Spending more on the army won't help.

Heinrich

gilroyb wrote:

What target are you hoping to defend with these jets?

The BLUE house in Drumcondra opposite Fagans....

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Heinrich wrote:

The BLUE house in Drumcondra opposite Fagans....

Sounds dangerously like an invitation;)

TempestSabre

Hobbes wrote:

I was just thinking if they were going to buy a plane it should one of those stealth plane jobs that can hook up to the plane in flight and have your Irish rangers take down the terrorists before the plane crashes. ....

What you need is Kurt Russell. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116253/

darkman2

Hobbes wrote:

Terrorists take the least path of resistence when attacking. :eek: :rolleyes:

And that most certanly is Ireland. We are the weakest possible staging point in the EU. Someone asked 'Do I know that?'. Ive been all over Europe and several times to the US and no-one can doubt that security is most lax at Dublin airport. Add to that the fact we dont have really any visual deterrant at all. These are basics of international security and have not got it right.

Hobbes

darkman2 wrote:

And that most certanly is Ireland. We are the weakest possible staging point in the EU. Someone asked 'Do I know that?'. Ive been all over Europe and several times to the US and no-one can doubt that security is most lax at Dublin airport.

Your basing your premise on airports. Its flawed. The point was the method of attacks.

For example which of these is easier at this point.
- Hijacking a plane?
- Buying a bag of compost?
- Buying a couple of bags of peaches?
- Announcing your intention to conduct a terrorist attack on a certain date.

Which requires the least amount of work and will cause the most disruption?

Sangre

Victor wrote:

Its mostly likely going to be an Irish plane, with a lot of Irish people on board.

And as I mentioned earlier, what could we possibly do for then? If a plane has been effectively hi-jacked then the people on board are going to die anyway.

Do you purpose we shoot and kill them ourselves before the terrorists get to?

flogen

For my sins I read an idiotic piece in the NOTW on this whole thing; it seems like all the papers are going into overdrive.
I'm sceptical enough of that Murdoch rag to believe that it was being paid for by some company looking to make a quick buck selling weapons to Ireland.

One point I laughed at was when the writer said that we are lucky enough to be a mainly white country, and that any Islamic terrorists going to the Airport to case it would stand out like a sore thumb... firstly that means that all non-whites should be treated as suspects and it also assumes that you have to be arabic or black to be Islamic... moron.

gandalf

Buy 22 planes to counter terrorism. Sorry sounds like a complete waste of money. Spending money on counter terrrorism measures and intelligence gathering would be alot more effective and maybe beefing up security at the airports.

Bit of a non thread this really. Might lock it soon.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.