Plane Crazy

Steyr

Taken from irishairpics.com:

Article in Irish Mail on Sunday 26-8-07 Page 18.

Title: "Thats plane crazy!"
Subtitle: "The pride of the Air Corps... left standing in a hijack"
By: Ken Foxe, Security Correspondent

Summary: The article (accompanied by a photo of PC-9M '260' and an Airbus A321) basically points out the lack of intercept aircraft within the AC fleet. It states that the PC-9's are only capable of 579km/h compared to the A321's 946-1,004km/h.
Tha article states that Labour's Joe Costello sent an independent analysis to the defence minister which compared th e lack of intercept aircraft to that of the gardai having slower cars than criminals.

Security analyst Declan Power stated that the AC "had been offered fighter aircraft by a Czech manufacturer". He said "This would have given us interception capability with rogue airliners but the department did not consider that this would be cost-effective"

(It doesn't state whether he was referring to the L39's or L159's. As we all know here, the PC-9's are almost as fast and more advanced than the L39's!)

The govts reply in the article basically states there will be no change, mostly citing the cost factor of purchasing and operating jet aircraft when we have no imminent fear of attack.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Unrelated, but a story anyhow..

Last time I was serving with UNIFIL I crossed the Lebanese/Israeli border almost daily (I had a cushy number!!), where I met and made friends with some brilliant Israeli Defence Forces personal.

Through them I met an Israeli Air Force captain, we've remained friends since.

Anyway back in 2005 he was coming over here for a visit (short vacation) and asked me if the Irish "air force" (lol) would extend him the courtesy of allowing him to "visit one of your airforce bases" (BWAHAHAHAHAHA).

I told him "Barak, they would if we had some bases, but we only have Baldonnel. And while our officers wouldn't be embarressed to show you THE CESSNA I'd die of embaressment for them"..

That was it, he agreed that "yes Martin your air corp is a joke".

(He still jokes about it).

Steyr

It is a joke, i didnt know if i was supposed to laugh or cry when the Cessna's flew over me in formation at last years Easter parade.

Hagar

Sadly I must agree. It's an Air Corps which is a far cry from an Air Force.

The amount of men and materiel I see daily and I do mean daily in the south of France puts the IDF to shame. I'm not even talking about the military down here, the local fire brigade is better equipped and has more aircraft in the air at anytime than the Air Corps could muster in a full scramble. For shame Willie, for shame.

MAYPOP

What is it with the "Irish" Mail (former Ireland on Sunday) and their anti-Air Corps stories? Anytime I have read that rag (which thankfully isn't too often) they have some a negative regarding the Air Corps...

cushtac

They have an anti-DF & anti-Garda attitude in general.

Terrontress

The Daily Mail, Irish or otherwise, is known for having an anti-Irish attitude in general. I don't know why they set up here!

silverharp

With respect we have a population of 4 million in one of the most stable parts of the world. Nobody expects us to have a space prog. so why do we need a state of the art airforce. Where the gap is , is that the navy and aircorps seem to be too small cover the coastline against drug trafficing.

the_syco

Hagar wrote:

The amount of men and materiel I see daily and I do mean daily in the south of France puts the IDF to shame.

To be honest, the French need a good Air Force. People like attacking them. Aside from the brits, who has attacked us in the past while?

Oh, and even if we had faster planes... good luck with getting finance for air-to-air missiles for shooting down other planes.

arybvtcw0eolkf

silverharp wrote:

With respect we have a population of 4 million in one of the most stable parts of the world. Nobody expects us to have a space prog. so why do we need a state of the art airforce.

In recent year's we've been stable.

But think of it this way. Before Yugoslavia ripped itself apart in 1991 no other country in Europe faced the same internal security problem as Ireland (north and south).

Its just by the grace of god that we didn't go down the same route.

Steyr

the_syco wrote:

Oh, and even if we had faster planes... good luck with getting finance for air-to-air missiles for shooting down other planes.

Not a fan of good ol' dogfights are ya? Bullets count just as much i remember watching an Israeli F-15E shooting down an enemy aircraft with its cannon as its missiles failed to hit, it was on that History channel programme "shootout", im sure cannon fire would just as quickly bring down an Airliner as a Missile.

BostonB

A missile has longer range and will get to the target faster before you can even see it. Not that you'd be allowed to do a BVR on an Airliner. If you could then a SAM would be enough.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-6.htm

Steyr

BostonB wrote:

A missile has longer range and will get to the target faster before you can even see it. Not that you'd be allowed to do a BVR on an Airliner. If you could then a SAM would be enough.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-6.htm

Or in our case a quickly prepared RBS70 fired from the nearest Barrack or wherever.

Hagar

the_syco wrote:

To be honest, the French need a good Air Force.

I wasn't even talking about the Air force, I was talking about the Fire Brigade. Locally they have 4 Canadair water bombers plus at least 4 Water drop choppers. I know because I've seen them in action at the same time. If the Air Corps were called out as an aid to the civil powers what could they effectively do?

ambasite

Steyr wrote:

Or in our case a quickly prepared RBS70 fired from the nearest Barrack or wherever.

what have we? one rbs/giraffe system per barrack? they have only a 7km range.

Catcher86

The argument that we can't afford jets because of the state of our health system holds not weight. For the past few years we have had an average surplus of €2 billion. It's not going on health because this gangster government of ours have finally realised that throwing money at the problem is not the solution, it only gets eaten up by administration. They have finally realised that restructuring is what is needed, and thats what they are trying to do now.

People say that over the past ten years we have been a rich country. The fact of the matter is that over the past ten years we have been ROLLING in it.
However this Fianna Fáil government has mismanaged and squandered it. All we have to show in terms of infrastructure is a spire sticking out of the ground defacing O'Connell street, and a health system that is an embarrassment. Not to mention the Berti Bowl. As the majority live in times of relative comfort, we don't complain and we don't realise how good we could have had it.

The Polish air force purchased purchased 48 block 52+ f-16s in a package worth $3.5 billion. We could now purchase 20 f-16s ( the amount I think we would need) for approximately €1.06 billion, which is only half of our surplus from last year alone. Granted maintenance and armament would be expensive

As side note I think we should forget about getting our pilots trained by the USAF and enlist the help of the Israeli Air Force, who are by far the best fighter pilots in the world.They know how to get their bang for their buck. They are experts in running a cost effective operation. They have been doing it for over forty years.They are the best because they have to be the best. Most of their neighbours want them wiped of the map.
They are also quite proficient at developing their own weapons systems. Something they might be able to show us a thing or two about.

Every year we hear that engineering courses are losing numbers. Personally I would definitely consider joining the Air Corps if they had jets, and I would definitely consider doing engineering (haven't ruled out) if I knew I could work on fighter jets or on developing weapons systems.

It's a matter of when not if. We may as well get them now while we can still afford them.

Dr_Teeth

Politically I don't think we could purchase American aircraft or Israeli training. Besides which we really don't need them. If we were purchasing aircraft, I think a bunch of large helicopters to ferry our troops around during peace keeping operations would be a better idea.

Hagar

I agree with the good Dr., we should be buying Euro technology.

Steyr

ambasite wrote:

what have we? one rbs/giraffe system per barrack? they have only a 7km range.

The Javelin can attack Helicopters and we have 200 launchers and 840 missiles the same order that Canada has.
We have 7 RBS70 systems.

cp251

Dr_Teeth wrote:

Politically I don't think we could purchase American aircraft or Israeli training. Besides which we really don't need them. If we were purchasing aircraft, I think a bunch of large helicopters to ferry our troops around during peace keeping operations would be a better idea.

The Air Corps has American aircraft, there is no political reason not to buy American aircraft. America is not our enemy despite the ranting of the loony left wing in this country. The best available aircraft for the role should be bought which in point of fact actually does happen more or less. As for so called 'Euro' technology, you do realise that the aeronautical industry is very international in scope which means aircraft often have a large American content. The PC9's for example are powered by Pratt and Whitney engines, built in Canada admittedly and have Hartzell propellors. Not to mention the avionics. The Swiss who build the PC9, neutral as they, have no qualms about buying American for their own air force. The Javelin missiles are American too.

As for the Israelis, well didn't we just buy some of their RPV's for the army?


But you are right about one thing, we really only need helicopters for troop carrying and a few maritime patrol aircraft. We don't need the PC9's even for training and in any case if we need an intercept capability the RAF is not far away. I would lay any money that there has been a secret agreement with the British to launch Typoons or Tornados in the event of a rogue airliner. I would be amazed if that option wasn't considered. This country has a long history of publicly pretending to keep the British military at arms length but covertly working together in common cause.

So in truth we don't need interceptors.

Catcher86

cp251 wrote:

I would lay any money that there has been a secret agreement with the British to launch Typoons or Tornados in the event of a rogue airliner. I would be amazed if that option wasn't considered.

Like I said on the other thread they are already patrolling our airspace and have intervened already.

cp251 wrote:

This country has a long history of publicly pretending to keep the British military at arms length but covertly working together in common cause.

Only I few weeks ago our Government signed a public agreement that British and Irish military and police intelligence would work together on counterterrorist intelligence. There is nothing covert about it.
Although I have to question the reason for making this public knowledge.

Steyr

Sure they are always working together over seas too, all you have to do is read the latest An Cosantoir to hear the AW139/EC135 guys talking about their proper Low Level Military Flying Courses in the UK. Big deal there should be more of this. Remember reading some EX PDF guys post on IMO about being O/Seas and the Brits inviting the PDF guys over for a few pints of the black stuff only for our boys to be leaving later having drank the bar dry!:D

the_syco

Steyr wrote:

Not a fan of good ol' dogfights are ya? Bullets count just as much i remember watching an Israeli F-15E shooting down an enemy aircraft with its cannon as its missiles failed to hit, it was on that History channel programme "shootout", im sure cannon fire would just as quickly bring down an Airliner as a Missile.

Ah, comparing a F-15E to a Pilatus PC-9... not only does it go 3 times as fast, but the Vulcan can fire 6,000 rounds a minute, 3,450 ft/s, where as the FN HMG can fire 635 rounds a minute, at about 3000ft/s.

Also, how fast can the Pilatus PC-9 turn, as you'd need to do if being the victim?

Dr_Teeth wrote:

I think a bunch of large helicopters to ferry our troops around during peace keeping operations would be a better idea.

Always thought bigger helicopter = bigger target?

Terrontress

Steyr wrote:

It is a joke, i didnt know if i was supposed to laugh or cry when the Cessna's flew over me in formation at last years Easter parade.

There was a bit of a display put on by the Pilatuses (Pilati?) at the Electric Picnic yesterday.

I have to say, it was extremely impressive. Not quite up there with the Red Arrows but well worth watching.

And the fact they are prop driven added to the spectacle of it with the cocophanous sound as they swooped and turned.

testicle

MAYPOP wrote:

What is it with the "Irish" Mail (former Ireland on Sunday) and their anti-Air Corps stories? Anytime I have read that rag (which thankfully isn't too often) they have some a negative regarding the Air Corps...

It may be negative, but it is true.

Steyr wrote:

Or in our case a quickly prepared RBS70 fired from the nearest Barrack or wherever.

1 Bty, 1 ADR are in the Curragh.

Hagar

testicle wrote:

1 Bty, 1 ADR are in the Curragh.

I don't know whether to cry because you are giving out operational information or laugh because the powers-that-be think that Dublin's airspace is adequately defended by an installation 30 miles inland.

OS119

Hagar wrote:

I don't know whether to cry because you are giving out operational information or laugh because the powers-that-be think that Dublin's airspace is adequately defended by an installation 30 miles inland.

i'd go for the latter, the idea that the location of a garrisoned regular army unit could in any free society be described as a 'secret' is just preposterous.

well, almost as preposterous as - as i have seen - the description an RBS-70 as some form of area, or indeed theatre, air defence weapon.

you know, i used to think that it was the politicians who were at fault for the disjoint between the size of the economy and the capabilities of the Irish DF, but actually its not - they sign the cheques readily enough - its the DF themselves, they consistantly (and i'm thinking of the PC-9 purchace particularly) ask for systems that fall far outside Irish political and military doctrine while urgently needed requirements go unfunded, or 'big-up' systems to give what can only be described as utterly misleading ideas of capability.

the RBS-70 being an excellent example, the impression given by both the military and the politicos is that they provide the state with a capability that in real life it just doesn't have, and assuming that like most politicos the cabinet know f'all about such systems, that belief can only have come from one place - the DF. indeed the very 'misaprehension' that the politicos labour under, doubtless fabricated by the DF, may well cause the same politicos to dismiss the substance of the OP's post as they have, as far as they are aware, already provided for this contingency by buying the RBS-70 in the first place.

self. foot. shoot.

testicle

Hagar wrote:

I don't know whether to cry because you are giving out operational information

http://kildare.ie/defenceforces/ORG/adr.htm

http://www.military.ie/army/org/dftc/dfr/index.htm

Hagar

It wasn't intended as a personal affront.
I think I'll cry anyway.
Who need military intelligence when IE6 will find all you need to know.

trentf

Whenever the air corps are about a huge degree of hilarity will surely ensue. Are they an air corps or a flying display team nobody really knows for sure. They seem to spend more time flying their aircraft around for show then any serious military roles or tasks. Not that you can have a serious military role with 8 planes more akin to the era of charlie chaplin then star wars. Like a child with a new toy it just seems to scream 'oi oi look at me i got a new toy look look its a new toy and i can fly it'.

The planes are billed as having a training role. Micheal O'leary is sure glad he has a training role for his pilots that way he has to spend less on simulators for his own company..

And all this 'thats operational information you shouldn't divulge' Please, give me a break the defence forces website even lists the number of planes they have and their capablilties. Now you'd think that if they didn't want 'operational info' known they wouldn't do that. Besides theres nothing special about them they are turbo props, nuff said.

irishsurfer

Defence policy is insurance against the worst that could happen in a future that we cannot predict.

So saying we dont need an air defence function is not really a valid arguement.

However much I agree that FF are corrupt, inept and a shower of ****e, they are not the only ones who have failed in providing a realistic defence force.

I do believe that 20 F16s is too much, as I have said here before, 2nd hand Swiss/Austrian F-5s upgraded to Singaporean or Chilean standards would be a perfectly adequete, especially if paired with a C-130 with 'Buddy' tanks.
And most here would be in favour of some C-130s in the aircorps.
Its a realistic solution to a realistic problem

The main reasons I would go for the F-5 over the F-16s are

:Cost
In comparison to the F-16, the F-5 is far more economic to buy, and perhaps more importantly, its flight and maintainence costs are way lower.

:Safety
Two engines are better than one, especially over water. Granted, modern engines such as found in the F-16 are far more reliable than older types, but the twin engine concept gives that extra safety margin.

:Simplicity
The F-5 is a very upgraded trainer that developed into a light fighter, so the Pilatus would lead in to it. We would not need a lead in jet trainer.
It is stable, easy to fly and easy to maintain.

The USAF for example go from Pilatus type to T-38 (F-5 lite) to F15/16 types.

OS119

irishsurfer wrote:

Defence policy is insurance against the worst that could happen in a future that we cannot predict.

So saying we dont need an air defence function is not really a valid arguement.

I do believe that 20 F16s is too much, as I have said here before, 2nd hand Swiss/Austrian F-5s upgraded to Singaporean or Chilean standards would be a perfectly adequete, especially if paired with a C-130 with 'Buddy' tanks.
And most here would be in favour of some C-130s in the aircorps.
Its a realistic solution to a realistic problem
QUOTE]

yes, fine, the F-5 would be perfect for all the reasons you state.

except the minor detail that it wouldn't do the job you'd be buying it for....

most Militaries can't perform some function that they might be called upon to do, 'full-spectrum dominance' - the ability to win any possible fight no matter how or where that fight is conducted, whether at sea, in the air or on land, is a game that now only the US can play, and even they find that its a myth in reality.

what that means is that states choose the fights/tasks they are most likely to face and equip/train themselves for those and live in hope that others won't happen.

the British Army can no longer conduct division-sized Armoured Warfare, so it doesn't get into fights where that would be required - and hopes that if such a conflict should happen, RAF interdiction operations would mitigate its weakness in that area.

does this potentially fatal flaw in UK defence planning mean that the UK is undefended? no, it just means that its been decided that the likelyhood of such operations is remote, and that money would be better spent on addressing threats that are more likely.

the Irish govt, reasonably in my view, has decided that a 9/11-type attack is not only unlikely, but that the cost of developing a counter to it ($3.5 billion capital and $500+million annual costs, in my view - as explained elsewhere) would actually be greater than the cost of the damage it would inflict. should you then consider the possiblity of instead of just an 'airspace policing' role, the Irish AC could be required to defend against the attentions of a nation-state, then the situation becomes even less tenable. by dint of Geography and military power, only three states have the capacity to wage conventional war on the RoI; the USA, UK and France. not one of those states, had they taken the decision to go to war, would find their plans much disrupted by the presence of 20, or 40, or even 100 F-5's - indeed all of those states could, with conventional weapons only, reduce the civil and military infrastructure of the RoI to a series of smoking holes in the ground despite the RoI operating 100 New-build F-16's.

spending money on a form of warfare you could never win in, and therefore would never engage in, is the absolute epitimy of waste.

its a nasty, unpleasent, and 'hard' view to take, but given all the other opportunities to spend money - some of which might actually produce a meaningful result - its an understandable one.

irishsurfer

Well, it dont matter what we spend on Police, there will be crime anyway.
A dozen F-5s would not cost 3.5 B in initial cost or 500m per annum to maintain.
All I have tried to say is that they are fit for purpose.
They would serve their role well, and in conjunction with C130s , as part of a tota overhaul.
The Pilatus can be seen as step 1.

OS119

irishsurfer wrote:

A dozen F-5s would not cost 3.5 B in initial cost or 500m per annum to maintain.
All I have tried to say is that they are fit for purpose.
They would serve their role well, and in conjunction with C130s , as part of a tota overhaul.
The Pilatus can be seen as step 1.

a dozen F-5's would not cost $3.5bn, thats perfectly true.

and i have demonstrated (ad nauseum) that F-5's - almost regardless of how many you might wish to buy - are not fit for the mission you wish them to undertake.indeed you could buy a dozen of any aircraft - even the F-22 - and you could still not acheive a 24H/365 QRA.

the performance statistics of the F-5 - even the guchi Chilean and Singaporese versions - are their for all to see. it is not fast enough. it can't get to its operating height quickly enough. it doesn't have the range needed - particularly when flying on Afterburner - to cover the RoI.

it doesn't matter how cheap it is, it it can't do what you buy it for then its not a bargain.

the Tanking issue as a way of mitigating the range deficiency of F-5 is a red herring, QRA aircraft can't wait for a C-130 to catch up, indeed an F-5 that left Baldonell at Warp 9 to intercept a dodgy ATC contact over Donegal - which would need the use of Afterburner the whole way - might well find itself having to land (glide?) at Derry City long before the C-130 got anywhere near it.

BostonB

OS119 wrote:

...
spending money on a form of warfare you could never win in, and therefore would never engage in, is the absolute epitimy of waste.

its a nasty, unpleasent, and 'hard' view to take, but given all the other opportunities to spend money - some of which might actually produce a meaningful result - its an understandable one.

Never a truer word...

Theres no cheap way to cover ROI airspace and intercept an aircraft moving at 350~450kts at altitude.

Steyr

BostonB wrote:

Theres no cheap way to cover ROI airspace and intercept an aircraft moving at 350~450kts at altitude.

The same can be said for the RNLAF and Their F-16's who regularily go up for Aircraft and their Airspace is way smaller compared to ours.

BostonB

Steyr wrote:

The same can be said for the RNLAF and Their F-16's who regularily go up for Aircraft and their Airspace is way smaller compared to ours.

So?

Steyr

BostonB wrote:

So?

If they can bloody have them and do it then we should be able to do it too. Like come on The Govt really should have some cop on its a total disgrace, even for MAROPS we have 2 just recently upgraded EADS CASA CN235 MPA's im sorry but for the size of the Territory we have to Patrol that is not enough.

BostonB

So because they spend 10 billion or so on defence so should ROI.

OS119

Steyr wrote:

If they can bloody have them and do it then we should be able to do it too. Like come on The Govt really should have some cop on its a total disgrace, even for MAROPS we have 2 just recently upgraded EADS CASA CN235 MPA's im sorry but for the size of the Territory we have to Patrol that is not enough.

the Netherlands - and Danish, and Norwegian, and pretty much everyone else in Europe that flies high-end fast jets also uses them in support of their foriegn policy.

the 'F-16' countries of Europe all have deployments in support of the NATO A'stan mission, those aircraft fly CAS and Reece missions everyday - and in the begining of the Afghan War they flew Interdiction/CAS/AD/SEAD/Reece sorties.

many of those countries also commited similar forces to the UNFIL2 mission in Lebannon.

the point i make is that AD is not the only reason they buy such aircraft, but that its not even 30% of why they buy such aircraft.

if Ireland were to purchase a viable F-16 fleet for the laudable aim of policing its air and sea-space it would, in my view, spend about $3.5bn capital and another $500m annual cost. thats fine, thats what the same fleets costs other F-16 users.

however, because Irelands Foreign policy culture is inherantly 'risk-averse' - it doesn't send troops to places they might get shot at, or where any real military force might be required to acheive the aims of an intervention, it will never use those F-16's to anything like the degree that - for instance - the Norwegians do.

in effect, Ireland won't get much value out of its spend.

also, unlike Norway, Denmark and Holland, Ireland also does not have territorial disputes with its neighbours or dependancies to look after.

in short, Ireland could buy a shiny fleet of 36 F-16C Blk 52 that would be the pride of most air forces around the world and they would last for 25 - 30 years.

but they wouldn't do much.

given Irish Foreign policy culture - rather than just the individual choices of alternate Governments - they are never going to be used to even 10% of their potential (and therefore cost) in some far-flang hell-hole, and given Irelands geographic location and political situation they are not going to be used for territoral AD or the interdiction of an enemy ground force attempting to invade the RoI.

the only possible remaining use for them is airspace policing - effectively the prevention of a 9/11-style attack on the RoI. not only is such an atttack unlikely - for a myriad of reasons - but having even very high performance fighters (Typhoon/F-22A) on 2 minute QRA is absolutely no guarrantee that such attacks can be prevented as they enter that last ditch phase, the timing is just too tight to say that if you spend $X you can that you're safe.

furthermore their seems little evidence to suggest that having a fully-integrated AD set-up with high-end fighters as the weapon of last resort seems to be much of a deterent effect. both the RAF and USAF have AD systems that would give Willie O'Dea a wet dream, yet both have, subsequent to 9/11 and the ramping up of defences against such a threat, faced Airliner-based attempts at large scale terrorism.

the real deterrent against such attacks is a seriously switched on Intelligence and Security apparatus and an Airline industry that takes security very seriously indeed.

so if you don't need it for Foreign policy reasons, you don't need it for territorial defence and its a very sticky wicket for Air Policing, exactly what do you need it for?

Steyr

What do you suggest then? just leave it to someone else which is a disgrace, do it ourselves and do it right.

BostonB

Define "it".

OS119

BostonB wrote:

Define "it".

that would be a very good start....

Steyr

Here you go: Why should we let another Nation look after our Airspace. Its ours we should do it.

OS119

Steyr wrote:

Here you go: Why should we let another Nation look after our Airspace. Its ours we should do it.

is that not just a teensy bit vague?

any chance you can elaborate? 'look after it' covers a multitude of sins.

i had a browse through the 'why haven't we got an Air Force' threads, half a dozen of them, and not in any of them have you come up with a rational argument for buying - at vast expense - a fully-functioning Air Defence capability. you have never indicated what probable/possible threats you think it should be capable of defeating or indeed a rationale for the argument you are currently using "we're a country so we should have the afore mentioned fully-functioning AD capability"

the UK has no capability to engage any target at above 120,000ft, none whatsoever (dark rumours of ASTER 30's ABM capability notwithstanding), yet theres an awful lot of sky - not to mention satelites - flying above that height. does this mean that the UK has in some way negated its sovereignty?

while consistantly comparing economies and populations you have never addressed the vital difference between the 'F-16 countries' of Europe and Ireland, in that they regularly send their aircraft overseas to break things and kill people in support of their Foreign policies. Ireland - IMHO - should it aquire similar aircraft, will not.

is there any chance whatsoever of any coherent explanation of you veiw that Ireland should aquire such a capability based on the Geo-political situation, Foriegn policy, potential threats - both to the homeland and to Irish political and economic interests abroad - and an indication of how much bood and treasure Ireland would spend in order to achieve its policies?

BostonB

I think this was it...

Steyr wrote:

If they can bloody have them and do it then we should be able to do it too. ...

irishsurfer

Why, well 9/11 is an example - more likley is a Mattaeus Rust type character. There is also a growing trend in the US to smuggle contraband, so there is a valid reason to have a capability to patrol/police our own airspace

Tchocky

irishsurfer wrote:

Why, well 9/11 is an example - more likley is a Mattaeus Rust type character. There is also a growing trend in the US to smuggle contraband, so there is a valid reason to have a capability to patrol/police our own airspace

9/11 type incident in Ireland - unlikely, and not going to be stopped by 12 F-16s out of Baldonnel.
Matthias Rust flew a Cessna onto Red Square at the height of the Cold War, through the Moscow defence network of missiles and interceptors. Why should we equip ourselves with barely 5% of a force that could not stop a peaceful light aircraft?

Drug smuggling is a police matter, not one for the air force.

bostonian

Tchocky wrote:

9/11 type incident in Ireland - unlikely, and not going to be stopped by 12 F-16s out of Baldonnel.
Matthias Rust flew a Cessna onto Red Square at the height of the Cold War, through the Moscow defence network of missiles and interceptors. Why should we equip ourselves with barely 5% of a force that could not stop a peaceful light aircraft?

Drug smuggling is a police matter, not one for the air force.

True but the police can't exactly pull over a moving aircraft. A properly equipped Air Corps could.

irishsurfer

Hey - I was just giving reasons - other than the fact we are meant to be a sovereign nation - as to why we should have an AirCorps in the defence forces that can defend the state.

Yes, 9/11 is unlikely, but not impossible, there are so many scenaros, pilotless aircraft (greek airliner recently due to pressure lost, a few years back a MiG 21 kept going after the pilot ejected) is just one.

I believe that having light, supersonic jets capable of BVR interception, CAP and other basic patrol functions - are not beyond the means of the state, and would be a prudent investment.

The type is up for debate, but the fact is that most other countries, even small ones, have air defence as a pragmatic part of their defence forces.

Poccington

bostonian wrote:

True but the police can't exactly pull over a moving aircraft. A properly equipped Air Corps could.

I didn't think planes could be pulled over at all?