Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Options
145791061

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    gunnerfitzy - exactly who is going to though?

    Even if there was any threat, they'd have to either come via the Atlantic / North Sea (from East) or straight through Europe.

    They'd have a lot bigger fish to fry before they got anywhere near us in fairness.

    Its complete and utter rubbish that anyone would have any real intention of ever invading us. Unless it was the Brits or the US, I'd say we're fairly safe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    Invasion by the reds or whoever is not the main threat.

    Terriorist attacks are,is the country capable of dealing with any sort of well organised attack?I dont know tbh but I wouldent see the harm in the Goverment at least looking into the means of protecting the country when it comes to that sort of threat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,427 ✭✭✭gunnerfitzy


    gunnerfitzy - exactly who is going to though?

    Even if there was any threat, they'd have to either come via the Atlantic / North Sea (from East) or straight through Europe.

    They'd have a lot bigger fish to fry before they got anywhere near us in fairness.

    Its complete and utter rubbish that anyone would have any real intention of ever invading us. Unless it was the Brits or the US, I'd say we're fairly safe.

    I completely agree. The is no measurable threat of this happening. And I also agree that IF it were to happen that it most likely to be the UK or USA.

    All the money and intelligence in the world is NOT going to stop a determined terrorist. TBH I'd be more favour of spending money on vastly improving emergency planning and services that WILL be needed in the event of a terrorist attack or national catastrophe rather than on ground based AD defences and intercept aircraft that may or may not even be utilised. It would be a bummer having shiny tornados or similar parked up in Bandonnel and a 737 illegally parked in Phoenix Park.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    I'm sure our current systems would be well capable of intercepting a fairly slow moving airliner...

    sadly they aren't - and a 'slow-moving airliner' moves rather faster than the fastest armed aircraft that the IAC operates.

    thats fine (ish) as long as everyone understands the gamble that is being run while they spend the money that would otherwise go into the defence budget, but is it not a little concerning to you, an observer of the Irish defence scene, that that's obviously not the case?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Invasion by the reds or whoever is not the main threat.

    Terriorist attacks are,is the country capable of dealing with any sort of well organised attack?I dont know tbh but I wouldent see the harm in the Goverment at least looking into the means of protecting the country when it comes to that sort of threat.

    We can push our AD out as far as we like but altitude is an issue - figure 5000m. Large airliners can't descend steeply in comparison to light aircraft so they have to begin their descent earlier. The disadvantage is that they might only be damaged and still get through to their target. I'd like if someone with more knowledge could comment on airline descent rates, it might help shed some light on the matter.

    A rough example -
    1000 m/min descent @ 250 kts (~7,700 metres/min)
    -> 5 mins of descent while within max altitude of RBS 70


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,427 ✭✭✭gunnerfitzy


    concussion wrote: »
    We can push our AD out as far as we like but altitude is an issue - figure 5000m. Large airliners can't descend steeply in comparison to light aircraft so they have to begin their descent earlier. The disadvantage is that they might only be damaged and still get through to their target. I'd like if someone with more knowledge could comment on airline descent rates, it might help shed some light on the matter.

    A rough example -
    1000 m/min descent @ 250 kts (~7,700 metres/min)
    -> 5 mins of descent while within max altitude of RBS 70

    The day any Taoiseach would have the b@lls to order one blown out of the sky, if we had the ability to do so, I'll eat the tail section!! Wouldn't happen! I would hold the belief that most politicians would prefer to deal with the mess on the ground rather than the decision to take it out in the air.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    That's probably something we'll never know. There are far too many variables to make any guess as to what will or will not be ordered, so I'm going to focus on the technicalities of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,427 ✭✭✭gunnerfitzy


    concussion wrote: »
    That's probably something we'll never know. There are far too many variables to make any guess as to what will or will not be ordered, so I'm going to focus on the technicalities of it.

    okey dokey :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    range is an issue - an empty 747 weighs 200 metric tons, and on take-off could be carrying 200,000 litres of aviation fuel. 400 tons of metal and burning fuel doesn't just stop and fall out of the sky (on to a conveniently empty field) when a 1.5Kg RBS 70 warhead hits it.

    even if such an aircraft got whacked by the entire inventory of SA missiles that the IA has, given the point-defence nature of those systems, 400 tons of burning hell would still hit Dublin city. now it might hit a suburb instead of O'Connell Street, but its going to do a shit-load of damage wherever it crashes.

    if you want to avoid that, you need not only to intercept the aircraft well outside the city/target, but you need it to hit the ground well outside the city/target as well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Totally agree OS119, and it highlights a major difference between conventional warfare and terror attack. (ie, where the remnants of the aircraft end up)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    i have been thinking long and hard about this,first who would be the country who would invade ireland ?none as far as i can see,there is always the possible factor of terrorist airliners ,the only other possibility would be if by chance a civil war broke out in the north,and some hothead nationalists in the irish goverment decided to invade the north to protect the republican element[like they planned a few years ago] the UK would have no choice,[a full legal UN right] to invade the south and remove the ruling goverment of the time, so the question is would they want to put up a fight ? if they would they would need some sort of defence,


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    getz wrote: »
    i have been thinking long and hard about this,first who would be the country who would invade ireland ?none as far as i can see,there is always the possible factor of terrorist airliners ,the only other possibility would be if by chance a civil war broke out in the north,and some hothead nationalists in the irish goverment decided to invade the north to protect the republican element[like they planned a few years ago] the UK would have no choice,[a full legal UN right] to invade the south and remove the ruling goverment of the time, so the question is would they want to put up a fight ? if they would they would need some sort of defence,

    Ireland has been on the geographic front line of the most crucial battles in two cataclismic wars in the space of 20 years, followed by being on the geographic frontline of the most crucial battlespace of a threatened hyper-cataclismic war that lasted a further 50 years, it also had an insurgency, a state/state war, a civil war and then a 30 year civil war next door - all in living memory. anybody who thinks Ireland lives in a safe neighbourhood has got to be spreading 3lbs of crack on their cornflakes every morning.

    my own views on any international conflict that Ireland might face are recorded earlier in the thread, but i think that anyone who rules out a resurgence of violence - whether terrorist in nature or just widespread civil disturbance - and a possible British unwillingness/inability to deal with it, or indeed in the nightmare scenario where soveriegnty rests with Dublin, is a fool. during the most troop intensive years of the 'troubles' the BA used 25,000 soldiers and 75 helicopters from a total force of 250,000 troops and 500 helicopters. the Irish state would struggle to field a total force of 15,000 an 6 helicopters - if the levels of violence/disturbance of the 70's occured post-reunification, the Irish state would be in very, very deep shit.

    somebody needs to think about that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    OS119 wrote: »
    Ireland has been on the geographic front line of the most crucial battles in two cataclismic wars in the space of 20 years, followed by being on the geographic frontline of the most crucial battlespace of a threatened hyper-cataclismic war that lasted a further 50 years, it also had an insurgency, a state/state war, a civil war and then a 30 year civil war next door - all in living memory. anybody who thinks Ireland lives in a safe neighbourhood has got to be spreading 3lbs of crack on their cornflakes every morning.

    somebody needs to think about that.

    I just thought about it.

    If we didn't need significant defence through all of that front line and cold war stuff, we certainly don't need it now.

    I think you just proved your own point invalid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    on the contary, only lots of luck and skillfull politics kept Ireland out of the WWII battle of the Atlantic, it was involved in the WWI battle of the Atlantic, and we all know that both NATO and WARPAC had plans for Ireland in the event of WWIII's battle of the Atlantic - thats not an indication of a good plan that went well.

    Irelands lack of military capability foiled Lynch's plan regarding the North - whether that would have been sensible or not - so yet another situation where a crisis that fundamentally affected the security, democracy, sovereignty, economy and politics of the state occured right on Irelands doorstep and yet Ireland was little more than a spectator while other states made the decisions - with no reference to Ireland - in their own interests.

    thats not a ringing endorsement of a policy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    OS119 - with all respect, any military prowess we could have mustered, even if we had billions to throw at it, wouldn't have made a difference.

    Where would we get the man power from?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    OS119 - with all respect, any military prowess we could have mustered, even if we had billions to throw at it, wouldn't have made a difference.

    Where would we get the man power from?

    a funded, trained and legally protected reserve. the fact that the DoD chooses to configure the reserve in the most inefficient and unproductive model possible doesn't mean that a reserve - based perhaps on the USNG - and a smaller permanent force that was funded to a European average of 2.5% of GDP, (which would more than double the defence budget at a stroke) would provide a vastly greater military capability than the current model. it would allow the normal participation by its members in the civilian/private sector economy, and yet within two months or so of activation provide a fielded force that would make any state incursion onto Irish territory extremely unattractive.

    there is an issue with how long a large reserve force can be mobilised before the economy grinds to a halt - as the Israelis can testify - but i don't see any option that doesn't have drawbacks...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 133 ✭✭realismpol


    well its like this see and this is the way i see it. You will not save everyone from getting hurt or reduce collateral damage if terrorists decide to hijack an aircraft and hit shannon or dublin or wherever they decide too. But the point is that your government or your military made the effort to defend your country with the most adequate defence mechansims available. There is no chance of our current fleet of aircraft even getting close to any jet engined airliner. So why did we buy them. Now thats a waste of money if ever i saw one. See thats the way we do things in this country. We play pretend. We bought them simply to give the illusion of capability but they can't defend our airspace.

    The worst thing is that some people come on and actually try and justify their purchase with skewing of facts and trying to influence others into thinking they fullfill a role. They fullfill no role in terms of defence against modern day aerial threats.

    Now you sit here and argue amongst each other till the cows come home but the there is no current defence tool available to the irish defence forces that can quickly enough mobilised to have any chance of stopping such a threat and we all know what vehicle the terrorists currently favour in terms of attack. Also would the taoiseach give the order to shoot down an aircraft if it was heading say in the general direction of the dail? You think mr cowen wouldn't. Come off it of course he would.The way some people in this country act towards military and military matters you'd swear they were afraid of their own shadows. You have an excuse for everything.

    When jets are metioned out comes a long list of irish excuses everywhere from but 'our current fleet is fine', 'the hospitals and roads like', to 'but brian wouldn't give the order' so 'nahhh might as well spend the shillings on the triplanes' 'we're irish don't blow wind on us or we'll break into a million shards of glass'. Basically ive noticed one thing we'll use any excuse possible any one to justify not making a hard decision on something. Anything as long as we can be neutral and hide behind a rock whilst someone else does the hard work. If you want to know what modern ireland is all about thats it in a nutshell. 'Let someone else do it' Pure and utter selfishness and laziness.

    Some people seem to think that we need a major fleet of jets and radar systems to defend against another country invading. Thats not the case nor will it ever be the case. No country is ever going to invade ireland. This is not about defending against that to which i agree we would be overwhelmed easily. This is about providing adequate defence mechanisms against modern day global threats. We are a part of the european union yet we aren't even prepared to defend our own skies.

    To me its just spells out that the goverment and public alike in this country don't give a crap about defence really. Fact is we cannot defend our own airspace and that is eternally to our shame and the more some people keep harping on about how we have adequate defence mechanisms the more embarrassing it gets. In fairness i'd like to get an independent outside view on this im sure most independently minded military analysts or experts would agree on this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Who here is saying we have adequate AD systems?
    The cost of purchasing, maintaining and running jets could not be met by the current Defence budget, by a long way. The last aircraft we had which was capable of meeting it's contemporary threat was the Spitfire, there's no point complaining about the PC-9's as we've had 50 years without an air-combat aircraft.

    I also disagree that the RBS-70's play no role in modern AD - these systems are currently used by many countries around the world. They are specifically a short range/low level system and they do their job very well. In terms of mobilising them to meet a threat, they are no different to any other bit of kit - if there's a high threat they'll be pre-deployed, if not, they'll be stored away like the rest of the Steyrs, GPMG's, Javelins and 105 mm's. These systems are deployed several times a year in their primary role, which is more than most other systems we have.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 133 ✭✭realismpol


    concussion wrote: »
    Who here is saying we have adequate AD systems?
    The cost of purchasing, maintaining and running jets could not be met by the current Defence budget, by a long way. The last aircraft we had which was capable of meeting it's contemporary threat was the Spitfire, there's no point complaining about the PC-9's as we've had 50 years without an air-combat aircraft.

    Exactly so we just wasted 48 million on a bunch of aircraft that fullfill no role in terms of air defence and as light strike aircraft as they seem to be defined by the df they don't carry that role out either because that would imply they had a role against an aggressor.

    So we are left with the issue of why we spent 48 million on 8 useless aircraft. The other reason was because they are listed as for training pilots. That would imply a natural progression onto other aircraft.

    See the crux of the issue is not so much why we don't have jets. But why do we waste money on these types of equipment when clearly they would be useless against even small scale threats. Its because we always take the cheap option when procuring equipment and in this case the government decided out of embarrassment that they needed to try and pretend we had some sort of 'limited air defence'. Look you either have air defence or you don't. Waste of money. Its the same mularky with the aw139. Buy a civillian helicopter in limited numbers, paint it green and use it for a jack of all trades role. We all know the real helicopter that would have been most suited for the army and the one they wanted.

    There is no other military in the world that would contemplate using this helicopter for military use because its not designed to be used in such a format. In fact the main other users of it are mainly either civillian or coast gaurd based. Not one other country in the world uses it for military use. Throwing a dab of green paint on a civillian helicopter, the government thinks it can fool the general public.

    Also it can't fullfill a troop transport role abroad because the thing doesn't even have sand filters or armour. Another example of how we can't even buy the correct equipment for the correct role. But why did we buy it then? Simple answer because it was the cheapest, least aggressive looking option and can also be used as an air ambulance, coast gaurd, serve the needs of the governement i.e ferrying brian lenihan and co around the country for political point scoring, airshows and coming soon as a santa attraction for the kids(came close to be being used for this) and thats exactly what it has been used for.

    Its a joke. We wasted money on these helicopters and we are renting helicopters in chad because the helicopters we did purchase can't be used over there. As you seen from the recent reports no doubt we have even managed to screw this renting of helicopters up with large amounts of money wasted. Such an absolute damming indication of how we do things. Banana republic. its a like a guy going to play a gig with a fisher price kids guitar.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Remmy


    Would anyone know roughly how much would the price of lynx heli's stack up against that of the same number of those aw139's?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Remmy wrote: »
    Would anyone know roughly how much would the price of lynx heli's stack up against that of the same number of those aw139's?

    difficult to say, the Lynx/wildcat has been bought at £1bn for 70 airframes, (later reduced to 62), but without knowing the full spec of the contract - manufacturer support, engines, servicing, planned refurbishment etc... - its difficult to gauge that in comparrision to a much smaller purchace of AW139's that are unlikely to have some of the expensive extras that the BA/RN are going to want on their helicopters - marinisation, 'desertisation', Defensive Aids Suites, offensive systems...

    apples and oranges, both in terms of the delivered product and the nature of the contract - bear in mind that the UK buys from westlands not just the helicopter, but an indiginous ability to build helicopters and the survival (and taxes from exports) of a significant part of british manufactuing industry.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭Sterling Archer


    Wow this is a long topic,

    But if i could peal this back a bit from TERROR, shouldn't we have a better maritime patrol program, i'd assume that the Air corps are raking up a good few hours on the casa's flying over all the water the we have, i mean it's a large area and having to fly across the country just to start a patrol isn't ideal either, frankly it doesn't make sense. If we had a few more aircraft, couldn't we observe any treat to Ireland and direct a naval vessel to it, for example the import of drugs (or for the those looking for something else see -bold word above- materials for terror against of neighbors)

    Wouldn't it make sense for the USAFE to have a base in Ireland, (technically Shannon is a kind of drop-in base) wouldn't a base at Shannon, eg. half military half civil work, it would greatly improve there ability to assist the United States Fleet Forces Command given that Shannon airport is only a stones throw away from the Atlantic, and as most people know it would be better for ships and fishermen in distress given the range of there aircraft.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    a significant increase in Irish MP/ISR cabability would be a good thing, not only would it mean greater security for Home waters (anti-Drug smuggling, fisheries protection etc), but a clever platform choice would also be deployable, both in support of land-based Army operations and NS contributions to multi-national maritime operations - Anti-Piracy operations off the East and West coasts of Africa for instance...

    the ideal platorm for such operations are modern UAV's - RQ-9 reapers can stay airborne for 36 hrs and can be operated with modular sensor fits - so one platform could spend half its life over the eastern Atlantic with a FLIR, streaming visual cameras, a Sea Search radar and a dropping rescue pod, and the other half over Chad with FLIR, a SIGINT/COMINT package, streaming visual cameras and a pair of Hellfire missiles.

    added to which, the vastly greater endurance of UAV's not only means that 3 airframes - or possibly only 2 for a short time - could give a 'one in the air at all times' capability, something you'd need 6 CASA's for, as well as needing fewer crews, given that UAV's are semi-autonomous and are 'flown' from air-conditioned offices with toilets and a burger-king next door.

    same price (ish).

    vastly greater endurance.

    doesn't matter if you lose one.

    multi-role.

    fewer crews.

    and if you strip all the maritime patrol kit from a CASA 235 you have a useful tactical transport capability...


  • Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭mrmanire


    Shane_ef wrote: »
    Wow this is a long topic,

    But if i could peal this back a bit from TERROR, shouldn't we have a better maritime patrol program, i'd assume that the Air corps are raking up a good few hours on the casa's flying over all the water the we have, i mean it's a large area and having to fly across the country just to start a patrol isn't ideal either, frankly it doesn't make sense. If we had a few more aircraft, couldn't we observe any treat to Ireland and direct a naval vessel to it, for example the import of drugs (or for the those looking for something else see -bold word above- materials for terror against of neighbors)

    Wouldn't it make sense for the USAFE to have a base in Ireland, (technically Shannon is a kind of drop-in base) wouldn't a base at Shannon, eg. half military half civil work, it would greatly improve there ability to assist the United States Fleet Forces Command given that Shannon airport is only a stones throw away from the Atlantic, and as most people know it would be better for ships and fishermen in distress given the range of there aircraft.

    Irish neutrality? Joining NATO aside; if the Americans wanted to use such a base to support US Fleet Forces Command; would it not make more sense to open a Naval Air Station.

    I think ye have been playing a bit too much Command and Conquer there lads. You're forgetting real life budget cuts, politics, public opinion, reality, etc, etc....

    Not having a massive military force because it just isn't needed is not necessarily a bad thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Original Steyr


    Shane_ef wrote: »
    , and as most people know it would be better for ships and fishermen in distress given the range of there aircraft.


    Well at least thats sensible having a HH-60G Pavehawk or two from LN based there, and maybe a based Herc tanker as they have been involved in Ops way way out in the Atlantic via air to air refuelling, and end up rcovering to EINN anyway before rtb.

    http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=1727

    Sea Rescue

    A sailor, from the cargo ship Pascha, is hoisted aboard an HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter from the 56th Rescue Squadron at RAF Lakenheath, England, June 26. The sailor was experiencing severe abdominal pain, requiring immediate medical evacuation. Two additional U.S. Air Force aircraft, a KC-135R Stratotanker from the 100th Air Refueling Wing and a MC-130P Combat Shadow from the 352nd Special Operations Group -- both from nearby RAF Mildenhall -- supported the operation for refueling and communication purposes. A Nimrod, search and rescue aircraft, from the United Kingdom also played a critical role in the operation, providing real time communication and coordination between the ship and USAF aircraft. The patient was delivered to an awaiting ambulance in Shannon, Ireland, and is in stable condition. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Jay Reinschi.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Well at least thats sensible having a HH-60G Pavehawk or two from LN based there, and maybe a based Herc tanker as they have been involved in Ops way way out in the Atlantic via air to air refuelling, and end up rcovering to EINN anyway before rtb.

    while such a deployment/capability would entirely make sense from a very narrow perspective, but what does the US get out of it?

    they aren't going to go to the expense and hassle - not to mention the command and control issues - of basing a C-130, 3 HH-60G's and god knows how many support personell at Shannon just because the Irish Coast Guard can't be arsed to pay for a capability that has been around for donkeys years.

    if you want a capability you have to pay for it, and if not in cash then in kind - and the US isn't doing that kind of favour without serious payback.

    so what would you - and the wider Irish political scene - give them in exchange for this asset being based in Ireland?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Original Steyr


    OS119 wrote: »

    so what would you - and the wider Irish political scene - give them in exchange for this asset being based in Ireland?


    God only knows, unless they fancy LL on the west coast.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    one wonders how much, in a surely civilian SAR context, an AAR capability would cost - particularly in the context of a joint UK/ROI SAR contract.

    you'd need a maritime patrol/SAR overwatch airframe with a probe/drogue AAR system - maybe a CASA 235 could do the job...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭BullyBeef


    I am not sure it’s a balanced way of comparisons , but just using the on line figures from wikipedia it looks like Ireland is either loosing money on other fronts or spent it on what’s seen as other priorities , of course also the status of a neutral force possibly has different objectives & so by process has differing commitments to fulfil ,alternatively of course would be similar figures for what the government & politicians themselves devour. In serving the people.

    Total New Zealand population 4,331,600 Sep 09
    http://www.investnewzealand.govt.nz/section/14341.aspx
    New Zealand Defence Force

    Military age 17 years of age for voluntary military service; soldiers cannot be deployed until the age of 18 (2001)
    Available for military service
    984,700 males, age 17-49 (2005),

    965,170 females, age 17-49 (2005)
    Fit for military service
    809,519 males, age 17-49 (2005),
    802,069 females, age 17-49 (2005)
    Reaching military age annually
    29,738 males (2005),
    28,523 females (2005)
    Active personnel 9,051[1] (ranked 129) Reserve personnel 2,240
    Deployed personnel 672 (as 9 December at 2008)
    Budget NZ$1.7 Billion (2006-07) Percent of GDP 1%
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_New_Zealand



    Ireland
    Total population. 4,460,000 2009 estimate
    Available for military service
    977,092 males,
    age 15–49,978,465 (2005 est.)
    [1] females, age 15–49
    Fit for military service
    814,768 males, age 15–49,
    813,981 (2005 est.) females, age 15–49
    Reaching military age annually N/A
    Active personnel 9,981[1]
    Reserve personnel 12,348[2]
    Budget FY 2008 - ranked 59th
    USD $1.56 billion (FY00/08
    Percent of GDP 0.7% (FY00/07)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Defence_Forces

    List of countries by military expenditure as a percentage of GDP
    List of countries by military expenditures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Klunk001


    "they aren't going to go to the expense and hassle - not to mention the command and control issues - of basing a C-130, 3 HH-60G's and god knows how many support personell at Shannon just because the Irish Coast Guard can't be arsed to pay for a capability that has been around for donkeys years."



    This thread is beginning to drift, but Why on earth would the IRCG need this type of capability when their area of responsibilty is this.

    http://www.transport.ie/marine/IRCG/SearchRescue/index.asp?lang=ENG&loc=2101



    How many times in the last ten years has this type of long range taskings (greater than 200nm and out side IRCG area of responcibility) had to be carried out. In fact as I understand it, one of the recent long range jobs carried out by the USAF ended up been completed within the range of an IRCG heli it took that long to organise logistically.


Advertisement