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

russian-bombers

Options
12345679»

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    c_man wrote: »
    Just cos? That's not a good enough reason tbh. It's quite a bit of money that's being bandied about, ye really need to sell it better than that.

    Easy.

    If you want Ireland to be neutral & sovereign, you will agree she should be able to defend same.

    If you rely on grown up nations to defend you, you are neither sovereign or neutral.

    This reality is something known, understood & assumed by every country..... except Ireland that is.

    It seems there are few issues we won't rely on the grown ups to take care of for us.


  • Options
    #243
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    So essentially you guys are saying we need an actual air defence capability, ok. Then why jets? What do ye have currently? Would a a series of ground-to-air missile batteries etc not be much cheaper and meet the objective you guys outlined?


  • Options
    #244
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    c_man wrote: »
    So essentially you guys are saying we need an actual air defence capability, ok. Then why jets? What do ye have currently? Would a a series of ground-to-air missile batteries etc not be much cheaper and meet the objective you guys outlined?

    It is probably better to politely tell Russian bombers to piss off by sending up a couple of jets to do a Maverick on them, rather than actually shoot the ****ers down. That would be suicide.


  • Options
    #245
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    c_man wrote: »
    So essentially you guys are saying we need an actual air defence capability, ok. Then why jets? What do ye have currently? Would a a series of ground-to-air missile batteries etc not be much cheaper and meet the objective you guys outlined?

    Not really.

    All that is needed is intercept/escort capability.... Just to keep Crazy Ivan at bay (and any other malcontents).....

    Ireland's existing ground to air missiles don't cut the mustard as they don't have the range or altitude.

    A sufficient battery of missiles would cost more than jets would....

    EG: 1 x 'Aster' surface-to-air battery as sold by France costs €430 million....
    Ireland would need 3 of those at least....

    So for escort/intercept duties, the safest & cheapest way is aircraft..... actually shooting down a Russian plane is stupid


  • Options
    #246
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It is probably better to politely tell Russian bombers to piss off by sending up a couple of jets to do a Maverick on them, rather than actually shoot the ****ers down. That would be suicide.

    Ok so an actual defence capability isn't enough. We need to keep up with the Russians/villian of the week... This is why people have no time for Air Corps fantasy land time. Let NATO and the Russians wave their cocks at each other, we can have our actual defence capability (I've no problem with a decent surface-air defence grid) and save a packet by not acting "grown up."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    A sufficient battery of missiles would cost more than jets would....

    If that's the case then fair enough. Seems counter intuitive though.


  • Options
    #248
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    c_man wrote: »
    If that's the case then fair enough. Seems counter intuitive though.

    A missile is an 'all or nothing' kind of thing.

    An aircraft will allow Ireland to defend her airspace without starting conflict..... Just like what every other nation does, at a fraction of the cost.

    It isn't 'Walter mittying'.
    It's what every mature nation does.... defend itself.... The one job a government must do above all others.


  • Options
    #249
    purplepanda
    Registered Users Posts: 1,055 ✭✭✭purplepanda


    Interesting read on the JSA39 & other options https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20131201.aspx

    Looks like there's also plenty of second hand options, such as the F16 & even Eurofighter Typhoon looking for customers. :D


  • Options
    #250
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    For $5m you could get a refurbed' SU-27 flanker, it may only the unarmed trainer but it looks the business.
    http://www.wired.com/2010/01/own-the-coolest-jet-on-your-block/


  • Options
    #251
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,704 ✭✭✭✭josip


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    ...
    It's what every mature nation does.... defend itself.... The one job a government must do above all others.

    I don't agree with the maturity angle and that it's the "one" job a government must do.
    North Korea could defend itself fairly well, but no sane person would argue that its government is acting in the best interests of its citizens.

    Mature countries can through diplomatic means go some way towards maintaining their own sovereignty without getting involved in an expensive mickey measuring contest with every country in the region.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,124 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    josip wrote: »
    I don't agree with the maturity angle and that it's the "one" job a government must do.
    North Korea could defend itself fairly well, but no sane person would argue that its government is acting in the best interests of its citizens.

    Mature countries can through diplomatic means go some way towards maintaining their own sovereignty without getting involved in an expensive mickey measuring contest with every country in the region.

    I'm sure Putin would stop flying the bombers in or near our airspace if we asked him nicely and with a bit of Irish charm. It should be a very effective strategy.


  • Options
    #253
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    It's what every mature nation does.... defend itself.... The one job a government must do above all others.

    San Marino says hi.


  • Options
    #254
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,124 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    San Marino says hi.

    How is San Marino relevant in this?


  • Options
    #255
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    josip wrote: »
    I don't agree with the maturity angle and that it's the "one" job a government must do.
    A matter of opinion.

    True, most Irish indeed prefer cradle-to-the-grave government ass wiping.

    Personally, I think a governments first responsibility is to protect the state & protect its citizens.

    Most of what they do thereafter involves taking my money to buy other peoples votes.
    Mature countries can through diplomatic means go some way towards maintaining their own sovereignty without getting involved in an expensive mickey measuring contest with every country in the region.
    Great except its horsesh*t in the real world.

    What has happened repeatedly is:
    - Russian heavy bombers, (nuclear armed btw!), with their transponders switched off are doing test runs into Irish Civil Aviation Authority air space..... Air traffic control frantically divert civilian planes away from the bomber, in the busiest air traffic corridor in the world.

    - Defence minister Coveney diplomatically asks Russian diplomats from doing so again... diplomatically.

    - Russians ignore & repeat.

    Diplomacy comes in many forms.

    Stern letters are its weakest form, garnering zero respect from tyrants who gladly ignore sovereignty.

    You also chose to ignore that Ireland is the only country in Europe (bigger than a large field) that lacks an air force.... As per you, we are therefore the only mature nation?


  • Options
    #256
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    The primary reason we have no military aircraft is that there no votes in military spending. Our parish pump politics ensues that any such monies are otherwise acquired for building a community centre et al


  • Options
    #257
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,704 ✭✭✭✭josip


    I would rather a politician whose focus, for what ever reason, was looking after local people, than bombing the sh1te out of another country's local people.


  • Options
    #258
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,697 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    josip wrote: »
    I would rather a politician whose focus, for what ever reason, was looking after local people, than bombing the sh1te out of another country's local people.

    Can the local people not look after themselves? Why does a politician need to hold their hand?

    Defence (and not aggression) is one of the few roles that State should be responsible for and not left to individual citizens (for obvious reasons).


  • Options
    #259
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    josip wrote: »
    I would rather a politician whose focus, for what ever reason, was looking after local people, than bombing the sh1te out of another country's local people.

    Reducto ab absurdum argument. All we are talking about here is a simple air interception capability to patrol our own skis.


  • Options
    #260
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,704 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Can someone explain how the end result differs between those countries that have airforces that could escort Russian bombers from their controlled airspace, and those that do not (Ireland)?

    Obviously if we were in Russia's sphere of influence we would have to consider things differently. Does anyone seriously think Russia will bomb/invade Ireland?
    And even if they did, who thinks that 12 modern fighters will make any difference against that level of military might? They'd be destroyed on the ground. It would be an undeniable waste of money, a destruction of wealth not seen since the blanket bank guarantee.


  • Options
    #261
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Not really.

    All that is needed is intercept/escort capability.... Just to keep Crazy Ivan at bay (and any other malcontents).....

    Ireland's existing ground to air missiles don't cut the mustard as they don't have the range or altitude.

    A sufficient battery of missiles would cost more than jets would....

    EG: 1 x 'Aster' surface-to-air battery as sold by France costs €430 million....
    Ireland would need 3 of those at least....

    So for escort/intercept duties, the safest & cheapest way is aircraft..... actually shooting down a Russian plane is stupid

    Put down Jane's defence weekly and cop the fcuk on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    josip wrote: »
    Can someone explain how the end result differs between those countries that have airforces that could escort Russian bombers from their controlled airspace, and those that do not (Ireland)?

    Obviously if we were in Russia's sphere of influence we would have to consider things differently. Does anyone seriously think Russia will bomb/invade Ireland?
    And even if they did, who thinks that 12 modern fighters will make any difference against that level of military might? They'd be destroyed on the ground. It would be an undeniable waste of money, a destruction of wealth not seen since the blanket bank guarantee.

    It's not just about going to war with Russia, it's about Ireland being able to stand up and say piss off you, you're not wanted, rather than having to phone David Cameron and ask him to do it for us.

    This could apply to Russian bombers, commercial airlines that have been hijacked, foreign air force's hassling an Irish peace keeping mission or evacuation of civilians from a conflict zone.


  • Options
    #263
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The Irish air corp isn't suddenly going to have the expertise to fly and maintain fast jets. The personnel will need significant training and the best way of getting this is through a partnership with a friendly country.

    It doesn't need to be the UK, but it would be of benefit to the UK because currently there is a requirement to police the skies on its western flank because there is a gap there.

    It also means trainee pilots could catch the ferry home every weekend!

    yeah thats true this would take time it isnt going to happen over night much training would be needed and it would make sense to tie in with another country who could offer their expertise. though we need to think about the jets our pilots would end up flying. other airforces train their pilots something along the lines of starting off in a turbo prop which we have (pc9m) then onto to a small single engine jet. then onto something a little faster and then finally the plane they will be flying. because we havent flown jets before might be a good idea to cut our teeth on something a little less hardcore then say an f 16 or typhoon or whatever. and before any of that for the new jet it would be computer based training then onto a simulator and then into the cockpit. maybe two years training perhaps more. which is why I think if we are doing this we must think long term and put the infrastructure in place here and not just a partnership and bring people in from wherever we source the jets to help get us up and running. pilots are skilled smart dudes if we put the basics in place and enlist the required knowhow we could do this ourselves no problem.
    c_man wrote: »
    Just cos? That's not a good enough reason tbh. It's quite a bit of money that's being bandied about, ye really need to sell it better than that.

    150 million in the grand scheme of things is nothing, to give us an element of control of our skies or at least be in a position to respond check out whats going on . we need an ability to get in the air quickly be quicker in the air and to the required altitude should the situation present itself. currently we rely on somebody else for that we cant do it and we should at a minimum be able to send a pilot up to see whats going on if we feel we have too. thats all nothing more we wont be getting jets to go on the rampage obviously. but we need to be able to send someone up if we feel we have too just to have a look and see whats going on. and we need a proper ground radar too.


  • Options
    #264
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    josip wrote: »
    Can someone explain how the end result differs between those countries that have airforces that could escort Russian bombers from their controlled airspace, and those that do not (Ireland)?

    Obviously if we were in Russia's sphere of influence we would have to consider things differently. Does anyone seriously think Russia will bomb/invade Ireland?
    And even if they did, who thinks that 12 modern fighters will make any difference against that level of military might? They'd be destroyed on the ground. It would be an undeniable waste of money, a destruction of wealth not seen since the blanket bank guarantee.

    Nobody is talking about air superiority, merely an capable intercept/interdiction.


Advertisement