Who asked the British to 'protect' our airspace from the Russians or anyone else ?

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Financially also!

There are those in the UK who say ( and I quote):
"Latvia, Lithuania etc are members of NATO, and contribute financially and materially to the common defence of the NATO alliance, Ireland does not, they are effectively freeloading off the UK taxpayer whose labour helps to fund the RAF they are apparently relying on to defend their skies."

"Instead of allowing the Irish to ponce off our resources, we should offer them some kind of deal to sell surplus Eurofighters or even armed BAe Hawk aircraft so that they can do the job themselves, if not, they ought to pay a contribution to cover the costs of any UK military assets they want to defend them."

"I would agree if they agreed to pull their weight, but I dislike the idea of Britain and its people being taken advantage of, especially by a country whose national identity is in large part defined by its historical antipathy towards HM Armed Forces."

"Ireland’s GDP per capita is higher than that of the UK. Sure they could afford to defend themselves properly if the political will was there, they just can’t be arsed, especially when they’ve got someone else next door who is willing to do it for them, even though the average income of those paying for it is considerably less ($55,000 vs $41,000 per capita)."

"They hate us. Apparently. They hate the British. They don’t want to be a part of the UK. They have encouraged and supported terrorist attacks against mainland Britain in the past. Now our armed forces. The same armed forces they have murdered in an attempt to get the “Brits out” are now expected to assist in their defence? Spitting feathers doesn’t even come close!"
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-air-force-asked-defend-ireland/

AndyBoBandy

I'd say they've paid back about 40/50 years of their 800 year debt so......

Just reading the comments of that link just shows how it must annoys the British.
Raises a good point though, is the government billed for any of this?
I'd imagine if we call them for help then by rights the country should be paying.

AndyBoBandy

The thing is, though they might fly in our airspace, let's not be fooled into thinking they are protecting anything other than themselves.

So if a bill ever did arrive, it should be immediately sent back with a note saying "thanks but no thanks"

Noddyholder

Here is scenario

–
Rogue jet over Rep of Ireland
–
RAF – Let’s leave that alone because the Rep of Ireland don’t contribute to our budget haha
–
10 minutes later the jet is no longer over say, Cork or Dublin, but Liverpool, Cardiff or Manchester and it is rather to late.

So like, basic strategic sense ?

.243

Would Britain not think that we might have invited the Russians over for tea and scones

FrancieBrady

Noddyholder wrote: »

Here is scenario

–
Rogue jet over Rep of Ireland
–
RAF – Let’s leave that alone because the Rep of Ireland don’t contribute to our budget haha
–
10 minutes later the jet is no longer over say, Cork or Dublin, but Liverpool, Cardiff or Manchester and it is rather to late.

So like, basic strategic sense ?

Yes, the British have identified an 'area of interest to them' for that reason.

Fair enough as far as I am concerned. The Russians are no threat to us. But I respect Britain's right to protect themselves. Just don't ask me to pay for it as well.
If we were a belligerent threat to others around the world then I would want an air force.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If we were a belligerent threat to others around the world then I would want an air force.

If Isis were going to hijack a plane and fly it it to a target I imagine it would make no difference to them if it was a few US military planes parked at Shannon, or a European base of Intel, Microsoft or Google. We are all infidels.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, the British have identified an 'area of interest to them' for that reason.

Fair enough as far as I am concerned. The Russians are no threat to us. But I respect Britain's right to protect themselves. Just don't ask me to pay for it as well.
If we were a belligerent threat to others around the world then I would want an air force.

no one's asking you to pay for it.

The Russians pose a threat by flying in civilian airlanes without transponders on. It is a hazard to commercial flights.

All the RAF are doing, is what Ireland should be doing themselves, but don't have the ability because of self righteous pricks who like to harp on about this imaginary neutrality.

pablomakaveli

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no one's asking you to pay for it.

The Russians pose a threat by flying in civilian airlanes without transponders on. It is a hazard to commercial flights.

All the RAF are doing, is what Ireland should be doing themselves, but don't have the ability because of self righteous pricks who like to harp on about this imaginary neutrality.

I find the people who dislike having the RAF in our airspace are also the ones who'd be the first to moan if Ireland invested the money in aircraft so we could do it ourselves. If we want to be a truly neutral nation we need to have the capability to defend that neutrality and thats the simple conclusion to the whole argument. The Swiss realize this. So do the Swedish. Ireland however just wants the "have our cake and eat it" situationwe have now.

At the moment we're completely reliant on the goodwill of others to respect our neutrality and as long as thats the case there's no point moaning when someone does intrude on our airspace or territorial waters.

Barry Badrinath

If we were to raise the defence budget (currently €922 million) in order to buy, maintain and train a fleet of fighter / attack or multirole aircraft....the general public would go batsh1t crazy.

Realistically, Ireland dont NEED this equipment. It would be great to have the money to do it but we dont.

We dont even have a proper squadron of troop carrying helicopters.

We need money for healthcare (€14.6 Billion) and for social welfare (€19.85 Billion).

Even if were to accept the equipment for free or on lease. The cost of maintaining and training is not justifiable according to our needs.

Fratton Fred

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

If we were to raise the defence budget (currently €922 million) in order to buy, maintain and train a fleet of fighter / attack or multirole aircraft....the general public would go batsh1t crazy.

Realistically, Ireland dont NEED this equipment. It would be great to have the money to do it but we dont.

We dont even have a proper squadron of troop carrying helicopters.

We need money for healthcare (€14.6 Billion) and for social welfare (€19.85 Billion).

Even if were to accept the equipment for free or on lease. The cost of maintaining and training is not justifiable according to our needs.

I've said before, what I think Ireland should do, is come to some sort of agreement with the RAF, where the RAF lend four Typhoons to the Air Corp and train pilots and ground crew.

This would give Irish defence forces additional skills (and make the PC-9s useful), fill in a gap in the airspace over these islands and further increase the cooperation between the two countries.

It isn't going to happen though, because the vocal loony minority in this country have far too much sway.

Jawgap

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

If we were to raise the defence budget (currently €922 million) in order to buy, maintain and train a fleet of fighter / attack or multirole aircraft....the general public would go batsh1t crazy.

Realistically, Ireland dont NEED this equipment. It would be great to have the money to do it but we dont.

We dont even have a proper squadron of troop carrying helicopters.

We need money for healthcare (€14.6 Billion) and for social welfare (€19.85 Billion).

Even if were to accept the equipment for free or on lease. The cost of maintaining and training is not justifiable according to our needs.

A few more helis (and some a bit bigger) and a beefed up maritime patrol capability would be a better investment - if a few shekels were thrown into the defence budget.

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

If we were to raise the defence budget (currently €922 million) in order to buy, maintain and train a fleet of fighter / attack or multirole aircraft....the general public would go batsh1t crazy.

Realistically speaking the defense budget only works out around half of what's quoted after we take wages and pensions which I believe come close to 500 million per year ,
400 million to fund an Aircorp ,army ,naval service and reserve's is a pittance really ,

What we spend on overseas aid , housing asylum seekers and their legal fees adds up to more than we spend on our own defense budget

And that's before we look at the 40bn going on health and welfare

Barry Badrinath

Jawgap wrote: »

A few more helis (and some a bit bigger) and a beefed up maritime patrol capability would be a better investment - if a few shekels were thrown into the defence budget.

100% agree, thats something that is attainable and realistic. There is also a tangible need for it.

Harry Palmr

Denmark runs an F16 jet - just the one mind you. New Zealand have no combat aircraft then again unless Australia declare war there is no one to warn off.

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

100% agree, thats something that is attainable and realistic. There is also a tangible need for it.

We have a company in Cork producing high-speed civilian and military vessels which would suit the naval service perfectly

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Denmark runs an F16 jet - just the one mind you. New Zealand have no combat aircraft then again unless Australia declare war there is no one to warn off.

Actually Danes have around 40 F16s 33 flying and the rest make up trainer's

Jawgap

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

100% agree, thats something that is attainable and realistic. There is also a tangible need for it.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Denmark runs an F16 jet - just the one mind you. New Zealand have no combat aircraft then again unless Australia declare war there is no one to warn off.

The Kiwis a few years ago made the decision to get rid of their fast jets and focus on maritime patrol - from a security, geographic and an economic perspective they are not that different to us (except for them being signed up to ANZUS) so they wouldn't be the worst model to follow.

And even at that we don't, really, need an anti-submarine capability (like they are putting on their MPAs) but we could benefit from having aircraft with longer legs - not only could they range further when patrolling our waters they could be used to better support UN operations when we supply a contingent.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

New Zealand have no combat aircraft then again unless Australia declare war there is no one to warn off.

I suppose they freeload off the Australians a bit like we freeload off the British.

Used harriers have price tags of around 1.5 million dollars. Googled it.
So let's think about that, say you 10 used harriers at 1.5 mill a pop that gives us 15 million dollars.
Then add the ammo and maintenance.. honestly we have the money for them.
We don't need fancy ass planes and the harrier is a versatile and more than capable fighter.

Harry Palmr

Gatling wrote: »

Actually Danes have around 40 F16s 33 flying and the rest make up trainer's

Indeed, dunno what the hell I thought I was reading, 33 seems rather a lot even if they are in NATO.

bear1 wrote: »

Used harriers have price tags of around 1.5 million dollars. Googled it.
So let's think about that, say you 10 used harriers at 1.5 mill a pop that gives us 15 million dollars.
Then add the ammo and maintenance.. honestly we have the money for them.
We don't need fancy ass planes and the harrier is a versatile and more than capable fighter.

Who would we get to fly them though? If tens of thousands of our soldiers sue for deafness...and then dem terrible g-forces, that would surely cause whiplash. No need for fighters, they are too dangerous, sure who would attack us anyway.

kravmaga

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Seen an article today in the Indo. Now being the Indo you have to take any security or crime reports with a pinch of salt as it's quotes as usual from anonymous 'sources'. But if true it occurred to me - who ever asked the Brits to mind our air space ? Is it up to them if say, a French or Swedish or American or Russian fighter plane were in our air space ? Or is it just the Indo been the Indo

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/royal-air-force-jets-scramble-to-intercept-russian-bombers-circling-uk-and-ireland-35437672.html

Because we don't have an Air Force and cannot protect our airspace so its obvious that we called on our neighbours once the Russian TU95 or Bomber was detected off the West coast of Ireland by Shannon air traffic control.

We are not in NATO and this is not the 1st time Russian aircraft have flow off the coast of Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army_deafness_claims

maryishere wrote: »

Who would we get to fly them though? If tens of thousands of our soldiers sue for deafness...and then dem terrible g-forces, that would surely cause whiplash. No need for fighters, they are too dangerous, sure who would attack us anyway.

Ehhh pilots?
Why would they sue for deafness? I don't understand the reasoning of your post especially as I'd say you'd struggle to find a link between a harrier and deafness..
Dangerous to who?
It's this type of attitude that keeps our defences in a piss poor position.

Jawgap

bear1 wrote: »

Used harriers have price tags of around 1.5 million dollars. Googled it.
So let's think about that, say you 10 used harriers at 1.5 mill a pop that gives us 15 million dollars.
Then add the ammo and maintenance.. honestly we have the money for them.
We don't need fancy ass planes and the harrier is a versatile and more than capable fighter.

The cruising speed of the Russian Blackjacks is about the same as the maximum speed of the Harrier.....

......leaving aside issues around maintenance, operational cost etc - we'd look like right gombeens sending up Harriers - the Russians would just hit the afterburners, and laugh their way home!

Bit like the time the French sent up Mirages to intercept an SR-71. Story goes they pulled up along side it and were ordering it to land (it was taking a short cut across France from the Med because of a fuel issue) - the pilot did a 'Goose,' flipped them the finger, advanced the throttles and climbed.

Harry Palmr

bear1 wrote: »

Ehhh pilots?
Why would they sue for deafness? I don't understand the reasoning of your post especially as I'd say you'd struggle to find a link between a harrier and deafness..
Dangerous to who?
It's this type of attitude that keeps our defences in a piss poor position.

Maybe you are too young to remember!

kravmaga wrote: »

We are not in NATO and this is not the 1st time Russian aircraft have flow off the coast of Ireland.

We're actually part of the NATO partnership for peace program