maryishere wrote: » According to the link, The IRA hate the British. No surprise there. Visit any pub in a Republican area when England are playing and hear the comments.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Who Hates us Mary?
maryishere wrote: » But an agreement should not be so one sided that one side is providing a service and the other side is not paying for it? The agreement may be from the days when the UK and IMF bailed us out, but now the country is more prosperous again, surely its only manners we should offer to pay towards the service, or else do it ourselves? Think of some of the comments people are currently making, the taxpayers in the UK who are paying for the monitoring and defence of Irish airspace: 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/
maryishere wrote: » But an agreement should not be so one sided that one side is providing a service and the other side is not paying for it? The agreement may be from the days when the UK and IMF bailed us out, but now the country is more prosperous again, surely its only manners we should offer to pay towards the service, or else do it ourselves? Think of some of the comments people are currently making, the taxpayers in the UK who are paying for the monitoring and defence of Irish airspace: 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/
Noddyholder wrote: » The Irish Government has often used the excuse that since we are such a small country we can’t afford to spend money equipping our air corps with jets. Yet figures show that other countries with similar or smaller GPD per head can afford them. Ireland has a GDP/per head of €42,547. By comparison, Finland, which is not in Nato, has a population slightly ahead of ours at 5.5m and a GPD/per head of €35,742. It has 127 jet fighters. We have none. Austria, which is also not a Nato member, has a population of 8.6m, a GDP of €33,900 per head, and 15 jet fighters. Countries which are Nato members have the following number of fighters: Belgium (57) Denmark (47), Norway (57), and Portugal (30). Countries of comparable population and national income to Ireland have an average of 8.6 combat aircraft per million population. The Government doesn’t have to buy Typhoons like the ones scrambled by the British to intercept the Russian bombers to be effective, especially as they cost over €70m each. Jets are available much cheaper. If the Government wants to penny-pinch, it could buy the Czech-made Aero L159 or ex-Korean AF BAE Hawks. The L159 is a subsonic aircraft with similar speed to an airliner, but, critically, it can go much higher than commercial aircraft, is faster than the Russian TU95, and has an integrated radar. If we wanted something a bit more prestigious, the KAIT50-Golden Eagle fighters could be picked up for €20m each. However, it’s estimated in some military circles that an €80m investment in the air corps would be sufficient to provide the force with proper jets and radar defence capabilities. For this, it could get six jets, all auxiliary equipment, support services, armaments, and proper ground radar capabilities. Generally an air defence aircraft (interceptor fighter) should be capable of operating at high speeds and altitudes, and be equipped with suitable air-to-air weapons and sensors (radar, etc) to guide the interceptor onto its target. Apart from the navy, Defence Forces currently rely on an archaic military radar system which has a range of 74km, while Irish Aviation Authority radar for tracking commercial aircraft has a range of 130km. Sources within the aviation industry say it’s common for military aircraft to enter Irish-controlled airspace. When such situations occur, aircraft usually switch off their transponders, as the Russian Bear bombers did as they tried to evade the British fighters. They are unidentifiable on the radar screens, just emitting squawks, which show their direction and flight level. “We should be looking at operational aircraft, because if we don’t we will be completely dependable on the British and Nato for air defence. We have very much out-of-date equipment because governments have eroded the Defence Forces,” Dr Clonan said. “It’s very strange that we have no proper combat aircraft and the lack of them represents a training deficit for air corps pilots as well,” he said. Taken from article in cork examiner cant post link.
FrancieBrady wrote: » An agreement is something neither side is forced to enter unless they want to.
maryishere wrote: » So out teeshock has gone on his hands and knees and begged that British Tornado fighter jets will shoot down aircrafts in Irish airspace if they are hijacked by terrorists for a 9/11-style attack....but you say
maryishere wrote: » Accordin to the Healy Raes that is still top secret. Do not forget that as a result of our army deafness claims (about 16,500 claims were made, resulting in payouts totalling about €300m), our pilots would be wearing ear defenders. Not consider the g-forces ion modern fighter planes.http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-pilots-survive-inhuman-levels-of-g-force-2014-11?r=US&IR=T With the added weight of eardefenders on our poor pilots heads, are you really willing to test our young men as guinea pigs, especially when statistics indicate our necks are more prone to injury than other races? Quote: "“In France and Germany, the normal award for whiplash is between €2,000 and €3,000 and the legal fees are in the hundreds. In Ireland, the average award for whiplash is €15,000. So we have the most expensive necks in Europe. Ironically, in the UK, the average payout for whiplash is £5,000 and they dub themselves as the whiplash capital of Europe.”http://www.irishtimes.com/business/f...iums-1.2548667
FrancieBrady wrote: » They are lucky we aren't hostile.
maryishere wrote: » Accordin to the Healy Raes that is still top secret. Do not forget that as a result of our army deafness claims (about 16,500 claims were made, resulting in payouts totalling about €300m), our pilots would be wearing ear defenders. Not consider the g-forces ion modern fighter planes.http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-pilots-survive-inhuman-levels-of-g-force-2014-11?r=US&IR=T With the added weight of eardefenders on our poor pilots heads, are you really willing to test our young men as guinea pigs, especially when statistics indicate our necks are more prone to injury than other races?
AndyBoBandy wrote: » Geographically, we are too close to them for them to not defend us/our airspace
maryishere wrote: » "mutually advantageous"....that their taxpayers pay for the defence of our airspace?
bear1 wrote: » What new military airport is this?
bear1 wrote: » Stop banging on about g forces, do you honestly not think the pilots would be trained and tested for this?
FrancieBrady wrote: » , seems a mutually advantageous agreement.
maryishere wrote: » Nobody will phone SF when a foreign state threatens us. What would they do, send the 21st century equivalent of Sean Russell? Naw, don't worry Francie, our government have arranged that British Tornado fighter jets will shoot down aircrafts in Irish airspace if they are hijacked by terrorists for a 9/11-style attack.
maryishere wrote: » The Healy Raes are getting a new military airport built in their constituency, and as they are plant hire contractors are going to help build it as well. So there is hope.;)http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/healyrae-plant-hire-nets-275k-34502626.htmlhttp://www.irishexaminer.com/election2016/election2016-news-and-analysis/danny-healy-rae-company-highest-paid-for-works-by-council-383865.html One of them was on the radio recently sayin' that when it was built they would at get get a F14 if not a F15, so it would not be a total waste of money. It would have no effect on de environment as dere is no such ting as global warming.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Get back to me, when a foreign state actually threatens us.
maryishere wrote: » Thanks to the like of the UK who defended us and stood up to Hitler. The likes of Denmark and Norway were neutral but were invaded by Hitler, and some of their citizens ( gays, gyspies, homosexuals, communists) were sent to extermination camps etc. Nato is effectively defending us against the Soviets, but the main threat to our airspace would not be a Russian invasion but an odd hijacked plane, not unlike the airline attact on the Pentagon on 9/11. If I was ISIS, I would consider hitting an American target in Europe which was not defended. When the UK leaves the EU, I wonder how the EU will tolerate a member state which is defended by a non-EU member?
FrancieBrady wrote: » We have managed to survive attack in two world wars
FrancieBrady wrote: » I understand there are those who like all the boys toys aspect, but we have other priorities. Defence against an 'impending' invasion of the Rooskies is a bit of a stretch really.
maryishere wrote: » But you have condoned terrorist actions in the past ...yet you think countries should not try to defend themselves against terrorists?
maryishere wrote: » *Jet take-off (at 25 meters) is 150 decibels which will usually cause eardrum rupture (without ear protection).http://charlesmccain.com/2015/11/easy-to-go-deaf-on-a-us-navy-aircraft-carrier/ I think ear defenders only reduce noise by 30 db, but I'm open to correction on that. Would our Irish pilots necks be able to withstand 8g forces though? o “In France and Germany, the normal award for whiplash is between €2,000 and €3,000 and the legal fees are in the hundreds. In Ireland, the average award for whiplash is €15,000. So we have the most expensive necks in Europe. Ironically, in the UK, the average payout for whiplash is £5,000 and they dub themselves as the whiplash capital of Europe.”http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/aig-urges-ban-on-whiplash-claims-to-cut-premiums-1.2548667
FrancieBrady wrote: » One of the biggest, most funded air forces in the history of the planet was useless the last time they did that. Better to live peacefully in the world methinks.
FrancieBrady wrote: » One would assume the Russian pilot doesn't want to tangle with a commercial jet either. Have there been any reported near misses? Self righteousness? Isn't that the very thing in that allows the British to 'police' the immoral world. The very thing that has the Russians trolling them?
maryishere wrote: » If a gang of ISIS hijacked a passenger plane and was heading towards the Kremlin, I think they would be told to tangle soon enough.
maryishere wrote: » Would our Irish pilots necks be able to withstand 8g forces though?
FrancieBrady wrote: » One would assume the Russian pilot doesn't want to tangle with a commercial jet either.
