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

sparksfly wrote: »

The Russians are flying from point a to point b through international airspace. Like many other air forces they turn transponders on and off for various reasons.
The British love to be seen to be on the ball and be able to "escort" this perceived threat safely away.
The Russian pilots often simply wave at them and carry on unconcerned with no intention of violating their airspace or ours.
Its all a storm in a teacup and another big bad Russian yarn.

and the Norwegians, french and Spanish, obviously. We can also presume that, as they have made complaints to the Russian ambassador, the Irish government also has a problem with it.

maybe then, there is an issue with Russian bombers criss crossing commercial air lanes with no transponders and no logged flight plan?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No.

I am asking what the difference is, in effect.
I presume the Russians would know we have missiles. I am assuming that like any craft that refuses to id or make contact with the ground that they are risking the ground taking action.

not if they are in international air space

pablomakaveli

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Unfortunately for those of us who lived through the troubles Britain's murderous history in Ireland was too true. But then the IRA more than returned the serve didn't they though I'll doubt if you and your buddy's will have a chuckle about that

I'd say your only experience of the Troubles was when your dad smacked you around the head with your history book.:pac:

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'd say your only experience of the Troubles was when your dad smacked you around the head with your history book.:pac:

prinzeugen

re_shaft wrote: »

We should invest in a decent Surface-To-Air missile defence. Then bring down the Russians, Brits or who-ever else acts like a dick in our airspace.

Won't work. Missile will see unidentified target and shoot.

Interceptor aircraft can identify the aircraft and report back. They have value.

Think Helios Airways Flight 522.

Saying that, transponders and lights did not stop a USSR pilot from murdering all aboard Korean flight 007.

Or Russian forces murdering all aboard MH17.

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

So they were a threat to civlians?

No idea, That's why the militarised Irish army helped the Garda. Case in point Garda were not and are not Militarised.

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I brought up the issue of increased militarisation of the police and how scaremongering was driving it and facilitating those who wanted.

In support of that I posted a photo of ASU Gardaí in tactical gear carrying high velocity assault weapons in support of my contention.

You deflected, but did seem concede that the Guards now had capabilities previously the preserve of the military and the defence forces.

You also seem to think the Guards' needs in this regard is absolute, so I pointed to a time when the State faced a much more significant existential threat than ISIS could ever offer, and an unarmed Guard, backed by the DF in their ATCP role, an SAS team - 8 troopers armed with Sterling sub-machine guns, browning HiPowers and Remington pump action shot guns.

You, btw, said the ATCP role of the DF "is specific legislation" - are you going to post that legislation up?

And you suggested the SAS weren't a threat to civilians - I pointed out how at least one civilian casualty had come about through their operations. There were others, but you could argue either way that they were or weren't civilians.

The Army acting on Irish soil in attachment to the police force Is done under specific legislation. If The Garda were militarised they would not have needed the specific help of the army would they.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No idea, That's why the militarised Irish army helped the Garda. Case in point Garda were not and are not Militarised.

Way to miss the point.....

.....if you look back you'll see I was referring to the recent trend of the police militarisation.

The point of relating the tale about the unarmed Guard detaining the SAS team was to show that at a time when the State faced a much greater existential threat, we didn't militarise our police.

Now, the ISIS threat is in no way a threat to existence of the Iridh State.....the threat of an attack is negligible as to non-existent, so, as I said earlier, if you want to be concerned about something , be concerned about the way weak minded, hysterical fools (really just useful idiots) scaremongering over the ISIS bogeyman are playing right into the hands of a security establishment that wants to accumulate and power and resources as an ends in itself, not a means to defend us.

...by all means, continue to spectacularly miss the point.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The Army acting on Irish soil in attachment to the police force Is done under specific legislation. If The Garda were militarised they would not have needed the specific help of the army would they.

Again which legislation? You said ATCP was specific legislation - which legislation? If you don't know it's ok to say.

And again I spoke about the trend of the Guards being militarised. You do understand the concept of a trend?

Btw, seen as you are so knowledgeable on ATCP and the specific legislation - is a DF unit carrying out ATCP attached, as you suggest, or detached (and do you understand the difference)?

bored_stupid

President John F. Kennedy once said .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EuGsu_Y0YA

Jawgap wrote: »

Again which legislation? You said ATCP was specific legislation - which legislation? If you don't know it's ok to say.

And again I spoke about the trend of the Guards being militarised. You do understand the concept of a trend?

Btw, seen as you are so knowledgeable on ATCP and the specific legislation - is a DF unit carrying out ATCP attached, as you suggest, or detached (and do you understand the difference)?

I thought It was self explanatory, No need to get bogged down in point scoring. There is specific legislation. Well unless you can point to the Defence forces being able to operate in Ireland without permission and without letting relevant jurisdictions aware of there movements in civilian areas.

Jawgap wrote: »

Way to miss the point.....

.....if you look back you'll see I was referring to the recent trend of the police militarisation.

The point of relating the tale about the unarmed Guard detaining the SAS team was to show that at a time when the State faced a much greater existential threat, we didn't militarise our police.

Now, the ISIS threat is in no way a threat to existence of the Iridh State.....the threat of an attack is negligible as to non-existent, so, as I said earlier, if you want to be concerned about something , be concerned about the way weak minded, hysterical fools (really just useful idiots) scaremongering over the ISIS bogeyman are playing right into the hands of a security establishment that wants to accumulate and power and resources as an ends in itself, not a means to defend us.

...by all means, continue to spectacularly miss the point.

There has been no militarisation of the Garda, They have been given certain equipment they can use in situations. They just don't walk around when they like brandishing guns or this equipment.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

There has been no militarisation of the Garda, They have been given certain equipment they can use in situations. They just don't walk around when they like brandishing guns or this equipment.

.....and does the fact that they now have 'certain equipment' that was previously the sole preserve of the military, not meet the definition of 'militarisation' in your world?

....and to be clear, they're the good guys so I don't have any fundamental objection to them having the biggest stick in the fight, but to deny that even the Guards have been subject to a degree of militarisation is just simply denying the facts in front of your own eyes.

Btw, any more on the "specific legislation" for ATCP? This must be the third time I've asked - if you don't know just say so.....;) - or just continue to ignore the question.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

not if they are in international air space

So what is the problem?

AndyBoBandy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what is the problem?

Certain countries like waving their willy's at each other

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what is the problem?

would you prefer someone translate in to Irish, as English obviously isn't your first language:rolleyes:

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Certain countries like waving their willy's at each other

True.
The Russians did this for years during the cold war and the Americans and British do it too away from home.

Some people are overly impressed by boys toys. Which is what an expensive air force would be for us, a toy. I see nothing presented here that shows a need.

There simply isn't a need, bar ego, to have one.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

True.
The Russians did this for years during the cold war and the Americans and British do it too away from home.

Some people are overly impressed by boys toys. Which is what an expensive air force would be for us, a toy. I see nothing presented here that shows a need.

There simply isn't a need, bar ego, to have one.

no, there isn't. Mainly because the Royal Air Force do the job.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no, there isn't. Mainly because the Royal Air Force do the job.

Which, as there is an agreement to do it (hence you have to assume it is mutually beneficial) means there is absolutely no need to waste money on this. We buy in services all the time.

Triangle

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Neutrality has been ignored such as Norway in WW2 by the British which only pulled the Norwegians into it to be only invaded by the Germans. However many other countries still maintained their neutrality such as Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal and Ireland of course etc

This is why I love boards so much, people can argue themselves in a circle.

To prove a point that neutrality protects:
You first state that a country has ignored neutrality.
You then pointed out a number of countries that were not invaded, ignoring any reasons why.
Ignored the point that it has happened and neutrality will not protect a country.

You also come across as anti British and I think you're letting your heated emotions rule your thinking. Might be time to take a step back, cool off, and reassess your thinking!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which, as there is an agreement to do it (hence you have to assume it is mutually beneficial) means there is absolutely no need to waste money on this. We buy in services all the time.

you spend money on expensive fighter aircraft and protect our airspace, in return we'll........

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you spend money on expensive fighter aircraft and protect our airspace, in return we'll........

As I said earlier. It clearly suits the British to do this. They have identified it as 'Their' area of interest.
Nobody seems to know what the agreement is, just that there is one. So for now I am going to assume that it suits both sides. Because I was taught that is what an 'agreement' means when I was at school.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you spend money on expensive fighter aircraft and protect our airspace, in return we'll........

I'd guess one of the reasons, though, the Brits are interested in escorting Russian aircraft off that part of our coast is because it's on the exit route from Faslane? And their flight paths cross over the Rockall Trough and Porcupine Abyssal Plain - the reputed patrol stations for the RN (and French) missile boats?

I'm guessing they'd want to know exactly what type of Russian aircraft is operating over that bit of water and what they do when they're there - so it really is about protecting British and NATO's interests.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said earlier. It clearly suits the British to do this. They have identified it as 'Their' area of interest.
Nobody seems to know what the agreement is, just that there is one. So for now I am going to assume that it suits both sides. Because I was taught that is what an 'agreement' means when I was at school.

it is "Their" area of interest, as they can't exactly lay claim to international air space controlled by a foreign country

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd guess one of the reasons, though, the Brits are interested in escorting Russian aircraft off that part of our coast is because it's on the exit route from Faslane? And their flight paths cross over the Rockall Trough and Porcupine Abyssal Plain - the reputed patrol stations for the RN (and French) missile boats?

I'm guessing they'd want to know exactly what type of Russian aircraft is operating over that bit of water and what they do when they're there - so it really is about protecting British and NATO's interests.

it needs to be done and lets face it, the RAF pick these things up from the Norwegians North East of Scotland, escort them to down to somewhere west of Brest and hand them over to the French, wait for them to return from their Spanish holliers and escort them back again.

It isn't really that much of a deal to escort them around Irish controlled air space for a bit and realistically, gives a few biggles types an opportunity to make it in to the newspapers. It probably makes a nice change from scaring sheep whilst doing the mac loop.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is "Their" area of interest, as they can't exactly lay claim to international air space controlled by a foreign country

You have lost me?
There is an 'agreement' between two countries. An 'agreement' indicates that both are happy with the arrangement.
So what is the need for an expensive Irish air force?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have lost me?
There is an 'agreement' between two countries. An 'agreement' indicates that both are happy with the arrangement.
So what is the need for an expensive Irish air force?

There is no need for an Irish Air force, because the British are doing Ireland a favour.

Yes?

Gatling

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no need for an Irish Air force, because the British are doing Ireland a favour.

Yes?

Seems to be a shared consensus among a lot of people ,
Why spend when someone else is doing the job and picking up the tab ,

A bit of a copout really ,we should have an airforce capable of defending our Sovereign airspace and state and an airforce to be proud of ,
Currently 7 PC 9s and a casa Martine patrol aircraft isn't a lot to sing about compared to countries with similar sized population and GDPs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no need for an Irish Air force, because the British are doing Ireland a favour.

Yes?

You have to show how they are doing us a favour.

We haven't been threatened by anyone so you would have to prove we have need for an expensive air force regardless of what the British take on themselves to do in their own interests.
We can assume that both countries are happy with the 'agreement' and that they want to do what they are doing. If they were not then one side would be complaining.