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

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

1158159161163164193

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Sorry on my phone with shite service. But you aren’t wrong, I mean SFs whole platform is full of empty promises.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,362 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Thats very bad news as it means they are trying to be a normal political party



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Nah, the bad news is that people actually believe them and think some how anything will massively change when they are in power.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,031 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    [MOD]OK, when we start trading barbs over American vs British spellings of words, we've gone a bit too far. I'm locking the thread for 24 hours so that folks can cool down, read this, and have a bit of a think.

    Observations:

    1) Nobody is obliged to respond to posts they disagree with. As long as Delusiondestroyer is being relatively civil, having a minority viewpoint is not an actionable offense. It seems to me that he is not about to change any honestly-held beliefs, no matter what form of logic we try, so we may as well stop. We can draw our own conclusions on his stated position.

    2) This is a military subforum, not a politics one. The political question on the need for an Irish defense capability as a concept has already been made by Ireland's political leadership over the years (even if the execution has not met the policy), debate on that is best held over on Politics or Current Affairs (I believe there are already related threads). Old saws about warfare being a continuation of politics by other means indicate that yes, we do discuss political matters here insofar as they may impinge on defense matters, but they are not to become the dominant topic of discussion. It's time for this thread to take a course correction and return to the concepts of military execution of political policy, as opposed to the determination of that policy.

    3) Violation of '2' is going to be an actionable offense.

    [/MOD]



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    You never know, maybe its finally sunk into the heads of some of the TD's that the world just might be getting a bit more unstable? I mean its a low probability event but maybe?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,759 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    2% of Forecast GDP for 2023 would equate to €10.5 Billion.

    Of course Ireland's GDP is skewed so GNI* is used and even 2% of that would be >€5 Billion per annum.

    And of course our structure has nowhere near the capacity to make use of such a budget and so it's very easy for spoofers like Sinn Féin to deny something that absolutely nobody is suggesting be done.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    True enough, though I don't think anyone would complain if they played the card of refusing 2% but accepting 1% (for example), that's would still be a huge boost. And in relation to SF, wonder what Matt and the Ambassador might have discussed?

    https://twitter.com/vincentguerend/status/1661463104872493057



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,759 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    In other words, no more scutting off the back of the milk float.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    We are well able to fufil our obligations to the EU, you are just over exaggerating our "Obligations" in the first place and the expectations other nations have of Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,759 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    It would have been too much too ask for you to slink off after the lock, I guess.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,894 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    1% would be a serious amount for a country like Ireland. I can’t ever see it happening though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    We have done it before with a hell of a lot smaller economy and population, all thats lacking is will and grown up thinking about the growing instability in the World.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,759 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    The whole fixation on 2%, that began with NATO, is a red herring and a redundant argument from the off.

    It's completely arbitrary and bears no regard to the differing needs and geography of different members.

    I've been a project director in my profession for 15 years and for 10 before that at junior levels and you do not begin a project with 'whatever we do it's got to cost a minimum of 2% of revenues'.

    What should be done, in Ireland as much as anywhere else (and in a general sense the Commission has done it) is to carry out an entire strategic assessment of the Alliance, locally, regionally, globally with allies and determine the gross sizes of the fighting forces and support services in totality to protect everybody's collective interests and then break it down into strengths, capacity, resources etc etc.

    In short, how can Norway and Albania each spending 2% of GDP be comparable contributions?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,894 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    We did? There was a time the country invested heavily in defence?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    Grow up, the threads open to everyone not just people that you agree with and I wasn't even speaking to you, constantly derailing the thread with your nonsense digs, if you don't like what I've to say don't read it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes and No. We spent over 1% on defence during the Troubles, into the 90s it was still above that from memory, the only problem of course being our entire economy was so small that 1% was basically in the hundreds of millions (and the Army got the lions share as you can imagine given the manpower it had then), compared to now when you are talking circa €3 billion, so kind of backs the point that just a figure of gdp in isolation doesn't tell much.

    Thinking about it, given the manpower mobilised in WW2 I'm sure we would likely have been over the 1% as well then, but again you are talking about an economy that barely exists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,894 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    Interesting.

    I read somewhere a while ago that just before the war we actually had an order for a squadron of hurricanes or spitfires? Can’t remember which, begs the question though what if we had gotten them?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    There was multiple options before the war as basically we sent a delegation over to London to ask, they had suggested around 10 squadrons of aircraft of mixed roles, MPA, Light Bomber and Fighter, and from memory the Hurricane was suggested. But that would have required us using the support of the Air Ministry to purchase them so the Gladiator was picked instead but the war interrupted delivery of them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    I thought the AC had a bomber squadron as well?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    They had a few Ansons, but they were at best marginal, at worst obsolete as we bought them, but never enough to be an actual squadron.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    I totally agree with you on how quickly things moved in aviation at that time, generations were measured almost in years really. The Gladiator was in hindsight a mistake Gloster had put forward a monoplane design as well which would have been far better for the RAF and RN but to be fair it’s not the only missed opportunity for the U.K.


    The Anson served on as you said but for us it was always a strange one imo, not really capable as a bomber or endurance for MPA and like everything not enough of them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,751 ✭✭✭saabsaab




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    As I said it was the “step down” we took when it was decided that it wasn’t politically acceptable to work with the Air Ministry to purchase Hurricanes, but deliveries were suspended when the war started and we stayed neutral. Like everything defence related it was far too late by the time Dev and the cabinet actually grasped how bad the situation was in Europe and how likely a war was, simple measures taken a few years beforehand would have left us in a much better position… somethings never change I guess…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,894 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    Amazing to think we actually had an airforce all those years ago.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    As I’ve said before realistically it was barely better than where we are now and never able to manage even control over Casement against anything.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Hand in hand with our limited aircraft there was also the limitations of command and control though (again something don't change), I mean even if we maintained fighters ready to respond, how much lead time would they have had to take off and climb to combat altitude for any interception? With little to no ground guidance even finding any hostile?

    And of course that again is not touching how outclassed the AC would have been, I mean given the small number of fighters and supply issues how much Air to Air training did they even do during the war?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,459 ✭✭✭sparky42


    We had diplomats in the major capitals though, it should have been easy for them to see the rising chances of conflict given the significant upswing in defence spending alone, even if you discount the Appeasement Policies and the fact that our representative in Berlin was a big fan of Hitler. In reality given our connections with the UK it should have been easy to see that "something bad" was increasingly going to happen, and how utterly bare ass naked we were, at the very least after the Treaty Ports were returned a Navy should have been started then (as the Free State put forward in the late 1920's Naval Talks with the UK), I mean I've often wondered with the UK industry ramping up so much so fast from 1936 onwards, why some Irish firms didn't try and get some of the business?

    As for the States, their position was more complex, as was their position on Dev's choice to stay neutral, not sure you can claim they were still backing neutrality until Japan's attack either given their actions in the North Atlantic by then either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer


    And as a result what happened? Absolutely nothing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,362 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    We are so lucky that the below could never happen in Irish Air Space




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    A terrible tragedy....makes you wonder if the USAF were guilty of inappropriate gung ho tactics



Advertisement