A Role For The Air Corp

BendiBus · 01-05-2006 12:19AM

IrishAirCorps wrote:

the USAF F15E's from LN that tried to intercept a CASA but the CASA kept jamming their Radar so the F15E's could not lock on, true story, ive seen the vid from onboard the CASA in question.

Kinda kills the argument for fighters if they can't even intercept a CASA

Sauron · 01-05-2006 12:22AM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Wow. I'm convinced. Clearly a force of "5 or 6" jet fighters would be more than capable of defending the country against an invasion (by the Mysterons, since none of our European neighbours are going to do it), or against acts of terrorism (as a country with a very large net EXPORT of terrorism, we probably deserve it). Please buy said jet fighters, along with their support equipment, expensive ordinance, feul, large ground crews, and massive outsourced maintenance contract, and sign it off to "T. Taxpayer, Ireland", who clearly has no need for things like schools, hospitals, roads....

Seriously. Tell me:
Who is going to invade us that we need to defend ourselves from;
How the size of the force we are actually able to afford would be effective against the much larger force that would be invading us;
How a larger military would protect us from terrorism - please note if you're an Irishman you should know at this point that military resources don't put off terrorists so don't bother answering this one. Being the largest military force in human history by a very very very long way hasn't helped America in that regard.

Well said; I completely agree. It's time we stopped all this blind 'we need to defend ourselves' crap, and look at the realistic logistics of it all.

DublinWriter · 01-05-2006 01:59AM

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Oh yes go act the fool drunk n pissed, thats so much to be proud of.........Not.

Amazing how 9 out of 10 threads on boards all now degenerate into the above question.

Anyways, if you're in Brussels with half-a-day to spare, go visit the Air Museum. They have a nice little Fougha Magester sitting just outside the cafe. I couldn't get over how small these jets actually are and how tiny the cockpit was. We must have had trained midgets flying them in the Air Corps.

Enclosed are two pics of said plane, of which the Air Corps had 3 of until 1997.

Unlike most UK museums, the Brussels Air-Museum is very Belgian and tactile! You can go up and touch, stroke and feel all of the exhibits, and even get into a few cockpits if you ask nicely.

I used to enjoy twirling the barrells of the gatling gun on the Russian SU heavy transport helicoper (very like a SeaKing), but that's just me.

darkman2 · 01-05-2006 02:32AM

Sauron wrote:

Well said; I completely agree. It's time we stopped all this blind 'we need to defend ourselves' crap, and look at the realistic logistics of it all.

The conclusion of what your saying is were not neutral. Thanks for clarifying that. You cant be neutral if you cant defend your neutrality. No-one is suggesting building a military capable of invasion. What we are saying is we should have the capacity to put up a strong defence against ANY aggressor. I need not remind you Europe or the rest of the world is not impervious to nutcases coming to power. Remember that.

Manic Moran · 01-05-2006 06:05AM

DublinWriter wrote:

Enclosed are two pics of said plane, of which the Air Corps had 3 of until 1997.

http://www.lindenhillimports.com/images/Silver_Swallows_3.jpg

As I start counting... 2/3, 1& 1/3, 2& 1/3... 3.

Not counting the one still in Baldonnel. (It's OK though, they're small enough that each one doesn't count as 'one'). Air Corps had six of them, numbers 215 through 220. Here are all of them together.
http://irishairpics.com/aircorps/gallery/plane_details.php?q=1001030

I used to enjoy twirling the barrells of the gatling gun on the Russian SU heavy transport helicoper (very like a SeaKing), but that's just me.

Pretty much all the Russian choppers are 'Mi's, not 'Su's. There are some Ka's though. The most Sea-King-like is the Mi-14 Haze. http://www.sentry.hangar1.net/foto2002/20020601_ebbs_plnv_mi14pl_1011_hve_mt1.jpg

NTM

Slutmonkey57b · 01-05-2006 09:56AM

darkman2 wrote:

The conclusion of what your saying is were not neutral. Thanks for clarifying that. You cant be neutral if you cant defend your neutrality. No-one is suggesting building a military capable of invasion. What we are saying is we should have the capacity to put up a strong defence against ANY aggressor. I need not remind you Europe or the rest of the world is not impervious to nutcases coming to power. Remember that.

No, the question was posed:
Who is going to invade US?
and
How are 6 planes going to effectively defend the country against "any" aggressor?

Bear in mind that mad dictators all have large armies. Also bear in mind that NATO are not going to allow a mad dictator to invade and take over a soverign EU member on their doorstep, and use it as a base of operations.

Please stop posting random gibberish asking us, the taxpayer, to spend hundreds of millions so your pals in the corps can play with some new toys that in reality are not needed.

Sauron · 01-05-2006 12:53PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

No, the question was posed:
Who is going to invade US?
and
How are 6 planes going to effectively defend the country against "any" aggressor?

Bear in mind that mad dictators all have large armies. Also bear in mind that NATO are not going to allow a mad dictator to invade and take over a soverign EU member on their doorstep, and use it as a base of operations.

Please stop posting random gibberish asking us, the taxpayer, to spend hundreds of millions so your pals in the corps can play with some new toys that in reality are not needed.

thank you :rolleyes: got there first...

darkman wrote:

The conclusion of what your saying is were not neutral. Thanks for clarifying that. You cant be neutral if you cant defend your neutrality.

wtf? How is that what I was saying?

Usually neutral countries would have little or nothing to defend themselves against...

IrishAirCorps · 01-05-2006 02:19PM

Manic Moran wrote:

Why would ground attack aircraft be trying to intercept a Casa?

NTM

They were here for one of the Salthill Airshows and they had a few days to kill before heading back to Lakenheath. BTW just cuz they were "E" models does not mean they are not Air to Air capable. when the F15 was first shown to the public its motto was purely air to air its motto was "not one pound for air to ground" but over the years the need for a multi role Eagle developed her into the E model.

BTW with all this RAF crap going on i remember watching a piece on Sky News about some EF Typhoon jocks bringing a Sky news guy up in one of them and he remarked that its amazing that the RAF are getting these when they have not fought a dogfight in anger since the Falklands, same goes for Germany, Italy, Spain yet what the hell they are getting them, its better to have something you may need one day then to never have it and need it.

Sauron · 01-05-2006 02:50PM

^^

ffs, stop comparing us to other countries... especially those.

England already had a substantial Airforce... They are one of the three main military powers in Europe... They play a vital role in the operations of NATO and the ERRF among other such institutions... They're not simply going to let it disapear...

All the countries you have listed have a history of being involved in major conflicts, most notably WWII. They weren't and aren't militarily neutral. Just because they are getting these typhoon jets does not in any way mean that Ireland needs such a force, nor that we have either the Money, the resources, or the will to get them.

Something we may need one day? I honestly don't think you realise how small the probability is that we in any way would enter into a conflict in which we would need a substantial air force. As was pointed out, it's unlikely that we'd even be able to create a useful one even if we tried. Put simply, it costs money. Money which we are neither able, nor willing to spend.

DublinWriter · 01-05-2006 04:14PM

Manic Moran wrote:

Pretty much all the Russian choppers are 'Mi's, not 'Su's. There are some Ka's though. The most Sea-King-like is the Mi-14 Haze. http://www.sentry.hangar1.net/foto2002/20020601_ebbs_plnv_mi14pl_1011_hve_mt1.jpg

Here's a pic of it. Looks nothing like a Seaking now I think about it. Note the Gatling fitted at the front.

The other pic is the data on the Magester in the museum.

Dr Galen · 01-05-2006 04:17PM

so whats gonna happen when WW3 breaks out and we have to chose sides?
Imagine a Tom Clancy book and factor in our "air-force"

Manic Moran · 01-05-2006 04:43PM

DublinWriter wrote:

Here's a pic of it. Looks nothing like a Seaking now I think about it. Note the Gatling fitted at the front.

Mi-24 Hind D. (The Swatter rails distinguish it from the E)

Legally speaking, in order to enforce neutrality, you need to have at least a nominal capability. You don't need to have the ability to give pain to first-rate militaries, though Sweden and Switzerland certainly do. WWII showed this: The six MTBs that Ireland bought in a rush purchase obviously had no hope of fending off the Royal Navy or even the Kriegsmarine, but they were enough for Ireland to say "Right, we can now enforce neutrality in our waters", which thus resulted in the belligerent countries not having any legal reason to enter Irish waters outside of emergencies.

As it stands, Ireland's airspace is in the same situation now that Ireland's waters were in in 1939. Effectively unpoliced. The difference is that buying and crewing an MTB is a lot easier than buying and crewing a fighter.

Now, in fairness to the Air Corps procurement guys, they seem realise this. What is the PC-9 used for? It's an intermediate trainer used to bring pilots up to speed so that they can fly jet combat aircraft. It's not a ground attack aircraft, if you want a trainer to double in that role, there are quite a few to choose from which can carry a decent warload. The only reason that the PC-9s are in Irish service as opposed to Pucara-esque propellor bombers is that the Air Corps wants to keep its pilots in a position where training for a fast jet takes as little time as possible. So why not just finish the process? Why not half a half-dozen combat aircraft for training purposes so that if WWIII kicks off, and we find ourselves in the middle of it, Ireland at least have trained pilots and mechanics to put into any rush-purchase aircraft without worrying about the time it takes in the interim. These half-dozen would also fulfil the legal enforcement requirement, and can be used for whatever light emergency duties may come about.

NTM

darkman2 · 01-05-2006 05:27PM

Sauron wrote:

thank you :rolleyes: got there first...

wtf? How is that what I was saying?

Usually neutral countries would have little or nothing to defend themselves against...

They have nuetrality to defend or else they are told in no uncertain terms who their allies are. You cannot be neutral if you cant defend your neutrality which we cant therefore we are 'allies' of the US.

darkman2 · 01-05-2006 05:34PM

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

No, the question was posed:
Who is going to invade US?
and
How are 6 planes going to effectively defend the country against "any" aggressor?

Bear in mind that mad dictators all have large armies. Also bear in mind that NATO are not going to allow a mad dictator to invade and take over a soverign EU member on their doorstep, and use it as a base of operations.

Please stop posting random gibberish asking us, the taxpayer, to spend hundreds of millions so your pals in the corps can play with some new toys that in reality are not needed.

The answer to your question is no one at the moment but things change. As I said before the world is not full of milk and honey for anyone. In the real world, not the politically correct world you inhabit the entire world is at risk to varying degrees. In 1937 the world was equally as comfortable as you are now in the knowledge that no way could anyone ever attempt another world war. Human nature is survival of the fittest, that hasnt changed. Only a gullible fool would claim Ireland or any other part of the world is 'safe'. Finland and Switzerland are neutral but no one would question their neutrality because their millitaries pack a substantial punch, not capable of invasion but of defense. They are similar sized countries to Ireland.

IrishAirCorps · 01-05-2006 05:54PM

darkman2 wrote:

Finland and Switzerland are neutral but no one would question their neutrality because their millitaries pack a substantial punch, not capable of invasion but of defense. They are similar sized countries to Ireland.

Thank you again.:D

NTM Sweden which Ireland works with in Kosovo,Liberia, they are Neutral yet posess one of the finest *4th Generation Aircraft ever concieved the Gripen!

*For Joe Public...ha ha 4th Generation=Brand spanking new, the dogs bollox you get the idea by now.

cyrusdvirus · 01-05-2006 05:54PM

first things first, haven't bothered reading the thread so jumping in with feet firmly prepared to end up in my mouth. Air Corps?, imho we do need one. 6 front line fighters should be quite sufficent to fly pretty patterns in the sky, but i think that as a nation, geographically situated where we are, we have a moral obligation to make our SAR capability should be second to none. That means aircraft the equililent of the HH-60 Jayhawk, complete with the in flight refuelling capability demontsrated by the MH-60 Pave Hawk. That involves buying a couple of Herky-birds too as their low speed capability makes them ideal for helicopter in-flight refuelling. At the moment, if there is a ship/sailor in distress off the atlantic coast, and our own Sea King is busy elsewhere, an RAF search and rescue Sea King has to make its way over from the U.K. That shouldn't have to be the case. Anyone remember a good few years back where 2 Super Jolly Green Giants had to preform a mid ocean rescue of some cargo/container (i think) ship? 2 US aircraft, had to fly from whereever they are based in the U.K., with their KC-130's, to rescue people when Ireland was the closer country. Here we are 15 or so years later and the same situation could arise tomorrow. And Ireland has the same capability as back then. to reach for the phone and call in someone who can do the job that we should.

darkman2 · 01-05-2006 06:04PM

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Thank you again.:D

NTM Sweden which Ireland works with in Kosovo,Liberia, they are Neutral yet posess one of the finest *4th Generation Aircraft ever concieved the Gripen!

*For Joe Public...ha ha 4th Generation=Brand spanking new, the dogs bollox you get the idea by now.

NP:D One after another they are being shot down (forgive the pun)

IrishAirCorps · 01-05-2006 06:15PM

gatecrash wrote:

and our own Sea King is busy elsewhere, an RAF search and rescue Sea King has to make its way over from the U.K. That shouldn't have to be the case.

Our own sea King? Wrong.
The Irish Coast Guard Operates Sikorsky S61N SAR Heli's fully equipped for all types of SAR Emergency, while being built by the same company as the "sea King" that does not make them a sea king, secondly the RAF Sea Kings only do ops like that when requested due to fuel capacity as if u bothered to look into the situation you will find that the Air Corps* and CHC Ireland "The S61N Guys" have performed SAR Tasks in the UK when there was no RAF/RN, OR CG Heli's there to do it for them.

Secondly the RAF still do alot of work with the CHC S61N's but in the capacity of "Top Cover" which is provided by the RAF's Nimrods from RAF Kinloss, when they are needed in a hurry otherwise the CASA's do the task.

*Air Corps=when SAR was part of the contract.
Irish Coast Guard operate 7 S61N's AFAIK

Sauron · 01-05-2006 06:26PM

IrishAirCorps wrote:

*For Joe Public...ha ha 4th Generation=Brand spanking new, the dogs bollox you get the idea by now.

For someone who is proposing something which requires a signifigant backing from the general public, you sure like to insult them. As a Mr. Public myself, I don't appreciate the arrogant flaunting of military jargon and it certainly does not increase my respect for either you or your cause.

the fact that you can spout off all these terms does not give you reason to gloat and does not mean that you're automatically right...

They have nuetrality to defend or else they are told in no uncertain terms who their allies are. You cannot be neutral if you cant defend your neutrality which we cant therefore we are 'allies' of the US.

eh, not really... First of all, there are two types of neutrality, as set out by Mr. Eamon Devalera:

Idealogical, and military neutrality.

We are a militarily, but not idealogically neutral country... The fact that we allow US planes to use shannon, means that we are officially, supportive of the US, not militarily, but idealogically... i.e. we don't have any Military forces in Iraq.

We can be neutral simply because we do not have the means to defend ourselves... Or because we simply do not want to be involved in major world conflicts. We are not military allies with the US because we can't defend ourselves... We are idealogical allies for a plethora of different reasons...

RE: Switzerland and Finland,

darkman2 wrote:

Finland and Switzerland are neutral but no one would question their neutrality because their millitaries pack a substantial punch, not capable of invasion but of defense. They are similar sized countries to Ireland.

Ok... if we're going to continue with the unrelated 'other country' references, look at the US and Japan during WWII. Now, I believe that the US had a fairly substantial Military just before the attack on Pearl Harbour... and they weren't involved with the war in Question... yet Japan attacked them... even though they weren't involved... so if a non-neutral country can be attacked... why the hell would a neutral country with a decent military not be attacked? If someone wanted to attack Switzerland or Finland ,(I can't see why), they would do it.

see... I can bring it out of context too... circumstances for different countries are infinitely different based on history, economy, and size...

We have our own reasons for being militarily neutral with limited spending on defence, as other countries have for developing their forces while remaining neutral. Finalnd and Switzerland perhaps have the backing of the public, or the economic ability to spend that money. We are in a compltely different situation

And I still don't see how we could, even if we tried develop an air force that could make any impact on any aggressor.

BendiBus · 01-05-2006 06:34PM

I am of the opinion that in the event of Ireland having to take part in WWIII or whatever, our best and only contribution will be our ground forces. A couple of jet fighters won't make much difference whereas a couple of brigades of top-notch infantrymen might.

Helicopters I can understand as they have great use in peacetime, wartime, civil & military roles, including overseas missions. But fighters? No way.

darkman2 · 01-05-2006 07:06PM

Sauron wrote:

For someone who is proposing something which requires a signifigant backing from the general public, you sure like to insult them. As a Mr. Public myself, I don't appreciate the arrogant flaunting of military jargon and it certainly does not increase my respect for either you or your cause.

the fact that you can spout off all these terms does not give you reason to gloat and does not mean that you're automatically right...

eh, not really... First of all, there are two types of neutrality, as set out by Mr. Eamon Devalera:

Idealogical, and military neutrality.

We are a militarily, but not idealogically neutral country... The fact that we allow US planes to use shannon, means that we are officially, supportive of the US, not militarily, but idealogically... i.e. we don't have any Military forces in Iraq.

We can be neutral simply because we do not have the means to defend ourselves... Or because we simply do not want to be involved in major world conflicts. We are not military allies with the US because we can't defend ourselves... We are idealogical allies for a plethora of different reasons...

RE: Switzerland and Finland,

Ok... if we're going to continue with the unrelated 'other country' references, look at the US and Japan during WWII. Now, I believe that the US had a fairly substantial Military just before the attack on Pearl Harbour... and they weren't involved with the war in Question... yet Japan attacked them... even though they weren't involved... so if a non-neutral country can be attacked... why the hell would a neutral country with a decent military not be attacked? If someone wanted to attack Switzerland or Finland ,(I can't see why), they would do it.

see... I can bring it out of context too... circumstances for different countries are infinitely different based on history, economy, and size...

We have our own reasons for being militarily neutral with limited spending on defence, as other countries have for developing their forces while remaining neutral. Finalnd and Switzerland perhaps have the backing of the public, or the economic ability to spend that money. We are in a compltely different situation

And I still don't see how we could, even if we tried develop an air force that could make any impact on any aggressor.

This is typical 'were only Irish' bullsh*t. We can and should have the means to defend our interets. BTW If you actually knew just how capable Switzerlands defence is youd know its the last place in Europe an aggressor would attack. Now are we not, as Irish ppl deserving of such defensive capabilities or do you suffer the deafeatist syndrome of the 'lets pretend were neutral and get laughed at' brigade

Sauron · 01-05-2006 07:14PM

darkman2 wrote:

This is typical 'were only Irish' bullsh*t. We can and should have the means to defend our interets. BTW If you actually knew just how capable Switzerlands defence is youd know its the last place in Europe an aggressor would attack. Now are we not, as Irish ppl deserving of such defensive capabilities or do you suffer the deafeatist syndrome of the 'lets pretend were neutral and get laughed at' brigade

What? how is it defeatist? who is laughing at us? Is this some macho, overblown inadequacy that you think we should feel? That we need a big airforce to fit in with all the cool countries? We are respected among the european community for the progress we have made of late... and we are used as a model for countries in a similar position we were in before the whole celtic tiger thing...

And I don't believe we can have the means to defend oursleves... any force we could muster could easily be crushed if we were attacked... and that's a collosal 'if'...compared to an aggressor, no matter how much money we poured into it, our force would inevitably defeated...We have allies who could defend us...

Our interests? Ireland's interests are clearly not what your interests are... our interests are not what your interests are... and you can't seem to see that.

This is not 'crap', it's reality...

BendiBus · 01-05-2006 07:47PM

darkman2 wrote:

'lets pretend were neutral and get laughed at' brigade

This preoccupaition with being laughed at says a lot. There's a lot of posters here with 'small willy' syndrome. Nobody's laughing at our defence forces. Grow up.

And a small airforce wouldn't contribute to our defence. In the incredibly unlikely event of Ireland being invaded, the Irish Defence Forces will disappear in small groups to wage a guerilla war. F16s don't figure as it's hard to hide the few thousand feet of runway you need to launch them.

Binomate · 01-05-2006 07:59PM

darkman2 wrote:

Oh and also please dont speak about the air corps like that. We have, and I know, excceptionally capable pilots so try not to insult the nation by suggesting the good ppl that fly in the aer corps are complete imbeciles. Thank you.

I bloody knew this would get taken out of context. They are not untrained, they are untrained in combat. They are not unexperienced, they are unexperienced in combat. That is what I meant, if you read over what I said again it will make more sense with this explained. I'm not trying to insult the Air Corps pilots, just pointing out the obvious.

Binomate · 01-05-2006 08:01PM

Slow coach wrote:

Untrained. Haha. Do you think the guys who fly ministers all over the world and rescue people off the sides of mountains are untrained?

"Stage 2 - This 14 month Stage at Casement Aerodrome consists of basic and advanced flying training. Here Cadets undertake the complete course of instruction necessary to successfully become a military pilot Officer."

http://www.military.ie/careers/cadet_aircorps.htm

Right, and where in that link does it say they are trained for combat?

Manic Moran · 01-05-2006 11:23PM

Sauron wrote:

We are a militarily, but not idealogically neutral country... The fact that we allow US planes to use shannon, means that we are officially, supportive of the US, not militarily, but idealogically... i.e. we don't have any Military forces in Iraq.

Does Ireland have any prohibition on any countries other than the US using Shannon as a refuelling point? If not, then why does the US use indicate that Ireland is not ideologically neutral on the Iraq issue?

NTM

ArphaRima · 02-05-2006 04:34AM

Name a country that we are likely to have to defend ourselves from in the next 50 years. Then state what we would need to be able to mount such a defence. Then tell me if its plausible.

Manic Moran · 02-05-2006 06:48AM

fluffer wrote:

Name a country that we are likely to have to defend ourselves from in the next 50 years. Then state what we would need to be able to mount such a defence. Then tell me if its plausible.

Not the question.

If two countries decide to have a war, say France and England, and Ireland declares neutrality, does Ireland want to be in a position wherein England has the legal right to fly over Irish airspace to ensure that France isn't using it? And vice versa? And thus have ariel combat over Ireland? Because that's the situation as it currently stands since Ireland cannot even nominally enforce the neutrality. You only need a half dozen to a dozen aircraft to do the job, you don't need Swedish/Swiss levels of capability. (Though it would be nice)

NTM

New_Departure06 · 02-05-2006 07:37AM

Consider this: even when we were an economic backwater, we had an army (40 years ago) of around 50,000. Surely then Celtic Tiger Ireland can afford a well-equipped modern army? I value neutrality as much as the next man, but part of neutrality is the ability to defend our neutrality if we are invaded. Some people confuse neutrality with impotence. Being neutral does not mean we have to be defenceless.

There is no Western country facing a realistic prospect of invasion but they have first-class technology and armies of respectable size. Having a capability to defend yourself is nothing to be ashamed of.

Pherekydes · 02-05-2006 08:31AM

Binomate wrote:

Right, and where in that link does it say they are trained for combat?

What part of this do you not understand?

...the complete course...to become a military pilot Officer."

Or what do you understand by "a military pilot Officer."

I can assure you they do aerial combat training.

A Role For The Air Corp

Comments