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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Government considering purchase of military jet aircraft

  • 02-07-2020 2:34pm
    #1
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭


    Popped up on my phones news feed yesterday

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-considering-purchase-of-military-jet-aircraft-1.4289801

    The government is "considering" spening €1B on fighters (16 jets, and the supporting infrastructure)

    Cons:
    I think it's a lot of bread to be talking about considering we've just had the worst economic hit in years.

    I think spending money on weapons and weapons development is awful, (spending huge amounts of money on things designed to kill people)

    Once you buy them you're also locked in to upgrading them in 10 years time.

    Also the Navy have ships that they cannot crew because the wages in the armed forces are appalling.
    One squad could require up to 500 people... Where are these people going to come from?

    Pros:
    We would no longer depend on the UK to protect our own airspace.

    Previously I have thought to myself "Ireland will NEVER be involved in a serious war, it's impossible"
    However I also thought that something like Covid-19 that shut down the world would be even more impossible, but here we are.
    Who knows what way the world will be in 10/15 years time.

    16 fighters wouldn't last very long against the US, Russia, China or India for example, however if every EU country bore some of the military expense, the EU as a whole could effectively defend itself against US, Russia, China or India if it ever had to.
    At the moment we're mostly dependent on UK, Italy, Germany and France.

    Reality:
    No politician is going to go for this, fighter planes aren't going to win votes. Interestingly though, Russian Bombers over the capital would be a very good way to lose votes. If the UK ever decide to stop defending us (Cough Brexit Cough..) we could see unwelcome aircraft in our skys.

    Also like everything else in Ireland, Nepotism would have a very negative factor on pilot selection. There is no point on spending billions on fighter planes only to put some millionaires offspring with average or below average intelligence/skill in the cockpit.

    The government would most certainly fubar the purchase as well and NCH the sh!t out of any such acquisition. Significant cost overruns would be guaranteed.

    Interesting times all the same though :rolleyes:


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    They'd be primarily used for dropping TDs home every weekend around the country I'd imagine!!!


  • #3
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    UK defending us from who? Who exactly are we at risk from? Who are we planning to defend ourselves against? It's a complete waste of money.


  • #4
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    If the UK stop supporting us I think we should try and get involved with some other European countries in some kind of Union, so they might help us in the unlikely event of an attack.


  • #5
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Put the money into the naval service first


  • #6
    RonanG86
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 774 ✭✭✭RonanG86


    Not a hope of this happening.

    16 jet fighters with 3 crews each? Where would the money, the training apparatus and the pilots come from? As you say yourself, fighter jets don't win votes. We have 8 PC-9s at current, and given the state of our Army and Navy, if I found out that more than 4 of them were actually airborne at any one time, I'd be surprised. I'd say the last time Ireland had 16 combat capable aircraft was in World War 2.

    If the British withdrew air protection and Russians freely flying around our airspace became a political problem, I think the most likely solution we'd come up with is bunging the French, Swedes or Norweigans some money to take over. Possibly even occasionally station a fighter or two here as a token deterrent.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    UK defending us from who? Who exactly are we at risk from? Who are we planning to defend ourselves against? It's a complete waste of money.

    https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0318/1123836-russian-military-aircraft-bombers-ireland/

    Key points:
    - Russian bombers regularly enter Irish controlled airspace (but not our sovereign airspace) without permission. They are probing and attempting to sow discord within the EU: Why can Ireland not defend itself, why do we have to defend Ireland
    - There is a deal between the UK and Ireland on allowing UK fighters to fly over Ireland (Neither the Public nor the Irish Armed forces know the specifics of the deal, sounds dodge off the bat)
    - We are not part of a military alliance. These bombers are mostly probing NATO, not Ireland. We just happen to be one of the "gaps" they're probing.
    - There are far higher security threats to Ireland than Russians probing our airspace

    RonanG86 wrote: »
    If the British withdrew air protection and Russians freely flying around our airspace became a political problem, I think the most likely solution we'd come up with is bunging the French, Swedes or Norweigans some money to take over. Possibly even occasionally station a fighter or two here as a token deterrent.

    There would need to be a referendum on that. we're a neutral state.


  • #8
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,897 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    We should have adequate air defence capability for our airspace.

    We have Russian bombers routinely flying down our west coast because we are a weak link. We can't rely on other countries for such basic capability.

    It costs other countries a lot of money for excursions they have to do because we can't be arsed.

    Maybe the government have rightly been told that bills will be sent from now on.

    I support the idea. It's about time. We shouldn't need the Brits or anyone else to be patrolling around our airspace.


  • #9
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,341 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    There's a big ongoing thread on this in the military forum:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?t=2057828882

    I believe the consensus is that they're too expensive to buy, fly and maintain given that whatever we buy will be immediately outclassed by any aggressor nation (Russia being the main one).


  • #10
    Fred Cryton
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    There's a big ongoing thread on this in the military forum:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?t=2057828882

    I believe the consensus is that they're too expensive to buy, fly and maintain given that whatever we buy will be immediately outclassed by any aggressor nation (Russia being the main one).


    Which is a ridiculous conclusion to come to. As a Sovereign nation we should be defending ourselves in a grown up way. It's very Irish to say "ah we'd lose anyway"...doesn't matter shouldn't we have pride in defending our sovereign airspace! What makes us different to a Norway or Denmark or Greece or Portugal - all small nations with fighter jets.


  • #11
    MarkR
    Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 11,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭MarkR


    Suppose the main thing isn't the cost, it's the effectiveness. Is a jet the best way to protect airspace? I have no idea. Same as any business case really. What is the best option, and then, what can we afford. We're not going to be able to defend against the US or the Russians, but maybe it could stop a terrorist attack.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Put the money into the naval service first

    Or space-force!


  • #13
    Feisar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,698 ✭✭✭Feisar


    Fred Cryton wrote: »
    Which is a ridiculous conclusion to come to. As a Sovereign nation we should be defending ourselves in a grown up way. It's very Irish to say "ah we'd lose anyway"...doesn't matter shouldn't we have pride in defending our sovereign airspace! What makes us different to a Norway or Denmark or Greece or Portugal - all small nations with fighter jets.

    Agreed on the comparison to smaller nations. Serbia for example has a GDP an eight of ours and they have jets. I don't know how operationally ready they are but they have them. For some reason we are punching well below our weight. I'd say there is a mix of historical, geographical and cultural reasons.

    Plus €1B is a lot of pride! To quote Marsellus Wallace; "that's pride ****ing with you. **** pride. Pride only hurts, it never helps."

    First they came for the socialists...



  • #14
    Beta Ray Bill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    MarkR wrote: »
    Suppose the main thing isn't the cost, it's the effectiveness. Is a jet the best way to protect airspace? I have no idea. Same as any business case really. What is the best option, and then, what can we afford. We're not going to be able to defend against the US or the Russians, but maybe it could stop a terrorist attack.

    It would be effective, but the costs are very high, armies are not cheap

    But like a previous poster said mostly wealthy EU states have some degree of Air cover.

    The only exceptions are:
    Hungary
    Lithuania
    Estonia
    Cyprus (Has attack choppers)
    Luxembourg
    Slovenia
    Latvia
    Croatia (In the process of purchasing fighters)

    Croatia is interesting, they have similar enough sized population to Ireland they are buying fighters, despite their GDP being half of what ours is.

    In terms of our effectiveness in fighting off an attack from someone like Russia, we'd be supported by other EU countries, likewise, we should support our friends in the EU... we currently cannot do that in terms of Air Support


  • #15
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,087 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    I know nothing about military stuff, so forgive the question.

    If we did have to defend our airspace (and I'm not sure we do), would it not be better to spend the money on anti-aircraft missiles than fighter jets, and some drones for patrolling if necessary?


  • #16
    Varik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,552 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Waste of money.

    Even if they got something it'd be useless, probably the same as a security guards following someone around when they know they can't do ****.


  • #17
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,087 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Israel managed to destroy the air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria (450 aircraft, plus their airstrips) in about 4 hours in 1967, using only about 190 of their own jets. (Operation Focus)

    Could Russia or whoever not do the same to 16 jets on one small island with minimum effort?


  • #18
    touts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,536 ✭✭✭touts


    What's the point. We've nothing worth spying on from the air and anyway it's all done via the internet or satellites these days. If someone did decide to attack us 16 planes will make **** all difference unless it's a surprise attack by the Faro Islands.

    Far from spending more money on the army and air corps we should shut those two functions down. Fold the specialist services like the Rangers, bomb disposal and intelligence service into the Gardai and the Aircorps into a new Coast Guard along with the Navy. Get rid of the rest. A properly funded Coast Guard & Police force is what we need not this hodge podge of lads playing at being soldiers.


  • #19
    Padre_Pio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,341 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Beta Ray Bill wrote: »
    It would be effective, but the costs are very high, armies are not cheap

    But like a previous poster said mostly wealthy EU states have some degree of Air cover.

    The only exceptions are:
    Hungary
    Lithuania
    Estonia
    Cyprus (Has attack choppers)
    Luxembourg
    Slovenia
    Latvia
    Croatia (In the process of purchasing fighters)

    Croatia is interesting, they have similar enough sized population to Ireland they are buying fighters, despite their GDP being half of what ours is.

    In terms of our effectiveness in fighting off an attack from someone like Russia, we'd be supported by other EU countries, likewise, we should support our friends in the EU... we currently cannot do that in terms of Air Support

    It's not really a fair comparison.

    Saying "country X spends this much more on jets, why shouldn't we?".
    Well if country X spends this much less on health, education and wages then maybe we should slash ours to match.


  • #20
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    RAF Valley is 12 minutes away by fighter jet throw them a few quid for petrol if anything happens


  • #21
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    Gregor Samsa wrote: »
    I know nothing about military stuff, so forgive the question.

    If we did have to defend our airspace (and I'm not sure we do), would it not be better to spend the money on anti-aircraft missiles than fighter jets, and some drones for patrolling if necessary?

    This video makes the case that in the future warfare will be dominated by satellites and missiles.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,087 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    2u2me wrote: »
    This video makes the case that in the future warfare will be dominated by satellites and missiles.

    Why is it hosted by a poorly made puppet? :confused:


  • #23
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    They'd be primarily used for dropping TDs home every weekend around the country I'd imagine!!!

    With the way things are going maybe Martin would use them to launch surgical strikes against the various pi**ed off members.
    At the rate he is going he would definitely need 16 in the air at the one time.

    I checked the date to make sure it wasn't April 1st again. :eek:

    Lads this is pure shyte.
    And the fact that the Irish Times have now reached a new low writing articles about it shows how far gone that publication is nowadays.

    Even in the best of times we couldn't afford them.
    Not alone do they cost a lot to buy, you have to maintain them and that costs a lot of money.
    Then you have to train the pilots and the ground crews and that costs a lot of money.
    And this all when the military staff are paid shag all, the country is going to be going into recession.

    This is like wet dreams of some young fellows and Walter Mitty types.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #24
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Beta Ray Bill wrote: »
    - There is a deal between the UK and Ireland on allowing UK fighters to fly over Ireland (Neither the Public nor the Irish Armed forces know the specifics of the deal, sounds dodge off the bat)
    - We are not part of a military alliance.
    As you say, it sounds dodge.

    But would seem to mean we are in an military alliance with the UK.

    Is there an SF line on this, I wonder?
    Beta Ray Bill wrote: »
    There would need to be a referendum on that. we're a neutral state.
    We'd surely only need a referendum if Government was entering into some agreement that conflicted with the Constitution. Like, we usually need referenda on EU treaties because they normally involve giving the EU the power to make decisions that override the power of our domestic parliament, government and courts.


  • #25
    puppieperson1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 301 ✭✭puppieperson1


    Defend it from what a murder of crows or seagulls maybe?? what a joke we are a neutral country oh wait we did facilitate the americans via Shannon let them defend our air space they use the most !!


  • #26
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    Gregor Samsa wrote: »
    Why is it hosted by a poorly made puppet? :confused:

    I think it's deliberate to show how cartoonish what they're presenting is. Often the scenarios such as avoiding allies/avoiding morale/no nukes are completely unrealistic as warfare is always drenched in politics; which they avoid.

    Still I enjoy the their videost though.


  • #27
    Del2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    Fred Cryton wrote: »
    Which is a ridiculous conclusion to come to. As a Sovereign nation we should be defending ourselves in a grown up way. It's very Irish to say "ah we'd lose anyway"...doesn't matter shouldn't we have pride in defending our sovereign airspace! What makes us different to a Norway or Denmark or Greece or Portugal - all small nations with fighter jets.

    If we were a neutral nation we should be able to defend ourselves, we are milatary non aligned, and if history has though us anything being neutral makes no difference if the big boys want you they will get you.

    Our entire defence force is less than a US carrier strike group and if anyone else wants to invade us it will be by carriers and helicopter transport. Every other countries aircraft carriers have more than a 12 fighters.

    So we'll have 12 fighters. Which means 2 ready for quick reaction, 2 or 4 as backup and the rest in maintenance. They will have to based at Baldonel, so a few cruise missiles from a sub in the Irish sea and they are gone before we even know that we are being invaded. Even if we spread them across a few airports, with way more costs for us, they will be easily able to take out multiple airports at the same time.

    As for who will attack us. Occupy Ireland and you can easily seal the sea lanes into Europe.


  • #28
    perfectkama
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    I am sure we have part armed several African nations air forces through our generous foreign aid packages.

    unless NATO would agree to fund a base for several f16/f35s am sure that will also come at accost we would have to spend more on defense modernization and participate in future operations what ever way it will cost.
    The Brits using our air space is as much an intrusion as Russian and looking to the future probably China.


  • #29
    Ultima Thule
    Closed Accounts Posts: 66 ✭✭Ultima Thule


    It's an expensive security council seat.


  • #30
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Ultima Thule wrote: »
    It's an expensive security council seat.
    I wonder how seriously we'll get taken when folk notice that we can't depend on any formal military alliance, yet that this how we protect our skies.

    page-pc9-1070.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    perfectkama wrote: »
    I am sure we have part armed several African nations air forces through our generous foreign aid packages.

    unless NATO would agree to fund a base for several f16/f35s am sure that will also come at accost we would have to spend more on defense modernization and participate in future operations what ever way it will cost.
    The Brits using our air space is as much an intrusion as Russian and looking to the future probably China.

    It is not 1923 nor 1969.
    The Brits spent long enough doing our air sea rescue, most especially on West coast and that meant crossing our entire country.

    It will be a pretty long flight from China. :(

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #32
    perfectkama
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭perfectkama


    jmayo wrote: »
    It is not 1923 nor 1969.
    The Brits spent long enough doing our air sea rescue, most especially on West coast and that meant crossing our entire country.

    It will be a pretty long flight from China. :(
    Not now, but they will operate from African bases the dragon is developing its military prowess to project its economic muscle.


  • #33
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Waste of cash, with 100,000 jobs going due to brexit in Janurary (not to mention thousands more on the back of covid wave2). Then hundreds of thousands of unskilled economic migrants likely to arrive once Britian closes it's euro doors and hauls up their moat bridge.

    Instead ground based Laser beams, HEW, and hypersonic missiles (ideally just dazzle) or knock down anything you really don't like the look of.
    Anyway you don't really want to be the 1st to knock out something from the great dragon/bear, without a shovel, bucket and fresh stock of iodine pills.

    Maybe a couple of Apaches for the next time a LiDL store gets razed to the ground by whooping hounds of grey tacksuits, or stolen vans on a rampage across multiple counties, refusing to stop for anything bar heavy machinery.


  • #34
    Signore Fancy Pants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,687 ✭✭✭Signore Fancy Pants


    It's not currently financially or operationally viable. Theres also no point in a "half arsed" attempt at air-to-air/surface-to-air defence unless significant investment over a sustained period of time is warranted.


  • #35
    Varik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,552 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Wouldn't be averse to them getting some sort of offensive helicopter as said, we'd actually have use for them and they'd be a bit more capable compared to the armed response units showing up in an Audi in the event of something serious.

    Or even some maritime patrol aircraft/drones, once who knows what way the Brexit will effect international fishing and not to mention with a more isolated UK you'll more smuggling coming through Ireland.


  • #36
    no.8
    Registered Users Posts: 778 ✭✭✭no.8


    puppieperson1 wrote:
    Defend it from what a murder of crows or seagulls maybe?? what a joke we are a neutral country oh wait we did facilitate the americans via Shannon let them defend our air space they use the most !!


    Neutral or not, it does not indicate anything in terms of national security.
    Take for example Switzerland. Huge political / public pressure in the procurement drive for new jets, taking years, but i can't imagine they'll risk not having them. Im not advocating shutting but we can't rely on our neighbours goodwill for eternity


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Magic money tree?
    I think we should have something to see off Russia coming into our airspace unannounced but the price tag is a bit much for nothing more than a showing. As long as it's not a ploy by the three amigos to get a jet each.


  • #38
    ronivek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    Russia doesn’t shy away from provoking NATO forces with its incursions and dangerous flying; why would Irish fighters give them pause?

    There’s nothing we could do in a modern conventional conflict; we have no significant armoured forces, no significant technological advantages or advanced weapon systems of any description, no satellite or international force projection capabilities of any kind.

    We are utterly reliant on our political and diplomatic acumen; so we should spend our money on our existing peacekeeping roles and pump the rest into air ambulance and coast guard capabilities and not the money drain of a meaningless fighter squadron.


  • #39
    mikemac2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    Beta Ray Bill wrote: »
    It would be effective, but the costs are very high, armies are not cheap

    But like a previous poster said mostly wealthy EU states have some degree of Air cover.

    The only exceptions are:

    Luxembourg

    Luxembourg doesn't have jets but they are the proud owner of one freaking huge military transport aeroplane. Airbus 400M is the name of it

    Belgium bought 7 and Luxembourg bought 1, they signed the deal with Airbus together :) Was in the news this week and Airbus will be delivering soon


  • #40
    kravmaga
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,978 ✭✭✭kravmaga


    @OP, this subject matter has already been done to death on the military forum.


  • #41
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,888 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Bowie wrote:
    Magic money tree? I think we should have something to see off Russia coming into our airspace unannounced but the price tag is a bit much for nothing more than a showing. As long as it's not a ploy by the three amigos to get a jet each.


    I'd rather use magical money trees for other, more important things


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Conall Cernach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,952 ✭✭✭Conall Cernach


    no.8 wrote: »
    Neutral or not, it does not indicate anything in terms of national security.
    Take for example Switzerland. Huge political / public pressure in the procurement drive for new jets, taking years, but i can't imagine they'll risk not having them. Im not advocating shutting but we can't rely on our neighbours goodwill for eternity
    I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago about 2500m up when 2 F-16s came screaming over the valley, did a lap of the Matterhorn and went screaming back. Very impressive.


  • #43
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,669 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    We send a couple of hundred million off to tin pot countries in so called aid and nobody has any problem with it but the thought of buying something that would be used for the defence of our own country gets the crusties all outraged.


  • #44
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    We send a couple of hundred million off to tin pot countries in so called aid and nobody has any problem with it but the thought of buying something that would be used for the defence of our own country gets the crusties all outraged.

    Who in turn buy weapons and fighter jets with our money .



    But god forbid we actually have the equipment to defend our country
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #45
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Yale could use an international airport.


  • #46
    ronivek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    Gatling wrote: »
    But god forbid we actually have the equipment to defend our country

    Defend our country from who exactly; and to what end?

    How many times in our country's history have we been intentionally attacked by a foreign power such that fighter jets would have been a viable defence?


  • #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    If Russia ever went to war with NATO, it's unlikely that they would respect Irish neutrality. They'd use any weakness in European defenses to strike their targets, which means we are vulnerable. Even without being a direct target, we'd be vulnerable at any fights within our airspace. Having some jets available might deter such a move, with them going elsewhere.

    In any case, I feel it's time that Ireland stepped up, looking after it's own security rather than relying on others to protect us. Neutrality is a paper shield.


  • #48
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    ronivek wrote: »
    Defend our country from who exactly; and to what end?

    Who knows what could or will happen in the future ,

    Yo meyho fly out to the oul UN there and beg them to protect us if anything ever happens that we need a real airforce , naval and other defence forces .

    As much as I respect our military they are treated like ****e and dependent on welfare top ups to survive ,

    But no lets spend our money on bogus asylum seekers and their families both here and over seas ,
    Lets spend our money on people who want free houses,let's keep spending more and more on a failing health care system that's getting worse the more we are spending on it ,
    Lets send more money over seas to other countries so that can buy military equipment.

    Countries with similar sized populations and GDP can afford decent health services , education , housing and very well equipped militaries ,from ground forces , armour , aircraft ,naval ,
    We get people get complaining when it's announced the army is buying munitions
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #49
    expectationlost
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    RonanG86 wrote: »
    Not a hope of this happening.

    16 jet fighters with 3 crews each? Where would the money, the training apparatus and the pilots come from? As you say yourself, fighter jets don't win votes. We have 8 PC-9s at current, and given the state of our Army and Navy, if I found out that more than 4 of them were actually airborne at any one time, I'd be surprised. I'd say the last time Ireland had 16 combat capable aircraft was in World War 2.

    If the British withdrew air protection and Russians freely flying around our airspace became a political problem, I think the most likely solution we'd come up with is bunging the French, Swedes or Norweigans some money to take over. Possibly even occasionally station a fighter or two here as a token deterrent.
    are you saying Russians have been freely flying around our airspace? when?


  • #50
    Greyfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    We send a couple of hundred million off to tin pot countries in so called aid and nobody has any problem with it but the thought of buying something that would be used for the defence of our own country gets the crusties all outraged.

    Because some of the money goes to people in need. Wasting a billion dollars to protect ourselves from imaginary enemies would be the dumbest thing this country has ever done. If any TD supports the idea I hope they get ridiculed and sacked


  • #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Beta Ray Bill wrote: »
    https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0318/1123836-russian-military-aircraft-bombers-ireland/

    Key points:
    - Russian bombers regularly enter Irish controlled airspace (but not our sovereign airspace) without permission. They are probing and attempting to sow discord within the EU: Why can Ireland not defend itself, why do we have to defend Ireland
    - There is a deal between the UK and Ireland on allowing UK fighters to fly over Ireland (Neither the Public nor the Irish Armed forces know the specifics of the deal, sounds dodge off the bat)
    - We are not part of a military alliance. These bombers are mostly probing NATO, not Ireland. We just happen to be one of the "gaps" they're probing.
    - There are far higher security threats to Ireland than Russians probing our airspace




    There would need to be a referendum on that. we're a neutral state.

    Irish neutrality is a government stance, not a constitutional matter.

    It was primarily born from staying out of other nations affairs and in ww2 declared as a political and military stance.

    Foreign forces do and can land and stay on Irish soil.

    In regards the op, the best that could be hoped for and somewhat realistic, a dozen l39n or similar advanced trainer / light attack planes.

    Anything more advanced and capable will require financing and manpower beyond our scope while these options don't really address the issue and are more a step in the right direction for our budget


  • Advertisement
Advertisement