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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Options
1…3637394142…197

Comments

  • Options
    #1142
    punchdrunk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    Of the 1 billion budget

    Pensions is €249 million
    Wages is €539 million

    And everything, every lightbulb, every piece of kit, morsel of food, and tin of paint comes out of the rest...

    Forget Jets!


  • Options
    #1143
    washman3
    Registered Users Posts: 3,646 ✭✭✭washman3


    JustAThought wrote: »
    The defence forces - for this neutral country - already has an annual budget of a BILLION euro. This country is officiall bankrupt and has to birrow from Europe to pay its staff and to change the lightbulbs in the street. We already have sock puppet Leo using the government jet for his twitter stagings and flying to meetings and allowing overtrained air corps air hostesses like Jihadji Jane farce around in serving him handmade chocolates. When is enough obscene spending enough. We are bankrupt - we cannot afford it. And our impotent army is not even empowered to sweep the streets of snow without the city council unions giving them their permission. Sure the boyos all want to play with expensive toys but I’d far prefer families of handicapped children get respite care, or disabled children are automatically entitled to a plain wheelchair, or the elderlys gas and LX bill dosn’t have them cowering in fear becuse they cannot afford to heat their houses and 50% of it is tax, or children with cancers parents can be granted money to pay their mortgages while they have to stay at hime and care for them, or any other proper use of more wasted millions or billions that to buy extravagant toys for grown men that we cannot afford and have no practical use for.


    Great post. Delighted to see somebody have the balls to tell it as it is around here.
    Ignore the impending ignorant insults that will follow in the next few pages of this thread.
    The various vested interests will be out in force...;)


  • Options
    #1144
    punchdrunk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    washman3 wrote: »
    Great post. Delighted to see somebody have the balls to tell it as it is around here.
    Ignore the impending ignorant insults that will follow in the next few pages of this thread.
    The various vested interests will be out in force...;)

    well we already spend the lowest amount in the whole of europe on defense
    so low that the pay and conditions our lads work in are pretty bad, and older equipment and infrastructure means less safety and worse value for money
    are you ok with that?

    like i said I'm against getting jets in the current climate- far more important stuff needed.


  • Options
    #1145
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I'd agree generally, but in good times and bad alike for the last 30 years, adequate air defence has always been met with excuses. With the result that the "defence" forces can't defend the one actual sovereign incursion risk, airspace.


  • Options
    #1146
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I'd agree generally, but in good times and bad alike for the last 30 years, adequate air defence has always been met with excuses. With the result that the "defence" forces can't defend the one actual sovereign incursion risk, airspace.

    There’s also the issue that only some 20 years ago we spent over 1% of a vastly smaller GDP on defence and the nation managed, every other major department has seen budgets jump over that time period and a good chunk of them have pissed it away meanwhile it seems barely 0.25% of GDP spent on defence is too much for some.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1147
    punchdrunk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    The government has never taken arming itself seriously, in my view that was a reactionary fear, a hangover from English rule and the Irish public’s perception of an offensive military; the government were cagey about public perception of military arms. To me it’s the reason why we’ve never seriously had tanks, jets, ships with missiles etc in any great numbers beyond token efforts.

    In reality if the troubles weren’t enough of a catalyst to seriously equip the military then nothing will be.


  • Options
    #1148
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    washman3 wrote: »
    Great post. Delighted to see somebody have the balls to tell it as it is around here.
    Ignore the impending ignorant insults that will follow in the next few pages of this thread.
    The various vested interests will be out in force...;)

    Yeah its positively Joycean.


  • Options
    #1149
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    punchdrunk wrote: »
    The government has never taken arming it’s seriously, in my view that was a reactionary fear, a hangover from English rule and the Irish public’s perception of an offensive military; the government were cagey about public perception of military arms. To me it’s the reason why we’ve never seriously had tanks, jets, ships with missiles etc in any great numbers beyond token efforts.

    In reality if the troubles weren’t enough of a catalyst to seriously equip the military then nothing will be.


    It's complicated, if you look even back to the new papers released from 1922 for example the UK made it clear that there couldn't be a Navy, but the Pre Civil War government were thinking of multiple divisions of troops, with a mixed position on the Air Corps.


    I think the main issue is that from the start of the Nation we had a Civil/Public service utterly loath to spend on defence along with public/political indifference creating the environment that we have.


  • Options
    #1150
    jonnybigwallet
    Registered Users Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    A defence force that is unable to defend!


  • Options
    #1151
    punchdrunk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    jonnybigwallet wrote: »
    A defence force that is unable to defend!

    The most realistic threat we face is terrorism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1152
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    sparky42 wrote: »
    It's complicated, if you look even back to the new papers released from 1922 for example the UK made it clear that there couldn't be a Navy, but the Pre Civil War government were thinking of multiple divisions of troops, with a mixed position on the Air Corps.


    I think the main issue is that from the start of the Nation we had a Civil/Public service utterly loath to spend on defence along with public/political indifference creating the environment that we have.

    We had a military actively involved in a civil war having just won a war of independence. The public were very much supporters of the military, all 100,000+ of em!


  • Options
    #1153
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    We had a military actively involved in a civil war having just won a war of independence. The public were very much supporters of the military, all 100,000+ of em!

    I don't think it was that simple. Treaty vs Anti Treaty and we've been anti authority for hundreds of years, and still are today.

    There isn't a national identity ingrained with a formal military tradition. Despite having a long military history.


  • Options
    #1154
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    punchdrunk wrote: »
    The most realistic threat we face is terrorism.

    Actually our biggest threat is cyberattacks, particularly against national grids and major institutions, but yes they are a form of terrorism.

    We cannot though discount the risk of the use of civilian aircraft as weapons. That we cannot patrol / protect / respond to threats in our area of air and maritime responsibility continues to be a deficiency in our sovereignty.


  • Options
    #1155
    punchdrunk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Actually our biggest threat is cyberattacks, particularly against national grids and major institutions, but yes they are a form of terrorism.

    We cannot though discount the risk of the use of civilian aircraft as weapons. That we cannot patrol / protect / respond to threats in our area of air and maritime responsibility continues to be a deficiency in our sovereignty.


    Since the post 9/11 changes in airline security it’s become an increasingly unlikely form of attack though, far easier to just higher a truck


  • Options
    #1156
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Actually our biggest threat is cyberattacks, particularly against national grids and major institutions, but yes they are a form of terrorism.

    We cannot though discount the risk of the use of civilian aircraft as weapons. That we cannot patrol / protect / respond to threats in our area of air and maritime responsibility continues to be a deficiency in our sovereignty.


    Not just terrorism alone, as we see an increase in "narco subs" being used in Transatlantic trade we have to face up to both the NS and Air Corps not having enough to control our sea space from such boats.


    Also to bring current politics into this, the Program for Government seems to have decided that Air Craft don't exist as the "Commission" is only to look at land and sea.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1157
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    beauf wrote: »
    I don't think it was that simple. Treaty vs Anti Treaty and we've been anti authority for hundreds of years, and still are today.

    There isn't a national identity ingrained with a formal military tradition. Despite having a long military history.

    yes, I would agree with that overall but theres no denying the sheer size of our miltary in the 1920s was costing far more and was riding a wave of popular support


  • Options
    #1158
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    yes, I would agree with that overall but theres no denying the sheer size of our miltary in the 1920s was costing far more and was riding a wave of popular support


    At which point the DOD and Finance faced with said costs and the demands from every other sector of the nation took the knife to it without much political or public reaction and never forgot that they could do so at will.


  • Options
    #1159
    source
    Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭source


    Some discussion on this going on in Government and department, seems it's made its way into a 5 year equipmemt plan for the DF released today


    https://twitter.com/donlav/status/1276446414852292608?s=19

    I haven't read it properly yet but plan is here :

    https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/9bd58-equipment-development-plan/


  • Options
    #1160
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    source wrote: »
    Some discussion on this going on in Government and department, seems it's made its way into a 5 year equipmemt plan for the DF released today


    https://twitter.com/donlav/status/1276446414852292608?s=19

    I haven't read it properly yet but plan is here :

    https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/9bd58-equipment-development-plan/


    Don keeps jumping about a dozen steps, no they aren't on the shopping list, all the document says is basically "they are still in the "if we had money maybe", but we'll just put them here so nobody asks about them", there's no movement from this towards any major change.


  • Options
    #1161
    Horse84
    Registered Users Posts: 2,296 ✭✭✭Horse84


    Absolute non story there by don. Dependent on future availability of funding. Fighter aircraft will never happen. Primary radar slightly more probable but again highly unlikely. This arw ‘black budget’ is a bit sensationalist too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1162
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Horse84 wrote: »
    Absolute non story there by don. Dependent on future availability of funding. Fighter aircraft will never happen. Primary radar slightly more probable but again highly unlikely. This arw ‘black budget’ is a bit sensationalist too.


    Exactly, there's a few interesting bits within it in terms of some of the upgrades, but the jump to jets when it's clearly stated in the document that it's still an unfunded item that they make no commitment to do anything about.


  • Options
    #1163
    source
    Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭source


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Exactly, there's a few interesting bits within it in terms of some of the upgrades, but the jump to jets when it's clearly stated in the document that it's still an unfunded item that they make no commitment to do anything about.

    I only posted it out of interest that it is in there and that they have specified the type of aircraft to be sought as an Air Combat Interceptor. The tweet is a bit fanciful to be fair.


  • Options
    #1164
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭sparky42


    source wrote: »
    I only posted it out of interest that it is in there and that they have specified the type of aircraft to be sought as an Air Combat Interceptor. The tweet is a bit fanciful to be fair.


    They haven't really specified anything, you think anyone who wrote that (cause it wasn't the DF) knows the differences between designs at this stage. Hell there really isn't any Western "Interceptor" design, there are only multi role designs.


  • Options
    #1165
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    I don't the word "interceptor" has been used to describe a combat aircraft type in Western air power circles for many decades now. Russians might still use the word to describe the role of the MiG-31 in service today.


  • Options
    #1166
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,143 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    source wrote: »
    I only posted it out of interest that it is in there and that they have specified the type of aircraft to be sought as an Air Combat Interceptor. The tweet is a bit fanciful to be fair.
    sparky42 wrote: »
    They haven't really specified anything, you think anyone who wrote that (cause it wasn't the DF) knows the differences between designs at this stage. Hell there really isn't any Western "Interceptor" design, there are only multi role designs.

    to be fair interceptor is the only role that we have a requirement for. However there are no modern aircraft that fulfill only that role. multi-role aircraft now fill that role. so we wont be buying an interceptor, we would be buying an aircraft that can fill the interceptor role. which is all a bit moot as we wont be buying any such aircraft for a long time if at all.


  • Options
    #1167
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,593 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    The only think close that
    Would fit the role for us would be a rebuilt F5. But you probably struggle to find air frames


  • Options
    #1168
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,143 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    roadmaster wrote: »
    The only think close that
    Would fit the role for us would be a rebuilt F5. But you probably struggle to find air frames

    well i did say modern. If we are going down that route i am sure there are a few F-106s knocking around the nevada desert that could be done up.


  • Options
    #1169
    Fritzbox
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭Fritzbox


    roadmaster wrote: »
    The only think close that
    Would fit the role for us would be a rebuilt F5. But you probably struggle to find air frames

    Plenty of used F-16s on the market I should think.


  • Options
    #1170
    Leonidas BL
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    Fritzbox wrote: »
    Plenty of used F-16s on the market I should think.

    Yeah look at all the Danish/Dutch/Belgian F-16's thats about to be replaced :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1171
    roadmaster
    Registered Users Posts: 3,593 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Feck it let's go all in for a squadron of Rafales. We can do a PCP with the French government and in 3 years time if we cant keep up with the repayments we I'll hand the keys back


Advertisement