• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

irish air defence and the sovereignty of the republic


sid

Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
31
ireland has no effective means of controlling - or knowing - what happens in its sovereign airspace.

it has no air-search radar network nor any air-defence aircraft.

any air-interception required by the Irish Government could only be completed by RAF typhoon or Tornado jets.

long-range helibourne rescue operations to the west of Ireland are carried out by RAF Sea Kings operating out of Shannon and search operations by RAF Nimrods from Scotland.

is it acceptable for a sovereign government to be unable to control its own airspace?

(this isn't a slagging or a troll, i'm just interested in peoples understanding of soveriegnty and neutrality)
 

PS

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
21
Totally unacceptable. Too tight to spend a few quid on defence equip that would help with the things you mentioned.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
well clearly we need a proper coast guard/search and rescuce service, and I think the Irish Navy should be re-equipped for that role. However, I really don't see any point in the Irish Aer Corps being equipped with modern fighter jets. Ireland faces no aerial threat of any kind - spending hundreds of millions of euro to combat a non-existent threat, for the sake of national pride, just seems stupid.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,257
Ireland does control its sovereign airspace - controlled airspace in Ireland is controlled by the Air Navigation Services Office of the Irish Aviation Authority. Also, control of airspace 200 miles south and west of the Irish coast is delegated to us, due to an agreement we have with the Brits. Long range search and rescue off the west coast is in international waters, and as such it doesn't matter who provides search and rescue, as long as someone does. For years the Brits have done it, because initially we couldn't afford it, and because now its simply impractical and incredibly inefficient to have us do it, as rescuers from Plymouth or Kinloss would get to a scene in virtually the same time. And the stuff costs a bloody fortune to have, maintain and staff adequately. As for air defence, well there's a big difference between controlling your airspace and defending it - and the first question is obviously "who would be launching an air attack on us?" Because if they were coming from the east, they'd have to get through incredibly well defended NATO airspace in Europe, and if they were coming from the west they'd have to get past the USAF before they got to attack little old Ireland. And I think we can assume that we're not going to be attacked by either the Yanks or our EU partners in the foreseeable future, so its best that we dont spend squillions and squillions planning for it.
 

sid

Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
31
certainly no conventional military threat currently exists, and any future threat would effectively have to get through british controlled airspace - but the 9/11 attacks and the always present instability of northern ireland could suggest that some naiscent air-defence capability might be warrented.

the control issue has two seperate issues, one technical and one philosophical: Air Traffic Control radars don't detect aircraft, they send out a pulse which is detected by a transponder on the aircraft which then replies with course, speed and height. switch the transponder off and no 'detection' is possible - an aircraft with its transpnder swithched off could circle dublin for two hours and not be detected by ATC. secondly the definition of control: with ATC radars you can't detect the presence of an aircraft unless the pilot wants you to and without any air-defence assets you can't prevent him from doing what he likes. you might well 'deny' him permission to your airspace, but you can't stop him entering and despite 'ordering' him to do X you can't force him to do anything (like land at a particular airfield or divert from a particular area) while he's in your airspace. i would therefore suggest that while you have responsibility, you don't have control.

while a relatively cheap system like patriot could 'make dublin safe' it would have no effect on anywhere in the republic that didn't have a patriot system within 10 miles. it also doesn't allow a proper interception of unknown or potentially hostile aircraft, just a shoot/don't shoot option.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,550
In this day and age a threat doesn't have to come from a foreign country it could very easily come from terrorists. If a group of terrorist hijacked a plane they could very easily fly it in something. Now I know there isn't any targets like the twin towers, but they could still fly it in to a large building and kill a lot of people.

It is very unlikely that we will be attacked, however it could happen. We are seen as being very close to the Americans and hence we would be seen as a very easy way to hurt the US. There should be something done to protect Ireland's airspace and help us defend our country from terrorist. However we shouldn’t spend millions on it or anything because it is very unlikely.
 

edifice.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
8,407
Risteard and one of these would do the job....



 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,956
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
Omega_Dublin said:
Can anyone think of an airbourne threat to Ireland?
Bees - the big african ones

Ebola virus

Avian flu


Of course none of those would necessitate the buying of millions of euros of military hardware.

Then again why not widen the whole question. Ireland is hardly likely to be ever invaded again at all by anyone other than Britain (keeping in mind the part already under invasion, just to keep Risteard off my back).

In any case Britain may invade to

a. act agressively or,

b. to secure its western flank from attack by a bigger more agressive invader.

Now, I think our own set army would be incapable of taking on the British army for long, so why not scrap the most of it.

We can prepare for defence by stockpiling weapons in secret bunkers, to be distributed to the guerilla forces that will arise to tackle the invader as has happened before.

Tool up the boys, and let them at it :wink:
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
rockofcashel said:
Now, I think our own set army would be incapable of taking on the British army for long, so why not scrap the most of it.

We can prepare for defence by stockpiling weapons in secret bunkers, to be distributed to the guerilla forces that will arise to tackle the invader as has happened before.

Tool up the boys, and let them at it :wink:
You don't think the risk of the weapons stockpiles being discovered and looted by criminals or paramilitaries is wildly disproportional to the risk of the UK invading Ireland?

And if the UK did invade Ireland, would it not make more sense to have a large Irish Army, trained to disperse into smaller guerrilla groups, who would then lead the resistance?

In fact, isn't that basically what the FCA is for? They don't do any large scale manouvres or armoured assaults - they just learn how to shoot rifles, and practice squad and platoon-level patrolling.

I also think you'd find that if the UK did invade us, presumably in the course of World War Three against China or Russia or someone far more brutal than the Brits, a large portion of the Irish people would welcome the fact that we now have a genuine chance of fighting the chinks/ruskies off.

A slightly smaller but slightly more intelligent portion of the Irish people would be pissed off that the chinks/ruskies would now come in firing and shelling, and not walk in unopposed.

And then there'd be Risteard, negotiating with Moscow to get us invaded, while simultaneously proclaiming that the sovereignty of the Republic is inalienable
 

sid

Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
31
given the following circumstances, that any potentially hijacked aircraft is unlikely to be detected very far from its target eg: 'normal' aircraft due to land at dublin airport, makes an abrupt change of course and heads off towards downtown dublin. you would have about 5 minutes from the ATC controller deciding there was a problem to the aircraft plowing into the CBD

the intercepting of a terrorist incident ala 9/11 could only be prevented by having one of two options:

1) low to mid performance aircraft (alpha jet or hawk 200 etc..) constantly flying close (5 miles?) to dublin/wherever 24hrs a day, seven days a week with ground control intercept radars (not ATC radars). each pair has an 'on scene' time of some 90mins to 2hrs, each aircraft could probably fly for 4 - 6 hours each day (maintainance allowing) giving a minimum total force required some 12 to 16 aircraft to allow for training, maintainance and upgades - though 16 to 20 might be a safer bet. these aircraft aren't fast enough to sit on the ground and take-off when a problem appears and don't have beyond visual range weapons, just 20 - 30mm cannon and short range (6 - 9 miles at mach 2 or 3) heat seeking missiles. they also have problems detecting targets in bad weather and at night.

2) high performance aircraft (grippen, rafale, F-16blk50 - 52) sat at the end of a runway some 10 - 20 miles from dublin city centre. aircraft of this type could go from 'brakes off' to being on station at 10,000ft with radars and weapons online in about a minute. very high speed BVR (upto 40 - 60 miles at mach 4+) weapons mean the aircraft would not need to get so close before opening fire as in option 1. this requires less aircraft as each alert aircraft could be on alert for upto eight hours with pilot swapovers. a minimum effective force would be 10 - 12 aircraft to account for training and maintainance/upgrades, though 14 to 16 would be a more viable force.

both options are expensive, though F-16's are currently being handed out like sweets by the US to friendly nations in the WOT.

hawks and alpha jets are perfectly capable of shooting down non-military aircraft, but would be slaughtered by anything more capable, and are hampered by very low ranges and limited high-speed dash capability. as an example, if a target aircraft appeared on radar coming from the atlantic towards Tralee and a hawk/alpha jet took off from near dublin, its is quite possible that an RAF Typhoon or Tornado launched from lincolnshire would get a firing solution first.
 

Reece

Member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
57
badinage said:
And if the UK did invade Ireland, would it not make more sense to have a large Irish Army, trained to disperse into smaller guerrilla groups, who would then lead the resistance?
I am sure that you know this is called Insurgency.

I am equally sure you know what Counter-Insurgency Ops are, its called Fallujah, Jenin Camp, Black-and Tan, The Crater and a host of other names, dates, times and places - and its not pretty!

You really, really need to have a high percentage of the population on your side, or at worst neutral. Your forces - organised in cells with fanatical cadres leading them - must also be ideologically committed.

I cannot recognise anything here that equates with Ireland in the first decade of the 21st.

But tell people how to make a 'killing' on the stock market - now you're talk'in, boy!
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
3,000
sid said:
both options are expensive, though F-16's are currently being handed out like sweets by the US to friendly nations in the WOT.
Which reminds me that I saw an F-16 on the apron at Charleroi airport the other week, and in a little hangar beside it was an A-10 ground attack aircraft.

This must be Michael O'Leary's wet dream...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6792
Would certainly Ryanair give some extra negotiating power with those at Liberty Hall
:twisted:
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
Reece said
I am equally sure you know what Counter-Insurgency Ops are, its called Fallujah, Jenin Camp, Black-and Tan, The Crater and a host of other names, dates, times and places - and its not pretty!
Could you expand on Jenin Camp please because there has been a mountain of misinformation about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenin

In April 2002, Jenin's refugee camp was the theatre of one of the most intense battles to occur during the al-Aqsa Intifada. The details of what happened during these events are hotly contested. The events were intially refered to as the Jenin massacre, due to an allegation raised by Palestinians that the IDF killed hundreds of civilians in the camp. This allegation was later refuted, and the death toll was lowered to 52 people, at least 30 of whom were militants. Serious allegations of war crimes have also been levelled agains the IDF. Others deny these charges, and angrily deny that war crimes were committed. On contrast, the death of 23 Israeli soldiers during the battle, raised criticism in Israel on the soft method the IDF used in order not to harm civilians, on the expense of its own troops safety.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 8vnicq.asp


Typical was the hysteria of Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian representative to the United Nations, on CNN: "There's almost a massacre now taking place in Jenin. Helicopter gun ships are throwing missiles at one square kilometer packed with almost 15,000 people in a refugee camp. . . . Just look at the TV and watch, watch what the--what the Israel forces are doing. . . . This is a war crime, clear war crime, witnessed by the whole world, preventing ambulances, preventing people from being buried. I mean this is an all-out assault against the whole population."


I think it's safe to say that no one will win a Pulitzer for reporting on the (non-existent) "massacre of the 21st century." This was amateur-hour propaganda, and any reporter who fell for it should be mortified.
 

watch-this-drive

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
162
Libero said:

(not that my post was entirely on-topic, but veering off to discussing Jenin certainly is way off-topic)
OK, fair enough, maybe Reece could clarify this
I am equally sure you know what Counter-Insurgency Ops are, its called Fallujah, Jenin Camp, Black-and Tan, The Crater and a host of other names, dates, times and places - and its not pretty!
in another thread and not side track this

....sheesh - these guys are strict.....
 

west_brit

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
30
Website
www.ogra.ie
Let the RAF defend our air space they're professional enough to do it and unlike our "air corps" the people in the RAF are careerists. Our lads (and ladies) are just there as a stepping stone to Aer Lingus or Ryan Air.
 

green

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
136
Website
www.younggreens.ie
west_brit said:
Let the RAF defend our air space they're professional enough to do it and unlike our "air corps" the people in the RAF are careerists. Our lads (and ladies) are just there as a stepping stone to Aer Lingus or Ryan Air.
Are you a member of ÓFF (going by the link you have at the bottom of your posts)?
 
Top