Should the Republic buy Jet Fighters for Air Force?

The Lighthouse Keeper

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
756
Any self-respecting modern country worth its name should have a capacity to escort undesirable aircraft in or out of its own airspace.
This might even include diverting a hijacked trans-Atlantic flight to Knock or Shannon if the case arose.
 


bagel

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
1,394
The Lighthouse Keeper said:
Any self-respecting modern country worth its name should have a capacity to escort undesirable aircraft in or out of its own airspace.
This might even include diverting a hijacked trans-Atlantic flight to Knock or Shannon if the case arose.
we don't fall into that category, thanks to the activities of many of our politicians.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
51,969
The Lighthouse Keeper said:
Any self-respecting modern country worth its name should have a capacity to escort undesirable aircraft in or out of its own airspace.
This might even include diverting a hijacked trans-Atlantic flight to Knock or Shannon if the case arose.
Errr, have you the first clue how much such a capability would cost!!???
 

geraghd

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
474
We have Pilates planes, which are not quite jets but very much near that level, and can fire air to air missiles and such.

Anyways, buying and maintaining jets would be a pretty useless project to run, and quite expensive considering we dont in fact need them.
 

bagel

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
1,394
hiding behind a poster said:
[quote="The Lighthouse Keeper":2hfk895j]Any self-respecting modern country worth its name should have a capacity to escort undesirable aircraft in or out of its own airspace.
This might even include diverting a hijacked trans-Atlantic flight to Knock or Shannon if the case arose.
Errr, have you the first clue how much such a capability would cost!!???[/quote:2hfk895j]

could the b and t a/c cover it? :p
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
51,969
bagel said:
hiding behind a poster said:
[quote="The Lighthouse Keeper":3ps6f2u7]Any self-respecting modern country worth its name should have a capacity to escort undesirable aircraft in or out of its own airspace.
This might even include diverting a hijacked trans-Atlantic flight to Knock or Shannon if the case arose.
Errr, have you the first clue how much such a capability would cost!!???
could the b and t a/c cover it? :p[/quote:3ps6f2u7]


Not quite. :lol:
 

paddybangers

New member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4
fergalr said:
paddybangers said:
Failing that couldn't we adopt the Italian strategy and just be on the side of the winners.
WWII wasn't exactly a great example of Italy being on the side of the winners.
As far I as I can recall the Italians were on the side of the Krauts right up until they ( the hun) were losing and then they quickly threw in the towel escaping the faith they lay in store for Jerry, I think thats whats referred to as quitting while your ahead, in essence winning.
 

Vinegarhill

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
18
Lets start with Neutrality, we are not and never have been neutral, non-aligned yes but not neutral, the Russians knew which side we were on during the cold war and prepared accordingly!

Should we have fighter jets? Well they are hugely expensive to buy and operate but smaller states than us have invested in this capability, yet we say we cannot afford it.
Why have them? Well for me being able to patrol your territory and defend it is part and parcel of being a sovereign nation, I’m not sure what our collective attitude to defence says about us. Are we so pragmatic and sensible that we see the folly of wasting cash on defence? Are we complacent? Or do we not truly believe in our independence, I mean come on we seem to think the Brits, our only proven enemy, should bail us out, why?
In the round though I’d invest in more helicopters, some with an attack capability but mainly transporters, I’d invest in a transport aircraft and more marine patrol aircraft. I would look to buy top end anti aircraft missile systems which would be an effective and cheaper way of defending our airspace.

If we look at truly neutral nations, the Swedes and the Swiss, they don’t rely mere words to protect themselves, their doctrine I believe is that they are sufficiently equipped to resist any would be invader to the extent that it makes attacking them more trouble than its worth. They don’t propose to face off a superpower who in intent on attacking them, but the have calculated that the most likely situation is that they’d be caught in the middle of a war and they want to avoid being Belgium 1914 and 1940. The aggressor will leave them be and find another front to attack.
 

DAOINE

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
50
Yes there are at four other thread with this mentioned in. Anyway they should invest in some more basic air defense planes to make us self sufficient. This does not mean we have to fork out huge money on stealth bombers but they could buy second hand jet planes from the US as Australia does. Relying on a foreign country for defense is wrong and may not be reliable.
 

constitutionus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
23,990
well, lisbon says we should :D
 

paddybangers

New member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4
If we were really serious about defending this country it would seem some sort of miltia involving a certain amount of national service would be the most sensible thing. We can see today in Iraq how effective guerrilla warfare is, and all military victories this country has enjoyed has come that way. Our present standing army wouldn't last pissing time with who, Tonga. I can't think of one country we could put it up to.

After the ww2 Germany was not allowed to rebuild its army this contributed greatly to the German economic miracle. As for threats from China, Russia, why would they invade this country when they could buy it, lock stock and barrel through sovereign wealth funds.

Violence breeds violence, and that includes state backed violence. Can I suggest to the budding miliarist inside of you, put your vanity and your colonial apsirations aside for one moment, you can still wear the uniform if you like (i'm sure yer mammies think your only gorgis in yer buttons and braids), but f**k off and leave the rest of us in peace.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
Out of interest, what is the annual allocation from the defence budget given to the air corp?
 

Vinegarhill

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
18
Paddy I don’t see anyone here displaying “colonial ambitions,” your suggestion of a militia holds some merit and again the Swiss and I think the Swedes follow this model too, to boost their robust neutrality. Swiss men all have weapons in their homes I believe as part of this policy. There are costs involved in being a sovereign nation, something we have I think failed to grasp, citizenship and sovereignty should mean something. As the Romans would have said, “freedom or death.”
 

louis bernard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,698
If all Irishmen had weapons (guns) in their homes it should make for some very interesting Saturday nights.
 

joel

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
803
Vinegarhill said:
Paddy I don’t see anyone here displaying “colonial ambitions,” your suggestion of a militia holds some merit and again the Swiss and I think the Swedes follow this model too, to boost their robust neutrality. Swiss men all have weapons in their homes I believe as part of this policy. There are costs involved in being a sovereign nation, something we have I think failed to grasp, citizenship and sovereignty should mean something. As the Romans would have said, “freedom or death.”

Neutrality implies anti-militarism - or should. Whats the point of being neutral AND having a War Machine? Has no one any ideals?

The Swiss are rather isolated and not part of the EU. Member states of the EU can't attack one another - its against some regulation or other. That is ONE advantage of membership.
 

paddybangers

New member
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4
Vinegarhill writes; Neutrality implies anti-militarism - or should. Whats the point of being neutral AND having a War Machine? Has no one any ideals?

Yes, put down the guns and get back to f**king work.
 

Dasayev

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,811
Back when the country was a basket-case we had Fouga Magister jets in the Air Corps. Now that the country is wealthy we cannot afford even one jet(!)

If Ireland has no need for an air-force then why do we have an army? If we have no enemies, then why do we need soldiers? When it comes down to it, isn't a hijacking more likely to occur than an invasion by a foreign army? Yet we have an army but no air force.

When Ireland hosted EU meetings in Dublin Castle during our Presidency a while ago, an Air Corps Pilatus continually circled overhead. Someone in government believes that having a plane in the sky is necessary at times, so why are we sending up a trainer instead of a proper jet?

Why do we need an air-force?

-to avoid dependence on foreign air-forces and protect our neutrality.
-to patrol the skies during EU summits and US Presidential visits.
-to intercept hijacked aircraft.
-to support our army at home and on UN duty.
-to help the navy patrol our seas.

and in case of trouble in the future

-to help win a Civil War should Unionists fail to accept a United Ireland after a referendum in favour of it.
-to protect our independence during a possible war between NATO and Russia (Ireland holds great strategic value should there be a conflict in the Atlantic)
 

Vinegarhill

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
18
Neutrality does not equate to passivism, it means that you intend to stay out of other peoples conflicts and not favour one side over another. We obviously did favour the West over Russia and we favoured the British over the Germans in WW2. I don’t understand how people can support us being in the EU but oppose us coming to the defence of our fellow members states.
 

blucey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
366
joel said:
Neutrality implies anti-militarism - or should. Whats the point of being neutral AND having a War Machine? Has no one any ideals?

The Swiss are rather isolated and not part of the EU. Member states of the EU can't attack one another - its against some regulation or other. That is ONE advantage of membership.
Yeah, them Swiss and Swedes....real pussies.
 

fergalr

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
354
bagel said:
hiding behind a poster said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
BTW yes we should buy fighters.
So, you mean we should just buy fighters and leave them in a hangar somewhere? Failing that, how do you suggest we pay all the costs involved?
lotto money :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Brilliant :D
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom