PDA

View Full Version : US UK to provide aircover in future



morpheus
19th November 2003, 09:12
I read in the paper on monday that the US and UK will patrol our skies when Bush is here next year.... disgraceful, an absolute embarassment of our nation, a government source has admitted the current and new aircraft will be entirely insufficient and useless and suggested that in future we will have to sign up to alliances to have our airspace patrolled by UK military in the case where this is necessary, because we havent got the resources and probably never will, similiar to the role they play in providing our long range SAR, if this is the case then what really is the point in keeping an air corps?

Im very disheartened to think we cant defend our sovereignity, this govt wont get my vote next time around.

FMolloy
19th November 2003, 09:35
Is this news to you? Ireland has never had a viable air defence.

It's not this government's fault alone, successive governments have ignored the issue. It doesn't matter who you vote for, no party is going to invest in capable fighter aircraft anytime soon.

Goldie fish
19th November 2003, 10:05
Even if we did have fighters(sound of loud laughter in the background) they would only be operated between the hours of 9am to 4pm...

Smity
19th November 2003, 12:25
"Even if we did have fighters(sound of loud laughter in the background) they would only be operated between the hours of 9am to 4pm..."

You forgot about the weekends.

c22910
19th November 2003, 14:54
No FM this is not news to us. It's just hard to read it in print. If our grandfathers were dead they would turn in their graves. The state has never had so much money and we still cant defend it ourselves.

We are not a war or are likely to be so we dont need a huge fighter force but I believe a token squadron needs to be in place to pass on training methods a small show of force. They could even support UN ground troops like the Sweeds did for us in the Congo.

yellowjacket
19th November 2003, 15:02
Eh, "our grandfathers" were the very same. Ireland has never had a credible air-defence setup.

Come-quickly
19th November 2003, 15:25
Sigh:o

Bud Fox
19th November 2003, 18:49
we had better fire power in the late 40's & 50's. I'm sure that the IAC of the old would defeat the present IAC....PC9's or no PC9's. No offence boyz

c22910
19th November 2003, 20:07
During WWII didn't we have spitfires which were contempory fighters at the time. Did we make a decision not to maintain a fighter force or did it just happen over time.

When was the last time we had a contempory fighter ?

Groundhog
19th November 2003, 20:19
Eh, "our grandfathers" were the very same.

Our grandfather's wasted their lives fighting to free this nation from British rule and when they succeeded they founded a political party called Fianna Fail. 80 years later this "republican" party has decided that the grandchildren of those men who were murdered by our grandparents must defend this banana republic.

If I wasn't middle-aged, cynical and anti-everything republican, I would be embarrassed.

c22910
19th November 2003, 20:36
Originally posted by Groundhog
Our grandfather's wasted their lives fighting to free this nation from British rule and when they succeeded they founded a political party called Fianna Fail. 80 years later this "republican" party has decided that the grandchildren of those men who were murdered by our grandparents must defend this banana republic.


I've read this five times now and there isn't one part of it I understand.

conco
19th November 2003, 21:08
Originally posted by Groundhog
Eh, "our grandfathers" were the very same.

Our grandfather's wasted their lives fighting to free this nation from British rule and when they succeeded they founded a political party called Fianna Fail. 80 years later this "republican" party has decided that the grandchildren of those men who were murdered by our grandparents must defend this banana republic.

If I wasn't middle-aged, cynical and anti-everything republican, I would be embarrassed.

You'd rather they didn't free Ireland?

Groundhog
19th November 2003, 21:25
I've read this five times now and there isn't one part of it I understand.

Try adult education.

You'd rather they didn't free Ireland?

I'd rather they hadn't wasted their time and, in some cases, their lives to have their memories urinated upon by Fianna Fail. I'd also rather that our government warned other political leaders not to come here where they cannot be protected rather than suffer the shame of having foreigner soldiers tasked with protecting our country.

faughanballagh
19th November 2003, 21:37
Well it doesn't seem like there is a reason to have a bunch of fighters since Ireland isn't really fighting too many wars.....but even too-neutral-to-join-the-UN/EU-Switzerland has F-18's!! I'm sure many would disagree, but y'all need a conservative to increase defence spending.

c22910
19th November 2003, 21:46
Maybe I should

Or

Maybe you should read it again.

Groundhog
19th November 2003, 23:06
Well it doesn't seem like there is a reason to have a bunch of fighters since Ireland isn't really fighting too many wars.....

Well that's not really the point.

1. When you need the military it's too late to start buying equipment.

2. The issue is that our Min for Defence stood up in the Dail and stated that in the event of a 9/11 type threat to our security we would ask the RAF to do us a favour. The more I think about it the more head-melting it becomes.:mad: Sort of like the Sec of Defence over there asking the Cuban Air Force to defend where you live.

faughanballagh
19th November 2003, 23:16
Oh I totally understand Groundhog, but truthfully I feel much more comfortable with an F-16 or Tornado protecting my president than some Marchettis (not that I mean that in an offensive way, but the superiority is obvious). Even though I'm a few generations removed from Ireland, I still feel somewhat embarassed that my ancestral homeland does not have the necessary air power to even protect themselves in war. Someone needs to tell the next government in place (because Bertie and Co. obviously aren't doing anything about it) that fighters are not necessarily there to be put into war, but just to have sufficient protection for the nation. I guess they have that mentality that why need an air corps when the powerful UK is right next to us, but what if the UK/Ireland were to get into a military battle in the next 10-15 years? If that seems too farfetched just look at the US and Iraq.....

Groundhog
20th November 2003, 00:32
Unfortunately the consensus of opinion in Ireland runs along the lines of-

Weesha sure we're the Irish. Everybody loves us because we're great crack and we have no enemies. Sure why do we need an army and so on and so on, you get the picture.

Every single government since 1922 has regarded the DF as, if not a threat then a burden on the exchequer. Except for the period 1939-45 of course. The DF is there to provide tone on ceremonial occasions and to cajole various third world types into not killing each other. Mostly with our Celtic charm, wit and blarney.

In the event of a war Tony Blair will come through on the basis that his granny was Irish or drank a pint of guinness every Sunday lunchtime or something. And that in a nutshell is Fianna Fail defence policy.

Mind you, you should see their health and education policies. We'd be better off with a junta comprised of Larry, Curly and Mo.

Groundhog
20th November 2003, 00:38
with an F-16 or Tornado protecting my president than some Marchettis

You lost four presidents to assassination. If some nutter wants to get Dubya the whole USAF will be useless. And if GWB gets killed it won't be the end of the world. Nobody is irreplacable, not even the US President.

faughanballagh
20th November 2003, 03:59
This is true about air forces, but the reason they're doing cover is in case of a (VERY UNLIKELY) plane suicide attack. Dunno how you guys are trained in respect to that, would be interested in knowing......

macca
20th November 2003, 14:37
Groundhog: 4 US Presidents? Besides Lincoln and Kennedy, who were the other two?

Goldie fish
20th November 2003, 14:41
James A Garfield,Wm Mc Kinley.

Groundhog
20th November 2003, 17:38
Generic AA defence in an Infantry Battalion is provided by it's GPMGs and HMGs in the AA Role. No missiles so close in AA defence is all is available.

Come-quickly
20th November 2003, 19:31
Personally I find the absence of effective air and sea arms nauseating at the best of times, but given most peoples attitudes in this country they may well deserve to die.
Interestingly enough Average (my Aus TA acquaintance whos posted here at least once) has an Irish born Politician in his constituency that firmly conforms to the Irish modus of claiming that all fast jets are only going to end up killing cute babies.

There was an Article on the Swiss F-5Es in this months AFM, I must say I felt a powerful sense of longing (not in a fouling the cockpit way you understand) for these low cost effective multirole fighters that would be branded in Irish politik speak as hospital closing bunny killers:o

Groundhog
20th November 2003, 20:06
The problems with the Irish (and the Australians) is we haven't had the Germans come crashing through the country twice a century since time began. Necessity is the mother of effective defence.