Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So really in reading that, the Russians are entitled to fly through Irish Controlled airspace with no transponder, communications, flight plan etc and we can do nothing about it, we really only have jurisdiction over our own Airspace out to the 12 mile limit. Any operation in Irish controlled Airspace is basically to let them know we know they are there, I don't think it will stop them. As regards Commercial aircraft, how often is there a requirement to launch a military Aircraft to engage with an aircraft in Irish Controlled Airspace? Is this some that the RAF also do or have they ever needed to do so

    Comment


    • Originally posted by apc View Post
      So really in reading that, the Russians are entitled to fly through Irish Controlled airspace with no transponder, communications, flight plan etc and we can do nothing about it, we really only have jurisdiction over our own Airspace out to the 12 mile limit. Any operation in Irish controlled Airspace is basically to let them know we know they are there, I don't think it will stop them. As regards Commercial aircraft, how often is there a requirement to launch a military Aircraft to engage with an aircraft in Irish Controlled Airspace? Is this some that the RAF also do or have they ever needed to do so
      Also so you know where they are so that you can redirect other traffic to avoid it

      Comment


      • Don't forget, the only way we know they are in Irish Controlled airspace is the RAF tell us. They are the neighbours barking dog, alerting us to intruders. What do we do though when the neighbours dog is dealing with intruders on the other side of their patch?
        Without the RAF and the Great NATO air policing mission, we would be completely oblivious to their presence, and relying on the "due regard" of Russian pilots, and their level of competency, to avoid hitting other aircraft along the way.
        In another scenario, if an aircraft of interest goes dark within our controlled airspace, we are relying on other CIVIL aircraft to keep an eye out.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
          Without the RAF and the Great NATO air policing mission, we would be completely oblivious to their presence, and relying on the "due regard" of Russian pilots, and their level of competency, to avoid hitting other aircraft along the way.
          Not to forget this is the same airforce with dangerously low training hours for their pilots.

          Comment


          • In fairness to all the above comments, a decent radar system would deal with most of those issues

            Comment


            • Originally posted by apc View Post
              In fairness to all the above comments, a decent radar system would deal with most of those issues
              You could also think about it like the speed camera vs patrol car argument, yes the speed camera will catch out the speeders, but it wont catch the drivers doing the other offences.
              The whole thing is not just about catching the planes flying blind and keeping other aircraft away from them, its about finding out who they are and why they are there in the first place, what are there intentions and making an assessment on whether they are a safety risk or security risk, that goes for Civil aircraft as well as Military Aircraft, and you cant just do that with Radar alone.
              It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
              It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
              It was a new age...It was the end of history.
              It was the year everything changed.

              Comment


              • As I said radar would identify most "threats", it seems the RAF/NATO will have identified any military "threats" so therefore tracking by radar would suffice. As we are a neutral state we pose no threat to anyone, so therefore any issues with civil aircraft would be benign in nature, and even if it was a threat what do you think we would do.
                I am questioning why people think we need one or two squadrons of MACH 2 fighters and operate 24/7 QRA for situations that offer little or no threat and are a fairly infrequent occurrence.
                No one has addressed how we are going to man and operate such a force Of course we can buy aircraft and send pilots away to train, but will we have enough pilots, technical crew, ground crew, security etc to operate such a force on such a footing and putting command systems in place.
                I understand that we should be able to defend our country but from who and how far should we go.
                I think some people just want fighters for the sake of having fighters. It's just overkill

                Comment


                • As we are a neutral state we pose no threat to anyone,
                  Have you been watching the news in the last month or so at all?
                  Our supposed neutrality offers no protection. Ukraine woke the world up to that. Sweden and Finland have realised that, and they have had advanced QRA for almost a half century.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by apc View Post
                    As I said radar would identify most "threats", it seems the RAF/NATO will have identified any military "threats" so therefore tracking by radar would suffice. As we are a neutral state we pose no threat to anyone, so therefore any issues with civil aircraft would be benign in nature, and even if it was a threat what do you think we would do.
                    Primary Radar alone can only DETECT not Identify, Secondary Radar can Identify IF the aircraft has a transponder on, and even then that can be fudged (I recall an interview on TV with an Air Force One pilot, were he claimed they once filed a flight plan which identified AF1 as a Private Gulfstream to get the then Prisident Bush to Iraq for Thanksgiving).

                    I always have to laugh at that Neutrality excuse, as already stated, Ukraine was Neutral, and as per the statements from the ambassador and Moscow, Russia doesn't recognise Ireland as being Neutral after Ireland implemented the EU sanctions. For a third party country to be Neutral both sides of the Conflict have to recognise and respect that country’s neutrality, and if you look at WW2 both Holland and Belgium were Neutral, yet Nazi Germany invaded and occupied them, hell they even drew up plans to invade Neutral Ireland aswell, it was only thanks to the RAF and the Battle of Britain that stopped that from happening (Sounds strangly familiar ????)

                    As for the thinking that Civil Aircraft Security Risks being "benign" for Ireland, they should have been left at door after Air India 182, let alone after 9/11. Also the 1999 South Dakota Learjet Crash and Helios Airways Flight 522 show that the Risks of a non-responsive aircraft are not always a security risk, and that someone someday may have to make what many people think is an unthinkable decision for an unlikely situation.
                    Last edited by CTU; 15 April 2022, 12:45.
                    It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                    It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                    It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                    It was the year everything changed.

                    Comment


                    • Of course I have , and do you not think that Ukraine's wish to join NATO and the EU might have had to do with the current situation. But if you want to use the "threat" of us being invaded by Russia then you'll need a lot more than a couple of squadrons of MACH 2

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by apc View Post
                        Of course I have , and do you not think that Ukraine's wish to join NATO and the EU might have had to do with the current situation. But if you want to use the "threat" of us being invaded by Russia then you'll need a lot more than a couple of squadrons of MACH 2
                        You see, when you start parroting Kremlin propaganda in your argument i am tempted to put you on the lifetime ignore box.

                        Russia invaded a sovereign state that had not expressed any interest in joining NATO. Show me a source that isn't Russian Disinformation.

                        As for the threat of invasion, that has been, ad nauseam explained here as not being the justification for QRA.
                        Therefore I believe you to be trolling and will not respond any further to your random nonsense.
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by apc View Post
                          Of course I have , and do you not think that Ukraine's wish to join NATO and the EU might have had to do with the current situation. But if you want to use the "threat" of us being invaded by Russia then you'll need a lot more than a couple of squadrons of MACH 2
                          So with this answer, that means that Russia is going to invade, Sweden, Finland (NATO), Georgia and Moldova (EU) which then means that the "Russian" controlled borders are right up against NATO/EU countries anyway, and with tech advancements, Russia can be hit from any European Country no matter if bordering or not. it is just an Excuse Russia used to invade and gain popular backing in the motherland.

                          What is worrying me is that the Oligarks, do not seem to have the clout as they once had, and Putin is still going ahead with his War, his way, Eventually in his mindset he needs to hist the North Sea and down to the Atlantic to keep himself safe.
                          "Why am I using a new putter? Because the last one didn't float too well." -Craig Stadler

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

                            You see, when you start parroting Kremlin propaganda in your argument i am tempted to put you on the lifetime ignore box.

                            Russia invaded a sovereign state that had not expressed any interest in joining NATO. Show me a source that isn't Russian Disinformation.

                            As for the threat of invasion, that has been, ad nauseam explained here as not being the justification for QRA.
                            Therefore I believe you to be trolling and will not respond any further to your random nonsense.
                            That's your prerogative, unfortunately it's become a forum for like minded folk

                            Comment


                            • While I don't agree with apc in some of his arguements, I do agree with him that he should be allowed to make them, even if not popular on this forum.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Smithy View Post
                                While I don't agree with apc in some of his arguements, I do agree with him that he should be allowed to make them, even if not popular on this forum.
                                He is free to make them, but I don't have to read them.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X