Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

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

  • If it generated discussion, then he has achieved his objective. Did we take back the treaty ports or are we still at a free state security level, militarily?
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post

      I imagine he will be brought into a room with the Taoiseach and the the CoS and will be given a limited amount of information and then be told to mind his own business/shut his gob, in the national interest and be thankful that our neighbours have a decent air arm in the absence of one here and that whatever SECRET arrangement exists, will continue to exist.
      Except that isn’t the argument:

      “I looked at the constitutionality of it. And it’s clearly set out in the Constitution who can can and who can’t establish a defence of the nation,” he said.

      This refers to a number of sections of the constitution including Article Five with regard to the sovereignty of the Irish State and Article 29.5.1 which states that any international agreement must come before the Dáil for ratification.

      Comment


      • Citing constitutionality is all very well until the shit hits the fan and you require a fighter response in real time (or some other kind of response). Craughwell knows this perfectly well and is determined to track this down, also knowing full well that he is on a hiding to nothing. Regardless of trotting stuff out in front of the Dail, there comes a point where the State has to make a decision for grown ups and either buy a fighter arm and be prepared to use it or ask the neighbours to step up. The easy option is to ask the RAF to nip out past Rockall and eyeball the Russians. Failing that, it's time to go cap in hand to the Swedes for a deal on Gripens. If the State says in the Dail that it has a deal with the Brits, the Shinners will throw a shoe, as expected and Craughwell will leap onto his high horse and a few of the usual suspects will join in. There's no winners; either they buy fighters or they do a deal with the Brits.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
          Citing constitutionality is all very well until the shit hits the fan and you require a fighter response in real time (or some other kind of response). Craughwell knows this perfectly well and is determined to track this down, also knowing full well that he is on a hiding to nothing. Regardless of trotting stuff out in front of the Dail, there comes a point where the State has to make a decision for grown ups and either buy a fighter arm and be prepared to use it or ask the neighbours to step up. The easy option is to ask the RAF to nip out past Rockall and eyeball the Russians. Failing that, it's time to go cap in hand to the Swedes for a deal on Gripens. If the State says in the Dail that it has a deal with the Brits, the Shinners will throw a shoe, as expected and Craughwell will leap onto his high horse and a few of the usual suspects will join in. There's no winners; either they buy fighters or they do a deal with the Brits.
          Thats all well and good for the cheaper option but what about when someone actually has to make a decision? What's the chain of Command? We know the RAF can get shootdown permission in UK airspace from No 10. Who gives it here?
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • If push comes to shove, either the CoS or the Taoiseach and then stand back and watch the furious "he said , she said" thereafter. If a scenario arose that Irish citizens were under a direct threat to their lives from air or sea and the only available firepower was under the wing of a Typhoon, then one of the grown-ups would have to (a) give the order to fire (b) take the political consequences afterwards (c) absolve the pilot of all responsibility. The CoS has the default that he or she is not the top of the food chain and must do as they are bid. The historical record is that the State can and will take the shot if it has to; Dev and the IRA in WW 2; the State versus the gangs after Veronica Guerin's death; Dessie O'Hare. I think, that if things really went to the wire, the RAF would be asked to shoot on our behalf, if all other methods had failed. The Taoiseach who ever has to give that kind of order would immediately be at the eye of a media shitstorm and it would take a fairly tough character to deal with it. Apart from all that, it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if such a scenario has been wargamed.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post

              I imagine he will be brought into a room with the Taoiseach and the the CoS and will be given a limited amount of information and then be told to mind his own business/shut his gob, in the national interest and be thankful that our neighbours have a decent air arm in the absence of one here and that whatever SECRET arrangement exists, will continue to exist.
              Doubt the CoS will get an invite, more like Secretary General of the DoD.

              Comment


              • What makes you so sure?
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                  If push comes to shove, either the CoS or the Taoiseach and then stand back and watch the furious "he said , she said" thereafter. If a scenario arose that Irish citizens were under a direct threat to their lives from air or sea and the only available firepower was under the wing of a Typhoon, then one of the grown-ups would have to (a) give the order to fire (b) take the political consequences afterwards (c) absolve the pilot of all responsibility. The CoS has the default that he or she is not the top of the food chain and must do as they are bid. The historical record is that the State can and will take the shot if it has to; Dev and the IRA in WW 2; the State versus the gangs after Veronica Guerin's death; Dessie O'Hare. I think, that if things really went to the wire, the RAF would be asked to shoot on our behalf, if all other methods had failed. The Taoiseach who ever has to give that kind of order would immediately be at the eye of a media shitstorm and it would take a fairly tough character to deal with it. Apart from all that, it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if such a scenario has been wargamed.
                  If the RAF were doing the trigger pulling, then the Irish Government wouldn't get a say in the matter. The British government would make the call.

                  Comment


                  • They would if the target was in our airspace/waters/over our landmass. They'd have to talk to us first and vice versa. That's why the armed forces of either country can't go casually firing when it suits them, in case it conflicts with the other. We also, both as a State and as sovereign armed forces, enjoy good working relationships with each other. As an example, there have been at least two occasions when abandoned RAF aircraft either crossed Ireland or nearly did so. The Harrier crossed Ireland and the other aircraft, a Lightning, crashed into the Irish Sea. In both cases, anxious eyes watched to see what the aircraft would do and the telling point is that we could do nothing and depended on the RAF. Imagine the furore if the RAF had shot down the Harrier, as it crossed Ireland, to prevent it falling into a populated area. Imagine the reaction from Craughwell and the Shinners. The bottom line is that, in the absence of our own air defence, we have to rely on others.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      They would if the target was in our airspace/waters/over our landmass. They'd have to talk to us first and vice versa. That's why the armed forces of either country can't go casually firing when it suits them, in case it conflicts with the other. We also, both as a State and as sovereign armed forces, enjoy good working relationships with each other. As an example, there have been at least two occasions when abandoned RAF aircraft either crossed Ireland or nearly did so. The Harrier crossed Ireland and the other aircraft, a Lightning, crashed into the Irish Sea. In both cases, anxious eyes watched to see what the aircraft would do and the telling point is that we could do nothing and depended on the RAF. Imagine the furore if the RAF had shot down the Harrier, as it crossed Ireland, to prevent it falling into a populated area. Imagine the reaction from Craughwell and the Shinners. The bottom line is that, in the absence of our own air defence, we have to rely on others.
                      If that target was over airspace, the Irish Govt still wouldn't have a say in the matter. They would most likely be told after the event.
                      If Ireland cant detect (no radar) or respond (Intercept) then how would they know it even happened.

                      An interesting aside, along with handing over defacto air policing and monitoring to the RAF, the Irish State has given legal status to the UK Hydrographic Office (under the Royal Navy), to define Irelands Territorial Airspace and Waters.

                      https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/.../en/print.html
                      Evidence as to extent of internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf
                      21. (1) United Kingdom Hydrographic Office charts may be used for the purposes of establishing—
                      (a) the low-water mark,
                      (b) the existence and position of any low-tide elevation, or
                      (c) any other feature relevant to the delineation of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.
                      (2) The Government may by order prescribe charts other than United Kingdom Hydrographic Office charts for the purposes referred to in subsection (1) and any chart so prescribed shall be received in evidence as if it were a chart referred to in that subsection.
                      (3) Any chart purporting to be a copy of a United Kingdom Hydrographic Office chart shall, unless the contrary is proved, be received in evidence as being such a chart without further proof.
                      (4) In this section “United Kingdom Hydrographic Office” means the hydrographic office that is part of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence and “United Kingdom Hydrographic Office charts” shall be construed accordingly.
                      Last edited by TangoSierra; 21 September 2022, 21:45.

                      Comment


                      • Does anybody remember the mig 23 crash in Belgium in 1989. What happened was that a mig 23 on a training exercise over the Baltic had difficulties and the pilot ejected thinking it would crash but instead it flew on unpiloted towards the border.
                        It flew over the west German border and got picked up by radar stations and two USAF f15 were scrambled to intercept and after observing that it was unmanned and had no nuclear weapons they opted to follow it. It flew over west Germany the Netherlands and Belgium, and NATO had just informed the French, who at the time were outside of NATO’s command structures, when it ran out of fuel and crashed onto a farm house killing some unfortunate teenage student.

                        A couple of points to make
                        Firstly at the height of the cold war even though the plane flew over three countries airspaces all of whom had large fleets of F16s it was only the usaf planes that intercepted. That’s because since the 1950s air defence has been a pooled resource amongst NATO members, that is centrally controlled from Torrejon, in Spain. If in the coming years we are going to develop an airspace Surveillance wing similar to the one the Baltic state have, an essential question we have to ask is what relationship its going to have with Torrejon
                        Secondly the reason they didn’t shoot down the mig even though they could see it was unmanned was because the damage it would cause on the ground, they were hoping it would fly over the north sea so they could do it there. its simply unthinkable in the real world that an Irish Taoiseach would be placed in that position outside of a novel, 9/11 is never going to happen again because airport security is so different.
                        Thirdly air to air combat is very rare, the RAF haven’t shot down a plane since the 1940’s and its something that the USAF do essentially once every twenty years. Air forces are there in the 21st century to drop precision guided munitions on the bad guys. If we are looking at a fighter squadron essentially we are looking at having that capability. Now if you look at Un peace keeping as it is rather than the rose tinted view that PANA/ed \horgan etc have, they have a requirement for a light strike for their missions.
                        https://pcrs.un.org/Lists/Resources/...021.04%20UNMUM
                        Again going back to the 1980’s in 1987 flight international did a review of the air corps and in discussing the fouga and its weapons made the point that the possibility that a skirmish would take place within the territory of the state that might require air support was a possibility that could not be ruled out. The possibility of an assault on our sovereignty by a small commando size force and the need to provide close air support to friendly units in contact with that force is a viable senario. Having the capability to provide close air support for Un missions overseas is a priority even when it comes to training troops at home for robust peace support missions overseas. If they’re going to develop a fighter capability it would make more sense to do it for that.

                        Finally that Belgian kid was so unfortunate as this sort of thing is so rare, but as some have pointed out an RAF harrier did the same so it does happen. But things like this are best sorted out through cooperation amongst european democracies and again we let the extreme left/ hard republicans/Catholics dominate the neutrality debate without pointing out that NATO has kept the peace in Europe since 1948
                        Last edited by paul g; 25 September 2022, 10:50.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X