Interceptors for Ireland

[H_K]

Ireland really doesn’t have any enemies.

So what is Ireland’s plan when Iran or the Houthis shut down oil exports from the Persian Gulf or shipping through the Red Sea, devastating the European economies that drive almost all of Ireland’s wealth as an international trade & service hub?

Putting aside everyone’s different assessments of the Russian threat, IMHO Ireland should be expected to provide some level of contribution to domestic defence or expeditionary patrols to its EU neighbors rather than free riding. Perhaps interceptors aren’t the most burning priority, but they could in theory free up other EU countries to focus elsewhere.

 

[sparky42]

What is exactly is Ireland “supposed to do?” UN peacekeeping has fallen out of vogue, so what is the point of wasting 2% of GDP? The KGB might have had a role in funding and arming the antagonists in “The Troubles,” but aside from that, there was no great historical Warsaw Pact or Russian threat to Ireland. It’s hard to even imagine a scenario where Irish participation in expeditionary warfare is expected? If anything, history teaches us that an inordinate number of Irish died fighting for the British Empire, so there is no rational basis for aggressive militarism.

You do know from released files we were on the nuke list as well during the Cold War, kind of hard to class that as "not a threat", also if this was a thread about the proposed changes to equipment and format of the Army formations, then complaining about "expeditionary warfare" might make sense given the rumours floating around. But in a thread about the purchase of a defensive capability of air interception, it seems a bit strange?

Moreover even LoA3 doesn't get close to 2%, barely even 1% so you just created something to complain about, LoA3 was targeted at circa €3ish billion in 2022, so really its not even likely to be 1% if it ever happens in the 2030's.

 

[sparky42]

So what is Ireland’s plan when Iran or the Houthis shut down oil exports from the Persian Gulf or shipping through the Red Sea, devastating the European economies that drive almost all of Ireland’s wealth as an international trade & service hub?

Putting aside everyone’s different assessments of the Russian threat, IMHO Ireland should be expected to provide some level of contribution to domestic defence or expeditionary patrols to its EU neighbors rather than free riding. Perhaps interceptors aren’t the most burning priority, but they could in theory free up other EU countries to focus elsewhere.

Depends on who you ask, most of the Left/Tankies "blame the West, celebrate the Iranians/Houthis/Russians/Chinese" would be the most likely position, as to what some within Ireland want? An ill remembered fantasy of what the position of Ireland was during WW2 and the Cold War, ignoring the actual reality.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To paraphrase what you wrote, your analogy of a dog marking its territory is quite an apt metaphor to the sort primitive thinking in much of Europe at the moment. Ireland really doesn’t have any enemies. There is nobody inclined to violate their airspace, or more realistically, illegally fish in their waters, as they’re part of EU and fisheries are held in common. Realistically, migrants aren’t going to navigate in open boats all the way from North Africa to Ireland. So in the end, there’s no great need for defense expenditures, aside from animalistic marking of territory, and there’s plenty of that going on in European capitals at the moment.

If that's what you really think, your opinion on just how much defense Ireland needs can be ignored.

Ireland's EEZ needs to be enforced. That's mostly a Coast Guard thing for the US, I'm not sure what the Irish equivalent is.
Ireland's ADIZ needs to be enforced. That's mostly an Air Force thing for the US.

That's a function of international law and treaties. If you cannot enforce it, you don't own it.

 

[Apophenia]

...
That's a function of international law and treaties. If you cannot enforce it, you don't own it.

Could you clarify your intended meaning? Is it your position that enforcement/ownership are linked because "international law and treaties" are myths? Or are you implying that existing international law and treaties in some way legally back the notion of 'might equals right'?

As to your "Irish equivalent", the Naval Service (An tSeirbhís Chabhlaigh) is responsible for protecting the Irish EEZ. Ireland doesn't have an ADIZ. Were an ADIZ to be established, enforcing that would be the responsibility of the Air Corps (An tAerchór).

 

[yeetmahboi]

Or are you implying that existing international law and treaties in some way legally back the notion of 'might equals right'?

You have never been near to an authoritarian expansionist/imperialist/nationalist dictator then. Because I am right now, with not even trawlers but full blown CG cutters, but luckily my country is a vassal already so we face no real imminent danger.

Might equal rights indeed. The only limiting factor is whatever self proclaimed morality the other guy has.

 

[martinbayer]

You mean apart from the routine Russian Air force patrols flying through Irish controlled airspace without engage with ATC, or the Russians deciding to hold war games in the Irish EEZ right before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or the repeated examples Russian spy ships loitering over sensitive undersea connections including the couple of gas supply routes that keep the lights on in the Republic, or their "dark fleet" transitting off the West Coast, to name just a few examples? That's not even counting the number of times USN/RAF/French Air Force/Norwegian Air Force have found the need to deploy MPA's off the Irish West Coast in the last few years, I'm sure they are just doing it for free entertainment…?

Add in the outsized Russian Embassy with their long term plans to expand it (larger than their UK one for example), I'm sure that's utterly benign as well? I mean of course Russia needs more staff in the Republic than it does in some of the other P5 nations? Makes total sense, particularly as the Russian Ambassador has been issuing threats to the state since 2022.

And yes even at the most basic, there is plenty of illegal fishing going on, whether that's Irish fishing, or other EU boats, or non EU boats, its a fairly regular issue, not sure where you imagined it isn't?

Not too mention having enough MPA's/helicopters to support rescue operations, helicopters to support ATCP like firefighting or Medical support, or emergency response, etc.

I will never understand the demands by some that somehow Ireland must be utterly incapable of asserting control over its EEZ, again, not even Dev at his most isolationist wanted that.

I *COMPLETELY* concur - Pacta Sunt Servanda.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could you clarify your intended meaning? Is it your position that enforcement/ownership are linked because "international law and treaties" are myths? Or are you implying that existing international law and treaties in some way legally back the notion of 'might equals right'?

International law says that if you do not patrol your claimed territory, you don't actually own it.

As to your "Irish equivalent", the Naval Service (An tSeirbhís Chabhlaigh) is responsible for protecting the Irish EEZ.

Not coast guard? Interesting.

Okay. Irish Naval service gets stuck with patrolling the EEZ.

Ireland doesn't have an ADIZ. Were an ADIZ to be established, enforcing that would be the responsibility of the Air Corps (An tAerchór).

Since this whole thread is about Ireland acquiring interceptors and therefore enforcing their ADIZ, we can ignore the question of "does one actively exist right now".

 

[sparky42]

International law says that if you do not patrol your claimed territory, you don't actually own it.




Not coast guard? Interesting.

Okay. Irish Naval service gets stuck with patrolling the EEZ.



Since this whole thread is about Ireland acquiring interceptors and therefore enforcing their ADIZ, we can ignore the question of "does one actively exist right now".

The coastguard has a very limited role in the Irish set up, more coastal rescue with the RNLI and no powers of arrest as such.

In other news, Ireland is going to sign up to the EU SAFE initiative, but no mention of anything aircraft related as being the target, seems mainly Army based purchases being flagged currently,

 

[Apophenia]

International law says that if you do not patrol your claimed territory, you don't actually own it...

Since this whole thread is about Ireland acquiring interceptors and therefore enforcing their ADIZ, we can ignore the question of "does one actively exist right now".

Ah, so you are equating 'ownership' with patrols as evidence of territorial control by a nation-state. The absence of patrols may add credence to a counter-claim on territory but it is not explicitly a condition of sovereignty under international law. That would be akin to declaring unpatrolled territory as terra nullius (which rather goes against the UN Charter's Article 2.4).

On the question of ADIZ, I was simply responding your statement "Ireland's ADIZ needs to be enforced". I'll mentally amend that to "Ireland's [hypothetical] ADIZ needs to be enforced" and Interceptors for Ireland are G2G.

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.thejournal.ie/defence-committee-defence-forces-air-corps-crisis-6742702-Jun2025/

At this evening’s meeting, Jacqui McCrum, the Secretary General of the Department of Defence said they did not alert the Defence Minister when they received a 2021 report warning of an impending crisis in air traffic control because it believed it was not necessary at that time.

An internal 2021 report had recommended introducing a retention payment scheme to retain the high skilled specialists. The report also said that a shortfall in ATC services in the Air Corps would happen periodically as personnel are attracted to high paid civilian jobs.

Sigh.

 

[sparky42]

https://www.thejournal.ie/defence-committee-defence-forces-air-corps-crisis-6742702-Jun2025/


Sigh.

Irish DOD being Irish DOD, these are the same clowns that saw the same stresses in the NS over a decade before that, did nothing and covered their arses when the NS manpower crisis blew up, no defence for them to say "it wasn't necessary at the time" given repeated issues by that stage in the AC.

But this is the same Secretary General who demanded a full apology from the CoS for an article from a junior officer highlight that massively outsized staffing levels of the DOD and their micromanaging practices dating from the Civil War instead of actually taking on board the fact that the department is just shite at its job.

 

[1635yankee]

If that's what you really think, your opinion on just how much defense Ireland needs can be ignored.

Ireland's EEZ needs to be enforced. That's mostly a Coast Guard thing for the US, I'm not sure what the Irish equivalent is.
Ireland's ADIZ needs to be enforced. That's mostly an Air Force thing for the US.

That's a function of international law and treaties. If you cannot enforce it, you don't own it.

International law is more like an agreement between gangs than any kind of legislation; the biggest powers can always beat up the smaller without too much concern for the non-existent international police. See, for example, much of the US (I'm USian, so I'm more familiar with this behavior) in Central America and the Caribbean (especially Haiti) during much of the 20th Century and the imperialist powers in Asia and Africa for the 19th. Were power more evenly distributed -- say every country were the size and wealth of Denmark -- international law would actually be meaningful. The 800 lb gorillas follow international law at their convenience.

 

[Scott Kenny]

International law is more like an agreement between gangs than any kind of legislation; the biggest powers can always beat up the smaller without too much concern for the non-existent international police. See, for example, much of the US (I'm USian, so I'm more familiar with this behavior) in Central America and the Caribbean (especially Haiti) during much of the 20th Century and the imperialist powers in Asia and Africa for the 19th. Were power more evenly distributed -- say every country were the size and wealth of Denmark -- international law would actually be meaningful. The 800 lb gorillas follow international law at their convenience.

While true, it is significantly more valuable to any country to be able to patrol their airspace than to not do so.

FFS starving nations in Africa are buying fighters to patrol their airspace!

 

[Dilandu]

Putting aside everyone’s different assessments of the Russian threat, IMHO Ireland should be expected to provide some level of contribution to domestic defence or expeditionary patrols to its EU neighbors rather than free riding. Perhaps interceptors aren’t the most burning priority, but they could in theory free up other EU countries to focus elsewhere.

If you are talking about "expeditional capability", then warships would be more reasonable investment than planes.

 

[Dilandu]

Ah, so you are equating 'ownership' with patrols as evidence of territorial control by a nation-state. The absence of patrols may add credence to a counter-claim on territory but it is not explicitly a condition of sovereignty under international law. That would be akin to declaring unpatrolled territory as terra nullius (which rather goes against the UN Charter's Article 2.4).

Its more like "if you don't patrol your territory, you can't really blame someone else for doing this in his own interests". Not exactly the claim, but basically the other guy could do whatever suits him, as long as he could justify it by "we are merely protecting our rightful interests in spite of you gross negligence to do it".

 

[Yellow Palace]

Understood, but still unacceptable in terms of the things a country is supposed to do.

Benchmarking defence spending as a portion of GDP doesn't actually make all that much sense on a macro level. It's a metric that's useful for some purposes, but not for all.

In the case of Ireland, and other tax havens, GDP is artificially inflated by economic activity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the country.

International law is more like an agreement between gangs than any kind of legislation; the biggest powers can always beat up the smaller without too much concern for the non-existent international police.

The goal of defence for a small power isn't to prevent a greater power from exerting its power entirely. It's to make doing so costly enough that the greater power doesn't consider it worthwhile. Which can mean being armed to the teeth. But it can also encompass alliances and soft power.

Example of the latter? The Vatican City. Italy could occupy it any time it wanted. It did, from 1870 to 1929. The Lateran Treaty wasn't the result of heroic cardinals fighting a guerilla war: it came about because of the political and diplomatic weight of the Catholic church.

Which isn't to say that the Vatican needs an air force, or that Ireland doesn't.

Its more like "if you don't patrol your territory, you can't really blame someone else for doing this in his own interests".

It's something like the doctrine of adverse possession in civil law. If someone comes along and starts using your territory (or other assets) for their own purposes, if you don't do something about it, you're de facto conceding that they have a right to do it, and that they can do it whenever they like.

In some cases, charging hefty licence fees to fish in someone else's waters, or issuing formal letters of complaint when someone's troops get lost (accidentally or 'accidentally') on exercise are adequate. And sometimes you want to have a bit of muscle to persuade the transgressor that they'd quite like to leave, like right now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Benchmarking defence spending as a portion of GDP doesn't actually make all that much sense on a macro level. It's a metric that's useful for some purposes, but not for all.

It's the easiest verification method, particularly for international agreements.

Otherwise any treaties say, "you must have at least X many soldiers, Y many tanks, Z many artillery pieces, " etc ad nauseam

It's something like the doctrine of adverse possession in civil law. If someone comes along and starts using your territory (or other assets) for their own purposes, if you don't do something about it, you're de facto conceding that they have a right to do it, and that they can do it whenever they like.

In some cases, charging hefty licence fees to fish in someone else's waters, or issuing formal letters of complaint when someone's troops get lost (accidentally or 'accidentally') on exercise are adequate. And sometimes you want to have a bit of muscle to persuade the transgressor that they'd quite like to leave, like right now.

Exactly.

 

[sparky42]

So a bit of coverage of DOD/DF attendance to the euro trade shows is flagging Sweden and South Korea as the potential options, with France being ruled out on cost grounds. So some type of Gripen versus some type of FA50 if it happens. Interestingly enough, the way the report phrases it suggests there's an active offer that's on the table.

There is a lot of talk amongst security sources about the possibility of purchasing jet fighters to act as an indigenous air policing capability.

It is understood that an internal report has been completed suggesting the possible acquisition of a small number of jets and that they would be based at Shannon Airport.

It is believed, from multiple sources, that there are concerns in the Irish Air Corps base in Baldonnel that the State may miss an opportunity to make a cost effective purchase if they delay. It is understood that two potential manufacturers, from Sweden and Korea, are the most likely option as other options like a French aircraft are too expensive.

 

[H_K]

So a bit of coverage of DOD/DF attendance to the euro trade shows is flagging Sweden and South Korea as the potential options, with France being ruled out on cost grounds. So some type of Gripen versus some type of FA50 if it happens. Interestingly enough, the way the report phrases it suggests there's an active offer that's on the table.

Isn’t it a little odd that cost appears to be the most important criteria, considering that Ireland is in a much better financial position than almost any other European country? (Ireland is basically like Norway, Denmark, or Finland… who have ordered dozens of F-35s each)

Feels like effectiveness should also be a criteria, including time to intercept, endurance etc plus proximity to neighboring countries with lots of spares and training/support infrastructure. Arguably that would make second hand Typhoons or Rafales better options than Gripen, even if they have to be potentially dumbed down with some expensive systems removed (IRST, jammers etc).

 

[Grey Havoc]

Our poor Defence Forces have the serious misfortune of having both the Dept. of Finance and the Dept. of Public Expenditure and Reform (these days known by the unwieldly title of the 'Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation', or DPENDR for short) to deal with.

 

[sparky42]

Our poor Defence Forces have the serious misfortune of having both the Dept. of Finance and the Dept. of Public Expenditure and Reform (these days known by the unwieldly title of the 'Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation', or DPENDR for short) to deal with.

You left out the other major issue, the Department of Defence.

 

[Ainen]

Isn’t it a little odd that cost appears to be the most important criteria, considering that Ireland is in a much better financial position than almost any other European country? (Ireland is basically like Norway, Denmark, or Finland… who have ordered dozens of F-35s each)

Feels like effectiveness should also be a criteria, including time to intercept, endurance etc plus proximity to neighboring countries with lots of spares and training/support infrastructure. Arguably that would make second hand Typhoons or Rafales better options than Gripen, even if they have to be potentially dumbed down with some expensive systems removed (IRST, jammers etc).

(1)Cost is important criteria for country, that doesn't really need new interceptors in the first place. Especially if there's ambition to buy them properly. Second hand Rafales and Typhoons are just way more expensive aircraft per hour, and come with useless performance.
Rafale, on top, comes with unique armament options, which only come as advantage if Ireland is defending against UK, and French/Spanish forces come to help. This is a very outdated story though.

Ireland isn't a Nato country, i.e. Norway, Denmark and now Finland aren't much of guidance here. Especially now, when pure F-35 nations came into beautiful perspect of intercepting cheap drones with them. And drone terrorism is in fact a threat even for Ireland, drones don't just come from outside. There were hopes for DEW before, but for now they appear dead.

(2)Gripen is very good at TTI metric(FA-50 is probably much less so, though - but i never saw anything about it on that subject). Range of supersonic profile sucks, but it depends on what customer wants (re: Gripen problems in Switzerland). Endurance alone (via drop tanks) is available in huge excess.

(3)proximity isn't much of a deal, it's a country with access to sea.

 

[fightingirish]

Sorry folks, but I personally don't believe Irish fighter jets will be stationed at Baldonnel or at Shannon in the near future.

So a bit of coverage of DOD/DF attendance to the euro trade shows is flagging Sweden and South Korea as the potential options, with France being ruled out on cost grounds. So some type of Gripen versus some type of FA50 if it happens. Interestingly enough, the way the report phrases it suggests there's an active offer that's on the table.

Irish Officials Attend Major Arms Fair in London
A large group of Irish military officers and civil servants recently attended the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in London. This visit is part of Ireland’s ongoing Defence Forces modernization program, following a 2022 report that highlighted serious capability gaps.
Delegation Size: Over a dozen officials from the Defence Forces and Department of Defence.
Purpose: To explore potential purchases of military equipment including vehicles, ships, and aircraft.
Meetings: Irish officials held discussions with British defence experts and the UK Ministry of Defence.
Naval Focus: Interest in acquiring a multi-purpose naval vessel, such as the British Type 31 Frigate.
Army Restructuring: British experts suggested Ireland may need to double its army size to meet future mission requirements.
Air Corps Plans: Irish officials also visited the Paris Air Show to research new medium-lift helicopters and potentially jet fighters for air policing, with Sweden [Gripen] and Korea [T-50] seen as cost-effective suppliers.
[...]

Source:
https://www.thejournal.ie/military-...ential-defence-kit-purchases-6819119-Sep2025/

 

[sparky42]

Sorry folks, but I personally don't believe Irish fighter jets will be stationed at Baldonnel or at Shannon in the near future.


Source:
https://www.thejournal.ie/military-...ential-defence-kit-purchases-6819119-Sep2025/

It’s Irish defence procurement, don’t believe anything till it’s delivered. But from FOI we already know before the London expo that the 31 had entered back into NS thinking and Babcock have been trying to drum up a sale as well, the expansion of the Army doesn’t make it clear as to whether it’s the LoA3 size or larger (honestly that doesn’t stack up with me as currently we aren’t likely to deploy something that size), which leaves the AC.

Is it a highly likely/soon event, I highly doubt it as well, the AC/AF will have enough issues doubling the helicopter fleet size and adding the third CASA, but then again it was never intended to by something this side of 2030 under the recommendations.

It’s going to be a wait and see, but it’s fair to say the question has had more media coverage since 2022 than it has since 1922.

 

[Grey Havoc]

You left out the other major issue, the Department of Defence.

To be more specific, the current and previous Ministers of Defence, which includes both the current Taoiseach and his predecessor. To say that successive ministers have made a right hames of things would be putting things very mildly indeed.

 

[sparky42]

To be more specific, the current and previous Ministers of Defence, which includes both the current Taoiseach and his predecessor. To say that successive ministers have made a right hames of things would be putting things very mildly indeed.

Nah, the DoD have been utterly and openly hostile to the DF since the 1920's, the list of screw ups, half arsed projects and just insane decisions lie in that department far more than the Minister of the day. The Minister relies on the SG of the Department (as every minister does) and the DoD has long been a dumping ground of "those that can't".

I mean no doubt that the Ministers have been shite, honestly can't think of a single one that every pushed the DF case, but the culture of the Department is a far worse problem, see their latest bitching about the cost of the Reserves.

 

[sparky42]

So small update on the Radar, according to the minister in Daíl Questions the discussions with the likely nations is done and the technical review of the options is nearly complete, he’s suggesting that the initial selection is still tracking to be announced before the end of the year.

 

[sparky42]

Oh, crud, did not even consider that problem!

And I doubt that a post-Brexit UK would be willing to supply the air control for the EU summit...




Replacing PC9s with M346s would be a semi-viable option, though I still think you'd want actual fighters with BRAAMs for the job.

Guess what… The DOD has just been reminded of this very issue as we are 9 months from holding the EU Presidency and everyone else is getting slightly miffed at us….

Government solution… consider asking the French to park a frigate in Dublin bay for the major events… I’m sure the French will love having to do that. Though on the plus side it might cause some of our Tankies to literally self-combust from Rage!

 

[sparky42]

Update, a former AG has pointed out that any deployment would have to be outside the territorial limit as it's unconstitutional for foreign forces to be deployed operationally within Ireland...
Meanwhile, seems the penny maybe dropping slowly but surely in Government Buildings

The government has fast-tracked the purchase of a €500 million air defence system that includes advanced drone-jamming technology so that part of the system can be installed before Ireland assumes the EU presidency.
Officials say the upgrades are intended to safeguard high-level meetings that could be targeted by hostile states during the presidency term.
Ireland will hold the presidency of the Council of the European Union for the eighth time from July 1 to December 31 next year. Security planners have warned that the rotating presidency — during which Ireland will host a large number of ministerial gatherings, summits and diplomatic events — will make the country an attractive target for foreign interference, making rapid enhancement of air defence capabilities a priority.
The new technology will create no-fly zones for unmanned aircraft, reducing the likelihood that Defence Forces personnel would need ministerial approval to shoot down a drone over sensitive locations. Shooting down a large drone would also pose a risk to public safety.
Officials say this protective envelope will be particularly critical around venues hosting EU presidency meetings, including sites close to Dublin airport and large government buildings.
One area of vulnerability identified by Irish authorities in relation to the EU presidency is maritime activity in the Irish Sea. There is growing suspicion that drones have been launched from vessels passing near EU capitals, although no conclusive evidence has emerged.
Dublin airport’s close proximity to the sea may result in increased searches of maritime traffic at key moments during Ireland’s presidency to ensure that hostile drone operations cannot threaten official events or delegations. For this reason, important meetings, which may be attended by high-risk targets such as President Zelensky of Ukraine, might be held outside the capital to ensure they can be adequately protected.
The investment announced on Saturday by Simon Harris, the minister for foreign affairs and defence, marks the largest defence outlay in the history of the state and comes amid concern across Europe about suspicious drone activity. The government envisages its air defence and radar system will help to safeguard not just Ireland but Europe’s western borders from Russia and hostile actors.
At least 15 Nato countries have reported incursions in recent months, with Germany and Belgium worst affected. More than half the sightings have occurred near airports and a quarter over military or strategic infrastructure, prompting fears of a co-ordinated hybrid warfare campaign.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, has described the activity as an “escalating campaign”, while Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, has directly accused Moscow. The air defence and radar system acquired by Ireland comprises both land-based long-range primary radar and anti-drone capability, according to defence sources. It also includes the development of a secure air operations centre, to be based at Casement Aerodrome in Kildare.
Security sources have indicated that, once operational, the radar capability will provide air surveillance up to 15km into Ireland’s airspace. A French company will provide the contract to build and install the radar system.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Update, a former AG has pointed out that any deployment would have to be outside the territorial limit as it's unconstitutional for foreign forces to be deployed operationally within Ireland...

Understandable given Ireland's history but frustrating.

Also, why on earth is the EU Presidency only 6 months long?

 

[sparky42]

Understandable given Ireland's history but frustrating.

Also, why on earth is the EU Presidency only 6 months long?

It's an administrative thing more than an actual "presidency"

 

[1635yankee]

While true, it is significantly more valuable to any country to be able to patrol their airspace than to not do so.

FFS starving nations in Africa are buying fighters to patrol their airspace!

Or for the aggrandizement of authoritarian governments.

 

[sparky42]

Or for the aggrandizement of authoritarian governments.

There is that, most of those governments don’t have to worry about elections or voters.

 

[Titus K]

Once the Czech recieve their first F-35's, could their 14 older Gripen C/D be a viable option for Ireland ?

 

[Foo Fighter]

eu president versus eu presidency. How come fond of is still there?

 

[H_K]

Once the Czech recieve their first F-35's, could their 14 older Gripen C/D be a viable option for Ireland ?

Czech Gripens were built in the late 90s (1998-2000ish) so might be getting a little long in the tooth...

Though presumably they haven't been worked that hard and may flight hours remaining (the original lease was for 150hrs/airframe per month only).

 

[sparky42]

eu president versus eu presidency. How come fond of is still there?

Cause they are two different things.

 

[Arjen]

eu president versus eu presidency. How come fond of is still there?

Cause they are two different things.

I am confused. Can somebody rephrase that please?

 

[sparky42]

I am confused. Can somebody rephrase that please?

I guessed it was related to Von Der Leyen, and mixing up the different roles and structures of the EU but I could be wrong.