Equipment that is needed for the aircorps.

Preset No.3

Ok apoligies Im not regular on this section on boards but just a couple of questions to satisfy my own interest. In this post 911 era and in light of the recent threats of terriost attacks the suggestion has been made that Ireland could be very easily used to launch an attack against the UK or Europe. There is loads of talk that we as a nation need a proper defense and not call on the RAF every time Berties ride breaks down. In the aircraft market there is a huge business in 2nd hand aircraft. Can the same be done for the military? Im only throwing it out there but could the Irish not go to the Americans and say 'look lads we need a jet fleet' and get 6 F-14s or F-16s at a knockdown price? Why does it always have to be new equipment? Forgive the ignorance of the military forum, Im just a lowly PPLer!

cushtac

Preset No.3 wrote:

Im only throwing it out there but could the Irish not go to the Americans and say 'look lads we need a jet fleet' and get 6 F-14s or F-16s at a knockdown price?

It would depend on what they'd sell you, mainly when they put an airframe out to pasture it's knackered. They could also look for a lease of aircraft.

It doesn't matter because the political will is not there. Unless there's some sort of attack on us, defence will never be high on the government to-do list.

IrishAirCorps

cushtac wrote:

It would depend on what they'd sell you, mainly when they put an airframe out to pasture it's knackered.

Not true, the F16's at AMARC are kept in a 5 year Airworthy state and when that time line passes they then rig them up for a controller on the ground so it can be shot at for Air To Air or gunnery etc.

If you dont believe me check www.f-16.net

BTW the F14 "Tomcats" are gone now more or less maybe it was F15 you were thinking of as the F14 was the US Navys Fighter and the F15 was/is Air Force.

cyrusdvirus

IrishAirCorps wrote:

BTW the F14 "Tomcats" are gone now more or less maybe it was F15 you were thinking of as the F14 was the US Navys Fighter and the F15 was/is Air Force.

yeah they were carrier based, but there's nothing to stop them being used as land based fighters. (see Iran for examples) Or at least there WAS nothing to stop them being used until they all got retired. Pity too, always had a soft spot for the tomcat ever since i was a chissler.

cushtac

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Not true, the F16's at AMARC are kept in a 5 year Airworthy state and when that time line passes they then rig them up for a controller on the ground so it can be shot at for Air To Air or gunnery etc.

Most of the jets in AMARC are there for a reason.

AMARC may have jets sitting there, but most of these are fairly tired and antiquated (the F/A 18A has 20 year old tech for example). Restoring them to active status would take a substantial investment, in some cases including major structural work (specially F-16s, main wing spars may have to be rebuilt).

IrishAirCorps

cushtac wrote:

Most of the jets in AMARC are there for a reason.

.

Ya.........Storage and for sale to other nations such as the RAAF regarding their F111's.

IrishAirCorps

gatecrash wrote:

yeah they were carrier based, but there's nothing to stop them being used as land based fighters. (see Iran for examples)

SInce the US Imbargo on Iran they dont have any spares etc as their f14's rarely fly.

cushtac

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Ya.........Storage and for sale to other nations such as the RAAF regarding their F111's.

AMARC is, for the most part, a boneyard where planes go to die. If the jets they had were that useful, why did the retire them in the first place & why are they turning them in target-practice drones now?

While there would be some useful types out there, the majority of the fast jets they have in storage would have thousands of hours on their airframes & the cost of bringing them up to modern standards would be huge. Even if this is done, you've still got a second-hand airplane that won't last as long as new one. It might do in the short-term, but long-term it wouldn't be economically viable. A smarter short-term option would be leasing.

bk

Well the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm has just decommissioned their Sea Harriers, some where only 7 years old, these have excellent BVR capabilities with excellent radar (variant of now used in the Typhoon) and AMRAAM capability.

Very sturdy aircraft, and relatively easy to maintain, would have been perfect for the Aircorp. The Indians were looking to buy them off the Brits, but they decided not to sell them.

So there are lots of good condition second hand fighters around that Ireland could buy if they really wanted to.

I'm sure the US or UK would cut a good deal if we asked for them. But as others have said, no political will.

bk

cushtac wrote:

AMARC is, for the most part, a boneyard where planes go to die. If the jets they had were that useful, why did the retire them in the first place & why are they turning them in target-practice drones now?

Well the US has been massively reducing spending on it's home defence aircraft as it is now seen as unrequired due to the end of the cold war. They have been mothballing perfectly good jets as they are expensive to maintain in active duty (train pilots, ground crew, etc.).

In fact there never has been a better time to buy second had fighters.

However the idea of leasing sounds like a good one, it certainly seems to work very well for SAR.

IrishAirCorps

Just what i was going to say BK!!

Sea Harrier nah! RAF Harrier ya or the Jags!

IrishAirCorps

IF ONLY!

"Baldonnel tower this is Snake 41/42 rolling":rolleyes:






NOT MY PIC

cyrusdvirus

IrishAirCorps wrote:

SInce the US Imbargo on Iran they dont have any spares etc as their f14's rarely fly.

I know that IAC, but the original point I was making was that the F-14s were bought as land based rather than carrier based. The USN did quite well out of the Shah being deposed. The 4 Kidd class destroyers were practically built, and were taken over for a fraction of their cost, and the Grumman lines had been tooled up to make a bundle more tomcats, that were ultimately not delivered to Iran. I could be mistaken, but afaik the F-14B was the type delivered to Iran. The F-14C was nothing more than a test bed and the F-14D was a direct result of the Iranian purchase.

cushtac

bk wrote:

Well the US has been massively reducing spending on it's home defence aircraft as it is now seen as unrequired due to the end of the cold war. They have been mothballing perfectly good jets as they are expensive to maintain in active duty (train pilots, ground crew, etc.).

Most of the types in AMARC that would be useful the Air Corp (F-16, F/A-18 etc.) are first-production run models retired from front-line squadrons, so they've twenty year-old technology with at least some hours on the airframes.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to do, but it's certainly not like going down to Windsor Motor City and driving off in a pre-owned Focus.

IrishAirCorps

I think the sad truth is nobody gives a fcuk in the Offices and we aint getting anything considering we have the "New" PC9's....................................:rolleyes:

It will take something seriously bad to happen before the Govt do something and even then it will still be a token force:mad:

BrianD

IrishAirCorps wrote:

I think the sad truth is nobody gives a fcuk in the Offices and we aint getting anything considering we have the "New" PC9's....................................:rolleyes:

It will take something seriously bad to happen before the Govt do something and even then it will still be a token force:mad:

There is no value in buying combat jet aircraft in respond to a threat of terrorist use of civilian aircraft. What exactly would they do? The U.S. has one of the largest fleets of combat aircraft in the world yet responded like a headless chicken on 9/11 and moved aircraft around at WW2 speeds. This is despite intercepting 70 odd suspect flights over the year prior to the event. We are much better off keeping the money in our pockets and leaving it to NATA ... after all they protected our "neutrality" since 1945 so why stop now!

Maskhadov

The RAF is currently providing us with air cover. We might as well have the aircraft based in Ireland and pay for them ourselves

BrianD

Maskhadov wrote:

The RAF is currently providing us with air cover. We might as well have the aircraft based in Ireland and pay for them ourselves

Why pay? Let the UK governmnet do that! The biggest terrorist threat still remains the homegrown groups of either tradition and neither us nor the UK government used fighter aircraft to quell that threat.

Morpheus

BrianD wrote:

Why pay? Let the UK governmnet do that! The biggest terrorist threat still remains the homegrown groups of either tradition and neither us nor the UK government used fighter aircraft to quell that threat.

I hope that was tongue in cheek, or are you saying that one of the wealthiest countries in europe shouldnt get off its a$$ and look after itself simply because someone else is picking up the tab?

UK is protecting us and you are happy that we are now a de-facto protectorate of the United Kingdom? Was our independence for nothing?

By the way, who or what is NATA?

cyrusdvirus

Morph&#233 wrote: »

I hope that was tongue in cheek, or are you saying that one of the wealthiest countries in europe shouldnt get off its a$$ and look after itself simply because someone else is picking up the tab?

UK is protecting us and you are happy that we are now a de-facto protectorate of the United Kingdom? Was our independence for nothing?

By the way, who or what is NATA?

i'd be thinking he meant NATO, just alliance instead of organisation.

cushtac

The December issue of Connect, the Defence Force's newsletter which comes bundled with An Cosantóir magazine has a small piece on the AB139. It says the Air Corp has pilots in training at Agusta's facility in Italy for the next few weeks, after which it'll be flown home. The article also says it has seats for up to 12 troops, two machine guns, fast roping kit, a hoist, FLIR & night-vision capability.

The more style consious among you will be happy to know that the accompanying picture shows the helicopter to be completely green.

BrianD

Morph&#233 wrote: »

I hope that was tongue in cheek, or are you saying that one of the wealthiest countries in europe shouldnt get off its a$$ and look after itself simply because someone else is picking up the tab?

UK is protecting us and you are happy that we are now a de-facto protectorate of the United Kingdom? Was our independence for nothing?

By the way, who or what is NATA?

I would have hoped that you would have worked out that it was a typo.

The UK/NATO have been defending this country since its independence, so why kick up a fuss now? Our so called neutrality has been the biggest load of cod-ology since. In regard to air defence it would be the smarter move to pay the EU nations with the bigger air forces to do the job.

Morpheus

ill agree on one point, were not neutral. we never have been, its not in the constitution, but im sick of people spouting about "sure arent we neutral".

Still completley disagree with the sentiment to let someone else look after us because were not paying for it. If excrement DID hit the fan, you can bet they would worry about themselves first and then us as an afterthought.

ArphaRima

Money cant be an argument in this discussion because at €3bn for 22 fighters with all the offsets and spread over a considerable amount of time its bargin basement stuff

I'm getting sick of arguing against these kind of posts. I follow military affairs and aerospace developments quite a bit. I know the capabilities of most different military equipment (past present and future) and I have an interest in politics and international relations.

Basic finance is not beyond my grasp either.
3bn for 22 fighters we do not need is not "bargain basement". That is just a purchase price. Running costs are insane. Training, support, fuel, men, equipment, and storage. All must be paid for.
3bn is 3bn it doesnt matter how you spread the payments. It quite clear you dont have a mortgage or car loan.

Even if Ireland did want or need fighters, why Ireland should purchase a top-drawer brand new fighter rather than a secondhand gripen or f-16 is beyond me.

Enojoy discussing fantasy purchases. Will NEVER HAPPEN.

newby.204

Morph&#233 wrote: »

ill agree on one point, were not neutral. we never have been, its not in the constitution, but im sick of people spouting about "sure arent we neutral".

Still completley disagree with the sentiment to let someone else look after us because were not paying for it. If excrement DID hit the fan, you can bet they would worry about themselves first and then us as an afterthought.

MORPHEUS THIS IS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU , YOU JUST HAPPENED TO RAISE A COMMON RUNNING POINT IS ALL, PLEASE DO NOT TAKE OFFENCE. IF YOU DO POINT OUT WHERE AND WHY. I WILL DUELY APOLOGISE.

I think you miss the point if war or whatever ever broke out we would be an afterthought, a country the size of ours, like it or not, does not defend itself on common military tactics, two words "guerilla warfare" and that is simple fact. You can whine and moan about how we need this and that or how cool it would be to have the lateest and best kit. There is a very westernised approach to warfare by some on this forum. If we had jets and tanks and the latest abd greatest sure we would ahve the best kit, but we would be annihalated!!
What we need mlitarily in general at most is upkeep of current hardware aquisition of helicopters, yea i know we got four new ones a while ago. In a country like irleand, ambushes, ied's, sniping and "hit and run" tactics is how you win. You dont try and beat them on the way in , you let them settle and cram them till they leave.

Rant over , pick it apart if you wnat its fact anyhow. Any reasonable mind would see its true and anyone who doesnt want to have there soldiers slaughtered would agree the same

Bam Bam

unfortunately we cant use these "guerilla warfar" tactics overseas

A MBT at the head of a column says alot more then an AML 90.

And for any modern army an air-to-ground capacity is essential in modern warfare.

and an air-to-air capacity is needed to protect your airspace and planes and to defend against enemy air-to-ground attacks.

newby.204

Bam Bam wrote:

unfortunately we cant use these "guerilla warfar" tactics overseas

A MBT at the head of a column says alot more then an AML 90.

And for any modern army an air-to-ground capacity is essential in modern warfare.

and an air-to-air capacity is needed to protect your airspace and planes and to defend against enemy air-to-ground attacks.

Nor do we need an MBT for overseas either!!! or air-to-ground or air-to-air

Morpheus

Ok, we've reached the understanding tha this govt will never purchase a fighter squadron, however up until a few years ago we had a light strike squadron in the form of reasonably fast (albeit outdated) jets, this capability to deliver a payload in support of troops on the ground is a vital role currently filled by other nations when were on overseas operations.

With the advent of battlegroups and ever more UN missions coming up the long term sharp edge of the irish military will be honed on foreign soil. I dont think that it would be a lot to ask of our dept of defence to consider resurrecting the light strike squadron in the form of fast attack helicopters instead of close support jets.

Heli's are the way forward for us, they suit our army's type of deployment. you need a relatively small area of open ground to base 2 or 3 of them compared to jets, they can move about in the same area as the troops, they carry devastating weapon loads and are a major detterent to enemy troops and armour.

You may have noticed that in this post, i have never mentioned Apache .... damn, there now, i went and did it.

*Morpheus dives into his slit trench just as the first rockets scream towards his position from above the tree line*

Manic Moran

newby.204 wrote:

Nor do we need an MBT for overseas either!!!

Yes, you do. They're proving quite popular in UN/Peacekeeping missions these days. They have a great way of getting people's attention, beyond providing fire support. That the Irish have been managing to make do without so far does not nullify their benefits. See the MOWAG thread for pictures of peacekeeping MBTs.

NTM

Morpheus

Picture the scene, irish patrol in africa.

rebels in an ambush ahead.

[Rebel1 to Rebel2]
hey, looky here, lets kill de pesky irish boyz, we big bad liberian rebels so we gonna kick his ass for him, send him home in freezer bags eh? Take his gunz and kill da rest.

Sqeeky... squeeky... squeel... creak... rumble... rumble ... squeeky ... squeeky vrooom vroooooom VROOOOOM ... rumble roar ...roar ...squeely ...squeek creak... creak... creak... hisssssssssssss........

[Rebel 2 to Rebel 1] What da hell was dat?

[Rebel1 to Rebel2] Hey look, dem boys done been eatin deyr weetabix, its a big tank with the irish flag on its side and its pointy bit, is pointin at US and deres 3 more behind it.... argghh!! run, run!!!


welcome to the psychological effects of a big tank.