Equipment that is needed for the aircorps.

Fratton Fred

how about some form of "Joint Venture" between the RAF and the Air Corp?

Irish Pilots training with the RAF, 6 or 8 of the 300 RAF eurofighters being bought by the Irish and taking on any duties the RAF may have over the Western part of our joint countries territory.

Going from no jets to 16 Typhoons is a massive step, not only are you talking about pilots, but the skills required to maintain them will need to come from somehwere as well.

Ireland being abe to raise a credible air defence must be of benefit to the UK, so why not get the RAF to help out?

Vorsprung

purplengold wrote:

We don’t need an air force, if we get in any sort of bother the RAF will be here in about 10 minutes.

Should we be making a contribution to the UK defence budget too?

Steyr

Fratton Fred wrote:

how about some form of "Joint Venture" between the RAF and the Air Corp?

Irish Pilots training with the RAF

We do conduct "swaps" with RAF crews and our guys were in the UK last year doing low level heli training for the EC135's.

jmayo

Did not know the Army/Air Corp were acquiring drones?

As far as medevac air ambulances, we do not need just one or two, we need at least two in each province. That way there should be at least one airworthy at most times.
With that we could then put in place the idea of centralised health care and close the smaller hospitals A&Es or operating units.
You can't close Ennis, Roscommon etc if there is no quick way of getting patients to bigger more complex hospitals. So the cost of air ambulances could be balanced against closing or centralising hospitals.
Will the politicos go for that and take on the unions and locals.
Me thinks not.

Maybe attack helicopters in the vain of the Apache is out of our reach but surely we can do better than strapping a 7.62 GPMG on the side of what is essentially a commerical helicopter with a paint job ?

As regards buying modern front line fighters Eurofighters, Raptors etc, that is a joke.
Not alone do you have the upfront purchase cost, you have the cost of training ground crews, pilots etc.
That runs into hundred of millions in itself.
How much does it cost USAF or USN to train a fighter jock?

People tend to just look at fact it only costs X millions to buy the thing.
They forget that it cost Y millions to train pilots and ground crews.
You could have half your fleet out of service for maintenance or repairs, so you need double the number initially.
You need to have Z millions tied up in spares and equipment as well.

As regards transporting ministers, I would strap them to the strutt of a Piper although that would throw the weight and balance out the window in a couple of cases. It would be a bit like flying with bear or moose attached but if they can do it in Canada/Alaska we should be able to do it here.

As for a government jet I would buy couple of the new Airbus A400 transporters and throw the whole Dail in the back. With a bit of luck they might stray out the cargo door over the Atlantic.

UK have their own problems regarding defence spending.
Interesting to see how only really the US and the countries it aids are the only ones able to keep upto date with modern military equipment.
Contrast the armies of the middle east and you get an idea of what I mean.
It is just very expensive technology nowadays.
But the funny thing is how some old crude technology can still beat the new stuff.

TerrorFirmer

All we need.





Also, some of these for good measure.

Steyr

The AC are in the process of acquiring at least 2 drones for use in Overseas Missions and at home in for Training with the Army,Navy in Patrols etc. Very good news and about time too.

Peteee

purplengold wrote:

Remember the government jet and the propeller aircraft at the 1916 celebrations? I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

This.

6 or 8 second hand hawks from the RAF would make fly overs a lot more impressive. The fact that we dont have any jet aircraft is absolutely pathetic.

As for price, the unit cost of a BAe hawk is £18 million (€27 million euro)

Hardly going to break the bank.

As for maintenance costs, the average cost per flying hour for a RAF Jaguar is £13.3k. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980401/text/80401w09.htm ]

I imagine a Hawk is far less.

Might instill a sense of pride in the Air Corps. Most people laugh when someone mentions them (No disrespect meant to the Air Corps personnell, merely your equipment)

cushtac

Peteee wrote:

6 or 8 second hand hawks from the RAF would make fly overs a lot more impressive. The fact that we dont have any jet aircraft is absolutely pathetic.

Unless the RAF is selling Hawks, we can't but any from them.

Peteee wrote:

As for price, the unit cost of a BAe hawk is £18 million (€27 million euro) Hardly going to break the bank.

Six or eight Hawks @ €27m each (2003 price btw) comes to €162 or €216m. That's a lot of money for a non-supersonic trainer, and that's before the cost of training & munitions.

Peteee wrote:

As for maintenance costs, the average cost per flying hour for a RAF Jaguar is £13.3k. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980401/text/80401w09.htm ]

I imagine a Hawk is far less.

That price is for 1998, there's no reason to believe that this bears any resemblance to the current operating costs of a Hawk (new or otherwise).

testicle

Steyr wrote:

The AC are in the process of acquiring at least 2 drones for use in Overseas Missions and at home in for Training with the Army,Navy in Patrols etc. Very good news and about time too.

They are not Air Corps assets. Just because they fly doesn't make them AC. They are CIS assets.

Celtic Warrior

Ireland has been independant since 1921 its time to stop relying on the UK for anything! with all the money in the country we need modern weel equiped DF! Give my vote anyday for whatever they need! look at Switzerland - Neutral - left alone in WW2 - but has one of the largest and well equiped DF in the world why? who knows

Steyr

Its BAe you need to go to for Hawks and they are alot cheaper than 20Mil. Id love us to have Harriers, low maintenance Aircraft and cost effective, also would save a heap you know with the Vert TO etc, and yes im aware that in order to achieve/conserve fuel they do a rolling take off you can still take off from a relatively small area, it can be done.

Steyr

Now that you ention it, the RAF will be looking to get rid of their Hawk T1's!

Hawk 128

SpecificationsThrust: -lbs Max speed: 640mph Length: 12.43m Max altitude: -ft Span: 9.94m Aircrew: 2 Save to 'Compare aircraft'
The Hawk 128 was selected as the new Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) for the UK Armed Forces in July 2003. The Hawk 128 will be used by both RAF and RN pilots for fast-jet aircrew training and will replace the existing aircraft of Nos 19 and 208 (Reserve) Squadrons at RAF Valley. It will train aircrew for Harrier, Tornado, Typhoon and the future Joint Combat Aircraft.
The Hawk 128 has an extended nose for additional avionics and will feature a number of major changes under the skin, making it a virtually new aircraft. Gone are the cockpit dials and switches of the T1. In their place are three, full colour, multi-function displays similar to those used by modern fighters such as Typhoon. These can be used to display navigation, weapon and systems information. The cockpit has new lighting fully compatible with the use of night-vision goggles for night operations. The aircraft's head-up display (HUD) has been updated to use symbols and data used in more current combat aircraft. Other changes include 'Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick' (HOTAS) controls which are fully representative of front line combat aircraft types, and twin Open Architecture mission computers hosting simulations of a wide range of sensor and weapon systems as well as a full featured IN/GPS navigation system with moving map display.
Outside of the cockpit, the Hawk 128 has the new 7 station wing and will be fitted with the uprated 6,500lb static thrust Rolls Royce/Turbomeca Adour 951 turbofan with full digital control systems.


http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/hawk128.cfm

Peteee

cushtac wrote:

Unless the RAF is selling Hawks, we can't but any from them.

Buy them from BAe then. I put in second hand so they would be cheaper.

Six or eight Hawks @ €27m each (2003 price btw) comes to €162 or €216m. That's a lot of money for a non-supersonic trainer, and that's before the cost of training & munitions.

That price is for 1998, there's no reason to believe that this bears any resemblance to the current operating costs of a Hawk (new or otherwise).

1998 costs they may be, buts I'd think its safe to say costs probably havent jumped 10 fold (Fuel prices maybe).

As for the 'non-supersonic trainer', I think it's a well thought out choice. What else would you propose?

A few hundred million is a one time cost, that can be made over the lifetime of the jets.

Lets say 6 jets, 15 years, 162/15 = 10.8 million a year.

I'll gladly pay 3 euro of tax a year so we can buy some jets. Less then a pint,.

testicle

4 or 5 of these, and we'd be sorted.

Steyr

Id go for the Hawk, sure didnt the PC9M's cost over Euro 80 Million incl spare parts and training equipment etc. I think we didnt need the PC9M, we should have gone straight from Fouga CM170 Super Magister to the Hawk, it didnt make sense to put pilots already flying jets straight onto props:rolleyes: who wants "jet like characteristics" when we already had them in the first place all we needed was an upgrade to a better,faster,more reliable Jet such as the Hawk. And we could certainely afford more that 6-8, if we had the balls we would have had something like 20, and god knows even 20 would not break the bank.:mad:

cushtac

Steyr wrote:

Its BAe you need to go to for Hawks and they are alot cheaper than 20Mil.

What are you basing that cost on?

Steyr wrote:

Id love us to have Harriers, low maintenance Aircraft and cost effective, also would save a heap you know with the Vert TO etc, and yes im aware that in order to achieve/conserve fuel they do a rolling take off you can still take off from a relatively small area, it can be done.

The Harrier is another subsonic aircraft & isn't suited to air defence. The VTO consumes a lot of fuel & severely limits the aircraft's payload.

cushtac

Peteee wrote:

Buy them from BAe then. I put in second hand so they would be cheaper.

1998 costs they may be, buts I'd think its safe to say costs probably havent jumped 10 fold (Fuel prices maybe).

I also think it's safe to say that costs have increased enough to make it an important factor. Even a 10% increase in the unit price adds at least €16m to the basic cost.

Peteee wrote:

As for the 'non-supersonic trainer', I think it's a well thought out choice. What else would you propose?

Firstly I dunno why you put that in quotes, that's exactly what the Hawk is.

Secondly, I'd buy a proper fighter. If you're going to spend millions on air defence then you need to buy aircraft that can actually do the job, that means supersonic aircraft with decent range & proper payloads. Something like the Gripen or a new-build F-16 would be examples of types on the smal end of the scale.

Peteee wrote:

A few hundred million is a one time cost, that can be made over the lifetime of the jets.

Lets say 6 jets, 15 years, 162/15 = 10.8 million a year.

I'll gladly pay 3 euro of tax a year so we can buy some jets. Less then a pint,.

It doesn't work like that. Firstly, there's the start-up costs - the millions you'd have to spend on upgrading the don's infrastructure to accomodate the jets; the cost of the new ground-based radar you'd need to control the jets during interceptions; the munitions they'd need to attack a target (missiles aren't cheap) and the cost of training AC personnel to use all this stuff. Then you've got the yearly costs - the fuel (lots of it, since pilots need lots of practice in this area); the maintainance (new parts, rebuilds etc.) and the munitions (once you fire them you've to replace them).

That all adds up to a lot of money, far more than the price of a pint.

Steyr wrote:

sure didnt the PC9M's cost over Euro 80 Million incl spare parts and training equipment etc.

According to the DF website the total cost of the contract for eight PC-9M's was €60m - compare that to the unit cost of eight Hawks.

Steyr wrote:

I think we didnt need the PC9M, we should have gone straight from Fouga CM170 Super Magister to the Hawk, it didnt make sense to put pilots already flying jets straight onto props

For a start, the pilots didn't go straight from the Fouga to the Pilatus. The Fougas were grounded in 1998. The PC-9M is fufilling the role of basic & advanced trainer, replacing the SF260 and the Fouga. It made perfect sense to do this, since the AC is a small organisation & doesn't need such a diverse fleet.

Steyr wrote:

who wants "jet like characteristics" when we already had them in the first place all we needed was an upgrade to a better,faster,more reliable Jet such as the Hawk.

In almost every respect the PC-9M is superior to the Fouga, while not costing as much as a jet trainer.

Jet trainers look cool, but that's all they are - trainers. Trying to tart them up like fighters is false economy & the only advantage you'd get is that they'd look better at airshows.

Peteee

cushtac wrote:

What are you basing that cost on?

Wikipedia has the unit costs of the hawk at 18 million.

Just trying to keep the costs down is all.

A quick Googling gives a F-16 unit cost at 20-30 million dollars, which again would be feisable.

The Harrier is another subsonic aircraft & isn't suited to air defence.

Try telling that to the argentinians (Who did have supersonic jets)

22 kills to no combat losses.

The VTO consumes a lot of fuel & severely limits the aircraft's payload.

Which is why the harrier rarely uses VTO, it usually has a rolling take off for the very reason you mentioned.

The harrier is also a hugely capable CAS (Close Air Support), Which is why the US Marines use it.

Also keep in mind that Ireland isn't a big country. The Harrier has a 2,200KM range.

It doesn't work like that. Firstly, there's the start-up costs - the millions you'd have to spend on upgrading the don's infrastructure to accomodate the jets; the cost of the new ground-based radar you'd need to control the jets during interceptions; the munitions they'd need to attack a target (missiles aren't cheap) and the cost of training AC personnel to use all this stuff. Then you've got the yearly costs - the fuel (lots of it, since pilots need lots of practice in this area); the maintainance (new parts, rebuilds etc.) and the munitions (once you fire them you've to replace them).

That all adds up to a lot of money, far more than the price of a pint.

I'm well aware of the additional costs.

The thing is you still have to pay for Fuel, Training, Maintenance and infrastructure with the prop craft anyway. Might as well ahve something decent to show for all the money.

Sidewinders cost $84,000 each. I have no idea how many the average pilot fires every year.

Steyr

Thank you PETEEE, Cushtac you quoted me about the Harrier using VTO and how un economical it is, well if you look at my post which you "quoted" you should see that i stated that it is more economical to use standard TO so why quote me on econmoical stuff about the harrier which i already said myself?


I also think Cushtac that you are VERY anti Hawk, first off yes the PC9M is better than the Fouga, BUT a Jet is a Jet and a Turboprop is just well a Turboprop.......Also i think it would be acceptable to the Nation to start off with something along the lines of the Hawk and build up from there, the RAF use them for point Defence, and if its good enough for them then its good enough for us.

Also i know when the CM170 Super's were grounded but the next Aircraft they had in terms of a replacement was the PC9M. Im sure the guys in the Don were none too happy about going back to "props" when they were using Jets, i have also heard this too.

cushtac

Peteee wrote:

Try telling that to the argentinians (Who did have supersonic jets) 22 kills to no combat losses.

The Argentians were operating at extreme range, leaving them no fuel for dogfighting, and were instructed to avoid the Harriers in favour of attacking the British fleet. The Harrier pilots themselves say that things might have been very different if they'd had been targeted instead of the ships.

Peteee wrote:

Which is why the harrier rarely uses VTO, it usually has a rolling take off for the very reason you mentioned.

Tell that to Steyr, he reckons VTO would save us a heap.

Peteee wrote:

The harrier is also a hugely capable CAS (Close Air Support), Which is why the US Marines use it.

That's not the same variant as the one the RN uses, it's a dedicated ground-attack aircraft. CAS isn't a pressing requirement for the AC either

Peteee wrote:

Also keep in mind that Ireland isn't a big country. The Harrier has a 2,200KM range.

The Harrier has the range, but it doesn't have the speed or the rate of climb needed for air defence work. The size of the country works both ways, it leaves an interceptor little time to get up & out to a potential attacker. That's why you need a supersonic aircraft.

Peteee wrote:

The thing is you still have to pay for Fuel, Training, Maintenance and infrastructure with the prop craft anyway. Might as well have something decent to show for all the money.

The AC does have something to show for the money - it has 8 modern truboprop aircraft capable of both basic & advanced flight training, and it has it for a lot less money than the cost of a smaller number of Hawks.

Steyr wrote:

Cushtac you quoted me about the Harrier using VTO and how un economical it is, well if you look at my post which you "quoted" you should see that i stated that it is more economical to use standard TO so why quote me on econmoical stuff about the harrier which i already said myself?

This is exactly what you said, I've highlighted the bit on VTO:

love us to have Harriers, low maintenance Aircraft and cost effective, also would save a heap you know with the Vert TO etc

Now please qualify that remark.

Steyr wrote:

I also think Cushtac that you are VERY anti Hawk, first off yes the PC9M is better than the Fouga, BUT a Jet is a Jet and a Turboprop is just well a Turboprop........

I'm not anti-Hawk per se, I'm opposed to spending money on jet trainers which look cool but don't really do the job. If you agree that the PC-9M is better than the Fouga, then surely any argument about it being a step back is purely one of aesthetics - you want to see a cool looking jet at the next air show & that's all that matters.

Steyr wrote:

Also i think it would be acceptable to the Nation to start off with something along the lines of the Hawk and build up from there, the RAF use them for point Defence, and if its good enough for them then its good enough for us

Why spend money on Hawks if we're going to 'build up from there?' Are you advocating getting Hawks as well as proper fighters? Do you not think the AC is too small to support a turboprop trainer, a jet LIFT and a fighter? Why not buy a proper fighter & send the pilots for LIFT in another country?

The RAF does have the Hawk assigned to the point defence role, but that means using the Hawk when the sh!t has really hit the fan and there's no proper fighters available. Do you not think that if the Hawk was that suited to the role you're touting if for, the RAF would be using it instead of Tornados or Typhoons?

Steyr wrote:

Also i know when the CM170 Super's were grounded but the next Aircraft they had in terms of a replacement was the PC9M. Im sure the guys in the Don were none too happy about going back to "props" when they were using Jets, i have also heard this too.

If you knew that then why did you say the AC went straight from jets to props? I don't know where you heard that, but I know the guys in the Don are very happy to have modern aircraft with modern equipment & ejector seats.

cushtac

Peteee wrote:

Try telling that to the argentinians (Who did have supersonic jets) 22 kills to no combat losses.

The Argentians were operating at extreme range, leaving them no fuel for dogfighting, and were instructed to avoid the Harriers in favour of attacking the British fleet. The Harrier pilots themselves say that things might have been very different if they'd had been targeted instead of the ships.

Peteee wrote:

Which is why the harrier rarely uses VTO, it usually has a rolling take off for the very reason you mentioned.

Tell that to Steyr, he reckons VTO would save us a heap.

Peteee wrote:

The harrier is also a hugely capable CAS (Close Air Support), Which is why the US Marines use it.

That's not the same variant as the one the RN uses, it's a dedicated ground-attack aircraft. CAS isn't a pressing requirement for the AC either

Peteee wrote:

Also keep in mind that Ireland isn't a big country. The Harrier has a 2,200KM range.

The Harrier has the range, but it doesn't have the speed or the rate of climb needed for air defence work. The size of the country works both ways, it leaves an interceptor little time to get up & out to a potential attacker. That's why you need a supersonic aircraft.

Peteee wrote:

The thing is you still have to pay for Fuel, Training, Maintenance and infrastructure with the prop craft anyway. Might as well have something decent to show for all the money.

The AC does have something to show for the money - it has 8 modern truboprop aircraft capable of both basic & advanced flight training, and it has it for a lot less money than the cost of a smaller number of Hawks.

Steyr wrote:

Cushtac you quoted me about the Harrier using VTO and how un economical it is, well if you look at my post which you "quoted" you should see that i stated that it is more economical to use standard TO so why quote me on econmoical stuff about the harrier which i already said myself?

This is exactly what you said, I've highlighted the bit on VTO:

love us to have Harriers, low maintenance Aircraft and cost effective, also would save a heap you know with the Vert TO etc

Now please qualify that remark.

Steyr wrote:

I also think Cushtac that you are VERY anti Hawk, first off yes the PC9M is better than the Fouga, BUT a Jet is a Jet and a Turboprop is just well a Turboprop........

I'm not anti-Hawk per se, I'm opposed to spending money on jet trainers which look cool but don't really do the job. If you agree that the PC-9M is better than the Fouga, then surely any argument about it being a step back is purely one of aesthetics - you want to see a cool looking jet at the next air show & that's all that matters.

Steyr wrote:

Also i think it would be acceptable to the Nation to start off with something along the lines of the Hawk and build up from there, the RAF use them for point Defence, and if its good enough for them then its good enough for us

Why spend money on Hawks if we're going to 'build up from there?' Are you advocating getting Hawks as well as proper fighters? Do you not think the AC is too small to support a turboprop trainer, a jet LIFT and a fighter? Why not buy a proper fighter & send the pilots for LIFT in another country?

The RAF does have the Hawk assigned to the point defence role, but that means using the Hawk when the sh!t has really hit the fan and there's no proper fighters available. Do you not think that if the Hawk was that suited to the role you're touting if for, the RAF would be using it instead of Tornados or Typhoons?

Steyr wrote:

Also i know when the CM170 Super's were grounded but the next Aircraft they had in terms of a replacement was the PC9M. Im sure the guys in the Don were none too happy about going back to "props" when they were using Jets, i have also heard this too.

If you knew that then why did you say the AC went straight from jets to props? I don't know where you heard that, but I know the guys in the Don are very happy to have modern aircraft with modern equipment & ejector seats.

Steyr

Cushtac your one in a million..Legendary, i have relations in the AC and NOT everybody is happy about the PC9M's, i mean come on which would you rather have, turboprop or Jet its that easy. Were only debating so please relax.:rolleyes:

cushtac

Steyr wrote:

Cushtac your one in a million..Legendary:

Gee thanks.

Steyr wrote:

i have relations in the AC and NOT everybody is happy about the PC9M's

Well if you have relations there you're obviously the expert. I never said everyone was happy, but I do know that enough of them were happy enough with Pilatus to pick the PC-9M over other potential trainers, inlcuding jet ones

Steyr wrote:

i mean come on which would you rather have, turboprop or Jet its that easy.

I'd have whatever's best for the AC and the country, not what looks good.

Steyr wrote:

Were only debating so please relax.:rolleyes:

I'm perfectly relaxed, I just don't agree with you.

Steyr

cushtac wrote:

.



Well if you have relations there you're obviously the expert. I never said everyone was happy, but I do know that enough of them were happy enough with Pilatus to pick the PC-9M over other potential trainers, inlcuding jet ones



I'd have whatever's best for the AC and the country, not what looks good.

Brig Gen picked the PC9M AFAIK so ive been told, NO im not the "expert", the PC9M is not "whats best" for the country.

Peteee

cushtac wrote:

The Argentians were operating at extreme range, leaving them no fuel for dogfighting, and were instructed to avoid the Harriers in favour of attacking the British fleet. The Harrier pilots themselves say that things might have been very different if they'd had been targeted instead of the ships.

Nevermind the RAF pilots better training, Superior Radar and missiles and unique manourverability of the Harrier.

That's not the same variant as the one the RN uses, it's a dedicated ground-attack aircraft. CAS isn't a pressing requirement for the AC either.

The RN uses Harrier II's as of the 2006, the Sea Harriers were retired.

While I'm not too familiar with the differences between the BAe Harrier that the RAF uses and the Boeing version, I dont think they are all that disimilar.

As for CAS, Why have a fighter, and leave a huge hole in your air strategy. We have a good army, Why not support it with a good CAS aircraft.

Pure air defence fighters nowadays are quite cost ineffective, Given that since Vietnam there really hasn't been a credible air defence threat from a nation involved in a war (Falklands maybe the exception, Iraq was a turkey shoot)

The Harrier has the range, but it doesn't have the speed or the rate of climb needed for air defence work. The size of the country works both ways, it leaves an interceptor little time to get up & out to a potential attacker. That's why you need a supersonic aircraft.

Harrier can climb at 40,000ft/min, Just 10,000ft a minute off a F-16, and more then twice as much as the Panavia Tornado (Which has a dedicated Air Defence variant, the F3).

Supersonic speed granted.

The AC does have something to show for the money - it has 8 modern truboprop aircraft capable of both basic & advanced flight training, and it has it for a lot less money than the cost of a smaller number of Hawks.

The last time anyone used props in a war environment was in Vietnam, Over 35 years ago.

It gives off the impression that the AC is stuck back in World War 2

I'm not anti-Hawk per se, I'm opposed to spending money on jet trainers which look cool but don't really do the job. If you agree that the PC-9M is better than the Fouga, then surely any argument about it being a step back is purely one of aesthetics - you want to see a cool looking jet at the next air show & that's all that matters.

In what way wouldn't the hawks do a better job then the PC-9's.

If its good enough for the 2 best air forces in the world (RAF and US Navy (Uses a Hawk variant for Carrier training)), It's good enough for us.

And as I said, I do want to see something cool at air shows. Something to be proud of.

Steyr

Peteee...i think i love you!:D

Fidelis

Peteee wrote:

The last time anyone used props in a war environment was in Vietnam, Over 35 years ago.

Can you clarify that comment please. I know you're not saying that prop-driven aircraft haven't been used in combat environments since 1975

uberpixie

During the flaklands, Argentian used a prop job for CAS I do believe.

I am open to correction of course :-)

EDIT: Pucara

The Pucara was the pride of the Argentine aircraft industry—designed and manufactured in Argentina. It was a twin-engine turboprop attack aircraft built for counterinsurgency work. It could mount a 30 mm cannon and carry a variety of bombs. It was slow but rugged and had the advantage of being able to operate from small, rough airstrips

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_58_Pucar%C3%A1

interesting paper on Falklands air war.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html

Hagar

Good detective work there Uberpixie. No offence though, who wants to buy whats the losers used? Personally I'd rather buy something from the winners.

Isn't that part of the reason the UZI sales were so good? It may not have been the best weapon in the world but the people using it kept winning.

Hard Larry

Did you guys know that after our UN involvement with Somalia that the yanks offered us dozens of Heuys FREE OF CHARGE! Also Hummers/Humvees were offered to us but someone in the chain of command said 'No thanks' Due to the logistical end of things trying to get them back to Ireland.

The Hueys were dumped into the sea and the Hummers were given to some other nation or burned on the docks to avoid the miitia getting them

There is no doubt that the country needs both a Interceptor and CAS element. There are plenty of multi-roles to fill both (Hawk being one example)
But an Interceptor would give this country a 'peace of mind' for a 9/11 type senario, as another poster already said the Brits arent going to cover us if the balloon goes up and Jetliners start heading for popultion centers and there arent enough alert fighters scrambled to cover the UK cities.

If we do get our finger out and eventually buy Jets then remember this ratio when you go to calculate the cost...

1:1:2

For every 1 Jet we have doing its job there will be 1 jet for spare parts and another 2 for the Air Cops to ferry around the globe to say 'Look at us arent we great! we got jets!'