Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

coolhandspan

Okay I see the cv90 in all versions is a top vehicle. Proven in Afghanistan by norweigans and danes. Only holds six though in peace keeping/air conditioned version. Prob need to run alongside mowags. If keeping mowags prob need heavier medium battle tsnks to run alongside.
If serious about being psrt of eu nordic battle group then earlier point about frigates with helis is good one.
Also migs prob not an option even if purchased v cheap. . Annoy to many allies. Saab gripens upgraded version/ second hand prob only valid option..relatively cheap running cost for fast jets. To keep costs down we could send trainee pilots off to Sweden..

tac foley

coolhandspan wrote: »

Okay I see the cv90 in all versions is a top vehicle. Proven in Afghanistan by norweigans and danes. Only holds six though in peace keeping/air conditioned version. Prob need to run alongside mowags. If keeping mowags prob need heavier medium battle tsnks to run alongside.
If serious about being psrt of eu nordic battle group then earlier point about frigates with helis is good one.
Also migs prob not an option even if purchased v cheap. . Annoy to many allies. Saab gripens upgraded version/ second hand prob only valid option..relatively cheap running cost for fast jets. To keep costs down we could send trainee pilots off to Sweden..

That's going to cost around $13M per year, assuming 20 pilots and ten a/c and ten hours per month each to maintain currency.

tac

Ren2k7

sparky42 wrote: »

The MOWAG's have multiple vartiants as well, including a 105mm, bt frankly no IFV should be thebasis of stopping MBT's, that's not their job. As I've said before yes back when the decision was made I think the 90 would have been the better option. But since we went with MOWAG, then we should bloody stick with it and not create micro fleet's which just add's to the supply chain for all areas. Certainly we should get muc more of the variants (direct fire, indirect fire etc).

Isn't the 105mm version an American off shoot? Looking at the CV90120-T it is configured more in a light tank role than an IFV, much like the Army's current Scorpion fleet, but with a level of firepower more akin to a MBT. Having said that it hasn't been combat proven and would be a risky venture by the DOD to acquire unproven tech no other nation has yet to trial, unlike the CV90 with its 40/35mm cannon that has seen action in Afghanistan. Still, it wouldn't hurt for the Cavalry Corps to trial one or two here in Ireland and assess their performance against their own Scorpions.

The MOWAG's have proven themselves as an extremely reliable asset to the Cavalry Corps so not only should they be retained but more acquired to move the Army away from its present light infantry role towards a more mechanised role, perhaps increasing the offensive power of the MOWAG much like the American's Mobile Gun.

IrishTrajan

Does anyone know if the Irish Army does large scale war-games? I know they do section-level stuff, but have we ever done battalion sized games?

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Does anyone know if the Irish Army does large scale war-games? I know they do section-level stuff, but have we ever done battalion sized games?

I seem to remember some fairly large ones some years back, though I could be wrong.

Señor Fancy Pants

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Does anyone know if the Irish Army does large scale war-games? I know they do section-level stuff, but have we ever done battalion sized games?

Yes, Brigade level, Battalion level, Company level, Platoon level and Section level are conducted.

Savage93

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119894/MoD-tried-cover-selling-Harrier-jets-Americans-knock-price-112m-600m-refit.html

In 2012 the Brits sold 74 Harriers of various marks along with their entire inventory of spare parts and engines to the yanks for £116 million, 2 years after the aircraft underwent a £600 million upgrade/refit.

Imagine if we could have gotten our hands on say 1/3 of that, some of those planes were built in 2003. Serious opportunity missed.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

IrishTrajan

Savage93 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119894/MoD-tried-cover-selling-Harrier-jets-Americans-knock-price-112m-600m-refit.html

In 2012 the Brits sold 74 Harriers of various marks along with their entire inventory of spare parts and engines to the yanks for £116 million, 2 years after the aircraft underwent a £600 million upgrade/refit.

Imagine if we could have gotten our hands on say 1/3 of that, some of those planes were built in 2003. Serious opportunity missed.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

The Harrier production line closed in 2003, getting parts might have been a problem (considering less than 400 were built), to be honest.

beauf

Where did you get 400 from. Thats a lot of aircraft. The problem is they are getting old. The US bought them as the Uk planes are newer and have more time left on their airframes than their own Harriers. They are also expensive to run and complex aircraft (considering its a single engine). It would be madness for Ireland to buy them. As its complex aircraft, its also has a higher accident rate than other types and requires higher standards of operation and pilot training. It would be the wrong aircraft. Even if it wasn't too old.

IrishTrajan

beauf wrote: »

Where did you get 400 from. Thats a lot of aircraft. The problem is they are getting old. The US bought them as the Uk planes are newer and have more time left on their airframes than their own Harriers. They are also expensive to run and complex aircraft (considering its a single engine). It would be madness for Ireland to buy them. As its complex aircraft, its also has a higher accident rate than other types and requires higher standards of operation and pilot training. It would be the wrong aircraft. Even if it wasn't too old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II
Number built AV-8B: 337

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Harrier_II
Number built 143

Closer to 500, my bad.

beauf

Compare it to the Pilatus 9 we have. 265 built (to date). of course you can still buy a new one of those.

beauf

Out of curiosity I looked up who uses the hawk as a fighter. Probably better choices these days.

https://www.facebook.com/myjointforce/photos/a.417506855044390.1073742144.248010791993998/417507521710990/?type=3&theater

IrishTrajan

beauf wrote: »

Out of curiosity I looked up who uses the hawk as a fighter. Probably better choices these days.

https://www.facebook.com/myjointforce/photos/a.417506855044390.1073742144.248010791993998/417507521710990/?type=3&theater

The JAS-39, F-16s, F-18s... There's a plethora of better aircraft alright.

beauf wrote: »

Compare it to the Pilatus 9 we have. 265 built (to date). of course you can still buy a new one of those.

The Pilatus are a lot less capable of defending Irish skies, I think, even if they're cheaper.

beauf

There better again, if better was the sole criteria.

The point about the Pilatus was with regard to numbers built, and parts. You want is a current aircraft with time left on the airframe. Not some ancient airframe that's been used as bomb truck all over the world.

IrishTrajan

beauf wrote: »

There better again, if better was the sole criteria.

The point about the Pilatus was with regard to numbers built, and parts. You want is a current aircraft with time left on the airframe. Not some ancient airframe that's been used as bomb truck all over the world.

The Pilatus does not have the range, speed, operation ceiling or armament to properly protect Irish skies. If we're going to do anything, buy real fighters (the F-16 had 4500 units produced, parts is hardly a problem) and begin looking to working towards buying more expensive aircraft 20-30 years down the line.

Markcheese

The Pilatus is a trainer - a pre jet trainer - then something like a hawk then a full on fast jet - gotta walk before you run .
Ironically the Pilatus is probably more suited to a light attack, counter insurgency role ( coin ?) which is our national priority - than a hawk or F-16 type thing would be -

sparky42

In terms of the Harriers, the US Marines bought them for spares, not flight certified airframes, in otherwords they got scrapped to replace parts worn out in the USMC airframes, so support packages weren't in question.

In terms of costs for what else, there is a vast cost difference between a Hawk and an F-18, not least due to the need to purchase a Hawk type to cerfiy pilots (or pay the RAF for that).

In terms of the production run of the F-16, yes there was 4500 built, but the end production unit had little to match the first production run. So instead of just saying X number was built, how about you idnetify which variant you are looking at, how much average usage of that type and what the costs are? Ther's a massive difference from the last gen 4.5ish type than the A/B types.

IrishTrajan

Markcheese wrote: »

Ironically the Pilatus is probably more suited to a light attack, counter insurgency role ( coin ?) which is our national priority - than a hawk or F-16 type thing would be -

Unlikely. The Pilatus carries only 1220kg of explosives, and could probably be taken out by MANPADs.

If you're talking about surveillance/reconnaissance, possibly, though the JAS-39 would still be a much better alternative (better electronics, faster, larger payload, etc).

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Unlikely. The Pilatus carries only 1220kg of explosives, and could probably be taken out by MANPADs.

If you're talking about surveillance/reconnaissance, possibly, though the JAS-39 would still be a much better alternative (better electronics, faster, larger payload, etc).

The Super Tucano would be more idela for COIN operations, the Gripen is overkill in the extreme for COIN operations, hell any fast jets really are, which is why the slower A-10's are such a favourite.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

The Super Tucano would be more idela for COIN operations, the Gripen is overkill in the extreme for COIN operations, hell any fast jets really are, which is why the slower A-10's are such a favourite.

Probably more to do with the A-10s survivability if struck by MANPADs than fuel efficiency.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Probably more to do with the A-10s survivability if struck by MANPADs than fuel efficiency.

And their time over target due to slower speed (ie loiter time), along with accuracy. In the COIN operations in the last 20 years it's been the A 10 that the grunts want, while it's been the "fast jet mafia" ( the ones that had the motto of "not a pound for air to ground") that want the A-10 killed off.

COIN doesn't need fast jet, it needs perscent top cover that Turbo props can provide, which is why the Super Tucano is getting orders. In an ideal world we would have done a deal with the UK as some sort of peace effort to buy Tucano's for Shorts, and then replaced them with Super's which would be more effective than the Turbo's that we have.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

And their time over target due to slower speed (ie loiter time), along with accuracy. In the COIN operations in the last 20 years it's been the A 10 that the grunts want, while it's been the "fast jet mafia" ( the ones that had the motto of "not a pound for air to ground") that want the A-10 killed off.

Absolutely, though a nice JDAM always lifts the spirits.

Savage93

sparky42 wrote: »

The Super Tucano would be more idela for COIN operations, the Gripen is overkill in the extreme for COIN operations, hell any fast jets really are, which is why the slower A-10's are such a favourite.

And that's why USAF is replacing the A-10 with the F35, the most expensive aircraft ever built.

Captain Chaos

Savage93 wrote: »

And that's why USAF is replacing the A-10 with the F35, the most expensive aircraft ever built.

No, the B2 the most expensive aircraft ever built and the F-22 is more expensive per aircraft than the F-35.

The F-35 is the most expensive aircraft weapons system development program ever though. A very, very different thing.

The USAF don't want to replace the A-10C but they have no choice if they want to afford the F-35. Another option they are looking at is withdrawing more F-16s early from service to keep some more A-10s around longer.

Savage93

beauf wrote: »

Where did you get 400 from. Thats a lot of aircraft. The problem is they are getting old. The US bought them as the Uk planes are newer and have more time left on their airframes than their own Harriers. They are also expensive to run and complex aircraft (considering its a single engine). It would be madness for Ireland to buy them. As its complex aircraft, its also has a higher accident rate than other types and requires higher standards of operation and pilot training. It would be the wrong aircraft. Even if it wasn't too old.

Flying Hours determine an aircraft's life, not age of airframe.Airforces were flying 40 year old Phantoms. Current B52 crews are all youngerthan their aircraft.
The Brits ,Yanks, Spaniards and Indians have flown then for years. Are you saying Irish pilots, with the correct training, would be incapable of flying them??

The spares inventory was massive apparently.

I agree the harrier would not be the ideal if we had deep pockets but , on those figures, for around £40m stg. we could have had 24 flying aircraft plus spares. A supersonic fighter for about 3million euro !!!!!!!!!

The Harrier Air Defence variant would be a lot compared to the NOTHING we currently have!!!!!!!!

Savage93

Captain Chaos wrote: »

No, the B2 the most expensive aircraft ever built and the F-22 is more expensive per aircraft than the F-35.

The F-35 is the most expensive aircraft weapons system development program ever though. A very, very different thing.

The USAF don't want to replace the A-10C but they have no choice if they want to afford the F-35. Another option they are looking at is withdrawing more F-16s early from service to keep some more A-10s around longer.

I stand corrected, my post was some what sarcastic, I am an A10 fan.

beauf

Savage93 wrote: »

Flying Hours determine an aircraft's life, not age of airframe.Airforces were flying 40 year old Phantoms. Current B52 crews are all youngerthan their aircraft.

I didn't think that needed pointing out. Since its the main issue for the US harrier buy. Indeed for all these replacement programs in many countries all are based on when their current inventories go out of time, as they are all due to be replaced. Active duty in conflicts only accelerates this.

https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=US+combat+aircraft+aging

Savage93 wrote: »

The Brits ,Yanks, Spaniards and Indians have flown then for years. Are you saying Irish pilots, with the correct training, would be incapable of flying them??....!

You've an active imagination I'll give you that.

Its needs more training = higher cost + more accidents.

sparky42

Savage93 wrote: »

And that's why USAF is replacing the A-10 with the F35, the most expensive aircraft ever built.

The USAF has been trying to kill the A-10 from the day it went into service, they wanted more F 15's (air to air none of the Air to Ground, that pound comment was from the team of the 15 development) the 35 is a joke to be suggesting to replace it.

sparky42

beauf wrote: »

I didn't think that needed pointing out. Since its the main issue for the US harrier buy. Indeed for all these replacement programs in many countries all are based on when their current inventories go out of time, as they are all due to be replaced. Active duty in conflicts only accelerates this.

https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=US+combat+aircraft+aging




You've an active imagination I'll give you that.

Its needs more training = higher cost + more accidents.

From memory the Harrier's have one of the worst accident rates already. If we wanted something good and cheap that the UK was out of servicing, I would have suggested the Jaguar instead, more conventional large enough user base and capable as well. But we all know the public would never accept such spending even in the Good times.

beauf

sparky42 wrote: »

In terms of the Harriers, the US Marines bought them for spares, not flight certified airframes, in otherwords they got scrapped to replace parts worn out in the USMC airframes, so support packages weren't in question..

More on that here.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usmc-hopes-new-method-for-tracking-fatigue-life-will-help-extend-harrier-to-372797/

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/usmcs-harriers-could-fly-until-2030/

sparky42 wrote: »

In terms of costs for what else, there is a vast cost difference between a Hawk and an F-18, not least due to the need to purchase a Hawk type to cerfiy pilots (or pay the RAF for that). .

Don't quite follow you there.