F16 Fighters on Display

Storm 10

God if we only had a few of these

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114943/Hundreds-fighter-jets-paraded-South-Korea-US-displays-military-might.html

Blue Punto

We couldnt afford the equipment needed to fly these let alone the cost of flying them

zone 1

bertie might no some one .......... 10 would be nice

Buffman

Photoshop would have been handier for them, nobody in the USAF/ROKAF must have it installed!:D

Typical dailymail though, 'Hundreds' of them! Ye, more like 60.

stopthepanic

was that runway designed by the same people who did the original M50?

Aviation gridlock!

johngalway

Buffman wrote: »

Photoshop would have been handier for them, nobody in the USAF/ROKAF must have it installed!:D

Typical dailymail though, 'Hundreds' of them! Ye, more like 60.

I only counted 48

shedweller

Blue Punto wrote: »

We couldnt afford the equipment needed to fly these let alone the cost of flying them

Didn't we give some country a load of aid money while the same country bought some sukhoi fighters? We certainly could have a few of those jets. Question is, what would we do with them?

GaryIrv93

Personally I don't see the harm in having a small squadron of them for the Air Corps. In this day and age we should really be able to defend our own airspace from whatever might come in the future.

johngalway

shedweller wrote: »

Didn't we give some country a load of aid money while the same country bought some sukhoi fighters? We certainly could have a few of those jets. Question is, what would we do with them?

Uganda was it not? €160 million I think

zone 1

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Personally I don't see the harm in having a small squadron of them for the Air Corps. In this day and age we should really be able to defend our own airspace from whatever might come in the future.

yes they should but this new white paper on defense might hurt the air corps. my god we dont even has troop trasport planes.......

GaryIrv93

zone 1 wrote: »

yes they should but this new white paper on defense might hurt the air corps. my god we dont even has troop trasport planes.......

True, a few secondhand C-130's from the states would be handy for transporting the heavy stuff. Hell, even a few old F-4 Phantoms and F-16's pictured here would be grand for us, obviously if they recieved a refurbishment and a few upgrades first. :rolleyes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/309th_Aerospace_Maintenance_and_Regeneration_Group

eire-kp

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

True, a few secondhand C-130's from the states would be handy for transporting the heavy stuff. Hell, even a few old F-4 Phantoms and F-16's pictured here would be grand for us, obviously if they recieved a refurbishment and a few upgrades first. :rolleyes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/309th_Aerospace_Maintenance_and_Regeneration_Group

Oh got the tour of that place...its an amazing sight!

kippy

Whatever about having a few of them for the air corps, the running costs would be crazy.

Tenger

kippy wrote: »

Whatever about having a few of them for the air corps, the running costs would be crazy.

Spot on.

While on paper it may seem like a relative bargain to buy a few 2nd hand F-16's from Belgium/Netherlands/Italy/Portugal Denmark/Norway/Turkey/Greece etc (Early block models obviously) the actual logistics of supporting a fast jet force is financially out of our reach. The aforementioned countries are all looking to cut back their defence budgets.

It is very easy to say "why not buy a half dozen of those?".
-Firstly to have 2-4 ready 24/7 for 'air defence' you would probably need a total aircraft pool of 10-12 minumum to cover maintainance and training. If we did the smart thing and trained in the USA (as the Dutch do) we would need to base 4-6 aircraft over there for our pilots. (The Dutch have 10 over there)
-Then you would have to completely overhaul the Air Corps training/maintainence regime to handle their introduction. Would the PC-9 serve as a basic trainer for fast jet ops? Would we need to incorporate the T-38 into out pool to be equivalent to the USA based training regime?
-What would be the actual mission of the aircraft, is it 'air interdiction' or 'sovereignty defence'? Both require slightly different weapons load outs which have different costs. Would we 'require a QRA force of 2 jets every day?
-Look at base location. Do we base all of them at Baldonnel or have 2 fast jet bases? 2 bases means at least a 50% increase in costs of overall fleet upkeep.

As a uninformed member of the public I say that we can manage well enough without a fast jet force. We cannot afford this luxury, even in the FF sponsored Celtic Tiger era. In recent years the RAF have politely extended their QRA coverage over our little island when needed and I say thanks to our closest neighbours for that.

Nonoperational

It must be some feeling to fly one.

Turbine

Tenger wrote: »

Spot on.

While on paper it may seem like a relative bargain to buy a few 2nd hand F-16's from Belgium/Netherlands/Italy/Portugal Denmark/Norway/Turkey/Greece etc (Early block models obviously) the actual logistics of supporting a fast jet force is financially out of our reach. The aforementioned countries are all looking to cut back their defence budgets.

It is very easy to say "why not buy a half dozen of those?".
-Firstly to have 2-4 ready 24/7 for 'air defence' you would probably need a total aircraft pool of 10-12 minumum to cover maintainance and training. If we did the smart thing and trained in the USA (as the Dutch do) we would need to base 4-6 aircraft over there for our pilots. (The Dutch have 10 over there)
-Then you would have to completely overhaul the Air Corps training/maintainence regime to handle their introduction. Would the PC-9 serve as a basic trainer for fast jet ops? Would we need to incorporate the T-38 into out pool to be equivalent to the USA based training regime?
-What would be the actual mission of the aircraft, is it 'air interdiction' or 'sovereignty defence'? Both require slightly different weapons load outs which have different costs. Would we 'require a QRA force of 2 jets every day?
-Look at base location. Do we base all of them at Baldonnel or have 2 fast jet bases? 2 bases means at least a 50% increase in costs of overall fleet upkeep.

As a uninformed member of the public I say that we can manage well enough without a fast jet force. We cannot afford this luxury, even in the FF sponsored Celtic Tiger era. In recent years the RAF have politely extended their QRA coverage over our little island when needed and I say thanks to our closest neighbours for that.

Defending our airspace isn't a luxury, its a necessity. If you're going to argue otherwise, then you should also say we don't need a navy, or even an army.

Tens of millions have so far been wasted on buying a fleet of 8 PC-9 trainer aircraft (now only 7 after the crash in Galway), without buying the fighter jets that they're meant to prepare pilots for. There is no role for this aircraft beyond training and airshows. So as far as I'm concerned if we continue this policy of not having a fleet of fighter jets to defend our airspace, then we should completely abandon the remaining fleet of 7 PC-9s the IAC have because they are useless in the role they're being utilised in.

My own view though is that as a country, we don't spend enough on our Defence Forces. Currently, we spend around 0.7% of GDP on our military. IMO this should be increased to between 1% and 1.5%, in line with other neutral European countries such as Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland. They are actually neutral countries in the true sense of the word, in that they can actually defend their countries from any threat. This extra spend would allow us to acquire additional CASA's for the role of maritime patrol (the current fleet of 2 is a joke) and a fleet of fighter jets that can defend Ireland's airspace from any threat.

I don't know why people have developed this hostility to Ireland acquiring fighter jets. Its not like we didn't have them before, Ireland previously had a fleet of 6 Fouga CM.170 Magisters between 1975 and 1998. We don't necessarily have to buy the aircraft up front, there are modern financing arrangements in place for countries that are strapped for cash. In the same way Aer Lingus have been able to enter lease for purchase contracts to acquire part of their fleet of A320s, the Irish government could also acquire fighter jets on the same terms, spreading the acquisition costs over an extended period of time.

We need a proper review of our Defence Forces and we need to decide as a country what we want and need from our Defence Forces. Either we want a properly equipped Defence Forces and are willing to spend the money on it, or we accept the limits of the current DF budget and stop wasting it on maintaining a fleet of PC-9s that are completely useless in the role they're being used for or a Learjet 45 that doesn't even have a toilet.

kippy

Turbine wrote: »

Defending our airspace isn't a luxury, its a necessity. If you're going to argue otherwise, then you should also say we don't need a navy, or even an army.

Tens of millions have so far been wasted on buying a fleet of 8 PC-9 trainer aircraft (now only 7 after the crash in Galway), without buying the fighter jets that they're meant to prepare pilots for. There is no role for this aircraft beyond training and airshows. So as far as I'm concerned if we continue this policy of not having a fleet of fighter jets to defend our airspace, then we should completely abandon the remaining fleet of 7 PC-9s the IAC have because they are useless in the role they're being utilised in.

My own view though is that as a country, we don't spend enough on our Defence Forces. Currently, we spend around 0.7% of GDP on our military. IMO this should be increased to between 1% and 1.5%, in line with other neutral European countries such as Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland. They are actually neutral countries in the true sense of the word, in that they can actually defend their countries from any threat. This extra spend would allow us to acquire additional CASA's for the role of maritime patrol (the current fleet of 2 is a joke) and a fleet of fighter jets that can defend Ireland's airspace from any threat.

I don't know why people have developed this hostility to Ireland acquiring fighter jets. Its not like we didn't have them before, Ireland previously had a fleet of 6 Fouga CM.170 Magisters between 1975 and 1998. We don't necessarily have to buy the aircraft up front, there are modern financing arrangements in place for countries that are strapped for cash. In the same way Aer Lingus have been able to enter lease for purchase contracts to acquire part of their fleet of A320s, the Irish government could also acquire fighter jets on the same terms, spreading the acquisition costs over an extended period of time.

We need a proper review of our Defence Forces and we need to decide as a country what we want and need from our Defence Forces. Either we want a properly equipped Defence Forces and are willing to spend the money on it, or we accept the limits of the current DF budget and stop wasting it on maintaining a fleet of PC-9s that are completely useless in the role they're being used for or a Learjet 45 that doesn't even have a toilet.

The ONLY reason we should spend more on planes are to:
assist with search and rescue.
assist with the enforcement of fishing laws.
assist with the policing of our seas.

Any other reason would be a severe waste of money.
Perhaps those three functions don't fall under the remit of the defence forces and if that is the case we need to see who the do fall under and fund accordingly.

Pataman

Who is going to attack us? And furthermore I welcome our new overlords, they cant be any "crappier" than the present or previous encumbants!

Cardinal Richelieu

Turbine wrote: »

My own view though is that as a country, we don't spend enough on our Defence Forces. Currently, we spend around 0.7% of GDP on our military. IMO this should be increased to between 1% and 1.5%, in line with other neutral European countries such as Sweden, Austria, and Switzerland. They are actually neutral countries in the true sense of the word, in that they can actually defend their countries from any threat. This extra spend would allow us to acquire additional CASA's for the role of maritime patrol (the current fleet of 2 is a joke) and a fleet of fighter jets that can defend Ireland's airspace from any threat.

Those 3 countries have a substantial local arms industries so there increased defence spending benefits local jobs. How big is the Irish arms industry?

Turbine

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Those 3 countries have a substantial local arms industries so there increased defence spending benefits local jobs.

Not necessarily as not all suppliers would be local.

But even take Finland which is more comparable to Ireland in terms of population, GDP, and involvement in foreign conflicts, and like Ireland doesn't have a large arms industry. Finland spends 1.3% of its GDP or €3.1 billion on defence, compared to Ireland's 0.7% or €1.2 billion.

What's the difference? The Irish Army has 14 Scorpion tanks, and the Irish Air Corps has 7 PC-9s to defend us. While the Finnish Army has 100 odd Leopard 2 tanks, and their air force has a fleet of 62 F-18s.

I'm not saying we need that much equipment, but that's the difference €2 billion can make, so imagine what a nominal increase in defence spending could do.

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

How big is the Irish arms industry?

According to a government report published last September, its worth about €11 billion - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0923/1224304577251.html

GaryIrv93

the Air Corps, instead of getting something radically advanced and expensive than what we're used to, such as F-16's etc, could have bought either BAe Hawks or Skyhawks. They'd be perfect for our defence. Skyhawks may be a bit aged, but at least they're jets. And they're relatively cheap, and use short runways. I've no expert on knowing how much runway Skyhawks would need, but I'd say Baldonnell is long enough. They were fairly recently retired by the USN and USMC, and the Argentine Air Force uses an advanced version called the A-4AR FightingHawk. We could do with 10 or so an also a few tandem versions. All they'd need would be a refurbishment and new engines, radar, avionics etc from a few retired US ones and we'd be good to go.

Dacian

Turbine wrote: »

.......take Finland which is more comparable to Ireland in terms of population, GDP, and involvement in foreign conflicts, and like Ireland doesn't have a large arms industry. Finland spends 1.3% of its GDP or €3.1 billion on defence, compared to Ireland's 0.7% or €1.2 billion.

What's the difference? The Irish Army has 14 Scorpion tanks, and the Irish Air Corps has 7 PC-9s to defend us. While the Finnish Army has 100 odd Leopard 2 tanks, and their air force has a fleet of 62 F-18s.

I'm not saying we need that much equipment, but that's the difference €2 billion can make, so imagine what a nominal increase in defence spending could do.

Nice comparison but I would assume 50% of that E2 billion would be wasted on civil service staff/consultants/health and safety assessments etc so the Defence Forces would end up with handful of choppers, 3 main battle tanks and a second hand F-16 for display purposes......


Seriously though: interesting comparison. However I don't see Ireland having a need for heavy tanks. But goes to show what an efficient expenditure could be achieved if we had a properly run national accounting system.

OS119

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

...All they'd need would be a refurbishment and new engines, radar, avionics etc from a few retired US ones and we'd be good to go.

to do what?

exactly what function do you want these aircraft to undertake - and have you done any research as to whether they'd do them?

has it ever occured to you that everyone else buys $75-100m fighters rather than clapped out Skyhawks or sub-sonic training jets because thats whats required to do the job?

Stripey Cat

What is the job? In what conceivable circumstances would Ireland need jet fighters or bombers?

GaryIrv93

OS119 wrote: »

to do what?

exactly what function do you want these aircraft to undertake - and have you done any research as to whether they'd do them?

has it ever occured to you that everyone else buys $75-100m fighters rather than clapped out Skyhawks or sub-sonic training jets because thats whats required to do the job?

Whatever needs to be done - eg. ground attack support for the army, counter-insurgency, light air defence - whatever might come up in the future. Having just 7 PC-9's makes any of those capabilities very limited, not to mention the PC-9's very limited armanent. Do some research on the
Skyhawk - it's very capable of fulfilling all of those roles. Retired panes can be brought back up to operational standard you know.

Not ''everyone else'' buys jets that expensive. Of course, if Ireland wanted to at some stage, then we could, not that we'd ever need them, but you can't just have virtually no air defence with a mere 7 PC-9s, which are only meant for training and light COIN operations. That's why I'd go with Skyhawks instead. A First World country like Ireland should have at least a half decent air defence, not matter how neutral we are.

OS119

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

A First World country like Ireland should have at least a half decent air defence...

two issues - theres no such thing as a 'half decent' AD, its either capable of countering the likely/possible threats or its a complete waste on cash.

secondly, exactly what level of AD threat do you believe that a Skyhawk is capable of defending against?

Duffer2010

I'd imagine one of the main reasons Finland as a bigger defence budget than ourselves, is they border Russia. That might be an incentive to have a few F-18's on standby. If UK feel the need to shred the RAF, can't see how the IAC would expand by way of getting jets. Will never happen, not unless there is a serious shift change in world politics i.e. there is an immediate threat to our country. Even at that the civil servants and government would drag their backsides on the subject, look at WW2-three Gladiators in 1939..... At present we don't need fast jets and don't need PC9's so Baldonnel boys can practice their diamond formations over the green fields of Kildare. Sell them and get more Casa for transport and maritime duties and a few more helicopters.

GaryIrv93

OS119 wrote: »

two issues - theres no such thing as a 'half decent' AD, its either capable of countering the likely/possible threats or its a complete waste on cash.

secondly, exactly what level of AD threat do you believe that a Skyhawk is capable of defending against?

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean by ''half decent''.

Secondly, it depends on what comes up. A large fleet of armed Skyhawks could probably defend against a large threat, wheras a small fleet could only defend a small threat, whatever the threat might be, unless it's defending against a large air invasion which has 4th and 5th gen. aircraft. I'm talking defence against a ground force, a small naval force or air defence against other enemy Skyhawks or other fighters of the same era. But since Ireland isn't under any threats at the moment, especially no large ones - that's why I'd suggest getting a small fleet, just to make sure we stay defended against small threats, as they're the most likely (of any likelihood) we'll ever need to defend ourselves from. It would make sense to defend our neutrality a bit. But of course, if it was a massive invasion, then we'd be screwed either way, with or without any jets.

OS119

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

...I'd suggest getting a small fleet, just to make sure we stay defended against small threats, as they're the most likely (of any likelihood) we'll ever need to defend ourselves from....

they're aren't any 'small' threats to Ireland - because of its geographical position there are either no threats, or threats so large that even if Ireland spent 10% of its GDP on AD it couldn't hold them off.

can you name a state within 1000miles of Ireland who's air force could be kept at bay by Skyhawks?

Skyhawks, or anything of their ilk, don't even make sense in a 'support for Peacekeeping' argument - any operation that needs the kind of air support that a Skyhawk can provide is by its very nature an operation that the IG wouldn't consider sending its forces to.

GaryIrv93

[

QUOTE=OS119;77871644]they're aren't any 'small' threats to Ireland - because of its geographical position there are either no threats, or threats so large that even if Ireland spent 10% of its GDP on AD it couldn't hold them off.

We're not under any threats, small or large, yet. That's not really an excuse to not have at least some type of fighter force to keep us at least a bit more well defended than we are now. Would you not prefer to be sorted just in case? I'd much rather have fighters and not use them than need them and not have them, even if the jets we had were a bit backward.

Countries within a thousand miles with good air forces - there's a lot of them. I mentioned before that if we were to buy second hand (but refurbished + upgraded) Skyhawks, as in having them fitted with more modern radar, avionics, weapons. Then I'd say they might have a good chance against another nation's air force if faced up in equal numbers. Only thing is you can't upgrade a 3rd gen. fighter eg. a Skyhawk to 4.5 gen fighter standard, like a Eurofighter or F-16V. But still.

OS119

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

... Then I'd say they might have a good chance against another nation's air force if faced up in equal numbers...

except they won't. as you've admitted.

so you say there's not one air force within 1000 miles that an Irish Air force equipped with Skyhawks could hold off - which there isn't - but that Ireland should still buy them, because dead pilots and smoking holes in the ground are better than nothing.

either buy something that will do the job - which will start at 50 - 60 4+ or 4.5 gen airframes at US$60 to 100 million a pop, plus tankers, plus AWACS, two operational airfields with full dispersals and HAS, a ground-based radar chain, and about 100 current aircrew - at about $5million to train. each. or don't bother...

what happened to Argentine Skyhawks when they fought sub-sonic, WVR RN Sea Harriers - and exactly what do you think would happen to a Skyhawk facing an Block 50 F-16C armed with AMRAAM and AIM-9X and with AWACS support?

Tenger

OS119 wrote: »

....can you name a state within 1000miles of Ireland who's air force could be kept at bay by Skyhawks? ......

Apparently Andorra are sabre rattling over the yearly invasion of Irish......retaliation could happen any day now..........

We better get those S-300 SAM units from Russia pronto!!




On a more serious note the claim above is a bit over the top.

Why 40-50 4.5 Gen fast jets? Why not 15-20? Enough to have 2-4 trainers based in the US (like the Dutch) with sufficient units to operate 2-4 QRA aircraft for air interdiction. Gripen or older block F-16 is the current low cost option.

Yes to 2 operational airfields with HAS, quite the investment.

No need for tankers or AWACS if national self defence of our small island is the mission. Tankers add range, which that mission doesn't need and AWACs are not needed if we have ground based defensive radar systems.

On the SkyHawk vs Sea Harrier argument, remember the Skyhawk was as attack aircraft operating at the limits of its endurance, the Argentines were unable to tussle with the SeaHarriers over the battlespace. In addition the SeaHarriers were equipped with the superb Blue Vixen radar, I think it was unmatched at the time.

Now a SkyHawk versus a modern F-16 would be akin to clubbing baby seals.


Our defence forces operate in low key peacekeeping duties which require helicopter support rather than Close air support from jets. At the end of the day there are no credible military threats to out nation this no compelling reason why we need fast jets.

GaryIrv93

OS119 wrote: »

what happened to Argentine Skyhawks when they fought sub-sonic, WVR RN Sea Harriers - and exactly what do you think would happen to a Skyhawk facing an Block 50 F-16C armed with AMRAAM and AIM-9X and with AWACS support?

the Argentine Skyhawks at the time were in poor condition and most weren't flyworthy, not to mention that the Argentine pilots weren't as well trained as British pilots. However Argentina very nearly did win that war, and Skyhawks did play a key role, and were quite effective even though the design was already a few decades old at the time.

Where did you get the idea ''dead pilots and smoking holes in the ground are better than nothing''?? Sure Skyhawks are only an idea for a cheap, capable aircraft that would suit Ireland. But there's many more, such as the AMX, Hawk, YAK-130, Super Tucano... the list goes on. We don't need to have pricey 50-60 fighter fleet of 4.5 gen. Be realistic, we'll never have or need that many. I've repeated the same thing over and over again - It'd be smarter to stay sorted, although the likes of Skyhawks are ageing, they don't have to be Skyhawks though. Go for something cheap and enough to suit Ireland's most likely threats in the near future if they suddenly happen to come up. We can't predict the future but stay sorted at least for a small threat that might come up, because those are the most likely, even though any threats are nearly non-existent.

Markcheese

And what do we get rid of to pay for our urgently needed air-defence( apart from the usual politicians pay, waste in civil service ect. Cos we can't or won't do that now). I can see the logic for having military transport helicopters., but we can't pay for that either.....

OS119

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

...Go for something cheap and enough to suit Ireland's most likely threats in the near future if they suddenly happen to come up....

you do know that that is the - moronic - rationale for the PC-9M's don't you?

you can't decide whether you want an aircraft that can cope with a threat - but haven't come up with any plausable threat that could be held at bay by an 'oxfam' airforce - or you want a 'lead-in' aircraft that would somehow allow IAC pilots to jump into emergency purchace F-16's.

well, try this: get a map of Europe, draw a scale circle with a diameter of 1000miles with Athlone at its centre, list all the countries within that circle and read up on their air and naval capabilities. find one that could possibly have both the slightest plausable reason to be involved in a military clash with Ireland, and who'se aircraft could be held off by your oxfam airforce.

the Brits with 100 Typhoons, 90 Tornado GR4, and 60 AH-64's?

the French with 60 AF Rafales, 140 AF Mirage 2000's, and a 40,000 ton nuclear powered aircraft carrier with up to 40 Rafales and Super Etendards?

The Spanish or Italians, with Typhoons, Tornado's and their carriers and AV-8B's?

The Portugese with 45 F-16's?

the Germans with 100 Typhoons and well over 100 Tornado?

the Dutch, Danish, Norwegians, Swedes or Finns - F-16's and Grippens aplenty?

the USN carrier BattleGroup - 60-odd F/A-18F's, and an SSN with Tommahawk Cruise Missiles?

the Russians - either a carrier with SU-33 or MiG-29 or 120-odd TU-160 BLACKJACK and TU-22M BACKFIRE long range strategic bombers?

which of these possible adversaries do you believe your small, cheap, oxfam air force could keep at bay - or do you believe that bits of Latin America or Africa are likely to float up into the North Atlantic?

GaryIrv93

OS119 wrote: »

you do know that that is the - moronic - rationale for the PC-9M's don't you?

Yes, however I don't think that 7 PC-9's are enough, as their armanent capabilities are very limited, unlike something such as Skyhawks. The countries you've listed - I doubt we'll EVER be at war with any of them, or with any country in the world. So we're not going to need any of the likes of F-16's or whatever, so why would you want aircraft of eye-watering price that we'll never even need to use? I've never said we'll ever need to fight a country with more advanced air forces: the most likely is an indigenous terrorist threat that might form. Nothing beyond that sort. I'd say Skyhawk or small, cheap but advanced and well armed jet trainers of Skyhawk or BAE Hawk sort would discourage any threat a lot more than 7 PC-9 trainers.

These are only opinions at the end of the day, not looking to cause an argument or massive debate, just saying, as we seem to be heading towards that.

OS119

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Yes, however I don't think that 7 PC-9's are enough, as their armanent capabilities are very limited, unlike something such as Skyhawks....

do you really believe that any Irish government will order the use of a .50inch gun or half-a-dozen unguided rockets on Irish territory in an attempt to combat an indiginous insurgent threat do you?

no, me neither.

in that case, why escalate spending on yet another capability you won't use - if you are never going to see a PC-9M undertake a straffing pass on a future IRA/Loyalist group, why buy a handful of ruinessly-expensive-to-run Skyhawks with 500lb LGB's and AGM-65's that also will never be used?

GaryIrv93

OS119 wrote: »

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

do you really believe that any Irish government will order the use of a .50inch gun or half-a-dozen unguided rockets on Irish territory in an attempt to combat an indiginous insurgent threat do you?

no, me neither.

in that case, why escalate spending on yet another capability you won't use - if you are never going to see a PC-9M undertake a straffing pass on a future IRA/Loyalist group, why buy a handful of ruinessly-expensive-to-run Skyhawks with 500lb LGB's and AGM-65's that also will never be used?

To combat any threat that might come up. Unless more PC-9's are bought or jets are bought, then 7 PC-9's (I doubt) would be enough. Look, it's better to be safe than sorry, although it would cost more, even if any threats are unlikely, as I've said many times. Read Turbine's post,