MiGs for Ireland?

riffmongous

Well this is Walter Mitty forum and I didn't want to post it in the normal Ireland air defence thread..

Anyway I'm a big fan of eastern militaria, always have been and I've often wondered what sort of air force and army Ireland could build if they were able to purchase cheaper russian/soviet equipment?

There is still plenty of russian gear in what are now EU countries that could be available in a few years so if Ireland needed to make a proper even if largely symbolic attempt to defend it's airspace and ignoring the politics, could MiG-29s provide a cheap possibility?

Outkast_IRE

Its not the inital cost of such equipment thats a problem. Its the incredible cost of keeping them airworthy, with Irelands current defense budget there is simply no scope or need for such a expense.

riffmongous

Of course, that's why I posted it in this forum, let your imagination run free
edit: well not totally free, otherwise you'd just buy the best obviously, but you know what I mean
I don't know so much about the numbers so some estimates would be very welcome

Outkast_IRE

Heres an indication of how much some of the US aircraft cost per flight hour.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-hourly-cost-of-military-aircraft-2014-12?r=US&IR=T

So in the range of $11,000 to $44,000 per flight hour

BoJack Horseman

What is the deal with the 'same-ness' of Russian aircraft?

Take 4 current examples:
Mig-35, SU-30, SU-34, SU-35.

All two engined... massive, 30+ tonne, Mark 2 speed, 9-10 hardpoints, look sorta similar...

Why so many types of very similar planes?

BoJack Horseman

riffmongous wrote: »

Well this is Walter Mitty forum and I didn't want to post it in the normal Ireland air defence thread..

Anyway I'm a big fan of eastern militaria, always have been and I've often wondered what sort of air force and army Ireland could build if they were able to purchase cheaper russian/soviet equipment?

There is still plenty of russian gear in what are now EU countries that could be available in a few years so if Ireland needed to make a proper even if largely symbolic attempt to defend it's airspace and ignoring the politics, could MiG-29s provide a cheap possibility?

Its kinda like picking Android or Apple.....

Whichever you chose, you are locked into their respective environment for good....
So you get their respective equipment, apps, and other products....

So you would want to chose wisely which environment you plumb for.

Nate--IRL--

Ehh the SU-30, SU-34 & SU-35 are all Su-27 Flanker Derivatives. Like say the F-15E is a derivative of the F-15A.

Nate

BoJack Horseman

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Ehh the SU-30, SU-34 & SU-35 are all Su-27 Flanker Derivatives. Like say the F-15E is a derivative of the F-15A.

Nate

really?

Didn't know that.

riffmongous

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its kinda like picking Android or Apple.....

Whichever you chose, you are locked into their respective environment for good....
So you get their respective equipment, apps, and other products....

So you would want to chose wisely which environment you plumb for.

The price analogy fits too

experiMental

I'm sure Dennis O'Brien would have enough money to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of those planes!

BoJack Horseman

experiMental wrote: »

I'm sure Dennis O'Brien would have enough money to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of those planes!

So would any billionaire??
What is your point?

Besides, from his hollowed-out mountain lair in Wicklow, pantomime villain Dinny can only deploy helicopters.

sparky42

riffmongous wrote: »

There is still plenty of russian gear in what are now EU countries that could be available in a few years so if Ireland needed to make a proper even if largely symbolic attempt to defend it's airspace and ignoring the politics, could MiG-29s provide a cheap possibility?

In terms of what Eastern Europe has, they've spent a fair bit integrating them into NATO standard systems (think Poland is doing it for all those Eastern European nations), but even then you are talking airframes that have seen plenty of use by the time they are free.

There's also the fact that getting parts/spares from Russia would be difficult as well.

Stovepipe

Even former WarPac nations opted to keep old MiG 21s going rather than try and sustain MiG 29s, because of the sheer grief in dealing with Russian suppliers.

riffmongous

Getting spare parts would be a big problem them alright, what about buying the planes new then? Versions of the SU-30 are still being made and come in around $30 mill I think

sparky42

riffmongous wrote: »

Getting spare parts would be a big problem them alright, what about buying the planes new then? Versions of the SU-30 are still being made and come in around $30 mill I think

Doesn't matter new or old, Russia can be a pain to get spares from even for long term customers (look at India's issues), let alone a EU nation that they are currently having issues with.

Fiery mutant

If we were going to spend some money on air defence, would we not be better off opting for something like the Gripen?

sheesh

as its the walter mitty forum I suggest a large balloon with some air to air missiles and tethered in athlone it can bob about over the country protecting a limited area

Shannon757

sheesh wrote: »

as its the walter mitty forum I suggest a large balloon with some air to air missiles and tethered in athlone it can bob about over the country protecting a limited area

Sorted.

riffmongous

sheesh wrote: »

as its the walter mitty forum I suggest a large balloon with some air to air missiles and tethered in athlone it can bob about over the country protecting a limited area

So a few Igla missiles? How much will that cost?

the_syco

experiMental wrote: »

I'm sure Dennis O'Brien would have enough money to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of those planes!

But he'd charge the government through the nose for the privilege.

=-=

I'd say get some A-10's. The US government have decided not to moth-ball them, they can fly after sustaining a lot of enemy fire, and cost just over €17 million. They have been around since 1972, and are still being made, thus we may be able to blag some second hand stuff for it, as well as get mechanics who'd be qualified to fix them.

BoJack Horseman

the_syco wrote: »

But he'd charge the government through the nose for the privilege.

=-=

I'd say get some A-10's. The US government have decided not to moth-ball them, they can fly after sustaining a lot of enemy fire, and cost just over €17 million. They have been around since 1972, and are still being made, thus we may be able to blag some second hand stuff for it, as well as get mechanics who'd be qualified to fix them.

They stopped being made 30+ years ago.
And aside from that, there may not be less suitable plane in the world for Ireland.

You are one step away from suggesting zeppelins!

Shannon757

We could just head over to Davis-Montana.

Shannon757

We could just head over to Davis-Montana.

sheesh

could we not just buy a regular plane and fly next to the russian bombers with its transponders on so that they are less of a risk to commercial flights.
if needs be have a guy in a pressure suit and a heavy machine gun open a door and shoot at them.

or alternatively throw sods of turf at them.


Is anyone seriously suggesting we are going to shoot a russian bomber out of the sky

riffmongous

Fiery mutant wrote: »

If we were going to spend some money on air defence, would we not be better off opting for something like the Gripen?

Looking solely at base price it's twice as expensive as the russian planes though, not to mention you would probably get the retired slovakian or polish migs for close to nothing. Of course it's not much good if you cant keep them serviceable and spares are hard to come by

the_syco

sheesh wrote: »

Is anyone seriously suggesting we are going to shoot a russian bomber out of the sky

The Russians fly the bears into UK airspace to say hello. They are old, very obvious, and very identifiable. If anyone shot one down, a Blackjack would probably be sent in to respond.

sparky42

riffmongous wrote: »

Looking solely at base price it's twice as expensive as the russian planes though, not to mention you would probably get the retired slovakian or polish migs for close to nothing. Of course it's not much good if you cant keep them serviceable and spares are hard to come by

Bare in mind the slovakian/polish migs could have a spotty support record even pre end of the Soviet Union, not to mention all the issues of us basically being a NATO user base...

sparky42

the_syco wrote: »

But he'd charge the government through the nose for the privilege.

=-=

I'd say get some A-10's. The US government have decided not to moth-ball them, they can fly after sustaining a lot of enemy fire, and cost just over €17 million. They have been around since 1972, and are still being made, thus we may be able to blag some second hand stuff for it, as well as get mechanics who'd be qualified to fix them.

Yeah apart from not being built, they are ground support airplanes, designed for bombing the crap out of Tanks in Germany (or anything else they need to post 91), but for air defence, they are 300 knot airframes, the bears could outfly them with ease...

JJJJNR

It would be pointless for Ireland to buy legacy Russian planes when for 250 mill we could have a fleet of UAVs with the possibility of armament.

sparky42

JJJJNR wrote: »

It would be pointless for Ireland to buy legacy Russian planes when for 250 mill we could have a fleet of UAVs with the possibility of armament.

Right now pretty much all the UAV's in operation are designed for air to ground not air to air, there's also again speed issues (ie the latest Predator variant, the Avenger is 200 km/h slower than the Bears), so again I fail to see how UAV's could meet such a requirement.

prinzeugen

Was there not talk in the Dail about leasing F-16's from Holland? Cheaper than buying.

On Russian equipment, after it took over the DDR's Mig's NATO discovered that the engines are only good for 8-12 hours before they need changed.

All they had to do was get the Warsaw pact planes up often enough and eventually they would all be on the ground waiting for engine swaps.

The Luftwaffe got rid of the ex DDR MIGs as soon as it could.

the_syco

sparky42 wrote: »

Yeah apart from not being built, they are ground support airplanes, designed for bombing the crap out of Tanks in Germany (or anything else they need to post 91), but for air defence, they are 300 knot airframes, the bears could outfly them with ease...

This is true, but they'd be great to use as support for any "peacekeeping" missions that our troops do overseas.

JJJJNR

sparky42 wrote: »

Right now pretty much all the UAV's in operation are designed for air to ground not air to air, there's also again speed issues (ie the latest Predator variant, the Avenger is 200 km/h slower than the Bears), so again I fail to see how UAV's could meet such a requirement.

UAVs can be armed with stinger missiles, which would take out any plane, with a fleet of them you could have a number that could be scrambled at very short notice, and patrol at the same time which would create a very effective boundary.

tac foley

riffmongous wrote: »

Well this is Walter Mitty forum and I didn't want to post it in the normal Ireland air defence thread..

Anyway I'm a big fan of eastern militaria, always have been and I've often wondered what sort of air force and army Ireland could build if they were able to purchase cheaper russian/soviet equipment?

There is still plenty of russian gear in what are now EU countries that could be available in a few years so if Ireland needed to make a proper even if largely symbolic attempt to defend it's airspace and ignoring the politics, could MiG-29s provide a cheap possibility?

Back in the early 90's the newly-reformed Luftwaffe found out the hard way that a MiG-29 almost needed a new engine every time it took off, and that the resup engines - still in their crates - were not fit to fit. OTG/INA ratio was a crushing EIGHT times that of a contemporary F-16.

Still, it's not my money, go ahead and buy as many as you want to.

The countless articles on the true horror story of the MiG-29 in front-line service with a REAL daily-flying air force like the Luftwaffe [both of our G*dsons served, one a pilot and the other a WSO] would stretch from here to the moon and back, but don't let real experience cloud anybody's judgement.

tac

sparky42

JJJJNR wrote: »

UAVs can be armed with stinger missiles, which would take out any plane, with a fleet of them you could have a number that could be scrambled at very short notice, and patrol at the same time which would create a very effective boundary.

Yeah, the Stinger is a MANPAD, not much different to the system we have right now, it's not a true air to air system. And again a quick look says only the first Predator variant is rated to carry them right now, it's top speed is 117 knots, and can only get up to 25,000 feet (the Reaper might be testing for carrying but again can only fly at 260 knots, again to slow to intercept a Bear) so I have no idea how you intend to "scramble" them since it would serve no purpose. Right now the current UAV's couldn't get within Stinger range of a Bear unless the Bear flew to it and down to it, which isn't going to happen.

riffmongous

tac foley wrote: »

Back in the early 90's the newly-reformed Luftwaffe found out the hard way that a MiG-29 almost needed a new engine every time it took off, and that the resup engines - still in their crates - were not fit to fit. OTG/INA ratio was a crushing EIGHT times that of a contemporary F-16.

Still, it's not my money, go ahead and buy as many as you want to.

The countless articles on the true horror story of the MiG-29 in front-line service with a REAL daily-flying air force like the Luftwaffe [both of our G*dsons served, one a pilot and the other a WSO] would stretch from here to the moon and back, but don't let real experience cloud anybody's judgement.

tac

It's just out of personal interest and a bit of fun, I'm not going to submit a paper to the DF afterwards or anything All information is welcome as I was never that interested in air forces before, beyond helicopters

All I knew was Germany literally gave them away, I just assumed for political reasons. Did your godson get to fly any of the NVA planes?

I did read that the Slovaks were planning to replace them recently with Gripens but in the end had to extend the liftetime of their migs by another few years, money must be tight I guess.

sparky42

riffmongous wrote: »

I did read that the Slovaks were planning to replace them recently with Gripens but in the end had to extend the liftetime of their migs by another few years, money must be tight I guess.

It could be they didn't like the options that Sweden was putting forward for the Gripens, or they want to delay a bit until the NG version is coming online which might mean Sweden may give better deals on the older variants they are replacing...

JJJJNR

The bear is a monstrosity and is ridiculously slow, MQ-9 Reapers would be more than capable in interception. Not only that it could be effectively used as unmanned surveillance in rural Ireland, where currently places are being staked out by criminals using drones.

sparky42

JJJJNR wrote: »

The bear is a monstrosity and is ridiculously slow, MQ-9 Reapers would be more than capable in interception. Not only that it could be effectively used as unmanned surveillance in rural Ireland, where currently places are being staked out by criminals using drones.

The Bear's top speed is over 500 knots, which is much more than both the common Predator variants (for example they used to use a trick to out run Jets in the Cold War), Reapers have a top speed of 260 knots (operational is mid 100 knots), please explain how they could make an interception? Or get within the sub 10 km range of a Stinger?

Again the current UAV's are designed, built and armed to loiter in permissive airspace and lob Hellfires and smart bombs mainly at easy targets, they are not designed or intended for air to air combat, the programs for such UCAV's are only starting and are still years away from any operational usage.

As for the "unmanned surveillance of rural Ireland" even for the Mitty thread that's out there, what next should we start using the Hellfires against speeders or drink drivers? I mean it would be a hell of a Road Safety Campaign, just see the Minister for Justice and Transport going "don't speed or the drone will kill you!"

tac foley

riffmongous wrote: »

All I knew was Germany literally gave them away, I just assumed for political reasons. Did your godson get to fly any of the NVA planes?

The Luftwaffe REALLY tried to integrate them inot the fleet, but it was hopeless from the start. The Migs were impossible to maintain in flying condition for many reasons, not least of which was the near-total lack of reliable spares. They were as fuel efficient as a money-fired power station, and the electronics were paleolithic, no matter what anybody tells you. The FCR was fatally flawed, literally. The side-lobes off the operating set would fry the technicians while they tried to fix them.

And no, they were both in the same squadron, flying ECM Phantoms and then Tornadoes out of Aurach, Bavaria.

tac

Jawgap

Sure why not......

Albania auctions off 40 communist-era aircraft

The items for sale include 10 Mig-19s, six Mig-21s, six Yak-18s and four Mi-4 helicopters.

Boskowski

The price of all this sh1t is just so incredible. Would eat through Dennis o'briens fortune in a couple of years handy.
Only yesterday I was reading the US are replenishing their bombs arsenal after it got depleted through Middle East campaign in something called European Reassurance Program or such. Like put them into Poland and the likes for a while for 'reassurance' against the evil Vlad.
Anyway they were talking about $1.8 billion for 45,000 bombs. That's roughly $40,000 a pop which is like a BMW 3 series. I dare say had they dropped 45,000 3 series on Syria that war would be over cos all those Isis lads would be driving around happily in their new 3 series instead of beheading people.
Just goes to show what big a con all this is out of the people's pockets.

sheesh

Boskowski wrote: »

The price of all this sh1t is just so incredible. Would eat through Dennis o'briens fortune in a couple of years handy.
Only yesterday I was reading the US are replenishing their bombs arsenal after it got depleted through Middle East campaign in something called European Reassurance Program or such. Like put them into Poland and the likes for a while for 'reassurance' against the evil Vlad.
Anyway they were talking about $1.8 billion for 45,000 bombs. That's roughly $40,000 a pop which is like a BMW 3 series. I dare say had they dropped 45,000 3 series on Syria that war would be over cos all those Isis lads would be driving around happily in their new 3 series instead of beheading people.
Just goes to show what big a con all this is out of the people's pockets.

So your plan for the middle east "BMW 3 series for all! BMW servicing franchises for others!"?

given the demographic of your average ISIS volunteer this could work!

BoJack Horseman

Boskowski wrote: »

Anyway they were talking about $1.8 billion for 45,000 bombs. That's roughly $40,000 a pop

That would be a very good price for munitions as things stand.

For example, the US DOD has budgeted for 12,000+ JDAMs to be built in 2016... average unit price is $45k

riffmongous

Jawgap wrote: »

Sure why not......

Albania auctions off 40 communist-era aircraft

I might pop down and grab a few for myself :pac: