Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Flinty997

What's the issue with Naval thread...

Sgt. Bilko 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121951004#Comment_121951004

Greece has is part of nato and has yields in nato schemes that’s allowed it to remain above board with defence spending.
They still had to keep there spend on defence afloat, it was at 2.44 throughout until 2014 and it rose again. A pro for joining the alliance some would say.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121953162#Comment_121953162

Not working for me.

Mind you, it could be just a thread ban I wasn't told about! I do abuse JBW from a height sometimes.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121953596#Comment_121953596

it’s had issues for me as well

Dohvolle

There's about a week of replies gone. Maybe its just full?

Markcheese

Just throwing this in

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/03/29/argentina-to-buy-surplus-f-16-jets-from-denmark/

Markcheese

24 jets - spares and simulators , for 320 million ,

Although i'm surprised the whole lot didnt head east to Ukraine, i'd imagine the attrition rate on theirs will be extreme - whenever they get them in action - and theyre desperately needed now ..

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956393#Comment_121956393

I love some of the comments in some of the U.K. mil sites, it’s like the US and Denmark have “betrayed them” and at the same time Falklands 2.0 is about to kick off because of this buy…

mupper2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956551#Comment_121956551

The US is going to do what benefits the US…if it comes down to pleasing the Brits or countering Chinese moves in the Western hemisphere, the US will do the latter

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121956551#Comment_121956551

The USA will authorise the sale, but also authorise what weapons go with the US made aircraft.

Argentina operate no air to air refuellers, and these models didn't have the conformal tanks, so there will be no long range anti ship missiles or BVR air to air either. They'll be just enough to protect Argentina's sovereign airspace and nothing more, and will probably spend more time watching the skies to the north And maybe the Rio de La Plata estuary, but 24 F16s aren't going to be invading "las Malvinas" any time soon while ARA announces its plans to retire 2 of its remaining warships to use for spares, leaving it with a navy of

• 2 inactive submarines (lets not forget the loss of the "San Juan" in 2017 )
• 3 Meko 360s from the 1980s
• 5 Espora class OPVs
• 1 of 3 Drummond class OPVs
• 4 Gowind OPVs
• Loads of little boats
• 1 Patagonian cargo ship
• 3 unarmed survey ships
• 1 Durance class tanker

No aircraft carrier or battlecruiser. No flat top amphib. None of the key ship types required to invade what is now a well defended Island, more than 200 miles from your closest landfall, and 300 miles from the nearest (small) naval base.

Most of all, no crew to operate any of the above, as conscription was abandoned in Argentina in the 1990s, and operations since have moved the organisation away from "Malvinas Syndrome", focusing instead on joint security with Brazil and Chile.

To top it off there is no Junta, and the Military heads have far less power than they did in 1982. Argentina has the smallest defence Budget in South America, with only the tiny state of Suriname being smaller.

If anything, its the UK that needs to move on from 1982.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121958274#Comment_121958274

I’m not disputing any of that, I mean the idea that Argentina at this point (or anytime in the next couple of decades without a Junta level of spending on the military) is farcical, but like I said, the reactions from some on some of the sites is beyond insane.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121959140#Comment_121959140

Agreed. I saw some discussion during he week that the RAF/RN should never have got rid of Harrier, after all it saved the Falklands from the Argentinians…

I'm pretty sure, the RM, Paras and certain Brigade of Guards may disagree slightly in that regard.

That's before we get into the questionable usefulness of a 40 year old single engine design…and the current inability of the RAF to keep most of their current fleet flying.

Markcheese

I saw something yesterday about bringing back the harrier fir the RN.

Just assumed it was an april fools gag ..

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964314#Comment_121964314

If only.

thomil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121964314#Comment_121964314

If that's from the UK Defence Journal, then it was very much an April Fool's gag. To be fair, they've been putting out some absolute bangers this year, from VTOL conversions for the RAF's A330/Voyager fleet so that they can take on Carrier Onboard Delivery tasks, to the Royal Navy taking the advice of think tank DMCS (Daily Mail Comment Section) and ordering a 3rd Aircraft Carrier or the Red Arrows painting their aircraft blue as part of a Pepsi sponsorship. I'd really recommend checking that out 😉

Silvera

The USMC have completed a deal to purchase 22 x Ex-Swiss Air Force F-5 jets - c/w spares and logistic support - for the bargain price of $30 million

They have more airframes to sell in the coming years

Suitable for the Air Corps?

Low hours

Supersonic

10+ years of airframe life remaining

Can carry sidewinder missiles

Modernised cockpit will be fitted by USMC - Garmin 3000 multi-screen cockpit display

Used for air policing in SAF service

Ideal stepping-stone airframe before purchasing fourth-generation Gripens in ten years time

Whats not to like!

EchoIndia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121996356#Comment_121996356

The Swiss are well-known for getting maximum value of out of their equipment. They were the last users of the DH Vampire and Venom and only retired the Hawker Hunter in 1994. These F-5s are 1980s-build aircraft and are very much 1970s or even 1960s technology. Even for the USMC to fly them in the intended aggressor role will presumably first require expenditure well beyond the stated purchase price.

Silvera

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121996404#Comment_121996404

"Even if it was a hundred grand per aircraft to upgrade, it'd be cheap overall - if you got 10 years out of them.

These days, upgrading electronics and avionics is not remotely as daunting as it used to be. So much of it is essentially plug and play, because that's the way airliners and business jets have gone.

As an example, there is a guy flying a Fouga with an EFIS panel on YouTube.

Now, if you can upgrade a Stone Age Fouga with right up to date EFIS - then a well-kept F-5 would be no problem"

Silvera

Swiss F-5

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/switzerland-delivers-first-f-5-tiger-us

Silvera

Swiss F-5

https://www.vtg.admin.ch/en/einsatzmittel/luft/f5e-tiger.html

thomil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121997154#Comment_121997154

It's not the electronics that's the issue. It's the airframe and engines. The US Navy (which the USMC is a part of, whether they like it or not), has plenty of experience operating F-5s in the Aggressor role going back to the 1970s/1980s. They have the facilities, the machinery and the spare parts to replace fuselage frames that have been overstressed or engines that are at the end of their life. Ireland does not. And the F-5 is not exactly a current model.

What's more, the F-5 would be unsuitable even if it were still current. It simply lacks the sensors needed for operating in the environment that any Irish interceptors would be expected to operate in. The Marines will operate those F-5s, those that they can get flight ready, in a very specific environment: a clearly delineated area of airspace where they know from the start what they will be up against and what their job will be: close range air combat. Any Irish fighters could potentially find themselves going up against an unknown radar contact in the dead of night, possibly in bad weather and beyond the range of shore-based radar. in such kinds of situations, an aircraft with barely any radar and without datalink capabilities is a liability, not an asset.

Also, let's be real here: The likelihood of the Irish Air Corps operating a squadron of fighter aircraft anytime soon is very low, as much as I'd love to see it happen. Even if the political will were there, we lack the infrastructure, from the airbase to the maintenance depots and cache of weapons (in case things do go south), to the radar and command & control facilities. Lets not muddy the waters any more by dragging up any clapped-out aircraft that someone is putting up for sale.

saabsaab

The Saabs are the only reasonable option but we aren't ready, radar first..

thomil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121997924#Comment_121997924

Username checks out 😁

But yeah, I agree on both points

bear1

Michael Martin as minister for defence, I wonder if that will make any difference

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121998428#Comment_121998428

It might. Naval service near home..

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121998428#Comment_121998428

why would him keeping the same role make any difference?

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121998428#Comment_121998428

Difference to him being minister for defence for the last year and a half?

bear1

Fail on my end, I was sure it was someone else that was minister for "defence"

jonnybigwallet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121997924#Comment_121997924

Not quite sure it's the only alternative. I think the auld cockpit is a bit on the narrow side.....quite like the look or the Chengdu myself.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122002952#Comment_122002952

I doubt that China would export them..