Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

nationaljoey

We need to get 10 F-35As. That would mean we have a modern, capable Air Force.

I’m talking about the period after reunification.

Boredstiff666

nationaljoey wrote: »

We need to get 10 F-35As. That would mean we have a modern, capable Air Force.

I’m talking about the period after reunification.

Wow thats some money tree you have............subsidise NI and spend 1.2 billion on 10 planes and about the same again for all the other things that go with them.

jonnybigwallet

I agree...Too pricey. Usaf is knocking out refurbished F16's at 750,000 per unit. Grab 8 of them and that'll do the job. Don't need to be on 24 hour readiness.

Boredstiff666

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

I agree...Too pricey. Usaf is knocking out refurbished F16's at 750,000 per unit. Grab 8 of them and that'll do the job. Don't need to be on 24 hour readiness.

Euro fighters about to be replaced in UK anyway.

jonnybigwallet

Nowt wrong with that approach in an Irish context. We don't need to have fighters / interceptors on 24/7 readiness. All we require is to be able to have the ability to enforce a no fly zone and be able to intercept in the case of a hijack (for example). If it came to it we could offer to share the task with the RAF and in effect, cover the area in shifts or some other workable arrangement. So I reckon about 8 second hand F 16's would do the job nicely without breaking the bank.

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I dont have a fantasy about Brexit just how our glourious leader and his sidekick kept digging at the population of another country on the way they voted on their television.

The Royal Navy patrols the Atlantic for many reasons one is drugs which also get stopped from washing up on our shores. Without them the west coast of Ireland would be paddling in them. Our old rusty ex-trawler couldnt do much could it?

Why do you twist the words of posters to suit your means?

Your English if I remember correctly, now while you are apparently happy living here you seem very unhappy about what the government did in protecting the country that your living in, the same actions, which you benefit from. Also again your factually incorrect regarding patrolling, but don't let that stop you.

Boredstiff666

DubInMeath wrote: »

Your English if I remember correctly, now while you are apparently happy living here you seem very unhappy about what the government did in protecting the country that your living in, the same actions, which you benefit from. Also again your factually incorrect regarding patrolling, but don't let that stop you.

No I am not not. What I actually said and what someone else implied I said are not the same and again your facts are wrong about our glorious leader. He did nowt for this country in fact the opposite in the matter in question. More about his standing with others.

I did also remember one report about the amount he had spent on banquet meals for foreign leaders amounting to over 400,000 euro. If true how many guns/ammo could you get for that?

Conall Cernach

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Nowt wrong with that approach in an Irish context. We don't need to have fighters / interceptors on 24/7 readiness. All we require is to be able to have the ability to enforce a no fly zone and be able to intercept in the case of a hijack (for example). If it came to it we could offer to share the task with the RAF and in effect, cover the area in shifts or some other workable arrangement. So I reckon about 8 second hand F 16's would do the job nicely without breaking the bank.

Why F16s? Could some old Migs or Mirages not do the same job for less money?

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

No I am not not. What I actually said and what someone else implied I said are not the same and again your facts are wrong about our glorious leader. He did nowt for this country in fact the opposite in the matter in question. More about his standing with others.

I did also remember one report about the amount he had spent on banquet meals for foreign leaders amounting to over 400,000 euro. If true how many guns/ammo could you get for that?

Your not English, or your not wrong about the U.K. navy patrolling?

Conall Cernach

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Why F16s? Could some old Migs or Mirages not do the same job for less money?

More likely because they were used by some other European countries and it's more rounded than a mirage perhaps.

Boredstiff666

DubInMeath wrote: »

Your not English, or your not wrong about the U.K. navy patrolling?

The navy patrols the Atlantic sea/ocean off Ireland for a number of reasons including drugs.

I never ever said they patrolled Irish Coastal waters (12 miles).

That was the other fella.

Leonidas BL

A squadron of fighter jets would look good doin flyover for the RIC/Black & Tan commemoration alright :mad:

Boredstiff666

Leonidas BL wrote: »

A squadron of fighter jets would look good doin flyover for the RIC/Black & Tan commemoration alright :mad:

What do you mean?

CrankyHaus

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Why F16s? Could some old Migs or Mirages not do the same job for less money?

As many airforces adopt the F35 there will be a glut of F16s hitting the market in the next decade or so, many in reasonable condition.

If Ireland were to buy fighter jets, which it won't and which are way down the priority list of a military which has far more pressing issues, then it's unlikely to get better value than F16s.

Boredstiff666

CrankyHaus wrote: »

As many airforces adopt the F35 there will be a glut of F16s hitting the market in the next decade or so, many in reasonable condition.

If Ireland were to buy fighter jets, which it won't and which are way down the priority list of a military which has far more pressing issues, then it's unlikely to get better value than F16s.

It's also 50 year old technology.

CrankyHaus

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

It's also 50 year old technology.

Not really. It's a decades old basic airframe design that has been getting constantly upgraded with the latest technology, engines and avionics since the 1970s. The idea that anyone would be buying Block 1 F16As in the 2020s is risible, if you could even find any.

sparky42

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Not really. It's a decades old basic airframe design that has been getting constantly upgraded with the latest technology, engines and avionics since the 1970s. The idea that anyone would be buying Block 1 F16As in the 2020s is risible, if you could even find any.

Oh I'm sure you could still find them somewhere, course the other issue is the running costs as well as just the sticker price.

Boredstiff666

sparky42 wrote: »

Oh I'm sure you could still find them somewhere, course the other issue is the running costs as well as just the sticker price.

Exactly and thats the big issue with armaments. It isnt the initial outlay but running costs.

In Ireland we arent allowed to play with sharp pointy things that go bang and hurt people. So all missiles and other things are purchased outside Ireland. Also you have to train pilots with live weaponry on live ranges.

Money money money.

Then say 20% of your fleet cant fly for whatever reason so have you got enough to cover the country?

Then the Lefties will put restrictions on going supersonic in case it hurts some moss in a bog somewhere.

Then no doubt a government minister will want one to escort his flight home because someone opened an envelope on an island off Cork and it contained white powder which could be seen as life threatening to his family in Meath.

It's a dream at most no matter if they were giving them away.

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Exactly and thats the big issue with armaments. It isnt the initial outlay but running costs.

In Ireland we arent allowed to play with sharp pointy things that go bang and hurt people. So all missiles and other things are purchased outside Ireland. Also you have to train pilots with live weaponry on live ranges.

Money money money.

Then say 20% of your fleet cant fly for whatever reason so have you got enough to cover the country?

Then the Lefties will put restrictions on going supersonic in case it hurts some moss in a bog somewhere.

Then no doubt a government minister will want one to escort his flight home because someone opened an envelope on an island off Cork and it contained white powder which could be seen as life threatening to his family in Meath.

It's a dream at most no matter if they were giving them away.

You are just embarrassing yourself at this point.

Boredstiff666

DubInMeath wrote: »

You are just embarrassing yourself at this point.

No I am taking the p*ss there is a difference. But the other poster was correct. The costs of them is the problem.

For instance the US A10 Warthog is just too expensive to use when there are far cheaper alternatives which just so happen to be not fast jets but prop planes.

Doesnt go down well even though they are proven.

CrankyHaus

sparky42 wrote: »

Oh I'm sure you could still find them somewhere, course the other issue is the running costs as well as just the sticker price.

Running costs is why I don't believe fighter jets are on the table at all. Whatever about a one off purchase when we're flush imagine adding the costs of fighter jet operations, training, sustainment etc onto current expenditure for the next few decades at least. The DoD seems to resent paying the personnel it already has a decent wage as is. Without a very drastic necessity arising I can't imagine them adding to it so spectacularly.

However my point still stands. If a country did want to get into the fighter jet game then second hand F16s replaced by the 3,000 F35s planned over the next 15 years should comprise excellent value.

Boredstiff666

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Running costs is why I don't believe fighter jets are on the table at all. Whatever about a one off purchase when we're flush imagine adding the costs of fighter jet operations, training, sustainment etc onto current expenditure for the next few decades at least. The DoD seems to resent paying the personnel it already has a decent wage as is. Without a very drastic necessity arising I can't imagine them adding to it so spectacularly.

However my point still stands. If a country did want to get into the fighter jet game then second hand F16s replaced by the 3,000 F35s planned over the next 15 years should comprise excellent value.

How could Ireland ever afford to do it?

CrankyHaus

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

How could Ireland ever afford to do it?

If the need was there we could afford it, but it is not.
Comparable European countries maintain small but modern airforces, either to meet defence requirements or NATO obligations, neither of which we currently have.

With the necessity of deterring Russian bullying, Finland is a good example of a country that manages a formidable defence without beggering itself. For instance it bought Leopard MBTs at a good deal when other countries were getting rid of them, first Germany then the Netherlands.

sparky42

CrankyHaus wrote: »

If the need was there we could afford it, but it is not.

Effectively this, same as how 25 years ago we sustained 16K strong DF and a spend of over 1% on defence from a vastly smaller budget and economy without huge issues as it was then needed.

Boredstiff666

CrankyHaus wrote: »

If the need was there we could afford it, but it is not.
Comparable European countries maintain small but modern airforces, either to meet defence requirements or NATO obligations, neither of which we currently have.

With the necessity of deterring Russian bullying, Finland is a good example of a country that manages a formidable defence without beggering itself. For instance it bought Leopard MBTs at a good deal when other countries were getting rid of them, first Germany then the Netherlands.

Would it not be cheaper to blanket the country with mobile ground to air missiles and similar at key sites.

That way their effectiveness is prolonged as any attacking airforce always has to dodge or take care of such and updating these is cheaper than updating planes. Also running costs are almost non existant until used.

joeysoap

sparky42 wrote: »

Effectively this, same as how 25 years ago we sustained 16K strong DF and a spend of over 1% on defence from a vastly smaller budget and economy without huge issues as it was then needed.

And then they took ‘us’ to court for sore ears.

sparky42

joeysoap wrote: »

And then they took ‘us’ to court for sore ears.

Meh, plenty others in the Public Service have done far worse with a smirk on their faces.

joeysoap

I don’t disagree, and I think we need a properly manned and equipped defense force at all times.

But we don’t need obsolete fighter jets that cost an arm and a leg to operate and would be taken out by any potential ‘enemy’ in the first 5 minutes (the General Belgrano is a good example of buying obsolete castoffs)

Boredstiff666

joeysoap wrote: »

I don’t disagree, and I think we need a properly manned and equipped defense force at all times.

But we don’t need obsolete fighter jets that cost an arm and a leg to operate and would be taken out by any potential ‘enemy’ in the first 5 minutes (the General Belgrano is a good example of buying obsolete castoffs)

But how can Ireland afford such up to date aircraft?

sparky42

joeysoap wrote: »

I don’t disagree, and I think we need a properly manned and equipped defense force at all times.

But we don’t need obsolete fighter jets that cost an arm and a leg to operate and would be taken out by any potential ‘enemy’ in the first 5 minutes (the General Belgrano is a good example of buying obsolete castoffs)

Fighter Jets and Cheap don't go in the same sentence ever, and no the Belgrano doesn't mean anything as an example tbh.


We aren't talking about air to air combat, frankly there is no such threat nor likely to be one. The is beyond zero use case for buying something in the Fifth Gen range, there's no reason why we couldn't do what some of the Eastern EU nations have done with the Gripen Lease, which is about the needs we have.