Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Dohvolle

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It can intercept a bomber or a commercial airliner. It can intercept anything far more than the pc9 can so it's in upgrade.

I can't afford a Ferrari, doesn't mean I don't get the best car I can and walk instead.

Edit to add: I actually meant the l39ng. I forgot the ng part.

It cant.
Anyone saying otherwise is lying to you.
L39NG max speed:775 kmh
Airbus A330 Cruising Speed: 871 kmh.

To intercept something you first must be able to go faster than it....

Dohvolle

Dohvolle wrote: »

It cant.
Anyone saying otherwise is lying to you.
L39NG max speed:775 kmh
Airbus A330 Cruising Speed: 871 kmh.

To intercept something you first must be able to go faster than it....

Only if you are chasing it. Intercept means meeting it so it does turn around.

Again, you won't get anything better like even second hand gripon so keep the pc9 / 21 or get something like this.

My opinion, it's a step in the right direction

Dohvolle

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Only if you are chasing it. Intercept means meeting it

On what planet?

Dohvolle

Dohvolle wrote: »

On what planet?

"obstruct (someone or something) so as to prevent them from continuing to a destination"

Oxford dictionary.

Fighter interceptor:

"An interceptor aircraft, or simply interceptor, is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically for the defensive interception role against an attacking enemy aircraft, particularly bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. "

Get the f18 out of your head. It's not happening. None of them are. No true fighter is on the table.

I'm offering you a step in the right direction. A trainer with SOME intercept / attack capabilities.

Jesus, even the ground support aspect beats our current lot.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It can intercept a bomber or a commercial airliner. It can intercept anything far more than the pc9 can so it's in upgrade.

I can't afford a Ferrari, doesn't mean I don't get the best car I can and walk instead.

Edit to add: I actually meant the l39ng. I forgot the ng part.

a plane with a max speed of less than 500mph is not an interceptor. It is a glorified trainer with some combat capability, nothing more.

sparky42

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

"obstruct (someone or something) so as to prevent them from continuing to a destination"

Oxford dictionary.

Fighter interceptor:

"An interceptor aircraft, or simply interceptor, is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically for the defensive interception role against an attacking enemy aircraft, particularly bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. "

Get the f18 out of your head. It's not happening. None of them are. No true fighter is on the table.

I'm offering you a step in the right direction. A trainer with SOME intercept / attack capabilities.

Jesus, even the ground support aspect beats our current lot.

You’re offering the usual half assed “be seen doing something without getting anything”, same as the 139 buy for helicopters instead anything that could actually be used in military operations anywhere, but hey they are green and that’s good enough it seems.

You slap fuel tanks and weapons on to a 39ng and then ask it to intercept an unresponsive aircraft it’s going to be out of fuel by the time it does, not too mention has zero chance of doing anything about the Bears.

It’s the AW 139 solution, getting us feck all. We know exactly what the price tag for a ten year lease is for gripens we have EU nations right now operating that way, it’s not crazy money for them. What costs is all the ancillary demands that would be needed even for the 39s anyway.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a plane with a max speed of less than 500mph is not an interceptor. It is a glorified trainer with some combat capability, nothing more.

Which is what I said.

sparky42

sparky42 wrote: »

You’re offering the usual half assed “be seen doing something without getting anything”, same as the 139 buy for helicopters instead anything that could actually be used in military operations anywhere, but hey they are green and that’s good enough it seems.

You slap fuel tanks and weapons on to a 39ng and then ask it to intercept an unresponsive aircraft it’s going to be out of fuel by the time it does, not too mention has zero chance of doing anything about the Bears.

It’s the AW 139 solution, getting us feck all. We know exactly what the price tag for a ten year lease is for gripens we have EU nations right now operating that way, it’s not crazy money for them. What costs is all the ancillary demands that would be needed even for the 39s anyway.

You are joking right? You think the costs for the ng would be the same as gripens to maintain and run?

I fail to see why it has "zero chance". It's carrying ir missiles and has a distance of 2500km on internal fuel.

Anyway, it's all or nothing for you it seems so ts some pc21s which is inferior in every single way.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Which is what I said.

so absolutely no point in buying them then.

sparky42

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You are joking right? You think the costs for the ng would be the same as gripens to maintain and run?

I fail to see why it has "zero chance". It's carrying ir missiles and has a distance of 2500km on internal fuel.

Anyway, it's all or nothing for you it seems so ts some pc21s which is inferior in every single way.

Before anything (for anything) we’d need the radar infrastructure, the manpower, the stores, the upskilling, maybe new basing... All of these costs will have to come into play no matter what is bought. After that the running costs are not the most expensive part, if we were to invest all that then the difference in running costs is marginal.

You seem to take a lot from Wikipedia on faith, tell me, is that 2500km in clean wing ferry range, or with wet stores, weapons and at max speed/climbing?

Again what you are suggesting is the same as how we ended up with 139s with no military value rather than the other entries in that competition.

sparky42

sparky42 wrote: »

Before anything (for anything) we’d need the radar infrastructure, the manpower, the stores, the upskilling, maybe new basing... All of these costs will have to come into play no matter what is bought. After that the running costs are not the most expensive part, if we were to invest all that then the difference in running costs is marginal.

You seem to take a lot from Wikipedia on faith, tell me, is that 2500km in clean wing ferry range, or with wet stores, weapons and at max speed/climbing?

Again what you are suggesting is the same as how we ended up with 139s with no military value rather than the other entries in that competition.

None of that is relevant as it applies to anything you purchase according to you. So the same cost even if you stick with the pc range

The 2500 is from the spec sheet of the company. It's based on cruise speed and empty. Again, it's superior to the pc9 and pc21.

And no, I'm not suggesting something with no military vakue compared to other entries. For starters, the ng offers ground support far about the pc9 and pc21.

Ok, so you are saying no to the ng. What's your suggestion?

AMKC

MAULBROOK wrote: »

We have 26 aircraft, 16 fixed wing. 4 are new and nearly all the rest are up for replacement.
Lets not forget the Helicopters are no spring chickens, 13/14 years old.
Their is not a hope in hell we are getting a small fleet of jets.

I hate to say it but I think you are right especially the way things are now and the many billions we owe for Covid.
Maybe if the finances had of been managed right during the Celtic Tiger years and the banks had never gone bust and needed a bailout we might have been able to afford some but certainly not now.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

None of that is relevant as it applies to anything you purchase.

The 2500 is from the spec sheet of the company. It's based on cruise speed and empty. Again, it's superior to the pc9 and pc21.

And no, I'm not suggesting something with no military vakue compared to other entries. For starters, the ng offers ground support far about the pc9 and pc21.

Ok, so you are saying no to the ng. What's your suggestion?

why do you keep comparing them to the PC9 and PC21? they are irrelevant.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why do you keep comparing them to the PC9 and PC21? they are irrelevant.

They are what we have and most likely replacement.

I'm comparing the replacement option with the current option and it's natural replacement.

What should I compare to? Typhoons?

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They are what we have and most likely replacement.

I'm comparing the replacement option with the current option and it's natural replacement.

What should I compare to? Typhoons?

perhaps something useful?

sparky42

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

None of that is relevant as it applies to anything you purchase.

The 2500 is from the spec sheet of the company. It's based on cruise speed and empty. Again, it's superior to the pc9 and pc21.

And no, I'm not suggesting something with no military vakue compared to other entries. For starters, the ng offers ground support far about the pc9 and pc21.

Ok, so you are saying no to the ng. What's your suggestion?

Given that those elements are always going to be the main costs compared to buying/leasing aircraft, it does matter.

So the 2500km is meaningless in suggesting range/endurance.

What I am saying is either do it properly or don’t. The DF is littered with these kind of “optics” purchases that never end up doing anything of value. From buying insufficient armour and then trying to keep them operational with no spares, to buy OPVs that have no sonar or helicopter capability (but are cheap) to buying helicopters that can’t be deployed, or used at sea (but were cheap), to this “let’s by a trainer and call it Light Attack/interception” cause it’s cheap...

Either fund it right and buy what’s needed for the capability (which we could easily do if funding the DF to even basic levels) or don’t feck around buying something that still won’t do the job, just so it can be seen to be there.

punchdrunk

Have to agree, sub sonic trainers are not the answer,
To intercept, say an airliner at altitude you have to get off the ground and get your crew behind it- you can’t just engage it head on- it’s standard procedure to fly up from behind and observe it, try and make contact visually with the pilots and then as a last resport fire upon it, and to fire upon it you really need it to still be over water. There’s no time to do this in a sub Mach 1 aircraft.

Buy/lease the right thing or don’t bother at all.

sparky42

AMKC wrote: »

I hate to say it but I think you are right especially the way things are now and the many billions we owe for Covid.
Maybe if the finances had of been managed right during the Celtic Tiger years and the banks had never gone bust and needed a bailout we might have been able to afford some but certainly not now.

We are still being paid for our 10 year bonds, moreover in terms of percentage of government spending we were able to spend much more when we were much poorer nation. Again we know that for a squadron of Gripens its 100 million a year lease, that’s not crazy money though of course as mentioned the fixed costs would need to be taken into account.

Either that or we stop acting the ghoul and formally ask someone to take over air policing of our airspace.

ohnonotgmail

sparky42 wrote: »

Given that those elements are always going to be the main costs compared to buying/leasing aircraft, it does matter.

So the 2500km is meaningless in suggesting range/endurance.

What I am saying is either do it properly or don’t. The DF is littered with these kind of “optics” purchases that never end up doing anything of value. From buying insufficient armour and then trying to keep them operational with no spares, to buy OPVs that have no sonar or helicopter capability (but are cheap) to buying helicopters that can’t be deployed, or used at sea (but were cheap), to this “let’s by a trainer and call it Light Attack/interception” cause it’s cheap...

Either fund it right and buy what’s needed for the capability (which we could easily do if funding the DF to even basic levels) or don’t feck around buying something that still won’t do the job, just so it can be seen to be there.

of course if they are the options presented to government then the answer will be "don't bother".

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps something useful?

So you don't know or know that there's no genuine 'useful' option.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

of course if they are the options presented to government then the answer will be "don't bother".

Exactly my point. We will end up with nothing or the pc21.

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

of course if they are the options presented to government then the answer will be "don't bother".

Most likely yes, but in no small part that's due to the fact that they know that there's no political costs for that. But whether that will continue long term is another question, whether it's increasing questions about the vulnerability of the fiber cables in out waters, or our Cyber Defences... Though it's interesting when you see the polling there's actually over 50% support for increase defence spending.

sparky42

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So you don't know or know that there's no genuine 'useful' option.


Exactly my point. We will end up with nothing or the pc21.

So as I said, don't half ass it then. the 39NG is still half assing it.

sparky42

sparky42 wrote: »

So as I said, don't half ass it then. the 39NG is still half assing it.

So no ass then at all?

**** the military, they can fly paper planes and not bother having anything at all?

You aren't making a real choice here. Your just being in opposition. What's your genuine and realistic suggestion going forward?

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So you don't know or know that there's no genuine 'useful' option.

neither. I was simply saying that your suggestion is rubbish.

MAULBROOK

Can we all just agree the answer is the Saab JAS 39 E/F Gripen with PC21s as trainers and be done.

MAULBROOK

MAULBROOK wrote: »

Can we all just agree the answer is the Saab JAS 39 E/F Gripen with PC21s as trainers and be done.

We can but it won't happen.

sparky42

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So no ass then at all?

**** the military, they can fly paper planes and not bother having anything at all?

You aren't making a real choice here. Your just being in opposition. What's your genuine and realistic suggestion going forward?

I already posted that, either spend what needs to be spent to do it properly or stop acting like we can defend ourselves (by our choice) and ask one of the EU nations to base here.


What you are suggesting is the same as when we had the Fouga's and the Pope's 747 had to actually slow down to let them get into formation. Trainers/Light Attack aren't interceptors and suggesting otherwise is the usual DOD BS, like buying a handful of tanks (and one transporter) and calling it a Tank Squadron, or the OPV's or the 139s.

sparky42

sparky42 wrote: »

I already posted that, either spend what needs to be spent to do it properly or stop acting like we can defend ourselves (by our choice) and ask one of the EU nations to base here.


What you are suggesting is the same as when we had the Fouga's and the Pope's 747 had to actually slow down to let them get into formation. Trainers/Light Attack aren't interceptors and suggesting otherwise is the usual DOD BS, like buying a handful of tanks (and one transporter) and calling it a Tank Squadron, or the OPV's or the 139s.

But they won't. They won't spend it and the uk does it already.

The pc9 needs replacing so your suggestion is don't replace it with anything?

sparky42

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

But they won't. They won't spend it and the uk does it already.

The pc9 needs replacing so your suggestion is don't replace it with anything?

The PC9 isn't going to be replaced for another decade at the least, based on previous usage most likely closer to 2 decades.

Gary kk

Funny question but is there no bare bones super sonic? I mean they have jets doing that for 50+ years.

As in surly 200 simple fast jets beats 20 stealth fighters.