Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

sparky42

sparky42 wrote: »

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

They are due for replacement in 2025.

There's no point in continuing this considering none of you actually have any alternative suggestions.

Gary kk

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They are due for replacement in 2025.

There's no point in continuing this considering none of you actually have any alternative suggestions.

Ok cool

Dohvolle

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.

Finland went through the exact same economic situation as us, but can afford 6bn on new aircraft.
The nature of economics mean we always owe billions.
The bailout is history, the economy recovered since. That was 8 years ago.
The worldwide economy is paused at the moment. Ireland is doing better than most. Everyone in Ireland got an income whether their workplace was operating or not.
This was not the case in other nations.
Time to give up the poor mouth as an excuse.
The funds are there. The average neutral european state spends 1.5% of GDP on Defence. We spend 0.26%.

sparky42

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They are due for replacement in 2025.

There's no point in continuing this considering none of you actually have any alternative suggestions.

Eithne was due to be replaced in 2008, you see the MRV around? How long were the Cessnas in service? Or the Panhards? Would you like me to go on listing how long equipment has stayed in service beyond reasonable time...

The PC9s aren’t getting replaced in 4 years time, the tender process for their replacement won’t even start in 4 years time, they have plenty of service life left and the DF have many more pressing budget items to deal with.

You are right though, there’s little point in this as you seem to just want the usual half assed nonsense for the DF to be seen to do something rather than actually achieve anything.

sparky42

Gary kk wrote: »

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.

Not really, you basically have “enhanced” light fighters/trainers that technically can work but really burn money for limited capabilities or you jump to a full fat modern aircraft.

sparky42

sparky42 wrote: »

Eithne was due to be replaced in 2008, you see the MRV around? How long were the Cessnas in service? Or the Panhards? Would you like me to go on listing how long equipment has stayed in service beyond reasonable time...

The PC9s aren’t getting replaced in 4 years time, the tender process for their replacement won’t even start in 4 years time, they have plenty of service life left and the DF have many more pressing budget items to deal with.

You are right though, there’s little point in this as you seem to just want the usual half assed nonsense for the DF to be seen to do something rather than actually achieve anything.

Indeed. Let's not bother trying at all. Retire them off and be done with it

roadmaster

Cessna's 47 Years
Alouttes 44 years
Casas coming on 30 years
Pc9s they are still young by air corps standards

sparky42

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Indeed. Let's not bother trying at all. Retire them off and be done with it

No let’s focus on the bits we actually need right now for the DF and actually plan and scope a proper replacement when it’s time. Now is not that time.

punchdrunk

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Indeed. Let's not bother trying at all. Retire them off and be done with it

I've advocated for scrapping the PC-9's for years, it's even less needed now with initial training occuring abroad. They were a terrible buy and I cringe when I see FB posts of live firing exercises of unguided rockets at Gormanstown. There's much more suitable, cheaper trainers around.
The only case for keeping them would be to retrofit counter measures and a FLIR pod and operate them as observers/CAP over low air intensity environments supporting UN/EU missions (such as Chad)


We need to get away from this culture of tokenism in the DF and DOD, set out a policy of what you want the DF to be and then equip it to do that role.
Stop half-arsing it with procurement that's not driven by a realistic policy that only serves to tick a box so some minister can avoid tough questions in the Dail, it's pure fiction and it needs to end.

Larbre34

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?

The only non-training uses the L159 has, is as a tank killer, a land border patrol aircraft or a policing platform for mass civil unrest or insurrection, especially in a State without much regard for human rights.

In what way would you suggest it could be of use to our Air Corps.

I'm baffled by you all.

Your not getting what you want, your not happy with what you have, you aren't happy with the best realistic option.

The air corp won't be getting fighters, live with it.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm baffled by you all.

Your not getting what you want, your not happy with what you have, you aren't happy with the best realistic option.

The air corp won't be getting fighters, live with it.

you haven't proposed a realistic option. you have proposed a half-assed option that would be a waste of money. we are probably not going to buy proper interceptors but buying your proposal as second best would be a waste of money. Better off spending the money on proper radar.

Larbre34

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm baffled by you all.

Your not getting what you want, your not happy with what you have, you aren't happy with the best realistic option.

The air corp won't be getting fighters, live with it.

For training purposes, I'm perfectly happy with the PC-9. Who isn't happy with it?

The L159 isn't a realistic option for anything, because its pointless. I already told you they were assessed and rejected 20 years ago.

You are most likely correct about the fast jets, but that doesn't negate the case for them.

Without doubt it will be a matter raised at the Commission on Defence and the number of external military experts present ought to make for a, lets say, challenging conversation.

We know Simon Coveney is personally in favour of a primary radar system at the very least, my own feeling is that he hasn't shown his full hand yet in advance of the Commission report.

With the self inflicted status change of the UK ij recent times, adequate air defence of this Republic may become a much noisier topic over the next few years.

punchdrunk

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm baffled by you all.

Your not getting what you want, your not happy with what you have, you aren't happy with the best realistic option.

The air corp won't be getting fighters, live with it.

It’s not about getting what we want or being happy with what we have.

It’s pragmatic realism

What we have can’t do the job effectively
What you propose can’t do the job effectively
What we’re saying is buy what can do the job effectively or don’t bother
we’ve have decades of governments with an
“ah **** it, be grand” attitude
Maybe half measures just aren’t worth the investment?

jonnybigwallet

This board seems to be getting polarized into two camps:

1/ The Gripen lobby who won't accept anything but.
2/ The folk who support the L139NG.

Why the hell not go for 6-8 of the fine little Chech plane for training and air to ground ops plus support to the NS, and get 6-8 of the KAI F25 in two variants. The latter is supersonic and the maxed out version would scare the living daylights out of Jonny Russian if he comes prowlin around on the West coast.

Mostly the potential intercepts would be them prop driven BEAR jobbies which are far from supersonic. Range and endurance not a problem as we would only need to provide cover of the situation for about twenty minutes or so from Donegal down to Cork before handing over to the Spanish or French. The L139 has been improved and is a much better more capable aircraft than the obsolete version the AC looked at twenty years ago. Also it would be a good lead-in trainer for the Intercept squadron, while getting the engineering support base into the 21st century and dealing with jet engines.

You could acquire both for the price of 6-8 Gripens and that puts more planes in the air for your buck. The L139NG's could even intercept the slow moving BEAR.

Thats' my take on the sitch anyroad, but on past form I suppose I'll come into a pile of criticism over this.

Gary kk

Are you sure about the name of the KAI f25.
I can't find one.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

I already told you they were assessed and rejected 20 years ago.

It's only 5 years old.

Gary kk

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's only 5 years old.

Nah April 2000 was when it was first shown

Are you speaking of a s certain model under that name?

punchdrunk

Anyone suggesting that the PC-9’s are anywhere near planned retirement simply hasn’t a clue how the DF works, the last PC-9 was only delivered 3/4 years ago (as an attrition replacement that took eight years to decide on)
They’ve not flown anything like the anticipated amount of flight hours so they are in excellent condition and have plenty of hours left on the airframes so they will be around for easily another decade, probably more.

Dohvolle

punchdrunk wrote: »

Anyone suggesting that the PC-9’s are anywhere near planned retirement simply hasn’t a clue how the DF works, the last PC-9 was only delivered 3/4 years ago (as an attrition replacement that took eight years to decide on)
They’ve not flown anything like the anticipated amount of flight hours so they are in excellent condition and have plenty of hours left on the airframes so they will be around for easily another decade, probably more.

True, however the process to replace an aircraft in Ireland is very slow.
There is already consideration being given to what direction the Air Corps will go when it is time to replace this Tandem seat trainer, given that we have to send our trainee heli pilots to the USA and our trainee multi jet pilots to Australia.
The PC9 is unable to do the job required of it today.
The PC21 is a LIFT (Lead in Fighter Trainer) that would prepare pilots for fast jet interceptors. No point getting them unless you are also getting the fast jets.
Perhaps given that currently all air corps pilots, whether rotary wing or fixed wing, will advance to a side by side cockpit, maybe something side by side would be more appropriate (and much cheaper).
Throwing bullets and unguided rockets at the beach in gormo is a pointless exercise, in the bigger picture.

Dohvolle

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

This board seems to be getting polarized into two camps:

1/ The Gripen lobby who won't accept anything but.
2/ The folk who support the L139NG.

Why the hell not go for 6-8 of the fine little Chech plane for training and air to ground ops plus support to the NS, and get 6-8 of the KAI F25 in two variants. The latter is supersonic and the maxed out version would scare the living daylights out of Jonny Russian if he comes prowlin around on the West coast.

Mostly the potential intercepts would be them prop driven BEAR jobbies which are far from supersonic. Range and endurance not a problem as we would only need to provide cover of the situation for about twenty minutes or so from Donegal down to Cork before handing over to the Spanish or French. The L139 has been improved and is a much better more capable aircraft than the obsolete version the AC looked at twenty years ago. Also it would be a good lead-in trainer for the Intercept squadron, while getting the engineering support base into the 21st century and dealing with jet engines.

You could acquire both for the price of 6-8 Gripens and that puts more planes in the air for your buck. The L139NG's could even intercept the slow moving BEAR.

Thats' my take on the sitch anyroad, but on past form I suppose I'll come into a pile of criticism over this.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Larbre34

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's only 5 years old.

2001/2 was 20 years ago.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

2001/2 was 20 years ago.

We are talking about two different models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39NG

Gary kk

Gary kk wrote: »

Nah April 2000 was when it was first shown

Are you speaking of a s certain model under that name?

Ng as I stated earlier

Strumms

The easy part is identifying a suitable aircraft, the difficult part is paying for them.... as in the airframes themselves, the cost annually of maintenance, crews, fuel.

I’m reading that In 2020 Major General Ralph James, who retired as head of the Air Corps in 2015, said the State would need about 16 jet fighters with three crews each to implement a full air-defence capability.

Interesting article here...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-considering-purchase-of-military-jet-aircraft-1.4289801

Larbre34

It was an article well dissected here, but of course the silence from the military apparatus was deafening.

Dohvolle

Strumms wrote: »

The easy part is identifying a suitable aircraft, the difficult part is paying for them.... as in the airframes themselves, the cost annually of maintenance, crews, fuel.

I’m reading that In 2020 Major General Ralph James, who retired as head of the Air Corps in 2015, said the State would need about 16 jet fighters with three crews each to implement a full air-defence capability.

Interesting article here...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-considering-purchase-of-military-jet-aircraft-1.4289801

Finland are paying €6bn for at least 65 proper interceptors (not trainers with notions).
These will be expected to serve until 2060.
In paying €6bn local industries will either get a portion of the assembly,or other related contracts.

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

Finland are paying €6bn for at least 65 proper interceptors (not trainers with notions).
These will be expected to serve until 2060.
In paying €6bn local industries will either get a portion of the assembly,or other related contracts.

Yep though as always the difference being they are just buying new gen aircraft rather than actually creating such a capability from nothing. Though you could also look at the Swiss competition for new aircraft or Austria to name some others.

roadmaster

WhomadeGod wrote: »

How much does ireland pay the UK to guard airspace?

Nothing because they dont, The only time they will be guarding "Irish Airspace" is if a 747 if unresponsive over the west heading for the UK as they wont allow it to come down on UK soil

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

Nothing because they dont, The only time they will be guarding "Irish Airspace" is if a 747 if unresponsive over the west heading for the UK as they wont allow it to come down on UK soil

Apart from following Bears through our controlled airspace of course...