Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

grassylawn

The need to invest in cyber defence was mentioned. I'm curious how this could be implemented. The scenario I can imagine is penetration testers actively looking for weaknesses in systems in the state of concern. Passive defence measures would be harder to implement because the large surface area and the fact that the systems that need to be defended are largely in the private sector. In order to avoid the possibility of private companies abdicating their own responsibilities in this area, sane fines could be imposed where weaknesses are found.

I don't see it as being likely that we would develop offensive capabilities as well, such as exploit development, but there is no particular reason why we shouldn't

davetherave

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think it would enough of deterrent to shepherd airliners and bears back on track. If you want to do mach 2 scrambles to chase backfires not so much.

But the issue is the running cost of those upgraded light trainers much different to a Gripen? Finding it very hard to get useful figures. I suspect not a lot in it. A poverty spec Gripen would tick a lot of boxes. I don't think we need 16 either.

How many do you think we do need?

If you want two on quick reaction force at all times.

You have the two that are parked up waiting for a call. You are also going to need two more, in the off-chance that when a call does come in one/or both of them doesn't start up.

You are going to have checks every x number of take-offs/landings and/or flight hours. If a plane is in a hanger surrounded by aircraft technicians with the hood up it can't be on QRF or standby QRF

You are also going to need aircraft to train pilots on how to fly that particular aircraft. Again you can't be using the QRF as a trainer. There's no point in saying no go away, come back in 45 minutes when the two lads are back off their training flight.

So already you are up to 8-12 depending on how many are undergoing maintenance at any given time, and how many are allocated to the flight training school/ Conversion Unit.

Flinty997

8-12 isn't 16. This scope creep is why it will never happen. Instead of starting small and building over time. It's straight to the all singing and dancing with all the bells and whistles. With spiralling costs.

Dohvolle

Flinty997 wrote: »

8-12 isn't 16. This scope creep is why it will never happen. Instead of starting small and building over time. It's straight to the all singing and dancing with all the bells and whistles. With spiralling costs.

Look again.
2 QRA.
2 Standby QRA.
2 on notice for QRA.
You need minimum 2 for training at all times.
The 6 that were involved in QRA last month will need to be maintained, this takes time and space.
We are up to 14 already, and 6 of your aircraft are up on blocks.
Which is why a minimum of 16 is put forward.
Normal operational profile is a flight of 4 aircraft. 4 flights =16.
Flight 1=QRA (4 Aircraft)
Flight 2= Standby QRA (4 Aircraft)
Flight 3= OCU (Training 4 Aircraft, probably 2 seat, but with similar capabilities as single seat type)
Flight 4= In for Maintenance, Was QRA last month. (4 Aircraft)
The OCU can schedule maintenance easier than the QRA flights, as training is not normaly done all year round in our climate.

The Question is...

When you buy a car, do you buy it in one go, or do you buy each wheel seperately?

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

Look again.
2 QRA.
2 Standby QRA.
2 on notice for QRA.
You need minimum 2 for training at all times.
The 6 that were involved in QRA last month will need to be maintained, this takes time and space.
We are up to 14 already, and 6 of your aircraft are up on blocks.
Which is why a minimum of 16 is put forward.
Normal operational profile is a flight of 4 aircraft. 4 flights =16.
Flight 1=QRA (4 Aircraft)
Flight 2= Standby QRA (4 Aircraft)
Flight 3= OCU (Training 4 Aircraft, probably 2 seat, but with similar capabilities as single seat type)
Flight 4= In for Maintenance, Was QRA last month. (4 Aircraft)
The OCU can schedule maintenance easier than the QRA flights, as training is not normaly done all year round in our climate.

The Question is...

When you buy a car, do you buy it in one go, or do you buy each wheel seperately?

There could also be airframes that are bought and stored, either for parts or to replace lost aircraft if needed. I mean remember how long it took to get the Government to replace the PC9?

The other issue I'd have is this idea of starting small and "spiralling out", Irish defence histroy shows us that isn't going to happen. If (and it's a huge if) there was ever a point where the Government decided to fund fighters it would be a once in a generation event, whatever bought in whatever numbers and spec would be it, 8/12/16 whatever. That's the ceiling that will be the cap for 30-40 years given our pattern, so the idea of lowballing the number to "dip our toes in the water" and then increase later doesn't hold up to me.

Flinty997

...and yet the Falklands is defended by 4 aircraft..

But we need a minimum of 16 aircraft. Makes sense. Maybe we should have backup 16 just in case the first 16 are engaged.

https://youtu.be/crDKhSSvNLY

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

...and yet the Falklands is defended by 4 aircraft..

But we need a minimum of 16 aircraft. Makes sense. Maybe we should have backup 16 just in case the first 16 are engaged.

https://youtu.be/crDKhSSvNLY

They also have ground defences and are there to deter a military that has managed to sink one of their one destroyers in Port… In other words they aren’t really needed and are there as a trip wire force backed by more in the U.K.

But sure random person on the internet can come up with the better plan than people that have actually studied it.

Gary kk

Flinty997 wrote: »

...and yet the Falklands is defended by 4 aircraft..

But we need a minimum of 16 aircraft. Makes sense. Maybe we should have backup 16 just in case the first 16 are engaged.

https://youtu.be/crDKhSSvNLY

Well given the overall land size and population we should have a few hundred fighters ourselves.

Flinty997

How are 32 aircraft not better than the 16 of the same aircraft.

Gary kk

Like no matter what they get it would make sense to the PC9 for training and patrol

Gary kk

Given range and that it would be ok just to have the fly along the coast for like fishing boats and Columbian drug cartels ?

sparky42

Gary kk wrote: »

Given range and that it would be ok just to have the fly along the coast for like fishing boats and Columbian drug cartels ?

Why would you use a fighter for the MPAs?

sparky42

Gary kk wrote: »

Like no matter what they get it would make sense to the PC9 for training and patrol

Given the PC9 doesn’t do patrol that’s not really relevant, nor do I get why you think it should be doing training?

Gary kk

sparky42 wrote: »

Given the PC9 doesn’t do patrol that’s not really relevant, nor do I get why you think it should be doing training?

Really then what do they do. Sure could they not fill a gap and get some training in as well.

Seriously what is there current roll close air support against who?

Dohvolle

Flinty997 wrote: »

...and yet the Falklands is defended by 4 aircraft..

But we need a minimum of 16 aircraft. Makes sense. Maybe we should have backup 16 just in case the first 16 are engaged.

https://youtu.be/crDKhSSvNLY

Are you equating 2 tiny Islands, just outside the antarctic circle, known otherwise only for sheep and penguins and about the same size as County Kerry, to Ireland, an EU member on the atlantic seaboard, overlooking the western approaches to europe with a population of 4 million or so? Following your logic, the State needs at least 23 aircraft to cover the same area, proportionally.
Those 4 aircraft are not the only protection the Islands have. They have possibly the best Early warning radar in the Southern Hemisphere, and you can guarantee should their QRA need urgent backup, the entire might of the RN and RAF will be making their way south, by all possible means.

Dohvolle

Gary kk wrote: »

Like no matter what they get it would make sense to the PC9 for training and patrol

Ah. I realise now you are just trolling. My apologies. I'll ignore your contributions totally from now on.

Gary kk

Dohvolle wrote: »

Ah. I realise now you are just trolling. My apologies. I'll ignore your contributions totally from now on.

No lol ok. I was just wondering could they slip into a new roll along with the what ever jet

Larbre34

Flinty997 wrote: »

How are 32 aircraft not better than the 16 of the same aircraft.

A football game is played with 11 on each team. It would be easier to win with 22 on one team. Explain to me, if you will, why that doesn't happen?

The United States has, between Air Force, Navy, Marines and Air National Guard, about 3,500 combat aircraft in service. Why do they not have 7,000? Or 3 million?! I'd love to know, because it must be just better!

Flinty997

Larbre34 wrote: »

A football game is played with 11 on each team. It would be easier to win with 22 on one team. Explain to me, if you will, why that doesn't happen?

The United States has, between Air Force, Navy, Marines and Air National Guard, about 3,500 combat aircraft in service. Why do they not have 7,000? Or 3 million?! I'd love to know, because it must be just better!

I'm not sure if you're anticipating an equal sided conflict or to defend against thousands of aircraft all of a sudden. I was predicting scope creep but that's quite a leap.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're anticipating an equal sided conflict or to defend against thousands of aircraft all of a sudden. I was predicting scope creep but that's quite a leap.

Because Irish Defence procurement is renowned for adding extra buys… Oh wait, no it isn’t, outside of the attempted political act of P64, extras have never been taken up (for example the ACs attempts to keep the demo Casa).

Flinty997

Dohvolle wrote: »

Are you equating 2 tiny Islands, just outside the antarctic circle, known otherwise only for sheep and penguins and about the same size as County Kerry, to Ireland, an EU member on the atlantic seaboard, overlooking the western approaches to europe with a population of 4 million or so? Following your logic, the State needs at least 23 aircraft to cover the same area, proportionally.
Those 4 aircraft are not the only protection the Islands have. They have possibly the best Early warning radar in the Southern Hemisphere, and you can guarantee should their QRA need urgent backup, the entire might of the RN and RAF will be making their way south, by all possible means.

You think they have stationed 4 fighters down there for penguins and sheep...

Others will remember them for the Falklands war and also battle of the Falklands. I assume they think there's enough of a threat to build all those facilities there.

I've already said 32 is better than 16 of the same type. No one's disagreed thus far.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

You think they have stationed 4 fighters down there for penguins and sheep...

Others will remember them for the Falklands war and also battle of the Falklands. I assume they think there's enough of a threat to build all those facilities there.

I've already said 32 is better than 16 of the same type. No one's disagreed thus far.

The defences were built up when the Argentinians had the capability to potentially threaten a renewed attack (spoiler that wasn’t very long), the U.K. has blocked any modern Western fighters so their capabilities are non existent now, as is their navy and army. They could pull the Typhoons if they wanted to but it’s there so they use it.

In terms of numbers it all depends doesn’t it? We are only going to use them for air interception, they are never going abroad to be used in combat so we don’t need the ability to deploy and maintain cover at home, nor do we face situations like Finland that are going for circa 64 (depending on how much per unit costs). They in building their competition actually worked out the difference between 48 and 64 for example and the taskings they could undertake basically anything less than 64 for Finland and their ability to provide continuous air defence while being able to perform strike missions are compromised.

We are only going to do relatively basic air policing (well maybe depending on what’s bought), hence one mission profile and therefore we can factor in the bare numbers, which as has been pointed out before is what the former AC general has already done.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

....

We are only going to do relatively basic air policing (well maybe depending on what’s bought), hence one mission profile and therefore we can factor in the bare numbers, which as has been pointed out before is what the former AC general has already done.

He also mentioned NZ approach of not having any fighters.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

He also mentioned NZ approach of not having any fighters.

Yes he did, and I pointed out they on the other hand have multiple highly capable MPAs that we also lack, so you want to spend a billion and a half for that capability instead?

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Yes he did, and I pointed out they on the other hand have multiple highly capable MPAs that we also lack, so you want to spend a billion and a half for that capability instead?

If think that will help with intercepting backfires and airliners, sure why not.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

If think that will help with intercepting backfires and airliners, sure why not.

Why do I bother…

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Why do I bother…

With red herrings.. No idea.

We want to spend a minimum of billion plus on something, that seems to be the plan.

Manic Moran

May I attack this from the other direction?

Why does ireland have 8x PC-9s, at, apparently an annual cost of 1million each? What purpose do they serve?

Light strike? Not likely. I don't think anyone can envision a situation where there is sufficient of an insurgency in Ireland to require it, and the aircraft wouldn't last an hour in anything more conventional. One might make an argument for using the things for air support to Irish troops on deployment, but the history indicates a distinct lack of desire to send aircraft on such missions. So that's not it.

Training of forward air controllers? Probably cheaper and easier to just send a few folks to the Joint Fires Course in Vegas every year. More chance that on some UN mission they'd get a US military aircraft on the radio and not an Irish one anyway. If you want to maintain a bit of proficiency, use a simulator. We use them for fires training here for that purpose.

Air defense? Yeah, no.

Training of pilots of other aircraft like the PC-12, CASA? You don't need armed (or unarmed) PC-9s for that. Look at the list of aircraft a pilot goes through to fly 737s or A321s at an airline. Much cheaper.

The only thing which makes sense to me is to train pilots for operation of front-line combat aircraft. Which means that when the PC-9s were bought, it was with the intent and knowledge that there would be the purchase of said aircraft. (Either that, or folks were just wasting money).
So, the question is, if it's a given that there is an intent to spend the money, it's not a question of "if it's too much money". That question has already been answered. The question is "What is the trigger at which point the future aircraft will be purchased?" WW3 might be too late and I doubt was in the planning thinking.

Stovepipe

Beech offered to run the pilot training syllabus on 4 Beech T6 II. This was rejected, as the AC considered that 4 wasn't enough for training and token air firing. They bought 8 because they expected to lose a few over their projected service life, so 1 lost, 1 replaced. It was also to avoid American pressure to buy American,so they bought Swiss aircraft, a trend continued with the PC-12, albeit fitted out in the US. They have done FAC courses for AC and Army officers, probably at the JFC location. If the AC go abroad with anything,it will probably be helicopters,as they can,as you know well, be folded and slid into a C130 or a C-17 to be sent to warry places. As for fast jets, I'll bet you that an officer has been detailed to run a study on the acquisition and operation of fast jets (insert name of other desirable equipment...tanks/big artillery/rockets/submarines/EPVs) and such a paper will cross the Minister's desk in due course.

Flinty997

Manic Moran wrote: »

May I attack this from the other direction?

Why does ireland have 8x PC-9s, at, apparently an annual cost of 1million each? What purpose do they serve?

Light strike? Not likely. I don't think anyone can envision a situation where there is sufficient of an insurgency in Ireland to require it, and the aircraft wouldn't last an hour in anything more conventional. ........

Warry places I like that.

Aircraft like the PC9 have been and are used as light attack in a few countries. Armed overwatch and reconnaissance...

Useful in Ireland is debatable. Are they being used simply to retain some cabability and experience in fixed wing operations. You'd have to say yes. Good use of money maybe. Certainly lots of other ways we could have gone.

Current issue is Russians playing games with NATO and the UK, we are just a bystander in that. Maybe we should ask the Russians for military aid to babysit their exercises.