Fighter jets

smurfjed

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/display-asset?id=22353
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/display-asset?id=24208

thomil

Used? Why not, but not those antiques. Their airframes are most likely completely shot, worn well beyond their design life, likewise the engines. Oh, and forget any support from the manufacturer. While used jets are an option, I'd go for either current model F-16s, or Gripen C/D aircraft from Sweden, where they should become more easily available once the next generation Gripen E/F models enter squadron service there in the next couple of years.

Now, while I'm certainly in favour of a much stronger military posture of Ireland with regards to both naval and airspace surveillance, I doubt many people on here are aware of just how much logistical support even one front line fighter squadron of, lets be generous and say sixteen fighter aircraft requires.

Apart from the aircraft, you'll need plenty of spare parts, everything fron additional ejector seat safety pins to engines and radars. That in itself is going to cost a fortune. Then there's the weapons. They cost quite a bit, and just having one set of missiles per aircraft won't be enough. You'll need a surprisingly large number of them, not least because of the occasional live firing exercise. In addition, missiles have a limited shelf life, and will need to be replaced regularly. That goes for every missile type from the venerable AIM-9 Sidewinder to Harpoon or Exocet anti ship missiles.

Then, there's the base. You need a long runway in a sparsely populated area, because modern fighters are LOUD! That means that Sligo, which was mentioned a few pages back, is out, the runway is far too short, and cannot be extended without land reclamation. A more realistic option would be to stick such a base onto Knock Airport, which already has a sizeable runway, and is effectively in the middle of nowhere.

As for the base itself, that'll require quite a few hangars, a full length parallel taxiway for any fighter to reach the active runway, aprons, covered stands and accommodation for the alert fighters and their pilots, weapons depots, fuel depots, barracks and support infrastructure for the squadrons at the base, the ground personnel, and the soldiers tasked with guarding the base, and soon you're talking about a major construction project.

You may have noticed that I used the plural when referring to the flying units at the base. That's because you'll need a unit that'll bring any pilots who just completed their fast jet training up to speed on the operations in a front line squadron. That means that in addition to the sixteen fighters I mentioned, there'll be a need for at least six, preferably eight additional aircraft, ideally double seater varieties of the fighters already in front line service, for this "operational conversion unit". What's more, this will be needed even if the advanced flight training as such is "outsourced" to another country.

Those front line fighters will need to know what to intercept in the first place, which means that some kind of airspace surveillance system will be needed, with a central command post. Those radars will need to be high enough to cover large parts of Irelands ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone), and should ideally be independent of civilian radar sites.

Now all this is needed just to keep ONE squadron of fighters operational and supplied with pilots. Also, this would provide Ireland with only a relatively basic capability, just enough to ensure a constant interception capability, provide limited air support and anti aircraft training for the army and navy, ensure that pilots get enough flying time to remain proficient, as well as providing a limited CAP capability for high profile events. This contains no fanciful things like tankers, airborne early warning aircraft, auxiliary air bases on motorways, an integrated air defense system combining fighters with mobile or stationary SAM batteries, or any other pie-in-the-sky stuff. Make no mistake, building up that capability is a huge task, and even a low-cost solution is going to cost several billion Euros once you add it all up.

Atoms for Peace

Most of the modern jets are ungainly looking yokes anyway, the F-14 or Su-27 were the high point of fighter design for me.

purplepanda

Regarding this thread & another ongoing thread on a UI, there is no way the British are going to do any deal on a United Ireland without major investment being undertaken in the Irish Defence Forces, in particular the Air Corps & Naval Service.

The British military traditionally see Ireland as a region which could be quickly overwhelmed by potential overseas aggressors, without British intervention. This is perceived as a threat to their overall security position.

A United Ireland would have a more pro British electorate overall due to former NI voters & this would lead to closer ties with Britain.

The British would be certainly demanding that Ireland increases it's military forces & sign a mutual defensive pact in the advent of Irish unity. This would probably include NATO membership & or increased Irish participation in the future EU military alliance.

Those that constantly call for a United Ireland, particularly the far left, fail to see the reality of this scenario, it means closer ties with Britain & increased Irish military spending & commitments.

TomOnBoard

I thought I couldn't be surprised by something on Boards, but I admit it- I'm amazed by this thread!

It was started early this morning by a newbie who planted ridiculous posts in a few threads, and has since been banned. And he must be having a great ould laugh at the deep military aeronautics that have been discussed here during the day. S/he actually got 99 ppl to vote and a third of them be!ieve that we should have a full military air force...

He ended up with quite a modest fleet:

"20 Typhoons, 10 F-35A/Bs and some drones.

That's it."

You win, banned man!!

Overheal

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Most of the modern jets are ungainly looking yokes anyway, the F-14 or Su-27 were the high point of fighter design for me.

F-18 has really been one of the most successful and iconic multi role platforms for me. F-14 was cool but was also a big more of a fighter-bomber, and heavy, and costly to maintain. Another great success story is of course the A-10 - get some of those!

CelticRambler

Lord Maguire wrote: »

Switzerland for example, a famously neutral state, have modern fighter jets for air defence purposes. Why don't we?

Switzerland has an air force base under a mountain*, built to resist chemical, biological and nuclear attack. Why doesn't Ireland have one of those? :eek: Is it because there's no agreement between TDs as to whether it should be hidden under Kippure, Carauntoohil or Croagh Patrick? Although following up on ectoraige's suggestion of having a base in Sligo, seeing a fleet of fighter jets streaming out of Ben Bulben would be pretty cool! :cool:


* Meiringen/Unterbach, I "found" this by accident last year, when I was looking for the Reichenbach falls without GPS or a map of Switzerland, going in circles around what looked like a private airfield (complete with a "level crossing" across the runway :pac:). I saw what was obviously a fighter jet come in to land but had to watch the road so didn't see where it went. Then I saw another ... and another ... and another ... I knew they weren't doing touch-and-go training because none of them took off, but no matter how many times I went around the site (or across the runway) there was no damn plane visible on the ground, nor even any hangars.



The mystery of the invisible aircraft had me driven demented for nearly a week, till I left Switzerland, get my EU data connection back and was able to join the dots between Google Maps and Wikipedia!

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

Ive taken entire credit hours at college exploring and researching and describing at great length how the F35 program is muck

Two big problems
First they are repeating the mistakes of the F-111 in trying to get one aircraft to do multiple jobs. So Jack of All Trades , but at an exorbitant price.

Second because it's the only game in town and because it's possibly the last manned fighter before drones take over everyone is trying to add something or some input to it. Mission creep.

the software is still in development and is a mess in many respects.

Stuff like crossing the international date line or flying over the Dead Sea , which as everyone knows just happens to be below sea level shouldn't be an issue.

The F35B is fascinating for its innovation in STOVL but that’s about it for me. Users can PM me for a copy of our end of semester report on our findings from when I did the research in 2016.

They bought in Russian tech from the Yak 141 , the fan on the front is new though.

The big difference between it and the Harrier is that the F35B can auto-land thanks to software so you don't need to train pilots to do it whereas the Harrier in the hands of a skilled pilot has been doing amazing stuff since the '60's but is a wee bit trickier to fly. The X-32 failing to hover was a complete joke in that context.



The Chinese are using HK-6 bombers, it's a 1950s Soviet design, so agricultural. It doesn't have the stealth capabilities of the American B2 bomber (each of which cost about twice our annual defence budget) but who needs stealth when you can launch a cruise missile from 1,500 Km away ?

The debate over manned vs missile will continue. But look at how the WWII Sherman Vs Tiger thing turned out. Movies show the battles, but in reality the Americans relied a lot on three men in a jeep ( driver, loader, guy with bazooka) to take out German tanks, and for a fraction of the cost.

CalamariFritti

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The F35 still does not even work properly and the program has cost almost $1 trillion. It will be the biggest White Elephant in the history of military expenditure.

I guess that's because its main purpose is not 'defending' anything but funnelling a sh1tload of taxpayers money into the 'arms industry'. Seems it has been massive success.

Stigura

Grayson wrote: »

It's Da, not yes, you idiot. We'll never infiltrate these commies if you keep making stupid mistakes.

:P

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

F-18 has really been one of the most successful and iconic multi role platforms for me. F-14 was cool but was also a big more of a fighter-bomber, and heavy, and costly to maintain. Another great success story is of course the A-10 - get some of those!

F-14 was to some extent an F-111 with the multi-role bits left out.

Oddly enough I've heard stories about the A-10 in dogfights in the Welsh valleys, it's not fast but it's very manoeuvrable. It's quite sobering to think that the pilot can keep that gun trained on you no matter how fast you can jink.


The F-18 and F-17 were just supposed to be demos, because the Airforce and Navy had their F15's and F14's. And the first flight of the F17 wasn't intended , instability during a fast taxi so the pilot lit the afterburner and away we go.

kyote00

May as well get a few nuclear subs while we are at it...I want to be Admiral of the fleet.
We could divert some of the money Apple is returning....

After Brexit, we will have an EU border that needs protecting...

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I thought I couldn't be surprised by something on Boards, but I admit it- I'm amazed by this thread!

It was started early this morning by a newbie who planted ridiculous posts in a few threads, and has since been banned. And he must be having a great ould laugh at the deep military aeronautics that have been discussed here during the day. S/he actually got 99 ppl to vote and a third of them be!ieve that we should have a full military air force...

He ended up with quite a modest fleet:

"20 Typhoons, 10 F-35A/Bs and some drones.

That's it."

You win, banned man!!

ED E

Overheal wrote: »

F-18 has really been one of the most successful and iconic multi role platforms for me. F-14 was cool but was also a big more of a fighter-bomber, and heavy, and costly to maintain. Another great success story is of course the A-10 - get some of those!

A10 would be superb for all those pesky somali pirates we get up here.

TomOnBoard

kyote00 wrote: »

May as well get a few nuclear subs while we are at it...I want to be Admiral of the fleet.
We could divert some of the money Apple is returning....

After Brexit, we will have an EU border that needs protecting...

Absolutely! And yes, you can be Admiral! Will the Nuccelar Subs run on petrol or diesel though? And will they fit up the Boyne in case King Billy comes back across after Brexit?

And can we use one of the subs as a car ferry on the Rosslare route in the Summertime when the Army takes their holliers...

Keep yer hands off the Apple money but!! That's earmarked for the 2027 Olympics in Birr.

And wud ya ever look and see if them smelly pirates Ed was talking about have any of that A10 paper left for the printer.

Hande hoche!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

F-14 was to some extent an F-111 with the multi-role bits left out.

Oddly enough I've heard stories about the A-10 in dogfights in the Welsh valleys, it's not fast but it's very manoeuvrable. It's quite sobering to think that the pilot can keep that gun trained on you no matter how fast you can jink.


The F-18 and F-17 were just supposed to be demos, because the Airforce and Navy had their F15's and F14's. And the first flight of the F17 wasn't intended , instability during a fast taxi so the pilot lit the afterburner and away we go.

Was the F18 not a runner up for the F16 programme? Then the company offered it to the navy. Successful jet all the same, quite a few exports and even managed to expand it with the super hornet.

Kermit.de.frog

I have always been of the view that we should look after our own security.


But we don't do that in the state. We don't have a real police force for example.


So i'd start internally. I don't think we should have an air corps without actual investment. It's demoralising for the pilots as well.

everlast75

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So i'd start internally. I don't think we should have an air corps without actual investment. It's demoralising for the pilots as well.

I agree.

Having would be pilots cut leg holes in the bottom of cardboard boxes so they can slip them on like shorts and then have to run around with their arms out to the side making "neeeeaaaaarrrrrooowww" noises is just humiliating

thomil

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Was the F18 not a runner up for the F16 programme? Then the company offered it to the navy. Successful jet all the same, quite a few exports and even managed to expand it with the super hornet.

The F/A 18 was developed from a demonstrator known as the Northrop YF-17, which was indeed designed as a competitor to the F-16. It lost in that competition, but caught the attention of the US Navy.

RandomName2

We did pay for Ugandan fighter jets....

Ozymandius2011

Yes I think so. A large bloc of Irish voters has a far reaching interpretation of neutrality as implying pacificism. The problem is that a weak neutral is easy prey to an aggressor. I support an armed neutrality like Switzerland and like Sweden during the Cold War. That way while we might not defeat an invader, we can make them suffer high enough casualties so as to weaken support for an invasion in their public opinion.

Capt'n Midnight

thomil wrote: »

The F/A 18 was developed from a demonstrator known as the Northrop YF-17, which was indeed designed as a competitor to the F-16. It lost in that competition, but caught the attention of the US Navy.

The Navy liked the idea that it had two engines so you'd have a better chance of making it back to the carrier if you had engine trouble. They also liked the idea that it wasn't the one the Air Force were using.

The whole thing was that both aircraft were only to be demos to see if cheap and cheerful planes could do anything useful for a fraction of the price of the F14 or F15. They ticked so many of the boxes that it was a no-brainer for the military.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The F35 still does not even work properly and the program has cost almost $1 trillion. It will be the biggest White Elephant in the history of military expenditure.

The Sukhoi Su-57, Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 will turn out to better and cheaper planes.

What's the tax on them Shenyangs??? If its over €400 a year the Air Corps will never go for it.

GottaGetGatt

And who's gonna pay to fuel these yokes?

Ozymandius2011

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

And who's gonna pay to fuel these yokes?

The taxpayer. I would argue that its potentially the price of freedom when you consider what happened to other neutrals that were invaded in WW2.

Hande hoche!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Navy liked the idea that it had two engines so you'd have a better chance of making it back to the carrier if you had engine trouble. They also liked the idea that it wasn't the one the Air Force were using.

The whole thing was that both aircraft were only to be demos to see if cheap and cheerful planes could do anything useful for a fraction of the price of the F14 or F15. They ticked so many of the boxes that it was a no-brainer for the military.

Some of the politics behind it was fascinating too. The high-low mix and the fighter mafia's role.

Capt'n Midnight

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

What's the tax on them Shenyangs??? If its over €400 a year the Air Corps will never go for it.

But they'll run on red diesel ...

GottaGetGatt

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The taxpayer. I would argue that its potentially the price of freedom when you consider what happened to other neutrals that were invaded in WW2.

No Sh!t.

YFlyer

We don't need fighter jets. We needs a few hundred yogic flyers.

gandalf

Eventhough it would be of no use to us at all I'd love to see us getting a few A10's. My favourite warplane