Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

26-02-2020 12:02PM

Would it be so unrealistic for us to have a few fighter / trainers? As a response to airspace incursions or in the event that we needed to intercept?

Something like a yac130 or Aero L-159 Alca. Even some old alpha jets or JL-8?

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2020 12:07PM

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Would it be so unrealistic for us to have a few fighter / trainers? As a response to airspace incursions or in the event that we needed to intercept?

Something like a yac130 or Aero L-159 Alca. Even some old alpha jets or JL-8?

What use are subsonic planes as interceptors?

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 12:16PM

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Would it be so unrealistic for us to have a few fighter / trainers? As a response to airspace incursions or in the event that we needed to intercept?

Something like a yac130 or Aero L-159 Alca. Even some old alpha jets or JL-8?

Stick some missiles or fuel tanks on them and how quickly can they respond to any interception demand?

Plumbthedepths · 26-02-2020 12:24PM

A few SAM units, cheaper and still effective.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 12:27PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

A few SAM units, cheaper and still effective.

Not really at all.

Plumbthedepths · 26-02-2020 12:31PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Not really at all.

Well it's the best this country will stump up for.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 12:35PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Well it's the best this country will stump up for.

Then don't waste the money on them as they won't work. And don't think for a minute that buying such SAMs would be any cheaper.

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2020 12:35PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Stick some missiles or fuel tanks on them and how quickly can they respond to any interception demand?

Perhaps they planes they want to intercept will be decent enough to overfly baldonnel?

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 12:36PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Perhaps they planes they want to intercept will be decent enough to overfly baldonnel?

And maybe phone ahead as well just to make it more fair of course.

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2020 12:37PM

sparky42 wrote: »

And maybe phone ahead as well just to make it more fair of course.

It would be the polite thing to do.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 12:40PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It would be the polite thing to do.

Absolutely.

Markcheese · 26-02-2020 01:47PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Absolutely.

During office hours only ,as the phones won't be manned otherwise ...

Markcheese · 26-02-2020 01:55PM

On the billion euro for air capability...
Would that likely be a billion to set it up ? Annual Staff and running costs on top ?
Or a billion a year for 16 planes x 3 crews , plus whatever other support ...

A radar system would be a good start ...

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2020 02:08PM

Markcheese wrote: »

During office hours only ,as the phones won't be manned otherwise ...

the swiss air force only work office hours so if it is good enough for them ...

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 02:13PM

Markcheese wrote: »

On the billion euro for air capability...
Would that likely be a billion to set it up ? Annual Staff and running costs on top ?
Or a billion a year for 16 planes x 3 crews , plus whatever other support ...

A radar system would be a good start ...

I'd say it might be in terms of setting it up with further costs going forward, I mean he also mentions the support element:

But aircraft systems are no good without the supporting systems. So you have the radar system, the reporting systems and intelligence systems to evaluate threats,” he said. “Then also backing up the airplane you have things like air traffic control, fire crews and so on.
“People say we should have a 24/7 response. I’m just trying to bring reality to it. Once you escalate to a 24/7 service the numbers of personnel and resources go off the Richter scale.”

Plumbthedepths · 26-02-2020 02:30PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Then don't waste the money on them as they won't work. And don't think for a minute that buying such SAMs would be any cheaper.

SAMs don't work? Maylasia airlines may disagree with you.
A SAM battery does not need the same number of personal and maintenance as a fighter squadron does.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 02:44PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

SAMs don't work? Maylasia airlines may disagree with you.
A SAM battery does not need the same number of personal and maintenance as a fighter squadron does.

Oh FFS. Yes absolutely a Sam unit can shoot down a commercial airliner, however if said commercial airliner has just suffered communications break down... OH F*CK we just killed hundreds of people and the world is rightfully P!ssed at us. There's a huge difference between interception and identification and shooting down.

Nor can a SAM system tool around tracking a Russian Bear off the West Coast that's being annoying, cause said Bear knows full well Ireland would never use said SAM against them.

Nor can a SAM system cover all of Irish Airspace, we'd need numerous units with the same Primary radar systems that Air Interception would need.

Presuming you mean a SAM system that isn't just a point defence system but an area defence then the price goes up even more, go look at what the Patriots (the widest NATO Standard used Area SAM) costs for multiple units and missiles. Poland is paying 4.75 billion dollars for 8 sets, so even half that and it still ends up more than what the former AC head quoted for Air interception.

Then you get into having to buy and secure land for said SAM sites (and most likely protect them from our Looney Left) and the price goes up again as does the Manpower needed for them.

Plumbthedepths · 26-02-2020 02:52PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Oh FFS. Yes absolutely a Sam unit can shoot down a commercial airliner, however if said commercial airliner has just suffered communications break down... OH F*CK we just killed hundreds of people and the world is rightfully P!ssed at us. There's a huge difference between interception and identification and shooting down.

Nor can a SAM system tool around tracking a Russian Bear off the West Coast that's being annoying, cause said Bear knows full well Ireland would never use said SAM against them.

Nor can a SAM system cover all of Irish Airspace, we'd need numerous units with the same Primary radar systems that Air Interception would need.

Presuming you mean a SAM system that isn't just a point defence system but an area defence then the price goes up even more, go look at what the Patriots (the widest NATO Standard used Area SAM) costs for multiple units and missiles. Poland is paying 4.75 billion dollars for 8 sets, so even half that and it still ends up more than what the former AC head quoted for Air interception.

Then you get into having to buy and secure land for said SAM sites (and most likely protect them from our Looney Left) and the price goes up again as does the Manpower needed for them.

What's with the tetchy starting response? It's a discussion forum. Cop on.

cameramonkey · 26-02-2020 02:55PM

Markcheese wrote: »

On the billion euro for air capability...
Would that likely be a billion to set it up ? Annual Staff and running costs on top ?
Or a billion a year for 16 planes x 3 crews , plus whatever other support ...

A radar system would be a good start ...

A radar system is what we should be after initially, we could then see what is our airspace, I think that is the first logical step.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 02:57PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What's with the tetchy starting response? It's a discussion forum. Cop on.

Because it was a stupid comment that had little relevance, no Irish Government (or Western one) would ever order a commercial airliner shot down without interceptions, and I doubt an the DF would carry such an order out.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 02:58PM

cameramonkey wrote: »

A radar system is what we should be after initially, we could then see what is our airspace, I think that is the first logical step.

Which is what is in the 2015 WP if funds allow, but given a) the manpower issues, b) the other Capital Spending that's already planned and c) the likely economic downturn we're going to see it's not going to happen.

Plumbthedepths · 26-02-2020 03:01PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Because it was a stupid comment that had little relevance, no Irish Government (or Western one) would ever order a commercial airliner shot down without interceptions, and I doubt an the DF would carry such an order out.

Have I suggested a commercial airline should be shot down? You are the one who claimed SAMs don't work. Yet you went on in another comment to say the Poles are ordering 8 Sam systems. Maybe you should offer your expert opinion to the Poles. Save them alot of money.

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2020 03:04PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Have I suggested a commercial airline should be shot down? You are the one who claimed SAMs don't work. Yet you went on in another comment to say the Poles are ordering 8 Sam systems. Maybe you should offer your expert opinion to the Poles. Save them alot of money.

SAMs wont work for ireland. Short of an actual invasion by a foreign power we would never use them. equipment you will never use is useless.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 03:15PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Have I suggested a commercial airline should be shot down? You are the one who claimed SAMs don't work. Yet you went on in another comment to say the Poles are ordering 8 Sam systems. Maybe you should offer your expert opinion to the Poles. Save them alot of money.

Poland has a hostile near neighbourhood and a defence budget slightly larger than ours if you hadn’t noticed, and a military alliance that they have to be capable of supporting. We do not.

The overwhelming use for an fighters we might acquire would be interception of commercial or Russian aircraft, hence why I said they wouldn’t work and would be stupid for us to buy.

Plumbthedepths · 26-02-2020 03:44PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

SAMs wont work for ireland. Short of an actual invasion by a foreign power we would never use them. equipment you will never use is useless.

Same as fighter jets so, considering there is an agreement with our nearest neighbour so supply air cover.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 03:51PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Same as fighter jets so, considering there is an agreement with our nearest neighbour so supply air cover.

Which the AC hates, which nobody knows for sure how it works in day to day operations and which is no promise of it continuing.

There's little doubt the RAF would happily be shod of us if there was the capability within the AC to do the duty.

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2020 04:04PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Same as fighter jets so, considering there is an agreement with our nearest neighbour so supply air cover.

Missiles are not terribly good at identifying if something is a threat.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 04:15PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Missiles are not terribly good at identifying if something is a threat.

Or giving someone a warning to stop being a gob****e...

26-02-2020 04:35PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Stick some missiles or fuel tanks on them and how quickly can they respond to any interception demand?

Depends but I am assuming they would be intercepting something heading TOWARDS them.

But that's ok, when it happens we can spend the day adding the rocket pods to a pc9 then spend the next day calibrating them and voila.

If we are spending money on these things, shouldn't the perform a function?

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 04:37PM

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Depends but I am assuming they would be intercepting something heading TOWARDS them.

But that's ok, when it happens we can spend the day adding the rocket pods to a pc9 then spend the next day calibrating them and voila.

If we are spending money on these things, shouldn't the perform a function?

Doesn't matter if they are heading towards the plane if said light fighter/trainer can't maintain station with the plane if/when they intercept if they don't have the speed or fuel.

The PC9's have zero air interception capability, they are trainers. As you say if we are spending it should be done right rather than trying to half ass it.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments