Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2020 4:42pm

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?

why would you assume that? it would be very accomodating of the unknown aircraft to overfly baldonnel.

ohnonotgmail · 26-02-2020 4:43pm

sparky42 wrote: »

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.

I think describing adding rocket pods to the PC9s as half assed is very generous.

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 5:01pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think describing adding rocket pods to the PC9s as half assed is very generous.

I think any description of the PC9's without adding the word Half Assed is being Very Generous. They themselves make little sense given the rest of the AC.

Psychlops · 26-02-2020 9:03pm

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.

Tell me, can a SAM investigate an aircraft that has comms failure & gear failure?

Plumbthedepths · 26-02-2020 9:42pm

Psychlops wrote: »

Tell me, can a SAM investigate an aircraft that has comms failure & gear failure?

You think we need an expensive fleet of aircraft to fulfil a airborne version of the AA?

roadmaster · 26-02-2020 9:46pm

sparky42 wrote: »

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:

What ever happened to radar Coveny was looking at getting?

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 9:54pm

roadmaster wrote: »

What ever happened to radar Coveny was looking at getting?

It was also in the "if extra money would allow", section of the WP not an actual costed/planned buy. Given everything else we know that said funding isn't coming.

roadmaster · 26-02-2020 11:42pm

sparky42 wrote: »

It was also in the "if extra money would allow", section of the WP not an actual costed/planned buy. Given everything else we know that said funding isn't coming.

Ah sure what we can see can’t hurt us

TheW1zard · 26-02-2020 11:44pm

The girls brigade

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 11:52pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Ah sure what we can see can’t hurt us

Something the Irish public and politicians have been happy to live by for decades.

jonnybigwallet · 27-02-2020 7:03am

KAI TA 50 & F 50...buy a mix of these. 4 TA's for lead in training and 8 F50 for air intercept. Can probably get by ok without 18 jets. These machines are capable of mach 1.5 and not too expensive.

sparky42 · 27-02-2020 12:35pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

KAI TA 50 & F 50...buy a mix of these. 4 TA's for lead in training and 8 F50 for air intercept. Can probably get by ok without 18 jets. These machines are capable of mach 1.5 and not too expensive.

So lets ignore what an actual former head of the AC said then?

jonnybigwallet · 27-02-2020 1:00pm

Yes. That is exactly what I am suggesting and I have not lost my marbles. The former AC Chief has based his estimate on a 24 hour response capability 24/7. You know and I know that there is no way that the government will allocate a billion to provide this. So my proposal would probably allow 16 hours a day cover which is better than Switzerland and New Zealand. The acquisition could be phased. IE. Buy the 4 trainers first to build up expertise and then a further tranche of 8 of the more advanced version to ramp up operations. This would make the proposal more palatable to the politicians and the public. Do you see my logic?

Leonidas BL · 27-02-2020 2:14pm

It would just seem to me that the easiest and cheapest way of providing cover for our airspace is joining NATO and having a similar arrangement to Iceland for example.

Another option was to go down the route Czech Republic and Hungry did with a lease agreement which cost roughly 50 million per year.

sparky42 · 27-02-2020 3:23pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

It would just seem to me that the easiest and cheapest way of providing cover for our airspace is joining NATO and having a similar arrangement to Iceland for example.

Another option was to go down the route Czech Republic and Hungry did with a lease agreement which cost roughly 50 million per year.

Is it legal for foreign forces to be deployed in Ireland currently? Besides which if we joined NATO, well then our current spending wouldn't continue so it's a whole other situation then.

As for the Czech/Hungary route that's not entirely the same since they have the preexisting weapons/techs/pilots/airbases/radar etc... We don't so there's going to be a huge other cost before we get to the leasing of the airframes.

Leonidas BL · 27-02-2020 5:40pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Is it legal for foreign forces to be deployed in Ireland currently? Besides which if we joined NATO, well then our current spending wouldn't continue so it's a whole other situation then.

As for the Czech/Hungary route that's not entirely the same since they have the preexisting weapons/techs/pilots/airbases/radar etc... We don't so there's going to be a huge other cost before we get to the leasing of the airframes.

Preexisting soviet hardware. The point of the Czech lease at the time was that they couldn't afford to buy new fighters to replace their Migs because a flood, and money having to be diverted to repairs. Then they took up this lease offer which included training and support.

Id have to look into it a bit to be sure but part of the deal is training of pilots and techs. The radar is a different story.

sparky42 · 27-02-2020 5:50pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Preexisting soviet hardware. The point of the Czech lease at the time was that they couldn't afford to buy new fighters to replace their Migs because a flood, and money having to be diverted to repairs. Then they took up this lease offer which included training and support.

Id have to look into it a bit to be sure but part of the deal is training of pilots and techs. The radar is a different story.

I agree that they had to transition from Soviet to Western hardware, but they would have had the existing manpower and a degree of knowledge-base that we don't have I mean to go back to the figure suggested how much of that is the manpower increase? How much would the AC establishment need to be increased to sustain such numbers?

Leonidas BL · 27-02-2020 5:59pm

sparky42 wrote: »

I agree that they had to transition from Soviet to Western hardware, but they would have had the existing manpower and a degree of knowledge-base that we don't have I mean to go back to the figure suggested how much of that is the manpower increase? How much would the AC establishment need to be increased to sustain such numbers?

I wouldn't be sure on the numbers, but we have to start somewhere. I mean we have a bunch of PC-9's thats used for training pilots to become fighter pilots so they are a waste of money. And theres no point getting these jet trainers that ur man is blithering on about either cause they would be just as useless. Even the Gripen seems a little under-powered when ya go thinking about sending them up after a high flying, high subsonic bomber, some of which was flying close to the Shetland islands recently.
What we need is an Interceptor, not multirole or air dominance.

ohnonotgmail · 27-02-2020 6:02pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I wouldn't be sure on the numbers, but we have to start somewhere. I mean we have a bunch of PC-9's thats used for training pilots to become fighter pilots so they are a waste of money. And theres no point getting these jet trainers that ur man is blithering on about either cause they would be just as useless. Even the Gripen seems a little under-powered when ya go thinking about sending them up after a high flying, high subsonic bomber, some of which was flying close to the Shetland islands recently.
What we need is an Interceptor, not multirole or air dominance.

Even if we did buy some jet fighters we would still need the PC9s. a pilot has to start somewhere.

Leonidas BL · 27-02-2020 6:05pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Even if we did buy some jet fighters we would still need the PC9s. a pilot has to start somewhere.

Yes we would, but whats the point of having them now??

ohnonotgmail · 27-02-2020 6:10pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Yes we would, but whats the point of having them now??

they still have to do initial pilot training for the CASA and other aircraft they operate.

Leonidas BL · 27-02-2020 6:14pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they still have to do initial pilot training for the CASA and other aircraft they operate.

You could do that in a Cessna. PC-9's are for learning how to fly fighter jets, not CASA's.

beauf · 27-02-2020 7:08pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Even if we did buy some jet fighters we would still need the PC9s. a pilot has to start somewhere.

You could out source the training.

Leonidas BL · 27-02-2020 7:25pm

beauf wrote: »

You could out source the training.

Indeed, wasn't some of them sent to Australia a while back?

Negative_G · 27-02-2020 8:58pm

beauf wrote: »

You could out source the training.

Yes, because the Irish are renowned for getting a better quality end product, more efficiently for a much reduced cost by privatising things.

Why is this old chestnut always turned out as a solution with zero substance to back it up.

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Indeed, wasn't some of them sent to Australia a while back?

They weren't sent to Australia to train, they are not abinitio students, they were qualified pilots. There is a distinct difference.

sparky42 · 27-02-2020 9:03pm

Negative_G wrote: »

Yes, because the Irish are renowned for getting a better quality end product, more efficiently for a much reduced cost by privatising things.

why assume an Irish contract? Again to go back to the Generals comments, we use preexisting capabilities, the RAF do training for others as does France, just use them.

sparky42 · 27-02-2020 9:04pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

What we need is an Interceptor, not multirole or air dominance.

Nobody makes “interceptor” airframes anymore, they are all multi role.

Negative_G · 27-02-2020 9:09pm

sparky42 wrote: »

why assume an Irish contract? Again to go back to the Generals comments, we use preexisting capabilities, the RAF do training for others as does France, just use them.

Youre missing my point. Doesn't matter who gets the contract. There is rarely any significant benefit.

Have a search on the significant issues Ascent are causing for the RAF.

It's just a lazy Irish argument. "Just get someone else to do it".

Leonidas BL · 27-02-2020 9:24pm

Negative_G wrote: »

Youre missing my point. Doesn't matter who gets the contract. There is rarely any significant benefit.

Have a search on the significant issues Ascent are causing for the RAF.

It's just a lazy Irish argument. "Just get someone else to do it".

But wont initial training need to be from somewhere else?? Maybe they could learn on DCS steam edition :P

Negative_G · 27-02-2020 9:42pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

But wont initial training need to be from somewhere else?? Maybe they could learn on DCS steam edition :P

There is no logical train of thought in this thread.

It's all nonsense anyway. It's never going to happen in any shape or form.

The public don't care about sovereignty or defence. As a result, the politicians don't care. That's not going to change anytime soon either, regardless of Brexit and it most certainly wont change if the Shinners or the other looney left get anywhere near Government.

Defence isnt even worthy of a full department or dedicated minister. Yet we have a department of children and youth affairs.

Absolute waste of time.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments