Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fighter jets for the Air Corps?
Options
Comments
-
And how much fuel will said aircraft have left once they've got up to airliner cruising height with a combat load after flying from Baldonnel to said interception?
They have a limit of 1500km. Ireland from top to bottom is less than 450km.
Countries a lot bigger than Ireland are using them0 -
Leaving aside the issue of setting up a Western Base as something to be considered in the future..I think Niner is correct and we don't need to worry too much about endurance.
I mean, if fuel is running a bit low due to the mission becoming a wee bit extended, it's not beyond the power of man to make a pit stop at Knock, Donegal, Derry, Kerry, Shannon, Cork ,Galway , Aranmor , Weston..... and there may even be a few other private / club fields where jet fuel can be obtained. And sure, ya could even dispatch a second pair as reinforcements while first pair are refuelling, if necessary, though I don't really think low fuel scenario could really arise apart from maybe needing a top up on the return leg to Baldonnel.0 -
-
Niner leprauchan wrote: »They have a limit of 1500km. Ireland from top to bottom is less than 450km.
Countries a lot bigger than Ireland are using them
That limit is based on fuel consumption at best cruise, with no afterburner.
Not fuel consumption at firewalls throttle for fast climb and max speed to point of intercept.
It's why the vast majority of Air Policing missions are flown with max external fuel.
Air intercept requires a far different airframe to air policing.
The closest airframes to dedicated interceptors still flying are in the main, very large and twin engines.
F15, Su27 and it's derivatives, Iran's F14s and so on.
The size of those airframes offers benefits of considerable internal fuel volume and large and efficient lifting surface.
The Tornado ADV was considered a relatively "small" interceptor and was still quite large, and indeed twin engines and flew QRA with a max external fuel load.
If we want interceptor capabilities, the FA-50 or any similar sized airframe is not suitable.
If we want a false sense of capability, albeit one that is quite capable in point defence, LiFT and ground attack it will do.
If we want to be able to intercept overwater at 300kms from shore?
No!
Intercept at range requires GCI or AWACS control, what radar directs and controls that intercept?
How how expensive in both time and capital is gaining that capability?
How do we ensure continuity of escort?
Take France and UK as an example, the Russians aren't just intercepted by a token pair of aircraft.
Overwater interception involves the initial intercept by a pair, and while the interloper is within their Air intercept zones, a continual swap of aircraft to ensure constant shadowing by a pair of interceptors until the interloper leaves controlled airspace.
Those aircraft are also then supported by AWACS, air to air refueling and in the background maritime surveillance aircraft will be on hand to provide CSAR in case of an ejection.
That is a level of outlay for a pie in the sky mission that will never be undertaken by a solely Irish force.
There are options that would involve our becoming more accepting of the EU CSDP and offering basing and support facilities to our EU partners.
That comes with the risk of upsetting our weird notion of "neutrality".0 -
Surely we wouldn't be wanting to intercept 300km offshore? And can't the upcoming CASA aircraft have an AWACS capability? The 139's can be on station in the contingency of an unlikely ejection, and the naval service routinely patrols the western seaboard. Need to think more ambitiously and overcome any shortfalls that may exist. Good point about having more than two aircraft to potentially swap over. Normally though...The RAF only ever dispatches a pair of intercepters and Jonny Russian buggers off out of area once he's realized he's been rumbled! An upgrade of the AC air defence radar is necessary to accompany the investment in better and more capable aircraft though.0
-
Advertisement
-
Niner leprauchan wrote: »They have a limit of 1500km. Ireland from top to bottom is less than 450km.
Countries a lot bigger than Ireland are using them
Have you considered that's the "ferry range" with the "Combat range" being significantly less due to hanging external stores on the wings and flying at max speed which is what you'd need when doing an interception.
We aren't going to buy the Yak, it's not NATO, and the 139NG (assuming that's what you mean) isn't even in large scale service right now.0 -
Interception is a Distance V danger V Time equation.jonnybigwallet wrote: »Surely we wouldn't be wanting to intercept 300km offshore?
An aircraft, even a passenger aircraft approaching Ireland will be traveling at minimum 800kph.
With a Jetstream tail wind, a groundspeed of over 1000kph is possible even for a Bear!
That equates to 15mins for a 300km ranged intercept and distance to Ireland or whatever potential target we hope to protect closing at a rapid rate.
Should we let them get closer?
In that case why bother with intercept at all?
Just put the cash in the inflexible SAM if we are letting them approach to within our EEZ?
No, AWACS capability isn't an add on, or nice to have. It's an integral part of effective air policing and air defence.jonnybigwallet wrote: »And can't the upcoming CASA aircraft have an AWACS capability?jonnybigwallet wrote: »The 139's can be on station in the contingency of an unlikely ejection, and the naval service routinely patrols the western seaboard.
No, they really cant. As you need to consider the transit times from the AW139 bases to the CSAR point at @150kph.
The casa following on to drop air sea rescue raft and gear is far faster and more capable.
No. The RAF launches a pair of QRA interceptors to identify the interloper and the next crew and aircraft is stood up.jonnybigwallet wrote: »Need to think more ambitiously and overcome any shortfalls that may exist. Good point about having more than two aircraft to potentially swap over.
The RAF only ever dispatches a pair of intercepters and Jonny Russian buggers off out of area once he's realized he's been rumbled!
The Russian doesn't just bigger off. Quite often the intent of Russian interlope is to cause attritional wear on NATO airframes and bases.
The Russian will proceed through UK controlled Airspace and the UK will continue the "escort" mission by deploying relays of fighters.
If the Russian continues to rumble through NATO airspace, The UK will hand over the escort to whichever Airforce area it next enters.
The aircraft will continue being tagged by pairs of QRA fighters until it leaves NATO airspace.
To really mess with NATO what will often happen to burn up QRA hours is that the Russian will turn away, fly a few hundred km in the opposite direction and then turn back to cause a new QRA.
The Russians are happy to rack up hours on the Bear and it's variants to cause NATO attritional maintenance and wear at a far higher rate than the Russians incur.jonnybigwallet wrote: »An upgrade of the AC air defence radar is necessary to accompany the investment in better and more capable aircraft though.
Yes we need an investment in a decent radar capability but you do realize that any radar that offers airspace surveillance is a minute 1 target?
And really without massive antenna and equipment redundancy is just an ornament?0 -
People here need to stop being delusional. The Air Corp's would never in a million years purchase a Rafale/Eurofighter etc. I completely agree with the people who are saying that they would be the best suited for range and time on station but the procurement price and operating costs are what would immediately eliminate them from any serious consideration. If your going for new build then the F/A50 or even refurbished US Air Force F16's or retired Swedish Gripen A/B models would be the best case scenario.
And before whoever it was that keeps bashing the F/A50 jumps in again, yes it's not ideal but this is Ireland, decisions are made based on what fits the minimum criteria for the cheapest price, not a case on my behalf of the Irish attitude that it will do rightly. In an ideal world buy a full squadron of Rafale and 2-3 A330 MRTT tanker aircraft so that you always have 2 fighters on alert with another 2 on 60 minute alert to relieve the first pair and have a tanker available at all times. Also the radar network you'd require, staffing, crews on 24 hour basis and the facilities to host such a forcd.Add up the bill for that and let me know how much change you have out of €3-4 billion.0 -
People here need to stop being delusional. The Air Corp's would never in a million years purchase a Rafale/Eurofighter etc. I completely agree with the people who are saying that they would be the best suited for range and time on station but the procurement price and operating costs are what would immediately eliminate them from any serious consideration. If your going for new build then the F/A50 or even refurbished US Air Force F16's or retired Swedish Gripen A/B models would be the best case scenario.
And before whoever it was that keeps bashing the F/A50 jumps in again, yes it's not ideal but this is Ireland, decisions are made based on what fits the minimum criteria for the cheapest price, not a case on my behalf of the Irish attitude that it will do rightly. In an ideal world buy a full squadron of Rafale and 2-3 A330 MRTT tanker aircraft so that you always have 2 fighters on alert with another 2 on 60 minute alert to relieve the first pair and have a tanker available at all times. Also the radar network you'd require, staffing, crews on 24 hour basis and the facilities to host such a forcd.Add up the bill for that and let me know how much change you have out of €3-4 billion.
Again I'd take the price tag an actual former head of the AC puts on it rather than someone here. As for options, again leaving out the cost to build up the personnel we know the price tag for current gen Leased Gripens.0 -
I dont believe ya can get a dozen gripens for 100 million a year.0
-
Advertisement
-
Again I'd take the price tag an actual former head of the AC puts on it rather than someone here. As for options, again leaving out the cost to build up the personnel we know the price tag for current gen Leased Gripens.
He said north of 1 billion, which is a figure he pulled out of the sky by the sounds of it, and he was right but it's actually well north of 1 billion. That or he has a special relationship with Dassault who will say ouhh there's the former head of the IAC let's just give him theses Jets and tankers for the figure he told the papers in Ireland.
An A330 costs around 300 mill a pop and a Rafale around 120 mill depending on what reports you read.That's what they cost, there's no getting around it if that's the kit you want. Again do the maths.0 -
He said north of 1 billion, which is a figure he pulled out of the sky by the sounds of it, and he was right but it's actually well north of 1 billion. That or he has a special relationship with Dassault who will say ouhh there's the former head of the IAC let's just give him theses Jets and tankers for the figure he told the papers in Ireland.
An A330 costs around 300 mill a pop and a Rafale around 120 mill depending on what reports you read.That's what they cost, there's no getting around it if that's the kit you want. Again do the maths.
What makes you think for a second that he was talking about Rafale's? Again we know the costings of leasing Gripens, that is about a billion for 10 years for a squadron's worth.0 -
I agree that it's pie in the sky talking about high end aircraft. Them Korean F 50's look bloody good to me and could be in 3 tranches of 4 aircraft over say 5 years. The range issue can be easily overcome. Dispatch 4 from Baldonnel. First pair intercept. Second pair refuel at western coast airport and then rotate. Meanwhile get on the blower to the RAF if necessary and bring on some heavier stuff. I mean...if the bleedin DF are so strapped for cash that even the mach 1.5 F 50 is too pricey at 20 to 30 mill a pop....then get the ball rollin with that wee Chech plane at sub 10 million. It's not all about the spec of the aircraft, the ability of the pilots to get the max out of the airframe also has a big part to play, as proven time and time again by the RAF and the USAF.0
-
Markcheese wrote: »Well the existing air Corp is entirely based in baldonnal, so moving 2 planes ,crews and support (and families) would be a major pain ,
But if there was an entirely new major programme then it'd make sense to base it west , and and recruit for that .. ( there would have to be some existing staff move west ,but proportionately small , )
They already do this with EAS.0 -
That limit is based on fuel consumption at best cruise, with no afterburner.
Not fuel consumption at firewalls throttle for fast climb and max speed to point of intercept.
It's why the vast majority of Air Policing missions are flown with max external fuel.
Air intercept requires a far different airframe to air policing.
The closest airframes to dedicated interceptors still flying are in the main, very large and twin engines.
F15, Su27 and it's derivatives, Iran's F14s and so on.
The size of those airframes offers benefits of considerable internal fuel volume and large and efficient lifting surface.
The Tornado ADV was considered a relatively "small" interceptor and was still quite large, and indeed twin engines and flew QRA with a max external fuel load.
If we want interceptor capabilities, the FA-50 or any similar sized airframe is not suitable.
If we want a false sense of capability, albeit one that is quite capable in point defence, LiFT and ground attack it will do.
If we want to be able to intercept overwater at 300kms from shore?
No!
Intercept at range requires GCI or AWACS control, what radar directs and controls that intercept?
How how expensive in both time and capital is gaining that capability?
How do we ensure continuity of escort?
Take France and UK as an example, the Russians aren't just intercepted by a token pair of aircraft.
Overwater interception involves the initial intercept by a pair, and while the interloper is within their Air intercept zones, a continual swap of aircraft to ensure constant shadowing by a pair of interceptors until the interloper leaves controlled airspace.
Those aircraft are also then supported by AWACS, air to air refueling and in the background maritime surveillance aircraft will be on hand to provide CSAR in case of an ejection.
That is a level of outlay for a pie in the sky mission that will never be undertaken by a solely Irish force.
There are options that would involve our becoming more accepting of the EU CSDP and offering basing and support facilities to our EU partners.
That comes with the risk of upsetting our weird notion of "neutrality".
Well no. First off, your talking systems in use by much larger forces covering much more ground. Much much more. We are smaller than a number of us states nevermind the full country. We're a blip on a screen compared to Russia.
Second, we dont need to intercept 300km out. Ideally yes, necessary? No
Third, awac again great, absolutely necessary? No.
There seems to be an attitude that unless we can have the biggest and best, don't bother. What I am suggesting, because you aren't getting the biggest and best, is a compromise the offers 'some' realistic response and intercept capability but still stays within the budget.
You aren't getting a eurofighter, f35 or even a second hand su27 so forget it. It's off the table. Now what you need to do is look at what we have (pc9) and consider the realistic alternatives.0 -
Have you considered that's the "ferry range" with the "Combat range" being significantly less due to hanging external stores on the wings and flying at max speed which is what you'd need when doing an interception.
We aren't going to buy the Yak, it's not NATO, and the 139NG (assuming that's what you mean) isn't even in large scale service right now.
We aren't NATO. We are under no obligation there and the us will not care if we pick up 6 cheap barely 4th generation trainer / light attack. If they do, well maybe they can offer us a deal in the name of friendship but somehow I doubt in will even enter their heads.
No, I mean the 159. Did I say 139? I meant 159 and it's in production and large scale is irrelevant when we aren't going to look for more than what? 10?
Other than that, as I said already. Your not getting anything better so either stick with the pc9 or use the money to upgrade to something st least somewhat capable0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »We aren't NATO. We are under no obligation there and the us will not care if we pick up 6 cheap barely 4th generation trainer / light attack. If they do, well maybe they can offer us a deal in the name of friendship but somehow I doubt in will even enter their heads.
No, I mean the 159. Did I say 139? I meant 159 and it's in production and large scale is irrelevant when we aren't going to look for more than what? 10?
Other than that, as I said already. Your not getting anything better so either stick with the pc9 or use the money to upgrade to something st least somewhat capable
We are NATO standard, we only buy NATO standard equipment and that's set policy, it's not going to change.
And yes production scale matters, it impacts supply chains, support base, manufacturers etc. The AC has been burned over and over with going for "niche" airframes, never again should be the standard.
And again I disagree for several reasons, most of the costs for developing any such response force will be in the non capital outlay, ie building up the AC's manpower for all the new areas they would have to deal with. The actual costs of the airframes even if you assume lifespan costs is manageable and I returning to pointing out that we know what nations are paying for 4.5 gen leases.0 -
I tend to agree with Niner that a high end aircraft is not really affordable. There are other costs to be considered in the budget such as increasing salaries to retain staff, recruitment, cost of a decent military radar system, and there will be other equipment costs coming down the track in the medium term. Some of the existing inventory is getting on in life, the 139s and the PC9M's are not going to last for ever unless the AC intends to run them into the ground, and it would make sense to have a couple of light attack Heli's to go onboard the new flagship in a few years time, not to mention a replacement for the clapped out government VIP transport and possibly an airlifter to support the overseas deployment. So the 159 would not be too bad...and there seems to be a newer development of thst called the L39NG which costs a wee bit more. Both of these aircraft have a high content of US components and use NATO standard ammunition. In fact the L39 is in the running for the USAF!0
-
We are NATO standard, we only buy NATO standard equipment and that's set policy, it's not going to change.
And yes production scale matters, it impacts supply chains, support base, manufacturers etc. The AC has been burned over and over with going for "niche" airframes, never again should be the standard.
And again I disagree for several reasons, most of the costs for developing any such response force will be in the non capital outlay, ie building up the AC's manpower for all the new areas they would have to deal with. The actual costs of the airframes even if you assume lifespan costs is manageable and I returning to pointing out that we know what nations are paying for 4.5 gen leases.
Policy can and does change. Policy in fact will change for any of these options to be considered. If your saying policy is policy for every and ever, then there's no discussion to be had. We just keep buying the same over and over. We should be looking at all options and going for the best fit for our budget and requirements, no?
Again, the 159 is in production, it's on use. It's not a new system by some unknown newcomer. We would be buying a known system that's in use already. The yak is Russian, hardly a minor player. Both can be purchased with little supply worries.
Yes, both would require training of staff, both would ideally not just be in the one base but again, both can be purchased, the staff are there to be trained and both would be an improvement. Yes, with higher costs. That's accepted but as it is, the pc9 is a waste0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »Policy can and does change. Policy in fact will change for any of these options to be considered. If your saying policy is policy for every and ever, then there's no discussion to be had. We just keep buying the same over and over. We should be looking at all options and going for the best fit for our budget and requirements, no?
Again, the 159 is in production, it's on use. It's not a new system by some unknown newcomer. We would be buying a known system that's in use already. The yak is Russian, hardly a minor player. Both can be purchased with little supply worries.
Yes, both would require training of staff, both would ideally not just be in the one base but again, both can be purchased, the staff are there to be trained and both would be an improvement. Yes, with higher costs. That's accepted but as it is, the pc9 is a waste
There isn't going to be a change in our procurement of NATO standard hardware, that's just fact, and likely will simply increase (ie for the MOWAG replacement we should ideally just tag our order onto a current build order).
There are reasons why all of the Eastern EU states are getting away from Russian hardware, a) because Russian has crap QA (even to the point of screwing over the joint projects with India) and b) because Russia is more than happy to withhold parts from nations that don't agree with them. We are not going to buy Russian hardware.
The 159 has the Czech's and Iraq as military users, the Czechs because it's their industry and even then they cut the order from the planned 72. User base matters why would we go with such a small number, there's only 28 of them in service with 2 militaries, even the FA 50 promoted here dwarfs that in active numbers and perhaps you might wonder why Iraq went with them rather than more 159's?
And yes the PC9's are a waste, they are intended for LIFT when we don't have anything for them to lead into.0 -
Advertisement
-
jonnybigwallet wrote: »I tend to agree with Niner that a high end aircraft is not really affordable. There are other costs to be considered in the budget such as increasing salaries to retain staff, recruitment, cost of a decent military radar system, and there will be other equipment costs coming down the track in the medium term. Some of the existing inventory is getting on in life, the 139s and the PC9M's are not going to last for ever unless the AC intends to run them into the ground, and it would make sense to have a couple of light attack Heli's to go onboard the new flagship in a few years time, not to mention a replacement for the clapped out government VIP transport and possibly an airlifter to support the overseas deployment. So the 159 would not be too bad...and there seems to be a newer development of thst called the L39NG which costs a wee bit more. Both of these aircraft have a high content of US components and use NATO standard ammunition. In fact the L39 is in the running for the USAF!
At current operational rate the 139's and PC9's have the better part of 20 years left in them, I'd be surprised if it's this side of 2030 before the AC even starts looking for replacements, and as yet there's zero talk of any helicopters for the MRV of any type.
The Government jet is a non event, if/when a Government feels that it can politically change it then it will be done without issue. An Airlifter isn't on the menu either despite the AC trying time and again.
And yes the 159 would be bad, 28 airframes in military use, hell why do you think the Czech's stopped their order (from a domestic industry) and leased Gripens? Moreover all the support costs (radar, manpower, Baldonnel upgrades) are going to have to be paid no matter what would potentially be chosen.
Realistically if any of the Governments choose to spend then the Capital outlay isn't the critical issue, as evidenced by P64, a totally unplanned purchase that's causing some of the manpower issues for the NS.0 -
There isn't going to be a change in our procurement of NATO standard hardware, that's just fact, and likely will simply increase (ie for the MOWAG replacement we should ideally just tag our order onto a current build order).
There are reasons why all of the Eastern EU states are getting away from Russian hardware, a) because Russian has crap QA (even to the point of screwing over the joint projects with India) and b) because Russia is more than happy to withhold parts from nations that don't agree with them. We are not going to buy Russian hardware.
The 159 has the Czech's and Iraq as military users, the Czechs because it's their industry and even then they cut the order from the planned 72. User base matters why would we go with such a small number, there's only 28 of them in service with 2 militaries, even the FA 50 promoted here dwarfs that in active numbers and perhaps you might wonder why Iraq went with them rather than more 159's?
And yes the PC9's are a waste, they are intended for LIFT when we don't have anything for them to lead into.
Are you capable of getting the fact that we can't afford an fa50 nevermind anything better out of your head? They are better, not a single person had argued that but they aren't in our budget. all the 30 million + systems are not going to happen. I'm offering you an alternative to pc9 here because ultimately, it's the budget that's the first sticking point.
Second, Your complaining because of lack of numbers but the 26 in service in Czech was a budget issue. Nothing to do with being unhappy. Iraq received 2 to date with more following and importantly, had actively used them in combat situations in a country much bigger than us. Spain also bought them and returned them because they failed to deliver on their side of the deal, again not because of unhappiness with the system or it's delivery.
What will we order? 10? 12? If which they can be built and delivered in stages and paid for on the same basis.
The navy doesn't open a catalog and buy prebuilt from a dealers lot, I fail to see why you are so convinced the AC needs to.
In my opinion you have only 2 choices, stuck with pc9 and continue with something that is pretty much worthless beyond what a civilian trainer could provide or go with a budget friendly military upgrade that's far from the super powers but it's a far better system than currently in use.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »Are you capable of getting the fact that we can't afford an fa50 nevermind anything better out of your head? They are better, not a single person had argued that but they aren't in our budget. all the 30 million + systems are not going to happen. I'm offering you an alternative to pc9 here because ultimately, it's the budget that's the first sticking point.
Second, Your complaining because of lack of numbers but the 26 in service in Czech was a budget issue. Nothing to do with being unhappy. Iraq received 2 to date with more following and importantly, had actively used them in combat situations in a country much bigger than us. Spain also bought them and returned them because they failed to deliver on their side of the deal, again not because of unhappiness with the system or it's delivery.
What will we order? 10? 12? If which they can be built and delivered in stages and paid for on the same basis.
The navy doesn't open a catalog and buy prebuilt from a dealers lot, I fail to see why you are so convinced the AC needs to.
In my opinion you have only 2 choices, stuck with pc9 and continue with something that is pretty much worthless beyond what a civilian trainer could provide or go with a budget friendly military upgrade that's far from the super powers but it's a far better system than currently in use.
The budget that we currently operate within can't afford even the 159's so it's pointless to suggest they are an option, even if you ditched the 9's the budget can't sustain the 159's. The AC did away with jets due to the cost. So naturally if there is to be any increase then the budgets will have to be increased that is just fact.
So you think the Czech's just randomly decided to stop buying a domestic aircraft, employing domestic workforce and generating revenue for the state and instead went off and leased Gripens due to "Budget" and if so and the €100 million a year lease for the squadron is more budget friendly to them what does that say.
And yes numbers matter, 28 airframes matter, particularly for the lifetime cycle of said airframes and the companies willingness to support said airframes.
As for why the AC should stick to a catalog... Because they are utterly terrible at procurement, over and over again. They screwed the Eithne program by going with the Dauphin's over the Lynx's and ended up being the testbed for the company to our cost, same for the CASA 235's, same for the 139's, at every choice they go for the wrong one. And yes the Navy goes to the Catalog's of builders and pick what's closest to what they want.
Your two choices, are still the Irish solution, feck all use with no real benefit.0 -
At current operational rate the 139's and PC9's have the better part of 20 years left in them, I'd be surprised if it's this side of 2030 before the AC even starts looking for replacements, and as yet there's zero talk of any helicopters for the MRV of any type.
The Government jet is a non event, if/when a Government feels that it can politically change it then it will be done without issue. An Airlifter isn't on the menu either despite the AC trying time and again.
And yes the 159 would be bad, 28 airframes in military use, hell why do you think the Czech's stopped their order (from a domestic industry) and leased Gripens? Moreover all the support costs (radar, manpower, Baldonnel upgrades) are going to have to be paid no matter what would potentially be chosen.
Realistically if any of the Governments choose to spend then the Capital outlay isn't the critical issue, as evidenced by P64, a totally unplanned purchase that's causing some of the manpower issues for the NS.
Well now your just twisting. The gripen was leased in 2005 AFTER the original purchase from 2002 was completely cancelled AND was part of an agreement with saw Sweden invest in the Czech economy. Or you could go with the plain bribe and corruption angle if you desired or perhaps you just say, the gripen us a better multi role fighter and a nation with a far far bigger budget and an already existing fleet that needed replacing needed to meet it's actual fully fledged and fresh NATO commitments
If that's the route your taking, sure aren't the us producing the f35 so if that's what they are going with, we shouldn't bother with anything else either.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »Well now your just twisting. The gripen was leased in 2005 AFTER the original purchase from 2002 was completely cancelled AND was part of an agreement with saw Sweden invest in the Czech economy. Or you could go with the plain bribe and corruption angle if you desired or perhaps you just say, the gripen us a better multi role fighter and a nation with a far far bigger budget and an already existing fleet that needed replacing needed to meet it's actual fully fledged and fresh NATO commitments
If that's the route your taking, sure aren't the us producing the f35 so if that's what they are going with, we shouldn't bother with anything else either.
The point stands, the Czech's decided not to renew purchases of the 159 and went with another option even leaving aside the domestic sector, as to the Swedish offset, that's actually normal in such situations, given our limited spends we never spend enough to make it worthwhile.0 -
I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about Ireland having fighter jets.
The aviation enthusiast in me would love to see them flying around. They are awesome machines and it's incredible to see them roaring through the skies at air shows etc.
My practical side would admit they would cost us a fortune at a time when the country is massively in debt and we have never really had them and likely would ever really need them. Anyone that could take us out would be able to over power us in multiple other ways anyway. Where do we go next? Missile defense shields? Submarine defense?
The pacifist in me wonders what we (as in our species) could have achieved by now if we had put our brain power and resources into not making death machines for the past few thousand years
The Air corps in some ways is already a little bit of a club. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for most of their functional primary roles that they carry out, but you could argue even maintaining / flying the pilatus pc9's is a waste of tax payers money. A friend of mine is in the aer corps I'm not going to say what role (because he's easily identifiable) ... but I will say that he tells me he's bored out of his mind almost every day doing nothing.0 -
The point stands, the Czech's decided not to renew purchases of the 159 and went with another option even leaving aside the domestic sector, as to the Swedish offset, that's actually normal in such situations, given our limited spends we never spend enough to make it worthwhile.
Tis a silly point though. They didn't go with another, they continued with an existing agreement.
I have a bike and a car, they are both for travel but I don't cycle to cork from Dublin or cycle with a Weeks worth of shopping, my wife and kids on the back. I cycle to work and the local shops now and again. The bike serves that function Different roles mean different machines. If however, like the air Corp, I didn't need nor could afford the higher cost machine, I would only have a bike. I wouldn't just say "ah feck it, it's a car or nothing" and walk0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »Tis a silly point though. They didn't go with another, they continued with an existing agreement.
I have a bike and a car, they are both for travel but I don't cycle to cork from Dublin. I cycle to work.
Not really no. The 159 clearly didn't give them everything they needed and so they ended the buy.
Other than being able to say "hey look we have jets" it wouldn't bring us major advantages just costs. As I said that's why the AC moved to the PC9 as the bare minimum they could sustain instead of trying to retain a "Jet trainer" system.0 -
Praetorian wrote: »The Air corps in some ways is already a little bit of a club. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for most of their functional primary roles that they carry out, but you could argue even maintaining / flying the pilatus pc9's is a waste of tax payers money. A friend of mine is in the aer corps I'm not going to say what role (because he's easily identifiable) ... but I will say that he tells me he's bored out of his mind almost every day doing nothing.
Of the 3 services they are the most limited in duties and operations with zero chances of them ever getting a deployment, both due to equipment limitations and DOD policy.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement