Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They are due for replacement in 2025.

There's no point in continuing this considering none of you actually have any alternative suggestions.

Ok cool

Gary kk wrote: »

Funny question but is there no bare bones super sonic? I mean they have jets doing that for 50+ years.

As in surly 200 simple fast jets beats 20 stealth fighters.

Not really, you basically have “enhanced” light fighters/trainers that technically can work but really burn money for limited capabilities or you jump to a full fat modern aircraft.

Cessna's 47 Years
Alouttes 44 years
Casas coming on 30 years
Pc9s they are still young by air corps standards

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Indeed. Let's not bother trying at all. Retire them off and be done with it

I've advocated for scrapping the PC-9's for years, it's even less needed now with initial training occuring abroad. They were a terrible buy and I cringe when I see FB posts of live firing exercises of unguided rockets at Gormanstown. There's much more suitable, cheaper trainers around.
The only case for keeping them would be to retrofit counter measures and a FLIR pod and operate them as observers/CAP over low air intensity environments supporting UN/EU missions (such as Chad)


We need to get away from this culture of tokenism in the DF and DOD, set out a policy of what you want the DF to be and then equip it to do that role.
Stop half-arsing it with procurement that's not driven by a realistic policy that only serves to tick a box so some minister can avoid tough questions in the Dail, it's pure fiction and it needs to end.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm baffled by you all.

Your not getting what you want, your not happy with what you have, you aren't happy with the best realistic option.

The air corp won't be getting fighters, live with it.

For training purposes, I'm perfectly happy with the PC-9. Who isn't happy with it?

The L159 isn't a realistic option for anything, because its pointless. I already told you they were assessed and rejected 20 years ago.

You are most likely correct about the fast jets, but that doesn't negate the case for them.

Without doubt it will be a matter raised at the Commission on Defence and the number of external military experts present ought to make for a, lets say, challenging conversation.

We know Simon Coveney is personally in favour of a primary radar system at the very least, my own feeling is that he hasn't shown his full hand yet in advance of the Commission report.

With the self inflicted status change of the UK ij recent times, adequate air defence of this Republic may become a much noisier topic over the next few years.

This board seems to be getting polarized into two camps:

1/ The Gripen lobby who won't accept anything but.
2/ The folk who support the L139NG.

Why the hell not go for 6-8 of the fine little Chech plane for training and air to ground ops plus support to the NS, and get 6-8 of the KAI F25 in two variants. The latter is supersonic and the maxed out version would scare the living daylights out of Jonny Russian if he comes prowlin around on the West coast.

Mostly the potential intercepts would be them prop driven BEAR jobbies which are far from supersonic. Range and endurance not a problem as we would only need to provide cover of the situation for about twenty minutes or so from Donegal down to Cork before handing over to the Spanish or French. The L139 has been improved and is a much better more capable aircraft than the obsolete version the AC looked at twenty years ago. Also it would be a good lead-in trainer for the Intercept squadron, while getting the engineering support base into the 21st century and dealing with jet engines.

You could acquire both for the price of 6-8 Gripens and that puts more planes in the air for your buck. The L139NG's could even intercept the slow moving BEAR.

Thats' my take on the sitch anyroad, but on past form I suppose I'll come into a pile of criticism over this.

Anyone suggesting that the PC-9’s are anywhere near planned retirement simply hasn’t a clue how the DF works, the last PC-9 was only delivered 3/4 years ago (as an attrition replacement that took eight years to decide on)
They’ve not flown anything like the anticipated amount of flight hours so they are in excellent condition and have plenty of hours left on the airframes so they will be around for easily another decade, probably more.

The easy part is identifying a suitable aircraft, the difficult part is paying for them.... as in the airframes themselves, the cost annually of maintenance, crews, fuel.

I’m reading that In 2020 Major General Ralph James, who retired as head of the Air Corps in 2015, said the State would need about 16 jet fighters with three crews each to implement a full air-defence capability.

Interesting article here...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-considering-purchase-of-military-jet-aircraft-1.4289801

Dohvolle wrote: »

Finland are paying €6bn for at least 65 proper interceptors (not trainers with notions).
These will be expected to serve until 2060.
In paying €6bn local industries will either get a portion of the assembly,or other related contracts.

Yep though as always the difference being they are just buying new gen aircraft rather than actually creating such a capability from nothing. Though you could also look at the Swiss competition for new aircraft or Austria to name some others.

roadmaster wrote: »

Nothing because they dont, The only time they will be guarding "Irish Airspace" is if a 747 if unresponsive over the west heading for the UK as they wont allow it to come down on UK soil

Apart from following Bears through our controlled airspace of course...

The bears have every right to be there its just they forget to put there headlights on!

sparky42 wrote: »

And in doing so are a navigational hazard that currently we can’t even see, hence why the RAF have to go down the West Coast with them.

I don't think that has anything to do why the raf are following them