Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Larbre34 · 02-05-2021 11:23PM

roadmaster wrote: »

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

No, they don't have the right to pilot the aircraft in the manner in which they do in busy commercial airspace and somebody should be rattling their cage every inch of their trip.

jonnybigwallet · 03-05-2021 06:03AM

Gary kk wrote: »

Are you sure about the name of the KAI f25.
I can't find one.

Sorry...got name wrong, it's the FA 50 / TA 50 family of aircraft.
FA 50 is top spec model. Carries sidewinder air to air missiles as well as another type and has 3 20 mm cannon.
Serious bit of kit.

roadmaster · 03-05-2021 08:57AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, they don't have the right to pilot the aircraft in the manner in which they do in busy commercial airspace and somebody should be rattling their cage every inch of their trip.

All the government has to do is freeze some of that dodgy Russian money in the IFSC and they won't be long turning on their transponders.

I see to day in the times PC9s are going to have work done on there ejector seats as potential female pilots are not heavy enough for the seats to work

MAULBROOK · 03-05-2021 09:28AM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/weight-requirement-for-air-corps-ejector-seats-a-barrier-for-female-pilots-1.4553741

Or get the pies in to ya lady's

sparky42 · 03-05-2021 11:18AM

Dohvolle wrote: »

Follow my diet for a week and you too can gain weight. Also, lay off the exercise...

How do other militaries cope?

I actually remember reading an article that suggested the USAF has had similar problems around height issues for women pilots for some time...

Quick google and here’s an article on it:
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/erasing-artificial-barriers/

Larbre34 · 03-05-2021 01:04PM

I'd be asking the question, why did it take so long to get Martin-Baker in to adjust the tolerances, rather than ruling potential pilots out for years? Isn't it a bloody obvious solution? It must have been done in Air Forces all over the World already.

Useless bloody pen pushers.

newcavanman · 03-05-2021 03:07PM

What i cant understand is why we spend money on a training system, whereas other countries, spend their money on Combat equipment, while subcontracting out the training . We spend the money on training, when theres no effective combat aircraft for the crews to graduate to . About 10 years ago i was up at Gormonston to see the AW139 door gunners practicing on an off shore target . Whats the point, when we all know there is no chance of them either ever using that capability in this country, or operating the Helis in a foreign situation where such a capability might be necessary . Same applies to fixed wing ops in my opinion .

sparky42 · 03-05-2021 03:29PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'd be asking the question, why did it take so long to get Martin-Baker in to adjust the tolerances, rather than ruling potential pilots out for years? Isn't it a bloody obvious solution? It must have been done in Air Forces all over the World already.

Useless bloody pen pushers.

There should be questions asked alright, though given that recent HR finding against the AC over a former officer and maternity leave I wonder where the obstacles came from...

Negative_G · 03-05-2021 04:03PM

Slight thread drift going on here.

Ejection seats aren't a one size fits all. The size of the charge directly affects the ability to safely eject a pilot from the aircraft in different scenarios. "Zero zero" seats are designed to eject someone far enough from the aircraft for the seat to detatch and chute to deployment before they hit the ground.

Other seats require a minimum airspeed on the ground to ensure safe ejection so "zero sixty" (zero altitude & 60kts KIAS) etc.

Reducing the size of the charge will undoubtedly effect the performance of the current seat.

Its a dangerous precedent. What next? Does that AC start accepting applicants who are outside of the height limitations and start adjusting the mechanics of the PC9 to accomodate.

I would be very interested to see how someone circa 50-55kg copes carrying 40-50kg of kit in addition to body armour, webbing, helmet and rifle in the cadet school.

It's not a whole pile different than the fitness test in my opinion. People know whats expected and train and prepare for it. If someone is a few kgs below the min weight at application they can spend a few weeks to bulking up in advance to tick the box on assessment day. In general, its usually easier to put on weight than it is to lose weight.

roadmaster · 03-05-2021 05:38PM

Don't worry thread drift stopped being an issue along time ago!

Larbre34 · 03-05-2021 07:07PM

Then lets rename it, 'Air Corps - fixed wing - general discussion'

Same could be said for the '3 New Ships' thread. We've already received 4!
Call it 'Naval Service Fleet - general discussion' or something

Larbre34 · 03-05-2021 07:45PM

Dohvolle wrote: »

4 with 3 more on the way....

You can stick a couple of * after that.

Until they're delivered to Haulbowline, never count on anything.

ectoraige · 04-05-2021 01:43AM

Negative_G wrote: »

Slight thread drift going on here.

...

In general, its usually easier to put on weight than it is to lose weight.

I just want to highlight the one thing that I feel we can all agree on.

To try to drift vaguely back on track, before we get the jets that we can't agree on, and won't be getting anyway, what would the investment in long range radar look like?

Would we be looking at a number of fixed ground radar sites with something like Thales' SMART-L, or can we upgrade the P60s radar to allow for long range acquisition and tracking? Traditionally they'd probably be too small to act as radar frigates but perhaps the latest generation of tech had changed that.

Do we have any capability at the moment for short/medium range radar, for example for in-theatre support? Saab's Giraffe systems are well regarded, maybe they'll throw in a few freebies as part of the massive Gripen deal.

Thoughts?

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 02:26AM

ectoraige wrote: »

I just want to highlight the one thing that I feel we can all agree on.

To try to drift vaguely back on track, before we get the jets that we can't agree on, and won't be getting anyway, what would the investment in long range radar look like?

Would we be looking at a number of fixed ground radar sites with something like Thales' SMART-L, or can we upgrade the P60s radar to allow for long range acquisition and tracking? Traditionally they'd probably be too small to act as radar frigates but perhaps the latest generation of tech had changed that.

Do we have any capability at the moment for short/medium range radar, for example for in-theatre support? Saab's Giraffe systems are well regarded, maybe they'll throw in a few freebies as part of the massive Gripen deal.

Thoughts?

You'd need Ground stations for persistent coverage. The P60's masts are rated to take upgraded radar systems but nothing on the scale that would be needed (nor could they produce the electrical load I'd bet), at best like Eithne before them they could offer "Point" radar coverage nothing medium/long range.

We do have a few Giraffe systems on Bv206's but older models.

Larbre34 · 04-05-2021 02:36PM

Primary military radar should be the responsibility of the Army, in my opinion, and should coincide with the re-establishment of the Air Defence Regiment for the purpose of tracking and defence.

The absorption of the AD role into the brigade field artillery components was always a nonsense.

source · 04-05-2021 03:19PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Primary military radar should be the responsibility of the Army, in my opinion, and should coincide with the re-establishment of the Air Defence Regiment for the purpose of tracking and defence.

The absorption of the AD role into the brigade field artillery components was always a nonsense.

Don't have to properly fund or equip the regiment of they're only a battery within a regular artillery regt.

Stovepipe · 04-05-2021 03:26PM

Other militaries simply list a minimum weight requirement instead of asking the seat builder to adjust the seat. If, after having put on a full flying suit,helmet, lifejacket, boots, gloves, oxygen mask and underwear,a person still doesnt meet the weight requirement, then either they bulk up or they become an airline pilot. With regard to the seat, the occupant has to dial in their weight so that the seat computer "knows" how much thrust to apply,via the rockets or charges installed in the firing tube. If you apply the thrust relevant to a 100 kg pilot to a 65 kg pilot, the launch risks killing or severely injuring them,notwithstanding the hazard of ejection in the first place. This has evolved over decades of hard earned and often fatal or critical experience and the AC isn't going to change that. Our Air Arm isn't the first to encounter this and the easiest way around it is to have a minimum weight, to prevent the ejectee being hurt by the ejection process. It has nothing to do with gender whatsoever.

source · 04-05-2021 05:50PM

Dohvolle wrote: »

The thing is, they were a combined permanent/reserve regiment of 4 Batterys. Reserve had the guns & Flycatcher, permanent had the Giraffe and missiles and 50 Cal AA. Now the 2 Brigade regiments have a battery each, consisting of Giraffe and missiles & 50 cal only. The reserve element is gone, the Flycatcher retired and not replaced (even though it was barely in service 10 years).
The Only purpose it served after the Reorg was creating someplace for the former 4th Bn to go if they didn't want to travel to Limerick.

Having been a gun commander in one of the reserve btys I'm well aware of the make up of the regiment and gear.

PDF also had the L70 and flycatchers alongside the missile troop, and the RDF also had the .5, the only difference is that while on paper the RDF btys had a missile troop we in reality didn't have any missiles. Also both PDF and RDF had AD mounts for the GPMG.

I'm not sure which reorg you're referring to (2005 change from FCA to RDF and the introduction of the integrated companies and amalgamation of some inf Bn or the 2012 reorg which saw the disbandment of the ADR) or what the 4 inf Bn have to do with it.

source · 04-05-2021 07:50PM

Dohvolle wrote: »

Jaysus you are cranky. Chill out "gun commander". I used to shoot pistol against one of your battery commanders. Depending on which unit you were in, that should give you a clue as to who I am.

The 2012 reorg which deleted all but the token reserve presence also disbanded a number of PDF units.
Significantly the 4th Infantry bn was one unit, and those serving in that unit were given the option to join Cav (where there were few vacancies if you were Cpl or greater) Join 1st Brigade Artillery Regiment, which suddenly had an air defence battery, and all the appointments that went with it or if they wished to remain in infantry, join the 12th, make the commute to Limerick every day from cork (1 hr 15 minutes on a good day).
So the result was you had people who had been infantry since the 80s, suddenly landing in a unit with weapons and tactics that they never had any cause to know anything about, either at home or overseas, having to learn about setting up the Giraffe Mk IV, with nobody who was originally in the regiment ever having used it either.

Summary,last rejig of units killed off any interest or capability in the Army doing Air Defence. Retirement of the Cessna means there is nothing available to tow the drogue, even if you wanted to practice AA shooting with the 50 cal, and the last RBS70 shoot the DF were at was also the first, about 30 years after the missile was introduced. 10 missiles in total were fired.

Not cranky at all, just pointing out that I'm well aware of the ADR and that I know what I'm talking about. I was out by the 2012 reorg and in AGS so only had a bare ear to the ground on that reorg. I still hold that if the DF had put some money into getting decent weapons systems for the ADR rather than a token show towards AD then the appetite for maintaining a regiment would have been far greater. Same as we are seeing with the AC lack of investment and poor pay compared to the private sector leads to people not wanting to invest their careers in the organisation.

Psychlops · 04-05-2021 08:09PM

https://theaviationist.com/2021/04/30/italian-f35-estonia/

Down to Shannon with ya, plenty of airspace to play around with over the Atlantic, 12 pins as a low fly area & yer laughing. Until they start to take it seriously over here then this is most likely what we should be going for, wasnt our last actual fighter the Seafire?

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 08:30PM

Dohvolle wrote: »

I'd be happy to let the italians use their F35 to protect our skies, but I wouldnt suggest Ireland buy them. They are a dud. Nato are being forced to buy them to keep the unit cost down.

They are the only 5th gen in town for most Western nations, not to mention those that have bet everything on the b for their navies, for example Turkey is now left trying to find drones and maybe modifying a new fighter to operate off their LHD (spoiler that’s not likely to end well).

Given the reality that the future European fighters are still the better part of two decades from service sticking with 4.5 gens may not be an option.

Though could you imagine the security issues if we did have NATO stationed here? Every mad one with an axe would descend on Them.

Psychlops · 04-05-2021 08:40PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Though could you imagine the security issues if we did have NATO stationed here? Every mad one with an axe would descend on Them.

Could you also imagine the Political win? They get to not spend money on fighter jets, but they also at the same time get fighter jet protection.

source · 04-05-2021 09:07PM

Dohvolle wrote: »

There was some panic buying in the aftermath of 9/11. That's how the ADR got flycatcher and L70 and the L60 ended up decorating the square. The speed at which both the L70 and flycatcher were dumped showed exactly how useless they were. Fine for point defence just about, but the politicos thought they would be used to shoot down errant airliners! As a man who once probably trained you told me, "all it takes to disable them is a sniper with a wire cutter".
We almost bought L139s the same time but in hindsight, thankfully, that never materialised.

They were great fun to fire but the ones we had, had a plate with 1954 as the manufacture date. Back on topic, the L139 of the time was a different beast to the latest model, but we still should have some meaningful means of air defence be that GBAD or a properly equipped air corps. But preferably both.

Psychlops · 04-05-2021 09:49PM

Slightly off topic or maybe not, but what does the ADR have now?

ohnonotgmail · 04-05-2021 09:55PM

Psychlops wrote: »

Slightly off topic or maybe not, but what does the ADR have now?

according to kildare.ie they have the bofor L/60 40mm along with RBS70 missiles and flycatcher radar. going by some posts above the mention of the bofors is out of date.

saabsaab · 04-05-2021 09:55PM

Maybe a few SAMs to shoot down airliners instead of expensive interceptors?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i15PpKdNOnI

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 10:00PM

saabsaab wrote: »

Maybe a few SAMs to shoot down airliners instead of expensive interceptors?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i15PpKdNOnI

Firstly, how cheap do you think long range SAMs systems are? Spoiler, they aren't cheap...

Second as asked each time this is suggested, how exactly does that work in checking whether a passenger aircraft has lost comms or is a threat? You think the Irish Government is going to order a shot down of a 747 loaded with Americans because nobody is answering Shannon ATC?

ohnonotgmail · 04-05-2021 10:01PM

saabsaab wrote: »

Maybe a few SAMs to shoot down airliners instead of expensive interceptors?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i15PpKdNOnI

Dohvolle wrote: »

Shooting down is the easy part. We want to get up and see what they are doing!

its ok, given the cost of the missiles themselves the government would probably insist on a Dail vote before agreeing to fire one.

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 10:04PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its ok, given the cost of the missiles themselves the government would probably insist on a Dail vote before agreeing to fire one.

Pretty much, hell just getting the Daíl to agree to buy them would be a miracle, honestly I think even more than selling fighters.

sparky42 · 04-05-2021 10:05PM

Psychlops wrote: »

Could you also imagine the Political win? They get to not spend money on fighter jets, but they also at the same time get fighter jet protection.

Nah, getting anything with "NATO" on it permanently stationed/rotating in Ireland will have everyone on the Left screaming bloody murder...

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments