Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Jim2007 · 05-05-2021 01:35AM

sparky42 wrote: »

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

The Irish national territory covers an area greater than Germany, so how many fighters do you think you’d need to be taken seriously? 50, 100, 300... a couple of air bases? Maybe some some inflight refueling capability... and since much of the national territory is beyond the horizon, maybe we should think about an aircraft carrier as well.

And who would we train to defend against? Russia, China, NATO...

Of course you could always do as the Swiss do buy a few just for show and let the boys play with their toys 9 - 5 and rely on France/Germany/Italy to cover the out of office hours!

A completely waste of money that would not be supported by the voters, never mind the Dail.

sparky42 · 05-05-2021 02:26AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

The Irish national territory covers an area greater than Germany, so how many fighters do you think you’d need to be taken seriously? 50, 100, 300... a couple of air bases? Maybe some some inflight refueling capability... and since much of the national territory is beyond the horizon, maybe we should think about an aircraft carrier as well.

And who would we train to defend against? Russia, China, NATO...

Of course you could always do as the Swiss do buy a few just for show and let the boys play with their toys 9 - 5 and rely on France/Germany/Italy to cover the out of office hours!

A completely waste of money that would not be supported by the voters, never mind the Dail.

Well that's a nice rant of nonsense with very little facts, but the average level of discussion on any defence matters.

Stovepipe · 05-05-2021 02:31PM

For the record, the Swiss take their defence very seriously, unlike the Austrians, who operate a similar model of tokenism as we do. They bought the Typhoon, equipped it with the least capable missile, flew the minimum amount of hours to keep the pilots current and did the fewest upgrades to keep the aircraft at the peak of it's capabilities. They appear to think that the Swiss and the Germans will protect them if anything kicks off. As an aside, the L70 is still a very capable gun and with decent ammunition is very lethal. Anything that comes within it's engagement envelope can be brought down, especially when it is tied into a radar network. It's also a devastating ground weapon. there's a reason why so many armies still use them. Most targets are not airliners at high altitude. In the case of the Irish, every time you take away a capability, it's rarely replaced or it takes ages to get it back. We have no sonar on our ships, yet underwater threats are the new game in town. We've never had jet fighters,a decent utility cargo aircraft, tracked armour of any quality, our IFVs are pathetically underarmed and our radar resources are third-rate.

Larbre34 · 05-05-2021 02:38PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

The Irish national territory covers an area greater than Germany, so how many fighters do you think you’d need to be taken seriously? 50, 100, 300... a couple of air bases? Maybe some some inflight refueling capability... and since much of the national territory is beyond the horizon, maybe we should think about an aircraft carrier as well.

And who would we train to defend against? Russia, China, NATO...

Of course you could always do as the Swiss do buy a few just for show and let the boys play with their toys 9 - 5 and rely on France/Germany/Italy to cover the out of office hours!

A completely waste of money that would not be supported by the voters, never mind the Dail.

16.

People that know more about it than you have done their sums.

Go and look at the background info on the Commission on Defence before spouting rubbish.

Lorddrakul · 05-05-2021 02:46PM

In fairness, as has been pointed out earlier, Ireland doesn't need fighter jets, Ireland needs interceptors.

It is highly unlikely Ireland would need to establish air superiority, it only needs a deterrent to intercept and ward off encroachers.

As such, a pair of something like Rafales or Gripens would more than suffice. Both are good multi-role fighters, but not the out and out air to air fighters like a Flanker family or the Typhoon.

So, two pairs ready to go at short notice, and two more as back-ups with probably another pair in reserve is all that is necessary, so 10 in total. Our land mass is so small that a single base is all that is necessary, coordinated with two major radar stations, roughly north and south, maybe with a middle one in the west coast specifically looking seaward.

That's all that is needed. We don't even need a long range missile, as to a Mach+ capable jet the current generation of AIM-9 Sparrow is probably fine, given the distance they can cover quickly. All an Irish Air Corp jet would have to do is put off an intruder until such time as an RAF, FAF or SAF fighter got there.

Second hand Gripens would probably be the most cost effective, maintainable and capable packages.

My tuppence.

Larbre34 · 05-05-2021 03:02PM

As I said, the retired General Officer Commanding the Air Corps, has done the maths and come up with 16.

Allowing for planes in various states of servicing and refit, on training duty and for the rotation of crew and support resources, possessing 16 planes allows you to keep two pairs on standby. One pair on QRA and one pair in reserve relief.

Considering that theres a zero percent chance we would buy a tanker to go with them, you'd probably need a second pair in reserve for any tasking longer than a couple of hours.

sparky42 · 05-05-2021 03:19PM

Dohvolle wrote: »

He waited 116 pages for that valid contribution...

Pity he doesn’t know how to use google, for example a quick search would highlight that the Swiss have spent considerable time/money to move to a 24/7 operation.

AlphabetCards · 05-05-2021 03:28PM

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.

I don't think MB are too bothered working through a whole qualification and validation procedure for like 10 new seats for some IAC small-time airframe tbh. The cost would be prohibitive.

Larbre34 · 05-05-2021 03:52PM

AlphabetCards wrote: »

I don't think MB are too bothered working through a whole qualification and validation procedure for like 10 new seats for some IAC small-time airframe tbh. The cost would be prohibitive.

How has the same template not been required on the same seats in other Air Forces previously, for the same reasons?

Women pilots of trainers and fast jets is hardly a novelty at this stage and the adjustment required would hardly be bespoke.

Jim2007 · 05-05-2021 04:10PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Well that's a nice rant of nonsense with very little facts, but the average level of discussion on any defence matters.

And the that's all you got.... you did not even bother to address any of the points raised...

Jim2007 · 05-05-2021 04:22PM

Stovepipe wrote: »

For the record, the Swiss take their defence very seriously, unlike the Austrians, who operate a similar model of tokenism as we do. .

And I have written several of the excuse letters to get people out of their service, participated in the discussions, debates on the purchase of Swiss military hardware etc....

- A training exercise on measuring chemical fall out has to cancelled because the guys who were supposed to have attended the previous course did not in fact attend and there are not instruction manuals

- A live mine is discoverer by kids under a bridge, because the boys forgot where they put it and just went home!

- Weapons and live amo regularly go missing...

- A war game has to be cancelled because not the officer's present have the authority to authorize the troops break open the gas masks they were issued with

The only thing Swiss men are serious about their service is how to avoid it.

Gary kk · 05-05-2021 04:35PM

Do they have conscripts Jim?

Larbre34 · 05-05-2021 04:38PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

And the that's all you got.... you did not even bother to address any of the points raised...

Probably best that you review some of the threads on the forum and then re-address the points you see there with some sort of realism.

sparky42 · 05-05-2021 04:59PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

And the that's all you got.... you did not even bother to address any of the points raised...

Because there’s nothing of worth in your post to address.

sparky42 · 05-05-2021 05:03PM

Stovepipe wrote: »

For the record, the Swiss take their defence very seriously, unlike the Austrians, who operate a similar model of tokenism as we do. They bought the Typhoon, equipped it with the least capable missile, flew the minimum amount of hours to keep the pilots current and did the fewest upgrades to keep the aircraft at the peak of it's capabilities. They appear to think that the Swiss and the Germans will protect them if anything kicks off. As an aside, the L70 is still a very capable gun and with decent ammunition is very lethal. Anything that comes within it's engagement envelope can be brought down, especially when it is tied into a radar network. It's also a devastating ground weapon. there's a reason why so many armies still use them. Most targets are not airliners at high altitude. In the case of the Irish, every time you take away a capability, it's rarely replaced or it takes ages to get it back. We have no sonar on our ships, yet underwater threats are the new game in town. We've never had jet fighters,a decent utility cargo aircraft, tracked armour of any quality, our IFVs are pathetically underarmed and our radar resources are third-rate.

To be fair to the Austrians, there was plenty of “dodgy” stuff going on with the Typhoon contract and they got the Tranche 1s which seem to be a bitch to upgrade with anything, the U.K. was going to retire their Tranche 1s at the last review but kept them but are getting rid of them after the current review, think Germany and Spain are replacing their T1s as well. Austria will be better off with their replacement, but they are certainly low spenders on defence as well.

In our case it’s without question DOD and Finance don’t want to pay for anything and the politicians don’t care enough to fight the issue as the public don’t care enough.

spark23 · 06-05-2021 03:55PM

Lorddrakul wrote: »

In fairness, as has been pointed out earlier, Ireland doesn't need fighter jets, Ireland needs interceptors.

It is highly unlikely Ireland would need to establish air superiority, it only needs a deterrent to intercept and ward off encroachers.

As such, a pair of something like Rafales or Gripens would more than suffice. Both are good multi-role fighters, but not the out and out air to air fighters like a Flanker family or the Typhoon.

So, two pairs ready to go at short notice, and two more as back-ups with probably another pair in reserve is all that is necessary, so 10 in total. Our land mass is so small that a single base is all that is necessary, coordinated with two major radar stations, roughly north and south, maybe with a middle one in the west coast specifically looking seaward.

That's all that is needed. We don't even need a long range missile, as to a Mach+ capable jet the current generation of AIM-9 Sparrow is probably fine, given the distance they can cover quickly. All an Irish Air Corp jet would have to do is put off an intruder until such time as an RAF, FAF or SAF fighter got there.

Second hand Gripens would probably be the most cost effective, maintainable and capable packages.

My tuppence.

Great post! Sense

sparky42 · 06-05-2021 04:55PM

As said, we have a former AC general making it clear that 16 is pretty much the bare minimum to provide 24/7. As to the comment regarding “interceptors rather than fighters”, nor such model exists in current Western production, all “fighter” airframes are multi functional, just depends on what the user wants to use it for. Realistically Rafale is limited as it’s got a smaller user base, to the point that the French are loaning the Egyptians money for the Egyptians to buy Rafales just to keep the line open. Gripen is the lowest cost per hour and may have more orders coming.

Flinty997 · 06-05-2021 05:28PM

sparky42 wrote: »

As said, we have a former AC general making it clear that 16 is pretty much the bare minimum to provide 24/7. A....

He also said a few other things...

...“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.”...

He pointed to the approaches adopted by other small countries, such as New Zealand, which abandoned their fighter jet programme and diverted the money to the army.

Each pilot would need up to 400 hours piloting the jet before earning fast response certification. Such a jet programme would likely cost well in excess of €1 billion.

Asked if we need a jet programme, Mr James said he is in favour of “some capability” and said neutrality comes with costs and responsibilities.

“But you can’t have half a capability. So therefore it’s something everyone has to buy into.”

It must also be questioned whether the money involved might be better spent in other areas of defence such as additional ships, he said.

ohnonotgmail · 06-05-2021 05:32PM

Flinty997 wrote: »

He also said a few other things...

the new zealand situation is not in any way similar to ours.

sparky42 · 06-05-2021 05:37PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the new zealand situation is not in any way similar to ours.

Well if instead of fighters we bought P8s and C130s that would still be a hell of an increase in capabilities, everyone ok with that billion plus spend... People seem to forget that they still have a much more capable military than we do.

Flinty997 · 06-05-2021 05:48PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the new zealand situation is not in any way similar to ours.

The point being that its part of a larger conversation which is being selectively taken out of context.

Flinty997 · 06-05-2021 05:57PM

Lorddrakul wrote: »

In fairness, as has been pointed out earlier, Ireland doesn't need fighter jets, Ireland needs interceptors.

It is highly unlikely Ireland would need to establish air superiority, it only needs a deterrent to intercept and ward off encroachers.

As such, a pair of something like Rafales or Gripens would more than suffice. Both are good multi-role fighters, but not the out and out air to air fighters like a Flanker family or the Typhoon....

We are unlikely to need a BVR missile for policing the airspace.

The problem is what we really need is a modern version of a F-5 Tiger II. I'm open to correction, but anyone with viable airframes, have modernized them and kept them. Some even with BVR systems. Otherwise there is nothing equivalent. In lieu of that some are making the jump to the Gripen. But that is a expensive option.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37151/brazils-upgraded-tiger-iis-might-be-the-most-capable-f-5s-in-the-world

Stovepipe · 06-05-2021 06:56PM

The cost of a Gripen is about the same as that of an A320, especially if you haven't done a deal with Saab. The Irish State managed to find the money to buy them new when they owned Aer Lingus and plenty of 737s and 747s before that so it's not a question of being able to afford it. We, the State, can,but don't want to. Nothing stopping you leasing fighters from Sweden/Saab,given that we are world leaders in aircraft leasing. Operate them on an "if you break it,you pay for it" basis. Failing that,buy second hand F5s, Mirage 2000s or Brazilian AMXs, after you buy decent primary radar. Base them in Shannon, Cork or even Knock and you'd cover all of the island so that an aircraft on QRA can be over any part of the island inside 20 minutes. This stuff isn't difficult,it just takes political will to say yes and the willingness to be fitted out and trained by outsiders, including the UK, who are rather good at QRA and air defence in general.

Larbre34 · 06-05-2021 11:50PM

There is no point buying anything that is obsolete and F5s certainly are that.

The most basic useful specification would be some used F-16s (mid block). Anything less and you might as well have nothing. Portugal use them and although they are in NATO, they would have similar domestic requirements to ourselves.

A lease agreement like the Czechs have wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility, but lets not draw parallels with the purchase of airliners. There aren't 1,000 people a day paying back the cost of military aircraft, its an entirely different financial model.

Flinty997 · 07-05-2021 12:24AM

Stovepipe wrote: »

The cost of a Gripen is about the same as that of an A320, especially if you haven't done a deal with Saab. The Irish State managed to find the money to buy them new when they owned Aer Lingus and plenty of 737s and 747s before that so it's not a question of being able to afford it. We, the State, can,but don't want to. Nothing stopping you leasing fighters from Sweden/Saab,given that we are world leaders in aircraft leasing. Operate them on an "if you break it,you pay for it" basis. Failing that,buy second hand F5s, Mirage 2000s or Brazilian AMXs, after you buy decent primary radar. Base them in Shannon, Cork or even Knock and you'd cover all of the island so that an aircraft on QRA can be over any part of the island inside 20 minutes. This stuff isn't difficult,it just takes political will to say yes and the willingness to be fitted out and trained by outsiders, including the UK, who are rather good at QRA and air defence in general.

There isnt the political will or the social pressure required to get support for this. There would have to be a greater interest in both Irish military tradition and interest in policing our territorial waters and airspace. I just don't see any appetite for it.

07-05-2021 02:12AM

Flinty997 wrote: »

There isnt the political will or the social pressure required to get support for this. There would have to be a greater interest in both Irish military tradition and interest in policing our territorial waters and airspace. I just don't see any appetite for it.

I was at the Galway Air Show a number of years ago(in uniform). The number of people protesting the presence of the Red Arrows was eye opening. Nevermind there not being political will for fighters here, the backlash would be huge.

I'd love to see it, but I can't see it happening. The best we can hope for is some decent naval ships and even then I'd be hoping for Island-class patrol vehicles, not destroyers.

Stovepipe · 07-05-2021 04:20AM

A lease agreement like the Czechs have wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility, but lets not draw parallels with the purchase of airliners. There aren't 1,000 people a day paying back the cost of military aircraft, its an entirely different financial model.[/QUOTE]

My point on cost is that we can afford it,especially by leasing fighters. A fighter might not repay itself by shifting punters or cargo but that also applies to every soldier we employ and every gun we own. They justify themselves by being there for our defence. Like the SAR helis, you pay for them because you need to. As for F-5s, you lease or even buy them for five to ten years and then throw them in the bin. I suggested them because they have two engines. If you want a fighter pilot to go two hundred miles out to sea to eyeball the Russians, then you need to give him the means to get home if one engine fails. What you need to do is build up the corporate experience of combat aircraft operations,for pilots, techs, supply personnel and the appropriate fighter control system.That takes time and money.

Lorddrakul · 07-05-2021 09:33AM

F-5s would not be a good idea, IMHO.

At least a generation too old.

At the very least, F-16s could be considered. As for a single engine plane, there are lots of examples of carrier going planes that are single engine, so I wouldn't worry about that as long as they are quite modern.

Engine reliability these days is vastly in excess of what it used to be.
However, that still means you could buy or lease second hand Rafales from Dassault and it would be a nearby source of support, maintenance and training.

However, I'm sticking with my original recommendation of Gripens, because Saab.

Gary kk · 07-05-2021 10:40AM

I see we stole/bought blueprints for the F22 and F35 . Bit ambitious to start building them but fair play to the government.

Larbre34 · 07-05-2021 12:37PM

F5s are useful for three things.

Training, display aircraft (airborne and gate guardian) and for a heavily sanctioned Iran to reverse engineer into a rubbish domestic product called the Saqheh 80.

And with the arrival of the Saab-Boeing T7 even its training duties are about over.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments