Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Larbre34 wrote: »

There is no point buying anything that is obsolete and F5s certainly are that.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

.....

Portugal military is spend is four times Ireland.
Running costs of a Gripen would be half that of a F16 for pretty much the same capability.

Can't find any figures for the running cost for anything cheaper than the Gripen, light attack jets etc. I would assume they are half that of the Gripen, Though the more complex you make them the more expensive you can make them.

banie01 wrote: »

I do think if a capability review of the offers was weighted towards running costs and actual proven compatibility with Finnish needs, which are similar enough to Sweden's even down to their military cooperation and past Saab use (albeit quite historic now) that the Gripen E would win the bid.

Its hard to see past a US win here tho, even the German's are buying US if the current rumours are to be believed.
F18E/F are likely the choice there to add EAD suppression and keep nuclear capability post Tornado's final retirement.

I know I said above that its hard to see past a US win in this tender.
But!
Saab and Sweden if reports are to be believed have offered what could well be a fantastic sweetener to Finland IMO

Sweden’s entry of the Gripen fighter is notable from a regional and political perspective. The country’s top officials have publicly assisted Saab in making the case for extending the Sweden-Finland alliance into a de facto, singular air force of Gripens that commanders could interchangeably use across both nations to ward off an invasion.

From a strategic, tactical, interoperability, training and resourcing standpoint this offer by Saab is a masterstroke IMO.

I know its not exactly Irish jet news, but in the longer term a Finnish Gripen buy improves economies of scale and further allows investment in the Gripen E/NG platform to add capability.

Now as I mentioned a long way back in this thread, I think an air policing model similar to Iceland and the Baltic states would serve us far better in the long run.

Buy a primary radar, allow our ground crews to develop skillsets in supporting fast jet ops rather than leap in to operating an airforce with zero actual experience in anything other than FAC.
It also allows funds to be targeted towards an Airlift capability which is sorely needed.
We need to define our actual strategic aims and deficiencies and direct our resources towards those.

We have a capable but small army that deploys overseas, we have a well developed NGO sector that often undertakes emergency overseas supply missions.
We have no native airlift capability to support those ops.

We have an enormous and quite strategic EEZ, maritime patrol both aerial and naval should be a priority.
Improve the radars and the actual armament of the current fleet and if possible provide at least a modicum of air self-defence capability.
Start small and develop the capability, fund the MRV buy and further develop our ability to transport and support overseas deployments and perhaps take a stab at ditching the AW139s completely and replace that fleet with a maritime capable helo that would allow a combined Air corp/Naval service helicopter service to improve further the capabilities on offer.

Whatever we buy, we must we absolutely have to ensure its an actually capable platform and not allow ourselves to be a guinea pig again.

Flinty997 wrote: »

guinea pig?

The Irish have a tendency to buy big ticket items as a 1st operator.
The AW139s for example. Not actually fit for our use, and a brochure buy as the 1st military customer rather than meeting a defined tender spec.

Dohvolle wrote: »

Dauphins too. Our version was unique to us. Nobody else used a Naval Dauphin with a search radar that also did SAR.
I believe the RG32 is unique to us also. Another lemon.

What I’ve never understood is that we have multiple neighbours who we could leverage off and yet we still end up we our odd jobs...

Dohvolle wrote: »

Eithne was designed around the Lynx, the UK flew Lynx, the Belgians and Dutch (who advised us on the building of Eithne) were also Lynx operators at sea. France had only started deck trials with Dauphin months before our Dauphin was ordered.
Seems the DoD are the kind of folk who think the salesman is actually your friend, and everything in the brochure is true.

True enough, and they don’t seem to learn much from it each time...

The PC-9 was 30km from the base and at a suitable height to glide home and it was a lucky, well handled event. If it had been 50 km from home, we'd be looking at a smoking hole and Martin-baker ties for the pilots. PC-9s are good but they are not magic. As for twin engined fighters, they tend to have their engines inspected and serviced by parallel teams of engineers, to prevent servicing errors, copying the ETOPs practise of the airlines and they also have the benefit of titanium firewalls and bulkheads between the engines so the chances of one engine killing the other are rare,much rarer than the perennial birdstrikes that routinely bring down aircraft. While I have a great deal of faith in jet engines, I tend to have greater faith in two,especially if I, as a hypothetical pilot, was tasked to nip up to Rockall to have a look around or go and liaise with a naval vessel somewhere in our EEZ. Which ties in neatly with the elephant-in-the-room SAR question....if we, the people, suddenly got ourselves some fighter jets, would be be able to also have the SAR resources go support them in the event of one of them going down at sea? .......historical note: I recall at least two events when our Fouga pilots were mighty glad to have a second engine to get them home after suffering engine failures, one to a bird and one to a mechanical failure. One happened over the airfield and the other some distance away.

Psychlops wrote: »

What else have we had as being the "Launch Customer"? Interested to know.

The Daulphin's for the Air Corps, think the CASA's might have been similar (though I'm open to be corrected there), the RG 32M for the Army.

sparky42 wrote: »

Do you think DOD have moved out of dial up yet?

You can be sure they look after themselves did you jot see there Newbridge office

Larbre34 wrote: »

Is it a legitimate Interceptor solution? No.

Do we have any practical applications for its other capabilities? No.

See where this is going?

Not really.

Why is it not legitimate interceptor.

It's a light attack/trainer like all the other aircraft we've used for decades.

Oh just realized Honeywell works on that jet. They got fined by the USA for send technical details on fighters to other countries. One of those countries was Ireland

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Yeah, de boyz in de Abbeyshrule skunk works got dere' mits on dem plans, an' are engineerin' de eff turty tree wit a couple a' wheelbarrows, silage cover, and a few ladders dat was lyin' around.

Lol

I was thinking they sent over the wrong files in a sales pitch.

You can do amazing thinks with a gas lamp and some fiberglass.

Flinty997 wrote: »

Not really.

Why is it not legitimate interceptor.

It's a light attack/trainer like all the other aircraft we've used for decades.

None of those were interceptors either.

The concern right now, the 'clear and present danger' if you like, is irresponsible Russian air force components probing the NATO defence network and turning off their transponders in busy commercial airspace, including the massive Irish area of responsibility.

We have no independent response to that, or to the albeit far less likely threat of a hijacked jet airliner.

Planes like the 346 and L159 are simply too slow to reach aircraft like these deep in the oceanic zone of the airspace, let alone perform a search pattern if one is required.

A big airliner will easily travel at Mach 0.9 with the taps open, a Blackjack bomber can light up and bugger off at Mach 2.

Those light attack jet trainers pull Mach 0.8 at best and without a west coast air station, they are useless to us.

Gary kk wrote: »

The one I shared goes to Mach 1.5 but it depends on price. Well sorry I didn't share it someone else here did. But like what is the bar here will it keep moving until we get a SAAB.

Again the question is, is that Mach 1.5 clean wing or with mission stores, and how long is its endurance at that speed with dirty wings?

Larbre34 wrote: »

None of those were interceptors either.

The concern right now, the 'clear and present danger' if you like, is irresponsible Russian air force components probing the NATO defence network and turning off their transponders in busy commercial airspace, including the massive Irish area of responsibility.

We have no independent response to that, or to the albeit far less likely threat of a hijacked jet airliner.

Planes like the 346 and L159 are simply too slow to reach aircraft like these deep in the oceanic zone of the airspace, let alone perform a search pattern if one is required.

A big airliner will easily travel at Mach 0.9 with the taps open, a Blackjack bomber can light up and bugger off at Mach 2.

Those light attack jet trainers pull Mach 0.8 at best and without a west coast air station, they are useless to us.

If you are chasing someone with a head start can do Mach 2 you will never catch them. Generally if you are intercepting them its because they are heading towards you not away from you. If they bugger off then thats what you want in the first place so job done.

US with all its resources couldn't stop 9/11 so the odds of anyone with less resources stopping the same attack is a bogus argument.

Of course if you to play peek a boo as the RAF do then either you have to let the RAF do it, or you get what the RAF have to do that exact same thing.
If you can get the budget for that. Which you won't.