Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Larbre34 wrote: »

For the umpteenth time on this thread, L159s are utterly pointless, because they are slower than the aircraft they'd be marking. Even civilian airliners. Operating jets for jet's sake, would be idiotic.

And, the previous General Officer commanding the Air Corps has given a detailed and informed opinion, that to operate a 24/7 fast jet QRA capability, we would need 16 jets of F16, JAS-39 or similar, with 3 full crews each, primary radar, hardened hangars and associated accommodation for ground crew, maintenance and ordnance.

Well a Tu-142 can make 499 kts,
an L159 can make 505 kts, be a long time to catch up, and although I wouldnt recommend the IAC to start BVR missle launches, the L159 can carry AMRAAMs.
joking aside, we cant even drum up L159s, so Gripens are way off the table, we probably should have an L159 or 2 seater equivalent at a minimum, and if ever some fast jet with minimum capability was to be acquired, you would also need a 2 seat jet trainer to back that up for training.

Well there are all ready rumblings about replacing the pc-9s, that should be cut down like the tripe it is, an aircraft that is in widespread use and I read something about getting rid of it, they dont know the value of anything.
Lycomings used in the marchettis (still), and continue to be in widespread use and not supplanted by any newer piston engined types. There was zero need for the pc-9s over what existed, because there was nothing to train for. The PC-9 is essentially a trainer.
Aircraft can have long service lifes, the thing is it requires ongoing maintenance and costs associated, dont know who is procuring aircraft, but any aircraft that replaces something else, will also have to be maintained.
They cant just hit an unplanned for cost bump in maintenance and the dept of finance thinks its better to buy a replacement rather than fund the necessary costs associated with ongoing maintenance.

Larbre34 wrote: »

For the umpteenth time on this thread, L159s are utterly pointless, because they are slower than the aircraft they'd be marking. Even civilian airliners. Operating jets for jet's sake, would be idiotic.

And, the previous General Officer commanding the Air Corps has given a detailed and informed opinion, that to operate a 24/7 fast jet QRA capability, we would need 16 jets of F16, JAS-39 or similar, with 3 full crews each, primary radar, hardened hangars and associated accommodation for ground crew, maintenance and ordnance.

lol given Irish defence expertise and budget, higher chance the Russians would invade us before this ever happened

Dohvolle wrote: »

...
There is little difference cost wise between a modern jet trainer and leasing 16 Gripen C/D..... Both Greece and Croatia got very good deals recently on Dassault Rafales, second hand, 12 of them for just around €1bn

Running cost of a Rafales could be up to four times a Gripen. Its not simply flying the aircraft either. Its the software. More complex more cost.

The very fact of it being redacted tells us exactly what it is and why.

Flinty997 wrote: »

This thread loves quoting that out of context...



.... Really need an aircraft carrier of the coast....few subs...

Also out of context from the General, the Kiwi's have P3's and are buying P8's, along with having C130's, so their Air Force is still a quantum leap beyond ours even without Fighters.

We should definitely consider the JAS 39 Gripen. They are affordable and modern. I dunno how feasible it is in the very near future, but at some point in the next decade when the economy is back on its feet - we should definitely think about it.

ZeroThreat wrote: »

lol given Irish defence expertise and budget, higher chance the Russians would invade us before this ever happened

Well in fairness to Putin, if he could sort out the Russian military, overhauling the PDF should be a doddle, could get what we need and can afford, Also I like the pun back a few posts, Red flags indeed, very droll.

Flinty997 wrote: »

We are being a bit stupid about it. We could go armed jet trainer route to tip the toe in the water. Go the hawk route. Get exchange pilots working with similar types in other countries. Have an air defence pact with the RAF. Put in some radar and some quick response facilities for RAF fighters in the West.

But there is zero funding for any of it. No appetite either.

People here are obsessed with the top end fighters. Almost no focus on the infrastructure or skillsets you'd have to build up over time to operate such types. Or build to to those type of engagements in all weathers day or night.

You'd have to have an end goal and work backwards to build the infrastructure and training required to support that.

If you don't want to work with the UK who are the most logical choice. Why not France. Massively capable and experienced. PC21 might be common type there.

I agree, you cant just go right into operating top of the line fast jets, and we lokely never will, but an L139 and trainer equivalent for commonality makes sense, cheaper by a long way than real fighting fast jets which we dont really need. We'd be better ensuring radar coverage is comprensive and maybe in concert with civilian usage, and sorting out the navy/army and have a useful transport capability, long range maratime patrol (possibly even long range drones) and a token basic cheap cheerful but functional first step into aircraft capable of going into the air with an AAM. Radar can fill the gap in speed, ie fly out ahead of threats to meet them. Either way the Aermacchi 345 and 346 look like interesting options, one is a basic jet trainer, interesting, all rather pipe dream stuff that we could manage it.

Flinty997 wrote: »

We are being a bit stupid about it. We could go armed jet trainer route to tip the toe in the water. Go the hawk route. Get exchange pilots working with similar types in other countries. Have an air defence pact with the RAF. Put in some radar and some quick response facilities for RAF fighters in the West.

But there is zero funding for any of it. No appetite either.

People here are obsessed with the top end fighters. Almost no focus on the infrastructure or skillsets you'd have to build up over time to operate such types. Or build to to those type of engagements in all weathers day or night.

You'd have to have an end goal and work backwards to build the infrastructure and training required to support that.

If you don't want to work with the UK who are the most logical choice. Why not France. Massively capable and experienced. PC21 might be common type there.

Actually if you bothered to look the issue of all the ancillary issues of supporting and using any type of Fighters has been brought up repeatedly in this thread by posters.

Dohvolle wrote: »

They have Aussie F18s and F35s to look after any Chinese equivalent heading too far into the southern ocean. That said, it is generally considered that getting rid of the Skyhawks they had was a bad move. Indeed most of the defence decisions made by that particular Helen Clark government were bad moves, and 2 decades on the NZDF is only just getting back the capability it lost.
Once the fast jets went, so did the pilots, who all moved to Australia. Only recently, as NZ has started to expand and modernise it's military has it's recruiting problems eased. Unlike here, there is no political baggage associated with a young Kiwi deciding to head to Oz to join a proper warfighting military air arm.
However, if we continue with the Retired Generals comparisons, the RNZAF has a nice mix of Troop carrying helicopters, Military transport aircraft, and long range ARMED maritime patrol aircraft.

Let's be honest here given that NZ lies 4500km from Australia, they might share a defence policy but there will be no Aussie fast jet reaching NZ without at least 2 air to air refuels and then it won't be a fast response.

The NZ defence posture is recovering well from the Clarke government and in particular with regards to Maritime patrol and support of their Island neighbours.

If memory serves the NZ Skyhawks had significant upgrades including an-apg65 radar.
Highly capable airframes but limited in speed and size to perhaps something similar to the enhanced radar equipped Bae Hawk 200?

NZ went with upgrades at the time as they had a cadre of experienced Skyhawk pilots and it offered a degree of perceived savings on ground crew and pilot training and facilities.
Their loss of fast jet capability is tbh far more sensible than ours never implementing one.
They have no immediate interlopers, they aren't a gatekeeper to a continent of Allies and they are probably the most isolated developed nation in the world.

Sometimes, distance is a defence and certainly in NZ's case.
They should IMO still consider an air policing capability of course but their need for such is IMO at least far less pressing than Ireland's

sparky42 wrote: »

Actually if you bothered to look the issue of all the ancillary issues of supporting and using any type of Fighters has been brought up repeatedly in this thread by posters.

Only superficially. Most are looking at it in terms of hardware and specs. Not maintaining skillsets in very specialised areas. You need a pool of people trained and a system feeding that as people leave and join.

Flinty997 wrote: »

I'm curious why you think a light jet is more expensive to operate than 4th generation complex heavy fighter.

He said jet trainers are twice as expensive as the PC9s without bringing anything transformative to the question. That’s totally different to the costs of running 4th gens, though again it’s not just the sticker price of the planes.

Dohvolle wrote: »

You what's a great way to recruit people?

Big shiny fighter jets to work on! It's as simple as that.
There's a reason Air Corps recruiting videos don't include footage of the Lear. It's lots of shots of planes with guns & rockets, or green helicopters, and people with guns jumping from them.
For years the RAF used a Gazelle that suffered a heavy landing as a recruiting tool. Stuck it on a flatbed, with a portocabin and canopies to shelter folk from poor weather. Drove it to seaside towns in the summer, the school leavers came running. The smart ones wanted to fly it. The smarter ones wanted to know how it worked and how to fix it.

Considering people here don't want even trainers good luck selling the idea of a flat bed truck.