Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

1874 wrote: »

And you dont think thats a bigger deal than basing aircraft in NI which is in NATO already.
Having NATO forces based on our territory would be a bigger breach of our sovereignty than the Russians skirting the edges of our airspace.
If we cant monitor and control our own territory ourselves, even eventually, then I dont see what the issue is with NATO fast jets in NI until we can or until the flights end.
It is essentially a challlenge to NATO afterall, not us.

If we asked them to base in Shannon then it’s not a “breach of our sovereignty”, it’s us exercising said sovereignty. Though I would assume even asking would get the response of “maybe spend more than .30% on defence”, along with of course “ yes we will do this, you pay us X millions a year”.

The U.K. isn’t going to put High value assets in NI like Typhoons or Voyagers, they don’t need to.

1874 wrote: »

Ah here, not a hope Australia is 4500kms from New Zealand, half that at best, Id put money on that and Im not a betting person.
I agree their position means they have less reason to have a fast jet air component, but you put them well closer to the Antarctic though and penguins cant fly.

Its about 2k.

But its 8k from China. Well depending on where their fleet is at the time.

Besides which any hostiles to NZ would have to pass by OZ or have a significant Naval presence. It just so very unlikely.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not buy say 20 eurofighters, invest in proper radar on ground and buy like 4 patrol ships.

Because the Irish public/politicians won't spend that money, though to be fair of the Euro 4.5s the Typhoon is one of the most expensive to operate, the Gripen is cheaper.

Deleted User wrote: »

I get you but I am embarrassed that we don't have at least 20 fighter jets, proper radar and also proper naval support for to protect irish airspace/irish fishermen and women.

Since 1922 Irish defence planning/procurement/capabilities has been an embarrassment, but short of the Departments of Finance and Defence being gutted that's unlikely to change.

Dohvolle wrote: »

When they were introduced it was considered a major purchase, that would bring flying training out of the dark ages.
HUD? Elector seat? Turboprop? What is this witchcraft!

Clarke tech

Dohvolle wrote: »

While we are thinking, it looks like the Swiss will choose the Dassault Rafale, if local rumours are to be believed.
https://www.lematin.ch/story/le-rafale-est-de-plus-en-plus-le-favori-a-berne-617143171697

Interesting, all the euro 4.5s seem to be picking up some orders currently, wonder what Austria will go with to replace the Typhoons?

The recent spate of Rafale sales is really interesting IMO.
The Greek and Croatian orders are predominantly debt financed via France.
Part and parcel of French industrial support for Dassault hidden as foreign sales rather than state aid.

Egypt and Qatar are likely to convert their options for more into further orders and the Indian rumours are that despite the original MRCA deal being shelved.
That the new deal is going to be a shoot out between an F16 block70 variant and the Rafale.

The Rafale has the advantage of already being in service with the Indians and they are reportedly very happy with its performance and capability.
Surely the Rafale has a far upgrade potential than an F16 airframe design pushing 50yrs old?

The operational reports of Rafale in action in Libya and v IS and in particular Indian use in both training v the Flanker all point to a highly capable airframe.
I must actually see if I can dig out any Redflag reports on Rafales performance.
It seems to be the best of the 4.5gen bunch even v Eurofighter and Sukhoi and Mig.
I know in Redflag in particular that the Eurofighter is considered superior to F15 and that's saying a lot!

Psychlops wrote: »

How so? We already work with them via PFP. Its a challenge not only to NATO but the west as a whole. If we cant do it we have to either have NATO do it or an EU Country which ironically would also be a NATO member...

Because we aren't in NATO. We are Neutral, there would be uproar, a Senator was already on about it for overflights, people would have a fit if NATO was based here, thats why. Whether you agree or like it or not or what the merry dance our neutrality entails, having that organisations land/air forces stationed on our territory would be a big deal, we then might really draw the attention of Russia, who aren't actually in our territory.


It doesn't add up to say, lets just invite NATO to base here, that would be a big deal, and probably undermine us internationally in other ways.
It just doesn't stack up, get one organisations military forces onto our soil because another isn't??
NI is a few miles north and could be utilised without less legal or political issues and already another poster highlighted how that would be a bit of a big deal.

While what Russia is doing might not be a direct intentional affront to our sovereignty, we can deal with it better than by spending billions on 4.5 generation fighter aircraft, either directly with Russia, through our influence in the EU or through the UN or maybe even ICAO.
As other posters stated, we would need other infrastructure and elements to support aircraft of that nature which we dont really need, so costs go one way, up, which Ireland has never been willing to pay.

That said, I think we should maintain the skills required to have a fast jet component in the form of something preferably from within the EU, L39NG or L-159, so that should we ever upgrade to the level of Hungary or Czech who have about 14-15 Gripens or even a fraction of that, then we have already started building the experience to do so. Really anything else is WM pipe dream stuff as there are so many other things that need to be fixed/re-organised in the Country, not to mention the PDF.
IMO The Fougas should never have been procured, an old design at the time, should have gone for a newer type like the MB 326 which although not new at the time was more modern and also an established aircraft. Had enquiries been made, it could have even been seen that a newer replacement aircraft type was on the drawing board, and that type has remained up to date for a nation of our level of defence budget up till this date.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not buy say 20 eurofighters, invest in proper radar on ground and buy like 4 patrol ships.

Because phenomenal cost, political reasons, basically not practical/feasible We couldnt afford the missles, or probably to fuel them, never mind the supporting infrastructure of which maintenance is going to be one of the largest, or the experience operating such a type. It would be like entering a baby in the Olympics to run the 100m.

Deleted User wrote: »

I get you but I am embarrassed that we don't have at least 20 fighter jets, proper radar and also proper naval support for to protect irish airspace/irish fishermen and women.

Embarrassed? thats on you, sounds kinda immature imo, none of the Baltic states have comparable aircraft being suggested here, and thats the level we are at, and they share land borders with Russia.

It appears, they all have or had L39's, we would be lucky to set our sights even that high, purely to maintain a cost effective foot in the door for training and building and maintaining experience at operating jets and for further basic jet flight training.





As other posters have said, be better having a credible air transport aircraft type, imo drones for maritime patrol, and invest nationally in cyber defence.

Couldn't we start with a small number of jets and build up our profile over time? Maybe start with 6 fast jets like the Gripen, with intent to double it to 12 by 10 years? Would allow us time to improve infrastructure, training, etc..

Larbre34 wrote: »

It doesn't work like that.

To have two jets available for Quick Reaction Alert duty 24/7, you need 12 to 16 aircraft in the inventory.

Thats because you will always have 4 to 6 aircraft in various states of heavy maintenance and refit. You will have a couple on training duty both in the air and on the ground. You can't have the same 2 planes sitting fuelled and armed for days on end, so for 2 to be available you either need 4 or ideally 6 aircraft being rotated through the roster over a tour of duty lasting days or weeks. Out of that 12 to 16, 2 will probably be two-seaters that will never see frontline duty anyway.

Unfortunately it all adds up and that's why the whole venture is so bloody expensive. Likewise, a squadron of 16, needs 40 to 50 active pilots to cover a shift pattern and allow for leave, training and professional development, plus ground crew, technicians, radar operators, air traffic controllers, fire personnel and increased sentry presense. Thats another 100 to 150 bodies easily.

All told, its a very, very difficult operation to get going from scratch. Yes we aren't starting entirely from scratch, but we the the gaps in Air Corps capability, we might as well be.

You either commit to 12 planes and 100 to 200 new personnel or you don't bother at all.

While I agree with what you are saying, ie how many aircraft you need is dictated by what you want them to do/how much availability do you need/want, how much maintenance is required, your human and financial resources to fly and maintain them.
It does seem SAAB have a lot of that covered, but an operating organisation such as the AC, could/should be able to organise along the lines of what the manufacturer says when trained personnel are up to speed. The AC would need to see what the min and max levels of trained personnel are to carry out that function, based on what the manufacturer says. I still think Gripens are a huge step too far.
I dont know if the L39/L159 manufacturer has such programs regarding maintenance which factor in time and cost.
But the Swedish airforce at least at the operational level seem to work with skilled highly trained personnel who are supported by almost conscript trained supporting members of the air force.
The AC should maximize its existing personnel to this end. It would be beneficial for the entire PDF to have a real time management system (software based but has redundant means to manage) that knows exactly who is where and what every member of the DF is doing on a day to day and week to week basis and plans for the future regrading maintenance, training, leave etc. This could be fine tuned down to the different organisations.
Without correctly managing existing resources, you can't be running things efficiently or planning for the future. The entire organisation needs overhauling, most likely because the majority of the management structure come in as young or relatively young people without much (or any) prior experience outside that environment, so they have a much more limited sense of how to run things efficiently or effectively.

Well, I disagree, I do not believe for an instant a PC-9 is the logical step before someone steps into a Gripen.
Id say most Airforces that operate significantly capable aircraft have a jet trainer.

Simply buying Gripen, even a maintenance package off SAAB is not realistic, it would require the overhaul of the AC and supporting infrastructure we most likely cant and wont fund, you may as well set the IAC up as a zoo and stock it completely with Albino Elephants.

It would be an L39 or L159, their capabilities are consistent what we are able to afford and more can be done to fend off Bears by other less expensive means.
This is where the Baltic states are AND we have less requirement than they do. Other countries that may have even more need for this than us have taken the advanced trainer route, as per the previous highlighted route taken by the Phillipinnes who have more reason and a host of neighbours and a large airspace to manage.
We simply dont have that need over the odd flying Bear.
It is an expensive luxury, but jet trainers can always be a lead into that or training for other jets.

To be honest what you and some others are stating are flights of fancy (pun intended) but really, closer to Walter Mitty.


We cant afford that, if not into basic jets, better put the money into practical aircraft that can do other roles, Cyber defence.

1874 wrote: »

Well, I disagree, I do not believe for an instant a PC-9 is the logical step before someone steps into a Gripen.
Id say most Airforces that operate significantly capable aircraft have a jet trainer.

Simply buying Gripen, even a maintenance package off SAAB is not realistic, it would require the overhaul of the AC and supporting infrastructure we most likely cant and wont fund, you may as well set the IAC up as a zoo and stock it completely with Albino Elephants.

It would be an L39 or L159, their capabilities are consistent what we are able to afford and more can be done to fend off Bears by other less expensive means.
This is where the Baltic states are AND we have less requirement than they do. Other countries that may have even more need for this than us have taken the advanced trainer route, as per the previous highlighted route taken by the Phillipinnes who have more reason and a host of neighbours and a large airspace to manage.
We simply dont have that need over the odd flying Bear.
It is an expensive luxury, but jet trainers can always be a lead into that or training for other jets.

To be honest what you and some others are stating are flights of fancy (pun intended) but really, closer to Walter Mitty.


We cant afford that, if not into basic jets, better put the money into practical aircraft that can do other roles, Cyber defence.

You seem to leave out that the Baltic states are running at 2% and above on defence, and we are spending .25%, bit of a difference. Buying “basic jets” for the sale of buying basic jets is the same gob****e procurement that has given us the same issues in the DF.

It’s not inability to afford it, we spent up to 1.8% on defence in the past when our economy was tiny, its political and public will that is the issue, and on that interesting to see that polling has repeatedly returned figures suggesting more than 50% polled supports increased defence spending.

sparky42 wrote: »

The Typhoons are still active over Syria aren’t they?

Yep, Op Shader, daily sorties from Cyprus.