Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Gary kk · 16-06-2021 10:20AM

I asked question that I didn't really know the answer to. And I wanted to understand the answer not just take it at face value.

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 12:37PM

Dohvolle wrote: »

Have you met Gary KK? You two have much in common.
Such as membership of my exclusive "ignore" club.

I'm not seeing any downside for either of us.

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 12:44PM

nonethepfizer wrote: »

shtick a few AIM's on a spare Ryanair 737

You jest but..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

They also armed nimrods with sidewinders.

grassylawn · 16-06-2021 12:47PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

May I attack this from the other direction?

Why does ireland have 8x PC-9s, at, apparently an annual cost of 1million each? What purpose do they serve?

Light strike? Not likely. I don't think anyone can envision a situation where there is sufficient of an insurgency in Ireland to require it, and the aircraft wouldn't last an hour in anything more conventional. One might make an argument for using the things for air support to Irish troops on deployment, but the history indicates a distinct lack of desire to send aircraft on such missions. So that's not it.

Training of forward air controllers? Probably cheaper and easier to just send a few folks to the Joint Fires Course in Vegas every year. More chance that on some UN mission they'd get a US military aircraft on the radio and not an Irish one anyway. If you want to maintain a bit of proficiency, use a simulator. We use them for fires training here for that purpose.

Air defense? Yeah, no.

Training of pilots of other aircraft like the PC-12, CASA? You don't need armed (or unarmed) PC-9s for that. Look at the list of aircraft a pilot goes through to fly 737s or A321s at an airline. Much cheaper.

The only thing which makes sense to me is to train pilots for operation of front-line combat aircraft. Which means that when the PC-9s were bought, it was with the intent and knowledge that there would be the purchase of said aircraft. (Either that, or folks were just wasting money).
So, the question is, if it's a given that there is an intent to spend the money, it's not a question of "if it's too much money". That question has already been answered. The question is "What is the trigger at which point the future aircraft will be purchased?" WW3 might be too late and I doubt was in the planning thinking.

It's possible that they changed their mind about purchasing future aircraft. Or perhaps the RAF withdrawing its protection is the trigger that they had in mind.

Stovepipe · 16-06-2021 12:55PM

There was a book published about the Fouga Magister by one Radu Brinzan et al and the question of what to select to replace the Fouga was well answered,by the very people who picked the PC-9M. All of the contemporary aircraft such as the L-39/59/159 and others were either test flown or examined in close detail but the issue was effectively decided by the DoD. Essentially, the needle was pointed in a certain direction, very early on and that needle was not allowed to divert until the selection panel arrived at a politically acceptable solution. It came down to aircraft A or B in very short order and you know the rest.

Stovepipe · 16-06-2021 12:58PM

Flinty997 wrote: »

Warry places I like that.

Aircraft like the PC9 have been and are used as light attack in a few countries. Armed overwatch and reconnaissance...

In places like Iraq and Afghanistan,aircraft like PC-9s are not used unless they meet NATO theatre entry criteria and our PC-9M does not not, by a long shot,as it has no armour, no defensive suite (electronic or mechanical) and a host of other things. You could only use it in daylight against a very lightly armed enemy.

sparky42 · 16-06-2021 01:25PM

Stovepipe wrote: »

In places like Iraq and Afghanistan,aircraft like PC-9s are not used unless they meet NATO theatre entry criteria and our PC-9M does not not, by a long shot,as it has no armour, no defensive suite (electronic or mechanical) and a host of other things. You could only use it in daylight against a very lightly armed enemy.

Exactly, it's like suggesting our AW139's could be used in hostile environments...

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 02:09PM

Stovepipe wrote: »

In places like Iraq and Afghanistan,aircraft like PC-9s are not used unless they meet NATO theatre entry criteria and our PC-9M does not not, by a long shot,as it has no armour, no defensive suite (electronic or mechanical) and a host of other things. You could only use it in daylight against a very lightly armed enemy.

I guess they weren't anticipating a warzone like those two places in Ireland. Are you suggesting we should be equipped for that kind of conflict.

Aircraft light attack trainers are used all over the world. In a variety of roles.

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 02:09PM

sparky42 wrote: »

Exactly, it's like suggesting our AW139's could be used in hostile environments...

Why are you suggesting we do that?

Manic Moran · 16-06-2021 02:46PM

Flinty997 wrote: »

I guess they weren't anticipating a warzone like those two places in Ireland. Are you suggesting we should be equipped for that kind of conflict.

Aircraft light attack trainers are used all over the world. In a variety of roles.

Yes, but how many of those roles are practically applicable to the Irish situation?

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 16-06-2021 03:01PM

Flinty997 wrote: »

Why are you suggesting we do that?

Well worst scenario a maritime incident involving multiple armed terrorists, the aw139 would have little or no protection from rifle fire, sure it can barely keep the doors attached

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 03:15PM

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

Well worst scenario a maritime incident involving multiple armed terrorists, the aw139 would have little or no protection from rifle fire, sure it can barely keep the doors attached

What would you want in that scenario. I'm thinking how they deal with pirates.

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 03:24PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, but how many of those roles are practically applicable to the Irish situation?

No idea. I think they have limited use in an Irish context.

Larbre34 · 16-06-2021 03:24PM

Flinty997 wrote: »

I guess they weren't anticipating a warzone like those two places in Ireland. Are you suggesting we should be equipped for that kind of conflict.

Aircraft light attack trainers are used all over the world. In a variety of roles.

We should be equipped to adequately police the seas and skies of our State and those adjoining areas that we have responsibility for.

Like it or not (and I know you do not) the equation for Governments is not peace or war. Its not the absence of a military or full on conflict. Its about deterrence, its about asserting a presence and having a contingency for the unforeseen. That's what sovereign nations do.

Your inability to see the shades of grey in this stuff is pretty tiresome, and I neither know nor care whether it is trolling or just ignorance, but you're convincing no one in this place.

Gary kk · 16-06-2021 03:40PM

So we are looking for something fast enough to catch up if it must with air liners and bears. Dose it need to do anything else ?

Stovepipe · 16-06-2021 04:19PM

Be able to shoot,if required. Guns,missiles etc......as for overseas, the 139s are little more than warmed over millionaire's runabouts but the 135s would be a much more viable aircraft to use overseas. They are easy to ship, easy to fit out for a combat zone and the users like them. It would help our troops on UN missions enormously if they had their own helis for local reconnaisance/casevac/troop lift instead of going cap in hand to the UN every time.

Gary kk · 16-06-2021 04:31PM

Those the radar cross section matter for its role or is nice to have a lower one. How long is it's expected service time. How easily can it be refitted?

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 04:42PM

Stovepipe wrote: »

Be able to shoot,if required. Guns,missiles etc......as for overseas, the 139s are little more than warmed over millionaire's runabouts but the 135s would be a much more viable aircraft to use overseas. They are easy to ship, easy to fit out for a combat zone and the users like them. It would help our troops on UN missions enormously if they had their own helis for local reconnaisance/casevac/troop lift instead of going cap in hand to the UN every time.

You specifically asked about maritime rifle fire. You seemed to have shifted the goalposts a bit. Are the 135 rifle fire proof as was your original question.

Gary kk · 16-06-2021 04:54PM

Don't we buy the Mowags off them is there a large arms dealing industry in the country.

Larbre34 · 16-06-2021 05:10PM

Stovepipe wrote: »

Be able to shoot,if required. Guns,missiles etc......as for overseas, the 139s are little more than warmed over millionaire's runabouts but the 135s would be a much more viable aircraft to use overseas. They are easy to ship, easy to fit out for a combat zone and the users like them. It would help our troops on UN missions enormously if they had their own helis for local reconnaisance/casevac/troop lift instead of going cap in hand to the UN every time.

In principle, yes, but our AC helicopters are all civilian airframes, they have none of the military hardening available from Airbus or Leonardo (M designations) to survive harsh environments, small arms attack, or the extra punishment on engines from cold start dust offs and so on.

Besides, if we deployed even a couple of helis overseas, it would leave cover for tasks at home too thin, when you take maintenance and refit times into account on a fleet now in mid-life.

Personally I have no problem with the UN or other partner nations providing the air component to mandated missions, so long as Ireland provides its own specialist contribution in other ways, ARW, ground logistics fleet, advanced engineering and construction etc.

Gary kk · 16-06-2021 05:58PM

https://youtu.be/lZZWxxdqD7E

https://youtu.be/rc4ph5GdhX8

Manic Moran · 16-06-2021 06:30PM

Gary kk wrote: »

https://youtu.be/lZZWxxdqD7E

https://youtu.be/rc4ph5GdhX8

[MOD] No link dumps, please[/MOD]

Gary kk · 16-06-2021 06:34PM

Ok sorry.
Got busy just as I posted the links they show the TA 50 rated against other LCA. And until someone tells me of other roles that are needed I can't see why this would not meet the countries needs

Larbre34 · 16-06-2021 07:40PM

Gary kk wrote: »

https://youtu.be/lZZWxxdqD7E

https://youtu.be/rc4ph5GdhX8

Very entertaining but ultimately pointless.

Light Combat Aircraft is a contradiction in terms, unless you are duelling with other LCA types or planning to destroy armour and civilian targets on the ground, neither of which we will be.

We need interceptors. These aren't.

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 07:53PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

We should be equipped to adequately police the seas and skies of our State and those adjoining areas that we have responsibility for.

Like it or not (and I know you do not) the equation for Governments is not peace or war. Its not the absence of a military or full on conflict. Its about deterrence, its about asserting a presence and having a contingency for the unforeseen. That's what sovereign nations do.

Your inability to see the shades of grey in this stuff is pretty tiresome, and I neither know nor care whether it is trolling or just ignorance, but you're convincing no one in this place.

We were discussing light attack trainers. Basically what were our PC9 bought for. Someone derailed that into war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is an entirely different context. You've now jumped that into policing sea and sky. Which again is a different context.

It's a little boring if the only discussion allowed is 16 fighters for billions. I assume thats why tank man started a new subject.

Flinty997 · 16-06-2021 08:00PM

Gary kk wrote: »

Ok sorry.
Got busy just as I posted the links they show the TA 50 rated against other LCA. And until someone tells me of other roles that are needed I can't see why this would not meet the countries needs

Theres an argument it's not much cheaper than a pure fighter. So what's the point.

Especially if budget isn't a concern and money will be found regardless of public or political opinion.

Larbre34 · 16-06-2021 08:08PM

Gary kk wrote: »

Don't we buy the Mowags off them is there a large arms dealing industry in the country.

Switzerland? Yes, manufacturing as distinct from just dealing.

MOWAG is owned by General Dynamics, the American aerospace and defence giant. Pilatus Aircraft is wholly owned within Switzerland.

In General we operate EU or European manufactured equipment if there is a suitable product. We also get various things from the US, Canada, South Africa and Japan.

Gary kk · 16-06-2021 08:13PM

Flinty997 wrote: »

Theres an argument it's not much cheaper than a pure fighter. So what's the point.

Not sure how much a fighter is but from what I can tell around 25million per aircraft for the TA 50

sparky42 · 16-06-2021 08:28PM

Gary kk wrote: »

Ok sorry.
Got busy just as I posted the links they show the TA 50 rated against other LCA. And until someone tells me of other roles that are needed I can't see why this would not meet the countries needs

As I’ve said, if there is ever a purchase of fighter jets it’s a once in a lifetime, 40 years before replacement, hence the idea of buying something limited makes zero sense to me. Trying to buy something that just fills the current need is pointless, it’s like how limited the P60s are compared to pretty much any Western OPV because we just wanted it for West Coast operations.

sparky42 · 16-06-2021 08:28PM

Gary kk wrote: »

Not sure how much a fighter is but from what I can tell around 25million per aircraft for the TA 50

Again, we can just look at what the Gripen Lease is, or the recent Rafale buys…

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments