Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Lorddrakul · 17-06-2021 11:55am

Dohvolle wrote: »

Kevin used to be in the Silver Swallows back in the day. A fine pilot.
The key point joe public could get from listening is the following:
Everyone else does it except us

its bloody dangerous that we don't

it will cost us, but given our past history, we will get great VFM

Anything is better than our current capability, which equates to looking through binos at errant aircraft

At least we are having the discussion.

This is all well observed and finely reasoned, but as a plane nerd I wanted to hear him say we need to buy Gripens in a range of colours.

Dohvolle · 17-06-2021 12:32pm

Lorddrakul wrote: »

This is all well observed and finely reasoned, but as a plane nerd I wanted to hear him say we need to buy Gripens in a range of colours.

It could become part of the children's art competition. Design tailfin art!

Dohvolle · 17-06-2021 12:36pm

https://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/highlights-from-the-pat-kenny-show/do-have-we-the-capacity-to-police-our-own-skies

Larbre34 · 17-06-2021 1:06pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

It could become part of the children's art competition. Design tailfin art!

It's a nice idea, but really all we need is a Gripen wrapped in a full body tricolour decal to challenge the new Union Flag Typhoon in mock dogfights over the Irish Sea.

All joking aside though, how *HOW* did the irony of painting a Eurofighter F2 in a Union Flag not occur to them?

Dohvolle · 17-06-2021 1:13pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

It's a nice idea, but really all we need is a Gripen wrapped in a full body tricolour decal to challenge the new Union Flag Typhoon in mock dogfights over the Irish Sea.

All joking aside though, how *HOW* did the irony of painting a Eurofighter F2 in a Union Flag not occur to them?

They needed something to coordinate with the similarly painted Tanker/Transport.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/royal-air-force-unveils-new-union-jack-colour-scheme-for-their-display-aircraft-b1856152.html

Markcheese · 17-06-2021 2:55pm

Each Beckett class was about 60 million (ish ) ? , and has zero defence capability - ( policing ,fishery protection fair enough ) , and each ship has 2 crews of 40 / 50 people , plus the support staff back at base ... and a fairly considerable fuel burn . ..
We ,as a state pay this ,because it's deemed necessary ..
If we deem it necessary to get a few second hand grippens from Sweden ,and train up crews and support staff it'll be done - just not quickly ( which would be a problem if we suddenly need an air capability )

Stovepipe · 17-06-2021 4:07pm

The Navy ships don't have a full set of 2 crews per vessel so the seagoing personnel are run ragged and are leaving because they are knackered. In terms of how long it takes to get operational with fighters, Hungary gave itself 5 years to accept the Gripen, change over to Nato standards (for it's entire infrastructure from the ground up) and behaviour and declare themselves operationally ready to Nato standards. That was a skilled fast jet operator, with hundreds of competent air and ground crew and a deep corporate body of experience. So,they soon had the aircraft operating at a basic level but it took the full five years and they still weren't fully ready but they were mostly there. So,if we had to start operating fighters in the near future, we would have to start preparing for it at least a year before the first one arrived, just to get training started and equipment bought and the usable airfields adapted to fighter operations and storage for weapons built and a million other things beside.
You'd also have to explain to the population around Baldonnel that the sound of afterburners will have to be tolerated....

Larbre34 · 17-06-2021 4:11pm

Not really. A fast jet operation would be unsuitable for Baldonnell for lots of reasons, not just for local noise issues, but to go on a QRA task off the west coast it would be impossible to have supersonic aircraft traversing the island and going high to mitigate that would be too time and fuel consuming.

As we've been saying here and Kevin Byrne echoed in his interview, Shannon would be the place for a co-located air base to send aircraft out over the ocean at speed.

Gary kk · 17-06-2021 4:16pm

I would think Shannon would become the main stay of any jet. It's probably the most likely place any other country would bomb first. Given its role for Transatlantic travel. But unlikely event will hopefully never happen

Sorry took five mins to type the above.

Larbre34 · 17-06-2021 4:34pm

Gary kk wrote: »

It's probably the most likely place any other country would bomb first. Given its role for Transatlantic travel.

Do you even understand the conversation that's going on here?

This has nothing to do with any sort of wartime scenario. We are talking about the logistics and apparatus behind a peacetime air defence capability for this State. Is that much not clear by now?

Gary kk · 17-06-2021 4:43pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Do you even understand the conversation that's going on here?

This has nothing to do with any sort of wartime scenario. We are talking about the logistics and apparatus behind a peacetime air defence capability for this State. Is that much not clear by now?

I thought that yesterday then someone said we need an air superiority jet not one that was escorting the odd bear or looking into the cockpit of a passenger plane.

Wait I will share down below.

Told we need aircraft that can last 40 years as well. Then told we might have to buy second hand. Maybe it's not me that getting thing confused but those that want an aircraft that far exceeds our needs and budget.

Gary kk · 17-06-2021 4:44pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

The same role any interceptor or combat air patrol aircraft is needed for in peacetime.

To be tasked to and to intercept any suspicious or irresponsible aircraft in our area of responsibility at high speed,

This includes, but is not limited to; Russian reconnaissance aircraft operating in civilian air corridors without transponders, civilian airliners that have lost communications and/or whose intentions may be uncertain, to assist and inspect any aircraft reporting damage or a loss of control, to intercept and escort suspected criminal aircraft or drones involved in drug or human trafficking, or any other type of smuggling, to assist the subsonic Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the exercise of its tasks in any manner requested, including any future counter-submarine activity in territorial waters.

Basically, the stuff that modern sovereign nations do routinely all over the World.

See this one ?

Gary kk · 17-06-2021 4:46pm

Get your own story straight and try not to be an ass .

Larbre34 · 17-06-2021 4:53pm

What? Are you being deliberately obtuse or is something else going on here?

None of what I described there are wartime tasks. That's literally just a long hand description of typical peacetime air defence capability!

Gary kk · 17-06-2021 4:56pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

What? Are you being deliberately obtuse or is something else going on here?

None of what I described there are wartime tasks. That's literally just a long hand description of typical peacetime air defence capability!

You do you, we ain't going agree. If you could keep insults to yourself in future that would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Gary kk · 17-06-2021 5:07pm

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.

Sorry it was this one and I will find the other.

Larbre34 · 17-06-2021 5:21pm

Don't bother.

Gary kk · 17-06-2021 5:33pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Don't bother.

Are you sure ok. Which one of the above do I go with just for future reference the one that says anything could happen because your looking for 4.5 gen fighter. Or the one where you call me a fool because it suited you at the time.

Gary kk · 17-06-2021 5:46pm

Anyway you do bring a solid point since we a so very unlikely to ever need aircraft for combat. Maybe you all should reconsider the role and type of aircraft needed. I will unfollow now.

Heart Break Kid · 17-06-2021 5:48pm

Mig-29 anyone, worked for Belerus, its not like were going to be doing anything other than forcing commercial planes to land.

Dohvolle · 17-06-2021 6:14pm

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

Mig-29 anyone, worked for Belerus, its not like were going to be doing anything other than forcing commercial planes to land.

Helo 1986. Welcome to the 21st century. Much has changed. Remember Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia, Soviet Union? All gone now.
Are you an antique dealer? Because that's what the Export Mig 29 is. No western state is still using them. Have a look at the hoops India went through to get theirs upgraded. Lebanon was offerred some free of charge but went with attack helis instead.
Export model still has 70s era analog avionics. All russian made. The Russian operated versions are very different, but we won't get them unless we become a part of the Russian Federation, and given how the Russians are already a part of many reasons we need these aircraft.. no thanks.

Flinty997 · 17-06-2021 7:27pm

Lorddrakul wrote: »

....

Light combat aircraft would be the likes of the Hawk, L-39, TA-50, et al.

Were a Tu-160, or an SU-34, to take a stroll through Irish airspace, I'm not sure what good that class of aircraft would be.

Just looking at it, the KAI TA-50 might be quick enough, but with a service ceiling of 48k ft, it would struggle to get high enough. But even then, at only Mach 1.5, both of these aircraft could hitch up their skirts and high tail it beyond.

TA-50s would catch the Bears, but the Flankers and White Swans would disappear into the Atlantic horizon.

Do we not want them to disappear into the Atlantic Horizon?

Out of curiosity what would you suggest for catching a mach 2 bomber at full pelt. A mach 2 fighter won't catch it.

donvito99 · 17-06-2021 7:35pm

There is no peacetime need for fast jets.

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 17-06-2021 8:23pm

I have yet to see a discussion on the purchase of second-hand F16s. If I have missed it please do let me know.
There was an excellent purchase by the Romanians back in 2013. They purchased 12 jets from Portugal and paid a little over 600 million euros, including maintenance, in instalments over 4 years. Surely we could do something similar. Egypt is phasing out some of its aging f-16 fleet as they recently purchased 30 Rafale fighters. The Hellenic airforce is also getting rid some of of there fleet and replacing those f-16s with Rafales. They are getting rid of F-4 and a corsair but not trying to do a Vietnam rerun. Rather there f-16s, they were good QRA aircraft for the Turkish incursions.

And speaking of the Rafales, the Haf are paying 2.5 billion euro for the sale of 18 Rafales. Albeit it is a mix of second hand and brand new versions with an overall operations cost of 400million for Rafale. It would be great if DOD Jumped on such deals with either of the above nations as Dassault seem to getting great Arms deals.

Just a thought but if the point was made in the thread let me know.

saabsaab · 17-06-2021 8:33pm

donvito99 wrote: »

There is no peacetime need for fast jets.

If you do need them they won't be there.

Larbre34 · 17-06-2021 8:42pm

donvito99 wrote: »

There is no peacetime need for fast jets.

Yes, there is.

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 17-06-2021 8:47pm

donvito99 wrote: »

There is no peacetime need for fast jets.

How did you get to that conclusion?

sparky42 · 17-06-2021 9:22pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

I have yet to see a discussion on the purchase of second-hand F16s. If I have missed it please do let me know.
There was an excellent purchase by the Romanians back in 2013. They purchased 12 jets from Portugal and paid a little over 600 million euros, including maintenance, in instalments over 4 years. Surely we could do something similar. Egypt is phasing out some of its aging f-16 fleet as they recently purchased 30 Rafale fighters. The Hellenic airforce is also getting rid some of of there fleet and replacing those f-16s with Rafales. They are getting rid of F-4 and a corsair but not trying to do a Vietnam rerun. Rather there f-16s, they were good QRA aircraft for the Turkish incursions.

And speaking of the Rafales, the Haf are paying 2.5 billion euro for the sale of 18 Rafales. Albeit it is a mix of second hand and brand new versions with an overall operations cost of 400million for Rafale. It would be great if DOD Jumped on such deals with either of the above nations as Dassault seem to getting great Arms deals.

Just a thought but if the point was made in the thread let me know.

Suppose it depends on how much usage they have had, I mean the Greek 16s would have been used very hard with the Turkish incursions. Also of course getting F16s mean having to get US approval for purchases, they might want to try flogging new ones rather second hand ones (from memory they blocked Israel from selling some to one of the Eastern European countries).

Also don’t forget that for the Greek deal, they are asking for a lot of weapons that we wouldn’t be looking for.

jonnybigwallet · 17-06-2021 9:42pm

That KAI jet is the best choice to get some decent firepower without breaking the bank.....

donvito99 · 17-06-2021 9:44pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yes, there is.

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

How did you get to that conclusion?

There is no threat to our air space in peacetime.

Please tell us the circumstances in which 'an interceptor' is required without some sort of conventional, persistent threat to our interest.

And let's not have this "a stricken airliner may need directions" nonsense as we had the last time around.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments