Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

That asinine analogy makes no sense.

The issue is there are modern fighters like the Gripen, which will be much cheaper to run than old F16's or Rafale's and do the same job for us. Its unclear how the running costs of the Gripen compare to a new largely unknown Light Fighter/Trainer type which has 60~70 of the capability.

That's assuming the ROI makes any sense. Which is debatable.

The Fa/T-50 would just about do in terms of top speed (mach 1.5) and service ceiling (55,000 ft), but what kind of ground support would be necessary to guide them in to intercept?

As interception and deterrence is the sole mission, the ability to scramble and put a radar guided missile on track is vital too. The T-50 can handle Mavericks, but they are a very expensive option. If it could go with European alternatives (Matra, etc) it might be better. Doesn't even need to be BVR, as such, just radar guided for that "Go on, on yer bike" messaging.

We are unlikely to see many Tu-160s flouncing through Irish airspace, but even the ability to ensure that one would have to hitch up its skirts to head over 60k feet and above mach 2 would ensure they don't hang around long as our problem. Beyond that, it would be the slow eyeball to eyeball dance with the Bears.

I would tend to agree overall, the Gripen, as a whole weapons system and platform, for its ruggedness, versatility, and overall access to expertise, makes a lot more sense.

but how we we track them while they are in our airspace?

You'd think the radar would be useful with or without the fighters.

Though intended to work as a system.

Name me any country that doesn't overspend on public projects? I mean that's just a silly attitude to take. As for the "light fighter option", if that's all that's going to be looked at, I stand by my position of "don't bother, invest those funds in other areas of the DF rather than waste it."

I do.

As it stands, the civil aviation authorities cannot see any aircraft that turns off its transponder, or just experiences a systems failure.

We have responsibility for the air traffic over the ocean, in an area far larger than the size of the island, that tracks through 70% of flights between Europe and North America.

So in terms of improving the capability of the IAA, as well as enabling improved partnerships with the foreign aviation stakeholders, civil and military, a primary radar would never be wasted, even if we didn't have interceptor aircraft to respond to any situation. Information is power.

While we would certainly get that in some form for the Russians, an airliner that goes non responsive might be another question?

Too few, not enough variants procured, and far too long before getting upgrades. We can be very grateful we didn’t lose an entire section from IEDs or advanced RPGs.

I'm the first to say we need Interceptors, but if a modern light attack jet can reach Mach 1.5 and possesses a full suite of modern electronics and avionics, why wouldn't they suit a fairly basic need like Ireland's?

Lets be realistic, even if we got a squadron of Gripens or F-16s tomorrow, there's no way they could deploy at supersonic speed over land in a QRA, so any units would have to be based in the West or Northwest to immediately reach the sovereign airspace boundary over the ocean, in which case a Mach 1.5 aircraft would be sufficient to close on any civilian aircraft or Russian long range recon type at a speed ratio of over 2:1.

Are people on this thread seriously talking about Ireland getting fighter jets ''to defend ourselves'' if an invasion actually did happen our only chance would be Guerilla warfare in an attempt to make occupying us more trouble than it's worth.

UK did ok with Lightnings for many years. Absolute Rocket ship with no legs, two missiles. Remember those over wing tanks.

They moved to the Tornado which was a slug, but could loiter for hours. Couldn't fight its way out of paper bag.

TBH the Spitfire was the same. No legs. But with Ground based Radar and Fighter control as a coordinated system was exactly the right tool for the job at the right time.

What we want is not some worn out 1970's design. We want something new cheap to maintain and upgrade going forward. That is the Gripen because even the software and weapons are modular on those. Maintenance and running costs on something like a F16A/B is far higher. Gripen is a local supplier. There so much thats mutually advantageous with that.

Could we get 60~70% of the requirement for less cost with a light fighter/trainer? Maybe. Costs are a unknown. Do we want 60~70% of the requirement.

What part? Pretty much all of it.

Solution to an expensive car (even used), is a cheaper car.

A light fighter/trainer is not slow, and there lots of examples of them being armed with Radar and Air to Air and being Mach 1.5/2. Its not equivalent to a basic trainer, or even a turbo pro trainer. its a lead in Trainer for Jets. That means high speeds, emulate operational fighter planes with systems and operations and tactics. They've also been used operationally in this role by some nations.

On your bike with your half baked analogies

No, but you need to be able to loiter on station for as long as required.

a single flight wont out loiter a bear so you need another flight available to relieve the first. you need to provide escort until the russians get bored of playing silly buggers or an airliner is a position to land.

Suprisingly easy I would say to RV with the RAF & take over, thats hows its done.