Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

All army's spend there time that way. Very little time is spent in combat. But you seem to have forgotten the service personnel on peace keeping.

Defence forces not offensive forces I guess would be the best wording you should watch for.

I'd like to see where I've been proven wrong in this thread (I must be on to something), thanks.

If an unknown aircraft enters your airspace, detected thanks to your primary radar, you route aircraft around it. You send a couple of fighters out if you have fighters for some other purpose (i.e. protecting your navy's activity, your MPA aircraft in the Baltic Sea) as a useful currency building jaunt, not for the sole purpose of safe navigation.

By this logic, we should bait the Russians into a costly folly themselves - why not buy a few SSKs, and regularly head up to the Kola Oblast. Make them spend a billion or so chasing us for appearances sake.

Speaking of risk assessment, any such exercise would identify these flights as low risk requiring minimal direct intervention. An aircraft cannot hang around, can't carry very much and is easily detectable. It can't cause us any lasting harm, if defending our country is what we're on about. If we're only interested in keeping up appearances, I suppose we will need a dozen Gripens.

Given our position in Europe and the capabilities of Russia and others, the greatest conventional threat we face is by sea and not by air. The fact that a good deal of these flights by Russia are for the purpose of communicating with their submarines tells us all we need to know.

Is there no Shannon protest thread for some you guys ?

The Costa Ricans spent more on defence as a percentage of GDP than we do and they don't even have a military.

Current gen (ie 4.5+) are going to be in service for another 40 years, at best their are projects to make the new 6 gen ones “optionally” even the US with 2 5 gen and a 6 gen in service have restarted buying F15s, all the nations you mentioned as having spending levels well above us are buying new 4.5 or 5 gen aircraft, but you seem to know better? Right now the NATO UCAVs in development are classed as “Loyal Wingman” types to be operated with manned aircraft rather than without, given current lifespans the fighters being bought today will still be in service to around 2050 onwards.

Yep. I think that says it all! :)

Well, I said in the first line of my post that I am no military expert but I do believe that aircraft like the F-35 are the last generation of manned fighters being planned. Or so I was told some time ago by people better informed than me. Granted, they are due to stay in service for decades but I believe that the future is in remote controlled unmanned drones. I will bow to any clarification on this point from people who know more about it than I.

However, you don't have to be a military genius to work out that building a credible manned, supersonic, stealthy fighter aircraft force from scratch is going to be hideously expensive. The entire infrastructure of suitable airfields, maintenance and support, secure hangars, spare parts, backup aircraft etc et would be mind bogglingly expensive. Even the independent TD who was once an Army Ranger scoffed at such suggestions on Prime Time a few nights ago. "Let's walk before we try to run," was his summary.

Also, there is the question of the size of the force needed. How many fighter aircraft is enough? Given the expense of the support infrastructure needed there would be a requirement for some economy of scale to bring down the unit cost of ancillary activities. So how many such aircraft would we need to even to begin to make them cost effective? And how necessary would such a large force be for our requirements?

How useful would, say, 10 such aircraft be? Given that it would cost literally billions just to deploy such a small number? Is it worthwhile to deploy instead some older aircraft that other countries are either phasing out or relegating to backup or secondary roles? Is there a better way to spend our money and provide a credible defence? I'm only asking.

I am not opposed to increasing our defence spending. Being ranked down among the Mauritius's and Laos's of the world is an embarrassment, and as the poster above says (and the CIA WF figures confirm) Costa Rica spends a greater proportion of its income on defence than we do and they are constitutionally barred from even having an army!!!!!!

Spend it wisely is all I'm saying.

I like the look of that SAAB aicraft all right. Probably an ideal fit for our needs offshore Ireland.

I am loving how very reasonable and considered critiques are provoking the consensus here. Would you care to get into his point rather than referring to the Commission's report 3 times?

The retired Air Corp GOC who appeared before the Oireachtas last year put the cost at anywhere between peanuts and a billion a year.

Considering that lifetime costs are typically in the region of 3 times the outlay, lifetime costs are absolutely in the billions (and they should be if you're acquiring something half decent).

His point as to the economies of scale are also valid - huge spend for a dozen air-to-air only fighters when so little is actually going to defence in the best case scenario is highly questionable.

We don't exist in isolation and, last I checked, we live in the real world, which includes Commission Terms of Reference designed to keep all branches of the DF happy.

The casa is intercepting the herc lol

Would there be many pilots from Ireland in the states or uk that would come back if a decent aircraft was available?

Surely there'd be a lot more to it than an attractive fast jet.

To begin with, you couldn't give any new pilot an assurance that they would get fast jets. They might fail the physical for type rating, or very simply there might be gaps in the transport squadrons that need filling and you could be ferrying patients to London or mail to Lebanon.

A huge exercise needs to go into what an 'Air Force' actually looks like, the prospects, the education, the variety, the full career trajectory, for enlisted and officers alike. It must be done hand in hand with a paper exercise on equipment and bases. What about training up Aviation W.O.s to supplement the roster?

With the Brits being in NATO this has annual budgets worth around EUR 2.5 billion, the Resource Policy and Planning Board with nato have requested to this spending to be brought upto .3% in to make it achievable for all members. Trump kicked up over this two years ago becuase the US were the only nation achieving the target year on year.

The same deal you speak off is also done with France-Greece regarding the purchase of the rafale. Hopefully coveney and co get there ducks in a row and start spending asap, those Russians haven't forgotten about the weak point.

I agree with you guys. And it is not simply a matter of buying shiny new planes. A big mountain to climb.

You recruit them from friendly nations