Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Of course it isn't.

For about 47 appreciable reasons.

And your 'planes in the air now' strategy, who or what do you intend to fly them, fuel them, maintain them, arm them, control and direct them, and shelter them.

Did it occur to you that they are cheap for a reason, the air combat equivalent of a 1992 Ford Fiesta with 300k miles on the clock?

It's the 'some African country' who would rather strafe rebels out in the bush than feed their children, that Israel have in mind for these right now, not a western nation located in the middle of NATO.

In fact, can you imagine the NATO response? 'You're not flying those **** boxes in proximity to our very expensive fighters, tankers and AWACs Paddy, thanks all the same!'

Why not operate two types? An intercepter and a ground attack plane? Could save a few bob that way as the ground attack item doesn't have to be state of the art....

Because a) we don’t need a ground attack plane and b) any of the modern aircraft can handle any ground attack roles, nobody builds a dedicated interceptor anymore. Hell the USAF have been trying to kill off the A10 for decades as while it has good PR it can only really operate in permissive environments.

Assuming the other guy doesn’t shot back of course, the SU 25s haven’t had an easy time over Ukraine for example. More to the point again the A 10 has limitations, that loiter time is offset by a much longer transit time due to its lower top speed and relatively short range, nor is its payload a huge margin over 4.5 gen fighters.

The USAF has been banging its head against the US Congress since the first Gulf War on the issue, and frankly it’s a complete non issue for Ireland. Hell it’s a non issue for any Western State outside of the US as none of them have such a dedicated plane.

Well let’s also factor in the appalling performance of the Russians with even their SAM systems either being knocked out while turned off, or breaking down. But yes the performance of drones is massively increasing and should be looked at, along with a massive change in our active defences for the army against drone threats.

Great purpose for the Air Corps in the reforms. All pilot training and airmanship skills, manned and unmanned, for all services, should be with the Air Corps.

The Flying Training School and Ground School should be renewed, as a centre of excellence similar to the National Maritime College.

It could be linked up with the IAA and their civilian programmes for appropriate crossover areas.

Come to think of it, Shannon would be a great location for such a College. The IAA centre is already there and in the event that an Air Corps station does happen in Shannon for Atlantic airspace defence, the concentration of work and investment there would be very valuable, in every respect.

Depends, are their T1s similar to any of the other T1s that are due for replacement?

They were upgraded to the then "latest" T1 standard in 2013.

Here is a complete outside the box question. The Mig 29s that poland wanted to give to ukraine that are upgraded to a nato level, say we where offered them would it be possabile to operate them. What do poland do for spare parts?

The plane which wins hands down in terms of operating cost is the Gripen, with the F16 in second place. That F35 appears to be an expensive crock of shite and the only reason so many are selling are because of its VTOL capability which makes it the go-to plane for UK Italy Spain Japan and others who are building mini aircraft carriers.

When an Air Corps cadet starts off, he or she is essentially immersed at CPL level. PPL level training is just a minor step to be achieved, to merely prove that the cadet is capable of flying and not bending the aircraft, being receptive to instruction and rapid learning (and the threat of "the chop"). The CPL and Multi-engine/Instrument rating level is Big School, as you have to fly to higher standards, make less mistakes, recognise those errors and fix them and cope with the strange environment of IR flight. Usually, by this time, a few cadets have been chopped so the focus is intense. Instrument training also chops a few more and aerobatics/unusual attitude recovery gets a few, so by the time they get their wings, they've been through the mill. That's the first part over. Conversion to something like a Hawk is another leap. Many Air Arms use civvy schools but they tend to get them to operate to a near replica of Military training with all the rote routines and command structure and so on, that a real civvy would laugh at. The US military is a case in point. It's effectively a filtering system created by accountants so that the US doesn't "waste" money on fleets of basic trainers, but it has worked for decades and serves a huge military. Airlines who use schools like Jerez also push their students hard but they also give their candidates more chances to correct mistakes and they don't need aerobatic pilots or potential bomb droppers and they have a higher success rate. The Military have also recognised that the "chop" mentality was cutting good cadets who could have used a little bit more help and would have passed the course or could have been streamed to non-fighter aircraft or rotary. Both Military and Civvy training have their good and bad points but it would be a stupid Military that disregarded the good points of Civilian school training.

why should Lt Cols not fly? they get Flying pay, you stick them on the roster. Same as any airline. You train them, you use them.

Let me give you an example; the Air Corps museum has a wheeled radar unit, an old one from the 60s. It turned out that the Army "gifted" the Museum a couple of L60 Bofors guns and a radar. Bearing in mind that the Don had never operated either, people were a bit bemused but it was decided that they should be kept. No-one knew anything about them, as they had NEVER, in all their service history, operated in Baldonnel but would go to Gormanstown for AA shoots. So, the Army had an anti aircraft system, that the Air Corps were unfamiliar with, the AC had never practised air defence with them on their home turf and the only integration with them was to shoot at towed targets once a year. You'd think that an Air Arm would train against an anti aircraft system, from a military point of view, wouldnt you?

Jesus Stovepipe your not holding back today😁

The only reason i mentioned Lt Cols was because i had mentioned similar before i was told that rank should not be flying as there managment

Yeah it's mainly the T1's that seem to have had the most issues, but even in the later Tranches you then get into some significant differences between users.