Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

19899101103104193

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    We have always been defenceless!

    We were defenceless in WW2, we were defenceless in the Cold War, we were defenceless during the Troubles, we were defenceless during the “War on Terror” years, are you somehow suggesting we weren’t at risk at all for the last hundred years until now. Why are you jumping into this thread an acting like you alone have made this amazing discovery, or that somehow it’s a change from the norm? And actual point of fact getting back to the “size of the economy bit” while a tiny % of gdp, the actual budget is several times what it was when we were spending above 1% on defence during the Troubles.

    Amazingly (and in some cases unfortunately) politicians do things and spend on things that get them re-elected. New roads, businesses, housing stock, health. The Irish people want that, spending on defence, not so much. If the budget is doubled to €2 billion, expect a shitload of complaining in the Daíl, just look at the shite PBP etc are spewing today for example. And even then the budget is unlikely to stretch to fighters, however most likely will pay for finally setting up the Primary Radar systems.

    Besides which arguably the threat of Russia has been greatly weakened as their Ukrainian misadventure has proved that they are in a terrible state. Also the argument that the government priority is somehow to sustain the status quo goes against everything we have seen since the Commissions report. You have read that right?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yes and no, while the Air Force has been relatively limited in operations and therefore still intact, Russia has basically spent its active combat strength in the war, from manpower and vehicles to PGM ordnance, along with some appalling service rates as well.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Putin has been ramping up for years. With his over flights and aggressive posturing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Indeed, I’m not denying that, just pointing out that Russians ability to back up such behaviour has just been rather publicly exposed as far from the threat many believed. The scale of corruption and ill-training is quite amazing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    They seemed more able in Syria. But they were up against a far less well equipped opposition.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    They effectively faced no opposition in the air during Syria, or any integrated air defence system, which allowed them to bomb the crap out of anyone they wanted. They also only operated in small numbers and the Russian military system basically supports a small number from a much larger unit operating a full capability. Now that they had to use large scale formations that doesn’t work. There’s also apparently a huge issue with Russian Air Force training and doctrine with limited multi unit coordinated strikes for example be seen in Ukraine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Emperor and his new clothes it seems.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Yep, I mean when you are losing Generals because the comm system has collapsed and they have to use unencrypted cell phones while all of NATO is watching and telling the Ukrainians...

    Or this list of potential issues

    On the other hand for those thinking Neutrality will stop Russia, it's just been admitted that Russia flew into Swedish Airspace with nuclear weapons a couple of weeks ago...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    How does this play into our discussion here.

    For it seems something more modem but still affordable is still where we in need to be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    Jets aren't affordable - this is an expensive business, but the vast majority of first world countries see the need for it, the irish public are somehow blind to it though.

    we've had decades of the Gov/DF trying to do things on the cheap and look where we are now?

    anything less than a 4th gen supersonic aircraft is a waste of taxpayers money.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    There a big difference in cost (especially in running costs) even in 4th gen fighters



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Course there is, the likely cheapest would be F16's either from the Boneyard or the retiring fleets, however if we want to bring them up to current spec they get expensive. After that you are left with the usual suspects.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    We need to be accurate about history. Just immediately after Mid WW11 we had a conventional capability with about a dozen frontline Fighters, the Hurricane, later added to by Seafires and Vampires. The Navy had it's then frontline Corvette Escorts preceded by 6 MTB's with torpedoes. We opted for total disarmament in the Navy and Air Corps and we were all seen off by bad decisions and delighted C/Servants.

    Popular flexible roled aircraft like the Harrier were ignored although capable of operating from any area suitable for both VTOL and forward flight, including GAA all weather pitches referred to earlier. The problem now is that there is a Technical and Training ceiling to be broken through and do we have the courage and belief to go for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,063 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    I doubt it… a Taoiseach mentions tomorrow a multi million or billion euro investment in the Aer Corps and defence forces the NGOs and a load of the GETEA ( give everything to everybody else ) brigade would have a conniption.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,370 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    The russians seam to be having severe internal communication and agreement issues aswell



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭ancientmariner


    Our on-going problem is strategic blindness. We are always caught a dollar short. It is Defence and volatility right now in Europe. Yet we were happy to let tech. companies feed us the benefits of being connected to Gas and electric Grids and close down many high output Irish Power Stations. In Defence we opted for show the Flag, fetch, carry, rescue, flood defences , feed animals in snow, and put out fires.

    You can build a thousand houses over two years and a stick of bombs can level them and the occupants in seconds of mayhem. Some blame also attaches to the Military leadership and ongoing neutrality paralysis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Well you'll need more aircraft than they had so...

    Note: as part of ongoing events, the following numbers may be outdated. The Russian Defence Ministry has claimed that over 100 air defence systems and over 90 aircraft have been disabled or destroyed as of 6 March 2022.[52] No official figures from the Ukrainian Defence Ministry were immediately available. According to US defense officials, UKAF still has 56 operational fighter jets as of 11 March 2022

    I suspect the reality is their aircraft and the Russian's do not have any "modern" defense against the anti air defenses missiles and guns on the ground.

    Which is why the Russians are reverting to shelling and rockets because they don't control the air either. Through they have a 5 to 1 advantage in numbers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 586 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    This submission to commission on defence would seem to state otherwise.


    God help us, Jonny might have been right 😣



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 455 ✭✭KieferFan69


    Ireland is silly you shouldn’t even bother with army others will protect beware if of debt



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    If they build a military strong enough to keep Russia at bay, Russia will never allow it on it's doorstep. Cuba etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 455 ✭✭KieferFan69




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Interesting saying we need to be accurate and then not being. No the Hurricanes, sea fires and vampires were not frontline aircraft by the time we had them in service, nor did we have the capability to even use their limited capabilities. No the Flower class corvettes were not frontline warships being an emergency war program already succeed in service by far better designs when we got them and not even close to being “frontline” by the time we retired them. The MTBs were an early and limited variant of MTBs compared to other British designs and highly illsuited to Irish Sea state conditions.

    Harriers were never popular, they filled a role for navies that wanted air power but couldn’t afford large carriers and the US Marines, other than that they had a relatively limited customer base, and a high loss rate. Moreover given its single engine nature and limited payload and range how you think it would have served a purpose in Irish service is beyond me.

    Where we are today is effectively the same as where we have always been, not enough of anything, but enough for the politicians to point at.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Harrier

    "...It was conceived to operate from improvised bases, such as car parks or forest clearings, without requiring large and vulnerable air bases. Later, the design was adapted for use from aircraft carriers..."

    At the end of WW2 it was realized that aircraft operating from rough runways would be useful. Especially in the Cold War. RAF practiced it for years. That's the main roll of the Harrier.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Nah, at least some of the hurricanes were bought from the Brits rather than repaired and reused, but they were long out of the frontline usage by then, don’t think they were even being used as CAS at that point, hence why the U.K. finally sold them to us. After that you’re right for the AC.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    All except Finland are too big for Russia to roll over. Well in the past anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Russia had a fairly bad time of it in Finland when they tried in the Winter War.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,469 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Against an overwhelming level of force and the Soviets suffer massive losses, if Finland had received the level of international support that Ukraine currently has they most likely would have won.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,987 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Incidentally the Harrier is one of the hardest aircraft to fly.



Advertisement