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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

1142143145147148196

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 826 ✭✭✭newcavanman




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 484 ✭✭Bodan



    Irish government just missed out on a great deal. I wonder did it even cross our desk.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    These are clearly supplementary orders, and as far as the European operators are concerned, they are all NATO members. Why would/should Ireland have been involved and, anyway, what would we do with them?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Fight WW3 seems to be the general idea. There are lot cheaper options than a F35. Which seems to have more problems and cost increases everytime I read about it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,901 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Absolute crate the F-35.

    The Americans are falling over themselves now ordering hundreds of F-15 EX Eagle II's for Air Force and Air National Guard Units, which would be the air superiority fighter to win any large complex conventional international war. And it would win.

    They're big, fast and teak tough and most importantly, proven.

    Keep your 5th Gen show ponies, I'll take 500 XEs and 500 F16Vs any day and leave the strategic stuff to stand off smart weapons.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭sparky42


    They aren't actually, at most currently they have ordered 144 and are as usual bouncing around that number and trading off on other buys, right now it’s only 104 either in service or on order, I very much doubt given the budget crunches coming their way and the plan to procure both the B21 and the 6th gen fighter that we will see the “hundreds” that you are suggesting.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    The numbers have gone down and up everytime I read something on them. They are basically trying to pull finding from one aircraft program to pay for rising costs of other big ticket programs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Its not just the F35 engine. They made so many changes on the entire aircraft and system during production. That parts are often not interchangeable. So it delays maintenance is often delayed until the match the right part with the right build of jet.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Which is the same as every type, nothing to do with the 35 explicitly. You can see that with early F22s compared to later builds, or the Tranche 1 Typhoons compared to Tranche 2 and 3s hence why you see attempts to decommission said early lots by their users and replace them either with alternatives (F22 since the build was so small) or later Tranches (Spain and Germany for example), or reducing numbers like the RAF, or selling off earlier “orphans” like the French. And that’s just “current” designs

    The F35 has many problems but don’t act like all of them are unique to it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    The various Tranches on those aircraft were mostly about adding new weapon systems and system updates.

    It didn't result in half your aircraft being aircraft unflyable because spare parts aren't interchangeable.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Not true at all, the early 22s systems aren’t compatible in terms of spares with the later versions and can’t be economically brought up to the same standard, same for the T1 Typhoons. It’s not a new issue, virtually every airframe has the same problems from first production lots to later ones as supply chains change.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Not what I'm reading....

    The Air Force may have ended up with 187 Raptors, but that doesn’t mean it ended up with 187 fighting Raptors. The service always intended to build a significant number of F-22s to a less complex Block 20 standard—training planes that were incapable of real-world air combat. Unfortunately, as the number of Raptors was cut by more than half, the Block 20 jets made up a larger number of the overall fleet than originally intended. Although the Air Force received 187 Raptors, 74 were built to the Block 10/20 standard, incapable of combat, while 112 are so-called Block 30 and Block 35 “combat-coded” jets, fully combat ready.

    In March 29 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee’s tactical aviation panel, Moore said the Block 20s are not “competitive” with the latest Chinese J-20 stealth fighters. And while the aircraft could be used for training, Moore said they are so out of synch with the combat-coded Block 35s that pilots are receiving “negative” training from them, meaning they have to “unlearn” habits developed in the Block 20 before they can become proficient in the Block 35.


    “They’re not combat representative,” Moore added during the Mitchell event. “They will never be a part of the combat force. They don’t have the most modern communications. They don’t shoot the most modern weapons. They don’t have the most modern electronic warfare capabilities. They will not become combat representative aircraft, and so we elected to maintain our position from [fiscal year] ‘23 that it’s time to move on from the Block 20.”

    These jets are almost 20yrs old.

    As for Typhoons,

    The Ministry of Defence (MOD) attempted to justify the decision on the grounds that Tranche 1 software could not be updated to Tranche 3 standard in the same way that Tranche 2 software could, and that having fleets within fleets would not be operationally viable.

    For the Typhoons its not a simple discussion. There are some physical difference in the jets but nothing that stopped them flying. It seems like they just don't want to use the money on the Tranche 1 jets preferring to spend it on F35s. Because most of things they say can't be done have been offered as an option. They are just deciding not to do it.

    In the past there have been whole fleets of old aircraft stripped and brought up to a modern spec.

    Really sounds like a completely different issue.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    There a real hard on for the F35 on this forum, where only the latest and the greatest is good enough. I get that we are told its its a force multiplier, in invisible self driving and fighting Telsa in the air. But it been a real problem child. As aircraft programmes go its been one of the worst.

    https://www.extremetech.com/defense/320295-the-us-air-force-quietly-admits-the-f-35-is-a-failure



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    I think this rush to the F35 gives Ireland an opportunity to get some decent aircraft on a deal.

    However I think other countries see the same opportunity. As other countries rush to expand their capability, due to new threats, retired jets, or new build old jets will be sucked up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,901 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Or alternatively, those nations now locked in to F-35 will mothball their outgoing fighters just in case the Lightning IIs don't start of a cold morning.

    Like in Finland.....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭sparky42


    There is feck all push on this for the F35 on this forum, that’s just a fantasy strawman from you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    F35 is a complete non starter for the AC. Too damned expensive. And has been plagued with problems. Over complex if you ask me!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭Gooser14


    Cost of ownership for the F35 is off the wall at 44000 dollars per flying hour.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    I think if you look back over previous posts the Gripen is the aircraft of choice by far



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭AerLingus747


    I'm telling you... Spitfires ... hundreds



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭sparky42


    The changing the engine section is a combination of the issues it has and the basic need for sustaining the R&D and industrial base to create the next gen engines, I wouldn’t be surprised if the new engine for the 35 will end up being a bridging design and development for the Sixth gen fighter engine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭Gooser14


    I'm not making a comparison but just wondering as a country can we afford or justify the high cost of ownership of a squadron of F35 aircraft.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,493 ✭✭✭sparky42


    And who exactly is suggesting we would? I mean there’s the whole other question of what we could sustain if we were spending anything close to sensible on defence of course, it right now nobody is even close to supporting a basic capability for the AC let alone a fifth gen fighter like the 35?

    Frankly I have no idea why it’s even a topic for discussion?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,901 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    You can justify anything with the right argument. Ask the starving millions in North Korea.

    And yes, someone could very logically justify a couple of squadrons of F-35s for Ireland, but I would disagree with it.

    We do need fighter / interceptors, but we do not need a platform as new/expensive/complex/troublesome as F-35 is.

    The F-35 is a fighter/bomber for projecting Naval power and supporting amphibious landings in some variants and tactical strike role in others. None of those are of interest to Ireland.

    If you look at the RAF or USAF, neither will use F-35 in the interceptor role, cause it isn't one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,054 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    When you say it's a fighter what do you mean?

    Are you suggesting Ireland should not get a multi role aircraft?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    The times are saying no agreement but an understanding. Thats an irish hopefully it will be okay if ever there was one. So i would say its confirmed if the sh1t hits the fan we are truly fuc@ed





  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Taken from the article:

    The secret agreement required the consent of the Irish government before any action would be taken. One source described it as not a formal treaty but as a “memorandum of understanding”.

    So a passenger jet loses contact 200km of the west coast and the UK will have time to get aircraft here to intercept and the lads in the dail will give consent in that time. Like FU@k that would happen in time. By the time they all have the chat some small town will be gone



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,360 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Quite embarrassing. A so-called sovereign country refusing to do the bare minimum of what should be it's top responsibility - the defence of it's own territory, citizens.

    We do it to save a bit of money and then sponge off everyone else including bumming lifts.

    It's not a good look.



Advertisement