Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

You might be misunderstanding my framing, and thats entirely my fault as it was me who introduced the "pure interceptor" frame of reference.
No nation, no-one can afford to operate single role combat aircraft anymore and given the convergence of capability and the flexibility that technology offers?
Theres rarely any need to.

My point, which I should have framed better.
Is that on the actual matrix of what our operational need for a fast jet is?
On what we need it to do, and why?
We are likely the only nation since the 60's that can credibly point to a single role, "interception" as being the raison d'etre for any fast jet we induct.
Yes the secondary capabilities are important, but the immediate need for AP capability outweighs them and sure once whatever we buy can carry a decent antiship missile?
Then thats another string to the bow!

With that in mind?
It is vital for whatever our future air force becomes and for the capability of the force to credibly fulfil its role.
That we ensure the best possible balance is struck between affordability and capability in what we purchase.
I'd also reiterate a point I've made earlier, in that we dont need to train our fast jet pilots, we outsource that to the training programme of whichever Nation we buy from. (UK, French, Swedes & Italians all operate fast jet training).

To that end, a LiFT on steroids, immediately demonstrates that cost over capability was a concern.
We arent buying a fleet of multiple squadrons, at best?
We are buying at best 16 and at minimum 8 fast jets whenever we get around to it.
For the sake of capability, intraoperability, european solidarity and sustainment should global supply lines become victim to conflict, interdiction or delay ?
That puts a European aircraft at the centre of what we should be considering.
I say that knowing that there will soon be a Polish MLU operating for the FA50 too.
Our vision must more than "just good enough".
Not that we need F22s or even Eurofighter but, surely?!
Surely it needs more capability than the FA50.

@jonnybigwallet Bears are pretty fast, actually, as fast as ani airliner or B52, despite the props.

you mean jets that are currently just talk, no one knows how they will be paid for and probably will never happen?

Sounds like it aligns with the department of defence pretty well 🤣

Philippines and Thailand (when tendering for new aircraft) have reported CPFH for FA50 of between $10-14k.

The FA-50’s design emphasizes adaptability, enabling it to perform air defense, close air support, reconnaissance, and advanced pilot training. Its relatively low operating costs—estimated at $10,000 per flight hour compared to $20,000 for an F-16—make it ideal for nations like the Philippines, which face budgetary constraints but require credible deterrence.

Whereas the Gripen E's cost per flight hour is reported as between $5.8k - $8k.

Its cost per flight hour is $5,800, easily beating the F-35’s cost of about $35,000 per flight hour.

Disregarding the effect of longer mission transits on Airframe lifecycle and attrition is misguided.
Aircraft life, it's time between overhauls and it's time to retirement are all Measured in hours flown, not distance travelled.
If an airframe can travel 40% faster to the intercept point?

It can undertake more missions before mandatory overhauls and maintenance and is available to complete more intercepts in the same distance flown as the cheaper option.
Faster transit times allow more time on station, and just as importantly.
It allows any subsequent QRA launch to be held on the ground and not waste airframe hours should a relay launch be needed or indeed should it not be due to the original intercept meeting it's target faster and further from Ireland.

If it costs 40% less to operate a dedicated air defence airframe, and it has a performance margin of 40% more over the nearly good enough airframe?

For an initial price difference of 20-25% per unit, it's pretty clear which is the better option in terms of operational suitability, lifecycle costs, intra operability and access to a suitable pilot training programme.

The FA50 isn't suitable as a nations sole air defence asset, if it were?
The Philippines wouldn't also be pursuing separate Air Defence fighter acquisitions.
Malaysia wouldn't be negotiating for Kuwait's old F18s.
Thailand wouldn't have ordered the Gripen E.
It's perfectly adequate as a 2nd line, support and attack aircraft as it's use by Poland and South Korea would demonstrate.

Any actual purchase made for Irish air defence is best viewed as a once in a generation purchase.
It's going to have every hour possible wrung out of its airframe before it's retired.
We can buy something that's designed and built from the ground up to do that job, such as the Gripen.
Or, we can convince ourselves that something that isn't designed for the role, that has a secondary capability that we would expand into its primary role, is good enough.

It isn't, nor should we try and convince ourselves that it is.

I'm saying the lowest reported of the range is $5.8 there was an upper figure of $8k and in general when I'm reporting anything that has a range? I'll share the upper and lower of the band.

As I did for the FA50.

I tend not to do feelings, I try and aggregate as much info as I can lay hands on and where I can find good current info?
I try to infer, I'm not an expert but military aviation is a field I have a long amateur interest in.

So with that in mind, I made you a chart, I've pulled together some sources and the Gripen's numbers have certainly risen with inflation since the $5.8k estimate in 2022, but?
So has every other airframe and the current estimate of $8k per hour is significantly less than the figure of $10k per hour the Philippines claim for the FA50 CPFH.
And an order of magnitude less than the $14k that Thailand assessed as the FA50 CPFH when they tendered earlier this year.

If you have numbers that challenge the info? Please, share them?
I'd love to review them and see where it falls amongst the current CPFH suppositions.

Now if you want more reading on operating costs of aircraft?
Fora like secretprojects.co.uk F16.net PPRuNe and fightercontrol.co.uk are all worth a look.
Some incredibly knowledgeable and experienced contributors there and lots to learn.

I think Saab sponsored that Jane's article.

Something is not adding up here.

The figures seem to be just for fuel.

Everyone plays games with cost figures to suit their position, it’s not a new trick,

The new model 15's are in demand from the US and Israel as is with some 150 on order, so I don't see that as an easy production line queue either even without the issues of US politics/foreign policy currently. Add in the balance of buying European, which might be a wise choice for our own diplomatic needs given the increased attention to our lack of attention on defence.

But this is still cart before the horse, with nothing to show that the DoD/Finance has any intention of letting empty soundbites from the Minister become reality.

Very pragmatic post. The train has already left the station for Euro jets. So the next best alternative is the FA50 block 70 and design the tactics around its range limitations. IE 2nd wave take over the intercept. Happens all the time in the UK! If we don't get decisive there'll be nowt left apart from them auld Chengdous (or whateverys call em in Jonny Chinaland).

I suspected you would be as thrilled with the idea as the upper echelons in Finance are with the topic.

Heres my stab at my crystal ball

6 Gripens will be bought

with 2 x QRA, 2 x Getting flying hours up and 2 x always been in for a service.

Fully contracted service crew to keep them flying with Air Corps NCOs looking over them.

All Air Corps Gripen Training to take place overseas.

The government can then say we have protected Air Space and we are all safe.

We wouldn't even know if drones were in most of our airspace.

Adequate inadequate for what?

The role has not been clearly defined as of yet.

Anyway looks like it will be pushed down another 5 years given the statement Harris made.