Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Dohvolle · 08-05-2021 9:42pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

The PC-9 was 30km from the base and at a suitable height to glide home and it was a lucky, well handled event. If it had been 50 km from home, we'd be looking at a smoking hole and Martin-baker ties for the pilots. PC-9s are good but they are not magic. As for twin engined fighters, they tend to have their engines inspected and serviced by parallel teams of engineers, to prevent servicing errors, copying the ETOPs practise of the airlines and they also have the benefit of titanium firewalls and bulkheads between the engines so the chances of one engine killing the other are rare,much rarer than the perennial birdstrikes that routinely bring down aircraft. While I have a great deal of faith in jet engines, I tend to have greater faith in two,especially if I, as a hypothetical pilot, was tasked to nip up to Rockall to have a look around or go and liaise with a naval vessel somewhere in our EEZ. Which ties in neatly with the elephant-in-the-room SAR question....if we, the people, suddenly got ourselves some fighter jets, would be be able to also have the SAR resources go support them in the event of one of them going down at sea? .......historical note: I recall at least two events when our Fouga pilots were mighty glad to have a second engine to get them home after suffering engine failures, one to a bird and one to a mechanical failure. One happened over the airfield and the other some distance away.

Any journey down the fast jet interceptor route comes with mandatory dedicated SAR. Not civvy SAR or SAR doing the civvy contract while also doing the Air Corps standby.
Dedicated. The newest member of the Martin Baker club floating in his dinghy made for one near rockall can't be waiting for the Coastguard SAR to divert from its training spin to the Cliffs of Moher, or the Dublin heli to spin up because the Sligo bird is doing a Medevac while the Shannon bird is Doing another tasking.
The Air Corps have put a lot of time and effort into a SERE course recently. Surely proper Military SAR Heli is the logical next step.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

using the few ships we have as radar pickets would be a waste of resources. Plus we would need 3 of them permanently stationed off the west coast to cover our western seaboard.

It would of course. Mobile radar is no substitute for a fixed system, but at present apart from a few Early gen Giraffe's the Defence Forces has no experience in the operation of air search radar.
My response was to banie01 when they said:

We have an enormous and quite strategic EEZ, maritime patrol both aerial and naval should be a priority.
Improve the radars and the actual armament of the current fleet and if possible provide at least a modicum of air self-defence capability.

Psychlops · 08-05-2021 9:48pm

banie01 wrote: »

The Irish have a tendency to buy big ticket items as a 1st operator.
The AW139s for example. Not actually fit for our use, and a brochure buy as the 1st military customer rather than meeting a defined tender spec.

What else have we had as being the "Launch Customer"? Interested to know.

sparky42 · 08-05-2021 9:52pm

Psychlops wrote: »

What else have we had as being the "Launch Customer"? Interested to know.

The Daulphin's for the Air Corps, think the CASA's might have been similar (though I'm open to be corrected there), the RG 32M for the Army.

Dohvolle · 08-05-2021 9:57pm

Psychlops wrote: »

What else have we had as being the "Launch Customer"? Interested to know.

Dauphin. Someone should write a book on how wrong that went, from something that started very promising.

Army LTAV (RG-32). After just 10 years in service, a board to decide their replacement has just been formed.

We were the first with the Casa CN235MPA but thankfully that worked out really well for us.

Timoney Armoured Vehicles. (Mk IV and VI) We Got the first production versions, but never got enough to test them properly operationally, they never went overseas, and they made great Anti Tank targets when it came time to bin them. The Designer started out with a Panhard M3 interior, and said "How can I just barely improve on this, but not much"

Stovepipe · 09-05-2021 10:57am

The Casas were a problem child at the beginning but thankfully have matured. The RG 32ms were a modification of a previously proven design but are trying to be too much of a good thing in one package and are a maintenance nightmare. Serviceability and availability are very poor. The Timoney was well-meaning but flawed and those who have used it regarded it as a decent improvement on the M3, which was wasn't hard to achieve. Ironically, the vehicle sold well globally under license and is still in service,especially as the Behrmann BDX. Timoney's greatest contribution was and is drivetrains. Anyone who writes a book about the Dauphins should wait until the participants are safely dead,as some of the movers and shakers of that debacle are still alive and able to summon lawyers.

roadmaster · 09-05-2021 2:54pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Do you think DOD have moved out of dial up yet?

You can be sure they look after themselves did you jot see there Newbridge office

Dohvolle · 09-05-2021 9:48pm

I see on Twitter earlier on, Leonardo expect the first 6 of 24 M346FA to be delivered to Nigeria in the next quarter of 2021. Not bad going for an aircraft that was only ordered in March.
https://twitter.com/CiroNappi6/status/1391287448240590853

Would it be the worst thing in the world for Ireland? €1.2bn (including weapons) gets you back in the jet game with some sort of aggressive and defensive capability, with Mach 1 speeds, when pushed.
That's $50m Each, where you are looking at roughly $150m for a Gripen E/F or €130m for an F16V by todays prices.

Is nothing better than all?

Larbre34 · 10-05-2021 3:01am

Is it a legitimate Interceptor solution? No.

Do we have any practical applications for its other capabilities? No.

See where this is going?

Flinty997 · 10-05-2021 8:18am

Larbre34 wrote: »

Is it a legitimate Interceptor solution? No.

Do we have any practical applications for its other capabilities? No.

See where this is going?

Not really.

Why is it not legitimate interceptor.

It's a light attack/trainer like all the other aircraft we've used for decades.

Gary kk · 10-05-2021 8:37am

That t50 Korean looked much better Mack 1.5 I think
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

Gary kk · 10-05-2021 8:59am

Oh just realized Honeywell works on that jet. They got fined by the USA for send technical details on fighters to other countries. One of those countries was Ireland

Heraldoffreeent · 10-05-2021 10:46am

Gary kk wrote: »

Oh just realized Honeywell works on that jet. They got fined by the USA for send technical details on fighters to other countries. One of those countries was Ireland

Yeah, de boyz in de Abbeyshrule skunk works got dere' mits on dem plans, an' are engineerin' de eff turty tree wit a couple a' wheelbarrows, silage cover, and a few ladders dat was lyin' around.

Gary kk · 10-05-2021 10:52am

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Yeah, de boyz in de Abbeyshrule skunk works got dere' mits on dem plans, an' are engineerin' de eff turty tree wit a couple a' wheelbarrows, silage cover, and a few ladders dat was lyin' around.

Lol

I was thinking they sent over the wrong files in a sales pitch.

You can do amazing thinks with a gas lamp and some fiberglass.

Dohvolle · 10-05-2021 10:55am

Gary kk wrote: »

Lol

I was thinking they sent over the wrong files in a sales pitch.

You can do amazing thinks with a gas lamp and some fiberglass.

You know, no point messing around with composites and stealthy materials when everyone knows chipboard is invisible to radar...

Dohvolle · 10-05-2021 10:56am

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Yeah, de boyz in de Abbeyshrule skunk works got dere' mits on dem plans, an' are engineerin' de eff turty tree wit a couple a' wheelbarrows, silage cover, and a few ladders dat was lyin' around.

That's not skunk works at all, it's just a badger with the runs.

Heraldoffreeent · 10-05-2021 11:09am

Dohvolle wrote: »

That's not skunk works at all, it's just a badger with the runs.

Dats wat dey want U to tink.

Dohvolle · 10-05-2021 11:43am

Larbre34 wrote: »

Is it a legitimate Interceptor solution? No.

Do we have any practical applications for its other capabilities? No.

See where this is going?

Hypothetically would it be able to do basic air policing? Would it, for example be able to escort that civvy airliner that lost comms, or keep an eye on a passing Bear?

Larbre34 · 10-05-2021 12:31pm

Flinty997 wrote: »

Not really.

Why is it not legitimate interceptor.

It's a light attack/trainer like all the other aircraft we've used for decades.

None of those were interceptors either.

The concern right now, the 'clear and present danger' if you like, is irresponsible Russian air force components probing the NATO defence network and turning off their transponders in busy commercial airspace, including the massive Irish area of responsibility.

We have no independent response to that, or to the albeit far less likely threat of a hijacked jet airliner.

Planes like the 346 and L159 are simply too slow to reach aircraft like these deep in the oceanic zone of the airspace, let alone perform a search pattern if one is required.

A big airliner will easily travel at Mach 0.9 with the taps open, a Blackjack bomber can light up and bugger off at Mach 2.

Those light attack jet trainers pull Mach 0.8 at best and without a west coast air station, they are useless to us.

Gary kk · 10-05-2021 1:20pm

The one I shared goes to Mach 1.5 but it depends on price. Well sorry I didn't share it someone else here did. But like what is the bar here will it keep moving until we get a SAAB.

sparky42 · 10-05-2021 1:24pm

Gary kk wrote: »

The one I shared goes to Mach 1.5 but it depends on price. Well sorry I didn't share it someone else here did. But like what is the bar here will it keep moving until we get a SAAB.

Again the question is, is that Mach 1.5 clean wing or with mission stores, and how long is its endurance at that speed with dirty wings?

Gary kk · 10-05-2021 1:27pm

I can see the flaw now not speed or distance but celling height is only 30000ft on the T50

Sorry my bad it's 48000ft

Flinty997 · 10-05-2021 1:37pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

None of those were interceptors either.

The concern right now, the 'clear and present danger' if you like, is irresponsible Russian air force components probing the NATO defence network and turning off their transponders in busy commercial airspace, including the massive Irish area of responsibility.

We have no independent response to that, or to the albeit far less likely threat of a hijacked jet airliner.

Planes like the 346 and L159 are simply too slow to reach aircraft like these deep in the oceanic zone of the airspace, let alone perform a search pattern if one is required.

A big airliner will easily travel at Mach 0.9 with the taps open, a Blackjack bomber can light up and bugger off at Mach 2.

Those light attack jet trainers pull Mach 0.8 at best and without a west coast air station, they are useless to us.

If you are chasing someone with a head start can do Mach 2 you will never catch them. Generally if you are intercepting them its because they are heading towards you not away from you. If they bugger off then thats what you want in the first place so job done.

US with all its resources couldn't stop 9/11 so the odds of anyone with less resources stopping the same attack is a bogus argument.

Flinty997 · 10-05-2021 1:44pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Again the question is, is that Mach 1.5 clean wing or with mission stores, and how long is its endurance at that speed with dirty wings?

Gary kk wrote: »

I can see the flaw now not speed or distance but celling height is only 30000ft on the T50

Sorry my bad it's 48000ft

It only has to get within missile range, then its up to the target to out run the missile.

If desire is to have longer endurance then that means, CAP patrols, and at long distances out. We won't be doing that.

Flinty997 · 10-05-2021 1:54pm

Of course if you to play peek a boo as the RAF do then either you have to let the RAF do it, or you get what the RAF have to do that exact same thing.
If you can get the budget for that. Which you won't.

sparky42 · 10-05-2021 1:55pm

Flinty997 wrote: »

It only has to get within missile range, then its up to the target to out run the missile.

If desire is to have longer endurance then that means, CAP patrols, and at long distances out. We won't be doing that.

That’s not how things work you know...

Stovepipe · 10-05-2021 1:58pm

You'd probably have more effect on Russian "Bear" intrusions if you froze a few Russian bank accounts in the IFSC or withdrew a few "convenience" passports. Any "Bear" that reaches our airspace has already been monitored by Norway, Sweden, the UK and anyone with a Baltic address. I'd imagine the Russian crews have a serious gallery of photos of Gripens and F-16s already and would regard it as a serious novelty if an aircraft with an Irish roundel suddenly appeared alongside. I'd imagine the transcript of the radio interaction between the interceptor and the intreceptee would be along the lines of "Garda Patrol" ; "are you the owner of this veh-hic-le?", says Irish pilot, in his best Templemore voice. "Da, comrade. We are on routine patrol". "Well, switch on your transponder or I'll do ya for flying without consideration for other airspace users. That's 3 points and eighty euros,if you don't feck off home!"

Dohvolle · 10-05-2021 2:03pm

Flinty997 wrote: »

If you are chasing someone with a head start can do Mach 2 you will never catch them. Generally if you are intercepting them its because they are heading towards you not away from you. If they bugger off then thats what you want in the first place so job done.

US with all its resources couldn't stop 9/11 so the odds of anyone with less resources stopping the same attack is a bogus argument.

Two attacks had happened by the time NORAD realised it was a terror attack. It was only when the 3rd aircraft hit that they realised it was multiple and coordinated. By then the USAF were in the air and pilots were willing to do whatever was necessary to prevent a fourth strike. In the end, the passengers of the aircraft did their job for them.
Much has changed in 20 years. Non responsive civilian aircraft are routinely intercepted by armed aircraft now. Indeed the crash of Helios 522 in 2005 was escorted to its impact site by the Greek Air Force. If the Flight Attendant aboard (who had a CPL) had not altered its course away from major population centres when the first engine flamed out, they would have been in a position to destroy it in the air. By then it was already in a Holding pattern on autopilot over Athens Airport.
The Greek F16 joined the aircraft 2 hours after radio contact was reported as lost.

Larbre34 · 10-05-2021 2:17pm

Flinty997 wrote: »

If you are chasing someone with a head start can do Mach 2 you will never catch them. Generally if you are intercepting them its because they are heading towards you not away from you. If they bugger off then thats what you want in the first place so job done.

US with all its resources couldn't stop 9/11 so the odds of anyone with less resources stopping the same attack is a bogus argument.

Why would they have, the first two of those airliners weren't painted as a threat until the towers were ablaze. 9/11 was a failure of intelligence, not quick reaction mod op that focused on military threats.

Flinty997 · 10-05-2021 2:22pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Two attacks had happened by the time NORAD realised it was a terror attack. It was only when the 3rd aircraft hit that they realised it was multiple and coordinated. By then the USAF were in the air and pilots were willing to do whatever was necessary to prevent a fourth strike. In the end, the passengers of the aircraft did their job for them.

Still it proves the point.

Dohvolle wrote: »

Much has changed in 20 years. Non responsive civilian aircraft are routinely intercepted by armed aircraft now. Indeed the crash of Helios 522 in 2005 was escorted to its impact site by the Greek Air Force. If the Flight Attendant aboard (who had a CPL) had not altered its course away from major population centres when the first engine flamed out, they would have been in a position to destroy it in the air. By then it was already in a Holding pattern on autopilot over Athens Airport.
The Greek F16 joined the aircraft 2 hours after radio contact was reported as lost.

There were shoot downs before 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

The one that sticks in my head was 1983: Korean Air Lines Flight 007 which Gary Moore wrote a song about.

Flinty997 · 10-05-2021 2:27pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why would they have, the first two of those airliners weren't painted as a threat until the towers were ablaze. 9/11 was a failure of intelligence, not quick reaction mod op that focused on military threats.

So there no point bringing up 9/11 in terms of "interceptor's" as they are useless against that type of threat.

So its only to police very rare airspace incursions.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments