Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the new zealand situation is not in any way similar to ours.

The point being that its part of a larger conversation which is being selectively taken out of context.

The cost of a Gripen is about the same as that of an A320, especially if you haven't done a deal with Saab. The Irish State managed to find the money to buy them new when they owned Aer Lingus and plenty of 737s and 747s before that so it's not a question of being able to afford it. We, the State, can,but don't want to. Nothing stopping you leasing fighters from Sweden/Saab,given that we are world leaders in aircraft leasing. Operate them on an "if you break it,you pay for it" basis. Failing that,buy second hand F5s, Mirage 2000s or Brazilian AMXs, after you buy decent primary radar. Base them in Shannon, Cork or even Knock and you'd cover all of the island so that an aircraft on QRA can be over any part of the island inside 20 minutes. This stuff isn't difficult,it just takes political will to say yes and the willingness to be fitted out and trained by outsiders, including the UK, who are rather good at QRA and air defence in general.

Stovepipe wrote: »

The cost of a Gripen is about the same as that of an A320, especially if you haven't done a deal with Saab. The Irish State managed to find the money to buy them new when they owned Aer Lingus and plenty of 737s and 747s before that so it's not a question of being able to afford it. We, the State, can,but don't want to. Nothing stopping you leasing fighters from Sweden/Saab,given that we are world leaders in aircraft leasing. Operate them on an "if you break it,you pay for it" basis. Failing that,buy second hand F5s, Mirage 2000s or Brazilian AMXs, after you buy decent primary radar. Base them in Shannon, Cork or even Knock and you'd cover all of the island so that an aircraft on QRA can be over any part of the island inside 20 minutes. This stuff isn't difficult,it just takes political will to say yes and the willingness to be fitted out and trained by outsiders, including the UK, who are rather good at QRA and air defence in general.

There isnt the political will or the social pressure required to get support for this. There would have to be a greater interest in both Irish military tradition and interest in policing our territorial waters and airspace. I just don't see any appetite for it.

A lease agreement like the Czechs have wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility, but lets not draw parallels with the purchase of airliners. There aren't 1,000 people a day paying back the cost of military aircraft, its an entirely different financial model.[/QUOTE]

My point on cost is that we can afford it,especially by leasing fighters. A fighter might not repay itself by shifting punters or cargo but that also applies to every soldier we employ and every gun we own. They justify themselves by being there for our defence. Like the SAR helis, you pay for them because you need to. As for F-5s, you lease or even buy them for five to ten years and then throw them in the bin. I suggested them because they have two engines. If you want a fighter pilot to go two hundred miles out to sea to eyeball the Russians, then you need to give him the means to get home if one engine fails. What you need to do is build up the corporate experience of combat aircraft operations,for pilots, techs, supply personnel and the appropriate fighter control system.That takes time and money.

Larbre34 wrote: »

There is no point buying anything that is obsolete and F5s certainly are that.

The most basic useful specification would be some used F-16s (mid block). Anything less and you might as well have nothing. Portugal use them and although they are in NATO, they would have similar domestic requirements to ourselves.

.....

Portugal military is spend is four times Ireland.
Running costs of a Gripen would be half that of a F16 for pretty much the same capability.

Can't find any figures for the running cost for anything cheaper than the Gripen, light attack jets etc. I would assume they are half that of the Gripen, Though the more complex you make them the more expensive you can make them.

banie01 wrote: »

I do think if a capability review of the offers was weighted towards running costs and actual proven compatibility with Finnish needs, which are similar enough to Sweden's even down to their military cooperation and past Saab use (albeit quite historic now) that the Gripen E would win the bid.

Its hard to see past a US win here tho, even the German's are buying US if the current rumours are to be believed.
F18E/F are likely the choice there to add EAD suppression and keep nuclear capability post Tornado's final retirement.

I know I said above that its hard to see past a US win in this tender.
But!
Saab and Sweden if reports are to be believed have offered what could well be a fantastic sweetener to Finland IMO

Sweden’s entry of the Gripen fighter is notable from a regional and political perspective. The country’s top officials have publicly assisted Saab in making the case for extending the Sweden-Finland alliance into a de facto, singular air force of Gripens that commanders could interchangeably use across both nations to ward off an invasion.

From a strategic, tactical, interoperability, training and resourcing standpoint this offer by Saab is a masterstroke IMO.

I know its not exactly Irish jet news, but in the longer term a Finnish Gripen buy improves economies of scale and further allows investment in the Gripen E/NG platform to add capability.

Now as I mentioned a long way back in this thread, I think an air policing model similar to Iceland and the Baltic states would serve us far better in the long run.

Buy a primary radar, allow our ground crews to develop skillsets in supporting fast jet ops rather than leap in to operating an airforce with zero actual experience in anything other than FAC.
It also allows funds to be targeted towards an Airlift capability which is sorely needed.
We need to define our actual strategic aims and deficiencies and direct our resources towards those.

We have a capable but small army that deploys overseas, we have a well developed NGO sector that often undertakes emergency overseas supply missions.
We have no native airlift capability to support those ops.

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.
Start small and develop the capability, fund the MRV buy and further develop our ability to transport and support overseas deployments and perhaps take a stab at ditching the AW139s completely and replace that fleet with a maritime capable helo that would allow a combined Air corp/Naval service helicopter service to improve further the capabilities on offer.

Whatever we buy, we must we absolutely have to ensure its an actually capable platform and not allow ourselves to be a guinea pig again.

Flinty997 wrote: »

guinea pig?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 wrote: »

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.

Not at all.

Global treatment of airliners has changed in the 20 years since. Failure to properly acknowledge or squawk correctly, any sort of deviation from SOP will be investigated now if possible, long before a threat is detected.

But as you mention it, all airspace incursions or failure to fly to accepted norms a should absolutely be challenged.

Larbre34 wrote: »

...
But as you mention it, all airspace incursions or failure to fly to accepted norms a should absolutely be challenged...

The Russians were challenged via radio they just ignored the it. You mean intercepted and then escorted out or shot down. The UK ends up shadowing them for hours. I think the last one in the uk was 5 hours.

The Russians have been doing the same with their Navy also.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/december/04/200412-russian-monitoring