Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

11314161819194

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Psychlops wrote: »
    At best we could hope to see is Hawk T2's, they are plumbed for AAM's.

    Not really, have you seen the price that some of the Eastern European nations have got for leasing Gripens? Now granted they had previous knowledge bases to start from so there would be plenty more costs for us to go from where we are to there but it's not impossible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    Psychlops wrote: »
    At best we could hope to see is Hawk T2's, they are plumbed for AAM's.

    Hawks would be ideal for Ireland. Simple and can be used for air to air and air to ground missions.

    They are the last line of air defence in the RAF.

    The only issue I can see is that they only have one engine. Not great for a plane that would probably spend most of its time out over the Atlantic chasing airliners with no coms.

    What about Tonkas? The RAF will have a few, perfectly serviceable aircraft, crews and instructors free at the end of the month!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Hawks would be ideal for Ireland. Simple and can be used for air to air and air to ground missions.

    They are the last line of air defence in the RAF.

    The only issue I can see is that they only have one engine. Not great for a plane that would probably spend most of its time out over the Atlantic chasing airliners with no coms.


    Are they? I mean there was plans to use some of them as such during the Cold War but I think the RAF dropped them a long time ago.


    As to going with a trainer plus option I'd go with the M-346 Master (twin engine) but like the Hawk with anything on the wings I'd wonder about how that would impact their top speed. I mean we'd most likely have to have them operate out of a Western Airport even with the external tanks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Are they? I mean there was plans to use some of them as such during the Cold War but I think the RAF dropped them a long time ago.


    As to going with a trainer plus option I'd go with the M-346 Master (twin engine) but like the Hawk with anything on the wings I'd wonder about how that would impact their top speed. I mean we'd most likely have to have them operate out of a Western Airport even with the external tanks

    Still used. If you look at radarbox24 during weekdays you will see them intercepting the Learjets off the Yorkshire coast. They use them in mock dogfighting with the Typhoons also.

    You can usually tell by the callsign. As I said here before, Shannon is ideal. All you need to add is a few taxiways and hardened hangers, crew facilities etc.

    I think most Irish QRA missions would be for incoming aircraft. Outgoing planes are usually stopped and diverted over the Irish Sea by the RAF so there should be no need (in theory) for Ireland to have a supersonic fighter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Heraldoffreeent


    Originally Posted by Nigel Dodds View Post
    Should it be established, the Irish Air Force should have:

    44 F-35A multirole fighter jets, 40 for operational use and 4 as conversion trainers.
    4 P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft in addition to the 2 CASA aircraft.
    6 Atlas C-1 and 6 C-17 transport aircraft.
    8 Apache gunships, 56 Chinooks.
    2 MQ-9 Reaper drones.
    2 Airbus Voyager and 2 Learjet 45 aircraft as government jets.

    Seriously though, can you imagine the GOCAC waking up some morning and seeing 56 chinooks lined up in the Don?

    Though I suppose if he did wake up with 56 chinooks, he'd probably be the Air Field Marshall commanding the Military Junta that had sent Vlad and the useless Keogh to the re-education camp,............. and he'd be waking up in Farmleigh with probably just three of the chinooks from his personal flight on the lawn.

    On another note, Nigel seems to have disappeared like a Brexiteer in 2030's Britain.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Seriously though, can you imagine the GOCAC waking up some morning and seeing 56 chinooks lined up in the Don?
    Hell would that list of planes even fit in the Don?


  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭Savage93


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Hell would that list of planes even fit in the Don?

    No, that's why we are taking over Dublin Airport:D:D:D:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,145 ✭✭✭thomil


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Still used. If you look at radarbox24 during weekdays you will see them intercepting the Learjets off the Yorkshire coast. They use them in mock dogfighting with the Typhoons also.

    You can usually tell by the callsign. As I said here before, Shannon is ideal. All you need to add is a few taxiways and hardened hangers, crew facilities etc.

    I think most Irish QRA missions would be for incoming aircraft. Outgoing planes are usually stopped and diverted over the Irish Sea by the RAF so there should be no need (in theory) for Ireland to have a supersonic fighter.

    A Hawk is about as much use in a QRA situation as a Dacia Logan is in a Formula 1 race. The intercept missions you are referring to are pre-planned, as the Hawks are only used for advanced pilot training by the RAF, nothing else. When it comes to intercepting a fast moving contact, the farther out he can be caught, the better, that's why any aircraft designed for that role has afterburners.

    In addition, the final turn to position a flight of fighters in the proper position for an intercept will require both fighters to approach the target from behind, with one fighter positioning himself behind the target, and the other one pulling ahead to make visual contact with the pilots of the target. This requires a significant speed advantage over the target aircraft, something that the Hawk just doesn't have, it's cruising speed barely exceeds that of an airliner. I'm using the FAA intercept procedures as a guide here by the way, as their documents are available publicly:
    https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2015/media/Intercept-Procedures.pdf

    I will admit that the Hawk 200, that's the single seat combat variety of the Hawk, is a rather impressive subsonic combat aircraft. However, taking a look at the weapons & sensor suite, you can get a similar package in an F-16, which also gives you the benefit of an afterburner for QRA duties & that extra bit of energy should a situation actually devolve into a dogfight. Besides, the Hawk 200 has been out of production since 2002.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,721 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    Surely it's time to grow up and defend our own airspace?

    I see some on here jerking off to more propeller porn and it's embarrassing.

    I have no interest in the Air Corps and think it should be disbanded if this does not happen soon.

    It's pointless and a waste of money. Out source it to the RAF - would be cheaper.

    Maybe we could buy one or two f-35 jets at $90million each if we cut back on the children's hospital.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Phil.x wrote: »
    Maybe we could buy one or two f-35 jets at $90million each if we cut back on the children's hospital.


    Maybe if the Department of Health could come within an arses roar of controlling their budget instead of consuming the equivalent of the Defence budget in top ups every year.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,691 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    GOC Air Corps Brig Gen Sean Clancy was today announced as the next Defence Forces Deputy Chief of Staff (Support). He will be promoted to Major General.

    General Clancy is the second IAC officer to be appointed DCoS after Ralph James took up the Operations post in 2010.

    Hopefully Major General Clancy will be able to influence investment in air defence in his role, though I suspect the CoS Vice Admiral Mellett doesn't need convincing.

    Congrats and good luck to him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    That was an interesting idea by Prinzeugen....buying some ex RAF Tornados. Probably get a good deal there and the benefit of some decent training and engineering support. I like the Aermacchi aircraft as well. .but support could be a problem due the language barrier.


  • Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    That was an interesting idea by Prinzeugen....buying some ex RAF Tornados. Probably get a good deal there and the benefit of some decent training and engineering support. I like the Aermacchi aircraft as well. .but support could be a problem due the language barrier.

    There was a Tornado ADV (Air Defense Variant) years ago. They were specially built for intercepting Russian bombers out over the north sea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    There was a Tornado ADV (Air Defense Variant) years ago. They were specially built for intercepting Russian bombers out over the north sea.

    Wasn't that the one famous for having a lump of cement instead of a radar when it entered service, or was that one of the other variants of the tornado? Either way the RAF ones are shagged beyond use, and their withdrawal is making the Germans rethink theirs due to the reduction in user base and costs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 275 ✭✭jacob2


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Wasn't that the one famous for having a lump of cement instead of a radar when it entered service, or was that one of the other variants of the tornado? Either way the RAF ones are shagged beyond use, and their withdrawal is making the Germans rethink theirs due to the reduction in user base and costs.

    a few migs will do the job


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    jacob2 wrote: »
    a few migs will do the job


    Sure sure...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,410 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Wasn't that the one famous for having a lump of cement instead of a radar when it entered service, or was that one of the other variants of the tornado? Either way the RAF ones are shagged beyond use, and their withdrawal is making the Germans rethink theirs due to the reduction in user base and costs.

    The blue circle radar...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Wasn't that the one famous for having a lump of cement instead of a radar when it entered service, or was that one of the other variants of the tornado? Either way the RAF ones are shagged beyond use, and their withdrawal is making the Germans rethink theirs due to the reduction in user base and costs.

    It was known as Blue Circle Radar (after the cement company)! It was used in some early ADV planes as the radar was not ready. Later swapped for lead blocks!

    The ADV is long gone from the RAF. The Tornado I was referring to was the GR4. Has air to air capabilities but lacks the long range radar of the F3 so would be reliant on a decent ground based radar to guide them in.

    The last GR4 airframe for the RAF was delivered in the late 90s so they are not life expired.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    The last GR4 airframe for the RAF was delivered in the late 90s so they are not life expired.


    So at best a 20 year old airframe of an original 70's design? Airframes that most likely have seen fairly intensive use anyway given what the RAF have been doing since the late 90's. I'm sorry but I fail to see any logic in that. To get anything worth a QRA you'd have to buy several times the airframes and spend the whole time pulling parts to keep what's left in service, the operational rates would be brutal I'd bet.


    We know what Eastern European nations have paid for Gripen's on lease, if we ever were looking at Combat jets something like that makes sense, not worn out airframes


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,101 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    That was an interesting idea by Prinzeugen....buying some ex RAF Tornados. Probably get a good deal there and the benefit of some decent training and engineering support. I like the Aermacchi aircraft as well. .but support could be a problem due the language barrier.

    Absolutely, I understand there was huge language issues when we bought the AW139's :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Psychlops wrote: »
    Absolutely, I understand there was huge language issues when we bought the AW139's :rolleyes:


    To be fair it has happened before, from memory the Australians had massive issues with their MU90 torpedoes when the technical documentation only came in French and Italian resulting in them having to hire translators.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    sparky42 wrote: »
    So at best a 20 year old airframe of an original 70's design? Airframes that most likely have seen fairly intensive use anyway given what the RAF have been doing since the late 90's. I'm sorry but I fail to see any logic in that. To get anything worth a QRA you'd have to buy several times the airframes and spend the whole time pulling parts to keep what's left in service, the operational rates would be brutal I'd bet.


    We know what Eastern European nations have paid for Gripen's on lease, if we ever were looking at Combat jets something like that makes sense, not worn out airframes

    They have been used but not that much. The RAF is retiring them for cost reasons and the Typhoons can now the full air to ground stuff.

    Italy is still upgrading its Tornado aircraft so there must be life in them yet!


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,691 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Italy is broke. The Tornadoes are a complicated heavy and quite ancient aircraft, anyone who doesn't already have them would be outright mental to get involved with them.

    For Ireland like any other small European operator, the choice for purchasing would come down between the F-16 and Gripen. Whether new or refurbished would be an economic consideration within that.

    Slovakia has a current contract to procure 14 shiny new '16 Block 70s with radar and a stock of weaponry for €2.5 billion that will serve them out to 2040. To me this sounds like a superb package, and Ireland could do worse than to run 8 of them and spend the other billion on a primary radar.

    If we get into leasing then other models come into play like the Rafale, but really the F-16, new or used, is the most economical most versatile multi-role airframe going.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Italy is broke. The Tornadoes are a complicated heavy and quite ancient aircraft, anyone who doesn't already have them would be outright mental to get involved with them.

    For Ireland like any other small European operator, the choice for purchasing would come down between the F-16 and Gripen. Whether new or refurbished would be an economic consideration within that.

    Slovakia has a current contract to procure 14 shiny new '16 Block 70s with radar and a stock of weaponry for €2.5 billion that will serve them out to 2040. To me this sounds like a superb package, and Ireland could do worse than to run 8 of them and spend the other billion on a primary radar.

    If we get into leasing then other models come into play like the Rafale, but really the F-16, new or used, is the most economical most versatile multi-role airframe going.

    The Tornado was introduced a year after the F16 and both have been upgraded since. Its not as slow as you think. The F3 could fairly shift and often "accidentally" went supersonic doing laps of the field. I witnessed ( or heard it) more than once!

    Also the Tornado has also been used for what Ireland would most likely use it for..

    Air to air, air to ship and limited air to surface. The old Luftwaffe Marine versions were configured that way. There is no point Ireland spending billions on all singing, all dancing F16 when we would never use half the stuff on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    The Gripen lease is the only job for us. End of...


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The Gripen lease is the only job for us. End of...

    On a cost and performance basis I'd agree with you bar for 1 point.
    Given the QRA role and its likely routes, long overwater flights in single engine fighters is not going to be very HSA friendly ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭sparky42


    banie01 wrote: »
    On a cost and performance basis I'd agree with you bar for 1 point.
    Given the QRA role and its likely routes, long overwater flights in single engine fighters is not going to be very HSA friendly ;)
    Norway manages it with the F16's, Canada is going with the single engine F35...


    I don't think it's as much a huge issue as it was back in the day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Norway manages it with the F16's, Canada is going with the single engine F35...


    I don't think it's as much a huge issue as it was back in the day.

    Both countries with a long history of operating fast jets tho.
    In our case it would be akin to the old trope of the M.E
    and African countries that transitioned to Mach 2 fighters with no experience of Fast Jet ops, reliant on "advisors" for serviceability.

    The run up period of system induction, training and ongoing maintenance would leave me worried that we would end up with a white elephant.

    A highly capable aircraft, that becomes a hanger queen due to lack of cash to support even the Gripen's cost per flight hour of @5k.

    The Euro options are an order of magnitude cheaper than nearly everything else except F16s and tbh a European system would be more politically acceptable I think.

    I do think whatever airframe is eventually purchased that we would do well do buy an already in Euro service airframe.
    That would allow us to outsource pilot training to an EU partner, and also allow us to take advantage of potential reciprocal basing and staff transfers to allow us build a squadron around a cadre of experienced pilots.

    IMO it's all well and good buying the kit and deciding on an operational doctrine, but experience is priceless!
    It's where the success of an op is founded and it's hard to buy! It needs to be earned and to that end I do feel a collaborative effort with a European partner both to purchase/lease the aircraft and in the ongoing training and support would make massive sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Another reason to go for the Gripen. Given the DF involvement with the Nordic Battle Group, we could do some joint training with established Gripen operators. However I think that the Gripen is a step change and should be done some years down the road. I still reckon a fleet of Scorpions (8) would be handy to get the lads up to speed on jet aircraft first. It's cheap and it has 2 engines. Then acquire the Gripens in about 3 to 4 years time when the oil comes into production in Cork.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    ...... in about 3 to 4 years time when the oil comes into production in Cork.

    I thought the Providence wells came up dry and Tony O Reilly went to the wall over it?


Advertisement