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?

24567194

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Psychlops wrote: »
    "Continued operation of the 15 Eurofighter Typhoon jets would cost between €4.4 billion (U.S. $5 billion) and €5.1 billion (U.S. $5.8 billion) over 30 years, according to the expert commission.

    €11m per unit per year.

    Or, €36k per flight hour (based on 300 hrs per year).

    That isn't cheap, but it isn't terrible either.


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


    Psychlops wrote: »
    Austria has exactly 15 Eurofighters & they can only just about get them Airborne for a tiny bit of training. Its a real problem for the Austrian Air Force to actually keep them flying.

    Quote"Continued operation of the 15 Eurofighter Typhoon jets would cost between €4.4 billion (U.S. $5 billion) and €5.1 billion (U.S. $5.8 billion) over 30 years, according to the expert commission. And that's without taking into account "the specific cost risks" associate with Tranche 1"


    Read this: https://warisboring.com/austria-has-no-business-flying-these-high-performance-fighters/

    Read this: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/07/07/austria-set-to-replace-eurofighter-typhoons/

    They are tranche 1 jets which are almost life expired. The RAF has already scrapped some of its tranche 1 Eurofighters as its not worth upgrading them (there is a difference in the airframes that mean a structural rebuild would be needed).

    The Luftwaffe is in the same position. Do you spend the money to upgrade or is it cheaper to buy new. There is still talk of the RAF buying F35A because they can't afford to go it alone on the upgrades to make the Eurofighter a stand alone ground attack aircraft after Germany pulled out.

    Is there still talk of leasing F16 from the Netherlands? It was mentioned in the Dail a few years back?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    €11m per unit per year.

    Or, €36k per flight hour (based on 300 hrs per year).

    That isn't cheap, but it isn't terrible either.

    Excellent value - the outrage such expenditure would generate from the Murphy's, the Boyd-Barrets and the Coppingers of the world would power the country for years to come :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Winter Melodic Beehive


    Just spotted this (monthly occurring) story that's currently ongoing at the moment...
    Cat n Mouse, with x2 Typ, tanker, Fr & Belg F16. Everything doing supersonics, some fuel bill after that.

    This is the tanker's path, but who refuels the tanker?
    MXHIUPg.png

    Would the cheapest solution not be some big aul laser and couple of ugly drones to buzz the Jacks?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Just spotted this (monthly occurring) story that's currently ongoing at the moment...
    Cat n Mouse, with x2 Typ, tanker, Fr & Belg F16. Everything doing supersonics, some fuel bill after that.

    This is the tanker's path, but who refuels the tanker?
    MXHIUPg.png

    Would the cheapest solution not be some big aul laser and couple of ugly drones to buzz the Jacks?

    Another tanker ;)

    BlackBuckOne.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Winter Melodic Beehive


    Maybe they should send another one, the newsmedia say they came within about 50miles of territory at one stage. Imagine there's some bill for all that zooming about in 5th gear.

    -dizzy.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Maybe they should send another one, the newsmedia say they came within about 50miles of territory at one stage. Imagine there's some bill for all that zooming about in 5th gear.

    -dizzy.png

    I think when the QRA is launched the Voyager gets sent aloft shortly thereafter and bring another to readiness (to refuel the QRA aircraft rather than the tanker).

    It's certainly going to be cheap but they get a free planewash with fifth refill!


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


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Another tanker ;)

    snip

    Not to ruin the comment but I don't think the RAF birds have refueling capability (for themselves).


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


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    They are tranche 1 jets which are almost life expired. The RAF has already scrapped some of its tranche 1 Eurofighters as its not worth upgrading them (there is a difference in the airframes that mean a structural rebuild would be needed).

    The Luftwaffe is in the same position. Do you spend the money to upgrade or is it cheaper to buy new. There is still talk of the RAF buying F35A because they can't afford to go it alone on the upgrades to make the Eurofighter a stand alone ground attack aircraft after Germany pulled out.

    Is there still talk of leasing F16 from the Netherlands? It was mentioned in the Dail a few years back?

    I thought the core issue for the RAF was just money (as with everything else with the UK Military, the current suggested cuts would gut the RN for example), I don't think they'll be able to find the funds to buy A versions, and would most likely mean the end of the Typhoon production line). Since Germany is still stuck between Typhoon upgrades and a 35 buy it's still up in the air.

    As for Leasing 16's, when was that talked about in the Daíl and by who? There's no capacity within the DF budget to sustain such a situation.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    I thought we were neutral?

    Do you accept the premise a neutral should be able to defend it's neutrality?

    Switzerland anyone?

    Abandon neutral and accept Ireland has never been serious about it's own protection and hand it to the RAF. Much cheaper to contract out for the taxpayer.

    Switzerland does have an airforce. Besides the entire country is mined and every road and bridge can be blown up.
    Almost every house has a gun and a very large portion of the population is in the army reserve.
    Due to it's terrain, it is incredibly hard to take.
    Neutrality by itself is absolutely no guarantee. Just ask Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

    So if you want your neutrality to count for something, you need mountainous terrain, mine all roads and tunnels, a large military, an airforce that has some actual planes and everyone's money and bank accounts. And give everyone a gun.
    The defense of "but...but...we're Neutral!" helps bugger all.
    The one thing Ireland has going for it, is that it probably is of too little importance to bother with.
    As for relying on the UK, I find that a little ironic. Would you accept British aircraft in your airspace aktively engaging enemy aircraft? Potentially firing British bullets and rockets over the ROI? Just read any thread on anything even remotely do do with the Brits on AH and you will see that there are many people who would rather pull their own eyes out of their sockets than allow the Brits to do that.
    Also, would you be willing to pay for this? Would the Irish do the same for the UK? Risk men and equipment worth billions because you're such great mates?
    What would you do if the Brits said "sorry, not our problem"?

    So in short, you're relying on your next door neighbour to help you out if some ruffians start attacking you and you're hoping that you're small and unimportant enough not to attract negative attention in the first place.
    Personally, I think Ireland is not exactly a high risk country and this has kept it safe over the last 2 world wars, so it shouldn't be a massive worry. But it's worth bearing in mind.

    edit:
    I don't think we'll see Irish fighter jets any time soon. The greatest danger in Europe right now are terrorist attacks. Unless Uncle Vlad decides to go crazy Ivan on us...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Not to ruin the comment but I don't think the RAF birds have refueling capability (for themselves).

    Might be a bit difficult when the time comes for Black Buck part deux!


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


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Might be a bit difficult when the time comes for Black Buck part deux!

    Well Black Buck had to do it that way due to the limits of the RAF's tankers (being converted Bombers), the Victor carried only about a third of what the Voyager's can carry (41,000kg to 111,000kg).

    Off the top of my head the Typhoons can fly with one 1 tanker into the Falklands, but lets be honest the Argentinians won't be in a position to threaten the islands for decades if ever.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Well Black Buck had to do it that way due to the limits of the RAF's tankers (being converted Bombers), the Victor carried only about a third of what the Voyager's can carry (41,000kg to 111,000kg).

    Off the top of my head the Typhoons can fly with one 1 tanker into the Falklands, but lets be honest the Argentinians won't be in a position to threaten the islands for decades if ever.

    True, plus if they need to do something similar, they can always have an Astute class sub park a couple of TLAMs in whatever it is they need to remove from the landscape.


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


    sparky42 wrote: »
    I thought the core issue for the RAF was just money (as with everything else with the UK Military, the current suggested cuts would gut the RN for example), I don't think they'll be able to find the funds to buy A versions, and would most likely mean the end of the Typhoon production line). Since Germany is still stuck between Typhoon upgrades and a 35 buy it's still up in the air.

    As for Leasing 16's, when was that talked about in the Daíl and by who? There's no capacity within the DF budget to sustain such a situation.

    It was mentioned in the minutes of the Dail a few years back and someone posted a link here before but can't find it now. Irish pilots would fly the planes but all but basic maintenance would be done under contract by the RNAF. €10,000 per flight hour was the figure IIRC.

    The big problem the RAF has is that the Eurofighters need a Tornado to target some weapons (like the Tornado needed a Jaguar during the first Gulf war).

    They need to upgrade the Eurofighter so it can do it alone or go for F35A before the Tornados are life expired. The clock is ticking.

    The F35A would come out of a future F35B order and be ready, off the shelf and cheaper.


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



    This is the tanker's path, but who refuels the tanker?
    MXHIUPg.png


    Nobody, its a Voyager MRTT ( Airbus A330 ). They can not be refuelled mid air.


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


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Another tanker ;)


    Not these days.


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


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I think when the QRA is launched the Voyager gets sent aloft shortly thereafter and bring another to readiness (to refuel the QRA aircraft rather than the tanker).

    It's certainly going to be cheap but they get a free planewash with fifth refill!

    Normally the QRA tanker is launched first from RAF Brize Norton to get up north and then the Typhoons are launched.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    But tanker to tanker aerial refuelling is old new at this stage of the game.
    Aren't the Americans working on a new drone capable of refueling an aircraft ,


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


    Gatling wrote: »
    But tanker to tanker aerial refuelling is old new at this stage of the game.
    Aren't the Americans working on a new drone capable of refueling an aircraft ,

    True but the Voyager has no AAR capability for themselves, unlike previous RAF Tankers the current RAF Tanker fleet can not get refuelled mid air.


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


    Psychlops wrote: »
    Normally the QRA tanker is launched first from RAF Brize Norton to get up north and then the Typhoons are launched.

    Not 100% true. The Eurofighters always go up first. On some training flights as you see daily off North Norfolk, the tanker is up for hours at a time.

    The Eurofighter only needs its afterburner briefly as it can supercruise so by the time it has intercepted the target and shadowed it, the tanker will be on station to refuel.

    There would be nothing quick about QRA if the waited for a tanker to get from Brize to near Lossie. By that time it would all be over.

    Its not like the old days when a EE Lightning would burn its fuel in 30 mins.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 36,160 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Be fair. The Aer Corp provides a good ambulance service here in the west, and can be seen occasionally flying overhead on a Thursday when large amounts of cash is being transported from bank to bank.

    No it doesnt, the EAS is an office hours photo op. If the Aer Corps shut down all other ops and devote the manpower to a 24/7 EAS that'd be a start.

    The smaller fixed wings are useless, the Cessenas are being replaced with the PC12s. Keep them, drop the rest, keep the AWs. Devote at least 2 to permanent EAS, do some good for society.


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


    ED E wrote: »
    No it doesnt, the EAS is an office hours photo op. If the Aer Corps shut down all other ops and devote the manpower to a 24/7 EAS that'd be a start.

    The smaller fixed wings are useless, the Cessenas are being replaced with the PC12s. Keep them, drop the rest, keep the AWs. Devote at least 2 to permanent EAS, do some good for society.

    Or perhaps the department whose budget dwarfs the entire DF budget might spend the money on the service, of give the DF the money to support the EAS 24/7.

    The AC does plenty of "good for society", the "smaller aircraft" are the trainers needed for the pilots, the CASA's work day in day out with the NS (to the point that we've worn them out twice). Frankly the AC should drop the EAS unless Health gives the funding to dedicate airframes/people without impacting the needs of the rest of the AC.


  • Registered Users Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Uinseann_16


    Why not buy Russian MiGs?
    And the air corp badly needs some blackhawks


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


    Why not buy Russian MiGs?
    And the air corp badly needs some blackhawks

    Because we're a NATO standard country.
    And Blackhawks were on the list when the 139's were bought, wasn't there some reporting that Bertie thought them too "military" given Iraq 2 was happening at the time. Instead we got civie airframes painted Green.

    In terms of future buys something is going to have to be got for the EPV as the 139's aren't rated for maritime operations, if the rumours of the UK defence cuts coming up are true the Wildcats are going to be going to be available.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Because we're a NATO standard country.
    And Blackhawks were on the list when the 139's were bought, wasn't there some reporting that Bertie thought them too "military" given Iraq 2 was happening at the time. Instead we got civie airframes painted Green.

    In terms of future buys something is going to have to be got for the EPV as the 139's aren't rated for maritime operations, if the rumours of the UK defence cuts coming up are true the Wildcats are going to be going to be available.

    Would wildcats not be a waste of time interms of size and what could be used for?


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


    roadmaster wrote: »
    Would wildcats not be a waste of time interms of size and what could be used for?

    Depends, it would get us a helicopter that could actually be deployed in hostile areas unlike our own, or with the naval ones it gets us an airframe ready for sea operations (and capable of carrying a full range of weapons if we funded it). The other option is of course buying new but either way unless something starts soon we'll have the same as Eithne in having a hull capable of helicopter usage but not having anything to use it.


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


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    Not 100% true. The Eurofighters always go up first. On some training flights as you see daily off North Norfolk, the tanker is up for hours at a time.

    The Eurofighter only needs its afterburner briefly as it can supercruise so by the time it has intercepted the target and shadowed it, the tanker will be on station to refuel.

    There would be nothing quick about QRA if the waited for a tanker to get from Brize to near Lossie. By that time it would all be over.

    Its not like the old days when a EE Lightning would burn its fuel in 30 mins.

    My apologies, I was going from the view of UK Spotter/Scanner heads on twitter that know more than me, they say if its the Russians they get a heads up most likely from Norway, plenty of time to prepare, tanker goes up then the Typhoons.

    They say if its a different QRA where they have no notice then 100% you are correct it is the Typhoons most definitely first.


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


    Psychlops wrote: »
    My apologies, I was going from the view of UK Spotter/Scanner heads on twitter that know more than me, they say if its the Russians they get a heads up most likely from Norway, plenty of time to prepare, tanker goes up then the Typhoons.

    They say if its a different QRA where they have no notice then 100% you are correct it is the Typhoons most definitely first.

    If it was a TU95 and they had the heads up then a tanker could get there in plenty of time. The recent incident was a blackjack which is a supersonic plane.

    They have come down between Iceland and Norway before, out the range of Norway.

    The other problem with having the tanker in position first is where should it go?

    The Russians don't file flight plans, don't have transponders switched on, don't talk to ATC and don't even talk to the fighters that intercept them.

    They could be going anywhere. Sometimes the go down the west coast of the UK/Ireland and as per the other day, they go down the east, turn around and head back.

    If Ireland needed QRA jets, I think they would be more for chasing civil aircraft with lost com's etc.


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


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    If it was a TU95 and they had the heads up then a tanker could get there in plenty of time. The recent incident was a blackjack which is a supersonic plane.

    But she was hardly supersonic the entire way.
    prinzeugen wrote: »
    They have come down between Iceland and Norway before, out the range of Norway.

    That's why NATO still perform air policing from Iceland since 2008 at the request of Icelands Govt due to Russian interference.
    prinzeugen wrote: »
    The other problem with having the tanker in position first is where should it go?

    The Russians don't file flight plans, don't have transponders switched on, don't talk to ATC and don't even talk to the fighters that intercept them.

    Well as I said its been seen ahead of QRA over Scotland on the west and eastern coasts, in the lost comms type QRA im as sure as you that she would get airborne after the Typhoons.

    Primary radar picks up these aircraft regardless.

    prinzeugen wrote: »
    If Ireland needed QRA jets, I think they would be more for chasing civil aircraft with lost com's etc.

    I don't think we need them, if anything we need a proper rotary force, the the RAF do the QRA as they are now.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 45 preacher2


    Lets be real, neutral or not we need some sort of actual defense otherwise we are not a defense force but a ceremonial military at best. Our navy's job is basically to make sure there arent foreign fishing trawlers in our seas and the Navy is the only branch that actually does anything.

    We control a very important airspace and sea (we COULD control but dont have the equipment to do so).

    The North Atlantic into Europe is ours to defend. It is our duty. Neutral or not evil doesnt go away. We need to un-neutral ourselves, fight terrorism, fight evil, deploy troops, deploy our SOF to do special operations, we need jets that can actually go faster than an airliner.

    Now I understand we cant have a massive military, however we can have around 3 to 4 jets.

    I personally dont see why its so hard. We have a duty to do as a member of the UN Nordic Battlegroup. We need to make sure that our airspace and seas are controlled at all times.


Advertisement