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?

13567194

Comments

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


    preacher2 wrote: »

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

    .

    While I agree with the general tenor of your post, I have to disagree with this, 3-4 jets are not enough to ensure even a rudimentary intercept capability. Let me explain why.

    First of all, modern air combat tactics are generally geared towards two-aircraft formations as the basic element of most tactics and procedures, including intercepts. The FAA procedures below are an example:

    https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2015/media/Intercept-Procedures.pdf

    So, going from that, any scramble & intercept would have to be done by two aircraft, one to conduct the actual signalling, and another to stay back, monitor the situation, and cover the first aircraft if needed. However, with two aircraft already engaged on an intercept, you would need two more to take their place, in case another situation comes up, until the two active aircraft have returned, and have been serviced, and refuelled. You could spin this further, but for the sake of simplicity, lets work with four aircraft always ready to go. Given that the serviceability of modern fighters rarely exceeds 50-60% from what I've read in multiple sources, you'd need at least eight aircraft just in order to have four aircraft ready to go at any time.

    Then there's the issue of pilots, and ensuring that they have enough flight time in whatever fighter aircraft would be used to be of use in any intercept situation that happens to turn "hot". First of all, having one pilot per aircraft is not enough. You can't just have a pilot sitting on standby next to his or her aircraft 24 hours a day, day in day out. So, by necessity, there's going to be more pilots per airplanes. The interceptors are going to be on stand-by 24/7, so we're going to have a crew change at least every 24 hours. In order to allow sufficient rest times, we should look at 3 pilots per interceptor, so for two active and two spare interceptors, we're at 12 pilots, to ensure proper staffing and proper rest.

    However, pilots can't actually get any flying time during intercept duty, except during an actual intercept. Ideally, a pilot should be looking at flying at least 150 hours a year to retain his combat proficiency, as stated in the article below:

    http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/11/fighter-pilots-arent-flying-enough-hone-skills-full-spectrum-war/133328/

    That works out to about three sorties per week. Anything less, and pilots tend to loose their skills. Sure, some flying can be done in simulator, but there's no substitute for actual flying. Given what we've learned above with regards to fighter tactics, you'd want at least enough aircraft for some 2-on-2 training dogfights, which means another four aircraft, now we're up to twelve in total. These don't need to be active 24/7, so I'm not calculating in any additional spares. However, we should calculate at least some rudimentary CAP (Combat Air Patrol) capability for high profile events, as well as for training with the other components of the Defence Forces, the army, and the navy. Let's be a bit miserly and calculate two for each, and we're up to 16 fighters, which is the approximate size of your average fighter squadron.

    Now bear in mind that this squadron is actually quite rudimentary in its capabilities, it is geared towards interceptions and combat air patrols, with only very limited availability for air-to-ground operations, and little to no power projection ability. In addition, I'd advise against basing such a squadron at Baldonnel, for no other reason than that the noise of two fighter aircraft with afterburners conducting a nighttime scramble would probably wake up half of Dublin, so ideally, we'd be looking at a completely new base as well, or at least at grafting an airbase onto an existing airport such as Knock.

    Still, I'd love to see something like this implemented, if for no other reason than for watching a certain section of the Daíl get a heart attack once the plans are revealed.

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



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


    Pilots could train/exchange (secondment) with other air forces to keep hours up and learn.

    For example, some Royal Navy ex-harrier crew deployed with the US Navy and flew F-18s from carriers and are now trainers on the F-35 for UK pilots.

    Irish crew could go on secondment to a air force that uses the same equipment that the Air Corp was intending to use.

    If it was to happen, it would take years.

    Ireland might get away with 7 leased F-16. (2 flights of 3 + 1 maintenance spare)


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


    Exchange postings will certainly take place, but that is not a solution to keep all pilots up to date. Remember that article I posted. Three sorties a week per pilot, 150 hours per year, that's what is needed to keep pilots trained and operating at the top of their game. To ensure that, Irish pilots would have to spend most of their flying lives apart from sitting on Interceptor duty abroad, and that is something that is just not going to happen.

    The Royal Navy example you mentioned is not a valid model for Ireland. It is only meant as a temporary measure while the Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force get their F-35 squadrons up to speed, and the US Navy and Marines agreed to it on this basis. Besides, the amount of pilots taking part in this exchange is relatively low, sending almost one squadron's worth of pilots to another Air Force is just not going to fly, pardon the pun.

    As for the F-16, despite the ongoing production, the basic frame is getting on in years, it's almost forty years old by now. While the design itself is pretty solid, it won't be able to keep up much longer. If we were to go for a fighter, my money would be on the Saab Gripen, Saab certainly has enough experience providing a baseline intercept capability to countries, they're doing it for the Czech Republic and Hungary respectively. If Ireland does decide to go down that path, that model should be one to emulate. I agree, it will take years even in the best of circumstances, though.

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



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


    Good posts coming through now. Thanks all....and bring on the Gripens or maybe the Scorpions?


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


    Good posts coming through now. Thanks all....and bring on the Gripens or maybe the Scorpions?

    Gripen all the way for me please :D

    Seriously though, you'll need an aircraft that'll be able to get up to altitude and to an unidentified aircraft within the shortest possible time, and the Scorpion just doesn't have the performance for that. I wouldn't mind seeing a squadron of those complement the PC-9s as an advanced trainer aircraft/light attack aircraft, but that would REALLY be cloud cuckoo land :D

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



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


    Lads, as I've said before there is a crap load of areas that the AC needs to deal with long before FJ's are even on the menu (from the Helicopters, to the MPA, to just the cultural issues that has created historic issues), and there's nothing in the budget for the rest of the WP period.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭Mahony0509


    Our airspace is some of the most important in the world. Almost every single flight from Europe/Northern Asia to America flies over Ireland. God forbidding if anything ever happened to any of those airliner overhead, what're we gonna do? Send a little propeller plane 40,000 feet upwards or depend on the Brits ffs. One or two jets would be plenty for us.


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


    I blame it all on Ryanair...for stealing all our best pilots


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


    Mahony0509 wrote: »
    Our airspace is some of the most important in the world. Almost every single flight from Europe/Northern Asia to America flies over Ireland. God forbidding if anything ever happened to any of those airliner overhead, what're we gonna do? Send a little propeller plane 40,000 feet upwards or depend on the Brits ffs. One or two jets would be plenty for us.

    No it wouldn't, any basic knowledge would tell you that, to maintain any level of a QRA Ireland would need the better part of 12-16, this is to take into account those that are in the hanger in maintenance, those that are being used for training and certification and then those that maybe used. That's on top of the need for actual Active Radar systems so we'd know about anyone being of the West Coast. Also add in needing to increase the AC numbers by at least half if not doubling the manpower levels...

    Take a look at the DF budget as % of GDP (and the Capital Spend within that) and realise that what's being suggested here is a none runner.


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


    sparky42 wrote: »
    No it wouldn't, any basic knowledge would tell you that, to maintain any level of a QRA Ireland would need the better part of 12-16, this is to take into account those that are in the hanger in maintenance, those that are being used for training and certification and then those that maybe used. That's on top of the need for actual Active Radar systems so we'd know about anyone being of the West Coast. Also add in needing to increase the AC numbers by at least half if not doubling the manpower levels...

    Take a look at the DF budget as % of GDP (and the Capital Spend within that) and realise that what's being suggested here is a none runner.

    I think getting a more substantial helicopter wing and expanding MPA aircraft are a lot more important


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


    roadmaster wrote: »
    I think getting a more substantial helicopter wing and expanding MPA aircraft are a lot more important

    Totally agree with you, more helicopter capability to both be used out of the State on UN/EU missions and to be able to support a large enough lift of the Rangers for terror situations we might face (and enough to have one based at the Curragh full time), and yeah MPA's (ideally I'd have 4-6 both to be able to carry out more effective MPA of the coast and also be able to have a unit available for International operations...


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


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Totally agree with you, more helicopter capability to both be used out of the State on UN/EU missions and to be able to support a large enough lift of the Rangers for terror situations we might face (and enough to have one based at the Curragh full time), and yeah MPA's (ideally I'd have 4-6 both to be able to carry out more effective MPA of the coast and also be able to have a unit available for International operations...

    Are large helicopters needed for rangers. When you see other special forces being deployed in urban areas they seem to use small enough helicopters. The British last year in London used a dauphin I think


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


    roadmaster wrote: »
    Are large helicopters needed for rangers. When you see other special forces being deployed in urban areas they seem to use small enough helicopters. The British last year in London used a dauphin I think

    I suppose it depends, I'd guess for instance you have a lot more armed officers in London as a baseline over what the Gardaí could field in Dublin on an emergency situation, but to me just being able to move several squads in one lift to say Baldonnel and then redeploy rather than the limited lift we have with the 139's as is (I mean from memory don't the SAS have some troops based around London for a quick response reaction rather than coming from further out like the Rangers would have to do?). And for regular Army usage something heavier would be more useful across the board.


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


    A small fleet of Apache attack helicopters would come in a bit handy for exercises in the Glen of Imall and could be useful on overseas ops ad well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Atoms for Peace


    ted1 wrote: »
    You clearly have no ideas of the role of the Aer corp.

    Flying Leo to Brussels? :)


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


    Of course I do. Look at the title of this thread. What is under discussion is giving the boys a meaningful role, because their equipment is rather simple at present. My proposal is a gradual upgrading of the capability.
    Phase 1. Acquire 8 jet trainers / ground attack aircraft...such as Hawk or Scorpion or that Italian jobby. This provides an upgrade path for skill set.
    Phase 2. New powerful radar equipment and establish a bolt on base at Knock Airport complete with bomb proof aircraft shelters. Also needed at Baldonnel.
    Phase 2 b & c. Acquire 4 Apache attack helicopters to support army and one of them new Embraer troop transporters to support ops in the Lebanon. Could also be fitted with 30mm Cannon as a helicopter gunship.
    Phase 4. Acquire 12 Gripen Intercepters once the lads have developed their skills on jets. To defend airspace post Brexit.

    Might as well buy a decent replacement for the governments as well.

    That seems like a reasonable amount for a small nation to have as an Air Force that is more than a gentleman's flying club. Even Zimbabwe has a better Air Force than Ireland.


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


    Correction...meant to say gunship....not helicopter gunship. By the way. I like the kit they have just purchased. The PC 12's. And the new CASA 's as well. Time to spend some decent cash to restore national pride and morale in the Corps. There should be plenty of money coming down the track now that the Barryroe Offshore Oil and Gas field is finally going forward.


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


    Surely a few UAVs would be the cheapest option, 24/7 availability just a bit of training on the joystick.


  • Registered Users Posts: 540 ✭✭✭dasa29


    Of course I do. Look at the title of this thread. What is under discussion is giving the boys a meaningful role, because their equipment is rather simple at present. My proposal is a gradual upgrading of the capability.
    Phase 1. Acquire 8 jet trainers / ground attack aircraft...such as Hawk or Scorpion or that Italian jobby. This provides an upgrade path for skill set.
    Phase 2. New powerful radar equipment and establish a bolt on base at Knock Airport complete with bomb proof aircraft shelters. Also needed at Baldonnel.
    Phase 2 b & c. Acquire 4 Apache attack helicopters to support army and one of them new Embraer troop transporters to support ops in the Lebanon. Could also be fitted with 30mm Cannon as a helicopter gunship.
    Phase 4. Acquire 12 Gripen Intercepters once the lads have developed their skills on jets. To defend airspace post Brexit.

    Might as well buy a decent replacement for the governments as well.

    That seems like a reasonable amount for a small nation to have as an Air Force that is more than a gentleman's flying club. Even Zimbabwe has a better Air Force than Ireland.

    some of this seems good but in phase 2 i would not establish a bolt on base at knock, instead i would buy the closed galway airport and turn it in to a new base. I would buy 12 jet fighters plus 4 trainer versions, i would also buy 4 casa and base all 6 in the new base. we also buy 2 to 4 transports to be based between the new base and Baldonnel.

    In regards the jet fighters i would buy twin engined jets or ones with good range. don't forget unless we get aircraft that can do inflight refueling or buddy tanks used by trainers.


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


    Interesting idea that. Of course the Scorpion is twin engined but sub mach speed. Maybe a half dozen CASA would work better than the 2 CASA already on order and my proposed Embraer heavy lifter transport. Waterford airport is almost shut down to commercial traffic these days as well but I agree a base on the West coast is needed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,921 ✭✭✭Reati


    Surely a few UAVs would be the cheapest option, 24/7 availability just a bit of training on the joystick.

    Drones are not that easy to fly but yes they should be where the Air Corp go. The cost is in the systems to fly them and keep them up in the air. Example, they use secure Satellites for the video, telemetry and control feeds. Those are not something we have so we'd need to invest or rent or whatever others do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,921 ✭✭✭Reati


    That seems like a reasonable amount for a small nation to have as an Air Force that is more than a gentleman's flying club. Even Zimbabwe has a better Air Force than Ireland.

    But we don't need any of this. We don't need to protect our airspace militarily post brexit the same as we don't need to protect it now. The only country that has and might again come into our airspace is Russia who have about 400 - 500 jets. I don't think 12 Gripen Intercepters will be much use if they decide to attack. Indeed, even post Brexit, the Brits would get involved very quickly as it would be in their interest too. Outside of all that, the if's and but's it takes to get to a point where an attack is launched against us that justifies the costs of what would be a ceremonial attempt at air defence using jets just don't line up.

    The air corps have a small mission set that doesn't require jets. It's just fantasist to justify wasting money on new toys when they have well documented manpower issues. The DOD need to figure out what we need to keep the air corp for and then re-structure around those key operational needs. Then discuss the airframe needs.


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


    Reati wrote: »
    Drones are not that easy to fly but yes they should be where the Air Corp go. The cost is in the systems to fly them and keep them up in the air. Example, they use secure Satellites for the video, telemetry and control feeds. Those are not something we have so we'd need to invest or rent or whatever others do.

    Seems to be the way forward, as with most things the auto-pilot auto-bots will do a better job than humans in the future.

    The big ones can go up (and stay there) for about 8 days, ideal for surveillance (without coffee, or toilet breaks). Even the smaller ones have a range of 1,800miles.

    The future is all about very high altitude and space itself. Lasers, pulses and everything generally happening at hypersonic speeds.

    Even a basic UAV may be able to spot something fishy sailing in, then introduce the human aspect via chopper to board it. If it's something more significant, send out an low energy pulse or sub-launch a swarm, to photograph and buzz it.


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


    I am going to go out on a limb here but before we go getting gunships how about we pay the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann a proper wage first, it’s just a silly idea I have!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,921 ✭✭✭Reati


    Seems to be the way forward, as with most things the auto-pilot auto-bots will do a better job than humans in the future.

    The big ones can go up (and stay there) for about 8 days, ideal for surveillance (without coffee, or toilet breaks). Even the smaller ones have a range of 1,800miles.

    The future is all about very high altitude and space itself. Lasers, pulses and everything generally happening at hypersonic speeds.

    Even a basic UAV may be able to spot something fishy sailing in, then introduce the human aspect via chopper to board it. If it's something more significant, send out an low energy pulse or sub-launch a swarm, to photograph and buzz it.

    Totally, in fact in the US the DHS use unarmed drones to policing of the border along Mexico. It's exactly where they should be going for the maritime patrol and surveillance roles they do.


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


    And the new CASA 's as well.

    There are as yet NO Casa's on order, the Casa's are due to be replaced but there is nothing on order.


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


    than the 2 CASA already on order and my proposed Embraer heavy lifter transport.

    NO Casa's on order....

    Why do you want that Embraer? Just because it did a PR flight at Bal? The KC390 is not a heavy lifter either, it is the heaviest aircraft Embraer have though.


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


    This thread is the gift that keeps on giving at this stage.


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


    Drones only have a top speed of about 250 mph. They are only useful for surveillance and for taking pot shots at them Taliban / Isis / Al Quada fellahs scarpering along in the desert in a land cruiser. By comparison the PC9m aircraft does about 350 to 400 mph. The Scorpion about 450 to 500 mph and the Gripen about Mach2...ie around 1400 to 1500 mph. So something like a Scorpion of Hawk is capable of ground attack in a military theatre. The Gripen is the sort of aircraft you need to see off any hostile foreign military aircraft because it's high speed can get it there quickly.


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


    By the way...I didn't realize the KC 390 did a demo at Baldonnel. Impressive bit of kit imo. I've flown quite a lot on the Embraer passenger airliners that BA operate out of London City Airport. Great plane! And their Tucano trainer / light attack plane has been a great success. The KC 390 is picking up quite a few orders in South America and Boeing are very interested in getting involved in the programme.


Advertisement