Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

As said, we have a former AC general making it clear that 16 is pretty much the bare minimum to provide 24/7. As to the comment regarding “interceptors rather than fighters”, nor such model exists in current Western production, all “fighter” airframes are multi functional, just depends on what the user wants to use it for. Realistically Rafale is limited as it’s got a smaller user base, to the point that the French are loaning the Egyptians money for the Egyptians to buy Rafales just to keep the line open. Gripen is the lowest cost per hour and may have more orders coming.

Flinty997 wrote: »

He also said a few other things...

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

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

I was at the Galway Air Show a number of years ago(in uniform). The number of people protesting the presence of the Red Arrows was eye opening. Nevermind there not being political will for fighters here, the backlash would be huge.



I'd love to see it, but I can't see it happening. The best we can hope for is some decent naval ships and even then I'd be hoping for Island-class patrol vehicles, not destroyers.

Thats just the "brits out" shower. They pretend to be "anti war" but are strangely quiet when it isn't the brits of the US who are in town.

F-5s would not be a good idea, IMHO.

At least a generation too old.

At the very least, F-16s could be considered. As for a single engine plane, there are lots of examples of carrier going planes that are single engine, so I wouldn't worry about that as long as they are quite modern.

Engine reliability these days is vastly in excess of what it used to be.
However, that still means you could buy or lease second hand Rafales from Dassault and it would be a nearby source of support, maintenance and training.

However, I'm sticking with my original recommendation of Gripens, because Saab.

Stovepipe wrote: »

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.

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.

The idea of having a spare engine to get him home doesn't really work for modern fighter aircraft. Because engines are usually serviced together, if one fails there is as much chance of both failing. If one throws a rotor, it'll probably damage engine 2 in the process, as they are, unlike airliners, separated by space or fuselage. In the past losing one engine in a fighter aircraft would cause more trouble than losing both. The airframe is designed around getting thrust equally from 2 sources off the centreline.
The Pc12, a single engine TP aircraft has been crossing many seas to get to places overseas. Even recently when a PC9 lost its engine, it had enough airspeed and ability to make a 50km run back to a safe landing on the runway in Baldonnel, and that's just a prop aircraft.

As an example, F35 is the future carrier based aircraft for a number of Navies, and it has just one, very complex engine.
South Africa use the Gripen, a single engine aircraft, and there is quite a large area of sea in their AO. Sweden isn't exactly land locked either, another Gripen user. 2nd Gen Gripen have an onboard APU, so even if the main engine goes, the APU can keep power going to sensors and control surfaces, allowing the aircraft to at least make a controlled glide to safer crash landing site.
Get the F5 out of your head, its a huge backward step, that would be more costly to maintain than a modern leased aircraft. It came from a time before the last military jets we retired from service 20 years ago. The most modern version first flew 50 years ago. In service for the most part the F16 replaced it.

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.

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.

Dauphins too. Our version was unique to us. Nobody else used a Naval Dauphin with a search radar that also did SAR.
I believe the RG32 is unique to us also. Another lemon.

Dohvolle wrote: »

Dauphins too. Our version was unique to us. Nobody else used a Naval Dauphin with a search radar that also did SAR.
I believe the RG32 is unique to us also. Another lemon.

What I’ve never understood is that we have multiple neighbours who we could leverage off and yet we still end up we our odd jobs...

sparky42 wrote: »

What I’ve never understood is that we have multiple neighbours who we could leverage off and yet we still end up we our odd jobs...

Eithne was designed around the Lynx, the UK flew Lynx, the Belgians and Dutch (who advised us on the building of Eithne) were also Lynx operators at sea. France had only started deck trials with Dauphin months before our Dauphin was ordered.
Seems the DoD are the kind of folk who think the salesman is actually your friend, and everything in the brochure is true.

Dohvolle wrote: »

The last 4 ships built for the NS are designed for, but not with Air search radar. In the Past L.E Eithne used her Singnaal DA 05 radar (Same as used on Giraffe)to great effect during the visit of Clinton & Bush, parking itself in the Shannon Estuary and if nothing else, giving those on the ground a picture of what was flying without having to rely on ATC.
Modern Solid state or 4D surveillance radars could provide a much better picture, and take up less space too. All the plumbing is there for them, they just need to plug & play. Something like the Thales NS50 for example.

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.