RAF QRA Launch!

Leonidas BL wrote: »

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/why-do-british-jets-protect-irish-airspace/

A good read

"Good" a bit of a stretch.

Refers to "The Air Corps" and says we have "no jet aircraft".

It's there to whip the Nigels into a tizzy, and is successful at that.

If these aircraft were actually a threat we'd have done something about it. But aircraft flying through our air space are not a threat.

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Hasn't it been said several times that they are a hazard to civilian traffic? They must be wrong so.

You're suggesting the Russians will fly one of their bombers into aircraft in Irish airspace?

That's a bold play, Cotton.

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I didn't suggest it, others on here did. Its not as if two aircraft have never collided or anything :rolleyes:

So 'others' suggest that the solution to this is to spend billions on fast jets so that we can ensure a Russian bomber doesn't fly into another jet?

donvito99 wrote: »

So 'others' suggest that the solution to this is to spend billions on fast jets so that we can ensure a Russian bomber doesn't fly into another jet?

Why do I have to keep repeating myself to you?
Yes that is what "others" are suggesting!! Is that not the point of any QRA mission, that air traffic control can see where they are while they are in our area because of the fact that they do not switch on their transponders?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So they got one letter wrong (and isn't "Aer Corps" a bastardised mix of two languages anyway?) and stated a fact - we have no military jet aircraft in Ireland.



The whole point is that we can't do a damn thing about it. And yes aircraft with no flight plan, no transponder, and no communication with ATC ARE very much a threat to civil aviation safety.

And why not let the RAF do it so? They have the kit, they can escort down our coast, it gives them (and the French) an excuse to justify €100m aircraft when they're not being flown into and out of Syria.

It would be outrageous for any government to spend, as suggested by an ex Air Corps GOC, €1bn just so that we can brag about flying alongside a Russian bomber that can be identified with a pretty rudimentary civilian radar capability. Civilian aircraft can then be redirected as required.

Problem solved. Willys left unwaved.

donvito99 wrote: »

And why not let the RAF do it so? They have the kit, they can escort down our coast, it gives them (and the French) an excuse to justify €100m aircraft when they're not being flown into and out of Syria.

It would be outrageous for any government to spend, as suggested by an ex Air Corps GOC, €1bn just so that we can brag about flying alongside a Russian bomber that can be identified with a pretty rudimentary civilian radar capability. Civilian aircraft can then be redirected as required.

Problem solved. Willys left unwaved.

It wouldn't be outrageous at all.

Simon Coveney himself acknowledged the need for a military grade primary radar as a first step.

After that there are a good many solutions that could be examined for aircraft. The Czech Republic leases from Sweden 12 x Gripen multirole supersonic jets since 2004 until 2027 for about €80 million a year. That includes tech support and training and upgrades. Thats less than 10% of even our meagre defence budget in a country that takes in 60 billion a year in taxes. Between that and the primary radar, both of which the EU may well co-fund, we'd have a very good standard of air defence for our needs.

Psychlops wrote: »

QRA Launch! MADRAS712 RAF Airbus Tanker ZZ336 is airborne from RAF Brize Norton now & routing direct to RAF Lossiemouth.

The Russians are really upping their patrols!

The attritional hit on NATO is huge over the last few weeks.
Ramping up the incursions during a health crisis and dependant upon the outward and inward routes triggering Norway, UK, France and the Icelandic QRA's on a near daily basis.
Costing NATO far more to escort and respond than it is the Russians to plot an awkward bastard patrol route.

Markcheese wrote: »

Cool, 80 to 100 million p/a for the jets ... Add in a few Bob to get jet trainers , do you need hardened hangers ? ,Fuel would be relatively small ...
Now we start to hit the big cost ... Staff... 3 crews per plane ? Each Being 1 pilot , 1 technician and 5(?) More ,
And that's not even the maintenance crowd ... Then the hierarchy above them , and the trainers ,stores and logistics ,
So maybe 1 and half to double the size of the aer corp... And a lot more highly trained / expensive ,difficult to hold onto staff ...

Now ,what this air Force actually for ? Defending the state ? From who ? ( Because who we're defending ourselves from kinda defines the numbers of planes and their type ) ,
Does having 12 or 24 or whatever planes make the state safer ,or does it make it a target ..

Now if Ireland decides it no longer wants to be neutral ,and get involved in European defence or. Nato ,then that's different again ....

Yes all correct as regards manpower, I don't believe we need hardened hangars, but we do need air stations beyond Baldonnell, closer to the Atlantic, I would put a flight of two QRA in both Kerry and Sligo Airports, with associated facilities for fuelling, basic maintenance and crew accommodation.

I agree too about the manpower issue, but I believe the attraction of fast jets dovetailed with a mandatory 5 or 7 years post attestation service would more than cover it. I would think you are looking at perhaps 40 pilot officers and 50 or 60 ground technicians covering minimum 9 of 12 aircraft operational at one time. An element of that would already be in service.

Would a jet capability make the State a target? I don't see why it would. From whom would be defending the air land and sea territory? Clearly the Russian military who have taken an aggressive stance in Western European territory and seek to operate their heavy warplanes with impunity. I don't advocate NATO membership right now and that is precisely why I contend we need an independent air defence capability, as the current arrangement heavily dilutes our military non-alignment. Operation of jets would also allow us to cooperate with our neutral and PfP colleagues in training and peace enforcement, including providing combat air cover for our own peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations in Mali, for example.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yes all correct as regards manpower, I don't believe we need hardened hangars, but we do need air stations beyond Baldonnell, closer to the Atlantic, I would put a flight of two QRA in both Kerry and Sligo Airports, with associated facilities for fuelling, basic maintenance and crew accommodation.

I agree too about the manpower issue, but I believe the attraction of fast jets dovetailed with a mandatory 5 or 7 years post attestation service would more than cover it. I would think you are looking at perhaps 40 pilot officers and 50 or 60 ground technicians covering minimum 9 of 12 aircraft operational at one time. An element of that would already be in service.

Would a jet capability make the State a target? I don't see why it would. From whom would be defending the air land and sea territory? Clearly the Russian military who have taken an aggressive stance in Western European territory and seek to operate their heavy warplanes with impunity. I don't advocate NATO membership right now and that is precisely why I contend we need an independent air defence capability, as the current arrangement heavily dilutes our military non-alignment. Operation of jets would also allow us to cooperate with our neutral and PfP colleagues in training and peace enforcement, including providing combat air cover for our own peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations in Mali, for example.

Wow, combat air cover in West Africa .... So how many more planes and crews over the 9 to 12 mythical grippens are you thinking ...