Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

sparky42 · 23-09-2020 10:43pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

Hungary leased the Gripen on good terms from Saab maybe we could do the same.

The difference being of course that they already had the underpinning support structures needed that we would have to build up, so even something like the Gripen deal wouldn't be the only costs we face.

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 23-09-2020 11:09pm

sparky42 wrote: »

The difference being of course that they already had the underpinning support structures needed that we would have to build up, so even something like the Gripen deal wouldn't be the only costs we face.

45m euro = 2 permanent primary military radar, the Russians turn or transponders all the time and incursions happen.

These costs can be contributed to as part of defence input into the EU defence fund and maybe a cheaper one of the Nordic countries as the responsibility is currently shared with them will be on them to police our skies.

The Cost of Hungary and Czech leasing is 100m pa = squadron of Gripen fighters leased over 10 years.

Ireland would be contributing to EU military surveillance, protects passengers in Irish controlled airspace as we are the main corridor into the EU/US. We also have no reliance on a non EU NATO states aircraft. We as we have to rely on Norway Sweden and Denmark with UK.

This is going to sound very shinnerish but how can we be a sovereign nation if we not even capable of protecting our airspace.

Larbre34 · 23-09-2020 11:29pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Similar to pc9 and preparation for transition to Gripen.

If they're similar to the PC-9s, then we're already sorted. Yeah?

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 23-09-2020 11:39pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

If they're similar to the PC-9s, then we're already sorted. Yeah?

PC-9s are not suitable for QRF

sparky42 · 23-09-2020 11:43pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

The Cost of Hungary and Czech leasing is 100m pa = squadron of Gripen fighters leased over 10 years.

This is going to sound very shinnerish but how can we be a sovereign nation if we not even capable of protecting our airspace.

I'm not disputing the leasing, what I'm pointing out is that we have a whole chunk of "other" costs that neither of them have, ie, upgrades to base infrastructure/moving it, personnel recruitment/training, arms procurement etc... They were replacing Pact equipment with Western equipment, we would be creating the capability.

I don't disagree with the issue of being able to defend our sovereignty, though I wouldn't be surprise if the Shinners would be the first to play "Whatabout" over the spending that would be needed

sparky42 · 23-09-2020 11:45pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

PC-9s are not suitable for QRF

Neither really is the L-159

ohnonotgmail · 24-09-2020 9:02am

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

PC-9s are not suitable for QRF

neither are jet trainers that max out at less than 500mph

hurleronditch · 24-09-2020 9:14am

It’s such an irrelevant conversation - the cost to procure and operate a meaningful fleet of fast intercept jets in the current climate is an absolute non-starter. It’s fine in theory to say “we should be able to defend our airspace” but what are we defending against? We are a clearly neutral country, and the Russians will never ever attack us. Given our close relationship with the US, if they ever did attack us (as stupid as that sentence sounds) it would basically spark world war 3 so it will never ever ever happen.

The Russian bombers running down the Scottish and Irish west coast are merely trying to annoy NATO, and testing the response times of the jets in Scotland and Wales, if I’m right once they get down alongside Donegal they always turn back, as once they have gotten as close to the Derry coast as they can to test quick response lads Coming from mainland UK there is no more purpose to their mission.

As for shinners and our sovereignty, they know enough about populist politics to know that backing a spend running into the hundreds of millions of euros for some toys for the boys will be election suicide when there’s hundreds of thousands unemployed and people on trolleys and kids going to school on an empty stomach around the country to know it’s a pointless exercise

ranto_boy · 24-09-2020 9:22am

You guys are having a laugh. The economy in the gutter and you want to splash hundreds of millions on fighters that serve no purpose, against no enemy and will never ever be actually needed to "engage".

We need to be stripping more money for the military, not feeding into fantasies!

Ok, you want a way to deal with a 9/11 type job? Pick up some sort of SAM then. Not doing a PCP on jets to keep the boys in jobs!

roadmaster · 24-09-2020 2:13pm

sparky42 wrote: »

The difference being of course that they already had the underpinning support structures needed that we would have to build up, so even something like the Gripen deal wouldn't be the only costs we face.

If the government decided to invest in a proper air defence today between infrastructure, training and acquiring the jets , How long would it take to get up and running?

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 24-09-2020 2:15pm

Judging by both above, do you think there is a need for a navy or a military?

Reading both of seem you “seem” to be of the opinion you need jets to kill or NATO type activities. That’s not at all what we have been suggesting.

It’s more for airspace policing rather than anything else. This due to Russian aircraft endangering transatlantic flights over by turning off transponders and ignore ATC. The EU has suggested we get this upgrade as far back as 2008 and then again it suggested and pointed out an summit/expo in 2015 that we(Ireland) are over reliant on the British to help us. Shortly after DOD spokeswoman stated back in 2015 that it was needed. In 2018 retired major general Ralph James was asked his opinion as a near miss involving a a Russian bomber of the Irish coast was being tracked by Danish and then joined by the RAF.

This not something of just a conversation starter as has been brought recently. We will not be completely purchasing these so the massive amount to the exchequer doesn’t seem to be true. These purchase comes out of an EU defence budget which we recent put 2.3 billion into before this pandemic.

hurleronditch · 24-09-2020 2:34pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

Judging by both above, do you think there is a need for a navy or a military?

Reading both of seem you “seem” to be of the opinion you need jets to kill or NATO type activities. That’s not at all what we have been suggesting.

It’s more for airspace policing rather than anything else. This due to Russian aircraft endangering transatlantic flights over by turning off transponders and ignore ATC. The EU has suggested we get this upgrade as far back as 2008 and then again it suggested and pointed out an summit/expo in 2015 that we(Ireland) are over reliant on the British to help us. Shortly after DOD spokeswoman stated back in 2015 that it was needed. In 2018 retired major general Ralph James was asked his opinion as a near miss involving a a Russian bomber of the Irish coast was being tracked by Danish and then joined by the RAF.

This not something of just a conversation starter as has been brought recently. We will not be completely purchasing these so the massive amount to the exchequer doesn’t seem to be true. These purchase comes out of an EU defence budget which we recent put 2.3 billion into before this pandemic.

Surely then you simply buy some military grade primary radar to avoid any possible ATC issues, and put some infrastructure along the coast in Donegal/Mayo?

If there was a local troublemaker in the town who tends to drive by your house in his noisy boy racer car late at night to annoy a some of your friends and neighbours who it is well known he doesn’t get on with, what would you do to deal with the situation? Would you make sure your gate is well locked and put some cctv cameras up to keep an eye on the situation or would you buy a couple of AK-47s and sit watching the windows all night just in case he comes by?

Keep in mind that your generally friendly (if sometimes annoying) neighbours also have a gun case full of hardware in their basement, and your big brother lives in the next town over and owns several tanks and a flamethrower.

source · 24-09-2020 2:50pm

A couple of points which I feel need to be made here. We are not a constitutionally neutral country, we took a position of military non alignment in WW2 because we had just come out of a war of independence and a civil war and could not possibly take any meaningful part in WW2 because of that. Indeed our so called neutrality heavily favoured the allied countries (we ferried downed allied pilots across the border while holding axis pilots in prison until after the war). We have continued the tradition of military non alignment to this day.

Even if you don't believe we should be funding our military correctly because we're neutral and have no natural enemies that is a point of view which is not shared by other neutral countries. Looking at Europe alone we see that every other neutral country in Europe takes defence much more seriously.

Austria:
Population: 8,726,000
Active Military Personnel: 21,200
Budget: €2.85BN
Fighters: 15 Eurofighter Typhoon

Finland:
Population: 5,500,000
Active Military Personnel: 8,056
Budget: €3.15BN
Fighters: 55 Boeing F18

Sweden:
Population: 9,600,000
Active Military Personnel: 22,500
Budget: 5.83BN
Fighters 80 Saab JAS 35 Gripen

Switzerland:
Population: 8,000,000
Active Military Personnel: 140,304
Budget: 4.52BN
Fighters: 25 Boeing F18 & 29 Northrop F5

Ireland:
Population: 4,750,000
Active Military Personnel: 8,751
Budget: 780MN
Fighters: 0

It's a joke how little is spent on defence in this country and our budget should be at least double what it currently is, even at that it would be far lower than it realistically should be which at 2% of GDP (which is the standard measurement) would be 388.7BN x 2% = 7.7BN. We would never be in a position to actually spend that amount, and it's a lot more than just jobs for the boys. It's a serious job which needs to be given a lot more respect in this country.

Edit: it should be noted that the numbers of active military personnel quoted above is just the full time members of the respective militaries and does not include reservists or conscripts.

source · 24-09-2020 3:17pm

To follow up on my previous post I'll discuss GBAD for a moment.

Most countries have a significant Ground Based Air Defence element.

Sweden have RBS 70 and RBS 97, though I can't get figures on numbers of each.

Finland have
Missile systems:
24 ITO 12 NASAMS II
16 ITO 05 (ASRAD-R)
86 ITO 05M (MANPADS)
20 ITO 90M (Crotale NG)
200 ITO 15

Artillery:
16 35 ItK 88
45 23 ItK 95
1,100 23 ItK 61 (ZU-23-2)
6 ITPSV Leopard 2 Marksman

Austria:
12 Zwillingsflugabwehrkanonen 35 mm (ZFLAK 85)
34 Mistral missile

Switzerland I couldn't find any information on GBAD, but I did find a 2019 article which said they were spending 2bn on upgrading their GBAD capability.

Ireland disbanded our air defence regiment in 2012. We do retain some RBS 70s within some Artillery Regiments.

All the above countries also have active radar both fixed and mobile. We have a few Giraffes and a number of Flycatcher mobile radars. I can't recall the exact number as I left the ADR in 2007.

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 24-09-2020 3:30pm

source wrote: »

A couple of points which I feel need to be made here. We are not a constitutionally neutral country, we took a position of military non alignment in WW2 because we had just come out of a war of independence and a civil war and could not possibly take any meaningful part in WW2 because of that. Indeed our so called neutrality heavily favoured the allied countries (we ferried downed allied pilots across the border while holding axis pilots in prison until after the war). We have continued the tradition of military non alignment to this day.

Even if you don't believe we should be funding our military correctly because we're neutral and have no natural enemies that is a point of view which is not shared by other neutral countries. Looking at Europe alone we see that every other neutral country in Europe takes defence much more seriously.

Austria:
Population: 8,726,000
Active Military Personnel: 21,200
Budget: €2.85BN
Fighters: 15 Eurofighter Typhoon

Finland:
Population: 5,500,000
Active Military Personnel: 8,056
Budget: €3.15BN
Fighters: 55 Boeing F18

Sweden:
Population: 9,600,000
Active Military Personnel: 22,500
Budget: 5.83BN
Fighters 80 Saab JAS 35 Gripen

Switzerland:
Population: 8,000,000
Active Military Personnel: 140,304
Budget: 4.52BN
Fighters: 25 Boeing F18 & 29 Northrop F5

Ireland:
Population: 4,750,000
Active Military Personnel: 8,751
Budget: 780MN
Fighters: 0

It's a joke how little is spent on defence in this country and our budget should be at least double what it currently is, even at that it would be far lower than it realistically should be which at 2% of GDP (which is the standard measurement) would be 388.7BN x 2% = 7.7BN. We would never be in a position to actually spend that amount, and it's a lot more than just jobs for the boys. It's a serious job which needs to be given a lot more respect in this country.

Edit: it should be noted that the numbers of active military personnel quoted above is just the full time members of the respective militaries and does not include reservists or conscripts.

Your figures for Ireland are from our own spending. Our spending on airspace protection aircraft will be taken from the EU defence budget not the Irish defence budget. There is a difference.

Defence budget for Ireland is expected to increase 32.8 million recommended by the EU.

The budget is due to be in excess of 1 billion.

https://www.pana.ie/download/EU-Defence-Spending.pdf

You are quoting figures from Irish domestic exchequer amounts or our own GDP.

We are getting funding from the EU defence fund which is not coming from out direct exchequer.

Our contribution to the EU budget and PESCO means that we are required to do upgrades.

source · 24-09-2020 3:36pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

Your figures for Ireland are from own spending. Our spending on airspace protection aircraft will be taken from the EU defence budget not the Irish defence budget.

Defence budget for Ireland is expected to increase 32.8 million recommended by the EU.

The budget is due to be in excess of 1 billion.

https://www.pana.ie/download/EU-Defence-Spending.pdf

You are quoting figures from Irish domestic exchequer amounts or our own GDP.

We are getting funding from the EU defence fund which is not coming from out direct exchequer.

Our contribution to the EU budget and PESCO means that we are required to do upgrades.

I'm simply taking the GDP figure for last year and showing what it would be if we were to spend the standard NATO 2%. I'm ignoring all other external avenues of defence funding to show how little we as a country are spending on national defence annually.

The projected increase to over 1bn is to be welcomed of course and upgrades are required across the entire DF. Indeed I'm well aware that large equipment purchases come from capital budget rather than the defence budget, but even taking that into account we're spending considerably less than other neutral countries within Europe which is the point I'm trying to make.

bogman_bass · 24-09-2020 3:44pm

You are missing one important part in that analysis .
Geography

Due to us being an island in the Atlantic only 2 countries realistically could face into a military conflict with us. The UK and US. And if either of them want to have a go 4 or 5 eurofighters isn’t going to do much to stop them.

CAS
Heavy lift
Martitme survailence
SAR

All these would be strategically and tactically more useful to Irish forces

Just because the big zoom zooms look cool doesn’t mean they are worth buying.

If the increase in budget were to come I rather see defense force members get a decent wage rather than useless shiner toys

source · 24-09-2020 3:55pm

bogman_bass wrote: »

You are missing one important part in that analysis .
Geography

Due to us being an island in the Atlantic only 2 countries realistically could face into a military conflict with us. The UK and US. And if either of them want to have a go 4 or 5 eurofighters isn’t going to do much to stop them.

CAS
Heavy lift
Martitme survailence
SAR

All these would be strategically and tactically more useful to Irish forces

Just because the big zoom zooms look cool doesn’t mean they are worth buying.

If the increase in budget were to come I rather see defense force members get a decent wage rather than useless shiner toys

And the other neutral European countries would fair likewise should they ever be invaded/attacked by their neighbours. That doesn't mean we should lie down and take it. Neutral countries should be able to mount a meaningful defence of their nations. Also it's not about toys for the boys, it's about having relevant resources so we can be self sufficient and not having to rely on neighbours for elements of our defence.

I would advocate for everything you have listed above as well as proper armour, proper GBAD and proper aircraft to allow us be self sufficient. In fact we already have maritime surveillance aircraft, which are due to be replaced in 2023, and the new PC12s are also outfitted for ISTAR so can also assist with that role. The PC9s are a fantastic platform for Combat Air Support aircraft, and the Texan/Super Tucano which are based on the PC9 design are being used as such by the USAF.

As you noted we are an island, and given our massive EEZ we would also benefit from a considerably expanded Naval Service, but that is not what this thread is about, it's about fighter aircraft, which we also need.

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 24-09-2020 4:07pm

source wrote: »

I'm simply taking the GDP figure for last year and showing what it would be if we were to spend the standard NATO 2%. I'm ignoring all other external avenues of defence funding to show how little we as a country are spending on national defence annually.

The projected increase to over 1bn is to be welcomed of course and upgrades are required across the entire DF. Indeed I'm well aware that large equipment purchases come from capital budget rather than the defence budget, but even taking that into account we're spending considerably less than other neutral countries within Europe which is the point I'm trying to make.

Unfortunately for me and others, I am close to the neglect of the defence forces has hit me on personal level. One being a friend of mine missing a special occasion because Paul Kehoe saw fit to tell the DF members serving abroad if you want to come before lockdown measures ask the Spanish airforce for a lift and then pay your own way home from Spain, oh and it’s out of your own pocket from Madrid to Dublin. Were this could have been rectified a long long time ago with the purchase of a transport aircraft rather than an upgrade to the private government jet.

We are a non aligned member state with Sweden and Finland. At the moment they can police there airspace perfectly although a greater GDP not by much per population. We are also with those two states in a “Nordic Battlegroup membership” which they have both suggested we purchase aircraft to be part of which we did with the all weather rotors purchased, this was one of the reasons. We are the only member of this group and EU member state without a fast aircraft. It was suggested if we could assist in the development of the Gripen HX programme maybe we could get a niche deal on the aircraft which is where the first pdf came from.

We have no obligation to use these aircraft in anything sinister but more so as deterrent we are completely incapable of taking care of our country from sea level up. However, as an EU member we do have an obligation to police our own airspace appropriately.

Using a NATO 2% figure would mean we need additional amount 15.6 million against the 780mil against our own budget.

But given our membership of PESCO these figures need to upped considerably.

sparky42 · 24-09-2020 4:42pm

hurleronditch wrote: »

It’s such an irrelevant conversation - the cost to procure and operate a meaningful fleet of fast intercept jets in the current climate is an absolute non-starter. It’s fine in theory to say “we should be able to defend our airspace” but what are we defending against? We are a clearly neutral country, and the Russians will never ever attack us. Given our close relationship with the US, if they ever did attack us (as stupid as that sentence sounds) it would basically spark world war 3 so it will never ever ever happen.

The Russian bombers running down the Scottish and Irish west coast are merely trying to annoy NATO, and testing the response times of the jets in Scotland and Wales, if I’m right once they get down alongside Donegal they always turn back, as once they have gotten as close to the Derry coast as they can to test quick response lads Coming from mainland UK there is no more purpose to their mission.

As for shinners and our sovereignty, they know enough about populist politics to know that backing a spend running into the hundreds of millions of euros for some toys for the boys will be election suicide when there’s hundreds of thousands unemployed and people on trolleys and kids going to school on an empty stomach around the country to know it’s a pointless exercise

No they don't turn back at Donegal, most of the time they go all the way down the West Coast and back with the RAF having to tool along with them the entire way.

sparky42 · 24-09-2020 4:44pm

ranto_boy wrote: »

You guys are having a laugh. The economy in the gutter and you want to splash hundreds of millions on fighters that serve no purpose, against no enemy and will never ever be actually needed to "engage".

We need to be stripping more money for the military, not feeding into fantasies!

Ok, you want a way to deal with a 9/11 type job? Pick up some sort of SAM then. Not doing a PCP on jets to keep the boys in jobs!

Are you taking the piss or what? The entire Defence budget is basically a non story compared to the major departments and the Capital budget is even smaller (or are you seriously going to suggest 100 million is somehow going to magically solve anything in this country?).

SAMs are extremely limited in many respects and btw also not cheap.

sparky42 · 24-09-2020 4:47pm

Lads ignore the PESCO, we aren't doing jack **** in any of the projects we've signed on for, there's not going to be any upswing of spending relating to it.

sparky42 · 24-09-2020 4:48pm

roadmaster wrote: »

If the government decided to invest in a proper air defence today between infrastructure, training and acquiring the jets , How long would it take to get up and running?

Assuming we use an Allied Nation for the training, 5-10 years realistically.

source · 24-09-2020 4:57pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

Unfortunately for me and others, I am close to the neglect of the defence forces has hit me on personal level. One being a friend of mine missing a special occasion because Paul Kehoe saw fit to tell the DF members serving abroad if you want to come before lockdown measures ask the Spanish airforce for a lift and then pay your own way home from Spain, oh and it’s out of your own pocket from Madrid to Dublin. Were this could have been rectified a long long time ago with the purchase of a transport aircraft rather than an upgrade to the private government jet.

We are a non aligned member state with Sweden and Finland. At the moment they can police there airspace perfectly although a greater GDP not by much per population. We are also with those two states in a “Nordic Battlegroup membership” which they have both suggested we purchase aircraft to be part of which we did with the all weather rotors purchased, this was one of the reasons. We are the only member of this group and EU member state without a fast aircraft. It was suggested if we could assist in the development of the Gripen HX programme maybe we could get a niche deal on the aircraft which is where the first pdf came from.

We have no obligation to use these aircraft in anything sinister but more so as deterrent we are completely incapable of taking care of our country from sea level up. However, as an EU member we do have an obligation to police our own airspace appropriately.

Using a NATO 2% figure would mean we need additional amount 15.6 million against the 780mil against our own budget.

But given our membership of PESCO these figures need to upped considerably.

Dude I'm 100% in agreement, I'm arguing that we need to up our game across defence expenditure. As I noted 2% of our GDP is 7.7bn, we're never going to spend that annually, but even if we upped our defence budget to 2bn a year it would go a long long way towards remedying a lot of the issues we have seen over the years.

Pronto63 · 24-09-2020 5:05pm

source wrote: »

Switzerland:
Population: 8,000,000
Active Military Personnel: 140,304
Budget: 4.52BN

Edit: it should be noted that the numbers of active military personnel quoted above is just the full time members of the respective militaries and does not include reservists or conscripts.

Do you have a source link for this info.
I find it hard to believe that Switzerland has 140,000 full time military without including reservists!

ohnonotgmail · 24-09-2020 5:13pm

Pronto63 wrote: »

Do you have a source link for this info.
I find it hard to believe that Switzerland has 140,000 full time military without including reservists!

about 10,000 career professionals and the rest are conscripts or volunteers.

sparky42 · 24-09-2020 5:13pm

Pronto63 wrote: »

Do you have a source link for this info.
I find it hard to believe that Switzerland has 140,000 full time military without including reservists!

Conscription...

Larbre34 · 24-09-2020 5:46pm

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

PC-9s are not suitable for QRF

Not what I was talking about.

source · 24-09-2020 6:08pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

about 10,000 career professionals and the rest are conscripts or volunteers.

Correct, I took the headline figure from the Swiss Army website which doesn't break it down by how they're employed in the military just by rank class.

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 24-09-2020 7:22pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not what I was talking about.

If you mean in terms of pilots going from one aircraft to another then no, the transition is easier going from the PC-9 to an F-16 or FA/18 block II as the only similarity between all three aircraft is the HUD and panel displays.

The LCD displays, HUD and Jammer tech in Gripen is not on any another in service aircraft other than the latest FA 18 Block III that is still in development.

If this is not what you meant then do tell please?

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments