Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

We have always been defenceless!

We were defenceless in WW2, we were defenceless in the Cold War, we were defenceless during the Troubles, we were defenceless during the “War on Terror” years, are you somehow suggesting we weren’t at risk at all for the last hundred years until now. Why are you jumping into this thread an acting like you alone have made this amazing discovery, or that somehow it’s a change from the norm? And actual point of fact getting back to the “size of the economy bit” while a tiny % of gdp, the actual budget is several times what it was when we were spending above 1% on defence during the Troubles.

Amazingly (and in some cases unfortunately) politicians do things and spend on things that get them re-elected. New roads, businesses, housing stock, health. The Irish people want that, spending on defence, not so much. If the budget is doubled to €2 billion, expect a shitload of complaining in the Daíl, just look at the shite PBP etc are spewing today for example. And even then the budget is unlikely to stretch to fighters, however most likely will pay for finally setting up the Primary Radar systems.

Besides which arguably the threat of Russia has been greatly weakened as their Ukrainian misadventure has proved that they are in a terrible state. Also the argument that the government priority is somehow to sustain the status quo goes against everything we have seen since the Commissions report. You have read that right?

Our on-going problem is strategic blindness. We are always caught a dollar short. It is Defence and volatility right now in Europe. Yet we were happy to let tech. companies feed us the benefits of being connected to Gas and electric Grids and close down many high output Irish Power Stations. In Defence we opted for show the Flag, fetch, carry, rescue, flood defences , feed animals in snow, and put out fires.

You can build a thousand houses over two years and a stick of bombs can level them and the occupants in seconds of mayhem. Some blame also attaches to the Military leadership and ongoing neutrality paralysis.

This submission to commission on defence would seem to state otherwise.

God help us, Jonny might have been right 😣

Interesting saying we need to be accurate and then not being. No the Hurricanes, sea fires and vampires were not frontline aircraft by the time we had them in service, nor did we have the capability to even use their limited capabilities. No the Flower class corvettes were not frontline warships being an emergency war program already succeed in service by far better designs when we got them and not even close to being “frontline” by the time we retired them. The MTBs were an early and limited variant of MTBs compared to other British designs and highly illsuited to Irish Sea state conditions.

Harriers were never popular, they filled a role for navies that wanted air power but couldn’t afford large carriers and the US Marines, other than that they had a relatively limited customer base, and a high loss rate. Moreover given its single engine nature and limited payload and range how you think it would have served a purpose in Irish service is beyond me.

Where we are today is effectively the same as where we have always been, not enough of anything, but enough for the politicians to point at.

Nah, at least some of the hurricanes were bought from the Brits rather than repaired and reused, but they were long out of the frontline usage by then, don’t think they were even being used as CAS at that point, hence why the U.K. finally sold them to us. After that you’re right for the AC.

Russia had a fairly bad time of it in Finland when they tried in the Winter War.

Against an overwhelming level of force and the Soviets suffer massive losses, if Finland had received the level of international support that Ukraine currently has they most likely would have won.

Not really, many militaries practice using rough strips, for example the Ukrainians right now are doing so. Many nations have entire road sections designed as runways with adjacent stores for example Finland, South Korea, Switzerland to name a few, hell the US practiced it in one of their states recently. The idea for the Harriers (or rather the NATO spec) was the belief that hardened airfields would be prime targets for nukes in the event of WW3. But between changing doctrine and the limitations of the design and the growth of attack helicopters the perceived need lapsed.

How many times did they use that in combat? Falklands is the only time I can think of, mainly as while they can take off without a runway it impacts their already limited range/weight issues. It hasn't been copied because its a niche capability that not many nations want/need. The 35B has been driven by the US Marines needs and mainly Navies.

It offers value because it's main modern selling point is for small carriers, on the other hand "small carriers" are now pushing twice what the RN Invincibles were. Outside of the US Marines with their joint role, from a quick look only the RAF flew it from land, all other users were Naval operators (or Air Force that operate at sea if you take the issue the Italians had at one stage), if it wasn't "made in UK" would the RAF have gone for it, or invested in other aircraft fleets? It was a niche aircraft that other militaries for different airframes for. Nor when you consider the lifespan of some aircraft has it had a particularly longer service life tbh.

That was a very interesting historical perspective Ancient M. Go raibh mait agat!

On the contrary. I am interested in CAS and am convinced that a close air support role needs to be procured as well as interception. Two differerent aircraft will be required. Possibly the Gripen or KAI for interception and the latest gen Aero Vodoshitov machine for CAS. Only 6 to 8 of the latter required along with a small wing of light attack helicopters wich can also be operated from the new ships coming along for the navy.