Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Hardly enormous expense at all. Casement has been hosting flights coming in by large aircraft for years. Don't know about Galway, but wouldn't expect a small jet fighter would need a massive runway.

Galway Airport is closed. The reasons for this are many, one of which is the length of its runway, and the inability of the Airport company to purchase land for an extension, not that they didn't have the ability to finance it.

This idea of buying penny packets of scorpians, L139's, FA-50's is just ridiculous gibbering.

For every model you have, you need to establish Logs chains, supply lines and spares holding. You also need to type rate pilots and run Mechs through 3 different training streams.

The PC-9M's are not interceptors, however they would still be needed if we did go toward jets as ab-initio trainers,They're also much cheaper to have 2nd Lieutenants booting about in and doing stupid stuff.

People need to stop reading the Manufacturers bumpf. Top speeds blah blah blah is just Marketing sh1te, throw on missile fit, drop tanks etc and those figures disappear because of the larger signature and extra drag.

Think of this, a 1000 ltr drop tank uses up 30% of its own fuel to lug about.

Can you imagine the furore in the Press/Society when its realised that Jonnys shiney new Cock extension can't catch/Stay with a Tu?

The only realistic option for a FJ capable of intercepting the Tu's is the Saab or one of the cheaper US frontline fighters, mainly due to operating costs, purchase/leasing deals available and ease of operation.

Even thats a massive cost relative to Mil budgets.

First mention of spending 1.6 bills on 16 Fighters(and thats the minimum required considering having a 24hr QRA, Maintainance schedules and training) and the outcry in the media about Houses, Hospital beds, SNA's etc will be epic.

Anyways...the FA50's are well able to outrun the Russian bombers...and I wasn't suggesting binning the PC9M's. Just adding to the fleet and maybe eventually replacing the PC9'S when appropriate with an upgraded turbo prop of similar capabilities as an ab initio trainer.

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

It doesn't seem unreasonable to have two different types of jet fighter in service at the one time. Plenty of air forces do it. Anyway the L39 NG in particular is cheap to run / maintain and is a logical first step towards a faster jet. If you google the website for Galway Airport you will see numerous photos of large jet aircraft there. So would be a logical place to station the QRF. Its better to build up our own capabilities in engineering than to outsource it on a lease package and less expensive aircraft fit the bill just fine.

All of this is rubbish.

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Well...It seems to me that this thread is full of people who either...

(A) Don't want any fighter jets at all and keep raising objections on the grounds of cost.

Or...

(B) Seem to be in favour of making a quantum leap and leasing about 18 highly advanced aircraft.

Can't see anything wrong meself in going for a middle of the road approach and build things up gradually and buy something more affordable.

The thread is full of:
1/ People who know how things work.
2/ People who have some cop on.
And
3/ Gobs1tes.

I think people are being a bit harsh on the Scorpion because it doesn't look good. Lets look at its missions compared to a PC-9 or an L-39.

Scorpion:
Training
ISTAR
Border Security
Maritime Patrol
Close Air Support

PC-9
Training
Close Air Support

L-39 NG
Training
(Open to other suggestions)

It's not going to intercept anything but look at how useful it could be.

Lorddrakul wrote: »

+1 to the earlier suggestion of Saab.

If we could get some second hand Gripens, their robust design, all round capability and general field operation features would easily suit the Irish situation. Plus, there is really only a need for one primary base and an alternate in terms of being able to land and operate.

Shannon has never been too busy to land a military flight when needed. In the mid 90s, I witnessed, from the front of a hangar on the apron, F-16s do a main gear touch down roll before heading off to do a display.

Casement as the primary and Shannon as the alternate would be fine for any fast jet service here.

Plus I'm note sure about having to have so many to operate. Keeping a flight of four operational should not take 16 jets. 12 should be enough for modern, more reliable and robust aircraft. Would it not?

Been saying this for years. Its well up to the job and from what I remember, it only needs 500 meters to take off.

The 6000 foot runway at Baldonnell is more than adequate for any QRA role with "fighter jets" - the planes won't be operating at there maximum take-off weights anyway. The Norwegians fly their F-16s from 800 metre runways (just under 2,700 ft)

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Cheers Leo. The only thing I disagree with is the point about the Scorpion not looking good. I think it looks terrific and quite menacing.

As for supporting the KA50. With the Spanish Air Force about to purchase a pile of them I am sure we could come to some arrangement with them to help out with support and infrastructure costs. Maybe lease some time on their simulator.

I'm of the opinion that the QRF doesn't need to be 24/7. Could be 16/5 unless there was an emergency. Same as Austria.

Sorry Jonny, I should've phrased it better. It looks fine but not as sleek and fancy as some of the top of the line stuff. I actually think it liiks quite similar to an f-14

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I think people are being a bit harsh on the Scorpion because it doesn't look good. Lets look at its missions compared to a PC-9 or an L-39.

Scorpion:
Training
ISTAR
Border Security
Maritime Patrol
Close Air Support

PC-9
Training
Close Air Support

L-39 NG
Training
(Open to other suggestions)

It's not going to intercept anything but look at how useful it could be.

Or the fact the Scorpion is unproven & untested in Combat so we would effectively yet again become a launch customer.

Larbre34 wrote: »

We need interceptors to protect the airspace, challenge incursions, shadow bombers and recon aircraft and provide escorts and /or aerial inspection to civilian aircraft that may be in difficulty one way or another.

We don't. We really, really don't.

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, in a demonstration as to what's possible within a private budget, a chap named Don Kirlin has just bought 46 fully functional F/A-18 Hornets. He already owns ten Hawks, six L-39s and two MiG-29s.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets

well its not like he bought them to fly for jollies. The DoD must be paying him good money to play opfor