Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Fighter jets for the Air Corps?
Comments
-
Jet trainers would be cheap enough for a start, set out how to train pilots and service personnel how to maintain engines etc. Lots of options there, especially from EU countries.
Then step up in 5-10 years to proper jet aircraft. Retired machines would be cheap, but of course come with the time on the airframe. The Swedish Viggen could be got. Yeah it's fairly old now, outdated in some respects, but I think it would be better for the Air Corps to gradually build up skills at an affordable price rather than jumping in with expensive stuff like Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen. I don't think we will ever afford those given our current rate of investment in military.0 -
Yer probably right...sadly. A nation once again, my arse!0
-
Negative_G wrote: »Yes, because the Irish are renowned for getting a better quality end product, more efficiently for a much reduced cost by privatising things.
Why is this old chestnut always turned out as a solution with zero substance to back it up.
...
We get bad value either way so that makes zero difference. But Airlines have done this for generations as I'm sure airforces have. Not that it matters.
This thread has been going for years. It's entirely pointless. It's not even entertaining anymore. Aircraft have changed generation in the time this thread has existed.0 -
We get bad value either way so that makes zero difference. But Airlines have done this for generations as I'm sure airforces have. Not that it matters.
This thread has been going for years. It's entirely pointless. It's not even entertaining anymore. Aircraft have changed generation in the time this thread has existed.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
You cannot compare the standard of training an abinitio pilot gets in the military versus an airline cadet or even direct entry CPL.
The skill set required to pass a military wings course is a world away from any civilian course.
There is a huge difference expected. Airline pilots don't do low level tactical navigation and formation flights at 250kts, they don't do time on target, they don't do formation, they dont for anything more than very basic aerobatics.
The reality is the end product from an individual who has been through a 150hr military flight course versus someone who has been through 150hrs in Weston is night and day.
Completely different standards and not comparable in any way from a basic standpoint.
There is more than a couple, that have failed the IAC pilot course and have, through one means or another, got themselves into an Airline Job. How you view that spends entirely on which side of the fence you position yourself on.
Certainly makes for an interesting conversation at interview..0 -
No ones suggesting they do the same training as airline pliots lol. Very poor strawman.
Considering they can contract out more advanced training, your logic is that they can't do the same with basic training. That's logical.
Most airforces are struggling to retain their instructors, as they leave for the private sector. Most are considering outsourcing as solution.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/12/military-pilot-training-delays-army-navy-raf
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7612131/US-Air-Force-hires-French-British-Russian-jets-adversary-air-support-contract.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/shortage-of-air-corps-pilots-and-technicians-approaches-critical-level-1.38549020 -
Advertisement
-
I know that it is not going to happen anytime soon (if ever) but out of interest, hypothetically, what problems would we face if we acquired SU57s?0
-
Jet trainers would be cheap enough for a start, set out how to train pilots and service personnel how to maintain engines etc. Lots of options there, especially from EU countries.
Then step up in 5-10 years to proper jet aircraft. Retired machines would be cheap, but of course come with the time on the airframe. The Swedish Viggen could be got. Yeah it's fairly old now, outdated in some respects, but I think it would be better for the Air Corps to gradually build up skills at an affordable price rather than jumping in with expensive stuff like Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen. I don't think we will ever afford those given our current rate of investment in military.
On the contrary the Viggen would cost a lot more to operate than the Gripen. There is a handful of viggens still flying in the world, spares are no longer manufactured and if the Air Corp's bought 12 to equip a squadron they would be fleeced by Saab. Saab would have to retrain and recertify personnel to inspect, overhaul and upgrade the Viggen airframe with similar avionics and sensors as is present in the current Gripen. All this and you would still maybe get 20 years tops out of the air frames because of their age. On top of this Saab would charge a fortune to machine new spare parts, that's even if they still have the tooling available, I'd assume it's long scraped or packed away gathering dust.
The Gripen either leased or bought outright, used our new would be so much more cost effective than the Viggen.0 -
On the contrary the Viggen would cost a lot more to operate than the Gripen. There is a handful of viggens still flying in the world, spares are no longer manufactured and if the Air Corp's bought 12 to equip a squadron they would be fleeced by Saab. Saab would have to retrain and recertify personnel to inspect, overhaul and upgrade the Viggen airframe with similar avionics and sensors as is present in the current Gripen. All this and you would still maybe get 20 years tops out of the air frames because of their age. On top of this Saab would charge a fortune to machine new spare parts, that's even if they still have the tooling available, I'd assume it's long scraped or packed away gathering dust.
The Gripen either leased or bought outright, used our new would be so much more cost effective than the Viggen.
Didn't think of it that way, very valid points.0 -
Lord Fairlord wrote: »I know that it is not going to happen anytime soon (if ever) but out of interest, hypothetically, what problems would we face if we acquired SU57s?
We'd never do business with Russia for military equipment. Look at how Turkey is getting the cold shoulder for purchasing the S-400 - now kicked out of the F-35 program.
We are firmly in the West/EU/US sphere of influence, and so we will only look at buying equipment from amongst these countries. If we did buy anything from outside this, we'd have trouble sourcing parts, trouble fitting avionics against anything not Russian, be stuck with purchasing Russian missiles etc
To top it off, the Su-57 wouldn't fit our defensive doctrine (if we have one!). The Su-57 is an air superiority fighter. The Gripen would much better suit us as it's multirole, can take off from shortened airways or suitable motorway if proper airbases are knocked out, matches with western missiles etc.
I think the only countries which will buy Su-57 will be China, India, eventually countries like Algeria and Turkey after a few years.0 -
We'd never do business with Russia for military equipment. Look at how Turkey is getting the cold shoulder for purchasing the S-400 - now kicked out of the F-35 program.
We are firmly in the West/EU/US sphere of influence, and so we will only look at buying equipment from amongst these countries. If we did buy anything from outside this, we'd have trouble sourcing parts, trouble fitting avionics against anything not Russian, be stuck with purchasing Russian missiles etc
To top it off, the Su-57 wouldn't fit our defensive doctrine (if we have one!). The Su-57 is an air superiority fighter. The Gripen would much better suit us as it's multirole, can take off from shortened airways or suitable motorway if proper airbases are knocked out, matches with western missiles etc.
I think the only countries which will buy Su-57 will be China, India, eventually countries like Algeria and Turkey after a few years.
I take your points. Turkey is presumably getting the cold shoulder as it is in NATO though. We aren't in NATO and in my opinion we should be open to buying from Russia or America or another European country as we are (at least meant to be, though we are in that PfP) non-aligned in terms of military alliance. I agree with you that Gripens would suit our needs as a country better. Potentially not being able to get more parts and missiles would be a concern in the hypothetical scenario of acquiring SU57s.
Thanks for your fulsome reply to my question.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lord Fairlord wrote: »I take your points. Turkey is presumably getting the cold shoulder as it is in NATO though. We aren't in NATO and in my opinion we should be open to buying from Russia or America or another European country as we are (at least meant to be, though we are in that PfP) non-aligned in terms of military alliance. I agree with you that Gripens would suit our needs as a country better. Potentially not being able to get more parts and missiles would be a concern in the hypothetical scenario of acquiring SU57s.
Thanks for your fulsome reply to my question.
Turkey's getting the cold shoulder particularly because it is an F35 partner and the S400 sale agreement could expose the F35 to testing and profiling by the S400 that could yield information, which the Russians or others may get, that could undermine it's stealth or LO abilities.
India's an example of a country that gets away with buying from West (incl France) and East, as it committed to a non-alignment policy since Nehru. Pakistan too (US and China) to some extent. Finland did it in the past, arguably more to placate the USSR on its doorstep. IMO we're too firmly in the Western orbit for it to not be too costly to our relationships to consider. IIRC we even got stick off the yanks for hiring Russian helicopter logistic support in Africa about a decade ago.
Incidentally SU 57 is, so far, vapourware. Just ask the Indians.0 -
CrankyHaus wrote: »Turkey's getting the cold shoulder particularly because it is an F35 partner and the S400 sale agreement could expose the F35 to testing and profiling by the S400 that could yield information, which the Russians or others may get, that could undermine it's stealth or LO abilities.
India's an example of a country that gets away with buying from West (incl France) and East, as it committed to a non-alignment policy since Nehru. Pakistan too (US and China) to some extent. Finland did it in the past, arguably more to placate the USSR on its doorstep. IMO we're too firmly in the Western orbit for it to not be too costly to our relationships to consider. IIRC we even got stick off the yanks for hiring Russian helicopter logistic support in Africa about a decade ago.
Incidentally SU 57 is, so far, vapourware. Just ask the Indians.
Very interesting reply - thanks.
Yeah I had read about the Indians and the SU57. The F-35 doesn't seem great in my opinion - potentially a jack of all trades and master of none. Turkey was meant to be involved in the servicing and/or making parts for the aircraft but the whole S400 thing made the USA scrap the deal as I understand it.0 -
The Swedish Viggen could be got.
Its bloody retired, it retired in 2005, are you for real? We could never afford Typhoon either, The Austrian Air Force have the Typhoon, they have a population near 9 Million, in fact they only have 15 Typhoons & are struggling to keep them flying as they are so expensive to operate so they rarely ever fly & can only afford 11 frontline Typhoon pilots & 1 Trainee, they want them all gone & are looking to leasing F-16's.0 -
This thread has been going for years. It's entirely pointless. It's not even entertaining anymore. Aircraft have changed generation in the time this thread has existed.
Ah, no this thread is 2 years old, the first fifth gen fighter came into service in 2005, and the 6th won't happen for another couple of decades.0 -
Its bloody retired, it retired in 2005, are you for real? We could never afford Typhoon either, The Austrian Air Force have the Typhoon, they have a population near 9 Million, in fact they only have 15 Typhoons & are struggling to keep them flying as they are so expensive to operate so they rarely ever fly & can only afford 11 frontline Typhoon pilots & 1 Trainee, they want them all gone & are looking to leasing F-16's.
Well aware it's retired - that's why it could be gotten - because nobody is using it. Do you even read the post I had up? Why else would I suggest such an aircraft? I've already said it would be out of date.
The point is to prepare personnel - pilots, support crews etc from jet trainer to jet aircraft to modern aircraft. It should be done incrementally.
Pilatus does makes some good points re the Viggen and it goes for any aircraft we would consider - what is the availability of spare parts, technical assistance and maintenance going to be like - but if an investigation into procurement keeps those considerations in mind and parts/maintenance wasn't a terrible ordeal, the Viggen wouldn't be a terrible choice - especially any maritime patrol/recon variant0 -
Well aware it's retired - that's why it could be gotten - because nobody is using it. Do you even read the post I had up? Why else would I suggest such an aircraft? I've already said it would be out of date.
The point is to prepare personnel - pilots, support crews etc from jet trainer to jet aircraft to modern aircraft. It should be done incrementally.
Pilatus does makes some good points re the Viggen and it goes for any aircraft we would consider - what is the availability of spare parts, technical assistance and maintenance going to be like - but if an investigation into procurement keeps those considerations in mind and parts/maintenance wasn't a terrible ordeal, the Viggen wouldn't be a terrible choice - especially any maritime patrol/recon variant
It would be beyond an utterly pointless spend that literally would do more harm to the DF's argument than helping the AC. It's a 1960's design with all the limitations involved even with an upgrades during the years.
Moreover how many of the airframes do you think are still around and capable of being operational?
It's an even worse suggestion than the Trainer/Light fighter option.0 -
Its bloody retired, it retired in 2005, are you for real? We could never afford Typhoon either, The Austrian Air Force have the Typhoon, they have a population near 9 Million, in fact they only have 15 Typhoons & are struggling to keep them flying as they are so expensive to operate so they rarely ever fly & can only afford 11 frontline Typhoon pilots & 1 Trainee, they want them all gone & are looking to leasing F-16's.
To be fair, there's plenty of sh!te with the Austrian Typhoons and the deal that was involved. No small matter is that they are Tranche 1's which had the most basic of capabilities, for example I think the RAF retired their Tranche 1's rather than spend money keeping them in service. Would a later Tranche variant have been better for Austria? Or of course going for the cheaper Gripen from the start.0 -
It would be beyond an utterly pointless spend that literally would do more harm to the DF's argument than helping the AC. It's a 1960's design with all the limitations involved even with an upgrades during the years.
Moreover how many of the airframes do you think are still around and capable of being operational?
It's an even worse suggestion than the Trainer/Light fighter option.
There were over 300+ Viggens of all variants built, I’d be fairly confident that 2-4 could be found. That’s enough for an element/flight.
It was designed to be easy to maintain, even by conscripted support personnel. Had a conversion update in 1999.
The major trouble is parts as someone pointed out.
As an incremental step, the Viggen is fine, it doesn’t need to be top of the line, it’s an introduction to jet fighter aircraft for a service with little familiarity of such a type.0 -
There were over 300+ Viggens of all variants built, I’d be fairly confident that 2-4 could be found. That’s enough for an element/flight.
It was designed to be easy to maintain, even by conscripted support personnel. Had a conversion update in 1999.
The major trouble is parts as someone pointed out.
As an incremental step, the Viggen is fine, it doesn’t need to be top of the line, it’s an introduction to jet fighter aircraft for a service with little familiarity of such a type.
2-4 hanger queens is utterly pointless for anyone or anything and would do little but cause embarrassment for the AC if it was ever to go ahead. They haven't flown in nearly 15 years and are basically a 1950's design (having flown in '61).
Have considered why nobody other than the Swedes ever flew it? It's not like the F4 that had thousands flying and still flying. Also have you considered that unlike the US EU nations don't have a boneyard to store planes and they've likely been recycled?
If you want to go the utterly pointless 2-4 aircraft route that wouldn't provide anything any of the Trainer/Light Fighters are cheaper, easier and more sustainable than trying to source decades old retired aircraft.0 -
2-4 hanger queens is utterly pointless for anyone or anything and would do little but cause embarrassment for the AC if it was ever to go ahead. They haven't flown in nearly 15 years and are basically a 1950's design (having flown in '61).
Have considered why nobody other than the Swedes ever flew it? It's not like the F4 that had thousands flying and still flying. Also have you considered that unlike the US EU nations don't have a boneyard to store planes and they've likely been recycled?
If you want to go the utterly pointless 2-4 aircraft route that wouldn't provide anything any of the Trainer/Light Fighters are cheaper, easier and more sustainable than trying to source decades old retired aircraft.
The US blocked a sale to India on the basis that they had licensed the engine or engine technology to the Swedes and didn’t want it passed on to that region of the world. I doubt it would be blocked now and considering we are firmly in the western sphere of influence. This was the only thing preventing other nations acquiring the Viggen.0 -
Advertisement
-
The US blocked a sale to India on the basis that they had licensed the engine or engine technology to the Swedes and didn’t want it passed on to that region of the world. I doubt it would be blocked now and considering we are firmly in the western sphere of influence. This was the only thing preventing other nations acquiring the Viggen.
Other than there being alternatives that had much larger consumer bases and thus much larger support bases.
How many Viggen's are even flying right now?0 -
Other than there being alternatives that had much larger consumer bases and thus much larger support bases.
How many Viggen's are even flying right now?
One or two with Sweden as special pieces.
I suggested it as a stop gap measure, something that could be looked at, would be achievable to obtain. Parts are a problem but overall I’d think it would be much cheaper than the newest generation aircraft even when you factor this in. It was as good if not better in some areas than the F-4.
There’s older aircraft still being flown, look at the B-52s, C-130s, I think South Africa even still has some DC-3s going.
What would you suggest instead?0 -
Not bothering if you are talking about 2-4 planes. That's not enough to do anything when you factor in downtime and training and flight hours.One or two with Sweden as special pieces.
I suggested it as a stop gap measure, something that could be looked at, would be achievable to obtain. Parts are a problem but overall I’d think it would be much cheaper than the newest generation aircraft even when you factor this in. It was as good if not better in some areas than the F-4.
There’s older aircraft still being flown, look at the B-52s, C-130s, I think South Africa even still has some DC-3s going.
What would you suggest instead?
And yes old planes are still flying, mainly such aircraft that fly in straight lines doing very little high stress actions (and even then can still rack up the money, just look at the B52 sustainment program), old fighter jets is another matter entirely as their very job means high stress actions, keeping them in the air sucks up resources. The older the plane the more time it needs to keep in the air, just look at the utter state of our Casa 235's whose availability has fallen off completely as they have the highest flight hours of that airframe in the world and have needed extensive work at their manufacturer just to stay flying.
The options for any such fighter for the AC has been gone over and over in the thread, either limited aircraft that can't really do the job (Trainer/Light fighter) or bite the bullet as the General pointed out this week and spend the money to do it right.0 -
For our needs the South Korean F/A-50 Golden Eagle is as much jet as we need. Slightly less capable than a Gripen/F16 but also much cheaper while retaining 80%ish of the capabilities. It has a good radar, can launch Aim-9 sidewinder and Aim-120 Amraam and can also deliver guided air to surface munitions if required and it's top speed is Mach 1.5 . Jointly developed with Lockheed Martin so there's plenty of input from the F16 here at roughly a third of the unit cost depending on the final spec. Forget Eurofighter, Rafale or anything else. In reality nothing will ever be bought. It's akin to us talking about what we would do if we won the Euromillions.0
-
For our needs the South Korean F/A-50 Golden Eagle is as much jet as we need. Slightly less capable than a Gripen/F16 but also much cheaper while retaining 80%ish of the capabilities. It has a good radar, can launch Aim-9 sidewinder and Aim-120 Amraam and can also deliver guided air to surface munitions if required and it's top speed is Mach 1.5 . Jointly developed with Lockheed Martin so there's plenty of input from the F16 here at roughly a third of the unit cost depending on the final spec. Forget Eurofighter, Rafale or anything else. In reality nothing will ever be bought. It's akin to us talking about what we would do if we won the Euromillions.
I mainly agree, especially on the last point.
My understanding of the "€1Bn+" cost outlined by the retired AC officer in the article a few pages back is that much of it is fairly static regardless of the specific aircraft chosen. Radar, training, facilities, staffing, all support etc will cost more or less the same whether it's a squadron of Gripens, F16s or FA50s.
I am very curious to know how the FA50 actually performs. It seems to have quite short range, which is consistent with its small size.0 -
CrankyHaus wrote: »I mainly agree, especially on the last point.
My understanding of the "€1Bn+" cost outlined by the retired AC officer in the article a few pages back is that much of it is fairly static regardless of the specific aircraft chosen. Radar, training, facilities, staffing, all support etc will cost more or less the same whether it's a squadron of Gripens, F16s or FA50s.
I am very curious to know how the FA50 actually performs. It seems to have quite short range, which is consistent with its small size.
It's always the "other" costs that will hit us, unlike most nations we aren't in a situation of just replace one generation with another or increasing the number of aircraft but actually creating the capability. So yeah it's all the support side that would drive up the price.
As to the FA50, as has been said before for that type of aircraft, once you start hanging weapons off of it and asking it to try and intercept a target quickly it's range/time on station is going to fall quickly.0 -
It's always the "other" costs that will hit us, unlike most nations we aren't in a situation of just replace one generation with another or increasing the number of aircraft but actually creating the capability. So yeah it's all the support side that would drive up the price.
As to the FA50, as has been said before for that type of aircraft, once you start hanging weapons off of it and asking it to try and intercept a target quickly it's range/time on station is going to fall quickly.
In an Irish "overwater" intercept mode, I'd hazard a guess at a load out of 3 external fuel tanks, 2 amraam, and 2 tip mounted Aim-9.
Overwater OPs with a single engine airframe are an inherent risk and attritional loss will be higher than a twin engines airframe.
I'd hazard a guess that in the above load out, supersonic isn't an option and Mach limit of @0.9 would apply?
Happy to be corrected on that tho.
So without specific fuel burn figures for the FA-50 I'd be basing my guess on info from the Phillipine Air Force which is sketchy and seems to apply to "Clean" airframe.
A 400 mile intercept radius, with in a 3 tank layout a 30 minute loiter would make baldonnel a poor basing option.
If our Air-policing zone is primarily to our western approaches dispersed basing to a NW, a MW and a S/SW base would provide a far greater chance to ensure an overwater intercept.
To ensure anything more than a token intercept or escort, then air to air refueling capability would also need to be considered.
To the thoughts of Viggen or similar 60's legacy airframe being thrown into service.
Christ no, the costs and operational limitations would taint any future possibility of fast jet operations.
If it's a thing that ever happens, and I don't think it will.
Multirole, capable and affordable will be the cornerstones of the decision.
Gripen E/Ng offers excellent capabilities at a realistic pricepoint.
The single engine for primarily overwater OPs could still be an issue however IMO and the cost of twin engine is far too high.0 -
Best jet for interception out over the Atlantic is the Dassault Rafael IMO.0
-
Leonidas BL wrote: »Best jet for interception out over the Atlantic is the Dassault Rafael IMO.
Pricey as f*CK tho!
Operational reports from its combat use would bare out the fact that it is probably the best of the western 4.5 gen and it is a very capable and expandable airframe.
That said, Elon Musk stood in front of a @1000 fighter pilots yesterday and said the day of the manned fighter is at an end.
A.I Drones, swarming and drone "sidekicks" for existing 5th gen fighters are where future air forces are heading IMO.
The UK tempest project seems to be exploring the same options as part of 6th gen fighters and the Taranis and nEUROn drones are all leaning towards autonomous or remote combat in the future.
I think we should have gone down the the road of hitting up the EU for cash to deploy drones in the maritime surveillance role, the fighter/air policing role is something we need to look towards.
Perhaps following a similar model to Iceland or the Baltic's and allowing the Air Corps build operational support experience with a mentor.
No Airforce has made the jump to fast jet ops and actually maintainned the capability independently without Superpower support and intervention.
Jane's Fighter Combat in the Jet Age describes and addresses the issue of rapid leaps in capabilities without a concurrent leap in training and technology.
Ireland looking towards fighters now, at a time of considerable technical flux could well leave us training pilots who will have no airborne role in 15yrs.
The move to remote operated sensor and combat platforms will only accelerate and the valid reasons to have the shooter in a cockpit, rather than behind a console will diminish.0 -
Advertisement
-
Pricey as f*CK tho!
Operational reports from its combat use would bare out the fact that it is probably the best of the western 4.5 gen and it is a very capable and expandable airframe.
Very expensive, but it'll do the job properly, not half do the job like some of the things people put up here...coughViggenFA50
Typical Irish solution, araghhh sure it'll dooo.0
Advertisement