Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Leonidas BL · 08-04-2019 3:01pm

OS120 wrote: »

and how do you propose that a GR4 finds said airliner?

That wasn't even the point. I was originally talking about the F3 Air Defense Variant which was designed to catch high flying long range bombers out over the sea. Not sure why your man wants to shoot airliners up the arse....

sparky42 · 08-04-2019 4:11pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

That wasn't even the point. I was originally talking about the F3 Air Defense Variant which was designed to catch high flying long range bombers out over the sea. Not sure why your man wants to shoot airliners up the arse....

Haven't the ADV's been out of service for years now? I'd imagine they've been scrapped.

Leonidas BL · 08-04-2019 5:07pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Haven't the ADV's been out of service for years now? I'd imagine they've been scrapped.

Gone since the mid 00ies's I think...

OS120 · 08-04-2019 5:47pm

yes, the ADV/F3's have all been turned into razor blades. they went out of service in 2011 - replaced by the Typhoon.

the GR4 has only the most basic air-to-air capability: its radar, which isn't an A2A radar, can find a tanker at night if it knows roughly where to look, but thats about it.

it was trialled on a couple of exercises as a way to augment the Tornado F3/Typhoon fighter force (for the Falklands) - fuel tanks, 4 ASRAAM, and partnered with either Typhoon/Tornado F3 or controlled by a ground radar. it was OK for air policing over a fixed position, but it simply didn't have the performance at medium/high altitude to work against an attacking, manouvering force.

thats not what it was built for - it was designed and built to be a fast, low-level strike attack aircraft who's defensive system was 'where'd it go?'. it eventually matured into a medium altitude bomber as weapon systems changed, and it was bloody good at it - but zoom climbs and transonic accelleration weren't part of its design brief so it was never built for them.

only an idiot would buy a P60 class OPV to use it as an aircraft carrier, and only an idiot would buy a completely shagged out bomber and try to use it as a fighter.

prinzeugen · 08-04-2019 11:17pm

OS120 wrote: »

and how do you propose that a GR4 finds said airliner?

The same way they would know if there was a plane with its transponder switched off.. A decent ground based military radar.

Its how the RAF find the Russians when they approach UK airspace with transponders etc switched off.

They dont show on civil radar. You can have the best radar fitted to a plane but its useless on the ground. You need a radar to tell you there is a problem and you need to scramble your jets.

Common sense really.

And as I have already said, there are plenty of airframes that are only halfway through their life, so they are hardly "shagged"!

beauf · 08-04-2019 11:35pm

In fairness it's radar was hardcore.

sparky42 · 09-04-2019 12:44am

prinzeugen wrote: »

Common sense really.

Got to be honest I see nothing that's "Common Sense" in trying to argue that the Tornado should be an option for us if we were in a position to move to Jets.

prinzeugen · 09-04-2019 1:53am

sparky42 wrote: »

Got to be honest I see nothing that's "Common Sense" in trying to argue that the Tornado should be an option for us if we were in a position to move to Jets.

Its a good starting point. There are lots of Tornado crew, instructors, ground crew etc that will have taken redundancy from the RAF that could be hired. The Tornado is a 2 seater also. Handy.

Heraldoffreeent · 09-04-2019 2:22am

prinzeugen wrote: »

The Tornado is a 2 seater also. Handy.

So is a Mazda MX-5.

jonnybigwallet · 09-04-2019 7:38am

So is the Scorpion jet. Maybe not ideal but reasonably priced and an incremental step into the jet age.

OS120 · 09-04-2019 7:49am

prinzeugen wrote: »

Its a good starting point. There are lots of Tornado crew, instructors, ground crew etc that will have taken redundancy from the RAF that could be hired. The Tornado is a 2 seater also. Handy.

Err..... No, there aren't - the pilots are being distributed into the Typhoon and F-35 force and the Navs are either re-streaming to pilots or moving to other aircrew roles - P-8, RC-135 or UAV. The tech ground roles are likewise being farmed out to the other platforms. There is, to be clear, no pool of Tornado air and ground crew sitting around on their P45's waiting for a foreign government to employ them en masses.

Markcheese · 09-04-2019 9:06am

beauf wrote: »

In fairness it's radar was hardcore.

Boom boom

sparky42 · 09-04-2019 12:11pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

Its a good starting point. There are lots of Tornado crew, instructors, ground crew etc that will have taken redundancy from the RAF that could be hired. The Tornado is a 2 seater also. Handy.

How? Seriously how do you think that such an old aircraft design is somehow a "good starting point"?

OS120 · 09-04-2019 12:52pm

sparky42 wrote: »

How? Seriously how do you think that such an old aircraft design is somehow a "good starting point"?

something must be done, this is something, so it must be done.

sparky42 · 09-04-2019 1:17pm

OS120 wrote: »

something must be done, this is something, so it must be done.

That sums up pretty much so much of Irish defence procurement. I mean suggesting using Tornado's makes as much sense as suggesting going to the Boneyard in the states and picking up F4's or something "cause they are there".

sparky42 · 09-04-2019 1:19pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

So is the Scorpion jet. Maybe not ideal but reasonably priced and an incremental step into the jet age.

Which is still not in use by anyone is it? You want a trainer/light fighter there are current designs in operation around Europe that we could leverage off of. We want a current gen fighter, there are ones around Europe that we could leverage off.

Picking a Paper plan like the Scorpion or a 40 year old design that's ending it's usage makes no sense.

OS120 · 09-04-2019 2:10pm

sparky42 wrote: »

That sums up pretty much so much of Irish defence procurement. I mean suggesting using Tornado's makes as much sense as suggesting going to the Boneyard in the states and picking up F4's or something "cause they are there".

its something that comes up regularly - its a version of the 'Hawks would do, because the RAF used Hawks in the point defence role in the cold war'.

this ignores two huge elephants in the room. the RAF did not think that Hawks were capable/suitable for the role, rather that it already had them and that if they weren't in the air they'd be on the ground, probably burning - so it may as well get them in the air. the second thing that gets ignored is that a Hawk (or any of the other Charity Shop fighters) might well have X top speed and Y range, but when you stick a pair of AIM-9L's, plus pyons and a fuel tank on it, that 'top speed' drops by 20%, and the range drops even further.

the RAF dropped the 'Hawk Fighter' concept because a) managing the radar blind Hawks was a time-consuming nightmare for both the ground based radar crews and the proper fighters the Hawks were teamed up with, and b) once the Hawks were tooled up it became apparent that they were wheezy and anemic. top speed, rate of climb, range - all dropped like a stone.

Larbre34 · 09-04-2019 2:33pm

OS120 wrote: »

something must be done, this is something, so it must be done.

Jaysis wept.

Let's be completely realistic about this for a second. As of now, fast jets simply are not on the agenda. The Air Corps is hemorrhaging staff like the rest of the DF so couldn't work up for jet interceptor operations even if it was handed the keys to a fleet in the morning.

I remember Simon Coveney being pressed on this very point when he was Minister under Kenny and he said that if there were to be any advancement of air defence capability outside of the current White Paper, it would be to procure a primary air defence radar, independent of civil and foreign systems.

If the prevailing defence and security conditions were to change tomorrow, lets say a spate of large scale terrorism in Europe, or a conflict with Russia in the east which included sporadic air and naval engagements in the north sea/med/atlantic, the only thing Ireland could do would be to offer a base of operations to friendly air forces, say Sweden or France or Germany, in Baldonnell or Shannon. And even that would only be warranted in a dire escalation considering Britain could move jets to Northern Ireland almost immediately to cover our bit of the Atlantic.

Psychlops · 09-04-2019 10:00pm

+1 what Larbre said, we have sweet damn all Pilots & Crew.

Now if we didn't have the above problem I would be perfectly happy with this..F-16 Family manufacturer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC_ylSR_yZw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_8HNlW-kyU

jonnybigwallet · 10-04-2019 7:28am

Looks a bit handy all right. Then there's thst new Boeing/Saab aircraft as another possible option.

Psychlops · 10-04-2019 10:51pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/shortage-of-air-corps-pilots-and-technicians-approaches-critical-level-1.3854902

prinzeugen · 10-04-2019 11:09pm

OS120 wrote: »

Err..... No, there aren't - the pilots are being distributed into the Typhoon and F-35 force and the Navs are either re-streaming to pilots or moving to other aircrew roles - P-8, RC-135 or UAV. The tech ground roles are likewise being farmed out to the other platforms. There is, to be clear, no pool of Tornado air and ground crew sitting around on their P45's waiting for a foreign government to employ them en masses.

Not so. Any crew above a certain age (an age where it becomes pointless retraining them) is being offered redundancy/retirement or desk jobs.

They are not going to spend £££ retraining a 38 year old Tornado pilot to fly the F-35 or Typhoon.

The crew that can transition are already in Typhoon or F-35 Squadron OCUs. The rest are looking at a career as a BA or Ryanair pilot.

And the navs are navs for a reason. Most failed fast jet training at the early stages.

sparky42 · 10-04-2019 11:10pm

Psychlops wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/shortage-of-air-corps-pilots-and-technicians-approaches-critical-level-1.3854902

Given the rates that they can get in private sector, no matter what if any pay increase they get I think we'll still have the same problem sadly.

sparky42 · 11-04-2019 12:14am

prinzeugen wrote: »

Not so. Any crew above a certain age (an age where it becomes pointless retraining them) is being offered redundancy/retirement or desk jobs.

They are not going to spend £££ retraining a 38 year old Tornado pilot to fly the F-35 or Typhoon.

The crew that can transition are already in Typhoon or F-35 Squadron OCUs. The rest are looking at a career as a BA or Ryanair pilot.

And the navs are navs for a reason. Most failed fast jet training at the early stages.

Which means automatically going to get a vastly better pay deal than the AC could ever put on the table, all again for a 1970's design... I mean hell what's the supply chains situation for the Tornado at this stage?

It makes no sense, it's at best a false economy to suggest that going this route would be faster/cheaper than other options.

CrankyHaus · 11-04-2019 12:23pm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-fighter-tornado-exclusive/exclusive-germany-sees-8-86-billion-euro-cost-to-operate-tornado-jets-through-2030-idUSKCN1RM219

This should give some indication of what running Tornados would cost us.

BERLIN (Reuters) - The German Defence Ministry estimates it will cost nearly 9 billion euros to keep its aging fleet of 93 Tornado fighter jets flying until 2030, according to a classified document provided to German lawmakers this week

source · 11-04-2019 12:36pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-fighter-tornado-exclusive/exclusive-germany-sees-8-86-billion-euro-cost-to-operate-tornado-jets-through-2030-idUSKCN1RM219

This should give some indication of what running Tornados would cost us.

BERLIN (Reuters) - The German Defence Ministry estimates it will cost nearly 9 billion euros to keep its aging fleet of 93 Tornado fighter jets flying until 2030, according to a classified document provided to German lawmakers this week

€8,797,653.95 per airframe per year.

CrankyHaus · 11-04-2019 12:47pm

source wrote: »

€8,797,653.95 per airframe per year.

Indeed, although the Germans already have the trained personnel and infrastructure to operate and maintain them. We'd have to pay to acquire that, as well as the aircraft themselves.

source · 11-04-2019 12:51pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Indeed, although the Germans already have the trained personnel and infrastructure to operate and maintain them. We'd have to pay to acquire that, as well as the aircraft themselves.

Oh yeah I agree with you completely, it's way too much for an obsolete aircraft when thats just the cost of maintaining them, nevermind purchasing them and training the personnel.

Leonidas BL · 11-04-2019 10:21pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Which means automatically going to get a vastly better pay deal than the AC could ever put on the table, all again for a 1970's design... I mean hell what's the supply chains situation for the Tornado at this stage?

It makes no sense, it's at best a false economy to suggest that going this route would be faster/cheaper than other options.

Agreed...Look what its costing Germany to keep them going until 2030..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-fighter-tornado-exclusive-idUSKCN1RM219

prinzeugen · 11-04-2019 11:54pm

source wrote: »

€8,797,653.95 per airframe per year.

The Germans are tight. They are trying to keep early airframes in service. Most of the RAF ones are newer and have had ££££ spent on them recently. The Luftwaffe ones have not.

If everyone has a issue with the age of a Tornado, then you should rule out the F-16 also. The F-16 is older!

Regardless of plane, its going to cost hundreds of millions.

The Luftwaffe are still flying around in obsolete early tranche Eurofighters as they wont spend the money.

sparky42 · 12-04-2019 12:08am

prinzeugen wrote: »

The Germans are tight. They are trying to keep early airframes in service. Most of the RAF ones are newer and have had ££££ spent on them recently. The Luftwaffe ones have not.

If everyone has a issue with the age of a Tornado, then you should rule out the F-16 also. The F-16 is older!

Regardless of plane, its going to cost hundreds of millions.

The Luftwaffe are still flying around in obsolete early tranche Eurofighters as they wont spend the money.

Hold on the RAF GR4's are new builds they were rebuild GR1's, so when was the original airframe built? Even if they have had money spent on them that doesn't change the operational hours of the plans. I mean even the last production run in '98 was for the Suadi's so when were the RAF birds actually bought?

And it's apple and oranges between the F16 and the Tornado, the F16 is an airframe that's still in production and being continuously upscaled, the current models are nothing like the first builds. Now if someone was suggesting buying 16 a's or something then it would be similar. Moreover it's telling that the Tornado had limited exports while the F16 has sold shed loads and is still in production.

As for hundreds of millions, we know exactly what the Eastern Europeans are being charged for the Gripen lease, fair enough double that for AC expansion, logistics build up etc, still comes out vastly ahead of RAF Tornado's.

prinzeugen · 12-04-2019 3:09am

sparky42 wrote: »

Hold on the RAF GR4's are new builds they were rebuild GR1's, so when was the original airframe built? Even if they have had money spent on them that doesn't change the operational hours of the plans. I mean even the last production run in '98 was for the Suadi's so when were the RAF birds actually bought?

And it's apple and oranges between the F16 and the Tornado, the F16 is an airframe that's still in production and being continuously upscaled, the current models are nothing like the first builds. Now if someone was suggesting buying 16 a's or something then it would be similar. Moreover it's telling that the Tornado had limited exports while the F16 has sold shed loads and is still in production.

As for hundreds of millions, we know exactly what the Eastern Europeans are being charged for the Gripen lease, fair enough double that for AC expansion, logistics build up etc, still comes out vastly ahead of RAF Tornado's.

Where is that brick wall to bang my head off? I think the issue here is Ex or current RAF bad. Everything else good! Some of you seem to have no idea about the politics involved also.

The only reason F16 or F18s are being bought is because the US is subsidising them. To stop sales of the Typhoon/SaaB or French planes.

sparky42 · 12-04-2019 2:19pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

Where is that brick wall to bang my head off? I think the issue here is Ex or current RAF bad. Everything else good! Some of you seem to have no idea about the politics involved also.

The only reason F16 or F18s are being bought is because the US is subsidising them. To stop sales of the Typhoon/SaaB or French planes.

Honestly the Brick wall/head banging is the other way round, why are you obsessed with the Tornadoes?:rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with it being former RAF stuff (god knows we've used UK surplus before), it has everything to do with it being airframes that would be far more resource intensive than other options, are already well into their lifespans and are going out of service in other users. It would make as much sense as saying back in 2008-2010 "well the Royal Navy is selling off their Castle class OPV's lets get them" instead of waiting for the P60 design

Of course the F16's/18's are subsidised, guess what so are the Typhoons, Gripens and Rafales (hell how much military equipment isn't subsidised in some way?). That's not the point, the point is the user base of those aircraft dwarfs the Tornado base even at it's largest, the design is still in production and still receiving massive redesigns and upgrades that mean they will be flying for at least another 30 years with a large enough customer base to support them. None of which can be said for the Tornado.

What you are suggesting is at best a false economy, at worse one more boneheaded and stupid procurement choice of the DoD.

jonnybigwallet · 15-05-2019 6:50am

That Korean FA 50 Golden Eagle costs half what the Gripen would cost and offers a lot of bang for your buck (supersonic into the bargain)....

Larbre34 · 16-05-2019 11:18pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

That Korean FA 50 Golden Eagle costs half what the Gripen would cost and offers a lot of bang for your buck (supersonic into the bargain)....

Its a trainer, it doesn't have the high speed range or capability to perform as a genuine interceptor, it doesn't operate as yet in Europe and so is not interoperable with EU / NATO PfP forces.

Cost would be a relative measure. Were we to seek to base interceptors in the State it would more likely be a lease arrangement, similar to the Czech Gripens, either with or without flight crew, with or without technicians, with or without simulators, spares, software, ordnance; and so the sticker price of either (or other) aircraft isn't that relevant.

OS120 · 17-05-2019 12:12pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

That Korean FA 50 Golden Eagle costs half what the Gripen would cost and offers a lot of bang for your buck (supersonic into the bargain)....

it will go supersonic with no external fuel, weapons, ECM or ISTAR stores, and with just about enough internal fuel to take off, fly 5 miles in a straight line at full chat, and then land. what it will do with 1500 litres of external fuel and two AIM-9X/ASRAAM/IRIS-T is something else entirely...

there are no other operaters within 10,000 miles, and Ireland has no experience of the manufacturer or close relationship with the selling country - but apart from that, i think such a purchace would go really smoothly.

if Ireland needs a fighter then it it needs something that can do two different things - a) take off really quickly, get to anywhere within Irish airspace really quickly, have a look at whatever ATC isn't happy with and threaten to shoot it down unless the offending aircraft does what its told, an then land, and b) take off reasonably quickly, fly reasonably quickly to a point 100 miles north of Malin Head, 'escort' a TU-160 or TU-95 at high subsonic speed for 400 miles till you can hand off to the French, and then land.

TA-50 - or any version thereof - can do neither of them.

roadmaster · 17-05-2019 1:36pm

When the UK scrambles jets it has to scramble a voyager aircraft. If we bought interceptors how would we solve that problem? Or would we restrict the jets to a 100km from shannon

OS120 · 17-05-2019 4:07pm

roadmaster wrote: »

When the UK scrambles jets it has to scramble a voyager aircraft. If we bought interceptors how would we solve that problem? Or would we restrict the jets to a 100km from shannon

I think the obvious answer - for those who endlessly suggest this or that 'happy shopper' cheap fighter/trainer/penis substitute - is to put Irish roundels on Wikipedia and put that into the air....

Any sensible suggestion - Gripen, F-16 etc... could do the air policing task without needing AAR (as the RAF Typhoons can/do), the need for more fuel starts to rear it's ugly head if you're chasing BEAR/BACKFIRE/BLACKJACK down the west coast. RAF Tornado F3's often had to light one of their burners every few minutes to keep up with a deliberately uncooperative BEAR, let alone keep up with a BLACKJACK...

As ever, once you decide what it is you want to achieve you can tell what you need and then what it will cost. If you start with 'cheap' however, you won't acheive much.

Leonidas BL · 17-05-2019 5:02pm

OS120 wrote: »

I think the obvious answer - for those who endlessly suggest this or that 'happy shopper' cheap fighter/trainer/penis substitute - is to put Irish roundels on Wikipedia and put that into the air....

Any sensible suggestion - Gripen, F-16 etc... could do the air policing task without needing AAR (as the RAF Typhoons can/do), the need for more fuel starts to rear it's ugly head if you're chasing BEAR/BACKFIRE/BLACKJACK down the west coast. RAF Tornado F3's often had to light one of their burners every few minutes to keep up with a deliberately uncooperative BEAR, let alone keep up with a BLACKJACK...

As ever, once you decide what it is you want to achieve you can tell what you need and then what it will cost. If you start with 'cheap' however, you won't acheive much.

In my mind the Gripens are the only job, they can take off from a road ffs. Lease the whole lot like Czech Rep. and Hungry.

Larbre34 · 17-05-2019 8:06pm

roadmaster wrote: »

When the UK scrambles jets it has to scramble a voyager aircraft. If we bought interceptors how would we solve that problem? Or would we restrict the jets to a 100km from shannon

They only need the juice goose cos they have to cover us as well!

In all seriousness though, the UK has to project very far from its QRA bases at Lossiemouth and Coningsby to cover its area of responsibility and NATO patrols, our offshore airspace is only about the size of Ireland again, so wouldn't be too large a range so long as we had an air station in the west, be that Shannon or Sligo or whatever. It would probably involve rotating pairs of interceptors for longer duration tasks.

prinzeugen · 18-05-2019 2:21am

roadmaster wrote: »

When the UK scrambles jets it has to scramble a voyager aircraft. If we bought interceptors how would we solve that problem? Or would we restrict the jets to a 100km from shannon

In some cases. In most Russian intercept scenarios, the tanker is there just incase. Location plays a part also. I recall a recent scramble where a new AirBus on delivery to Mexico via Canada had no comms entering UK airspace.

Coningsby Typhoons intercepted it over the Bristol Channel and escorted it into Prestwick. On the return trip they got a refuel. Video is on YouTube somewhere.

roadmaster · 06-06-2019 7:36pm

I seen on the air corps Facebook page yesterday they had 2 Pc9s doing a CAP of sorts. They had the fuel tanks on to give them them the legs to stay up longer but did they also have the gun pods on did any one see?

Leonidas BL · 06-06-2019 7:39pm

roadmaster wrote: »

I seen on the air corps Facebook page yesterday they had 2 Pc9s doing a CAP of sorts. They had the fuel tanks on to give them them the legs to stay up longer but did they also have the gun pods on did any one see?

Couldn't see any. Sure could they keep up with Air force 1 anyway??

roadmaster · 06-06-2019 7:43pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Couldn't see any. Sure could they keep up with Air force 1 anyway??

I presume they where working around dunbeg and would be directed to intercept light aircraft etc by Shannon or the army mobile radar?

Leonidas BL · 06-06-2019 7:45pm

roadmaster wrote: »

I presume they where working around dunbeg and would be directed to intercept light aircraft etc by Shannon or the army mobile radar?

That'd be the height of it i'd say. Might frighten away the seagulls around Shannon too. Be awful if Air Force 1 ingested any.

knipex · 06-06-2019 7:47pm

ljy9fn7qwhgasx wrote: »

Kinda holed your own canoe with that one.

Even so, in a country with over 3,000 homeless children one will have a difficult time persuading people to spend tens or hundreds of millions on jets to "defend our own airpsace" against something.

Was there not a story recently about how many times the RAF were deployed to defend Irish airspace ??

Around the time the Russian bombers flew off the West coast but in our airspace.

roadmaster · 06-06-2019 7:51pm

knipex wrote: »

Was there not a story recently about how many times the RAF were deployed to defend Irish airspace ??

Around the time the Russian bombers flew off the West coast but in our airspace.

The Russians where only out for a spin not harming anyone. Besides if there was an emergency I don’t thing the RAF would be able to get jets hear in time anyway

Nobelium · 06-06-2019 8:22pm

roadmaster wrote: »

The Russians where only out for a spin not harming anyone.

more like clever probing, testing, surveying, training and recon . .and to see what they can get away with in EU airspace and where . . and the response or lack of

sparky42 · 06-06-2019 9:17pm

Nobelium wrote: »

more like clever probing, testing, surveying, training and recon . .and to see what they can get away with in EU airspace and where . . and the response or lack of

Basically the dame thing they and the USAF have been doing to each other (and in the case of the US to China as well) for decades.

cameramonkey · 06-06-2019 11:14pm

Nobelium wrote: »

more like clever probing, testing, surveying, training and recon . .and to see what they can get away with in EU airspace and where . . and the response or lack of

What EU airspace were they in?

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments