Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Psychlops wrote: »

At best we could hope to see is Hawk T2's, they are plumbed for AAM's.

Hawks would be ideal for Ireland. Simple and can be used for air to air and air to ground missions.

They are the last line of air defence in the RAF.

The only issue I can see is that they only have one engine. Not great for a plane that would probably spend most of its time out over the Atlantic chasing airliners with no coms.

What about Tonkas? The RAF will have a few, perfectly serviceable aircraft, crews and instructors free at the end of the month!!

sparky42 wrote: »

Are they? I mean there was plans to use some of them as such during the Cold War but I think the RAF dropped them a long time ago.


As to going with a trainer plus option I'd go with the M-346 Master (twin engine) but like the Hawk with anything on the wings I'd wonder about how that would impact their top speed. I mean we'd most likely have to have them operate out of a Western Airport even with the external tanks

Still used. If you look at radarbox24 during weekdays you will see them intercepting the Learjets off the Yorkshire coast. They use them in mock dogfighting with the Typhoons also.

You can usually tell by the callsign. As I said here before, Shannon is ideal. All you need to add is a few taxiways and hardened hangers, crew facilities etc.

I think most Irish QRA missions would be for incoming aircraft. Outgoing planes are usually stopped and diverted over the Irish Sea by the RAF so there should be no need (in theory) for Ireland to have a supersonic fighter.

sparky42 wrote: »

Wasn't that the one famous for having a lump of cement instead of a radar when it entered service, or was that one of the other variants of the tornado? Either way the RAF ones are shagged beyond use, and their withdrawal is making the Germans rethink theirs due to the reduction in user base and costs.

It was known as Blue Circle Radar (after the cement company)! It was used in some early ADV planes as the radar was not ready. Later swapped for lead blocks!

The ADV is long gone from the RAF. The Tornado I was referring to was the GR4. Has air to air capabilities but lacks the long range radar of the F3 so would be reliant on a decent ground based radar to guide them in.

The last GR4 airframe for the RAF was delivered in the late 90s so they are not life expired.

sparky42 wrote: »

So at best a 20 year old airframe of an original 70's design? Airframes that most likely have seen fairly intensive use anyway given what the RAF have been doing since the late 90's. I'm sorry but I fail to see any logic in that. To get anything worth a QRA you'd have to buy several times the airframes and spend the whole time pulling parts to keep what's left in service, the operational rates would be brutal I'd bet.


We know what Eastern European nations have paid for Gripen's on lease, if we ever were looking at Combat jets something like that makes sense, not worn out airframes

They have been used but not that much. The RAF is retiring them for cost reasons and the Typhoons can now the full air to ground stuff.

Italy is still upgrading its Tornado aircraft so there must be life in them yet!

Larbre34 wrote: »

Italy is broke. The Tornadoes are a complicated heavy and quite ancient aircraft, anyone who doesn't already have them would be outright mental to get involved with them.

For Ireland like any other small European operator, the choice for purchasing would come down between the F-16 and Gripen. Whether new or refurbished would be an economic consideration within that.

Slovakia has a current contract to procure 14 shiny new '16 Block 70s with radar and a stock of weaponry for €2.5 billion that will serve them out to 2040. To me this sounds like a superb package, and Ireland could do worse than to run 8 of them and spend the other billion on a primary radar.

If we get into leasing then other models come into play like the Rafale, but really the F-16, new or used, is the most economical most versatile multi-role airframe going.

The Tornado was introduced a year after the F16 and both have been upgraded since. Its not as slow as you think. The F3 could fairly shift and often "accidentally" went supersonic doing laps of the field. I witnessed ( or heard it) more than once!

Also the Tornado has also been used for what Ireland would most likely use it for..

Air to air, air to ship and limited air to surface. The old Luftwaffe Marine versions were configured that way. There is no point Ireland spending billions on all singing, all dancing F16 when we would never use half the stuff on it.

sparky42 wrote: »

How do you figure? I mean it made sense to the UK because it was in service with them already, but given how few users the entire Tornado program ended up with it can't have had any major advantages?

The only users were the original contributing nations (UK, Ger, ITA) and Saudi Arabia, which along with the other Gulf States is well known to buy military equipment as a diplomatic tool rather than out of strategic necessity.



https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2018/03/01/for-the-gulf-states-diplomacy-involves-buying-weapons-they-dont-need


I'm not saying the Tornado wasn't a succesful strike aircraft but its very limited export success has to be interpreted with that taken into account.
Also the sale of ADVs to the Saudis was part of the infamously corrupt Al-Yamamah arms deal, suggesting that the aircraft did not win orders on merit.

The ADV had a lengthy and problem plagued development, the radar fiasco is the best known but other rather basic capabilities were still missing later and the RAF retired them for Typhoons first chance they got. Similarly the Italians didn't even wait for the Eurofighter and ended their lease of ADVs to replace them with F16s as their interim fighter before they got the Eurofighter. After using the ADV the Saudis converted 60 of their further orders to the IDS strike variant instead. All of this indicates that the ADV failed to meet expectations from its operators.

The Tornado design is ancient 60's variable geometry and the airframes must be knackered. The low level high speed terrain following mission profile would exert considerable stress on an airframe. The maintenance on variable geometry systems and a design that old would be difficult and costly - The US got rid of F14s long ago for similar reasons. Even if they were being given away they would probably not be a good choice.

I think there are simpler better performing, and more cost effective aircraft than the Tornado. Especially for Ireland.

The ADV Tornado was never designed as a dogfighter. It (and the radar) was a long range thing. First beyond visual sight.

The GR4, has the range and a cannon. ..

beauf wrote: »

The Tornado was a compromised design. Jack of all trades master at none.

It was designed to loiter for long periods on CAP. It was never intended as a dogfighter and it was slow to accelerate. Wouldn't suit Ireland at all. I seem to remember it was criticized for poor performance in hot and high climates. Maybe I'm mistaken I can't find anything online about that.

But it was a great jack of all trades. Great weapons platform. Very capable in the right hands.

I'd actually argue that it was optimised for low level penetration of air defences in the strike role and performed well in that task but that attempts to adapt that design to other roles were flawed. The F111 was designed for the same mission and both the US Navy and Air Force wisely rejected McNamara's attempts to force it into the land and carrierborne fighter role as an economy measure.

The low level penetration mission, to go in below the radar horizon of enemy air defences, was all the rage in the 1960s and early 70s, before AEW and look down shoot down radars made it a less viable proposition (and various IADS counters like SEAD/DEAD, standoff weapons and eventually stealth were in turn developed). Variable geometry was similarly in vogue at the time before other advances made it unnecessary. The Tornado has to be understood in that context as a relic of a very specific time and requirement. That it has lasted so long in the strike role is a testament to how good it was at its intended task. Why anyone thinks it would perform well in the 21st century as a A2A platform when attempts to make it one in the 20th failed so badly is beyond me.