Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Heraldoffreeent · 23-05-2021 6:52pm

Gary kk wrote: »

They must be warming the pc9 at moment just to scare those White Russians

Casa's are having their Bomb racks fitted as we speak...............

Larbre34 · 24-05-2021 2:56am

Since the other plane called Spectre is the AC-130 Spectre gunship, maybe the PC-12s have a party piece where gatling guns and 20mm cannons appear from nowhere.

roadmaster · 28-05-2021 6:25pm

I see a single pilot got his wings today is it a bit unusual for a single person to qualify on there own?

Psychlops · 28-05-2021 11:19pm

roadmaster wrote: »

I see a single pilot got his wings today is it a bit unusual for a single person to qualify on there own?

Yes.

Larbre34 · 29-05-2021 12:29am

The class of 2021 everybody.

Heraldoffreeent · 29-05-2021 1:15am

roadmaster wrote: »

I see a single pilot got his wings today is it a bit unusual for a single person to qualify on there own?

Thats the lad who landed the PC-9 without an engine.

irishrgr · 29-05-2021 5:16pm

A few days behind the SLAM69 flight.....the Shinner asking questions of the DoD is going to be very disappointed when he gets back the answer along the lines of "this was a routine flight, diplomatic clearances were approved ahead, flight plan was approved, yours etc....." boring. Funny how he didn't ask the minister about the Bear incursion a while back, and I'd submit the Bear was much more of a hazard to navigation than a very cooperative C17 crew doing a bit of sightseeing.

As someone said, this sort of thing goes on all the time, planes come & go. And yes, C17's can land and take off on very short runways, Baldonnell would be no bother. Crew won't get in any trouble, they followed the rules, didn't do anything untoward. Flight crews do this sort of thing from time to time, fly over a cool spot or the likes. The only ones who get in trouble are the ones who do dangerous or silly things (drawing giant phallus' in the sky sort of thing), otherwise its routine.

The US air crews I've spoken to always like stopping in Ireland. It's different than the usual spots (UK, Germany, etc.), they are treated very well, good hospitality and we're nice to them. Fair play to SLAM69, well played them.

Larbre34 · 29-05-2021 8:30pm

**** Sinn Féin.

Markcheese · 29-05-2021 8:39pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

**** Sinn Féin.

Well , they're the largest political party in the state -(according to polls ) , so maybe you're gonna have to get used to them ... ( Considering their current TDs that's a scary prospect )

Larbre34 · 29-05-2021 10:07pm

Markcheese wrote: »

Well , they're the largest political party in the state -(according to polls ) , so maybe you're gonna have to get used to them ... ( Considering their current TDs that's a scary prospect )

Matters not a jot.

Even if they got 79 seats (which they won't) it'd still be a grand coalition of 81 against them. This talk of an inevitability of SF in Govt is nonsense.

roadmaster · 29-05-2021 10:20pm

France are selling second hand Rafales to Croatia for 1 billion euros. How much would they cost to run yearly I wonder

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210528-croatia-to-buy-12-used-rafale-fighter-jets-from-france-for-%E2%82%AC1-billion

sparky42 · 29-05-2021 10:21pm

[PHP][/PHP]

Larbre34 wrote: »

Matters not a jot.

Even if they got 79 seats (which they won't) it'd still be a grand coalition of 81 against them. This talk of an inevitability of SF in Govt is nonsense.

While it’s the last thing I want to see happen(both because of their history and the track record in NI), at some stage they will be in government, next time Martin will be out as FF leader and there’s going to be a strong wing to do business with the Shinners, hell there is now within FF.

source · 29-05-2021 11:36pm

roadmaster wrote: »

France are selling second hand Rafales to Croatia for 1 billion euros. How much would they cost to run yearly I wonder

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210528-croatia-to-buy-12-used-rafale-fighter-jets-from-france-for-%E2%82%AC1-billion

Smaller population, smaller gdp, similar defence budget. They are replacing Eastern block jets as opposed to building the capability from scratch but there's still a lot of comparison there. Though having said that Croatia is a member of NATO and probably why they're getting the deal they're getting. The 1bn is getting them the airframes, weapons and training so a very very good deal for them for that aircraft.

sparky42 · 29-05-2021 11:44pm

source wrote: »

Smaller population, smaller gdp, similar defence budget. They are replacing Eastern block jets as opposed to building the capability from scratch but there's still a lot of comparison there. Though having said that Croatia is a member of NATO and probably why they're getting the deal they're getting. The 1bn is getting them the airframes, weapons and training so a very very good deal for them for that aircraft.

There’s also some tension with Serbia who have got new Migs from Russia recently which is driving some of the procurement as well. But yeah it’s a nice deal for them, but also for France who now extend the production line and replace older versions with brand new ones while getting an export customer, wonder if like the Greek deal (or Egyptian one) they might be loaning the money?

Larbre34 · 29-05-2021 11:52pm

NATO or not, if we approached fellow EU members through the Defence channels, I imagine we'd get a good deal on pretty much any surplus or previous generation kit that we wanted. But we just won't.

sparky42 · 30-05-2021 12:11am

Larbre34 wrote: »

NATO or not, if we approached fellow EU members through the Defence channels, I imagine we'd get a good deal on pretty much any surplus or previous generation kit that we wanted. But we just won't.

Of course, like I said I’m damn full sure France would be delighted to give us a similar deal, it’s brilliant for them each way. Same as how I’ve argued which should pick one European large force and just tack orders for vehicles etc to them, they may not be 100% what we want but the scaling impact and supply chains should offset that, far better than our current procurement “policies”

Manic Moran · 30-05-2021 1:00am

Larbre34 wrote: »

**** Sinn Féin.

[Mod]Not a very useful comment, is it?

Try to be a little more relevant to this subforum, please. Who knows, they may end up in power one day as the lawful authority over the defence forces (Or whatever the term is).
[/Mod]

Larbre34 · 30-05-2021 2:07am

Don't worry, I didn't intend it to be at all useful for a second.

And if they do end up as the Government with control over ÓnhÉ, they are going to get very confused over which one of their Óglaigh na hÉireanns they are talking about at any given time.

blindsider · 30-05-2021 11:28pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

At which point Ireland will turn into the Balkans circa 1992. No thank you.

While they continue to have an armed terrorist wing which they like to celebrate, refer to as Oglaigh na hEreann (the proper title of the Irish Defence forces), who are responsible for the death of a member of the Actual irish Defence Force, and numerous police officers of the state, whose prosecution they have resisted, they have no legitimacy as a proper political party on this island.
They are playing to the DF voter at present, promising to get fair pay and conditions, but NOWHERE on their manifesto does it suggest increasing the defence budget to fund this. They are populists, and little more. They attach themselves to whatever cause will win them votes.
Their Border poll promise goes no further than "once we vote for unity, all those who oppose it must leave".

Probably the most important, and accurate, sentence written on Boards today.

The rest of the post is spot on, too!

Sgt. Bilko 09 · 31-05-2021 10:22pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

**** Sinn Féin.

Love Sinn Fein lol

jd · 07-06-2021 12:02pm

From https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/concerns-raised-over-russian-military-aircraft-flying-in-irish-airspace-m3v9f09jg

The Irish Aviation Authority has raised the issue of incursions by foreign military aircraft into Irish airspace in its submission to the Commission on the Future of the Defence Forces.

The commission last week published a heavily redacted version of the IAA submission, which removed all references to the matter. The redactions were made at the request of the IAA, citing national security concerns.

Larbre34 · 07-06-2021 11:50pm

Very interesting.

No coincidence, perhaps, that the great Commandant Jim Gavin is Ass. Director of the IAA.

08-06-2021 9:14pm

Do the RAF not have the ability to station a few flights of Typhoons in Northern Ireland for quick reaction? They are in NATO not us, its in their interest to protect that region, the Western extent of the European area of concern?
I mean if the UK can manage to have Typhoons fly all the way and be stationed in The Falklands, then surely they can drum some up to base in NI?

This country has had many good years having the money to ring-fence for the provision of defence as a neutral country.
The defence forces are disorganised, poorly funded and at the long list of this States priorities.
As someone who served in the PDF, althouhh this looks like flying something up the flagpole to see how it might er fly, pardon the pun, but even if a number of capable aircraft were to be acquired, credible defence requires a whole lot of other supporting elements to back up an aircraft capable of responding to territorial incursions and probing. Might have to go the way of the Baltic states and leave it as it is for NATO to watch which they could easily do from Northern Ireland, by the end of the week if they viewed it necessary to show a visible response to this, or they know where these Bears are and dont need to respond or they are waiting for one to collide with a civilian airliner so they can really weigh in.
On the other hand, it would take us years to catch up and have capable aircraft and support like recruitment, conditions, pay, training, radar, defence of ground based assets.
No good having fast jets unless you have a host of supporting elements in play, or someone just sends a guy along and takes them out by causing significant damage, which would be possible to do with as little as a hammer.

punchdrunk · 08-06-2021 9:54pm

1874 wrote: »

Do the RAF not have the ability to station a few flights of Typhoons in Northern Ireland for quick reaction? They are in NATO not us, its in their interest to protect that region, the Western extent of the European area of concern?
I mean if the UK can manage to have Typhoons fly all the way and be stationed in The Falklands, then surely they can drum some up to base in NI?

This country has had many good years having the money to ring-fence for the provision of defence as a neutral country.
The defence forces are disorganised, poorly funded and at the long list of this States priorities.
As someone who served in the PDF, althouhh this looks like flying something up the flagpole to see how it might er fly, pardon the pun, but even if a number of capable aircraft were to be acquired, credible defence requires a whole lot of other supporting elements to back up an aircraft capable of responding to territorial incursions and probing. Might have to go the way of the Baltic states and leave it as it is for NATO to watch which they could easily do from Northern Ireland, by the end of the week if they viewed it necessary to show a visible response to this, or they know where these Bears are and dont need to respond or they are waiting for one to collide with a civilian airliner so they can really weigh in.
On the other hand, it would take us years to catch up and have capable aircraft and support like recruitment, conditions, pay, training, radar, defence of ground based assets.
No good having fast jets unless you have a host of supporting elements in play, or someone just sends a guy along and takes them out by causing significant damage, which would be possible to do with as little as a hammer.

Stationing Typhoons in NI would cause absolute murder, they’ve been slowly demilitarising the North for years- no way they’d send jets over

Psychlops · 08-06-2021 10:05pm

1874 wrote: »

Might have to go the way of the Baltic states and leave it as it is for NATO to watch which they

Just like what I said earlier, Have NATO base at Shannon, job done.

08-06-2021 10:09pm

punchdrunk wrote: »

Stationing Typhoons in NI would cause absolute murder, they’ve been slowly demilitarising the North for years- no way they’d send jets over

Well maybe refuelers in NI for fast jets based in Scotland, that way a refueler could fly up to meet a lighter loaded/fueled fast jet ie Typhoon.
That way it wouldnt be an armed militarised jet, could be based out of a civilian airport, and wouldnt have to be permananent, just when needed.

either way, the reports seemed to state the intruding aircraft were not actually in our sovereign airspace, just our area of interest or the UKs.
it would take a massive level of funding and reorganising of the PDF to be able to respond to such situations and it would take years to implement.
UK/NATO can do it now if they want, just like they are in the Baltics.

08-06-2021 10:13pm

Psychlops wrote: »

Just like what I said earlier, Have NATO base at Shannon, job done.

And you dont think thats a bigger deal than basing aircraft in NI which is in NATO already.
Having NATO forces based on our territory would be a bigger breach of our sovereignty than the Russians skirting the edges of our airspace.
If we cant monitor and control our own territory ourselves, even eventually, then I dont see what the issue is with NATO fast jets in NI until we can or until the flights end.
It is essentially a challlenge to NATO afterall, not us.

Strumms · 08-06-2021 10:27pm

There really is no need for fighter jets.

There is no real threat in existence that we know of to us.

If there was we’d need probably 30-40 jets not 12. They will set us back 55-70 million euros a jet... then all the supplementary costs, maintenance, training, fueling etc... work on upgrading existing aer corps facilities to handle them, ground handling / support equipment which isn’t cheap....

If word on the grapevine was say Russia fancied invading us to establish a Western European outpost.... perhaps , having some sort of deterrent would be a shrewd move... but in the absence of a credible threat to our country.... shelling out close to or just over one billion euros to purchase jets, build hangers, buy and build the equipment to support them.... as well as building infrastructure probably can’t be justified.

08-06-2021 10:44pm

We should have fast jets, but we cant because the rest of our national infrastructure is mismanaged, therefore even as a questionable neutral country, we cannot monitor or control our sovereign territory if we want as the State has always treated financing even a small military force as the last in a long line of funded organisations and with other priorities it couldnt be justified to spend on jets for this purpose.
We should be on par with Hungary/Czech who have about 15 Gripens each, possibly in some kind of lease to buy arrangement.

That said, as the other poster mentioned, this needs a huge investement in supporting infrastructure, you effectively need an equivalent number of trainer jets too to train up pilots and probably prop trainers.
I will never understand why they replaced the piston engined prop trainers for turbine prop trainers. For a nation state, the cost to run piston engined prop trainers in buttons compared to other expenditure of the State.
There would still need to be a host of other supporting units, structure, organisational overhaul and spending.
The political will or interest doesnt exist.
We should possibly be operating L-159's but sure we cant even drum something like that up. Look at the navy, seems like the DF is being intentionally defunded.

Strumms · 08-06-2021 10:53pm

personnel would be a huge cost too.

Pilots alone, you’d need 3-4 per jet, maintenance, about half that as well as lots of ground operations staff. You’d be talking about 250-300 additional personnel minimum to the air corps.. so by my guess 15 million for staff per year.

Larbre34 · 08-06-2021 10:57pm

For the umpteenth time on this thread, L159s are utterly pointless, because they are slower than the aircraft they'd be marking. Even civilian airliners. Operating jets for jet's sake, would be idiotic.

And, the previous General Officer commanding the Air Corps has given a detailed and informed opinion, that to operate a 24/7 fast jet QRA capability, we would need 16 jets of F16, JAS-39 or similar, with 3 full crews each, primary radar, hardened hangars and associated accommodation for ground crew, maintenance and ordnance.

08-06-2021 11:13pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

For the umpteenth time on this thread, L159s are utterly pointless, because they are slower than the aircraft they'd be marking. Even civilian airliners. Operating jets for jet's sake, would be idiotic.

And, the previous General Officer commanding the Air Corps has given a detailed and informed opinion, that to operate a 24/7 fast jet QRA capability, we would need 16 jets of F16, JAS-39 or similar, with 3 full crews each, primary radar, hardened hangars and associated accommodation for ground crew, maintenance and ordnance.

Well a Tu-142 can make 499 kts,
an L159 can make 505 kts, be a long time to catch up, and although I wouldnt recommend the IAC to start BVR missle launches, the L159 can carry AMRAAMs.
joking aside, we cant even drum up L159s, so Gripens are way off the table, we probably should have an L159 or 2 seater equivalent at a minimum, and if ever some fast jet with minimum capability was to be acquired, you would also need a 2 seat jet trainer to back that up for training.

Larbre34 · 08-06-2021 11:32pm

No need. The PC-9 is perfectly well advanced for jet training and conversion.

If you're acquiring jets, you acquire a couple of two seaters in the deal and you send guys to current operating countries for training. Sweden, Czechia, South Africa all operate Gripens for instance and we already have pilots training in the United States and Australia.

The L-159 is somewhat useful if you're planning to attack fixed and mobile ground targets and infantry formations, sod all else.

08-06-2021 11:56pm

Well there are all ready rumblings about replacing the pc-9s, that should be cut down like the tripe it is, an aircraft that is in widespread use and I read something about getting rid of it, they dont know the value of anything.
Lycomings used in the marchettis (still), and continue to be in widespread use and not supplanted by any newer piston engined types. There was zero need for the pc-9s over what existed, because there was nothing to train for. The PC-9 is essentially a trainer.
Aircraft can have long service lifes, the thing is it requires ongoing maintenance and costs associated, dont know who is procuring aircraft, but any aircraft that replaces something else, will also have to be maintained.
They cant just hit an unplanned for cost bump in maintenance and the dept of finance thinks its better to buy a replacement rather than fund the necessary costs associated with ongoing maintenance.

Flinty997 · 09-06-2021 12:04am

Larbre34 wrote: »

For the umpteenth time on this thread, L159s are utterly pointless, because they are slower than the aircraft they'd be marking. Even civilian airliners. Operating jets for jet's sake, would be idiotic.

And, the previous General Officer commanding the Air Corps has given a detailed and informed opinion, that to operate a 24/7 fast jet QRA capability, we would need 16 jets of F16, JAS-39 or similar, with 3 full crews each, primary radar, hardened hangars and associated accommodation for ground crew, maintenance and ordnance.

This thread loves quoting that out of context...

...“People say we should have a 24/7 response. I’m just trying to bring reality to it. Once you escalate to a 24/7 service the numbers of personnel and resources go off the Richter scale.”

He pointed to the approaches adopted by other small countries, such as New Zealand, which abandoned their fighter jet programme and diverted the money to the army....

.... Really need an aircraft carrier of the coast....few subs...

ZeroThreat · 09-06-2021 12:10am

Larbre34 wrote: »

For the umpteenth time on this thread, L159s are utterly pointless, because they are slower than the aircraft they'd be marking. Even civilian airliners. Operating jets for jet's sake, would be idiotic.

And, the previous General Officer commanding the Air Corps has given a detailed and informed opinion, that to operate a 24/7 fast jet QRA capability, we would need 16 jets of F16, JAS-39 or similar, with 3 full crews each, primary radar, hardened hangars and associated accommodation for ground crew, maintenance and ordnance.

lol given Irish defence expertise and budget, higher chance the Russians would invade us before this ever happened

Larbre34 · 09-06-2021 12:56am

ZeroThreat wrote: »

lol given Irish defence expertise and budget, higher chance the Russians would invade us before this ever happened

Probably.

But, we are talking about this one day after it became public that the Irish Aviation Authority has submitted to the Commission on Defence that there is a clear and present danger to Irish aviation activity and interests from nefarious foreign military activity and our lack of capability to detect and counter it.

Bear in mind, Irish aviation is in the toilet thanks to the pandemic. Normally, it generates massive revenues from tourism, leasing, maintenance and so on. This Government will have it as a priority to return to normal activity and with the opening of the second major runway in Dublin, advertising that Airport as an efficient transit hub.

When overseas interests are seeing the IAA raise red flags about air security and defence in their own country, that changes the equation somewhat to what might be lost in future without spending a few hundred million now to catch up. Or at least, it should.

Flinty997 · 09-06-2021 12:56am

Dohvolle wrote: »

...
There is little difference cost wise between a modern jet trainer and leasing 16 Gripen C/D..... Both Greece and Croatia got very good deals recently on Dassault Rafales, second hand, 12 of them for just around €1bn

Running cost of a Rafales could be up to four times a Gripen. Its not simply flying the aircraft either. Its the software. More complex more cost.

Flinty997 · 09-06-2021 1:05am

Larbre34 wrote: »

....
But, we are talking about this one day after it became public that the Irish Aviation Authority has submitted to the Commission on Defence that there is a clear and present danger to Irish aviation activity and interests from nefarious foreign military activity and our lack of capability to detect and counter it......

Are you referring to this, with its almost completed censored/redacted content. Reads like Frank Moses Resume.

Larbre34 · 09-06-2021 1:14am

The very fact of it being redacted tells us exactly what it is and why.

Flinty997 · 09-06-2021 1:33am

Considering the creative quoting of previous "facts" . I'm not sure fill in the blanks is the way forward with this...

sparky42 · 09-06-2021 2:07am

Flinty997 wrote: »

This thread loves quoting that out of context...

.... Really need an aircraft carrier of the coast....few subs...

Also out of context from the General, the Kiwi's have P3's and are buying P8's, along with having C130's, so their Air Force is still a quantum leap beyond ours even without Fighters.

expectationlost · 09-06-2021 2:13am

Larbre34 wrote: »

The very fact of it being redacted tells us exactly what it is and why.

it wasn't redacted properly at first which is why the ST journo could read it, files still there on gov server

https://assets.gov.ie/136197/461485e1-f79f-4e5e-ac94-f6042a0e2d2b.pdf it really doesn't say anything

Edgarfrndly · 09-06-2021 2:23am

We should definitely consider the JAS 39 Gripen. They are affordable and modern. I dunno how feasible it is in the very near future, but at some point in the next decade when the economy is back on its feet - we should definitely think about it.

Flinty997 · 09-06-2021 2:28am

sparky42 wrote: »

Also out of context from the General, the Kiwi's have P3's and are buying P8's, along with having C130's, so their Air Force is still a quantum leap beyond ours even without Fighters.

I don't think they'll intercepting many Russian Backfires though...

09-06-2021 3:20am

ZeroThreat wrote: »

lol given Irish defence expertise and budget, higher chance the Russians would invade us before this ever happened

Well in fairness to Putin, if he could sort out the Russian military, overhauling the PDF should be a doddle, could get what we need and can afford, Also I like the pun back a few posts, Red flags indeed, very droll.

Flinty997 · 09-06-2021 10:19am

We are being a bit stupid about it. We could go armed jet trainer route to tip the toe in the water. Go the hawk route. Get exchange pilots working with similar types in other countries. Have an air defence pact with the RAF. Put in some radar and some quick response facilities for RAF fighters in the West.

But there is zero funding for any of it. No appetite either.

People here are obsessed with the top end fighters. Almost no focus on the infrastructure or skillsets you'd have to build up over time to operate such types. Or build to to those type of engagements in all weathers day or night.

You'd have to have an end goal and work backwards to build the infrastructure and training required to support that.

If you don't want to work with the UK who are the most logical choice. Why not France. Massively capable and experienced. PC21 might be common type there.

09-06-2021 12:58pm

Flinty997 wrote: »

We are being a bit stupid about it. We could go armed jet trainer route to tip the toe in the water. Go the hawk route. Get exchange pilots working with similar types in other countries. Have an air defence pact with the RAF. Put in some radar and some quick response facilities for RAF fighters in the West.

But there is zero funding for any of it. No appetite either.

People here are obsessed with the top end fighters. Almost no focus on the infrastructure or skillsets you'd have to build up over time to operate such types. Or build to to those type of engagements in all weathers day or night.

You'd have to have an end goal and work backwards to build the infrastructure and training required to support that.

If you don't want to work with the UK who are the most logical choice. Why not France. Massively capable and experienced. PC21 might be common type there.

I agree, you cant just go right into operating top of the line fast jets, and we lokely never will, but an L139 and trainer equivalent for commonality makes sense, cheaper by a long way than real fighting fast jets which we dont really need. We'd be better ensuring radar coverage is comprensive and maybe in concert with civilian usage, and sorting out the navy/army and have a useful transport capability, long range maratime patrol (possibly even long range drones) and a token basic cheap cheerful but functional first step into aircraft capable of going into the air with an AAM. Radar can fill the gap in speed, ie fly out ahead of threats to meet them. Either way the Aermacchi 345 and 346 look like interesting options, one is a basic jet trainer, interesting, all rather pipe dream stuff that we could manage it.

Larbre34 · 09-06-2021 1:13pm

Why oh why oh why do people keep bringing up jet trainers?

We have trainers. Jet trainers are no more useful and twice as expensive to operate. They aren't interceptors!!

sparky42 · 09-06-2021 1:42pm

Flinty997 wrote: »

We are being a bit stupid about it. We could go armed jet trainer route to tip the toe in the water. Go the hawk route. Get exchange pilots working with similar types in other countries. Have an air defence pact with the RAF. Put in some radar and some quick response facilities for RAF fighters in the West.

But there is zero funding for any of it. No appetite either.

People here are obsessed with the top end fighters. Almost no focus on the infrastructure or skillsets you'd have to build up over time to operate such types. Or build to to those type of engagements in all weathers day or night.

You'd have to have an end goal and work backwards to build the infrastructure and training required to support that.

If you don't want to work with the UK who are the most logical choice. Why not France. Massively capable and experienced. PC21 might be common type there.

Actually if you bothered to look the issue of all the ancillary issues of supporting and using any type of Fighters has been brought up repeatedly in this thread by posters.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments