Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

I have yet to see a discussion on the purchase of second-hand F16s. ....

Few on here want anything other than latest fighters.

Only negatives with the F16 it's is high running costs because it's a fundamentally a 1970s design and even the newer builds do not have the ease of mantainance and software modularity that some newer designs have. Giving some new designs much lower running costs.

There's a debate in the US around new build F16s and the generals dont want it, partly for those reasons. That said they are doing new build F15s. So theres a bit of double speak going on.

Pilots say the F16 with new blocks are as good as anything else in the visual fight. But it's yesterday's news in BVR. So they say. But its an old plane now. Good enough for us. Maybe. No one here will accept that though. There is no compromise.

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

That KAI jet is the best choice to get some decent firepower without breaking the bank.....

Older variant Gripen is not far off the same price, and is more capable. I think a Gripen is the better choice.

sparky42 wrote: »

Suppose it depends on how much usage they have had, I mean the Greek 16s would have been used very hard with the Turkish incursions. Also of course getting F16s mean having to get US approval for purchases, they might want to try flogging new ones rather second hand ones (from memory they blocked Israel from selling some to one of the Eastern European countries).

Also don’t forget that for the Greek deal, they are asking for a lot of weapons that we wouldn’t be looking for.

I was just reading up on that you correct, they block the Qatari from buying upgrading. I never took that into account. I reckon that would make it cheaper I suppose maybe I'm wrong

Flinty997 wrote: »

Few on here want anything other than latest fighters.

Only negatives with the F16 it's is high running costs because it's a fundamentally a 1970s design and even the newer builds do not have the ease of mantainance and software modularity that some newer designs have. Giving some new designs much lower running costs.

There's a debate in the US around new build F16s and the generals dont want it, partly for those reasons. That said they are doing new build F15s. So theres a bit of double speak going on.

Pilots say the F16 with new blocks are as good as anything else in the visual fight. But it's yesterday's news in BVR. So they say. But its an old plane now. Good enough for us. Maybe. No one here will accept that though. There is no compromise.

Block D I think is the ones I'm only compared them.just there with polish upgrades I think the overall changes was avionics and range.

zom wrote: »

Gripen is nice and compact system but fighter itself has pretty short range distance unfortunately - good in defensive role for countries with small airspace like Czech or Switzerland (they planned but decide not to buy) but not for island like us with vast coastline and territorial waters. Swedish use them but they have like 100 of them and mostly Baltic sea to patrol. Norway for example went for F-16E with 3 times longer range (plus few F-35 but they can afford it with their gas and oil resources

It is different story of we need our own jet fighters and how it would work NATO defense doctrine. It is interesting to see Icelandic Air Policing where Iceland has more strategic role with number of radar systems located there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

Norway flies the F16A not the newer blocks though I’m sure they’ve had the usual life upgrades, given the number of intercepts they’ve done to Russian incursions I’d say they may be well shagged in terms of flight hours.

zom wrote: »

Gripen is nice and compact system but fighter itself has pretty short range distance unfortunately - good in defensive role for countries with small airspace like Czech or Switzerland (they planned but decide not to buy) but not for island like us with vast coastline and territorial waters. Swedish use them but they have like 100 of them and mostly Baltic sea to patrol. Norway for example went for F-16E with 3 times longer range (plus few F-35 but they can afford it with their gas and oil resources

It is different story of we need our own jet fighters and how it would work NATO defense doctrine. It is interesting to see Icelandic Air Policing where Iceland has more strategic role with number of radar systems located there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

Fair point. The newer models have a lot more range, but a lot more price too.

donvito99 wrote: »

There is no threat to our air space in peacetime.

Please tell us the circumstances in which 'an interceptor' is required without some sort of conventional, persistent threat to our interest.

And let's not have this "a stricken airliner may need directions" nonsense as we had the last time around.

Well you cannot state it is nonsense when it is a factual reason, there is examples of that nonsense story one being flight 182 over Ireland in the 80s terrorist threat and recently flight 522 over Cyprus where I was based coincidentally when that happened. Both stricken airlines but let's forget those, however one was met with QRA F16s to assess what was happening.

Not saying you said this but just because we are a small little island we are a strategic pain in the rear for most of our neighbours due to our neglect of our military we have nothing to defend our own airspace and waters either for that matter. Bringing politics into here but we also can’t preach the no hard border (GFA) no military crap when we call the RAF for help when a Russian plane decided to rip down the coast.

I digress, anyway lets use the reason that is being used now Russian bombers, which are purposely turning off their transponders in one of the busiest airspaces in the world(transatlantic). Consider a Russian bombers which fly generally in squads of two or three going up the west coast, they get seen only visually by airliners but if it's close enough TCAS could alert, that's far to dangerous. Flying Blind, into airspace which is not policed properly is what they want to expose.

We depend on the British radar systems, typhoons and hush gentleman's agreement to ensure the intrusion is met militarily.

To be honest it's embarrassing that we are at the table of the UN security council when we can't even take care of our situations. We are in “peacetime” and this still happens on our door step it won’t go to a war for obvious reasons. We are a neutral nation which is being harassed.

I wasn't the one who brought up working with NATO and aircraft suitable for use on overseas missions and in other countries. Or that we don't want aircraft limited to one mission profile. All the current modern jets have air to air refueling. But it's perishable skill. Needs to be practiced.

Flinty997 wrote: »

What do we need to defend our waters. I assume you mean the Russian subs recently transiting around Ireland.

What ASW capability would your suggest for air craft and Navy

Well I was making more an additional point on the fact that we can’t defend anything effectively, I don’t think we would need anti sub aircraft, however me personally I would be a fan of the new ATR 72 ASW

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think our military budget was €780 million in 2020. You have to consider what % we want to spend on individual threats. Do we spend 50% off it on ASW etc.

My overall statement above was not in relation to maritime patrol.
I must have taken you up incorrectly, That is my suggested preference.

Flinty997 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you just expanding on it.

The platform is very Morden and has the range capability I think suits the IAC. Given it’s similarities to the Casa. I wasn’t aware of the pricing or the costs in involved I believe Turkey and Italy are the will be the operators of it though.

Dohvolle wrote: »

There is, and this thread is 140 pages long to explain why.

70 pages are Jonny trying to figure out whether a 7th frigate or 5th fighter wing would better.

The occasional russian bomber, whose purpose is delinquency with some testing of NATO thrown in and that alone, is no reason to procure fast jets.

Fighter jets are at the bottom of the list of our conventional defence priorities and that list should be based on the risks that we face. Our procurement should not be based on what the Hungarians or Czechs are doing.

Can someone please paint us a picture of circumstances where a squadron of fast jets would provide any defence utility at all?

What nation is in a position to fly jets far enough whereby we are threatened? The Russians have a strung out bomber force and no carrier.

We'd be better off spending a billion a year on ASW, which makes sense as that is a threat on our doorstep and something that other navies a falling down on, with frigates and patrol aircraft becoming more scarce. 12 gripens does nothing for us or Europe

donvito99 wrote: »

...

We'd be better off spending a billion a year on ASW, which makes sense as that is a threat on our doorstep and something that other navies a falling down on, with frigates and patrol aircraft becoming more scarce. 12 gripens does nothing for us or Europe

You could are argue ASW is a threat, but not a high threat either.

You can see from other countries, especially the US are over reaching with their new equipment programs. Making them unaffordable for themselves. Having burnt a ton of money are having to take a step back and look at more traditionally and affordable options. Like new build F15s and more traditional Frigates. The UK had to clean house and shrink in order to afford their new equipment. With less units, they'll have a harder life trying to spread them selves too thin.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1331872/defence-review-royal-navy-cuts-stena-impero-gulf-first-sea-lord-west-boris-johnson-dominic

So while I enjoy fast jets as much as the next guy and I can see some people only want one viewpoint expressed. I think its worthwhile (and enjoyable) looking at all the options.

It already has. No shortage of military ceremonies, rememberance parades, school career talks by serving enlisted and officers, plenty of twitter/facebook/social media by and about the DF and so on. The important point is that the DoD and the DF are regarded as a political dead end by our political leadership says it all.

Flinty997 wrote: »

You could are argue ASW is a threat, but not a high threat either.

You can see from other countries, especially the US are over reaching with their new equipment programs. Making them unaffordable for themselves. Having burnt a ton of money are having to take a step back and look at more traditionally and affordable options. Like new build F15s and more traditional Frigates. The UK had to clean house and shrink in order to afford their new equipment. With less units, they'll have a harder life trying to spread them selves too thin.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1331872/defence-review-royal-navy-cuts-stena-impero-gulf-first-sea-lord-west-boris-johnson-dominic

So while I enjoy fast jets as much as the next guy and I can see some people only want one viewpoint expressed. I think its worthwhile (and enjoyable) looking at all the options.

Of all the Western Nations to pick those two are by far the worst examples to use (I mean hell when was the last time the UK brought any military project into use on time, on budget, on spec?


Makes more sense to compare us to nations of around the same population/gdp (though yes ours is nuts so knock about 50-100 billion off the figure) and then look at what they are doing.