Irish air force

sligolad1 · 19-02-2014 4:48pm #1

Just hearing about the fact that the swiss air force only operate during office hours. Just wondering does anyone know what hours do the Irish air force operate?

Hedgemeister · 19-02-2014 6:08pm

More Intelligence gathering?

folbotcar · 19-02-2014 11:52pm

You're probably trolling. There is no Irish Air Force but you'll be glad to hear that while it mostly works office hours. The Air Corps does at times work late and and weekends. Not that it matters as it doesn't have the capability to intercept any aircraft heading our way because, ironically, it only uses Swiss made trainers and has no fighters.

sligolad1 · 20-02-2014 12:00am

folbotcar wrote: »

You're probably trolling. There is no Irish Air Force but you'll be glad to hear that while it mostly works office hours. The Air Corps does at times work late and and weekends. Not that it matters as it doesn't have the capability to intercept any aircraft heading our way because, ironically, it only uses Swiss made trainers and has no fighters.

Yes that was stupid of me, I meant Irish air corps. If there was a situation where we needed to intercept an aircraft, would England respond?

Geekness1234 · 20-02-2014 12:47am

sligolad1 wrote: »

Yes that was stupid of me, I meant Irish air corps. If there was a situation where we needed to intercept an aircraft, would England respond?

Depends on the aircraft entirely.
Our Casas can act as an AWACs for the PC-9s, but they would be unable to take down civilian air liner, fighter jet etc.
If it was necessary and posed a threat to the U.K as well to some degree, then they possibly could scramble a jet after some diplomatic negotiations.

cruasder777 · 20-02-2014 1:07am

sligolad1 wrote: »

Yes that was stupid of me, I meant Irish air corps. If there was a situation where we needed to intercept an aircraft, would England respond?

I read in the press after 9/11 the UK and Ireland had a deal where the RAF provided protective air security in such events.

Without doubt if an aircraft was hijacked and heading towards Ireland over the Atlantic the RAF would scramble to meet it, as it would also be a threat to the UK, which includes NI.

Geekness1234 · 20-02-2014 1:11am

cruasder777 wrote: »

I read in the press after 9/11 the UK and Ireland had a deal where the RAF provided protective air security in such events.

Without doubt if an aircraft was hijacked and heading towards Ireland over the Atlantic the RAF would scramble to meet it, as it would also be a threat to the UK, which includes NI.

But likewise in America during the 9/11 attacks, they couldn't find them, so while the Brits may have adapted to some degree, we certainly haven't. So figuring out if it was hijacked before it was too late would be the problem.
A link would also be quite interesting.

Storm 10 · 20-02-2014 3:05am

folbotcar wrote: »

You're probably trolling. There is no Irish Air Force but you'll be glad to hear that while it mostly works office hours. The Air Corps does at times work late and and weekends.

He aint trolling:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-17/if-launching-air-attack-switzerland-do-so-outside-office-hours-when-its-air-force-gr

The Air Corps does remain on permanent standby with dedicated crews 24/7 ( fixed wing and rotary ) for top cover for the IRCG and Inter hospital transfers/time critical missions/air ambulance etc. An AW139 is on 24hr stand by 365 at Baldonnel as explained in a flyinginireland magazine and night time flying is common considering the IAC is the only outfit in Ireland using NVG.

ace86 · 24-02-2014 1:15am

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Depends on the aircraft entirely.
Our Casas can act as an AWACs for the PC-9s, but they would be unable to take down civilian air liner, fighter jet etc.
If it was necessary and posed a threat to the U.K as well to some degree, then they possibly could scramble a jet after some diplomatic negotiations.

Ya ur right there as far as i know we can provide air defence from the ground to 3 miles up roughly after that the RAF are patrolling that air space both for themseles and us.

fergus1001 · 11-03-2014 4:41am

our air corps is fairly laughable we dont even have jets !!!

the amount of times i look up and see the wannabe stuka's training overhead and laugh at little old ireland with our tin can army

meathstevie · 11-03-2014 7:32pm

Why invest in a jet operating air force with a population of roughly half of that of Paris while our EU neighbours are quite happy to scramble a few jets, the most primitive of which would be an F-16, if needs be.

Boskowski · 11-03-2014 7:37pm

Seriously we can't organise a 3 man committee here without 'leaking' gazillions left right and centre. Any half serious army/ air force would bankrupt the country within weeks. I imagine claims and pension fund alone would do it.

fergus1001 · 14-03-2014 5:48pm

a Pilatus PC-9 M cost 4.5 million we bought 8 of these so thats 36 million opperating costs 1000 (estimated fuel + maintainance)

all flying for one hour 8000 euro

a F 16 cost 10 million we can buy 3-4 of these operating cost per flying hour 5041.77

all 3 in the air 15125 euro

Chemical Byrne · 16-01-2015 11:50am

meathstevie wrote: »

Why invest in a jet operating air force with a population of roughly half of that of Paris while our EU neighbours are quite happy to scramble a few jets, the most primitive of which would be an F-16, if needs be.

+100. What would be the point of spending 100s of millions on hardware that will most likely never be used when we can just piggy back off the willingness of the RAF or other EU AFs to intervene if the need were to arise.

Look, the long and the short of it is that there are no votes to be got from military spending, hence the politicians will not opt for it. That's not going to change any time soon.

fergus1001 · 16-01-2015 12:03pm

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

+100. What would be the point of spending 100s of millions on hardware that will most likely never be used when we can just piggy back off the willingness of the RAF or other EU AFs to intervene if the need were to arise.

Look, the long and the short of it is that there are no votes to be got from military spending, hence the politicians will not opt for it. That's not going to change any time soon.

Zombie thread revival !

Fattes · 30-05-2016 4:30pm

fergus1001 wrote: »

a Pilatus PC-9 M cost 4.5 million we bought 8 of these so thats 36 million opperating costs 1000 (estimated fuel + maintainance)

all flying for one hour 8000 euro

a F 16 cost 10 million we can buy 3-4 of these operating cost per flying hour 5041.77

all 3 in the air 15125 euro

Each F16 cost approx 16,ooo Euro per flight hour, where are you getting 10 million as a unit cost? You are looking at close to 50 million per unit with weapons. Then there is the need for training jets, parts, upgrades. None of this is any use as we dont have long range radar. So what every jets you have will be getting airborne, as the threat leaves our airspace and heads elsewhere.

BoJack Horseman · 31-05-2016 12:28pm

Indeed, the Romanians for example purchased a dozen 2nd hand 30yr old F-16s from Portugal.
Sure they were refurbished.... but the unit cost was still an eye-watering $50m each.

Fattes · 31-05-2016 2:56pm

Even stranger is the choice of aircraft? In reality the primary role for offensive aircraft that the aer corps & Defence forces plan for is for ground attack, and support. F16 and the su suggestions are all air superiority jets, with multi role functions added on later in life.

First things first though, we need long range radar and proper air defence systems. S300 or S400 would be lovely.

If we lived in fantasy land and money was no object, SU34 is probably the best overall aircraft for the job, but supply issues and parts could be a problem.

In the real world a mix of A-10 Thunder bolts and Rafale or Eurofighter would probably be ideal.

Captain Chaos · 31-05-2016 3:04pm

The F-16 is not an air superiority fighter, never was. It was designed as a lightweight basic dogfighter that could defeat anything in a close in knife fight with F-15 being the air superiority fighter. The F-16 has evolved into a heavy multirole aircraft today, perfect for our needs.

Eurofighter, Rafale and Su-34 are all too advanced and expensive for our needs. The Eurofighter is more air superiority than multirole as is today because it's multirole capabilities are still being developed, that's why the RAF are still using GR4s for attacking ISIS.

Money no object, a few Block 52+ F-16s and a few AH-64Es and we'd be laughing.

BoJack Horseman · 31-05-2016 3:18pm

Fattes wrote: »

Even stranger is the choice of aircraft?

For Romania?
Politics, prestige & a good array of weapons added to an established upgrade path.

Not a terrible decision on their part.... just expensive.

Fattes · 31-05-2016 3:22pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Eurofighter, Rafale and Su-34 are all too advanced and expensive for our needs. The Eurofighter is more air superiority than multirole as is today because it's multirole capabilities are still being developed, that's why the RAF are still using GR4s for attacking ISIS.

Money no object, a few Block 52+ F-16s and a few AH-64Es and we'd be laughing.

You realise the SU-34 list price is approx 34Mil is lower than an F16 approx 40-50Mil, as for too advanced and expensive Apache

[QUOTE=BoJack [/QUOTE]

For Ireland

fergus1001 · 31-05-2016 10:21pm

I'd much rather the roar of a jet over my house instead of what sounds like stuka dive bombers flying around when they are training

fergus1001 · 31-05-2016 10:21pm

Fattes wrote:

Each F16 cost approx 16,ooo Euro per flight hour, where are you getting 10 million as a unit cost? You are looking at close to 50 million per unit with weapons. Then there is the need for training jets, parts, upgrades. None of this is any use as we dont have long range radar. So what every jets you have will be getting airborne, as the threat leaves our airspace and heads elsewhere.

Zombie thread revival !

Silvera · 09-06-2016 7:57pm

fergus1001 wrote: »

I'd much rather the roar of a jet over my house instead of what sounds like stuka dive bombers flying around when they are training

In an ideal world you would hear both in our skies ....turboprops would still be required for training - and also have close-air-support uses too.

The Air Corps do a great job with the limited equipment/budget currently provided to them. We should be supporting and promoting them and what they do...and in turn highlighting the need for more/better equipment.

Posters to this thread need to have some perspective before they start running down the aircraft currently in use. Have a look at the aircraft in use by many much bigger countries. I have read and gathered up magazine articles (from AFM, etc) over the years and the Air Corps compare well (better in many cases!) to similar-sized outfits.

One example of a much bigger country with a very very limited air force is Mexico. They have c.9 x (ageing) F-5's and c.25 x PC-7 turboprops (plus 1 x PC-9M) to cover their vast country. The relevant article states that in order for a Mexican F-5 to intercept an aircraft at the opposite end of the country it would need to land and refuel along the way?! :rolleyes:

Fattes · 09-06-2016 8:00pm

Silvera wrote: »

In an ideal world you would hear both in our skies ....turboprops would still be required for training - and also have close-air-support uses too.

The Air Corps do a great job with the limited equipment/budget currently provided to them. We should be supporting and promoting them and what they do...and in turn highlighting the need for more/better equipment.

Posters to this thread need to have some perspective before they start running down the aircraft currently in use. Have a look at the aircraft in use by many much bigger countries. I have read and gathered up magazine articles (from AFM, etc) over the years and the Air Corps compare well (better in many cases!) to similar-sized outfits.

One example of a much bigger country with a very very limited air force is Mexico. They have c.9 x (ageing) F-5's and c.25 x PC-7 turboprops (plus 1 x PC-9M) to cover their vast country. The relevant article states that in order for a Mexican F-5 to intercept an aircraft at the opposite end of the country it would need to land and refuel along the way?! :rolleyes:

Well said and if rumours at to be believed, not all of those F-5's are airworthy!

micosoft · 26-02-2020 8:11am

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-would-need-16-fighter-jets-for-full-air-defence-capability-expert-says-1.4184846

Keeping the Zombie thread alive.

My vote is for a Kamikaze Ryanair deal with O'Leary. Always a few 24/7 in the air who could ram threats. Obviously a discount (or additional cost) to fly non-kamikaze flights much like priority boarding. Most FR pax would take the risk.

Drifter50 · 26-02-2020 8:49am

Storm 10 wrote: »

He aint trolling:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-17/if-launching-air-attack-switzerland-do-so-outside-office-hours-when-its-air-force-gr

The Air Corps does remain on permanent standby with dedicated crews 24/7 ( fixed wing and rotary ) for top cover for the IRCG and Inter hospital transfers/time critical missions/air ambulance etc. An AW139 is on 24hr stand by 365 at Baldonnel as explained in a flyinginireland magazine and night time flying is common considering the IAC is the only outfit in Ireland using NVG.

Mmm, not sure in reality if this cover actually exists.. A couple of issues

1. The RAF will scramble and deal with any hijack / security problem
2. We all remember the Coastguard helicopter that crashed west of Mayo into an uninhabited island a couple of years ago. They should`nt have been there. They were only there because the Air Corps had no staff available to get the CASA up to provide top cover to the Coastguard chopper at sea level providing medical assistance to the injured fisherman on the trawler. Its bad practice for 1 chopper to provide assistance to another and putting crews in danger

sparky42 · 26-02-2020 11:53am

Drifter50 wrote: »

Mmm, not sure in reality if this cover actually exists.. A couple of issues

1. The RAF will scramble and deal with any hijack / security problem
2. We all remember the Coastguard helicopter that crashed west of Mayo into an uninhabited island a couple of years ago. They should`nt have been there. They were only there because the Air Corps had no staff available to get the CASA up to provide top cover to the Coastguard chopper at sea level providing medical assistance to the injured fisherman on the trawler. Its bad practice for 1 chopper to provide assistance to another and putting crews in danger

Actually the CASA's weren't available, both were down for maintenance, one here, one in Spain to be rezero'd from memory. Also there's the issue that the CHC contract was signed to allow the Coastguard do such actions. There's no legal requirement for the AC to always provide such cover.

punchdrunk · 09-07-2020 11:31pm

fergus1001 wrote: »

I'd much rather the roar of a jet over my house instead of what sounds like stuka dive bombers flying around when they are training

you've never heard a Stuka have you??

TheW1zard · 09-07-2020 11:39pm

What are they training for lol

fergus1001 · 10-07-2020 1:49pm

punchdrunk wrote:

you've never heard a Stuka have you??

I have actually, I was at an air show in the US and they had one in the air Jerico trumpets blaring

Irish air force

Comments