Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the matter of radar, I presume the Brits have something in Northern Ireland. Could a datalink not be a cheaper option in the short term so it's one less thing to fund whilst assets are acquired to actually act upon bogies?

I don't think they do actually.

I suspect that concerns about 'sparking' WW3 would be rather limited as the only case it would make sense to attack Ireland would be as a part of WW3 which would have already started. Or, more specifically, it would be one of the very first acts of WW3. It's worth noting that in the Cold War, the Soviets had better maps of Ireland than the Irish Army did (Though, in fairness, they did have some difficulty with the place names). They didn't go to that effort to provide tourist guidebooks of Ireland for their civilians.

Hell we know from released documents they had us targeted for nukes if WW3 went nuclear.

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Probably on account of the six counties being under the British jackboot.

Nope, Shannon and Dublin just in case. Both the Russians and Americans had plans that include making sure nobody that might support the other side wouldn’t get attention

roundymac wrote: »

Phew, thank god they don't know about Cork so.:D

Shannon as they assumed it would be used by the US for transfers at the very least, Dublin, just to try and kill the nation, like I said at the time both sides had a “ kill ‘em all” policy as they had the spare nukes and given that the major nations were going to be destroyed, neither wanted supporting nations of the other around afterwards.

Interesting though, they are entering a competitive market these days.

But no, any subsonic jet trainer doesn't give us a hugely greater capacity than the PC-9s. Our need is for a supersonic interceptor.

Quite a few people around here lacking any sense of nuance.

We are not looking to counter squadrons of Russian, or anyone elses, bombers approaching Dublin (FFS).

What we are looking to do is to track and patrol against and to be able to challenge those who violate air traffic rules or threaten the integrity of our airspace and our EEZ, be they Russians, or criminals, or terrorists, or someone with a malfunction or someone simply lost. All in a fashion that independent Countries the World over take for granted.

sparky42 wrote: »

You know you'll never win the argument against those opposed to defence spending.

Well you never know, Ireland has this lovely attitude of Joe Soap going "Sure what do we need them for" & then joe decides to take a look at the IAC & then usually says "is that all we have. why dont we have figther jets".

Ah jaysus Joe, won't someone think of the homeless who are just looking for their forever home for their 6 kids!!!!

hurleronditch wrote: »

As one of the Joe Soaps who doesn’t think we need to spend inordinate amounts of money on a fleet of fast jets, I think the argument here is being misconstrued. Yes, lots of other countries of our population base have fast intercept capacity. But lots don’t. We often get compared to New Zealand, who is more isolated than us, and faces all the risks that we do. Yes, the Russians are even less likely to bomb Auckland than they are Belmullet, but all the other requirements remain, yet the New Zealanders are happy with their fleet of trainers, Hercs, and choppers etc.

I don’t think defence spending is wasted, and certain targeted investment is warranted, but why don’t we look after our existing defence forces so that the rank and file don’t have to deliver pizzas at the weekend to make sure then can buy their kids school shoes before we worry about a fleet of fast jets. We couldn’t even find the budget to properly maintain the government Learjet to keep it airworthy, how in gods name in a post pandemic economic crisis could we or should we fund a fleet of unnecessary toys for the lads so we can fly out past Tory Island and swap hand signals with Sergei and Igor on their sightseeing trip down to the bay of biscay.

Just a couple of points on your observations:

The comparison with New Zealand is not a good one IMO, from an air policing prospective. As you correctly mentioned, they have no neighbours who routinely breach the rules of the air when approaching their airspace. There nearest neighbour who they are historically militarily aligned with boast significant military hardware across land, sea, air and space. They are also about 2000 miles away.

Ireland on the other hand is on the western periphery of Europe and has, in effect, no formal military alliances whatsoever outside of mandated agreements for overseas deployments. The Nordic Battle group is often thrown about in this context but it is little more than a token effort and I can't remember the last time any meaningful exercise to date took place.

Your reference to the Gulfstream (not the Learjet as it is still flying) is incorrect also. It's widely known and accepted that the decision to not invest the funds to maintain the Gulfstream was primarily due to it being a political hot potato at the time. The money can always be found if there is a will. In this case the easy option was taken and it, along with all of its spare parts, were sold for a song. There's a comprehensive report by C&AG on the matter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/department-of-defence-defends-decision-to-sell-government-jet-1.2952228

The reference to Sergei & Igor is a little disingenuous. The IAA are responsible for the safe passage of hundreds of flights, and thousands of passengers per day transitting through the Shanwick OCA. Given that we have no military primary radar of note, there is no way for controllers to ascertain what a 'rogue' aircraft is doing within its airspace. There are several nations who avail of a deal with Saab for the use of a small Gripen fleet. The costs of which are around €100m per year. Throw another €100 on top for the infrastructure etc and you are close enough to a real world cost. Ironically, an investment like this would still mean of %GDP spend on Defence remains firmly below 1%. I suppose people would rather see that €200m go up in smoke in the black pit of health or housing budget.

If a nation wants to be truly sovereign it must be able to effectively police all of its territory. It isnt a question of whether we can afford it or not, we most certainly can. Have a look at the foreign aid budget over the last 5-10 years. The government is donating hundreds of millions of euro per year to countries with very questionable governmentsa and regimes. Some of whom retain their own legacy fast jet fleet. This could be better spent at home. Not necessarily on fast jets but the point stands that money can be found when its needed.

While I would be in favor of such a military capability, the reality is, the public has no grá for the Defence Forces. If the people dont care, the politicians follow suit and what you see currently is the effects of years of under investment in personnel and equipment which is one of the root causes of why a young soldier has to deliver pizzas to make ends meet.

** I'll correct the use of 'the public' in the last paragraph. The majority of the public don't care. There are of course people who have varying levels of interest in the Defence Forces. Unfortunately the nature of the DF doesnt lend itself to being in the public image when the vast majority of its operations are overseas deployments, naval and air patrols etc. They've done a decent effort to broadcast their on island roles through social media the last few years but unfortunately for a large portion of the population the only association they have with the DF is when they see them on the TV during flooding etc.

Negative_G wrote: »

Just a couple of points on your observations:

The comparison with New Zealand is not a good one IMO, from an air policing prospective. As you correctly mentioned, they have no neighbours who routinely breach the rules of the air when approaching their airspace. There nearest neighbour who they are historically militarily aligned with boast significant military hardware across land, sea, air and space. They are also about 2000 miles away.

Ireland on the other hand is on the western periphery of Europe and has, in effect, no formal military alliances whatsoever outside of mandated agreements for overseas deployments. The Nordic Battle group is often thrown about in this context but it is little more than a token effort and I can't remember the last time any meaningful exercise to date took place.

Your reference to the Gulfstream (not the Learjet as it is still flying) is incorrect also. It's widely known and accepted that the decision to not invest the funds to maintain the Gulfstream was primarily due to it being a political hot potato at the time. The money can always be found if there is a will. In this case the easy option was taken and it, along with all of its spare parts, were sold for a song. There's a comprehensive report by C&AG on the matter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/department-of-defence-defends-decision-to-sell-government-jet-1.2952228

The reference to Sergei & Igor is a little disingenuous. The IAA are responsible for the safe passage of hundreds of flights, and thousands of passengers per day transitting through the Shanwick OCA. Given that we have no military primary radar of note, there is no way for controllers to ascertain what a 'rogue' aircraft is doing within its airspace. There are several nations who avail of a deal with Saab for the use of a small Gripen fleet. The costs of which are around €100m per year. Throw another €100 on top for the infrastructure etc and you are close enough to a real world cost. Ironically, an investment like this would still mean of %GDP spend on Defence remains firmly below 1%. I suppose people would rather see that €200m go up in smoke in the black pit of health or housing budget.

If a nation wants to be truly sovereign it must be able to effectively police all of its territory. It isnt a question of whether we can afford it or not, we most certainly can. Have a look at the foreign aid budget over the last 5-10 years. The government is donating hundreds of millions of euro per year to countries with very questionable governmentsa and regimes. Some of whom retain their own legacy fast jet fleet. This could be better spent at home. Not necessarily on fast jets but the point stands that money can be found when its needed.

While I would be in favor of such a military capability, the reality is, the public has no grá for the Defence Forces. If the people dont care, the politicians follow suit and what you see currently is the effects of years of under investment in personnel and equipment which is one of the root causes of why a young soldier has to deliver pizzas to make ends meet.

** I'll correct the use of 'the public' in the last paragraph. The majority of the public don't care. There are of course people who have varying levels of interest in the Defence Forces. Unfortunately the nature of the DF doesnt lend itself to being in the public image when the vast majority of its operations are overseas deployments, naval and air patrols etc. They've done a decent effort to broadcast their on island roles through social media the last few years but unfortunately for a large portion of the population the only association they have with the DF is when they see them on the TV during flooding etc.

Fair enough, that’s a very reasoned and thorough response.

My only counterpoint is if ensuring the safety of our busy air corridors is of paramount importance, should we not be pushing primarily for a primary radar system with several stations along the north and west coasts. Does that not at least allow our civilian controllers to ensure there are no separation or conflict issues, and mitigate what seems to be the key risk, without requiring the scrambling of a couple of fighter jets?

Would there be a credible option for purchase of radar + UCAV fleet to patrol airspace etc? Have the benefit of assisting in surveillance operations with the Navy.

hurleronditch wrote: »

Fair enough, that’s a very reasoned and thorough response.

My only counterpoint is if ensuring the safety of our busy air corridors is of paramount importance, should we not be pushing primarily for a primary radar system with several stations along the north and west coasts. Does that not at least allow our civilian controllers to ensure there are no separation or conflict issues, and mitigate what seems to be the key risk, without requiring the scrambling of a couple of fighter jets?

There is absolutely merit in mounting primary radar stations at strategic points along the coast. Place them at a reasonable height and good location and you now have access to a much clearer picture way off the coast. But we are not even doing that. I'm not sure how much such radar facilities would be to procure but it would be signficantly less than a fleet of intercept jets.

If we really wanted to not maintain a fast jet capability, this radar picture could be fed into a UK & Ireland area of responsibility picture meaning a joint operation between the DF and UK Armed Forces for the purposes of air policing. We would bring little to the table from a british perspective but it would be a damn sight more than what he offer currently.

That would likely never be politically palatable, especially with those of a republican persuasion.

We should have primary radar at the absolute minimum. Talk of fast jets is a moot discussion unless you have the ability to track them and their 'targets'.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Would there be a credible option for purchase of radar + UCAV fleet to patrol airspace etc? Have the benefit of assisting in surveillance operations with the Navy.

I'm not aware of any drone which is capable of climbing to the cruising altitude of an airliner which is traveling at about 800km per hour and then have the speed to intercept and maintain station with it.

I know the US have some very advanced drones but I believe they are all utilised in either a surveillance capacity or for dropping precision guided munitions. I suppose they have enough aircraft in their inventory which can act as interceptors should the need arise. Open to correction however.

I do think there is merit in purchasing a suitable UAV platform to augment the current CASA fleet. Whether they be ship launched/recovered or land based is another discussion.

In a way , it should be reasonably uncontentious to have a better radar system ,
It's not in itself a weapon , and it's main use is protecting civilian aircraft ...
Now it would have to be under the defence forces control , but wether it should be run by the defence forces (at least initially ) is another issue ..

Psychlops wrote: »

Agree with you 100% but is the above not what a fighter jet does with its own on board systems?

I doubt a fighter could provide coverage of our airspace 24/7

Psychlops wrote: »

Agree with you 100% but is the above not what a fighter jet does with its own on board systems?

Yep, most modern fighters will have on board A2A radar for ID & engagement purposes.

AWACS do similar but obviously only serve a purpose in a specific environment.

Unless you are willing to have a gen 4/4.5/5 aircraft doing orbits 150 miles off shore, the obvious, and cheaper solution is to use primary radar with QRA response.