Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Kermit.de.frog · 11-01-2018 7:58am #1

Surely it's time to grow up and defend our own airspace?

I see some on here jerking off to more propeller porn and it's embarrassing.

I have no interest in the Air Corps and think it should be disbanded if this does not happen soon.

It's pointless and a waste of money. Out source it to the RAF - would be cheaper.

ted1 · 11-01-2018 8:06am

Protect them from who ? Why fighter jets ? They are more or less obsolete, Drones are the future.

Jets are expensive are you willing to pay more taxes?

Kermit.de.frog · 11-01-2018 8:07am

ted1 wrote: »

Protect them from who ? Why fighter jets ? They are more or less obsolete, Drones are the future.

Jets are expensive are you willing to pay more taxes?

Look, forget it. Disband the so called Air Corps.

The RAF will do it for us. I'd be happy with that.

ljy9fn7qwhgasx · 11-01-2018 8:08am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have no interest in the Air Corps

Kinda holed your own canoe with that one.

Even so, in a country with over 3,000 homeless children one will have a difficult time persuading people to spend tens or hundreds of millions on jets to "defend our own airpsace" against something.

ted1 · 11-01-2018 8:09am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

Protect them from who ? Why fighter jets ? They are more or less obsolete, Drones are the future.

Jets are expensive are you willing to pay more taxes?

Look, forget it. Disband the so called Air Corps.

The RAF will do it for us. I'd be happy with that.

You clearly have no ideas of the role of the Aer corp.

Kermit.de.frog · 11-01-2018 8:10am

Ellen Thankful Lavender wrote: »

Kinda holed your own canoe with that one.

Even so, in a country with over 3,000 homeless children one will have a difficult time persuading people to spend tens or hundreds of millions on jets to "defend our own airpsace" against something.

And yet you are probably the same person who will scream neutrality at every turn.

We must abandon neutrality as we can not defend our neutrality.

Kermit.de.frog · 11-01-2018 8:12am

ted1 wrote: »

You clearly have no ideas of the role of the Aer corp.

RAF needs to protect us. We don't need or want an Air Corps that is not serious about protection.

Let the RAF do it. As a taxpayer, delighted.

ted1 · 11-01-2018 8:15am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

You clearly have no ideas of the role of the Aer corp.

RAF needs to protect us. We don't need or want an Air Corps that is not serious about protection.

Let the RAF do it. As a taxpayer, delighted.

Protection from who?
How many jets would we need to protect us, how many airports would we need.

Tactical ballistic strikes prior to an attack would take the jets out before they leave their hanger.

Kermit.de.frog · 11-01-2018 8:17am

ted1 wrote: »

Protection from who?
How many jets would we need to protect us, how many airports would we need.

Tactical ballistic strikes prior to an attack would take the jets out before they leave their hanger.

I already said the Royal Air Force should do the job. Simple.

Be happy with that. No confidence in our Air Corps.

Jawgap · 11-01-2018 8:20am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Surely it's time to grow up and defend our own airspace?

I see some on here jerking off to more propeller porn and it's embarrassing.

I have no interest in the Air Corps and think it should be disbanded if this does not happen soon.

It's pointless and a waste of money. Out source it to the RAF - would be cheaper.

Against what?

This gets mentioned pretty regularly but it seems people never appreciate the costs of keeping a couple of fast jets on Quick Reaction Alert.

Fann Linn · 11-01-2018 8:21am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I already said the Royal Air Force should do the job. Simple.

Be happy with that. No confidence in our Air Corps.

Be fair. The Aer Corp provides a good ambulance service here in the west, and can be seen occasionally flying overhead on a Thursday when large amounts of cash is being transported from bank to bank.

Jawgap · 11-01-2018 8:23am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I already said the Royal Air Force should do the job. Simple.

Be happy with that. No confidence in our Air Corps.

So in the absolute worst case scenario with the RAF providing 'defence' who gives the shootdown order for a jet in our airspace - the British PM or would you expect RAF jets to be under Irish command when operating in Irish air space?

Kermit.de.frog · 11-01-2018 8:25am

Jawgap wrote: »

So in the absolute worst case scenario with the RAF providing 'defence' who gives the shootdown order for a jet in our airspace - the British PM or would you expect RAF jets to be under Irish command when operating in Irish air space?

I thought we were neutral?

Do you accept the premise a neutral should be able to defend it's neutrality?

Switzerland anyone?

Abandon neutral and accept Ireland has never been serious about it's own protection and hand it to the RAF. Much cheaper to contract out for the taxpayer.

Kermit.de.frog · 11-01-2018 8:31am

If you are wondering what I think the Air Corps should do.

Buy 18 top fighter jets.

Upgrade facilities.

Employ the needed personell.

Then i'll take them seriously.

Until then we are reliant on the UK.

The J Stands for Jay · 11-01-2018 8:41am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I thought we were neutral?

Do you accept the premise a neutral should be able to defend it's neutrality?

Switzerland anyone?

Abandon neutral and accept Ireland has never been serious about it's own protection and hand it to the RAF. Much cheaper to contract out for the taxpayer.

The Swiss Air Force, GBOL.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/swiss-air-force-ethiopian-airlines-hijacking-office-hours

Ardennes1944 · 11-01-2018 8:42am

Switzerland are neutral but have jets, I hear them flying nearby here all the time.

The J Stands for Jay · 11-01-2018 8:44am

Ardennes1944 wrote: »

Switzerland are neutral but have jets, I hear them flying nearby here all the time.

Not at lunch time you don't.

Gatling · 11-01-2018 9:17am

We would be better fixing the lack of quality radar first and then invest and redevelop baldonnell to a high standard ,
New hangars , tower ,radar , runways,
It's embarrassing as a nation in 2018 in the EU that we literally cannot patrol/ defend our own skies , waters or borders ,
A lot would need to be done first before bringing in fast jets ,

Jawgap · 11-01-2018 9:36am

McGaggs wrote: »

Not at lunch time you don't.

Actually that's not true......

.....its after 1700 and weekends you don't hear them

As long as any prospective intruder sticks to business hours the Swiss should be fine.

Jawgap · 11-01-2018 9:38am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I thought we were neutral?

Do you accept the premise a neutral should be able to defend it's neutrality?

Switzerland anyone?

Abandon neutral and accept Ireland has never been serious about it's own protection and hand it to the RAF. Much cheaper to contract out for the taxpayer.

No, we're not neutral - we've never been neutral.

We're non-aligned.

And what exactly is the threat we're defending against, in your view?

exaisle · 11-01-2018 9:40am

Nobody has been able to name a credible threat to our airspace.

If there's money to spend on fighter jets (White Elephants!) then the money would be better spent building homes for our citizens.

Troll time again perhaps...

Jawgap · 11-01-2018 9:42am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you are wondering what I think the Air Corps should do.

Buy 18 top fighter jets.

Upgrade facilities.

Employ the needed personell.

Then i'll take them seriously.

Until then we are reliant on the UK.

Actually, you can double that number - the RAF has about 35 Typhoons on the QRA mission to keep two at constant 24 hour readiness.

Of your 18 jets - 6, at any given time, will be undergoing maintenance, leaving 12......you need at least two for QRA, plus two spares.....that leaves 8......you're always going to get hangar queens, so figure 2 of them.....leaves you with a paltry 6 for training, operational conversion etc

Also, you can add two tankers to your list.

Fann Linn · 11-01-2018 11:13am

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, you can double that number - the RAF has about 35 Typhoons on the QRA mission to keep two at constant 24 hour readiness.

Of your 18 jets - 6, at any given time, will be undergoing maintenance, leaving 12......you need at least two for QRA, plus two spares.....that leaves 8......you're always going to get hangar queens, so figure 2 of them.....leaves you with a paltry 6 for training, operational conversion etc

Also, you can add two tankers to your list.

Dinny & Topaz will supply the Tankers.

The J Stands for Jay · 11-01-2018 11:43am

Fann Linn wrote: »

Dinny & Topaz will supply the Tankers.

How's Dinny going to convince the Canadians to give us some Topaz branded tankers?

tac foley · 13-01-2018 10:15pm

Let's just have an injection of a little realism here -

Republic of Ireland GDP for 2017 - $88.577 Billion.

Switzerland GDP for last public record year - $659 Billion.

Switzerland has almost 800 years of self-reliance, culminating in the middle of the 19thC when the modern form of nationwide militia forces was to all intents and purposes, set in concrete.

Switzerland is not not-aligned, Switzerland IS neutral.

Unlike the RoI, that can place the weight of dealing with an aerial aggressor on a nearby friendly nation - the UK - Switzerland has nobody to help out except themselves. They do not have any form of shared national defence responsibilities with any other nation.

In their little hideaway country, surrounded by the tallest mountains in Europe, they are totally self-sufficient, and intend to keep it that way.

They have their own military industry for guns from .22Cal up to 155mm, and all the military watches and knives you could ever want.

Per capita of the population, in all the world, only Israel has more people eligible for military service, and that is because the IDF has women in it. The Swiss Armed forces, TMK, do not.

tac

Uinseann_16 · 14-01-2018 12:21am

tac foley wrote: »

Let's just have an injection of a little realism here -

Republic of Ireland GDP for 2017 - $88.577 Billion.

Switzerland GDP for last public record year - $659 Billion.

Switzerland has almost 800 years of self-reliance, culminating in the middle of the 19thC when the modern form of nationwide militia forces was to all intents and purposes, set in concrete.

Switzerland is not not-aligned, Switzerland IS neutral.

Unlike the RoI, that can place the weight of dealing with an aerial aggressor on a nearby friendly nation - the UK - Switzerland has nobody to help out except themselves. They do not have any form of shared national defence responsibilities with any other nation.

In their little hideaway country, surrounded by the tallest mountains in Europe, they are totally self-sufficient, and intend to keep it that way.

They have their own military industry for guns from .22Cal up to 155mm, and all the military watches and knives you could ever want.

Per capita of the population, in all the world, only Israel has more people eligible for military service, and that is because the IDF has women in it. The Swiss Armed forces, TMK, do not.

tac

88Billion Tac that sounds wrong
Switzerland GDP for 2016 659.8 billion USD
Ireland GDP for 2016 294.1 billion USD
We shouldn't be dependent on any nation the UK in particular although relations are good now no one knows what will happen in the future
Although France may have good relations with Germany now would they trust them with their complete airdefence No, you should not put your trust in a country that once occupied you.

Heart Break Kid · 14-01-2018 12:28am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you are wondering what I think the Air Corps should do.

Buy 18 top fighter jets.

Upgrade facilities.

Employ the needed personell.

Then i'll take them seriously.

Until then we are reliant on the UK.

Even 2-4 eurofighters and we'd be set, just something to stop those pesky Russians from playing hopscotch over Ireland whenever they please.

sparky42 · 14-01-2018 3:09pm

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

We shouldn't be dependent on any nation the UK in particular although relations are good now no one knows what will happen in the future
Although France may have good relations with Germany now would they trust them with their complete airdefence No, you should not put your trust in a country that once occupied you.

You do know that many of the EU nations are integrating their forces, for example the Dutch and German Navies/Marines are integrating, think the Benelux countries are working at integrating their air defences for example.

Jawgap · 14-01-2018 3:23pm

sparky42 wrote: »

You do know that many of the EU nations are integrating their forces, for example the Dutch and German Navies/Marines are integrating, think the Benelux countries are working at integrating their air defences for example.

Lots of countries talking about cross-decking their F-35s (and other airframes) too......then there's Baltic and other air policing missions that NATO are involved in.

sparky42 · 14-01-2018 8:42pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Lots of countries talking about cross-decking their F-35s (and other airframes) too......then there's Baltic and other air policing missions that NATO are involved in.

And the NATO airlift, and the proposed EU one and the tanker sharing... So yeah it's not impossible (and if we actually funded the DF enough it would make sense for us as well).

Psychlops · 14-01-2018 8:47pm

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

Even 2-4 eurofighters and we'd be set, just something to stop those pesky Russians from playing hopscotch over Ireland whenever they please.

Austria has exactly 15 Eurofighters & they can only just about get them Airborne for a tiny bit of training. Its a real problem for the Austrian Air Force to actually keep them flying.

Quote"Continued operation of the 15 Eurofighter Typhoon jets would cost between €4.4 billion (U.S. $5 billion) and €5.1 billion (U.S. $5.8 billion) over 30 years, according to the expert commission. And that's without taking into account "the specific cost risks" associate with Tranche 1"

Read this: https://warisboring.com/austria-has-no-business-flying-these-high-performance-fighters/

Read this: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/07/07/austria-set-to-replace-eurofighter-typhoons/

BoJack Horseman · 14-01-2018 10:01pm

Psychlops wrote: »

"Continued operation of the 15 Eurofighter Typhoon jets would cost between €4.4 billion (U.S. $5 billion) and €5.1 billion (U.S. $5.8 billion) over 30 years, according to the expert commission.

€11m per unit per year.

Or, €36k per flight hour (based on 300 hrs per year).

That isn't cheap, but it isn't terrible either.

prinzeugen · 15-01-2018 1:21am

Psychlops wrote: »

Austria has exactly 15 Eurofighters & they can only just about get them Airborne for a tiny bit of training. Its a real problem for the Austrian Air Force to actually keep them flying.

Quote"Continued operation of the 15 Eurofighter Typhoon jets would cost between €4.4 billion (U.S. $5 billion) and €5.1 billion (U.S. $5.8 billion) over 30 years, according to the expert commission. And that's without taking into account "the specific cost risks" associate with Tranche 1"

Read this: https://warisboring.com/austria-has-no-business-flying-these-high-performance-fighters/

Read this: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/07/07/austria-set-to-replace-eurofighter-typhoons/

They are tranche 1 jets which are almost life expired. The RAF has already scrapped some of its tranche 1 Eurofighters as its not worth upgrading them (there is a difference in the airframes that mean a structural rebuild would be needed).

The Luftwaffe is in the same position. Do you spend the money to upgrade or is it cheaper to buy new. There is still talk of the RAF buying F35A because they can't afford to go it alone on the upgrades to make the Eurofighter a stand alone ground attack aircraft after Germany pulled out.

Is there still talk of leasing F16 from the Netherlands? It was mentioned in the Dail a few years back?

Jawgap · 15-01-2018 8:21am

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

€11m per unit per year.

Or, €36k per flight hour (based on 300 hrs per year).

That isn't cheap, but it isn't terrible either.

Excellent value - the outrage such expenditure would generate from the Murphy's, the Boyd-Barrets and the Coppingers of the world would power the country for years to come

4068ac1elhodqr · 15-01-2018 2:32pm

Just spotted this (monthly occurring) story that's currently ongoing at the moment...
Cat n Mouse, with x2 Typ, tanker, Fr & Belg F16. Everything doing supersonics, some fuel bill after that.

This is the tanker's path, but who refuels the tanker?

Would the cheapest solution not be some big aul laser and couple of ugly drones to buzz the Jacks?

Jawgap · 15-01-2018 3:01pm

Winter Melodic Beehive wrote: »

Just spotted this (monthly occurring) story that's currently ongoing at the moment...
Cat n Mouse, with x2 Typ, tanker, Fr & Belg F16. Everything doing supersonics, some fuel bill after that.

This is the tanker's path, but who refuels the tanker?

Would the cheapest solution not be some big aul laser and couple of ugly drones to buzz the Jacks?

Another tanker

4068ac1elhodqr · 15-01-2018 3:15pm

Maybe they should send another one, the newsmedia say they came within about 50miles of territory at one stage. Imagine there's some bill for all that zooming about in 5th gear.

Jawgap · 15-01-2018 3:46pm

Winter Melodic Beehive wrote: »

Maybe they should send another one, the newsmedia say they came within about 50miles of territory at one stage. Imagine there's some bill for all that zooming about in 5th gear.

I think when the QRA is launched the Voyager gets sent aloft shortly thereafter and bring another to readiness (to refuel the QRA aircraft rather than the tanker).

It's certainly going to be cheap but they get a free planewash with fifth refill!

sparky42 · 15-01-2018 4:06pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Another tanker

snip

Not to ruin the comment but I don't think the RAF birds have refueling capability (for themselves).

sparky42 · 15-01-2018 4:09pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

They are tranche 1 jets which are almost life expired. The RAF has already scrapped some of its tranche 1 Eurofighters as its not worth upgrading them (there is a difference in the airframes that mean a structural rebuild would be needed).

The Luftwaffe is in the same position. Do you spend the money to upgrade or is it cheaper to buy new. There is still talk of the RAF buying F35A because they can't afford to go it alone on the upgrades to make the Eurofighter a stand alone ground attack aircraft after Germany pulled out.

Is there still talk of leasing F16 from the Netherlands? It was mentioned in the Dail a few years back?

I thought the core issue for the RAF was just money (as with everything else with the UK Military, the current suggested cuts would gut the RN for example), I don't think they'll be able to find the funds to buy A versions, and would most likely mean the end of the Typhoon production line). Since Germany is still stuck between Typhoon upgrades and a 35 buy it's still up in the air.

As for Leasing 16's, when was that talked about in the Daíl and by who? There's no capacity within the DF budget to sustain such a situation.

dr.fuzzenstein · 15-01-2018 4:38pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I thought we were neutral?

Do you accept the premise a neutral should be able to defend it's neutrality?

Switzerland anyone?

Abandon neutral and accept Ireland has never been serious about it's own protection and hand it to the RAF. Much cheaper to contract out for the taxpayer.

Switzerland does have an airforce. Besides the entire country is mined and every road and bridge can be blown up.
Almost every house has a gun and a very large portion of the population is in the army reserve.
Due to it's terrain, it is incredibly hard to take.
Neutrality by itself is absolutely no guarantee. Just ask Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

So if you want your neutrality to count for something, you need mountainous terrain, mine all roads and tunnels, a large military, an airforce that has some actual planes and everyone's money and bank accounts. And give everyone a gun.
The defense of "but...but...we're Neutral!" helps bugger all.
The one thing Ireland has going for it, is that it probably is of too little importance to bother with.
As for relying on the UK, I find that a little ironic. Would you accept British aircraft in your airspace aktively engaging enemy aircraft? Potentially firing British bullets and rockets over the ROI? Just read any thread on anything even remotely do do with the Brits on AH and you will see that there are many people who would rather pull their own eyes out of their sockets than allow the Brits to do that.
Also, would you be willing to pay for this? Would the Irish do the same for the UK? Risk men and equipment worth billions because you're such great mates?
What would you do if the Brits said "sorry, not our problem"?

So in short, you're relying on your next door neighbour to help you out if some ruffians start attacking you and you're hoping that you're small and unimportant enough not to attract negative attention in the first place.
Personally, I think Ireland is not exactly a high risk country and this has kept it safe over the last 2 world wars, so it shouldn't be a massive worry. But it's worth bearing in mind.

edit:
I don't think we'll see Irish fighter jets any time soon. The greatest danger in Europe right now are terrorist attacks. Unless Uncle Vlad decides to go crazy Ivan on us...

Jawgap · 15-01-2018 4:52pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Not to ruin the comment but I don't think the RAF birds have refueling capability (for themselves).

Might be a bit difficult when the time comes for Black Buck part deux!

sparky42 · 15-01-2018 5:00pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Might be a bit difficult when the time comes for Black Buck part deux!

Well Black Buck had to do it that way due to the limits of the RAF's tankers (being converted Bombers), the Victor carried only about a third of what the Voyager's can carry (41,000kg to 111,000kg).

Off the top of my head the Typhoons can fly with one 1 tanker into the Falklands, but lets be honest the Argentinians won't be in a position to threaten the islands for decades if ever.

Jawgap · 15-01-2018 7:05pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Well Black Buck had to do it that way due to the limits of the RAF's tankers (being converted Bombers), the Victor carried only about a third of what the Voyager's can carry (41,000kg to 111,000kg).

Off the top of my head the Typhoons can fly with one 1 tanker into the Falklands, but lets be honest the Argentinians won't be in a position to threaten the islands for decades if ever.

True, plus if they need to do something similar, they can always have an Astute class sub park a couple of TLAMs in whatever it is they need to remove from the landscape.

prinzeugen · 16-01-2018 1:19am

sparky42 wrote: »

I thought the core issue for the RAF was just money (as with everything else with the UK Military, the current suggested cuts would gut the RN for example), I don't think they'll be able to find the funds to buy A versions, and would most likely mean the end of the Typhoon production line). Since Germany is still stuck between Typhoon upgrades and a 35 buy it's still up in the air.

As for Leasing 16's, when was that talked about in the Daíl and by who? There's no capacity within the DF budget to sustain such a situation.

It was mentioned in the minutes of the Dail a few years back and someone posted a link here before but can't find it now. Irish pilots would fly the planes but all but basic maintenance would be done under contract by the RNAF. €10,000 per flight hour was the figure IIRC.

The big problem the RAF has is that the Eurofighters need a Tornado to target some weapons (like the Tornado needed a Jaguar during the first Gulf war).

They need to upgrade the Eurofighter so it can do it alone or go for F35A before the Tornados are life expired. The clock is ticking.

The F35A would come out of a future F35B order and be ready, off the shelf and cheaper.

Psychlops · 16-01-2018 10:31pm

Winter Melodic Beehive wrote: »

This is the tanker's path, but who refuels the tanker?

Nobody, its a Voyager MRTT ( Airbus A330 ). They can not be refuelled mid air.

Psychlops · 16-01-2018 10:32pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Another tanker

Not these days.

Psychlops · 16-01-2018 10:34pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I think when the QRA is launched the Voyager gets sent aloft shortly thereafter and bring another to readiness (to refuel the QRA aircraft rather than the tanker).

It's certainly going to be cheap but they get a free planewash with fifth refill!

Normally the QRA tanker is launched first from RAF Brize Norton to get up north and then the Typhoons are launched.

Gatling · 16-01-2018 11:07pm

But tanker to tanker aerial refuelling is old new at this stage of the game.
Aren't the Americans working on a new drone capable of refueling an aircraft ,

Psychlops · 16-01-2018 11:18pm

Gatling wrote: »

But tanker to tanker aerial refuelling is old new at this stage of the game.
Aren't the Americans working on a new drone capable of refueling an aircraft ,

True but the Voyager has no AAR capability for themselves, unlike previous RAF Tankers the current RAF Tanker fleet can not get refuelled mid air.

prinzeugen · 17-01-2018 2:16am

Psychlops wrote: »

Normally the QRA tanker is launched first from RAF Brize Norton to get up north and then the Typhoons are launched.

Not 100% true. The Eurofighters always go up first. On some training flights as you see daily off North Norfolk, the tanker is up for hours at a time.

The Eurofighter only needs its afterburner briefly as it can supercruise so by the time it has intercepted the target and shadowed it, the tanker will be on station to refuel.

There would be nothing quick about QRA if the waited for a tanker to get from Brize to near Lossie. By that time it would all be over.

Its not like the old days when a EE Lightning would burn its fuel in 30 mins.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments