Would you still refuse these?

IrishAirCorps

mmmmmmmmmm thats the business!

thesweeney

certainly is

IrishAirCorps

thesweeney wrote:

certainly is

Thank you !

cushtac

Looks the business, but can't really do the job.

If your going to do air defence, it has to be done right. That means proper fighters backed up by a decent early warning system. Buying tarted-up trainers may look 'the business' and give the appearance that we're looking after our airspace, but in reality they'd be an expensive waste of time. Either spend the money on the real deal or spend it elsewhere, don't waste time on jet porn like the above.

IrishAirCorps

cushtac wrote:

Looks the business, but can't really do the job.

Am yes it can thats why its sidewinder equipped. We dont need anything fancy.

cushtac

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Am yes it can thats why its sidewinder equipped. We dont need anything fancy.

So the only threat the Air Corp will face will be an unarmed, relatively slow aircraft flying at a relatively low altitude? It would want to be because that's all that a Hawk or similar trainer is capable of handling. You're also expecting this engagement to be at very close ranges, since the Sidewinder is a close-range missile.

Proper air defence means long-range interceptors armed with BVRAAMs and equipped with proper radar & data link equipment, it means having a ground-controlled interception facility and AWAC's, it means having pilots with hundreds of hours worth of training under their belts to fly the jets and a lot of ground crew to keep them in the air. This idea that any sort of jet trainer can become an interceptor once you stick a Sidewinder on it is ridiculous.

bk

cushtac wrote:

So the only threat the Air Corp will face will be an unarmed, relatively slow aircraft flying at a relatively low altitude?

Yes.

cushtac wrote:

It would want to be because that's all that a Hawk or similar trainer is capable of handling. You're also expecting this engagement to be at very close ranges, since the Sidewinder is a close-range missile.

Not necessarily true, the Hawk 200 has an advanced version of the F-16A APG-66 radar with multimode systems and can carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM (medium range anti aircraft missile) giving it excellent BVR capabilities.

cushtac wrote:

Proper air defence means long-range interceptors armed with BVRAAMs and equipped with proper radar & data link equipment, it means having a ground-controlled interception facility and AWAC's, it means having pilots with hundreds of hours worth of training under their belts to fly the jets and a lot of ground crew to keep them in the air. This idea that any sort of jet trainer can become an interceptor once you stick a Sidewinder on it is ridiculous.

LOL, But who would we be defending against?

Our neighbours are the UK, France, Spain. Firstly why would any of them decide to invade us? And even if we had decent air defence systems, it still wouldn't stop any of them from invading us, as they are far larger countries with super power level military (no disrespect to the excellent work done by the Irish defence forces).

IrishAirCorps

bk wrote:

it still wouldn't stop any of them from invading us, as they are far larger countries with super power level military (no disrespect to the excellent work done by the Irish defence forces).

Thank you BK, FYI the RAF these days are struggling to even keep a few F3's in the Air and thats a fact

Mick86

The only aerial threat I can think of is some Middle Eastern nutter trying to doa Kamikaze on the US Embassy. In that case air defence of any description would be useless. Enough helicopters to airlift an infantry battalion would be really useful though.:D

IrishAirCorps

What about a few RAF Rapier Systems? Better than the Patriot system!

cushtac

bk wrote:

Yes.

So why then should we spend millions more on an aircraft that's not that much better than what's in service now?

bk wrote:

Not necessarily true, the Hawk 200 has an advanced version of the F-16A APG-66 radar with multimode systems and can carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM (medium range anti aircraft missile) giving it excellent BVR capabilities.

It's also more expensive than the basic Hawk, which cost the UK MoD around €26 million an aircraft in 2003.

bk wrote:

LOL, But who would we be defending against?

That's not my point. My point is why would we want to spend millions on jet trainers that are only good against one type of target? I'm not advocating the purchase of fighters, I'm saying that the idea that any sort jet is a fighter once you stick a missile on it is stupid and buying something like a Hawk would be an expensive folly.

cushtac

IrishAirCorps wrote:

What about a few RAF Rapier Systems? Better than the Patriot system!

Patriot & Rapier are two very different systems and aren't directly comparible. Patriot is a long-range system with a 70km range. Rapier is a short-range system that has a maximum range of 8km.

IrishAirCorps

Patriots are useless i dont care about range or anything to do with the Patriot as the Rapier is better fact is they are useless that was proven back in the 1st Gulf War when Israel had them and they didnt work when they needed them. Cushtac chill out.

cushtac

The Patriots operating in Gulf War 1 were being pressed into the anti-ballistic missile role, a role it wasn't designed for. Any SAM system operating in those circumstances couldn't be expected to do any better.

But Rapier looks cooler, so your choice is obvious.

I'm quite chilled, I just don't agree with you.

bk

cushtac wrote:

I'm saying that the idea that any sort jet is a fighter once you stick a missile on it is stupid and buying something like a Hawk would be an expensive folly.

Actually speed and manoeuvrability aren't as important as they use to be. Fighter jets these days are just becoming electronic weapons platforms. Good radar and long range missiles is all you really need for BVR operations, as the idea is too spot your enemy and fire before he does.

However I'm not disagreeing with you, I also question the need for jets, but I must say I feel a little uncomfortable with no cover at all.

bk

IrishAirCorps wrote:

Thank you BK, FYI the RAF these days are struggling to even keep a few F3's in the Air and thats a fact

That is interesting, how much is that down to not bothering as they are starting to get the Typhoons deployed?

I know that the Sea Harriers were scrapped as they are waiting for the F35 and didn't want to spend money upgrading them.

I wouldn't want to go up against them once the Typhoons and F35's are deployed.

IrishAirCorps

Is it true about the Typhoons G suit produces no problems and the pilot doesnt strain much at high G loads?

Mick86

IrishAirCorps wrote:

What about a few RAF Rapier Systems? Better than the Patriot system!

Oh yeah. They could replace all those AA guns deployed around Dublin at the moment.:D

Kaiser_Sma

cushtac wrote:

That's not my point. My point is why would we want to spend millions on jet trainers that are only good against one type of target? I'm not advocating the purchase of fighters, I'm saying that the idea that any sort jet is a fighter once you stick a missile on it is stupid and buying something like a Hawk would be an expensive folly.

Several countries use the Hawk as a fighter, in a pinch it's possible for anything with air to air missles to take another aircraft. But if we can't afford Hawks then we certainly can't afford anything fancy.
But then again why bother? It's certainly fashionable to own expensive flashy looking planes that need to be loved and polished inorder to fly the next day, but why not break the trend and buy some old warsaw pact junk. How many mig21s can you buy for the price of a squadron of upgraded Hawks? I don't know. But i'd say they might be going for cheap.
Why not buy a mig 25, and keep it in a garage somewere, then just dust it off for airshows or in case of terrorist attack or a for shooting down airborne criminals or something.

The low maintenace cost will mean a non commital airforce can just forget about it when it's not needed. Plus we can paint it black and make it look sexy. Maybe some hot decals on the side or some cool alloys for the landing gear.

FiSe

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

... but why not break the trend and buy some old warsaw pact junk. How many mig21s can you buy for the price of a squadron of upgraded Hawks? I don't know. But i'd say they might be going for cheap.
Why not buy a mig 25, and keep it in a garage somewere, then just dust it off for airshows or in case of terrorist attack or a for shooting down airborne criminals or something.

The low maintenace cost will mean a non commital airforce can just forget about it when it's not needed. Plus we can paint it black and make it look sexy. Maybe some hot decals on the side or some cool alloys for the landing gear.

Cool:D
You can get them for price of metal scrap, anyone can, friend of mine got one for his birthday. Minus engine and electronic, but looks cool on his company yard...Fully loaded...

Anyway, seriously now, those planes would be very difficult to fly and expensive to maintain, even in the garage. From the other hand we can get some positive employment figures out of it. New factory for old aircraft parts. Deadly:)

babybundy

they wont buy warsaw pact cause they would be worried about pi$$ing of the americans (pr!cks)

cushtac

babybundy wrote:

they wont buy warsaw pact cause they would be worried about pi$$ing of the americans (pr!cks)

I doubt very much that the American's are or were worried about what the DF bought, considering the DF never bought much of anything until recently.