Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

Morpheus

Morpheus wrote: »

wouldnt spend a copper penny more on any other department at the detriment to defence. ESPECIALLY the horrendously run, mismanaged and politically corrupt health service, that financial SPONGE is a joke. the unions rule. it needs to be obliterated and literally reconstructed from the ground up with priority given to front line personnel and first responders, AKA, doctors, paramedics and nursing staff, the civil servant part of it should all be burned at the stake, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than health service civil servants and the unions. until that day, you can take your health, education , [insert almost any other department here] and shove it. They will mismanage and misappropriate the increased funding the detriment of the tax paying patient.

if you took the ENTIRE ANNUAL defence budget of 2016 today and handed it to the dept of health as a supplementary budget, it would be completely spent, every last cent, in just about 3 weeks.

Try to run the HSE without IT Dept

sparky42

Deleted User wrote: »

Try to run the HSE without IT Dept

Considering some of the Grade A feck ups that dept have produced all by themselves within the HSE, it couldn't get any worse.

Morpheus

Deleted User wrote: »

Try to run the HSE without IT Dept

I work in IT and have worked on a contract FOR the HSE before so know firsthand what you're talking about, easily one of the most mismanaged piles of h0r$esh!t ive seen.

HSE's IT division, wouldnt last a week in a private sector company of similiar size with their archaic practices and whopper overhead, red tape, MIS management and double jobbing seniors. different hospitals around the country, all with their own Patient Management Systems as an example, in house or seperately contracted applications and software, developed seperately to solve the same issues? should i go on? Absolute sham and a black hole for tax payers hard earned cash.

Morpheus

Boreas wrote: »

There seems to be an agreement by many here that Ireland does lack an air and naval defence and that the public is unwilling to pay to remedy that situation

Its not that the public is unwilling to pay, its that govt is frankly afraid to let joe public know exactly how underfunded, under manned and under protected the nation and its resources actually are from all threats.

Silvera

Back to the topic / discussion

Having read the various debates (here and elswhere) it would appear that the best options - when it comes to air defence / jets - are as follows -

A. Lease 6 x Saab Gripens
B. Purchase 6 x KAI T-50 Golden Eagles (i.e. 'mini' F-16's)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

Markcheese

Silvera wrote:

Having read the various debates (here and elswhere) it would appear that the best options - when it comes to air defence / jets - are as follows -

Silvera wrote:

A. Lease 6 x Saab Gripens B. Purchase 6 x KAI T-50 Golden Eagles (i.e. 'mini' F-16's)

Cool as that would be - who exactly would we be safe (or safer) from ?
How many hours maintenence to flying do either type need ?,do we need pilots rostered on 24 /7 . Basically would any be available to escort russian bears through international airspace if it was 2am on a bankholiday sunday , or go the swiss way of " our hours are monday to friday 9 to 5 if calling about an air emergency outside of this please call the french italian or germans .... beep "

deRanged

Markcheese wrote: »

, or go the swiss way of " our hours are monday to friday 9 to 5 if calling about an air emergency outside of this please call the french italian or germans .... beep "

not any more, they will soon have 2 jets on standby at all times.

Boreas

Silvera wrote: »

Back to the topic / discussion

Having read the various debates (here and elswhere) it would appear that the best options - when it comes to air defence / jets - are as follows -

A. Lease 6 x Saab Gripens
B. Purchase 6 x KAI T-50 Golden Eagles (i.e. 'mini' F-16's)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

Probably makes more sense to have a single type for logistics, maintenance, training etc. if there was any public support a Gripen lease on the Hungarian/Czech model would be the cheapest option.

BoJack Horseman

The coming decade might be a good time to do a lease deal with Saab.

In the next few years Saab will start building their order of 60 new Gripen-NG models for the Swedish Air Force.

There may be some deals to be had when the old ones become surplus to requirements.

BoJack Horseman

Markcheese wrote: »

How many hours maintenance to flying do either type need?

Something between 7 to 10hrs per flight hour, from what I can find.

do we need pilots rostered on 24 /7

I assumed pilots already were!

BoJack Horseman

Here is some details of the Czech deal with Saab that I could find.

2004 - 10 year deal - total costs €780m

Included therein:
14 aircraft:
- 12 x Single seat
- 2 x Twin-seat trainers.
- Training provided for 21 Pilots & 69 technicians
- Spare parts & support for the duration of the contract.
- Covering up to 2,100 hours of flight time across the squadron per year.

The deal lapsed in 2014 & a new deal was signed for 13 years out to 2027 with an option for 2 more years thereafter.

- This new deal continued the same number of flight hours per year as the previous deal.
- However the new deal was also achieved at a reduced cost understood to be around 30% (which ain't bad).
- €60m was paid to Saab to provide technical & hardware upgrades for the Czech Gripens including new target designation & ability to use more weapons than that batch already supported.... these upgrades will be done by 2018.


How the Czech work it is that 3 aircraft are in ready condition at all times.
And 2 pilots are always on shift to provide a 15 minute readiness time.

The weapons that the Czech Air force use on the Gripens were purchased in a separate deal.
*Edit... The Czechs were given 100 x Sidewinders & 20 x AMRAAMs by the USA in a military aid deal in 2005

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The weapons that the Czech Air force use on the Gripens were purchased in a separate deal.
*Edit... The Czechs were given 100 x Sidewinders & 20 x AMRAAMs by the USA in a military aid deal in 2005

Well that's a problem with our looney left and PANA types, I mean next the US will have us invading the Middle East:eek::rolleyes:

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

Well that's a problem with our looney left and PANA types, I mean next the US will have us invading the Middle East:eek::rolleyes:

Yeah, I asked a Sinn Fein canvasser about his party's stance on immigration, and his opinion was that America sells weapons to poor countries. Don't even know how that was an answer but I said thank you and closed the door.

Lord help us if I had actually asked about the military.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yeah, I asked a Sinn Fein canvasser about his party's stance on immigration, and his opinion was that America sells weapons to poor countries. Don't even know how that was an answer but I said thank you and closed the door.

Lord help us if I had actually asked about the military.

Yeah not entirely sure how the two are connected alright (not to mention that poor countries tend to go Russia/China cause the hardware is so much cheaper/easier to maintain), but I suppose it's a good soundbite and that's the most I've ever gotten from SF...

Markcheese

BoJack Horseman wrote:

I assumed pilots already were!

I could see us having a couple of helicopter pilots available 24/7 ,but wouldnt have thought there's much point in having pc 9 pilots on standby ??


Does 2100 hours flight time in total per anumn for 14 airframes and 20 odd pilots sounds a bit low , wouldnt a fast jet pilot need to be doing 3 or 4 hundred hours flight time to stay "sharp" ?
Or can most of these be clocked up in a stimulator....

BoJack Horseman

Markcheese wrote: »

but wouldnt have thought there's much point in having pc 9 pilots on standby ??

It hadn't even crossed my mind whether the PC9s could even fly in the dark?!

Does 2100 hours flight time in total per anumn for 14 airframes and 20 odd pilots sounds a bit low , wouldnt a fast jet pilot need to be doing 3 or 4 hundred hours flight time to stay "sharp" ?

It sounds modest alright.... But, something similar could be fine for Ireland..
A patrol lap of the island takes about 4 hours.
Add in training, fun-runs, occasional crazy Ivan interception & thrilling the crowds on Paddys day & Bray air show, there wouldn't need to be crazy hours clocked.... I assume Saab would just charge more if the need for more time than agreed was needed anyway.

I assume its just like leasing a car, there will be mileage limits as the owner of the vehicle will want some life left in it after the lease is up.

Saab wouldn't have known whether the Czech's would extend the deal after the first 10 years so wouldn't want them free reign to fly the hell out of those Gripens..

After the current deal lapses in 2027/28, the Czechs will have the option to buy the planes outright and do what they want.

Negative_G

Markcheese wrote: »

I could see us having a couple of helicopter pilots available 24/7 ,but wouldnt have thought there's much point in having pc 9 pilots on standby ??


Does 2100 hours flight time in total per anumn for 14 airframes and 20 odd pilots sounds a bit low , wouldnt a fast jet pilot need to be doing 3 or 4 hundred hours flight time to stay "sharp" ?
Or can most of these be clocked up in a stimulator....

According to numerous media releases from the Air Corps there is a fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft on 24 hour standby 365 days a year.

As I understand it, this service is provided in accordance with the HSE for the purposes of air ambulance and patient transfer.

It would stand to reason though that a heli crew could be used in an anti terror role either with the ERU or ARW at short notice.

PC9s have only been used in an operational capacity for specific state visits and don't operate any sort of a standby as far as I know.

sparky42

Negative_G wrote: »

According to numerous media releases from the Air Corps there is a fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft on 24 hour standby 365 days a year.

As I understand it, this service is provided in accordance with the HSE for the purposes of air ambulance and patient transfer.

It would stand to reason though that a heli crew could be used in an anti terror role either with the ERU or ARW at short notice.

PC9s have only been used in an operational capacity for specific state visits and don't operate any sort of a standby as far as I know.

The Fixed wing is most likely the Casa's for transfers.

Negative_G

sparky42 wrote: »

The Fixed wing is most likely the Casa's for transfers.

Fixed wing is a combination of the Casa and Learjet. The Learjet can be fitted with the life port stretcher system so it becomes an ideal platform for patients.

The GIV was also used in the air ambulance role including several transatlantic jobs prior to its departure in 2014.

donvito99

What with the Department's intentions to replace the MPA CASAs with something larger in future, the C27J Alenia could be a shout, also has cockpit and engine commonality with the C130J which could be an interesting step up for the Air Corps.

sparky42

donvito99 wrote: »

What with the Department's intentions to replace the MPA CASAs with something larger in future, the C27J Alenia could be a shout, also has cockpit and engine commonality with the C130J which could be an interesting step up for the Air Corps.

The C27J's don't have a MPA fit out from what I can tell, which would be a major driving requirement. I'd say it's more likely to go for the 295's which I'm guessing would have the same cockpit layout to reduce cross training costs. Also the fact that the 295 base model is a good bit cheaper than the base quote for the 27's.

Silvera

^^^ From 'talk' I have heard via AC sources, it appears that 3 x CASA CN295's are on the cards to replace the current 2 x CN235's.

Regarding my earlier post...Gripens / KAI T-50's, my suggestion was an either / or one, not both, i.e

Lease 6 x Gripens OR Purchase 6 x KAI T-50's

The Gripen lease would be my first choice. But I believe there is merit in considering the outright purchase of T-50's (which are in effect 'mini F-16's').

At c.€20 million per airframe, for c.€200 million could we have the following in place?

- Squadron of 6 x T-50's
- Associated simulator(s)
- Associated Hangar
- Associated Tooling / Maintenace Equipment

I assume, being a smaller jet, the aprons and runways at Casement would not require any upgrading?

BoJack Horseman

Silvera wrote: »

^^^ From 'talk' I have heard via AC sources, it appears that 3 x CASA CN295's are on the cards to replace the current 2 x CN235's.

Regarding my earlier post...Gripens / KAI T-50's, my suggestion was an either / or one, not both, i.e

Lease 6 x Gripens OR Purchase 6 x KAI T-50's

The Gripen lease would be my first choice. But I believe there is merit in considering the outright purchase of T-50's (which are in effect 'mini F-16's').

At c.€20 million per airframe, for c.€200 million could we have the following in place?

- Squadron of 6 x T-50's
- Associated simulator(s)
- Associated Hangar
- Associated Tooling / Maintenace Equipment

I assume, being a smaller jet, the aprons and runways at Casement would not require any upgrading?

It would cost a little bit more than that....
The FA-50s are a little north of €30m per unit
This is based on the companies most recent foreign sale of 12 units to Philipines... if you ordered less, the unit price would be higher still.

It's still a very cheap aircraft of course.

I'd still take a lease-to-buy over an outright sale though.

Another disadvantage with the Golden eagles is that their weapons are only US ones, whereas the Gripen has a wider compatibility across different weapons types.

It would probably be easier & more palatable to get the neutral Swedish government or even the Germans to sell a dozen IRIS-T missiles.
Rather than having to go through media hurricane of purchasing Sidewinders from the USA.

Silvera

So, for discussion sake, if the 'Gripen lease' isnt a runner with the powers-that-be, what are the next best jet options?

Morpheus

To be honest, and this is just my opinion, other than a lease agreement just wont happen, I cannot possibly see how we could afford it, its not even worth discussing unless you follow that with - suppose we were spending a one off 400 million on jets - then you need to work out the annual budget for the lifetime running and maintenance of the jets.

the gripen deal would probably be circa 100m per annum and that would cover quite a lot.

BoJack Horseman

Silvera wrote: »

So, for discussion sake, if the 'Gripen lease' isnt a runner with the powers-that-be, what are the next best jet options?

After that you are into the territory of light Jets & trainers.
These are usually smaller than the big ticket planes.
Some are used for training pilots while some can also be used for recon & other tasks

There are many available around the world....
Some examples would be:

The BAE Hawk from the UK
The L-159 from the Czech Republic
A joint Italian/Russian effort, the Aermacchi M-346
From South Korea, the previously mentioned Golden Eagle

Amongst others.

What's important is speed and endurance...
Speed, as in if some airliner has gone rogue, or Ivan is doing his thing, the plane must be where it needs to be fast & every km/h counts.
And it must be able to fly far enough to do the odd patrol of the island & its airspace.

Many poorer countries use these kind of planes as they perform well enough and are on a budget.

Silvera

^^^ From those listed above, imho, the following would be the order of preference -

1. Golden Eagle
2. BAE Hawk
3. Aermacchi M-346
4. Aero L159

donvito99

Silvera wrote: »

3. Aermacchi M-346

It's speed might be an issue if we are talking about intercepting Tu-95s.

Morpheus

Still say the Gripen makes the most economic and strategic sense, its a european neighbour - handy for maintenance and support, support european business and we could possibly get some kind of technology transfer or get involved in future capability development... im sure none of the gripens will have been used in long range air patrols over the atlantic for extended periods of time. the aircraft flies further than all of the above, moves faster, has a greater ferry range and avionics suite, more importantly, is NOT listed as a trainer, comes as a leasable option and therefore is a proven candidate in my book.

BoJack Horseman

Morpheus wrote: »

Still say the Gripen makes the most economic and strategic sense, its a european neighbour - handy for maintenance and support, support european business and we could possibly get some kind of technology transfer or get involved in future capability development... im sure none of the gripens will have been used in long range air patrols over the atlantic for extended periods of time. the aircraft flies further than all of the above, moves faster, has a greater ferry range and avionics suite, more importantly, is NOT listed as a trainer, comes as a leasable option and therefore is a proven candidate in my book.

It's why leasing is also best.

The only way a Gripen makes sense to buy is to buy 2nd hand with plenty of years of usage left.

A brand new one is no less expensive than the other western top-tier aircraft.

Morpheus

I understand your interest in purchasing an aircraft, but its not going to happen here and if we arent buying top tier then id prefer our taxes were spent at least leasing top tier instead of buying cheaper less capable lead in jet trainers.

BoJack Horseman

Morpheus wrote: »

leasing top tier instead of buying cheaper less capable lead in jet trainers.

That would be my preference too!

Markcheese

So if we could pick up a lease on 6 or so ex swedish air force gripens and a 2 seater gripen trainer, (and a simulator or 2 ), how much availability would that give us - I assume 2 or 3 would be in maintenence at any one time- so if 2 were coming back from a training flight -that'd leave 1 or 2 available to scramble ??
How many lead in trainers (and what sort) would we need to train up pilots for gripens, and how many pilots to go with them all - minimum 2 per plane ? They'll need 2 or 3 hundred hours each, p/a to stay sharp ... now the technicians ect... how big would the air corp have to be , just for 6 jets..

IrishTrajan

Markcheese wrote: »

So if we could pick up a lease on 6 or so ex swedish air force gripens and a 2 seater gripen trainer, (and a simulator or 2 ), how much availability would that give us - I assume 2 or 3 would be in maintenence at any one time- so if 2 were coming back from a training flight -that'd leave 1 or 2 available to scramble ??
How many lead in trainers (and what sort) would we need to train up pilots for gripens, and how many pilots to go with them all - minimum 2 per plane ? They'll need 2 or 3 hundred hours each, p/a to stay sharp ... now the technicians ect... how big would the air corp have to be , just for 6 jets..

The Czechs have 12, I think. That would allow for 2 on stand-by, 2 training, and the rest in storage or maintenance.

Boreas

Silvera wrote: »

So, for discussion sake, if the 'Gripen lease' isnt a runner with the powers-that-be, what are the next best jet options?

I agree with others that the only, very unlikely, possibility is a Gripen lease but if we want to discuss just for our own amusement...

What about the F/A-18 Super Hornet?

Depending on whose figures you trust they cost $61-$88 million each, which is less that the Rafale or Typhoon. They are a well proven design that is set to stay in service for another 20 years with the USN, RAAF, etc., partly because of issues with the F-35, so they will be upgraded over time and Ireland could purchase those upgrades if desired.

If we want to go full Walter Mitty they could even be used for training missions on the Charles de Gaulle or a US CVN :P

Silvera

F/A-18's are definately in 'Walter Mitty' territory!:D

If Gripens aren't a runner....the next options would be of the lead-in trainer / light strike variety.

Boreas

Silvera wrote: »

F/A-18's are definately in 'Walter Mitty' territory!:D

If Gripens aren't a runner....the next options would be of the lead-in trainer / light strike variety.

If the problem is air policing then I don't see a jet trainer as a solution. If air policing isn't the problem then what is?

BoJack Horseman

Silvera wrote: »

F/A-18's are definately in 'Walter Mitty' territory!

Not necessarily.

If a country was considering the purchase of a new airplane, the F/A-18 actually rates pretty well in terms of cost.

I think only the F-16 is cheaper.

The plane is serving the likes of Australia, Canada & Finland quite well.

Silvera

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Not necessarily.

If a country was considering the purchase of a new airplane, the F/A-18 actually rates pretty well in terms of cost.

I think only the F-16 is cheaper.

The plane is serving the likes of Australia, Canada & Finland quite well.

I'm not suggesting that the F/A-18 wouldnt be a great aircraft for the job - it would! (Switzerland uses them too). However, with figures of $60-$80 per airframe mentioned, I cant see our powers-that-be paying out that kind of money.

Imho, I believe that - if anything happens 'jet wise' - it will either be the Gripen lease OR a bulk purchase of 6 x jet trainers.

Silvera

For some reference, I recently read an article (from Feb 2014) about Poland purchasing 8 x M-346 aircraft, plus support - and including an option for four more aircraft and training devices - for €280 million.

I also read an article about Aero Vodochody developing a new 'Aero L-169' trainer/light combat aircraft. It is stated that this new aircraft will have a longer range than the L-159ALCA.

tac foley

Markcheese wrote: »

So if we could pick up a lease on 6 or so ex swedish air force gripens and a 2 seater gripen trainer, (and a simulator or 2 ), h

Why do you see a need for two simulators? It's not as though they are a cheap fairground-type-of-item.

The air corps would be mainly technicians, just like any other modern air force.

The current RAF ratio of pilots to technical support of all ranks is almost 30 to 1 techies to aircraft.

Are you going to be able to support the rank/training infrastructure at that level?

tac

seanaway

This is like being in a room full of Star Trekkies....fantasy lads...all fantasy. NO government in Ireland will EVER have the B*lls to spend what is needed for an effective deterent force. END OF.

sparky42

seanaway wrote: »

This is like being in a room full of Star Trekkies....fantasy lads...all fantasy. NO government in Ireland will EVER have the B*lls to spend what is needed for an effective deterent force. END OF.

Given that "deterent force" is generally talking about Nuclear Weapons, you're right. Now an effective Defence Force investment is another matter.

BoJack Horseman

seanaway wrote: »

NO government in Ireland will EVER have the B*lls to spend what is needed for an effective deterrent force

Probably not....

Though, similarly no government has ever shown the will to spend what is needed to have an effective health service either!

Looking at what Ireland spends on defence....
It is so low, that it could be increased by 1/3 and would still be the lowest in the entire continent.

Silvera

I agree that we are not going to see spending (on jets) on the scale of most other EU countries, however I believe it's not "fantasy" to effectively put in place 6 x 'Fouga Magister CM170R replacements'.

I know the PC-9M's were seen as a Marchetti/Fouga replacements, however the Air Corps have operated 6 x jets since the 1960's (Vampires) to 1998 (Fougas) so - with some adjustments regarding hangars/equipment/tech training/tech staffing - I dont see it as "fantasy" for them to again operate 6 x fast jets.

I know..I know..we are realistically looking at 'light combat jets' (Coveney has hinted as much - see attached article), but imho, it's a big step up from the current situation.

brembo26

Silvera wrote: »

I agree that we are not going to see spending (on jets) on the scale of most other EU countries, however I believe it's not "fantasy" to effectively put in place 6 x 'Fouga Magister CM170R replacements'.

I know the PC-9M's were seen as a Marchetti/Fouga replacements, however the Air Corps have operated 6 x jets since the 1960's (Vampires) to 1998 (Fougas) so - with some adjustments regarding hangars/equipment/tech training/tech staffing - I dont see it as "fantasy" for them to again operate 6 x fast jets.

I know..I know..we are realistically looking at 'light combat jets' (Coveney has hinted as much - see attached article), but imho, it's a big step up from the current situation.

linkys no work

Silvera

brembo26 wrote: »

linkys no work

I dont know whats wrong with the links...I've tried to re-attach them twice, but it keeps saying 'Boards Internal Server Error'. Links now removed.

BoJack Horseman

Attachments seem to be unavailable since the attack/crash a couple of weeks ago.

If you are trying to post images you have to use an image hosting and then embed the image or post its link

Ren2k7

seanaway wrote: »

This is like being in a room full of Star Trekkies....fantasy lads...all fantasy. NO government in Ireland will EVER have the B*lls to spend what is needed for an effective deterent force. END OF.

Probably not, no. But don't blame the government or parties, their disinterest in the military is a reflection of the wider apathy the people as a whole have for the DF. Until the Irish people themselves start taking an interest in the Forces then you won't be hearing much from the four main parties on the DF either.

Markcheese

seanaway wrote:

This is like being in a room full of Star Trekkies....fantasy lads...all fantasy. NO government in Ireland will EVER have the B*lls to spend what is needed for an effective deterent force. END OF.

Whats an effective deterant force and what / who would it deter - I cant see six or 12 fast jets detering anyone who might be interested or capable of invading our airspace....