Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118863215#Comment_118863215

Not really, many militaries practice using rough strips, for example the Ukrainians right now are doing so. Many nations have entire road sections designed as runways with adjacent stores for example Finland, South Korea, Switzerland to name a few, hell the US practiced it in one of their states recently. The idea for the Harriers (or rather the NATO spec) was the belief that hardened airfields would be prime targets for nukes in the event of WW3. But between changing doctrine and the limitations of the design and the growth of attack helicopters the perceived need lapsed.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118863379#Comment_118863379

Only initially, the Russians reorganized and the end result wasn't really in doubt. But the Finn's had no support from Germany and Sweden either. I guess it made everyone aware they need to stick together.

Flinty997

Gun Jesus has done quite a few videos on Finish arms of the period. Worth watching.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118863410#Comment_118863410

What you mean not really.

The Harrier doesn't need any runway, doesn't need a roadway. Its not been copied successfully until the F35. (Yak-38 wasn't a success)

The carrier role came later.

For all its disadvantages its unique abilities means its still in service, and was used in recent conflicts.

I will agree it wasn't something useful for Ireland.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118863658#Comment_118863658

How many times did they use that in combat? Falklands is the only time I can think of, mainly as while they can take off without a runway it impacts their already limited range/weight issues. It hasn't been copied because its a niche capability that not many nations want/need. The 35B has been driven by the US Marines needs and mainly Navies.

Flinty997

If we buy fighters and never use them in combat will that make then not useful. Are unused nuclear weapons not useful. Weird argument. Especially considering this threads subject.

The Harrier is single engine cheap aircraft, very adaptable. Makes it very useful. As its ability to fly off smaller carriers.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-harrier-the-fighter-jet-the-marines-want-war-26276

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Harrier_II#Combat_duties

The concept of light carriers isn't going away...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44829/marines-to-test-lighting-carrier-concept-with-20-f-35bs-aboard-uss-tripoli-this-april

It wouldn't have had such a long service life if it didn't offer utility and value.

sparky42

It offers value because it's main modern selling point is for small carriers, on the other hand "small carriers" are now pushing twice what the RN Invincibles were. Outside of the US Marines with their joint role, from a quick look only the RAF flew it from land, all other users were Naval operators (or Air Force that operate at sea if you take the issue the Italians had at one stage), if it wasn't "made in UK" would the RAF have gone for it, or invested in other aircraft fleets? It was a niche aircraft that other militaries for different airframes for. Nor when you consider the lifespan of some aircraft has it had a particularly longer service life tbh.

tippilot

What a strange post.

Various marks of the Harrier have been in front line service for in excess of 50 years. It is still in service in three countries. It has seen action in numerous conflicts including the Falklands, Gulf Wars 1 and 2, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.

It evolved way beyond it's initial "runway not neccessary" concept and excelled in Air to Ground(various GR and AV8 versions) and Air to Air(FRS Mks 1 and 2). So much so in fact that for land based versions its VTOL capabability was merely a happy aside. It was simply good at what it did.

Operated by RAF, RN, USMC, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy, Indian Navy, Thai Navy so hardly unsuccessful on the export front.

"If it wasn't made in UK"?? It was introduced at a time the TSR-2 was cancelled in favour of the American F-111 (later cancelled in favour if the American F-4.)

The RN when building a carrier big enough to be CATOBAR capable instead opted to commit itself to another 50 years of S/VTOL ops by selecting a ski jump instead of a catapult and ordering the F35B at the expense of the longer ranged F35C.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118863868#Comment_118863868

It wasn't flying from carriers in Afghanistan which is as modern as you can get. Doing exactly what it was designed for. CAS from forward bases on land. The marines often operated it from land, they flew it from airbases during the 2nd Iraq War. You seem to have a dislike for the jet for no real reason.

ancientmariner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118863051#Comment_118863051

The Last Hurricane left the production line in 1944. In 1952 I was a kid in Pearse Battalion FCA in Gormanstown. At the time our Fighters were all less than10-15 years old. The last RAF Spitfires Flew operationally in Malaysia in 1954. As opposed to NO Fighters now those aircraft were as frontline as necessary to meet our needs. Likewise the Corvettes were an important part of Convoy Escort with copious amounts of ordnance still available up to their retirement. I remember we put two corvettes on war footing(full DC and ammo capacity) during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was about as frontline that you could get. In 1984 we could do all the air surveillance, both Primary and secondary radars as mentioned by CoD by using P31 and her DA05/IFF Radar. At various times we had capacity and ability but the bureaucrats packed it in aided by shrinking budgets and neutrality dividends.

jonnybigwallet

That was a very interesting historical perspective Ancient M. Go raibh mait agat!

Flinty997

Due to the rapid pace of aircraft development in,WW2 By the time we got hurricanes and spitfires they were no longer frontline fighters. They were relegated fighter bombers or reconnaissance.

For example even the Mustang was a fighter bomber by the time of the Korean war.

They were kept in production for that role. For example the Hurricane had a universal wing in later models better suited to that role. But it was definitely obsolete by the end of the war.

Better then nothing obviously. Still useful in a limited role.

Flinty997

Ships are kinda more useful for longer. You'd think a Corvette would be ideal for Irish purposes and sea conditions.

What's mostly kills ships if they become unreliable or costly to run. Otherwise they are often rebuilt or re-armed with the systems of the day. Or even de gunned to reduce manpower requirements and running costs.

ancientmariner

We might all be missing the point. Choices could have been made when our version of frontline was being replaced. I know the USMC will phase out the Harrier by 2026. However if we turn back the clock 40 years, we started making convenient choices then, turning away to SAR, MATS, Pilot Training and in the case of the navy built some ships funded by EU but ONLY for FP with NO armament supplied other than retrofit from the Ordnance Junkyard. We binned years of combat training and capability for peacetime judicial duties and even then SAR was handed over to CHC. It seems to be a contract out mindset or the nice man next door will take care of it.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118864394#Comment_118864394

Nice strawman. I didn't suggest that ever for Ireland today.

Actually its a 50yr old aircraft. Though some variants did have and still have a significant anti air capability.

The Sea Harrier has 20 ish A2A kills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War#Casualties_and_aircraft_losses

sparky42

It wasn't flying from carriers in Afghanistan which is as modern as you can get. Doing exactly what it was designed for. CAS from forward bases on land. The marines often operated it from land, they flew it from airbases during the 2nd Iraq War. You seem to have a dislike for the jet for no real reason.

flying from fixed hard airbases, not anything like the dispersed rough field locations that you suggested was it’s purpose when introduced. In action in Afghanistan or any other conflict of the last 20 years it operated with all the same supports as any other land based aircraft leaving its short take off capabilities unnecessary.

Flinty997

You tried to imply the harrier has no utility in a modern context except on light carriers.

Whereas it's been heavily used flying from forward airfields in the CAS role (it's original designed role) in modern conflicts and wars.

Often closer in theater to the soldiers and thus a faster response time than assets operating from bases much further away.

It's logged a lot of combat time in recent conflicts. That speaks for itself. As does the US purchase of the UK harrier fleet.

Flinty997

Any way none of this has to do with the topic title.

No one here is interested in CAS its about Air Defence.

jonnybigwallet

On the contrary. I am interested in CAS and am convinced that a close air support role needs to be procured as well as interception. Two differerent aircraft will be required. Possibly the Gripen or KAI for interception and the latest gen Aero Vodoshitov machine for CAS. Only 6 to 8 of the latter required along with a small wing of light attack helicopters wich can also be operated from the new ships coming along for the navy.

jonnybigwallet

Yeah...PC 9Ms have filled a gap and can continue for few more years.

ancientmariner

With the Concept in the USN of Amphibious Assault ships for the marines it meant they had to have an aircraft like the AV-88. They built at least 17 vessels over time. I had the privilege of flying on board the USS Saipan, via a USCG helicopter, that was in the process of shifting gear and personnel from a USCG vessel in Dublin, to the Saipan as an SAR helo. The ship was on it's way to the first Gulf war. The F35 variant had to come to match roles with the ship type-either 20 helos and 8 STOL types or 20 STOL types and 8 helos. The fighting navies and forces are good at strategic planning. When the fleet is small the training aircraft are also part of keeping fliers in date and can overload both requirements.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118864018#Comment_118864018

You seem to have missed my point, the start of the comments on the Harrier were referencing it’s ability to operate from dispersed airfields, i and you in your posts pointed out that that ability wasn’t its dominate feature for land based operations, at which point it can then be compared to any other CAS dominate aircraft. Was the Harrier exceptional compared to other aircraft in that role, can we really tell given that most of its combat operations happened in areas where the West had air dominance.

Nor did I miss the exports to other nations, I explicitly pointed out that it filled a role for navies that couldn’t operate large deck carriers, but how many air forces bought it for anything other than that aspect? The TSR 2, F111, F4 saga is an entirely different matter. As for the UKs decision on the B over the C that again has a lot of different factors in play that are more than just the S/VTOL capabilities.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118864232#Comment_118864232

As I’ve pointed out there are reasons why the U.K. kept the Hurricanes and Spitfire lines open for as long as they did, in short the combination of the Invasion scare in 1940/41 that screwed up the industrial base and the follow on generation, along with the UKs strange decisions in production (mainly both in aircraft and tanks) that was a huge waste. It doesn’t matter how old they were when you saw them, the hurricane was a pre 1939 design that was introduced in 1937, by 1952 that was several generations out of date. And lacking any capability of fighter control they might manage point defence of Dublin and that was it.

As for the corvettes again it doesn’t matter what they were loaded for by 1962, they were well outclassed by anything that might have been a threat to them. Just a quick look, but can you highlight which other navies had them in active service as the sole warships of their navies at that point?

For the capabilities of the Ethine, that’s not doing “all the air surveillance” of the entire nation, it again at best could be used as a point capability, nothing like what other nations had at that stage. As for “shrinking budgets” it depends on what you mean, given the size of the Irish economy, while a much higher percentage in terms of gdp, the sums were smaller.

ancientmariner

So what won the Battle of Britian. I believe it was Radar and aeroplanes. Those planes were also present in our post war air corps. They were of their day and we did not continue the momentum by following with the successors of the Vampire and Meteor. The ships available were DAINTY DD's, CASTLE class ESCORTS, and Corvettes. The original order was for 6 Corvettes and the CONS decided we could manage with 3 Corvettes and get a Dainty Class DD or a Castle Class to add clout. The DOD told him that was a new case and to make a submission. it never materialised.

The ship were designed to sink submarines and shoot down aircraft. They were the backbone of most convoys. As regards P31, sitting in Galway bay, she had surveillance range of 120 miles giving a coverage of almost 45,000 sq. miles covering most of the West Coast. She provided similar coverage for the visit of British PM to Baldonnel. She could pick up large Jets at 110 nm on raw radar. The DA05 was used as the radar in many Phillips Signaal equipped Airports. I don't knock what we had just the lack of strategic ambition.

Flinty997

Battle of Britain was won by the most advance air defence system he world had ever seen at that point. There was a whole advanced logistics and repair infrastructure feeding men and aircraft into the battle. It wasn't just Radar and aircraft. It was a complex system many layers deep.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118868781#Comment_118868781

The Battle of Britain occurred in 1940, what relevancy is that, also arguably the Hurricane was already reaching the limits of it's air to air capability at that point, simply by the pace of change in the aviation sector at the time, the RAF didn't keep them in the European theater facing FW 190's for example in later years, they moved them to lesser areas, or changed to Ground Attack. By the time we fielded a full squadron of them they were well surpassed in range, firepower and speed even by the last gen propeller types like the Hawker Sea Fury which itself was retired out of the FAA only a year after you mentioned 1953), not even touching the capabilities of Jets. Every fighter we ever fielded was at least one if not two generations out of date by the time they were in service, the Vampires themselves were well dated in the evolving age of the first gen jet fighters by the time we got them and were trainers.

The Flowers were a war time design intended for convoys around the UK, it was only the Fall of France that resulted in their usage for the Battle of the Atlantic as the UK needed every hull they could get, that doesn't mean they were anything close to what the RN would have wanted for the task, and you haven't answered the question, what other navies considered them Primary warships in 1962 or the 1970's? By those time periods both submarine and aircraft designs and weapons vastly exceeded what a Flower could handle, or are you going to suggest that they could match even the speed of a first gen SSN?

As for Eithne, by your own post she never had capabilities for nationwide detection, sheer radar restrictions would see to that.

ancientmariner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118868834#Comment_118868834

Just that when we got some of them they were only in their first decade. Don't judge by hindsight, rather why didn't the professionals see to re-equipping squadrons with updated aircraft. The corvette was operated by up to 25 navies world wide including USN, RCN. Most sold them on by 1950's or returned them to the RN. Some operated them up to the 1970's such as San Domingo, South African, and Ireland. In 1947 ours would have been only 6 years old with a 20 year future at least. Your logic on P31's unsuitability gives the impression that a tracking range of 100m plus is of no consequence to what was there before. two such ships would cover most of the critical approaches.

Flinty997

Wasn't Ireland near bankrupt in the 1950s.

ancientmariner

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118869404#Comment_118869404

There was financial stability , houses post war were about 1,200 Pounds and in 1963 I bought my first house for the same price. If you want a defensive capability you do the same as Sweden and have a Defence industry to give a strong Capability as a Neutral. If you cannot do that you join an alliance and allow new Defence industry and Allied bases. We still haven't realised that our Neutrality stems from a determination NOT to help the Old Enemy, coupled with Wars are too expensive for neutral Countries. We are unfortunate to be sitting on the Sea and communication lanes of the Atlantic but somehow must control it by sea and Air.

Flinty997

Any article I read says Ireland was in financial crisis around 1950. But I don't know the detail of it.