Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Leonidas BL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118810110#Comment_118810110

They sold us drones so I wouldnt heed that a lot.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118810190#Comment_118810190

Huge difference. The bigger the sum of cash involved, the more difficult it is for govt to support it. (Both ours, theirs and the US).

Gary kk

The spin that would come from the media if the government bought jets from Israel would be amazing to watch.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118789838#Comment_118789838

Sending them to the US for a few months would be waving goodbye to a tonne of cash. Months of…

accommodation, food, entertainment, rental cars, sundry expenses, whatever extra pay for being away

plus…

paying whoever is training them, fuel, insurance, time….

jonnybigwallet

This is the best idea anybody has come up with in ages. You can get a dozen of these for the price of 3 Gripens and they are in the air in 3 years (versus 10 as suggested by other posters for Gripen). That Mirage is/was a great plane and was evolved over many years by Dassault.

Now the Israelis are offering one with all the desirable upgrades/modernisation carried out.

We need planes in the air now...not years in the future. These would be a perfect stop gap and newer better can be bought ten years down the line. These could then be flogged off to some African country with still 30 years life in em.

newcavanman

We have several options. New, rented Gripen, ex RAF Tranche One Typhoons, soon to be ex Finnish F-18s or probably most sensible, F-16MLUs from several different sources, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian. I've worked with them several times and F-16s are just so damn reliable. They never go tech

jonnybigwallet

Interesting point of view.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118811498#Comment_118811498

Aren't those F16s from the Dutch/Danes/Norwegians some of the highest flight hours in service though, how many hours do they have left before major work? That being said, when you see the most modern variants of the 16, the design team deserves a hell of a lot of credit for the design.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118811359#Comment_118811359

Of course it isn't.

For about 47 appreciable reasons.

And your 'planes in the air now' strategy, who or what do you intend to fly them, fuel them, maintain them, arm them, control and direct them, and shelter them.

Did it occur to you that they are cheap for a reason, the air combat equivalent of a 1992 Ford Fiesta with 300k miles on the clock?

It's the 'some African country' who would rather strafe rebels out in the bush than feed their children, that Israel have in mind for these right now, not a western nation located in the middle of NATO.

In fact, can you imagine the NATO response? 'You're not flying those **** boxes in proximity to our very expensive fighters, tankers and AWACs Paddy, thanks all the same!'

ancientmariner

As a non-flier it seems to me we need an aircraft that has a reputation both as an interceptor AND good at Close Air Support with a range of Target illumination capabilities. A bit like Warthog and F-16 rolled into one. The Brits are fond of skimming the valleys in Wales and strikes by aircraft other than USA in Afghanistan were done by other Nations at 46% so I presume others were British and non US equipped Europeans.

jonnybigwallet

Why not operate two types? An intercepter and a ground attack plane? Could save a few bob that way as the ground attack item doesn't have to be state of the art....

ancientmariner

Depends on sophisticated. The A10 is /was equipped with GPS and Laser guided bombs. They had their ECM Pod under one wing and a couple of Sidewinders under the other wing for self Defence purposes. They had compensating controls to allow for bits blown off all controlled by software.

Leaving age aside, in polls of the best, the F16 comes out top.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118813572#Comment_118813572

Because a) we don’t need a ground attack plane and b) any of the modern aircraft can handle any ground attack roles, nobody builds a dedicated interceptor anymore. Hell the USAF have been trying to kill off the A10 for decades as while it has good PR it can only really operate in permissive environments.

Dohvolle

It also lacks the speed needed for Air Policing. You want mach 2 minimum.

ancientmariner

Most soldiers would like a ground attack plane for CAS. It can stick around and deploy it's large payload and gut strong points with it's 30mm Gatling gun. The interceptor of supersonic class is in and gone after 10/15 minutes requiring fuel. Whether we want it or not troops on the ground need close support, as much as possible.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118814722#Comment_118814722

Assuming the other guy doesn’t shot back of course, the SU 25s haven’t had an easy time over Ukraine for example. More to the point again the A 10 has limitations, that loiter time is offset by a much longer transit time due to its lower top speed and relatively short range, nor is its payload a huge margin over 4.5 gen fighters.

The USAF has been banging its head against the US Congress since the first Gulf War on the issue, and frankly it’s a complete non issue for Ireland. Hell it’s a non issue for any Western State outside of the US as none of them have such a dedicated plane.

Larbre34

The combat zone ground attack plane is in the midst of being replaced by drones. Whether thats the A-10 or the C-130 gunship or the subsonic light jet, they are all on the way out. I can imagine that attack helicopters will be soon enough too.

Smaller, cheaper, harder for the enemy to see and destroy. They can be controlled directly from the ground by the same units that are doing the fighting, total force integration.

There are a few recent videos on YouTube of Bayraktar drones supplied by Turkey, being flown by the Ukrainians in the field, absolutely laying waste to Russian armoured columns, not a vehicle missed. Devastatingly effective.

It's such technology that's needs to be added to the Army's capability in the coming force modernisation exercise.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118815050#Comment_118815050

Well let’s also factor in the appalling performance of the Russians with even their SAM systems either being knocked out while turned off, or breaking down. But yes the performance of drones is massively increasing and should be looked at, along with a massive change in our active defences for the army against drone threats.

ancientmariner

If drones are figuring in the battlefield in Ukraine and have that level of capability then certainly we should embed them with manouvering units.

In any event we need a drone flying school to train operatives as drone pilots and formalise their use on land and at sea.

Larbre34

Great purpose for the Air Corps in the reforms. All pilot training and airmanship skills, manned and unmanned, for all services, should be with the Air Corps.

The Flying Training School and Ground School should be renewed, as a centre of excellence similar to the National Maritime College.

It could be linked up with the IAA and their civilian programmes for appropriate crossover areas.

Come to think of it, Shannon would be a great location for such a College. The IAA centre is already there and in the event that an Air Corps station does happen in Shannon for Atlantic airspace defence, the concentration of work and investment there would be very valuable, in every respect.

donvito99

Neutral Austria is planning an increase in their defence expenditure from approx. 0.6 to 1% of GDP in response to Russia's aggression.

Amongst other defence investments, they will upgrade their much maligned Tranche 1 Eurofighter to an operational condition.

Given the surplus of T1 aircraft, this upgrade may be closely monitored by the suits in Newbridge.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118832066#Comment_118832066

Depends, are their T1s similar to any of the other T1s that are due for replacement?

Larbre34

The Eurofighter, like the F-35, is a bucket of shyt.

A temperamental, fragile and expensive system, over-specified and under-engineered.

Like a febrile Arabian stallion, when what you need is a dray.

All this last 30 years of developing 5th Gen fighter jets and finally it dawns on the operators, that holding in a scalpel in your hand is fine and well, but nothing beats overwhelming numbers.

If the suits in Newbridge decided we were going to adopt the Eurofighter tomorrow, I'd go down there and punch each of them in the mouth then give them the number for the USAF reserve fleet management branch in the Pentagon and start negotiations for 20 refurbished F-16 C/D Block 52, with sidewinders, AMRAAMs and cannons.

donvito99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118832128#Comment_118832128

They were upgraded to the then "latest" T1 standard in 2013.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118832182#Comment_118832182

Yeah, but are the RAF T1s upgraded to the same spec? Are the Spanish or German ones? I'm willing to bet that each nations fleet has at least bespoke fit outs and modified baseline standards, you can see that through all the different Tranches, hence why I'm saying it would depend on which fleets are closest to the Austrian ones, and are they at the same level.

It's no different than the NH90 ending up with such localised variants even within Europe itself.

roadmaster

Here is a complete outside the box question. The Mig 29s that poland wanted to give to ukraine that are upgraded to a nato level, say we where offered them would it be possabile to operate them. What do poland do for spare parts?

Yawlboy

Those Mig-29s are from the 1980's and even with upgrades are at the end of their operational lives.

I think the only planes we need are interceptors not ground attack aircraft. The F-18 or F-16 are perfect aircraft for us, loads around, well proven airframes and avionics. The US would support us on them in terms of maintenance and training.

However if we are being very serious about defence then we should look at the F-35, Switzerland selected them along with most countries replacing their F-16's and F-18s. The Swiss worked out the total cost of ownership and the F-35 won hands down.

Whatever choice we make will work out expensive in the long run so we should bite the bullet and buy a modern fighter

jonnybigwallet

The plane which wins hands down in terms of operating cost is the Gripen, with the F16 in second place. That F35 appears to be an expensive crock of shite and the only reason so many are selling are because of its VTOL capability which makes it the go-to plane for UK Italy Spain Japan and others who are building mini aircraft carriers.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118832066#Comment_118832066

I thought they were planning to phase out their Eurofighter Typhoon completely? They already had questions around how they ended up with them in the first place. Many thought they would be getting something more cost effective, like Gripen.

Doskozil announces end of eurofighter - Army & Civilian Service - derStandard.at › Domestic (archive.org)

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118832505#Comment_118832505

Most in NATO who had them as legacy aircraft, got shot of them as soon as possible. Upgrading to NATO standard just isn't economically practical. They are designed for Russian calibre cannon, russian ejector seats, russian missiles and russian radar/iff. Those still using them want to upgrade to NATO standard aircraft, but cost is an issue, and you can't part-ex Soviet era aircraft. The Ukraine solution is actually the best plan for them,(Attrition replacement to an airforce who already use the type) but none of the current NATO users want to be without replacement aircraft, while Russia still has eyes on former Eastern Bloc states. Being promised NATO standard replacement aircraft is fine until you have an empty ramp and a stray missile is heading for your border with Russia/Ukraine.