Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

RavenP

@jonnybigwallet The problem is that 4 jets on standby needs 16 jets in the squadron. And for every jet you need three air crew, mulriple techs, hangers etc. It all gets very expensive very quickly. And ultimately QRA does very little for Irish defence. We would need an airforce of 30-40 jets to maintain air superiority over Ireland in a conflict. Which is whi, I believe, denial of access via missiles, is the better option.

RavenP

@sparky42 The cost of maintaining, training and upgradong a layered missile defence for denial of access, not air superiority, over say thirty years, is much, much lower than to maintain a couple of squadrons over the same period. Yes in a perfect world there would be both, but if Ireland wants an armed neutrality stance the emphasis should be on denial of access via missile defence, because air superiority would simily be too much for a small state (even a rich one). If Ireland wants to join NATO, that is different.

RavenP

@delusiondestroyer Actually I do not believe that Ireland is incapable of credible independent defence. As I said earlier good soldiery is about a lot more than equipment. But arm chair generals calling for several squadrons of jets, fleets of destroyers and acres of tanks are misguided. Denial of access to aircraft via missile defence is 1/3 the price of airframes. Also if the Ukraine war has demonstrated one thing it is that artillery is king. It is also something that the DF are very good at, but they need a lot more, and bigger calibre, arty. Mobile 155mm guns and mobile 120mm mortars, spotter drones and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition (surprisingly cheap), give a lot of defensive power. Recce is the way for Ireland's armour to go, and fuly mechanised infantry. MBT are not that useful across most of the Irish landmass, best for plains of central Europe, in fact vulnerable in Ireland. More small mortars, javelin or equivalent, And better pay and conditions to build an army and integrated reserve that can field 25 or 30,000 and Ireland will be pretty safe from an invasion from a foreign power as part of a wider European war, and it can be done without breaking the bank, or joining NATO.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120619983#Comment_120619983

I agree all we need is a credible deterrent. What you outline is suitable but a few reasonably capable jets (Mach 1-1.5) would be useful for monitoring airspace even if in an all out invasion they would probably be destroyed in the first hours.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120619933#Comment_120619933

No.

Just No.

You can't go shooting at any radar contact that isn't squawking, and doing so would soon close down the country as far as all Air Passenger and freight traffic goes.

Air Policing is the immediate requirement. Its not London 1940. We want to be able to send something up, take a look, escort through airspace or a safe location if necessary and report back.

You'd find there wouldn't be many suppliers willing to sell us SAMs so we can shoot down anything that entered our airspace without asking.

RavenP

@Dohvolle I am not sugesting missiles are used as an alternative to QRA, I am suggesting that we should forget about QRA, lets face it we are not doing it now. We only arm our missiles during an actual crisis where we formally and with all due announcements, close off our airspace. We already do this when foreign dignitaries visits with RBS-70s, and this has never led to any downed airliners yet. The same money spent on other parts of the DF will do a lot more for Ireland's defence than four interceptors on standby. We should only do QRA if we have no political or diplomatic alternatives.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120620181#Comment_120620181

Could be a bit cumbersome to do in practice?

RavenP

@saabsaab Perhaps, it would be a new doctrine for us, where there was none before, and it would not keep our neighbours happy, but it has the most bang for buck!

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120620181#Comment_120620181

You are using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

RavenP

@Dohvolle I do not know how many times I have to say this, but I am not suggesting doing QRA with missiles! I am suggesting that Ireland forgets about air superiority and QRA at all, and in lieu of that goes for a cheaper denial of access air defence posture based around layered missiles. These missiles would not be shooting down odd radar targets, but would only become active if there was a threat of war or actions close to war. The alternative is to take a huge chunk out of our, hoipefully, expanded DF budget in the future, and spend it on something, QRA, which is no real use in a major conflict, and adds very little to the safety of Irish people. 300 mill pa for a flypast at Easter...Id rather see tracked 155mm guns on O'Connell street:)

Dohvolle

I know what you are suggesting and its WRONG.

When we used the RBS70 in the AA role (along with 40mm Bofors AA cannon) it was with a limited air policing capability, initially with the twin MG armed Fouga, more recently with the PC9. The aircraft patrolled the exclusion zone, to determine the intentions of anyone straying within missile range. It was basic but it worked.

If you think QRA is costly, wait till you hear how much Surface to Air missiles cost to purchase and keep, and then when you have not used them you have to buy them all over again.

QRA gives greater capability. Combined with proper ground control, and primary radar it is far more useful in the real world. 40 aircraft is the figure mentioned to do it effectively, but the Austrians manage it with 15 aircraft, The Swiss with 25 (soon to be 36). The QRA can be wherever you need them to be, the missile is only useful where you set it up.

delusiondestroyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120620432#Comment_120620432

We don't have major air incidents and constant air incursions and considering our geographical location and decades apon decades of safe skies.. Evidence suggests that a big Airforce for Ireland would in fact be a complete waste, it would add no ability to our peacekeeping missions and would only be used rarely to police the air.

The value just isnt there and there is no evidence to suggest that we desperately need one.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120617158#Comment_120617158

I am inclined to agree with this situation both today and for the next, oh, decade. Russia would need at least that amount of time to rebuild their capabilities even if they decided to withdraw all forces back across the border from Ukraine tomorrow. However, they do at least have a base to start from.

For Ireland to attain the basic level of self sufficiency indicated by the Commission is likely to also take at least a decade, however. It is not the case that the government will turn around tomorrow, announce a couple billion dollars, and Ireland's capability suddenly increases next year to meet a threat which does not exist at the time. By the time Ireland can have such a capability, a realistic threat may well exist again, if not from Russia but from another source. Geopolitics can change over time as well.

I would also observe that a risk assessment process does not merely take into account likelihood of an event occurring, but it also takes into account the severity of the effect if it does happen. Thus, for example, the composite risk of, say, drug smugglers flying Cessnas into the country (not incredibly unlikely, but not really an immediate risk to the safety of the population) could end up the same as the composite risk of hijacked airliner or armed raid on Shannon (remote likelihood, but a significant harm to Ireland's populace if it does).

Flinty997

Russia has lots resources especially of strategic aircraft that it can use to cause trouble around the world if it so wishes. Putin has spent considerable resources trying to build to those back up. Ironically some having been bought back from Ukraine and some decommissioned and scrapped by Ukraine.

The Ukraine war is still limited in that is only using up certain types of resources.

Not that Russia is the only reason you need to police your airspace.

mupper2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120621323#Comment_120621323

While I have made my feelings known on establishing a fast jet capabilities at the moment I also think that most people, doubly so for Irish people (jesus knows how far behind the Irish gov is) don't realise the post CW bubble we have lived in for the last 3 decades is gone and it ain't coming back.

Unlike the first go around Ireland isn't going to be isolated from it by geography, politics or the fact we were dirt poor AKA "The Albania of Western Europe" and their will be sides to pick.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120622577#Comment_120622577

And the fact that we have already picked sides since joining the EU (arguably we had since WW2 just didn’t do anything about it), this “military neutral but not political neutral” BS doesn’t matter a jot to anyone outside of Ireland, they see us as part of the West just the same as everyone else, and given what our economy is now certainly a target.

Yes there are more pressing matters to attend to for the DF, but the current situation seems unlikely to go on as is regarding control of our airspace long term.

delusiondestroyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120622589#Comment_120622589

I'm sorry but WHO exactly are we "certainly a target" of?

You talk as if there is a 2nd cold war coming which is not the case and never will be..

Russia is collapsing in everyway possible from population to military. The US is so far ahead of them if wouldn't even be competitive.

So I'll ask again who exactly is it you think is going to attack us?

And how exactly do you think this nation would pull this attack off?

And what would they even achieve by such an attack in the first place...

Stating stuff like that without backing it up with anything tangible is just scaremongering.

saabsaab

If we're looking for threats then look no further..

'The Russian Embassy in Dublin has warned that Ireland will suffer “all consequences” if Irish citizens are encouraged to fight in Ukraine.

The same will happen if Russia considers Ireland a “direct participant” in the war between Russia and Ukraine, according to a statement from the embassy posted on a social media site.

Former minister of foreign affairs Charlie Flanagan has now called for Russian Ambassador Yuriy Filatov and his staff to be expelled from the country, describing the statement as “threatening, intimidating, and chilling”

jonnybigwallet

https://www.aviacionline.com/2023/05/poland-to-equip-its-fa-50pl-with-the-phantomstrike-a-lightweight-but-powerful-aesa-radar/?utm_content=cmp-true

delusiondestroyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623058#Comment_120623058

Just so im correct here, you believe that Russia is a threat to Ireland?

You believe a full scale Russian attack on Ireland is very likely so much so that we should immediately start ramping up military spending in preparation for war?

delusiondestroyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623253#Comment_120623253

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/ireland-condemns-russian-tv-for-nuclear-attack-simulation

It appears Russias strategy is to nuke us how should we proceed?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623253#Comment_120623253

I've always liked the idea of light fighter with limited A2A capability. But I don't think it was popular on this thread.

The other point it's not that much cheaper than the Gripen and indeed compared to late model F16 the Gripen is a much lighter aircraft anyway.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623282#Comment_120623282

Have your special needs been identified or are you still on the waiting list?

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623519#Comment_120623519

Why would it have been popular?

We have zero need for a fixed wing tactical support aircraft and even if our mechanised infantry did come up to 21st Century standard, the natural air support would be helicopters and drones.

In terms of jet aircraft, we need an interceptor with decent range and endurance. If it happens to have some air-to-ground capability, that's a bonus.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623519#Comment_120623519

As an interim step it's ideal, but the question is, if you are going to spend that sort of money, is it better to take the interim step and be stuck with an interim aircraft for the next 30 years, while building up the knowledge base or bite the bullet and buy the full frontline Gen 4 aircraft, even if you lack the skilled pilots, technicians or experience working with fast jet fighters. Can Saab provide to support required to get the aircraft fully operational? We know GD will suport the FA50 operation in Europe, and its entry into service in Poland will make it less of an oddity.

Lets remind ourselves here, the last frontline fighter operated by the Air Corps was the tandem seat Spitfire/Seafire in the 1950s. We have only operated (1st Gen) Jet trainers since, and not for 20 years.

The PC9 is the first aircraft we operated with a G suit. Thats how far behind we are. Prior to its entry into service, it had been another 20 years since we operated anything with an Ejector seat. Both of these items are highly complex and vital to fast jet operation, and require a skilled maintenance team, not to mention training on its operation. We are still learning the ropes.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623604#Comment_120623604

[MOD]Warning given. Direct personal insult.[/MOD]

It's worth noting that though we are of the communal opinion that Delusion is wrong on the matter of policy both on the basis of our own common sense and government reporting, his is an attitude which is not uncommon to the Irish populace. If we are to fix that, then a better form of engagement is necessary.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120622988#Comment_120622988

I submit that we're in one again. Sortof. It's more 'tepid' than cold, even the proxy wars during the cold war tended to have the major combatants not get personally involved.

The most likely direct military threat to Ireland will be Russia, and this is likely so for some time. Note, 'will be', which is fortunate because, as I said earlier, it will take time for Ireland to gain any form of capability to put up any form of deterrence or even warning. Direct military intervention is not, however, the only reason why an air intercept capability is needed. Does Ireland, for example, not place TFRs for large gatherings of global leaders? If so, how are they practically enforced?

delusiondestroyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623775#Comment_120623775

Thanks for warning..@Larbre34..Disgraceful behaviour, special needs isnt something that should be mocked and tbh shows the caliber of person allowed to thrive on here. I am not going to lower myself to getting into a back and forth with him as I carry myself with far more class and I am simple superior to him. Its water off a ducks back but tbh when discussing with alot in this community snide remarks and insults seems to be the go too when you ask them questions they simply cannot answer.

Simple questions like:

Who is going to attack us?

Why are they going to attack us?

What realistically would be gained from attacking Ireland?

Of course I know these questions cant be answered because what they are advocating for and claiming has 0 basis in reality.. Instead I ask these questions to try and show the person that there beliefs or what they are being told simply isn't true when approached with logic.

AerLingus747

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623795#Comment_120623795

don't you get it... no body want to attack Ireland, so you don't need any air cover, even with high level politicians... nobody will want to attack Ireland or the people in it from the air... plus the RAF are just a few mins away, they'll do it no probs.

/s

thomil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623618#Comment_120623618

I think you need the concept of a "interceptor" out of your mind. All modern fighter aircraft are designed to be multi-role aircraft, especially those that Ireland would likely get if the government decided to go down the route of getting some fast jet capability, i.E. F/A-50s, late model F-16s or Saab JAS-39s. These days, the role of an aircraft is principally decided by the weapons you hang on the hard points. And honestly, if Ireland were to decide to go down the fighter route, not acquiring A2G weapons in addition to A2A weapons would be just a waste of resources.