Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Heraldoffreeent

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm sure he found a meal or two in his life that weren't much to his taste, but I don't suppose that stopped him eating.

Coveney has often spoken in practical and knowledgeable terms about the DF. Of those appointed to cabinet, in my view he is one of the best two or three that could have got it.

My preference would have been a stand alone or lead ministry for Defence, but thats what we've got and we'll hope that the Minister of State is similarly motivated, eg Senator Chambers

Made less likely today though, as she was made FF leader in the Senate, and Deputy Leader of the House. Responsible with Regina Doherty for shepherding Govt business through the Seanad.

Leonidas BL

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ireland-considering-purchase-of-jet-fighters/

sparky42

Leonidas BL wrote: »

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ireland-considering-purchase-of-jet-fighters/

So basically they took the story on the Equipment Plan and ran with it...

roadmaster

lets start a rumor that the lads in Australia are not training on turbo props but are getting training on F18's for our new fleet

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

lets start a rumor that the lads in Australia are not training on turbo props but are getting training on F18's for our new fleet

They have gone very quiet about that haven't they...:p

Lorddrakul

I find it hard to see how a radar upgrade, and a fleet of second hand Gripens/Rafales would cost a billion euros.

16 fast jets is probably a bit much.

Two ready to go, two on standby, two for training and two in maintenance at any given time would probably be enough.

All that is needed is a fast intercept capability, combined with a coverage area. We are unlikely to be maintaining a CAP capability. Just enough to police the airspace.

It could even be combined with one of the CASA replacements for a more AWACs style of operation to mean that the jets need to be in the air even less.

thomil

Lorddrakul wrote: »

16 fast jets is probably a bit much.

Two ready to go, two on standby, two for training and two in maintenance at any given time would probably be enough.

All that is needed is a fast intercept capability, combined with a coverage area. We are unlikely to be maintaining a CAP capability. Just enough to police the airspace.

It could even be combined with one of the CASA replacements for a more AWACs style of operation to mean that the jets need to be in the air even less.

Sorry to say that but you’re all over the place with your statement. I went through the numbers a little while ago, 16 fighters is the minimum to ensure a QRA capability, BASIC CAP capability to cover high profile events, and to ensure that enough flying and training takes place for the crews to keep their edge:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106558884

This squadron of 16 jets does not include the conversion trainers necessary to get trainee pilots up to speed with a fast jets, such as a Gripen or an F-16. The PC-9M Ireland currently has are nowhere near as fast or as complex as you would need to give new pilots a taste of what they can expect when flying a modern fighter. And remember, they not only need to fly it, but also to manage the sensors, weapons systems and so on, so you’ll need a number of double seater conversion trainers as well.

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that Ireland’s already anaemic maritime patrol capability should be further diminished by converting one into an Airborne Early Warning aircraft? Maritime patrol and AEW are completely distinct and separate roles, the surface search radar on a MPA will be effectively useless against airborne targets.

sparky42

Lorddrakul wrote: »

I find it hard to see how a radar upgrade, and a fleet of second hand Gripens/Rafales would cost a billion euros.

16 fast jets is probably a bit much.

Two ready to go, two on standby, two for training and two in maintenance at any given time would probably be enough.

All that is needed is a fast intercept capability, combined with a coverage area. We are unlikely to be maintaining a CAP capability. Just enough to police the airspace.

It could even be combined with one of the CASA replacements for a more AWACs style of operation to mean that the jets need to be in the air even less.

Think it through, even for your reduced numbers you need a significant increase in the AC's numbers, you have significant increase in facilities needed to support such aircraft/weapons, you have significant increases in consumable usage (for operations and training) and even then you are most likely not going to be able to provide 24/7 with airframes.


As for using one of the CASA's as an AWAC's think that model never even got a customer so we'd be the first (and given the cost of the MPA version that would be pricey as hell).


Even with your reduced numbers the standing costs to create any such force is going to easily burn through a billion euro's.

Leonidas BL

I dont see why we'd need an AWAC's if we had a ground based radar network.

sparky42

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Well you are talking about a country that is spending over a billion on a hospital that was supposed to cost 250mil :pac:

Cute, in reality that was a bull**** lowball that was never close to the truth, but enough for the contractor to get it. Given the site and the changes post sign off along with some of the "interesting" fit out costs being added it's pretty much where it should be

Heraldoffreeent

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Well you are talking about a country that is spending over a billion on a hospital that was supposed to cost 250mil :pac:

2.4 Bils latest extimate

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/national-childrens-hospital-hse-dublin-21352979

Lorddrakul

thomil wrote: »

Sorry to say that but you’re all over the place with your statement. I went through the numbers a little while ago, 16 fighters is the minimum to ensure a QRA capability, BASIC CAP capability to cover high profile events, and to ensure that enough flying and training takes place for the crews to keep their edge:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106558884

This squadron of 16 jets does not include the conversion trainers necessary to get trainee pilots up to speed with a fast jets, such as a Gripen or an F-16. The PC-9M Ireland currently has are nowhere near as fast or as complex as you would need to give new pilots a taste of what they can expect when flying a modern fighter. And remember, they not only need to fly it, but also to manage the sensors, weapons systems and so on, so you’ll need a number of double seater conversion trainers as well.

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that Ireland’s already anaemic maritime patrol capability should be further diminished by converting one into an Airborne Early Warning aircraft? Maritime patrol and AEW are completely distinct and separate roles, the surface search radar on a MPA will be effectively useless against airborne targets.

Well, we don't really need to maintain a training capability locally, when there are operators elsewhere of the leading candidates that could train up and maintain the skills of the fighter jocks necessary to levels necessary.

Secondly, we don't have CAP for high profile events currently, why would we need one in future? The Bears are unlikely to be targetting the President on O'Connell Street as he surveys the Paddys Day Parade.

The whole point of this would be to provide a local capability to deter incursion, not to to provide general CAP.

I was not suggesting repurposing the maritime patrol capability, I was suggesting an AWACs adjunct when ordering the CASA replacements.

Focusing purely on the goal of having a reasonably quick reaction capability to intercept within our airspace to deter, in conjunction with our European neighbours' capability, I don't see that we need to be entirely self sufficient, when costly elements could easily be outsourced.

Larbre34

I think its important to refer back again to a real life situation.

In 2004 the Czech Republic signed a ten year deal with Sweden to lease 14 Gripens and receive training and support, at a cost at date of US$ 1billion. 12 of those airframes are single seat C variant, 2 are twin seat Ds for training etc.

That deal was renewed in 2014 with an additional 100 million dollars or so for technology upgrades and weapons enhancements. The Czech Govt intends to keep them in service until at least 2027.

Interestingly, the Czechs are reported to keep relatively few pilots on dedicated service with the Gripens and rotate their general pilot cadre to be trained on multiple types.

A big difference of course with Czechia is that it exists in the middle of a NATO defence grid, so Ireland would have to spend from scratch on radar and communications, but why shouldn't an arrangement like that be ideal for us? 100 to 200 million per year all up, would be a very manageable commitment for a very good standard service.

The initial launch training can be carried out by the Swedish (we already train Air Corps officers in Australia) and for the numbers we're talking about a couple of twin-seaters would more than cover the ongoing training requirements without the need for a big trainer jet fleet. The PC-9s are more than adequate for basic airmanship and advanced systems familiarisation for Cadets to get them to that point.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

I think its important to refer back again to a real life situation.

In 2004 the Czech Republic signed a ten year deal with Sweden to lease 14 Gripens and receive training and support, at a cost at date of US$ 1billion. 12 of those airframes are single seat C variant, 2 are twin seat Ds for training etc.

That deal was renewed in 2014 with an additional 100 million dollars or so for technology upgrades and weapons enhancements. The Czech Govt intends to keep them in service until at least 2027.

Interestingly, the Czechs are reported to keep relatively few pilots on dedicated service with the Gripens and rotate their general pilot cadre to be trained on multiple types.

A big difference of course with Czechia is that it exists in the middle of a NATO defence grid, so Ireland would have to spend from scratch on radar and communications, but why shouldn't an arrangement like that be ideal for us? 100 to 200 million per year all up, would be a very manageable commitment for a very good standard service.

The initial launch training can be carried out by the Swedish (we already train Air Corps officers in Australia) and for the numbers we're talking about a couple of twin-seaters would more than cover the ongoing training requirements without the need for a big trainer jet fleet. The PC-9s are more than adequate for basic airmanship and advanced systems familiarisation for Cadets to get them to that point.

The giant difference of course is that the Czech's replaced Pact aircraft with the Gripens, they already had the underlying structure as you mentioned (not just radar/comms but massive upgrades in Baldonnel (or moving elsewhere and upgrading there) and the increase in AC personnel that supporting such a squadron would need, figure at least half again the establishment).


As to training, so far the couple to Oz and the couple to the US are so far one offs, there isn't a set policy to do so, but yes using some other nation to do the training would be needed.


So I figure even if we got the same lease deal as the Czech's you are still taking about upfront costs that they never had to pay.

roadmaster

Is there such a thing anymore as a straight fighter/interceptor in the modern world or are all jets multirole?

ohnonotgmail

roadmaster wrote: »

Is there such a thing anymore as a straight fighter/interceptor in the modern world or are all jets multirole?

air superiority fighter and interceptor are two very different roles. nobody makes interceptor only aircraft anymore.

roadmaster

i know the gripen gets mentioned a lot for us, but we don't need an aircraft that can drop bombs as well so it maybe a bit over kill. we just need a long range fast aircraft that can fire air to air missiles if needed and not an aircraft along the lines of an F22. Does such a bog standard one dimensional aircraft exist?

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

i know the gripen gets mentioned a lot for us, but we don't need an aircraft that can drop bombs as well so it maybe a bit over kill. we just need a long range fast aircraft that can fire air to air missiles if needed and not an aircraft along the lines of an F22. Does such a bog standard one dimensional aircraft exist?

Nope, nobody in the West builds such one trick aircraft anymore. Even the "Light fighters" like the ROK F/A 50 is multi role.

donvito99

Again, if interception in Irish sovereign airspace is all we are after, do we need a one trick pony jet? Why not radar + SAMs?

Heraldoffreeent

donvito99 wrote: »

Again, if interception in Irish sovereign airspace is all we are after, do we need a one trick pony jet? Why not radar + SAMs?

You think we should just shoot down those pesky Russians?

Shoot down that Airliner which doesn't respond to ATC?

banie01

donvito99 wrote: »

Again, if interception in Irish sovereign airspace is all we are after, do we need a one trick pony jet? Why not radar + SAMs?

Because a vitally important part of air defence is actually threat identification, prioritisation and appropriate response.

A SAM is the epitome of a one trick pony.
A SAM cannot fly out and identify an aircraft with an inactive transponder.
A SAM cannot loiter, cannot escort and cannot visually communicate with an aircraft with a damaged Comms system.

A SAM is best though of as an area denial weapon.
The size of the area it denies is directly related to 3 things.
The effectiveness of the Radar.
The RCI of any intruding aircraft which directly affects detection range.
The willingness of any intruding aircraft to fire an anti-radiation missile, knock out the antenna and effectively blind all area defence.

Take a look at what is involved with creating an effective and robust SAM based air defence.
Huge cost and multiple reduncies need to be built into a system to ensure effective operations.

An example would be the Iraqi system pre '91, it's the ultimate one trick pony with none of the response flexibility of an armed aircraft.

donvito99

This situation is ludicrous in the first instance, and even more insane in the Irish context.

banie01 wrote: »

Because a vitally important part of air defence is actually threat identification, prioritisation and appropriate response.

A SAM is the epitome of a one trick pony.

Ireland has no need for an air defence. What is the threat? How does a jet mitigate the threat?

A ground based radar/SAM system would actually be a useful thing to develop in that a secondary, portable & lighter system could protect peacekeepers e.g. the French deployed Mistral in Lebanon. A jet is never going to be deployed by Ireland in a similar capacity. A SAM system does not rob the Air Corps of pilots and technicians that will always be in short supply. The Army (bloated in proportion to the other branches given that we are an islan) have owned air defence in the past and could take up this discipline again.

A SAM cannot fly out and identify an aircraft with an inactive transponder.

Neither can a jet without direction by a radar. Why do you need to spend €1bn to identify an aircraft?

A SAM cannot loiter, cannot escort and cannot visually communicate with an aircraft with a damaged Comms system.

If the aircraft is in range, a SAM can 'loiter' indefinitely whilst an aircraft's range is severely limited.

A SAM is best though of as an area denial weapon.

The size of the area it denies is directly related to 3 things.
The effectiveness of the Radar.
The RCI of any intruding aircraft which directly affects detection range.
The willingness of any intruding aircraft to fire an anti-radiation missile, knock out the antenna and effectively blind all area defence.

Take a look at what is involved with creating an effective and robust SAM based air defence.
Huge cost and multiple reduncies need to be built into a system to ensure effective operations.

We are (ludicrously) talking about airspace which Ireland is entitled to shoot aircraft down in, which is 12/24nm off the coast. This air space is further narrowed by the fact that the 'targets' that you might be required to protect are few in number.

An example would be the Iraqi system pre '91, it's the ultimate one trick pony with none of the response flexibility of an armed aircraft.

The same system that shot down dozens of coalition aircraft?

donvito99

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Shoot down that Airliner which doesn't respond to ATC?

No. There are already aircraft which routinely do not respond to ATC, will we start shooting them down after spending €1bn on jets?

banie01

donvito99 wrote: »

This situation is ludicrous in the first instance, and even more insane in the Irish context.



Ireland has no need for an air defence. What is the threat? How does a jet mitigate the threat?

A ground based radar/SAM system would actually be a useful thing to develop in that a secondary, portable & lighter system could protect peacekeepers e.g. the French deployed Mistral in Lebanon. A jet is never going to be deployed by Ireland in a similar capacity. A SAM system does not rob the Air Corps of pilots and technicians that will always be in short supply. The Army (bloated in proportion to the other branches given that we are an islan) have owned air defence in the past and could take up this discipline again.



Neither can a jet without direction by a radar. Why do you need to spend €1bn to identify an aircraft?



If the aircraft is in range, a SAM can 'loiter' indefinitely whilst an aircraft's range is severely limited.



We are (ludicrously) talking about airspace which Ireland is entitled to shoot aircraft down in, which is 12/24nm off the coast. This air space is further narrowed by the fact that the 'targets' that you might be required to protect are few in number.



The same system that shot down dozens of coalition aircraft?

Regarding Mistral, it's capabilities are similar to our current RBS-70 and Giraffe radar.

Purely point defence.

The Iraqi system that as you say shot down dozens of coalition aircraft, illustrates the point that you seem to be deliberately missing.

How much did that system cost?
How well did it distinguish between civilian aircraft with transponder issues and attacking aircraft?
What assistance capabilities to respond to a visual Comms only environment did it possess?

How much do you think a radar and ancillary missile batteries would cost?
And in terms of actual Air Policing?
What would a SAM battery achieve in a manner better than manned aircraft or even an appropriately instrumented and armed drone such such as the proposed Taranis system?

Much like Dundan Sandys in the 50's you are attributing a degree of capability to a SAM system that does not exist.

Area denial is what SAMs do, and even at that often quite poorly.
Air policing is the capability that is mooted as a requirement.

What SAM system offers that?

Heraldoffreeent

donvito99 wrote: »

No. There are already aircraft which routinely do not respond to ATC, will we start shooting them down after spending €1bn on jets?

No, A jet can shadow these with its own AIS on, flagging the passage of it self and the Aircraft being shadowed while they are transiting transatlantic air corridors, thereby alerting east/west bound commercial Aircraft.

In addition, a jet can fly close by a non-responsive aircraft to ascertain the possible reasons for the lack of response.

This is called Air policing, Your SAM battery can only provide Air defence, and, as has been pointed out to you above, is only really point defence.

These concepts, and the difference between them, seem hard for you to grasp?

donvito99

banie01 wrote: »

Regarding Mistral, it's capabilities are similar to our current RBS-70 and Giraffe radar.

Purely point defence.

The Iraqi system that as you say shot down dozens of coalition aircraft, illustrates the point that you seem to be deliberately missing.

How much did that system cost?
How well did it distinguish between civilian aircraft with transponder issues and attacking aircraft?
What assistance capabilities to respond to a visual Comms only environment did it possess?

How much do you think a radar and ancillary missile batteries would cost?
And in terms of actual Air Policing?
What would a SAM battery achieve in a manner better than manned aircraft or even an appropriately instrumented and armed drone such such as the proposed Taranis system?

Much like Dundan Sandys in the 50's you are attributing a degree of capability to a SAM system that does not exist.

Area denial is what SAMs do, and even at that often quite poorly.
Air policing is the capability that is mooted as a requirement.

What SAM system offers that?

And this is what I fundamentally disagree with. 'Air policing' and QRA is a means of testing and preparing the RAF and others to go to war, it is not a requirement for us in peacetime. Even in a hot war scenario which Ireland would not be a party to, I'd love to understand what threat is posed to us from the air.

We do not need fighter jets to help commercial aircraft with radio issues and we don't need Gripens to do PHOTOEXs with Bears running up their flight hours.

banie01

donvito99 wrote: »

And this is what I fundamentally disagree with. 'Air policing' and QRA is a means of testing and preparing the RAF and others to go to war, it is not a requirement for us in peacetime. Even in a hot war scenario which Ireland would not be a party to, I'd love to understand what threat is posed to us from the air.

You're disagreeing with the requirement, fair enough.
I'd disagree strongly with you, and from the rumblings emanating from the Don and the Dept Defence, so do they.

You are proposing a SAM capability, what SAM offers even a basic air policing capability at all?
We are far more likely given out position on the Atlantic air corridors to encounter Civilian aircraft entering our ATC zones with equipment failure, than we are regular Bear intercepts.

A SAM system will allow us to shoot down those pesky airliners, what benefit does it offer in actually reaching out to investigate and make visual contact?
What benefit in actually gaining situational awareness does it offer?

A SAM system offers a primary radar and the operator the option to shoot or not shoot at an unidentified radar return.

It's a kill system, not a let's fly out and assess the threat system.

donvito99

banie01 wrote: »

We are far more likely given out position on the Atlantic air corridors to encounter Civilian aircraft entering our ATC zones with equipment failure, than we are regular Bear intercepts.

A SAM system will allow us to shoot down those pesky airliners, what benefit does it offer in actually reaching out to investigate and make visual contact?
What benefit in actually gaining situational awareness does it offer?

What does scrambling a jet to fly alongside a non-responsive aircraft serve? We are almost 100 years at the centre of transatlantic aircraft traffic, has there been a single occassion where this would have been a useful asset?

A SAM system offers a primary radar and the operator the option to shoot or not shoot at an unidentified radar return.

It's a kill system, not a let's fly out and assess the threat system.

The Defence Forces have as their primary mission the Defence of the State. 'Air policing' as has been described so far (i.e. helping confused aircraft) does not warrant their resources, in my view.

If we were not neutral, in NATO and frequently contributing to their activities, then acquiring jets would make slightly more sense as their primary mission would be attack, and when they are not doing that they could be doing QRA to keep that attack capability in shape.

The fact is there is no obvious or likely threat warranting fast jets.

And the proof is in the pudding - there is no longer such thing as an "interceptor" as a result of the world having moved on from the threat of hundreds of Soviet bombers coming over Norway.

This is a nonsense footnote thrown into a program for government by someone responding to a political rather than defence need, in my view.

banie01

donvito99 wrote: »

What does scrambling a jet to fly alongside a non-responsive aircraft serve? We are almost 100 years at the centre of transatlantic aircraft traffic, has there been a single occassion where this would have been a useful asset?

As recently as last December the RAF had a scramble for a UK-Med Passenger flight.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-50622110

There are fairly regular intercepts for transponder issues across Europe.
Are we to continue leaving any response we may require for similar situations to the goodwill of the RAF?

And again, given your penchant for SAM's despite their being at odds with the requirement outlined by the defence forces.
What SAM system offers any standoff capability to assess and even if needed assist an aircraft in trouble?

donvito99

banie01 wrote: »

As recently as last December the RAF had a scramble for a UK-Med Passenger flight.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-50622110

There are fairly regular intercepts for transponder issues across Europe.
Are we to continue leaving any response we may require for similar situations to the goodwill of the RAF?

I'm not sure what the problem is? If we have a primary radar, we can see them? Are you planning on shooting them down or something?

And again, given your penchant for SAM's despite their being at odds with the requirement outlined by the defence forces.
What SAM system offers any standoff capability to assess and even if needed assist an aircraft in trouble?

Are you sure it is coming from the Defence Forces?

Why do we need to assess aircraft, what is the threat?

Point defence would seem to be the only type of air defence that would be of use to us considering the likely threats e.g. identifying and disabling drones.

tjhook

I can see 3 approaches we can choose from:

- We do what it takes so we can control our own airspace.

- Let somebody else (the RAF) do it for us. And at the same time probably complain about "the Brits" and their military.

- Do nothing. So what if Russia sends bombers into airspace we control, through civilian aviation paths.


I see it as a responsibility of a neutral (nonaligned) country to have control of its land, seas and air. We're not part of an alliance (e.g. NATO) that can provide such a defense for us. But I suppose so long as there's a public sector union with its hand out, or the black hole that is the Irish health system, any spending on defending our sovereignty will be seen as money better spent elsewhere.

Perhaps at some point the EU will recognise the weak link that Ireland is, and the unwillingness of the country to control its geographic area from probing aggressors. So maybe they'll contribute to the cost. It would probably be in their interest.

banie01

donvito99 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the problem is? If we have a primary radar, we can see them? Are you planning on shooting them down or something?

A primary radar will tell you range, height and bearing.
Even if we go all out and buy an AEGIS type system that offers synthetic aperture capabilities, it will still not identify, not assess and not offer a visual Comms option with an aircraft that has a damaged/broken Comms system.
The only option available in this scenario, is shoot/don't shoot.

Hardly a helpful option is it?

Especially given if we follow your proposed path, it's a SAM or nowt.

donvito99 wrote: »

Are you sure it is coming from the Defence Forces?

Why do we need to assess aircraft, what is the threat?

Point defence would seem to be the only type of air defence that would be of use to us considering the likely threats e.g. identifying as disabling drones.

The threat could be anything across a huge range, the one thing the threats share is that a radar can only tell us where it is and a SAM can only potentially destroy it.
There is no flexibility or escalation path available other than shoot/don't shoot.
Let's ignore terrorism or Military treats.

Take an aircraft with a disabled flight deck after a bird strike (You would be surprised how high a goose can get) bird strike has occurred at 37000ft.
Now imagine that bird impacting directly on the cockpit area of a 767 or similar at 800kph?

Very likely at best to depressurise and disable the crew.
Plane is now uncontrolled, and approaching Irish airspace. What are the options?
Or the same situation but the strike disables comms/nav and transponder? What are the options?

Can a SAM waggle it's wings, establish visual Comms and lead the aircraft to a landing point?

Plenty of similar scenarios are all possible, determine the actual situation and offer assistance.
Not see a blip and shoot.

Blazer

banie01 wrote: »

Now imagine that bird impacting directly on the cockpit area of a 767 or similar at 800kph?

Very likely at best to depressurise and disable the crew.
Plane is now uncontrolled, and approaching Irish airspace. What are the options?
Or the same situation but the strike disables comms/nav and transponder? What are the options?

Can a SAM waggle it's wings, establish visual Comms and lead the aircraft to a landing point?

Plenty of similar scenarios are all possible, determine the actual situation and offer assistance.
Not see a blip and shoot.

If the crew is disabled won't nobody be able to get inside the cockpit?
So nobody can control it passenger /stewards wise?

Just curious as I thought all pilot cabins were now locked from inside?

roadmaster

Russian Bears or Brexit boris trying to re claim the British empire are no threat to us. The main threat is something like the link below. That is why we need intercept capability

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

TheW1zard

roadmaster wrote: »

Russian Bears or Brexit boris trying to re claim the British empire are no threat to us. The main threat is something like the link below. That is why we need intercept capability

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

A few SAM sites would sort that out

donvito99

banie01 wrote: »

A primary radar will tell you range, height and bearing.
Even if we go all out and buy an AEGIS type system that offers synthetic aperture capabilities, it will still not identify, not assess and not offer a visual Comms option with an aircraft that has a damaged/broken Comms system.
The only option available in this scenario, is shoot/don't shoot.

Hardly a helpful option is it?

Especially given if we follow your proposed path, it's a SAM or nowt.

Exactly. Let's just play along for a minute, if a Russian Bomber is being followed by the RAF or the French, and enters our airspace as verified by a primary radar, you could deploy a ground based system and shoot it down. No jet required. But we are never going to shoot down an aircraft so its all moot.

Let's ignore terrorism or Military treats.

Good, because the first scenario is only slightly less absurd than the second.

Take an aircraft with a disabled flight deck after a bird strike (You would be surprised how high a goose can get) bird strike has occurred at 37000ft.
Now imagine that bird impacting directly on the cockpit area of a 767 or similar at 800kph?

Very likely at best to depressurise and disable the crew.
Plane is now uncontrolled, and approaching Irish airspace. What are the options?
Or the same situation but the strike disables comms/nav and transponder? What are the options?

Can a SAM waggle it's wings, establish visual Comms and lead the aircraft to a landing point?

So +€1bn because geese?

The jet goes up, waves at some meek looking pilots, it waggles its wings and.... what exactly?

There are procedures for radio failure. It does not justify a 'QRA' or whatever.

Plenty of similar scenarios are all possible, determine the actual situation and offer assistance.
Not see a blip and shoot.

All that has been volunteered so far is:

1. Geese
2. The Helios flight that was crashing anyway.

This is all just absurd.

roadmaster

donvito99 wrote: »

Exactly. Let's just play along for a minute, if a Russian Bomber is being followed by the RAF or the French, and enters our airspace as verified by a primary radar, you could deploy a ground based system and shoot it down. No jet required. But we are never going to shoot down an aircraft so its all moot.




Good, because the first scenario is only slightly less absurd than the second.



So +€1bn because geese?

The jet goes up, waves at some meek looking pilots, it waggles its wings and.... what exactly?

There are procedures for radio failure. It does not justify a 'QRA' or whatever.



All that has been volunteered so far is:

1. Geese
2. The Helios flight that was crashing anyway.

This is all just absurd.

What if the helios flight had ran out of fuel over a populated area?

donvito99

roadmaster wrote: »

What if the helios flight had ran out of fuel over a populated area?

It is possible then everyone on board, as well as people on the ground, would have been killed.

Next question.

roadmaster

donvito99 wrote: »

It is possible then everyone on board, as well as people on the ground, would have been killed.

Next question.

If you have a way of taking the passenger jet down before its over a populated area you can at least save the people on the ground from dying needlessly

tjhook

donvito99 wrote: »

All that has been volunteered so far is:

1. Geese
2. The Helios flight that was crashing anyway.

This is all just absurd.

Most likely a country in a military alliance will have a modern air defense capability. What about neutral countries? Look at the other neutral countries in Europe. Here are the ones I can think of:

- Austria
- Finland
- Switzerland
- Liechtenstein
- Sweden


All except Liechtenstein* have modern jets to control their airspace. And most of those don't border as much non-European airspace as Ireland does. Yet we have no capable air defense. Do we think we know better than everybody else? It wouldn't be the first time...

(*Liechtenstein is a tiny country with a population the size of Dundalk - understandable that they don't have much in the way of defense)

Larbre34

donvito99 wrote: »

Exactly. Let's just play along for a minute, if a Russian Bomber is being followed by the RAF or the French, and enters our airspace as verified by a primary radar, you could deploy a ground based system and shoot it down. No jet required. But we are never going to shoot down an aircraft so its all moot.

Good, because the first scenario is only slightly less absurd than the second.

So +€1bn because geese?

The jet goes up, waves at some meek looking pilots, it waggles its wings and.... what exactly?

There are procedures for radio failure. It does not justify a 'QRA' or whatever.

All that has been volunteered so far is:

1. Geese
2. The Helios flight that was crashing anyway.

This is all just absurd.

None of it is absurd at all.

If it is absurd, as you claim, then explain why so many other nations, including neutral and non-aligned European states with a similar profile to Ireland, have invested at least to some degree in jet fighter capability?

Are their motivations absurd?

Dyr

Would we not be better off buying drones at this stage? More cost effective anyway.

ohnonotgmail

Bambi wrote: »

Would we not be better off buying drones at this stage? More cost effective anyway.

are there many mach capable drones capable of reaching 45000 feet?

Dyr

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are there many mach capable drones capable of reaching 45000 feet?

I dont know, but I have a feeling drones would be more bang for the buck when it came to patrolling our territory and supporting the gardai/armed forces

Not sure we're going to get much value from sending the Air Corps up to chase after Tupelovs

California Dreamer

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ireland-considering-purchase-of-jet-fighters/

Larbre34

Drones are of no value for what we need.

They are suitable for loitering to carry out reconnaissance and stand-off attack but at a max speed of 450 km/h, or 60% of typical airliner speed, they cannot intercept or perform QRA. You need pilots too to make a decision in an evolving close-quarters scenario.

TheW1zard

Dont the air corps have rockets on their planes? If they needed to shoot down a rogue easyjet they could

These would be 'donated' to the state and flown by RAF or USAF pilots.
Getting their foot inside the door in my opinion!

Dyr

Larbre34 wrote: »

Drones are of no value for what we need.

They are suitable for loitering to carry out reconnaissance and stand-off attack but at a max speed of 450 km/h, or 60% of typical airliner speed, they cannot intercept or perform QRA. You need pilots too to make a decision in an evolving close-quarters scenario.

Sounds like just what the Gardai need for certain areas, without the attack capability obviously.

sparky42

TheW1zard wrote: »

Dont the air corps have rockets on their planes? If they needed to shoot down a rogue easyjet they could

Just No.