Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

pidgeoneyes

sparky42 wrote: »

How much cargo lift does it have once it's fitted for MPA? I mean does the Coast Guard actually use them in transport role?

Their C130 is a mix of transport and maritime patrol. I would imagine they prioritise surveillance over lift capability, I don't know. Obviously, you don't want to add so much equipment that it's no longer viable as a transporter.

Psychlops

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Exactly my thinkin Sparky.

What are ya on about you are the person that wants the KC-390, take your head down from the clouds there.

NewSigGuy

sparky42 wrote: »

How much cargo lift does it have once it's fitted for MPA? I mean does the Coast Guard actually use them in transport roles?
....

Way more then a C-295MPA!

Yes the CG use them for transport, it's a huge organization with multiple bases.

Kermit.de.frog

...

punchdrunk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

...

I imagine it’s the four PC-12s and Two C-295s we already know about

jonnybigwallet

Shame. A wee squadron of them Korean fighters would make a smashing addition to capability.

roadmaster

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Shame. A wee squadron of them Korean fighters would make a smashing addition to capability.

North or South?

jonnybigwallet

South.

shaveAbullock

How many do we need and what's the cost, both setup cost and cost per year to operate?

Larbre34

shaveAbullock wrote: »

How many do we need and what's the cost, both setup cost and cost per year to operate?

Major General Ralph James (rtd) , who was previously GOC Air Corps, gave an interview a few years back on the subject.

His estimate to achieve 24/7 comprehensive air defence was: 16 fighter/interceptors, 3 crews each on shift rotation, dozens of engineers / technicians, a few dozen other controllers, trainers, fire crew and various support staff , plus enhanced hangar capacity at Casement and/or other sites AND a primary radar and combat information system covering all of our Airspace and territorial waters.

He ballparked a Billion euro. I'd say he was under shooting it somewhat. Not to mention the associated annual expenditure for maintenance, training, ordnance, facilities and payroll, probably 100 million+

Even if they went with just a dozen airframes for a 24/7 two-ship QRA, it wouldn't be much less.

jonnybigwallet

Surely a third less on investment cost and a further third on opex ?

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Surely a third less on investment cost and a further third on opex ?

Not really given what we'd have to spend.

Larbre34

Quite right. Its not as simple as 2/3 the airframes is 2/3 the price.

Assuming you buy a package from a manufacturer (or supported second hand aircraft) a fair chunk is the tech support, simulators and spares, which will be largely the same for 12 as for 16 units.

The "most economically advantageous' cost would have to be worked out through the tendering process, but we'd probably be just as well buying 16 as 12, in my opinion, maybe including stripped airframes for fire training, technical training etc.

roadmaster

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

South.

To bad I was hoping it was the North we could do a trade spuds for Migs!

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

To bad I was hoping it was the North we could do a trade spuds for Migs!

From the North which Migs do you think we could get...

roadmaster

sparky42 wrote: »

From the North which Migs do you think we could get...

I was joking as fighter jets are never going to happen. Besides its far more important to first off all ensure we have a 24/7 rotatory and fixed wing service available

Leonidas BL

sparky42 wrote: »

From the North which Migs do you think we could get...

Mig 28's :P

Larbre34

Been doing some reading on the Boeing T-7A advanced trainer, jointly developed with Saab and adopted as the fast jet trainer for USAF for the next 30 years.

Very interesting platform, could offer a cost effective solution for the Air Corps, <€30m per unit including ancillaries and tech support. A durable light strike / interceptor with state of the art avionics and combat systems using proven airframe and engine technology. It is a higher performer than the Leonardo M-346 which is the other European offering.

JustAThought

The defence forces - for this neutral country - already has an annual budget of a BILLION euro. This country is officiall bankrupt and has to birrow from Europe to pay its staff and to change the lightbulbs in the street. We already have sock puppet Leo using the government jet for his twitter stagings and flying to meetings and allowing overtrained air corps air hostesses like Jihadji Jane farce around in serving him handmade chocolates. When is enough obscene spending enough. We are bankrupt - we cannot afford it. And our impotent army is not even empowered to sweep the streets of snow without the city council unions giving them their permission. Sure the boyos all want to play with expensive toys but I’d far prefer families of handicapped children get respite care, or disabled children are automatically entitled to a plain wheelchair, or the elderlys gas and LX bill dosn’t have them cowering in fear becuse they cannot afford to heat their houses and 50% of it is tax, or children with cancers parents can be granted money to pay their mortgages while they have to stay at hime and care for them, or any other proper use of more wasted millions or billions that to buy extravagant toys for grown men that we cannot afford and have no practical use for.

sparky42

JustAThought wrote: »

The defence forces - for this neutral country - already has an annual budget of a BILLION euro. This country is officiall bankrupt and has to birrow from Europe to pay its staff and to change the lightbulbs in the street. We already have sock puppet Leo using the government jet for his twitter stagings and flying to meetings and allowing overtrained air corps air hostesses like Jihadji Jane farce around in serving him handmade chocolates. When is enough obscene spending enough. We are bankrupt - we cannot afford it. And our impotent army is not even empowered to sweep the streets of snow without the city council unions giving them their permission. Sure the boyos all want to play with expensive toys but I’d far prefer families of handicapped children get respite care, or disabled children are automatically entitled to a plain wheelchair, or the elderlys gas and LX bill dosn’t have them cowering in fear becuse they cannot afford to heat their houses and 50% of it is tax, or children with cancers parents can be granted money to pay their mortgages while they have to stay at hime and care for them, or any other proper use of more wasted millions or billions that to buy extravagant toys for grown men that we cannot afford and have no practical use for.

That's a nice load of uneducated Bull**** to be honest.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Been doing some reading on the Boeing T-7A advanced trainer, jointly developed with Saab and adopted as the fast jet trainer for USAF for the next 30 years.

Very interesting platform, could offer a cost effective solution for the Air Corps, <€30m per unit including ancillaries and tech support. A durable light strike / interceptor with state of the art avionics and combat systems using proven airframe and engine technology. It is a higher performer than the Leonardo M-346 which is the other European offering.

It's still in development with plenty of "unknowns" and still has issues like "if you hang external fuel tanks and missiles on it, what's it's range and endurance?"

Heraldoffreeent

JustAThought wrote: »

The defence forces - for this neutral country - already has an annual budget of a BILLION euro. This country is officiall bankrupt and has to birrow from Europe to pay its staff and to change the lightbulbs in the street. We already have sock puppet Leo using the government jet for his twitter stagings and flying to meetings and allowing overtrained air corps air hostesses like Jihadji Jane farce around in serving him handmade chocolates. When is enough obscene spending enough. We are bankrupt - we cannot afford it. And our impotent army is not even empowered to sweep the streets of snow without the city council unions giving them their permission. Sure the boyos all want to play with expensive toys but I’d far prefer families of handicapped children get respite care, or disabled children are automatically entitled to a plain wheelchair, or the elderlys gas and LX bill dosn’t have them cowering in fear becuse they cannot afford to heat their houses and 50% of it is tax, or children with cancers parents can be granted money to pay their mortgages while they have to stay at hime and care for them, or any other proper use of more wasted millions or billions that to buy extravagant toys for grown men that we cannot afford and have no practical use for.

Yaw-fkng-n................

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

It's still in development with plenty of "unknowns" and still has issues like "if you hang external fuel tanks and missiles on it, what's it's range and endurance?"

And is anybody looking to put an F version into production? I wonder will the yanks look to use it in a COIN role or any role other than a Lead in jet trainer?

shaveAbullock

What is the actual defence budget? It may be possible to put a small percentage aside for jet fighters.

Larbre34

JustAThought wrote: »

The defence forces - for this neutral country - already has an annual budget of a BILLION euro. Etc...

Yeah. And where else would you employ 10,000 people and operate, maintain and replace sophisticated equipment for a billion euro?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with neutrality. It has nothing to do even with overseas mission capability. All across Europe, neutral states take their territorial integrity and by extension, their sovereignty most seriously and exert that sovereignty by preventing it being abused. It is clear that a hostile Russian state means to probe and exert pressure on weak points in the overall European defence umbrella, of which Ireland is weakness, both to our own disadvantage and that of our EU and PfP partners.

Everyone takes your point about poverty and hardship, but Ireland is far from bankrupt, it better capitalised, has a better performing economy and better credit rating than most of its western counterparts.

Your argument runs out of road though when you're asked where do you draw the line. Do we end public programmes in Arts, Sports, Heritage, Science, National Parks etc until your checklist is eliminated? None of them are absolutely vital to the existence of life, but all are important. So is a proportionate level of national defence.

sparky42

shaveAbullock wrote: »

What is the actual defence budget? It may be possible to put a small percentage aside for jet fighters.

The total defence budget is around €1 Billion, this includes Pay of current members and the Pensions Bill for former members along with everything else, the Capital Budget is about €110 million a year. This is for everything from Base Infrastructure to new equipment. Realistically there's not anything to "put aside" as the Capital Budget isn't even enough to stand still when you consider the long list of base upgrades that are needed, along with the current equipment plan for the next few years 200 million for the 2 CASA 295 MPA's and circa €150 for the Eithne replacement whenever that occurs, then heading into the Peacock replacement and the MOWAG's and that's before anything else...

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yeah. And where else would you employ 10,000 people and operate, maintain and replace sophisticated equipment for a billion euro?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with neutrality. It has nothing to do even with overseas mission capability. All across Europe, neutral states take their territorial integrity and by extension, their sovereignty most seriously and exert that sovereignty by preventing it being abused. It is clear that a hostile Russian state means to probe and exert pressure on weak points in the overall European defence umbrella, of which Ireland is weakness, both to our own disadvantage and that of our EU and PfP partners.

Everyone takes your point about poverty and hardship, but Ireland is far from bankrupt, it better capitalised, has a better performing economy and better credit rating than most of its western counterparts.

Your argument runs out of road though when you're asked where do you draw the line. Do we end public programmes in Arts, Sports, Heritage, Science, National Parks etc until your checklist is eliminated? None of them are absolutely vital to the existence of life, but all are important. So is a proportionate level of national defence.

It also runs out of road when you consider how much of the total budget goes for Pay and Pensions, is he suggesting to cut that to somehow ease hardship?

Larbre34

sparky42 wrote: »

It also runs out of road when you consider how much of the total budget goes for Pay and Pensions, is he suggesting to cut that to somehow ease hardship?

Quite right.

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

And is anybody looking to put an F version into production? I wonder will the yanks look to use it in a COIN role or any role other than a Lead in jet trainer?

I think it might be "designed for" for a light fighter but don't think anyone has any interest right now. Again if ever we were in a position to buy fighters I don't think it should just be "how cheap they are" but how readily and cheaply can they be sustained. I mean we can see from the total price tag of the 295 buy that the support package is just as important.

Larbre34

shaveAbullock wrote: »

What is the actual defence budget? It may be possible to put a small percentage aside for jet fighters.

Sparky is absolutely right. And coming from where we are, with no jet operations infrastructure, it would take somewhere between €600 million and 1.25 billion of up-front investment to get the aircraft, sufficient trained pilots, ground crew and support personnel, hangars, simulators, ordnance, primary radar, crew quarters etc. before you have an operational squadron.

Thats the argument you have to win to provide for 20 years of air defence.