Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

roadmaster

For a point defense system sometimes the Pc9’s are used I believe , would it be a big job for them to carry air to air missiles , how much training and expense would be involved?

ohnonotgmail

roadmaster wrote: »

For a point defense system sometimes the Pc9’s are used I believe , would it be a big job for them to carry air to air missiles , how much training and expense would be involved?

how could a PC9 ever get close enough to fire a missile at a TU-95? how can it catch up with a plane that can go nearly 200MPH faster than it?

banie01

I'm all for buying/leasing a squadron of jets. Our position relative to Europe, The US and the main transatlantic shipping lanes really should dictate that we can field at the very least an interception capable aircraft.
Multirole would be nice but adds expense.

Gripen would fit our needs but whilst many will go worry about the expense of running fast jets and the associated infrastructure costs, I have yet to see anyone factor the costs of improving or in reality actually implementing a ground based air defense system to complement the hoped for jets.

Whilst we would hope never to be the target of aggression, our need for interceptors is based on the "what if?"
If we can logically argue a need for at least an interception capability, surely we can also extend that to ensuring that at least a credible ground based air defense system is acquired to ensure that at the very least the fields used for our basing needs are adequately covered?

By adequate I don't mean RBS-70 and Bofors!
Maybe netting civilian ATC radars with newly acquired Military radar along with something along the lines of NASAMS for something better than immediate point defence.

Psychlops

roadmaster wrote: »

For a point defense system sometimes the Pc9’s are used I believe , would it be a big job for them to carry air to air missiles , how much training and expense would be involved?

That would be interesting to find out, they have been used to deny airspace to civvy aircraft when VIP's are in the Country alright.

I doubt it would take much to wire them for missiles? The Tucano can be armed with missiles so why not the PC9?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9I4R_Wp9lLM/UGtsZD4pR_I/AAAAAAAATs4/HekueluHxEQ/s1600/a29_super_tucano.jpg

thomil

roadmaster wrote: »

So when we get these nice fighter jets and we intercept a bear and say a hello what then? Id say we would head home for the evening and that would be that its not like we are going to shoot it down.

There's actually internationally agreed interception procedures, all depending on the situation. If a bomber, or any unknown and unidentified aircraft is merely passing through Ireland's Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ), the intercepting fighters would simply escort the intruder through that zone, thereby giving air traffic control a direct indication where any intruder is, and what he is doing.

Should the intruder be making a beeline straight into Irish airspace, meaning the airspace above the Republic, the intercept would be a bit more "aggressive" with the pilot of one of the two aircraft handling the intercept attempting to communicate with the intruder, something that may include warning shots, while the second interceptor keeps a nice distance, ready to lock onto the intruder with its radar, should it become necessary. Military aircrew tend to take notice when they find their aircraft being "painted" by a radar in fire control mode at point blank range.

I'm all for buying/leasing a squadron of jets. Our position relative to Europe, The US and the main transatlantic shipping lanes really should dictate that we can field at the very least an interception capable aircraft.
Multirole would be nice but adds expense.

Gripen would fit our needs but whilst many will go worry about the expense of running fast jets and the associated infrastructure costs, I have yet to see anyone factor the costs of improving or in reality actually implementing a ground based air defense system to complement the hoped for jets.

Whilst we would hope never to be the target of aggression, our need for interceptors is based on the "what if?"
If we can logically argue a need for at least an interception capability, surely we can also extend that to ensuring that at least a credible ground based air defense system is acquired to ensure that at the very least the fields used for our basing needs are adequately covered?

By adequate I don't mean RBS-70 and Bofors!
Maybe netting civilian ATC radars with newly acquired Military radar along with something along the lines of NASAMS for something better than immediate point defence.

It's not just that. Even if we "outsource" basic flight training to another country, say Sweden, there's still going to be the need for a unit here in Ireland that transitions the pilots who arrive from that training to operational flying in Ireland before sending them on to a front line unit, which would require another, smaller squadron in my eyes, set up of double seater fighters and a few "lighter" jets like the Hawk in my eyes. Setting up an actual Air Force is actually quite expensive and complex.

tac foley

thomil wrote: »

Setting up an actual Air Force is actually quite VERY expensive and ASTONISHINGLY complex.

FIFY.

tac

roadmaster

I hate to be a kill joy but should be not try and get a 24/7 air corps operational first

tac foley

I have to agree with Roadmaster here. Right now, there is 100% zero infrastructure in place for ANY kind of fast jet air force. No pilots, no maintenance, no supply train - nothing.

You really would be starting from zero and going on up.

Apart from taking YEARS, at least five, to become a viable operationally-ready proposition, a permanent training facility and simulator would have to be installed to manage the continuation training without flying that is a vital part of modern fast jet operations. Then you'd need a whole new set of armourers and technicians for the armaments - guns and missiles - and their storage facilities, too Right now, the Irish Air Corps has neither the trained personnel not the facilities. I spoke about the cost of a simulator for a modern fast jet about four or more years ago, although I also noted that you could share somebody else's, providing, of course, that you also shared the aircraft that was being simulated.

Over the last few years that we've been talking about this, you will notice, I hope, that WE seem to have been the only people actually engaged in a discussion of this nature and subject.

There has been no evidence whatsoever that this problem has occupied the minds of anybody in your government, at any level, and for any time at all.

Does that offer a meaningful answer?

I rather think it does.

tac

roadmaster

Talking about interceptor Aircraft what ever happened to the new long-range primary Radar coveny was going to buy a few years ago. Has that quietly being forgotten about?

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

Talking about interceptor Aircraft what ever happened to the new long-range primary Radar coveny was going to buy a few years ago. Has that quietly being forgotten about?

That was stated as part of the 10 year WP, so it's still on the "list" but something that's down the list.

jonnybigwallet

Looks like things are getting very dangerous for our guys out in the Golan Heights. All the more reason to be able to call in an air strike if need arises.

Markcheese

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Looks like things are getting very dangerous for our guys out in the Golan Heights. All the more reason to be able to call in an air strike if need arises.

From where exactly?
Are you suggesting that as well as a whole new airforce that Ireland should have ( and protect) a whole airbase... In the golan..... In Syria??

ohnonotgmail

Markcheese wrote: »

From where exactly?
Are you suggesting that as well as a whole new airforce that Ireland should have ( and protect) a whole airbase... In the golan..... In Syria??

sure why not buy an aircraft carrier as well and stick it in the eastern med?

jonnybigwallet

And of course...a carrier strike force to accompany and protect it. 4 destroyers and a couple of submarines should do the job.

ohnonotgmail

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

And of course...a carrier strike force to accompany and protect it. 4 destroyers and a couple of submarines should do the job.

and a guided missile cruiser for air defence.

jonnybigwallet

Would one be enough do you think? Or should we order a couple just to be on the safe side?

ohnonotgmail

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Would one be enough do you think? Or should we order a couple just to be on the safe side?

The USN only include 1 in a carrier strike group so i think we should be ok.

Markcheese

Ah no, we'd need the 2 carrier groups, shure 1mightnt be available...

sparky42

In the meantime in reality the RFP for the CASA replacements has gone out.

jonnybigwallet

That's a very interesting development. Any idea which aircraft manufacturers are on the bidders list?

sparky42

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

That's a very interesting development. Any idea which aircraft manufacturers are on the bidders list?

Looking at the requirements (has to be in production currently or the last 3 years, no "in development planes") I'd say it's tailored for the CASA 295. The KC 390 is still in development (and they just wrote one of the two test aircraft off) and the C 27 is out of production currently.

roadmaster

sparky42 wrote: »

Looking at the requirements (has to be in production currently or the last 3 years, no "in development planes") I'd say it's tailored for the CASA 295. The KC 390 is still in development (and they just wrote one of the two test aircraft off) and the C 27 is out of production currently.

Do they have to be spanking new just off the forecourt or could second hand air frames with low hours be considered?

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

Do they have to be spanking new just off the forecourt or could second hand air frames with low hours be considered?

It's still just the RFP at the moment, so I guess we won't know until we get to the Tender stage, suppose it will come down to price and timing.

jonnybigwallet

Hope they buy some bang spanking new ones

4068ac1elhodqr

You have to commend the Swedes (pop of just 9m, or so) on building their own fast fighter jets, quick assembley furniture and even very decent cars.

But news this week that they've released an updated booklet for war prep after 30yrs, is a bit concerning.
https://www.thelocal.se/20180521/sweden-releases-updated-booklet-of-war-precautions Link to EN PDF file near bottom.

Catchphrases of the booklet 'resistance is required'. And this cheery aul note:
'We will never give up, all information to the effect that resistance is to cease is false'

Cool, probably just a case of over anxiety in a country undergoing some radical transformations,
but if they ever broadcast a signal with short bursts for 1min, that means shovel and start digging a hole.

Well that's Stockholm off the holijay list now, well it kinda was already.

BoJack Horseman

Winter Melodic Beehive wrote: »

You have to commend the Swedes (pop of just 9m, or so) on building their own fast fighter jets, quick assembley furniture and even very decent cars.

But news this week that they've released an updated booklet for war prep after 30yrs, is a bit concerning.
https://www.thelocal.se/20180521/sweden-releases-updated-booklet-of-war-precautions Link to EN PDF file near bottom.

Catchphrases of the booklet 'resistance is required'. And this cheery aul note:
'We will never give up, all information to the effect that resistance is to cease is false'

Cool, probably just a case of over anxiety in a country undergoing some radical transformations,
but if they ever broadcast a signal with short bursts for 1min, that means shovel and start digging a hole.

Well that's Stockholm off the holijay list now, well it kinda was already.

Read the PDF, it mentioned what to do in the event of seeing the climate change and if 'fake news' happens.

Laughable stuff.

sparky42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Read the PDF, it mentioned what to do in the event of seeing the climate change and if 'fake news' happens.

Laughable stuff.

Given how Russia has been using information warfare to press their advantages I won't dismiss the warning of "fake news" from one of it's neighbours. Sweden is certainly realigning back to Cold War practices and it's focused on the hostile threat of Russia.

4068ac1elhodqr

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Read the PDF, it mentioned what to do in the event of seeing the climate change and if 'fake news' happens.

Laughable stuff.

They also mention storing water in jerry cans, not easy to get the whiff of petrol out of those yokes.

Listed items as part of their 'total defence' under foods: i) cheese spread ii) soft cheese and iii) hard cheese. That's fine if you're into post-apocalyptic cheese n' wine dinner parties.

Reflecting their changing society, that have also listed hummus. One strange item is 'blueberry and rosehip soup', la de da.

Anyway expect sales of cheeses to rocket, within the 4.2m households getting the new leaflet in the post shortly.

On the plus side that have nearly a hundred Saab Gripens. Which they're ideally located to have, flying about their 2,000km length of mid-European Scandiland.

tac foley

Winter Melodic Beehive wrote: »

On the plus side that have nearly a hundred Saab Gripens. Which they're ideally located to have, flying about their 2,000km length of mid-European Scandiland.

Sir, you obviously have a different world view than I do, if you think that Sweden is 'mid-European'.

Last time I looked it was the largest country in Scandinavia - the Northernmost part of Europe that extends well into the Arctic Circle.

Middle European is classed as Austria/Switzerland/Luxembourg/Hungary and the two Czechs.

As for what this population of 9 million does to generate sufficient funds to run a pretty substantial air force, army and navy as well as a coastguard, let's not overlook for a minute that they actually BUILD 99% of their military equipment themselves [and sell it to to many other nations] and have a vast industrial infrastructure to back it all up.

Sweden's GDP for 2016 was $511 Billion - is it necessary to say any more?

tac

4068ac1elhodqr

tac foley wrote: »

Sir, you obviously have a different world view than I do, if you think that Sweden is 'mid-European'.

Last time I looked it was the largest country in Scandinavia - the Northernmost part of Europe that extends well into the Arctic Circle.

Middle European is classed as Austria/Switzerland/Luxembourg/Hungary and the two Czechs.

As for what this population of 9 million does to generate sufficient funds to run a pretty substantial air force, army and navy as well as a coastguard, let's not overlook for a minute that they actually BUILD 99% of their military equipment themselves [and sell it to to many other nations] and have a vast industrial infrastructure to back it all up.

Sweden's GDP for 2016 was $511 Billion - is it necessary to say any more?

tac

Sorry, just to clarify, mid-european in the 'longitude' sense. About half-way between Western Europe and the 'cold front' (all be it in the Northern area of the EU).

Whilst they sell some planes, it's often to close neighbours. The French, UK, US and others generally keep their technical know-how to themselves, with a big footprint on the larger export markets.

9m is still considered a 'small' population in world terms, but they sure do well indeed considering that fact.

Ireland with a pop of 4.7m and 5th in the world for GDP-IMF-PPP $79,924 -builds very little in the mechnical industrial or transport sense. Maybe some farm machinery/parts but that's it (Sweden is ranked 17th with $53,077).

Not suggesting the regional technical colleges get to work on flying stealth machine handbooks, but something handy like hyperloop tech or e-bikes/cars which might pay for itself.

Another funny from the Swe booklet is to stock up on 'car radios', all cars have radios already, don't they? Is it implying stocking up on a stack of old AM/FM/Cassette 12v blaupunkts, along with the 3 types of cheese^?