Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

We are being a bit stupid about it. We could go armed jet trainer route to tip the toe in the water. Go the hawk route. Get exchange pilots working with similar types in other countries. Have an air defence pact with the RAF. Put in some radar and some quick response facilities for RAF fighters in the West.

But there is zero funding for any of it. No appetite either.

People here are obsessed with the top end fighters. Almost no focus on the infrastructure or skillsets you'd have to build up over time to operate such types. Or build to to those type of engagements in all weathers day or night.

You'd have to have an end goal and work backwards to build the infrastructure and training required to support that.

If you don't want to work with the UK who are the most logical choice. Why not France. Massively capable and experienced. PC21 might be common type there.

Actually if you bothered to look the issue of all the ancillary issues of supporting and using any type of Fighters has been brought up repeatedly in this thread by posters.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why oh why oh why do people keep bringing up jet trainers?

We have trainers. Jet trainers are no more useful and twice as expensive to operate. They aren't interceptors!!

Because it meets the major criteria of Irish defence procurement, not what we need but sure it looks like we’ve done something so everyone can stop talking about it.

banie01

Dohvolle wrote: »

They have Aussie F18s and F35s to look after any Chinese equivalent heading too far into the southern ocean. That said, it is generally considered that getting rid of the Skyhawks they had was a bad move. Indeed most of the defence decisions made by that particular Helen Clark government were bad moves, and 2 decades on the NZDF is only just getting back the capability it lost.
Once the fast jets went, so did the pilots, who all moved to Australia. Only recently, as NZ has started to expand and modernise it's military has it's recruiting problems eased. Unlike here, there is no political baggage associated with a young Kiwi deciding to head to Oz to join a proper warfighting military air arm.
However, if we continue with the Retired Generals comparisons, the RNZAF has a nice mix of Troop carrying helicopters, Military transport aircraft, and long range ARMED maritime patrol aircraft.

Let's be honest here given that NZ lies 4500km from Australia, they might share a defence policy but there will be no Aussie fast jet reaching NZ without at least 2 air to air refuels and then it won't be a fast response.

The NZ defence posture is recovering well from the Clarke government and in particular with regards to Maritime patrol and support of their Island neighbours.

If memory serves the NZ Skyhawks had significant upgrades including an-apg65 radar.
Highly capable airframes but limited in speed and size to perhaps something similar to the enhanced radar equipped Bae Hawk 200?

NZ went with upgrades at the time as they had a cadre of experienced Skyhawk pilots and it offered a degree of perceived savings on ground crew and pilot training and facilities.
Their loss of fast jet capability is tbh far more sensible than ours never implementing one.
They have no immediate interlopers, they aren't a gatekeeper to a continent of Allies and they are probably the most isolated developed nation in the world.

Sometimes, distance is a defence and certainly in NZ's case.
They should IMO still consider an air policing capability of course but their need for such is IMO at least far less pressing than Ireland's

Larbre34

sparky42 wrote: »

Because it meets the major criteria of Irish defence procurement, not what we need but sure it looks like we’ve done something so everyone can stop talking about it.

Now you said it.

Fortunately there is a much more educated and critical eye being trained on such things these days. Or at least I hope the Commission can be that prism.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Actually if you bothered to look the issue of all the ancillary issues of supporting and using any type of Fighters has been brought up repeatedly in this thread by posters.

Only superficially. Most are looking at it in terms of hardware and specs. Not maintaining skillsets in very specialised areas. You need a pool of people trained and a system feeding that as people leave and join.

Flinty997

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why oh why oh why do people keep bringing up jet trainers?

We have trainers. Jet trainers are no more useful and twice as expensive to operate. They aren't interceptors!!

I'm curious why you think a light jet is more expensive to operate than 4th generation complex heavy fighter.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why oh why oh why do people keep bringing up jet trainers?

We have trainers. Jet trainers are no more useful and twice as expensive to operate. They aren't interceptors!!

They carry actual weapons and the pc9 will need to be replaced at some stage

They also offer grind support and are superior to what we currently posess. L39NG or the pc9. Which is better?

Dohvolle

Flinty997 wrote: »

Only superficially. Most are looking at it in terms of hardware and specs. Not maintaining skillsets in very specialised areas. You need a pool of people trained and a system feeding that as people leave and join.

You what's a great way to recruit people?

Big shiny fighter jets to work on! It's as simple as that.
There's a reason Air Corps recruiting videos don't include footage of the Lear. It's lots of shots of planes with guns & rockets, or green helicopters, and people with guns jumping from them.
For years the RAF used a Gazelle that suffered a heavy landing as a recruiting tool. Stuck it on a flatbed, with a portocabin and canopies to shelter folk from poor weather. Drove it to seaside towns in the summer, the school leavers came running. The smart ones wanted to fly it. The smarter ones wanted to know how it worked and how to fix it.

Dohvolle

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

They carry actual weapons and the pc9 will need to be replaced at some stage

I also carry an actual weapon but I'm not much good at intercepting non compliant aircraft either. Would you replace a PC9 with me?

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

Only superficially. Most are looking at it in terms of hardware and specs. Not maintaining skillsets in very specialised areas. You need a pool of people trained and a system feeding that as people leave and join.

Not at all actually, repeatedly in fact the issues of basing, retention, training, radar, storage, etc have been referenced and discussed.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

I'm curious why you think a light jet is more expensive to operate than 4th generation complex heavy fighter.

He said jet trainers are twice as expensive as the PC9s without bringing anything transformative to the question. That’s totally different to the costs of running 4th gens, though again it’s not just the sticker price of the planes.

Dohvolle

Dohvolle wrote: »

I also carry an actual weapon but I'm not much good at intercepting non compliant aircraft either. Would you replace a PC9 with me?

I would replace you with a dog

Flinty997

Dohvolle wrote: »

You what's a great way to recruit people?

Big shiny fighter jets to work on! It's as simple as that.
There's a reason Air Corps recruiting videos don't include footage of the Lear. It's lots of shots of planes with guns & rockets, or green helicopters, and people with guns jumping from them.
For years the RAF used a Gazelle that suffered a heavy landing as a recruiting tool. Stuck it on a flatbed, with a portocabin and canopies to shelter folk from poor weather. Drove it to seaside towns in the summer, the school leavers came running. The smart ones wanted to fly it. The smarter ones wanted to know how it worked and how to fix it.

Considering people here don't want even trainers good luck selling the idea of a flat bed truck.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

He said jet trainers are twice as expensive as the PC9s without bringing anything transformative to the question. That’s totally different to the costs of running 4th gens, though again it’s not just the sticker price of the planes.

Something like a hawk 208 has radar, missiles and twice the speed of our current aircraft. Yes heavily compromised. But not useless as being claimed.

But people want something to be scrambled to take on a Russian invasion. Or Mach 2 intercepts.

Larbre34

Flinty997 wrote: »

I'm curious why you think a light jet is more expensive to operate than 4th generation complex heavy fighter.

I said its more expensive to operate than a turbo prop trainer.

If you buy a 4th gen fighter, you get a 4th gen fighter and all its capabilities.

A jet powered trainer is just contradiction in terms for a Country like Ireland. Teach a fella to fly in a modern turboprop trainer like the PC9 or PC21 with all the modern IT and avionics, then stick him in the second seat of a jet fighter when the time comes.

A Hawk or a L159 is too slow for interception, to low for CAP, too light for extended range ops and I don't see us looking to destroy any armoured ground formations in the near future.

Dohvolle

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I would replace you with a dog

What kind?

Dohvolle

Flinty997 wrote: »

Something like a hawk 208 has radar, missiles and twice the speed of our current aircraft. Yes heavily compromised. But not useless as being claimed.

But people want something to be scrambled to take on a Russian invasion. Or Mach 2 intercepts.

To intercept a non responsive commercial airliner flying at cruising speed, you need mach 2.
Otherwise its flying blind into traffic.

Dohvolle

Flinty997 wrote: »

Considering people here don't want even trainers good luck selling the idea of a flat bed truck.

Why would I want a flat bed truck?

Flinty997

Maybe we could get some MIG 31 from Russia. Would they be quick enough...

...to catch those Backfires...

Dohvolle

Flinty997 wrote: »

Maybe we could get some MIG 31 from Russia. Would they be quick enough...

...to catch those Backfires...

Now you are being silly.
There is a genuine well defined reason for fighter aircraft. People smarter than you or I have already said so and discussed it in great detail.

Topgear on Dave

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I would replace you with a dog

I guess it could be done :pac:

Flinty997

Dohvolle wrote: »

Now you are being silly.
There is a genuine well defined reason for fighter aircraft. People smarter than you or I have already said so and discussed it in great detail.

Smart is subjective. There's been a lot of unrealistic hysteria positing on this thread. Not to mention selective quoting out of context. Not going to take any of that seriously.

Larbre34

Flinty997 wrote: »

Smart is subjective. There's been a lot of unrealistic hysteria positing on this thread. Not to mention selective quoting out of context. Not going to take any of that seriously.

Who is being hysterical?

Look at the scenarios we face.

Russian recon aircraft, Bear, Blackjack, Backfire. All cruise around 500 kts, the latter two can accelerate to Mach 2~. They come from our north west and South to traverse the west coast, flying irresponsibly with no ATC and with transponders off.

A civilian airliner, again 500 kts. They fly over and around us all day and night, a powerful weapon in the wrong hands.

Nobody is looking to counter an invasion, just to be able to challenge both effectively. What is the intercept requirement for both, from our single air station? A QRA 4th gen fighter / interceptor squadron of 16 planes with a national military radar system is the answer.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

Something like a hawk 208 has radar, missiles and twice the speed of our current aircraft. Yes heavily compromised. But not useless as being claimed.

But people want something to be scrambled to take on a Russian invasion. Or Mach 2 intercepts.

By any chance do you work in the DOD, cause that’s the same attitude that got us OPVs with no sonar capabilities or helicopter support, or helicopters that can’t operate in maritime conditions or even be used in UN deployments.

You are suggesting a token response that costs us more than currently but not actually buying the capabilities to fill the need. At best a light jet gets us a more effective CAP for international events, but still leaving us incapable of handling the other two major issues, unresponsive commercial aircraft entering our airspace, or unresponsive Russians operating in our controlled airspace.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

Smart is subjective. There's been a lot of unrealistic hysteria positing on this thread. Not to mention selective quoting out of context. Not going to take any of that seriously.

What “selective quoting” are you talking about in some 130 pages?

Flinty997

Larbre34 wrote: »

Who is being hysterical?

Look at the scenarios we face.

Russian recon aircraft, Bear, Blackjack, Backfire. All cruise around 500 kts, the latter two can accelerate to Mach 2~.....

So how will you catch an aircraft going Mach2

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

So how will you catch an aircraft going Mach2

You don't need to, if a Russian Aircraft feels the need to accelerate to that speed the only place they are going is home as they are going to burn through their fuel. Going supersonic in a Strategic bomber means burning through fuel at a hell of a rate.


Also seeing reports that one of the Bears designed for communicating with subs is back off the coast, yesterday it was a P8, wonder what they are up to?

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

By any chance do you work in the DOD, cause that’s the same attitude that got us OPVs with no sonar capabilities or helicopter support, or helicopters that can’t operate in maritime conditions or even be used in UN deployments.

Why what did you request a carrier group....

sparky42 wrote: »

You are suggesting a token response that costs us more than currently but not actually buying the capabilities to fill the need. At best a light jet gets us a more effective CAP for international events, but still leaving us incapable of handling the other two major issues, unresponsive commercial aircraft entering our airspace, or unresponsive Russians operating in our controlled airspace.

What sort of "response" do you want?

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/06/01/rmaf-intercepts-16-chinese-air-force-planes-over-malaysia/

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

Why what did you request a carrier group....

What?

What sort of "response" do you want?

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/06/01/rmaf-intercepts-16-chinese-air-force-planes-over-malaysia/

I don't get your point of posting that, other than pointing out that it's a basic job of a state to be able to control their air space.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

What?

I don't get your point of posting that, other than pointing out that it's a basic job of a state to be able to control their air space.

They used hawks to to what is claimed here they can't do.