Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Larbre34

Flinty997 wrote: »

So how will you catch an aircraft going Mach2

They can't sustain it. You track them effectively on the ground with military radar and you intercept them within the Irish area of responsibility by vectoring on to them. If they are chased off, then QED, A) you've done your job the Russians, or anyone else, now know there is no impunity to fly in this area without being identified and tracked. This is the entire raison d'etre of a deterrent.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

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

That article makes no mention of whether the Hawks escorted them or just intercepted them and they turned back, big difference in terms of operations. Also did you check the speed? Of course if we can ask those non responsive planes to fly at half their cruising speed using light trainers becomes more reasonable...

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

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.

Same for any fighter thats going to catch them, then escort or shadow them.

Of course is they are going home then you don't need an aircraft to catch them. So they only time you'll need to catch them is if they aren't going full pelt. Which means you only need to be faster than that, or fast enough to position to cut them off. Or just the threat that you can.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

Same for any fighter thats going to catch them, then escort or shadow them.

Of course is they are going home then you don't need an aircraft to catch them. So they only time you'll need to catch them is if they aren't going full pelt. Which means you only need to be faster than that, or fast enough to position to cut them off. Or just the threat that you can.

Which light trainers can’t do...

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

That article makes no mention of whether the Hawks escorted them or just intercepted them and they turned back, big difference in terms of operations. Also did you check the speed? Of course if we can ask those non responsive planes to fly at half their cruising speed using light trainers becomes more reasonable...

You'll have to make up your mind. if the response required is to catch supersonic threats at mach 2... or if they'll be doing a quarter of that speed due to fuel consideration. In which case you don't have to ask them, they'll already be at that speed.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Which light trainers can’t do...

Except they just did in that example.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

Except they just did in that example.

At 290 knots... Commercial airlines don’t fly at that speed, the Russians don’t fly at that speed, so that example is of feck all relevance to the issue at hand. Unless you can find a way to get anyone we might need to intercept to fly at a speed that allows us to intercept then it’s a waste.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

You'll have to make up your mind. if the response required is to catch supersonic threats at mach 2... or if they'll be doing a quarter of that speed due to fuel consideration. In which case you don't have to ask them, they'll already be at that speed.

Are you just trying to troll? The example you gave was flying at slow speed, most likely to test the Malaysians response time. It is not relevant to the cases operating off the West coast as neither commercial airlines or unresponsive Russians operate like that. Those aircraft will be flying at their cruising speed which is half again easily what the Chinese were flying at...

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

At 290 knots... Commercial airlines don’t fly at that speed, the Russians don’t fly at that speed, so that example is of feck all relevance to the issue at hand. Unless you can find a way to get anyone we might need to intercept to fly at a speed that allows us to intercept then it’s a waste.

I guess we are back to everyone flying at top speed. So Mach 2 bombers and a Mig 31 to catch them.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

... flying at slow speed, most likely to test the Malaysians response time. It is not relevant to the cases operating off the West coast as neither commercial airlines or unresponsive Russians operate like that....

So if the Russians are not testing response times, what are the Russians doing and at what speed.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

I guess we are back to everyone flying at top speed. So Mach 2 bombers and a Mig 31 to catch them.

Mach 2 isn’t cruising speed.
And yeah at this point Troll.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Mach 2 isn’t cruising speed.
And yeah at this point Troll.

I wasn't the person who introducing Mach 2 interceptions as a requirement. Or indeed Russian invasion so they are surrounded and fighting two sides at once in an impossible situation they can't resupply.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

..
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?

Dunno but we'd better order current generation sub or two to counter this...

Gary kk

https://youtu.be/3PQloH_cQxQ

320million for 12

sparky42

Gary kk wrote: »

https://youtu.be/3PQloH_cQxQ

320million for 12

Point of fact, the Philippines bought them as a stop gap interim solution, they are currently finalising a buy of Gripens...

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Point of fact, the Philippines bought them as a stop gap interim solution, they are currently finalising a buy of Gripens...

Malaysian Air Force is the same. All aging equipment that needs replacing or upgrading. Same worldwide tbh the difference in cost between upgrading older types or adding capability to cheaper aircraft is so little it puts the Gripens in reach. Which is better long term solution. If you can stretch to it.

The other advantage is modular software platform. Which brings cost savings and lots of customisation.

Dohvolle

Dohvolle wrote: »

What kind?

Ideally an Alsatian but as I can't have an Alsatian and I can only have a collie, I won't bother having a dog at all

Dohvolle

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Ideally an Alsatian but as I can't have an Alsatian and I can only have a collie, I won't bother having a dog at all

What about a German Shephard?

sparky42

1874 wrote: »

And you dont think thats a bigger deal than basing aircraft in NI which is in NATO already.
Having NATO forces based on our territory would be a bigger breach of our sovereignty than the Russians skirting the edges of our airspace.
If we cant monitor and control our own territory ourselves, even eventually, then I dont see what the issue is with NATO fast jets in NI until we can or until the flights end.
It is essentially a challlenge to NATO afterall, not us.

If we asked them to base in Shannon then it’s not a “breach of our sovereignty”, it’s us exercising said sovereignty. Though I would assume even asking would get the response of “maybe spend more than .30% on defence”, along with of course “ yes we will do this, you pay us X millions a year”.

The U.K. isn’t going to put High value assets in NI like Typhoons or Voyagers, they don’t need to.

1874

banie01 wrote: »

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

Ah here, not a hope Australia is 4500kms from New Zealand, half that at best, Id put money on that and Im not a betting person.
I agree their position means they have less reason to have a fast jet air component, but you put them well closer to the Antarctic though and penguins cant fly.

Flinty997

1874 wrote: »

Ah here, not a hope Australia is 4500kms from New Zealand, half that at best, Id put money on that and Im not a betting person.
I agree their position means they have less reason to have a fast jet air component, but you put them well closer to the Antarctic though and penguins cant fly.

Its about 2k.

But its 8k from China. Well depending on where their fleet is at the time.

Psychlops

1874 wrote: »

Having NATO forces based on our territory would be a bigger breach of our sovereignty than the Russians skirting the edges of our airspace.


If we cant monitor and control our own territory ourselves, even eventually, then I dont see what the issue is with NATO fast jets in NI until we can or until the flights end.
It is essentially a challlenge to NATO afterall, not us.

How so? We already work with them via PFP. Its a challenge not only to NATO but the west as a whole. If we cant do it we have to either have NATO do it or an EU Country which ironically would also be a NATO member...

Dohvolle

Dohvolle wrote: »

What about a German Shephard?

I can't have an Alsatian.

banie01

1874 wrote: »

Ah here, not a hope Australia is 4500kms from New Zealand, half that at best, Id put money on that and Im not a betting person.
I agree their position means they have less reason to have a fast jet air component, but you put them well closer to the Antarctic though and penguins cant fly.

Over enthusiastic estimate on my part, Flinty has it right.
A little over 2200km, my bad.
Amend my 2 IFR's to 1.

Flinty997

Besides which any hostiles to NZ would have to pass by OZ or have a significant Naval presence. It just so very unlikely.

Why not buy say 20 eurofighters, invest in proper radar on ground and buy like 4 patrol ships.

sparky42

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not buy say 20 eurofighters, invest in proper radar on ground and buy like 4 patrol ships.

Because the Irish public/politicians won't spend that money, though to be fair of the Euro 4.5s the Typhoon is one of the most expensive to operate, the Gripen is cheaper.

sparky42

sparky42 wrote: »

Because the Irish public/politicians won't spend that money, though to be fair of the Euro 4.5s the Typhoon is one of the most expensive to operate, the Gripen is cheaper.

I get you but I am embarrassed that we don't have at least 20 fighter jets, proper radar and also proper naval support for to protect irish airspace/irish fishermen and women.

sparky42

Deleted User wrote: »

I get you but I am embarrassed that we don't have at least 20 fighter jets, proper radar and also proper naval support for to protect irish airspace/irish fishermen and women.

Since 1922 Irish defence planning/procurement/capabilities has been an embarrassment, but short of the Departments of Finance and Defence being gutted that's unlikely to change.

Gary kk

At just over 5 million plus vat for pc9 I can't see them ever spending serious money on anything.