Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

I think if we get anything, like it or not the EU will help out with funding. In doing so we can rule out any hope of an aircraft not built, or part built in the EU.
Yet another reason to put the KAI FA50 out of our minds completely.
It was offered to Croatia, it failed to pass muster, they went with the Rafale instead.
Spain was in talks for 50 of the basic trainer type, but they were exchanging them for 5 Airbus A400s.
Poland selected the M346 over the T50.
There are currently just 12 FA 50 in service, 36 if you also include the Iraqi variant.

Does the EU help out for nations our size (population and economy wise)? I mean they didn’t fund the P60s for example, it’s a long time since we could argue we can’t fund purchases ourselves.

Larbre34

Depends on what our fellow EU states see as a worthwhile quid pro quo.

With their NATO hats on, they may perceive plugging the air defence gap as highly desirable and then put on their EU hats to be able to provide a mechanism to help us out.

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

Does the EU help out for nations our size (population and economy wise)? I mean they didn’t fund the P60s for example, it’s a long time since we could argue we can’t fund purchases ourselves.

They did and they didn't. We were in the middle of a bailout when the 4 ships were purchased. All our funding was coming from the EU at that stage. We ordered 2 with an option for a third, we ended up with 4, built in what was still the EU at that point. The country was broke, but we were able to get funds for 4 ships, when the Troika controlled the state's finances?

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

They did and they didn't. We were in the middle of a bailout when the 4 ships were purchased. All our funding was coming from the EU at that stage. We ordered 2 with an option for a third, we ended up with 4, built in what was still the EU at that point. The country was broke, but we were able to get funds for 4 ships, when the Troika controlled the state's finances?

Yeah, that’s not how it worked, for example Greece overruled the Trokia on defence spending there at the time. As long as we had a general agreement on the spending and tax increases they weren’t going to micromanage to that level.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Depends on what our fellow EU states see as a worthwhile quid pro quo.

With their NATO hats on, they may perceive plugging the air defence gap as highly desirable and then put on their EU hats to be able to provide a mechanism to help us out.

I think it might be a hard steel to say the Eastern European’s that are hitting 2% or more, that the EU has to fund buying x amount of planes for a nation that could fund such purchases themselves, or have a state to state funding arrangement like Croatia….

Larbre34

sparky42 wrote: »

I think it might be a hard steel to say the Eastern European’s that are hitting 2% or more, that the EU has to fund buying x amount of planes for a nation that could fund such purchases themselves, or have a state to state funding arrangement like Croatia….

Certainly it might.

However, I'm not suggesting we ask to be gifted the stuff. The European Commission has just about One Trillion Euro in stimulus capital, burning a hole in its moleskin slacks. Ireland would be starting from scratch in the air defence game, and we know we are looking at 1 to 2 Billion Euro of upfront costs. A system of cohesion funding, long term low interest loans and a load of good business for EU defence contractors in Sweden, Italy, France, Germany etc. Could be a big win all round.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Certainly it might.

However, I'm not suggesting we ask to be gifted the stuff. The European Commission has just about One Trillion Euro in stimulus capital, burning a hole in its moleskin slacks. Ireland would be starting from scratch in the air defence game, and we know we are looking at 1 to 2 Billion Euro of upfront costs. A system of cohesion funding, long term low interest loans and a load of good business for EU defence contractors in Sweden, Italy, France, Germany etc. Could be a big win all round.

That fund isn't for defence spending though (which is still a bit of a hot button issue for the EU), so trying to get it would be a hard sell as well. The EDF doesn't really fit that either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Fund


I can't really see the EU going down that route to be honest.

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

Yeah, that’s not how it worked, for example Greece overruled the Trokia on defence spending there at the time. As long as we had a general agreement on the spending and tax increases they weren’t going to micromanage to that level.

Greece is not a good example. Their populist politicians were flavour of the month at the time but struggle now to find any foreign media to answer their calls.
Our Budgets were being approved by the Troika before it went to the Dail. The delayed payment agreed by the Late Minister for Finance got it over the line when the Minister for defence of the day had no interest in pursuing it.

My point is, if it benefits the EU, they will assist us. Not in an obvious way, but things definitely go much smoother.

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

Greece is not a good example. Their populist politicians were flavour of the month at the time but struggle now to find any foreign media to answer their calls.
Our Budgets were being approved by the Troika before it went to the Dail. The delayed payment agreed by the Late Minister for Finance got it over the line when the Minister for defence of the day had no interest in pursuing it.

My point is, if it benefits the EU, they will assist us. Not in an obvious way, but things definitely go much smoother.

Why is it not a good example? In one of the rounds of bailouts the suggestion was made to cut Defence Spending including the new German Subs, the Greeks refused and made cuts elsewhere.


The Troika's position was to check spending cuts and tax raises and how they balanced the books, how that came about was up to the Government of the time. A tiny sum of some 200 million was a maths error to them in the scale of things, nor would the IMF particularly care about whether it was spent in the EU. So no the Troika had nothing to do with the decision for the P60's it was as you pointed out the Ministers of the day that pushed it.


The EU isn't going to fund us to buy equipment, it just doesn't do that, European Nations might be willing to give us favourable terms for buying their equipment but that's it.

purplepanda

Had a listen to the Cathal Berry TD interview on Newstalk Pat Kenny Show on the 11th June. It sounds like the Korean FA-50 is a viable option, an advanced jet trainer /light combat aircraft with some interception ability & speed.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/td-raises-concerns-about-irelands-neutrality-over-post-9-11-defence-pact-1208925

https://www.newstalk.com/listen-back (11th June, Pat Kenny show 9AM, interview starts at 02.02)

Berry mentioned a cost of €20million per aircraft. compared to the current Pilatus PC-9 trainers which cost €8million. Obviously the infrastuture costs of upgrading infrastructure, equipment, radar, training more staff will add substantially to the overall cost however.

One factor it would be interesting to know does the RAF / UK government charge for it's welcome assistance & how much does it indeed cost.

It's interesting to compare Irish military defence spending with other nations of similar size & resources, but there are often various important differences such the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, getting Grippens from Sweden, Croatia obtaining Rafeles from France, however all these nations have no need for Naval vessels.

Ireland has responsibility for large EEZ teritorial waters, 10 times the size of the state so the Naval Service needs substantial funding.

Other Eastern European states, Poland & Bulgaria, do a deal with the Americans to modernise their airforces, do they get significant subsidies like countries like Egypt, Israel & others worldwide manage to obtain from the USA?

It's not just the USA subsiding these deals & their defence industry, France & Sweden would appear to be doing the same selling upgraded used military jets whilst modernising their airforces with new versions.

source

purplepanda wrote: »

Berry mentioned a cost of €20million per aircraft. compared to the current Pilatus PC-9 trainers which cost €8million. Obviously the infrastuture costs of upgrading infrastructure, equipment, radar, training more staff will add substantially to the overall cost however.

I've just had a listen and no mention of the FA50 (Pat suggested that the RAF were using F50s or something when they come over) , also CB said that running the PC9M currently costs the state €8m annually and upgrading to a supersonic jet trainer would likely cost the state €20m annually. No discussion was had about the capital cost of procuring the aircraft.

grassylawn

purplepanda wrote: »

Had a listen to the Cathal Berry TD interview on Newstalk Pat Kenny Show on the 11th June. It sounds like the Korean FA-50 is a viable option, an advanced jet trainer /light combat aircraft with some interception ability & speed.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/td-raises-concerns-about-irelands-neutrality-over-post-9-11-defence-pact-1208925

https://www.newstalk.com/listen-back (11th June, Pat Kenny show 9AM, interview starts at 02.02)

Berry mentioned a cost of €20million per aircraft. compared to the current Pilatus PC-9 trainers which cost €8million. Obviously the infrastuture costs of upgrading infrastructure, equipment, radar, training more staff will add substantially to the overall cost however.

One factor it would be interesting to know does the RAF / UK government charge for it's welcome assistance & how much does it indeed cost.

It's interesting to compare Irish military defence spending with other nations of similar size & resources, but there are often various important differences such the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, getting Grippens from Sweden, Croatia obtaining Rafeles from France, however all these nations have no need for Naval vessels.

Ireland has responsibility for large EEZ teritorial waters, 10 times the size of the state so the Naval Service needs substantial funding.

Other Eastern European states, Poland & Bulgaria, do a deal with the Americans to modernise their airforces, do they get significant subsidies like countries like Egypt, Israel & others worldwide manage to obtain from the USA?

It's not just the USA subsiding these deals & their defence industry, France & Sweden would appear to be doing the same selling upgraded used military jets whilst modernising their airforces with new versions.

I doubt the RAF charge us anything. It's in the UK's interest to keep hostile actors off their doorstep.

Flinty997

purplepanda wrote: »

..., getting Grippens from Sweden, Croatia obtaining Rafeles from France, however all these nations have no need for Naval vessels.
.....

France and Sweden have substantial navies.

Flinty997

purplepanda wrote: »

.....

Other Eastern European states, Poland & Bulgaria, do a deal with the Americans to modernise their airforces, do they get significant subsidies like countries like Egypt, Israel & others worldwide manage to obtain from the USA?

It's not just the USA subsiding these deals & their defence industry, France & Sweden would appear to be doing the same selling upgraded used military jets whilst modernising their airforces with new versions.

That's effectively the Global arms trade. Selling and buying new and used weapons and technology. Every country does it. Read a magazine like air forced monthly and you'll get a taste for what deals are being done and movement of aircraft and weapons systems around the world. Or websites like https://alert5.com/

nonethepfizer

grassylawn wrote: »

I doubt the RAF charge us anything. It's in the UK's interest to keep hostile actors off their doorstep.

I vaguely remember that ATC fees to the RAF are also waived for such ops

ohnonotgmail

Flinty997 wrote: »

France and Sweden have substantial navies.

that was referring to the countries in bold. Hungary though does have a river based navy.

the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, getting Grippens from Sweden, Croatia obtaining Rafeles from France, however all these nations have no need for Naval vessels.

Gary kk

Flinty997 wrote: »

France and Sweden have substantial navies.

I wouldn't mind but France is so small. And Sweden is in the most stable area any country and placed.

Flinty997

Croatian Navy has 2.5k personnel.

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

Dohvolle

Gary kk wrote: »

I wouldn't mind but France is so small. And Sweden is in the most stable area any country and placed.

Why do you say France is "so small"? Ireland is over 32,000 square miles, France, the country is 247,000 square miles and that is before we start to talk about their far ranging overseas Territories and protectorates (Including the Antarctic).

nonethepfizer

Dohvolle wrote: »

Why do you say France is "so small"? Ireland is over 32,000 square miles, France, the country is 247,000 square miles and that is before we start to talk about their far ranging overseas Territories and protectorates (Including the Antarctic).

yeah, well we've the rock of Rockall

purplepanda

I don't see many options worldwide for Mach 1.5 trainer jets apart from the Korean models. The European trainers are all much slower in speed.

The USA has the recent Redhawk T-7A trainer, but is obviously more expensive being American, despite also claiming to be a replacement for the F-5, which was a cheap basic combat fighter for export historically.

Maybe a modern equivalent of the Northrop F-5 Tiger, but there's not much choice in the current market.

Gary kk

Dohvolle wrote: »

Why do you say France is "so small"? Ireland is over 32,000 square miles, France, the country is 247,000 square miles and that is before we start to talk about their far ranging overseas Territories and protectorates (Including the Antarctic).

I was joking. I am all for a light combat fighter I don't see the need for bigger jets. Saying that I think anything that is not capable of going over Mach 1 is pointless.

Dohvolle

purplepanda wrote: »

I don't see many options worldwide for Mach 1.5 trainer jets apart from the Korean models. The European trainers are all much slower in speed.

The USA has the recent Redhawk T-7A trainer, but is obviously more expensive being American, despite also claiming to be a replacement for the F-5, which was a cheap basic combat fighter for export historically.

Maybe a modern equivalent of the Northrop F-5 Tiger, but there's not much choice in the current market.

You realise the Redhawk has NO ARMAMENT? The PC9M is actualy capable of carrying a heavier weapon load than it. But yeah, F5, cool cool. Never mind the fact that it was retiring from frontline service when Ireland was still using Fougas...

Trainers slower than an actual interceptor? Why would that be at all? It couldn't be because they were never intended to be used in the interceptor role in the first place perhaps?

sparky42

I do have to wonder what Berry is trying to suggest with his figure of €20 million. I mean even if he leaves out the capital costs of buying any aircraft and the associated major investment needed to utilise them in any interception role there’s no way you get 24/7 coverage for just 12 million more than what the state pays for running the PC8s, not unless he’s just substituting “jet” for “turboprop” and keeping the utilisation hours the same, in which case he’s just talking about buying jets to say we have jets instead of turboprops.

Flinty997

Gary kk wrote: »

I was joking. I am all for a light combat fighter I don't see the need for bigger jets. Saying that I think anything that is not capable of going over Mach 1 is pointless.

I think it would enough of deterrent to shepherd airliners and bears back on track. If you want to do mach 2 scrambles to chase backfires not so much.

But the issue is the running cost of those upgraded light trainers much different to a Gripen? Finding it very hard to get useful figures. I suspect not a lot in it. A poverty spec Gripen would tick a lot of boxes. I don't think we need 16 either.

Gary kk

Flinty997 wrote: »

Dunno I think it would enough of deterrent to shepherd airliners and bears back on track. If you want to do mach 2 scrambles to chase backfires not so much.

But the issue is the running cost of those upgraded light trainers much different to a Gripen? Finding it very hard to get useful figures. I suspect not a lot in it. A poverty spec Gripen would tick a lot of boxes.

Yeah I am finding it hard to get figures as well.

sparky42

Thinking more on the 20 million figure, either Berry taking the mick, or else he's basically calling for "air show" capabilities, €20 million in operating costs will not get you air interception capabilities, hell given how Jets are more expensive than Turboprops would that even get you 1-1 replacement and usage?

purplepanda

Dohvolle wrote: »

You realise the Redhawk has NO ARMAMENT? The PC9M is actualy capable of carrying a heavier weapon load than it. But yeah, F5, cool cool. Never mind the fact that it was retiring from frontline service when Ireland was still using Fougas...

I did say a modern equivalent of the F-5, not an used aircraft that hasn't been made since 1987. The Redhawk also comes as a light attack version. As I mentioned earlier I suspect the price will be expensive being USA made.

https://www.flightglobal.com/farnborough-2020/boeing-sees-t-7-as-combat-replacement-for-northrop-f-5-and-dassault/dornier-alpha-jet/139289.article

A rough recent price list includes Used Grippen around $30 / €25 million or Eurofighter $50 / €41 million.

https://www.aerotime.aero/27553-Top-10-most-expensive-fighter-jets-in-2021

Dohvolle

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think it would enough of deterrent to shepherd airliners and bears back on track. If you want to do mach 2 scrambles to chase backfires not so much.

But the issue is the running cost of those upgraded light trainers much different to a Gripen? Finding it very hard to get useful figures. I suspect not a lot in it. A poverty spec Gripen would tick a lot of boxes. I don't think we need 16 either.

Based on figures provided for the recent Polish competition, the FA50 came in only just behind the Gripen C/D in terms of cost per flight hour. There is obviously a bigger difference in initial costs.
Can't find the figures right now, I know they were posted on this thread already.

Dohvolle

purplepanda wrote: »

I did say a modern equivalent of the F-5, not an used aircraft that hasn't been made since 1987. The Redhawk also comes as a light attack version. As I mentioned earlier I suspect the price will be expensive being USA made.



https://www.flightglobal.com/farnborough-2020/boeing-sees-t-7-as-combat-replacement-for-northrop-f-5-and-dassault/dornier-alpha-jet/139289.article

2 Key words.
Could (We didn't think of it at all until you asked)
Attack(Not intercept- firing bullets at a stationary target. No improvement on PC9M).
There are no current plans, or even mock ups of the T7 with weapons. It doesn't need them in its training role, you can simulate the attack electronically.