Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

nonethepfizer

shtick a few AIM's on a spare Ryanair 737

Gary kk

nonethepfizer wrote: »

shtick a few AIM's on a spare Ryanair 737

Yeah sure there must loads of them spare at the moment

Gary kk

Flinty997 wrote: »

Warry places I like that.

Aircraft like the PC9 have been and are used as light attack in a few countries. Armed overwatch and reconnaissance...

Useful in Ireland is debatable. Are they being used simply to retain some cabability and experience in fixed wing operations. You'd have to say yes. Good use of money maybe. Certainly lots of other ways we could have gone.

Current issue is Russians playing games with NATO and the UK, we are just a bystander in that. Maybe we should ask the Russians for military aid to babysit their exercises.

Thank you this is what I was wondering yesterday do they have another roll the can fill instead of just selling them on.

Dohvolle

Manic Moran wrote: »

May I attack this from the other direction?

Why does ireland have 8x PC-9s, at, apparently an annual cost of 1million each? What purpose do they serve?

Light strike? Not likely. I don't think anyone can envision a situation where there is sufficient of an insurgency in Ireland to require it, and the aircraft wouldn't last an hour in anything more conventional. One might make an argument for using the things for air support to Irish troops on deployment, but the history indicates a distinct lack of desire to send aircraft on such missions. So that's not it.

Training of forward air controllers? Probably cheaper and easier to just send a few folks to the Joint Fires Course in Vegas every year. More chance that on some UN mission they'd get a US military aircraft on the radio and not an Irish one anyway. If you want to maintain a bit of proficiency, use a simulator. We use them for fires training here for that purpose.

Air defense? Yeah, no.

Training of pilots of other aircraft like the PC-12, CASA? You don't need armed (or unarmed) PC-9s for that. Look at the list of aircraft a pilot goes through to fly 737s or A321s at an airline. Much cheaper.

The only thing which makes sense to me is to train pilots for operation of front-line combat aircraft. Which means that when the PC-9s were bought, it was with the intent and knowledge that there would be the purchase of said aircraft. (Either that, or folks were just wasting money).
So, the question is, if it's a given that there is an intent to spend the money, it's not a question of "if it's too much money". That question has already been answered. The question is "What is the trigger at which point the future aircraft will be purchased?" WW3 might be too late and I doubt was in the planning thinking.

Looking at our current operational fleet, every aircraft has a side by side configuration. To train pilots on Simulator and then actual tandem aircraft, only for them to progress to side by side, either fixed wing or rotary, makes no sense.
Unless you consider the purpose of the PC9M was a direct replacement for the silver swallows. With the Decade of centenaries on the horizon at the time, the State needed something that could do a nice aerobatic flypast, but not necessarily with any of the shooty things that go with such an aircraft, while at the same time doing the advanced training role the Fougas used to do before they retired on age grounds.
The PC9M is an ideal aircraft to train pilots who are progressing to another single seat or tandem seat cockpit.
Otherwise once they solo, pilots have to relearn on side by side seat types, where everything important is in a different place.
Would be better off having something like a Grob Tutor for the basics.
Shooting small calibre munitions or unguided rockets at a fixed target on a beach on the east cost is hardly a useful deterrent against those with illegal intent..
Just as easy to use any aircraft to train your FAC teams. In theory the lear could probably do it as realistically as a PC9M.
If you recall back when the Pilatus were first bought, there was lots of talk about getting the L159 or Alpha Jets. If this was the original intent, what became of it, and why when it never materialised did we not trade the lot in for a more practical, lower cost side by side trainer?

Dohvolle

Flinty997 wrote: »

With red herrings.. No idea.

We want to spend a minimum of billion plus on something, that seems to be the plan.

Have you met Gary KK? You two have much in common.
Such as membership of my exclusive "ignore" club.

Gary kk

I asked question that I didn't really know the answer to. And I wanted to understand the answer not just take it at face value.

Flinty997

Dohvolle wrote: »

Have you met Gary KK? You two have much in common.
Such as membership of my exclusive "ignore" club.

I'm not seeing any downside for either of us.

Flinty997

nonethepfizer wrote: »

shtick a few AIM's on a spare Ryanair 737

You jest but..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon

They also armed nimrods with sidewinders.

grassylawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

May I attack this from the other direction?

Why does ireland have 8x PC-9s, at, apparently an annual cost of 1million each? What purpose do they serve?

Light strike? Not likely. I don't think anyone can envision a situation where there is sufficient of an insurgency in Ireland to require it, and the aircraft wouldn't last an hour in anything more conventional. One might make an argument for using the things for air support to Irish troops on deployment, but the history indicates a distinct lack of desire to send aircraft on such missions. So that's not it.

Training of forward air controllers? Probably cheaper and easier to just send a few folks to the Joint Fires Course in Vegas every year. More chance that on some UN mission they'd get a US military aircraft on the radio and not an Irish one anyway. If you want to maintain a bit of proficiency, use a simulator. We use them for fires training here for that purpose.

Air defense? Yeah, no.

Training of pilots of other aircraft like the PC-12, CASA? You don't need armed (or unarmed) PC-9s for that. Look at the list of aircraft a pilot goes through to fly 737s or A321s at an airline. Much cheaper.

The only thing which makes sense to me is to train pilots for operation of front-line combat aircraft. Which means that when the PC-9s were bought, it was with the intent and knowledge that there would be the purchase of said aircraft. (Either that, or folks were just wasting money).
So, the question is, if it's a given that there is an intent to spend the money, it's not a question of "if it's too much money". That question has already been answered. The question is "What is the trigger at which point the future aircraft will be purchased?" WW3 might be too late and I doubt was in the planning thinking.

It's possible that they changed their mind about purchasing future aircraft. Or perhaps the RAF withdrawing its protection is the trigger that they had in mind.

Stovepipe

There was a book published about the Fouga Magister by one Radu Brinzan et al and the question of what to select to replace the Fouga was well answered,by the very people who picked the PC-9M. All of the contemporary aircraft such as the L-39/59/159 and others were either test flown or examined in close detail but the issue was effectively decided by the DoD. Essentially, the needle was pointed in a certain direction, very early on and that needle was not allowed to divert until the selection panel arrived at a politically acceptable solution. It came down to aircraft A or B in very short order and you know the rest.

Stovepipe

Flinty997 wrote: »

Warry places I like that.

Aircraft like the PC9 have been and are used as light attack in a few countries. Armed overwatch and reconnaissance...

In places like Iraq and Afghanistan,aircraft like PC-9s are not used unless they meet NATO theatre entry criteria and our PC-9M does not not, by a long shot,as it has no armour, no defensive suite (electronic or mechanical) and a host of other things. You could only use it in daylight against a very lightly armed enemy.

sparky42

Stovepipe wrote: »

In places like Iraq and Afghanistan,aircraft like PC-9s are not used unless they meet NATO theatre entry criteria and our PC-9M does not not, by a long shot,as it has no armour, no defensive suite (electronic or mechanical) and a host of other things. You could only use it in daylight against a very lightly armed enemy.

Exactly, it's like suggesting our AW139's could be used in hostile environments...

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

Exactly, it's like suggesting our AW139's could be used in hostile environments...

DoD have already told the AC not to get any ideas with the C295 either!

Flinty997

Stovepipe wrote: »

In places like Iraq and Afghanistan,aircraft like PC-9s are not used unless they meet NATO theatre entry criteria and our PC-9M does not not, by a long shot,as it has no armour, no defensive suite (electronic or mechanical) and a host of other things. You could only use it in daylight against a very lightly armed enemy.

I guess they weren't anticipating a warzone like those two places in Ireland. Are you suggesting we should be equipped for that kind of conflict.

Aircraft light attack trainers are used all over the world. In a variety of roles.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Exactly, it's like suggesting our AW139's could be used in hostile environments...

Why are you suggesting we do that?

Manic Moran

Flinty997 wrote: »

I guess they weren't anticipating a warzone like those two places in Ireland. Are you suggesting we should be equipped for that kind of conflict.

Aircraft light attack trainers are used all over the world. In a variety of roles.

Yes, but how many of those roles are practically applicable to the Irish situation?

Sgt. Bilko 09

Flinty997 wrote: »

Why are you suggesting we do that?

Well worst scenario a maritime incident involving multiple armed terrorists, the aw139 would have little or no protection from rifle fire, sure it can barely keep the doors attached

Flinty997

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

Well worst scenario a maritime incident involving multiple armed terrorists, the aw139 would have little or no protection from rifle fire, sure it can barely keep the doors attached

What would you want in that scenario. I'm thinking how they deal with pirates.

Flinty997

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, but how many of those roles are practically applicable to the Irish situation?

No idea. I think they have limited use in an Irish context.

Larbre34

Flinty997 wrote: »

I guess they weren't anticipating a warzone like those two places in Ireland. Are you suggesting we should be equipped for that kind of conflict.

Aircraft light attack trainers are used all over the world. In a variety of roles.

We should be equipped to adequately police the seas and skies of our State and those adjoining areas that we have responsibility for.

Like it or not (and I know you do not) the equation for Governments is not peace or war. Its not the absence of a military or full on conflict. Its about deterrence, its about asserting a presence and having a contingency for the unforeseen. That's what sovereign nations do.

Your inability to see the shades of grey in this stuff is pretty tiresome, and I neither know nor care whether it is trolling or just ignorance, but you're convincing no one in this place.

Gary kk

So we are looking for something fast enough to catch up if it must with air liners and bears. Dose it need to do anything else ?

Stovepipe

Be able to shoot,if required. Guns,missiles etc......as for overseas, the 139s are little more than warmed over millionaire's runabouts but the 135s would be a much more viable aircraft to use overseas. They are easy to ship, easy to fit out for a combat zone and the users like them. It would help our troops on UN missions enormously if they had their own helis for local reconnaisance/casevac/troop lift instead of going cap in hand to the UN every time.

Gary kk

Those the radar cross section matter for its role or is nice to have a lower one. How long is it's expected service time. How easily can it be refitted?

Dohvolle

Just watching the Summit between the Leaders of the USA and Russia in Switzerland. The Swiss currently operate 25 F18s, and 29 F5E (6 of which are in the Patrol Suisse). The people of Switzerland are currently waiting to find out what will replace these aircraft, a process which the electorate have voted to approve throughout its process. Rumour is pointing towards Dassault Rafale. They have over $8bn set aside for the project.

If it happened here we would have either US or UK military aircraft policing the skies over the Summit.

When Clinton visited in 1998 the USAF did the job with F15s based in the UK. There was no flightradar back then but we could hear them on Air Band radio(Callsign Reaper). The Exclusion zone around the Airport meant nobody saw one of them parked on the ramp when it had a technical issue.

This is the reality. When Foreign VIPs visit, our neighbours have to help out with basic levels of security. We cannot continue in this regard and still claim neutrality.

Flinty997

Stovepipe wrote: »

Be able to shoot,if required. Guns,missiles etc......as for overseas, the 139s are little more than warmed over millionaire's runabouts but the 135s would be a much more viable aircraft to use overseas. They are easy to ship, easy to fit out for a combat zone and the users like them. It would help our troops on UN missions enormously if they had their own helis for local reconnaisance/casevac/troop lift instead of going cap in hand to the UN every time.

You specifically asked about maritime rifle fire. You seemed to have shifted the goalposts a bit. Are the 135 rifle fire proof as was your original question.

Gary kk

Don't we buy the Mowags off them is there a large arms dealing industry in the country.

Larbre34

Stovepipe wrote: »

Be able to shoot,if required. Guns,missiles etc......as for overseas, the 139s are little more than warmed over millionaire's runabouts but the 135s would be a much more viable aircraft to use overseas. They are easy to ship, easy to fit out for a combat zone and the users like them. It would help our troops on UN missions enormously if they had their own helis for local reconnaisance/casevac/troop lift instead of going cap in hand to the UN every time.

In principle, yes, but our AC helicopters are all civilian airframes, they have none of the military hardening available from Airbus or Leonardo (M designations) to survive harsh environments, small arms attack, or the extra punishment on engines from cold start dust offs and so on.

Besides, if we deployed even a couple of helis overseas, it would leave cover for tasks at home too thin, when you take maintenance and refit times into account on a fleet now in mid-life.

Personally I have no problem with the UN or other partner nations providing the air component to mandated missions, so long as Ireland provides its own specialist contribution in other ways, ARW, ground logistics fleet, advanced engineering and construction etc.

Gary kk

https://youtu.be/lZZWxxdqD7E

https://youtu.be/rc4ph5GdhX8

Manic Moran

Gary kk wrote: »

https://youtu.be/lZZWxxdqD7E

https://youtu.be/rc4ph5GdhX8

[MOD] No link dumps, please[/MOD]

Gary kk

Ok sorry.
Got busy just as I posted the links they show the TA 50 rated against other LCA. And until someone tells me of other roles that are needed I can't see why this would not meet the countries needs