Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Dohvolle

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

I hate AI created content. It has ruined youtube completely.

Larbre34

Gary kk wrote: »

https://youtu.be/lZZWxxdqD7E

https://youtu.be/rc4ph5GdhX8

Very entertaining but ultimately pointless.

Light Combat Aircraft is a contradiction in terms, unless you are duelling with other LCA types or planning to destroy armour and civilian targets on the ground, neither of which we will be.

We need interceptors. These aren't.

Flinty997

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

We were discussing light attack trainers. Basically what were our PC9 bought for. Someone derailed that into war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is an entirely different context. You've now jumped that into policing sea and sky. Which again is a different context.

It's a little boring if the only discussion allowed is 16 fighters for billions. I assume thats why tank man started a new subject.

Flinty997

Gary kk wrote: »

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

Theres an argument it's not much cheaper than a pure fighter. So what's the point.

Especially if budget isn't a concern and money will be found regardless of public or political opinion.

Larbre34

Gary kk wrote: »

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

Switzerland? Yes, manufacturing as distinct from just dealing.

MOWAG is owned by General Dynamics, the American aerospace and defence giant. Pilatus Aircraft is wholly owned within Switzerland.

In General we operate EU or European manufactured equipment if there is a suitable product. We also get various things from the US, Canada, South Africa and Japan.

Gary kk

Flinty997 wrote: »

Theres an argument it's not much cheaper than a pure fighter. So what's the point.

Not sure how much a fighter is but from what I can tell around 25million per aircraft for the TA 50

sparky42

Gary kk wrote: »

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

As I’ve said, if there is ever a purchase of fighter jets it’s a once in a lifetime, 40 years before replacement, hence the idea of buying something limited makes zero sense to me. Trying to buy something that just fills the current need is pointless, it’s like how limited the P60s are compared to pretty much any Western OPV because we just wanted it for West Coast operations.

sparky42

Gary kk wrote: »

Not sure how much a fighter is but from what I can tell around 25million per aircraft for the TA 50

Again, we can just look at what the Gripen Lease is, or the recent Rafale buys…

Gary kk

Larbre34 wrote: »

Very entertaining but ultimately pointless.

Light Combat Aircraft is a contradiction in terms, unless you are duelling with other LCA types or planning to destroy armour and civilian targets on the ground, neither of which we will be.

We need interceptors. These aren't.

Counter to believe I am not trolling but to intercept what. I just don't understand what the purpose is like why a pure fighter. Define the role you think it will be need for.

Gary kk

sparky42 wrote: »

As I’ve said, if there is ever a purchase of fighter jets it’s a once in a lifetime, 40 years before replacement, hence the idea of buying something limited makes zero sense to me. Trying to buy something that just fills the current need is pointless, it’s like how limited the P60s are compared to pretty much any Western OPV because we just wanted it for West Coast operations.

Ok sorry just read this now yeah that is starting to make more sense to me now. How much are the Saab or the Rafael

sparky42

Gary kk wrote: »

Ok sorry just read this now yeah that is starting to make more sense to me now. How much are the Saab or the Rafael

Depends on what the package is, there’s the areas of offsets (which we don’t do of course), weapons packages, spares. I mean just look at the difference on the Casa 295s, there’s the unit price and then the throughlife costs and spares which meant we paid a lot more than just the units.

Larbre34

Gary kk wrote: »

Counter to believe I am not trolling but to intercept what. I just don't understand what the purpose is like why a pure fighter. Define the role you think it will be need for.

The same role any interceptor or combat air patrol aircraft is needed for in peacetime.

To be tasked to and to intercept any suspicious or irresponsible aircraft in our area of responsibility at high speed,

This includes, but is not limited to; Russian reconnaissance aircraft operating in civilian air corridors without transponders, civilian airliners that have lost communications and/or whose intentions may be uncertain, to assist and inspect any aircraft reporting damage or a loss of control, to intercept and escort suspected criminal aircraft or drones involved in drug or human trafficking, or any other type of smuggling, to assist the subsonic Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the exercise of its tasks in any manner requested, including any future counter-submarine activity in territorial waters.

Basically, the stuff that modern sovereign nations do routinely all over the World.

Flinty997

Gary kk wrote: »

Not sure how much a fighter is but from what I can tell around 25million per aircraft for the TA 50

"...Qatar signed a deal for 24 Rafale fighters and associated weaponry and training, worth approximately $7 billion, in May 2015....

That's before you get into the associated costs like infrastructure.

If you look at recent deals you start to get an appreciation of the costs involved in these deals.

Can't find modern reports for running costs of all the different types compared.

https://stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes/

Dohvolle

Larbre34 wrote: »

The same role any interceptor or combat air patrol aircraft is needed for in peacetime.

To be tasked to and to intercept any suspicious or irresponsible aircraft in our area of responsibility at high speed,

This includes, but is not limited to; Russian reconnaissance aircraft operating in civilian air corridors without transponders, civilian airliners that have lost communications and/or whose intentions may be uncertain, to assist and inspect any aircraft reporting damage or a loss of control, to intercept and escort suspected criminal aircraft or drones involved in drug or human trafficking, or any other type of smuggling, to assist the subsonic Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the exercise of its tasks in any manner requested, including any future counter-submarine activity in territorial waters.

Basically, the stuff that modern sovereign nations do routinely all over the World.

Its a shame that after 146 pages nobody has explained this already...

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

"...Qatar signed a deal for 24 Rafale fighters and associated weaponry and training, worth approximately $7 billion, in May 2015....

That's before you get into the associated costs like infrastructure.

If you look at recent deals you start to get an appreciation of the costs involved in these deals.

Can't find modern reports for running costs of all the different types compared.

https://stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes/

Ignore deals to the Arab countries, there’s plenty of “other” in that as it’s mainly buying patronage (particularly given the capabilities and performance of many of the Arab nations).

The Croatian deal for 12 second hand Rafales, weapons, spares was only 1.2 billion. The Greek deal for a mixture of new and second hand with weapons (including ones we wouldn’t be buying) and spares was 2.5 billion. These are the most recent euro deals.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Ignore deals to the Arab countries, there’s plenty of “other” in that as it’s mainly buying patronage (particularly given the capabilities and performance of many of the Arab nations).

The Croatian deal for 12 second hand Rafales, weapons, spares was only 1.2 billion. The Greek deal for a mixture of new and second hand with weapons (including ones we wouldn’t be buying) and spares was 2.5 billion. These are the most recent euro deals.

I think it's a little more than patronage. That includes training and they are new build and decent spec. They are going from 9 fighters to 96. You'd think that would drive down the cost considerably. Especially as they are buying 3 types for all sorts of operational reasons. Not simply patronage.

Ireland wants 16, and have we to have add at the cost of infrastructure to facilitate operations, training etc. Well over the 1 billion and rising. If you think grand designs is bad military programmes are many times worse.

The opinion here is the money will simply just be found and there will be no objections. Hard to argue against that optimism.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think it's a little more than patronage. That includes training and they are new build and decent spec. They are going from 9 fighters to 96. You'd think that would drive down the cost considerably. Especially as they are buying 3 types for all sorts of operational reasons. Not simply patronage.

Ireland wants 16, and have we to have add at the cost of infrastructure to facilitate operations, training etc. Well over the 1 billion and rising. If you think grand designs is bad military programmes are many times worse.

The opinion here is the money will simply just be found and there will be no objections. Hard to argue against that optimism.

The multiple buying is exactly patronage, they are hedging their bets in case one of the nations stops supporting them at some point in the future, and the multiple buy is irrelevant to the topic, just the Rafale costs, and like I said we have 2 other more recent European deals for planes, weapons, spares, training that come in at lower, also you do get that the costs aren't necessarily going to be all in one year right?

Flinty997

Only that you've more bargaining power the bigger the
deal.

Why would all the costs be in one year. That makes no sense.

Larbre34

The cost to the Government would be say 2 billion euro over 5 to 10 years, spread out by the tender phase, deposits, gradual delivery and construction of elements like the primary radar system and IT, new hangars, recruitment and overseas type specific training of aircrew and ground crew, delivery of first airframes etc

Only recently the DoD tendered for technical services to advise on the specification for the new Multirole Vessel and NS flagship. Hopefully some day soon we'll see similar activity beginning for a comprehensive air defence system.

Flinty997

...and without blinking an eye we are at 2 billion....

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-would-need-16-fighter-jets-for-full-air-defence-capability-expert-says-1.4184846

...Such a jet programme would likely cost well in excess of €1 billion....

...“People say we should have a 24/7 response. I’m just trying to bring reality to it. Once you escalate to a 24/7 service the numbers of personnel and resources go off the Richter scale.”...

Gary kk

I assume when you said 40 years you meant new fighters. I guess the second hand ones could be replaced after 15 years or so would that be about right time span for upgrading the fighters not replace the original new ones.

Flinty997

Gary kk wrote: »

I assume when you said 40 years you meant new fighters. I guess the second hand ones could be replaced after 15 years or so would that be about right time span for upgrading the fighters not replace the original new ones.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30782932/air-force-retire-old-planes/

"...The average age of Air Force aircraft, as a recent Heritage Foundation report pointed out, is 28 years..."

Whats making aircraft obsolete faster these days is software being obsolete or being too expensive to upgrade. The Gripen has an advantage here due to the modular approach.

"....But Saab believes one of the biggest advances with the Gripen E comes through its use of an all-new integrated modular avionics system, which splits flight-critical and tactical management software. It says the latter’s software, hardware and algorithms can be rapidly changed – like apps on a smartphone – to keep pace with evolved operational requirements or technological advances in computing over the life of the type’s use..."

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis-how-saab-broke-the-mould-with-evolved-gripen-e/120655.article

Whereas they are retiring the early typhoons early...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.janes.com/amp/uk-defence-command-paper-raf-to-axe-older-typhoons/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2

"....While these earlier jets are limited to the air defence role due primarily to software limitations..."

Gary kk

Larbre34 wrote: »

The same role any interceptor or combat air patrol aircraft is needed for in peacetime.

To be tasked to and to intercept any suspicious or irresponsible aircraft in our area of responsibility at high speed,

This includes, but is not limited to; Russian reconnaissance aircraft operating in civilian air corridors without transponders, civilian airliners that have lost communications and/or whose intentions may be uncertain, to assist and inspect any aircraft reporting damage or a loss of control, to intercept and escort suspected criminal aircraft or drones involved in drug or human trafficking, or any other type of smuggling, to assist the subsonic Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the exercise of its tasks in any manner requested, including any future counter-submarine activity in territorial waters.

Basically, the stuff that modern sovereign nations do routinely all over the World.

Then I think we should to go for a Typhoon it's has slightly better air to air capabilities over the F35. I mean the F22 might not be a bad option either. Haven't compared F22 to Typhoon yet sorry

This could also be the worst timed post ever ; )

I won't personally be comparing .

Flinty997

Gary kk wrote: »

Then I think we should to go for a Typhoon it's has slightly better air to air capabilities over the F35. I mean the F22 might not be a bad option either. Haven't compared F22 to Typhoon yet sorry

This could also be the worst timed post ever ; )

They don't export the F22. You can't buy them. Also the F22 and the F35 are the most expensive fighters to buy and run. Even the US is looking at something cheaper.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/air-force-admits-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-too-much-ncna1259781

Not that budget is a problem for Ireland.

Gary kk

Flinty997 wrote: »

They don't export the F22. You can't buy them. Also the F22 and the F35 are the most expensive fighters to buy and run. Even the US is looking at something cheaper.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/air-force-admits-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-too-much-ncna1259781

Not that budget is a problem for Ireland.

Cheers you probably saved me a good twenty mins on YouTube looking at "AI" doc on comparison ; )

Yeah I thought any budget constraints where gone.

Lorddrakul

This morning, the 17 of June, Pat Kenny on Newstalk will be talking about what it will take the properly address Irish airspace.

Should be interesting.

Gary kk

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.

I have thought on this I think maybe it was unexpected bills that has slowed the process more so that anything. Irish water is running 7billion euro the last checked then and there is children's hospital no one knows the final cost on that. Both had to be done but they both ran way over budget. Given Ireland's size and already significant debit I can easily see how certain plans may have been pushed to side.

Dohvolle

Lorddrakul wrote: »

This morning, the 17 of June, Pat Kenny on Newstalk will be talking about what it will take the properly address Irish airspace.

Should be interesting.

Coming up shortly (after 11am news if you are listening on the podcast later).

Lorddrakul

Very disappointing, while the interviewee was clearly knowledgeable, light combat aircraft was as close a he got to actually defining what would be a possible solution to an Irish capability to police its own airspace.

Light combat aircraft would be the likes of the Hawk, L-39, TA-50, et al.

Were a Tu-160, or an SU-34, to take a stroll through Irish airspace, I'm not sure what good that class of aircraft would be.

Just looking at it, the KAI TA-50 might be quick enough, but with a service ceiling of 48k ft, it would struggle to get high enough. But even then, at only Mach 1.5, both of these aircraft could hitch up their skirts and high tail it beyond.

TA-50s would catch the Bears, but the Flankers and White Swans would disappear into the Atlantic horizon.

Dohvolle

Lorddrakul wrote: »

Very disappointing, while the interviewee was clearly knowledgeable, light combat aircraft was as close a he got to actually defining what would be a possible solution to an Irish capability to police its own airspace.

Light combat aircraft would be the likes of the Hawk, L-39, TA-50, et al.

Were a Tu-160, or an SU-34, to take a stroll through Irish airspace, I'm not sure what good that class of aircraft would be.

Just looking at it, the KAI TA-50 might be quick enough, but with a service ceiling of 48k ft, it would struggle to get high enough. But even then, at only Mach 1.5, both of these aircraft could hitch up their skirts and high tail it beyond.

TA-50s would catch the Bears, but the Flankers and White Swans would disappear into the Atlantic horizon.

Kevin used to be in the Silver Swallows back in the day. A fine pilot.
The key point joe public could get from listening is the following:

• Everyone else does it except us
• its bloody dangerous that we don't
• it will cost us, but given our past history, we will get great VFM
• Anything is better than our current capability, which equates to looking through binos at errant aircraft

At least we are having the discussion.