Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fighter jets for the Air Corps?
Options
Comments
-
Manic Moran wrote: »If you are looking at long-distance runs like investigating contacts in Irish-controlled airspace over the Atlantic, I don't think you need to be carrying a full-on warload. Surely two tip missiles, and three drop tanks (You may not even need to drop them, but if you do, they're disposable) is plenty enough capability with range for that job.
I can imagine some civil servant going "what do you mean you just dropped them in the sea?"0 -
-
Manic Moran wrote: »If you are looking at long-distance runs like investigating contacts in Irish-controlled airspace over the Atlantic, I don't think you need to be carrying a full-on warload. Surely two tip missiles, and three drop tanks (You may not even need to drop them, but if you do, they're disposable) is plenty enough capability with range for that job.
[Edit. Would range not be a similar question for FA-50s?]
RAF Typhoons seem to always be carrying tanks on their interceptions.0 -
Of all the Western Nations to pick those two are by far the worst examples to use (I mean hell when was the last time the UK brought any military project into use on time, on budget, on spec?
Makes more sense to compare us to nations of around the same population/gdp (though yes ours is nuts so knock about 50-100 billion off the figure) and then look at what they are doing.
They just are an extreme example of how costs can get out of hand. Perhaps multiples of the national children's hospital would be a good metric.0 -
They just are an extreme example of how costs can get out of hand. Perhaps multiples of the national children's hospital would be a good metric.
The Children’s hospital is its own utter screw up for a variety of home grown reasons, but not relevant to this topic.
And no generally speaking small nations don’t piss away as much money as larger ones on defence as small nations are rarely trying to build the next gen or pandering to their own defence lobbies. For us basically the smartest thing would to be to pick one major nation (ideally a European one) and just leverage off them rather than continuously going for bespoke Irish buys or even worse being the guinea pig as we’ve been before.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Manic Moran wrote: »If you are looking at long-distance runs like investigating contacts in Irish-controlled airspace over the Atlantic, I don't think you need to be carrying a full-on warload. Surely two tip missiles, and three drop tanks (You may not even need to drop them, but if you do, they're disposable) is plenty enough capability with range for that job.
[Edit. Would range not be a similar question for FA-50s?]
Gripen C/D Combat range is 800km(430NM)
FA-50 Combat Range is 1851KM (999nm)
M346 Combat range is 1925KM (1039NM)
Rafale Combat Range is 1850KM (1000NM)0 -
I would like to make a few points if I may.
One . Jets are expensive, We should invest in Sams, guided AAA , EW and Radar for air defence as priority.
Two . If jets are to be purchased it should be for primarily for War-fighting not for air policing large rogue aircraft which is a secondary role of jets handy but secondary and auxiliary
Three . Lets define a rogue large aircraft in this context of needing interception by fast jet-
An Aircraft which has been taken over by hostile elements and is being used as a weapon
An Aircraft with a pilot in charge who is suicidal to the point that he is going to crash aircraft
into a target on ground.
An Aircraft which is out of control because of a severe mechanical failure and has a high probability of ending its flight over a densely populated area
Four . These are all extremely rare events which can best be prevented by investing
in Immigration control, Airport and Air-plane security , looking after Pilots , and aircraft maintenance for a fraction of the costs of a reactionary military response. With added bonus of preventing aircrash's in general.
Five . In the entire history of Aviation I cannot think of an incident where a fast jet intercepted a rogue large aircraft and shoot it down, There have been cases where a rogue large aircraft was intercepted and there no need to shoot it down like the Greek Helios flight 522 but not a single incident of it happening, not once.
Conclusion
So even if you spent all this money on fast jets for an extremely rare event that even if it happens, this weapon you brought may not have time, intelligence or position to prevent.
Yes we should spent more on the military and more on air defence but ground based assets should be priority given limited resources0 -
Keplar240B wrote: »I would like to make a few points if I may.
One . Jets are expensive, We should invest in Sams, guided AAA , EW and Radar for air defence as priority.
Two . If jets are to be purchased it should be for primarily for War-fighting not for air policing large rogue aircraft which is a secondary role of jets handy but secondary and auxiliary
Three . Lets define a rogue large aircraft in this context of needing interception by fast jet-
An Aircraft which has been taken over by hostile elements and is being used as a weapon
An Aircraft with a pilot in charge who is suicidal to the point that he is going to crash aircraft
into a target on ground.
An Aircraft which is out of control because of a severe mechanical failure and has a high probability of ending its flight over a densely populated area
Four . These are all extremely rare events which can best be prevented by investing
in Immigration control, Airport and Air-plane security , looking after Pilots , and aircraft maintenance for a fraction of the costs of a reactionary military response. With added bonus of preventing aircrash's in general.
Five . In the entire history of Aviation I cannot think of an incident where a fast jet intercepted a rogue large aircraft and shoot it down, There have been cases where a rogue large aircraft was intercepted and there no need to shoot it down like the Greek Helios flight 522 but not a single incident of it happening, not once.
Conclusion
So even if you spent all this money on fast jets for an extremely rare event that even if it happens, this weapon you brought may not have time, intelligence or position to prevent.
Yes we should spent more on the military and more on air defence but ground based assets should be priority given limited resources
For the nth time no SAMs are not the option for what we are talking about.0 -
You cannot police a section of airspace with SAMs.
You cannot launch them against civilian aircraft that may be compromised and you certainly don't get away with painting Russian military aircraft with SAM acquisition radar without creating an international incident.
Besides which, the only missile systems in existence with the range to cover our offshore airspace, from shore, (range +/- 200 kms, elevation 25,000m) cost over $50 million per launcher unit, plus $500-900,000 per missile.
That's every cent the cost of a good Fighter Jet, with the significant drawback that they are fixed in place or at the very least slow to redeploy. 16 jets will cover the Country, but the number of SAM sites needed would be well over 16. More like 50.
Theres no business case to be made for them.0 -
Advertisement
-
Keplar240B wrote: »Five . In the entire history of Aviation I cannot think of an incident where a fast jet intercepted a rogue large aircraft and shoot it down, There have been cases where a rogue large aircraft was intercepted and there no need to shoot it down like the Greek Helios flight 522 but not a single incident of it happening, not once.
29/10/2014 - RAF forced a Latvian cargo plane that went “rogue” never responded to ATC comms and transponder was turned of over Manchester. That’s additional one.
5 weeks ago, bulrussians hijacked a Ryanair aircraft in EU airspace (Lithuania)…that’s a second.
Furthermore you cannot assess situation if you are not up close to it, the element of doubt would still remain if you used anti aircraft alone. If this was the case the there would be no need for the RAF QRA to begin with.
There is not much an AA gun can do in the case of a rogue aircraft or an air piracy situation so you would need direct contact capabilities.
I do get what you are suggesting however it does need aircraft solution rather than AA.0 -
Keplar240B wrote: »... In the entire history of Aviation I cannot think of an incident where a fast jet intercepted a rogue large aircraft and shoot it down, ...
I remember this one...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
Some of these are air to air.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents0 -
-
Behind a pay wall...
The graphic with the option "full capability" with 40 Gripen is a nice touch though.0 -
-
I really thought I could leave then I saw the paper.
So beyond the pay wall seemly the UK has been telling the Irish government to fill the gap.
At the time they were looking at jets they decided to put more money into the navy instead.
66million for a F35 and 35million for a F15 just given the price stated in the paper.0 -
roadmaster wrote: »40 Grippens!!!!!
There is a huge gap between just 8 FA80 and 40 Gripens.
What about Second Hand or Leasing of relatively modern Fighters such as Gripen C/D or Rafale?
And why stop at just 8 FA50 or M346 but seek 40 Gripens?
Good piece, with plenty of talking points.0 -
I really thought I could leave then I saw the paper.
So beyond the pay wall seemly the UK has been telling the Irish government to fill the gap.
At the time they were looking at jets they decided to put more money into the navy instead.
66million for a F35 and 35million for a F15 just given the price stated in the paper.
https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/forum/announcements-news/news/727316-the-%E2%80%98gaping-gap%E2%80%99-in-ireland%E2%80%99s-airspace-defence
Shh.0 -
The article in full:It was the second week in March last year and the world was focused on the worsening Covid-19 pandemic, as it raged around the globe. Off the northwest coast of Ireland, however, another drama was taking place.
Three pairs of British Royal Air Force (RAF) fighters raced to intercept Russian long-range aircraft heading south down the Atlantic, the third time that week the same Cold War-style, airborne cat-and-mouse encounters had played out.
The RAF aircraft had scrambled hurriedly from bases in Scotland and eastern England. First, they sought to find the Russians. Secondly, they tried to shepherd them away.
The Russian aircraft never, it is understood, entered Irish sovereign territory, but they were flying in airspace controlled by Irish authorities, but which the Irish military has no ability to police.
'We had essentially zero capacity to monitor or police our airspace'
In reality, the State is unable to even detect, let alone police who or what is flying in the region unless the aircraft concerned actively alert authorities to their presence. And often, extraordinarily, they are visible to no one.
The habits that have grown among Russian military aircraft pose safety questions for commercial aircraft transiting busy air lanes, since often they fly “dark” with location transponders switched off.
Over the decades, Irish governments have consciously opted not to spend often-scarce resources on air defence, instead relying on a highly-confidential agreement with the UK government to deal with worst-case crises.
Now, however, apparently for the first time, the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) has weighed into this issue publicly in a submission it has made to the Government-appointed Commission on Defence.
In it, the authority, the agency that promotes and regulates the safety of aviation in Ireland, has urged that the military “should have full capability to detect potential aircraft infringements into our national airspace”.
A significant amount of the IAA submission has been blacked out, apparently on national security grounds. However, the redacted portions focus heavily on aircraft flying with transponders off.
It is not the first time that such warnings about the lack of air defence has been given. However, in the past these have been glossed over, usually on the grounds that it would cost too much to do anything about it.
When military officials and civil servants were putting together a draft of the White Paper on Defence a few years ago, they concluded that the Defence Forces had capabilities across all spectrums.
It could put ships to sea and could deploy ground troops in Ireland and to far-flung locations. “Some of these capabilities were not up to international standards but they were there. In theory, the military was capable of responding to any reasonable threat to the security of the State,” one former officer involved in the process said.
Except one. “The gaping gap was air. We had essentially zero capacity to monitor or police our airspace.”
However, when the 143-page White Paper appeared in August 2015, mention of this “gaping gap” was confined to a single sentence, promising to examine the issue at a later stage.
When the White Paper was updated in 2019 the matter was again confined to the single line on the to-do list: “Consider the development of a more capable air combat/intercept capability as part of the White Paper update.” Status: “Not yet commenced.”
Russian activity
The spike in Russian air activity over the northeastern Atlantic sparked attention in March last year. However, there had been other such incidents previously.
Defence figures believe Russian TU-95 “Bear” bombers routinely skirt the edges of Irish sovereign airspace as they probe for gaps in the UK’s air defence sphere and test the RAF’s response times.
“There is no doubt in my mind that they are doing reconnaissance there,” former US army commander in Europe Lieut Gen Ben Hodges told this newspaper in March last year.
However, Irish authorities believe many of these flights take place entirely without the State’s knowledge. As well as lacking any aircraft capable of intercepting the bombers, Ireland is the only country on Europe’s west coast which lacks a primary radar system.
This means air traffic control can only see aircraft that want to be seen, ie those who have their transponders turned on. The Russian military aircraft almost always have theirs off. “The truth is we don’t know how often this happens,” a retired Air Corps officer said. “And people say, ‘Well, they’re not entering our actual airspace.’ We don’t know if they are entering our airspace because we’ve no way of tracking them!”
For those whose job it is to care about such things, the worry is not that Russia will attack Ireland, it is that the bombers are essentially invisible to the many other aircraft operating off the west coast; about 80 per cent of all transatlantic flights pass through Irish-controlled airspace. Mid-air collisions are rare but they are not unheard of, said one officer, pointing to a 2014 incident where a Swedish commercial airliner narrowly avoided colliding with a Russian military aircraft flying with its transponders switched off.
Another potential problem is that some military communications aircraft can trail antennae behind them for miles, which could also damage any other aircraft that encountered it.
Russian aircraft are perhaps the obvious dangers, but there are others. The lack of primary radar which prevents the authorities from seeing TU-95s also prevents them from spotting a hijacked airliner with its transponder turned off.
And even if it was spotted, the Air Corps’ fleet of eight PC-9s – small, lightly-armed propeller aircraft – would not be capable of getting near the speed or altitude required to deal with such threats.
Even less discussed is the use of private aircraft by criminals to fly drugs and weapons into small airfields without detection – a concern that has been highlighted by Air Corps officers and gardaí over the years. “There’s some intelligence to suggest this is becoming more common,” a senior garda involved in combatting organised crime said this week.
‘Black hole’
While Defence Force chiefs have quietly highlighted the gaps to the Government, it is understood there have also been discreet calls from the British, through diplomatic and military channels, for Ireland to plug what one UK official called a “black hole” in Europe’s western air defence.
Ireland is not totally defenceless from air threats. Following the 9/11 attacks, the government entered into a secret memorandum of understanding with the UK which would allow it to deploy Quick Reaction Force combat aircraft over Irish airspace in the event of an emergency.
The government has consistently refused to discuss this agreement or even confirm its existence and it has never been approved by the Oireachtas.
However, it is understood its terms are extremely narrow. According to one source, UK aircraft could only deploy “in a 9/11-type scenario” where there is an immediate threat to life.
In making its case for additional capabilities, the Defence Forces has been careful not to scare civil servants and politicians by calling for “air defence”. Rather officers talk about “airspace policing”.
“Airspace policing is more peacetime-orientated, dealing with issues such as rogue aircraft and illegal importation of drugs,” a military source said. He said it is almost a civil function, which just happens to be performed by militaries.
Last year, former Air Corps chief Ralph James estimated Ireland may need 16 fighter jets, with each serviced by three crews, to provide a true 24/7 fast response capability to threats.
“But aircraft systems are no good without the supporting systems. So you have the radar system, the reporting systems and intelligence systems to evaluate threats,” he said. “Then also backing up the airplane you have things like air traffic control, fire crews and so on.”
Over the years various figures have been put forward for the cost of all this. By some estimates it would cost more than €1 billion in the short term, the same as the entire current annual defence budget.
However, others believe the cost could be much lower. According to one unpublished submission to the defence commission from a retired senior Air Corps officer, Ireland could build an air policing capacity for an initial outlay of less than €40 million a year.
Instead of purchasing top-of-the-range, fifth-generation fighters such as the American F-35 (€66 million each) or the fourth-generation F-15 (€35 million each), the Government could invest in eight “light combat aircraft” at a total cost of €20 million per year over a 25-year lifespan. These supersonic aircraft could provide 90 per cent of the capability of their far more expensive cousins, at a fraction of the cost, the former officer said, and would provide an adequate, if limited, air policing capability.
Such aircraft would cost about twice what it costs to operate the current PC-9 aircraft per year but would “provide considerable value for money by enhancing capabilities significantly”.
Any purchase would have to be combined with primary radar systems which would cost about €36 million, they said.
A light combat aircraft such as the Korean FA-50 could perform dual roles, taking over the pilot training function of the PC-9 (which is due to be retired in 2025) while also remaining on standby as air interceptors.
Cost could be further defrayed by charging airlines an extra fee to use Irish airspace, the former officer said, comparing it to the fees paid by banks to the military for armed cash escorts.
“Such a funding model, relying upon commercial revenue, could remove any debt accrued to fund an air policing capability from the State’s balance sheet. A capital structure of this nature would be highly efficient and could set an example for wider exchequer applications.”
Spending priorities
Debate on the issue is ongoing, with some in Government and military circles arguing there are more urgent spending priorities, not least of which is the staffing and recruitment crisis affecting every branch of the Defence Forces.
Spending money on big ticket defence projects at a time when the Naval Service cannot find the personnel to operate some existing ships due to staff retention problems would be controversial, to say the least.
In a submission to the commission, MEP Clare Daly urged that that any additional funding for defence should be earmarked to improve pay and conditions over any plans to invest in new equipment.
There does appear to be some movement, however. The Irish Times has learned that three years ago, the Defence Forces received proposals from three air defence firms, Thales, Saab and Northrop Grumman, for between one and three military radar units. Each unit would cost between €15 million and €20 million, and would be able to detect all aircraft within a 450km range.
Any movement on this, however, would require extra Exchequer funding. But does the political will exist to invest in more higher-powered aircraft?
In an interview with The Irish Times, Minister for Defence Simon Coveney said Ireland had to make choices within a “reasonable level of resource availability, as we have done in the past”.
“We made a choice not to have fighter jets so Ireland does not have the capacity to defend itself in the air the same way that many other countries have. We instead chose to prioritise a naval fleet, an army that’s resourced primarily for peacekeeping and other essential services. That a choice we’ve made.”
However, he said he was willing to consider any ambitious recommendations which may come from the Commission on the Defence Forces.
“I’ve said to [the chairman Aidan O’Driscoll] if there are questions that need answers that require radical solutions, don’t be shy in putting them forward. The Government will have to deal with the consequences of that.”
So the article starts with the issues - safety and apparently drug running.
The obvious solution, towards the bottom of the article, is a powerful primary radar giving us an idea of what is happening in airspace that we control to 450km.
But much like this thread, discussion is obsessed with a fantasy that fighter jets would actually improve this situation or offer any utility at all. No aircraft, military or otherwise, will ever be shot down by the state in peacetime, and the actual probability of that situation arising in the first instance is so slim that the whole exercise is pointless to begin with.
The only merit to fast jets in the Air Corps may be to have a handful of pilots trained and seconded to other air forces such that when the balloon goes up and Europe (our allies and therefore in our interest to defend) is at war, we can offer some people to boost the number of sorties and patrols flown in Norway or Latvia or the Black Sea. In this scenario, our Naval Service should be busy denying the Russians easy access to the Atlantic ensuring that we're not cut off from the mainland and that our inherently benign part of the world continues to be benign.0 -
Your ok but thanks I will stay on the public forums but I didn't know you consider my opinions so highly to send me an invite.0 -
Advertisement
-
On a side note guessing it's to do with extra work but they could have a 2 tier system since it's cheap. 8 Saab G and 12 fa 50. Just a thought please don't railroad me.
Edit I joking railroad away0 -
Excellent piece.
I'd recommend anyone find it and read it, even if it's just to look at the graphic map to understand the sheer size of area we have responsibility for, without any means to police it.
I'm am bemused by the 40 Gripens option though, that quite the psychological trick the IAA are trying to pull!0 -
Excellent piece.
I'd recommend anyone find it and read it, even if it's just to look at the graphic map to understand the sheer size of area we have responsibility for, without any means to police it.
I'm am bemused by the 40 Gripens option though, that quite the psychological trick the IAA are trying to pull!
Yeah the 40 Gripens is someone trying to kill off the idea, there’s zero need for such a large number, hell that’s only 20 less than Finland who certainly aren’t designing their buy with an eye towards fighting Russia directly…0 -
I hope the likes of Ralph James and Kevin Byrne are making their own informed submissions, vis-a-vis the single Squadron of Gripens, even if only to suggest to lay people that there are far more than 2 or 3 ways to skin a cat.0
-
Yeah one squadron would be much easier on the budget. Something some people have no respect for.0
-
Yeah one squadron would be much easier on the budget. Something some people have no respect for.
Thing is “Squadron” can vary from nation to nation as to what numbers are actually in it. 12 if that’s what you mean leaves it extremely tight for any attrition losses (and there will be some) or the unexpected downtime that may occur messing up all the other flight times needed.0 -
Thank you
That's kinda why I wondered about a tier system like the US were the F35 and F22 are top whilefewer in number than the F16. But F16 is still the main stay. Now I know they are developing a replacement for F16.
It's just a thought.
No I don't mean we should buy an F35 even do they are probably the best out there.
It's kinda why I asking would there be a role for PC9 if the the government final buy something of value to air policing0 -
There is literally no parallel to be drawn with the United States. On any military level. We're doing well to bench mark against Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Czechia, New Zealand.
The PC-9 has a role for any ground based event requiring a high level of security, perhaps a senior VIP from overseas, or an issue along the border. To be of any use in the air, it would need to already in the air in the vicinity of whatever aircraft was of concern. That other aircraft would need to be slow and unarmed. So no, not really.0 -
Thank you
That's kinda why I wondered about a tier system like the US were the F35 and F22 are top whilefewer in number than the F16. But F16 is still the main stay. Now I know they are developing a replacement for F16.
It's just a thought.
No I don't mean we should buy an F35 even do they are probably the best out there.
It's kinda why I asking would there be a role for PC9 if the the government final buy something of value to air policing
The US make up is complicated. The 22 was to replace the F 15s as the main air to air fighter, however post Cold War, pre the Rise in China, there wasn’t really any air to air threat so the political will for them wasn’t there, leading to them being cut to the sub 200. Now with the rise in China’s threat the US is short air to air, hence the new F15s being bought that are basically missile carriers to increase their combat power.
The F35 was to be the replacement for the F16 class, but because they decided to try and make a 1 size fits all for both the Air Force, navy and marines it’s turned out to be more expensive and complicated than intended, hence why there’s questions about whether or not the original order numbers can be bought, hence some suggesting new block Vipers instead.0 -
Advertisement
-
Excellent piece.
I'd recommend anyone find it and read it, even if it's just to look at the graphic map to understand the sheer size of area we have responsibility for, without any means to police it.
I'm am bemused by the 40 Gripens option though, that quite the psychological trick the IAA are trying to pull!
Ask for 40, get 20, Good days work.0
Advertisement