Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Flinty997

Larbre34 wrote: »

Well this discussion is deep in the ditch.

This is them in Vietnam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NENrDGmHE&ab_channel=PeriscopeFilmII

Dohvolle

Larbre34 wrote: »

Well this discussion is deep in the ditch.

Blame the mod.

Flinty997

I think we should bring it back to how this discussion started way back.

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, you can double that number - the RAF has about 35 Typhoons on the QRA mission to keep two at constant 24 hour readiness.

Of your 18 jets - 6, at any given time, will be undergoing maintenance, leaving 12......you need at least two for QRA, plus two spares.....that leaves 8......you're always going to get hangar queens, so figure 2 of them.....leaves you with a paltry 6 for training, operational conversion etc

Also, you can add two tankers to your list.

Flinty997

This thread is 3yrs old. What has changed?

Larbre34

The RAF operate 2 QRA bases, we would only operate 1.

In no concept of what we are talking about here, is it envisaged that Irish aircraft would be projecting power to the distance that the RAF does, in concert with NATO allies.

I've said before, any comparison with major powers like the US and UK is pointless and disingenuous. Our benchmarks are Austria, Finland, Czechia, Switzerland, Croatia, and the likes.

Flinty997

So is that definite no to the coastguard storming France.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

So is that definite no to the coastguard storming France.

Well it’s been a while since anyone has had to storm France…

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Because that was his job. He was there to document the invasion. this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Sargent

And the question still remains

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Well it’s been a while since anyone has had to storm France…

https://youtu.be/5f8MinrUTpw

But you're not ruling it out....

Edgarfrndly

So getting back on topic - let's evaluate the list of potential fighter jets.

Saab Gripen C/D



Price: €30m. Likely much less for upcoming 2nd-hand models, as Sweden upgrades to newer variant.
Maximum speed: 2,460 km/h (Mach 2)
Combat Range: 800 km

KAI FA-50



Price: About €30m
Maximum speed: 1,837.5 km/h (Mach 1.5)
Range: 1,851 km for trainer variant

Aermacchi M-346



Price: About €17m
Maximum speed: 1,090 km/h
Range: 1,925 km

Aero L-159 Alca



Price: About €12m
Maximum speed: 936 km/h
Range: 1,570 km (565 km combat range)

Others? F-16? L-39?

donvito99

This tangent is apt in that those landings are one of the last engagements where today's Defence Forces' tech was of actual use.

Larbre34

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

So getting back on topic - let's evaluate the list of potential fighter jets.

Three out of the four you posted aren't fighter jets and the one you did suggest, isn't a picture of it.

Can we finally, please, put to bed these poxy little jet trainers. We need interceptors and these bloody well aren't. They don't have the speed, climb rate, range, fuel capacity, or weapons load.

What we do need are durable, quick, flexible aircraft with modern avionics, sensors and weapons options. They must have limitless support and spares to order.

What we don't need are 5th generation stealth super fighters. What we can't have, are aircraft that don't come from the West.

This all narrows it down to Generation 4.5 aircraft, European or American in origin.

The options are:

F-16 Block 70, €60 million per unit
JAS-39 C/D, €40 - 50 million per unit
Dassault Rafale, any recent spec, €90 million per unit
F-15 EX, €80 million per unit
F/A-18E Super Hornet, €60 million per unit
Eurofighter Typhoon, €60 million per unit (to EU members)

Second hand:

F-16 (many variants available), €20 million
F-15 E, €40 million-ish

Now, from those, some are stupid money and those older airframes with twin engines are eye watering to operate.

And so we are back to:

A Gripen lease deal OR
A used NATO origin F-16 purchase.

It's really that simple.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Three out of the four you posted aren't fighter jets and the one you did suggest, isn't a picture of it.

Can we finally, please, put to bed these poxy little jet trainers. We need interceptors and these bloody well aren't. They don't have the speed, climb rate, range, fuel capacity, or weapons load.

What we do need are durable, quick, flexible aircraft with modern avionics, sensors and weapons options. They must have limitless support and spares to order.

What we don't need are 5th generation stealth super fighters. What we can't have, are aircraft that don't come from the West.

This all narrows it down to Generation 4.5 aircraft, European or American in origin.

The options are:

F-16 Block 70, €60 million per unit
JAS-39 C/D, €40 - 50 million per unit
Dassault Rafale, any recent spec, €90 million per unit
F-15 EX, €80 million per unit
F/A-18E Super Hornet, €60 million per unit
Eurofighter Typhoon, €60 million per unit (to EU members)

Second hand:

F-16 (many variants available), €20 million
F-15 E, €40 million-ish

Now, from those, some are stupid money and those older airframes with twin engines are eye watering to operate.

And so we are back to:

A Gripen lease deal OR
A used NATO origin F-16 purchase.

It's really that simple.

Just to add, the used F-16 option can include anything from shagged out ones to more recent rebuilds so prices and spec can vary wildly.

Leonidas BL

The Gripen lease is the way to go.

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

And the question still remains

are you asking why he did his job? he was surrounded by people doing their jobs. why would he do anything different?

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Just to add, the used F-16 option can include anything from shagged out ones to more recent rebuilds so prices and spec can vary wildly.

And being an older design may have higher running and maintenance costs than a newer design.

Dohvolle

sparky42 wrote: »

Just to add, the used F-16 option can include anything from shagged out ones to more recent rebuilds so prices and spec can vary wildly.

Even that would be a vast improvement on the current situation.
Given the choice, i'd still push for a twin engine setup.
We know France are doing deals which would see a fully equipped squadron for a billion or thereabouts. (12 2nd hand Dassault Rafale B/C F3-R ) They are in the process of upgrading to F4 and are keen to unload their earlier versions.

The Question is though, would the RAF be keen to do a deal with us for a squadron of Eurofighter Typhoons? It would be a dream for an interoperability point of view, plus we would be able to do any training with them.

Otherwise, it's Gripen C/D all the way. Any F16 would come with too many strings attached to give it any sort of future proofing.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

And being an older design may have higher running and maintenance costs than a newer design.

Of all that generation the 16s are most likely the least worst for that, remember they were originally a low cost unit, it’s only in the later marks that it’s gotten more complex and costly. The main issue is they’ve been the back bone of many NATO nations and have been used hard. Also there’s the potential that the US might want us to buy new rather than second hand.

Larbre34

sparky42 wrote: »

Just to add, the used F-16 option can include anything from shagged out ones to more recent rebuilds so prices and spec can vary wildly.

Absolutely.

I used the sale to Romania by Portugal of 5 x F-16A as the benchmark.

Obviously we would be restricted to well documented used examples from Countries we have a close diplomatic partnership with.

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

Even that would be a vast improvement on the current situation.
Given the choice, i'd still push for a twin engine setup.
We know France are doing deals which would see a fully equipped squadron for a billion or thereabouts. (12 2nd hand Dassault Rafale B/C F3-R ) They are in the process of upgrading to F4 and are keen to unload their earlier versions.

The Question is though, would the RAF be keen to do a deal with us for a squadron of Eurofighter Typhoons? It would be a dream for an interoperability point of view, plus we would be able to do any training with them.

Otherwise, it's Gripen C/D all the way. Any F16 would come with too many strings attached to give it any sort of future proofing.

The only ones they might be willing to offer would be the T1s which they are getting rid of, from comments, the T1s are a nightmare for maintenance basically being separate to the later Tranches, with Austria selling off theirs and starting over. You’d also have the screaming opposition from SF of course.

In terms of diplomacy/politics, I could see the French loving that, and hell they’ve been doing more deals for bigger hardware.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

Of all that generation the 16s are most likely the least worst for that, remember they were originally a low cost unit, it’s only in the later marks that it’s gotten more complex and costly. The main issue is they’ve been the back bone of many NATO nations and have been used hard. Also there’s the potential that the US might want us to buy new rather than second hand.

That's why the US doesn't want new builds of them anyway. They'd prefer a clean sheet new aircraft but low running costs.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

That's why the US doesn't want new builds of them anyway. They'd prefer a clean sheet new aircraft but low running costs.

There’s plenty of different reasons in play in the US defence sector for pretty much everything they buy, none of which is really relevant to us.

Larbre34

They won't get much lower cost to fly than an F-16V, aka the F-21 Indian edition.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

They won't get much lower cost to fly than an F-16V, aka the F-21 Indian edition.

Yes, but for the US like other major nations, half the battle is making sure the next gen is underway, particularly as design periods are getting longer (that being said, the new B21 has been a very quick project, with first flights next year). They love other nations still buying their 4 gens just to keep making money but for both combat and tech reasons they need to push on to new designs.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

There’s plenty of different reasons in play in the US defence sector for pretty much everything they buy, none of which is really relevant to us.

I'm sure running costs are relevant.

The design is almost 50 yrs old. Imagine new build Spitfires 50 yrs after it first flew. Obviously it's not the same thing. A Modern F16 is still very capable aircraft. But makes you think all the same.

sparky42

Flinty997 wrote: »

I'm sure running costs are relevant.

Not as much as a) sustaining the industry by moving on to new aircraft and b) being able to operate in a peer level conflict from Day 1. The 16 even with its improvements in the current Viper model is questionable on b, and achieves nothing for a. So they use them up even to the point of using older airframes as target drones for training while moving on to newer models.

For the US given their budget running costs for a legacy like the 16 isn’t a huge issue, they can literally just pull spares from the boneyard at will.

Sgt. Bilko 09

Flinty997 wrote: »

This thread is 3yrs old. What has changed?

PC12 entered service and fungi is dead…if you’ve nothing to contribute meaningfully don’t participate it’s easy.

Flinty997

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

PC12 entered service and fungi is dead…if you’ve nothing to contribute meaningfully don’t participate it’s easy.

Likewise : )

Is perfectly valid to consider what progress has been made, or the lack thereof.

Larbre34

Flinty997 wrote: »

Likewise : )

Is perfectly valid to consider what progress has been made, or the lack thereof.

Hence the question mark that remains at the end of the thread title.

Flinty997

sparky42 wrote: »

...
For the US given their budget running costs for a legacy like the 16 isn’t a huge issue, they can literally just pull spares from the boneyard at will...

They've definitely been cost trimming a lot of programs lately across every service. One of the issues they keep bringing up is the digital capability and compatibility of new aircraft software vs older designs They've had a lot of software incompatibility across aircraft even F22 and F35 that has gone on for quite a long time. The same in the navy with ships etc.

Then you have the T1 Typhoons being mothballed.