Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Flinty997

Larbre34 wrote: »

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

I don't think no progress has been made. We've more obvious threats now. The issues around which fighters and light attack trainers would gain acceptance over upgraded older types is clearer. Been lots of deals which drives down new units costs, and brings older types to the market.

We may have sat on sidelines but a lot has happened.

Psychlops

RAF QRA in RAF Coningsby, this is what it takes for 1 QRA, gives you an idea.

2 Typhoon Squadrons, 30 Combat Jets, 40 pilots & 400 ground Crew.

roadmaster

Psychlops wrote: »

RAF QRA in RAF Coningsby, this is what it takes for 1 QRA, gives you an idea.

2 Typhoon Squadrons, 30 Combat Jets, 40 pilots & 400 ground Crew.

I wonder over the last 5 years how much has the russian air force cost the UK tax payer due to there sunday drives. When you consider you are launchibg at least two fighters each time and possabily two more along with a tanker it must be some bill

sparky42

roadmaster wrote: »

I wonder over the last 5 years how much has the russian air force cost the UK tax payer due to there sunday drives. When you consider you are launchibg at least two fighters each time and possabily two more along with a tanker it must be some bill

Think about how much it’s cost the U.K. tax payer for going down the West Coast, I’m still surprised that they haven’t started billing us for it tbh…

ohnonotgmail

sparky42 wrote: »

Think about how much it’s cost the U.K. tax payer for going down the West Coast, I’m still surprised that they haven’t started billing us for it tbh…

They are only doing it because it is in their own best interests.

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They are only doing it because it is in their own best interests.

Sure, doesn’t mean they could legitimately ask for payment for doing the job for us.

ohnonotgmail

sparky42 wrote: »

Sure, doesn’t mean they could legitimately ask for payment for doing the job for us.

why? It is something they would still do even if we had our own planes to do the job. they go as far as the Bay of Biscay and then hand over to their french NATO partners. We wouldn't be sharing information on russian aircraft with them so they would still do it themselves.

Dohvolle

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why? It is something they would still do even if we had our own planes to do the job. they go as far as the Bay of Biscay and then hand over to their french NATO partners. We wouldn't be sharing information on russian aircraft with them so they would still do it themselves.

They don't venture far beyond their own airspace at all. Indeed for recent russian excursions, the RAF has escorted them to the scottish west coast, then cut down the Irish sea to catch them again if it looks like they are making a channel dash. Once its in the French airspace, they let the french take over.
The RAF actually do very little escorting on the western fringes of our airspace. It serves no purpose to them.

sparky42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why? It is something they would still do even if we had our own planes to do the job. they go as far as the Bay of Biscay and then hand over to their french NATO partners. We wouldn't be sharing information on russian aircraft with them so they would still do it themselves.

We have no idea if they would do that, as there has never been a time when they had an option otherwise.

Larbre34

It would be very easy under civilian aircraft safety protocols to share information on aircraft not using transponders, with any other Country, without undermining neutrality.

I think given the service the RAF have provided us in the last 20 years, it would be very bad form not to transmit that information to them, in the event that we had the capacity.

Although given the NATO AWACS and sea-going tracking capability, they'd still no more about them than we would, before we even got the alert.

Sgt. Bilko 09

Larbre34 wrote: »

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

So instead of a three year thread of guessing you would prefer

Fighter jets for the air corps?

Reply No

Sound

Flinty997

Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »

So instead of a three year thread of guessing you would prefer

Fighter jets for the air corps?

Reply No

Sound

I think the idea of chatting away for fun got lost somewhere along the way.

We could A-Team an Airbus, as interim measure.

Maybe strap a PC9 to it.

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/return-parasites-180953319/

Gary kk

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think the idea of chatting away for fun got lost somewhere along the way.

We could A-Team an Airbus, as interim measure.

Maybe strap a PC9 to it.

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/return-parasites-180953319/

No we tie Gustav's on the wings and find pilots named Gustav.

It shall be known as Gustav's wing.

Dohvolle

The Swiss just did this, it seems.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-government-sets-sights-on-f-35a-fighter-jet-fleet/46748510

€5bn or so for 36 fifth generation fighters

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

The Swiss just did this, it seems.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-government-sets-sights-on-f-35a-fighter-jet-fleet/46748510

€5bn or so for 36 fifth generation fighters

I wouldn't be so sure, Swiss domestic politics are dead set against it, and there's likely to be another referendum on it. Also it will eat their budget alive...

Larbre34

"The Green Liberal Party stated that it would examine the environmental impact of the fighter jet choice."

LOL.

Why the hell are they considering F-35s anyway, an overpriced primadonna of an aircraft that is making budget oversight committees in the US Congress have kittens and disappointing air bosses all across NATO.

A Gripen or F-16V would be absolutely fine for Swiss needs.

Unless they plan to construct an aircraft carrier in Lake Geneva.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

"The Green Liberal Party stated that it would examine the environmental impact of the fighter jet choice."

LOL.

Why the hell are they considering F-35s anyway, an overpriced primadonna of an aircraft that is making budget oversight committees in the US Congress have kittens and disappointing air bosses all across NATO.

A Gripen or F-16V would be absolutely fine for Swiss needs.

Unless they plan to construct an aircraft carrier in Lake Geneva.

I'm guessing a combination of Lockheed up to it's old tricks and potentially the US maybe leaning on them to buy it (the US having history at that), as I said domestic politics might still weigh in.

Dohvolle

Larbre34 wrote: »

"The Green Liberal Party stated that it would examine the environmental impact of the fighter jet choice."

LOL.

Why the hell are they considering F-35s anyway, an overpriced primadonna of an aircraft that is making budget oversight committees in the US Congress have kittens and disappointing air bosses all across NATO.

A Gripen or F-16V would be absolutely fine for Swiss needs.

Unless they plan to construct an aircraft carrier in Lake Geneva.

They actually ruled Gripen out early in the process. Not sure if F16 was on offer.

banie01

Dohvolle wrote: »

The Swiss just did this, it seems.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-government-sets-sights-on-f-35a-fighter-jet-fleet/46748510

€5bn or so for 36 fifth generation fighters

I am very surprised that Boeing didn't win this comp with Super-Hornet.
Really bodes well for Lockheed in Finland too given that the Swiss are basing their lifecycle costs providing a $2.16bln saving over service life despite already having a 60% commonality with legacy hornet sunk costs.

I'm amazed that given that the US are still debating cutting their f35 buy amid life cycle cost issues, that Lockheed have pulled this off.

The Swiss rationale, particularly as they are dedicated to an air policing role is very interesting.

banie01

Decent high level overview on the Swiss decision.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/06/30/lockheeds-f-35-topples-competition-in-swiss-fighter-contest/

Which gives rise to a question?
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/06/29/smith-slams-f-35-lifecycle-costs-in-latest-salvo/
The US armed forces committees are still very much out for change on the F35 with price per flight hour of up to $38k per hour!
How can the Swiss offer be approaching savings of $2.16bln lifecycle costs with a cost per flight hour that even the yanks haven't actually managed to nail down yet?

Dohvolle

banie01 wrote: »

Decent high level overview on the Swiss decision.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/06/30/lockheeds-f-35-topples-competition-in-swiss-fighter-contest/

Which gives rise to a question?
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/06/29/smith-slams-f-35-lifecycle-costs-in-latest-salvo/
The US armed forces committees are still very much out for change on the F35 with price per flight hour of up to $38k per hour!
How can the Swiss offer be approaching savings of $2.16bln lifecycle costs with a cost per flight hour that even the yanks haven't actually managed to nail down yet?

Part of the problem comes with the B and C models, the A is pretty standard as aircraft of this type go, with a decent payload. The others sacrifice payload for gucci, and have more downtime as a result of the gucci-ness.
If they only had an F35A, lifecycle costs would be way down.

sparky42

Dohvolle wrote: »

Part of the problem comes with the B and C models, the A is pretty standard as aircraft of this type go, with a decent payload. The others sacrifice payload for gucci, and have more downtime as a result of the gucci-ness.
If they only had an F35A, lifecycle costs would be way down.

To be fair, the C’s issues aren’t Gucci, it’s the demands that being a carrier airplane means and a design that’s not ideal for said carrier usage. It’s the B that’s the crazy issue.

banie01

sparky42 wrote: »

To be fair, the C’s issues aren’t Gucci, it’s the demands that being a carrier airplane means and a design that’s not ideal for said carrier usage. It’s the B that’s the crazy issue.

The B is a pricey bird alright!
Still find it hard to believe that the UKs carriers stayed with STOVL.
Even if they stayed with steam rather than EMALS, the flexibility and additional payload offered by catapult and angled deck are of far greater benefit when trying to still play empire.
The entire programme was IMO very poorly managed and as is often the case with the Brits post ww2 a morass of poor management and choices.

If the decision is to build a 65k ton carrier?
Surely it's the best option to build in full capabilities?

If the decision is to build 20-30k ton light carriers or assault ships?
Then STOVL is the way to go, but don't half ass it to the extent the Brits did and spunk huge money on a hill the size of a Kitty hawk but with less actual offensive capacity despite being a 50yr younger design.

Gary kk

Larbre34 wrote: »

"The Green Liberal Party stated that it would examine the environmental impact of the fighter jet choice."

LOL.

Why the hell are they considering F-35s anyway, an overpriced primadonna of an aircraft that is making budget oversight committees in the US Congress have kittens and disappointing air bosses all across NATO.

A Gripen or F-16V would be absolutely fine for Swiss needs.

Unless they plan to construct an aircraft carrier in Lake Geneva.

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1227844/

Sorry kinda off topic.

But it just shows the complete idiotic comment that is by their Green party.

Flinty997

banie01 wrote: »

The B is a pricey bird alright!
Still find it hard to believe that the UKs carriers stayed with STOVL.
Even if they stayed with steam rather than EMALS, the flexibility and additional payload offered by catapult and angled deck are of far greater benefit when trying to still play empire.
The entire programme was IMO very poorly managed and as is often the case with the Brits post ww2 a morass of poor management and choices.

If the decision is to build a 65k ton carrier?
Surely it's the best option to build in full capabilities?

If the decision is to build 20-30k ton light carriers or assault ships?
Then STOVL is the way to go, but don't half ass it to the extent the Brits did and spunk huge money on a hill the size of a Kitty hawk but with less actual offensive capacity despite being a 50yr younger design.

Well this is the question. Buy a compromise that is more affordable but less capable. Or buy the all singing dancing which hugely expensive, both to buy and run.

donvito99

The Luftwaffe has just agreed to spend a billion on 5 P8 Poseidon MPAs.

This in my view is where we should be spending in the unlikely event that the government thinks to actually protect the state and its interests. We're an island far removed from an obvious airborne threat. We are however on the front line of surface and sub surface threats to Western Europe.

A small fleet of basically 737s is something we could definitely do and would be far more of a contribution than 12 Gripens, IMO. It would also be substantially cheaper in terms of running costs and would be more likely to pass the public perception test.

Flinty997

donvito99 wrote: »

The Luftwaffe has just agreed to spend a billion on 5 P8 Poseidon MPAs.

This in my view is where we should be spending in the unlikely event that the government thinks to actually protect the state and its interests. We're an island far removed from an obvious airborne threat. We are however on the front line of surface and sub surface threats to Western Europe.

A small fleet of basically 737s is something we could definitely do and would be far more of a contribution than 12 Gripens, IMO. It would also be substantially cheaper in terms of running costs and would be more likely to pass the public perception test.

Not exactly a cheap option...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C

Still wouldn't resolved the "fighter" issue.

donvito99

Flinty997 wrote: »

Not exactly a cheap option...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C

Still wouldn't resolved the "fighter" issue.

The RAF has significantly cut back their Wedgetail order to just a handful. Where we're preparing for a peer adversary defence, we should be thinking about Europe's fighting ability as a whole. It would make sense (not politically obviously) to specialise and make up the numbers in this area, instead of duplicating and watering down capability by having a squadron of 3rd generation fighter jets.

Flinty997

donvito99 wrote: »

The RAF has significantly cut back their Wedgetail order to just a handful. Where we're preparing for a peer adversary defence, we should be thinking about Europe's fighting ability as a whole. It would make sense (not politically obviously) to specialise and make up the numbers in this area, instead of duplicating and watering down capability by having a squadron of 3rd generation fighter jets.

I think we should be looking at Ireland's defence as a whole. Not Europe's, unless it's gives us some advantages that aligns with our politics, neutrality etc. Whatever that means. But also based on priority's, whichever people think they are.

Gary kk

Flinty997 wrote: »

I think we should be looking at Ireland's defence as a whole. Not Europe's, unless it's gives us some advantages that aligns with our politics, neutrality etc. Whatever that means. But also based on priority's, whichever people think they are.

Yeah what neutrality when they are working in German / Nordic battle groups for EU peace keeping narrative. I know it needs an UN and Dail vote plus the senate ? Before Irish troops can deploy