Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

banie01

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.

They turned down the offer of Bregeut Atlantique 2s for which they'd pick up only the upgrade costs to buy the Poseidon.

The Atlantique 2 is an airframe that could handily fit that niche for us.
I agree with you that we need to ensure the defence and integrity of our maritime EEZ, especially given the fact that Ireland is quite a data nexus.

We do also need a realistic air policing capability.
That amounts to at least a primary radar and sufficient 4th gen aircraft for a QRA.
The Don have made it known that's @16 aircraft fleet.
They(or their proxies) have leaked the need to be 40!
40 is a ridiculous number, but it may well be that it is seen as part of a horse trading strategy to get their preferred number.

That said, my preferred option would be that we align with NATO and request air policing support similar to Iceland and the Baltic's.
We allow our Air Corps to develop experience in supporting fast jet ops before we decide to buy some.
Offload training to the programme of whichever we end up buying rather than develop a full training programme here.

We move our primary ops base west and co-locate at knock or Shannon and we invest in maritime policing as our primary role, whilst we develop our own air policing capability.

Anti-sub and armed patrol are soft skills that take years to acquire and deteriorate quickly.
We would also need to align with an experienced operator and at least cross crew to ensure we gain appropriate experience in those ops too.

All those options are expensive multi-year plans that would require a level of engagement with either experienced "neutral" operator e.g Sweden?
Or wholesale NATO alignment, neither of which I feel are politically possible, let alone fiscally.

The air policing role is a vital one, as is the ability to inderdict and challenge maritime incursions rapidly.
One airframe to do both isn't an option, and choices will need to made.
Some of which will give a further truth to the lie of Irish neutrality.

Dohvolle

The Atlantique 2 is a 1950s era airframe. Nobody but the French are using them since the German decision. It would offer very little advantage over the Casa 235 or 295. The Orion would be far superior.
The P8 would be a huge asset to us, but only in terms of a joint EU purchase. Like the AEWACS of NATO based in Lux, or the C17 based in Hungary, we could operate them for the EU, but deploy them elsewhere in the EU as required, such as the Med, or the SW approaches to Europe as part of the anti-narcotics effort.

banie01

Dohvolle wrote: »

The Atlantique 2 is a 1950s era airframe. Nobody but the French are using them since the German decision. It would offer very little advantage over the Casa 235 or 295. The Orion would be far superior.
The P8 would be a huge asset to us, but only in terms of a joint EU purchase. Like the AEWACS of NATO based in Lux, or the C17 based in Hungary, we could operate them for the EU, but deploy them elsewhere in the EU as required, such as the Med, or the SW approaches to Europe as part of the anti-narcotics effort.

Would 100% agree that the P8 would of course be a huge asset and purchasing it in the manner you propose, would be an ideal segue into operating it.

Dismissing the Atlantique 2 because it's a 50s era airframe and proposing the Orion?
Is a bit of an oxymoron tbh.
They are both of the same era and in their latest versions pretty much equivalent capabilities wise.

If the option is Atlantique 2 or Orion? It's much of a muchness tbh and both could fill a capability gap we have.

If the option ever arises for a pooled EU purchase?
I'd assume in the 1st instance it would be directed at least at the scoping stage towards a Euro airframe?
It would perhaps be an opportunity for Airbus/Saab/Casa/Alenia to pitch a cross industry project?
Mix and match the best airframe with the best mission package rather than default to Boeing.

Larbre34

Ah that explains it, at 38k per hour, only the Swiss can afford to run 'em!!

Stovepipe

Whenever someone quotes a cost-per-hour scenario,it's always an in-a-perfect-world number and it assumes that all is going well,no parts outside the usual consumption have failed and you stick to the 300 hrs a year per airframe scenario. You also have to be in the pool to swap parts with fellow users. If you did a cost review of any aircraft over a period like 10 years, then you will have a more real-world idea of what they cost. Manufacturers will always tell you that aircraft X is cheaper to run than the opposition's aircraft Y, that their spares support is better, that their aircraft will last for 10 years more than the other. The only true way to know how much an aircraft really costs is to operate it, as all airforces and airlines do things differently and are economical with the truth to a greater or lesser degree. If someone quotes you a nice,flat round figure, it's a lie. When you see big contract prices like x billion for 30 aircraft, there is a huge amount of fat in that for the manufacturer. He's not selling you aircraft because he thinks you're a nice guy; he wants your money for spares and services and weapons and so on and he will charge you through the nose for it. The nearest parallel to military contract prices is medical inflation. So, if anyone does buy a fighter for the AC, they had better choose well and choose wisely and think long and hard about it. Personally, given that we have a long standing relationship with Sweden and it's relative cost, the Gripen is the one for us.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ah that explains it, at 38k per hour, only the Swiss can afford to run 'em!!

Seen some suggestion that even for them going with the 35 means dropping back to the 9-5 coverage rather than how they have pushed to build up to 24/7 with the hornets. They just won’t be able to with their budget and costs of the 35, which again suggests to me someone put some weight on the scales of the competition.

Larbre34

Agreed.

Perfect time for Pilatus to develop a light interceptor for us all, I would suggest.

Dohvolle

Larbre34 wrote: »

Agreed.

Perfect time for Pilatus to develop a light interceptor for us all, I would suggest.

Pilatus have refused to arm their products, preferring instead to go the swiss route and have someone else provide armament to their products (on which they have provided all the necessary hardpoints and services.)

Larbre34

Fair enough, but developing a light interceptor wouldn't be any more impeded by the than the PC-9 or 21.

The PC-30 Peacemaker, you heard it here first. Sidewinders and AMRAAMs available on Amazon.

Flinty997

Peacemakers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_AU-23_Peacemaker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker

Larbre34

We've already recycled Typhoon and Lightning.

Dohvolle

The PC24 was actually their first attempt at a jet aircraft. It's basically a PC12 with two turbofans stuck on the tail.

Stovepipe

Swiss hypocrisy. No bother flogging Oerlikon products.

Dohvolle

Stovepipe wrote: »

Swiss hypocrisy. No bother flogging Oerlikon products.

Same Swiss who have the world's oldest mercenary army protecting the Vatican.

Fritzbox

sparky42 wrote: »

Seen some suggestion that even for them going with the 35 means dropping back to the 9-5 coverage rather than how they have pushed to build up to 24/7 with the hornets. They just won’t be able to with their budget and costs of the 35, which again suggests to me someone put some weight on the scales of the competition.

The Swiss AF would still have the same high costs if they had chosen the F/A-18 or the Typhoon or Rafale surely?
Eventually a follow on order for more F-35s will be made to replace the Hornets they have now - which should help introduce even better operational efficiencies.

sparky42

Fritzbox wrote: »

The Swiss AF would still have the same high costs if they had chosen the F/A-18 or the Typhoon or Rafale surely?
Eventually a follow on order for more F-35s will be made to replace the Hornets they have now - which should help introduce even better operational efficiencies.

Operating costs are different than the upfront capital costs of the purchase, the 35 (whichever variant) has from memory higher operating costs than the 4.5 gens, if only to maintain the stealth materials. I’d put money on this being it for the Swiss order, there won’t be anything else for another generation (and that would be the same for any of the aircraft bought).

Fritzbox

sparky42 wrote: »

Operating costs are different than the upfront capital costs of the purchase, the 35 (whichever variant) has from memory higher operating costs than the 4.5 gens, if only to maintain the stealth materials. I’d put money on this being it for the Swiss order, there won’t be anything else for another generation (and that would be the same for any of the aircraft bought).

The maintenance of the stealth materials may indeed increase the operating costs of the F-35 but I can't think of any other reasons for greater operating costs (the F-35 hardly consumes more fuel per hour than the other aircraft, does it?).

In fact, the greater production run of the F-35 compared to say, the Rafale, may be a reason to expect a reduction in operating costs?

sparky42

Fritzbox wrote: »

The maintenance of the stealth materials may indeed increase the operating costs of the F-35 but I can't think of any other reasons for greater operating costs (the F-35 hardly consumes more fuel per hour than the other aircraft, does it?).

In fact, the greater production run of the F-35 compared to say, the Rafale, may be a reason to expect a reduction in operating costs?

Production run length will mainly affect the capital costs and development costs, as the longer the run the more spread out the costs, the costs of flying them is different, and depends on a lot of different factors, how often do the engines need work and how long on average for example, how easy is it to get the planes serviced or get spares right now for example the F35 logistic system is a bit of a disaster and is being replaced from memory...

Dohvolle

Fritzbox wrote: »

The maintenance of the stealth materials may indeed increase the operating costs of the F-35 but I can't think of any other reasons for greater operating costs (the F-35 hardly consumes more fuel per hour than the other aircraft, does it?).

In fact, the greater production run of the F-35 compared to say, the Rafale, may be a reason to expect a reduction in operating costs?

Meanwhile SAAB have developed their panels so the end user can manufacture replacement parts using a 3d printer...

1874

Dohvolle wrote: »

Meanwhile SAAB have developed their panels so the end user can manufacture replacement parts using a 3d printer...

Jaysus, now I wanted to stay away, but reading anyway, thats impressive.
Something else, in itself would require a dedicated staff to look after.
I'd say it goes down well in a well managed organisation, Someone in the DoD or DoF would want it in a room where the door wasn't big enough to get it in or not provide the funding to purchase the materials to run it.



I take it they have a specific piece of hardware to create certain parts, I wonder what parts they can print, maybe they are already making some of the parts that way themselves.
You have to hand it to SAAB and the Swedes for ingenuity,

I wonder how they manage quality control of that though with the end user?


Can't fathom why the Swiss would consider an aircraft like the F-35, when they could easily have Gripens, given their location and the slim chance they may even have adversary's and their engineering expertise.
I still wonder what the Gripen uses for Auxillary power, keep hearing F-16s mentioned, but they use hydrazine in some form of AP generator to provide emergency electrical power. I'm assuming the Gripen uses something less hazardous and more up to date, maybe newer versions of the F-16 do too?
As for the IAC, the more I read other threads, the less I consider anything will ever be on the ramp in Casement. Cant even make fupping concrete blocks right in this country.

Manic Moran

Larbre34 wrote: »

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

What Swiss needs? The Swiss Air Force presumably intends to defend its airspace against any aggressors, including those who have top-of-the-line aircraft.

Is a Gripen or F-16 going to have a better chance than F35 in such a situation? When it comes to air combat, saving dollars is pretty low on the priority list.

Larbre34

Manic Moran wrote: »

When it comes to air combat, saving dollars is pretty low on the priority list.

Absolutely wrong in every way its possible to be wrong.

Even in the most belligerent and militarily active countries, the bulk of combat air forces are dormant for what, 80%+ of the time? 90 even?

You'd better believe the cost of keeping those things serviceable when not on active duty, is a preoccupation of air brass, defence departments and Government bean counters in every corner of the globe.

And let's face it, Switzerland must have one of lowest threat levels on Earth, so if anything, the whole life cost factor goes double for them.

Stovepipe

you clearly don't know who Manic Moran is. he is extremely aware of the cost of modern equipment as he has served in them.

Flinty997

Fritzbox wrote: »

The maintenance of the stealth materials may indeed increase the operating costs of the F-35 but I can't think of any other reasons for greater operating costs (the F-35 hardly consumes more fuel per hour than the other aircraft, does it?).

In fact, the greater production run of the F-35 compared to say, the Rafale, may be a reason to expect a reduction in operating costs?

It's meant to be twice as expensive to run per hour as a new build F15 and up to three times as expensive as a F16. The aircraft it was meant to replace.

The high operating costs are tied to a persistent shortage of spare parts and over 800 continuing defects that are still being corrected. At this very moment, F-35 fleets are receiving a projected $16 billion upgrade to software and other components that’s already two years behind schedule and $1.5 billion over budget.

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

Don't under estimate the costs and complexity of the software involved here. Apparently (according to pilot's who fly it) the F35 takes a huge amount of the workload off the pilot. Allowing them to concentrate on the fight like no other aircraft.

Flinty997

Manic Moran wrote: »

....
Is a Gripen or F-16 going to have a better chance than F35 in such a situation? When it comes to air combat, saving dollars is pretty low on the priority list....

No military has unlimited budget. The cost of the F35 is becoming the dominant issue for the US with this aircraft. It would be unwise for any country to ignore the US experience with it to date.

Larbre34

Stovepipe wrote: »

you clearly don't know who Manic Moran is. he is extremely aware of the cost of modern equipment as he has served in them.

Sorry now but that doesn't follow at all.

If he was a senior procurement official or project manager, it would be a different story, but stating that cost doesn't come into consideration in the building of a peacetime air force is just daft.

Flinty997

I associate him with Tanks. I dunno why.

Dohvolle

Stovepipe wrote: »

you clearly don't know who Manic Moran is. he is extremely aware of the cost of modern equipment as he has served in them.

Yeah, but his tank was never great at flying.

The Finns are scratching their head at the Swiss solution too, the numbers don't add up. Great article here.
https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/07/03/swiss-decision-rolls-in-f-35s-favour/

Which brings us to the numbers. The Swiss are looking at a procurement cost of 5.068 Bn CHF for 36 fighters, which converted to Euros and extrapolated to 64 gives us the figure of 8.2 Bn EUR, well below the 9.6 Bn EUR maximum of HX. So far so good, until you realise that the 10.432 Bn CHF cost of operating the aircraft over 30 years gives 16.9 Bn EUR extrapolated to 64, giving you an annual operating cost of 563.3 MEUR, which is significantly over the FinAF 270 MEUR annual budget.

Fritzbox

sparky42 wrote: »

Production run length will mainly affect the capital costs and development costs, as the longer the run the more spread out the costs, the costs of flying them is different, and depends on a lot of different factors, how often do the engines need work and how long on average for example, how easy is it to get the planes serviced or get spares right now...

Yes, but these are questions you could also ask about all the other combat aircraft the F-35 is competing against in the open market.

for example the F35 logistic system is a bit of a disaster and is being replaced from memory

A disaster? I know that the ALIS system has been something of a disappointment in the US military, in fact it is been replaced/revamped. I'm not sure how this should worry any new potential operators of the F-35?

In any case 665 F-35s have been delivered, it has flown 411,000 hours over 235,000 sorties, it doesn't sound like an aircraft with too many logistics problems. https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/images/FG21-00000_001%20F35FastFacts7_2021.pdf

What percentage of the Typhoons delivered to customers in the the last 15 years or so still fly on a regular basis, what percentage are grounded?

Flinty997

Some more detail in the comments after that article worth reading.