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
-
Two slightly different arguments here. Presumably the same argument about running costs can be made for every country which has selected F35. Combat capability has to figure in there somewhere. The question isn’t just “what is the cheapest way of getting a moderate level of capability,” it is also “what is the best level of capability that your budget can afford?” Otherwise everyone would be flying MiGs and driving T-72s.
The Swiss defense budget is over $5bn, bigger than Finland. And there is no Navy to suck up a portion of it. Further, they aren’t getting a massive fleet, what they do get has to hit hard. If we presume that, cost aside, F-35 is simply a more capable aircraft than Gripen or F-16V, So on a capability for dollar basis, F35 may well be the winner. I suspect arguments about “most of the use will be air policing” misses the point of the Swiss military. The Swiss don’t have a tank fleet the size of the UK’s to protect against other armies or weekend drivers which make accidental incursions into Swiss territory. The ultimate purpose of the Swiss policy to include conscription is to fight.
That is only one of the two arguments,though, the other is whether the raw dollar operating costs for the fleet are cheaper, if one assumes that the metric is fleet size and sortie numbers. That a fleet of F-35s as operated to Swiss requirements would blow the current Finnish operating budget out of the water does not preclude the possibility that a fleet of -any- 4.5 or 5th gen fighter would do the same thing. The bottom line is that, as the article says, Finland is not Switzerland. I suspect only Swiss documents will explain exactly how they got their figures but there is no reason to automatically assume they are wrong just because they don’t “make sense” to us uninitiated types.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »T...I suspect only Swiss documents will explain exactly how they got their figures but there is no reason to automatically assume they are wrong just because they don’t “make sense” to us uninitiated types....
I think its bit of creative accounting and selective reasoning that turns these figures on their head. Which might leave the other bidders "unhappy".0 -
-
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.
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?
That's an average of just over 600 hours per aircraft since it entered service, between 9 and 5 years ago.
Realistically that's about 100 hours per aircraft per year.
And of course the elephant in the room is the engine availability.
Would love to see the USMC availability for the -B model, as they prepped for deployment aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
From reading that article and the comments below it.
The article (and comments) are being made as much in the dark as our discussions. As the article says, "it would be naive to think that the Swiss findings are taken out of thin air". It also quotes an earlier tweet "I'm not quite able to explain it without access to comparable data from European fighters."
We don't have the data, as far as I know, that the Swiss used to make their calculations. Given that national requirements are always going to be unique to a national situation, the fact that the USAF thinks that F-35 ended up being more expensive than the USAF wanted doesn't automatically correlate to the F-35 being more expensive than the international competition for what the Swiss want. There are immediately two differences: USAF vs Swiss needs, and USAF costs vs costs of foreign aircraft.0 -
You "think"? Why do you think that?
Lockheed and no doubt other military contractors have form for it,
(Starfighter),
Austria's acquisition of the Typhoon aircraft
I dont get why the Swiss "need" the F35, they are surrounded by non hostile nations, the F-35 seems more like an offensive type of hardware and the potential adversaries are quite capable of being dealt with by an aircraft like the Gripen, what is likely to happen that the Swiss who it was reported in recent years didnt have a 24hr defence of their airspace (or even at weekends) suddenly find themselves requiring F-35's? Are the Russians flying Flankers at high altitude across all of Europe to reach the Swiss?
While the Gripen doesnt have the same capabilities as either the British or French offerings, I dont think the F-35 has either in terms of altitude or range, so even they may be options for the Swiss needs if they consider the Gripen less than capable, altitude would be the only one i would think might be applicable.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »The article (and comments) are being made as much in the dark as our discussions. As the article says, "it would be naive to think that the Swiss findings are taken out of thin air". It also quotes an earlier tweet "I'm not quite able to explain it without access to comparable data from European fighters."
We don't have the data, as far as I know, that the Swiss used to make their calculations. Given that national requirements are always going to be unique to a national situation, the fact that the USAF thinks that F-35 ended up being more expensive than the USAF wanted doesn't automatically correlate to the F-35 being more expensive than the international competition for what the Swiss want. There are immediately two differences: USAF vs Swiss needs, and USAF costs vs costs of foreign aircraft.
The absence of information can often be informative. We have enough information from other sources about the issues with F35 that the Swiss maths doesn't add up. I would suspect, and it seems the competitors also suspect that that the weighting of criteria changed. I don't think we've heard the last of this. It's not simply about money either. There's also range concerns, and the ability to Sprint across the country from one airfield.
The F35 dominates in Reg flag. What that means I'm not entirely sure. It's not a dogfighter, but we are told this is irrelevant now. So they changed red flag to better suit this new world. Is that a true reflection of reality..0 -
It's this a long way of saying Ireland needs F35s ; )0
-
I dont get why the Swiss "need" the F35, they are surrounded by non hostile nations, the F-35 seems more like an offensive type of hardware
I don't think there is much of a difference in 'offensive' vs 'defensive' fighter aircraft unless range is taken into account. Once the missiles start flying, whoever is 'offending' is pretty irrelevant.
Their 'need' is based on their tradition of being always ready. By the argument, they don't 'need' their couple hundred tanks and IFVs or their thousand APCs. Geopolitical situations can change more quickly than getting a military built up. Look at the races the UK and US got into before they got into WW2, both had two years' or so worth of preparation, both were fighting before they were really ready. In the same amount of time, Russia and Germany went from being military allies in the invasion of Poland to being at each others' throats.0 -
Advertisement
-
The absence of information can often be informative. We have enough information from other sources about the issues with F35 that the Swiss maths doesn't add up. I would suspect, and it seems the competitors also suspect that that the weighting of criteria changed. I don't think we've heard the last of this. It's not simply about money either. There's also range concerns, and the ability to Sprint across the country from one airfield.
The F35 dominates in Reg flag. What that means I'm not entirely sure. It's not a dogfighter, but we are told this is irrelevant now. So they changed red flag to better suit this new world. Is that a true reflection of reality..
Apparently Gripen dominated F35s during a recent visit by Sweden....0 -
Getting back to the Air Corps, it has other needs,not just shiny fighters, to be able to function as a fighter operator; radar, tools (you need lots and lots of tooling for aircraft in general and fighters have their extra needs), hangarage and storage, weapons and their storage, more pilots, more techs (especially avionics techs),more logistic staff,more IT staff...more,more, more of everything as well as updating the usable airfields and airports and training. You need to ramp up your training by a huge margin for pilots, techs, loggies, stores, safety, ATC etc etc,so it's a big mental leap for the organisation and if you want to have a fighter operational by say, 2025, you'd better start now.0
-
Manic Moran wrote: »I don't think there is much of a difference in 'offensive' vs 'defensive' fighter aircraft unless range is taken into account. Once the missiles start flying, whoever is 'offending' is pretty irrelevant.
Their 'need' is based on their tradition of being always ready. By the argument, they don't 'need' their couple hundred tanks and IFVs or their thousand APCs. Geopolitical situations can change more quickly than getting a military built up. Look at the races the UK and US got into before they got into WW2, both had two years' or so worth of preparation, both were fighting before they were really ready. In the same amount of time, Russia and Germany went from being military allies in the invasion of Poland to being at each others' throats.
Historically, one could suggest that while the US and UK were preparing for war in advance of WW2, they were preparing for WW1 to be fought again. De Gaulle, a tanker, had little faith in the usefulness of fixed defence such as the Maginot line. He was proven correct, but the nazis for some reason decided they would not make the same mistake and built the atlantic wall! The US, luckily had invested heavily in Aircraft carriers when the UK were still building battleships. The battleships became secondary when the battle of the Atlantic begun.
The Question is, can Ireland Learn anything from the experience of fellow Neutrals Switzerland or Finland, when it comes to fighter procurement?0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »I don't think there is much of a difference in 'offensive' vs 'defensive' fighter aircraft unless range is taken into account. Once the missiles start flying, whoever is 'offending' is pretty irrelevant.
Their 'need' is based on their tradition of being always ready. By the argument, they don't 'need' their couple hundred tanks and IFVs or their thousand APCs. Geopolitical situations can change more quickly than getting a military built up. Look at the races the UK and US got into before they got into WW2, both had two years' or so worth of preparation, both were fighting before they were really ready. In the same amount of time, Russia and Germany went from being military allies in the invasion of Poland to being at each others' throats.
IMO stealth may be questionable and an aircraft that takes a long time and a lot of money to design/build/operate may be outpaced by developments in radar or other means to track aircraft.
It looks to me that Stealth is significantly to operate as if you are on the Offense, ie attacking, what with the Swiss being Neutral, it doesn't seem like its neccessary or potentially even as capable as other 4.5 G aircraft in other ways, AND who are their enemies that the Swiss need Stealth to contend with.
It would appear to be they could meet their needs with Rafales or Typhoons or even Gripens which even the latter is touted as a Sukhoi killer.
If the Gripen really can contend with potential adversaries for the Swiss (even though these supposed enemies would have to cross numerous friendly nations) I dont see why the Swiss would need Stealth aircraft? even Rafales or Typhoons have better or equivalent performance and all are certainly cheaper to operate than the F-35.
For an airforce that within the last decade didnt operate outside business hours, and were reported to state they would only be 100% capable to do so from this year (not sure if that came to pass, as it was reported at4 or 5 years ago as being the situation), and now they suddenly need Stealth aircraft?? I find that surprising for a Neutral nation.
imo we wont be getting anything, but even dated/earlier versions of the Gripen would suit Irelands needs, we dont even need the most capable Gripen C vs the E? or NG? types ourselves, no more than Switzerland needs F-35s0 -
Getting back to the Air Corps, it has other needs,not just shiny fighters, to be able to function as a fighter operator; radar, tools (you need lots and lots of tooling for aircraft in general and fighters have their extra needs), hangarage and storage, weapons and their storage, more pilots, more techs (especially avionics techs),more logistic staff,more IT staff...more,more, more of everything as well as updating the usable airfields and airports and training. You need to ramp up your training by a huge margin for pilots, techs, loggies, stores, safety, ATC etc etc,so it's a big mental leap for the organisation and if you want to have a fighter operational by say, 2025, you'd better start now.
By the same token, the Air Corps were active in SAR not long after the first helicopters arrived. At that stage the Air Corps only had a few short years experience working with gas turbine engines, and that was on the primitive for its time, DH Vampire T55's Goblin. No experience whatsoever on Turboshafts (or APUs). If the will is there it can be done.0 -
Couldn't agree more but creating even a small fighter arm from essentially scratch is a big undertaking. No shortage of keen, well educated people available in Ireland and the country as a whole has masses of experience in all kinds of aviation except fighters,so it's not impossible, just different. Getting the AC up to the basic level of just being able to fly, service and operate a Gripen, say, would take a relatively short time but creating and maintaining an integrated defence system would take time, money and manpower. As for the Alouette, even in 1963,while it was new tech, it was still a simple enough aircraft and the engine was a basic turbine and after the Goblin, was easy enough to deal with. It was the rotors and drive train and gearbox that was new to the techs so there a great interest in learning about them. Fundamentally, the AC could absorb a Gripen and train for it as it's designed to be no harder to operate than anything they already have.0
-
By the same token, the Air Corps were active in SAR not long after the first helicopters arrived. At that stage the Air Corps only had a few short years experience working with gas turbine engines, and that was on the primitive for its time, DH Vampire T55's Goblin. No experience whatsoever on Turboshafts (or APUs). If the will is there it can be done.
In some ways, I think even back then, there was a different mindset, how nations operated and functioned, who does what.
To operate even only a fighter jet, its just the forefront of an entire organisation/infrastructure to support that sole objective of having the capability to do what that aircraft does, and I would say I agree with the other poster, we would need a whole range of support facilities and to enable those aircraft function at their full capability, we would likely need some kind of networked defense set up, it would cost money.
You probably could just have aircraft and radars and send them out looking for or to meet targets, but I think there could be better ways of doing it.
The mindset of how the DF is run and funded would have to change, even recently I saw there was criteria to get aircraft techs in, people with experience, and they would still be airmen/women rank at that pay and they would still have to do military training too. Not making it easy for people to want to join, not paying people commensurate with their experience.
They should probably have very basic military training for certain roles and have a fully infantry style ground defense unit for carrying out military tasks, such as Guard duty and stuff other airforces ground units would do, maybe air defence, perimeter defence??
There doesnt seem to be much if any will to do things differently and no doubt no one wants to fund it.0 -
Historically, one could suggest that while the US and UK were preparing for war in advance of WW2, they were preparing for WW1 to be fought again. De Gaulle, a tanker, had little faith in the usefulness of fixed defence such as the Maginot line. He was proven correct, but the nazis for some reason decided they would not make the same mistake and built the atlantic wall! The US, luckily had invested heavily in Aircraft carriers when the UK were still building battleships. The battleships became secondary when the battle of the Atlantic begun.
The Question is, can Ireland Learn anything from the experience of fellow Neutrals Switzerland or Finland, when it comes to fighter procurement?
Ah you’re more than a bit wrong in terms of the US and U.K. naval plans and building, the only difference was the scale of US industry and the U.K. being at war longer (and getting the heart of the carrier force shattered by 1941). Given the limited capabilities of the DOD in terms of capital programs learning from other nations even before actually buying is a huge ask for the department.0 -
The allies were woefully unprepared for WW2. Certainly there was a lot WW1 mindset about it. Ok there were exceptions to that, like the UK air defence and logistics was ahead of the game.
But what can we learn form other countries approach now. That's worth rethinking about. I'm not sure we'd come to another conclusions.0 -
The allies were woefully unprepared for WW2. Certainly there was a lot WW1 mindset about it. Ok there were exceptions to that, like the UK air defence and logistics was ahead of the game.
But what can we learn form other countries approach now. That's worth rethinking about. I'm not sure we'd come to another conclusions.
They actually weren’t that bad, there were flaws in their planning/procurement without question, but in reality what happened was both Germany and later Japan managed to string a number of Hail Mary plays together for the opening periods of their offences that could have been derailed relatively simply.0 -
Advertisement
-
The allies were woefully unprepared for WW2. Certainly there was a lot WW1 mindset about it. Ok there were exceptions to that, like the UK air defence and logistics was ahead of the game.
But what can we learn form other countries approach now. That's worth rethinking about. I'm not sure we'd come to another conclusions.
I would not agree with that, they had the capacity to turn things around industrially, in particular the US.
Both the UK and the US had aircraft carriers built prior to WW2, so they were prepared really where it counted as its easier to build modern aircraft more rapidly than new ships, plus aircraft design was changing rapidly so new designs could soon easily be outpaced by modern types.
Their experience at combined arms and even how to contest it was poor on land,
but in general the Royal Navy was as prepared as any arm of their military in that they had a fleet with a variety of types of ships with trained crews,
The RAF was probably in a similar situation in that they had crews and aircraft and aircraft designs were in the pipeline,
Where the US/UK were similar was in that they didnt maintain large standing armies relative to others from what I recal reading, and even though the British had pioneered certain fighting techniques which the Germans viewed as observers and took on, neither the US/UK was advanced in tank design or application, but like others they ended up with a plethora of tank sizes and types for different tasks.
Does that correlate to today, possibly in that you can only have the force you are willing and able to afford, sheer will can overcome certain things, the Germans ground forces were very organised and well trained early in the war, so they were able to overcome their shortcomings in their capabilities and that of their equipment (german tanks werent as good as the hype, but they had radios and were organised, and not spread piecemeal).
We are screwed on the organisation side, because the DF operates at the goodwill of the DoF, seems like there are too many vested interests and the political will or maybe even the absolute necessity isnt there for such aircraft because the populace doesnt know or care or support it, so there isnt a politically need for it.
It would be a big deal to ask us to organise ourselves efficiently and effectively.
A more relevant reference might be the Azerbaijani forces, whether you like them or agree with them or not, they went from being defeated nearly 30 years ago, to being what appears to be a well run, modern, effective fighting force today, they must have organised and changed with the times and I suppose they were motivated to because they lost 30 years ago.
They have oil and so the funds to build an army, but their land area and GDP is closer to ours, but they seem to have the will and support in the Country to do this (there appears to be national support or limits on opposition), despite potentially 10's of thousands in Deaths from fighting since 30 years ago in the original conflict with Armenian aligned forces.
Their military budget is multiples of ours which would be unlikely to ever accepted here. Including reserves they can call on nearly half a million people, with population comparisons, that would be like Ireland having a military of over 50k fulltime serving personnel not counting reserves.
The DF just isnt a priority here0 -
The mindset of how the DF is run and funded would have to change, even recently I saw there was criteria to get aircraft techs in, people with experience, and they would still be airmen/women rank at that pay and they would still have to do military training too. Not making it easy for people to want to join, not paying people commensurate with their experience.
They should probably have very basic military training for certain roles and have a fully infantry style ground defense unit for carrying out military tasks, such as Guard duty and stuff other airforces ground units would do, maybe air defence, perimeter defence??
There doesnt seem to be much if any will to do things differently and no doubt no one wants to fund it.[/QUOTE]
that ad was written to comply with an order to issue an ad;it was not designed to attract skilled aircraft techs. No tech in his or her right mind would join at the lowest rank and crawl their way up again. Whoever put out that ad wasn't actually interested in recruiting qualified industry professionals.Compared to how much they forked out to get a handful of pilots, it's an insult.0 -
The mindset of how the DF is run and funded would have to change, even recently I saw there was criteria to get aircraft techs in, people with experience, and they would still be airmen/women rank at that pay and they would still have to do military training too. Not making it easy for people to want to join, not paying people commensurate with their experience.
They should probably have very basic military training for certain roles and have a fully infantry style ground defense unit for carrying out military tasks, such as Guard duty and stuff other airforces ground units would do, maybe air defence, perimeter defence??
There doesnt seem to be much if any will to do things differently and no doubt no one wants to fund it.
that ad was written to comply with an order to issue an ad;it was not designed to attract skilled aircraft techs. No tech in his or her right mind would join at the lowest rank and crawl their way up again. Whoever put out that ad wasn't actually interested in recruiting qualified industry professionals.Compared to how much they forked out to get a handful of pilots, it's an insult.[/quote]
When the navy where taken direct entrys did they have to do the same level of military training as what the air corps have laid out?0 -
roadmaster wrote: »that ad was written to comply with an order to issue an ad;it was not designed to attract skilled aircraft techs. No tech in his or her right mind would join at the lowest rank and crawl their way up again. Whoever put out that ad wasn't actually interested in recruiting qualified industry professionals.Compared to how much they forked out to get a handful of pilots, it's an insult.
When the navy where taken direct entrys did they have to do the same level of military training as what the air corps have laid out?[/QUOTE]
Well, I dont believe they did in the AC, shoot and saluting course0 -
Nowhere near it. All Navy DE ERAs entered at corporal level (naval equivalent) after a short saluting course.
There is a very odd culture at work in the Air Corpse, and it has suffered greatly as a result for years. They can't deploy outside dublin. Any effort to work away has been a disaster. Athlone is the shining exception, then again, it's probably still within commuting range for the crew.
Even when Gormo closed people quit completely rather than have to move to the mentality within the blue railings.
Work practices inside the hanger need to get with the times. The stuff that has happened there for decades would never be permitted in the civvy world. This is not my opinion, it is that of techs who left the Corps and went to work for civvy airlines.
The Ongoing quest for some sort of inquiry into the use of trichloroethane & trichloroethylene & others speaks volumes on the H&S standard in place. I worked in the industry in the early 90s, and the dangers of these chemicals were well flagged to us.
The reluctance of management to have an organisation set up to work 365/24/7 except in very limited roles says much also. For many years the GOC of the Air Corps came from the Govt Jet, and their priorities reflected this.
The only reason GASU stay flying is due to the maintenance of its aircraft being carried out by civvy contractor. If they could get a civvy pilot too they would.
Theres a big push to get back into SAR, the reason being it would remove any hope of a push towards a more military slanted air arm, and give all the exers pension topups as they act as "consultants". We all saw in the early 2000s, the demise of SAR saw more availability for helis at any shade of DF exercise, no matter how small. Great for a military force, but exercises can often drag on till after 3pm on a friday...
Changes at the top have seen a willingness to change how things are done, but there are still plenty of barriers along the way. The D/COS being one of them.0 -
Historically, one could suggest that while the US and UK were preparing for war in advance of WW2, they were preparing for WW1 to be fought again. De Gaulle, a tanker, had little faith in the usefulness of fixed defence such as the Maginot line. He was proven correct
Well, the problem is so were the Maginot Line designers. The line was partially a result of the political policy which meant that conscription was preferred over de Gaulle's "Professional army", but the intent was twofold. 1) It was concluded that the next war would be a war of national mobilisation over several years, with the winning side being the one best able to leverage industry and manpower (Which turned out to be correct) and the majority of French industry was within 50 miles of Germany, meaning they didn't have space to trade for maneuver, and 2) that the line would induce the Germans to move North through Belgium instead of forcing the fortifications (which also proved correct).0 -
-
-
That's a good link, so hard to find similar content on youtube that isn't AI generated robot voice-over, with stock footage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hellenic Airforce are starting to receive there Rafales.
1
Advertisement