Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

I should have mentioned the last paragraph of my post was copied and pasted from the RTÉ article I posted, maybe they were wrong.

How do you know they fell asleep? Maybe their controls are stuck, their radio isn't working or they are flying the wrong way hoping to get the attention of ATC?

You see, other nations already have a means to deal with such an event?

"The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ"

At the end of the article.

However the article also stated :

"In 2014, the Minster for Defence admitted in the Dail that the Air Corps was not tasked or equipped for monitoring or responding to unauthorised aircraft overflying Irish airspace. He described it as unacceptable for large aircraft to travel through international air space that is the responsibility of the Irish Aviation Authority without informing it and with the transponders deliberately turned off. 

The Irish Aviation Authority has invested significantly in modern equipment, but it still relies on the co-operation of the military in order to monitor the whereabouts of military aircraft. There are agreements that states have signed to ensure maximum aviation safety. Russia, or any other state that violates these protocols, especially by switching off transponders on military aircraft, should be held to account for endangering other civil aircraft."

Since the article was written the people of Switzerland have voted to buy state of the art 5th Generation F35s to protect their neutral skies. Finland, another neutral, just committed to spending €10bn for the same type. Another example quoted, Austria, will soon replace their over costly Eurofighter jets with something more cost effective, possibly Saab Gripen or LM F16.

In short you are waffling. Your attempts to deflect the discussion has failed. If anything your uninformed replies have re-invigorated the discussion again.

You won't answer the simple questions answered. You throw out red herrings.

Another poster has asked why am I even engaging.

Why indeed?

might be of interest even if you don't like them

Sure it is.

Nothing wrong with talking about the types coming to market. It's just the spoofology that you come out with like 'Air Corps considering purchasing Korean fighters' that other posters object to.

The fact you can't seem to tell the difference says it all.

Again, that paper talked about the KA 50, not the new build aircraft that you have just linked to, they are two completely different animals, the clue being one is considered a Light Fighter/Trainer, and the other is planning to be a full 4.5+ gen fighter. If you can't see the difference why both?

I do realize that the KA50 is a different plane. Sorry for confusion caused by link. Obviously t'other one is not a contender as it's still under development. Clear?

Meanwhile Ryanair were intercepted during the week.

After a Ryanair Boeing 737 lost contact with air traffic controllers, two Portuguese F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters scrambled to intercept the aircraft and reestablish communication. 

The aircraft, registered as EI-HAW, was performing flight FR8132 from London-Stansted International Airport (STN) in the United Kingdom to Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Airport (LPA) on the Spanish Canary Islands. 

While the airplane was cruising over the Atlantic Ocean near Lisbon, the flight crew lost radio contact with the Portuguese ATC. Consequently, two F-16 fighters of the Portuguese Air Force took off from Monte Real Air Base (QLR). The base hosts the 51st Operational Group (GO51) composed of two F-16 squadrons. 

Contact was reestablished by the fighters, who asked the flight crew if they were operating normally. After a visual inspection of the cockpit, a new frequency was given to the Ryanair pilots, and the flight continued without further incident. 

The incident marked the first NATO interception of 2022. The alliance reported that fighter jets of its member states were solicited around 370 times across Europe in 2021. Roughly 290 were in response to flights by Russian military aircraft, compared to 350 the year before.

Hope is the last thing that dies....

We should stop that

Best we can hope to do is send an OPV to keep an eye on it. I wouldn't send a maritime patrol aircraft over, as the russians have a habit of shooting things out of the sky by accident.

It's be an excellent reason to have the US 2nd Fleet sink the lot of them.

You're right of course.

But I think we have an obligation to oppose this action, if it isn't called off beforehand.

We should be sending what presence we can to disrupt what they are planning. If we can send out 6 patrol ships and a handful of aircraft just to piss them off, so be it.

It's not like we'd be on our own anyway, the place will be crawling with NATO carrier groups.

But we must assert the special status of the EEZ.

It seems there are 4 CSGs stood up at NATO disposal, two of the US 2nd Fleet and a joint UK / European Group around HMS Queen Elizabeth and a French Group centred on the Charles de Gaulle.

Should probably be enough to scare off the Russians, but if not there'll be plenty of roaming SSNs to keep them guessing.

The French and one of the US Carriers is already committed to training/position in the Eastern Med/Black Sea for February, they are highly unlikely to be shifted out of that position. QE is most likely still turning around from her global deployment, though POW has been designated the NATO Flagship, however I doubt she'd be sent out either, more likely kept for any Nordic area responses if Russia does escalate.

The reported 5 ships plus long range aircraft isn't likely to be enough to need anymore than a couple of Frigates as I said.