Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

They're not without sin in Libya or Yugoslavia either...

And who could forget Crimea?

To get back on topic, if this country decided to go the fast jet route, why procure Gripen when Finland and the Swiss have determined it's more expensive to operate than the F35? The idea of procuring jets to intercept stricken airliners or shadowing Bears is really quite silly. You either do it right or get someone else to do it.

I have not seen anything that reflects that opinion on the Gripen. If anything Gripen consistently comes back as the lower cost option, both in terms of unit and lifetime operating costs. Finland chose F35 because they expect it to remain in service until the 2060s, and went with the more modern design.

Gripen was not in the running for the Swiss competition this time round. The F35 defeated in their process the F/A-18 Super Hornet (They currently operate Hornet) and Eurofighter Typhoon. Gripen was ruled out in 2019 not because of cost, but because the E/F which SAAB was offering was still only in development, and the competition was only open to aircraft currently in Production. The Swiss competition may not be over yet though. Many there are uncomfortable with the purchase of the US made aircraft, which is becoming a NATO favourite.

I don't understand what you mean in your final line.

Of course we can find it, just a reminder for people the largest spending option suggested in the commissions report in terms of percentage would effectively only return us to our defence spending level of pre 1998 where we spent approximately 1% of gdp on defence. A spend when we were a smaller poorer nation and yet now somehow returning to that level is to some an impossibility. The Option 3 basically moves us to having the basic capabilities that pretty much all other EU nations including the neutral nations take for granted.

Honestly not sure why the Swiss have bought it, other than the usual questions as to LMs alternative procurement processes (ie bribes), Finlands decision is more geared towards dealing with the Russians next door with the current attitude from Vlad. The Gripen E/F is certainly being squeezed by the F16 and upgraded C/Ds, but with SAAB involved in the US trainer and the U.K. new fighter they should be fine.

According to the figures I found (Google search, not investigative reporting), that 1.3bn figure represents 0.29% of GDP.

What do you mean? The current spend is about that yeah (of course with the usual issue with our figures), either way you look at it the Option 3 gets us to circa 1% of gdp. Back in the mid 90s we spent 1% or above, in the 80s it was at times above 1.5% of gdp. Now of course as I said due to the smaller size of the economy then the real term value was much less even at that spend, however in 08 while we spend only circa 0.6% on defence that was 1.5 billion (ie basically the Option 2 suggestion).

So by any reasonable discussion this idea that it's an impossibility for the state to spend 50%-300% more on defence is ignoring the last 30 years or so of spending.

I just made a similar point elsewhere. If we could afford to spend 1.6% of GDP on defence in 1980, there is zero reason we can't spend 1.6% on Defence today, and see a properly equipped organisation,who's staff are paid enough so that they generate enough disposable income to support the local economy, and in turn the National economy. When you consider that the majority of our DF are on the lower rate of tax due to their low wages (You'll have to hit 40K before you start hitting the higher rate) the government are doing the economy a disservice. Compare to AGS on the other hand, who after a short few years are on on the upper rate.(My 2nd year of service in AGS saw me hitting the top rate of tax) In effect, they are self funding the organisation in which they work, to a certain degree.

As the last 24 months have demonstrated, while the Government literally paid people from state coffers to stay home, results show our economy thrived because they now had the income to support it. Just look at the GDP figures for Q3 of 2021, when the majority of retail was fully open again.

Assuming a 70/30 split for DF spending being Pay/Non-pay, then going with the 1% rule gives you the best part of €3bn to spend improving the pay and conditions of everyone in the organisation. Because clearly we won't need to spend that on a force of less than 9000 in 2023, the balance can go a long way towards realistically equipping the Defence Forces.

€1.5bn can set us up with a Sqn of 2nd Hand Rafales plus weapons, training and support. €250m is expected cost of a MRV for the NS. €150M would get you an A400m or a C130j-30

1% is a number we should all get behind.

Bottomed out at 1.1% in 2015 but has started increasing again. They were 2.3% in 1980, compared to our 1.8% at the time.

The only reason our defence resources are "stretched" is successive governments have continued reducing the Defence Budget since 1980 as % of GDP, while all other sectors held their %, or increased it.

The cheapest Gripen model comes in just under 30 million (open to correction ) which would still be 50 million before Factoring in having to buy the various armaments missles wise , where everyone else already has various missles stocked that can be used with a Gripen or F35 if moving up from a previous US made jet ,F16/f18 ,the Gripen I believe has easier maintenance and turn around times ,

I'd be looking at the Gripen type aircraft till we have the resources to maintain a more advanced and complicated aircraft but by that time the F35 would be cheaper again the more F35s sell the cheaper they get ,

Or we could look at the Tempest being developed by the UK and Sweden to replace the euro fighter ,

Point of fact, Poland has OPVs in fact they intended to half something like a half dozen but their project when absolutely off the rails which only resulted in one OPV being bought. And yes at the very least we should look at SP Artillery even if it’s just truck mounted not tracked at the very least. And if we are talking about 3 billion budget the idea that 8-12 fighters is not spending a fortune when you are talking about the time period such capabilities would be generated.

There’s Tempest or the FCAS between Germany/France/Spain, though really looking at a 5th gen or 6th gen fighter is over kill for anything we are talking about, we are not talking about strike missions in any situation like Finland has to consider.

Should have maybe said hypothetically speaking if we were looking at the F35 ,

Whatever 6th gen brings we definitely won't be needing it ,the F35 has only come into service and it's replacement along with the f22 is already flying depending on what you believe

The new fighter is for the F22, the 35 is going to be in production for some time, the 22 needs replacing due to shortage of numbers among other things. Though at the same time the USAF has also restarted orders for the new gen F15s as well. As to the question of whether we should build up the capability for some fighter capability, the only alternative is a full and formal agreement for someone else doing it, most likely with the possibility of them operating out of an Irish base.

Yes, it also lost at least one aircraft during operations.