Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

The Last Hurricane left the production line in 1944. In 1952 I was a kid in Pearse Battalion FCA in Gormanstown. At the time our Fighters were all less than10-15 years old. The last RAF Spitfires Flew operationally in Malaysia in 1954. As opposed to NO Fighters now those aircraft were as frontline as necessary to meet our needs. Likewise the Corvettes were an important part of Convoy Escort with copious amounts of ordnance still available up to their retirement. I remember we put two corvettes on war footing(full DC and ammo capacity) during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was about as frontline that you could get. In 1984 we could do all the air surveillance, both Primary and secondary radars as mentioned by CoD by using P31 and her DA05/IFF Radar. At various times we had capacity and ability but the bureaucrats packed it in aided by shrinking budgets and neutrality dividends.

Due to the rapid pace of aircraft development in,WW2 By the time we got hurricanes and spitfires they were no longer frontline fighters. They were relegated fighter bombers or reconnaissance.

For example even the Mustang was a fighter bomber by the time of the Korean war.

They were kept in production for that role. For example the Hurricane had a universal wing in later models better suited to that role. But it was definitely obsolete by the end of the war.

Better then nothing obviously. Still useful in a limited role.

This is an April 1 thing, isn't it?

Because there is no way you'd be suggesting that a 40 year old short range single engine VTOL aircraft, not capable of Mach 2 would be good for air policing.

Nice strawman. I didn't suggest that ever for Ireland today.

Actually its a 50yr old aircraft. Though some variants did have and still have a significant anti air capability.

The Sea Harrier has 20 ish A2A kills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_air_forces_in_the_Falklands_War#Casualties_and_aircraft_losses

You tried to imply the harrier has no utility in a modern context except on light carriers.

Whereas it's been heavily used flying from forward airfields in the CAS role (it's original designed role) in modern conflicts and wars.

Often closer in theater to the soldiers and thus a faster response time than assets operating from bases much further away.

It's logged a lot of combat time in recent conflicts. That speaks for itself. As does the US purchase of the UK harrier fleet.

On the contrary. I am interested in CAS and am convinced that a close air support role needs to be procured as well as interception. Two differerent aircraft will be required. Possibly the Gripen or KAI for interception and the latest gen Aero Vodoshitov machine for CAS. Only 6 to 8 of the latter required along with a small wing of light attack helicopters wich can also be operated from the new ships coming along for the navy.

Yeah...PC 9Ms have filled a gap and can continue for few more years.

You seem to have missed my point, the start of the comments on the Harrier were referencing it’s ability to operate from dispersed airfields, i and you in your posts pointed out that that ability wasn’t its dominate feature for land based operations, at which point it can then be compared to any other CAS dominate aircraft. Was the Harrier exceptional compared to other aircraft in that role, can we really tell given that most of its combat operations happened in areas where the West had air dominance.

Nor did I miss the exports to other nations, I explicitly pointed out that it filled a role for navies that couldn’t operate large deck carriers, but how many air forces bought it for anything other than that aspect? The TSR 2, F111, F4 saga is an entirely different matter. As for the UKs decision on the B over the C that again has a lot of different factors in play that are more than just the S/VTOL capabilities.

So what won the Battle of Britian. I believe it was Radar and aeroplanes. Those planes were also present in our post war air corps. They were of their day and we did not continue the momentum by following with the successors of the Vampire and Meteor. The ships available were DAINTY DD's, CASTLE class ESCORTS, and Corvettes. The original order was for 6 Corvettes and the CONS decided we could manage with 3 Corvettes and get a Dainty Class DD or a Castle Class to add clout. The DOD told him that was a new case and to make a submission. it never materialised.

The ship were designed to sink submarines and shoot down aircraft. They were the backbone of most convoys. As regards P31, sitting in Galway bay, she had surveillance range of 120 miles giving a coverage of almost 45,000 sq. miles covering most of the West Coast. She provided similar coverage for the visit of British PM to Baldonnel. She could pick up large Jets at 110 nm on raw radar. The DA05 was used as the radar in many Phillips Signaal equipped Airports. I don't knock what we had just the lack of strategic ambition.

The Battle of Britain occurred in 1940, what relevancy is that, also arguably the Hurricane was already reaching the limits of it's air to air capability at that point, simply by the pace of change in the aviation sector at the time, the RAF didn't keep them in the European theater facing FW 190's for example in later years, they moved them to lesser areas, or changed to Ground Attack. By the time we fielded a full squadron of them they were well surpassed in range, firepower and speed even by the last gen propeller types like the Hawker Sea Fury which itself was retired out of the FAA only a year after you mentioned 1953), not even touching the capabilities of Jets. Every fighter we ever fielded was at least one if not two generations out of date by the time they were in service, the Vampires themselves were well dated in the evolving age of the first gen jet fighters by the time we got them and were trainers.

The Flowers were a war time design intended for convoys around the UK, it was only the Fall of France that resulted in their usage for the Battle of the Atlantic as the UK needed every hull they could get, that doesn't mean they were anything close to what the RN would have wanted for the task, and you haven't answered the question, what other navies considered them Primary warships in 1962 or the 1970's? By those time periods both submarine and aircraft designs and weapons vastly exceeded what a Flower could handle, or are you going to suggest that they could match even the speed of a first gen SSN?

As for Eithne, by your own post she never had capabilities for nationwide detection, sheer radar restrictions would see to that.

Wasn't Ireland near bankrupt in the 1950s.

Any article I read says Ireland was in financial crisis around 1950. But I don't know the detail of it.

I think we are saying we shouldn't give lip service to defence and security it's essential not a luxury. Which is how we've always treated it.

I do agree.

I think however you can get a lot of capability with modest equipment. We don't always need top end equipment.

All of Europe was, post war. You have to remember that the factories that had ramped up production for the war effort were now mostly idle, as were its workers. Europe had to be rebuilt, and many of those who would have been working on farms here instead took their chances working in the UK rebuilding the cities that had suffered attacks from the Luftwaffe. There was a surplus of cargo ships, with no cargo to be carried. Our currency was tied to sterling, if they went down we went down too.

"Bankrupt" is a very specific financial term, which is often misused. It means "unable to pay debts as declared in law". Many of our "Debts" at the time were artificial, and imposed on us post independence by GB. We had no "means" to pay them because the only nation we could trade with was GB. Our Agrarian based economy was focused on providing the UK with Milk and Meat. It was only after Lemass & Co took over and started nationalising Irish Industry (Irish Sugar, Bord na Mona, Irish Steel) that things started getting on track, and our entry into the EEC broadened our ability to pay a national debt.

Many people fear national debt as if it was household finances. In truth a nation is better having a large debt that it can support, instead of having a strong economy, with no debt, and no spending on infrastructure. This happened just before our financial crisis, when charlie McCreevy proudly told the world we were "awash with money", and the IMF warned us to start spending some of it on something other than housing.

And here we are today.

I think that debatable. If I got a great deal on a 10yr old used 911 I'm not sure I'd turn it up.