Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

You'd need a decent number considering the amount of maintenance and servicing fighter aircraft require. They need to overlap cover when aircraft are unavailable.

"....F-16s currently requires 33 maintenance man-hours per flying-hour..."

That said this thread almost always drifts into big numbers of aircraft very quickly. The idea of fewer aircraft for policing airspace isn't popular in this thread vs more aircraft able to take on combat roles far beyond just policing the air space.

So which side is the global fat cat bilderburger NWO elite great reset Davos Freemason Covax mainstream media?

The Brits or the EU?

The previous GOC Air Corps Brigadier General Ralph James retd., has given detailed explanations as to why 16 airframes, including 2 x 2 seaters is the number.

This may or may not require more advanced trainers in support, I'm not sure. But either way, talk of 25 or 50 planes is simply fanciful. There are modern NATO members who can't even field 50 fighter planes, so I think I'll just agree with General James on this one.

Remember, we are only talking about QRA and patrol of the seas and skies of the territory and EEZ. No foreign deployment and no war fighting.

Who said anything about purchasing?

The renewable leases with Saab that Czechia and Hungary have for the JAS-39 would be the ideal model. It keeps the fleet modern of technology and renewed every few years.

Its worth noting, that each of those nations have 12 and 14 of the type, respectively, despite their strategic geography.

Both of these fleets are supported by L-39 jet trainers, which also have a useful ground attack role. And yes, the Czechs have moved to acquire 24 of the F-35 from America to enhance their capabilities.

However, given all possible comparisons, a fleet in that 12 to 16 range, of Gen 4 / 4.5 fighters, would be more than adequate for Ireland.

You do know that the Czech Republic is looking to bow out of that program in favor of purchasing F-35As, right? They're also looking to increase the number of aircraft from 14 to 24.

Czech Republic selects F-35 as next fighter jet (defensenews.com)

What's more, the Czech Air Force also operates a fleet of 24 Aero L-159 ALCA, twin seat jet trainers and light combat aircraft, so they have the capacity to move some of their flying training away from the Gripen fleet without compromising the availability of said fleet for QRA missions, etc.. That brings their actual fast jet inventory to 36. Hungary is purchasing 12 Aero L-39NG for the same purpose, bringing their fast jet inventory up to 26, Ireland doesn't have any such capability. The PC-9s aren't just not in the same ballpark as modern fast jets, they're not even in the same city!

And really, I don't think our positions are that far apart, to be honest. we're mostly in agreement on the number of actual single-seat fighters, ideally around 16 in my eyes, 12 in yours from how I understood your post.

However, we will need an aircraft to transition pilots from trainer aircraft to the actual front-line fighters, as CZ and HU, and most other NATO countries are doing. Outsourcing that capability is theoretically possible, Austria is training their Eurofighter pilots at Tactical Air Wing 73 in Rostock-Laage, the Luftwaffe's operational conversion unit for the Eurofighter. But this is a bad choice in my eyes, especially if we want to avoid a brain drain and build up proper institutional knowledge. So in my eyes, the best options is still to get a number of double-seat aircraft for that conversion role. That can be done with jet trainers like the L-159, L-39NG, or BAE Hawk, but that would massively complicate logistics for a small force like the Air Corps. That's why I'm so adamant about getting additional double-seaters for fast jet and conversion training.

True, regarding the flight hours. The big question is going to be whether a twelve aircraft fleet will provide enough opportunities for flight crews and ground crews to build up enough experience to remain proficient in the long run. Remember the "Rule of 3" I mentioned above. With a twelve aircraft squadron, you can expect four to be down for scheduled maintenance at any one time. that leaves eight aircraft available, out of which at least two will be assigned to QRA duty and thus unavailable. That doesn't leave a lot of room for training or other eventualities, especially if the QRA aircraft are dispatched and you need to assign two additional aircraft to replace the QRA aircraft, at least until those have returned, been checked, refueled, etc.. That reduces the amount of actually available aircraft to four. Given that you'll likely have more pilots than aircraft, that doesn't give you much breathing space.

With a eighteen-aircraft fleet, the number of aircraft likely down for maintenance does increase to six, true, but if we're keeping the number of QRA aircraft to two, with two more to replace them if the first pair are dispatched on a mission, that still leaves eight aircraft available for training, exercises and similar tasks. I used eighteen here instead of the twenty that you mentioned simply because it's much easier to break it down into thirds.

Even that eighteen-aircraft fleet does not however leave any room for fast jet training for new pilots or type conversion, so additional airframes will be needed for that.

When people talk about fighter jets it's the tip of the iceberg when it comes to true cost of all the associated costs.

That's going to be hard sell...

You're not kidding!

A mixture of both no doubt.

Some airframes are flogged to death or spend their time hangared in extreme conditions, while others are low mileage and all that.

Some will be offered for sale as serviceable, some stripped for spares, or, in the case of new purchases coming from America, the Yanks will often take back good examples and put them into the Air National Guard or deactivate them for desert storage in case they might be needed again.

There are a few good YouTube videos about what goes on at the Boneyard when older, but not expired airframes, are stripped and stored. The logistics behind it all are mind boggling.

True, Ireland is not a large country. However, the issue here is not whether there might be air assets available that can be diverted in case an unknown and unresponsive aircraft is approaching Irish air space. The issue is their load-out. QRA fighters are always armed. They're likely not carrying a full war load but will at least have a full set of rounds for their cannon and a couple of missiles, as well as a couple of external fuel tanks. This is not the kind of setup you want to be sending up on a two-ship cross country navigation run, on air defence drills with the navy, or on a low-level run through the Mach Loop over in Wales. These things have been known to drop from their hard points before, and I can't imagine that a home owner say in Mitchelstown, Co Cork, would be too please if the suddenly had an ASRAAM or an IRIS-T crash through their roof, even if it is inert. And air combat training with live weapons? That's a friendly fire incident waiting to happen. at most, you'll be launching any sorties of that nature with a couple of inert training rounds and some recording equipment for the debrief. This also makes the concept of having a standby flight land and take their position on the QRA line problematic, as it would not just require refuelling and the usual post-flight checks, but also re-arming the aircraft, which can take some time.

There's also a rather more grim reason for sticking with a higher number of air frames. Attrition. Sooner or later, even the best trained pilots will make a mistake, or find themselves dealing with a technical issue. That can be a pilot blacking out due to g-loc during air combat training and crashing into a mountain or a cliff. A fighter suffering a bird strike whilst on final approach to their base. An engine overheating and catching fire on take-off. A mid-air collision on a navigation run. There can be all sorts of reasons but the bottom line is that aircraft WILL be lost at some point. And the government at the time might not be willing to pay for a replacement aircraft. If the number of airframes in the inventory is too low, this could very well lead to a situation where the squadron is not able to provide continuous QRA coverage and crew training anymore.

Except for the fact that the Gripen deal is not the whole story with regards to the Czech Air Force, which you would have seen if you'd read my reply properly. They have a significant number of advanced jet trainers that can shoulder a lot of the load with regards to conversion training, navigation training, air combat tactics and so on. Ireland doesn't have that and even if our politicians can remove their collective heads from their own posterior and decide to invest in setting up an air combat capability for the Air Corps, they're not going to be spending money on setting up an extra fast jet trainer squadron, which would drastically complicate logistics. So that will end up being dumped onto the shoulders of whatever fighter squadron Ireland ends up getting. Seriously, I feel like I'm talking to a bloody wall here.

Now granted, the general idea of this long-term lease does have its attraction, I grant you that. And to be honest, I believe that the Gripen would be the ideal aircraft for Ireland. But twelve single seaters and two double-seaters will leave Ireland desperately short on aircraft once attrition begins to take its toll. A former boss of mine loved to say that "if you buy cheap, you end up buying twice", and that's a saying that I've found to be pretty accurate throughout the years.

Many of those aircraft will be 30-40 years old and their air frames will likely be coming to the end of their life spans. The F/A-18s might still be usable since they were originally designed as carrier aircraft and are thus more robust, but I doubt any of the F-16s currently in use with European air forces will be around for more than a few years, a decade at best. What's more, the base design is over forty years old in both cases. A long-term lease of Gripens is a far better option in my eyes, so long as we can get a decent number.

Why is attrition an issue if the lease conditions the supply of new airframes and swap-outs as needed?

If you have 16 airframes, 2 twins and the balance single, then having 4 (QRA + relief flight) of 14 single seaters operational at any one time, is not an excessive demand.

If Saab are presented with an operational requirement and they respond with an offer that 12/14/16 aircraft will satisfy it, then it becomes their problem to supply additional relief aircraft if the contract is not being performed.

Gripen E/F is a more than capable interceptor that will operate in service probably until fighter planes finally cease being manned at all and are proven to be rugged and efficient. A lease there, would be about as safe a solution as safe gets in such matters.

Why would we even vaguely think of a Korean variant F-16??

Going to translate the knobs and dials for us JB??

I'm not so sure that HAS are a thing any more, more important to keep your QRA on the ramp, but in the shade, ready to startup.

The First gulf war demonstrated the pointlessness of the HAS, when a missile would just fly in the door.

I'd still be looking for a mix of about 40 fast jet aircraft. to keep pilots current, and maintain the QRA. 16 Gen 4/4.5 or even the KAI offering, and the remainder must be at this stage LIFT type, or armed advanced trainers, such as the L39 variant or M-349. Forget using something like the PC9m or PC21 for Basic or LIFT. Better off having something Grob Tutor like for Basic, and after enough sim hours, move onto the jet world, with jet manoeuvring. Turboprops are great for training, and aerobatics but formation flying a TP and formation flying a jet where you are close enough for the aircraft in front to start melting your windshield if you get it wrong, is a whole other game.

South Africa though should be a constant reminder how the best of plans can go wrong. Unless you are ready to fund the maintenance this type requires, you are wasting your time, and money

Don't knock it till you tried it.