Fighter Jets for the Air Corps -

[pilatus]

Guinness the RAF finds it hard enough to keep enough F3s airborne to defend their own country never mind ours!the only way they could do it is if they had notice of an attack and have 3 aircraft at a time on CAP.and guys 6-8gripens would be insufficent to defend this country against an unconventional attack on this country from terrorists with airliners, think about it there would be 3maybe4 aircraft in scheduled maintainence at any given time and then the remaining might be on training flights or routine patrols but they might not be patrolling the right area.realistically you would need two 12 aircraft squadrons one based at bal and the other at shannon and each with an armed aircraft on patrol in the major flight lanes that are near big targets such as cities and having a few sitting on the appron ready to be scrambled, it will never happen but thats what would be needed and thats not leaving any extra capacity incase anything went wrong!

[pilatus]

oh and that tucano is a super tucano and has a more powerful engine than our PC9s because it was built for COIN so it would need an extra bit of power to slug around its loads!oh and those missiles on it are piranhas,basically a rip of, of the sidewinder but slightly lighter and also a little less capable than the standard lima sidewinder!

[Fouga]

So this would be a no?

[davephelan]

i think that the solution is probably to come to an arrangement with  some other country, perhaps France, and pay towards the cost of them basing a QRA flight here, ideally near Dublin , to provide some protection for the most obvious targets which woul affect us, ie , sewllafield and the nuclear plant near holyhead. the next best solution would be to lease RAF tornado f3s. i know they are not the most modern, but they are available, ,the raf have plenty in storage , and they are ideal for QRA. we dont need something that can dogfight like a gripen, the most we will need is something which can overtake an airliner, and then shoot it down

[warthog]

i doubt that we'd let someone else base aircraft here,or that we'd lease anything from england...buy it maybe but not lease it .

the government would rather risk an attack than lose face by appearing subservient to another power

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Silver,
Im afraid that is correct. The fact is that a sub or even transonic interceptor could not catch most civil aircraft if it is on the ground at a standing start. Even in the air if it is anywhere other then in the frontal arc of the target it could not catch it.
The second sad fact is that NO Air Corps aircraft has ever been bought and utilised for one task and one task alone. A dedicated supersonic interceptor will never be purchased by the DoD.
If however the aircraft could potentially be used for other tasks such as advanced training, CAS etc that might help.
With that in mind what about the M346. Still in development but it will carry multimode radar and air-air missiles. More importantly it is slow enough to provide for training and CAS and still go supersonic (M1.2) with dry thrust.
Perhaps not the ideal solution but maybe more capable and more acceptable to be DoD then any metioned so far.
It also has 2 engines. The DoD dont particularly care about crew safety but they would care about a single engine failure righting of tens of millions worth of aircraft

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there
lets look at what those Brazilian Tucanos are expected to  shoot down; slow turboprops and light twins for which the pretend Sidewinder is sufficient.The Tucano couldn't hope to catch an airliner flying at high altitude...apart from that, the Tucano is also tasked with patrolling the Amazon to prevent illegal logging. They are having zero effect because the Brazilian Govt doesn't have the will or the strength to take real action, so the Toucans are a token force.Just like the Irish PC-9s.I suspect there is an arrangement with the RAF to render assistance to us if need arises.After all, this is the Govt that considers the airspace below 10,000 feet to be sufficiently covered by a job-lot of undeployed Ex-Dutch Bofors guns.God help us all if 9/11 repeats itself here.
regards
GttC

[SousaTeuszii]

GTTC,
I suspect you are correct. The RAF have always waded in to help us out. Be it SAR helis, Top Cover and I also imagine air defence. In reality the likelihood is even if something is inbound over Irish soil it will be heading for the UK.
ST

[Hess]

Anyone for S.A.M sites?? Think about it.

[SousaTeuszii]

Sorry Hess,
SAM sites cannot identify a target and intercept it before deciding if it requires destruction or not. SAM sites are a point defence weapon for use in war situations only, not domestic anti terror will we shoot or will we not operations.

[The Blue Max]

Realistically if the IAC were to consider purchasing such aircraft it would have to be Multimode as one of the first consideration so it could preform value for the small IAC Bugdet.

The IAC have several options availible to them such as

-SAAB Gripen JAS39 (Between 50-70 million eur for early batch to new model aircraft)

-KAI/Lockheed Martin F/A T-50 (Supersonc Around 35 million eur to purchase)

-Aermacchi M346 (Like mentioned earlier price is around 28-35 million eur per unit)

Other aircraft that could fit into this catorgory could incude many different F16 Fighting Falcon Variants/Blocks and possible the EADS Mako ALFA if it ever comes into production, any of these of aircraft could give the basis for training,operational and policing needs to provide the IAC and Irish State with a multi role fighter/jet squadron comprising realistically 8-12 aircraft squadron.

[Silver]

Did anybody here read the letter in the Indo on 16th?

From a Mr. Joseph O Dea of Denver, Colorado.
Hmm....wonder if he has any relations in the govt?! '>

(I tried to attach it as a 'Word' document so you guys could read it, but no joy)

[Irish251]

Good letter.  Furthermore, any expenditure on fighter aircraft, in order to have a chance of being worthwhile, would need be combined with air defence radar and command/control systems able to respond rapidly to any given incident or possible threat.

[SousaTeuszii]

Agreed, it is a good letter but I have a few issues with it.

1. The US air defence pre 9/11 would have been on the look out for external agressors not internal terrorist hijackings with suicidal tendencies. The only fully armed QRA at the time that I am aware of was in Alaska, ie watching the Ruskies. It is unfair to critisise a nation for not responding to the unimaginable. Try that plan again today and see what happens.

2. The letter seems to suggest that we are not a 'target rich environment' and therefore it is unimagineable that anything such as 9/11 could happen here. Well guess what, thats what the yanks thought, see point 1.

3. The jist of the letter is that we should not spend money protecting ourselves from something that will never happen. If that is the case why spend any money on the Defence Forces, its not as if well be invaded. Why spend money on rural health services, just make the people move. Why spend money on costal pollution recovery equipment, its not as if well ever have an oil spill. The list of things that we could justify not spending money on is endless, I could continue.

The point is that the government has a responsibility to protect and adequeatly serve all the people of this country and prepare for current and future crisis yet they prefer to fettle money away on items other then Defence for one reason only - votes.
Defence is unpopular and therefore will receive damn all money until after the unthinkable has already happened.
As an example I will pose a question:

Do you believe that the Air Corps would now have EC135s and AB139s if the crash at Waterford had never happened?

[Fouga]

Quote (SousaTeuszii @ 19 Aug. 2006,12:24)

Do you believe that the Air Corps would now have EC135s and AB139s if the crash at Waterford had never happened?

Hell no.