Fighter Jets for the Air Corps -

[FMolloy]

The letter's author seems to think that a 9/11 attack on Ireland needs to have a symbolic target - Leinster House etc. Why is this? Hijackers could plough a plane into the middle of Dublin or Cork & still generate the same feelings amongst the populace.

But let's say we accept his idea & decide there's going to be a specific target - how about Shannon? An attack there could kill both Irish civillians and US military personnel.

[Hess]

Quote (SousaTeuszii @ 16 Aug. 2006,12:17)

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.

Hi SousaTeuszii,

Maybe you did not get my point, because of the brevity of my post. In that case I apologize.
My point was, that S.A.M. sites are a deterrent, not for specific targets within Ireland, but for airways over our country. What sand-loving, suspiciously tanned, potential suicide hijacker wants to mess with a S.A.M. site over little Ireland or any other part of the world for that matter? The political will to fire at rogue aircraft is another matter.

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Hess,
The hijackers of present day terrorisim are not ill educated fools. They, like you and I, study and understand the political wills of the worlds Governments. Try to imagine which countries would shoot down a rouge aircraft, America, Israel, Ireland?
They also understand that without the political will to use a weapon it might as well be a stone in a catapult.
A SAM battery without the will to use it is a pile of complicated, expensive parts that will rust away before ever being used on a civil aircraft.
Just my €0.02

[Silver]

I see from Air Forces Monthly that the Estonian Air Force has started to operate jets for the first time in it's history.

The magazine picture shows two L-39ZA's on a ramp.


For argument's sake -
If Ireland were once again offered L-39's for €1 million each ... Would it be a waste of time purchasing six of them ?

...or L-159's for that matter ?

[Fouga]

I think the Hawk Lead-In Fighter/Trainer would be a safer bet, it's proven,reliable and fast.







A way better version and thats my 2cents. '>

[Shamrock145]

To suggest that Ireland is not a target rich environment is naïve to say the least. While there are no native or foreign political or militarily significant targets in the state (other than possibly US troop transit airports) there are some significant US economic targets of merit that are easily identifiable from the air.

Those masterminding the 9/11 attacks picked targets with political, economic and military significance ... and terrorists tend to go for opportunistic targets.


...145

[SousaTeuszii]

Bang for your Buck would suggest the L39 which I believe has been produced in significantly larger numbers and used in rougher conditions then the Hawk. The Hawk however is a quality product and still in high rate production, but it is much more expensive.
The problem is however that neither of these aircraft could intercept a civil aircraft other then a turboprop. Also the only ADV of either is the single seat Hawk which could then not be used as a trainer.
It is very hard to find a trainer that can also act as an air defence fighter. The only one I can find is the M346

[David Scully]

A US lease deal on F-16s for the interim with a option to purchase down the line if the current threat stays real!!
The lease option has worked with other Countries in the past, the only alteration that would need to be carried out is to be "shoot deployed" for ops with the 2000 metres restriction @ Bal.

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi David,
A lease purchase for any of these aircraft is the way to go. I just cannot see the Government springing for a dedicated air defence fighters. As I said above the Air Corps have never had a single purpose aircraft, they have all been multi task machines. Its easier to justify the cost.
The other problem is the political fallout of buying an aircraft which is part of the 'American War Machine' and has recently bombed civilians and UN personnel in Lebenon. I personnelly dont agree with this rational but the Government ran scared from the Blackhawk because of its public perception as a tool of war!

[David Scully]

ST,

Their maybe no other option on this! the threat is real and things are very different now to what they were in the past....
I take onboard your comments regarding the Blackhawk and the politics involved but its the most realistic option and is workable in the current climate.
THE NEED FOR A SUPERSONIC INTERCEPTOR IS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY AGAINST A TERRORIST ATTACK NOT TO START WARS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

[Fouga]

Quote (SousaTeuszii @ 21 Aug. 2006,01:52)

The Hawk however is a quality product and still in high rate production, but it is much more expensive. The problem is however that neither of these aircraft could intercept a civil aircraft other then a turboprop.

True but id rather go for the British option as a safer option, also a Civil Aircraft could be intercepted by the Hawk and even if that was not possible i think the distance would not be that large and as the Hawk is Sidewinder ready i think the distance would be no problem.

[SousaTeuszii]

Fouga,
If the choice, regardless of cost, is Hawk or L39, its the Hawk any day.
There is however a huge difference between shooting something down and intercepting it. Interception allows for indentification and confirmation of threat. If you just want to shoot something down then just buy SAMs as earlier proposed.
The average airliner now cruises at 35,000ft and mach 0.85. The fastest, the Citation X, cruises at 0.92. I would love to think a Hawk from a standing start could intercept one but I find it highly unlikely unless the target is comimng toward the interceptor.
The Hawk 200 is also the only version with Multimode radar and is a single seater, therefore no other possible use when not on QRA.

[pym]

hmmm...

if you want my two cents, the best way to stop terrorist attacks involve good intelligence and a just, fair, foreign policy. both of which are a damn side cheaper, more effective and easier to implement than new shiney jets.

to quote two fighter jocks in a simpsons episode "target moving too slow for intercept, suggest get out and walk"

effective fighter aircraft are expensive and are there to fill a number of roles. in simple terms they are an expression and an enforcement of sovereignty over your own airspace.

do i think the investment should be made? yes - in time, and properly. LIFT Hawks / L159's are not effective fighter aircraft. they would be a waste of money, a token gesture which would be unable to fulfill its role. it'd be like casting a Scorpion as an MBT.

if this country is ever to get serious about policing its airspace it requires serious investment over many years. it cant just be one governments policy - it would have to get broad party support... and unfortunately, in the state we live in - that's highly unlikely.

[David Scully]

The current cost of a brand new F-16 is $50 million yes expensive.......

New Zealand leased 28 nearly new (built orginally for Pakistan) F-16s at a cost of $12.7 million P.A. in 2000

Grecce paid $5 million a piece for the 20 secondhand F-16s they bought in 1998.....

Current cost of a secondhand upgraded F-16 is some where between $8 and $10 million.

Not so expensive when you bear in mind,

€60 million spent on the current Heli upgrade (EC-135 + AW139s)
€50 million spent on 2 offshore Naval vessels (LE Roisin + LE Niamh in 2000)

[Fouga]

Quote (David Scully @ 21 Aug. 2006,07:24)

New Zealand leased 28 nearly new (built orginally for Pakistan) F-16s at a cost of $12.7 million P.A. in 2000

They never got them.

New Zealand - Royal New Zealand Air Force


A RNZAF delegation went to the Bone yard at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, to inspect the 28 airframes. The New Zealand Government announced on December 1st, 1998, that it would lease-buy the 28 Pakistani F-16s which have been kept in storage at the AMARC (Aircraft Maintenance and Regeneration Center) at Davis-Monthan AFB, also known as the (desert) Bone yard. The Vipers had to replace New Zealand's 19 aging, subsonic A-4K Skyhawk strike planes. The aircraft were thoroughly inspected to ensure that they were still in mint condition.



The aircraft were stored at AMARC in 1990 as a direct result of the embargo against Pakistan. The aircraft were put in Flyable Hold for 5 years, during which time 85% of each aircraft's fuel system was preserved with JP-9, and each aircraft had its engine run once every 45 days. This resulted in the curious situation that most of those aircraft now have more engine run time than airtime, the latter being only 6 hours. This low air-time figure, plus the fact that these aircraft are the most modern F-16A/Bs ever built, is the main reason why New Zealand decided to buy these second-hand F-16s.

New Zealand's minority government claimed it would make a huge savings by leasing the planes. The 10-year lease for the F-16A/B Block 15OCU fighters costs about NZ$200 million ($105 million). The lease should save NZ$431 million over the cost of buying new planes next century. The government opted to acquire the F-16s under a lease-buy deal, with payments spread over 10 years and delivery starting in 30 months.

Pakistan originally paid Lockheed-Martin for the supersonic fighters in 1990, but Congress blocked delivery over concerns about that country's developing nuclear capacity.

In 2002 the newly elected government decided to abandon the plans to replace the A-4K with the Pakistani F-16s because of other needs to be financed with the sparse financial capabilities of the country.

If the aircraft would have been delivered, they would have been operated by 75 Squadron at Ohakea and No. 2 Squadron, which is a detachment based at Nowra, NSW in Australia providing air attack training for the Australian Navy (the RNZAF got paid by Australia to undertake this task).

TAKEN FROM WWW.F-16.NET '>