Which Jet ?

[Imshi-Yallah]

Wheres the value for money in operating L-159s? they have no capability, Fast jets are not for show they're for use, PC-9s are just as suitable for aerobatic teams, and intercepting slow moving aircraft as would be encountered in counter smuggling operations.
The story that we would be gifted with Jets in an emergency is high farce, it makes absolutely no operational logistical or economic sense.
The fact is that if you aren't going to operate combat aircraft for combat training and deployments you don't need them.
As for maintenance costs both the F-5E/S and Jas-39C compare favourably in maintenance hours and costs to all modern LIFTS, very favourably when you consider that both are operational combat aircraft.

[Irish251]

Things have moved on a lot since the time the Air Corps had genuine contemporary fighters (the 1940s/early 1950s) and even then it hardly posed a serious deterrent to a determined adversary).

Any serious fighter force consists of a lot more than just the aircraft and crew - significant ground support in terms of maintenance organisation, weapons expertise, air defence radar, plus extensive training - e.g. BAe air combat range (North Sea), USAF Red Flag exercises.

[n-e-foo]

Quote (Short finals @ 29 Nov. 2003,11:26)

I agree strongly with the last two posts. L-159's are a useless piece of kit when the air corps already have PC-9M's.

I would however add the JA-37 Viggen to the list along with the Jas-39C and F-5.

But going on to short finals point.. as you point out about the amount of infrastructure involved, its not going to happen.

I suppose this all comes down to our future role in europe; I doubt we'll be expected to contribute Air Defence assets to any european defence, they'll be provided for us. I.E. our skies will be patrolled by the RAF, but perhaps we'll be expected to have some token defence.

Which assuming thats the case, would more PC-9M's be worthwhile, or should transport, both fixed wing and helecopter based be the Air Corps main concern?

[FiannaFail]

The PC-9Ms are an excellent purchase, regardless of what the Sunday Independent has to say about them.  They are primarily however a basic and advanced trainer with a limited but useful light strike role.  The next step will be jets it is the natural progression!
FiannaFail
 

[Imshi-Yallah]

The Gripen and F-5 both have tiny maintenance needs, so the only real infrastructure would be hangars and radar (which is a big cost),  Gripens and F-5s could not only operate from bals runways they could operate from any primary roads, not just aviation grade ones.
However there wouldnt be enough apron space for a gripen which leaves the F-5.
As to the Viggen why would we want to be the only Viggen operator in the world? Its also bigger and less capable than the Gripen]

[Silver]

Hey FF,

What did the Indo say about the PC-9's ?
And when ?

[Turkey]

Apparently there are no Viggens to be released for sale, all are being dismantled on withdrawal.
The Gripen would have easier maintainance costs then the F-5 IMHO, being newer and being designed for a largely conscripted serviceing force.

[Silver]

I would support the purchase of Harriers 101% !!!
(My favourite !)
They would be ideal for Ireland - not needing long runways etc.


However, wouldn't their maintenance costs be astronomical in comparison to non-VTOL jets ?
Hence, even less chance of getting em'  '>

[Fouga]

I heard somewhere before that all Irish Airports are built to NATO specs, is this true?

The yanks said they could have no problem landing (operating) an f-16 out of EICM the germans also said that...

[n-e-foo]

Quote (Imshi-Yallah @ 29 Nov. 2003,12:36)

The Gripen and F-5 both have tiny maintenance needs, so the only real infrastructure would be hangars and radar (which is a big cost),  Gripens and F-5s could not only operate from bals runways they could operate from any primary roads, not just aviation grade ones. However there wouldnt be enough apron space for a gripen which leaves the F-5. As to the Viggen why would we want to be the only Viggen operator in the world? Its also bigger and less capable than the Gripen]

Initial outlay for the Viggen would I (here comes the dangerous word) assume be far cheaper then for a Grippen. The Viggen is a highly capable aircraft with STOL capability and it is designed for operating in the harsh Scandinavian climate,  but of course as you state the Viggen is being retired from the SAF in 2005(?) which would lead to higher operating costs for the IAC if it chose to operate it.  But what if another nation or two ordered secondhand examples as well? Are the Austrians still operating the much older Drakens?

My problem with the F-5 is, you say it has tiny maintenance needs - but how many low hour examples are available at this time? I assume more costly maintenence is required on the older examples. Of course I know nothing about the hours on the Viggen airframes either....

I would go for the Gripen as its modern and low maintenence, I just suggested the Viggen as it might have been a compromise between the cost and capability of the JA-39/F-5 you suggested.

I must add that I obviously have a limited knowledge of these things compared to you - I'm just suggesting the Viggen/Bell 412 to get a response from people who know alot more then I do i.e. you.

I don't think I have all the answers, I'm only suggesting things that seem like possibilities to me.

Just as with training heli pilots to do the more advanced tasks of mountain flying and SAR, you can do the same with Harriers. The RAF rarely use the GR 3 - 7 in the VTOL tactical role to save money. Once the guys are rated on their basic courses, they only do it operationally to ensure combat currency. That means that we could schedule closure of the M 50 for use of bridges for shelter ((!!))) and the Waterford road for use of tunnel / bridges for revetments. Also Cork tunnels and any other useful underground spaces for hidey-holes. You do this once a year. Otherwise, act like a normal jet. However, as quoted by a harrier pilot 'It's not a case of IF, but WHEN the engine fails', which is sobering. I cannot remember a RAF harrier engine failure resulting in a colateral damage incident.

[P.Doff]

Modern fighter A/C dont need that much runway to operate from(depending on load of course!). The F-16's and 18's that landed at the don needed ef all runway but I have to admit that they were 'Clean'! I seen a Spanish F-18 use up about as much runway as the Casa! The USAF dont wont land their fast jets at the don because we dont have arrester wires or barriers should there be an emergency!!
This is also the policy of the Belgians but nobody told the Belgian F-16 jock that we had none at the last airshow and he was down and almost taxing when he realised it but said "sod it, Im here now".

[n-e-foo]

Quote (Turkey @ 29 Nov. 2003,12:56)

Apparently there are no Viggens to be released for sale, all are being dismantled on withdrawal. The Gripen would have easier maintainance costs then the F-5 IMHO, being newer and being designed for a largely conscripted serviceing force.

Well thats the end of that '>

Saab probably want to put everything behind the Jas-39.

Ok ,
 I think the Harrier will serve your country better than the F-16's.

Afterall, how many airstrips in Ireland are capable to recive jets?

Guinness.

[FiannaFail]

Silver,
The Sunday Indo, Sunday before last, in an article about  Ireland,s Presidency of the EU.  It mentioned the Air Corps and in particular the purchase of the PC-9Ms which it stated were obsolete!!
FiannaFail '>