Post by: Silver on August 13, 2006, 12:31:56 am
An article over on IMO quotes O' Dea as saying (words to the this effect) "...jets would cost us €65m each..."
There is also an excellent article by journalist Michael Mulqueen which is very informative (and with little jargon) ....for the general public to understand that 8 x PC-9M's are just not good enough for our air defence needs.
Post by: Frank on August 13, 2006, 12:37:00 am
Post by: Silver on August 13, 2006, 12:56:08 am
Both are over on IMO (I don't know how to paste them here).
or
Link to Indo ?
Post by: Fouga on August 13, 2006, 01:11:14 am
Post by: The Blue Max on August 13, 2006, 07:29:18 am
The Above is the link posted on Irish Military Online which itself is an extract from article wrote by Don Lavery in Irish Independent.
It also quotes that the IAC were offered second hand jet trainers that could serve in the intercept role for $1 million each by a company, Does anybody have any further information on this or what type of aircraft they were?
Post by: Turkey on August 13, 2006, 07:42:14 am
....which is not an interceptor.
Post by: Fouga23 on August 13, 2006, 11:25:18 am
Post by: warthog on August 13, 2006, 12:32:17 pm
we could do this very quickly with minimum cost,it's certainly be an improvement over what we have now
Post by: Silver on August 13, 2006, 03:52:09 pm
| Quote (warthog @ 13 Aug. 2006,03:32) |
| add a pair of sidewinders to two of the pc-9's we could do this very quickly with minimum cost,it's certainly be an improvement over what we have now |
Would this be a feasible option ? How much extra weight would it add?...i.e. limit range and speed?
Something which has yet to be mentioned in the media, is the possibility of leasing jets - like The Czech Republic have done (or was it Austria?). Gripens leased from Sweden ...with the option to buy them after a certain number of years.
(After all, we are currently paying several million a year to lease our Coastguard helicopters!)
Perhaps somebody should mention this option to Don Lavery et al and get it in the media ?!
Post by: warthog on August 13, 2006, 04:51:45 pm
not a pc-9,but as good as really...
Post by: Fouga on August 13, 2006, 05:06:51 pm
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 13, 2006, 06:10:23 pm
The PC-9M with sidewinders would be a credable point defence capability. This allows the aircraft to wait in one area until something illegal comes in and is then engaged. The Super Tucano shown is used to intercept drug runners in prop aircraft and nothing else. Three problems though:
1. Its not point defence that is required (If anything) it is an intercpetion capability. To intercept an airliner doing Mach 0.82 the aircraft would have to be considerably faster ie expensive.
2. No airforce would allow the shooting down of an aircraft over its home soil without the target being visually intercepted, identifed and warned. See point one.
3. The COS dosent have the balls to make an executive decision to shootdown a rouge aircraft. During the May Day visits I believe this was to be handed on to Bertie for decision. ie another layer of complication who is also probably in the main target area for a terrorist threat!
Post by: Silver on August 14, 2006, 12:12:08 am
| Quote (SousaTeuszii @ 13 Aug. 2006,09:10) |
| 1. Its not point defence that is required (If anything) it is an intercpetion capability. To intercept an airliner doing Mach 0.82 the aircraft would have to be considerably faster ie expensive. 2. No airforce would allow the shooting down of an aircraft over its home soil without the target being visually intercepted, identifed and warned. See point one. |
So in reality, nothing less than say, Gripens, would be of any real benefit for such interceptions ?
Hawks, L-159's, etc would be a waste of time/money /
(N.B. - I know we have covered this ground before ....but it's interesting ground!
)
Post by: The Blue Max on August 14, 2006, 06:57:13 pm
Personnally i would think that a token force of bewteen 5-6 SAAB JAS-39 Gripens would give the DF a great assets both operationally and for training purposes. Would it possible for the IAC to get the best of bout worlds and get second hand block/batch one or two Gripens???
I would say that would give the IAC a quantrum leap and great defined role for years to come and i would say it would give a great boost also in Corps Morale as they have another more defined job aswell as new Helis,Cessna/Kingair Replacements and MATS,MAPS TATS (C27J Possible) and possible Air Policing role would make them feel more of key parthner in the DF then just more then a spare part in the DF!
Post by: Guinness on August 14, 2006, 08:35:22 pm
again, here's my thought on IAC Jets for air defense / strike
The Irish gouverment is nót givin' out money to something they don't need.
You have the privilage to live on a véry strategic isle concerning the Atlantic
Your east and north is covered by the RAF while your west and south is covered by the USAF and/or USN.
Why the H*** would your gouverment spend millions of €uro's on something it is takin' care of already.
I hope I'm wrong as I would love to see an IAC roundel on a Gripen but let's be real !!!
Guinness
Post by: pilatus on August 14, 2006, 11:11:12 pm
Post by: pilatus on August 14, 2006, 11:16:05 pm
Post by: Fouga on August 14, 2006, 11:32:40 pm
Post by: davephelan on August 14, 2006, 11:43:33 pm
Post by: warthog on August 15, 2006, 12:03:36 am
the government would rather risk an attack than lose face by appearing subservient to another power
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 15, 2006, 12:31:50 am
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
Post by: GoneToTheCanner on August 15, 2006, 01:08:20 am
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
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 15, 2006, 01:12:13 am
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
Post by: Hess on August 16, 2006, 04:57:21 pm
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 16, 2006, 09:17:54 pm
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.
Post by: The Blue Max on August 17, 2006, 01:50:53 pm
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.
Post by: Silver on August 19, 2006, 05:45:36 pm
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)
Post by: Irish251 on August 19, 2006, 06:55:49 pm
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 19, 2006, 09:24:30 pm
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?
Post by: Fouga on August 20, 2006, 04:49:03 pm
| 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.
Post by: FMolloy on August 20, 2006, 05:56:34 pm
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.
Post by: Hess on August 20, 2006, 06:21:07 pm
| 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.
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 20, 2006, 11:16:12 pm
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
Post by: Silver on August 20, 2006, 11:19:39 pm
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 ?
Post by: Fouga on August 21, 2006, 01:26:47 am
A way better version and thats my 2cents.
Post by: Shamrock145 on August 21, 2006, 10:34:09 am
Those masterminding the 9/11 attacks picked targets with political, economic and military significance ... and terrorists tend to go for opportunistic targets.
...145
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 21, 2006, 10:52:17 am
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
Post by: David Scully on August 21, 2006, 11:06:16 am
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.
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 21, 2006, 11:46:40 am
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!
Post by: David Scully on August 21, 2006, 12:15:43 pm
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.
Post by: Fouga on August 21, 2006, 12:20:11 pm
| 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.
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 21, 2006, 02:59:37 pm
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.
Post by: pym on August 21, 2006, 03:26:34 pm
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.
Post by: David Scully on August 21, 2006, 04:24:56 pm
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)
Post by: Fouga on August 21, 2006, 05:06:18 pm
| 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
Post by: David Scully on August 21, 2006, 05:32:49 pm
Thanks for the correction
Post by: Hess on August 21, 2006, 08:49:56 pm
| Quote (SousaTeuszii @ 20 Aug. 2006,14:16) |
| 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. |
That is my point exactly, that it will rust away, never having to be used. It's called a deterrent. Since the government and top brass of the Air Corps would be unwilling to deploy one or two squadrons of interceptors, this would seem to be the logical "cost-effective solution".
As for the deployment of these S.A.M.s & the perceived unwillingness of the government to shoot down a civilian airliner, this could be counteracted by certain "scares" where the missiles are actually activated, targets are tracked & the international press knows about it. Therefore we wouldn't have to spend half a billion for fast jets punching holes in the air. Leave it up to the military spin-doctors. The word would get out!!
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 21, 2006, 11:41:27 pm
A deterent is only a deterent if you are willing to utilise it. Firstly every country in the world knows that when it comes to hard decisions Ireland is full of fence sitting spineless polititons. The COS is so spineless he hands control of the air defence to the person most likely to be in the target area instead of having to make a career decision. God bless somebody paid huge sums to protect this country should have to make life and death decisions!
Secondly, who are you going to target and track? Civil airliners wouldnt know the difference unless you release it to the press. Are you seriously going to tell Micheal O Leary that you tracked one of his aircarft for no good reason. He sues over security delays never mind being on the pointy end of a SAM. Perhaps instead we could light up an allied aircraft. They will know and considering that shining lights on targets in the wrong way can be considered an act of war a radar lock should get their attention. Lets just hope their not armed. We have all seen what happened the Canadians when the Americans enforced their 'right to self defence'.
Thirdly, how expensive is a SAM battery capable of hitting targets at 35000' doing 0.85 and whats going to track the target. These weapons are the size of small buses and may have issues with planning permission never mind the huge radar antenna pumping out RF into the surrounding population 24/7.
Lastly, if it is a good idea why does nobody else use it and instead prefer to rely on air interceptors with short range SAMs as a last ditch point defence weapon at strategic targets such as the White house.
I am sorry if that all sounds a bit facecus but a shoot to kill weapon will never work as a deterent. As an example, if you were a crusty about to charge the fence at Shannon which would you be more afraid of, a soldier with a leathal weapon he cannot legally use or a soldier with a rabid dog with a mouth like a bucket full of teeth! Dog wins for me every time.
Post by: David Scully on August 22, 2006, 12:11:38 am
The fact is we remain one of the very few EU member states without a supersonic jet interceptor. When you consider our geographical position on the Western seaboard of Europe... under the current climate i think the investment is minimal and greatly reduces the risk of attack in this Country.
Post by: Fouga on August 22, 2006, 12:54:52 am
| Quote (SousaTeuszii @ 21 Aug. 2006,14:41) |
| Firstly every country in the world knows that when it comes to hard decisions Ireland is full of fence sitting spineless polititons. if you were a crusty about to charge the fence at Shannon which would you be more afraid of, a soldier with a leathal weapon he cannot legally use |
Hey Dail Eireann can you hear me all the way back there in the 50's?
Soldier can when is is being armed he is given his Authority to fire under certain conditions such as in defence of himself, of Govt property yadda yadda ive done the Guard Duty thing before as im sure most of you have also?
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 22, 2006, 02:30:04 am
If a crusty comes over the fence, ignores you on guard and runs with an axe toward a US Navy 737 and you shoot him is it a legitimate use of force. I think not. Could you release the hounds just for him coming over the fence, Yes. If that was an unknown inturder in a war senario then you could be justified to shoot him, her, it.
Its the same principle for all leathel, non lethal engagements including air defence. The rules are totally different for Full, Limited and cold war senarios and of course the short periods of peacetime the world has now and again.
Present air defence senarios require the threat to be identified and determined as an actual hostile before lethal action can be taken. Anything else is either a lucky call or murder, its a fine line to tread.
Post by: Hess on August 22, 2006, 09:10:35 pm
So the SAM site issue has already been "shot down", so to speak, you made many valid points against Ireland acquiring SAMs. However, since the muppets in power are not inclined to spend money on jet interceptors, because they believe that there is no threat to their power (they were pretty f***ing radical during the conflict in the North, when there WAS a threat to their power), how about going with the Icelandic solution? Allow Shannon or some other airport to be used by some nation that has interceptors, since we're too cheap to buy them anyway? Keeping in mind that both US & UK would not be acceptable to most (all?) treehuggers. How about inviting in the Dutch, or the Belgians, or the Danes, or even the Krauts (Marineflieger, good experience over the Atlantic environment) i.e. "training base" & have an agreement with them, that they will defend our airspace such as Iceland has with the US. It would cost us a minimal amount of money compared to any other solution. Just a thought.....
That's my 2 Kronur.
PS: But what about national pride? C'mon you muppets in power!!!
Post by: Irish251 on August 22, 2006, 10:10:40 pm
As you are probably aware:
(i) All western air arms have substantially downsized since the Cold War and at the same time several of them have had to take on a lot more actual operational duties in the various areas of unrest in the Middle East and elsewhere. They are already stretched in meeting these demands. There would be major issues in Germany with them deploying combat assets abroad - this derives from history regarding that country's past military adventures!
(ii) The USAF has recently pulled out of Iceland. They were there as much for their own reasons as to protect Iceland. When US interests dictated that they did not need to remain, they left.
Therefore I think it very unlikely that another country would want to assume the task of providing Ireland with air defence. Furthermore, even if you envisage a country other than the US or UK doing this, I think there would still be strong opposition among the Irish population to stationing military combat assets of another country here. I think any such proposals would also need to be proofed against the Constitution and statute law, e.g. the Defence Act 1954, section 16 of which reads:
"16.—It shall be lawful for the Government to raise, train, equip, arm, pay and maintain defence forces to be called and known as Óglaigh na hÉireann or (in English) the Defence Forces."
Post by: Fouga on August 23, 2006, 12:36:11 am
| Quote (Hess @ 22 Aug. 2006,12:10) |
| It would cost us a minimal amount of money compared to any other solution. Just a thought..... |
They should pay us to be here we all know they would love it. I spoke to a US Army Blackhawk pilot at Salthill a few years ago and he said the book for all things regarding Aviation in Ireland for Civillian and Military Ops etc ( Rules,Alt whatever ) came to.........wait for it.....1 page. He said most Nations had over 40pages regarding their rules and regs for transiting or whatever regading Civillian and Military traffic both from those nations and Foreign Mil etc.
Post by: Fouga on August 23, 2006, 12:42:58 am
| Quote (Short finals @ 22 Aug. 2006,13:10) |
| I think there would still be strong opposition among the Irish population to stationing military combat assets of another country here. |
And to think of all the People who love Aviation as a whole in this Country like look at Salthill 250,000+ this year and they couldnt wait for the roar and power produced by the Pratt&Whitney F100-PW-229 Turbofans of the F15E which produces 129.40 kN / 13 190 kgf with Afterburner!
Post by: Irish251 on August 23, 2006, 11:05:32 am
Your enthusiasm may be blinding you to the realities here. Interest in a free airshow at Salthill, which is essentially entertainment, cannot in any way be taken as an indicator of support for the actual stationing of combat aircraft from another country in Ireland, especially with an intention that, if necessary, they would intercept and maybe even shoot down civilian aircraft.
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 23, 2006, 12:23:30 pm
After the tragic events in Waterford the RAF made a very magnanimous gesture and offered to replace the Dauphin in Finner with a Seaking for the duration of the funerals etc to allow all crews to stand down. This gesture was thrown back in their face by being told that no forgien aircraft would ever be based in Ireland.
With true RAF style the Seaking arrived anyway as a 'liason' aircraft and the machine carried many people from funeral to funeral. While they were made very aware of the gratetuide by many people they got no thanks from on high (outside the Air Corps), just insulting scilence.
Post by: David Scully on August 23, 2006, 01:51:48 pm
Even the idea on relying on the RAF for top cover costs money and could you imagine the Dail debate on that one....
ST comments re the RAF Seaking or spot on in the way people think.
Post by: Fouga on August 23, 2006, 05:18:20 pm
| Quote (David Scully @ 23 Aug. 2006,04:51) |
| look how they welcomed the USN 737 @ Shannon |
Most of them were not even Irish....
Post by: Hess on August 23, 2006, 09:05:10 pm
ok:
1. SAMs are OUT!
2. Foreign forces on our soil for our air protection is OUT!
(God, I sound like Maggie Thatcher)
3. Proper Irish Air Corps interceptors are OUT
WTF, guys, anybody got a bright idea how to defend the sovereign Irish airspace?
Post by: Fouga on August 24, 2006, 12:29:54 am
Post by: warthog on August 24, 2006, 12:52:04 am
Post by: Fouga on August 24, 2006, 12:45:41 pm
Post by: sealion on August 24, 2006, 08:49:49 pm
| Quote (Fouga @ 24 Aug. 2006,12:45) |
| Aw i miss the FN i remember everybody who didnt hold the weapon properly when on the range came home with a bruised/black eye! Power! |
I didn't realise you were old enough to remember one?
Post by: Fouga on August 25, 2006, 01:25:19 pm
| Quote (sealion @ 24 Aug. 2006,11:49) |
| I didn't realise you were old enough to remember one? |
You still alive?
Post by: Frank on August 25, 2006, 08:05:32 pm
Stick to the fighters please.
Regards,
Frank.
Post by: Hess on August 25, 2006, 10:02:42 pm
well, the ideas so far haven't been worth that much.
We're looking for fast jet interceptors, so why not do a deal? With the Russians....they have more types of interceptors than you could shake a stick at (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know about maintenance, running costs etc), but maybe we have something that they want. Remember how we got the Steyr AUG for a big boatload of butter from the Austrians? Well, let's export something to the Russians as part payment for a squadron of MIG-29s.
We have:
a.) Information Technology & Telecommunications
b.) Business Skills
c.) Education system second to none
d.) Possible fast track visa for Russians willing to emigrate to Ireland
e.) Butter ..... ah, no, we gave it all to the Austrians
f.) Polish people
g.) Clean Irish Spring Water, it's been pissing here since before Christ was a young lad
h.) the knowledge of how to make a polititian to be on both sides of the fence while sitting on it.
Just a thought...
Post by: Hess on August 25, 2006, 10:14:33 pm
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 25, 2006, 11:56:28 pm
As for aircraft, no money concerns, it would have to be a version of the SU27. If a budget is required then a version of the Mig 29 should suffice.
As regards maintenance they are termendously tough aircraft designed for field maintenance with no special tools or equipment the main problem is TBOs on parts such as engines. Mind you engines from russia are dirt cheap. Believe it or not you can pick up a good mid time Walter turbo prop for the same price as a western piston. I imagine the military jet engine market being much smaller would also allow for cheap deals.
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 26, 2006, 12:03:57 am
Could this price be right?
Flight Journal year unknown
From the Above
A recent unofficial quote from a Russian source says that Su-27s can be bought for about $8 million apiece.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 26, 2006, 12:07:23 am
Still a very good price!
Military analysis network
From Above
The cost of one Su-30MKK fighter jet is estimated at $35 million - $37 million.
Post by: sealion on August 26, 2006, 05:45:43 am
Post by: SousaTeuszii on August 26, 2006, 08:06:25 am
Read somewher though that the airframe overhaul on the Mig29 is only 2500 hrs. How does that compare to westren types?
Post by: pilatus on August 26, 2006, 11:13:47 am
Post by: sealion on August 26, 2006, 06:21:13 pm