PDA

View Full Version : JETS: Smithy's response



Silver
12th March 2003, 17:39
Minister for Defence, Micheal Smith, was interviewed on The Pat Kenny Radio Show today about Ireland's readiness to deal with any terriorist attacks.
He said our emergency services were well prepared to deal with any such attacks - "the plans are in place", he said.
(I suppose he would say that . wouldn't he !)

Then Pat Kenny read out the comments of three callers -

- one said that the money for Bertie's new jet would be enough to purchase fixed-wing aircraft to defend our airspace and that it was shameful that our airspace is undefended

- another stated that the government should be purchasing fighter jets instead of a VIP jet

- another said that it was a disgrace that the RAF would have to be called upon to defend us in the event of a terrorist attack.

Smithy's response was -
"on the very day I would announce the purchase of such jets, people would be complaining that the money should be spend on education ..... A government's job is to priortise what the country's needs are...."

Typical politicans answer.
So there we have it, in case we needed official clarification, a jet for Bertie & Co. is more important than defence of this country :mad:

Stinger
13th March 2003, 12:43
I think what is more evident from this is the contempt with which the government treat the views of the poeple they represent. People rang in to express the wish that the defence of our country be put before the comfort of our politicians but yat again they ignored it. Just as an aside if they are planning to buy two new planes, lease a citation and hold onto the G IV for another while. Doesn't that give us a total of 4 jets!!! What the f**k do we need 4 jets for???

Big Al
13th March 2003, 14:01
There will be a new part of the air corps set up when they get the four jets

its called the SMHAC

which is

Strategic
Mary
Harney
Airlift
Command

They need two jets for her and her lugauge

Stinger
14th March 2003, 12:24
Well just like the rest of the Air Corps it will not be issued with the proper tools for the job. In my opinion the SMHAC would have to be equipped with CASA or C-130, lets face it she'll need the loading ramp to get that ass of hers on the plane. As for her luggage im sure that Bertie and his mates would gladly shell out for a 747 to do the job. Well at least the Air Corps will have something they can be truely proud of - one of the best equipped MAT service in the world. I don't think they have ever been able to say before that they are the best equipped in the world to carry out a task.

Simon Jennings
15th March 2003, 16:37
Would it not be better to get one of those big Antanov or a galaxy to haul that load out to open the auld off license. Been thinking about setting one up meself shure.
And we need to be able to get to the Bahamas, Luxemborg, Isle of Man, Caymans and Oz to take care of state finance.
To be serious, we do need some VIP transport system, but not two.
I'd rather see the Aercorps get
1:proper SAR capability around the coast for rescue and medivac,
2:a big dedicated Medivac transport,like the SH 53. A lot of people need to travel to Dublin for medical tratment from Cork, the South East and the West.
3:A naval Airwing for two HPV's, using the Aercorps does not work.

After that we could look at Light fighters/trainers. It is a question of prioroties.

EagleEye
15th March 2003, 17:47
What about the option of contractting out the MATS side of the Aer Corp and turn it into a purely military Air Corp.

Come-quickly
15th March 2003, 22:30
MATS is a military task in most countries, they usually supplement it with an airforce though

I.M.F.
17th March 2003, 17:56
"..... A government's job is to priortise what the country's needs are...."

What does that mean?
I dont rember any body say at the last election what shall we do with €50m, buy some jets to protect are air space. nah lets bay a luxuary aircraft so the bertie and co. can go on buissnes trips.
do you?

Big Al
17th March 2003, 23:16
chances of ireland atccaked by towel heads 1%

chances of betrie going to EU in style 100%

live with it, the govt dont care about defence.........until we (RDF or much more likely PDF) are needed. when irish troops die on the front line then they will act, congo, cyrpus, leb etc etc

Fox
18th March 2003, 09:28
Is there no way that the Irish people can lobby for these Aircraft? Say a petition? Outside help/interference?:D ( Interference to the GOVT )

Just a thought:-patriot:

Come-quickly
18th March 2003, 14:39
Act to cover their own posteriors alas....once again I'm faced with the tough career question, serve here or serve there.

FMolloy
18th March 2003, 15:26
Like it or not Smith has a point. By and large the vast majority of the electorate don't care about defence. If he was to announce the purchase of new fighters he would be hounded from all sides for spending money on 'toys for the boys'. We can give out about him all we like, but the fact of the matter is that he holds a ministry with no clout. Bertie wants these jets, Harney & McCreevy agree with him. It would be political suicide for Smith to object.

Stinger
18th March 2003, 19:00
That is one of the problems wih the Defence Forces, They don't really have a public profile. If they did then the public would realise the problems faced by our forces. People who understand the role played by the Defence Forces should also understand the problems they face i.e the shortage of equipment. The Air Corps does need SAR helos and aircraft which are able to protect our air space it is the minisers job to make them understand this.

FMolloy
18th March 2003, 19:26
People don't want to know. More has been done in recent years than ever before to raise the public profile. Parades, advertisements, press conferences - none of it has really made a difference. The only time there public is interested is when some soldier dies, I fear it will take high profile casualties like Niemba to bring on a resurgance of public pride.

Stinger
18th March 2003, 19:58
Perhaps you are right or perhaps a high profile deployment could do the trick. At the moment we are supplying a hand full of troops to every shitty little operation that comes along perhaps what we need is another batallion size deployment like the Leb but maybe for not as long. I think the good work the irish can do is better done in large groups where we can make a difference and not in little penny packets where all the glory is taken up by the big boys. We have every reason to be proud of the work done by our forces and i think it's about time this was recognised. It could cost money but in the long term it could be worth it.

I.M.F.
18th March 2003, 21:10
To be honest (and I dont want to say this) the only way the goverment will do somthing about the defence of our air space or anything in the State is when they relise that the State is unpretected after a terrorist attack on the State. That will be too late.
They should take this in to account when they are deciding what to do with the defence budget.
realy a few Anti-aircraft guns and 8 training aircraft(witn min. defence equipment) wont protect Irish airspace.

Stinger
18th March 2003, 23:14
unfortunaly I agree

Rollcall
18th March 2003, 23:34
Nice little rant in todays Oirish Daily Star about the lack of air defence. I'm not normally impressed with the journalism quality of said Paper but the article sums up the state of play very well, and hopefully might get a few people thinking who normally mightnt consider matters like we do on this board

The article sets out the old chestnut scenario of a 9/11 style attack either directed at or launched from aircraft operating here. It states that we have no air to air capability, "or even a helicopter that could attempt to shoot it down", and then maligns the Air Defence Regiment for their aged RBS70 and L70 systems and their inability to mobilise quickly or to engage anything at an altitude over 10,000 ft.

It then mentions the recent "give the brits a ring" plan, which even Smith confirmed, and expresses outrage and embarrassment at this being necessary. But, more interestingly, it draws a few comparisons between our capabilities and those of our Euro neighbours..

"Denmark, pop 5m people, has 69 american built F-16 fighters, Norway 130+ attack aircraft, and NEUTRAL sweden 300+ jet interceptors!"

Now, if that doesnt make even the most naive people think.........

Stinger
19th March 2003, 11:10
Now that is interesting. Did anybody bother to tell our minister this??? (For all the good it would do)

ias
19th March 2003, 13:58
Anybody else surprised by the fact that our lack of defence capability has appeared in the media so often recently, according to post here both RTE and The Star have had features recently!


IAS

FMolloy
19th March 2003, 15:45
Stinger, lay off Smith it's not his fault. There is no public or political will to spend on defence. I'm sure he's well aware of what the DF can and cannot do.

EagleEye
19th March 2003, 16:06
Exactly, can anyone of ye say that any other minister would do anything differently. With regards to Defence spending, what minister or government would give the DF lets say € 500m for a complete overhaul of our Naval, Air Corp and Army equipment when the public would have their heads for it. The is little or no interest in the DF even with all the Ad's etc. ask somebody in the street what is an APC and they would probably say its the name of a Bank !

FMolloy said "I fear it will take high profile casualties like Niemba to bring on a resurgance of public pride".

I can see what your getting at but if an incident like this were to happen, a mortar attack on the KFOR troops in Kosovo for instance do you think the public would then go along with more Defence Spending seeing 50+ coffins draped in the Tricolour, they would ask why the hell were Irish troops there in the first place and the mission would end.

I don't really know what the government can do to increase spending and keep the general public happy. I'm sure any intelligent person in Government knows the real state of our DF. I mean a few APC's and 8 trainers big WOW !!

A major attack on the state would be the only thing that would make the public realise the need for a real defence on Sea,Air and Land. Lets worry about our own defence before worry about oversea's missions.

I.M.F.
19th March 2003, 17:15
I am sure Smith knows what the DF can and cant do ,but he should realise that the country is UNDER PROTECTED for a country that is to host the E.U. presadentcy (even if it for a few months).
With the comming war Ireland could become a terrorest target(ethier becuse of the E.U. presadentcy of for letting U.S.A.F. planes landing at shannon).
the government should lean from the mistakes of the U.S. after 9/11

Stinger
19th March 2003, 17:18
I case you haven't notices our government rarely learn from their mistakes

I.M.F.
19th March 2003, 17:21
Thats why I said SHOULD learn

Silver
19th March 2003, 17:33
As an absolute minimum, 6-8 L-159's could be purchased from the Gormanston sale funds without much public outcry.

Come-quickly
19th March 2003, 18:20
Silver there is no point in having L-159s since they can't fulfill any mission other than what the Pc-9s will already be capable of.

The media drags out the lets get lots of kit thing about once every three years I've watched it happen since I was a kid and it has no effect nor is it intended to, it's like when the Tabloids speak out against racism once a year and then...

Silver
19th March 2003, 18:55
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the L-159's would have a lot more capability and most importantly, are much faster, than the PC-9.

The L-39 (or L-139) would be an equivalent of the PC-9.

Come-quickly
19th March 2003, 19:16
But still too slow to keep up with any modern airliner long enough to fire any IR-guided missile and while only half as fast the PC-9 can carry substantial stores with better manouvreability and considerably less cost diverted from the purchase and upkeep of front line aircraft.
There have been numerous faults found in the L-159 which is why export sales look likely to flounder in the nxt twelve months and beyond since Mikoyan, Yakolev and Aermachhi are going to sweep the boards in the armed jet trainer market while the PC-21 will take a considerable chunk of that market for the Turboprops.
Sometimes there is just no easy way out.

Fox
20th March 2003, 11:59
Call me crazy but would it even be worth our while to look toward the US or more importantly the Mojave desert in the US at all the Rows upon rows of Aircraft just lying there FULLY AIRWORTHY and on Sale...Need i say any more, average price of an F-16 out of there is 2.5Million each, now if that isnt a deal i dunno what is. Like i said yes i am Crazy:D :-patriot:


JUST A THOUGHT


Geez sometimes i really think that the members of this Board should be running two Govt Departments

(1) Dept Of Finance
(2) Dept Of Defence

Bet we would all like them jobs!

If it doesnt work out i know a great little place called toymaster that sells authentic die-cast F-16's at wait for it.......................1.50Euro, yeah who cares about Mojave, we have Toymaster:D And they are Irish too!:-patriot:

Come-quickly
20th March 2003, 14:43
Fox I hate to have to say this but you are a blithering idiot.
The state has been offered F16's effectively for free in the past the problem is we don't have the infrastructure to run them we can't afford to run them on the current Aircorps budget and we couldn't run the appropriate number on current manpower allocations, never mind the actual availability of personnel the need for a defense role to be re-established for the Aircorps since that was surreptitously removed in the white paper.
Secondly Aircraft kept in indoors storage for over a year usually require major overhauls...how much work do you think a bunch of Surplus F-16A/Bs that have sat in the open for fifteen years would need.
Thirdly as has been established repeatedly in previous posts in the topic F-16s are not suitable for our needs for a number of reasons and the Air corps needs other things a lot sooner, its not unrealistic to ask for a capable fleet to be built up over ten years what is unreasonable and completely counterproductive is to demand the state empties the treasury in one glob because you think it would be cool.
Finally How dare you come into the den of true believers in the defence forces and start accusing us of treachery!
You little S&@t are the socialist workers party of the defence community, so learn some manners or maturity or stick to fluting around on Franks Board.

Come-quickly
20th March 2003, 14:44
And yes you are crazy; in a bad way

yooklid
20th March 2003, 20:07
Not disagreeing with you CQ, but on the "Boneyard Airplane" option:

AFAIK aircraft held at Davis Monthan AF Base in Arizona are usually held in different states of preservation. The highest level of this states
that the airframes can be made ready to fly in 30 days. This is usually for fighters whose deriviatives are in front line service, ie this would be the 16s, 15s, 14s, (Wouldn't touch these with a freaking barge pole though), and even some 18s.

The major thing which would be a concern would be the level of avionics. These planes electronics would be cold war vintage tech and would need updating. The US may be reluctant to do this. Then again, maybe not. If they did, it would be necessary for them to pick up the cost, and this would probably add another 60-90 days to delivery time. (Still less than getting new airframes from scratch).

Of course, you are dead right to point out the massive cost to Ireland regardless of "free airplanes". Both crew and facilities would be needed. But perhaps:

If we offered the US the capability to develop an airbase somewhere in the country (Bere Island perhaps?) and we joint crew it, and have them onsite to provide some of the capital expenditure. It would also be possible for USAF or USN to provide some training with us/them acting as agressor squadrons? We then have them shouldering a lot of the cost, providing the best training we could possibly get, and are then able to finally start contributing to our own defence, and that of the west.

Just a suggestion.

Of course, I imagine the crustys would be quite effective against mobilising some sort of public "outcry". Perhaps we need another recession.

Just an Idea

Yooklid

Stinger
20th March 2003, 20:24
Well you know after the outcry that was caused by the landings in Shannon I don't think the government would be willing to set up a joint airbase

yooklid
20th March 2003, 20:31
Precisely.

Of course, if something were to happen....

Remember, major threat now is

a) Release of dirty/nuclear bomb
b) Release of chemical weapons or mass posioning -> Last summer some Egyptian nationals were arrested for breaking into a Resevoir near San Diego (which has a massive military presence). It is being kept very quiet.
c) More airliners into buildings

Regardless of the fact that these threats cannot be countered very effectively with conventional military forces, ppl will turn to the DF when they are afraid. Jets would be a comfortable sight if the airliner scenario happened again.

Yooklid

I.M.F.
20th March 2003, 20:38
The government wont go for a joint airbase.
Its more likely the government will open up Baldonnel to civil aircraft.
That would give them more money to spend on more luxary aircraft.

Turkey
20th March 2003, 22:47
I have seen no evidence that F-16's are unsuitable for the Air Corps, However those examples in AMARC are old and have been sidelined for a reason, most in AMARC are 'A'and 'B' models and are clear weather aircrafts only, and in their present state could at best operate Sidewinders only.
F-16's would be objected too by only the looney left, Fox may be a bit off course but his intentions are good, unlike others on this board, who are capable of tossing up red herrings and other irelavencies even quicker then 'peace people'.
The Air Corps budget must increase, that is obvious, along with personall, and this countrie's attuide must also change, frankly the ignorant crap I have heard from my fellow countrypersons in the last 24 hours make me sick to my eyeballs.
New F16's, or Gripens, should be bought as part of a new Air Corps capable of protecting this country.
Flame me if you want, I don't give a s**t about the rantings of traitors, since I got my new anti-virus software:D :D :D.
I think the blithering idiot, whose main debate wepons are personal attacks, is CQ, any previous respect I had for you is long gone!!!!


True beliver in the Defence Force, gimme a break!!!!!

yooklid
20th March 2003, 23:16
I think that all F-16s were all wether. Plus earlier A/B versions can be rebuilt to C/D by the US.

Falcon Link (http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/F_16_Fighting_Falcon.html)

Turkey
20th March 2003, 23:58
You could be right , but standard doctrin in early years of mud-moving was to operate in pairs, one to drop flares, to illuminate targets, while others bombed, anyway could rebuilding be justified for aircraft which have spent years in boonies? better to buy new builds with probal life-expectancy of 55 years, ref Tom Clancy, Fighter Wing, factual. current price $28 million ref Discovery Wings Feb 2002.
As far as I can judge all-weather only arrived with 'C' and'D' model.


Expensive aircrafts do not end up in desert for no reason!!!!

Aidan
21st March 2003, 09:55
Leaving aside the personal attacks ...

The real arbiter of modernity in the 16 fleet is the block system, rather than just the A/C(B/D) division.

Early versions of the F-16 were indeed day only (AIM9), but some planes from block 15 on got the facility to fire AIM-7 (which is a SARH missile and was never a huge success). Its entirely possible to upgrade more or less anything from approx block 20 on to be AMRAAM capable. Depends on radar and IFF fits, base APG-66 isn't good enough. Most of the planes in the USAF inventory are either Block 40(42) or 50(52), and are much more capable. A real night attack ability is only a recent addition (means night attack using pgms) with the lantirn/sharpshooter pods(came in Block 40-1988 on).

Dutch F-16s are all A models for example, but they have had the MLU upgrade, making them roughly equivelant to Block 50s, complete with APG-66(v2) radar. And they have Litening.

The aircraft in AMARC are a mix of Block 10, 15, 15 and 30, with some 16Ns as well. While there is no doubt but that they could be made fly, any useful life extension would have to incorporate a re-winging programme to start, even before we start talking about avionics fit. These airframes are worn, they need serious structural work.

While I've nothing against the F-16 per se, it really is out of the question for the Air Corps, at least in the short term. Leaving aside the pilot training and cost of operations, there are so many systems on even the most basic of these aircraft that would require serious investment in training, maintenance, facilities, extra staff ... and all this before an aircraft ever leaves the ground. The Air Corps have other priorities that have to be addressed before even considering this kind of venture.

Bravo20
21st March 2003, 10:02
Enough about F16's for the Aer Corps. What about a decent medium lift capacity. If you are going to have to make a decision on how to spend your money, Helos are the way to go, as they can operate properly in a support role to the Army (which is the function of the AC)

Fox
21st March 2003, 10:09
Dear Turkey

Thanks for saying what you said about my comments.

By the way CQ i am in no way a Socialist worker of any kind nor do i place myself with any political party hence im "Neutral".

I am just here to voice my opinion on what i feel should be done, fair enough everybody has their point of view but if you have nothing good to say, then dont say it.

Im just purely interested in the AC and in loving to see them develop into what they can be as given time i believe they can be a really good Military group who is already respected for what they are already doing with very limited funds, so yes i am crazy but in the good :-patriot: IRISH:-patriot: way, to me you seem to be venting fury over nothing and i cant stress the fact that this is a Discussion Board and not Dail Eireann, if you want to do something about it, i suggest you try and run for power and get to the Dail and go be Minister For Defence or Finance and do something about the problem otherwise i think you should respect the view of myself and others on the Board as nothing is Impossible.

Come-quickly
21st March 2003, 13:01
Lets see you don't take in a word that doesn't complement your view of things you are unreasonable and use the same arguments you used last year....not like a SWP at all then.

Turkey it is my right to critiscise I do regret making personal attacks as I am occasionally wont to do.
HOWEVER constant repetition of demands without arguments is extremely frustrating...and to be judged without basis
Here are my arguments.
1. a combat airforce is a low priority requirement tactical transport is far more important to the defence forces as a whole.
2.The Air Corps once established at a functional level should not be given a disproportianate level of funding which even a minor aircombat capability would require since both the army and Naval Service require major investment to reach a sustainable standard.
3. The F-16 is a single engined fighter bomber which apart from political uproar over the "b" word would never be utilised in a manner which required the full range and cost of it's abilities. (plus US pilot training on the F-16 costs $4m per pliot, the cost of one stike sortie by an F-16 is roughly equivalent in strategic terms to buying a battery of L118s)

Finally when I say true believer, I mean the people who just want the forces that are real to grow improve and be sustained not to act out fantasies about national power.

Fox
21st March 2003, 15:59
I aint acting out no fantasy you pee on, neither is turkey, you tit.


QUOTE:Turkey it is my right to critiscise I do regret making personal attacks as I am occasionally wont to do. END QUOTE

What does that mean? you cant even spell ?


If you dont like what im saying, do something about it..

paul g
21st March 2003, 19:18
Turkey, F-16s are single engined and the vast majority of irish air space is over the Atlantic, flying fighter jets is dangerous enough as it is, lets not make it any more difficult for the pilots. Therefore for safety reasons they wouldn't be ideal, look at the norwegian experience where most of the F-16s they have lost have been through engine failure over sea. if you think about it, its rare to to have single engine jets operating over the ocean on a regular basis on operations.

Personally, I think that a military avaition element that can't move an infantry platoon by helicopter, or have utility helicopters capable of flying at night has far more pressing things to worry about than fighter jets. Fox using bad language hardly helps people take you seriously.

Earhart
21st March 2003, 19:25
I feel I need to interject at this moment and time -

1. Less of the personal attacks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (I feel like your mother)

2. CQ's appology should have been accepted in my opinion or the comments removed from his post.

Let's keep it civil lads (and Lasses)

Silver
21st March 2003, 20:19
Ok, we all know that helicopters, medium lift in particular, are the most pressing requirement for the AC.

However, the fact of the matter is that we still have no air-defence/intercept/patrol aircraft. If any threat was imminent we would have to call in the RAF.
To me, that is a totally unacceptable position for Ireland in the 21st century. As somebody else said on this board - "We are the colony that never grew up !"

So where do we go from here ?
(The PC-9's will provide very limited patrol and intercept capability, i.e. interception of light aircraft, but they are not what we can call proper interceptors by any stretch of the imagination.)

Should we remain a UK "protectorate", or organise our own (even limited) intercept capability, i.e. a squadron of 6 - 8 jets ?

What money will be raised by the sale of Gormanston (approx) ?

Enough to purchase helis AND jets (e.g. 6 x upgraded Swiss F-5's for example) ?

Gunner Al
21st March 2003, 22:29
Bravo20
"Helos are the way to go, as they can operate properly in a support role to the Army (which is the function of the AC)"

That is just 1 of the functions of the AC

PRIMARY ROLES OF THE AIR CORPS:
In Support of the Army
In Support of the Naval Service
In Aid to the Civil Power
SECONDARY ROLES OF THE AIR CORPS:
Aid to the Civil Community
Aid to Government Departments


and at the moment jet intercepters are more important than support of the army!!

yooklid
22nd March 2003, 20:25
So, the main purpose of the Air Corps is to support the other services and NOT defend airspace (Not a rhetorical question)

Yooklid

Tucco
22nd March 2003, 20:54
The white paper from 2000 says the state "has never" sought to secure our airspace to a minumal standar and that there probably "no need" to do so. (Quoting from memory here btw)

Which first of all makes it difficult to explain away No1 Fighter Squadron's Hurricanes, Spitfire and Vampires.

Secondly the paper says the international security situation is generally "benign" with no threats whatsoever visible against Ireland.

It then outlines the roles for the air Corps as set out above. Now, don't forget these roles would have been drawn up in consultation and following interviews with top brass at the Don.

However, given the changes security climate post 9/11, Enduring Freedom, Bali, Free Iraq - that White Paper looks a bit silly with Shannon as part of the Atlantic Air Bridge and Irish troops stationed at shannon.

Turkey
22nd March 2003, 21:24
I would like to apoligise for my posting of thursday, some of it was unessarly abusive, towards CQ.
Fox, it was also not intended to give anyone else a licence to abuse, we need to have no abuse on this site and more concentration on the issues, as far as we can carry them.
Attack the arguement, not the poster, [and yes I freely admit to being guilty as well]
Aiden, with regard to the 'A' and 'B' classification, I was just being lasy, sorry!
I am aware, or belive, that the helicopter force is of greater or equal importance to an interceptor fleet, which is why I sought Paul's premission to extract his heli' list and start a new thread with it.[more later]
I am also aware that a single engined aircraft such as the F-16 may be perceived to have shortcomings,with regard to over-water safty. But why I am not sure, we operated the Vampires for many years with steam-age[stone-age] jet engins, and did not lose one, they, at least once were on a 'jolly' to France, which despite my percived lack of mapreading skills:D does require an over-water transit.
our Marchettie's have visited the UK, our A111's did a lot of over-water work before the arrival of Matroter's Impreza's.:D
The fighter-bomber designation is largely irrelavent, 99% of military jets could comfortably fit that designation.
I did not pick the F-16 out of a hat, IMHO it's the best and most suitable product,currently in production, that can be comfortably fitted into the current structure in Baldonal, thou' larger hangers would be a definite asset.
But the behaviour of our largely incompetent and self-serving 'government' renders most of this useless, they will not spend a twisted cent on anything that serves anything other then their personall well being, hence the now apperent multiplicity of usless and unecessary government jets,also handy for escapeing in the event of things going pear-shaped, as if bertie gives a s**t about the 4 million saps who have to pay for them.

Tucco
23rd March 2003, 12:50
The helis point is well made, but to an extent self defeating., as this is probably already sorted out.

The sequence set out right now for the Irish Air Corps is the acquisition of 8 Pilatus PC9m, followed by a 3 strong MATS with GIV, Beechcraft replacement and, say, a 737.

Smith has said, and it's widely expected, that a new tender is to issue soon for the ml helis. (No one really believes cuts in spending were to blame for the old one being scrapped). ps: Sikorsky bods were seen back in town recently and are planning a new charm offensive, this time with an S-92 that actually flies!)

So on the ramp - 8 x PC9s
1 x GIV, An. other, 737
3/5 x Medium lift helis
Best of the rest AIIIs, SF260s?, 172s, SA.365Fis,
CN235s, SA342L,
GASU: 1 x AS355N, BN2T-4S, EC135.
(40 a/c apx?)

Blimey, where will it all fit? But clearly an Air Corps in pretty good shape in 2 years. Almost looks like a wish list.

Once that's done air defence should be next on the list, and if there's money knocking around from Gormo - well who knows.

When the Typhoons start coming on stream across Europe, there'll be stacks of Tornados etc looking for new homes?
:-patriot:

John
23rd March 2003, 16:40
Perhaps this issue with single engined fighters is being given too much weight. Single engine naval aircraft are hardly unheard of. Off the top of my head you have the A-4, F-8, A-7, Super Etendard, etc.

The US Navy will have a significant proportion of their fighter assets in a single engine fighter in the form of the F-35.

Is rejecting single engined aircraft for Ireland in a fighter role, especially if one wished to acquire a light fighter type, a balanced and rational decision? At a stroke you have excluded the Mako, which would seem to be a fine choice for such a role.

yooklid
23rd March 2003, 18:04
Exactly! If Single Engined was such an issue, there are a lot of planes out there that would never have gotten off the drawing board. BTW though, the Etendard is shite.

Yooklid

Tucco
23rd March 2003, 18:57
Not sure the Brits thought the Etendard was shite in the Falklands when it blew the bejaysus out of a few ships with its exocets.:)

yooklid
23rd March 2003, 19:12
Exocet did the blowing out of the water, not the etendard, and remember, one of the exocets that was fired was launched from a ground battery.

Tucco
23rd March 2003, 20:11
The Argies only had 5 exocets. All were fired from the Etendard. One was a ship launch version that was modified to be fired from an aircraft.:rolleyes:

I.M.F.
23rd March 2003, 22:22
The Argies had 5 exocets, 4 air launched 1 ground battery (that was modified for an aircraft) The missile did most of the work as it was fired from the etendard miles away

yooklid
24th March 2003, 03:33
I think they fired the ground launched one at the Gloustershire (sp?). I saw an interview with the engineers. Apparently they had to rig the ground battery to emit the electronic noise of the aircraft so that the missile thought it had been fired from an Etendard. The ship avoided most of the damage by turning hard to starboard meaning its hanger was wiped out but little else.

Yooklid

Come-quickly
24th March 2003, 12:09
Originally posted by Turkey
Aiden, with regard to the 'A' and 'B' classification, I was just being lasy, sorry!.
Me too.

Are you sure the Etendard is sungle engined its an awfully big aircraft?

The white paper was indeed a major kick in the nuts but, with careful plannin gthe Air corps can raise its military profile, most notably through participation in Oseas missions with transport helicopters for Irish troops.
Regular newsfootage of that and preferably some impressive looking armaments along the line of 20mm canon would really do a lot to boost expectations of what the air corps should have in its remit.

Getting back to the engine issue does anyone know what kind of attrition rates the Crusaders and Corsairs had?

Aidan
24th March 2003, 12:40
"Aiden, with regard to the 'A' and 'B' classification, I was just being lasy, sorry!."

Thats Ok, I was just bored and pedantic. A lethal combination. Sorry!

"Are you sure the Etendard is sungle engined its an awfully big aircraft"

Yup, it certainly is (Snecma 8K-50). Its also underpowered and has poor range and payload. The MN wanted to replace their entire fleet of fixed wing aircraft with F/A-18s in the 1980s when their F-8s left service. Instead they got a mildly upgraded SEM and were told wait for the Rafale.

Bummer.

On the engine issue, I've no idea of attrition rates for other single engined Naval Aircraft. Will have a look. Have heard that the USN thank their lucky stars that the F/A-18 is a twin though, specially since a number of them made it back to the boat after Afghanistan after an engine flameout. One of the reasons (excuses?) that the USN say they're happy with the F-35 is that modern engine reliability has advanced to the extent that they're not worried about losing planes due to engine problems. Claiming that their research shows that hydraulic or electrical problems are much more likely to be the cause of an accident than flame-out.

Stinger
28th March 2003, 16:28
Reading between the lines does that mean that the navy are thanking their lucky stars to get any aircraft at all????

Fox
31st March 2003, 10:57
Turkey i am sorry for replying soangily to CQ's commentsand i think it's time to frorgive and forget as at the end of the day we are all in the same boat that is :-patriot:EIRE:-patriot:.


Now i think that i have evaluated my position and yes Helicopers are priority.

Jets can wait a bit.

Just as a matter of interest, how many pilots does the AC actually have at the moment? And if we were to get ac, would the DoD be handing out applications like nobodys business?:D :D :D :-patriot:

Come-quickly
31st March 2003, 11:47
Below the required establishment but theres fk all for them to fly