Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comparison with RNZAF

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    http://web.archive.org/web/200803091...a/not_pc_9.pdf

    Texan II is actually a different aircraft to the PC9, a highly optimised development of the basic PC9 design. It's potential as a weapons platform is not gone into in the above article, but if you do a bit of searching you'll find that in that regard too it's quite far ahead of the Irish PC9 (which could be more potent if the investment was made available).

    Comment


    • #17
      Compared with the AC:

      6 x AW139
      2 x EC135
      2 x CN235 MPA (when due for replacement possibly by larger more flexible aircraft)
      5 x Cessna FR172 (to be replaced by 3 larger ISTAR equipped aircraft)
      1 x L45
      7 x PC9

      Plus the 3 GASU aircraft

      Comment


      • #18
        No medium lift heli, no cargo lift of any kind, Cessnas essentially worn out and obsolete (give them away, please....Flying clubs would use them), Casa replacement needs thinking about now....no potential for overseas unless the Don cadges a lift on someone else's mission.....impending civilianisation?

        Comment


        • #19
          And, as is also currently the case with the RNZAF, the Air Corps has no air defence (jet) capability.
          IRISH AIR CORPS - Serving the Nation.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Silver View Post
            And, as is also currently the case with the RNZAF, the Air Corps has no air defence (jet) capability.
            With a proper fire control radar/warheads the 76's on the NS unitspossibly represent the most capable/economic air defence system here.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by danno View Post
              With a proper fire control radar/warheads the 76's on the NS unitspossibly represent the most capable/economic air defence system here.
              Until you try parking a P60 in the Phoenix Park to cover an EU summit. Bit of an economic nightmare that...

              All joking aside, ship-borne anti-aircraft artillery systems really are a last line of self defence item used against missile or other targets that have evaded systems that should have dealt with them further out. They are not primary air defence weapons. They are a backs to the wall/up Shit Creek/close your eyes and cross your fingers damage limitation weapons. Even with radar/programmable fragmentable ammo. It's throwing lead at the problem as a last resort. They are certainly not area denial weapons like any capable AA system should be.

              Forgetting their use as a national Air Defence asset, which they could never be and intead looking at their potential use for self defence within the NS itself, It would be more cost-effective to continue with the current EO FCS for the gun and fit ships with low cost navalised MANPADS missile systems like Mistral RC. And a hell of a lot more capable.

              Comment


              • #22
                Regarding air defence/jets: If leasing Gripens is not an option, the next best option for the Air Corps (imho) would be 6 of these -

                In effect, 'mini' F-16's
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle
                IRISH AIR CORPS - Serving the Nation.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The Brits provided AD for the Olympics with a T45 without having to put it in the carpark at the stadium!. As things stand the NS units IMHO are the most suitable platforms for AD be it MR or Hail Mary /sanshiki types. When not lighting up intruding Bears etc the units are doing regular taskings earning their salt whereas fast air units are one trick ponies in comparison. Speaking of Bears any bets on a few visits arising from the publication of the Litiveinhenko killing inquiry report today.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The 120km range of the Aster 30 missile employed by the T45 makes any comparison with line of sight capabilities of the 76mm OTO in the AAA role a rather poor one.

                    Even then the defensive bubble over London consisted of first and foremost Typhoons in Northolt, a T45 in the estuary, with Rapier and Starstreak installations in the urban area. The T45 was merely a layer in the overall system most probably due to its highly effective Sampson radar.

                    It is absolutely insane to compare the use of a T45, one of the most potent anti-air surface combatants on the planet, with a potential upgrade of the main gun on any Irish vessel. Insane.

                    Fast Air a one trick pony? Any pony that can fly Air Intercept/Close Air Support/Tactical Recon/Anti Ship is one I'd want in my stable.

                    Naval Vessels have their role. Fast Air has its role. They are complimentary, not directly interchangeable. To try and have one do the other's job is to try and reinvent the wheel. Then you'd lose.

                    P60s with with Air Search radar lighting up Bears off the west coast. That would give Vladimir as much of a laugh as the results of the aforementioned enquiry.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X