Defending the Irish airspace

[GoneToTheCanner]

Good to see some realism injected into the thread.

The model of Gripen you will get for Eur$78m p.a (numbers which are in fact based from 2004) is for a fairly basic Block 3 EBS model that is only configured for the A2A role. That Eur78m for 2000 annual flying hours limit translates to Eur39000 cpfh, but that does not equate for the remaining costs.

You will also have to buy your AIM-120C-5 and AIM-9L Sidewinder stocks as they are the only A2A weapons integrated onto the EBS Gripens. The latest and greatest Euro missiles would have to be integrated, which is a very costly endeavor, and frankly is not worth the time and money for a simple air policing role on a leased aircraft. Each AIM-120C-5 costs USD$555000 and each AIM-9L costs USD$110000. You will likely have to live qualify each pilot on them. The Hungarians original buy was 100 AIM-9L’s and 24 AIM-120C-5’s plus training stocks.

Ireland will also have to pay for new infrastructure to base the 14 jets. So new hangars, hardstands, admin centre, a simulator and part task trainer centre, additional fuel bunkerage, a hush house, weapons and also have a trained core of people to do flight line support refuellers, armourer, avionics, S&S ect. The estimation to build all that in 2021 money is in the vicinity of Eur200m going on what the Singaporeans were going to have to do to build and operate their 8 F-15E’s at Ohakea.

Moreover, a pilot must have completed a mandatory 500 hours on a LIFT platform before he/she can begin training in Sweden on the Gripen. Hungarian pilots, even though they had in some cases received their Wings in the Hungarian Air Force, had to basically start from scratch do this through the very demanding NATO LIFT course before they could head to Sweden for the conversion course on the Gripen. Canada generously pays for this as part of NATO, but for a non NATO country you will have to pay. That training takes up to 2-2.5 years. The Czech Republic’s pilots had it easier in that they flew the L-139 and could skip all that. It maybe possible that some parts of Phase I of the LIFT course could be conducted on the PC-9M could reduce the time spent in Canada by a few months.

Pilots these days don't fire live weapons until they actually go to war or are firing off time expired stocks,not even in training,unless their host AF has a gun equipped trainer and lets them fire off a few bursts. That's why you get the PC-21 type of aircraft and the future fighter pilot "fires" his qualifying shot of AIM-9,etc in the sim. That's what the UAEAF and other Middle East air arms are doing these days. If modern FJ candidates have to fire or drop something, then it's inert training rounds or time-ex stock,so the cost is considerably less. As fpr infrastructure,Ireland is not short of hangarage, fuel storage, parking spaces etc as it stands and the rest can easily be built. Irish builders can build anything any a few hangars and sheds can be quickly erected can. It's not as complex as you make it out to be.
As for the Hungarians, they were having to undo decades of a WarPac training and operational mentality for an entire Army and Air Force. practically overnight and it's no wonder they took a minimum of 5 years to get a leg up into the Gripen and Swedish and NATO defence mentalities. Not to mention such things as manufacture and supply , refitting their entire infrastructure from the ground up to a NATO/EU/ICAO standard. These people were already skilled operators that have been operating fast jets in an integrated defence network for decades but they had to clear the decks and start again. Learning to fly a Gripen was probably easy in relative terms,compared to Mig 21s and so on.
As for weapons integration onto a particular type of aircraft, that's a scam. I refuse to believe that any modern (competent, well-designed) aircraft cannot accept such basic weapons as dumb bombs, unguided rockets, drop tanks, targeting pods and so on. I'll bet you that when the RFP for the original Jas 39 was written, it had to be able to carry and fire or drop everything in the Swedish inventory or anything that could hang from 14-in lugs, from the start or it would fail to be accepted into the Swedish Air Force. Weapons computers can integrate anything that can be carried, depending on the aircraft size and storage and carriage space and that has been possible since the Vietnam era. I'll bet that Saab modelled the fitting and firing of every kind of weapon or stores carriage,long before they had rolled out the first live aircraft. I imagine that they might not have fired or launched some of the most modern weapons out there, that have evolved since the original Jas 39 but these days,with computer modelling and the right software and simulators,integrating a weapon is in the hands of the software and sim engineers,long before some guy hangs it under a wing.
All in all, getting the AC up and running with a fighter arm would be challenging but certainly not impossible. No shortage of talent in Ireland and the hardest thing would be changing a few old school mindsets (self included)

[Anzac]

Pilots these days don't fire live weapons until they actually go to war or are firing off time expired stocks,not even in training,unless their host AF has a gun equipped trainer and lets them fire off a few bursts. That's why you get the PC-21 type of aircraft and the future fighter pilot "fires" his qualifying shot of AIM-9,etc in the sim. That's what the UAEAF and other Middle East air arms are doing these days. If modern FJ candidates have to fire or drop something, then it's inert training rounds or time-ex stock,so the cost is considerably less.

Thank you for mentioning that soon to expire weapons are the ones used by undergraduates to qualify them.

Note I said likely and I say that because the impact of Plan 53 and the live qualifying requirement replacing Plan 85 is having on NATO training doctrine which also influences the tier one non NATO forces like Sweden, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Australia. And it is something we will face on the P-8A which will be the first guided weapon system for some time which of course the Whizzo's will have to concern themselves with.

As fpr infrastructure,Ireland is not short of hangarage, fuel storage, parking spaces etc as it stands and the rest can easily be built. Irish builders can build anything any a few hangars and sheds can be quickly erected can. It's not as complex as you make it out to be.

If you don't have this in place it will cost money. There are additional costs for operating a fighter squadron that are always missing from this conversation and that it is easy. Its not. BTW back in 2005 a number of ex RNZAF folk (sacked) with 2 Sqd and 75 Sqd explored in detail the Gripen lease concept and were shopping that to the then opposition as policy. It did not go far due to costs and that even 4 years after the government killed off 2, 14 and 75 Sqd's the institutional capacity was half destroyed. Then came the push to get the 9 of the 17 Macchi's out of storage and given the Batch 2 avionics upgrade that the Italians had done to at least retain a training cadre from the ACF carcass. That never flew either - basically because the Viper engines were rubbish.

As for weapons integration onto a particular type of aircraft, that's a scam. I refuse to believe that any modern (competent, well-designed) aircraft cannot accept such basic weapons as dumb bombs, unguided rockets, drop tanks, targeting pods and so on. I'll bet you that when the RFP for the original Jas 39 was written, it had to be able to carry and fire or drop everything in the Swedish inventory or anything that could hang from 14-in lugs, from the start or it would fail to be accepted into the Swedish Air Force. Weapons computers can integrate anything that can be carried, depending on the aircraft size and storage and carriage space and that has been possible since the Vietnam era. I'll bet that Saab modelled the fitting and firing of every kind of weapon or stores carriage,long before they had rolled out the first live aircraft. I imagine that they might not have fired or launched some of the most modern weapons out there, that have evolved since the original Jas 39 but these days,with computer modelling and the right software and simulators, integrating a weapon is in the hands of the software and sim engineers,long before some guy hangs it under a wing.

When you buy a sophisticated guided weapon you are not just buying the physical weapon but the IP license and codes for that weapon to work with a particular radar in the Gripen EBS case the PS-05/A. So if you want your Gripen to drop a JDAM or fire a AGM-65E you will need to integrate the weapons into the CMS and the PS-05/A. Yes Saab and the weapons manufacturer will certainly do that for you. But you will need to pay that extra premium. As for a scam – that may very well be the case – because that is how the big defence firms work. The IP side, which is seriously secret is where the cost is really built into most weapons.

All in all, getting the AC up and running with a fighter arm would be challenging but certainly not impossible. No shortage of talent in Ireland and the hardest thing would be changing a few old school mindsets (self included)

I agree. It is exactly the same for us as where I am from which is also without an air combat capability, and would love to have one back, but it is incredibly complex, incredibly expensive and will take at least ten years.

[GoneToTheCanner]

what happened to RNZAF was appalling;capability and skills gone at the stroke of a pen. Good old "capability gap", easy to implement but hard, as you say, to recapture.

[DeV]

what happened to RNZAF was appalling;capability and skills gone at the stroke of a pen. Good old "capability gap", easy to implement but hard, as you say, to recapture.

They may have capability gapped fast air (A4s and MB339 jet trainers) but they retain/are procuring what they will actually use world class strategic and tactical fixed wing transports, medium lift helicopters and martitime patrol aircraft.

[Jetjock]

They may have capability gapped fast air (A4s and MB339 jet trainers) but they retain/are procuring what they will actually use world class strategic and tactical fixed wing transports, medium lift helicopters and martitime patrol aircraft.

But unlike ourselves they are geographically isolated from any countries that like to send long range aircraft on sabre rattling missions through busy airways.

[Anzac]

Have you ever explored inviting the Singaporeans to train in Ireland? Or even the South Koreans. Look at the countries that the RSAF have training attachments. Including France where they base their M346's and India where they have a Joint Training Programme at Kalaikunda Air Force Station.

https://www.mindef.gov.sg/oms/rsaf/c...periences.html

The Singaporeans are global operators and are looking for airspace to train as they don't have any, let alone places to park their aircraft. They will subsidise the infrastructure costs and bring 500 personnel and their families into the country - a much better investment than an America's Cup which we are tired of having to pay for! The previous NZ Government had them lined up with F-15C's to move to Ohakea but the current government who were the ones to kill off the F-16 years ago, killed the Singaporean training programme, basically because they did not want to spent a bit of money contributing to it - and basically hate strike aircraft on ideological grounds.

As part of the basing deal you could share costs and have a way to generate an IAC strike training flight within their training attachment - to build capacity and graduate an air combat component over time. The maritime environment that Ireland offers would be especially interesting to them as it was what interested them to NZ. The South Koreans also struggle with airspace limitations. BTW Dublin is closer 1500kms closer than Ohakea to Seoul and Singapore is 1500kms further away to Dublin.

Note though that a "visiting" training attachment could never officially engage in air policing work on behalf of the Irish state. Though training exercises involving IAC pilots under Singaporean QFI's/QWI's stumbling across a passing Bear could be an interesting technicality to explore.

That is one further option you could workshop.

[DeV]

Have you ever explored inviting the Singaporeans to train in Ireland? Or even the South Koreans. Look at the countries that the RSAF have training attachments. Including France where they base their M346's and India where they have a Joint Training Programme at Kalaikunda Air Force Station.

https://www.mindef.gov.sg/oms/rsaf/c...periences.html

The Singaporeans are global operators and are looking for airspace to train as they don't have any, let alone places to park their aircraft. They will subsidise the infrastructure costs and bring 500 personnel and their families into the country - a much better investment than an America's Cup which we are tired of having to pay for! The previous NZ Government had them lined up with F-15C's to move to Ohakea but the current government who were the ones to kill off the F-16 years ago, killed the Singaporean training programme, basically because they did not want to spent a bit of money contributing to it - and basically hate strike aircraft on ideological grounds.

As part of the basing deal you could share costs and have a way to generate an IAC strike training flight within their training attachment - to build capacity and graduate an air combat component over time. The maritime environment that Ireland offers would be especially interesting to them as it was what interested them to NZ. The South Koreans also struggle with airspace limitations. BTW Dublin is closer 1500kms closer than Ohakea to Seoul and Singapore is 1500kms further away to Dublin.

Note though that a "visiting" training attachment could never officially engage in air policing work on behalf of the Irish state. Though training exercises involving IAC pilots under Singaporean QFI's/QWI's stumbling across a passing Bear could be an interesting technicality to explore.

That is one further option you could workshop.

And give up any claim to neutrality?

[Jetjock]

And give up any claim to neutrality?

That claim of convenience that allows governments to avoid their defence spending and global security responsibilities and doesn't actually have any basis in an enshrined constitutional neutrality?

While we may not be one of the big boys, approaching the centenary of the state it's time for us to start acting grown up. We use our concept of neutrality to shield ourselves behind other countries and contribute as little as financially possible to the security picture.

[Anzac]

And give up any claim to neutrality?

How would a training programme with another country on Irish soil with the policy benefit of assisting Ireland to ultimately and independently defend its air space integrity be able to be construed as Ireland giving up its lang standing policy claim of neutrality?

[Graylion]

How would a training programme with another country on Irish soil with the policy benefit of assisting Ireland to ultimately and independently defend its air space integrity be able to be construed as Ireland giving up its lang standing policy claim of neutrality?

Because a lot of people for reasons that escape me think that us being neutral means us being unarmed. BTW why on earth would neutrality have to be constitutionally enshrined? Sweden certainly doesn't have it in the constitution, neither does Finland AFAIK. Austria and Japan do I think, mostly as a result of WWII. Decisions like neuyrality or joining an alliance really should not be in a constitution but have to be left to he goverment of the time.

Even given all the caveats above I still like the idea of leasing the Gripens. It would also give us a leg into the fighter business, allowing us to make further decisions down the line.

BTW, as someone stated earlier, modern planes don't really need hangarage, all we'd need is a bit more tarmac - and all the other stuff mentioned of course.

[Anzac]

Even given all the caveats above I still like the idea of leasing the Gripens. It would also give us a leg into the fighter business, allowing us to make further decisions down the line.

Gripens are not the leg into the fighter business. They are the fighter business. The real leg is a tangible realistic pathway into that eventual capability. The process is more important than the platform at this stage in terms of the current institutional capacity of the IAC and way forward to get to a point where one-day a few years from now an IAC pilot will sit in a fighter and intercept a bogey intruding into your airspace. There are few short cuts and you cannot do this alone.

BTW, as someone stated earlier, modern planes don't really need hangarage, all we'd need is a bit more tarmac - and all the other stuff mentioned of course.

A couple of things. That person is probably reasoning commercial aircraft like ATR-72's or A320's are often left out in the elements therefore not a problem with a modern multi-role jet fighter being also able to do that. Good luck with that mate. One is like a bus and the other is like an F1 car. The other thing if you don't have a hangar I cannot see how the Swedes would ever contemplate leasing Eur55m Gripen's knowing that each aircraft that will fly just 140 hours per annum will be just left to deteriorate outside in a maritime climate like Ireland for the remaining 8620 hours of each calendar year. Building a hangar is probably one of the cheaper things to do anyway.

[DeV]

How would a training programme with another country on Irish soil with the policy benefit of assisting Ireland to ultimately and independently defend its air space integrity be able to be construed as Ireland giving up its lang standing policy claim of neutrality?

It’s the optics that are important on that one

there is provision in law for allowing foreign troops to train in Ireland (its relatively recent but can’t find it now). It also stems from the Constitution saying that there is 1 military in Ireland, the Defence Forces (the aim there being to counter the IRA).

also if that country was party to a conflict then we wouldn’t be neutral as we would be assisting them

[DeV]

Because a lot of people for reasons that escape me think that us being neutral means us being unarmed. BTW why on earth would neutrality have to be constitutionally enshrined? Sweden certainly doesn't have it in the constitution, neither does Finland AFAIK. Austria and Japan do I think, mostly as a result of WWII. Decisions like neuyrality or joining an alliance really should not be in a constitution but have to be left to he goverment of the time.

Even given all the caveats above I still like the idea of leasing the Gripens. It would also give us a leg into the fighter business, allowing us to make further decisions down the line.

BTW, as someone stated earlier, modern planes don't really need hangarage, all we'd need is a bit more tarmac - and all the other stuff mentioned of course.

well it has basically been Government policy for 100 years.

why do I think that it should be enshrined in law/the Constitution? Because it would force Government to actually take on the responsibilities of a neutral rather than pay lip service to it (or provide for the defence of the State)

[Sparky42]

well it has basically been Government policy for 100 years.

why do I think that it should be enshrined in law/the Constitution? Because it would force Government to actually take on the responsibilities of a neutral rather than pay lip service to it (or provide for the defence of the State)

You can't actually be serious? It would do no such thing as making an Irish Government treat defence seriously and far more likely end up with disbanding the DF further down the line.

[DeV]

You can't actually be serious? It would do no such thing as making an Irish Government treat defence seriously and far more likely end up with disbanding the DF further down the line.

Ireland currently allegedly has a policy of “neutrality” when Ireland has never been neutral.

It is used as a banner to hide behind because they don’t want to get directly involved in wars nor do they want to live up to the responsibility of being a neutral power (as defined by the LOAC).

If we are going to have the debate about joining NATO, common EU defence etc then we should also have the debate of what neutrality actually means (as a society).