New Scorpion Fighter Jet Finally Within IAC Budget Perhaps

[ODIN]

It lacks radar and the speed to catch a Bear in anything but a head on intercept.

There is only one real contender. It's Swedish, available for lease right away and just had a minor radar update that doubles its range. For roughly €65m per anum you get a fleet of 12 Mach 2 capable jets, 20 pilots trained to operate it. All maintenance and upgrades. An evolving, credible solution.

Doesn't come in a Navalised variant which is something that we might need to look at. I wonder can we lease some Dassault Rafale's in the same way.

[Sparky42]

Doesn't come in a Navalised variant which is something that we might need to look at. I wonder can we lease some Dassault Rafale's in the same way.

Are you taking the piss or what? Why would we need a navalised variant?

[Flamingo]

Are you taking the piss or what? Why would we need a navalised variant?

Because Ireland would be buying an Aircraft Carrier to operate them off, of course...

[ODIN]

My opinion is that we are an island nation, in the North Atlantic. I would not like to be a pilot going up there in a single engine jet. Two engines would be a necessity. The Rafale offers the best capabilities in terms of range, speed, radar suite and cost. No need to be a condescending a**

[Sparky42]

My opinion is that we are an island nation, in the North Atlantic. I would not like to be a pilot going up there in a single engine jet. Two engines would be a necessity. The Rafale offers the best capabilities in terms of range, speed, radar suite and cost. No need to be a condescending a**

The Canadians are/might be going with the 35 even with the large expanse of unpopulated areas, while the USN is going with the 35 as well, and I'm fairly sure the F-18 would end up being cheaper in life cycle costs compared to the Rafale simply due to numbers (just a quick wiki look suggests nearly $30 million in the difference at 2013 prices). How many Gripens have suffered engine failures in their service life? The engine has a well used history of operations.

[hptmurphy]

No one is going anywhere with F35s of late given there all on the deck after a series of engine fires.

[Sparky42]

No one is going anywhere with F35s of late given there all on the deck after a series of engine fires.

Thought they had cleared that, put it down to bad suppliers? Which isn't to say that the testing/production is setting any benchmark other than "god awful nightmare". The point I was making though was that two forces that will be operating over significant expanses are seemingly happy to live with a single engine fighter, as such I don't see why Ireland couldn't. Not too mention that picking a "navilised" variant of any fighter brings with it costs/trade offs that are completely useless for Ireland no matter what the engine configuration (ie Cat/Trap hardware/strengthening, corresion protection etc)

[Jetjock]

My opinion is that we are an island nation, in the North Atlantic. I would not like to be a pilot going up there in a single engine jet. Two engines would be a necessity. The Rafale offers the best capabilities in terms of range, speed, radar suite and cost. No need to be a condescending a**

Still not getting the connection to a requirement for navalisation. Plenty of twin engine machines around that don't have a naval variant. Eurofighter, F15,F22. Buy a naval capable machine without the intention to operate them from an aircraft carrier and you fly around with all that extra weight and complexity for no reason. They typically have reinforced landing gear, airframe corrosion protection, tail hooks etc . Pointless for operations from land.

To address the two v one engine debate: Firstly engine reliability is massively improved over the last 75 years of jet flight. The probability of a catostrophic sudden engine failure during the cruise segment, typically where overwater flight occurs is nearly zero. If a problem did manifest during cruise the rarity of it being an immediate total failure is hard to overstate. The take off and approach segments carry higher risk but even then the probability is very remote. This is when the engines hit high power for the first time or are in danger of ingestion of a bird or other debris. Both of these segments occur over land.

Furthermore take a look at what other countries with over water intercept operations deep into the Atlantic fly and you'll find Norway, The Netherlands, Portugal all operate single engine F-16s. The first two have also ordered the F-35.

Finally, if you are as yet unconvinced rest easy: there has never been a Saab Gripen lost to engine failure. In over 20 years of front line operations. (Just don't let your rarely flying high ranking officers sign them out for a jolly as the Hungarians have recently found out, but that applies to any type).

If you really must insist on a twin engine type that would drive the cost past the prohibitive threshold, both the initial outlay and the hourly cost. Gripen is roughly €4250 per hour to operate . Miserly, affordable and realistic. Rafale for comparison costs €13700.

The statistics don't support the cost differential.

[Jetjock]

No one is going anywhere with F35s of late given there all on the deck after a series of engine fires.

Back in the air since July 2014 in fact. As aircraft development goes it has certainly been a bit of a lemon.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Any air force that operates a single engined fighter (or any other single engined type) has already made the mental leap that there will be a loss rate thru engine failure and the belief is that the system will cope, unless the loss rate become unbearable in aircraft and human terms (see Indian AF Mig -21s as an example. Chronic loss rate despite huge improvement in engine life). As JJ pointed out, modern engines are so reliable that air arms are prepared to take on and use single engined aircraft for duties previously considered the province of twins, such as Caravans and PC-12s. It's essentially a toss-up between operating costs for a twin-engined aircraft and potential loss rate.

[ropebag]

Danish and Norwegian F-16's fly waaaaaaaaaay out into the north Atlantic when chasing BEAR's and BLACKJACK's, both from home and from Iceland. single engine reliability just isn't an issue.

the Czechs have already done an Icelandic deployment with Gripens, and Sweden and Finland have decided that they too will do a deployment (i think its been done actually..), presumably with Gripens and F-16's.

[ancientmariner]

Afterburners

Danish and Norwegian F-16's fly waaaaaaaaaay out into the north Atlantic when chasing BEAR's and BLACKJACK's, both from home and from Iceland. single engine reliability just isn't an issue.

the Czechs have already done an Icelandic deployment with Gripens, and Sweden and Finland have decided that they too will do a deployment (i think its been done actually..), presumably with Gripens and F-16's.

The M346, of course has two engines and can be fitted with whatever including radar. The mach 1.2 capability without afterburners means in flight refuelling, although available on the aircraft isnt as critical as it would be with a mach2 aircraft. It is stated to be as near the real thing as to be capable of frontline counter insurgency and ground attack. The endurance is higher than would ever be used in any kind of fighter operations. Our needs are PDF support and chasing intruders.

[Sparky42]

The M346, of course has two engines and can be fitted with whatever including radar. The mach 1.2 capability without afterburners means in flight refuelling, although available on the aircraft isnt as critical as it would be with a mach2 aircraft. It is stated to be as near the real thing as to be capable of frontline counter insurgency and ground attack. The endurance is higher than would ever be used in any kind of fighter operations. Our needs are PDF support and chasing intruders.

Question, the top speed of 570 knots, is that as with a clean wing configuration, or is that with fuel tanks and weapons? If not, what is the top speed with combat loadout?

[GoneToTheCanner]

@ropebag, they are confident enough to fly single-engine overwater because they are constantly monitoring the aircraft on radar and the aircraft's data is fed live back to base so that any glitch that shows up can generate an instant recall or diversion. This does not mean that they haven't had close calls (same with the Don and the PC-9s) and I recall several conversations with former fast jet pilots who came very close to losing the aircraft because of engines running down or showing hydraulic or fuel failures. At least NATO pilots know that any unfavourable event over water will generate a quick SAR response. It's the age-old tradeoff between utility and loss rate per thousands of flight hours.

[GoneToTheCanner]

personally,I'd rather have an EMB Super Tucano as an armed aircraft,capable of being overseas for Chad-type ops, than putative PC-9s.