The location of so much housing in the flightpath effectively rules out any chance of it becoming a commercial airport without severe limitations as to its operating times.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Air Corps:The future
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Goldie fish View PostThe location of so much housing in the flightpath effectively rules out any chance of it becoming a commercial airport without severe limitations as to its operating times.
Dublin Airport is so big and busy now that having to use it as a passenger has become an ordeal that many people dread.
It would make a great deal of sense to develop a second airport to the south-west of Dublin, whether it be Baldonnel or elsewhere. But then, when did good sense count for much in these matters...
Comment
-
Nevertheless, as Dublin Airport gets busier, Ireland's population gorws and Dublin expands outwards like an ugly rash rather than upwards like a city, a second airport will become essential for business commuters and short hops, unless the city wants to lose out to Belfast. So they'd better find some location soon before every remaining greenfield sight becomes a housing estate.
Comment
-
Czech out this offer!
Originally posted by pym View PostI assume these are the Aero L-159's.... there are quite a number just sitting around hangers since the Czech air force scaled back.
A step up from the PC-9's certainly. But worth it?
Edit: I remember someone mentioning an anecdote, possibly on this board, it was a discussion he had with a member of the Air Corps - essentially, the thrust of it was that compared to the fuel costs of the Fouga Magister, a BAe Hawk fuel costs would be astronomical, even leaving aside other routine maintenance....
I'm guessing it would be a similar story for the 159..
Comment
-
Cheaper to purchase, but how much to run?
I'm highly dubious of the Air Corps getting any expanded combat capability in the next 10 years. I just don't think the money will be provided when the there are major programs needed to replace ships in the naval service & the the LAV's for the Army.
Not to mention other things
Comment
-
Lads, let me give you an idea of how much the Fouga drank.About a thousand litres in 90 minutes.Two 1020-lb thrust engines, of 1950s technology, which meant that they were about as efficient as a log fire, in today's terms.The engine of the 159 or Hawk will use less than half, fly for longer and probably last for a decade.No comparison in terms of fuel economics, but avionics are grossly expensive...still, those ALCAs could be had for small money and could be shipped to trouble spots, for COIN/recce, in a short time.
regards
GttC
Comment
-
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO BRIGATA PARACADUTISTI "FOLGORE"- SPECIAL THANKS TO CapitanVitellozzo -The Parachute Brigade "FOLGORE" is one of the elite units in the...
Surely if one was to spend a substantial chunk of the defence budget on an armed recce/Close support aircraft it would make more sense to get an RW assett that could be based alongside any RW transport assets we have - say for instances based at our BG main location as in Chad and Liberia or that can be pooled at a central RW depot location as in Kosovo.
A purpose built ARH is going to give a lot more value for money in our current operational spectrum as it can provide recce, escort and if the occasion should arise intimidation and CAS while being locally based.
Cheap and (relatively) cheerful Mongoose anyone?
Dimensions:
Overall Length with Both Rotors Turning
14.29m
Height to Top of Rotor
3.35m
Main Rotor Diameter
11.9m
Fuselage Length
12.5m
Maximum Mission Gross Weight
5,000kg
Weapons:
hellfire or TOW 2 Missiles
8
70mm Rockets
76
81mm Rockets
38
20mm Ammunition Rounds
500
Air-to-Air (Stinger or Mistral)
4/8
Observation and Targeting Sensors
2nd-generation FLIR (83x mag)
CCD TV (26x mag)
Laser range finder and designator
Automatic target tracker
Video recorder
Engines:
Turboshaft Engines
2 x LHTEC-T800
Take-Off Power
1,335shp each (996kW each)
Intermediate Power
1,240shp each (925kW each)
One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Contingency
1,404shp (1,045kW)
Performance:
Hover-in-Ground Effect
13,800ft (4,200m)
Hover-Out-Ground Effect
10,800ft (3,290m)
Maximum Cruise Speed
150kt (278km/h)
Vertical Rate of Climb
1,070ft/min (5.4m/sec)
Maximum Rate of Climb
2,220ft/min (11.3m/sec)
Maximum Range on Internal Fuel, No Reserve
303nm (561km)
OEI Maximum Rate of Climb
900ft/min (4.6m/sec)
From www.armytechnology.com
Realistically though you would need a force of 8 to be able to deploy four and have two available at any time.
Big impact on the Defence Budget."It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke
Comment
-
With a PC-9, you have to factor in the costs of a propellor, which is not a factor for a jet.Those props are not cheap and they are easily damaged.Also, there are comparatively few PC-9s about, from a very expensive manufacturer, whereas there are more L-39s/59s/159s about, from a relatively cheaper source and the jets can carry more per wing and can operate on relatively poor airstrips.
regards
GttC
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostIf these were purchased would we not still need the pc-9 as a basic trainer?
However, as regards the use of the PC-9 as a basic trainer I'm staying on the fence on that one. Can't imagine having had my first solo in something that powerful! Still think a small number of proper basic trainers are required.
Comment
-
The PC-9s are a mistake: too powerful for the training job - the AC doesn't operate any fast jets - and not tough enough for the CAS role. The €60 million or so that was spent on them could have bought a similar number of basic trainers, together with a similar number of armed light helicopters. (Dedicated attack helicopters are beyond our budget and probably not good value for money anyway.)
Comment
Comment