Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Scorpion Fighter Jet Finally Within IAC Budget Perhaps

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

  • #46
    G-limits

    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    None of our runways meets NATO standards, so buying a true fighter is a moot point......I'd imagine a loaded Hawk is considerably slower than it's advertised max speed and is very g-limited when loaded, like pretty much everything else that flies.
    The Aermacchi M346 is reckoned to have better dogfight/maneuvering capabilities than frontline jets. It is classed as having a 40deg angle of attack. It carries out it's ground attack at 400knots which is probably comparable to Tornado. Any such aircraft is a good first step for emerging combat capable pilots and the work load is doable for beginners. we just don't have the bits and pieces to go Mach2. Initially let's go Jet with a package of realistic capabilities.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
      None of our runways meets NATO standards, so buying a true fighter is a moot point......I'd imagine a loaded Hawk is considerably slower than it's advertised max speed and is very g-limited when loaded, like pretty much everything else that flies.
      Shannon? It was good enough for Concorde and Shuttle. I'm sure Knock would fit the bill too. Of course neither has arrestor gear nets etc as is sometimes seen. What else is required?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
        ...Initially let's go Jet with a package of realistic capabilities.
        yes, absolutely.

        when you drop your fascination with one that doesn't have realistic capabilities perhaps you'd be good enough to look for one that does have realistic - ie: worth paying for, rather than a penis substitute) capabilities.

        Comment


        • #49
          Runway length is not the main issue; arrester gear is and airlines hate sharing with the military for many reasons. Also, you'd have to build hangars and all the other stuff that goes with it, including weapons storage, which would have the crusties kicking off,etc,etc. Not undoable,of course but...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            Runway length is not the main issue; arrester gear is and airlines hate sharing with the military for many reasons. Also, you'd have to build hangars and all the other stuff that goes with it, including weapons storage, which would have the crusties kicking off,etc,etc. Not undoable,of course but...
            To be fair GTTC, I regularly share runways and taxiways with fast jets. Zaragoza, Trapani, Lanzarote, various places in Poland,Murcia, Tours, Charleroi, Treviso. Regarding arrestor gear, I see it at all of the above. It's rarely fully deployed but we are permitted to continue normal operations with it in place. It's not a factor but it's mentioned in our airfield briefings . Dual military/civil operations are common from Tehran to Eglin AFB in the US. Not a problem.
            Last edited by Jetjock; 22 June 2015, 22:17.

            Comment


            • #51
              Oh, I know it's worldwide but this is Ireland. Somebody's bound to be upset ;-)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                Runway length is not the main issue; arrester gear is and airlines hate sharing with the military for many reasons. Also, you'd have to build hangars and all the other stuff that goes with it, including weapons storage, which would have the crusties kicking off,etc,etc. Not undoable,of course but...
                Ah sure, we could always use a bit of old road in the woods ,,,,,,,,,,, embrace the forest and keep the crusties happy .

                We travel not for trafficking alone,
                By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
                For lust of knowing what should not be known,
                We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Or get all Hobbit like and go underground ,,,,,,,, they would really like that.



                  And no I'm not being serious ,,,,,,,,,
                  We travel not for trafficking alone,
                  By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
                  For lust of knowing what should not be known,
                  We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    JET A/C selection

                    Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                    yes, absolutely.

                    when you drop your fascination with one that doesn't have realistic capabilities perhaps you'd be good enough to look for one that does have realistic - ie: worth paying for, rather than a penis substitute) capabilities.
                    First, I,m astounded at reaction. In the market there are aircraft in use and in development. Suggestions are made for comparative purposes, or to generate alternatives. I'm sure the Israelis will be happy with their selection. It is up to the AC to make their selection ,while other powers are anxious to do general air interdiction tasks at sustainable cost and support levels. I do not wish to nominate any particular aircraft but there are choices out there whether it is hire or buy. I'm done. Good luck

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Not that any of these have any relevance to the IAC ,,,,,,,,,,, some more from where #52 left off.



                      If your going to be a bear ,,,,,,, be a Grizzly.

                      We travel not for trafficking alone,
                      By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
                      For lust of knowing what should not be known,
                      We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Couldn't we do a deal with Sweden?......Buy 6 or 3 "surplus" older aircraft (which they still use) with a training/maintenance agreement and have a dedicated EEZ airspace patrol Flight/Squadron whatever.
                        Sweden originally ordered 204 Gripen aircraft.[30] Out of these 80 remain in service in the Air Force today and an additional 28 are leased to the Czech and Hungarian Air Force (14 each), with an option to acquire them when the lease period expires. Furthermore, 12 aircraft were sold to the Royal Thai Air Force.....We don't NEED the most modern stuff....Just something tailored to suit.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Galloglass View Post
                          ...We don't NEED the most modern stuff....Just something tailored to suit.
                          don't go overboard with with this 'we don't need a new, modern system now, so...' stuff, firstly if you were to lease Gripen you'd probably end up operating it for the next 30 years - unless you want to move from Gripen to F-35 - so you need to consider that what might be very modern and new now isn't going to be very modern and new in 2045/50. secondly be very careful about deciding what capabilities you will and won't need 30 years in advance: ask the NS, now they're doing this Med operation, if they'd have prefered the P60 class to have a flightdeck, even if currently there aren't any helicopters to go on them...

                          JAS-39C and F-16C are the lowest cost aircraft that plausibly meet the speed/climb/range requirements of QRA, and if it can't do QRA there's no point having them.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Choices of Fighter

                            Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                            don't go overboard with with this 'we don't need a new, modern system now, so...' stuff, firstly if you were to lease Gripen you'd probably end up operating it for the next 30 years - unless you want to move from Gripen to F-35 - so you need to consider that what might be very modern and new now isn't going to be very modern and new in 2045/50. secondly be very careful about deciding what capabilities you will and won't need 30 years in advance: ask the NS, now they're doing this Med operation, if they'd have prefered the P60 class to have a flightdeck, even if currently there aren't any helicopters to go on them...

                            JAS-39C and F-16C are the lowest cost aircraft that plausibly meet the speed/climb/range requirements of QRA, and if it can't do QRA there's no point having them.
                            You are exactly right. If you build in capability into ships you become more operationally diverse. Put down a runway or build a decent harbour and useage will follow. Doing just enough to fill a tight budget is an ingredient for failure. The F16C/D looks doable at about 20m $ usd. They had a loss with one, last night, on a training exercise in middle America. One pilot involved, Sky news didn't know if he/she got out.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              So the AC should get rid of all its other aircraft to pay for it?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                See page 39
                                http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...AND_TR1275.pdf

                                We could probably afford 100 hours (total) annually will the whole budget for all current AC aircraft

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X