Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

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

  • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    200 hrs per year is the expected usage by Saab standards. Per aircraft.
    Our country is relatively small.
    Have Sweden changed over to the E model Gripen yet? If they have, then their old C/D models might be available soon for leasing.
    The Swedish AF got their first production E model in Dec 2019, it is currently under going testing. The next A/C was for Brazil but the Swedes should not slowly start to get more E models. Originally they had planned to replace the C models with the E models but due to the changed security situation this has been dropped. What is unclear is how many of the C aircraft will be retained and what would be available for lease. In the offer to Croatia they were offering C models so some should be available for lease.

    Comment


    • Haved to say I binged on Gripen content on Youtube last night.




      German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
      German 2: Private? I am a general!
      German 1: That is the bad news.

      Comment


      • The amount of hours per airframe per year is determined by the number of pilots. Each pilot will require between 150 and 200 hours per year to train and maintain proficiency. If as was suggested we have multiple pilots per machine then the hours per machine multiply by that amount.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          The amount of hours per airframe per year is determined by the number of pilots. Each pilot will require between 150 and 200 hours per year to train and maintain proficiency. If as was suggested we have multiple pilots per machine then the hours per machine multiply by that amount.
          Why do we need multiple pilots per machine? Then you are just flying for flying sake, and will soon wear out the aircraft. If we were to get any, and 6 being a number mentioned, then 2 to 4 should be 2 seal models, retained just for training, or working up spare hours.
          So can we just accept that we need Gripen?
          German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
          German 2: Private? I am a general!
          German 1: That is the bad news.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            Why do we need multiple pilots per machine? Then you are just flying for flying sake, and will soon wear out the aircraft. If we were to get any, and 6 being a number mentioned, then 2 to 4 should be 2 seal models, retained just for training, or working up spare hours.
            So can we just accept that we need Gripen?
            It is what was stated at the start of the year.

            https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...says-1.4184846

            Comment


            • Apologies. I typed 16 but my keyboard 1 is sticky. The article says 200 hours required to qualify. Staying current wouldn't need as much.
              German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
              German 2: Private? I am a general!
              German 1: That is the bad news.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                200 hrs per year is the expected usage by Saab standards. Per aircraft.
                Our country is relatively small.
                Have Sweden changed over to the E model Gripen yet? If they have, then their old C/D models might be available soon for leasing.
                That is what is being leased out to Hungary and Czechia.

                Comment


                • What's the pilot conversion program from PC9 m to say a JAS39 Gripen or GD F16?
                  Where would that happen?
                  How long would it take to develop and implement operational process?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    The amount of hours per airframe per year is determined by the number of pilots. Each pilot will require between 150 and 200 hours per year to train and maintain proficiency. If as was suggested we have multiple pilots per machine then the hours per machine multiply by that amount.
                    Just to give you an example RNZAF 75 Sqd usually had 12 A-4K's assigned sometimes more. However with 12, 2 aircraft will always be phasing through a Level O Depot Maintenance Activation Plan and possibly 2 aircraft will in the hangar at least under a Level A inspection and minor maintenance service. Though you may have up to 9-10 serviceable at any one time, at least 8 would be available for daily flight line tasking. The squadron hoped to generate 24 hours a day from the 8 aircraft on the line for 3 hours per day. The target was to have 80% or 10 Serviceable with 8 Operational/Available which will generate two daily training flights of 4 airframes across 225 days a year.There were around 1.25 pilots per cockpit which is fairly standard practice, but of course these pilots were at various levels of competency and experienced. The Boss, a couple of qualified mission commanders, 4-ship Flight leads, 2-ship Flight Leads, and Combat Mission Ready (CMR) and the Cat D Basic Mission Ready wingmen. But on top of that there is the QFI and QWI plus the Cat E undergraduate pilots who have not generated BMR proficiency.

                    Twelve sorties per month per pilot was considered enough to achieve and sustain all the fast air skill sets and meet and exceed the mission requirements for any level of pilot, but for those who are still undergraduates - who need up to 20 hours per month.

                    The duration of the average sortie was around 90 minutes thus the flight requirement for each pilot to remain proficient was 180 flight hours annually. The squadron would work around a sequenced annual programme of training and exercises plus tasking orders and requests which would the cover all pilots through achieving or sustaining competency in all the particular aspects of the art of air combat.

                    Of course there also must be a pipeline to get pilots from the PC-9 into a fast jet pilots. That issue will need to be solved concurrently alongside any potential platform selection. And from there through the various qualification stages to build up the squadrons Cat A heavy hitters like the Boss, the QWI, the qualified mission commanders and QFI's.

                    Just a couple of comments on leasing. It is actually quite a good approach especially lease to buy type acquisitions in that it is a way to get a capability that is affordable and flexible to build up capacity in both support infrastructure and pilot development. One interesting development is the recent Reforge project for the USAF Air Education and Training Command where they are looking to lease off KAI up to 11 FA-50's alongside the T-7A Redhawks to speed up pilot training outputs by producing experienced fighter pilots without having to put wings qualified pilots through the basic LIFT course currently required by any student who has never flown a fighter before.

                    But one thing to do is first is clearly define and analyse what needs to be achieved by attaining this capability. The geo-strategic situation should always drive the platform selection not the other way around (Of course in the context of what is affordable to not just own, but ease of generating the capability, and sustaining it).
                    Last edited by Anzac; 6 July 2020, 04:14.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Orion View Post
                      What's the pilot conversion program from PC9 m to say a JAS39 Gripen or GD F16?
                      Where would that happen?
                      How long would it take to develop and implement operational process?
                      To go from a PC9M to a JAS39/F16 the pilot would have to do LIFT, this could be a package with Saab/Sweden with the pilots doing this in Sweden. While LIFT is a minimum as the pilots would be flying the JAS30 later and we have no operation procedure a package with Sweden could include operation conversion as well.

                      The alternatives apart from buying a fast jet trainer (Hawk/M346/T-7A/T-50) would be to have the pilots trained in a friendly country.
                      We have already have an arrangement with Australia for some pilot training, we could try and have this expanded. If not there might be the possibility of training in the UK and/or Canada. For the latter they have the NATO Flight Training in Canada (NFTC) which is available to friendly nations. Anyone coming from the PC9M would have to complete the Phases III & IV on Hawks (about 120hrs). The time would be 12-18 months.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        To go from a PC9M to a JAS39/F16 the pilot would have to do LIFT, this could be a package with Saab/Sweden with the pilots doing this in Sweden. While LIFT is a minimum as the pilots would be flying the JAS30 later and we have no operation procedure a package with Sweden could include operation conversion as well.

                        The alternatives apart from buying a fast jet trainer (Hawk/M346/T-7A/T-50) would be to have the pilots trained in a friendly country.
                        We have already have an arrangement with Australia for some pilot training, we could try and have this expanded. If not there might be the possibility of training in the UK and/or Canada. For the latter they have the NATO Flight Training in Canada (NFTC) which is available to friendly nations. Anyone coming from the PC9M would have to complete the Phases III & IV on Hawks (about 120hrs). The time would be 12-18 months.
                        An alternative would be to expand on our relationship with Pilatus and add a small number of PC21 to the fleet.

                        Comment


                        • Plenty of time to get that sorted before delivery
                          German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                          German 2: Private? I am a general!
                          German 1: That is the bad news.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
                            An alternative would be to expand on our relationship with Pilatus and add a small number of PC21 to the fleet.
                            IMHO it would be better to go with an agreement with a nation that has an existing fighter pilot training program.
                            The reasons are:
                            (a) you need qualified instructors to train the pilots,
                            (b) you need a fighter pilot training syllabus (which itself requires doctrine and procedures),
                            (c) you need simulators as they support the flying training

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                              IMHO it would be better to go with an agreement with a nation that has an existing fighter pilot training program.
                              The reasons are:
                              (a) you need qualified instructors to train the pilots,
                              (b) you need a fighter pilot training syllabus (which itself requires doctrine and procedures),
                              (c) you need simulators as they support the flying training
                              I have my doubts that the route from PC-9 to Gripen, regardless of available equipment, is achievable unless ex-foreign military instructors are recruited. Possibly even short service recruitment (5 years) of ex-foreign military fighter pilots, engineers etc.

                              Comment


                              • Well, there's nothing stopping you leasing in fighter pilots as well as fighters,instructors as well as instructional aircraft. There is no shortage of jet qualified pilots who have retired or been furloughed from competent militaries the world over and there are at least two companies that I can think of, who operate ex-military aircraft on behalf of the USAF, RAF and others. You bring in a cadre of old sweats,to form the core of the unit (which incidentally, is a practise as old as the Roman Army of Caesar's time)and supplement them with a cadre of experienced IAC pilots to build up the base level. Same goes for mechs and supply and stores and kit handlers. No limit on the operation and you start off as you mean to carry on by, stating that it's a 24/7/365 operation QRA-based operation, same as the SAR system.
                                You stick them in Shannon from day 1, (the civvies you hire in won't care where they operate from and the Donners can rotate on a six month basis) , revive one of the inactive runways and use that as the prime QRA runway, park a mobile crash barrier for emergencies, nominate a point in the Shannon estuary where you can dump your drop tanks or external stores if you have a crisis and cordon off a part of the ramp as exclusive to the QRA operation.
                                When the Hungarians got the Gripen, they reckoned it would take five years to bring their lads and their systems up to NATO standard,despite being seasoned fighter operators and they weren't far wrong. You could probably do the same here, because you would be starting from a clean sheet and would have no legacy system to clear away. You'd probably make mistakes, no doubt, but it'd be a hell of a learning curve.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X