Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

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

  • More independent praise of the Gripen.

    Part 1


    Part 2
    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 Anzac View Post

      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.
      Your bulk standard Gripen lease is 12 single seaters and two twins for exactly that reason.

      Comment


      • The way it is now with aircraft like the PC-21,the putative Gripen pilot need not fire a shot in training, right up to and including flying the fighter. Modern air arms took basic gunnery and rocketry out of the syllabus when aircraft systems and simulators and other ground training devices have meant that there are fighter pilots whose only weapons experience is the annual pistol shoot. They can practise in the sim and then go fly in PC-9s and PC-21s and happily blast away imaginary weapons all day long.
        You could find yourself literally never firing a shot until someone asks you to lash off a few AIM-9s coming to the end of their lives.
        In essence,the whole deal is quite doable.You'd put a few noses out of joint and the usual suspects would moan about it but it'd be good for the national interest in being seen to police our own airspace.

        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.
          A further alternative and albeit more affordable is to upgrade the PC-9M cockpits to the latest digital PC-21 LIFT configuration and upgrade the PT6A-62 engines to get a level of performance closer to the PC-21 and be comparable to the T-6C Texan II. Though about 40 kts slower than the PC-21 it is still capable of delivering a substantial part of the LIFT curriculum, and any gaps can always be transferred into the type conversion syllabus of the acquired fighter.

          Comment


          • I think we should be thinking in terms of the PC-21 on a phased basis, say 2 a year, eventually replacing the PC-9m....
            "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
            Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
            Illegitimi non carborundum

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
              Your bulk standard Gripen lease is 12 single seaters and two twins for exactly that reason.
              You would need a variation on that Gripen lease to build it up in staggered tranches to match the sequencing of pilot training. Those current lease deals are with countries that already had a cohort of qualified knucks to fly them. You would find that it would take around five years with things going well to qualify enough knucks to actually fly most of them operationally. In fact more time because only two D models have been supplied in those contracts, which will only slowly generate the numbers you will need to fill the seats. That was not such a great issue, as their pilots and their air forces institutionally had prior decades with fast air.

              In some respects the Gripen would be a great medium term aspiration. However, I honestly think in capability development terms and the speed and efficiency in generating that capability, would be to lease an interim platform in small numbers like the KAI TA-50, which can intercept the kind of aircraft likely to requiring escorting through the Irish Air Identification Zone. The TA-50 can fire an AIM-9 & 20mm and has a EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar and can hit Mach 1.5. The other thing is that they are comparatively cheap. The RoKAF has just bought a further tranche including support for just USD$28m per airframe. Couple of other benefits are that they are designed to generate 330-360 hours p.a out of the airframe and a low cost per flying hour, high availability rates, and would have a existing global support and sustainment system in place.

              Some of those good ideas mentioned above like bringing qualified trainers in as contractors can be wrapped into the lease contract of say 5-7 years. Then worry about shift into the Gripens et al. One thing though - they can only train. Only a commissioned Irish Air Corp pilot can under the laws of armed conflict can legally engage a belligerent. Rtd Wing Commander Biggles as a civilian contractor shooting down a TU-95 off 10 miles off Galway is probably enough to get not just himself but Ireland in the naughty corner and not just with the Russians.

              Comment


              • Running cost of the Kai TA-50 are actually comparable to the Gripen. It's a very expensive armed trainer, that is still an untested platform in that role.
                We don't "need" advanced trainers. Many nations not unlike ours do fine without, yet still have fast jet interceptors. Croatia being a shining example, all their training being done on the PC9 and Zlin Z42, yet they manage to fly Mig 21. They are also in the process of replacing their Migs, it remains to be seen, whatever they decide to replace them with (Gripen being one contender) they also decide that now they need Advanced jet trainers too.
                (as an aside it has been interesting when researching this topic, to see the amount of skulduggery at work by the US to "encourage" nations to purchase the F35 or other US made aircraft. Croatia was no exception.)
                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 Anzac View Post
                  You would need a variation on that Gripen lease to build it up in staggered tranches to match the sequencing of pilot training. Those current lease deals are with countries that already had a cohort of qualified knucks to fly them. You would find that it would take around five years with things going well to qualify enough knucks to actually fly most of them operationally. In fact more time because only two D models have been supplied in those contracts, which will only slowly generate the numbers you will need to fill the seats. That was not such a great issue, as their pilots and their air forces institutionally had prior decades with fast air.

                  In some respects the Gripen would be a great medium term aspiration. However, I honestly think in capability development terms and the speed and efficiency in generating that capability, would be to lease an interim platform in small numbers like the KAI TA-50, which can intercept the kind of aircraft likely to requiring escorting through the Irish Air Identification Zone. The TA-50 can fire an AIM-9 & 20mm and has a EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar and can hit Mach 1.5. The other thing is that they are comparatively cheap. The RoKAF has just bought a further tranche including support for just USD$28m per airframe. Couple of other benefits are that they are designed to generate 330-360 hours p.a out of the airframe and a low cost per flying hour, high availability rates, and would have a existing global support and sustainment system in place.

                  Some of those good ideas mentioned above like bringing qualified trainers in as contractors can be wrapped into the lease contract of say 5-7 years. Then worry about shift into the Gripens et al. One thing though - they can only train. Only a commissioned Irish Air Corp pilot can under the laws of armed conflict can legally engage a belligerent. Rtd Wing Commander Biggles as a civilian contractor shooting down a TU-95 off 10 miles off Galway is probably enough to get not just himself but Ireland in the naughty corner and not just with the Russians.
                  It might be better to be awful nice to Sweden, offer them winter training windows from this little country of ours, at the same time sending our best and brightest, over on what would be exchanges, to go play in the Swedish snow, this is of course is we commit to the Gripen which is logically the leading contender..
                  Last edited by Turkey; 6 July 2020, 22:43.
                  "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                  Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                  Illegitimi non carborundum

                  Comment


                  • The whole concept proposed by Pilatus with the PC-21 is an interesting one but it has to be understood and how it ties in with the overall fleet mix. The idea of LIFT came about to bridge the gap between the Advanced trainer and the Fighter aircraft. It was too reduce the cost and ease the pilot from one performance level to the next. It is possible to design a syllabus without a LIFT such as Pilatus has done but that do move more training onto the fighter.

                    And looking at the PC21 customers some may do this while other are retaining their LIFT aircraft. France has ordered the PC21 to replace the Alpha jet, and this may suit the AdA as they have a large percentage of their Rafales as D models. Singapore also operated PC21s but has also introduced the M346. The trade will always be do I save time and money by having a separate LIFT aircraft or not.

                    IMHO the need for an advanced jet trainer/LIFT is driven by the jump in performance when going from one aircraft type to another. While comparing an aircraft as a fighter max speed is often misleading. But one which we could compare when talking the leap in performance is the rate of climb. For the PC-21 (and PC9M) this is around 20m/s, a modern fighter will have a rate of 250m/s and a typical LIFT trainer a rate of 100m/s. That performance increase means that things happen faster, not only does the aircraft climb faster, but the aircraft has the ability to repeat manoeuvres again is faster or more sustained. Time will tell if the PC-21 system becomes the norm or if the more traditional system of different training aircraft is more effective.

                    But to train a fighter pilot there is a lot more than a LIFT aircraft that would be required. These auxiliary training installations include such items as a centrifuge for g-training, a hypobaric chamber for high altitude training as well as the various simulators and classrooms needed for ground training. Given the small size of the force and thus the amount of pilots to be trained per year would it be cost effective having all this in-house.

                    If we look at the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway, they do not have this capability in-house. Instead they use international co-operation with either the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Training Program in the USA or the NATO Flight Training in Canada (NFTC). Although mainly set-up to provide pilot training for NATO countries the programs are available to friendly countries.

                    It would not be a leap to either take advantage of one of these international programs or to have the training included as part of the lease package.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      Running cost of the Kai TA-50 are actually comparable to the Gripen.
                      I am aware of that 2012 Rand study you are obviously referencing which estimated that the CPFH of the Gripen C was USD$4750 for fuel burn, servicing, maintenance and personnel overhead, however the RAND study did not include the full range of costs of operating a fighter aircraft including sequenced depot maintenance checks, time limited parts replacements and spiral upgrades. I am also aware that the RoKAF have listed their costs in 2018 as $5450 cpfh including depot servicing for the more austere T-50 variant. All use the GE F-404 powerplant which is about where the operational cost comparison begins and ends.

                      Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      It's a very expensive armed trainer, that is still an untested platform in that role.
                      About $7m more than a PC-21 but at the higher end of LIFT spectrum in capability terms. Untested.... it has been 15 years since it entered service with the RoKAF. Variants of the T-50 have now been FOC in a number of countries. But I am talking about leasing an interim LIFT capability as the IAC are complete virgins in this area. The blunt truth you may need to face up to is there is a bit more to this than displaying 40 year old Fouga's 20 year ago or so.

                      Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      We don't "need" advanced trainers.
                      Oh dear. That is going to work out well.

                      Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      Many nations not unlike ours do fine without, yet still have fast jet interceptors. Croatia being a shining example, all their training being done on the PC9 and Zlin Z42, yet they manage to fly Mig 21. They are also in the process of replacing their Migs, it remains to be seen, whatever they decide to replace them with (Gripen being one contender) they also decide that now they need Advanced jet trainers too.
                      There are two generations of technological difference between flying an analog Soviet era Mig 21 and a modern networked 21st Century Gen IV+ multi-role fighter. It is not just about the platform - it is the human factors side that you have to also consider.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                        The way it is now with aircraft like the PC-21,the putative Gripen pilot need not fire a shot in training, right up to and including flying the fighter. Modern air arms took basic gunnery and rocketry out of the syllabus when aircraft systems and simulators and other ground training devices have meant that there are fighter pilots whose only weapons experience is the annual pistol shoot. They can practise in the sim and then go fly in PC-9s and PC-21s and happily blast away imaginary weapons all day long.
                        You could find yourself literally never firing a shot until someone asks you to lash off a few AIM-9s coming to the end of their lives.
                        In essence,the whole deal is quite doable.You'd put a few noses out of joint and the usual suspects would moan about it but it'd be good for the national interest in being seen to police our own airspace.
                        Yeah, only that I really hope that we would not buy Sidewinders.

                        Comment


                        • The Phillipine AF has used the FA 50 to drop LGBs and guided missiles on rebels in Mindanao; it's streets ahead of anything else they have,but they are unusual in using it as a LIFT and a combat aircraft. As for the legality of a contract pilot potentially firing a weapon on Ireland inc's behalf, most air arms that hire in contractors give them a rank in the parent air arm, either in the rank that they left or as a fixed (non promotable) rank appropriate to the job. Russia has always had a highly flexible attitude to "contraktniki" and uses them at will, wherever they put their foot. No qualms there about getting third parties to do the heavy lifting.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                            I am aware of that 2012 Rand study you are obviously referencing which estimated that the CPFH of the Gripen C was USD$4750 for fuel burn, servicing, maintenance and personnel overhead, however the RAND study did not include the full range of costs of operating a fighter aircraft including sequenced depot maintenance checks, time limited parts replacements and spiral upgrades. I am also aware that the RoKAF have listed their costs in 2018 as $5450 cpfh including depot servicing for the more austere T-50 variant. All use the GE F-404 powerplant which is about where the operational cost comparison begins and ends.


                            About $7m more than a PC-21 but at the higher end of LIFT spectrum in capability terms. Untested.... it has been 15 years since it entered service with the RoKAF. Variants of the T-50 have now been FOC in a number of countries. But I am talking about leasing an interim LIFT capability as the IAC are complete virgins in this area. The blunt truth you may need to face up to is there is a bit more to this than displaying 40 year old Fouga's 20 year ago or so.

                            Oh dear. That is going to work out well.

                            There are two generations of technological difference between flying an analog Soviet era Mig 21 and a modern networked 21st Century Gen IV+ multi-role fighter. It is not just about the platform - it is the human factors side that you have to also consider.
                            I appreciate what you are saying, however, while the T50 variants have been around a while, the model you propose has not. We went down the "variant" route before with the Dauphin. It did not end well for us. The FA50 has not had widespread use, except for the Phillipine Air Force, and the Iraqi Air force (no doubt approved by governments who don't want either to have actual useful Interceptors, to maintain the local status quo. Korean usage of the type also I have to take with a grain of salt. How are you suppose to get international orders if even the country of production does not select it.
                            If we are going down that road, then better off sticking wil a locally produced M-346 which seems to be winning all the competitions the FA50 is losing.
                            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


                            • Both the JAS-39 and the FA-50 could be capable of providing air policing, both are very similar in terms of weight and have almost the same engine. The advantage the JAS-39 has its its integrated suite of avioncs, its ECM package and the fusion of data. Basically the FA-50 is like an early F16A (Block 10/15) in terms of avionics.

                              The FA-50 does have two major advantages over the M-346, the first is that its rate of climb is almost double and the second is that it has an intern cannon. This is important for air policing as it means should there be an unresponsive target a burst of tracer can be shot off as a warning before having to go to an AAM.

                              What aircraft is better would depend on what the requirements in the tender were.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                                Yeah, only that I really hope that we would not buy Sidewinders.
                                We're going with IRIS-T instead.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X