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
    Mate,
    Where the hell do you get racism from me saying the Koreans buying a korean built aircraft does not make it good?
    I am sorry if I interpreted your "take it with a grain of salt" comment the wrong way and that you had another meaning or intention, I am big enough to apologise to you. I mistook it as a dig against Koreans truthfulness, which I am happy to tell is very much not the case. Truce.

    Comment


    • the sensible version is to ask Sweden to manage the whole process: they pick your future pilots, they train them from day 1 to QFI on a Gripen, while you lease Gripen. once you've got a stream of people trained up as pilots, instructors, and those who train the trainers, you could then look at doing it yourselves - but before that you're just going to make expensive mistakes.

      realistically, you're looking a 15 years before you're going to be capable of having a sovereign flying training capability: do you really want the person signing off a new instructor to have less than a few thousand hours on type, to have been around the block, and to have seen - and made - a few mistakes?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
        I am sorry if I interpreted your "take it with a grain of salt" comment the wrong way and that you had another meaning or intention, I am big enough to apologise to you. I mistook it as a dig against Koreans truthfulness, which I am happy to tell is very much not the case. Truce.
        No worries.
        Apology graciously accepted.
        On my 4th Samsung phone. Driving a Hyundai every day (before lockdown).
        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 Graylion View Post
          Well, Czechia and Hungary are leasing Gripens for QRA and it is 12 C and 2 D. So that sounds like what is needed. And what point is there to QRA if it is not 24/7??? And as we discussed that we need more training, we may need a different mix of birds.
          The Czechs and Hungarians are part of NATO and their aircraft are only their contribution to the overall NATO air defence system.
          Normal practice is to have 2 A/C ready with a further 2 A/C as back-up. Assuming a 42hr working week that means 4 flights of 4 A/C to cover the QRA assignment alone. The Austrians have 15 Eurofighter but do not have a 24/7 QRA capability as some of the Eurofighters will be needed for training missions. So maybe 16 would need to be augmented by 4+ aircraft.
          Last edited by EUFighter; 7 July 2020, 13:28.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            The Czechs and Hungarians are part of NATO and their aircraft are only their contribution to the overall NATO air defence system.
            Normal practice is to have 2 A/C ready with a further 2 A/C as back-up. Assuming a 42hr working week that means 4 flights of 4 A/C to cover the QRA assignment alone. The Austrians have 15 Eurofighter but do not have a 24/7 QRA capability as some of the Eurofighters will be needed for training missions. So maybe 16 would need to be augmented by 4+ aircraft.
            its not really the number of airframes, its the number of people.

            if you didn't do any kind of training other than currency and task exercises, you could probably do 24/7 QRA with 8 aircraft. that would cope with planned maintainence and the like, with two aircraft on R5, and another two on R60, but as soon as something breaks your system would start to run hot. one aircraft on planned, deep overhaul, one in the shop after a heavy landing, and a third gets a birdstrike, and keeping four aircraft and their crews mission capable would be difficult. not impossible, but you'd be constantly swapping and cannibalising airframes until you could get a another airframe servicable.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
              its not really the number of airframes, its the number of people.

              if you didn't do any kind of training other than currency and task exercises, you could probably do 24/7 QRA with 8 aircraft. that would cope with planned maintainence and the like, with two aircraft on R5, and another two on R60, but as soon as something breaks your system would start to run hot. one aircraft on planned, deep overhaul, one in the shop after a heavy landing, and a third gets a birdstrike, and keeping four aircraft and their crews mission capable would be difficult. not impossible, but you'd be constantly swapping and cannibalising airframes until you could get a another airframe servicable.
              Yes it comes back to the amount of pilots you have, more pilots per aircraft would allow to have fewer aircraft. The one downside is that each of those pilots will need to have their annual training hours, lets say 200hr which means the flight time per aircraft per year increases. Most air forces expect to keep their aircraft for 30 years so: 30 x 200 = 6000 hrs which until recently was the average life of a fighter airframe. If now those same planes are flying 800hr/yr then the life of the airframes will be 7.5 yrs. Of course if it was a lease then the number of hours could be given as 800hr per aircraft per year. It would then be factored into the lease cost.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                Can discuss anything till we have radar
                I assume you mean can't instead of can, if so I think you are correct. If in the unlickly event the DoD/IAC get a stand alone military primary radar like this https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/products/rat-31dl, then I will look forward to see Gripens in IAC colours.

                But if they were to go for a joint IAA/IAC solution (Which I think is More Likely) then it will probably be more of a radar like this https://www.leonardocompany.com/docu...=1540998647333, and then the aircraft will probably be a LIFT/Light Attack class of aircraft (M346 FT/FA or T/FA-50).
                It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                It was the year everything changed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                  Then why not farm out the advanced training to those who can spare the aircraft? Progress pilots from Wings course to fast jets using foreign partner (with clear skies) and suitable LIFT aircraft.
                  Taking on the cost of both LIFT and Interceptor aircraft, or getting LIFT to do Interceptor work is not a satisfactory outcome. The former near impossible to fund, the latter doomed to fail.
                  Sweden.

                  Comment


                  • With regard to currency, what some countries did was give the pilot half of his expected annual flying on the primary fighter and the other half of the advanced trainer,soyou got situations where the pilot got 60/80/100 hrs in a Mig 21 or 29 (air combat training/ fighter leader training/high speed,high altiude,high g) and then did the rest in L29 and 39 (instrument flight renewal/gunnery/formation/BFM)and they also did more sim time per head per annum. This wasnt always successful and at least one country found that the hourly availability degraded over time as airframes aged and that when a fast jet pilot got down to about 40 hrs/year on the fighter,he was essentially useless as a potential combatant.
                    Soooooo, if we got into the fighter game, we'd have to keep up availability of men and machines right from the start,which also means the support system has to be rugged and reliable, adaptable and quick to react. 24/7/365 would have to be the absolute baseline and not an aspiration.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by CTU View Post
                      I assume you mean can't instead of can, if so I think you are correct. If in the unlickly event the DoD/IAC get a stand alone military primary radar like this https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/products/rat-31dl, then I will look forward to see Gripens in IAC colours.

                      But if they were to go for a joint IAA/IAC solution (Which I think is More Likely) then it will probably be more of a radar like this https://www.leonardocompany.com/docu...=1540998647333, and then the aircraft will probably be a LIFT/Light Attack class of aircraft (M346 FT/FA or T/FA-50).
                      You assume correct - fixed thanks

                      But a stand-alone radar is no use it needs to be monitored from a manned 24/7 ops centre that has access to all the other available info. It also needs to be integrated into the AC RAP.

                      For that reason, I’d be inclined (As a former Taoiseach and President :P ) to advise the purchase 2-3 higher spec civvy medium range primary radar (once something is painted green it doubles in price). These would be paid for and monitored 24/7 by IAA & Dept of Transport at IAA facilities. From a DF point of view the money could then be spent on integrating the data from all available IAA sensors into the RAP. On a day to day basis, IAA would therefore be responsible for identifying possibly threats based on agreed protocols and AC would be responsible for the GCI (during high threat times the identification of possible threats could be done from Baldonnel).


                      Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      With regard to currency, what some countries did was give the pilot half of his expected annual flying on the primary fighter and the other half of the advanced trainer,soyou got situations where the pilot got 60/80/100 hrs in a Mig 21 or 29 (air combat training/ fighter leader training/high speed,high altiude,high g) and then did the rest in L29 and 39 (instrument flight renewal/gunnery/formation/BFM)and they also did more sim time per head per annum. This wasnt always successful and at least one country found that the hourly availability degraded over time as airframes aged and that when a fast jet pilot got down to about 40 hrs/year on the fighter,he was essentially useless as a potential combatant.
                      Soooooo, if we got into the fighter game, we'd have to keep up availability of men and machines right from the start,which also means the support system has to be rugged and reliable, adaptable and quick to react. 24/7/365 would have to be the absolute baseline and not an aspiration.
                      Not sure of the validity of this but: The NATO minimum is 180 hours (15 per month). RAF flying hours for jet pilots is between 180 and 240 per year (18.5 per month on average). Of these hours, 150 hours (12–14 hours per month; 12.5 on average) are felt to be a safety-of-flight minimum (instruments, takeoffs, landings).
                      Source http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogs...0-raf.html?m=1
                      Last edited by DeV; 7 July 2020, 19:20.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        You assume correct - fixed thanks

                        But a stand-alone radar is no use it needs to be monitored from a manned 24/7 ops centre that has access to all the other available info. It also needs to be integrated into the AC RAP.

                        For that reason, I’d be inclined (As a former Taoiseach and President :P ) to advise the purchase 2-3 higher spec civvy medium range primary radar (once something is painted green it doubles in price). These would be paid for and monitored 24/7 by IAA & Dept of Transport at IAA facilities. From a DF point of view the money could then be spent on integrating the data from all available IAA sensors into the RAP. On a day to day basis, IAA would therefore be responsible for identifying possibly threats based on agreed protocols and AC would be responsible for the GCI (during high threat times the identification of possible threats could be done from Baldonnel).
                        Or have IAC personnel based at IAA in Shannon (similar to RAF Swanwick) and link them into an Air Operations Centre at Baldonnel.
                        Last edited by CTU; 7 July 2020, 19:33.
                        It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                        It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                        It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                        It was the year everything changed.

                        Comment


                        • Didn't there used to be an Air Corps ATC person based in Dublin ATC to assist in controlling R15? Why not have the same setup for Irish controlled airspace? Good experience for the AC ATC person and an extra pair of hands in Shannon. (Its a fine building, almost in civilisation.)
                          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 EUFighter View Post
                            Yes it comes back to the amount of pilots you have, more pilots per aircraft would allow to have fewer aircraft. The one downside is that each of those pilots will need to have their annual training hours, lets say 200hr which means the flight time per aircraft per year increases. Most air forces expect to keep their aircraft for 30 years so: 30 x 200 = 6000 hrs which until recently was the average life of a fighter airframe. If now those same planes are flying 800hr/yr then the life of the airframes will be 7.5 yrs. Of course if it was a lease then the number of hours could be given as 800hr per aircraft per year. It would then be factored into the lease cost.
                            According to this PDF on Saab's website, the Gripen has been designed to have a service life of 8000 hours, so it could be used for 266 hours per year for 30 years or 200 hours over a 40 year service life.

                            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1594147224241

                            Comment


                            • That's probably including at least one major overhaul of the airframe in it's life as well as the usual mechanical and electronic upgrades.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pilatus View Post
                                According to this PDF on Saab's website, the Gripen has been designed to have a service life of 8000 hours, so it could be used for 266 hours per year for 30 years or 200 hours over a 40 year service life.

                                https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1594147224241
                                Aerosexual porn, right there!
                                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

                                Working...
                                X