Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JETS: Smithy's response

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

  • Come-quickly
    replied
    Below the required establishment but theres fk all for them to fly

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    your right

    Turkey i am sorry for replying soangily to CQ's commentsand i think it's time to frorgive and forget as at the end of the day we are all in the same boat that is :-patriot:EIRE:-patriot:.


    Now i think that i have evaluated my position and yes Helicopers are priority.

    Jets can wait a bit.

    Just as a matter of interest, how many pilots does the AC actually have at the moment? And if we were to get ac, would the DoD be handing out applications like nobodys business?:D :D :D :-patriot:

    Leave a comment:


  • Stinger
    replied
    Reading between the lines does that mean that the navy are thanking their lucky stars to get any aircraft at all????

    Leave a comment:


  • Aidan
    replied
    "Aiden, with regard to the 'A' and 'B' classification, I was just being lasy, sorry!."

    Thats Ok, I was just bored and pedantic. A lethal combination. Sorry!

    "Are you sure the Etendard is sungle engined its an awfully big aircraft"

    Yup, it certainly is (Snecma 8K-50). Its also underpowered and has poor range and payload. The MN wanted to replace their entire fleet of fixed wing aircraft with F/A-18s in the 1980s when their F-8s left service. Instead they got a mildly upgraded SEM and were told wait for the Rafale.

    Bummer.

    On the engine issue, I've no idea of attrition rates for other single engined Naval Aircraft. Will have a look. Have heard that the USN thank their lucky stars that the F/A-18 is a twin though, specially since a number of them made it back to the boat after Afghanistan after an engine flameout. One of the reasons (excuses?) that the USN say they're happy with the F-35 is that modern engine reliability has advanced to the extent that they're not worried about losing planes due to engine problems. Claiming that their research shows that hydraulic or electrical problems are much more likely to be the cause of an accident than flame-out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Come-quickly
    replied
    Originally posted by Turkey
    Aiden, with regard to the 'A' and 'B' classification, I was just being lasy, sorry!.
    Me too.

    Are you sure the Etendard is sungle engined its an awfully big aircraft?

    The white paper was indeed a major kick in the nuts but, with careful plannin gthe Air corps can raise its military profile, most notably through participation in Oseas missions with transport helicopters for Irish troops.
    Regular newsfootage of that and preferably some impressive looking armaments along the line of 20mm canon would really do a lot to boost expectations of what the air corps should have in its remit.

    Getting back to the engine issue does anyone know what kind of attrition rates the Crusaders and Corsairs had?

    Leave a comment:


  • yooklid
    replied
    I think they fired the ground launched one at the Gloustershire (sp?). I saw an interview with the engineers. Apparently they had to rig the ground battery to emit the electronic noise of the aircraft so that the missile thought it had been fired from an Etendard. The ship avoided most of the damage by turning hard to starboard meaning its hanger was wiped out but little else.

    Yooklid
    Last edited by yooklid; 24 March 2003, 03:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The Argies had 5 exocets, 4 air launched 1 ground battery (that was modified for an aircraft) The missile did most of the work as it was fired from the etendard miles away

    Leave a comment:


  • Tucco
    replied
    Ehm.

    The Argies only had 5 exocets. All were fired from the Etendard. One was a ship launch version that was modified to be fired from an aircraft.

    Leave a comment:


  • yooklid
    replied
    Exocet did the blowing out of the water, not the etendard, and remember, one of the exocets that was fired was launched from a ground battery.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tucco
    replied
    Hmmn

    Not sure the Brits thought the Etendard was shite in the Falklands when it blew the bejaysus out of a few ships with its exocets.

    Leave a comment:


  • yooklid
    replied
    Exactly! If Single Engined was such an issue, there are a lot of planes out there that would never have gotten off the drawing board. BTW though, the Etendard is shite.

    Yooklid

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Perhaps this issue with single engined fighters is being given too much weight. Single engine naval aircraft are hardly unheard of. Off the top of my head you have the A-4, F-8, A-7, Super Etendard, etc.

    The US Navy will have a significant proportion of their fighter assets in a single engine fighter in the form of the F-35.

    Is rejecting single engined aircraft for Ireland in a fighter role, especially if one wished to acquire a light fighter type, a balanced and rational decision? At a stroke you have excluded the Mako, which would seem to be a fine choice for such a role.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tucco
    replied
    Helis

    The helis point is well made, but to an extent self defeating., as this is probably already sorted out.

    The sequence set out right now for the Irish Air Corps is the acquisition of 8 Pilatus PC9m, followed by a 3 strong MATS with GIV, Beechcraft replacement and, say, a 737.

    Smith has said, and it's widely expected, that a new tender is to issue soon for the ml helis. (No one really believes cuts in spending were to blame for the old one being scrapped). ps: Sikorsky bods were seen back in town recently and are planning a new charm offensive, this time with an S-92 that actually flies!)

    So on the ramp - 8 x PC9s
    1 x GIV, An. other, 737
    3/5 x Medium lift helis
    Best of the rest AIIIs, SF260s?, 172s, SA.365Fis,
    CN235s, SA342L,
    GASU: 1 x AS355N, BN2T-4S, EC135.
    (40 a/c apx?)

    Blimey, where will it all fit? But clearly an Air Corps in pretty good shape in 2 years. Almost looks like a wish list.

    Once that's done air defence should be next on the list, and if there's money knocking around from Gormo - well who knows.

    When the Typhoons start coming on stream across Europe, there'll be stacks of Tornados etc looking for new homes?
    :-patriot:

    Leave a comment:


  • Turkey
    replied
    I would like to apoligise for my posting of thursday, some of it was unessarly abusive, towards CQ.
    Fox, it was also not intended to give anyone else a licence to abuse, we need to have no abuse on this site and more concentration on the issues, as far as we can carry them.
    Attack the arguement, not the poster, [and yes I freely admit to being guilty as well]
    Aiden, with regard to the 'A' and 'B' classification, I was just being lasy, sorry!
    I am aware, or belive, that the helicopter force is of greater or equal importance to an interceptor fleet, which is why I sought Paul's premission to extract his heli' list and start a new thread with it.[more later]
    I am also aware that a single engined aircraft such as the F-16 may be perceived to have shortcomings,with regard to over-water safty. But why I am not sure, we operated the Vampires for many years with steam-age[stone-age] jet engins, and did not lose one, they, at least once were on a 'jolly' to France, which despite my percived lack of mapreading skills:D does require an over-water transit.
    our Marchettie's have visited the UK, our A111's did a lot of over-water work before the arrival of Matroter's Impreza's.:D
    The fighter-bomber designation is largely irrelavent, 99% of military jets could comfortably fit that designation.
    I did not pick the F-16 out of a hat, IMHO it's the best and most suitable product,currently in production, that can be comfortably fitted into the current structure in Baldonal, thou' larger hangers would be a definite asset.
    But the behaviour of our largely incompetent and self-serving 'government' renders most of this useless, they will not spend a twisted cent on anything that serves anything other then their personall well being, hence the now apperent multiplicity of usless and unecessary government jets,also handy for escapeing in the event of things going pear-shaped, as if bertie gives a s**t about the 4 million saps who have to pay for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tucco
    replied
    Correct

    The white paper from 2000 says the state "has never" sought to secure our airspace to a minumal standar and that there probably "no need" to do so. (Quoting from memory here btw)

    Which first of all makes it difficult to explain away No1 Fighter Squadron's Hurricanes, Spitfire and Vampires.

    Secondly the paper says the international security situation is generally "benign" with no threats whatsoever visible against Ireland.

    It then outlines the roles for the air Corps as set out above. Now, don't forget these roles would have been drawn up in consultation and following interviews with top brass at the Don.

    However, given the changes security climate post 9/11, Enduring Freedom, Bali, Free Iraq - that White Paper looks a bit silly with Shannon as part of the Atlantic Air Bridge and Irish troops stationed at shannon.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X