Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps:The future

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

  • #61
    The location of so much housing in the flightpath effectively rules out any chance of it becoming a commercial airport without severe limitations as to its operating times.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
      The location of so much housing in the flightpath effectively rules out any chance of it becoming a commercial airport without severe limitations as to its operating times.
      Have you flown into Dublin Airport recently? There has been massive development under the approach to runway 28, which is the main runway in use.

      Dublin Airport is so big and busy now that having to use it as a passenger has become an ordeal that many people dread.

      It would make a great deal of sense to develop a second airport to the south-west of Dublin, whether it be Baldonnel or elsewhere. But then, when did good sense count for much in these matters...

      Comment


      • #63
        Nevertheless, as Dublin Airport gets busier, Ireland's population gorws and Dublin expands outwards like an ugly rash rather than upwards like a city, a second airport will become essential for business commuters and short hops, unless the city wants to lose out to Belfast. So they'd better find some location soon before every remaining greenfield sight becomes a housing estate.

        Comment


        • #64
          Czech out this offer!

          Originally posted by pym View Post
          I assume these are the Aero L-159's.... there are quite a number just sitting around hangers since the Czech air force scaled back.

          A step up from the PC-9's certainly. But worth it?

          Edit: I remember someone mentioning an anecdote, possibly on this board, it was a discussion he had with a member of the Air Corps - essentially, the thrust of it was that compared to the fuel costs of the Fouga Magister, a BAe Hawk fuel costs would be astronomical, even leaving aside other routine maintenance....

          I'm guessing it would be a similar story for the 159..
          Apparently the Czech Air Force are trying to trade in their L-159s to EADS/CASA for some C-295 transport aircraft. Maybe EADS/CASA gave their contacts in Baldonnel a ring to see if they were interested in a bargain? One thing is for sure: they'd be a lot cheaper than the PC-9Ms.

          Comment


          • #65
            Cheaper to purchase, but how much to run?

            I'm highly dubious of the Air Corps getting any expanded combat capability in the next 10 years. I just don't think the money will be provided when the there are major programs needed to replace ships in the naval service & the the LAV's for the Army.

            Not to mention other things

            Comment


            • #66
              close air support



              AH-6Js - small, simple, cheap, effective

              Comment


              • #67
                Lads, let me give you an idea of how much the Fouga drank.About a thousand litres in 90 minutes.Two 1020-lb thrust engines, of 1950s technology, which meant that they were about as efficient as a log fire, in today's terms.The engine of the 159 or Hawk will use less than half, fly for longer and probably last for a decade.No comparison in terms of fuel economics, but avionics are grossly expensive...still, those ALCAs could be had for small money and could be shipped to trouble spots, for COIN/recce, in a short time.
                regards
                GttC

                Comment


                • #68
                  Listen...that's the sound of Vincent Browne's tears hitting a champagne glass.

                  You warmongering monsters, with your evil dreams of orphan killing machines.
                  "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    You will never have a quiet world until you knock the patriotism out of the human race

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGWbR...eature=related

                      Surely if one was to spend a substantial chunk of the defence budget on an armed recce/Close support aircraft it would make more sense to get an RW assett that could be based alongside any RW transport assets we have - say for instances based at our BG main location as in Chad and Liberia or that can be pooled at a central RW depot location as in Kosovo.

                      A purpose built ARH is going to give a lot more value for money in our current operational spectrum as it can provide recce, escort and if the occasion should arise intimidation and CAS while being locally based.

                      Cheap and (relatively) cheerful Mongoose anyone?

                      Dimensions:
                      Overall Length with Both Rotors Turning
                      14.29m
                      Height to Top of Rotor
                      3.35m
                      Main Rotor Diameter
                      11.9m
                      Fuselage Length
                      12.5m
                      Maximum Mission Gross Weight
                      5,000kg
                      Weapons:
                      hellfire or TOW 2 Missiles
                      8
                      70mm Rockets
                      76
                      81mm Rockets
                      38
                      20mm Ammunition Rounds
                      500
                      Air-to-Air (Stinger or Mistral)
                      4/8
                      Observation and Targeting Sensors
                      2nd-generation FLIR (83x mag)
                      CCD TV (26x mag)
                      Laser range finder and designator
                      Automatic target tracker
                      Video recorder
                      Engines:
                      Turboshaft Engines
                      2 x LHTEC-T800
                      Take-Off Power
                      1,335shp each (996kW each)
                      Intermediate Power
                      1,240shp each (925kW each)
                      One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Contingency
                      1,404shp (1,045kW)
                      Performance:
                      Hover-in-Ground Effect
                      13,800ft (4,200m)
                      Hover-Out-Ground Effect
                      10,800ft (3,290m)
                      Maximum Cruise Speed
                      150kt (278km/h)
                      Vertical Rate of Climb
                      1,070ft/min (5.4m/sec)
                      Maximum Rate of Climb
                      2,220ft/min (11.3m/sec)
                      Maximum Range on Internal Fuel, No Reserve
                      303nm (561km)
                      OEI Maximum Rate of Climb
                      900ft/min (4.6m/sec)

                      From www.armytechnology.com

                      Realistically though you would need a force of 8 to be able to deploy four and have two available at any time.
                      Big impact on the Defence Budget.
                      "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        How would the running costs per hour of an L159 compere to a PC9? And also would eight PC9's cost more or less than eight L159's

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          If these were purchased would we not still need the pc-9 as a basic trainer?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            With a PC-9, you have to factor in the costs of a propellor, which is not a factor for a jet.Those props are not cheap and they are easily damaged.Also, there are comparatively few PC-9s about, from a very expensive manufacturer, whereas there are more L-39s/59s/159s about, from a relatively cheaper source and the jets can carry more per wing and can operate on relatively poor airstrips.
                            regards
                            GttC

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              If these were purchased would we not still need the pc-9 as a basic trainer?
                              Yes the PC-9's would still be required.The L-159 is a single seater. The Czechs are converting a small number to twin seaters. Lots of airframes in storage. Would be available for relatively small money and not too big a step up from PC-9 for crews, with a massive step up in capability.

                              However, as regards the use of the PC-9 as a basic trainer I'm staying on the fence on that one. Can't imagine having had my first solo in something that powerful! Still think a small number of proper basic trainers are required.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                The PC-9s are a mistake: too powerful for the training job - the AC doesn't operate any fast jets - and not tough enough for the CAS role. The €60 million or so that was spent on them could have bought a similar number of basic trainers, together with a similar number of armed light helicopters. (Dedicated attack helicopters are beyond our budget and probably not good value for money anyway.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X