Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AC fighter aircraft

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

  • I mentioned the gripens over on crustyland (boards) and one of the posters there claims they are useless without tanker support as the bears would just fly 20 mins further west until our gripens were low on fuel and then head south again once we'd RTB and that we'd need multiple QRAs to stay in contact with them as one cycled off for refueling and the other cycled on station.
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

    Comment


    • said it before, overeseas aid budget - 100m = leased squadron of gripens with maintenance (per year cost)
      "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
      "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
        http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/S...nNG_170409.pdf

        I'm assuming this is accurate but to purchase:
        85 (overkill we probably need max 12)
        Gripen NG (overkill we don't need its capabilities)
        Without ammunition & missiles (or fuel)

        At today's prices that € 4.73 billion

        Say that divide by 7 to get 12 Gripen NGs is €675 million


        If it is to be looked at leasing is the future
        You need to look at the Czech Republic(Leased from Swedish Air Force until 2027 http://www.defensenews.com/apps/pbcs...=2014303120038) and Slovakian Air Forces(http://airheadsfly.com/2014/07/28/sl...pen-from-2016/) and their acquisition of the Gripen. Leasing of the airframe seems pretty reasonable over the lifetime. If somebody who makes decisions in Government had the balls to do the deal, it would be realistic to have 14 Gripens by Q2/3 2016.

        Originally posted by morpheus View Post
        said it before, overeseas aid budget - 100m = leased squadron of gripens with maintenance (per year cost)
        With a chunk of change left over that could be invested in Radar
        Last edited by ODIN; 20 February 2015, 16:20.
        What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

        Comment


        • The estimates for the DF & DOD (when army pensions are excluded) for 2015 is € 639.2 million

          Say €73 million a year for a lease (before you arm them or fly them)

          So where are you going to find a absolute min 11% saving in the budget?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            The estimates for the DF & DOD (when army pensions are excluded) for 2015 is € 639.2 million

            Say €73 million a year for a lease (before you arm them or fly them)

            So where are you going to find a absolute min 11% saving in the budget?
            Was that directed at me?
            What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

            Comment


            • Anybody, Bord Snip Nua recommended counting the funds the DF sends on overseas in the aid budget. That didn't happen.

              Don't we have international commitments on international aid to upkeep?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by morpheus View Post
                I mentioned the gripens over on crustyland (boards) and one of the posters there claims they are useless without tanker support as the bears would just fly 20 mins further west until our gripens were low on fuel and then head south again once we'd RTB and that we'd need multiple QRAs to stay in contact with them as one cycled off for refueling and the other cycled on station.
                to some degree - though by no means all - they have a bit of a point. Gripen, because of Swedish doctrine, was required to be a fighter that would have short flight times, dump its ordinance, go back, refuel, re-arm, and start again.

                it was not designed and built to sit out over the north Atlantic for hours on end 300 miles from base.

                now, you can stick 3 external tanks on it, and the new Gripen E's have a significantly larger internal fuel load, but the problem does remain (to some degree) that it is a shortish range fighter - sticking big external tanks on it effects its speed, and the rule of thumb with external tanks is that half the external fuel carried is burnt not in providing extra range, but in propelling the now heavier, less aerodynamic aircraft through the sky...

                there are options. having a full primary radar system that sees out past 200 miles mitigates the need to have aircraft sticking to an 'intruder' like glue the whole time, being meshed in with the radar systems of friendly countries means knowing these aircraft are on their way 2 or 3 hours before they arrive in your patch, and (whisper it..) being a good neighbour by doing your bit means your neighbours will be more likely to assist - the RAF had a Voyager tanker up for about 8 hours flying big racetrack patterns over Scotland, then flying down to Cornwall and flying big racetrack pAtterns down there. if air policing were cooperative, with Irish Gripens and ground based radars providing 'picture' to her neighbours, then that RAF Voyager might have just followed the BEAR down the west coast and topped-up the Gripens as needed.

                all that aside, Gripen would cover the air policing task superbly - fast, very intimidating, good time-to-height, excellent short field performance (important for operations from Baldonnel..), and good standard weapon loads so you don't spend a fortune arming a 'cheap' fighter...

                Comment


                • You do make a good argument in favour of the Gripen. I have to agree they are the best/most realistic new-purchase to make.

                  However, if funding cant/wont stretch to Gripens...would ex-Swiss Air Force F-5's be an option?

                  I have seen Swiss F-5's (and F/A 18's) up-close, when I visited Meiringen Air Base in 2012, and they are immaculately-maintained. They have circa 50 x F-5's still in service with plans to retire them in 2016....IF their deal to purchase 20 x Gripens can pass a (second?) referendum. The Swiss have previously sold off some F-5's to the U.S., who use them in the aggressor training role. (The Swiss also leased 12 x F-5's to Austria some years ago, when Austria were awaiting delivery of their Typhoons).
                  Last edited by Silver; 20 February 2015, 21:23.
                  IRISH AIR CORPS - Serving the Nation.

                  Comment


                  • I was reading about modern fighter costs, in particular about the Typhoon getting the Austrian contract and the subtext was that the Austrian govt changed and the incoming crowd took one look at what they had for their defence (old Saab 105s and old Drakens) and decided to buy modern fighters. It took a great deal of political balls to say to the Austrian people that they needed to fund new fighters and that the hope-it-never-happens scenario was a dead duck and it provoked a great deal of discussion in the local press but in the end, after having tested all-comers, the Typhoon was chosen, much to the surprise of many in the Austrian military, who had been hoping for the Gripen, because of the existing connection with Sweden. Basically, it turned out that Eurofighter heavily undercut the opposition for the whole package cost.......................apart from all that, I thought our new wonder-ships had all-seeing, all-dancing radar, capable of tracking a gnat. I'll bet a Bear sticks out like a sore thumb on the screen. Pity there's nothing to back up the radar, like a great big eff-off SAM...

                    Comment


                    • Errr, funding jet fighters: stop all international aid, it seems its used towards weapons acquisition for its beneficiaries anyway, Or go back in time to that boom we never had and sell bal' to the developers, buy jets with the proceeds, then after the collapse buy it back from nama, move back in....
                      "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


                      • I still think it's unwise to send any pilot out over the Atlantic with just one engine. All Gripen users are mostly land locked nations with little in the way of an ocean to protect. The others..

                        UK: Typhoon/Tornado (both twin engine)
                        Portugal: F16(Single engine) (third world airforce not unlike ours, with Spain to watch their back)
                        Spain: Typhoon/ F/A-18 (Both 2 engine)
                        France: Rafale (Twin Engine)
                        Belgium: F16, Single engine, With Netherlands and France overlapping (and sharing) airspace
                        Netherlands: F35/F16 and Germany next door.
                        Germany: Typhoon/Tornado
                        Denmark: F16, again with Germany next door, and Sweden/Norway to the north.
                        Sweden: has no Exposed waters, but uses Gripen. Their greater risk is over land.
                        Norway: F16/F35
                        Iceland: A good air defence radar, and Canada on speed dial.
                        Canada: CF18
                        USA: Everything

                        Seems clear to me. We get F16 to cover out to the 12 mile, and let the RAF mind the rest, or, Get a few Second Hand Tornado ADV when the Jarmans are finished with them (cos we'll not be having any of that british stuff....)
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                          I still think it's unwise to send any pilot out over the Atlantic with just one engine. All Gripen users are mostly land locked nations with little in the way of an ocean to protect. The others..

                          UK: Typhoon/Tornado (both twin engine)
                          Portugal: F16(Single engine) (third world airforce not unlike ours, with Spain to watch their back)
                          Spain: Typhoon/ F/A-18 (Both 2 engine)
                          France: Rafale (Twin Engine)
                          Belgium: F16, Single engine, With Netherlands and France overlapping (and sharing) airspace
                          Netherlands: F35/F16 and Germany next door.
                          Germany: Typhoon/Tornado
                          Denmark: F16, again with Germany next door, and Sweden/Norway to the north.
                          Sweden: has no Exposed waters, but uses Gripen. Their greater risk is over land.
                          Norway: F16/F35
                          Iceland: A good air defence radar, and Canada on speed dial.
                          Canada: CF18
                          USA: Everything

                          Seems clear to me. We get F16 to cover out to the 12 mile, and let the RAF mind the rest, or, Get a few Second Hand Tornado ADV when the Jarmans are finished with them (cos we'll not be having any of that british stuff....)
                          Bare in mind the US is moving to the single engine F 35, even the USN is going that route, Canada again will replace the dual engined CF18 with the 35 (well maybe depending on politics). The F404 engine has plenty of operational usage to base expectations on it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                            I still think it's unwise to send any pilot out over the Atlantic with just one engine. All Gripen users are mostly land locked nations with little in the way of an ocean to protect. The others..
                            Sweden, South Africa, Thailand and Brazil are land locked?
                            I must have been asleep in that geography lesson so.
                            Last edited by CTU; 20 February 2015, 22:48.
                            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


                            • All this being done by a service which (according to the CG supporters club here) cant do 24/7 topcover.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CTU View Post
                                Sweden, South Africa, Thailand and Brazil are land locked?
                                I must have been asleep in that geography lesson so.
                                Sweden doesn't have to worry about Russia invading from the west. Norway is there. The rest don't have to worry about Russia at all. Thailand does not have an atlantic coast.

                                You must have definitely slept through that lesson.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X