Defending the Irish airspace

[DeV]

When you thing about it, if your a terrorist and your happen to inflict disruption rather than terror and death - something like Gatwick is perfect

[Flamingo]

Look at the effort PIRA had to go to in order to shut down Heathrow, and compare it to what it has taken to shut down Gatwick.

[DeV]

https://youtu.be/JoD_5-dqOiU

IAA 24 hours in Irish airspace

[DeV]

All departures suspended from Heathrow due to drone activity

https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2019/0108...airport-drone/

[morpheus]

https://youtu.be/JoD_5-dqOiU

IAA 24 hours in Irish airspace

Doesnt show what happens when a smelly russian sneaks down the west coast though.

[DeV]

Doesnt show what happens when a smelly russian sneaks down the west coast though.

Can’t sure.... we don’t know they are there

[Bravo20]

and what we don't know, can't harm us

[Flamingo]

Well, if the DF/AGS wanted to buy something anti-drone, now's the time to put in a bid for it. No politician or civil-servants are going to want to be seen to block a system the absence of which might prevent Paddy and Biddy Voter getting away on time for their holidays...

Called it...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-37697369.html

.
Special meeting called to consider 'drone threat' to Irish airport
Cormac McQuinn l

January 9 2019 8:16 PM


THE threat of drone activity to Irish airports is to be considered in the wake of incidents that disrupted flights in Britain.

Transport minister Shane Ross has called a special meeting of the National Civil Aviation Threat and Risk Group tomorrow to advise him on the recent incidents in the UK and their implication for Irish airports.

A reported drone sighting at Heathrow airport halted departures there for about an hour on Tuesday.

And thousands of passengers saw their travel plans disrupted after drones were sighted at Gatwick Airport just days before Christmas.

Fine Gael Senator Neale Richmond yesterday called on Minister Ross to confirm that Dublin Airport is adequately prepared to deal with similar incidents.

He said: "The economic and human costs of these drone attacks have been massive; understandably many Irish travellers are concerned the same could happen here."

Mr Ross this evening said he is convening the special meeting National Civil Aviation Threat and Risk Group.

A Transport Department statement said that should there be any further steps required to improve how the State can respond to the threat of future illegal drone activity around Irish airports, the Minister "will take appropriate action".

Mr Ross said: "There are already strict rules in Ireland around the use of drones, including an exclusion zone of 5 kilometres around airports.

"The misuse of drones is an offence, and flying drones in controlled Irish airspace or within 5 kilometres of an airport is a very serious matter.

"I have asked my Department to convene at short notice a special meeting of an expert industry group to assess recent events and advise me on how we are prepared at our own airports and whether there are further things which can be done.”

The National Civil Aviation Threat and Risk Group is chaired by the Department of Transport and includes representatives from the Irish Aviation Authority, the State airports, Irish airlines, the Departments of Justice and Foreign Affairs, the GardaÃ* and the Defence Forces.

Online Editors

[DeV]

Ref drones

Hard to defend against this
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46822429

[pym]

From the translate option on youtube, I take it the Swedes are reintroducing RBS70/90 systems that had been mothballed.

The remotely operated turrets look like a sensible upgrade option...

[pym]

The U.S. Army is preparing to acquire 144 Interim Maneuver-Short-Range Air Defense systems (IM-SHORAD) on the Stryker vehicle platform.

In a recent notice posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, the service asked industry proposals in regards to an ability to deliver 144 IM-SHORAD systems with deliveries beginning in the fiscal year 2020 and final deliveries in 2024.

https://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-ar...d-systems.html

Image is based on the Leonardo offering, which is based around Stinger missiles and Rada AESA radars:
https://www.leonardodrs.com/news-and...ad-prototypes/

Also includes a "soft kill" capability.

Interesting option and seems to make a lot of sense.

[pym]

Dublin Airport flights suspended due to drone

[Sparky42]

Another example of MANPAD mounting vehicles that I imagine wouldn't be hugely expensive:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mbda...ight-vehicles/

[DeV]

Mistral has a max range of 6.5km compared to BOILDE’s 9km

Think the RBS70 Mk1 was 7km

[na grohmiti]

Mistral has a max range of 6.5km compared to BOILDE’s 9km

Think the RBS70 Mk1 was 7km

RBS 70 is a beam rider. Mistral, on the other hand is infa red, and thus, much more useful in low visibility. No point having longer range if you can't see the target.

[Jetjock]

RBS 70 is a beam rider. Mistral, on the other hand is infa red, and thus, much more useful in low visibility. No point having longer range if you can't see the target.

Another advantage for Mistral is it is fire and forget, unlike current RBS 70 guidance which requires operator input all the way to impact.

[Jetjock]

Regarding visibility in bad weather/darkness, an RBS 70 operator is cued remotely from the radar and finds the target through a thermal imager.

[na grohmiti]

Regarding visibility in bad weather/darkness, an RBS 70 operator is cued remotely from the radar and finds the target through a thermal imager.

But still has to follow the missile to target. Meanwhile, other targets are inbound....

[EUFighter]

Both the RBS70 and Mistral have advantages and disadvantages.

The Mistral is a simple IR seeker which while "Fire & forget" first requires the operator to visually acquire the target and get a IR lock. This is normally the hot exhaust of a gas turbine. This means for most head-on situations it does not work well. Once a lock is achieved then "Fire" but not forget because a 2nd or 3rd missile might be required as the IR sensor is a simple IR sensor and can be defeated by flares. It does not have a IIR sensor like many of the current generation of AAM which generate a IR picture rather than just seeking a hot spot.

The RBS70 can be cued by radar but normally the target too has to be acquired visually. The laser designation is then used to mark the target and the missile fired. In is simplest form an operator then has to keep the target in sight until the missile destroys the target. It has similar limitation in low light due to fog and smoke but has the major advantage that it cannot be jammed by flares and other typical IR jammers.

Both systems can be integrated into more complex AAD systems which have costs which put them well out of the reach of the DF today.

If the target is a "civil" drone then neither are suitable due to the targets size and lack of heat signature, here some electronic defence system is needed and is what was seen deployed at Gatwick. An alternative for such devices would also be HEL but they too carry a large initial price tag.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Modern missiles also home in on the heat given off by the aircraft's (fast mover) passage through the air, which is one of the homing cues for missiles fired from a frontal aspect, such as current models of the Sidewinder. Incidentally, the RAF anti-aircraft people loved to "target" the Harrier in training as it's fan (the blade disc on the front of the engine) gave wonderful radar reflectivity from the big air intakes, so a defending missile operator could "see" it clearly on radar. The upside for the Harrier was that it's exhaust was one of the coldest of all combat aircraft as it's nozzles mixed hot and cold air under the belly so it was very hard to gain an IR lock on it from behind. As for drones, I'd guess that drone detection is based on detecting the visual and possible radar reflectivity of their multiple blades, as well as thermal or IR seeking.

[DeV]

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1031223/

[EUFighter]

US Navy orders 78 new F18 Super Hornets for $4,040m, that is a flyaway unit price of $52m each: if Finland gets a similar price then the JAS39 will have it hard.

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/21/42021

[ropebag]

US Navy orders 78 new F18 Super Hornets for $4,040m, that is a flyaway unit price of $52m each: if Finland gets a similar price then the JAS39 will have it hard.

https://news.usni.org/2019/03/21/42021

I'd take that price with a large pinch of salt - US procurement costs are split between the price they pay to (in this case) Boeing, and another, seperate pile called Government Furnished Equipment, which in the case of fighters usually means tiny little ancillaries like engines, weapons, ejector seats, and sometimes things like radars that they buy from other manufacturers.

$52m might be the money paid to Boeing at the factory gate, but it's nothing like the cost of a fully operational F/A-18F .

It's not just initial purchase costs - the Canadians worked out that the purchase cost was less than 25% of the through-life cost over a 30 year service period - the Gripen is relatively cheap to fly, but if the Finns are considering the EA-18 Growler then the F/A-18 would make a huge amount of sense in terms of training, logistics, technical support, all of which, with mixed-type fleets, are money pits.

The F/A-18 makes sense from a future-proofing angle as well - while it's in US service it will have ready made, OTS upgrades available till 2045 or so, that may not be the case with Gripen.

Super Hornet undoubtedly costs more than Gripen, but it delivers a lot more as well....

It's a hugely complex question, both aircraft types have significant advantages as well as negatives compared to the other.

[GoneToTheCanner]

The GFE thing originated in WW2 as a tax avoidance / clever accounting measure because mass producers like Grumman and Boeing wanted it both ways. Build aircraft for the Government but don't get stung for taxes on that build. If a foreigner ordered an aircraft, they paid for one complete aircraft, supplied as a ready to fly aircraft in a crate and paid export taxes on it. When Uncle Sam ordered a fighter, he paid Grumman for the hull and wings and "supplied" the engine, guns, instruments, tyres, all the nuts and bolts....in fact, every single individual part that Grumman didn't make. In reality, Grumman built the fighter and dealt with the suppliers directly and then billed the Government and it lowered their tax bill and their costs were slashed by fobbing them off on the suppliers. It had more to do with tax efficiency and cost cutting than outright loyalty to the Government, especially if a buyer didnt complete the deal or aircraft were lost at sea when shipped or remained undelivered due to war events. Grumman didnt take the hit, the Government did.............These days, no-one pays or expects to pay full dollar price on any aircraft or tank or gun and the manufacturer understands that so he will get his fat in the after sales service. Airlines tend to get better deals if they order early, pay more up front per hull and buy as much standardised aircraft as possible. Militaries tend to buy small amounts, customise them and then pay through the nose for after sales service. Which is why, when militaries go shopping, they should send in hard-nosed merchandisers instead of starry-eyed soldiers, who usually get taken for a ride with a few baubles. If you want an education on military bribe scandals, look up the Lockheed "payola" scandal or some of the shady deals on Britain's Al Yamamah deal with the Saudis.

[EUFighter]

I have heard of Blue-on-blue but this is taking it a bit far.

https://defence-blog.com/news/nether...-exercise.html