Thanks Thanks:  533
Likes Likes:  1,148
Dislikes Dislikes:  15
Page 46 of 46 FirstFirst ... 36444546
Results 1,126 to 1,138 of 1138
  1. #1126
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,059
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah, the single engine thing isn't really a thing any more - you only need two if one goes bang, and if one goes bang the other one will be destroyed by all the flying bits from the first.

    The Norwegians and Danes operate their F-16's a long way out into the North Atlantic - like out to Iceland - without a problem.

  2. Thanks EUFighter, Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  3. #1127
    CQMS warthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    202
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is true but we’re hypothetically talking about 30 odd year old freebies
    here with high hours on the airframe and engines.
    In any case I think it’s a total fantasy and will never happen unless the EU forced our hand.

  4. Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #1128
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,629
    Post Thanks / Like

  6. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  7. #1129
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,818
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Do you have actual figures to back the fog claim? I have tried to find data but could not and IMHO most airports in Ireland are limited by cross-wind more than by fog. In fog an airport can be equipped up to CAT-IIIC which would allow landing even in the most severe fog conditions (not nice for the pilot but allowed - see JAS-OPS). However as most airports have only a single runway they will be subjected to crosswind limitations more than to fog.

    Delays due to fog are usually down to the increased traffic separation rather than landing requirements which is why fog in London, which has CAT-IIIC airports causes so many delays. There the capacity of the system is at its limit so when ATC increases separation that removes capacity leading to delays and cancellations. Apart from Dublin Airport none of our other airports have capacity limits.

    As for the conditions at Knock Airport I would expect most of its low visibility would come from low cloud rather than from fog. They might look similar but are different meteorological conditions with totally different formation criteria.
    I'll let others look for the statistics but I can speak from first hand experience of operating into Knock. Knock implements LVPs more frequently than other Irish airports with the exception of Cork.

    It suffers from a poor location, on a hill where the difference between hill fog and low cloud is an irrelevant distinction. They both have the same impact on RVR. Below 300m at Knock and you're off to Shannon or Dublin.

    The westerly runway has an ILS (CAT II) with a non precision approach on the other end. With CAT II, autolands are possible but will also come aircraft specific cross/tailwind limitations below normal limits. All the more relevant at the top of a hill in the west of Ireland.

    Now as this discussion relates to the basing of theoretical fighter jets, would you really advocate landing with live ordinance on a fog/low cloud(who cares?) prone windy hill just because the incoming US president is a Mayo supporter? Any potential base must tick a lot more meteorological boxes than Knock given the implications of diverting with a pair of Sidewinders to Shannon or elsewhere.


    In reference to CAT IIIc, there are few CAT IIIc airports globally. Would be interested if you could point me to a list for London. CAT IIIa/b certainly LGW, STN and LHR. Great in theory that you can land in flat out zero visibility if you have an aircraft capable of doing so but unless it can also taxi you to your parking position you are stopping where you land. CAT IIIa will get you down 99 times out of 100.

  8. Thanks na grohmiti, Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  9. #1130
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    I'll let others look for the statistics but I can speak from first hand experience of operating into Knock. Knock implements LVPs more frequently than other Irish airports with the exception of Cork.

    It suffers from a poor location, on a hill where the difference between hill fog and low cloud is an irrelevant distinction. They both have the same impact on RVR. Below 300m at Knock and you're off to Shannon or Dublin.

    The westerly runway has an ILS (CAT II) with a non precision approach on the other end. With CAT II, autolands are possible but will also come aircraft specific cross/tailwind limitations below normal limits. All the more relevant at the top of a hill in the west of Ireland.

    Now as this discussion relates to the basing of theoretical fighter jets, would you really advocate landing with live ordinance on a fog/low cloud(who cares?) prone windy hill just because the incoming US president is a Mayo supporter? Any potential base must tick a lot more meteorological boxes than Knock given the implications of diverting with a pair of Sidewinders to Shannon or elsewhere.


    In reference to CAT IIIc, there are few CAT IIIc airports globally. Would be interested if you could point me to a list for London. CAT IIIa/b certainly LGW, STN and LHR. Great in theory that you can land in flat out zero visibility if you have an aircraft capable of doing so but unless it can also taxi you to your parking position you are stopping where you land. CAT IIIa will get you down 99 times out of 100.
    I've never seen CAT 3c, Airbus and Boeing Are Max Cat 3b.
    AFAIK there is no practical application for CAT 3c at the moment, it would require full guidance from the Runway Centerline to the gate.

  10. Likes GoneToTheCanner, Jetjock liked this post
  11. #1131
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    I've never seen CAT 3c, Airbus and Boeing Are Max Cat 3b.
    AFAIK there is no practical application for CAT 3c at the moment, it would require full guidance from the Runway Centerline to the gate.
    True the Cat 3C is more about the ground operations rather than the landing or take-off.

  12. #1132
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    I'll let others look for the statistics but I can speak from first hand experience of operating into Knock. Knock implements LVPs more frequently than other Irish airports with the exception of Cork.

    It suffers from a poor location, on a hill where the difference between hill fog and low cloud is an irrelevant distinction. They both have the same impact on RVR. Below 300m at Knock and you're off to Shannon or Dublin.

    The westerly runway has an ILS (CAT II) with a non precision approach on the other end. With CAT II, autolands are possible but will also come aircraft specific cross/tailwind limitations below normal limits. All the more relevant at the top of a hill in the west of Ireland.

    Now as this discussion relates to the basing of theoretical fighter jets, would you really advocate landing with live ordinance on a fog/low cloud(who cares?) prone windy hill just because the incoming US president is a Mayo supporter? Any potential base must tick a lot more meteorological boxes than Knock given the implications of diverting with a pair of Sidewinders to Shannon or elsewhere.


    In reference to CAT IIIc, there are few CAT IIIc airports globally. Would be interested if you could point me to a list for London. CAT IIIa/b certainly LGW, STN and LHR. Great in theory that you can land in flat out zero visibility if you have an aircraft capable of doing so but unless it can also taxi you to your parking position you are stopping where you land. CAT IIIa will get you down 99 times out of 100.
    Thanks for the interesting discussion, the proposal of Knock was meant as a joke.
    For proper all weather operations I would prefer Shannon but with at least one other of its runways as an active for fighter ops.

  13. Thanks Jetjock thanked for this post
  14. #1133
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Another interesting webinar with main key issues from the first webinar.

    It was interesting that mention was made several times that on the civil side we want to be a "good neighbor" and "global" partner but what was glosses over a bit was that on the military side we want to maintain "defence neutrality". Remember back to the first webinar of the series what the comment that the smaller nations in the EU cannot afford to have all the defence capability on their own, that sharing will be needed. This is just limited to air defence or air transport but to many of the challenges.

    The idea of keeping Baldonnel as a strategic state asset but at the same time opening it up a bit is interesting. Perhaps it could not only gain a "business jet" apron but become a centre for Air Ambulance and/or other secure transport such as prisoner transfer.

    The other interesting idea would be to merge the aviation hub idea for Shannon with an Irish ENAC. A place where we could train pilots, technicians, engineers etc all in co-operation with UL. If we could find a way to have pilots on say 10 year contracts for the PDF and somehow the another in reserve that would be interesting. Here it might be interesting how the US manages this with their ANG and USAF Reserve.

  15. #1134
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,818
    Post Thanks / Like
    No problem and I completely agree about Shannon.

    The former 13/31 in Shannon could be a candidate for resurfacing and restoration as a crosswind runway. It was listed as available until about 7 years ago on airfield plates with a caution of uneven surfacing below normal standards. It hadn't been used in donkeys years but the illusion was maintained for a long time. When taxying out the Delta taxiway, ATC clearance was required to cross the long inactive runway. In cockpit procedures were maintained as if crossing any runway ie. Verbal verification between pilots of a clearance to cross and the switching on of strobe lights.

  16. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, EUFighter liked this post
  17. #1135
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    As stated already we have a lot of airports suitable in Ireland including 3 that are currently closed to commercial traffic: Sligo, Waterford and Galway. If the AC did have the jets (24-32 needed for 24/7/365) and did want to train deploying to an austere base it is not just a matter of flying the jets there. It would also mean transporting ground support crew and equipment, stores, fuel and a security detail. Thus having a training "austere" airport on the island of Ireland would be a lot easier that going off-island. Remember we have never deployed an AC oversea yet and to get up to speed will take a lot of training.

    Dublin Airport is one of the busiest airports in Europe hence why they are getting the second runway. To try and integrate a jet fighter deployment training into DA would be a nightmare and would likely be a non-starter.
    This is a small island; transporting men and equipment anywhere on the island takes a few hours at most. The AC (and every oil company in the country) routinely move fuel around the country to remote locations. The Casas and PC-12s and helicopters can operate from most runways (you'd be surprised how many 400-500 metre plus runways are in this country). You could easily practise with a deployment to Carrickfin/Sligo/Galway/Inishbofin/Clifden, all of which are underused or not used at all.

  18. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  19. #1136
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,818
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Another interesting webinar with main key issues from the first webinar.

    It was interesting that mention was made several times that on the civil side we want to be a "good neighbor" and "global" partner but what was glosses over a bit was that on the military side we want to maintain "defence neutrality". Remember back to the first webinar of the series what the comment that the smaller nations in the EU cannot afford to have all the defence capability on their own, that sharing will be needed. This is just limited to air defence or air transport but to many of the challenges.

    The idea of keeping Baldonnel as a strategic state asset but at the same time opening it up a bit is interesting. Perhaps it could not only gain a "business jet" apron but become a centre for Air Ambulance and/or other secure transport such as prisoner transfer.

    The other interesting idea would be to merge the aviation hub idea for Shannon with an Irish ENAC. A place where we could train pilots, technicians, engineers etc all in co-operation with UL. If we could find a way to have pilots on say 10 year contracts for the PDF and somehow the another in reserve that would be interesting. Here it might be interesting how the US manages this with their ANG and USAF Reserve.
    Your ideas for Baldonnel are similar to the current use of RAF Northolt.

  20. Likes ropebag, EUFighter, DeV liked this post
  21. #1137
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    We need to tell the Greens and other tree huggers that the Gripen can fly with bio-fuel (well so can most modern jets if we are honest).

    https://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...en-engine.html

  22. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  23. #1138
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,629
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    We need to tell the Greens and other tree huggers that the Gripen can fly with bio-fuel (well so can most modern jets if we are honest).

    https://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...en-engine.html
    Not just the Greens

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •