Thanks Thanks:  334
Likes Likes:  722
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 19272829
Results 701 to 724 of 724
  1. #701
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    I recall an old study of hourly flight costs and one of the big factors,believe it or not, was tyres and brakes. The aircraft in the survey was the EE Lightning and it would consume it's main tyres in a couple of sorties and brake units in about a week and one of the limiting factors of sortie rate per aircraft was the availability of brakes and braking parachutes. I wonder what the consumption rate of those items is,for the modern fighters listed above.
    The following report from the RAND Corp gives an idea of some of the methods used by the USA to calculate CPFH, other nations will differ.

    https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1000756.pdf

    The report does refer to the different aircraft/system SAR reports which do contain a CPFH, however recently when the discussion was on the C-130 it could be noticed that the CPFH calculated in the SAR report was very different that that of the RNZAF. So the comparison is going to be difficult.

    On the specific topic of the EE Lightening, the MLG was a sub-optimal design, it was very narrow in order to fit into the thin wings. For this aircraft was performance king. But normally any consumable such as tyres would be included.

  2. #702
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just to show how carefully we have to handle CPFH here is an article which claims sources in the US DoD and the USAF, yet the values for the same aircraft do not always match.

    https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/mai...er-jets/11995/

  3. #703
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,902
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not forgetting cost per hour (as MATS figures show) also depends on the hours flown.

    If you fly 1000 hrs rather than 100 hrs your fixed cost per hour is lower but then you will possibly required more scheduled maintenance

  4. #704
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you leased in a quantity of fighters,then you could operate a variation of the "power by the hour" scheme,which is very common for leased aircraft; ie, for every hour of engine life used in flight,you pay a flat rate and beyond a certain agreed annual rate,you pay more. So, if you agreed to fly 100 hrs per airframe per year,including training flights, then you pay extra above that. If you burn off military stores like missiles and gun rounds, then you pay a certain amount. You could easily set up a workable scheme that covered all aspects of a QRA station's operation over a fixed term. It certainly isnt impossible, given the SAR system runs on a lease plan.

  5. Likes DeV liked this post
  6. #705
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    If you leased in a quantity of fighters,then you could operate a variation of the "power by the hour" scheme,which is very common for leased aircraft; ie, for every hour of engine life used in flight,you pay a flat rate and beyond a certain agreed annual rate,you pay more. So, if you agreed to fly 100 hrs per airframe per year,including training flights, then you pay extra above that. If you burn off military stores like missiles and gun rounds, then you pay a certain amount. You could easily set up a workable scheme that covered all aspects of a QRA station's operation over a fixed term. It certainly isnt impossible, given the SAR system runs on a lease plan.
    200 hrs per year is the expected usage by Saab standards. Per aircraft.
    Our country is relatively small.
    Have Sweden changed over to the E model Gripen yet? If they have, then their old C/D models might be available soon for leasing.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  7. #706
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    200 hrs per year is the expected usage by Saab standards. Per aircraft.
    Our country is relatively small.
    Have Sweden changed over to the E model Gripen yet? If they have, then their old C/D models might be available soon for leasing.
    The Swedish AF got their first production E model in Dec 2019, it is currently under going testing. The next A/C was for Brazil but the Swedes should not slowly start to get more E models. Originally they had planned to replace the C models with the E models but due to the changed security situation this has been dropped. What is unclear is how many of the C aircraft will be retained and what would be available for lease. In the offer to Croatia they were offering C models so some should be available for lease.

  8. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  9. #707
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Haved to say I binged on Gripen content on Youtube last night.




    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  10. Likes EUFighter, DeV liked this post
  11. #708
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like
    The amount of hours per airframe per year is determined by the number of pilots. Each pilot will require between 150 and 200 hours per year to train and maintain proficiency. If as was suggested we have multiple pilots per machine then the hours per machine multiply by that amount.

  12. #709
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The amount of hours per airframe per year is determined by the number of pilots. Each pilot will require between 150 and 200 hours per year to train and maintain proficiency. If as was suggested we have multiple pilots per machine then the hours per machine multiply by that amount.
    Why do we need multiple pilots per machine? Then you are just flying for flying sake, and will soon wear out the aircraft. If we were to get any, and 6 being a number mentioned, then 2 to 4 should be 2 seal models, retained just for training, or working up spare hours.
    So can we just accept that we need Gripen?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  13. #710
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Why do we need multiple pilots per machine? Then you are just flying for flying sake, and will soon wear out the aircraft. If we were to get any, and 6 being a number mentioned, then 2 to 4 should be 2 seal models, retained just for training, or working up spare hours.
    So can we just accept that we need Gripen?
    It is what was stated at the start of the year.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...says-1.4184846

  14. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  15. #711
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apologies. I typed 16 but my keyboard 1 is sticky. The article says 200 hours required to qualify. Staying current wouldn't need as much.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  16. #712
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    200 hrs per year is the expected usage by Saab standards. Per aircraft.
    Our country is relatively small.
    Have Sweden changed over to the E model Gripen yet? If they have, then their old C/D models might be available soon for leasing.
    That is what is being leased out to Hungary and Czechia.

  17. #713
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,452
    Post Thanks / Like
    What's the pilot conversion program from PC9 m to say a JAS39 Gripen or GD F16?
    Where would that happen?
    How long would it take to develop and implement operational process?

  18. #714
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The amount of hours per airframe per year is determined by the number of pilots. Each pilot will require between 150 and 200 hours per year to train and maintain proficiency. If as was suggested we have multiple pilots per machine then the hours per machine multiply by that amount.
    Just to give you an example RNZAF 75 Sqd usually had 12 A-4K's assigned sometimes more. However with 12, 2 aircraft will always be phasing through a Level O Depot Maintenance Activation Plan and possibly 2 aircraft will in the hangar at least under a Level A inspection and minor maintenance service. Though you may have up to 9-10 serviceable at any one time, at least 8 would be available for daily flight line tasking. The squadron hoped to generate 24 hours a day from the 8 aircraft on the line for 3 hours per day. The target was to have 80% or 10 Serviceable with 8 Operational/Available which will generate two daily training flights of 4 airframes across 225 days a year.There were around 1.25 pilots per cockpit which is fairly standard practice, but of course these pilots were at various levels of competency and experienced. The Boss, a couple of qualified mission commanders, 4-ship Flight leads, 2-ship Flight Leads, and Combat Mission Ready (CMR) and the Cat D Basic Mission Ready wingmen. But on top of that there is the QFI and QWI plus the Cat E undergraduate pilots who have not generated BMR proficiency.

    Twelve sorties per month per pilot was considered enough to achieve and sustain all the fast air skill sets and meet and exceed the mission requirements for any level of pilot, but for those who are still undergraduates - who need up to 20 hours per month.

    The duration of the average sortie was around 90 minutes thus the flight requirement for each pilot to remain proficient was 180 flight hours annually. The squadron would work around a sequenced annual programme of training and exercises plus tasking orders and requests which would the cover all pilots through achieving or sustaining competency in all the particular aspects of the art of air combat.

    Of course there also must be a pipeline to get pilots from the PC-9 into a fast jet pilots. That issue will need to be solved concurrently alongside any potential platform selection. And from there through the various qualification stages to build up the squadrons Cat A heavy hitters like the Boss, the QWI, the qualified mission commanders and QFI's.

    Just a couple of comments on leasing. It is actually quite a good approach especially lease to buy type acquisitions in that it is a way to get a capability that is affordable and flexible to build up capacity in both support infrastructure and pilot development. One interesting development is the recent Reforge project for the USAF Air Education and Training Command where they are looking to lease off KAI up to 11 FA-50's alongside the T-7A Redhawks to speed up pilot training outputs by producing experienced fighter pilots without having to put wings qualified pilots through the basic LIFT course currently required by any student who has never flown a fighter before.

    But one thing to do is first is clearly define and analyse what needs to be achieved by attaining this capability. The geo-strategic situation should always drive the platform selection not the other way around (Of course in the context of what is affordable to not just own, but ease of generating the capability, and sustaining it).
    Last edited by Anzac; Today at 04:14.

  19. Thanks EUFighter, Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, Herald liked this post
  20. #715
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    What's the pilot conversion program from PC9 m to say a JAS39 Gripen or GD F16?
    Where would that happen?
    How long would it take to develop and implement operational process?
    To go from a PC9M to a JAS39/F16 the pilot would have to do LIFT, this could be a package with Saab/Sweden with the pilots doing this in Sweden. While LIFT is a minimum as the pilots would be flying the JAS30 later and we have no operation procedure a package with Sweden could include operation conversion as well.

    The alternatives apart from buying a fast jet trainer (Hawk/M346/T-7A/T-50) would be to have the pilots trained in a friendly country.
    We have already have an arrangement with Australia for some pilot training, we could try and have this expanded. If not there might be the possibility of training in the UK and/or Canada. For the latter they have the NATO Flight Training in Canada (NFTC) which is available to friendly nations. Anyone coming from the PC9M would have to complete the Phases III & IV on Hawks (about 120hrs). The time would be 12-18 months.

  21. Thanks Orion thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag liked this post
  22. #716
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    To go from a PC9M to a JAS39/F16 the pilot would have to do LIFT, this could be a package with Saab/Sweden with the pilots doing this in Sweden. While LIFT is a minimum as the pilots would be flying the JAS30 later and we have no operation procedure a package with Sweden could include operation conversion as well.

    The alternatives apart from buying a fast jet trainer (Hawk/M346/T-7A/T-50) would be to have the pilots trained in a friendly country.
    We have already have an arrangement with Australia for some pilot training, we could try and have this expanded. If not there might be the possibility of training in the UK and/or Canada. For the latter they have the NATO Flight Training in Canada (NFTC) which is available to friendly nations. Anyone coming from the PC9M would have to complete the Phases III & IV on Hawks (about 120hrs). The time would be 12-18 months.
    An alternative would be to expand on our relationship with Pilatus and add a small number of PC21 to the fleet.

  23. #717
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Plenty of time to get that sorted before delivery
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  24. Likes DeV liked this post
  25. #718
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    An alternative would be to expand on our relationship with Pilatus and add a small number of PC21 to the fleet.
    IMHO it would be better to go with an agreement with a nation that has an existing fighter pilot training program.
    The reasons are:
    (a) you need qualified instructors to train the pilots,
    (b) you need a fighter pilot training syllabus (which itself requires doctrine and procedures),
    (c) you need simulators as they support the flying training

  26. Likes DeV, Orion liked this post
  27. #719
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    IMHO it would be better to go with an agreement with a nation that has an existing fighter pilot training program.
    The reasons are:
    (a) you need qualified instructors to train the pilots,
    (b) you need a fighter pilot training syllabus (which itself requires doctrine and procedures),
    (c) you need simulators as they support the flying training
    I have my doubts that the route from PC-9 to Gripen, regardless of available equipment, is achievable unless ex-foreign military instructors are recruited. Possibly even short service recruitment (5 years) of ex-foreign military fighter pilots, engineers etc.

  28. Likes GoneToTheCanner, Turkey liked this post
  29. #720
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, there's nothing stopping you leasing in fighter pilots as well as fighters,instructors as well as instructional aircraft. There is no shortage of jet qualified pilots who have retired or been furloughed from competent militaries the world over and there are at least two companies that I can think of, who operate ex-military aircraft on behalf of the USAF, RAF and others. You bring in a cadre of old sweats,to form the core of the unit (which incidentally, is a practise as old as the Roman Army of Caesar's time)and supplement them with a cadre of experienced IAC pilots to build up the base level. Same goes for mechs and supply and stores and kit handlers. No limit on the operation and you start off as you mean to carry on by, stating that it's a 24/7/365 operation QRA-based operation, same as the SAR system.
    You stick them in Shannon from day 1, (the civvies you hire in won't care where they operate from and the Donners can rotate on a six month basis) , revive one of the inactive runways and use that as the prime QRA runway, park a mobile crash barrier for emergencies, nominate a point in the Shannon estuary where you can dump your drop tanks or external stores if you have a crisis and cordon off a part of the ramp as exclusive to the QRA operation.
    When the Hungarians got the Gripen, they reckoned it would take five years to bring their lads and their systems up to NATO standard,despite being seasoned fighter operators and they weren't far wrong. You could probably do the same here, because you would be starting from a clean sheet and would have no legacy system to clear away. You'd probably make mistakes, no doubt, but it'd be a hell of a learning curve.

  30. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, Turkey, Jetjock, Tempest liked this post
  31. #721
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    More independent praise of the Gripen.

    Part 1


    Part 2
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  32. Likes Tempest liked this post
  33. #722
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post

    Of course there also must be a pipeline to get pilots from the PC-9 into a fast jet pilots. That issue will need to be solved concurrently alongside any potential platform selection. And from there through the various qualification stages to build up the squadrons Cat A heavy hitters like the Boss, the QWI, the qualified mission commanders and QFI's.
    Your bulk standard Gripen lease is 12 single seaters and two twins for exactly that reason.

  34. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  35. #723
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,918
    Post Thanks / Like
    The way it is now with aircraft like the PC-21,the putative Gripen pilot need not fire a shot in training, right up to and including flying the fighter. Modern air arms took basic gunnery and rocketry out of the syllabus when aircraft systems and simulators and other ground training devices have meant that there are fighter pilots whose only weapons experience is the annual pistol shoot. They can practise in the sim and then go fly in PC-9s and PC-21s and happily blast away imaginary weapons all day long.
    You could find yourself literally never firing a shot until someone asks you to lash off a few AIM-9s coming to the end of their lives.
    In essence,the whole deal is quite doable.You'd put a few noses out of joint and the usual suspects would moan about it but it'd be good for the national interest in being seen to police our own airspace.

  36. Likes Jetjock liked this post
  37. #724
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    An alternative would be to expand on our relationship with Pilatus and add a small number of PC21 to the fleet.
    A further alternative and albeit more affordable is to upgrade the PC-9M cockpits to the latest digital PC-21 LIFT configuration and upgrade the PT6A-62 engines to get a level of performance closer to the PC-21 and be comparable to the T-6C Texan II. Though about 40 kts slower than the PC-21 it is still capable of delivering a substantial part of the LIFT curriculum, and any gaps can always be transferred into the type conversion syllabus of the acquired fighter.

  38. Likes Jetjock, Tempest liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 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
  •