Originally posted by CTU
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Defending the Irish airspace
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ropebag View Postno, you're confusing tasks that are time critical and those that are fuel critical. if they are based near Dublin and have to go out on a Bear hunt you've used the best part of 300 miles of their (already limited) range on communting. if they are based at Shannon and have to put manners on some GA idiot over Dublin they can still be intimidating him in 14 minutes - thats, reasonably, enough time.
Conningsby is further from London than Shannon is from Dublin.
Baldonnels location might useful for Air Policing over Dublin, but it has huge disadvantages with being so close to a large population centre - your Gripens are going to make a lot of noise, and the noise generated by a Gripen at MTOW going balls-to-the-wall is not something to be sniffed at.
of course, the best option is to base all AC aircraft at some base out on the west coast, and if you felt the need for particular occasions like EU summits etc.. you could forward deploy to Dublin.
Comment
-
I had a bit of a poke at cost per flight hour
F-35 $32,500
F-22A Raptor - $68,362
F-15C Eagle - $41,921
F-15E Strike Eagle - $32,094
F-16C Fighting Falcon - $22,514
A-10C Thunderbolt II (Warthog) $17,716
Rafale $18,000
Typhoon $6,800
(no source given)
and according to the wikipaedia article abut the Gripen
A 2012 Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting study compared the operational costs of a number of modern combat aircraft, concluding that Gripen had the lowest cost per flight hour (CPFH) when fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs were combined. The Gripen had an estimated CPFH of US$4,700 whereas the next lowest, the F-16 Block 40/50, had a 49% higher CPFH at $7,000.
That sounds pretty conclusive.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View PostThere has been a discussion about range and how far an aircraft would have to fly, and it is not as big as many think.
The best I could find to illustrate is the following link:
https://notaminfo.com/irelandmap
There are three things I think are getting a bit mixed:
(a) Irish sovereign airscape, the 12 mile limit.
(b) Irish controlled airspace, that which is under the control of the Shannon FIR.
(c) EEZ, this has no relation to airspace, at least not yet.
So basically we are concerned with the first two and what the sharp eyed will notice is they do not always match. That is because ATC like to have straight lines. So not all Irish control airspace is Irish sovereign airspace, there are parts of NI airspace in the Shannon FIR. And on the other side not all Irish sovereign airspace (most off Donegal) is within the Shannon FIR (It is similar with the SAR areas).
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostThere is no road in Ireland straight enough over 800 metres to achieve BAS90 unfortunately
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostI'm considering getting a BMW R1250RT and a Mutsubishi Outlander PHEV. This is after I remodel the bathroom and rewire the house.
(None of the above can be completed during the current financial year but will remain under consideration until sufficient funds allow.)
I wont be getting too excited until a delegation from Saab, mcDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics are seen measuring the runway at Baldonnel.
Future equipment procurements will be researched on Done DealCovid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmiti View PostI last heard it in 1994, and to say my eardrums were offended is an understatement. You can feel the damage being done as it literally tears apart the air around it.
No clip will do justice to how horrible it sounds. That crackle noise is when you try to stick your fist into your ear to block it out.
Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Graylion View PostI had a bit of a poke at cost per flight hour
F-35 $32,500
F-22A Raptor - $68,362
F-15C Eagle - $41,921
F-15E Strike Eagle - $32,094
F-16C Fighting Falcon - $22,514
A-10C Thunderbolt II (Warthog) $17,716
Rafale $18,000
Typhoon $6,800
(no source given)
and according to the wikipaedia article abut the Gripen
A 2012 Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting study compared the operational costs of a number of modern combat aircraft, concluding that Gripen had the lowest cost per flight hour (CPFH) when fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs were combined. The Gripen had an estimated CPFH of US$4,700 whereas the next lowest, the F-16 Block 40/50, had a 49% higher CPFH at $7,000.
That sounds pretty conclusive.
There is the F-16C at $22,514 and then the F-16 Block 40/50 (also a C model) at $7,000
The Rafale at $18,000 and the Typhoon at $6,800. This puts the Typhoon not only much lower than the very similar Rafale but lower than the F-16 Block 40/50.
Unless all the details of the calculation are known and are the same or at least very similar such as number of flight hours per year such figures are virtually meanless. For example in 2009 the German Airforce calculated the CPFH of the Eurofighter at 73.992 Euro.
http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/027/1702787.pdf
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
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/
Comment
-
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostIf 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.
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.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Comment
Comment