Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

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

  • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Interesting take from IDFOC. If you don't want a 2nd squadron of fighters, you need a tanker(or 2).
    It is an interesting take but I have some doubts if QRA should be used to justify a MRTT like a KC130J, KC390 or even a A400M tanker. An Airbus A330 MRTT or Boeing KC-46 would be overkill. Having said that MRTT aircraft do allow operational flexibility and if I had the magical 2% budget I would see them in the AC, however the QRA argument is not so clear cut.

    Just to touch base on just what would be the minimum number of fighters required, 8. That is 4 on QRA duty, 2 for training and 2 in maintenance. And in order to have 24/& QRA cover you need a minimum of around 32 pilots each needing around 200 hrs p.a. so that the aircraft are worn out after 10 years. What the aircraft for longer multiply the numbers.

    So how many MRTT aircraft would be needed? Well 1 for QRA plus 1 back-up, 1 in maintenance and because it is being sold as a tanker/transport at least 1 for transport duties. Even if the tankers are individually more expensive than the fighters (JAS-39s) the total cost is still less, so far so good. But the tankers need two pilot and a loadmaster each, and given that the requirements on pilots will be similar to what is needed on the fighters we need 24-32 pilots. These will also need a minimum number of flight hours p.a even if a lot can be done with simulators and this is where the higher cost per flight hour will begin to eat away at the potential cost benefit.

    And then I do doubt the need, a QRA set-up will need a ready pair with aback-up pair should there be any issue with the first aircraft. So while the first pair are off on the intercept the second can be made ready for launch. This means that if fuel becomes an issue replacement aircraft can be sent up. True the RAF launch a tanker when they scamble their QRA fighters but the UK Air Defence Zone is a great deal larger than what we have so fuel is more an issue. Launching from Lossie, flying north to take over from the Norwegians between the Faroes and Shetland Islands, then down the west coast of Ireland before handing off to French or the QRA South from Coningsby requires a lot of juice.

    IMHO it would be better investing is more than the minimum number of fighters not only to extend the service life of the system but to increase the robustness also.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      It is an interesting take but I have some doubts if QRA should be used to justify a MRTT like a KC130J, KC390 or even a A400M tanker. An Airbus A330 MRTT or Boeing KC-46 would be overkill. Having said that MRTT aircraft do allow operational flexibility and if I had the magical 2% budget I would see them in the AC, however the QRA argument is not so clear cut.

      Just to touch base on just what would be the minimum number of fighters required, 8. That is 4 on QRA duty, 2 for training and 2 in maintenance. And in order to have 24/& QRA cover you need a minimum of around 32 pilots each needing around 200 hrs p.a. so that the aircraft are worn out after 10 years. What the aircraft for longer multiply the numbers.

      So how many MRTT aircraft would be needed? Well 1 for QRA plus 1 back-up, 1 in maintenance and because it is being sold as a tanker/transport at least 1 for transport duties. Even if the tankers are individually more expensive than the fighters (JAS-39s) the total cost is still less, so far so good. But the tankers need two pilot and a loadmaster each, and given that the requirements on pilots will be similar to what is needed on the fighters we need 24-32 pilots. These will also need a minimum number of flight hours p.a even if a lot can be done with simulators and this is where the higher cost per flight hour will begin to eat away at the potential cost benefit.

      And then I do doubt the need, a QRA set-up will need a ready pair with aback-up pair should there be any issue with the first aircraft. So while the first pair are off on the intercept the second can be made ready for launch. This means that if fuel becomes an issue replacement aircraft can be sent up. True the RAF launch a tanker when they scamble their QRA fighters but the UK Air Defence Zone is a great deal larger than what we have so fuel is more an issue. Launching from Lossie, flying north to take over from the Norwegians between the Faroes and Shetland Islands, then down the west coast of Ireland before handing off to French or the QRA South from Coningsby requires a lot of juice.

      IMHO it would be better investing is more than the minimum number of fighters not only to extend the service life of the system but to increase the robustness also.
      the previous GOC has stated that a true QRA would require 16 airframes- a near doubling in the size of the IAC- it's not happening in my lifetime!
      (unless the EU made us, in which case there would be uproar with the public)

      Comment


      • The twitter thread seems to suggest, once you go down the Military air transport route, have at least one airframe capable of being used as a tanker. KC130 Seems the obvious choice.

        All these discussions are dependent on the realisation that Ireland needs to start investing in defence, immediately, accepting that the initial cost of gaining capability either lost or as yet not held will be high, but maintaining that capability is far cheaper. Ireland needs to make adult decisions about the future of defence, this is one of them. The other option is to suggest funding a flight of RAF Typhoons in Aldergrove, to look after our airspace, and to do so publicly, explaining the reasons why we can't do it ourselves.
        Or should we wait for the inevitable mid air collision west of Shannon?
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • I would agree that if we were to go down the military transporter route it would be wise to have some of them as dual rolled. And I would stick a probe on the C-295s to extend their loiter times.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            The other option is to suggest funding a flight of RAF Typhoons in Aldergrove, to look after our airspace, and to do so publicly, explaining the reasons why we can't do it ourselves.
            The HSE would never cope. There aren't enough Stroke facilities in the country....
            'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
            'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
            Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
            He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
            http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

            Comment


            • you'd need to fund a fleet of outrage buses....

              Comment


              • I would wonder how useful/applicable/useable a tanking capability on the C-295 - akin to that on the A400M - would be...

                Lets say you have the two MPA C-295's, and have an additional two cargo C-295's (I've written before about how I think they are a completely unsuitable airframe, but we'll ignore that for the moment...), put hose pods on all four, and it's a reasonable probability that you'll have one of those aircraft available for tanking duties should you need it...

                It's not the perfect answer by any stretch of the imagination - I've no idea of the fuel figures, it may be that filling up two Gripens 100 miles west of Donegal would empty the thing - but looking at a usable capability is better than looking for a perfect capability that you can't afford.

                Thoughts?
                Last edited by ropebag; 13 December 2020, 10:18.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                  I would wonder how useful/applicable/useable a tanking capability on the C-295 - akin to that on the A400M - would be...

                  Lets you have to the two MPA C-295's, and have an additional two cargo C-295's (I've written before about how I think they are a completely unsuitable airframe, but we'll ignore that for the moment...), put hose pods on all four, and it's a reasonable probability that you'll have one of those aircraft available for tanking duties should you need it...

                  It's not the perfect answer by any stretch of the imagination - I've no idea of the fuel figures, it may be that filling up two Gripens 100 miles west of Donegal would empty the thing - but looking at a usable capability is better than looking for a perfect capability that you can't afford.

                  Thoughts?
                  This is exactly why I was suggesting buddy tankers earlier on. USN have been doing so for years since they lost the dedicated Carrier based tanker in the KA6D and KA3B. Much less plumbing involved too.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                    I would wonder how useful/applicable/useable a tanking capability on the C-295 - akin to that on the A400M - would be...

                    Lets say you have the two MPA C-295's, and have an additional two cargo C-295's (I've written before about how I think they are a completely unsuitable airframe, but we'll ignore that for the moment...), put hose pods on all four, and it's a reasonable probability that you'll have one of those aircraft available for tanking duties should you need it...

                    It's not the perfect answer by any stretch of the imagination - I've no idea of the fuel figures, it may be that filling up two Gripens 100 miles west of Donegal would empty the thing - but looking at a usable capability is better than looking for a perfect capability that you can't afford.

                    Thoughts?
                    Airbus does have a modification to turn the C-295 into a tanker. It workd for refueling other C295 or helicopters although tanking a fighter jet such as the Gripen is a challenge. While we do see fighter jets performing at low speeds these are usually piloted by test pilots and require a great deal of skill. Also how would it work on F-16s?

                    https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...-a-tanker.html

                    This would be of more use in extending the endurance of the C-295 MPA aircraft especially when they are acting in support of a very long range SAR mission.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      This is exactly why I was suggesting buddy tankers earlier on. USN have been doing so for years since they lost the dedicated Carrier based tanker in the KA6D and KA3B. Much less plumbing involved too.
                      Buddy tanking was popular at one time with many air forces but has fallen out of fashion. The USN do still have the capability with their Rhinos but they are about the only ones and even they want to get rid of it hence the MQ-25. It relies on the aircraft being equipped and qualified to act as a tanker. It is a bit more then just sticking a pod under the tanker aircraft which usually has to be a 2 seater, the back seater being responsible for the tanking operation. And of course it can only be done on probe equipped aircraft which is one reason why it is not as popular as it once was.

                      Comment


                      • I think the big reason the USN fell out of love with it is that F/A-18's doing tanking for other F/A-18's was burning through the fleet hours like it was going out of fashion - I think I saw a stat that suggested that something like 50% of all flying hours were doing tanking ops/trg....

                        If it's worth the USN's time and money to develop a carrier-bourne UAV to do the tanking task it's got to be some burden on the F/A-18 fleet...

                        I've had a look at wiki (I know...) which suggests that the C-295 has a maximum internal fuel load of 7,000 litres - while a Gripen has 3,000l internal - so not including external tanks - which would suggest that filling up two Gripens would leave your tanker with 1,000l for getting there, doing the tanking, getting back and having spare for a diversion.

                        That sounds a bit, umm... snug.

                        Comment


                        • Just looking at the logistics of using a buddy system for QRA seems a bit of a waste.
                          Each buddy aircraft could only really tank one other aircraft, hence the name buddy.
                          But if you are sending out two fully fueled fighters just to tank two other fighters why just not get them to take over the mission?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                            I think the big reason the USN fell out of love with it is that F/A-18's doing tanking for other F/A-18's was burning through the fleet hours like it was going out of fashion - I think I saw a stat that suggested that something like 50% of all flying hours were doing tanking ops/trg....

                            If it's worth the USN's time and money to develop a carrier-bourne UAV to do the tanking task it's got to be some burden on the F/A-18 fleet...

                            I've had a look at wiki (I know...) which suggests that the C-295 has a maximum internal fuel load of 7,000 litres - while a Gripen has 3,000l internal - so not including external tanks - which would suggest that filling up two Gripens would leave your tanker with 1,000l for getting there, doing the tanking, getting back and having spare for a diversion.

                            That sounds a bit, umm... snug.
                            Is more than tight if it is a E model which has more than 4,000lt or a Rafale which is closer to 6,000lt.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                              I think the big reason the USN fell out of love with it is that F/A-18's doing tanking for other F/A-18's was burning through the fleet hours like it was going out of fashion - I think I saw a stat that suggested that something like 50% of all flying hours were doing tanking ops/trg....

                              If it's worth the USN's time and money to develop a carrier-bourne UAV to do the tanking task it's got to be some burden on the F/A-18 fleet...

                              I've had a look at wiki (I know...) which suggests that the C-295 has a maximum internal fuel load of 7,000 litres - while a Gripen has 3,000l internal - so not including external tanks - which would suggest that filling up two Gripens would leave your tanker with 1,000l for getting there, doing the tanking, getting back and having spare for a diversion.

                              That sounds a bit, umm... snug.
                              Does wiki suggest that this internal fuel load is carried in the hold?
                              Sweden uses the KC130H in the tanker role, and is well able to refuel its Gripen fleet. They also have 5 C130H, keeping a nice pool of pilots between the 6 Hercs. This in my opinion is the best solution.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • I think we can safely consign the C-295 tanker to the 'mouse-rape-elephant bucket of effectiveness...

                                I'm actually really surprised at how little fuel it carries (might be worth someone checking that figure though, it's very small. It (apparently) only carries marginally more fuel than a Rafael, Typhoon, and rather less than an F-15 with FAST packs....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X