air force exercise

[tamada]

Crikey, those Alpha jets must have loads of hours on the airframes, they've been flying for years. I wonder if they were purchased second hand.

What? Longer than Nok's 737's?

[Earnest]

Dunno, how old are Nok's 737s?

[Earnest]

Dunno, how old are Nok's 737s?

[JimboPSM]

Crikey, those Alpha jets must have loads of hours on the airframes, they've been flying for years. I wonder if they were purchased second hand.

The Royal Thai Air Force acquired 25 “Alpha Jet A” aircraft in 1999 from the German Air Force.

20 of them were acquired for operational purpose and 5 for utilisation as spares.

It is not clear exactly how many of the 20 are currently operational (reported numbers vary from 17 to 19) so it appears that at least one of the Alpha Jets has been decommissioned.

.

[JimboPSM]

Dunno, how old are Nok's 737s?

According to data from flightradar24 the average age of the Nok Air fleet of 13 Boeing 737-8 aircraft is 7.8 years with the youngest model being 4 years old and the oldest being 15 years old.

By way of comparison, the average age of the 409 Boeing 737-8 aircraft in the Ryanair fleet is 9.5 years with the youngest model being 3 years old and the oldest being 18 years old.

.

[Earnest]

I see, thank you.

[tamada]

But Nok's fleet are higher mileage, especially when compared with the Alpha that crashed.

[Udon Map]

According to data from flightradar24 the average age of the Nok Air fleet of 13 Boeing 737-8 aircraft is 7.8 years with the youngest model being 4 years old and the oldest being 15 years old.

By way of comparison, the average age of the 409 Boeing 737-8 aircraft in the Ryanair fleet is 9.5 years with the youngest model being 3 years old and the oldest being 18 years old.

But Nok's fleet are higher mileage, especially when compared with the Alpha that crashed.

Age of the airframe is relatively insignificant. The last B-52 delivered to the U.S. Air Force was in 1962, 60 years ago this year. And they're still flying. It's the number of cycles that is more significant for the airframe. Flight hours do matter for the engines, but it's much easier (and less expensive) to re-engine an airframe than to replace the whole thing.

[Earnest]

We used to base everything on airframe flying hours in the RAF rather than cycles. For example, we had 25 hour and 50 hour maintenance packages stepping up to 150 (primary) 300 (Primary Star) and 600 (Minor) hours maintenance. Our Major maintenance was at 2400 flying hours.

Are you still awake?

[parrot]

I flew on RC135s during my AF career......1971, 1977-1984, intermittently between 1984-1995. The airframes started flying in the early 1960's and they're very active today.
The article is from 2008......50,000 hour mark for tail number 132. I'll guess many thousands more since then.

[Bandung_Dero]

Getting back on track:-
Had a number of jet aircraft playing games over our Tambon, 17 km NE of Ban Dung this morning. Too high to determine who, what, where or why, but making a kee load of noise.

PS. Moderators:- kee is acceptable but shillt is not?????

[jackspratt]

Getting back on track:-
Had a number of jet aircraft playing games over our Tambon, 17 km NE of Ban Dung this morning. Too high to determine who, what, where or why, but making a kee load of noise.

PS. Moderators:- kee is acceptable but shillt is not?????

As I understand it, the censored naughty words are a function of google or windows - not the forum mods.

With the exception of the ultimate naughty word in the Thai context - k i n g.

[Bandung_Dero]

I don't quite buy that, just type some words into the google search engine - there is no censorship there??

[Potamoi]

PS. Moderators:- kee is acceptable but shillt is not?????

As I understand it, the censored naughty words are a function of google or windows - not the forum mods.

With the exception of the ultimate naughty word in the Thai context - k i n g.

I reckon it is a function of phpBB, the backend forum software, to censor rude or disallowed words. I suppose there are some word replacements left up to the site admin in some type of cpanel and others that are the standard -----, ***** variety

https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=920945

[FrazeeDK]

keep your fingers crossed. The Thai AF has been improving the Nam Phong airstrip for a while supposedly with Singaporean AF funding. Once that is completed the rumor is that larger exercises like this will fly out of that base rather than Udon RTAFB. That might miff the hoteliers housing the dozens (if not hundreds) of participants but I'm sure KK will haippily step up to the plate for that... Here's a Google Map Sat image of Nam Phong. You can see the construction/extension repairing of the strip. Don't know the date of the shot...https://www.google.co.th/maps/@16.65335 ... !1e3?hl=th

[parrot]

Depending on what you want to believe, the current agreement between Udon/Singapore is until 2028, but there's hope that by 2026 the Nam Phong air strip will be ready.........which doesn't mean the Singapore AF or Udon will be ready. But Udon officials certainly have been taking heat for the noise levels.
https://www.thansettakij.com/economy/provincial/519650
https://siamrath.co.th/n/334508

[Khun Paul]

One of the problems as I see it is the way the RTAF commands, the same problem as Bangkok, refusing to move out of Don Muang made it plain the only expansion was to construct another Airport.
When militarily the need to have a Airbase inside the City limits is now pointless due to improvement in planes for the Airforce.
Heathrow was a Fighter station but moved for Civilian expansion.
Udon needs to expand BUT the RTAF thwart it most pf the time citing security requirements, which is utter balderdash.

[Earnest]

I flew on RC135s during my AF career......1971, 1977-1984, intermittently between 1984-1995. The airframes started flying in the early 1960's and they're very active today.
The article is from 2008......50,000 hour mark for tail number 132. I'll guess many thousands more since then.

You were crewing Rivet Joint? Yeah, I've never seen 50K flying hours on an airframe. The most is 12K, I suppose.

[tamada]

One of the problems as I see it is the way the RTAF commands, the same problem as Bangkok, refusing to move out of Don Muang made it plain the only expansion was to construct another Airport.
When militarily the need to have a Airbase inside the City limits is now pointless due to improvement in planes for the Airforce.
Heathrow was a Fighter station but moved for Civilian expansion.
Udon needs to expand BUT the RTAF thwart it most pf the time citing security requirements, which is utter balderdash.

Refusing to move? Don Mueang belongs to the RTAF. They own it. Who could ever make them move? Bangkok needed a new airport because DMK couldn't be expanded, not because the owners wouldn't leave. The AOT must pay a whopping rent for those runways.

Don Muang was on the outskirts of Bangkok once so this "military value" theory is nonsense. Bangkok simply grew around it. London Heathrow was never a "fighter station" either.

Udon International Airport is operated by the DOA. There was some talk of it being transferred to AOT operatorship along with a few other domestic airports but Covid scuppered a lot of plans.

The balderdash is this fanciful notion of the RTAF thwarting commercial plans for Udon International. They're happy to bank the rent, landing fees, etc.. same as Don Meuang.

[FrazeeDK]

and I suspect any rent/fees/cash goes in a large portion to the base commander. That certainly would be an enticement to want further expansion of the civilian portion of the airport and international flights.

I wonder if the monies inputted into the various bureaucracies are divvied up similar to old British Navy Prize Court stipulations with the Commanding Admiral getting his mandated piece of the pie then on downwards to ship Captains and even the lower decks getting their pittance..