PDA

View Full Version : Bell 212 -Answer to A/C Problems?



yellowjacket
24th November 2003, 15:44
Is the (Agusta) Bell 212 the answer to Irish military helicopter needs for the moment?

http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/1/5/1/376151.jpghttp://www.airliners.net/photos/small/9/2/6/341629.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/6/2/6/341626.jpghttp://www.airliners.net/photos/small/7/2/6/341627.jpg

Apparently these are available for about $1m on the international market, are in widespread use worldwide, plenty of upgrades available, have a useful capacity etc. They use the PT6 engine, which will also be used in the PC9s.

Would it be economically viable to purchase a decent number (10?) of these, upgrade/overhaul and put them in service?

The idea would not be to use them in a civilian SAR role, concentrating on military usage.

Downsides?

Come-quickly
24th November 2003, 15:54
As I've said before I'm a big fan of the idea as a replacement for the LUH fleet.
In this role its main limitation would be a thirstier engine than is neccesary for some of the IACs"breadand butter duties".
On the other hand if it was to be employed as an MLH, its lacks range and payload as compared to the Sea King class of helicopters.
All that said it would be a good leap forward in capabilities.

Aidan
24th November 2003, 16:25
Downsides?

It'd cost money, which is about it.

They'd give the AC a genuine military capacity, theres a relatively good supply of parts available from commercial (hence competitive) sources, they can perform Casevac, transport, liason and would even be very suitable for overseas deployment. Would have a useful role in SOF support too.

8 or ideally 10 would be a nice round figure. But it'd cost money.

Come-quickly
24th November 2003, 16:39
No better way of saying it old boy:D
But the question is how much

yellowjacket
24th November 2003, 16:41
Spend say $1.5m on purchasing decent examples. Another $1m each on upgrades.
For 10 that still has you on $25m. What would other costs be like?

Turkey
24th November 2003, 20:44
How much extra capablity over the A111's would they really give us? possably a silly question, I know, but induldge me a moment; would the extra expense be justified, or would we be better off retaining , and expanding the A111 fleet[if suitable s/hand examples could be obtained]?
Then effords could be concentrated on getting something to replace the D2's, which would prefferably be a medium machine.
Do not get me wrong, the 212 does look and sound the busness, which ironicaly enough in a bigger part of defence then most of [even] us would admit, and the power-plant commonality is not something to be sneezed at, but unless there is sufficent advantage over current equipment, to outweigh the added expense, then the idea ain't going to fly.
BTW YJ t'is a better idea then your Air Corps splittin' post, IMHO, keep them comming!!!:cool:

nonexistantfoo
25th November 2003, 01:38
Just thought I'd sound out this suggestion. If SAR is not to be a main role of the Air Corps of the future, is the replacement of the A3/D2 with a single light helecopter type such as the UH-1Y not the most logical thing to do forgetting completely about ML heli's for at least 10 years or so.

Would 10/12 of the brand new, and thus probably damn expensive UH-1Y's be financially and operationally viable, bought over 5 or 6 years? Would they satisfactorily cover the troop transport role in the absence of ML heli's?

I'm just curious, I don't know, its probably a rubbish idea. If so say as much :)

http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/aircraft/military/bell_uh-1y.html

Come-quickly
25th November 2003, 11:06
Originally posted by Turkey
How much extra capablity over the A111's would they really give us? possably a silly question, I know, but induldge me a moment; would the extra expense be justified, or would we be better off retaining , and expanding the A111 fleet[if suitable s/hand examples could be obtained]?

They could carry a section for a start, we don't need more AIIIs, we don't need more than 8 LUHs, if we had 212s all the possible benefits of the AIII except running costs would be moot.
I doesnt just look the business it is the business as far as meeting our needs for less than 8 figures goes.
NEFOO: The UH-1Y is going to be a very good aircraft for its purpose but dont forget we are talking a bout a compromise substitute for S-92/Cougar type aircraft, new build UH-1Ys would cost at least a much as an IAR-330 which would be amuch better choice for us.
YJs point is fundamentally sound, as he said its the best available solution not the best possible: 212s would give the IAC MLH operating experience , greatly enhance the mobility and safety of overseas deployments all for a minimal cost and the added benefit of shared engine economies(Don't forget the PT6 is also available for all of the Cessna replacements under consideration), the sale of Ballincollig alone would cover the procurement and training costs of a ten strong fleet and probably the first 5 years running costs as well.
In comparison what good would another 5 or even 10 AIIIs do?

Lordinajamjar
26th November 2003, 08:54
xxxxx

Come-quickly
26th November 2003, 09:59
He sounds like lots of Irish politicians, outraged about subjects on which he is pig ignorant

ONE SHOT ONE KILL
28th November 2003, 13:40
Sure didn't we sell some barracks a while back and get 41 million for it. We could buy them out of that.

(MOD: annoying caps replaced by nice lower-case letters)

Come-quickly
28th November 2003, 13:54
We could buy them without it, but we wont...
Anyway the prevailing mood at Franks board among the ppl who know is that the IAC just couldnt hand;leany o/seasdeployment.

ONE SHOT ONE KILL
28th November 2003, 13:56
Well they'd better buy something with it!!

(MOD: more annoying caps replaced by nice lower-case letters)

yellowjacket
29th November 2003, 18:48
Most of the difficulties put forward point to yet more organisational difficulties in the A/C. They aren't based on technial hurdles, just the seeming inability of the organisation to adapt to different circumstances, which is hardly a desirable characteristic of a military organisation.

Come-quickly
29th November 2003, 19:58
Did you read my suggested amendments to remedy that? I dont want to sound overly inmperious but it strikes me that such a remedy would fairly simple to implement.

Aidan
30th November 2003, 16:16
it strikes me that such a remedy would fairly simple to implement.

It wouldn't, but until such a change process is undertaken, you can forget the AC getting any investment over and above what is stctly necessary (PC-9s).

Its your typical standoff, the AC blames Gov underfunding for all its ills, various Govts have looked askance at the AC and the lack of management at various levels. In practice, the only way any real change can occur is if there is a public exhibition of just how bad things are, followed by a concerted effort at reform and investment in which both the Govt/DOD and AC management. This kind of thing can happen, but it takes political effort and investment, along with a tacit acknowledgement that there is a problem in the first place. At the moment, none of these conditions exist.

Scorpy
5th December 2003, 22:45
It wouldn't, but until such a change process is undertaken, you can forget the AC getting any investment over and above what is stctly necessary (PC-9s).

Strictly necessary!!?? To do what? Train more pilots to fly fewer aircraft?? I think that the last GOC made one crucial mistake, he agreed to purchase training aircraft instead of purchasing operational aircraft. For the same amount, he could have purchased nine blackhawks. Now tell me that that is not a step up on 212s. And have a look at Franks board on what new helicopters...

Aidan
8th December 2003, 08:26
For the same amount, he could have purchased nine blackhawks

First of all, the GOC did'nt buy anything, the government did.

Secondly, Austria recently purchased 9 Uh-60L helicopters. The price was 210 million euro. The PC-9s were 60million. Thats quite a difference, and I don't think the exchange rate would make up for that.

Lurk
8th December 2003, 19:48
Price for aircraft is not the issue. Its the spec that dictates the cost. In theory, the most inexpensive airframe can be made the most expensive, if the purchasing /specification Board wants it so. The Dauphin was a prime example. It was so loaded with avionics, that it was unable to perform its intended roles. The lesson was, "too many cooks spoil the broth! Lets hope future cooks keep to the recipe.