Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Ah DeV... really? Christ I hope they have bigger plans than using them for hour building.
Re: above points about PC-12/Defender use abroad - given that a major difficulty with previous deployments (e.g. Chad) was the lack of heli support, it seems a bit sketchy sending PC-12's without DAS, places where there wont be very eh, effective CSAR support.
I can actually see a role for the PC-12 in support of long range patrols in such an environment; but no DAS, no CSAR, no deployment.
Yes hours building during AC ops (not just training flights) on aircraft that are over 40 years old
The FWUA could be the first AC aircraft with a DAS suite, those tendering have to indicate if the a/c can be fitted with a DAS, what it consists of and how much it costs.
I agree CSAR and medevac assets are strategic assets that are vital and often in short supply but the AW139 isn't necessarily suitable. It's highly unlikely we will ever have a standalone mission overseas.
Not Advocating for the Diamond System, but the PC-9 training system is perfectly designed as a cost effective lead in fighter trainer...
We don't have and most likely will never have fighters, hence the question of their suitability.
The RNZAF, who also don't have fighters and never will, found that using a small ab-initio trainer and then stepping into the advanced syllabus on the King Air was not working - it was not producing the standard of military level pilots they were after. They looked at everything from dragging out the stored MB-339's and reactivating them through to contracting out (Very Expensive) and they came to the conclusion that the T-6C the US built brother of the PC-9M with the same essential flying characteristics, a high performance single engine tandem trainer, was the best solution on both cost, capability and in meeting output objectives. Docile handling for ab-initio but able to do the kind of advanced tactical aerobatics needed to produce wings rated military pilots - whether they were going on to fly rotary, maritime patrol, tactical airlift.
The RNZAF, who also don't have fighters and never will, found that using a small ab-initio trainer and then stepping into the advanced syllabus on the King Air was not working - it was not producing the standard of military level pilots they were after. They looked at everything from dragging out the stored MB-339's and reactivating them through to contracting out (Very Expensive) and they came to the conclusion that the T-6C the US built brother of the PC-9M with the same essential flying characteristics, a high performance single engine tandem trainer, was the best solution on both cost, capability and in meeting output objectives. Docile handling for ab-initio but able to do the kind of advanced tactical aerobatics needed to produce wings rated military pilots - whether they were going on to fly rotary, maritime patrol, tactical airlift.
Interesting take on pilot training, I have a feeling the NZ airforce hang on to the possibility of replacing the fighters at some stage and continue to train for that, they also have a significantly more military focused fleet then anything in the AC fleet.
They still have a multi engine trainer to complete the training.
Maybe for them the decision makes sense, when you look at the AC fleet it is far harder to justify.
... It's highly unlikely we will ever have a standalone mission overseas.
I don't recall anyone ever suggesting otherwise - I wouldn't be surprised if the UK never mounts an entirely stand alone operation of Bde size ever again - and have a Defence budget some 40 times the size of Ireland's.
Interesting take on pilot training, I have a feeling the NZ airforce hang on to the possibility of replacing the fighters at some stage and continue to train for that, they also have a significantly more military focused fleet then anything in the AC fleet.
They still have a multi engine trainer to complete the training.
Maybe for them the decision makes sense, when you look at the AC fleet it is far harder to justify.
I do not think the training platform and methodology is the issue in the IAC but the inverse - the lack of investment in platforms which follows the training. You have got the training right and it is the building blocks to a better capability.
Because Ireland needs maritime ISR and currently have invested in this capability. It has military efficacy in your current defence force posture and Swordfish is the logical step beyond the CASA's if you want to have a platform that can swing from a domestic context to being a valid contribution in a coalition context.
However the IAC does not have institutional knowledge of AEW&C and that takes years and hundreds of millions to acquire that capability. It is the aeronautical version of subs. After decades of strike operations the RAAF and operating around 100 air combat aircraft - through Project Jericho have finally got to an institutional space where they have the institutional knowledge, budget and capability to pull a AEW&C capability off.
I do not think the training platform and methodology is the issue in the IAC but the inverse - the lack of investment in platforms which follows the training. You have got the training right and it is the building blocks to a better capability.
Certainly the lack of investment is a serious problem, but put it in context, the single biggest investment in the last 20 years was spent on training aircraft.
There is a serious argument that, that program could have been delayed(continue the wings course with SF-260 and King Air) and focused the available funds on expanding deliverable capabilities to the rest of the DF.
I have a suspicion that the current tender is designed to purchase the same aircraft type as the GS, this makes some sense, but will seriously hamper the operational capability for the next 25 years. The continued short sightedness is extremely frustrating.
I still also question the requirement for LIFT type training system for helicopter and transport pilots, IMHO the SF-260 and King Air was a perfectly acceptable training program.
I don't recall anyone ever suggesting otherwise - I wouldn't be surprised if the UK never mounts an entirely stand alone operation of Bde size ever again - and have a Defence budget some 40 times the size of Ireland's.
So then should the State decide to deploy a/c overseas in a potentially hostile environment it may have a DAS (options in the tender) and CSAR could be provided by other contributors
I have played with numbers a bit:
If we scrap the transport requirement and say we rent that from the EATC as needed, I come to this:
5 * Avanti ISTAR/MPA: @20 M€ each = 100 M€
2 * KingAir C-90GTx: @3.25 M€ each = 6.5 M€
1 * PC-24: 8.5 M€
115 M€
plus EATC
A lot of merit to a plan like this, but please stop with the Avanti, its an average corporate aircraft, but more importantly the manufacturers support is atrocious, a company in the USA tried to do fractional with it(AvantAir) and they went bust. I'm not saying it was all the aircrafts fault but it certainly didn't help.
One of the many issues with AC procurement is the tendency to buy the Mark 1 of things, there are proven platforms out there from great manufacturers with great support. Why not keep it simple.
Firstly you could buy a vastly capable and useful A319/320/321 for that kind of money, and secondly how in the name of all that's holy could anyone - whether on the internet or sat at a desk in the DoD - write down that for ISTAR they will only fork out for €5m for a hugely compromised platform, and in the same breath talk about paying €100m for something to take ministers to open an off license?
Firstly you could buy a vastly capable and useful A319/320/321 for that kind of money, and secondly how in the name of all that's holy could anyone - whether on the internet or sat at a desk in the DoD - write down that for ISTAR they will only fork out for €5m for a hugely compromised platform, and in the same breath talk about paying €100m for something to take ministers to open an off license?
re the RNZAF; there was a huge backlash at the removal of the A4s and Macchis and other aircraft and old sweats grumble still about it, not only from the loss of strike/defence capability but the institutional and national loss of trained people and their skills. It hurt the air arm to the core and some would say that it has not recovered.......quite how Oz pilots failed to make the grade from a Ct4 to a King air boggles me. I suspect it generated pilots who were not "warry" enough for F18s.....@252, the Marchettis were chopped, notionally because of the transition to a turbine only training regime. They still had plenty of life left in them and were sold for peanuts,etc,etc....I don't know why people have the notion that a turboprop trainer is cheaper to operate than a pure jet trainer like an MB 339 or an L59. Propellor costs have to be factored in and a prop for a PC-9 is not cheap. I suspect real world operating costs of Pc-9s might be a tad higher than people think.....another point; air arms these days that operate the likes of the PC 21 don't actually allow fighter students to fire any live weapons. They simulate firing on simulators and there are fighter pilots in some countries that never ever fired anything in training and may fire a missile in annual shooting practise if there is a time-ex weapon ready to be expended. I read somewhere where a Middle East air arm had pilots who fought against IS, who literally had never fired even a 30mm cannon or RP from their Hawk T2s and their fighters and their first actual live firing was stand off weapons against distant dots that were cue'd by UAVs. the mind boggles!
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment