Thanks Thanks:  259
Likes Likes:  534
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 46 of 46 FirstFirst ... 36444546
Results 1,126 to 1,140 of 1140
  1. #1126
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    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.

  2. #1127
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Anzac; Yesterday at 00:11.

  3. Thanks na grohmití, DeV, pym, meridian, Graylion thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, meridian, Tempest liked this post
  4. #1128
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    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.

  5. #1129
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    I can really see the Air Corps stumping up USD$240m for a Saab Global Eye and at minimum you'd need two. / sarc off

    http://www.janes.com/article/68189/i...saab-globaleye
    as opposed to 140M$ system cost per Swordfish?

  6. #1130
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    ... 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.

  7. #1131
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    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.

  8. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  9. #1132
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    as opposed to 140M$ system cost per Swordfish?
    Yes.

    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.
    Last edited by Anzac; Yesterday at 10:36.

  10. Likes ropebag, Sparky42 liked this post
  11. #1133
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    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.

  12. Likes ropebag, Spark23 liked this post
  13. #1134
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    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

  14. #1135
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Existing purchase plan:

    3 * PC-12NG: 15 M€ altogether
    2 * Casa 295 MPA: 100 M€
    1 * Learjet replacement ?? M€
    115 M€

  15. #1136
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    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

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Existing purchase plan:

    3 * PC-12NG: 15 M€ altogether
    2 * Casa 295 MPA: 100 M€
    1 * Learjet replacement ?? M€
    115 M€
    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.

  16. Likes DeV, ropebag, na grohmití liked this post
  17. #1137
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    ...1 * Learjet replacement ?? M€
    115 M€
    What?

    Like, what the actual ****?

    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?

  18. Likes DeV liked this post
  19. #1138
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    304
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    What?

    Like, what the actual ****?

    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?
    I think its 115M all in!!

  20. Thanks ropebag thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  21. #1139
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,319
    Post Thanks / Like
    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!

  22. #1140
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have tried to write this up a bit more precisely and readably (no idea why the table is so far down, please scroll. Sorry 'bout that):


















































































































    Number Plane Price per instance investment




    Original plan




    3 PC-12 Spectre M€5.0 M€15.0
    2 C-295 MPA M€50.0 M€100.0
    1 Learjet replacement (PC-24) M€8.5 M€8.5







    M€123.5




    Alternative plan




    5 ISTAR/MPA twin (Avanti or King Air 350 ER) M€20.0 M€100.0
    2 King Air C-90GTx for twin conversion and light utility M€3.4 M€6.8
    1 PC-24 VIP transport M€8.5 M€8.5
    1 PC-24 air ambulance M€9.0 M€9.0







    M€124.3
    Conditions: abandon indigenous transport capability and join EATC, Make VIP transport and Air Ambulance available to EATC



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •