Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

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

  • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
    Do we actually need the PC-9s?
    Yes. Because they cover the Basic and Advanced course on the one platform.

    Originally posted by Graylion View Post
    I don't see them doing anything useful really. Basic flight training can be done in something smaller (Diamond 20?). Then graduate to twins on DA-42 MPP, which also fills the light ISTAR slot. And then a few Swordfish on the Saab 2000 or the Q-400 platform. Add a PC-24 for VIPs and there's your fixed win fleet. Evetually add a few GlobalEyes
    Having MEPT and APT on the Diamond DA22 is even a worse idea than my lot did when we went straight from the CT-4E onto the Kingair to save money. It was a false economy and there was a marked drop in type conversion readiness for operational flying. Remember you are training military pilots not First Officers for ATR72's

    BTW. What on earth would the Air Corps require a Global Eyes AEW&C for?
    Last edited by Anzac; 18 September 2017, 16:39.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      Look at where we are contributing, the amount of personnel, the mission and the ROE.
      i did, thats why i mentioned them. perhaps, given that the aircraft won't be armed, the Irish ROE aren't really applicable - though given the lack of a DAS, the ROE of other interested parties on the ground might be of some relevence...

      Originally posted by DeV View Post
      This is a generational jump for the AC, nowhere have I said that it is into current generation. It isn't a Shadow or similar.
      to be frank, why buy it then?

      Originally posted by DeV View Post
      The tender gives the options for it potentially to be used overseas, with additional sensors and DAS.
      unless you can give it an additional engine, it'll be going nowhere...

      Originally posted by DeV View Post
      I didn't say that it would going in on an initial air strike with F117s and cruise missiles (guess what neither will the rest of the DF)!
      given that the F117 left operational service nearly a decade ago, i would rather hope not...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
        Yes. Because they cover the Basic and Advanced course on the one platform.?
        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.

        Comment


        • 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.
          i may as well ask, what would be the ideal set up?

          if the operational airframes are rotary, CASA, PC-12 and Learjet, is there a pipeline that works, or is producing tiny numbers of crew for these disparate types akin to a money fired power station and instead they should all just be sent to the US/France/UK whatever?

          cheers.

          Comment


          • It has been stated here previously that the PC-9's were justified by virtue of the fact that it would mean foreign aircraft wouldn't be required to police airspace during high level conferences, visits by US presidents etc.

            They do provide a basic air policing role, however limited. We see foreign air forces utilise helicopters etc. for the same role, despite possessing frontline fighter aircraft.

            They make no sense as a purely training platform.
            Last edited by pym; 18 September 2017, 20:07.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
              i may as well ask, what would be the ideal set up? if the operational airframes are rotary, CASA, PC-12 and Learjet, is there a pipeline that works, or is producing tiny numbers of crew for these disparate types akin to a money fired power station and instead they should all just be sent to the US/France/UK whatever?
              cheers.
              No easy Answer really, however IMHO the PC-9 was the wrong choice and swallowed up a huge chunk of available capital. There is some sensitivity around keeping pilot training in house, I'm not sure I agree but there is certainly that feeling in the AC. Most likely a discussion for a different thread but here's a couple of options off the top of my head.

              1. Keep the SF-260's, add a few, and upgrade all to a common standard and invest enough funds to reduce the significant down time they experienced, add a multi engine trainer, Two King Air C-90's would be my choice. Total expenditure 10M leaves 50M plus for investment in the operational fleet.

              2. Buy a new training system, based around 8-10 modern single engine high performance aircraft and 4-6 similar twin engine aircraft. Again expenditure of 10-15M..

              The training system should be sized and equipped to produce competent multi engine IFR rated pilots.

              50m would be buy quite a few C-295's, King Air 350's, AW-139's..

              Comment


              • Us special forces and the afghan airforce both use the pc12 in the istar role, both have a little bit of experience of combat. As for its suitability for warzones, the brits took 651 Sqn defenders to Iraq and Afghanistan.

                As for air combat, how many planes did the USAF shoot shown between june 1991 and this year.
                Last edited by paul g; 18 September 2017, 20:18.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                  No easy Answer really, however IMHO the PC-9 was the wrong choice and swallowed up a huge chunk of available capital. There is some sensitivity around keeping pilot training in house, I'm not sure I agree but there is certainly that feeling in the AC. Most likely a discussion for a different thread but here's a couple of options off the top of my head.

                  1. Keep the SF-260's, add a few, and upgrade all to a common standard and invest enough funds to reduce the significant down time they experienced, add a multi engine trainer, Two King Air C-90's would be my choice. Total expenditure 10M leaves 50M plus for investment in the operational fleet.

                  2. Buy a new training system, based around 8-10 modern single engine high performance aircraft and 4-6 similar twin engine aircraft. Again expenditure of 10-15M..

                  The training system should be sized and equipped to produce competent multi engine IFR rated pilots.

                  50m would be buy quite a few C-295's, King Air 350's, AW-139's..
                  Don't think you costing that right. The AC spent €48.4m on 4 AW139s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                    i did, thats why i mentioned them. perhaps, given that the aircraft won't be armed, the Irish ROE aren't really applicable - though given the lack of a DAS, the ROE of other interested parties on the ground might be of some Relevance
                    the ROE comes from the mandate and is related (generally) to the threat faced

                    UNDOF afaik has no air support whatsoever
                    UNIFIL has Italian AB212


                    to be frank, why buy it then?
                    why do we retain 5/6 Cessnas currently? Those jobs need doing, the AC will replace them with a much more capable platform



                    unless you can give it an additional engine, it'll be going nowhere...
                    (a) who says it is intended to (b) who says it won't

                    I was shot down (pun not intended) for suggesting that the Cessna replacement be a twin engined



                    given that the F117 left operational service nearly a decade ago, i would rather hope not...
                    B2s then .... you see where i was coming from

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Anzac View Post

                      BTW. What on earth would the Air Corps require a Global Eyes AEW&C for?
                      Contribution to joint missions. As discussed above

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by paul g View Post
                        Us special forces and the afghan airforce both use the pc12 in the istar role, both have a little bit of experience of combat. As for its suitability for warzones, the brits took 651 Sqn defenders to Iraq and Afghanistan...
                        both with a decent DAS, and in the context of full spectrum air dominance - but, you know, apart from that...

                        Comment


                        • ...and plentiful combat SAR on hand if a PC -12 should suffer an engine failure and prang in the Afghan countryside.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            why do we retain 5/6 Cessnas currently? Those jobs need doing...
                            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.
                            Last edited by pym; 18 September 2017, 22:19.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pym View Post
                              ..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.
                              like the PC-9M's, like the AW-139's - the foundation assets are there, but without the brickwork of the additional hardware and the skills and experience of the people, its nothing but foundations.

                              for another 30 years.

                              any of those platforms - with the right tweaks and additional equipment - would be useful assets to a force commander in somewhere like Chad or Mali, but without them, and without the skills to use them, they are yet another wasted opportunity.

                              its buying a Ferrari and converting it to LPG and sticking cheap Chinese tyres on it. you may as well wipe your arse with €50 notes...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                                Contribution to joint missions. As discussed above
                                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

                                Janes | The latest defence and security news from Janes - the trusted source for defence intelligence

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X