Thanks Thanks:  276
Likes Likes:  569
Dislikes Dislikes:  16
Page 45 of 48 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,125 of 1183
  1. #1101
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Turf cutting and 'fact finding' missions to Switzerland...
    I must protest your flagrant leaking of the updated white paper.

  2. Likes ropebag, Turkey, sofa liked this post
  3. #1102
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Oh Dev...

    No operational commander is going to accept the PC-12 and the logistics train that goes with it because it's a) not far off useless, and b) so vulnerable (single engine, no DAS) that it gives him nothing but a headache.
    you missed my point, a single engine means it that it has less of a logistical tail compared to twin engine (less labour and spares intensive) and it means that potentially any AC pilot can fly it (once type rated), i.e. They don't have to have a multi engine rating first. Say we had said multi-engine - it would have ended up with the a/c being used as a multi-engine trainer being smaller than the CASA and Learjet.

    I don't think you realise just how hard up the DF is for cash, being less labour intensive (when both pilots and tech are in short supply and looking at overseas), being less fuel intensive (when cash is in short supply and looking at overseas), being cheaper to buy (when cash is in short supply), being less spares intensive (when cash is in short supply and when looking at overseas), these are al positives.

    A PC12 Spectre will be a generational leap in capability from the Cessnas.

    Who says it won't have DAS? It is allowed for in the tender!
    Last edited by DeV; 18th September 2017 at 11:23.

  4. #1103
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post

    Who says it won't have DAS? It is allowed for in the tender!
    but not in the budget. the same could be said for the ISTAR gear... you aren't buying an ISTAR/support aircraft, you're buying a single engined airframe and a pair of binoculars.

    its not cheaper to deploy them overseas than a multi-engine - either in support of other DF assets or as a contribution on their own - because they are utterly unsuitable, and bog-all use, for any kind of overseas deployment and the force generation componant will just chin the 'offer' of them off.

    yet again the IG - with the willing conivence of the AC - concentrate resouces on 'on-island' tasks and assets that are commercially compatable and run like hell from anything that might be useful to anyone outside the Linkdin bubble...

  5. Thanks The real Jack, Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes Graylion, Turkey, morpheus, Charlie252 liked this post
  6. #1104
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    but not in the budget. the same could be said for the ISTAR gear... you aren't buying an ISTAR/support aircraft, you're buying a single engined airframe and a pair of binoculars.

    its not cheaper to deploy them overseas than a multi-engine - either in support of other DF assets or as a contribution on their own - because they are utterly unsuitable, and bog-all use, for any kind of overseas deployment and the force generation componant will just chin the 'offer' of them off.

    yet again the IG - with the willing conivence of the AC - concentrate resouces on 'on-island' tasks and assets that are commercially compatable and run like hell from anything that might be useful to anyone outside the Linkdin bubble...
    Remains to be seen if the budget is there and the cost of a DAS suite offered and its capabilities, not forgetting that this will be a pressured a/c. But bear in mind the kind of AOs that the DF generally operate in.

    Go and read the tender documents!!!! at the very least must have it will have a gyro stabilised EO/IR turret with automatic video tracking with colour low light CCTV, colour HD Camera, thermal imager and laser range finder. A generation jump from a current Cessna with binos.

  7. #1105
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    DeV, simple enough question - do you see the PC-12 being deployed to provide ISR support in say an environment like Chad?

  8. #1106
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    ... A generation jump from a current Cessna with binos.
    with the greatest respect Dev, that you think this generational (two?) jump from Cessna to this PC-12 abortion makes it an effective, valued ISTAR asset in modern assymetrical conflict just highlights quite how far the DF is behind the rest of the world.

    sorry, but this is a Robinson R44 while everyone else is flying F/A-18E's and F-35's...

    single engined aircaft with no DAS prowling 20 miles off the Libyan coast? single engined aircraft with no DAS pootling over the UNFIL OAR? Mali? Chad?

  9. #1107
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like
    My understanding is that the Cessna replacement is primarily for homeland security taskings and not for overseas deployment in support of UNSC Chp VI or VII missions.

    Has the general thrust of the replacement policy changed since this article and the RFI ....

    https://flyinginireland.com/2016/10/...r-replacement/

    In a homeland security environment the PC-12 is a perfectly acceptable solution.

    If it is a discussion about a real world ISTAR solution in a contested UNSC Chp VII context then it is probably best to add more zero's when talking about the kind of cash involved and the required platform.

  10. #1108
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Do we actually need the PC-9s? 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

  11. #1109
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    My understanding is that the Cessna replacement is primarily for homeland security taskings and not for overseas deployment in support of UNSC Chp VI or VII missions.

    Has the general thrust of the replacement policy changed since this article and the RFI ....

    https://flyinginireland.com/2016/10/...r-replacement/

    In a homeland security environment the PC-12 is a perfectly acceptable solution.

    If it is a discussion about a real world ISTAR solution in a contested UNSC Chp VII context then it is probably best to add more zero's when talking about the kind of cash involved and the required platform.
    Swordfish on the Global 6000: 80M$ for the bird or 140M$ for the system

  12. #1110
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Look at where we are contributing, the amount of personnel, the mission and the ROE.

    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.

    The tender gives the options for it potentially to be used overseas, with additional sensors and DAS. 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)!

  13. #1111
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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; 18th September 2017 at 15:39.

  14. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42, DeV liked this post
  15. #1112
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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...

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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...

    Quote 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...

  16. #1113
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  17. Thanks ropebag thanked for this post
  18. #1114
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    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.
    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.

  19. Likes The real Jack liked this post
  20. #1115
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 18th September 2017 at 19:07.

  21. Likes DeV liked this post
  22. #1116
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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..

  23. #1117
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    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; 18th September 2017 at 19:18.

  24. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  25. #1118
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  26. #1119
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,640
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  27. #1120
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

  28. #1121
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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...

  29. Thanks pym thanked for this post
  30. #1122
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,346
    Post Thanks / Like
    ...and plentiful combat SAR on hand if a PC -12 should suffer an engine failure and prang in the Afghan countryside.

  31. Thanks pym thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag liked this post
  32. #1123
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,933
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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; 18th September 2017 at 21:19.

  33. #1124
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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...

  34. Likes Graylion liked this post
  35. #1125
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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

    http://www.janes.com/article/68189/i...saab-globaleye

  36. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42 liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •