Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Exo1 View Post
    As for me being in Iraq... lol... dude, a slow moving target with a noisy assed engine is a slow moving target with a noisy assed engine... sheesh... I know none have being fired upon, but if a black hawk can be downed with an $5 RPG round... can our imaginations not stretch to think of the danger such a craft could be in if there over an area with bad guys and such military hardware.... point made so Ill get back to reality now...
    Your imagination is stretching way too far there 'dude'. The Cessna does not fly over places like Mogadishu or Baghdad, it flies over places like Monaghan and Ballina and will never do otherwise. Over the thirty-odd years of the troubles the various terror groups, who had the means & the motivation, never once took a shot at them and the chance that a bunch of Islamists are going to smuggle in RPG's to try this is minuscule.

    Black Hawks got downed because they were circling low & slow above a massive arms bazaar filled with people who didn't like Americans, not the kind of place a CIT escort heads to.

    Originally posted by Exo1 View Post
    And to the last question, my experience in Cessna Operations from an Aer Corps perspective is zero.
    So I gathered.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

    Comment


    • #62
      I never claimed to have any either form an Aer Corps perpective.. try being less of a smartass, and more constructive when folks ask a question.. You might outdo yourself and sound a little intelligent.. as my interest in your opinions falls rapidly, allow me to make a final effort with you... my experience lies on the Army side, I have often seen a cessna fly overhead in ops and wondered at how easy it would be to shoot it down.. and yes its VERY easy.. hence my original question.. you are right when said none went down cos none were fired upon.. part politics, part luck..
      Last edited by FMolloy; 15 May 2007, 21:26.
      "There is nothing braver then the heart of a volunteer" Lt. Col. Dolittle, USAC, 1941.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Exo1 View Post
        try being less of a smartass, and more constructive when folks ask a question.. You might outdo yourself and sound a little intelligent.
        This coming from the man who reckons the AC should be worried about Cessnas coming under fire.

        Originally posted by Exo1 View Post
        as my interest in your opinions falls rapidly, allow me to make a final effort with you...
        Don't bother on my account, I'm sure I'll survive somehow.

        Originally posted by Exo1 View Post
        my experience lies on the Army side, I have often seen a cessna fly overhead in ops and wondered at how easy it would be to shoot it down.. and yes its VERY easy..
        Very easy for who? No one in country, apart from the DF, has the ability to do this and the Cessna doesn't operate abroad.

        Originally posted by Exo1 View Post
        you are right when said none went down cos none were fired upon.. part politics, part luck..
        Or it was due to the fact that the IRA weren't that good at doing so.


        That's the end of the shite-talk, back to reality. There'll be no more talk of how vunerable the Cessna is to RPGs, no mention of how it's replacement should have to be able to survive AA fire or any other crap.
        Last edited by FMolloy; 15 May 2007, 18:11.
        "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

        Comment


        • #64
          It is highly vulnerable to 40mm L70 fire coming from the Gormo area....


          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

          Comment


          • #65
            Or maybe 12.7mm from PC-9 platform

            (Stirrrr it Uppp)
            "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

            Comment


            • #66
              Thats just silly. The PC-9 doesn't engage flying targets(contrary to the promises the government made for its purchase)


              Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

              Comment


              • #67
                Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Defence
                his plans for the replacement of the Air Corps’ Cessna fleet, which is 34 years old; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
                [34435/07]

                Minister for Defence (Deputy Willie O’Dea):
                As Minister for Defence I am delighted with the level of investment in new equipment for the Air Corps in recent years. The comprehensive investment programme included:·the delivery of eight Pilatus training aircraft at a total cost of €60m, inclusive of VAT.

                ·two light utility EC 135 helicopters acquired from Eurocopter S.A.S. at a cost of €12.8m, inclusive of VAT.

                ·six utility AW 139 helicopters acquired from the AgustaWestland at a cost of €75m inclusive of VAT, the final two of which are scheduled for delivery in 2008.

                In addition, a major mid life upgrade on the two Casa maritime patrol aircraft, at a cost of €16.5m, is underway - work on the first aircraft is now complete, work on the second aircraft will be completed in 2008. The question of replacement of the Air Corps Cessna Fleet is under active consideration at present. The question of funding the replacement programme has to be considered in tandem with the overall equipment requirements of the Defence Forces generally and the funding available for same.


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #68
                  If everyone's happy that the Cessna does the job, it's just that it's getting old, then just buy some new ones. They're cheap: €200K gets you the diesel version (to save the taxpayers' money and keep the Greens happy).

                  If they had some imagination out in Baldonnell - how come no-one calls it Casement??? - they could buy a dozen new Cessnas, both to replace the existing ones and to do basic pilot training. That would free up some PC-9s for close air support work with the guys on the ground. (If the Chad Air Force can do it...)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Strange suggestion - and one for the medium term - Expand the helicopter numbers for domestic operations, and then use something like this for other work, including supporting deployed forces abroad. Obviously something in the C-27/CN-295 would be much better, but the funding for the purchase and operation of an aircraft of that size may not be forthcoming.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                      Strange suggestion - and one for the medium term - Expand the helicopter numbers for domestic operations, and then use something like this for other work, including supporting deployed forces abroad. Obviously something in the C-27/CN-295 would be much better, but the funding for the purchase and operation of an aircraft of that size may not be forthcoming.

                      http://www2.afsoc.af.mil/library/fac...eet.asp?id=226

                      Looks similar to the Cessna Caravan. How do they compare?

                      BTW, one of the reasons I suggested the Cessna 172 for training is that the Iraqi Air Force - with a little help from their USAF friends - have just bought a load of new 172s, to be used as their standard pilot training aircraft. Think they operate Caravans too.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        In fairness to the man, the reason no Cessnas were shot down was not because the IRA were not capable of it. A .50 would do it, as certain British Army helicopter crew will attest. Indeed, a GPMG would do it.
                        It didn't happen because the green book forbade engaging the "southern forces", lest we forget.

                        There are good reasons for having a cheap and simple bird like the Cessna, but in your haste to shoot the man down you may have overlooked the question of whether Irish air assets will ever need to be deployed overseas in the light of Ireland's increasing international role.
                        Of course we can't deploy what we don't have, but I find it strange to argue that we will never need an aircraft capable of carrying more than a few paras, or that because the IRA never took it into their heads to declare war on the Republic, we need never ever worry about recce aircraft facing ground fire. On the strength of threats we've never faced before, we don't needed AA capability, certainly don't need artillery and probably don't need more than five Piranhas either.

                        Acquisitions should be about building capability.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Why not a single engine Turbo Beaver?
                          If you have to do it, you always have to do it right. Either it makes a difference, or it’s good practice so that when it does make a difference, it gets done right.

                          -Me.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                            In fairness to the man, the reason no Cessnas were shot down was not because the IRA were not capable of it. A .50 would do it, as certain British Army helicopter crew will attest. Indeed, a GPMG would do it.
                            It didn't happen because the green book forbade engaging the "southern forces", lest we forget.
                            In all the years of the troubles the IRA tried to shoot down British helicopters twenty three times & only succeeded four times. Out of those four downed helicopters, at least two were hovering low to the ground and all four were flying at a very low altitude. In some of these attacks the IRA used several machine guns and RPGs at the same time, yet still couldn't manage to completely destroy any helicopters or kill the crew. And for all their talk of SAMs, they missed with their only firing. They just weren't good at anti-aircraft gunnery. Any time I've seen a Cessna do a cash escort or co-op it's been at a high enough altitude, I doubt very much the IRA would have been able to shoot one of them down with a machine gun.

                            Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                            There are good reasons for having a cheap and simple bird like the Cessna, but in your haste to shoot the man down you may have overlooked the question of whether Irish air assets will ever need to be deployed overseas in the light of Ireland's increasing international role.
                            That might well be the case, but neither the Cessna nor it's replacement will be used to do this so there's no point in worrying about it.

                            Originally posted by expat01 View Post
                            Of course we can't deploy what we don't have, but I find it strange to argue that we will never need an aircraft capable of carrying more than a few paras, or that because the IRA never took it into their heads to declare war on the Republic, we need never ever worry about recce aircraft facing ground fire. On the strength of threats we've never faced before, we don't needed AA capability, certainly don't need artillery and probably don't need more than five Piranhas either.

                            Acquisitions should be about building capability.
                            I'm not saying we don't need bigger aircraft, but they should be a seperate acquisition to a Cessna replacement.
                            "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              One enemy's poor gunnery is not proof that the aircraft is safe from machine gun fire. Just because no rounds fired at me have ever hit doesn't mean I ditch my armour. IRA marksmanship was typically on a par with the average West African street gang so the good guys got lucky, but luck is not a reliable defence. The SAAF lost Pumas to small arms ground fire in Angola, for example.

                              In the recce role, the Cessna is obsolete. UAVs have longer endurance with no risk to the operator. To provide military parachute training, the Cessnas are utterly inadequate.
                              Perhaps a Cessna Caravan might give a little more in the way of utility and recce. It can be equipped with IR imaging, and can at least carry a section of paratroopers.
                              If they were in their prime, then let them continue but if they are to be replaced I'd suggest that a single-seat, limited capacity utility/obervation plane no longer has military value, however low the cost and however little threat we think we'll ever face.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Another option, for the surveillance/reconnaissance role (including CIT and other escort jobs),



                                The MPP (Multi-Purpose Platform) version of the Diamond DA42. Here's the brochure:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X