Thanks Thanks:  130
Likes Likes:  184
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 234

Thread: Maritime Patrol

  1. #201
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    Was there any stripping of weight done for the return trip?
    This happened on C-250, the white one, it was about a Tonne Lighter then the blue ones..

  2. Thanks pym, sofa thanked for this post
  3. #202
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes. The dinghy launching was done by eyeball and hand, not from a rig or launcher. The demo people had loads of experience and could drop a dinghy within feet of a target. What was not in their experience was the sight of a door peeling off.....

  4. #203
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,948
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is it true that C250 was offered for a bargain price around the time C252/253 were delivered and the DoD turned it down?

  5. Thanks Spark23 thanked for this post
  6. #204
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,195
    Post Thanks / Like
    Offers like that are nigh on impossible to accept for a government organisation unless the minister actually gives a **** about the department in question so the blame for it is firmly in the departmental/political domain.
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  7. Likes GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  8. #205
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The real Jack View Post
    Offers like that are nigh on impossible to accept for a government organisation unless the minister actually gives a **** about the department in question so the blame for it is firmly in the departmental/political domain.


    Not so. The Air Corps (management both flying and support) did not want it because its instruments were not the same as 252/253. Thought it would confuse the poor pilots!!! They tried to make a case for a 3rd transport machine for the army, but they had no interest in one.

  9. Likes Tempest liked this post
  10. #206
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by client View Post
    Not so. The Air Corps (management both flying and support) did not want it because its instruments were not the same as 252/253. Thought it would confuse the poor pilots!!! They tried to make a case for a 3rd transport machine for the army, but they had no interest in one.
    Different ratings required?!

  11. #207
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    Is it true that C250 was offered for a bargain price around the time C252/253 were delivered and the DoD turned it down?
    Only ever a rumor!

  12. Thanks pym thanked for this post
  13. #208
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    What would be the point? It was a single airframe, for freight only, with none of the sensors a maritime patrol aircraft needed. We didn't do enough parachuting to justify an aircraft of its size, at that time.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  14. Dislikes Spark23 disliked this post
  15. #209
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    The DF parachuting rate went up because 250 had parachute cables running the length of the cabin so that static-line jumps (stand up, hook up) could be carried out and the Rangers and para display team loved it because they could group together on the ramp and jump out as a formation or, in the case of the Rangers, jump while festooned with equipment. I took part in several flights as ramp and door opener for both parties and they were delighted with it, especially because it got them away from jumping out of 172s or helicopters. It also meant that larger groups could go up on each flight, so the jumpers got more jumps, from higher and got to do all the specialised jump stuff that 172s or helicopters couldn't deal with. Apart from that, the cargo Casa was brilliant for air ambulance as you could lift a patient on a trolley and as much ancilliary kit and medical team personnel as you liked. The most I saw was six, plus the patient. It was infinitely better than the King air because 240 had no cargo door and you had to take off the hand rail to get a stretcher on board, which meant that the patient had to be lifted off the stretcher, the gear then loaded and the patient refitted to the stretcher, which was slow, inconvenient and stressful. With 250, you simply walked up the ramp. It literally took a few minutes to get a stretcher aboard and tied down. With 252/3, the ramp is/was fitted with the dinghy launcher and the mission equipment made it much harder to get a patient on board. Also, it meant that we could move a group of mechs, tools and parts (or anything else for that matter) easily to anywhere in the island or it could act as a support aircraft for Air Corps aircraft going abroad. It was routine to go to Dublin Airport to get the other aircraft that had diverted there because of fog in Baldonnel. We could go over with chocks, a towbar, tools, intake blanks and our own oils and greases and get the aircraft parked up or made ready for flight and all it took was a ten-minute flight from Baldonnel, instead of an hour and a half by road. It was so very handy to have a flying Transit Van and it even performed maritime missions very early on. It really made a difference and it was a real disappointment that it wasn't kept. It did most, if not all of the Cessna, King Air and some of the heli utility jobs, just on a modestly bigger scale. As for pilot training, alluded to above, it was not so dramatically different from 252/3 in the cockpit that any pilot couldn't fly either and it certainly didn't demand a different type rating.

  16. Likes Spark23, Herald, meridian, Turkey liked this post
  17. #210
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    My apologies, my sarcastic tone does not reflect well in the media of print.
    Returning 250 was a huge mistake, the justification given as per my post above, wich was mostly unconvincing. We had managed up to then with twin engined SKA200 with Mk1 eyeball, hand held camera and weather radar, and now we bemoan lack of sensors to justify returning an aircraft which was, in its standard state, still a huge step up from the SKA200.
    I seem to remember they managed to squeeze an entire either Cessna 172 or a Warrior into the cargo hold, wings off, as a demonstration of its usefulness.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  18. Likes DeV, GoneToTheCanner, pym liked this post
  19. #211
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    They had a little craze of seeing what they could fit in; pallets, Cessna hull, 26 jumpers and so on. Effectively, they realised how useful it was and the only constraint in Ireland was staying on paved runways because it was designed to operate off unsealed runways. I was just thinking how useful it would have been to be able to deploy tools and manpower to Donegal via Carrickfin Airport for the recent weather disasters.

  20. Likes pym, DeV, meridian liked this post
  21. #212
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Probably better for island relief than rotary wing too. Most of the islands have decent runways, from memory.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  22. #213
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    This December's issue of 'Air Forces Monthly' includes an article 'Survey - European MPAs: Part 2' with only two countries featuring...
    the Irish Air Corps... as the first page, followed by Italy (Navy, Coast Guard and 'Finance GardaÃ*'! (my translation!)).

    Makes the IAC operation sound pretty impressive to the wider world audience i'd say (but possibly needing a little sympathy too i.e. only two aircraft for a large area).
    Last edited by WhingeNot; 25th November 2017 at 16:46.

  23. Thanks na grohmití, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey liked this post
  24. #214
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    The thee different Italian services show three different aircraft... all twin propeller.. including the small (P.166) Coast Guard example - with a small, under nose-mounted radar (re: the other IMO debate thread on the 'Cessna Replacement' and MPA additional/supplementary use).

  25. #215
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Different roles.
    Guardia Costiera have rescue as their main role, with the secondary roles of Maritime Law enforcement, protection of marine resources, fisheries and enforcement of navigation regulations.
    Guardia de Finanza are similar to Customs or Revenue in their role, but are a military force under the Italian department of Economy and Finance who deal with counter narcotics and anti smuggling.
    Of course the Marina Militare has a much wider role geographically, and requires aircraft capable of much more than just coastal patrol. However since the retirement of the Atlantique, does it have any? Can the ATR do anti sub?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  26. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  27. #216
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,948
    Post Thanks / Like
    As far as I understand it, the Italian ATR's are not fitted for anti sub - but have ESM, ECM etc. that IAC CN235's can only dream of.

    I'm guessing that long term the Italians will operate a hi-lo mix of P8's and P72's

  28. #217
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Re: #213 and #214 - in my excitement (! ) in seeing such a positive article about the IAC in international press, I did not see that Greece was included in the survey, though for P-3 (four props) aircraft that have been out of service for a few years, but are about to be modernised and brought back into service.

    The Italian article also cites five, not three, examples of MPAs (all twin props) just retired, almost retired, or still in or new to service i.e. Atlantic (just retired), the ATR42 & ART72 and the P.166 & P.180.

    The same magazine issue also includes news items about Dornier 228s and Dornier228NGs (twin props), and Cessna and SAAB business jets for maritime surveillance and similar maritime tasks.
    Last edited by WhingeNot; 28th November 2017 at 02:09.

  29. Likes DeV liked this post
  30. #218
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    The latest issue of Air Forces Monthly, in its continued MPA nations survey, describes the outgoing P-3s (x6) and the incoming P-8s (x5) of Norway, the MPA capability of The Netherlands represented by two Coast Guard Dornier Do-288s (previously x13 Air Force P3s...), and last but not least, the relatively recently introduced King-Air MPAs (x3) of the Malta DF.

  31. #219
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,004
    Post Thanks / Like
    An interesting bit on Finland's 295's I thought:
    Dragon Shield, an airborne surveillance system developed by Lockheed Martin for the Finnish Defense Forces has been deemed operational, a Lockheed press release announced Friday [?IMG]. The platform achieved its final operational capability milestone after a series of flight tests that “evaluated compliance of the aircraft to civilian and military airworthiness requirements as well as system requirements verification,” Lockheed said. Work involved integrating a containerized surveillance system that rolls on and off on a Airbus CASA C-295 [?IMG] cargo aircraft and also features an open, modular architecture that enables future upgrades to be easily added. Dragon Shield will allow Finland to collect electronic intelligence, communications or signals intelligence capabilities in order to enhance situational awareness for the aircrew and provide command and control nodes with better imagery intelligence.
    http://www.flyfinland.fi/view/12943/

  32. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  33. #220
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    An interesting bit on Finland's 295's I thought:

    http://www.flyfinland.fi/view/12943/
    you’d assume external sensors are required

  34. #221
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    there are probably a raft of quick-disconnects and plugs that have to be connected before the games begin....

  35. #222
    Private 3* gaff85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Dunboyne
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like
    I see the 2040 development plan has a specific "defence" section, and the highlight is a further 2 Maritime patrol aircraft needed post Brexit.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/201...ect-2040-plan/
    "Why am I using a new putter? Because the last one didn't float too well." -Craig Stadler

  36. #223
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    767
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is that two additional or two replacements?

  37. Likes Graylion liked this post
  38. #224
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,004
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Is that two additional or two replacements?
    From my read of it, it's just the planned two replacements rather than extra's.

  39. Likes DeV liked this post
  40. #225
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Barely have enough crew to keep the current two flying. That said two more would permit a 24 hour operation, if the airfield could operate 24 hour.
    Otherwise operate them from an existing 24 hour airfield.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

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
  •