Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ministerial Air Transport Service

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

  • Looking at tenders for overseas rotation flights....... for a battalion rotation you'd be looking for something like a 200+ pax capacity aircraft (with equipment). Meaning about 4 flights to rotate a Bn group.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      Looking at tenders for overseas rotation flights....... for a battalion rotation you'd be looking for something like a 200+ pax capacity aircraft (with equipment). Meaning about 4 flights to rotate a Bn group.

      you are, imho, looking at completely the wrong of the stick in terms of what an airfift capability would be used for, and why you'd buy one.

      using a military cargo aircraft to fly people from one safe, commercial standard international airport to another safe, commercial standard international airport on a date you knew about 6 months in advance is about as wasteful, innefficent, cack-handed a practice as anyone could think of - its like using a 30MPG 4x4 to transport fuel, in the fuel tank, from one end of the country to the other.

      you buy it and use it to move people and stuff, usually bulky stuff, to either places a commercial passenger aircraft won't go (dirt strip in the arse end of the sub-saharan Africa, international airport in the middle of a two way range for an NEO), or - and this is where it touches on the MATS/AA function - doing a job at no practical notice. using a C-295/C-27J/C-130 to move people from Dublin to Beruit airports in conditions underwhich they'll walk out of the aircraft, get an ice cream and mooch around duty free would not only be somewhat inefficient, but ridiculously expensive compared to using a commercial carrier with an A330.

      if you pitch 'we need an airlift cabability' on moving troops from A to B every 6 months the DoF will do the sums of owning a military airlift platform and using it like that, compare it to commercial rates and laugh to such an extent that you'll get prosecuted for manslaughter.

      Comment


      • Maximum utility should be a key input into the acquisition of DF aircraft (indeed this might equally be relevant for vehicles/craft)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
          you are, imho, looking at completely the wrong of the stick in terms of what an airfift capability would be used for, and why you'd buy one.

          using a military cargo aircraft to fly people from one safe, commercial standard international airport to another safe, commercial standard international airport on a date you knew about 6 months in advance is about as wasteful, innefficent, cack-handed a practice as anyone could think of - its like using a 30MPG 4x4 to transport fuel, in the fuel tank, from one end of the country to the other.

          you buy it and use it to move people and stuff, usually bulky stuff, to either places a commercial passenger aircraft won't go (dirt strip in the arse end of the sub-saharan Africa, international airport in the middle of a two way range for an NEO), or - and this is where it touches on the MATS/AA function - doing a job at no practical notice. using a C-295/C-27J/C-130 to move people from Dublin to Beruit airports in conditions underwhich they'll walk out of the aircraft, get an ice cream and mooch around duty free would not only be somewhat inefficient, but ridiculously expensive compared to using a commercial carrier with an A330.

          if you pitch 'we need an airlift cabability' on moving troops from A to B every 6 months the DoF will do the sums of owning a military airlift platform and using it like that, compare it to commercial rates and laugh to such an extent that you'll get prosecuted for manslaughter.
          To some extent agree, and certainly when looking at the smaller airlifters and ranges over 1000nm they cannot compete at all, so IMHO the C-27/C-295 are out of the equation.

          The C-130 though is a different beast and in a different class with regards to payload range, if you look at the numbers when compared to a A-330 on an ad-hoc charter basis the economics aren't as off the chart as you might imagine and you have the inherent capability in house whereas the ad-hoc aircraft is a huge cost. Obviously if you operate A-330 next to C-130J on a daily basis the seat costs are massively in favour of the A-330, one only need to look at what it costs EI to sub-charter a 767 in when they have a 330 go tech and the equation changes as ah-hoc charter rates are very high.

          It strikes me that the six monthly standard rotation has been driven to some extent by the costs involved in troop rotation flights, I may be wrong. But having a capable aircraft that can move 80-90 troops on a weekly basis if required, changes the whole concept of ops. Having the aircraft also means troop deployments into more robust areas, (many places in Africa), are achievable and sustainable. You also acquire the ability to move large heavy equipment at short notice, the pictures of Mowags driving into a C-130 paint a thousand words. The reality is that for most other military's in Europe regardless of commercial airport to commercial airport, or military base to austere location, the troops travel in the back of military transport aircraft. Its a way to keep the utilisation up and keep the costs and control in house, there is a statistic that the average load in a C-130 is 6 Tonnes, and this may be true, but there are no military planners that would forsake the capability of the aircraft to have a higher load factor on a smaller aircraft.

          The case for a transport aircraft is a strong one, I just think it needs to be framed appropriately for the Politicians and Public opinion makers to be on board..

          I am not convinced of the Merits of a MATS aircraft, and I think the LR-45 is more then adequate for intra-europe flights, anything longer range is planned well in advance and there are plenty of commercial options.
          Last edited by Charlie252; 15 April 2015, 00:07.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
            ...The case for a transport aircraft is a strong one, I just think it needs to be framed appropriately for the Politicians and Public opinion makers to be on board...
            i'd agree absolutely, my point is that if you pitch airlift as being a more expensive, less comfortable, slower way of doing what is currently done by commercial charter then you'll not get very far.

            it has to be pitched as new capability, it has to give politicians something they want. that might be NEO capability, it might be greater support for deployed forces, it might be getting their face on an NGO website when they send a C-130 with 'IRELAND' in 12ft letters blazoned accross it to this weeks humanitarian catastrophe (cynical..?) - but has to give them something they don't have.

            now once you have airlift, and its used for taking heavy/bulky stuff to remote airstrips in Africa, or supporting an Irish helicopter detachment on exercise with the NGB, and you have a troop rotation coming up at time when your airlift is planned to be sat around doing nothing then fine, use it rather hiring a commercial carrier - as you say, it keeps costs in-house, provides flying hours etc..

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
              i'd agree absolutely, my point is that if you pitch airlift as being a more expensive, less comfortable, slower way of doing what is currently done by commercial charter then you'll not get very far.

              it has to be pitched as new capability, it has to give politicians something they want. that might be NEO capability, it might be greater support for deployed forces, it might be getting their face on an NGO website when they send a C-130 with 'IRELAND' in 12ft letters blazoned accross it to this weeks humanitarian catastrophe (cynical..?) - but has to give them something they don't have.


              now once you have airlift, and its used for taking heavy/bulky stuff to remote airstrips in Africa, or supporting an Irish helicopter detachment on exercise with the NGB, and you have a troop rotation coming up at time when your airlift is planned to be sat around doing nothing then fine, use it rather hiring a commercial carrier - as you say, it keeps costs in-house, provides flying hours etc..
              There you have it, the key is that the aircraft is capable enough. Carrying a couple of tonnes with multiple stops enroute would end up being cosmetic only, carrying 18T or a Mowag or 70 troops, a couple of 105's plus crew or an EC-645 and you are on too something.

              Maybe this time around there might be a chance!
              Last edited by Charlie252; 15 April 2015, 15:28.

              Comment


              • The DoD came to the conclusion a long time ago that a C 130 was the right tool for the job, for getting yizzer troops and vehicles into darkest Africa,etc,etc but also came to the conclusion that it would spend most of it's life either training or being serviced, more than one aircraft would be needed and that the political will to spend such funds was not there and that commercial air and sealift would have to do, or else blag space off the neighbours. It's an easy decision to make if you are also unwilling to move your helicopters and your artillery and your tracked armour out of the State, because if all you have to shift is humans, then an Airbus will do and a boat will do for the wheeled vehicles.....moving right along, it's round about now that they ought to start thinking about a replacement for the current Casas as they are getting long in the tooth and have very high hours and given the usual snails' pace of procurement, it's high time to start the ball rolling. You may yet see a MARPAT 295 as a replacement....

                Comment


                • I am not sure the DOD or the DF ever did a serious study into the area of a Transport Aircraft, I think you are supposing the Civil Servants answer to a question that was never really asked.

                  The DF is focussed on a Cessna replacement, that may put any discussion here in context.

                  For my money the MPA replacement should be the KingAir 350er, The 350 has more range, higher transit speed and a sufficient cabin for the Fishery Protection mission. The money saved would go a long way in other areas..
                  Last edited by Charlie252; 15 April 2015, 18:10.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                    ...For my money the MPA replacement should be the KingAir 350er, The 350 has more range, higher transit speed and a sufficient cabin for the Fishery Protection mission. The money saved would go a long way in other areas..
                    i suppose the crunch is would a move to the KA350ER for MPA free up enough money for a seperate airlift platform, whether rotary or fixed, or would a joint MPA/Airlift platform (C-295? C-130?) be a better buy?

                    i don't know the answer to that question, i don't know enough about through-life costs of different platforms to make a judgement...

                    while i could absolutely see something like C-295 etc.. being a useful and valued asset, i rather fear that once you got into the swing of having and using the miracle that is airlift, the short-comings of such a platform vs something like C-130 or A400M would become very quickly and gnawingly apparent.

                    Comment


                    • In my mind two C-130J similar to USCG for long range Marpat and troop transport/overseas support/ HADR are the way to go, supplementing the C-235 MPA or maybe there replacements say four King Air 350i achievable capable solution. The C-295M idea isn't that much more capable than the current casa only an hour extra range and slight increase in payload, also the issues around constantly rerolling the airframe and the fact that three airframes can't be in can't be in four places doing patrol, transport, air ambulance, troop rotation etc. I Also believe sufficient maritime patrol aircraft should be purchased to allow for 24 hr top cover/air ambulance availability

                      Comment


                      • The USCG have the HC130J Hercules which has the surveillance fit of their version of the casa but retains the transport capability.

                        Just saying like

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by paul g View Post
                          The USCG have the HC130J Hercules which has the surveillance fit of their version of the casa but retains the transport capability.

                          Just saying like
                          Our submission to the UN regarding the area of the Atlantic we claim, has extended the patrol area vastly since the time when the Casa's came into service.

                          Just saying like.

                          Comment


                          • Nice to see the 295 mentioned again. Touched on this before but will fire it in again: Palletised Mission System! One air-frame, many roles.

                            MPA to Cargo / Para in 45 mins and t'other way round, all the kit is plug and play as FLIR / Radar etc. etc. is fitted to the air frame as standard. Also do Intensive Care Unit pallets, comfortable seat pallets. Couple (or 3) air frames and various pallet systems and you get yourself an air force, for a hell of a lot less than a C 130 and about half the price (ish) of a C 27 J (per frame).

                            For the suits fit a VIP pallet like the "Maximus" Designed to turn Cargo to Business.

                            C 295 vid.



                            Maximus (For C130)





                            Obviously C 130 cross section is much larger than C 295 but applying the same mentality to the C 295 you would end up with something looking like this:



                            Not too shabby?

                            C 295:

                            Range: with 3,000 kg (6,600 lb) payload, 4,600 km (2,500 nmi / 2,875 mi). With 6,000 kg (13,200 lb) payload, 3,700 km (2,000 nmi / 2,300 mi).

                            Range: with max 9,250 kg (20,400 lb) payload: 1,300 km (700 nmi / 805 mi).

                            Whats wrong with that? In MPA role it wont go anywhere near it's 20.400 lb payload!

                            Of course I'm just thinking outside the box, or should that be tube? Went down like a lead balloon last time last time i mentioned it .
                            Last edited by FMP; 16 April 2015, 07:42.
                            We travel not for trafficking alone,
                            By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
                            For lust of knowing what should not be known,
                            We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

                            Comment


                            • Ther'ed be too much fighting over the one window seat .
                              Don't spit in my Bouillabaisse .

                              Comment


                              • Whats wrong with the LR-45 for the MATS role, why does every other aircraft discussed have to have some adaptability towards MATS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X