Thanks Thanks:  22
Likes Likes:  114
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 102
  1. #76
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Does a King Air MPA have crew rest space and have headroom to stretch the legs during those 8 hours?
    Or have the capacity for 71 troops, 48 paratroops, 27 stretchers, five 463L Pallet's with all sorts of mission systems or cargo attached to carry out MPA (with rest area, galley and heads), long range (11 hours) Air Ambulance and ICU Transfers (with more than just patient, Doc and ICU nurse on board), HALO / HAHO etc. for the wing, in theater (Ireland) transport, humanitarian air drops (if you need a reason to go overseas with them) ,,,,,,, and a bit of VIP for good measure (use of the nations limited and expensive air assets is a privilege, not a right for those that serve the nation). Defo no need for ASW and AC 235 / 295 roles but it has plenty of other uses, military and civilian orientated.

    That in my book is flexibility, capability enhancement and VFM. The kind you wont get with KA sized air-frames.

    I am a huge fan of the KA and would love to see them employed by the DF, they have a lot to offer (especially in the Shadow R1 role) but its a borderline one trick pony and NOT very flexible at all if you buy them kitted out for MPA or any specialized role, and your very limited as to what an air-frame that size can do if not in a specalised role.

    One on the books for MATS, twin engine / nav / observer training? Too right! But 295 is a superb mid range aircraft that can do much more than one job at a fraction of the cost (though not cheap) of some of its competitors.







    Please note! Everything from this line onward NOT to be taken too seriously!!

    Defo no need for ASW and AC 235 / 295 roles
    Hmmmm you could then convert the 235's to AC 235!!! That would be fun! .
    You know, far from being the poor mans Spectre the AC 235 / 295 almost carries as much firepower as the USMC Harvest Hawk which is a C 130, quiet impressive.

    Dark hours top cover for a wing patrol after they HALO'ed from the same aircraft into "enemy territory" (The Curragh), recce and mark out a DZ and when dawn breaks in comes 2 x 295's (converted from MPA and AA / ICU in 45 mins) to drop off a company's worth of para's, then head back to the Don to fuel up and convert to MPA and Air drop Cargo in 45 mins.

    I should send airbus a bill for this!!! .
    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.

  2. Likes ODIN, madmark liked this post
  3. #77
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just because a capability is rarely (if ever) used doesn't mean it isn't a useful capability to have in a crisis (especially when no one else in these islands has that capability!).

    The problem the AC has it has a large number of potential tasks/roles and a very small budget.

    For that reason, it needs as much commonality in the fleet as possible, this means multi-role aircraft.

    The CASAs are specialist aircraft and have proved good in their primary role. They can complete other roles, they may not excel at them but they can do them.

  4. #78
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Just because a capability is rarely (if ever) used doesn't mean it isn't a useful capability to have in a crisis (especially when no one else in these islands has that capability!).
    The CASAs are specialist aircraft and have proved good in their primary role. They can complete other roles, they may not excel at them but they can do them.
    Agree they have given great service but the Latent Capability mentioned has not been used or routinely practised for 20 Years!

  5. #79
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Agree they have given great service but the Latent Capability mentioned has not been used or routinely practised for 20 Years!
    Remind me how long ago they were involved in the Libyan evacuations or how they are relatively frequently used in the Air Ambulance role? They dont do Off Licence openings these days but they do utilise their "Latent Capability" as the Air Corps´ largest aircraft on a infrequent but much more recent basis than you suggest.

    The Air Corps moved on from King Airs in the MARPAT almost a quarter of a century ago. Rightly. Now we can all agree that the modern SKA350 with proper MARPAT fit out that you mention is a completely different beast to the old SKA 200´s the AC operated in the past, but the reality is it is still a SKA. The CASAs are light years ahead in most areas not least of which is crew comforts. Now you might sniff at that but 8 hours in a King Air cabin will be hugely claustrophobic. You do not posses the ability to even stand up straight. There is no proper galley, decently sized lav or separate crew rest area. You end up with an aircraft where crew effectiveness is progressively reduced after 4 hours to such an extent that the aircrafts endurance is irrelevant to the argument. The suggestion of replacing the CASAs with King Airs is the aviation equivalent of suggesting that refitting the P20 class with modern systems and maintaining the same crew accommodations and hull is a perfectly acceptable solution to the needs of the Navy in today´s operating environment. It would be a retrograde step. Plain and simple.

    If you are not sold on that idea yet consider this. The SKA350 has the relatively fine weather max demonstrated crosswind limit of 20kts. That is massively limiting operationally. 20 kts is really the stuff of light aircraft(probably winglet related). It may actually rule out all the west coast airports at a single stroke. Even two runway Baldonnel can be easily ruled out. You may be in a situation where an aircraft with potential SAR taskings cannot take off in the very weather a rescue job becomes more likely. For the record the C295 has a much more acceptable 30 knot limit.

    The SKA is a fine ISTAR platform over battlefields with a benign threat profile. 200 feet over the Atlantic on your average winters day is anything but benign. There is a reason the Naval Service are going bigger with their ships. It is the same reason that the Air Corps should aim for at least for something similarly sized when the CASAs are replaced.
    Last edited by Jetjock; 16th April 2015 at 22:45.

  6. Thanks Tempest, Silver thanked for this post
    Likes Rhodes, ropebag, DeV, Herald, Silver, na grohmití liked this post
  7. #80
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    Remind me how long ago they were involved in the Libyan evacuations or how they are relatively frequently used in the Air Ambulance role? They don´t do Off Licence openings these days but they do utilise their "Latent Capability" as the Air Corps´ largest aircraft on a infrequent but much more recent basis than you suggest.

    The Air Corps moved on from King Airs in the MARPAT almost a quarter of a century ago. Rightly. Now we can all agree that the modern SKA350 with proper MARPAT fit out that you mention is a completely different beast to the old SKA 200´s the AC operated in the past, but the reality is it is still a SKA. The CASA´s are light years ahead in most areas not least of which is crew comforts. Now you might sniff at that but 8 hours in a King Air cabin will be hugely claustrophobic. You do not posses the ability to even stand up straight. There is no proper galley, decently sized lav or separate crew rest area. You will effectively end up with an aircraft where crew effectiveness is progressively reduced after 4 hours to such an extent that the aircraft´s endurance is irrelevant to the argument. The suggestion of replacing the CASAs with King Airs is the aviation equivalent of suggesting that refitting the P20 class with modern systems and maintaining the same crew accommodations and hull is a perfectly acceptable solution to the needs of the Navy in today´s operating environment. It would be a retrograde step. Plain and simple.

    If you are not sold on that idea yet consider this. The SKA350 has the relatively fine weather max demonstrated crosswind limit of 20kts. That is massively limiting operationally. 20 kts is really the stuff of light aircraft(probably winglet related). It may actually rule out all the west coast airports at a single stroke. Even two runway Baldonnel can be easily ruled out. You may be in a situation where an aircraft with potential SAR taskings cannot take off in the very weather a rescue job becomes more likely. For the record the C295 has a much more acceptable 30 knot limit.

    The SKA is a fine ISTAR platform over battlefields with a benign threat profile. 200 feet over the Atlantic on your average winters day is anything but benign. There is a reason the Naval Service are going bigger with their ships. It is the same reason that the Air Corps should aim for at least for something similarly sized when the CASA´s are replaced.
    Just FYI the CN-235 Cross Wind Limit is... 20Kts, the latent unused capability I was referring to is the Dropping of Flares and Rafts.

    The 350 Makes a fine surveillance aircraft and would suit the straight forward mission profile of Fishery Protection. A std fit 350 would have been more then adequate for a Libya type mission and it has a larger cabin then the LR-45 so would be an excellent AA aircraft. As I said three airframes!

    I hope you see my point is to not have the MPA requirement rule the possible Airlift Role. The C-295 is a fine aircraft and a good step up from the Cn-235, but given our peripheral location its real world range and speed would reduce its transport capability quite significantly.

    I firmly believe that a C-130 class aircraft is the real future of the AC and its usefulness in the AC's primary role of support to the army. The same reason the Navy want there larger support type vessel.

    It wasn't me that did the Off License run, but plenty of AA and SAR top cover missions and believe me I am well aware of what its like to at 200ft over the North Atlantic, the Fishery Protection mission is still quite straight forward. It is not ASW and does not need an aircraft in that class
    Last edited by Charlie252; 16th April 2015 at 22:52.

  8. #81
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'll call your bluff on the Casa's alleged brilliance on crosswind handling. More than once we had to replace tyres after they scrubbed the tread off them in their sponsons in crosswinds. Big fat soft tyres, better suited to grass runways, in a tight sponson, was not a clever idea....If the weather's so shit that you can't land on any of the Don's runways, then you have no business being airborne and the sea state is going to be shit anyways. Best stay in bed...........with regard to alleged rapid role changes with pallets, in reality, they are a pain to change out, a pain to keep serviceable and a pain to store safely. It's actually easier when they wear a bit in service as the fittings loosen up and the alleged quick turn around can happen but manufacturers claimed change times are a joke. We had 737 Combis years ago that were allegedly changeable in 45 minutes. Not a hope. A good team, doing it every night of the week, with a ready supply of spares, got it down to a sustainable two hours, just to change out and replace the modules, even before loading it. You also need pallet loaders (hugely expensive, heavy and costly to maintain), safe and secure module storage and lots of well-trained manpower. We still do it with crew rest modules on A330s and it's still a pain to deal with and accomodate in the turnaround....Any DF person who wants to go down that route should spend a week in the cargo area of an airport and get their eyes opened. I've said it before; the Don should have a dedicated utility aircraft with a ramp for ass-and-trash jobs and not waste time, money and energy with palletising unless they are prepared to spend a great deal of money tooling up men and machines to have even a basic grasp of it. A ramp 295 only needs a flat bed truck on hand to be useful...........with regard to a Cessna replacement, it's more than past time for them to make a decision, regardless of politics. This has been on the go for at least ten years now.

  9. Likes Tempest liked this post
  10. #82
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Just FYI the CN-235 Cross Wind Limit is... 20Kts
    I know I have commented on it here in the past. It is truly pityful for a high wing machine. And a reason to trade up not down.

    I see where you are coming from re the C-130 option. It has to be a useful capability. I would like to see something like the KC-390 considered. Similar payload, smaller price. Those looking only in terms of 6 monthly crew rotations are missing the point. There is a multitude of other regular potential uses. If the DF had the capability to rotate a Mowag into and out of theatre after 6-12 months on deployment they would not end up with knackered machines sitting in a yard in the Curragh for a couple of years at a time waiting for some TLC. There are plenty of other useful regular roles. You would quickly find if a properly useful non token capability was available the utilisation would be surprisingly high.

  11. #83
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    I know I have commented on it here in the past. It is truly pityful for a high wing machine. And a reason to trade up not down.

    I see where you are coming from re the C-130 option. It has to be a useful capability. I would like to see something like the KC-390 considered. Similar payload, smaller price. Those looking only in terms of 6 monthly crew rotations are missing the point. There is a multitude of other regular potential uses. If the DF had the capability to rotate a Mowag into and out of theatre after 6-12 months on deployment they would not end up with knackered machines sitting in a yard in the Curragh for a couple of years at a time waiting for some TLC. There are plenty of other useful regular roles. You would quickly find if a properly useful non token capability was available the utilisation would be surprisingly high.
    Agreed, as i said a C-130 class aircraft should be the basis to provide the required lift and range capabilities.

    MPA replacement and Cessna replacement should not impinge on this capability.

  12. #84
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Agreed, as i said a C-130 class aircraft should be the basis to provide the required lift and range capabilities.

    MPA replacement and Cessna replacement should not impinge on this capability.
    I would argue for retirement and non replacement of the Cessnas and a re roling of the AC with tactical transport capability. The Cessna or its potential replacement(Caravan or otherwise), have minimal military usefulness in a devoloped country with good infrastructure like Ireland and zero deployment prospects within the bounds of the typical DF overseas mission profile.
    Last edited by Jetjock; 16th April 2015 at 23:32.

  13. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes FMP liked this post
  14. #85
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    I disagree. If it's one thing the Don does, it's utility. It has to get the most out of it's aircraft and having a utility aircraft is a godsend. Helicopters become very expensive utility vehicles very quickly ( I was in enough of them and a Transit Van could have replaced most of the flights involved and a 172 wasn't big enough-the amount of times four people turned up to be flown somewhere is off the scale). The Cessnas and the King airs did countless utility flights (such as your Boss's Learjets do, JJ ;-) ), such as transporting tools, spares, mechs, pilots, weapons, kit and a million other things, such as non-patient air ambulance (hearts, lungs,etc) as well as the Border and a utility turbine would have been worth it's weight in gold in the African missions. So they don't do cashies anymore? so what?! Drop one task, take up another..apart from that, if you take the 172s off the board tomorrow, their function will have to be replaced and that invariably means roads or helicopters and the associated costs and time. It's displacement but not replacement. They should have been replaced at a landmark like 5000 hrs per hull and sold off,back when Cessnas were available for reasonable money but when a new 172 costs $300 K plus, it's easy to see why not. A couple of Caravans for local utility and ferry them overseas for muddy stuff in Africa...

  15. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Shaqra liked this post
  16. #86
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    GoneToTheCanner...........with regard to alleged rapid role changes with pallets, in reality, they are a pain to change out, a pain to keep serviceable and a pain to store safely. It's actually easier when they wear a bit in service as the fittings loosen up and the alleged quick turn around can happen but manufacturers claimed change times are a joke. We had 737 Combis years ago that were allegedly changeable in 45 minutes. Not a hope. A good team, doing it every night of the week, with a ready supply of spares, got it down to a sustainable two hours, just to change out and replace the modules, even before loading it. You also need pallet loaders (hugely expensive, heavy and costly to maintain), safe and secure module storage and lots of well-trained manpower. We still do it with crew rest modules on A330s and it's still a pain to deal with and accomodate in the turnaround....Any DF person who wants to go down that route should spend a week in the cargo area of an airport and get their eyes opened. I've said it before; the Don should have a dedicated utility aircraft with a ramp for ass-and-trash jobs and not waste time, money and energy with palletising unless they are prepared to spend a great deal of money tooling up men and machines to have even a basic grasp of it. A ramp 295 only needs a flat bed truck on hand to be useful..........
    Well highlighted GTTC.

    Civilian V's Military.

    One designed for an all whistle's and bell's facility.

    The other for a bugger all facilities.

    All you need to load a 463L on a military cargo aircraft (295 takes standard NATO 463 which is what the modules are installed on) is one of these:



    Or if you want to get real fancy, one of these:



    And if your really really in a hurry to unload ,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Last edited by FMP; 17th April 2015 at 12:33.
    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.

  17. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  18. #87
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Speaking of unloading in a hurry, and a bit of humanitarian aid.

    MPA today ,,,,,,,, Airdrop tomorrow.

    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.

  19. #88
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    Well highlighted GTTC.

    Civilian V's Military.

    One designed for an all whistle's and bell's facility.

    The other for a bugger all facilities.

    All you need to load a 463L on a military cargo aircraft (295 takes standard NATO 463 which is what the modules are installed on) is one of these:



    Or if you want to get real fancy, one of these:



    And if your really really in a hurry to unload ,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Depends on how fragile the module is (for the forklift option)

  20. #89
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    We keep a crew rest module for long haul and it has to live in it's own box on it's own trailer, so that's two dedicated objects just for one module alone. The box it lives in is used for nothing else. It gets used every day and has to be fed into the logistical chain that surrounds the aircraft, so the loaders, engineers, cabin crew, fleet cleaners and aircrew all have to know that it is going on their aircraft. Five different groups of people who all have an active part in the presence of a module in the hold of one aeroplane, not to mention the fleet planners who have to make sure that it is aligned to the correct aircraft for the correct route..........apart from that, when you do overseas unloading of Mil kit, you need a forklift, such as an Eager Beaver or a Moffatt Mounty as an absolute minimum.

  21. #90
    Colonel
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    From Facebook.

    A Spanish Eurofighter pulls alongside to admire the Air Corps' Learjet 45!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  22. Likes na grohmití, Tempest, Shaqra, Silver liked this post
  23. #91
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking at the demand level can a replacement for the GIV be justified?

    These are figures for air ambulance & MATS for the CASAs, L45 & G4:
    2013:
    Total missions 145
    Total hours 599

    2012:
    Total missions 135
    Total hours 544

    While the amount of missions and hours definitely doesn't justify it you have to look at the possibility that 2/3 missions were undertaken simultaneously

  24. #92
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    One of those rare yet significant occasions that I alluded to earlier in this thread, that highlights the importance of retaining a long range state aircraft happened the other day in Berkeley, Ca. Tragically these families can no longer rely on government aircraft for repatriations, be they medical or otherwise.

  25. Thanks DeV, ias thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  26. #93
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,188
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    One of those rare yet significant occasions that I alluded to earlier in this thread, that highlights the importance of retaining a long range state aircraft happened the other day in Berkeley, Ca. Tragically these families can no longer rely on government aircraft for repatriations, be they medical or otherwise.
    Are there not direct services to that part of the world that are far more comfortable ?
    Just visiting

  27. #94
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Are there not direct services to that part of the world that are far more comfortable ?
    For the affected families commercial would be standard practice. Given the apparent severity of injuries, medical repatruations will be looking at either a long stay in the US or private aircraft charter.

  28. #95
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,236
    Post Thanks / Like
    medical repatruations will be looking at either a long stay in the US or private aircraft charter
    From personal, painful experience depending on numbers a private flight back might well be cheaper than the medical costs in US hospitals. I have no idea how the USA survives with that medical system.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  29. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  30. #96
    CQMS Tempest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    243
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Americans have alluded to not charging for medical services for these individuals in the circumstances.

  31. Likes sofa, hptmurphy liked this post
  32. #97
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,236
    Post Thanks / Like
    I very much doubt that will happen.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  33. #98
    CQMS Tempest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    243
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    I very much doubt that will happen.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...osts-1.2252663

  34. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  35. #99
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    thats not quite what he said, he's saying its not something the families should worry about today...

    he absolutely, positively, is not saying that in a few months the hospitals involved will have accrued a massive bill and the US Government will be picking up the tab. individuals involved in their care might well waive some or all of their fees, but this is people in ICU/HDU's for weeks, this is massively resource intensive, and theres simply no way that the hospitals/staff involved will be able to lob this one in the charity bin and crack on with their day. some very expensive people in the hospitals involved will be working on this and nothing else, and they will have mortgages and bills to pay...

  36. #100
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,188
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    thats not quite what he said, he's saying its not something the families should worry about today...

    he absolutely, positively, is not saying that in a few months the hospitals involved will have accrued a massive bill and the US Government will be picking up the tab. individuals involved in their care might well waive some or all of their fees, but this is people in ICU/HDU's for weeks, this is massively resource intensive, and theres simply no way that the hospitals/staff involved will be able to lob this one in the charity bin and crack on with their day. some very expensive people in the hospitals involved will be working on this and nothing else, and they will have mortgages and bills to pay...
    Travel company USIT may pick up the tab, no doubt the state here will pitch in, cost shouldn't be an issue.
    Just visiting

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
  •