troops helping out in Donegal...

[DeV]

do you actually know the fuel burn rate/range of an AW-139 with 3/4 crew and lugging bulky underslung loads, or do you - and Dev, that other peddler of the obvious or irrelevent - just enjoy typing out vague platitudes that are so obvious that creatures living at the bottom of the sea roll their eyes when they read them?

yes, like anyone who can upgrade from velcro shoes, i'm fully aware that increasing the weight and drag of an aircraft will increase its fuel burn rate and therefore reduce its range.

so, do either of you actually know whether an AW139 with 3/4 crew could carry a section of Bailey bridge from DFTC to Inishowen without - obviously, given the underslung load - stopping to refuel on the way?

(na grohmiti raises the very sensible point that route selection could be a headache with an underslung load that might plumet several thousand feet at any moment, but i'm interested in whether our heroes actually know the figures they alude to...).

Have a look at the DFTC FB page picture, we are talking 2 x 20ft containers and 3 x low loaders to move it via road. How much do you think that weighs?

Aw139s have lifted the infantry assault bridge and 105 (approx 1.8 tonnes). It can only carry that kind of a load a very short distance, normally it involves sending a tanker when they are lifting that kind of weight.

How many briefs by AC Aw139 pilots on their capabilities have you been to?

While slinging a bridge might be a great photo op, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. As was correctly pointed out, planning a route to avoid any population would be a nightmare. Sling loads are risky enough, consume large amounts of fuel and should only be used when other means are not available. If the bridge can be safely & effectively driven up there, then why fly it? We've had loads of requests from well meaning but otherwise uninformed civilians asking about sling loading everything from pallets of water, boats to trucks for Harvey. Our besieged Air Ops Ctr. politely tells them no, just drive it there in a lorry, we are not slinging anything over the 4th largest city in the US.

As for the LA, if they can't get their act together, their problem. However, in fairness, it takes time to survey damage, decide what's needed and request it.

On a related matter, when the DF do this sort of ATCP, who pays for it? Here if we do ATCP (or Defense Support to Civil Authorities as we call it), the State Govt. has to reimburse the Federal DoD for the cost of fuel, humans, maintenance, etc. Our HQ has all sorts of spreadsheets of costings by the hour/day for whatever. EG: Lakota $1500/hour, HMMV $75/day, Blackhawk $4500/hour, Chinook $7500/hour. troops costing is dependent on rank/grade but by the day. If Army equipment gets broken, then the state has to reimburse the feds the full cost of repairs or replacement.

This is why, as much as governors moan on about "their" National Guard, they are remarkably stingy with deploying them until they get the Presidential Disaster Declaration. Once they get that, then Uncle Sugar with his money shows up and they are happy to start calling up the Guard...

A

It Aid to the Civil Authorities (ATCA) not ATCP

AFAIK it is at zero cost to the requestor

[Flamingo]

This is why, as much as governors moan on about "their" National Guard, they are remarkably stingy with deploying them until they get the Presidential Disaster Declaration. Once they get that, then Uncle Sugar with his money shows up and they are happy to start calling up the Guard...

A

I'm sure my Brother - In - Law (ex NY, IN, TX and FL National Guard) (He got around a lot!) once told me that there were different pay scales for troops on State or Federal call-up, the State pay was a lot higher which was one reason States were loath to call out the National Guard until it was absolutely necessary.

Anyway, I digress...

[GoneToTheCanner]

it was ATCP until recently and because it is the State providing a service to the State, in effect, it costs the State nothing, ie, no interdepartmental money transfers. Budgets get thrown out the window for jobs like this and get sorted out later. The local authorities will not be refunding fuel or manpower costs.....heli slinging is mostly very, very short distances, ie, from pad to target being little more than eyeball distance apart.

[irishrgr]

Yeah the rules are weird when a state uses their NG for pure state purposes, every state has different rules. At the end of the day the Guardsmen are on state status, not federal military, so the state decides what to pay them and what benefits to provide. Generally they are not as well paid as when on federal status.

The simplest way to understand this is the feds pay for the NG (buy the planes, tanks, weapons, etc.), train the Soldiers and allow a degree of state control for normal operations. When called up for operations like AFG or IRQ, then you are under federal control. It's a quirk of US constitutional law and honestly it's arcane and confusing but it is what it is. Regular Army blokes heads explode when ya try and explain it to them. That's whey for things like Harvey, there are detailed records kept to see which agency owes what once the dust settles. The states and feds have contingency funds set aside for this sort of thing, but not the scale of Harvey. Hopefully Congress might actually pass a budget this year and include this (falls over laughing!!!).

In many ways, this is so much simpler in Ireland, really just one system.

A

[GoneToTheCanner]

Nice picture in today's Irish Times of the Bailey Bridge in place where the old bridge used to be.