Thanks Thanks:  69
Likes Likes:  165
Dislikes Dislikes:  10
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 180
  1. #76
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    591
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unless one of our colonies decides to revolt any operation that our Special Forces would be involved in would be a multinational affair and we could piggyback on their resources. If we really wanted a Transport aircraft should we not look at something like the Boeing 737 Cargo variant that could also be converted to the passenger role for deployment of troops overseas and the recovery of Irish citizens if needed. It could also use the maintenance facilities as used by major airlines already in this country

    https://www.boeing.com/commercial/se...r-program.page

    It would also help with our conversion to the P 8 posideon in the future
    Last edited by apc; 17th May 2018 at 11:16.

  2. Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  3. #77
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    122
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    and where the regs differ?
    It wont make a tangible difference in this particular case viz the CASA.

  4. #78
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    A 737 would spend most of it's time on the ground or training, a la C130, so that's never going to happen. A Casa as a pure utility transport has a role and would get used for para/medevac/routine transport/spares resupply/multi-engine trainer/emergency transport in the fashion that the King Air did. As for an ARW function, all you would have to do is block allocate flight hours to them and say "Right, you lot are getting 100 hrs of flight time this calendar year. Use it wisely" and that's them taken care of. After that, you follow airline practise and treat it as the "spare", ready for ad-hoc work, available (required for service) every day on the basis that it will not be available for at least one night a week when it is down for servicing, except on an absolute emergency basis. That way, it is essentially always on hand (crew A on hand by day, crew B on a pager by night) and gives genuine 24/7/365 coverage, which keeps AC pilots active and occupied, does not strain resources of spares and manpower and provides genuine utility to the State.

  5. Thanks apc, DeV, apod thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Tempest, apod liked this post
  6. #79
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    122
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    You might see an actual miracle and the DoD buy a 295 as a genuine utility aircraft, alongside the MARPAT airframes, because I have no faith in the notion that it would become practise to keep stripping out palletised mission kit. A lot of operators found that the constant stripping out and refitting of palletised systems only increased wear and tear on the kit and the parent hull and the manufacturer's boasts of an hour or two to do same needs always to be taken with a pinch of salt. There seems to be some mental block in the DoD that the AC might have an actual use for a pure cargo/utility aircraft.
    I agree that a dedicated MSA asset is far better than the palletised approach. Sensor reliability and general platform capability is never as good. As maritime ISR is a cornerstone defence requirement one could argue that it does require a dedicated platform at least mostly attributed to it.

    As for a miracle and getting a C-295 tactical airlifter - you never know. A number of people here on IMO were surprised that the INS would expand to nine vessels. Maybe you may get three airframes right out of the box.

    The blindspot with respect to military aviation in Ireland is something I cannot fathom. Like some spell has been cast.

  7. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  8. #80
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    I agree that a dedicated MSA asset is far better than the palletised approach. Sensor reliability and general platform capability is never as good. As maritime ISR is a cornerstone defence requirement one could argue that it does require a dedicated platform at least mostly attributed to it.

    As for a miracle and getting a C-295 tactical airlifter - you never know. A number of people here on IMO were surprised that the INS would expand to nine vessels. Maybe you may get three airframes right out of the box.

    The blindspot with respect to military aviation in Ireland is something I cannot fathom. Like some spell has been cast.
    And with a dedicated marpat a/c it would give you the ASW and weapons options

    Having said that palletised gives you-
    - surge transport capability
    - additional proper air ambulance capability
    - more options when an a/c is u/s
    Last edited by DeV; 17th May 2018 at 12:42.

  9. #81
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don’t agree with this old yarn that a 737 or C-130 would spend most of its time training or on the ground. History has shown the air corps has coped well with single airframes ie; the king air, defender, Learjet, g4, hell even the casa has often only been a single airframe for large periods of time. Once an aircraft type is in established use things work out. I feel that idea has been a large factor in why the air corps and military aviation in Ireland is where it is

  10. #82
    CQMS Tempest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    249
    Post Thanks / Like
    I also think the idea of buying a used and 'cheap' 737/Avro RJ should be examined. It might only clock up 250+ hours annually, but it would be a real asset. Justify the maintenance costs by eliminating the need to hire aircraft for troop rotations. Kit the front10 rows out in a VIP suite and you have enhanced MATS. A huge re-supply capability compared to C295. Ticks a few boxes, and probably cost considerably less then a full-spec C295.

  11. Thanks Spark23 thanked for this post
    Likes Spark23, Turkey liked this post
  12. #83
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,088
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempest View Post
    I also think the idea of buying a used and 'cheap' 737/Avro RJ should be examined. It might only clock up 250+ hours annually, but it would be a real asset. Justify the maintenance costs by eliminating the need to hire aircraft for troop rotations. Kit the front10 rows out in a VIP suite and you have enhanced MATS. A huge re-supply capability compared to C295. Ticks a few boxes, and probably cost considerably less then a full-spec C295.
    Even if you could put a rational case together it would never pass the political test. I could well imagine the complaints on radio etc.

  13. #84
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Remember the BBJ (Bertie Business Jet)?

    Remember in the context of the tender

    The AC could get 2 x P8 Poseidon MARPATs (which would be approx 1/2 an annual total Defence budget for a year for purchase alone) and 1+ x Boeing 737

    It’s ruled out already as you can’t parajump from a 737 afaik

    But just for the crack 1+ x C40Ai Clipper
    http://www.boeing.com/defense/c-40-clipper/index.page

    Or of course a civvy combi which could be cheaper



    But either way they are out of running for this RFP

  14. #85
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    @tempest, 146s are junk, based on personal experience and I wouldn't touch them even if you gave it to me for free. Their only saving grace is that they are quiet and cheap to buy. Militaries that operate them only do so because BAe will practically give them away with cornflakes and because they have no ramp, they need pallet lifters and mobile conveyors, which are expensive and themselves need transport.....the King Air was originally one of three and it was a crime that the other two were sold off. They are a benchmark of what a popular, reliable aircraft should be....The Defender has not covered itself in glory in terms of reliability and these days, is essentially hand built to order. The pilots hate it because it is cramped and noisy. A Twin Otter would have been a better choice.....in terms of realpolitik, the politicians would reduce it to the status of a Garda "gendarmerie" if they thought they could get away with it. The DF is about as small a force as is possible to sustain UN ops. The politicians would love to have the DF budget to buy votes with.

  15. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, apc, hptmurphy, Tempest liked this post
  16. #86
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    Even standing still, a 737 needs regular maintenance and when you fly it, it needs even more. Airlines make the costs work because they fly them for at least 8 hrs a day, to spread the cost over the annual hours. Ryanair can run theirs cheaply enough because of their buying power, but you buy one 737 and watch the costs hit the roof, especially if you only fly it for a few hundred hours a year. It really is expensive to keep this class of aircraft. It'd be cheaper to run a squadron of Ferraris. For what the AC does, it'd be cheaper to just ring Netjets, any time you need to do some VIP stuff and people like Titan if you want to move troops.

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy, Tempest liked this post
    Dislikes Spark23 disliked this post
  18. #87
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    Unless one of our colonies decides to revolt any operation that our Special Forces would be involved in would be a multinational affair and we could piggyback on their resources. If we really wanted a Transport aircraft should we not look at something like the Boeing 737 Cargo variant that could also be converted to the passenger role for deployment of troops overseas and the recovery of Irish citizens if needed. It could also use the maintenance facilities as used by major airlines already in this country

    https://www.boeing.com/commercial/se...r-program.page

    It would also help with our conversion to the P 8 posideon in the future
    Sigh.
    You really don't know much about what the current mission set of the Wing is or their responsibilities do you? If Irish Citizens are taken Hostage abroad.Be they NGO workers,Journalists or even Irish troops it is no one else's responsibility to get them out other than the Irish Government. Now if 1-2 Irish citizens are taken hostage on board a B.A or Air France jet for example than we will be lucky as the Government or those national carriers will send a nice little reception party.

    However..... If it's Aer Lingus guess who it falls down too????

    Now that's just one example. Remember the Rory Carroll incident??

    At this time we have a ferrari in a garage as we have a world class Intervention team but limited means to insert them or extract them or their rescuees. The wing will have a large input into this.Especially seeing as they are also slotted for the EUBG in 2020(public domain).

    Oh, and good luck trying STOL on an unprepared strip with a 737
    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  19. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití, sofa, DeV liked this post
  20. #88
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    591
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ah you should re read the post never suggested 737 and STOL. How do we deploy troops at the moment?.

    And how did the ARW deploy for that incident or were two rangers to travel with a Government Officials and a Garda and 2 Arab speaking members of G2 to give Advice to SAS and Delta resources already in Bagdad?

    I would have thought something like a 737 would have been ideal for their transport
    Last edited by apc; 18th May 2018 at 00:20.

  21. Likes Tempest liked this post
  22. #89
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    Trying to squeeze too many roles from a single type has never worked well for the IAC in the past. Think Dauphin. A role specific aircraft does not necessarily mean you're not getting vfm, in fact the opposite is probably true when it comes to extremely specialised roles such as Maritime Patrol.

    No matter how simplly and quickly the manufacturer claims plug and play palletised consoles can be torn down or setup, make no mistake they will be sensitive and eventually troublesome. Techs will be loathe to touch it.

    As airlifters they will be payload limited by all the non-removable extras they carry under the floor - wiring/radar etc.

    Buy a specialised MPA and it will excel. Buy a specialised airlifter and it will excel. Base both on the same platform and you will get VFM but not necessarily optimal capability. Therein lies the conundrum.

    It is interesting to note that the RAF has 7 retired C130J Cmk5 (short fuselage) awaiting sale at the current time. (3 sold. Bahrain x 2. USN x 1 for Blue Angels Fat Albert replacement) Marshalls Aerospace of Cambridge have a refurbishment program to as good as new standard. Time to invoke the Defence MoU agreed a couple of years ago and grab a bargain?

  23. Thanks Spark23 thanked for this post
  24. #90
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,088
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    Trying to squeeze too many roles from a single type has never worked well for the IAC in the past. Think Dauphin. A role specific aircraft does not necessarily mean you're not getting vfm, in fact the opposite is probably true when it comes to extremely specialised roles such as Maritime Patrol.

    No matter how simplly and quickly the manufacturer claims plug and play palletised consoles can be torn down or setup, make no mistake they will be sensitive and eventually troublesome. Techs will be loathe to touch it.

    As airlifters they will be payload limited by all the non-removable extras they carry under the floor - wiring/radar etc.

    Buy a specialised MPA and it will excel. Buy a specialised airlifter and it will excel. Base both on the same platform and you will get VFM but not necessarily optimal capability. Therein lies the conundrum.

    It is interesting to note that the RAF has 7 retired C130J Cmk5 (short fuselage) awaiting sale at the current time. (3 sold. Bahrain x 2. USN x 1 for Blue Angels Fat Albert replacement) Marshalls Aerospace of Cambridge have a refurbishment program to as good as new standard. Time to invoke the Defence MoU agreed a couple of years ago and grab a bargain?
    Down to 5 Bangladesh is picking up two I think:
    http://www.janes.com/article/80083/b...h-support-deal

  25. Thanks Jetjock thanked for this post
  26. #91
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like
    Every aircraft standing still requires maintenance. For the capability a combi 737,319/320 would bring its a no brainer. VIP, cargo, trooping, humanitarian etc. And it has the range for the areas of the world the DF operates in.

  27. #92
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    Trying to squeeze too many roles from a single type has never worked well for the IAC in the past. Think Dauphin. A role specific aircraft does not necessarily mean you're not getting vfm, in fact the opposite is probably true when it comes to extremely specialised roles such as Maritime Patrol.

    No matter how simplly and quickly the manufacturer claims plug and play palletised consoles can be torn down or setup, make no mistake they will be sensitive and eventually troublesome. Techs will be loathe to touch it.

    As airlifters they will be payload limited by all the non-removable extras they carry under the floor - wiring/radar etc.

    Buy a specialised MPA and it will excel. Buy a specialised airlifter and it will excel. Base both on the same platform and you will get VFM but not necessarily optimal capability. Therein lies the conundrum.

    It is interesting to note that the RAF has 7 retired C130J Cmk5 (short fuselage) awaiting sale at the current time. (3 sold. Bahrain x 2. USN x 1 for Blue Angels Fat Albert replacement) Marshalls Aerospace of Cambridge have a refurbishment program to as good as new standard. Time to invoke the Defence MoU agreed a couple of years ago and grab a bargain?
    While I agree the Government and DoD don’t

    The airlifter will spend its time doing utility transport of spares etc (maybe a monthly flight to Beruit), possibly rotating the smaller contingents. It will also spend time with people doing jumps. The vast majority of its time will be spend on air ambulance work.... with BREXIT operations may be further afield than the UK.

    If the Government and DoD had their way air ambulance missions would be conducted in the back seat of a PC9 (actually HSE are involved so it would be a drop tank).

    With a palletised system I’m not talking about doing it on a weekly basis. You need an air ambulance (the transporter is u/s and the L45 is in Brussels) and it’s time critical serious ill patient ? Take out the observer pallet and slide in the a/a pallet (I know it isn’t as simple as that but you get the point).

    Quote Originally Posted by Spark23 View Post
    Every aircraft standing still requires maintenance. For the capability a combi 737,319/320 would bring its a no brainer. VIP, cargo, trooping, humanitarian etc. And it has the range for the areas of the world the DF operates in.
    Either way it isn’t what we are getting with this RFP

  28. Thanks apod thanked for this post
  29. #93
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    122
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    I suppose the real question is: Do they want a CN-235 Replacement with slightly more capability, or do they want a Genuine Military Air-lifter that can also multi task as an MPA.

    I think a review of current Fisheries Protection Flying might be worthwhile, for example if you remove the requirement for Low Level(Below 1000ft) inspection of each vessel and instead use an EO/IR to take the appropriate snapshot and gather data for logging, you therefore can patrol a much larger area per patrol and therefore a bigger platform can make sense given the areas covered.

    You remove the perception of overkill as you patrol a much larger area more efficiently.

    In the process a larger airframe becomes viable with the associated advantages as a genuine air-lifter.

    I don't believe a Pajero would fit in a C-295
    I had another quick read of the DWP15 and possibly they may want to do both but under separate RFI's.

    This current RFI to replace the CN-235's with potentially with C-295W's to "enhance maritime
    surveillance and provide a greater degree of utility for transport and cargo carrying tasks" has possibly chosen to emphasise the utility transport requirements of the ARW.

    A further RFI down the track will be required to replace the Learjet 45. Possibly that new replacement aircraft will provide the opportunity for the DoD to entertain a larger and more multi-role platform to extend capabilities into troop transport, VIP, medevac and HADR roles including repatriation of irish nationals, and airlift in support of overseas missions.

  30. #94
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    Ah you should re read the post never suggested 737 and STOL. How do we deploy troops at the moment?.

    And how did the ARW deploy for that incident or were two rangers to travel with a Government Officials and a Garda and 2 Arab speaking members of G2 to give Advice to SAS and Delta resources already in Bagdad?

    I would have thought something like a 737 would have been ideal for their transport
    Yes you did suggest a 737.Which if you read the RFP is ruled out by one of the requirements being STOL.

    AS for those lads going to Baghdad. That was a RECCE.

    NOT a Operational IE Combat Deployment. Again IOT to do those type of deployments you need proper equipment to do so.Equipment we don't have at this time and which we have no right to expect others to provide for us if the worst happens and we need it.
    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  31. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  32. #95
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    591
    Post Thanks / Like
    well if you took the time and tried to understand what was written you would have grasped that the 737 wasnt suggested as a tactical transport or that it met the RFP. It was merely suggested to be an option as the the conversation had leaned more towards the Transport side of things. " A 737 Cargo variant that could also be converted to the passenger role for deployment of troops overseas and the recovery of Irish citizens if needed." You were the one who couldnt figure it out. Comeback down to earth.

    Was the mission to Bagdad more of a Liaison mission than a RECCE

  33. #96
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    They want it to be a STOL aircraft, to do something that they will probably never do, which is to operate off grass/gravel/earth/sand runways...

  34. #97
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    well if you took the time and tried to understand what was written you would have grasped that the 737 wasnt suggested as a tactical transport or that it met the RFP. It was merely suggested to be an option as the the conversation had leaned more towards the Transport side of things. " A 737 Cargo variant that could also be converted to the passenger role for deployment of troops overseas and the recovery of Irish citizens if needed." You were the one who couldnt figure it out. Comeback down to earth.

    Was the mission to Bagdad more of a Liaison mission than a RECCE
    Feet firmly planted on the ground.Thanks.
    While such an aircraft would indeed be useful for troops rotations and shipping spares to the leb etc it would be feck all use for anything else.I am not the only one to point that out to you. What the the DF are looking for is the type of aircraft for the roles the likes of a C-295 can fill.As pointed out in the RFP.
    I have outlined why the bearded types need such an asset and as usual you get smart going on about colonies etc etc.
    The facts are the facts.In an ideal world we would have enough funding to purchase different aircraft for different roles but as we don't we need to have workhorses that can multitask and accept it or not the aircraft we pick may be asked to carry out the mission I outlined

    As for Baghdad it was a bit of both.Thankfully he was released before they needed to use the info from the RECCE as it might have been a bit embarassing for us,what with us having no way of getting our lads there and back.
    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  35. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Turkey liked this post
  36. #98
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,822
    Post Thanks / Like
    By seeking a STOL aircraft, you merely open up a wider range of poor quality metalled runways the aircraft can use safely.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  37. Thanks apod, EUFighter thanked for this post
  38. #99
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    591
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    Feet firmly planted on the ground.Thanks.
    While such an aircraft would indeed be useful for troops rotations and shipping spares to the leb etc it would be feck all use for anything else.I am not the only one to point that out to you. What the the DF are looking for is the type of aircraft for the roles the likes of a C-295 can fill.As pointed out in the RFP.
    I have outlined why the bearded types need such an asset and as usual you get smart going on about colonies etc etc.
    The facts are the facts.In an ideal world we would have enough funding to purchase different aircraft for different roles but as we don't we need to have workhorses that can multitask and accept it or not the aircraft we pick may be asked to carry out the mission I outlined

    As for Baghdad it was a bit of both.Thankfully he was released before they needed to use the info from the RECCE as it might have been a bit embarassing for us,what with us having no way of getting our lads there and back.
    Glad you agree that a 737 type would be useful although you should really expand your thinking a bit as it would be far more useful than what you imagine. I do understand the versatility the Air Corp are looking for and as I said before the C295 is probably the best of a small selection and of course the bearded types as you call them could use it for their bearded missions. And a 737 type aircraft would have been ideal to get them to Bagdad considering that any ground transport required would be laid on.
    Again as you fail to grasp I suggested a 737 type aircraft as a transport because it would be i felt it would be more practical to have one for troop deployment and supply runs than using an MPA to run a few boxes of ammunition to the Leb. I do understand what the Air Corp want from the RFP.

    My humblest apologies for causing your confusion

    I wonder how many times has the current MPA had to land on unprepared strips

  39. #100
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    By seeking a STOL aircraft, you merely open up a wider range of poor quality metalled runways the aircraft can use safely.
    Exactly. Think Chad,Mali etc. The new PC12's were chosen for their ability to support our contingents overseas amongst other things.The Casa replacements will be chosen with the same missions in mind along with other tasks that we cannot currently do properly due to lack of proper airframes EG ARW support overseas.Along with the staple tasks the Casa currently do.
    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  40. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

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
  •