I think that rule has been in effect since the congo mission in the 60's
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Helicopters
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by DublinmickAt the signing ceremony in Baldonnel for the AB139s last year, or early this year, the minister was asked if he ever saw them being used abroad. He replied: no.
YA HEAR THAT RANGERS YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM BUT THATS ALL.Last edited by FMolloy; 30 May 2005, 18:03.It is only by contemplation of the incompetent that we can appreciate the difficulties and accomplishments of the competent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SPOOKYPerhaps the AC should concentrate on building a NATIONAL effective military service before it starts going for more complicated & risky INTERNATIONAL missions, no?
Originally posted by SPOOKYA single helicopter type -twin engined for safety- for rapid reaction (whether infantry ATCP, or SOF CT) tasks is an achievable target...........
Originally posted by SPOOKYwhy then can the many myriad AC transport aircraft, not then be replaced by a single -twin engined for safety & training- transport aircrfat type for whatever duties the CASA & PC-9's can't do e.g. parachute training, rapid airlift of stores, airambulance, island relief, on island VIP transport etc. ?
The Cessna's are due for replacement in the next couple of years, the theory is that they'll be replaced by a smaller number of a more capable type.
Originally posted by SPOOKYMy suggestion is that the AC already use one rotary wing type for training and garda support - why not buy a small quantity of Nomander ISLANDER twin engined types, already in service with the garda air support unit to furfil this same goal in the fixed wing role?
Originally posted by SPOOKYIs this an achievable goal?"The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."
Comment
-
Given the reliability problems of the Defender/ Islander type it can hardly be judged as a good replacement for anything.
In terms of the AC doing the air sea rescue job. The role has evolved very much from what was envisaged back in the early 1960s when the Allouettes were purchased.
If the governement were prepared to finance larger machines...fine but its seems that they are ever unlikely to buy any thing of the order of the size of the machine required.
Given the increase in maritime activities and our increased responsiblities in the SAR role in our own home waters we can no longer depend on 5-6 seater helis.
So who can provide the machines required..looks like the current type of operation is the only currently viable operation.?
Should the AC return to being the primary suppliers of the SAR role?
I don't beleve so because of past expierience with the logistical nightmare associated with different helis and associated crewing problems.
I think the line has been drawn in the sand for the future requirements of SAR ops in this country for the forseeable future and this should release the AC for more of the type of training the army require to be a truly mobile deployable force.
It has been proven in Liberia that we have no requirement to deploy AC machines abroad...but again this type of operation has proved that our troops need to be airdeployable...on a larger scale and this underwrites the opinion that the current type of machine on order is practcally too small except for small force insertion or advanced crew training.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
Comment
-
I wonder am I alone in thinking that the AC made a dogs dinner of the rotary side of the business:-
A. In that they lost the function of providing SAR for the State over inter agency turf wars.
B. That the Dauphin was the wrong spec.
C. That the new Bell_Augusta looks like compounding the error buying what looks like a civilian
executive transport and may well be just a MATS job.
What happened to the Heli wing and who was responsible. Certainly not the guys who got it right with the Allouettes?
Comment
-
In that they lost the function of providing SAR for the State over inter agency turf wars.
SAr, and the AC, are better off with the current situation. The
That the Dauphin was the wrong spec
That the new Bell_Augusta looks like compounding the error buying what looks like a civilian executive transport
If the AC are going to get something larger, then that'll mean a new competition, until then, the 139 is a good place to start 'proper' military heli ops. The only question for now is how many will be purchased.
In the medium term, the NH-90 would be ideal, but thats a whole different argument.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gunner Who?What happened to the Heli wing and who was responsible. Certainly not the guys who got it right with the Allouettes?
Comment
-
Originally posted by hptmurphyGiven the reliability problems of the Defender/ Islander type it can hardly be judged as a good replacement for anything.
Reliability problems where due to equipment overload and safety certification with GS, in relation to the AC's single type. (see thread)
Islanders work well for very diverse range of roles, just ask those in the Western Isles, or off the Irish west coast.
Dash4/8 is a better aircraft, but more expensive.
What others twin engined types are light enough to furfil the role?
Comment
-
Same problem as the DAUPHIN THEN...OVERLOADED !
the islander / defender as used has spent more time in maintainance than it has in the air. Buying aircraft piecemeal is a waste of time. Aircraft should be bought in a minimum number of three..one used for training..one operational..one in maintaince.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
Comment
-
we'll have 4 ab 139's
one in maintanence
one in MAT duty
one for the Chief of staff and his aides
one for training pilots how to fly ministers and the C.o.S around.It is only by contemplation of the incompetent that we can appreciate the difficulties and accomplishments of the competent.
Comment
-
The MTOW of the AB139 is considerably greater than the dauphin,and it has already been designed to take its "accessories",and still do the job.
At risk of repeating myself At risk of repeating myself At risk of repeating myself At risk of repeating myself
The order has been placed,the contract has been signed. Lets wait until its in service before we start criticing an aircraft that none of us has seen or flown in?
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hptmurphySame problem as the DAUPHIN THEN...OVERLOADED !
the islander / defender as used has spent more time in maintainance than it has in the air. Buying aircraft piecemeal is a waste of time. Aircraft should be bought in a minimum number of three..one used for training..one operational..one in maintaince.
Squirrel 837 flying hrs 587 flying hrs 633 flying hrs
Defender 240 flying hrs 537 flying hrs 514 flying hrs
EC-135 N/a 46 flying hrs 626 flying hrs
Source: DF Annual Report 2003
Comment
Comment