Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps:The future

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

  • #16
    Tank: I'm not sure where you live,but have you ever been stuck in traffic recently?
    Have you ever tried to cross this small country of ours in less than a day? Its almost impossible by road.
    The reason for the purchace of helicopters,may come as a surprise to many as it has never ever been mentioned anywhere on this board before. To transport the ARW around the country if they are required,and to train troops in operating with helicopters before they go overseas.
    An even bigger surprise to most of you here will be that ....there is no intention to deploy air corps aircraft overseas.

    In case you missed a memo,the Air Corps do not provide SAR helis to the state any more. It did in the past because nobody else could,but now there are a number of private operators who can do it cheaper(to the state at least) so let them have it.

    I'm not even gonna get started on the PC9 debate. Thats a whole other deja vu.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

    Comment


    • #17
      What about the Sea King? Based in Shannon as far as I'm aware? I thought that was Air Corps? Maybe it's not anymore. I'd be grateful for info on that.

      I see your point about traffic and getting the ARW places, but if the Air Corps don't provide SAR etc. anymore (I thought the Eurocopters were earmarked for air ambulance duties?) would the 6 helicopters we have not be able to transport enough ARW personnel to get by in the first instance? About 32 troops by my admittedly rough calculations. I'm not an expert on aircraft though, so I could be way out on that one. I suppose they are ok to train personnel going overseas, even if there are better helicopters out there.

      Goldie, I never presumed that this country would want to send choppers overseas, although other board members seem to advocate that.

      Comment


      • #18
        Be honest tank. You work in the Dept of finance,don't you?


        Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

        Comment


        • #19
          If I may wrap together a number of points on the future:

          Airlift - the right ansawer is to enter into the nascent European Airlift Group EAG), currently not much more than an ops center in Eindhoven, but expected to evolve into a standardized multi-national airlift force similar to, if much smaller than the USAF Air Mobility Command. The core will be A400/C-130J with C-17/MRTT's/contracted AN-124 and CASA's at either end. With 1-2 CASA CN-295's the IAC could contribute regular intra-Europe sorties serving any approved member requirements and could offer a deployed intra-theater airlift capability similar to what Belgian and Portugese 130's currently provide to ISAF in Afghansitan, for instance. In return, when Irish forces deploy on a European operation they could do so via EAG heavy-lift assets such as C-17, A-400 and contract AN-124.

          B200/Cessna replacement - What are the Cessna's used for exactly? Pilot candidate screening? Bank transfers? Why replace all of them. C-172's can be maintained pretty much forever and are cheap to operate and maintain. Keep 3-4 of them principally for the pilot candidate screenng role to avoid wasting PC-9 hours on unsuitable prospects. Replace the B200 with either another B200 or a PC-12, preferably the latter. A low time B200 built since 2000 can be had on the market for $US1-2M thereabouts and will provide a good 10+ years of service. A new PC-12 would be economical and compatible with the PC-9. Every newly winged FW pilot coming off the PC-9 should spend a year on the PC-12 brushing up skills and confidence, particularly instrument work and flying busy European sectors. The PC-12 would serve as a utility aircraft supporting the DF staff and EU battlegroup operations staffs, who will have to travel regularly to the other 2-3 countries in the Irish battlegroup (UK, NL & Czech Rep are one possibility). The PC-12 is a superb air ambulance with a large cargo door and easily installed 2x patient medical bed kit. Not being able to provide actual multi-engine training is less important than providing new pilots the skills and confidence they need to move up the operational ladder. Pilots coming off their year on the PC-12 will get their actual 'multi-engine' transition when they move on to the CN-235MPA and C-295 respectively. Of course the PC-12 would also be a MATS back-up as required, particularly for the Belfast shuttle.

          Lear 45/G-IV replacement - No rush here at all, but if the rumor proves true that the Lear will be sold off, may I suggest trading it and the G-IV in to Bombardier for a pair of new Challenger 604's. One in standard VIP kit, the other a high density utility/medevac combi. In addition to carrying larger delegations of up to 12, the latter would also be convertible to an air ambulance role, specifically to provide the capability to evacuate injured military personnel from overseas missions.

          Helicopters - This is the heart of the emerging IAC. Obtain more - at least 8 AB-139's and probably an additional EC-135 to take on the full utility/VIP/medical transfer role so that the 139's can be fully devoted to military missions. While the defense minister may have good political reasons for saying the 139's will never deploy overseas, it's an absurd notion. Why have them then? As training aids? Ridiculous. Develop a capability to deploy a package of 4-5 139's as part of a multi-national effort (the EU battlegoup first and foremeost) under the auspices of the planned European Support Helicopter Force. The 139's would be very complimentary to a deployed force consisiting of NH-90's or Merlins in the primary trooping role - leaving the 139's with Recce, medevac, command support (C2), SF support, etc. An example is the role of the 5 aircraft Turkish Blackhawk detachment serving with the ISAF air group in Kabul.

          That's all for now......

          Comment


          • #20
            Oddly enough we are one of the few countries who do not use the cessna for initial pilot training,even though it is the mainstay of many civilian flight schools. Target towing, Parachuting,top cover for cash escorts,counting seals in shannon estuary for the dept of agriculture, are just some of the tasks that have been undertaken by the Cessnas in the past.


            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

            Comment


            • #21
              I wish I did....Maybe some of the money could be spent better than it is now.

              Don't get me wrong here. I'd love to spend loads of money on a big military force and let evryone have all the latest gadgets. But that's not possible. And the watchword these days is high tech and interoperability, so I would rather concentrate on the areas that Irish servicemen and women need than on things that are not as vital.

              All the aircraft the Air Corps have now could be termed as vital. So that's fine. Maybe one more helicopter. But after that, you've really got to ask yourself where the money could be better spent than on an Air Corps that really only has domestic duties.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi all
                redeye, you're on the money here. The King Air should be sold off before it becomes worthless altogether. For a KingAir, it has huge airframe hours built up and is devaluing like an Iraqi Dinar. The Cessnas should have been used for pilot screening years ago and I've been saying so for just as long.If it's good enough for the USAF,etc...They are still young enough, in airframe terms, to be kept on in service.Just get them to buy a Caravan for realistic para training. As for a cargo aircraft, well, if we need to go international, hire in the big stuff.Let Heavylift or DHL take the strain. They're better at it than the Don will ever be.
                We should also reopen the Naval helicopter role by buying Super Lynx and giving the Navy their own pilots/engineers and call it a mini-Fleet Air Arm.
                regards
                GttC

                Comment


                • #23
                  Problem being the Rheims Rocket or Cessna if you like ..is that we bought the one with the big engine which makes in two twitchy for student training..it is well suited to the job it does but its far toompoerful as a primary trainer.

                  We bought the 210hp version...its well acepted in flyinhg schools that 100hp machine is the most suitable primary trainer...then work up to the larger airframes.
                  Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi all
                    Well,HPT, if a docile aircraft like a Cessna 172H/K is too powerful to act as a screener, how in the name of God did people cope with a much faster, twitchier Marchetti? The failure rate of cadet classes was in the order of 60% or greater, for many years and a contributory factor was the inability of raw cadets to cope with a high-performance Marchetti, with not even a few basic hours under their belts. The Air Corps is probably one of the very few Forces not to have screening and it costs a fortune to have cadets fall out of the training scheme after having consumed so many resources. I knew a man who was a screening instructor for the USAF and he swore by the process, because it weeded out people who couldn't show an ability to learn under pressure and it saved a fortune. Obviously, cadets failed higher up in the training schedule, usually in the transition to instrument flight or into a complex aircraft, but the failure rate was much less than for unscreened cadets. A few bob spent on circuits in a 172 would have saved money wasted on repairing Marchettis!
                    regards
                    GttC

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The C172s were never used as screening aircraft. The air corps school teachs students with 0 flying hours and takes them all the way to qualification. They now do it on the pc 9s and the first group of students have gone on their first solo flights, no screener, (wish i could do that).

                      60% wash out rates are a thing of the past when they used to recruit directly from the army officer corps. Now the air corps recruit directly and run candidates through a vast series of tests including corordination testing. Wash out rates are down to maybe 1 person per class. Infact a few years ago 100% of a class of about 10 passed, no probs. Whats the point of screening with those results.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hi Mavman.
                        I never said that the Don used the 172 as a screener. I bemoaned the fact that they didn't! One year, they lost 8 out of 12. I'm glad to see that the loss rates are down, but when I see bigger, more complex air forces using screeners, I don't see why we shouldn't. I spent too long fixing Marchettis after heavy landings to deny the value of screening. Obviously, cadet training is more advanced now, such as the greater use of CBT and simulation, as befits the use of an advanced trainer. If an RAF GR4 pilot starts off on a Slingsby before he gets his mitts on a Tucano, then that's good enough for me.
                        regards
                        GttC

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I cannot disagree with what GTTC says, but, not the IAC RR 172's, any of the Cessana 152's out of Weston would be more then suitable for the job, even if [a] they cost €140/hour, and [b] ya don't get into 'em, ya put the friggin things on.
                          "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                          Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                          Illegitimi non carborundum

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            But then you have to ask,why spend anything to allow student pilots advance to another trainer? If we had proper military aircraft,i could see why screeners would be a good idea...but seeing as we don't...


                            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              According this months An Cosantoir, the AC would like to start looking for a replacement for the Rheims Rockets (the Cessna FR172).

                              They will require the following:
                              - more advanced turbo-prop aircraft
                              - bigger cabin
                              - modern avonics package
                              - able to carry special equipment (eg cameras)
                              - simple & cheap to operate
                              - STOL capable

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                According to the Dail recently, there are no plans to replace the Cessnas...


                                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X