Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I don't see them doing anything useful really. Basic flight training can be done in something smaller (Diamond 20?). Then graduate to twins on DA-42 MPP, which also fills the light ISTAR slot. And then a few Swordfish on the Saab 2000 or the Q-400 platform. Add a PC-24 for VIPs and there's your fixed win fleet. Evetually add a few GlobalEyes
Having MEPT and APT on the Diamond DA22 is even a worse idea than my lot did when we went straight from the CT-4E onto the Kingair to save money. It was a false economy and there was a marked drop in type conversion readiness for operational flying. Remember you are training military pilots not First Officers for ATR72's
BTW. What on earth would the Air Corps require a Global Eyes AEW&C for?
Look at where we are contributing, the amount of personnel, the mission and the ROE.
i did, thats why i mentioned them. perhaps, given that the aircraft won't be armed, the Irish ROE aren't really applicable - though given the lack of a DAS, the ROE of other interested parties on the ground might be of some relevence...
Not Advocating for the Diamond System, but the PC-9 training system is perfectly designed as a cost effective lead in fighter trainer...
We don't have and most likely will never have fighters, hence the question of their suitability.
i may as well ask, what would be the ideal set up?
if the operational airframes are rotary, CASA, PC-12 and Learjet, is there a pipeline that works, or is producing tiny numbers of crew for these disparate types akin to a money fired power station and instead they should all just be sent to the US/France/UK whatever?
It has been stated here previously that the PC-9's were justified by virtue of the fact that it would mean foreign aircraft wouldn't be required to police airspace during high level conferences, visits by US presidents etc.
They do provide a basic air policing role, however limited. We see foreign air forces utilise helicopters etc. for the same role, despite possessing frontline fighter aircraft.
i may as well ask, what would be the ideal set up? if the operational airframes are rotary, CASA, PC-12 and Learjet, is there a pipeline that works, or is producing tiny numbers of crew for these disparate types akin to a money fired power station and instead they should all just be sent to the US/France/UK whatever?
cheers.
No easy Answer really, however IMHO the PC-9 was the wrong choice and swallowed up a huge chunk of available capital. There is some sensitivity around keeping pilot training in house, I'm not sure I agree but there is certainly that feeling in the AC. Most likely a discussion for a different thread but here's a couple of options off the top of my head.
1. Keep the SF-260's, add a few, and upgrade all to a common standard and invest enough funds to reduce the significant down time they experienced, add a multi engine trainer, Two King Air C-90's would be my choice. Total expenditure 10M leaves 50M plus for investment in the operational fleet.
2. Buy a new training system, based around 8-10 modern single engine high performance aircraft and 4-6 similar twin engine aircraft. Again expenditure of 10-15M..
The training system should be sized and equipped to produce competent multi engine IFR rated pilots.
50m would be buy quite a few C-295's, King Air 350's, AW-139's..
Us special forces and the afghan airforce both use the pc12 in the istar role, both have a little bit of experience of combat. As for its suitability for warzones, the brits took 651 Sqn defenders to Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for air combat, how many planes did the USAF shoot shown between june 1991 and this year.
No easy Answer really, however IMHO the PC-9 was the wrong choice and swallowed up a huge chunk of available capital. There is some sensitivity around keeping pilot training in house, I'm not sure I agree but there is certainly that feeling in the AC. Most likely a discussion for a different thread but here's a couple of options off the top of my head.
1. Keep the SF-260's, add a few, and upgrade all to a common standard and invest enough funds to reduce the significant down time they experienced, add a multi engine trainer, Two King Air C-90's would be my choice. Total expenditure 10M leaves 50M plus for investment in the operational fleet.
2. Buy a new training system, based around 8-10 modern single engine high performance aircraft and 4-6 similar twin engine aircraft. Again expenditure of 10-15M..
The training system should be sized and equipped to produce competent multi engine IFR rated pilots.
50m would be buy quite a few C-295's, King Air 350's, AW-139's..
Don't think you costing that right. The AC spent €48.4m on 4 AW139s
i did, thats why i mentioned them. perhaps, given that the aircraft won't be armed, the Irish ROE aren't really applicable - though given the lack of a DAS, the ROE of other interested parties on the ground might be of some Relevance
the ROE comes from the mandate and is related (generally) to the threat faced
UNDOF afaik has no air support whatsoever
UNIFIL has Italian AB212
to be frank, why buy it then?
why do we retain 5/6 Cessnas currently? Those jobs need doing, the AC will replace them with a much more capable platform
unless you can give it an additional engine, it'll be going nowhere...
(a) who says it is intended to (b) who says it won't
I was shot down (pun not intended) for suggesting that the Cessna replacement be a twin engined
given that the F117 left operational service nearly a decade ago, i would rather hope not...
Us special forces and the afghan airforce both use the pc12 in the istar role, both have a little bit of experience of combat. As for its suitability for warzones, the brits took 651 Sqn defenders to Iraq and Afghanistan...
both with a decent DAS, and in the context of full spectrum air dominance - but, you know, apart from that...
why do we retain 5/6 Cessnas currently? Those jobs need doing...
Ah DeV... really? Christ I hope they have bigger plans than using them for hour building.
Re: above points about PC-12/Defender use abroad - given that a major difficulty with previous deployments (e.g. Chad) was the lack of heli support, it seems a bit sketchy sending PC-12's without DAS, places where there wont be very eh, effective CSAR support.
I can actually see a role for the PC-12 in support of long range patrols in such an environment; but no DAS, no CSAR, no deployment.
..I can actually see a role for the PC-12 in support of long range patrols in such an environment; but no DAS, no CSAR, no deployment.
like the PC-9M's, like the AW-139's - the foundation assets are there, but without the brickwork of the additional hardware and the skills and experience of the people, its nothing but foundations.
for another 30 years.
any of those platforms - with the right tweaks and additional equipment - would be useful assets to a force commander in somewhere like Chad or Mali, but without them, and without the skills to use them, they are yet another wasted opportunity.
its buying a Ferrari and converting it to LPG and sticking cheap Chinese tyres on it. you may as well wipe your arse with €50 notes...
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment