Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Future Air Corp Requirements (other than fighters)

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

  • Future Air Corp Requirements (other than fighters)

    When considering any air defence fighter or ground based system one must first access the threat level. Only countries that could possibly reach us are within EU/NATO and not realistically a threat in the foreseeable future. Also they UK/France/Spain/Germany have vastly larger air forces than we could ever have with our population and GDP so buying 10 F16's or whatever would make no difference in the event UK attacked us. Only reason to buy a modern fighter aircraft would to be contribute a squadron to a larger EU/NATO air defence for Europe in light of possible Russian expansion.

    Some helicopters that could go overseas with EU/UN missions is a possibility but in the current ecomonic climate is a long way away.

    Also helicopters could be used at home for SAR/ Assistance to the Civil Power in the event of natural disaster. i.e how many choppers could we make available in the event of a major natural disaster or would we look to the RAF or USAF for this.

    Ireland's current security threat comes from within on a national level and possibly from a increased conflict level between Europe and Russia. and i don't think Russia would differentate between EU and NATO.

  • #2
    I think before going down the road of identifying the aircraft suitable for our needs we need to assess the percieved level of threat..to date no one has attempted to assault the state from the air so there has been no realistic support of the idea.

    the AC's entire existence is down to the fact the army need to play credence to air support either in the role of heli support or light strike.

    The maritime related units again are there to support what the Navy does primarily ..fishery protection, If the role wasn't there they would possibly sacrifice the aircraft for extra helos.

    the whole concept of helo ops graduated from the SAR need as opposed to any specific need..it is only with the advent of the Coast Guard that the army has had any real control over the helos.

    The dual mentality of providing the services like MATS etc has hamstrung the AC from acquiring the aircraft they need to meet the armies requirements.

    The token air defence we have is about as good as it ever will be.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • #3
      True, the lack of strategic planning has hamstrung the entire defence force, resulting in lots of paper units, and not much teeth.

      PWC in 1994 suggested that the aircorps be renamed the military air service, to reflect its role. Not a bad idea in my opinion, re-branding. As such it should focus on what needs to be achieved and what can be achieved.

      The naval service needs MP aircraft, and possibly helicopters to serve on the EPV.

      The army needs the ability to move a re-inforced infantry platoon of around 40/50 men around by helicopter, both at home on exercise and abroad on operations, including casevac.

      There needs to be a light utility aircraft to carry out ATCP roles basically a jack of all trades,

      A light transport for duties abroad, basically an intra-theatre transport.

      The DF's commander in chief should be provided with appropriate transport, when representing the state abroad.

      An irish battalion overseas, with a wide area of operations would benefit from an aircraft capable of carrying out both ISR and light strike duties.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by paul g
        True, the lack of strategic planning has hamstrung the entire defence force, resulting in lots of paper units, and not much teeth.

        PWC in 1994 suggested that the aircorps be renamed the military air service, to reflect its role. Not a bad idea in my opinion, re-branding. As such it should focus on what needs to be achieved and what can be achieved.
        Yeah, rebranding would also have a positive effect on moral.
        Originally posted by paul g
        The naval service needs MP aircraft, and possibly helicopters to serve on the EPV.
        This obviously means that they buy the right helicopters, not some civ' machine with a repaint. But do you mean handing the Casa's over to the NS as well?

        Originally posted by paul g
        The army needs the ability to move a re-inforced infantry platoon of around 40/50 men around by helicopter, both at home on exercise and abroad on operations, including casevac.
        Again, military helicopters and a fair few of them too.

        Originally posted by paul g
        There needs to be a light utility aircraft to carry out ATCP roles basically a jack of all trades,

        A light transport for duties abroad, basically an intra-theatre transport.
        Can an aircraft be found to do both these jobs?
        Originally posted by paul g
        The DF's commander in chief should be provided with appropriate transport, when representing the state abroad.
        Why should this be run by the military? To be honest I don't see any reason why we should have this, there again I see no reason why any minister should have air transport .

        Originally posted by paul g
        An irish battalion overseas, with a wide area of operations would benefit from an aircraft capable of carrying out both ISR and light strike duties.
        What have you got in mind for this anyway?
        "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


        • #5
          Originally posted by Turkey
          Yeah, rebranding would also have a positive effect on moral.


          Possibly more than rebranding,


          This obviously means that they buy the right helicopters, not some civ' machine with a repaint. But do you mean handing the Casa's over to the NS as well?

          Actually the AW-139 is fine for on island duties, something larger for overseas deployments would be necessary though, although they are leasing them at the moment

          Again, military helicopters and a fair few of them too.


          Can an aircraft be found to do both these jobs?

          Not an aerosexual so can't answer

          Why should this be run by the military? To be honest I don't see any reason why we should have this, there again I see no reason why any minister should have air transport .

          Then again the commander in chief is the president, do you want the head of state taking ryanair on state visits. However, there is no reason that goverenment ministers can't fly by scheduled airlines. It is necessary.

          What have you got in mind for this anyway?
          Ah, I'd like something like a twin engine turboprop with the surveillance equipment of the Predator drone, with the fire power of an apache attack helicopter. Nothing like that on the market at the moment.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by paul g
            Ah, I'd like something like a twin engine turboprop with the surveillance equipment of the Predator drone, with the fire power of an apache attack helicopter. Nothing like that on the market at the moment.
            You just might be in luck....

            Boeing considers restarting OV-10 production after 23-year hiatus
            By Stephen Trimble


            Boeing is considering the possibility of restarting production of the OV-10 Bronco turboprop, a Vietnam-era light attack and observation aircraft last produced in 1976.
            The company confirms that the OV-10 could be offered as either a light attack or intra-theatre light cargo aircraft for the US Air Force. The international market is also driving interest in the slow-flying aircraft, which blends some of the observational capabilities of a helicopter with the range of a fixed-wing aircraft.

            Boeing has cited recent USAF interest in acquiring a light attack aircraft as a possible reason to revive OV-10 production. Although known for its surveillance prowess, the OV-10 remains in combat service in four countries: Colombia (pictured below), Indonesia, the Philippines and Venezuela, with a weapons load at least equivalent to the Bell AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter. Some of those countries, and perhaps new customers, could seek remanufactured or new production OV-10s as their current fleets wear out.



            So far, the USAF has not decided whether to buy a light attack fleet, known as the OA-X. But the Air National Guard will experiment later this year with the Beechcraft AT-6 Texan II. The USAF is also buying dozens of AT-6s on behalf of the Iraqi air force. The Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano and US Aircraft A-67 Dragon are also candidates for an OA-X order. If the OA-X opportunity stalls, Boeing believes there could be interest in reviving the OV-10 as an intra-theatre transport for moving small groups of troops or medical services around the battlefield.

            Boeing notes that the OV-10 revival idea is very preliminary. However, the company has created a marketing brochure, which has been circulated at defence industry events. Unmanned air systems are being increasingly augmented by piloted aircraft for the persistent intelligence surveillance reconnaissance mission. The US Army and US Marine Corps have adapted the Shorts C-23B Sherpa with a wide-area surveillance sensor, and the USAF will deploy 37 MC-12W Project Liberty aircraft - modified Beechcraft King Air 350/350ERs, to augment unmanned operations.

            The OV-10 has been considered for a similar role for several years. The Department of Defense contacted John Hodgson, president of the OV-10 Bronco Association, a few years ago to inquire about fleet availability. Hodgson is not surprised by the rising interest in the observation platform. "It doesn't make any difference how good your UAV is," he says. "Nothing replaces a couple of eyeballs on a head that moves around."
            (www.flightglobal.com)

            Comment


            • #7
              Easyrider

              I got the impression that boeing won't return to the basic Bronco, they're floating the idea/design so to speak, ( or as american say running it up the flagpole to see it anybvody salutes), they won't replicate exactly. Gates and Obama are pretty keen on the USAF restructuring. Look at what Gates is proposing for the future structure of the US amred forces in the FY2010 budget, stopping F22 production at 187, canceling the project for a new bomber from 2018, ending the C-17 globemaster at 205, retiring 250 fighters in 2010, and increasing the emphasis on turbo props for the ISR role.


              I'm not an aerosexual, i look at this from an army background. If I'm a platoon or battalion commander operating on a peace support mission, I want good intelligence, to keep ahead of the OODA Loop. A battalion commander will need good information gathering systems and the DF has already invested heavily in ISTAR equpiment. A platoon commander might need to have as target destroyed, such as a sniper firing from a building, but in a way that limits the need for collatoral damage. Again, you have to see the air corps not as a mini airforce geared towardfs a strategic role, but as the aerial support for a defence forces, which is increasingly geared towards peace support operation overseas against unconventional opposition

              Something like the Bn-2T defender, armed with surveillance equipment and an operator in the back, and carrying hellfires or viperstrike missiles would suffice, its its good enough for the american armed forces? Or the King air 350ER the americans employ.

              Comment


              • #8
                You cant just strap on a hellfire to Defender and whoosh you're flying a gunship. Hellfires(basic) are laser guided and designation and guidance capability with have to be added to the aircraft to launch them. Can you imagine what said integration and testing would cost...tens of millions.Also, with a unit cost of around $70,000 thats a hell of a lot of cash just to arm one aircraft. More advanced fire and forget Hellfires with their own radar cost much much more.
                Anyway, if you're in the sh1t in a Defender- a slow cumbersome aircraft-then you better have good life assurance. Something like the bronco, rugged and surprisingly agile, with good survivability, good strafing capability, with good sensors and dumb weaponary would be far more cost effective and you have a good chance of getting back to base.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Later models of the OV-10 also benefited hugely from developments in the Attack Helicopter world, both in terms of avionics and armament - up to and including the original models of the Hellfire, FLIR and laser designator and the 20mm cannon from the AH-1. If Boeing were to get back to the basic airframe, you could take it as a given that tech from newer AHs would end up in play.

                  An upengined OV-10, with the optics (and possibly the 30mm cannon) from an AH-64D, with the potential to use Hellfire, 70mm FFARs and potentially even gravity bombs would certain fit Paul's criteria. Range and payload for the OV-10 are good too - it was originally designed for the type of role we'd need filled, after all. Only problems I'd see with it as a long term objective are that helicopters are more versatile (and would need undoubtedly need to be in Theatre any how), and that there are a limited number of missions where it would be of use. Fine for Chad, or Liberia. Not so sure about Kosovo or Lebanon type operations.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just another point, Boeing's proposal re the Bronco, is to use the same airframe with minimal modification but with a glass cockpit and smart weapon capability. More sensible to invest in an aircraft that would already have all development work done rather than spend money integrating a weapons system on an already unsuitable weapons delivery platform and shoulder all the cost of same.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Jet jock,

                      That's why I said "something like a defender", Iraq has already paid for the integration of the hellfire onto the Cessna Caravan, so the principle is sound enough, you're looking at an aircraft that can carry out long range ISR mission, and if it observes a group of terrorists, rebels, etc, planting a roadside bomb or preparing to ambush an aid convoy, it can launch an attack on them from a distance.

                      Aidan

                      You could argue that the Giraffe 50 mounted on the Bv206 is useless in liberia and chad, but actually would be quite important in the lebanon, given its neighbour to the south.
                      i agree as to helicopters, especially medium lift being a priority, however, i think the department may actually lease Mi8 hips as and when necessary.


                      As for the bronco, well Boeing have yet to put it back in production, and they probably won't unless they get a worthwhile order which they're not going to get from Ireland .

                      And I'm not an aerosexual, I'm lookin at the problem from a strategic point of view. Strategically I'd like the air corps to develop an ISR capability to support overseas missions, basically an aircraft whose sensors are networked with the army's armoured vehicles, which would complement the investment the army has already made, with a secondary light strike capability as an added bonus I'd also like to see a medium lift helicopter capability.

                      I'm of the opinion that you should set a strategy first and then worry about the nuts and bolts, or what to buy later. The other way around you end up with another Dauphin saga.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        One way you could potentially end up with another Dauphin saga would be to try and combine a suitable ISR platform with weapons delivery capability. The old refrain so often used to describe the Dauphin, "Jack of all trades, master of none" springs to mind. For a number of reasons:

                        - Adding weaponary to an aircraft, such as a Defender/Caravan, adds significant weight and drag, results in reducing maximum fuel load, hence less endurance. Also, with the extra weight/drag there is a higher fuel burn per hour, resulting in a further erosion of endurance. Endurance is one of the primary requirements of a decent ISR platform.

                        -Stand off missiles, like the Hellfire(disregarding their expense for the sake of the argument), require constant target designation until impact. Fixed wing aircraft, unlike helicopters do not posess the ability to hover. They would indeed be required to fly toward the target to maintain the laser designation, therby with every second be putting themselves inside the range of weapons of a decreasing calibre. 23mm, 14.5mm, 12.7mm down to small arms fire. Not an ideal scenario in a slow unarmoured(Aluminium and perspex) aircraft that's about as agile as a rigid lorry.

                        -If an ISR aircraft has failed to detect an impending ambush until the point at which the attack is about to commence, it hasnt being doing it's job in the first place. Detection should be possible from stand off ranges in front of the convoy and alerting them to either change course, retreat or prepare for the engagement should have taken place well in advance. The type of capability an ISR aircraft gives you is to alert to these potential threats long before they materialise.

                        Realistically, to posess a decent ISR platform, it must be a dedicated ISR platform.Even more so given the type of aircraft potentially within budget. UAV's are different in this respect as they are unmanned and ultimately, in terms of minimal loss of life, they are expendible. They also do not require a CSAR capability on standby.

                        In the same vein, if you want to posess a decent COIN/light CAS aircraft, a dedicated platform with a good weapons load and a decent sensor suite of it's own is also the best route.

                        Combining the two roles into one aircraft, especially the platforms we are discussing results in a reduced capability in both roles.

                        Something I've warmed to over the last few months-I will admit I didnt see it as an ideal ISR platform to begin with- is the DA42MPP. It has proven to be an excellent purchase for the MOD in the UK.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jetjock
                          Fixed wing aircraft, unlike helicopters do not posess the ability to hover. They would indeed be required to fly toward the target to maintain the laser designation, therby with every second be putting themselves inside the range of weapons of a decreasing calibre.
                          Why couldn't they just fly parallel to the target and maintain their distance?
                          "Attack your attic with a Steyr....as seen on the Late Late Show..."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As I said I know very little about aeroplanes, I'm not an expert, I'm just throwing out ideas to get some sort of reaction. However, the DA-44MPP, which I googled, would seem to offer a long range patrol like the ones undertaken by the defence forces overseas excellent ISR capability, which could be suplemented by tactical UAV's like the orbiter, which the army already operates.

                            What I'm trying to point out, is that there is an awful lot of attention focused on fighters on this board, where in reality, there is very little need for them, and not enough on things like ISR and intra theatre transport, which could be carried out by the air corps and wouldn't break the bank.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jetjock
                              ....

                              -Stand off missiles, like the Hellfire(disregarding their expense for the sake of the argument), require constant target designation until impact. Fixed wing aircraft, unlike helicopters do not posess the ability to hover. They would indeed be required to fly toward the target to maintain the laser designation, therby with every second be putting themselves inside the range of weapons of a decreasing calibre. 23mm, 14.5mm, 12.7mm down to small arms fire. Not an ideal scenario in a slow unarmoured(Aluminium and perspex) aircraft that's about as agile as a rigid lorry.

                              .....
                              There are different versions of the Hellfire, one of which has an active radar seeker, which makes it a fire-and-forget missile.

                              Yes, Hellfires with laser seekers need to have the target continuously illuminated with a laser designator, but does the laser designator have to be on the aircraft? Could the troops on the ground who are calling in the airstrike not paint the target? Just wondering.... Alternatively, the laser designator could be mounted in a turret on the aircraft - like on the Apache - which would allow the aircraft to stand off even while lasing the target.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X