Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

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

  • One year after Leo, when asked by Cathal Berry in PQs about military strategic transport aircraft, today in PQs the deputy asked what progress had been made since.
    The response was unsurprising.
    https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1390272592947433475
    For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

    Comment


    • How this sounds:

      Leo to DF COS : "I think you need a big plane, sell me the idea"
      DF COS: "I'd prefer something more boaty"

      Incredible stuff really. A DF COS torpedoing (pun intended) the offer of a transport aircraft. Something you might expect from a Dept DG.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
        How this sounds:

        Leo to DF COS : "I think you need a big plane, sell me the idea"
        DF COS: "I'd prefer something more boaty"

        Incredible stuff really. A DF COS torpedoing (pun intended) the offer of a transport aircraft. Something you might expect from a Dept DG.
        I don't believe that's how it panned out.
        For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
          How this sounds:

          Leo to DF COS : "I think you need a big plane, sell me the idea"
          DF COS: "I'd prefer something more boaty"

          Incredible stuff really. A DF COS torpedoing (pun intended) the offer of a transport aircraft. Something you might expect from a Dept DG.
          To quote Leo

          At the time, the Chief of Staff did provide a position paper. That was last year when I was Taoiseach. It was a position paper relating to the acquisition of a strategic airlift aircraft as a concept, but this project was not put forward onto the civil military five-year equipment development plan in the list of identified equipment priorities.
          the EDP wasn’t a DF publication. It was either DoD or Government

          Comment


          • Everything is being tied to the EDP now and once its there it is written in stone. The EDP and CoDF have given the minister an excuse to do nothing until after December at the earliest. Even if the need was immediate and obvious to all.
            For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

            Comment


            • I'd agree with you on how the EDP and CoDF could be used to stimmie things outside the EDPs explicitly stated programmes til the end of the year. (I'm really surprised there's nothing specific about naval surface/sub-surfrace warfare, transport aircraft or helicopters at all.) An extra C295 would be an easy first option too.

              But at the same time, there's enough waffle between the good parts of the EDP to allow flying saucers to make it in and for the people involved to say "sure it was always an option in the plan". Such as the (single) PC12 280. (I think if Simon minister, we may have seen that second PC12.)

              What hopefully we'll see is the CoDF actually inform government policy, and thus a revised current EDP or the next EDP. Properly considered, backed and most importantly resourced, together with a reformed DoD structure and outlook*, this would see the right equipment procured for the next 30 years (for all services). Hopefully, then we'll see one or more A321/C40/C130/C390 (in addition to that extra C295) in service for the future*

              * Yes, that may have been a pig flying by... Twice...
              Last edited by meridian; 8 May 2021, 12:20.

              Comment


              • One of the CN235's could be retained and used for a few years in a utility/transport role. We already own the aircraft, I personally think it would be a waste to dispose of the 235's when we are in need of the capability they possess and could provide if stripped of the MPA fit.

                Comment


                • No. They are falling apart and cost a lot of maintenance. They are #2 and #3 of the worldwide CASA fleet in hours/

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by pilatus View Post
                    One of the CN235's could be retained and used for a few years in a utility/transport role. We already own the aircraft, I personally think it would be a waste to dispose of the 235's when we are in need of the capability they possess and could provide if stripped of the MPA fit.
                    They’ve had what two major rebuilds already? What’s their reliability rates at this stage? Make more sense to me if there’s the political will to add in a third 295 instead.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                      No. They are falling apart and cost a lot of maintenance. They are #2 and #3 of the worldwide CASA fleet in hours/
                      They are certainly not failing apart although they will come to a point where manufacturors support will fade away

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Spark23 View Post

                        They are certainly not failing apart although they will come to a point where manufacturors support will fade away
                        Plus if we retained only one what is commonality of type with C295?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Spark23 View Post

                          They are certainly not failing apart although they will come to a point where manufacturors support will fade away
                          I kind of remember an article in the Irish times around the R116 crash that suggested the company wee almost at that point then with our airframes. I’d imagine keeping them going even longer is going to mean some fairly hefty bills.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            Plus if we retained only one what is commonality of type with C295?
                            Very little apart from being twin engine, different engines, glass cockpit, lengthened airframe and bigger weights which will have different limits, ideal scenario would be sell to somebody and use revenue towards a transport C-295 which would have enormous benefits in freeing up the other two airframes for their primary role and also maintaining crew currency (three being the magic number to always have one serviceable), the transport one be great for routine logistics tasks of which their are many within the DF and stepping stone to something bigger transport aircraft wise, which would then allow the transport C-295 to be converted to maritime configuration which leads to 24 hr topcover! Fingers crossed ????

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Spark23 View Post
                              Very little apart from being twin engine, different engines, glass cockpit, lengthened airframe and bigger weights which will have different limits, ideal scenario would be sell to somebody and use revenue towards a transport C-295 which would have enormous benefits in freeing up the other two airframes for their primary role and also maintaining crew currency (three being the magic number to always have one serviceable), the transport one be great for routine logistics tasks of which their are many within the DF and stepping stone to something bigger transport aircraft wise, which would then allow the transport C-295 to be converted to maritime configuration which leads to 24 hr topcover! Fingers crossed ????
                              So in other words, keeping one 235 would come with more hassle

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Spark23 View Post
                                Very little apart from being twin engine, different engines, glass cockpit, lengthened airframe and bigger weights which will have different limits, ideal scenario would be sell to somebody and use revenue towards a transport C-295 which would have enormous benefits in freeing up the other two airframes for their primary role and also maintaining crew currency (three being the magic number to always have one serviceable), the transport one be great for routine logistics tasks of which their are many within the DF and stepping stone to something bigger transport aircraft wise, which would then allow the transport C-295 to be converted to maritime configuration which leads to 24 hr topcover! Fingers crossed ????

                                Because we are getting the MPA version, the costing overall (€211m) is quite large. The basic transport model should be significantly cheaper and affordable and a 3rd option (if an option is in the contract). Its a no brainer as you said as a stepping stone to something bigger.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X