Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

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

  • #16
    Yeah but you can ferry to Malta and get some rotations in on day one.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      Perhaps that is why when the USAF submitted the yearly costs per aircraft the C130J was more expensive to operate than a C17.
      It was only the MC-130H operated by the United States Air Force Special Operations Command and the HC-130P Combat King CSAR variant that was marginally costing more than the C-17. Both pretty elderly platforms.

      You might find this document dated Nov 2017 interesting as it gives CPFH rates for all US military aircraft in service with the DoD, other Federal Agencies, FMS users and other users who may have acquired aircraft via direct commercial sale.

      https://comptroller.defense.gov/Port...8/2018_b_c.pdf
      Last edited by Anzac; 19 May 2020, 09:44.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
        I keep coming back to trying to have a joint purchase & operation with some other EU countries. Buy a single type, have a single main base with all that it needs like sims etc and deploy as needed for training to participating nations.
        Great plan, the other EU country just can't be in NATO.
        German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
        German 2: Private? I am a general!
        German 1: That is the bad news.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
          Great plan, the other EU country just can't be in NATO.
          Austria
          Finland
          Sweden

          Comment


          • #20
            Sweden is already part of the Heavy Air Lift wing in Hungary. Their 1960s version C130H will soon no longer be permitted to fly in civilian airspace. They are on the lookout for a replacement.
            Austria uses 3 C130K. These are ex RAF models which were purchased in 2003 due to the demand in UN Peacekeeping missions.
            Finland use (check notes) 2x C295, 3x Lear 35, and 6 Pilatus PC12.

            I can't see any reason why the DoD would wish to work with any of these countries, which we have nothing in common with.......
            German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
            German 2: Private? I am a general!
            German 1: That is the bad news.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ropebag View Post
              I take the view that buying one of anything, particularly with the constrained nature of the Irish operating budget, ,is a disaster waiting to happen - crew training and currency, and the tech support and training pipeline, is just going to burn money and hours. It'll look great on day one, but a year later it'll be on bricks and dripping in rust.
              Which is why the answer could be C295.

              We have done it with the PC12NG Spectres and PC12NG.

              It doesn’t have the range or payload of A400M or C130 but it is what we are getting for the MPAs so there will be commonality. And that was the plan for it to act as a transporter as well any way.

              It could transport a lot of spares, stores etc but not vehicles.

              It’s not ideal but imho what is most likely

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                It was only the MC-130H operated by the United States Air Force Special Operations Command and the HC-130P Combat King CSAR variant that was marginally costing more than the C-17. Both pretty elderly platforms.

                You might find this document dated Nov 2017 interesting as it gives CPFH rates for all US military aircraft in service with the DoD, other Federal Agencies, FMS users and other users who may have acquired aircraft via direct commercial sale.

                https://comptroller.defense.gov/Port...8/2018_b_c.pdf
                I was surprised by the CPFH for the C-130H as the figures they gave in the C-130J SAR for both aircraft were around the same value, the C-130H being a little lower.

                But that is only the CPFH, a C17 lifts more and flies faster.
                Thus on a 5.5hr mission a C-17 will lift 71,214kg a distance of 2420nm, a C-130J will lift 15,422kg a distance of 1800nm. So looking at kg/nm the C-17 has a massive advantage over the C-130J. But as we both know, the mix will be different, it will not always be flying such load, there will be training fights without cargo, flight with troops etc. But I was surprised how cheap the C-17 was to operate, and if you want medium/long distance cargo then it seems a great fit.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  Which is why the answer could be C295.

                  We have done it with the PC12NG Spectres and PC12NG.

                  It doesn’t have the range or payload of A400M or C130 but it is what we are getting for the MPAs so there will be commonality. And that was the plan for it to act as a transporter as well any way.

                  It could transport a lot of spares, stores etc but not vehicles.

                  It’s not ideal but imho what is most likely
                  I have to agree with you. I cant fathom peoples need to transport vehicles. We will never have the capacity to transport adequate volumes to make any sort of difference in any situation. Its far easier to add a couple of extra cover vehicles in the initial sea transportation. As you say we need an aircraft that we can use for spares and stores.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    So.. why don't we embrace what we have, hang on to the CN235s, strip out the sensor suite, and use them as pure transports? Meanwhile pick up one of the many surplus 737s as MATS? The combined Transport profile of a civiian airliner type, medium range exec type, and short range passenger type would fulfil all our passenger needs without upsetting too many of the twitching curtain brigade. Then a quick repaint of the 235s to something less watery and more honkey.. maybe a nice green?
                    Better yet, swap them for a single standard 295? Do EADS do trade ins?
                    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                    German 2: Private? I am a general!
                    German 1: That is the bad news.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by apc View Post
                      I have to agree with you. I cant fathom peoples need to transport vehicles. We will never have the capacity to transport adequate volumes to make any sort of difference in any situation. Its far easier to add a couple of extra cover vehicles in the initial sea transportation. As you say we need an aircraft that we can use for spares and stores.
                      To quote the RFP:
                      k. The aircraft must be fully interoperable within a multinational environment (both EU and NATO/PfP). This must include the handling of cargo, fuelling, refuelling, communications, airborne operations and medical.
                      l. The aircraft, in the logistic configuration, must be capable of airlifting at least six (6) tonnes of cargo, or at least twenty (20) fully equipped soldiers.

                      m. The aircraft must be capable of co-ordinated airdropping (personnel and supplies) to marked or unmarked drop zones as well as conducting precision air delivery, including static line and freefall (HALO/HAHO) airdrop (by using a supplemental oxygen system where required).
                      n. The aircraft must be capable of conducting CASEVAC and MEDEVAC missions, with aeromedical aircrew. The aircraft must be capable of being equipped with medical and general equipment, and supplies adequate for the care of the number and types of patients transported.


                      From the questions submitted:
                      The primary tasking of the aircraft will be in the maritime surveillance role.



                      The usage percentile across all tasks are as follows:-
                      Maritime Patrol Activity (including SAR Top Cover (70%)
                      Logistical & Army/SOF Support, including Medivac and Air Ambulance (20%)
                      Training, Pilot/Army including parachute (8%)
                      Contingency, including VIP (2%)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        What RFP is that from Dev?
                        German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                        German 2: Private? I am a general!
                        German 1: That is the bad news.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                          Do EADS do trade ins?
                          Bit difficult, EADS no longer exists, it transformed into Airbus in 2008.

                          At the moment I think you would get a good deal on a new aircraft without the trade-in.
                          Last edited by EUFighter; 19 May 2020, 15:40.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            If we do get a dedicated utility C-295 or two, a function they could add that was not in the RfP is firefighting.
                            https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...programme.html
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYsAh2s_b5Y

                            Years ago if someone had said we have a fire season in Ireland I would have laughed, but now with regularity we see the AC out fighting fires. A suitably equipped C-295 would be an asset that could be quickly and easily deployed giving support to the AW-139's used today.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Sorry, Got confused because they still build them in the ADS plant in Spain.
                              German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                              German 2: Private? I am a general!
                              German 1: That is the bad news.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                If we do get a dedicated utility C-295 or two, a function they could add that was not in the RfP is firefighting.
                                https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...programme.html
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYsAh2s_b5Y

                                Years ago if someone had said we have a fire season in Ireland I would have laughed, but now with regularity we see the AC out fighting fires. A suitably equipped C-295 would be an asset that could be quickly and easily deployed giving support to the AW-139's used today.

                                Not a fan personally.
                                German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                                German 2: Private? I am a general!
                                German 1: That is the bad news.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X