Military transport aircraft

[Anzac]

No, not the same. We would be part of the A400M sharing to which Hungary recently joined up too. Due to our stupid triple lock limitation we could only deploy a limited number of people to Lechfeld, best only air crew, with the exception of the month of September when "special training" would take place.

Nevertheless, participation in these initiatives does not come free. It will be interesting to see the sustainment costs as well as the cpfh operational costs.

[EUFighter]

Nevertheless, participation in these initiatives does not come free. It will be interesting to see the sustainment costs as well as the cpfh operational costs.

True, nothing is free. But it might be more politically acceptable to pay a fee of some 15-20m€ per year rather than a one-off sum of 500-600m€.
Swedish share of the HAW C17s is 550 hours per year which if we have a similar level with the German A400M Multinational Wing would then be in the ball park of what we could easily afford.

[na grohmiti]

Ken Foxe on the ball again.
The Learjet, the Ambassador, the flight diversion, the Covid-19 test chaos, and an Air Corps crew confined to base – TheStory.ie
The Learjet, the Ambassador, the flight diversion, the Covid-19 test chaos, and an Air Corps crew confined to base


An Air Corps crew were ordered not to leave an airbase in Abu Dhabi because of a Covid-19 testing fiasco as part of the evacuation mission for Irish citizens fleeing Afghanistan.

The government Learjet had been dispatched to the UAE to support the evacuation but was diverted at the last moment to a military airbase where the crew were told they were confined to an area with no sleeping facilities and only couches.

The last-minute hitch in late August caused chaos in the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs with diplomatic staff saying they were reluctant to intervene with the UAE government.

It also caused havoc with flight plans because of concerns the Air Corps crew would not have the required rest periods before flying the aircraft back to Ireland.

Internal files from the Department of Defence detail how the plane was first diverted to a military airbase with “no reason” provided

[DeV]

8 soon to be retired RAF Hercules already sold
https://www.forces.net/news/could-yo...equipment-sale

[Graylion]

1 hercules, 2 CASA 295/C27 Spartan and 6 Islander all in transport configuration for a MATS unit alongside Air Corps 1.Hercules for peacekeeping support fitted with a proper self defence system.2 CASA 295/C27 Spartan for lugging largish things around Ireland and abroad, some long range MP capability and paratroop dropping and finally the six Islander for general run-arounds on the island moving a few troops and bits of kit here and there.

The Islanders are universally hated and the PC-12s fulfil this role better

5 PC-12 Spectre (Gardaí and ISTAR)
2 PC-12 utility
8 Grob G 120 TP
4 M-346 (edit)
18 (+6) AW 101 TTH and SAR
12 AW109 GN Aer Ambulance, Gardaí and training
12+2 Gripen C/D leased
1 (+1) A-321 XLR
5 C-295 MPA with military wing (hardpoints)
5 C-390

[na grohmiti]

Forget the C-390. It's not getting the overseas orders.

[GoneToTheCanner]

The Islanders are universally hated and the PC-12s fulfil this role better

5 PC-12 Spectre (Gardaí and ISTAR)
2 PC-12 utility
8 Grob G 120 TP
4 M-346 (edit)
18 (+6) AW 101 TTH and SAR
12 AW109 GN Aer Ambulance, Gardaí and training
12+2 Gripen C/D leased
1 (+1) A-321 XLR
5 C-295 MPA with military wing (hardpoints)
5 C-390

Forget it. Grobs would never happen since the PC-9 came along. Why buy helis for the Gardai? Let them fund them from the Garda budget instead of bleeding off the DF. Why do SAR when it is already well civilianised and very efficient?

[Graylion]

Forget the C-390. It's not getting the overseas orders.

I'd actually say that that is not too much of a concern since it is developed from and has familiarities with the E2 series. Maintenance hub in Portugal.

[Graylion]

Forget it. Grobs would never happen since the PC-9 came along. Why buy helis for the Gardai? Let them fund them from the Garda budget instead of bleeding off the DF. Why do SAR when it is already well civilianised and very efficient?

Guards can help pay for them. The current garda choppers are Air Corps. This is just type standardisation.

[CTU]

Guards can help pay for them. The current garda choppers are Air Corps. This is just type standardisation.

No the GASU helicopters are owned by DoJ/AGS who also tender out the maintanance to a private contractor, all the Air Corps provide is Pilots, military registration and a place to land.

[Anzac]

The Islanders are universally hated and the PC-12s fulfil this role better

5 PC-12 Spectre (Gardaí and ISTAR)
2 PC-12 utility
8 Grob G 120 TP
4 M-346 (edit)
18 (+6) AW 101 TTH and SAR
12 AW109 GN Aer Ambulance, Gardaí and training
12+2 Gripen C/D leased
1 (+1) A-321 XLR
5 C-295 MPA with military wing (hardpoints)
5 C-390

Nine different types across over 80 aircraft in the fleet, nine different training systems, nine different logistical and sustainment footprints. Nine nightmares and a cast of thousands and a price tag of billions. What could possibly go wrong?

[DeV]

Nine different types across over 80 aircraft in the fleet, nine different training systems, nine different logistical and sustainment footprints. Nine nightmares and a cast of thousands and a price tag of billions. What could possibly go wrong?

In fairness currently:

NZ operates 8 different types over 38 aircraft

AC operates 7 different types (2 being different variants of common aircraft) over 28 aircraft




commonality is the way to go wherever possible though

[Anzac]

In fairness currently:

NZ operates 8 different types over 38 aircraft

And let that be a lesson right there.

And a nightmare it has been at times particularly when aircraft age or manufacturers are sub optimal on the support side like we have with one of our aircraft. At least the RNZAF now only owns 34 aircraft over 6 types which helps to alleviate the burden and 11 of those aircraft share the same engine T56 engine which really helps to at least make it tenable. Its other 11 T-6C's and 4 KA-350's are leased from Hawker Pacific who do everything under contract other than fly them. It is also likely that today if they were going to replace the AW-109's they would also be leased under a turnkey support contract.

If you are lucky enough to be in the transformative position that enables one to start to generating a new fleet from virtually scratch you would also be looking at rationale underpinning why you need them, what efficacy do they have in a military sense, what ownership model you want - including what other departments of state are more suited to have responsibility for them, and indeed whether or not you should even be in the business of doing extra-curricular activities such as support for a Police Force or Air Ambulance.

commonality is the way to go wherever possible though

Even consolidating ownership and support models down from 8 to 6 types has an productivity benefit on the sustainment side.

[DeV]

And let that be a lesson right there.

And a nightmare it has been at times particularly when aircraft age or manufacturers are sub optimal on the support side like we have with one of our aircraft. At least the RNZAF now only owns 34 aircraft over 6 types which helps to alleviate the burden and 11 of those aircraft share the same engine T56 engine which really helps to at least make it tenable. Its other 11 T-6C's and 4 KA-350's are leased from Hawker Pacific who do everything under contract other than fly them. It is also likely that today if they were going to replace the AW-109's they would also be leased under a turnkey support contract.

If you are lucky enough to be in the transformative position that enables one to start to generating a new fleet from virtually scratch you would also be looking at rationale underpinning why you need them, what efficacy do they have in a military sense, what ownership model you want - including what other departments of state are more suited to have responsibility for them, and indeed whether or not you should even be in the business of doing extra-curricular activities such as support for a Police Force or Air Ambulance.



Even consolidating ownership and support models down from 8 to 6 types has an productivity benefit on the sustainment side.

Indeed our PC12s, AW139s and PC9s are all P&W PT-6 powered (or be it 3 different versions)

[na grohmiti]

And let that be a lesson right there.

And a nightmare it has been at times particularly when aircraft age or manufacturers are sub optimal on the support side like we have with one of our aircraft. At least the RNZAF now only owns 34 aircraft over 6 types which helps to alleviate the burden and 11 of those aircraft share the same engine T56 engine which really helps to at least make it tenable. Its other 11 T-6C's and 4 KA-350's are leased from Hawker Pacific who do everything under contract other than fly them. It is also likely that today if they were going to replace the AW-109's they would also be leased under a turnkey support contract.

If you are lucky enough to be in the transformative position that enables one to start to generating a new fleet from virtually scratch you would also be looking at rationale underpinning why you need them, what efficacy do they have in a military sense, what ownership model you want - including what other departments of state are more suited to have responsibility for them, and indeed whether or not you should even be in the business of doing extra-curricular activities such as support for a Police Force or Air Ambulance.



Even consolidating ownership and support models down from 8 to 6 types has an productivity benefit on the sustainment side.

GASU should never have been an Air Corps task. It was problematic from the outset, with GASU using types the AC had zero experience of, and no duplicate aircraft to train pilots on.
Air Ambulance likewise, the Air Corps was used to demonstrate a potential service, and since then have become the primary providers of said service.
With both of the above you'll struggle to find any other Military Air Arm carrying out the civilian task.
Some within the Air Corps are also quite attached to the idea that SAR is a primary military task, and seem keen on wrestling it back from civilian hands.
Meanwhile we lack sufficient rotary wing to move much more than a reduced platoon of soldiers at a time.
We have no means to transport a company, let alone a battalion, or its equipment to any one of the overseas missions we participate in. So far we have only demonstrated an ability to repatriate 2 DF members by air from an overseas op.
Worst of all, we have no aircraft capable of protecting our airspace, or our seas from foreign or internal aggression.

Start over, fulfil primary roles first, let the secondary roles fall into place using spare capability.