Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I can't see this, I'm just brought to the default twitter page.



    Paywall, can you quote the important bits?

    Comment


    • #92
      Having watched the SAC presentation, I don’t think it would serve our purposes unfortunately

      It is NATO supported (not commanded), we could be associated with ops that aren’t in are interests (the biggest user is the USA, also legally .... triple lock?), it’s a big aircraft that we would have limited requirements for, a long mission planning horizon (1-3 months but 72 hours possible in emergencies), as a junior partner even with a high priority mission your mission isn’t guaranteed (given that it’s a 30 year MOU we possibly couldn’t even join at this stage but is being reviewed in next few years), also wouldn’t imagine its cheap to buy in (although it is a fixed not a variable cost).

      Having said that if we had a requirement it could be requested of say Sweden/Finland for them to support us with a C17 for x, y and z via the Steering Group (without having to buy in as a partner nation). There are unassigned hours available

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Having watched the SAC presentation, I don’t think it would serve our purposes unfortunately

        It is NATO supported (not commanded), we could be associated with ops that aren’t in are interests (the biggest user is the USA, also legally .... triple lock?), it’s a big aircraft that we would have limited requirements for, a long mission planning horizon (1-3 months but 72 hours possible in emergencies), as a junior partner even with a high priority mission your mission isn’t guaranteed (given that it’s a 30 year MOU we possibly couldn’t even join at this stage but is being reviewed in next few years), also wouldn’t imagine its cheap to buy in (although it is a fixed not a variable cost).

        Having said that if we had a requirement it could be requested of say Sweden/Finland for them to support us with a C17 for x, y and z via the Steering Group (without having to buy in as a partner nation). There are unassigned hours available
        Given that there are 335hr/year not utilized it could still be possible to join, it is like a wet lease with benefits. Asking one of the current partners can we use some of their hours does not improve the situation over that of today. Being a partner nation also us to have our voice heard directly rather than having to rely on someone else.

        The biggest user may be the USA with 1/3 (they did contribute a C-17 on their own), but the USAF has 222 other C-17 aircraft which they can use. The chances that the priority would be such that the US was always blocking would be low. Yes it is a large aircraft and that is one of the primary advantages of the C-17, it gives a flexibility beyond what can be achieved with other aircraft. It can lift 170,000Lb, but do not try flying that long distances without refueling, Lebanon is even a little beyond the range at full payload.

        Looking at the hours Finland has reserved, it would be pretty much what we would need for 2 rotations per year to UNIFIL & UNDOF with a bit of training/resupply thrown in. And these missions should be planned 1-3 months in advance. Also try getting an AN-124 at less than 72hr notice, large aircraft are booked out well in advance or they are on the wrong side of the world. And if we see a need to be able to support HADR then maybe 100hr would not be enough.

        As for legal; there would need to be some safeguards but it would not be a show stopper.

        Comment


        • #94
          What I got out of the webinar was :

          - that we need to decide and provide that capability. We could focus on strategic (airliner) or tactical or do both (those are all valid options)

          - if we want to fly into dangerous areas (including covid) leasing isn’t an option

          - There is utility (or be in small) In the PC12s

          - don’t be the launch customer or pick an aircraft where there are limited numbers of type

          - whatever we buy we need to have absolutely min 2 for transport. Ideally for me commonality with others



          For me, it’s a Tactical transport capability with C295s (min 1 if the MPAs can be also stripped out to do the job otherwise probably 2) or 2 second hand Upgraded C130s could be an option.

          If we want a strategic (Airliner) they have to be multi-role and there has to be min 100 seats and at least 2 of them.

          We also have to develop those capabilities to allow them to serve overseas and not necessarily on PKOs

          Comment


          • #95
            Interesting to hear the option of a second hand C130H being put forward as an option to get us in the game while we decide what to do. All new aircraft options are min 2 years away. You could have a C130H (or 2) flying by the end of the year.
            Nobody rated the Embraer Option.
            What struck me though was the insistence, by many that one aircraft, of either type was not enough. If you send your single Mil Trans aircraft to location x to collect your embassy staff and it goes U/S on the ramp overseas, you need options to get (a) techies (and/or security if necessary) to location, (b) evac those you went to evac in the first place.
            I also liked th einsistence that the PC12 when delivered, should not spend their days in the Don. They should be deployed too. The example's of both Romania, and Ghana was put forward as nations who deploy peacekeeping forces, like we do, that have relatively small air arms,like we do, but who managed to deploy their own rotary wing assets overseas. No reason we can't do likewise. Our small size should not be a factor if we have anything to bring to the table. (not just 3 staff deployed to Rome to support the med mission).
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • #96
              Even with the unprecedented times that we're living in, I actually can't wrap my head around the revolution in thinking that would be required for the Air Corps to be equipped with 2xC130s.

              So not a novel idea but, instead of one or the other - could something else be done:

              Could Airbus give the CN235's another 10 years meaningful life as airlifters once the C295's arrive, for a reasonable price? Even if they could and the Air Corps wanted to do it, would they be allowed?

              How plausible would a part-lease of 2xA320/B737 be? In other words, they would normally be operated in a civilian capacity by an airline (I can think of two right now...) but the state would have guaranteed access to them within 12 hours, and guaranteed minimum hours per month for training etc..

              Given the well known pilot retention issues - the idea of having a cadre of A320/B737 rated pilots long term, is an obvious issue - how plausible would a reserve Air Corps roster be? e.g. A320/B737 rated pilots/ground crew, perhaps currently serving with said airline.... I imagine there are a quite a few of those with Air Corps service in their past.

              This isn't a billion miles away from a specialist reserve which would be useful to the DF for IT, comms and a whole range of other things. But that's another discussion...

              With the current crisis, perhaps airlines would be approachable for a two year trial in return for some cash?

              Joining a wider European military airlift grouping seems a logical thing anyway - and to limit the politics etc. around it - as with the airline lease idea - sign up for an initial 2 year period and then use the absolute f##k out of it, demonstrating the need, the utility and the purpose.

              Not terribly ambitious I guess, but then seeing the absolute mileage the usual heads get from a door falling off a helicopter or the faux outrage generated by spending €5m on a PC-12 = I'm not exactly optimistic anything substantive will actually happen.

              Comment


              • #97
                Watch the webinar, some of your questions are answered. (put 5 hours aside over the weekend).
                The leasing/part lease option, with civvy pilots is a non runner. If you have to go to a hot spot to evac citizens, all of a sudden the Lessor tells you your military registered airliner is still a civilian one, and their insurance doesn't permit flying into scary places, no matter how eager the civvy pilots are.
                It also rules out using reservist pilots, saying most airlines are getting every spare hour out of their pilots as it is, and pilots cannot exceed their max hours, no matter what.
                As for the negative ninnys, it's how you sell it to the public. For 50 years the people of ireland have been told to be proud of our Peacekeepers overseas. And for the most part they are. This is just another step. Sell the idea.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Have a Special Reserve and legislation protecting employees when called up for duty (and requiring employers to give X amount of time off per year to reserve members). Job done.
                  'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                  'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                  Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                  He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                  http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Time off is not the issue. Flight hours are.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      Time off is not the issue. Flight hours are.
                      How do the USAF and RAF do it, with commercial pilots in the Reserve? Could their model be copied?
                      'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                      'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                      Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                      He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                      http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                      Comment


                      • Years ago Michael O'Leary offered the government a chance to piggyback on a order he was about to make with Boeing for aircraft.
                        Next time he or Aer Lingus are putting in a order the government could buy two, let the airline use and maintain them but DF have first call on them if needed. More then likely their will be Ex Aer Corp type rated pilots resting off or not yet used up their flight hours in one or more of the Irish airlines. ??????????????????

                        Comment


                        • We're quickly back to scraping around thinking of ways to get capability with the least public perception and cost. Either we need the capability or we don't. if we do then just go and get it in the normal way. As we did for MPA aircraft. Training aircraft. ISTAR aircraft.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tempest View Post
                            We're quickly back to scraping around thinking of ways to get capability with the least public perception and cost. Either we need the capability or we don't. if we do then just go and get it in the normal way. As we did for MPA aircraft. Training aircraft. ISTAR aircraft.
                            For the level of utilisation (hours) that we realistically will require it is a good idea and would be quicker delivery. VFM while providing a massive jump in capability.

                            It is a possible interm solution to show utility of having such a State asset. The real issue is there at least 2 C130s to exact same specs available (or upgradable to exact same specs).

                            Comment


                            • It may be the elephant in the room, but if we are going to go down the road of C130H aren't we back in the world of having flight engineers in cockpits? Something nobody in the Air Corps has done, or will need to do in the future? Not to mention Navigators.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                                It may be the elephant in the room, but if we are going to go down the road of C130H aren't we back in the world of having flight engineers in cockpits? Something nobody in the Air Corps has done, or will need to do in the future? Not to mention Navigators.
                                If an option I wouldn’t say the H I’d say the J

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X