Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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.
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
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 implementation of the CoDF report.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 ????
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
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.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment