Military transport aircraft

[GoneToTheCanner]

airlines are getting rid of the -200s as the global fleet has accumulated many,many hours/cycles on their airframes and the push is on to replace them with "greener" engined models. Anyone buying a used -200 for conversion would want to have a long, hard think about it first. High cycle airframes are worth more for parts.

[Sparky42]

Some reports saying Pilot originally from Longford, and took a roundabout way home, taking in his old stomping ground.

I see O Broin has written to Coveney "demanding" an explanation as to why it landed, what was on it etc, cause it apparently landed in "his" constituency...FFS.

[na grohmiti]

I see O Broin has written to Coveney "demanding" an explanation as to why it landed, what was on it etc, cause it apparently landed in "his" constituency...FFS.

He should realise that while his constituency contains Casement aerodrome, it stops outside the blue railings.
Also, its reasons for visiting were well documented in Journal.ie

[CTU]

I see O Broin has written to Coveney "demanding" an explanation as to why it landed, what was on it etc, cause it apparently landed in "his" constituency...FFS.

Forgive me if wrong but doesn't the convention on neutrality allow for a "naval vessel of a belligerent nation in time of war" to be allowed in a port of of a "neutral power" for a period of no more then 24hrs (ala Graf Spee and the Battle of River Plate), and has it been updated to take into account aircraft aswell?

[DeV]

Forgive me if wrong but doesn't the convention on neutrality allow for a "naval vessel of a belligerent nation in time of war" to be allowed in a port of of a "neutral power" for a period of no more then 24hrs (ala Graf Spee and the Battle of River Plate), and has it been updated to take into account aircraft aswell?

It was on a training exercise

[CTU]

It was on a training exercise

The C17 or the Graff Spee :D

I know, I was just pointing out that the "anti-war/anti NATO / USA (except when they are looking for funds)" neutrality bluffers don't know any thing about the rules of Neutrality or that Ireland is not currently a "Neutral Power".

[na grohmiti]

Never let facts get in the way of a good attention seeking populist rant.

[na grohmiti]

Massive US Air Force jet changes flight path so Irish-born pilot can fly over his hometown - Irish Mirror Online

Well done Mick.

[Anzac]

Not quiet, the first aircraft was direct from Airbus (EADS at the time) and QDS was partnered with EADS to finish the conversion of the other aircraft using the parts delivered by EADS. Without those parts QDS would not have been able to do a conversion. Currently Airbus does not offer a conversion package for old A330s, they prefer to sell new A330 MRTTs. Also there is an issue with feedstock as the MRTT is based upon the -200 variant and they are in demand for conversion to freighters. For it to be worthwhile for Airbus to offer such a conversion there would need to be sufficient customers to make it pay. I expect that the RAAF ended up paying more for their aircraft than what a new build would have cost. Naturally they would counter that because they were converted in Australia they have better local support!

Another example are the Singaporeans with their new joint venture licensing and type certification arrangement with Airbus to do A330 "SMART'' MRTT conversions''. By the way the RAAF were paying around AUD$200m MDE for their conversions through QDS. Airbus does not offer a conversion themselves but work with partners like ST and QDS to do this.

[EUFighter]

Another example are the Singaporeans with their new joint venture licensing and type certification arrangement with Airbus to do A330 "SMART'' MRTT conversions''. By the way the RAAF were paying around AUD$200m MDE for their conversions through QDS. Airbus does not offer a conversion themselves but work with partners like ST and QDS to do this.

To set the record straight, only the 2nd to 5th KC30A was done by QDS, aircraft 6 & 7 were converted by Airbus D&S in Getafe where all the other A330 MRTTs have been converted from their original civil configuration to their military configuration. This includes all the piping, the installation of the boom, pods, military equipment as per customer preference. Airbus has no plans to sub-contract this work to ST Aero, the deal on the SMART tanker is for the upgrade of existing tankers to allow for automatic AAR and predictive maintenance it is not for ST Aero to convert A330s into MRTTs. There is a separate co-operation between ST Aero through its EFW subsidiary to carry out P2F conversions of A320/321/330 to cargo aircraft but this does not cover MRTTs.

In any case the A330 is a very large aircraft and in the current MRTT version a very capable AAR aircraft, so f you have plenty of fighters etc requiring AAR it is a good choice. However it has limited cargo capacity currently as it lacks a main deck cargo door. This was part of the original proposal to the USAF but their the KC46 was selected which does have such a door. Unless the Air Corps suddenly gets a few dozen fighters the MRTT would be overkill. More suited if it has to be a converted A330 would be a P2F with palletised seating.

[na grohmiti]

Spotted this earlier.
C&AG report into the disposal of the G4.
disposal-of-government-jet.pdf (audit.gov.ie)

[DeV]

Spotted this earlier.
C&AG report into the disposal of the G4.
disposal-of-government-jet.pdf (audit.gov.ie)

They turned down an offer of €0.8m because it would cost them another €0.7m to fulfil the terms of the offer (increasing the total maintenance spent to €1.8m)

[na grohmiti]

They turned down an offer of €0.8m because it would cost them another €0.7m to fulfil the terms of the offer (increasing the total maintenance spent to €1.8m)

For me the most concerning point is how maintenance of the type required was not considered as a long term investment, the annual maintenance costs somehow being tied to a per annum max. When averaged over a number of years, the max had not been reached.
Seeming to ignore completely that what was required would (and did) extend the working life of the aircraft.
I am also at a loss as to why any part on hand would lack certification.
Someone seemed to have been of the opinion that once the G4 is gone, something bigger and better will replace it.
Here we are 7 years on though, if anything the opposite is the case. Meanwhile "our" G4 still flies, and only flew over Ireland last week en route to and from Biggin Hill, having entered service with us almost 30 years ago.

[DeV]

For me the most concerning point is how maintenance of the type required was not considered as a long term investment, the annual maintenance costs somehow being tied to a per annum max. When averaged over a number of years, the max had not been reached.
Seeming to ignore completely that what was required would (and did) extend the working life of the aircraft.
I am also at a loss as to why any part on hand would lack certification.
Someone seemed to have been of the opinion that once the G4 is gone, something bigger and better will replace it.
Here we are 7 years on though, if anything the opposite is the case. Meanwhile "our" G4 still flies, and only flew over Ireland last week en route to and from Biggin Hill, having entered service with us almost 30 years ago.

absolutely

but the same report also states that scheduled engine maintenance was required 4/5 years later at an estimated cost of € 2.5 m

was the G4 getting to the stage of its life where for cost benefit reasons for the AC a replacement would be cheaper?

also not forgetting the push to move away from MATS to civilian aircraft for cost reasons due to the financial crash

[CTU]

also not forgetting the push to move away from MATS to civilian aircraft for cost reasons due to the financial crash

Yet for the last 7 years there as been a "Review" by an "Inter-departmetal working group" and an internal DoD/IAC working group into the future of MATS, and in the last year+ alone Ireland was entering into a period of national emergency with its then Taoiseach (& Minister for Defence) + Jr Minister out of the country, reliant on Civil Airliners to get them home, Troops stationed overseas who had to rely on Civil Airliners and Partner Nations to get them Home, with the added obstacles of Covid.

Now here's an Idea for the working group, rename MATS as Military Air Transport Service and get away from the image of it being a Ministerial Air Taxi Service only.