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.
Beech proposed a flying training system in the T6 II that used four aircraft and a syllabus that basically paralleled the American system of training; civvy the whole way until you got to the combat aircraft. That was rejected by the AC. Point is, manufacturers and suppliers of training would love to have the AC follow suit and civilianise virtually all parts of the operation and Im quite sure certain people in the DoD and DF would happily do the same. The fine line is in deciding where the join is, the merging point of civvy and mil operations, as the military side always has to consider the need to go into combat or do things with the equipment that civvies can't or won't do. Consequently, leasing is a hard call to make, at times.
I think part of our problem comes from the need to have some sort of aggressive capability in our basic and advanced trainer. It's a notion from the past. Worth pointing out the new USAF training aircraft has not been proposed with any armament whatsoever. Master the art of flying first. You can learn all about the shooty things when you are good enough to operate a proper combat aircraft.
There's a reason there is no 2 seat F35 or F22.
If we kept flight training in house, it should be with side by side 2-seater. All our current operational aircraft have this configuration.
Last edited by na grohmiti; 4 November 2021, 09:56.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
And frankly the running cost of the NH90 for a much bigger bird is a bargain.
PZL in Poland build the S70i under license. That is much more of a bargain. Much lower FCPH, far more supportable, best in class availability rates. And as robust as a brick shithouse.
A321 XLR - costs the same as a regular A321 at ~145M€ and has the range to reach way down in Africa. A330-200 MRTT costs over 100M€ more a pop. And I'd agree on 2 birds, was probably trying to save money in the wrong way. The bird can move personnel quickly and can double as VIP transport.
Does it have milspec secure comms and counter measures to allow operation in a cloaked and non sanitised TOA? Is there a combi variant meaning it can quick change between troop, VIP and strategic lift including the provision for 463L's? Isn't there much cheaper ways to do this where money can be invested in real capabilities.
C-390. What were NZ's reasons to discard it? My reasoning is that we are more likely to need the speed over range to get to distant destinations than the rough field capability.
Compared to the C-130J-30 which won the beauty contest it was more expensive to buy but NZ gets to piggy back on US DoD block orders - 10 mil difference, however the C-390 was more expensive to operate in WoL costs, much harder to support, an unknown quantity in services outside of Brazil thus the risk factor was high, no obvious capability upgrade pathway. Still a number of key deliverables to get it IFC such as sim systems still away off, type cert was still a way off. The C-130J family has an extensive options list. The optional installation of additional tanks can increase the range greatly. One of the prerequisites was the ability to fly from CHC to Antarctica with 12000kgs surpass a designated POSR and be able to abandon the mission and conduct a redirect (and conduct an Ice landing. The C-390 could not meet that.
Lease a PC-21 or similar on the Civ register - save money - let the DPM&C pay for it. Pretty much all VIP stuff would be just over to Europe. Spend the money not buying the A321 XLR and the many millions to turn it into something militarily useful (note questions above) and buy two A400M's and then buy not buying the C-390 buy a couple more. And then with change fund an ASW variant upgrade of the C-295.
The cost to militarise a A321 XLR and convert it to a Flex-Combi would be quite a margin more than a couple of A400M's looking for a home around Europe that you probably could get a decent deal for.
German will from the start of next year have 2 new A321s converted for troop transport/MedEvac. Given that the design work for conversion has now been done if additional orders were forthcoming the cost would be close to the "list" price of the aircraft. What has to be remembered is that for most civil transports the "list" price is about double the actual price that will be paid for the aircraft. So an A321-200NX would be a lot less than an A400M to buy and operate.
Die Bundeswehr erhält zwei Airbus A321-200NX für den Transport von bis zu 163 Passagieren. Alternativ kann die Kabine für den Transport von bis zu sechs Intensivpatienten oder bis zu zwölf leicht- oder mittelschwer Erkrankten oder Verletzten ausgestattet werden.
Nachdem die erste der beiden bestellten Maschinen des Typs Airbus A321-251NX „Long Range“ in Bundeswehr-Lackierung den Paint-Shop verlassen hat, beginnt jetzt die Innenausrüstung mit Passagiersitzen und Patiententransporteinheiten.
In march last year, the Former Taoiseach expressed a desire for our own military air transport asset. He bounced it to DFCoS. This was at a time when numerous aircraft were being parked up long term due to covid restrictions, and many airlines were handing back their leased aircraft. So no shortage of civvy airliners to which a roundel could have been added. It could have spent the last 12 months bringing PPE or vaccines from wherever the civvy aircraft that were hired for the job needed to go. The G4 was never replaced, there is still a need for a long range transport type that could fulfil both Government, military pers and freight transport.
Since then, we have heard the DoD/DF have been offered, and refused 1 extra PC12 in flyaway condition, and recently we are hearing also we turned away 2 ex WFP C295s, in freight configuration.
Its like someone doesn't actually want the air corps to have aircraft or any actual capability.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has advised Irish citizens in Ethiopia to leave the country immediately.
It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
It was a new age...It was the end of history.
It was the year everything changed.
Here is another event unfolding that had we a long range airlift capacity we wouldn't be solely relying on commercial aircraft to safely evacuate irish citizens from Ethiopia immediately. Plus we could have a close protection team on the ground for security almost straight away.
German will from the start of next year have 2 new A321s converted for troop transport/MedEvac. Given that the design work for conversion has now been done if additional orders were forthcoming the cost would be close to the "list" price of the aircraft. What has to be remembered is that for most civil transports the "list" price is about double the actual price that will be paid for the aircraft. So an A321-200NX would be a lot less than an A400M to buy and operate.
Nice aircraft for a large country like Germany that has multiple A400M's and C-130J's to draw upon but it is not suitable for a smaller fiscally resource limited Defence Force like Ireland, which needs a flexible air mobility platform that can for example airlift 6-8 463L HADR pallets one mission then quick-change to do a VIP mission to distant European capital with Taoiseach and officials the next day and then QC around again later in the week and do a Medivac to Mali or indeed a troop rotation to Beirut the next. The A321-200NX per the Bundeswehr configuration provides a bespoke capability with limited underfloor cargo - which is fine for what it is required for by Germany who can expect to generate 1200-1400 annual hours from these two aircraft bought for north of $200m as any discount on the "green" aircraft is made up on the conversion. But as a practical solution for the Irish State not so much?
Any A321 is confined to hard runways and proper unloading equipment. You can't load or unload it unless you have pallet lifters and they are heavy and won't fit into an aircraft, so you are confined to runways where you know you have control of the loading equipment. Not a given in Africa. At least a C130 or a 295 can be loaded by hand via a ramp.
Any A321 is confined to hard runways and proper unloading equipment. You can't load or unload it unless you have pallet lifters and they are heavy and won't fit into an aircraft, so you are confined to runways where you know you have control of the loading equipment. Not a given in Africa. At least a C130 or a 295 can be loaded by hand via a ramp.
And an airlifter is uneconomical and uncomfortable for troop rotations
The reality is that to cover the required mission spectrum to meet necessary or envisaged taskings two air mobility types are needed. A strategic platform and a tactical platform. At absolute minimum you need two of both types and ideally three to enable a 24/7/365 capability. Other than the A400M or C-130J-30 which can do both. Which when training, support and sustainment contracts are loaded on to it one wont be walking away with anything less than a USD300-600m investment for two aircraft. I really don't think the government is going to wake up one morning and decide to spend hundreds of millions on a couple of new supa-dupa aircraft as lovely as that may sound. It is a bit like me waking up on Saturday morning thinking mmmm nice to buy a beach house in Tahiti with tonights lottery winnings. However, in the real world if I save a bit and the borders reopen maybe next year a vacation there would be great.
The question is. If the Commission comes out and endorses an air mobility capability as an urgent priority what can be acquired right now. Can an air mobility solution be achieved efficiently, affordably and realistically from existing proven available aircraft types (with current in place STC's for milspec components) that can do the job for the Irish State, its range of needs and pointedly, within realistic cost restraints stemming from DoD and political duplicity?
Answer Yes. And for a fraction of the cost of a couple of A330's, A321's or C-130J's.
For the strategic solution there is only one existing turnkey option available that fits the bill, the PEMCO Boeing 737-700 Flex Combi can do the taskings flexibility laid out on post #521 unless one wants a widebody per A330-200 conversion. But frankly a A330 would be ruled out on size and cost. An A321 Flex Combi with milspec comms does not exist. A pure freighter does and a pure pax does but as for a quick change Flex Combi variant unless a larger air force or airline wants to take the type through the STC process including testing regime and order a number of them it is not fiscally viable when one factors in that the costs for the Irish government to achieve just 600-700 odd flying hours per annum per aircraft going on RNZAF B757-M usage.
Texel Air has taken delivery of the world's first Boeing 737-700 FlexCombi from conversion firm Pemco. The aircraft has the ability to be configured in
For the tactical option there is the CASA C-295 of which we know there are aircraft available right now. The advantage is that you are already buying two of them in MPA configuration which generates training and support synergies and significant institutional cost savings. Not to mention further synergies with the potential to buy palletised ISR solutions such as Minotaur to further offer additional flexibility to swing roles into maritime patrol and SAR. A Minotaur upgrade is around USD$15m.
A 737FC and C-295 mix would give the Irish state a small, workable, cost effective but importantly full spectrum first mile to last mile air mobility solution. The other thing is that it would also allow for other capability gaps within the defence force to be achieved as there would be a far lesser opportunity cost.
Reading the blowback from the WFP Casa offer, I'm not sure the deal was as good as it sounds. Would we have been lumbered with Passenger only 295s that would require retrofitting to get them back to military transport standard?
Would the hypothetical money be better used making the RAF/British govt a direct offer for the C130J they will shortly retire? By all accounts Marshalls seem to be doing most of the Maint for them already, so why change what works?
As for the B737-700 flex Combi I would hazard an opinion that there may already be Air Corps pilots familiar with flying this aircraft type.
For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk. Actually, I may make that line my new sig, just to save having to say it in every other post here.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Reading the blowback from the WFP Casa offer, I'm not sure the deal was as good as it sounds. Would we have been lumbered with Passenger only 295s that would require retrofitting to get them back to military transport standard?
Would the hypothetical money be better used making the RAF/British govt a direct offer for the C130J they will shortly retire? By all accounts Marshalls seem to be doing most of the Maint for them already, so why change what works?
As for the B737-700 flex Combi I would hazard an opinion that there may already be Air Corps pilots familiar with flying this aircraft type.
For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk. Actually, I may make that line my new sig, just to save having to say it in every other post here.
Be interesting to see what the differences are between the C295H and C295M
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.
Tweet
Comment