Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

we dont need blackhawks

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

  • Bam Bam
    replied
    In a perfect world

    The Air Corp ( In reality just a glorified taxi service. Until it gets some Fighter/ Interceptors) should have Blackhawk/ Lynx choppers for the army. Nighthawks for the Rangers and high flying recon planes, also the aforementioned fighters/ interceptors MIG 29's OR HARRIERS would do us. Don't forget our chinooks for airlifting our mowags and scorpions, and troops (platoon plus). our CASA's are grand they do the job. And a few c-130's and in-air refueling craft.

    And for the government our new government jet a boeing 777 to rival and surpass airforce one.

    In reality

    We have trainer aircraft and planes with a light combat role (WW2 era guns and rockets), We use obsolete helicopters and others that just about manage.

    What do we do if we need more troops then the chopper can hold?
    Why do you think God invented para cord and bungee cord?
    Adapt and overcome, to hell with the troops it would seem.

    Of course if this was a perfect world we'd need no armed forces

    AHHH to sleep per chance to dream.........

    Leave a comment:

  • fiannoglach
    CQMS

  • fiannoglach
    replied
    Money Talks and soldiers walk!

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • That'sProgress
    Guest replied
    Why the govt insists on buying unproven, civ spec helicopters is a mystery.
    Methinks the answer lies in the fact that they arent very clever. Simple fact is you get what you pay for.

    Another problem is, getting the defence forces properly equipped wont win votes. Saw a great instance of how politics works today: was driving down a country road thats been in bits for years, today it was getting the patented Irish patchwork fix. Call me a cynic, but.. ahem elections around the corner?

    Subtle as anything... ahem

    Leave a comment:

  • fiannoglach
    CQMS

  • fiannoglach
    replied
    Whatever we buy, it must be capable of carrying a fully laden section, or a light vehicle, so you're looking at medium lift with a rear ramp. Why the govt insists on buying unproven, civ spec helicopters is a mystery.

    Leave a comment:

  • ForkTailedDevil
    Vague

  • ForkTailedDevil
    replied
    EH101 or the smaller NH90 would be the best options.I've gone off American and Russian kit for political reasons recently.Both are very flexabile and can be pressed in most roles except ones where being small and fast are esential. The EH101 still seems to be on everyones wish list despite the expense.NH90 would make more sense economically though it lacks the range and cargo capacity of the EH101

    Leave a comment:

  • jacknoble
    Corporal

  • jacknoble
    replied
    I know I've said this before but the only sensible option is the NH90 Tactical Transport Helicopter. Panther/Dauphin is a non-runner. The Air Corps want rid of the Dauphin for a number of reasons gone into numerous times before on this board and on Frank's. My understanding was the Blackhawk was sought by the Ranger Wing after some of them used it during training ops at Fort Bragg in the US and in East Timor with the Aussies. The Blackhawk rumour surfaced after the US offered some free as surplus if the AC bought an equivalent number, four plus four was what I heard. The Govt looked at this because it was felt Sikorsky was 'owed' after the S92 debacle. Then Eurocopter dropped less than subtle hints about another court challenge if the govt went down the Sikorsky route without a tender competition. Hence recent details on the delayed tender, with suddenly Eurocopter favourites again. Don't be surprised if another company wins the competition, ie Agusta, who seemed pretty sure a few years ago that they had tied up a deal for three (+two options) EH101s and six/eight A109s. The A109 option is still a live one, possibly coupled with the new, larger AB139, although that means going down the launch customer route.
    If the govt is serious about giving the AC a proper troop transport capability then NH90 TTH is the only option. It is a 14-20 seat, twin-pilot medium lift with a rear ramp. Our main partners in UN and EURRF operations, Sweden and Finland, have ordered TTHs, while the other main EU/Nato countries we will be working with have them on order as well. Buying NH90 means cross training plus maintenance synergies if on deployment with/near Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, etc. But then when did an Irish govt, of whatever hue, go for the sensible option?

    Leave a comment:

  • Come-quickly
    Commandant

  • Come-quickly
    replied
    The H-60 can be better armed than a panther and would be just as (un?) effective in that role.
    The Panther is used mostly in a naval role and in armies geared towards a COIN role which includes butterfly ops which are generally short ranged and allow for troops to fight in their underpants basically.
    H-60s are safer to travel in regardless of whether someone is shooting at you or not, they are more adaptable in tactical situations as carrying a section is a mid band capablity whereas the 565 would strain to carry nine in their underpants... a H-60 could struggle off w 15 in CEFO if not CEMO.
    It can also carry a lot more fuel compared to its cargo volume.

    Leave a comment:

  • morpheus
    Space Lord of Terra

  • morpheus
    replied
    FM,

    No offence but the idea isnt "in my head", read the post, I didnt say that I wanted to see Light Strike Helis in the IAC.

    I was implying rather that the Panther is a dual role aircraft, light strike and troop taxi (albeit lightly equipped troops). I meant we shouldnt buy one aircraft built to carry out two missions, we buy one aircraft, one purpose, and that hypothetically if we wanted light strike helis, buy them seperate from troop carriers, i admit I know little more about the kiowa other than its use as light strike by the US, and thought it was a purpose built light attack heli, I have been corrected, so it was probably a bad example to use.

    I meant what you wrote, that if we want attack helis, buy attack helis.

    Personally id rather they bought enough blackhawks or Pumas to lift at least a fully equipped company in a hurry and worried about attack choppers some other time.

    Leave a comment:

  • ForkTailedDevil
    Vague

  • ForkTailedDevil
    replied
    Even true attack choppers have proved to be fairly useless or vulnerable most of the time.Look at the numbers of Apaches that have been shot down or damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.This may be due to tactics though.US Army doctrine says come to a hover and attack.The US Marines teach their Cobra pilots to keep on the move and have suffered lower attrition rates accordingly.

    Leave a comment:

  • FMolloy
    King Monkey

  • FMolloy
    replied
    Morpheus,

    Get the idea of the AC fielding 'light strike' LUH's out of your head, they're useless. They lack the armour of true attack heli's & therefore are extremely vunerable.

    Leave a comment:

  • ForkTailedDevil
    Vague

  • ForkTailedDevil
    replied
    The Kiowas just another Dauphin. Its a civilian chopper that ended up in serivce only becuase the OH6 Cayuse got into difficulties in the production process.It'd be another disaster. Kiowas can barely defend themselves never mind light strike.The US army use their for recon and they only attack in defence or if nothing else is available.

    Leave a comment:

  • morpheus
    Space Lord of Terra

  • morpheus
    replied
    You said that the dauphin caries 10 troops.
    The Blackhawk carries 14.
    Now do the math, 3 blackhawks = greater carrying capacity than 4 dauphins *cough* sorry, "panthers". Aside from the ec565 being a derivative of a jack of all trades, ok at everything, but great at nothing useless chopper, Surely thats better value for money??

    The panther looks like a well armed air taxi, its two types in one, sounds familiar? If we want a well armed light strike chopper, we should buy something like the kiowa, we need transports, we should buy the Blackhawk.

    As for crustys? if we listened to them every time we tendered new equipment, we'd have an army carrying tranquillizer guns driving around in solar powered golf buggys flying hangliders and the navy would be comprised of sail powered vessels!!.

    Leave a comment:

  • Goldie fish
    Tim Horgan

  • Goldie fish
    replied
    As mentioned many times in the past, Eithne was originally designed to take a Westland Navy Lynx heli. The Army air corps had recently trialled the Puma having leased one for a year from 1982-1983,and were interested in seeking the Super puma for the Long range SAR and utility transport role.
    However Aerospatiale stepped in with their jack of all trades,the Dauphin 2,and promised to deliver the best of both types in one aircraft. So,instead of 2 Pumas and 2 Lynx,we got 5 Dauphins,which had an avionics and equipment fit that was unique to us.
    I can only assume that whoever decided on the type read the same brochure as Coffee. The SA365F was designed as a Naval heli,and some were fitted with a radar which would assist in the operation of the AS15TT anti ship missile..an option which we did not select.
    Indeed selecting the type as we did would be similar to selecting an A10 without its gatling.
    So 2 of our dauphins were delivered as Naval helis,with crash proof tanks and harpoons to assist deck landings,and 3 without. All were fitted with the 270deg Omera search radar,combined with a 5 screen EFIS,an early version of the Glass Cockpit. All were also fitted with a rescue hoist,in a streamlined pod. If used in the SAR role they carried an extra plethora of equipment,such as stretchers etc,which reduced the payload of the craft,normally sarcrificing fuel load.
    As has been described before,the combination of the above elements and poor weather,led to the Death of 4 brave crewmen,during a successful SAR operation.

    Thats why we dont want another Dauphin.

    Leave a comment:

  • ForkTailedDevil
    Vague

  • ForkTailedDevil
    replied
    The Dauphin was planned a short range helicopter for utility tasks by Aerosptial.It wasn't meant to be a 10 man troops transport, a 10 man air taxi yes, but troop carrier, nope.Look at the roles it is being used for today-SAR by the USCG, anti-tank helicopter in PRC hands and as a shipboard chooper by many other nations.In most cases it has ended up being used by navies. I don't think anybody uses it to move their troops about.Anybody care to elaborate on the role that the Irish Dauphins were originally purchased for because I'm certain it wasn't as troop transports.

    Leave a comment:


  • coffee
    replied
    all right i conced defea

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X