Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps:The future

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

  • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
    Can the PWC report be read or downloaded somewhere online?
    Not any more
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

    Comment


    • Best I could find online:

      According to Air International (Oct 98) the following were among the main Price Waterhouse recommendations regarding the Air Corps :

      (The article states that although the AC has only a small fleet, it comprises 11 different aircraft types, which ideally should be rationalised while still being able to fulfil the same variety of roles )

      PRICE WATERHOUSE RECOMMENDATIONS :
      - To upgrade and rationalise the helicopter fleet, it is recommended that the existing eight Alouette III, five Dauphins and two (now one) Gazelles are replaced by eight Eurocopter Squirrel-type helicopters.
      - Purchase of four medium-lift helicopters is also advised over the next four years as part of a major investment plan, as the report states that the IAC will not be able to function without re-equipment.
      - The six Cessna FR.172H/Ks should be replaced by two BN Defender-type aircraft.
      - The six Magisters and seven SF.260WEs should be replaced by eight examples of a single type of light strike/trainer aircraft.
      - A substitute should also be found for the Beech 200.
      - The two CN-235s and Gulfstream IV remain in service. The former are not due for replacement until 2024, by which time, the report notes, "the whole scenario in relation to fishery protection may have changed".

      - The review also recommends a 10% reduction in AC personnel down to 930 (concentrated at maintenance and engineering levels)
      - Greater independence from the Army - Relocation of AC HQ to Casement.
      - GASU expansion from the current (1998) two aircraft.
      - Suggests the contracting out of basic flying training training and air traffic control sholud also be considered.

      The article also states " The GOC (then Cranfield) has also intimated that he would like to change the name of the Air Corps to something more contemporary, as the name dates back to 1924 (prior to which it had been the Irish Air Service).
      Last edited by Charlie252; 18 July 2014, 20:15.

      Comment


      • with regard to built on order, in the case of Defender hulls, the aircraft was built sporadically and no hulls were stocked and the spares holding for major parts was very small. It was the same case for the Marchettis, which was why Marchetti spares were so expensive, despite there being several hundred built. If the aircraft is as bad as you say, then how did it get certified and why did the Don buy it??............to quote the PWC, a substitute should be found for the King Air. Dead right; a C90GT for ME-IR and a 350 for short MATS, with a cargo door for stretchers.
        .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
          Can the PWC report be read or downloaded somewhere online?
          Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
          Best I could find online:

          According to Air International (Oct 98) the following were among the main Price Waterhouse recommendations regarding the Air Corps :

          (The article states that although the AC has only a small fleet, it comprises 11 different aircraft types, which ideally should be rationalised while still being able to fulfil the same variety of roles )

          PRICE WATERHOUSE RECOMMENDATIONS :
          - To upgrade and rationalise the helicopter fleet, it is recommended that the existing eight Alouette III, five Dauphins and two (now one) Gazelles are replaced by eight Eurocopter Squirrel-type helicopters.
          - Purchase of four medium-lift helicopters is also advised over the next four years as part of a major investment plan, as the report states that the IAC will not be able to function without re-equipment.
          - The six Cessna FR.172H/Ks should be replaced by two BN Defender-type aircraft.
          - The six Magisters and seven SF.260WEs should be replaced by eight examples of a single type of light strike/trainer aircraft.
          - A substitute should also be found for the Beech 200.
          - The two CN-235s and Gulfstream IV remain in service. The former are not due for replacement until 2024, by which time, the report notes, "the whole scenario in relation to fishery protection may have changed".

          - The review also recommends a 10% reduction in AC personnel down to 930 (concentrated at maintenance and engineering levels)
          - Greater independence from the Army - Relocation of AC HQ to Casement.
          - GASU expansion from the current (1998) two aircraft.
          - Suggests the contracting out of basic flying training training and air traffic control sholud also be considered.

          The article also states " The GOC (then Cranfield) has also intimated that he would like to change the name of the Air Corps to something more contemporary, as the name dates back to 1924 (prior to which it had been the Irish Air Service).
          The PWC report actually said very little about the AC apart from the strength and need for medium lift helicopters (to take over SAR and to allow the army to be more rapidly deployable (to take account of barracks closures)).

          That level of detail was in the Special Report on the NS and AC, which was published around 2001. Having said that, everything above was in it (apart from a name change).
          Last edited by DeV; 18 July 2014, 20:22.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            If the aircraft is as bad as you say, then how did it get certified and why did the Don buy it??............to quote the PWC, a substitute should be found for the King Air. Dead right; a C90GT for ME-IR and a 350 for short MATS, with a cargo door for stretchers.
            .
            Thats a Valid Question and I have never gotten a plausible answer, I don't recall a tender process, the aircraft was not bought by the AC but rather the GS and I don't know which if any other aircraft were considered.
            Certification is just that, the aircraft is certified in the same category as other light twins such as the Seneca. This category typically has aircraft that are used for training or recreational purposes and are rarely used for any kind of Bad weather commercial endeavour. For example they only have to demonstrate a net takeoff flight path in the event of a critical engine failure after departure, this does not provide for standard obstacle clearance and in reality an IFR departure is a dangerous prospect as you most likely will not have the performance to make it to a safe altitude, your only option is a visual pattern and return to the field, a difficult proposition when you are in cloud and below the MSA..

            Most aircraft are built to customer spec, and very few if any manufacturers produce white tail machines in the hope of finding a customer, BN is a cottage industry and thats being polite.
            Totally agree the mix of King Air models would have been a far better addition to the fleet then the LR-45.

            The PWC report was written by a couple of suits with no aviation knowledge or experience, they saw the two New GASU aircraft and decided to recommend them. Bear in mind the only aircraft they could name were the ones they saw on their visit to Bal. IMHO it was a terrible report and has hamstrung the AC in so many ways since.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
              Thats a Valid Question and I have never gotten a plausible answer, I don't recall a tender process, the aircraft was not bought by the AC but rather the GS and I don't know which if any other aircraft were considered.
              It was a restricted tender for security reasons

              The spec was decided by an Inter-departmental group with the AC

              5 tenders were received

              The lowest 2 were rejected as they were single engine, the cheapest twin engine was selected.

              http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/a...0/Chapter5.pdf


              . IMHO it was a terrible report and has hamstrung the AC in so many ways since.
              Why?
              Medium lift helo contract (S92) messed up by Government interference
              Single type highly capable basic/advanced trainer (PC9) to replace 2 types
              2 very capable types of helicopters to replace 3 very basic/uniquely complex types
              Last edited by DeV; 18 July 2014, 21:26.

              Comment


              • The medium lift was a nice idea but it was only with a view towards SAR.
                The PC-9 is what it is and the debate around that aircraft rumbles on, the report also mentions outsourcing of pilot training.

                The recommendations regarding the Squirrel and Defender framed the view that there was no role for the AC overseas then or in the future. Those recommendations were in my view derived with the least possible cost as the main driver and no real though was attached to Mission effectiveness or aircraft capabilities. Fortunately the AC managed to secure the EC-135/AW-139 mix which is a significant step up from the recommendations of that and other reports and are actually more capable then was envisaged by the DOD prior to the tender process.

                The question as posed, is what of the future. In reality a root and branch review is most likely required to define the roles and desirable capabilities for the next 10 years out of that type of review a more enlightened view can be derived for a possible future fleet..

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                  The medium lift was a nice idea but it was only with a view towards SAR.
                  Not what the PwC report says

                  The recommendations regarding the Squirrel and Defender framed the view that there was no role for the AC overseas then or in the future.
                  And Government policy with the previous White Paper was?

                  Fortunately the AC managed to secure the EC-135/AW-139 mix
                  only because of the failure of the medium lift contract

                  The question as posed, is what of the future. In reality a root and branch review is most likely required to define the roles and desirable capabilities for the next 10 years out of that type of review a more enlightened view can be derived for a possible future fleet..
                  The new White Paper may bring that

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X