Air Corps:The future

[Goldie fish]

Did the air corps consider the cougar when they were looking at new helicopters ?

Not for the Medium Helis(the AW139 won that competition) however the Cougar was the preferred choice for the Medium lift Heli, which was cancelled by Minister Smith, after he chose the S92 when Sikorsky offerred offsets, and Eurocopter objected.

[Helihead]

They wont be purchased - but I'd be looking at 8.

Four deployable/Four at home

Of course, ideally all 14 though.

To have four deployable / four at home and available it would take the 14 I would think.

[easyrider]

Those Cougars are in need of a mid-life upgrade, which is one of the reasons the Dutch are getting rid of them.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there,
Think back to the Puma days. The Don loved the one they had, especially as it made them feel all grown-up but they had to hand it back. As far as I know, Cougars and or Super Pumas have been mentioned in hopeful dispatches in the Don in the past, but nothing came out of it. It'd be nice, as the song says, but.....
regards
GttC

[paul g]

Think back to the leased casa, 250, which proved its use in lots of ways, and back in 1995 when the lease was up, the department got offered it for 2million, which was peanuts, even for the time (chile bought it for 5Million).

[GoneToTheCanner]

The Air Corps' biggest enemy is the Dept of Finance, apart from those within who "goldplate" projects, of course...
regards
GttC

[hptmurphy]

Cougars / Super Pumas are where we should have been when we bought the AW 139....missed oppertunity as the AC is hardly likely to introduce another type and its associated support problems witha very limited budget.

Note the PC9 that was lots was never replaced....

[morpheus]

There has never been a tradition of attrition replacement in the DF far as I can see. absolute disgrace.

8 were bought for a reason - an operational reason - loss of 1 = loss of operational capacity. No replacement. pox.

[Jetjock]

I wouldn't agree Morpheus. Unless the Pilatus are actually being used to train an annual quota of pilots for more advanced aircraft the remaining seven are plenty. The number of cadets going through the wings course is ridiculously small for that number.

Excess capacity is always great, but from a pure training point of view the AC is over equipped. Given it's limited minor warfare capability the Pc9 is purely a luxury.

A top to bottom review of training in the Air Corps needs to take place.

Nobody else performs basic initial flight training on an advanced fast turboprop.
Nobody else performs basic helicopter training on a twin engine IFR helicopter.
Nobody else wastes money training helicopter pilots on fixed wing.
The ridiculous notion of a pilot qualifying on a PC9 to then graduate onto a Cessna.

I firmly believe that had it been the other way around there would still be 8 in the inventory in any case and two good men would still be punching holes in the sky.

[hptmurphy]

There has never been a tradition of attrition replacement in the DF far as I can see. absolute disgrace

.

Initially with the Cessnas they did have replacement...but I think that was even lost.


The Dauphin similarly wasn't replaced was one of the allouettes.

Nobody else performs basic initial flight training on an advanced fast turboprop.
Nobody else performs basic helicopter training on a twin engine IFR helicopter

.


Introduction of extra types into the Aer Corps given the limited fleet is a logistics nightmare with techie training and supplies of spares hence the requirement to multitask aircraft possibly potentially leading to higher losses but if these losses are part of the acceptable risk in operating these type of aircraft in this role then there must a facilty to replace these.

[Jetjock]

Correct Murph, Cessna 243 was an attrition replacement and was lost itself on Clonbullogue a few years back.

It's not the multi tasking I am worried about, it's the complete unsuitability of these types for the roles of basic training that is the problem. Round peg, sqaure hole.

If it is not suitable for a role, accepting a higher loss ratio by using it in that role is wrong.

If fleet diversification is a problem the answer is simple, outsource.

Outsource 100 hrs of basic flight training in both fixed and rotary wing. Return to Bal with 100 hrs under their belts and then fly the PC-9 or EC135.

The only reason losses haven't been higher is that only a handful of pilots have been trained over the last few years.

Balancing the number of pilots trained and the number of actual operational missions such as point air policing during the recent State visits, having 7 aircraft at all is a major luxury.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there,
Not so. The Marchettis had 231 bought in as a replacement for 223 and the Cessnas had 243 bought in as a replacement for 204. Also, the RAF has long had the tradition of training it's pilots on fixed-wing first then streaming them onto fast jet first and then the rest later. The Air Corps tended to offer Helis to newer pilots after they had done their stint in Cessnas, after their Wings course, so you ended up with potential heli pilots having about 4-500 hrs up before they saw a Gazelle. In more recent times, with the advent of two-seat crewed helis, you ended up with pilots with lots of P2 time and very little P1 time, which, ironically, wasn't entirely useful in getting a job outside afterwards. The Garda helis redressed the balance after the demise of the Alouettes, so you got lots more people with high P1 times again, which, ironically, more competition for scarce P1 jobs outside.
The Air Corps continues to defy the international concensus that a screening aircraft is needed or that a basic helicopter is needed for basic training.
regards
GttC

[Jetjock]

Well the current GOC is the man who headed up Flight Training when the current system was implemented so I cant see it changing in the near future.

[Goldie fish]

Correct Murph, Cessna 243 was an attrition replacement and was lost itself on Clonbullogue a few years back.

It's not the multi tasking I am worried about, it's the complete unsuitability of these types for the roles of basic training that is the problem. Round peg, sqaure hole.

If it is not suitable for a role, accepting a higher loss ratio by using it in that role is wrong.

If fleet diversification is a problem the answer is simple, outsource.

Outsource 100 hrs of basic flight training in both fixed and rotary wing. Return to Bal with 100 hrs under their belts and then fly the PC-9 or EC135.

The only reason losses haven't been higher is that only a handful of pilots have been trained over the last few years.

Balancing the number of pilots trained and the number of actual operational missions such as point air policing during the recent State visits, having 7 aircraft at all is a major luxury.

If the Air Corps Outsource its training, then it no longer has need for about half of its aircraft. Its only role then will be token battle taxi,(within the island of Ireland), monday to friday Maritime patrol, and Ministerial transport, combined with any air ambulance jobs the Coast Guard don't get first.
The PC9 is a trainer, where its potential user is expected to move on to fast jet. Its cockpit and instrument layout reflect this. It serves no purpose when you transfer the trained pilot to seal counting in a Cessna 172, or greeting the VIP on the government jet before switching on the auto pilot.

The Air Corps needs to identify a role for itself, one that only they can do, that is needed by the state.

[Aidan]

The AC (and the Army) would have Cougars in a shot - if they had their way, these would have been purchased long before the 139s, but they lost that opportunity when Minister Smith decided to play politics after the results of the competition were known. After that, they were never going to get to tender in that size class again.

I think both Goldie and Jetjock are right -the AC (a) need to either outsource basic training, or operate a screening type, and (b) find themselves a set of roles that only they can do.

The obvious one is military airlift - supporting troops on the ground both at home and abroad. But the 139 is unlikely to be deployed abroad without some serious refit (if at all), so the AC is essentially stuck with an 'on-island' helicopter force. In time, operating a more robust type and developing the capacity to actually deploy those helicopters abroad should be a priority. Other roles would include a bolstered maritime patrol capacity and operating transport aircraft. Forget SAR - it's a civilian function.

Longer term, UAV operations should be a priority. Developments in that field are coming thick and fast - it's not difficult to foresee a situation where small armed UCAVs get cheap enough for the likes of us to operate. For a mission like Chad, the possibility of a cheap air support/recce function would be hugely valuable.