Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deployability

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

  • Deployability

    Was watching a documentary at the weekend about the Royal Marines, and Fleet Air Arm operations in support of them. It was notable that this invlved maintenance and repair work being done in the field.
    There seems to be a push towards having a capability for the A/C to send helicopters on missions abroad at a future stage. What would it take support wise for this to be possible?
    .
    .
    .
    With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

    Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

  • #2
    Originally posted by yellowjacket
    Was watching a documentary at the weekend about the Royal Marines, and Fleet Air Arm operations in support of them. It was notable that this invlved maintenance and repair work being done in the field.
    There seems to be a push towards having a capability for the A/C to send helicopters on missions abroad at a future stage. What would it take support wise for this to be possible?
    Would still be depending on others to ferry the helis to the mission area on, say, a C130, or a Galaxy transporter, for starters. Aswell as needing to have all the obvious parts, techs, etc., in situ
    Last edited by FMolloy; 20 July 2007, 20:08.
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

    Comment


    • #3
      The US Army has transported helis via ship in the past:
      http://www.defendamerica.mil/article.../a011604c.html
      The new ship the NS may be requesting could probably hold several shrinkrapped on the aft deck.(Using a Nautical term -probably incorrectly )
      When I breeze into that city, people gonna stoop and bow.
      All them women gonna make me, teach 'em what they don't know how

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ex pat 007
        The US Army has transported helis via ship in the past:
        http://www.defendamerica.mil/article.../a011604c.html
        The new ship the NS may be requesting could probably hold several shrinkrapped on the aft deck.(Using a Nautical term -probably incorrectly )
        Fair dinkum, but at this time, we don't have the military capability
        to transfer several helis by sea.

        Didn't realise the NS were looking for a new ship...
        "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

        Comment


        • #5
          ^^^
          check out the Naval forum
          Education isn't everything, for a start it isn't an elephant

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by futurepilot
            ^^^
            check out the Naval forum
            Just did as you suggested. Am impressed...
            "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi there
              Why would we want to transport any aircraft oversea when there are better resources already nearby? In East Timor, the Australians have the aircraft, the facilities and the experience and they are fairly close to their own country.In Liberia, the Irish can call on the UN's contracted cargo fleet, either fixed-wing or rotary, usually at quite short notice. The cost and logistical effort to ship and service even a modest helicopter would take quite a bite out of our budget and for what? Point-scoring? Is it really necessary for the PDF to try and be a global army or try to be a real blue-water Navy, given how small they are and how small the Budget is, in real terms. With all due respect to the Navy, they'd be better suited to trying to be a real, credible Atlantic Navy without arsing about the Far East. Incidentally, if you want to find out the true cost of long-distance airlift cargo ops, contact any NGO/relief agency, such as Concern or GOAL. They'll tell you the true cost and it'll make your eyes water.
              regards
              GttC

              Comment


              • #8
                See my post in the AFM thread re: Boeing 737

                http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/b...ead.php?t=7059

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Redeye
                  Is a QC 737 really necessary? Do they have enough business to justify it's costs? You're up in the really-big-expense league when you shell out for one of those. I'd rather they leased one per event rather than fund one and have it wasted doing endless "training" flights.I could just see the pilots doing "sub" runs on "training" flights ad nauseam. It would suit them better if they got a small lifter for para training and short/small lifts such as a Shorts Sherpa (doing sterling service as feederliners/small-capacity lifters for the USAFE and others) rather than squander their budget on a scarcely-used airliner. Far better to fill a Singapore Airlines 747-400F with stuff for East Timor and get there in one hop than have a 737 spend days shlepping out there and back with much less real capacity. Failing that, get the RAAF to ship stuff in from N.Australia or PNG. As an aside, a 320 can carry 170 odd pax and 5 LD-3 containers, which is no mean load.
                  regards
                  GttC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Canner, I'm with you on everything except a Shorts solution. My point was only that if the government is going to spend that kind of money on a new jet it ought to have more capability than flying MATS VIP sorties's once a week or so with a luxury Boeing Business Jet or Airbus Corporate Jet that is unable to do anything else. That would be a shameful waste of tax money. Why not at least try to provide some broader and much needed capabilities in line with existing and evolving requirements associated with the EU battle-group scheme - a keystone of Irish Defense policy now and for the forseeable future.

                    For instance, Ireland's basic contribution will be a reinforced company group able to move on short notice and operate in conjunction with partnered nations, most likely Sweden and Finland. The new NS Support Ship will move the vehicles and equipment, containers, etc. and provide C2 and emergency medical capabilities in theater, with helo spots and fuel. A 737QC would provide the ability to deploy the necessary advanced party (for the whole multi-natinal battlegroup if required), followed by the bulk of Irish troops with their first line equipment, including heavy weapons, ammunition, medical and communications - in a few sorties into destinations where charter carriers may be reluctant to go, albeit a secured airfield with appropriate cargo handling equipment (not required for a C-130), where they would link up with their heavy equipment from the Support Ship or otherwise be transported forward after rest and acclimatization. Associated tasks include regularly deploying forces for EU battlegroup exercises and deploying Ranger Wing assets for training and operations. Additionally, the QC can act as an air ambulance, including a mass casualty situation such as the car bomb in Kabul that killed 19 German ISAF soldiers and wounded even more. And yes, the cargo load is significantly less than a C-130J-30 or a chartered 747F, but it's more than a standard A320. And all this while providing the government with a suitable MATS VIP aircaft, given an appropriate QC kit.

                    A 737QC would not preclude the need for heavy lift charters. They would still be required to deploy an Irish Support Helicopter contribution to the battlegroup air componenet - 4/5 AB-139's operating alongside Finnish NH-90s' for instance - and possibly to augment 737 humanitarian ops for particularly crises.

                    I'm not a champion of the 737QC. I still maintain the right solution is a C-130J-30, but given the increasing liklihood of a new jet I think it's important to get as much capability as possible. A 737QC will certainly be in the air on real missions more than a standard A320 and certainly more than a BBJ or Airbus Corporate Jet.

                    Finally, if the powers that be select the low end option for military airlift (as opposed to MATS), the only sensible soluton is a CN-235 as a minimum or a C-295 or C-27J as the next step up. Believe me, the Shorts is no solution. I have experience with the C-23 Sherpa, a perfectly fine aircraft, but dreadfully slow, with limited payload and performance. It is what it is - an expensively modified civilian commuter airliner built in the 70's. The US Army is soon to replace them with C-27J's. Even if a 737QC was selected, I maintain a CN-235 is required for RW support, for exercise support within Europe and for tactical airlift support to the deployed battlegroup in theater - for instance, shifting arriving troops and equipment forward into an austere and dangerous operational area from the secure airhead where they arrive aboard the 737 (and other EU airlift), operating as part of the battlegroup air component alongside, for instance, Finnish C-295's (order expected shortly) and Swedish C-130's.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How about manpower issues. What would it take for the A/C to be able to deploy aircraft abroad, potentially in the field. I'm thinking of stuff like maintenance, ground crew and other support personnel here.
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

                      Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The idea of the battlegroup is that they will be the first armed force on the ground, hence the rapid reaction element.

                        They will be looking at situations where there is little if any infrastructure, and potentially have to fight on landing. Do you really want to send troops in a converted airliner in that situation?

                        If for arguments sake we use the Iraq example. Airliners would take the troops into the strategic theatre (ie the region, eg Saudi Arabia/Turkey in this example). While small tactical airlifters (eg Hercules) transport the troops to the area of operation (eg Baghdad).

                        By then again it has advantages as well.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Roger that Dev. Hence my view that a C-130J-30 is the right option, along the lines of the Danish Air Force. I have no problem with the govenment obtaining a new MATS VIP a/c, good for Ireland in many ways, but it should NOT be in lieu of a viable Irish airlift capability to support the EU battlegroup and other commitments.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Attached is a shot of a US Navy C-40A Clipper at Nuernberg, Germany not long ago.
                            C-40A is the US military designation for the Boeing 737-700C/QC.

                            Interesting cost comparison (not precise, subject to currency fluctuations, negotiations, etc.):

                            C-130J-30 = $65M
                            B737-700C/QC = $55M
                            B737 BBJ = $55M +
                            A319 Corporate Jet = $55M +
                            Standard all pax A320 = $55M
                            Bombardier Global Express = $35M +
                            Gulfstream GV = $35M +
                            CN-235/C-295 = $22M/$26M

                            Then there are training, operating and maintenance costs which vary widely and impact overall costs. For instance, 737 aircrew training and mainteance could be economically contracted to whoever takes care of the Ryanair fleet, while C-130J crew training would require time with the USAF or RAF, with maintenance done by the IAC and under contract.

                            Cost comparison of prefered aircraft sets to satisfy full MATS + military airlift requirement:

                            C-130J-30 + Global Express = $100M
                            737-700C/QC + CN-235 = $77M

                            Very rough figures I acknowledge, but highlights an advantage of the 737QC. Just as the MEKO 200 may not be the optimum solutonfor the Support Ship requirement but brings a tremendous abmount of flexible capability to the NS, the 737QC may make sense the IAC and for the government.
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              see: http://www.c-130j.ca/document/Spec_Book.pdf

                              and: http://www.c-130j.ca/index.php?lang_id=1

                              A C-130J-30 is still the best option to satisfy the airlift requirement - lease or buy, with a Bombardier Global Express to replace the GIV in the MATS role.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X