Agusta Westland AB139 for Irish Air Corps

[SARMAN]

FLIR is not what you should be getting on the 139, its heavy and its not designed for flying low level at night. You need NVG's for that, now a 139 with full night vision thats what you want, great for training both pilots and soldiers on the ground in night Op's..
Then again where would you mount the FLIR on the 139, I heard they are having problems with things like that in the first AWSAR 139.

[FMolloy]

The 139's cockpits are NVE compatible.

[ZULU]

Then again where would you mount the FLIR on the 139, I heard they are having problems with things like that in the first AWSAR 139.

Location: Nose underside - Port Side just forward of window

[SARMAN]

Flir

NVG's is the way to go I know the 139's cockpit is NVE compatable, I know its early days for the air corps and the 139's so its probably not the best time to be training on NVG's aswell you need to know the aircraft first then advanced training can come at a later date.

I am still having trouble with ZULU's sugestion on the sighting of the FLIR on the air corps 139, one of my very early observations of the air corps 139 was how low to the ground it was there is little or no clearance for a FLIR, AB are talking about changing the landing gear on the first AWSAR 139 to acomadate a FLIR and a night sun, so just sticking a FLIR on the 139 does not seem to be an option, correct me if im wrong on this but I know the design team for the AWSAR airframe are currently pulling there hair out. If you where to put a FLIR on thew 139 at the minute it would probably only be able to see what in on the port side of the aircraft. All this aside what do you need a FLIR for anyway, if its finding a tank's at night I say again NVG's when all the crews are up to speed with the 139.

[ZULU]

Hi Guys,

Sorry for not replying sooner, thanks for the feedback too!

To answer your questions...

The mounting under the nose is for the FLIR, I was told the model but I'm damned if I can remember what it is! The image is displayed on one of the screens in the cockpit, I think the middle screen.

The gun has a range of movement as follows: -45 to +45 degrees in traverse (90 degrees total), -45 to 0 degrees in elevation (I got a tour of the gun mount those are the numbers as good as I can remember them, had a busy day, lots of info to soak up)

The spent shells and links are captured in a bag suspended under the gun.


Regards,

Frank.

Its set up for a FLIR 8500(EC135 has options for Ultraforce 2)

Turret Size 9.0" dia. x 13.5" h (22.9 x 34.3 cm)
Turret Weight 29 lbs (13 kg)
Field of Regard 360º continuous in azimuth and elevation
Slew Rates .02º to 65º both axes
Stabilization Fiber-optic gyro-stabilization

http://www.flir.com/imaging/Airborne...Ultra8500.aspx

The FLIR mounting has been discussed earlier. (Page 10)

[Jetjock]

As Zulu said the aircraft is set up for the FLIR with the mounting already in place. They are not "just sticking a FLIR" onto the airframe. Look forward of the chin windows and you can see the mount surrounded by a white square. As discussed earlier in this thread.

[thebig C]

Lets not forget that the original tender for the UH contract included the request for options for the ability of the aircraft to be able to deliver a "range" of unguided fire support weapons. The AB139 was initially marketed with stub wing mounted podded weapons including cannon and rockets and I'm sure our birds are capable of being modified with said items if there was a requirement. Before we get there, the Air Corps need to instigate a mind-set within the Army where Air Corps participation is considered a valuable asset. To do this, the advantages of an "Air Mobile" element within a broader tactical doctrine needs to be demonstrated by a willingness to make aircraft available to any Army training operation, that will bring the Defence Force policy makers to the thinking that an airborne element is indispensable to any future operation, be it at home or overseas. This is the first time in Air Corps history that the equipment is available to demonstrate their potential as a valid component of an integrated military capability. Let's hope that when the aircraft have "worked up" sufficiently and are fully operational that this opportunity is grasped and the force multiplication offered by such a capability is recognised, just as it has been by any serious military force for the last 40 years. Hopefully such thinking will bring an end to "token" 100 here, 200 there overseas deployments and in the future we will see fully integrated all-services deployments where the Irish Defence Forces take a lead role.

I agree, but the lesson from many other countries is also that to achieve the proper integration of helicopters into the army, they need to be army helicopters, not someone else's, which is why an Army Air Corps needs to be established, alongside the other corps in the army.

[GoneToTheCanner]

hi jetjock
I had to emit a cynical laugh at your assertion that the Army have to change it's mindset about Air Corps participation;it's the other way around, I'm afraid.RJ had to forcibly remind some of his people of the need to work with the Army and not against them.I have written on this theme before here and in other fora.The Army got pissed off at frequent refusals to supply aircraft, often on flimsy pretexts.There was one actual occasion where a phonecall from a very senior Army officer, looking for an Alouette for a task in the Curragh, was routed and rerouted until it ended up at a telephone in Heli Flight and was answered by the lowest link in the foodchain, the mech working on the Alouette. He thought it was a wind-up and invited the caller to have sex with himself.Needless to say, the officer went off the scale and took it to the top.Alouette availability improved drastically, thereafter.Really, the Air Corps are guilty of generating their own bad reputation on that score.
regards
GttC

[Jetjock]

Hi Gttc,

That was my point exactly and only by demonstrating "a willingness to make aircraft available to any Army training operation" (hate to quote myself!) will their worth to the wider DF be fully recognised. I think that RJ has gone a long way to bucking up the people who were living in the comfort zone. From my own conversations with the man too that was very evident. The buzzword seems to be availability. Without SAR as a primary tasking, in order to prove worthy of funding the AC need to prove useful. Without Army support and the CASA(the maritime tasking could very easily be privatised) the Air Corps are basically Baldonnel Corporate Airlines. But now, with the AW 139 there is a real chance to prove their worth and alter the self inflicted cozy corps image.
P.S. Priceless story but indicative of the lack of proper lines of communication at the time.
Carrington,
I see your point about the separate Army Air Corps, and the merits of placing the aircraft directly under Army command are obvious, but I don't think we have the resources for the dispersal of assets under more than one umbrella. With regard to any future Naval heli operations, the only workable option is having commissioned Naval officers selected for flight crew training, which would be undertaken by the Air Corps. They would operate Air Corps serialled and maintained aircraft, operating directly under Navy command and control.

[SARMAN]

Sorry about that ZULU, I am new to this site and unless I am sadly mistaken it was you who brought up the FLIR again, I was simply making the point that the FLIR is not of much use to the 139 in its current role, I will look back at the last 18 pages or 467 posts before commenting on any thing again.
If that will keep you happy..

[FMolloy]

I will look back at the last 18 pages or 467 posts before commenting on any thing again.

You could do a search either.

[ZULU]

Sorry about that ZULU, I am new to this site and unless I am sadly mistaken it was you who brought up the FLIR again, I was simply making the point that the FLIR is not of much use to the 139 in its current role, I will look back at the last 18 pages or 467 posts before commenting on any thing again.
If that will keep you happy..

No need for apologies. We're all learning. You learnt where the FLIR mounting was on the AW139 and I learned (from sources who actually know whats going on) that the main reason why they dont have a FLIR is top brass attitudes

[Jetjock]

I would think that the advantages of FLIR on non SAR missions on an aircraft whose primary tasking will be transport for the moment are minimal in any case. Special ops training with the ARW maybe, but at the moment there is probably no need. Technology advances and there is no point in having something going obsolete in a crate somewhere. Maybe in a year or two when real role expansion is actually possible.
My apologies to Scorpy if above post came across wrong..it was intended tongue in cheek. I am sure you have something to say and I am probably in agreement..if it is what I think it is! The fact is the AW139 is a massive leap in a support heli from the AIII.

[hedgehog]

I flew in a Lynx and the Pilots simply used NVE

they had to fly once every month on an NVE flight to keep theri rating

[tonyrdf]

Sorry about that ZULU, I am new to this site and unless I am sadly mistaken it was you who brought up the FLIR again, I was simply making the point that the FLIR is not of much use to the 139 in its current role, I will look back at the last 18 pages or 467 posts before commenting on any thing again.
If that will keep you happy..

The RAF's EH101's in Iraq have FLIR, and I dont think they use it for SAR......
Apparently its fairly useful for identifing roadside ambushes at night etc.