Cessna Replacement - The Options

[Goldie fish]

Yup, you really have not gained much performance wise changing from TP trainer to Jet trainer, even if you delete the back seat.

[spider]

So half a dozen 3 Gen+ advanced training aircraft for what purpose? You already possess a small fleet of advanced training aircraft in the AC that are perfectly adequately in that role. The AC would be better off ordering 2 or 3 C-130XJ's from LM to enter service in a few years.

I was thinking of Hawk 200 ... which has a multi-role capability, and is a lot more than a trainer.

Why would the Irish Air Corps need three C130's?

Any movement of stuff overseas can be done by hired aircraft surely?

Parachuting for the ARW is / could be done from the CASA's?

[Goldie fish]

Youd get actual use out of a herc or three far more often than you would a hawk.
Mowag in Leb needs new engine? Fly one from DFTC via the don.
Diver in trouble off Donegal? Fly Decomp unit to Finner from NS in cork.
Troops to EU Battlegroup ex? Herc.
Top cover for long range SAR? Herc
Not to mention fitting a recce troop in the back to wherever(provided the vehicles were suited)

[spider]

Youd get actual use out of a herc or three far more often than you would a hawk.
Mowag in Leb needs new engine? Fly one from DFTC via the don.
Diver in trouble off Donegal? Fly Decomp unit to Finner from NS in cork.
Troops to EU Battlegroup ex? Herc.
Top cover for long range SAR? Herc
Not to mention fitting a recce troop in the back to wherever(provided the vehicles were suited)

Fair points Goldie, but respectfully any of these could be done by civvie air with the exception of SAR top cover, which the CASA can do.

The Donegal diver scenario is already covered, the Sligo chopper flies them to Craigavon Hospital (they have a chamber for MS patients).

There is a capability gap in the Irish Air Corps...the ability to defend Irish airspace.

IMHO that is what needs to be addressed first (and again I emphasise I say that merely as an interested amateur).

And a question please - who is responsible for the airspace in the Irish EEZ?

[Te Kaha]

There is a capability gap in the Irish Air Corps...the ability to defend Irish airspace.

IMHO that is what needs to be addressed first (and again I emphasise I say that merely as an interested amateur).

And a question please - who is responsible for the airspace in the Irish EEZ?

So now you are advocating as a Cessna 172 replacement (because thats what this thread is all about) - a Gen III+ light attack aircraft with a second tier A2A capability and then for the reason of a percieved capability gap regards an Air Defence umbrella surrounding the Irish EEZ? Have you any idea how many Hawk 200's and qualified pilots you would need to have to get two Hawks at a directed level of capability purely just to intercept whatever unknown aircraft has intruded your airspace? You would need a lot more than a fleet of six airframes. Is the threat so great to justify the cost? You could most likely buy new 20 Cessna Caravans for one new build Hawk Mk200/T-50/M346. To give you an idea of real world operating costs it used to cost us downunder USD$25000 an hour to put up a training mission package of two A-4K's and that was in the 1990's. Operating modern Strike aircraft, even Gen 3+/4 light strikers, effectively requires the purchasing and supporting of capabilities well beyond buying X or Y airframe. It also would probably take around 8-10 years to get a even a short squadron to DLOC status from scratch and literally a Billion Euro spent in the process or put it another way 500 Cessna Caravans.

[spider]

So now you are advocating as a Cessna 172 replacement (because thats what this thread is all about) - a Gen III+ light attack aircraft with a second tier A2A capability and then for the reason of a percieved capability gap regards an Air Defence umbrella surrounding the Irish EEZ? Have you any idea how many Hawk 200's and qualified pilots you would need to have to get two Hawks at a directed level of capability purely just to intercept whatever unknown aircraft has intruded your airspace? You would need a lot more than a fleet of six airframes. Is the threat so great to justify the cost? You could most likely buy new 20 Cessna Caravans for one new build Hawk Mk200/T-50/M346. To give you an idea of real world operating costs it used to cost us downunder USD$25000 an hour to put up a training mission package of two A-4K's and that was in the 1990's. Operating modern Strike aircraft, even Gen 3+/4 light strikers, effectively requires the purchasing and supporting of capabilities well beyond buying X or Y airframe. It also would probably take around 8-10 years to get a even a short squadron to DLOC status from scratch and literally a Billion Euro spent in the process or put it another way 500 Cessna Caravans.

Hi Te Kaha,

Thank You for your reply.

1. No, I am not advocating replacing Cessna 172's with Hawks (or something similar), I am advocating a complete overhaul of the raison d'etre for the Irish Air Corps. And as part of that I don't see a need for Cessna 172's, or the mentality that trained and capable professional military pilots should be spending their time flying civvie aeroplanes painted green and conducting missions against...people cutting turf.

2. Nope - I have no idea how many airframes you would need to protect the airspace above the EEZ. But it ain't going to be protected by Cessna 172's or Cessna Caravans for that matter.

3. You clearly know what you are talking about - so in your opinion how many airframes would it take?

4. Anyway, my question regarding the EEZ was more related to the future exploitation of natural resources there, and how that will be policed. You jumped the gun a little bit there.

5. These Cessna Caravans you advocate replacing the Cessna 172's with...what are you planning to use them for exactly?

6. I said Hawk would be a suitable aircraft for the Irish Air Corps, because just across the Irish Sea is all the support infrastructure required...I did think about that before I posted.

And I make this point again...I am not in the Irish Air Corps, I add my thoughts to this debate merely as an interested amateur. Why do you say the Irish Air Corps should buy 3 C130's, but are vehemently opposed to purchasing (or renting...) Hawks? I ask again, what need is there for the Irish Air Corps to replace the Cessna's with C130's? How much would it cost the Irish Air Corps to purchase, operate and maintain a fleet of three C130'S?

[DeV]

C252

How many roles could 1 (let alone 3) Hercs do? 2-3 flights a year to an overseas AO and a small number of personnel to the odd overseas ex/course?

I refer to one individual in particular who flew once a year to claim his wings money.

How did he retain currency?

yet the Navy, in the same economy punch above their weight and get the DF to agree, at least in principle, in a role expansion requiring new kit when the economy allows. The IAC sit stagnantly in role for role replacement and let alone punching above their weight don't even seem to want to be in the ring.

The helicopters and Cessnas are capable of multiple roles and have taken on new roles (partially throught the new helicopters being more capable). The AC needs what the NS has.... multiple role capable aircraft.

The AC if they had been any way savvy, should at least be in the same position as the Naval Service. That is to say the Argument has been made for the Larger vessel it is really just a funding issue.

Was there not a report commissioned on the larger vessels (after the tenders were received!)?

What exactly would we be buying new aircraft for?

Its the age old problem with the AC. DEFINE THE ROLE, then purchase the aircraft. If that means no Cessna replacement then so be it, on the other hand if people weren't so content with keeping what they have a proper defined argument for a new role(s) could mean newer (Used is perfectly acceptable) aircraft of any type (within reason).

To replace aging aircraft??

Couldn't agree more. Make the helicopter as organic to a unit as a truck, fly it and service it with a unit's own members (which increases the sense of attachment and belonging, when their own people "own" it) and treat Baldonnel as an out-station. Every barracks has at least one shed big enough to house an EC-135 and it's spares and enough room to house the air and groundcrew. Any helicopter can be maintained in the field until it needs heavy maintenance; mature armies have been doing it for years. The organisation does not lack the brains, the tools or the equipment, it just lacks the will. The boot up the arse needs to be done again.

regards
GttC

Ah but each unit doesn't even have its own trucks! Why did we move from unit decals to brigade ones?! I heard that when they were assessing the first Irish element of the battlegroup, questions were asked why their were several different decals (brigade ones!).

Remember that AC policy for the future was based on this report, it advocated replacing the entire fleet with "squirrel type helicopters and defender type aircraft"

Bit of selective quoting there!
It recommended:
GIV - keep
BKA 200 - keep
Marchetti & Fouga - replaced by a single type
Alouette & Dauphin - replaced by a smaller number of Squirrel type
Cessna - replaced by a smaller number of Defender type
Purchase of 4 x Medium lift helicopters

Youd get actual use out of a herc or three far more often than you would a hawk.
Mowag in Leb needs new engine? Fly one from DFTC via the don.
Diver in trouble off Donegal? Fly Decomp unit to Finner from NS in cork.
Troops to EU Battlegroup ex? Herc.
Top cover for long range SAR? Herc
Not to mention fitting a recce troop in the back to wherever(provided the vehicles were suited)

How many flights annually are we talking?

And a question please - who is responsible for the airspace in the Irish EEZ?

Outside the 12 mile limit is international airspace. Much of the 200 mile EEZ would be covered (ATC wise only) by SHANWICK.

3. You clearly know what you are talking about - so in your opinion how many airframes would it take?

You need min 2 aircraft on QRA. NATO countries are basing 4 aircraft in Lithuania for the job.

[Charlie252]

Dev,

Where do I start, are you saying the Price waterhouse report on the AC was well written, do you believe it Addressed the AC and the needs of its primary customers, did it address the AC fleet for the next ten years, do you believe that the Squirrel and defender are appropriate aircraft for the AC, did you meet the young lads that wrote it, there knowledge of Aviation was virtually Zero.

I actually believe there is significant scope for C-130 sized aircraft. Here are some examples I can think of:

One of the issues with overseas service is the six month deployment period that is the norm and has a detrimental effect on family life. Part of this is driven by the cost of the commercial aircraft that has to be chartered to transport the troops. With a C-130 a weekly flight could rotate the troops on a much more regular basis and lead to improvements across the board in Morale for the troops.

Even small detachments of troops deployed overseas need a huge amount of equipment, the ARW detachment to East Timor required a huge amount of kit at significant cost which I remember was in the Millions. Army deployments at company or larger strength require massive amounts of kit, this has to be shipped at great cost both in money terms and in time. C-130's would mean that these deployments could happen much more rapidly and the actual mission type considered could change as they would not require years to justify the transport time scale.

If an deployed unit was to become aware of an increase of activity by one of the belligerents in an AO and either the Army decided to get them out or increase the strength this could be achieved rapidly. For example a C-130 can carry two Scorpian light tanks or a battery of 105's, the deployed unit could receive significant reinforcement's very rapidly. This would give the Army terrific flexibility in how they deploy and the type of threat environments they deploy too.

Ireland has for years been heavily committed to providing overseas Aid, this has been flown at great cost on commercial aircraft. C-130's give a much more robust ability to respond to international incident's and provide the Ability to deliver cargo to more remote less serviced locations.

Years ago I put some numbers together on this and I think I had about 600hrs per airframe for two aircraft, it was based on something like 12hrs per week for resupply to Liberia which made about 600hrs per year and the balance was support to other overseas missions, Irish Aid flights etc. I even had costs per hour. Can't find them now.
In fact with the Aircraft in the fleet and their capabilities known the Army could build its resupply packages around the weight and dimensions of the hold.
I think though that without too much imagination the aircraft could be gainfully employed.

With regard to Air Defense I think you must first identify a threat, and I can't really see one. An aircraft in the Hawk class even a 200 is really only suitable for limited point defense and not Air defense which in reality requires a supersonic capability at which point the costs get out of hand, F-16's run around 15-20K per hour in direct costs. This came up in the lead up to the PC-9 board post 911, where DOD wanted to know about Air Defense and a briefing was given the showed the capabilities of the Hawk and its limitations even against Airliners.

The costs of maintaining even one squadron of second hand Jets would drain the Defense budget vary rapidly and we can't even identify a threat, consider that the RAF will be down to only Six squadrons at the end of the Latest rationalization(from 26) due to the huge costs.

I have advocated for a long time that the Armed part of the AC should be Heli borne and that the PC-9 really could not operate in even a low threat environment. However an armed recce helicopter would give the AC a really credible ability and add guided munitions to the mix. It would be a huge asset to an Army commander in the field to have a couple of flights available for scout/recce and armed intervention.

IMHO the AC's future should be based around Military Transport, And Heli's both Tactical Transport aircraft and Armed Recce aircraft. These are the only roles that cannot be done by a commercial operator and the only way to justify a bright future from what I can See.

[warthog]

the problem lies in that for a tiny island we have far,far too many lads in the Army with little real purpose
,we need to cut the regs down and expand the aircorps and navy

[Te Kaha]

Hi Te Kaha, And I make this point again...I am not in the Irish Air Corps, I add my thoughts to this debate merely as an interested amateur. Why do you say the Irish Air Corps should buy 3 C130's, but are vehemently opposed to purchasing (or renting...) Hawks? I ask again, what need is there for the Irish Air Corps to replace the Cessna's with C130's? How much would it cost the Irish Air Corps to purchase, operate and maintain a fleet of three C130'S?

Regarding the Cessna replacement - many airforces in small countries use light aircraft or rotary for MOAT (multi-agency operational tasking) as an aid to civil power. It is a fact of life to consolidate flying for the benefit of the state under one roof for economy of scale reasons. It does not and should not take away from their primary role which is the support of land and maritime forces. As for the Cessna Caravan, I am not advocating it per se. it is just a frequently flown example of a light aircraft within a number of airforces to aid MOAT.
Simply their is still a role for a light utility aircraft in the AC to deliver what the Irish Govt requires as an aid to civil society. I am not saying replace the 172's with C-130's however, in my view there is a need for both a small utility workhorse and a medium transport such as the C-130XJ as part of the AC fleet. As for an air defence variant of a strike aircraft it is totally unrealistic - the Hawk is not that aircraft anyway. Even if Ireland bought Hawks for their intended purpose - tactical CAS and Interdiction - you would definitely need C-130's to provide the long logistical chain from the Don to where they are forward deployed. As for as airframes required to do 24/7/365 QRF/CAP to keep out all those bogey's invading, well iirc the RAAF required a full Squadron of F/A-18's during the short burst of activity of the Sydney Olympics and was very relieved to have the darn thing over.

Though Charlie has covered the points about the C-130 extremely well there is one more salient point. One cannot not rely on airlift charters for expeditionary missions for countless reasons, the NZDF, CDF and ADF have learnt by experience. Issues over availability (force extraction is a biggy), security, contracual breaches, insurance, C2, implementation of non fly zones, and whether or not the mandated mission commander wants it or actually allows it are factors.

As for total operating costs of C-130's. They are expensive to buy and operate but on a unit basis dramatically less than flying Strike aircraft for the hours of use. In the NZ situation which I am familiar with, it costs around NZ$130m p.a to operate five old C-130'Hs which were traditionally tasked to deliver 3000 hours each year or 600 hours per airframe. The under development C-130XJ would be some 30% less op/cost than the old H's and LM regard thir acquisition cost around 10% cheaper than the current J model - I have heard of a USD$60m flyaway target - not bad considering they will do 40-50 years service. Better value for money than BIZ jets and 2nd Teir strike aircraft.

[Tadpole]

To replace aging aircraft??

Ah Dev, how many times? Age is only a reason for replacement if the roles exist, likewise if the roles dont exist age isnt a reason for replacement its a reason for retirement. If these roles still exist and are currently being performed by a 172 then the best replacement is a 172 not something like a Caravan just because somebody likes them.

[DeV]

Possibly yes, but the 172 is limited in its capability to perform its current roles due to its single engine, small payload and lack of surveillance equipment. The AC could push the boundary and take on new roles with better equipment. You are correct in saying that the role must be defined first and that would be part of an tender.

[danno]

As with all future AC purchases make sure the craft are as rough,noisey and uncomfortable as poss to ensure they will never get used for MATS.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Now, danno, that's excessively cynical of you! Go and stand in a cold guard post for 24 hours with no sleep, until you learn to conform!...........Like I said before, the Don wants to get away from pistons/avgas and finally make the fleet all-turbine, which is why the 172s have to go. The reliability and overhaul life of a PT-6 (twice that of a Continental) makes this a non-question. Spider, the Casas are full of mission equipment, including the ramp from which people jump off. To actually jump, you have to work your way past the mission suite and it's seated occupants (in your own bulky equipment), wriggle one by one onto the ramp, squeeze past the dinghy drop gear, have a huddle and then jump. It's not a proper jump aircraft. With regard to para dropping in the DF, a Cessna Caravan could drop the entire annual requirement of the DF, sneaky boys included, in a weekend.........Dev, the guy did one hour a year in a Cessna.

regards
GttC

[DeV]

Which would you prefer to have flying a Minister to London or Brussels?

A operational CASA (possibly meaning a fishery protection or SAR operation can't be done) or a Caravan (or similar) - from an operational point of view that is !?