Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 45 of 45
  1. #26
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,765
    Post Thanks / Like
    you would want to be a very brave or very stupid man to sanction the use of any heli without an ECM / Defensive suite in any credible conflict nowadays.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  2. #27
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Even if they did deploy their helis in a hot climate such as the leb, they'd have to rerig the helis for desert ops, with additional air filters and instrument filters and add a back-up supply of spares into the cost of the mission. Prior to departure, they would have to have some serious long-duration field training, as they effectively have no experience of staying away from the Don for longer than a few days. They need the practise! Sending officers to wazz around Salisbury Plain for a few days doesn't quite cut it. Right now, mentally and logistically, they are not up to the job of a sustained deployment into a tough environment.
    regards
    GttC

  3. #28
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    907
    Post Thanks / Like
    you would want to be a very brave or very stupid man to sanction the use of any heli without an ECM / Defensive suite in any credible conflict nowadays.
    Looking at the Italair photos the 212s do indeed have MAWS / RWR and chaff / flare dispensers. I also see that they have WSPS and armored crew seats.

    Just out of interest, not a Bell expert, but the heli in the first photo appears to have a doppler array just forward of the tail cone. Anybody know if these aircraft were 4 Axis. I dont see any hover meter etc in the cockpit photos although it could be a different ship.

  4. #29
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know it's impossible now, but if ever there was an ideal machine to send overseas it was the A3. Worked fine in hot and high with minimal conversion, and sturdy avionics too, unlike the glass cockpits of today.
    Logistically it would have been far easier to deploy, even if it had limited capacity and capability.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  5. #30
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi GF,
    the "Chicken-chaser" was a tough old bird and well able for rough-field operations.You only have tio look at what the SAAF did with them. If the manufacturer had retrofitted them with a modern engine, crashworthy seats and a few other updates, they'd still be in demand.
    regards
    GttC

  6. #31
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    Its worth taking a look at the way the UN use aviation assets - they are centralised assets for the whole force and are available to any deployed nation. They are operated under a UN ops manual which also covers the UN hired civilian companies so that should tell you how 'robust' it is. None of this is a big secret, its always been that way. In that regard, the AW139 would have no problems in the Leb. As regards manpads, well if thats the environment you're operating in then you have to think about what else you need apart from utility helicopters.
    The will is there but the air corps must be tasked to provide assets.

    As to the aircrafts logs supply etc, remember - when it was bought the White paper was very much in effect , whatever its status is now is really for another thread.

  7. #32
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/72804bb4760386f380256c610055a16b/93191a155924dad5802570c8005065d3/$FILE/whiteppr.pdf

    see 4.10.8. !!!
    This was obsolete by 2005 and probably before!

  8. #33
    C/S
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking at another thread. How much and how long to upgrade the 139's from "A's" to "M's"and with the will sending to far off fields.

  9. #34
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking at the specs, they just seem to have added some sort of NBC protection......


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  10. #35
    Flanders Pidgeon Murderer Captain Edmund Blackadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Where women blow and men chunder.
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like
    What I want to know is what stopped us buying ex-Yank Blackhawks, or even a few more Borat ex Soviet jobs both in cheap supply, and combat tested, instead of the green civvy helicopters we have too few of/can't do overseas with.
    Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.

  11. #36
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,095
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Edmund Blackadder View Post
    What I want to know is what stopped us buying ex-Yank Blackhawks, or even a few more Borat ex Soviet jobs both in cheap supply, and combat tested, instead of the green civvy helicopters we have too few of/can't do overseas with.
    Perhaps they weren't interested in providing overseas service.

    The AW-139 is ideal for domestic use - the yanks use similar spec civvy helicopters (EC-145's) for "Homeland Security, administrative, logistic, Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) and support of the Army Test and Training Centers missions."

    I may be way off on this, but I'd imagine Blackhawks/Mi-17's are more expensive & labour intensive to operate compared to a modern Civvy which is why the Americans went down the EC-145 route and why we went down the AW-139 one.

  12. #37
    Custom User Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,351
    Post Thanks / Like
    We were buying blackhawks until Agusta or what ever other company had a tender in complained that the tender was leaning towards blackhawk.....

  13. #38
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    539
    Post Thanks / Like
    One thing I can never understand and maybe someone can help me? I know the 139s where purchased for, among other roles, ARW support and general training of the army, however as an Army section is x (more than 8) men, and the 139 only takes 8, does this not compromise training?

    MOD: Operational info
    Last edited by DeV; 18th February 2011 at 20:16.

  14. #39
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Craghopper View Post
    We were buying blackhawks until Agusta or what ever other company had a tender in complained that the tender was leaning towards blackhawk.....
    Provide proof of that please.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  15. #40
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,952
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Craghopper View Post
    We were buying blackhawks until Agusta or what ever other company had a tender in complained that the tender was leaning towards blackhawk.....





    Blackhawks at the time only had analog cockpits. glass ones were extra.

  16. #41
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,952
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
    you would want to be a very brave or very stupid man to sanction the use of any heli without an ECM / Defensive suite in any credible conflict nowadays.
    Besides lead and rpg's what are the treats to the heli's in A-stan that would require

    ECM/ defensive suites. ?

  17. #42
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,210
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ias View Post
    one thing i can never understand and maybe someone can help me? I know the 139s where purchased for, among other roles, arw support and general training of the army, however as an army section is x men, and the 139 only takes x-1, does this not compromise training?
    ??

    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    besides lead and rpg's what are the treats to the heli's in a-stan that would require

    ecm/ defensive suites. ?
    manpads
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  18. #43
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,938
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ias View Post
    One thing I can never understand and maybe someone can help me? I know the 139s where purchased for, among other roles, ARW support and general training of the army, however as an Army section is x (more than 8) men, and the 139 only takes 8, does this not compromise training?

    MOD: Operational info
    There is method in the madness but that is operational info

  19. #44
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,765
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    Besides lead and rpg's what are the treats to the heli's in A-stan that would require

    ECM/ defensive suites. ?
    look:

    www.guardian.co.uk/manpads

    www.timesonline.co.uk/manpads

    i know these are jsut news reports but MANPAD is out there, and even if it hasn't been successful yet - you have to pre-empt such an attack at any time out there.
    Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 19th February 2011 at 01:44.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  20. #45
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,952
    Post Thanks / Like
    Did not know they still possessed them

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •