Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Pilatus PC-12 NG
Collapse
X
-
It does look more like an air taxi than a military workhorse.'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by golden rivet View Postknow little about aircraft but it looks like its all square segments riveted , not the smooth lines of a modern craft,,Originally posted by Chuck View PostYou keep saying realistic testing scenarios. Is this some type of buzzword you just discovered?
The first aircraft is probably not far off 12 months away at this stage. Of course there is going to be extensive testing of equipment. The tender spec points quite clearly to having a heavy focus on interoperability with both the Army and NS.
There are other operators out there, including the US who can offer insight into what does and doesn't work. This isn't reinventing the wheel.
This aircraft and its mission is almost entirely new for the AC so of course there will be teething problems. Accepting a new aircraft type and the subsequent myriad of training syllabi etc etc is probably one of the most challenging things an air arm can do, especially for one that doesn't have endless resources and has significant HR and retention issues.
This isn't like buying soft ordnance or clothing which the army routinely make a balls of. It is a little more complex.
Your two posts on this thread contribute very little to the discussion.
I have no doubt the manufacturer will indeed test equipment in a lab and very controlled test range setting but will acceptance and payment be made after or before the aircraft is deployed in country with the assets it is expected to work with?
My fear is that DF personnel will cave to the significant pressure that will be applied by the manufacturer/systems integrator to sign the acceptance contract before unacceptable links are ironed out.
I forsee that the aircraft final payment and acceptance will be made before it is used in an operational setting and low and behold it will have significant "teething problems". Asking for them to be fixed will result in a significant extra fees not covered by purchase contract.
Just because others operate them does not mean the likes of the US Military will share operational and tactical SOP with Ireland for free.
Yes Army LTAVs spring to mind. But so does a myriad of other systems the Defence Forces have purchased that cut across all three services.
Yes, the project is complex. So should the operational testing of the aircraft, systems and integration to the wider DF ISTAR network. Training and continued training support until operators from both Air and Ground services are up to task should be included in the purchase cost, not just flight qualifications. Then and only then should final payments be made.
If this is a whole new mission set for the Air Corps and such a heavy point was made on interoperability with Army and Naval Service assets, has the DF reorganised it's organisational structure to accommodate this new aircraft? Is there a brigade joint intel fusion cell? What units will the personnel that will man this come from? Has CS4 / ECF changed to accommodate the new mission?
As you say this investment is complex.Last edited by TangoSierra; 19 June 2018, 21:34.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
U-28A spec sheet http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Shee.../104607/u-28a/"Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "
"No, they're trying to fly the tank"
Comment
-
Originally posted by TangoSierra View PostI appreciate your passion and obvious emotional investment in the project.
I have no doubt the manufacturer will indeed test equipment in a lab and very controlled test range setting but will acceptance and payment be made after or before the aircraft is deployed in country with the assets it is expected to work with?
My fear is that DF personnel will cave to the significant pressure that will be applied by the manufacturer/systems integrator to sign the acceptance contract before unacceptable links are ironed out.
I forsee that the aircraft final payment and acceptance will be made before it is used in an operational setting and low and behold it will have significant "teething problems". Asking for them to be fixed will result in a significant extra fees not covered by purchase contract.
Just because others operate them does not mean the likes of the US Military will share operational and tactical SOP with Ireland for free.
Yes Army LTAVs spring to mind. But so does a myriad of other systems the Defence Forces have purchased that cut across all three services.
Yes, the project is complex. So should the operational testing of the aircraft, systems and integration to the wider DF ISTAR network. Training and continued training support until operators from both Air and Ground services are up to task should be included in the purchase cost, not just flight qualifications. Then and only then should final payments be made.
If this is a whole new mission set for the Air Corps and such a heavy point was made on interoperability with Army and Naval Service assets, has the DF reorganised it's organisational structure to accommodate this new aircraft? Is there a brigade joint intel fusion cell? What units will the personnel that will man this come from? Has CS4 / ECF changed to accommodate the new mission?
As you say this investment is complex.
We are also well experienced with Pilatus already.
As regards to testing of integration with current DF systems, that may be possible given their functionality.
The way these types of things generally work is manufacturer training will be provided for xx personnel initially (normally on a manufacturer’s site) and they will train everyone else (sometimes the others go to the manufacturer as well).
The LTAV is a very different kettle of fish being very close to a bespoken Irish vehicle which was unproven.
I’d be more worried about if there will be sufficient pilots and SAROs to crew them. With regard to operating with army/NS they are just another sensor feeding in, eg video feed to a laptop in C3 container.Last edited by DeV; 19 June 2018, 23:49.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TangoSierra View PostI appreciate your passion and obvious emotional investment in the project.
I have no doubt the manufacturer will indeed test equipment in a lab and very controlled test range setting but will acceptance and payment be made after or before the aircraft is deployed in country with the assets it is expected to work with?
My fear is that DF personnel will cave to the significant pressure that will be applied by the manufacturer/systems integrator to sign the acceptance contract before unacceptable links are ironed out.
I forsee that the aircraft final payment and acceptance will be made before it is used in an operational setting and low and behold it will have significant "teething problems". Asking for them to be fixed will result in a significant extra fees not covered by purchase contract.
Just because others operate them does not mean the likes of the US Military will share operational and tactical SOP with Ireland for free.
Yes Army LTAVs spring to mind. But so does a myriad of other systems the Defence Forces have purchased that cut across all three services.
Yes, the project is complex. So should the operational testing of the aircraft, systems and integration to the wider DF ISTAR network. Training and continued training support until operators from both Air and Ground services are up to task should be included in the purchase cost, not just flight qualifications. Then and only then should final payments be made.
If this is a whole new mission set for the Air Corps and such a heavy point was made on interoperability with Army and Naval Service assets, has the DF reorganised it's organisational structure to accommodate this new aircraft? Is there a brigade joint intel fusion cell? What units will the personnel that will man this come from? Has CS4 / ECF changed to accommodate the new mission?
As you say this investment is complex.
Out of interest did you bother reading the tender spec? If so, which area or function do you see all these problems arising or which system requires the most "operational testing"?
It is very simple, if something does not work as it should Pilatus are obliged to fix it regardless of whether final payment has been made. They arent buying a second hand laptop off DoneDeal.
You have a lot of fears and forsee a lot of issues based on very little. The LTAVs are a disaster and as has been pointed out, are not a fair comparison due to their bespoke nature. I'd be interested to know what myriad of other multi million euro systems have been such unmitigated disasters in the last ten years.
To answer your last question would compromise OPSEC which I am sure you are aware of which is why I will not answer it directly. However, I can assure you that significant changes are being made to CS4 to reflect the new aircraft and its mission. In addition there will be a several new courses for the AC and DF to facilitate and best make use of the new ISR ability. In addition, the relevant branches will receive direct tuition from the manufacturers relating to the use of mission equipment. Once this is complete it will be the responsibility of the branches to ensure that personnel are trained appropriately and to the correct level. A "train the trainers" program essentially.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
The AC and DoD have a lot more experience in contracts and dealing with manufacturers than in the bad old days when they bowed the knee to everyone. They have a very good relationship with Pilatus, right down to interpersonal contacts, which means that a seriously close eye is being kept on the airframe and the kit inside. I expect that a lot of the electronics in the mission kit is familiar stuff that is easily tested by technicians with field test kits once the antennae and computers are in place. If there's kit unique to the Irish, then that might require more tests.
Apart from that, the manufacturer will train a basic number of pilots and techs per hull, usually 2 and 2 and it's then up to the DoD and Don to make more training available to the rest of the manpower. This is where issues might arise, as there is a certain amount of grief going around about the bond being imposed on people for getting courses and it might be difficult to muster the kind of manpower that an organisation would need to field a full roster, especially when you consider the kind of hours this aircraft might be expected to operate. Multiply that by three and it's going to get sporty. Perhaps individuals will cross train between Casa and PC-12 and be expected to roster across fleets?
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Interesting, this Pilatus PC12 demonstrator has been flying out of the @IrishAirCorps base at Baldonnel. Looks like its its on demo to the Irish Police @GardaTraffic #CatsOutOfTheBag #avgeek pic.twitter.com/TEaEmabsnj
— Michael Kelly (@Michaelkelly707) August 8, 2018
it begins.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 3
Comment
Comment