Thanks Thanks:  97
Likes Likes:  258
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 225
  1. #1
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Air Lift Capability

    The Air Corps used the Learjet to carry out a resupply mission to Lebanon last week.

    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. Thanks Flamingo, sofa, EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  3. #2
    C/S ArdMhacha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Newry
    Posts
    288
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's great but still a bit of an embarrasment to not have a military aircraft capable of doing that job.

  4. #3
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Imagine if we had something that could do both a resupply and a troop rotation?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  5. Likes CTU, Truck Driver liked this post
  6. #4
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Do we need to develop our own capability for is there an alternative?

    Both Sweden and Austria have rather old C-130's, the latter being ex-RAF C-130K's that they obtained on the 2000's due to the need to support UN Peace Keeping missions! The other nation that we have traditionally had joint UN operations is Finland which is limited to 2 x C-295M transports. Even if Sweden and Finland are focusing at the moment on improving their home defence they still are active partners on the international stage. All three countries are non-NATO but EU members so would it not make sense to set-up a joint capability.

    As mentioned on another thread the Germans want someone to take over operating the 13x A-400m they have bought but do not want to put into service. These aircraft could form a joint Austrian/Finnish/Irish/Swedish Airlift Wing, with a single main base and 3 detachments in the other countries. So it could be 2 aircraft detachments in Austria, Finland and Ireland with the rest in Sweden, or any other variation. Every nation pay a percentage to the costs (might actually get the airframes for free if we take the full operating costs), and in return each nation get the same percentage of annual flight hours. It need not be ex Luftwaffe A-400Ms, if there is an alternative then great.

    So if Sweden took 40%, (they use their C-130s for AAR) and each of the others 20% that would give us around 1,000hrs per year. That would be more than enough to do rotations and re-supply missions to both UNIFIL and MINUSMA. Not only that but if we need to reinforce or withdraw troops quickly then we would have the capability.

  7. Likes Flamingo, na grohmiti, Tempest, DeV, ODIN liked this post
  8. #5
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    @EUFighter - that's not a bad proposal by any means, but in real terms there would be one significant difference: the fleet would have to operate from one hub. You could certainly detach aircraft to support an exercise/operation for whatever period, but to have 4 hubs for an aircraft fleet of 14 (or whatever number you ended up with) would become both ruinously expensive and a training and technical nightmare.

    If you want to really cut costs and increase availability you wouldn't have Irish aircraft or Swedish aircraft, you just have a pool of aircraft and crew to which all contribute - so you could have an 'Irish' task, with none of the crew undertaking that task being Irish, or indeed a Finnish or Swedish task relating to territorial defence in the Baltic or an overseas task like Libya, with Irish service personnel taking part even if Ireland wasn't. That has political ramifications which you'd need to work through before you signed off on the idea...

  9. Likes DeV, Flamingo liked this post
  10. #6
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    @EUFighter - that's not a bad proposal by any means, but in real terms there would be one significant difference: the fleet would have to operate from one hub. You could certainly detach aircraft to support an exercise/operation for whatever period, but to have 4 hubs for an aircraft fleet of 14 (or whatever number you ended up with) would become both ruinously expensive and a training and technical nightmare.

    If you want to really cut costs and increase availability you wouldn't have Irish aircraft or Swedish aircraft, you just have a pool of aircraft and crew to which all contribute - so you could have an 'Irish' task, with none of the crew undertaking that task being Irish, or indeed a Finnish or Swedish task relating to territorial defence in the Baltic or an overseas task like Libya, with Irish service personnel taking part even if Ireland wasn't. That has political ramifications which you'd need to work through before you signed off on the idea...
    Totally agree, as you said there would be a detachment from time to time, so that training and familiarisation can take place.
    As for the tasking a framework agreement would have to be hammer out, I think it would be more an issue for us than for the others. I could not see Sweden or Finland saying no to say a deployment task which was Irish troop being sent to an UN mission for example. The same I would say would be Irish crew supporting a Finnish/Swedish exercise/training. But if it was one of the others nations supporting a NATO led action and we did not politically support it then yes, that could be an issue. But few remember that we even had troops in Afghanistan so it might not be a show-stopper but something that would need to be covered.

    Given that over the past years polling has shown a majority in support of closer military co-operation with other EU countries this just might work. Afterall we talking transport aircraft and not "nasty" fighter or bombers. And if we show that it is the non-aligned members working together then the anti-NATO/US/UK faction would have less to attack (they still will) and if we painted a red cross on the side when they are here on detachment what could be better?
    Last edited by EUFighter; 13th May 2020 at 12:37.

  11. Likes Flamingo, ropebag liked this post
  12. #7
    Commander in Chief Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    5,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    MOD: This is a very interesting conversation but it is getting a bit off topic. I will split the thread later

  13. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  14. #8
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,144
    Post Thanks / Like
    Would it be worth putting the entire operation under an EU flag and nations seconding personnel to it? This may be a way of overcoming the difficulties associated with approval by individual nations authorising use.

    Or would that be introducing a third layer of bureaucracy into its operating approval?

    Is it time the non-aligned nations in Europe formed a NATO-lite? Or is that one for another thread?
    Last edited by Flamingo; 13th May 2020 at 16:01.
    '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

  15. Likes Truck Driver liked this post
  16. #9
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,176
    Post Thanks / Like
    The current POTUS is doing what he can (as per his masters instructions) to break up NATO.
    The UN has become a pointless talking shop while the UNSC vetoes exist. Yes every nation gets a voice at the UN, but only the 5 Permanent members of the UNSC get to decide what gets done.
    The EUBG concept is a good idea as a standalone, but while countries like ourselves insist on triple lock mechanisms that include the UNSC, nothing happes and more people die.
    The Soviet .. er Russian invasion of Crimea should have been followed with an ecoomic blocade by anyone who was not Russia. On the flipside, no country had any business invading Afghanistan or Iraq after 9/11, (which the UNSC gave a big thumbs up to) as mr Bad guy was never in either place, but it suited the interests of the permanent UNSC members.
    Europe could do a UN lite, but the problem is many european states still lean towards the permanent UNSC members politically and militarily. The smaller members will be easily influenced.
    The Non-Aligned members are as such for pragmatic reasons only.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  17. Thanks EUFighter, Flamingo thanked for this post
  18. #10
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    382
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    As mentioned on another thread the Germans want someone to take over operating the 13x A-400m they have bought but do not want to put into service.
    They are keeping them and putting them into service along the C-130J's they later bought like the French did. Probably need them as the serviceability rates are so poor. No one wanted them. The Spanish are getting rid of their excess ones by swapping them for FA-50's and KT-1's off the Koreans. In the recent RNZAF C-130H replacement project the A400M did not even get the bronze medal out of the four aircraft evaluated. The Swedes and Austrians will go with what works when the time comes to replace the H and K Hercs - the aircraft that has 60% commonality with their current mount and with most of the training and support systems already in place.

    In principle a 'pooled' Irish/Austrian/ Finnish/Swede solution is a great idea. But using the C-130J-30.

  19. Likes sofa liked this post
  20. #11
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    382
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The current POTUS is doing what he can (as per his masters instructions) to break up NATO.
    Not quite. Vlad was a fairweather friendship attempt by Trump to draw him away from a strengthening of ties with China, the main game (It failed). Trump just wants Europe to cough up more. If Biden gets elected the push for more defence spending by other NATO members will continue, albeit in a less bombastic and insulting way.

    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Europe could do a UN lite, but the problem is many european states still lean towards the permanent UNSC members politically and militarily. The smaller members will be easily influenced.
    The Non-Aligned members are as such for pragmatic reasons only.
    You mean that Europe could form a Chp VIII regional security arrangement like the Biketawa Declaration in the Pacific? Maybe Ireland could be comfortable with that. Still does not solve the airlift gap. A pooling arrangement between like minded countries who need airlift capability would be better to work towards.

  21. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  22. #12
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Germans took C-130's to meet a need for helicopter AAR, and operate them in a joint unit with the French. Like the majority of big military projects in Germany in the past 20 years the A-400M was done on the cheap in that corners were cut. Not enough spares, not enough testing, too ambitious requirements like being able to drop a pallets in a target space smaller than a tennis court. However the big advantage it has is that it has an "Made in the EU" stamp on it (even if some part come from other countries).

    The point is if we ever did manage to get a joint airlift wing the choice of aircraft would be driven by the requirements. This whole discussion started about re-supply of our deployment with UNIFIL. The distance is around 2200nm, so that would be a key requirement, we would most likely want to be able to fly a PIIIH there, that means a payload of 18,500kg @ 2200nm. A maximum payload requirement may come from the Swedes of Finns with their AMV @ 27,000kg or the new Patria 6x6 @24,000kg. The distance the Finns have to fly is much shorter.

    Then would come troop transport, a C-130 would take 6.5 hrs to fly out to Lebanon, that is a long time to be in the back of a C-130, even a J model. But maybe it would be fine, but troop comfort would be an issue as we would want them to arrive fresh as they would still have to travel from Beirut airport to their base. So a matrix of flight time and comfort would be a requirement. Might mean that with all that the C-2 would be the winner.

    It is now more than 42 years since UNIFIL was set-up and we still have no reliable air or sea supply system in place. Depending on what is available we send a MPA, a business jet or an OPV. That cannot be the way to run a military deployment.

  23. Likes ropebag, Flamingo liked this post
  24. #13
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,928
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The current POTUS is doing what he can (as per his masters instructions) to break up NATO.
    The UN has become a pointless talking shop while the UNSC vetoes exist. Yes every nation gets a voice at the UN, but only the 5 Permanent members of the UNSC get to decide what gets done.
    The EUBG concept is a good idea as a standalone, but while countries like ourselves insist on triple lock mechanisms that include the UNSC, nothing happes and more people die.
    The Soviet .. er Russian invasion of Crimea should have been followed with an ecoomic blocade by anyone who was not Russia. On the flipside, no country had any business invading Afghanistan or Iraq after 9/11, (which the UNSC gave a big thumbs up to) as mr Bad guy was never in either place, but it suited the interests of the permanent UNSC members.
    Europe could do a UN lite, but the problem is many european states still lean towards the permanent UNSC members politically and militarily. The smaller members will be easily influenced.
    The Non-Aligned members are as such for pragmatic reasons only.
    Afaik in the 15 years of their existence, and look at the amount of security challenges in that time there was only a suggestion once To deploy a EUBG.

    The US blocked a UN call for a worldwide ceasefire due to COVID19

  25. #14
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Imagine if we had something that could do both a resupply and a troop rotation?
    Imagine if the country wasn't run like it was a council of "Special Interest Groups"

    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed!
    I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  26. Thanks Tempest thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, ropebag, na grohmiti, Flamingo liked this post
  27. #15
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,928
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    Would it be worth putting the entire operation under an EU flag and nations seconding personnel to it? This may be a way of overcoming the difficulties associated with approval by individual nations authorising use.

    Or would that be introducing a third layer of bureaucracy into its operating approval?

    Is it time the non-aligned nations in Europe formed a NATO-lite? Or is that one for another thread?
    The EU have an airlift organisation https://eatc-mil.com/en

    They also have the EATF & EATC https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...t-fleet-(eatf)

  28. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo liked this post
  29. #16
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    382
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    However the big advantage it has is that it has an "Made in the EU" stamp on it (even if some part come from other countries).
    MRTT is an advantage. But A400M .... meh

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The point is if we ever did manage to get a joint airlift wing the choice of aircraft would be driven by the requirements. This whole discussion started about re-supply of our deployment with UNIFIL. The distance is around 2200nm, so that would be a key requirement, we would most likely want to be able to fly a PIIIH there, that means a payload of 18,500kg @ 2200nm. A maximum payload requirement may come from the Swedes of Finns with their AMV @ 27,000kg or the new Patria 6x6 @24,000kg. The distance the Finns have to fly is much shorter.
    If you are considering deploying IFV's or other outsized heavy mass objects that is a sealift job not an airlift job. Best to look at a Joint Sealift capability. We flew a LAV once in a C-130 as a pointless PR exercise because the minister said that his new LAV's could be deployed that way - yeah right. It will be 463L's mostly in the back.

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Then would come troop transport, a C-130 would take 6.5 hrs to fly out to Lebanon, that is a long time to be in the back of a C-130, even a J model. But maybe it would be fine, but troop comfort would be an issue as we would want them to arrive fresh as they would still have to travel from Beirut airport to their base. So a matrix of flight time and comfort would be a requirement. Might mean that with all that the C-2 would be the winner.
    C-130 OK for a few hours. Bristol Freighter (50000 rivets flying in formation) like in my old mans era would take 5 days to get to Singapore if it was a norwester - now thats uncomfortable. If four countries got together then a couple of pooled A330's and a few C-130J's job done and done well.

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    It is now more than 42 years since UNIFIL was set-up and we still have no reliable air or sea supply system in place. Depending on what is available we send a MPA, a business jet or an OPV. That cannot be the way to run a military deployment.
    Has anyone asked the minister what he would do if the deployment deteriorated, charter flights refused, commercial flights frozen, other nations were busy extracting their own troops and in country nationals first - saying we'll get to you later? It'll be like the last days of Vietnam. You can bet his name would be all over CNN, BBC, Fox et al as the guy who stranded a couple of hundred peacekeepers. Despised and shunned by society. A social pariah.

  30. Likes ropebag, Flamingo liked this post
  31. #17
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,222
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    Has anyone asked the minister what he would do if the deployment deteriorated, charter flights refused, commercial flights frozen, other nations were busy extracting their own troops and in country nationals first - saying we'll get to you later? It'll be like the last days of Vietnam. You can bet his name would be all over CNN, BBC, Fox et al as the guy who stranded a couple of hundred peacekeepers. Despised and shunned by society. A social pariah.
    Not In Ireland, there is always someone else to blame, Jadotville and Connor Cruise O'Brien come to mind.
    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed!
    I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  32. Likes DeV, EUFighter, Flamingo, Truck Driver liked this post
  33. #18
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,924
    Post Thanks / Like
    The A400M recently did a flight from France to Mali, non-stop and delivered stores by parachute right to the feet of the French troops, so they are learning how to use it and it will become a mature airframe in time. It was originally designed as a turbofan aircraft but somebody insisted that it have a turboprop set up,perhaps only to differentiate it from the C-17. I'll bet you could dust off the turbofan drawings and build them as A400M II; no propellor or gearbox or vibration problems. The aircraft is essentially an Airbus and all of them can have different turbofans and I'll bet my first born that the A400M is the same.

  34. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Flamingo liked this post
  35. #19
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    If you are considering deploying IFV's or other outsized heavy mass objects that is a sealift job not an airlift job. Best to look at a Joint Sealift capability. We flew a LAV once in a C-130 as a pointless PR exercise because the minister said that his new LAV's could be deployed that way - yeah right.
    Not everywhere is next to the sea, when we deployed to Chad a lot of stuff was lifted in with An-124s. More recently when the French went into Mali the first units went by air because the link to the nearest available port in Côte d'Ivoire is extremely poor and takes several days on top of the week or so sailing time from France. Did we mention we have no sealift capability?

    Although a lot of supplies can in by road to Afghanistan a lot of the European equipment was flown in. And was taken out the same way, again as the surface transport option were not the best. There might be an urgent need to send a few additional PIIHs to the Lebanon, the current transshipment via Rotterdam could takes a few weeks to organise.

  36. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag liked this post
  37. #20
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The EU have an airlift organisation https://eatc-mil.com/en

    They also have the EATF & EATC https://www.eda.europa.eu/what-we-do...t-fleet-(eatf)
    Does not belong to the EU and the EU as an organisation has no control over the assets. More accurate would be to say that some EU nations have created an airlift organisation.
    Also for the transport fleet it is noticeable that none of the non-NATO countries are part of it.

  38. Thanks Flamingo, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo liked this post
  39. #21
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,176
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lifting in any apc one at a time is not a good use of an air transport asset.
    Last time we went to an inland mission, we shipped the vehicles by sea to the nearest port and they went by road, on flatbed the rest of the way.
    The mistake that time was the people who provided the flatbed had no clue what they were doing.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  40. #22
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    382
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    It was originally designed as a turbofan aircraft but somebody insisted that it have a turboprop set up,perhaps only to differentiate it from the C-17. I'll bet you could dust off the turbofan drawings and build them as A400M II; no propellor or gearbox or vibration problems. The aircraft is essentially an Airbus and all of them can have different turbofans and I'll bet my first born that the A400M is the same.
    If they had gone ahead with the Turbofan then they would have been on to a winner. The C-17 is no more, the C-2 struggles over the fact that it does not have an international support and sustainability partner which is 50% of the project acquisition quantum, the C-130J-30 does not have the interior cargo volume for outsized loads.

  41. Likes ropebag, DeV liked this post
  42. #23
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    382
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    There might be an urgent need to send a few additional PIIHs to the Lebanon, the current transshipment via Rotterdam could takes a few weeks to organise.
    On that very rare urgent occasion UNIFIL channels would work with SAC in Hungary or participant India or one of the three NATO C-17 drivers.

  43. Likes DeV liked this post
  44. #24
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    The A400M recently did a flight from France to Mali, non-stop and delivered stores by parachute right to the feet of the French troops, so they are learning how to use it and it will become a mature airframe in time. It was originally designed as a turbofan aircraft but somebody insisted that it have a turboprop set up,perhaps only to differentiate it from the C-17. I'll bet you could dust off the turbofan drawings and build them as A400M II; no propellor or gearbox or vibration problems. The aircraft is essentially an Airbus and all of them can have different turbofans and I'll bet my first born that the A400M is the same.
    There has never been a serious study to have a turbofan powered version of the A400M. Back in the Euroflag time the decision was made to go for turboprop as the belief was that this was better for rough field handling. At the time most tactical transporters had wide robust 4 blade propellers and many though that sand etc would ruin a fan. However the modern carbon fibre multi-propeller are no better but the choice was made.

    The problems with the A-400M are linked to the gearbox, something not unique to this aircraft, just look at the Cougar et al. Pratt did offer to produce an engine but French politics got in the way and so the aircraft ended up with the engine it has today. Changing to a turbofan could be possible (Do328 to Do328JET) but the problem is how many aircraft would the market support. Even if today someone decided to start a A400M-JET the development would take more than 5 years at which time the vast majority of customers will have taken delivery of their aircraft. Thus due to the lack of a market it is never going to happen.

  45. Likes ropebag liked this post
  46. #25
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    On that very rare urgent occasion UNIFIL channels would work with SAC in Hungary or participant India or one of the three NATO C-17 drivers.
    Only Sweden (outside of NATO) has access to the C-17s in Hungary. They might offer but then again they do not have to support.

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
  •