Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Lift Capability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
      It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
      It was a new age...It was the end of history.
      It was the year everything changed.

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              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.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                        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.
                        If time is not a luxury then airlift can often be the only option. It need not just be an APC, but could be a number of ISO containers, say a field hospital if we ever get one again.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          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.
                          The Strategic Airlift Capability Steering Board and the NATO Airlift Management make the decision not Sweden or the other PfP nation Finland who have SAC membership. As I said if there was a urgent request to get a few additional PIIHs to UNFIL SAC would be the first port of call channelled through UNFIL and it would be fairly unusual for them the SACSB to respond negatively in such a situation. SAC have supported airlift urgent requests ranging from Haiti through to Pakistan in addition to a number of UN operations. C-17 operators are pretty positive in giving assistance. For example Canada flew across the Pacific and got NZ firefighters and outsize equipment to the recent OZ bushfires.
                          Last edited by Anzac; 14 May 2020, 11:44.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            While the above is true, it fails to grasp the central truth that in a situation where Ireland needs urgent, military airlift to assist an overseas operation, it's quite likely that any potential donors will also be up to their eyeballs in taskings. Whatever problem Ireland is facing is very unlikely to be happening in a vacuum...

                            This is why solid ownership/contracts/pooling is required, rather than ad hoc begging.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The notion that we could charter spare civvy aircraft when required is, to my mind not a long term plan. This virus could see many operators going out of business, those remaining won't have spare aircraft parked up waiting for a random charter from IRLGOV. They'll be operating what they have in the most efficient and profitable manner. It'll be like getting a taxi on a bank holiday. They are scarce, they are busy, and you may have to wait quite a while to pay full price.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • #30


                                As mentioned above.
                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X