Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

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

  • Originally posted by Rocinante View Post
    Might be iffy there...that joint SQN is a SOF unit.
    I don't see that being overly problematic - the Sqn seems to be about sharing the tail, the training, the maintenance, not about sharing the operations. There would doubtless be elements of the operations that the French for example simply wouldn't be sharing with the Germans and the Irish, but that's all fairly normal in international coalitions.

    The emotional bit would be getting the DoD/cabinet to stump up for 2 new build C-130J-30's.

    It would have to be new builds, as that's what the maintenance/training contracts with LM will be for. You'd be slotting into other people's arrangements, and you'd have to understand that the big decisions have already been made, and you either accept them or don't get involved...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
      C17 is too much aircraft and SAC doesn’t guarantee access when we need it
      Having no dedicated transport aircraft means we don't have the capacity when we might need it.
      The majority of the tasking that would require a C-17, or A400M, etc are planned long in advance so access would in most cases be there when we needed it.
      The A400M option is more flexible as it will have 13 aircraft as opposed to the 3 in the SAC.

      Comment


      • It also goes back to the first principles argument whenever we have one of these 'X capability is too much for us, we don't need that...': does Ireland not have transport aircraft because it doesn't need them, or does it frame it's operations so as to not need them because it doesn't have them?

        Personally I'd put good money on the requirements stacking up if the AC found itself owning 3 C-130..

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
          It also goes back to the first principles argument whenever we have one of these 'X capability is too much for us, we don't need that...': does Ireland not have transport aircraft because it doesn't need them, or does it frame it's operations so as to not need them because it doesn't have them?

          Personally I'd put good money on the requirements stacking up if the AC found itself owning 3 C-130..
          C130s yes
          C17s no

          Afaik the last use of heavy lift aircraft (Antonov) was into Chad and Kosovo (not sure about Liberia)

          Comment


          • it all comes down to the fact the civics in the DOD hold the purse string on what equipment can purchased and not the COS saying the Defence forces need new X equipment now how can i work my defence budget to pay for it, run it by the minister for approval
            Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

            Comment




            • Returning to the arguments made for a repurposed A320 airliner, in the National Air Mobility Webinar.

              And; perhaps, a potential partner to help with airfield constraints at Baldonnel.

              Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
              Neither [the A-318] nor its larger sibling the A-319 are suitable for cargo conversion as the distance from the forward door to the wing root is to small to fit a main deck cargo door.
              Regular A320-200 operation at MTOW require runways of 2,500m+, including the customary 20% margin, which gives the aircraft 5,500km/3,250nm maximum range.

              Suitable cargo modifications, and additional XR/XLR tankage would not radically change the MTOW runway requirements in themselves. They would however, increase operational flexibility through varying of; passengers, cargo, and fuel making up the total aircraft take-off weight. XR/XLR tankage does not reduce the volume of cargo that can be carried in the cargo area.

              Originally posted by Graylion View Post
              Looking at Google Earth, it should be possible to extend the runways, no? ...

              I still say: relocate the AC to Shannon. Build a new naval port in Barley Harbour and give them a joint base.
              Apart from the fact that the Navy might be inclined take your arm off, if there was a decent graving dock provided, there may also be force dispersal issues (or rather a lack of force dispersal) in a time of crisis. But I digress from my main point.

              I believe there are more, and perhaps better, options than simply shuttering Baldonnel or reducing it to a skeleton operation in the medium term.

              Aer Rianta/DAA get plaudits for how they have handled the land management and long-term planning around Dublin Airport. And rightly so.

              With the north parallel runway nearing completion, their publicly stated approach to dealing with expected over-capacity in the 2050s to 2060s is to close Dublin Airport completely, and build anew on a green field site in mid-Leinster. A third parallel at DUB, north-west of the existing airfield (similar to the current expansion underway at Heathrow) would appear to be a difficult proposition to sell politically. Expanding Baldonnel into a budget carrier airport might be an attractive alternative.

              The Air Corps could retain the north-east of the airfield. DAA could build a commercial apron to the south-west of the existing runways and repurpose the industrial estate over the perimeter fence into passenger terminal space.

              In the shorter term, seek advice from DAA about extending Baldonnel to 2,500m+. With a view to 3,200m in the very long term, but only if DAA has an interest in doing that themselves.

              There is a valuable state-owned resource; of best-practice experience within DAA, regarding land acquisition, planning, reservations, height and sound restrictions etc.

              It would be a pity if DAA and the Air Corps were not to explore mutually beneficial opportunities together.
              Last edited by The Usual Suspect; 27 November 2020, 02:34.

              Comment


              • If you wanted to enlarge, you would have to consider the following: erase Weston as an active airfield. You can't entend the main runway in Baldonnel East to any great extent, if at all.
                You can't extend the short runway to any great extent, if at all, either end.
                You are now surrounded by industrial estates/housing/main routes/terrain to the extent that expansion is only possible to a viable amount to the West, so that brings in the problem of Weston and the growth of housing/industry to the West of the aerodrome. Obviously, this has implications for noise pollution,if you start putting aircraft over Lucan and environs at night. This also brings in consideration of security and the cost of improved fencing/ CCTV/patrolling/emergency access. Not insurmountable, of course, but it is an expensive business, just to fence off an airfield.

                Comment


                • Does the approach for Weston cause problems for Baldonnel as is?

                  Comment


                  • Yes and no. It's more to do with airspace considerations that actual infringements. Because of Weston's location, right at the bottom left hand corner of Dublin's Control Zone, right next to Baldonnel's, it's regarded as awkward. Always has been. They are only four miles apart, as the crow flies and the railway line is the effective visual boundary. Operating in and out of Weston, you have to fly in very specific directions and altitudes and even doing circuits there is tight enough, as you are so close to urban areas and certain computer companies, who take exception to light aircraft flying over them. Operating anything big or fast in and out of there can be intimidating, if you are not paying attention. On a normal basis, the activation of Romeo airspace blocks for routine military operations has an immediate effecton how general aviation operates in Weston. It can make your heart sink to hear, "The R15 is active" because it could mean anything is going on and it affects the routing of GA aircraft at once.
                    In terms of housing/industry/road and rail network/farming, it's quite a busy piece of real estate. If you wanted to increase any physical aspect of Baldonnel, such as the runway length, you'd have to take a lot into consideration.

                    Comment


                    • Publishing platform for digital magazines, interactive publications and online catalogs. Convert documents to beautiful publications and share them worldwide


                      Article in the latest issue of Signal, about what Ireland needs in terms of military transport aircraft. (And how it can be delivered, more importantly).
                      Page 40.
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment




                      • Simple Flying 13/12/20: Former French Government Airbus A340s On Sale For €80k A Piece

                        Not in any way an appropriate aircraft for us; but illustrative of what's going on in the resale market at the moment.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Usual Suspect View Post


                          Simple Flying 13/12/20: Former French Government Airbus A340s On Sale For €80k A Piece

                          Not in any way an appropriate aircraft for us; but illustrative of what's going on in the resale market at the moment.
                          Be careful, the price stated is the opening for an auction, the reserve and it should be exceeded. Also not to be forgotten is that these are A340-200s of which there is only 1 left in commercial service. The market is very soft for older large aircraft with many only worth the scrap value as even the most valuable items (avionics & engines) are obsolete and not in demand.

                          Comment


                          • It was old with high hours when Air France sold them to the French Government. I doubt the French Government would be giving them away if they had any useful life in them.
                            This is the Air Force that still uses, 1968 built C160 Transalls, Alpha jets from 1978 and a fleet of C130H from 1987
                            The Navy that still uses ships built in 1972 (A69 Patrol frigates) and Tankers built in 1979 (FS Var).
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • Will that included the engines in the price. Aircraft body and Engines are to different commodities in the aviation world.

                              Comment


                              • Don't forget the AA 52 machine gun! Older than God's dog and still being used by the French. When they buy stuff,it's going to be used until it's beyond redemption. Still using Gazelles, too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X