Thanks Thanks:  142
Likes Likes:  270
Dislikes Dislikes:  3

View Poll Results: What type of transport aircraft does the Air Corps need?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Military transport aircraft such as C130J/A400M

    31 79.49%
  • Civilian airliner capable of carrying freight

    8 20.51%
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 324
  1. #226
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    649
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Not really, nor is it design for such missions, it is a tactical in-theater transporter. For Mali it would be useful for transporting troops in-country but not for getting them there. For that a minimum would be something of the C-130/C-390 size.
    Then why on earth are we talking about buying more?

  2. #227
    If in doubt load HE madmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    put out to pasture
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like
    c 295 vs c130
    https://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...Submit=COMPARE
    c295 vs kc390
    https://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...Submit=COMPARE
    yes both c130 and kc390 have a higher MTOW but the range is quite similar unlike the price per unit
    Last edited by madmark; 22nd November 2020 at 17:52. Reason: wrong link
    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

  3. #228
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Does the C-295 have a useful range for us? With deployments to Mali and stuff? 2000nm with 6 Mg payload, which is not enough to reach Beirut from Dublin.
    Yes, it has a useful range. The new C295W MPA's will require just one fuel stop if flying to Beirut, Damascus or Bamako, as opposed to the current CASA which would require two stops. If flying a leg without pax or cargo the C295 could potentially do it nonstop.

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    For that a minimum would be something of the C-130/C-390 size.
    I highly doubt a C-130 could fly the same routes with a full load of pax or cargo without fuel stops.

  4. Likes DeV, na grohmiti liked this post
  5. #229
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    This is a pretty bad piece of SW. @Dev, would you consider moving this to Tapatalk?
    I’m not an admin

  6. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  7. #230
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Yes, it has a useful range. The new C295W MPA's will require just one fuel stop if flying to Beirut, Damascus or Bamako, as opposed to the current CASA which would require two stops. If flying a leg without pax or cargo the C295 could potentially do it nonstop.



    I highly doubt a C-130 could fly the same routes with a full load of pax or cargo without fuel stops.
    And Peltor Tactical for everyone aboard.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  8. #231
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Then why on earth are we talking about buying more?
    It's cheap.

    Doesn't matter if it's of any use, what matters is that it's cheap.

    It's a perfectly good MPA, a perfectly good ISTAR platform, and a perfectly good way of moving people and their personal gear - but anything bulky like a pick-up truck is a non-runner.

    Personally I take the view that if you're buying something for the next 30 years, you want to be able to move things like a weapons locating radar, an RBS70 firing post and radar, a couple or artillery peices, helicopter spares, light vehicles etc...

    That's not moving a mechanised battlegroup by air or walty hovertanks, is simply the normal day-to-day, in-theatre and into theatre logistics of any PK/PE operation of the last, and next, 30 years.

  9. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  10. #232
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by madmark View Post
    c 295 vs c130
    https://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...Submit=COMPARE
    c295 vs kc390
    https://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...Submit=COMPARE
    yes both c130 and kc390 have a higher MTOW but the range is quite similar unlike the price per unit
    This is very poor representation of capabilities and has the C-295 at over 51T.

  11. Likes ropebag, EUFighter liked this post
  12. #233
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by madmark View Post
    c 295 vs c130
    https://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...Submit=COMPARE
    c295 vs kc390
    https://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...Submit=COMPARE
    yes both c130 and kc390 have a higher MTOW but the range is quite similar unlike the price per unit
    I would advise against using such sites for real comparisons; the C-295 has a MTOW (normal) of around 21,000kg not the 51,000kg given by this site.

  13. Thanks madmark thanked for this post
  14. #234
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Then why on earth are we talking about buying more?
    The C-295 can meet many of the potential taskings that the DF have.
    Want to fly some RBS-70's (get the paperwork sorted first) to a test range in Sweden, the C-295 can take care of that.
    Need to fly some urgent light supplies to Beirut, the C-295 can take care of that.

    All aircraft can fly almost anywhere on the world, want to fly around the world a Cessna can do that.

    What a C-295 cannot do easily is larger troop movements or heavier resupplies.

  15. #235
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Yes, it has a useful range. The new C295W MPA's will require just one fuel stop if flying to Beirut, Damascus or Bamako, as opposed to the current CASA which would require two stops. If flying a leg without pax or cargo the C295 could potentially do it nonstop.
    On a clear day with no winds and direct great circle routing yes, but given that both need to happen the C-295 would still need a refueling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    I highly doubt a C-130 could fly the same routes with a full load of pax or cargo without fuel stops.
    The C-295 is not doing any of the routes with max payload.
    The C-390 would be able to fly to Beirut or Bamako (or Goa) with a full load of troops without the need for a refueling stop. Its range with a 14,000 kg load is 2730 nm which is sufficient for these missions.

  16. #236
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    This obsession with range from Ireland is a red herring - you're not flying to the Falklands with no splash-and -dash options, you're flying to places that are either on Europe's periphery or have safe commercial airports or friendly military bases fairly nearby.

    Flying to Beirut? Stop off at Akrotiri. Flying to Mali? Stop off at Gibraltar or Rabat. Don't buy a dead end aircraft purely to avoid stopping off somewhere for 20 minutes - and do you really want to be circling some war torn toilet with with almost empty tanks?

    No, thought not...

  17. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
  18. #237
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    This obsession with range from Ireland is a red herring - you're not flying to the Falklands with no splash-and -dash options, you're flying to places that are either on Europe's periphery or have safe commercial airports or friendly military bases fairly nearby.

    Flying to Beirut? Stop off at Akrotiri. Flying to Mali? Stop off at Gibraltar or Rabat. Don't buy a dead end aircraft purely to avoid stopping off somewhere for 20 minutes - and do you really want to be circling some war torn toilet with with almost empty tanks?

    No, thought not...
    An aircrafts range can have or lack thereof can have many consequences, e.g. aircraft "A" makes a long day turn to north africa, aircraft "B" requires a fuel stop enroute both ways.
    Aircraft "A" can do the mission with one crew in s standard duty day, aircraft "B" can't so you end up having to pre-position crew or night stop or worst of all turn down the mission.

    The recent issue with repatriating Irish troops from Africa would have been a much more straight forward undertaking with an aircraft that can go there and get out to somewhere without multiple time consuming fuel stops.
    Fuel Stops cost time, possibly requiring a less then direct routing, then there is descent, approach, ground time, departure and climb all are time consuming, the notional 20min splash and dash is in actuality far more costly in time terms, when you factor the other variable into the mission.

    Payload and Range are critically important for a transport asset to be of any value internationally, the ability to trade payload for range is the key in my view.

    Most other C-295 operators either are centrally located and/or are from large countries where the aircraft will get extensive domestic usage and have a larger transport aircraft for the longer range/higher payload stuff.

  19. Thanks EUFighter, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
  20. #238
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    The answer is, of course, a C-17 or A400M - but if that's not within your credit card limit you have to choose something that fits within the cost-range-payload-capability matrix - the problem with choosing range and cost as your preferred characteristics is that you end up with an envelope....

  21. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes madmark liked this post
  22. #239
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    The answer is, of course, a C-17 or A400M - but if that's not within your credit card limit you have to choose something that fits within the cost-range-payload-capability matrix - the problem with choosing range and cost as your preferred characteristics is that you end up with an envelope....
    Well both the C-17 and A400M are available on a time-sharing arrangement, something Hungary has also taken up.
    For the C-17 contact: Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC), at Pápa Air Base, Hungary
    For the A400M contact: Multinational Air Transport Unit (MNAU), at Wunstorf Air Base, Germany

  23. Likes ropebag, na grohmiti liked this post
  24. #240
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Well both the C-17 and A400M are available on a time-sharing arrangement, something Hungary has also taken up.
    For the C-17 contact: Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC), at Pápa Air Base, Hungary
    For the A400M contact: Multinational Air Transport Unit (MNAU), at Wunstorf Air Base, Germany
    Indeed, the various arrangements for buy-in to a heavy lift pool are things I - and pretty much everyone else here who's interested - have trumpeted for a decade or more. Sadly I've never seen any suggestion that the AC, DoD and wider Govt have ever looked at them as being a potential solution to the airlift problem.

    It's a bit like the Air-Land Battle: nah nah nah I'm not listening..,

  25. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  26. #241
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    C17 is too much aircraft and SAC doesn’t guarantee access when we need it

  27. #242
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    The answer is, of course, a C-17 or A400M - but if that's not within your credit card limit you have to choose something that fits within the cost-range-payload-capability matrix - the problem with choosing range and cost as your preferred characteristics is that you end up with an envelope....
    I don't agree, these aircraft are beyond the requirements in my view and the costs are beyond the budget that we might envisage. The real options are KC-390/C-130 or maybe a concerted Combi/QC airliner

  28. #243
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Don't the French and Germans have joint C-130J unit?

    Buy two and join in the pooled maint and training contracts/pipelines...

  29. #244
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Don't the French and Germans have joint C-130J unit?

    Buy two and join in the pooled maint and training contracts/pipelines...
    Might be iffy there...that joint SQN is a SOF unit.

  30. #245
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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...

  31. #246
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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.

  32. Likes ropebag, DeV liked this post
  33. #247
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    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..

  34. Likes Flamingo, pilatus liked this post
  35. #248
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote 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)

  36. #249
    If in doubt load HE madmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    put out to pasture
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  37. #250
    CQMS The Usual Suspect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like


    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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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; 27th November 2020 at 02:34.

  38. Likes Tempest liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 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
  •