Military transport aircraft

[Graylion]

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?

[madmark]

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

[Rhodes]

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.

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.

[DeV]

This is a pretty bad piece of SW. @Dev, would you consider moving this to Tapatalk?

I’m not an admin

[na grohmiti]

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.

[ropebag]

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.

[Charlie252]

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.

[EUFighter]

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.

[EUFighter]

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.

[EUFighter]

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.

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.

[ropebag]

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...

[Charlie252]

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.

[ropebag]

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....

[EUFighter]

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

[ropebag]

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..,

[DeV]

C17 is too much aircraft and SAC doesn’t guarantee access when we need it

[Charlie252]

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

[ropebag]

Don't the French and Germans have joint C-130J unit?

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

[Rocinante]

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.

[ropebag]

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...

[EUFighter]

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.

[ropebag]

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..

[DeV]

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)

[madmark]

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

[The Usual Suspect]

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.

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.

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.