Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Corps:The future

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by easyrider View Post
    The €60 million or so that was spent on them could have bought a similar number of basic trainers, together with a similar number of armed light helicopters. (Dedicated attack helicopters are beyond our budget and probably not good value for money anyway.)
    Carrington how the hell could we buy a half dozen trainers and a half dozen "armed light helicopters" for 60 mil?
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

    Comment


    • #77
      Am I mistaken in thinking that the power output of the PC9s can be reduced for training, making them an attractive option for the Air Corps and one of the reasons they were purchased? Helicopters are fine, but you can't have helicopters and only helicopters. From what I've been told the PC9 was as powerful and well armed as could be afforded. Backseat generals should be bugged by backseat beancounters more often, then they could have a proper understanding of real life problems.
      Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
      Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
      Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
      Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

      Comment


      • #78
        The Air Corps doesn't need trainers designed for air forces that operate fast jets, and given the small numbers of pilots trained each year, it doesn't need 8 trainers.

        The Air Corps needs pilots trained to fly the aircraft that it operates: helicopters, Cessnas, twin turboprops and twin-engined business jets. If and whenever the AC decides to buy F-16s or Mirages or Gripens or whatever - which is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future - that will be the time to buy some appropriate trainers.

        So AC pilot training can be adequately delivered with more basic aircraft, with pilots doing multi-engine or helicopter training following their initial training, depending on their assignments. Half-a-dozen such aircraft could be bought for a few million.

        Half-a-dozen armed EC135/635s could then be bought for what's left from the €60 million, although personally I think that's unnecessarily expensive. A single-engined light armed helicopter would be much cheaper, and would be adequate for the role.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by easyrider View Post
          The Air Corps doesn't need trainers designed for air forces that operate fast jets, and given the small numbers of pilots trained each year, it doesn't need 8 trainers.
          Oh yeah you're so bloody smart you should be running the air corps! If they don't need that many trainers, explain why a whole cadetship competition was cancelled due to a backlog of students needing training. As I've already said, the power output can be limited making the PC9 something of a dual purpose aircraft.


          Before you go any further though, can you please, PLEASE explain what the hell it is about the DF that makes you feel the need to come on here and spout sh1te and ridicule every effort the DF makes in every area, be it good or misguided or just plain stupid (though everyone ridicules the last). In summary, what is your problem?
          Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
          Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
          Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
          Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

          Comment


          • #80
            Well said Johnny no stars.
            Easyparker, do you not think that the Air Corps might have some people who know what they are doing, or at least have a better idea then you, a well proven expert in nothing at all.
            The Air Corps have to use an extreamly limited budget to cover a lot of stuff, and the PC-9m's for all their girlie presence are a good aircraft for the job, doing basic to advanced training as well as being available for all weather training and operations.
            The PC-9m was the best choice for getting aircrew trained in all flying disciplines, covering both basic and advanced training, as well as provideing a step in the direction of combat capable aircrafts which may appear in the future.
            "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
            Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
            Illegitimi non carborundum

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by johnny no stars View Post
              Am I mistaken in thinking that the power output of the PC9s can be reduced for training,
              That was something I didn't know-thanks. Still it must be an interesting experience- I was bucketing sweat before heading off on my own after 12 hours in a Cessna 150 with fixed gear, 100 horses and nice slow circuit speeds!

              Comment


              • #82
                Hi there
                Why would you want to alter an engine's power output? It doesn't make sense, unless you're simply doing a reduced-power take-off like an airliner, which does save wear and tear, but is less relevant to a trainer. Also, given that students get thirty hours in the sim before they get real aircraft time, I'd imagine that they would already be familiar with the PC-9s basic handling characteristics with full power.......I'd still prefer to have a basic trainer at hand for primary flight screening.Nothing beats getting to handle a real aircraft, early on, instead of finding out, later on in the training cycle, that the student is not going to make it.
                regards
                GttC

                Comment


                • #83
                  Given that it certainly is unusual for an operator to have aircraft such as the PC-9M but not have any fast jets, it's not that surprising that some would question the wisdom of their purchase. However, if the AC are happy with the various training capabilities then so be it.

                  After all, 60 million in the general run of things isn't all that much for a country to investment in it military's air wing. And of course, as has been said, maybe just maybe fast jets of some kind may be an option at some stage in the future. Not having advanced turbo prop trainers would be trotted out as an excuse against such a purchase.

                  Major investments come in cycles. At the beginning of the decade the PC-9M, middle of the decade the AW-139, maybe at the end of the decade a light armed reconnaissance helicopter could be looked at.
                  You will never have a quiet world until you knock the patriotism out of the human race

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    The PC-9 and much of the recent Air Corps purchases are "future proofing". No point getting a basic trainer just for training our pilots to move on to small airliners and helicopters if, in 5 years time we decide by some miracle to go the fast jet route.

                    How many Identities has easy rider been through now?


                    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Hi there
                      Given that the PC-9s will be kept for at least twenty years, future-proofing is certainly part of the equation.It also does away with piston engines(except for the 172s, which will almost certainly be replaced by a turbine aircraft) and old, mechanical instruments, so future students will be in a glass-cockpit, turbine-powered environment from day 1, which suits their transition to bigger fixed-wing or to rotary.Right now, the only replacement for a PC-9 will be another one, when one prangs or if Pilatus improve the breed.If anything more warlike comes along, they'll be well placed to transition to it, as they will have done the gunnery-rocketry-bombing/combat tactics training already.
                      regards
                      GttC

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                        Hi there
                        Why would you want to alter an engine's power output?
                        Safety? You can do all the sim time in the world but it doesn't make you a pilot until you fly the thing for real. This brings back memories of sitting on a bus with a nerdy 13 year old boy behind me spouting on about how, thanks to some video game, he's effectively a qualified apache pilot.....
                        Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
                        Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
                        Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
                        Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          . Also, given that students get thirty hours in the sim before they get real aircraft time, I'd imagine that they would already be familiar with the PC-9s basic handling characteristics with full power.......I'd still prefer to have a basic trainer at hand for primary flight screening.Nothing beats getting to handle a real aircraft, early on, instead of finding out, later on in the training cycle, that the student is not going to make it.
                          regards
                          GttC[/QUOTE]

                          The US air force put their pilots into the Cessna 172 for a few hours at the start of their training, for initial training, why does the air corps not adopt a similar approach, especially as they have the Cessna in operation?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            In relation to two of easyriders previous comments

                            AH-6s: If anything could seem less suitable for CAS/Recce for our long ranged patrols in Africa than a PC-9 you may have just found it.

                            ARHs: How much less expensive do you expect the purchase and upkeep of L-159s to be? At least specialist combat aircraft have a wide range of practical applications for us any purchase of viable deployable aircraft, be they transport or recce/cas is going to be a major purchase but if the need is there they can be obtained.
                            The H-6 is small short ranged and some redundancy measures aside unprotected...perhaps we should consider some new build S.E. 5s as an alternative?
                            "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Came across an interesting article about the current state of the Air Corps - http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2008/475iac/iac.htm


                              Here's what's said about training:

                              "Ordered in January 2003, at a cost of sixty-million Euros, the IAC purchased eight PC-9M aircraft, a simulator, associated equipment and a support package. The PC-9s effectively replaced two types in Air Corps service, the Fouga Magister (which had already been retired by 1999), leaving the small SF-260 fleet to soldier on until the new trainer's introduction in 2004. The PC-9Ms are assigned to the Flying Training School and entered service with few teething problems, with the fleet recently passing 6,000 flying hours mark.

                              As Captain Derek Furniss, the School's Chief Flying Instructor told us, "The PC-9 is relatively easy to handle and performs well." The aircraft is a powerful one for ab-initio pilots; "The PC-9 flies like a jet. Its speed and rate of climb can take students by surprise initially. You sometimes have to tell them to ease off on the power to give themselves a bit more time to think." However, this has not adversely affected students' success rates. As the CFI explained; "The drop-out rates among students have remained fairly constant at around the thirty percent level between old and new types." One difference is that with the PC-9 "a student's inability to complete their training sometimes does not become apparent until a later stage in the course than it did in a more basic aircraft like the SF-260." The PC-9 has also seen the re-introduction of ejection seats to the Air Corps. Commandant Jim Gavin, Commander of the Flying Training School, told us that "The PC-9 is the first aircraft with an ejection seat that the Air Corps has operated since the Vampire went out of service in the mid-seventies."

                              The Flying Training School is at the heart of Air Corps flying operations. All Air Corps pilots have to pass through the School before moving onto operational units. It currently has a team of eight instructors and to date two classes have graduated on the PC-9. Captain Furniss, continued: "After completing nine months basic military training at the Curragh, Cadets commence their flying training at Baldonnel. Here students are put through an ATPL package as part of their military flying training." Use of the simulator is integral throughout the course, especially in the early stages, such that "the first solo flight is now not such a big milestone as perhaps it was in the past." During the 150 hour plus flying training syllabus, instrument flying receives considerable emphasis because of Ireland's notoriously changeable weather.

                              Having successfully completed the Elementary Handling test, students progress to the Basic Handling phase of flying training. This includes student 'fly-aways' to other airfields in Ireland, more solo and instrument flying, general handling and ultimately an 'Applied Phase'. The final stage requires students to demonstrate their proficiency in all areas, as well as night and formation flying, flight planning, advanced navigation and weapons before finally receiving their wings. During the final phase of training students also travel to Flight Safety International, Paris for forty hours on a Beechcraft King Air 200 simulator. Training includes: twin engine operations, instrument flying and Line Orientated Flying Training (LOFT) exercises. On their return to Baldonnel students complete ten hours flying in the Air Corps' own King Air 200.

                              As in many other Air Arms, the CFI told us "Numbers of graduating pilots can vary significantly, though probably averaging around three to six a year at present. 2007 saw three pilots graduate and 2008 is likely to see a slightly higher number." Following graduation new pilots are posted to a 'holding unit' (104 Squadron) flying Cessna 172s. This change, which is a bit of a culture shock after the glass cockpit of the PC-9, is however generally welcomed by the newly qualified pilots. It is an opportunity to consolidate their experience prior to assignment onto helicopter training, maritime patrol, the Ministerial Air Transport Service or back to the PC-9 for instructor pilot training."

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Quite why they feel the need to go to France to learn how to fly a King Air is beyond me, as is the need to put someone back into a basic aircraft after raising them to the level of an airline pilot. As for a screening aircraft, it has always been successful for bigger and much better equipped air forces, so why the Don doesn't do it is beyond me. It would probably increase their student survival rate, given that a 30% loss rate is a poor result.
                                regards
                                GttC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X