Pilatus PC-12 NG

[Charlie252]

They did get a sensor and mission system upgrade a few years ago but I do not know if it included the cockpit and the mods need for future ATC.

AFIAK the Cockpits had been upgraded over the years to comply with the future nav and comms requirements. I think the CN-235 stripped out would be nice tactical airlifter for the DF.

[ias]

The BAe146/RJ was design as a 5-abreast aircraft (3-2) but a lot of airlines put 6 abreast into it and this was a tight squeeze.
The B757's that were used by Aer Lingus actually were owned by the lessor ASL Airlines. The last B757 they have which is now stored at Shannon is 26.9yrs old so ripe for scrapping.
There are plenty of 15-20yr old A321's stored at the moment, these have the range to easily do most missions we would require and if it is just for a demonstration then later a P2F conversion could be done to give a multi-role capability: everything on pallets- seats, medvac system or just cargo.

Agreed, but the difference is that the Corps has the 146/RJ (a bird in the hand etc.).

[Charlie252]

Agreed, but the difference is that the Corps has the 146/RJ (a bird in the hand etc.).

With no qualified Pilots, techs or spare parts, or any experience with the aircraft.

And that's before we discus the extremely limited usability of this inefficient and obsolete regional airliner.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Having spent many hours working on the 146, the best thing to do with it is shoot holes in it. The rest of Cityjet's fleet are going to Canada as fire bombers and the RJ was only retained this long because it could easily get in and out of London City, which has worn out airbuses and Embraers that tried to operate there. They should strip it of usable parts and give thm to the apprentices and let the ARW handle the hull. Cityjet is 500 million in the red and is at death's door. Pat Byrne apparently believes that it will rise from the ashes of Covid-19, which is rather optimistic of him. His staff would rather he climbed down from the clouds and paid the redundancy money so that they can get shot of the airline and try and get work elsewhere.

[EUFighter]

Having spent many hours working on the 146, the best thing to do with it is shoot holes in it. The rest of Cityjet's fleet are going to Canada as fire bombers and the RJ was only retained this long because it could easily get in and out of London City, which has worn out airbuses and Embraers that tried to operate there. They should strip it of usable parts and give thm to the apprentices and let the ARW handle the hull. Cityjet is 500 million in the red and is at death's door. Pat Byrne apparently believes that it will rise from the ashes of Covid-19, which is rather optimistic of him. His staff would rather he climbed down from the clouds and paid the redundancy money so that they can get shot of the airline and try and get work elsewhere.

The airlines that will be around after this is all over will be those who currently have a big pile of cash or those who a government will protect as a "national" carrier. Cityjet falls into neither of those so it will likely be wound-up in the next 100days or so. The time given in the recent examinership ruling.

[Shaqra]

...... I personally always found the Avro RJ to be a piece of crap. A wide body airliner jammed into the fuselage of a narrow body commuter aircraft. Nobody is comfortable. Window seat has head jammed against the window cowl, aisle seat has only room for one elbow, if there happens to be an unfortunate sitting in the centre seat (who can only do so with arms folded). .......... And cabin noise is something that I only slightly better than what I experienced in a AB212.

Agreed - I spent the best part of 9 years taking the RJ back and forth to London every week. Reliability was appalling and the interior condition of the aircraft was best described as 'shabby'. No one in their right mind would try and put one of these back into service. In any event recent reports are that it's to be used as a ground training asset.

[EUFighter]

Agreed - I spent the best part of 9 years taking the RJ back and forth to London every week. Reliability was appalling and the interior condition of the aircraft was best described as 'shabby'.

Your experience probably has more to do with the operator of the aircraft rather than the aircraft itself. I flew regularly on RJ's operated by SN Brussels (5-abreast seating) and never had any problem, the interiors were fine and I cannot remember any issue with reliability. If you gave me a choice of a RJ or an ERJ/CRJ I would take the RJ any day.

A problem a lot of aircraft (not just RJ's) near the end of their airliner life is no-one wants to spend the money to keep them at a high standard and the time remaining on the airframe is low.

[Shaqra]

Your experience probably has more to do with the operator of the aircraft rather than the aircraft itself. ............

A problem a lot of aircraft (not just RJ's) near the end of their airliner life is no-one wants to spend the money to keep them at a high standard and the time remaining on the airframe is low.

Fair point , though I flew them when they were "true" Cityjet, then Air France owned and then German VC owned and , bar the quality of the food, there seemed little difference in terms of reliability over the years. However, as the alternative was flying into Heathrow with a 1 hour schlepp across London to my office it was still preferable.

Why the preference for the RJ over the ERJ ? Based on the limited use I made of the BA ERJs on the route I found them much more comfortable and certainly quieter in the cabin. That is of course based on passenger experience only. However I think we're wildly off thread here.

[na grohmiti]

I Preferred the ERJ145 on the commuter run, If you can't decide between Aisle seat or window seat, you can get BOTH. Only downside with BMI is they sold sandwich first, then drink after. I was on approach to dublin before I finally got the bottle of water that would remove the need for heimlich for the sandwich I got leaving East Midlands.
Not enough room on a RJ to open a bag of crisps.
But yes, waaay off thread.

[meridian]

Wasn't really a fan in the past of the keeping the current -235s in service after they are replaced by the -295s, but if sufficient life remains on the airframes for 5-10 years in a pure transport/training/support role, it would be an easy kill for a future capability. Even holding onto the best of the two frames and canabilising the remaining one to keep it going, would be a major increase in capability as noted before. Then as part of the remaining/future WP 2015 for the Air Corps, consider what exactly is required of the AC/DF transport capabilities for the future.

Hopefully someone is going over the (real) requirements of the AC and DF as a whole at the moment in military and ATCA roles, so that they can make their case after this subsides. Doesn't all need to be delivered within 1-2 years, but over 5-6 years would allow for normal budget cycles to resume. Also, tasks in government departments which took 5 years to get done in the past, are now getting done in 5 days. (Was told that by a TD relating to certain hospital services.) Time to take the fiefdoms out and deal with them; the money is there. Sorry, my 2 cents for having too spare time

[DeV]

One of the whole points of the C295 is it can carry more than a C235 and that they will be multi role.

[Anzac]

What kind of payload taskings would a "stripper" CN-235 actually undertake?

[Jetjock]

One of the whole points of the C295 is it can carry more than a C235 and that they will be multi role.

The C295 will be an MPA. They will have a larger secondary transport capability than the CN235 with mission equipment installed. Obviously. It's bigger.

Putting an MPA aircraft on a transport tasking is undesirable by any standard. It's not available for it's primary role and it's not efficient.

[EUFighter]

The idea that a C295 MPA should be multi-role is OK as long as it is using the expensive sensor suite. Often MPA's have been used overland as ISR assets due to their endurance and sensors. However using a MPA as a tactical transport is just plain stupid and a waste of resources. Not only that but if used really tactically then it will take a hard toll on the installed equipment not on pallets!

Leaving out ATCA, the only military operations of the Irish Army in the past 20yrs has been overseas. Most of those operations have had a need for in theatre fixed wing transport. Chad we were flown around in ex-Soviet An26's for example. But the need is not limited to in-theatre support, we have the resupply of our troops in UNIFIL, the evacuation from Libya and even the recent return of troops from Mali. The need for dedicated transport is there if we are honest. If we keep the two CN-235 we could either provide the aforementioned in-theatre support or CASVAC to these missions.

And we will not be able to hide behind Covid-19 as an excuse why we do not do more in defence. The whole of the EU has been affected and when they have to stump up for such hardware they are going to look and say "hey, why are the Irish not playing their part?" And the excuse we are a poor country will not cut it, as we are not.

[CTU]

The idea that a C295 MPA should be multi-role is OK as long as it is using the expensive sensor suite. Often MPA's have been used overland as ISR assets due to their endurance and sensors. However using a MPA as a tactical transport is just plain stupid and a waste of resources. Not only that but if used really tactically then it will take a hard toll on the installed equipment not on pallets!

Leaving out ATCA, the only military operations of the Irish Army in the past 20yrs has been overseas. Most of those operations have had a need for in theatre fixed wing transport. Chad we were flown around in ex-Soviet An26's for example. But the need is not limited to in-theatre support, we have the resupply of our troops in UNIFIL, the evacuation from Libya and even the recent return of troops from Mali. The need for dedicated transport is there if we are honest. If we keep the two CN-235 we could either provide the aforementioned in-theatre support or CASVAC to these missions.

I always thought this multirole idea was stupid, for the reason that I can think of a number of countries who would be suspicious to see a "Survalence and Intelligence" aircraft doing Transport Missisons.
Also I would question if it would be cheaper in the long run to convert a 30+ year old CN235 vs buying a transport version of the C295?