AB139 Capabilities.

[alpha foxtrot 07]

its great to see the corps getting replacements for there old fleet, but its a shame to see the minister letting the chance for a real lift capability drift away.

[Imshi-Yallah]

Hmmm not one of you mentioned the baggage compartment (externally accessible) which makes the whole thing a lot more feasible all of a sudden.

Quote

This is my supposition on the subject and I hope Im proved wrong.

'>

[sealion]

Quote (Imshi-Yallah @ 10 Dec. 2004,01:00)

Hmmm not one of you mentioned the baggage compartment (externally accessible) which makes the whole thing a lot more feasible all of a sudden. Quote This is my supposition on the subject and I hope Im proved wrong. '>

Quote (sealion @ 05 Dec. 2004,03:52)

The AB139 allows them to squish them in the internal storage area ,or sling them in a cargo net underneath.

Yes we did....

120 cu feet it seems(3.4 cu/m)

[Imshi-Yallah]

Oops missed that amid all the aerosexuality

[Viper]

Quote (FMolloy @ 07 Dec. 2004,04:32)

The NATO standard section is 8, this is also now standard for DF pso formations. And the DF section is made up of 9 troops, not 10.

Off the point a bit, but why do the PSO sections have 8, while the standard DF section is 9?

[Imshi-Yallah]

Because most of the western world uses 8 man sections of two four man fire teams with a minimi or equivalent LMG in each fire team.
The army has a longstanding wish to procure Minimi type LMGs from right back when the Kiwis got them for cheap in the 1980s, they arent pricey and would free up an extra 9  bods in every rifle coy.
As well as letting us fit properly into our AB139s

See AFM claims that Sikorsky are furious over the decision which they allege was made purely on a cost basis and ignored the army and aircorps input

[sealion]

I think it was Turkey that said the AB139 was actually the type preferred by the army/air corps evaluation team.

Could it be that Sikorsky were bitter that this contract was not just Given to them,based on the fact that they (under questionable circumstances) already won the MLH tender.

Fact is,the tender made it quite clear that running costs(not initial costs) would be an important deciding factor,and many have said that the Blackhawk,though it may be an excellent utility heli,is very labour intensive.

[Viper]

Thanks for the reply Imshi. Well here's to 40 odd years of AB139's then  '>

[Dublin Spotter]

If the current batch of AB139 are capable and up to the everyday task set out to them by the 3 services, what is the option for the future, if more are required will there have to be anothe tender process or can "option" be purchased, even though the only options on this contract were for the EC135's

[sealion]

You are mistaken on the "option". The tender was for 2 LUH(EC135) and 4 UH,(AB139)with an option for a further 2 UH(AB139). Until the order is placed we will not know for sure if the option is being excercised. If it were the case that we then had 6 AB139s operating with 2 EC135s(which following the retirment of the older Allouettes makes for a rather small heli force),any replacements would have to go through the tender process again,however the tender could specify that parts commonality is required,closing the competition to either Eurocopter or Agusta Bell,Or any company capable of providing us with these aircraft.

Italy recently got into trouble again,when they tried to tender for police helis,and wrote the tender in such a way that only Agusta could offer an aircraft,which it naturally succeeded in winning. The whole thing has now been cancelled,and the authority responsible is being sued by other heli manufacturers.

Its a product of the system in which we live. When using taxpayers money for anything,a transparent purchasing system must be adhered to.

[Imshi-Yallah]

Imagine the hilarity if sikorsky sued

[Stinger]

What the difference between a PSO section and a DF section

[Imshi-Yallah]

See my post at the top of the page.