212 the Savior?

[alpha foxtrot 07]

imshi you make some very valid point here but i am going to have to agree with lurk, im afraid he is right.
anyway like i said earlier it to good to be true

[Imshi-Yallah]

I'm particularly interested in hearing the opinions of serving or former IAC personnel on this one; specifically whether or not they feel idea is (a) technically valid and (b)Possible in terms of realpolitik.

YellowJacket over at IMO has raised the very interesting idea of purchasing 8-10 PT6 engined Commercial Bell 212s (approx 1.5m ea) for the IAC for army support operations and on island tasks.
We estimate the cost of replacing the Dauphins + Gazelles with 212s plus conversion and refit costs as being around E25m which is by no means prohibitive.
While this is recognisably a less capable aircraft than any of the MLHs previously considered it is nonetheless a section lifter with far greater range for SOF deployments than the AIII.
In addition to this it would restore a major defence and overseas function to the IAC and therefore,I hope halt the slide in morale.

[Imshi-Yallah]

Why does this post keep updating itself.

[Silver]

Imshi,
Perhaps the post is still getting votes and so will automatically update.
(The same thing has happened with my 24 hr Air Ambulance thread).

Silver.

[alpha foxtrot 07]

SOUND LIKE A GOOD IDEA, SO I GUESS IT WONT HAPPEN

[Silver]

Not a bad idea at all.

I also wonder if there are many suitable s/h Puma's available ? (which may have greater capabilities to cover more AC ops).

[Imshi-Yallah]

Is the 212 particularly more maintenance intensive than the Dauphin or AIII.
Its reputation is as a fairly rough and ready airframe, bear in mind it would be a switching over of technical staff and that the suggested 8-10 airframes would be rotated between servicing and operations, therefore there would probably be a maximum of six in operational use at any one time.
Therefore the fleet should not be as manpower intensive as it might first appear, also the possibility of outsourcing certain maintenance and support services would have to be undertaken anyway (with the  present technician airman establishment at least) in order to allow for more tactical training and operations.
The PT6 inversion would rule out interchangeability but in the main economies of purchase in parts and tools would be the real benefit anyway.
PWC is not set in stone, as the govt has shown by basicaly screwing the DF out of the MLH fleet in the first place (among other things).
Also the terms of reference for DF operations are changing possibly faster than PWC predicted.

Summing up, this purchase for what is in govt terms very little would deliver a sustainable TTH/Utility fleet, restore force morale, greatly enhance the effectiveness of investment in the army, enjoy competitive markets for parts and maintenance, force the restructuring of the air corps into a modern air arm and the ensuing savings of outsourcing non key services and redirecting high value military assets (i.e. Military trained techies); and top it all off with a major PR coup for the govt as long as they use the force for high profile missions like Liberia, and disaster relief.

Not even Joe Higgins or Charlie McCreevy can protest about 25m being spent if its seen evacuating injured soldiers or rescuing civilians.
The Air Corps wishlist I posted elsewhere is in my firm belief, realistic , sustainable and downright neccesary, this  thread however seems one thing that the wishlist isnt: attainable.

[Lurk]

As usual, Imshi has a great insight into requirements, and of course, the issue of morale. Personally, I can never see his suggestions in this case mature to reality.
My understanding of the Price Waterhouse report, is that a severe downsizing of technical staff is recommended. The PW suggested staff could not sustain the maintenance on a fleet of 212's. Additionally, the air corps can barely keep one aircraft at an off base location, as they have no field maintenance ability or experience. Overseas is only a pipe dream.
The other issue raised was the interchangeability of the PT6 engine with other aircraft. This may not be possible, as rotary wing engines are sometimes inverse from the same type used on fixed.

[John K]

Hey Lurk, why do you think that experience in field maintenance is lacking? Through our training we knew the Helicopters well enough to maintain them in the field during military exercises over the course of a week or so, also the knowledge gained in the hangar is easily put to use away from base. We've done gearbox and engine changes in the field when necessary.

[Lurk]

Hi John.

I agree that field maintenance has been done on some necessary occasions, and that gearboxes etc have been done. The normal requirement was only a DI during exercises, and that would not really be considered "real" field maintenance.

I question whether the AC could operate from base, without  the usual complement of an AE Officer, Avionics Tech, Engineering officer, Inspector, Tech crews, Storemen, Firemen, Refuellers etc being available.  Realistically, to operate even one A3 in another country would take incredible resources under the current Air Corps system.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi all
The idea of getting Hueys is a good one, at face value, given their inherent reliability, utility,etc. but it would be more useful to have a Puma-sized airframe.Forget foreign deployments.RJ has already said it won't happen and I'm sure the DoD won't go for it either.
As for Alouette field deployment,I remember Alouettes being grounded at Finner for want of a nav bulb change.It worked like this: the mech or pilot found the bulb u/s.Not being an Avionics guy, he wasn't allowed/covered/cleared to change the bulb (a 30-second job and unofficial demarcation applied).The Alouette stayed firmly attached to Earth until an "A" inspector was flown up to change the bulb.Result: Flying pay for A inspector and Army missions gone by the wayside and hundreds of pounds wasted.Result:pilots or forward-thinking mechs changed the bulb on the sly.The techies in the Don could be bloody-minded and union-minded when it suited them.I know,I was one.
The PW report was right, which put entrenched noses out of joint.
Give the helis to the civvies and let them return more flight hours, better servicability and better return for the money.The wastage rate of techies is too much for any organisation to sustain.
regards
GttC

[Old Redeye]

Savior from what exactly?  

Four AB-139's are inbound.  At least eight are required to provide a credible deployment package of 4-5.  So take-up the option for two and add another option for two more to follow.

Or, look at a larger, more capable (and more expensive) Support Helo - such as NH 90, for the follow-on order.  As well as cost though, the IAC would then have three different RW airframes to train on and to maintain.  The 139 is far from ideal, but is a modern, capable Battlefield Support Helicopter perfectly able to operate in a deployed multi-national air group alongside say RAF Chinooks or Dutch Cougars - the most talked about EU Battle-Group partners - and is well suited for domestic tasks - occasional air ambulance, VIP & island support.  Actually, the EC-135's should perform the majority of those missions and therefore a third 135 would be in order, with the intent of freeing up 139 time for tactical training and ops.

Pie in the sky and unaffordable?  Preferable to taking on a third RW type, with limited capabilities that will become a maintenance and therefore an availability nightmare within a relatively few years.  What the IAC needs now more than ever is consistent, reliable, credible, long term capability, and that won't come with second-hand, 60's vintage 212's.  Remember, you get what you pay for.