C-295 (again...yawn)

[Old Redeye]

Wouldn't it be nice...just squint your eyes a little....actually it's a brand new CASA C-295 for Brazil.  But, if Ireland ordered two now, this could be one of them in less than two years!

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Old Redeye,
Any new transport aircraft would be a welcome addition to the DF but in reality what use is a C295. Its max payload is 9.5 ton, thats pretty small.
added to this the stated range of the C295 is a little over 1100nm with 8 ton. Consider that this range must include diversion fuel, usually 100nm, and an enroute reserve of 10%. This leaves the aircraft able to carry only 8000kg for a distance of about 900nm. This is assuming the stated range includes a 30 min final reserve, if not then the range reduces to approx 800nm. Ex Shannon thats not even the south of France or Eastren Germany.
The DF require Inter Theatre air transport for which this would be very, very limited.
ST

[Old Redeye]

You are absoloutely correct Sousa.  Ireland needs a C-130J-30.  However, at USD70 million each, plus operating and training costs, and political concerns over public perceptions, I doubt if that is about to happen.  

A single C-295M, running about USD25 million these days, would provide reasonable airlift within Europe, thereby supporting EU battegroup and Ranger Wing training in Scandanavia and elsewhere, and deployed forces in the Balkans.  A C-295 can be easily absorbed, maintained and employed by the IAC without much more than some additional tactical training with Spanish, Polish, Portugese and Finnish 295 operators.  While clearly not adequate to deploy personnel and material much beyond Europe, a 295 deployed to an operational theater, such as Darfur, would provide valuable intra-theater support to a deployed force - particularly when sharing the burden with as established joint airlift organization such as the nascent European Airlift Group.  Irish C-295 on teh job for 12 weeks, followed by a Finnish 295, followed by a French 235, followed by Greek C-27J, etc.  And of course a C-295 would make a great contribution to international humanitarian crisis response - floods, earthquakes, etc., providing on-scene airlift - operating into small airstrips in teh affected area from the main aid delivery hubs serving the large airlifters/freighters.  Good points for Ireland on the world stage.

The lifting of Irish troops to and from theater will continue to be via commercial charters.  For moving material, Ireland would be advised to join Sweden in the NATO SALIS programme, taking advantage of on-call charted AN-124's.  Even better, irather than buy solitary C-17, Sweden will probably join the new NATO strategic airlift initiative that will see 4 C-17's based in Germany, owned and operated by 14+ countries in an arangement similar to the NATO AWACS programme.  Finland will probably follow Sweden into this programme and Ireland should follow suit.

[SousaTeuszii]

Sorry it took so long to reply to this topic.
I agree with the sentiments of your proposals but I just dont see a requirement for a middle of the road aircraft.

With regard to the ARW support if the SKA 200 had its drinks cabinet removed it would be more then capable of supporting the small numbers of troops that train overseas. It may not be able to do paradrops but buying a 25mil aircraft just to let 6-8 troops jump out is a horrendous overkill.

A single 295 could deliver about 8 ton of supplies to overseas troops in the Balkans. This would take about 10 hrs flight time for a round trip not including at least one refuelling stop each way. For this size of load it would be easier and more efficent to send it by a commerical air carrier as a part load.

A machine based overseas needs an operations base and somewhere else to fly its supplies to. Most UN operations exist close to main infastructure such as international airport or in the boonies where only helicopter supply is effective. There would be little requirement for 1 aircraft. Besides how efficent would it be to fly a 295 to Darfur with all associated maintenance back up and then pull it all out again a couple of months later.

With regard to overseas aid, the predominent disasters of the last few years have shown that after arriving at a main airport the only effective means of distrubtion is by aircraft not much bigger then a C208 or by helicopter.

If the Air Corps are serious about airlift then they need to knuckle down and find reason to have it. I believe this would lead to the assertion that a middle of the road aircraft would be an ineffective machine and something bigger would be needed. I also believe that they should seriously look at second hand aircraft. If second hand C130Hs are good enough for Austria, and secondhand 757s are good enough for DHL............?

As for the 2 programmes you mentioned they would be good ideas if we could get NATO out of the title, otherwise I cant see it happening.

[Old Redeye]

Well, Sousa,

You've just outlined the thinking that will keep the IAC from ever having any kind of meaningful role.  Not that it matters that much I suppose.  Ireland can continue to rely on commercial air and UN helos and Other People's Air Forces (OPAF's).  Honestly, I fail to see why Ireland bothers with the IAC.  The fisheries patrol and helo taskings and VIP flights could all be contracted, leaving only the PC-9 airshow flyng club - Hire the Breitling Team for that and be done with it.

[SousaTeuszii]

Old Redeye,
I havent said that the Air Corps should not have an airlift capablility, just not waste time, money and opportunity on a half baked capability. Accepting 'whatever we can get' has always been the downfall off the Air Corps putting them in a position where they are grabbing at scraps that leave them less then useful to the DF and branded as a waste of space by the Army.
I would like to see that trend changed, particularly in such a large scale project. Remember 25mil over 20 years is 1.25 mil per year and 50 mil is only 2.5mil over the same period. The yearly figure isnt that big but the difference in capability would be immense. It would put the the Air Corps onto the world stage with a good airlift capability rather then pushing further into the 'waste of space' category as seen by DF personnel that the Air Corps do not assist.
I say down with mediocre projects and do it right first time, even if that means buying second hand.
ST

[Old Redeye]

Here! Here!  Order a C-130J-30 immediately.  Don't worry about having only one - one is fine for Irish requirements - and don't listen to 130J naysayers - any probelms the J may have had are now very old news indeed. Just ask the Danes.  Follow-up a 130J order with integration into a European Airlift Force and SALIS - hence back-up and augmentation for the Hercules.

As for used 130's, forget about it.  First, there are none on the market anymore - hence the Dutch taking airframes from the US boneyard in Arizona.  Second, they are not the ansawer - the Austrians need three Hercs to have one operational at any one time - ditto for RAF K's and USAF & Canadian E's, etc.  They are 40 year-old machines, very expensive and difficult to maintain and operate.  The C-130J carries more, farther, faster, higher, safer, cheaper and more efficiently, including austere fields and NVG ops.

[SousaTeuszii]

Interestingly for the price you quote for the J you could buy 1.5 B737-700QC as per the US Navy spec. Much faster, same payload and the capability to do troop rotations, deportations and dare I say large scale VIP ops. The first two would nearly pay for the yearly cost of the machine alone!
It just does not have the short, rough field capability or the flexibility of a ramp but we have to ask our selves if the Air Corps would really require these capabilites vs what a -700QC could do for the DF and save money for the country as a whole?
ST

[Old Redeye]

Preaching to the choir on this Sousa my friend.  If you do a search you'll find I've advocated the 737-700QC repeatedly in this forum, though I still believe a 130J-30 is the better option, though clearly more expensive, particularly when you add the continuing expense of commercial charters for troop rotaions.  

Let the pols continue to pay for MATS - preferably a new Bombardier Global 5000. However, if the government put up a third of the cost of a 737QC with a few VIP pallets, there would still be money for a staright-up CN-235-300 at about USD17 million.

[pym]

Ok

Just a quick transformation into the devils advocate; do you think a C-130J is really the correct way forward?

I can see the logic in getting a convertible 737 type for troop rotations, but it's the role of C-130 I'm unsure about. While it is obviously an immensely capable aircraft, I'm wondering is it really needed/practical for the IAC.

There are people on this board who know a great deal more about the subject but I'm just putting forward the following:

- For starters, I believe new build Hercules are extremely expensive; and are rare on the second hand market, at least in good condition.

- Just having one is a non starter, lose it to maintenance and you have no airlift capability. The Air Corps have had no luck convincing the DoD for one - so two is very unlikely.

- Lack of a day to day domestic role (I'm unsure about this... but just stay with me...) - Why bother getting a Herc for ministers opening off licenses and hospital transfers when a 295 will more than suffice, with lower operating costs?

What I am putting forward is the following; a combination of two or more CASA's would make a great deal more sense because:

- Cheaper, more affordable

- Thus more than one could be purchased, easing training etc

- Type familiarity and all it's benefits

But you say; they dont have the range or capability of the trusty Herc. True, but it really depends on what mission they are being tasked with.

I refer you to this: http://www.c-27j.com/images/media/18_20060405051250.pdf

Quote

USAF chief of staff Gen John Jumper, who began his career as a de Havilland Canada C-7 Caribou pilot, has spoken of the need to work with the army to acquire a new class of transports about half the size of the Lockheed Martin C- 130. Jumper has described a need for an aircraft that can reach small, remote units, such as the special-forces camps in Vietnam that he resupplied with the C-7.

What I'm suggesting here is let the big air forces look after the big transporters, we'll look after the in-theatre stuff, which is just as important.

I'm delving into wish list territory here I know, but the way I personally (as a know nothing civvy) would like to see the Air Corps in ten years, is with up to 6 PC-6 type aircraft replacing the Cessna, and 3 or more CASA CN-295.

The logic being that this would allow limited, albeit useful deployability on UN/EURRF missions. People keep looking towards the helicopters on order as the potentially deployable air assets, but there are alot of things airplanes do better, once you get them there.

Having a 295 and 2 or more PC-6 aircraft deployed on a mission ala Liberia, would to my eyes give the army a great deal more capability.

Of course that raises a tonne of what ifs and many practical problems.

It'd be a long road to reach that kind of capability but I think it will have to be reached if the IAC is to justify its existence.

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Pym,
I agree with the sentiments of your arguement but find a number of flaws.

Firstly becasue something is cheaper does not mean that the Department will buy more of them. You must define your operational requirements and then the Department either agree or disagree on the tender to go forward. This will always be for a fixed number of aircraft ala the heli tender which stipulated 4 UHs not 4 UHs or 6 of something cheaper.

Secondly, the DF only operate in reasonably small numbers overseas and are not spread over an entire country such as in Afganistan or Irag. There is no requirement for an intra theatre airlifter considering that most non international airport supply runs must be done by heli or small aircraft over the small areas that the DF cover. It makes more sense to cover our international supply chain.

With regards to a day to day role you are correct about the Herc being to big but so is a 295. The SKA 200 should be doing all the Irish Air Ambulance work etc if required.

You also mention that the type would be cheaper, easier to train on and maintan etc and this could be true but does this make it a good buy. This aircraft would have to be efficent at its tasks. To be efficent there are to requirements, it must be value for money AND effective at its operation. If the 295 is not effective in a transport capablility per a DF requirement then it is a waste of money no matter how cheap it is. Likewise if something is great but hugely expensive then it is also not efficent. Finding the balance is the problem and this can only be done by defining a requirement FIRST and then finding the aircraft, not making a type fit a role because of comminality etc. In the absence of the DF defining a role we can only surmise a requirement from current DF operations, all of which have international requirements but no intra theatre or homeland fixed wing airlift requirements.

I do however agree entirely with your ideas of posting aircraft overseas and also that the PC6 would be a good buy.

The PC9s have an armament package that will never be used in Ireland. At least three of these machines should be overseas on force protection / CAS duties. After all in Liberia an MI 24 was provided by UTAir.

The PC6 would also be much more rugged and militarily capable then the civilian C208. Allowing field operations and even NVG missions but would the Air Corps ever see past their percived stigma of operating a taildragger at its true potential and operational capabilities which far outweigh the C208. It remains to be seen!
ST

[pym]

Quote (SousaTeuszii @ 18 Oct. 2006,08:24)

Hi Pym, I agree with the sentiments of your arguement but find a number of flaws. Firstly becasue something is cheaper does not mean that the Department will buy more of them. You must define your operational requirements and then the Department either agree or disagree on the tender to go forward. This will always be for a fixed number of aircraft ala the heli tender which stipulated 4 UHs not 4 UHs or 6 of something cheaper. Secondly, the DF only operate in reasonably small numbers overseas and are not spread over an entire country such as in Afganistan or Irag. There is no requirement for an intra theatre airlifter considering that most non international airport supply runs must be done by heli or small aircraft over the small areas that the DF cover. It makes more sense to cover our international supply chain. With regards to a day to day role you are correct about the Herc being to big but so is a 295. The SKA 200 should be doing all the Irish Air Ambulance work etc if required. You also mention that the type would be cheaper, easier to train on and maintan etc and this could be true but does this make it a good buy. This aircraft would have to be efficent at its tasks. To be efficent there are to requirements, it must be value for money AND effective at its operation. If the 295 is not effective in a transport capablility per a DF requirement then it is a waste of money no matter how cheap it is. Likewise if something is great but hugely expensive then it is also not efficent. Finding the balance is the problem and this can only be done by defining a requirement FIRST and then finding the aircraft, not making a type fit a role because of comminality etc. In the absence of the DF defining a role we can only surmise a requirement from current DF operations, all of which have international requirements but no intra theatre or homeland fixed wing airlift requirements. I do however agree entirely with your ideas of posting aircraft overseas and also that the PC6 would be a good buy. The PC9s have an armament package that will never be used in Ireland. At least three of these machines should be overseas on force protection / CAS duties. After all in Liberia an MI 24 was provided by UTAir. The PC6 would also be much more rugged and militarily capable then the civilian C208. Allowing field operations and even NVG missions but would the Air Corps ever see past their percived stigma of operating a taildragger at its true potential and operational capabilities which far outweigh the C208. It remains to be seen! ST

Hey Souza, thanks for the excellent reply, I'm glad it's gone in this realistic direction

I agree with everything in your post and basically if the Air Corp wants to tackle transport it has to have a realistic specified requirement and only when that requirement is known, could the most suitable aircraft be decided upon.

But, there's always a but - I'm dismayed at the fact that the PC-6 is a taildragger could even be conceived to enter into the equation of whether it's a suitable cessna replacement or not.

Since I've been having a few drinks and solving the problems of the world for the last few hours, I shall stop the rant at this point.. but seriously, if aircraft image is a problem for the IAC, then they arent doing their job and worrying about the things that matter.

The only thing that matters is capability.

[SousaTeuszii]

Pym,
Perhaps I was being a little be snotty when I said they percived it as a stigma but only a little bit. The mind set is and has been for the last ten years to purchase the C208. This has of course been added to by excellent marketing by Cessna. The sad fact is that the Air Corps have a fleet of VIP aircraft yet will consider whether a minister would be happy to be seen getting out of a taildragger with no VIP seats rather then going to the Swiss Air Force and assessing the true capability of the machine.
It is also a sad fact that the Air Corps, who train their pilots to a very high standard (Aeros, Formation, High speed Nav, Instrumants etc), feel that their pilots would be less then capable of handling such a configuration of aircraft. Perhaps if they actually flew one first rather then relying on the testimony on ex chipmunk pilots (very lively on the ground) they might be very suprised.
The final and saddest point of all is that in conversation the biggest stated drawback of the PC6 is not a capability one (which it dosent have as opposed to the C208) but for what ever reason, be it one above or some other, the fact that it is a taildragger.
Its time to read the book not just look at its pretty binding!
ST

[Old Redeye]

Pym & Sousa,

Both of you are on the right track.  I particularly appreciate Pym's promotion of the in-theater airlift role using the C-295, harkening back to my original point in this thread.  Also, I agree whole-heartedly with Sousa on the PC-9's.  I never understood why the IAC has eight, when fewer are required for the trainng role, and why bother with armament if they will not deploy, which they should be prepared to do in exactly the role Sousa describes - CAS on peace enforcement missions.  Finally, I too have long believed in the PC-6 as a worthy replacement for the 172's and recently promoted obtaining two former UAE Air Force models in excellent shape, always hangered, with low hours.  That would have been that, plus keeping the best three 172's for pilot candidate screening and light duties.

[The Blue Max]

Have been watching the way this threads been developing and have to agree with most sentiments that have been stated in favour of the 295. For a long time i have been adament of promoting the C27J for the IAC but after doing more research into the C295 capability and speaking to freinds of mine in the Don they our adement that the 295 will next big purchase of a significant nature to IAC.

There is rumours afoot (As Always In The Don) That if more Casa's our to be purchased for Maritime Air Patrols. That they will purchase the 295 fitted wth FITS system (Which the 235s our being upgraded too)

In the More Tactical Role i would rate the 295 as a great solutions to the DF needs, a while back i posted a good link on IMO to a website bout the capability of CASA 235 (which the 295 shares similiar internal demensions) and its ability to hold the likes of the URO Vamtac "On Trial With The Army" /Landrover Defender/Nissan Patrol and i would personally i take a guess and say the ARW Ford F-350 (SORV) would also fit inside the 295.

It would give the DF a great overseas transport capability especially for initial overseas for deploying the likes of specilist Recconaisance Teams/Rapid Reaction Teams that would be goin into a potential dangerous area ahead of a Mechanised Company/Battalion moving into there (AO) with kind of availible airlift support for there more light mobile vechicles and support equipment and could also easily support supplies to overseas deployed forces with the likes of more traditional Ammo,Food,Comms resupply etc.. and also have a enlarged Medevac roles along with the Learjet 45 capability of Air Ambulance giving greater supports to overseas troops.