Poll

V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft

Boeing BBJ
5 (22.7%)
Airbus 319
9 (40.9%)
G5
5 (22.7%)
Other
3 (13.6%)

Total Members Voted: 27

Author Topic: V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft  (Read 2027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pym

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2005, 09:39:25 pm »
Quote (Short finals @ 28 Nov. 2005,10:17)
Several people are advocating a single machine, be it C-130 or whatever.  That does not provide any backup to cover for maintenance, unserviceability (especially away from home) or other disruptions that might occur.  It seems to me that you would need a minimum of two aircraft to be able to guarantee a realistic medium transport capacity.

I completely agree and that's why I've suggested two C-295's in preferance to a single Hercules before





Offline The Blue Max

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
    • Intelligence Officer
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2005, 10:56:48 pm »
Good Points, Ive to agree in principal with most of them But personally I would not opt for the EADS CASA CN295 as swiss air force have commented that they can not hold any real modern armoured vechicle such as the MOWAG EAGLE MKIII/IV LATV (Light Armoured Tactical Vechicle) or the MOWAG PIRANHIA III APC (Armoured Personal Carrier) which i believe can both fit inside the LOCKHEED MARTIN C27 SPARTANS which personnally i would prefer to see Two enter service with 102sqn. And personnally I would not select the secondhand UAE Pilatus PC-6s as they have been used for overa decade in desert type conditions and would not be suited to are more cold condition. Personally i would like to see the Cessna C172s with Two/Four Pilatus PC-12M Eagles.
Forfaire Agus Tairseacht
 Aer Chór na h-Éireann

Offline pym

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2005, 11:55:38 pm »
The main reason for me suggesting the 295 would be, assumed parts commonality between it and the 235's, as well as the already established relationship with Casa.

But if it cant actually carry armoured vehicles such as the Mowag, then it's usefullness is limited to the pure troop carrying role.

Any idea what engines the the Spartan uses?

Offline The Blue Max

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
    • Intelligence Officer
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2005, 12:15:33 am »
I know the commonability issue is a very relevant point but personally i would go operational capabilty side instead of perfect commomability side which i know is alot to desire from a small Air Corps, I just Googled the Spatans engine and they are made by a Roll Royce collaboration I believe they are the Roll Royce AE2100 which are the same engines which are fitted to the Lockeed Martin Hercules C130 series which in actual fact would give give us a form of fleet commonability when operating for example as part of the a European Air Group (EAG) or a European Battle group or UN RRF etc.. along with other nations Hercules if we were stuck for engine replacement or other parts we could utilises other nation stores on site instead having to have all our on site. So now thats food for taught.



Forfaire Agus Tairseacht
 Aer Chór na h-Éireann

Offline pym

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2005, 12:28:37 am »
Just looking at a document on the C-27, I dont think it can carry one of the Mowags, but oddly enough it explicitly mentions the capability of carrying an AML-90 or two Panhard M3's (although are they consigned to history?)

Other possibilities include 1 light helicopter, 3 howitzers, up to 46 paratroops or 1 hmmwv

Interesting stuff and a clearly capable aircraft.





Offline The Blue Max

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
    • Intelligence Officer
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2005, 12:58:54 am »
Information i have to hand from just consulting "Janes Tanks And Combat Vechicles" is that the Mowag Piranhia III and Panhard M3 APC is as follows:

      Mowag/Panhard

Weight:12000KG/5500Kg
Lenght:6.96m/4.45m
Height:1.95m/2.48m
Width:2.5m/2.4m

The Major difference being the weight and lenght but if you take in considersation that the C27 can hold two Panhard M3 APCs multiple one M3 by Two and this would just about be the same weight as one Mowag APC and size should allow you to fit one Mowag APC inside the the aircraft which would give us a tremandous capabilitie for overseas deployment and vechicles replacements etc and allow the transport of other essenstials such as the Artillerys 105mm L118 Howitsers and the two/three of the Armys future Light Armoured Tactical Vechicle (LATV) which could be deployed as part of a future Recce Forward Elements inconjunction with Air Corps assets to future Overseas deployments. (Similiar to use of Navys Le Niamh trip to Liberia transporting Recce Team) 'pilot_smiley'




Forfaire Agus Tairseacht
 Aer Chór na h-Éireann

Offline The Blue Max

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
    • Intelligence Officer
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2005, 07:55:40 pm »
Just wondering is there any photo out there of a C27J loading/unloading any form of Armoured Vechicle or if any photos of when it visited Baldonnel recently on promotion visit i thing???
Forfaire Agus Tairseacht
 Aer Chór na h-Éireann

Offline Old Redeye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2005, 08:20:45 pm »
The C-27J is a fine aircraft, as is the C-295, but let's not try to squeeze ten pounds of requirement into a five pound aircraft.  Both are 'intra-theater airlifters', meaning they have limited range and payload - meaning they are not practical for the deployment of heavy equipment, lots of cargo or very many troops much beyond Europe, i.e., for supporting battlegroup training exercises in Sweden, Finland, etc.  They ARE ideally suited to support a deployed force in theater - think Liberia or Afghanistan - delivering cargo, equipment and people to/from the theater airhead - Kabul - amongst outlying operational locations - Herat, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif.

This is not a criticism of these a/c or their potential contribution to Defence Force deployments and humanitarian crises.  But if this is what the IAC gets, that means other airlift means are required to operate to/from Ireland and the theater.  Of course, this is required in any case, even if a much more capable C-130J-30 is obtained.  That's where collective capability partnerships come in, such as the European Airlift Group, which will match the pooled capabilities of members against the overall requirement - such as force deployment and sustainment or a humanitarian airlift.

The important factors underlying the need for an airlifter are:
1. Ireland should participate in the collective airlift effort in return for obtaining airlift assistance when required
2. That said there remain circumstances when Ireland requires a national airlift capability, such RW training and crisis response RW deployments - hostage rescue in Africa, etc. - remember when British troops were taken in Sierra Leone a few years ago.  Also for the ability to evacuate (mass) casualties among a deployed force from potentially remote locations - think of PRT's in Afghanistan or peacekeeping in Darfur or the Congo.

PS.  The C-295 actually carries a larger/heavier load than the C-27J, though the C-27 cabin interior is higher.  The C-295 also has greater range than the C-27J and costs less.  While two 295's or C-27's could be purchased for the price of a single 130J, but my vote still is for a 130J-30 because of the Herc's significantly greater capabilities.  The drawbacks of having a single, more capable airlifter versus two less capable ones are outweighed by the benefits of endowed by the greater capability.

I do ramble on.....

Offline The Blue Max

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
    • Intelligence Officer
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2005, 10:37:44 pm »
Hmmm.. Very Intersting Points and I very much agree with them personnally it would be great to see One Lockheed Martin C130J-30 Hercules than like you rightly said Two lesser Capable Aircraft like the C27J or CN295s. Personnally in a perfect world i would love to see

One - Lockheed Martin C130J-30 Hercules (102sqn)

One - EADS CASA CN235 (Replace the B200 Kingair) operated  
         by 102sqn but maintained by 101sqn for training Cadets
         /Pilots on a twin engines aircraft it would also have a
         useful utility role for inter-teatre role like what you said
         people may wonder if cadets could hope to fly such a
         powerful/large aircraft but it would be a transition from
         both the Pilatus PC-9Ms to the PC-12Ms (Standard
         side by side configuration)

Three - Pilatus PC-12Ms to replace the Cessna fleet
          conducting same tyoe of operations as the Cessnas
          aswell as some more improved srvice such as ATCP
          duties,Target Towing,Parachute Training. Also the
          funding could be provided by Department Of The
          Envirioment for some of the AirCraft if ther going to be
          providing services for them (Well Possibly)
          (Operated By 103sqn Hawkeyes)            

And If were lucky pick up Two second Hand Pilatus PC-6s or Cessna Caravans from the Civil Market (Wella man can always dream!) And then lets the Dept Of An Taoiseach Buy MATS a multirole ACJ capable of different configuration for such roles as overseas redeployments,humanitarian work etc..




Forfaire Agus Tairseacht
 Aer Chór na h-Éireann

Offline Old Redeye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2005, 10:57:07 pm »
Fair enough Blue.  How's this for another twist:

$US100 million would buy a C-130J-30 AND a C-27J....with prospects for crew type conversion and operational training either in Canada, about to order 18 C-27J's and 16+ 130J's, or teh US, abnout to order 27J's and alrady operating 130J's, or the UK for 130J's.

Offline The Blue Max

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
    • Intelligence Officer
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2005, 11:39:02 pm »
Interesting Proposals this would clearly help conversion training to C130J-30 to the reason i suggested the CASA because it cheaper than the C27J and would provide the next step to conversion the existing the CASA of maritime squadron which hopefully will be expanded over the coming years but now you have got my mind thinking of the possibilties of C27J being in service as well as a C130J-30 but i would find it difficult to see the IAC operating two same size aircraft i.e Casa CN235/C27J so thats why i would suggest the CASA CN235 out of logistice as well as commonability. but good idea..
Forfaire Agus Tairseacht
 Aer Chór na h-Éireann

Offline Old Redeye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2005, 02:33:12 pm »
Blue,

A related addendum.  The PC-12 is a superb a/c with incredible flexibility that would indeed satisfy the FW Utility requirement, but, as someone else already pointed out here, it would be inadequate as a multi-engine trainer.  Likewise, a CN-235 is too much 'airplane' to learn basic multi-engine skills on.  

From my experience as a (lapsed) private pilot and a previous life as a military navigator on multi-engine turbo-props, a multi-engine a/c is required to conduct effective multi-engine training.  A PC-12 would be fine for developing cockpit crew skills and general airmanship, but acquiring multi-engine specific skills and experience are a must before stepping up to a 235, or a 295, C-27 or C-130.

I would have to recommend sticking with a new(er) B200/B350/C90 for the muti-engine training role, with the secondary ability to share the FW Utility mission with one or two Caravans or Turbo-Porters.  A suitable training progression would be:

1. initial pilot screening at an annual two week camp using a suitable aircraft - keep on a few of the 172's, or lease a few civilian light aircraft every year
2.  followed by wings ab initio course on the PC-9
3.  followed by at least a year of single-engine Utility flying to further develop airmanship and gain experience
4.  followed by multi-engine transition and at least another year of Utility work, leading to:
5(a) posting to 235 MPA's/235 or 295 airlifter if so chosen, with in-house squadron conversion, or
5(b) airlift posting  - C-27J if so chosen - and later on to C-130J, with type transition and operational training in Canada or elsewhere abroad.

Cheers

Offline The Blue Max

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
    • Intelligence Officer
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2005, 11:30:29 pm »
Interesting proposals, And I would Agree with them but does the likes of the Cessna Caravan/PC-6 have the capabilite to preform new duties such as Enviriomantal Patrol? I would prefer to see the B200 Kingair being replaced with the Raytheon 1900D which is advance new version of the Kingair.

Do you really think the Aircorps could hope to operate a fleet of CASAs aswell as operating C27J Spartan aswell as a       C130J-30 Hercules do think this could be a viable option??
Forfaire Agus Tairseacht
 Aer Chór na h-Éireann

Offline Old Redeye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2005, 02:46:18 am »
Blue,

The B1900 is NOT a new version of the B200, but rather a poorly engineered clone of the B200 to create a stopgap regional/commuter airliner.  It's not been particularly successful in that role and is a very bad idea for the IAC.  Limited range and utility among other problems.  Perhaps you mean the B350, which is a very capable and popular newer improvement on the B200.

Yes, both the PC-6 and Caravan are engineered for under wing sprayers.

Ref a fleet of CASAs + 130J and or 27J - I believe the best and most achievable FW fleet option is 2x235MPA's with a Mid-Life Update to 300 standard, 1x235-300 airlifter, 1xC-130J-30, 1x new(er) B200/B350/C90, 1-2xCaravan or PC-6, 1x Global 5000, 1xLear 45.

Offline The Blue Max

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
    • Intelligence Officer
V.I.P Air Corps Aircraft
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2005, 11:59:27 am »
Apologies about that the one was the Rayheon SuperKingAir 350 i meant sorry got confused! I would agree with of your list beloow but would not suggest the Bombadier as a replacement for GIV personally i would prefer for the Deparment Of An Taoiseach to purchase a convertible Airbus A319 ACJ which could be uused inconjunction with the new SuperKingair and Learjet 45 to provide a enhanced MATS service but also I would like to ACJ have the capabilitie to be able transport Overseas Deployments,Humanitarian Relief NGOs + Aid etc... If the Cessna was replaced soon i would select the very capable Cessna Caravan which seems the Air Corps have always had a preference for and i think that would prfect idea for a additional Casa CN235 Tactical Air Lifter to be purchased to augment intio pilots before they fly the Maritime 101 Sqn and one C130J-30 would also give us the intrernational deployable context to future Airborne Tactical Air Lift aswell. So Intersting idea all round. Now only time will tell...
Forfaire Agus Tairseacht
 Aer Chór na h-Éireann