DOD replacement of equipment loss due to attrition?

Morpheus

I believe that in total over last ten years we have lost three airframes

Dauphin waterford

Cessna in offaly back in 2004

PC-9 last year

Sadly all with fatalities including a former soccer team mate of mine, R.I.P. all.

However back to the main theme of this post, my gut feeling on this is that the defence forces never seem to plan for the eventuality of airframe loss and replacement.

Now maybe we can say that the Dauphin was replaced initially with an S61 on loan and then with CHC coming in and taking over the role - my own opinion is that the dept of defence sat on its hands and got lucky with the S61 loan and loss of SAR hiding the fact that they had no replacement plan - even though the defence minister at the time assured families that one would be procurred very quickly - this didnt happen for almost ten years until the new AW139's came on stream.

By all accounts and it appears that operational flight time in a more military role has increased significantly so we can strike that one off.

However, has anyone any idea what the aircorps plans are for replacement of the two fixed wing airframes?

There has been talk for ages about cessna caravans being bought etc, but nothing more than rumour. Also there has been absolutely NO mention of replacement for the PC9M.

Indeed, on a wider scale, Ive always gotten the impression that we seem to buy new gear, run it into the ground until broken beyond repair and then never replace it. Anyone any idea how many MOWAGs, FFR's, Trucks, Transits, AML's, Mortars, Anti Tank weapons, GPMG's, Steyr's, etc have been irrevocably taken out of service and not replaced?

I know we are in recession etc but as always it appears that the defence forces are the poor partners when it comes to country wide financial decisions.

OS119

i suppose there are two possible answers - firstly that that you are correct, and secondly that the attrition replacements are factored into the original buy.

as an example, th RAF expects to write off, and has bought airframes to cover for, 25 - 30% of its Typhoon fleet over its 30 year service life.

so when is starts losing airframes to fires, mountainsides and frighteningly incompetent contractors, it will either live with the loss or pull a 'stored' airframe either from a big plastic hanger or a unit that deliberately puts few hours on that airframe. what won't happen is that the RAF will go hunting around for new airframes with a MOD credit card in its pocket.

actually i can't see how that model could realisticly be applied to the IAC specifically - using a fleet of 6 helicopters for 20 years in a Army support role is going to result in more than 2 written off airframes, and you won't fly CASA 235's at low-level over the north atlantic for 25 years without suffering the loss of at least one airframe. so i assume its using the model of 'lose one, buy a new one'.

except for the last bit...

Morpheus

I doubt they even HAVE a model...

concussion

The Minister and government who approve such large capital expenses probably won't be around when replacements need to be acquired, they don't have to worry about it. :mad:

Avgas

Indeed, on a wider scale, Ive always gotten the impression that we seem to buy new gear, run it into the ground until broken beyond repair and then never replace it. Anyone any idea how many MOWAGs, FFR's, Trucks, Transits, AML's, Mortars, Anti Tank weapons, GPMG's, Steyr's, etc have been irrevocably taken out of service and not replaced?

I know we are in recession etc but as always it appears that the defence forces are the poor partners when it comes to country wide financial decisions.[/I]

Great post Morpheus.

I've sorta raised issues like this in some threads I'm to blame for because it interests me. A recession is a great time to rethink everything.

1. What I feel is as much a problem as leaving it too late to replace gear, is that we often replace like with like uncritically...especially for aircraft......there seems to be no process of strategic review....asking the hard questions: do we really need this asset/capability..do we a need a new asset X or Y....do we need a ship/airframe like this model X or like that model Y?

example?

The PC-9M are a lovely aircraft
(BTW RIP the two men who were lost in one a while back).

But what exactly are they for? What is their point? What are they training pilots to fly (Ryanair 5 years hence?). I'm sorry to say it out like that.
COIN? Come on ! In fact I would say that we should have bought PC-12 STOL transports which would provide a light transport capability, and a more useful observation capability with a FLIR, and yes they could even be deployed abroad for PK support...much cheaper and robust than GOLDPLATED helicopters. Its just an example of rethinking our needs and not replacing like with like.

Much more critical than replacing the Marchettis and the Fouga...which is what the PC-9 were bought for...was to replace the Cessna 172s which were cheap and cheerful border spotters...and indeed we have no proper UAV capability at all.

Yes, I know we have tactical hand launched Israeli UAVs , the ORBITER…..and as far as I know THAT WAS A GOOD PROCUREMENT notwithstanding some mishaps like the one that got lost and tried to fly home to Ireland (see http://www.botjunkie.com/index.php?s=wingspan
)……but I mean proper UAVs which would be a battalion/battle group asset…which have much longer endurance.

Because we don't have any to begin with the Dept of Finance will not sanction a replacement spend.....Catch 22....


Moreover, if the Air Corp boys and gals want to seriously fly, then simply do a deal with USAF or Swedish Air Force and send them overseas for a few years and train them up...it would be way more fun for them, way better training experience probably, and let us concentrate on operational types for clear headed specific missions....not vague theoretical capabilities.

usual grumpy Avgas:)

concussion

This 'pilots to Ryanair' idea is a bit weak. There is a natural bottleneck in promotions after Captain and lots of officers leave once they reach this rank, the same thing happens in the Army.

OS119

Avgas and Morphéus.

nail. on. head.

there is no strategic plan or direction in either procurement or doctrine, its all ad hoc, patchwork, bit of this, bit of that.

RG-32's for a IED infested COIN environment, yet none of the one big thing needed to operate in that environment - medium lift heli's.

high performance training aircraft, yet no high performance aircraft for pilots to be trained for.

a combined arms/infantry battlegroup doctrine, yet no deployments (or even serious training?) to put that doctrine into effect.

policy of taking on the 200m EEZ, yet no upscaling of resources needed to control it.

coherence is obviously a dirty word within government and the DoD in particular...

Avgas

concussion wrote: »

This 'pilots to Ryanair' idea is a bit weak. There is a natural bottleneck in promotions after Captain and lots of officers leave once they reach this rank, the same thing happens in the Army.

Can't agree. The fact of the bottleneck is IMHO beside the point.

In the Air Corps you learn to fly on a PC-9m, and then unless your tasked to later fly the fixed CASAs or the Ministerial transport (a handful of positions)...you really go nowhere further as a fixed wing pilot with that expensive training.....there is no aircraft above that level that we operate (maybe the Islander?).....

So after five years of languishing in fixed wing training and more training and more training.......you go onto the civilian market if your contract allows that.... (and good luck to them... they're great pilots!)..

But this is an expensive aircraft training with no real operational role for the DF.... the possibility of their COIN employment is largely a theoretical capability IMHO...yes they can do it...but it would be total overkill for bread and butter domestic ACP....and if deployed in PK CAS....well guess what ?...They've never deployed them !...And the reason is probably because they would be unsuitable as a training aircraft that might be either too much overkill....or too little firepower.....

If you were going to deploy anything to actually help for PK overseas it would be the AW139s and a proper UAV platform.....(which we don't have).

The actual tactical usefulness of such aircraft is limited...even if I accept they are great little aircraft and the pilots and support people do a great job.....

My arguments are not weak...their painfully realistic.

We need to be honest and stop deluding ourselves. That is how we ended up with NAMA.

We are training for the sake of training.....whereas usually the maxim is you train "for how you need to fight"......

Just my tuppence.

concussion

What do you propose to do with the excess Captains then?

OS119

concussion wrote: »

What do you propose to do with the excess Captains then?

turn them into Foward Air Controllers. - if they don't fancy that, perhaps they aren't quite the steely-eyed dealers of death you need as 'fighter' pilots...

after that, perhaps not recruit for the total number of airframes you have, rather just recruit for the number of operational pilots/navs you need?

perhaps then look at the fixed-wing 'operational airframes' you have and decide whether you need these tasks done by pensioned-up IAC personnel or whether they could be done by civilian contract.

Fisheries protection and SAR - civilian contract.

Ministerial transport - civilian contract.

CIT escort (guffaw) - Garda job. civilian/garda contract.

err... i appear to run out of operational Fixed-wing roles that the IAC carries out that couldn't be farmed off to the departments that actually use them.

any COIN situation that would be sufficiently serious that required the PC-9's to whip out the rockets, small bombs and Cannons would by its very nature be too serious for the PC-9's to operate in.

transform the culture of the IAC - ditch the 'bluffwaffe' and make it the airmobility and ISTAR arm of the Army. heli's, heli's, heli's - and some UAV's.

unclecessna

I doubt that the Pilatus PC.9 that crashed last year will ever be replaced.
The Air Corps originally bought 10 Marchetti trainers in the late 70's and over the years lost 3 of them with no replacement.

It's interesting how more people critisize the purchase of the PC.9's as they are overkill for basic training and worthless as an interceptor. It has similar performance and functions of the Fouga Magister jet trainers that were retired years ago but no one questioned the Air Corps use of the Fougas at the time simply because they were jet powered and to the casual observer they looked like a fighter jet.

The same could be said for the Vampire trainer jets that predated the Fouga's. The Government won't shell out for Fighter Aircraft in our security enviroment so the Air Corps play the ''we need aircraft to train our Pilots'' card and select the closest thing they will ever get away with to a Fighter aircraft.
Toys for big boys. The money would have been better spent on other areas of Defence to my mind.

concussion

OS119 wrote: »

turn them into Foward Air Controllers. - if they don't fancy that, perhaps they aren't quite the steely-eyed dealers of death you need as 'fighter' pilots...

That'll shift some of them all right. You still have the same problem with them being stuck as Captains though. Who is going to stay in if they know they won't have a chance of promotion?

OS119 wrote: »

after that, perhaps not recruit for the total number of airframes you have, rather just recruit for the number of operational pilots/navs you need?

It's only a handful per year as it is, anything less and it may not eve be economical to train them. Plus you have to factor in those who don't have the aptitude to fly and those who don't have the aptitude to get past a fixed term promotion.

transform the culture of the IAC - ditch the 'bluffwaffe' and make it the airmobility and ISTAR arm of the Army. heli's, heli's, heli's - and some UAV's.

Yup. Yup yup yup. And yup.

unclecessna

And I forgot, the Air Corps also lost a Gazelle helicopter in a crash around 2002.

punchdrunk

follow the British army air corps...NCO pilots...

concussion

Wash your mouth out with soap!

Avgas

Who is going to stay in if they know they won't have a chance of promotion?

Any Captain/officer, NCO, enlisted soldier-person who cares to go by a social welfare office these days will find the answer to that question. The lines of people are out the doors!

Humiliating and harrowing to see.
We're heading towards 500,000 unemployed! :mad:

I would guess DF people are just terrified that the contracts they have, many of which I think stipulate overseas service as a precondition for renewal, leave the government in a position to simple wind the DF down to 6,000 within a few years.

Its probably where we're headed.:(

In that context just being in the DF and not promoted would be much better than on the dole. Lots of lads and ladies would settle for that right now.

Put some of our army of unemployed revamping those bloody Comets....I say!

Apologies for the slightly Joe Duffy populist rant at the end there.....

concussion

Put in context of the recession, when every cent is being counted, why would the DF hold onto these officers if they are not needed? I can't see any positions being created in the near future.

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

turn them into Foward Air Controllers. - if they don't fancy that, perhaps they aren't quite the steely-eyed dealers of death you need as 'fighter' pilots...

Just on this note, in 2008 we had 6 AC Officers sent over to France to train as FAC's. I'd imagine that more Officer's have been sent since then.

It's not much but's it's a start I suppose.

Avgas

Those of you who know me by now…probably remember my ecentric interest in the low-cost/high value BORAT OPTION…..

This is about economically sourcing DF needs from our new East European EU buddies and other exotics…..

So what could BORAT offer our Air Corps compared to high cost/ no clear role AW139 and PC-9Ms…….?

1. A cheaper, larger and more robust tactical helicopter that is not GOLDPLATED….

Either from Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_W-3_Sokół

Or Romanian built Pumas ….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR_330


2. A cheapo UAV from Bulgaria….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NITI_(UAV)

Or if making the Bulgarians richer is not your fancy build our own improvised one….either with DF inhouse or with help from Universities/IT (UL now has an aeronautical engineering department/degree)

3. And for general PK support in theatre including taking off from rough field sites in Chad or wherever, and with a specific mandate of avoiding ambushes and providing an anti-IEDS recce/sigint role….

Polish STOL transports…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M28

Or a French built STOL transporter….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylander_100

See also http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/02/334213/niche-benefits.html

All of course quite mad....:)..

but how much more crazy that splurging on trainers for no role...and GOLDPLATED Italian sportscar type helis that are maybe only a cool accessory for the ARW.....or for a minister who wants to get to that golf game....?

Avgas

As an afterthought if we did buy anything BORAT we must insist on the following OFFSET.

Payment in kind to the value of:

1m Euro Irish Creamery Butter
1m Euro Irish various Pork meat products
1m Euro Irish Lamb
5m Euro Irish made Viagra tablets
1m in Signed Bertie Ahearn Biogs
1m in Assorted Irish Country'n'Western Music CDs
1m in O'Neils GAA jerseys.

Who says we can't do offsets?