Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Replacment for Cessna 172

Options
«13456718

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Can you parachute out of it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    Can you parachute out of it?

    I could try, but im afraid of heights!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Can you parachute out of it?

    if its burning quickly enough, i'll parachute out of anything!

    personally, i don't see the point in the concept that whatever platform replaces the 172 needs to undertake all of its roles - the 172 does an ISTAR/C3 role, a 'flying hours' role and a sports parachuting role. as long as something fulfills the roles, though you could argue about the sports parachuting role, it doesn't really matter which platform does it.

    you could argue that the roles it currently undertakes are, in the future, going to be mutually exclusive - a 'proper' ISTAR/C3 aircraft is going to be small(ish) to reduce its vunerability to visual detection, radar and groundfire - that is going to preclude it taking a bunch of blokes up so they can do some parachuting, its also not going to be cheap, thus making it somewhat unsatisfactory for flying around the country chalking up flying hours for pilots who need them.

    you could also argue that the 172 is woefully inappropriate for operational parachute training - it is staggeringly unlikely that an Irish unit doing any operational parachuting is going to be doing it in conditions that the 172 can replicate - they'll be doing it gangs of between 4 and 30, and with a shedload of kit.

    far better to ignore the parachuting and use an allies, far more suitable for that role, aircraft, and just concentrate on the ISTAR/C3 role, and seperately the issue of apparantly having far more active aircrew than you have operational aircraft to be flown.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    That role could be better achieved with a UAV. Failing that, Islander/defender type.
    A second engine adds to the reliability, I remember hearing the Garda defender was designed to loiter on one engine, but the Air Corps would not sanction this type of flight(cos no plane can fly on one engine, right?).

    But the OP want a replacement for the Cessna 172 in Irish Air Corps service, then you'll have to get an aircraft to replace it in all its roles, including Drogue towing, Army Co-Op, Counting Seals on the Shannon Estuary...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    The Don already know what they want (Cessna Caravan or equivalent) but Finance can't and won't rise to the occasion and actually pay for them. Apart from that, the Don can't leave things well enough alone and will want to "gold-plate" it. The Defender has had several expensive serviceability issues, so they may not want to get another.

    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Merch


    The Cessna's in Weston look older, if its doing the job why replace an aircraft type?? it already costs money to keep an aircraft, money which there isn't much of. What are their hours of usage and availability? how many hours of maintenance are there per aircraft per flying hour? and what is the cost implication? the WHOLE cost? training/support/infrastructure.

    As for engines coming from the same family, sounds good in principle, but doesn't mean they are interchangeable, the only benefit there would be commonality in training and maybe operation to an extent.

    If I was them I'd keep shtump, otherwise someone might ask what does the whole organisation do? and at what cost, could it be farmed out or eliminated? probably, will it? it'll (the huge expense and inefficiency) be just brushed under the carpet.
    New aircraft! I can see it in the papers, I'd laugh from something, disbelief or exasperation I dont know which.

    Walter Mitty forum ---> that way


  • Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    That role could be better achieved with a UAV. Failing that, Islander/defender type.
    A second engine adds to the reliability, I remember hearing the Garda defender was designed to loiter on one engine, but the Air Corps would not sanction this type of flight(cos no plane can fly on one engine, right?).

    But the OP want a replacement for the Cessna 172 in Irish Air Corps service, then you'll have to get an aircraft to replace it in all its roles, including Drogue towing, Army Co-Op, Counting Seals on the Shannon Estuary...

    Would a smaller number of more advanced aircraft be a better option, like 4 pc-12's. PT6 engine and could do air ambulence too, and we could jump out of it ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,313 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    The Cessna 172's will be in service 40 years next year
    Weren't they bought over a period of years?
    A second engine adds to the reliability, I remember hearing the Garda defender was designed to loiter on one engine, but the Air Corps would not sanction this type of flight(cos no plane can fly on one engine, right?).
    Might this be down to the flight profile - especially altitude?


  • Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    Victor wrote: »
    Weren't they bought over a period of years?

    Might this be down to the flight profile - especially altitude?

    I dont know tbh. But it couldnt have being many years!!!

    Theres a turbo diesel version of the 172 being tested. Just thought Id throw that out there seein as the whole country is gone turbo diesel mad :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Would a smaller number of more advanced aircraft be a better option, like 4 pc-12's. PT6 engine and could do air ambulence too, and we could jump out of it ;)

    Engine Commonality is a definite bonus.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Why would you use an aircraft designed as an executive transport for parachuting when Pilatus' PC-6 has been doing the job for years and is soldier-proof? Right now, a significant amount of DF parachute training is done out of the Casa, which is a dreadful waste of a maritime aircraft or out of a helicopter, which is a dreadful waste of expensive helicopter hours. The Don will have to keep the Cessnas until they are practically derelict. What they could do, in the meantime, is refurbish the King Air, strip out the interior to a bare cargo configuration and use it for para dropping. King Airs are used extensively for parachute work worldwide.

    regards
    Stovepipe

    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    Twin Otter surely? Short field, para dropping, transport, will get in and out of any field in Ireland. Proven design, twin engined safety and it's being manufactured again.

    The Caravan is all very well and fine as are the others mentioned but the Twotter has a track record that's hard to beat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    xflyer wrote: »
    ...para dropping...

    exactly what is this 'para dropping' role?

    to me it looks like sports parachuting in DPM - which isn't exactly a fundamental part of the defence of the state - rather than even the pretence of a limited, but valuable, military capability of occasional use to the state.

    tbh, the PC-9M looks like a more credible capability than the abilty to drop a handful of blokes in shorts into a sports stadium...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    OS119 wrote: »
    exactly what is this 'para dropping' role?

    to me it looks like sports parachuting in DPM - which isn't exactly a fundamental part of the defence of the state - rather than even the pretence of a limited, but valuable, military capability of occasional use to the state.

    tbh, the PC-9M looks like a more credible capability than the abilty to drop a handful of blokes in shorts into a sports stadium...

    In fairness to the DF, attempts are being made to make a proper jump(Pun intended) from the sports parachuting mentality to an actual military capability.

    Obviously the ARW already have the capability but there's a push to get Recce detachments para qualified to give them an added infil capability.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    @xflyer,
    A Twotter would be ideal.As tough as old boots and more or less soldierproof.
    @OS119, the DF has been increasing the military aspect of DF parachuting every year, as the ARW's needs have to be catered for and as Poc said, increased requirement for it for Recce elements. I'd imagine that the sporting side of DF parachuting will dwindle as costs have to be cut and there are plenty of civil parachuting facilities available in the country, anyway.

    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Poccington wrote: »
    ...Obviously the ARW already have the capability but there's a push to get Recce detachments para qualified to give them an added infil capability.

    with my incredulous hat on i wonder what the point of 'upskilling' sub-units is when, as soon as an operational deployment is announced, those sub-units are split up and formed into a composite Bn - so the para-qualled pathfinder/signals/arty Pln from 'X' Bde that trains like fcuk in the Glen arrives in Lebanon with less than a third of its personel, the rest brought in willy-nilly from other, non para-trained, sub-units.

    i'm extremely sceptical about any 'para capability' that doesn't get to train in realistic exercises - so, if you can't get a Pln/Coy all jumping together, with all their kit, then i'd question whether you actually have a capability, rather than it looking like you have a capability.

    if you were to ditch the composite units system, with only (ish) formed units going on deployments, and resolved, or sub-contracted the appropriate aircraft (C-27/C-295/C-130/etc..) ownership issue, then it would be worth developing.

    a possible model would be to pay a friendly government €x, purchacing 'y' number of places on that countries basic parachute course, and 'z' number of Coy sized jumps per year.

    the big hole in this is the fact that Ireland would have formed, trained parachute units, but no way of deploying them when it needs to, rather than when someone else is happy to provide a suitable aircraft for such an operation - but then in the current case, or even in a situation where the IAC owned a couple of Twin Otters, you'd still be in that position.

    some things just can't be done on the cheap.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    Take your point OS119. But two or three Twotters might provide a full platoon capability. I'm not sure how many fully equipped troops one can carry but it can take around 20 sportsjumpers. So 15??


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    @OS119,
    I think it might be driven by a need to have even a basic combat jump capability outside of the ARW, although in this day and age, fast roping from a helicopter is probably more likely. I agree with the sentiment, why train for it if we have no means to deploy any more than a handful at a time. Also, given that most DF recce tasks are covered by men in vehicles, you'd wonder what the point is.Apart from that, the AC wants to go all-turbine so I'd imagine the Cessnas will be sold off and one or two Caravans bought instead.

    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    xflyer wrote: »
    ...So 15??

    ten might be safer, if that.

    the average sports parachutist will be in a lightweight suit, and bog all else - a bloke doing an operational jump is going to have belt-kit, full bergan, weapon, comms kit, ammunition for the section weapon, an anti-armour/anti-structure weapon, and a kitchen sink. if you see parachutists getting on an aircraft for a proper exercise you'll see that they can barely walk with all the crap they have to jump with.

    so, if we looking at the Twin Otter - for instance - as a realistic jump platform, you're looking at being able to jump a section at a time, possibly. its got a flight crew of two, overflowing fuel tanks, a loadmaster, a bolt-on Defensive Aids Suite (RWR, chaff, flares, ECM gear) and 8 blokes with their own bodyweight in gear - that Twin Otter is going to be breathing out of its arse...

    ambition is good, it really is - having 'elite' formations within an army does massive things for morale and performance, and parachute units in particular make a hard, keen edge that others emulate, but those elite units have to be able to demonstrate why they are elite in order to keep the cycle going or they lose their lustre. this is, imv, starting to effect the Parachute Regiment in the BA - every infantry BN goes to A'stan and does what the Para's do, everyone in the army sees that, and so the Para's have become a bit more 'meh' than they were before, this isnot helped by the lack of parachuting available to the regiment because of a lack of aircraft, and very serious questions being raised about whether the spearhead Parachute Bn could actually do a full jump if it were genuinely needed.

    they have, to a degree, become much more ordinary than they were before.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    overflowing fuel tanks
    That would be rare enough unless it's a fully operational mission.
    a bolt-on Defensive Aids Suite (RWR, chaff, flares, ECM gear)
    You honestly think they would have that. Although Stovepipe did talk about the Don's tendency to gold plate.

    Of course the Caravan would be similar.

    This does raise the issue of whether an actual transport aircraft or two might be useful. But that might be start a debate similar to the one regarding fighters.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    xflyer wrote: »
    ...You honestly think they would have that. Although Stovepipe did talk about the Don's tendency to gold plate...

    if we're really talking about a military capability then yes, we're talking about DAS and all the rest - if we're talking about the airborne contingent of the independance day parade, then no, we can live without DAS.

    if its safe enough to fly without DAS then its safe enough to hire a minibus and drive there, which kind of obviates the whole 'jumping out of a plane at 3am with the world on your back' thing, and makes it all a lot cheaper.

    and yes, i think a transport capability is definately needed - personally i think CASA-295 is a good candidate, decent payload, lots of commonality with the current fleet, has a dedicated MPA varient (and whisper it, an AEW varient...).


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    The last model of Twotter had the long fuselage and plenty of power. I don't know what the new version has but I'm sure they'll be offering it with the most modern PT-6 variant and consequent ability to carry lots of soldiery and their gear, as well as a defensive suite. With regard to Casas, they are, in reality, not much better than an ATR, size-wise. They're quite narrow and small inside. I suppose they're all that's on offer right now, especially as they have a ramp. Jumping out of a doorway seems to be old hat now.
    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    The last model of Twotter had the long fuselage and plenty of power. I don't know what the new version has but I'm sure they'll be offering it with the most modern PT-6 variant and consequent ability to carry lots of soldiery and their gear, as well as a defensive suite. With regard to Casas, they are, in reality, not much better than an ATR, size-wise. They're quite narrow and small inside. I suppose they're all that's on offer right now, especially as they have a ramp. Jumping out of a doorway seems to be old hat now.
    regards
    Stovepipe

    It has a PT-6 engine, but I think it has to be a single engined aircraft...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    It has a PT-6 engine, but I think it has to be a single engined aircraft...
    I agree, but dejectedly. A Twotter would seem to be a step too far for the Air Corps. The Caravan is the extent of their ambitions. It depends on whether you want an extension of the capabilities of the Aer Corps in terms of it's support of the army or whether you want something that new pilots can fly in order to build their experience.

    I think we all know which way the Aer Corps swings.

    My view, as expressed several time previously is that the Aer Corps should be an Army Aer Corps.

    That won't happen soon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    1012112.jpg

    shame we gave this back,especially when we were offered it for buttons! :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,313 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    OS119 wrote: »
    a bolt-on Defensive Aids Suite (RWR, chaff, flares, ECM gear)
    Not necessary for a training aircraft. And we're not doing parachute insertions without support from other countries.
    OS119 wrote: »
    with my incredulous hat on i wonder what the point of 'upskilling' sub-units is when, as soon as an operational deployment is announced, those sub-units are split up and formed into a composite Bn - so the para-qualled pathfinder/signals/arty Pln from 'X' Bde that trains like fcuk in the Glen arrives in Lebanon with less than a third of its personel, the rest brought in willy-nilly from other, non para-trained, sub-units.

    i'm extremely sceptical about any 'para capability' that doesn't get to train in realistic exercises - so, if you can't get a Pln/Coy all jumping together, with all their kit, then i'd question whether you actually have a capability, rather than it looking like you have a capability.
    Surely such a mission would be wihh small teams, not a whole platoon or company.

    We're not going to be doing para drops in Lebanon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Victor wrote: »
    Not necessary for a training aircraft. And we're not doing parachute insertions without support from other countries....

    can you tell me why a freindly country is going to decide to allocate a multi-million € aircraft to Ireland's parachute capability, when it could do the job with its own troops far easier, and with far less hassle?

    if Norway/Sweden/France etc are sufficiently involved in an operation to be prepared to risk a $100M C-130 on a parachute drop, why would they then place the job in the hands of a state that has no experience of such operations, and a significant degree of political unreliability?

    would it not be easier to use its own troops, being sure of their competancy, being sure that they aren't going to turn around and say 'sorry, i know we're on the aircraft and we're all ready to go, but the UN has changed its mind/SF have found this place on the map'?

    really?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    OS119 wrote: »
    can you tell me why a freindly country is going to decide to allocate a multi-million € aircraft to Ireland's parachute capability, when it could do the job with its own troops far easier, and with far less hassle?

    if Norway/Sweden/France etc are sufficiently involved in an operation to be prepared to risk a $100M C-130 on a parachute drop, why would they then place the job in the hands of a state that has no experience of such operations, and a significant degree of political unreliability?

    would it not be easier to use its own troops, being sure of their competancy, being sure that they aren't going to turn around and say 'sorry, i know we're on the aircraft and we're all ready to go, but the UN has changed its mind/SF have found this place on the map'?

    really?

    In reality, it's not feasible at all. It wouldn't happen.

    However, because the DF has up to this stage anyway, gotten away with piggybacking and using other countries capabilities to cover our own shortcomings, the DF will continue to have the mentality that we can do so.

    Until we're part of a mission where a country says "**** off and do it yourself" nothing will change. We're just too cheap, successive Governments merely pay lip service to the DF and quite frankly, nobody is dying Overseas so nothing will change.

    It's ****e, it's wrong but it's ever so Irish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Poccington wrote: »
    In reality, it's not feasible at all. It wouldn't happen.

    However, because the DF has up to this stage anyway, gotten away with piggybacking and using other countries capabilities to cover our own shortcomings, the DF will continue to have the mentality that we can do so.

    Until we're part of a mission where a country says "**** off and do it yourself" nothing will change. We're just too cheap, successive Governments merely pay lip service to the DF and quite frankly, nobody is dying Overseas so nothing will change.

    It's ****e, it's wrong but it's ever so Irish.

    Chad.
    Leased Ukranian helicopters?
    Remember?

    Nothing, I think Was learnt from the experience.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    With regard to the Mi-8s, it wasn't the helicopters fault. Someone changed the rules and decided that perfectly usable helicopters were suddenly unusable, without bothering to tell the poor eejit tasked with hiring them, so he and the DF got egg on face because of bureaucrats. At least, Chad and Liberia allowed the DF to engage in and learn genuine mobile operations, instead of being confined to tiny outposts in a tiny AO. It reinforced the need for organic helicopter assets and their utility in a country with no metalled roads.

    regards
    Stovepipe


Advertisement