Air corps new toy on the way

sjb25

Announcement today

The model a hint

https://facebook.com/IrlAirCorps/photos/a.280110362016594.81601.148942718466693/2023923354301944/?type=3

pepe the prawn

I wonder why they went for the pc12 instead of Cessna caravans.. having said that, I’ve seen a few video clips of pc12’s operating out of short grass strips and they are quite impressive.


Maybe there will be a couple of bargain 172’s coming on the market soon......

Any sense they’ll keep the 172’s and use them for initial pilot training and not PC-9’s

Negative_G

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any sense they’ll keep the 172’s and use them for initial pilot training and not PC-9’s

How do you teach the principles of Instrument Flight in a Cessna 172 which isn't certified for IFR?

pepe the prawn wrote: »

I wonder why they went for the pc12 instead of Cessna caravans..

The published tender required the airframe to be pressurised.

Negative_G

Negative_G wrote: »

How do you teach the principles of Instrument Flight in a Cessna 172 which isn't certified for IFR?

I said initial training.

Would you not agree that learning to fly in a PC-9 is a tad excessive. Bit like learning to drive in an M3 or an RS4 ?

By all means after they’ve learned how to fly an aircraft advance them on to PC-9’s for IFR training. Very much a case of one size fits all by the IAC.

Negative_G

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I said initial training.

Would you not agree that learning to fly in a PC-9 is a tad excessive. Bit like learning to drive in an M3 or an RS4 ?

By all means after they’ve learned how to fly an aircraft advance them on to PC-9’s for IFR training. Very much a case of one size fits all by the IAC.

I don't agree. I think your vehicle comparison is a little daft tbh. The PC-9 has a broad flight envelope in comparison to a 172. The fully configured stall speed is only 77kts compared to 48kts in a cessna. 21kts - Hardly an earth shattering difference. Just because something is considered fast or complex doesnt mean it can't be operated in a slower, 'less complex' manner.

The original decision to replace two types with one in the PC-9 was as a result of the previous government white paper. Reverting to two types wont happen as it isn't government policy.

Doesn't make much sense to me to retain and maintain a fleet of 45 year old aircraft for the sole purposes of 'initial training' when an aircraft already exists to provide that function.

Anyway. It's topic for another thread. The upgrade is long overdue. Hopefully the CASAs are replaced next. They will be almost 25 years in service next year.

Fattes

Negative_G wrote: »

I don't agree. I think your vehicle comparison is a little daft tbh. The PC-9 has a broad flight envelope in comparison to a 172. The fully configured stall speed is only 77kts compared to 48kts in a cessna. 21kts - Hardly an earth shattering difference. Just because something is considered fast or complex doesnt mean it can't be operated in a slower, 'less complex' manner.

The original decision to replace two types with one in the PC-9 was as a result of the previous government white paper. Reverting to two types wont happen as it isn't government policy.

Doesn't make much sense to me to retain and maintain a fleet of 45 year old aircraft for the sole purposes of 'initial training' when an aircraft already exists to provide that function.

Anyway. It's topic for another thread. The upgrade is long overdue. Hopefully the CASAs are replaced next. They will be almost 25 years in service next year.

Also the CASA with the highest flight hours logged in the world are the Aer corps!! I am not sure but I thought I was told last year that a tender for their replacement was all ready in process! But I may be way off there

Negative_G

Fattes wrote: »

Also the CASA with the highest flight hours logged in the world are the Aer corps!! I am not sure but I thought I was told last year that a tender for their replacement was all ready in process! But I may be way off there

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

Pat Dunne

Negative_G wrote: »

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

"Due for replacement", in Civil Service speak is only the start of the, "kicking the can down the road" process. Nothing more nothing less!

If the Dept of Defence go by previous form, at least one of the CASA's will have to be permanently grounded and the other near maximum hours before the "bean counters" in Parkgate Street even start looking at the replacement process, let alone actually issuing a tender.

Peregrine

Negative_G wrote: »

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

There is money allocated for both this and the CASA replacement in the 'defence capital envelope' of 2018-2021.

pepe the prawn

Are the 172’s going to be auctioned or just quietly sold off?

EchoIndia

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Are the 172’s going to be auctioned or just quietly sold off?

The usual route is a public tender for the remaining aircraft (probably minus one for the museum?). I don't see how they could be "quietly sold off."

pepe the prawn

EchoIndia wrote: »

I don't see how they could be "quietly sold off."

Like the government Gulfstream?

Tenger

Negative_G wrote: »

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

I was at Fairford in 2014, got chatting to a couple of the AerCorps guys onboard the CN235 over there. They told me that the CASA reps were very welcoming when they visited the stand to look over the CN295 on display. Obviously hoping for a bit of business at some point!!!

exaisle

Negative_G wrote: »

<snip>The fully configured stall speed is only 77kts compared to 48kts in a cessna. 21kts - Hardly an earth shattering difference. <Snip>

That's 77kts-48kts is 29kts not 21kts. Slightly more earth-shattering.
;-)

exaisle

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Like the government Gulfstream?

Or the LE Aisling....

I'd certainly stick a bid on one of the 172's....

L1011

exaisle wrote: »

Or the LE Aisling....

The Aisling was sold at auction, very definition of not being quietly sold off.

Negative_G

exaisle wrote: »

That's 77kts-48kts is 29kts not 21kts. Slightly more earth-shattering.
;-)

Thank you for the maths correction. It was however a typo. It is 67, not 77 according to the Pilatus website.

So in the interest of clarity, it remains a hardly earth shattering 21kts.

martinsvi

exaisle wrote: »

Or the LE Aisling....

I'd certainly stick a bid on one of the 172's....

why? They are the 210hp reims versions, ridiculously loud and gas guzzling, maintenance wise you'd be shooting yourself in the leg if you actually buy one.. I will be very surprised if they find buyers that wont take them for part-out

roadmaster

with only 3 aircraft will that mean at any one time there will only be one or two aircraft available due to services Or would that only start to happen down the line when they start getting old and need more TLC?

roadmaster

roadmaster wrote: »

with only 3 aircraft will that mean at any one time there will only be one or two aircraft available due to services Or would that only start to happen down the line when they start getting old and need more TLC?

Good point. How much maintenance downtime do these new planes need?

Can I assume the contract includes availability guarantees, parts and training courses for the pilots and techs?

exaisle

L1011 wrote: »

The Aisling was sold at auction, very definition of not being quietly sold off.

The Aisling was sold at auction for €110k and has since been put up for sale for about six times that. Whether or not it sells for that amount is another issue, but it was appear that it was sold too cheaply...

exaisle

martinsvi wrote: »

why? They are the 210hp reims versions, ridiculously loud and gas guzzling, maintenance wise you'd be shooting yourself in the leg if you actually buy one.. I will be very surprised if they find buyers that wont take them for part-out

Buy for buttons, sell for more buttons. Like the LE Aisling...which is the point I was trying to make...that quite often (and also in the case of NAMA) state assets are sold off too cheaply.

exaisle

exaisle wrote: »

The Aisling was sold at auction for €110k and has since been put up for sale for about six times that. Whether or not it sells for that amount is another issue, but it was appear that it was sold too cheaply...

Was that the one that was discussed on Joe Duffy?

Maybe she was and maybe she wasnt. Even having her sitting idle in the naval base was costing cash every day, and those costs dont be long adding up.

They wanted rid of her.

L1011

exaisle wrote: »

The Aisling was sold at auction for €110k and has since been put up for sale for about six times that. Whether or not it sells for that amount is another issue, but it was appear that it was sold too cheaply...

It was sold at auction. As was suggested as being the way to get the highest value for the 172s here.

Resale price later is irrelevant and off topic.

martinsvi

L1011 wrote: »

It was sold at auction. As was suggested as being the way to get the highest value for the 172s here.

Resale price later is irrelevant and off topic.

exactly, we don't know was there any upgrade works done to it in the mean time or issues fixed that made it's value go up.

Last time I saw the inside of Air corps c172 was just 2 years ago and they had fairly dated avionics, no Mode S, no 8.33 radios, elt, nothing.. if someone buys them and intends to make them "road-legal" and attractive for civilian pilots, you are probably looking at some 8-10k investment on avionics alone .. assuming the engines and props are not exactly fresh, an overhaul for a 6 cylinder 0-360 engine is easily 25+k, add another 10 or so for the prop.

in another words if it's sold for 10k in an auction and then you see it mint and zero timed on sale for 60k, don't be looking for a scandal

martinsvi

I have just been advised that apparently Air Corps cessnas do have GTN650 installed, which is brilliant and I should think raises their re-sell value quite a bit, but my point was just to illustrate how and why price tags can change on the same asset, and not to make any judgements on what these puppies will sell for

they're still avgas guzzling screamers as far as I can tell

Oscar Bravo

May 16th 2017, 206 205 and 210 were being stripped, with 203 and 208 remaining in service.

Fattes

exaisle wrote: »

The Aisling was sold at auction for €110k and has since been put up for sale for about six times that. Whether or not it sells for that amount is another issue, but it was appear that it was sold too cheaply...

You know it has had a lot of work done on it between being sold and offered for resale! It is being refurbished from a outdated naval vessel to a modern private Yacht! There is a reason for the price difference

Irish Steve

Can we please drop the sniping about the Aisling, it's not Aviation and Aircraft related

Stovepipe

The Air Corps Cessnas are the best kept Cessnas in the country, bar one or two. They have not been hoofed around Irish grass runways by varying qualities of pilots and recieved the best of attention. I used to work on them and we spent huge amounts of time and money compared to any Irish civvy Cessna. They might be old but they are immaculate, corrosion-free and relatively free of dents and dings. The downside is the engine, which is a gas-guzzler compared to the standard 160 hp model but this model of 172 is popular in the UK so they might find a home there. There was only ever one or two civvy Reims Rockets on the Irish register.

StolenKrone

Stovepipe wrote: »

The Air Corps Cessnas are the best kept Cessnas in the country, bar one or two. They have not been hoofed around Irish grass runways by varying qualities of pilots and recieved the best of attention. I used to work on them and we spent huge amounts of time and money compared to any Irish civvy Cessna. They might be old but they are immaculate, corrosion-free and relatively free of dents and dings. The downside is the engine, which is a gas-guzzler compared to the standard 160 hp model but this model of 172 is popular in the UK so they might find a home there. There was only ever one or two civvy Reims Rockets on the Irish register.

If any private flying school had the money the air corps have at their disposal you wouldn't see a poor quality cessna in the air. I have seen better 172's then the air corps *outside of the country of course. From my view the military are good at doing normal work on aircraft, and thats what they are paid for.

DanMurphy

Stovepipe wrote: »

The Air Corps Cessnas are the best kept Cessnas in the country, bar one or two. They have not been hoofed around Irish grass runways by varying qualities of pilots and recieved the best of attention. I used to work on them and we spent huge amounts of time and money compared to any Irish civvy Cessna. They might be old but they are immaculate, corrosion-free and relatively free of dents and dings. The downside is the engine, which is a gas-guzzler compared to the standard 160 hp model but this model of 172 is popular in the UK so they might find a home there. There was only ever one or two civvy Reims Rockets on the Irish register.

Thou shalt not praise our troops, their myriad skills, their international reputation, or the antique equipment mother Ireland gives them on Boards, lest ye fall foul of their many detractors!

Everyone knows by now that (insert name of country/Banana Republic) soldiers, sailors and airmen are waaaay better than ours!


Surprised at you, Stovepipe, of all people! :D:D

That said: I completed my five parachute jumps out of Cessna 110 back in the day. :P

Stovepipe

If you jumped out of 110, I'll eat my hat. It was 210, which you should have seen on the side as your head ricochetted off the airframe :-)

ted1

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Negative_G wrote: »

The 2015 WP states that they are due for replacement in 2019. Whether this means the tender process will commence in 2019 or that new aircraft will be delivered in 2019 is not clear.

"Due for replacement", in Civil Service speak is only the start of the, "kicking the can down the road" process. Nothing more nothing less!

If the Dept of Defence go by previous form, at least one of the CASA's will have to be permanently grounded and the other near maximum hours before the "bean counters" in Parkgate Street even start looking at the replacement process, let alone actually issuing a tender.

The navy will shortly have 4 new ships. No reason to think that the next purchase will not be replacing the Casas

Pat Dunne

ted1 wrote: »

The navy will shortly have 4 new ships. No reason to think that the next purchase will not be replacing the Casas

Ahh yes..... but don't expect this overnight, its the Civil Service afterall who hold the purse strings.

Are the CASAs the aircraft that can provide the top cover to the rescue heli?

Given the events of the R116 crash surely modern long range maritime patrol aircraft would be a priority?

L1011

The Dail record on replacements suggested that the CASA replacement would be a larger frame. The bigger CASA is all I can think of as suitable unless they want to to insane with the Herc or A400M

BeardySi

L1011 wrote: »

The Dail record on replacements suggested that the CASA replacement would be a larger frame. The bigger CASA is all I can think of as suitable unless they want to to insane with the Herc or A400M

We can but dream!

Peregrine

I doubt it'll be anything other than CASA 295.

Negative_G

L1011 wrote: »

The Dail record on replacements suggested that the CASA replacement would be a larger frame. The bigger CASA is all I can think of as suitable unless they want to to insane with the Herc or A400M

The A400M is a pig and has an awful dispatch rate. The RAF and GAF have had well publicised issues with the number of aircraft available.

Like the F-35, there was too much invested and too many vested interests politically to let it die once issues became apparent. Ask any crew that fly them and they'll say the same.

C130 is far too expensive and far too thirsty to be realistically considered.

Similarly the KC-390 is massively expensive and complete overkill for what the DF needs.

Peregrine wrote: »

I doubt it'll be anything other than CASA 295.

You're provably right, which is a shame as its cargo ability is marginally better than a 235. Not sure how long more the 295 is in production for and buying an aircraft type nearing the end of its production life isn't ideal.

Unfortunately the market is very limited and with finite resources it becomes even more limited.

Given size of the EEZ, replacing the 235's with anything less than 3 airframe's would be madness.

roadmaster

Negative_G wrote: »

The A400M is a pig and has an awful dispatch rate. The RAF and GAF have had well publicised issues with the number of aircraft available.

Like the F-35, there was too much invested and too many vested interests politically to let it die once issues became apparent. Ask any crew that fly them and they'll say the same.

C130 is far too expensive and far too thirsty to be realistically considered.

Similarly the KC-390 is massively expensive and complete overkill for what the DF needs.



You're provably right, which is a shame as its cargo ability is marginally better than a 235. Not sure how long more the 295 is in production for and buying an aircraft type nearing the end of its production life isn't ideal.

Unfortunately the market is very limited and with finite resources it becomes even more limited.

Given size of the EEZ, replacing the 235's with anything less than 3 airframe's would be madness.

If all the above aircraft won't be got is there anything apart 295's that could be bought? Also when the current 235's are parked up could they be striped and used as utility aircraft or will they only be fit for the scrap heap?

L1011

The Alenia Spartan is about the only other Western craft in that size range that's still being made. Its a fairly major jump up to the Herc/A400/Kawasaki/Embraer transports.

Even that is a significant size increase on the 235.

roadmaster

L1011 wrote: »

The Alenia Spartan is about the only other Western craft in that size range that's still being made. Its a fairly major jump up to the Herc/A400/Kawasaki/Embraer transports.

Even that is a significant size increase on the 235.

You would never know with the AW139 connection the air corps have with leonardo anything is possible

Negative_G

roadmaster wrote: »

If all the above aircraft won't be got is there anything apart 295's that could be bought? Also when the current 235's are parked up could they be striped and used as utility aircraft or will they only be fit for the scrap heap?

The 2015 white paper on Defence quotes the following:

The CASA 235s will be replaced with consideration
of their replacement with larger more capable aircraft. This would enhance maritime
surveillance and provide a greater degree of utility for transport and cargo carrying tasks.

'Enhance' to me would suggest greater range, endurance and a more sophisticated ISR sensor suite with possibly a sub surface detection capability.

'Greater degree of utility' could mean anything. It could mean that the fuselage is palletised and able to take NATO standard pallets, it could mean it takes small vehicles, its hard to know.

The unknown variable is 'larger'. It goes without saying that the larger you go the price increases significantly. And as already has been discussed, there is a very small segment in the market between small and large military transports. And even less that have a proven history in maritime operations.

The AC do not have a history of maintaining single aircraft after fleet replacement. I would say they will be auctioned off like other state assets.

L1011 wrote: »

The Alenia Spartan is about the only other Western craft in that size range that's still being made. Its a fairly major jump up to the Herc/A400/Kawasaki/Embraer transports.

Even that is a significant size increase on the 235.

The only other aircraft that I can think of are the ATR and the Dash-8 both of which have maritime variants and are still in production.

Maringally bigger than a 235. The market is very limited.

€100m is unlikely to stretch to anymore than 2 aircraft when all things are taken into consideration. A realistic budget is probably around €150m.

The original costing for the Cessna replacement was €15m and the final contract came to €32m so it seems that the budget can shift. The new MRV for the Navy is going to cost about €150m also, more than twice the cost of any other vessel.

The elephant in the room is PESCO. If the Government are obliged to increase spending toward 1.5-2% of GDP, it's likely the Air Corps and Navy will see considerable investment as we will become the 'first line of defence' of Western Europe while also monitoring the largest EEZ in Europe.

The EU did contribute a significant amount to the purchase of the CASAs in 1994 and a large fund will be made available over the coming years for EU nations. It's a positive move for the DF regardless of what you think of PESCO politically.

andrewfaulk

Surely the ATR72 MPA would be ideal for the marine patrol/fishery protection part of the requirement.. the question is would the Air corps accept a side door freighter or would they want a rear ramp fitted aircraft..

Stovepipe

Most militaries prefer a ramp-equipped aircraft, as they don't need much in the way of ground handling equipment and such aircraft are scarce in the smaller sizes. The Casa essentially failed as a commuter aircraft, except in Indonesia, where it is made, whereas the ATR dominates the commuter market and has a firm foothold in light freight, operating from airports with plenty of ground equipment. Casas dominate the military market for SAR/MATS/Utility, which suggests to me that ATR want to break into the lucrative military market.

roadmaster

Stovepipe wrote: »

Most militaries prefer a ramp-equipped aircraft, as they don't need much in the way of ground handling equipment and such aircraft are scarce in the smaller sizes. The Casa essentially failed as a commuter aircraft, except in Indonesia, where it is made, whereas the ATR dominates the commuter market and has a firm foothold in light freight, operating from airports with plenty of ground equipment. Casas dominate the military market for SAR/MATS/Utility, which suggests to me that ATR want to break into the lucrative military market.

Since Airbus owns casa and has a big say in the ATRS would they be marketing them differently with ATR for Civilian and Casa for Military ?

Stovepipe

That was essentially the case for years; air arms didn't really want the ATR as it's cargo door is at the front, so it didnt suit safe unloading with an engine running on that side (despite the ability to shut down the propellor and keep the engine running as an APU....the Casa also has that ability but it's rarely used)) and it didnt suit parachuting like a ramp does. The Casa was not a success in Europe as a commuter aircraft, with only Binter in Spain operating them, as far as I recall. I think it's fuel burn was higher than an ATRs and a ramp was redundant for commuter operations, although in less well developed countries, using a ramp for commuter flights is considered normal and ideal for manual freight unloading. I'm sure it suited Airbus or EADS to keep the the two types operating in separate spheres to keep two production lines going and now it appears to be a need to find uses for ATRs. At least the Casa 235 mutated into the 295, which offers more options for military users.

EchoIndia

The ATR has done well over the years but seems to be vulnerable to falls in fuel prices that reduce its economic advantage over jets. That said, it still has a reasonable order book including 30 for FedEx and, I think, 20 for Iran Air. However the fact that the US market has largely dropped props in favour on smaller jets means that it is never going to garner much in the way of future sales there.

jimbis

Would the likes of a herc or a400m be any use for troop transfers? Or are troop transfers even done that often to be even considered?