Air Corps SAR

06-01-2021 3:22pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

Fort Rucker use the EC145, Known in US service as the UH-72 which sits slightly bigger than our EC135, and smaller than the AW139.

Nice, looks like it'd be capable of a lot more than the EC135, surely could have gone for a few of these.

Dohvolle wrote: »

It throws away any notion of neutrality, when the Corps is no longer self sufficient. Bad enough when you can't train your own in-house, but you can't even train them locally.
Upshot is those pilots will have ideal flying conditions most of the year (except late Autumn, during Hurricane season), and will come home as not just heli pilots, but Combat heli pilots.

I still think we could have maintained some form of Neutrality and availed of support, as it is, we still are not Neutral, the Defense forces aren't self sufficient, at least up to the late 90's there was some form of SAR and the people to do it. The fact is, the Defense forces (mainly how they were operated/run) would have required a massive organisational overhaul and that didnt suit a lot of people, it could have made for a more modern, more capable Air Corps (and other defense forces components).
The over eager attachment to Neutrality is like some throwback to De-Valera style self sufficiency, it wasn't realistic or practical back then and it certainly isn't now, by no means do I think we should be in NATO, but like it or not, we are aligned with a certain bloc and we could have benefited greatly from admitting to that.

Dohvolle · 06-01-2021 4:28pm

1874 wrote: »

Nice, looks like it'd be capable of a lot more than the EC135, surely could have gone for a few of these.

I still think we could have maintained some form of Neutrality and availed of support, as it is, we still are not Neutral, the Defense forces aren't self sufficient, at least up to the late 90's there was some form of SAR and the people to do it. The fact is, the Defense forces (mainly how they were operated/run) would have required a massive organisational overhaul and that didnt suit a lot of people, it could have made for a more modern, more capable Air Corps (and other defense forces components).
The over eager attachment to Neutrality is like some throwback to De-Valera style self sufficiency, it wasn't realistic or practical back then and it certainly isn't now, by no means do I think we should be in NATO, but like it or not, we are aligned with a certain bloc and we could have benefited greatly from admitting to that.

The EC145 was too small for the UH tender, and too big for the LUH. The Cabin is only slightly bigger than that of the EC135, and aimed at those who had used the MBB Bo105 and BK117, with it's high tail rotor, and cabin clamshell doors. Very popular in the Air Ambulance world.

So can we agree that the best practice, moving forward is abandon the notion of Neutrality completely, if we are unable to do the job ourselves? It's a pipe dream.

06-01-2021 4:50pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

The EC145 was too small for the UH tender, and too big for the LUH. The Cabin is only slightly bigger than that of the EC135, and aimed at those who had used the MBB Bo105 and BK117, with it's high tail rotor, and cabin clamshell doors. Very popular in the Air Ambulance world.

So can we agree that the best practice, moving forward is abandon the notion of Neutrality completely, if we are unable to do the job ourselves? It's a pipe dream.

It looks to be a reasonable proportion larger than an EC135, for the extra utility, I think they'd have been better going for that if its aimed use is for replacing Bo105

In my opinion, I think we could have availed of the benefits ofbeing aligned and also state we are Neutral/Non aligned (until/unless we were called out on it, which if we are a good partner nation for anything, we shouldn't), in reality Neutrality is a pipe dream unless you can be independant, have the means to supply your armed forces/even have industry that can. Sweden does that best IMO and even they cant do so alone, but they state and claim they are Neutral (but also operate in alignment with western European norms).
We don't need to join NATO to do that, (see Sweden) bu it wouldn't mean we shouldn't stand up for a certain position, ie our current one.

I dont know who it is really that pushes our ardent Neutrality in the face of reality, we could have both

That doesnt mean we couldnt have availed of support from Nations that might have been willing and able to support/organise/train us for our needs.
We already allow them to land and use our runways anyway, our politicians are too yellow to say anything about it in case it upsets the fragile balance of our relations with them.
This could have improved our position in the world as much as being ardently Neutral.
IMO we should be on par with Denmark in terms of strength and organisational ability, but we are not even close.

California Dreamer · 23-02-2021 9:26am

Nice piece on Nationwide on Monday night.

I have to say the teddy bear is a nice touch, someone buy Craig Cullen a pint!!!

roadmaster · 10-03-2021 8:02pm

How much of the 139 fleet is tided up on aeromedical duty?

Dohvolle · 10-03-2021 8:25pm

roadmaster wrote: »

How much of the 139 fleet is tided up on aeromedical duty?

One aircraft dedicated to it 24/7/365.

roadmaster · 10-03-2021 9:37pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

One aircraft dedicated to it 24/7/365.

But I presume its not same aircraft an its 2 or 3 being on rotation

Psychlops · 10-03-2021 9:53pm

roadmaster wrote: »

How much of the 139 fleet is tided up on aeromedical duty?

1 AW139 for EAS (Daylight Service Only) they rotate airframes to EAS roughly every 5-7 days.

I wonder how much airframe hours EAS is eating up, it is a very busy service & well done to them.

sparky42 · 10-03-2021 10:04pm

Psychlops wrote: »

1 AW139 for EAS (Daylight Service Only) they rotate airframes to EAS roughly every 5-7 days.

I wonder how much airframe hours EAS is eating up, it is a very busy service & well done to them.

Given what hours were called for in the purchases I would think we are still within "normal" usage given their usage over the years.

roadmaster · 11-03-2021 9:32am

So do the hours on the aircraft fleet that would have have allocated for Normal Military ops are basically being taken up by the air ambulance role

Psychlops · 11-03-2021 6:44pm

roadmaster wrote: »

So do the hours on the aircraft fleet that would have have allocated for Normal Military ops are basically being taken up by the air ambulance role

Thats what I think, Id say the hours are being eaten up fairly rapid, alot of the time I see them they now have a battery pack plugged into the 139 to start it, its like a mobile GPU that they carry, Started seeing this in the past few years, this is a picture of it, it wasnt seen really before.

https://www.facebook.com/Air-Corps-112-499155760107215/photos/2803571969665571

https://www.facebook.com/Air-Corps-112-499155760107215/photos/2553437968012307

andrewfaulk · 12-03-2021 4:14pm

There was talk of options for an extra 2 AW139s, to bring the total to 8, at the time they were ordered.. Would it still be an option to exercise this to provide for EAS or has it lapsed at this stage

Heraldoffreeent · 12-03-2021 5:25pm

andrewfaulk wrote: »

There was talk of options for an extra 2 AW139s, to bring the total to 8, at the time they were ordered.. Would it still be an option to exercise this to provide for EAS or has it lapsed at this stage

As they were supplied 15 years ago, it is extremely doubtful.

Dohvolle · 12-03-2021 5:42pm

andrewfaulk wrote: »

There was talk of options for an extra 2 AW139s, to bring the total to 8, at the time they were ordered.. Would it still be an option to exercise this to provide for EAS or has it lapsed at this stage

That contract was with Agusta Westland. They are no more. Whether Leonardo would honour a historic contract to provide us with a different aircraft to the AW139 of 15 years ago is unlikely. Normally options are exercised soon after initial delivery.
This did not happen, I don't know why.

roadmaster · 12-03-2021 5:59pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

That contract was with Agusta Westland. They are no more. Whether Leonardo would honour a historic contract to provide us with a different aircraft to the AW139 of 15 years ago is unlikely. Normally options are exercised soon after initial delivery.
This did not happen, I don't know why.

Thats easy the DOD said there was no where to park them

sparky42 · 12-03-2021 6:35pm

roadmaster wrote: »

Thats easy the DOD said there was no where to park them

And of course that the AC didn't have the pilots for them...

Larbre34 · 14-03-2021 12:45am

Why do you think the AC needs two further 139s?

Dohvolle · 14-03-2021 12:19pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Why do you think the AC needs two further 139s?

I think they would be better off with 4 or more of a larger type. Not Quite EH101 or S92, but more along the lines of NH90 (just not NH90).

Larbre34 · 14-03-2021 5:51pm

We haven't got the pilots for the rotary craft we have currently.

The AC had no business being involved in SAR or air ambulance services in my opinion.

Only the private sector can respond to crewing and equipment needs rapidly enough. The Govt should issue a new extended contract with a suitable provider for comprehensive air-sea-mountain rescue services to include a 24/7 emergency and patient transfer air ambulance component AND its own top cover facility

Edit: it would be remiss not to acknowledge, in this discussion, the anniversary today of the loss of ICG Rescue 116. May they rest in peace and may their families find comfort in their legacy of service.

Psychlops · 14-03-2021 8:51pm

Dohvolle wrote: »

I think they would be better off with 4 or more of a larger type. Not Quite EH101 or S92, but more along the lines of NH90 (just not NH90).

Defo not the NH90.

Fritzbox · 14-03-2021 8:55pm

Psychlops wrote: »

Defo not the NH90.

There's nothing wrong with the NH90 - excellent machine.

Dohvolle · 14-03-2021 9:42pm

Fritzbox wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the NH90 - excellent machine.

Just don't climb in the passenger/cargo cabin with your heaviest boots on. they may go through the floor.

jonnybigwallet · 15-03-2021 8:48am

Leave the Air Ambulance stuff to the private sector in its entirety as another poster has already said....but SAR should be continued as a necessary part of potential battlefied skill set.

Dohvolle · 15-03-2021 9:26am

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Leave the Air Ambulance stuff to the private sector in its entirety as another poster has already said....but SAR should be continued as a necessary part of potential battlefied skill set.

Only if you intend to deploy assets overseas, and have spare capacity. It should not be a primary task.

jonnybigwallet · 15-03-2021 12:37pm

Might come in handy in Syria and Lebanon?

Dohvolle · 15-03-2021 1:33pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Might come in handy in Syria and Lebanon?

As would an Abrams Tank, Some mobile Long range air defence radar and a few C130J.

jonnybigwallet · 15-03-2021 1:57pm

Why only one? A dozen would do even better! I prefer the Leopard meself.

Larbre34 · 15-03-2021 6:22pm

I don't think anyone is suggesting AC aircraft wouldn't maintain a military deployment and extraction role, including rescue. Of course they would, its a core role. And that in turn makes them essential to assist the civil power in certain rare emergencies or large scale incidents. But civilian SAR shouldn't be routine for them.

Psychlops · 15-03-2021 9:46pm

Fritzbox wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the NH90 - excellent machine.

Far from excellent, plenty of issues with them.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/belgium-hits-out-over-poor-industrial-support-as-it-cuts-nh90-tth-helicopter-flights/139062.article

"Belgium has delivered stinging criticism of the NH Industries (NHI) consortium, blaming a lack of industrial support, low availability rates and looming costly upgrades for its decision to slash by 40% operations of the four NH90 troop transport helicopters flown by the Belgian Air Component."

https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/01/28/grilling-begins-over-helicopter-scandal/

https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/147573-nh90-yay-or-nay

"Clearance is so limited that soldiers have trouble getting in and out of the helicopter; the rear ramp is too weak to support fully equipped soldiers; the plane's floor is so sensitive that it can be cracked by boots; and the seats are unable to accommodate more than 240 pounds".

"The unreliability and under-*performance of two of Australia’s military helicopter fleets has caused a lack of jobs for pilots and a reduction in training operations at Army Aviation.

These are the latest problems to be associated with the Tiger attack and reconnaissance helicopter and the troop transport MRH-90 Taipan, according to notes in the Defence Department’s annual *report.
The report singles out the MRH-90, saying “reliability, availability and maintainability deficiencies continued to impact the fleet”.

Larbre34 · 16-03-2021 12:18am

The NH90 is a crate. A very, very expensive crate.

Apart from that, it doesn't offer an appreciable step up from the 139 in capability.

If and when we have a new Defence Forces structure plan, post the Commission, that requires additional AC equipment or a naval aviation element, we can always buy Black/SeaHawks or AW149s like sane people.

Air Corps SAR

Comments