Replacment for Cessna 172

California Dreamer wrote: »

PC-24 replacement for the LJ45?

No.
The PC24 is a PC12 with a Jet engine.(or 2)
It's a niche product for PC12 civvy owners who want to upgrade.

Larbre34 wrote: »

I don't think we'd really need 5 of the type long term. A larger transport is definitely the next priority and that's a well rehearsed story at this stage.

That said, 280 has been an absolutely invaluable asset these past 14 months, a superb utility aircraft. There's little doubt already that the PC-12 was a worthy winner of the acquisition process and Pilatus have become a great partner to the DF.

If we were finally to get to the point where the PC12 was deployed on a UN/EU mission for an ISTAR role having another basic airframe at home might have been useful, but that’s still remote.

But yes the PC12s do seem to have been worth it in the end.

Dohvolle wrote: »

An aircraft to transport officers not important enough to travel on the G4.

Any replacement of it should be a military strategic transport, at minimum.

What G4? Thats gone years!

An LJ is not a military spec aircraft.

California Dreamer wrote: »

What G4? Thats gone years!

An LJ is not a military spec aircraft.

Exactly.
The Lear was a backup to the G4, which the Air Corps and Government have managed without.
People got notions in the 70s and 80s, and ministers felt they deserved to be carried about in luxury while they pretended it was in the national interest. Fact is its probably as easy for Michael Martin to get to Brussels, Paris or Washington on a scheduled flight, and not a Bizjet just big enough for the Minister and his entourage, and their shopping.
If we are going to replace it in its role, then it should be with a larger passenger aircraft that can also carry freight, so maybe we wouldn't have to hire Volga Dnepr next time we need to move emergency aid overseas. Make it so the cabin can be converted as a flying ambulance to it can further assist in international disasters.

California Dreamer wrote: »

I am not here for the politics, I am just interested in the aircraft!

I'm sorry for your trouble, but the very existence of the Lear in the Air Corps is all about politics.
If you don't like that you might be in the wrong forum?

California Dreamer wrote: »

I think it is you that is in the wrong forum. I am just interested in the shiny metal tubes that go up in the air. I have no interest in the who, what, where or why and the polices of governments. I get enough of that elsewhere.

I asked a question, I got an answer but whatever style of tinfoil hat youre wearing there I will leave you to it.

I'm sorry.
I didn't realise you were worthy of being ignored.
I'll fix that right away so the adults can continue with the conversation.

This is not the aviation forum.
Military=politics by other means.

California Dreamer wrote: »

Ok sonny, I have no interest in an argument despite your best efforts!

You asked a question. I answered it. Then you became a dick.

The trouble with using airliners is that they need dedicated loading equipment such as pallet lifters,tugs, dedicated cargo bins or cargo pallets and mobile conveyors. A C-130 doesnt. When you see how much of those heavy equipments that expeditionary armies like the French have to position into places like Chad and Mali,before the first airliner ever lands, you get to understand why air arms like ramp-equipped aircraft,even small, basic ones like the CN 235/295. When you are dealing with Africa,you need to have the best kit on hand and a warmed over 321 is not the best. So,if you venture into Africa,you need to have a protected airport, heavy kit readily available,men on hand to protect it and the means to bug out if it all turns to ****. None of that is guaranteed and even the French have their off days and they've been there since God was a boy......apart from that,it's nice to see the PC-12 doing well. It would be really nice if it had two engines,a loadmaster and a big belly to hold stuff.;-)

How does it work when the Air corp have 1 of a type of aircraft ? Pilot wise I mean , do they have pilots who are certified on multiple different types of plane ?
They hardly have pilots who are just certified on say the Lear jet ?
So having another casa just in a transport role would be more efficient in terms of crew and servicing -

Stovepipe wrote: »

The pilots are either fixed wing or rotary for their operational period on an aircraft so a pilot will start on the PC-9, may do a period as an instructor on same and may then be directed to whichever type has a slot available. that is, if a need for a copilot on the Casa arises, he or she will be trained up and fitted into that slot. A pilot could also be trained up as a type examiner,deal with recurrency or training up new people or even be tasked with post maintenance test flights and so on. AC pilots also have ground roles, such as ground instructors or hold military posts such as a unit gunnery officer or an administrative role dealing with flying. It's quite varied, which is one of the appealing things about military flying.

Would there be many pilots that just want to fly and have no interest in promotion and would happy left on one aircraft type or would they even get a choice?

roadmaster wrote: »

Would there be many pilots that just want to fly and have no interest in promotion and would happy left on one aircraft type or would they even get a choice?

No. There were one or two in my time who were not "destined for higher office" by choice or by not being suited (suited is a very wide ranging word. More than a few were promoted above their ability because of the nature of the hierarchical system ) for command outside of an aircraft cockpit. Good pilots but zero interest in going to Staff College, so their careers would be limited. They couldn't be promoted beyond Commandant if they didnt show willing to do overseas trips, undergo Military courses and so on, so they'd be invited to take their talents elsewhere. Up or out. Most Militaries are the same. The last thing they want is some guy who's a perpetual Captain,last to be promoted, hanging around,condemned to doing mundane stuff until he dies or retires. The further up the food chain you do go, the less flying you do. If all you want to do is fly, become a Commercial pilot and do it outside.

Stovepipe wrote: »

No. There were one or two in my time who were not "destined for higher office" by choice or by not being suited (suited is a very wide ranging word. More than a few were promoted above their ability because of the nature of the hierarchical system ) for command outside of an aircraft cockpit. Good pilots but zero interest in going to Staff College, so their careers would be limited. They couldn't be promoted beyond Commandant if they didnt show willing to do overseas trips, undergo Military courses and so on, so they'd be invited to take their talents elsewhere. Up or out. Most Militaries are the same. The last thing they want is some guy who's a perpetual Captain,last to be promoted, hanging around,condemned to doing mundane stuff until he dies or retires. The further up the food chain you do go, the less flying you do. If all you want to do is fly, become a Commercial pilot and do it outside.

There’s a case to be made for introducing warrant officer pilots (such as in the British Army Air Corps)
But I don’t think it would be warmly received in the IAC

I guess the reason we see it in army NCO pilots is their aircraft fit in to a different structure. The aircraft there is not the unit, it is the weapon.

Dohvolle wrote: »

I guess the reason we see it in army NCO pilots is their aircraft fit in to a different structure. The aircraft there is not the unit, it is the weapon.

Well put.

I do think there needs to be a revolution in global thinking around pilots though. This 'pilot officer' snobbery dates back to WWI when enlisted men were regarded as idiots and in point of fact literacy and numeracy was low. Now all modern militaries have highly technically trained and educated enlisted personnel.

Why should the guy or girl be able to dismantle and reassemble an aircraft but be precluded from doing something as comparitively simple as fly the thing?

In the case of the AC, the unit should be the squadron and the aircraft no different than a truck or an APC. Long way to go for that I guess.

If they can't get qualified pilots to stick around on a Captain's salary they certainly won't do it on a Sergeant's