Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

jonnybigwallet · 09-04-2020 12:16pm

Which category do you fall into ? It's not very civilised to throw insults at people who have a different point of view to yourself.

Leonidas BL · 09-04-2020 1:01pm

I think people are being a bit harsh on the Scorpion because it doesn't look good. Lets look at its missions compared to a PC-9 or an L-39.

Scorpion:
Training
ISTAR
Border Security
Maritime Patrol
Close Air Support

PC-9
Training
Close Air Support

L-39 NG
Training
(Open to other suggestions)

It's not going to intercept anything but look at how useful it could be.

Lorddrakul · 09-04-2020 1:12pm

+1 to the earlier suggestion of Saab.

If we could get some second hand Gripens, their robust design, all round capability and general field operation features would easily suit the Irish situation. Plus, there is really only a need for one primary base and an alternate in terms of being able to land and operate.

Shannon has never been too busy to land a military flight when needed. In the mid 90s, I witnessed, from the front of a hangar on the apron, F-16s do a main gear touch down roll before heading off to do a display.

Casement as the primary and Shannon as the alternate would be fine for any fast jet service here.

Plus I'm note sure about having to have so many to operate. Keeping a flight of four operational should not take 16 jets. 12 should be enough for modern, more reliable and robust aircraft. Would it not?

Leonidas BL · 09-04-2020 1:15pm

Lorddrakul wrote: »

+1 to the earlier suggestion of Saab.

If we could get some second hand Gripens, their robust design, all round capability and general field operation features would easily suit the Irish situation. Plus, there is really only a need for one primary base and an alternate in terms of being able to land and operate.

Shannon has never been too busy to land a military flight when needed. In the mid 90s, I witnessed, from the front of a hangar on the apron, F-16s do a main gear touch down roll before heading off to do a display.

Casement as the primary and Shannon as the alternate would be fine for any fast jet service here.

Plus I'm note sure about having to have so many to operate. Keeping a flight of four operational should not take 16 jets. 12 should be enough for modern, more reliable and robust aircraft. Would it not?

Been saying this for years. Its well up to the job and from what I remember, it only needs 500 meters to take off.

jonnybigwallet · 09-04-2020 1:23pm

Cheers Leo. The only thing I disagree with is the point about the Scorpion not looking good. I think it looks terrific and quite menacing.

As for supporting the KA50. With the Spanish Air Force about to purchase a pile of them I am sure we could come to some arrangement with them to help out with support and infrastructure costs. Maybe lease some time on their simulator.

I'm of the opinion that the QRF doesn't need to be 24/7. Could be 16/5 unless there was an emergency. Same as Austria.

Fritzbox · 09-04-2020 1:38pm

The 6000 foot runway at Baldonnell is more than adequate for any QRA role with "fighter jets" - the planes won't be operating at there maximum take-off weights anyway. The Norwegians fly their F-16s from 800 metre runways (just under 2,700 ft)

jonnybigwallet · 09-04-2020 1:46pm

Exactly. And Galway is equally up to the job. Nice to exchange views with somebody who knows how things work and does a bit of research.

Leonidas BL · 09-04-2020 1:46pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Cheers Leo. The only thing I disagree with is the point about the Scorpion not looking good. I think it looks terrific and quite menacing.

As for supporting the KA50. With the Spanish Air Force about to purchase a pile of them I am sure we could come to some arrangement with them to help out with support and infrastructure costs. Maybe lease some time on their simulator.

I'm of the opinion that the QRF doesn't need to be 24/7. Could be 16/5 unless there was an emergency. Same as Austria.

Sorry Jonny, I should've phrased it better. It looks fine but not as sleek and fancy as some of the top of the line stuff. I actually think it liiks quite similar to an f-14

jonnybigwallet · 09-04-2020 2:06pm

That's what I was thinkin meself Leo. Could probably fool auld Jonny Russian from a distance and send him scurryin back to Moscow with his tail between his legs!

09-04-2020 9:46pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I think people are being a bit harsh on the Scorpion because it doesn't look good. Lets look at its missions compared to a PC-9 or an L-39.

Scorpion:
Training
ISTAR
Border Security
Maritime Patrol
Close Air Support

PC-9
Training
Close Air Support

L-39 NG
Training
(Open to other suggestions)

It's not going to intercept anything but look at how useful it could be.

Why is the scorpion so versatile but the l39ng not? It can carry all that the scorpion can

Leonidas BL · 09-04-2020 9:54pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Why is the scorpion so versatile but the l39ng not? It can carry all that the scorpion can

Well as far as I know, the Scorpion was designed as a tactical jet. L-39 is just a trainer.

Psychlops · 09-04-2020 10:01pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

I think people are being a bit harsh on the Scorpion because it doesn't look good. Lets look at its missions compared to a PC-9 or an L-39.

Scorpion:
Training
ISTAR
Border Security
Maritime Patrol
Close Air Support

PC-9
Training
Close Air Support

L-39 NG
Training
(Open to other suggestions)

It's not going to intercept anything but look at how useful it could be.

Or the fact the Scorpion is unproven & untested in Combat so we would effectively yet again become a launch customer.

Leonidas BL · 09-04-2020 10:09pm

Psychlops wrote: »

Or the fact the Scorpion is unproven & untested in Combat so we would effectively yet again become a launch customer.

Well yes, and I did read a couple of thing stating that they were having trouble finding a launch customer.

But Textron themselves reckon its made from proven "off the shelf parts" e.g. the engines from the Learjet. They've even flown it to an airshow in england when the F-35 couldn't make it.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140903-low-cost-fighter-jets-take-off

10-04-2020 2:55am

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Well as far as I know, the Scorpion was designed as a tactical jet. L-39 is just a trainer.

"The Aero L-39NG is a Czech turbofan-powered military trainer and light combat aircraft"

"The L-159 has seen active combat use by the Iraqi Air Force against ISIS"

The l39 is also already in use and we know exactly what it can carry. Scorpion is still a bit vague in the brochure

Larbre34 · 10-04-2020 12:44pm

All of that is pointless.

We don't need light strike, we don't need ground attack, we don't need subsonic, we don't need air superiority fighters.

We need interceptors to protect the airspace, challenge incursions, shadow bombers and recon aircraft and provide escorts and /or aerial inspection to civilian aircraft that may be in difficulty one way or another.

While I'd love the idea of a Gripen squadron on dry lease, realistically the F-16 platform is ideal for our needs.

donvito99 · 10-04-2020 5:14pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

We need interceptors to protect the airspace, challenge incursions, shadow bombers and recon aircraft and provide escorts and /or aerial inspection to civilian aircraft that may be in difficulty one way or another.

We don't. We really, really don't.

Manic Moran · 10-04-2020 8:15pm

In the meantime, in a demonstration as to what's possible within a private budget, a chap named Don Kirlin has just bought 46 fully functional F/A-18 Hornets. He already owns ten Hawks, six L-39s and two MiG-29s.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets

ohnonotgmail · 10-04-2020 8:24pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, in a demonstration as to what's possible within a private budget, a chap named Don Kirlin has just bought 46 fully functional F/A-18 Hornets. He already owns ten Hawks, six L-39s and two MiG-29s.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets

well its not like he bought them to fly for jollies. The DoD must be paying him good money to play opfor

11-04-2020 2:41am

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, in a demonstration as to what's possible within a private budget, a chap named Don Kirlin has just bought 46 fully functional F/A-18 Hornets. He already owns ten Hawks, six L-39s and two MiG-29s.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets

What? 6 L39s you say?

11-04-2020 2:43am

Larbre34 wrote: »

All of that is pointless.

We don't need light strike, we don't need ground attack, we don't need subsonic, we don't need air superiority fighters.

We need interceptors to protect the airspace, challenge incursions, shadow bombers and recon aircraft and provide escorts and /or aerial inspection to civilian aircraft that may be in difficulty one way or another.

While I'd love the idea of a Gripen squadron on dry lease, realistically the F-16 platform is ideal for our needs.

Ok, well I guess we may as well just retire the air Corp completely because you won't be getting 30 million plus machines.

Fritzbox · 11-04-2020 7:48am

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, in a demonstration as to what's possible within a private budget, a chap named Don Kirlin has just bought 46 fully functional F/A-18 Hornets. He already owns ten Hawks, six L-39s and two MiG-29s.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets

So he has a bigger air force than many NATO countries?

Lorddrakul · 11-04-2020 11:19am

Fritzbox wrote: »

So he has a bigger air force than many NATO countries?

From the same outlet, I was reading about a private company that has bought a load of old Mirage 2000, and the like, and they have reconditioned them to be an aggressor squadron for hire!

donvito99 · 11-04-2020 1:06pm

This might actually be a rare justification for the AC to acquire fast jets - acting as aggressors for the air forces who have a reason to maintain a fleet of fast jets and being paid handsomely for it.

Larbre34 · 11-04-2020 5:56pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Ok, well I guess we may as well just retire the air Corp completely because you won't be getting 30 million plus machines.

I ain't buying.

Why would we retire the Air Corps, it fulfills all sorts of military and ACP tasks with the aircraft it does have?

donvito99 · 11-04-2020 6:29pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

I ain't buying.

Why would we retire the Air Corps, it fulfills all sorts of military and ACP tasks with the aircraft it does have?

Very few military tasks are fulfilled TBH. It's telling that the general public doesn't have any major issues with the Air Corps' resourcing.

What does the Air Corps actually do, other than retaining certain expertise and organisation within the State rather than private sector? It aids the civil power/authority for sure, but can't private operators do that? Feel free to take apart of add to if you wish.

* Maritime SAR is now provided by a private contractor when once this was the Air Corp's baby.

* A single air ambulance representing the AC's only satellite flying operation. This kind of service is overwhelmingly provided by non-military the world over.

* Aircraft for the police (paid for by the DoJ). Again, routinely operated by non-military the world over (i.e. by police forces themselves or private operators).

* Maritime patrol. This is more a coastguard rather than military tasking but represents the closest thing we have to a sophisticated military asset (i.e. if we spent a bit more on the C295s we might have a useful ASuW capability). Once the Pc12s arrive, that will be are most obvious military asset.

* A limited ability to transport, over a short distance, small numbers of personnel/cargo. No strategic or tactical transport capability (although the latter may be possible with existing equipment).

* VIP/MATS. A conventional tasking for any military's air component.

* A rotary wing that cannot be deployed usefully overseas and only performs limited, scheduled tasks at home (e.g. transporting ballot boxed to islands). Maintains certain military skills like underslung loads, troop transport, etc.

* Generally, the AC offers pilots trained to a high standard who step down to transport type aircraft rather than stepping up to fast jets that we don't have and don't need based on our current threat environment and political leaning.

The ingredients are there for a recognisable military air component but we just don't have one at present. For the least amount of expenditure, the most we could do in the short to medium term (excl. the PC12s and their potential capabilities at home and abroad) might be:

* Maritime SAR again. The DoT pays the DoD circa €60m a year (what we pay CHC helicopters). It wouldn't cost the AC €60m to operate annually after the initial costs of set up so the balance could be used to invest in the AC or Defence Forces as a whole for a net zero effect on the exchequer. It would require the use of all 6 AW139s (CHC make do with 5 S92s). Would require an enormous number of pilots and technicians based on what the AC can muster now e.g. having to scramble to find pilots to crew the ambulance in Athlone. If they got this going there would be a great deal more flying for the AC and greater economies which might allow for additional taskings to be adopted more easily in future. For example, with the expertise of operating 4 simultaneous 24/7 helicopters away from base, it should be easier to deploy overseas (with the right equipment).

* Light tactical transport using the C295/refurbished Casa 235s.

Fritzbox · 11-04-2020 6:47pm

donvito99 wrote: »

* Maritime SAR is now provided by a private contractor when once this was the Air Corp's baby.

* A single air ambulance representing the AC's only satellite flying operation. This kind of service is overwhelmingly provided by non-military the world over.

* Aircraft for the police (paid for by the DoJ). Again, routinely operated by non-military the world over (i.e. by police forces themselves or private operators).

* Maritime patrol. This is more a coastguard rather than military tasking but represents the closest thing we have to a sophisticated military asset (i.e. if we spent a bit more on the C295s we might have a useful ASuW capability).

* A limited ability to transport, over a short distance, small numbers of personnel/cargo. No strategic or tactical transport capability (although the latter may be possible with existing equipment).

* VIP/MATS. A conventional tasking for any military's air component.

* A rotary wing that cannot be deployed usefully overseas and only performs limited, scheduled tasks at home (e.g. transporting ballot boxed to islands). Maintains certain military skills like underslung loads, troop transport, etc.

* Genreally, the AC offers pilots trained to a high standard who step down to transport type aircraft rather than stepping up to fast jets that we don't have and don't need based on our current threat environment and political leaning.

This list you have given actually provides all the reasons we need to support the funding of a military air arm for Ireland. Was that the opposite effect from your intention?

donvito99 · 11-04-2020 6:53pm

Fritzbox wrote: »

This list you have given actually provides all the reasons we need to support the funding of a military air arm for Ireland. Was that the opposite effect from your intention?

Well the point I'm making is that, like maritime SAR, we could contract most things the Air Corps does at present to private contractors.

After that, the whole point of the Air Corps seems to me to be retaining skills for things we might want to do as a State in future.

I'm not arguing against a military air arm. I was responding to a suggestion that the AC does a lot of "military taskings" which it doesn't, and if it does only in a token way.

Fritzbox · 11-04-2020 7:00pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Well the point I'm making is that, like maritime SAR, we could contract most things the Air Corps does at present to private contractors.

After that, the whole point of the Air Corps seems to me to be retaining skills for things we might want to do as a State in future.

I'm not arguing against a military air arm. I was responding to a suggestion that the AC does a lot of "military taskings" which it doesn't, and if it does only in a token way.

Well OK, but let's not forget that the Air Corps only carries out many of its functions in a "token way" only be because it is funded in a "token way". But most of these functions still have to be funded one way or another, Maritime patrol, army airlift, VIP transport etc, so they might as well be funded as a state-run military organisation as apposed to some private contractor situation.

11-04-2020 8:03pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

I ain't buying.

Why would we retire the Air Corps, it fulfills all sorts of military and ACP tasks with the aircraft it does have?

I wasn't being serious. I was pointing out that just because we can't have the best toys doesn't mean we just don't bother.

At present however they don't perform any military role as they do not have military equipment by and large which brings around again. If the choice is stick with pc9 or purchase fewer l39ng. Would you stick?

punchdrunk · 11-04-2020 11:45pm

The air corps no longer have the skill set for SAR,
It’s a very different type of flying to what they do now, takes years to train up the people and now the majority of the people who did fly SAR are now CHC employees.
You also want to downgrade from a more capable aircraft to a smaller one?
Go from a service where all rear crew are advanced paramedics to what exactly? How many rear crew with medical training are left in the IAC

Would you trust the switch from an organisation who can run 4 bases 24/7/365 to one that can’t maintain a single 24hr base?

donvito99 · 12-04-2020 10:05am

punchdrunk wrote: »

The air corps no longer have the skill set for SAR,
It’s a very different type of flying to what they do now, takes years to train up the people and now the majority of the people who did fly SAR are now CHC employees.
You also want to downgrade from a more capable aircraft to a smaller one?
Go from a service where all rear crew are advanced paramedics to what exactly? How many rear crew with medical training are left in the IAC

Would you trust the switch from an organisation who can run 4 bases 24/7/365 to one that can’t maintain a single 24hr base?

Well for €60m extra per year you'd think the AC would be able to do it with a couple of years as a build up? And as far as I understand, the AC have always continued winching ops so what skills have been lost exactly? It's hardly an enormous downgrade - they have a near identical range and the S92 only carries a handful of extra passengers.

roadmaster · 12-04-2020 12:12pm

punchdrunk wrote: »

The air corps no longer have the skill set for SAR,
It’s a very different type of flying to what they do now, takes years to train up the people and now the majority of the people who did fly SAR are now CHC employees.
You also want to downgrade from a more capable aircraft to a smaller one?
Go from a service where all rear crew are advanced paramedics to what exactly? How many rear crew with medical training are left in the IAC

Would you trust the switch from an organisation who can run 4 bases 24/7/365 to one that can’t maintain a single 24hr base?

I would very much trust the air corps if they were given the proper funding and assets. They did a good job for nearly 40 years with the alouttes and look at the excellent job they do with 112.

I use to be a fan of privatisation but the more I reflect on it the more I believe core assets and activities should remind in state control

punchdrunk · 12-04-2020 2:00pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Well for €60m extra per year you'd think the AC would be able to do it with a couple of years as a build up? And as far as I understand, the AC have always continued winching ops so what skills have been lost exactly? It's hardly an enormous downgrade - they have a near identical range and the S92 only carries a handful of extra passengers.

They’ve kept a token winching regime at best (not knocking the lads- their hands are tied)
When was the last night they went out in ****e weather at night and did deck winching?
Who was the last person in the Don to actually fly a SAR mission?
Why would you sacrifice 1000’s of hours of actual SAR experience for what are in reality novices?
Sure the only people who’ve ever had combat flying experience are in the Coastguard!

The 139 isn’t as capable- that’s a fact, why else would the UK station the S-92’s at the bases that deal with the toughest conditions? 189’s cover the less intense areas- and even these are an larger machine than ours so how would the 139 fair in an Atlantic storm off the west coast?

Ask anyone who’s operated in both and they’ll tell you the full height cabin and tail ramp are huge benefits for working on patients

I’m sorry lads but it’s the wrong chopper in an organisation who’ve not got the necessary skills anymore?

that’s not even starting on the issue of manpower!

Lorddrakul · 12-04-2020 4:30pm

For a little bit of context from the earlier part of the discussion, here's a Hornet taking off from a road:

https://twitter.com/ron_eisele/status/1249358441262600192

Manic Moran · 12-04-2020 5:04pm

Fritzbox wrote: »

Well OK, but let's not forget that the Air Corps only carries out many of its functions in a "token way" only be because it is funded in a "token way". But most of these functions still have to be funded one way or another, Maritime patrol, army airlift, VIP transport etc, so they might as well be funded as a state-run military organisation as apposed to some private contractor situation.

I think he has a point, though. The purpose of a military organisation is combat. If they're not actually pulling triggers, they are supporting those who do.

These are two Aer Corpsmen doing tactics training.

How many of the Air Corps' roles require spending money and time on teaching its personnel the care and feeding of the FN-MAG, and its tactical use? AW139 Door gunners? Fantastic. CASA crews? Not so much. GASU pilots? Barring ideas of Blue Thunder... don't see it. Air Ambulance? Are they sending the helos into hot LZs in Tallaght which require securing a perimeter?

Military training, fundamentally, is expensive compared to many other forms of training. Oftentimes the ancillary benefits afforded to servicemen are also expensive.

There's a difference between taking a military asset and putting it to civilian use when there's nothing better to be doing with it, and taking what is normally a civilian asset and painting it green and teaching the guy operating it how to use a gun which will never be used. Is it economically sensible to have the air corps have assets which perform an exclusively non-military role?

punchdrunk · 12-04-2020 5:28pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think he has a point, though. The purpose of a military organisation is combat. If they're not actually pulling triggers, they are supporting those who do.

These are two Aer Corpsmen doing tactics training.

How many of the Air Corps' roles require spending money and time on teaching its personnel the care and feeding of the FN-MAG, and its tactical use? AW139 Door gunners? Fantastic. CASA crews? Not so much. GASU pilots? Barring ideas of Blue Thunder... don't see it. Air Ambulance? Are they sending the helos into hot LZs in Tallaght which require securing a perimeter?

Military training, fundamentally, is expensive compared to many other forms of training. Oftentimes the ancillary benefits afforded to servicemen are also expensive.

There's a difference between taking a military asset and putting it to civilian use when there's nothing better to be doing with it, and taking what is normally a civilian asset and painting it green and teaching the guy operating it how to use a gun which will never be used. Is it economically sensible to have the air corps have assets which perform an exclusively non-military role?

100% agree

Larbre34 · 12-04-2020 6:19pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I wasn't being serious. I was pointing out that just because we can't have the best toys doesn't mean we just don't bother.

At present however they don't perform any military role as they do not have military equipment by and large which brings around again. If the choice is stick with pc9 or purchase fewer l39ng. Would you stick?

Yes I would. Absolutely no sense spending the differential cost for little extra capability. It'd be the contemporary equivalent of the Fougas.

And to respond to other posts, the point of a military is not just combat. In fact its a tiny part. Discipline, resourcefulness, structure, flexibility, crisis response, asset management, specialism, resilience. All important in the combined military of a sovereign state.

Manic Moran · 13-04-2020 5:32pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

And to respond to other posts, the point of a military is not just combat. Discipline, resourcefulness, structure, flexibility, crisis response, asset management, specialism, resilience. All important in the combined military of a sovereign state.

Yes. For combat. It is the end purpose for which those traits are trained and emphasised.

Many of those traits are also useful in non-combat organisations, such as the Gardai. Is it necessary for Gardai to go into the field and learn Section-in-Attack with assault rifles whilst they are being trained in discipline, crisis response, resilience etc?

Heraldoffreeent · 13-04-2020 5:41pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is it necessary for Gardai to go into the field and learn Section-in-Attack with assault rifles whilst they are being trained in discipline, crisis response, resilience etc?

Depends where they're being stationed, if its Drogheda, Finglas, Limerick, Blanch or Coolock it would probably be a benefit!!!!

Larbre34 · 19-04-2020 1:03am

It is being reported on Twitter that Cityjet have donated a 20 year old Avro RJ85 civilian jet to the Defence Forces for training purposes.

The aircraft has been delivered to Casement Aerodrome and will apparently be used by the Army Ranger Wing for anti-terrorist scenario training, presumably never to fly again.

Personally, I'd keep her airborne as a passenger aircraft until this crisis is over. Having a 90 seater at the disposal of the DF for personnel transport and ATCP tasks with a 3,500 km range would be no bad thing.

shaveAbullock · 19-04-2020 1:16am

After a member of of the air corps has completed training what is the be most important military role that they could then be assigned to?

Heraldoffreeent · 19-04-2020 2:43am

shaveAbullock wrote: »

After a member of of the air corps has completed training what is the be most important military role that they could then be assigned to?

Groundpounding in the Leb.

shaveAbullock · 19-04-2020 3:07am

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Groundpounding in the Leb.

Why not spend the money it costs to run the Air Corps on one of the other underfunded areas of the defense forces. Any funding or training that does not benefit the defense forces operations is a complete waste isn't it?

kravmaga · 19-04-2020 6:24am

Id agree with another poster that the former Cityjet aircraft should be maintained by Air Corps and kept in flight during the current Covid-19 crisis.

A very useful resource to have.

https://flyinginireland.com/2020/04/interim-examiner-appointed-to-cityjet/

Xertz · 19-04-2020 6:30am

We probably should have at least military grade radar that can pick up aircraft without transponders, particularly as we are a major aviation hub and transatlantic control centre and we need to be able to warn civil aviation.

We just don’t take defence seriously and are assuming that we live in a safe location next to the UK, France and with friendly relations towards the USA.

If you consider how nuts US and British politics have become in recent years, not having some independent defensive capability is very short sighted. We seem to spend the lowest in the OECD on defence and we have no NATO membership, so basically we are relying on good will.

I doubt any of that will change and budgets will be tight for the foreseeable future after COVID-19.

donvito99 · 19-04-2020 10:37am

kravmaga wrote: »

Id agree with another poster that the former Cityjet aircraft should be maintained by Air Corps and kept in flight during the current Covid-19 crisis.

A very useful resource to have.

https://flyinginireland.com/2020/04/interim-examiner-appointed-to-cityjet/

I wonder what the cost of making this useful for the AC/the State generally would be, and if the State was tempted to do so considering its 0 cost to them so far? The RAF are due to retire a combi version which was used to ferry pax and cargo around Afghanistan.

https://twitter.com/david58th/status/1251270169407692800

source · 19-04-2020 11:12am

donvito99 wrote: »

I wonder what the cost of making this useful for the AC/the State generally would be, and if the State was tempted to do so considering its 0 cost to them so far? The RAF are due to retire a combi version which was used to ferry pax and cargo around Afghanistan.

https://twitter.com/david58th/status/1251270169407692800

Well its obviously still flying, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too crazy to get it going. Might be a good aircraft for combined troop transport/MATS aircraft. If it doesn't breach the conditions of the donation.

donvito99 · 19-04-2020 11:45am

source wrote: »

If it doesn't breach the conditions of the donation.

I'd say that it's for this reason it won't go.

shaveAbullock · 19-04-2020 1:59pm

Since we are an Island would the money not be better spent on the navy?

NewSigGuy · 19-04-2020 2:52pm

The RJ is an Old and inefficient airliner, the cost to Train Pilots and Techs plus the cost to set up a supply chain of spare parts would be prohibitive, and the aircraft would be of little real use to the DF.

Fortunately to the AC know this and won't waste time and money on this tired old airframe.

If significant funding were to become available for a transport aircraft there are many more suitable airframes on the market.

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments