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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Replacment for Cessna 172

1…5681011…18

Comments

  • #212
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    sparky42 wrote: »
    The 139's and the S92's are completely different animals particularly our civy green ones. They wouldn't be interchangable in what they could offer in terms of SAR, nor would we have enough in the current fleet to support everything else and the SAR birds. We'd have to at least double the airfleet to be able to have the numbers (with the increase manpower), then you get into the larger question of whether it would be the 139 at all or something different given the potential NS requirement at some point as well...

    But if we had the same numbers of pilots and techs, why would we require twice as many aircraft when CHC can make do with one less aircraft? Why couldn't they have the same numbers of crews, or more, with an extra €60m per annum?

    Again, the 139 was selected by CHC in the UK, the HH version is used by the Italians in the military SAR role and the 139 is otherwise found all over the world in the SAR role.

    The S92 might be a larger aircraft (they are hardly "completely different animals", the 139 outperforms the 92 in speed and range and how often is the 92 maxed out for pax?), but my point is that you would have a greater overall capability if these funds were directed to the AC.
    Given you'd have to expand the AC, get air crews and ground crews in multiple stations and the logistical tail having to be significant increased I would seriously question the idea that it would be "net zero" for the Exchequer, not to mention of course any loss of aircraft, R116 had a replacement from CHC's global stock without significant disruption to the service, how long did it take to replace the PC9 we lost?

    Well I think you wouldn't be far off zero. We're talking 60 million quid here, I'd be amazed if the AC were still short of crews after increasing their budget 20 times over.

    The PC9 wasn't providing an essential service, there wasn't the same impetus to replace as there would be for something like SAR.


  • #213
    sparky42
    Registered Users Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭sparky42


    donvito99 wrote: »
    But if we had the same numbers of pilots and techs, why would we require twice as many aircraft when CHC can make do with one less aircraft? Why couldn't they have the same numbers of crews, or more, with an extra €60m per annum?

    Again, the 139 was selected by CHC in the UK, the HH version is used by the Italians in the military SAR role and the 139 is otherwise found all over the world in the SAR role.

    The S92 might be a larger aircraft (they are hardly "completely different animals", the 139 outperforms the 92 in speed and range and how often is the 92 maxed out for pax?), but my point is that you would have a greater overall capability if these funds were directed to the AC.


    Well I think you wouldn't be far off zero. We're talking 60 million quid here, I'd be amazed if the AC were still short of crews after increasing their budget 20 times over.

    The PC9 wasn't providing an essential service, there wasn't the same impetus to replace as there would be for something like SAR.


    Wait are you talking about just using the current 139 fleet for SAR? What do we do for all other duties when at least 4 of the helicopters have to be available 24/7? We'd need at least 5 new ones if not more. And since you are talking about moving to 24/7 (something we don't have for even the EAS currently) in 4 sites that's what 4 or 5 total crews to provide coverage and time off, so straight away that budget increase you are talking about is getting eaten into with increased manpower demands. Also you increase the AC's helicopter personnel that much then the training system needs to be increased as well to provide those aircrews, again eating into the budget.


  • #214
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    sparky42 wrote: »
    Wait are you talking about just using the current 139 fleet for SAR? What do we do for all other duties when at least 4 of the helicopters have to be available 24/7? We'd need at least 5 new ones if not more. And since you are talking about moving to 24/7 (something we don't have for even the EAS currently) in 4 sites that's what 4 or 5 total crews to provide coverage and time off, so straight away that budget increase you are talking about is getting eaten into with increased manpower demands. Also you increase the AC's helicopter personnel that much then the training system needs to be increased as well to provide those aircrews, again eating into the budget.

    Well we have 6 non-military, SAR helicopters that are not deployable and inadequate for most military taskings. They are designed for SAR - not for troop transport or CASEVAC etc - so why not actually do that?

    As a stopgap, you could drop GASU (let them contract CHC?) and buy the two EC135s from the DoJ and you'd have 4 light utility a/c for training as well as aerial firefighting and whatever other non-military sundry tasks the a/c undertakes at the moment.

    And again, you may well be "eating in" to the €60m, but it's a huge pile of money relative to what the AC already spend for operational purposes and ultimately it is €60m worth of people or flying that it would not otherwise have.

    It would also be excellent for the AC as an organisation to be able to maintain and fly aircraft from multiple satellite locations. That's lining them up for future deployments, is it not?

    At the end of the day, there's nothing coming down the line for the AC by way of massive increases in funding. Why shouldn't they offer to do what they used to do and build from there? Once you have a big AW139 operation from 5 locations, it seems to me to be easier to expand that and do proper military taskings, at home and abroad, in future.


  • #215
    zone 1
    Registered Users Posts: 246 ✭✭zone 1


    scrap the aer corps no fault of its own really is gone no role .... loads of civvy companys to drop votes off , dump water on forest fires ,


  • #216
    California Dreamer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


      zone 1 wrote: »
      scrap the aer corps no fault of its own really is gone no role .... loads of civvy companys to drop votes off , dump water on forest fires ,

      Never going to happen but I am more perplexed as to why you would want to troll in a military forum making a statement like that. Is your life that boring at the moment?


    1. Advertisement
    2. #217
      Larbre34
      Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


      zone 1 wrote: »
      scrap the aer corps no fault of its own really is gone no role .... loads of civvy companys to drop votes off , dump water on forest fires ,

      Look what happened when you scrapped your english class.


    3. #218
      Leonidas BL
      Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


      I see the C295 can be equipped with a water bombing kit. I think they should consider it.


    4. #219
      roadmaster
      Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭roadmaster


      Leonidas BL wrote: »
      I see the C295 can be equipped with a water bombing kit. I think they should consider it.

      Only if it is used on Gemma o Doherty and her crew


    5. #220
      sparky42
      Registered Users Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭sparky42


      roadmaster wrote: »
      Only if it is used on Gemma o Doherty and her crew

      Maybe the pc9s should be armed and used?


    6. #221
      Larbre34
      Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


      sparky42 wrote: »
      Maybe the pc9s should be armed and used?

      I like your thinking, but more precise weapons are probably needed. I'm thinking javelin missiles, they have that lovely cartoon whistle as they approach.


    7. Advertisement
    8. #222
      Heraldoffreeent
      Registered Users Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Heraldoffreeent


      sparky42 wrote: »
      Maybe the pc9s should be armed and used?

      Do Pilatus have anything nuclear in the way of missiles for the PC 9?:)


    9. #223
      sparky42
      Registered Users Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭sparky42


      Larbre34 wrote: »
      I like your thinking, but more precise weapons are probably needed. I'm thinking javelin missiles, they have that lovely cartoon whistle as they approach.


      With the added bonus of being American so all the PANA types can get their knickers in a twist over it as well...


    10. #224
      Psychlops
      Registered Users Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭Psychlops


      Another interesting development !


    11. #225
      Sgt. Bilko 09
      Registered Users Posts: 1,464 ✭✭✭Sgt. Bilko 09


      Psychlops wrote: »
      Another interesting development !

      The C-390 embrear was test flown by the aer corp in 2017 and 3 test flights in 2018.

      Most likely option I think, here footage of it leaving baldonnel in in 2017
      https://youtu.be/QGCBAzjAfa8


    12. #226
      sparky42
      Registered Users Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭sparky42


      Sgt. Bilko 09 wrote: »
      The C-390 embrear was test flown by the aer corp in 2017 and 3 test flights in 2018.

      Most likely option I think, here footage of it leaving baldonnel in in 2017
      https://youtu.be/QGCBAzjAfa8


      He's talking about the current glut of civvie airliners due to Covid I think, something like a A320 reconfigured for a transport/cargo would do the job nicely, we've been talking about it over in the other thread. I can't see any attraction to the Embraer, it's still only a few airframes and we don't want to be a launch customer.


    13. #227
      roadmaster
      Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭roadmaster


      sparky42 wrote: »
      He's talking about the current glut of civvie airliners due to Covid I think, something like a A320 reconfigured for a transport/cargo would do the job nicely, we've been talking about it over in the other thread. I can't see any attraction to the Embraer, it's still only a few airframes and we don't want to be a launch customer.

      I would say it would be easy enough to get a320 pilots and techs back in to fly and service the aircraft with the current situation that where once in the air corps


    14. #228
      sparky42
      Registered Users Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭sparky42


      roadmaster wrote: »
      I would say it would be easy enough to get a320 pilots and techs back in to fly and service the aircraft with the current situation that where once in the air corps


      Pretty much, and would give us a significant increase in capability to sustain UN operations without using CASA MPA aircraft to make the difference. Meanwhile the DF want the Government to authorise the use of the Lear Jet to remove two DF troops in the Congo.


    15. #229
      California Dreamer
      Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


      roadmaster wrote: »
      I would say it would be easy enough to get a320 pilots and techs back in to fly and service the aircraft with the current situation that where once in the air corps

      I don't want to start an argument BUT could the same not be said of a Ryanair 737? Same-ish range and ex aer corps pilots.

      Then again if it was cheap, how about one of CityJets CRJ's? Sure its a shorter range but why not explore all options?


    16. #230
      jonnybigwallet
      Registered Users Posts: 1,072 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


      Them PC12's are takin a long time being fitted out in America. Thought they were due to be delivered end of first quarter? I wonder how they will fetch them over here? Fit temporary long range fuel tanks internally?


    17. #231
      California Dreamer
      Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


      jonnybigwallet wrote: »
      Them PC12's are takin a long time being fitted out in America. Thought they were due to be delivered end of first quarter? I wonder how they will fetch them over here? Fit temporary long range fuel tanks internally?

      Or fly them across the US - Canada - Greenland - Iceland - Ireland.

      Its all very doable!


    18. Advertisement
    19. #232
      jonnybigwallet
      Registered Users Posts: 1,072 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


      Could set a new distance flown record for the Air Corps.


    20. #233
      NewSigGuy
      Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭NewSigGuy


      jonnybigwallet wrote: »
      Could set a new distance flown record for the Air Corps.

      No it won't.


    21. #234
      Larbre34
      Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


      jonnybigwallet wrote: »
      Them PC12's are takin a long time being fitted out in America. Thought they were due to be delivered end of first quarter? I wonder how they will fetch them over here? Fit temporary long range fuel tanks internally?

      The reverse of the route they took from Switzerland I would imagine.

      Colorado is just a fit-out, the aircraft were built and flown over from Europe.


    22. #235
      Larbre34
      Registered Users Posts: 23,796 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


      California Dreamer wrote: »
      I don't want to start an argument BUT could the same not be said of a Ryanair 737? Same-ish range and ex aer corps pilots.

      Then again if it was cheap, how about one of CityJets CRJ's? Sure its a shorter range but why not explore all options?

      CRJ would be too small. Any plane considered would need to carry ~100 troops with personal gear, or be stripped out for a cargo supply run and also have transcontinental range.

      Personally I see greater benefit from a modular fit out of a suitable twin jet rather than a prop driven tactical lifter like a Herc. I mean we transport heavy equipment very rarely, whereas a long-range troop transport available at short notice would be of most usefulness.


    23. #236
      sparky42
      Registered Users Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭sparky42


      Looks like the Learjet isn't going to the Congo:
      https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-planning-to-rent-aircraft-to-evacuate-irish-troops-from-congo-1.4253227?mode=amp


    24. #237
      donvito99
      Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


      sparky42 wrote: »
      Looks like the Learjet isn't going to the Congo:
      https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-planning-to-rent-aircraft-to-evacuate-irish-troops-from-congo-1.4253227?mode=amp

      7 refueling stops including 2 overnights... good grief. I imagine the Gulfstream would have made life much easier for the DoD?


    25. #238
      sparky42
      Registered Users Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭sparky42


      **** me, predictable as hell:
      https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/purchase-of-military-jet-could-cost-country-10m-999986.html


    26. #239
      donvito99
      Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


      sparky42 wrote: »
      **** me, predictable as hell:
      https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/purchase-of-military-jet-could-cost-country-10m-999986.html

      The Mirage... famously a cargo aircraft.
      Ireland is the only country within the European Union that does not own a military cargo plane and relies on deals with other countries when one is needed.

      Well that's not true at all.


    27. #240
      sparky42
      Registered Users Posts: 3,866 ✭✭✭sparky42


      donvito99 wrote: »
      The Mirage... famously a cargo aircraft.
      Suppose they could argue weapons are cargo, but yeah...
      Also the Sunday Business Post has the same article but with a picture of a C130 and the caption is the government is considering one of them. Unless someone has dropped a zero, you aren't buying a flyable C130 for 10 million of any currency...


    28. Advertisement
    29. #241
      donvito99
      Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


      If we don't count the CASAs as military cargo aircraft, is it true that we are the only EU country without such an aircraft? The likes of Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia etc haven't got anything en par with or more capable than a CASA. I wonder who fed them that line.


    Advertisement