Apaches over the Curragh

sparky42

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Well whatever you think. But this shinner believes that the Irish DF's deserve better than Flanagan and that gobshyte Shatta' before.

That's great, maybe you shinner could figure out whose actually the Minister for Defence, here's a hint it's not either of those:rolleyes:.

And yes Gerry and co, would happily gut the Defence Forces, I'm waiting to see the knots they tie themselves up in next year to avoid admitting that their little "thugs" were never Óglaigh na hEireann

sparky42

cruasder777 wrote: »

A British soldier in 2004 is unrecognisable from his 2015 counterpart, you really don't have a clue what you are on about.

The SA80 A2 is a totally re-designed weapon, the worlds most expensive assault rife, with Picatinny Quad-rails and even a laser light module.

In terms of personal issue kit, head cams, where soldiers are in direct communication with section commanders and HQ is now standard. Sections have Black Hornet, nano-drones which rely images directly back.

GPS, helmet displays, wrist-mounted displays, hand-held computers etc.

If anything the British army personal kit is light years ahead of practically everyone. Afghanistan has helped develop it rapidly.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fist/

Second pretty much to the yanks and more than well ahead of us across the board in tech.

pablomakaveli

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I never......fancy that.......soldiers complaining - now there's something you don't see every day.

......and senior commanders playing at politics - I wonder if that's the first recorded instance of that happening.

.....and you know in all my years of studying various archival sources I've yet to come across a communication between a commander and a superior HQ where the subordinate says something like "all grand here. We have everything we need, and all our kit is brilliant" - or "no need to bother with those extra troops / equipment / air support / resources you were going to send us. We have enough." - three words no commander said, ever, in the history of warfare :rolleyes:

As the saying goes if a soldier isn't complaining he's probably dead.:D

skooterblue2

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

"A devastating report into the Afghanistan war has concluded that the British task force sent into Helmand was ill-equipped, under-resourced and too weak to defeat the Taliban. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8642525/Armed-Forces-too-weak-to-defeat-the-Taliban.html

The Telegraph? Firstly No one in 150 years has gone into Afghanistan and not been happy just to get out alive. The whole terrain conspires against the invading force. The valleys are too narrow for tanks, the rotar blades make pebbles fly up and destroy the Carbon fibre rotar blades, the air intakes suck in sand into the engines. Very soon the only advantage over there is knowledge of the terrain. You get drawn nto an Ambush where they are waiting for you.

You would think the British would have learned this the second time around.

MrConservative

Jawgap wrote: »

.......and despite all that they are only one of two air forces in the world with a credible expeditionary capability......

Though smaller in size the RAAF has a very potent and credible air expeditionary capability as well - synergetic with all USPACOM tempos and air warfare doctrines. Growlers, Shornets, Legacy Hornets, Wedgetails, C-17s, 130Js, MRTT's with JSF, P-8, Triton, 27J's et al soon to follow.

Cheers MrC

ChicagoJoe

Jawgap wrote: »

.......and despite all that they are only one of two air forces in the world with a credible expeditionary capability......

By the two I presume you mean the USAF and RAF - seriously :eek: Are you trying to tell me that that the Chinese, Russians, emerging super power India, France, Germany, Japan and probably Israel, Iran, North Korea haven't got what you call a " a credible expeditionary capability" air force !!!!

The Brit fan boys are always worth a laugh around here I'll give them that

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I never......fancy that.......soldiers complaining - now there's something you don't see every day.

......and senior commanders playing at politics - I wonder if that's the first recorded instance of that happening.

.....and you know in all my years of studying various archival sources I've yet to come across a communication between a commander and a superior HQ where the subordinate says something like "all grand here. We have everything we need, and all our kit is brilliant" - or "no need to bother with those extra troops / equipment / air support / resources you were going to send us. We have enough." - three words no commander said, ever, in the history of warfare :rolleyes:

Moan, bitch, moan, most soldiers just get on with the job, the Brits moan, the usual "lions led by donkeys....the enemy wouldn't fight the way we wanted them to blah, blah, blah". It seems to be ingrained in the Brit military mind somehow that they are some sort of super power of some kind and continually over estimate their ability and resources like our arrse.co.uk fan boys on here. And of course America once again has to come to the rescue. AFAIC, American and other coalition forces should consider them a liability and say next time “thanks guys – but no thanks”.

ChicagoJoe

cruasder777 wrote: »

A British soldier in 2004 is unrecognisable from his 2015 counterpart, you really don't have a clue what you are on about.

The SA80 A2 is a totally re-designed weapon, the worlds most expensive assault rife, with Picatinny Quad-rails and even a laser light module.

In terms of personal issue kit, head cams, where soldiers are in direct communication with section commanders and HQ is now standard. Sections have Black Hornet, nano-drones which rely images directly back.

The SA80 A2 is the world's most expensive assault rife - really :eek: I've searched but cannot find anything to back it up, but I'm sure you can

GPS, helmet displays, wrist-mounted displays, hand-held computers etc.

If anything the British army personal kit is light years ahead of practically everyone. Afghanistan has helped develop it rapidly.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fist/

GPS, helmet displays, wrist-mounted displays, hand-held computers - every day gadgets your average teenager has, of which you had to copy from the good old USA forces. But it's a wonder they have any money left after paying out for the the world's most expensive assault rife the SA80 A2 !!!! Re-engineered by German's Heckler & Koch I believe

skooterblue2

Chinese: too busy waiting on America to turn up with IOUs
Russians: Got the oil and Gas ... dont go there bambi
India: Too smart to get caught up in the crazy stuff
France : ? After Viet Nam..... Dont think so
Germany: Dont go there Bambi
Japan : Ditto
Israel, better for small scale stuff like ring and run
Iran : got motive and men but not the technology
North Korea : and what army?

Ever heard the story about the RA boys who went to North Korea and were kicked out for being too fat to fight? the Koreans thought they were soft and poor disciplined. hilarious bed time story.

ChicagoJoe

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Chinese: too busy waiting on America to turn up with IOUs
Russians: Got the oil and Gas ... dont go there bambi
India: Too smart to get caught up in the crazy stuff
France : ? After Viet Nam..... Dont think so
Germany: Dont go there Bambi
Japan : Ditto
Israel, better for small scale stuff like ring and run
Iran : got motive and men but not the technology
North Korea : and what army?

:eek: So what your trying to say is, the RAF is the world's leading air force !!!!!

Ever heard the story about the RA boys who went to North Korea and were kicked out for being too fat to fight? the Koreans thought they were soft and poor disciplined. hilarious bed time story.

Why does the IRA always have to be mentioned in any post by the assho1es from arrse.co.uk !!! If they were that easy of a push over, what does it say about the Brits who couldn't defeat them despite trying for 25 years

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

By the two I presume you mean the USAF and RAF - seriously :eek: Are you trying to tell me that that the Chinese, Russians, emerging super power India, France, Germany, Japan and probably Israel, Iran, North Korea haven't got what you call a " a credible expeditionary capability" air force !!!!

The Brit fan boys are always worth a laugh around here I'll give them that
.

Well, with the exception of India none of the countries listed has a carrier battle group capability - the Indians are closest to developing that capability. The Chinese and Russians haven't projected carrier borne air power beyond the littoral.

North Korea!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Moan, bitch, moan, most soldiers just get on with the job, the Brits moan, the usual "lions led by donkeys....the enemy wouldn't fight the way we wanted them to blah, blah, blah". It seems to be ingrained in the Brit military mind somehow that they are some sort of super power of some kind and continually over estimate their ability and resources like our arrse.co.uk fan boys on here. And of course America once again has to come to the rescue. AFAIC, American and other coalition forces should consider them a liability and say next time “thanks guys – but no thanks”.

Soldiers complain, and moan - if they're not too hot, their cold or they're hungry or they've not got enough gear or they've got too much gear.......

ChicagoJoe

MrConservative wrote: »

Though smaller in size the RAAF has a very potent and credible air expeditionary capability as well - synergetic with all USPACOM tempos and air warfare doctrines. Growlers, Shornets, Legacy Hornets, Wedgetails, C-17s, 130Js, MRTT's with JSF, P-8, Triton, 27J's et al soon to follow.

Cheers MrC

Yeah, the Aussies have a fair ability and some serious air force. Capable lads the Aussies.

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

:eek: So what your trying to say is, the RAF is the world's leading air force !!!!!

Not the world's leading Air Force - no one suggested that. But they have capacities and capabilities few other air forces do......including all the ones you rhymed off.

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Yeah, the Aussies have a fair ability and some serious air force. Capable lads the Aussies.

They are, but if you compare their operational tempo with the RAF and the USAF you'll see they're not in the same class.

They'd be good and every bit as good as the Canadians, and French.

The interesting one, which I'm surprised you haven't mentioned to be honest, is the Japanese - massive latent capacity there if they ever chose to go on that direction.

skooterblue2

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Why does the IRA always have to be mentioned in any post by the assho1es from arrse.co.uk !!! If they were that easy of a push over, what does it say about the Brits who couldn't defeat them despite trying for 25 years

Maybe .. who knows ... you never found "the fisherman" did you?

But you still got deported from North Korea.... by the North Koreans....

As for the Video? Why do you think that general said that? He was march up before Thatcher in the morning and asked how much more resouces he would need. Win Win......

Fratton Fred

I think it would be fair to say Chicago Joe (who has a very similar posting style to McArmalite) is the epitome of the term "keyboard warrior".

Kat1170

Jawgap wrote: »

Soldiers complain, and moan - if they're not too hot, their cold or they're hungry or they've not got enough gear or they've got too much gear.......

Only two things soldiers are entitled to ......
1. Draw the little red book
2. Complain

Everything else is at your C/O's discretion :cool:;)

skooterblue2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think it would be fair to say Chicago Joe (who has a very similar posting style to McArmalite) is the epitome of the term "keyboard warrior".

Are you suggesting that Chicago Joe is a baby Shinner or a fireside republican?
whos highlight of his military carrer is beating up informer granny and knee capping junkies, washing red diesel and getting his mammy to knit him a balaclava for the cold winter nights on the bog side? Tiochfadh ar Lá

MrConservative

Jawgap wrote: »

They are, but if you compare their operational tempo with the RAF and the USAF you'll see they're not in the same class.

They'd be good and every bit as good as the Canadians, and French.

The interesting one, which I'm surprised you haven't mentioned to be honest, is the Japanese - massive latent capacity there if they ever chose to go on that direction.

The same class but a smaller class is the distinction I would make. The Canucks have not invested anywhere like the Aussies over the last decade and are not stumping up as much as the Aussies over the next.

sparky42

MrConservative wrote: »

The same class but a smaller class is the distinction I would make. The Canucks have not invested anywhere like the Aussies over the last decade and are not stumping up as much as the Aussies over the next.

That's true, the Canucks have a range of issues coming down the track for their military (both Air Force and Navy), the Aussies are in a better position but their future spending is going to be hard as well (particularly if China continues slowing), here's hoping they don't cock up the replacement sub project as the Collins has been.

Markcheese

MrConservative wrote: »

The same class but a smaller class is the distinction I would make. The Canucks have not invested anywhere like the Aussies over the last decade and are not stumping up as much as the Aussies over the next.

Aussies are very aware that they're a lowly populated resource rich country with some very populous neighbours ...(many of whom are a lot closer to Aussie wealth than most Aussie cities are- )
So their airforce is based very far south but with forward operating fields in Northern Territory - their navy is focused north but based in the south - they're very aware that they're a long way from anywhere and help is also a long way off -
We're in a different position -small and not resource rich , on the far side of an influential neighbour , we're surrounded by friends and economic partners - there's no point in spending loads on expensive toys - and spending large on those toys could destabilize our nation and conversely make us more of a target - We possibly could do with spending more on kit for the military and policing but not really the flashy big ticket items .

MrConservative

Markcheese wrote: »

We possibly could do with spending more on kit for the military and policing but not really the flashy big ticket items .

Sealift and Air Transport to independently self deploy whether it be HADR ops or under a UNSC mandate and more Maritime ISR. The 3 fundamental things that are missing in my view. The ISR element I would put at the top of the list frankly considering your exposed geographic position and size of EEZ. Big ticket items but not flashy.

Markcheese

What's ISR - ?
Can't imagine many big purchases for the navy for the foreseeable future after the last of the three new ships arrive- -

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

What's ISR - ?
Can't imagine many big purchases for the navy for the foreseeable future after the last of the three new ships arrive- -

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ie more CASA MPA's)

What the Navy had already ogt isn't going to be relevant, it's the age of the fleet, Eithne is over 30 years old, the Peacock's are just under 30 years old but would be over it if we started a bidding process right now before replacement. If you go with the Snip recommendations (ie 35 years) Eithne is coming due for replacement and the Peacocks aren't far behind. Consider that the 20's all had to have repair works done in the last few years due to hull fatigue, how long before Eithne starts showing her age...?

Silvera

sparky42 wrote: »

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ie more CASA MPA's)

I agree, 2 x CASA's isnt enough when you consider the (AOR) area of operations and range of tasks allocated to Maritime Squadron.

I believe serious consideration should be given to purchasing a larger multi-role aircraft to expand our AOR...especially considering Ireland's expanded/claimed sea-area. For example, a multi-role CASA 295 ...which could be set up for maritime patrols, (troop+) transport, VIP or Medavac operations as required.

Indeed, would a CASA CN235 (or 295) MPA 'shadowing' a Russian 'Bear' be a feasible way of showing that our airspace is of importance to us?

cameramonkey

Silvera wrote: »

I agree, 2 x CASA's isnt enough when you consider the (AOR) area of operations and range of tasks allocated to Maritime Squadron.

I believe serious consideration should be give to purchasing a larger multi-role aircraft to expand our AOR...especially considering Ireland's expanded/claimed sea-area. For example, a multi-role CASA 295 ...which could be set up for maritime patrols, (troop+) transport, VIP or Medavac operations as required.

Indeed, would a CASA CN235 (or 295) MPA 'shadowing' a Russian 'Bear' be a feasible way of showing that airspace is of importance to us?

TU-95 bear
Top speed: 925 km/h

Cruise speed: 710 km/h

Casa 235
maximum cruise speed of 455 km/hr

sparky42

Silvera wrote: »

I agree, 2 x CASA's isnt enough when you consider the (AOR) area of operations and range of tasks allocated to Maritime Squadron.

I believe serious consideration should be give to purchasing a larger multi-role aircraft to expand our AOR...especially considering Ireland's expanded/claimed sea-area. For example, a multi-role CASA 295 ...which could be set up for maritime patrols, (troop+) transport, VIP or Medavac operations as required.

Indeed, would a CASA CN235 (or 295) MPA 'shadowing' a Russian 'Bear' be a feasible way of showing that airspace is of importance to us?

As Cameramonkey has shown that's not really an option, you'd need to invest in fast jets to be able to do that effectively. On the other hand I'd go for you option of more MPA,Troop Transport etc to strengthen the Air Corps first if there were budget options to allow growth.

Markcheese

How much would another casa cost ? And what could you carry with it ? - about 15 to 20 troops and their packs ?
Would it get even get used though ?
I think the air-corp are angling for a replacement for the cessnas -

sparky42

Markcheese wrote: »

How much would another casa cost ? And what could you carry with it ? - about 15 to 20 troops and their packs ?
Would it get even get used though ?
I think the air-corp are angling for a replacement for the cessnas -

The larger 295 variant is only $28 million, it can carry up to 71 troops, the 235 can carry 51 troops.
That's on their list alright.

MrConservative

sparky42 wrote: »

The larger 295 variant is only $28 million, it can carry up to 71 troops, the 235 can carry 51 troops.
That's on their list alright.

The C-295M is a great aircraft but problem for Ireland with the C-295M is that its forte is either as an "in theatre" asset or local support asset. The Irish Republic is relatively small in the geographic sense (actually not that much larger than Tasmania) thus domestically moving its modest load max of material or 50 odd full kit troops is easier/more economic if it is trucked / bused. Irelands capability gap with respect to air mobility is the need to conduct - tactical sized loads to support overseas DF deployments/missions of platoon sized through to company group size elements - over strategic distances. The weight - volume - range - speed - tempo matrix wont cover the tasking spectrum in the deacdes ahead for Ireland. The C-295 makes perfect sense if you are the size of France or Australia for internal air movements or the terminus link of a C-17 strategic logistics flow, but not in my view the ideal solution for Ireland. Maybe the forthcoming C-390 could fit the bill?

Cheers MrC

sparky42

MrConservative wrote: »

The C-295M is a great aircraft but problem for Ireland with the C-295M is that its forte is either as an "in theatre" asset or local support asset. The Irish Republic is relatively small in the geographic sense (actually not that much larger than Tasmania) thus domestically moving its modest load max of material or 50 odd full kit troops is easier/more economic if it is trucked / bused. Irelands capability gap with respect to air mobility is the need to conduct - tactical sized loads to support overseas DF deployments/missions of platoon sized through to company group size elements - over strategic distances. The weight - volume - range - speed - tempo matrix wont cover the tasking spectrum in the deacdes ahead for Ireland. The C-295 makes perfect sense if you are the size of France or Australia for internal air movements or the terminus link of a C-17 strategic logistics flow, but not in my view the ideal solution for Ireland. Maybe the forthcoming C-390 could fit the bill?

Cheers MrC

The C 390, will however be nearly twice the cost ($50 million) and also means that we'd have a new supply chain (for what 1/2 aircraft?), training requirements etc (so more than just the sticker price), while the 295 could use the most of the same supply chain/training of the current aircraft. Something with larger capacity would be ideal, but that's the enemy of good enough, I'd rather have 1/2 295's and the capacity to provide insitu airlift (say for allied operations), along with being capable for MPA, domestic airlift etc than have one large capacity airframe that's outsized for much of current operations. If we stood up something like a disaster response capability something like the 390 could be argued for, for rapid deployment (something I think we should have looked at before now).

Silvera

How about 2 x multi-role CN235's to supplement our current CN235's?

The U.S. Coast Guard chose the multi-role variant of the CN235 (albeit designated under a different name) for the fleet replacement/expansion programme. (Indeed the Air Corps flew one of their CN235's to the U.S some years back in order for the U.S.C.G to evaluate the type).

NewSigGuy

Silvera wrote: »

How about 2 x multi-role CN235's to supplement our current CN235's?

The U.S. Coast Guard chose the multi-role variant of the CN235 (albeit designated under a different name) for the fleet replacement/expansion programme. (Indeed the Air Corps flew one of their CN235's to the U.S some years back in order for the U.S.C.G to evaluate the type).

The USCG may have bought around 20 CN-235's but in reality the aircraft were foisted on them by the nature of the procurement process. They were offered by all three bidders in the "Deepwater" programme. This was a winner takes all programme including Ships, Helicopters and an Integrated command and control system. The USCG wanted the C-27J, but none of the bidders offered that aircraft as it would have pushed the total programme cost up to much.

They have now truncated the CN-235 purchase because they have had been given the opportunity to take the surplus C-27J's from the Air Force.

IMHO something bigger then the CN-235/C-295 is required to provide a baseline Air Transport capability.

sparky42

NewSigGuy wrote: »

IMHO something bigger then the CN-235/C-295 is required to provide a baseline Air Transport capability.

We don't have the capability right now, leveraging off the current hardware (either 235/295) and start using it, either to support UN ops (like along the lines of a Chad type mission), or for just building the institutional knowledge that we don't have right now.

NewSigGuy

sparky42 wrote: »

We don't have the capability right now, leveraging off the current hardware (either 235/295) and start using it, either to support UN ops (like along the lines of a Chad type mission), or for just building the institutional knowledge that we don't have right now.

I think providing intra-theatre airlift via a CN-235 would be a huge step forward, but operating and supporting an aircraft in Chad(for example) would be a huge undertaking, that may be more difficult then providing airlift into and out of a theatre.

MrConservative

sparky42 wrote: »

We don't have the capability right now, leveraging off the current hardware (either 235/295) and start using it, either to support UN ops (like along the lines of a Chad type mission), or for just building the institutional knowledge that we don't have right now.

You have to start somewhere Sparky and without starting it just does not magically appear. Go get the institutional knowledge. Start exchange programs and if you are not politically comfortable with the US or UK go to NZ or Norway. In fact those 2 countries are ideal. Small defences forces that have small but appropriate UN Chp VI / VII & HADR orientated air mobility requirements - tactical loads (mostly sub battalion support) strategic distances (Dublin - Chad / Auckland - Timor Leste). C-390/C-130 anything smaller is inappropriate and a waste of money.

sparky42

MrConservative wrote: »

You have to start somewhere Sparky and without starting it just does not magically appear. Go get the institutional knowledge. Start exchange programs and if you are not politically comfortable with the US or UK go to NZ or Norway. In fact those 2 countries are ideal. Small defences forces that have small but appropriate UN Chp VI / VII & HADR orientated air mobility requirements - tactical loads (mostly sub battalion support) strategic distances (Dublin - Chad / Auckland - Timor Leste). C-390/C-130 anything smaller is inappropriate and a waste of money.

NZ is in talks to move to either a C-17 (out of the ten spares) or Airbus is floating the A-400, both vastly outsized for Irish needs. Right now other than airlift in an out of deployments what air based supply chain do we support/pay for for UN missions? Finland (larger population/GDP neutral only operates the 295's without larger support), NZ particularly has their Herc's because of historic investment, given their budgets and the upcoming age out of the P3's it will be interesting to see if they can sustain both a MPA fleet and a transport fleet now.

Why so often on the forums do we jump from "well we don't have that", to "lets have a huge jump forward". 1 C 130J is enough to fund the purchase of 2 295's and again you get into spares/training etc we could probable get 3 for the price of 1, which gets you back to would we rather have 3 options or 1 (take into account maintenance times/usage etc). That could be cheaper if you went for second hand units of course, but then you risk getting burnt that way.

2/3 295's would give us a surge of being able to lift up to 210 in an operation if needed, for maybe the same cost of 1 130 not being able to do the same. It would allow us to be able to support in threate operations if we choose to develop that (something the Nordic Battlegroup might like more than 1 more C 130) while vastly increase the Air Corps current strength. Unless the White Paper was to massively change our future operations/requirements (like I said Disaster Response, humanitarian missions, and UN missions) a C 130 is massively overspecing what the Air Corps needs.

cruasder777

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The SA80 A2 is the world's most expensive assault rife - really :eek: I've searched but cannot find anything to back it up, but I'm sure you can

GPS, helmet displays, wrist-mounted displays, hand-held computers - every day gadgets your average teenager has, of which you had to copy from the good old USA forces. But it's a wonder they have any money left after paying out for the the world's most expensive assault rife the SA80 A2 !!!! Re-engineered by German's Heckler & Koch I believe

H and K is Brit owned.

New Brit futuristic helmets. Issued from next Sept.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933921/British-soldiers-equipped-state-art-battle-helmets-Stormtrooper-look.html

sparky42

cruasder777 wrote: »

H and K is Brit owned.

New Brit futuristic helmets. Issued from next Sept.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933921/British-soldiers-equipped-state-art-battle-helmets-Stormtrooper-look.html

H&K was owned by BAE when the 80 was fixed, but they've separated since then I thought.

Let's hope the new equipment goes better than the US Army's previous attempts, interesting to see the increased face protection, wonder how the troops will take to it?

cruasder777

sparky42 wrote: »

H&K was owned by BAE when the 80 was fixed, but they've separated since then I thought.

Let's hope the new equipment goes better than the US Army's previous attempts, interesting to see the increased face protection, wonder how the troops will take to it?

Googled it BAE sold it to a guy called Keith Halsey, dont know his nationality.

The bar across the helmet it is detachable. Still a radical design.

Hard to know how popular it will be. It is very light.

Pyridine

cruasder777 wrote: »

H and K is Brit owned.

New Brit futuristic helmets. Issued from next Sept.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933921/British-soldiers-equipped-state-art-battle-helmets-Stormtrooper-look.html

That helmet looks familiar...I wonder where I've seen it before :P :

Jawgap

Pyridine wrote: »

That helmet looks familiar...I wonder where I've seen it before :P :

No, that's the MkII!



That ridiculous looking thing is just a guy wearing Bolles, a ski helmet and the face bar from a downhill helmet.

DARPA are supposed to be working on a helmet that would allow soldiers to communicate telepathically!

MrConservative

sparky42 wrote: »

NZ is in talks to move to either a C-17 (out of the ten spares) or Airbus is floating the A-400, both vastly outsized for Irish needs. Right now other than airlift in an out of deployments what air based supply chain do we support/pay for for UN missions? Finland (larger population/GDP neutral only operates the 295's without larger support), NZ particularly has their Herc's because of historic investment, given their budgets and the upcoming age out of the P3's it will be interesting to see if they can sustain both a MPA fleet and a transport fleet now.

Why so often on the forums do we jump from "well we don't have that", to "lets have a huge jump forward". 1 C 130J is enough to fund the purchase of 2 295's and again you get into spares/training etc we could probable get 3 for the price of 1, which gets you back to would we rather have 3 options or 1 (take into account maintenance times/usage etc). That could be cheaper if you went for second hand units of course, but then you risk getting burnt that way.

2/3 295's would give us a surge of being able to lift up to 210 in an operation if needed, for maybe the same cost of 1 130 not being able to do the same. It would allow us to be able to support in threate operations if we choose to develop that (something the Nordic Battlegroup might like more than 1 more C 130) while vastly increase the Air Corps current strength. Unless the White Paper was to massively change our future operations/requirements (like I said Disaster Response, humanitarian missions, and UN missions) a C 130 is massively overspecing what the Air Corps needs.

There are a few things to consider here.

Firstly the Finnish defence posture is traditionally configured to contain their neighbour on their eastern border, thus possesing a different operational context to Ireland. NZ, Norway, also Denmark and Ireland are more similar (other than some specific platform specializations) and are more appropriate for Ireland to build further relationships with at the technical/training/procurement level for mutual adavantage.

Correct, the RNZAF is in the market for 2-3 of the final 10 whitetail C-17s as a RFI was sent in October to replace effectively 2 B757s. It just goes to show how important strategic airlift is becoming a significant dimension to small defence forces that like Ireland deploy personnel significant distances. However the platform differences be it an future IAC C-295 or other nations C-130 is again not entirely relevant, as the skills set / know how - for associated trades loadmaster / pilots translates across a range of transport aircraft, mission profiles and planning scenarios. Even if Ireland not choose a future air transport post its DWP and gets nothing - having the institutional knowlege from peers and likely future operational deployment partners is worthwhile. They can learn something in return as it works both ways.

The audited cost of the C-295M conducted by the OZ DoD was AUD$40m per airframe taking into account support package. It you want to get into the swing role MPS/Tactical Transport from that you start to add a fairly basic palletised maritme patrol fitout similar to the USCG version at roughly USD$12m per airframe. So getting over the $50m range per airframe mark and contrary to popular opinion not hugely advantageous with respect to the support synergies with the legacy C-235-300 as one may think. Air forces now contract their back hanger support to keep WoL costs manageable anyway thus simply concentrating on operational flightline and flying. Nations pooling resources under defence relationships makes for even further efficencies. There will be a few Eurozone buyers of the C-390 whom the C-17 or A400M might be unsuitable or unaffordable - that Ireland could leverage with and tap into the Boeing lead C-390 European support system on behalf of Embraer. One or Two Air Corps C-390s pooled in partnership under an outsourced support is a more efficent and cost effective approach as per the mooted NZDF/ADF C-17 model than a solo effort using the C-295M under the false anaology that it seems cheaper.

Disagree with the idea for IAC C-295 providing a surge capability in the way you outlined. The point being those 70-75 "passengers" are not deployable soldiers with bergen, boots and weapon. The max person lift capability is in reality translates to the number of civilians that can be airlifted in an emergency extraction op. To rapidly deploy 50 specials (personnel and material) toanother continent that air movement cycle alone takes the utilisation of 2-3 C-130s with a regular C-130 follow up cycle to sustain it.

Providing logistical support and protection of an in theatre C-295 as part of an Nordic/EU Battle Group contribution is problematic. Wouldnt it be simply better to concentrate on independently using air mobility in actually getting there, sustaining what you have and getting home safely be a more orthodox approach? In theatre short range tactical lift is a sure way to thrash aircraft and consume defence budgets. The RAF C-130Js are a classic example of this tasking intensity. Frankly, like deploying and operating rotary assets in theatre requires lengthy logistic support tail in itself. That would have to be dealt with and gets back to the mantra of tactical loads strategic distances where the light tactical transport asset does not cut it.

I agree that tired old used C-130s or converted commercial jets should be avoided. The RAAF have found that to operate a C-17 per hour is not that much more than an old C-130H. Air mobility is a generational investment and is fast becoming not just a nice to have but an expectation.

return guide

Jawgap wrote: »

Ireland and UK agree historic defence agreement



I'm sure there'll be bitching about getting 'hand me downs' but I suppose there's always the potential for some good kit to come this way, perhaps in the form of vehicles?

Hope its okay resurrect this thread.

I was curious as to whether/how the DF benefited from this agreement ?

RG