WorldAirPics.com Forum
Irish Related Topics => Irish Air Corps => Topic started by: Tempest on February 25, 2012, 07:27:48 pm
-
Just to liven things up a bit around here, but without revisiting 'done-to-death' threads!
Avoiding OPSEC issues, does the Nation and/or the rest of the Defence Forces get value for money from the Air Corps? Although it's difficult to acertain an exact annual AC budget, does 750 personnel with 24 aircraft of 7 types represent a worthwhile investment? Or could/should some/all operations be farmed out to the private sector? With so few aircraft, should Baldonell be opened up to some commercial operations? With it's history of failing to provide any more then token Army CoOp, is there any point in continuing with this expensive unit? Discuss!
-
Drags up chair, bowl of popcorn in hand!! :airforce_grin:
-
Yeah Mach, this should be good. If the Air Corps knockers are half as entertaining as they are over on IMO, then it should make fun reading.
Frank can you make a ground rule that only chips on your shoulder are allowed, planks will be barred entry to the "debate"!
The knockers over on IMO have a free hand to whinge as they know serving personnel are not allowed to voice their opinions or facts.
-
Hi Tempest, I think it depends how you or someone else views the value of any asset, there are a number
of questions to be asked/answered.
-
I do appreciate the points made above. It's been on my mind recently as I've just finished Lt Col O'Malley's Military Aviation in Ireland 1922-1945. Previously I'd only read the 'coffee table' AC books and similar uncritical histories. I was genuinely shocked at just how bad things were, and I do struggle to see (apart from operating greatly more advanced aircraft and systems, but mainly of a non-military type) how the AC in 2012 is offering an army air corps role that is any much better then it was 65 years ago!
-
how the AC in 2012 is offering an army air corps role that is any much better then it was 65 years ago!
How's about transporting 12 fully armed troops in each AW-139 with fire support on each aircraft ?
:stirthepot:
-
Hi Tempest, I do agree that most aircraft used by the IAC are commercial with the exception of
the PC9s/CN235s. A Question then pops up, "Why do we need PC9s"?
Maybe we might have been better off having extra Helicopters/Cn235.
-
how the AC in 2012 is offering an army air corps role that is any much better then it was 65 years ago!
How's about transporting 12 fully armed troops in each AW-139 with fire support on each aircraft ?
:stirthepot:
How's about the fact that it took 40 years of heli ops just to get a GPMG onboard?
-
Hi Tempest, I do agree that most aircraft used by the IAC are commercial with the exception of
the PC9s/CN235s. A Question then pops up, "Why do we need PC9s"?
Maybe we might have been better off having extra Helicopters/Cn235.
I don't have a 'prescription' for the AC. The PC-9s do get some operational use, so someone thinks it's advantageous to have a limited point air defence capability. For 60 million euro you could have bought a better platform for delivering it. And basic trainers.
Extra helis.... well we've gone from having 15 to 8 in a few years, and it looks like one will get tied up to providing anothr civilian role (Air Ambulance), so 7 available, let's say 5 on any one day, so in 2012 we can transport a platoon and a bit of soldiers. Some of them might gt a bit of protection from a couple of GPMGs! But they are civvie choppers, so let's hope they don't get shot at! Not good is it?
Madness not to exercise the purchase option on the leased CASA.
-
Actually ,
I retract my last post and I'm gracefully bowing out of this topic.
Hope yis have fun :sleepy:
-
Hi Tempest, The question "Value for Money" is the issue. High performance Aircraft Trainers are not
needed to train heli pilots. If we had Fast Jets for pilots to move to, then YES. I don't belive
Fighter/Strike aircraft are in the Air Corp Future. As for multi-engine types, the Kingair that the IAC had for
years really held its own.
-
Value for money? Ask that question to the recipients of all the recent air ambulance flights, especially the helicopters which landed at the hospitals. And before you say that's a civilian job, I don't think many civvies operate at night and have the use of night vision goggles!
-
Didn't say we don't need Helicopters/Heli pilots, or mention a civillian service.
-
Corkspotter,
NVG's are not required when landing at prepared sites such as hospitals and airports. Scottish Air Ambulance EC135's operated by Bond Air Services from Glasgow Heliport and Inverness Airport are single pilot with no NVG 24/7 and carry out daylight only HEMS and inter-hospital transfers after dark.
And in Ireland there is a fleet of S61N's that operate at night and a newly arrived S92A.
Value for money is one thing but taxpayers funds are being used for IAC trips abroad with little operational/training value. :thumbsdown:
-
It strikes me as very odd indeed that the AC are actively targetting Air Ambulance as a role when the whole point of Price Waterhouse et al was that they should be finding more military roles to develop. What mindset would do this? Surely only one that had reneged on it's primary role for so long that it no longer has any sense of its raison detre?
The time to have introduced something as basic as a GPMG on a chopper was when flying border patrols 40 years ago; the PC9s were the opportunity to move beyond guns/rockets.
Yes, we all know the military has a low priority, but you do expct to see some expontial progress. The army and naval service have shown progressive modernisation, the AC lags far behind in defining what it's capabilities should be and then moving towards meeting those capabilities. It is mainly in that sense that I argue that they are not delivering value for money.
-
IMHO -
- The leased CASA should have been purchased - e.g for transport usage.
- 2 x addition CASA's should be purchased - multi-role variants like the USCG purchased.
- The King Air should be replaced - kinda crazy using one of the CASA's for multi-engine
training when it could be patrolling.
- King Air/Dornier or similar aircraft for Customs/Coast Guard usage purchased (like Dutch 'Kustwach')
- 2 x Dauphins should have been retained, stripped of complicated electronics, and used as Naval Helicopters.
IMO, the Air Corps is providing vital roles to the state - troop transport, coastal patrol, air ambulance (Sweden, Holland, Greece etc etc use their military helis for air ambulance and SAR), Customs support, Coast Guard SAR support, point air defence - however it needs greater numbers and better useage of its aircraft...the CASA's in particular
This might sound radical to many but - I believe in the future (perhaps a long way in the future!) we will see UK jets based in Ireland - full time or part time - and perhaps with some Air Corps pilots flying them.
-
IMHO -
This might sound radical to many but - I believe in the future (perhaps a long way in the future!) we will see UK jets based in Ireland - full time or part time - and perhaps with some Air Corps pilots flying them.
Why? The RAF is but a shadow of its former self and has already consolidated its assets into a limited number of bases in the UK.
-
Probably end up as an Army co-operation unit. Back to green uniforms
A couple of Maritime aircraft, a Cessna type or an equal for FAC and lots of Helis for troop movement & comms.
Sub contract for Mats as and when required.
Thats it and switch off the light as they leave Bal. :down:
Gnat
(I sting)
-
This might sound radical to many but - I believe in the future (perhaps a long way in the future!) we will see UK jets based in Ireland - full time or part time - and perhaps with some Air Corps pilots flying them.
[/quote]
It wouldn't surprise me if there isn't already some tacit agreement on RAF aircraft covering our ar*e, it's already in place in allowing overflights for interception. I'm not against what you suggest. I just think it would be dependent on the State to invest a higher percentage in Defence, to enable what you suggest to happen. RAF aren't going to let PC9 crew into Typhoons!
-
Probably end up as an Army co-operation unit. Back to green uniforms
A couple of Maritime aircraft, a Cessna type or an equal for FAC and lots of Helis for troop movement & comms.
Sub contract for Mats as and when required.
Thats it and switch off the light as they leave Bal. :down:
Gnat
(I sting)
The Air Corps has never been more then an Army Co-Op unit, even during WW2. They just haven't done it very well, which is why this is still a valid conversation. I recall reading an interview with AC GOC in Flying in Ireland a few years back when the incumbent was saying something like "Define the role you want us to carry out and the aircraft will come out of that", but it seems to me that over the last 20 years the AC has looked for roles like SAR/Maritime Patrol/Air ambulance and not shouted as loud for military roles thinking that they'd get more airframes that way. I think they've shot thmselves in the foot by doing so as they have lost credibility within the DoD and Governmnt. 750 bods for 20+ airframes and they also need civvie tech staff. How would that look to someone from a credible air arm/civvie operator asked to produce a report on efficiencies in the AC?
-
Cant help but notice some misguided statements especially the reference to the fact that "not much civvies operate at night"...what do you think the S61s have been doing since 1991, they are most certainly not night time Hangar Queens, and have chalked up hundreds of SAR/Medevac missions at night, without NVGs and were in the main, not Airport to Airport/Illuminated Helipad. Maybe you are not around long enough.
-
Good morning Mickptre,
As the statement said, " Not much Civvies", didnt say "all civvies".
The coast guard S61's are an obvious exception to which everyone has great admiration for and that this country would be lost without them. The statement was made with regards to the call out of the Air Corps on dedicated and planned air ambulance missions and inter hospital transfers. The statement was aimed at companies who operate as dedicated air ambulance services and HEMS servicesin the UK as we dont have any here yet. I was already corrected on this point.
Nobody having a dig or forgetting about the coast guard, as they are very rarely used in this role, and as i previously said are an obvious exception to which we all admire the skills and the bravery of the crew.
Regards,
Paul
-
Just completed a SAR mission 130NM west of Eagle Island Co. Mayo tonight and may I say what a great sense of relief to know that Charlie 253 was over us for the duration of the mission, many thanks to the lads of the Maritime Patrol Aircraft for the great sense of security afforded to us on our SAR missions.
Best Regards and thanks a million :applause: from the crew of Rescue 118 from Sligo
-
Way off thread.
-
"way off thread" :chillpill: If referring to the fact that the Air Corps Casa conducted a very important Top Cover mission for a Rescue Operation of our coast is not related to "value for money" which is the title of the thread by the way, then how else will people judge value for money of the Air Corps but only by seeing/reading of the missions undertaken by the Air Corps in aid to those in distress of our coast. So careful now that you don't fall of your high and mighty horse while your at it.
-
Fair Play Mickptre, Another difficult and successful mission. :bowdown:
Tempest, not really off topic when it shows that the Air Corps can provide top cover for long range SAR missions and as you can see, the help from 253 was greatly appreciated.
I think it's time to put an end to this thread as it seems that you just have a gripe with the air corps and no matter what anybody says, they are wrong and you are right.. Your boring me know!
Regards,
Paul
-
"way off thread" :chillpill: If referring to the fact that the Air Corps Casa conducted a very important Top Cover mission for a Rescue Operation of our coast is not related to "value for money" which is the title of the thread by the way, then how else will people judge value for money of the Air Corps but only by seeing/reading of the missions undertaken by the Air Corps in aid to those in distress of our coast. So careful now that you don't fall of your high and mighty horse while your at it.
Well said Mickptre! :applause:
-
Well done to both aircrew...
-
Sorry guys, but I was referring to the earlier posts on the 'civvie' issue, not the topcover post. Should have made that more obvious :fryingpan:
-
Maybe this piece from Dr Anthony O'Connor might shed some better light on this and another thread, I'll post it there as well
http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=it_really_is_a_great_little_country
-
Claudel, I think everyone on here accepts that the AC perform these tasks well, and the wider military perform the other tasks mentioned in that article well also. They are operations that they carry out virtually day-in day-out, so they ought to be good at them, and they are.
But air ambulance, and possibly HEMS, are civvie ops in most countries. And civvie operators tend to give better value for money across these spheres. "Value for Money" as the thread is called, is intended to ask about value for money in the military operations sphere. On a day-to-day basis aircraft of 3, or at a push 4 types may be used in these 'civvie' roles, and also 3 or 4 aircraft out of the fleet, or about 16% of the fleet maximum.
I am much more interested in debating the value for money of the rest of the fleet, the 84% of airframes which are theoretically there to provide a military role for the Defence Forces as a whole. And the State. On a cost V benefit analysis it seems to me to be very poor value indeed. Mainly down to the AC management thmselves. I am open to someone making a case that I am very wrong, but it hasn't been made in this thread so far.