Messages

16

UK Air Shows / Re: RIAT 2012

« on: July 17, 2012, 08:24:42 pm »

Can anyone tellme how to upload pics which are say 3mb large to a forum post?  Have pics of AC PC9  crew but cannot find a way of downsizing them on Windows Photo Gallery.

17

UK Air Shows / Re: RIAT 2012

« on: July 08, 2012, 08:39:31 pm »

A400 flew today and departed to Farnborough.

18

Aviation Videos / Re: F35-B Carrier Trials

« on: May 18, 2012, 07:33:02 pm »

+1 !

19

Scale Aircraft Modelling / Re: Photos from IMSS show held at Dublin Castle

« on: May 14, 2012, 08:03:49 pm »

Great pics, thank for sharing!

20

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: March 24, 2012, 12:17:27 am »

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.

21

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: March 22, 2012, 07:50:28 pm »

Sorry guys, but I was referring to the earlier posts on the 'civvie' issue, not the topcover post.  Should have made that more obvious

22

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: March 21, 2012, 07:39:19 pm »

Way off thread.

23

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: March 02, 2012, 12:59:12 am »

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.
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?

24

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: March 02, 2012, 12:47:27 am »

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!

25

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: February 29, 2012, 12:15:27 am »

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.

26

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: February 27, 2012, 07:43:58 pm »

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.

27

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: February 27, 2012, 07:35:03 pm »

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  ?
 

How's about the fact that it took 40 years of heli ops just to get a GPMG onboard?

28

Irish Air Corps / Re: Air Corps: Value for Money?

« on: February 26, 2012, 07:53:58 pm »

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!

29

Irish Air Corps / Air Corps: Value for Money?

« 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!

30

Aviation News / Re: RAF Tucano display scheme revealed!

« on: February 18, 2012, 08:06:17 pm »

A bit tacky, esp the underside!!