Messages

1

Irish Air Corps / Re: How Many Of Us Think The IAC Should Have Jets ?

« on: March 25, 2010, 09:35:09 am »

Superficially that scenario is plausible but once you look at it. The whole thing falls apart.

An aircraft at low level with the transponder turned off would barely be visible on radar assuming the busy controller would even notice the primary return on his or her screen. Then there's no facility to vector the PC9, there is no military radar plus without radar onboard it would be well nigh impossible for the pilot to spot the rogue aircraft. Believe me it's difficult to see other aircraft unless really close. Even airliners at the mandated five mile separation are tiny. Imagine a Cessna at that range? You'd have to imagine because you'll never see it. Plus you have the issue of identification. Is it a terrorist or a lost student on a solo cross country? You would have to close in to intercept and identify. In the USA this scenario happens regularly. They often simply use helicopters to intercept. The occasional errant pilot gets a close up with an F16. No one has been shot down yet.

No need for AAMs, the PC9s would never get close enough to a faster aircraft to use them and a slower aircraft would be easily hacked down with a machine gun once it's evil intent was discovered assuming the PC9 could even find it.

2

Irish Air Corps / Re: Why, how and what jets the IAC should get.

« on: March 23, 2010, 12:48:51 am »

but the reality is that the institutions of the Irish state have never credibly established the independent republic we would like.

Never was a truer statement made. We are still a very immature country and have never figured out what our actual role in the world should be. We have hidden behind the fig leaf of 'neutrality' for years as if it was an actual policy decision taken for wholly pragmatic and honourable reasons. Whereas in reality we couldn't join NATO when we tried to because the it would mean recognising a certain border which we now recognise anyway.

3

Irish Air Corps / Re: Sell Govt Jet - buy transport aircraft

« on: March 23, 2010, 12:38:38 am »

It would be hard to narrow it down as there are a number of methods and there would be serious competition to get the contract. The government could negotiate a very good deal indeed.

4

Irish Air Corps / Re: How Many Of Us Think The IAC Should Have Jets ?

« on: March 23, 2010, 12:33:19 am »

At least we have a pool of pilots trained up to advanced standard - and hence who could relatively easily transition to train on jet aircraft should the need arise. Plus, as Tempest stated, the 9's could be upgraded to carry AAM or AGM guided missiles if/as required.

That's a commonly quoted spurious justification used to justify the PC9s. A pool of pilots ready as it were to leap into F16s or whatever should the need arise. The Air Corps use that one themselves. Probably it's argument used to by them to convince gullible politicans into buying the things. It is, quite simply pure Bravo Sierra. There is a whole world of difference between a turboprop trainer and fast jets. First off there is practically no case where there would be a need to transition to jets in a hurry.

There is also a fundamental ignorance of the timescales involved and the sheer complexity of the training involved moving from a slow turboprop to something supersonic. It takes about five years to become an operational fast jet pilot in the RAF or RN. These mythical Air Corps pilots would have to be assessed, undergo advanced training in something like a Hawk. Then go onto weapons training followed by a stint at an operational conversion unit followed by a posting to a squadron and then further training before they actually become operational. Does any of that sound plausible or likely? 

As for fitting AAMs or AGMs, the question is why? The PC9 is too slow to intercept anything worth intercepting and the lack of miltary radar make it a moot point anyway because without it they wouldn't even be able to find the target.

It's all pure fantasy I'm afraid.
 

5

Aviation Waffle / Re: Waterford SAR to go to 12 hrs in new contract

« on: March 22, 2010, 11:59:14 pm »

You confused me for a moment there pink panther because until I realised you were quoting another post. But otherwise you're right. The Air Corps will never operate SAR again. They were found wanting when they had a chance. One of the few good decisions made by the Irish government was to privatise SAR in this country. Quite simply the Air Corps would have to expand considerably to operate SAR. More pilots and aircrew would be needed. They also simply lacked the expertise in 24/7 operation, night flying and Instrument flying in helicopters. All of this would have to be learnt on the job. They have a problem with pilot retention so would always be on the back foot keeping crews fully trained. There was also a reluctance by Air Corps personnel to be based away from Baldonnel.

All of this would be more expensive than hiring a company with expertise in the field with access to a huge pool of ex RN and RAF pilots and crew and indeed some Air Corps. A large proportion of their pilots seem to be British judging the by the accents on the RT. The unpalatable fact is that for the Air Corps to get up to speed they would probably have to hire in ex British forces personnel to train them. Also most of the recent aircrew being hired are experienced paramedics. Where would the Air Corps get those from?

SO CHC provide the best option for all concerned. Comparisions to the British set up aren't valid. Things are quite different there.

6

Irish Air Corps / Re: How Many Of Us Think The IAC Should Have Jets ?

« on: March 16, 2010, 10:42:25 am »

Yes, but why do we need an advanced trainer? Most graduating cadets probably go on to helicopters. What they really need is a basic helicopter trainer. Others go on to fly the Reims Rockets. They could learn to fly in those. It's a hell of a step down from a 300kt turboprop trainer to a 120kt ancient Cessna as flown by aeroclubs all over the country.

In fact they train on the PC9 so the can fly the PC9. In fact reading between the lines. The PC9s were bought in during boom years because the Air Corps was having a pilot retention problem. The Marchettis and Fougas were old and tired and pilot morale was a problem.

The PC9s simply demonstrate the muddled thinking going on here. The Air Corps needed a basic trainer but they also needed something a bit more sexy to keep the boys happy. Something with a quasi military function. So we get a nice unarmoured slow propellor driven aircraft which can carry machine guns of a lighter calibre than the Sopwith Camel and unguided rockets in an age of precision munitions and missiles. The Hurricanes of the 1940s were better.

Brilliant compromise!

7

Irish Air Corps / Re: Why, how and what jets the IAC should get.

« on: March 16, 2010, 10:16:10 am »

It's a very dysfunctional country in many respects, even where it's military functions are of economic or social value (e.g fishery protection/drug interdiction) it fails to adequately resource the agencies responsible.  At the same time it spends millions on pseudo-military equipment (e.g AW139) which adds little value to anything.

Completely agree. What's needed is a complete review of the Air Corps and what it's role should be. At the moment many of it's roles are effectively civilian in nature. It has a very limited military function. In many ways it's a shadow air force. Many of it's aircraft are indeed pseudo-military. The AW139s being the classic example.

It really needs to get back to it Army Air Corps roots. Get rid of the quasi air force blue uniforms and back into Khaki Drab.  Silver suggests cooperation with the RAF. A more logical idea would be to cooperate with the Army Air Corps.

None of this will happen with the current state of Irish politics and it's blundering amateurishness when it comes to defence issues and wider world affairs. The army is gradually reforming and modernising. Time for the Air Corps to follow.

8

Irish Air Corps / Re: Sell Govt Jet - buy transport aircraft

« on: March 16, 2010, 09:47:03 am »

Get rid of the government jets and sign up with Netjets or similar. One phone call and an appropriate sized aircraft is waiting for you at your local airport. Cheaper and more flexible. Not so good for the Air Corps crews but better for the country.

9

Irish Air Corps / Re: Why, how and what jets the IAC should get.

« on: March 11, 2010, 04:14:03 pm »

Actually my friend you are right on one thing. The L59s would make sense for the Air Corps assuming for one minute we actually needed them any more than we need the PC9s. In actual fact you will be pleased to learn the Air Corps actually seriously considered that very type after 9/11.  They are indeed very favourably priced.  They are affordable even for Ireland.

But as I mentioned before on this forum. The whole idea was quietly shelved because of one huge flaw which you haven't considered.  We have no military radar system in place. Without it even Typhoons would be useless. The cost, I was told by an ex Air Corps officer was estimated at £200m  in 2001, that's pounds not Euro. So the aircraft are affordable but the system is not.
So total cost €296m at least.

Then of course there's operating costs.

It's non runner financially. As for other reasons, 'national pride' well what a laugh. There is no national pride in this country. It's all about the town, the county. Cork versus Limerick versus Dublin. We're all me-feiners. Real patriotism  doesn't exist in this country.


None of your scenarios are remotely plausible either, I'm afraid. We simply do not need air defence even if we could afford it. We barely need the Air Corps as it's established right now. Most of it's roles are more civilian than military.

Sorry that's just the way it is.

10

Irish Air Corps / Re: How Many Of Us Think The IAC Should Have Jets ?

« on: March 09, 2010, 02:03:43 pm »

Well Vulcan answered the question as to the 'alternative' to the PC9s. We don't actually need even the very limited capability offered by the PC9s. Worse they are used as 'basic' trainers by the Air Corps. Even the USAF don't drop their cadets into the T6s or the RAF straight into Tucanos. It would have made more sense to get actual basic trainers. Remember the first aircraft newly winged Second Lieutenants get to fly after training on the PC9 is the Cessna 172 or the EC135? The PC9s the Air Corps have are overkill as a basic trainer and almost useless in military terms being only equipped with rockets and machine guns, not even cannon. They are a waste of taxpayers money.

11

Irish Air Corps / Re: How Many Of Us Think The IAC Should Have Jets ?

« on: March 04, 2010, 12:48:34 pm »

They do have jets, well technically speaking turbine engined aircraft. The GIV and the Learjet are 'jets' as such. Naturally you mean jet fighters or attack aircraft and no they will never get those.

To summarise my thinking and a few others.
They're expensive to buy, operate and maintain.
You'd also need a dedicated military radar system to control them. That would be nearly as expensive.
You would need to improve the facilities at Baldonnel and maybe even lengthen the runways.
Pilot training would have to be changed radically as would maintenance training. Manpower in the Air Corps would need to be increased to cope.
You would have to accept the fact that they would crash regularly and pilots would be killed. That's the nature of fast jets. They are dangerous. So attrition replacements would be needed.
You'd need missiles and bombs, also very expensive.
But mainly, we don't need them.
WE don't need the PC9s eithere but thats another argument.

12

Irish Air Corps / Re: The AW149 the helicopter the Air Corps should be flying.

« on: November 17, 2009, 03:51:38 pm »

I don't think this country really needs an armed helicopter. The AW149 is an 8.1 tonne helicopter and if agusta put wheels as small as the ones on the 139 onto the 149 it will sink into the ground. The 139 will do for now !

It's not so much the armament as the militarisation of the helicopter that's the point. Troop carriers tend to carry only machine guns for defence anyway. The  139 isn't properly militarised. The 149 is a military 139. Armament are only options, you don't have to buy them. I doubt if you'll see any executive 149s.

We and the Qataris will remain the only military users of the 139.

13

Irish Air Corps / Re: **This is an AW149**

« on: November 17, 2009, 03:43:33 pm »

AW159 surely with a mention of the AW149 at the end of the page

14

Irish Air Corps / The AW149 the helicopter the Air Corps should be flying.

« on: November 15, 2009, 09:53:47 am »

Another recycled Lynx for the Brits. Surely it's time to move on.


Here it is the the properly militarised AW139 known as the AW149. This is the helicopter the Air Corps actually wanted and needed. But now they'll have to make do with a Gucci Executive helicopter until they wear out. Not only that they'll probably remain one of the very few 139s in military use. 

http://www.agustawestland.com/product/aw149

The AW149 answers a growing demand for the next generation, affordable, multi-purpose medium class helicopter, for military and government agencies. Fully digitised and with an open systems architecture (OSA) and fully integrated mission equipment, the AW149 is designed for the modern battlefield. With a rugged construction incorporating crashworthy features, such as up to eighteen crashworthy troop seats and excellent access and egress, the AW149 maximises survivability. Twin engines ensure high performance in hot and high conditions. A 4-axis auto-pilot and advanced latest generation avionics system serves to minimise crew work load. The aircraft can also be configured to carry a variety of weapons and stores on external carriers. The AW149 is suited to battlefield support, combat SAR, reconnaissance, surveillance, medical evacuation, search and rescue (SAR) and command and control support roles.

That's exactly what the Air Corps wanted but no they now have to spend the next 20 flying around in a executive helicopter painted green.

15

Irish Air Corps / Re: PC-9's going into storage?

« on: July 06, 2009, 07:23:19 pm »

Well if it's true 240 is grounded, then there's credibility in the Fly in Ireland piece. As for the PC9 'special missions' well the imagination runs riot! Whatever happens the Defence forces as a whole are going to be An Bord Snipped in due course. The Air Corps won't escape. All activities will have to be justified.