Messages

151

Irish Air Corps / T-tail Fouga

« on: May 16, 2005, 11:32:14 pm »

http://airsports.fai.org/aug2000/aug200002.html

Can anyone explain the Fougas pictured on that page with T-tails? I cant find any reference to this configuration on the internet. It looks like an  extensive modification. They also appear to have a Hunter type inlet. Very odd  

152

Irish Air Corps / Japanese Air Force Boeing 747's at Dublin

« on: May 10, 2005, 02:24:59 am »

*wonders why someone else hasnt asked this already, and concludes its because they already know*

Why was this aircraft here?

153

Irish Air Corps / short range anti aircraft weapon?!

« on: May 02, 2005, 12:00:46 am »

Could you have made a mistake? SRAAW also stands for Short Range Anti Armour weapon, which I assume would be of more use in the Liberian area

154

Irish Air Corps / What could be....

« on: April 24, 2005, 11:43:41 am »

Scorpy hope its going alright for you out there, stay safe '>

Just looking at those great photos, you get a hint of what a strong organisation the UN could be if the international will was there.

155

Irish Air Corps / Fouga Magister 217 for Austria

« on: March 25, 2005, 02:30:43 am »

Hmmm, wonder whether they'll make it airworthy.

Probably too much of a stretch though

156

Irish Air Corps / Scale Aircraft Modelling April 2005

« on: March 24, 2005, 02:25:48 am »

I think it was mentioned here that the additional PC-9 numbers were for attrition replacements.

One would hope that that extra 139's will be bought after the intial order, as a given

157

Irish Air Corps / AIII/Dauphin Roundels and Lettering

« on: March 22, 2005, 12:17:12 am »

Nice work bailer, well done, cant wait to take the PC-9 for a spin in Irish colours

158

Irish Air Corps / Fouga Magister 217 for Austria

« on: March 21, 2005, 11:03:33 pm »

I would assume not.

159

Irish Air Corps / Bring Avro Cadet 'C7' back to Baldonnel campaign!

« on: March 21, 2005, 10:46:21 pm »

What this arguement comes down to is whether the money is better spent on some useful modern equipment or a piece of air corps heritage.

It's hard, if not impossible to put a price on heritage, but being a fairly practical person (i think) I dont see any compelling reason to have the Acro C7 sitting in Baldonnel. The only reason there is: in the interests of completeness, it would be nice.

Silver, your heart is obviously in the right place but when it comes to "promotion" of the Air Corps, I cant see what the point is. Promote it to whom? If the aircraft in question was purchased, in all likelyhood you'd have a weeks worth of phone calls into Joe Duffy, all of the same tune "blah traffic, blah hospitals, blah my foot hurts", not to mention those oh so big political parties complaining.... although at least the Avro isnt Nato standard.

I digress..... The point is that the Air Corps have thousands of applicants each year, they dont need any promotion whatsoever, what they need is modern equipment for modern military roles. The Avro doesnt help this cause.

By the same token anyone who suggests the Air Corps will become an historical flight if this aircraft is purchased is being alarmist and idiotic.

It'd be nice to have it, but would the money not be better spent on getting a few more people in the Army issued with their proper kit?

Anyway....

160

Irish Air Corps / 'The Canberra Incident'?

« on: February 22, 2005, 09:53:29 am »

Sorry, here's another debate in relation to the Canberra:
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0257/D.0257.197112020082.html

It states in it that a Vampire couldve been serviced within an hour. So I must have heard wrong. But point stands.

It appears a few bits of the debate have either been edited out or simply could not be recorded due to the usual case of 20 TD's shouting at one time during debates.

Also heres one referring to the delay in Delivery of Fouga Magisters, due to production difficulties (I thought most/all were secondhand). But the most amusing thing is the constant use of "Fighter Squadron". Was that still its name in 1975?

http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0277/D.0277.197501280019.html

161

Irish Air Corps / 'The Canberra Incident'?

« on: February 22, 2005, 09:43:42 am »

Never heard about the incident you mentioned Frank, sounds bloody hillarious

RE: The Canberra Incident - I doubt it would have come to fistycuffs, in the Dáil debates they mentioned the lack of a plane which could take off and take the Canberras registration number  '>

But the point Turkey made is perfectly valid, the Canberra wouldve just ran off. The Russians had serious difficulty (i.e. were unable to) intercepting them on Recon flights in the early 50's with Mig 15's and 17's so what hope with the two seat Vampire? Although unlike the Russian recon flights, the Canberra flew fairly low, just to add insult to injury.

I cant find any links on the web with information on how the public reacted.

All I can see is that you just have to read between the lines:

It was 1971, the so called "troubles" which wound up leaving 3000 people dead had been breaking out for at least the last two years. The idea that any pilot in the RAF didnt realise that 10 minutes West or South would lead him into the Republic is a joke.

If any press folks are reading, you should try find out who the pilot was and ask him about it, good luck. '>

Heres the Debate in the Dáil: http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0257/D.0257.197112010005.html

If the RAF ever got sick of providing air cover here and wanted to stir up the debate, or they just wanted a laugh, they should really fly a Canberra over us again. They still have some in service, fine Aircraft:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/canberra.html

Just one comedic Dáil episode relating to Defence Forces:
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0235/D.0235.196806260029.html

This one touches on the SAS incursion and RAF recce missions on the border:
http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/0290/D.0290.197605130032.html

Anyway as i've said before, dig around the Dáil debates, you're sure to find some gold.

162

Irish Air Corps / Super Tucano ALX/ A-29

« on: February 20, 2005, 05:59:37 pm »

It looks like a very good aircraft. I was wondering a few months ago whether there was a market for a proper dedicated combat turboprop anymore - i guess this answers the question.

I wonder whether Pilatus will develop the PC-21 as a competitor.

163

Irish Air Corps / Air Corps & Naval Service ops?

« on: February 19, 2005, 02:45:26 am »

Hi Turkey, dont want to be a pedantic pissant but I'd disagree with the Gladiator being bought in genuine peacetime, the slide towards the second world war was obvious to everyone in the late 1930's.

In my opinion the Air Corps are going in the right direction, slowly but surely. I say this for a simple reason: When the little discussed (IMO) Canberra incident occurred in the early 70's, there wasnt a single Vampire which could take off in less than 24hrs. That was embarassing. Not even a single advanced(?!) trainer able to take off, I mean what the hell was going on? I have this mental image of Baldonnel then and all the aircraft on the tarmac rotting with rust.

You might have already done this - but if you check the dáil debate records online (a great service) you can read about the disdain for the Defence Forces, the utter disdain. I remember reading one politician going on about the great job the Air Corps had done training pilots for Aer Lingus  '>

Fast forward to today - There has been a sea-change and the Air Corps are becoming a proper military organisation for the first time since WW2. New Helicopters are being purchased. I know it's a small amount, but as other people have said - we only bought a few A3's at the start, plus this is the largest order for helicopters we've ever placed I think (2+4). The 139s are going to have a proper troop transport role. Once again I know it's only 4 but it's a stepping stone towards more.  The Pilatus trainers are top of the line military Turboprop trainers.

So I can only look at it in this way: instead of letting the Air Corps die with the retirement of the Fouga and Marchettis, as could've easily happened, the PC-9 was bought. Instead of letting the Air Corps helicopter wing rot with the loss of the SAR role, the troop transport role was found and the 139 bought. New training helicopters have been purchased as well. The government didnt have to do any of this. Buying military equipmant doesnt get you votes. This is my problem with politics   that generally only the things that buy you votes get dealt with. But now at the very least the Air Corps will be flying in safe, modern machinery that they and the country can be proud of rather than struggling to keep old machinery airworthy.

I do not however want to gleefully skip over the fact ministers use the Air Corps as a taxi service. This needs to be stamped out. IF they want a taxi service, they can either buy helicopters specifically for the task and have a fully equipped VIP flight and see how that washes with the public, or they can contract a private company. I dont know enough about the Navy to comment on what kind of equipment they should have, but I am aware that a number of ships are nearing retirement - if the DoD arent actively looking at possible replacements then they simply arent doing their job. As regards the Army, it seems like the first thing that should be sorted out is providing troops with enough of the right kit.

The reason I say 20 years is simply because I can never ever see any Irish government, however wealthy we may become, ever going out and saying "We're buying 4 Frigates, 16 Gripens and 100 Main Battle Tanks. If you dont like it, emigrate." It'll take time but gradually the DF will be built.

Finally (sorry for typing so much, I just find this an interesting topic) I am strongly opposed to Nato. That said as a country our size - we cant contribute anything unless we act as part of a larger group, so we have to be practical - the EURRF as it is planned is the way forward.

(aplogies, I'm just home from a night out on the town and as such full of waffle)

164

Irish Air Corps / Fouga details?

« on: February 14, 2005, 07:30:53 pm »

Alpha, best of luck with the project - hope it works out successfully; just heed the warning, dont try and spin if the wing fuel tanks arent empty!

I've done quite a bit of reading on the Fouga and it seems likes it's one of the cheaper "warbirds" to operate for civilians. In all honesty I gotta tell you I'd prefer something with an ejection seat though

Hope you paint one of the birds in air corps colours '>

Once again, best of luck

165

Irish Air Corps / Air Corps & Naval Service ops?

« on: February 14, 2005, 07:12:40 pm »

The only possible use for the jammer would be to test it against our own Air Defence radars and come up with proceedures/new technology to defeat it.

A: This could be done more cheaply and effectively in training with other countries air forces.

B: Any country with a degree of sophistication can make jamming pods that basically jam everything. It takes a day or two to retune the entire fleet - see the Israeli experience during the Yom Kippur war.

C: This would make our radar controlled guns useless against military opposition. (this assumes they arent all taken out)

D: The idea of jamming pods on PC-9's is a joke. The idea of the Air Corps using them abroad on UN missions for FAC or something is rediculous, due to the cost involved (See how much a silly smoke pod costs) and due to the fact other countries could provide better aircraft easily.

-------------------

I dont know how many times this needs to be brought up when talking about why Ireland doesnt operate combat jets but what the hell: We have only become a relatively wealthy county in the very recent past.

Switzerlands pop:  7,450,867, GDP:  $239.3 billion
Irelands pop:  3,969,558 GDP: $116.2 billion

Thats not a bad comparison. But compare it to 20 years ago and you'd realise what state we were in. This country was in bits up to the mid 1990s. Besides a boom in the 60's this country was, I cant put this any other way; fucked.

There was no investment in infrastructure. This country was ruined. I keep seeing discussions about why we should get combat jets and it just doesnt wash with me. We are still building and developing our country, in an effort to assure that this period of economic development continues and we dont fall back into the turmoil of the past.

I dont support any political party because I have opinions which dont tally completely with any of them, but I have to say this for successive Irish governments - they have guided us towards this period of economic boom. Spending the money on jets and MBT's would have come at the cost of education and health. Thanks to the education we have in this country, our country is able to attract and keep highly skilled jobs in the computer and pharmaceutical industries. Thus leading to wealth and growth and budget surplus. Perhaps if we'd joined Nato we wouldve had to spend that same money on the defence forces.... Sorry but I'd obviously see that as a bad choice.

Remember in the 1960s alot of people couldnt even afford secondary education.

The PC-9s are a stepping stone and maybe in the future jets (maybe even with jamming pods!) will be bought but its a long way away yet. Personally the issue of Helicopters and the fact it's being tackled is the most encouraging thing for me.

Anyone taking a look from abroad would recognise that the development of the defence forces is being done quite logically. You dont become a modern military force in one leap, it's going to take 20 years folks.

Of course now I'm gonna be labelled a crusty socialist, but who the hell cares.  I know one member in particular will take umbrage with my pro-education / anti nato stance and say blah blah you need a military which can protect infrastructure before you invest in that infrastucture blah blah blah. But I'm not going to debate this point.

Ultimately everyone here wants a well equipped defence force, the question is - in preference to continued infrastructural development, or in deference of infrastructure. I know what i want.