Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should the Air Corps be scrapped?

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Avgas
    Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭Avgas


    Hi Peter,

    Well I agree some….BUT…. you say that with a contracted service you just pay a fee and don't have to worry about training, pensions and overheads….BUT in fact your fee covers those items.

    CHC pilots have I'm guessing competitive salaries and pension arrangements, which have to be paid for via an 'economic fee'. Good luck to them BTW!

    The training of many of their pilots, and other similar services, is a more complex matter, given that a great many are ex-services, and some ex-IAC I think? In otherwords they received costly basic heli experience and training via the public purse -a hidden subsidy…indeed the private heli contract business in the UK/North Sea would never have existed/emerged in the 1970s, but for mainly RN/RAF ex-services expertise…am I right?

    The bottom line is that CHC or any similar outfit, is working for a profit. They will seek a margin. Good luck to them…as private contractors making money from the Irish taxpayer go…they provide a superb service, are great people and they really earn their money.

    But a for profit service has to be more expensive over the longer term, than a service where profit is not being sought.

    Interestingly, what happens if they go bust, and liquidators are appointed who dispose of their assets by a sale?

    What happens to your 24/7hr service then?…

    What happens if the long term costs of SAR coverage using such costly machines turns out to be not as profitable as perceived…..the original and successful business model was a more no-frill Ryanair type service with S61s…..great workhorse that it was (and is).

    Moreover, there is the issue of you only get exactly what you pay for.

    If the Irish government….(and I 100% concede your massive scepticism here….)….. but If some Irish government decided that they wanted to use CHC helicopters to (a) transport troops or Gardai for some domestic security incident or (b) wanted to deploy a pair of heli's abroad on peace support…or (C) wanted to use such choppers in some kind of marine contingency ……..CHC could quite legitimately refuse as it would not be covered in their contract.

    And they own the machines.
    There is a reason why the expression 'possession is nine-tengths the law' is so often used.

    Leasing looks great in theory. I know guys who leased cars. They usually gave it up after a while, as unless you can write off some of the costs against tax, or your wanting something for only short period of time, then it doesn't make a great deal of sense. Yes depreciation of a fully owned asset is a killer-but you the leasing company make you pay for their depreciation costs via repayments. With something you own, one can always sell an asset you own and liquidate some cash. Or you can be flexible in how you use the asset.

    Moreover, in many leasing agreements it is sensible to arrange a 'lease to buy' option. If your making instalment payments over a 25-30 year period, it might in the end by handy and economic to buy the asset outright, having chipped in so much money over a long time.


    AFAIK this is crucial 'option' is not included in the recent CHC contract.

    I agree with you that his comments on the AW139s were a tad bizare. Apples and pears. Its not the tool to be going 300km offshore Donegal in Jaunary freezing rain, with gales blowing in your face trying to find a trawler.

    Am I right that the existing config AW139 have no emergency flotation gear, and otherwise not really capable of overseas misisons …or can the do stuff like the old Dauphins used …up to 100km offshore in moderate weather?


  • Options
    #93
    petergfiffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭petergfiffin


    Avgas wrote: »

    Well I agree some….BUT…. you say that with a contracted service you just pay a fee and don't have to worry about training, pensions and overheads….BUT in fact your fee covers those items.
    Yes you are correct and in fact that's kind of my point, you know up front how much all of this is going to cost you. You don't have to try and work out how much wages and training costs will be in 2015, that becomes CHC's problem.

    Avgas wrote: »
    CHC pilots have I'm guessing competitive salaries and pension arrangements, which have to be paid for via an 'economic fee'. Good luck to them BTW!

    The training of many of their pilots, and other similar services, is a more complex matter, given that a great many are ex-services, and some ex-IAC I think? In otherwords they received costly basic heli experience and training via the public purse -a hidden subsidy…indeed the private heli contract business in the UK/North Sea would never have existed/emerged in the 1970s, but for mainly RN/RAF ex-services expertise…am I right?
    Yes, I believe you are correct, from what I understand the CHC pilots are extremely well trained and very experienced pilots which is another advantage of private operators - they can recruit from the best available people internationally, casting absolutely no aspertions on the AC pilots of course. Don't know about the North Sea thing in the 70's but you can be sure those guys either served their time or bought themselves out.
    Avgas wrote: »
    But a for profit service has to be more expensive over the longer term, than a service where profit is not being sought.
    Not necessarily so, commercial companies always have to drive down costs in a competitive market. If in 5 years time an equally competent bidder undercuts CHC then in all likelihood they will lose the contract. Public Service do not have the same pressures therefore are not under the same focus to improve efficiencies so may not actually be cheaper than their commercial counterparts. I would stress here that just because somebody is driving down costs and improving efficiencies does not mean they are reducing the quality of the service.

    Avgas wrote: »
    Interestingly, what happens if they go bust, and liquidators are appointed who dispose of their assets by a sale?

    What happens to your 24/7hr service then?
    What was going to happen the service in Waterford when the government decided they didn't have enough money. I would say there is far more of a risk of a government minister or DOD official deciding we need to cut back on SAR services "in these difficult times". Also, typically in commercial contracts there are conditions put in there that account for exactly what you are describing - of course I don't know the details here, overall I would say there is a bigger risk to services from government decisions and cutbacks than private companies going bust...but I accept it is a risk
    Avgas wrote: »
    What happens if the long term costs of SAR coverage using such costly machines turns out to be not as profitable as perceived…..the original and successful business model was a more no-frill Ryanair type service with S61s…..great workhorse that it was (and is).
    That's tough luck on the operator, they have been contracted to provide a service and would be bound to the terms of that contract. The replacement of the S61s seems to be something that's happening across the CHC fleet, not just in Ireland.
    Avgas wrote: »
    Moreover, there is the issue of you only get exactly what you pay for.
    If the Irish government….(and I 100% concede your massive scepticism here….)….. but If some Irish government decided that they wanted to use CHC helicopters to (a) transport troops or Gardai for some domestic security incident or (b) wanted to deploy a pair of heli's abroad on peace support…or (C) wanted to use such choppers in some kind of marine contingency ……..CHC could quite legitimately refuse as it would not be covered in their contract.
    They're already on the hook to provide support for "the other three blue light services (Garda, Ambulance Service and Fire Services) during major national emergency situations on land." http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/116693/chc-wins-500m-euro-irish-sar-contract.html

    Again the point is CHC have been contracted in to provide SAR services for the Coast Guard, they have absolutely no relatonship with the DF and anything I'm talking about is only in relation to SAR. While CHC can quite rightly tell the Army where to go when they look for troop transport equally they can tell a Govt minister where to go when they want to open an off-licence somewhere and I think that's the beauty of it, the assets are used for what they are meant to be used for.

    Avgas wrote: »
    Moreover, in many leasing agreements it is sensible to arrange a 'lease to buy' option. If your making instalment payments over a 25-30 year period, it might in the end by handy and economic to buy the asset outright, having chipped in so much money over a long time.


    AFAIK this is crucial 'option' is not included in the recent CHC contract.
    If we were just leasing the aircraft and the AC were operating them then that may apply but we're not leasing aircraft from CHC, on that issue though the Army have been leasing vehicles for years. The big problem with buying up-front is you need to have the money up-front which we simply don't have in this country at the moment.



    So basically my view on all this is outsource all non-military tasks i.e. MATS, Maritime Patrol, Garda Air Support - sell all the aircraft associated with those roles, move back under the Army and model it along the lines of the British Army's Air Corps using helicopters and light aircraft (I don't mean PC9's, more the Defender type operated by AGS & British AAC) and send it overseas!


  • Options
    #94
    Steyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    Avgas wrote: »
    Am I right that the existing config AW139 have no emergency flotation gear, and otherwise not really capable of overseas misisons …


    Avgas, this is a pic of mine, i think the Black bulges are Flotation devices.
    P1020043.jpg

    Avgas wrote: »
    or can the do stuff like the old Dauphins used …up to 100km offshore in moderate weather?

    Dont forget it wasnt the entire Dauphin Fleet, I believe only 2 were "Navalised" with Harpoon and HIFR ( 244/245 ).


  • Options
    #95
    concussion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Avgas wrote: »
    as an interim we should consider a long term slow procurement process to either add dual-use military/civilian capabilities to our existing ATC network...or grow our domestic Aerial Monitoring capacity...perhaps in novel ways......I don't think we've the money to be getting whacking great big phased array radar sets and building them on some mountain somewhere.........maybe there are more asymmetric and cheaper technologies that could provide a modular and evolvable national aerial monitoring networking using a mix of biggish but mobile (towable) tactical radars....placed at key nodes..(think Son of Giraffe).....and probably some EO passive sensors...... this could be built in as part of a package of improving our AIR DEFENCE capabilities which have been somewhat improved in the last few years......but still need work...given how strategically important air defence is.......

    Hi Avgas, some containerised radar options mentioned in this post

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63426175&postcount=154


  • Options
    #96
    kevinhalvey
    Registered Users Posts: 697 ✭✭✭kevinhalvey


    i think that the air-corp should not be scrapped but what they should do is re-new some of the old planes . we dont have any decent planes/jets that actually can carry bombs or win a fight


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Zambia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    RAF feeling the same pain

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html
    In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

    The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.


    But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

    The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

    The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

    While the Strategic Defence and Security Review is yet to be finalised, officials have drawn up a series of likely options to meet cuts of 10 to 20 per cent demanded by the Treasury.

    By the end of this month the Defence Strategy Group, comprising ministers and military chiefs, will be presented with a number of recommendations that they will refine and pass to the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, in September.

    In October, after agreement with the Treasury, an announcement will be made in Parliament on precisely what cuts the Forces face as part of the comprehensive spending review of Whitehall budgets.

    If implemented, the cuts will mean that Britain will almost certainly depart the world stage as a major military power and become what military chiefs call a “medium-scale player”.

    The proposed cuts – which are certain to face a critical reception from the public – are being considered without resolving the question of who pays for the Trident replacement. The MoD hopes that once voters realise the scale of the cuts to the Armed Forces, George Osborne, the Chancellor, may spare some parts of the military. The plans will lead to the RAF losing its status as the fifth biggest air force in the world.

    The entire force of 120 GR4 Tornado fighter-bombers looks destined for the scrap heap to save £7.5 billion over the next five years. The Tornado was supposed to be in service until 2025, but with a major overhaul due in the next five years costing £10 million for each aircraft, it is now under threat.

    The cut will mean job losses as RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham totalling almost 5,000 personnel.

    Under the plans, the number of Eurofighter Typhoons is likely to be reduced further from 160 to 107 planes based at a single RAF airfield to save £1  billion. The entire fleet of 36 Hercules transport aircraft, the workhorse in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be phased out and replaced by an order of 22 new A400M planes.

    The £3.6 billion project for nine Nimrod MR4 reconnaissance aircraft is also vulnerable, along with a number of other surveillance planes.

    The proposals include a swathe of cuts to the Army’s armoured regiments with the loss of Challenger 2 tanks, AS90 guns and Warrior armoured vehicles.

    While the Army is likely to lose a few thousand soldiers in the coming year, reducing its numbers to about 100,000, it is braced to lose an entire brigade of about 5,000 when combat troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2015. It is understood that 7 Armoured Brigade or 20 Armoured Brigade, both based in Germany, are the most vulnerable.

    Infantry battalions will be increased from about 600 troops to 750 as a lesson from Afghanistan has been the loss of combat effectiveness through leave and casualties, according to the plans.

    The Royal Marines also face coming under direct Army control from Navy command and the possibility of being grouped into a “super elite” unit alongside two Parachute Regiment battalions.

    A senior Whitehall source said: “These are not Tory cuts, these are Labour cuts as a result of their irresponsible overspending. However, a lot of this comes down to how much political appetite there is to do this.”

    An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”


  • Options
    #98
    TW Mr Tayto
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭TW Mr Tayto


    petergfiffin wrote: »
    , they totally passed over the opportunity to buy military grade helis be they MI8s, Blackhawks, second hand Pumas or even Hueys.

    On a recent IHOP (Irish Helicopter Owners and Pilots Association) trip to "The Don", I think it was noted that the considerable maintenance of the UH-1 Blackhawk made it unsuitable. There may be arguments against this - but don't shoot the messenger... it might effect the taxpayer :P

    Try asking anyone who was stuck without food/supplies in the snows and floods if the air corp should be scrapped?
    If we didn't have the Air Corp, the next generation would just argue the points of having one, it would be a cycle. It's better to have one and not need it than to not have one and need it!


  • Options
    #99
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    Actually the Huey would be unsuitable due to age. But then the Agustas are unsuitable due to being unsuitable. But there are plenty of good military helicopters out there. The Air Corps instead chose a brand new civilian helicopter ideal for executive transport not battlefield transport. Agusta themselves agree since they've since brought out the AW149 which is an actual military helicopter.

    The Air Corps shouldn't be scrapped, simply reformed into a more helicopter intensive unit with real military helicopters rather than cool executive helicopters, ministers for the use of.

    And if we didn't need any further reminding of the waste involved. We see the MATS being used to ferry Minister Dempsey back and forth across the country so he avoid having to drive to Donegal or even catch an Aer Arann flight there.


  • Options
    #100
    Avgas
    Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭Avgas


    Tend to be away/busy weekends so can't reply so soon to what are quite a few excellent posts.


    Re Peter/Leasing Woes

    Regarding Peter's comments on leasing/contracting out.... I'll concede many of your latest points are good .......and you sum up a 'consensus' position pretty well in your final points.....about redirecting Air Corps towards more useful things and being overseas...etc.

    However, the idea in theory that a private outfit will always try to drive costs down over a public entity…while fine in theory…..may not in fact correspond to reality in my experience of both private and public entities…the DF is notoriously stingy and parsimonoious….. and I think many units, for example as regards vehicle upkeep, have had to make do with kit and even consumables at a lower rate than would be found in similar commercial entities/workshops….. not least for the very simple reason they have no cashflow coming in the door….but must seek the ever grudging permission from the Mandarins at Parkgate Street to fill in receipts in triplicate.

    Persons I know in the private corporate sector tell me tales of routine enough NAMAesqe type profligacy from time to time…some of which gets written off against tax, creatively accounted for, etc.

    In the UK, their Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been quoted at often providing assets for the public at roughly 30% greater costs over the lifecycle of the asset (often a building)…..than if the thing was paid for out of public capital spending/borrowing…..from the outset…..the real financial reason states such as UK, Ireland and Norway are looking to privatise SAR services is due to high initial capital costs they cannot afford……and keeping such debt off bloated national debt/public accounts….oh and in the case of Ireland…the nonsense that went on in Sligo a few years back……'green flu', etc.

    I think my final point on the recent CHC contract would be to say 'great, let it go ahead', BUT could we not also investigate getting some Air Corps owned and operated S92s as well…for the type of scenarios and others I've mentioned and to have a residual publically owned fleet, for contingencies. And the idea or rationale here would be to have their upkeep and basic training costs maybe shared with CHC…..thus making it more economically feasible …..?

    That would not be cheap, but then good insurance and safety precautions never are.

    They could be 'trickled leased-to-buy' (to avoid crucifying up front capital costs) in batches of 2-3….over a decade long time-frame…..one might build up a small force of fairly capable military helicopters-say 6-9…..

    Yeah I know………dream away buddy. :rolleyes:

    Very finally, no doubt your aware that the UK Treasury has decided to suspend and review their porposed 5-7 billion sterling SAR contract (which would have included CHC as part of a winning consortium)…..apparently on the grounds that the (a) UK is broke (b) their cutting back spending everywhere and probably want to rengeotiate it…….and (c), Avgas being of a cynical disposition, I also strongly suspect that AugustaWestland …may have whinged into a few Tory ears…….seeing as they effectively 'lost out'…….

    See: http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2157&thisSection=military

    Also at:

    http://news.scotsman.com/scotlandseconomy/New-7bn-helicopter-rescue-service.6370131.jp

    Concussion/Radars.

    Yep, some nice kit you've highlighted there….but the usual 'we're broke…dream away' injunction probably applies….I've always been intrigued by the RBS23 BAMSE project….and have never found enough material on it to figure it out really….its not an extended RBS70/BOLIDE……but is the missile a modified RBS70 one? It basically is a SA/CLOS systems am I right?.

    What I actually had in mind regarding 'novel' aerial monitoring techniques was the idea of so called passive bi-static/multistatic radars….possibly developed as a 'parasitic' capability that would 'overlay' on various civilian networks…..there appears to be some tinkering (for example by SAAB) going on with using civilian or distributed low cost radio networks to act as a detection system…but for now its probably very iffy ……more proven (perhaps) is ESM like the Czech VERA system….see

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor

    Somehow, I feel a whole new thread coming on 'novel air defence concepts for Irish DF'?:)

    Steyr/Flotation gear on AW139s…    .

    Great photo Styer…eh….. dunno know why I didn't clock that one… old age? ….it just missed me……but that is good news……The Air Corps guy ( sorry….. eh….Cmdt.) mentioned in the IT article said they would need a few minor modifications to do SAR properly…wonder what he had in mind? And I think CHC do use AW139s for lighter/inshore coastal SAR in the UK no?

    Does anybody know if their spec/gear fit would be that different from what our AW139s have at the momemt…or, really what I'm asking is: what extras would our AW139s need to be able to do routine 'marine/naval contingency' work….(not necessarily SAR…seeing as CHC are doing it and better).

    Can long range side tanks be fitted on the AW139?

    Cheers, Av.


  • Options
    #101
    Klunk001
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Klunk001


    Hopefully I can answer some of the questions. The SAR-H contract is suspended at the mo in the UK and a decision is due on that quite soon. Word on the street is it will go ahead without the military been involved resulting in a serious reduction to the price. As I understand it RAF Valley ran up a budget of £12 million stg for its SAR operation last year. That would equate to £48 million for four bases, that’s compares to €25 Million for four bases here. I wouldn't expect it to be any different at the remaining three military SAR bases there.

    The 139's for UKSAR were built from the ground up as a SAR asset to be used relatively close inshore and have been found wanting to put it mildly. There are still issues with them and will be replaced at the end of the current contract.

    Anybody that tells you that minor modifications to the current fleet of AC 139's is all that is needed is quite frankly talking through their hat, they just have not got a clue:confused:, obviously flew fixed wing when in the Don. But let’s run with it for a moment, minor modifications would give you a limited SAR capability, basically a big Allouette with two engines for day light hours which neither has the range or space to be taken seriously for long range stuff. Now we all know what happened when the idea of Waterford becoming 12 hr base in the new contract was put out there.:eek:

    The IRCG currently provide 24 hr SAR (all weather SAR) at their bases. To be able to provide this, the flying particularly at night over water require some very specialised equipment, I could tell you what it is and how it works, but I don't want to bore you. To retro fit would take lots of time and money and what would you have at the end, an inferior product to the 139 already been used on the south coast of the UK that is going to be replaced.

    Without going over things, but if the AC were providing SAR from Sligo today they too would be getting one of these new shiny toys and possibly could have done some sort of deal for one or two more for the military taskings that are been discussed here. They still would have been civilian helo’s like the 139’s but the difference would be the 92 coming from a military design (Blackhawk on steroids) and like all things Sikorsky, built like a thank.:D



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Steyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    Anybody see Saturday's Irish Independent Colum about the IAC in "Weekend Review"??


    And i quote:

    "Based at Casement Aerodrome in Co Dublin, the Air Corps employs 850 people, including 120 Pilots, It has 29 Aircraft."


    120 Pilots?? Really? Or did they mean Crew and Pilots and Instructors/Cadets??


  • Options
    #103
    Klunk001
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Klunk001


    Interesting figures there. I'm open to correction here but I believe 65 helo pilots too, for ehh how many helo's. Hhmmmm, 850 people for 29 aircraft:eek:, how many of those assets are available 24/7.:confused:


  • Options
    #104
    Avgas
    Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭Avgas


    Great reply Klunk...v. interesting and informative...any views on Eurocopter 725 merits/demerits versus the S92 for the Irish situation........is there life and value left in the auld (super)Puma frame yet? Would the 725 not be a bit more proven and a bit better as regards range/endurance?

    There seems to be consensus here over a few posts that the AW139 purchase was...yet again.....a wrong purchase........:(


  • Options
    #105
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    I imagine the the 120 'pilots' referred to actually means officers. Not all of whom would be pilots. As for the pilots many would now be flying a desk, an occupational hazard in any military. So active pilots would be fewer in number.


  • Options
    #106
    Gilligan.Mark
    Registered Users Posts: 37 ✭Gilligan.Mark


    xflyer wrote: »
    I imagine the the 120 'pilots' referred to actually means officers. Not all of whom would be pilots. As for the pilots many would now be flying a desk, an occupational hazard in any military. So active pilots would be fewer in number.


    First time posting here, but as for number of officers in the AC, it was 149 as over 31st May 2010. so I doubt there was a mass exodus from then to now to drop to 120.

    The way I'd see it is there's 120 officers retaining pilot status, maybe 29 doing desk related work, therefore 149. As for what you said about active pilots, I'd agree with you in that they would be fewer in number. Not all 120 would be flying regularly.

    (Once you're a qualified pilot, you only need to log 12hrs a year/2years to retain your licence, if i'm not mistaken)



    Breakdown of officers in the DF
    http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2010-07-07.2211.0&s=strength+male+officers#g2213.0.r


  • Options
    #107
    Klunk001
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Klunk001


    Apolagies for the thread drift. As I understand it the EC225 (civilian cousin of the 725) was tendered by a different company. The figures were close, where the EC 225 gained in one area the S-92 gained somewhere else.

    I believe part of the requirement on the contract was that two paramedics could work on two seperate casualties at the same time in relative comfort. The height inside the S-92 is six foot, thats the difference between been able to do this work standing or kneeling.

    The S-92 fitted with a long range tank or tanks will give it a serious range, there are figures floating around, its impressive. I hope the crews have strong bladders:D. There is a S-92 out there which came into service a few years back with 9000 hrs already on the frame. Personally I have found american made helos take more abuse and are not as soft as the european counterpart (Germany been the exception). After sale service for parts and the likes is second to none from across the pond looking west.


  • Options
    #108
    Klunk001
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Klunk001


    Internal photo's of S-92 and EC 225.


  • Options
    #109
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    (Once you're a qualified pilot, you only need to log 12hrs a year/2years to retain your licence, if i'm not mistaken)
    Interesting, thanks for your input. Just to put it in perspective this weekend alone, I put in 7 hours. On a good weekend, can do 12. hours. On a crazy weekend 16. In a quiet week 30.

    There is no way you can remain current by doing 12 hours a year.

    I wouldn't expect those numbers week after week. It would kill me anyhow. But that put's some perspective on the pressures or lack therof on the Air Corps.


  • Options
    #110
    RedneckHamster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭RedneckHamster


    Personally, I would recommend the purchase of 4-6 HH-60H Rescue Hawk airframes. With these, you're looking at an extremely flexible platform that can be used for search-and-rescue, COIN, and troop transport. They can carry a squad of troops, have a built-in rescue hoist, and are able to carry a variety of door-mounted weapons as well as an M299 launcher with 4 AGM-114 missiles. Their cost is similar to that of an AW139, and they're navalized so maritime operations shouldn't cause much undue wear and tear. These are full mil-spec birds, so they would be operated by the IAC or NS. If the NS ever invested in another light helicopter carrier, the HH-60H also has a RAST system allowing for it to securely fasten itself to the deck if the ship is properly equipped. If the Rescue Hawk is too expensive, I would stick with the AW139s, since an HH-60J (USCG variant) doesn't have the massive leap in flexibility that the Rescue Hawk gives you.

    As for air defense, procure a handful of military radars and SLAMRAAM systems to defend urban areas. They're far less expensive to operate than interceptor aircraft and use a proven missile (AIM-120).


  • Options
    #111
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Hi there
    Some of the Don's alleged pilots are permanent desk jockeys, who maintain the legal minimum hours to keep the wings and flying pay. Also, aircraft like the Casas and Garda aircraft and MATS aircraft use a lot of pilots and aircrew per day/shift/flight. Being Military, pilots must also rotate into ground jobs after a tour on an aircraft type, so they only fly to maintain currency during their ground tour. All Militaries operate like this. Apart from that, you have people out sick, people on detachment inside and outside of Ireland, people on leave,etc,etc, so the actual number who are hands-on as pilots is considerably less than the actual total. The same applies to the technical personnel, a significant amount of whom are not always directly engaged in or on an aircraft. Apart from that, probably a quarter of all Air Corps personnel exist to run the system, such as storemen, drivers, cooks, clerks, soldiers,etc,etc. and just like Militaries everywhere, it is overmanned by comparison to civilian equivalent.
    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Leonidas BL
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Leonidas BL


    [QUOTE=As for air defense, procure a handful of military radars and SLAMRAAM systems to defend urban areas. They're far less expensive to operate than interceptor aircraft and use a proven missile (AIM-120).[/QUOTE]

    Why not mount ATA missiles on the PC-9's like Brazil do with great effect with there Super Tucanos???


  • Options
    #113
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    Air Corps seems to be little more than a very expensive ( to the taxpayer ) Flying Club.

    No Air Defence assets , no SAR functions , ministerial Transport that could be outsourced to a civilian operator , helicopters unsuitable for overseas deployment , the list of deficiencies is endless and its value / service to the nation has to be questioned.

    I would love to see it done away with and the savings used to improve the Naval Service which for an island is very poorly equipped ( but then again neglect of National Defence seems to be have been Government policy since the foundation of the state ).


  • Options
    #114
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Delancey wrote: »
    Air Corps seems to be little more than a very expensive ( to the taxpayer ) Flying Club.

    No Air Defence assets , no SAR functions , ministerial Transport that could be outsourced to a civilian operator , helicopters unsuitable for overseas deployment , the list of deficiencies is endless and its value / service to the nation has to be questioned.

    I would love to see it done away with and the savings used to improve the Naval Service which for an island is very poorly equipped ( but then again neglect of National Defence seems to be have been Government policy since the foundation of the state ).

    Yeah, but no.
    • Air Defence assets? What threat is there?
    • SAR function? Not a military task, should not be, for a small force. We saw it in the past when the air corps dedicated all its efforts into providing 24 hr SAR, and the military skills sufferred.
    • Overseas deployment? I don't see how they are unsuitable, apart from the number of them. Again the type was chosen to provide training to troops who would be operating overseas from other nations aircraft. In addition it needs to be capable of doing air ambulance, and the types are quite effective at this.
    That said, recent management of the AC has been uninterested in promoting a proper military role, and was happy enough to take whatever crumbs fell from the government table, leaving us with the best equipped VIP transport fleet we can't afford..

    I would be in favour of increasing the maritime patrol ability. We are an island nation, and the real threat to us is from smuggling of drugs/arms/explosives. The MPA can provide eyes on an incident off our coast faster than surface assets, but has the ability to monitor all activities from a safe distance until a surface asset gets on scene.
    A possible scenario would be similar to the indian terror attacks of a few years back, where Al Quaida operatives attacked from the sea.
    This capability is equally useful should the land border come under threat.
    The helicopter situation is a skill that needs to be rebuilt before any capability expansion is considered. Learn the tactics first, then perhaps procure a deployable aircraft. The real problem though is some behind the blue fence are reluctant to leave their cosy dublin homes. If they won't deploy to shannon, what hope is there to move them to lebanon or elsewhere?


  • Options
    #115
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    [*]SAR function? Not a military task, should not be, for a small force. We saw it in the past when the air corps dedicated all its efforts into providing 24 hr SAR, and the military skills sufferred.

    However, the SAR budget is impressive and the IAC provides Top Cover for same routinely. IMO it would make more sense to have SAR Ops a military function and it would give a sense of duty and accomplishment and a morale booster too.

    As well as getting the best equipment, we buy helicopters from Canadian Helicopters for SAR, we could just as easily buy them for the military.


  • Options
    #116
    goldie fish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    gbee wrote: »
    However, the SAR budget is impressive and the IAC provides Top Cover for same routinely. IMO it would make more sense to have SAR Ops a military function and it would give a sense of duty and accomplishment and a morale booster too.

    As well as getting the best equipment, we buy helicopters from Canadian Helicopters for SAR, we could just as easily buy them for the military.

    What CHC are commiting to the SAR contract is an amount never before spent on SAR. Remember we were relying on the RAF and our own 30 year old single engine, daytime only machines until the Private Coast guard contract took over. Of course, morale boosting exercises in waterford, cost the lives of 4 crewmen.
    To go back to military sar would be a backward step, and we would again see , in 2022 the air corps attempting to do SAR with AW139s... Remember CHC are providing helicopters and Crew, not just helicopters.


  • Options
    #117
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    [QUOTE=goldie fish;76245876 SAR with AW139s... Remember CHC are providing helicopters and Crew, not just helicopters.[/QUOTE]

    Why would you suspect this? And BTW CHC operate this type as well. But the superior aircraft is a version of the Eurocopter going forward.

    Men can be trained and I did watch the R117 & R115 RTE productions and I do appreciate that CHC crew training is above current military training but men are men and women are women they can be trained or they fail.

    Equipment is part of the CHC contract, I don't envisage the IAC getting the budget and not getting the best aircraft for the job too.

    The Tramore accident was sad and a valid case of political interference over operational viability.


  • Options
    #118
    omg a kitty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 447 ✭✭omg a kitty


    2011 for the Air Corps

    Just thought this should be in here, for people asking why we have the Air Corps if we're neutral, they dont provide air defence blah blah..they don't need to


  • Options
    #119
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Hi there
    In a lot of the cases that required air ambulance by the AC, the punters involved either hadn't the insurance cover required or the treatment was being paid for by the NTPF. The AC air ambulance effort consumes a lot more manpower and money than any civilian equivalent, so it isn't efficient in raw terms.
    GF, the AC, as you know, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to give the Army the use of aviation assets it has asked for for years and in fairness to Ralph James, he got the ball rolling and continued his longtime policy of not being afraid to disturb local empires and to shout at people uintil the job was done to his satisfaction.
    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Options
    #120
    hippyrod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭hippyrod


    Why not incorporate the helicopters and maybe the pc-9's into the army and outsource the base maintenance and maybe some of the basic flying training and start using them to properly support the army and start sending them abroad. The casa's could be incorporated into the navy and the same thing done with the base maintenance and basic flying training. Scrap the glorified taxi's for government. Outsource the air ambulance and set up a dedicated air ambulance service. If all this was done you would also save on pay because presumably there would be no need for the higher ranks of the air corps anymore.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Irish_PC9
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭Irish_PC9


    Corsendonk wrote: »
    Well I think if you read the Lisbon Treaty it included a clause that allowed for member states to come to a member state aid in the event of a terrorist attack. So pick up the phone and ring the French or English if we have a hijacking in Irish airspace.

    Are you dumb? The Irish Army Ranger Wing would be called in they would take over the plane and arrest possibly kill the suspects hijacking the plane.The Navy would do the same with boats and smugglers.

    And yes,the Irish Air Corps have the grey coloured jet's have Anti-Air Missile Systems and Heavy Machine Guns.

    And possibly more jet's that I wouldn't know of.I've been training with the Ranger Wing in plane hijackings and the ARW would definately go after the terrorist's.So there's a little lesson for you.;)


Advertisement