Finally New Trainer Aircraft Arrive To The Air Corps!!

Morpheus

At last they are here!!!

for anyone interested information follows...



from: http://www.military.ie/pr/19-04-2004.htm

Press Releases
Date 19 April 2004

ARRIVAL OF NEW TRAINER AIRCRAFT TO THE AIR CORPS
The Minister for Defence, Mr Michael Smith T.D. and the Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Jim Sreenan will attend the arrival of three Pilatus PC-9M aircraft to the Air Corps on Wednesday 21 April in Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, at 1500 hrs.

The turbo propeller training aircraft are the first three of eight aircraft purchased to replace the Siai Marchetti aircraft in the pilot training role. The Pilatus PC-9M are manufactured by Pilatus Aircraft Ltd, Stans, Switzerland. The overall cost of the contract for eight aircraft is approx €60 million.

Members of the media are invited to view the arrival of the aircraft at 1500 hrs approximately. The arrival will provide excellent photographic opportunities. Those wishing to attend should meet the Defence Forces Press Office Personnel as follows:

ARRIVAL OF NEW TRAINER AIRCRAFT

Day/Date: Wednesday 21 April 04.

Location: Main Gate, Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel

Time: 14.45 hrs.

For further information contact Captain Sean O Fátharta at the above numbers.

dahamsta

Wow, let's have a big party! :rolleyes:

thejollyrodger

Great news for the Air Corps !! and the Defence Forces as a whole they really needed those the trainers.

Morpheus

Well... this is the politics board,

Politics implying matters to do with government,

The Department of Defence being a department of said government,

The above implies that with the lack of a forum specifically for those interested in Irish Military or Military Aviation, I thought Id place it here.

:rolleyes: ill bring the beer.

Sleipnir

pics here

thejollyrodger

there seems to be a board decicated with this sort of stuff : -
http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/

Morpheus

Some of my buddys are on this board only, so I posted it here.:cool:

Walter Ego

What precisely are they training for?
Will the pilots then graduate to a fully fledged operational fighter?

What do you mean,"no". Are you trying to tell me all they will ever do is fly in circles over Kildare?

Don't tell me search and rescue. That is really only practical from a helicopter and the ones we have were early designs by Michaelangelo. I think they run on a mixture of turf and parrafin.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the Defence Forces but i abhor the waste of my tax money.

pork99

I could be wrong but in the unlikely event that we ever face a Sept 11 style attack we have nothing that could catch up with let alone shot down even a civilian airliner

Morpheus

The money for these aircraft came from the sale of Defence Forces Land and Buildings that are no longer in use, so while you abhor the use of your tax payers money, it wasnt used to buy these aircraft, nor indeed to buy the new govt jet that arrived a few months ago...

Get your facts right and if your really concerned about the state of the aircorps as your post suggests in its mockery of the current state of affairs, applaud the fact that at least they are getting equipment, ask the politicians what they are going to do about it, ask them why we should have to depend on other countries air assets when on UN work.

Also do me a favour and look up the roles the aircorps do, they are an air corps they support the army in a ground attack role, in troop transport, parachuting, re-supply, movement of material assets (weapons, food and equipment) and carry out sea surveillance which our navy can barely cover with the lack of ships. Do you think they can just climb on a recconaissance plane like the CASA 235 and fly it without any turboprob single engined training? All this with an ageing and dangerous fleet or aircraft. They are also used as air ambulance and rapid transfer of organs for transplants.

They are further cost cutting by going to an aircorps with ony 2 or 3 types of craft as opposed to 7 or 8 and reducing the costs of maintenance required on older aircraft as well as doing away with trying to procure replacement parts that arent manufactured anymore.

The SAR thing was only a secondary role to the aircorps primary mission, in retrospect they will be better able to serve their primary roles now that they have freed up equipment from SAR...

If your so worried about your tax, think about this, until recently when the aircorps was supplying SAR it was a free service provided by a govt dept through its own budget, now SAR is provided by a private company that our tax is paying for and believe me its FAR from cheap.

Short of calling you a muppet, id ask you to post sensibly and look up the facts before you preach.

slan leat.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Walter Ego
Don't tell me search and rescue. That is really only practical from a helicopter and the ones we have were early designs by Michaelangelo. I think they run on a mixture of turf and parrafin.

To be fair, the S61N is a pretty damn cool chopper.

ishmael whale

I've had a look at the picture. Dumb question. Is that all you get for €7.5 million?

dahamsta

Originally posted by Morphéus
The money for these aircraft came from the sale of Defence Forces Land and Buildings that are no longer in use, so while you abhor the use of your tax payers money, it wasnt used to buy these aircraft, nor indeed to buy the new govt jet that arrived a few months ago...

ROFL. What do you think bought the land and buildings? Magic beans?

Ok ok, they were prolly "acquired" in nineteen-o-splash for a pittance, but still, comical.

adam

Sleipnir

Originally posted by pork99
I could be wrong but in the unlikely event that we ever face a Sept 11 style attack we have nothing that could catch up with let alone shot down even a civilian airliner

In that extremly unlikely event, SAM's would be a more than adequate defence.
Plus, there would be far easier ways to attack assets in Ireland. We don't have any skyscrapers to knock down.

Walter Ego

The money for these aircraft came from the sale of Defence Forces Land and Buildings that are no longer in use

Surely this land was an asset owned by the taxpayer? So we're still talking tax money.

applaud the fact that at least they are getting equipment

I'm just asking what are they going to do with it?

they support the army in a ground attack role, in troop transport, parachuting, re-supply, movement of material assets (weapons, food and equipment)

Who did they Irish Army last attack?
Are these aircraft actually armed with effective weapons?
Is there a budget to fire live ammunition?
How many troops can these aircraft transport?
How many Irish trained parachutists are in th Irish Army and I stress Irish trained?
How much materiel can these aircraft carry?

carry out sea surveillance which our navy can barely cover with the lack of ships. Do you think they can just climb on a recconaissance plane like the CASA 235 and fly it without any turboprob single engined training?

What is the point of sea surveillance if there are no forces to follow up?

An ageing and dangerous fleet or aircraft.
They are further cost cutting by going to an aircorps with ony 2 or 3 types of craft as opposed to 7 or 8 and reducing the costs of maintenance required on older aircraft as well as doing away with trying to procure replacement parts that arent manufactured anymore.

My point exactly. The air corps have been flying junk at tremendous cost to the taxpayer.

They are also used as air ambulance and rapid transfer of organs for transplants.

This is a perfectly legitimate use of a state asset to aid the citizens of the state who paid for it.

The SAR thing was only a secondary role to the aircorps primary mission, in retrospect they will be better able to serve their primary roles now that they have freed up equipment from SAR...

I disagree in a neutral peacetime country what other role could they fulfill?

If your so worried about your tax, think about this, until recently when the aircorps was supplying SAR it was a free service provided by a govt dept through its own budget, now SAR is provided by a private company that our tax is paying for and believe me its FAR from cheap.

SAR should be carried out by the Air Corps, not by some private company "in the know".

Celtic helicopters, Ciaran Haughey. Now where have I heard that name before?

Short of calling you a muppet.

Not everbody who disagrees with you point of view is a muppet. I just stated my views with no personal attack on anybody.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I've had a look at the picture. Dumb question. Is that all you get for €7.5 million?

well they're quite a bit better than your bog-standard cessna. They have pretty modern avionics.
The 70 million also includes a complete training system & spares.
stepped ejection seats
ventral airbrake
electronic flight instrumentation and environmental control systems

Morpheus

yes that is a really dumb question.

"Your" not actually buying anything, so dont be complaining. The Department of defence paid for them out of their OWN coffers.

This was tendered; and; in the opinion of the most underfunded and (financially) tightly run department in government; it was the best solution.

Believe me, when a government department has to spend its own money and not taxpayers money, its amazing how good they can be at getting a good deal.

The american firms who were in contention were offering less for more in the super tucano.

This aircraft is one of the best in the role as a trainer. The manufacturer has a lot of experience with supplying the aircraft in question to other armys and air-forces.

Look, if we have these brilliant but expensive CASA maritime patrol turboprop aircraft flying around drug busting and stopping illegal fishing, and then go cheap and train our pilots in an old cessna or marchetti piston engined aircraft, its kinda unsafe and doesnt make sense really.

These aircraft come with 2 ejector seats and a proper modern "glass" cockpit. I dont know what you mean by "is this all we get" but believe me, its a very good deal financially, included in that price is maintenance follow up costs and other stuff like that.

ARG!!! why am i defending this!

I just posted here because I thought others would be interested...

dahamsta

Originally posted by Sleipnir
We don't have any skyscrapers to knock down.

Not a skyscraper by any stretch of the imagination but we do have the County Hall in Cork. Course, all you'd really need is a fat man to lean on it.

adam

Sleipnir

Originally posted by dahamsta
Not a skyscraper by any stretch of the imagination but we do have the County Hall in Cork. Course, all you'd really need is a fat man to lean on it.

adam

People would also be cheering if someone knocked that thing down and that's not the end-result your average terrorist is after.

Walter Ego

Originally posted by Morphéus
"Your" not actually buying anything, so dont be complaining. The Department of defence paid for them out of their OWN coffers.

Don't cod youself, the only money the Dept of Defence has is the money that comes from the State. That is me and you. I'm assuming that you are an Irish taxpayer.

Unless of course they raise their own money by fund-raising, cake sales, raffles, sponsored bungee jumps etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, I was in the Defence Forces for a number of years and I have respect for the men who serve in them. I just don't see value for money.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Morphéus
Look, if we have these brilliant but expensive CASA maritime patrol turboprop aircraft flying around drug busting and stopping illegal fishing, and then go cheap and train our pilots in an old cessna or marchetti piston engined aircraft, its kinda unsafe and doesnt make sense really.

Um. You do know they train them in the CASA before they let them fly it, right?

Morpheus

ok Walter.

look,

you dont need forces to follow up on sea interception of vessels involved in illegal activity, the aircorps and navy work together, the plane sees more of the area the navy ship is working in, for obvious reasons, and can then call the navy to the location of a suspect vessel.

A navy ship can get there pretty quick, its knowing where to go that matters. A sea vessel sould never outrun a plane, most times when they are ID'd they will either follow the aircrafts radio operators instructions and turn to port, or they will be picked up by a naval vessel.

Im not going into details about how the aircraft may or may not be armed bacause im not aware if its public knowledge and im not speculating on anything which may or may not be true, and could in fact contravene the OSA and end up with me being prosecuted. If your interested, go look up the Australian Air Force and their use of the PC9.

my apologies if i insulted you, but i did stop short of calling anyone a mupper!!

The irish train the Army ranger wing to jump from aircraft using the CASA and the Cessna as well as sending them to work alongside other EU special forces in this role.

Army troops generally initially train in Holland and then can maintain their skills using above aircraft although with the requirements these craft have on them due to our corps small size, its a bit of a luxury.

We are NOT actually neutral, we DO have a foreign policy of non involvement without a UN mandate, we dont however have neutrality enshrined in our constitution.

We should be able to secure our own borders nevertheless.

As for light strike role? if the air corps ever deploy with the army in a UN role, and whos to say that will never happen, they may be required to provide close in support if our troops get in a bit of trouble, this role has always been the one that keeps them an air corps and not a coast guard.

I told you the other roles, theres also Combat SAR to pull out injured troops, and not just abroad, this could be from a naval vessel, or on a training mission in ireland. They will still train in SAR for this and to back up the civilian contractors too.

The aircorps has been flying junk, saving lives, calling for newer safer equipment to fly in, dying in said useless junk and no-one has stepped forward publicly to demand the aircorps get the right equipment. Operators in the last few years, have been the bravest airmen this country has ever seen. My friend was winchman on the Dauphin that crashed in tramore killing all on board. They were returning after a SAR mission over the western seaboard, if may have been avoided if theyd had the right training paid for and a better more modern helicopter to fly in.

As you can see, government cuts result in deaths.

look this is getting off topic slightly, go to http://www.irishairpics.com and ask your questions there, someone better able to answer them can make things clearer for you.

slan leat.

Morpheus

Oscar bravo,
i know that, but you must fly single engined before you can fly twin engined, and a turboprop is whole different ballgame to a piston engine.

Im sure that you can appreciate, that with the demands of maintenance, and surveillance, that with a lack of availablility of CASA aircraft for initial training, then flying a turboprop single engined trainer can reduce lead in time?

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Morphéus
yes that is a really dumb question.
......................
I just posted here because I thought others would be interested...

I am interested. I saw 60 million for eight aircraft, opened the picture and said “is that it?” I worked out the unit cost, looked again and said again “is that it?” At this stage I was very interested.

I sure that 2 ejector seats and a proper modern "glass" cockpit. (as distinct from a reprehensible old “non-glass” cockpit) are nice. And I’m sure they are much nicer than what the rotten old Americans were selling.

Does it morph into a Megazoid or something?

Walter Ego

Originally posted by Morphéus
my apologies if i insulted you, but i did stop short of calling anyone a mupper!!

No need to apologise, I am a muppet. My father was a muppet and his father before him. I fact my muppetery can be traced back for many generations.

Back on topic.

I think the Air Corps should be supplied with dual purpose craft, helicopters would be best. Hopefully we will all spend our lives in peacetime and our aircraft will only ever be needed to rescue people and safeguard our fisheries.

As I said we are a small neutral country. Our Air Corps can and does provide a great service to the people of Ireland. We will never be sending aircraft abroad to take part in any operations. We don't have enough of them. We would be left without the meagre air cover we have now if we were to do so.

I salute your friend and the sacrifice he made and the willingness of other flyers to do the same.

Morpheus

:eek:
did i say we ARE neutral?

BLASPHEMY!!!

I meant, we are NOT actually neutral, we DO have a foreign policy of non involvement without a UN mandate, we dont however have neutrality enshrined in our constitution.

We should be able to secure our own borders nevertheless.

Occidental

Originally posted by Morphéus
Look, if we have these brilliant but expensive CASA maritime patrol turboprop aircraft flying around drug busting and stopping illegal fishing, and then go cheap and train our pilots in an old cessna or marchetti piston engined aircraft, its kinda unsafe and doesnt make sense really.

So you're saying that all the current CASA pilots are poorly trained and unsafe.

Walter Ego

Originally posted by Morphéus
I meant, we are NOT actually neutral

I think we are neutral. Wasn't it declared during the Emergency and never repealed? In much the same way as the Emergency was never repealed. I am pretty sure of this as the "state of emergency" is the basis for the Special Powers Acts which are currently in force.

We should be able to secure our own borders nevertheless.

Tell that to the families of the people who died in the Dublin bombings. I believe the perpetrators didn't come from all that far way either. Who protected our borders that day?

Morpheus

I didnt say that the pilots are poorly trained... stop putting words in my mouth!
im implying that a turboprop trained pilot will be initially more at home in a turboprop aircraft, this should make the transitional training easier and quicker.

Thats not the only reason that they were bought anyway!!! They were seen as the best trainer aircraft that the projected funds could acquire.

As for neutrality, its not in the constitution... check for yourself
http://193.178.1.117/upload/publications/297.htm

Nuttzz

not all this again....:rolleyes:

Mods PLEASE!!!!

Hobbes

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I've had a look at the picture. Dumb question. Is that all you get for €7.5 million?

Looks like an updated WWII spitfire.

Morpheus

yes MODS
please remove nutzz's post, its irrelevant, I started this thread, if nutzz, you dont like it, then get off it. Everyone EXCEPT you who posted on this obviously active thread, has had an opinion to debate, you simply moaned. Grow up.

This thread is about the new trainer aircraft, the irish aircorps, and someone mentioned an opinion on neutrality.

Boards is great, but there is no military thread. military is a govt issue which is a political subject vis a vis why im here.

Occidental

Originally posted by Morphéus
I didnt say that the pilots are poorly trained... stop putting words in my mouth!
[/URL]

Try reading the post I quoted where you referred to the current training methods as "kinda unsafe". Strange as it may seem, this would give me the impression that you consider the current training methods unsafe. If the current training methods are unsafe, it therefore follows that the pilots trained under this method are poorly trained and unsafe. If you don't believe this then why would you use the words "kinda unsafe" when describing current Air Corps training standards.

Morpheus

okay, point taken, its obviously not totally unsafe or they wouldnt do it.

I was trying to get across the point that surely less training will be required as you have to get certified from piston to turboprop, and it will surely be safer to fly newer aircraft, some of the aircraft in use are 40 years old, and the majority are over 20 years old.

Nuttzz

morpheus, this has been argued to death in the past, its the same oul stuff been rehashed, you like fighters etc other dont, we heard all the points before....

dahamsta

Originally posted by Morphéus
Im not going into details about how the aircraft may or may not be armed bacause im not aware if its public knowledge and im not speculating on anything which may or may not be true, and could in fact contravene the OSA and end up with me being prosecuted.

Funniest thing I've read all month, big thumbs up Morphie!

bonkey

Originally posted by Nuttzz
morpheus, this has been argued to death in the past, its the same oul stuff been rehashed, you like fighters etc other dont, we heard all the points before....

If people want to discuss something, and its appropriate to the forum, then they have every right to do so.

If you aren't interested in the thread, then don't read the thread.

Yes, its the same old tired argument, but there seem to be people on both sides interested in saying it all over again. You've done your bit - pointed out that it has been discussed and where. Now let it go. Please.

Oh - and Morphéus - its not your job to be telling Nuttzz that, like you did above. And don't follow this with a "see, I told you so", or you will get your thread locked.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

Unless of course they raise their own money by fund-raising, cake sales, raffles, sponsored bungee jumps etc etc

just had a mental image................very funny!!:D

arcadegame2004

Even for a small neutral country, our military is pathetically inequipped. Switzerland has a 500 year tradition of neutrality, yet is one of the most heavily-militarised nations in Europe, said to be a factor in Hitler's decision not to invade. We are incapable even of protecting EU meetings in this country from a September 11th-style attack. We don't even have the most basic in anti-aircraft weapons and these new aircraft are still ancient from a technological-modernity point of view. This is not good enough. We need a proper debate on this issue without neutrality being equated to impotence. The latter is not a prerequisite for the former.

Morpheus

the "former" is not even in the constitution.
we're not neutral!!!! its an excuse to turn a blind eye and fence sit til it suits us to get down.

Turkey

This country has never been neutral, no matter how many people wish to hang onto the idea, all that happened was that a particularly narrow-minded and useless statesman did not wish to side with the British, remember this was the man who, according to some interpetations,began the civil war in order to dispose of his more competent political opposition.
I am glad to see the arrival of these new aircrafts, finally one of the worst governments this country has been saddled with has done something useful. This equipment is cheap,versatile, realiable, and has about a 30 year lifespan.
Hopefully they are the first step in a major re-equipping of the IAC.
The timing of the arrival of these aircrafts will put the Irish Air Corps in a good position to operate some examples the new generation of light fighters which are presently approching production, such as the F-50.

thejollyrodger

What do you think bought the land and buildings? Magic beans?

As far as I was aware most of that land was from barracks that the british used to own and it was given to us.

paraphrase " is that all you get for €7,5 million? "

Yeah thats all you get, a souped up, spitfire looking trainer, what were you expecting ?

Walter Ego

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
We are incapable even of protecting EU meetings in this country from a September 11th-style attack.

The truth is we couldn't proect ourselves from a Friday 13th attack much less anything else. You only have to look at the way the army deploy themselves on Bank / Money transfer duty. They bunch up in small groups around the back of the jeeps as if they want to be an easy target. No attempt is made to set up defensive perimeters etc. Anybody who has made any cursory study of military tactics and deployment would overcome them in seconds, take the cash and all their, probably unfired, weapons.

This may seem to be off topic but I am trying to illustrate the unrealistic mindset of those in power in the Dept of Defence. They don't know what they are supposed to be doing but they are quite prepared to buy a few nice expensive toys to dress up the situation.

In the past the Air Corps was used as training ground for future Aer Lingus pilots. Who often having gained experience of commercial aircraft buggered off to better paying airlines abroad. At the moment according to yesterday's news there are 46 Aer Lingus pilots on full pay who are not doing any work because they have declined to be retrained for a new aircraft type. We no longer fly the type of aircraft they were trained to fly. I wonder how many of them ar ex Air Corps pilots who think the state owes them a living?

aidan_walsh

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I've had a look at the picture. Dumb question. Is that all you get for €7.5 million?

What were you hoping for... one of these?



$20million per unit...

We simply can't afford that kind of military spending, even if it were necessary... Which obviously it isn't...

dahamsta

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
As far as I was aware most of that land was from barracks that the british used to own and it was given to us.

Read the small print in the post you quoted. And the posts by others pointing out that public property is the property of the taxpayer. (That people actually had to do this boggles the mind.) Perhaps I should rephrase:

"Who do you think military property belongs to, the fairies?"

adam

thejollyrodger

"Who do you think military property belongs to, the fairies?"

dahamsta, There is no such thing as fairies!!

Of course everything belongs to the taxpayer, but i was saying that the taxpayer was out no net loss

However it could be argued that the tax payer was out a net gain if the money was redistributed to something like Health.

But this arguement just boils down to departmental arguing over funding.

Personally I am in favour of spending more money on the efficent health service without reform :rolleyes:

Walter Ego

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
As far as I was aware most of that land was from barracks that the british used to own and it was given to us.

Remind me to send them a thank you note for "giving it to us":ninja:

And where might I ask did those fúckers get it from?
Did the bring it over in flower pot from London or was it here when they got here?

thejollyrodger

(im not going off thread mod)

Walter Ego, "send Britain a thank you note for giving us military bases in Ireland" (joke)

As far as I am aware, there was no such thing as a country called ireland before the british arrived here. So technically the UK didnt actually take anything from Ireland. Offically history for the state begins in 1921 so we were handed over most of the island.

Walter Ego

I would be inclined to agree as before the British got here we didn't use their language or even alphabet. Eire, Eireann or a variation thereof would be more accurate. The didn't give it to us, we took it back. But this is an entirely different topic.

Back to topic. Sorry.

Morpheus

Wasnt Ireland called Hibernia by the Romans?


Anyway...
Walter... Can you tell me more on what you know about the tactics in use by the army on cash escort? (this is a question not a smart ass rebuff!!)

Were you in the army, i seem to remember you saying something along these lines?

If so, how long ago was it?

I was in Galway a few weeks ago and they certainly werent bunched up, Ive seen them in Balbriggan and Swords too, in section strength, they spread out about a 50-100 yards up and down the street on both sides, and one or two stay outside the front, while some go in with the cash carriers.

This seems fairly efficient to me, they were there only a few minutes before moving on to the next bank. Theres also Garda patrolling with them.

Maybe you saw a pretty inefficient unit, the ones ive seen though are pretty useful. Needless to say, they shouldnt have to do this free cash escort for no extra charge to the banks. there should be private armed security firms and the banks should fork out for it.

Its a gross misuse of Garda and Army personnel.

This may seem to be off topic but I am trying to illustrate the unrealistic mindset of those in power in the Dept of Defence. They don't know what they are supposed to be doing but they are quite prepared to buy a few nice expensive toys to dress up the situation.

The (senior military staff) of the Department are quite aware of what the have to do, its goals were set out in its whitepaper from 2000, the problem is getting the bloody money to do it. Unless you meant the minister himself... in which case im in total agreement, he keeps harping on about what he HAS bought whenever any TDs ask about future equipment necessities.


These arent expensive toys, these aircraft are replacements for the current fleet of trainers, which are outdated and expensive to maintain. They also provide our pilots with newer modern equipment and an improved level of flight training.

In the past the Air Corps was used as training ground for future Aer Lingus pilots. Who often having gained experience of commercial aircraft buggered off to better paying airlines abroad. At the moment according to yesterday's news there are 46 Aer Lingus pilots on full pay who are not doing any work because they have declined to be retrained for a new aircraft type. We no longer fly the type of aircraft they were trained to fly. I wonder how many of them ar ex Air Corps pilots who think the state owes them a living?

I thought we'd been through this, the Air Corps is changing, there are more missions and roles than they can manage with the current aircraft, the age of the airframes in use has resulted in larger numbers of fleet aircraft sitting in hangars awaiting replacement parts and maintenance.

state security,
fisheries protection,
maritime patrol,
Air Space patrol,
Drug interdiction,
SAR backup,
Air Ambulance,
Army Co-Op,
On Going Training,

:rolleyes:
These are some and only some of the pressures on our small corps. Its not just a testbed for Aerlingus pilots.

Employment Contracts have changed too, its no longer easy to join to get your licence and leave.

The current aviation environment doesnt benefit people of this mindset either and salaries have been brought more into line with commercial airlines to encourage retention.:dunno:

Walter Ego

I did serve in the Army many moons ago.

One of the biggest problems was the lethargy that creeps in when you know that nothing is ever going to happen. This is why many of these bank guard units are not as sharp as they could be. They have never been challenged. Soldiers need combat to hone their skills. Why do you think so many Irish troops volunteer for UN duty. Its not just the money. Its the need to be what your supposed to be, in this case a soldier. I can't discuss the tactics for the same reasons you couldn't discuss the weapons on the aircraft. It is fair to say that the standard of efficiency will vary greatly from unit to unit. Just as the pace of life varies from major cities to small towns, the perception of threat will vary from location to location.
AFAIK the banks make substantial payments to the state for this service and since its inception it has been a major success.

Yes I was talking about the Minister and the political point scoring that goes on. The Army Staff are all career soldiers but the Minister after the next election could be back on the the farm milking the cows instead of milking his expenses.

The Air Corps is changing but what are our reasonable expectations of it?
How many aircraft do we think we need to cover the roles you mentioned?How many can we afford?
Can I draw the distinction between being able to patrol an area and able to protect an area. With respect to fisheries, drug smuggling etc unless the aircraft can open fire on a vessel it is a waste of fuel. No drug smuggler is going to wait until one of our small fleet of ships can get there. Unless we follow current policy and only air patrol areas where we already have a ship present. Now that's a joke.

These trainer aircraft are all fixed wing and won't cover an air ambulance role. Helicopters do that. The pilots won't be qualified to fly anything other than the trainer, so they will be no use in SAR or any similar role.

IMO we should model our whole Air Corps on the US Coast Guard. Fully armed helicopters fulfilling multi purpose roles SAR , border patrol, fisheries, drug interdiction etc. These should be aided by small spotter aircraft who can quickly call on their armed response capabilities.

The name Air Corps is itself a dead giveaway. They are most definitely not an Air Force, nor I fear will they ever be.

Ireland covers approx 32,000sq miles plus God knows how much territorial water. How many aircraft would it take to patrol this 24 hours a day, 365 days a year? At the moment there is no after dark capablility. Is it any wonder the country is awash with drugs and guns. All they have to do is watch the planes fly back to base for 4:30pm when the majority of pilots go off duty or watch for the patrol boat to go by knowing it won't be back for 4 days because of the amount of sea area it has to cover.

Do you know what? This is a thoroughly enjoyable debate and I'm enjoying it immensly but I'm depressing myself with the reality. Would it be OK if we just stopped now and pretended that everthing is going to be ok?