Is it time for the Air Corps to get a real job and support the army?

diverdriver

Ok Mairt, I'll take you up on your suggestion. Has the Air Corps passed it's sell by date?

I came to this conclusion recently and stated as much in an aviation thread and it seems there are others who agree. At the moment I think it's a waste of money. Since it lost it's SAR function it really has no role the couldn't be carried out more cheaply by civilians. Except helicopter support of the army, which it apparently cannot do effectively. I was actually shocked to discover that the 139s were simply straight civilian aircraft with little or no military utility. If there is one role that cannot be civilianised then it's troop transport. Or so I thought until I see Mi8s hired in Chad.:(

Let's look at the Air Corps aircraft in turn.

The CASA, Maritime patrolling, air ambulance, military transport, Search and Rescue top cover and Parachuting operations. Most of that could be civilianised more cheaply, particularly the maritime patrol. But there is some justification in keeping some form of transport aircraft.

Cessna 172H, keep them, get the army to fly them. But they really need replacing. Having said that some of what they do could be done more cheaply by hiring a Cessna from Weston.

Garda Air Support helis and Islander. You could replace the military pilots with civilians. That's how they do it in Britain and the US. From what I hear that might be popular with the Garda.

Learjet and Gulfstream - A complete and utter waste of money. In this day and age you can pick up a phone and have anything from a 747 to a VLJ (Very Light Jet) waiting for you at an airport of your choice at a moment's notice. There is no need for the Air Corps to be operating these aircraft for the government.

The Super Kingair, well that's used to train pilots for the above and as a back up. If they're gone. Who needs it.

The EC135, according to military.ie these are for Pilot training, army support, air ambulance, VIP & military transport and general utility. That's fair enough.

The AW139s again according to military.ie:Army support, air ambulance, military transport and general utility. It doesn't mention VIP, which in my opinion is their real role. Seeing as they are essentially civilian choppers painted green.

Nearly forgot, the PC9s, military.ie says: Ab initio, advanced & instructor pilot training and close air support. Their armament is:
2 x Rocket Pods - Holding x 2.75” (70mm) ‘FN LAU 7’ Folding Fin Aerial Rockets
2 x .5” FN HMG - Each gun with a 250 round belt

Scary eh? Any pre WW2 fighter has a better armament.

A pointless extravagance, they have no role and are way over the top for ab initio training. The PC9 was designed as a lead in for future pilots of fast jets. We don't have any and never will have any. Most newly commissioned pilots either end up in EC135s or Cessnas for crying out loud!

So all that's really needed are some helicopters and a few liaison aircraft and maybe some form of transport aeroplane.

The current budget of the Air Corps should be invested in proper army support helicopters. The majority of basic flying training could be contracted out. More advanced training can be kept in house. But of course a few inexpensive basic training aircraft could be acquired whether
fixed wing or helicopters.

My idea of a proper Army Air Corps would be around ten troop transport helicopters, maybe more. Proper military helicopters. The two EC135s could remain. The Cessnas need replacing with more modern fixed wing aircraft. There are plenty of bush type aircraft out there. Cessna Caravan class.

The CASA could be replaced by something bigger like the C130 and used to transport troops or simply support them abroad.

Oh and get rid of the silly Ruritanian blue 'Air Force' uniform with their mysterious and unique rank markings that makes most of the Air Corps look like security guards and put them back in green. Proper soldiers.

Baldonnel could be kept. Move some of the Dublin infantry units out there into new accomodation and sell of those the last few archaic city centre barracks. They were built by the British to keep control of Dublin. Now that's hardly needed anymore.:rolleyes: Meanwhile Bal has acres of space growing silage for some local farmer.

Don't get me wrong. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Air Corps and none of this is a reflection on the people who serve in it. I always regret not enlisting in the Air Corps when I had the chance. So it's not sour grapes for being rejected because I wasn't.

I just think, that as it stands it is nothing more than a wonderful flying club for the pilots, not to mention free training for future Ryanair pilots and a steady job for the rest.

I'm sorry to say it but it needs to be completely transformed into a proper part of the defence forces and actually earn it's keep.

Tabnabs

Why does the army get all the goods? We are after all an island nation, surely the INS should have dedicated helicopter support. Something like the Agusta Westland Lynx helicopters or even the NH Industries NH90 ASW helicopter that other navies are now favouring?

They could be put to much better use nationally than your VIP transports...

neilled

Dyflin wrote: »

Why does the army get all the goods? We are after all an island nation, surely the INS should have dedicated helicopter support. Something like the Agusta Westland Lynx helicopters or even the NH Industries NH90 ASW helicopter that other navies are now favouring?

They could be put to much better use nationally than your VIP transports...

In 1999...................

Prime Time
Thursday, 13 May 1999
In the second and final part of the series 'A Defenceless Nation' Brendan O'Brien examines the Naval Service and the Air Corps.
A Defenceless Nation This second report focuses on the seas and air around and above this island state. Prime Time hears that the Navy and Air Corps are incapable of defending Ireland's sovereignty or of policing the seas against drug traffickers and fish plunderers. Sharp criticism is expressed from outside and within the Naval Service. In Scotland a radical alternative for fishery protection is examined while Naval Service proposals to upgrade the fleet are shot down from the top table. The Air Corps commander says he would consider resignation if certain proposals from within Cabinet were implemented. The picture is one of both services fighting off demoralisation amidst claims that the Army rules the roost and gets what's going.


http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0513/primetime_av.html

Part one is missing.

Alkers

I'd like to see it split maybe into giving the army an air wing and give the navy helicopters again. That aside the navy probably needs new ships before it gets given helicopters.

Rancho

With the proposed new vessels on ice while public finances circle the drain, I'd imagine the naval service need new vessels now more than ever. The recent drug interdiction highlights the vast quantities of narcotics finding a pathway to Ireland and Europe through our unprotected waters, and the vital role the Naval service can play in stemming the flow.

newby.204

too many officers employed in the air corps for it to be disbanded!!!! same as the navy

Alkers

Is there an argument for the Navy to be disbanded?

newby.204

watse of resources they are woefully equiped to deal with their role, bottom line they couldnt defend our seas if their lives depended on it, this is through no fault of the personnel, its that the resources they have arn't worth a f£$k in a modern naval engagement and while they do get lucky on drug seizures every now and then for the most part it gets through, and with regards fishing rights, plenty of foreign nations trawlers fishing our seas unimpeded.

Rancho

newby.204 wrote: »

watse of resources they are woefully equiped to deal with their role, bottom line they couldnt defend our seas if their lives depended on it, this is through no fault of the personnel, its that the resources they have arn't worth a f£$k in a modern naval engagement and while they do get lucky on drug seizures every now and then for the most part it gets through, and with regards fishing rights, plenty of foreign nations trawlers fishing our seas unimpeded.

Thats hardly an argument for disbanding the Navy. The fact that drugs are getting through and foreign trawlers fish with impunity mean the navy requires increased and sustained investment. The government needs to take the navy seriously but in the current economic climate meaningful investment is unlikely...

Manic Moran

Thats hardly an argument for disbanding the Navy.

Actually, it can be. If the job's not worth doing right, it's probably not worth doing at all.

NTM

Rancho

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, it can be. If the job's not worth doing right, it's probably not worth doing at all.

NTM

True, i suppose its a choice we as taxpayers have, either resource the naval service properly to allow it to perform its many roles effectively, or admit that in this country the political will to properly fund the naval service doesn't exist and cut our losses.

Back to the topic at hand the same could be said of the air corps as regards funding, political will etc.

petergfiffin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, it can be. If the job's not worth doing right, it's probably not worth doing at all.
NTM

With respect to the navy & drugs...the US have a huge very well funded Coast Guard backed up by AWACS, Satellites and the US Navy when required....and drugs still get in. As proven by the recent haul the only real way you're going to make a dent is with intelligence lead operations as searching every single boat or even a decent amount of them just isn't practical. When it comes to fisheries the Irish Naval Service are widely regarded in European circles as top class in this, and remember the vast majority of these "foreign" trawlers are Eurpoean and therefore perfectly entitled to fish here thanks to the fantastic deal we got when we joined the EEC!

Now...back on topic. I agree the Air Corps are of questionable use and even within the DF aren't held in the highest regard. Up till about 15 years ago they were totally integrated into the Army, were called the Army Air Corps, wore army uniforms and pilots were first commissioned as army officers before starting flying training, dunno why they were seperated out but you can be sure it wasn't for military reasons. I also agree they should be either given something useful to do or disbanded but there's no way the politicans will give up their private taxi company, if they were to privatise a lot of it there would be too many receipts to account for and who would do the flypast?!!! If the air-corps aren't going to operate overseas (and they won't) then there's no point in buying them military grade helis as it would be overkill.
I'm sure we'd all like to see a navy with about 20 ships & an air-corps with about 10 or 20 Merlin or Blackhawk helis but the cost of this is astronomical, you would be looking at probably a couple of billion just to buy the kit and then you have the running cost (which most people seem to forget about), how much does a C130 cost to run vs a Casa? I don't think Irish tax payers would be willing to pay an extra 2% levy or whatever for defence in the same way we pay one for health to subsidise this, it's just not in our make up. Politically it would be suicide...."no you can't have a new scanner for your hospital cause we spent the money on a new chopper!!".

OS119

the AC performs not one single function that is a purely military one, every single task it undertakes is an 'Aid to the Civil Power', but even worse its not even 'Military Aid to the Civil Power' - its 'Civil Aid to the Civil Power'.

the CASA's as 'Maritime Patrol Aircraft' have no Anti-Ship, Anti-Submarine or Mine Detection capability - they are purely Fisheries protection and SAR aircraft, in other words, utterly civilian. in any other nation they would be part of a civilian coast guard or indeed chartered from private companies in the same way the Scottish Fisheries Protection Service does.

the Cessnas' and Kingair's provide support to civil policing operations, they have no 'military' task as the Irish military is currently constructed.

the AW139's were allegedly bought to train Irish soldiers how to get in and out of other peoples helicopters. would anyone like to buy a bridge?

the PC-9's were bought as 'training aircraft'. now this is a little odd as they have a significantly higher performance than any of the Aircraft the pilots world 'gratuate' to - not to mention that all those aircraft save the Cessna are Multi-Engine or Rotary Wing platforms, and of course one could question the wisdom of training the pilot of a 175kt observation aircraft on a 500mph aerobatic aircraft - but i'm sure there are very good reasons for such a bizzare training doctrine...

Steyr

newby.204 wrote: »

too many officers employed in the air corps for it to be disbanded!!!! same as the navy

Always wondered why they never let NCO's fly too, read something like this before, people annoyed that the above could not fly and only Officers were the pilots?

petergfiffin

I can only imagine that (a) it's historical (b) to avoid the situation where you have a pilot who is a Sgt & a pilot who's a LT. I know it shouldn't really make any difference but hey...welcome to Ireland!!!

FiSe

Total re-organization of all armed forces of Ireland is needed. End of story.

The problem is not within the IAC, which is named as a Corps, because it ment to be a part of the Army or Irish Defence Forces, if you wish. The lack of proper equipped maritime aircrafts is tragic in the same way as the underresourced Navy or Army.

The problem is, that there's no proper military doctrine, which would set the rules and plans for future expansion of the armed forces and which would not be twisted and re-worked and postponded and re-planned every time the civil politician gets hangover. Ie xteen times a year :P

The need for goverment jet fleet as it stands is nonsence, C. Haughey and B. Ahern legacy. No more need to be said. Transport aircraft able to shift equipment and troops overseas will be more usefull.
GASU should not only be manned by Garda pilots and separated from the IAC, but in my opinion, there should be more GASU helis, Dublin, Limerick, Donegal, Cork on 24/7 service.
Helis as they are now, is the best what IAC/Army could get. There is no need for fully armored helicopters if you do not intend to use them in frontline conditions, but they will do for army/air training as they are now.
But, fully kitted 'battle' helis for UN overseas missions should be in the hangar as well.
Now, how will 'they' explain to us, that one, two or four of them were lost to the enemy fire during the service :rolleyes:

Let's disband the Dail, what a fortune could be saved :P

petergfiffin

FiSe wrote: »

The need for goverment jet fleet as it stands is nonsence, C. Haughey and B. Ahern legacy. No more need to be said.

I have no issue with Government jets bringing politicans overseas, just have a problem with them bringing them back!!

FiSe wrote: »

Transport aircraft able to shift equipment and troops overseas will be more usefull.

Probably makes sense to hire these as and when needed that way you can more quickly adjust the type of aircraft you have access to, also means you can access much bigger aircraft than you could ever hope to buy i.e. those monster Russian jobs we've used in the past, no point having a C130 sitting there if you're only going to use it a couple of times a year or not use it to full capacity

FiSe wrote: »

GASU should not only be manned by Garda pilots and separated from the IAC, but in my opinion, there should be more GASU helis, Dublin, Limerick, Donegal, Cork on 24/7 service.

Why would Garda pilots be any different? By Garda pilots I take it you mean pilots who work for the Garda, not Guards taught to fly. I don't know what the experience between AGS and the AC has been but I don't see the issue in using Air Corps pilots. I think everybody agrees there should be more helis (including air ambulances) but again....cash, even when the money was flush with cash Limerick couldn't get it's own dedicated heli.

FiSe wrote: »

Let's disband the Dail, what a fortune could be saved :P

Viva la Revolucion!!

williambonney

This is just an observation from some one who is not military minded but realises that a military of some sort is necessary.
1. Army, our (tiny) army seems to be miniature version of a serious large Army i.e. British, French etc. with (albeit limited) Artillery, etc. We don’t need an army, as we are never going to be in the position where we will actually be fighting another country. The army should be completely revamped into a Para military gendarmerie type force of about 10,000 men with the equipment needed to back up the police in event of serious civilian unrest. Forget about the UN missions, they are just a means of giving our soldiers an overseas role which they would otherwise not get. And as their numbers are so tiny on any one mission, they won’t be missed.
2. Naval service, we sometime refer to our naval service as the Navy, it’s not a Navy. The few fishery protection vessels we possess would not be able to engage a serious naval vessel in combat. (Think Royal Navy Type 23 Frigate) just as an instance. They do an awesome job with their extremely limited resources, but they should be renamed as the Irish coast guard because that’s all they actually are. They need serious investment, but they will probably never get it. In the mean time they will limp along.
3. Air Force, we don’t have one and probably never will. We don’t really need one as the RAF will always be there to cater for or needs in that department if we ever need the services of Jet fighter aircraft. The new Gendarmerie should be equipped with helicopters as required (I won’t go into details as I know nothing about helicopters). All other aircraft, present fishery protection, transport etc should be civilianised.

concussion

OS119 wrote: »

the PC-9's were bought as 'training aircraft'. now this is a little odd as they have a significantly higher performance than any of the Aircraft the pilots world 'gratuate' to - not to mention that all those aircraft save the Cessna are Multi-Engine or Rotary Wing platforms, and of course one could question the wisdom of training the pilot of a 175kt observation aircraft on a 500mph aerobatic aircraft - but i'm sure there are very good reasons for such a bizzare training doctrine...

The PC-9's are there to train pilots to a level that they can effectively transition to operating jets. Now we don't have jets anymore but the absolute worst thing that can happen is that those skills are lost.

This applies to the Air Corps in general. Since it doesn't provide SAR anymore and the naval operations never really worked there is a feeling that they do nothing, which is far from true. However, if it was disbanded you're effectively starting from nothing if a government 10 years down the road decides we actually do need some medium lift helicopters and some decent transports.

Hard Larry

williambonney wrote: »

This is just an observation from some one who is not military minded but realises that a military of some sort is necessary.
1. Army, our (tiny) army seems to be miniature version of a serious large Army i.e. British, French etc. with (albeit limited) Artillery, etc. We don’t need an army, as we are never going to be in the position where we will actually be fighting another country. The army should be completely revamped into a Para military gendarmerie type force of about 10,000 men with the equipment needed to back up the police in event of serious civilian unrest. Forget about the UN missions, they are just a means of giving our soldiers an overseas role which they would otherwise not get. And as their numbers are so tiny on any one mission, they won’t be missed.
2. Naval service, we sometime refer to our naval service as the Navy, it’s not a Navy. The few fishery protection vessels we possess would not be able to engage a serious naval vessel in combat. (Think Royal Navy Type 23 Frigate) just as an instance. They do an awesome job with their extremely limited resources, but they should be renamed as the Irish coast guard because that’s all they actually are. They need serious investment, but they will probably never get it. In the mean time they will limp along.
3. Air Force, we don’t have one and probably never will. We don’t really need one as the RAF will always be there to cater for or needs in that department if we ever need the services of Jet fighter aircraft. The new Gendarmerie should be equipped with helicopters as required (I won’t go into details as I know nothing about helicopters). All other aircraft, present fishery protection, transport etc should be civilianised.

I understand where your coming from here, realistically this nation is not going to be involved in a conflict with another nation (well not in the next 20 years anyway....who knows what the future will bring thats for another post) but "serious civil unrest" if you mean a return to the bad old days of "the Troubles" (which is a uniquelly Irish term for a for a Terrosist/Counter-Terrorist Campaign within the geographical location known as the British Isles) or for example the pillars of the community that made themselves known during the Love Ulster parade then I believe the Army is more than capable of handling both. the Army is at a better stat of affairs than it was during the "Trouble".

Forget about UN Missions? by UN missions I'm taking it that you mean Overseas service for Defence Forces Troops. I don't see the logic in this at all as the Government recieves massive "Brownie points" from other nations when it does sanction Overseas missions. In some cases the Government also recieve grants from whatever organistaion is requesting their assistance.
As for our numbers being so "tiny" in Overseas missions, unfortunately the DF is governed that it may only have a certain amount of troops outside of the State at any given time. I've been fortunate enough to serve amongst those tiny numbers and I can assure you if the the troops in Kosovo or Chad suddenly decided to upsticks and go home...somebody would notice.

Revamping the Army into 10000 strong paramilitary force wouldn't make sense as we are already a 8500 strong paramilitary force.

As I see it the Navy does its best with the kit it has...the Navy are woefully underfunded and equipped as are the Air Corps. Although the Defence Forces does a decent enough job with the resources it has Overseas it could do a whole lot more if it had a couple of medium lift aircraft (both fixed wing and rotary) who knows what the money for the barracks will be spent on? TBH though after seeing the budget i can't see either of the 3 organisations getting a bean until the recession looks like waning.

Morpheus

PC9s are standard training and light strike aircraft used by most modern militaries.

The orignal craft were too old and needed replacement and the aircorps didnt want to lose its light strike fixed wing capability completely.

For many years the Marchettis were the only armed aircraft in service - if you remember,PC9s can be kitted out with weapons and used in counter insurgency "COIN" army support operations if necessary.

If there WAS to be a situation with terrorists in Ireland (im talking the domestic eejits here) the army can call in these assets if necessary.

They are turbo prop engined like the 2 casa - pilots need to train on both radial or horizontally opposed engined AND the turbo prop engines, there are a lot of differences between them.

I believe also that the PC9 engine and the EC135 engines are similiar in design and share some components but am open to correction on this point.

petergfiffin

williambonney wrote: »

Forget about the UN missions, they are just a means of giving our soldiers an overseas role which they would otherwise not get. And as their numbers are so tiny on any one mission, they won’t be missed.

Tell that to somebody in Chad!! The fact is that the UN is more dependant on Ireland than ever given the way the UK & US are wrapped up in the Middle East. Also our army is very highly regarded because of it's experience, also the UN contributes financially to every mission. Also these missions give our troops great experience in operating with different armies which we wouldn't get normally as we're outside Nato, of course none of this says anything about our obligations to the UN & the wider international community.

williambonney wrote: »

The few fishery protection vessels we possess would not be able to engage a serious naval vessel in combat. (Think Royal Navy Type 23 Frigate) just as an instance.

That's because they're patrol ships, you're comparing apples & melons, the RN's fisheries ships wouldn't stand a chance either. The fact is that when purchasing kit you have to buy it for what it'll do 90% of the time. Frigates would be totally inappropriate for fisheries/patrol type work and would cost a fortune to run so we could probably only have 2/3 of them.

The Gendarmerie question has arisen before but given that we don't have the same level of civil disobedience as France and we have a totally different way of policing what would this 10,000 force do? We'd very quickly have people asking why not just disband them and have more Guards. Things can change v v rapidly as we've seen in India & Thailand to name but a couple lately, the thing about armies is they're the same as an insurance policy, you hate the fact you have to pay it but for that one time when things go wrong you're bloody glad you have it!!

Manic Moran

The fact is that when purchasing kit you have to buy it for what it'll do 90% of the time. Frigates would be totally inappropriate for fisheries/patrol type work and would cost a fortune to run so we could probably only have 2/3 of them.

In fairness, US Coast Guard cutters have been fitted to accept anti-ship missiles if it were ever required to install them. I stopped by USCG Bertholf this week, they were installing a Phalanx on the stern. Not something routinely required against drug vessels or for search-and-rescue ops.

NTM

williambonney

petergfiffin wrote: »

That's because they're patrol ships, you're comparing apples & melons, the RN's fisheries ships wouldn't stand a chance either. The fact is that when purchasing kit you have to buy it for what it'll do 90% of the time. Frigates would be totally inappropriate for fisheries/patrol type work and would cost a fortune to run so we could probably only have 2/3 of them.

That’s exactly the point I am making, the Irish naval service is not a fighting navy it is a naval service. It is erroneous to refer to it as “the navy”. And again I must say I admire the job they do with such pitifully scan resources, which I cannot see being increased to any great extent in the future. It’s a pity really.

iceage

As for the Army I doubt that the revenue from the sale of said Barracks will go very far at all anyway. What are we talking about, a few million, if that.

As ever when cutbacks are called for the Military always get it in the neck. Stop/cutback recruiting, close barracks, little or no expenditure, and cutbacks here there and everywhere, and make do with what you have and make it last. More green paint, thats what it needs.

trentf

yes its time. The masquerade that has been going on for about 20 years has been worn out. The government treatment of the military in this country is a joke.

Portugal has over 50 naval vessels. We have 8. That puts things in perspective really..

denmark, norway, sweden all have airforces with over 60 fighter jets and a fleet of f-16's, gripens or eurofighters within them. All european countries do. We are the only country in europe with not one single jet fighter. Makes you cringe in embarrassment at airshows and the like..

'And here comes the red arrows, and switzerlands f-16 fleet....and coming up the rear very very slowly is irelands pc-9 trainers...any minute now....any minute now...just you wait till you see them....zzz'

The point is why does the government and people accept this charade of having a proper military? The whole point of having a military or indeed 'defence forces' is so that it can defend the country from external aggression. I submit to you that we do not have a military or even a defence force for that matter. Lets call a spade a spade.

If the air corps cannot defend our skies and they cannot they are not part of the 'defence forces'. The army may be able to given their equipment even it would be in a limited fashion. The navy certainly would not be able to with only 8 vessels ..another joke.

It's ridiculous that we waste money on civillian equipment painted green and pretend its military equipment. None of the air corps equipment is of a military nature in relation to international standards. None. Its civiliian equipment or training equipment painted green with litle flags and pop guns put on it on it to make it look military. Its a joke. The real purpose of it is simple... a VIP ferrying service for the government the same government who spend 400 euro's on haircuts or public excercise jobs to make it look like we have a serious military capable of defence. Of course given the size of some of the members of government you probably would need a decent sized troop transport helicopter to carry them around, so a chinook fleet may still be on the cards.

Its time to invest in real military equipment for the air corps give it a serious role i.e not as an ambulance service or the like. We should already have a ambulance service and police aviation service run by police or civillians not by so called military pilots like in most other countries, not for flyovers(sigh) at parades to make it look like we have a miltary coz you know once those 6 aw139's, 2 ec135 and 8 pc-9's fly past thats it.. they have to do loops to make it look like we have more aircraft.

I love the way the government announce with pride when they come out with a new acquistion to the air corps ' The minister is pleased to announce his own new personal jet i mean... a much needed new aquistion for the troops in chad which by the way once acquired won't be going there, its all for show..you know'

I know it makes the military members angry and sick to the stomach to see money wasted on 6 civillian transport heli's to ferry politicans around when they have to rely on russian helicopters in chad. Why did they waste the money on those helicopters??
Anyone? They could have bought blackhawks, a helicopter at least capable of operating in rough terrain and proven in combat situations. The excuses given were oh in iraq blackhawks blah blah blah ...bull... just wanted to get helicopters to ferry them around. What was the aw139's qualifications given it had never been used by any other military ? Oh thats right plenty of room for wide girths, i must have forgot.


We are the only country that bought this helicopter for military purposes, a quick check of the main operators of the aw139 will see its mainly used by police, coastgaurd services around the world... whoever is in charge of procurement in the army must be government lackeys doing the selection proccess for the helicopters. They need to be kicked out of their jobs. These jokers probably couldn't distinguish their right foot from their left.

Huge waste of taxpayers money is what it is and the worst part is the government is pretending its something it most certainly isn't. At least if you spent a lot of proper military helicopters you could actually justify their usage.

petergfiffin

williambonney wrote: »

It is erroneous to refer to it as "the navy".

It's only referred to "the navy" as it's less of a mouthfull than "the naval service", the naval service doesn't refer itself as the navy and some reporters do refer to it correctly.

trentf wrote: »

They could have bought blackhawks, a helicopter at least capable of operating in rough terrain and proven in combat situations. The excuses given were oh in iraq blackhawks blah blah blah ...bull... just wanted to get helicopters to ferry them around. What was the aw139's qualifications given it had never been used by any other military ? Oh thats right plenty of room for wide girths, i must have forgot.

The fact is the Air Corps will most likely NEVER be deployed overseas so if they had bought Blackhawks, Pumas, Merlins or anything else they would still have been used for exactly the same thing as the 139s, remember the 139s are really the replacement for the Dauphin & Alouettes so given that they're at least painted green and armed they're a huge advance!!!

The problem I have with us being compared with other European countries is this....Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Italy, Belgium (I'm sure I'm missing a couple) were all colonial powers, they come from a long history of needing to be able to project power over long ranges and actually fighting wars (usually against each other) so they are well used to spending large(r) amounts of their GDP on defence. The Nordic countries had to worry about Russia which was a very real threat and given they didn't have oil and weren't strategically very important they knew they were on their own. Also, don't forget these are all countries which had or have conscription so they come from a very different mindset. Ireland is ranked 146 in the world for the amount of money we spend on defence vs GDP, below Madagascar, Tonga and Somalia!!! The silence from the public outcry is deafening!!! I can't imagine any politician embarking on a public spending programme to buy military grade helis & more ships etc, remember we only got the APCs cause we sold baracks. Lets not also forget that as part of the Eurpoean Battle groups we will have access to fast air & real helis.

Coming back to the original question about the AC though, I agree the PC9s were a total waste of money, the Maritime patrol should be privatised to somebody who's willing to fly in the dark and doesn't have to be home in time to catch Neighbours. Ministerial transport should be privatised (somehow I think Celtic Helicopters will get that contract!!:rolleyes:). I think the 139s were probably about the best we could have gotten (given what the DOD would have signed off on). I don't think we should scrap the Air Corps but I do think we (the public & politicans) need to have an honest conversation about its future.

diverdriver

Concussion

The PC-9's are there to train pilots to a level that they can effectively transition to operating jets. Now we don't have jets anymore but the absolute worst thing that can happen is that those skills are lost.

We don't need the skills as we have no use for them. There will never be jets again there is no role for them. There is no role for hte PC9 either.

This applies to the Air Corps in general. Since it doesn't provide SAR anymore and the naval operations never really worked there is a feeling that they do nothing, which is far from true. However, if it was disbanded you're effectively starting from nothing if a government 10 years down the road decides we actually do need some medium lift helicopters and some decent transports.

In fact they have plenty to do and do a good job of it on the whole. That isn't the point. What they do can be done more cheaply and more effectively by a civilian contractor. There is no need to disband the Air Corps, simply change into something useful like army support. Get rid of all the roles that are in reality civilian.

Morpheus

PC9s are standard training and light strike aircraft used by most modern militaries.

The orignal craft were too old and needed replacement and the aircorps didnt want to lose its light strike fixed wing capability completely.

For many years the Marchettis were the only armed aircraft in service - if you remember,PC9s can be kitted out with weapons and used in counter insurgency "COIN" army support operations if necessary.

If there WAS to be a situation with terrorists in Ireland (im talking the domestic eejits here) the army can call in these assets if necessary.

They are turbo prop engined like the 2 casa - pilots need to train on both radial or horizontally opposed engined AND the turbo prop engines, there are a lot of differences between them.

They don't need a light strike capability, there is no threat internal or external and it's highly unlikely there ever will be. They are toys for the boys.
As for the CASA, I think you mean piston versus turbo prob. Again the CASAs role can easily and more cheaply be done by civilians.

Some of you are missing the point. We can't afford or need a militarily capable air arm. We do need army helicopters. The current money spent on the 'best flying club in the country' would be better spent on aircraft that supported the army.

As for the navy or naval service, it actually has a role and should be funded accordingly.

There is no need to disband anything, merely change to reflect modern requirements. As it is that Air Corps is now organised as in effect a cadre waiting for the day when the real equipment arrives. It has been like that since the twenties or thirties. It has had no real warlike aircraft since the last Seafires were removed from service. The Spitfires were nothing more than trainers. Since then it has all been trainers, training pilots for .............training purposes?

In the modern context armies need helicopters. We have helicopters but they are a token gesture. Meanwhile we have fixed wing assets that are little more than work experience for future Ryanair pilots.

The Air Corps is expensive for what it does. A waste of money.

newby.204

diverdriver wrote: »

Concussion

We don't need the skills as we have no use for them. There will never be jets again there is no role for them. There is no role for hte PC9 either.



In fact they have plenty to do and do a good job of it on the whole. That isn't the point. What they do can be done more cheaply and more effectively by a civilian contractor. There is no need to disband the Air Corps, simply change into something useful like army support. Get rid of all the roles that are in reality civilian.

Morpheus



They don't need a light strike capability, there is no threat internal or external and it's highly unlikely there ever will be. They are toys for the boys.
As for the CASA, I think you mean piston versus turbo prob. Again the CASAs role can easily and more cheaply be done by civilians.

Some of you are missing the point. We can't afford or need a militarily capable air arm. We do need army helicopters. The current money spent on the 'best flying club in the country' would be better spent on aircraft that supported the army.

As for the navy or naval service, it actually has a role and should be funded accordingly.

There is no need to disband anything, merely change to reflect modern requirements. As it is that Air Corps is now organised as in effect a cadre waiting for the day when the real equipment arrives. It has been like that since the twenties or thirties. It has had no real warlike aircraft since the last Seafires were removed from service. The Spitfires were nothing more than trainers. Since then it has all been trainers, training pilots for .............training purposes?

In the modern context armies need helicopters. We have helicopters but they are a token gesture. Meanwhile we have fixed wing assets that are little more than work experience for future Ryanair pilots.

The Air Corps is expensive for what it does. A waste of money.

If the government were to re org the naval service and the air corps
it would jeopardise the position of too many officers whos appointments are unnecessary but still there becuase they are officers and well they take care of their own, top brass would never let it happen no matter what the people or the government want!!!

diverdriver

Well you could reassign most officers, one desk is pretty much like another. Most personnel would stay on anyway. Natural wastage would reduce numbers to some extent. You could also have voluntary redundancies. Many pilots would leave and take up do the same job they were doing in the Air Corps only this time as civvies.

The main thing would be to reduce the expenditure on unneccessary aircraft and flying. I mean, how much do those PC9s cost to operate? Get rid of them and you have cash for all sorts.

trentf

petergfiffin wrote: »

It's only referred to "the navy" as it's less of a mouthfull than "the naval service", the naval service doesn't refer itself as the navy and some reporters do refer to it correctly.


The fact is the Air Corps will most likely NEVER be deployed overseas so if they had bought Blackhawks, Pumas, Merlins or anything else they would still have been used for exactly the same thing as the 139s, remember the 139s are really the replacement for the Dauphin & Alouettes so given that they're at least painted green and armed they're a huge advance!!!

The problem I have with us being compared with other European countries is this....Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Italy, Belgium (I'm sure I'm missing a couple) were all colonial powers, they come from a long history of needing to be able to project power over long ranges and actually fighting wars (usually against each other) so they are well used to spending large(r) amounts of their GDP on defence. The Nordic countries had to worry about Russia which was a very real threat and given they didn't have oil and weren't strategically very important they knew they were on their own. Also, don't forget these are all countries which had or have conscription so they come from a very different mindset. Ireland is ranked 146 in the world for the amount of money we spend on defence vs GDP, below Madagascar, Tonga and Somalia!!! The silence from the public outcry is deafening!!! I can't imagine any politician embarking on a public spending programme to buy military grade helis & more ships etc, remember we only got the APCs cause we sold baracks. Lets not also forget that as part of the Eurpoean Battle groups we will have access to fast air & real helis.

Coming back to the original question about the AC though, I agree the PC9s were a total waste of money, the Maritime patrol should be privatised to somebody who's willing to fly in the dark and doesn't have to be home in time to catch Neighbours. Ministerial transport should be privatised (somehow I think Celtic Helicopters will get that contract!!:rolleyes:). I think the 139s were probably about the best we could have gotten (given what the DOD would have signed off on). I don't think we should scrap the Air Corps but I do think we (the public & politicans) need to have an honest conversation about its future.

Here we go again with the old colonial history crap...but but they have a history of having shiny gizmos and fighting wars us spudpickers wat would we daa with all tat technalagy lake:rolleyes:

Never? i don't like to say never thats being a bit fatalistic now isn't it with attitudes like that it's no wonder
the air farce has been neglected for so long, its the 'just be happy with what you got' attitude.

its 2008 the old colonial history thing is a little old in the teeth now to justify lack of a proper defence particulalry air defence. Japan, switzerland, austria all have significant air forces and we all know their history in major conflicts.

We should have air defence if not only for the matter of national pride, and yes air cover and proper air defence is a deterrent and would make a hell of a bigger impact then a few turbo prop trainers zipping about at pre ww2 speeds. We should have at least 9 jet fighters 3 for each county. Even if we don't go for this we need a significant increase in Troop transport helicopters capable of carrying significant numbers of troops and providing at least minimal protection ie kevlar and armour protected cabins for the pilots and gunners. We don't have this and using our lack of spine to justify it when it comes to seeing the bigger picture of defence in the current global climate is even more self defeating.

I can't imagine any politician embarking on a public spending programme to buy military grade helis & more ships etc, remember we only got the APCs cause we sold baracks..

Yes they'd rather spend the money on expensive haircuts and trips to florida...feathering their own nest whilst the military goes abegging.

So what are all these people here on the boards complaining about? are they not members of the public?, are the soldiers in chad forced to beg for troop transport from russia not members of the public?. im sure they'd be all against having proper troop transport helicopters. Just because the ordinary joe soap is not crying about the lack of a serious air capablility in our military doesn't mean it isn't a major problem. You have to put it in perspective the average joe soap in this country doesn't even get concerned that his vote isn't respected that his rights are being taken away, all the average joe soap cares about is where his next paycheck is coming from... so that excuse too is a little lame and outdated. I submit to you that this does cross the ordinary persons mind however its the naysayers that force the ordinary joe soap into thinking all is well. People in this country are way too easily pleased, the politicans have them in their pocket and they know it. Anytime there is a crisis of importance attention is diverted away from the real culprits a sham solution is provided, and the guillable public is fooled again into thinking they get a good deal. Only the real soldiers on the ground see the outcome of such mismanagement and deceit.

The point is we need to either disband the air farce or set up a serious alternative and get serious about providing troop transport helicopters...

View Profile

In relation to what a previous poster mentioned on how Ireland is the only European nation not to have a decent air force:

I, personally, think this stems back to WW2 or the "emergency" as we lovingly called it.:rolleyes:

Due to our "neutral" role during this conflict and our own struggle with the British, we as a nation did not feel as threatened by Germany as the rest of Europe. The mainland countries suffered at the hands of the Germans. And post WW2, they felt threatened by the Russians. We on the other hand were oblivious to this and continued on happily with our newly found independence.

Our European cousins however had experienced the bitter hardship that war brings. Their lands were invaded, their people tormented, killed or imprisoned. And so they decided to build up their armies, navies, and air forces. It was a matter of national pride. The protection of their home soil and their people was of extreme importance. They would ensure that such a fate would never fall upon them again.
(Look at the Scandinavian nations for example, excellent navies and air forces)

But because we didn't experience this threat first hand, we didn't see the need to have a force capable of deterring or even repelling an outside force. This explains our current lack of a well equipped defence force.

Who is to know what future conflicts may arise in Europe that could affect us. I hate to have to rely on a foreign army to defend our sovereign soil.

I personally would be happy to pay a higher tax if it would mean Ireland could defend itself and its citizens properely.

My 2 cents. :P

diverdriver

Who is to know what future conflicts may arise in Europe that could affect us. I hate to have to rely on a foreign army to defend our sovereign soil.

One word or is it four: NATO: Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Portugal, Norway. They all have credible air forces except Luxembourg, all smallish countries. They all rely on other members of NATO to defend their sovereign soil. They do this because they know that, whatever the capability of their air force, navy or army. They would be swept up in a fortnight by any possible threat.

If we were in NATO, we undoubtedly would have some form of credible defence forces. We aren't and we don't. In truth we have relied on Britain to defend us already. What do you think stopped Hitler from invading Ireland in WW2? I'll give you clue, it wasn't the LDF!

That's all bye the bye. The Air Corps right now has no defensive military capability. Nor will it ever. Our political class are a bunch of self serving buffoons with a childlike faith in our mock 'neutrality' and a compelling ignorance of world affairs and military realities. All they know is that we have an Air Corps and it's handy for getting around the country. The public are worse, they barely realise we have aircraft, and in any case to Joe public, the whole PDF is a joke and the RDF are little more than glorified scouts.

As a country we haven't really grown up. It's time we did.

Steyr

diverdriver wrote: »

One word or is it four: NATO

Also i think a Nation needs to meet some form of Military criteria before joining NATO, you cant just sign up?

diverdriver wrote: »

What do you think stopped Hitler from invading Ireland in WW2? I'll give you clue, it wasn't the LDF!

Perhaps the fact Operation Grun never materialised? Also DD i agree with everything you said.

concussion

diverdriver wrote: »

The main thing would be to reduce the expenditure on unneccessary aircraft and flying. I mean, how much do those PC9s cost to operate? Get rid of them and you have cash for all sorts.

Nice to see that while you don't know how much they cost to operate, you can still make a sweeping statement about how much you could save by getting ride of them :rolleyes:

Steyr

The PC9M's were very very expensive though werent they and by that i mean with all the parts/back ups etc?

concussion

Steyr wrote: »

The PC9M's were very very expensive though werent they and by that i mean with all the parts/back ups etc?

Thats nothing to do with how much they cost to operate.

diverdriver

I don't know how much they cost to operate. Perhaps you could enlighten us? But it doesn't take a genius to work out that eight turboprop trainers and their associated spares and maintenance costs are expensive to operate. To use them to train pilots whose first assignment is a Cessna 172 is nothing short of ridiculous. Worse still to use them to train future helicopter pilots really is a waste of money.

They are toys, nothing more nothing less. They money spent on them would be better spent on any number of things.

concussion

I have no idea how much they cost to operate, but I'm not claiming to be able to buy "all sorts" with that money.
It would seem to me that the Air Corps/Dept of Defence want to maintain a some sort of light strike/advanced flight capability and the PC9's allow them to do that relatively cheaply. The PC9's have modern 'glass' cockpits which means those pilots going on to the new helicopters will already have instrument flight training completed during their basic flight training. It makes more sense than trainining them on a low powered Cessna which wont give them any instrument or aerobatic experience.

diverdriver

If the term 'all sorts' is the problem.:rolleyes: I'll rephrase it, 'you'll have cash for other more useful equipment.' Happy?

As for your other point, you are right. The Air Corps want to maintain a light strike capability. God knows why, as there is no conceivable scenario where that could prove useful. It's just an option that comes with the aircraft and it gives the illusion that these aircraft might have an actual military function.

As for instrument training, Cessna will gladly supply you with a 'glass cockpit' 172 these days for far less money. I got my instrument rating on an old 'steam gauge' 172. Most if not all commercial pilots get their rating on light twins and then go on to fly big fat glass cockpit airliners. Aerobatics are fun and useful for developing handling skills but once again there are cheaper options, like the Grobs the RAF uses. That too has a full instrument and avionics fit. But, of course it has no 'light strike' capability, so no chance to play fighter pilot.

In any case learning aerobatics isn't the most useful thing for pilots transitioning to non aerobatic aircraft like.......well the entire Air Corps fleet except the PC9s.

No the PC9s are expensive toys.

punchdrunk

a small squadron of superhornets would be nice! it'll never happen though

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Also i think a Nation needs to meet some form of Military criteria before joining NATO, you cant just sign up

Iceland is a member of NATO, and it doesn't even pretend to have a military.

NATO membership is decided on 'what you bring to the table' - Iceland brings a runway in the middle of the north atlantic and a relay station for the SOSUS network, as well as by making it 'our mate' we ensure it doesn't become 'the Russians mate'.

Ireland would bring runways on the western edge of the atlantic, the certainty of knowing that Ireland wouldn't play funny-buggers at the most inconvenient time, and an army that has little political baggage and that with a little NATO training and investment could operate in force in southern Afghanistan.

concussion

diverdriver wrote: »

I'll rephrase it, 'you'll have cash for other more useful equipment.' Happy?

No actually, because I think they are useful.

diverdriver wrote: »

The Air Corps want to maintain a light strike capability. God knows why, as there is no conceivable scenario where that could prove useful.

Lots of conceivable scenario. Very unlikely to happen though. However you can apply that to the DF as a whole - by that logic we don't need a military because we don't think anyone is going to invade us. The military is kept as a contingency, and and this instance, keeping pilots trained in light strike/cas along with air intercept and combat is also a neccessary contingency.

diverdriver wrote: »

It's just an option that comes with the aircraft and it gives the illusion that these aircraft might have an actual military function.

Australia uses PC 9's for smoke marking in CAS missions, Canada has proposed using them as helicopter escort. It, or its variants are used by the USAF, Canadian AF and RAAF as training aricraft for all their pilots, whether they go onto jets or helicopters afterwards. The precedent for helicopter pilots being trained on aircraft like the PC9 is there, as are the military applications.

diverdriver wrote: »

Aerobatics are fun and useful for developing handling skills but once again there are cheaper options, like the Grobs the RAF uses. That too has a full instrument and avionics fit. But, of course it has no 'light strike' capability, so no chance to play fighter pilot.

Yes, you could do your instrument work in a Cessna but you're not going to learn much military flying bimbling about from A to B. I see a point in training pilots to do more than act as top cover/radio relay for cash escorts or target towing for the AD. I see a point in maintaining skills which have been developed. You don't and that's fair enough.

amrydude

yea the aw139s they should keep along with the eurocopters but what are they doing with the 1 billion euro they get every year
they could buy a-10 thunderbolts 11 million may be a bit of money but in a invasion they will stand a chance

Poccington

amrydude wrote: »

yea the aw139s they should keep along with the eurocopters but what are they doing with the 1 billion euro they get every year
they could buy a-10 thunderbolts 11 million may be a bit of money but in a invasion they will stand a chance

Who's getting 1 billion a year?