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

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?