Should the Air Corps be scrapped?

Poccington

Morphéus wrote: »

would it be a huge leap of faith to build a barracks on site there? is there enough room for example for an infantry unit to exist there? Or better yet, give them their own Military Air Police unit to do base security at all bases... AND train THEM to provide security for our (meagre) assets when they are sent (rarely) abroad.

isnt that what grown up militaries do?

There already is an MP Detachment over in the Don.

If you move an Infantry Unit from one barracks over to the Don, it just means the barracks that the Infantry Unit came from is going to lose it's biggest manpower source and every single other Unit in the barracks is going to suffer quite a bit as a result.

I know for a fact from being in the Don a number of times that not every single person over there is up to their tits in work. Every barracks has Regimental duties and every Unit in the barracks gets stuck in, why should the Don be any different? If they're that upset about there Techs being on the gate, well then don't put them there. After all, it's the people in the Don that decide who goes on the gate.

Steyr

Poccington wrote: »

The DF may have an opinion on the kit they'd like to get but at the end of the day, they get what they're given and do what they're told by the civvie's. That's the attitude of a Government which doesn't take Defence spending seriously and it's the attitude which is prevalent still to this day in the DoD.

That the problem right there.

Morpheus

Poccington wrote: »

There already is an MP Detachment over in the Don.

If you move an Infantry Unit from one barracks over to the Don, it just means the barracks that the Infantry Unit came from is going to lose it's biggest manpower source and every single other Unit in the barracks is going to suffer quite a bit as a result.

I know for a fact from being in the Don a number of times that not every single person over there is up to their tits in work. Every barracks has Regimental duties and every Unit in the barracks gets stuck in, why should the Don be any different? If they're that upset about there Techs being on the gate, well then don't put them there. After all, it's the people in the Don that decide who goes on the gate.

are the MP's Air MP's??

What are their basic tasks in the DON if not providing access security to the countrys only remaining military airbase? A Tech shouldnt be on a gate, he should be under an engine cowling or up to their tits in grease/oil/aircraft parts etc...

Steyr

AFAIK the EC135's are serviced by McAlpine.

pondasher

Morphéus wrote: »

some ill informed posting here...



first of all pondasher - can you back up your opinion about your fellow boards (and RDF) members here please?

Scrap the aircorps? yes but completely remove indigenous air capability? NO.

We dont have much of one now, but we do have one. we have pilots trained to fly military jets, military turboprops, single and multi engined, carry out green and black ops from helis, night flying using NVG and the ability to quickly move company sized elements around in country in case of emergency. A unit that will not down tools and refuse to work, that is not subject to all the restrictions of civilian flying and almost a hundred years experience of operating military aircraft in ireland.

Solution for aircorps... split it into two...

1: Maritime patrol and surveilance... moves to naval control completely, augmented by an increase in patrol assets (more patrol planes and naval UAV's) buy navalised helis and naval flight crews who DONT operate off tiny flight decks on between the hours of 10am and 4pm mon - fri.

2: Army Air Corps, AW139 and EC135 and PC9s increase number of helis to a larger fleet and send them AND support crews over seas on UN missions, either upgrade PC9s to COIN capability or buy a small number of cheap attack heli's and send them over seas when necessary.

Increase artillery units and send them over seas... basically change army to that of an expeditionary force with its own indigenous air artillery and anti air defence capability so that we dont send soldiers abroad with the UN dependent completely on the whims of another security council member when were in a pickle and require air or arty support.

buy the EPV for the navy, hell buy two buy 4 opv's replace the ancient hulks were using now. get decent proper navy blue/green assets with flight deck capability AND HANGARS that are modular and can be used to carry cargo too.

I dont have time to evaluate my thoughts properly as im in work but thats my 2 c.

I rest my case buy these guys games consoles it would be cheaper

DylanJM

Buy who a games console?

Avgas

Maybe would people agree bashing the air corps has gone a bit too far here?

No disrespect, but i find talk of game consoles a bit silly.

There are many fine people in the Air Corps who are aware of its problems and would like to see change. The problem as ever is lack of money, and a cult of inaction as regards initiative and leadership.

I'd be very critical of the way they've handled the procurement process during the Tyger era.....and they've arguably bungled the heavy SAR mission 4ever...that will be an outs sourced job for the forseeable future....but they had help AFAIK from the (un)civil (mis)service...

Just think IFi.... the Sikorsy S-92 deal had gone through....when was it...back in the later 1990s.....it would look a different Air Corps today........

But i just think historically ...the land army have excessively dominated our defence forces...I mean I'm not denying we're always going to need an excellent infantry corps as the bedrock of any DF structure...but we are an Island......and we're on major air routes...during the Cold War it was crazy not to have directed much more defence spending into air defence(which could well be land based SAMs, etc.), and coastal defence........today it seems that overseas/expeditionary PK ops, like Chad, is where its all at.......... and territorial air & coastal defence of our own island maybe seems old hat.......but things can change rapidly.......some type of aerial policing and monitoring role is arguably required....at the very least a proper radar network to monitor who is flying around our skys........even if suspect 9/11 type incidents would be more than likely handed off to........RAF Eurofighters....(BTW does anyone know how realistic is that..how long would it take a pair on alert to make out to well beyond Shannon for and interception?)

Also we may need to be more assertive in policing our fishing grounds, and above all, claims to the seafloor mineral wealth (if its there!).....

So I would be against scrapping our air corps.....Maybe...this is really going to raise heckles.....maybe we should create a seemless DEFENCE FORCE...which integrates land, air and naval units and while allowing for some 'traditional specialism' differences in rank and uniform...basically an entirely unified service........bit like the USMC?

Maybe the entire Corps model needs a massive kick in the posterior on the grounds it inhibits 'jointness', is often out of date, perhaps lack flexibility and just create 'bunker' mentalities?

I await outrage and possible banning.

DylanJM

Avgas wrote: »

maybe we should create a seemless DEFENCE FORCE...which integrates land, air and naval units and while allowing for some 'traditional specialism' differences in rank and uniform...basically an entirely unified service........bit like the USMC?

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't really see any advantage in that. What would you hope to achieve by consolidating the 3 different services?

Morpheus

model the whole outfit like that of a Marine Expeditionary Force with all of its own indigenous armour, arty, air naval and support units!? I think I suggested that somewhere here before!

something of a scaled down (as in we dont have sea lift capabilities) version of this? And i dont mean the infantry become marines, but these are units of roughly 2000 - 3000 personel in size.

All under the ONE command obviously!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/1st_Marine_Expeditionary_Force.png

Avgas

[QUOTE=DylanJM;67177067]Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't really see any advantage in that. What would you hope to achieve by consolidating the 3 different services?[/QUOTE]

Well I'll concede such a move could be a dogs breakfast...like our National HSE....but the idea would be achieve long-term organizational and administrative savings and create greater joint capabilities...something like what Morpheus suggested...apologies If I'm reinventing your wheel....:)

I think the Canadian and Belgians have something of a merged joint force structure but distinctive air and naval forces are both much larger and distinctive in each case......so they are sorta semi-integrated only......

I guess what I don't like is the way our Air Corps and Naval Service/Navy seem distinctly 'secondary' to the main event-our Army, under current structure. I'd be looking for a shift in doctrine and philosophy.....an integrated force capable of a spectrum of aid to civil power missions, expedtionary peace support, and residual national territorial defence capabilities.......

Maybe this is drifting too much off OP?

Steyr

Avgas wrote: »

The MATS role can be done better by Ryanair.

Seconded and use EI too, EI can be used for transatlantic Ops or anything further than Europe and FR can be used for Europe.

On The Joe Duffy Show a few weeks ago an Air Corps Person ( Possibly EXER ) i believe said that MATS was needed as they can go anytime etc, i dont buy that one bit, nothing to stop them chartering an Aircraft from EI or FR for when they are needed.

If the UK can charter use of BA777's then i done see why we cant use FR's 737's or EI's A330's.

DylanJM

apologies If I'm reinventing your wheel....

Invent away Avgas

I was just wondering what the major benefits would be.

troubleshooter

Morphéus wrote: »

model the whole outfit like that of a Marine Expeditionary Force with all of its own indigenous armour, arty, air naval and support units!? I think I suggested that somewhere here before!

something of a scaled down (as in we dont have sea lift capabilities) version of this? And i dont mean the infantry become marines, but these are units of roughly 2000 - 3000 personel in size.

All under the ONE command obviously!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/1st_Marine_Expeditionary_Force.png

Where would the money come from?

It was also change it from a defence force to an expeditionary one, wheres there to invade?


Get rid of the lear jets, let the politicans take commerical flights like in other countries, get some medium size military helos, not civilian ones painted green with the saving.

Keep or upgrade the prop light attack aircraft, they play a useful role in simulating air attacks on exercise.

xflyer

On The Joe Duffy Show a few weeks ago an Air Corps Person ( Possibly EXER ) i believe said that MATS was needed as they can go anytime etc, i dont buy that one bit, nothing to stop them chartering an Aircraft from EI or FR for when they are needed.

Exactly, in fact there is no need to charter from EI or FR, not that they could be available on short notice anyway. But there are plenty of executive jet operators out there. Even you and I, if we had the money could be in the air in a couple of hours. One phone call is all it takes.

The MATS function is a luxury we taxpayers cannot afford. The whole Air Corps is well overdue for reform. It's the least military of the services. It has a minimal operation role, cannot deploy overseas, cannot defend the airspace, has mostly non military aircraft.

It needs to be turned into a robustly military unit not simply an expensive flying club or a nursery for future airline and SAR pilots.

unclecessna

Morphéus wrote: »

We dont have much of one now, but we do have one. we have pilots trained to fly military jets, military turboprops, single and multi engined, carry out green and black ops from helis, night flying using NVG and the ability to quickly move company sized elements around in country in case of emergency. A unit that will not down tools and refuse to work, that is not subject to all the restrictions of civilian flying and almost a hundred years experience of operating military aircraft in ireland.

Lol, are you for real? Where to start....the Air Corps haven't had any military jets since 1998/1999 and the jets that they do have are civilian buisness jets,

military turboprops - given,

single and multi-engined qualified Pilots - well unless you are a single engine flight instructor, banner-tower or cropduster pilot then whether you are a commercial civil or military pilot you will be qualified as such in any case so that's not exactly a big deal,

carrying out green and black ops(when the helicopters in question aren't being diverted to be used to transport Government Ministers at great cost) are practiced for - given,

''night flying using NVG and the ability to quickly move company sized elements around in country in case of emergency''.......kind of, the problem is that a lot of the time several of the AW139's are grounded for maintenance etc which is a story in itself given that they are pretty much brand new.....

''A unit that will not down tools and refuse to work, that is not subject to all the restrictions of civilian flying and almost a hundred years experience of operating military aircraft in ireland. ''.....regarding the first part, it would be nice to think so and in theory they absolutely should but think back a few years to the the event that led to the Air Corps losing their SAR capability. As for them not being subject to all the restrictions of civil aviation - yes in theory but at the end of the day most civil Pilots will be found to be operating in weather conditions that the Air Corps do not dare to venture probably due to their own military regulations.
As for the near 100 years of military experience..again true on paper but I would suggest you seek out a good book recently released on the subject ''Military Aviation in Ireland 1921-1945'' by Michael O' Malley a former Air Corps Officer. It's very revealing on the subject and I suspect you might change your opinion after reading it. The Air Corps's operations and experience from those years comes off as very amateurish to be honest.

I don't think many here actually have had real experience dealing with or serving in the Air Corps. The Air Corps is a very laid back organisation compared to the Army and private civil aviation organisations. The personnel are very aware of this fact and know how good they have it so the boat rarely gets rocked. The morale is very good because most peoples working hours are about 9 to 4 with an hours lunch break during which Baldonnel effectively closes down. And of course for most there the weekends are free.

A lot of time technicians etc will be working on their own private projects of souping up their cars with the tools available to them and even their boats in some cases believe it or not. And back when that whole robot-wars fad was on a lot of time was put into building those I kid you not. Most people in the Air Corps are not exactly over-worked as you will have gathered by now.

And of course the way the Air Corps mainly earns it's keep is with the Ministerial Air Transport Service so their is no way they would even consider dropping that.

For a military service it really has very little military pretext despite the increase in army helicopter ops in recent years and it won't change because simply put the status quo is a comfortable way to earn a living the way things are for the Air Corps decision makers.

It's a shame because I think that in the long term it will hurt them.

LordSutch

Why has the Irish Air Corps got these (PC-9M) propeller planes . . . .



When they could have these (BAE Hawk Jets) . . .



I'm just guessing that the BAE Hawk is the smallest military jet trainer available on the international market these days, I also know that India bought a few dozen just the other day from Mr Cameron, so why does the Irish Air Corps only have propeller driven planes (in the 21st century) ? > Why not replace them with Hawk's ?

Steyr

LordSutch wrote: »

so why does the Irish Air Corps only have propeller driven planes (in the 21st century) ? > Why not replace them with Hawk's ?

You have me, i have long been an advocate of the IAC having Hawks as they can be sidewinder equipped are cheap and very effective, basically they are an all round great aircraft.

Steyr

If i was to purchase the Hawk it would be the T2 ( Hawk 128 )

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

Hawk 128 (Hawk T2)

The Hawk 128 is the new Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) for the RAF and Royal Navy. The Mk. 128 includes modern LCD displays instead of conventional instrumentation, and allows preparation for flying modern fighter aircraft, particularly the all "glass" Typhoon. It uses the Rolls-Royce Adour 951 engine. The UK Ministry of Defence awarded a Design and Development Contract to BAE Systems on 22 Dec 2004,[18] building on the design of the Australian Mk. 127 and the South African Mk. 120s. A £450 million contract was signed in October 2006 for the production of 28 Hawk 128s.[19] The MoD had originally announced its intention to order 20 aircraft with options for 24 more. The aircraft's maiden flight occurred on 27 July 2005 from BAE Systems' Warton Aerodrome and lasted for 1 hour 18 minutes.[20]

Corsendonk

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

Steyr

Corsendonk wrote: »

So pick up the phone and ring the French or English if we have a hijacking in Irish airspace.

That already happens with the RAF. I think what is annoying people here is that we can not do it for ourselves which is absolutely disgraceful. And dont get me wrong im a huge fan of the IAC and DF as a whole and have family in the IAC.

Avgas

But we may not even know if we need to call our pals in the RAF or the French Air Force......because AFAIK we have no national military radar network...we have civilian ATC radars but they are more or less useless at monitoring military aircraft that turn their transponders off...correct me if I'm wrong [and remember OPSEC!].... but otherwise our ATC has v. limited capabilities.......so we have not much clue who is flying around our airspace at night or daytime.......which in my book is just dumb.......

I think there was an issue a while back about unscheduled flights into Weston....and you hear probably B.S. stories of 'mystery' civilian planes flying around at 'bush sites'.........never minding the 'random' NATO traffic that sometimes passes over/around at 'interesting' times......

Great but depressing post Unclecessna...........in fairness I thought the Irish Air Corps in the 1950s wasn't actually that bad.....we even had jets at a time when other air arms were starting at jets...so we were in at the start....but it was a capability let fall off..........and there were the 'Boys Own' Spitfires........as an aside does anyone know what happened to our Walrus amphibians delivered in 1939....? [sorry ignore that if you feel that is WAY OFF OP...perhaps time to start an IAC history thread? ]......

Corsendonk

Hang on a minute we are in a recession and some of you guys want us to buy new jets! Are you for real? One, we are neutral, thats been are excuse for years to treat the army services as the poor relative so substantial investment needed. Two, to have a decent military takes a major % of GDP. imagine trying to swing that in the current climate.

Just look at the British Military is in huge debt trying to live beyond there means and you wouldn't call them cutting edge. Just today they been told that they have to pay for the new Trident(20 billion) themselves over the next eight years, this after they revealed there 33 billion overspent already. The only chance your going to see any investment here is if we drop are neutrality inpart and join the EU defence schemes hinted. How many people would you like subs based here? And jets in shannon and Leopard tanks training in the Curragh?

Personnal speaking I always thought it funny that some of the neutral countries in Europe happened to have large home based arms industries and a large well trained armed military. An iron fist hidden behind the white flag. While the poor paddies just had the white flag!

Steyr

Corsendonk wrote: »

Hang on a minute we are in a recession and some of you guys want us to buy new jets! Are you for real?

Correct me if im wrong but i dont think the Irish people would bat an eyelid if we bought Fighter jets, last time i checked there wasnt one bit of major protest when the Lear45 was bought.

Corsendonk wrote: »

One, we are neutral

That doesnt matter one damn bit, look at Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, all Neutral and you wouldnt have a hope against their frontline Aircraft.

Switzerland:F-18 Hornets and F-5 Tigers

Sweden: JAS 39 Gripens

Finland:F-18 Hornets

Austria: EF2000 Typhoons

punchdrunk

if they had seen sense they would have opted for a pair of AW149's when they went ahead with the contract option for two more AW139's
at least then they would have had a CSAR/medivac/resupply capability that was deployable abroad with the EU battle group,you wouldn't horse many troops about in just two but they would definitely have been a welcome force multiplier

Corsendonk

My point was that we call ourselves neutral thinking that neutrality alone will protect us. The Swedes and Swiss call themselves neutral but could crush/defend against most of there non neutral neighbours armies plus have a home arms industry to resupply them.

You gave me a list of aircraft that these neutral states have but my point is that we dont have the necessary defence spending to afford these. Just look at the difference in defence spending between us and the 4 big neutral states in Europe.

GDP 2009(Billion Dollars) Spending on Defence 2009(Billion Dollars)
Sweden 398..... 6.1
Swiss 484.... 4.1
Finland 242...... 3.7
Ireland 227........ 1.5
Austria 374........ 3.6

Your calling for a doubling of the defence budget to buy your wish list of planes.

Morpheus

Corsendonk wrote: »

My point was that we call ourselves neutral thinking that neutrality alone will protect us. The Swedes and Swiss call themselves neutral but could crush/defend against most of there non neutral neighbours armies plus have a home arms industry to resupply them.

WE

ARE

NOT

NEUTRAL

I hate seeing posts and threads saying that we are. We have a foreign policy of non alignment on a case by case basis under the triple lock mechanism but are not constitutionaly neutral and if we were we wouldnt be able to depend on the uk to provide top cover or CAP in the event of an emergency.... frankly our defence spending would be required to be MORE than doubled if Ireland voted to be an constitutionaly neutral country. But for sanity's sake please stop calling this country neutral...:mad:

Steyr

Corsendonk wrote: »

Your calling for a doubling of the defence budget to buy your wish list of planes.

Hawk T2's would not bankrupt the Nation. Sensible/reasonable planning is whats needed, i say scrap the IAC ( Hurts to say it ) and re-build from scratch.

For us id have done the following loosely and this is VERY if not EXTREMELY Loose..

1. Baldonnel Runways/Taxi way/Ramps upgraded and widened to modern Civil standards, Baldonnel opened to commercial/Mil traffic New Facilities opened for Civil traffic so they have their own area away from Mil Ramp ( Stands/Terminal/Transport ), Commercial/Civil traffic pay all fees direct to DOD which is continually re-invested into the IAC. Bal can already handle 737-800's. Transavia have been there as have FR.

2. Aircorps maintains use of Baldonnel for basic flying training on PC9M/Rotary Wing Aircraft Operational training. Extra facilities placed at other Airports as needed to house/maintain new fleet.

3. Cessna's done away with.

4. Cessna Caravans ( 10 of type ) bought as replacements and upgraded to GASU Defender standards for Surveillance as done with ATCP/CIT. 5 Based at EINN and EIME.

5. IAC loses with immediate effect a 9-5 mentality and starts shifts like all other sections of the DF and also more personnel increased/ Sent to see RAF Methods. Army given command of Security of Facilities as was seen at Shannon Airport.

6. IAC loses "Cadet" pilot only status, open it it NCO's etc.

7. AW139's sold off.

8. MATS gone and given to charter NEVER TO RETURN.

9. GASU increases fleet to 8 EC135's and 6 PBN Defenders and given to AGS, they can now be trained to operate their own Aircraft. Dispersed around the Country ( EG 2 EC135's at EISG/EINN/EICK/EIME) Mc Apline maintain them as they do now, 8 EC135's dispersed Nationwide will mean at least 1 is ready to go to a call at any time same goes for PBN Defenders 2 at EINN/EICK/EIDW.

10. EC135's fleet increased to 6 and used for training Pilots before moving onto HH60G Pave Hawks

11. 30 HH60G PaveHawks purchased, IAC signs deal with USAF(E) for training on how to conduct anything and everything on HH60G.

12. CASA CN235 MPA's increased to 12, 3 at EINN/EICK/EIME.

13. 15 C-130J's or earlier examples purchased for Transport, IAC trained to Mid Air Refuel ( Omega tanker corp ) and Transport troops light tactical equipment to where its needed. 5 based at EINN/EICK/EIME

14. 30 Hawk T2's purchased and Based Nationwide as point defence Aircraft ( Sidewinder equipped )

15. 30 Light Attack AH-1Z Viper Helicopters purchased used for Army Co-Op.

Imagination i know.

Corsendonk

Ok thats your aer corps business plan, what would you buy to replace the fleet and air defences? And the cost? Also include the necessary spares too.

Steyr

Corsendonk wrote: »

Ok thats your aer corps business plan, what would you buy to replace the fleet and air defences? And the cost? Also include the necessary spares too.

Its all above, there are enough examples to ensure they all dont go belly up at the same time, also the key to an effective Air Corps would be that they are de-centralised to other areas of the Country and based in the other Airports in a Mil/Civil shared arrangement. Its nothing new.

Corsendonk

Why not just bring the EU in? Like we have a mutual defence agreement against terrorists! But define a terrorist. European army isnt that far off and we are one of the border countries so we are going to have a serious deployment here of airforce and navy. This country in the early days of the EU lived off EU funding so might as well get them to supply us with the best military expertise and equipment they can!