Should the Air Corps be scrapped?

gbee

OS119 wrote: »

and unlike the AC, when you aren't using the contractor, you aren't paying him.

Sadly, this is not accurate. SAR is an example of a very expensive service that covers 24hr personnel, maintenance, servicing, fuels, parts, food, training, equipment, aircraft and so on and so on.

In this exact example the IAC could ** actually provide a cheaper service. And if one were to examine other contracts, like toll roads and toll bridges, there is a clause whereby we pay for the service even if we do NOT USE IT.

You will find there is a charge to the taxpayer for 'availability' and a FURTHER charge for actually using contractors.

Maintaining our own services is both cheaper with multi role deployment, CHC SAR is not an ambulance service [though it has performed this function], has no top cover capability [the RAF provides much of this] and won't attend road accidents.

BTW, not criticising CHC SAR

xflyer

Sadly, this is not accurate. SAR is an example of a very expensive service that covers 24hr personnel, maintenance, servicing, fuels, parts, food, training, equipment, aircraft and so on and so on.

Something the Air Corps proved themselves incapable of providing.

In this exact example the IAC could ** actually provide a cheaper service. And if one were to examine other contracts, like toll roads and toll bridges, there is a clause whereby we pay for the service even if we do NOT USE IT.

Not true, the Air Corps are more expensive when you consider the overall cost. The easy answer is to remove any clause that forces you to pay for non use.

You will find there is a charge to the taxpayer for 'availability' and a FURTHER charge for actually using contractors.

Yes there is and it's transparent and competitive or at least it should be. But the real cost of the Air Corps service is always kept opaque.

Maintaining our own services is both cheaper with multi role deployment, CHC SAR is not an ambulance service [though it has performed this function], has no top cover capability [the RAF provides much of this] and won't attend road accidents.

The RAF no longer provides top cover, the Nimrods are gone and controversially Air Corps top cover doesn't appear to be guaranteed. Neither Air Ambulance or road accidents are part of the CHC remit. Nor is it within the remit of the Air Corps. Both are specialist missions best left to specialists. It's important to note the Air Corps only provide patient transfer, not air ambulance as such.

But my biggest objection is that you are effectively arguing the Air Corps are best used in strictly civilian roles. If so why the need for a uniform at all? Why not civilianise it and let it compete for business?

Delancey

Something the Air Corps proved themselves incapable of providing.

+1 , the so-called ' Green Flu ' action by Air Corps members completely undermined any vestige of moral authority they could lay claim to. As a result of this action they deservedly lost the SAR role.

The Air Corps really seems little more than an expensive flying club that the country can ill-afford.

gbee

xflyer wrote: »

Something the Air Corps proved themselves incapable of providing.

That's a slightly different problem, and it's a much politics and contract provision by ministers who have already been mentioned in the most recent tribunal reports.

We are out of this period now, but I'm sure on a day to day basis, given the funding, training, equipment the men and women of the IAC could provide a service.

Our country is too small for several overlapping and competing for funds though not competing to provide services institutions, be that CHC, IAC, Air Ambulance plus the military aspect

OS119

gbee wrote: »

...We are out of this period now, but I'm sure on a day to day basis, given the funding, training, equipment the men and women of the IAC could provide a service...

given enough funding, training and equipment the cast of The Muppets Christmas Carol could provide a service, but how much funding?

indeed the cast of the Muppets might have less risk, given that the Muppets have not, to my knowledge, previously ballsed-up an aviation operation.

the IAC is incredible expensive way of producing not much:

8 PC-9M's were bought to complete 600 flying hours per year, per airframe - as at Jan 2011, after 7 years in service, they had provided a mere 179 flying hours per year, per airframe. thats one flight of an hour and a bit, every three days, for each airframe.

6 AW139's were bought to complete 600 flying hours per year, per airframe. after 57 months (5 years 9 months) service, they have averaged 175 flying hours per year. again, one flight, of just over one hours duration, every three days for each airframe.

both these examples show that not only does the AC get about 30% out of the paid for potential of each of its aircraft, it shows that even if it got 100% of what it paid for it still buys about 200% more flying hours that it actually uses.

thanks to Tadpole on IMO - i blatently ripped off his hard work and made it look like mine!

gizmo555

From the Department of You Couldn't Make It Up, the answer to what the Air Corps is for:

Defence Forces aircraft have been deployed to spy on turf cutters illegally working on protected bogs . . .

Military fixed-wing aircraft have been carrying out reconnaissance on bogs, leading to alarm and anger among landowners.

Cessna FR172H aircraft, which boast excellent slow-flight characteristics, have been seen flying low over bogs -- an alteration of regular military operations, which involve aerial surveillance and monitoring of escorts carrying cash, prisoners or explosives.

The Air Corps squadron is also carrying rangers from the Parks and Wildlife Service, who are inspecting raised bogs and the activities of turf cutters.

Delancey

It just shows how desperate the Air Corps is to find a role for itself...... a total joke.

Maoltuile

Delancey wrote: »

It just shows how desperate the Air Corps is to find a role for itself...... a total joke.

The RAF has functioned on more than one occasion as a taxi service for the Windsors.

Delancey

Maoltuile wrote: »

The RAF has functioned on more than one occasion as a taxi service for the Windsors.

... and the Air Corps has functioned as a taxi service for politicians who need to attend the opening of an Off Licences .... your point is what exactly ?

cruasder777

Maoltuile wrote: »

The RAF has functioned on more than one occasion as a taxi service for the Windsors.

32 sqdn has that task, but its military role takes priority.

I think RAF planes being used for state visits and the Royal Flight is ok.

Same as the air corps with the president (as a presidental flight), the difference is politicans taking the p...

cranefly

the title of this thread is "should the air corps be scrapped", i would say the answer is no, the first time i saw the irish air corps in action i could not believe how good they were, and they were flying jets, it was the airshow in baldonnel in 1986 i think, it was a glorious day with the weather, the us air force had plenty of planes flying and on the ground, it was fantastic to see all this, you would think that the highlight of the event was the aer lingus 747 doing a fly by nearly landing and powering up again into flight, and then the magniificent red arrows from the RAF doing their routine the crowd were gobsmacked as was i, but then came a display team i never heard of before called " the silver swallows" from the irish air corps display team, they were every bit as good as the red arrows i thought they were better, the cheering from that crowd as they did their aerobatics was fantastic, you just felt so proud to be irish knowing they were part of our air force, they were comparable to the RAF and the us air force that day, i think they were flying fouga magister jets. the 80s in ireland was pretty bad for a lot of people, everyone at baldonnel that day were so proud, the skills of the irish pilots doing the stunts were second to none. to think some people question whether we need an air corps or can afford one beggars belief, if our pilots were crap i would consider doing away with the air corps, but if all we had were " the silver swallows" aerobatic team flying 7 or 8 decent jets in airshows around the world it would be worth the cost, personally i would like to see the air corps expanded for one simple reason, the calibre of the pilots we have is second to none. what do air forces around the world do anyway, should neutral countries give up on air defence just because they cant see a threat out there, right now we could just defend ourselves if the isle of man invaded in the morning. money cant buy the pride that large crowd felt that day, its as simple as that.

NewSigGuy

cranefly wrote: »

the title of this thread is "should the air corps be scrapped", i would say the answer is no, the first time i saw the irish air corps in action i could not believe how good they were, and they were flying jets, it was the airshow in baldonnel in 1986 i think, it was a glorious day with the weather, the us air force had plenty of planes flying and on the ground, it was fantastic to see all this, you would think that the highlight of the event was the aer lingus 747 doing a fly by nearly landing and powering up again into flight, and then the magniificent red arrows from the RAF doing their routine the crowd were gobsmacked as was i, but then came a display team i never heard of before called " the silver swallows" from the irish air corps display team, they were every bit as good as the red arrows i thought they were better, the cheering from that crowd as they did their aerobatics was fantastic, you just felt so proud to be irish knowing they were part of our air force, they were comparable to the RAF and the us air force that day, i think they were flying fouga magister jets. the 80s in ireland was pretty bad for a lot of people, everyone at baldonnel that day were so proud, the skills of the irish pilots doing the stunts were second to none. to think some people question whether we need an air corps or can afford one beggars belief, if our pilots were crap i would consider doing away with the air corps, but if all we had were " the silver swallows" aerobatic team flying 7 or 8 decent jets in airshows around the world it would be worth the cost, personally i would like to see the air corps expanded for one simple reason, the calibre of the pilots we have is second to none. what do air forces around the world do anyway, should neutral countries give up on air defence just because they cant see a threat out there, right now we could just defend ourselves if the isle of man invaded in the morning. money cant buy the pride that large crowd felt that day, its as simple as that.

1986 Says it all really..

bwatson

xflyer wrote: »

The RAF no longer provides top cover, the Nimrods are gone and controversially Air Corps top cover doesn't appear to be guaranteed. Neither Air Ambulance or road accidents are part of the CHC remit. Nor is it within the remit of the Air Corps. Both are specialist missions best left to specialists. It's important to note the Air Corps only provide patient transfer, not air ambulance as such.

But my biggest objection is that you are effectively arguing the Air Corps are best used in strictly civilian roles. If so why the need for a uniform at all? Why not civilianise it and let it compete for business?

The lack of Nimrod isn't actually that much of a vulnerability according to a lot of defence articles I've recently read. As a submarine hunter, it was largely ineffective. All aircraft tasked with hunting submarines are largely ineffective, so much so that those who operate submarines for the UK are not at all fussed at the removal of such a pointless aircraft.

According to a former member of the submarine service (writing in the telegraph I believe) the only way you will ever find a state of the art enemy submarine if with a state of the art submarine of your own. He was firmlu of the opinion that the task should always have been the responsibility of the Royal Navy and that the RAF was only ever trying to find itself another role and the funding it would bring.

gbee

gizmo555 wrote: »

From the Department of You Couldn't Make It Up, the answer to what the Air Corps is for:[/I]

It's quite serious by all accounts:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76812607

NewSigGuy

bwatson wrote: »

The lack of Nimrod isn't actually that much of a vulnerability according to a lot of defence articles I've recently read. As a submarine hunter, it was largely ineffective. All aircraft tasked with hunting submarines are largely ineffective, so much so that those who operate submarines for the UK are not at all fussed at the removal of such a pointless aircraft.

According to a former member of the submarine service (writing in the telegraph I believe) the only way you will ever find a state of the art enemy submarine if with a state of the art submarine of your own. He was firmlu of the opinion that the task should always have been the responsibility of the Royal Navy and that the RAF was only ever trying to find itself another role and the funding it would bring.

Of course a Submariner would make claims along those lines, I think that the P-3 and Nimrod guys will tell quite a different story with regards to Sub Hunting. The US is going ahead with the P-8 and it is attracting a lot of attention from prospective export customers.
From what I heard the loss of Nimrod is a real issue in the UK armed forces.

OS119

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Of course a Submariner would make claims along those lines, I think that the P-3 and Nimrod guys will tell quite a different story with regards to Sub Hunting. The US is going ahead with the P-8 and it is attracting a lot of attention from prospective export customers.
From what I heard the loss of Nimrod is a real issue in the UK armed forces.

they are both correct - hunting a nuclear powered sub in the middle of the ocean with just an ASW aircraft, is, err... somewhat challenging. however, driving off a sub in restricted waters, with other ASW assets about, with an ASW aircraft is, if not easy, then doable, and it got done on a very large number of occasions.

the ASW aircraft is, to some degree, the 'beater' - it forces the sub to move away. the recipient of the is service is the SSN, who just sits there making no noise, waits for the other sub to make noise while he's moving out of the way of the ASW aircraft, and then whacks him.

Nimrod is a big loss - without it clearing the way for the SSBN's to get to deep water takes more time and more resources, it was very useful as a flying relay/observation station, and as an ISTAR capability, even over land, it was a very useful tool to have. that said, the MRA4 was so over budget, so late, and had so many operatinf/airworthiness problems that cancelling it was probably the right decision.

i would lay reasonable money on a P-8 order at some stage, but if the USN's BAMS project using the RQ-4 begins to look like a runner, i would not be surprised to see that with roundels on instead. most informed people within MOD are suggesting that if the UK does get back into fixed wing ASW, it will almost certainly be with the RN operating it instead of the RAF.

Maoltuile

xflyer wrote: »

Something the Air Corps proved themselves incapable of providing.

Not true, the Air Corps are more expensive when you consider the overall cost. The easy answer is to remove any clause that forces you to pay for non use.

Not true. Flight Ireland(?) had a lengthy article on the true, hidden costs of the current private operator some years back.

bluecode

Maoltuile wrote: »

Not true. Flight Ireland(?) had a lengthy article on the true, hidden costs of the current private operator some years back.

The reality is that if the Air Corps provided the same standard of service as the 'current private operator' the costs would be the same if not more.

That's the hard fact of the situation. The Air Corps does not have the flexibility and the experience required to operate at 24/7 SAR service. In time that experience could be acquired but not with the Air Corps as it's currently established. The experience level of the ordinary Air Corp pilot is relatively low, unlike the 'current operator' who can pick and choose pilots and crew with massive experience from various militaries with combat experience and offshore flying.

If you really need evidence of that lack of experience, take a look at the recent 'heavy landing' not a crash landing of the ambulance chopper.

Cranefly, yeah sure back then in the eighties we all had illusions. The notion that the Air Corps pilots are second to none, yeah well you go for it. Not my experience, but I don't want to disillusion you. But they are no better or worse than any pilot out there.

Capt'n Midnight

Nimrods were expensive for what they were, if you include the AEW versions a bottomless money pit.

Maoltuile

bluecode wrote: »

If you really need evidence of that lack of experience, take a look at the recent 'heavy landing' not a crash landing of the ambulance chopper.

This is a fairly cryptic remark. Care to elaborate?

OS119

Maoltuile wrote: »

This is a fairly cryptic remark. Care to elaborate?

in 'another place', people who fly and maintain helicopters for a living say that the helicopter involved is a write-off, that the structure of the helicopter has been bent, and that pretty much every componant of the helicopter will have to be stripped down and inspected/replaced because of shock damage - you could make it fly again, in the same way you could make Buckingham Palace fly - if you pumped enough money into it.

'heavy landing' and 'crash' are interpretive terms - aircrew make heavy landings, passengers are in crashes.

tac foley

Japan, another island nation, will be replacing its aging fleet of Orions in the near future. My former boss in Japan, a five-ringer who 'owned' all the JMDF reconnaissance assets, and spent almost twenty-five years flying the P3 around the islands and out into the Pacific, China Sea and sea of Japan, was convinced of the efficacy of the aircraft - seen as a real threat by the Russians operating out of Sakhalin Island.

tac

bluecode

Modern helicopters are usually designed with survivability in mind like modern cars. You can be quite sure that the skids were designed to collapse in a certain way, it will be fitted with energy absorbing seats and no doubt the fuselage and fuel system will be crashworthy. None of this means the helicopter could be used again but the occupants will walk away and the helicopter itself will appear substantially complete. I'm sure a visit to the Europcopter website will confirm the above.

So of course it can be disengenously described as a 'hard landing'. Looks better in the newspapers. Crash landing is more appropriate. That helicopter will never fly again. The same accident in an Alouette may not have been survivable.