Air Corps Missions

concussion

From the AC Facebook page, just to give an idea of the day-to-day support they provide the State.

Two HSE transplant teams were carried by Air Corps AW139 helicopter, tail number "279", today. The organ retreival mission to Tralee General Hospital left Baldonnel at 1200hrs, returning to Baldonnel at 1800hrs this evening. This mission is the 47th Air Ambulance to date this year.

xflyer

Something a chartered civilian helicopter could do just as easily. On that same day a Sunday there were two Cessnas operating on jobs that would have been better done by civvies. Also a PC9 went to Cork for some reason.

Air Ambulance flights should be operated by a dedicated air ambulance helicopter. The fact that the Air Corps has operated 47 air ambulance flights this years point to a need for such a service.

Too much of the Air Corps day to day work is civilian in nature.

Steyr

xflyer wrote: »

Also a PC9 went to Cork for some reason.

Most likely a Nav Exercise.

xflyer wrote: »

Too much of the Air Corps day to day work is civilian in nature. Air Ambulance flights should be operated by a dedicated air ambulance helicopter. The fact that the Air Corps has operated 47 air ambulance flights this years point to a need for such a service. Something a chartered civilian helicopter could do just as easily.

While i agree with you here i believe the 139 was used as she is far far faster than the S61N. In this incident time may literally have been of the essence.

discus

Who cares about how a private 'civi' contractor could have done it cheaper (as if they ever are).

The boys on the ground kept the planes and helis working and the pilots and crew flew them. It's not exactly what we want to picture our Air Corps doing, but they are still doing their bit for the country.

helimachoptor

xflyer wrote: »

Something a chartered civilian helicopter could do just as easily. On that same day a Sunday there were two Cessnas operating on jobs that would have been better done by civvies. Also a PC9 went to Cork for some reason.

Air Ambulance flights should be operated by a dedicated air ambulance helicopter. The fact that the Air Corps has operated 47 air ambulance flights this years point to a need for such a service.

Too much of the Air Corps day to day work is civilian in nature.

What else exactly are they doing, flying patrols to make sure no 747 are aimed at the dail At least they are doing something productive instead of flying around doing nothing (training).

RMD

xflyer wrote: »

Something a chartered civilian helicopter could do just as easily. On that same day a Sunday there were two Cessnas operating on jobs that would have been better done by civvies. Also a PC9 went to Cork for some reason.

Air Ambulance flights should be operated by a dedicated air ambulance helicopter. The fact that the Air Corps has operated 47 air ambulance flights this years point to a need for such a service.

Too much of the Air Corps day to day work is civilian in nature.

Well what else should they be doing? It's incredibly easy to point out a problem, useless though if no solution is offered.

Local-womanizer

In fairness Xflyer is pointing out the lack of will the Government has towards the Aer Corp.

What they do is fantastic,in terms of their professionalism towards such missions,they carry out anything asked of them without a complaint.

But the fact remains,our Aer Corp should not be required to carry out so many such missions,1 or 2 in certain circumstances,fine. But they should be allowed to concentrate on "proper" Aer Corp things,like supporting their Army,investing in adequate aircraft for overseas etc.

Again,no one is faulting the AC for what they do. But let them do what any other Air wing in any other country does!

xflyer

Most likely a Nav Exercise.

On a Sunday? Possibly there was an exercise in Kilworth. There was an extended danger area there recently.

I don't doubt they do a good job. But that really isn't the point. Hiring a civvie helicopter when needed is cheaper as you only have to pay for it when you use it. Also this country needs a proper air ambulance service not some ad hoc arrangement with an ill equipped military aircraft.

Last Sunday, I was aware of four Air Corps aircraft operating all over the country. Three were on aid to the civil power missions. The other was the PC9.

The curious controller asked one pilot what he was up to. The less than enthusiastic reply, (no one likes working Sundays) was that it was some form of non military survey on the Shannon estuary. To me that's a total waste of resources. No doubt the military pilot agreed.

RMD, I did offer a solution, hire civilians, leave the military alone to support the military as Local-Womaniser suggests.

It's a great back slapping job to say the Air Corps do a good job. But half the time they're not even doing their own job. Half the time they're a gofer for other government departments.

hk

The question is if they were not carrying out ATCP what would they be doing? Answer is very little, there is not enough work with the army or military functions to remain busy all day every day. They need to fly regularly to maintain currency so that would lead to a lot of training flights for the sake of it. In reality ATCP ops keeps the AC busy day to day, keeps pilot hours up, provides training opportunities and provides value for money to the tax payer. The army co-op side of things isnt being neglected. To hire a civilian company to conduct these types of roles would require an aircraft on standby so there would be more to the cost than just paying per job, eg coastguard heli situation.
Similar arguements could be made about the NS and their day to day ops but again it keeps them busy, keeps certain skills current eg boarding skills and again provides value for money. Otherwise there would be another three agencys minimum with a fleet of ships each doing different jobs and that is too expensive. If anything the AC needs to identify further roles to undertake (Gov and DOD supported of course) to provide even greater value for money. Only bey offering a multi role service thats value for money will any of the three branches get further investment and equipment.

OS119

hk wrote: »

....If anything the AC needs to identify further roles to undertake (Gov and DOD supported of course) to provide even greater value for money. Only bey offering a multi role service thats value for money will any of the three branches get further investment and equipment.

you make a coherant argument that to get investment the IAC needs to become the 'right hand' of as many non-DF departments as possible - however i have two concerns about where that argument ends up and the logic of it.

1. the IAC already is the 'flying arm' of the state - the cosy stitch up that requires all state owned aircraft be flown by AC pilots already provides this scenario, and i'd ask quite where this has got the IAC...

2. were this idea to bear fruit, what fruit would it bear? it might provide a couple more anti-pollution/fisheries protection aircraft, maybe more Garda helicopters, and possibly a few more heli-taxi's for ministers - but what it wouldn't provide - because it wouldn't fit with the needs of any of the non-DF customers, is the meduim lift helicopters that the Army actually needs to operate effectively, and it wouldn't allow the IAC to concentrate on its job, which is supporting the Army in the field with ISTAR and mobility.

what you propose is, with respect, an employment protection scheme for the IAC, it has nothing whatsoever to do with getting the air assets that the Army needs access to in order to do its fundamental job of protecting the state and furthering/enforcing Irish policy overseas.

hk

On the contrary, the point is not to buy specific equipment or aircraft to a job, but rather an aircraft capable of doing a number of jobs. The casa aircraft is already a good example, can be used for para ops, troop transport (just not on a huge scale), air amb, SAR top cover, maritime patrolling (which is a generic term for a host of actual roles).
The point is the Air Corps has a huge say in the type of equipment needed and seeks it accordingly. A multi role approach which provides value to the tax payer is how you get funding in this day and age, and thats becoming more common in military spending across the world.

The prime example of this approach within Ireland is the planned multi role vessel the NS are seeking in the near future. Essentially the Navy decided it wanted the ability to transport and support troops but such a vessel would never be purchased as its use would be too limited to justify the expenditure, thus the multi role concept, expanding on current NS capabilities such as supporting diving ops, marine scientific research etc etc and still carrying out core ATCP functions such as fisheries, SAR, pollution control, security taskings etc and it really does offer value for money to the state.

As an example, if the AC wanted an aircraft with an ISTAR capability it can be achieved with an aircraft which also now has the ability to support garda ops, maritime or coastal surveillance, CITs, prisoner escorts etc. So the idea is to get the aircraft you want for the reason you want to fill roles the government want filled, everybody wins. You get your aircraft and instead of spending money training for ops, you remain current doing jobs which add value and the solution works out cheaper than contracting the day to day taskings out to several contractors.

Steyr

hk wrote: »

As an example, if the AC wanted an aircraft with an ISTAR capability it can be achieved

From what i have read the EC135P2's are being used or are being mooted to be used in this role alongside with Training Pilots.

muppet01

who else believes that we have an aer corp with professional staff but an ill equipped fleet.

Pilatus aircraft which train pilots for.........
Defender operated for AGS and rarely used.....
Aw 139's , a business chopper unsuited to military ops
Outdated 172's
2 overused and underrated CASA'S
A learjet??????

We sent troops to Chad and hired choppers when we just spent millions on a new 139 fleet

xflyer

The question is if they were not carrying out ATCP what would they be doing? Answer is very little

47 air ambulance missions is very little too. As OS119 suggests you are making a very cogent argument for further expansion of the civilian role of this supposedly military air arm. Why not go the whole hog and civilianise the whole operation?

If we need an air ambulance service then we should have one, a proper one.

Multi role only works if an aircraft is multi role:

The casa aircraft is already a good example, can be used for para ops, troop transport (just not on a huge scale), air amb, SAR top cover, maritime patrolling

It's not used much, if it all anymore for para ops and isn't very suitable. I got that from someone who jumped from one. Troop transport??? It isn't equipped for air ambulance, doesn't seem to able to provide SAR top cover and maritime patrol can be done by civilians as in the UK. Not a good example.

The point is the Air Corps has a huge say in the type of equipment needed and seeks it accordingly.

With the results seen. I think Muppet summed it up.

I would prefer if the Air Corps went the other way and became more militarised and most if not all ATCP missions scrubbed because frankly we the taxpayers are getting a bad deal.

In my opinion the problem is summed up by the use of the Reims Rocket, Romeo 208 last Sunday to survey something on the Shannon estuary, probably seabirds. If every there was a waste of money.:mad:

Steyr

xflyer wrote: »

In my opinion the problem is summed up by the use of the Reims Rocket, Romeo 208 last Sunday to survey something on the Shannon estuary, probably seabirds. If every there was a waste of money.:mad:

Just out of interest what Military roles would you give the IAC, If i had my way MATS would be dead a long time ago.

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Just out of interest what Military roles would you give the IAC, If i had my way MATS would be dead a long time ago.

battlefield mobility and ISTAR.

thats it.

Maritime Patrol would be an IAC function if we were talking about a platform and doctrine of Anti-Submarine/Anti-Ship/Mine-Hunting - but we're not, its fisheries protection, anti-pollution and SAR topcover (assuming its not after 3pm or its a weekend), so its a function best suited to a civilian/commercial contract in the same way the as SAR-H is.

i wouldn't even do flying training - the IAC need for aircrew is so miniscule that having an in-house training set-up is a complete waste of money - either farm it out to a civilian flight school, or to a nearby friendly state that operates the same types.

Stovepipe

Hi all,
Ask yourself why they felt the need to publicise the airlift of the sick child, at all, ahead of all the other airlifts.Simply, good PR because no-one is going to slag the Don over doing a child a favour so it's bulletproof goodwill-gathering, to prevent the 139s being grounded in budget cuts.If the mission was that critical, why use a slow helicopter, in the first place? Why not fly them over in a turboprop quickly and let an ambulance get them to the hospital from the airport? They did it often enough in the past.Why do you think civilian air ambulance companies use fast corporate jets for long range and helicopters for short-range land-beside-the-crash hops. The recent coach crash in germany was a case in point.Three 135s doing point-to-point lifts from the crash site.
regards
Stovepipe

xflyer

It's interesting when an ex donner like Stovepipe agrees.

OS119 answered the question, Steyr. Pretty much sums it up. Actually there is no reason not to provide some ATCP when neccessary. All air arms help out when needed. But it seems to me that the civil side outweighs the military side at times.

Bird watching over the Shannon estuary is way outside any military remit. I also seem to remember the the first Reims Rocket they lost years ago was doing just that when it crashed.

goldie fish

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi all,
Ask yourself why they felt the need to publicise the airlift of the sick child, at all, ahead of all the other airlifts.Simply, good PR because no-one is going to slag the Don over doing a child a favour so it's bulletproof goodwill-gathering, to prevent the 139s being grounded in budget cuts.If the mission was that critical, why use a slow helicopter, in the first place? Why not fly them over in a turboprop quickly and let an ambulance get them to the hospital from the airport? They did it often enough in the past.Why do you think civilian air ambulance companies use fast corporate jets for long range and helicopters for short-range land-beside-the-crash hops. The recent coach crash in germany was a case in point.Three 135s doing point-to-point lifts from the crash site.
regards
Stovepipe

Exactly, why wasn't the Lear used? That is supposed to be why they "needed" it.

Stovepipe

Hi all,
The use of the word "training" is of highly subjective and the Air Corps version coincides with the Mad Hatter's version, " a word means exactly what I want it to mean".So, if you need to drop a rugby ball into a stadium or fly a politician to open an off-license, then the all-encompassing word, training, covers it perfectly.It's faultless because it means everything and nothing and to the uninitiated, cannot be challenged, as naturally, training is always required for somebody, sometime.It's the perfect crime.;)
regards
Stovepipe

Avgas

Good post Stovepipe...and OS119 has stated what should be...more or less.

problem: how do we get from here (ministerial golf express) to there...(air-mobility overseas for any future Pk mission, plus useful ISR?)

How do we do that facing 4bn euro in cuts? And the next 10 years when the entire public sector will be on lifeboat rations?

How could a 'cheap and cheerful' Air Corp be built up....?

Can it even be done?

Do we simply give up, game over and sell the PC-9s and Aw139s.....for....it could easily get to that.

A grumpy Avgas.

Stovepipe

Hi all,
They should seperate the MATS mission from the regular "Don" like the French do with their GLAM unit, who are dedicated fixed-wing/rotary VIP fliers, who are operated by the their Dept of Foreign Affairs. Their crews are seconded FAF people and their aircraft hold FAF colours and titles but the DFA run the unit's taskings.
The Don should cut away the Garda helis, legally and administratively from the DF and let them do their own thing.There is absolutely no viable reason why the Gardai don't run their own helicopters, from their own budget and personnel pool.
At least one helicopter should be detached to full-time Naval duties.The notion of travelling to Cork, after having first roaded their own fuel(true.they can't/won't trust anyone else to do it),to graciously allow the sailors to play with rotors for a day, is a joke. Every grown-up navy has it's own air wing and so should ours.I know the Dauphin era was a failure but it's well past time that a new slate was started.
The cash escort thing is also a bit of a joke.No-one has every attempted to attack a DF covered "cashie" and it's not for the presence of a noisy Cessna, which can't intervene if any thing happened.Lose that job, right away.
Also, dump such tasks as fish/bird surveys.plenty of civvies out there who'll do it, without risking a State aircraft.

The Don has to grow up and become a vital asset to the Army and not an embarrassing Boys Club. There should be a decent helicopter asset travelling with every UN mission.It's as hard to move a helicopter as it is a Mowag or a truck, so it's well within DF capability.the mentality has to become pro-Army instead of grudging anti-Army.
As for flight training, most of it is effectively outsourced, as Type ratings on the bigger stuff is invariably bought in.I reckon more of it will be outsourced over time.
regards
Stovepipe

OS119

i agree with Stovepipe absolutely - the AC's problems are attitude driven, and unless they switch-on very quickly someone from the IMF will notice that the same functions (which are, by and large, civil flying) could be acheived for rather less, and far more efficiently, by CHC.

Avgas wrote: »

How could a 'cheap and cheerful' Air Corp be built up....?

Mil-17's. my view is that quite a few western/BRIC countries are going to be looking for a 'cheaper than Chinook' option in the near future, and they'll be looking for a high capacity, proven airframe with western engines and avionics. the trusted, experienced helicopter manfacturer who can pull off a Mil-17 with European/US engines and avionics for $15m per airframe is going to sell lots, and lots, of airframes...

its not my choice - i pray every night to the Mighty Wokka - but i accept that it does 80% of CH-47F for less than 50% of the price.

Avgas

Well I have always been partial to the Borat option.....and the Mi17 is likeable beast......however "we are where we are" ...i.e. very close to winning the 2010 Robert Mugabe prize for good governance....and 15m euros is out of the question for the next 3-5 years...it would be more like 50m euros to buy and run 3-5 minimum ...maybe a bit less with leasing.......

Least that is my semi-IMFesque view.....I wish it were otherwise but it ain't.....

therefore....

Forget about big boy's helis entirely....we don't have the money. The best that can happen is some joint training with EU 'chums' on NH90s (apparently a tad cramped), Merlins and EC525 or what not......

Move the Air Corp towards a UAV force...and develop 'cheap and cheerful' UAVs [not the gold-plated wonders flogged by EADS and IAI]. They could be developed through a mixture of in-house Air Corps 'robot wars' expertise and University of Limerick unemployed graduates in Aeronautical Science.......yeah...quite mad ...I am...check.:). IMF would never endorse such a move as sensible but this is exactly what they would do in Israel, Korea or Singapore. If your economy can't actually make anything relatively high tech it cannot be a 'smart economy'. These UAVs should be simple and not carry any armed payload-just ISR capabilities, especially maybe optimized towards roadside IED sweeps.....

The PC-9m should be sold....they've no credible role and to make them a useable assets for overseas PK would cost too much for too little tactical gain......and ditto bogus MATS fixed wing assets which should be axed.....

When CASAs get too old to be economic...UAVs might replace them for inshore work....and anything we want further out (or more weather robust) we buy from a commercial supplier on a pay per mission/time basis....or at least Canadian Department of Oceans used to use, I think, commercial Beechcraft....

Not sure about Aw139s....might be wiser to keep them for domestic contingencies and keep them doing air ambulance.......alternatively sell them to CHC.....and use that as a credit for 'time in flight'?

Mad and Bad as ever.

OS119

as for the AW-139's - sadly after their experience with them in the UK SAR-H contract, CHC wouldn't touch them with a 30ft burning stick. in the current market i can't see it being possible to unload them to civil customers for more than buttons, so it may just be the best practice to run the buggers into the ground.

UAV's - definately the way to go, and yes, you can make a decent sub-unit, limited range, 8hr duration, live-feed UAV for less than €4000. an 18hr, live feed, non-restricted airspace Maritime Patrol UAV is a very different beast, its not something you could build 'in house', but the technology is widely available, and, TBH, if Ireland can't fnd a consortium of domestic companies who could develop such a UAV - possibly with help from Shorts up north - then you may as well give up.

personally, in a 'threat of IMF' domimated fiscal/defence environment, i'd scrap 5 infantry battalions and put the saved money into UAV's and helicopters - the idea of 9 regular infantry Bn's for a state that has no overseas commitments, would be barely able to support 4 of those Bn's in the field, and has no airpower to stop any conventional battle turning into a slaughterhouse is just pathetic willy waving of the most unconvincing kind.

baalthor

Stovepipe wrote:

Hi all,
Ask yourself why they felt the need to publicise the airlift of the sick child, at all, ahead of all the other airlifts.Simply, good PR because no-one is going to slag the Don over doing a child a favour so it's bulletproof goodwill-gathering, to prevent the 139s being grounded in budget cuts.If the mission was that critical, why use a slow helicopter, in the first place? Why not fly them over in a turboprop quickly and let an ambulance get them to the hospital from the airport? They did it often enough in the past.Why do you think civilian air ambulance companies use fast corporate jets for long range and helicopters for short-range land-beside-the-crash hops. The recent coach crash in germany was a case in point.Three 135s doing point-to-point lifts from the crash site.
regards
Stovepipe

Interestingly, I was just watching the "Rescue 117" documentary on RTE and the Coastguard helicopter had to fly a critically ill baby (in an incubator)from Wexford to Dublin. This was during the severe cold period last winter. The programme stated that the Air Corps were "unavailable".

Was this because of: the weather conditions, the type of helicopter the Air Corps use, other factors, or some combination of the above?

Local-womanizer

baalthor wrote: »

Interestingly, I was just watching the "Rescue 117" documentary on RTE and the Coastguard helicopter had to fly a critically ill baby (in an incubator)from Wexford to Dublin. This was during the severe cold period last winter. The programme stated that the Air Corps were "unavailable".

Was this because of: the weather conditions, the type of helicopter the Air Corps use, other factors, or some combination of the above?

The Aer Corp were flying a lot of similar missions during the Cold snap last year too,this may be why they were unavailable.

On the show itself,I thought it was very well put together.

Steyr

Local-womanizer wrote: »

On the show itself,I thought it was very well put together.

Not the end of the Series either, apparently the 115 Boys in Shannon get a look in too.

Local-womanizer

Steyr wrote: »

Not the end of the Series either, apparently the 115 Boys in Shannon get a look in too.

Not so bad,it will be watched. Is it a proper Series or just 2 shows do you know?

Avgas

OS119 wrote: »

FROM OS119

"personally, in a 'threat of IMF' domimated fiscal/defence environment, i'd scrap 5 infantry battalions and put the saved money into UAV's and helicopters - the idea of 9 regular infantry Bn's for a state that has no overseas commitments, would be barely able to support 4 of those Bn's in the field, and has no airpower to stop any conventional battle turning into a slaughterhouse is just pathetic willy waving of the most unconvincing kind".

So the AW139s are really really pants then..eh?

Well quel surprise…..think I read somewhere (Air International?) that the Pakistan Civil Emergency Service had bought some recently and foud they coped poorly with 'dust'……I mean….I hope the guy who got the commission/kickback is laughing……..:rolleyes:

So we keep them. Just like we kept the 'dumb' Dauphins…….another bum deal…..

Regarding your suggestion of cutting 9 inf bns down to four….I would say

NOT yet…..you would just add circa 3-4,000 lads and lassies to the dole 'army' who known how to accurately fire automatic weapons…which is probably not the ideal social experiment to initiate as IMF liquidators are immient……..

In the long term we do need to shift many of those PDF inf battalion to become proper high quality reserve battalions….that is due to possible domestic contingencies……viz situation re Northern Ireland…which although remote have potentially serious consequences for us……..(we've had that discussion before…no need to rehash it)

I think your looking at Irish Bns from a very high standard…British BA battalions which are tooled up and expected to fight in Astan against a very tough opponent……I think weaknesses, such that an armchair-civy like me can credibly discern, become clearer when you compare our units TOE, and deployability with say countries like Finland, even Austria….even maybe Denmark…..whose forces have a quality/resource dimension we probably lack….

Two other things worth saying


'Quantity has a quality of its own'.

There is risk in ABCA armies and other advanced outfits that a rush to make infantry 'expeditionary' and to make them 'transformed' ends up making them very light…as regards their vehicles and weaponry…and they become dependent on being 'networked' to remote C4ISR assets and 'phone a friend' air support that 'will always be there and guarantee accurate fires 24/7 whatever the weather'. Yeah right. It won't. Bandwidth can be jammed or crash. There is a reason why 'heavy infantry' evolved in previous conflicts replete with their own integral artillery (not just mortars) and sapper attachments…or at a minimum …..the most crucial of infantry weapons…the mortar was realized not just as an extra…but a force enabler……..I fear that once you've spent gazillions with defence firms making a few infantry battalions fully wired up and 'situationally enabled'……your left with just a miserable few battalions…

This is the dishonesty at the heart of the 'transformation' agenda that NATO and others are still busy selling……..

Reality: Geography/terrain soaks up infantry.

You need quantity with infantry often as much as quality.

Especially mountains and cities are noted for demanding heavy numbers of troops.

Today technology is perhaps providing an illusion that you can control Helmand or wherever with a few battalions (effectives)…whereas in the good old bad days Winston would have had at hand several battalions of Sikhs……and the forces deployed in the old Afghan wars were brigades sized formations…and they still lost….(more or less)…….

In operation Panthers Claw (2009) the leading British infantry force was…about 350 men lifted in by helicopter! Later they were backed up by a few hundred more…but the overall force in the fight on the ground was probably well shy of a brigade of infantry…and closer to a reinforced battle grp……yes they were successful…yes their combat power would be a multiple of a Sikh infantry birgade circa 1878…….but can they stay, hold and 'own' the land they won……?

Their going home in 2012 or thereabouts and T'ban know it.

This leads me to challenge the 'cult of airmobility'….which arguably was one tactical innovation that may has helped the Americans lose Vietnam (there were many others…mostly strategic)……

There is an unexamined 'fact' that helicopters are totally essential…western armies are becoming overly dependent on expensive and fragile airmobility……and really cannot imagine fighting any other way…. Whereas in fact some COIN gurus have always pointed to the importance of static defence of villages and key terrain…as well as mobility at the level and pace of the adversary (which is motorbike/mule/boot)……..what western armies need in many conflicts is not hypermobility combined with firepower……but attritional permanence……to hold and occupy terrain for long enough to constitute a win……or to hand over to friendly forces…..who have enough firepower to prevail in very many incidental attritional firefights……..

What we probably need are very heavy infantry (almost mechanized sappers, with bulldozers and integral EOD) for urban fights like Fallujah/Gaza.......and ultra light infantry who can occupy and live in terrain....(not special forces raiders)....

Moreover, given that there will never be enough money for enough helicopters….for even rich armies like the BA [now facing 20,000 to be let go….from the ranks]……this begs the question…should western armies not be exploring different ways of fighting that are not overly dependent on the gods of Wokka or whatnot?

For us, who are beyond-broke, there is simply no other fiscal option.

Necessity is the mother of invention.