Air Corps to collect Irish citizens from Libya

SamuelFox

Finally, the idea that the appearance of a military aircraft must bring with it the inherent background of force is daft. When US helicopters show up over Indonesia after a tidal wave, or whatever, yes, there may be a bit of indignity from the locals that the Americans showed up at their city and not the Indonesian Air Force, but I strongly doubt they were particularly concerned that the Rangers would be swooping in on top of them.

I'll answer this one first - the difference between your example and the sitation in Libya is that Libya is a conflict situation with a potentially hostile force in control, while Indonesia was a humanitarian situation with friendly forces in control. In Libya the whole rationale for sending in the Air Corps was implicitly that it was a hostile situation, and thus too dangerous for civilians.

In this case the situation is tense and the consensus has been to civilianise the rescue effort as much as possible. Unlike your example of Indonesians, the Libyan forces are on edge and have been traditionally hostile to the west. The sight of foreign military aircraft landing will not help things, and everyone except the Irish recognised this.

Although most of your points are valid, I take exception to that one. The main difference between a government military and a civilian organisation isn't the use of force, it's the fact that they're subject to military discipline. There are plenty of civilian organisations capable of using force. A government knows exactly where it stands when it sends a military body, can make instructions with confidence that they will be carried out (Especially if they're intent-driven-orders), and the personnel who make any decisions are directly accountable to them.

I'd disagree - discipline is required to utilise force, but its not a subsitute. We don't need to discipline unarmed groups, and even if we did they would be little use in a conflict situation. An unarmed disciplined force would be f'all use in a firefight! Discipline was the important factor in Indonesia and force wasn't required, and so arguably the rescue effort in Indonesia was secondary use of military resources - if the west had sufficent civilians with relevant skills the military would not have been needed.

A second difference, come to think of it, is the relative protection that a military body has from a civilian body. For example, impounding a military aircraft is likely to be substantially more politically sensitive than impounding a civilian charter.

I doubt thats a factor TBH, in fact you could argue the opposite and say that in the event that it went pear shaped and the locals started taking hostages or whatever, they might prefer the scalp of a foreign military plane first, especially one that has no back-up.

Manic Moran

The sight of foreign military aircraft landing will not help things, and everyone except the Irish recognised this.

Ireland is not the only nation to have landed military aircraft in Libya for the evacuation. Germany, also, has sent most anything to hand in the government inventory. Some look very military


Some less so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2GATF3SJO8

Other countries have as well.

I'd disagree - discipline is required to utilise force, but its not a subsitute. We don't need to discipline unarmed groups, and even if we did they would be little use in a conflict situation. An unarmed disciplined force would be f'all use in a firefight!

Not necessarily a firefight, but just a 'rough' situation at the airport. A contracted airline pilot may very well say 'sod this, it's not my job to be in difficult situations' and leave on his own accord, whilst a military pilot may very well hang out a little longer.

NTM

muppet01

agree with manic, even a 17 yr old who had tablets slipped into his coffee by Bin Laden is unlikely to confuse a humble CASA with a AH64..................

petergfiffin

sherdydan wrote: »

Why in God's name havent all the E.U countrys gotten together at this stage, dropped in a few planes worth of troops to secure the airport, and then gotten every EU citizen the fu*k out of there!

The problem is our triple lock would probably prevent Ireland from taking part in that unless we have a mandate from the UN, Dail approval and the moon is in the third house of Jupiter.

All jokes aside this is exactly the type of operation the European battle groups were formed for and I believe the Nordic one (of which Ireland is a member) is one currently on standby.

Many of the people who object so strongly to Ireland's participation in a combined European defence policy are the same ones who are now asking why Europe isn't doing more for it's citizens to get them out :mad: Having said that unless troops were invited in by the Libyans then simply "arriving" would be considered an openly hostile act with unknown consequences - could actually prompt the Libyan people to stand together.

Regardless I just wonder whether Europe has the structures in place to carry out a combined airlift on a large enough scale and if not isn't it time they were put in place - which could mean Ireland having no choice but to contribute financially and materially to the upkeep of such a service.

Steyr

savagecabbages wrote: »

Out of curiosity how long is left on the clock for the CASAs? Have they performed well at their fishery patrol duty?

They hit 20,000 hours around 8th February 2006

http://www.worldairpics.com/photo/1011592/M/CASA-CN-235-100MP-Persuader/252/Irish-Air-Corps/?&sid=7342844393&sp=42

I think thats when they went for a MLU.

And 2 is woefully inadequate.

gunnerfitzy

I was just reading the latest article on the Irish Times website on our citizens in Libya.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0225/breaking6.html

I was disgusted and ashamed to read the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs' appraisal of the situation and advice to Irish citizens in the country.

Secretary general of the department David Cooney complimented his staff’s hard work and said he was very pleased with how they had approached the crisis.

When there was no embassy on the ground, they couldn't be there "to hold people’s hands", he said. "The best advice we can give them is to try to get out on a commercial flight and be careful."

The fact that because things started to look a bit rough at the airport and therefore the DFA team retreated back to Malta is only adding to my shame. The Irish ambassador to Rome is accredited to Libya and he shouldn't be moving out of the Libya until the safety of all Irish citizens are secured.

Another black day for Ireland.

goldie fish

The upshot of this is that first job for new government is the selection of a proper military transport aircraft.....

Savage93

goldie fish wrote: »

The upshot of this is that first job for new government is the selection of a proper military transport aircraft.....

Dream on, there's absolutely NO chance of that happening:(

Steyr

On what Air Corps Aircraft was a baby born on leaving Tripoli, was it the Lear45 or the CASA?

Utrinque Paratus

goldie fish wrote: »

The upshot of this is that first job for new government is the selection of a proper military transport aircraft.....

The aer corps should have, 3 fighter jets (Harriers, dont need runways etc to operate), 4 military medium lift helos, 2 chinooks and 1 transport aircraft.

The army should have 1 infantry air assault company as well as support capable of rapid deployment with the ARW.



I think thats realistic bare minimum.

OS119

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

The aer corps should have, 3 fighter jets (Harriers, dont need runways etc to operate), 4 military medium lift helos, 2 chinooks and 1 transport aircraft.

The army should have 1 infantry air assault company as well as support capable of rapid deployment with the ARW.



I think thats realistic bare minimum.

its neither. its somewhat off topic - though related to GF's very valid point.

3 Harriers (and, yes, they do need runways unless you want to buy aircraft that can take off, fly a 5km circuit and then land again) wouldn't allow you to do anything constructive, it would be a sad, pathetic willy waving exercise that acheived nothing but the burning of several hundred million € and made you feel better without reason.

the UK had a Harrier fleet of about 50-odd airframes - the maintainence, upgrade, training, repair and deployment cycle meant they could have 8 available to deployment at no notice, with another 8 available with a bit of notice and if you didn't mind hitting the training cycle - a very short term capability.

50 airframes - 8 available for operations with another 8 as short term 'surge' capability. how many do you think would be available for operations if you only had 3 airframes?

Ireland should have its own rapid deployment capability - it could buy into the NATO C-17 purchace and the NATO Antonov leasing program (all without joining NATO), as well as an outright buy of a C-130 level capability and deployable heavy lift helicopter fleet.

to have 2 C-130's available at all times, and perhaps a third as 'surge' capability you'd need 5 airframes, and to have 4 CH-47's at immediate readiness with another 2 or 3 available at notice you'd need 12 airframes.

added to which most military aircraft fleets lose about 30% of their numbers to accidents over a 25 - 30 year purchace, so you'd need to buy a total of 7 C-130's and 16 CH-47's and keep the spares in quite expensive storage as well as ensuring they get the same upgrades your 'active' aircraft get.

not cheap.

Dogwatch

Steyr wrote: »

On what Air Corps Aircraft was a baby born on leaving Tripoli, was it the Lear45 or the CASA?

Understand that baby was delivered by section in Libya and family evacuated by Aer Corps as the aircraft has the necessary equipment on board. However I have no sources for this so am open to correction

Utrinque Paratus

OS119 wrote: »

its neither. its somewhat off topic - though related to GF's very valid point.

3 Harriers (and, yes, they do need runways unless you want to buy aircraft that can take off, fly a 5km circuit and then land again) wouldn't allow you to do anything constructive, it would be a sad, pathetic willy waving exercise that acheived nothing but the burning of several hundred million € and made you feel better without reason.

the UK had a Harrier fleet of about 50-odd airframes - the maintainence, upgrade, training, repair and deployment cycle meant they could have 8 available to deployment at no notice, with another 8 available with a bit of notice and if you didn't mind hitting the training cycle - a very short term capability.

50 airframes - 8 available for operations with another 8 as short term 'surge' capability. how many do you think would be available for operations if you only had 3 airframes?

Ireland should have its own rapid deployment capability - it could buy into the NATO C-17 purchace and the NATO Antonov leasing program (all without joining NATO), as well as an outright buy of a C-130 level capability and deployable heavy lift helicopter fleet.

to have 2 C-130's available at all times, and perhaps a third as 'surge' capability you'd need 5 airframes, and to have 4 CH-47's at immediate readiness with another 2 or 3 available at notice you'd need 12 airframes.

added to which most military aircraft fleets lose about 30% of their numbers to accidents over a 25 - 30 year purchace, so you'd need to buy a total of 7 C-130's and 16 CH-47's and keep the spares in quite expensive storage as well as ensuring they get the same upgrades your 'active' aircraft get.

not cheap.

How would three Harriers cost hundreds of millions ? :rolleyes:

Infact they could have been got from the British who scrapped them.

They are ideal because they can operate from cover, woodland etc, Ireland does not have the air defence capability to operate fighters from runways. This is how NATO operated them on land.

It would also mean the PDF operate on exercises with a fast light ground attack air craft meaning special forces could train as j tecs etc.

****50 airframes - 8 available for operations with another 8 as short term 'surge' capability. how many do you think would be available for operations if you only had 3 airframes?****

Do you have a link for this ? the Harrier fleet was down graded because it was being scrapped, in the Falklands the Harrier operated with very good reliability. Your claim sounds like bs.

******(and, yes, they do need runways unless you want to buy aircraft that can take off, fly a 5km circuit and then land again*******


Now your typing total bs.



*******to have 2 C-130's available at all times, and perhaps a third as 'surge' capability you'd need 5 airframes, and to have 4 CH-47's at immediate readiness with another 2 or 3 available at notice you'd need 12 airframes.*****


How come civilian airlines can keep planes nearly continually in the air ? They dont have 10 aircraft in reserve for every two they operate.

OS119

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

horse poo

airlines don't train their own pilots. airlines don't land aircraft on ships at night. airlines don't fly aircraft so hard that bits fall off them.

Harriers don't take off vertically when they have significant weapon/fuel loads.

Harriers acheived excellent reliability figures in FI - they took, in the end, about 35 Harriers. they still struggled to get more than 4 over the fleet or the FI at any one time. they were also completely fcuked at the end of the war, to the extent that the UK Harrier force went into hibernation for 6 months after it.

Harriers cost hundreds of millions of pounds because they need people to fly them (£4m apiece), lots of people to service them, lots of spare parts to keep them flying, Hardened Aircraft Shelters to put them in, lots of weapons to train them into an effective force, large cargo aircraft to suppport their deployment (ground crews, spare aircrews, spare parts, tools and rigs, spare engines, and weapons), and a lead-in jet trainer to get people to a standard where they can fly a Harrier.

petergfiffin

Regardless if Harriers (or any other jets) were offered to us for free there comes with them a massive overhead with regard to spares, training etc. but that's been covered in a number of threads here before.

I don't personally think it makes a lot of sense for Ireland to actually purchase heavy lift helos or dedicated transport aircraft given that they would be prohibitively expensive to operate on a day-to-day basis and effectively would be sitting idle 90% of the time. Even when our overseas committments start up again you would have to question whether it's actually worth buying aircraft or simply paying somebody else to do your transport as we currently do.

To come back to my earlier point I think it makes a lot more sense for all European countries to contribute to a pooled air-lift service which could be called on by a battle group or any European country as required (within certain criteria), of course this could also be combined with a pan-European specialist "extraction" force which specialises in getting European citizens out of hot spots using diplomatic and if necessary military means.

Utrinque Paratus

OS119 wrote: »

airlines don't train their own pilots. airlines don't land aircraft on ships at night. airlines don't fly aircraft so hard that bits fall off them.

Harriers don't take off vertically when they have significant weapon/fuel loads.

Harriers acheived excellent reliability figures in FI - they took, in the end, about 35 Harriers. they still struggled to get more than 4 over the fleet or the FI at any one time. they were also completely fcuked at the end of the war, to the extent that the UK Harrier force went into hibernation for 6 months after it.

Harriers cost hundreds of millions of pounds because they need people to fly them (£4m apiece), lots of people to service them, lots of spare parts to keep them flying, Hardened Aircraft Shelters to put them in, lots of weapons to train them into an effective force, large cargo aircraft to suppport their deployment (ground crews, spare aircrews, spare parts, tools and rigs, spare engines, and weapons), and a lead-in jet trainer to get people to a standard where they can fly a Harrier.

So the republic cannot afford to operate 3 light attack aircraft ?

Why bother with a military then ?

Resorces would be better spent on more maritime patrol aircraft and a civil defence force and coast guard.

At present the aer corps is neither one thing nor another.

kirving

As has been said before though, the cost of the aircraft isn't the problem. It's all the ancillary infrastructure that people forget about that's too expensive.

You say it's neither one thig or another, but does Ireland really need an attack force?

Utrinque Paratus

Kevin Irving wrote: »

As has been said before though, the cost of the aircraft isn't the problem. It's all the ancillary infrastructure that people forget about that's too expensive.

You say it's neither one thig or another, but does Ireland really need an attack force?

Without proper logistical support in the correct ratio : signallers, artillery, transport, medics,air support, etc etc an army is simply a bunch of cold people in a field. (The ratio is around 6 to every infantryman).

Infantry obviously need at least a light ground attack aircraft (not a trainer) to support them.

Its seem the PDF have alot of infantry but are under resourced in the above.

OS119

Kevin Irving wrote: »

...You say it's neither one thig or another, but does Ireland really need an attack force?

depends what you mean - if you believe that Ireland should have the capability to rescue its own citizens from this type of situation without having to ask other states to do the neccesary, then it needs to spend a lot more on defence.

this is the 5th such evacuation in about 15 years in Europes back yard - Albania, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya.

to do what the UK is probably going to have to do in order to get its oil workers out of southern Libya you'd going require long range, heavy/medium lift helicopters like S-92/Merlin/CH-47, 2 or 3 rapid deployment infantry companies, long range, rough-field capable transports like C-130/A400M/C-17, and at an absolute minimum some escort helicopters like Lynx/UH-60 Blackhawk, as well as a deep pentration, high persistance intelligence/surveilance asset like MQ-9 Reaper/Predator or RQ-4 Global Hawk to actually find the people you want to pick up and to keep an eye on the local nasties.

in most of these operations other states like France, the UK, Italy and Germany will also turn up - they will bring the Intelligence and Surveilance assets, and some fast jets for escort/No Fly Zone, but there is no reason why Ireland shouldn't shoulder some of the airlift burden.

BrianD

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

The aer corps should have, 3 fighter jets (Harriers, dont need runways etc to operate), 4 military medium lift helos, 2 chinooks and 1 transport aircraft.

The army should have 1 infantry air assault company as well as support capable of rapid deployment with the ARW.



I think thats realistic bare minimum.

Pointless purchases and would be irrelevant in this situation. We already have the ARW if required.

There is absolutely no need for an European state to "invade" Libya temporarily to get expats out. Expats are leaving by air, land and sea. Foreigners are not being targeted but granted that the lawlessness exposes them to straight forward banditary.

I don't think the Air Corp will be risking this adventure again. Will the plane that returned to Baldonnell be returning to Malta?

Utrinque Paratus

BrianD wrote: »

Pointless purchases and would be irrelevant in this situation. We already have the ARW if required.

There is absolutely no need for an European state to "invade" Libya temporarily to get expats out. Expats are leaving by air, land and sea. Foreigners are not being targeted but granted that the lawlessness exposes them to straight forward banditary.

I don't think the Air Corp will be risking this adventure again. Will the plane that returned to Baldonnell be returning to Malta?

If Gaddafis forces started shooting EU citizens inc Irish, there is nothing the republic could do, it could not even contribute 1 single fighter. Its doubtful it would even be able to contribute to a multi national rescue force. The ARW dont have the logistical support for such an undertaking.

How is having a light ground aircraft attack capability pointless ?

If you have infantry its essential.


As the M.E becomes more unstable these situations will crop up more and more.

BrianD

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

If Gaddafis forces started shooting EU citizens inc Irish, there is nothing the republic could do, it could not even contribute 1 single fighter. Its doubtful it would even be able to contribute to a multi national rescue force. The ARW dont have the logistical support for such an undertaking.

How is having a light ground aircraft attack capability pointless ?

If you have infantry its essential.


As the M.E becomes more unstable these situations will crop up more and more.

And if we had these aircraft, we'd still be able to do nothing. I won't even go onto the logistics of getting these pointless aircraft to the front line and into the operational theatre.

The REALITY is that Gadafy has been shooting at our citizens and army for years through his supply of arms and training to the IRA and we've done sod all about it. In fact we've continued to trade with Libya and Irish people have been quite happy to go work there and accept the Gadafy Dollar. So why should we be overly concerned now. We wern't in the pass.

The priority is now to extract these wayward citizens and make sure they are appropriately charged for the priviledge.

I note on Sky News that Blaire is talking about some sort of appropriate NATO action. I presume that this will be the green light for an extraction by military forces of those expats who are inland. They could go for a no-fly zone like they did in Iraq.

OS119

BrianD wrote: »

And if we had these aircraft, we'd still be able to do nothing. I won't even go onto the logistics of getting these pointless aircraft to the front line and into the operational theatre....

if you have the ability to fly these platforms in your home state you have the ability to fly them from elsewhere - everyone else is doing it.

if, for instance, the IAC purchaced 5 C-130's it could easily fly two out to Malta or some other NATO/freindly operating base, they would easily be capable carrying the crew and parts neccesary for them to operate from there, while a third aircraft could operate as support for the first two by bringing DFA personnel, unexpectedly required spares, additional flight crew and all the other bits and bobs that are needed for deployments. it gets more complicated when you're deploying helicopters because they either need to be 'deconstructed' to some degree or other in order to fit in the back of somthing big with four engines, or they need to fly themselves and be supported by transport aircraft that will carry the groundcrew/spares to enable the helicopters to operate.

it might mean a fundamental change in the mentality at Baldonell, but given that every otherair arm in the world does it regularly, there is no inherant reason the IAC can't operate in the same way.

Utrinque Paratus

BrianD wrote: »

And if we had these aircraft, we'd still be able to do nothing. I won't even go onto the logistics of getting these pointless aircraft to the front line and into the operational theatre.

The REALITY is that Gadafy has been shooting at our citizens and army for years through his supply of arms and training to the IRA and we've done sod all about it. In fact we've continued to trade with Libya and Irish people have been quite happy to go work there and accept the Gadafy Dollar. So why should we be overly concerned now. We wern't in the pass.

The priority is now to extract these wayward citizens and make sure they are appropriately charged for the priviledge.

I note on Sky News that Blaire is talking about some sort of appropriate NATO action. I presume that this will be the green light for an extraction by military forces of those expats who are inland. They could go for a no-fly zone like they did in Iraq.

BrianD wrote: »

And if we had these aircraft, we'd still be able to do nothing. I won't even go onto the logistics of getting these pointless aircraft to the front line and into the operational theatre.


Libya is only 150 miles from Malta. How is a military having a light ground attack aircraft capability pointless ?:rolleyes:

savagecabbages

What/who do you intend we attack with 3 Harriers?

The Neutral country brigade here would kick up a stink if a government announced they were looking at attack aircraft.

I see on the BBC the final British aircraft is getting people out touched down in Tripoli this afternoon.

Utrinque Paratus

savagecabbages wrote: »

What/who do you intend we attack with 3 Harriers?

The Neutral country brigade here would kick up a stink if a government announced they were looking at attack aircraft.

I see on the BBC the final British aircraft is getting people out touched down in Tripoli this afternoon.

Dont you understand ? if the UN voted on an air exclusion zone over Libya, Ireland cannot even provide 1 fighter to help enforce it with other nations.

Let alone provide top cover for any ground forces potentially deployed.

Steyr

Dogwatch wrote: »

Understand that baby was delivered by section in Libya and family evacuated by Aer Corps as the aircraft has the necessary equipment on board. However I have no sources for this so am open to correction

Thank you Dogwatch, was it the Lear so?

Steyr

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

The aer corps

If you are going to talk about them at least get their name correct its Irish Air Corps or Aer Chór na hÉireann. The only other Aer I am aware of is Aer Lingus/Aer Turas/Aer Arann.

Absurdum

Steyr wrote: »

Thank you Dogwatch, was it the Lear so?

It was the Lear, they had a medical team on board.

BrianD

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

BrianD wrote: »

And if we had these aircraft, we'd still be able to do nothing. I won't even go onto the logistics of getting these pointless aircraft to the front line and into the operational theatre.


Libya is only 150 miles from Malta. How is a military having a light ground attack aircraft capability pointless ?:rolleyes:

So the Maltese Government would be happy to allow their soil to be used as a base to attach another nation.

Plus even if the chaotic state that Libya is they would probably rapidly dispatch our three jets of death.

What exactly is the plan - just nip over drop a bomb or two and give them the bird? The world will marvel the three Irish lads holding Gadafy at bay.

The UN declared a no fly zone over Iraq and I didn't hear much clamour for us to fund a new air corp and pitch in. If the UN decide to Ireland can contribute through other means as we did in Chad or the Lebanon.

Incidentally, I'm somewhat mystified that the Air Corp giving those who arrived in Malta by sea a free left home to Baldonnel. Hope they gave them an invoice. These people should have made their own way home from Malta.