Oh dear, another cock-up

RadioRetro

Peacekeepers arms aircraft has no arms licence.

boredbaby

Hmmm....initially this did sound like another cock-up by the Dept of Defence, but having read the entire article, it appears that the cock-up was made by Air Partner having not secured the arms licence in sufficient time for the deployment.

I would imagine that when Air Partner tendered for the flight they would have stated in their tender response that the export of arms was possible, and then left insufficient time to gain the necessary approval from the CAA.

Thus, when the time came to conduct the flight, they technically had no arms export licence.

More a case of a supplier promising something they subsequently could not deliver on as opposed to a DoD cock-up it would appear in this case.

SNAKEDOC

this is all down to air partner, i'm disappointed with the independent that they didn't say this a bit more clearly.

muppet01

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

this is all down to air partner, i'm disappointed with the independent that they didn't say this a bit more clearly.

True snakedoc, however it leads back to the question of why we cant transport our own troops. As a nation whos military prides itself on overseas deployments should they not have the capability to do so?
I still cannot understand why we have PC9 aircraft for no reason.
How about scrapping /losing the PC9's, Gulfstream etc and purchasing an a321 for troop transport and large diplomatic trips???

drdeadlift

muppet01 wrote: »

True snakedoc, however it leads back to the question of why we cant transport our own troops. As a nation whos military prides itself on overseas deployments should they not have the capability to do so?
I still cannot understand why we have PC9 aircraft for no reason.
How about scrapping /losing the PC9's, Gulfstream etc and purchasing an a321 for troop transport and large diplomatic trips???

Problem is that would make sense

Sean9015

drdeadlift wrote: »

Problem is that would make sense

Would it? Realistically, how often would such an aircraft be used - five or six times per year? What costs would be incurred having it sitting on the ground doing nothing? Would there be enough work to keep pilots current without special training flights?

Hiring in is far more cost effective - just need to pick a decent operator who can get / already have the appropriate paperwork (for example, by making it a condition of the tender).

SNAKEDOC

i would have thought it would have been a condition of the tender. that would be another cock up if it wasn't the problem is air partner gave the lowest price and said we'll get a licence but couldn't in time then went back with there tails between their legs. its a pity we don't have the ability to transport our own troops but with the wallet the way it is and our so called neutrality it will never be a reality unless the UN and US's wishes are met meaning ireland taking a bigger responsibility in world hot zones such as afgan and iraq. there are troops there with internal security units and IED units as our troops have plenty of experience.

muppet01

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

i would have thought it would have been a condition of the tender. that would be another cock up if it wasn't the problem is air partner gave the lowest price and said we'll get a licence but couldn't in time then went back with there tails between their legs. its a pity we don't have the ability to transport our own troops but with the wallet the way it is and our so called neutrality it will never be a reality unless the UN and US's wishes are met meaning ireland taking a bigger responsibility in world hot zones such as afgan and iraq. there are troops there with internal security units and IED units as our troops have plenty of experience.

Its a shame that will never happen.Can the powers that be, not recognise the need for an increased maritime patrol/SAR capability coupled with the means to move our troops as required.With our involvement in the Nordic battle group as well as the leb plus govt junkets a 320/321 would be kept going.

Two more CASA's would be handy if Carlsberg did aer corps........

SNAKEDOC

i think one of the nimrods would be perfect. a huge range four engined. maritime reconnaissance capable and if needed can transport politicians. I know that they are aging a little but perfect for our needs. About the pc-9's i think we do still have a need for them rather then anything else. More Helicopter aircraft would defo go down a treat too especially in the Garda chopper role and SAR.

BEASTERLY

muppet01 wrote: »

I still cannot understand why we have PC9 aircraft for no reason.
How about scrapping /losing the PC9's, Gulfstream etc and purchasing an a321 for troop transport and large diplomatic trips???

Two words , pilot training. If they got rid of the PC-9's then how would they train pilots. Then there will be nobody to fly this a321 you speak of!

Seriously, some people just seem to throw common sense and logic out the window when trying to have a go.

drdeadlift

Sean9015 wrote: »

Would it? Realistically, how often would such an aircraft be used - five or six times per year? What costs would be incurred having it sitting on the ground doing nothing? Would there be enough work to keep pilots current without special training flights?

Hiring in is far more cost effective - just need to pick a decent operator who can get / already have the appropriate paperwork (for example, by making it a condition of the tender).

Im not aware of how many trips would be required for such an aircraft but im sure its all down to demand that varies.
Leasing such an aircraft would prob cost them 5-10k an hour.
It costs money having pc9s&gulfstreams sitting on the ground.Is it army personnel that fly the gulfstream?
An a321/753/3 could fulfill a purposeful role,it can do everything the two above can do and more,come to think of it what is the pc9s role.
Its about having aircraft which serve a purpose,if its a military a/c usage doesn't come into the equation but its about having equipment thats purpose serving.

About keeping pilots current its not an impossible task.

drdeadlift

BEASTERLY wrote: »

Two words , pilot training. If they got rid of the PC-9's then how would they train pilots. Then there will be nobody to fly this a321 you speak of!

Seriously, some people just seem to throw common sense and logic out the window when trying to have a go.

Out source all pilot training.

BEASTERLY

drdeadlift wrote: »

Im not aware of how many trips would be required for such an aircraft but im sure its all down to demand that varies.
Leasing such an aircraft would prob cost them 5-10k an hour.
It costs money having pc9s&gulfstreams sitting on the ground.Is it army personnel that fly the gulfstream?
An a321/753/3 could fulfill a purposeful role,it can do everything the two above can do and more,come to think of it what is the pc9s role.
Its about having aircraft which serve a purpose,if its a military a/c usage doesn't come into the equation but its about having equipment thats purpose serving.

About keeping pilots current its not an impossible task.

Well if you lose the PC-9's you will have no way training new pilots from scratch.

BEASTERLY

drdeadlift wrote: »

Out source all pilot training.

Seriously, it could not possibly be outsourced. For example who in Ireland trains pilots for air-to-ground weapons training? There is probaly countless other military operations that im guessing no private operator could train for. Never mind the fact that it would probaly cost more in the long run aswell.

As I said, common sense is something very people seem to use on here...

drdeadlift

BEASTERLY wrote: »

Seriously, it could not possibly be outsourced. For example who in Ireland trains pilots for air-to-ground weapons training? There is probaly countless other military operations that im guessing no private operator could train for. Never mind the fact that it would probaly cost more in the long run aswell.

As I said, common sense is something very people seem to use on here...

Doesn't have to be a private operator.Other nato countries air-forces could offer to train our many many highly trained pilots.

Seeing as you are mr AWARE,what use is it for us training our pilots in tactical air combat?

testicle

drdeadlift wrote: »

Out source all pilot training.

To who? Military training is not the same as civilian training.

The PC-9Ms also have a military as well as training role. Don't forget that.

drdeadlift

testicle wrote: »

To who? Military training is not the same as civilian training.

The PC-9Ms also have a military as well as training role. Don't forget that.

To the uk/france/germany/spain.But that wouldn't work though would it.

What countries have a more pathetic airforce than Ireland? Is it worth spending money on these little planes just for the sake of it.

Poccington

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

i think one of the nimrods would be perfect. a huge range four engined. maritime reconnaissance capable and if needed can transport politicians. I know that they are aging a little but perfect for our needs. About the pc-9's i think we do still have a need for them rather then anything else. More Helicopter aircraft would defo go down a treat too especially in the Garda chopper role and SAR.

How about some medium or heavy-lift heli's, so we could actually transport say a Company at one time. Then we'd also be able to deploy our own air assets overseas, rather than having to outsource something as fundemental as the ability to move your troops around the AO.

The 139's aren't worth a ****.

RadioRetro

BEASTERLY wrote: »

Seriously, it could not possibly be outsourced.

Actually it could, Airwork in the UK are very experienced in this (my dad was an engineer with them for many years) and they specialise in contracts to train pilots from scratch right up to front line fighter/bomber/transport status in many countries around the world, as well as training the ground personnel.

muppet01

BEASTERLY wrote: »

Two words , pilot training. If they got rid of the PC-9's then how would they train pilots. Then there will be nobody to fly this a321 you speak of!

Seriously, some people just seem to throw common sense and logic out the window when trying to have a go.

Pilot training traing for what??.The PC9 is a link in the training chain for fast jet pilots.Once they finish on the PC9 theres no step up.Its not as easy as hopping into the CASA or Gulfstream.My point is that since we have no jets(and will never have), no multi engine trainers and a mainly helicoptor fleet so why waste money on what is essentially an expensive plaything as it is not utilised in its intended role.Im am not "having a go" just trying to look at it with common sense which you seem to think i dont have....

RadioRetro

So that's all right then...

boredbaby

I was with you retro until I read the last line of the article.

It seems their hands were tied by EU tender regulations.

If that company had not been awarded the contract as the cheapest supplier, things may have gotten messy from a legal and financial standpoint.

As the article also states, they had no discretion in the matter.