Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

sparky42 · 06-03-2020 6:42pm

donvito99 wrote: »

The CHC contract is apprx €60m per annum. Considering the AC have 6 SAR aircraft, what would it cost the AC (i.e. additional pilots, technicians, facilities, sundry) to operate the same service?

I'd say it's hard to guess because you're talking a decade plus of extra spending for the AC giving us a potentially totally different AC by this stage (for example would the AC gone for a larger buy of a medium helicopter for both SAR and the 139 operations)

donvito99 · 06-03-2020 6:57pm

The AC would likely do well for the lenght of the contract if they were also paid 60 odd million as CHC's includes...

- Profit
- Lease of aircraft
- Private sector wages

Although, CHC can hire and fire as they please and benefit from economies in terms of running similar services across the planet.

roadmaster · 06-03-2020 7:54pm

When the CHC contract is up and somehow there was a government change of policy to bring SAR back in house would that encourage air crew to stay with the air corps?

Also if they did get SAR back how long would it take them to work back up to operational levels are we talking 6 months or a few years . They do still practice sar with the 139s so there should not be starting from scratch at least

sparky42 · 06-03-2020 8:11pm

roadmaster wrote: »

When the CHC contract is up and somehow there was a government change of policy to bring SAR back in house would that encourage air crew to stay with the air corps?

Also if they did get SAR back how long would it take them to work back up to operational levels are we talking 6 months or a few years . They do still practice sar with the 139s so there should not be starting from scratch at least

Given that the AC would have to buy new helicopters there would be a time gap for that as well as building back up the numbers in the AC.

That being said, I highly doubt that any of the parties would fund bringing it back in house and the costs for that.

roadmaster · 06-03-2020 8:43pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Given that the AC would have to buy new helicopters there would be a time gap for that as well as building back up the numbers in the AC.

That being said, I highly doubt that any of the parties would fund bringing it back in house and the costs for that.

I know the department of fianance would have heart failure but if they got 5 more 139’s that would be enough , they have slightly less capacity but the same range as the s92,s . The benefit there is the pilots would already be trained on flying them . The CHC contract could be extended for 2 years to ensure no time gap

Psychlops · 06-03-2020 8:50pm

Also remember the IAC were offered the Blackhawk over the AW139 & to quote someone on Twitter that quoted a member of the PDF "We were offered the Blackhawk but were told it was too Military looking by the DOD".

The S92 was also shown off to the IAC as it was initially designed as a troop transport hence the rear entrance for rapid deployment.

sparky42 · 06-03-2020 9:40pm

roadmaster wrote: »

I know the department of fianance would have heart failure but if they got 5 more 139’s that would be enough , they have slightly less capacity but the same range as the s92,s . The benefit there is the pilots would already be trained on flying them . The CHC contract could be extended for 2 years to ensure no time gap

Depends are you talking about our green painted civilian airframes or actually spec'd military variants? There's also the question of how much sense that makes in buying more helicopters that can't be used with the MRV when it comes into service (whenever that is)

sparky42 · 06-03-2020 9:44pm

Psychlops wrote: »

Also remember the IAC were offered the Blackhawk over the AW139 & to quote someone on Twitter that quoted a member of the PDF "We were offered the Blackhawk but were told it was too Military looking by the DOD".

The S92 was also shown off to the IAC as it was initially designed as a troop transport hence the rear entrance for rapid deployment.

That and from memory they were older variants of the Blackhawks and the 139 was meant to be cheaper (of course it is when it's a civilian variant).

Psychlops · 07-03-2020 1:12am

donvito99 wrote: »

The CHC contract is apprx €60m per annum. Considering the AC have 6 SAR aircraft, what would it cost the AC (i.e. additional pilots, technicians, facilities, sundry) to operate the same service?

What 6 SAR aircraft have the Air Corps? They have 6 utility AW139's, im not even sure if they have 6 winch assemblys & 6 FLIR pods for each aircraft, only sometimes do I see an AW139 with a FLIR pod & winch attached.

According to Military.ie the roles of the Air Corps with regards to SAR is a secondary function with the primary function being to support the Irish Army & a secondary role of which there are alot includes:Recovery and Top cover for search & rescue.

The AW139 according to Military.ie is tasked with:Army support, Air ambulance, Military Transport & General Utility.

donvito99 · 07-03-2020 10:58am

Psychlops wrote: »

What 6 SAR aircraft have the Air Corps? They have 6 utility AW139's, im not even sure if they have 6 winch assemblys & 6 FLIR pods for each aircraft, only sometimes do I see an AW139 with a FLIR pod & winch attached.

According to Military.ie the roles of the Air Corps with regards to SAR is a secondary function with the primary function being to support the Irish Army & a secondary role of which there are alot includes:Recovery and Top cover for search & rescue.

The AW139 according to Military.ie is tasked with:Army support, Air ambulance, Military Transport & General Utility.

What roles they currently are tasked with is irrelevant.

If they had the pilots, technicians, winches and FLIR, the AC could start SAR ops tomorrow.

jonnybigwallet · 07-03-2020 11:04am

I think this topic deserves a new thread seeing as everybody seems focused on SAR and Air Ambulance and whether the AC is up to it with the present kit. Looks like the Fighter Jets topic is closed anyway as the great national leader puts this on a par with acquiring an aircraft carrier!

banie01 · 07-03-2020 7:26pm

banie01 wrote: »

The RAF launches a pair of QRA interceptors to identify the interloper and the next crew and aircraft is stood up.
The Russian doesn't just bigger off. Quite often the intent of Russian interlope is to cause attritional wear on NATO airframes and bases.
The Russian will proceed through UK controlled Airspace and the UK will continue the "escort" mission by deploying relays of fighters.

If the Russian continues to rumble through NATO airspace, The UK will hand over the escort to whichever Airforce area it next enters.

The aircraft will continue being tagged by pairs of QRA fighters until it leaves NATO airspace.

To really mess with NATO what will often happen to burn up QRA hours is that the Russian will turn away, fly a few hundred km in the opposite direction and then turn back to cause a new QRA.

The Russians are happy to rack up hours on the Bear and it's variants to cause NATO attritional maintenance and wear at a far higher rate than the Russians incur.

Psychlops has posted an interesting thread on today's QRA launches by the RAF and Armed De l'Air today.
Multiple pairs launched, 2 tankers and considerable effort expended in the air policing role.

An actual real world example of the effort and expense some of the capability and capital needed for effective oversea interception and escort.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058059756/1

Psychlops · 07-03-2020 8:42pm

donvito99 wrote: »

What roles they currently are tasked with is irrelevant.

If they had the pilots, technicians, winches and FLIR, the AC could start SAR ops tomorrow.

Thats the point, they dont.

Leonidas BL · 07-03-2020 9:57pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/raf-fighter-jets-repel-russian-bombers-off-northwest-ireland-1.4196550

RAF fighter jets repel Russian bombers off northwest Ireland
Three pairs of fighters scramble during the early morning approach of Russian aircraft

zone 1 · 07-03-2020 10:16pm

look its joke, russia knows theirs gap from west over ireland and they will hammer it. ireland should hang their head in shame, if you cant defend yourself forget it.. brits are laughing in one way but must be saying its joke having to get jets to west coast of ireland to defend their airspace. we should apologise and say sorry for the last 100 years we fxxked up...... in my option reduce the army by 2 thousand , increase navy increase air corps... at least when we had the FOUGA it gave us option something to put up in the air ..in the 50s we had more aircraft to defend this country than we have today.. pity defence is joke in this country.....and talk is FG want defence if they go into goverment with FF and GREENS...............RIP defence forces.................

sparky42 · 07-03-2020 10:28pm

zone 1 wrote: »

look its joke, russia knows theirs gap from west over ireland and they will hammer it. ireland should hang their head in shame, if you cant defend yourself forget it.. brits are laughing in one way but must be saying its joke having to get jets to west coast of ireland to defend their airspace. we should apologise and say sorry for the last 100 years we fxxked up...... in my option reduce the army by 2 thousand , increase navy increase air corps... at least when we had the FOUGA it gave us option something to put up in the air ..in the 50s we had more aircraft to defend this country than we have today.. pity defence is joke in this country.....and talk is FG want defence if they go into goverment with FF and GREENS...............RIP defence forces.................

The Fouga was no different than the PC9's, totally ineffective. As to having more planes in the 50's, yep WW2 designs (and technically based off early WW2 ones at that) as the world moved into the Jet age... Then First Gen Jet Trainers as the World moved on to second gen fighters...

At no time have we been able to control our airspace.

Leonidas BL · 07-03-2020 10:44pm

@Sparky42 what would be wrong with asking Europe for help defending our airspace?

sparky42 · 08-03-2020 1:45am

Leonidas BL wrote: »

@Sparky42 what would be wrong with asking Europe for help defending our airspace?

I'd guess the first issue would be Europe would politely point at our .3% spend on defence and suggest maybe we do a bit more spending before asking for help (for example the Eastern EU nations that NATO supports are spending around the 2% target already), we aren't a poor nation, we're just choosing not to spend on defence. Why should they have to foot a bill we just simply won't contribute to?

Second, I don't think it's currently legal to have foreign forces based in the Republic.

Lastly, even if they did accept to patrol our airspace for us, they would be fully entitled to bill us for that, at which point we get to spending on defence, but not for our own services?

Leonidas BL · 08-03-2020 6:22pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Lastly, even if they did accept to patrol our airspace for us, they would be fully entitled to bill us for that, at which point we get to spending on defence, but not for our own services?

Quicker and easier than trying to develop it ourselves, which could take years and years.

sparky42 · 08-03-2020 6:35pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

Quicker and easier than trying to develop it ourselves, which could take years and years.

It's amazing how other nations manage...

Leonidas BL · 08-03-2020 6:39pm

sparky42 wrote: »

It's amazing how other nations manage...

They had a head start

sparky42 · 08-03-2020 6:44pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

They had a head start

Or you know, willing to invest in the military...
The European nations have plenty of their own needs to attend to and given our stance are well within their rights to tell us to f off until we take defence seriously.

Leonidas BL · 08-03-2020 6:48pm

sparky42 wrote: »

Or you know, willing to invest in the military...
The European nations have plenty of their own needs to attend to and given our stance are well within their rights to tell us to f off until we take defence seriously.

I totally agree, but it could be an interim measure until we develop it ourselves.

donvito99 · 08-03-2020 6:52pm

Do the 'European Nations' actually give a damn whether or not we have fast jets capable of escorting Russian aircraft with effectively every right to skirt our airspace? Does it keep them up at night? Does it feature at every NATO summit?

jonnybigwallet · 08-03-2020 9:07pm

Is that a relevant question?

Leonidas BL · 08-03-2020 9:15pm

jonnybigwallet wrote: »

Is that a relevant question?

A lot more relevant than some of the rubbish you put up

jonnybigwallet · 08-03-2020 9:19pm

Well...thats very disappointing Leo. I didn't think you were one of them folk who think .3% of budget was acceptable. In fact I thought you and me were more or less best mates! Sob Sob.

Leonidas BL · 08-03-2020 9:29pm

Well Jonny, your not the worst on here for sure. At least you're a bitta craic. But we dont need Destroyers, aircraft carriers or F35's, and these little trainer jets are no good.

expectationlost · 08-03-2020 10:47pm

Leonidas BL wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/raf-fighter-jets-repel-russian-bombers-off-northwest-ireland-1.4196550

RAF fighter jets repel Russian bombers off northwest Ireland
Three pairs of fighters scramble during the early morning approach of Russian aircraft

so the Irish Times is reporting a disrupted Russian military invasion of the UK and/or Ireland?

zone 1 · 09-03-2020 2:47pm

let the russians in whats the damage , we cant patrol it , let them off. give them knock at least they can refuel runway is perfect for them.. at least their patrolling it paddy cant 2 casa .......

Fighter jets for the Air Corps?

Comments