Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Air Corps / Force General Discussion - Aircraft, Manpower, Policy

11718202223

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    I think you give the man far too much credit tbh.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,515 ✭✭✭Negative_G


    Your first mistake was thinking Craughwell understands what he's talking about himself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,095 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Jesus, the IT are giving him creedence now

    1000015378.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Tbf, the Department has fine form in that as well, I mean for me, its not even the idea that we might buy some ASW equipped helo's, its the fact that I can't see the departments ever signing off on the volume of usage and training needed to actually get skilled in ASW work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,925 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    I just expected some better level of awareness from someone who claims to have good military knowledge. What is also his issue with buying from the French?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    he seems to have decided single sourcing everything from them is a risk if relations sour…. Though if that was the case I think we’d have far greater concerns.

    Either that or someone else has given him a reason to stir shite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 401 ✭✭mupper2


    Which is weird because the 145 is from the German side of Airbus..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,925 ✭✭✭roadmaster




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,095 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    He's ex-British military. Former NCO in the RIR. An anglophile. Basically a pro Brit stooge in the Oireachtas.

    Thats his problem with the French. Despicable really.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    If it is, that's just pathetic tbh, not like the Brits and French haven't bought stuff from each other before, besides given some of the "issues" UK defence procurement has had, even without Brexit I'd question going with them, with Brexit France makes much more sense.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,891 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    He returned to Ireland after he left the BA and joined the Irish Army.

    He was promoted to Sergeant Instructor and left the Army in 1980.

    On what basis are you calling him "a pro Brit stooge" ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 401 ✭✭mupper2


    Actually there was a tidbit and from an unexpected place…Conor Gallagher a journalist for the Irish times replied to me that there is talk of getting the NH90.

    I know there are opinions on him as a journalist etc so take it how you will.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    Just had a look… 2? Kind of buying the worst of all worlds there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 401 ✭✭mupper2




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭vswr


    NH90 would definitely be considered, on paper it's an ideal fit. It's just a shame it's **** in reality.

    Knowing the Air Corps, it's be forerunner due to reduced pricing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    And I share it, however something like this is actually what I'd expect from DOD, the LoA2 says to increase the helo fleet, so instead of adding a few more of what we have, or replace the entire fleet, instead add a few orphans that introduce more headaches than they solve, satisfy nobody and makes things worse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,925 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    It depends if 2 ASW versions of the NH90 were bought and only used for Naval work that would be ok. They could then buy 6 TTH NH90s for Army Work with extra 145s as Mupper said before.

    That depends on what version is bought. Some nations have no issues some nations its shocking bad.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,337 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    As I alluded to in my own tweet reply to you (but didn't expand on).
    Buying NH90 when we have already committed to the H145M, is IMHO an act of madness that will fragment maintenance and training.
    The NH90 isn't a bad bit of kit, and we aren't the Aussies.
    The issues they encountered aren't something I believe would be an issue for Ireland.
    It's also a large helicopter, meaning that should we plan on resuming shipborne helo ops in any new naval vessels?
    That commensurate large flight deck must be planned for on what will be a corvette sized ship.

    One of the primary advantages of the Airbus HxxxM series IMHO, is the streamlined training and maintenance pipeline.
    From pilots being cross airframe capable due to single cockpit config, to spare parts, simulators and procedures being far more compatible across the fleet (apart from specific airframe parts).


    If we buy ASW capable Helos? (And we should).
    We should IMO, line up behind the French and adopt the H160M as the basis of any potential but.
    That would also leave me leaning towards the H175M for our AW139 replacement, but that's probably too sensible for our DoD to get behind.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    just a quick google, but the 160m doesn’t have ASW capabilities?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    But 2 for ASW is just tokenism, at the very least it should be 3 or more ideally (assuming of course the NS ever gets a new ship order, let alone a helicopter and ASW capable design), 2 is just “doing something to give a performance”. If the 149 fleet is getting replaced and expanded it should be in one single order.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,337 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    It is currently having them integrated, the Thales sonoflash system is the intended platform for the sonobuoy and ASW platform.
    I don't know what the Datalink and CMS integration between that platform and CAPTAS is like?
    But I'd hazard that processing, symbology, training and intraoperability is all quite compatible too.
    Further improving value for money, synergy and potential pool of trained operators available for ops when we get up and running.


    The concern Id have, is that along with a concurrent French introduction of the capability.
    That we'd be guinea pigs, but I'd point out given the proposed amount of airframes the French are buying?
    We'd be far better off support wise than any other time we'd made the "1st" buy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,337 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    As a former regular around here is oft to say.
    3 is 2, 2 is 1 and 1 is none.

    I'd also make the point that even with 2 NH90s, fully operational and available 24/7 (via some kind of magic).
    That they would only ever be able to ensure continuous monitoring and prosecution of a single ASW target.
    What happens if there's something suspicious in the Celtic Sea?
    Then something also pings off the West Coast?
    Yes, we can hope to hand off one of them to the RN or the MN but surely we must do better.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,095 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    He's a very good security correspondent, to be fair.

    But thats not the first time the NH90 has been mentioned on these pages. It is the quintessential NATO naval / anti-submarine warfare helicopter, in the European theatre at any rate.

    If we are going develop a sonar/sosus/sonobuoy capability for ASW, and ultimately a maritime SOF, its hardly surprising the NH90 is part of the conversation, if only as a lead-in airframe to increased maritime defence operations and naval aviation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 401 ✭✭mupper2


    I've been told on several occasions by separate usually well informed folks that whatever ships the NS get next will have heli decks etc…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    I mean that's something, but given there's been no new build order for anything since the P60s, the question becomes if/when such new hulls might ever get ordered, at this stage I doubt anything before the 2030's at which point the NH90 replacement project will be well underway since its already started.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,337 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    One can only hope that the necessity and sense of inclusion of such seeps through to the bean counters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,925 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    I would just be shocked if DEPR would allow even one NH90 to be bought.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    At some point either something gets bought or it gets abandoned. Given the PR waffle you’d imagine something with a dedicated ASW variant gets bought to replace the 149s at which point you have the “nothing is cheap” issue.

    Now again as I’ve said, I’m firmly in the Jan 1 2027 the government announces that everything is fine and really the President and the Tankies were right after all position…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 329 ✭✭tippilot


    A couple of points here.

    As there are currently no vessels capable of supporting helicopter ops, this will be a shore based role for the foreseeable future, so a long range machine is required. Think of Swedish shore based ASW during the cold war, with the CH-46 Sea Knight.

    Effective ASW ops will require integration of ship towed array and aerial assets to maximise detection. Either one without the other is extremely limited.

    The NH90 naval helicopter does not seem to suffer from the same issues as it's troop transport stablemate. Along with the Seahawk Romeo, it is one of two in production machines with long range ASW capability.

    I see the H160M mentioned above as an alternative. Reading the Airbus blurb there is no ASW variant planned, the naval version will have an anti-surface focus, like the Dauphins they will replace. In any case it is much shorter legged and unsuitable for a shore based role.

    This potential purchase should not be mentioned in the same breath as the AW139 replacement for which a different type will be more suitable. Horses for courses. The AW149 may be the logical choice for that role.

    So if indeed they talk of NH90 is founded in some reality - and I'm around long enough to remember the rumours of C27J, Alpha jets and L159 - there would be some logic behind the decision:

    • Easy integration with ship borne sonar units.
    • European sourced
    • Access to local experience, training and hopefully sonar classification databases.

    Basing at NS HQ in Haulbowline should be prioritised, along with crewing by NS personnel.

    On potential numbers: yes two seems like a small fleet but it's two more than zero. Use them first and show a need for more. I strongly believe that another transport C295 can be justified in the near future based on current demonstrated usage and need for continuous availability.

    Pinch of salt needed, until more details if any emerge.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭sparky42


    An orphan fleet is an orphan fleet, worst of all worlds, but again very DOD nonsense.



Advertisement
Advertisement