At long, long, last

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
but doesnt the private sector historically provide a better service than the public sector

In service industries or providing products, most certainly. In training pilots, not necessarily. SAR is by it's nature a task that will never turn a profit and requires the highest standards of skill and professionalism from the pilots who perform it. Which means lots of training time both in the air and on the ground - and all on a task that will never turn a profit. The temptation for a private company to skimp on training and equipment would be simply too much (in my opinion) to leave this task to the private sector.

Frankly, this and air ambulances are about the only task I can think of that I can point to and say "this is something the aer corps should be doing".

Which is why the fact that they're not doing it is rather galling.

Isnt the SAR service now all private anyway run by a company called CHC? Must be giving the state better value than the air corps.

Yes and no - it's not that we're getting better value for money, it's that the aer corps has no suitable platforms to use for the task. After the crash a few years ago that killed four people, the government decided to outsource the service until the correct equipment was bought - and of course then decided not to buy that equipment. Which is why seeing the PC-9's arrive is so head-bangingly annoying. After all, the SIAF Marchetti's that the Aer Corps already have are designed for training - they are only variants on the civilian versions, after all.

I am sure the people who join the military want to carry out military functions as opposed to civil functions, perhaps not?

While there are civilian SAR services around the world, most are run as military operations. Hong Kong ran it as a civilan service, while we (and the US and the UK) ran it as a military one. But even Hong Kong's service was public sector, attached to the police as I recall. And they had some damn impressive kit - a modified sea king that could automatically hover over a set point to facilitate easier rescues and so on.

Now that would be worth the money.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by bonkey

How unsurprising that you turn that around and say its the unresponsiveness that makes supplying a genuine scenario a waste of time. I'm just wondering how long it will be before someone in favour of shiny new jets starts accusing those who oppose the idea as being anti-irish, freedom-haters, or just plain ol' tree-hugging-hippies or lefty-peacenik-freaks.

If you can't show a need, then there is no need. The closest you've come is "national pride", but you haven't addressed why we need this now, despite not having had this aspect of national pride since the inception of the state. Indeed, we've had teh opposite...our air force has been a laughing stock for at least the past 2 decades, if not more.....but I'm guessing that you won't be interested in showing the national shame this has induced that we need to correct. What will the excuse be this time? That I'm still too disinterested?

jc

Well, its clear have a vested interest in ensuring, what ever way you can, that no money is spent on this issue. And thats fine. You made your point and a valid point that is. However, I do not think its fine to insinuate those with a different view are lunatics or rednecks. I dont know why you think its "unsurprising" that I would say its a waste to continue, I have never mentioned this here before nor seen much talk of it. Am I a member of some "sort of people" you are familar with?

Heres a scenario, one that happened:
During World War II, Ireland made fake artillery stations (ie out of wood) and placed them around the coast. Then we took pictures our the Government at the time "commissioning" our new defensive armaments and leaked them to the Germans and the British, to at least provide the view that an invasion by either would be more costly than if they had known the truth, that, like today, we have essentially no defense. Noone pretended the artillery would be able to stop either potiential enemy, but it would give them pause for thought. It was a gamble and it paid off. A decade before WW2 started, if I stated there was there will be a need to defend our country from invasion by sea, would the audience be anymore receptive than you today? I think not. A great many people will only see the need to defend themselves after they are under threat. That is why you will very easily and smugly be able to "shoot down" any notion of improved defense and any scenario I could come up with.

I personally dont think that after a war has started is the best time to worry about defense.



Matt

Sparks

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I personally dont think that after a war has started is the best time to worry about defense.

So we should spend a billion euro or more because of paranoia?

Nuttzz

The temptation for a private company to skimp on training and equipment would be simply too much

I cant see a commerical enterprise risk the lives of its employees nor can I see experienced pilots working for such a company, i'm sure the tender process would sort that out anyway with a minimum standard

the government decided to outsource the service until the correct equipment was bought - and of course then decided not to buy that equipment

surely that must mean that it is more cost effective for CHC to provide the service rather than buying new heli's for the air corps and training them on them

a modified sea king that could automatically hover over a set point to facilitate easier rescues and so on.

great idea, i wonder what the price on them is?

Didnt the government not the military cancel the helicopter order in favour of these PC-9 things, so perhaps the plan was always to outsource SAR?

I read somewhere (i think it was John Gormley) saying that these PC-9's had NATO standard controls (avionics?) that the other planes dont have and that they were just a stepping stone for the Air Corps to get NATO aircraft and for the country to join NATO by the backdoor

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
I cant see a commerical enterprise risk the lives of its employees nor can I see experienced pilots working for such a company

*cough*Ryanair*cough*

i'm sure the tender process would sort that out anyway with a minimum standard

I'd agree - if the Irish government didn't have an abysmal record for issuing tenders. You have to know about what you're asking for in a tender after all, while the government's been known to issue tenders for multi-million euro projects on the basis of a few figures sketched on the back of an envelope...

surely that must mean that it is more cost effective for CHC to provide the service rather than buying new heli's for the air corps and training them on them

The point of SAR is not cost-effectiveness though.

great idea, i wonder what the price on them is?

Not as much as was paid for the new Garda helicopter to be honest. That modified seaking made the aviation magazines nearly a decade ago now...

Didnt the government not the military cancel the helicopter order in favour of these PC-9 things, so perhaps the plan was always to outsource SAR?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I read somewhere (i think it was John Gormley) saying that these PC-9's had NATO standard controls (avionics?) that the other planes dont have and that they were just a stepping stone for the Air Corps to get NATO aircraft and for the country to join NATO by the backdoor

Again, crap like that wouldn't surprise me from our shower. Does show, however, that that kind of camelnosing crap does actually cost - lives in this case.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Sparks
So we should spend a billion euro or more because of paranoia?

Interesting that we have gone from "hundreds of million", to "billions".
I pictured around 8 fighters, costing upto €20 million each, initial outlay of €160m, substantionally lower thereafter. France is continously replacing their fleet, and selling off their older models quite cheaply.
And, at some stage in the future, there is the possibility to sell on.

A lot of money yes, billions? No.
Re: Paranoia, the purpose of that story was to illustrate that if you refuse to prepare for the worst because its "paranoid" then you will be caught with your pants down, every time.


Matt

bonkey

Originally posted by Matt Simis
However, I do not think its fine to insinuate those with a different view are lunatics or rednecks.

Where have I insinuated that? Its never been my intention to insinuate that. I'm insinuating that those who want a jet fighter wing for the nation grossly underestimate the cost and/or grossly overestimate the benefit that it would bring us.

I dont know why you think its "unsurprising" that I would say its a waste to continue,

Because it gives you a way to not answer the question without having to concede the point and admit that there just isn't such a threat.

Heres a scenario, one that happened:

Yes indeedy - those would be who are now the allies that you suggested previously we should use our hypothetical jet wing to hold out so we can wait for them to rescue us.

In other words, either that nature of threat no longer exists from our European allies, or your "minimal defense to hold for rescue" argument holds no water.

Which leaves us, once again, without a threat to ward against.

A decade before WW2 started, if I stated there was there will be a need to defend our country from invasion by sea, would the audience be anymore receptive than you today? I think not.

Why not? A decade before WW2 a previous World War was only a decade past. There was no EU, and several serious powers all in competition with each other. Europe, let alone the world, was far from a fully stable place, both miitarily and governmentally. There were identifiable theoretical threats, none of which exist today.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Interesting that we have gone from "hundreds of million", to "billions".

Actually, we haven't gone from one to the other. A billion is hundreds of millions. And I outlines, in detail, in the last thread on this topic, why it would run to approximately a billion euro to own and operate a squadron of jet fighters. (To quickly summarise: the initial purchase price is one of the smaller expenses in the Total Cost of Ownership figure).

Re: Paranoia, the purpose of that story was to illustrate that if you refuse to prepare for the worst because its "paranoid" then you will be caught with your pants down, every time.

And now you see why paranoia is listed as a delusional state.
The point of noting that it's paranoia is that paranoia isn't a fear of a possible outcome, but an irrational fear of something that will never happen.
So you won't get caught with your pants down.


Mind you, should the impossible happen, you'll find it cold comfort to note that a squadron of the most advanced jet fighters known to man will be absolutely useless to protect you....

Nuttzz

Why not? A decade before WW2 a previous World War was only a decade past. There was no EU, and several serious powers all in competition with each other. Europe, let alone the world, was far from a fully stable place, both miitarily and governmentally. There were identifiable theoretical threats, none of which exist today.

I think one point of view on this is that the government tried to equip the army after the war broke out and coldnt get much equipment, still there is little chance of a war in europe within forseeable future

What would posters view be to a european army, perhaps then the irish army could specialise in one area like transport or medical roles and concentrate resources on that and leave air defence and fighters etc to different countries?

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Nuttzz
I think one point of view on this is that the government tried to equip the army after the war broke out and coldnt get much equipment, still there is little chance of a war in europe within forseeable future

What would posters view be to a european army, perhaps then the irish army could specialise in one area like transport or medical roles and concentrate resources on that and leave air defence and fighters etc to different countries?

Indeed, my point was that some level of preparation is desirable when you dont need it, not afterwards.

In regards roles in an EU army, yes, such active participation would be good thing IMO.



Matt

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Matt Simis
Indeed, my point was that some level of preparation is desirable when you dont need it, not afterwards.
Matt

Preparation for what?
What exactly would we be preparing for?
If you don't know what you're preparing for how in the hell can you be prepared for it!?!?!?
Tell us, please, what the threat is.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by bonkey
Where have I insinuated that? Its never been my intention to insinuate that. I'm insinuating that those who want a jet fighter wing for the nation grossly underestimate the cost and/or grossly overestimate the benefit that it would bring us.


Because it gives you a way to not answer the question without having to concede the point and admit that there just isn't such a threat.


jc

In your response to me and people who oppose "your viewpoint" you listed that you were prepared to endure being called "anti-irish, freedom-haters, or just plain ol' tree-hugging-hippies or lefty-peacenik-freaks", terms generally used by rednecks and other such morons. You made the connection, a subtle one, between those who oppose you and rednecks\lack of intelligence. Nicely done, even if it is a common tactic.

Instead of thinking up witty rebuttals, re-read my posts. I conceded there is no threat (/scenario) I can (or possibly anyone) conjure that will provide an immediate and pressing threat you will find satisfactory.

Any with that "victory", I assume you are happy now?


Matt


PS: Sparks, I assumed the term "Billions" to be 10^12, ie thousands of millions.

wisp

Preparation for what?
What exactly would we be preparing for?
If you don't know what you're preparing for how in the hell can you be prepared for it!?!?!?
Tell us, please, what the threat is.

Well Ireland has already a number of obligations to fullfill. For example providing close air support and the government has recognised that there is a potential air threat. Its not a case of preparing for an unknow threat but meeting our obligations and stop relying on the Royal Air Force.

The PC-9's are an excellent airframe, very capable and something the aircorps(and Ireland) can be truely proud of. They are NATO compatiable but that doesnt mean Ireland will ever join NATO. And besides NATO's days are numbered. It was set up specifcally to defend against the Soviet Union, so the arguement for joining it demishes year by year.

Its all about our commitments to a E.U. Rapid Reaction Force, and that will be by and large Peace Enforcement Peace Keeping to which we can select missions. Although the aircorps cannot serve overseas but there are numerous aircraft which we need.

The PC-9 is not a jet fighter and thus we have still this capability lacking. It should be noted that we have one of the smallest airforces in Europe and the PC-9 will be an excellent stepping stone to something better and more capable.

The government must continue the re-equipping of the DF which has proved to be relatively cheap and has provided great value for money in the equipment it has purchased to date.

Next on the pocurment list is :
8 Utility heli's

Someone noted the black hawk. This is essentially a replacement for the Huey which is in service since the Vietname war (1967ish). Its a great example of american aviation to produce a cheap and very capable airframe. This would be a great heli for the aer corps/Ireland would provide serivce to the country for decades to come providing numerous of roles.

CASA

Although not being discussed, we should really have another 1 or 2 of these excellent airplanes which have served Ireland excellently to date.

BarryFry

One important point that is being missed here is that the like of the UK and France don't just spend vast amounts of money on military equipment purely for defence.

They spend the money to keep thousands of people in work in their native defence industries, and maintain a technological lead that can be passed onto their civilian industries.

As far as I can tell, the purchase of these aircraft does nothing to boost Irish industry.

wisp

As far as I can tell, the purchase of these aircraft does nothing to boost Irish industry

With the PC-9's no there was no offset. However with other aircraft there is benefits avaliable to Ireland. An example was the Medium lift helicopter there was €100m in offsets available

Sparks

Originally posted by wisp
With the PC-9's no there was no offset. However with other aircraft there is benefits avaliable to Ireland. An example was the Medium lift helicopter there was €100m in offsets available

Wisp, I can't help but notice a certain similarity of specious argument and indeed phrasing between yourself and Quadhafi. You wouldn't be an alter ego perchance, would you?

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sparks
In service industries or providing products, most certainly. In training pilots, not necessarily. SAR is by it's nature a task that will never turn a profit and requires the highest standards of skill and professionalism from the pilots who perform it. Which means lots of training time both in the air and on the ground - and all on a task that will never turn a profit. The temptation for a private company to skimp on training and equipment would be simply too much (in my opinion) to leave this task to the private sector.

Well then CHC must be an exceptional company Sparks. They currently provide SAR servics on a contract basis at Dublin and Shannon airports (and Waterford according to this: http://www.dcmnr.ie/display.asp/pg=994, even though their own site only mentions the first two: http://www.chc.ca/uk.html) They work damn hard (training for all eventualities) out of Dublin, and I know this on a professional basis in addition to the fact that they fly low over my house on their route out of the airport to their area of training ops on the east coast!!!

As for temptation, I'd imagine that would be more than balanced by the fear of an expensive law suit (or worse still, manslaughter charges) in the event of a failure on their behalf to fulfill their duties due to budget constraints imposed by a parent company.

Sparks

Originally posted by therecklessone
As for temptation, I'd imagine that would be more than balanced by the fear of an expensive law suit (or worse still, manslaughter charges) in the event of a failure on their behalf to fulfill their duties due to budget constraints imposed by a parent company.

The words you're thinking of are "ford" and "pinto". Or "It's time to take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat". Or "dead peasants insurance".

Not being skeptical of private sector commercial companies has been proven to be a suboptimal approach on more than one occasion...

Nuttzz

Originally posted by Sparks
Not being skeptical of private sector commercial companies has been proven to be a suboptimal approach on more than one occasion...

I hate to be a dog with a bone here sparks, but private sector companies have nearly always provided a better service than the public sector. Even in SAR CHC nust have bid to a certain standard, I accept you earlier point about contracts planned on the back of envelopes but even this basket case of a country cant get SAR wrong.

I do accept that ryanair may have their problems but people should remember that not every private company is a ryanair, a lot of compaies have ISO standard procedures something that is rare in the public sector

I do think that the government decision to buy PC-9's ahead of helicopters shows that they may have planned to outsource SAR all along

Sparks

Originally posted by Nuttzz
but even this basket case of a country cant get SAR wrong.

I'd be hesitant about accepting that premise. To use Ryanair as an example again, there's a JAR requirement that pilots fly no more than 1300 hours per year, and there are regulations as to how many of those hours can be consecutive (because for safety reasons you don't want an overtired, overworked pilot flying a jet airliner into a major city area). Now not only has Ryanair had some very murky goings-on with the way those 1300 hours were clocked simply "overlooked" by the Irish Aviation Authority, Aer Lingus saw a pilot's strike a year or two ago because they tried to stretch the limits on the regulations about transaltantic flights and consecutive pilot hours (they wanted to set things up so a jetlagged pilot could be flying a 747 out of Dublin with about 3 hours sleep since his last transatlantic flight), and the IAA said nothing then either. And there have been instances where Ryanair flights took off when Boeing's crosswind limits for the 737 were exceeded, again without penalty.

So if mandatory EU regulations, the JARs, which the IAA is legally bound to enforce, and the manufacturer's specified operational limits can be bent, twisted or outright ignored with impunity by companies like ryanair and aer lingus, why should anyone expect that a company bidding to give the lowest price for a service which can never generate revenue itself might not try cutting money from somewhere that they don't think is needed? After all, they hired an experienced pilot - surely they don't need that much training time at several hundred euro per hour, or perhaps you might just do the minimum maintanaince schedule rather than a full engine rebuild at the mandatory overhaul times. Thing is, those things look great on paper, but like a ford pinto hit from behind when the indicator is on, they have serious consequences for the poor bastards on the receiving end.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Sparks
And I outlines, in detail, in the last thread on this topic, why it would run to approximately a billion euro to own and operate a squadron of jet fighters. (To quickly summarise: the initial purchase price is one of the smaller expenses in the Total Cost of Ownership figure).

No, you gave your opinion on how it could run to a billion. The reality, however, is quite different.

If you're so concerned about taxpayers' money being wasted, the Dept. of Defence is probably the last government department you should be focusing on.

wisp

here's a link on the need for Ireland to defend its own airspace (re:bush visit in the Summer)

Bush Visiting Ireland&security implications

Also of note is the upcoming visit by the Queen of Great Britain. There has not been to much discussion on the secuirty requirements but again its going to have to be the Royal Air Force.

Princess paves way for Queen

PRINCESS Anne is to visit Ireland this week for an official tour that may be a prelude to an official visit by her mother which would be the first by a British monarch since the foundation of the State. The likelihood of a visit by Queen Elizabeth has been steadily increasing since she received an invitation by President McAleese during her official visit to Buckingham Palace in 2002.

Nuttzz

You are assuming that the SAR company would run its operation like Ryanair, I am saying that not every commerical enterprise is run like at, indeed most are not run like Ryanair. Just cause Ryanair does it doesnt mean that anyone else would.

Sparks

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
No, you gave your opinion on how it could run to a billion. The reality, however, is quite different.

Isn't that rather a case of double standards? I list where the extra costs come from and why TCO is so high. The proponents of the idea poo-poo as trivial expenses such things as training, paying pilots, buying ordanance and fuel and infrastructural improvements required to support fighters, without giving any evidence to support that argument. So why give them more credence?

If you're so concerned about taxpayers' money being wasted, the Dept. of Defence is probably the last government department you should be focusing on.

Indeed, so long as the DoD isn't spending a billion euro on unnecessary toys. Put it this way - in the US funding for the DoD is near-sacrosant. Here, we have different priorities: Health, Education, Infrastructure and so forth. They are the departments where you can't make haphazard slash-and-burn budget cuts. But buying fighter jets as boys for the toys? Pass me the machete...

Originally posted by wisp
here's a link on the need for Ireland to defend its own airspace (re:bush visit in the Summer)

Indeed? So you'd rather spend a billion euro than decline to invite a man whose actions have caused more damage to world peace than anyone else's actions in the last twenty or so years?

And wisp, feel like answering my question regarding your alter ego?

Originally posted by Nuttzz
You are assuming that the SAR company would run its operation like Ryanair, I am saying that not every commerical enterprise is run like at, indeed most are not run like Ryanair. Just cause Ryanair does it doesnt mean that anyone else would.

Except that Aer Lingus has already shown they would, as I said. And there is a general principle at work here. Private companies exist to make a profit, and for no other reason. And if you have a fixed income to complete a task, and no revenue possible to extract from that task, then there is a direct inverse proportional relationship between your operating costs and your profit. Which means that every private company will try their best to minimise costs. And the tender process rewards this.
And the thing about aviation is, cutting costs can come back to bite you in the ass, hard.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sparks


Not being skeptical of private sector commercial companies has been proven to be a suboptimal approach on more than one occasion...

You still haven't addressed my comments regarding CHC and their professionalism and hard work. In the abscence of any hard evidence to the contrary, I'll take my experience of their operations as an indication that they do a very good job.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sparks
Aer Lingus saw a pilot's strike a year or two ago because they tried to stretch the limits on the regulations about transaltantic flights and consecutive pilot hours (they wanted to set things up so a jetlagged pilot could be flying a 747 out of Dublin with about 3 hours sleep since his last transatlantic flight),

That would have required a lot of setting up. For a start they'd have had to buy a 747 or two, they haven't had any since the mid 90s.

Sparks

Originally posted by therecklessone
That would have required a lot of setting up. For a start they'd have had to buy a 747 or two, they haven't had any since the mid 90s.

A different model then. The fact remains - aer lingus tried to get the time between transatlantic flights measured from touchdown to takeoff, rather than from pilot leaving airport for home to pilot arriving at airport for work.
(There's a lot of work for the pilot to do between touchdown and going home, and more between arriving and taking off, so you would have seen pilots with ~3 hours sleep between 14-hour flights in a large airliner).

And I'm not levelling accusations against CHC - I'm saying that a private company isn't the best choice.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
Except that Aer Lingus has already shown they would

Along with just about every other private, heavily subsidized airline in the world.

And the thing about aviation is, cutting costs can come back to bite you in the ass, hard.

He he yea like killing a few hundred of your customers and several employees in one go.

Sorry...offtopic I know...I'm taking a long haul flight soon.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
And wisp, feel like answering my question regarding your alter ego?

Why should he?

Its neither on-topic, nor any of your concern.

jc

Turkey

Some intresting stuff here espically if you ignore the hysterical anti-defence mob.
The PC-9m which the DoD have bought, is being obtained to replace the Marchettie trainers which as they get older are becoming increasingly harder to maintain, but they are also replacing the much older and now, well retired, Fougas, an airctraft which in my humble opinion, should never have been bought, but .....
The intresting thing about the PC-9 purchase is that it seems to be the one pre-election promise that the Government have not gone back on.
Why the PC-9? Well, like it or not, the Irish Air Corps is a military organisation, and therefore requires a military trainer, capable of being used to teach , amongst other things, weapons training.
I pity the chap who qualifies in one of these, then gets to Fly Cessana/RR 172's for the next few years of his operational career, what a bummer! Ah , but there again they too, are for the chop.
The Irish Air Corps is now offically out of SAR, so there is no need now to provide equipment for this role,[mayby someone should tell the crews Sligo airport that, because CHC, a fine and responsable company with a fine record, are unable at this time to take over, that part of the service].
Personally, I would rather the IAC kept SAR as they still have to train in it, because when the army goes air-mobile, as it must, Combat SAR will become a function. Also when we go to the operation of fast jets, SAR will also be needed, even only as a confidence builder.It does not seem to make sense to me to have 2 seperate operations providing this service for a country this small.
Sorry, Spark, you have not given me the slightest shread of a reason why we should have not air-defence, perhaps if you knew something about the DF, apart from what you have picked up in various tabloids, then you might have a case. God knows you have been given enough oppertunities such as IMO, where you would find several centurys expericences of the DF, but, of course, you know better.
But, the reason why Blackhawks are rumored, I stress rumored, is because they are possable replacements for the A111's and the Dauphins, [one type a blessing , the other a curse], and their major use will be army co-op/troop transport, as a primary role.
It is possable that, in the future, several medium/large helicopters will also be bought, but I suspect that while they may be used for SAR, that their primary role will also be military. This still leaves the problem of helicopter training, I have no information about the Blackhawk's suitablity as a trainer, I suspect that there is not any.
Spark, feel free to rant, as every time you do more people seem to change over to the side of logic and reason, ..........................................that's here, by the way. And since you can look into the future, and know that we will never ever be attacked, could you, please,please, tell me wednsdays Lotto numbers.