Finally New Trainer Aircraft Arrive To The Air Corps!!

thejollyrodger

When is the Irish army going to get some serious aircraft

Army ?

The aircorps defintely need something better than advanced trainers, i guess it boils down to funding.

silverside

why does the air corps need serious aircraft (other than helo's)?

the aerial defence and ground attack role can be covered by the Dutch/RAF/other NATO allies, we just need helicopters for recce, troop transport, casevac, and various civilian roles, the air taxi service can be contracted out.

thejollyrodger

Im not getting bogged down on the " We Dont / We Dont " need fighter jets as both sides could theoritically argue to infinity.

Offically we dont have any NATO allies. However we do rely on the RAF:S. I think the Dutch would be too far. The RAF (although good) isnt the most reliable for air cover.

So its a trade off that works fine unless somethings happens :eek:

monument

Originally posted by Walter Ego
Why me? What's your suggestion? Do you have anything better to offer?

You did say...

"Would it be OK if we just stopped now and pretended that everthing is going to be ok? "

so...

Lets pretended that everything is ok, well at least until you can come up with something that is realistically possible to happen which we have any possible realistic chance of defending.

.... any one can answer.

thejollyrodger

you can come up with something that is realistically possible to happen which we have any possible realistic chance of defending.

.... any one can answer.

There has been pages on this on the politics thread (somewhere).

However it is harder to come up with the threats of tomorrow. Like try explaining 9-11 a month earlier than the event

monument

Explain in one or two lines. It should be that simple.

thejollyrodger

Explain in one or two lines

in 1 or 2 : -

Present status: we currently rely on RAF fighters

the case for fighters ....
You could shoot down anything that was flown over Irish airspace. Perhaps flown into a major target (targets? Shannon or Dublin ?). The RAF fighters are 2 far away to respond quickly + there is no guarantee of air cover, cant predicate future threats,overall cost spread over aircraft lifetime isnt so expensive


the case against....
cost too much money, no real threat, stick it out to UK gets Eurofighter (hence more reliable cover,less down time). Only a few major events each year to cover. Toys for boys

Morpheus

If you know anything about the RAF you'll know they technically aren't actually able to cover their own airspace adequately at the minute, there is major turmoil over the eurofighter because with the removal from service of a lot of their assets (more than are being replaced) and their strength wont be back up until they get the new aircraft carriers and the JSF. This is being debated in parliament and was news a few weeks ago.

Ive said it before... if are going to vote to be a neutral country, to uphold that sovereign neutrality, we must be able to defend our own property.


By the way, the army dont fly planes, and if you know your aircraft, youll know the PC-9m is more than an updated spitfire. Its not even piston engined, its a turboprop (a turbine driven propellor). Its a lead in trainer with a modern glass cockpit, the same as a jet trainers, with similiar avionics and performance to a slower jet trainer. Its also replacing 10 aircraft which are out of date and of no useful purpose.

Also you cant go from Cessna to jump into the cockpit of an F-16, you must train up, i.e. go to turboprop and then a lead in jet trainer and then a strike aircraft.

The only way we could hope for this would be to buy a wing of Hawks and a wing of F-16s to progress to from the PC-9M. OR just buy the big jets and then send all the aircorps pilots to holland or england to do all their training on THEIR trainer jets and then bring them back and have them fly the hypothetical irish F-16s. none of this will happen in the present climate, the govt sees no need for jets, but then again they seem to see no need to tax the equestrian industry, nor did they see a reason to stop the LUAS from hitting the 800 million mark...

800 million which incedentally wouldve bought both the jet trainers and the F-16s (albeit second hand) above and more than 6 medium lift helicopters. But we wouldnt have an over budget and behind schedule tram system that will just give you an extra way to be delayed in Dublin traffic and serve no useful purpose at all. It too couldve probably helped re-organise the grossly mismanaged and expensive health service that is sucking all our money out of our pockets.

Sparks

I can't believe that
a) The government wasted this much money on the PC-9s; or
b) That we're still debating whether or not it's a good thing to have bought them.

The simple, plain, clear-as-the-nose-on-your-face facts of the matter are that these aircraft are useless. There is no application other than airshows that they can be used for. There is no threat that they can counter and no possible use for them whatsoever. No UN force will ever see them because they're so antiquated from a battlefield perspective and we don't have the ability to send them to Liberia or other such far-flung locations, they would be useless against any form of modern fighters, and as to shooting down airliners in September 11th style attacks, we fully covered this the last time someone mentioned fighters in this forum - it just can't be done, not even with the top-of-the-line in modern jet fighters, let alone a PC-9 trainer.

The simple fact is that this was a large waste of taxpayers money on something that will never see operational use and which will never benefit taxpayers, at a time when there are serious needs for other aircraft like air ambulances and SAR helicopters. It's a disgrace that this was done.

Morpheus

You see this type of negative comment angers me, you should "educate" yourself before you state things like, not needed and no operational use... they are trainer aircraft.

We fly 2 govt jets and 2 maritime patrol aircraft, a beech king air aircraft and a number of cessnas in maritime patrol, MATS, Air Ambulance, overland recconaissance, photography and inshore coastal patrol (ie along our shores) and also border patrol.

We need to train the pilots to fly these fixed wing aircraft.

The air corps has always trained its pilots to fly fixed wing before they can move to rotory aircraft.

You cant train someone to fly in a dangerous aircraft that costs so much to maintain because spares are expensive and it is old.

Why buy a sh*te second hand trainer when you can buy a modern trainer that not only gives better value for money on maintenance, but that we know we'll have it for the next 20 years. There was never an intention to deploy these aircraft overseas. They are trainers.. as in learning our pilots to fly. Sure they can be fitted with weapons, because the air corps was always an army co-op corps. It has to be able to support the army as a secondary role to all the other missions, these are the only aircraft that can be armed.

How can you expect a bloke trained to fly a helicopter suddenly take over flying a fixed wing twin engined turboprop Casa? The fact is the trainers were needed, the aircorps got the best it could on the meagre budget that mc-creevy gave them, your complaining about 60 million spent on 8 aircraft with spares, warrantys and maintenance support, well I hope when you raise this with your local politician (whom A. im sure you will and B. im sure knows f*ck all about the defence forces needs and organisation as most politicians here seem to) when he comes knocking looking for your vote, just be fair and be sure to mention LUAS, PORT TUNNEL, M50, PLANNING TRIBUNALS, EQUESTRIAN SPORTS TAX FREE EXISTENCE, etc.

Sparks

My father flew for over fifteen years. I grew up on and around airports and aircraft and could read a Cessna's instrument panel before I could read an analog clock. Please don't tell me I need education regarding aircraft Morpheus. The fact is, you are in need of some yourself. You do not train pilots to fly a Cessna by putting them in a PC-9 - you do it the other way around. Cessnas are less complex than PC-9s. And the CASA's a twin-engine aircraft, which means that when the pilot moves from a PC-9 to a CASA, he has to go through half of flight school all over again because of the differences between a single and a twin, but now he's doing so in an operational aircraft. And then he has to do that all over again for the ministerial jets.

The simple fact is that we can't afford that kind of ad hoc training. Not only are we too small to be doing it ourselves, it's also the main reason that the Gulfstream was breaking down so often. Basic flight training like that should be outsourced to private sector schools - apart from the fact that that would act as a boost to Irish training schools, it would save us money in the short and long terms.

It would also work out a lot cheaper than this wasting of money on what are essentially "toys for the boys".

thejollyrodger

Morphéus i suggest that you should look back at Sparks previous postings on this topic in other threads regarding jets. Sparks seemed to have quite entrenched views on this topic

Morpheus

My apologies, by "educate yourself", i didnt mean on the aircraft in question, i was talking about roles the aircorps fixed wing aircraft have.

Also I didn't mean that u must fly the PC9 before you fly the Cessna! i meant that there are fixed wing aircraft used in "operational" roles that these pilots move on to. The casa king-air (used for twin engined training as one of its roles) and Gov jets are a step up, the cessna is two steps back.

I know for a fact that the Air-Corps is keen on getting its hands on some jet trainers in the near future and recently (last 6 months) have had visits from Bae Hawks, L-159 and some other jet trainers, however against my better judgement I must concede to your argument that unless this happens in the next 5 or 6 years, these trainers while serving the training role in good stead, will probably not see their full potential. :rolleyes:

That said there is talk of 6LUH (light util helis) and 6MLH (med lift helis) and this is getting confusing, blackhawk was mentioned which in ireland we see as a big heli, but in USA is classed as a LUH.

Sparks

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
Morphéus i suggest that you should look back at Sparks previous postings on this topic in other threads regarding jets. Sparks seemed to have quite entrenched views on this topic

That tends to be the case when you know something about the matter and see stupid wastes of money like this going on. This really is akin to insisting that we purchase five or six Porsche Boxters for the Gardai for "training in high-speed pursuits"...

Walter Ego

Originally posted by Sparks
This really is akin to insisting that we purchase five or six Porsche Boxters for the Gardai for "training in high-speed pursuits"...

Believe it or not they bought 3 Alfa Romeo Twinspark 164's for just that purpose. Cheapskate bástards.

thejollyrodger

That tends to be the case when you know something about the matter and see stupid wastes of money like this going on. This really is akin to insisting that we purchase five or six Porsche Boxters for the Gardai for "training in high-speed pursuits"..

Off you go sparks ! This thread is about to go down the tube so this is my last post.

Do you really know everything about the Air Corps and its needs, do you think Smith bought this trainers because he was stupid and really "wasted money" on something that we dont need. Replacing trainer aircraft with new safer ones (on these grounds alone) is stupid and a waste of money?

If we only had Sparks vision:rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Morphéus
however against my better judgement I must concede to your argument that unless this happens in the next 5 or 6 years, these trainers while serving the training role in good stead, will probably not see their full potential. :rolleyes:

Hee hee.

So what you're saying is that these planes will be good value for money when we buy more planes to make the new ones good value.

What a superb argument.

Its like my mum going out shopping and buying lots of something we don't need because it was on special offer, and then going and buying a lot of other stuff we don't need to use up the stuff that was on special...

jc

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Sparks
Basic flight training like that should be outsourced to private sector schools - apart from the fact that that would act as a boost to Irish training schools, it would save us money in the short and long terms.

That would require quite a policy reversal on the part of the Aviation Authority, who seem to have been working quite hard for several years now to make private flying schools unsustainable.

Sparks

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That would require quite a policy reversal on the part of the Aviation Authority, who seem to have been working quite hard for several years now to make private flying schools unsustainable.

Yes, but where there's money involved the IAA will merrily bend over backwards to help - or forwards, if you prefer.

Morpheus

nice try bonkey, I was ready for this response ...

I said, "they will probably not see their full potential" if we dont eventually buy jets.

I didnt however say they are no use whatsoever unless they buy jets, do you work for the sun or star? cos your good at twisting peoples words

My opinion is as follows on not fulfilling full potential...

These aircraft have other roles that they will fulfill better than their predecessors did.

The reason they wouldnt see their full potential is that they are also used in the role of a lead in to flying jet trainer aircraft...

Going from an aircraft with a modern glass cockpit, a turboprop engine and jet-like performance and handling, to a jet engined aircraft is far safer and easier than moving from a slow piston engined old fashioned aircraft to jet as happened when we had the fouga jets.

As someone "in the know" said on another board in the argument that why didnt the govt just buy the jet trainers instead of (in their opinion) useless PC-9 turbo prop trainers, and they could then be used to patrol our skys etc......

The primary function of jet trainers is to provide a stepping stone to proper fighters. Apart from that they don't offer a whole lot, they have some ground-attack capabilities & some have a limited air defence role.

Since we have no proper fighters to graduate to, jet trainers offer little advantage over turboprops & have higher running costs to boot. People also have to remember that even if the AC was given decent fighter aircraft for free, it would have neither the resources nor the expertise to operate them.

Buying jet trainers for real reason, other than they look cool, is a waste of money. The PC-9 will fufill all the AC basic & advanced training needs at a lower cost than a jet.

:dunno:

bonkey

Originally posted by Morphéus
I said, "they will probably not see their full potential" if we dont eventually buy jets.

Yes, you did indeed....whilst agreeing with what Sparks' pointed out, which was that so much of our training requirements for the planes we have were not met by these planes anyway.

I didnt however say they are no use whatsoever unless they buy jets, do you work for the sun or star? cos your good at twisting peoples words

No, you didn't. Sorry if thats how my post sounded...its not what I meant to imply. Poor wording on my choice.

And no - I don't work for the Sun or the Star. I work as a lowly computer geek for a living

These aircraft have other roles that they will fulfill better than their predecessors did.

The question is whether or not they are €7M better, or an expensive way of gaining a slight benefit, which also acts as a "wedge" to argue in favour of more expenditure with.

The reason they wouldnt see their full potential is that they are also used in the role of a lead in to flying jet trainer aircraft...

Exactly...and as you said, the Air Corps is looking for jet trainers...which would only seem to be cost-justifiable if we actually then bought enough jets to make the training cost-effective.

I'm not necessarily as dead-set against the idea as I may appear...I just can't see the cost-benefit justification for these planes making sense until such times as we spend a far greater sum on our air resources. Your comments above about what they're looking at next only seems to add to that - the PC-9 looks like the first step in a larger scheme, the details (and cost) of which don't appear to be too clear.

I'm also definitely not convinced that such expenditure would be spent where I would feel it is clearly needed as oppose to where some might like to have it for what would amount - to me - to be little more bragging rights, or fulfulling some sort of penile envy where we need to feel equal to the "real" nations of the developed world by having a "real" (albeit token" airforce.

For example, if this expenditure was on the correct, cost-effective path to expand our SAR functionality (or even to head in the US Coast-Guard type direction, as was suggested earlier), then I could probably understand it. But that does not seem to be the case - at least going from what's been posted in the myriad of threads here recently.

therecklessone

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That would require quite a policy reversal on the part of the Aviation Authority, who seem to have been working quite hard for several years now to make private flying schools unsustainable.

Any chance of some background to support this? Sources? Quotes?

Genuinely interested...

thejollyrodger

therecklessonei is this useful :S
JET Aircraft

err maybe not.. but its here now :S

Turkey

The training of our military pilots in private flying schools seems to be quite an intresting idea, and initally seems like it would save a few bob from our poor countries depleted coffers.
But, there are no aircrafts presently in irish flying schools who's preformance matches up to even that of the Marchettie trainer, never mind it's newer replacement. As it would probally not be viable for a private flying school to purchase such an aircraft, then it would appear that the IAC would have to get them anyway in order to futher train the pilots it needs to an acceptable military standard.
Also. although my knowlage of this area , while extensive, is not all-encompassing, I am pretty sure that no private flying school in this country, or any other country for that matter, provides live wepons training. I do understand that some members of this board belive that we live in the only country in the known universe where such skills are never going to be required, but, sadly, this may not always be the case.
The PC-9's have been selected by people who do know about both avaition and defence, and despite my misgivings about both, politicans and civil servants generally, I am more prepared to accept both their word and deed then the loud and strident comments of some of our more inflamatory members here, and if we were to get interceptors that we should, as an independent country, have, then the PC-9's will be needed to train their crews.
A couple of other points, the Cessanas will [hopfully soon] be retired, probally to be replaced by a turbo prop powerd aircraft, or, less likely, but not beyond the relms of possablity, more helicopters.
It appears that very few[if any] of the G4's problems have been caused by it being used for training, It does not, in reality, suffer any more problems then any other corporate jet of it's vintage and use.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by therecklessone
Any chance of some background to support this? Sources? Quotes?

Genuinely interested...

Frankly, it was a bit of a rant. I don't have hard facts; I was going by anecdotal information from the instructors in my flying club. It seems the rules are continuously being changed to make it more difficult for flying clubs to provide instruction in the way they traditionally have. I remember the senior instructor becoming so frustrated that he was thinking of allowing his instructor's rating to lapse.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that as of a couple of years ago there was only one private school in the country offering training for a commercial rating, and none for complex/multi-engine ratings. I'm wide open to correction on this - it's been over a year and a half since I've flown, for various reasons, and I haven't been to the club in that time.

monument

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
the case against....
cost too much money, no real threat, stick it out to UK gets Eurofighter (hence more reliable cover,less down time). Only a few major events each year to cover. Toys for boys

Originally posted by Morphéus
If you know anything about the RAF you'll know they technically aren't actually able to cover their own airspace adequately at the minute,

I think you've made my case for me.

Morpheus

Well, what i should have added is that i also have heard that not only do they currently NOT have enough equipment to cover their own airspace, but the numbers of Eurofighters on order have been cut and they are not replacing like numbers of aircraft.

Now they will have an overall smaller fleet with more needs on it than they currently deal with (for a few years they will lack Naval fighters until the JSF comes on line of which i believe they are a part?)

The UK are not, nor should they put themselves, in a position to even remotely consider covering irish air space.

If we ever want to be a really neutral country, then we must deal with domestic problems... domestically. You can have a NATO member covering our airspace, alignement with a non neutral country would make us kinda not quite neutral (thats if we were neutral to begin with, i repeat... no constitutional neutrality exists in ireland at this point in time).