Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland - lack of air and naval defence.

1568101160

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Original Steyr


    Klunk001 wrote: »


    How many times in the last ten years has this type of long range taskings (greater than 200nm and out side IRCG area of responcibility) had to be carried out. In fact as I understand it, one of the recent long range jobs carried out by the USAF ended up been completed within the range of an IRCG heli it took that long to organise logistically.

    While i dont know how many times it's ben carried out i do know that RAF SeaKings have had to do the job for the IRCG sometimes as the S-61N doesnt have the range of a SeaKing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 324 ✭✭Klunk001


    Both RAF and RN sea kings do have greater range, they have transited through and refuelled within the IRCG SAR region enroute to areas within Falmouth CG and Glyde's CG responsibility.
    IRCG heli's have indeed been offered on occasion to carry out taskings in these areas as it would be quicker than sending a cab from the Uk but have been kindly refused by the UK (a medevac off the QE2 which was off Cork but within Falmouths area comes to mind).
    The current fleet of heli's used by the IRCG are perfectly capable of carrying out a tasking anywhere within the current SAR region.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Original Steyr


    Klunk001 wrote: »
    The current fleet of heli's used by the IRCG are perfectly capable of carrying out a tasking anywhere within the current SAR region.

    While true it still would make sense for a HH60G base and associated equipment at EINN for the far out SAR Ops that occasionaly take place in the Atlantic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    i'm not sure i'd agree that the S-61N has more than enough endurance to cope with the 200nm mile (370Km) SARR - while the headline range of a S-61N (830Km) is obviously more than enough to cope with a 'there and back again flight', it doesn't leave an awful lot for a search pattern, the rescue itself, diversionary fuel, as well as a reserve so the engines don't go 'cough cough' when the aircraft is 150ft above the landing site.

    and its certainly not a big margin at 3am on a febuary night in a blizzard with 70mph westerly winds and no top cover...

    i'm assuming that the ICG CHC helis will be uprated to the S-92/AW139 mix of the UKCG at some stage - as much to make CHC's life easier as anything else - and obviously both have ranges around the 1000km mark, so that issue is going to be mitigated. however there is a moral/political issue with being so fastidious about the 370Km SARR: Ireland has never been backward in asking others for help in managing its own territorial waters (EU funding for Irish patrol vessels, RAF Nimrods for Top Cover, RAF/RN Sea Kings for rescues) so i'd suggest that an attitude now of 'well, we've done our bit' might not be a particularly attractive response...

    i certainly think that the UKCG needs to look a little harder at its responsibilities with regard to the 1200NM UKSARR, and Helicopters with a AAR capability seem to be the only logical option towards bridging that gap - and a joint RoI/UK SAR contract does seem logical given the SARR interface and the fact that the same company operates both sets of helis...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Original Steyr


    While were on the topic of SAR, CHC ( Soteria ) won the UK SAR Contract. Wont be long until the winner for Ireland is too.

    http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/5310/sar-h-and-the-winner-is/

    SAR-H: And the winner is...

    February 09, 2010
    Soteria has been announced as the preferred bidder of the UK's Search and Rescue Helicopter (SAR-H) contract.
    The consortium, made up of CHC, Thales and the Royal Bank of Scotland, was announced as the bidder of choice for the £6 billion Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in Parliament today, following the launch of the programme in 2006.
    Soteria will be awarded the contract later in 2010.
    The joint Department for Transport (DfT) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) contract will end the involvement of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy in Search and Rescue operations and new fleet of SAR-equipped Sikorsky S-92s purchased by the bidder will operate under the banner of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), although some military aircrew, roughly 66, will be retained to operate a handful of the new helicopters.


    Two-thirds of the money to pay for the PFI will come from the Ministry of Defence, the other third from the Department for Transport.
    Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said: 'I am delighted to announce that the Soteria Consortium has been chosen as the Preferred Bidder for the Search and Rescue Helicopter (SAR-H) project.
    'The new service, which will begin with a phased introduction which is anticipated to begin in 2012, will bring together the current Search and Rescue helicopter provision into one highly effective and harmonised service under a single contract providing the British taxpayer with an excellent service for many years to come.
    'The future service will benefit from modern, fast, reliable helicopters and will continue to operate from 12 bases in order to ensure that it provides a fully effective SAR service.'


    He said the choice of a PfI structure for the provision of SAR services was not 'driven by a cost savings agenda' and the drive was simply on providing a better, more modern service.
    Soteria bid director, David Rae said: 'Soteria will work in partnership with the MoD and DfT, and other SAR and civil resilience stakeholders, to ensure that the UK’s history of providing a world leading SAR service is assured and enhanced through the introduction of modern technology in the form of the Sikorsky S92.'
    Speaking to Rotorhub.com, he said he was satisfied with the bidding process pointing out this was the first major PFI that CHC has gone into.
    'Our next step will be close the finance and finalise the contract. Now that we have preferred bidder status we can raise the funds that we have been negotiating for with financial institutions over the last 18 months and we don't foresee any issues.'


    Rae said in the coming months, the bidding teams would meet with the SAR-H Integrated Project Team to discuss their decision and findings, but said: 'If you look at the strengths of our team, CHC is a major, global helicopter operator with search and rescue as one of its core activities, Thales is a major defence contractor with experience in training and RBS with their financial nous, I have a balanced team working very well together.'
    Paul Clark, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport, said: 'The new harmonised service is an excellent opportunity to build upon the high regard that the UK SAR service is so rightly held. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency manage a SAR service from their four bases that has already been successfully delivered by a contractor for over 20 years and the new service will build on this proven track record.'

    A spokeswoman for the AirKnight team said: 'The AirKnight team is disappointed that we have not been selected to provide the Search and Rescue Helicopter programme, however both Lockheed Martin UK and VT Group, look forward to continuing to deliver critical programmes to the Ministry of Defence and Department for Transport.'
    Soteria would not comment on the number of helicopters which will be used, but Quentin Davies said the contractor had indicated there would likely be at least two helicopters based at each of the 12 bases around the UK.

    Details released by the government say that the service will continue to be managed by the MOD and MCA and tasking will continue to be allocated by the Aeronautical Rescue and Co-Ordination Centre located at RAF Kinloss.

    The new service will be phased in progressively taking over site by site, anticipated to start in 2012. The four MCA bases will transition to the new service first and will be followed by the eight MOD bases. The detailed timetable will be finalised as part of concluding the contract.
    The new fleet will introduce a single black and orange livery which will according to the government: maximise visibility, signal that this is an emergency service, represent the MOD and MCA by including the RAF, RN and MCA insignia on all helicopters and maximise flexibility by being a single colour scheme.

    Among the tough conditions set by the team are a 98% level of availability for the aircraft and the retainment of all 12 current SAR bases. The bid teams also have to be able to carry out 12 missions concurrently.
    Aircraft have to launch within 15 minutes during the day, within 45 minutes at night and have to be able to reach all 'Very High Risk Areas' and 75% of 'Medium Risk Areas' within 60 minutes, the service also has to have the ability to surge aircraft when required.
    By Tony Osborne and Tony Skinner - Rotorhub.com Editorial Team


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 324 ✭✭Klunk001


    The IRCG SARR will in all probability will increase over the next couple of years, and with that so will heli capability including range. In all likelihood it will be one heli type (logistically simpler).
    As I understand it, the AW139 has been found wanting in the UK SAR role and will be replaced with S-92 in the new Uk contract.
    As I mentioned in a previous post, on more that one occasion IRCG heli's have been offered to carry out taskings in both Falmouth and Clyde SARR and not used. All you can do is offer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    Quick question, there has been talk here before of if there ever were IAC Fighters etc they would need dedicated ground Radar etc im just wondering in this modern age is this really necessary, would it not just as easily work with modern Aircraft using their onboard Radar along with already established Radar such as the likes of EINN/EIDW/EICK and to a lesser extent the Radar System at Baldonnel?

    When RAF Typhoons/Tornado's go up from their QRA base in the UK is there much chatter between them and ground based Radar other than Radar Controllers saying they need something checked out and giving them the co-ordinates and then letting them do the work?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,776 ✭✭✭sxt


    And another Q:o -Is this true?...A number of years ago,France offered to give Ireland a pair of f16s but Ireland declined siting the fact that they could not afford to train the pilots and the running costs involved :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Steyr wrote: »
    Quick question, there has been talk here before of if there ever were IAC Fighters etc they would need dedicated ground Radar etc im just wondering in this modern age is this really necessary, would it not just as easily work with modern Aircraft using their onboard Radar along with already established Radar such as the likes of EINN/EIDW/EICK and to a lesser extent the Radar System at Baldonnel?

    When RAF Typhoons/Tornado's go up from their QRA base in the UK is there much chatter between them and ground based Radar other than Radar Controllers saying they need something checked out and giving them the co-ordinates and then letting them do the work?

    If the fighters are guided by ground radar they are less likely to be detected by their targets. As for the need for a dedicated military radar, I couldn't tell you the capabilities of the current systems.
    sxt wrote: »
    And another Q:o -Is this true?...A number of years ago,France offered to give Ireland a pair of f16s but Ireland declined siting the fact that they could not afford to train the pilots and the running costs involved :confused:

    Specifically, that wouldn't make sense as France doesn't operate F16's and 2 airframes wouldn't be enough to work with. Broadly speaking, the cost vs. benefit of jets for Ireland has been done to death a few times here - I think the general consensus is that they're too expensive for the work that they'd be doing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    sxt wrote: »
    And another Q:o -Is this true?...A number of years ago,France offered to give Ireland a pair of f16s but Ireland declined siting the fact that they could not afford to train the pilots and the running costs involved :confused:

    You Sir have been HAD, France dont Operate F-16 Vipers. Europe has alot of F-16 Operators but France is not one of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭unclecessna


    The answer regarding a dedicated ground based military radar network is yes as onboard radar equipment in Interceptor Aircraft are limited in their range despite their sophistication.
    The radars used in civil airports work on a slightly different principle to military radars so they would only be of limited use in aiding interceptors engage a target that has turned it's transponder off.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    what is true is that we were offered as good as-free Huey's post Vietnam
    but we declined for if I remember correctly "neutrality reasons" :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Why would they have been turned down for neutrality reasons? Our Defence Force operates military equipment all the time, even weapons sometimes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    concussion wrote: »
    Why would they have been turned down for neutrality reasons? Our Defence Force operates military equipment all the time, even weapons sometimes.

    because we couldn't be seen to be taking military assistance from the Americans,so I'm told anyway


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    One quick example of a US weapon system used by the DF is Javelin - is it ok to buy from US weapons companies but not accept equipment from the US military? Buying or accepting equipment from NATO countries is not a problem, we obtained our L70's from the Dutch in 2003.

    Sorry if I seem a bit arguemental but I've heard plenty of stories about how we were offered tanks/battleships/fighters/aircraft carriers from the Americans/Soviets/French but we couldn't take them for neutrality reasons so I'm a little sceptical. The more likely reason is we didn't need them, thought we didn't need them or wouldn't be able to operate them effectively if we got them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    concussion wrote: »
    One quick example of a US weapon system used by the DF is Javelin - is it ok to buy from US weapons companies but not accept equipment from the US military? Buying or accepting equipment from NATO countries is not a problem, we obtained our L70's from the Dutch in 2003.

    Sorry if I seem a bit arguemental but I've heard plenty of stories about how we were offered tanks/battleships/fighters/aircraft carriers from the Americans/Soviets/French but we couldn't take them for neutrality reasons so I'm a little sceptical. The more likely reason is we didn't need them, thought we didn't need them or wouldn't be able to operate them effectively if we got them.

    the 70's were a very different political climate to the modern day
    my dad was an NCO in heli's at the time and my uncle is in military archives
    so I'm pretty sure the offer was legit

    and true they were probably ex-nam flown to **** war birds


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭concussion


    Thanks for that; I'm still highly dubious myself though :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2 B 52


    at the start of this someone said that the british are our closest ally so they must be high they nearly re-invaded during ww2 they have come across the border before without permission were always hostile to innocent catholics in n ireland you may have herd of bloody sunday it got to the stage where lynch wanted to invade the north [I USE THE TERM INVADE LOSELY AN ITS OUR OWN COUNTRY] they are our ONLY enemy we have and should be treatd with a degree of hostility but not enough to prevoke an engament and there are some jets ireland could afford that like the northrop f5 for $2.1 million each max speed 1060mph and some decent guns rockets and missels not ideal but a vast improvement check it out on wiki


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    You have 2 posts on 2 threads both of which are giving prices for units of hardware, but what about the infrastructure? All these pieces of hardware need backing up, and THAT is where the big cost is.

    As for the F-5, have they not stopped making them? Isn't it the F-20 Tigershark now??

    You refer to a cost of $2.1 Million per unit..... If you look at the notes provided on the article you quoted from, that figure was taken from a book, Knaack, Marcelle Size. Encyclopedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems: Volume 1, Post-World War II Fighters, 1945-1973. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1978.
    So even your base figures are wrong!!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,021 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I don't believe that Tigershark is currently being marketed.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    I don't believe that Tigershark is currently being marketed.

    NTM

    Sorry MM, you're right, the tigershark never hit production.

    Either way my point in reference to the prices quoted stand, using 1978 prices in a 2010 discussion is irrelevant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    just to divert this thread slightly, I think the current humanitarian situation in Pakistan should cause Ireland a degree of embarrassment.

    For years Ireland was bragging about it's new found wealth and how the economic miracle had made it the wealthiest country in the world. To me, wealth has responsibilities and one of those should be assisting poorer countries when they need it. If Ireland had decent air force (or corp, call it what you like) then it would be able to assist in the distribution of supplies to the affected areas of Pakistan, but as it stands, it is completely unable to do so.

    All this talk about jet fighters is lovely, but a reasonable airlift capability wouldn't go amiss and would obviously help out a great deal in UN missions. Even if it was just a few reasonable helicoptors.

    In reality Ireland doesn't need to defend itself, there is no one to defend against and geographically, there are several other ountries who would be more than willing to step in, but in return, Ireland should be able to pull it's weight when it comes to it's UN/humanitarian role.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5 danboom


    hey guys im new to this,am just wondering what the working times of a navy officer are,say after a few months of service or a few years into it,just cant seem to find the information anywhere,no one knows even guys in the df that i know are unsure,i was told a month on month of is how they operate,is that correct,and do navy officers have to stay at the base on weekends? cheers


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    danboom wrote: »
    hey guys im new to this,am just wondering what the working times of a navy officer are,say after a few months of service or a few years into it,just cant seem to find the information anywhere,no one knows even guys in the df that i know are unsure,i was told a month on month of is how they operate,is that correct,and do navy officers have to stay at the base on weekends? cheers

    ?:confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 116 ✭✭Lorelei


    Since 1923 there has been and still is a treaty between the UK and the Republic of Ireland in which the UK will supply and assist where required air and sea forces in defence of Irish Sea and Air space.
    As to not being able to trust the Brits even during the sabre rattling in the seventies there was no talk of the UK withdrawing from the treaty.
    Of course this treaty means that anyone intending to attack Ireland as soon as they engage any british plane or ship they have attacked a member of NATO and therefore NATO itself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,873 ✭✭✭Lantus


    Ireland is such a small country it will never be a world power from a military perspective because it can never generate enough revenue to sustain the required spending.

    Secondly the government has no political will to start sending Irish troops into combat and no irish troops have done so especially as the government did it's upmost to ensure neutral status meaning it can weasel out of any future conflict. Armed forces that don't fight are inneffective and size is irrelavent.

    Thirdly, Ireland doesn'tneed a massive armed forces. It's surrounded by countries like britain, germany, france etc with massive army's, air forces and navy's, if anything kicks off the combined forces or Ireland will make no difference. In fact if anything I would think a reduction in armed spending would be more beneficial.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,021 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Secondly the government has no political will to start sending Irish troops into combat and no irish troops have done so

    Would you like to qualify that statement? Words like 'recently' or 'Non-ARW' might be appropriate.

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Lantus wrote: »
    Ireland is such a small country it will never be a world power from a military perspective because it can never generate enough revenue to sustain the required spending.

    Secondly the government has no political will to start sending Irish troops into combat and no irish troops have done so especially as the government did it's upmost to ensure neutral status meaning it can weasel out of any future conflict. Armed forces that don't fight are inneffective and size is irrelavent.

    Thirdly, Ireland doesn'tneed a massive armed forces. It's surrounded by countries like britain, germany, france etc with massive army's, air forces and navy's, if anything kicks off the combined forces or Ireland will make no difference. In fact if anything I would think a reduction in armed spending would be more beneficial.
    Well your gonna fit right in around here...

    Lets just hand all aspects of irish defence over to other countrys because hey its all just too hard.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Lantus wrote: »
    Ireland is such a small country it will never be a world power from a military perspective because it can never generate enough revenue to sustain the required spending.

    Secondly the government has no political will to start sending Irish troops into combat and no irish troops have done so especially as the government did it's upmost to ensure neutral status meaning it can weasel out of any future conflict. Armed forces that don't fight are inneffective and size is irrelavent.

    Thirdly, Ireland doesn'tneed a massive armed forces. It's surrounded by countries like britain, germany, france etc with massive army's, air forces and navy's, if anything kicks off the combined forces or Ireland will make no difference. In fact if anything I would think a reduction in armed spending would be more beneficial.

    This is a perfect example of posting about a topic you know little about.

    Particularly the points in bold IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 368 ✭✭Avgas


    Reducing military expenditure for a micro-state like Ireland would have to mean either cutting pay massively, and its already very low for basic privates I understand, and everyone else after pension levies (etc.), or else simply firing people. You would increase the dole numbers by 5 or 7,000?

    Are you actively trying to get the prize for us to reach 500,000 unemployed before Christmas?

    BTW I'm in favour of a smaller PDF, say 5-7,000 rather than 10,000(-) today, BUT with a larger and better RDF and achieved slowly over time. We have a tiny spend on military hardware and in fact we should be spending more to do the rather limited jobs we need to have done to provide security in all its guises. Because we're broke that can't simply happen any time soon.

    Perhaps if some of even this limited spend was directed towards Irish firms or starts up-defence companies (maybe even in-house developments built at cost by DF units?) that could be positive for long-term economic growth?

    Both Singapore and Israel have used domestic 'wasted' spending on military technology and manufacturing to further their civilian side competitiveness in electronics and computing, etc. Oh...and .....Boeing would never have been able to build or sell their 707 jet without first getting paid to build the B47 bomber first.

    Just two examples which suggest links between higher defence spending and long term economic growth are much more complex, and sometimes quite positive, than you crudely suggest.

    Now i'm off to rig up the lawnmower engine to my home made UAV. :)


Advertisement