Should the Air Corps be scrapped?

Avgas

But we may not even know if we need to call our pals in the RAF or the French Air Force......because AFAIK we have no national military radar network...we have civilian ATC radars but they are more or less useless at monitoring military aircraft that turn their transponders off...correct me if I'm wrong [and remember OPSEC!].... but otherwise our ATC has v. limited capabilities.......so we have not much clue who is flying around our airspace at night or daytime.......which in my book is just dumb.......

I think there was an issue a while back about unscheduled flights into Weston....and you hear probably B.S. stories of 'mystery' civilian planes flying around at 'bush sites'.........never minding the 'random' NATO traffic that sometimes passes over/around at 'interesting' times......

Great but depressing post Unclecessna...........in fairness I thought the Irish Air Corps in the 1950s wasn't actually that bad.....we even had jets at a time when other air arms were starting at jets...so we were in at the start....but it was a capability let fall off..........and there were the 'Boys Own' Spitfires........as an aside does anyone know what happened to our Walrus amphibians delivered in 1939....? [sorry ignore that if you feel that is WAY OFF OP...perhaps time to start an IAC history thread? ]......

Corsendonk

Hang on a minute we are in a recession and some of you guys want us to buy new jets! Are you for real? One, we are neutral, thats been are excuse for years to treat the army services as the poor relative so substantial investment needed. Two, to have a decent military takes a major % of GDP. imagine trying to swing that in the current climate.

Just look at the British Military is in huge debt trying to live beyond there means and you wouldn't call them cutting edge. Just today they been told that they have to pay for the new Trident(20 billion) themselves over the next eight years, this after they revealed there 33 billion overspent already. The only chance your going to see any investment here is if we drop are neutrality inpart and join the EU defence schemes hinted. How many people would you like subs based here? And jets in shannon and Leopard tanks training in the Curragh?

Personnal speaking I always thought it funny that some of the neutral countries in Europe happened to have large home based arms industries and a large well trained armed military. An iron fist hidden behind the white flag. While the poor paddies just had the white flag!

Steyr

Corsendonk wrote: »

Hang on a minute we are in a recession and some of you guys want us to buy new jets! Are you for real?

Correct me if im wrong but i dont think the Irish people would bat an eyelid if we bought Fighter jets, last time i checked there wasnt one bit of major protest when the Lear45 was bought.

Corsendonk wrote: »

One, we are neutral

That doesnt matter one damn bit, look at Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, all Neutral and you wouldnt have a hope against their frontline Aircraft.

Switzerland:F-18 Hornets and F-5 Tigers

Sweden: JAS 39 Gripens

Finland:F-18 Hornets

Austria: EF2000 Typhoons

punchdrunk

if they had seen sense they would have opted for a pair of AW149's when they went ahead with the contract option for two more AW139's
at least then they would have had a CSAR/medivac/resupply capability that was deployable abroad with the EU battle group,you wouldn't horse many troops about in just two but they would definitely have been a welcome force multiplier

Corsendonk

My point was that we call ourselves neutral thinking that neutrality alone will protect us. The Swedes and Swiss call themselves neutral but could crush/defend against most of there non neutral neighbours armies plus have a home arms industry to resupply them.

You gave me a list of aircraft that these neutral states have but my point is that we dont have the necessary defence spending to afford these. Just look at the difference in defence spending between us and the 4 big neutral states in Europe.

GDP 2009(Billion Dollars) Spending on Defence 2009(Billion Dollars)
Sweden 398..... 6.1
Swiss 484.... 4.1
Finland 242...... 3.7
Ireland 227........ 1.5
Austria 374........ 3.6

Your calling for a doubling of the defence budget to buy your wish list of planes.

Morpheus

Corsendonk wrote: »

My point was that we call ourselves neutral thinking that neutrality alone will protect us. The Swedes and Swiss call themselves neutral but could crush/defend against most of there non neutral neighbours armies plus have a home arms industry to resupply them.

WE

ARE

NOT

NEUTRAL

I hate seeing posts and threads saying that we are. We have a foreign policy of non alignment on a case by case basis under the triple lock mechanism but are not constitutionaly neutral and if we were we wouldnt be able to depend on the uk to provide top cover or CAP in the event of an emergency.... frankly our defence spending would be required to be MORE than doubled if Ireland voted to be an constitutionaly neutral country. But for sanity's sake please stop calling this country neutral...:mad:

Steyr

Corsendonk wrote: »

Your calling for a doubling of the defence budget to buy your wish list of planes.

Hawk T2's would not bankrupt the Nation. Sensible/reasonable planning is whats needed, i say scrap the IAC ( Hurts to say it ) and re-build from scratch.

For us id have done the following loosely and this is VERY if not EXTREMELY Loose..

1. Baldonnel Runways/Taxi way/Ramps upgraded and widened to modern Civil standards, Baldonnel opened to commercial/Mil traffic New Facilities opened for Civil traffic so they have their own area away from Mil Ramp ( Stands/Terminal/Transport ), Commercial/Civil traffic pay all fees direct to DOD which is continually re-invested into the IAC. Bal can already handle 737-800's. Transavia have been there as have FR.

2. Aircorps maintains use of Baldonnel for basic flying training on PC9M/Rotary Wing Aircraft Operational training. Extra facilities placed at other Airports as needed to house/maintain new fleet.

3. Cessna's done away with.

4. Cessna Caravans ( 10 of type ) bought as replacements and upgraded to GASU Defender standards for Surveillance as done with ATCP/CIT. 5 Based at EINN and EIME.

5. IAC loses with immediate effect a 9-5 mentality and starts shifts like all other sections of the DF and also more personnel increased/ Sent to see RAF Methods. Army given command of Security of Facilities as was seen at Shannon Airport.

6. IAC loses "Cadet" pilot only status, open it it NCO's etc.

7. AW139's sold off.

8. MATS gone and given to charter NEVER TO RETURN.

9. GASU increases fleet to 8 EC135's and 6 PBN Defenders and given to AGS, they can now be trained to operate their own Aircraft. Dispersed around the Country ( EG 2 EC135's at EISG/EINN/EICK/EIME) Mc Apline maintain them as they do now, 8 EC135's dispersed Nationwide will mean at least 1 is ready to go to a call at any time same goes for PBN Defenders 2 at EINN/EICK/EIDW.

10. EC135's fleet increased to 6 and used for training Pilots before moving onto HH60G Pave Hawks

11. 30 HH60G PaveHawks purchased, IAC signs deal with USAF(E) for training on how to conduct anything and everything on HH60G.

12. CASA CN235 MPA's increased to 12, 3 at EINN/EICK/EIME.

13. 15 C-130J's or earlier examples purchased for Transport, IAC trained to Mid Air Refuel ( Omega tanker corp ) and Transport troops light tactical equipment to where its needed. 5 based at EINN/EICK/EIME

14. 30 Hawk T2's purchased and Based Nationwide as point defence Aircraft ( Sidewinder equipped )

15. 30 Light Attack AH-1Z Viper Helicopters purchased used for Army Co-Op.

Imagination i know.

Corsendonk

Ok thats your aer corps business plan, what would you buy to replace the fleet and air defences? And the cost? Also include the necessary spares too.

Steyr

Corsendonk wrote: »

Ok thats your aer corps business plan, what would you buy to replace the fleet and air defences? And the cost? Also include the necessary spares too.

Its all above, there are enough examples to ensure they all dont go belly up at the same time, also the key to an effective Air Corps would be that they are de-centralised to other areas of the Country and based in the other Airports in a Mil/Civil shared arrangement. Its nothing new.

Corsendonk

Why not just bring the EU in? Like we have a mutual defence agreement against terrorists! But define a terrorist. European army isnt that far off and we are one of the border countries so we are going to have a serious deployment here of airforce and navy. This country in the early days of the EU lived off EU funding so might as well get them to supply us with the best military expertise and equipment they can!

punchdrunk

"Dear Mr president of the EU,

eh...we've squandered all the dosh you sent us,
any chance you can spot us a couple of hundred million?
we've eh,come to the realisation that even the Vatican army could kick the living shíte out of us in a conflict"

hugs & kisses

Ireland

(FFS Tony!,we need that cash to keep dragging the Irish language back from the dead,use a cupla focal ya Eejit!! cheers Pat x)

Ireland I mean Eire!

Tony

PatsytheNazi

I see that the Gombeen 'Republic' Micheál Martin, T.D earleir this month visited Uganda. While there he made a commitment under the Irish Aid Programme to spend in Uganda some €166 Million of Irish Taxpayers money over the next five years to be used on projects in that State for both public and perhaps private benefit *.

Yet Uganda has in the last few months signed a deal with Russia to buy six of the most advanced attack bombers** in the world at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Our own Air Corps could not even afford one of these right now - let alone half a dozen ! :mad: I'm out of words in condemning Fianna Fail and the rest of them and the Gombeen 'Republic'



*http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/latest_news.asp?article=1634
**http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100405/158435702.html

Corsendonk

Just so you know this government managed to get Irish as an official european language at the EU thereby providing jobs to some unemployed Irish translators. So every official european document now has to be translated into Irish. Sure you might as well go on the beer before translating, no one is ever going to read the Irish version. Not the first time we wasted EU money either.

EchoIndia

Steyr wrote: »

Hawk T2's would not bankrupt the Nation. Sensible/reasonable planning is whats needed, i say scrap the IAC ( Hurts to say it ) and re-build from scratch.

For us id have done the following loosely and this is VERY if not EXTREMELY Loose..

Cessna Caravans ( 10 of type )

GASU increases fleet to 8 EC135's and 6 PBN Defenders

EC135's fleet increased to 6

30 HH60G PaveHawks purchased

CASA CN235 MPA's increased to 12

15 C-130J's or earlier examples purchased for Transport

14. 30 Hawk T2's purchased

15. 30 Light Attack AH-1Z Viper Helicopters purchased

Imagination i know.

Very impressive. At a rough count, and allowing for the disposal of some aircraft, you are proposing an additional 130 or so machines. I'd love to see:

• The capital cost of these with the necessary spares and infrastructure;
• What level of manning would be required to operate them;
• An assessment of how long it would take to build up this force and what recruitment and pay policies you would need to attract and retain the personnel needed;
• What level of current spending would be needed to sustain all of this annually into the future.

Government would have to decide either to increase taxation substantially or to seriously reduce spending in other areas (education, health, social welfare) to pay for the development of the Air Corps in this way. How willing do you think the average citizen would be to see this happen?
Above all, though, I really struggle to understand what the purpose of this significant air force would be at this stage in the country's development.

Steyr

EchoIndia wrote: »

Very impressive. At a rough count, and allowing for the disposal of some aircraft, you are proposing an additional 130 or so machines. I'd love to see:

• The capital cost of these with the necessary spares and infrastructure;
• What level of manning would be required to operate them;
• An assessment of how long it would take to build up this force and what recruitment and pay policies you would need to attract and retain the personnel needed;
• What level of current spending would be needed to sustain all of this annually into the future.

Government would have to decide either to increase taxation substantially or to seriously reduce spending in other areas (education, health, social welfare) to pay for the development of the Air Corps in this way. How willing do you think the average citizen would be to see this happen?
Above all, though, I really struggle to understand what the purpose of this significant air force would be at this stage in the country's development.

Difficult i know but its not exactly hard is it? maybe it is and could be developed over years possibly 10-12 years, dont forget the main idea was to disperse the IAC Nationwide too out to areas capable of handling/basing Aircraft there ( EINN/EICK etc ), but funding could also come in part from the EU, Bal could be expanded and revenue created from Civvys going in there ala RAF Aldergrove up in the North its all in my post which you quoted like i said it was a loose/rough idea and i gave enough amounts of all types of possible Aircraft to ensure at least most types would be serviceable at any given time without having to be WFU for IRAN's

civildefence

If anyone believes the Air Corps should be disbanded, they would think twice if they had been at the Bray Air Show last week. Wasn't overwhelmed by the other displays but the Air Corps Westland and Eurocopter were brilliant and so were the guys flying them.

Without military air capabilities we would be making it much easier for illegal trawling to take place, boats carrying drugs, weapons and contraband would find it much easier to slip under the radar and our general defence capabilities would be hampered with the army having no air support, no parachuting capabilities and no helicopters for deploying the Ranger Wing should the need arise.

troubleshooter

civildefence wrote: »

If anyone believes the Air Corps should be disbanded, they would think twice if they had been at the Bray Air Show last week. Wasn't overwhelmed by the other displays but the Air Corps Westland and Eurocopter were brilliant and so were the guys flying them.

Without military air capabilities we would be making it much easier for illegal trawling to take place, boats carrying drugs, weapons and contraband would find it much easier to slip under the radar and our general defence capabilities would be hampered with the army having no air support, no parachuting capabilities and no helicopters for deploying the Ranger Wing should the need arise.

The Air Corps has no clear role. Its role should be split between the army and naval service.

Its role as a private airline for politicans scrapped, its a waste of scarce resouces, politicians should take commerical flights like they do in other countries or in an emergency hire a jet.


"Details obtained by RTÉ through the Freedom of Information Act show that 70 trips were taken on the Government's three jets and 13 on helicopters. This indicates that Air Corps aircraft are used at least once a week or six times a month by Government.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin had 24 trips, including five to the North. The majority of the the other trips were to Brussels for EU meetings"

OS119

EchoIndia wrote: »

Above all, though, I really struggle to understand what the purpose of this significant air force would be at this stage in the country's development.

Steyr doesn't do doctrine or capability, his only interest is in what would give him the horn to see with an Irish roundel on it.

he has listed 8 purchaces, in only 2 has he hinted at the slightest justification/requirement - and even then with no specifics such as what the capability would be, what political/military use the Irish government would gain from it, or whether its a current 'hole' in Irish doctrine or a future capability he'd like to see and for what reason.

there are much more coherent, priced and justified wishlists on this board - as well as some excellent, explained arguments for and against this or that capability and whether this or that platform provides that capability, but Steyr isn't interested in such things...

Steyr

No need to be a d1ck about it OS, as it said it was loose and yes a wishlist none the less.:rolleyes:

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

No need to be a d1ck about it OS, as it said it was loose and yes a wishlist none the less.:rolleyes:

any chance of even a outline justification for your wishlish - you spent time thinking about what you'd like to see in the line up, any chance of seeing what the reasoning was?

you do this everytime, and instead of making a coherent argument that informs and persaudes fellow citizens you add to the publicly and politically held impression that anybody who puts forward a wishlist is doing so just to get hard.

you damage the chances of any wishlist whenever you, a member of the Armed Forces, says 'we should have this, that and the other' without ever explaining why - you just help to perpetuate a widely held view that its all about shiny toys and to hell with the cost.

Steyr

OS119 wrote: »

any chance of seeing what the reasoning was?

Reasoning was the same as me saying what id have liked to see its not perfect and its never going to happen but i said it.

OS119 wrote: »

you do this everytime

No i dont i very rarely say anything on this forum other than posting news etc, i merely said in a perfect world what id have liked to see.

OS119 wrote: »

you add to the publicly and politically held impression that anybody who puts forward a wishlist is doing so just to get hard.

Getting hard?? Where do YOU get off your a walking encyclopedia of anything Military on this forum..

OS119 wrote: »

you damage the chances of any wishlist

Please please please let me hear your wishlist and see if its going to 'damage' any chance of one.

xflyer

Sorry Steyr, it's a nice wishlist but it's beyond anything we need or can afford. Fast jets of any sort are horrifically expensive to fly and maintain and we would need military radar for them to be in the slightest bit effective. That too is horrifically expensive.

All the Air Corps actually needs is some proper militarised helicopters for troop carrying that can be deployed overseas. Then perhaps some Caravans or similar for liaison etc. Para training can be done from helicopters.

Maritime, VIP and all the other aid to a civil power responsibilities can be civilianised.

They'll need training helicopters, they could be armed to act as a form of attack helicopter too. No need for dedicated attack helicopters.

The Air Corps doesn't need expanding. It needs to be scaled down, toughened up and it's personnel turned back into soldiers. Not disbanded though.

Steyr

xflyer wrote: »

Sorry Steyr, it's a nice wishlist but it's beyond anything we need or can afford. Fast jets of any sort are horrifically expensive to fly and maintain and we would need military radar for them to be in the slightest bit effective. That too is horrifically expensive.

All the Air Corps actually needs is some proper militarised helicopters for troop carrying that can be deployed overseas. Then perhaps some Caravans or similar for liaison etc. Para training can be done from helicopters.

Maritime, VIP and all the other aid to a civil power responsibilities can be civilianised.

They'll need training helicopters, they could be armed to act as a form of attack helicopter too. No need for dedicated attack helicopters.

The Air Corps doesn't need expanding. It needs to be scaled down, toughened up and it's personnel turned back into soldiers. Not disbanded though.

Your right but as with all things its not going to happen.

xflyer

Steyr wrote: »

Your right but as with all things its not going to happen.

So true, it will be kept on as paramilitary adjunct to the defence forces and will keep it's reputation among the public at large and probably a large proportion of soldiers as a nice flying club.

Morpheus

Maritime patrol should not in my opinion be civilianised, rather a dedicated air naval wing should be created including UAV's CASA's and some sort of lynx type aircraft deployable aboard the new OPV's or EPV(if we get one), flown by naval pilots (officers AND NCO's).

The Garda heli's and plane should be handed off to the AGS....

PSNI took posession of their new EC145 this week, as far as im aware there arent military pilots flying this... http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/psnirsquos-new-7m-recruit-a-real-highflyer-14897232.html

AirCorps becomes Army Air Corps and takes posession of medium lift helis, at least 2 tactical lift aircraft and yes, even armed EC135's would make a difference with my aforementioned COIN upgrade to the PC9s.

LordSutch

How many PC-9s does the Air Corps have?

Morpheus

They had 8

1 crashed recently with loss of two pilots (RIP) and as the Dept of NO defence had no forethought on attrition due to crashes etc, we now have seven with no hope of a replacement.

Avgas

Slow to come in these day what with work and stuff...as wish lists go its not the worst...and a man can't be doing without his wish-list these dark and depressing days....keeps one going.....:)

On the Hawks I'd be just so against, not least on cost grounds which other people have raised, but here is my thought process:

because Irish airspace is fairly small, BUT there is a lot of transit traffic, by the time you've identified an Object of Interest without ATC knowledge...its probably well on its way to moving into either British airspace....and they will have clocked it presumably. and deal with it......or its going west bound.....


scrambling fast jets to intercept and investigate is therefore going to be a very expensive and fraught sport......as an interim we should consider a long term slow procurement process to either add dual-use military/civilian capabilities to our existing ATC network...or grow our domestic Aerial Monitoring capacity...perhaps in novel ways......I don't think we've the money to be getting whacking great big phased array radar sets and building them on some mountain somewhere.........maybe there are more asymmetric and cheaper technologies that could provide a modular and evolvable national aerial monitoring networking using a mix of biggish but mobile (towable) tactical radars....placed at key nodes..(think Son of Giraffe).....and probably some EO passive sensors...... this could be built in as part of a package of improving our AIR DEFENCE capabilities which have been somewhat improved in the last few years......but still need work...given how strategically important air defence is.......

I read somewhere that the BUNDESWHER in their future AD concept are going ENTIRELY PASSIVE technology for all sensors...which I find hard to believe...but hey...those crazy Germans....:) Maybe with technology change there is scope to do something different....that is what I'm saying?

The stuff Steyr mentioned about converting the DON to dual military civilian IMHO will eventually happen...but locals will resist heavily and probably Air Corps. It make simple financial sense and would help manage ATC flows around Dublin. He is totally right about moves to Shannon, etc.

The critical point about any aircraft we buy is that we cannot afford a variety of types...we can only afford say a maximum of a 2-3 different types.....whether the servicing is done by contractors or Air Corps technical people.......it doesn't matter...we can't be having an inventory of 10 different types...

And the long term way to get costs down...which is a core constraint....is probably to go towards UAVs..........we should be asking ourselves just one hard question...

WHAT ARE THE REALLY ESSENTIAL MISSIONS WE NEED AIRCRAFT FOR AND WHAT TYPE OF AIRCRAFT DO WE NEED TO CARRY THESE OUT...DO THEY NEED TO BE MANNED, ROTOR, OR FIXED?

My answer would be:


Border Overwatch/Patrol as a contingency against NI flares up again: could be done by UAVs or by cheap and cheerful fixed wing aircraft with diesel engines and FLIRs.PC9M could also help but would need some type of modification to carry a FLIR/Sensor pod....could in principle be doable given endurance properties...but......

Garda support through observation platforms: for now UAVs over urban areas would probably be a no-no viz ATC, so very expensive helicopters it is....but watch this space..UAV over urban areas will happen...and efficient diesel engines for small helicopters are (apparently) on the way.....

Marine Patrol, with a focus on fishery protection and SAR co-ordination, BUT also with some residual capacity to grow a minimal ASW and even AS role is the need arose in future: this could be done by surplus Orions or Hercs, which I've suggested in another post. However, that I concede that is fantasy given level of political leadership in our little state. It could be a role carried out by mid to large size UAVs....BUT these assets are very pricy. So probably an interim cost effective option would be a fleet of second hand ATR42s and 72s maybe....and get them jointly serviced with Aer Arann...i dunno? Scope for savings? Have a few in storage for contingencies and the rest would a minimal core force of 3 to 5 working aircraft. Some could have quick change config so they could ferry troops and some useful cargo for overseas PK support perhaps. My preference would be to explore some kind of novel UAV...a domestically produced blimp UAV.....yeah right....:rolleyes:


Overseas PK support through Patrol, Observation, Overwatch with payloads optimized for reece and perhaps with some capacity to evolve payloads for IED detection/roads monitoring and eventually, some type of precision CAS in emergencies. This is best done by a tactical UAV...and there are loads out thre. We could even go back to the glory days of UAV research and improvise our own 'lawnmowers'...if we had Cojones ........and a bit of money and expertise.....a more harder nosed person (possibly Isareli) might offer the observation that our PC-9Ms could carry out this role if jazzed up ...which would cost.....plus the logistcs of deploying 3-5 PC9Ms to somewhere like Chad, Liberia or wherever.....would be an order of magnitude greater than a few ISO containers with UAVs in them....


SAR, especially long range Marine SAR. In my view the best vehicle for this is the EC725 Super Cougar because of range and reliability....but financially you'd be talking meltdown money. It will never happen. This has been outsourced to contractors and will remain so probably. Maybe rebuilt S61s could be an option...they seem in the offing. Many would say 'this should be left civilian'. I'm not sure I agree. In the long-long term some form of SAR/heli capacity in any future atlantic conflict situation would be an asset for this state. If we are sitting on quite a bit of oil and gas (a big if), and given that our claims to the seabed and its possible mineral wealth are extensive...we should be investing in a marine 'presence'

Just a few ideas.

petergfiffin

Morphéus wrote: »

Maritime patrol should not in my opinion be civilianised, rather a dedicated air naval wing should be created including UAV's CASA's and some sort of lynx type aircraft deployable aboard the new OPV's or EPV(if we get one), flown by naval pilots (officers AND NCO's).

This had been considered (I think around the time Eithne was being bought) and was subsequently discounted. What you would ultimately end up with is duplication with the Air Corps rather than efficiencies as you would either have to train NS staff to maintain helis (v expensive) or you convince AC techs to move to Cork and go to sea (v unlikely). As for the pilots, these would ultimately need to be trained either by the AC or (most likely) the RN but it would be hugely expensive and I'm not sure the actual benefits of having a helo onboard fulltime (given new Sat & radar tecnhology) is worth it - having a deck capable of receiving and refuelling a helo is a different proposition.

Morphéus wrote: »

The Garda heli's and plane should be handed off to the AGS....

Agreed - and operated by private operators as in other countries

Morphéus wrote: »

AirCorps becomes Army Air Corps

Goes back to the Army...it was previously, only became a seperate entity I believe around early 90s.

Morphéus wrote: »

...and takes posession of medium lift helis, at least 2 tactical lift aircraft and yes, even armed EC135's would make a difference with my aforementioned COIN upgrade to the PC9s.

Tactical lift can best be contracted in, if you look at the current situation we'd have 2 aircraft with nowehere to lift stuff! Medium lift helis should only be purchased if AC are willing to deploy and operate them overseas.

Avgas wrote: »

The stuff Steyr mentioned about converting the DON to dual military civilian IMHO will eventually happen...but locals will resist heavily and probably Air Corps. It make simple financial sense and would help manage ATC flows around Dublin. He is totally right about moves to Shannon, etc.

If the AC moved primarily to light aircraft & helis would it not make sense to simply sell Baldonnel and build a small airstrip in the Curragh? The CASAs could surely be hangared in Dublin, Shannon or Galway

Avgas wrote: »

Border Overwatch/Patrol as a contingency against NI flares up again: could be done by UAVs or by cheap and cheerful fixed wing aircraft with diesel engines and FLIRs.PC9M could also help but would need some type of modification to carry a FLIR/Sensor pod....could in principle be doable given endurance properties...but......

Garda support through observation platforms: for now UAVs over urban areas would probably be a no-no viz ATC, so very expensive helicopters it is....but watch this space..UAV over urban areas will happen...and efficient diesel engines for small helicopters are (apparently) on the way.....

Don't see why the same aircraft type could not be used for both, perhaps a similar type to the current Garda plane, again operated privately.

Avgas wrote: »

It will never happen. This has been outsourced to contractors and will remain so probably. Maybe rebuilt S61s could be an option...they seem in the offing. Many would say 'this should be left civilian'. I'm not sure I agree.

I think the simple fact is the civilian operators have proven to be able to provide a superior service, I think SAR services in this country have been lost by the Air Corps forever.

The problem the Air Corps is facing at the moment is in the current climate a lot of people are looking at them and asking "what is it you do again?" The difference between now and back in the 80's is, as a country, we're now more familiar with seeing services being privatised. We've seen our telephone, bins, health care and SAR services privatised and the world hasn't fallen apart, in many cases we have better services than when they were nationalised so it's natural people will look more and more closely and critically at the AC and ask it to justify itself. The fact is the roles of the AC are probably 90%+ civilian type operations that are being done by civilian operators all over the world, if we can offer it up to tender and get a superior service for the same money then as a country we would be stupid not to, nobody owes the AC an existence. I think unless the AC is going to switch it's business from ferrying politicans overseas to ferrying troops overseas it's going to face a shortened future!! It would at least be something if AC pilots were trained to fly MI8s so they could fly the leased choppers we use overseas.

I know people talk about national defence etc but let's be honest here, as a nation we never really gave a damn about it and probably never will. Our biggest threats lie with domestic and foreign terrorists rather than waves of bombers suddenly appearing over Dublin!! Personally I'd rather see the money for fighters etc spent on air ambulances & maritime patrol aircraft!!

OS119

yeah, the central issue here is that the AC does nothing that established civilian contractors don't do cheaper, more efficently and to the greater satisfaction of their customers every day.

the ill will that its managed to build up within the other two services means that both will be happy to stick the knife in when the senior civil servants and ministers pop round for coffee and a 'so, tell me about the IAC...' chat.

there could be decent options - options that massively increase the capability while streamlining the fleet: like having a single rotary type that does medium/heavy lift, SAR and Naval Helicopter operations, having a single fixed wing type that does fisheries protection/SAR topcover and tactical airlift, and a single UAV type that uses modulised payloads to do GASU, fisheries protection, border control, as well as army support operations like reece, overwatch, artillery control and CAS.

the AC currently has to maintain (i think) eight different engine types and spares trains for a fleet of perhaps 20 aircraft - the waste and duplication involved is astonishing, and yet still they couldn't move an infantry company in one go, or respond to two offshore incidents.

they are finished, and the fault and responsibility is theirs - as is the loss of future capabilities with which Irelands two military services could makes leaps and bounds in their effectiveness.

muppet01

I think that the AC suffers from a lack of direction.Thru no fault of its pilots and other crew there is no proper area of ops.
The CASAs are a valuable tool but we then have the following:

7 PC aircraft which lead into nothing
A MATS fleet which cost a fortune to bring people to open bingo halls and GAA games
An Aw139 fleet which was not allowed support troops in chad so we paid more money to lease Hips.( We cant dirty our new toys)
Ec 135's to train up to Aw139
A contracted out coast guard service which are now getting medium lift choppers

Klunk001

"A contracted out coast guard service which are now getting medium lift choppers "

IAC 33% service availabilityfor SAR heli's at one base. IRCG 97% service availability at four bases. Theres your answer.

Avgas

The privatisation of certain core functions of our Air Corps is not an ideological problem for me that much…although I have a preference for 'proper' public ownership of what would be assets providing a pure public good……..

BUT I do think that privatising military emergency capacities is not always wise in the long term…..what we, the taxpayer, is buying with any sort of military spend is a LONG LONG TERM INUSRANCE premium for certain types of contingencies…..which have a unique feature…LETHAL ARMED FORCE will be used, or is likely to be used… and that requires a proper type of outfit with the authority of a state….and it needs training and tradition…in other words a standing military establishment of some purpose…..

There is no way that most private contractors will agree to have their staff and assets in lethal force harms way….unless we're taking PMCs..Blackwater…and I don't want to get sidetracked into a whole row about PMCs and Mercs…etc……

Let's look at the SAR contract.

Let's examine a number of quite 'out there' hypothetical scenarios……which I concede would be rare, freakish events…but so is war…usually…and that is the unusual event you pay for in having an armed force……

Scenario A- CBRN SAR
A Russian nulcear submarine, some 50Km, south east of Rockall, collides with a NATO vessel after a series of shadowing 'games'. The vessel surfaces, but appears to be 'on fire' in some way. Fears of CBRN contamination are raised. The Russian crew declines to co-operate much with the NATO ship, and requests by radio Irish Coastguard help. Obviously UK assets, both commercial and RN/RAF would be the primary responders, BUT would our (or UK) commercial heli's be ready for this contigency? Would the SAR contract and its commercial instructions, with considerations of private insurance, even permit the pilots and winchman to aid in a potentially hazardous CBRN-SAR type accident…..?

Scenario B-Cod War 2014
Iceland after a referendum in 2012 refuses to join the EU. At issue was a fishing rights deal and rows over Mackeral access. Icelandic fishing boats continue to pillage mackeral stocks with abandon (as they are doing this year) and begin 'raiding' mackeral runs well outside their economic zone and inside EEZ waters. By 2014 aggressive clashes between trawlers are taking place and the EU urgently requests a greater fishery protection presence. Tragically, a ramming incident goes badly wrong, and an Irish vessel is badly damaged by an Icelandic vessel. First the Irish crew must be airlifted out (no problem, can be done by private operator), but then a decision is made to seize and detain the Icelandic culprit before they leave the EEZ. Irish OPVs (never plentiful) are busy dealing with other Icelandic vessels and are elsewhere. It is pointed out that some crew on the Icelandic vessel appear to be armed with shotguns or hunting rifles and will resist boarding aggressively (this has been posted by them on YouTube). What would a commercial for profit fishery protection service, whether heli, fixed wing or ship based, do here? Would it board and could it even use force?

Scenario C-Ecoguerillas at sea
In 2017 Ireland hits the jackpot with regard to oil. Just off the Corrib Field, and further west and south a small but viable oil field is found, but about 150km offshore, and under tricky geological constraints. Multi-nationals are invited in to begin complex test drilling, using some innovative techniques which make the economics worthwhile. Greenpeace decide to join local environmentalists in condeming the decision to exploit the field. Apparently it is near vulnerable coldwater coral beds, and the new technology is a bit risky and unproven. They say that if the test rig goes ahead it will risk pollution like that seen in the Gulf of Mexico. Dramatically, a flotilla of eco-activists and protestors set out and using RIBs some of them manage to scale and climb the rig which they pronouce 'occupied'. The drilling company ask the Irish government to remove the protestors and their personnel still oboard (are they hostages?) with an airlift of Gardaí or DF personnel ASAP because the protestors are getting access to senstive commercial data (which they will release online), and seem to be sabotaging the very expensive drilling gear. Time is of the essence. Does the air corps have adequate airlift to get out there safely? The eco-protestors annouce on YouTube they will engage in 'non violent but direct action' against any boarding party and clips of protestors prepaing high pressure water hoses are seen. The AW139s could technically make the distance but they lack emergency floation gear and the crews have not trained much for over sea operations [AM I CORECT?]. I should add its November, and weather conditions are very poor. Could the private SAR contractors do the job-or would it even be in their contract? Would the surface Navy be able to respond in time?

Scenario D-'normal' terrorists at sea
Garda Special Branch receive intelligence that dissident republicans are smuggling in a sophisticated arms shipment via a link between Basque terrorists and 'parties' in Latin America. The 'gear', which includes MANPADS, LAAWS and anti-material rifles, is to be moved from the Basque coast by fishing boat up to a certain location off the Irish coast, and then dumped overboard in sealed containers with exact GPS co-ordinates passed on. An Irish boat will eventually pick up the 'gear'. A decision has been made to attempt to seize the Irish parties in the act, after legal advice that this would make convictions stronger with direct evidence. The option of intercepting the parties on land, while feasible, runs the risk of the arms shipment actually landing, and given the lethality of the weapons, that risk is judged unacceptable. Interception on land also reduces somewhat the legal case against the boat crew, by denying them being caught in the act of posession. Surface naval vessels cannot be used to monitor or standby as these will be spotted and alert the dissidents, who can simply wait. The dissidents are being monitored by Gardai covert electronic means and covert direct shore observation of key suspects. A rapid response capability is required to intercept them at sea and seize control of the vessel before they can dispose of much evidence, and a helicopter is the obvious asset to have on stand by. Once again the problem is that armed force may be used, and may have to be employed. Garda advice is that while the dissidents will not likely use their firearms (but they might), they will likely refuse to stop and resist boarding as they attempt to scuttle the vessel to prevent evidence. Non-lethal arms are advised to be used (tear gas, pepper, stun grendaes)very quickly to bring the vessel to halt and prevent the suspects activity after an initial warning. Would a private heli contractor agree to all of this? Would it be in their contract, and what would their insurance situation be, given that they may be fired upon, and they would be used as a platform for non-lethal and possibly lethal fires to be employed?

CONCLUSION (of sorts)

I think in most of those scenarios, at a push a commercial heli outfit might just agree to do the job, but… in nearly every case I and most rational people would feel better if a proper military helicopter and crew were doing the work and they had trained extensively with those they would be carrying…….

And even if the commercial heli outfit would be up for some of these scenarios……

A. It would probably need to be spelled out v. clearly in the contract….
B. You would bloody well pay for it……
C. It might make more 'economic' sense to have a few military owned dedicated long range marine heli assets, like a 725, which you could train with and use…no questions asked…..

Maybe what all this is saying is that a mix of public/military and private/civilian assets is what makes the most sense……

We're an Island. A few state owned EC725 or similar would make sense and should be affordable. I suppose if a commercial outfit bought a few S92 and based them here in Ireland…(probably the most likely choice…or am I way off?)…..we could buy or lease another 2-3 of such and keep them as a contingency capacity for scenarios like above…have them commercial serviced/hangared though….?

A typical excessively long Avgas rant.:rolleyes:

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

A typical excessively long Avgas rant.:rolleyes:

no, its an entirely coherant tour dé force of why governments need 'options' that in non-emergency times periods look like hopelessly uneconomic white elephants, but in a real emergency are often the only things that produce results.

unfortunately Ireland has a political system that produces governments - of whatever hue - who have no interest whatsoever in 'future-proofing', and are aided by a 'proffessional' air arm who have done nothing but feather their own nest at the expence of capability. unlike Muppet01 i do blame the individual members of the IAC - it was Pilots and ground crew who torpedoed the ship-bourne heli capability with their refusal to work outside Baldonnall and in anti-social conditions, it was pilots and ground crew who 'acheived' 33% sevicability with the S61's where CHC got it past 95%...

muppet01

Klunk001 wrote: »

"A contracted out coast guard service which are now getting medium lift choppers "

IAC 33% service availabilityfor SAR heli's at one base. IRCG 97% service availability at four bases. Theres your answer.

I agree with you.My point was that CHC are getting S92's while the IAC are swanning around in AW139's which are not suitable for military use,already being phased by U.S CBP units

Klunk001

muppet01 wrote: »

I agree with you.My point was that CHC are getting S92's while the IAC are swanning around in AW139's which are not suitable for military use,already being phased by U.S CBP units

Ah, I see where your coming from, totally agree with you.

punchdrunk

the point is between the experience of the ICG crews (real combat vets from the falklands all the way to Iraq & beyond,paramedic experience from the states,decades of SAR work in the uk and Ireland & further afield,years of using NVG'S,FLIR,deck-landings on warships,carrying slung loads etc,flying in weather we rarely see i.e artic warfare training in Norway) combined with all the benefits of the S-92 as a machine,if you look at it they would hypothetically make a more capable military force than the aer corps ever could

petergfiffin

Avgas wrote: »

Scenario A- CBRN SAR

I can't imagine a situation where a vessel has an emergency and turns around and says "no, you work away, I'll wait for the Irish to arrive". If what you're looking at is a full or even suspected nuclear incident then I doubt we'd have the equipment, besides with a crew of maybe 60 or so (depending on type) how many helos would we need to evacuate them all? I obviously don't know the conditions of employment or insurance for CHC etc but would it preculde them from assisting any more than it would if they were called to assist a petro tanker or even a NS ship for that matter (with it's stores of fuel and ammo)?

Avgas wrote: »

Scenario B-Cod War 2014

So what are you proposing? That DF personnel would abseil down on to the deck from helis and take it by force? Seem to remember that not working out too well recently when something similar was tried against unarmed peace activists!! :rolleyes:
Unless you're willing to shoot back you're not going to put yourself in a position where you're going to be shot at!! I would even reckon if an armed NS party was shot at it would simply pull back and let the "big gun" do the rest. In all reality if the vessel couldn't be stopped it would be handled through diplomatic channels, mind you I'm sure if it was spotted in Irish waters again somebody might say hello!!

Avgas wrote: »

Scenario C-Ecoguerillas at sea

If we hit the jackpot with oil I'd be more worried about big US aircraft carriers pulling up than I would ecoguerillas!!
If it's more than 12 miles out then I don't reckon AGS will have any jurisdiction. There's also no way the DF are going to put people in just to protect commercial data or to prevent criminal damage. The fact is it's always been (and probably always will be) the tendency of the powers that be here to allow things to settle down and negotiate to bring things to a peaceful end rather than simply storming in. We already have - and have for quite some while - plans and people trained for very similar situations (ATCP role for ARW on the Military.ie site)which helicopters may actually lend very little to resolving. Besides, these things don't just happen overnight, they tend to build over time typically allowing NS assets to be put in place.

Avgas wrote: »

Scenario D-'normal' terrorists at sea

The assertion that NS ships would be spotted is highly unlikely for a number of reasons (don't particularly want to go into them) but this has been demonstrated many times before - albeit not always publicly. Besides, why would a big noisy red and white helo(s) provide more of an element of surprise than RIBs operating under cover of darkness, besides, even during the day RIBs can be very difficult to spot and the NS have vast experience in boarding operations and getting close up undetected. Also, why use non-lethal arms against heavily armed terrorists? If boarding parties were going into such a situation I'm sure the advice (official or unofficial) would be fire first and fire often!!

Ultimately I think you're mixing up 2 different things here, 1 is a commercial outfit being brought in to provide SAR - I think this should absolutely be outsourced as it is, the other is a purely military role which I would never see being outsourced - regardless of the ACs ability to service it, where it may make sense in some ways is for the AC to lease rather than buy but that's a different conversation.

muppet01 wrote: »

I think that the AC suffers from a lack of
A contracted out coast guard service which are now getting medium lift choppers

Not quite sure the angle here but the Coast Guard are getting medium lift helis because the contractor (CHC) have bought and operate them from their own finances, I actually reckon the Coast Guard have gotten a really really good deal and should be commended for getting value for money.

Avgas

Hi Peter,

Good reply.

I'll try and be brief because of limited time……

I'd agree with some of your qualifications of my scenarios……but while my post may have been confusing…

what I was trying to show was that there are roles which are purely or mainly military where DF or the Irish state if you like, would require a large marine capable helicopter capable of military and policing operations wihere lethal force may have to be used….

and that a civilian contractor would either not be able to to do such roles or it would not be appropriate.

You actually more or less concede that point if I'm not mistaken…..which is what I was trying to show.

The logic of my argument would be CHC or Bristow or whoever provide a contracted service with there 4 x S92s……..as a commercial, civilian red/white 24/7 SAR service….while the Air Corps could lease/purchase (to avoid big up front capital costs) perhaps 3x S92s for 'grey/naval-marine-military role'……..joint basic training and servicing could be done together to reduce costs/overheads.

Regarding your other objections some quick points to note:

CBRN at SEA

Russians have a nasty habit and track record of both denying and refusing help in the event of accidents and technical problems regarding their submarines (e.g. Kursk).

The CBRN secnario may require a heli lifting special or extra firefighting gear onto the deck of surfaced vessel…as much as winching people away.

A CBRN risk would be greater than say and oil tanker on fire……possible radiocative cloud/smoke from the Sub….long-term health risks to the crew…need for specialized CBRN equipment…need to decontaminate the aircraft….RN have some experience/capacity on this…not sure about commercials. That was my point kinda….or am I wrong and commercial helis can do this?

A crew of 60 would need several heli lifts…same applies to a car ferry or any large vessel…..doesn't invalidate my arguments per se.


Ecoguerrillas at sea

Ireland has an Exclusive Economic Zone up to 200 nautical miles or 370km offshore, and that means sovereignty of any oil and gas found there would be ours. To get a sense of what is "ours" as regards possible oil, gas and other minerals, check out this map……

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/5960CD91-B5D9-4788-B57E-247634A3013A/0/TheRealMapofIreland_Nov09.pdf

It works out at about 132,000nm2 of ocean.

US have I think got themselves in enough pickles over oil supply in the Middle East to bother with us. Beside there's no one more Irish….than Obama?:)

Your right......Probably the safest asset to respond would be a naval vessels with its own ribs…..Le. Eithne

However, the idea that a threat to any oil or gas rigs in our patch may not be sudden cannot be safely assumed.

Regarding the Brent Spar incident, Greenpeace became aware of the decision to dispose the rig at sea in early February 1995, even though a license had been granted to Shell in December 1994. By April 30th 1995 they had occupied the rig/buoy and remained in occupation for 3 weeks.

In other words they responded in less than three months, going from formal legal opposition in the courts to full occupation in less than three months. The actual move to board would have taken them a matter of hours. In future operations, such activists may well use commercial trawlers or leisure yaughts to get close-incresing the element of surprise.

There is now a thriving private security business on rig security….as evidenced somewhat murkily in the case of Rossport, etc. But let's not get sidetracked……….:rolleyes:

Cod War

I agree the best asset to arrest those modern day Vikings would be LE. Eithne.

I also agree recent events viz Gaza, suggest boarding a boat from a helicopter while hostiles are ready and prepared seems risky.

However, that does not mean it cannot be done. Nor that it sometimes might have to be done. Incidently the same applies to hapless sailors trying to board from a rib…if the crew decides to resist with staves, high pressure hoses, or even shotguns……they will have a hard time of it…..difference might be they'd be a bit more flexible to retreat and a bit more able to use their personal defensive arms.

I think the idea of LE. Eithne opening up with the 57mm Bofors (or the 76mm guns on Rosin) would be….well it would make my day quite frankly:)…..okay I'm joking…..but I think it could be overkill….a few shot across the bow….yep….but if they still don't stop?

A few shots towards the stern to disable the rudder/shaft…yeah…it might work..but the risk of killing some idiot would be there…..

If you killed or even wounded somebody it would be frontpage all over the world (for maybe a few hours); "Irish Navy opens fire on Icelandic Trawler"…..just doesn't read well.

Today's media simply doesn't care about detail, depth or things like accurarcy or truth. The imagery, headline and story is what counts for a few hours.

After various incidents in the 1980s, notably Le. Aisling's running battle with Spanish trawler Sonia in 1984, AFAIK Naval service are fairly cautious about employment of their automatic cannons…..not saying they haven't or wouldn't use them…….not in a position to know that:)…and it would be a sensitive matter.:rolleyes:

Of course your correct when you suggest that what actually would happen would be they'd let the guy get clear and resolve it diplomatically ……..ditto using the main OPV cannon would not wash well regarding diplomacy……

The Royal Navy had a hard time of it with the Cod Wars in figuring out the appropriate way to respond. Saw a picture of one RN vessels fairly badly damaged by a ramming. Guns were used.... but sparingly. It cost the British a lot of time, and fuel and in the end they more or less 'lost'.

A helicopter with trained personnel (ARW I assume) in less-than-lethal boat boardings would just give more options than relying on ribs from OPVs. Indeed if you really had to get onboard a boat and were facing hostiles, then BOTH would be ideal……

Moreover, if you really want to stop a hostile boat a helicopter platfrom may provide a better, more flexible and closer-in platform for (a) a sniper (b) use of less than lethal launcher and munitions

Normal terrorists at sea

AFAIK your comments on using maximum lethal force do not reflect Irish DF culture nor standard Garda ways of operating, post Abbeylara. Lethal force is used sparingly, for legal and political reasons. Nobody would be told 'go in lads, shoot first and don't ask any questions'.

You don't want to be giving the "Cokes" or related provo-mutations, a "martyr" or two for what are, generally speaking, of total losers.

Your 100% about the fact that a naval OPV could get closer and lurk more unseen…..the matter is sensitive….yes I'm wrong to assume it would be impossible. It is quite possible.-your right there.

After all that is how the Marita Anne was intercepted.

Mind you...... that was some years ago (1984). They had to use three naval vessels, and had to be really careful about it. The Trawler tried to outrun the LE. Emer, who spotted her with a searchlight. Moreover, when boarded they did not resist.

Today, the bad guys would have GPS, their own radar, and probably some form of cheapie night vision. Their communications could well be much better.

It would be a harder job, and the chances of a scuttling would be greater.

In this operation a heli with onboard precision sniper/less than lethal laucher together with a few trained divers would add much greater flexibility and ensure success.

BTW I wouldn't have Air Corp helis painted orange and white ….I think low viz grey is what most others people use these days.

Very finally, remember in fairness to the Air Corps, back in the 1990s they actually wanted to buy a few S92s. If that deal had gone ahead the air corps would look a lot more 'relevent' today. They were stopped, AFAIK, by contractual rows, and basically political baulking at the costs…..

As of july 23rd…we are signing a contract worth 500million euro deal for CHC to provide FOUR S92s……..

I quote this source from the Irish Times article:

"Comdt Seamus McCormack, who retired from the Air Corps several weeks ago, said the defence wing had never been asked to submit costings for a joint service.
“The Air Corps has six new AW139 helicopters which would have been ideal for this work with only minor modification,” Mr McCormack said, speaking in a personal capacity.
“Even if the Government decided that it wanted to buy Sikorsky S-92 for all bases, at least the Air Corps and the State, would have owned them – under this arrangement, the State will own nothing.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0723/1224275295810.html

I really do wonder on the long term economics of this.

For now, the Air Corps is so run down (IMHO….only…subject to correction by those who know more as always:))…to provide long range high capacity marine SAR 24/7 we simply need CHC or like……..they are excellent at what they do...no compliant there......

But in principle the same service could be provided by a military outfit at lower overall cost to state, and with an asset owned by the state, and some secondary military capacity on the side for rare, but possible, contingencies that require a military response.

Thanks Peter. Av.

petergfiffin

Ok..there's a lot there we could debate about tactics etc and what might and might not happen and while that might be interesting we'd probably go too far off thread.
Just on the ones more related to scrapping the Air Corps

Avgas wrote: »

Very finally, remember in fairness to the Air Corps, back in the 1990s they actually wanted to buy a few S92s. If that deal had gone ahead the air corps would look a lot more 'relevent' today. They were stopped, AFAIK, by contractual rows, and basically political baulking at the costs…..

Yes the politicians etc messed that one up and the AC could well have had S92s but the question remains...what would they have done with them? I still don't think it likely we would have seen them deployed in Chad etc given the difficulties in deploying the AC to airports in Ireland.If the AC were really up for overseas deployments then I believe they would have fought harder for a different type of aircraft much like the NS have been doing in looking for a MRV and the Army with the Mowags.

Avgas wrote: »

As of july 23rd…we are signing a contract worth 500million euro deal for CHC to provide FOUR S92s……..

I think the actual number works out at 5 helos but regardless we're not paying 500million for just the helos, that's an "all in" cost including wages,crew training costs, maintenance etc (not sure what the situation is with fuel), it's actually not a bad deal!

Avgas wrote: »

"Comdt Seamus McCormack, who retired from the Air Corps several weeks ago, said the defence wing had never been asked to submit costings for a joint service.
“The Air Corps has six new AW139 helicopters which would have been ideal for this work with only minor modification,” Mr McCormack said, speaking in a personal capacity.
“Even if the Government decided that it wanted to buy Sikorsky S-92 for all bases, at least the Air Corps and the State, would have owned them – under this arrangement, the State will own nothing.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0723/1224275295810.html

If you're not being asked to the party you really have to ask yourself why!! So what are these "minor" modifications he's speaking of? If the AW139's are so superior to the helos CHC are offering then why aren't CHC - who also operate them - using them?? Also, it's been a long time since the AC were involved in maritime SAR so I imagine there would be extra costs involved in that. Why should even care about owning the helos? It's much better if you can lease something and then after 5 years hand it back and get the newer version, especially if it's more cost effective (which typically it is). Do we want to continue the tradition of owning helos and having to use them for as long as the Alouettes so we can get the full value out of them?

Avgas wrote: »

But in principle the same service could be provided by a military outfit at lower overall cost to state, and with an asset owned by the state, and some secondary military capacity on the side for rare, but possible, contingencies that require a military response.

I'm still not convinced that it is cheaper, the big advantage with using a private operator is with the costs "what you see is what you get"...you don't have to worry about all the ancillary costs like pensions, sick pay, training costs etc all of which have to be factored in when you start raising head count - which you would have to do to support a larger fleet. Also, the availability rates of SAR helos has shot up since it moved into private hands so if you were to compare costs based on the number of hours the service is available it lowers the private operator costs even more.

I agree there is a need to maintain some military capability and there always will, I think the fundamental question here is whether the AC really is currently filling this role or if it's even possible in it's current guise. Perhaps one option is to strip it right back into a more focused unit - perhaps something like an air-mobile company within the Army with an appetite for overseas service and "proper" helos (paid for by selling some of their current assets) and privatise the rest!

Avgas

Hi Peter,

Well I agree some….BUT…. you say that with a contracted service you just pay a fee and don't have to worry about training, pensions and overheads….BUT in fact your fee covers those items.

CHC pilots have I'm guessing competitive salaries and pension arrangements, which have to be paid for via an 'economic fee'. Good luck to them BTW!

The training of many of their pilots, and other similar services, is a more complex matter, given that a great many are ex-services, and some ex-IAC I think? In otherwords they received costly basic heli experience and training via the public purse -a hidden subsidy…indeed the private heli contract business in the UK/North Sea would never have existed/emerged in the 1970s, but for mainly RN/RAF ex-services expertise…am I right?

The bottom line is that CHC or any similar outfit, is working for a profit. They will seek a margin. Good luck to them…as private contractors making money from the Irish taxpayer go…they provide a superb service, are great people and they really earn their money.

But a for profit service has to be more expensive over the longer term, than a service where profit is not being sought.

Interestingly, what happens if they go bust, and liquidators are appointed who dispose of their assets by a sale?

What happens to your 24/7hr service then?…

What happens if the long term costs of SAR coverage using such costly machines turns out to be not as profitable as perceived…..the original and successful business model was a more no-frill Ryanair type service with S61s…..great workhorse that it was (and is).

Moreover, there is the issue of you only get exactly what you pay for.

If the Irish government….(and I 100% concede your massive scepticism here….)….. but If some Irish government decided that they wanted to use CHC helicopters to (a) transport troops or Gardai for some domestic security incident or (b) wanted to deploy a pair of heli's abroad on peace support…or (C) wanted to use such choppers in some kind of marine contingency ……..CHC could quite legitimately refuse as it would not be covered in their contract.

And they own the machines.
There is a reason why the expression 'possession is nine-tengths the law' is so often used.

Leasing looks great in theory. I know guys who leased cars. They usually gave it up after a while, as unless you can write off some of the costs against tax, or your wanting something for only short period of time, then it doesn't make a great deal of sense. Yes depreciation of a fully owned asset is a killer-but you the leasing company make you pay for their depreciation costs via repayments. With something you own, one can always sell an asset you own and liquidate some cash. Or you can be flexible in how you use the asset.

Moreover, in many leasing agreements it is sensible to arrange a 'lease to buy' option. If your making instalment payments over a 25-30 year period, it might in the end by handy and economic to buy the asset outright, having chipped in so much money over a long time.


AFAIK this is crucial 'option' is not included in the recent CHC contract.

I agree with you that his comments on the AW139s were a tad bizare. Apples and pears. Its not the tool to be going 300km offshore Donegal in Jaunary freezing rain, with gales blowing in your face trying to find a trawler.

Am I right that the existing config AW139 have no emergency flotation gear, and otherwise not really capable of overseas misisons …or can the do stuff like the old Dauphins used …up to 100km offshore in moderate weather?

petergfiffin

Avgas wrote: »

Well I agree some….BUT…. you say that with a contracted service you just pay a fee and don't have to worry about training, pensions and overheads….BUT in fact your fee covers those items.

Yes you are correct and in fact that's kind of my point, you know up front how much all of this is going to cost you. You don't have to try and work out how much wages and training costs will be in 2015, that becomes CHC's problem.

Avgas wrote: »

CHC pilots have I'm guessing competitive salaries and pension arrangements, which have to be paid for via an 'economic fee'. Good luck to them BTW!

The training of many of their pilots, and other similar services, is a more complex matter, given that a great many are ex-services, and some ex-IAC I think? In otherwords they received costly basic heli experience and training via the public purse -a hidden subsidy…indeed the private heli contract business in the UK/North Sea would never have existed/emerged in the 1970s, but for mainly RN/RAF ex-services expertise…am I right?

Yes, I believe you are correct, from what I understand the CHC pilots are extremely well trained and very experienced pilots which is another advantage of private operators - they can recruit from the best available people internationally, casting absolutely no aspertions on the AC pilots of course. Don't know about the North Sea thing in the 70's but you can be sure those guys either served their time or bought themselves out.

Avgas wrote: »

But a for profit service has to be more expensive over the longer term, than a service where profit is not being sought.

Not necessarily so, commercial companies always have to drive down costs in a competitive market. If in 5 years time an equally competent bidder undercuts CHC then in all likelihood they will lose the contract. Public Service do not have the same pressures therefore are not under the same focus to improve efficiencies so may not actually be cheaper than their commercial counterparts. I would stress here that just because somebody is driving down costs and improving efficiencies does not mean they are reducing the quality of the service.

Avgas wrote: »

Interestingly, what happens if they go bust, and liquidators are appointed who dispose of their assets by a sale?

What happens to your 24/7hr service then?

What was going to happen the service in Waterford when the government decided they didn't have enough money. I would say there is far more of a risk of a government minister or DOD official deciding we need to cut back on SAR services "in these difficult times". Also, typically in commercial contracts there are conditions put in there that account for exactly what you are describing - of course I don't know the details here, overall I would say there is a bigger risk to services from government decisions and cutbacks than private companies going bust...but I accept it is a risk

Avgas wrote: »

What happens if the long term costs of SAR coverage using such costly machines turns out to be not as profitable as perceived…..the original and successful business model was a more no-frill Ryanair type service with S61s…..great workhorse that it was (and is).

That's tough luck on the operator, they have been contracted to provide a service and would be bound to the terms of that contract. The replacement of the S61s seems to be something that's happening across the CHC fleet, not just in Ireland.

Avgas wrote: »

Moreover, there is the issue of you only get exactly what you pay for.
If the Irish government….(and I 100% concede your massive scepticism here….)….. but If some Irish government decided that they wanted to use CHC helicopters to (a) transport troops or Gardai for some domestic security incident or (b) wanted to deploy a pair of heli's abroad on peace support…or (C) wanted to use such choppers in some kind of marine contingency ……..CHC could quite legitimately refuse as it would not be covered in their contract.

They're already on the hook to provide support for "the other three blue light services (Garda, Ambulance Service and Fire Services) during major national emergency situations on land." http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/116693/chc-wins-500m-euro-irish-sar-contract.html

Again the point is CHC have been contracted in to provide SAR services for the Coast Guard, they have absolutely no relatonship with the DF and anything I'm talking about is only in relation to SAR. While CHC can quite rightly tell the Army where to go when they look for troop transport equally they can tell a Govt minister where to go when they want to open an off-licence somewhere and I think that's the beauty of it, the assets are used for what they are meant to be used for.

Avgas wrote: »

Moreover, in many leasing agreements it is sensible to arrange a 'lease to buy' option. If your making instalment payments over a 25-30 year period, it might in the end by handy and economic to buy the asset outright, having chipped in so much money over a long time.


AFAIK this is crucial 'option' is not included in the recent CHC contract.

If we were just leasing the aircraft and the AC were operating them then that may apply but we're not leasing aircraft from CHC, on that issue though the Army have been leasing vehicles for years. The big problem with buying up-front is you need to have the money up-front which we simply don't have in this country at the moment.



So basically my view on all this is outsource all non-military tasks i.e. MATS, Maritime Patrol, Garda Air Support - sell all the aircraft associated with those roles, move back under the Army and model it along the lines of the British Army's Air Corps using helicopters and light aircraft (I don't mean PC9's, more the Defender type operated by AGS & British AAC) and send it overseas!

Steyr

Avgas wrote: »

Am I right that the existing config AW139 have no emergency flotation gear, and otherwise not really capable of overseas misisons …

Avgas, this is a pic of mine, i think the Black bulges are Flotation devices.

Avgas wrote: »

or can the do stuff like the old Dauphins used …up to 100km offshore in moderate weather?

Dont forget it wasnt the entire Dauphin Fleet, I believe only 2 were "Navalised" with Harpoon and HIFR ( 244/245 ).

concussion

Avgas wrote: »

as an interim we should consider a long term slow procurement process to either add dual-use military/civilian capabilities to our existing ATC network...or grow our domestic Aerial Monitoring capacity...perhaps in novel ways......I don't think we've the money to be getting whacking great big phased array radar sets and building them on some mountain somewhere.........maybe there are more asymmetric and cheaper technologies that could provide a modular and evolvable national aerial monitoring networking using a mix of biggish but mobile (towable) tactical radars....placed at key nodes..(think Son of Giraffe).....and probably some EO passive sensors...... this could be built in as part of a package of improving our AIR DEFENCE capabilities which have been somewhat improved in the last few years......but still need work...given how strategically important air defence is.......

Hi Avgas, some containerised radar options mentioned in this post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63426175&postcount=154

kevinhalvey

i think that the air-corp should not be scrapped but what they should do is re-new some of the old planes . we dont have any decent planes/jets that actually can carry bombs or win a fight

Zambia

RAF feeling the same pain

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html

In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.


But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

While the Strategic Defence and Security Review is yet to be finalised, officials have drawn up a series of likely options to meet cuts of 10 to 20 per cent demanded by the Treasury.

By the end of this month the Defence Strategy Group, comprising ministers and military chiefs, will be presented with a number of recommendations that they will refine and pass to the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, in September.

In October, after agreement with the Treasury, an announcement will be made in Parliament on precisely what cuts the Forces face as part of the comprehensive spending review of Whitehall budgets.

If implemented, the cuts will mean that Britain will almost certainly depart the world stage as a major military power and become what military chiefs call a “medium-scale player”.

The proposed cuts – which are certain to face a critical reception from the public – are being considered without resolving the question of who pays for the Trident replacement. The MoD hopes that once voters realise the scale of the cuts to the Armed Forces, George Osborne, the Chancellor, may spare some parts of the military. The plans will lead to the RAF losing its status as the fifth biggest air force in the world.

The entire force of 120 GR4 Tornado fighter-bombers looks destined for the scrap heap to save £7.5 billion over the next five years. The Tornado was supposed to be in service until 2025, but with a major overhaul due in the next five years costing £10 million for each aircraft, it is now under threat.

The cut will mean job losses as RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham totalling almost 5,000 personnel.

Under the plans, the number of Eurofighter Typhoons is likely to be reduced further from 160 to 107 planes based at a single RAF airfield to save £1  billion. The entire fleet of 36 Hercules transport aircraft, the workhorse in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be phased out and replaced by an order of 22 new A400M planes.

The £3.6 billion project for nine Nimrod MR4 reconnaissance aircraft is also vulnerable, along with a number of other surveillance planes.

The proposals include a swathe of cuts to the Army’s armoured regiments with the loss of Challenger 2 tanks, AS90 guns and Warrior armoured vehicles.

While the Army is likely to lose a few thousand soldiers in the coming year, reducing its numbers to about 100,000, it is braced to lose an entire brigade of about 5,000 when combat troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2015. It is understood that 7 Armoured Brigade or 20 Armoured Brigade, both based in Germany, are the most vulnerable.

Infantry battalions will be increased from about 600 troops to 750 as a lesson from Afghanistan has been the loss of combat effectiveness through leave and casualties, according to the plans.

The Royal Marines also face coming under direct Army control from Navy command and the possibility of being grouped into a “super elite” unit alongside two Parachute Regiment battalions.

A senior Whitehall source said: “These are not Tory cuts, these are Labour cuts as a result of their irresponsible overspending. However, a lot of this comes down to how much political appetite there is to do this.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

TW Mr Tayto

petergfiffin wrote: »

, they totally passed over the opportunity to buy military grade helis be they MI8s, Blackhawks, second hand Pumas or even Hueys.

On a recent IHOP (Irish Helicopter Owners and Pilots Association) trip to "The Don", I think it was noted that the considerable maintenance of the UH-1 Blackhawk made it unsuitable. There may be arguments against this - but don't shoot the messenger... it might effect the taxpayer :P

Try asking anyone who was stuck without food/supplies in the snows and floods if the air corp should be scrapped?
If we didn't have the Air Corp, the next generation would just argue the points of having one, it would be a cycle. It's better to have one and not need it than to not have one and need it!

xflyer

Actually the Huey would be unsuitable due to age. But then the Agustas are unsuitable due to being unsuitable. But there are plenty of good military helicopters out there. The Air Corps instead chose a brand new civilian helicopter ideal for executive transport not battlefield transport. Agusta themselves agree since they've since brought out the AW149 which is an actual military helicopter.

The Air Corps shouldn't be scrapped, simply reformed into a more helicopter intensive unit with real military helicopters rather than cool executive helicopters, ministers for the use of.

And if we didn't need any further reminding of the waste involved. We see the MATS being used to ferry Minister Dempsey back and forth across the country so he avoid having to drive to Donegal or even catch an Aer Arann flight there.

Avgas

Tend to be away/busy weekends so can't reply so soon to what are quite a few excellent posts.


Re Peter/Leasing Woes

Regarding Peter's comments on leasing/contracting out.... I'll concede many of your latest points are good .......and you sum up a 'consensus' position pretty well in your final points.....about redirecting Air Corps towards more useful things and being overseas...etc.

However, the idea in theory that a private outfit will always try to drive costs down over a public entity…while fine in theory…..may not in fact correspond to reality in my experience of both private and public entities…the DF is notoriously stingy and parsimonoious….. and I think many units, for example as regards vehicle upkeep, have had to make do with kit and even consumables at a lower rate than would be found in similar commercial entities/workshops….. not least for the very simple reason they have no cashflow coming in the door….but must seek the ever grudging permission from the Mandarins at Parkgate Street to fill in receipts in triplicate.

Persons I know in the private corporate sector tell me tales of routine enough NAMAesqe type profligacy from time to time…some of which gets written off against tax, creatively accounted for, etc.

In the UK, their Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has been quoted at often providing assets for the public at roughly 30% greater costs over the lifecycle of the asset (often a building)…..than if the thing was paid for out of public capital spending/borrowing…..from the outset…..the real financial reason states such as UK, Ireland and Norway are looking to privatise SAR services is due to high initial capital costs they cannot afford……and keeping such debt off bloated national debt/public accounts….oh and in the case of Ireland…the nonsense that went on in Sligo a few years back……'green flu', etc.

I think my final point on the recent CHC contract would be to say 'great, let it go ahead', BUT could we not also investigate getting some Air Corps owned and operated S92s as well…for the type of scenarios and others I've mentioned and to have a residual publically owned fleet, for contingencies. And the idea or rationale here would be to have their upkeep and basic training costs maybe shared with CHC…..thus making it more economically feasible …..?

That would not be cheap, but then good insurance and safety precautions never are.

They could be 'trickled leased-to-buy' (to avoid crucifying up front capital costs) in batches of 2-3….over a decade long time-frame…..one might build up a small force of fairly capable military helicopters-say 6-9…..

Yeah I know………dream away buddy. :rolleyes:

Very finally, no doubt your aware that the UK Treasury has decided to suspend and review their porposed 5-7 billion sterling SAR contract (which would have included CHC as part of a winning consortium)…..apparently on the grounds that the (a) UK is broke (b) their cutting back spending everywhere and probably want to rengeotiate it…….and (c), Avgas being of a cynical disposition, I also strongly suspect that AugustaWestland …may have whinged into a few Tory ears…….seeing as they effectively 'lost out'…….

See: http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2157&thisSection=military

Also at:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotlandseconomy/New-7bn-helicopter-rescue-service.6370131.jp

Concussion/Radars.

Yep, some nice kit you've highlighted there….but the usual 'we're broke…dream away' injunction probably applies….I've always been intrigued by the RBS23 BAMSE project….and have never found enough material on it to figure it out really….its not an extended RBS70/BOLIDE……but is the missile a modified RBS70 one? It basically is a SA/CLOS systems am I right?.

What I actually had in mind regarding 'novel' aerial monitoring techniques was the idea of so called passive bi-static/multistatic radars….possibly developed as a 'parasitic' capability that would 'overlay' on various civilian networks…..there appears to be some tinkering (for example by SAAB) going on with using civilian or distributed low cost radio networks to act as a detection system…but for now its probably very iffy ……more proven (perhaps) is ESM like the Czech VERA system….see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor

Somehow, I feel a whole new thread coming on 'novel air defence concepts for Irish DF'?:)

Steyr/Flotation gear on AW139s….

Great photo Styer…eh….. dunno know why I didn't clock that one… old age? ….it just missed me……but that is good news……The Air Corps guy ( sorry….. eh….Cmdt.) mentioned in the IT article said they would need a few minor modifications to do SAR properly…wonder what he had in mind? And I think CHC do use AW139s for lighter/inshore coastal SAR in the UK no?

Does anybody know if their spec/gear fit would be that different from what our AW139s have at the momemt…or, really what I'm asking is: what extras would our AW139s need to be able to do routine 'marine/naval contingency' work….(not necessarily SAR…seeing as CHC are doing it and better).

Can long range side tanks be fitted on the AW139?

Cheers, Av.

Klunk001

Hopefully I can answer some of the questions. The SAR-H contract is suspended at the mo in the UK and a decision is due on that quite soon. Word on the street is it will go ahead without the military been involved resulting in a serious reduction to the price. As I understand it RAF Valley ran up a budget of £12 million stg for its SAR operation last year. That would equate to £48 million for four bases, that’s compares to €25 Million for four bases here. I wouldn't expect it to be any different at the remaining three military SAR bases there.

The 139's for UKSAR were built from the ground up as a SAR asset to be used relatively close inshore and have been found wanting to put it mildly. There are still issues with them and will be replaced at the end of the current contract.

Anybody that tells you that minor modifications to the current fleet of AC 139's is all that is needed is quite frankly talking through their hat, they just have not got a clue, obviously flew fixed wing when in the Don. But let’s run with it for a moment, minor modifications would give you a limited SAR capability, basically a big Allouette with two engines for day light hours which neither has the range or space to be taken seriously for long range stuff. Now we all know what happened when the idea of Waterford becoming 12 hr base in the new contract was put out there.:eek:

The IRCG currently provide 24 hr SAR (all weather SAR) at their bases. To be able to provide this, the flying particularly at night over water require some very specialised equipment, I could tell you what it is and how it works, but I don't want to bore you. To retro fit would take lots of time and money and what would you have at the end, an inferior product to the 139 already been used on the south coast of the UK that is going to be replaced.

Without going over things, but if the AC were providing SAR from Sligo today they too would be getting one of these new shiny toys and possibly could have done some sort of deal for one or two more for the military taskings that are been discussed here. They still would have been civilian helo’s like the 139’s but the difference would be the 92 coming from a military design (Blackhawk on steroids) and like all things Sikorsky, built like a thank.:D