Should the Air Corps be scrapped?

BostonB

Chad has Sukhoi Su 25 Frogfoots. You want to help them out with PC9's? There have been reports of missiles fired at aircraft in Chad. I assume they have heavy calibre weapons and perhaps cannons. You'd want dropable tanks for combat, not ferry tanks. Are those hard points rated for the weapons you listed earlier, and the aiming hardware. Again it seems like you're trying to push us into a mission we don't have the budget or equipment for.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

Chad has Sukhoi Su 25 Frogfoots. You want to help them out with PC9's? There have been reports of missiles fired at aircraft in Chad. I assume they have heavy calibre weapons and perhaps cannons. You'd want dropable tanks for combat, not ferry tanks. Are those hard points rated for the weapons you listed earlier, and the aiming hardware?

you're suggesting that the IG would send an IA unit to an environment where only something like a FROGFOOT would survive in the air?

drop tanks are not an issue, its a very simple system - the hardpoints are certainly rated weight-wise for the current Irish weapons (obviously!), and are well within the weight limits for Paveway and Hellfire. wiring them up is the only issue, but wiring up a hardpoint for a guided weapon systems is easy work for anyone with a working knowledge of metalwork and electical instalation.

BostonB

I'd suggest there's a bit more to it than bob the builder with his drill and a hammer, and its useful to what other nations are using in the same location.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

I'd suggest there's a bit more to it than bob the builder with his drill and a hammer, and its useful to what other nations are using in the same location.

it can be, if you've got the money you send it off to a contractor and he does a lovely job and it comes back looking good as new - if you haven't got the money, or the time, then you improvise, and there are lots of examples of the 'bob the builder' approach doing the job.

Nimrod with Sidewinder missiles.

Vulcan with Shrike missiles.

Victor with Martel missiles - though this failed because the Martel froze-up at the high altitude that the Victor did most of its flying at, but not because of the 'heath-robinson' nature of the installation.

all were guided missiles that were fitted to aircraft they were not intented for, in 'bob the builder' style, and all provided the weapons effects they were fitted for - granted, they looked a bit rough around the edges - but they did the job.

unless, of course, you say different?

xflyer

The other day I was at a regional airport. In arrived an Air Corps Cessna. It was boarded by several civilians, presumably government employees and off they went to view bird populations or tidal flows or land cultivation or whatever.

An entirely civilian role. Like so many of the Air Corps jobs.

In the end this will backfire on the Air Corps as it becomes increasingly obvious that it has only a limited military utility and that most of it's jobs can be done more cheaply by others. Even our thick politicians will realise that eventually.

BostonB

OS119 wrote: »

...Vulcan with Shrike missiles....

In fairness you strap a double decker bus to a Vulcan and it would probably be able to fly and launch it. Its kinda in a different league to a PC9 when it comes to weight and power. Also it had been designed to have a hard point for the weight of a Skybolt missile.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

In fairness you strap a double decker bus to a Vulcan and it would probably be able to fly and launch it. Its kinda in a different league to a PC9 when it comes to weight and power. Also it had been designed to have a hard point for the weight of a Skybolt missile.

the size is an irrelevence - what i'm saying is that here are concrete examples of using electrical installation and metalwork skills to attach something complex to an aircraft that it didn't come with, and it working.

the hardpoints on the PC-9M are well capable of carrying the weights involved - it has 4 points rated to 250kg, and two at 110kg - a Hellfire missile weighs about 50kg, the current .50 gun pod weighs 110kg, and a Paveway IV (laser and GPS guided bomb) about 240kg.

i found two online sources that say that the PC-9M's inboard pylons are capable of taking a 66 gallon(US) fuel tank, but this equates to 248 litres - the weight of which, including the fuel tank itself, must make it about the heaviest store the pylon could take, assuming of course that the sources are correct.

please don't take this as suggesting that i'm a fan of the PC-9M, i'm not - they were an idiot purchace by a service with delusions of adiquacy - merely that they could provide a capabilty thats sorely needed, and there's no chance of something more appropriate taking their place.

BostonB

I didn't say size I said weight and power. Thats a 240kg load on a 250kg point, I wouldn't call that well within limits. I've not seen a single rail launcher for a hellfire. I've only see 4 rail launchers. I guess they could make one.

But at the end of the day my only point is an un armoured light trainer isn't something ideal when you a bunch of people with all kinds of automatic weapons and perhaps missiles all pointing up at you. Its not like there's numbers to replace damaged one's either.

Donny5

OS119 wrote: »

Paveway IV (laser and GPS guided bomb) about 240kg.

Do you have a source for that? The warhead alone is 227kg, so I'd be surprised if the total comes in under 300kg. Anyway, the Brits are buying thousands, and their unit cost is £30,000, so we won't be seeing them in Baldonnel anytime soon.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

...But at the end of the day my only point is an un armoured light trainer isn't something ideal when you a bunch of people with all kinds of automatic weapons and perhaps missiles all pointing up at you. Its not like there's numbers to replace damaged one's either.

oh there's nothing ideal about the kind of things i'm suggesting, they are very much in extremis solutions that would provide not brilliant performance, as some risk, and as you say with no depth to the capability.

however, its some capability, at very little actual cost - a PC-9M on overwatch or reece would not need a Hellfire/Paveway type system to be reasonably effective - it would add to the safety net that Irish soldiers should be provided with on PS operations, and such deployments would help to develop the AC in the same way that the Liberia and Chad deployments help the Army to become more effective.

KickstartHeart

Does anyone know how much the PC9m's each cost? and how much they are to maintain per anum in the role that they currently fulfill?

And does anyone know how much one of these 13 million quid beauties would be to maintain per anum in the same role?- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-159_Alca

They're not rhetorical questions either, I'm actually curious. I know absolutely nothing about air defence stuff.

xflyer

The Aero 159 was actually considered for the Air Corps at one point post 9/11. What killed it was the need for a military radar which would bust the defence budget out of the water.

In any case it's hardly a basic trainer which is the figleaf of an excuse for the PC9s.

OS119

KickstartHeart wrote: »

Does anyone know how much the PC9m's each cost? and how much they are to maintain per anum in the role that they currently fulfill? ...

unfortunately, how long is a peice of string?

its difficult to come up with any real figure because the big cost is going to be personnel - and the vast majority of the AC personnel involved with the PC-9M programme will be doing other things as well, some of which the programme will indirectly support, so you'd have to work very hard to come up with a serious figure that said '€X is the amount that the PC-9 programme costs, so if you withdrew the programe from service you'd have that cash to augment the other AC capabilities'.

the facile answer has got to be 'a lot' - the 7 aircraft must be 30%+ of the IAC's fleet (2 CASA's, 6 AW139, 2 EC135, 1 Learjet, 1 Gulfstream, and 3(?) Cessna) so it must be a sizable part of the cost, however if is mainly in people who you'd need to keep in order to keep the other stuff flying, then the 'savings' involved in binning the PC-9M's is going to be pretty limited.

Donny5

xflyer wrote: »

In any case it's hardly a basic trainer which is the figleaf of an excuse for the PC9s.

Could we not outsource our training? For an air force so small with so few pilots, it would seem a sensible option.

KickstartHeart

I see. Thanks for the answers. Do either of ye by any chance know how much of the defence budget was spent on everything under the category of ministerial transport and the two jets for that role? Would that be a how long is a piece of string situation too or is it easier to put the finger on the figure? What I'm getting at here is, if the air corps were to no longer be responsible for VIP service for people like Bertie, would the able to actually have decent air capabilities in military terms?

I know my questions are a bit ambiguous and leave for a very wide spectrum of answers. So I'll apologize for that. I could tell you everything you need to know about world war 2 aviation or something of a historical nature when it comes air defence. But I'm afraid I literally know sh*g all about modern air defence.

KickstartHeart

Donny5 wrote: »

Could we not outsource our training? For an air force so small with so few pilots, it would seem a sensible option.

I'll second that question too.

sdanseo

The amount of sheer uneducated prattle on this thread is almost incomprehensible.

Privatising the defence of the country is an abhorrence that should never, ever, EVER be contemplated. It leaves government open to corruption and the security of the state potentially open to the highest bidder.

The Air Corps should be enlarged, not disbanded.

petergriffin wrote: »

5. Air Defence
Let's be honest, to try and do this properly would take investment that would make Nama look like a church gate collection!! If we really think it's an issue the simplest thing is to enter into an arrangement with the British where they would provide air defence which we would either pay for or trade for something else. Aircraft from the West coast of Britain could easily cover Ireland, and before people go on about the whole "what if terrorists want to crash an airliner into the Square?", the fact is in the US, inspite of all their power, they couldn't prevent it either.

A half-decent second hand fleet of well-maintained multi-role fighters and associated support aircraft could probably be had for less than €100 million.

OS119

KickstartHeart wrote: »

I'll second that question too.

theres no reason why it couldn't be done, without the PC-9's the IAC needs aircrew for 2 CASA's, the 2 biz jets and 8 helicopters - the logical conclusion of thinking 'outsource the training' however is that you also say 'outsource the fisheries protection', and 'outsource the MATS', which means you're left needing to crew a fleet of 8 helicopters.

the easiest way of doing it is either going to be sending trainees to commercial flying schools in the states, or sending them across the water to the RAF/AAC/RN.

as to the cost of the BizJets, i doubt its much in real terms - they don't get that much use, very few people are only going to be employed on them alone, you could almost describe them as a hobby project...

Donny5

sdeire wrote: »

INEDUCATED

Oh, the irony.

Anyway, why not privatise training? We're not asking about privatising the Air Corps, just pilot training. We wouldn't be the first: the RAAF and RAF already do it.

OS119

sdeire wrote: »

...A half-decent second hand fleet of well-maintained multi-role fighters and associated support aircraft could probably be had for less than €100 million.

cheers, i've not had a good laugh today - you've cheered me right up.

whats your definition of 'fleet'?

whats your definition of 'well-maintained'?

whats your definition of 'multi-role fighter'?

whats your definition of 'associated support aircraft'?

and finally, do you know how much it costs to train a combat ready fast jet pilot?

xflyer

sdeire wrote: »

A half-decent second hand fleet of well-maintained multi-role fighters and associated support aircraft could probably be had for less than €100 million.

Doubt it but even if it could the operational costs would kill that idea. Fast jets are wildly expensive to operate, require a lot of infrastructure improvements. Need manpower AND expertise. They need extensively and expensively trained pilots. Plus they crash rather more often than lesser aircraft. Onto the €100 million add the cost of buying military radar, say €200 million.

It's an obvious non runner.

What needs doing away with is all the strictly civilian roles carried out by the Air Corps now and concentration on it's military role which at the moment almost seems like a secondary consideration.

Donny5

OS119 wrote: »

and finally, do you know how much it costs to train a combat ready fast jet pilot?

£12.5 million Sterling for a Typhoon pilot, last I head.

Donny5

xflyer wrote: »

What needs doing away with is all the strictly civilian roles carried out by the Air Corps now and concentration on it's military role which at the moment almost seems like a secondary consideration.

I suspect if you separated out the civilian roles, the purely military component would not last one budget before being axed.

Cardinal Richelieu

OS119 wrote: »

and finally, do you know how much it costs to train a combat ready fast jet pilot?

In 2009 the US Air Force spent $2.6 million to train a fighter pilot and an airlift pilot came in at a cutprice $600,000.

BostonB

OS119 wrote: »

oh there's nothing ideal about the kind of things i'm suggesting, they are very much in extremis solutions that would provide not brilliant performance, as some risk, and as you say with no depth to the capability.

however, its some capability, at very little actual cost - a PC-9M on overwatch or reece would not need a Hellfire/Paveway type system to be reasonably effective - it would add to the safety net that Irish soldiers should be provided with on PS operations, and such deployments would help to develop the AC in the same way that the Liberia and Chad deployments help the Army to become more effective.

Would a UAV be more economical and useful for over-watch and Reece? I'm thinking you'd get more flight time than with a PC9 for the same money. That said a UAV doesn't have the presence of a PC9, and we already have the PC9 which is the only reason to use them. bird in the hand and all that.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

Would a UAV be more economical and useful for over-watch and Reece? I'm thinking you'd get more flight time than with a PC9 for the same money. That said a UAV doesn't have the presence of a PC9, and we already have the PC9 which is the only reason to use them. bird in the hand and all that.

if overwatch and reece are what the DoD wants the IAC to move towards, then its got to be UAV's - Reaper can do 24hrs overhead with a decent weapons load, i'd love to know how many PC-9M's and it would take to provide the same continuity of cover, but i wouldn't bet on it being less than 3, and probably with 6 crews... €€€€€€€€€€€€€€.....

you're right about the 'bird in the hand' thing, this is all making the best of a bad deal, theres no 'this is the right tool for the job' involved.

E2A: if we're talking about UAV's doing the work, then lets consider the Fisheries protection/Maritime Policing/SAR role - theres a job crying out for a UAV if ever there was one...

BostonB

Guess its the Irish answer of well I wouldn't start from here...

xflyer

Donny5 wrote: »

I suspect if you separated out the civilian roles, the purely military component would not last one budget before being axed.

You could be right, but that's actually my fear. I have a life time interest in the Air Corps. The more it takes on civvie roles the great the danger of it being seen as irrelevant and without a role.

It really needs to be a genuine component of the Defence forces not an auxiliary of the health service and any other government agency.

NewSigGuy

This is how I see the AC now....

MATS a GIV and a Lear could be replaced very efficiently with a contract charter or Netjets type of operation. Would provide a far better service at a lower cost then the AC.

MARITIME.. IMHO these aircraft have never been properly utilized and the AC has failed to expand there remit beyond Fishery Protection, should be privatized and run in parallel with the Coast Guard, it is a very civilian operation and has no military function or future, in fact the Aircraft are too big and a smaller aircraft such as a Kingair 350ER would be far better at this role and could still provide the much vaunted top cover to SAR missions.

Heli’s It appears there entire mission is too train soldiers for overseas where they might use tactical heli transport, this is thin at best. If they need to familiarize troops with Heli’s they could contract the British Bell 412’s for a couple of days a year to conduct the drills. I believe the AC is the wrong organization for this possible HEMS and many civilian operators would provide a far better service. If that is to the future of the AC then they should hand in the uniforms because it is not a military function and would provide nothing to the future of the organization except to keep them employed.
The Cessna squadron has for a very many years just been used as a place to get young pilots some flying hours until they get moved up to the bigger machines, the PARA function for the annual Army Para course could easily be provided by an external provider and the annual Ack-Ack shoot target tow could also be contracted out, there are a number of companies that do this.

The Flying school is made surplus to requirements as a result.

So we are left to the thorny issue of GASU, IMHO this was an ill conceived idea in the first place it has had years of problems and eventually became like the Cessna squadron a great place for pilots to get hours they could not get on AC machines, as has been proven across the water the best source for these aircraft is a dedicated service provider with a Civilian AOC, the Irish Air Law issues are not insurmountable.

So I believe the AC should be wound up as it does not supply an Military function it does not even carry out an Annual Air Corps exercise, in the way the Naval Service does, to practice and prove its conventional military role, as it has None.

My opinion is that a number of large strategic errors were made in the last 10-15 years which relegated the AC to its position of irrelevance, in no particular order..

The PW/White Paper strangled any chance of the AC expanding its military capability or deploying Aircraft overseas
GASU.. Not a military function and was never going to be the future for a military organization.
Purchase of the PC-9’s. I believe they should have modernized/supplemented the SF-260 fleet and bought Kingair 90’s for Multi/IFR training. This would be a far more appropriate schooling given the fleet profile at the time. Consider they spent 66M Euro on 8 Training Aircraft when at the time we had I think 5 operational Aircraft. I discount the Cessna’s as you don’t need a PC-9 to train a FR-172 Pilot
The Armed role should have gone to Heli’s. A couple of flights of Armed scout Helicopters would have been more capable then the Rockets and guns of the PC-9(we had rockets and guns since the Vampire). For example, a EC-635(type doesn’t mater for the point) with a roof mounted sight and guided anti-tank missiles on one side and a 20mm canon on the other would provide a very credible Armed Recce support to a Bn commander on exercise or overseas. It would also be the first time the AC would have had a guided weapon system.
The AC never effectively lobbied for a Transport role despite the fact that we had 850 troops overseas virtually continually, and the despite the fact that there were a number of affordable options on the market. The AC even received an unsolicited bid from Lockheed Martin for refurbished C-130H’s on a lease that was never pursued as we were short of pilots... I don’t even want to address that particular lie.
And I think my most controversial point is the mishandling of our move into Blue Uniforms which meant for many years the AC ignored our biggest customer the Army and went off on the path as outlined previously.

In the Current fiscal tightening it is unlikely that any monies will be available for the AC to become a more military organization. So where does it as a Military Flying Corps go Now?

OS119

NewSigGuy wrote: »

... So where does it as a Military Flying Corps go Now?

the job centre?

the truth, as you've eloquantly spelt out, is that not one of the AC's roles could not, and is not, right now, being done by a contractor in the state next door.

Fisheries protection, SAR, Police Air Support, Target Flying, Parachute training, battlefield mobility (ha!), all of them. there is not one task the AC does that a civilian contractor doesn't, and unlike the AC, when you aren't using the contractor, you aren't paying him.

gbee

OS119 wrote: »

and unlike the AC, when you aren't using the contractor, you aren't paying him.

Sadly, this is not accurate. SAR is an example of a very expensive service that covers 24hr personnel, maintenance, servicing, fuels, parts, food, training, equipment, aircraft and so on and so on.

In this exact example the IAC could ** actually provide a cheaper service. And if one were to examine other contracts, like toll roads and toll bridges, there is a clause whereby we pay for the service even if we do NOT USE IT.

You will find there is a charge to the taxpayer for 'availability' and a FURTHER charge for actually using contractors.

Maintaining our own services is both cheaper with multi role deployment, CHC SAR is not an ambulance service [though it has performed this function], has no top cover capability [the RAF provides much of this] and won't attend road accidents.

BTW, not criticising CHC SAR

xflyer

Sadly, this is not accurate. SAR is an example of a very expensive service that covers 24hr personnel, maintenance, servicing, fuels, parts, food, training, equipment, aircraft and so on and so on.

Something the Air Corps proved themselves incapable of providing.

In this exact example the IAC could ** actually provide a cheaper service. And if one were to examine other contracts, like toll roads and toll bridges, there is a clause whereby we pay for the service even if we do NOT USE IT.

Not true, the Air Corps are more expensive when you consider the overall cost. The easy answer is to remove any clause that forces you to pay for non use.

You will find there is a charge to the taxpayer for 'availability' and a FURTHER charge for actually using contractors.

Yes there is and it's transparent and competitive or at least it should be. But the real cost of the Air Corps service is always kept opaque.

Maintaining our own services is both cheaper with multi role deployment, CHC SAR is not an ambulance service [though it has performed this function], has no top cover capability [the RAF provides much of this] and won't attend road accidents.

The RAF no longer provides top cover, the Nimrods are gone and controversially Air Corps top cover doesn't appear to be guaranteed. Neither Air Ambulance or road accidents are part of the CHC remit. Nor is it within the remit of the Air Corps. Both are specialist missions best left to specialists. It's important to note the Air Corps only provide patient transfer, not air ambulance as such.

But my biggest objection is that you are effectively arguing the Air Corps are best used in strictly civilian roles. If so why the need for a uniform at all? Why not civilianise it and let it compete for business?

Delancey

Something the Air Corps proved themselves incapable of providing.

+1 , the so-called ' Green Flu ' action by Air Corps members completely undermined any vestige of moral authority they could lay claim to. As a result of this action they deservedly lost the SAR role.

The Air Corps really seems little more than an expensive flying club that the country can ill-afford.

gbee

xflyer wrote: »

Something the Air Corps proved themselves incapable of providing.

That's a slightly different problem, and it's a much politics and contract provision by ministers who have already been mentioned in the most recent tribunal reports.

We are out of this period now, but I'm sure on a day to day basis, given the funding, training, equipment the men and women of the IAC could provide a service.

Our country is too small for several overlapping and competing for funds though not competing to provide services institutions, be that CHC, IAC, Air Ambulance plus the military aspect

OS119

gbee wrote: »

...We are out of this period now, but I'm sure on a day to day basis, given the funding, training, equipment the men and women of the IAC could provide a service...

given enough funding, training and equipment the cast of The Muppets Christmas Carol could provide a service, but how much funding?

indeed the cast of the Muppets might have less risk, given that the Muppets have not, to my knowledge, previously ballsed-up an aviation operation.

the IAC is incredible expensive way of producing not much:

8 PC-9M's were bought to complete 600 flying hours per year, per airframe - as at Jan 2011, after 7 years in service, they had provided a mere 179 flying hours per year, per airframe. thats one flight of an hour and a bit, every three days, for each airframe.

6 AW139's were bought to complete 600 flying hours per year, per airframe. after 57 months (5 years 9 months) service, they have averaged 175 flying hours per year. again, one flight, of just over one hours duration, every three days for each airframe.

both these examples show that not only does the AC get about 30% out of the paid for potential of each of its aircraft, it shows that even if it got 100% of what it paid for it still buys about 200% more flying hours that it actually uses.

thanks to Tadpole on IMO - i blatently ripped off his hard work and made it look like mine!

gizmo555

From the Department of You Couldn't Make It Up, the answer to what the Air Corps is for:

Defence Forces aircraft have been deployed to spy on turf cutters illegally working on protected bogs . . .

Military fixed-wing aircraft have been carrying out reconnaissance on bogs, leading to alarm and anger among landowners.

Cessna FR172H aircraft, which boast excellent slow-flight characteristics, have been seen flying low over bogs -- an alteration of regular military operations, which involve aerial surveillance and monitoring of escorts carrying cash, prisoners or explosives.

The Air Corps squadron is also carrying rangers from the Parks and Wildlife Service, who are inspecting raised bogs and the activities of turf cutters.

Delancey

It just shows how desperate the Air Corps is to find a role for itself...... a total joke.

Maoltuile

Delancey wrote: »

It just shows how desperate the Air Corps is to find a role for itself...... a total joke.

The RAF has functioned on more than one occasion as a taxi service for the Windsors.

Delancey

Maoltuile wrote: »

The RAF has functioned on more than one occasion as a taxi service for the Windsors.

... and the Air Corps has functioned as a taxi service for politicians who need to attend the opening of an Off Licences .... your point is what exactly ?

cruasder777

Maoltuile wrote: »

The RAF has functioned on more than one occasion as a taxi service for the Windsors.

32 sqdn has that task, but its military role takes priority.

I think RAF planes being used for state visits and the Royal Flight is ok.

Same as the air corps with the president (as a presidental flight), the difference is politicans taking the p...

cranefly

the title of this thread is "should the air corps be scrapped", i would say the answer is no, the first time i saw the irish air corps in action i could not believe how good they were, and they were flying jets, it was the airshow in baldonnel in 1986 i think, it was a glorious day with the weather, the us air force had plenty of planes flying and on the ground, it was fantastic to see all this, you would think that the highlight of the event was the aer lingus 747 doing a fly by nearly landing and powering up again into flight, and then the magniificent red arrows from the RAF doing their routine the crowd were gobsmacked as was i, but then came a display team i never heard of before called " the silver swallows" from the irish air corps display team, they were every bit as good as the red arrows i thought they were better, the cheering from that crowd as they did their aerobatics was fantastic, you just felt so proud to be irish knowing they were part of our air force, they were comparable to the RAF and the us air force that day, i think they were flying fouga magister jets. the 80s in ireland was pretty bad for a lot of people, everyone at baldonnel that day were so proud, the skills of the irish pilots doing the stunts were second to none. to think some people question whether we need an air corps or can afford one beggars belief, if our pilots were crap i would consider doing away with the air corps, but if all we had were " the silver swallows" aerobatic team flying 7 or 8 decent jets in airshows around the world it would be worth the cost, personally i would like to see the air corps expanded for one simple reason, the calibre of the pilots we have is second to none. what do air forces around the world do anyway, should neutral countries give up on air defence just because they cant see a threat out there, right now we could just defend ourselves if the isle of man invaded in the morning. money cant buy the pride that large crowd felt that day, its as simple as that.

NewSigGuy

cranefly wrote: »

the title of this thread is "should the air corps be scrapped", i would say the answer is no, the first time i saw the irish air corps in action i could not believe how good they were, and they were flying jets, it was the airshow in baldonnel in 1986 i think, it was a glorious day with the weather, the us air force had plenty of planes flying and on the ground, it was fantastic to see all this, you would think that the highlight of the event was the aer lingus 747 doing a fly by nearly landing and powering up again into flight, and then the magniificent red arrows from the RAF doing their routine the crowd were gobsmacked as was i, but then came a display team i never heard of before called " the silver swallows" from the irish air corps display team, they were every bit as good as the red arrows i thought they were better, the cheering from that crowd as they did their aerobatics was fantastic, you just felt so proud to be irish knowing they were part of our air force, they were comparable to the RAF and the us air force that day, i think they were flying fouga magister jets. the 80s in ireland was pretty bad for a lot of people, everyone at baldonnel that day were so proud, the skills of the irish pilots doing the stunts were second to none. to think some people question whether we need an air corps or can afford one beggars belief, if our pilots were crap i would consider doing away with the air corps, but if all we had were " the silver swallows" aerobatic team flying 7 or 8 decent jets in airshows around the world it would be worth the cost, personally i would like to see the air corps expanded for one simple reason, the calibre of the pilots we have is second to none. what do air forces around the world do anyway, should neutral countries give up on air defence just because they cant see a threat out there, right now we could just defend ourselves if the isle of man invaded in the morning. money cant buy the pride that large crowd felt that day, its as simple as that.

1986 Says it all really..

bwatson

xflyer wrote: »

The RAF no longer provides top cover, the Nimrods are gone and controversially Air Corps top cover doesn't appear to be guaranteed. Neither Air Ambulance or road accidents are part of the CHC remit. Nor is it within the remit of the Air Corps. Both are specialist missions best left to specialists. It's important to note the Air Corps only provide patient transfer, not air ambulance as such.

But my biggest objection is that you are effectively arguing the Air Corps are best used in strictly civilian roles. If so why the need for a uniform at all? Why not civilianise it and let it compete for business?

The lack of Nimrod isn't actually that much of a vulnerability according to a lot of defence articles I've recently read. As a submarine hunter, it was largely ineffective. All aircraft tasked with hunting submarines are largely ineffective, so much so that those who operate submarines for the UK are not at all fussed at the removal of such a pointless aircraft.

According to a former member of the submarine service (writing in the telegraph I believe) the only way you will ever find a state of the art enemy submarine if with a state of the art submarine of your own. He was firmlu of the opinion that the task should always have been the responsibility of the Royal Navy and that the RAF was only ever trying to find itself another role and the funding it would bring.

gbee

gizmo555 wrote: »

From the Department of You Couldn't Make It Up, the answer to what the Air Corps is for:[/I]

It's quite serious by all accounts:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76812607

NewSigGuy

bwatson wrote: »

The lack of Nimrod isn't actually that much of a vulnerability according to a lot of defence articles I've recently read. As a submarine hunter, it was largely ineffective. All aircraft tasked with hunting submarines are largely ineffective, so much so that those who operate submarines for the UK are not at all fussed at the removal of such a pointless aircraft.

According to a former member of the submarine service (writing in the telegraph I believe) the only way you will ever find a state of the art enemy submarine if with a state of the art submarine of your own. He was firmlu of the opinion that the task should always have been the responsibility of the Royal Navy and that the RAF was only ever trying to find itself another role and the funding it would bring.

Of course a Submariner would make claims along those lines, I think that the P-3 and Nimrod guys will tell quite a different story with regards to Sub Hunting. The US is going ahead with the P-8 and it is attracting a lot of attention from prospective export customers.
From what I heard the loss of Nimrod is a real issue in the UK armed forces.

OS119

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Of course a Submariner would make claims along those lines, I think that the P-3 and Nimrod guys will tell quite a different story with regards to Sub Hunting. The US is going ahead with the P-8 and it is attracting a lot of attention from prospective export customers.
From what I heard the loss of Nimrod is a real issue in the UK armed forces.

they are both correct - hunting a nuclear powered sub in the middle of the ocean with just an ASW aircraft, is, err... somewhat challenging. however, driving off a sub in restricted waters, with other ASW assets about, with an ASW aircraft is, if not easy, then doable, and it got done on a very large number of occasions.

the ASW aircraft is, to some degree, the 'beater' - it forces the sub to move away. the recipient of the is service is the SSN, who just sits there making no noise, waits for the other sub to make noise while he's moving out of the way of the ASW aircraft, and then whacks him.

Nimrod is a big loss - without it clearing the way for the SSBN's to get to deep water takes more time and more resources, it was very useful as a flying relay/observation station, and as an ISTAR capability, even over land, it was a very useful tool to have. that said, the MRA4 was so over budget, so late, and had so many operatinf/airworthiness problems that cancelling it was probably the right decision.

i would lay reasonable money on a P-8 order at some stage, but if the USN's BAMS project using the RQ-4 begins to look like a runner, i would not be surprised to see that with roundels on instead. most informed people within MOD are suggesting that if the UK does get back into fixed wing ASW, it will almost certainly be with the RN operating it instead of the RAF.

Maoltuile

xflyer wrote: »

Something the Air Corps proved themselves incapable of providing.

Not true, the Air Corps are more expensive when you consider the overall cost. The easy answer is to remove any clause that forces you to pay for non use.

Not true. Flight Ireland(?) had a lengthy article on the true, hidden costs of the current private operator some years back.

bluecode

Maoltuile wrote: »

Not true. Flight Ireland(?) had a lengthy article on the true, hidden costs of the current private operator some years back.

The reality is that if the Air Corps provided the same standard of service as the 'current private operator' the costs would be the same if not more.

That's the hard fact of the situation. The Air Corps does not have the flexibility and the experience required to operate at 24/7 SAR service. In time that experience could be acquired but not with the Air Corps as it's currently established. The experience level of the ordinary Air Corp pilot is relatively low, unlike the 'current operator' who can pick and choose pilots and crew with massive experience from various militaries with combat experience and offshore flying.

If you really need evidence of that lack of experience, take a look at the recent 'heavy landing' not a crash landing of the ambulance chopper.

Cranefly, yeah sure back then in the eighties we all had illusions. The notion that the Air Corps pilots are second to none, yeah well you go for it. Not my experience, but I don't want to disillusion you. But they are no better or worse than any pilot out there.

Capt'n Midnight

Nimrods were expensive for what they were, if you include the AEW versions a bottomless money pit.

Maoltuile

bluecode wrote: »

If you really need evidence of that lack of experience, take a look at the recent 'heavy landing' not a crash landing of the ambulance chopper.

This is a fairly cryptic remark. Care to elaborate?