Air Corps to collect Irish citizens from Libya

RMD

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

Without proper logistical support in the correct ratio : signallers, artillery, transport, medics,air support, etc etc an army is simply a bunch of cold people in a field. (The ratio is around 6 to every infantryman).

Infantry obviously need at least a light ground attack aircraft (not a trainer) to support them.

Its seem the PDF have alot of infantry but are under resourced in the above.

Can you find me a situation where the PDF needed the help of a ground attack aircraft, regardless of it being light or heavy.

Utrinque Paratus

BrianD wrote: »

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

So the Maltese Government would be happy to allow their soil to be used as a base to attach another nation.

Plus even if the chaotic state that Libya is they would probably rapidly dispatch our three jets of death.

What exactly is the plan - just nip over drop a bomb or two and give them the bird? The world will marvel the three Irish lads holding Gadafy at bay.

The UN declared a no fly zone over Iraq and I didn't hear much clamour for us to fund a new air corp and pitch in. If the UN decide to Ireland can contribute through other means as we did in Chad or the Lebanon.

Incidentally, I'm somewhat mystified that the Air Corp giving those who arrived in Malta by sea a free left home to Baldonnel. Hope they gave them an invoice. These people should have made their own way home from Malta.

The SAS/SBS are launching their mission from Malta.


sky news, "British forces land in Libya to rescue oil workers ongoing operation".

Utrinque Paratus

RMD wrote: »

Can you find me a situation where the PDF needed the help of a ground attack aircraft, regardless of it being light or heavy.

In Chad, when the ARW went into a town and could have been potentially involved in a very difficult situation, outnumbered by many milita. As one example.

Relying on others to come to your aid overseas is a risky policy.

BrianD

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

BrianD wrote: »

The SAS/SBS are launching their mission from Malta.


sky news, "British forces land in Libya to rescue oil workers ongoing operation".

So is the Air Corp. Just like the British, they are not attacking Libya from Malta. While the British act might be without invitation,it is not an aggressive or hostile act. Big difference.

OS119

BrianD wrote: »

So is the Air Corp. Just like the British, they are not attacking Libya from Malta. While the British act might be without invitation,it is not an aggressive or hostile act. Big difference.

no, a fundamental difference is that the UK is prepared (and able) to use force - while the C-130's picked up the stranded oil workers yesterday they were not the only RAF aircraft in Libyan airspace.

the SF soldiers weren't just carrying their lunch boxes and a bottle of Sprite.

RMD

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

In Chad, when the ARW went into a town and could have been potentially involved in a very difficult situation, outnumbered by many milita. As one example.

Relying on others to come to your aid overseas is a risky policy.

Should have phrased my question better. What you provided me is a hypothetical situation, I'm asking is there any example where aircraft support was actually needed?

Utrinque Paratus

RMD wrote: »

Should have phrased my question better. What you provided me is a hypothetical situation, I'm asking is there any example where aircraft support was actually needed?

It was a real situation.

Air support is integral to all infantry.

Using your criteria they dont need artillery or air defence, an anti armour capibility etc, etc either.

Steyr

OS119 wrote: »

while the C-130's picked up the stranded oil workers yesterday they were not the only RAF aircraft in Libyan airspace.

From what I understand an RAF AWACS and VC-10 was there along with a USAF AC130.

Steyr

Irish251 in Malta:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59358228@N05/5478976751/#/


Charlie253:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59358228@N05/5478976143/in/photostream/

Avgas

Question: if the Germans have sent military Transalls and apparently picked up people, why was the Irish CASA not able to do the same?

If it is not intending to pick up any more people what is it in Malta for-is it part of a burden share with other EU states?

The story of why the CASA did not pick up people the first night remains still unclear?

BrianD

Avgas wrote: »

Question: if the Germans have sent military Transalls and apparently picked up people, why was the Irish CASA not able to do the same?

If it is not intending to pick up any more people what is it in Malta for-is it part of a burden share with other EU states?

The story of why the CASA did not pick up people the first night remains still unclear?

It's clear to me that it's irrelevant if the aircraft are military or civilian. The difference seems to be organisation on the ground. Other governments seem to have better representation on the ground to get the expats herded into the right place. To be fair, Ireland doesn't have an embassy in Libya which put them at an advantage.

Seems that the Irish are leaving in dribs and drabs everywhere - were there actually that many together in Tripoli Airport?

OS119 wrote:

no, a fundamental difference is that the UK is prepared (and able) to use force - while the C-130's picked up the stranded oil workers yesterday they were not the only RAF aircraft in Libyan airspace.

the SF soldiers weren't just carrying their lunch boxes and a bottle of Sprite.

Not entirely sure what your point is here. However, looking at the pictures on Sky News this morning the mission seemed to be somewhat less than "highly dangerous".

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

Question: if the Germans have sent military Transalls and apparently picked up people, why was the Irish CASA not able to do the same?

If it is not intending to pick up any more people what is it in Malta for-is it part of a burden share with other EU states?

The story of why the CASA did not pick up people the first night remains still unclear?

tbh, i think there is likely to be both a technical and a political answer to that question - it is quite likely, given the German involvement in Afghanistan and their general investment in military capability, that the Transalls have a DAS that would allow them to operate in a 'potentially non-permissive' environment, whereas the CASA's don't. the political bit is that the Germans - like the UK - are prepared to use force to enable their transports to get to their people.

the British C-130's and the German Transalls - and all the others - are the visible aspects of this operation, but they rely on both the 'enablers' - the RC-135 JOINT RIVETS, the E-3 AWACS, the Tankers and all the other assets with odd names and odder shapes, as well as the big sticks like the AC-130's and the fast, pointy things that ensure that any problem goes away in a puff of greasy black smoke.

the idea of 'burden share' would be a good one had the IG chartered large civil airliners to get EU nationals from Malta to Berlin/Paris/London/Dublin - but all thats happening is that the IAC is flying Irish nationals from Malta to Dublin (with the very honourable exeption of the use of the Lear(?) to MEDEVAC a British premature baby from Tripoli because the RAF C-130 didn't have the correct fit to take the incubator - so the C-130 took the Irish citizens while the Learjet took the baby, which actually is burden sharing), while everyone else gets to send their expensive assets into Libya to pick up EU and friendly nationals.

Burden sharing is HMS Cumberland picking up 200 EU citizens from Benghazi - of whom only 60 were British, and 2 C-130's flying into desert airstrips to pick up 150 friendly citizens - of whom only 50 were British, and then another 3 aircraft mission the next day that saw a C-130 get back to Malta with bullet holes in the aircraft, with the USAF providing signals intelligence, tanking and Close Air Support to those missions even though there are relatively few Americans in Libya. Burden sharing isn't waiting in Malta for everyone else to get your citizens out of Libya and then flying them home to Dublin in a blaize of self-congratulation.

OS119

BrianD wrote: »

Not entirely sure what your point is here. However, looking at the pictures on Sky News this morning the mission seemed to be somewhat less than "highly dangerous".

a) anyone who watches Sky news and believes what they say (their 'security correspondent' is in some hellhole on the Tunisian border yet claims to understand what is happening in Malta, Southern Italy and at 90ft over the Libyan desert 1000 miles away) needs to look for better sources, and b) bullet holes in an RAF C-130 indicate that it may not be such a clever idea to send civilian airliners.

you must have an amazing social life if you don't consider being shot at while flying an aluminum tube full of aviation fuel 'highly dangerous'. my hat off to you...

focus_mad

In the middle of these difference of opinions I would just like to thank the lads for going to Malta and bringing my cousins back!!:D

Avgas

Agree with your sentiments viz Air Corps...even bringing back a few people, even if it is from Malta, is to be seriously respected and praised....I don't blame the Air Corps for our seeming lack of capacity (versus willingness on part of IAC to be involved).....BUT the story is murky... is there some kind of DFA culpability here rather than IAC? That is what I'm trying to find out.........OS119 is right that Brits do come out of this very well...always good in a crisis.......and how nice to see the RN winning brownie points in the inter-service rivalry/spin wars;).......but then UK is a major regional power and has spent over the year to have assets that can do this stuff.......we're little league...but even by those standards...we seem very weak...I remember a few years ago Austria decided to buy Hercs (second hand) because of the volume of their overseas PK work.....okay they don't have the cost of a naval service....but that sort of longish term strategic procurement seems sensible.....or at least more sensible than PC-9M and AW109s......which seem very poor buys.....

Buy why was the original CASA mission so FUBAR? I read in one newspaper account that the Irish passengers were actually in a group and told the Irish plane had landed......and hours later that it had left without them? Is that right?

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

Buy why was the original CASA mission so FUBAR? I read in one newspaper account that the Irish passengers were actually in a group and told the Irish plane had landed......and hours later that it had left without them? Is that right?

i'm given to understand that at some point UK FCO people got the Irish citizens in the terminal onto a bus and went driving around Tripoli airport looking for the IAC but either couldn't find them or couldn't get to them. whether they were then returned to the terminal or just lobbed on another EU flight i don't know...

obviously my natural reaction would be to stick it to the AC between the shoulder-blades, but on this occasion i think the raw confusion/disinformation/obviscation in Tripoli Airport made the situation almost impossible. that said, the real problem for the Irish state here is that it is entirely reliant on local permission/assistance in order get its people out - and relying on that in the midst of a failing state is a fundamental contradiction.

BrianD

OS119 wrote: »

a) anyone who watches Sky news and believes what they say (their 'security correspondent' is in some hellhole on the Tunisian border yet claims to understand what is happening in Malta, Southern Italy and at 90ft over the Libyan desert 1000 miles away) needs to look for better sources, and b) bullet holes in an RAF C-130 indicate that it may not be such a clever idea to send civilian airliners.

you must have an amazing social life if you don't consider being shot at while flying an aluminum tube full of aviation fuel 'highly dangerous'. my hat off to you...

Certainly there perception of events seems to be grounded in reality than what you have being posting so far.

It's those civilian airliners that are moving the people out of Libya. Military aircraft are more suited to the inland operations because of the conditions and the possibility that they may become involved in a hostile action.

Neither the MoD or the media can verify if the alleged pot shots at the British aircraft were either hostile or in error by anti-government forces.

All in all the media reports and footage would indicate that outcome wasn't particularly dangerous.

I would, however, agree with you that even if we had a fleet of C-130s or C-5s then this operation would be a failure as we don't have the people on the ground to co-ordinate it. This is a vital component.

OS119

BrianD wrote: »

...Neither the MoD or the media can verify if the alleged pot shots at the British aircraft were either hostile or in error by anti-government forces.

All in all the media reports and footage would indicate that outcome wasn't particularly dangerous....

i don't know if you know this, but live ammunition does bad things to aircraft (and people) regardless of the political views of the 'giver' and 'reciever'. i also don't know if you understand that landing at an airfield that doesn't have any firefighting facilities, or, indeed, any other facilities, is dangerous - but i can assure you that it is.

Fratton Fred

For some reason OS, your post conjured up an image of 150 oil workers leggings it onto a plane and being stopped by some ass telling them to remove their belts and place all liquids in a small see through plastic bag.

OS119

Fratton Fred wrote: »

For some reason OS, your post conjured up an image of 150 oil workers leggings it onto a plane and being stopped by some ass telling them to remove their belts and place all liquids in a small see through plastic bag.

nah, i doubt they took any Snowdrops or movers with them.

there's a nice picture floating about of the C-130's getting ready to go - there must of been 20,000 rounds of 5.56 ball sat on the ramp being loaded into the aircraft. i think that would of been a better 'screening process' than some minimum wage pervert feeling people up and knicking their iPods!

hk

OS119 wrote: »

Burden sharing isn't waiting in Malta for everyone else to get your citizens out of Libya and then flying them home to Dublin in a blaize of self-congratulation.

Seems aside from the medivac they are taking part in the burden share, fifteen evacuated on the casa last night, only 5 of which were Irish.

Steyr

We should have C-130's or at least C295's.

Donny5

Steyr wrote: »

We should have C-130's or at least C295's.

What we should have never seems to be what we do have, but it seems like the flight suit fillers are doing a good job with what's on hand.