Thanks Thanks:  281
Likes Likes:  659
Dislikes Dislikes:  29
Page 56 of 56 FirstFirst ... 646545556
Results 1,376 to 1,398 of 1398
  1. #1376
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,883
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apod, I'm not quite sure where you feel like I inferred that you were stupid because that word was not used nor inferred toward you in my post. There is a defined difference between having an opinion based on stupidity and one based on a lack of overall understanding of the topic at hand. Your posts on this matter still fall firmly into the latter for me.
    Ah.Let me see. " Apod, you have a superior understanding of Army operations than I but you're understanding of the AC and more importantly the political strings that are being pulled behind the scenes are severely lacking."

    Seems pretty cut and dried condescension to me and I am long enough in the DF to recognise it when I hear it or read it. Your advice to read certain documents also implies a perception that I have not.In fact I have.Probably before you did in some cases. Now.I said I was a straight shooter so here it is.

    You are using Policy documents to mask and excuse the non-military mindset that exists in certain quarters within the AC. An attitude that anybody who has been in the DF for any long period of time KNOWS exists. (Cue jokes about AC and Military discounts etc etc).

    My point has been eloquently made also above in some of the other posters. The AC is part of the MILITARY. The equipment is being used for non military roles which reduces their availability for use by what should be their primary customer. That's cut and dried.No ambiguity. By you own admission you have proved my point.

    "
    As it currently stands, given the public perception of the DF in general, I would much rather explain to someone that given the tiny amount that is invested in the defence budget every year, that some of it is going to provide a service that can and does make tangible and at times life saving difference to ordinary peoples daily lives rather than trying to justify why aircraft are burning holes in the sky carrying around 105 guns that have never been deployed in anger at home or overseas or doing troops drills for troops that currently have mostly zero requirement to interact routinely with aircraft both at home and overseas".

    You are somehow embarrassed to admit to civvy's that the Military Air wing on the state engages in Military training??? Training which increases skillsets and experience so that god forbid we ever have to use the assets in a live situation we can do so competently and safely. Yup. Spoken like a true 9-5 Donner.

    As for P1 requests.I was making them out when you were doing your junior cert. The AC won't even send down a Troop drill briefer any more to units."Get you own LPC's to do it" is the mantra. LPC's who can't remain current due to lack of courses and course places.
    Of course all of which is a moot point as every time you look for a Heli you get rebuffed at the last minute." Weather/Busy with another task/Maintenance" being the usual fob offs.

    Anyway I have neither the time or the inclination to spend hours debating this and typing long winded posts. I have made my point.
    You disagree.That's your perogative. No worries. But please don't proceed from a false assumption that others can't see through weak excuses and hiding behind flawed decisions and policy based on penny pinching.The DoD may pull the strings but anybody that I know who was kicking against those decisions has left the AC for greener pastures mainly down to total frustration.

    Anyway.That's my tuppence worth.

    I'll get my coat.
    Last edited by apod; 14th June 2018 at 17:53.
    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  2. Likes CTU, DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
    Dislikes na grohmití disliked this post
  3. #1377
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    822
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Again Dev, you have absolutely no concept of how things work in reality. Firstly, tell me what missions that currently exist that are actively looking for air assets. The AC can't just decide to pack up two helis and everything that goes along with it and trek off into the sunset. You understand that a state aircraft cannot exit irish airspace without the express permission of the DoD?


    It was mentioned previously that the DoD shot down the AC participation in ex hot blade a number of years ago at the eleventh hour. If they cannot even participate in a foreign ex how can you possibly think they can up sticks and deploy abroad as part of an EU/UN mission as a "standalone deployment".
    Last time I checked the overseas missions were multinational, so while Ireland might not deploy helicopters overseas I would say some of the other nations might. So It might be a good idea to train the troops how to work with helicopters and maybe just maybe one day we might have a Chad type mission again where we deploy with our own resources instead of renting equipment which can't be used because of some bureaucratic cock up.


    The AC have routinely had to turn down invitations to airshows etc in the UK and beyond because the Dept said no. Having an aircraft and crew at an airshow for a weekend would leave someone open to an FOI and no civil servant wants to be the one responsible for a few column inches. So there you go, not even the GOCAC can decide to send one of "his" aircraft and crew off to the UK to attend an air show or train.
    I remember when the 139s were newish and they were sent to the then Augusta Westland stand at Farnborough, I was talking to the crew who said there were rumours of overseas deployment back then, but it was more likely to be Kosovo then Africa and they were looking forward to do more army support work. I also remember them telling me about how they went to the stand of the manufacturer of their helmets to ask for some advice on them only to be told that they stopped making them ten years ago!
    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed! I mean, annihilation’s bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  4. Thanks DeV, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  5. #1378
    Colonel
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,496
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Again your missing the point. the aircraft are being used because they are there...if they become the sole supplier of the service, when the aircraft are no longer available they will have to be replaced at the state expense.

    Any contracted service provider cannot include the cost of aircraft purchase in the tender ( mots will probably just lease them anyway)

    The aircraft in use were not intended for what they are used for and a such their life time and availability is been eaten into to provide a service to meet a political agenda. Going back to when the Allouettes were purchased it has been the same.....

    We buy them under the guise of advancing our military wing and they spend 90% of their working lives doing civilian roles..their purchase and replacement is from a defence capital budget but the DF get relatively little practical use because of their management.
    You are engaging in fallacies. There is no additional funding needed to operate the existing aircraft for transfers.

  6. Likes DeV liked this post
  7. #1379
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like
    @apod, it seems that you cannot decide what you actually read and what you think you read 'between the lines'.

    At first you said EAS was created purely to provide hours for pilots. I clearly explained to you that this was not the case - twice. My advice to read the ARM would have answered this question for you. You made a statement which you considered to be a fact. Which in reality it was completely untrue.

    You then continued to accuse me of calling you stupid, which I did not. You then changed your tune and it was now condescension. For someone who doesn't like the goalposts moving, you are quite fond of doing it to suit yourself. Ironically you then went on to be quite condescending yourself.

    I didn't use the word embarrassed, this is yet another word/concept that you have dreamt up out of thin air. Read my post again. And if you are so inclined please point out where I said or inferred I was embarassed about anything. For someone that talks a lot about facts, you are fond of reading between the lines and coming up with something completely different. Since you clearly didn't understand what I was trying to say, I will try and explain it better.

    The public perception of the DF is very important in my opinion. I would go as far to say that it is now, and historically has been, quite negative in so far as people dont appreciate it until they are called upon for flood relief etc.

    If I was speaking to someone who had no preconceived ideas about the DF I think most of these type of people would perceive a greater benefit from the EAS service than slinging around big artillery pieces that serve no purpose either at home or overseas. It is not a complex or difficult opinion to grasp surely? And just to clarify - the word embarassed was not used - again.

    The more people who have an active and positive interest in the DF, the more politicians might begin to take it seriously, because it may well be worth votes. EAS, whether you like it or not, is an easy win to get people backing the DF.

    I have made my point also and while it has taken much longer than I would have liked to move from "NOT THEIR JOB" and "sure EAS was set up to give pilots hours" type posts to at least some semblance of an acknowledgement that it actually is according to government policy, at least some progress has been made.
    Last edited by Chuck; 14th June 2018 at 19:56.

  8. #1380
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    Last time I checked the overseas missions were multinational, so while Ireland might not deploy helicopters overseas I would say some of the other nations might. So It might be a good idea to train the troops how to work with helicopters and maybe just maybe one day we might have a Chad type mission again where we deploy with our own resources instead of renting equipment which can't be used because of some bureaucratic cock up.




    I remember when the 139s were newish and they were sent to the then Augusta Westland stand at Farnborough, I was talking to the crew who said there were rumours of overseas deployment back then, but it was more likely to be Kosovo then Africa and they were looking forward to do more army support work. I also remember them telling me about how they went to the stand of the manufacturer of their helmets to ask for some advice on them only to be told that they stopped making them ten years ago!
    I agree with you and I have no doubt that if such a mission arose whereby the use of helicopters was to be a routine occurance there would be a significant emphasis on it prior to deployment and again constant training in the AO.

    The rhetoric you heard from the horses mouth hasnt changed. I would wager that the vast majority of air crew would rather be deployed to and overseas mission either supporting our own troops or someone else's than providing EAS for a multitude of different reasons.

    Doing such a mission for even 3 months rotations would probably have a very positive effect on rentention but would require a significant rollback of what is currently done on island including EAS and GASU.
    Last edited by Chuck; 14th June 2018 at 20:12.

  9. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  10. #1381
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    The EAS hours being funded by HSE
    Myth.......

    Regardless of what they do, because we have them they are being funded anyway!!!!!. Its just an excuse to attempt to justify why they have bee removed from the role that they were purchased to provide!
    Time for another break I think......

  11. #1382
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    You are engaging in fallacies. There is no additional funding needed to operate the existing aircraft for transfers.
    I'm not saying there is a requirement for additional funding... there is a hidden cost that the policy makers are not highlighting

    The state has to buy the aircraft and the state has to replace them!...and then they are not available for their original taskings.... if we went down the road of outsourcing we have no liabilty in funding the purchase or replacement of aircraft, if we continue to service it with the Air Corps shared assets , we lose the availabilty for military purposes and we accelerate the requirement to replace the machines.
    Time for another break I think......

  12. #1383
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is there something I am missing here, are they really going to spend 7 Million for Two years of service.. This seams outrageous. Lear 31A's are available too buy for significantly less then 1 Million..

    How about the AC buys a nice used Lear 45(about 3Million) and if they are stuck for pilots hire some contractors to get the operation up and running and give them time to train their own pilots.

  13. Likes Orion, Rhodes liked this post
  14. #1384
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,615
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Myth.......

    Regardless of what they do, because we have them they are being funded anyway!!!!!. Its just an excuse to attempt to justify why they have bee removed from the role that they were purchased to provide!
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    I'm not saying there is a requirement for additional funding... there is a hidden cost that the policy makers are not highlighting

    The state has to buy the aircraft and the state has to replace them!...and then they are not available for their original taskings.... if we went down the road of outsourcing we have no liabilty in funding the purchase or replacement of aircraft, if we continue to service it with the Air Corps shared assets , we lose the availabilty for military purposes and we accelerate the requirement to replace the machines.
    We are talking about 1 aircraft here which is on standby in daylight only, doing <900 flying hours annually. The HSE pay for those hours. Those hours are spread across the 139 fleet.

    I guarantee you nothing like 900 hours was going to Army Support pre-EAS. The point is the aircraft weren’t and aren’t being used to their full potential. They will need to be replaced anyway (and EAS will not cause them to be replaced any quicker)

    I agree we do lose the availability of 1 a/c, 2 pilots, 1 crewman and a few techs that could be otherwise employed on more military missions but it only 1 ! And the issue is that it wouldn’t be employed on them anyway even if available



    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Is there something I am missing here, are they really going to spend 7 Million for Two years of service.. This seams outrageous. Lear 31A's are available too buy for significantly less then 1 Million..

    How about the AC buys a nice used Lear 45(about 3Million) and if they are stuck for pilots hire some contractors to get the operation up and running and give them time to train their own pilots.
    Worse..... that’s for a night service only for 2 years!
    Last edited by DeV; 15th June 2018 at 07:56.

  15. #1385
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    When you say "The HSE pay for those hours" what you mean is those hours come from the HSE budget instead of the Defence Budget.
    So, either way the taxpayer is still footing the bill. The Taxpayer who paid for the aircraft.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  16. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  17. #1386
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,825
    Post Thanks / Like
    sorry, there does seem to be some confusion on this thread - some people are talking about what work a two-bit civilian aviation outfit with bills to pay should be hawking around for, and others are talking about the military air arm of a first world, European state that is an engaged member of the EU's foreign policy and defence and security structures, as well as being a participating member of the EU's and UN peacekeeping and peace enforcing operations.

    perhaps it would be better if the thread was split along those lines... HTH.

  18. Likes apod, Shaqra, hptmurphy, sofa liked this post
  19. #1387
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,615
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    When you say "The HSE pay for those hours" what you mean is those hours come from the HSE budget instead of the Defence Budget.
    So, either way the taxpayer is still footing the bill. The Taxpayer who paid for the aircraft.
    Well unless you are asking VHI to fly people to the UK for transplants.... it’s always the taxpayer

    Defence shouldn’t be paying the cost of non-Defence tasks otherwise other Departments will be taking Defence resources while Defence cannot deliver its Defence outputs.

    If EAS conducts 900 flying hours (tasked by HSE), then the HSE is currently paying DoD for those hours. Afaik this wasn’t the case at the start of EAS.

  20. Dislikes Orion disliked this post
  21. #1388
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Is there something I am missing here, are they really going to spend 7 Million for Two years of service.. This seams outrageous. Lear 31A's are available too buy for significantly less then 1 Million..

    How about the AC buys a nice used Lear 45(about 3Million) and if they are stuck for pilots hire some contractors to get the operation up and running and give them time to train their own pilots.
    Connie pilots in the Air Corps!!?? wash yer mouth out with soap at once! It's to hell or to Gormo for you...........might as well buy a Netjets card.

  22. #1389
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Connie pilots in the Air Corps!!?? wash yer mouth out with soap at once! It's to hell or to Gormo for you...........might as well buy a Netjets card.
    It was done in the past.

  23. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  24. #1390
    Colonel
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,496
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    I'm not saying there is a requirement for additional funding... there is a hidden cost that the policy makers are not highlighting

    The state has to buy the aircraft and the state has to replace them!...and then they are not available for their original taskings.... if we went down the road of outsourcing we have no liabilty in funding the purchase or replacement of aircraft, if we continue to service it with the Air Corps shared assets , we lose the availabilty for military purposes and we accelerate the requirement to replace the machines.
    But you are funding the private company's aircraft, multiple times over.
    The Air Corps requires no additional funding to operate the existing aircraft for transfers, which has been done so for decades and continues to be done regardless of this contract.
    A fraction of that €7 million as a retention package would have solved the transfer's problem and all the other problems the Air Corps is surfing as a result of the DF wide retention crisis.

  25. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  26. #1391
    Colonel
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,496
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Is there something I am missing here, are they really going to spend 7 Million for Two years of service.. This seams outrageous. Lear 31A's are available too buy for significantly less then 1 Million..

    How about the AC buys a nice used Lear 45(about 3Million) and if they are stuck for pilots hire some contractors to get the operation up and running and give them time to train their own pilots.
    There is no need for an additional aircraft, the aircraft are there, it's the pilots, ATC'ers and tech's that need to be retained to solve the problem. A financial retention package is the only way.

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  28. #1392
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,827
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Well unless you are asking VHI to fly people to the UK for transplants.... it’s always the taxpayer

    Defence shouldn’t be paying the cost of non-Defence tasks otherwise other Departments will be taking Defence resources while Defence cannot deliver its Defence outputs.

    If EAS conducts 900 flying hours (tasked by HSE), then the HSE is currently paying DoD for those hours. Afaik this wasn’t the case at the start of EAS.
    Are you forgetting that Atcp, once the bread and butter of the DF is a non military task? Have you also forgotten that fishery protection which makes up the majority of casa flights is also a non military task? That's before I even mention the Naval service.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  29. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  30. #1393
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,615
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Are you forgetting that Atcp, once the bread and butter of the DF is a non military task? Have you also forgotten that fishery protection which makes up the majority of casa flights is also a non military task? That's before I even mention the Naval service.
    and being multi-role agency is still much cheaper and more effective

  31. #1394
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,615
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    But you are funding the private company's aircraft, multiple times over.
    The Air Corps requires no additional funding to operate the existing aircraft for transfers, which has been done so for decades and continues to be done regardless of this contract.
    A fraction of that €7 million as a retention package would have solved the transfer's problem and all the other problems the Air Corps is surfing as a result of the DF wide retention crisis.
    Sure practically the only allowance DoD got rid of completely during the bust was the Pilot Retention Scheme saving €700k

  32. #1395
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    because it was a much-derided scam, that's why....the DoD's version of retention these days is punishment; before you go on a course, you have to sign the kind of bond that would be laughed out of a court. Six weeks in Pilatus or at the Agusta plant will get you a four year bond, where it used to be a year. A friend of mine had planned to leave and went and checked what he thought he owed them, with a 139 tech course on his sheet. EU 16 K. So what guys are doing now is sitting tight, waiting for eventual departure date, volunteer for nothing, sign nothing. Consequence: morale shot to shit, no prospect of promotion.

  33. Likes hptmurphy, TangoSierra liked this post
  34. #1396
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,424
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    But you are funding the private company's aircraft, multiple times over.
    The Air Corps requires no additional funding to operate the existing aircraft for transfers, which has been done so for decades and continues to be done regardless of this contract.
    A fraction of that €7 million as a retention package would have solved the transfer's problem and all the other problems the Air Corps is surfing as a result of the DF wide retention crisis.
    Budgets within departments tend to be ring fenced. So money saved or gained from one section wouldn't reallocated to some thing pay. Mental Health services returned millions to central funding last year because they couldn't spend it where they were supposed to.

    The NAS outsources to private ambulances fleets the whole time for ambulances for transfers, not because it hasn't its own ambulances, but because it is cheaper to have contractors in place as opposed to have to use their own fleet for certain tasks. Unless of course you want to make the AC part of the HSE and remove its military capability, which is supposed to be its primary tasking!!!
    Time for another break I think......

  35. #1397
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Unless of course you want to make the AC part of the HSE and remove its military capability, which is supposed to be its primary tasking!!!
    Isn't that the problem? The Air Corps roles are now largely civilian in nature. Maybe it should be civilianised or become para military. That would solve the retention issue too particularly if you can hire pilots directly.

  36. #1398
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,615
    Post Thanks / Like
    The AC (and the rest of the DF) primary role is “to provide for the military defence of the State against armed aggression”.

    However, the threat is assessed as low, which therefor means that there is a low of spare capacity to undertake the other (more civilian nature) roles. If the threat was high, Government, DoD and the DF would be able to justify why the resources that were being put to use in these roles are needed to put a Bde on the ground in defensive positions.

    Of course, if DoD was pro-DF (they have improved massively), they would say the DF needs even more resources so it can do more (both military and civilian tasks).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •