Why do we need an Air Corps?

[fiannoglach]

Could someone clarify. According to the Defence Act, the Air Corps cannot deploy overseas with their aircraft. If this is so, Why do we need an Air Corps?

[thebig C]

Army helicopters

Could someone clarify. According to the Defence Act, the Air Corps cannot deploy overseas with their aircraft. If this is so, Why do we need an Air Corps?

If that is the case, then an amendment to the Defence Act is something that should be looked for in the new White paper. Air support, particularly helicopters, are an essential part of any serious military force these days, not a luxury or an optional extra. Now that we have them, why not put them to use? No point in being precious and afraid the paintwork might get scratched.

From an organisational point of view, there would be a greater hope of integrating aviation as just another combat support arm and increasing routine availability if the Army had its own aircraft, particularly helicopters, rather than having to deal with another organisation that has its own priorities (and doesn't even wear the same uniform anymore!).

So, let the Air Corps do training and transport, the Naval Service do maritime surveillance and shipborne aircraft (helicopters and/or UAVs), and the Army should have its own light and medium utility helicopters.

[DeV]

It is not in the DFA, it is Government policy as per the White Paper.

[hptmurphy]

Well given that it was origianally termed as the 'Irish Army Air Corps' I can only surmise that some one in the army thought it was a good idea.

Back in the days of its conception it was actually avery credible airwing for an army given that in the '20s there was little difference in the equipment operated and other european countries.

The Emergency was both benefical and detrimental to the corps as the realisation arose that we needed more modern aircraft but they were in short supply.Entry into the war would have vastly imoroved resources for all arms of the DF but in the event it wasn't to be the case.;
In the late '40s again we weren't too far behind the norm but a long period of stanation set in in the whole DF and attempts at modernisation were only piecemeal..technology wise the AC suffered right up until the late 70's with another blight through the 80's and '90s.
Todays AC is indicative of this and is but a mere token to Aero Ops as opposed to what could have been attained had the modernisation and replacement of the fleet continued after the war.

[ropebag]

perhaps you should re-phrase your question, i assume that its one of three options.

1. the AirPower Doctrine Question: why have a seperate Air Arm when 90% of what that Air Arm does is in direct - you could say slaved - support to either the Army or Naval Service and the remaining 10% could be done, probably just as effectively and more cheaply, by RyanAir?

2. the Financial Efficiency Question: why have a seperate Air Arm - with all the expence and duplication of having three arms of service instead of two - when many Armies and Navies around the world have vastly greater Helicopter/Fixed Wing assets within their own services without seeing the need to have all flying assets in a seperate 'Air Force'?

3 The 'Why Bother' Question: given that IAC assets will never(?) deploy overseas in a traditional military role, everything the IAC does is a 'civil' role - Fisheries Protection, Cash-in-Transit, Transport of Counter-Terrorism unit (MACP) - that happens to be done by the IAC because they've arranged a 'jobs for the boys' stitch-up regarding the operation of State Aircraft, why not just sub-contract the work out to private operators in the same way the ICG has done to CHC, the Scottish Government has done with Fisheries Protection Aircraft and the Scottish Ambulance Service, and allow the Garda to operate their own Helicopters/fixed wing assets in same way that every other western nation allows its Police forces to do?

Have i missed one?

[hptmurphy]

I suppose its the 'just in case we might ever need it option'

Its a bit like bitching about the Naval Service but the moment it was disbanded or contracted out some tragedy would take place and there would be the cry why haven't we got an Aer Corps...Army hedging their bets...but then again given the envisaged mission of the Army with in an EU battle group we would have to at least provide some training for troops and equipment being airportable.

hard to simulate something like that...wooden rifles might have been the training tool of the FCA many years ago but can't see wooden helicopters being of any use.

[thebig C]

more helicopters

"In the Vietnam War, troops were deployed in large part by helicopters. For this reason, US troops in Vietnam saw more than six times as much combat as in any preceding war, because so much less time was spent on logistic delays. The result was that the same size of infantry became at least four times as effective for its size, when supported with fuel, ammunition and helicopters." (Wikipedia)

More helicopters, properly used to support the Army, equals greater efficiency: either a more effective Army or an equally effective but smaller Army.

[fiannoglach]

perhaps you should re-phrase your question, i assume that its one of three options.

3 The 'Why Bother' Question: given that IAC assets will never(?) deploy overseas in a traditional military role, everything the IAC does is a 'civil' role - Fisheries Protection, Cash-in-Transit, Transport of Counter-Terrorism unit (MACP) - that happens to be done by the IAC because they've arranged a 'jobs for the boys' stitch-up regarding the operation of State Aircraft, why not just sub-contract the work out to private operators in the same way the ICG has done to CHC, the Scottish Government has done with Fisheries Protection Aircraft and the Scottish Ambulance Service, and allow the Garda to operate their own Helicopters/fixed wing assets in same way that every other western nation allows its Police forces to do?

Have i missed one?

I want option 3 please. Bang on.