Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Near term overseas operation?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Near term overseas operation?

    When the recent White Paper was released, Minister Coveney mentioned the possibility of a near-term overseas operation for the Air Corps. Any news on this, or has it made like a bird and flown the coup.... sorry, too late at night, had to be made...

  • #2
    Near-term?

    They have only just been given the role give them a chance

    Comment


    • #3
      See section on "Capability Development Plan" at

      * http://flyinginireland.com/2015/08/g...nce-published/

      "...However in relation to building the capacity of the Air Corps to serve overseas the Minister was more positive saying that Air Corps deployment was on the table with “a suitable mission being considered” in the near term."

      I understand that this type of thing is opsec, so any news mightn't be open for discussion at all. Totally understood, and no problem there. Was just interested to know if there was an update? And best of luck to them when they do get a shot at it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Near term in the WP I would say would be within 5+ years.

        There would need to be a bit of upskilling, deployable ground equipment, identification of (and request from) a suitable mission etc etc before anything will happen.

        Comment


        • #5
          getting a request is dead easy - you'll not find a commander of a UN/EU/NATO op anywhere in the world who'd turn down the offer of a couple of extra helicopters for a few months...

          personally i'd suggest that the easiest 'baby steps' way forward would be to use the hels to support an exercise - JW would be the easiest one, its an hours flying time from Baldonnell, and it offers several different levels of basing, from RAF Lossiemouth through Carlisle Airport to West Freugh to a makeshift FOB in a field near Ullapool - or an LPD... flying everything to Sweden or Germany for an EUBG ex might sound great, but there'd be lot of 'tail' involved, and getting that tail to where it needs to be in the more airlift constrained environment of an EUBG ex might be problematic..

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ropebag View Post
            getting a request is dead easy - you'll not find a commander of a UN/EU/NATO op anywhere in the world who'd turn down the offer of a couple of extra helicopters for a few months...
            Of course they won't but with a EU or NATO op, we have to pay the bill

            With the UN, it is a wet lease I think


            personally i'd suggest that the easiest 'baby steps' way forward would be to use the hels to support an exercise - JW would be the easiest one, its an hours flying time from Baldonnell, and it offers several different levels of basing, from RAF Lossiemouth through Carlisle Airport to West Freugh to a makeshift FOB in a field near Ullapool - or an LPD... flying everything to Sweden or Germany for an EUBG ex might sound great, but there'd be lot of 'tail' involved, and getting that tail to where it needs to be in the more airlift constrained environment of an EUBG ex might be problematic..
            Let's baby step:
            1. Forward deploy say 2 helos to Waterford or Knock as part of an army ex (eg Capstone that is normally a coy gp level ex as part of MOWAG Cmdr Cse), for a few days

            2. Forward deploy to a green field site (again 2 helos for a few days as part of an army ex) to the DFTC/Glen/Kilworth

            3. Then look at deploying on overseas ex (initial step probably as part of EUBG (and then a commitment to provide helos for an deployment)), why the EUBG? It unlikely to be deployed

            Then look at an actual ex

            When I say forward deployed by the way, I mean the helo deploys with techs, equipment, fuel, etc etc. The helo and personnel (including pilots) stay on the site with the helo (or don't return to the Don at 1600 hrs every night (or stay in a hotel).
            Last edited by DeV; 11 November 2015, 17:01.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DeV View Post
              ...why the EUBG? It unlikely to be deployed...
              political cover leaps to mind, and the desired effect here is to turn the AC from its current, 9-4, monday to friday lunchtime, Baldonnel or nothing organisation into a muddy field in the arse end of nowhere 9pm on a Friday night in March organisation - how it gets there, and what medium is used, is much less important than that it actually gets there. so, in the same way as deploying the AC to a NATO+ ex on the west coast of Scotland as part of its transformation would not mean that it could then only deploy to a NATO+ ex on the west coast of Scotland, deploying it to a EUBG ex in deepest Scandanavia would not preclude the AC from going anywhere other than an EUBG ex in deepest Scandanivia.

              the Irish contingent of an EUBG has never deployed to any op, but i doubt you'll find many who think that taking part in the EUBG programme hasn't done the DF the power of good through the nature of its exercises and the exposure to other military cultures which has been translated into greater capability in Chad, or Syria.

              the only issue with EUBG, rather than JW, is that you wouldn't have a vast fleet of airlift less than a hour away with lots of spare time on their hands.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                political cover leaps to mind, and the desired effect here is to turn the AC from its current, 9-4, monday to friday lunchtime, Baldonnel or nothing organisation into a muddy field in the arse end of nowhere 9pm on a Friday night in March organisation - how it gets there, and what medium is used, is much less important than that it actually gets there. so, in the same way as deploying the AC to a NATO+ ex on the west coast of Scotland as part of its transformation would not mean that it could then only deploy to a NATO+ ex on the west coast of Scotland, deploying it to a EUBG ex in deepest Scandanavia would not preclude the AC from going anywhere other than an EUBG ex in deepest Scandanivia.
                Politically more appealing perhaps.

                It would also mean the AC could genuinely say that they were ready at X NTM.

                Not doubting for a second that something like JW would be very good experience and training (but without a lot of build up at home it would be run before you can walk (which as the AC can say from experience is dangerous with aircraft)).

                JW could be used in addition and/or an build up for a EUBG contribution.

                the Irish contingent of an EUBG has never deployed to any op
                I'll fix that for you:
                No contingent of any EUBG has ever deployed to any op


                but i doubt you'll find many who think that taking part in the EUBG programme hasn't done the DF the power of good through the nature of its exercises and the exposure to other military cultures which has been translated into greater capability in Chad, or Syria.

                the only issue with EUBG, rather than JW, is that you wouldn't have a vast fleet of airlift less than a hour away with lots of spare time on their hands.
                Again no doubt

                The NBG had access to C17s, C130s and Russian built heavy airlifters which it could also test and get used to operating with (probably on a much smaller scale than JW.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think the mission being examined is anti-piracy Maritime Patrols in the Indian Ocean.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Assisting the refugee patrols in the med would be a simpler work up to something like that.
                    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                    German 2: Private? I am a general!
                    German 1: That is the bad news.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sluggie View Post
                      I think the mission being examined is anti-piracy Maritime Patrols in the Indian Ocean.
                      From recent comparisons it appears piracy in the Indian ocean is on the wane with the current hot spots being off SE Asia and West Africa.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        Of course they won't but with a EU or NATO op, we have to pay the bill

                        With the UN, it is a wet lease I think



                        Let's baby step:
                        1. Forward deploy say 2 helos to Waterford or Knock as part of an army ex (eg Capstone that is normally a coy gp level ex as part of MOWAG Cmdr Cse), for a few days

                        2. Forward deploy to a green field site (again 2 helos for a few days as part of an army ex) to the DFTC/Glen/Kilworth

                        3. Then look at deploying on overseas ex (initial step probably as part of EUBG (and then a commitment to provide helos for an deployment)), why the EUBG? It unlikely to be deployed

                        Then look at an actual ex

                        When I say forward deployed by the way, I mean the helo deploys with techs, equipment, fuel, etc etc. The helo and personnel (including pilots) stay on the site with the helo (or don't return to the Don at 1600 hrs every night (or stay in a hotel).

                        1. and 2. were completed many times each year. There was a plan to go to EX Hotblade in 2013 and then to Cold Response in 2014 with FW(CR14 only) and Heli, the DOD pulled the plug at the last min much to the embarrassment to all involved. Many heli pilots left Bal on the back of that decision and how it was handled by senior management. So again people here making suggestions but the problem aways returns to the idiots in the DOD. If you don't believe these fact put in a FOI!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The NS had similar issues in the past. Eithne was converted and kitted out to carry Containers and vehicles on its helideck to resupply an overseas trip.
                          As soon as the conversion was complete, the mission was scrubbed, to spend more patrol days at home.

                          However it seems leadership lately has managed to get past these hurdles. The People in the top jobs need to keep pushing the DoD.
                          German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                          German 2: Private? I am a general!
                          German 1: That is the bad news.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Lots of positive vibes from this Minister and no shortage of willingness or enthusiasm from AC personnel for this or any sort of overseas deployment. I have no doubt they could be equally as effective as Army or NS detachments currently are.

                            However as I've stated here before the major opposition to the AC deploying overseas is not the lack of funds but the trenchant opposition of the DoD to prevent the AC from deploying overseas. They're kinda similar with the NS but not to the same extent. Having said that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Med humanitarian operation. Don't see any huge change in the new WP only lots of rhetoric and obfuscation at which they're masters.

                            For starters Air Corps and DF cuts need to be reversed as part of any WP aspirational programme. Without this any talk of o/s deployments etc is pure fantasy. As for replacement aircraft which the WP was TYPICALLY vague - any momentum seems to have been lost. I cringe when I hear yet another commitment to replace nearly 40 year old Cessna aircraft - For Gods sake get on with it please!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Pure Hover View Post
                              Lots of positive vibes from this Minister and no shortage of willingness or enthusiasm from AC personnel for this or any sort of overseas deployment. I have no doubt they could be equally as effective as Army or NS detachments currently are.

                              However as I've stated here before the major opposition to the AC deploying overseas is not the lack of funds but the trenchant opposition of the DoD to prevent the AC from deploying overseas. They're kinda similar with the NS but not to the same extent. Having said that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Med humanitarian operation. Don't see any huge change in the new WP only lots of rhetoric and obfuscation at which they're masters.

                              For starters Air Corps and DF cuts need to be reversed as part of any WP aspirational programme. Without this any talk of o/s deployments etc is pure fantasy. As for replacement aircraft which the WP was TYPICALLY vague - any momentum seems to have been lost. I cringe when I hear yet another commitment to replace nearly 40 year old Cessna aircraft - For Gods sake get on with it please!

                              The AC couldn't be deployed overseas because the 1st WP said no therefore it was not Government policy so DoD could legitimately say no.

                              Again Cessna replacement is now Government policy, so it has to be become DOD (and AC) policy

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X