Originally posted by Spark23
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Near term overseas operation?
Collapse
X
-
There are still prisoner and explosives escorts (and a small number of cash). They also do a number of ATCA missions. A slightly larger better equipped aircraft to take on these and similar missions and carry them out more effectively. They could also support army conventional ops (at home and overseas) more effectively. A manned aircraft is more versatile than a UAV.
Leave a comment:
-
No point in wasting limited funds on replacing the cessnas just for the sake of it, their mission doesn't exist anymore no real requirement for their replacement or proposed replacement, time for the state and the air corps to move away from light aircraft and helicopters and move to larger more versatile airframes! A lot of the roles the Cessna's performed could probably be better served uav's thinking along the lines of a uav's battery with the artillery corps which operates the uav's for atcp type roles along with its military mission
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pure Hover View PostLots 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
Leave a comment:
-
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!
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
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.
- Likes 4
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostOf 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!
- Likes 5
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sluggie View PostI think the mission being examined is anti-piracy Maritime Patrols in the Indian Ocean.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Assisting the refugee patrols in the med would be a simpler work up to something like that.
Leave a comment:
-
I think the mission being examined is anti-piracy Maritime Patrols in the Indian Ocean.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ropebag View Postpolitical 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.
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
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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DeV View Post...why the EUBG? It unlikely to be deployed...
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ropebag View Postgetting 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...
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..
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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..
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: