IAC Ltd?

[ForkTailedDevil]

I don't think was covered elsewhere, at least not in detail. I was just looking at the orbat and missions that the IAC currently carries out and I was just thinking that it might be possible to farm out nearly all current IAC operations to other branches of the government or to civilian contractors.I'll just list the reasons for you as I can see them. I just think this could be a fairly interesting discussion so don't rip my head of for suggesting it.Here are the ideas that I hope to support this line of thought with.

1. The various missions of the CASA's are ones that are mostly carried out in other nations by Coast Guards.Transferring them to either the suitable government agency or to be ran by a civilian contractor in a similar fashion to CHC running the coasties SAR ops.

2.The GASU is a mission that can, and should, be supported and carried out by the Garda themselves rather than with IAC personnel at the controls(it is a law enforcement mission after all)

3.Pilot training. The multi national training schools such as the NATO ranges in Canada or the Tiger helicopter training school in France, are potentally more cost effective.Why swould the IAC train their own pilots for a fairly limited range of arcraft when they can learn in a military flight school that offers some of the worlds finest instructors and facilities? The money used to buy the PC9s could have been spent in a more useful fashion such as helicopters, ships, or schools, healthcare etc.

4.Government official transport.Nuff said.If Tony Blair and his ego is able to be carried by British Airways fairly frequently, why does the IAC have to run transport services with a nice shiny and expensive private jet.

The only aircraft that would currently be better in IAC hands are the Alouttes, for co-op missions with the army, some SAR etc.Potential future purchases of helicopters, transports that are meant to go in harms way are the only aircraft that really need to be run by the IAC.
Anyone agree, or should the IAC run the aerial assests rather than transfer some of its current missions into the hands of other government departments or for the government hand it over to the lowest private bidder? I am only considering the IAC in this thread, so no army or navy privatisation please. Don't take this lot to heart though, I was just wondering what you think.I could be a decent cost cutting exercise to free up some military funding though much would be redirected to the right people

[suggs]

1. The various missions of the CASA's are ones that are mostly carried out in other nations by Coast Guards.Transferring them to either the suitable government agency or to be ran by a civilian contractor in a similar fashion to CHC running the coasties SAR ops.

... The RAF do the Uk's MPA. Applying that logic the the UK Coast gaurd would be operating Nimrod! OK its a little different here as were talking about non combatant A/C but like the RAF this task provides justification to the existence of the IAC as an independent force.

2.The GASU is a mission that can, and should, be supported and carried out by the Garda themselves rather than with IAC personnel at the controls(it is a law enforcement mission after all)

Agreed - but again its all about existence

3.Pilot training. The multi national training schools such as the NATO ranges in Canada or the Tiger helicopter training school in France, are potentally more cost effective.Why swould the IAC train their own pilots for a fairly limited range of arcraft when they can learn in a military flight school that offers some of the worlds finest instructors and facilities? The money used to buy the PC9s could have been spent in a more useful fashion such as helicopters, ships, or schools, healthcare etc.

Canada's out as Ireland isn't a member of NATO and anyway I suspect either option mentioned would be more expensive than the status quo.

4.Government official transport.Nuff said.If Tony Blair and his ego is able to be carried by British Airways fairly frequently, why does the IAC have to run transport services with a nice shiny and expensive private jet.

Agreed - and applying that logic to the UK lets get rid of the queens flight!

A good post. If one was to apply these changes then the logical way forward would be to creat an air regiment within the Irish Army with a Naval wing ala the UK circa 1913. But unlikely as it would absoloutely destroy Morale not just in the IAC, but the other 2 services would start getting tetchy eg fishery patrol take that away from the NS and what have you got left???

[ForkTailedDevil]

Canada's out as Ireland isn't a member of NATO

Granted it may be more expensive but the school is open to non-NATO nations.

[Rooster]

... The RAF do the Uk's MPA. Applying that logic the the UK Coast gaurd would be operating Nimrod!

No, applying that logic, Nimrod would be operated by the RN.

[Aidan]

Government official transport.Nuff said.If Tony Blair and his ego is able to be carried by British Airways fairly frequently, why does the IAC have to run transport services with a nice shiny and expensive private jet.

The vast majority of Ministerial travel is done by commercial flight; even then the Gulfstream is about the average for EU MS our size. Its worth taking a trip out to the VIP area in Zaventem (Brussels) during a European council, the GIV is very much the poor relation when you compare it to the Airbuses and Boeings of other Govts parked out there.