Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why would the IAC need fighters?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    The Sultan
    Man, I'm pretty!

  • The Sultan
    replied
    you would never see any major power completely relying on civil contractors for all their airlift capabilities. we should be no different. at least with the CN 235's and the various craft used for ministerial transport, with some modifications, they have an airlift capability.

    the other thing with air forces using civil contractors is that these flights are usually scheduled and pre-planned in advance. a perfect example of these is irish troops going overseas every 6 months. at least military aircraft can be used for roles at short notice and generally are available at short notice.
    transport has always been a "military" role for air forces all over the world. some military roles aren't as glamorous as fighters, battlefield helis, etc. but nevertheless are still military roles.
    XRAYONE: Your spouting shite left right and centre.

    Many 'powers' use civil aircraft to carry troops. Why? Because they dont have enough planes to do it themselves and its cheaper that way. Read devs post (Under the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, during a major conflict, 28 percent of the cargo and 95 percent of the passengers airlifted would be flown on commercial aircraft. )

    As for the Irish troops thing... Go do some reading on the tenders website: they send out tenders for that transport...They dont wait until some company plans a flight (dont believe me? http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/se...x?ID=DEC050596) And civilian airlines rent out planes on short notice ALL THE TIME. Its a regular thing.

    We dont need a big bleedin airline. The USAF even relies on civilian airliners.....Jesus man.

    Leave a comment:

  • Goldie fish
    Tim Horgan

  • Goldie fish
    replied
    um...not technically true any more Laoch.
    Not since they got a Brig Gen in charge. Same goes for the Naval service.

    Change was made sometime in the early 80s. Whenever they got rid of the assistant chief of staff.
    A corps is commanded by a Colonel. Air Corps and Naval service is commanded by a Brig Gen or equivalent(Commodore).

    Leave a comment:

  • Laoch
    $unit =~ s/11cis/62cis/gi

  • Laoch
    replied
    You Aint Reading Responses From Everybody Else

    THE AIR CORPS IS NOT SEPERATE FROM THE ARMY, IT IS A CORPS OF THE ARMY SAME AS THE CIS CORPS or MEDICAL CORPS etc...

    Leave a comment:

  • X-RayOne
    Lieutenant

  • X-RayOne
    replied
    you're right these countries do use some civil contracts for transport, however they also maintain viable military transport capabilities, e.g. military airlift command in the US.

    you would never see any major power completely relying on civil contractors for all their airlift capabilities. we should be no different. at least with the CN 235's and the various craft used for ministerial transport, with some modifications, they have an airlift capability.

    the other thing with air forces using civil contractors is that these flights are usually scheduled and pre-planned in advance. a perfect example of these is irish troops going overseas every 6 months. at least military aircraft can be used for roles at short notice and generally are available at short notice.
    transport has always been a "military" role for air forces all over the world. some military roles aren't as glamorous as fighters, battlefield helis, etc. but nevertheless are still military roles.

    the air corps were also providing both inland and sea area SAR long before the coastguard was even set up in Ireland. indeed while the air corps still has some inland SAR responsibility, the reality is that the coastguard has mostly taken over this area of operations.
    The USAF provide SAR for civilian missions also, not only downed pilots.

    anyway, the point of all this is that the air corps should be being given more ability to conduct the missions assigned to it instead of farming out its responsibilities to private or civilian groups, ultimately weakening it.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by X-RayOne
    Also what other air force, air corps, etc. rents out their transport roles, etc. you don't see the RAF USAF using private companies to transport personnel or equipment. they have their own dedicated transport sections.
    Actually the US does uses privates companies to transport its personnel. Or be it on a less routine basis. I believe many of the "military" flights through Shannon are civilian airliners.

    Under the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, during a major conflict, 28 percent of the cargo and 95 percent of the passengers airlifted would be flown on commercial aircraft.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1990/PJA.htm

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • ldman60119
    Guest replied
    The RAF and USAF uses private companies for all kinds of things. When I was in Iraq I saw Fed-Ex planes bringing all kinds of military equipment in. The advantage of private companies is that they usually have lower overhead. Thier planes are flying more and they can mix cargo for different customers, instead of the USAF flying a C-130 from Germany to Iraq to ship an Air condtioning unit.

    The American military uses airlines to fly over most of its troops to Iraq. The cost per hour can be hundreds to thousands of dollars difference.

    How does the Irish military get its troops and supplies to all its peacekeeping missions overseas?

    I would imagine most SAR missions in Ireland are out at sea. The Coast Guard is already doing that mission. I think if anything the Coast Guard should have only thier pilots doing that mission.

    The USAF has SAR but considering the nature of the Irish military, I don't see a need to rescue pilots shot down behind enemy lines.

    Military pilots should be doing military missions. Garda flying should be left for them to do. In the US it is illegal for the military to fly civilian police missions.

    The money could then be spent on equiping the remaining aircraft. The Army could buy more helos and have more capablities overseas. Or buy some more PC-9s to use overseas.

    Leave a comment:

  • X-RayOne
    Lieutenant

  • X-RayOne
    replied
    the aic effectively had SAR taken from them. years of neglect and lack of investment by the government ran down the air corps SAR capability. then when they were on their knees the government started spending millions on leasing contracts for Bond helicopters, CHC to run the SAR under the coastguard.

    IN my opinion this was a national disgrace and the money would have been better spent properly supporting the air corps SAR capabilities. Now the air corps has limited SAR responsibility and has seen a huge amount of personnel and experience being lost to the coastguard. that is not something that is got back easily. i don't think the air corps would have willingly walked away from SAR.

    Also what other air force, air corps, etc. rents out their transport roles, etc. you don't see the RAF USAF using private companies to transport personnel or equipment. they have their own dedicated transport sections.

    if the CN 235's are given to the navy they probably would still be maintained, operated fron Baldonnel. look at the history of the navalised dauphin.

    the air corps set up works as it is, why ruin it any more? it should be strengthened by defining its roles more clearly and properly equiping it. not dismantling it. they are moving the right way by concentrating on more suitable helis, etc.

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Al
    Ex-bagger

  • Big Al
    replied
    So if they give all these functions to different agencies you think they will leave the budget at the same level? Not at all they will cut the budget for defence and increase the budget for the others (like the gardai) so i dont see how this benefits the DF

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • ldman60119
    Guest replied
    The IAC has done it already with SAR duties. The CN-235s could go to the the Navy or Coast Guard. The Garda can fly thier own helicopters. VIP flights can be handled by private contractors. Bascially that would leave the IAC having the role of supporting the Army. It might as well be part of the Army at that point. The Admin cost alone of having a seperate IAC is enormous. IAC members would also be able to transfer to different branches like the infantry or Admin like the US Army does with its Aviation units. This gives greater promotion opps for members. With only 900 some members how long does it take for promotions in the IAC today.

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Al
    Ex-bagger

  • Big Al
    replied
    transfer these roles to who? the infastructure isnt in place in the private to do that. Any any case I dont see massive cost savings by the brief out line you have given

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • ldman60119
    Guest replied
    Yuo save money by transferring out all the non-military roles.

    Leave a comment:

  • Big Al
    Ex-bagger

  • Big Al
    replied
    Originally posted by ldman60119
    My point is to make it a branch of the Army. No seperate command structure, same uniforms, same insignia. Get rid of the term Squadron and use Avation companies like the US Army does. The PC-9s could be the 1st Aviation Comapny and the helos could be the 2nd Aviation Company. The rest of the Corps could be tranfered to the Coast Guard, Fishieries, Navy or civil ops.
    They only have this since the mid nineties, different uniforms etc.

    What difference would renaming them and changing uniforms do? these are only cosmetic changes tbh

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • ldman60119
    Guest replied
    If a nut with a L-39 that was bought on the civil market put some weapons on it and started strafing Dublin, would would stop him?

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • ldman60119
    Guest replied
    My point is to make it a branch of the Army. No seperate command structure, same uniforms, same insignia. Get rid of the term Squadron and use Avation companies like the US Army does. The PC-9s could be the 1st Aviation Comapny and the helos could be the 2nd Aviation Company. The rest of the Corps could be tranfered to the Coast Guard, Fishieries, Navy or civil ops.
    Guest
    Guest
    Last edited by Guest; 1 December 2005, 16:20.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • ldman60119
    Guest replied
    That is what I said in my last post. Having 30 some aircraft and a seperate Air Corps seems like a waste of money. Why have 2 structures when you only need one. The Air Corps should become a branch of the Army. My last post states how I think this should happen.

    Kermit, when I mean SAMs I mean systems like the Patriot.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X