No announcement yet.


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Andy defence policy is fully coherent and it could not be said to be otherwise, you're confusing incoherence with ridiculous, absurdist and short sighted.

    SAR is more of a burden than an organisation the size of the IAC could take without excluding "green" taskings, I know which I'd rather have.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke


    • #32
      Since the Loss of SAR,the air Corps have been able to concentrate their efforts on the military tasks that for so long went ignored,and aircraft availability is at an all time high.

      Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.


      • #33
        This increased availability for military use hasn't just meant training benefits, in several cases in the last year, a/c helis have been available for casevac taskings for both injured DF and members of the public.
        With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

        Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.


        • #34
          Apoligies to Cuchulain, for my earlier remarks, he is clearly more qualified to post FACT on this subject then many others, [myself included], but I think, after several re-readings I can see a point to some of this.
          In theory, it is cheaper to have the Air Corps run SAR in this country, but in practice it is not, partly because of politics, and partly because of some fairly damning phyical constraints.
          The theory bit runs like this,; we will be owning the assets and they will be available for other taskings as required.
          The reality bit however says; we will have to look after these assets at ever increasing costs, and the only other task that they will be available for is very self-important people transport, there is no way anyone is going to transport troops into any kind of harm in a heli' painted snow white and harlot red.

          They way I see it is that a country has 4 choices with regard to SAR.
          [1] Use the forces: we tried that, it presents an unacceptable drain on Defence dosh, and before you know it our military air arm has been seriously compromised by an unsuitable mission. Perhaps if the service was a lot larger, and I do mean a lot.
          [2] The Darwinist approch: Let them all drown, I think mcgreedy would like that......'cause you are never going to catch him out on a fishing boat doing anything remotely resembling work anyway.
          [3] Set up a seperate operation: There are historical preceedents for this , eg. the RNLI, but a surface rescue unit is easier to operate and has a huge volenteer element, and they do a wonderful job, and have done for a very long time. Helicopter operations are a bit trickier and to set one up, to the standard required, would be very difficult, remember the RNLI has grown and evolved with the increase of shipping , fishing and the relatively recent intrest in leisure boating.
          [4] Hire a company:This company has already done the evolving and the development for you, and hire local people including those who have learned their trade withen the military and now find that they should move on from this vocation into 'normal' life whatever that is...................................... Ehhh, it's working.

          Personally I would love to see the IAC still doing SAR, I know that exers amongs the Coast guard have been known to feel a surge of pride when the IAC have pulled off a dodgy sortie, but we have to face reality. Let the Dept of the Marine handle it, and leave all the DF Air Corps budget to help the Irish Air Corps establish and carry out a new military mission, which will probally involve UN peacekeeping/enforceing operations, allowing many more lives to be saved in the worlds all to frequent trouble spots.
          "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
          Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
          Illegitimi non carborundum


          • #35
            Andy defence policy is fully coherent and it could not be said to be otherwise, you're confusing incoherence with ridiculous, absurdist and short sighted.
            Some might say the above is incoherent.


            • #36
              Only if you are absurdist and short-sighted.


              • #37

                Reading today I see Sweden has accepted the Nh90...and that other wonderful nation that we are so often compared to...New Zealand is also accepting this machine as a repalcement for its Hueys.

                Germany has accepted delivery of its first batch of EC Tigers,

                The RAF has deployed its first Merlins to Iraq'

                Albania is to consider the NH90.Agusta Bell AB412 and AB 212

                The Bulgarians are updating their Mi17/24 with the Israelis,

                Israel gets its AH64Ds,

                And what happens in Ireland...we buy bloody flying sports cars for officers.

                Look what other people are doing they are aquiring helos with proper military capabilities not instantly convertable ministerial transports.

                The Allouettes are now 42 years old in concept and they still do the job they were designed to do in 1960....yet our Df has improved in every other way beyond this time except in the area of Air transport and mobility.
                Covid 19 is not over's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe


                • #38
                  not to rub more salt in, But New Zealnd is also investing an extra $3.4 billion over the next 10 year's in defence
                  Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

                  Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore


                  • #39
                    New Zealand needs it more than us. Most of that figure will go on not replacing,but creating a naval fleet,which at the moment consists of 2 Anzac frigates.(plus a plethora of assorted auxiliaries). Look at the size of the country. They need larger Helis than us.

                    The AB139 will fill the midrange between light utility and Medium Utility(Cancelled..for now) Lets wait till they arrive before knocking them?

                    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.


                    • #40
                      your still confident the medium heli will be bought GF?
                      Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

                      Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore


                      • #41
                        Not in this Governments lifetime. However,the cushion of RAF backup is diminishing when it comes to SAR,and the Coastguard Helis are operating to their limits. Sadly it will take another bad winter or loss of life at sea before the Government realise that a Redundant capacity is required when it comes to SAR,and while not engaged for this task,plenty of use will be found for them.
                        I believe if the Current GOC Air Corps had been in charge at the time of the MLH cancellation,it would not have been cancelled.
                        Like him or loath him, Cranfield was a yes man.

                        Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.


                        • #42
                          We have the Greatest amount of coast line and sea coverage in western Europe and even Albania is taking a greater role in the procurement of helicopters.

                          CHC do an admirable job in the coast gurd role..and thats some that needs to be a dress in other thread.

                          What I'm getting at here is that we have an army that trains to deploy overseas in sizeable numbers and we fail to have an airwing to support them. we will have 4 machine capable of deploying atotal of 32 troops.....from a battalion sized force....this is ridiculous.

                          If you have 4 machines chances of three of them being serviceable at any on time is the best average to be expected.

                          Again as the Mowag syndrome sets in ..we bought the nicest thing on the shelf...but it wasn't what we needed.
                          Covid 19 is not over's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe


                          • #43
                            Yes, taking on the national SAR mission would be prestigious and good for the IAC, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the heart of the problem manpower, in that to fully man SAR 24/7 would require an enormous increase in IAC personnel strength, particularly pilots and SAR Tech crewmen, which may not be achievable. The IAC was wise to ditch SAR since it would be all consuming at the expense of more pertinent military capabilities, such as tactical support helicopters.

                            I submit that a professional, deployable military tactical support helicopter capability is the priority for the IAC over everything else - including #2 Airlift - and is attainable within realistic budgetary and manpower constraints. If the S-92 contract is indeed legally still alive and potentially binding for Ireland (doubtful),any S-92's obtained therefrom should be tactical support helicopter versions, fully deployable and committed to the EU Rapid Reaction Force (including the potential European Support Helicopter Force), or they should be committed to the national SAR role and operated entirely by a contractor on behalf of the coast guard.

                            Should the S-92 in fact be a dead issue, then Ireland should go with not just the two AB-139 options, but a further two for a total strength of eight, providing an international deployment capability of 4-6 aircraft for up to six months as part of a multinational air component supporting a multinational force, similar to what we see now with ISAF in Afghansitan.


                            • #44

                              Look, please excuse my ignorance of AC logistical procurment costs, budgets, & operating life cycle costs, but isn't there some rather non-sourced talk here?

                              Namely: Who says the AC will ever have an extra-territorial role -whther it be UN peace support or otherwise?
                              (I have looked through all the policy documentation available to the public & can't find it anywhere -is this presumption a mental leap too far?)

                              Surely using logical alone, IF:
                              the AC cannot adequatly fund & operate a national SAR service, then how are they too attempt to do the same type of requirement (ie. 24hour call, Day/Night, AND in a potentially non-natural but man-made (MANPADS made..?) hazardous environment 100's or perhaps 1,000's of miles from base on UN missions?

                              Where will the money for the DEPLOYABLE maintainence, repair & servicing equipment come from?
                              Where will the vehicles to transport this eqiupment come from?
                              What about the costs involved in the logistics effort to supply the living quarters & security requirements for not just the aircrews, but the vital AC NCO& enlisted tech. support crews?
                              What of the costs to ship or airfreight these airframes, technical support equipment, aircrew, air mantainence, security elements & livivng quarters to far off lands - and get them back again?

                              then......... think all that for just a SINGLE airframe, what of the costs for 4-6?

                              Just how much of Irelands UN standby commitment would actually go to providing this capability, and not just in costs terms, but in MANPOWER terms..............?

                              Whether larger or AB-139 helicopters, isnn't this all just a tiny wee bit unrealistic given the current budgetary & fiscal environment for the AC?


                              the above relates to Irelands ability to operate a small number of C-130 type transport aircraft: e.g. what point is there is expending valuable & precious funds on a small government owned tactical aircraft fleet, when private contractors CAN & DO operate much larger aircraft
                              (ie. Aanatov AN-1** range of transport aircraft)
                              for DF charter lift requirements at present & do so effectively for less?

                              Look at your arguments above. Then apply the same logic to AC transport tasks.

                              Perhaps the AC should concentrate on building a NATIONAL effective military service before it starts going for more complicated & risky INTERNATIONAL missions, no?
                              A single helicopter type -twin engined for safety- for rapid reaction (whether infantry ATCP, or SOF CT) tasks is an achievable target...........
                              why then can the many myriad AC transport aircraft, not then be replaced by a single
                              -twin engined for safety & training- transport aircrfat type for whatever duties the CASA & PC-9's can't do e.g. parachute training, rapid airlift of stores, airambulance, island relief, on island VIP transport etc. ?

                              My suggestion is that the AC already use one rotary wing type for training and garda support - why not buy a small quantity of Nomander ISLANDER twin engined types, already in service with the garda air support unit to furfil this same goal in the fixed wing role?

                              Is this an achievable goal?
                              Last edited by SPOOKY; 29 May 2005, 23:00.


                              • #45
                                The special report on the AC/NS recommended that the AC WOULD NOT be deployed overseas