Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
what don't they have that the AAC Apaches and RAF Chinooks that regularly operate from the RN's ships have?
I feel your pain mate, been there and had a very long chat about the same thing a while back on a different thread, army (AC) pilots flying army (AC) assets who are deck qualified ,,,,, simple! No need for a bloody naval air wing. In fact if you had nipped across the water and said "Chaps, can we stick a few crews on your next course?" You could have had a 139 or 2 buzzing about the Med off the back of Bulwark now.
How on earth do they (AAC / RAF) do it? Must be the worlds finest pilots ,,,,,,,,,,
Back on topic, the old Taxi (service) from Africa seems to be going well. Can you pre-book or do you just hail one when you see one motoring past?
We travel not for trafficking alone,
By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
For lust of knowing what should not be known,
We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.
Why would we purchase and maintain maritime helo's when the only State owned vessel capable of taking one belongs to the Commissioners of Irish Lights?
Why would we purchase and maintain pilatus aircraft when their only purpose is..training to fly a ministerial transport?
Seeing as maritime SAR is outsourced now, why not outsource all fixed-wing operations and just have a rotary wing service?
The attitude that we don't need it because we don't have it so we don't want it gers us nowhere.
No helos? Don't need the ships. No ships? Don't need the helos. Wonderful.
It can be done with the helos we have? Oh nos! Not us! Besides, its already proven we don't need.
Get one capability, it reinforces the need for the other.
Why would we purchase and maintain pilatus aircraft when their only purpose is..training to fly a ministerial transport?
Seeing as maritime SAR is outsourced now, why not outsource all fixed-wing operations and just have a rotary wing service?
The attitude that we don't need it because we don't have it so we don't want it gers us nowhere.
No helos? Don't need the ships. No ships? Don't need the helos. Wonderful.
It can be done with the helos we have? Oh nos! Not us! Besides, its already proven we don't need.
Get one capability, it reinforces the need for the other.
You obviously don't understand the financial pressure the DF is under (or the view of defence that DoD and Finance hold). I'm not saying it right but that is the situation.
A platform as a minimum would be an asset, a hanger even better. I don't currently believe that it would good VFM to create a separate NS air arm, permanently detach a AC helo or purchase naval helos for AC use. There is currently no demand. The bulk of boardings are FP (RHIB is fine for that), for ATCP tasks in most cases we are talking about yachts (fast roping will be dangerous), Libya (the space is better used for refugees), support to army ex's (ie training).
The PC9s allow the Government to say that the DF has a (very) limited air-to-ground and air-to-air capability.
What (apart from the Libyans don't want them either) is stopping the rescue ships just dropping everybody back on a stretch of beach in Lybia with a few bottles of water, a few days ration packs, and saying "Here you are, you're on dry land now, you're safe"?
Because you can't return them under the UDHR and various Conventions.
You obviously don't understand the financial pressure the DF is under (or the view of defence that DoD and Finance hold). I'm not saying it right but that is the situation.
A platform as a minimum would be an asset, a hanger even better. I don't currently believe that it would good VFM to create a separate NS air arm, permanently detach a AC helo or purchase naval helos for AC use. There is currently no demand. The bulk of boardings are FP (RHIB is fine for that), for ATCP tasks in most cases we are talking about yachts (fast roping will be dangerous), Libya (the space is better used for refugees), support to army ex's (ie training).
The PC9s allow the Government to say that the DF has a (very) limited air-to-ground and air-to-air capability.
Because you can't return them under the UDHR and various Conventions.
Of course I understand the constraints. Building, for example, OPVs with a deck but not a hanger, I submit, would not havestretched those constraints.
Having existing pilots train to land existing helicopters on those decks would not either. Capability accomplished, consideration of further air capability for future governments.
I see the rest of the justification as a circular argument. We shouldn't because we don't but we don't because we cant.
The pilatus as a minimal ground attack capability is a farce that makes my suggestion seem like irrefutable logic.
Fwiw, Add my agreement to the Libyan coast explanation. Wouldn't it also be effectively an invasion of Libya?
L'Adroit is a modern instrument for dealing with the constant increase in threats and illegal practices at sea. Area surveillance, the fight against piracy and terrorism, fishery policing, the fight against drug trafficking, protection of the environment, humanitarian aid, search and rescue at sea… L’Adroit is an offshore patrol vessel full of resources, capable of performing a wide spectrum of roles in coastal zones and on the high seas.
Aircraft carried: 1 × 5-tons helicopter or 1 × 10-tons helicopter (supported) also UAV
Schiebel Camcopter S-100
Aviation facilities: helicopter and hanger
Spanish
The BAMs are a common platform for a variety of missions, used to develop whole families of types of ships that meet the diverse needs of the Navy.
Its main missions are:
Protection and escort of other ships in low intensity/asymmetric warfare situations
Control of maritime traffic
Control and neutralization of terrorism and piracy
Operations against drug trafficking and human trafficking
Search and rescue
Support for crisis situations and humanitarian aid
Control of fishing laws
Control of environmental legislation and anti-pollution.
Modular design enables the ships to be modified for purposes outside main missions such as hydrographic research, intelligence gathering, diving support and salvage operations.
Aircraft carried: NH 90
, Portuguese
specially designed to operate in the waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, will replace the João Coutinho and Baptista de Andrade class corvettes — currently being decommissioned —, and the small patrol boats of the Cacine class in their primary fisheries protection role (SIFICAP) and in their search and rescue (SAR) roles. Two of these vessels of the version Navios de Combate à Poluição (NCP) will be fitted with anti-pollution systems — including Fast Oil Recovery systems.
Aviation facilities: Medium-sized helicopter pad but no hangar
even the Moroccans
The main mission is the
surveillance of Moroccan EEZ
and control of fisheries in the Atlantic ocean,
with secondary roles including detecting illegal immigration,
smuggling
and drug trafficking
and supporting counter terrorism
and search and rescue patrols along Moroccan coasts.
Aviation facilities: helicopter landing pad / no hangar
have same or similiar roles to us in the atlantic in OPVs and provide heli capable or permanently deployed helos on ships to augment their capabilities. I think saying we dont need them is wrong, we could use them to vastly improve capabilities and would use them if the DOD and DOF got heads out of collective ar$es and allowed them to be purchased. we should have either an AC maritime squadron of helos, purpose built for naval operations between 5 and 10 tons. the point is simple.the money isnt there, therefore we dont have it. Im sure for every case someone here can say we DONT need it, we can find that we actually DO but the financial situation wont ALLOW it to be so. I have a horrible image of every time the DF tries to improve or introduce a new capability, to help our nation in some way, that they go cap in hand, like a bloody pauper, to the DOD an DOF only to be laughed at by the suit wearing sh*tstains working there and until that cycle is broken, the status quot will remain.
"He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
"No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."
How on earth do they (AAC / RAF) do it? Must be the worlds finest pilots...
i must admit that i'm coming to the conclusion that the IAC must be recruiting the people who came last in all the tests, as i've never met aircrew from any other military flying organisation who would suggest to themselves, let alone any of the lower orders of mankind that there was something they couldn't do...
you're right, all the training and certification for this stuff is available an hours flying time from Baldonnel from people who take crews, airframes and techs who are landbased and give them the ability to operate from ships on an frequent, but operational basis. the fact that this country also happens to be Irelands closest economic, political, security and defence partner might lead one to believe that this is not an insurmountable problem.
The OPV tender was published in 2007, so realistically the first should have been delivered around 2010/11. Delivered in 2014 and will not be paid for until 2017!! Reason for delay? Defence funding cuts! NS sea days have also been cut by 10%.
Existing helos and crews yes but substantial training would be required (and then currency). But at the same time, flying hours budget has been cut by 10%. Oh and there was been a big cut in AC support to army ex's that aren't overseas related.
Like it or not the helo isn't required for FP (as we not have technology that means the over the horizon reach isn't required (it can be provided by existing CASAs if it is). The only possible use in FP would be monitoring inshore fishing but the vessel would have a draft too big to get into those waters.
i must admit that i'm coming to the conclusion that the IAC must be recruiting the people who came last in all the tests, as i've never met aircrew from any other military flying organisation who would suggest to themselves, let alone any of the lower orders of mankind that there was something they couldn't do...
you're right, all the training and certification for this stuff is available an hours flying time from Baldonnel from people who take crews, airframes and techs who are landbased and give them the ability to operate from ships on an frequent, but operational basis. the fact that this country also happens to be Irelands closest economic, political, security and defence partner might lead one to believe that this is not an insurmountable problem.
Like it or not the helo isn't required for FP (as we not have technology that means the over the horizon reach isn't required (it can be provided by existing CASAs if it is). The only possible use in FP would be monitoring inshore fishing but the vessel would have a draft too big to get into those waters.
Dev once and for all please get away from the notion that Fisheries Patrol is the Irish Naval Service's sole raison d'etre.
It is merely one role, a necessary evil that in reality could/should be undertaken by a civilian organisation.
Dev once and for all please get away from the notion that Fisheries Patrol is the Irish Naval Service's sole raison d'etre.
It is merely one role, a necessary evil that in reality could/should be undertaken by a civilian organisation.
Like the Air Corps and SAR.
Absolutely but it is the role that saved the NS (along with ATCP)
It is reason that we managed to get Deidre, the P21s & Eithne (because the EU funded 50% of them for FP)
It is the reason that the NS gets the resources it does get
It is what they are MOU'ed to spend 90% of their time doing
It will be a drastic decision on the part of the Government to allow (and fund) the NS to do anything else with any of that 90%
Absolutely but it is the role that saved the NS (along with ATCP)
It is reason that we managed to get Deidre, the P21s & Eithne (because the EU funded 50% of them for FP)
It is the reason that the NS gets the resources it does get
It is what they are MOU'ed to spend 90% of their time doing
It will be a drastic decision on the part of the Government to allow (and fund) the NS to do anything else with any of that 90%
It doesn't matter what the government decide if you deem single role vessels like the P60's as adequate. It won't matter in 5,10,20 years from now if they assign additional taskings to a vessel incapable of operational flexibility.
That said same flexibility could have been designed in at relatively minimum cost. Nothing bespoke. Add to it if necessary. The problem is that it was actually designed out, as was any potential to ever adapt the vessel should the desire/need arise over THIRTY YEARS projected lifespan.
Operational flexibility and multi roling are seen as value for money attributes in modern OPV design. The Irish taxpayer have not received value for money.
It doesn't matter what the government decide if you deem single role vessels like the P60's as adequate. It won't matter in 5,10,20 years from now if they assign additional taskings to a vessel incapable of operational flexibility.
That said same flexibility could have been designed in at relatively minimum cost. Nothing bespoke. Add to it if necessary. The problem is that it was actually designed out, as was any potential to ever adapt the vessel should the desire/need arise over THIRTY YEARS projected lifespan.
Operational flexibility and multi roling are seen as value for money attributes in modern OPV design. The Irish taxpayer have not received value for money.
They are flexible and multi-role, but equally adding a possible future capability (at initial cost) that will possibly be never be used is not good VFM, if it was ever to be used it would have months of a lead time (better than years yes) and will cost (but yes cheaper than a new vessel).
Like I said before, email Hyundai or Fuji Heavy Industry the plans for the ship you want and a cheque and an expected collection date and sit back and wait.....with regard to purchasing capital items like ships,armour and aircraft, they should be seen as a national asset and funded directly from central Govt and not as a slice of the Defence budget,which is mostly wages and pensions anyway....
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment