10 year AC Development Plan

[Pure Hover]

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that this DoD attitude is more a reflection on the limited number of airframes, and the desire to have min 3/4 available for major incidents/disasters at home then a policy that even if the fleet was 2/3 times larger they would still not countenance overseas?

Fleet could be treble the size Tempest and they still would not countenance overseas. It's hard to understand the mentality really but it's mired in an old school adversion to risk taking of any sort. The very poor relationship that continues to exist between the dept and DFHQ doesn't help matters either as when the Army have been very pro AC operating overseas, the bean counters have naturally tended to oppose it. In military terms - I suppose a kind of stalemate exists

[TangoSierra]

It's not a stalemate if the DoD can just say NO all the time. More of an incompetent dictatorship!

[ropebag]

It's not a stalemate if the DoD can just say NO all the time. More of an incompetent dictatorship!

can i ask, while the DF and DoD are having a bunfight over all these issues, what is the minister doing?

[The real Jack]

can i ask, while the DF and DoD are having a bunfight over all these issues, what is the minister doing?

At the mo there isn't really a minister...

[GoneToTheCanner]

The Minister is usually doing his level best to get out of Defence and into a more "frontline" Ministry, such as Finance or Health....the DoD will do what Finance tells them, so if Finance can't get DFA to wangle UN money to pay to move helicopters, then the State will not fund it.....perhaps if they scrapped all the DF junkets, like going to the US for St Patricks' Day...

[Turkey]

Wow, all highly political stuff, perhaps it might be better if we came up with a consensus on what we, collectively, believe what the roles of the Irish Air Corps should be, and then start fitting assets, infrastructure and personal to them... or am I talking s___, [only on my second cup of coffee, due to circumstances beyond my control.]

[GoneToTheCanner]

I suspect that the notion of a ten year development plan is essentially equivalent to the unions negotiating for 53% for LUAS drivers; aim high and then take something reasonable. I'd imagine dealing with DoD is akin to high stakes poker is which one side knows where all the good cards are, knows where the keys to the safe are and occasionally gives you a few crumbs to tide you over. Want a fleet of helis? Scrap the Cessnas and the GIV? Well, we need them too. Ok, keep them, we'll give you just two helis and the fuel budget for a week-long exercise and a course in the USA for senior officers...

[Tempest]

I think GTTC in post 52 above effectively draws this thread to it's logical end.

When starting the thread I was genuinely interested to see if anyone had a credible vision. The two themes that seemed to evolve were:

1) Enhanced Transport capability.

2) Enhanced Helicopter capability.

Both with overseas in mind. AC/DF have obviously never made a credible case for enhanced transport (realistically the aircraft would spend most of their time in hangar), as we still have zero.

Enhanced heli capability with overseas in mind has been shown by contributors to be the logical first step. Existing fleet unsuitable for deployment without considerable spending, the failure to buy military spec helis in the last investment spend a clear indicator of the lack of military ambition in type selection. Political/economic unwillingness to deploy overseas a deal-breaker.

Some potential spend on enhanced radar has been mooted, but if the above two are effectively stalemated then any prospect of something credible to enforce enhanced radar is also stalemated.

That is, as it appears to me, the reality. So the only real alternative to the status quo (endlessly replacing like for like with diminishing returns) would appear to be to scrap AC and use the money saved, and acquired through the sale/partial sale of Baldonnel, elsewhere?

[GoneToTheCanner]

The 135s could go overseas right now with only a few mods, like sand filters and so on and they can easily be stripped for air transport...the 139s are a joke and should be given to NAMA to dispose of; the resurgent millionaire developers might like them...the DoD shot down the notion of C130s (which, in fairness to Don hierarchy, they did pursue vigourously. We just don't get to hear about it) and the like years ago, on the not unreasonable basis that they would spend the whole time training and not actually doing any delivering, which is partially true. Also, the UN in Lebanon were considered by the DoD to be covered by commercial availability via Beirut so that was that...With regard to radar, exactly what is needed there and for why? Someone suggested on another thread that the Don get into the air defence game and base the AA weapons in the Don. The Don managed to never, ever touch AA since the end of WW2 except for having the Army in to conduct local security for special events or to provide a tug for gunnery targets, ie, it doesn't own the means to defend it's only base or host anyone to do it.

[DeV]

Military prinary radar isn't necessarily needed, IAA owned and operated is the way to go

[Pure Hover]

I think GTTC in post 52 above effectively draws this thread to it's logical end.

When starting the thread I was genuinely interested to see if anyone had a credible vision. The two themes that seemed to evolve were:

1) Enhanced Transport capability.

2) Enhanced Helicopter capability.

Both with overseas in mind. AC/DF have obviously never made a credible case for enhanced transport (realistically the aircraft would spend most of their time in hangar), as we still have zero.

Enhanced heli capability with overseas in mind has been shown by contributors to be the logical first step. Existing fleet unsuitable for deployment without considerable spending, the failure to buy military spec helis in the last investment spend a clear indicator of the lack of military ambition in type selection. Political/economic unwillingness to deploy overseas a deal-breaker.

Some potential spend on enhanced radar has been mooted, but if the above two are effectively stalemated then any prospect of something credible to enforce enhanced radar is also stalemated.

That is, as it appears to me, the reality. So the only real alternative to the status quo (endlessly replacing like for like with diminishing returns) would appear to be to scrap AC and use the money saved, and acquired through the sale/partial sale of Baldonnel, elsewhere?

Interesting thread and your analysis is pretty accurate but id make the following points;
AC have made numerous cases for enhanced transport capability but all came to nought! It's questionable whether or not we'd have the CASA's without EU funding and there's a huge question mark over where the replacement funding will come from. The only transport aircraft C250, we ever had was handed back without a whimper - same could be said of the Super Puma transport helicopter.

The "lack of military ambition in type selection" as you put it in relation to the last helicopter selection is purely down to the DoD who interfered in the selection process ruling out the Blackhawk. That left the 139 which IMHO which seems to be a fine helicopter and more than capable of deploying overseas if given the chance. However as I've previously outlined attempts to do so have been shot down by the same bean counters who ruled out its more capable contemporary .....see a pattern?

Your conclusion does not reflect the general thrust of the thread. A better way to conduct business would be to properly fund the Air Corps and give it the resources to do the job rather than talk about it in White Papers!

[Tempest]

Pure Hover, my 'conclusion' was deliberately provocative

I do take your point re the C250 and was aware of the preference for Blackhawk. If it was/is DoD policy that choppers won't be going overseas any time soon, then Blackhawk would probably have been viewed as overkill for domestic use, and it would be difficult to disagree with that view.

However, the choice of PC9 was surely something of a victory (a bean counter could have made a strong case for a very much more basic training aircraft with no weapons)? Can it be repeated?

You say "give it the resources to do the job". I was hoping to get a much clearer vision of what that "job" might/could/should be in this thread, but it hasn't really happened, hence the provocative conclusion in my last post. For example you say AC have made cases for enhanced transport, what cases? What aircraft to do what taskings? Nobody on this thread has made anything like a cconvincing case for enhanced transport that would be sufficiently used.

We all support the AC in spirit I'm sure, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that without some very focussed strategy that the extremely limited military taskings that it carries out cannot justify the cost of it's establishment. And that's pragmatic, not provocative.

[GoneToTheCanner]

that's why the Donners volunteer for every job that could possibly involve a Don pilot, so that they can't be accused of not trying, which is why you get fish and bird counting patrols, bog surveillance, voting box carriage, delivery of rugby balls to matches,etc,etc....the PC9s were essentially what they were allowed to buy and "warry" jets such as Hawks were disallowed. Eight were bought because the actual accident rate of Marchettis and the daily utility rate was used as the benchmark; ie, they are their own attrition replacement and they are expected to beat the Marchetti flight-per-day rate, which they do handsomely (more to do with a change in mental attitude than anything else).....the disposal of c250 and the previous disposal of two King Airs is proof, if any was needed, that DoD civil serpents get it wrong and their ass-covering is misguided.....the 139s are nice runabouts but oh, god, is their undercarriage junk! I cringe when I see them scuttling about with skis on over the little shopping-trolley wheels. Lads, buy some low-pressure tyres, please and leave the gear down, if you have to. Seeing them sunk up to the axles in mud is embarrassing and risky, to say the least....

[Heligun]

You obviously didn't read my post:

My opinion....

What do we want at the end of those ten years:
1. Ability to support our troops in any part of the World with weapons and supplies.
2. Ability to transport our troops to any part of the World.
3. Ability to protect our skies and our seas (surface and sub surface).
4. Internal security.
5. how to pay for these.

1: We need a tactical Helicopter H225 or the HH60 (worst case instal DAS/Sand filters and light Armour to current AW139). Best solution Purchase 10 HH60 and 10 light utility attack MD500 Total cost (internet) 10 HH60(120mUSD) + 10 MD500(20mUSD) Total = 140m USD

2: Simple 3 x A400m @ 152m USD = 456mUSD with A2A refuelling pods for heli and fighter

3: For Air Space protection and ability to serve overseas we need 10 Rafale (in service cost of 108mUSD) = 1.08bUSD. ASW + fisheries+LRSAR we can use EH101(with HIFR) X 3 = total 120m USD. MPA replaced by drone X 3 at total 20mUDS (also use for IS)

4: AW139 be transferred to GS to operate dual SAR/Police(IS)/EMS like in many parts of the States SPIFR, based in 1 x Dub, 1 x Cork, 1 x limerick, 1 x Finner Camp.

5: If we look at this cost of 10 years = 1.8bUSD or 180mUSD PY. We can take out the SAR contract and any possible HEMS contact bringing that figure to 1.2bUSD or 120PY. Take 100m USD away per year for the DISGRACE that is the overseas Aid program and increase DF spending by 100M PY to cover the 20m + 80m in increased training and wages.

Foot notes: PC9 continues as the trainer. MD 500 replace EC135 as primary trainer. EC135 retained for VIP. GS aircraft pilots by AC requiring 20 Heli pilots (increase 10) but cost borne by GS. Cadets come in direct to heli School after 10hours in civi heli (weeding process), so from foot in the door to operational including 9 months Curragh = 2years at rate of 20 pilots per year. Total heli pilot requirement =
24 LRSAR + ASW, 2 Base Shannon and Finner EH101
20 SPIFR + NVG Dub/Cork/Limerick/Finner SAR/EMS/IS
40 HH60
30 MD500 Ops + Training
Total 114 - Current number (Guess) 40, Take ex Mil back = 30 and in 3 years you would be up to strength with training 20 PY.

FW Requirement for Pilots
30 Rafale
20 AB400M
10 Drone (failed Heli or FW course)


Obviously I know this won't happen but COULD it be done YES, would it enhance SAR/EMS/IS YES, would our troops be safer and more effective overseas YES. Is it value for money accepting that a large amount of money won't go to 3rd World Leaders(http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoi...ey-244778.html) YES

[GoneToTheCanner]

unrealistic pricing and costs. Operating costs for combat aircraft are off the scale as manufacturers can essentially charge what they like. A Rafale costs as much as a single A320 to buy, for just the bare aircraft, before you put a drop of Jet A1 into it...A400M? still not fit for service and will cost even more than an A330 to operate. Ask EI how much that costs and we run seven of them. Think entire AC budget....also, you'd have to vastly increase the usable space at Baldonnel and anywhere else to accomodate them. On any night of the week, we can fill Hangar 6 in Dublin Airport and that can hold seven A320s or two A330s and five A320s and the odd ATR tucked in, so that's the size of hangarage you'd need, off the bat, not to mention the host of ground equipment, manpower (such as extra flight deck and rear aircrew/engineering (ramp and otherwise)/ATC/fire cover/flight ops,etc), vehicles, spares storage, weapons storage and associated security and fuelling and, and, and....I suspect the Don will never grow beyond it's present size, fleetwise, apart from the odd single airframe purchase to replace retirements or losses.