Thanks Thanks:  100
Likes Likes:  223
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 168
  1. #51
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,147
    Post Thanks / Like
    SAR, if done by Air Corps, should only be as a spare capacity. It should never have become a primary role, with all other military roles coming behind.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  2. #52
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Nonsense. The public couldn't give 2 hoots. Did the army get 80 APCs based on the public view that they'll be used as buses the next time there is a transport strike?
    This is a good point, the Army don't have to justify what the Fleet of Mowags do on a daily basis, nor do they have to look for ancillary roles for them

    Should be the same for the AC, the -139's should travel around in pairs, always have door guns attached and crewed appropriately, they should be at any event where a platoon or more gathers.

    If there is any space capacity after that, it should be used for training crews to the standard required and in sufficient numbers for the above mentioned events..

    If there is any space capacity in the fleet after all that, then other tastings could be considered..

    Same rational for the ISTAR aircraft and for whatever transport aircraft may be bought.

  3. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod, ropebag liked this post
  4. #53
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    This is a good point, the Army don't have to justify what the Fleet of Mowags do on a daily basis, nor do they have to look for ancillary roles for them

    Should be the same for the AC, the -139's should travel around in pairs, always have door guns attached and crewed appropriately, they should be at any event where a platoon or more gathers.

    If there is any space capacity after that, it should be used for training crews to the standard required and in sufficient numbers for the above mentioned events..

    If there is any space capacity in the fleet after all that, then other tastings could be considered..

    Same rational for the ISTAR aircraft and for whatever transport aircraft may be bought.
    Big difference is that the Mowags have and continue to be used on deployment, actual military usage.
    The AC has never deployed on an overseas operation AFAIK. (A jolly to Fairford does not count).

  5. Likes DeV liked this post
  6. #54
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,147
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was a time when we had that with the A3. Any ex involving more than 1 bn got at least 3 to work with. They were fine light utility helicopters, and ended their service being used as such full time.
    Some of our overseas ops in the past involved being transported by helicopters to a patrol start line, far from camp. Every infantryman should be able to operate from a helicopters the same way as he can operate from a Mowag. Dedicating Air Corps Helicopters to SAR removes that ability.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  7. Thanks DeV, EUFighter, apod thanked for this post
  8. #55
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the AC want or are tasked with providing SAR it has to be as a declared asset which means a completely different situation than AC ever had when they were previously tasked - dedicated aircraft, crews etc

    That means those aircraft aren’t (generally, the very odd possible exception) available for any other taskings

    To do otherwise will cost lives

  9. Thanks na grohmiti, EUFighter thanked for this post
  10. #56
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,364
    Post Thanks / Like
    If Ireland needs Air Ambulance - that's up to the money-pit that is the HSE to supply. Search and Rescue - Costguard. Gardai need an aircraft / heli? Gardai supply it and pay for it. VIP/Ministerial transport - enough private contractors are around, or set up a "mini-airline" with crews that don't have to be trained soldiers / airmen (with all the extra skill-sets and training required) and are just trained cabin-crew and pilots.

    What's the point of having 20 helicopters on the Air Corps strength if they are all tasked with SAR and Air Ambulance? They still are not available for military use and never will be, they are just eating up resources and budget.

    Leave the Air Corps to be a military arm. Not what seems to be the current situation where the Air Corps are providing military services on a trickle-down basis from whatever is left over after all the extrainious jobs. Using the extranious jobs to justify having an Aur Corps is only letting the tail wag the dog, and has resulted in the Air Corps being in the position it's in - viewed as a glorified Air Ambulance and Taxi service for ministers.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  11. Thanks DeV, apod thanked for this post
  12. #57
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,147
    Post Thanks / Like
    The current "debate" if you can call it that is a huge dose of "wrap the green flag round me" by some politicians supporting the move.
    They are pushing the patriotism of letting the state's military air arm tender for SAR, instead of giving the money to a foreign private contractor.

    Of course the ideal solution here is buy the 5x S92 for the Coast Guard directly, and let them hire their own pilots and crew. Allow Air Corps crew to go on secondment to coast Guard Heli units for live SAR familiarisation training, while the Air Corps maintains its own military aircraft capable of CSAR. (Incidentally the Coast Guard tender specifically does not include CSAR among its functions).
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  13. Likes Flamingo, apod, GoneToTheCanner, ropebag liked this post
  14. #58
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    SAR, MATS etc are all common functions done by military air arms in Europe, AFAIK there is not a single force that does not have some form of "civil" function.

    So let's take the GASU, there is a SLA between the Gardai and the AC, the two H-135 helicopters are maintained and flown by Air Corps personnel.
    The Air Corps also has two H-135's of its own, great then they can have common maintenance etc! No, the GASU aircraft have Turbomeca Arrius engines while the Air Corps aircraft have P&WC PW206 engines. So double the engine spares, procedures etc. Now lets say for the sake of argument, the HSE decides to get its own EMS helicopters, but for them the AW-139 is just a bit too big so they go for a couple of AW-109's (say 4). Same engine as the AC H-135's but a totally different airframe. Do that all really make sense?

    Neither of the individual organisations would be able to justify having a spare helicopter on their own. But with a common fleet of 8 it would be easier to justify a 9th. Clear they would all need a common baseline with specific add-on's for their individual missions but the common parts could reduce the costs. Common avionics, common engines and common airframe. They could be all maintained by a single organisation (AC or civil), the AC would provide the pilots for their aircraft, they might have a SLA to provide pilots for the other agencies or at least train them. And a wild idea might be that GASU/HSE aircraft are flown and crewed by civvies who are then classified as reservists.

    Now back to SAR, this too is a service provided by the state and given our SAR area best covered by a medium lift helicopter (10-15t class). The AC has a need for something a bit bigger than an AW-139 which was a big step-up from the A3. (A jealous eye was always cast north to the Puma's flying around Fermanagh and Armagh.) Would it make sense for the State to have here also a common baseline helicopter? Most likely yes, the Danes have a common platform for troop movement and SAR to which they have dedicated 3 of their 14 aircraft. Here could be the same principles as above, a single agency in charge of sourcing a common baseline aircraft with mission specific add-on. So 4 dedicated SAR aircraft, say 4 dedicated troop lift and 2-3 to cover maintenance/US events.

    Clearly if all the functions were to be provided by the AC then its establishment would have to be matched to the new need. The costs being then split among the relevant agencies. This is a model that works in other countries already, with the military providing the equipment and personnel while a number of government departments pay the bills. What no-one wants is the AC providing all the services and having nothing left for military functions.

  15. Thanks DeV, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, The Usual Suspect liked this post
  16. #59
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    I thought the GASU Helicopters where maintained by civil contractors employed by the AGS/DoJ (who own the aircraft), and that all the AC do is supply the Pilots and the Military Registration, with the exception of the Defender which is (or was) looked after by the AC?
    It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
    It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
    It was a new age...It was the end of history.
    It was the year everything changed.

  17. #60
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    I thought the GASU Helicopters where maintained by civil contractors employed by the AGS/DoJ (who own the aircraft), and that all the AC do is supply the Pilots and the Military Registration, with the exception of the Defender which is (or was) looked after by the AC?
    Correct but I think Defender maintenance is also contracted out now

  18. #61
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,364
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    SAR, MATS etc are all common functions done by military air arms in Europe, AFAIK there is not a single force that does not have some form of "civil" function.

    So let's take the GASU, there is a SLA between the Gardai and the AC, the two H-135 helicopters are maintained and flown by Air Corps personnel.
    The Air Corps also has two H-135's of its own, great then they can have common maintenance etc! No, the GASU aircraft have Turbomeca Arrius engines while the Air Corps aircraft have P&WC PW206 engines. So double the engine spares, procedures etc. Now lets say for the sake of argument, the HSE decides to get its own EMS helicopters, but for them the AW-139 is just a bit too big so they go for a couple of AW-109's (say 4). Same engine as the AC H-135's but a totally different airframe. Do that all really make sense?

    Neither of the individual organisations would be able to justify having a spare helicopter on their own. But with a common fleet of 8 it would be easier to justify a 9th. Clear they would all need a common baseline with specific add-on's for their individual missions but the common parts could reduce the costs. Common avionics, common engines and common airframe. They could be all maintained by a single organisation (AC or civil), the AC would provide the pilots for their aircraft, they might have a SLA to provide pilots for the other agencies or at least train them. And a wild idea might be that GASU/HSE aircraft are flown and crewed by civvies who are then classified as reservists.

    Now back to SAR, this too is a service provided by the state and given our SAR area best covered by a medium lift helicopter (10-15t class). The AC has a need for something a bit bigger than an AW-139 which was a big step-up from the A3. (A jealous eye was always cast north to the Puma's flying around Fermanagh and Armagh.) Would it make sense for the State to have here also a common baseline helicopter? Most likely yes, the Danes have a common platform for troop movement and SAR to which they have dedicated 3 of their 14 aircraft. Here could be the same principles as above, a single agency in charge of sourcing a common baseline aircraft with mission specific add-on. So 4 dedicated SAR aircraft, say 4 dedicated troop lift and 2-3 to cover maintenance/US events.

    Clearly if all the functions were to be provided by the AC then its establishment would have to be matched to the new need. The costs being then split among the relevant agencies. This is a model that works in other countries already, with the military providing the equipment and personnel while a number of government departments pay the bills. What no-one wants is the AC providing all the services and having nothing left for military functions.
    So the state (Ireland PLC) sets up a "Civil Flying Service" which provides all non-military helicopters and fixed wing, hired out to the relevant organisations (HSE, AGS, Coastguard, Government Agencies) if need be with a contract for minimum usage. The "Helicopter Service" then provides the pilot and services (I believe it's called a wet lease?) amnd the organisation provides the specialist needed to crew it.

    If there is concern about keeping the flying skills available to the state in case of emergency, then give the pilots a commission in the reserves, and a mechanism for activating it in times of crisis.

    The elephant in the room about trying to crew everything from the Air Corps is that the Air Corps establishment could be 8500 all ranks, nobody wants to join it or stay there.
    Last edited by Flamingo; 28th October 2020 at 18:39.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  19. Thanks DeV, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  20. #62
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    SAR, MATS etc are all common functions done by military air arms in Europe, AFAIK there is not a single force that does not have some form of "civil" function.
    This is true but they are ancillary services employed in addition to the military functions.

    In the AC they supersede the primary military functions

  21. Thanks na grohmiti, apod thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo, apod, hptmurphy liked this post
  22. #63
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    So the state (Ireland PLC) sets up a "Civil Flying Service" which provides all non-military helicopters and fixed wing, hired out to the relevant organisations (HSE, AGS, Coastguard, Government Agencies) if need be with a contract for minimum usage. The "Helicopter Service" then provides the pilot and services (I believe it's called a wet lease?) amnd the organisation provides the specialist needed to crew it.

    If there is concern about keeping the flying skills available to the state in case of emergency, then give the pilots a commission in the reserves, and a mechanism for activating it in times of crisis.
    Almost, I would just have then one agency "Central Material Agency" be the one to purchase all the aircraft for the state, a bit like the "white fleet". AC would crew their aircraft other agencies could do with AC crew with a SLA or hire their own. It could even be that some of the civil crew could be RDF, say the medic in the back of an EMS.

  23. #64
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    4,364
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Almost, I would just have then one agency "Central Material Agency" be the one to purchase all the aircraft for the state, a bit like the "white fleet". AC would crew their aircraft other agencies could do with AC crew with a SLA or hire their own. It could even be that some of the civil crew could be RDF, say the medic in the back of an EMS.
    The point I'm trying to make is to keep the Air Corps out of it. Let the Air Corps do its thing, and let the Civil Power do its non-military thing. It's the distraction from it's core role, military defence of the state, that's the problem.

    ATCP is a good thing, but the military should be viewed as an asset for dealing with abnormal circumstances. From an Air point of view, it's seen as the first responder, and it's training, resources and role has been framed accordingly, to the detriment of the military.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  24. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod, na grohmiti liked this post
  25. #65
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,081
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've said it before: copy the French on the provision of Ministerial/VIP airlift by setting up the equivalent of GLAM, who have helis and fixed wing aircraft using pilots and techs seconded from the Air Force for a period like three years and it operates on a full time basis. It is funded by the State, but not out of the Defence budget and operates entirely independent of the air force and other state air arms; ie, it flies when it likes,on demand and doesnt have to go begging for assets and ,most importantly,it answers directly to the President. No bullshit,no faffing, no lies or half truths about availability. It is deliberately kept seperate from the mainline air force except for the provision of manpower and that uplift is small enough in real terms so as not to effect manpower levels.

  26. #66
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    I've said it before: copy the French on the provision of Ministerial/VIP airlift by setting up the equivalent of GLAM, who have helis and fixed wing aircraft using pilots and techs seconded from the Air Force for a period like three years and it operates on a full time basis. It is funded by the State, but not out of the Defence budget and operates entirely independent of the air force and other state air arms; ie, it flies when it likes,on demand and doesnt have to go begging for assets and ,most importantly,it answers directly to the President. No bullshit,no faffing, no lies or half truths about availability. It is deliberately kept seperate from the mainline air force except for the provision of manpower and that uplift is small enough in real terms so as not to effect manpower levels.
    Did the French not get rid of GLAM in 1995?

  27. #67
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,081
    Post Thanks / Like
    dont know. I had the chance to talk to their crews years ago and they told me how it worked. made a lot of sense.

  28. #68
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,998
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lets remember that the donners were reluctent to be based to far from home the last time they had a role in SAR.
    Have things changed in the Don in order to instiil confidence in the DoD lifers

  29. #69
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    Lets remember that the donners were reluctent to be based to far from home the last time they had a role in SAR.
    Have things changed in the Don in order to instiil confidence in the DoD lifers
    Dauphin for 1 year (replaced by civvy)
    Waterford for 3 years (replaced by civvy)
    Finner for 12 years (replaced by civvy) that doesn’t include the Alouette for a good number of years before that

    DoD cared so much in Waterford for the welfare of the crew that there was no ATC and no on-site sleeping facilities for the crew and both of these were systemic causes in the loss of DH248.


    I’d trust the Donner to do an excellent job at SAR given the aircraft, personnel, facilities, resources, training and time..... I don’t trust DoD
    Last edited by DeV; 30th October 2020 at 00:47.

  30. Thanks na grohmiti, sofa thanked for this post
  31. #70
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    dont know. I had the chance to talk to their crews years ago and they told me how it worked. made a lot of sense.
    Groupe de liaisons aériennes ministérielles (GLAM) was disbanded in July 1995 so as not to make the life of the President look like one of a billionaire! The function is currently done by L'escadron de transport 00.060 (ET 60), which does basically the same job. Knowing well how things work in France, it will still work the same way.

    As a side note, the A310's and A340's operated by Armée de l'air are not for MATS but rather strategic transport and will soon be move from ET3/60 to a new unit together with the new A330 MRTT's.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 30th October 2020 at 17:17.

  32. Thanks DeV, na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  33. #71
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,147
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Dauphin for 1 year (replaced by civvy)
    Waterford for 3 years (replaced by civvy)
    Finner for 12 years (replaced by civvy) that doesn’t include the Alouette for a good number of years before that

    DoD cared so much in Waterford for the welfare of the crew that there was no ATC and no on-site sleeping facilities for the crew and both of these were systemic causes in the loss of DH248.


    I’d trust the Donner to do an excellent job at SAR given the aircraft, personnel, facilities, resources, training and time..... I don’t trust DoD
    I think, with deep respect to all involved, we remind ourselves exactly what a shitshow the DoD made of SAR when the Air Corps did it.
    Those who are not familiar with it, should read this document from start to finish.
    http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...2000_011-0.PDF
    R.I.P.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  34. Thanks DeV, Shaqra, apod, ias, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, hptmurphy, apod, ias liked this post
  35. #72
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I think, with deep respect to all involved, we remind ourselves exactly what a shitshow the DoD made of SAR when the Air Corps did it.
    Those who are not familiar with it, should read this document from start to finish.
    http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...2000_011-0.PDF
    R.I.P.
    Exactly

    And it should also be looked at in the context of the AC being given the job of EAS (funded from within the existing DF budget and zero additional resources) - which the report doesn’t really state:
    http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...2013-004_0.pdf

    Similarly the rotation of personnel:
    http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...T_2011-016.PDF


    Let’s not forget that DoD sets DF personnel policy
    https://www.gov.ie/en/organisation-i...policy-branch/

  36. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  37. #73
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,081
    Post Thanks / Like
    proper MRTTs, by the way,not the half-baked Voyagers.

  38. #74
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,072
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    proper MRTTs, by the way,not the half-baked Voyagers.
    Yes, A330 MRTT Phénix, complete with booms so that they can refuel RAF aircraft not equipped with refueling probes.

  39. Likes DeV, na grohmiti liked this post
  40. #75
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,147
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well the head of the Coast Guard (ex NS) currently Head of Misson EUCAPSOM had an interesting take on this today.

    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  41. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •