Thanks Thanks:  100
Likes Likes:  223
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 168
  1. #26
    Private 3* gaff85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Dunboyne
    Posts
    70
    Post Thanks / Like

    Other EU countries outsourcing SAR

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Just how many other EU nations have contracted their SAR to private companies?

    http://aerossurance.com/helicopters/...-competitions/
    "Why am I using a new putter? Because the last one didn't float too well." -Craig Stadler

  2. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV, Tempest thanked for this post
  3. #27
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,070
    Post Thanks / Like
    So the only other EU country using a private company are the Dutch, with two light twins.
    Even the contract mentioned for Norway is only for a local service in Tromsø, Svalbard. In Norway the provision of SAR is done by the RNoAF on behalf of the Coastguard withbSea Kings which are being replaced by AW-101's.

    In the following EU countries SAR is provided by the military or directly by another state agency;
    Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria & Romania.

  4. #28
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    The main problem is for the most part those countries have a squadron, or Squadrons, dedicated to SAR. When the Air Corps did it, the squadron had a range of other rotary wing tasks too. For years the RAF 22 operating Wessex and 202 squadron with their Sea kings were familiar sights around our coastline. You didn't see either squadron being used to haul VIPs about, or go dunking for Submarine's in the North Sea.
    I believe while Norway has aircraft provided by RNoAF, the medical crew are Civilians. (similar to how the Athlone Air Ambulance is operated).
    Speaking of the Athlone Air Ambulance, remember this time last year when the Athlone air corps operation was so short of pilots, the HSE replaced the aircraft with a private aircraft, funded by charity?
    There has been almost 60 years of Irish Experience of the Air Corps getting the absolute minimum required to do the basic, absolute basic level of SAR. Appeals from the coastal, island, shipping and fishing community for just one long range SAR heli fell on deaf ears. Air Corps crews did their best for years with the A3, best suited for overland SAR, and of limited use during the hours of darkness. It was OK though, because being the Independent nation we are, we knew our former Rulers in the UK would send their Air Force or Navy to help us out. When you heard "Top cover" on media reports, it was usually followed with "provided by RAF Nimrod".
    I remember one incident when the US sent Super Jolly's (fuelled mid air) to deal with a rescue off our waters, as it was too large for the RAF to deal with, their helis not having HIFR. And of course the assholes complained about US military using our airports (after the incident).
    Up to the mid 90s, Baldonnel was the only base for Air Corps SAR. First using the single engine, VFR only A3, later on the "All Weather" Dauphin "that could fly by night". We had a total of 5, 2 of which were supposed to be Naval Aircraft. The Flaws of the Dauphin in irish SAR are (hopefully) well documented, should we say it's weaknesses in the role directly led to the death of 4 of our finest and leave it there? For a very short while the Air Corps managed to base a Dauphin in Shannon for SAR. With the inability of the DoD to properly fund the DF for Search and Rescue, the Dept of Marine decided to contract it out, and an S61 was made available, initially by Irish Helicopters, later on by Bond, or CHC Scotia. With no extra funding, the Air Corps was encouraged to provide daytime SAR at Finner and Waterford, using existing A3. With much publicity, a 24 hour service was made available in Waterford, with Ultimately tragic results, on the day of it's introduction. Waterford became the second Coastguard S61 base soon after.

    Keep in mind, at all times during these episodes, our Area of responsibility around our coasts remained the same. As citizens of the EU, we enjoy being able to let our fishermen work out to the 200 mile European EEZ. One would expect that on accession, when we decided to get longer range Naval OPVs to protect our fish, someone would have made the same consideration for long range aircraft to protect our fishermen?

    If the Air Corps are to do SAR, then it can only do so if dedicated LONG RANGE helicopters are made available. Anyone who suggests a short range aircraft for the east coast is the kind of person who would most likely kick your dog. The people who think the AW139 is just fine for SAR are more keen on flagwaving than lifesaving. 4 Bases minimum, 2 aircraft at each. The second aircraft alternating between use for training new crews or maintenance. The priority being 4 aircraft at 4 bases always available, Minimum. Fixed wing Top cover 24 hrs a day is also a must, so whatever aircraft you decide to use, be it SKA350, Lear or Casa, base it at a 24 hour airport.

    So 8 x S92 or equivalent at about €40m each plus 2x SKA 350 @ €8m each. So maybe just under €400m outlay to replace the private operator providing the service (for 10 years at €500m, including trained crew and technicians). Yes CHC only operate 5 S92 in Ireland, but they also have a large fleet of spare aircraft they can draw from should one aircraft go U/S. They also know that in the event of a major incident, the Air Corps are there to provide certain support using their existing aircraft. If you decide to give the contract to the Air Corps you no longer have that luxury, hence extra aircraft.
    Since the last contract was signed, CHC have replaced their S61 fleet with S92 around the 4 bases. If we are happy spending €400m to provide state owned SAR, can we do so in the knowledge that in 20 years or less, we will have to spend a similar amount to replace the aircraft in service.
    In addition to providing all the other things a military air arm is supposed to provide?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  5. Thanks CTU, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, DeV, hptmurphy, GoneToTheCanner, ropebag liked this post
  6. #29
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like
    I remember talking to a Coastguard person when the bases were set up he could not believe that there was going to be no base in Galway, he was under the impression that 115 would be in Galway 118 in Sligo 116 in Dublin and 117 in Cork.

  7. #30
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why would you base anything in Oranmore when there is a perfectly good functioning airport in Shannon, which already has the hangars etc.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  8. Likes DeV, ropebag liked this post
  9. #31
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Why would you base anything in Oranmore when there is a perfectly good functioning airport in Shannon, which already has the hangars etc.
    I understand they were offered the use of a new hangar at the Airport at the time, its a pity really as it would probably have saved the Airport

  10. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  11. #32
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post

    So 8 x S92 or equivalent at about €40m each plus 2x SKA 350 @ €8m each. So maybe just under €400m outlay to replace the private operator providing the service (for 10 years at €500m, including trained crew and technicians). Yes CHC only operate 5 S92 in Ireland, but they also have a large fleet of spare aircraft they can draw from should one aircraft go U/S. They also know that in the event of a major incident, the Air Corps are there to provide certain support using their existing aircraft. If you decide to give the contract to the Air Corps you no longer have that luxury, hence extra aircraft.
    Since the last contract was signed, CHC have replaced their S61 fleet with S92 around the 4 bases. If we are happy spending €400m to provide state owned SAR, can we do so in the knowledge that in 20 years or less, we will have to spend a similar amount to replace the aircraft in service.
    In addition to providing all the other things a military air arm is supposed to provide?
    I think this gets to the heart of it really. I think we would all prefer that the DF have the funding, capability, and assets necessary to fulfill these taskings, but it quickly becomes a traditional public service funding issue.

    In my opinion, and from experience, there is one single advantage to contracting out services to private sector like this, and that is, it locks in the funding for set period of time. The gov or departments cannot cutback, short change or undermine services when there is a contract locked-in for 2,5,10, etc for €500m for example. When contracting out you are more or less guaranteed the level of service that you contracted for, and there are penalties for non-compliance, so if there's a employee retention issue, or problems with aircraft/equipment, its generally all covered by the contractor under the terms of the contract and not the state's issue (obviously it's built into the contract price, but it guarantees public spending to maintain the service, which sadly doesn't always happen when its publicly provided).

  12. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, ropebag liked this post
  13. #33
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,070
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    So 8 x S92 or equivalent at about €40m each plus 2x SKA 350 @ €8m each. So maybe just under €400m outlay to replace the private operator providing the service (for 10 years at €500m, including trained crew and technicians). Yes CHC only operate 5 S92 in Ireland, but they also have a large fleet of spare aircraft they can draw from should one aircraft go U/S. They also know that in the event of a major incident, the Air Corps are there to provide certain support using their existing aircraft. If you decide to give the contract to the Air Corps you no longer have that luxury, hence extra aircraft.
    Since the last contract was signed, CHC have replaced their S61 fleet with S92 around the 4 bases. If we are happy spending €400m to provide state owned SAR, can we do so in the knowledge that in 20 years or less, we will have to spend a similar amount to replace the aircraft in service.
    If you are going to compare costs then they have to be on a like-for-like basis. Also it need not be new aircraft, for example the state could offer to buy the existing fleet of S-92's or source other second-hand aircraft on the market. Not all of those aircraft used by CHC were new builds nor do they have loads of SAR equipped S-92's just sitting around waiting for an aircraft to go U/S in Ireland. If they did then they would go bankrupt!!!!!!

    So to compare we need, 4x S-92's + 1x in maintenance + 1x emergency spare, which would cost around $117m for 10 year old aircraft (current rate of around $19.5m for a 10 year old S-92), that is €99m at today exchange rates, plus the aircraft will be good for another 20 years! Yes there are the operating costs to come on top but there is no need for a 10-20% mark-up for profits. And it need not be the AC that provides the service the state could have taken the 10 years to come up with an alternative like the Spanish SASEMAR.

  14. #34
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,070
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    So the only other EU country using a private company are the Dutch, with two light twins.
    Even the contract mentioned for Norway is only for a local service in Tromsø, Svalbard. In Norway the provision of SAR is done by the RNoAF on behalf of the Coastguard withbSea Kings which are being replaced by AW-101's.

    In the following EU countries SAR is provided by the military or directly by another state agency;
    Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria & Romania.
    The reason I mentioned all the above countries is to dispel the belief that SAR provided by commercial companies is widespread when in Europe it is not.

  15. #35
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    If you are going to compare costs then they have to be on a like-for-like basis. Also it need not be new aircraft, for example the state could offer to buy the existing fleet of S-92's or source other second-hand aircraft on the market. Not all of those aircraft used by CHC were new builds nor do they have loads of SAR equipped S-92's just sitting around waiting for an aircraft to go U/S in Ireland. If they did then they would go bankrupt!!!!!!

    So to compare we need, 4x S-92's + 1x in maintenance + 1x emergency spare, which would cost around $117m for 10 year old aircraft (current rate of around $19.5m for a 10 year old S-92), that is €99m at today exchange rates, plus the aircraft will be good for another 20 years! Yes there are the operating costs to come on top but there is no need for a 10-20% mark-up for profits. And it need not be the AC that provides the service the state could have taken the 10 years to come up with an alternative like the Spanish SASEMAR.
    You can't do like for like. You can only do that if you take CHC pilots off flying duties regularly to act in administrative roles, or train new SAR pilots. CHC techies must get the same pay as Air Corps Techies, and work the same hours. Maintenance can only be done at one location. CHC Do have lots of SAR equipped S92s lying around. They replaced R116 with an aircraft from Australia. They operate 46 of the type. To be fair, they could as easily have given us one of their 36 Super Pumas, until a new S92 was available.
    EI-ICG was built in 2011, delivered new in 2012.
    EI-ICU was built in 2006, Delivered in July 2013, having served with HMCG up to then.
    EI-ICA was built in 2006, delivered in 2013, HMCG before then.
    EI-ICR was built in 2007, delivered in 2013, HMCG before then, crashed in March 2017, was replaced by EI-ICS in October that year.
    Ei-ICD was built in 2006, delivered in 2013, HMCG before then.
    EI-ICS was built in 2014, delivered in 2017, Previous VH-NBP, Coastguard rescue Australia.

    Given that we got no replacement for Dh248, have no spare aircraft that can be diverted from other duties, and it took 7 years to replace the crashed PC9M, I don't think like for like is possible.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  16. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, ropebag liked this post
  17. #36
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,070
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    You can't do like for like. You can only do that if you take CHC pilots off flying duties regularly to act in administrative roles, or train new SAR pilots. CHC techies must get the same pay as Air Corps Techies, and work the same hours. Maintenance can only be done at one location. CHC Do have lots of SAR equipped S92s lying around. They replaced R116 with an aircraft from Australia. They operate 46 of the type. To be fair, they could as easily have given us one of their 36 Super Pumas, until a new S92 was available.
    EI-ICG was built in 2011, delivered new in 2012.
    EI-ICU was built in 2006, Delivered in July 2013, having served with HMCG up to then.
    EI-ICA was built in 2006, delivered in 2013, HMCG before then.
    EI-ICR was built in 2007, delivered in 2013, HMCG before then, crashed in March 2017, was replaced by EI-ICS in October that year.
    Ei-ICD was built in 2006, delivered in 2013, HMCG before then.
    EI-ICS was built in 2014, delivered in 2017, Previous VH-NBP, Coastguard rescue Australia.

    Given that we got no replacement for Dh248, have no spare aircraft that can be diverted from other duties, and it took 7 years to replace the crashed PC9M, I don't think like for like is possible.
    Your right, I over-estimated the value of the CHC fleet,
    Reg C/N Value
    EI-ICU 92-0034 $15.85m
    EI-ICA 92-0045 $15.85m
    EI-ICD 92-0052 $15.85m
    EI-ICG 92-0150 $20.45
    EI-ICS 92-0259 $23.75m

    So the current CHC fleet is worth $91.75m, rather than $97.5m I had first estimated.
    And EI-ICS did not come from a CHC fleet of SAR helicopters on standby, is was obtained from Bristow Helicopters in Australia.

    The delay in the AC replacing lost aircraft says more about what has to change in the AC/DoD relationship more than anything. As for the CHC techies having to get the pay and hours of the AC should it not be the other way round seeing how so many people want to leave for better conditions in the civil side?

    As for CHC having loads of aircraft, this is no longer the case. Back in 2017 the offshore industry was in a slump and there was a glut of aircraft. This was one of the reasons why CHC went bankrupt. In fact the Airbus/Ukraine deal (55 helicopters for €551m/$643m) was based around a lot of H225's that were taken back from CHC.

  18. #37
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,744
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is a long seated contempt towards funding the Defence Forces by successive governments. The same governments who have no problem at throwing millions at private companies, €700 million for a SAR helicopter service and €16 million for patient transfer aircraft.
    The problems with Air Corps SAR over the decades was always down to government underfunding. In the '60s the Air Corps wanted Whirlwind helicopters for SAR, they got Alouettes, in the '80s they wanted Pumas, they got Dauphins, in the 2000's they wanted S-92/EC225, they got nothing.
    Give the Air Corps €700 million and you'd have the best helicopter SAR service there is.
    CHC Ireland is able to pay their staff triple what Air Corps members earn for doing the equivalent job and still make millions in profit every year from taxpayers money.

    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    If the Air Corps are to do SAR, then it can only do so if dedicated LONG RANGE helicopters are made available. Anyone who suggests a short range aircraft for the east coast is the kind of person who would most likely kick your dog. The people who think the AW139 is just fine for SAR are more keen on flagwaving than lifesaving. 4 Bases minimum, 2 aircraft at each. The second aircraft alternating between use for training new crews or maintenance. The priority being 4 aircraft at 4 bases always available, Minimum. Fixed wing Top cover 24 hrs a day is also a must, so whatever aircraft you decide to use, be it SKA350, Lear or Casa, base it at a 24 hour airport.
    What is a long-range helicopter?
    Why would the Air Corps need 'long-range' helicopters but a private contractor only needs medium-range helicopters?
    Why would the Air Corps need double the number of aircraft that private contractor needs?

    A committee decided a number of years ago that what was required was five helicopters, with either three operational at three bases plus two in reserve/maintenance/training or four operational at four bases plus one in reserve/maintenance/training.
    Last edited by Rhodes; 27th October 2020 at 14:56.

  19. Thanks DeV, EUFighter, The Usual Suspect, Truck Driver thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, na grohmiti liked this post
  20. #38
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    AC taking over SAR would mean purchase of min 5 medium lift & range Helis, with little time for crew conversion, build up of experience, would likely require min 3 shifts of aircrews working 24 hour shifts at 4 based (and not as alluded to available for any other duties).

    That alone is 24 pilots.

    There isn’t enough to do GASU and EAS as is.

  21. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  22. #39
    Commander in Chief apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    5,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    SAR SAR SAR SAR F***kin SAR. I have said it before and I will say it again.The AC is the Military Air wing of the state and as such needs to be taskable for Military tasks and the few remaining pilots we have should be trained to a very high standard for those tasks.

    The AC is NOT nor should it be a a glorified Air ambulance or Coast Guard service. If all our Helis and pilots are tied up doing those tasks then they become all about those tasks in mindset and ethos. This is not the '60s when the AC were the only ones capable of doing the job of rescuing sailors or ferrying HSE patients. Let the civvies do those jobs. Like they do everywhere else.FCUK SAR!!!!!
    "105,000 dead. 40,000,000 unemployed. Police murdering African-Americans. You’ve completed you’re mission. You’ve made America great. Now get the f**k out."

    - Rob Reiner.

    "Yes he's an idiot with zero common sense,and no social skills,but he IS my son.I just hope he never goes into politics.He'd be a disaster.

    - Mary Anne Trump

    #unfollowtrump

  23. Thanks DeV, na grohmiti, Chuck thanked for this post
  24. #40
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    208
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    SAR SAR SAR SAR F***kin SAR. I have said it before and I will say it again.The AC is the Military Air wing of the state and as such needs to be taskable for Military tasks and the few remaining pilots we have should be trained to a very high standard for those tasks.

    The AC is NOT nor should it be a a glorified Air ambulance or Coast Guard service. If all our Helis and pilots are tied up doing those tasks then they become all about those tasks in mindset and ethos. This is not the '60s when the AC were the only ones capable of doing the job of rescuing sailors or ferrying HSE patients. Let the civvies do those jobs. Like they do everywhere else.FCUK SAR!!!!!
    For once I fully agree with your sentiment Apod!

    If you remove EAS & GASU commitments, the reality is there is little to no domestic military requirement for heli support/troop lift etc. Hence being shoehorned into those two roles. Justifying existence.

    Yes, its great for certain training and exercises but very little operational requirements on island, and the remainder are primarily ATCA/ATCP. Very little support to the Army and Naval Service.

    Those two commitments are civil functions and should be tasked to civvies. It won't happen though as its established and an easy win PR wise.

    The minister has said there will be no AC involvement in SAR and I cannot see it happening in any format.

    There is absolutely no reason (staffing issues aside) why the AC cannot do the same job as ITALAIR in Lebanon. Yet no one seems to have any desire to do it, at any level. When was the last time the AC sent a heli to an exercise abroad? Has it ever happened?
    Last edited by Chuck; 27th October 2020 at 22:45.

  25. Thanks apod, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag liked this post
  26. #41
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    For once I fully agree with your sentiment Apod!

    If you remove EAS & GASU commitments, the reality is there is little to no domestic military requirement for heli support/troop lift etc. Hence being shoehorned into those two roles. Justifying existence.

    Yes, its great for certain training and exercises but very little operational requirements on island, and the remainder are primarily ATCA/ATCP. Very little support to the Army and Naval Service.

    Those two commitments are civil functions and should be tasked to civvies. It won't happen though as its established and an easy win PR wise.

    The minister has said there will be no AC involvement in SAR and I cannot see it happening in any format.

    There is absolutely no reason (staffing issues aside) why the AC cannot do the same job as ITALAIR in Lebanon. Yet no one seems to have any desire to do it, at any level. When was the last time the AC sent a heli to an exercise abroad? Has it ever happened?
    Does a weekend jolly to Fairford count?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  27. Likes ropebag liked this post
  28. #42
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    208
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Does a weekend jolly to Fairford count?
    Even those are severely restricted, albeit not by the Military authorities. DoD civilians are the final approvers in that instance.

    Therein lies an entirely separate issue.

  29. Likes DeV liked this post
  30. #43
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    @chuck

    Agree with everything you said apart from the below

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    If you remove EAS & GASU commitments, the reality is there is little to no domestic military requirement for heli support/troop lift etc. Hence being shoehorned into those two roles. Justifying existence.
    There is plenty of on island DF taskings for helis (ATCA, ATCP, troop training, ad hoc taskings)

    The problem is that they aren’t available because all the resources are put into EAS and AC (and the AC wasn’t given an establishment for EAS never mind strength)

  31. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod, hptmurphy liked this post
  32. #44
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    208
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    @chuck

    Agree with everything you said apart from the below



    There is plenty of on island DF taskings for helis (ATCA, ATCP, troop training, ad hoc taskings)

    The problem is that they aren’t available because all the resources are put into EAS and AC (and the AC wasn’t given an establishment for EAS never mind strength)
    Dev,

    Perhaps I should've been more specific. What I mean is that there is very limited military functions currently to occupy a small heli fleet.

    Bar the occasional 'airport to sandyford' run, there is zero military roles on island for helicopters.

    There continues to be numerous overseas units who deploy without so much as seeing a helicopter. Granted, they are unlikely to be utilising them in the mission area but it would be nice to put a heli or two on the ground in the glen for the 2 week MRE wouldnt it.

    Taking pictures of flooding, transporting ballot boxes and doing troop drills on the curragh plains aren't exactly taxing military aviation functions.

    Its not so long ago that resources (aircraft hours, personnel and fuel) were in such short supply that recruit platoons from all over the country were bussed to Baldonnel to do a 3-4 minute flight to tick a box on their course.

    Let's get real.

  33. Likes Truck Driver, ropebag liked this post
  34. #45
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    415
    Post Thanks / Like
    This decision should be seen in a positive light, it is an opportunity for the AC to start to build itself into a Military Aviation Arm.

    There have been decades, of holding onto hope for a Medium Lift SAR aircraft, and maybe a loss of focus on other possible roles.

  35. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes apod, DeV, CTU, hptmurphy, ropebag liked this post
  36. #46
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Dev,

    Perhaps I should've been more specific. What I mean is that there is very limited military functions currently to occupy a small heli fleet.

    Bar the occasional 'airport to sandyford' run, there is zero military roles on island for helicopters.

    There continues to be numerous overseas units who deploy without so much as seeing a helicopter. Granted, they are unlikely to be utilising them in the mission area but it would be nice to put a heli or two on the ground in the glen for the 2 week MRE wouldnt it.

    Taking pictures of flooding, transporting ballot boxes and doing troop drills on the curragh plains aren't exactly taxing military aviation functions.

    Its not so long ago that resources (aircraft hours, personnel and fuel) were in such short supply that recruit platoons from all over the country were bussed to Baldonnel to do a 3-4 minute flight to tick a box on their course.

    Let's get real.
    There is on island military taskings that are not being completed due to lack of availability!

    You just stated so yourself

  37. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod liked this post
  38. #47
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is it not also the case that the other military air arms who do Civil SAR/HEMS do so to keep their Combat SAR teams training relevent and up to date.
    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.

  39. Thanks EUFighter, The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter, DeV, The Usual Suspect liked this post
  40. #48
    Lt Colonel EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,070
    Post Thanks / Like
    Let's cut to the chase, no SAR, then that also means no EAS nor patient transfers, means no GASU etc, as these are almost all handled by civilians in other countries.
    Next comes Fishery Protection, this is also a non-military role and officially belong to the Dept of Agri. So it too can go to a civilian contractor for the air component, and the DoA can get some boats of their own without a 76mm to perform the civilian part of the role, no need to bother the Naval Service with civilian tasks like FP.

    Now let's come to the future and the replacement of the AW-139's, how will the AC convince the GenSec.
    GCO: "Ah Madam GenSec we would like 6 Blackhawk helicopters to replace the AW139's"
    GenSec: "Why do you need them?"
    GCO: "To transport troops and material"
    GenSec: "How many troops can they transport?"
    GCO: "8 fully equipped troops"
    GenSec: "So you want $300m to be able to transport 48 troops?"
    GCO: "But we need them also to do CasEvac?
    GenSec: "Is that not the same as EAS, which you do not want to do?"
    GCO: "Ohhh no, much different, it is only for military personnel"
    GCO: "But we can do other things like put out fires!"
    GenSec: "Is that not what the fire brigades are for?"
    GCO: "We can deliver ballot boxes to the islands"
    GenSec: "Have the AW139's ever been deployed on UN missions?"
    GCO: "No, in Mali the Germans provided us with heli-lift so we did not need too"

    Missions like SAR & EAS generate good-will in the general public, it is that good-will that is necessary to have any defence forces at all. Not only that, but stabilizing and transporting a car driver after a major accident or soldier with gun-shot wound require a lot of the same skill sets. Lifting a stranded climber off a mountain or inserting SF troops in difficult terrain requires the similar level of piloting skill. A lot of blue missions are very close to green, if one looks deeper.

  41. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  42. #49
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Let's cut to the chase, no SAR, then that also means no EAS nor patient transfers, means no GASU etc, as these are almost all handled by civilians in other countries.
    Next comes Fishery Protection, this is also a non-military role and officially belong to the Dept of Agri. So it too can go to a civilian contractor for the air component, and the DoA can get some boats of their own without a 76mm to perform the civilian part of the role, no need to bother the Naval Service with civilian tasks like FP.

    Now let's come to the future and the replacement of the AW-139's, how will the AC convince the GenSec.
    GCO: "Ah Madam GenSec we would like 6 Blackhawk helicopters to replace the AW139's"
    GenSec: "Why do you need them?"
    GCO: "To transport troops and material"
    GenSec: "How many troops can they transport?"
    GCO: "8 fully equipped troops"
    GenSec: "So you want $300m to be able to transport 48 troops?"
    GCO: "But we need them also to do CasEvac?
    GenSec: "Is that not the same as EAS, which you do not want to do?"
    GCO: "Ohhh no, much different, it is only for military personnel"
    GCO: "But we can do other things like put out fires!"
    GenSec: "Is that not what the fire brigades are for?"
    GCO: "We can deliver ballot boxes to the islands"
    GenSec: "Have the AW139's ever been deployed on UN missions?"
    GCO: "No, in Mali the Germans provided us with heli-lift so we did not need too"

    Missions like SAR & EAS generate good-will in the general public, it is that good-will that is necessary to have any defence forces at all. Not only that, but stabilizing and transporting a car driver after a major accident or soldier with gun-shot wound require a lot of the same skill sets. Lifting a stranded climber off a mountain or inserting SF troops in difficult terrain requires the similar level of piloting skill. A lot of blue missions are very close to green, if one looks deeper.
    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?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  43. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes Flamingo, apod, hptmurphy, ropebag liked this post
  44. #50
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    23,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Air Corps getting ad hoc short term jobs is a good thing and is a good use of spare capacity and does add training value ... it is also a good use of public funds.

    The Air Corps being unable to do its actual tasks due to all resources being diverted to declared type tasks is a very bad thing as it means that they can’t do what they are supposed to be doing.

    The Government gave the EAS trial to the AC failed to provide extra helis, failed to provide any uplift in personnel and for a good while even made the AC pay for it!

    The only difference now is the AC isn’t paying the full costs.

  45. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmiti, CTU, apod 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
  •