Messages

16

Irish Air Corps / PC-9's -

« on: January 19, 2004, 01:14:13 am »

I suppose this type of training was given seeing as we had no aircraft that could be used in an emergency situation... i.e. invasion/civil war or something. Maybe its a left over remnant of WW2? Or possibly more likely the "troubles"...

It would seem that with cutting this type of training out and re-organistion being undertaken, considerable savings could be made. Which beggars the question: why hasnt it been done already?

Are the air corps in any situation to bargain i.e. say, "look provide us with the funds to purchase x number of y aircraft, and we guarantee you we'll cut Z amount euros out of our costs, thus negating the actual cost of buying these aircraft." Or would they just get a slap and be told to cut those costs anyway? Dont answer that I know the answer already '>

The consistent opinion seems to be that if the air corps made cost cutting measures... the money which would be "saved" would be ironically enough, lost and not get reinvested in equipment/facilities '>

17

Irish Air Corps / If it was up to you.....

« on: January 18, 2004, 10:49:16 pm »

It may have been on this board a few years ago.... but wasnt it mentioned that an SU-27 or Mig-29 came to baldonnel on a promo trip, offering it to the Air Corps a few years ago (2-3 years maybe). Anyway so the story went that when the Air Corps asked for the price.... and after finding that nugget of information out, it wasnt brought any further... I wonder why '>

18

Irish Air Corps / Why no NATO

« on: January 16, 2004, 09:39:18 pm »

Hey Guinness.
Your absolutely right, the issue with the UK was the reason we did not join Nato in the 50's. The neutrality thing is a load of bullshit.

We were invited to join Nato but we turned it down as it would have meant recognising the UK owning the 6 Counties of northern Ireland. However, we approached the USA twice in the 50's with regard to a mutual defence treaty. They declined on both occasions. Can you blame them?

Now neutrality is popular with the Irish population... which is the main reason we havent joined.

But theres lots of rumours about american offers of loads of military equipment to try and get us to join, throughout the 70's and 80's. Everything from naval ships to f-16's. There is also rumours about Knock airport being built with Nato funding. But largely these are all just rumours.

Governments are warey of joining Nato, or even sorting the EU mutual defence policy now because it wont go down well with the electorate.

The simple fact however is that we are not neutral, nor were we ever truely neutral. I wish we'd just join and stop this charade.... that or actually give a damn about our defence forces.

19

Irish Air Corps / If it was up to you.....

« on: January 16, 2004, 06:51:33 pm »

The most realistic suggestion so far '>

20

Irish Air Corps / Aircraft markings

« on: January 16, 2004, 06:41:51 pm »

Anyone who cares will recognise the PC-9's as Air Corps aircraft. Others will notice they are Air Corps aircraft and go "hah look they are world war two planes"... While others... wont bother to look up at all.

When I was a kid what generated an interest in aviation and the air corps in particular was the training of the silver swallows over my  - at the time - new home town. I'd never knew of the Air Corps before, I was 9. Then the day before Air Spectacular '93 the Patroille De France (forgive the speling) flew over my house in formation trailing red white and blue... I knew I had to go to Baldonnel then '>

The point I'm making is that if you want interest in the Air Corps, you cant over estimate the importance of display teams, jets in particular. But we wont be seeing one of those for.. well will we ever see one again? Leaving that aside, I think interest in it is pretty good, look at this wonderful website for instance. Also look at the huge number of people trying to join the Air Corps each and every year. Sure a large proportion of the population remain ignorant but its the same in every country.

Finally I think if anything shouldve raised the profile of the Air Corps over the years, it should be the courage and bravery of the SAR crews. But with that role now seemingly consigned to history, it makes it obvious that the Air Corps are lacking a role. Hopefully a new military one will be given soon, with an adequate amount of the right equipment, if so I'd be pretty confident of it being done well and raising the profile of the AC suitably '>

21

Irish Air Corps / If it was up to you.....

« on: January 16, 2004, 05:48:40 pm »

Hey Guinness...

While your absolutely correct that under current circumstances that the Gripen is just completely unrealistic for the Air Corps.
The question in this topic is about what would we ideally would want.

I think it was mentioned on this messageboard that the Alpha Jet was wanted by the Air Corps.... in the 80's and in the 90's as a replacement to the Fouga. But now we have the PC-9M.... theres no real need for an alpha jet type aircraft. It doesnt offer enough over the PC-9 to warrant the expense of operating it.

Thats why theres discussion over aircraft such as the L-159. Trainer jets with pretensions about being fighter aircraft, as they have radar/sidewinder/amraam capabilities.

But likewise they dont really offer that much over the PC-9.... so on the discussion goes '>

22

Air Corps News / New MATS jet

« on: December 22, 2003, 10:29:54 pm »

Because its replacing the KingAir - is this Lear jet suitable for short hops around the country? given that that was one of reasons behind the fact that the GIV supposedly wasnt/isnt in the best shape?

23

Irish Air Corps / Best replacement for the Alouette

« on: December 09, 2003, 03:36:09 pm »

I like the Bell 412 because it would be useful for overseas deployments, the Canadians use(d) it in Kosovo. However.. the problem with this list and with all lists i guess is: We don't know exactly what roles the air corps themselves have in mind for an A3 replacement.

Is supporting overseas deployments viewed as part of the future? If not what roles are light heli's to have in the Air Corp? Is SAR a responsibility... Is air ambulance a requirement?  Troop transport of course but will this be the main requirement?

We need to know all this before we can make any kind a judgement. If the air corps are to provide troop transport in the future on EURRF/UN missions then as I said I'd plump for the Bell 412.

24

Irish Air Corps / Light Strike Squadron L-39

« on: November 02, 2003, 12:45:18 am »

This is going off the original point of the post.. anyway:
 http://www.radom-aviation.com/radom/eng/pro6.htm

The PC-9M Swift is the aircraft used by the Slovakian AF, its had an upgrade by the Israeli Company whose URL is above. In the link above is a device that allows the PC-9M to simulate the firing of a Sidewinder, minus the expense of actually firing one. This *could* be useful for the AC as regards training - which lets not forget the PC-9M has been bought for. Not actual Air to Air combat.

I'm not sure how useful a Sidewinders going to be on a PC-9 though, like what the hells it going to be used for? Don't say runaway airliners, don't say drug pushers. I really see it as a pointless expense for the Air Corps to go to. Id really prefer the money to go towards something more important.

25

Irish Air Corps / Light Strike Squadron L-39

« on: November 02, 2003, 01:20:38 am »

No worrys turk. I just think we'd all do alot better if we simply ignored FF and didnt bother trying to reason with someone who for whatever reason (I think he's satirising the government, but maybe I'm being overly generous to their intellect) doesnt want to be reasoned with.

I agree with you regarding what the politicians will say about the PC-9M. Sinn Fein already came out concerned that we were buying an aircraft that was nato compatible. Shock  horror, but would they prefer Migs?

26

Irish Air Corps / PC-9M Armaments? Anybody heard about them?

« on: November 29, 2003, 06:58:30 pm »

The armament is very much along the lines of the marchetti, from what I remember reading on this MB a while ago. As you can imagine Air-to-air is very much a secondary concern seeing as this is a turboprop trainer, so I think it consists of two machine gun pods. If you go back through the posts I'm sure you'll find the one which goes into this topic in greater depth

27

Irish Air Corps / Which Jet ?

« on: December 09, 2003, 09:58:47 pm »

Ugh thats them having an uninformed pop at the government for the sake of it I dare say. "propellor = obsolete".

I remember reading an article about the public preferring flights on jet aircraft to turboprops - even brand new ones such as the ATR-42/Saab 340... it wasnt to do with speed... people felt they were old technology and thus unsafe!

That said; should the government have any pretensions about the purchase of the PC-9M giving the Air Corps an adequate ADF capability , they deserve every bollocking they get.

I wouldve thought even an F-16 with full load could get airborne using the afterburner from Bal if the government jet can?!

[Quote]

28

Irish Air Corps / Which Jet ?

« on: November 29, 2003, 10:04:10 pm »

Quote (Turkey @ 29 Nov. 2003,12:56)

Apparently there are no Viggens to be released for sale, all are being dismantled on withdrawal. The Gripen would have easier maintainance costs then the F-5 IMHO, being newer and being designed for a largely conscripted serviceing force.

Well thats the end of that '>

Saab probably want to put everything behind the Jas-39.

[Quote]

29

Irish Air Corps / Which Jet ?

« on: November 29, 2003, 10:01:01 pm »

Quote (Imshi-Yallah @ 29 Nov. 2003,12:36)

The Gripen and F-5 both have tiny maintenance needs, so the only real infrastructure would be hangars and radar (which is a big cost),  Gripens and F-5s could not only operate from bals runways they could operate from any primary roads, not just aviation grade ones. However there wouldnt be enough apron space for a gripen which leaves the F-5. As to the Viggen why would we want to be the only Viggen operator in the world? Its also bigger and less capable than the Gripen]

Initial outlay for the Viggen would I (here comes the dangerous word) assume be far cheaper then for a Grippen. The Viggen is a highly capable aircraft with STOL capability and it is designed for operating in the harsh Scandinavian climate,  but of course as you state the Viggen is being retired from the SAF in 2005(?) which would lead to higher operating costs for the IAC if it chose to operate it.  But what if another nation or two ordered secondhand examples as well? Are the Austrians still operating the much older Drakens?

My problem with the F-5 is, you say it has tiny maintenance needs - but how many low hour examples are available at this time? I assume more costly maintenence is required on the older examples. Of course I know nothing about the hours on the Viggen airframes either....

I would go for the Gripen as its modern and low maintenence, I just suggested the Viggen as it might have been a compromise between the cost and capability of the JA-39/F-5 you suggested.

I must add that I obviously have a limited knowledge of these things compared to you - I'm just suggesting the Viggen/Bell 412 to get a response from people who know alot more then I do i.e. you.

I don't think I have all the answers, I'm only suggesting things that seem like possibilities to me.

[Quote]

30

Irish Air Corps / Which Jet ?

« on: November 29, 2003, 09:24:22 pm »

Quote (Short finals @ 29 Nov. 2003,11:26)

I agree strongly with the last two posts. L-159's are a useless piece of kit when the air corps already have PC-9M's.

I would however add the JA-37 Viggen to the list along with the Jas-39C and F-5.

But going on to short finals point.. as you point out about the amount of infrastructure involved, its not going to happen.

I suppose this all comes down to our future role in europe; I doubt we'll be expected to contribute Air Defence assets to any european defence, they'll be provided for us. I.E. our skies will be patrolled by the RAF, but perhaps we'll be expected to have some token defence.

Which assuming thats the case, would more PC-9M's be worthwhile, or should transport, both fixed wing and helecopter based be the Air Corps main concern?