What next aircraft?

[Turkey]

I love when anybody mentions fast jets the hysteria that comes from both camps.
The next big investment for the Air Corps is meant to be the Cessana replacement, hopefully with something more practice and suitable for more parachute work.
Then in IMHO the strategic transport, followed by some bigger choppers and then when conditions are suitable, I suspect there may be an aspiration towards fast jets as interceptors, but this would depend on a lot of factors.
I base this on the fact that there is an air-to-air course being planned for the PC-9's
But any body who thinks in terms of obsolete  aircraft like the harrier is a bit sad, even more sad then people who rant on about nonsense like space shuttles.
If it happens, and I stress IF then the most likely choice is the F/A/T-50 as it is the only new aircraft that has reached it's expectations.......
By the way....two words....more Casa's......

[SousaTeuszii]

The Space Shuttles were meant to be nonsense, aimed at the person who took exception to my use of logical argument, I suggest you read the posts more carefully.

The AA PC 9 Course is so that we can hide under a veil of air defence which by the way will never be utilised because the CoS (at least the last one) doesnt have the balls to make the call on intercepting a civil aircraft. By the way we dont need them.

Why more CASAs? To add a crutch to the already ineffective and very inefficent system that exisits? Utilise whats there properly first and show that the Air Corps DESERVE public money!!!
ST

[P.Doff]

Hey guys,
            My above post about Harriers is just a fantasy so dont go off on a nutter over it. Anyhoo, back to reality, more CASA's!! hmmm! Whos gonna fly and crew them?? As I said before its all fine and well getting new aircraft but we need people to fly/fly in/maintain them and the infrastructure to support them. And the way things are going we barely have enough people to run the palce as it is!!!

[Shamrock145]

Well, if replacment of the Cessna's is next on the list then assuming the role of said aircraft is basic training, observation, hour building, para training why not just new cessna's.

Or if you're adventurous, then a mix of PC-6's and BN 2's or Defenders.

The mix gives single and twin engine training options, plus good options for para training (aswell as towing targets) and both are robust aircraft with felixibility. Both are high wing for observation, both have STOL.

Just a thought.

..145

[warthog]

three more 135's
(one fitted constantly as an air ambulance)

three NH90's or super pumas/merlins

6 more 149's with battlefield survivability (if they do go overseas) and preferably with skids not wheels

two trooptransporter casa types (that could double up as aux fisheries protection)

[SousaTeuszii]

Can somebody please tell me who is going to fly all of these helicopters?

Consider 2 aircraft overseas on a 24hr call basis

This will require a minimum of 3 full crews per aircraft. i.e 6 pilots minimum. Thats a min of 12 pilots per detachment.
Consider if these guys do 3 months overseas with 1 month off between pre and post detachment leave, that means each detachment takes 12 pilots out of Bal for four months.

This regieme will require four detachments per year, ie 48 pilots. Even with 48 pilots that means that every pilot will spend 3 months overseas EVERY year until they retire, that just isnt going to happen.

This also leaves 36 pilots to fight over the scraps of flying in Ireland for the remaining 9 months they are at home.

The Air Corps is much to small to provide sustained overseas operations of any kind. There is much more to running an op then just the aircraft.
ST

PS what is the current pilot strength in helis?

[FiSe]

Get mercenaries in... It works  

[warthog]

simple answer,reduce the bloated size of the army
(who's effectiveness on a land locked island is debatable)
expand the navy and air corps
increase military spending gradually on an annual basis with the plan to double the defense budget with 6-8 years
(less of a media shock than an immediate increase)
no more half measures!
imo this would be a realistic force with a good capability for humanitarian work/peacekeeping,without being excessively OTT like jets would be imho

[SousaTeuszii]

Let me see if I have this right:

Reduce the size of the Army (The ones that do most of the operational military tasks in Ireland and overseas) and pump the money into their support services.

I possibily agree with giving more money to the Navy as a stand alone service but the Air CORPS are supposed to be a support unit for the Army. If you reduce it youll have nothing to support!!
ST

[Fouga]

Quote (warthog @ 25 July 2007,10:27)

without being excessively OTT like jets would be imho

Whats Irelands bloody problem with "Jets" for god sake are we afraid to move forward..

[Shamrock145]

Quote (Fouga @ 26 July 2007,05:40)

Quote (warthog @ 25 July 2007,10:27) without being excessively OTT like jets would be imho Whats Irelands bloody problem with "Jets" for god sake are we afraid to move forward..

I think the perception amongst our political overlords is that Air Corps jets are similar in the publics mind to nuclear power ... dirty, polluting wates of public money and of no real benefit (that is unless they're the jets hauling their politcal b*##s around).

 

Anyway, have the Air Corps submitted a request for training/combat jets since the decision to retire the fouga's?

...145

[Fouga]

Quote (Shamrock145 @ 26 July 2007,08:57)

Anyway, have the Air Corps submitted a request for training/combat jets since the decision to retire the fouga's?

Id imagine the answer to that one is NO.

[Guinness]

Guy's,

I don't want to stirr up things but give me 1 reason why the IAC need jet fighters?

1)You're protected on the East by the UK and the West bij the USAF / USN.
the reason for this is that you're livin' on one of the most strategic "rocks" on the Atlantic ( exept for Iceland than ) .

2) you're nót in NATO so no restictions / obligations there.

3) your UN- support is OK as it is now.
The needed support is givin' by other countries such as France.

To enlarge your AC more support planes such as  the Casa or Helicopters would be OK.

Guinness

[pym]

Quote (Guinness @ 28 July 2007,00:13)

Guy's, I don't want to stirr up things but give me 1 reason why the IAC need jet fighters? 1)You're protected on the East by the UK and the West bij the USAF / USN. the reason for this is that you're livin' on one of the most strategic "rocks" on the Atlantic ( exept for Iceland than ) . 2) you're nót in NATO so no restictions / obligations there. 3) your UN- support is OK as it is now. The needed support is givin' by other countries such as France. To enlarge your AC more support planes such as  the Casa or Helicopters would be OK. Guinness

Well, while I don't think jet fighters are a real priority for the air corps - here, in my mind is the logic behind having them.

Based on past instances which we seem not to have learned from:

The politician thinks, "there is no threat now". So there is no investment in combat aircraft.

Out of nowhere, or right under their noses a threat develops in the future.

As politicians generally do, they respond to the problem too late.

Every other country holds on to their aircraft and/or prioritises domestic production of fighter aircraft.

So we can't get any for ourselves.

Maybe, if we're real lucky, eventually just before the fun kicks off, we're gifted 10 knackered F-16A's from AMARC.

The Air Corps have no idea how to maintain them, they become paperweights, or used to block runways.

-------

Now the above is the doomsday scenario, a shooting war, the reason for having fighter aircraft in case they need to fight. So that the Air Corps knows how to use and operate them efficiently in case the unthinkable occured.

-------

In my mind the second logic for having them:

We are an independent nation. With independence comes responsibility, a responsibility to be able to look after yourself should problems arise.

We fought for independence from Britain for hundreds of years. We got it.

But now we think it's acceptable to go:
"Oh right, if anything bad happens, the RAF will bail us out!"

To me, that's irony right there. Ok, feck off out of our country, but if anyone threatens us - you look after us alright?

What's the logical conclusion of that?

Sure why bother with an army or a navy, the Brits will look after us.

Garbage.

----------

The second point is the one that really gets me - and it relates to every facet of the defense forces. Primarily they are there to protect us from outside threat. What is the point in having a military if you underfund it? It's a half measure. It's tokenism.

Yet as I said at the start, to me Fighter aircraft to me, are not a real priority. A long term goal to strive towards, sure.

But things have to be put in perspective. I still regularly hear of lads in the army not having enough rain gear and other BASIC equipment necessary to fulfill their duties. What a moronic thing it would be to invest in fighter aircraft if underlying issues in the Defense Forces are not addressed and dealt with first.

As has been mentioned on this board and others - there are issues with maintenance and manpower in the Air Corps. That needs to be sorted out.

Let them prove they can work with, and maximise the effectiveness of the equipment they currently have. Then think about stepping up and getting new aircraft.

Even then there's a billion and one necessary steps to take.

To give just two of those steps: proper military radar coverage of the entire island & a proper SAM system, i.e. something that can hit an aircraft above 10000 feet - unlike the current equipment in use.

While those two steps could probably be achieved a lot more cheaply (although still very expensively, relative to the basic equipment still lacking) than procurement of fighter aircraft - even that has not happened yet, or even seems likely, or desirable when so many other things need to be done.

Anyway...

Thought spewing over.

[Guinness]

Ehhhhh.....

Looking at the reply above there's only one thing I can say.........

Amen to that PYM !!!!

Guinness