Air Corps: Value for Money?

[Tempest]

Just to liven things up a bit around here, but without revisiting 'done-to-death' threads!

Avoiding OPSEC issues, does the Nation and/or the rest of the Defence Forces get value for money from the Air Corps?  Although it's difficult to acertain an exact annual AC budget, does 750 personnel with 24 aircraft of 7 types represent a worthwhile investment?  Or could/should some/all operations be farmed out to the private sector?  With so few aircraft, should Baldonell be opened up to some commercial operations?  With it's history of failing to provide any more then token Army CoOp, is there any point in continuing with this expensive unit?  Discuss!

[Machlooper]

Drags up chair, bowl of popcorn in hand!!

[Claudel Hopson]

Yeah Mach, this should be good. If the Air Corps knockers are half as entertaining as they are over on IMO, then it should make fun reading.

Frank can you make a ground rule that only chips on your shoulder are allowed, planks will be barred entry to the "debate"!

The knockers over on IMO have a free hand to whinge as they know serving personnel are not allowed to voice their opinions or facts.

[skyview]

Hi Tempest, I think it depends how you or someone else views the value of any asset, there are a number
of questions to be asked/answered.

[Tempest]

I do appreciate the points made above.  It's been on my mind recently as I've just finished Lt Col O'Malley's Military Aviation in Ireland 1922-1945.  Previously I'd only read the 'coffee table' AC books and similar uncritical histories.  I was genuinely shocked at just how bad things were, and I do struggle to see (apart from operating greatly more advanced aircraft and systems, but mainly of a non-military type) how the AC in 2012 is offering an army air corps role that is any much better then it was 65 years ago!

[Machlooper]

how the AC in 2012 is offering an army air corps role that is any much better then it was 65 years ago!

How's about transporting 12 fully armed troops in each AW-139 with fire support on each aircraft  ?
 

[skyview]

Hi Tempest, I do agree that most aircraft used by the IAC are commercial with the exception of
the PC9s/CN235s. A Question then pops up, "Why do we need PC9s"?
Maybe we might have been better off having extra Helicopters/Cn235.

[Tempest]

how the AC in 2012 is offering an army air corps role that is any much better then it was 65 years ago!

How's about transporting 12 fully armed troops in each AW-139 with fire support on each aircraft  ?
 

How's about the fact that it took 40 years of heli ops just to get a GPMG onboard?

[Tempest]

Hi Tempest, I do agree that most aircraft used by the IAC are commercial with the exception of
the PC9s/CN235s. A Question then pops up, "Why do we need PC9s"?
Maybe we might have been better off having extra Helicopters/Cn235.

I don't have a 'prescription' for the AC.  The PC-9s do get some operational use, so someone thinks it's advantageous to have a limited point air defence capability.  For 60 million euro you could have bought a better platform for delivering it.  And basic trainers.

Extra helis.... well we've gone from having 15 to 8 in a few years, and it looks like one will get tied up to providing anothr civilian role (Air Ambulance), so 7 available, let's say 5 on any one day, so in 2012 we can transport a platoon and a bit of soldiers.  Some of them might gt a bit of protection from a couple of GPMGs!  But they are civvie choppers, so let's hope they don't get shot at!  Not good is it?

Madness not to exercise the purchase option on the leased CASA.

[Machlooper]

Actually ,
              I retract my last post and I'm gracefully bowing out of this topic.
Hope yis have fun 

[skyview]

Hi Tempest, The question "Value for Money" is the issue. High performance Aircraft Trainers are not
needed to train heli pilots. If we had Fast Jets for pilots to move to, then YES. I don't belive
Fighter/Strike aircraft are in the Air Corp Future. As for multi-engine types, the Kingair that the IAC had for
years really held its own.

[corkspotter]

Value for money? Ask that question to the recipients of all the recent air ambulance flights, especially the helicopters which landed at the hospitals. And before you say that's a civilian job, I don't think many civvies operate at night and have the use of night vision goggles!

[skyview]

Didn't say we don't need Helicopters/Heli pilots, or mention a civillian service.

[pensive]

Corkspotter,

NVG's are not required when landing at prepared sites such as hospitals and airports. Scottish Air Ambulance EC135's operated by Bond Air Services from Glasgow Heliport and Inverness Airport are single pilot with no NVG 24/7 and carry out daylight only HEMS and inter-hospital transfers after dark.

And in Ireland there is a fleet of S61N's that operate at night and a newly arrived S92A.

Value for money is one thing but taxpayers funds are being used for IAC trips abroad with little operational/training value.

[Tempest]

It strikes me as very odd indeed that the AC are actively targetting Air Ambulance as a role when the whole point of Price Waterhouse et al was that they should be finding more military roles to develop.  What mindset would do this?  Surely only one that had reneged on it's primary role for so long that it no longer has any sense of its raison detre?

The time to have introduced something as basic as a GPMG on a chopper was when flying border patrols 40 years ago; the PC9s were the opportunity to move beyond guns/rockets.

Yes, we all know the military has a low priority, but you do expct to see some expontial progress.  The army and naval service have shown progressive modernisation, the AC lags far behind in defining what it's capabilities should be and then moving towards meeting those capabilities.  It is mainly in that sense that I argue that they are not delivering value for money.