Air Corps PC9

Snakezilla · 19-09-2013 7:34pm #1

Hey everyone,

I was out visiting a friend today who recently moved to Gormanston Co.Meath.
I was only there about 5 minutes when 2 single prop aircraft flew pretty low overhead (about 500ft)

From what I could gather from google they are PC9's and were shooting targets on the beach there. It was fascinating. We watched until their exercise was over. I am still grinning, silly I know.

On the drive home I got to thinking, How much do those rockets and rounds of .50 cal ammo cost? There was bursts of .50 cal fire from one plane and a single rocket from the other (google makes me sound educated - I like :cool:)

Does anyone know how much each 70mm rocket they fire costs and how much a single round of .50 cal ammo costs them? Im just interested curiosity sake.

goldie fish · 19-09-2013 9:01pm

Im just interested curiosity sake.

A likely story.

Snakezilla · 19-09-2013 9:23pm

goldie fish wrote: »

A likely story.

?

harmoniums · 20-09-2013 12:06am

Purchased in bulk (ie by the pallet load) 50BMG can be had for as low as $1.20 a round if you've negotiated cleverly.

The cheapest I've ever bought it for was $2.50 a round. It came on belts and was surplus from singapore.

This is commercial sales.

Morpheus · 20-09-2013 9:12am

What does it matter how much it costs? Are you planning on buying some?

Thats all we need now, the media or worse, the tree huggers to start digging out their abacus and then publicly claiming how the defence forces blow over a million euro of ammunition on training which could be better spent on the mismanaged black hole that is the health service... the shock, the horror - wont someone think of the babies.

Anyway, on a more serious note, the defence forces have an allotment of budget for ammunition, they dont go into specifics but most of the info can be got from the public domain.... for example. to fire a war shot of the Javelin missile system, costs circa €70,000 per missile.

martinn123 · 20-09-2013 2:49pm

Snakezilla wrote: »

Hey everyone,

I was out visiting a friend today who recently moved to Gormanston Co.Meath.
I was only there about 5 minutes when 2 single prop aircraft flew pretty low overhead (about 500ft)

From what I could gather from google they are PC9's and were shooting targets on the beach there. It was fascinating. We watched until their exercise was over. I am still grinning, silly I know.

.

My office is just north of the range at Gormanstown beach.

The Air Corps have been flying all week, and it is fascinating to watch.
They circle north over Julianstown, turn south, fly east over Gormanstown and then dive towards the beach
The sound of the rounds being fired, and the Swoosh when the Rocket is fired, sounds great.

Obviously the pilots need to be trained, that what they are there for.

Long may it continue over my office.:D

meathstevie · 20-09-2013 3:49pm

CorsendonkX wrote: »

What's the shelf life on ammunition used by the IDF?

Don't know what the shelf life of the rockets would be but the .50 cal rounds when stored properly is several decades in prime condition and the same applies to rifle, pistol and smaller caliber machine gun ammunition.

c-90 · 20-09-2013 4:09pm

Doubt the op is a journo because they know how to google things and how accountable is an answer on boards.ie?

Anyway as morph said its available online but there are many variables. A guy told me that the shelf life of the rockets is why they run the exercise annually is this true?

DublinWriter · 20-09-2013 4:21pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Obviously the pilots need to be trained, that what they are there for.

Yeah but, what exactly could you effectively repel with .50 cal rounds and unguided rockets? Slow moving Somali pirates maybe?

martinn123 · 20-09-2013 4:34pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Yeah but, what exactly could you effectively repel with .50 cal rounds and unguided rockets? Slow moving Somali pirates maybe?

The Troika??

meathstevie · 20-09-2013 4:41pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Yeah but, what exactly could you effectively repel with .50 cal rounds and unguided rockets? Slow moving Somali pirates maybe?

Both would be quite potent against any targets on the ground with the exception of heavy armour and heavily fortified structures.

discus · 20-09-2013 4:56pm

meathstevie wrote: »

Both would be quite potent against any targets on the ground with the exception of heavy armour and heavily fortified structures.

Don't know about that man. Are you telling me, in this day and age, that a plane like the PC-9 could even get itself in position to attack modern conventional forces?

Snakezilla · 20-09-2013 4:59pm

Jesus Morpheus will you chillax I was just wondering. We were watching them for a good while and I was only thinking. No, dont be silly. Why on earth would I "buy some" ??

It was a simple question fueled by nothing other than my own personal curiosity.

Sorry I asked.

Morpheus · 20-09-2013 5:33pm

Fair point. maaayyyybe a slight over reaction

apologies.

As for would it attack a ground target effectively?

Why not? The unguided Hydra 70mm FFAR is the most commonly used munition in almost ALL aircraft in the US arsenal that carry pods.

The PC9s have a pretty standard HUD for ground attack.

a 50cal round will chew up the armour on most APCs and trucks and pretty much any other vehicle barring main battle tanks or hardened bunkers.

the rockets themselves will do serious damage to most vehicles.

you try and shoot down an aircraft like a PC9 closing at high speed in a steep dive and firing its weapons from a couple of hundred meters out whilst bouncing around in a vehicle with a pintle mounted GPMG and tell me now who has the advantage?

They wont be deployed anywhere that there isnt already air superiority anyway. They maintain the forces ability for air to ground attack training and provide the pilots with experience of lead in fighters for a time when we may fiscally be able to consider such aircraft, they allow the ground forces to work with aircraft in this role and to call in air strikes for UN work and provide a lead in trainer for the Maritime aircraft and also the MATS aircraft which the pilots will probably end up flying some day.

discus · 20-09-2013 5:54pm

Ok, so a PC-9 comes in, makes it's dive, fires weapons and pulls out, losing speed by firing and by pulling out. Reckon a HVM or similar portable missle will have difficulty catching it?

Snakezilla · 20-09-2013 6:29pm

From watching them the other day they come in to the target low and very fast but after firing they pull up and turn and almost look like they are going to stall because they are going so slow. Obviously a real world situation would be different with maneuvers etc. I found a great video , truly amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFJpys6CY1Y

DublinWriter · 20-09-2013 7:37pm

meathstevie wrote: »

Both would be quite potent against any targets on the ground with the exception of heavy armour and heavily fortified structures.

So....Somali Pirates it is then.

First off, the government need to penalise either (a) the Aer Corps flight officers quitting to work for Ryanair or (b) Ryanair or (c) both for treating the Aer Corps as the free unofficial training school for Ryanair.

Secondly, the Aer Corps bandsmen. Why do the Aer Corps, Irish Navy, Irish Army and the guards have the need to have 300+ musicians in their bands? These aren't guys in the services doing a bit on the side in the bands - these are full time musicians who don't perform any operational duties in *any* of the services.

Thirdly, the only jet-engine aircraft in the Aer Corps is the Government Jet. This should be contracted out to a private lease company at a fraction of the cost.

Fourthly (sorry, nearing end of rant), the defensive and offensive capabilities of the PC9s and their material is scant. In an air-to-air combat situation against modern aircraft they would be made mincemeat of in minutes. In an air-to-ground offensive/defensive scenario their role would be much more effectively carried out by the Irish Army.

goldie fish · 20-09-2013 7:48pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

So....Somali Pirates it is then.

First off, the government need to penalise either (a) the Aer Corps flight officers quitting to work for Ryanair or (b) Ryanair or (c) both for treating the Aer Corps as the free unofficial training school for Ryanair.

Secondly, the Aer Corps bandsmen. Why do the Aer Corps, Irish Navy, Irish Army and the guards have the need to have 300+ musicians in their bands? These aren't guys in the services doing a bit on the side in the bands - these are full time musicians who don't perform any operational duties in *any* of the services.

Thirdly, the only jet-engine aircraft in the Aer Corps is the Government Jet. This should be contracted out to a private lease company at a fraction of the cost.

Fourthly (sorry, nearing end of rant), the defensive and offensive capabilities of the PC9s and their material is scant. In an air-to-air combat situation against modern aircraft they would be made mincemeat of in minutes. In an air-to-ground offensive/defensive scenario their role would be much more effectively carried out by the Irish Army.

"First off"
There is no such thing as the Aer Corps. What people do when their contract is up is no business of the DF, nor Ryanair.
2. There is no Air Corps or Navy band. There are the Bands of the Army school of music, namely the No 1 army band, and the Band of the 1st Brigade. The Naval Service, certain army units and the Air Corps have pipe bands. There are not full time positions. When not playing their instrument, the members of these bands have other ordinary jobs in their units. They get paid nothing extra for being in the pipe bands.
3. There are 2 government jets. To which do you refer? P.S a turbofan is also a jet engine.
4. Please inform us immediately of the threat we are under that require these modern combat aircraft of which you speak? Because the people whose job it is do not think we require anything other than the aircraft with the weapons they currently mount.

fleet · 20-09-2013 8:03pm

Surely the PC9s we maintain are never meant to engage any target that fires back?

I always imagined we maintained them as backup for the navy against the likes of Spanish trawlers, drug boats, eco-warrior types etc.
Not that they would ever fire on a trawler, but we still arm them the same way the British still arm nuclear submarines, as a deterrent.

Red Nissan · 20-09-2013 8:15pm

I believe a saw round cost €30,000 a pop, that would not be fired from plane or jet. It's an anti tank or anti personnel carrier weapon.

Think of it like this, an armoured enemy is approaching in €8,000,000 Mowag and you have the equivalent in Saws that means you can take down 266 eight million Euro machines ~~~~

DublinWriter · 20-09-2013 8:15pm

goldie fish wrote: »

4. Please inform us immediately of the threat we are under that require these modern combat aircraft of which you speak?

I didn't even mention modern combat aircraft. That's your Freudian Slip.

Basically, my argument is that the Aer Corps should be disbanded.

Red Nissan · 20-09-2013 8:31pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

) both for treating the Aer Corps as the free unofficial training school for Ryanair.

the defensive and offensive capabilities of the PC9s and their material is scant. In an air-to-ground offensive/defensive scenario their role would be much more effectively carried out by the Irish Army.

The situation whereby the Irish tax payer was supplying free pilots to Ryanair has ended, so that comment can be confined to history, it had a serious negative impact on the Aer Corps, but no longer.

The PC9s role would not to be to engage modern jet fighters but it's deployment against fast motor boats might be effective if so chosen.

The army has come a long way and has some real punch for sure.

Red Nissan · 20-09-2013 8:41pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Basically, my argument is that the Aer Corps should be disbanded.

The Aer Corps provides rapid troop deployments.
Its helicopter fleet is an integral arm of the army services.
Can move 105mm guns, crew and munitions to remote locations.
Can arm and reconfigure its AW139s.
Can search and rescue.
Can Air Ambulance.
Provides Top Cover for the CHC SAR operations.
Provides Government air transportation.
Carries out air surveillance.

cruasder777 · 20-09-2013 11:45pm

Red Nissan wrote: »

The Aer Corps provides rapid troop deployments.
Its helicopter fleet is an integral arm of the army services.
Can move 105mm guns, crew and munitions to remote locations.
Can arm and reconfigure its AW139s.
Can search and rescue.
Can Air Ambulance.
Provides Top Cover for the CHC SAR operations.
Provides Government air transportation.
Carries out air surveillance.

"Can move 105mm guns, crew and munitions to remote locations"

...But not together, it does not have a military payload, its a civvy helo.

Which kind of defeats the whole point of shoot and scoot artillery.

Which on a battlefield is an important part of defending artillery batteries, even going back to the time of artillery pulled by horses.

It cant be much fun on a battlefield in such a helo with no armour around engines, transmission and fuel tanks or undercarriage, no Kevlar lined seats, no defensive capability.

Military helos use two engines and can continue to fly on only one goes down. They are designed to protect vital components.

AW139s have no specialized military avionics, such as electronic countermeasures or identification friend or enemy systems.

It would be suicidal to deploy the above in an assault role in actual combat situations....Same with the civvy Nissan Patrols, no armour, no turret. Even LandRovers the Brits operated had armour and a machine gun mounted on the turret.

The Nissan Patrol is not a military vehicle.

Painting something green does not make it military hardware.

Infact the Nissan Patrol should not even be deployed to protect cash in transit, in an ambush situation its like a fish in a barrel.

cruasder777 · 20-09-2013 11:53pm

Snakezilla wrote: »

From watching them the other day they come in to the target low and very fast but after firing they pull up and turn and almost look like they are going to stall because they are going so slow. Obviously a real world situation would be different with maneuvers etc. I found a great video , truly amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFJpys6CY1Y

They are basically a WW2 Mustang in a modern form. But they are a military prop plane, capable of a military role.

They have a use in training troops as JTACs, but doubt they get used for this.

And supporting infantry against in anti terrorism operations or against a lightly armed foe, other versions have been used in Afghanistan. But once again on a modern battlefield it would be suicidal to operate them.

Various nations use them in light operational roles as they are a fraction to buy and maintain compared to fastair.

Frosty McSnowballs · 21-09-2013 12:23am

CorsendonkX wrote: »

Always one that presumes too much:rolleyes:. Irish Defence Forces. The title is frequently used in the broadsheets.

Considering this thread was about Aer Corps operations in Gormanstown how you could presume i was asking about Israel.............

And now will this thread go more off track with a debate about the correct title or abbreviation term for the Irish Defence Forces .

Well he's right though. Its irrelevant what the broadsheets print also.

We are the PDF
Israelis are IDF

And as a side note, you yourself brought the thread off track with a question about ammo shelf life.

martinn123 · 21-09-2013 9:58am

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well he's right though. Its irrelevant what the broadsheets print also.

We are the PDF
Israelis are IDF

.

So how are our Defence Forces known, to people from outside Ireland.
The ''I'' in IDF refers to the Country of origin, Israel

Our ''P'' stands for Permanent.

So how would an Israeli refer to the ''Irish'' Defence Forces, surely they would not refer to as PDF.

Red Nissan · 21-09-2013 10:59am

cruasder777 wrote: »

Infact the Nissan Patrol should not even be deployed to protect cash in transit, in an ambush situation its like a fish in a barrel.

The Patrol has been replaced by the Pajaro # if one thought the Patrol was a poor choice, the Pajaro is a step down.

CorsendonkX · 21-09-2013 11:57am

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well he's right though. Its irrelevant what the broadsheets print also.

We are the PDF
Israelis are IDF

And as a side note, you yourself brought the thread off track with a question about ammo shelf life.

Not really when you join the thinking up, Op question was about cost and usage of ammo. Asking a question on the shelflife of ammo used IMO is relevant as the PDP may have a policy in place to use ammo within certain residency times to reduce the risk of failure rates in a time of conflict. This in turn would dictate some of the live fire exercises that the OP witnessed. Maybe you could tell us if the "PDF" has such a quality control policy in place?

discus · 21-09-2013 12:21pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

"Can move 105mm guns, crew and munitions to remote locations"

...But not together, it does not have a military payload, its a civvy helo.

Which kind of defeats the whole point of shoot and scoot artillery.

Which on a battlefield is an important part of defending artillery batteries, even going back to the time of artillery pulled by horses.

It cant be much fun on a battlefield in such a helo with no armour around engines, transmission and fuel tanks or undercarriage, no Kevlar lined seats, no defensive capability.

Military helos use two engines and can continue to fly on only one goes down. They are designed to protect vital components.

AW139s have no specialized military avionics, such as electronic countermeasures or identification friend or enemy systems.

It would be suicidal to deploy the above in an assault role in actual combat situations....Same with the civvy Nissan Patrols, no armour, no turret. Even LandRovers the Brits operated had armour and a machine gun mounted on the turret.

The Nissan Patrol is not a military vehicle.

Painting something green does not make it military hardware.

Infact the Nissan Patrol should not even be deployed to protect cash in transit, in an ambush situation its like a fish in a barrel.

What the hell cruasader, that's the most sensible post I've ever seen you make.

I've seen vids of the PDF/RDF Arty landing guns by helicopter but it's pointless unless the crews and ammo (not to mention the CP det) are landed quickly too.

Markcheese · 21-09-2013 4:23pm

As an aside , how many pc-9's have we, and do they have any other role,or capability eg,surveillance,

Air Corps PC9

Comments