PC-9 as possible new generation light fighter

petergfiffin

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/07/usaf-officially-launches-light.html#comments

The US Air Force has issued a request for information to identify sources that can supply 100 new fighters to perform light attack and armed reconnaissance roles.
Air Combat Command released a request for information on July 27 that calls for first aircraft deliveries to start in Fiscal 2012 and the first operational squadron to activate a year later.
The requirements call for a two-seat turboprop capable of flying up to 30,000ft and equipped with zero-altitude/zero-airspeed ejection seats, full motion video camera, data link, infrared suppressor, radar warning receiver and armored cockpit. Weapons must include a gun, two 500-lb bombs, 2.75-inch rockets and rail-launched munitions.
The known for competitors for the requirement include the Air Tractor AT-802U, Embraer Super Tucano, Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B Texan II and Pilatus PC-9.
Michel Merluzeau, managing partner at G2 Global Solutions, wrote earlier this week new demand for counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft could revive interest in the Piper PA-48 Enforcer (pictured above). The PA-48 is an updated version of the World War II-era North American P-51 Mustang, which the USAF evaluated in the early 1970s for a possible COIN role. One potential issue is the PA-48 would not meet the USAF's requirement for a two-seat fighter.

I think this requirement shows an recognition by the US that while it's great to have a €100 million dollar all singing all dancing stealth plane sometimes what you just need is something that can get low and slow and perhaps stay on station for longer. I also imagine the cost savings for them must be phenominal given you don't have to train pilots to "fast jet" standard.

What I thought was particularly interesting about the article was the PC-9 was mentioned as a possible contender. In light of all the debate about whether the PC-9s the Air Corps operate were just expensive toys or not I think it just emphasises that it's not what you have but how you use it.

I think it also begs the question as to whether our aircraft should be used overseas in support of troops?

Before people think I'm getting all Top-Gun on this it would obviously need to be in environments where air threats are non-existent and I appreciate the logistics would mean you couldn't probably send more than 4 overseas at any one time I wonder would those who have served overseas think they would be of any real benefit. How I would really see them being used is in covering long distances should trouble arise, getting there in advance of air-lifted troops to perhaps provide a deterrent or at least giving people something to think about! I understand the politics of it means it would most likely never happen but I'd be interested in getting the opinions of those who have served overseas (with any army) as to whether they think having our current PC-9s would be of any benefit.

OS119

i think the PC-M 's could be used in a overseas role - as you say in a permissive (air) environment - for ISTAR, SIGINT, FAC, FAO and CAS. they could be real force multipliers (intelligence) as well as allowing Irish forces to travel further (in persuit of their mandate) from their FOB's and static artillery cover (FAC/CAS)

the PC-9M could happily sit at 15,000ft for three or four hours - rather more with drop tanks - just tootling along providing recorded and real-time intelligence, deterence/show of force, 'over the horizon' warning for ground units, and, if neccesary, intervention.

all these things would make Irish units able to do more with the same ground assets. so yes they could be used - though i'd argue that this is a platform looking for a mission, rather than a system designed from the word 'go' to fulfil a mission.

my own view is that UAV's would do the same job more effectively (the RQ-9 with an ISTAR payload and two external fuel tanks can sit over a target area for 48 hours - i hate to think how many PC-9M airframes would be required to maintain 48hrs of coverage) and at lower cost - both in blood and treasure. in the current fiscal climate however i imagine flogging the PC-9M's and 're-typing' with UAV's would be a big no-no so the IAC may have to justify then and use these AC in a way its not had to before.

notes: ISTAR - Intelligence, Surveilence, Targetting and Reece. SIGINT - Signals Intelligence. FAC - Forward Air Control. FAO - Forward Artillery Observation. CAS - Close Air Support.

Manic Moran

This light strike aircraft option has been going for a while, but it has particularly picked up the last month. I think part of the reason the US hasn't shown incredible interest in such an aircraft is that we have quite a lot of attack helicopters, and which, really, is the more capable at a counter-insurgency fight? Compare the air-ground firepower and observation capabilities of an Apache with that of a PC-9, and it becomes a close call.

We've been kindof wondering if they could clean up some Skyraiders sitting in Davis Monthan. Boeing are saying they could re-start the OV-10 production line, which I think would actually be the most likely option.

NTM

diverdriver

This was dragged up several times before notably with the PA-48 Enforcer which the USAF at the time did not want at all. Indeed they only grudgingly kept on the A10 when they realised it was exactly what they needed. I don't think the old Spads would fit the bill. They were pretty tired in Vietnam never mind now. All the other aircraft mentioned would have to be seriously beefed up to meet the requirement. The OV-10s are a possible option though. The fact that they are even considering this type of aircraft is an indication of the low threat environment currently experienced. Notable both in Iraq and Afghanistan is the lack of man portable SAMs not to mention triple A. Because aircraft like that are paricularly vulnerable being slow particularly compared to jets.

Any PC-9 version would have to have some serious mods and might end up resmembling the PA-48. The Air Corps PC-9s are expensive toys as they stand but could have potential to be useful light strike aircraft with serious modifications. But it will never happen. So no point in speculating.

To me this is a fishing trip of some sort. The USAF is well up to that sort of thing. The question is, what are they really looking for? Maybe the OV-10. I note also there's a requirement for 'light mobility airlifters'. All this looks like they think they're in Afghanistan for the long haul. Both are required to operate out of austere strips. It's beginning to look like Vietnam all over again.

marco murphy

This is my second visit to the thread and I'm lost. What am I missing?
What could this prop offer to anybody?

diverdriver

Perestroika, This is just my opinion but I suspect it's not far wrong. There are simply not enough fast jets available in Afghanistan at the moment. Not only that they cannot stay long over the battlefield and can only provide a minimal observation capability. Sometimes troops are left under fire because there aren't enough airborne assets to go around. Perhaps MM can confirm this.

There is also a need for someone up there to provide observation, top cover for the troops and also act as a Forward Air Controller.

Essentially we are seeing a repeat of the situation in Vietnam where the USAF was forced to drag Skyraiders out of retirement to provide top cover. They provided long loiter times and heavy enough armament. Also Cessna Bird Dogs and O2s were used for FAC but they had little or not offensive capability. However they were old and tired and eventually had to be replaced. Eventually they came up with an aircraft that had turbprop engines, long loiter times, good visibility, two seats and plenty of armament. The ability to operate out of auster strips. Sound familiar? The OV-10 was the result and it seems to me that's what they need again. An updated OV-10. All the other aircaft mentioned are single engined. Twins are better for getting back home with one peppered with AK rounds.

I Imagine the idea is that this aircraft will essentially provide top cover for troops on the ground. In the event of an attack it can launch air strikes of it's own and call in fast jets. It can also sweep ahead and check for possible ambushes and can do all this for hours at a time. The much touted UAVs are fine but there is nothing like a pair of experienced eyes looking over the ground.

They need OV-10s and if there are a bunch of them with spare hours on the clock cocooned in DM airbase right now. We may very well see them in action again soon.

Another aspect of this is that this war is going to go on for quite some time. They are burning up the hours on the jets. They simply won't last. They need cheap cheerful long lasting aircraft.

History repeating itself.

marco murphy

diverdriver wrote: »

Perestroika, This is just my opinion but I suspect it's not far wrong. There are simply not enough fast jets available in Afghanistan at the moment. Not only that they cannot stay long over the battlefield and can only provide a minimal observation capability. Sometimes troops are left under fire because there aren't enough airborne assets to go around. Perhaps MM can confirm this.

There is also a need for someone up there to provide observation, top cover for the troops and also act as a Forward Air Controller.

Essentially we are seeing a repeat of the situation in Vietnam where the USAF was forced to drag Skyraiders out of retirement to provide top cover. They provided long loiter times and heavy enough armament. Also Cessna Bird Dogs and O2s were used for FAC but they had little or not offensive capability. However they were old and tired and eventually had to be replaced. Eventually they came up with an aircraft that had turbprop engines, long loiter times, good visibility, two seats and plenty of armament. The ability to operate out of auster strips. Sound familiar? The OV-10 was the result and it seems to me that's what they need again. An updated OV-10. All the other aircaft mentioned are single engined. Twins are better for getting back home with one peppered with AK rounds.

I Imagine the idea is that this aircraft will essentially provide top cover for troops on the ground. In the event of an attack it can launch air strikes of it's own and call in fast jets. It can also sweep ahead and check for possible ambushes and can do all this for hours at a time. The much touted UAVs are fine but there is nothing like a pair of experienced eyes looking over the ground.

They need OV-10s and if there are a bunch of them with spare hours on the clock cocooned in DM airbase right now. We may very well see them in action again soon.

Another aspect of this is that this war is going to go on for quite some time. They are burning up the hours on the jets. They simply won't last. They need cheap cheerful long lasting aircraft.

History repeating itself.

Great thanks for this

Manic Moran

diverdriver wrote: »

Perestroika, This is just my opinion but I suspect it's not far wrong. There are simply not enough fast jets available in Afghanistan at the moment. Not only that they cannot stay long over the battlefield and can only provide a minimal observation capability. Sometimes troops are left under fire because there aren't enough airborne assets to go around. Perhaps MM can confirm this.

I've never seen anyone around here who really needed air support get denied it.

Another aspect of this is that this war is going to go on for quite some time. They are burning up the hours on the jets. They simply won't last. They need cheap cheerful long lasting aircraft.

I suspect this one is far closer to the truth than any of the others you mention. In terms of capability, it doesn't do anything which can't be done better by either a B-1 or an Apache, but it does do the 70% solution a hell of a lot more cheaply.

NTM