Air Corps PC9

Snakezilla

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

Im just interested curiosity sake.

A likely story.

Snakezilla

goldie fish wrote: »

A likely story.

?

harmoniums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topper Harley

Markcheese wrote: »

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

There are 7 of them and other than close air support, their main role is for basic and advanced pilot training before pilots move on to the other fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft.

Markcheese

Topper Harley wrote: »

There are 7 of them and other than close air support, their main role is for basic and advanced pilot training before pilots move on to the other fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft.

Cool, thanks..

CorsendonkX

What is the operational life of the Irish PC9's? Which other armed forces use the PC9? Do they use them in a similar role?

johnsds

Ours are the "M" version of the PC9, so its a PC9M, "M" being for military/militarised version of the PC9.

Can the PC9M of the Irish Air Corps ( NOT Aer Corps ) be equipped with AIM-9?

I seen a mock up of a Texan at RIAT it was armed & with FLIR too, im sure ours if so desired could be done up too? Obviously weight is an issue but not out of the reals of possibility??

cruasder777

CorsendonkX wrote: »

I know, seen a few threads here descend into armed forces versus civilians with a genuine interest who then become the subject of smartass remarks used to highlight a technical mistake that's why I said originally



I have a mental image now of some Jobsworth refusing to patch civilian authorities through to his barracks commander in the event of an invasion because they called them the Irish Defense Forces on the phone.:D

What is the operational life of the Irish PC9's? Which other armed forces use the PC9? Do they use them in a similar role?

Croatia has 17, Slovenia operates them, Oman,Bulgaria, Mexico also.In a military role.

Lots of other countries inc the US operate unarmed versions as trainers.

Lifespan, around 20-25 years.

cruasder777

johnsds wrote: »

Ours are the "M" version of the PC9, so its a PC9M, "M" being for military/militarised version of the PC9.

Can the PC9M of the Irish Air Corps ( NOT Aer Corps ) be equipped with AIM-9?

I seen a mock up of a Texan at RIAT it was armed & with FLIR too, im sure ours if so desired could be done up too? Obviously weight is an issue but not out of the reals of possibility??

The USAF has equipped and tested turbo prop planes with the AIM-9X, so in theory yes.

But the cost would be prohibitive at around 500k for each missile.

Morpheus

[MOD]My eyes!

Monday morning and Im in work and trying to sort out a war over acronyms?

Ive created a new thread so you can all go play in the sand pit and throw crap in each others eyes. Any more off topic posts will be met with infractions. This is your only warning, if you want to discuss IDF,PDF,etc then go here --> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057045661

Also everyone chill out, please dont make this a mil vs civ forum.

Everyone play nice, read the charter and if anyone feels they've truly been kicked in the teeth without reason, report the post to the mods and we'll deal with it. [/MOD]

Jawgap

DublinWriter wrote: »

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

......or a reaonably significant German armoured counter-attack



On a more serious note, Cessna have just announced the "Scorpion" - a budget light attack jet - the aircraft is intended to give 5-hr. endurance to provide interdiction, quick-reaction natural disaster support and air sovereignty patrols at an operating cost of around $3,000 per flying hour or about 60% of the hourly cost of the ministerial jet.

Could be an interesting replacement for the PC9, if the Air Corps were in the market for one - and it would be great to see them flying jets again.

Morpheus

And if they replaced the PC9 in one of its roles as a lead in trainer with an attack jet, what would students do, jump straight from piston engined cessnas to jets?

c-90

Jawgap wrote: »

......or a reaonably significant German armoured counter-attack



On a more serious note, Cessna have just announced the "Scorpion" - a budget light attack jet - the aircraft is intended to give 5-hr. endurance to provide interdiction, quick-reaction natural disaster support and air sovereignty patrols at an operating cost of around $3,000 per flying hour or about 60% of the hourly cost of the ministerial jet.

Could be an interesting replacement for the PC9, if the Air Corps were in the market for one - and it would be great to see them flying jets again.

More like a great replacement for the ministerial jet, let them lease or charter aircraft. Our air sovereignty is more important than enda arriving in style.

Jawgap

It's not being touted as a high performance fighter or air superiority jet. It's intended to be used for armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Assuming the project goes ahead the expected top speed is 450 kts with a ceiling of 45,000 ft - not a whole lot faster and higher than the PC9 can go. It should have a usable payload of about 5-6000 pounds and will carry only sub-500lb munitions.

Cessna are also suggesting it will have more in common with a business jet than an F16 - a lot of the technology for it is coming from the Citation.

Stovepipe

jawgap, the Typhoon of 1944 had 4 20mm Hispanos and eight 25pd rockets or 250 to 500 lb bombs. After the war, it was found that the rocket was lesw effective than the bomb at destroying tanks....The Pc-9 can carry a wider range of ordnance. Small aircraft such as the PC-9 can carry AIM-9s because they don't need a radar to be used.

regards
Stovepipe

Jawgap

Stovepipe wrote: »

jawgap, the Typhoon of 1944 had 4 20mm Hispanos and eight 25pd rockets or 250 to 500 lb bombs. After the war, it was found that the rocket was lesw effective than the bomb at destroying tanks....The Pc-9 can carry a wider range of ordnance. Small aircraft such as the PC-9 can carry AIM-9s because they don't need a radar to be used.

regards
Stovepipe

Well I wasn't suggesting that the Air Corps turn in their PC9s for a flight or two of Tiffies, but the question was asked what can you take out with guns and rockets and as the Typhoon pilots showed (and the P47 pilots) - you can take out quite a lot - including trains.......lots and lots of trains!

Incidentally, the Typhoon did indeed have 4 Hispano cannon, but when it carried rockets it typically carried eight 3 inch 60lb SAP Rockets (semi-armour piercing), and the idea that the rocket was somehow not good for 'roadwork' came from the Americans which may have been down to the fact that the P47 used 'zero length' rails for its HVARs, whereas the Typhoon's rails gave a bit more stability to the projectile once the motor ignited.

Also, while the bomb was better than the rocket at destroying targets, the Op Research Section of 2nd TAF found that the psychological impact of rockets was much greater and crews were more likely to abandon tanks, artillery etc once the rockets started flying. Rockets were also more accurate in terms of strikes within the target area, but obviously with bombs you got more destruction so you could afford to miss by more.

Typhoon and P47 pilots also, supposedly, became adept at 'plinking' - firing their guns / cannon in front of vehicles so the bullets ricochet up into the soft underside. A number of tanks were reputedly disabled in this way when exhaust and fuel systems were damaged or crew injured when the hull was penetrated.

It'd be interesting to get the data on the PC9 runs and compare rocket and gun accuracy to the Typhoon and P47 pilots' performance? I doubt that's available though outside the Air Corps.

delly

A picture of the specific event, as posted on the Air Corps Facebook page, sent in to them by and copyrighted to a Mr. Stephen Jordan.

Stovepipe

@jawgap, the modern rocket is much more accurate. Even the old 68mm Matra that the Don used for years was more accurate. Typhoon (and other aircraft) pilots' accounts frequently mention the inaccuracy of the standard British rocket. It was effective against soft-skinned vehicles and lightly-armoured AFVs such as the standard German half-track but less so against the Tiger and Panther. German accounts tell of repeated air attacks destroying everything but the heavy tanks, which soon ran out of fuel and ammunition, because their support train was shot up. Dig up the account of the Das Reich march to Normandy for details. As for the story about ricocheting 20mm up into the bellies of tanks, that was dismissed as being an accidental success, if and when it happened, because the accuracy to do such a thing required a steady dive into deadly flak, which the Allied pilots were not inclined to do, because they were losing a lot of men and aircraft to flak.
With regard to service lives of ammunition, in the right conditions, small arms ammunition will last for decades. Rockets of any type tend to have defined limits because the manufacturer places a finite life on the rocket motor and warhead, so armies will treat them like a shelf-life item and use the oldest first. any army can ignore the manufacturer's advice but they will do so at their own risk. Air portable weapons also tend to have shorter defined lives because items such as AIM-9s are treated as airframes and are given defined flight time limits and are fired off or grounded after a time.

regards
Stovepipe

Leonidas BL

http://www.scorpionjet.com/

Cork boy 55

That Scorpion looks perfect for Aer corps roles IMO

Does it say any where how much unit cost?
Also Would it be overkill for a trainer aircraft, wiki says it can be used as one but it was designed as such?
If you brought this would you still need trainers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion

“This aircraft was designed because we saw a very, very large gap between very high performance aircraft and single-engined turboprops.”

..

Oddly, while the Scorpion can be used as a trainer, Donnelly says this version of the aircraft is not aimed at the USAF’s nascent T-X jet trainer programme. It could, however, be modified to fit those requirements with a single engine and swept wings, he says


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-textrons-scorpion-will-struggle-to-find-a-niche-390725/

Leonidas BL

I think its a pity its not a bit more powerfull engine wise.

NewSigGuy

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

That Scorpion looks perfect for Aer corps roles IMO

What Roles? As it stands the PC-9 is overkill!!

Morpheus

You think that just about having a light unguided air to air or air to ground strike capability is overkill?