Air Corps PC9

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?

Jawgap

Stovepipe wrote: »

@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

I appreciate the act that today's rockets are more accurate than those used previously - I was just articulating an unstructured thought that struck me. A few years ago I heard a paper given by a USAF officer who examined improvements in the accuracy of bombing from WWII to Gulf War II and set it against, cost, training and logistical parameters to give it some context - I figured if you could get hold of the data, it might be interesting to run a similar comparison on unguided rockets.

As for plinking - Quesada discusses it in his oral history interview and it's mentioned by quite a few P47 pilots in their accounts (using 0.50 rounds), but I've no accounts or information of Typhoon pilots mentioning it.

Accuracy is also relative - relative to bombs, rockets achieved approximately twice the accuracy of a bomb dropped in a dive, if you apply the same criteria to bombing as rocketing - but if you apply a tighter criteria, they're less accurate.

The SAP rocket was also regarded as highly effective against buildings and earth works, in Italy anyway.

Stovepipe

I think it was Beamont or the NZ pilot, Scott, on Typhoons who spoke about it. Given that a burst would arrive all over a tank, given the distribution caused by gun vibration/individual alignment/wind,etc, what are the chances that enough rounds would penetrate a Panzer belly, thru the narrow gap between road and steel. I'd say it's more fantasy than reality.The average Allied 250 or 500lb bomb could turn over or smash any German tank. Some of the German tank veterans said that a lot of the Jabo attacks were sound and fury and less effective than the enemy hoped. Also, contemporary gunsights were not necessarily good bombsights. At least the gyro gunsight had a rocket setting, which gave the proper deflection for RP shooting. Bombing tended to be a bit ad-hoc, ie, dive at about 30 degrees and release on the pull-up and let the blast radius do the rest.

regards
Stovepipe

NewSigGuy

Morpheus wrote: »

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

Yes, for an aircraft that was bought to train pilots to fly multi-engine aircraft and helicopters.. In fact when you view it from that perspective it is unsuited to its main task.

Jawgap

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Yes, for an aircraft that was bought to train pilots to fly multi-engine aircraft and helicopters.. In fact when you view it from that perspective it is unsuited to its main task.

Not according to the Air Corps....

Roles (for the PC9)

• Ab Initio Pilot Training
• Advanced Pilot Training
• Instructor Pilot Training
• Close Air Support

The primary role of the Air Corps is to support the Army, this includes the following:

• Observation and Reconnaissance
• Local Fire Support
• Command and Control

.
.

• National Security

.
.

• Protection of Airspace Operations

I think it's easier to argue it the other way - that they there under-resourced for their defined role, but in the 'current economic climate' you have to make do.

Morpheus

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Yes, for an aircraft that was bought to train pilots to fly multi-engine aircraft and helicopters.. In fact when you view it from that perspective it is unsuited to its main task.

we bought the military version of the aircraft because it has a military role, not just for training pilots. that was my point (thanks jawgap) as was said before, they are UNDER resourced in that the training has to be spread out with only a couple of windows of availability a year to train in the close support role due to the 7 airframes availability because of other taskings... that and we lost 12.5% of the fleet when one crashed on a training flight (RIP) and was never replaced because our govt doesnt do replacements due to attrition very well.

Stovepipe

@Morpheus, not true. When Marchettis and Cessnas were lost, they were replaced, which is how 231 and 243 were bought.(and because they were cheapest of all the fleet!).....the Don doesn't have a multi-engine trainer because it believes that simulation or the use of the manufacturers' training facilities covers that need. The Don has, for a long time, had optional replacement in it's contracts, depending on the will of the Dept of Finance (the real boss of the DF), which is why the Don has not had a decent utility transport since the King Airs were stood down.

regards
Stovepipe

Markcheese

Who /what is the Don .. ??
Also what would we do with military transport planes?? Internationally can't see what ever we could/would buy would get aer Corp to where the army need to be , Ryan air can do Europe cheaper ... Domestically it's a small country , a jeep point to point would be nearly as quick as going base to airport to airport to destination... Now transport helicopter is a different story..

Peregrine

Markcheese wrote: »

Who /what is the Don .. ??

Baldonnel.

Red Nissan

Markcheese wrote: »

, Ryan air can do Europe cheaper ... ..

Those guns won't fit in the space thingie, and when O'Leary gets creative with those extra charges, we'd probably be able to buy a new fleet of jets.

OK says O'Leary, I'll fly ye for €1 a soldier and there will be a small charge of €1,000,000 per bullet ......

Morpheus

Stovepipe wrote: »

@Morpheus, not true. When Marchettis and Cessnas were lost, they were replaced, which is how 231 and 243 were bought.(and because they were cheapest of all the fleet!).....the Don doesn't have a multi-engine trainer because it believes that simulation or the use of the manufacturers' training facilities covers that need. The Don has, for a long time, had optional replacement in it's contracts, depending on the will of the Dept of Finance (the real boss of the DF), which is why the Don has not had a decent utility transport since the King Airs were stood down.

regards
Stovepipe

did they replace the Cessna that crashed in 2004 (RIP)?

I know that they didnt replace the PC-9.

The EC135 (hard landing last year in tipp) was repaired at (i can only guess) an astronomical cost, ive heard it said that it wouldve been cheaper to write the airframe off, keep it for spares and buy another.