Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC9 Weapon Pylons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PC9 Weapon Pylons

    Why does the AC never mount 6 weapons pylons on the PC9's? Surely it would be cost beneficial to be able to do an extra firing run without having to return to base?

  • #2
    Are there 6?

    There are definitely 4

    Comment


    • #3
      there are six on the other PC-9's Pilatus built - two extra outboard of the four on the Irish PC-9's - which indicates that the wing is built to take the extra pylons, its just that the extra two weren't wanted in the AC contract. theres a photo on Boards which suggests the structure exists within the wing, but that it has been in effect, plated over.

      if i recall correctly, the two furthest inboard pylons are the only ones plumbed for external fuel and have a rating of 250kg, the next inboard pylons are also rated at 250kg, and the outer pair are rated at 110kg.
      Last edited by ropebag; 2 July 2014, 20:30. Reason: oops, can't tell the difference between lb and kg...

      Comment


      • #4
        Guesses as to why they stuck with 4 hardpoints:

        Based on what ropebag said: existing ordnance pods don't meet the load limits on the third pair
        Not enough pods to go around
        Penalty of extra drag for a single engined plane may not be worth the risk if the engine quit
        The extra weight/drag would reduce the life of the wing

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pym View Post
          ...existing ordnance pods don't meet the load limits on the third pair...
          i doubt its this one - the rockets weigh between 5 and ten kilo's each, there's only seven in each pod, and the pod itself is just a bundle of tubes welded together. thats not going anywhere near the 110kg limit. even then, rocket pods aren't the only potential store on the outer pylons - a Hellfire Missile tops out at 50kg, and you can get any number of counter-measures pods in the 50-100kg range.

          i'd lay odds on a magic mix of 'the less stuff we carry, the longer the wings last', and politics. if its got lots of pylons (ok, 6, but thats lots in an Irish political context..) it looks like an A-10. and thats bad, m'kay....

          Comment


          • #6
            Apart from other weapons, camera/recon pods and others would be well within the weight limits, and would allow for actually developing the useage of the platform. Are you sure ropebag that the contract specifically said "we don't want the full capability of what we're buying"? Cos in effect that's what it would amount to, and would be a disgrace!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tempest View Post
              ...Are you sure ropebag...
              i is sure of diddly-squat - i've seen another close up photo which shows the lugs for all three pylons on display. it looks like the only difference between the AC PC-9M's and everyone else is that they bought 6 pylons in the 'extras' colomn, and the AC bought 4. you could probably buy them over the phone and have them Fed-Ex'd, they'd be in Bal' by monday.

              Comment


              • #8
                For a start, They are training aircraft! I haven't heard any reports of a requirement to carry more ordinance, what would be the point?
                The drag penalty would be significant and the weapons are only used to demonstrate a nascent capability, they aren't going to deploy anywhere.
                The current fit of HMG and Rockets seams sufficient for the aircraft's role.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah, gwad save us, imagine the Air Corps(e) been given any military capability whatsoever .
                  "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                  Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                  Illegitimi non carborundum

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Inboard stations are for Gun Pods/Rocket Pods, Middle stations are for Rocket Pods, Outboard stations are the ones plumbed for external tanks and require different pylons for the fuel tanks. As we have no fuel tanks, we don't need the different pylons.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Claudel, what increase in range would the tanks give them?
                      "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                      Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                      Illegitimi non carborundum

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Claudel, presumably the outer pylons could have been configured for whatever the AC wanted to put on them (within weight limits), such as machine guns, recon pods, bombs, fuel tanks etc? I have seen photos of PC9s with a variety of things on the outer pylons, so this could be done? So we are only using 66% of their carrying capability?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Turkey View Post
                          Yeah, gwad save us, imagine the Air Corps(e) been given any military capability whatsoever .
                          I don't see how the extra two pylons make any difference to the military capability of the AC, given the current roles and reach of the AC the current fit of the Aircraft seams sufficient. There are many more ways to extend the Military capability of the AC, adding two pylons beside the rarely used pylons on a training aircraft doesn't seam to really change anything.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                            ...current roles...current fit...
                            thats the crux - infact there is, imv, a very good argument that for the currrent roles the type and number of airframes is ridiculous overkill.

                            that should, imo, not mean that the current roles should be set in stone - it seems to me that using PC-9M's purely for training when you have no other CAS/ISTAR roled aircraft is somewhat akin to buying an AH-64 and then using it to take pictures of floods, or buying a Type 45 for and using it for fisheries protection.

                            Ireland has a very signifiant capability gap when operating in a Chad-esque role/environment. PC-9M could, with a few bolt-ons, make a significant dent in that capability gap. its seems utterly perverse to have an asset like PC-9M which is almost there in capability terms and then not give it the kick others have done to produce a viable ISTAR/CAS/Overwatch asset. particularly when the alternative is to have diddly-squat.

                            give it an EO turret, a IR DAS, a pair of tanks and two rocket packs and you have a viable overwatch/ISTAR capability - give it Hellfire or Paveway and a reece pod and you've got a lot more.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                              thats the crux - infact there is, imv, a very good argument that for the currrent roles the type and number of airframes is ridiculous overkill.

                              that should, imo, not mean that the current roles should be set in stone - it seems to me that using PC-9M's purely for training when you have no other CAS/ISTAR roled aircraft is somewhat akin to buying an AH-64 and then using it to take pictures of floods, or buying a Type 45 for and using it for fisheries protection.

                              Ireland has a very signifiant capability gap when operating in a Chad-esque role/environment. PC-9M could, with a few bolt-ons, make a significant dent in that capability gap. its seems utterly perverse to have an asset like PC-9M which is almost there in capability terms and then not give it the kick others have done to produce a viable ISTAR/CAS/Overwatch asset. particularly when the alternative is to have diddly-squat.

                              give it an EO turret, a IR DAS, a pair of tanks and two rocket packs and you have a viable overwatch/ISTAR capability - give it Hellfire or Paveway and a reece pod and you've got a lot more.
                              Or add all that kit to the EC-135's and you have an asset that can be airlifted worldwide.. I think that gives a more credible armed/recce/cas asset.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X