Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC-9M for COIN ops

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

  • #16
    Again, I must ask the question:

    In a Liberia type scenario, what sense does it make for the Air Corps to supply training aircraft for combat, when one of our partners, Sweden, has over 100 state of the art combat aircraft?

    Please explain that to me. I'm not giving Carrington a hard time, I just want that explained.

    Also, I'm of the opinion that the PC-9M has been purchased with the notion that it is a token step towards combat capability. By that I mean that, if the environment/public opinion changed, they would hasten the leap in pilot training to fast jets.

    Is this reason enough? Nope. Not in my opinion.

    I'd personally favour a proper ground based anti aircraft system, and more helicopters in lieux of a proper fighter/strike capability.

    Comment


    • #17
      The PC9 was bought so the government could happily stand up in the Dail and tell the country(or those that didn't know any better) that they had invested in these new state of the art aircraft to protect our airspace from terrorist attack.


      Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

      Comment


      • #18
        tools for the job

        Originally posted by pym View Post
        Again, I must ask the question:

        In a Liberia type scenario, what sense does it make for the Air Corps to supply training aircraft for combat, when one of our partners, Sweden, has over 100 state of the art combat aircraft?

        Please explain that to me. I'm not giving Carrington a hard time, I just want that explained.

        Also, I'm of the opinion that the PC-9M has been purchased with the notion that it is a token step towards combat capability. By that I mean that, if the environment/public opinion changed, they would hasten the leap in pilot training to fast jets.

        Is this reason enough? Nope. Not in my opinion.

        I'd personally favour a proper ground based anti aircraft system, and more helicopters in lieux of a proper fighter/strike capability.
        As I mentioned earlier, the suggestion of using the PC-9Ms came out of a previous discussion relating to the possible combat use of the AW139s. The idea was that if the AW139s were ever going into a situation where they might have to use their door guns, they would need, or at least benefit from, an escort. Attack helicopters or A-10s or Frogfoots (Frogfeet?) might be preferable, but the Air Corps doesn't have them and probably never will. It does have PC-9Ms, which have a ground attack capability, and there is a good argument that a COIN-type aircraft is actually more suitable than a fast jet like the Gripen for accurate close air support in a low intensity environment. (That was one of lessons of Vietnam.)

        The other point of course is that the PC-9M appears to be way more trainer than the Air Corps needs, or will need for the foreseeable future - I have been hearing that line about being trained just in case we ever get fighters for the last 30 years and more - so if they are only to be used for training, that would be a waste of an awful lot of taxpayers' money.

        I agree with you: some people in Baldonnel seem to be forever dreaming of flying fast jets, but the expense cannot be justified: the Air Corps should focus on helicopters and light transport.

        Comment


        • #19
          fighter pilots...

          Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
          The PC9 was bought so the government could happily stand up in the Dail and tell the country(or those that didn't know any better) that they had invested in these new state of the art aircraft to protect our airspace from terrorist attack.
          I don't agree. Willie O'Dea didn't pick the PC-9M, Air Corps management did, they're the ones who made the argument for this type of aircraft in the first place, who drafted the specs and assessed the candidates. The Minister may have signed the cheque at the end of the day, but the main responsibility for buying those P-51 Mustangs, sorry, PC-9M trainers, lies with the brass in Baldonnel.

          Comment


          • #20
            Ironic that , when we bought the Spitfires ,we should have opted for P-51 mustangs instead,IMH[but reasonable informed]O as we would probally got into the '80's with them, as 2nd line aircrafts.
            But the reality is that they were obsolete in the 50's and they had/have more capability then the PC-9M's
            The PC-9M's are trainers, full stop, and they are acceptable ground strike trainer , nothing more , and no amount of walting by ignorant civil servants will change that.
            "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


            • #21
              please explain..

              Originally posted by Turkey View Post
              Ironic that , when we bought the Spitfires ,we should have opted for P-51 mustangs instead,IMH[but reasonable informed]O as we would probally got into the '80's with them, as 2nd line aircrafts.
              But the reality is that they were obsolete in the 50's and they had/have more capability then the PC-9M's
              The PC-9M's are trainers, full stop, and they are acceptable ground strike trainer , nothing more , and no amount of walting by ignorant civil servants will change that.

              If the PC-9Ms are only trainers, given that the Air Corps has no high performance jets, then it is way overspecced and a waste of taxpayers' money.

              If it is only a ground strike trainer, then why bother? We don't have any ground strike aircraft. You might as well teach them to be astronauts.

              I hope you can understand my confusion so far, and it gets worse: while you say the PC-9M can only be used for training, not for actual combat, the Slovenian Air Force use the very same plane as a combat aircraft, and the company that makes the U.S. version of the PC-9M is now marketing a ground attack variant.

              And if I'm wrong - which is quite possible - then rather than just tell me I'm wrong, please explain it to me.

              Comment


              • #22
                comparisons

                Originally posted by Turkey View Post
                Ironic that , when we bought the Spitfires ,we should have opted for P-51 mustangs instead,IMH[but reasonable informed]O as we would probally got into the '80's with them, as 2nd line aircrafts.
                But the reality is that they were obsolete in the 50's and they had/have more capability then the PC-9M's......
                Rather than comparing the combat capability and cost-effectiveness of a PC-9M to a jet like the A-10 or a Gripen, compare it to an attack helicopter: faster, cheaper, less vulnerable, similar weapons, similar role....

                (An aside) The PC-9M is actually not that different from a P-51, and not just in appearance. Dimensions are similar, also performance - top speed a little less but climb rate better....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Carrington,
                  there's nothing stopping anyone taking a PC-9 into combat, it's just that they won't last very long...what threat do the Slovenians face? people and drug smugglers, I'd say.Not much use for anything more warlike and they always have the fallback of hiring in anything heavier if more serious trouble erupts.....the PC-9 is ideal for training, for the AC, given that newly-trained pilots can then convert to the King Air/Defender/Casa without too much bother.The ability to fire a limited range of weapons is to allow a basic level of weapons training and to offer a token defence capability.Kind of pointless not to have some shooting capability, really. The Don brass picked them because they knew full well that anything more warlike would not be granted.The Finance people rule the roost.
                  Let Sweden carry the can abroad, in terms of heavy weapons/aircraft.
                  regards
                  GttC

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by carrington View Post
                    What's the point of this then?


                    Might have something to do with this!

                    Aah never mind I see you posted it already.
                    Last edited by Guest; 28 June 2007, 09:44.

                    "When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love."


                    Marcus Aurelius Roman Emperor (161 to 180 A.D.)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Looks like the USAF might want to get its hands on it too...

                      "Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet." -Mark Steyn. What an IMO-centric quote, eh?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        from www.flightglobal.com,

                        "USAF officially launches light attack fighter comeback

                        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."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Are they seriously suggesting that they'll buy an unamerican product AGAIN?


                          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Somebody go to the Boneyard and dig up the old A37s...two engines, two seats, armour, inflight refuelling, huge payload, huge loiter time, 7.62 Minigun and piss-easy to maintain.Cessna used mostly standard parts from other Cessna s to build them new so they could probably get a squadron in the field in under two years.
                            regards
                            GttC

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              OV-10 Bronoc is a better deal, I think.
                              Meh.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                from www.airforce-magazine.com
                                Vol. 93, No. 1 January 2010

                                "The Light Attack Aircraft

                                By Marcus Weisgerber

                                USAF reconsiders the mix of aircraft needed to provide CAS and armed overwatch in irregular conflicts. In the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, jet-powered fighters have been a constant presence, striking critical targets and carrying out other missions. Soon, however, the thunderous roar of the jet engine could well be competing with the high-pitched wail of the turboprop.

                                The Air Force is pondering a return to the kind of light, prop-driven fighters and attack aircraft that carried out vital close air support and counterinsurgency missions in Vietnam and other spots in decades past. The potential shift stems from two major developments.

                                First, Air Force pilots find themselves dropping fewer and fewer bombs and instead performing more and more “armed overwatch” missions, in which fighters use precision targeting pods to gather and send live, full-motion video to troops on the ground and commanders in operations centers.

                                Second, a brutally high operations tempo since 2001 has taken a toll on high-performance aircraft, particularly F-15E and F-16 types. One year in Southwest Asia translates into five to seven years’ worth of real degradation. Simply put, the jet aircraft fleet is wearing out too swiftly.

                                These trends, coupled with other factors, have prompted Air Force leaders to re-evaluate the mix of aircraft needed to provide CAS and armed overwatch in irregular conflicts of the future.

                                The Air Force believes that turboprop-driven light attack aircraft, combined with advanced unmanned aerial vehicles and the fleet of traditional fighters, could help solve the problem. The prospective aircraft, sometimes referred to as OA-X, would be loaded with Global Positioning System links, equipped with laser guided munitions, and rigged with advanced sensors capable of detailed scanning of terrain below.

                                The infusion of turboprop aircraft could slice billions annually from USAF’s operation and maintenance costs, say service officials. In addition to consuming less fuel than jet fighters, the light attack airplanes could fly for hours without the need to refuel, translating into even more savings from reduced air tanker support sorties.

                                ......The two-seat attack aircraft will provide commanders with greater situational awareness than currently provided by single-seat fighters, according to Air Combat Command’s “OA-X Enabling Concept.” In a fighter, a pilot’s situational awareness is often reduced because one aircraft in a two-ship tasking is frequently getting gas from a tanker while the other performs the CAS mission. “In single-seat fighters, this creates an unacceptable burden of responsibility to low-time, inexperienced wingmen,” the ACC document states. In addition to close air support and armed reconnaissance, the OA-X aircraft could perform forward air control, strike coordination and reconnaissance, air interdiction, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance, and joint terminal attack controller training if equipped with high-tech sensors. These capabilities could prove useful in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.......

                                The effort has been met with mixed reactions from blue-suit officials. In April 2008, Col. Gary L. Crowder, then commander of Air Forces Central’s Combined Air and Space Operations Center, made a serious pitch for using light attack aircraft for missions over Iraq and Afghanistan and detailed an international partnership building program, similar to what has recently been adopted by senior service leadership. Crowder has spent much of his Air Force career studying irregular warfare and counterinsurgency, similar to the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Crowder’s argument, which came at a time when the Air Force was fighting to buy more F-22A Raptors, was met with resistance from service leadership, with some claiming light fighters could become vulnerable to surface-to-air missile attacks.

                                At that time, numerous Air Force officials refused to discuss the potential for a light strike program. Those who would, did so only under the condition of anonymity. Much more is being said since Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz embraced the program soon after taking the service’s reins in mid-2008. Schwartz believes the program will work best if the aircraft chosen can fulfill multiple missions, namely pilot training, light attack, and reconnaissance missions....

                                In an attempt to speed up the aircraft acquisition process, the service will likely select an in-production platform, at least for initial buys, according to Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Donald J. Hoffman. “If it’s a nondevelopmental [aircraft], it allows us to go enter the process at a later date, at a later phase than having to go through a lot of the bureaucratic processing,” he said in September. Currently, the Air Force has plans to buy 15 attack airplanes in Fiscal 2011. Of those, 12 will be combat-coded. A request for information presented to industry this past summer said the Air Force could purchase as many as 100. ACC officials have conducted an OA-X cost competitive analysis and are developing an initial capabilities document, according to Scott. A request for proposal will follow once approval is granted. By spring 2010, “we’ll come up with some kind of aircraft that we’re going to buy, or the one we’re going to need,” Scott said....

                                While the specific airframe has yet to be determined, the Air Force has laid out a few essentials for an ideal OA-X aircraft. Most notably, the aircraft will boast a forward-firing Gatling gun, and the ACC blueprint calls for a weapon pilots could rearm quickly after landing at an austere forward operating base. The pilot could then take off and continue the mission without returning to home base. The fighter must also have four weapons stations and be capable of carrying two 500-pound bombs, laser guided weapons, and rockets. The aircraft must have countermeasures and a laser designation system. For ISR, each aircraft must have an internal or pod-mounted electro-optical-infrared system “at least equivalent to current advanced targeting pods,” according to the ACC document. The aircraft must be capable of recording the information gathered from the pod.....

                                The Air Force has not operated a propeller-driven attack aircraft since it retired the Vietnam-era OV-10 Bronco in the early 1990s, and only a few immediate candidates are in production right now. “We don’t have anything [available] off the shelf,” Scott said. “To better figure out which one we want, there will probably be a [flyoff] competition.”...... The two front-runners are the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B—a modified version of the T-6 trainer used by the Air Force and a number of foreign nations—and the Embraer Super Tucano, flown primarily by South American countries.

                                Hawker Beechcraft has been working on its AT-6B for more than a year and in September announced it has aligned itself with defense giant Lockheed Martin, which will integrate avionics into the attack airplane. A souped-up Pratt & Whitney engine also is in the works. “We’re very optimistic about the role that that airplane can play in IW,” Hawker Beechcraft Chairman and CEO Bill Boisture said of the AT-6B.

                                The Navy has leased a Brazilian-built Super Tucano as part of its Imminent Fury program, an effort to develop SEAL-support aircraft. The Air Force has observed this closely.

                                Boeing has also quietly assembled a plan to remanufacture its still popular OV-10. Company officials believe their aircraft’s cargo capability and twin-engine design give it an advantage to its single-engine competitors. But the company has to reopen a production line, which is no small feat.....

                                If all goes as planned, one of these new light fighters could head to the battlefield by 2013."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X