Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pilatus PC-9M

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

  • Well, if an M346 won't flush with DoF,(it won't...it's too new and you'd be stuck in a stupendous contract), buy a few retreaded AMXs from Embraer directly with a modest support package instead and leave the intercepting to the RAF with Typhoons. AMXs can readily be ferried to anywhere the Irish might go, within reason and they can operate off basic airstrips. Imagine the influence a couple of AMXs would have had on Irish operations in Liberia and Chad, especially backed up with a French overwatch system.

    Comment


    • PC9 isn’t the OA-X but food for thought (I can’t speak to the accuracy):
      https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/oa...-light-attack/

      Comment


      • so, first thing first - work on deploying the PC-9s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
          so, first thing first - work on deploying the PC-9s
          what are the requirements for equipment and manpower to have at least 2 aircraft mission ready on our current deployment in Lebanon or even an operation like Chad and what missions would you envisage them carrying out?

          Comment


          • The first thing is to get the Politicians and the DOD to invest and support the DF in a meaningful way..

            Anything is possible after that.

            Comment


            • @apc; let me give you a genuine example of how to use manpower to operate aircraft; one Middle east air arm has a mix of about 60 Pilatus; PC-7s and -21s. It uses 130 military men to operate the PC-7s alone and about the same again to operate the 21s. A neighbouring State uses 20 Pilatus contractors to operate 20 Pilatus aircraft. Guess which one gives more sorties per day per aircraft? Overmanning and bad handling of manpower does not work and is inefficient.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                @apc; let me give you a genuine example of how to use manpower to operate aircraft; one Middle east air arm has a mix of about 60 Pilatus; PC-7s and -21s. It uses 130 military men to operate the PC-7s alone and about the same again to operate the 21s. A neighbouring State uses 20 Pilatus contractors to operate 20 Pilatus aircraft. Guess which one gives more sorties per day per aircraft? Overmanning and bad handling of manpower does not work and is inefficient.
                I have no doubt that private industry is more efficient, but my question was a genuine enquiry, in an Irish context if we were to deploy PC-9s or AW139s overseas what would it take to maintain 2 mission ready aircraft for the duration of a tour?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by apc View Post
                  I have no doubt that private industry is more efficient, but my question was a genuine enquiry, in an Irish context if we were to deploy PC-9s or AW139s overseas what would it take to maintain 2 mission ready aircraft for the duration of a tour?
                  thats not how the air componant of multinational missions work - only very large componants offer 24/7 availability, everyone else offers (for example) X capability between 0600 and 1400 each day, with Y capability outside of those hours at Z hours notice. the next componant then offers X capability between 1400 and 2200 etc... the role of the Air componant staff is to mesh the offers together to produce 24/7, or as near as they can get to it.

                  in terms of what role what equipment would be required to carry it out - the most basic role would be reece, and at its most basic reece is a window, some binoculars and a radio. if you could carry a reece pod that would a step up, if you could carry a reece pod with a live downlink that would be great - if you could carry a reece pod with a live downlink and some APKS 70mm rockets that would be fantastic.

                  an Air Componant commander will welcome anything that takes the strain off is other platforms - if you can provide a couple of early morning reece flights to take the weight off his maintainance heavy fast jets, even if that was all the PC-9M's were to do, then he'd welcome them. of course he would have to weigh up whatever support they needed in terms of people and logistics and decide whether it was worth the effort, but that would depend on what package you were offering to contribute.

                  what the PC-9M's would need in terms of airframe mods and equipment to undertake the Reece, or Reece/Overwatch, or Reece/Overwatch/CAS roles is a more tecnical debate that i, as purely a consumer of airpower, niether know nor care about...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                    thats not how the air componant of multinational missions work - only very large componants offer 24/7 availability, everyone else offers (for example) X capability between 0600 and 1400 each day, with Y capability outside of those hours at Z hours notice. the next componant then offers X capability between 1400 and 2200 etc... the role of the Air componant staff is to mesh the offers together to produce 24/7, or as near as they can get to it.

                    in terms of what role what equipment would be required to carry it out - the most basic role would be reece, and at its most basic reece is a window, some binoculars and a radio. if you could carry a reece pod that would a step up, if you could carry a reece pod with a live downlink that would be great - if you could carry a reece pod with a live downlink and some APKS 70mm rockets that would be fantastic.

                    an Air Componant commander will welcome anything that takes the strain off is other platforms - if you can provide a couple of early morning reece flights to take the weight off his maintainance heavy fast jets, even if that was all the PC-9M's were to do, then he'd welcome them. of course he would have to weigh up whatever support they needed in terms of people and logistics and decide whether it was worth the effort, but that would depend on what package you were offering to contribute.

                    what the PC-9M's would need in terms of airframe mods and equipment to undertake the Reece, or Reece/Overwatch, or Reece/Overwatch/CAS roles is a more tecnical debate that i, as purely a consumer of airpower, niether know nor care about...
                    What I am really trying to find out is if we were to deploy 2 aircraft overseas what in manpower ie. x number of flight crew and x number of ground crew etc and if we were to provide 2 aircraft do we need spare aircraft as a back up. Logistically speaking what would it entail

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by apc View Post
                      I have no doubt that private industry is more efficient, but my question was a genuine enquiry, in an Irish context if we were to deploy PC-9s or AW139s overseas what would it take to maintain 2 mission ready aircraft for the duration of a tour?
                      Well as a rough idea what does it take to keep the EAS going daily in Athlone, there is your rough idea.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Brian McGrath View Post
                        Well as a rough idea what does it take to keep the EAS going daily in Athlone, there is your rough idea.
                        Which would be....?

                        Comment


                        • The 5 other AW139’s

                          Comment


                          • be realistic; Athlone is a hop away from men and materials, so it's not a relevant example of how to base aircraft in an austere location. The Malis and Chads of this world would require an operation that would, for example, field a minimum of two airframes per day, with a third on standby/minor maintenance/ short notice readiness. You'd have to have some kind of a shift pattern for all crews and the usual basic engineering support and the ability to rush parts out to the field or beg them off friendly forces. I'm guessing that it would suck up the entire AC fleet of helis in terms of maintenance support to a distant country and it would put pressure on the supply chain. I think the DF is at the point where it knows it could field and support a helicopter but the time is not right because of funds and manpower.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                              be realistic; Athlone is a hop away from men and materials, so it's not a relevant example of how to base aircraft in an austere location. The Malis and Chads of this world would require an operation that would, for example, field a minimum of two airframes per day, with a third on standby/minor maintenance/ short notice readiness. You'd have to have some kind of a shift pattern for all crews and the usual basic engineering support and the ability to rush parts out to the field or beg them off friendly forces. I'm guessing that it would suck up the entire AC fleet of helis in terms of maintenance support to a distant country and it would put pressure on the supply chain. I think the DF is at the point where it knows it could field and support a helicopter but the time is not right because of funds and manpower.
                              Thats really what i know. That the requirement in terms of manpower overseas deployment is beyond their reach and requires a fundamental review of the way the Air Corps currently operates. I wonder could the Air corp support the deployment of a Casa to the med to aid in the refugee crisis, outside of the fact that we dont possess enough Casas

                              Comment


                              • not sure about EAS but IRCG have crew (4) plus 2 techs per aircraft on duty and 2 shifts (12 hrs each) to provide 24hr service. Obviously not including backup of supporting bases or reserve airframes.

                                So if AC wanted to deploy even one daylight hours a/c could it not be similar? crew plus techs and standby airframe, crew and techs. Not huge numbers realistically.

                                If you are talking about deployable airframes I would suggest helis would provide better capability across a range of duties than PC-9s in any of our current missions or previous type missions completed.
                                Fate whispers to the warrior, "There is a storm coming"

                                And the warrior whispers back "I am the storm".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X