PC-9M

[Graylion]

What earthly role do they fulfill other than training pilots for Aer Lingus and Aer de Rien? I mean actually? How many would the Air Corps need for its own purposes?

[na grohmiti]

Most other users have them as lead in trainers for other single seat or tandem seat aircraft. All our pilots, when trained move onto side by side, fixed wing or rotary wing.
But of course it looks good to strap on a machine gun pod and say you can use them for area defense...

[Graylion]

realistically - for the air corps's own use - how many would we need? They strike me as too many. Mothball the rest for attrition.

Alternatively get paid by Ryanair and Aer Linus for pilot training

[na grohmiti]

We should conserve our assets, either have side by side basic training aircraft, and forget completely about any combat role for fixed wing, or have actual tandem seat combat aircraft to train for.

[Graylion]

You don't need side by side for basic training, the PC-9M seems to function well for ab initio training. I agree on forgetting the combat role though. A cheaper option would be the Grob G120TP

https://grob-aircraft.com/en/g-120tp.html

[DeV]

Not forgetting that the PC9 replaced both a basic trainer (Marchetti) and advanced (Fouga). Both of which could take rocket pods and machine guns.

By having a military trainer the AC maintains a limited ground attack capability (note the USAF is also looking to buy a not dissimilar aircraft for COIN ops) and DoD believes it also has a (extremely) limited air to air capability.

[pym]

This crops up every so often and it's quite tiresome to be honest.

They offer a limited point defence capability and a limited air to ground capability, versus a Grob, which offers none of these capabilities. You use what you have to face the threats, e.g. the USAF has F-16s, F-15's, F-22's and F-35's, but they still use armed Blackhawks and other lower performance aircraft to enforce airspace restrictions.

The PC-9's are a very capable training platform and they can mirror the military training syllabus followed by e.g. the RAF to a point. They also offer a reasonable platform for helping training in FACs and as DeV points out, despite the wealth of airframes the USAF has at their disposal - they keep looking at Super Tucano/Texan derivatives for the COIN role. Similar aircraft are in service across the world in that role already.

I believe there were reports that the Irish experience indirectly lead the RNZAF deciding to go from the CT/4E to the Texan - and they, similarly, don't have front line fighter aircraft.

There's a belief that crops up on this forum that if the IAC didn't have PC-9's, they'd magically get P-8 Poseidons, Blackhawks and CH-47's... or at least more AW-139's... but I think it's safe to say, that's bollocks - they'd just have no PC-9's.

[Laners]

So what sort of scenario could we expect to see our PC-9 's , using their weapons in anger , hardly here at home . And if it was to be such then they are most likely to never get off the ground and be wiped out early . Of course we could hope that any potential attacker will be equipped with aircraft similar to our own just to keep things fair .

[na grohmiti]

Chasing errant piston props or helis out of shannon airport when POTUS is visiting.
At least the fougas, armed with twin nose mounted machine guns, were able to escort Pope jp2's B747 into Dublin, long long ago.

[pym]

So what sort of scenario could we expect to see our PC-9 's , using their weapons in anger , hardly here at home . And if it was to be such then they are most likely to never get off the ground and be wiped out early . Of course we could hope that any potential attacker will be equipped with aircraft similar to our own just to keep things fair .

Sure why stop there so - how would an OPV fair against a few mines, let alone a frigate or submarine - jesus never mind an aerial threat? So what's the point in them having 76mm, or 20mm? If you can answer that, surely you can stretch a millimeter more to where a PC-9 could give someone a very bad day.

They're no more designed for conflict with another state than the OPV's are.

[pym]

Chasing errant piston props or helis out of shannon airport when POTUS is visiting.
At least the fougas, armed with twin nose mounted machine guns, were able to escort Pope jp2's B747 into Dublin, long long ago.

Wonderful theatre that was, but a Fouga would have had little more chance of intercepting an errant 747 cruising at altitude than the PC-9 - if anything the PC-9 is more practical for a point defence role against low and slow aircraft due its far better endurance and a modern HUD etc.

Can't police much if you're on the ground refueling.

[paul g]

The 1999 white paper would have disbanded the air corps and replaced the naval service with a coast guard modelled on The Scottish fisheries protection service had Bertie not been told that the pc9 were the minimum air defence needed for potus and Eu conferences unless we were NATO members

Pym is right the question is extremely tiresome

[paul g]

Wonderful theatre that was, but a Fouga would have had little more chance of intercepting an errant 747 cruising at altitude than the PC-9 - if anything the PC-9 is more practical for a point defence role against low and slow aircraft due its far better endurance and a modern HUD etc.

Can't police much if you're on the ground refueling.

The fouga escort was about forming a cross and had religious symbolism

[Laners]

Sure why stop there so - how would an OPV fair against a few mines, let alone a frigate or submarine - jesus never mind an aerial threat? So what's the point in them having 76mm, or 20mm? If you can answer that, surely you can stretch a millimeter more to where a PC-9 could give someone a very bad day.

They're no more designed for conflict with another state than the OPV's are.

Spoken like a politician deflecting the topic another direction . Maybe open a thread on Naval Weapons and their usefulness .

[Laners]

My quiet and peaceful neck of the woods here in Carbury in Kildare is often interrupted by a pair of PC-9s reenacting the Battle of Britain overhead , as to what practical reason there is for such aerial maneuvers in a trainer aircraft is beyond me when you consider that a Casa is most likely were these pilots will be flying operationally .

[pym]

Spoken like a politician deflecting the topic another direction . Maybe open a thread on Naval Weapons and their usefulness .

Haha! Laners - I'm saying they're armed for the same reason the OPV's are armed: it's a contingency and they are not expected to be used against Eurofighters anymore than an OPV is expected to survive against an Astute class sub.

A PC-9 could lob rockets into a ship 50NM off the coast and with machine gun pods it could give a Cessna pilot who has ignored an exclusion area a particularly bad day. That's not so easy with a Grob.

Similarly the 76mm on the OPV's could give any lesser equipped ship that was acting the bollocks a very bad day. That's wouldn't be so easy for a trawler painted grey.

[GoneToTheCanner]

The point of PC-9s is that they are modern, well-equipped trainers to qualify the pilot on electronic instruments / avionics and the operation of a turbine engine, so that when he or she goes on to the Casa, the incoming PC-12 or any of the helicopters, the use and operation of the aforementioned technology will be familiar to them. Also, the entire fleet is now using one fuel, Jet A-1, and one oil, turbine oil, instead of two. As for aerial manouvering, military pilots are taught aerobatics and combat manouvering and air firing, because it's part of the job description and maybe, some day, they may go overseas and they would have to be able to manouver and fire. The Govt only allows light guns and light rockets because they are cheap, easy to use and they won't cough up for the kind of guided munitions (and associated guidance avionics) that the PC-9 can carry and fire. As for being a source of pilots for Irish airlines, that's dead and gone, because the airlines tend to recruit and train their own or recruit type qualified pilots and all the Irish airlines cycle thru more pilots than the Air Corps can generate. Also, airline pilots don't use NVGs, whereas they are quite common to military air arms and police air arms. As for the 76mm on the NS vessels, it's as good a contemporary weapon as you'll get, across any of the European navies that our lot would engage with.

[sofa]

So what sort of scenario could we expect to see our PC-9 's , using their weapons in anger , hardly here at home . And if it was to be such then they are most likely to never get off the ground and be wiped out early . Of course we could hope that any potential attacker will be equipped with aircraft similar to our own just to keep things fair .

They provided during the British Royal vist a air defence around areas that some provo splitter gobshit could have entered with a highjacked light aircraft.

The ground attack role could also come in handy if the anti treaty lads ever fancied their chances again.

[Chuck]

The point of PC-9s is that they are modern, well-equipped trainers to qualify the pilot on electronic instruments / avionics and the operation of a turbine engine, so that when he or she goes on to the Casa, the incoming PC-12 or any of the helicopters, the use and operation of the aforementioned technology will be familiar to them. Also, the entire fleet is now using one fuel, Jet A-1, and one oil, turbine oil, instead of two. As for aerial manouvering, military pilots are taught aerobatics and combat manouvering and air firing, because it's part of the job description and maybe, some day, they may go overseas and they would have to be able to manouver and fire. The Govt only allows light guns and light rockets because they are cheap, easy to use and they won't cough up for the kind of guided munitions (and associated guidance avionics) that the PC-9 can carry and fire. As for being a source of pilots for Irish airlines, that's dead and gone, because the airlines tend to recruit and train their own or recruit type qualified pilots and all the Irish airlines cycle thru more pilots than the Air Corps can generate. Also, airline pilots don't use NVGs, whereas they are quite common to military air arms and police air arms. As for the 76mm on the NS vessels, it's as good a contemporary weapon as you'll get, across any of the European navies that our lot would engage with.

Agree with all you say regarding the PC-9M.

Your comments regarding AC pilots exiting for the airlines, particularly the Irish two, are way off the mark.

They both account for 90+% of non age grounds related retirements over the past 3-4 years.

They may not 'generate' enough but when you lose 5-10 pilots from a pool of circa 60-70 (strength) over a12-18 month period, that represents a huge loss.

Throw in the IAA and the AAIU and you'll find that AC pilots are generally in high demand. Any pilot who has 12 + years commissioned service complete is eligible to leave.

Throw in the fact that anyone post 2004 is now on the lesser pension system and you'll find pilots will make the jump far sooner because the choice is now 12 and leave for other pastures or stay for 30 for some semblance of a pension.

Although there is now a new third option of leaving, enjoy the fruitful economic growth in the private sector and then apply to rejoin.

[GoneToTheCanner]

My point about the airlines and AC pilots is that the Irish airlines are not dependent on them as a source (the sheer volume of non-Irish pilots in EI and FR is a case in point) and that the notion that the AC is a pure training ground for the airlines is wrong. Ex air corps pilots of my acquaintance have joined the usual suspects in Ireland and have also joined the less traditional flight jobs like Netjets / Agusta (Leonardo) / private business jets / private business helicopters and outfits like Bristows / CHC and the majors in the Middle East and further afield. A few more have gone into leasing, a thing that was essentially unknown 20 years ago but is commonplace now. I can also think of a few more that operate in Canada, the US and Africa in bush country operations / pipeline support/ferrying and so on. Personally, I think the attraction of a full time long service military career for a pilot in the Corps has faded; the Army and NS can't keep people of all scales and ranks for love nor money. The pension abatement thing hasn't helped, either. Staying in is a hard one to call, really.

[hptmurphy]

At least the fougas, armed with twin nose mounted machine guns, were able to escort Pope jp2's B747 into Dublin, long long ago

legend has it the 747 slowed down!

That's wouldn't be so easy for a trawler painted grey

have a look at the last Cod Wars.....Iceland seemed to worry the RN with same

[Flamingo]

have a look at the last Cod Wars.....Iceland seemed to worry the RN with same

Only because leaving a smoking heap of splinters and an oil slick was seen as a bit ungentlemanly...

[Graylion]

legend has it the 747 slowed down!

I'll believe it. The 747 is the fastest civilian airliner.

[GoneToTheCanner]

The legend is false, I'm afraid. A Fouga is good for 360 kts and all commercial traffic is limited to a max of 250 knots in a control zone, so when the 747 was tooling about at low level, it was not giving it welly (Pope or not, it wasn't allowed to, nor did it need to, as the Pope wanted to see the country and the people looking up at him) but it was doing about 210 kts and had flaps out and the Fougas could keep up easily. Fougas were very clean aircraft, aerodynamically and only had a small amount of draggy objects sticking out of them. They weren't overpowered but they weren't as slow as people think, either.

[GoneToTheCanner]

the 747 may be the current fastest civilian airliner but the long retired Convair 880 was fastest of all and even the Citation X flies faster than a 747.