Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pilatus PC-9M Replacement.

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

  • #31
    You could say with hopefulness that with advanced flight trainers, our pilots are ready to transition to fast jet flying in tandem configuration.
    Should we decide to go down that road.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
      You could say with hopefulness that with advanced flight trainers, our pilots are ready to transition to fast jet flying in tandem configuration.
      Should we decide to go down that road.
      IMHO it is questionable to go straight from a PC-21 to a Gripen or Viper. While there are many matrices to compare aircraft performace one that is usually a good indicator of how "hot" an aircraft is will be their rate of climb. While a PC-21 is faster and has a better roll rate than a PC-9, its rate of climb is about the same at approx. 4,000ft/min. A modern jet fighter like the Gripen or Viper will climb at 50,000ft/min, that is a massive jump. Therefore modern advanced jet trainers like the M-346 have a rate of about 20,000ft/min. EVen the older generation Alphajet had a rate of climb of over 10,000ft/min. While this is only oe performance parameter it does give a good indication of the jump in level between aircraft types.

      The primary task of the replacement aircraft will be to undertake the basic pilot training for both fixed and rotary wing pilots, here something like the G-120TP would be more than sufficient. It would allow then rotary pilots to transfer to there specific training while having trained pilot sufficiently for C-295 & PC-12 conversion. For the latter route the utility PC-12 could be used for further fixed wing pilot training.

      If the day did come that we would move to acquire fast jets then we could add PC-21 aircraft to the training regime, moving fast jet candidates onto them after initial pilot training.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
        If the day did come that we would move to acquire fast jets then we could add PC-21 aircraft to the training regime, moving fast jet candidates onto them after initial pilot training.
        Would make little sense in a small AC to have an elementary/basic trainer (Grob) and Basic/advanced trainer (PC9/21)

        It would make even less sense if we acquired actual fighters as them we would need access to jet trainers as well

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DeV View Post
          Would make little sense in a small AC to have an elementary/basic trainer (Grob) and Basic/advanced trainer (PC9/21)

          It would make even less sense if we acquired actual fighters as them we would need access to jet trainers as well
          With an already small inventory, would it make more sense to farm out the basic flying training to civilian contractors (there are a number of commercial pilot schools in the state already, training pilots for foreign airlines https://afta.ie/why-afta/) and return them to bal once they are all at PPL level, then convert from there?
          The NS farm out their watchkeeper training to NMCI, and had a strong hand in the development of facilities. For a small air arm, could we do likewise? Spend the cost of basic training aircraft elsewhere?
          I note the RAF is getting out of the flight training game completely, its all civvy school now, the meccano's consigned to "storage" somewhere, being replaced by far less Texans (A PC9M with a US maker), and the hawks acting as aggressor aircraft or the Red Arrows only. Finish EFT and its off to OCU.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            With an already small inventory, would it make more sense to farm out the basic flying training to civilian contractors (there are a number of commercial pilot schools in the state already, training pilots for foreign airlines https://afta.ie/why-afta/) and return them to bal once they are all at PPL level, then convert from there?
            The NS farm out their watchkeeper training to NMCI, and had a strong hand in the development of facilities. For a small air arm, could we do likewise? Spend the cost of basic training aircraft elsewhere?
            I note the RAF is getting out of the flight training game completely, its all civvy school now, the meccano's consigned to "storage" somewhere, being replaced by far less Texans (A PC9M with a US maker), and the hawks acting as aggressor aircraft or the Red Arrows only. Finish EFT and its off to OCU.
            Civvy schools by in many cases military styled aircraft with ex military Instrs.

            If we go down fighter jets, then we need to negotiate access to advanced jet training as part of the Package.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
              I note the RAF is getting out of the flight training game completely, its all civvy school now, the meccano's consigned to "storage" somewhere, being replaced by far less Texans (A PC9M with a US maker), and the hawks acting as aggressor aircraft or the Red Arrows only. Finish EFT and its off to OCU.
              That turned out to be a disaster.

              Comment


              • #37
                Lets break the topic down into two scenarios for the replacement of PC-9M aircraft:

                (a) Future fleet remains similar to that of today, fixed wing = C-295 & PC-12 & LJ25, rotary wing = AW-139 & H135
                If this is the case then the performance of a PC-21 is more than what is needed to train the pilots required. In this case something like a G-120TP would make more sense especially as all later aircraft are side-by-side configuration. A G-120TP costs about a quarter of a PC-21 to acquire and about half the operating costs.

                (b) Same as (a) but the AC gets Gripens or Vipers:
                This would move the AC up a few notches, as there would be between 24 & 36 fighter aircraft required to provide a 24/7 QRA capability. The basic pilot training could remain the same but those pilots going on to the fast jets could be sent to one of the many fighter pilot schools in friendly nations. There is one in Canada, one in Italy, one in the US and it would even be possible to send pilots to Australia. In any case for the first few tranches of pilots this will be the only option as we have no fighter pilot instructors etc!!

                A move to a stand-alone fighter capability would transform totally the Air Corps, it would need to be a very different entity than that of today. This would not just be about getting some fighters but the whole fighter pilot training scheme also (and do not forget the techies). If the decision was also to go it alone on the training rather than with international partners then that would have an effect also on the split of single/two-seater fighters. We would have to decide if we go the PC-21 system and thus have more training on the fighter two-seaters or the more traditional Advanced Train & LIFT with two-seaters only for conversion.

                IMHO the best option would be to go for scenario (a) and then if we get fighters send the down selected pilots to a foreign fighter pilot school. In this case we only need to purchase a basic trainer rather than an advanced trainer.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                  Lets break the topic down into two scenarios for the replacement of PC-9M aircraft:

                  (a) Future fleet remains similar to that of today, fixed wing = C-295 & PC-12 & LJ25, rotary wing = AW-139 & H135
                  If this is the case then the performance of a PC-21 is more than what is needed to train the pilots required. In this case something like a G-120TP would make more sense especially as all later aircraft are side-by-side configuration. A G-120TP costs about a quarter of a PC-21 to acquire and about half the operating costs.

                  (b) Same as (a) but the AC gets Gripens or Vipers:
                  This would move the AC up a few notches, as there would be between 24 & 36 fighter aircraft required to provide a 24/7 QRA capability. The basic pilot training could remain the same but those pilots going on to the fast jets could be sent to one of the many fighter pilot schools in friendly nations. There is one in Canada, one in Italy, one in the US and it would even be possible to send pilots to Australia. In any case for the first few tranches of pilots this will be the only option as we have no fighter pilot instructors etc!!

                  A move to a stand-alone fighter capability would transform totally the Air Corps, it would need to be a very different entity than that of today. This would not just be about getting some fighters but the whole fighter pilot training scheme also (and do not forget the techies). If the decision was also to go it alone on the training rather than with international partners then that would have an effect also on the split of single/two-seater fighters. We would have to decide if we go the PC-21 system and thus have more training on the fighter two-seaters or the more traditional Advanced Train & LIFT with two-seaters only for conversion.

                  IMHO the best option would be to go for scenario (a) and then if we get fighters send the down selected pilots to a foreign fighter pilot school. In this case we only need to purchase a basic trainer rather than an advanced trainer.
                  24-36 to provide 24/7 QRA ??? And there isn't a hope of us getting more that 14 of anything even out of the boneyard F16s

                  Denmark as a NATO member has 30 F16s
                  Switzerland has 25 F/A18s (and 29 F5s)

                  NATO covers the 3 Baltics states 24/7 with a total of 4-12 aircraft (obviously they have more to back them up) I assume the increase is based on the threat
                  NATO covers Iceland with around 6 aircraft (again obviously they have more to back them up)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    So, this almost sounds like a case of:

                    Welcome back Cessna's, and SF-260w, all is forgiven!

                    Bye-bye PC-9M.

                    Hello! Some form of fast (Mach1+) LIFT, or light jet fighter trainer.

                    & Maybe/ Hopefully, sometime later, some fast jets proper.

                    (Also, I'm sure some countries operate QRA of '... A fighter, IF available...' but it seems here that there is a bit of an obsession here for a first world power style, 'two fighters ready, and two in reserve, 24/7 QRA'... A small bunch to start maybe more feasible than 12 plus).
                    Last edited by WhingeNot; 13 September 2020, 20:44. Reason: Typo

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It's high time to look at the end destination of the trainee pilot and work backwards from there. The raison d'etre of the PC-9 is not to be the ultimate type a PC-9 trainee will ever fly.
                      Define the end product required and build backwards. The make up of the IAC Fixed wing fleet has for a long time been light in numbers on operational aircraft and overly heavy on training.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Would a small, twin-engined aircraft also be a useful part of any replacement mix, for multi-engine training?
                        (Or does a few spins up in the Garda Defender cover that transition ?! e.g. to the Casa..)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by WhingeNot View Post
                          Would a small, twin-engined aircraft also be a useful part of any replacement mix, for multi-engine training?
                          (Or does a few spins up in the Garda Defender cover that transition ?! e.g. to the Casa..)
                          Size is more important than the number of aircraft, IMHO a small twin is not necessary and the PC-12 utility aircraft can provide transition training.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            [QUOTE=EUFighter;480034]IMHO it is questionable to go straight from a PC-21 to a Gripen or Viper. ........well, that's what modern air forces are almost doing. They are taking a screening aircraft out of the equation and starting their training in sims before they set foot in a real aircraft, then they spend basic/advanced/aerobatics/gunnery in a PC-21 and may or may not get straight into a Hawk or equivalent and then straight into a fighter sim and then into the fighter. Pilatus will tell you that you can even chop the Hawk out of the sequence, as it more or less imitates any current LIFT aircraft. You can compensate for that loss by sticking the student into more simulator time. All you are burning is electrons. No ordnance fired until fighter missile or gunnery camp. No screener aircraft burden on the AF budget and an easier transition to a turboprop multi engine aircraft for patrol or freight or surveillance work.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              at PPL level, ...........Don't think PPL. The cadet starting standard is CPL. That's why it's so hard and the chop rate is high. The bar is set at CPL standards for height holding,heading holding and so on, which is why it is a challenge, designed to filter out people. Even the airlines just regard PPL as a speedbump. Airline cadets are taught to operate in a multi-engine crew environment as soon as possible, which is why the PPL is essentially disregarded as a major achievement. They're more focused on the ability to function as a crew member (and future Captain), in a multi-crew aircraft in a multi-person environment (cabin crew,engineers, flight and ground ops, ATC, etc,etc) and greater emphasis is on passing the CPL flight test, the multi-engine test and the Instrument rating and clearing all the exams as soon as possible. The PPL soon becomes a memory and a huge number of airline pilots never fly single-engine ever again.........in fact, even if you arrive up to a cadetship with a PPL, any advantage is soon eroded by the type and pace of training and the CPL/ME-IR is a great leveller and it is the obstacle over which most failures occur. Same in the military;the fun stuff is put out of the way as soon as possible and trying to fly as precisely as possible with little experience is hard work, especially when the nice chap on the ground is now the shouty man in your ear and your sweat is filling your boots.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Very interesting article on the capabilities of the PC-21 here.
                                Skies test pilot Rob Erdos flew the Pilatus PC-21 military trainer, discovering that it combines the best aspects of aircraft and simulator to deliver a unique training capability.


                                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X