Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pilatus PC-9M Replacement.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    IMHO the answer would be NO.
    The purpose of a basic trainer is to train a pilot to fly, to give them real world experience of flying. A lot can even be simulated on a basic aircraft without the complexity of adding weapon systems. Also on a modern battlefield a basic trainer going into combat is going to mean the certain loss of that aircraft.
    I meant the argument between a basic civvy aircraft and a basic military (potentially armed) Trainer

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DeV View Post
      We aren’t the only EU country without an air intercept capability
      Luxembourg?
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
        Luxembourg?
        Malta too. Few if not all of the Baltics too.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
          Malta too. Few if not all of the Baltics too.
          The Baltics all joined NATO as soon as they left the Soviet Union, and benefit from NATO Baltic Air Policing air cover since 2004. Estonia has Primary Radar cover.
          Do we really want to compare ourselves as a country with Malta? All 316 Sq/Km of it? A spot in the Med a tenth of the size of County Clare?
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • #20
            Luxembourg
            Malta
            Slovenia
            Latvia
            Estonia
            Cyprus

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
              You are. The notion that it would "break us" is a myth. We play the "poor mouth" internationally when in reality we have a strong economy, good quality of life and a healthy balance of payments. Smaller nations can operate aircrafts of all types as required. We are the only EU state without such aircraft. We wouldnt have been allowed into the Eurozone if we didn't have comparable economies. The costs are well covered on other threads, but Ireland historically since the mid 90s has chosen to reduce defence spending, year on year, giving justification of a "benign security risk profile internationally" during , in no particular order of importance, The Balkan Wars, 9/11 and the war on terror, Islamic terrorist "lone wolf" attacks on European cities, a refugee crisis in the Med, and all while the Russian air force and navy frequently carry out manoeuvres, unhindered in waters and airspace where we are supposed to have responsibility. But hey, "benign security risk profile"
              So as we are supposedly the only EU state without such aircraft is justification enough to warrant the serious outlay of Billions over their lifetime on the purchase and maintaining of planes and personnel. So that we fly up to the Russians and pretend that if they misbehave that we will shoot them down.
              "Benign Security Threat Profile" Of course we have a low threat level , the Far reaches of Europe, maybe spend more on Maritime Security

              Comment


              • #22
                Can we move the discussion on air defence fighter to the dedicated thread?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  I meant the argument between a basic civvy aircraft and a basic military (potentially armed) Trainer
                  Looking at the USAF training of pilots they do not even have weapons on the T-38. The added benefit of weapons on a basic trainer is little, better to spend the money on other capabilities.
                  It could be argued that the basic training could be performed by an approved civil agencies. The very first step for a lot of USAF pilots is at one of the many civil training schools.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    Looking at the USAF training of pilots they do not even have weapons on the T-38. The added benefit of weapons on a basic trainer is little, better to spend the money on other capabilities.
                    It could be argued that the basic training could be performed by an approved civil agencies. The very first step for a lot of USAF pilots is at one of the many civil training schools.
                    Potentially

                    On the weapons argument, when we don’t have much maybe it is better to have as much as possible armed (even if just MGs and unguided rockets). Even the Rockets had rockets at one time

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      In the Irish case, the PC-9 is the start and stop of the armed foodchain so the weapons experience is relevant to the aircraft. In the case of the USAF, the cadet has gone through three aircraft types before he or she gets to a warplane and learns to fire weapons so it's not like for like. The Irish don't use a screener aircraft nor do they employ civil instructors (except external simulator services or recurrency for things like Learjets), unlike most air arms. The Americans and UK have used civilian flight schools since before WW 2 and now the UK air arms are almost totally civilianised for any aircraft that doesnt enter the combat theatres. It's not an easy thing to do, to decide what system to use, to generate pilots and aircrew.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        Potentially

                        On the weapons argument, when we don’t have much maybe it is better to have as much as possible armed (even if just MGs and unguided rockets). Even the Rockets had rockets at one time
                        I can understand the argument "it is better to have something rather than nothing", but does it make sense? The only use of an armed PC-9M would be in the context of COIN unless it was a battlefield where we had total air superiority. Sending such an aircraft into a modern battle arena would be suicide for the pilots. Fitting HForce to the H-135 fleet would make more sense as would improving the level of protection on the AW-139s.

                        Equipment should fit with the need rather than just replacing some capability from the past. If the IAC is to provide fixed wing CAS support to the Army then the aircraft should be suitable. There are several on the market such as the AT-6B and the A-29 (EMB-314). Both these are based on a turbo-prop trainer but have been considerably changed. The A-29 has additional cockpit armour, targeting EO turret, built-in machine guns and the ability to drop precision guided weapons as well as the traditional bombs and rockets. But if such equipment is added then so must the ability and willingness to use it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          When it comes to tokenism, don't forget that for a period of time in the 70s, the only naval presence Ireland had was an officer with a BAP on a merchant vessel.
                          Tokenism when it comes to defence is nothing new.
                          I struggle to think of any scenario where the Armed PC9M would use its weapons in anger, either at home or abroad. If a soldier on the ground, or a naval gunner at sea fires a similar weapon, they do so from a position of cover.
                          The aircraft provides zero cover from view and even less cover from fire.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            A PC-9 wouldn't be accepted in hairy places like Afghanistan or Iraq. Even the most basic turboprop there is armed to the teeth and suitably armoured.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              There seems to be two ways of going about it -

                              1. decide what tasks you want the plane for and buy what’s best for those tasks

                              or

                              2. buy what’s easiest / cheapest and then write the operational profile to suit that purchase.

                              I wonder which pathway it will be?
                              'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
                              'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
                              Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
                              He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
                              http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Flamingo View Post
                                There seems to be two ways of going about it -

                                1. decide what tasks you want the plane for and buy what’s best for those tasks

                                or

                                2. buy what’s easiest / cheapest and then write the operational profile to suit that purchase.

                                I wonder which pathway it will be?
                                Actually if we look at the last two purchases Option 1 has been the case, they may have taken a long time but no one should complain aboutthe C-295 and PC-12 purchases. Going on the prices they are both top notch kit. The question would be what would be the requirement for the PC-9M replacement? Would it be again a pretend combat aircraft or a pure pilot trainer?

                                If we are only training fixed wing pilots to go onto the C-295 & PC12 platforms do we need all the performance?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X