Would PC 9s be Useful Overseas?

[SousaTeuszii]

Just looked at the link for the photos of the EC135s in Flying in Ireland. While there I came across the photos of an armed PC 9M. It appears to me that we have 8 PC 9Ms, all capable of carrying weapons, but no useful military role for them. The training aspect can hardly require more then 5 aircraft at a time. So what do you think of sending 3 aircraft overseas in support of ground forces, 2 on 24hr standby with 1 in reserve for maintenance downtime etc. Their roles could be as simple as recce, photo reccon or more complicated like CAS or heli transport protection. At present UTAir provide an Mi 24 in Liberia, surely it would be better to have indigenous airpower to support our own ground forces.
After all the PC 9Ms havent a snowballs chance in hell of being allowed to fire live ammo in anger on Irish Soil. What do you all think.  

[Fouga23]

wouldn't wanna fly that in real combat   Where are your countermeasures?

[SousaTeuszii]

Countermeasures for what?
The nations were Ireland are sent generally have small - heavy calibre direct fire weapons and if they are lucky some RPGs. While these can be effective, just ask the Yanks in Iraq, Im afraid that there are no countermeasures except speed and manouverability, which the PC 9M has in bags. If its a case where the PC 9Ms are never to be put in 'harms way' then maybe they should be parked in Weston '>

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there
Faster, better-protected aircraft than the PC-9 have fallen to small-arms fire.The Irish PC-9s have no armour, flares, chaff,ECM to protect themselves with and rebel groups these days have access to cheap SAMs, multi-barrel anti-aircraft guns and endless amounts of RPGs. Also, they can't be as readily dismantled for air transport like a Blackhawk or AH-1.
regards
GttC

[SousaTeuszii]

I agree but all aircraft are susceptable to direct fire ground based weapons. As regards chaff, flares etc. The threat of such weapons in Irish Army AOAs is very low. In fact the Commanche was cancelled due to a lack of radar based threats. The face of war had changed into small guerilla actions and had left the Commanche behind. I think youll also find that to disassamble a Blackhawk and fit it into a C130 etc then reassemble and test fly it may take as long as self deploying PC 9Ms to areas as close as Liberia.
If however this is never going to be considered with these aircraft can somebody enlighten me as to why so many were bought and made weapons capable. Remember that they are all but useless as an interceptor and considering that the Army would get it hard to justifiy opening fire with a rifle I dont think they would ever allow the use of the PC9M in a domestic Air - Ground role. Is it therefore useless in the Irish context and a rediculous purchase? Half the number could do all the training and the money could have been spent replacing items such as the cessnas!

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there
I disagree about shipping helicopters by air and reassembling them for flight taking so long.In most cases, they simply fold the rotors, block all ports and inlets, drain the fuel and shove it onboard.Refitting them for flight takes only a few hours.It's been done thousands of times.Secondly, any potential threat against Irish forces in Liberia and East Timor do have access to the arms I mentioned before.If you want a ground-attack aircraft that can take heavy hits (greater than 20mm) and survive, you need a Frogfoot or an attack helicopter.It would take more than a week to fly to Liberia direct by PC-9, given the support needed and the diplomatic/political effort required to get overflight permission/and or logistical support.
Realistically, having 8 PC-9s available for flights would generate at least 4 per day, given the usual AC servicability levels.
regards
GttC

[Tech Crew]

Folding blades on a chopper to transport it is a simple job. A couple of hours even less with a good crew has it ready to fly again.  A test flight would not really be required as the fact that everything goes back from exactly where it came off ensures there is no weight difference on the blades or main rotor head from before their folding. This keeps the head in balance and avoins vibes

[SousaTeuszii]

So if I get this correctly,

1. The Pc 9Ms will never serve overseas as they are inadequetly equipped!
2. They have no military use in Ireland!
3. 8 were bought because the Air Corps require 4!

This leads me to ask why the Air Corps does not plan to, is not able to, maintan more then 50% of its fleet at any one time on a low maintenance modern trainer. Why are there any armaments let alone all capable of carrying weapons and a weapons pack for EACH aircraft.
As for training take a wings course of 10 students. assume 4 fail at 50hrs or less. 6 pass at 200hrs. This is a total of 1400hrs. The PC9M is capable of 800hrs per year. It should be capable of running a course with 2 aircraft. Allowing for Air Corps maintenance procedures etc as you have stated this would require a fleet of 4 aircraft not 8.
Consider also that for the price of one of these aircraft the Air Corps could have purchased 3-4 Cessna Grand Caravans! The numbers just dont add up and this appears to be an horrendous waste of money. I wait with interest to see how many hrs the PC9Ms fly in 2005. I bet it wont be 6400hrs or even close!

[RMR]

Fougas, marchettis and even cessnas could be armed,they never served overseas either,did any body raise the question of them serving overseas?The pilatus were not a waste of money,simply bought to replace the aging fixed wings ,as to why are they armed the air corps is a military air wing afterall is it not ,better that they dont ever fire in anger on irish soil anyway.....

[FMolloy]

If there's a need for armed air support while on overseas missions, it's better left to other nations with the appropriate equipment & training.

A more realistic notion would be for the AC to provide UAV support or, further down the road, helicopters.

[SousaTeuszii]

RMR,
I dont believe that the PC9s are a waste of money. I believe that 8 armed PC9s doing the job of 4 unarmed PC9s is a waste of money. About 500,000 for the armament of the four required aircraft and about 7Mil each for the other four. Thats 30Mil dollars spent needlessly while pilots and radio operators still trundle around the skys in Cessna 172s. The above sum would buy about 10 Cessna Caravans with support packages. Its a case where the Air Corps could have had their cake and ate it.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi Souza
The PC-9s are being operated on a kind of "power by the hour" contract and they have to fly a minimum number of hours per a/c per year.They could fly as many hours per year as they have time/pilots/money for fuel.The PC-9s are more efficient than Marchettis and Fougas by virtue of their modernity and ease of utility.I wouldn't rule out them being operated by contractors yet, like the Hawks in Valley.
Regards
GttC

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi GttC,
You make the point well that the PC9 is more efficent and therefore less are required to do the same job. I just cannot understand why 8 Marchettis were replaced with 8 more efficent PC9s and if armament is never to be used why it was fitted. I just see it as a missed oppurtunity to spend money on effectively replacing a training fleet and the Cessna fleet at the same time. I hoped by starting this thread to see a glimpse of hope of actual military operations by the Air Corps but that just does not seem to be the future '>

[pilatus]

the PC9s were bought to replace 8marchettis and 6fougas so as to be able to do the job of both aircraft at the same time without having 2types!as said already the hours have to be spread around the fleet as to insure a longer service life,if only 4were bought they would have to be replaced in say 12-15years but with 8aircraft they can fly for about double the time!the PC9s are not just used for training but also pilot proficency,public displays etc.the goal of the corps as said by Cranwell before was to be a proper military organisation which is what they are currently working at.regarding the weapons better have them and not need them than need them and not have them,just like car insurance!

[SousaTeuszii]

Hi Pilatus,
Ponit well made and taken. I would however suggest that airframe life is more likley to be calander restricted then by hours. After all look at the Dauphins. Only 5000hrs and grounded due to calander life expiring. I agree with all that is required but surely the pilot proficency (The biggest hr block) could have been carried out on a Caravan type machine. After all once the pilots come off the PC9 it is the last time they will use a lot of the disciplines they have learned there. As for the Car insurance surely you should own a car first.