How Many Of Us Think The IAC Should Have Jets ?

[Vulcan]

Yes, im also interested in what corsair might believe as a substitute for the 9's because I am of the opinion that we purchased the latest available aircraft suiting our budget and requirements when the 60 million euro contract was signed. Out of the three aircraft; Super Tucano, Raytheon Texan T-6 and the Pilatus PC-9M im satisfied that we went with the 9.

And its seems the Air Corps are not alone in choosing the PC-9M....

The PC-9M (incl variants of same) have recently been chosen/purchased by many other air forces including the USAF and IDF (Israeli Defence Force). There also seems to be a growing trend for the greater use of turboprops instaed of jets in combat zones like Afganistan and Iraq.

I will probably be shot down in a hail of bullets for saying this, anyway, I'll say it anyway.  What the heck do the IAC need PC-9's for? All they are being used for is to train pilots to fly trainers, at least the USAF and the IAF are using them as the first step to putting pilots into combat aircraft.  The Air Corps are using PC-9's and pretending to have an air defence capability and that is definitely not the case as recent events have proved. They should sell them off (well most of them anyway) and invest more in maritime patrol aircraft. Again, I am not knocking the men and women of the Air Corps I am sure they are great bunch, just the powers that be that don't seem to have and idea about defence.

What are you refering to above?

We all know that the AC dont have a full air defence capability...they lack the radar and jets(!) to have such a capability. They do however have a COIN and point-air-defence capability (as displayed when Bush visited, and during our EU Presidency meetings in Dublin). (I believe that US security personnel were in fact impressed by the PC-9's and Marchetti's doing point air defence over Shannon when Bush visited)

I understand where you are coming from, but, surely it is also better to have a pool of pilots trained up to (almost) jet flying standards so if the international situation worsened at least the time to train AC pilots to fly any purchased jets would be far shorter (by years?!) than having to start from scratch??

I was referring to the recent incident with American Airways 757 had to be escorted through Irish airspace by 2 RAF Typhoons after a woman tried to gain entry to the cockpit.  Granted it turned out that the woman was just in a distressed state of mind, but it should, in my opinion, ring a few alarm bells. The PC-9's just couldn't cope with that sort of out of the blue situation, they wouldn't even be able to match the speed of a 757!. Also, world politics is changing so fast these days that by the time the international situation would worsen, would there be time to purchase jets let alone put the infra structure in place to operate them?

[Fouga]

In an ideal world ( well mine anyway ) We would have proper ground based Radar and at least 2 IAC Bases and proper infrastructure, an ideal situation would be more CN235MPA'S, CN295'S, Blackhawks and about 6 C-130J's, if we had that then maybe look at a lease option for some Hornets or something along the lines of fast air.

[Paul McA]

To be strictly accurate the USAF do not operate the Pilatus PC-9;they operate Beechcraft T-6A Texan II which are based on heavily modified PC-9 airframes but are built and marketed by Beechcraft.

The US Army did operate 3 PC-9`s but sold them to Slovenia in 1995

I will get my coat

[Silver]

To be strictly accurate the USAF do not operate the Pilatus PC-9;they operate Beechcraft T-6A Texan II which are based on heavily modified PC-9 airframes but are built and marketed by Beechcraft.

The US Army did operate 3 PC-9`s but sold them to Slovenia in 1995

I will get my coat

I'm aware of that ...that is why I said "incl variants of same" in my post.

[Paul McA]

I'm aware of that ...that is why I said "incl variants of same" in my post.
[/quote]

Sorry missed that bit 

[corsair]

Well Vulcan answered the question as to the 'alternative' to the PC9s. We don't actually need even the very limited capability offered by the PC9s. Worse they are used as 'basic' trainers by the Air Corps. Even the USAF don't drop their cadets into the T6s or the RAF straight into Tucanos. It would have made more sense to get actual basic trainers. Remember the first aircraft newly winged Second Lieutenants get to fly after training on the PC9 is the Cessna 172 or the EC135? The PC9s the Air Corps have are overkill as a basic trainer and almost useless in military terms being only equipped with rockets and machine guns, not even cannon. They are a waste of taxpayers money.

[Silver]

While I understand where you are coming from ...is the PC-9M not a good compromise between having both a basic and advanced trainer? Remember previously that TWO aircraft were used for the same purpose (i.e. Marchetti and Fouga) 

I recall reading a detailed article shortly after the PC-9's came into service with the AC, which stated that the 9's can be set up for all levels of training from basic up to advanced. And dont forget the use of the simulator too as part of the training syllabus.

I suspect that if the powers-that-be had opted to buy a basic trainer like the Grob Tutor, for example, that would be it ...i.e no advanced training aircraft would be subsequently purchased. Therefore the AC would have no armed capability (with the execption of the SMMG on the AW139's).

[corsair]

Yes, but why do we need an advanced trainer? Most graduating cadets probably go on to helicopters. What they really need is a basic helicopter trainer. Others go on to fly the Reims Rockets. They could learn to fly in those. It's a hell of a step down from a 300kt turboprop trainer to a 120kt ancient Cessna as flown by aeroclubs all over the country.

In fact they train on the PC9 so the can fly the PC9. In fact reading between the lines. The PC9s were bought in during boom years because the Air Corps was having a pilot retention problem. The Marchettis and Fougas were old and tired and pilot morale was a problem.

The PC9s simply demonstrate the muddled thinking going on here. The Air Corps needed a basic trainer but they also needed something a bit more sexy to keep the boys happy. Something with a quasi military function. So we get a nice unarmoured slow propellor driven aircraft which can carry machine guns of a lighter calibre than the Sopwith Camel and unguided rockets in an age of precision munitions and missiles. The Hurricanes of the 1940s were better.

Brilliant compromise!

[Tempest]

Mind the blood pressure Corsair

For what it's worth (and I agree it'll probably never happen), the PC9s could be upgraded and could carry AAM  or AGM guided missiles.  They do in other countries.

[Silver]

Corsair, I understand what you are saying. However, wasnt that always the case within the AC ? i.e. Fouga pilots would 'graduate' to flying Alouettes or Dauphins or Cessnas or King Airs??
Because there are now no jet 'fighter aircraft' - and hence no full-time 'fighter squadron' - AC pilots logically have to go into other squadrons (or continue training to become PC-9 instructors). Thats just the way it is I suppose. (AFAIK, some RAF Tucano (PC-9 equivilant) pilots also tranisition to helicopters or transport)

I personally am glad we have the PC-9's and not just a basic trainer aircraft (as is the case with the RNZAF for example). At least we have a pool of pilots trained up to advanced standard - and hence who could relatively easily transition to train on jet aircraft should the need arise. Plus, as Tempest stated, the 9's could be upgraded to carry AAM or AGM guided missiles if/as required.

We may just 'agree to disagree' I suppose

[Tempest]

Super Tucano with all sorts of gagetry and weapons - the kind of upgrading which could be done on PC9.

[corsair]

At least we have a pool of pilots trained up to advanced standard - and hence who could relatively easily transition to train on jet aircraft should the need arise. Plus, as Tempest stated, the 9's could be upgraded to carry AAM or AGM guided missiles if/as required.

That's a commonly quoted spurious justification used to justify the PC9s. A pool of pilots ready as it were to leap into F16s or whatever should the need arise. The Air Corps use that one themselves. Probably it's argument used to by them to convince gullible politicans into buying the things. It is, quite simply pure Bravo Sierra. There is a whole world of difference between a turboprop trainer and fast jets. First off there is practically no case where there would be a need to transition to jets in a hurry.

There is also a fundamental ignorance of the timescales involved and the sheer complexity of the training involved moving from a slow turboprop to something supersonic. It takes about five years to become an operational fast jet pilot in the RAF or RN. These mythical Air Corps pilots would have to be assessed, undergo advanced training in something like a Hawk. Then go onto weapons training followed by a stint at an operational conversion unit followed by a posting to a squadron and then further training before they actually become operational. Does any of that sound plausible or likely? 

As for fitting AAMs or AGMs, the question is why? The PC9 is too slow to intercept anything worth intercepting and the lack of miltary radar make it a moot point anyway because without it they wouldn't even be able to find the target.

It's all pure fantasy I'm afraid.
 

[Tempest]

As for fitting AAMs or AGMs, the question is why? The PC9 is too slow to intercept anything worth intercepting and the lack of miltary radar make it a moot point anyway because without it they wouldn't even be able to find the target.

It's all pure fantasy I'm afraid.
 

[/quote]

There is a limited 'point defence' scenario where AAMs might be a useful upgrade, e.g. Summit/VIP visit where an unauthorised aircraft on a potential suicide mission could be tracked by Civ/Mil radar at Dublin Airport and where a PC9 on point duty at say 5,000' could lock-on an AAM at a range of several kilometres, and even if the approaching aircraft was at jet speed a guaranteed hit could be made.  With .5" machine guns with a range of 2,500' you might be lucky to get one accurate burst off, which will not necessarily stop the rogue aircraft.  Would be interested to hear a military view on this.

[corsair]

Superficially that scenario is plausible but once you look at it. The whole thing falls apart.

An aircraft at low level with the transponder turned off would barely be visible on radar assuming the busy controller would even notice the primary return on his or her screen. Then there's no facility to vector the PC9, there is no military radar plus without radar onboard it would be well nigh impossible for the pilot to spot the rogue aircraft. Believe me it's difficult to see other aircraft unless really close. Even airliners at the mandated five mile separation are tiny. Imagine a Cessna at that range? You'd have to imagine because you'll never see it. Plus you have the issue of identification. Is it a terrorist or a lost student on a solo cross country? You would have to close in to intercept and identify. In the USA this scenario happens regularly. They often simply use helicopters to intercept. The occasional errant pilot gets a close up with an F16. No one has been shot down yet.

No need for AAMs, the PC9s would never get close enough to a faster aircraft to use them and a slower aircraft would be easily hacked down with a machine gun once it's evil intent was discovered assuming the PC9 could even find it.