PC 9 - Strike Capability?

G_R

Hi,

I was just reading up on some of the security/road/transport restrictions in place for Queen Elizabeth's visit next week and I saw on BreakingNews.ie that the skies will be patrolled by seven PC9 planes and anti-aircraft missiles which will be placed in Phoenix Park

...
Potential threats from the air will be tackled by anti-aircraft guns, missile and radar systems deployed on the ground to liaise with seven PC-9 armed military planes patrolling Irish air space...

Having an interest in this kind of thing, I have done research on the Air Corps before and as far as I can remember I don't think I remember seeing any that have the capability to launch either Air to Air or Air to Surface missiles, and I thought the most that the IAC had was essentially machine guns attached to wing (I realise that this is not what they are, but I dont know what they are called).

So, does the IAC have Strike Capability or does BeakingNews.ie have it wrong?

Local-womanizer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFJpys6CY1Y

A video of it in action.

As far as air to air measures I am not sure.

G_R

Local-womanizer wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFJpys6CY1Y

A video of it in action.

As far as air to air measures I am not sure.

Thanks for that, I stand corrected!

Does anyone know the score on Air to Air?

Local-womanizer

No problem!

Though I think they will think twice about about firing rockets at ground targets in the center of Dublin!

OS119

the PC-9M's have no real A2A capability, and no usable (in this context) A2G capability.

why?

simple - none of their weapons are guided. no pilot will risk engaging an airial target with 0.5 machine guns because even at 600m range 90% of his rounds won't go anywhere near his target - but they will go through peoples houses perfectly well, and no pilot will risk engaging a ground target with unguided weapons in a security operation.

you can debate whether A or B weapon or system can defeat X or Y threat, but if the pilot won't use that weapon because to do so would flatten half - and possibly the wrong half - of Dublin due to the inacuracy of its fire control system such weapons are irrelevent.

Captain Chaos

The PC9s could be armed with AIM-92 Stinger or AIM-9 Sidewinder, short range heat seekers for the air to air role but PC9s don't have the speed to intercept anything. Even 1950s vintage F-86 Sabers used the Sidewinder.

For guided air to ground ops, they could be armed with AGM-114 Helfires, seeing as the PC9 don't have any laser targeting pods that could be done by troops on the ground but the pilot would not know about the weapon release limits or laser codes without an MFD.

A theory of course if the money was there for upgrades. RQ-9 Reaper UAVs have more useful combat ability than our PC9s.

For now we have .50cals and unguided rockets that are next to useless for close air support or anything else. Even Apaches hardly use their unguided rockets in the Sand Box and when they do its at very close range only.

Donny5

Captain Chaos wrote: »

The PC9s could be armed with AIM-92 Stinger or AIM-9 Sidewinder, short range heat seekers for the air to air role but PC9s don't have the speed to intercept anything.

Can they?

Steyr

Local-womanizer wrote: »

No problem!

Though I think they will think twice about about firing rockets at ground targets in the center of Dublin!

Indeed, good groupings in that video.

Steyr

Donny5 wrote: »

Can they?

I do not think so,

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/pc9madvancedtrainera/

"Armaments

The PC-9M has six under wing hard-points (three on each wing). These hard-points are fitted with two Rocket Pods, FN LAU 7 folding fin aerial rockets and two FN heavy machine guns (HMG). Each gun can fire 250 rounds of ammunitions."

The Super Tucano on the other hand can.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/supertucano/5619241327/

OS119

Donny5 wrote: »

Can they?

lashing a weapon system onto an aircraft (especially a low speed aircraft) and nailing a 'fire' button into the cockpit is relatively easy - witness RAF Nimrods getting plumbed for AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles over the space of a weekend in the Falklands war.

certainly you could rig a Stinger/HVM/Whatever onto a PC-9M and get it plumed into the cockpit in a night, and you'd have a very rudimentary system - a point and shoot job - but to pretend that its a verified, tested system with a trained operator (and the kind of success rates you'd expect from that) would be grossly charitable.

its a good thing in that it shows initiative, aggression, and a willingness to go at the job with any tool that comes to hand, but by christ you'd not be wanting to rely on it.

Stovepipe

Hi there,
It is a fact that the gun aiming system on the PC-9m is capable of air to air targeting, even for podded .5s. The HUD is more capable than the weapons currently carried by the Don's PC-9s. Apart from that, I'm sure the RAF won't be too far away, vertically and horizontally, if the need arises.
regards
Stovepipe

johngalway

Local-womanizer wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFJpys6CY1Y

A video of it in action.

As far as air to air measures I am not sure.

Al Qaeda/"Whichever IRA water polo teams had better look out

Where's that range they had the targets in I wonder? Good video, I enjoyed that!

Nijmegen

So long as whoever it is sets up a mortar in the middle of a field well away from anything, they'll be handy.

Otherwise I imagine we'll call the RAF if things start getting dicey.

Steyr

johngalway wrote: »

Where's that range they had the targets in I wonder? Good video, I enjoyed that!

Gormanstown or Gormo! as it is known.

See this link : http://www.irishairpics.com/photo-reports/PC9M-Air-Firing-2008/

A full write up and photo report by the one and only F Grealish.

Morpheus

did they purchase enough weapon fits to arm all of the aircraft simultaneously? im sure this isnt OpSec as the tenders would have been public for the LW 50 cals and the FFAR launchers!?

xflyer

Well the four that carried out the flypast over the Aras, where clearly carrying pods. Presumably the machine guns. So they have at least four.

Whatever you say about the PC9s, at they're better than the SF260s. I remember seeing them patrolling during the Pope's visit. Not much of a detterent.

BigDuffman

Either way better to have them than not have them. I'm pretty sure even with the limited capabilities a provo may think twice about standing up on a roof with the PC9s buzzing over head.

Steyr

Very well done today by all invloved.

stockyboie

comon guys the pc 9s are a joke and we look like an international joke in front of the watching world using them as some sort of deterrant or for flyovers during the queens visit.

They haven't even got guided weapon systems as was pointed out earlier in the thread so using them as a deterrent in an urban environment is pointless. You guys really have low expectations of your country and the defence forces if you think these aircraft are an acceptable form of defence or even to be used for flyovers.

You might as well use a cessna. Flyovers are supposed to be impressive sight by their nature ala the red arrows etc and indicate pride in ones nation. Watching these turbo prop aircraft straddling along to the whine of their engines as the masses wait is cringeworthy to say the least. Its just not acceptable anymore. Anyone who says differently or is trying to justify their presence has no pride in their country or no shame whatsoever.

Morpheus

Anyone who says differently or is trying to justify their presence has no pride in their country or no shame whatsoever.

and no money.

where will we finance them from exactly? what will we replace them with?

stockyboie

Ahh the pennypinchers. No pride or shame whatsoever. None.

But what about the children.... Won't someone please think of the childreennnn!!!

Id rather spend millions on one decent modern fighter then have that joke that is presented as the cream of our air corps to the watching world. Even if we only had 27 miilion. Id spend it on one fighter rather then have 7 useless turboprop aircraft. We have no sense of pride in ourselves using those aircraft. No other country would even consider using such an aircraft for either defence or for flyovers but ahhh low expectation mcpaddy will. What exactly are you saving your millions for? More useless tribunals & bailouts for the corrupt bankers is it? Now theres a waste of money if i ever seen one.

I'd rather spend it on something to and make the irish people feel pride as well as have a proper security role. Why? maybe because apparently I give a s&&& about my country and actually want the best for it and if you love your country too you would too. Thats the thing americans or british or any other nations would never accept second best and why should we.

It says a lot about not only how we view ourselves as a country and nation but also how others would percieve us that we use such aircraft. Turboprops? Yes they're modern. If you live in the period between 1926 and 1947.

We're using the cheapest possible option because we don't even value our own security or even have enough pride in our air corps to use proper modern aircraft. I swear if they could get cardboard boxes to fly and throw some machine guns on them they'd probably use them. You wonder why people take the p((( out of the irish. Its because of things like this.

Don't come back with your 'we don't have enough money' arguments because thats the cheapskate, pennypinching argument that sees this situation continue. The army was in the same situation up until a few years ago until they finally got at least some sense into their procurements.


Its like the man afraid to jump over the stream until he jumps over and sees it was no big deal. He fears and puts all sorts of excuses in the way because he fears change. Its an embarrasing joke.

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

...what will we replace them with?

why bother replacing them?

nobody could possibly suggest that sending however many aircrew you need to keep the CASA's, VIP jet, and Cessna's in the air to the UK, France, or the States to be trained would be more expensive than keeping the PC-9M's and the infrastructure and servicing support they require, as well as the current number of aircrew.

as we have all accepted, they have no military role - they aren't fast enough for air policing, and don't have the avionics or weapon systems for either air policing or Strike/Interdiction/CAS/Bombing RIRA in any plausable circumstances. so, they must be training aircraft - except there are far too many of them to purely supply the number of trained aircrew the AC needs for its operational airframes.

privatise the CASA role, privatise the VIPjet role, and outsource the Cessna and Helicopter training while looking to move the AC to a purely Rotary and UAV force.

baalthor

stockyboie wrote: »

Id rather spend millions on one decent modern fighter then have that joke that is presented as the cream of our air corps to the watching world. Even if we only had 27 miilion. Id spend it on one fighter rather then have 7 useless prop aircraft. We have no sense of pride in ourselves using those aircraft.

That's the kind of thinking that lead to the Ivory Coast building a cathedral bigger than St Peter's Basicilia and indeed, to us spending millions on evoting machines.

stockyboie

Well why don't we put a pair of wings on the evoting machines and maybe some machine guns? Im sure they'd be at least as capable as the pc-9s in an air to ground capability and hey we'd have a hell of a lot more of them.

You know i bought a pair of jeans the other day. Very expensive. Its sure better then wearing rags to a party and thinking i look good in them though. You get what your prepared to pay for in life unfortunately and even with the pc-9s we were shafted.

This penny pinching mentality is hilarious. You'd make scrooge mcduck proud.

Yes you have to pay big bucks for military hardware. This is news since when? Thats the way it goes. Thats life in general. If your not prepared to pay the big bucks stay out of the game but don't pretend you have some sort of serious military capabliity in this area and be putting it on show for people. Thats having no shame, no pride or dignity and most of all your making a joke out of yourselves.

Local-womanizer

Ok will do.

I'll run off and tell the Minister of Justice and Defence now sure, after all its us who make the decisions for him.

Anyway,I really don't know where the money will come from for new aircraft?

The country is screwed, its not an excuse it is reality.

The expensive thing about jets is not the initial price but the support costs ie,paying to keep them in the air, paying the people to train to keep them in the air.

We do not have the money. Simple.

stockyboie

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Ok will do.

I'll run off and tell the Minister of Justice and Defence now sure, after all its us who make the decisions for him.

Anyway,I really don't know where the money will come from for new aircraft?

The country is screwed, its not an excuse it is reality.

The expensive thing about jets is not the initial price but the support costs ie,paying to keep them in the air, paying the people to train to keep them in the air.

We do not have the money. Simple.

Hey even when times were good we weren't spending anything on our air corps.

Yes i understand the huge costs that mega financial powerhouse countries such as angola, norway, portugal, finland, greece, the netherlands, denmark, (spain with its unemployment rate of above 20 per cent)have to pay. We understand their are costs involved. Like i said thats life you pay for what you get. Don't tell me we don't have the money and never did because we certainly had and we certainly have the potential to spend it.

Yes its understood also you need to spend money on auxilliary support systems, hardware and staff. What do you drive your car without petrol? Do you not get your car serviced every year? What do you do when you need a new tyre. Bitch and moan because you need to spend money on a tire. Do you think a jet would service and maintain itself? Its like when some people bring this up you'd swear they just came from back jungle somewhere.This isn't rocket science you know. Its common sense.

This issue isn't going to be solved overnight in one foul swoop. Its years of neglect even when times were good that caused this issue. You have to build up defence gradually.

7 pc-9 turboprop training aircraft for a country of 4.4 million people. Seriously i mean f(((kin seriously. Thats beyond takin the mick. If you want to talk about a waste of money theres a waste of money for you right there. Pretending that we have some sort of capabliity when clearly we don't. Whats funnier is the postings on here from people desperately trying to convince themselves and others of our capabliities by posting on youtube links of pc-9s in action doing straffing runs on a stationary sea based target. Its so pathetic and deep down they know it too its just they are too afraid to admit it. Its almost like hey look what it can do, now do you believe us it can defend our country and deter attack? what a joke.

With people who make the argument about money theres always money there to be spent on more important things, the roads, the hospitals, the health service, the police, enda kennys driver, important tribunals, bailouts for the corporate bankers.

Even when times were good and i remember it well you had all the same old tired arguments about but hey we need money for roads, hospitals etc etc. Its just now its more conveniant to use this argument. But its all a smokescreen for the truth as it always was which is simply your too goddamed cheap and miserable to consider something as important as defence something to spend money on. End of issue.

BrianD

stockyboie wrote: »

Ahh the pennypinchers. No pride or shame whatsoever. None.

But what about the children.... Won't someone please think of the childreennnn!!!

Id rather spend millions on one decent modern fighter then have that joke that is presented as the cream of our air corps to the watching world. Even if we only had 27 miilion. Id spend it on one fighter rather then have 7 useless turboprop aircraft. We have no sense of pride in ourselves using those aircraft. No other country would even consider using such an aircraft for either defence or for flyovers but ahhh low expectation mcpaddy will. What exactly are you saving your millions for? More useless tribunals & bailouts for the corrupt bankers is it? Now theres a waste of money if i ever seen one.

I'd rather spend it on something to and make the irish people feel pride as well as have a proper security role. Why? maybe because apparently I give a s&&& about my country and actually want the best for it and if you love your country too you would too. Thats the thing americans or british or any other nations would never accept second best and why should we.

It says a lot about not only how we view ourselves as a country and nation but also how others would percieve us that we use such aircraft. Turboprops? Yes they're modern. If you live in the period between 1926 and 1947.

We're using the cheapest possible option because we don't even value our own security or even have enough pride in our air corps to use proper modern aircraft. I swear if they could get cardboard boxes to fly and throw some machine guns on them they'd probably use them. You wonder why people take the p((( out of the irish. Its because of things like this.

Don't come back with your 'we don't have enough money' arguments because thats the cheapskate, pennypinching argument that sees this situation continue. The army was in the same situation up until a few years ago until they finally got at least some sense into their procurements.


Its like the man afraid to jump over the stream until he jumps over and sees it was no big deal. He fears and puts all sorts of excuses in the way because he fears change. Its an embarrasing joke.

Aren't these aircraft just trainers than can have a light strike role as a by-the-way?

There's no penny pinching here. We have no requirement for fighter jets at this point in time.

Perhaps we should ditch the PC9s and buy more helicopters instead which would be a logical option?

BTW are there plans to replace the aircraft that was involved in the tragic incident in Galway?

swiftblade

I think the main reason we don't have jets is the same reason we don't have MBT's. Public Relations. Sad but true.

Why didn't the PC 9's look good in the fly-pass? I thought it looked good enough

I think a better option than jets would be some heavy lift aircraft. At least they could be used in aid relief...ect.

Zambia

WO pilots remain in hospital after a crash which has grounded the Royal Australian Air Force's aerobatic display squadron, the Roulettes.

The RAAF does not know what caused a PC-9A plane to crash at a military base in regional Victoria and has grounded its fleet of the aircraft pending an investigation.

The PC-9A is the only plane flown by the Roulettes, but the aircraft is also used to train regular RAAF pilots.

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) says the plane lost power while climbing from the runway, forcing the pilots to eject before it crashed in an open field beside the base in East Sale on Wednesday.

Flying instructor Bruce Collenette, 45, is in a stable condition in a Sale hospital, but trainee instructor Steve Andrews, 28, has been transferred to Melbourne for further treatment.

Both men are in a "satisfactory condition", the ADF said.

The injured pilots were on a routine training flight and were not members of the Roulettes, the RAAF says.

Group Captain Glen Coy told reporters yesterday the RAAF would carry out a thorough investigation into the crash.

"We have an accident investigation team which has been sent to Sale to find out exactly what's happened on this incident," he said.

"It's too early for me to speculate on any causes of that incident."

The RAAF says the pilots were forced to eject when they realised the plane did not have the glide potential to reach the runway.

Group Captain Coy described ejecting as an extreme manoeuvre.

"It puts significant strain on the body," he said.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/plane-crash-grounds-raaf-roulettes/story-fn6mhb6v-1226059214754

Locust

Personally I think they should scrap/sell the pc9's and invest in 2-3 predator drones - for assisting in multipurpose surveillance operations - even for the likes of the Queens visit etc... and they have a guided strike capability...

Seriously those PC9 aircraft are ancient...

kippy

stockyboie wrote: »

Ahh the pennypinchers. No pride or shame whatsoever. None.

But what about the children.... Won't someone please think of the childreennnn!!!

Id rather spend millions on one decent modern fighter then have that joke that is presented as the cream of our air corps to the watching world. Even if we only had 27 miilion. Id spend it on one fighter rather then have 7 useless turboprop aircraft. We have no sense of pride in ourselves using those aircraft. No other country would even consider using such an aircraft for either defence or for flyovers but ahhh low expectation mcpaddy will. What exactly are you saving your millions for? More useless tribunals & bailouts for the corrupt bankers is it? Now theres a waste of money if i ever seen one.

I'd rather spend it on something to and make the irish people feel pride as well as have a proper security role. Why? maybe because apparently I give a s&&& about my country and actually want the best for it and if you love your country too you would too. Thats the thing americans or british or any other nations would never accept second best and why should we.

It says a lot about not only how we view ourselves as a country and nation but also how others would percieve us that we use such aircraft. Turboprops? Yes they're modern. If you live in the period between 1926 and 1947.

We're using the cheapest possible option because we don't even value our own security or even have enough pride in our air corps to use proper modern aircraft. I swear if they could get cardboard boxes to fly and throw some machine guns on them they'd probably use them. You wonder why people take the p((( out of the irish. Its because of things like this.

Don't come back with your 'we don't have enough money' arguments because thats the cheapskate, pennypinching argument that sees this situation continue. The army was in the same situation up until a few years ago until they finally got at least some sense into their procurements.


Its like the man afraid to jump over the stream until he jumps over and sees it was no big deal. He fears and puts all sorts of excuses in the way because he fears change. Its an embarrasing joke.

An embarrasing joke? Really......
Not to me.

I dont see the point at all - of having one/nay three or for expensive fighter jets for nothing but "show". Its not as if they are that cheap to maintain or run either. And as for the need for them - none at all.

Now, if you told me we should invest more in our helicopter services, both search and rescue, air ambulance, police and surveillance then I'd be with you. The citizens would see a tangible benefit.

It's not that we dont value our own security - we realise that we are a very small nation - we'd need help with "our own" security if it came down to it. Having 3 or 4 jets on standby in case our own security came under threat would be pointless.

I realise this type of commentary in the aviation forum may not be taken too well but I believe its the standard opinion of a large portion of the population.

phantom_lord

What use would we get out of these modern fighters other than making stockyboie feel good about himself?

Topper Harley

Locust wrote: »

Personally I think they should scrap/sell the pc9's and invest in 2-3 predator drones - for assisting in multipurpose surveillance operations - even for the likes of the Queens visit etc... and they have a guided strike capability...

Seriously those PC9 aircraft are ancient...

No they're not. And if they were scrapped, what would they us to train pilots? I really don't think predator drones would be of more use to the Air Corps than the PC-9s.

Donny5

Topper Harley wrote: »

No they're not. And if they were scrapped, what would they us to train pilots? I really don't think predator drones would be of more use to the Air Corps than the PC-9s.

Oh, man, maybe not predators, but drones would offer a much greater capability for the price, and we could get ours pilots trained overseas or outsource it.

Topper Harley

Donny5 wrote: »

Oh, man, maybe not predators, but drones would offer a much greater capability for the price, and we could get ours pilots trained overseas or outsource it.

But people are complaining about the capabilities of the Air Corps and your suggest a remedy that involves having the Air Corps that can't even train its own pilots?

stockyboie

kippy wrote: »

An embarrasing joke? Really......
Not to me.

I dont see the point at all - of having one/nay three or for expensive fighter jets for nothing but "show". Its not as if they are that cheap to maintain or run either. And as for the need for them - none at all.

Now, if you told me we should invest more in our helicopter services, both search and rescue, air ambulance, police and surveillance then I'd be with you. The citizens would see a tangible benefit.

It's not that we dont value our own security - we realise that we are a very small nation - we'd need help with "our own" security if it came down to it. Having 3 or 4 jets on standby in case our own security came under threat would be pointless.

I realise this type of commentary in the aviation forum may not be taken too well but I believe its the standard opinion of a large portion of the population.

Who said anything about having 3 or 4 jets. I never suggested having 3 or 4 jets. Again its those who believe in always financially limiting themselves and always choosing the cheapest option that suggest 3 or 4 jets. I agree it would be pointless to have such a paltry number of jets and a waste of money.

What do you mean the citizens need to see some tangible benefit...thats irish thinking for you right there. This isn't a supermarket you know. This is buying the best military equipment we can for our army and airforce. We don't need to ask the public about what type of equipment needs to be bought so they can ascertain wheither its 'value for money'. You know why? The vast majority of citizens in ireland don't have a clue about military hardware and whats needed. That point is the reason we find ourselves in the sh((er financially and economically. So much useless red tape for every little action. The citizens pay their taxes and the military decide what to buy. Thats the way it works. Thats why we have a military. So they can make those decisions and not have every joe soap politician put his requirements into a tender.

Your talking about value for money?. I point you in the direction of multi billion euro bailouts. At least when your purchase military equipment you get something tangible in return.

SAR should have its own dedicated wing within the air corps and the army its own troop transport helicopters. Expected a civillian helicopter painted green to do everything is cheapskatery in its highest form. Soon or later something bad happens like with the dolphins because a helicopter is being overused past its sell by date in too small numbers or is being used for tasks it wasn't built for. This is dangerous and reckless. This kind of cheapskatery gets people killed.


Whats needed is at least 8 jets. Even 8 jets is nothing in relation to other countries who have similiar economies and populations to our own. 8 would be an acceptable basic number of jets given the state our air corps are currently in. About 6 -7 troop transport helicopters also would be required. Thats even very paltry by international standards. Its just shows how little faith people have in their country here and how much pennypinchers are out there when you mention this people go berserk like as if you were suggesting we order 50 jets and 50 helicopters.

Theres no point in making the same old tired arguments and are not moving on with the debate. Its already been pointed out that we have 4.4 million people living in our country. So has denmark and norway and finland and a lot of other small countries yet they still have substantial fleets of modern aircraft. In fact we are the only country in europe with a population of over 4 million who doesn't have any modern defence aircraft. Not even 1. Are we somewhat special? Are we?

Do we think that we are the only small country with financial issues. Again ive pointed out that the financial issue is a non issue and an excuse because even during the boom years the same tired and limiting arguments were being made to not purchase modern aircraft. Anyone who thinks the pc9s are modern defence aircraft shouldn't be commenting on a military forum.

The other excuse is to go on the 'lets buy helicopters instead' argument. Look we didn't even get that right. We bought a bunch of civilian helicopters painted green and use them in a jack of all trades role because they didn't have the b(llls to buy blackhawk helicopters for the army. FACT. Now the army is forced to share a helicopter with enda kenny and chums. This is farcical and you all know it. They use the helicopters for eveything carting some politicans around the country, putting out forest fires, using them as an air ambulance service. FFS get some b(lls and buy proper equipment for the army and our air corps. How can anyone take a military seriously when it operates like that. My deepest sympathies to the irish dff

The point is we don't have any airforce whatsoever. We don't even have proper troop transport aircraft. We have nothing. There are those on here who are extremely negative in their thinking and like to try and convince others we have some sort of modern capablities in relation to military operations. We don't. We have a glorified air ambulance service. Im not critising those who work for them don't get me wrong they do what they can with what they are given but stop pretending we have an air force. We need to move forward here. These tired old arguments and old excuses won't do anymore. Its like keeping a lid on a pressure cooker about to explode.

This country deserves the best equipment for its serving armed forces in all areas, Navy, air corps and army. Pathetic excuses don't cut it anymore. You buy proper modern equipment in the correct amount not the cheapest thing you can get in 2's and 3's.

Locust

Topper Harley wrote: »

No they're not. And if they were scrapped, what would they us to train pilots? I really don't think predator drones would be of more use to the Air Corps than the PC-9s.

First produced in 1984 (i'm no expert on aircraft btw but that sounds like a lifetime away in terms of jets) a single engine, prop plane that the PC9 is - is just a training aircraft thats all its really good for?

Is Ireland able to sustain fighter pilots/aircraft? Is it really worth it? Its a hell of a lot of money in training a pilot etc... as i'm sure your aware.

Are PC9's really of any serious use/threat in a conflict? I'd say they would easily be shot down, by AA guns or even by small arms fire.

Predator/Drones - you'd get more bang for your buck, they are cheaper very efficient - the cameras on them are state of the art, we could use them at home or contribute to foreign missions abroad. What does Ireland need fighter aircraft for anyway - a ground attack drone would suffice for the majority of jobs, and in air - air or attack aircraft - i can't see the PC9 standing up to for e.g. a Libyan Mig25 in my opinion

kippy

stockyboie wrote: »

Who said anything about having 3 or 4 jets. I never suggested having 3 or 4 jets. Again its those who believe in always financially limiting themselves and always choosing the cheapest option that suggest 3 or 4 jets. I agree it would be pointless to have such a paltry number of jets and a waste of money.

How many jets did you suggest? 1?

What do you mean the citizens need to see some tangible benefit...thats irish thinking for you right there. This isn't a supermarket you know. This is buying the best military equipment we can for our army and airforce. We don't need to ask the public about what type of equipment needs to be bought so they can ascertain wheither its 'value for money'. You know why? The vast majority of citizens in ireland don't have a clue about military hardware and whats needed. That point is the reason we find ourselves in the sh((er financially and economically. So much useless red tape for every little action. The citizens pay their taxes and the military decide what to buy. Thats the way it works. Thats why we have a military. So they can make those decisions and not have every joe soap politician put his requirements into a tender. You talk about value for money. I point you in the direction of multi billion euro bailouts.

So your suggestion is that we've blown a few billion, why not throw another few million after it on something, as a nation we dont need, nor is there an appetite for?
Also, "Irish thinking" - it's my thinking, a citizen of this country, paying taxes and reviewing the situation. I dont see us EVER being able to protect ourselves against any super or even mid range power and I don't see how fighter jets would be of benefit against the problems we have as a nation.

SAR should have its own dedicated wing within the air corps and the army its own troop transport helicopters. Expected a civillian helicopter painted green to do everything is cheapskatery in its highest form. Soon or later something bad happens like with the dolphins because a helicopter is being overused past its sell by date in too small numbers or is being used for tasks it wasn't built for. This is dangerous and reckless. This kind of cheapskatery gets people killed.

Agree - this is where the money needs to be spent. It saves lives.

Whats needed is at least 8 jets. Even 8 jets is nothing in relation to other countries who have similiar economies and populations to our own. 8 would be an acceptable basic number of jets given the state our air corps are currently in. About 6 -7 troop transport helicopters also would be required. Thats even very paltry by international standards. Its just shows how little faith people have in their country here and how much pennypinchers are out there when you mention this people go berserk like as if you were suggesting we order 50 jets and 50 helicopters.

Its not just about pennypinchers - where is the need for this level of equipment?

Theres no point in making the same old tired arguments and are not moving on with the debate. Its already been pointed out that we have 4.4 million people living in our country. So has denmark and norway and finland and a lot of other small countries yet they still have substantial fleets of modern aircraft. In fact we are the only country in europe with a population of over 4 million who doesn't have any modern defence aircraft. Not even 1. Are we somewhat special? Are we?

We are yeah.......we are our own country. We dont need these planes........at all.

Do we think that we are the only small country with financial issues. Again ive pointed out that the financial issue is a non issue and an excuse because even during the boom years the same tired and limiting arguments were being made to not purchase modern aircraft. Anyone who thinks the pc9s are modern defence aircraft shouldn't be commenting on a military forum.

We dont need defence airplanes.

The other excuse is to go on the 'lets buy helicopters instead' argument. Look we didn't even get that right. We bought a bunch of civilian helicopters painted green and use them in a jack of all trades role because they didn't have the b(llls to buy blackhawk helicopters for the army. FACT. Now the army is forced to share a helicopter with enda kenny and chums. This is farcical and you all know it. How can anyone take a military seriously when it operates like that. My deepest sympathies to the irish dff.

Agree.

Now they use the helicopters for eveything carting some politicans around the country, putting out forest fires, using them as an air ambulance service. FFS get some b(lls and buy proper equipment for the army and our air corps. Who in gods name is in charge of procurements. Donald duck?

Agree - so the answer is spend the money more wisely on more relevant machinary - as opposed to go out and buy a few fighter jets.......

The point is we don't have any airforce whatsoever. We don't even have proper troop transport aircraft. We have nothing. There are those on here who are extremely negative in their thinking and like to try and convince others we have some sort of modern capablities in relation to military operations. We don't. We have a glorified air ambulance service. Im not critising those who work for them don't get me wrong they do what they can with what they are given but stop pretending we have an air force. We need to move forward here. These tired old arguments and old excuses won't do anymore. Its like keeping a lid on a pressure cooker about to explode.

We've a few planes and a few choppers - that an air force. Not a particularly strong or dangerous one, but one THAT IS FIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE NATION.
As I said, there are three areas that could/should be improved. But buying a few jets would be pointless, over the top and not required.

stockyboie

buying a few jets is not over the top. Buying a few jets wouldn't suit our needs at all.

See the problem where we differ is this. I see the defence of my country as important regardless of the threat posed or time period. I see our ability to defend our own skies as important just as we have the ability albeit limited to defend our coastline. I see the need for air defence jets as part of this defence as do most citizens in the world. This is why all european countries have jets. I also would feel a sense of pride in my country to own the best there is to own because i love my country and want the best for it. I don't like my country to be seen as a laughing stock or for its citizens to be hoodwinked into thinking we have even ample defence means by those with vested interests.

You don't see the defence of ireland as important so you don't see the need for jets. You believe some other country will come to our aid should something go wrong. You would like someone else to do the work for us or you have the belief that nothing will ever go wrong in the skies over ireland ever in the future hence no need to bother investing in air defence. One of the above is your belief and you use the finiancial situation as an excuse to back it up. In fact even when things are going well you'll find some other excuse.

Thats just where we differ but make no mistake its that kind of thinking that has left our air corps in the current state its in. Do you think an american a brit or australian even would accept what we have for the defence of their country?. Why don't you go ask them? see what they tell you.

You either buy proper equipment for your countries defence or you have none. Theres no half measures ala 'limited form of defence'. Hey you know what i think i''ll go out for a drive this evening and not wear my seltbelt. In fact all you people here asking why bother spending the money don't bother wearing your seatbelt. Sure nothing will ever happen. In fact wear half a seatbelt. Sure its a 'limited form of safety'.

kippy

stockyboie wrote: »

buying a few jets is not over the top. Buying a few jets wouldn't suit our needs at all.

See the problem where we differ is this. I see the defence of my country as important regardless of the threat posed or time period. I see the need for air defence jets as part of this defence as do most citizens in the world. This is why all european countries have jets. I also would feel a sense of pride in my country to own the best there is to own because i love my country and want the best for it. I don't like my country to be seen as a laughing stock or for its citizens to be hoodwinked into thinking we have even ample defence means by those with vested interests.

You don't see the defence of ireland as important so you don't see the need for jets. You believe some other country will come to our aid should something go wrong. You would like someone else to do the work for us or you have the belief that nothing will ever go wrong in the skies over ireland ever in the future.

Thats just where we differ but make no mistake its that kind of thinking that has left our air corps in the current state its in, the we don't need something 'because' excuse list. Its a long list of excuses and its tiresome.

Who the fcuk is laughing at us? and if there were "people" laughing at us who give a toss?

Of course I see the defence of Ireland as important - but you know what, I am a bit of a realist in that regard. The biggest threats we face from a defence standpoint are from within. We have no enemies per se and we have a large number of allies.

I love my country and want the best for it as well - but theres fcuk all point buying hardware for the sake of it.

Zambia

Topper Harley wrote: »

No they're not. And if they were scrapped, what would they us to train pilots? I really don't think predator drones would be of more use to the Air Corps than the PC-9s.

What aircraft are we using the PC-9's to train Pilots for ?

Daniel S

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWZChyWnZCk

stockyboie

kippy wrote: »

Who the fcuk is laughing at us? and if there were "people" laughing at us who give a toss?

Of course I see the defence of Ireland as important - but you know what, I am a bit of a realist in that regard. The biggest threats we face from a defence standpoint are from within. We have no enemies per se and we have a large number of allies.

I love my country and want the best for it as well - but theres fcuk all point buying hardware for the sake of it.

Your not a realist your a pessimist. Whos laughing at us. Have a stroll over to the militaryphotos.net forum.

And who gives a toss?

Not caring makes you soo cool honestly...

I love my country and want the best for it as well

really?

Theres fcuk all point buying hardware for the sake of it

Its called defence like i pointed out. Its called having air defence. Think about it. We can't defend our own airspace. Not alone that but it shows we don't care about even bothering to defend it. If that doesn't bother you even in the slighest your missing the point completely as i can see you are.

kippy

stockyboie wrote: »

Your not a realist your a pessimist. Whos laughing at us. Have a stroll over to the militaryphotos.net forum.

Oh my god - a gang of keyboard "warriors" are "laughing" at us. Is it "LOL" type stuff or are they using lol cats as well? That's just nasty......
Also, do you know how juvenile that sounds..........

Not caring makes you soo cool honestly...

There's only one person trying to be "cool" in this exchange and it isnt me.

really?

Yep, I want our debt to be wiped out and I especially want to protect against the threat from the air ---you know the major threat from the air that we've been under for the past 60 years or so......

Its called defence like i pointed out. Its called having air defence. Think about it. We can't defend our own airspace. Not alone that but it shows we don't care about even bothering to defend it. If that doesn't bother you even in the slighest your missing the point completely as i can see you are.

We couldnt defend our own airspace with what you are suggesting either depending on the circumstances, oh and those nations (you know the ones the same size as ourselves) are fooling their citizens, in a worse way that you allege people here are being fooled, in that they wouldn't be able to defend their "air" for anything over a few hours against the enemy, depending on who that enemy is.

Again, our "defence" issues are far more local than what you appear to think and our allies are many. It doesn't bother me that we cant defend our own airspace because we have no threats and there dont appear to be any threats coming down the line to our airspace either.

You dont appear to be getting the point either from what I can tell.

Donny5

Topper Harley wrote: »

But people are complaining about the capabilities of the Air Corps and your suggest a remedy that involves having the Air Corps that can't even train its own pilots?

Yeah, why not outsource the training and put the money into UCAVs? Longer endurance, better capabilities, and good for everything we do. If we ever come into some money, then we put it into troop transport or helis, the useful stuff.

Topper Harley

Locust wrote: »

First produced in 1984 (i'm no expert on aircraft btw but that sounds like a lifetime away in terms of jets) a single engine, prop plane that the PC9 is - is just a training aircraft thats all its really good for?

Grob G 115: First flight - November 1985; used by the RAF and T-6 Texan II (based on PC-9) used by USAF and US Navy. These are fine for them to use as trainers.

Locust wrote: »

Is Ireland able to sustain fighter pilots/aircraft? Is it really worth it? Its a hell of a lot of money in training a pilot etc... as i'm sure your aware.

Are PC9's really of any serious use/threat in a conflict? I'd say they would easily be shot down, by AA guns or even by small arms fire.

Predator/Drones - you'd get more bang for your buck, they are cheaper very efficient - the cameras on them are state of the art, we could use them at home or contribute to foreign missions abroad. What does Ireland need fighter aircraft for anyway - a ground attack drone would suffice for the majority of jobs, and in air - air or attack aircraft - i can't see the PC9 standing up to for e.g. a Libyan Mig25 in my opinion

Ultimately, I think the PC-9s are necessary as trainers while also being able to fill the light strike/counter insurgency role as best it can. If the PC-9s could be supplemented by some drones, that would be ideal if they were cheap and efficient enough. But I admit I'm far from being an expert on knowing the actual capabilities and requirements of the Air Corps.

Zambia wrote: »

What aircraft are we using the PC-9's to train Pilots for ?

It's used for basic and advanced training for all pilots who then fly the Gulfstream, the Learjet, the CASAs, the defender or move on to rotary wing training as well as instructor training.

Topper Harley

stockyboie wrote: »

Your not a realist your a pessimist. Whos laughing at us. Have a stroll over to the militaryphotos.net forum.

I can't find anyone laughing at us on there. Hows about a link?

Donny5 wrote: »

Yeah, why not outsource the training and put the money into UCAVs? Longer endurance, better capabilities, and good for everything we do. If we ever come into some money, then we put it into troop transport or helis, the useful stuff.

I'm not an expert so I can't really argue with you there but I still just don't like the idea of pilot training being outsourced. Although, I can't see how this would be cost effective anyway, it's not as if it would be cheap to outsource military flight training, would it?

Donny5

Topper Harley wrote: »

I'm not an expert so I can't really argue with you there but I still just don't like the idea of pilot training being outsourced. Although, I can't see how this would be cost effective anyway, it's not as if it would be cheap to outsource military flight training, would it?

I'm no expert, either, and I don't know if our training needs are too small to be successfully outsourced, but many large countries outsource military pilot training or large parts thereof, including the United States, France, Singapore and others. I'm sure it would only be done if it resulted in savings.

phantom_lord

stockyboie wrote: »

Whats needed is at least 8 jets.

For what?

Topper Harley

phantom_lord wrote: »

For what?

So that no one will laugh at us.:rolleyes:

Raging_Ninja

Maybe more maritime surveillance aircraft and a few more boats for the Naval Service.

More transport helicopters is good. Maybe (maybe) some sort of helicopter gunship for troops on deployment on peace enforcement missions. But full-blown air superiority jets? We don't really have anything worth crashing an airliner into that could cause truly catastrophic damage.

I just don't see a full-blown war between industrialised nations breaking out any time soon in our part of the world. Unless the Russians go crazy that is, but that only really happens in Call of Duty.