Thanks Thanks:  77
Likes Likes:  170
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 176 to 196 of 196
  1. #176
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,981
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    And?

    The point is MP-UAV are a much more cost effective way of providing maritime ISR, cheaper to procure, cheaper to operate, no need for expensive traditional pilot training etc. I just think that the option should have been explored.
    they are not multi role, they can only do ISTAR. They are cheaper to procure and operate but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still expensive. UAVs of that size still require certified pilots. There are also I believe, limitations on them for an airspace regulation point of view.

    The non-MPA tasks is the RFP are nice to haves, if they are core needs then there would be no reason why a tactical transport (or two) along side 3-4 MP-UAV could not be acquired. The cost should not be so much different as the cost of the kit to transform a platform such as the C-295 into a MPA is close to that of a MP-UAV.
    no they aren’t (they are roles assigned by Government) they may the CASA a multi-role more versatile and better VFM aircraft.

    Just thought the option should have been explored, Israel is replacing its Sea Scan MPAs with MP versions of their Heron UAV which will have a 45hr patrol endurance!
    who says it wasn’t ?

  2. #177
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    569
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    they are not multi role, they can only do ISTAR. They are cheaper to procure and operate but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still expensive. UAVs of that size still require certified pilots.
    Everything is expensive depending on the point you view it from. Comparing a UAV to manned platform the UAV is the cheapest option. The airframe is smaller so cost less to buy, maintain and operate. There is no need for complex life support equipment and human comfort facilities etc. If VFM is the criteria then a UAV/dedicated transport will be the winner, even if it means two system. If the Don cannot handle it, then the UAV can be a fully NS asset.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    There are also I believe, limitations on them for an airspace regulation point of view.
    That was true but to a large extent the UAV industry has reacted to this and the latest offerings are for operation in controlled airspace. For the majority of our patrol area the UAV would be much much lower than civil traffic.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    no they aren’t (they are roles assigned by Government) they may the CASA a multi-role more versatile and better VFM aircraft.
    Lets be honest, the additional roles are because the current platform was able to perform these along side its primary roles. If we has a KingAir I doubt the RFP would require 6t or 20 troops as carrying capacity. Just like the Cessna/PC12NG, the requirement is tailored to an existing pre-selected solution. But having a split between UAV and manned platform would allow a better optimisation of both platforms. The UAV would perform the long range high endurance low level ISR missions while a dedicated manned transport would provide the rest of the requirements. You would still have a ramp to drop rafts, you still can do Medevac, you can still transport 20+ troops etc.

    Multi-roles does not always mean better VFM, "Jack of all trades/master of none!".

  3. Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  4. #178
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    151
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Because they can’t do anything except surveillance (and possibly engagement)
    Though I would broaden "surveillance" into maritime ISR and at the higher end electronic air warfare capabilities, but I am imaging that you are pointing out the inability of generic RPAS not able to deploy a UNI-PAC II once it has located a vessel in distress.... though once located by the RPAS you can either call in a utility transport like a CASA and get the loadmaster to biff one out the back or if a light payload capable Rotary UAV is deployed off the OPV's once it is within tasking range it can transit to the distressed vessel and deploy a UNI-PAC II or similar.

    Realistically it is more prudent to consider maritime RPAS platforms as capability enablers that extend the prime manned platform rather than a silver bullet solution.

  5. Likes ropebag, EUFighter, DeV liked this post
  6. #179
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,842
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    ...Realistically it is more prudent to consider maritime RPAS platforms as capability enablers that extend the prime manned platform rather than a silver bullet solution.
    This.

    RPAS are a piece in the jigsaw, they don't replace everything.

    Interestingly, it takes more people to put an MQ-9 Reaper in the air than it does a Sentinel, Sentry or RIVET JOINT - cheaper to buy they may be, and long endurance they are, bit cheap to make operational they aren't.

    RPAS also don't do judgement calls 400 miles out into the Atlantic in a near hurricane force storm - people do that, and people who are there and can feel the pressures on the flight controls make much better ones than people watching it on TV.

  7. Thanks EUFighter, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Shaqra liked this post
  8. #180
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    151
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    This.

    RPAS are a piece in the jigsaw, they don't replace everything.
    That is right they extend the capability output beyond the reach of the primary manned platform. They are the finder and the manned platform is the keeper.

    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Interestingly, it takes more people to put an MQ-9 Reaper in the air than it does a Sentinel, Sentry or RIVET JOINT - cheaper to buy they may be, and long endurance they are, bit cheap to make operational they aren't.
    Essentially because there are more shifts involved due to the flight endurance. Lets be honest here talking MQ-9's or god forbid Triton is a bit alternative universe with respect to Irelands conops when a Selex ES Falco or IAI Heron is more pragmatic and budget friendly. There is a quantum of difference between fairly modest RPAS platforms like Falco with limits to their datalink range and capacity compared to premium US kit that is WGS routed.

    Have to say whoever spun the meme about keeping Rivet Joint in the air being cheaper than a MQ-9 ... yeah right .. I'ii just leave it there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    RPAS also don't do judgement calls 400 miles out into the Atlantic in a near hurricane force storm - people do that, and people who are there and can feel the pressures on the flight controls make much better ones than people watching it on TV.
    I wouldn't disagree with the people analogy though I would point out that it would be very marginal for an air component commander to authorise a SAR tasking using a crewed MPA asset during and into such conditions anyway.

  9. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  10. #181
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just saw that the Czech's are ordering 2 more cargo 295's for themselves with delivery in 2020, so I'm presuming after that would be the likely period for any order from us? How well will the 235's perform out to that?
    http://www.janes.com/article/81470/c...itional-c-295s

  11. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  12. #182
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like
    RFPs due for the Casa replacement on June 20th, so hopefully everyone's handed in their paperwork for exam 1, and are being scrutinised for exam 2. Regarding the C27J, saw this model/vaporware proposal on another website; the armament might be a bit more that being looked for in our programme, but shows it could be a possibility, if it's ro-ro systems suite is integrated correctly

    * http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...c-27j-isr.html

    The production line might be a bit quieter than the C295, but might make the aircraft a bit more possible as a contender than it was previously.

  13. #183
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,981
    Post Thanks / Like
    Again see post 33

  14. #184
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anyone who thinks it will be anything other than a C-295 is fooling themselves really.

  15. Thanks Spark23 thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy, Spark23, Rocinante liked this post
  16. #185
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,981
    Post Thanks / Like

  17. #186
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Contrary to the ministers promise, we got neither additional aircraft or additional ships.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  18. #187
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,981
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    Contrary to the ministers promise, we got neither additional aircraft or additional ships.
    Niamh made an 8 ship Navy

    A 9th is on the way

    It did take a while in fairness
    Last edited by DeV; 17th July 2018 at 22:47.

  19. #188
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    What we actually got is one for one replacements with three of the current fleet looking at retirement in the not to distant future, so if builds for the peacocks and Eithne are not signed off within a very short space of time, given build times we could actually be back to where we were in 1987/88.

    Not to mention can we crew all these ships continually.
    Time for another break I think......

  20. #189
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,981
    Post Thanks / Like
    The NS was a 7 vessel Navy until Niamh made it 8 in 2001

    It remains to be seen if GBS will become a 9th vessel or if Ciara/Orla/Eithne will be retired before a CPV replacement or MRV goes to tender

  21. #190
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The NS was a 7 vessel Navy until Niamh made it 8 in 2001

    It remains to be seen if GBS will become a 9th vessel or if Ciara/Orla/Eithne will be retired before a CPV replacement or MRV goes to tender
    I get the feeling that the future ships will need to be at least on the blocks before they decommission anything........but only as long as the current CoS remains.

    Given the man power shortages we could lose ships very fast and not plan rebuilds until we have sufficent people to put the newer ones to sea.If we go down that route we could see a replacement for Eithne but never for the CPVs. Again I reckon with the CPVs that we could get a single OPV to replace the two. If anyships eed to be tied up because of manpower shortages it will be a huge game changer and will be used as an excuse to replace hulls one for one.

    The NS was a 7 vessel Navy until Niamh made it 8 in 2001
    Nope as L.E. Deirdre was still in Srvice until 2001, became an 8 ship Navy in 1999 with the delivery of L.E. Roisin
    Time for another break I think......

  22. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  23. #191
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,102
    Post Thanks / Like
    When was Setanta paid off? I have memories of her still cluttering up the basin after Eithne entered service. So she would have been in service in 1982, when the NS had CM10, CM11, CM12, P20, P21, P22, P23 and A15
    Thats 8 to me.
    Sorry for going off topic. I blame dev.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  24. #192
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    When was Setanta paid off? I have memories of her still cluttering up the basin after Eithne entered service. So she would have been in service in 1982, when the NS had CM10, CM11, CM12, P20, P21, P22, P23 and A15
    Thats 8 to me.
    Sorry for going off topic. I blame dev.
    Yeah I tried that maths but Setanta was long gone before I joined in 1985 and Eithne had only been in service 12 months at that point....and Banba had decommissioned in 1983...and was gone a year later... I then did the maths with Ferdia Setanta and Banba in the equation.. and still came up short as that was 77/78 and Aoife and Aisling had yet to enter service
    Time for another break I think......

  25. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  26. #193
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Still though, 80-82 we had an 8 ship navy (even if we couldn't put all of them to sea).
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  27. #194
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    Still though, 80-82 we had an 8 ship navy (even if we couldn't put all of them to sea).
    My one and only trip on a sweeper was on Grainne, got as far as Roches point...towed back.....
    Time for another break I think......

  28. Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  29. #195
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    got as far as Roches point...towed back.....
    You or the sweeper ??

  30. #196
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    Just posting this for info - it's a preliminary evaluation of the CN235-300 with quite a lot of detail.

    I know we're expecting the C295M, but there's a lot of crossover between the two including: the vehicles that could possibly fit, potential countermeasures systems/RWR, etc.

    https://www.nifc.gov/aviation/BLMsmkjAC/CN235Report.pdf

  31. Thanks na grohmití, DeV, sofa, apc thanked for this post
    Likes TangoSierra liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •