Thanks Thanks:  77
Likes Likes:  170
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 196
  1. #101
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    You wont be long getting pissed off if the CoS says that you have to go all the way to Chad or Mali in a PC-12. There's a reason why the French use proper commercial sized transport aircraft, not warmed over business aircraft. If the DF genuinely wants to support the ARW on foreign ops, then ship out a pair of EC 135s in a couple of crates and pay a few techs and pilots to run them. The French, Brits and US do it as a matter of routine and have done so for decades.

  2. #102
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    You wont be long getting pissed off if the CoS says that you have to go all the way to Chad or Mali in a PC-12. There's a reason why the French use proper commercial sized transport aircraft, not warmed over business aircraft. If the DF genuinely wants to support the ARW on foreign ops, then ship out a pair of EC 135s in a couple of crates and pay a few techs and pilots to run them. The French, Brits and US do it as a matter of routine and have done so for decades.
    I was in CDG , Paris recently and was amazed to that there was whole ramp occupied by various Airbus types in military markings used for transporting duties, the UK did all their troop moves for years using VC10 and the L1011 Tristars again recycled from airlines.

    If you are going to move large amounts of troops on a regular basis , you need access to suitable aircraft.

    For one offs or even the potential to train for one offs with SFs you need access to capable aircraft.

    If the DF genuinely wants to support the ARW on foreign ops, then ship out a pair of EC 135s in a couple of crates and pay a few techs and pilots to run them.
    Belgians did it recently to Mali , I think, with a few NH90s.....in exactly that format...
    Time for another break I think......

  3. Likes GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  4. #103
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Yanks and Brits have been doing it since the evolution of a helicopter that could lift more than itself. These days, you send out your SF without a helicopter, you may as well leave rifles at home.

  5. Likes ropebag, hptmurphy, Turkey liked this post
  6. #104
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Response to question received on the RFP.

    70% of the usage will be maritime patrol (including SAR TC)
    20% will be logistical and army/SOF support (including MEDEVAC and air ambulance)
    8% will be training pilot and army (including parachuting)
    2% will be contingency (including VIP)

    Each aircraft in the fleet is required to be able to do each listed role (to be that says a modular/palletised mission suite)

  7. #105
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    328
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Response to question received on the RFP.

    70% of the usage will be maritime patrol (including SAR TC)
    20% will be logistical and army/SOF support (including MEDEVAC and air ambulance)
    8% will be training pilot and army (including parachuting)
    2% will be contingency (including VIP)

    Each aircraft in the fleet is required to be able to do each listed role (to be that says a modular/palletised mission suite)
    Doesn't necessarily require a palletized system, all those roles are achievable with FITS type consoles in place, this has been demonstrated with the current aircraft.

    Its a pity they don't specify a particular weight/volume over a specified distance...

  8. #106
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,126
    Post Thanks / Like
    so if they kept one aircraft of the current two and never flew it maritime again, it would only need to be available for a small percentage of the time to complete army/sof, pilot training, parachuting and contingency.... surely 1 older CASA 235 airframe at least could do this and be a hanger queen for the rest of the year?
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  9. #107
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Doesn't necessarily require a palletized system, all those roles are achievable with FITS type consoles in place, this has been demonstrated with the current aircraft.

    Its a pity they don't specify a particular weight/volume over a specified distance...
    A CASA (235 or 295) I very much doubt can carry 6000kg / 20 troops without removing the consoles.

    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    so if they kept one aircraft of the current two and never flew it maritime again, it would only need to be available for a small percentage of the time to complete army/sof, pilot training, parachuting and contingency.... surely 1 older CASA 235 airframe at least could do this and be a hanger queen for the rest of the year?
    Let’s say max utilisation is the 3000 hours annually, 30% of that still 900 hours! Not a small number

  10. #108
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    328
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    A CASA (235 or 295) I very much doubt can carry 6000kg / 20 troops without removing the consoles.
    CN-235 Can't do 6T in any config, I'm sure the C-295 could take 20 troops with the consoles installed, depending on where the consoles are located 6 Tonnes might be possible. The New FITS and Radar are much more modern then the original Kit(Obviously) but importantly don't require the large avionics rack of the previous gen.

    I'm not an advocate of the C-295, nor do I believe they still need observation windows or some of the legacy ideas from the current aircraft.
    Broken record for sure, but IMHO just replacing the aircraft with slightly more capability is a mistake that will hamstring the DF for another 25 years.

  11. Thanks Spark23 thanked for this post
  12. #109
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Doesn't necessarily require a palletized system, all those roles are achievable with FITS type consoles in place, this has been demonstrated with the current aircraft.

    Its a pity they don't specify a particular weight/volume over a specified distance...
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    CN-235 Can't do 6T in any config, I'm sure the C-295 could take 20 troops with the consoles installed, depending on where the consoles are located 6 Tonnes might be possible. The New FITS and Radar are much more modern then the original Kit(Obviously) but importantly don't require the large avionics rack of the previous gen.

    I'm not an advocate of the C-295, nor do I believe they still need observation windows or some of the legacy ideas from the current aircraft.
    Broken record for sure, but IMHO just replacing the aircraft with slightly more capability is a mistake that will hamstring the DF for another 25 years.
    From the Portuguese video, the FITS suite is on the 3rd pallet (nearest the flight deck), middle is the rest area (6 seats and table plus about 10 troop seats and/or litters) and last is the observers etc pallet plus the SAR kit on the ramp

  13. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  14. #110
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,522
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Up to the point where you introduced the concept of the 295 carrying a vehicle I'm in full agreement, but we don't have anything suitable to be carried other than motor bikes or quads....
    The Ford Ranger should be suitable.
    The French will soon be introducing into service its Peugeot P4 replacement, the ACMAT VT4, which is a Ford Everest SUV modified by ACMAT for the French contract. The Ford Everest is the SUV variant of the Ford Ranger pickup.
    The French have said the ACMAT VT4 can be airlifted by their CASA CN-235's, so if it can be airlifted then so to can a Ford Ranger.

  15. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  16. #111
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would have thought the tender pointed to c27j?

    Kc390 might be nice, but it's not European

    C 27 used by uscg with whom the ac have links, and was favoured by the army back in 2003 to the extent that there was a demo arranged without bluffwaffe interference, meets all the specs.

  17. #112
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    C27J is nothing but an updated G222, itself a tried and tested aircraft. A Mini herc with updated avionics and powerplant. The Aussies chose the C27J over the C295 in their recent Caribou replacement,as the C295 couldn't take the G-Wagen. When the USAF decided to retire their C27 for bugetary reasons, SOCOM and the USCG snapped them up. They has already proved their usefulness in Afghanistan, SOCOM using them where they used to use the CH47, the USCG cancelling an order of HC144(Based on the CN235) when the C27J became available to them.
    So it seems to tick all the boxes that the C295 doesn't.
    The only reservation I would have is the MC27J is not in widespread use in MPA configuration, its weather radar is a backward step from the 360deg search radar of the CN235, and one wonders if the installation of a 360 search radar would impact much on the rest of its transport capabilities.
    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. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod, hptmurphy, Tempest liked this post
  19. #113
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    The C27 isn’t currently in service as an MPA equipped with the correct equipment

  20. Thanks na grohmití, hptmurphy thanked for this post
  21. #114
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's what I was thinking. USCG seem to be using them just with weather radar and Mk 1 eyeball.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  22. #115
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    The Ford Ranger should be suitable.
    The French will soon be introducing into service its Peugeot P4 replacement, the ACMAT VT4, which is a Ford Everest SUV modified by ACMAT for the French contract. The Ford Everest is the SUV variant of the Ford Ranger pickup.
    The French have said the ACMAT VT4 can be airlifted by their CASA CN-235's, so if it can be airlifted then so to can a Ford Ranger.
    Look at the photos posted and read what others have written, the Ford 350 won't fit in the back of a CN295..ergo anything of a similar size won't fit
    Time for another break I think......

  23. #116
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would have thought the tender pointed to c27j?
    Production of the C27 ended in 2016.....what would it cost to re open a production facility for three may be 4 aircraft given the second hand market is already availing of retired US aircraft?
    Time for another break I think......

  24. Likes DeV liked this post
  25. #117
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    The Ford Ranger should be suitable.
    The French will soon be introducing into service its Peugeot P4 replacement, the ACMAT VT4, which is a Ford Everest SUV modified by ACMAT for the French contract. The Ford Everest is the SUV variant of the Ford Ranger pickup.
    The French have said the ACMAT VT4 can be airlifted by their CASA CN-235's, so if it can be airlifted then so to can a Ford Ranger.
    Look at the photos posted and read what others have written, the Ford 350 won't fit in the back of a CN295..ergo anything of a similar size won't fit

    Polish_CASA-295M_(20).jpg
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 27th May 2018 at 20:13.
    Time for another break I think......

  26. #118
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,522
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Look at the photos posted and read what others have written, the Ford 350 won't fit in the back of a CN295..ergo anything of a similar size won't fit
    I said Ford Ranger, not Ford 350. They are a completely different vehicle.

  27. #119
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Production of the C27 ended in 2016.....what would it cost to re open a production facility for three may be 4 aircraft given the second hand market is already availing of retired US aircraft?
    You may be incorrect there Murph. The US aircraft went back into US hands, as the Italian makers refused to cover warranties of ex us aircraft, which were retired in an almost new condition. The Makers claimed these aircraft would compete with new orders. Meanwhile Zambia ordered just 2 aircraft in 2017, and the MPA version is being offerred to Canada and the RAF.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  28. #120
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like
    The C27J is still advertised on the Leonardo website. Doesn't mention a Maritime patrol variant. They offer the ATR 72 MP for that.

  29. Likes Spark23 liked this post
  30. #121
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    The thing about the KC 390 is that Embraer could ramp up production easily enough if a large enough order for them came through. As has been suggested here before, if a decent European order was made, the Don could piggyback on such an order and add a couple......the C27 would be lovely, size wise, especially for small vehicle carriage.

  31. #122
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    577
    Post Thanks / Like
    The C-27J vs C-295 battle is going on since they cam on the market. If you are looking for a top small tactical airlifter then the C-27J is your number one pick, it has more payload capability, wider and higher cabin and has the better STOL capability. However the wider and higher cabin make the fuselage fatter which eats into speed and economy. Hence it needs 2 x 4600hp engines compared to 2 x 2600hp engines on the C-295. This make the C-295 more economical to operate and gives it good loiter time. Also the C-295 has proven MPA versions already in-service so modification cost would be low. SO best pick for MPA is most likely the C-295.

    My heart beats for the C-27J but my head says the C-295 is the best compromise for a common MPA/Tactical Airlift.

    Hopefully one thing the Don is looking at is some pooling with our Nordic partners the Finns. They have transport versions of both the C-295 and the PC12NG which should allow cost saving in terms of spares and maintenance. There might even be a chance of developing something more out of it given our expertise in MPA and their increased naval patrol needs. And we could benefit from there transport versions. Just a thought!
    sort of pooling

  32. Likes DeV liked this post
  33. #123
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    577
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    The Ford Ranger should be suitable.
    The French will soon be introducing into service its Peugeot P4 replacement, the ACMAT VT4, which is a Ford Everest SUV modified by ACMAT for the French contract. The Ford Everest is the SUV variant of the Ford Ranger pickup.
    The French have said the ACMAT VT4 can be airlifted by their CASA CN-235's, so if it can be airlifted then so to can a Ford Ranger.
    The US have developed new vehicles (ULCV) to fit into CH47s & V22s which should be capable of fitting into the C-295, one is the Polaris Dagor:
    https://military.polaris.com/en-us/dagor/
    This has been recently ordered by the Canadians.

    In the end the vehicle has to be matched to the aircraft carrying it. But for most vehicles the C-295 is a bit too small to be practical.

  34. Dislikes Spark23 disliked this post
  35. #124
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    The thing about the KC 390 is that Embraer could ramp up production easily enough if a large enough order for them came through. As has been suggested here before, if a decent European order was made, the Don could piggyback on such an order and add a couple......the C27 would be lovely, size wise, especially for small vehicle carriage.
    KC 390 is out it’s a prototype

    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The C-27J vs C-295 battle is going on since they cam on the market. If you are looking for a top small tactical airlifter then the C-27J is your number one pick, it has more payload capability, wider and higher cabin and has the better STOL capability. However the wider and higher cabin make the fuselage fatter which eats into speed and economy. Hence it needs 2 x 4600hp engines compared to 2 x 2600hp engines on the C-295. This make the C-295 more economical to operate and gives it good loiter time. Also the C-295 has proven MPA versions already in-service so modification cost would be low. SO best pick for MPA is most likely the C-295.

    My heart beats for the C-27J but my head says the C-295 is the best compromise for a common MPA/Tactical Airlift.

    Hopefully one thing the Don is looking at is some pooling with our Nordic partners the Finns. They have transport versions of both the C-295 and the PC12NG which should allow cost saving in terms of spares and maintenance. There might even be a chance of developing something more out of it given our expertise in MPA and their increased naval patrol needs. And we could benefit from there transport versions. Just a thought!
    sort of pooling
    To me it’s a one horse race the C27J doesn’t have an inservice MPA service (USCG are using its weather radar)

  36. #125
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,207
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    The thing about the KC 390 is that Embraer could ramp up production easily enough if a large enough order for them came through. As has been suggested here before, if a decent European order was made, the Don could piggyback on such an order and add a couple......the C27 would be lovely, size wise, especially for small vehicle carriage.
    I still don't get this argument about them being able to "ramp up", yes they have a successful commercial operation without question, but that doesn't automatically mean they can develop and supply a military spec airframe without difficulty, as the A400 project highlights. With them having damaged/lost one of the test aircraft (after damaging it before from memory) when will it even start it's production run? When is Portugal's 6 due to be produced? Will it be able to stick to the "sticker price" when it gets into serial production or will the price climb? What would be the extra cost to fit it for "MPA" activities? And above all why should we be looking at going for a design that's only entering service with the inevitable issues that brings?

  37. Thanks DeV, Turkey, Spark23 thanked for this post
    Likes DeV 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
  •