Thanks Thanks:  69
Likes Likes:  165
Dislikes Dislikes:  10
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 180
  1. #126
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    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?
    The KC-390 is in the Test phase and incidents such as a runway excursion is nothing that will stop the program. It has damage to the landing gear and fuselage and most likely will be repaired and fly again.
    https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20180505-0

    As for Embraer being able to produce a MILSPEC aircraft they have being doing this for decades:
    http://www.embraerds.com/
    Their first home grown aircraft the EMB-110 was available in both civil and military versions, they even did a MPA version the EMB-111.

    The KC-390 is in production, the first aircraft will be handed over this year, the loss of a Flight Test aircraft at this stage will effect IOC but not really the certification of the aircraft. To produce an aircraft from the order of the first part to delivery takes 2-3 years. So the whole production chain has been ramping up ever since the first prototype rolled out the door.

    The addition of MPA equipment is the same for all aircraft, the C-295 already has a version with it but the suites are available and there would be no major technical issue adding such a suite to the KC-390. (cost is dependent upon the suite and would range from $25m to $50m) The KC-390 will be a damn fine tactical transporter, it fills nicely the slot currently occupied by the C-130. Whether a MPA version makes sense is another issue, the USCG have operated HC-130H/J's for many year so having an aircraft of such size in such a role has been demonstrated. But in terms of the tender it s a bit of overkill, would still be nice to see some KC-390s in IAC colours.

    The majority of the trouble with the A400M has been political and the competing demands of the customer nations armed forces. Remember Airbus was brought in to try and save the A400M when it was already on its dead-bed and had one hand tied behind their back.

  2. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  3. #127
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    The KC 390 uses as much of the Embraer parts bin as possible, so having to develop endless amounts of brackets/ducts/handles/hatches/doors/levers and the million other things that make up an aircraft doesn't have to be done over and over again, just like Boeing and MDD and Grumman and Dassault did for decades. Airlines and air forces like Embraer aircraft, because they are efficient, well made and reasonably priced and service is said to be as good as anyone's and they don't appear to have the baggage that Boeing brings with them when you order from them and Brazil haven't any colonial baggage nor have they invaded anyone, so dealing with them ruffles no feathers. The KC 390 also has the advantage that you don't have to dick around with hugely expensive, vulnerable propellors.

  4. Likes hptmurphy, apc liked this post
  5. #128
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.flickr.com/groups/irisharmyvehicles/pool

    even taller, less chance of fitting
    Time for another break I think......

  6. #129
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    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.
    Greece and Mexico have received second hand C27s from the US according to last months AFM. Bulgaria are about to retire theirs as they can't fund the servicing
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 28th May 2018 at 21:01.
    Time for another break I think......

  7. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  8. #130
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    The KC 390 uses as much of the Embraer parts bin as possible, so having to develop endless amounts of brackets/ducts/handles/hatches/doors/levers and the million other things that make up an aircraft doesn't have to be done over and over again, just like Boeing and MDD and Grumman and Dassault did for decades. Airlines and air forces like Embraer aircraft, because they are efficient, well made and reasonably priced and service is said to be as good as anyone's and they don't appear to have the baggage that Boeing brings with them when you order from them and Brazil haven't any colonial baggage nor have they invaded anyone, so dealing with them ruffles no feathers. The KC 390 also has the advantage that you don't have to dick around with hugely expensive, vulnerable propellors.
    I've been ridiculed with suggestion of same already
    Time for another break I think......

  9. #131
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    https://www.flickr.com/groups/irisharmyvehicles/pool

    even taller, less chance of fitting
    Oh I don't know, I reckon that bomb wheelbarrow will slot in no problem...

    I hope the new French Army Ford Everest is a convertible version, or they are going to get through a great deal of T-Cut.

  10. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes sofa liked this post
  11. #132
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Will they take the C235s as trade ins?
    Time for another break I think......

  12. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  13. #133
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The KC-390 is in the Test phase and incidents such as a runway excursion is nothing that will stop the program. It has damage to the landing gear and fuselage and most likely will be repaired and fly again.
    https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20180505-0

    As for Embraer being able to produce a MILSPEC aircraft they have being doing this for decades:
    http://www.embraerds.com/
    Their first home grown aircraft the EMB-110 was available in both civil and military versions, they even did a MPA version the EMB-111.

    The KC-390 is in production, the first aircraft will be handed over this year, the loss of a Flight Test aircraft at this stage will effect IOC but not really the certification of the aircraft. To produce an aircraft from the order of the first part to delivery takes 2-3 years. So the whole production chain has been ramping up ever since the first prototype rolled out the door.

    The addition of MPA equipment is the same for all aircraft, the C-295 already has a version with it but the suites are available and there would be no major technical issue adding such a suite to the KC-390. (cost is dependent upon the suite and would range from $25m to $50m) The KC-390 will be a damn fine tactical transporter, it fills nicely the slot currently occupied by the C-130. Whether a MPA version makes sense is another issue, the USCG have operated HC-130H/J's for many year so having an aircraft of such size in such a role has been demonstrated. But in terms of the tender it s a bit of overkill, would still be nice to see some KC-390s in IAC colours.

    The majority of the trouble with the A400M has been political and the competing demands of the customer nations armed forces. Remember Airbus was brought in to try and save the A400M when it was already on its dead-bed and had one hand tied behind their back.
    Even if the money was there the KC390 is out - see post 33

    I’d assume a jet powered or 4 turboprops will be thirsty compared to 2 turboprops

  14. #134
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Even if the money was there the KC390 is out - see post 33

    I’d assume a jet powered or 4 turboprops will be thirsty compared to 2 turboprops
    Anything the size of an KC-390 is going to be thirsty - anything remotely capable of any kind of useful airlift is going to be like a pickup truck, and they have really shit MPG.

    Saying that a C-17 is supposed to be fairly fuel efficient - I'm told the USAF want to get rid of some of their non-ER versions...

  15. #135
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    The KC-390 is triple the size of the C-295 and flies nearly twice as fast so its fuel consumption is greater even if it has very efficient turbofans.

    While it might be possible to squeeze a F350 SRV into a C-27J, a MOWAG can be lifted by the KC-390. (Just for interest)

    Or 2 RS32M's if we want to drop them on someone without chutes!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjF8ju7YeLI
    Last edited by EUFighter; 28th May 2018 at 22:44.

  16. #136
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    The KC-390 is triple the size of the C-295 and flies nearly twice as fast so its fuel consumption is greater even if it has very efficient turbofans.

    While it might be possible to squeeze a F350 SRV into a C-27J, a MOWAG can be lifted by the KC-390 or 2 RS32M's if we want to drop them on someone without chutes! (Just for interest)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjF8ju7YeLI
    Waste of time thinking of the KC-390 - it's 10 years from being a platform the AC could operate. It might be less ambitious and less politically meddled than the A400M but it's still a brand new, evolving platform who's quirks won't be ironed out till it's been in service with a large, technically and doctrinally capable Air Force for the best part of a decade. You should have learnt by now that the AC just doesn't have the scale and technical skills to be a launch customer for anything more complex than an egg box.

    3x C-130J's with two MPA packs, and buy into the NATO SALIS programme - there'll probably be an EU airlift programme within a few years as well.

  17. Likes DeV liked this post
  18. #137
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,092
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    3x C-130J's with two MPA packs, and buy into the NATO SALIS programme - there'll probably be an EU airlift programme within a few years as well.
    Something like this?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...nsport_Command

  19. Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  20. #138
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Not really, that's only for EU states that have airlift, not those who need it but don't have it.

    The SALIS, and another who's name escapes me, are joint buy programmes for states that can't afford, or don't need, to buy their own strategic airlift but who find it useful less regularly, or who want build in greater surge capacity than their own fleet allows.

    It's like a jointly owned pool car scheme, you pay to be a member, and that payment is based on how much you think you'll use it.

    C-130's are great for moving smaller, SF type vehicles and equipment, but are pretty rubbish for moving MOWAG's and helicopters - C-17's on the other hand are really good at it...

  21. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  22. #139
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,828
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here's a mad idea.
    We share the Western approaches to Europe with a number of other EU states. Would it make sense for all of us to have the same aircraft? We could even exchange crew and pilots now and then to broaden everyones experience?

    At Present We operate the CN235, while looking at alternatives.
    The UK currently has no dedicated MPA, but is awaiting the arrival of the P8A in 2020.
    France currently operates the Aged Dassault Breguet Atlantique 2, and an occasional Dassalt Falcon 50.
    Spain Operate the CN235 of course, While Portugal have chosen the C295 for the role(Operating 7 of type alongside 4 C130H Hercules.

    Would is moke more sense to share resorces? Granted we wouldnt be involved in the Anti-sub patrols, but there is still enough non ASW Paritime patrols being carried out to justify some joined up thinking.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  23. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  24. #140
    CQMS Auldsod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Wesht
    Posts
    246
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Here's a mad idea.
    We share the Western approaches to Europe with a number of other EU states. Would it make sense for all of us to have the same aircraft? We could even exchange crew and pilots now and then to broaden everyones experience?

    At Present We operate the CN235, while looking at alternatives.
    The UK currently has no dedicated MPA, but is awaiting the arrival of the P8A in 2020.
    France currently operates the Aged Dassault Breguet Atlantique 2, and an occasional Dassalt Falcon 50.
    Spain Operate the CN235 of course, While Portugal have chosen the C295 for the role(Operating 7 of type alongside 4 C130H Hercules.

    Would is moke more sense to share resorces? Granted we wouldnt be involved in the Anti-sub patrols, but there is still enough non ASW Paritime patrols being carried out to justify some joined up thinking.
    Good ideas but I don't see how we separate out the NATO and non NATO aspects. I think it could be a goer if the other European states had US Coast Guard type branches we could interact with. Basically military lite with a NATO mission. Alas, they don't.

  25. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  26. #141
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Auldsod View Post
    Good ideas but I don't see how we separate out the NATO and non NATO aspects. I think it could be a goer if the other European states had US Coast Guard type branches we could interact with. Basically military lite with a NATO mission. Alas, they don't.
    That's not the problem - NATO, and Ireland, are well used to designing programs and operations with NATO and non-NATO participants - the problem is going to be matching operational requirements and therefore equipment and training needs.

    Just because, for example, Portugal and Ireland operate 295's that are painted grey and are called MPA, doesn't mean there's much similarity between the platforms - which is where the joint buys, servicing and training efficiencies come in - would Ireland want (or politically be able to buy...) a MAD boom, or an ASW acoustic system, or an IFF interogator, or a weapons control system, or an ELINT system?

    At this stage the only things the aircraft would have in common are the engines and tyres - at which point, while there are still savings to be made, they fall a long way short of the 'joint buy' or piggy-back savings the RAF has achieved in the C-17, P-8A and RC-135 programs by buying exactly the same product that the US buys and rolling crew training and maintainance and upgrades into the US programs.

  27. #142
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Waste of time thinking of the KC-390 - it's 10 years from being a platform the AC could operate. It might be less ambitious and less politically meddled than the A400M but it's still a brand new, evolving platform who's quirks won't be ironed out till it's been in service with a large, technically and doctrinally capable Air Force for the best part of a decade. You should have learnt by now that the AC just doesn't have the scale and technical skills to be a launch customer for anything more complex than an egg box.

    3x C-130J's with two MPA packs, and buy into the NATO SALIS programme - there'll probably be an EU airlift programme within a few years as well.
    C130s would be the best case

    If we need them we charter them, they are very very rarely required (not the AN124 but we have in the past)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    disliked in error


    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Here's a mad idea.
    We share the Western approaches to Europe with a number of other EU states. Would it make sense for all of us to have the same aircraft? We could even exchange crew and pilots now and then to broaden everyones experience?

    At Present We operate the CN235, while looking at alternatives.
    The UK currently has no dedicated MPA, but is awaiting the arrival of the P8A in 2020.
    France currently operates the Aged Dassault Breguet Atlantique 2, and an occasional Dassalt Falcon 50.
    Spain Operate the CN235 of course, While Portugal have chosen the C295 for the role(Operating 7 of type alongside 4 C130H Hercules.

    Would is moke more sense to share resorces? Granted we wouldnt be involved in the Anti-sub patrols, but there is still enough non ASW Paritime patrols being carried out to justify some joined up thinking.
    Who says we don’t need ASW etc?

    I agree but when NATO can’t agree on that... look at Eurofighter, A400, etc etc. Their wants/needs are too different.

    Now say Spain, Portugal or France was buying a few extra C295s.... piggy back the order.

    Pooling and Sharing under EDA / PESCO?

    Of course the other part of it Ireland is responsible for policing a large chunk of EU waters (will that relative percentage go up with Brexit? Will the policing become more complex with BREXIT?)

    Will we get some EU funding for the CASA replacements?

    Quote Originally Posted by Auldsod View Post
    Good ideas but I don't see how we separate out the NATO and non NATO aspects. I think it could be a goer if the other European states had US Coast Guard type branches we could interact with. Basically military lite with a NATO mission. Alas, they don't.
    And even if they did the whole point is that with the CASA replacement we are looking for a more military role

  28. #143
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    C130s would be the best case

    If we need them we charter them, they are very very rarely required (not the AN124 but we have in the past)..
    Chicken and egg - do you not have them because you wouldn't use them, or do you not use them because you don't have them?

    Ireland has a very clear history of framing it's doctrine and objectives around what it happens to have, not purchasing equipment based on its ability to fill an operational requirement.

    An Irish C-130, for example, based in Chad at the time of the EU deployment would have flown operational support missions every day of its existence, it would have supported long range patrols and isolated and remote bases, flown ISR missions and provided other nations helicopter deployments with logistics support.

    We see this stuff again and again in every sphere of Irish operations, and it's the dumbest thought process ever conceived.

  29. Likes morpheus, EUFighter, The real Jack liked this post
  30. #144
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    That's not the problem - NATO, and Ireland, are well used to designing programs and operations with NATO and non-NATO participants - the problem is going to be matching operational requirements and therefore equipment and training needs.

    Just because, for example, Portugal and Ireland operate 295's that are painted grey and are called MPA, doesn't mean there's much similarity between the platforms - which is where the joint buys, servicing and training efficiencies come in - would Ireland want (or politically be able to buy...) a MAD boom, or an ASW acoustic system, or an IFF interogator, or a weapons control system, or an ELINT system?

    At this stage the only things the aircraft would have in common are the engines and tyres - at which point, while there are still savings to be made, they fall a long way short of the 'joint buy' or piggy-back savings the RAF has achieved in the C-17, P-8A and RC-135 programs by buying exactly the same product that the US buys and rolling crew training and maintainance and upgrades into the US programs.
    If the aircraft, avionics, FITS, sensors, tyres etc etc are still marketed and supported there is really nothing to stop us getting exactly the same aircraft as the Portuguese C295 MPAs, having said that they started their deliveries in 2006 so the chances are things have changed and we could actually get better equipment.

    Afaik the AC CASAs got the FITS suites that the Portuguese C295s have in their MLU

  31. #145
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Chicken and egg - do you not have them because you wouldn't use them, or do you not use them because you don't have them?

    Ireland has a very clear history of framing it's doctrine and objectives around what it happens to have, not purchasing equipment based on its ability to fill an operational requirement.

    An Irish C-130, for example, based in Chad at the time of the EU deployment would have flown operational support missions every day of its existence, it would have supported long range patrols and isolated and remote bases, flown ISR missions and provided other nations helicopter deployments with logistics support.

    We see this stuff again and again in every sphere of Irish operations, and it's the dumbest thought process ever conceived.
    We chartered Antonov’s for I think it was Kosovo and Chad, the bulk of the kit for a major deployment will always be via sea

  32. #146
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    If the aircraft, avionics, FITS, sensors, tyres etc etc are still marketed and supported there is really nothing to stop us getting exactly the same aircraft as the Portuguese C295 MPAs, having said that they started their deliveries in 2006 so the chances are things have changed and we could actually get better equipment.

    Afaik the AC CASAs got the FITS suites that the Portuguese C295s have in their MLU
    Whooooosh.....

  33. #147
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    We chartered Antonov’s for I think it was Kosovo and Chad, the bulk of the kit for a major deployment will always be via sea
    Whooooosh....

    And again you focus - to the exclusion of all else - on the relatively mundane getting-there and getting-back stuff, and completely ignore the much more important what-you-do-when-you're-there stuff.

    You are a senior civil servant in the DOD, and I claim my £5.

  34. #148
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Whooooosh.....
    No your point is that commonality is good but it has to be fully (or very close to in order to work to the fullest possible extend (eg spares, training, servicing etc).

    I’m pointing out that it may actually be possible. But there are possible negatives in that more modern more capable equipment may now be available.


    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Whooooosh....

    And again you focus - to the exclusion of all else - on the relatively mundane getting-there and getting-back stuff, and completely ignore the much more important what-you-do-when-you're-there stuff.
    We have gone from C295s to C130 to AN124s !

    I absolutely agree that a C130 or 2 would be very useful and be used (if we had the a/c and personnel). They are a tactical airlifter, they would be used for bringing occasional vehicles in and out of theatre for repair etc, they would not be used for bringing a Mech Coy into theatre, if for no other reason than even if we had a squadron of C130s it would take too long (even within Europe).

    We aren’t (nor is anyone else) going to be using an AN124 for ISTAR or anything apart from heavy lift to an APOD, it is a strategic airlifter, look at the amount of countries that have their own (not chartered strategic heavy lift cargo aircraft (within the AN124, C17, C5 area of capability).

    Joining something like SALIS is useful if wegoing to be using it maybe a couple of times a year. Unless the DF is doubled in size and at least doubled in budget we will never have that level of utilisation. Otherwise we are just funding the capability for other members. If is much more cost efficient to charter as required.

    A C130 with an ISTAR fit quite possibly

    You are a senior civil servant in the DOD, and I claim my £5.
    No i’m realistic and my blood pressure wouldn’t last 5 mins at a desk in DoD
    Last edited by DeV; 29th May 2018 at 10:12.

  35. #149
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post

    Will we get some EU funding for the CASA replacements?
    Why would we get funding as we are now a net contributor?
    If we had already reach the 2% target value and didn't have enough to fund it I could see the EU chipping in but not in any other situation. We are no longer the poor cousin.

  36. #150
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    454
    Post Thanks / Like
    If we are all honest we all already know it will be the C-295, at a very outside chance is the C-27J but seeing how it has only ever sold as a airlifter I can't see it being picked.

    Looking south to Portugal shows the big advantage of the C-295. They ordered 12 aircraft, 7 in tactical transport configuration and 5 in MPA. But this is only one level of their fleet on the next size up they also have 5 P3's. It would be interesting to know if they will replace the latter with more C-295's as the C-130's they have with the same engines as the P-3's they will replace with KC-390's.

  37. Thanks DeV thanked for 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
  •