Thanks Thanks:  69
Likes Likes:  165
Dislikes Dislikes:  10
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 180
  1. #151
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    @ropebag, the 390 will not take 10 years to prove itself. The engines are old hat at this stage and parts and expertise on same are widely available; the present avionic fit is essentially an airliner fit that is already widely proven. After that, it's down to whatever MPA or ASW fit a potential user might care to fit. They don't even need to leave Brazil to test it on austere runways/tropical climates/dust/sand/gravel and they could fly it to the Antarctic in half a day to see if it can cope with very cold climates. In essence, Embraer's own aircraft building heritage has speeded up the development process. By contrast, look at Japan's aircraft industry; they build excellent aircraft but only in small numbers at huge cost and they have no airliner heritage worth talking about. If you bought a Kawasaki C2, you really would be taking a leap into the unknown, yet if you bought a 390, you'd already have the fruit of a really successful industrial and aeronautical base.

  2. Likes hptmurphy, EUFighter liked this post
  3. #152
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    @ropebag, the 390 will not take 10 years to prove itself. The engines are old hat at this stage and parts and expertise on same are widely available; the present avionic fit is essentially an airliner fit that is already widely proven. After that, it's down to whatever MPA or ASW fit a potential user might care to fit. They don't even need to leave Brazil to test it on austere runways/tropical climates/dust/sand/gravel and they could fly it to the Antarctic in half a day to see if it can cope with very cold climates. In essence, Embraer's own aircraft building heritage has speeded up the development process. By contrast, look at Japan's aircraft industry; they build excellent aircraft but only in small numbers at huge cost and they have no airliner heritage worth talking about. If you bought a Kawasaki C2, you really would be taking a leap into the unknown, yet if you bought a 390, you'd already have the fruit of a really successful industrial and aeronautical base.
    So why aren't they flying off the shelves?

    New C-130's are expensive, A400m is expensive, late and not perfect, C-2 is expensive if very good - so why isn't the 390 flying off the shelves given the apparatus confidence than any buyer could have in it?

    I know you work in the industry, and so you've a good grasp on the what works, and what's a pain in the arse end of this - so why is there this marked lack of confidence on the part of buyers?

  4. #153
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,428
    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.
    Just occurred to me you could have two 90mm OPVs for the price of three C130Js.......now why do we need MPAs
    Time for another break I think......

  5. Likes spider liked this post
  6. #154
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,626
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    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.
    2% target value?

    Just because we are a net contributor doesn’t mean EU funding programmes cease, it just means we are paying more

    Under the EMFF (related to the CFP) the State is getting € 37.3M between 2014 and 2020 for enforcement and control alone

  7. #155
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,829
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Just occurred to me you could have two 90mm OPVs for the price of three C130Js.......now why do we need MPAs
    Serious question, because I'm not a fishead, but how much more effective (yes, I know...) do you think would an 11 ship NS be than a 9 ship NS with 3 high end MPA's?
    Last edited by ropebag; 29th May 2018 at 17:02.

  8. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, apod, The real Jack liked this post
  9. #156
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Serious question, because I'm not a fishead, but how much more effective (yes, I know...) do you think would an 11 ship NS be than a 9 ship NS with 3 high end MPA's?
    .......we could extend our range, and have a two ship Battlefleet east of Suez.......Huzzah!!

  10. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  11. #157
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,733
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Just occurred to me you could have two 90mm OPVs for the price of three C130Js.......now why do we need MPAs
    Would these be the same 90m OPV's that we insist upon building without an on-board helicopter, ostensibly because a land based MPA is more effective for our needs?

    Thought we knew better than the all other modern naval doctrine when it came to ships of that size!

  12. Likes ropebag, na grohmití, apod, ias, The real Jack liked this post
  13. #158
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,674
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Just occurred to me you could have two 90mm OPVs for the price of three C130Js.......now why do we need MPAs
    90mm/25.4 = 3.54 inches

  14. Likes na grohmití, Orion, hptmurphy liked this post
  15. #159
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    I guess you'd have to ask Embraer. Wiki gives at least 60 on order...

  16. #160
    The Auld Fella A/TEL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Just occurred to me you could have two 90mm OPVs for the price of three C130Js.......now why do we need MPAs


    OPV = 23knts

    MPA = 300+ knts


    Which one can cover most sea area in the shortest time?


    MPA and ships should compliment each other

  17. Likes ropebag, DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  18. #161
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    I guess you'd have to ask Embraer. Wiki gives at least 60 on order...
    Only 28 confirmed orders and 11 LOI's. Contrary to myth they are not much cheaper than the KC-130J because most buyers leverage the economies of scale with their smallish orders alongside the ongoing US DoD orderbook. With the latest C-130J-SOF variant one can basically pick and mix from OEM kit what you want it to do ... tactical transport with MPA/SAR, Elint, EW, ISR and gunship.

  19. Likes ropebag, Sparky42 liked this post
  20. #162
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Serious question, because I'm not a fishead, but how much more effective (yes, I know...) do you think would an 11 ship NS be than a 9 ship NS with 3 high end MPA's?
    The value of any surface surveillance fleet is linked to the enabling intel that acts upon it. While random surface patrolling has a place and does provide a deterrence effect, sending boats to sea is too costly based purely on the off chance of actually catching a vessel engaged in illegal activity. The aim is to base tasking on intelligence that provides a target. A aircraft can sweep an area of interest either visually or electronically to ID a target much more effectively and faster than a vessel will be able to do. However surface vessels are key in their role to pursuit, arrest and detain as well as physical presence.
    Last edited by Anzac; 30th May 2018 at 00:33.

  21. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Jetjock, EUFighter liked this post
  22. #163
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    Would these be the same 90m OPV's that we insist upon building without an on-board helicopter, ostensibly because a land based MPA is more effective for our needs?

    Thought we knew better than the all other modern naval doctrine when it came to ships of that size!
    Navy's are now looking to use Rotary UAS platforms such as the S-100 and Fire Scout to do this role off OPV's as they do all that manned maritime rotarys do at a fraction of the price. $4m for a complete S-100 containerised ship board system or $20m+ for a multirole maritime chopper.

  23. Likes restless liked this post
  24. #164
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,733
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    Navy's are now looking to use Rotary UAS platforms such as the S-100 and Fire Scout to do this role off OPV's as they do all that manned maritime rotarys do at a fraction of the price. $4m for a complete S-100 containerised ship board system or $20m+ for a multirole maritime chopper.
    Absolutely the most cost efficient way to increase the operational footprint of Irish ships. It has long been talked about. Ideally something like the S-100 as it can be armed with a LMM so it not only increases the operational footprint, it increases the area that can be influenced. However, the closest we have seen trialled are quadcopter types.

    Regarding Irish vessels and aviation facilities in general, if you have ever wondered why the Irish Navy are in the minority in building new 90m OPV's without an embarked or even a land-on capability, we are told it is because in the Irish scenario the CASA MPAs have negated the need for helicopter facilities. The reality is somewhere between a cost cop out and a Naval Service unwilling to depend on a hitherto unreliable Air Corps.
    Last edited by Jetjock; 30th May 2018 at 07:26.

  25. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, DeV, EUFighter liked this post
  26. #165
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    I guess you'd have to ask Embraer. Wiki gives at least 60 on order...
    Wow.

    I've seen it all now. Wikipedia, really?

    Are you sure you haven't been moonlighting as the head of DOD procurement for the last 20 years?

  27. #166
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    No, acid drop, I haven't. I decided not to call Embraer directly as the cost of a call to Brazil is a bit high so I hit the internet instead. Wiki's gen on the KC 390 is quite outdated so you don't have to believe it....apart from that, I have only once ever spoken directly to a DoD person (in the Don, when a new toy was being unveiled) and his one-word description for the AC was "dreamers", followed by a sigh and a shake of the head.

  28. #167
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    No "switch" to call for you in EI?

    My 7 year old nephew could tell you that Wikipedia is probably the most unreliable source you can reference. At least use something halfway credible. I'm sure your google search contained a press release or two, or even better, something from Janes. Picking the first one is just lazy.

    Not sure what the "dreamers" anecdote adds to the discussion either? Ironically enough, suggesting that the KC-390 is a suitable CASA replacement is just like what you allegedly heard - dreaming.
    Last edited by Chuck; 30th May 2018 at 17:48.

  29. #168
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,516
    Post Thanks / Like
    The DoD man didn't elaborate but I understood exactly what he meant....the AC can ask for all they would like, but what they'll actually get is another matter. Given that the -295 appears to be the only game in town for future Irish MPA, then that's what I expect will actually roll onto the ramp and the Donners will smile politely and sign where the DoD man says.

  30. Likes hptmurphy, EUFighter liked this post
  31. #169
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,626
    Post Thanks / Like
    In response to a question on the RFP, the aircraft must be new builds (they cannot be zero timed / remanufactured).

  32. #170
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Just occurred to me you could have two 90mm OPVs for the price of three C130Js.......now why do we need MPAs
    Obviously a sense of humour has no place here........
    Time for another break I think......

  33. #171
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Serious question, because I'm not a fishead, but how much more effective (yes, I know...) do you think would an 11 ship NS be than a 9 ship NS with 3 high end MPA's?
    I was actually taking the piss...thought some humour was required but it is amazing how engrossed people become in the subject and react in a very defensive manner to their own train of thought.
    Time for another break I think......

  34. Likes apc, pilatus liked this post
  35. #172
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    So why aren't they flying off the shelves?

    New C-130's are expensive, A400m is expensive, late and not perfect, C-2 is expensive if very good - so why isn't the 390 flying off the shelves given the apparatus confidence than any buyer could have in it?

    I know you work in the industry, and so you've a good grasp on the what works, and what's a pain in the arse end of this - so why is there this marked lack of confidence on the part of buyers?
    There are many reasons behind the slow sales of KC-390: firstly the number of nations in the market for new build aircraft of this size are limited. A lot of countries do operate C-130s but a lot of these are older versions sold after retirement from the USAF. This also means that the US can offer cheap recycled C-130s from its vast stocks which makes it difficult for any new build A/C. Looking at the number of outstanding orders for new build C-130Js you will find only a fraction of the open orders for KC-390s.

    If we look at Europe most countries looking for a tactical airlifter have committed to the A400M many decades before anyone thought about a KC-390. But a number of countries have expressed their intention to order the aircraft, these include Portugal and Czech Republic. Sweden was consider a key potential customer until it pushed back its replacement date for its C-130s.

    But a major issue is still when will the aircraft enter serial production for BAF, there was an issue that the Brazilian government paying for the aircraft. There was the chance that the program could be postponed/delayed. This makes any potential other customer less likely to order as without the Brazilian order there is no program.

    There is now a co-operation agreement between Boeing and Embraer which should mean that over the next decade the program should become a success especially as the older C-130 (E & H) versions reach the end of their lives. Even some C-130Js will begin to reach the end of the lives as the first ones entered service 20 years ago.

  36. #173
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like
    One question that could be asked is why go for a manned MPA?

    I am not talking of a MQ-4C Triton but there are other platforms which could provide maritime ISR:
    http://www.ga-asi.com/Websites/gaasi...ian_032515.pdf
    http://www.p1hh.piaggioaerospace.it/
    http://elbitsystems.com/media/hermes...itime_2016.pdf

  37. #174
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,626
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    One question that could be asked is why go for a manned MPA?

    I am not talking of a MQ-4C Triton but there are other platforms which could provide maritime ISR:
    http://www.ga-asi.com/Websites/gaasi...ian_032515.pdf
    http://www.p1hh.piaggioaerospace.it/
    http://elbitsystems.com/media/hermes...itime_2016.pdf
    Because they can’t do anything except surveillance (and possibly engagement)

  38. #175
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Because they can’t do anything except surveillance (and possibly engagement)
    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.

    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.

    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!
    Last edited by EUFighter; 31st May 2018 at 23:56.

  39. Dislikes DeV disliked 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
  •