CASA Replacement

[DeV]

"Enhancement of sub-surface capabilities to monitor sub-sea cables."

Maybe I extrapolated too far from the above statement, my assumption being that the tools needed for these tasks (which I interpreted as being "interference with sub-sea cables") are the same as the ASW package of the C295. But as I'm sure you can tell I'm no expert so I will definitely accept what you say on this.

Context is everything

“Sub-surface” is mentioned in context of NS fleet when you read through the paragraphs:

“This modern fleet would deliver a minimum of 2,000 patrol days per year, ……
The fleet should have enhanced air, surface and sub‐surface search capabilities, supported by appropriate modern technology including ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) and unmanned ship‐borne RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System) providing tactical airborne capabilities. The fleet’s sub‐surface capabilities should allow the Naval Service to monitor activity in the vicinity of sub‐sea cables.”



Of note is that “sub-surface” isn’t mentioned in the recommendations at the end of the Chapter or the Executive Summary

[ias]

A glaring omission I would have thought? On the other hand, in its recommendations at the end of Ch. 6 it does refer to "Modern Ships" and it could be argued that on P. 31 it defines the enhancements the "modern ships" should have over our current fleet, but as I say I'm no expert and I'm open to correction.

[GoneToTheCanner]

sub surface could simply mean a towed array or a simple ROV for looking at cables or pipes or wrecks. Wouldnt necessarily mean active or passive sonar or the means to deliver torpedos or mines or depth charges.

[DeV]

A glaring omission I would have thought? On the other hand, in its recommendations at the end of Ch. 6 it does refer to "Modern Ships" and it could be argued that on P. 31 it defines the enhancements the "modern ships" should have over our current fleet, but as I say I'm no expert and I'm open to correction.

I would imagine that as the Irish C295s were already under construction (for delivery next year), it would be a major contract renegotiation and rework to get them equipped with the MAD and sonar bouys….. it would also reduce their utility transport capabilities

especially when Government still haven’t even made a decision on CoDF

[GoneToTheCanner]

sonobouys can be dropped from the existing flare chute or simply by hand off the ramp. A MAD boom would probably require surgery on the aft hull, but is probably a customer option anyway.

[Orion]

sonobouys can be dropped from the existing flare chute or simply by hand off the ramp. A MAD boom would probably require surgery on the aft hull, but is probably a customer option anyway.

https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.co...861#post254861

[ias]

Does anyone know what the differences are between the C-295 MPA and the C-295 MSA (the only thing I could find was "The system C-295 MSA is not suitable due to lack of a self-defense system and non-integrated military equipment" on https://www.defencetalk.com/military...3997/page-13)?

[DeV]

Does anyone know what the differences are between the C-295 MPA and the C-295 MSA (the only thing I could find was "The system C-295 MSA is not suitable due to lack of a self-defense system and non-integrated military equipment" on https://www.defencetalk.com/military...3997/page-13)?

ASW one has 4 consoles, MPA has 2 (palletised)
Not sure if MPA is armed

[DeV]

sonobouys can be dropped from the existing flare chute or simply by hand off the ramp. A MAD boom would probably require surgery on the aft hull, but is probably a customer option anyway.

they potentially could, not saying your wrong but this is the sonar bouy launcher on a Turkish C295 ASW (you also need all the electronics as well)

https://turkishnavy.files.wordpress....7210-kopya.jpg

the MAD boom is an option yes but on newly built aircraft…. I’d assume there is more to it (structural) than bolting it on

[Rhodes]

"Enhancement of sub-surface capabilities to monitor sub-sea cables."

Maybe I extrapolated too far from the above statement, my assumption being that the tools needed for these tasks (which I interpreted as being "interference with sub-sea cables") are the same as the ASW package of the C295. But as I'm sure you can tell I'm no expert so I will definitely accept what you say on this.

not ASW, “sub-surface” - page 35

There is a very big difference between Anti-Submarine Warfare and monitoring cables. ASW aircraft are armed with torpedos and depth charges.
The naval sub‐surface search capability will be in the form of ship-borne sensors and UUVs.

[DeV]

There is a very big difference between Anti-Submarine Warfare and monitoring cables. ASW aircraft are armed with torpedos and depth charges.
The naval sub‐surface search capability will be in the form of ship-borne sensors and UUVs.

Absolutely!!!

But those same sensors used for “monitoring cables” are also used for “ASW”

the CoDF report doesn’t mention ASW weapons either

Remembering a vessel that may be interfering with cables could be a submarine or a surface vessel (not necessarily military/naval)

[gaff85]

As there is now a CN235 armament upgrade available, pie in the sky
What airframe hours do our two have left to offer, and should we look at upgrading same to provide additional air support, if and when needed

[DeV]

As there is now a CN235 armament upgrade available, pie in the sky
What airframe hours do our two have left to offer, and should we look at upgrading same to provide additional air support, if and when needed

Our CN 235s have over 20,000 hours each (the “highest in the worldwide CN235 fleet” to quote the recent Air Forces Monthly article)

[DeV]

https://twitter.com/conorhogarty/sta...pHfFEq4E33CaTA

AI drones to be used off Ireland

[pilatus]

. Temporary reg 211 applied. photo credit, Oscar Fernandez.