Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CASA Replacement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • @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.

    Comment


    • 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?

      Comment


      • 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
        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

        Comment


        • 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

          Comment


          • 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; 29 May 2018, 18:02.

            Comment


            • 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!!

              Comment


              • 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!

                Comment


                • 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

                  Comment


                  • I guess you'd have to ask Embraer. Wiki gives at least 60 on order...

                    Comment


                    • 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

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • 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; 30 May 2018, 01:33.

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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; 30 May 2018, 08:26.

                              Comment


                              • 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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X