Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

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

  • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
    Yes, it has a useful range. The new C295W MPA's will require just one fuel stop if flying to Beirut, Damascus or Bamako, as opposed to the current CASA which would require two stops. If flying a leg without pax or cargo the C295 could potentially do it nonstop.



    I highly doubt a C-130 could fly the same routes with a full load of pax or cargo without fuel stops.
    And Peltor Tactical for everyone aboard.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
      Then why on earth are we talking about buying more?
      It's cheap.

      Doesn't matter if it's of any use, what matters is that it's cheap.

      It's a perfectly good MPA, a perfectly good ISTAR platform, and a perfectly good way of moving people and their personal gear - but anything bulky like a pick-up truck is a non-runner.

      Personally I take the view that if you're buying something for the next 30 years, you want to be able to move things like a weapons locating radar, an RBS70 firing post and radar, a couple or artillery peices, helicopter spares, light vehicles etc...

      That's not moving a mechanised battlegroup by air or walty hovertanks, is simply the normal day-to-day, in-theatre and into theatre logistics of any PK/PE operation of the last, and next, 30 years.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by madmark View Post
        c 295 vs c130

        c295 vs kc390

        yes both c130 and kc390 have a higher MTOW but the range is quite similar unlike the price per unit
        This is very poor representation of capabilities and has the C-295 at over 51T.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by madmark View Post
          c 295 vs c130

          c295 vs kc390

          yes both c130 and kc390 have a higher MTOW but the range is quite similar unlike the price per unit
          I would advise against using such sites for real comparisons; the C-295 has a MTOW (normal) of around 21,000kg not the 51,000kg given by this site.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
            Then why on earth are we talking about buying more?
            The C-295 can meet many of the potential taskings that the DF have.
            Want to fly some RBS-70's (get the paperwork sorted first) to a test range in Sweden, the C-295 can take care of that.
            Need to fly some urgent light supplies to Beirut, the C-295 can take care of that.

            All aircraft can fly almost anywhere on the world, want to fly around the world a Cessna can do that.

            What a C-295 cannot do easily is larger troop movements or heavier resupplies.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
              Yes, it has a useful range. The new C295W MPA's will require just one fuel stop if flying to Beirut, Damascus or Bamako, as opposed to the current CASA which would require two stops. If flying a leg without pax or cargo the C295 could potentially do it nonstop.
              On a clear day with no winds and direct great circle routing yes, but given that both need to happen the C-295 would still need a refueling.

              Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
              I highly doubt a C-130 could fly the same routes with a full load of pax or cargo without fuel stops.
              The C-295 is not doing any of the routes with max payload.
              The C-390 would be able to fly to Beirut or Bamako (or Goa) with a full load of troops without the need for a refueling stop. Its range with a 14,000 kg load is 2730 nm which is sufficient for these missions.

              Comment


              • This obsession with range from Ireland is a red herring - you're not flying to the Falklands with no splash-and -dash options, you're flying to places that are either on Europe's periphery or have safe commercial airports or friendly military bases fairly nearby.

                Flying to Beirut? Stop off at Akrotiri. Flying to Mali? Stop off at Gibraltar or Rabat. Don't buy a dead end aircraft purely to avoid stopping off somewhere for 20 minutes - and do you really want to be circling some war torn toilet with with almost empty tanks?

                No, thought not...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                  This obsession with range from Ireland is a red herring - you're not flying to the Falklands with no splash-and -dash options, you're flying to places that are either on Europe's periphery or have safe commercial airports or friendly military bases fairly nearby.

                  Flying to Beirut? Stop off at Akrotiri. Flying to Mali? Stop off at Gibraltar or Rabat. Don't buy a dead end aircraft purely to avoid stopping off somewhere for 20 minutes - and do you really want to be circling some war torn toilet with with almost empty tanks?

                  No, thought not...
                  An aircrafts range can have or lack thereof can have many consequences, e.g. aircraft "A" makes a long day turn to north africa, aircraft "B" requires a fuel stop enroute both ways.
                  Aircraft "A" can do the mission with one crew in s standard duty day, aircraft "B" can't so you end up having to pre-position crew or night stop or worst of all turn down the mission.

                  The recent issue with repatriating Irish troops from Africa would have been a much more straight forward undertaking with an aircraft that can go there and get out to somewhere without multiple time consuming fuel stops.
                  Fuel Stops cost time, possibly requiring a less then direct routing, then there is descent, approach, ground time, departure and climb all are time consuming, the notional 20min splash and dash is in actuality far more costly in time terms, when you factor the other variable into the mission.

                  Payload and Range are critically important for a transport asset to be of any value internationally, the ability to trade payload for range is the key in my view.

                  Most other C-295 operators either are centrally located and/or are from large countries where the aircraft will get extensive domestic usage and have a larger transport aircraft for the longer range/higher payload stuff.

                  Comment


                  • The answer is, of course, a C-17 or A400M - but if that's not within your credit card limit you have to choose something that fits within the cost-range-payload-capability matrix - the problem with choosing range and cost as your preferred characteristics is that you end up with an envelope....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                      The answer is, of course, a C-17 or A400M - but if that's not within your credit card limit you have to choose something that fits within the cost-range-payload-capability matrix - the problem with choosing range and cost as your preferred characteristics is that you end up with an envelope....
                      Well both the C-17 and A400M are available on a time-sharing arrangement, something Hungary has also taken up.
                      For the C-17 contact: Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC), at Pápa Air Base, Hungary
                      For the A400M contact: Multinational Air Transport Unit (MNAU), at Wunstorf Air Base, Germany

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        Well both the C-17 and A400M are available on a time-sharing arrangement, something Hungary has also taken up.
                        For the C-17 contact: Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC), at Pápa Air Base, Hungary
                        For the A400M contact: Multinational Air Transport Unit (MNAU), at Wunstorf Air Base, Germany
                        Indeed, the various arrangements for buy-in to a heavy lift pool are things I - and pretty much everyone else here who's interested - have trumpeted for a decade or more. Sadly I've never seen any suggestion that the AC, DoD and wider Govt have ever looked at them as being a potential solution to the airlift problem.

                        It's a bit like the Air-Land Battle: nah nah nah I'm not listening..,

                        Comment


                        • C17 is too much aircraft and SAC doesn’t guarantee access when we need it

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                            The answer is, of course, a C-17 or A400M - but if that's not within your credit card limit you have to choose something that fits within the cost-range-payload-capability matrix - the problem with choosing range and cost as your preferred characteristics is that you end up with an envelope....
                            I don't agree, these aircraft are beyond the requirements in my view and the costs are beyond the budget that we might envisage. The real options are KC-390/C-130 or maybe a concerted Combi/QC airliner

                            Comment


                            • Don't the French and Germans have joint C-130J unit?

                              Buy two and join in the pooled maint and training contracts/pipelines...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                                Don't the French and Germans have joint C-130J unit?

                                Buy two and join in the pooled maint and training contracts/pipelines...
                                Might be iffy there...that joint SQN is a SOF unit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X