verbatimE-2 is a great legacy system, but, its expensive and too rare in the airgroup to provide forward ISTAR support over an area where a pop-up SAM threat could get lucky. The technology exists now to do better than Hawkeye and ignoring that, to bring in Hawkeye that there is no real requirement for, is straightforward idiocy.
Sorry, are you advocating something like podded airborne radars to be mounted on a fighter wet hardpoints?
If so, I cannot see it really flexible, because a one man crew won’t never be able to perform any usefull task related with AEW, and your costs will be higher on a day by day over head patrol.
As for E-2C being scarce, it is all up yourself: how many heliborne AEW can you actually employ?
Maybe six or seven (i.e. all the UK got and will got)?
OK, buy six or seven E-2C and, when required, embark them on your CV(s), they will still provide greater performances.
Are you thinking to embark your heliborne AEW on some frigate or destroyer?
That means your are sending them (frigate/destroyer plus heliborne AEW) hundreds of miles away from the main task group, otherwise it would be irrelevant provided an E-2 far exceed both cruise speed and range of any conceivable heliborne AEW.
So to be meaningful, you are sending two or three vessels with two or three heliborne AEW, around 50% of your AEW assets.
And I cannot see an AW101 or Sea King AEW costing less tha an E-2, an helicopter usually is far more expensive to operate of a roughly similar in payload aircraft, and for the avionic, you got what you pay for, isn’t it?
verbatimIt’s really doubious a legacy military helicopter, like UH-60, could actually offer the same, in terms of airframe ruggedness, idraulic and electrical lines redundancies, cockpit and multiple load path redundant structure.
Actually, any really new helicopter designed in the west wins hands down in every of the above mentioned aspects, and even the environmental issues, are addressed at least at the same level provided many “civilian” helicopters have to cope day by day, every day, low level flights both in the far North and far South, or in the deserts, to support the oil industry.
It’s like talking about passive security confronting a modern class B auto and an 80ies class C or even D: the modern class B wins all, even if in a far lower class, because modern design techinics and principles allow for a far greater security.
So the only points actually relevant to classify an helicopter like “really military”, are main and tail rotors, trasmission, avionic package, and the most difficult features to obtain as after market add-on: the cabin layout and dimensions and the flight characteristics.
The main drawbacks in AW139 (by a military point of view) being corrected are the cabin width and depth, the hovering aptitude (AW139, being optimized for high speed transiction, has a leveled asset when cruising at speed, and a characteristic nose up attitude when going slow or hovering), giving the AW149 those military’s specific characteristics lacking in the AW139.
The rationale behind the AW149 project is to provide for a modern replacement to all medium utility helicopters still flying around the world, better than the Sikosky’s UH-60 and derivatives and far cheaper than NH-90, i.e. a truely, but utility, military helicopter.
It is not to design one more civilian helicopter dressed in a military camo.
verbatimSorry to be tedious, but Guardia di Finanza (Italian Custom Service, for whoever doesn’t know italian language and italian security forces) has in order AW139, and no AW149.
Indeed, the very first AW139, airframe number 31094, military serial MM81714, bort number GF-401, has been already delivered and is already in service.
Here some pictures about GF-401
http://www.dgualdo.it/regs7/gf401.htm
Italian Coast Guard (Guardia Costiera) has selected AW139 as well, and the very first one, military serial MM81741, bort number 11-01, has been delivered in May.
The official selection for a new SAR helicopter, to be operated by Aeronautica Militare, should happen thorugh 2011, with first delivery ideally happening in 2012.
The Aeronautica’s chef of staff already expressed interest in the AW149, but more important is the fact that any helicopter model operated by italian armed forces since the very first AB-47 has been at least manufactured, if not developed at all, in Italy.
I’m pretty skeptical to the image of Aeronautica Militare, or any other italian military branch, purchasing whatever helicopter model without at least italian manufacture involved.
Because AB212 actually need to be replaced, it will be AW149: first because pending the turkish selection, there is the risk of a failure, and an order from home country(ies) usually gives a boost to a new model appeal, second because NH90 is ways too expensive for a SAR platform, third because of the concurring requirements from UK and Italy for both CH47 and hopefully AW149, it will pave the way to a fair workload sharing between Yeovilton Vergiate.
verbatimGuardia di Finanza, and Italian Coast Guard, have in order AW139s, it’s Aeronautica Militare that has already selected AW149 as future SAR helicopter to replace AB212 employed in the role, while AW101 should be the future CSAR helicopter.
The order for AW149 should amount at around 20 ariframes, maybe more, and Esercito Italiano has a requirement, but I doubt funds will be enough, for a batch of medium helicopters (again, AW149s) to replace AB205, AB212 and AB412 serving as utlity helicopters.
NH90’s order is splitted between Marina Militare, mainly as ASW platform plus a dozen or so as utility and amphibious warfare helicopters, and Esercito Italiano only as Air Assault helicopters (60 airframes, all to be deployed with Air Assault regiment “Friuli”).
There is no provisoin to deploy NH90s with Esercito Italiano as utility heicopters, and the options in being are either to scrap the logistic and utility wings, the one equipped with CH-47 apart, or to purchase something else, obviously from Agusta Westland, to fulfill that role alongside the CH47s.
So even if LibDems like to see CH47 production happening in Yeovilton, they will have to make a hard choic: either they get CH-47 production, and lost AW149’s one (at least those for Italy, all in all was Italy’s Finmeccanica that acquired Westland merging it with Agusta, not the way around), or they retain AW149’s production and give up CH47’s one.
verbatimThere certainly is a chance for that to happen, but i higly doubt it. The first 12 Chinooks were always expected to be built entirely by Boeing so that they would be available in 2013 for use in Afghanistan.
Assembly at Vergiata would benefit Italy, not the UK, while still probably slowing down the work a bit.The idea was 12 Chinook ASAP-built by Boeing, then negotiations to see if Westland could work on the other 10 in the UK, not at Vergiate.
With cancellation of the 10 successive airframes, the UK is most likely to buy 12 Chinooks built by Boeing and that will be the end of it, simple like that.
I think it’s the other way around.
Italy has a firm interest in purchasing AW149 for Aeronautica Mlitare and maybe Esercito Italiano: if Yeovilton, and british Govt. as well, have any interest in having actual AW149 manufacture happening in the UK, they should hand over all CH-47F production to Vergiate.
Otherwise there will be little or no chance at all to see any AW149 rolling down Yeovilton’s production plant aiming to italian armed forces.
verbatimVerbatim,
You mean the same OTO76 mount that in its original form had a nasty habit of shaking itself to bits when firing? 🙂
I’m sorry pal its a good gun now with the SR redesign but it sold on price, running cost and theoretical versatility!. Not on the real capabilities of the weapon. 3 inch is never going to be a real main gun calibre. Its inadequate for fire support and marginal anti air. Its a good gun to have when you know the gun isn’t your principle weapon!
Yes!
Well, at least it actually fired from day one, there are lots of naval weapons that failed to fire at all in their early days…
Anyway the point it is that nobody can overlook issues like caliber standardization and interoperability.
Failing to do so, will drive anybody out of business letting others to catch up all.
verbatimPost-conversion to 155 caliber, I agree in full.
Without the gains from standardization with field artillery, I doubt it would make sense to retain the caliber and the the mount itself.
The switch to 155, if it will prove fully successful, will give Mk8 a new life.
verbatimTrue, but, ask the question as to why this is?. Is it because of the wonderous virtues of the OTO76 or is it because those mounts are cheap and available?. Well cheap and available describes Mk8 for the RN doesnt it?.
No, it’s because the OTO 76/62 is now simply the best (and only BTW) on its class, and more important it has killed long time ago any other system in its class.
And it has killed every other weapon system because OTO chosed to drop the italian ammunitions standard and to adopt (adapting its designs) the U.S. ones, in widespread use since the end of WW2.
The same happened with the OTO 127/54, apart the U.S. looking for a lightweight mount and developing their Mk45 despite having lesser performances than the OTO’s mount.
Still all OTO naval 127 and the U.S. Mk54 fire the same ammunitions, meaning whatever shell is developed across the world could be adopted, and meaning whoever produce those shells could sell them.
The last imply that choosing either OTO’s 127/54 Compatto or 127LW, or U.S. Mk54, you will keep your doors open to future upgrade and you will still pay your ammunitions, and to an extent technical support too, far less tha adopting any other caliber, being it british 114 or french 100 mm.
verbatimJust a few notes.
First, Italy has a stated plan to purchase up to 131 F-35, plus maybe two options for Marina Militare.
The original plan called for 22 F-35B to be delivered to Marina Militare (Italian Navy), plus the above mentioned two options, and for 109 F-35A to be delivered to Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force).
Last year, Parlament’s Defene Select Commitee called for a revised plan, stating that Aeronautica Militare could purchase between 40 and 44 F-35B, letting the top number still at 109 aircraft purchased.
It is widely recognized by italian Defence’s enthusiasts (even if not by everybody) to be a biased and unfeasible plan, aiming just to kill GRUPAER (Marina Militare fixed wing Squadron).
It is still possibile that Italy, against all odds and other priorities, could stuck on ordering up to 60 F-35B, and that’s the top number, and an unrealistic one too.
About being the C version at risk, if you put into the equation three factors like
a) the sheer fact that the U.S. Marine Corps can’t deploy its envisaged 400 around F-35Bs, because no CVN will host them and no U’S Navy’s LHD could host more then less a dozen,
b) that the U.S. Marine Corps concept of amphibious assault from over the horizon is hanging on a life line because of EFV and MV-22 failure to deliver so far the expected operational performances, and
c) that the U.S. DoD and the Pentagon are under pressure to develope more realistic requirements, operational philosophies and acquisition planes for every branch,
I would bet that the variant that could be, not actually slashed but still reduced in numbers, is the B, against any effort the UK or Italy can put to back it.
The U.S. are not going to pay lots more money to purchase aircrafts they won’t be able to send along with their ESG.
verbatimI would still say it’s Pakistan.
It’s the most logical customer, having until now only two Erieye in service.
Even if it would be a single aircraft purchase, it would make sense.
And I doubt strongly and firmly that a country like Saudi Arabia both is allowed and is willing to purchase an alternate AEW to “have a look” at Israel.
Being supposedly blind in the northern of the country is very expedient to cover up any Saudi’s involvements in Israel’s cover operations or air missions, you know Al Sauds are still and ever the “defenders” of Mecca and Medina, quite a sensible task in the islamic world.
verbatimInter-services feuds apart, I would say the rationale behind India’s development of amphibious warfare is not to get an organic capability within the Navy, instead to develop a token (related to India’s Armed Forces size) capability forcing potential opponents (mainly Pakistan) to spend huge resources to take care of the menace.
As a side effect, India will gain a political tool exploitable in many scenarious, from peace keeping missions to joint security agreements in the Indian Ocean area (mainly a maritime and archipelagos environment), but I won’t say it is worth of losing a whole Army’s brigade or to divert resources from other priorities to raise amphibious troops within the Navy.
verbatimWell, there are even reconnaissance satellites able to track naval forces, but they are not in so widespread use.
The same is for OTH radar networks, until now the only operators being Australia and Russia, plus France developing its own.
And by the way they are still highly vulnerable assets, requiring both a good defensive network and strategic depth to preserve them from enemy actions.
verbatimIf the recent indian deal is truthful, they are going to pay around 560 million euros for 12 AW101, initial training and five years support, between 46 and 47 millions euro each..
I would speculate the base helicopter’s cost to be in the ballpark between 30 and 35 million euros.
For comparison, Australia bought, under conditions roughly similar to the indian ones (i.e. spare parts and simulators, that should imply initial training as for the indians) seven H-47F at around 50 millions euro each, but they will be helicopters coming from Boeing’s assembly line.
Italy signed an agreement for the purchase of 16 CH-47F, to be built in Italy by Agusta Westland, at a price tag of 900 million Euros, around 56 million euros each, and no details is available about support and training…
So all in all, an AW-101 is still far cheaper than a CH-47F, at least if you would like to keep i house some money manufacturing whatever helicopter you choose domesticallly.
And against one more helicopter model to induct into service, supplementing one already existing line, being it AW101, Wildcat or Chinook, will save a lot of money in training services, supports and so on.
@Fedaykin
It is not about width and depth of the hangar, I suppose lot of old corvettes and frigates are lacking the hangar height to accomodate anything like the NH90 or the AW149, both being around 5 meters high vs. little less than 4 meters for Lynx/Wildcat.
The Aw149 is almost 1,5 meters taller than Wildcat, and NH90 is slighty taller even than AW149.
verbatimI suspect official prices for contries that developed NH90 are not that up to date, they should have been negotiated and agreed upon well before than nowadays deals.
New Zealand deal for NH90 marked an all inclusive, or near all inclusive package for nine helicopters at around 450 millions US Dollars, and they are plain TTH, without any navalized hardware.
Anyway, with the relatively large AW101 fleet already available, and having already signed a deal for the Wildcat, I suppose any medium helicopter is going to be a luxurious optional, if you take in the costs related ith the logistical burden.
Maybe it is more cost effective to use an AW101 (and purchase even a small additional number of them) even for light tasks than deploy a fourth helicopter model.
Or the MoD should have bashed Wildcat in the past, turning its focus to a larger model like AW149, with all the risks related to developing from scratch a naval version.
But I suspect a large chunk of RN and others Navies hangars (e.g. Type 22) wouldn’t be able to accomodate the AW149, barring some export options.
verbatimWithout catapults and arrestor gear it would be rather difficult to operate Greyhounds from CVFs.
Maybe string-launched for one-way missions? 😀
Sign In
