A realistic unitary cost for a medium lift helo (be it NH90 or Blackhawk) currently stands around 20-some million USD each, considering training and such.

228 millions for Puma upgrade would allow a buy of roughly 10 NH90 or Blackhawks. Not much…

I fear NH90’s are far more expensive than that, even as bare fly away cost, at least judging from the several purchases released to the public until now.

If you need to keep upfront costs down, maybe you really are limited to choose between UH-60 and maybe AW149.

The main problem for any Air Force attacking a naval formation is actually how to find it.

Even a large naval group cruising, let’s say, 200 nm from the shore will be over the horizon for any land based surveillance network and still capable to menace both a country’s shipping lanes and to strike targets on land, at least targets located very close to the sea, even using only short range cruise missiles like Brahmos.

It would take only an handful of hours to close in with the shore and launch the missiles, meaning the other side need to lock several air and naval assets just to prevent it, let alone to retaliate against the enemy’s naval group.

On the other hand, AAW warfare is an higly specialized task, it is not a matter of how many frigates armed with medium range AAW missiles are deployable, nor it is a mere matter of missile’s range.

It’ mostly about sensors, FCS and CMS, enabling at least one single ship to trace a comprehensive tactical environment, tracking all of the own ships and air assetts, neutral air assetts, enemy assets.

It should be able to identify and prioritize both enemy air assets and enemy missiles, and to identify or guess potential targets within own naval group, and deploy a defensive sequence.

The first and foremost requirement for an AAW ship is the ability (better to say its CMS’s ability) to identify as hostile and engage menaces not aiming at herself, and a general purpose or ASW frigate’s CMS is usually lacking this feature, forcing the ship to act just as bastion placed between a potential target and the incoming missile to engage it.

What about Taiwan?

I see. IIRC anyway the sticking point for the UAE was that they ordered trainers AND light attack aircraft and the M-346 light attack components were not as goods as the A-50s. Singapore on the other hand is ordering JUST trainer aircraft so the peripheral components of a light attack craft are not import for the training role.

No, the deal was broken because Finmeccanica offered with M346 production and tech transfer of the Molynx MALE UAV, then under pressures form USA and Israel Finmeccanica was forced to call back the latter and tried to offer to the Emirates the FALCO, a lightweight tactical UAV, and the Emirates were right to make the agreement void.

It has nothing to do neither with the trainer nor the attack version of M346, by far more credible as attack plane of T/A-50.

The real drawback I could think of about X3, is that using the two side orotrs to control rotation, it is actually more a STOVL then an helicopter, hindering any chance to operate proficently from ships, through-deck apart.

I think the Sikorsky is really an awesome concept, you still are able to operate like a real helicopter, you got a smaller main rotor diameter because of the counter rotating main rotors, translanting in slower blade tips linear velocity, and still you can fly really fast.

Maybe the lack of a coaxial rotor helicopter forced Eurocopter to go that way, speeding up tests and opening the way to prospective new variants of existing models, but I’m not convinced it’s a winner.

I think Kamov should have a well pondered look at the concept, it could be an awesome option for almost all Kamov’s designs.

I hope you are not serious about it.

I dare to say nobody, and I mean exactly nobody, is willing, thinking or contemplating any large scale land operation in Somalia.

You see, whoever will be so bold to land in Somalia, will run away losing me, money and dignity.

It’s a nightmare, and naval escorts are likely to be the only viable and practical approach to the problem.

Think about it: U.S., Pakistan, Italy and some others went to Somalia in 1992, reaching zero-point-zero of their goals.

Ethiopia went to Somalia in 2006, and reached again zero-point-zero goals after three years of fighting and casualties.

Piracy itself is more estabilished in Puntland, one of the last, maybe the very last stronghold against somali Islamic courts.

So, who would like to risk huge losses and being again bogged down in a counterinsurgence warfare, at the same very time endangering or alienating the foremost and only “near friendly” part of the country?

Obviously, no western Government will tell it clear and loud, but the only practical policy is to control piracy at sea as long as economically and politically viable the piracy, being eradication not an option.

In fact there already a few hand held UAVservicing with british police, german Fire Brigades and so on.

E.g.:

Draganflyer x6

Even the Schiebel S-100 is marketed for civilian applicatons too.

The critical issue, at least here in Europe, is the lack of regulation.

You simply are not allowed to fly anything unmanned flying higher than an RC model can by laws, period.

Only military operators, confined in military air spaces, can do it, and it’s quite pointless for any civilian agency, being inherently interested in flying them in the civilian air space.

The second critical issue, at least for a proper nation wide deployment of UAVs, is the lack of funding for a dedicated wideband telecommunication satellite, or at least, if you are envisaging to use them just in non sensitive applications (i.e. no law enforcement ones) to lease enough badwidth from a commercially managed telecommunication satellite.

In Europe some countries are studying/developing protocols and fixed ground stations cellular networks alike, to get rid f this problem, and the European Commission is studying a proposal for new air traffic regulations inside European Union allowing a comprehensive and less restricted use of civilian UAVs.

Back to Russia, it seems to me that one critical issue is missing.

Until few months ago, Russia had no longer a satellite navigation system, GLONASS has been fully restored only this very last months.

And Russian MoD still is lacking enough military telecommunicatoin satellites, again only this very last weeks they launched a couple of milcom satellite, and it’s likely they are still based on old projects lacking wideband channels for imagery.

So there has been no point, better to say no practical sense, on developing strategic levels UAV like a Global Hawk.

And going down to the smaller assets, they are lacking both practical payloads and the related facilities at the tactical unit level.

It’s not a matter of airframes or engines, and is only partially a matter of automation or data relaying.

Russia as a country is not ready to deploy UAVs at the tactical levels, not by itself at least, and is only now restoring those assets mandatory to deploy strategic levels UAVs.

@H_K

No, I’m not confusing ships and calissifications.

I base my own on U.S. Navy standards, it could be questionable if they are the best or most appropriate, but there is intrinsic logical coherence with them.

By U.S. Navy standards, an LSD is a ship with most of its hull devoted to a very large dock, able to transport and deploy ashore large amounts of landing crafts.

By the same standards, what you save of your LSD’s hull from the dock is part deck space for motorized or mechanized assets, or berthing facilities.

There is almost no room at all for storing facilities, either dry or liquid.

And at the present time, U.S. Navy LSDs are the Widbey Island class ones, whose cutaway is really close to Foudre class cutaway, and related facilities as well.

By the aforementioned standards, is LPD’s standard (Austin class and now San Antonio class) to provide facilities for logistic support, i.e. mainly stores.

This is the rationale dictating a dock’s depth of less than 30 meters for San Antonio class vs. around 100 meters for Widbey Island class

Of course you can sort out of an LSD something resembling an LPD, e.g. you can turn out with sometinhg like an Harpers Ferry, an iteration of Widbey Island with only 30 meters depth dock and plenty of stores builded on the saved room.

But it is something I would think of for a new built ship, like if Marine National discovered their amphibious fleet is severely impaired by the lack of a logistic amphibious ship (and they actually lack that asset) and like to keep R&D costs low modifying the Foudre project the same way U.S. did with Widbey Island, but ways too expensive to refit in an already built ship.