RAF buys spy planes to monitor enemies from the sky

[Lyneham Lad]

Article on the Daily Telegraph website (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2630186/RAF-buys-spy-planes-to-monitor-enemies-from-the-sky.html)

The Twin Star aircraft, which can fly for 18 hours a time and reach an altitude of 18,000ft, could be equipped with recorders to keep watch on terrorist suspects. Footage could then be beamed via satellite back to troop stations, other planes or offices in Britain.

It is believed that the two new aircraft, which can carry infrared cameras and ground-mapping radar, will be used by 39 Squadron, a unit comprising members from all three armed forces based at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, US.

The Squadron currently flies unmanned surveillance and bombing missions against the Taliban in Afghanistan by remote control.

The new planes are also expected to take over some spy tasks from RAF Nimrods.

An RAF source told the Sun newspaper: "With the right sensor array, they can see if a suspected terrorist is at home, listen in to and record his mobile calls and tell you if his car engine is hot, warm or cold."

The basic cost of the Canadian-made aircraft is £325,000, but it is believed that the RAF's customised, four-man versions cost £2 million to put together. They are able to fly for such long stretches as their engines, 1.7 litre petrol or turbo-diesel, are light and economical.

The MoD has confirmed that it purchased the two Twin Star planes. The RAF is also believed to be planning to buy unmanned Twin Star drone planes, which can fly for 30 hours continuously.

[Tigger_Too]

Made in Canada? Not quite methinks. IIANM, the product is the Diamond Airborne Sensing DA-42 MPP (Multi-Purpose Platform). Built in Austria? But Aurora Flight Sciences (based in US, but also operating in Ontario??) are now appointed as a sales agent.

[Green Flash]

Doesn't it have German engines and didn't the engine manufacturer go bust recently?

[Tigger_Too]

Correct. Diamond uses the Thielert Aircraft Engines Centurion diesel. TAE ran into financial problems earlier in the year, but resumed production in June following "intensive negotiations with creditor banks and suppliers". I think they are still technically insolvent, but they are definitely supplying engines.

Diamond was also investigating an AVGAS engined variant for the US market. Not sure where that went.

[Lyneham Lad]

Looking at the details of the Da42 MPP ((see .pdf file) (http://www.diamond-air.at/fileadmin/uploads/files/productfacts/da42_twin_star/da42_twin_star_e.pdf) and the potential eighteen hour missions, one cannot help but hope that the crew of four are very good friends :eek: (but they may not be by the time they land...)

[Heimdall]

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/da42 mpp/da42 mpp.jpg

I heard a while ago that the CEO of Diamond Aircraft had mentioned publically that two Diamond DA42 MPPs had been ordered by the UK MOD. These two aircraft appeared on the UK civil register as G-DOSA and G-DOSB and are now on the military register as ZA 179 and ZA 180 respectively. I understand both aircraft are currently as Boscombe Down. There is also a third aircraft at the Diamond factory (G-DOSC) that may possibly be held as an optional purchase by the MOD.

I believe the basic fit will include a day/night gyro-stabilised electro-optical sensor, a Scotty Satcom together with various radios and data links. Most likely the aircraft will operate with a crew of two with much of the data gathered interpreted in near real time on the ground.

The fully equipped DA42 MPP can operate in all weather conditions and at a wide range of speeds, from a minimum of 75 kts to a maximum of 152 kts (IAS). In monitoring mode the aircraft can fly for up to 12.5 hours without refuelling. The maximum range at 50% power setting is more than 1350 nm. The fully equipped DA42 MPP can operate in all weather conditions and at a wide range of speeds, from a minimum of 75 kts to a maximum of 152 kts (IAS). In monitoring mode the aircraft can fly for up to 12,5 hours without refuelling. The maximum range at 50% power setting is more than 1350 nm.

Israel’s Aeronautics company are already marketing an unmanned version of the DA 42, named the Dominator 2 and Diamond aim to deliver anywhere between 20 – 50 DA42 MPP’s next year. If the MOD order proves to be a success, I imagine further orders will soon follow.

Heimdall

[Jackonicko]

Diamond have a dedicated DA42MPP operation, Diamond Airborne Sensing, who seem to be supplying aircraft (with provision for various sensor fits) to a variety of companies who then produce ISTAR versions. They may also market a kitted out aircraft for direct sale.

DIAMOND and Rheinmetall Defence Electronics have developed the OPALE (Optional Piloted Aerial Long Endurance) platform, IAI offer the Dominator UAV version, while Aurora and DO Systems are also offering DA42MPP ISTAR variants.

When I spoke to DO Systems (about three weeks ago), they were tight-lipped and unwilling to discuss it "at this stage" but seemed keen to talk again in a few months. They acknowledged a UK requirement (which they said was still being refined and defined). They would not discuss the requirement, or the proposed equipment fit of their DA42MPP but contrasted it with the OPALE, which they described as having a 'higher level integration'. They did not confirm or deny whether their's would be optionally manned, and certainly made no mention of providing dedicated drones.

I approached DO Systems after hearing that there was an order going through for six DA42MPPs, which were to be fitted out by DO Systems, painted at Thruxton by Edmonsons and perhaps crewed by Tony Buckingham or www.helicrew.co.uk - WELCOME (http://www.helicrew.co.uk) and after becoming aware that there are FIVE further UK military serials allocated to DA42s (in addition to '179 and 180). These comprise another ZA and four ZJs. These presumably include G-DOSC.

Open source material on the DO Systems version suggest that it will be day/night single pilot IFR certified, and will have "A high specification Gyro-Stabilised Electro-Optic and Thermal infra-red surveillance camera such as the Flir Safire III and Westcam MX15 fitted for sustained area or specific target surveillance. Should it be desired HD (High Definition) digital output is now available. A surface mapping radar can also be bore-sighted to the camera, this can prove a great asset when used in the nautical environment. All these sensors allow quality data gathering at discreet stand off distances. Numerous other sensors can also be fitted to the aircraft.

Data linking
Microwave (CoFDM) transmission of secure encrypted video data can be simultaneously transmitted to hand held ground receivers, and to base stations up to 100 Km away. Likewise encrypted data transfer over satcom (Including video streaming) allows worldwide receipt of time critical surveillance information."

[rustybh]

CTRL+F does not find the word "galley" anywhere. :suspect:

[CirrusF]

Exactly what I suggested several months ago - maybe MOD reads Pprune:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/328155-what-immediately-available-cheap-role-dedicated-alternatives-nimrod.html

[PPRuNeUser0211]

What lucky, lucky, lucky fellows are going to get to fly a light piston a/c hot, high and for 18 hours at a time? They must have friends in high places!

[BigBusDriver]

I wonder if these will end up carrying the Thales LMM missile..?

[fleigle]

Well hopefully Diamond get their own (Austro) engine up and running soon so that they can get back on track with making a living, the Theilert engine/drivetrain is a joke, something like 300 hours before the reduction gearbox needs to be replaced (if I remember correctly).

[Lima Juliet]

18hrs in a plastic pig - no thanks!

The U2/TR1 mission is about 10-12hrs, they use a catheter type device and have astronaut style food - and they are next to useless for the next day after a mission. If we are really considering this for 18hrs then the UAV option has got to be the only way. Even at 12hrs the crew will be knackered and their performance will drop right off after 8hrs or so.

If we're considering less than 8hrs then why not go for something bigger like a KA-350 or Islander, if you know what I mean ;) Or buy more Reapers with weapons' clearances and 8hrs+++ on station? Or a Zephyr derivative with 3 day's+ endurance?

I can't understand what this GA tourer will bring to an already crowded party???!

PS This is a Zephyr and its a British bit of kit...

http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/zephyr_solar_powered_aiplane_1.jpg

LJ

[wz662]

Ah Zephyr, 61K ft+ Days/weeks/months endurance and all on less power than a Nimjets galley uses. Crew still eats well though.

[Tiger_mate]

From a public forum:

UK MOD Airspace Change Proposal for Unmanned Aircraft

Stakeholder Consultation
The use of unmanned aircraft by UK Armed Forces is rapidly growing as a result of their proven success in recent conflicts. As a result, the Ministry of Defence is enhancing its current capability by procuring a ‘new generation’ of unmanned aircraft.

Reasons for the change
Current UK policy specifies that unmanned aircraft activity beyond line of sight must be conducted within a Danger Area or other segregated airspace. The Ministry of Defence already conducts routine flights of its current unmanned aircraft in the segregated airspace above Salisbury Plain; however, this airspace alone is insufficient to accommodate the full training requirements of the unmanned aircraft currently being procured. This proposal seeks to establish additional segregated airspace, in the form of a Danger Area, to overcome this shortfall.

Affected Areas
The proposed new airspace, which has a base level of approximately 8,000 ft, is bounded between Warminster, Andover, Stockbridge and Shaftesbury and is bordered by the existing Salisbury Plain Danger Areas.

Could be a coincidence, but I doubt it. Who would want to spend more than a few 'hours building' moments in one of those

[L J R]

Maybe the light twin is the GCS (Ground Station - which is actually airborne!) for your RAF's MQ-9, which I understand uses Ku Satellite tech link to fly from a remote location. If your GCS was inside an aircraft at (say) 15000, and your Reaper UCAV was at (say) 15000 also, you would have a Line of Sight 'Tether' over the entire AOR, and therefore you would not need the Ku at all, nor its associated infrastructure, .....or is this dreaming.

[Lyco360]

Hope they've got the problems with the engines and FADEC sorted. :bored:

From memory a rather substantial civilian FTO had to swop their fleet of fancy new Twin Stars for an ageing Beech Duchess fleet!! :E (Don't know if they've swopped back yet or not).

[Green Flash]

CTRL+F does not find the word "galley" anywhere

It doesn't find the word "toilet" either. Hope everyone remembers to go before they go or they'll be feet deep by the time they get back:eek:

[BEagle]

Where they will most likely have problems is heat build up in the aircraft on the ground if used in hot places. The DA42 has no aircon and so if you have long way to taxi or are held up at a holding point, then the guys are going to roast. Not a nice way to start a long flight. Once airborne the cockpit temperature gets a bit more reasonable, but is still fairly warm in direct sunlight.

Hardly the best aeroplane for anywhere such as Iraq or Afghanistan then....

Did you have anything more suitable than a Vulcan pee-tube in the cockpit with you for your 7 hour flights?

If the cockpit gets as hot as you suggest, presumably there will be a need for a lot of water to keep the crew hydrated for 12 hours? Where will that be kept - and how heavy will it be?

The use of such lightplanes in operational theatres is not as simple as the beancounters would appear to understand.

[Lyneham Lad]

Thankfully, because the operating crews of light fixed-wing ISTAR are soldiers, they won't whinge, bleat and moan about pee-tubes and hydration. They will prepare themselves thoroughally for flight, keep fit to fly while operating, and then be ready to go again fairly swiftly.

Beags, the operation of fixed-wing ISTAR is these theatres is very simple. If you had been, you might know.....

Oh oh, another Beags -v- brandnew flame fest is in the offing... :eek:
(cf Falklands Airbridge thread)

Beags - calm, calm, deep breaths, there - thats better. Now go for it :}

[Lurking123]

I'm just wondering where the assumption comes from regarding hot & high.

[BEagle]

I shall ignore the fatuous comments made by others.

FW ISTAR clearly requires suitable platforms, not those driven by cost. Whereas the Diamond aeroplane is eminently suitable for certain operations, the aircraft I looked around at ILA seemed rather 'delicate' and I'm not convinced that it would stand up to the rigours of military use without substantial modification. It didn't seem adequately 'soldier proof' - that is NOT a derogatory term, it merely means that it must be tough enough to stand up to high usage by military users, no matter of which hue their uniform, rather than civilian owners. In the same way that the O-2 was rather more robust than the Cessna 337 on which it was based.

Who will fly it? Does that matter? The more important point being that whoever flies and works in it must, as has been said, have a full and sympathetic understanding of the needs of the operational end-user. And be in a suitable condition to do so after extended airborne periods.

Lurking123, my thoughts as well......

[Gainesy]

More likely big lazy orbits over Brum, Bradford etc.:suspect:

[andyy]

I wonder if the US have any OV-10 Broncos that they could resurrect and sell us?

As an aside, I have also seen that the "Bug Eyed" Optica observation aircraft is supposed to be back in production soon.

[Chris P Bacon]

If you Google "BAE Mantis" you will see the project that is getting the most impetus to replace the Reaper.

[mick2088]

There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks (perhaps someone who knows a bit more will explain why), hence why the UK is shifting to a manned platform like the DA42 as well as continued use of Reapers, etc. The US is also looking to boost its manned ISR capabilities for Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment (requirement for 21 aircraft) with reports suggesting that aircraft like the Seabird SB7L-360 Seeker (as already operated by the Iraqi Air Force) and the Schweizer RU-38 are possible in addition to buying 30 C-12 aircraft.

DefenseLink News Article: More Intel, Surveillance, Recon Assets Set for Central Command (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50747)

http://www.defendamerica.mil/images/photos/aug2004/article/ai082004a1.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/images/ru-38a-pic2-s.jpg

[Gainesy]

There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks

CAA don't want them in UK airspace.

[Tiger_mate]

Quote:
There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks

CAA don't want them in UK airspace.

They must be afraid of the future of Civil Aviation. I would imagine that within the lifetime of many, the potential for robotic airliners flying GPS routes to an ILS or similar landing must be feasable. In fact within the ability of todays technology and that the future will simply enhance safety and accuracy of such devices. Emergencies could be an issue but from what I have seen there is very little that todays airliner pilot can do anyway due to redundancy of systems already included in the designs of aircraft.

Technology will do to pilots what Garmin did to navigators.

[Gainesy]

I agree Tigermate, but we're talking of today rather than some time in the future.

[mick2088]

CAA don't want them in UK airspace. I pointed to that in an previous thread on the Mi-17 when the DA42s appearing on the military register was discussed before this article was published, stating that the DA42 would be able to fly anywhere over the UK, whereas a UAV cannot. But that would base the assumption that these were purely for use for a bit of "recreational" flying over downtown Bradford or where ever, rather than overseas. My first assumption was yep these are for use over the UK or even for testing purposes (maybe as part of work to integrate UAVs over British airspace or something like that), but seeing as the Americans are even looking at manned ISR aircraft similar to the DA42 specifically for Afghanistan and Iraq, it becomes obvious that there has been a sudden shift back towards fairly inexpensive manned ISR air assets whereas in recent months/years there was a gradual move towards UAVs in this role.

[Backwards PLT]

Cirrus F - You obviously have close links to the manufacturer as well as absolutely no idea about military aircraft operations, particularly ISTAR. Flying in Afghanistan is not like a flying club in the UK.

Lets start with some basics - the glossy brochure and website are very pretty but very vague and have some dubious claims. Alarm bells ringing (I've read lots of similar BAE brochures). What actually is the endurance with the UK operational fit, including payload/sensors, DAS etc, operating from Kandahar with an acceptable fuel reserve. I assume it does have DAS because flying around at 10,000'-15000' AMSL in Afghanistan is a very bad idea without one. I assume it can fit the extended range tanks as well as the full mission kit/crew, whilst giving satisfactory performance. How noisy is it? Twin props not good for this.

Manufacturer quoted running costs are a world away from real UK MOD running costs, even if the MOD started a flying club in Middle Wallop. Add lots more if you are in Afghanistan, with some avionics involved, so be careful with the Islander comparisons.

Intrigued by the sat link - as there is no room for a dish (unless you removed the crew) it must be very limited, certainly not FMV. Also, if it isn't sensitive where does the EO/IR system come from?

There must be some limitation with using UAVs for ISR tasks (perhaps someone who knows a bit more will explain why), hence why the UK is shifting to a manned platform like the DA42 as well as continued use of Reapers, etc

I think the real answer is that commanders want ISR now (or at least in the next 12 months) and don't care where it comes from. So anyone who pushes a "cheap" and instant solution gets a contract - UAV manufacturers are already working flat out. I think manned aircraft will be doing ISTAR for a good while yet.

if the operator is himself a soldier, maybe even from the same unit as the ground-patrol, then you're going to have a more flexible and more closely integrated unit

I don't think that anyone would suggest taking a squaddie from a ground unit and putting him in this role for a few months (or do you mean for that day?) whilst his regiment are on the ground. You need specifically trained personnel, if you want them to be any good. Or do you want to take 10 guys from every regiment in the country and train them and keep them trained? Secondly it would produce a very inflexible system, with personnel focused solely on their unit. Of course if the aircraft is only a company level asset then it might be ok (see desert hawk) - but it then becomes an extremely expensive and inflexible piece of kit for the JFC. How about an aircraft operated by people from all services so that each can apply their expertise to the situation where required? What a weird idea, it'll never catch on.

And I think the 1930s view of RAF Aircrew that some have pushed are actually pretty hilarious. Grow up, or better, go talk to the Harrier guys and tell them your views to their face if you ever visit Afghanistan.

[L J R]

Quote:

I'd hazard a guess that a ground-patrol could use that video more effectively in real-time if they can coordinate with an operator directly overhead who has his eyes scanning the ground as well as the video-images, rather than trying to coordinate with an operator in Arizona who can only see the video-images.


I thought that Arizona (Read NEVADA),crews and mission cells flying MQ-1/9 see video and talk directly to the lads in the field (who are seeing the SAME picture - ROVER) - AND also talk to the OPs Dept of the soldiers Headquarters (who are also seeing the pictures) AND can talk to London, Doha, Washington, Langley, (insert any Agency) - AND they too see the video......

Why do all these external agencies need to see the video? - they do not neceissarily, but when they need to , the curent infrastructure copes, or so a friend in the community tells me (where is my Omega!)..

....regardless, I also thought that the UAV flown remotely DOES talk to the soldier just like ANY other aircraft does... and I also thought that the air vehicles DO have 'Normal' radios (AND Qualified Service Pilots).

[TheInquisitor]

LJR,

Correct, on many counts. There is alot of bollocks-spouting going on in here from people who don't know what they are talking about.

[TheInquisitor]

Forget asking RAF orficers to fly them. Recruit pilots from the ranks, preferably from blokes who have done ground tours in the desert already, and who understand the operational requirement. Train them ab-initio to fly DA42 - 100 hours should be enough. There will be no shortage of volunteers.
Idiotic statement. Ask the guys out there on the ground now who they prefer working with and who they are all asking for. Having properly trained, qualified and professional aircrew (from any service) manning a system DOES make a difference.

Reapers are very expensive bits of kit - the cost of replacing the one that crashed recently would pay for a fleet of DA42s.
No they are not. The vast majority of a Reaper AV's cost is in the sensor suite - hence your plastic-pig twin isn't going to offer you much savings - unless you want a crap sensor. Oh, and it doesn't carry weapons, either - so not much good in a TST situation, then.

I'd hazard a guess that a ground-patrol could use that video more effectively in real-time if they can coordinate with an operator directly overhead who has his eyes scanning the ground as well as the video-images, rather than trying to coordinate with an operator in Arizona who can only see the video-images. Also, if the operator is himself a soldier, maybe even from the same unit as the ground-patrol, then you're going to have a more flexible and more closely integrated unit than would be the case with a UAV flown by some RAF chappy sipping a gin and tonic in his slippers in a bunker.
Utter twaddle, I'm afraid. You clearly have no idea about how this all works. What on earth makes you think that just because we are light-blue, and aircrew, we have no idea what the guys on the ground want? Besides, as has already been pointed out, Reapers are operated by crews from ALL 3 services. The advantage of a remotely operated system is that you can drag whoever you want into the 'cockpit'. Or phone them. Or email / IM them. Try doing THAT in your plastic pig. Crews can swap out at will during the mission, so in general should always be rested and alert. And they're not getting shot at....1 less thing to worry about, more capacity to devote to the mission. Also, smaller theatre footprint (personnel-wise), near-zero risk to human life, etc etc.....

LJR - the point I was making, perhaps a bit clumsily, is that if the observer is able see the bigger picture on the ground below, as well as the close up video pictures on a screen in front of him, he may be able to make more of a contribution to the guys on the ground than somebody who can only see through a video link. At 10000ft with the naked eye you can scan and pick out and interpret detail over a broad area, zoom in where necessary and bring to the attention potentially hostile vehicles, detail of the lie of the land, potential ambush sites etc, more pro-actively than you perhaps can when just monitoring video. I've never seen video footage where it is really possible to judge the lie of the land, pick out dead ground etc as well as you can with the old eyeball though I have not seen the latest stuff you guys are evidently using if you can now do this.
You can select whatever zoom level you require. You can zoom right out to get exactly the same FOV as you would have with the naked eye - except you have the advantage of being able to look around 360 deg, and directly below - and with a number of different sensors. Virtually all UAV sensors have this capability - it is clear you have little or no knowledge of UAV capabilities.

And frankly, ANYONE considering operating an aircraft like this in a hot, high, threat environment wants their head examining. Small, slow, low, no DAS, no air con......

[airborne_artist]

Having spent most of my military time training for and operating on the wrong side of the FEBA, I'm in full agreement with Inquistor. Put up this kind of aircraft and they'll need the services of CSAR far too often, IMHO. UAVs are the way forward.

Some things don't change - you get what you pay for in this world is one of them.

[airborne_artist]

And if they are so crap why have the MOD just bought two of them, with apparently more on order. Obviously somebody higher up in the MOD than you agrees with me.

The MoD buying them does not make them good, by default though. It just means that someone thought they were good. They've not actually been tried and tested in a true operational environment. Buying two with options for more, at that price, is small change, even in the cash-strapped MoD.

[airborne_artist]

I well remember someone I knew well who had an MoD procurement budget. Every late Feb/early March he'd be looking around for things to buy, so he could use all his budget. He knew only too well that any underspend would result in a lower figure for the following FY.

The MoD spends money for lots of reasons, and sometimes they happen to get something the sailors/soldiers/airmen actually need.

I expect that the person who bought the Mk3 Chinooks thought he knew a lot about the requirement, too, don't you? And then there's FRES, and then there's..

[knowitall]

"Obviously somebody higher up in the MOD than you agrees with me."

somebody at the MOD bought Bowman

[airborne_artist]

BowmanBetter off with Nokia and Map.

'Broken' £2.4bn radio put troops' lives in danger - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2608941/Broken-2.4bn-radio-put-troops-lives-in-danger.html)

"An infantry commander in Helmand described the system, the second most expensive piece of equipment in British military history after the RAF's Eurofighter, as "astonishingly bad".

The radio's coverage sometimes does not extend from one side of a base to the other, while a shortage of batteries means soldiers are being ordered to turn off radios until they come under attack.

The Bowman communication system was supposed to revolutionise command and control in the Army. Its encryption software allowed commanders to talk securely for the first time without the need to encode messages. But in Afghanistan Bowman has been written off as a failure by many senior officers.

Lt Col Nick Borton, the commanding officer of the 5th battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (5 Scots) told Gen Sir David Richards, the Army's second most senior officer, that Bowman "was a broken system"."

[knowitall]

"The MOD wouldn't have gambled even a small amount of money if they didn't think there was a pretty good chance of succeeding."

ROTFPMSL!

Nimrod AEW3

[Tiger_mate]

Somebody at the MOD bought Nimrod AEW etc etc

There is a long list of expensive equipment procured in good faith (& I dare say on occasion in the interest of a subsequent job offer) that has not met requirement targets. So the MOD must be right argument is very flawed.

Lets hope that on this occasion it is not a waste of taxpayers money because we pay that tax too.

**Edit** Beaten to it by a know-it-all, the story of my life!!

[TheInquisitor]

Are you in the RAF too? You rather prove my point that RAF officers would turn their noses up at them - what no aircon?
And for bloody good reason too. YOU try flying in a small, enclosed cockpit in ambient temps of 50 deg C plus, whilst wearing a flak jacket, etc. Your flippant comment on this suggests to me than you have not.

Have you ever considered that ground troops go out on two-three week foot patrols, working their butts off round the clock, all without air con?
That is because they are acclimatised to the conditions, not just by virtue of the nature of their duties, but they are normally given an acclimatisation period BEFORE starting their stint. Aircrew, in OP theatres, never get the chance to acclimatise - either before or during, since their duties usually involve rapid and frequent changes in their local environmental temperature. And squaddies don't tend to spend hours sitting around in glass-topped vehicles in direct sunlight.

And you don't need highly trained and expensive dedicated aircrew to fly them - as I said you could train somebody in 100 hours ab-initio to fly one if really pressed.
My my, you REALLY have a grip on what military aviation is about, don't you? Hell, you should've put a bid in for MFTS - you could have saved MoD a fortune!

Your responses here make it clear you have never served in any of the current theatres - I'm guessing you're not even military. WHich goes a long way to explaining why you persist in thinking this plastic POS is such a good idea.....

[airborne_artist]

I said you could train somebody in 100 hours ab-initio

Frankly, that's where the rest of us stop listening, put pencils up our nose, and shout "Wibble"

Have you actually done 100 hours in a military flying training system? Yes or no, straight answer, please.

[airborne_artist]

They're not certified for spinning Does the aircraft know it's not allowed to spin?

Why do you need military aviators to fly them? Because they are undertaking military operations, would seem like a fair answer.

It is a really easy and benign aircraft to fly In a purely civilian environment, yes.

And what do you suggest the 100 hr wonder aircrew do should they encounter a threat? Tell Terry that they are taking their ball home?

BTW, you've not answered my Q above, though anyone using the search function already knows the answer.

[pr00ne]

Why all this willy waving between various hues of military aircrew? Are they not going to be flown by civilian contract pilots, hence ads in Flight etc?

[althenick]

Going off at a slight tangent here but...

-It has an operational ceiling that is twice as high as a Seaking

-It can fly for long periods of time

-it has a slow stall speed and presumably a similar take off & landing speed

-It has 2 engines which presumably provide redundancy/survivability

Now two questions for the Techies out there - Could it (a) be Navalised and (b) Be fitted with the current SK AEW Fit?

[airborne_artist]

Could it (a) be Navalised and (b) Be fitted with the current SK AEW Fit?

I'm no techie, but I'm sure the answer is no and no.

[Double Zero]

Re. The opening line 'R.A.F buys spylanes to monitor the enemy' - well what the hell use else are they for, flying over nudist beaches ?!

My only wonder is recent comments about lightly built carbon composite structures in high temperature environments - and no, I dont' want or expect any details here.

As for the 'pee tube,' isn't that a part of the pilot's kit from quite a while back ?

No answer expected there either, I've heard of the very unpleasant results of using fuselage built-in devices at cold high altitudes !

[TheInquisitor]

I have flown them in Algeria at 45C ground temperature - sweaty but ok on the ground.
Sweaty - exactly. I just checked - RH in Algiers today is 88%. Try it 10 deg hotter, with RH less than 10%. It makes a big difference, I assure you. Any extended period of time in that cockpit on the ground will kill you in those conditions. And I'm willing to bet you weren't wearing military flying kit, complete with ballistic protection, were you?

I am not claiming that you only need 100 hours to fly to the level of a military aviator, I am just pointing out that you don't need highly trained military aviators to fly DA42s. The two issues are wholly different.
So you'd be quite happy to let a 100hr PPL loose in a light aircraft in VERY busy, VERY dynamic operational airspace, would you? I'd love to see the thinks-bubble that would appear above the canopy when he calls the CRC on R/T and they reel of a list of active killboxes and ROZs......

You DO need highly trained military aviators to fly MILITARY operations in MILITARY controlled operational airspace. Anything less is putting all the other platforms that have to share the airspace at risk. Unless, of course, you are suggesting they are only operated in segregated airspace (itself a pain in the arse for other players). Where then the advantage of a manned platform (even a cheap one) Vs RPA?

It's not about 'turning our nose up' at anything - it's about some pushy company man trying to hawk a product that is totally unsuitable for it's advertised role in the environment we would need to use it. I guess this has nothing to do with the fact that the company has pretty much gone bust over it's crap engines, is it? Desperate for new customers?

[barnstormer1968]

Re. The opening line 'R.A.F buys spylanes to monitor the enemy' - well what the hell use else are they for, flying over nudist beaches ?!

I thought the same as you, but you missed out the revolutionary part of the title.......From the sky!!! Did we really need to be told these "planes" would be used in the sky.

I can understand how some troops would jump at the chance to operate in an aircraft at only 50 Celsius. Namely the warrior born troops in Iraq who have to endure 70 Celsius (despite having air con fitted), but then both temperatures are frankly ludicrous to work in, and prove AA's point of you get what you pay for, and it seems the Brit government aren't willing to pay (export desert warriors have decent air con)

Do any of you fellow Ppruner's have the kind of memory where you recall (pre GW1) that running around in the old style flak vest was considered too hot for the English summer. Sat here as an armchair general, I not only take my hat off to the lads and lasses in hot places, but am totally stunned at how effective they are, given the conditions they find themselves in. (sorry for thread drift)

Barnstormer1968

[In Tor Wot]

Max. Operating Altitude 18,000 ft (Details (http://www.diamond-air.at/fileadmin/uploads/files/productfacts/da42_twin_star/preislisten_und_datenblaetter/2007/DA42_Twin_Star_Factsheet_2007.pdf))

SA-14 (Details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K34_Strela-3))

Stinger (Details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger))

Average height of terrain in Helmand/Khandahar?

Volunteers ?

However, the frame is but one tiny element of what it's there for. Primary requirement is to provide ISTAR not just S or TA. Whilst all elements are required in varying amounts throughout a mission there appears to be little thought given to the I or R (recce = recording of data for subsequent analysis or even rebuttal purposes).

Having 'kill-TV' is nice for the commander, but if you can't record or analyse it you have got to ask whether the risk is worth it for nothing more than looking 'round the next corner' when Desert Eagle could do the same for much less.

As for military v civilian crews comment above, how will we explain away the fire co-ordination role or laser designation of a civvy PPL in terms of delegated lethal force authority?

[Lyneham Lad]

Re. The opening line 'R.A.F buys spylanes to monitor the enemy' - well what the hell use else are they for, flying over nudist beaches ?!

I thought the same as you, but you missed out the revolutionary part of the title.......From the sky!!! Did we really need to be told these "planes" would be used in the sky.

Well, you have to remember that the headline is the Beeb's work and that they have a duty to enlighten Joe Public. :rolleyes:

[Evalu8ter]

50 degrees, Body Armour, small glass cockpit, no aircon? Welcome to the world of AH/SH pilots who've been operating in the thick of the threat band at low level in tightly regulated airspace in Iraq / Afg since 02. I did plenty of 8-9 hour tasking days in Iraq with ambient temperatures of 45+ (and cockpit temperatures well above 50), with no facility for keeping cold fluids on board and often with no opportunity for unstrapping. How did we cope? We lived in tents (no aircon) and acclimatised properly; yes it was uncomfortable but we were fully aware that our "suffering" was substantially less than that of our customers.

8 hours at 10k plus with a few cold drinks? (Relatively) easy money...

At 10k plus with low visual/acoustic signature the ac will be hard to acquire visually for a MANPAD shot, then, I'd imagine, quite hard to lock as it'll have low airframe heating (plastic and low speed) and low engine exhaust signatures.

[D-IFF_ident]

Zeppellins, dirigibles, airships - that's what you want. Stay up for days, and you can hang a gondola underneath, add a galley, toilet, bunks, sofa and tv. Relatively cheap as chips too; do I get 25 quid?

[Ivan Rogov]

These aircraft may fly missions without the constant threats that AH/SH face, but the fatigue issues are considerable. They will have to remain airborne for very long periods without any respite, the missions will be mundane and busy a flypro will wear the crews down. Good crew rest will be essential for flight safety on sustained Ops, we will be out there for many years to come.
Although aircon might prevent full aclimatisation, it is essential if you need to sleep in the heat of the day. The effects of heat and fatigue will degrade anyone, and eventually lead to an incident.

[FJJP]

You can teach anyone to fly a simple aircraft in a fairly short space of time. However, to operate it effectively it takes years of experience. Don't forget, it is not just the aircraft and its systems you have to think about, but the whole battle picture and all the potential implications of your actions.

I suggest that experience is even more important where you have so few assets of its type [ie 2 x Twin Stars; 3 x Nimrod R1], which may also be called upon to operate in highly sensitive areas.

I would also request that we stop this inter-service and inter-rank pissing match. We are all in the same boat - remember jointery? And frankly, I don't give a damn what rank the guy is, so long as he is capable of doing the job. What rank are the VCs and GCs that have been dished out in recent years?

[Arthur's Wizard]

Sweaty - exactly. I just checked - RH in Algiers today is 88%. Try it 10 deg hotter, with RH less than 10%. It makes a big difference, I assure you. Any extended period of time in that cockpit on the ground will kill you in those conditions.

Poppycock! What do you think the AAC have been doing for the last 4 years!

And I'm willing to bet you weren't wearing military flying kit, complete with ballistic protection, were you?

Yep, that to!

A lot of criticism from so called experts. It's obvious that few, if any of you have operated this type of capability in that kind of environment. Uncomfortable? Yes! Need preparation? Definately! Unacheivable? Absolutely not!

I doubt that this plastic thingy is a viable long term solution, but it would be better than nothing and nothing is pretty much what we've got at the moment

[Lima Juliet]

What with Zephyr and Mantis just around the corner this option has got to be a 1-2yr stop-gap?

This is Mantis - it reminds me of a prop driven A-10 without a bod inside it...

...And as it has been said so many times before "you get what you pay for"!

http://www.patricksaviation.com/uploads/photos/med/26192.jpg

The Phase 1 Mantis vehicle, expected to fly in 2009, will be powered by two Rolls-Royce's RB250 turboprop engines, although this is likely to change in later variants, and is intended to have at least 24-hour endurance. Phase 1 is intended to demonstrating BAE Systems' rapid prototyping capabilities and will focus on the evaluation of autonomous control systems. Later phases may evaluate civilian applications, armed variants and sensor packages.

The large dome on the front, reminiscent of a pilot's canopy, contains an upward facing satellite communications system.

[Lurking123]

Has anyone thought that the purchase may be for ops where UAVs are not currently allowed to operate? Furthermore, it may not be for capability enhancement within well known operational theatres, it may be for other, more traditional assets to be released for those theatres.

Just a thought, no evidence, blue (thundery) sky thinking.

[Lyneham Lad]

From an article on Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/09/315696/king-airs-take-on-usaf-surveillance-role-in-iraq-and.html)

A small fleet of manned propeller-driven spyplanes is being rushed into action by the US Air Force. The fleet will be equipped with signals intelligence sensors and cameras that will eventually provide a substantial increase to an urgently needed full-motion video capability in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Three squadrons of RC-12 turboprops - likely to be twin-engined Beechcraft King Air 350s - could join other surveillance aircraft in January 2009 in a USAF programme dubbed "Project Liberty".

A better bet than the UK's solution? Looks like they will be in theatre first.

[mick2088]

The UK acquired four Beechcraft King Air 350ERs in 2007 that were supposed to be coming into service... now...

[CirrusF]

The Phase 1 Mantis vehicle, expected to fly in 2009, will be powered by two Rolls-Royce's RB250 turboprop engines


Interesting that the optical sensor in the turret of the Manta is about the same size and shape as that fitted to the DA42MPP - link (http://www.scottygroup.com/scotty_diamond_da42mpp)

Maybe it is the same kit?

[mick2088]

That Helicrew address does indeed appear to be DO Systems address. Helicrew's registered office is at Twickenham, according to their website. Same DOS telephone number as well. And they would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids and that darn dog of theirs.

[L J R]

What does Mantis do that REAPER does not? - Given MQ-9 is doing it NOW (or so the MoD web sites will have you believe), and not in a plastic airshow mock-up or Power Point Presentation of a wind tunnel model. ....and what language will it communicate woth other aircraft / command and control / supported agencies etc,,....?


...are the Brits a little behind here or are they so novel that they are streets ahead...?

[Jackonicko]

What will Mantis do that Reaper isn't doing now?

It may do nothing at all, as this is all still a matter of study contracts, and not production orders.

Whatever it does, it will do it WITHOUT spending dollars, without worsening the balance of payments deficit, and while simultaneously supporting UK industry as it breaks into what may be a vital sector. Every penny spent will generate UK tax revenue, and will support UK jobs.

Of course no military programme should be undertaken in lieu of industrial aid, but if a programme can benefit UK plc as a side effect that's great, surely?

It will do it with twin engines - which may or may not improve the loss rate.

It will do it with a brand new configuration, and not as the stretch of an ageing existing design.

[andyy]

D-IFF Ident Said:

Zeppellins, dirigibles, airships - that's what you want. Stay up for days, and you can hang a gondola underneath, add a galley, toilet, bunks, sofa and tv. Relatively cheap as chips too; do I get 25 quid?

I'm sure that this was tongue in cheek but why not...for some roles.

Whatever happened to Airship Industries? Their Airship 500 would be ideal in a environment where there wasn't a high speed requirement.

[mick2088]

No idea what happened to Airship Industries, but there was a report that the Zeppelin is back from Cardington, albeit for civilian flights. £5,000 for a flight seems mighty expensive though.

BBC NEWS | England | Zeppelin rises in the East (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7586248.stm)

[p32r]

I think the DA42 would make a lovely target or decoy. Relatively low radar signature unable to transmit much data more than 30nm. Forget the satcom link to get the bandwidth you would need a real aircraft. Its a nice NATO toy in a tactical environment, but forget the rest. Its also too difficult to maintain. Not to be used by real soldiers.:\

[pr00ne]

p32r,

So, what do you think of UAVs then? Because I don't see that any of your argument that you apply to the DA42 could not equally be applied to the various families of UAVs in development or service.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Maybe it was a slightly tongue in cheek remark but a few years back I remember the Army testing an airship in Ulster for what I assume was 'sneaky beaky' type stuff.:suspect:

Oh, a black Omega. Haven't seen one of those for years...

[p32r]

You either have the "cheap" Israeli type which has the most tactical operational use with a VHF link or you go the full UAV which has the satcom link and is about the same price as a cheap fighter. (Mind you, you can pick up a cheap new fighter these days for about $5m. I was thinking of the full capable type $20m+) The comms link is always the problem and where you want to send the signal in real time. Complex systems are okay, but they need a complex support network, complex budget (=large) and can fall down quickly. You still can't beat the guy on the ground:ok: My comment was more on the surveillance roll of the DA42. Great toy:ugh: They seem to be pushing them as cheap solutions for those countries not allowed to buy high tech solutions.............................:oh: Maybe they just want to find out what it is like ........... :eek:

[TheInquisitor]

So, what do you think of UAVs then? Because I don't see that any of your argument that you apply to the DA42 could not equally be applied to the various families of UAVs in development or service.

...apart from Predator / Reaper you mean, which both have all the necessary satcom / bandwidth to send data right around the globe?

[p32r]

If the aircraft/UAV is large enough it is not be an issue generally. The restricting factors are power and weight sufficient to give you realtime broadband rates in X-Band or even Ku-Band. Antenna size is an issue if the platform is too small. The solution as I mentioned is a well established UAU for local use and then the big expensive one for long range stand off. Something the size of the DA42 or similar size already has to power cameras, recorders then the transmission gear. Its probably at best very very close to the limits. Its best to remove the pilot as they are a waste of valueable real estate plus also a liability if they come down on the wrong side of the line. Hence in answer the Israeli type UAV is good for the tactic solution and leave the long range big ones to those countries who can afford them. ;)

[EESDL]

does that mean that it will spend most of it's time over Westminster?

[Janet Spongthrush]

In case anyone's interested, I spied G-DOSA on a secret mission of at least 5 minutes duration outbound from Old Sarum inbound to Boscombe Down last week.

Note the lack of mods to the airframe as yet and lack of Military serial; the British Military fin flash gives a clue as to its purpose though.

http://thumb7.webshots.net/t/55/755/7/84/14/2253784140056470327QFjwiz_th.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2253784140056470327QFjwiz)

It departed an hour or so later on a somewhat longer mission to the West.

[Janet Spongthrush]

G-DOSA now sports 'Royal Air Force' titles, as seen here today at Old Sarum.

http://thumb7.webshots.net/t/55/755/3/86/37/2118386370056470327gJxQGV_th.jpg

[XV277]

You'd need to be an old school Photo-interpreter to read it though!!:)

Any chance of a bigger piccie?

[Samuel]

RAF buys spy planes to monitor enemies from the sky

A touch of the tautologies there; where else would a 'plane' operate but in the sky?

[Janet Spongthrush]

how about this.... old sarum 015a pictures from clouds & sky photos on webshots (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2118386370056470327gJxQGV)

http://inlinethumb28.webshots.com/40987/2118386370056470327S600x600Q85.jpg

[Dockers]

XV277 if you click on the picture in Janet Spongthrush's first post, it will take you to larger pictures.

[XV277]

Ta. I tried clicking on the second .

Dratted interweb!

I note the 'Royal Air Force' is not in the corporate style. No doubt a strongly worded memo is called for.

[barnstormer1968]

Thanks for agreeing with my post #62:E

Plus, I am an old school interpreter and I still can't see the RAF logo, but I guess I won't lose too much sleep over the whole issue.:ok:

[Woff1965]

How much does it cost to uplink all those platforms by satellite. I mean does the MOD have its own comms sats with enough bandwidth to cope with all these netcentric platforms or do they have to pay commercial rates for this.

[CirrusF]

Diamond Aircraft :: Major break through for Diamond Airborne Sensing; UK MoD operates DA42MPPs (http://www.diamond-air.at/news_detail+M56a1757feec.html)

Major break through for Diamond Airborne Sensing; UK MoD operates DA42MPPs

The Royal Air Force is conducting surveillance operations with Airborne Sensing’s DA42MPP in the UK and other parts of the world.
The Austrian produced DA42MPP is a modern composite low maintenance aircraft, powered by two turbocharged JETA1 fuel engines, with a total fuel flow of 4,4 US GAL per hour.
On the aircraft side, the de-icing option to fly in known icing conditions, the oxygen system to go up to 18.000ft, the Traffic Advisory System to avoid near misses, and the passive surveillance kit, lowering the noise, the thermal signature and the daylight recognition to a stealth level, allows to operate the platform in all possible flight and weather conditions.

The platform with its endurance of up to 13 hours, when loitering over the target area and a range of about 1.200NM is the perfect long endurance surveillance tool for any kind of observation mission like homeland security, surveillance, border control and costal surveillance.
The Multi Purpose Platform carries a gyro-stabilized daylight and thermal video camera, like the MX15i from L3 Wescam, the Star Safire III from Flir or the Polytech’s Ultra Force 350, a line-of-sight downlink system for high quality transfers with a range of more than 100NM and other radios like UHF or a VHF and even military radios.
Since the platforms started transmitting crystal clear stable pictures each flew more than 1000hrs in less than four months without any problems. The all weather capabilities turned out to be an important factor.
Diamond Airborne Sensing expects a follow-up order for 2009 of six more complete surveillance systems

[Tester07]

Surveillance (http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/html/en/products/index_2605.asp?NavL1ID=31&NavL2ID=194&NavL3ID=2601&NavL4ID=2604&NavL5ID=0&NavL6ID=0&L=4)

A far better option! :ok:

[Truckkie]

Who's flying them?

[Biggus]

I fail to see how any company can see a sale to the UK MOD as a "major breakthrough".

If they really want minuscule orders, from a customer who probably pays as late as possible, then I suppose they have made a major breakthrough...!!

[Warmtoast]

The platform with its endurance of up to 13 hours, when loitering over the target area and a range of about 1.200NM is the perfect long endurance surveillance tool for any kind of observation mission

13 hours in the WSO's seat shown here:

Diamond Aircraft GmbH (http://www.diamond-air.at/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uploads%2Fpics%2FPM_MPP1.jpg&width=800m&bodyTag=%3Cbody%20style%3D%22background-color%3A%23a3a9ad%22%20bgcolor%3D%22%23a3a9ad%22%20leftmargi n%3D%220%22%20topmargin%3D%220%22%20marginwidth%3D%220%22%20 marginheight%3D%220%22%3E&title=Diamond%20Aircraft%20GmbH&wrap=%3Ca%20href%3D%22javascript%3Aclose%28%29%3B%22%3E%20%7 C%20%3C%2Fa%3E%3Cbr%3E%3Ctable%20align%3D%22right%22%3E%3Ctr %3E%3Ctd%20style%3D%22color%3A%23ffffff%3Bletter-spacing%3A1px%3Bfont-size%3A11px%3Bfont-family%3Averdana%2Carial%2Chelvetica%3B%22%3EDiamond%20Aircr aft%20GmbH%3C%2Ftd%3E%3C%2Ftr%3E%3C%2Ftable%3E&md5=8185d7fb5dbfea11eeb9862848930655)

Rather him than me!

..and is it certified for IFR flight?
ISTR that Diamond's Katana composite bodied trainer is not certified for IFR flight due to the lack of lightning protection.

[CirrusF]

13 hours in the WSO's seat shown here:

Diamond Aircraft GmbH (http://www.diamond-air.at/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uploads%2Fpics%2FPM_MPP1.jpg&width=800m&bodyTag=%3Cbody%20style%3D%22background-color%3A%23a3a9ad%22%20bgcolor%3D%22%23a3a9ad%22%20leftmargi n%3D%220%22%20topmargin%3D%220%22%20marginwidth%3D%220%22%20 marginheight%3D%220%22%3E&title=Diamond%20Aircraft%20GmbH&wrap=%3Ca%20href%3D%22javascript%3Aclose%28%29%3B%22%3E%20%7 C%20%3C%2Fa%3E%3Cbr%3E%3Ctable%20align%3D%22right%22%3E%3Ctr %3E%3Ctd%20style%3D%22color%3A%23ffffff%3Bletter-spacing%3A1px%3Bfont-size%3A11px%3Bfont-family%3Averdana%2Carial%2Chelvetica%3B%22%3EDiamond%20Aircr aft%20GmbH%3C%2Ftd%3E%3C%2Ftr%3E%3C%2Ftable%3E&md5=8185d7fb5dbfea11eeb9862848930655)

Rather him than me!



There is a better configuration than shown in that photograph. Some other aircraft I have seen have the entire RHS front seat removed and replaced with a purpose built operator unit, giving much more room.


..and is it certified for IFR flight?


Yes, but only really suitable for "IFR Lite" - ie IFR "on top" but with ability to climb and descend through weather at terminals. The TKS de-icing system works very well, but only has 2.5 hours endurance, and a lot less on maximum setting. I have once flown on through a big thunderstorm and it was scary. It has a lightly loaded high-aspect wing so it is very lively in severe turbulence and maximum roll rate can easily be exceeded. A colleague behind me in an identical plane lost an engine possibly due to storm discharge, and did will to get down in one piece. There is a stormscope fitted as an option but it is not really accurate enough to thread your way through embedded thunderstorms in a big frontal system. One was lost in a thunderstorm in Germany ASN Aircraft accident 15-APR-2008 Diamond DA42 Twin Star D-GLLL (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=17435). They are definitely not as "all weather" as say a Pilatus or a King Air. But having said that, you maybe won't be wanting to fly a surveillance plane in a severe storm anyway.


I fail to see how any company can see a sale to the UK MOD as a "major breakthrough".



It is a very prestigious customer. I know that there are several other smaller European militaries and para-militaries following the progress of the UK order with a lot of interest.


Who's flying them?

There was speculation earlier in the thread that they may be operated by civilian contractor pilots.

[L J R]

err, I have got to ask you Cirrus, ..... What the FXXXCkk were you flying into a thunderstorm for?

[CirrusF]

err, I have got to ask you Cirrus, ..... What the FXXXCkk were you flying into a thunderstorm for?


It was embedded. I couldn't see it until I was in it. That was the flight when I explored the limitations of the stormscope :O

[Daysleeper]

the Traffic Advisory System to avoid near misses

Shurley some mishtake?

[will fly for food 06]

Just renewed my IR on a DA42. Cant imagine sitting in it for 13 hours. :ugh:

[CirrusF]

Cant imagine sitting in it for 13 hours.

It has been done!

Diamond Aircraft :: Operation Pegasus - Airborne 13 Hours Non-Stop (http://www.diamond-sensing.com/news_detail1+M5cb3429653e.html)

The pilot who did it is about 6'7" too.

[will fly for food 06]

Ah I see he has got a bigger canopy than standard. Cruise speed of 76kts that just what you need in Iraq.

[hudjunkie]

Fly for beans, the 76 Kts is a loiter speed, not a Cruise speed. Pulling the thrtls back allows the Fuel Flow to turn into a gentle trickle, thus giving the exceptional endurance. :ok:

[will fly for food 06]

Il try that. At 70% you get 140kts IAS and 10 gals an hour. I flew recently at the same place some of the pilots were getting trained up on the DA42.

[CirrusF]

Il try that. At 70% you get 140kts IAS and 10 gals an hour.

That's with the old Thielert engines. The new Austro-Engine gives 20% more power for the same fuel consumption. Cruise IAS is about 160kts, and climb about 1400ft/min, all with a 50kg higher MTOW. Also 100% power available to a density altitude of 10000ft, as opposed to 6000ft with the Thielerts.

[will fly for food 06]

Interesting, thank you for the figures.

[Cloud Chaser]

The three airframes mentioned earlier in the thread are all fitted with "Thielert TAE 125-02-99" engines. At least they were very recently.
I could understand a refit, but not this early in their life.

will fly for food - were the guys being trained at the same airfield depicted in the photos above?

[airborne_artist]

DA42 has alleged engine failure on take-off (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7840472.stm) - all on board walked away.

[angelorange]

A very capable little beastie the DA42.

Not really designed for Multi- Engine Training environment (hence large proportion of Thielert Engine issues) The schools bought it due low fuel consumption c.f. 25 year old American twins and EFIS. Nice easy single lever operation means type specific IR. For a full multi IR licence CAA demands you fly a machine with mixture and prop controls.

If just used as a cruise machine it's very good.

Perhaps with Grob in trouble the RAF might procure other Diamond products for EFT?

[Lurking123]

For a full multi IR licence CAA demands you fly a machine with mixture and prop controls.

Balderdash. Care to qualify that statement?

[CirrusF]

Perhaps with Grob in trouble the RAF might procure other Diamond products for EFT

Never - the single engine options are not powerful enough and are not certified for spins and aeros, so no use to EFT.

Maybe you could make a case for DA42 on MELIN. DA42 would seem a more natural stepping stone between Tutor and King Air than the Slingsby. Students could start asymmetric flying and would get familiar with G1000 on DA42, so maybe a few hours could be saved out of the King Air syllabus.

[Cloud Chaser]

Do the King Airs have G1000 now? Are they new?

[moggiee]

Who's flying them?


There was speculation earlier in the thread that they may be operated by civilian contractor pilots.

I'm sure I won't be compromising national security by saying that it's ex-military pilots (mostly ex-RAF) using civilian licences and ratings. We've been doing their DA42 conversion training.

[Arthur's Wizard]

it's ex-military pilots (mostly ex-RAF) using civilian licences and ratings

I can assure you that they're not 'mostly ex RAF'!

[CirrusF]

I just heard from somebody in regular contact with the factory that there is a delay in certifying the new Austro-Engines and first deliveries will now be delayed until 2010.

The old engine supplier (Thielert) is struggling back into production under administration, so maybe any new deliveries will be equipped with the older engines.

[Truckkie]

it's ex-military pilots (mostly ex-RAF) using civilian licences and ratings


Will these guys fly them in any austere locations?

Must be a nice earner if they do:ok:

[angelorange]

Yes LURKING123 - quite right it does need qualification:

From JAR OPS:

"SPA IR privileges are not type or class specific - the
holder of more than one SPA type or class rating is
required to re-validate the IR on only one SPA type
or class (usually the most complex one)."

Long before JAR and the DA42, under old National rules, a single crew MEP IR was valid for all a/c not requiring a type rating. A seneca driver could jump into a Duchess without a specific CAA test. JAR brought in the differences training requirement (partly due to the likes of DA42) and now you have to do that training whether you go from DA42 to Seneca or visa versa.

Certainly a 6 lever a/c with engine failure before a SE NDB approach a tad different to the Diamond machine and would require practice. Similarly, a steam driven operator would need to be competent with Garmin's gizmos before shooting an ILS in a DA42.

Cirrus F: If the Chinese don't buy out bankrupt Grob then a company like Diamond could step in and add more aerobatic machinery to their model range. Agree their present SEP range is not suitable for EFT.

[CirrusF]

I would really like to volunteer for this, if they are still looking for pilots. I have the quals required. Does anybody know who to write to in the MOD? Please send me a PM if you do.

[Lyneham Lad]

Well, anyone keen on 'flying' a UAV in hot & sandy places might want to read one of the items (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/22/321500/honeywell-t-hawk-to-enter-uk-service-in-september.html) in Flight's latest 'Unmanned Newsletter'. No sitting in a nice air-con portacabin with this little beasty, it is up close and personal :eek:

Seriously though, if it is effective in it's intended role, then the sooner they are deployed the better :D

[Lyneham Lad]

On Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/28/321774/diamond-certifies-austro-ae-300-turbo-diesel.html) today:-

Diamond Aircraft has received European type certification for its turbo-diesel Austro AE 300 engine, a development the company says “secures its future.”

Diamond had been scrambling to develop an alternative to the Thielert Centurion 2.0 turbo-diesel engine after Thielert filed for bankruptcy in April last year. The Centurion powers more than 400 DA40 piston singles and more than 500 DA42 twins. Diamond has not ruled out offering a Thielert option on future aircraft assuming the company recovers after a pending sale.

“The complete program developed into one that was significantly more complex than originally anticipated,” says Diamond CEO Christian Dries of the certification effort, which ultimately took 42 months to complete at a cost of €48 million. Dries says there are already 27 DA42 NG aircraft powered by AE 300 engines on the production line and type certificate for the aircraft is expected “imminently”.

Dries says Diamond next will certify the engine as forward-fit for the DA40 and DA50, and will develop an AE 300-powered version of the DA42 multi-purpose platform. The company will also offer a retrofit version for its existing Thielert diesel-powered aircraft.

[SWBKCB]

Flight reporting that Boeing are considering putting the OV-10 Bronco into production after a 23-year break...

[Green Flash]

Flight reporting that Boeing are considering putting the OV-10 Bronco into production after a 23-year break...

I would have thought that something like a 2 seat A-10 'lite' might fit the bill? Take out the gun, uprate/simplfy the sensors, long range tanks, etc. Are there any lurking at AMARC?

[XV277]

They only ever built one two seat A10 and it has languished at Edwards for their Museum for years

[stas-fan]

Beech King Air............

[CirrusF]

or you could try something like this

Beech King Air............



There are any number of aircraft that you could propose - all costing an order of magnitude more than a DA42, with running costs an order of magnitude higher, some requiring large, expensively trained crews, and most not even having the autonomy of the DA42.

Even the Britten Norman Islanders currently in ISTAR role in Iraq are considered "good value" to the Defence budget with an hourly cost of about £1500 (source: Hansard). The direct operating cost of a DA42 (ie maintenance only, excluding capital costs and fuel) is about £235. Given that they burn only 5 USG per hour (both engines) when in maximum autonomy regime, the fuel cost is negligible.

[stas-fan]

No you nugget! The king air is a comment in reply to the Bronco part of the thread. However I thought they were talking for ISR, I am also a DA42 fan.
Da42's are a lot more than that an hour to fly now they are not under any warranty; in fact try nearly three times quoted prices according to a flight school near here who have done the calcs based on current thielert situation..... still a good answer to a lot of potentially expensive questions.

You sold any more yachts recently?

cheers
SF

[Janet Spongthrush]

For fans of the Old Sarum carefully manicured grass, here's a photo taken recently with DA-42 MPP G-DOSC making dents in it.

http://inlinethumb07.webshots.com/45062/2337289900056470327S600x600Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2337289900056470327qGcibq)

Clearly, although the registration has changed from OE-FOG it hasn't yet acquired the Royal Air Force titling that was applied to its sisters.

[Janet Spongthrush]

G-DOSC arrived back from Old Sarum yesterday morning and today was flying with a different nosecone at Boscombe Down:

http://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/40693/2821317620056470327S600x600Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2821317620056470327lqWEaQ)

[bjcc]

On it's way into Boscombe, with another view of that camera...!

Flickr Photo Download: DA42 Diamond Star (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bjcc/3368637102/sizes/o/)

[fltlt]

Bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth. That is what is driving the move away from unmanned. The Mk 1 eyeball/Mk 1 brain is a heck of a lot more efficient in filtering what to send/not send, than oceans of blue with a little biddy sail boat somewhere on it. Satellite's are extremely expensive, relatively short lived and not exactly TOT oriented. Another thing long forgotten is that situational awareness is expotentially degraded by distance from theater, even with the all singing, all dancing sensors. The Bekaar Valley come to anyones mind?
Just my tuppence worth.