SHAH ALAM: De Havilland Dash-8s still rolling out of production line. Despite claims to the contrary De Havilland Dash-8 turbo-prop airliner is still rolling out of the production line. And its performance for last year were better than its closest competitor. Leonardo’s 2020 financial results released on March 10 reported that ATR delivered 10 ATR’s in 2020 while De Havilland reported on February 17, 2021 that it delivered 11 Dash-8 400’s to customers in 2020.
According to David Curtis, Executive Chairman of Longview AviationCapital, De Havilland Canada’s parent company: “The quality of the aircraft is demonstrated by the fact that we have significantly outperformed our competitors since the onset of the
pandemic, delivering 11 aircraft to customers in 2020”.
The quality of the Dash 8 including its more powerful engines and superior speed over the ATR appear to be the reason that most countries choose the Dash 8 over the ATR for special mission aircraft applications. In an earlier article that I wrote about the recently announced MOU De Havilland Canada and PAL Aerospace.
Given the latest developments, it appears that the announcement of the MOU was needed as recent false reports suggested that the production of the Dash-8s may well have ended. Competition in the aerospace industry is such that some have
sought to misrepresent De Havilland’s move out of its current manufacturing facility as the termination of new aircraft production.
In fact on February 17 De Havilland reiterated its its long-term commitment to the Dash-8 including a series of long-term investments in upgrades and modifications. When De Havilland purchased the Dash-8 400 from the previous owner, Bombardier, the purchase did not include Bombardier’s production facility at Downsview, Toronto. De Havilland are currently
in the process of transitioning the Dash 8-400 to a new production facility, a move that was planned and managed occurrence.
Added Curtis: “The transition from Downsview is a step in the planned evolution of the Dash 8 platform away from its former owner and is important part of our vision for Longview Aviation Capital as a leading global aviation company. While this evolution is taking place against the backdrop of unprecedented industry circumstances, we see
a bright future for De Havilland Canada and the Dash 8 is a segment defining aircraft, and it has never been in better hands – strengthened by being part of a robust aviation portfolio with patient long-term ownership”.
As posted earlier, PAL Aerospace and De Havilland recently signed an MOU to develop a MPA that it is offering to meet the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) maritime surveillance requirements. In a future article, I will report on PAL Aerospace’s long-term
experience in the MPA market and Malaysia including the company’s involvement in the MMEA’s CL415 special mission aircraft.
— Malaysian Defence
View Comments (15)
With the current tender of 2 MPAs, if we order up a second batch of MPA soon after we completed the current batch, it is unlikely that we would buy a different aircraft model than the first batch.
But if the next batch of MPA requirement is 10 years away, it is unlikely that we would go for the same model given our past decisions on military equipment. That would meant we still repeat the same thing, a little bit of everything but not enough and a mix of different equipment for the same purpose.
I really hope after we retire our CN235 we would replace them with the same MPA that we choose for current tender without going through another open tender.
Luqman - “ is 10 years away, it is unlikely that we would go for the same model given our past decisions on military equipment”
Yes. Same problem we face with our subs. The 5/15 and CAP is intended to achieve greater commonality and the costs savings which with it but ...
Luqman - “would meant we still repeat the same thing, a little bit of everything”
We unfortunately have a tendency to repeat things and not learn from our previous mistakes. Makes it next to impossible for the armed services to plan accordingly over a long term period and we end up with a neither here nor there capability.
Why would we even think of Dash 8 when nobody else in Malaysia uses it? Especially more so if it is only 2 unit for the MPA.
@TomTom
Because we can? It didn't stop us from getting the 2 unit MMEA CL415s tho.
Tom Tom - “Why would we even think of Dash”
It has been offered by a private entity which has teamed up with the OEM. Doesn’t necessarily mean the government or RMAF is “thinking” about it ...
CL415 had the ability to carry water for firefighting purpose and we're using that capability extensively every peat fire season. What did the dash 8 offer other than being a little bit more powerful?
The question is if the navy is looking to launch munitions (Mavericks, torps, et cetera) from the plane. If the answer is yes then maybe it's worth buying a more powerful plane. Otherwise ATR72 is going to be just fine
The intention is for it to be equipped with only a sensor/mission suite. It’s to be unarmed.
Whilst we should no doubt in the future have a ASW configured MPA; at the moment we should just prioritise on MPAs for surveillance. Having an armed MPA only adds to overall costs; people have to be trained to maintain the stuff.
The issue is - as you alluded to - if or when we at some point in the future decide on an armed platform; it has to be larger to account for payload issues related to range and endurance.
*Significantly outperformed *when d difference is only one aircraft. 😂😂😂😂
@dundun
" Otherwise ATR72 is going to be just fine"
atr72 and c295 can also mount munitions. One can also argue that nobody in Malaysia is using c295. Also what benefit does it bring if RMAF get a plane that is operated in Malaysia (airlines industry) atr72 if we don't buy spare parts from the airline companies? My guess is only available of established maintenance supply chain.