Cessna Replacement - The Options

[DeV]

Ah DeV... really? Christ I hope they have bigger plans than using them for hour building.

Re: above points about PC-12/Defender use abroad - given that a major difficulty with previous deployments (e.g. Chad) was the lack of heli support, it seems a bit sketchy sending PC-12's without DAS, places where there wont be very eh, effective CSAR support.

I can actually see a role for the PC-12 in support of long range patrols in such an environment; but no DAS, no CSAR, no deployment.

Yes hours building during AC ops (not just training flights) on aircraft that are over 40 years old

The FWUA could be the first AC aircraft with a DAS suite, those tendering have to indicate if the a/c can be fitted with a DAS, what it consists of and how much it costs.

I agree CSAR and medevac assets are strategic assets that are vital and often in short supply but the AW139 isn't necessarily suitable. It's highly unlikely we will ever have a standalone mission overseas.

[Anzac]

Not Advocating for the Diamond System, but the PC-9 training system is perfectly designed as a cost effective lead in fighter trainer...

We don't have and most likely will never have fighters, hence the question of their suitability.

The RNZAF, who also don't have fighters and never will, found that using a small ab-initio trainer and then stepping into the advanced syllabus on the King Air was not working - it was not producing the standard of military level pilots they were after. They looked at everything from dragging out the stored MB-339's and reactivating them through to contracting out (Very Expensive) and they came to the conclusion that the T-6C the US built brother of the PC-9M with the same essential flying characteristics, a high performance single engine tandem trainer, was the best solution on both cost, capability and in meeting output objectives. Docile handling for ab-initio but able to do the kind of advanced tactical aerobatics needed to produce wings rated military pilots - whether they were going on to fly rotary, maritime patrol, tactical airlift.

[Charlie252]

The RNZAF, who also don't have fighters and never will, found that using a small ab-initio trainer and then stepping into the advanced syllabus on the King Air was not working - it was not producing the standard of military level pilots they were after. They looked at everything from dragging out the stored MB-339's and reactivating them through to contracting out (Very Expensive) and they came to the conclusion that the T-6C the US built brother of the PC-9M with the same essential flying characteristics, a high performance single engine tandem trainer, was the best solution on both cost, capability and in meeting output objectives. Docile handling for ab-initio but able to do the kind of advanced tactical aerobatics needed to produce wings rated military pilots - whether they were going on to fly rotary, maritime patrol, tactical airlift.

Interesting take on pilot training, I have a feeling the NZ airforce hang on to the possibility of replacing the fighters at some stage and continue to train for that, they also have a significantly more military focused fleet then anything in the AC fleet.

They still have a multi engine trainer to complete the training.

Maybe for them the decision makes sense, when you look at the AC fleet it is far harder to justify.

[Graylion]

I can really see the Air Corps stumping up USD$240m for a Saab Global Eye and at minimum you'd need two. / sarc off

http://www.janes.com/article/68189/i...saab-globaleye

as opposed to 140M$ system cost per Swordfish?

[ropebag]

... It's highly unlikely we will ever have a standalone mission overseas.

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting otherwise - I wouldn't be surprised if the UK never mounts an entirely stand alone operation of Bde size ever again - and have a Defence budget some 40 times the size of Ireland's.

[Anzac]

Interesting take on pilot training, I have a feeling the NZ airforce hang on to the possibility of replacing the fighters at some stage and continue to train for that, they also have a significantly more military focused fleet then anything in the AC fleet.

They still have a multi engine trainer to complete the training.

Maybe for them the decision makes sense, when you look at the AC fleet it is far harder to justify.

I do not think the training platform and methodology is the issue in the IAC but the inverse - the lack of investment in platforms which follows the training. You have got the training right and it is the building blocks to a better capability.

[Anzac]

as opposed to 140M$ system cost per Swordfish?

Yes.

Because Ireland needs maritime ISR and currently have invested in this capability. It has military efficacy in your current defence force posture and Swordfish is the logical step beyond the CASA's if you want to have a platform that can swing from a domestic context to being a valid contribution in a coalition context.

However the IAC does not have institutional knowledge of AEW&C and that takes years and hundreds of millions to acquire that capability. It is the aeronautical version of subs. After decades of strike operations the RAAF and operating around 100 air combat aircraft - through Project Jericho have finally got to an institutional space where they have the institutional knowledge, budget and capability to pull a AEW&C capability off.

[Charlie252]

I do not think the training platform and methodology is the issue in the IAC but the inverse - the lack of investment in platforms which follows the training. You have got the training right and it is the building blocks to a better capability.

Certainly the lack of investment is a serious problem, but put it in context, the single biggest investment in the last 20 years was spent on training aircraft.
There is a serious argument that, that program could have been delayed(continue the wings course with SF-260 and King Air) and focused the available funds on expanding deliverable capabilities to the rest of the DF.

I have a suspicion that the current tender is designed to purchase the same aircraft type as the GS, this makes some sense, but will seriously hamper the operational capability for the next 25 years. The continued short sightedness is extremely frustrating.

I still also question the requirement for LIFT type training system for helicopter and transport pilots, IMHO the SF-260 and King Air was a perfectly acceptable training program.

[DeV]

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting otherwise - I wouldn't be surprised if the UK never mounts an entirely stand alone operation of Bde size ever again - and have a Defence budget some 40 times the size of Ireland's.

So then should the State decide to deploy a/c overseas in a potentially hostile environment it may have a DAS (options in the tender) and CSAR could be provided by other contributors

[Graylion]

I have played with numbers a bit:

If we scrap the transport requirement and say we rent that from the EATC as needed, I come to this:

5 * Avanti ISTAR/MPA: @20 M€ each = 100 M€
2 * KingAir C-90GTx: @3.25 M€ each = 6.5 M€
1 * PC-24: 8.5 M€

115 M€

plus EATC

----------------------------------------------------------------

Existing purchase plan:

3 * PC-12NG: 15 M€ altogether
2 * Casa 295 MPA: 100 M€
1 * Learjet replacement ?? M€
115 M€

[Charlie252]

I have played with numbers a bit:
If we scrap the transport requirement and say we rent that from the EATC as needed, I come to this:
5 * Avanti ISTAR/MPA: @20 M€ each = 100 M€
2 * KingAir C-90GTx: @3.25 M€ each = 6.5 M€
1 * PC-24: 8.5 M€
115 M€
plus EATC

----------------------------------------------------------------

Existing purchase plan:

3 * PC-12NG: 15 M€ altogether
2 * Casa 295 MPA: 100 M€
1 * Learjet replacement ?? M€
115 M€

A lot of merit to a plan like this, but please stop with the Avanti, its an average corporate aircraft, but more importantly the manufacturers support is atrocious, a company in the USA tried to do fractional with it(AvantAir) and they went bust. I'm not saying it was all the aircrafts fault but it certainly didn't help.

One of the many issues with AC procurement is the tendency to buy the Mark 1 of things, there are proven platforms out there from great manufacturers with great support. Why not keep it simple.

[ropebag]

...1 * Learjet replacement ?? M€
115 M€

What?

Like, what the actual ****?

Firstly you could buy a vastly capable and useful A319/320/321 for that kind of money, and secondly how in the name of all that's holy could anyone - whether on the internet or sat at a desk in the DoD - write down that for ISTAR they will only fork out for €5m for a hugely compromised platform, and in the same breath talk about paying €100m for something to take ministers to open an off license?

[Charlie252]

What?

Like, what the actual ****?

Firstly you could buy a vastly capable and useful A319/320/321 for that kind of money, and secondly how in the name of all that's holy could anyone - whether on the internet or sat at a desk in the DoD - write down that for ISTAR they will only fork out for €5m for a hugely compromised platform, and in the same breath talk about paying €100m for something to take ministers to open an off license?

I think its 115M all in!!

[GoneToTheCanner]

re the RNZAF; there was a huge backlash at the removal of the A4s and Macchis and other aircraft and old sweats grumble still about it, not only from the loss of strike/defence capability but the institutional and national loss of trained people and their skills. It hurt the air arm to the core and some would say that it has not recovered.......quite how Oz pilots failed to make the grade from a Ct4 to a King air boggles me. I suspect it generated pilots who were not "warry" enough for F18s.....@252, the Marchettis were chopped, notionally because of the transition to a turbine only training regime. They still had plenty of life left in them and were sold for peanuts,etc,etc....I don't know why people have the notion that a turboprop trainer is cheaper to operate than a pure jet trainer like an MB 339 or an L59. Propellor costs have to be factored in and a prop for a PC-9 is not cheap. I suspect real world operating costs of Pc-9s might be a tad higher than people think.....another point; air arms these days that operate the likes of the PC 21 don't actually allow fighter students to fire any live weapons. They simulate firing on simulators and there are fighter pilots in some countries that never ever fired anything in training and may fire a missile in annual shooting practise if there is a time-ex weapon ready to be expended. I read somewhere where a Middle East air arm had pilots who fought against IS, who literally had never fired even a 30mm cannon or RP from their Hawk T2s and their fighters and their first actual live firing was stand off weapons against distant dots that were cue'd by UAVs. the mind boggles!

[Graylion]

I have tried to write this up a bit more precisely and readably (no idea why the table is so far down, please scroll. Sorry 'bout that):

Number	Plane	Price per instance	investment
Original plan
3	PC-12 Spectre	M€5.0	M€15.0
2	C-295 MPA	M€50.0	M€100.0
1	Learjet replacement (PC-24)	M€8.5	M€8.5
			M€123.5
Alternative plan
5	ISTAR/MPA twin (Avanti or King Air 350 ER)	M€20.0	M€100.0
2	King Air C-90GTx for twin conversion and light utility	M€3.4	M€6.8
1	PC-24 VIP transport	M€8.5	M€8.5
1	PC-24 air ambulance	M€9.0	M€9.0
			M€124.3
Conditions: abandon indigenous transport capability and join EATC, Make VIP transport and Air Ambulance available to EATC

[Anzac]

Original plan

3 PC-12 Spectre M€15.0
2 C-295 MPA M€100.0
1 Learjet replacement (PC-24) M€8.5

M€123.5


Alternative plan

5 ISTAR/MPA twin (Avanti or King Air 350 ER) M€100.0
2 King Air C-90GTx for twin conversion and light utility M€6.8
1 PC-24 VIP transport M€8.5 M€8.5
1 PC-24 air ambulance M€9.0 M€9.0

M€124.3


The alternative plan has a couple of problems that you may need to consider further.

King Air’s are great but they and aircraft of a similar size (and importantly power generation capacity when it comes to effective ISR assets) are essentially tier 3 maritime ISR platforms that are a force enabler to support a more capable and expensive asset like the CN-235 MPA but it is not a replacement for a CASA CN-235, which are tier 2 maritime ISR assets. You would have numbers in the low-end constabulary stuff but nothing more than that.

Also you are replicating quite similar platforms where as one platform can do all those taskings that you envisaged. In fact one platform can swing-role do all those taskings any time you chose. Take the B350-ER Multi-Mission as an example. A small ground support team can swap out the cabin from Medevac to VIP to SRMPA to SAR to light utility to AWCT to MEPT taskings within a couple of hours installing or removing the plug n play mission modules/fittings.

The support chain for the C-90GTx is basically a separate Beechcraft logistics line to the B-350 and the PC-24 is obviously separate again. Having three of these support chains for just nine aircraft is very expensive and when support and training packages are between 50-120% of the ownership cost of the aircraft saving a couple of million on the C-90 acquistion will just get swallowed up - and compounded when having to deal with another manufacturer.

One manufacturer, one platform, one training system, one spares and parts channel, one commercial contract and contractor - it saves big time.

The other point is calculating how many hours will the fleet be required to generate in taskings through out the year. The King Air in typical military fleet service usually produces 700 hours per annum in flight hours per platform. So with nine aircraft in the fleet you would be looking to generate or be capable of generating 6300 hours per annum on top of the 8800 hours flown last year in total by the IAC.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Anzac, the manufacturers' specified time for changing out mission fits is not reflected in reality in the Air Corps. Only recently,a parliamentiary question was replied to with the answer that it took four hours to rerole a 135 for SAR.

[DeV]

Anzac, the manufacturers' specified time for changing out mission fits is not reflected in reality in the Air Corps. Only recently,a parliamentiary question was replied to with the answer that it took four hours to rerole a 135 for SAR.

But is that because of "union rules", personnel shortages etc

[Anzac]

Anzac, the manufacturers' specified time for changing out mission fits is not reflected in reality in the Air Corps. Only recently,a parliamentiary question was replied to with the answer that it took four hours to rerole a 135 for SAR.

That would be right with respect to a C235 swapout but the new King Airs we are looking with the Hawker Pacific lease will re-role in a couple. I'm sure that on a 2017 Beechcraft platform you guys would gave no trouble meeting or beating that.

[Charlie252]

Original plan

3 PC-12 Spectre M€15.0
2 C-295 MPA M€100.0
1 Learjet replacement (PC-24) M€8.5

M€123.5


Alternative plan

5 ISTAR/MPA twin (Avanti or King Air 350 ER) M€100.0
2 King Air C-90GTx for twin conversion and light utility M€6.8
1 PC-24 VIP transport M€8.5 M€8.5
1 PC-24 air ambulance M€9.0 M€9.0

M€124.3


The alternative plan has a couple of problems that you may need to consider further.

King Air’s are great but they and aircraft of a similar size (and importantly power generation capacity when it comes to effective ISR assets) are essentially tier 3 maritime ISR platforms that are a force enabler to support a more capable and expensive asset like the CN-235 MPA but it is not a replacement for a CASA CN-235, which are tier 2 maritime ISR assets. You would have numbers in the low-end constabulary stuff but nothing more than that.

Also you are replicating quite similar platforms where as one platform can do all those taskings that you envisaged. In fact one platform can swing-role do all those taskings any time you chose. Take the B350-ER Multi-Mission as an example. A small ground support team can swap out the cabin from Medevac to VIP to SRMPA to SAR to light utility to AWCT to MEPT taskings within a couple of hours installing or removing the plug n play mission modules/fittings.

The support chain for the C-90GTx is basically a separate Beechcraft logistics line to the B-350 and the PC-24 is obviously separate again. Having three of these support chains for just nine aircraft is very expensive and when support and training packages are between 50-120% of the ownership cost of the aircraft saving a couple of million on the C-90 acquistion will just get swallowed up - and compounded when having to deal with another manufacturer.

One manufacturer, one platform, one training system, one spares and parts channel, one commercial contract and contractor - it saves big time.

The other point is calculating how many hours will the fleet be required to generate in taskings through out the year. The King Air in typical military fleet service usually produces 700 hours per annum in flight hours per platform. So with nine aircraft in the fleet you would be looking to generate or be capable of generating 6300 hours per annum on top of the 8800 hours flown last year in total by the IAC.

On the one hand you see problems and yet you also see the capabilities of a 350er type airframe.. not sure what your point is? Have you an alternative?

But be clear the IAC CN-235 is a Fish Pat aircraft, a replacement IF required only needs to be able to carry our that basic mission function. There aren't any Tiers to looking at fishing boats. There is no other stated mission requirement other then limited Transport capability.

The BE-350 and C-90 are actually quite similar(similar cockpits type rating) and one leads very nicely to the other, as they are mass produced commercial aircraft platforms the basic support costs are well known and there Pair Hour DOC's are way below any uniquely military type.

The ability to generate Flying hours would be dramatically increased which would be a major bonus for the AC, the current output as measured in flying hours is very Low,
the small fleet numbers are largely responsible for this.

I'd bin the PC-24 idea, the LR-45 is young and has had very low utilization and therefore has many years service life left.

Instead work towards an aspirational transport capability. The Naval Service have played the long game, starting with their original "blue-Green" vessel idea, they are now close to a much larger and more capable ship then ever before. There is a lesson to be learned there.

[Graylion]

guys, can anybody point me at a source for the bad piaggio after sales support? i can't find jack on the 'web

[DeV]

On the one hand you see problems and yet you also see the capabilities of a 350er type airframe.. not sure what your point is? Have you an alternative?

But be clear the IAC CN-235 is a Fish Pat aircraft, a replacement IF required only needs to be able to carry our that basic mission function. There aren't any Tiers to looking at fishing boats. There is no other stated mission requirement other then limited Transport capability.

The BE-350 and C-90 are actually quite similar(similar cockpits type rating) and one leads very nicely to the other, as they are mass produced commercial aircraft platforms the basic support costs are well known and there Pair Hour DOC's are way below any uniquely military type.

The ability to generate Flying hours would be dramatically increased which would be a major bonus for the AC, the current output as measured in flying hours is very Low,
the small fleet numbers are largely responsible for this.

I'd bin the PC-24 idea, the LR-45 is young and has had very low utilization and therefore has many years service life left.

Instead work towards an aspirational transport capability. The Naval Service have played the long game, starting with their original "blue-Green" vessel idea, they are now close to a much larger and more capable ship then ever before. There is a lesson to be learned there.

Ref the CASA and their replacement, reread the WP

[Charlie252]

Ref the CASA and their replacement, reread the WP

Just Did...

"The existing CASA 235s primarily undertake maritime surveillance, although they may also be used for a broader range of tasks. These include, air ambulance missions, evacuation missions, transport of materiel, search and rescue top cover and occasionally ministerial air transport. The CASA 235s will be replaced with consideration of their replacement with larger more capable aircraft, This would enhance maritime surveillance and provide a greater degree of utility for transport and cargo carrying tasks"

So just more of the same just bigger..

[DeV]

Just Did...

"The existing CASA 235s primarily undertake maritime surveillance, although they may also be used for a broader range of tasks. These include, air ambulance missions, evacuation missions, transport of materiel, search and rescue top cover and occasionally ministerial air transport. The CASA 235s will be replaced with consideration of their replacement with larger more capable aircraft, This would enhance maritime surveillance and provide a greater degree of utility for transport and cargo carrying tasks"

So just more of the same just bigger..

So not just fishery patrols and nothing about a "limited" transport capability

[Anzac]

On the one hand you see problems and yet you also see the capabilities of a 350er type airframe.. not sure what your point is? Have you an alternative?

I saw problems with Graylions fleet mix and I noted that one platform can do all those roles rather three platforms with the issues noted.

An alternative. Yes. A tier 3 capability like the King Air in a force enabler role and a tier two capability like the CASA with its greater sensor fit, radar and range in the prime patrol role. That is what my lot are currently doing though a bit more extreme with the lease of 4 King Airs and the acquisition of 4 P-8A's.

I understand that the Conops and contexts are different but flying a P-3K2 or P-8A over a humble fishing boat you will get an entirely different intelligence vignette than using a King Air. Not all fishing boats are equal though they may look that way.

The BE-350 and C-90 are actually quite similar(similar cockpits type rating) and one leads very nicely to the other, as they are mass produced commercial aircraft platforms the basic support costs are well known and there Pair Hour DOC's are way below any uniquely military type.

Similar but not the same, same Proline 12 though, Pt-6 variant is different - which leads to the point that I was trying to explain to Graylion that just pick one of his 3 suggestions.