Cessna Replacement - The Options

[Anzac]

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

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...avantis-future

Like most things Italian they look cool but ....

[Charlie252]

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.




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.

Sure there a technical differences in the types but they are a common type rating.

Whatever the NZAF are at it is in a different league to what the AC are doing.

Looking at fishing boats is just that,(trust me I've looked at plenty) you don't need a high end ASW platform for that, the King Air is the perfect platform for routine maritime surveillance.
The IAC fit is broadly similar to what Provincial Aviation have on their King Air's, the 350er has a better range and endurance then the CN-235 and the C-295. You also get a credible ISR platform.

From a capital expenditure point of view you get all the MarPat capability the AC needs for a much lower cost, hopefully the balance of available funds could be spent on something else

[Anzac]

Sure there a technical differences in the types but they are a common type rating.

Whatever the NZAF are at it is in a different league to what the AC are doing.

Looking at fishing boats is just that,(trust me I've looked at plenty) you don't need a high end ASW platform for that, the King Air is the perfect platform for routine maritime surveillance.
The IAC fit is broadly similar to what Provincial Aviation have on their King Air's, the 350er has a better range and endurance then the CN-235 and the C-295. You also get a credible ISR platform.

From a capital expenditure point of view you get all the MarPat capability the AC needs for a much lower cost, hopefully the balance of available funds could be spent on something else

The King Air is the perfect platform to do routine stuff - a flying Hilux pickup truck.

By all accounts 3 x PC-12 looks locked in as the 172 replacement and the question is where to go from there to get a fleet balance to get depth and breath.

I would suggest that once you get PRC fishing vessels lurking in your neck of the woods emitting odd EM and hyperspectral signatures it may get interesting.

[Charlie252]

I would suggest that once you get PRC fishing vessels lurking in your neck of the woods emitting odd EM and hyperspectral signatures it may get interesting.

We have the stuff in Hanger 13 for that

I agree the PC-12 looks like a shoe in, in my view its a shame and a wasted opportunity.

[Graylion]

We have the stuff in Hanger 13 for that

I agree the PC-12 looks like a shoe in, in my view its a shame and a wasted opportunity.

And 100% waste of money

[DeV]

With C295s you could (budget allowing) get a meaningful maritime surveillance and suitable tactical transport a/c in one a/c.

Depending on the fit and funding it may be possible to add an excellent pollution surveillance (which may also add other capabilities not sure), unfortunately it we want ASW/ASuW capabilities I think it has to be the dedicated version (open to correction).


The AC being short of pilots and techs needs the minimum possible number of types and variants to maximise the number of both who can operate it to the maximum. It also reduces supply chain and training costs.

[Charlie252]

With C295s you could (budget allowing) get a meaningful maritime surveillance and suitable tactical transport a/c in one a/c.

Depending on the fit and funding it may be possible to add an excellent pollution surveillance (which may also add other capabilities not sure), unfortunately it we want ASW/ASuW capabilities I think it has to be the dedicated version (open to correction).


The AC being short of pilots and techs needs the minimum possible number of types and variants to maximise the number of both who can operate it to the maximum. It also reduces supply chain and training costs.

AFAIK A decent Polution Surveillance solution is possible with the current radar, it just require some different hardware cards and some extra software.

A reasonable fleet of C-90's and BE-300's would provide huge training and operational capacity.
The current issue with pilot numbers is that there are not enough experienced pilots, there are plenty of newish guys looking for experience but there is a severe shortage of airframes and flying to gain experience on.
There are a large number of pilots in the training pipeline, the shortage of airframes will not really change with the delivery of 3 PC-12's

A small fleet of 3 PC-12's and 2 C-295's will also present these problems.

[DeV]

AFAIK A decent Polution Surveillance solution is possible with the current radar, it just require some different hard ware cards and some extra software.

A reasonable fleet of C-90's and BE-300's would provide huge training and operational capacity.
The current issue with pilot numbers is that there are not enough experienced pilots, there are plenty of newish guys looking for experience but there is a severe shortage of airframes and flying to gain experience on.
There are a large number of pilots in the training pipeline, the shortage of airframes will not really change with the delivery of 3 PC-12's

A small fleet of 3 PC-12's and 2 C-295's will also present these problems.

Could well be not sure

I was thinking about the SLAR fitted to some C295s.

They could but:
- more expensive to purchase
- more expensive to operate
- require multi engine ratings.

The more aircraft types, the smaller your pool of pilots and the more hours eaten up in conversion, type ratings, currency etc etc. It then makes the job of rostering etc harder. It equally applies to ground crew but obviously differently.

The Gazelle, Alouette and Dauphin were replaced by 2 types
The Warriors and Fougas were replaced by a single type

[Anzac]

With C295s you could (budget allowing) get a meaningful maritime surveillance and suitable tactical transport a/c in one a/c.

It would be either the C-295 or the HC-27J and the C-295 probably wins on cost - capability - experience and support factors. The better fit for the IAC - though the Spartan was a better fit at times for other air forces e.g the RAAF due to commonality factors with the 130J.

Depending on the fit and funding it may be possible to add an excellent pollution surveillance (which may also add other capabilities not sure), unfortunately it we want ASW/ASuW capabilities I think it has to be the dedicated version (open to correction).

The C-295 is a pretty mature and versatile platform though if hunting and killing Boomers and Skimmers is seriously sought I would be more inclined to look at the Swordfish end of town as you get into the jack of all trades master of none dilemma.

The AC being short of pilots and techs needs the minimum possible number of types and variants to maximise the number of both who can operate it to the maximum. It also reduces supply chain and training costs.

The Airbus Military Flight Simulator and Crew and Technician Training Centre in Andolusia would help address these issues. Outsourcing MEPT, AWOT et al to them as part of the acquisition package when you buy off Airbus are available options.

The PC-12 looks fixed so lefts park that with the PC-9M. The CASA C-295 would meet envisaged tasking outputs MarPat, utility transport etc.

At that point to get depth and breath there are options.

1. Look at an force enabler like the King Air x 3 or 4 (and the operational costs plus acquisition or lease).
2. Not buy/lease the King Air and get a broader contract with Airbus including full training and support through Andolusia and increase the number of C-295 airframes) once you get into a longer production block costs fall - the first couple of aircraft are where all the sunk costs and charges are factored as you need an initiating support package regardless whether you have one or two or five or six.

[Charlie252]

"if hunting and killing Boomers and Skimmers is seriously sought"

Its not! Its basic Marpat with an eye towards some transport capability.. the fleet will be Two and in fantasy land maybe a third!

[Charlie252]

Could well be not sure

I was thinking about the SLAR fitted to some C295s.

They could but:
- more expensive to purchase
- more expensive to operate
- require multi engine ratings.

The more aircraft types, the smaller your pool of pilots and the more hours eaten up in conversion, type ratings, currency etc etc. It then makes the job of rostering etc harder. It equally applies to ground crew but obviously differently.

The Gazelle, Alouette and Dauphin were replaced by 2 types
The Warriors and Fougas were replaced by a single type

More airframes has to be the goal, otherwise there will always be the problem of new pilots getting the flying experience to become commanders.

[DeV]

AC pilots already go overseas to use sims (and I think do other training) for some of their current types.

Let's say the AC was to buy C27s and C295. To keep the aircraft available for ops you need as large a pool of pilots and techs as possible. They will all need multi-engine ratings, they will then need type ratings and role training. The type training could be 2+ Weeks (recurrentcy could be a week not sure how often it needs to be done). 2 a/c is doubling the training requirements

More airframes has to be the goal, otherwise there will always be the problem of new pilots getting the flying experience to become commanders.

yes but not more types

[Graylion]

They could but:
- more expensive to purchase

errm, no? As demonstrated by my numbers

- more expensive to operate

dubious. the birds are smaller

- require multi engine ratings.

good thing as per Charlie's post

[Anzac]

"if hunting and killing Boomers and Skimmers is seriously sought"

Its not! Its basic Marpat with an eye towards some transport capability.. the fleet will be Two and in fantasy land maybe a third!

I am well aware of that. I was simply replying to a question from Dev about whether or not a specialist ASW/ASuW capability required a specialist platform.

[DeV]

@graylion

The figure you've given are €20m per ISTAR BKA against €5m per PC12

So fuel consumption for 2 engines is the same as one, having to keep spares for twice as many engines is as cheap, all pilots having to be multi-engine rated is as cheap as single engined....

It is from some aspects (including importantly safety) but economically it isn't. Your going to have a 100% safety record if you can't afford to fly them or train people con them. Yes I want a 100% safety record as well before you ask.



How is the DF affording new ships? We aren't fully replacing the people who leave, that is fact! Good chance new aircraft will be the same.

Look at the AAIU reports to see the problems the AC has had trying to keep people qualified but sure let's make it harder!!!

[Graylion]

@Dev: the figures I have given also state not to buy the C-295s. Please look at the overall picture. My suggestion is not to buy 5 ISTAR twins instead of 3 PC-12s

[morpheus]

The problem is being approached from the bottom up as usual.

It should be -
We have to replace some platforms, technology and the AO's environment has changed, so now, what do we need to do todays job and probably the next 25 years job?
how much is it going to cost? Ok, now go get the money.

instead its....

How much are we allowed to spend? Ok, how many platforms can we get for that money? what sensors can we afford to buy to fit into these platforms with whats left over?

This is why the DOD has been (rightly) accused of penny pinching and micromanaging the DF by members of the DF.

[DeV]

I would be more concerned about the option for the 4th a/c (the Defender replacement).

Joined up thinking would say pool the 4 aircraft (all in a common green/low viz paint job), common tactical suite etc.

AC personnel to be sensor operators and carry AGS observer

SLA to guarantee GASU access to 1 a/c at x notice.

[morpheus]

I would be more concerned about the option for the 4th a/c (the Defender replacement).

Joined up thinking would say pool the 4 aircraft (all in a common green/low viz paint job), common tactical suite etc.

AC personnel to be sensor operators and carry AGS observer

SLA to guarantee GASU access to 1 a/c at x notice.

Joined up thinking would say, study the AO, decide what we would ask for hypothetically, with an infinite budget, then the dept should try to match the money as close as possible to the requirement. This still stinks of, "well what can we buy for a few million euro? Can you stick a sensor on it?"

[Graylion]

Joined up thinking would say, study the AO, decide what we would ask for hypothetically, with an infinite budget, then the dept should try to match the money as close as possible to the requirement. This still stinks of, "well what can we buy for a few million euro? Can you stick a sensor on it?"

yup. We need to design a RFP, put that out there and run a sensible competition. And the dáil needs to be involved, this is a matter for political direction. The DoD tends to its own thing way too much.

[DeV]

Dail involved? The DF would be handed over to the Civil Defence and Coastguard

[Graylion]

Dail involved? The DF would be handed over to the Civil Defence and Coastguard

not so much with democratic control of the military?

[Charlie252]

The problem is being approached from the bottom up as usual.
It should be -
We have to replace some platforms, technology and the AO's environment has changed, so now, what do we need to do todays job and probably the next 25 years job?
how much is it going to cost? Ok, now go get the money.
instead its....
How much are we allowed to spend? Ok, how many platforms can we get for that money? what sensors can we afford to buy to fit into these platforms with whats left over?
This is why the DOD has been (rightly) accused of penny pinching and micromanaging the DF by members of the DF.

Agrees, here's my previous post again..

Maybe its time to stop discussing Cessna replacement, Casa Replacement, PC-9 replacement and maybe do a Proper Re-Org.

Its more then a decade since the last Re-Org of the AC, with the possibility of capital expenditure, I think its time to do a full ground up Re-Org.

Maybe host an all arms conference to determine future mission profiles, build a possible fleet model based on these future missions and then establish a flying and support organization to Run and Manage this fleet.

At this stage the fleet does not need to be type specific, just an outline e.g. A medium Lift Transport Squadron, A ISR Squadron, A Tactical(Heli) Support Squadron etc..

These should be the aspirations of the AC for the next 20 years, and therefore should be about pushing forward, not just replacing the current fleet with incrementally better aircraft.

From these mission sets establish the competency’s that would be required of the Pilots, Engineers and support staff and design a training model that provides a pipeline of Staff to each area and establishes Career paths.

Put everything on the table and aim to build a Mission Focused Military Air Service.

[DeV]

not so much with democratic control of the military?

There is democratic oversight and control of the DF

[Graylion]

@graylion

The figure you've given are €20m per ISTAR BKA against €5m per PC12

So fuel consumption for 2 engines is the same as one, having to keep spares for twice as many engines is as cheap, all pilots having to be multi-engine rated is as cheap as single engined....

It is from some aspects (including importantly safety) but economically it isn't. Your going to have a 100% safety record if you can't afford to fly them or train people con them. Yes I want a 100% safety record as well before you ask.



How is the DF affording new ships? We aren't fully replacing the people who leave, that is fact! Good chance new aircraft will be the same.

Look at the AAIU reports to see the problems the AC has had trying to keep people qualified but sure let's make it harder!!!

Yes, But I also suggested, not buying the 295s. And what will happen with singe engine birds is that they will be unusable due not being able to fly over water. 15M€ straight down the drain.