Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.
    Last edited by Anzac; 27 September 2017, 12:51.

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
        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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
            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.

            Comment


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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  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..

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                    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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                      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.


                      Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
                        guys, can anybody point me at a source for the bad piaggio after sales support? i can't find jack on the 'web


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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                          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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X