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.
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.
Comment