Cessna Replacement - The Options

[DeV]

Of course another potentional option that should be looked at would be purchasing another 2-3 x AW139s to replace the Cessna's

This would have a lot of advantages

The disadvantages?:
Could it do target towing (although the Swiss use PC9s for that)
Could it do pollution surveillance (CASA may be better)

The big disadvantage is cost:
The purchase price of 1 x AW139 costs about the same as a fleet of 4 x small high spec twin engined aircraft
Helicopters have a higher cost per hour and are more expensive to maintain

[FMP]

Essentials for a Cessna replacement:

Slow stall speed
Good STOL performance
Higher transit speed
Possibly high wing
Longer endurance & range

Ability for a smaller fleet (2-4 aircraft) to generate in the region of 1200-1500 hours annually

Removable sensor fit with FLIR and camera (increased capability for escorts (CIT etc), ATCA surveys etc (bogs, wildlife, inshore fisheries etc), surveillance (backup to GASU, search, patrolling etc), support to army in operational (home and overseas) (eg surveillance, recce))

Target towing kit

Aerial photography kit (if FLIR and camera not suitable)

Army radio fit

Capable of carrying pilot and 2-3 aircrew (sensor operator/radio man/photographer/observer etc)



Options:
removable Pollution surveillance kit (if available)

Limited weapons fit (MGs, rockets, possibly guided missiles)



Look at larger aircraft for:
Light transport (para ops, personnel and cargo)
Air ambulance

Also look at multi-engine option for safety reasons and for use as a multi-engine trainer)

If possible, equipment & parts commonality with existing aircraft

My vote for the Cessna replacement would have to be the ridiculously named "Combat Caravan". Names aside it is a very capable aircraft and it ticks most of your box's DeV. Also ticks all of the box's I was trying to fill with the PC-9 a few posts back and some more. Still think the PC should be made to work for a living but nevermind .

Even the standard civilian variant is a great aircraft and is the airborne equivalent of Land Rover out here. But why buy it and then have to pay to get it kitted out when it exists with all the kit in it. Will cost quiet a bit more than the bog standard taxi but you get it with all whistles and bell's attached.

We had (Company I work for) until a few months ago two PAC's on our books. Fantastic little aircraft, XSTOL is right, amazing how tight a spot you could get into and more importantly out of. But it was just too small (internally). Sad to see them go because they so versatile but for the role's were discussing here I think they would be unsuitable. They have been replaced by a Dornier 202 and a,,,,,,,,,,,,any guesses?,,,,,,,,,,a Caravan . Point to note: I don't fly them, just in them.

For your larger twin engine, you are dead right. Buy something compatible with what you have. The C 295 all the way, and the palletised mission systems for maximum versatility. I have ranted on about this before on this thread so will leave it at that.

To recap:

Combat Caravan. Minus Hellfire to keep the green's happy and change that bloody ridiculous name .

C 295. Plus pallets.

And make the PC-9 work for a living.

http://www.atk.com/products-services/ac-208-combat-caravan

[GoneToTheCanner]

The PC-9 is not really suitable for very slow observational stuff, which the 172 and the Caravan can do in spades. The thoughts of spending time in a PC-9, trolling around a cash escort or a convoy, nibbling at the stall speed, engine roaring it's head off. Also, if you have an emergency in a PC-9, you are potentially faced with ejection as the only option as the odds on surviving a forced landing are not great. A 172 or a Caravan can go into many, many small fields and will survive...............The 295 is limited as a transporter because it can't carry but the smallest vehicles............the PAC 750 is a great aircraft which needs a bigger hull. PAC will just have to go back to the drawing board.

regards
GttC

[Tempest]

The Cessnas are still doing jobs that they were bought for, and still doing them better then any other airframe in the fleet could do. Despite loads of input into this thread, there is no obvious replacement! AC are not going to buy single engine replacements (not needed, current single engine aircraft are doing these jobs satisfactorily). Dreaming up new or enhanced roles for 104 Sqn which require bigger airframes will only be entertained by the bean counters when a persuasive case is made. No clear case for bigger twin engines was made when the 'vanilla' CASA airframe was offered cheap, and nobody would suggest that a CASA should be employed on CIT. This is a very circular debate! The Cessnas have paid for themselves a hundred times over, which is more then can be said for other airframes in the fleet. If anything, there is a case for adding to their numbers! Oh, except they don't like single engine aircraft anymore!

[DeV]

The Cessnas are still doing jobs that they were bought for, and still doing them better then any other airframe in the fleet could do. Despite loads of input into this thread, there is no obvious replacement! AC are not going to buy single engine replacements (not needed, current single engine aircraft are doing these jobs satisfactorily). Dreaming up new or enhanced roles for 104 Sqn which require bigger airframes will only be entertained by the bean counters when a persuasive case is made. No clear case for bigger twin engines was made when the 'vanilla' CASA airframe was offered cheap, and nobody would suggest that a CASA should be employed on CIT. This is a very circular debate! The Cessnas have paid for themselves a hundred times over, which is more then can be said for other airframes in the fleet. If anything, there is a case for adding to their numbers! Oh, except they don't like single engine aircraft anymore!

I agree but:
5 aircraft are producing only around 250 hrs each annually, why?
Is it because the main roles are reducing (not really), so is it a case of we have too many aircraft or they have a lot of downtime?

They are ageing and as you rightly say they have paid for themselves, all the talk coming out of AC is they want a replacement.

Whatever happens does it not make sense to buy an aircraft that is more capable at the current job (eg Proper sensor and camera fits to improve capabilities. This could require only a slightly larger aircraft (eg 182), this would be more efficient for para ops.

The only new roles I suggested are:
Air ambulance
Multi engine training
Pollution surveillance

They would depend on the aircraft selecte. Everything else is a current/past Cessna role. I just want it better equipped to fo the job.

[na grohmiti]

Most para ops are being done from helicopter lately.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Para ops from helicopters is hugely expensive in terms of fuel burn and consumption of hours on critical components, as well as pilot/aircrew flight time. It's really difficult to justify when it visibly burns holes in the operating budget. Any bean counter would have heart failure if he saw the graph of fuel consumption alone....You could easily run a PC-6 or Caravan type aircraft off the Curragh, safely, for much smaller money and much greater utility. You could rerole such an aircraft easily. If you want to have a twin engined type, then you get a new-build Twin Otter or an M-28, both of which can use unprepared/soft runways, are tough, easily maintained, reliable and can still carry out IFR flights if need be or can be refitted for observational roles with internal or external fits. Genuinely, the 172s are at the stage in their lives where they are really only fit for light utility and ought to be sold off.

[DeV]

Most para ops are being done from helicopter lately.

Why?
CASA too busy/can't be tasked
Only other option is Cessna, carrying max 3

[GoneToTheCanner]

Because the DF will say that the easiest way to do it is to land on the Curragh with a 139, pick up the meatbombs, climb straight up overhead, chuck them out, repeat ad nauseam, whereas the Casa has to go back to the Don every time to refuel and reload. Either option is still very expensive, in direct and indirect operating costs, not to mind the manpower levels required....here's a suggestion: buy a turboprop aircraft for the ARW's exclusive use. Let them have a bunch of pilots and techs for a year's release from the Don and let them decide how, when and where they want to use it. It would free them up from depending on the Don. Every credible SF operation has it's own aircraft/specialised vehicles/small boats and associated personnel, either in house or seconded.

regards
GttC

[na grohmiti]

Pilots AND Techs? Working from a location other than Baldonnel?
Impossible surely.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Well, if it was offered as an alternative to going to the bleedin' Leb, as a means of staying in the place (you have to do an overseas tour, to improve the odds on being reenlisted), as well as being different and probably eye-opening, you'd be able to sell tickets to it.

regards
GttC

[Meatbomb]

could this have a bearing on the possible replacement of the Cessnas? Possibly one of their regular ops gone?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/cashintransit-fears-as-armed-escort-security-is-axed-30784026.html

[Charlie252]

Certainly is a mission gone.

Maybe it should NOT be viewed as a Cessna replacement but more as a wider view of capabilities and mission profiles and use whatever resources may become available to meet those mission needs.

[DeV]

Hope they don't make a quick decision based on this that they regret

[na grohmiti]

If the DoD is known for anything, quick decisions is not one of them.