Originally posted by Charlie252
View Post
Parachuting; For specialist para ops training the Cessna was fine as there were small numbers of jumpers (as long as they had no specialist kit, which they had to leave behind anyway due to size/weight issues). For the general para course with larger numbers the Cessna was woefully inadequate; courses would take weeks. Sometimes the CASA would be used to try and speed things up, usually combined with the outbound leg of a patrol. Larger numbers per lift but only 1-2 jumps per day, and not every day. Jumpers then have to high-tail it back to Bal for the next flight (no para ops on the airfield). A caravan type aircraft would be cheaper to operate than the CASA and more efficient than the FR172 for large para training courses.
Service support; Cessnas were often used to get techs to the location of a u/s aircraft. The improved tech crew/spare parts capacity of a caravan would give a better likelihood of returning the u/s aircraft to service quickly (given the complexity of the newer aircraft).
Drogue: Not much of a challenge for the ADR to pick off a Cessna flying with a drogue into a headwind! A faster aircraft might provide them better training (albeit not exactly a massive increase).
VIP; It could supplement moving bodies around the country more cheaply than a LR45 or AW139. Think King Air!
A caravan type aircraft could provide a suitable sensor platform for the Army for Int or C2 missions as currently provided by larger aircraft during VIP visits.
It could also do internal air ambulance (although the crewing would need to be thought out carefully).
It could also increase the experience levels of pilots progressing onto GASU single pilot operations in the future.
Finally, the current phase de jour in the DF is 'capability development'. The whole point is that the replacement "offers more then the current fleet". A like for like replacement of the FR172 would not fulfill this basic headline goal.
Comment