Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

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

  • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
    Many of the tasking's that are normally carried out by the Cessna's have been taken on by the heli's over this last two years as the Cessna's workload has rapidly increased as a result of barrack closers.
    how come the barrack closures caused increased demand? Just wondering mind!
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by morpheus View Post
      how come the barrack closures caused increased demand? Just wondering mind!
      I think that'll be going into OPSEC territory.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
        Even with CIT's suspended there is still a need for fixed wing light utility aircraft for the other Army support, escort, ground surveillance, surveying, target towing, ATCP and ATCA roles currently carried out by the Cessna's.
        Replacement multi-role and modular aircraft capable of 24 hour flight in all weathers could be used in more roles such as personnel and equipment transport, air ambulance, MATS, parachuting, maritime patrol, SAR etc and take some of the workload of the heli fleet.
        Many of the tasking's that are normally carried out by the Cessna's have been taken on by the heli's over this last two years as the Cessna's workload has rapidly increased as a result of barrack closers.
        Any replacement is still going to be years away and the future of the GIV is going to priority.
        You could but most of those roles could be performed by the current fleet by higher utilisation (in some cases with better equipment and utility than the Cessna's).

        It would be cost benefit really.
        The associated cost of procuring say 2/3 replacement aircraft (more capable and with surveillance fit = more costly) of a new type to the AC (aircraft, spares, type & role training, type training for techs, possibly intergration issues of sensors etc....). Probably at a higher cost per flying hour compared to a Cessna (due to higher capability)

        Versus

        The cost of (depending on aircraft rotary wing conversion), type & role training for a Cessna pilots, existing type training for techs. Potential higher cost per hour of existing types. Possible new equipment (eg target towing pod for PC9 and more camera pods for 139s).

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
          You could but most of those roles could be performed by the current fleet by higher utilisation (in some cases with better equipment and utility than the Cessna's).

          It would be cost benefit really.
          The associated cost of procuring say 2/3 replacement aircraft (more capable and with surveillance fit = more costly) of a new type to the AC (aircraft, spares, type & role training, type training for techs, possibly intergration issues of sensors etc....). Probably at a higher cost per flying hour compared to a Cessna (due to higher capability)

          Versus

          The cost of (depending on aircraft rotary wing conversion), type & role training for a Cessna pilots, existing type training for techs. Potential higher cost per hour of existing types. Possible new equipment (eg target towing pod for PC9 and more camera pods for 139s).
          Getting more hours out of existing aircraft isn't a problem, not having enough aircraft to carry out multiple tasking's simultaneously is a problem.
          Sending a AW139 to carry out a tasking that could be done by an aircraft that costs a fifth of the cost to buy, with a third less crew, cost less to operate and maintain and would have greater speed, range and endurance is extremely wasteful of an asset that is in high demand.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
            Getting more hours out of existing aircraft isn't a problem, not having enough aircraft to carry out multiple tasking's simultaneously is a problem.
            Sending a AW139 to carry out a tasking that could be done by an aircraft that costs a fifth of the cost to buy, with a third less crew, cost less to operate and maintain and would have greater speed, range and endurance is extremely wasteful of an asset that is in high demand.
            I'm playing devils advocate (ie finance).

            With CIT the operational hours were there to justify a replacement

            Comment


            • Once again, the Don has got to the point where a relevant replacement of a type has turned into a circus because the aircraft has been kept in service for so long that it's peers and some of it's successors are even out of service or have mutated into hideously expensive toys. The Alouettes and Fougas are a case in point; they should have been replaced with Squirrels and Alpha Jets ten years before they were actually stood down. A one for one replacement Cessna 172 would probably set you back the thicker end of Eu 350,000 by the time you got it green paint in the Don. Even the Caravan, great aircraft and all as it is, is getting on a bit now. It may be the case, economy as it is, that the 172s will be allowed to wither on the vine, so to speak. If CIT cover is gone and target towing thinned out, not much left for it to do.

              Comment


              • The "Don" is weary of the 10yr+ struggle to replace these ageing aircraft. Even with a DCOS Ops no progress could be made on the issue despite numerous reports advocating replacement. The recent CIT decision which was probably based on financial rather than security concerns will undoubtedly have an input into the future of the Cessna fleet but they're still a very good state utility asset.

                Meanwhile, four years delayed we await the new White Paper (pre - xmas maybe? ) which SHOULD provide direction on future policy which in turn SHOULD direct aircraft procurement i.e. Cessna replacement etc.

                Comment


                • Yes, it will go around and around in circles, as per.

                  Comment


                  • Realistically, if the Cessnas were disposed of the resources may be better being spend on the helicopter fleet. Yes the AW139 will be more labour intensive, higher operating cost, etc but it is also bigger and more versatile.

                    Eg I'd say the inshore fisheries protection, wildlife & bog surveys, ATCP (if required) could all benefit from the ability to land locally, hover, FLIR, etc etc

                    Per flying hour it would be more costly compared to the Cessna but more hours could bring down the fixed flight costs per hour and it could do some jobs more efficiently.

                    The pilots (and techs) could also then do the rotary wing conversion and a larger pool would be available to support all helo ops. These would reduce complexity in HR planning and should increase aircraft availability.

                    The only thing the helos couldn't do is drogue towing. The Swiss use the PC9 with a podded drogue so they are available. Obviously there would be integration and certification issues.
                    Last edited by DeV; 26 June 2015, 14:30.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      The Swiss use the PC9 with a podded drogue so they are available. Obviously there would be integration and certification issues.
                      DeV, agree with all the previous points you made, 100%. Only thing I would say about the above is, I would not call them issues, I say they would have to be integrated and certified but one would hope that's a formality and well within the capability of the AC. One would hope.

                      Also, not related to the above ish but speaking of pods the use of the PC-9 in an ISR role also would enhance the capability of the fleet and justify the existence of the PC-9 further. A perfect example is a piece of kit called the "Self Contained Aerial Reconnaissance Pod" or S.C.A.R. Pod. Sort of self explanatory. But here's the links etc. etc.

                      ISR aircraft solution, System Integration, Surveillance Aircraft, Special Mission Aircraft, Multi Mission Aircraft, Surveillance Platform, ISR Platform, SCAR-Pod, Airborne LINX, Mission Management System, Mission Management Unit, Carbon Fibre, EASA Certification Radomes, Bracket, Workstation, Camera Lift




                      Some points from their website:

                      Originally designed for the Pilatus PC-9 single-engine turbo-prop training aircraft, the S.C.A.R.-Pod (Self Contained Aerial Reconnaissance Pod) can be integrated onto any Aircraft equipped with hard points.

                      Pod is completely self-sufficient and allows wireless operation. Data connection from pod to operator station is done via WIFI and needs no external cabling.

                      It offers room for an EO/IR Gimbal, Downlink, Uplink, Moving Map, Augmented Reality System and COMINT/SIGINT equipment.

                      Somewhere back, possibly along these pages I made an argument for same, gave a long scenario about catching drug runners in the early hours with the aid of a PC-9 in ISR mode, land and sea based assets all being able to see whats going on and it was all jolly good fun, but lo and behold, along comes the instant / simple/ not going to cost the world solution. The only thing it doesn't have ,,,,,,, the will or the vision to do it. That's down to the AC, but I think they would be much happier just rocking up to air shows and siht than doing anything like what were talking about. Working for a living (in a PC-9).

                      Where would I be without a pic or two?





                      Attached Files
                      We travel not for trafficking alone,
                      By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
                      For lust of knowing what should not be known,
                      We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FMP View Post
                        DeV, agree with all the previous points you made, 100%. Only thing I would say about the above is, I would not call them issues, I say they would have to be integrated and certified but one would hope that's a formality and well within the capability of the AC. One would hope.

                        Also, not related to the above ish but speaking of pods the use of the PC-9 in an ISR role also would enhance the capability of the fleet and justify the existence of the PC-9 further. A perfect example is a piece of kit called the "Self Contained Aerial Reconnaissance Pod" or S.C.A.R. Pod. Sort of self explanatory. But here's the links etc. etc.

                        ISR aircraft solution, System Integration, Surveillance Aircraft, Special Mission Aircraft, Multi Mission Aircraft, Surveillance Platform, ISR Platform, SCAR-Pod, Airborne LINX, Mission Management System, Mission Management Unit, Carbon Fibre, EASA Certification Radomes, Bracket, Workstation, Camera Lift




                        Some points from their website:

                        Originally designed for the Pilatus PC-9 single-engine turbo-prop training aircraft, the S.C.A.R.-Pod (Self Contained Aerial Reconnaissance Pod) can be integrated onto any Aircraft equipped with hard points.

                        Pod is completely self-sufficient and allows wireless operation. Data connection from pod to operator station is done via WIFI and needs no external cabling.

                        It offers room for an EO/IR Gimbal, Downlink, Uplink, Moving Map, Augmented Reality System and COMINT/SIGINT equipment.

                        Somewhere back, possibly along these pages I made an argument for same, gave a long scenario about catching drug runners in the early hours with the aid of a PC-9 in ISR mode, land and sea based assets all being able to see whats going on and it was all jolly good fun, but lo and behold, along comes the instant / simple/ not going to cost the world solution. The only thing it doesn't have ,,,,,,, the will or the vision to do it. That's down to the AC, but I think they would be much happier just rocking up to air shows and siht than doing anything like what were talking about. Working for a living (in a PC-9).

                        Where would I be without a pic or two?





                        And a requirement!

                        Wouldn't be a bad capability to have and would enable it to improve its utility.

                        Additional wiring etc may be required for the drogue pod to allow it to be reeled in/out

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FMP View Post
                          DeV, agree with all the previous points you made, 100%. Only thing I would say about the above is, I would not call them issues, I say they would have to be integrated and certified but one would hope that's a formality and well within the capability of the AC. One would hope.

                          Also, not related to the above ish but speaking of pods the use of the PC-9 in an ISR role also would enhance the capability of the fleet and justify the existence of the PC-9 further. A perfect example is a piece of kit called the "Self Contained Aerial Reconnaissance Pod" or S.C.A.R. Pod. Sort of self explanatory. But here's the links etc. etc.

                          ISR aircraft solution, System Integration, Surveillance Aircraft, Special Mission Aircraft, Multi Mission Aircraft, Surveillance Platform, ISR Platform, SCAR-Pod, Airborne LINX, Mission Management System, Mission Management Unit, Carbon Fibre, EASA Certification Radomes, Bracket, Workstation, Camera Lift




                          Some points from their website:

                          Originally designed for the Pilatus PC-9 single-engine turbo-prop training aircraft, the S.C.A.R.-Pod (Self Contained Aerial Reconnaissance Pod) can be integrated onto any Aircraft equipped with hard points.

                          Pod is completely self-sufficient and allows wireless operation. Data connection from pod to operator station is done via WIFI and needs no external cabling.

                          It offers room for an EO/IR Gimbal, Downlink, Uplink, Moving Map, Augmented Reality System and COMINT/SIGINT equipment.

                          Somewhere back, possibly along these pages I made an argument for same, gave a long scenario about catching drug runners in the early hours with the aid of a PC-9 in ISR mode, land and sea based assets all being able to see whats going on and it was all jolly good fun, but lo and behold, along comes the instant / simple/ not going to cost the world solution. The only thing it doesn't have ,,,,,,, the will or the vision to do it. That's down to the AC, but I think they would be much happier just rocking up to air shows and siht than doing anything like what were talking about. Working for a living (in a PC-9).

                          Where would I be without a pic or two?






                          Even 2 units would be an massive leap in capability for the AC. It would release the CASAs for their offshore work.
                          The PC9s would have a role in the AC besides training and airshows and a very limited interception capability.
                          If they could be fitted to the 139s and 135s and also the future Cessna replacement, them you have a very versitile AC.

                          Comment


                          • My thinking would be use the FLIR already on the AW139 and maybe this pod on the PC9s and there is your Cessna replacement.

                            The PC9s are more suited to limited ground attack/CAS than air interception.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              My thinking would be use the FLIR already on the AW139 and maybe this pod on the PC9s and there is your Cessna replacement.

                              The PC9s are more suited to limited ground attack/CAS than air interception.

                              Yes very true, but the AC and the Dail are always saying that that is one of thier main roles!!

                              Comment


                              • Something like 3km of cable in the pod

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X