Thanks Thanks:  77
Likes Likes:  170
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 196
  1. #51
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Not really as you need to have specialised lifting equipment to get stuff in and out which restricts your away from base abilities .
    note cargo didn’t specify - it could be small parcels

    It all depends on what’s offered by manufacturers

  2. #52
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    Chapter and verse:

    As detailed in Appendix 3, the FSB has determined that, IAW AC 120-53A , CN-235-300G aircraft retrofitted with Universal EFI 890/IEDS qualify for Level C Training, Checking and Currency. Accordingly, pilots operating the CN-235-300G fall under the Same Pilot Type Rating “C-295.”
    The FAA isn’t EASA (or AC MAA).

    Both the C235 and C295 require licence endorsements (C235 and C295 listed separately), is a conplex aircraft and requires multi-pilot.

    And Part 66 type rating endorsements (c235 and c295 listed separately)
    Last edited by DeV; 16th May 2018 at 13:29.

  3. #53
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The AW139 was never supposed to be the final link in the chain.

    The original assessment from 1997 was that it was envisaged that the AC would have three types of helo, all with different roles with the AW139 being the low to medium lift cpability. The third type was scratched with the cock up around the S92 tender as there was no way back to tender for another type without having the same issues being highlighted. It was reckoned at the time that the Super Puma/ Cougar would have been the alternative to S92, but the budget was long gone once the AW139 was selected.
    Incorrect
    The Gazelle, Alouette and Dauphin were all to be replaced to a single type (Squirrel was indicated due to commonality to GASU at the time).

    Then 4 medium lift helicopters were to be purchased


    The single type contract was never progressed and they decided to go for the medium lift first.... and we know the result.

    They then decided that medium lift was off the table (no mentions after the S92).

    At this stage, the complete heli fleet needed replacement so they went for 2 types.

    In effect, the AW139 is a combination of the single type and medium lift - not that I agree with it.
    Last edited by DeV; 16th May 2018 at 13:35.

  4. Thanks Spark23 thanked for this post
    Likes Spark23 liked this post
  5. #54
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The FAA isn’t EASA (or AC MAA).

    Both the C235 and C295 require licence endorsements (C235 and C295 listed separately), is a conplex aircraft and requires multi-pilot.

    And Part 66 type rating endorsements (c235 and c295 listed separately)
    They have a Reciprocal Technical Standard Order (TSO) Acceptance agreement. Also STANAG for NATO member countries applies.

  6. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  7. #55
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    They have a Reciprocal Technical Standard Order (TSO) Acceptance agreement. Also STANAG for NATO member countries applies.
    and where the regs differ?

  8. #56
    Commander in Chief apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    5,019
    Post Thanks / Like
    Up to the point where you introduced the concept of the 295 carrying a vehicle I'm in full agreement, but we don't have anything suitable to be carried other than motor bikes or quads....
    Fair point.We are in agreement that we currently don't have a vehicle that will fit.Who knows what the future will bring though especially since the SRV's are in service since 2004 and have been flogged to death since then.
    A newer smaller vehicle may be purchased to fit, specific to role.
    Maybe
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  9. #57
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    Fair point.We are in agreement that we currently don't have a vehicle that will fit.Who knows what the future will bring though especially since the SRV's are in service since 2004 and have been flogged to death since then.
    A newer smaller vehicle may be purchased to fit, specific to role.
    Maybe
    which will have a roll cage like the SRVs

  10. #58
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    The USCG has HC-130J’s and HC-130H’s (which are being replaced and at least some sold to the US Forestry Service

    They also have HC-27J’s (plan is to upgrade them to give them a surface search radar and EO turret).

    Apart from the CASA 235 and 295, I can’t think of anything else (cargo aircraft with ramp and in service martitme patrol fit)

  11. #59
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,847
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    Fair point.We are in agreement that we currently don't have a vehicle that will fit.Who knows what the future will bring though especially since the SRV's are in service since 2004 and have been flogged to death since then.
    A newer smaller vehicle may be purchased to fit, specific to role.
    Maybe
    Genuinely mate, the only sized vehicle that could do a 'drive off' from a C295 is a Fiat 500 convertible.

    If you can come up with something useful that fits within that footprint then fine, crack on and buy two dozen for the long haired mob - but from what I can see such a vehicle would be so compromised in how much and what it could carry that it wouldn't be worth the budget that the vehicle and the C-295 would suck out of the DF.

  12. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy, morpheus liked this post
  13. #60
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    tip of iceland
    Posts
    252
    Post Thanks / Like
    they will buy what fits in the hanger

  14. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  15. #61
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Realistically if we want an aircraft capable of carrying a vehicle we need a C27 / C130

  16. #62
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like
    @Anzac.

    I would love to see 3-4 aircraft purchased and agree that provided they had techies to maintain them, pilots to fly them and ATC to launch them, they could find the business for them.

    Historically (the last 30 years) the AC have done nothing but downsize.

    I honestly, genuinely, cannot see them purchasing more than 3 aircraft.

    Despite the recent social and security changes in the western world the fact remains that the DF wont ever be taken seriously.

    Talk of a KC-390/C-130 is utter fantasy. Unfortunately.

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  18. #63
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Realistically if we want an aircraft capable of carrying a vehicle we need a C27 / C130
    Has to be currently in production or so says the spec. C27 is no longer in production. Finished in 2016.

    Apart from the CASA 235 and 295, I can’t think of anything else (cargo aircraft with ramp and in service martitme patrol fit
    I did say that in an earlier post last .....

    A newer smaller vehicle may be purchased to fit, specific to role
    That Polish 'yoke' in your earlier picture?.......

    Historically (the last 30 years) the AC have done nothing but downsize
    I would have said 'consolidated' rather than down size......30 years ago we had too many types at trying to do different things with a mixed bag of aircraft. we could do with more of what we have as opposed to more types.


    Talk of a KC-390/C-130 is utter fantasy. Unfortunately.
    Maybe next time.....

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-Embra...Hercules-C-130
    Time for another break I think......

  19. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  20. #64
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,555
    Post Thanks / Like
    Historically, the Don bit itself on the ass with the Dauphin and has done something of the same with the 139s; the Army hates the RG-32M it inflicted on itself so there is an incentive right there not to repeat history and get an inadequate/costly aircraft or get stuck with a shitty contract for servicing. It looks like the 295 is the only game in town. The 235s, having been banged around at low level for much of their total flight hours, might only be viable to keep on or sell for decent money if the DoD is prepared to give them a thorough overhaul, so they may not generate much return/offset of the cost of a trio of 295s. I wouldn't have much faith in the DoD doing that.

  21. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  22. #65
    Captain Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,740
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    ...They can be refurbished and sold on to some low end user as basic transports.
    I hate to point out the obvious but......

  23. Likes ropebag, hptmurphy, pym, ias liked this post
  24. #66
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,528
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetjock View Post
    I hate to point out the obvious but......
    There are worse off!!!!!!!

    recent AFM article on 3rd world airforces makes the AC look positively progressive!
    Time for another break I think......

  25. Dislikes Spark23 disliked this post
  26. #67
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by zone 1 View Post
    they will buy what fits in the hanger
    They didn't bother doing that with the G4.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  27. Likes Spark23 liked this post
  28. #68
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Historically, the Don bit itself on the ass with the Dauphin and has done something of the same with the 139s; the Army hates the RG-32M it inflicted on itself so there is an incentive right there not to repeat history and get an inadequate/costly aircraft or get stuck with a shitty contract for servicing. It looks like the 295 is the only game in town. The 235s, having been banged around at low level for much of their total flight hours, might only be viable to keep on or sell for decent money if the DoD is prepared to give them a thorough overhaul, so they may not generate much return/offset of the cost of a trio of 295s. I wouldn't have much faith in the DoD doing that.
    And look at the outcry

  29. #69
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    816
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Genuinely mate, the only sized vehicle that could do a 'drive off' from a C295 is a Fiat 500 convertible.

    If you can come up with something useful that fits within that footprint then fine, crack on and buy two dozen for the long haired mob - but from what I can see such a vehicle would be so compromised in how much and what it could carry that it wouldn't be worth the budget that the vehicle and the C-295 would suck out of the DF.
    WrgzNS.jpg
    Last edited by Herald; 16th May 2018 at 22:24.

  30. Likes DeV, na grohmití, ias, hptmurphy, Tempest liked this post
  31. #70
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,992
    Post Thanks / Like
    This discussion has happened in the past:

    - Why not keep the Marchetti as a primary trainer, before letting novice pilots loose on the PC-9?
    - Why not keep the Dauphin, or Allouettes, instead of replacing them completely with the AW139/EC135?

    I strongly believe, whatever the merits of the above, or keeping the CN235s as dedicated transports - whatever - the people holding the purse strings would simply say: look either these aircraft require replacement or they don't, so keeping them is a non starter. So the aircraft get sold on for nothing and live a new life elsewhere - I fully expect the same to happen with the CN235s.

    I think the only small chance for it to happen would be if EADs actually offered a rock bottom price for zero-houring them as part of a deal for two new C295s, as an alternative to 3x295s.

    As an aside - I'm disappointed that yet again ropebag has violated opsec on this site and revealed the existence of the ARWs tactical Fiat 500s.
    Last edited by pym; 16th May 2018 at 22:01.

  32. Likes DeV, Sparky42, Spark23, ropebag liked this post
  33. #71
    Commander in Chief apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    5,019
    Post Thanks / Like
    For the Naysayers.Just a sample of what is out there.


    https://www.wired.com/2014/04/navy-phantom-badger/
    Infantry Corps - An Lámh Comhrac


    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  34. Thanks ropebag, hptmurphy thanked for this post
  35. #72
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,555
    Post Thanks / Like
    All that banging around at low level over the sea means that the 235s are essentially worth no more than their engines and avionics by the time the Don rolls out the replacements and the world is full of old turboprops, so I wouldn't be surprised if they ended their days after the Air Corps as Coke cans. You might see an actual miracle and the DoD buy a 295 as a genuine utility aircraft, alongside the MARPAT airframes, because I have no faith in the notion that it would become practise to keep stripping out palletised mission kit. A lot of operators found that the constant stripping out and refitting of palletised systems only increased wear and tear on the kit and the parent hull and the manufacturer's boasts of an hour or two to do same needs always to be taken with a pinch of salt. There seems to be some mental block in the DoD that the AC might have an actual use for a pure cargo/utility aircraft.

  36. Thanks Spark23 thanked for this post
    Likes Spark23 liked this post
  37. #73
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    For the Naysayers.Just a sample of what is out there.


    https://www.wired.com/2014/04/navy-phantom-badger/
    I do love the fact that they had to go off and build a new vehicle just so something could fit inside the Osprey. I mean I know it had development hell but did nobody stop and think about that when they were writing the spec, I mean it's not like they could have it on a sling while in aircraft mode...

  38. Likes ropebag liked this post
  39. #74
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    All that banging around at low level over the sea means that the 235s are essentially worth no more than their engines and avionics by the time the Don rolls out the replacements and the world is full of old turboprops, so I wouldn't be surprised if they ended their days after the Air Corps as Coke cans. You might see an actual miracle and the DoD buy a 295 as a genuine utility aircraft, alongside the MARPAT airframes, because I have no faith in the notion that it would become practise to keep stripping out palletised mission kit. A lot of operators found that the constant stripping out and refitting of palletised systems only increased wear and tear on the kit and the parent hull and the manufacturer's boasts of an hour or two to do same needs always to be taken with a pinch of salt. There seems to be some mental block in the DoD that the AC might have an actual use for a pure cargo/utility aircraft.
    I’d say like the PC12s - 3 aircraft (all with radar and FLIR etc) and 2 palletised suites.

    The intend being when the transport a/c goes U/S (say for overhaul) you have a replacement.

    The palletised system also means for ambulance, if there isn’t one already, develop an air ambulance pallet with the stretcher etc permanently on it. That way with the suite fitted you just change the last pallet

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    I do love the fact that they had to go off and build a new vehicle just so something could fit inside the Osprey. I mean I know it had development hell but did nobody stop and think about that when they were writing the spec, I mean it's not like they could have it on a sling while in aircraft mode...

  40. #75
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    601
    Post Thanks / Like
    As we will never get the C130 it seems the best of a small lot

    Last edited by apc; 17th May 2018 at 10:32.

  41. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •