CASA Replacement

[DeV]

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

[DeV]

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)

[DeV]

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.

[Anzac]

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.

[DeV]

They have a Reciprocal Technical Standard Order (TSO) Acceptance agreement. Also STANAG for NATO member countries applies.

and where the regs differ?

[apod]

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

[DeV]

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

[DeV]

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)

[ropebag]

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.

[zone 1]

they will buy what fits in the hanger

[DeV]

Realistically if we want an aircraft capable of carrying a vehicle we need a C27 / C130

[Chuck]

@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.

[hptmurphy]

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

[GoneToTheCanner]

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.

[Jetjock]

...They can be refurbished and sold on to some low end user as basic transports.

I hate to point out the obvious but......

[hptmurphy]

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!

[na grohmití]

they will buy what fits in the hanger

They didn't bother doing that with the G4.

[DeV]

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

[Herald]

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

[pym]

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.

[apod]

For the Naysayers.Just a sample of what is out there.


https://www.wired.com/2014/04/navy-phantom-badger/

[GoneToTheCanner]

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.

[Sparky42]

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...

[DeV]

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

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...

[apc]

As we will never get the C130 it seems the best of a small lot