Thanks Thanks:  77
Likes Likes:  170
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 196
  1. #1
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like

    CASA Replacement

    Maritime Patrol a/c RFP published

    Primary role maritime surveillance, may also be used for air ambulance, evacuation, transport, SAR and MATS

    Deadline 20 June 18 (followed by restricted tendering)

    Intended that the a/c will provide a degree of utility for transport of personnel and cargo for general and routine logs support for DF and specific support to ARW. Capable of supporting existing Joint Common Operational Picture.

    Annual fleet output of up to 3000 hours

    Single a/c type or multiple variants of single type

    Existing proven product not a prototype
    Full digital avonics
    Suitable for use in Irish EEZ and continental shelf
    Multi-engine
    Pressurised

    Operate 500nm off shore with 4 hour loiter plus standard reserve

    STOL
    360 degree surface search radar (200nm range), EO Camera, AIS, 2 observer windows
    Toilet, galley, rest area
    3 droppable life rafts, flares and markers

    Para ops
    CASEVAC

    Min 6 tonnes of cargo / at least 20 fully equipped troops

    Fully NATO and PfP interoperable

  2. Thanks Sparky42, apod, Flamingo, Spark23, restless, ias, meridian thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití, apod, sofa, meridian liked this post
  3. #2
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,189
    Post Thanks / Like
    Forgive my ignorance but any suggestion as to whether it's a straight 1 for 1 replacement or transport and MPA's?

  4. #3
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Forgive my ignorance but any suggestion as to whether it's a straight 1 for 1 replacement or transport and MPA's?
    Strangely there is no indication of the quantity

    It can be
    (a) a single variant (eg a palletised maritime surveillance suite), or
    (b) multiple variants of the same type (eg a (fixed) maritime surveillance a/c and a transport a/c but they must be the same type (for example we could get 2 blue CASAs and 1 green))

  5. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  6. #4
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Strangely there is no indication of the quantity
    So an initial order with the opportunity to exercise further options as per the naval OPVs?

    The P60s started off as a firm requirement of two?

  7. #5
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    So an initial order with the opportunity to exercise further options as per the naval OPVs?

    The P60s started off as a firm requirement of two?
    no there is absolutely no indication it will probably be had restricted tender stage

  8. #6
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,189
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    So an initial order with the opportunity to exercise further options as per the naval OPVs?

    The P60s started off as a firm requirement of two?
    Wasn't that a bit different with the original contract having the option for the third ship, leave p64 out of it.

  9. #7
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Wasn't that a bit different with the original contract having the option for the third ship, leave p64 out of it.
    That's my point. In this case numbers aren't mentioned so options can be introduced later on? Just a thought.

  10. #8
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    That's my point. In this case numbers aren't mentioned so options can be introduced later on? Just a thought.
    I suspect that the RFP could be see how much and what is offered before the RFT says how many

  11. Thanks Orion thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  12. #9
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    Would look to me like Casa CN235 again or C295.

    Outsider maybe a C27J.

    Para capability/ARW support would seem to make a converted Bizjet / Regional airliner unlikely.

    Small cargo/troop capability means they're not looking for a C130 variant.
    Last edited by pym; 14th May 2018 at 22:04.

  13. #10
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by pym View Post
    Would look to me like Casa CN235 again or C295.
    6 tonnes would appear to be C235 capacity, not sure about the range

    Para capability/ARW support would seem to make a converted Bizjet / Regional airliner unlikely.
    and lifeboat dropping

    Small cargo/troop capability means they're not looking for a C130 variant.
    thats the minimum

  14. Likes Spark23 liked this post
  15. #11
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    328
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sounds Like a C-295 Capacity and Range

  16. #12
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    151
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Maritime Patrol a/c RFP published

    Primary role maritime surveillance, may also be used for air ambulance, evacuation, transport, SAR and MATS

    Deadline 20 June 18 (followed by restricted tendering)

    Intended that the a/c will provide a degree of utility for transport of personnel and cargo for general and routine logs support for DF and specific support to ARW. Capable of supporting existing Joint Common Operational Picture.

    Annual fleet output of up to 3000 hours

    Single a/c type or multiple variants of single type

    Existing proven product not a prototype
    Full digital avonics
    Suitable for use in Irish EEZ and continental shelf
    Multi-engine
    Pressurised

    Operate 500nm off shore with 4 hour loiter plus standard reserve

    STOL
    360 degree surface search radar (200nm range), EO Camera, AIS, 2 observer windows
    Toilet, galley, rest area
    3 droppable life rafts, flares and markers

    Para ops
    CASEVAC

    Min 6 tonnes of cargo / at least 20 fully equipped troops

    Fully NATO and PfP interoperable
    Up to 3000 annual flying hours is the interesting part. A 1:1 replacement ratio would not work if that was the aspiration so hopefully it is a sign that they are realistically in the market for at least 4 airframes. The C-295W looks like a strong contender.

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  18. #13
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like
    Any chance of a link to the published document?

    @Anzac - The current Casa's are doing barely 300 hrs per year.

    There won't be 4 aircraft. It will be two with an option of a third. Key words being "up to".

  19. #14
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Any chance of a link to the published document?

    @Anzac - The current Casa's are doing barely 300 hrs per year.

    There won't be 4 aircraft. It will be two with an option of a third. Key words being "up to".
    You need to Register
    https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/pu...=ctm/Supplier/

    Operational hours (doesn’t includ training etc)
    2016 - 907 Hrs (plus unknown hours for 34 ATCA missions)
    2015 - 1247 Hrs
    2014 - 1525 Hrs
    2013 - 1649 Hrs
    2012 - 1428 Hrs

    There may have been an aircraft out of service in 2016

  20. #15
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    You need to Register
    https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/pu...=ctm/Supplier/

    Operational hours (doesn’t includ training etc)
    2016 - 907 Hrs (plus unknown hours for 34 ATCA missions)
    2015 - 1247 Hrs
    2014 - 1525 Hrs
    2013 - 1649 Hrs
    2012 - 1428 Hrs

    There may have been an aircraft out of service in 2016
    Thanks Dev.

    Not sure when the hours for 2017 will be released but expect them to be lower than 2016.

    Servicability and reliability are becoming a major issue and if rumours are to be believed, the CASA replacement programme is being prioritised over the MRV programme as a result. And rightly so.

    Hopefully the DOD will get their finger out and not drag the arse out of this tender as they did with the cessna replacement tender.

    Contracts signed by mid to end of 2019 and first aircraft in 2020 followed by another in 2021 is my guess.

    The pool of candidates is quite small so it shouldn't take a long time to put together. Interoperability with NATO/PfP missions can be almost copy and pasted from the cessna replacement tender.

    Would be great to see something procured with a decent airlift ability but its unlikely. Casa 295 would be my guess. Its an easier sell to the public to say you upgraded your ford focus with another newer ford focus rather than something a bit more 'premium' or expensive.

  21. Likes Sparky42, EUFighter liked this post
  22. #16
    Commander in Chief apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    5,003
    Post Thanks / Like
    From a Military tactics point of view.Three would be an optimal number. If we got the C-295 M the Wing would have the capacity to fly to a foreign country in one airframe.Have a second airframe that could take up to three light Vehicles(dunno would the SRV's fit??) to provide mobility on arrival and have a third airframe that could take up to 71 evacuees back home whilst also providing redundancy.

    Don't forget the possible situations where we might need to send the unit overseas at short notice and to bring Irish/EU citizens home.
    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

  23. #17
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    From a Military tactics point of view.Three would be an optimal number. If we got the C-295 M the Wing would have the capacity to fly to a foreign country in one airframe.Have a second airframe that could take up to three light Vehicles(dunno would the SRV's fit??) to provide mobility on arrival and have a third airframe that could take up to 71 evacuees back home whilst also providing redundancy.

    Don't forget the possible situations where we might need to send the unit overseas at short notice and to bring Irish/EU citizens home.
    C295 is only a stretched 235 , which doesn't have the actually capacity volume wise to carry anything bigger than a pajero. yes it has greater capacity passenger wise and weight wise, is longer with a greater wing span but the interior dimensions haven't changed

    So is it really suitable for the missons you envisage?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC-390

    I think we need to make the jump from aircraft of that capabilty to something like the Embraer KC 390, one of which visited the Don in the past few months.
    Time for another break I think......

  24. Likes Spark23, EUFighter liked this post
  25. #18
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,189
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why in gods name should we go for another "development" aircraft. The KC 390 isn't in service and down to 1 test aircraft after writing off the other one. Given the slow down in the Brazilian economy who knows if they can keep to the planned timeframe, and then you get into the MPA issue as well.

  26. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  27. #19
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Thanks Dev.

    Not sure when the hours for 2017 will be released but expect them to be lower than 2016.

    Servicability and reliability are becoming a major issue and if rumours are to be believed, the CASA replacement programme is being prioritised over the MRV programme as a result. And rightly so.

    Hopefully the DOD will get their finger out and not drag the arse out of this tender as they did with the cessna replacement tender.

    Contracts signed by mid to end of 2019 and first aircraft in 2020 followed by another in 2021 is my guess.

    The pool of candidates is quite small so it shouldn't take a long time to put together. Interoperability with NATO/PfP missions can be almost copy and pasted from the cessna replacement tender.

    Would be great to see something procured with a decent airlift ability but its unlikely. Casa 295 would be my guess. Its an easier sell to the public to say you upgraded your ford focus with another newer ford focus rather than something a bit more 'premium' or expensive.
    The RFT was overly delayed in its issue for the Cessna replacement (I’d say waiting on money), it was issued May 2017, contract signed December 2017 (first fully missionised aircraft due for delivery within 12 months (2 in 2019 (cheque must have been postdated) and 3rd within 24 months (2020)).

    They are taking a more cautious approach here with the CASA replacement, possibly to see what is offered and the best VFM (a larger aircraft might be offered that would be advantageous but more money may be required). The closing date for the RFP is 20 June.

    I’d say that the earliest a RFT could be issued would be September.

  28. #20
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Why in gods name should we go for another "development" aircraft. The KC 390 isn't in service and down to 1 test aircraft after writing off the other one. Given the slow down in the Brazilian economy who knows if they can keep to the planned timeframe, and then you get into the MPA issue as well.
    This liked in error

    That’s it immediately ruled out from the RFP

  29. Likes apod liked this post
  30. #21
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apod View Post
    From a Military tactics point of view.Three would be an optimal number. If we got the C-295 M the Wing would have the capacity to fly to a foreign country in one airframe.Have a second airframe that could take up to three light Vehicles(dunno would the SRV's fit??) to provide mobility on arrival and have a third airframe that could take up to 71 evacuees back home whilst also providing redundancy.

    Don't forget the possible situations where we might need to send the unit overseas at short notice and to bring Irish/EU citizens home.
    i dont think its possible to get over in words quite how small the C-295 actually is inside - a Pln+ with MG's/ATGW/mortars etc.. would be fine, but if you're talking about driving off the ramp and onwards to deeds of daring-do, then you're talking about ATV's and bikes. to get a small vehicle on board means stripping it of everything above the screen washers - nothing poking up, nothing poking out the side, and you could just about crawl over it.

    the aircraft would have to stop, the vehichle driven/rolled down the ramp, the blokes get off, put all the gear back in/on it, re-attach any weapons, ECM or ISR, and then go. if you're then talking about herding non-combattants on to it at 3am at - for example -a chaotic Tripoli airport, then you'll be leaving the vehicles behind...

    a Chinook felt bigger.

  31. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  32. #22
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,996
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Thanks Dev.

    Not sure when the hours for 2017 will be released but expect them to be lower than 2016.

    Servicability and reliability are becoming a major issue and if rumours are to be believed, the CASA replacement programme is being prioritised over the MRV programme as a result. And rightly so.

    Hopefully the DOD will get their finger out and not drag the arse out of this tender as they did with the cessna replacement tender.

    Contracts signed by mid to end of 2019 and first aircraft in 2020 followed by another in 2021 is my guess.

    The pool of candidates is quite small so it shouldn't take a long time to put together. Interoperability with NATO/PfP missions can be almost copy and pasted from the cessna replacement tender.

    Would be great to see something procured with a decent airlift ability but its unlikely. Casa 295 would be my guess. Its an easier sell to the public to say you upgraded your ford focus with another newer ford focus rather than something a bit more 'premium' or expensive.
    The RFT was overly delayed in its issue for the Cessna replacement (I’d say waiting on money), it was issued May 2017, contract signed December 2017 (first fully missionised aircraft due for delivery within 12 months (2 in 2019 (cheque must have been postdated) and 3rd within 24 months (2020)).

    They are taking a more cautious approach here with the CASA replacement, possibly to see what is offered and the best VFM (a larger aircraft might be offered that would be advantageous but more money may be required). The closing date for the RFP is 20 June.

    I’d say that the earliest a RFT could be issued would be September.


    Not forgetting shortages of pilots, SAROs, other aircrew and techs

  33. #23
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    328
    Post Thanks / Like
    I suppose the real question is: Do they want a CN-235 Replacement with slightly more capability, or do they want a Genuine Military Air-lifter that can also multi task as an MPA.

    I think a review of current Fisheries Protection Flying might be worthwhile, for example if you remove the requirement for Low Level(Below 1000ft) inspection of each vessel and instead use an EO/IR to take the appropriate snapshot and gather data for logging, you therefore can patrol a much larger area per patrol and therefore a bigger platform can make sense given the areas covered.

    You remove the perception of overkill as you patrol a much larger area more efficiently.

    In the process a larger airframe becomes viable with the associated advantages as a genuine air-lifter.

    I don't believe a Pajero would fit in a C-295

  34. Likes ropebag, Spark23, hptmurphy liked this post
  35. #24
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,843
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    ...I don't believe a Pajero would fit in a C-295
    oh it would - if you drove it fast enough up the ramp and weren't worried about whether the 295 would ever fly again...

  36. Likes Charlie252, DeV, Sparky42, Spark23, hptmurphy, sofa liked this post
  37. #25
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The RFT was overly delayed in its issue for the Cessna replacement (I’d say waiting on money), it was issued May 2017, contract signed December 2017 (first fully missionised aircraft due for delivery within 12 months (2 in 2019 (cheque must have been postdated) and 3rd within 24 months (2020)).

    They are taking a more cautious approach here with the CASA replacement, possibly to see what is offered and the best VFM (a larger aircraft might be offered that would be advantageous but more money may be required). The closing date for the RFP is 20 June.

    I’d say that the earliest a RFT could be issued would be September.


    Not forgetting shortages of pilots, SAROs, other aircrew and techs
    Dev, what you are not aware of is that the tender spec took over 3 years to be completed due to interference from; (and this list is not exhaustive) the DoD civvies, the blurry faces (who fought tooth and nail for an unpressurised aircraft so they could sport jump a couple of days a year) and the general staff who outside of the GOCAC who have no idea about avaition, but stuck their nose in anyway. Wonder how many AC pers were involved in the naval ship replacement program.

    Anyway. While the cessna tender process appeared swift. It was far from it. The process to decide the tender spec took 3 years.

    Be assured that the Casa project has also been running in the background since 2015. Here's hoping it doesnt suffer the same fate as the cessna.
    Last edited by Chuck; 15th May 2018 at 17:36.

  38. Thanks Charlie252, Sparky42 thanked for 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
  •