Thanks Thanks:  71
Likes Likes:  169
Dislikes Dislikes:  10
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 184
  1. #26
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    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
    Put it this way the RFP says “... primary role... maritime surveillance... may also be used for a broader range of tasks.”

    “.... a degree of utility for transport of personnel and cargo...”

    It also gives the option that we could get dedicated MPAs and utility transports (of the same type)

    That is I suppose part of the reason they decided to do a RFP. So for example Airbus could offer (a) C295 dedicated MPAs and C295 transport, and/or (b) C295s with palletised suite, and/or (c) C295s with palletised suite and C295 transport



    I believe the low level requirement comes from a requirement for visual evidence of fishing gear being in the water
    Last edited by DeV; 15th May 2018 at 17:54.

  2. #27
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blurry face types require a pressurized aircraft with on board oxygen system for their parachuting requirements I’d imagine, I feel this is definitely a case where two different aircraft types are required for different roles

  3. #28
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    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.
    I know it took a long long time to get to RFT stage for the Pc12s

    Where this differs is the RFP is quite specific in some requirements so realistically the RFT stage will be more a size/quantity/suite configuration issue

    But remember this RFP says the aircraft must for example be pressured and be capable of conducting HALO/HAHO jumps. So either way all those type offered will have similar capabilities.

  4. #29
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark23 View Post
    Blurry face types require a pressurized aircraft with on board oxygen system for their parachuting requirements I’d imagine, I feel this is definitely a case where two different aircraft types are required for different roles
    It’s a requirement in the RFP.

    It has to be a single aircraft type (but can be multiple variants).

    I think they can be done from the existing CASAs

  5. #30
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,920
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?
    I am well aware of the pros and Cons of the 295. To anwer your question.Yes.I do. I will explain my thinking below.



    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    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.
    Ok. 100% agree but this is where we are at now.
    We have ZERO airlift capacity other than an executive jet and two very limited MPA's.

    IF Irish nationals need getting out of some shitty situation abroad we can get a platoon of Rangers there but we can't EVAC anything more than 1 or 2 people AND bring those troops home at the same time.On top of that they are going to be going in with zero in the way of heavy weapons as to move them quickly you need vehicles.Also what happens if the area is large or the Hostages/Evacuees are in dispersed locations?What happens if any of those citizens are non ambulatory?

    Ideally to carry out those tasks we need the likes of a C-130 or two but are we likely to get them? Probably not. So.We make do with the best we can get and find an Irish solution to an Irish problem.If it's between nothing and something I will take something any day.Oh and BTW in no way am I suggesting using them for the likes of TALO missions as a C295 is completely unsuited to that but if you could bring a few small vehicles and press them into service on site for the taks I outlined?

    That beats walking wearing 70-80Ibs of Kit in 40 Deg heat.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_C...-295M_(20).jpg
    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

  6. Thanks DeV, CTU, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, CTU liked this post
  7. #31
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,982
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think an 2X MARPAT suites, 3x EO turrets. 3x aircraft all equipped with HF and Satcom would do me.

  8. Likes DeV liked this post
  9. #32
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,456
    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.
    Embraer are a very capable company and supply some very good aircraft in the commuter mid range.

    The Brazilian airforce has ordered 28 with a further six to be sold to a Singapore defence contractor.

    But again its down to the perception of the mission required. Unless you step up from CASA 235 /295 you are essentially buying an MPA.

    I am well aware of the pros and Cons of the 295. To answer your question.Yes.I do. I will explain my thinking below.
    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....

    C130s in any form are expensive , a new C130 J will set you back $67 million ,and older ones take a lot of looking after, friend of mine work on the ex SAFAIR ones that operated out of Dublin , good tough reliable aircraft but with the usual American quirks

    C27 Spartans are out of production since 2016 with all the former US coast guard aircraft being sold to Greece.

    ATR 72 MPA has no ramp..so its a pure MPA and there is really nothing else new off the shelf that fits the spec and certainly nothing that could deploy ARW plus vehicles to far off lands....unless you want to buy something Russian ..and thats not happening.

    However you can have some of these as no one except the Japanese want them

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2

    So if you want a MPA , already in production, proven,with ramp on the low end of the scale.... there really is only one option.....C295... but it won't be everything to every man.
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 15th May 2018 at 21:26.
    Time for another break I think......

  10. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
  11. #33
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Embraer are a very capable company and supply some very good aircraft in the commuter mid range.

    The Brazilian airforce has ordered 28 with a further six to be sold to a Singapore defence contractor.

    But again its down to the perception of the mission required. Unless you step up from CASA 235 /295 you are essentially buying an MPA.

    "... must be an existing proven aircraft and not a prototype.... proven record of manufacturing this type of aircraftr and providing similar types of aircraft .... in last three years."

  12. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  13. #34
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Embraer are a very capable company and supply some very good aircraft in the commuter mid range.

    The Brazilian airforce has ordered 28 with a further six to be sold to a Singapore defence contractor.

    But again its down to the perception of the mission required. Unless you step up from CASA 235 /295 you are essentially buying an MPA.
    Airbus is a very capable company and supply good aircraft... And the A400 project has been "less than ideal". Assuming that Embraer can finish the test program and ramp up into full production without anymore issues seems risky to me.

    And how many have been delivered? What's their rate of production? Is their an MPA suite ready to go to be fitted to provide for that area?

  14. Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  15. #35
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Request for Proposals For the supply of Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) to the Irish Defence Forces
    11 May 2018

    The following is a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the supply of Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) to the Department of Defence, Ireland for use by the Irish Defence Forces. The primary role of these new aircraft will be the conduct of maritime surveillance operations, although they may also be used for a broader range of tasks. These include air ambulance missions, evacuation missions, transport of materiel, search and rescue top cover and occasionally ministerial air transport.

    It is intended that these aircraft will also provide a degree of utility for transport of personnel and cargo for general and routine logistic support to the Irish Defence Forces and specific support to Irish Special Operation Forces (SOF). The aircraft will be capable of supporting the existing Irish Defence Forces Joint Common Operational Picture (JCOP).

    Taking due regard to the requirement to conduct multiple roles with an annual fleet output of up to three thousand (3000) hours, Respondents’ proposals can include single aircraft type or multi-variants of a single-aircraft-type solutions.

    Stage 1 will consist of this Request for Proposals Stage based on the Statement of Requirement outlined in this document, plus the Respondent’s ability to meet the qualification criteria as outlined hereunder. Respondents who are judged to meet the qualification standards will be invited to advance to Stage 2. This will consist of a Restricted Tender competition based on a detailed specification and associated requirements which will be issued at the commencement of that stage.

    Proposals must be received not later than 12 noon (local time) on 20 June 2018.

    a. The Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) offered must be an existing proven product and not a prototype. Any aircraft manufacturer responding to this request for proposals must provide evidence of being a manufacturer, with a proven record of manufacturing this type of aircraft and providing similar types of aircraft to other customers in the last three years.

    b. The aircraft must be built to EASA CS25 or equivalent standard. All additional items fitted to the aircraft must have manufacturers’ Supplemental Type Certification (STC). Due to the expected operational lifespan of these aircraft, any aircraft proposed must be newly built with a full digital avionics suite.

    c. All airframes, engines, sensors, navigation and ancillary equipment must be optimised for operation in Ireland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and extended continental shelf, and the prevailing weather conditions in and around the island of Ireland, operating in multiple flight profile configurations.

    d. The aircraft must be a multi-engine, pressurised aircraft capable of independently operating up to 500 nautical miles off-shore and loiter in the vicinity for up to four (4) hours before returning to the same base, retaining standard IFR Fuel reserves.

    e. The aircraft must be capable of Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) performance.

    f. The aircraft must be capable of supporting a 360 degree surface search radar with a 200 nautical mile range, an Electro-Optical camera system, and an Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracking capability.

    g. The aircraft must have a compartmentalised toilet with remote servicing point, a galley and be capable of being fitted with a crew rest area.

    h. The aircraft must be fitted with at least two observer windows.

    i. The aircraft must be capable of operating in a Search and Rescue configuration, with the ability to carry at least 3 x 10 person droppable life rafts, and an ability to launch illumination flares and Surface Locator Markers.

    j. The aircraft must be capable of operating in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) environment. The aircraft must be configured to comply with relevant NATO STANAGs concerning flight rules, procedures, regulations, training, performance, navigation, safety, in-flight identification and communications in uncontrolled and controlled airspace, including the ability to operate in semipermissive air environments.

    k. The aircraft must be fully interoperable within a multinational environment (both EU and NATO/PfP). This must include the handling of cargo, fuelling, refuelling, communications, airborne operations and medical.

    l. The aircraft, in the logistic configuration, must be capable of airlifting at least six (6) tonnes of cargo, or at least twenty (20) fully equipped soldiers.

    m. The aircraft must be capable of co-ordinated airdropping (personnel and supplies) to marked or unmarked drop zones as well as conducting precision air delivery, including static line and freefall (HALO/HAHO) airdrop (by using a supplemental oxygen system where required).

    n. The aircraft must be capable of conducting CASEVAC and MEDEVAC missions, with aeromedical aircrew. The aircraft must be capable of being equipped with medical and general equipment, and supplies adequate for the care of the number and types of patients transported.

    o. The aircraft must be capable of supporting an airborne Data Management System that manages, displays and overlays the information from the sensor suites. In addition the aircraft must also be capable of supporting multiple real-time secure broadcast of all sensor data, both over the horizon and by line of sight.

    p. Respondents must be able to support the development and ongoing maintenance of additional ground based Mission Support Facilities (MSF) to transmit, receive, store, analyse and disseminate information.

    q. Secure Voice and Data communication interoperability within the Irish Defence Forces and with multinational and interagency actors is a key requirement of this project. Respondents must be prepared to integrate the necessary radios to meet this requirement.

    r. There must be a minimum of two (2) separate and distinct long-range communication systems capable of voice and data communications. There must be a Marine Band radio capable of 4.6 MHz offset for operation as either coastal or sea-borne stations.

    s. The aircraft must demonstrate that it supports a design philosophy that minimises energy usage (fuel reduction) and the production of greenhouse gases.

    t. The aircraft must have extensive, evidence based Corrosion Prevention measures, including paint schemes, airframe and engine-wash programmes, panel sealing, internal cavity liquid protection, and corrosion inspection programmes.

    Please note that further details on the physical properties and functionality will be issued at the second Stage (Restricted Tender Stage) of the competition.

  16. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  17. #36
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    88
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark23 View Post
    Blurry face types require a pressurized aircraft with on board oxygen system for their parachuting requirements I’d imagine, I feel this is definitely a case where two different aircraft types are required for different roles
    With the greatest respect to the ARW. Their requirement to conduct ad hoc HAHO/HALO jumps comes fairly low on the list of roles and responsibilities of an aircraft. I know this might hurt the feelings of some rock apes, but that's the truth.

    I have no doubt that the ARW, given all their success globally have fostered many friendships with foreign nations who can facilitate their modest jumping currency requirements.

    Pandering to the ARW significantly delayed the cessna replacement program and they ultimately lost the argument while delaying the whole project. Lets hope the general staff conducted a good lessons learned from that.

    As for the KC-390, silly suggestion. We've been the guinea pig for the AW-139 much to the detriment of the DF. It's as ill-informed as people suggesting the cessna scoprion jet for a different role. No thanks.
    Last edited by Chuck; 15th May 2018 at 21:40.

  18. Likes Sparky42, DeV liked this post
    Dislikes Spark23, hptmurphy disliked this post
  19. #37
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lets say we went for a C295:

    Guided tour of Portugese aircraft fitted with palletised system:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWyx6LXqgkc

    The palletised system being removed (obviously a lot a plugging in/out etc to be done that isn't shown):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P475t_uZUUI

    Or alternatively some fitted with the permanent Maritime patrol (and possible ASW) suite and some purely transport variants

    Both also give you an idea of internal height
    Last edited by DeV; 15th May 2018 at 22:18.

  20. #38
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Embraer are a very capable company and supply some very good aircraft in the commuter mid range.

    The Brazilian airforce has ordered 28 with a further six to be sold to a Singapore defence contractor.

    But again its down to the perception of the mission required. Unless you step up from CASA 235 /295 you are essentially buying an MPA.



    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....

    C130s in any form are expensive , a new C130 J will set you back $67 million ,and older ones take a lot of looking after, friend of mine work on the ex SAFAIR ones that operated out of Dublin , good tough reliable aircraft but with the usual American quirks

    C27 Spartans are out of production since 2016 with all the former US coast guard aircraft being sold to Greece.

    ATR 72 MPA has no ramp..so its a pure MPA and there is really nothing else new off the shelf that fits the spec and certainly nothing that could deploy ARW plus vehicles to far off lands....unless you want to buy something Russian ..and thats not happening.

    However you can have some of these as no one except the Japanese want them

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2

    So if you want a MPA , already in production, proven,with ramp on the low end of the scale.... there really is only one option.....C295... but it won't be everything to every man.
    Nothing to say it has to have a ramp although it make sense

  21. #39
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    324
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I believe the low level requirement comes from a requirement for visual evidence of fishing gear being in the water
    Yes that was the requirement..
    But Two questions:

    1. When was the last prosecution based on Photo evidence from the MPA?
    2. Can the New HD EO systems give the resolution required to identify Lines?

    My understanding is 1. More then 15 years ago and 2. Yes.

    Its just a thought, but isn't this the time to completely evaluate how the job is done.

  22. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  23. #40
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post

    @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".
    Chuck I hope not it is just two airframes and an option for a 3rd - Is that simply pessimism based on historical grounds on your part or what you have been lead to believe following a discussion with those with skin in the game.

    I say this because three aircraft and an option for a 4th would be more realistic in the emerging maritime threatscape with respect to the global operations of the 2800 vessel strong Chinese long range fishing fleet already aggressive in the mid atlantic with a modus operandi of exploiting weakness and under surveillance - note there is a correlation to illegal methamphetamine and precursor smuggling with some of their 'ghost' fishing vessels.

    The annual hours put on the current CASA's historically are comparatively high with most other operators supporting circa 500 annual hours so following the huge increase in Irelands maritime area of interest following the CLCS ruling a few years ago and the addition of further logistic support roles including special operations two airframes wont cut it.

    They will really hit a sustainability wall flying a two aircraft multi-role fleet conducting multiple tasking ops beyond 1500 hours per annum in a now enlarged area of national maritime interest and likelihood of increased illegal activity (fishing/methamphetamine/organised crime) in the years ahead whom are not as respectful sovereignty wise compared to ones traditional EU mates.

    Putting into perspective the "up to" part of the RFI there is no way tasking tempo's (and I add crew training into this) can be sustained at even 2000 annual hours with just two CASA's as it invites capability collapse. Even three airframes mustering up 2000 annual hours is a big ask if fleet tasking is swinging between SpecOps tactical airlift (which involves quite a bit of specialist training hours especially if it is a typical spec-ops insertion into a potentially hostile remote location), long range high-low maritime patrol, SAR top cover and routine troop pax / cargo haul.

    If anywhere close to 3000 average annual flying hours are to be sought over the lifetime of the capability (e.g 2800 hours p.a over 25 years) - someone in the IAC will have to inform the powers that be that they will need at least 4 airframes, ideally 5 going on what typical Airbus C-295 support and sustainment contracts cover on an annual basis per airframe.

    To use a rugby analogy. Would you want to play England in a test match with only just the forwards?
    Last edited by Anzac; 16th May 2018 at 02:31.

  24. Thanks DeV, Auldsod, EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  25. #41
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    will the older 235's be worthless at this point or could they be stripped out of all MPA required equipment and maintained purely for army and logistical support?
    "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."

  26. Likes DeV, apod liked this post
  27. #42
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    will the older 235's be worthless at this point or could they be stripped out of all MPA required equipment and maintained purely for army and logistical support?
    Actually that is a really good point. Definitely worth investigating.

    EADS PZL in Poland I believe can do airframe stress and corrosion repairs and wing centre box replacements and other aerostructural work for CASA's.

    Remanufacturing is all vogue with everything from UH-60A's through to F-15C's. For example, and some readers may find this unbelievable but all of the 10 'new' zero-houred SH-2G(I) maritime helicopters in service with the RNZAF were built between 1962 and 1968 as either ex USN Kaman UH-2B's or early SH-2F's and were remanufactured in some cases 3 times over the last 50 years.

    Air Forces are needing to be more creative in ways that can extend capabilities and get life extensions within budget limitations. A tranche of three of new C-295W's and SLEP's and reconfiguration into pure tactical transports of the existing C-235's if possible would be an elegant solution.
    Last edited by Anzac; 16th May 2018 at 10:19.

  28. Thanks DeV, na grohmití, sofa thanked for this post
  29. #43
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be very possibly to strip the SARO kits etc from the existing CASAs. Afaik there are no troop seats, the FLIR and radar would really need to be removed and covered (Gttc may have said before this was possible not sure).

    But in 2017, the 2 aircraft were 24 years old and had hit 20,000 hours (approx average of 416 hours per aircraft per year).

    The issue probably more likely comes from the amount of time spent at low altitudes over salt water.



    We regard to operating C295 MPAs and C235 transports, it would result in 2 different types in service (not 1 as required), which means more spares, more training for pilots, more training for techs, possibly more tools and a logistical nightmare which would see Personnel being less available.
    Last edited by DeV; 16th May 2018 at 10:36.

  30. #44
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    It would be very possibly to strip the SARO kits etc from the existing CASAs. Afaik there are no troop seats, the FLIR and radar would really need to be removed and covered (Gttc may have said before this was possible not sure).
    It is certainly not a game stopper to rectify all of the above.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    But in 2017, the 2 aircraft were 24 years old and had hit 20,000 hours (approx average of 416 hours per aircraft per year).
    Mere Spring chickens then. There are a number of 50 year old P-3's out there with over 30K on the clock.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The issue probably more likely comes from the amount of time spent at low altitudes over salt water.
    A lot of that comes in how much TLC they have had over the last couple of decades. But with just 10K on the airframes suggests the frighteners shouldn't be a factor.


    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    We regard to operating C295 MPAs and C235 transports, it would result in 2 different types in service (not 1 as required), which means more spares, more training for pilots, more training for techs, possibly more tools and a logistical nightmare which would see Personnel being less available.
    Those differences can be mitigated. For example the 235's could be upgraded to G standard having the same glass cockpit as the 295W as part of their SLEP.

    Principal differences are in the engines. You already have in place the GE CT7 in your SMS and to be honest I would doubt very much that competent IAC mechtechs would not be able to cope with a further engine type in the fleet that being the PW127.

    Logistical nightmare .... meh .... one is only retaining an existing platform albeit in a different capability format and acquiring a new one. There is a lot of commonality and familiarity between the two especially if the cockpits and baseline avionics were shared.

  31. #45
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,456
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nothing to say it has to have a ramp although it make sense
    I would thought a ramp would be a given with the requirement of a 6 tonne payload, deploy troops and do medevac and casevac any thing else would be a retro step unless you want a dedicated MPA .

    I have no doubt that the ARW, given all their success globally have fostered many friendships with foreign nations who can facilitate their modest jumping currency requirements
    The wish list would be to be able to deploy a vehicle from any capable aircraft should it be required under the type of scenario apod highlighted, again, its only thinking aloud as opposed to being anyones actual requirement. Hence my suggestion of the KC390, as there is nothing smaller than a C130 that can do it. If its not a requirement then we can limit ourselves to aircraft like the C295...of which there is a very limited choice.

    As for the KC-390, silly suggestion. We've been the guinea pig for the AW-139 much to the detriment of the DF
    The AW139 is quite a capable machine its own right but as usual the full perameters of the requirement were overlooked and and the AW139 was envisaged as a lead in aircraft to a larger more capable machine that never materialized, we should still be looking at NH90 as we have no where near the helo capacity we need.

    Not really as were were in the same boat when the CASA 235 came on stream back in 1990, the original C250 was a demonstrator aircraft and sales of the actual MPA 235 were negligible, if I'm not mistaken 235 P ( Persuader) was unique to Ireland at the time.
    Time for another break I think......

  32. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes Tempest liked this post
  33. #46
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,456
    Post Thanks / Like
    will the older 235's be worthless at this point or could they be stripped out of all MPA required equipment and maintained purely for army and logistical support?
    I doubt we'll hold on to the aircraft and if we go with the 295 they will have some 'trade in ' agreement with the manufacturer. They can be refurbished and sold on to some low end user as basic transports.
    Time for another break I think......

  34. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  35. #47
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    Those differences can be mitigated. For example the 235's could be upgraded to G standard having the same glass cockpit as the 295W as part of their SLEP.

    Principal differences are in the engines. You already have in place the GE CT7 in your SMS and to be honest I would doubt very much that competent IAC mechtechs would not be able to cope with a further engine type in the fleet that being the PW127.

    Logistical nightmare .... meh .... one is only retaining an existing platform albeit in a different capability format and acquiring a new one. There is a lot of commonality and familiarity between the two especially if the cockpits and baseline avionics were shared.
    No your adding a type, so more pilots and techs to gain and maintain type. Which means your small pool (50% of our posts for techs are vacant and even the number we should have probably isn’t enough for what they do) gets even smaller.

    They could be upgraded (if it was on offer?) to increase commonality but you still have 2 types (and 2 type ratings)!



    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    I would thought a ramp would be a given with the requirement of a 6 tonne payload, deploy troops and do medevac and casevac any thing else would be a retro step unless you want a dedicated MPA .
    don’t get in wrong it would a definite plus but it doesn’t state it as a requirement. A large side cargo/para door could also do the same job.

    But I’d say (and hope) ramp is more likely



    the AW139 was envisaged as a lead in aircraft to a larger more capable machine that never materialised
    incorrect, it was purchased because we didn’t get that larger aircraft type previously (the S92 contract f***up)

  36. #48
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    No your adding a type, so more pilots and techs to gain and maintain type. Which means your small pool (50% of our posts for techs are vacant and even the number we should have probably isn’t enough for what they do) gets even smaller.
    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.”

    As for the tech shortage that is usually $$$ related. However, turn key support and sustainment can be part of the prime contract with EADS/Airbus. All the other English speaking air forces have platforms in there fleet that are done that way. Hawker Pacific and Lockheed Martins relationship with the RNZAF are service agreements templates that can overcome personnel gaps.
    Last edited by Anzac; 16th May 2018 at 13:34.

  37. Likes ropebag liked this post
  38. #49
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,456
    Post Thanks / Like
    incorrect, it was purchased because we didn’t get that larger aircraft type previously (the S92 contract f***up)
    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.
    Time for another break I think......

  39. #50
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,456
    Post Thanks / Like
    A large side cargo/para door could also do the same job.
    Not really as you need to have specialised lifting equipment to get stuff in and out which restricts your away from base abilities .
    Time for another break I think......

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
  •