Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

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

  • Don't take anything the Canadians do as a procurement benchmark. They have form when it comes to buying one-off orphan variants. For example the one of a kind EH101 Cormorant for SAR or the hugely troubled H92 that was selected over the widely produced Seahawk Romeo. Both the Canadian and Irish DoD could write a book on how not to do it.

    Comment


    • ...and those submarines that had a fire problem...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
        ...and those submarines that had a fire problem...
        That's only the start of the issues those subs had, along with the debacle of their surface replacement program.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
          Don't take anything the Canadians do as a procurement benchmark. They have form when it comes to buying one-off orphan variants. For example the one of a kind EH101 Cormorant for SAR or the hugely troubled H92 that was selected over the widely produced Seahawk Romeo. Both the Canadian and Irish DoD could write a book on how not to do it.
          It is amazing that in replacing a single older type in service, the CH124 Sea King, both of its replacements, the Cormorant and Cyclone, have become huge debacles. How is that possible? Given that the standard variants of both types have replaced the S61 around the world without issue.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
            It is amazing that in replacing a single older type in service, the CH124 Sea King, both of its replacements, the Cormorant and Cyclone, have become huge debacles. How is that possible? Given that the standard variants of both types have replaced the S61 around the world without issue.
            The original plan in Canada was to manufacture 100 or so EH101's in-country to replace the Sea King and Labrador(Boeing Vertol) fleet. An order was placed in the 80's but was subsequently cancelled. In the late 90's 15 basic de-militarized EH101 models with COTS avionics were procured to cover the SAR role. There were rumours of various teething problems including fuel lines leaking and more worryingly the also suffered from chronic tail rotor hub cracking leading to a withdrawal from the SAR role temporarily. The hubs were replaced and the replacements cracked in a different location. The problem was solved using a rotor hub derived from the AW139. They are very unique in their role, fit out and operating environment and will inevitably have high lifetime costs, irrespective of whether or not they perform well a their role. Undeterred, the Canadians have acquired the VH models from the US that were built as Marine One replacements and cancelled due to cost overrun-there are rumours of converting some to airworthy status and cannibalizing the rest.

            Having dragged more years out f the Sea King fleet they then proceeded to run a competition for an ASW heli replacement. You would be forgiven for rightly thinking that for commonality alone the EH101 would have been a shoe-in. The Canucks had other ideas. They decided to order a ship-borne ASW variant of a helicopter(S92) that while established in production, had never before been ordered for either Ship-borne or ASW roles anywhere or by anyone. Various delays and design flaws ensued. It took 7 years from first flight to delivery of a watered down interim fleet one quarter the size of the total order. Sikorsky will never make a profit from the sale. Problems are still being uncovered-the latest fleet grounding was in March and as we approach 10 years after the first delivery was scheduled to take place full operational capacity still seems like a pipe dream.

            The Candaian Bell 412 fleet are also known to be lemons. Under-powered and useless above 20 degrees Celcius and 3000' pressure altitude.

            A lot of their problems stem from the insistence on direct local manufacturing involvement. Whether that be components or assembly. You end up with too many alterations that prioritize industry over capability. You can see a similar trend in the UK at the moment.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
              A lot of their problems stem from the insistence on direct local manufacturing involvement. Whether that be components or assembly. You end up with too many alterations that prioritize industry over capability. You can see a similar trend in the UK at the moment.
              Could that aspect be one of the reasons for the high sticker price of the 295 contract?

              Comment


              • Absolutely. If you want to create something bespoke you better be prepared to pay all sorts of integration and testing costs.

                Comment


                • Too true. Never buy the Mark 1 of anything, be it a boot or a boat or a complex aircraft and do not ever, ever customise it unless your changes improve the breed. The most successful aircraft the Don ever had were the ones they did the least tampering with. Also, don't do a "Dauphin" or a "Casa" and let a small air arm become the unofficial test house for a wealthy manufacturer, so that you have chronic unserviceability as a given. Wait until bigger militaries, based on big economies, have done the hard yards with new types of anything.

                  Comment


                  • We are talking about replaced a Cessna with Mark 1 dual eye sensors and all for a budget of 15m. Given that we are not going to deploy them to a shooting war, even a Peacekeeping mission is unlikely we need not worry about MANPAD's. Despite what the rfp might say I would go for the Diamond DA62MPP, at just over 1m for the aircraft we could get a few with decent kit for our money.http://www.diamond-air.at/en/special...raft/da62-mpp/

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                      We are talking about replaced a Cessna with Mark 1 dual eye sensors and all for a budget of 15m. Given that we are not going to deploy them to a shooting war, even a Peacekeeping mission is unlikely we need not worry about MANPAD's. Despite what the rfp might say I would go for the Diamond DA62MPP, at just over 1m for the aircraft we could get a few with decent kit for our money.http://www.diamond-air.at/en/special...raft/da62-mpp/
                      Single roled a/c

                      Comment


                      • Forget the hope about multiple a/c they rarely can do what a dedicated plane can do. And how was the Cessna multirole? We should stop trying to play in the big league when we have no budget to match. We could replace the Cessna's with 4 DA62's and still have money over to buy a decent secondhand utility for air Ambulance etc.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          Forget the hope about multiple a/c they rarely can do what a dedicated plane can do. And how was the Cessna multirole? We should stop trying to play in the big league when we have no budget to match. We could replace the Cessna's with 4 DA62's and still have money over to buy a decent secondhand utility for air Ambulance etc.
                          Read the reports (both reorg and AAIU) multiple types in the AC is a bad thing - the fewer the better

                          Comment


                          • The Cessnas did every task the Alouette did, apart from the obvious rotary stuff like SAR and infantry dropping; surveillance, ATCP (bird counting, fish counting, aerial survey, Garda co-op), parachuting, air displays, light transport of humans and spare parts, pilot currency and target towing. As a utility aircraft, it has been invaluable. Me and my spare parts and/or toolbox went on several runs in it, to get parts up to Finner or Sligo or down to Cork or Kerry and considerably cheaper than an Alouette. I certainly wasn't the only one to do runs like that in them. That's one cheap function that a PC-12 can't do, unless the runway is a good one. A Cessna can get into places that even those turbine aircraft can't or won't, for a fraction of the cost of using a turbine helicopter....as an aside, they really should have had a 182 or a 206, as well. They are real haulers and even better parachuting aircraft.

                            Comment


                            • What will replace the initial pilot trainer? surely every pilot currently serving pilot began their wings journey in a cessna.... civilian contracting possibly for initial training?
                              Last edited by morpheus; 29 May 2017, 12:20.
                              "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
                                What will replace the initial pilot trainer? surely every pilot currently serving pilot began their wings journey in a cessna.... civilian contracting possibly for initial training?
                                Now, they start in the PC9 (previously the Marchettis)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X