Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CASA Replacement

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

  • #16
    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.
    "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

    Comment


    • #17
      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?



      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.
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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

            Comment


            • #21
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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; 15 May 2018, 18:36.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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; 15 May 2018, 18:54.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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.



                                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.

                                "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X