Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

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

  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post

    And would mean multi-engine and type training could be conducted on it instead of the MPAs
    Would also keep the non MPA hours down on the MPA aircraft, and as such increase their availability for their actual role somewhat. The current aircraft get used for a lot of passenger and freight jobs that they were never intended for.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    if they adjusted the package to include a bare bones C-295 cargo aircraft, from the off, that would be a smart move.

    Leave a comment:


  • A/TEL
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post

    And would mean multi-engine and type training could be conducted on it instead of the MPAs
    That's affordable in fairness. Considering if you get 15-20 years service from it.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Spark23 View Post

    Transport version in flyaway costs could be around €30 mil
    And would mean multi-engine and type training could be conducted on it instead of the MPAs

    Leave a comment:


  • Spark23
    replied
    Originally posted by A/TEL View Post


    Because we are getting the MPA version, the costing overall (€211m) is quite large. The basic transport model should be significantly cheaper and affordable and a 3rd option (if an option is in the contract). Its a no brainer as you said as a stepping stone to something bigger.
    Transport version in flyaway costs could be around €30 mil

    Leave a comment:


  • A/TEL
    replied
    Originally posted by Spark23 View Post
    Very little apart from being twin engine, different engines, glass cockpit, lengthened airframe and bigger weights which will have different limits, ideal scenario would be sell to somebody and use revenue towards a transport C-295 which would have enormous benefits in freeing up the other two airframes for their primary role and also maintaining crew currency (three being the magic number to always have one serviceable), the transport one be great for routine logistics tasks of which their are many within the DF and stepping stone to something bigger transport aircraft wise, which would then allow the transport C-295 to be converted to maritime configuration which leads to 24 hr topcover! Fingers crossed ????

    Because we are getting the MPA version, the costing overall (€211m) is quite large. The basic transport model should be significantly cheaper and affordable and a 3rd option (if an option is in the contract). Its a no brainer as you said as a stepping stone to something bigger.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Spark23 View Post
    Very little apart from being twin engine, different engines, glass cockpit, lengthened airframe and bigger weights which will have different limits, ideal scenario would be sell to somebody and use revenue towards a transport C-295 which would have enormous benefits in freeing up the other two airframes for their primary role and also maintaining crew currency (three being the magic number to always have one serviceable), the transport one be great for routine logistics tasks of which their are many within the DF and stepping stone to something bigger transport aircraft wise, which would then allow the transport C-295 to be converted to maritime configuration which leads to 24 hr topcover! Fingers crossed ????
    So in other words, keeping one 235 would come with more hassle

    Leave a comment:


  • Spark23
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Plus if we retained only one what is commonality of type with C295?
    Very little apart from being twin engine, different engines, glass cockpit, lengthened airframe and bigger weights which will have different limits, ideal scenario would be sell to somebody and use revenue towards a transport C-295 which would have enormous benefits in freeing up the other two airframes for their primary role and also maintaining crew currency (three being the magic number to always have one serviceable), the transport one be great for routine logistics tasks of which their are many within the DF and stepping stone to something bigger transport aircraft wise, which would then allow the transport C-295 to be converted to maritime configuration which leads to 24 hr topcover! Fingers crossed ????

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by Spark23 View Post

    They are certainly not failing apart although they will come to a point where manufacturors support will fade away
    I kind of remember an article in the Irish times around the R116 crash that suggested the company wee almost at that point then with our airframes. I’d imagine keeping them going even longer is going to mean some fairly hefty bills.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Spark23 View Post

    They are certainly not failing apart although they will come to a point where manufacturors support will fade away
    Plus if we retained only one what is commonality of type with C295?

    Leave a comment:


  • Spark23
    replied
    Originally posted by Graylion View Post
    No. They are falling apart and cost a lot of maintenance. They are #2 and #3 of the worldwide CASA fleet in hours/
    They are certainly not failing apart although they will come to a point where manufacturors support will fade away

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by pilatus View Post
    One of the CN235's could be retained and used for a few years in a utility/transport role. We already own the aircraft, I personally think it would be a waste to dispose of the 235's when we are in need of the capability they possess and could provide if stripped of the MPA fit.
    They’ve had what two major rebuilds already? What’s their reliability rates at this stage? Make more sense to me if there’s the political will to add in a third 295 instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graylion
    replied
    No. They are falling apart and cost a lot of maintenance. They are #2 and #3 of the worldwide CASA fleet in hours/

    Leave a comment:


  • pilatus
    replied
    One of the CN235's could be retained and used for a few years in a utility/transport role. We already own the aircraft, I personally think it would be a waste to dispose of the 235's when we are in need of the capability they possess and could provide if stripped of the MPA fit.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    I'd agree with you on how the EDP and CoDF could be used to stimmie things outside the EDPs explicitly stated programmes til the end of the year. (I'm really surprised there's nothing specific about naval surface/sub-surfrace warfare, transport aircraft or helicopters at all.) An extra C295 would be an easy first option too.

    But at the same time, there's enough waffle between the good parts of the EDP to allow flying saucers to make it in and for the people involved to say "sure it was always an option in the plan". Such as the (single) PC12 280. (I think if Simon minister, we may have seen that second PC12.)

    What hopefully we'll see is the CoDF actually inform government policy, and thus a revised current EDP or the next EDP. Properly considered, backed and most importantly resourced, together with a reformed DoD structure and outlook*, this would see the right equipment procured for the next 30 years (for all services). Hopefully, then we'll see one or more A321/C40/C130/C390 (in addition to that extra C295) in service for the future*

    * Yes, that may have been a pig flying by... Twice...
    Last edited by meridian; 8 May 2021, 11:20.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X