Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military transport aircraft

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

  • Graylion
    replied
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post

    The basic A330 has a list price of $250m before the conversion to an A330 MRTT, so there is no way one can be had for $150m. In 2015 South Korea ordered 4 A330 MRTTs at a cost of $1,300m, that is $325m per aircraft!!!!
    There are no plans for an A321XLR (MRTT) nor is there any conversion available to convert a old A330 into a MRTT version.
    Interesting. Google mentioned the lower price, but I didn't dig. And I am aware that there is no A321MRTT, that's why I didn't mention it.

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    Originally posted by Graylion View Post
    I just had a look at A330MRTT vs A321XLR. 150M$ cs 129M$. I think if we go down that road, 330MRTT would be the way to go, given this low price difference.
    The basic A330 has a list price of $250m before the conversion to an A330 MRTT, so there is no way one can be had for $150m. In 2015 South Korea ordered 4 A330 MRTTs at a cost of $1,300m, that is $325m per aircraft!!!!
    There are no plans for an A321XLR (MRTT) nor is there any conversion available to convert a old A330 into a MRTT version.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graylion
    replied
    I just had a look at A330MRTT vs A321XLR. 150M$ cs 129M$. I think if we go down that road, 330MRTT would be the way to go, given this low price difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • 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:

Working...
X