Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cessna Replacement - The Options

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

  • Originally posted by Pure Hover View Post
    I see over in the nautical section that steel has been laid on yet another NS replacement vessel. While this is great in itself maybe it's impacting on the DoD's ability to replace the Cessna fleet in that there's simply no money available and it's not just sheer incompetence after all.....?
    Incorrect.If you have been to any of the White paper implementation groups briefs held around the DF over the last few weeks you would know that the money for the projects in the white paper has already been approved and ring fenced.
    "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


    • Originally posted by apod View Post
      Incorrect.If you have been to any of the White paper implementation groups briefs held around the DF over the last few weeks you would know that the money for the projects in the white paper has already been approved and ring fenced.
      So it's just delays due to feck ups then?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
        So it's just delays due to feck ups then?
        Well.Seeing as the tender hasn't been published yet I would say it's more to do with due diligence with regard to the way the tender is worded so the AC get the aircraft they want as opposed to some lemon which would be a waste of time,effort and tax payers money.
        As and aside do you have IKON access?If you do all the research papers and briefs for the general staff are there to peruse.From what I can see the project team are putting a lot into it,so that being said what makes you think they are "fecking up"?Or is that just the usual DF cynicism and suspicion?
        "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


        • They'd have to do a seriously detailed work up for a spec for an aircraft, so as not to be caught flatfooted. It would be career death to end up with a money-sucking hangar queen. If you are speccing something that will have to last in service for at least 20-30 years, you'd better get it right. Plus, the civil service will hang you out to dry, if there is any way that they can be implicated in a wrong decision. Soldiers might be cynical about DF buys but they have good reason.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
            They'd have to do a seriously detailed work up for a spec for an aircraft, so as not to be caught flatfooted. It would be career death to end up with a money-sucking hangar queen. If you are speccing something that will have to last in service for at least 20-30 years, you'd better get it right. Plus, the civil service will hang you out to dry, if there is any way that they can be implicated in a wrong decision. Soldiers might be cynical about DF buys but they have good reason.
            Precisely my point.Anybody with access to IKON can read the briefs and the draft tender.They are dotting the "I's" and crossing the "T's".From what I have read the spec is impressive.
            "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


            • Any knowledge on IMO for running and maintenance costs of piston vs. turbo-prop small aircraft?

              An important consideration for more ‘budget-sensitive’ air forces with limited flying hours, sometimes not due to the lack of airframes, but lack of finance for running costs and spare parts e.g. various East, Central and Baltic European states over the years and apparently, more recently (?) - Austria for its Typhoon fighters. An obvious consideration for the Air Corp/government.

              So, possibly favouring a single engine, for the intended smallish(?) surveillance aircraft?

              Then again, twin-engine, fixed wing surveillance aircraft probably have more options for mounting more and, larger pieces of equipment on/in their nose cones e.g. radars and, in their mid-body belly, than single engine propeller aircraft (Caravan exhausts problematic to any mid-body, belly equipment?).

              Even a limited (surveillance) radar would likely, be a ‘force multiplier’ extension to a small surveillance aircraft otherwise using optical, ‘FLIR’ and other electronic equipment.

              There seems to be a good few options and/or flying examples available of radar-equipped King Air 350s and BN-Defender ‘MPA’s’ and ‘MPA/ISR/ISTAR/Special Mission’ respectively.

              There are not many radar options evident for the PC12 (MPA/Eagle/Spectre) or Cessna Caravans.

              Comment


              • ...Existing/previous nose radar options for the BN Defender, for example, include weather or weather/surveillance radars e.g. with 120 or 180degree (?) forward surface scan, including it looks like, the same type BAE ‘Seaspray’ radar used by the UK’s recent Royal Navy AW159 Lynx Wildcat helicopters, in an ice-hockey puck, extended under-nose type arrangement (or belly mounted).

                Other ‘Defender’ radar options showed a basic AEW (airborne early warning) radar (including surface scan ability?) with 360degree cover (presumably vertical) - mounted in a VERY Ugly, bulbous Nose...

                ...Ugly Nose as a possible stop-gap measure before the Great ‘Wesht’ of Ireland Air Defence Radar Complex (GWIADRC)  gets installed?...

                Presumably all the same radar options and configurations could be applied to King Air 350s, and including of course, if the ‘Cessna Replacement’ is going to be a larger type aircraft... however, seeing as the stated intention is for an ISTAR aircraft, they may plumb for a smaller/cheaper plane with more equipment rather than, a larger/more expensive, less equipped aircraft.

                Either way, twin (or four) engine surveillance aircraft appear to be the norm worldwide.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WhingeNot View Post
                  Any knowledge on IMO for running and maintenance costs of piston vs. turbo-prop small aircraft? .
                  Well the other fixed wing props in use by the AC (PC9, CASA and Defender) are all turboprops.

                  EASA issues different maintanance licences for piston and props so I assume that would make manning issues easier.

                  Would be advantages to the engine being a P&W PT6 as well (same as PC9 and AW139).

                  Comment


                  • A turboprop like a PT-6 would have a longer interval between overhauls than the IO-540 of a Marchetti or BN Islander. Think of a turboprop as being akin to a diesel in a car; as long as you feed it clean fuel and keep the oil and air clean, it'll run for ever. Keep changing the filters, check the igniters regularly and don't let the pilots abuse it and it'll outlast any piston engine. In the Don, you would probably have a certain amount of commonality of service parts and minor parts like screws and bolts across the fleet, so you'd use the same filters and oil, which reduces costs. Common engines like the PT-6, you can get parts and services anywhere on the globe. In the Don, pistons are fading out so less people will need to be kept current on them so manpower would not be an issue.

                    Comment


                    • have we already considered drones if we want a long range intelligence platform? - if so ill get me coat.
                      "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
                        have we already considered drones if we want a long range intelligence platform? - if so ill get me coat.
                        I dunno if it would get passed the 'can we use it here?' issue - getting a UAV licenced to fly in congested civilian airspace isn't quick or cheap, at which point you really start eating into the financial savings you make by buying an unmanned platform rather than a manned platform.

                        If you could make a purchase on the basis that it would only be flown over third world shitholess and massive designated training areas then unmanned has an enormous ISR capability, nut without significant financial investment in systems to allow it to fly at 10,000 ft over a cow shed in Co. Louth while the Continuity Army Council plan their next raft of prison inmates, its a bit of a one trick pony.

                        Comment


                        • A turboprop like a PT-6 would have a longer interval between overhauls than the IO-540 of a Marchetti or BN Islander. Think of a turboprop as being akin to a diesel in a car;
                          ... I thought that it would have been the other way around, with the more jet like fuel for turboprops been more expensive but, with the advantages of been more high performance allowing for more powerful engines.

                          Lets hope that whoever is going to be adding up the pro's and cons' - select something that gives the best utility, and not just pick something that is expensive and 'sexy'!

                          Comment


                          • Genuine question, What fuel do Turboprops use? JetA1 or AVGAS?
                            I'm just pretty sure I saw a B206 filling with JetA1 many moons ago.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • All jet engines, be they a turboprop driving a propellor, or a turboshaft driving a heli rotor or a turbofan pushing an airliner use AvTur, which is subdivided into classes like Jet A1, which is kerosene and the military classify them as JP 1 or 4 or 5, because of different additives. All turbines, especially industrial ones, many of which are derived from aero engines, can also run on diesel, natural gas, heated crude oil, filtered waste oil, gas extracted from landfills and even petrol in an emergency. If you can vapourise it and set fire to it, a turbine can run on it. Avgas is leaded petrol for piston engines. Mogas is automotive unleaded petrol.

                              Comment


                              • Turboprop May have a Propeller but they use Jet A1.
                                At the basic level they are a member of the Gas turbine family

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X