Thanks Thanks:  135
Likes Likes:  262
Dislikes Dislikes:  11
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 298
  1. #251
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    In the RFP it is a system that is requested no mention of a number of aircraft or that they have to be the same: Taking due regard to the requirement to conduct multiple roles with an annual fleet output of up to three thousand (3000) hours, Respondents’ proposals can include single aircraft type or multi-variants of a single-aircraft-type solutions.

    Given that the annual combined total for the CASA & Cessna fleet was under 900hours for both 2017 & 2018 on Maritime Patrol that leaves a lot of hours for transport functions. Does this mean that we will get a couple of C-295W transporters?

  2. #252
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    While announcing our order Airbus also announced the Czech order of 2 C295 in a transport configuration for €102m, so at least we know what one would cost. Although I take it that this order also includes a large support package and even offsets (always make the price higher).

    Last year the Italians ordered an ATR72MP which is has a similar role (except the transport part) as the C295MPA, they paid €44m in a deal that included training and logistics support. The list price for the civil version being €26m. It would interesting to know why the C295 is double the price? Remember both aircraft have the same engine the PW P127 and the engines make up a large part of the cost.
    The Czech order also includes upgrading the existing fleet of 295's to the current spec, wonder if that might have played a role in the costs?

  3. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  4. #253
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    In the RFP it is a system that is requested no mention of a number of aircraft or that they have to be the same: Taking due regard to the requirement to conduct multiple roles with an annual fleet output of up to three thousand (3000) hours, Respondents’ proposals can include single aircraft type or multi-variants of a single-aircraft-type solutions.

    Given that the annual combined total for the CASA & Cessna fleet was under 900hours for both 2017 & 2018 on Maritime Patrol that leaves a lot of hours for transport functions. Does this mean that we will get a couple of C-295W transporters?
    Go back to 2005 (pre financial crash):
    CASA maritime patrols - 1382 hrs

  5. #254
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Go back to 2005 (pre financial crash):
    CASA maritime patrols - 1382 hrs
    Back in 2005 I had hair!

  6. #255
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    The Czech order also includes upgrading the existing fleet of 295's to the current spec, wonder if that might have played a role in the costs?
    The difference between the M model and the W model are the winglets and apparently uprated engines although the PW127G has been certified since 1999 and I have not seen any uprating logged with EASA. But to give the benefit of the doubt adding the winglets, replacing the engines and maybe a few other items too would normally be between 3-5m.

  7. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
  8. #256
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    All they need now is the manpower to crew them , fix them, provide ATC for them and to accompany them to Spain for maintenance.....and a few bob for training, too.

  9. #257
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,838
    Post Thanks / Like


    Little video on the Canadian SAR model, recently delivered.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  10. Thanks Flamingo, sofa thanked for this post
    Likes Tempest liked this post
  11. #258
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    111
    Post Thanks / Like
    Heard the C295s to be acquired will be similar configuration to the Canadian FWSAR models. Unfortunately don't have much additional to add to that in terms of spec etc. Would be great if they had a silent option on a 3rd transport one... 2021 Christmas present lol

  12. #259
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,635
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by meridian View Post
    Heard the C295s to be acquired will be similar configuration to the Canadian FWSAR models. Unfortunately don't have much additional to add to that in terms of spec etc. Would be great if they had a silent option on a 3rd transport one... 2021 Christmas present lol
    From what I've seen of the Canadian model they will use the same radar, Wescam, night vision capable cockpit, but the Air Corps C295 will have additional sensor and communication equipment. Internally they will be different too, the Canadians with less equipment built-in up front giving them more space for cargo if they need it.

  13. Thanks DeV, meridian, pym thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, meridian liked this post
  14. #260
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    From what I've seen of the Canadian model they will use the same radar, Wescam, night vision capable cockpit, but the Air Corps C295 will have additional sensor and communication equipment. Internally they will be different too, the Canadians with less equipment built-in up front giving them more space for cargo if they need it.
    Everything will be placed as far forward as possible, with delivery pencilled in for end of 2022

  15. Thanks meridian thanked for this post
  16. #261
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,838
    Post Thanks / Like
    UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) just took delivery of 2 Beechcraft King Air B200 for MPA, including top cover and anti pollution patrol. Similar colour scheme as our old ones too. Delivered 8 months after contracts signed. Meanwhile Our Coast guard still have no dedicated Top Cover aircraft.

    http://hmcoastguard.blogspot.com/202...unched-to.html
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  17. Thanks Tempest thanked for this post
  18. #262
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) just took delivery of 2 Beechcraft King Air B200 for MPA, including top cover and anti pollution patrol. Similar colour scheme as our old ones too. Delivered 8 months after contracts signed. Meanwhile Our Coast guard still have no dedicated Top Cover aircraft.

    http://hmcoastguard.blogspot.com/202...unched-to.html
    The root of the issue here is that CHC were quite happy to sign a lucrative contract without a dedicated FW top cover aircraft. CHC were also happy to accept using one of their own helicopters to act as top cover and continue to do so.

    It will be interesting to see what they look for in the next contract renewal.

    I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on a similar procurement for CHC in Ireland. As in, who will pay for them, who will operate them, who will maintain them, who will fly them etc.

    Copy and paste of the MCA agreement or different?
    Last edited by Chuck; 17th February 2020 at 10:48.

  19. Likes Shaqra, Rhodes liked this post
  20. #263
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    so how does it work for a fixed wing aircraft? Does it always fly top cover for every "shout" or just heavily involved ones? Does it get the training flights requirement like the helicopters?

  21. #264
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    185
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    so how does it work for a fixed wing aircraft? Does it always fly top cover for every "shout" or just heavily involved ones? Does it get the training flights requirement like the helicopters?
    I'm not sure if that question is targeted at me or not. Are you talking about the UK deal linked above or about CHC.

    If it is the latter, I don't know, you would have to ask someone familiar with their ops procedures.

    I assume there is some red line considerations that warrant top cover such as operating "X" NM from the coast etc.

  22. #265
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    I always thought this multirole idea was stupid, for the reason that I can think of a number of countries who would be suspicious to see a "Survalence and Intelligence" aircraft doing Transport Missisons.
    Also I would question if it would be cheaper in the long run to convert a 30+ year old CN235 vs buying a transport version of the C295?
    Yeah to me given the age of the 235's if we were looking for a transport (and we should), then I would have thought tagging another 295 onto the order would be the way to go rather than trying to keep the current aircraft still flying.

  23. #266
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    I always thought this multirole idea was stupid, for the reason that I can think of a number of countries who would be suspicious to see a "Survalence and Intelligence" aircraft doing Transport Missisons.
    Also I would question if it would be cheaper in the long run to convert a 30+ year old CN235 vs buying a transport version of the C295?
    Just to compare, Sweden received their C-130's in 1965 and they are still flying today with no replacement in sight, so 55yrs and counting.
    The direct operating cost may be lower for the new build but there is the capital cost. For the CN235 the capital cost was many years ago, the only cost would be for any modifications that might be performed. The new build C295 would be an upfront cost of $30-40m per aircraft. So if the CN-235's were to be kept for say 5yrs they would have to cost $6-8m more a year to operate to make the case for the new build. But of course it would all depend on what life the airframe has remaining and if for critical parts there is a repair solution.

  24. #267
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,158
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wouldn't be too sure about using C-130 (2500+ built) vs CN235 (300 ± Built) for cost comparison, also the Swedish C130s are transport aircraft, The IAC CN235s were modified to MPA, how much would it really cost to rip out the MPA systems and modify the airframe, then upgrade the cockpit avionics and keep it up in the air for maybe 10+ extra years service and then have to spend money on replacement then?

    I just think its false economy to do it when you are already spending money on the replacements.
    Last edited by CTU; 21st April 2020 at 16:33.
    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed!
    I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  25. #268
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Just to compare, Sweden received their C-130's in 1965 and they are still flying today with no replacement in sight, so 55yrs and counting.
    The direct operating cost may be lower for the new build but there is the capital cost. For the CN235 the capital cost was many years ago, the only cost would be for any modifications that might be performed. The new build C295 would be an upfront cost of $30-40m per aircraft. So if the CN-235's were to be kept for say 5yrs they would have to cost $6-8m more a year to operate to make the case for the new build. But of course it would all depend on what life the airframe has remaining and if for critical parts there is a repair solution.
    I am surprised that they aren't using the current mission equipment from the CN-235 for the -295, the current system has been modernized and is more then capable of fulfilling the Maritime Patrol role.. it is a CASA FITS system.

    The cost of stripping out the system from the -235's and converting back to basic transport aircraft would be minimal, the DOC's should be quite low then. Capital cost is gone, the engines and avionics are fairly standard commercial fare and are in common use on many different aircraft types. There are plenty of -235's in service in the world so I assume Airbus Military will provide standard support to the product.

    I would say its a "No Brainer" to keep them, although the politics of that decision are far more complex..

    I also think grabbing a third -295 is also a simple decision and should be made sooner rather then later.

    220million still strikes me as high for two Maritime Patrol C-295's.

  26. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, meridian liked this post
  27. #269
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    I wouldn't be too sure about using C-130 (2500+ built) vs CN235 (300 ± Built) for cost comparison, also the Swedish C130s are transport aircraft, The IAC CN235s were modified to MPA, how much would it really cost to rip out the MPA systems and modify the airframe, then upgrade the cockpit avionics and keep it up in the air for maybe 10+ extra years service and then have to spend money on replacement then?

    I just think its false economy to do it when you are already spending money on the replacements.
    We also should note that the CN-235's have been used as an MPA which accelerates stresses on critical airframe areas such as the CWB compared to a vanilla light transport aircraft, which could likely make it seriously uneconomic.

    But the main issue with the CN-235 in an air mobility role is geography. Ireland is a smallish island in comparative terms. Too small for viable intra country use yet too far away for the CN-235 to have efficient use as a transport aircraft as range payload factors come into play. The NZDF experience with the C.1 Andover provides an for a example.

    Domestically it is more efficient, cheaper, and often faster to move a tactical/pax loads of say under 6000kg around the country by an Army flatbed. That is why when the RNZAF got rid of its old C.1 Andovers 20 odd years ago and never replaced them - a bus and a truck was cheaper and faster point to point even accounting for the cross strait shipping. The other issue, the CN-235 like the old Andovers we flew is that they lack range to offer any realistic contribution in terms of strategic transport to the places overseas where the IDF traditionally plies its trade the Leb, Mali, Chad, Kosovo. The NZDF like the IDF, both island nations, necessitates when it comes to air mobility requirements which we do and which you should do is principally about tactical loads - strategic distances. ie. The Don to those destinations mentioned above, the NZDF into the Pacific. Someone mention a possible CASEVAC role but that has principally been a rotary tasking for the last 50 years, if it is a deployment component the government wishes the IAC to get into, best to prepare ballistic protection upgrades and send a AW-139M or two instead (more much more likely to be accepted by the mandated Force Commander who decides what get accepted into his theatre and what does not). Lastly the logistics tail and manpower requirements to keep two aircraft operational in a deployment which we once did with the Andovers in Somalia 30 years ago requires a strategic support chain and dozens of people involved, all very busy trying to keep old and u/s airframes available.

    Ireland, like New Zealand, both peacekeeping orientated defence forces maintaining contributions to coalition deployments 1000's of kilometres away from home require a strategic airbridge emphasis and not a intra theatre light twin tactical transport. Best to sell the CN-235's to Africa when the time comes to replace them with the new larger CASA's then and then conduct a proper study into what whole of government requirements are for Irish air mobility.
    Last edited by Anzac; 22nd April 2020 at 03:15.

  28. Thanks DeV, sofa thanked for this post
  29. #270
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    381
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    We also should note that the CN-235's have been used as an MPA which accelerates stresses on critical airframe areas such as the CWB compared to a vanilla light transport aircraft, which could likely make it seriously uneconomic.
    But the main issue with the CN-235 in an air mobility role is geography. Ireland is a smallish island in comparative terms. Too small for viable intra country use yet too far away for the CN-235 to have efficient use as a transport aircraft as range payload factors come into play..
    AFAIK the CN-235's had a fairly extensive corrosion protection package integrated when they were built and have held up well in that regard, the engines have had fresh water compressor wash's after every Marpat.

    I agree on the Range issue for the aircraft, but the C-295 while bigger and having more range is still a theater aircraft at best and does not add significantly to our ability to provide airlift even to where Irish Troops are currently deployed.

    If they only acquire Two -295's and they are both outfitted for Maritime patrol, we will be in the same position of using a very expensive role specific aircraft for transport missions on an ad-hoc basis.

    I would be surprised if keeping the -235's in a basic form would cost any more then a PC-12.

    More airframes is always better, even with type rating differences. More airframes means more flying, and the constant issues around experience levels when people leave will be easier to address and plan for.

    There has been in a reluctance in the AC and the Dept. to look at the used aircraft market, however I think this is the best place to address our Airlift Needs in the future.

  30. Likes Tempest, meridian liked this post
  31. #271
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    220million still strikes me as high for two Maritime Patrol C-295's.
    It is!
    Back in 2007 Chile had an offer of 8 C295MPA aircraft for $250m, accounting for inflation that would be $295m today or €272m. It was planned to have 4 ASW, 3 MPA and a single transport version. In the end they ordered 2 ASW and 1 MPA versions for $105m.
    In 2008 Columbia ordered 4 C295 transports for $100m.
    And one of the earliest orders in 2006 came from Portugal which order 5 C-295MPA and 7 C-295 transports for €350m, 12 aircraft that today would cost €420m. So taking that as a basis for our €220m we should get 3 MPA versions and 3 Transport versions!

    Of course not knowing what is covered by the €220m it is difficult to say if we were overcharged or not. Perhaps it covers the entire 30 years of operations, all the spares and future updates otherwise as you suggest the cost is a bit on the high side.

  32. #272
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    We also should note that the CN-235's have been used as an MPA which accelerates stresses on critical airframe areas such as the CWB compared to a vanilla light transport aircraft, which could likely make it seriously uneconomic.

    But the main issue with the CN-235 in an air mobility role is geography. Ireland is a smallish island in comparative terms. Too small for viable intra country use yet too far away for the CN-235 to have efficient use as a transport aircraft as range payload factors come into play. The NZDF experience with the C.1 Andover provides an for a example.

    Domestically it is more efficient, cheaper, and often faster to move a tactical/pax loads of say under 6000kg around the country by an Army flatbed. That is why when the RNZAF got rid of its old C.1 Andovers 20 odd years ago and never replaced them - a bus and a truck was cheaper and faster point to point even accounting for the cross strait shipping. The other issue, the CN-235 like the old Andovers we flew is that they lack range to offer any realistic contribution in terms of strategic transport to the places overseas where the IDF traditionally plies its trade the Leb, Mali, Chad, Kosovo. The NZDF like the IDF, both island nations, necessitates when it comes to air mobility requirements which we do and which you should do is principally about tactical loads - strategic distances. ie. The Don to those destinations mentioned above, the NZDF into the Pacific. Someone mention a possible CASEVAC role but that has principally been a rotary tasking for the last 50 years, if it is a deployment component the government wishes the IAC to get into, best to prepare ballistic protection upgrades and send a AW-139M or two instead (more much more likely to be accepted by the mandated Force Commander who decides what get accepted into his theatre and what does not). Lastly the logistics tail and manpower requirements to keep two aircraft operational in a deployment which we once did with the Andovers in Somalia 30 years ago requires a strategic support chain and dozens of people involved, all very busy trying to keep old and u/s airframes available.

    Ireland, like New Zealand, both peacekeeping orientated defence forces maintaining contributions to coalition deployments 1000's of kilometres away from home require a strategic airbridge emphasis and not a intra theatre light twin tactical transport. Best to sell the CN-235's to Africa when the time comes to replace them with the new larger CASA's then and then conduct a proper study into what whole of government requirements are for Irish air mobility.
    Battlefield CASVAC is a helicopter role but normally as you move up the chain and the distances become greater fixed wing tends to take over. Today we use the CN-235's to move patients from Ireland to England when necessary. And in Mali our troops were flown around in everything from An-26's to DHC-7's, if you can afford CH-47's then that s great but it is often more cost effective to move people with small tactical transports. Look at RAAF, they go from their strategic C-17's to their C-130's to their C-27's to their CH-47 before ending with their NH-90's. We would love to have some of that but no TD would vote for it today.

    Even to get to the level of the RNZAF would be something, P8 for MPA, C130J for transport, NH90 for utility and SH2 for maritime operations, we are far from that and need to take small steps to show the benefit of having dedicated aircraft for certain missions. Clearly we do not foresee flying freight around in Ireland with the CN235 or with a C295 but there are missions we can use them on. We take part in EU Battlegroups, this year should be in Germany but we will have to see. There an aircraft like the CN235 could be useful.

    Hopefully we will also be deploying the PC12's once they are delivered. They too today are intended to be multi-role, to provide ISR and transport!

  33. Likes meridian liked this post
  34. #273
    Commandant Jetjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,777
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is also worth pointing out that beyond the day to day uses, by the time you realise you need a transport aircraft it's usually too late.

    Irish CN235 have in the past been pressed into emergency transport roles with MPA equipment still installed, including the evacuation of citizens from Tripoli when the sh1t was hitting the fan.

  35. Thanks EUFighter, meridian thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  36. #274
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like
    What a stripper CN-235 or two remaining in service could do is provide a training development pathway for a fit for purpose fixed wing air mobility platform downstream. Learning tactical multi-engine flight profiles, loadmaster curriculum, tasking planning, the necessary capability assurance processes et al. It would in the least enable a Basic Level Of Capability (BLOC) within the IAC to exist and evolve that to build up to a Directed (DLOC) then Operation Level of Capability (OLOC) when the the right platform solutions arrives. Because the reality is they are the readiness benchmarks that have to be attained before a unit is safe to deploy at OLOC into a UN ChpVII coalition environment. Nevertheless it is the first 1000 miles of an air mobility capability that the emphasis should be on first rather than the last few miles as you cannot "be there without getting there."
    Last edited by Anzac; 22nd April 2020 at 11:04.

  37. Thanks EUFighter, meridian thanked for this post
    Likes Tempest liked this post
  38. #275
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    The "stripper" CN-235 would be a potential route but a lot will also depend on the wiliness to deploy the assets.

    When the PC12's arrive hopefully we will not just have them flying around spotting Covid-19 infringements but that we get to deploy them at least on training exercises. The EU Battlegroups would be an opportunity but we could also do exercises with Sweden and Finland, the latter operate the PC12 in a liaison role so they might be interested in what we bring along!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •