Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CASA Replacement

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

  • 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.

    Comment




    • Little video on the Canadian SAR model, recently delivered.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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.

          Comment


          • 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

            Comment


            • 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.

              Two new state-of-the-art aircraft have taken to the skies, boosting the lifesaving search and rescue missions carried out by the Maritime & ...
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • 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; 17 February 2020, 11:48.

                Comment


                • 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?

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • 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; 21 April 2020, 17:33.
                          It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                          It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                          It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                          It was the year everything changed.

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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; 22 April 2020, 04:15.

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X