Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CASA Replacement

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

  • #46
    will the older 235's be worthless at this point or could they be stripped out of all MPA required equipment and maintained purely for army and logistical support?
    I doubt we'll hold on to the aircraft and if we go with the 295 they will have some 'trade in ' agreement with the manufacturer. They can be refurbished and sold on to some low end user as basic transports.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Anzac View Post
      Those differences can be mitigated. For example the 235's could be upgraded to G standard having the same glass cockpit as the 295W as part of their SLEP.

      Principal differences are in the engines. You already have in place the GE CT7 in your SMS and to be honest I would doubt very much that competent IAC mechtechs would not be able to cope with a further engine type in the fleet that being the PW127.

      Logistical nightmare .... meh .... one is only retaining an existing platform albeit in a different capability format and acquiring a new one. There is a lot of commonality and familiarity between the two especially if the cockpits and baseline avionics were shared.
      No your adding a type, so more pilots and techs to gain and maintain type. Which means your small pool (50% of our posts for techs are vacant and even the number we should have probably isn’t enough for what they do) gets even smaller.

      They could be upgraded (if it was on offer?) to increase commonality but you still have 2 types (and 2 type ratings)!



      Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
      I would thought a ramp would be a given with the requirement of a 6 tonne payload, deploy troops and do medevac and casevac any thing else would be a retro step unless you want a dedicated MPA .
      don’t get in wrong it would a definite plus but it doesn’t state it as a requirement. A large side cargo/para door could also do the same job.

      But I’d say (and hope) ramp is more likely



      the AW139 was envisaged as a lead in aircraft to a larger more capable machine that never materialised
      incorrect, it was purchased because we didn’t get that larger aircraft type previously (the S92 contract f***up)

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        No your adding a type, so more pilots and techs to gain and maintain type. Which means your small pool (50% of our posts for techs are vacant and even the number we should have probably isn’t enough for what they do) gets even smaller.
        Chapter and verse:

        As detailed in Appendix 3, the FSB has determined that, IAW AC 120-53A , CN-235-300G aircraft retrofitted with Universal EFI 890/IEDS qualify for Level C Training, Checking and Currency. Accordingly, pilots operating the CN-235-300G fall under the Same Pilot Type Rating “C-295.”

        As for the tech shortage that is usually $$$ related. However, turn key support and sustainment can be part of the prime contract with EADS/Airbus. All the other English speaking air forces have platforms in there fleet that are done that way. Hawker Pacific and Lockheed Martins relationship with the RNZAF are service agreements templates that can overcome personnel gaps.
        Last edited by Anzac; 16 May 2018, 14:34.

        Comment


        • #49
          incorrect, it was purchased because we didn’t get that larger aircraft type previously (the S92 contract f***up)
          The AW139 was never supposed to be the final link in the chain.

          The original assessment from 1997 was that it was envisaged that the AC would have three types of helo, all with different roles with the AW139 being the low to medium lift cpability. The third type was scratched with the cock up around the S92 tender as there was no way back to tender for another type without having the same issues being highlighted. It was reckoned at the time that the Super Puma/ Cougar would have been the alternative to S92, but the budget was long gone once the AW139 was selected.
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • #50
            A large side cargo/para door could also do the same job.
            Not really as you need to have specialised lifting equipment to get stuff in and out which restricts your away from base abilities .
            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
              Not really as you need to have specialised lifting equipment to get stuff in and out which restricts your away from base abilities .
              note cargo didn’t specify - it could be small parcels

              It all depends on what’s offered by manufacturers

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                Chapter and verse:

                As detailed in Appendix 3, the FSB has determined that, IAW AC 120-53A , CN-235-300G aircraft retrofitted with Universal EFI 890/IEDS qualify for Level C Training, Checking and Currency. Accordingly, pilots operating the CN-235-300G fall under the Same Pilot Type Rating “C-295.”
                The FAA isn’t EASA (or AC MAA).

                Both the C235 and C295 require licence endorsements (C235 and C295 listed separately), is a conplex aircraft and requires multi-pilot.

                And Part 66 type rating endorsements (c235 and c295 listed separately)
                Last edited by DeV; 16 May 2018, 14:29.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                  The AW139 was never supposed to be the final link in the chain.

                  The original assessment from 1997 was that it was envisaged that the AC would have three types of helo, all with different roles with the AW139 being the low to medium lift cpability. The third type was scratched with the cock up around the S92 tender as there was no way back to tender for another type without having the same issues being highlighted. It was reckoned at the time that the Super Puma/ Cougar would have been the alternative to S92, but the budget was long gone once the AW139 was selected.
                  Incorrect
                  The Gazelle, Alouette and Dauphin were all to be replaced to a single type (Squirrel was indicated due to commonality to GASU at the time).

                  Then 4 medium lift helicopters were to be purchased


                  The single type contract was never progressed and they decided to go for the medium lift first.... and we know the result.

                  They then decided that medium lift was off the table (no mentions after the S92).

                  At this stage, the complete heli fleet needed replacement so they went for 2 types.

                  In effect, the AW139 is a combination of the single type and medium lift - not that I agree with it.
                  Last edited by DeV; 16 May 2018, 14:35.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    The FAA isn’t EASA (or AC MAA).

                    Both the C235 and C295 require licence endorsements (C235 and C295 listed separately), is a conplex aircraft and requires multi-pilot.

                    And Part 66 type rating endorsements (c235 and c295 listed separately)
                    They have a Reciprocal Technical Standard Order (TSO) Acceptance agreement. Also STANAG for NATO member countries applies.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                      They have a Reciprocal Technical Standard Order (TSO) Acceptance agreement. Also STANAG for NATO member countries applies.
                      and where the regs differ?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Up to the point where you introduced the concept of the 295 carrying a vehicle I'm in full agreement, but we don't have anything suitable to be carried other than motor bikes or quads....
                        Fair point.We are in agreement that we currently don't have a vehicle that will fit.Who knows what the future will bring though especially since the SRV's are in service since 2004 and have been flogged to death since then.
                        A newer smaller vehicle may be purchased to fit, specific to role.
                        Maybe
                        "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


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by apod View Post
                          Fair point.We are in agreement that we currently don't have a vehicle that will fit.Who knows what the future will bring though especially since the SRV's are in service since 2004 and have been flogged to death since then.
                          A newer smaller vehicle may be purchased to fit, specific to role.
                          Maybe
                          which will have a roll cage like the SRVs

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The USCG has HC-130J’s and HC-130H’s (which are being replaced and at least some sold to the US Forestry Service

                            They also have HC-27J’s (plan is to upgrade them to give them a surface search radar and EO turret).

                            Apart from the CASA 235 and 295, I can’t think of anything else (cargo aircraft with ramp and in service martitme patrol fit)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by apod View Post
                              Fair point.We are in agreement that we currently don't have a vehicle that will fit.Who knows what the future will bring though especially since the SRV's are in service since 2004 and have been flogged to death since then.
                              A newer smaller vehicle may be purchased to fit, specific to role.
                              Maybe
                              Genuinely mate, the only sized vehicle that could do a 'drive off' from a C295 is a Fiat 500 convertible.

                              If you can come up with something useful that fits within that footprint then fine, crack on and buy two dozen for the long haired mob - but from what I can see such a vehicle would be so compromised in how much and what it could carry that it wouldn't be worth the budget that the vehicle and the C-295 would suck out of the DF.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                they will buy what fits in the hanger

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X