Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CASA Replacement

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

  • #61
    Realistically if we want an aircraft capable of carrying a vehicle we need a C27 / C130

    Comment


    • #62
      @Anzac.

      I would love to see 3-4 aircraft purchased and agree that provided they had techies to maintain them, pilots to fly them and ATC to launch them, they could find the business for them.

      Historically (the last 30 years) the AC have done nothing but downsize.

      I honestly, genuinely, cannot see them purchasing more than 3 aircraft.

      Despite the recent social and security changes in the western world the fact remains that the DF wont ever be taken seriously.

      Talk of a KC-390/C-130 is utter fantasy. Unfortunately.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by DeV View Post
        Realistically if we want an aircraft capable of carrying a vehicle we need a C27 / C130
        Has to be currently in production or so says the spec. C27 is no longer in production. Finished in 2016.

        Apart from the CASA 235 and 295, I can’t think of anything else (cargo aircraft with ramp and in service martitme patrol fit
        I did say that in an earlier post last .....

        A newer smaller vehicle may be purchased to fit, specific to role
        That Polish 'yoke' in your earlier picture?.......

        Historically (the last 30 years) the AC have done nothing but downsize
        I would have said 'consolidated' rather than down size......30 years ago we had too many types at trying to do different things with a mixed bag of aircraft. we could do with more of what we have as opposed to more types.


        Talk of a KC-390/C-130 is utter fantasy. Unfortunately.
        Maybe next time.....

        Answer (1 of 3): It's about the same size. I have been up close and personal with both. I would assume amout the same payload class. The new models of the c130 have very fuel efficient engines 4 of them. The KC-390 has two very efficient high bypass turbo fans that use less fuel than four tur...
        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

        Comment


        • #64
          Historically, the Don bit itself on the ass with the Dauphin and has done something of the same with the 139s; the Army hates the RG-32M it inflicted on itself so there is an incentive right there not to repeat history and get an inadequate/costly aircraft or get stuck with a shitty contract for servicing. It looks like the 295 is the only game in town. The 235s, having been banged around at low level for much of their total flight hours, might only be viable to keep on or sell for decent money if the DoD is prepared to give them a thorough overhaul, so they may not generate much return/offset of the cost of a trio of 295s. I wouldn't have much faith in the DoD doing that.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
            ...They can be refurbished and sold on to some low end user as basic transports.
            I hate to point out the obvious but......

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Jetjock View Post
              I hate to point out the obvious but......
              There are worse off!!!!!!!

              recent AFM article on 3rd world airforces makes the AC look positively progressive!
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by zone 1 View Post
                they will buy what fits in the hanger
                They didn't bother doing that with the G4.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                  Historically, the Don bit itself on the ass with the Dauphin and has done something of the same with the 139s; the Army hates the RG-32M it inflicted on itself so there is an incentive right there not to repeat history and get an inadequate/costly aircraft or get stuck with a shitty contract for servicing. It looks like the 295 is the only game in town. The 235s, having been banged around at low level for much of their total flight hours, might only be viable to keep on or sell for decent money if the DoD is prepared to give them a thorough overhaul, so they may not generate much return/offset of the cost of a trio of 295s. I wouldn't have much faith in the DoD doing that.
                  And look at the outcry

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                    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.
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	WrgzNS.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	203.8 KB
ID:	698196
                    Last edited by Herald; 16 May 2018, 23:24.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      This discussion has happened in the past:

                      - Why not keep the Marchetti as a primary trainer, before letting novice pilots loose on the PC-9?
                      - Why not keep the Dauphin, or Allouettes, instead of replacing them completely with the AW139/EC135?

                      I strongly believe, whatever the merits of the above, or keeping the CN235s as dedicated transports - whatever - the people holding the purse strings would simply say: look either these aircraft require replacement or they don't, so keeping them is a non starter. So the aircraft get sold on for nothing and live a new life elsewhere - I fully expect the same to happen with the CN235s.

                      I think the only small chance for it to happen would be if EADs actually offered a rock bottom price for zero-houring them as part of a deal for two new C295s, as an alternative to 3x295s.

                      As an aside - I'm disappointed that yet again ropebag has violated opsec on this site and revealed the existence of the ARWs tactical Fiat 500s.
                      Last edited by pym; 16 May 2018, 23:01.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        For the Naysayers.Just a sample of what is out there.


                        The Phantom Badger is a 240-horsepower combat support vehicle that’s about the size of a Mini and tough enough to traverse damn near anything.
                        "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


                        • #72
                          All that banging around at low level over the sea means that the 235s are essentially worth no more than their engines and avionics by the time the Don rolls out the replacements and the world is full of old turboprops, so I wouldn't be surprised if they ended their days after the Air Corps as Coke cans. You might see an actual miracle and the DoD buy a 295 as a genuine utility aircraft, alongside the MARPAT airframes, because I have no faith in the notion that it would become practise to keep stripping out palletised mission kit. A lot of operators found that the constant stripping out and refitting of palletised systems only increased wear and tear on the kit and the parent hull and the manufacturer's boasts of an hour or two to do same needs always to be taken with a pinch of salt. There seems to be some mental block in the DoD that the AC might have an actual use for a pure cargo/utility aircraft.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by apod View Post
                            For the Naysayers.Just a sample of what is out there.


                            https://www.wired.com/2014/04/navy-phantom-badger/
                            I do love the fact that they had to go off and build a new vehicle just so something could fit inside the Osprey. I mean I know it had development hell but did nobody stop and think about that when they were writing the spec, I mean it's not like they could have it on a sling while in aircraft mode...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                              All that banging around at low level over the sea means that the 235s are essentially worth no more than their engines and avionics by the time the Don rolls out the replacements and the world is full of old turboprops, so I wouldn't be surprised if they ended their days after the Air Corps as Coke cans. You might see an actual miracle and the DoD buy a 295 as a genuine utility aircraft, alongside the MARPAT airframes, because I have no faith in the notion that it would become practise to keep stripping out palletised mission kit. A lot of operators found that the constant stripping out and refitting of palletised systems only increased wear and tear on the kit and the parent hull and the manufacturer's boasts of an hour or two to do same needs always to be taken with a pinch of salt. There seems to be some mental block in the DoD that the AC might have an actual use for a pure cargo/utility aircraft.
                              I’d say like the PC12s - 3 aircraft (all with radar and FLIR etc) and 2 palletised suites.

                              The intend being when the transport a/c goes U/S (say for overhaul) you have a replacement.

                              The palletised system also means for ambulance, if there isn’t one already, develop an air ambulance pallet with the stretcher etc permanently on it. That way with the suite fitted you just change the last pallet

                              Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                              I do love the fact that they had to go off and build a new vehicle just so something could fit inside the Osprey. I mean I know it had development hell but did nobody stop and think about that when they were writing the spec, I mean it's not like they could have it on a sling while in aircraft mode...

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                As we will never get the C130 it seems the best of a small lot

                                Last edited by apc; 17 May 2018, 11:32.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X