CASA Replacement

[EUFighter]

Does anyone have any insight into what's included in the contract, particularly around the Maritime Spec, Palletized, are they going to recycle equipment from the current FITS setup in the -235 ETC..

The Model Aircraft at the contract signing shows a Radome above and below the fuselage... is this representative of the Spec, my understanding that this was an ASW configuration??

The one below is the 360deg radar just like in the CN235. For the radome on the top I would guess that it is for SatCom/Datalink given its size and location.

[Charlie252]

The one below is the 360deg radar just like in the CN235. For the radome on the top I would guess that it is for SatCom/Datalink given its size and location.

The CN-235's had Satcom/data and the antennae was much smaller.

[Anzac]

The thing about converting Airbus A320s to freighters has been going on since God was a dog. What has happened,in effect,is that older,larger freighters do the bulk of freight work and ATRs and sundry turboprops do the rest. In that airframe size,B737s dominate the market and right now, it's worth more to scrap an A320 than convert it. They are even talking of scrapping A380s and even A320s as young as 10 years old have been scrapped........

The reason for that is no one has up until a big outfit like ST came along were able to afford to go through the STC process and have the backing of Airbus. Why are they doing it now - because the feedstock of B734's and B735's are running out and will need to be replaced. Also the air freight markets are different in different countries and Airbus and ST obviously see a market in the Asia Pacific where the B734F which dominates in short-medium range bulk and will need replacing. The days of 10year old A320's being scrapped will soon be over unless they are fubar's. The 14 with Air NZ are due to be replaced with the Neo from 2023.

[Charlie252]

What have A320's and P2F conversions have to do with CASA replacement

[Anzac]

What have A320's and P2F conversions have to do with CASA replacement

The possibility that the IAC may refrain from trying to merge a potential airlift capability with a maritime patrol capability on a single platform that may well compromise the effectiveness of one or both capabilities.

Maybe that "3rd" CASA people speculated on because it could swing roles was not considered because as the CASA is a light-medium intra theatre tactical transport may have deemed as unsuited as an air mobility platform in the Irish context, which like RNZAF sized deployments needs to airlift tactical loads - strategic distances.

That the 3rd CASA might be something else, like mmm let's see ..... a A320-200 type of aircraft .....

[GoneToTheCanner]

Remember,ifyou use a 320 or a 737,you still need pallet lifters and conveyor belts and refitted roller floors. So,you or somebody else needs to have them in place downrange. Adding the extra fuel tank is not always operationally useful,as it itself and it's associated piping weighs about a ton, so its a trade off........I suspect that the new Casas will rarely,if ever, have the mission kit removed on a casual basis. Allegedly,the third PC-12 may or may not be a fully kitted out surveillance aircraft, but will be a plain vanilla airframe,depending on how well the first two get on.

[Charlie252]

The possibility that the IAC may refrain from trying to merge a potential airlift capability with a maritime patrol capability on a single platform that may well compromise the effectiveness of one or both capabilities.
Maybe that "3rd" CASA people speculated on because it could swing roles was not considered because as the CASA is a light-medium intra theatre tactical transport may have deemed as unsuited as an air mobility platform in the Irish context, which like RNZAF sized deployments needs to airlift tactical loads - strategic distances.
That the 3rd CASA might be something else, like mmm let's see ..... a A320-200 type of aircraft .....

Seriously you are making such a leap. Even if there was a requirement for some kind of larger capacity Military Transport aircraft for the AC and an even more unlikely chance that there was Finance available, there are many more suitable Platforms available other than some untried and uncertified Airliner conversion.

It is strange that despite the announcement, we have no detail of clarity as to what spec and support package is included in the declared contact value, by any standards 220Mill of two C-295's in a basic Fish Pat spec is high, particularly when we already have two SETS of FITS with two modern radars and FLIR systems on hand.

Very disappointed that no statement about a third or more airframes was made.

[Chuck]

, but will be a plain vanilla airframe,depending on how well the first two get on.

Just to clarify. A non ISR equipped aircraft has nothing to do with how the others "get on". Not sure who is feeding you those lines. Information was set out in the tenders.

As for talk of an airbus strategic airlift aircraft. Not in a million years.

For a start you would have techs and pilots walking out the door with tech and type ratings and no one will sign an undertaking for said ratings.

In addition, there will never be a single role aircraft in the inventory again. Any aircraft has to do several roles, even if that is the detriment to said roles.

[Chuck]

It is strange that despite the announcement, we have no detail of clarity as to what spec and support package is included in the declared contact value, by any standards 220Mill of two C-295's in a basic Fish Pat spec is high, particularly when we already have two SETS of FITS with two modern radars and FLIR systems on hand.

Very disappointed that no statement about a third or more airframes was made.

The final product will be far more advanced than a basic MPA airframe. Capability will be lightyears ahead of the 235.

Location of mission equipment will be different to 235s to take advantage of the longer cabin and negate the need for removal/reinstallation of said equipment when changing roles.

[EUFighter]

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.

[EUFighter]

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?

[Sparky42]

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?

[DeV]

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

[EUFighter]

Go back to 2005 (pre financial crash):
CASA maritime patrols - 1382 hrs

Back in 2005 I had hair!

[EUFighter]

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.