Airbus C-295 to replace Casa C-235

EchoIndia

Irish Times has it now: https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/06/27/a-115m-defence-forces-patrol-aircraft-has-ability-to-rescue-irish-citizens-abroad/

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774754#Comment_120774754

And just a quick read and Jesus, trying to sell it being “technically” able to be used for evacs, and a “larger one” coming in the future…

roadmaster

The below from the article sounds promising

“We are very much a part of the European Union team in respect of that area and I envisage us engaging and joining up with our European colleagues and a number of partnerships in that regard as well as developing our own capability.”

EchoIndia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774795#Comment_120774795

Interesting to look at the variety of issues that this journo has written about in recent weeks - no wonder he struggles to write with accuracy on this subject: https://www.irishtimes.com/author/mark-hilliard/

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120774825#Comment_120774825

Is that just the way to tactfully say we are still going to be hitching rides even when the Transport version happens? Or that we are actually going to start taking such missions seriously? I mean hell, the European PESCO project for replacing the 295 class aircraft is just spinning up, anyone want to take a bet on us joining it?

Dohvolle

It has longer legs than the 235, which had a pretty decent point to point range, and is relatively comfortable compared to doing the same trek on a PC12.

Grassy Knoll

Looks a fine aircraft and on an Airbus video (diff linking it) the range of equipment seems to this non expert a quantum leap from where we were. It is certainly more than suitable for our maritime defence monitoring requirements. However two points, they are trying to spin it as possibly transporter - there is no way an aircraft with such resources should be used for ‘air haulage’, it is a shocking waste. Also, the aircraft is very neat, but will not pack much punch in terms of transport at the robust end of thingsId say they will leverage the third aircraft to allow us joint the European military transport pooling arrangement.

anyway a great day for the Aer Corps and hopefully the beginning of better days

jonnybigwallet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCJ9GP5O27I.

Airbus video of AC 295

Morpheus

So question....

Is it a Maritime Surveillance Aircraft or Maritime Patrol Aircraft?

Airbus twitter stated it was MSA as have a number of other media / military aviation sites

Irish DF and DoD twitter has called it an MPA

There is a MARKED difference in capabilities and it smacks of talking up the aircraft that we have actually purchased.

Another source suggested we actually purchased a "blended" aircraft with bits from each in it ?!?!

RavenP

I think the real time subsurface LiDAR ( which potentially can detect subs up to about a depth of 600ft), self defence features like chaff and flare dispensers, not to mention hard points for anti ship missiles and torpedoes put it at least partly in the MPA catagory, but it has fewer FITs consoles than the full MPA version ( probably so it can be reconfigured for troop transport medevac etc) and no sonobuoy or MADs capability. It might be fitted for but not with these. All in it looks like a capable MPA but not the full CASA MPA fit.

Larbre34

I think its more that the DF aren't aware, or haven't considered the difference between surveillance and patrol.

Let's be honest, it's an MSA.

Morpheus

I would suggest that they have, but that this middle ground is the best they can do as they have been forced to multirole yet another expensive piece of very capable equipment due to our historical multi-roling of everything we have :/

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120777941#Comment_120777941

I very much doubt that they “aren’t aware”, but likely this is another example of the battle for the specs that we’ve seen over this procurement, like the argument over the defensive aids, I mean if they were pure MSAs why fit them for hard points for example? Could it be there’s at least some hope that over their lifespans they might be upgraded?

Larbre34

It could be that the hardpoints are standard in military versions, but more likely its the common refrain between the uniformed branches and the DoD, 'at least let us order them pre-fitted for system X or weapon Y.'

mupper2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120778356#Comment_120778356

No, on the MSA the hardpoint attachment have a permanent patch on them usually. Some countries have laws about their CG/civilian maritime agencies etc not being allowed heavy/offensive weapons or the capability to employ them so there would be a legal requirement for the MSA not to be able to carry external weapon stores.

Someone here it seems deliberately asked for the HP to be accessible.

davetherave

Even at the tender stage back in 2018 Surveillance and Patrol were being used interchangeably

STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENT The following is a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the supply of Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) to the Department of Defence, Ireland for use by the Irish Defence Forces.

The primary role of these new aircraft will be the conduct of maritime surveillance operations, although they may also be used for a broader range of tasks. These include air ambulance missions, evacuation missions, transport of materiel, search and rescue top cover and occasionally ministerial air transport.

mupper2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120776656#Comment_120776656

Ours I'd argue lean more into the MPA and FBNW. Plus the C295 is fairly modular you want an MSA fit 2 FITS consoles, yo want a more MPA take out some panels and mount 2 more and a sonobouy launcher at the back.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120778611#Comment_120778611

Having her fitted with the hard points is likely the majority of the work other than the MAD boom, though it should be pointed out due to the operational nature of the P8s they don’t carry one either. Would have loved if somehow someone had slipped a refuelling probe into the fit out as well…

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120778620#Comment_120778620

That would involve having to train with our military neighbours frequently. Can you imagine the outrage!

Joking aside, with 9 hours endurance as it is, hard to see the advantage of a probe.

mupper2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120778620#Comment_120778620

You noticed how in the Airbus walkaround video he talked about everything bar the DAS....stood right in front of the big sticking out gribblies and nothing..

roadmaster

Yesterday would have being a good time to sneak in annoucement of an extra 295 MPA ( MSA) and a cargo 295 to bring the fleet up to 5 and there would not be a word said

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120778885#Comment_120778885

unless you were talking crazy money I would have gone with it and had an opportunity for it’s lifetime anyway.

Dohvolle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120779247#Comment_120779247

Its also something else that requires maintenance, and you need to be using it to have it, and we have neither Tankers of our own or a desire for them in the long term.

mupper2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120779258#Comment_120779258

I wouldn't say no to it on the cargo one..

Grassy Knoll

Whether it be MPA or MSA it strikes me the 2 are bare bones replacement for the c235s - I wonder when we ordered if we knew then what we know now, would be have gone for more or gone for better spec? At the risk of labouring the point, using these to haul freight is like using a sports car to tow a trailer … I can see why a short term lease couldn’t be put in place for a transporter, even to buy a secondhand 295 can’t be that expensive. It is not as if such an aircraft will be idle ….

jonnybigwallet

Well I think the 2 are quite a bit more than a bare bones replacement for the 235's. If you view the airbus video of the actual aircraft it incorporates many very advanced additional features. I agree though that it would be a bad idea to use them indiscriminately for humping baggage. Hence the order in place for a third heavy lift troop and passenger 295 in a couple of years time.

roadmaster

I pesume as well that modern Surveillance & IT systems in the 295 dont need as much room for hardaware onboard compare to when we bought the 235s

10-10-20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120780945#Comment_120780945

Day and night in comparison, I guess. Hardware has moved on to the point where in the past a lot of analysis had to take place offline or back at base while now there is a hardware capability to perform image analysis on the fly. If you had spec'd a similar platform back in the mid 90's, you would have had a quota of about 7 or 8 individual consoles, possibly each with individual operators, all packed into the airframe with huge power requirements. FITS is the embodiment of the unification of all of those systems into a dual-seated console and the integration of those imaging systems into a layered overlay system.

I'd give my right left arm to see what that complete FITS suite is really capable of in a maritime surveillance operation.

Question I have is - I presume we're not investing in a full ground-station back at HQ so we'd still need to send the appropriate intel operatives on the flight rather than have them back at base watching and interacting via the uplink?

thomil

In the video that Jonnybigwallet linked further up, the Airbus rep mentioned the ability to stream data via SatCom to a "mission support centre." Now, given that it's the head of product marketing for ISR aircraft that's doing the talking in that vid, that could very well just be a boilerplate marketing phrase thrown in there, but between this statement and the support package mentioned at the end of the video, I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of ground station was included in the deal. Given the financial constraints placed on the Defence Forces and the corresponding need to get every possible bit of value out of every purchase, I find it hard to believe that the Air Corps would ask for a SatCom system to be included without some sort of equipment on the other end.

10-10-20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120781250#Comment_120781250

Mentioned here too:

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-05-airbus-demonstrates-c295-fits-mission-system-operated-by-ground

A mission support center makes the platform many times more flexable and it makes staffing the intelligence side simpler especially if two or more of the C-295's are in the air at the same time. But at the end of the day - this isn't an AWA&C system that we're operating, so maybe that's not the priority. But even to stream live feeds and download content, it's a prerequisite in this day to have solid data links.