Zu der Ausschreibung habe ich mal einen etwas längeren Text geschrieben, den ich eigentlich auf airliners.net posten wollte - deshalb in Englisch (ok, kein perfektes
).
Da ich aber zu geizig bin, 25$ Anmeldegebühr zu bezahlen, stelle ich den mal hier ins Forum. Wer möchte, darf ihn gerne bei airliners.net einstellen.
The USAF-RFI for a Light Mobility Airlifter (LiMA) to support troops within the framework of irregular warfare attracted my interest. For comparison, I collected and arranged some information about possible aircraft types:
1. EADS-CASA C212-400
2. PZL Mielec M28 Skytruck
3. Dornier 228
4. Viking Twin Otter Series 400
5. Beechcraft King Air 350
6. Pilatus PC-12 NG
7. BrittenNorman Defender
8. Cessna GrandCaravan 208B
9. Explorer Aircraft Explorer 750t
10. Explorer Aircraft Explorer 500T
11. Pilatus PC-6
12. Viking TurboBeaver
13. Pacific Aerospace (PAC) P-750 XSTOL
14. Gippsland GA8 Airvan
The pdf-table (incl. links) can be found here:
http://filedealer.com/freeupload/c22036f77f3c69338901fd2d7f4b2f84.pdf
In my opinion, the central requirements by the USAF are the following:
1. Carry minimum of 6 passengers, plus crew
2. Takeoff and land with a minimum of 1800 lbs (816kg) passengers and cargo from unimproved austere landing surfaces
3. 900 NM range
4. Certified for single pilot operations
As I am not an expert in avionic technologies, I will largely ignore these topics, believing that an order for 60 aircrafts would bring the manufacturers to customize the requested avionic assets.
Generally the Air Force has a quite wide range of aircrafts suiting for the RFI, beginning with twin-engine STOL-Transporters with 8t-MTOW (like the CASA C-212) over general aviation assets (like the Beechcraft King Air or the Cessna Caravan) to single-engine bush planes (like the Pilatus PC-6).
On the top end there are the twin-engine STOL transporters EADS-CASA C212-400 and PZL Mielec M28. Their advantage is despite the relatively high payload (about 2.5 t) the rear ramp, which allows dropping pallets by parachute to Forward Operating Basis (FOB) or transport light vehicles. Another advantage is the usability not only for irregular warfare as they can support the C-27J-fleet by taking over the role of the C-23 Sherpa to supply Forward Operating Air Bases in regular conflicts.
Their draw-backs, directly resulting from their sizes, are the bigger needs for maintenance and fuel – caused not at least by two engines – and their higher procurement costs.
If the Air Force decides to purchase a “large” STOL-Transporter, which aircraft will they choose? Interestingly both types are currently in US forces service – the C-212 as C-41A within the U.S. Army Special Operations Command’s Flight Detachment, the M-28 Skytruck within the U.S Air Force Special Operations Command. That fact in mind, the decision will be influenced by the experiences in active duty.
In any case PZL has to improve the full capacity of the M-28 for reaching a range of 900 nm. Otherwise it will be out of the contest.
Unfortunately I have not got any information yet, whether both aircrafts are certified for single pilot operations.
Beyond (or better above) these aspects are economic and political factors, which need to be considered.
EADS-CASA could team up with Northrop Grumman to offer the C-212 like they did in the tanker bid.
But in this domain the M-28 prevails. As PZL Mielec is part of United Technology there is an organic link to the US and the production could be easily transferred to the United States. On the other hand the production in Poland would be a beneficial support for a close ally in Central Europe and could lead to further acquisitions of US-products by Poland (like the F-16s).
One size smaller (approx. 6 t MTOW) are two other twin-engine STOL-Transporters with different capacities, the (RUAG) Dornier 228 and the Viking (ex-DHC) Twin Otter Series 400.
The Dornier 228 has a more modern design with a slightly better performance considering speed and range, but its lower STOL-capabilities, the missing rear ramp and the absence of political or economic reasons are clear restrictions.
Despite the Twin Otter lacks also the rear ramp it offers outstanding STOL-capabilities – not unimportant for supporting austere bases. First experiences with the new Series 400 will be gained by the US Army Parachute Team. On the political level a Twin Otter bargain can be an offset opportunity for the Canadian procurements of C-17, CH-47 and (planned) P-8.
Different characteristics are shown by the following two aircrafts – the Beechcraft King Air 350 and the Pilatus PC-12 NG. Both were developed as business aircrafts with high cruise speeds and long ranges in mind. Especially the King Air suffers from its poor take off performance and the only advantage appears to be the compability to the (M)C-12 fleet.
The PC-12 NG looks more adequate for the RFI because of its more modern design, the single-engine layout and its versatility (underlined by its use as U-28A by the USAF). Unfortunately I have not found any economic or political reasons that score for Pilatus.
With a MGOW of nearly 4 t there are the BrittenNorman Defender and the Cessna GrandCaravan 208B. The former is only mentioned for the sake of completeness – the type might be interesting but is definitely an underdog.
According to the data the Cessna appears not to be an outstanding offer. Looking at technical and military aspects its biggest pro is the versatility as shown by the use of the Caravan as Utility- and COIN-aircraft in the Lebanese and Iraqi Air Force.
Nevertheless anything else than buying the Cessna would be a surprise. Looking at the RFI the demanded range of 900 nm fits very well to the 917 nm range of the Caravan – a coincidence? And 100% US is a strong argument in times of recession when Cessna lacks private orders.
Explorer Aircraft produces two very promising looking aircrafts, the Explorer 500T and 750T. They benefit from their modern design with use of composite materials and a retractable landing gear for example. Unfortunately there are only little information about the aircrafts and their spread in the web, so it is quite difficult to judge their chances. As most of the contenders have proven their reliability in the last years or decades, the modern concept could be a disadvantage for the Explorers. But this statement is not more than a speculation.
Although the likely winner is named the list of candidates isn’t complete. There remain four smaller bush planes which can (more or less) match the demands of the RFI. The Pilatus PC-6 Turbo Porter, the Viking Turbo Beaver, the Pacific Aerospace P-750 XSTOL and the Gippsland Aeronautics GA 8 Airvan offer strong STOL-capabilities and quite rugged designs with few maintenance needs (not least the Beaver and the PC-6 already showed their performance to US forces in Vietnam). The load performances of the first three fulfil the request with minor surplus. The two possible limits for these aircrafts are their range and the available avionic suites. The Turbo Beaver and the P-750 XSTOL have both ranges of about 600 nm that is why they will have no chance. The PC-6 achieves with external fuel tanks 870 nm – only 30 nm below the specifications of the RFI. The GA 8 fulfils the RFI with 930 nm but lacks just 16 kg of payload. It appears to be an odd coincidence that two foreign contenders fall short the RFI so narrow. We have to wait whether the two manufacturers will improve their aircrafts or the USAF will modify its requirements in the RFP.
Beyond that the PC-6 suffers like the PC-12 from its missing political or economic ties to the US, whereas it is doubtful, if Gippsland Aeronautics will be able to deliver 60 aircrafts in a reasonable period of time.
The conclusion:
Independent of the experiences with most of the candidates in active duty, the most likely alternatives are the following:
If the USAF wanted…
… a twin-engine aircraft with rear ramp, it should choose the EADS-CASA C-212 (as the PZL M-28 currently lacks of range).
… a twin-engine aircraft with excellent STOL-capabilities, it should choose the Viking Twin Otter Series 400.
… a single-engine aircraft with excellent speed and range performance, it should choose the Pilatus PC-12 NG.
… a single-engine aircraft with excellent STOL-capabilities and a rugged design, it should choose the Pilatus PC-6 or the Gippsland Aeronautics GA8 Airvan.
… a single-engine aircraft with balanced performance and 100% US inside, it should choose the Cessna GrandCaravan (or the Explorer 500T/750T as a possible modern alternative).
My personal opinion:
STOL matters – neither speed nor range will be important, if the aircraft is not able to land on short and rough airstrips to deliver load or to pickup passengers. The best aircrafts in that discipline are the Twin Otter and the PC-6.
Let´s have a look what will happen.
