Author Topic: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities  (Read 594899 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 831
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1625 on: March 16, 2017, 19:48:54 »
So... I wrote my post because I was pretty confident that Leonardo was going to protest this. Yet of course JMT, in his infinite wisdom at the time knew better. Will you admit that you were wrong?

It's quite usual that companies do protest.  It's quite usual that they fail.  If they succeed, then I'll admit I was wrong.

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 831
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1626 on: March 16, 2017, 19:50:07 »
So here's the unsanctioned opinion of a private citizen - it's better than what we currently have.

Thank you for making my argument so much better than me. 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 93,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,294
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1627 on: March 17, 2017, 10:32:50 »
As opposed to the Buffalo that they would have been using instead?

Space in the back will still be at a premium with the smaller aircraft. No one is arguing they don't new a new aircraft and better sensors, both offer that, The C27J is a far better choice aircraft wise, the C295 is going to be easier to get parts and support for. As for comparing SAR scenarios, Canada is pretty unique in the variety of missions, size of area and minimal resources we have. Getting the lesser aircraft regardless of the other benefits will have long term consequences.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1628 on: March 17, 2017, 10:47:38 »
Colin, you bring up an interesting point about SAR in Canada, what do other countries do? Just as a matter of curiosity, are the C-27 and C-295 even used for SAR anywhere? What platforms are other countries using instead and why?

I'm thinking that the C-295 won on cost alone both initial and operating, not performance?

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 831
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1629 on: March 17, 2017, 10:47:50 »
No argument there.  I was simply going with the scenario.  The C-295SAR is faster than the DHC-5, can fly further than the DHC-5, and can carry more cargo than the DHC-5.  Yes, the cabin is slightly smaller than the DHC-5, but will allow most people to stand up (barely).  It also requires more room to take off (but will work on most air strips).  It's better and more reliable than what we're using now in many cases, and will have support for decades.  It also performs long range missions over water and mountains now.  The C-27j would have been better in many aspects, but like the Super Hornet purchase, these complaints are very much making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 831
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1630 on: March 17, 2017, 10:54:29 »
Colin, you bring up an interesting point about SAR in Canada, what do other countries do? Just as a matter of curiosity, are the C-27 and C-295 even used for SAR anywhere? What platforms are other countries using instead and why?

I'm not Colin - but as far as I know, we will be the first (only) people to use it.  The closest comparison would be the US use of the C-235 in the USCG.  As far as I know, few countries have dedicated fixed wing SAR assets.

Quote
I'm thinking that the C-295 won on cost alone both initial and operating, not performance?

That would be mostly correct.

Offline kev994

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1631 on: March 17, 2017, 11:50:31 »

I'm thinking that the C-295 won on cost alone both initial and operating, not performance?

I suspect that the track record of the manufacturers may have been taken into account. The USCG is having an awful time getting parts for the C27.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1632 on: March 18, 2017, 13:34:52 »
an older piece explaining Peru's decision to choose performance over cost

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/149884/the-story-behind-peru%E2%80%99s-c_27j-buy.html

as you can see the AN-26 is actually more powerful than the c-295
c-295 2645 hp x 2
AN-26 2820 hp x 2 plus tubojet booster


http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/air/arsvf-fwsar/index-eng.html
Innovative evaluation

In the past, bids were evaluated on the basis of best price and capability. However, today’s innovative practices are more comprehensive, and the proposals were evaluated based on three mandatory criteria, for an overall score:

Capability: Search and rescue response performance, aircraft and system characteristics, proposed maintenance and support services program and an evaluation of their capability to deliver on potential risks, as well as ground and flight testing of the actual proposed aircraft (worth 65 out of 100 points)
Cost: Based on cost of acquisition and option years. The winning proposal provided the best long-term, operational capability and maintenance and support services benefits to Canada (worth 25 out of 100 points)
Economic benefits for Canada (Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy and Value Proposition): The bidders had to commit to undertake business activities in Canada equal to the contract value, for both the acquisition and maintenance and support services components of the contract. The winning proposal developed an innovative approach to ensure the aircraft are maintained in Canada by Canadians (worth 10 out of 100 points)
Additional methods and tools were used for evaluating bids, and various processes were reviewed by an independent third party, which concluded that the methods used were consistent with the objective of promoting competition and best value. The capability-based procurement also led to innovative elements incorporated into the Request for Proposals, such as an aircraft performance assessment tool and a proposal cost evaluation tool.

A two-step bid evaluation process was also used to avoid rejecting bids for minor errors and omissions. Bidders were offered the option to provide Canada with a submission prior to the closing of the bid process, for a preliminary assessment of their proposed response to key requirements.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 8,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,256
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1633 on: March 18, 2017, 14:08:08 »
Hat tip to suffolkowner for explanation...

 :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 13,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 831
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1634 on: March 18, 2017, 15:25:30 »
I suspect that the track record of the manufacturers may have been taken into account. The USCG is having an awful time getting parts for the C27.

I would imagine that they're not having the same problem for the SAR/MPA C-235s.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 166,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,171
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1635 on: March 18, 2017, 15:47:43 »
I wonder how the Aussies are making out with their Spartans?

Unlike the Yanks the Aussies didn't stiff Alenia

Quote


Rome, 10 May 2012

Finmeccanica: Australia selects C-27J Spartan for a contract up to EUR 800 million

Finmeccanica was selected by the Australian Government to supply 10 newly built Alenia AermacchiC-27J Spartan Battlefield Airlifters. The total value of the contract, which also includes logistic supportand training, is around EUR 800 million (AUSD 1.4 billion). First aircraft are expected to be delivered in2015.

“This achievement represents a milestone in Finmeccanica's strategic expansion in the high-potential international markets like Australia and confirms the value of a successful program such as the C-27J”, Giuseppe Orsi, Finmeccanica's Chairman and CEO, said. “In addition to the contract award forNATO's Cyber Security and the selection of the M-346 trainer by Israel - both of which occurred in thefirst months of 2012 - this announcement proves Finmeccanica's capability to be a major high-technology global player, thus reaching the top position of the most advanced ‘Made in Italy’ brand. The investment in technology is for Italy the best way to ensure its sustainable development, thusmaintaining and developing the Country's industrial capabilities, rendering them even morecompetitive in the international markets”.

The acquisition of the aircraft will be conducted through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) arrangementwith the United States and the contract will be awarded to the partnership between L-3 (as prime contractor) and Alenia Aermacchi, a Finmeccanica company. The contract will also include associated support equipment, several years of initial logistic support, training for aircrew and maintenance personnel and additional capability to ensure that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) can operate,maintain and modify the aircraft throughout its planned life.

The C-27J will replace the Caribou aircraft which was retired from service in 2009 after 40 years of service. The C-27J complements the capabilities of the RAAF C-130 and C-17 aircraft and uses common infrastructure and aircraft systems such as engines, avionics and the cargo handling systems.

The C-27J has already been ordered by the air forces of Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania,Morocco, Mexico and by the US Air Force and selected by Slovakia’s air force. The total number of aircraft ordered goes up to 89, as the best seller among aircraft of its category”.

The C-27J is a twin-engine turboprop tactical transport aircraft with state-of-the-art technology in avionics, propulsion and systems. It provides high performances, high cost effectiveness, extreme operating flexibility and is the only aircraft of its class offering interoperability with heavier airlifters

https://www.scribd.com/document/93215100/Finmeccanica-Australia-selects-C-27J-Spartan-for-a-contract-up-to-EUR-800-million

The USAF and the Joint Cargo Aircraft fiasco muddied the waters royally.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 79,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,516
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1636 on: March 18, 2017, 16:22:45 »
In fact, isn't one of the reasons we couldn't get them second hand from the USAF ourselves that Alenia said they would not support anyone who bought them used from the USAF, as they only had a contract with the USAF for support. I would assume this means that even the USCG has to negotiate a separate maintenance/repairs contract with Alenia, who is in no hurry to oblige and will milk it for whatever it can.

Offline kev994

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1637 on: March 18, 2017, 17:03:39 »
I would imagine that they're not having the same problem for the SAR/MPA C-235s.
They can get parts but their legs are too short for some missions and it does not do well in icing conditions, a bit of a problem in Cape Cod, so pick your poison.
Edit to add that the 295W is a couple generations of improvements from the 235 so hopefully some of those issues have been mitigated.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 17:08:51 by kev994 »

Offline kev994

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 102
FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1638 on: March 18, 2017, 17:20:46 »
In fact, isn't one of the reasons we couldn't get them second hand from the USAF ourselves that Alenia said they would not support anyone who bought them used from the USAF, as they only had a contract with the USAF for support. I would assume this means that even the USCG has to negotiate a separate maintenance/repairs contract with Alenia, who is in no hurry to oblige and will milk it for whatever it can.
From what I understand the problem has more to do with the fallout between Lockheed and Alenia, but it doesn't help that they didn't come with spares.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 17:30:03 by kev994 »