# New Aircraft in the Offing?



## GGboy (31 Aug 2005)

From today's National Post:

National Post
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
By Chris Wattie
National Post
The Canadian air force wants to spend $6-billion on a fleet of more than 50 new transport and search-and-rescue aircraft under a proposal to be presented to Cabinet this month, the National Post has learned.
Senior defence sources said the air force is putting the finishing touches on an "omnibus" plan to solve the looming crisis in its air transport system.
The plan would allow the Canadian Forces to buy badly needed replacements for its Hercules cargo planes, long overdue new search-and-rescue aircraft and a fleet of new heavy-lift helicopters in one fell swoop.
"There are big air mobility issues to deal with and there's a certain urgency to this," said one senior official familiar with the plan. "If it's not addressed soon, it will become critical."
The plan has not yet been approved by Bill Graham, the Defence Minister.
But the source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "The department is making this a priority for the fall ... this is something we're going to look at putting to government as soon as possible."
The proposal now on the table would see the Department of National Defence buying between 15 and 20 of the latest model of Lockheed Martin's long-serving Hercules transport plane, the C-130J, to replace its fleet of model E Hercules, which are more than 40 years old.
It also includes 15 new fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes -- likely the Italian-made C-27J Spartan -- long overdue replacements for six CC-115 Buffalo aircraft now in service in British Columbia.
The air force also wants to buy 20 CH-47 Chinooks -- twin-rotor helicopters capable of carrying as many as 44 soldiers or more than 13 tonnes of cargo, vehicles or heavy weapons in overseas theatres such as Afghanistan.
The bill for the new aircraft and the necessary support and servicing contracts would come in at more than $6-billion, at least some of which will have to be new money allocated by Cabinet to the defence budget, the sources said.
The acquisition of the new planes would be spread over the next five to 10 years, but the air force has already said it needs to replace the Buffalos and the oldest of its Hercules planes by 2010 at the latest.
The plan does not directly address the Canadian Forces' need for strategic airlift -- long-distance, heavy-lift cargo planes capable of flying hundreds of tonnes of equipment or supplies around the globe.
"The piece that's missing ... is strategic airlift," said one senior air force officer. "That's going to be addressed somehow, but whether it's buying new aircraft or leasing or joining some sort of strategic lift 'pool' has not been decided."
The Canadian Forces air transport fleet has been struggling for years with ageing aircraft and mounting maintenance costs.
Air force officials said the Hercules have already begun hitting the end of their effective lifespans -- five years before the military expected to begin replacing its workhorse cargo aircraft.
Lieutenant-Colonel Bruce Cooke, the program and engineering manager for the Hercules fleet, said two of the oldest planes have reached their "ultimate economic lifespan" -- the point at which it costs more to maintain them than it would to buy a new aircraft.
"We're almost at a point now where that is a real option," Lt.-Col. Cooke said. "The amount of money we're putting into the old airframes ironically could be very, very similar in costs to going out and buying a new airframe."
The military's ailing air transport system was dealt another blow this month after a safety bulletin from Lockheed-Martin, the U.S.-based manufacturer of the Hercules, recommended expensive and time-consuming inspections for potentially disastrous cracks in the aircraft's wings.
Two of the air force's oldest Hercules are already over the limit of 50,000 flying hours, the point at which Lockheed-Martin recommends grounding the aircraft for extensive testing, and four more are quickly approaching that level.
That will mean 18 of the air force's 32 CC-130 Hercules aircraft will have to be taken out of active duty over the next few months, Lt.-Col. Cooke said.
Although the air force has already done "almost 65%" of the recommended inspections of its Hercules' wings, he said the rest of the inspections could take aircraft out of service for weeks and eat up scarce funds.
"We honestly don't know yet how much it will cost.... It could be in the hundreds of thousands."
The problem of cracked wings was first discovered two years ago in the Canadian Hercules fleet, which is among the oldest in the world.
"The bottom line is that we are now at the point where we either invest significant funds to rebuild the aircraft or we take the same amount and replace the bird with another, new aircraft," Lt.-Col. Cooke said.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2005)

30 x C27Js @25 MUSD  =   750 MUSD
20 x CH47s @30 MUSD =   600 MUSD
Total                          = 1350 MUSD

1 MCAD @ 0.84 MUSD 

1350 MUSD x 0.84       = 1600 MCAD

Project Cost                = 6000 MCAD

Duey where are you?

You explained the training and maintenance costs on the CH-47s once before but this mark-up appears interesting.  Could you go over it again for us that are slow on the uptake?

Cheers.


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2005)

Kirkhill: the C130's ... must be more than 25MUSD each. Are you sure thats not 125MUSD?


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2005)

whiskey

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-27J.htm



> Costs (Kosten)
> A fly-away price of 27,5 million US-Dollars was mentioned in mid-1999, a lot more than the 20 - 21 million US-Dollars at first envisaged in 1996. As the C-295 is around 30 per cent cheaper, a price-cutting exercise was planned.
> In 2000, development costs were said to be in the region of 40 million US-Dollars, to be funded by the companies.



I am looking for a more current reference on the C27J.  I have seen other reports recently (ie the last couple of years) that suggest the order of magnitude costs are good.

By the way the C130J is roughly twice the cost of the C27J.  Curiously when looking at the C27/C130/C17/747ERF there is an astonishing congruence between Capital Cost and Ton-mile lifting capacity.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRC-130J.htm


> Costs (Kosten)
> With spares and support, the C-130J sells at around 55 million US-Dollars (Australia 1995).
> In December 2000, a dozen aircraft for the US services in a mix of variants sold at 734 million US-Dollars, i.e. 61 million US-Dollars per plane.
> Lockheed Martin in April 1999 claimed a cost per flight hour of 1300 US-Dollars compared with 1900 US-Dollars for the older C-130H and 3900 US-Dollars for the C-17.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2005)

Here's another more current reference.  
Bulgaria, Greece and Italy are current buyers. Trying to figure out actual aircraft prices from those countries, given the interactions of aid etc, makes the process more obscure than it is in Canada.



> C-27J Spartan Enjoying International Success
> Posted 06-Apr-2005 08:19
> Related stories: Transport & Utility
> Also on this day: 06-Apr-2005  »
> ...



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/04/c27j-spartan-enjoying-international-success/index.php#orison_mc


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2005)

> The office of the defense secretary recently estimated that the CH-47F unit cost will be about $22 million. The Chinook is now expected to remain in the Army inventory until at least 2033, 71 years after the CH-47 first entered service.


http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Jul/Upgraded_Chinook.htm 
That was a 2002 estimate.

This site offers a unit cost for the CH-47F of 32 MUSD  in 2005
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00105003


----------



## Infanteer (31 Aug 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Duey where are you?



I would assume that the 6 billion price tag includes O&M, as Duey highlighted in his post on the 'hook.

Don't you times the number by 3 to get the ballpark figure?

1600 MCAD x 3 = 4800MCAD

Put it together and you get 6.4 billion.  Does that work?


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2005)

You are right about the multiplication Infanteer and maybe 3 is the number but as I remembered it, Capital x 3 = Total Cost including Maintenance and Training.  Operations (I believe) are separately priced (crew and gas).


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2005)

GGboy said:
			
		

> The proposal now on the table would see the Department of National Defence buying between 15 and 20 of the latest model of Lockheed Martin's long-serving Hercules transport plane, the C-130J, to replace its fleet of model E Hercules, which are more than 40 years old.
> It also includes 15 new fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes -- likely the Italian-made C-27J Spartan  -- long overdue replacements for six CC-115 Buffalo aircraft now in service in British Columbia.
> The air force also wants to buy 20 CH-47 Chinooks  -- twin-rotor helicopters capable of carrying as many as 44 soldiers or more than 13 tonnes of cargo, vehicles or heavy weapons in overseas theatres such as Afghanistan.



Unless I am misreading something, the plan is for 15-20 C130J, 15 C27 and 20 CH47.

15 C130J @ 65 MUSD=   975MUSD 
15 C27@ 30MUSD= 450MUSD
20 CH47@30MUSD=600MUSD

Total= 2025MUSD in capital price. Thats seems like a lot, but over the acquisition cycle, it amounts to about $500 MCD per year over 10 years with inflation at 3 percent [excluding life cycle costs]. 

Am I incorporating a cost that you have excluded?


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2005)

Sorry all:

Comes from reading the paper before the Caffeine kicks in completely. I misread the article.  I thought they were replacing the E's with C27s not J's.

Whiskey's got it righter - even if the numbers have "climbed" a bit.

Then Infanteer/Dueys 3:1 works.

Panic over. :-[ :blotto:


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2005)

West Coast java? 8) Good stuff.


----------



## mover1 (31 Aug 2005)

Please not the J model. Heard its a lemon


----------



## Sf2 (31 Aug 2005)

Chinook G is on the way, not the F - I hereby volunteer for the first OTU down in the states


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (31 Aug 2005)

it is interesting tale so far. by the time the actually aircraft are ordered and on the ground, I would not be shocked that  costs arise another billion, they  never seem tog et anything to come in under budget. 
Comparing the Griffon and the CH 47 not exactly  apples to apples. both are green helicopters I guess. I thought the Canadian Order for the Griffon was for 100 units, but they listed 86 in the story. Did we lose some?  CH 47 guess we could buy  back our old choppers from the dutch for less We need new equipment not used  or reused.
As for the buffalo replacement I would of liked to see a Canadian Plane maker in the running. But I guess none of our aircraft makers have a plane on the shelf for that  would suit the needs.  I did notice that  we are going for a bigger cargo plane but less troop lift. Buffalo  2727Kg or 41 troops. C-27J  5443kg or 34 troops. 
Heavy  lift aircraft still a leasing issue as required. 
Hercs need replacing now 50000 hour airframes are not good, oldest fleet in the world. that is not right but I guess they  fall under the seaking , tutor jet for Canada and the B52 Rules for the US Airforce fly  till they fall out of sky. At least the Americans put the B52 thru major upgrades and rebuilts.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2005)

Mover:  Not many good alternatives to J's out there just now AFAIK.

Former Horse Guard:  C27J can acually carry up to 68 combat troops if lightly equipped or about 40-50 Euro Paratroops or American Troops, or 34 American style paratroops. 

Dutch CH-47 buy back? Their using theirs.

As for the 86 Griffons, not sure but I think that is roughly the number assigned to TAC (Army Co-op) roles.  The rest (-2? that have fallen out of the sky) were assigned to the Air Force for Base Rescue.

Cheers.


----------



## mover1 (31 Aug 2005)

Airbus is developing a new airframe that is and will give the Herc a run for the money.  
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/handling.html

Lets get real with the Chinooks. I don't see us buying back ours from the Dutch. They are too old. I see us buying new or slightly used.

Griffons although a nice helicopter are being used in a role that they are not intended.
I am not holding my breath on any of it to come to fuition. In fact by the time I get to see any of these airframes come into service, I expect to be collecting my pension and pooping my depends.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (31 Aug 2005)

the numbers I posted were from the photo and charts published in the news story.  i was looking at the pictures of the buffalo and the spartan and the spartan does look like a bigger aircraft so i was sort of confused when it stated  under load  5443KG  or 34 fully  equipped troops the buff has a laod of 2727 KG and 41 fully  equipped troops
so i do not know. 
i hope they  buy something decent is all


----------



## Inch (31 Aug 2005)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> the numbers I posted were from the photo and charts published in the news story.   i was looking at the pictures of the buffalo and the spartan and the spartan does look like a bigger aircraft so i was sort of confused when it stated   under load   5443KG   or 34 fully   equipped troops the buff has a laod of 2727 KG and 41 fully   equipped troops
> so i do not know.
> i hope they   buy something decent is all



Do the math, 41 troops weighing in at an average of 100 kg would equal 4100 kg, which is nearly 1400 kg overweight.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (31 Aug 2005)

my  guess is it really  comes down to what  is considered fully  equipped troops. web grear, weapons, bullets, not much else 
i was stating facts off the news story.  i have been side the buffalo aircraft at the pant where they  were built in Toronto and at a couple airshows, but I do think it would be a tight fit for 41 men with or without equipment. 
guess it would also depend how the cargo was loaded, and what  cargo was madeup of,  bulky  equipment could fill the cargo area long before it was maxed out, and small heavy  equipment could max out the eight limits and have lots of cargo space. 

but since these aircraft will be in SAR roles cargo space is going have less then 20 soldiers and equipment. life rafts for over water resue, and land grear for over land rescues. tents and medical gear. so they  should be fine.  

so anyone want to start a betting pool as to when these new dreams come into service, if they come into service and if they  will be even close tot he numbers talked about or required or how much over budget they  will be?


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Aug 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 30 x C27Js @25 MUSD   =     750 MUSD
> 20 x CH47s @30 MUSD =     600 MUSD
> Total                                       = 1350 MUSD
> 
> ...



Sorry for not getting here sooner, guys...I was digging/moving a tree in the back yard...nothing better to do with embarkation leave than move trees...   ;D


anyhow...my quick run at the numbers would be ~45M CAD for a CH-47F cargo variant and $55M CAD for an MH-47G SOF/msn spec model...let's say I'm dreaming in technicolour and we get 20 G's since the refuelling boom would make transit up North for a MAJAID very responsive (and a bunch of other missions that we could discuss over a beer), then multiply the airframes x 3 (an amazinginly accurate SWAG for total lifecycle costs and we would have:

20 x 55M = $1.1B CAD for up front costs (as an example the CH146 cast ~$0.95B), and 

another $2.2B over 30 years = $73M/year for in-service support.

Overall, these figures are consistent with what I would expect the department is looking at...re: CH146, I wouldn't be surpized to see about 35-40 kept in the Tac Avn role (no clue about "CSS" in YOD, YBG, YGB) with likely some kind of "power and performance" upgrades (likely not a fully "UH-1Y" upgrade) an improved EO/IR sensor and some lighterweight precision munitions (laser seeking CRV-7's)


I'm cautiously optimistic that some of this might actually happen.  Personally, I'm glad to see the TAL/TPT guys getting looked after as well, although I'm still not convinced the 130-J is the best way to do it.  The C-27J is not a bad hummer for FWSAR...

Let's see how this one goes down...hopefully before the November election...  :-\


p.s.  This also smack of trial ballooning...although Chris Wattie is a relatively straight shooter and the stuff that seeps out of the MND's office is usually fairly accurate when it comes down to the short strokes...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Aug 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> Chinook G is on the way, not the F - I hereby volunteer for the first OTU down in the states



Shortfinal, after I finish my "recce" in the 'stan, I'll meet you down in Rucker for the AQC (a/c qual course).  Of course, some of us will pop up/over to Ft. Campbell for a bit more "OJT" with the Nightstalkers...ah, to be flying back with the boys again, NSDQ huah!  8)

Hold on gents, I predict the wager I made with a buddy for a bottle of 18yr Highland Park if I'm sitting my arse in a cockpit in the fall of '06 may actually happen...  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2005)

> Could you go over it again for us that are slow on the uptake?



I KNEW you could Duey.   Cheers and Thx ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Sep 2005)

After what has happened down in the US with Katrina, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they Canada does not even remotely possess the capability to deal with a major disaster like Katrina. 

There is not a single piece of kit on this air force list that would not be deemed essential in dealing with a major disaster. I expect the government to fill this list,and then some, without any balking whatsoever. There is not a single piece of offensive equipment on the list.. fill it, the sooner the better.

FWIW.


----------



## TR23 (1 Sep 2005)

What would the additional(over the 6 Buffalo's) C-27j's be used for?  More SAR - perhaps in the east?  Or as a transport aircraft in a light role?  Sensor Platform?
How do you guys feel about the suitability of the C-27j?  It sure seems like a neat plane from its canadian website - www.c-27j.ca, but does it stack up for what we need?
If we purchased 20 Hercules, how many more do we need?  Note I'm not asking how many more will we get, but how many do our operational requirements demand?
Would the 20 chinooks be centralized, or spread across several bases?  Is 20 a good number to work from?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Sep 2005)

Dear TR23:

I think you will find an airing of a full range of opinions on the roles and capabilities of C27/C130/C295 etc on these threads.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22920.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33214.0.html

Cheers.

Look forward to hearing from you later.


----------



## Zoomie (1 Sep 2005)

Thanks for that Kirkhill... Saves me a ton of typing...


----------



## TR23 (1 Sep 2005)

Thanks, I had tried a search, but I must have had a typo or something, because I didn't find these.  Reading now.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Sep 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Sorry for not getting here sooner, guys...I was digging/moving a tree in the back yard...nothing better to do with embarkation leave than move trees...     ;D
> 
> 
> anyhow...my quick run at the numbers would be ~45M CAD for a CH-47F cargo variant and $55M CAD for an MH-47G SOF/msn spec model...let's say I'm dreaming in technicolour and we get 20 G's since the refuelling boom would make transit up North for a MAJAID very responsive (and a bunch of other missions that we could discuss over a beer), then multiply the airframes x 3 (an amazinginly accurate SWAG for total lifecycle costs and we would have:
> ...



I wish we'd just copy the Australian procurement model.... 

Their HQ says they need it.  They negotiate terms.  The government funds it.  They announce the contract.  Timespan: 18 months - 24 months.



Matthew.   :-\


----------



## mover1 (1 Sep 2005)

TR23 said:
			
		

> What would the additional(over the 6 Buffalo's) C-27j's be used for?   More SAR - perhaps in the east?



Well lets see, two to three in Greenwood for SAR to replace the hercs. Another two to three in Trenton to replace the hercs and Winnipeg to replace thier hercs that are dedicated for SAR. For Sar and one to keep aroun for training and in Case the others broke.


----------



## TR23 (2 Sep 2005)

OK, well I've learned a lot.  I still have some questions.
With 15 C-27Js replacing Buffalo's and some hercules, SAR looks like it's taken care of.  Could a few more C-27s help out the current Herc lifespan by filling a dedicated light cargo role?  Perhaps only within Canada?  Or also serve as JTF's transport, since I assume they need less stuff moved then a typical larger force?
What are the downfalls of the C-130J which some members have mentioned?  Is it having teething problems with its new technology?  The numbers on it sure seem impressive, and from what little I know of military aviation, anything bearing the Hercules name is respected.  I thought I did read somewhere that the stretched version had some difficulty on takeoff-I can't remember any details, and I could be very mistaken.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Sep 2005)

Over to you Zoomie


----------



## Zoomie (2 Sep 2005)

Bah... thanks

Not being a Herc driver - I really can't comment with any great authority on the pros and cons of the new J model.  I have heard that there are teething problems and that some airforces are trying to get rid of them - that's all I can say.

C-27J would make a great light utility aircraft - the 15 that have been initially planned for will fill that niche along with SAR.  All of our SAR squadrons fill a Transport and Rescue role [442(T&R) Sqn - for example] - therefore a second or third line of tasking will most probably be in the North American domestic airlift role.  As it is, our CC-115's have a second line task to support the Skyhawks during the airshow season - we deploy a Buffalo across Canada from May-Sept.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Sep 2005)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

L3/Alenia making their pitch for the C27 for the US Army.


----------



## Astrodog (2 Sep 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> As it is, our CC-115's have a second line task to support the Skyhawks during the airshow season - we deploy a Buffalo across Canada from May-Sept.



 Zoomie, I've always wondered why this is... wouldn't it be easier to use a civvy a/c jump platform or griffon that to shuttle a Buffalo from the left coast to say here in London? (even been?)... can't say that i mind having the buffalo here, always enjoyed the fast pass and 'buffalo dance'...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Sep 2005)

_If_ the fates smile kindly upon the CF for a change and we actually do get these aircraft, what will the Air Froce approach be to squadron organization?
1) Will exisiting squadrons be re-roled and topped up with air craft
2) Will squadrons that have had their colours laid up be reformed
3) Will additional squadron(s) be stood up
Thoughts?


----------



## Zoomie (4 Sep 2005)

The only real change that will happen will be with our helo brethren.  The introduction of a new airframe could stand up a new squadron, or simply introduce another flight within an existing structure.  I am sure that Duey has the better gen on this...


----------



## Inch (4 Sep 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> _If_ the fates smile kindly upon the CF for a change and we actually do get these aircraft, what will the Air Froce approach be to squadron organization?
> 1) Will exisiting squadrons be re-roled and topped up with air craft
> 2) Will squadrons that have had their colours laid up be reformed
> 3) Will additional squadron(s) be stood up
> Thoughts?



I agree with Zoomie, it'll probably play out just like with the Sea King Sqns, we're Maritime Helicopter Sqns more accurately, so when we get a new Maritime Helicopter, it'll be the existing Sqns that take it over. I would assume that the same thing will happen with the new airframes, the Transport and Rescue Sqns will have C-27s vice Hercs and Buffs and the Transport Sqns will have new Hercs to replace the E models currently in service. The only thing I'm not sure of would be the organization for the medium/heavy lift helos. My guess would be they'll just be integrated into the Tac Hel Sqns as separate flights vice setting up a new Sqn or two to support them. It's not uncommon for a Sqn to have 2 different airframes, the transport and rescue Sqns have been doing it for years with Labs and Hercs or Labs and Buffs and now with the Cormorant and Hercs/Buffs. The Tac Hel Sqns did it with the Kiowa and the Twin Huey and up until a few years ago, the Combat Support Sqns had Griffons/Hueys as well as T-33s.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2005)

Ex-Dragoon, my gut feel is that we (1 Wing) will operate "composite" squadrons (i.e. 2 a/c types, or more) at many of the units.  This was simliar to what used to occur at 402/408/427/430 with Kiowa and Twin Hueys, and at 450 Sqn (my alma matter) with Chinooks and Twins flying RCMP SERT (albeit a short overlap of about a year and a bit).  Here's my total guess at how things will bed down

403 Gagetown - CH146 OTU (ops trg unit) and TALC (Med/Hy lift) Ops
408 Edmonton - CH146 Ops unit and CU161 (Sperwer and follow on TUAV) OTU and Ops
427 Petawawa - CH146 SOA, TALC SOA (and TALC OTU?)
430 Valcartier - TALC Ops and CU161 Ops

I really don't know what will happen with the Reserves, so I didn't address 400 or 438 Sqn...airframes will be tight, so unit relevance will have to be proven and maintained if any resources are to be given their direction.

This is just a quick guess and I have to be honest, have not thought about anything to far out of the existing box, although you will occasionally hear about a !st Special Operation Aviation Reg't bandied about from time to time...we live in interesting times!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2005)

Duey:

In light of what is going on down on the Gulf Coast wouldn't a Med/Hvy capability in the West be advisable? Or should we rely on CH-148s/CH-149s at Esquimalt and Comox surviving?

Just a thought from a prospective client.

Cheers.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill, if the TALC fleet is as large as 20, then yes I'd put a fair capability back in the west, a la 447 Sqn (450's hvy lift brother in Edmonton)....would also go to support CMTC and provided a MAJAID cap out West.  A lot of it depends on how big the fleet will really be, and where the primary user groups will be.  It is reasonable to think that ops based out of Pet, Shearwater and abroad would bias principal basing to centrally/easterly located units, with a smaller yet adequately responsive capability in the West.  I hope to be involved in Standards/Tactics/Instruction not implementation...I was the last official CH146 Impl O, simply because I was one of only two guys closing down 10 TAG and moving to 1 Wing in Kingston...gotta hate being the only guy walking down the hallway when Gen Pennie stuck his head out his door and asked, "Who's going to Kingston this summer?"...DOH!  :-\   I want a cockpit...not a conference room!   ;D

Cheers
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Sep 2005)

Guess we better hope the wallet is fat enough. ;D


----------



## PMars (5 Sep 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon, my gut feel is that we (1 Wing) will operate "composite" squadrons (i.e. 2 a/c types, or more) at many of the units.   This was simliar to what used to occur at 402/408/427/430 with Kiowa and Twin Hueys, and at 450 Sqn (my alma matter) with Chinooks and Twins flying RCMP SERT (albeit a short overlap of about a year and a bit).   Here's my total guess at how things will bed down
> 
> 403 Gagetown - CH146 OTU (ops trg unit) and TALC (Med/Hy lift) Ops
> 408 Edmonton - CH146 Ops unit and CU161 (Sperwer and follow on TUAV) OTU and Ops
> ...


----------



## PMars (5 Sep 2005)

-Dragoon, my gut feel is that we (1 Wing) will operate "composite" squadrons (i.e. 2 a/c types, or more) at many of the units.  This was similar to what used to occur at 402/408/427/430 with Kiowa and Twin Hueys, and at 450 Sqn (my alma matter) with Chinooks and Twins flying RCMP SERT (albeit a short overlap of about a year and a bit).  Here's my total guess at how things will bed down

403 Gagetown - CH146 OTU (ops trg unit) and TALC (Med/Hy lift) Ops
408 Edmonton - CH146 Ops unit and CU161 (Sperwer and follow on TUAV) OTU and Ops
427 Petawawa - CH146 SOA, TALC SOA (and TALC OTU?)
430 Valcartier - TALC Ops and CU161 Ops
__________________________________________________
Herewith my first post on this forum:

My bet would be that the 20 machines would work out to either 4 x 5 (with one responsible for OTU), 3 x 6 (with two attached to an OTU) or 2 x 9 (with two attached to an OTU). 403 should be ending CH146 OTU soon as the 412 (bailed CF machines?) will be used for advanced training in Southport. I suspect that the idea of composite squadrons is right, a mix of Griffons and Chinooks. Far better would be to also address the shortcomings of the Griff as a recce and armed helo and get a batch of ARHs from Bell. These aircraft could provide cover for the larger Chinooks.


----------



## Zoomie (5 Sep 2005)

PMars said:
			
		

> Herewith my first post on this forum:


Welcome to Army.ca


> 403 should be ending CH146 OTU soon as the 412 (bailed CF machines?) will be used for advanced training in Southport.



I seriously doubt that 403 Sqn will be closing the OTU - Portage will only be teaching the very basics of Griffon flying - the tactical helicopter portion will still need to be covered in Gagetown.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2005)

PMars, welcome.  Like Zoomie mentioned, even CH146 bailed to Southport as B412CF's of some configuration would still only instruct basic rotary, albeit now on the 412 (I understand there will be some intro NVG flying at BHS) but the tactical portion is what 403 would continue to instruct.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## PMars (6 Sep 2005)

The interesting thing about the newspaper article around the C-27J, C-130J and Chinook is that the replacement for the Twin Otters was not mentioned. That was in the budget and was supposed to have some priority.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2005)

PMars, I believe that the C27J/CASA295/whatever was supporsed to provide both the FWSAR and Northern tpt capabilities (i.e. replacing Buff, SAR Herc and Twotter all in one...shades of the CH146 doing the job of the CH147, CH135, CH136, CH118  : )  uh-oh......

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## TR23 (7 Sep 2005)

I can see the problem in many cases of replacing several aircraft with only one, but it seems that c-27j is more capable then all 3 of the aircraft it's replacing...which was clearly not the case with the Griffon, as several folks on this board have pointed out.  Is the C-27j less capable in some respects?  Short field performance?  Overall numbers?

Note-Clearly the C-27j does not outperform the Herc, put it does not need to have the same lift capabilities for SAR right?


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Sep 2005)

TR23 said:
			
		

> I can see the problem in many cases of replacing several aircraft with only one, but it seems that c-27j is more capable then all 3 of the aircraft it's replacing...which was clearly not the case with the Griffon, as several folks on this board have pointed out.   Is the C-27j less capable in some respects?   Short field performance?   Overall numbers?
> 
> Note-Clearly the C-27j does not outperform the Herc, put it does not need to have the same lift capabilities for SAR right?



TR23, perhaps someone from 440 Sqn (Twin Otters in Yellowknife) might know better, but I was undeer the impression that the C-27J is not as good upNorth as the Twotter...

Duey


----------



## PMars (10 Sep 2005)

>PMars, I believe that the C27J/CASA295/whatever was supporsed to provide both the FWSAR and Northern tpt capabilities (i.e. replacing Buff, SAR Herc and Twotter all in one...shades of the CH146 doing the job of the CH147, CH135, CH136, CH118   )  uh-oh......

Cheers,
Duey
____________________

Yes, I understand that. However, the 15 C27J mentioned in the article would not be enough to cover off the four Twotters with 440. I figure the 15 aircraft would work out to four with 413, three with 424, three with 435 (or some other sqauadron --- 429??) at Winnipeg, and five with 442 which would also do the conversion training. That all adds up to 15. The budget spoke about four aircraft to replace the Twotters which is behind my comment. In other words, why not 19 C27J?

The C27 or CN295 could certainly replace the Buff or Twotter and either could replace the Herk's SAR tasking.

There is an interesting conversation going on at CASR around whether or not the CF should even continue doing SAR in today's environment. [ducking from rounds ranging overhead...don't shoot the messenger...go read the site.] www.sfu.ca/casr

While on the subject of the Twotters, can anyone explain why the Twotter's nose has been painted black as on a/c 803?


----------



## mover1 (14 Sep 2005)

I don't put much gump into what CSAR says. I find it to be much like those books you find in the dollar bin in the book store. Pretty pictures but not much fact. And that which is fact is out dated or speculation.
The Twotter has a role in itself that requres it to land in small communities and it is suited to the northern life. If it ain't broke, why try to fix it. by giving them aicracft we don't require.

The Herc as it is doesn't necesarilly land to do Sar missions. It is just a part of a Sar operation to drop people where needed quickly.
If we had the C27J would we require it to do transport or would the SAR kit be permanently mounted inside as per the cormorrant?
I would hate to see my trade loose a loadmaster posn, at the same time I would love to stop doing SAr changes.


----------



## PMars (30 Sep 2005)

QUOTE:  The Twotter has a role in itself that requres it to land in small communities and it is suited to the northern life. If it ain't broke, why try to fix it. by giving them aicracft we don't require.
________________________________________

Well someone from 440 could clarify this but the Twotter isn't built anymore and my understanding is that ours are relatively hightime and have already been rewinged (can only be done once). Therefore, if it ain't broke, it soon will be. Therefore the intent to replace the aircraft sooner rather than later. Hence my observation that the FWNOR (fixed wing, northern) had not been addressed in the newspaper article about the new transport fleet. 

There was a mention in another newspaper on the same topic that included an order for two AN-124. The An-124 dash 150 is proposed for series production of 50 aircraft. It would have new engines (although not western), EFIS, and some other improvements.


----------



## mjohnston39 (9 Oct 2005)

An update according to the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051008/DEFENCE08/TPNational/Canada

It seems that delays and additional costs will now occur and most likely the same conclusion will be drawn... Good one  :

Mike


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Oct 2005)

mjohnston39 said:
			
		

> An update according to the Globe and Mail:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051008/DEFENCE08/TPNational/Canada
> 
> ...



Oye vey, my head! :-\

Duey


----------

