# FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities



## aesop081

Not so long agot, the federal government anounced the replacement of the Herc in the SAR role.  As there been any developements since then ?  I have seen some of the contenders for this project but i have no heard of any final decisions.

As well, can anyone tell me what the specifications for the project are (I.E. crew composition, sensors, performance.......)


----------



## Zoomie

_Please keep in mind that most items I will mention here are available for public consumption and are not considered sensitive - I am purposedly biting my tongue on a few issues re. FWSAR as there is a competition still in the works._

To answer a few of your questions as simply as possible:

There still is development, this project is still on the rails.

Contenders are LMATTS SPARTAN C-27J and EADS CASA.  (PM me for the name of the only acceptable aircraft)

Crew composition won't change much from what it is now with the Buffalo -  We will most likely build a station for the Nav in the back and create a workspace for an FE in the front.

We should see something in the news around March '05.


----------



## aesop081

Wors here at CFANS and around 1 CAD.......sorry 1 Cdn Air Div  : is that the new A/C will incorporate IR/EO for doing searches and that it will be operated by an AESOp.  As for the only acceptable aircraft, i will PM you, i'm currious.......


----------



## Sam69

Zoomie said:
			
		

> _Contenders are LMATTS SPARTAN C-27J and EADS CASA.  (PM me for the name of the only acceptable aircraft)
> _


_

Could you explain what "acceptable" means? (And you can't just say "meets the spec" because we've seen in the recent past that specs can be "adjusted" to meet the marketplace) 

Sam_


----------



## Zoomie

Good point Sam... I guess what I would consider acceptable is not just a matter of meeting the basic specifications (which one aircraft does not).  I would deem it that only one aircraft is physically able to do the job that we are asking of it.  You can change the specs all you like, but if you want to take that plane in the mountains and do some close and dirty contour flying - one of them is not up to it.  For me, acceptable = survivable in SAR config.


----------



## Sam69

Great answer. This is going to be yet another interesting political football but I think it will ultimately go the way we hope.

Sam


----------



## Bograt

Why would this be a political football? Does the current government have a "history" (pleasant or otherwise) with either manufacturer? 

Was Jean's brother "friendly" with the European company?


----------



## Sam69

I don't think it has much to do with any government connection to one manufacturer or the other but the government has shown great reluctance to let the military drive a contract to a sole source bid by declaring that only one competitor (usually the most expensive) fits the bill.

Sam


----------



## canuck101

We are just going to have to wait and see who the government picks.


----------



## Sam69

canuck101 said:
			
		

> We are just going to have to wait and see who the government picks.



Aaahhhhh..... aaaahhhhhh.... Blinding flash of the obvious!

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sam


----------



## canuck101

I loved the   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D good one. ;D


----------



## sandhurst91

Sorry for the new thread (now locked?) - hadn't seen this one... but curious to know if anyone knows where this one is heading and where sentiment lies with respect to the contending aircraft... C-27 and C-295... what are the advantages / disadvantages... haven't seen a complete head-to-head comparison yet...??


----------



## Zoomie

Sandhurst, please take the time to read this thread.  I believe you will find a concise picture of what the board member's thoughts are in this matter.  As for coming out publicly and stating which aircraft would be best for the CF and why, I am afraid that nothing official can be posted here.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

We are just going to have to wait and see who the government picks

If we could rely on this i don't think this site would be as popular as it is.

Just curious does it have to be a fixed wing aircraft to replace the old SAR birds?

Would an Osprey work?  i don't know about thier legs though?


----------



## Zoomie

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Just curious does it have to be a fixed wing aircraft to replace the old SAR birds?



YES - FWSAR = Fixed Wing SAR - we have sufficient helo assets for this job, we need the speed and versatility of a fixed wing platform.



> Would an Osprey work?   i don't know about thier legs though?



The V-22 Osprey is unproven in any field - there is talk of cancelling this project.  When it comes to SAR we need a reliable platform that has all its bugs ironed out (no comments about CH-149 plse).


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> ........(no comments about CH-149 plse).



(begin sarcasm) hummmm......why on earth would you say that ? (end sarcasm)  ;D


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Ok Seen

I take it the Dash 9's are to small for that sort of work?


----------



## Zoomie

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> I take it the Dash 9's are to small for that sort of work?



Not even a contender my friend...  The Dash series by Bombardier are very much like our Spanish friends and their CASA.  Civilian airliner converted to a role that it is not quite suited for.

FWSAR requires a robust aircraft with large cargo capacity and easy loading of equipment via a rear ramp. You would be surprised to learn how much stuff is jammed into our SAR birds on a daily basis.  The back of the Buff is jammed full - I suspect the only reason we don't put the ATV's in the back and strap parachutes on them would be lack of space.  SARtechs are a peculiar lot - anything that they might need, they strap a chute on it and carry it on board.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

What about the J series of the Herc?

Could you use a Jet engine?

does it have to be prop driven?

I don't know much about your specs and am interested.

I just hope you guys get what you need, But more then likely you will have to make do with what ever they (the Ivory Tower) buys for ya.


----------



## Inch

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Could you use a Jet engine?
> 
> does it have to be prop driven?




For aerodynamic reasons that I'm not going to get into it because typing a couple paragraph response can't do the theory justice, but in short, propeller driven aircraft tend to be more suited to low level slow flight, whereas jets tend to be more suited to high level high speed flight. So given the tasks that FWSAR tends to perform, I'd say that a turbo prop is probably the best option.


----------



## jmacleod

At the moment, a British company is converting a BAe-146 into a Water Bomber. I do not think
this fine British commercial passenger carrier (which has been converted to an air cargo freighter
by Pemco Aviation Dothan Alabama USA) is suitable as a water bomber - ideal water bombers are
turbo-prop or reciprocating, water cooled, propeller equipped engines. The same theory applies
to conversion of what is essentially a commercial carrier to military S&R configuration. A major
purchase of Lockheed C-130J's is the answer, but that program, like a lot of military aircraft 
programs in the US is in financial trouble. I will surprised in fact, if any aircraft is bought by the
Federal government for the fixed-wing S&R role in the next decade, having been involved in what
is now called the MHP for nearly twenty years. MacLeod


----------



## carpediem

I think this paper, The CC130 Hercules is misemployed in the Search and Rescue role. by Maj Spurgeon Stewart, provides some interesting background. Enjoy:

http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc29/exnh/stewart.htm


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Inch said:
			
		

> For aerodynamic reasons that I'm not going to get into it because typing a couple paragraph response can't do the theory justice, but in short, propeller driven aircraft tend to be more suited to low level slow flight, whereas jets tend to be more suited to high level high speed flight. So given the tasks that FWSAR tends to perform, I'd say that a turbo prop is probably the best option.



Not trying to argue but the A10 is jet powered air craft and if can fly low and slow in support of ground forces.  What about something along that line.

I just looked on Janes and there really is not much out there in the way of SAR aircraft other then a few different models of the same thing.  In the fixed wing anyway.


----------



## Inch

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Not trying to argue but the A10 is jet powered air craft and if can fly low and slow in support of ground forces.   What about something along that line.



You're right, but that's a little different situation. The A10 is designed similar to a fighter, a giant airframe with a tiny cockpit, it's slow for a fighter, but it's quite fast compared to a Buff. The A10 stalls out around 120 kts clean, Zoomie can confirm the numbers but I'm willing to bet the Buff can go a wee bit slower than that.


----------



## Zoomie

Inch said:
			
		

> The A10 stalls out around 120 kts clean, Zoomie can confirm the numbers but I'm willing to bet the Buff can go a wee bit slower than that.



Slightly....  We do our STOL approach around 70kts - which is usually right at the stall.

We are moving away from the C-130 as a SAR platform due to its cost effectiveness (ie fuel burn) and its size (too big).  The Herc can not fly in mountains like the Buff, it simply has too much momentum.  A twin turbo-prop is what we need and want - hence the only two contenders are the LMATTS C-27J and CASA.  Keep in mind that these new aircraft will not be for any tactical use (ie troop transport, TAL, para-training, etc).  The H model Hercs will keep that role and allow the newer aircraft to take up the slack of SAR throughout Canada.

Unlike the naysayers in the crowd, I anticipate seeing rubber on tarmac relatively sooner than later -please do not compare the FWSAR to the MHP replacement project - apples and oranges.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Unlike the naysayers in the crowd, I anticipate seeing rubber on tarmac relatively sooner than later -please do not compare the FWSAR to the MHP replacement project - apples and oranges.



Agreed, SAR is a high profile task that the government actualy understands and supports, you guys will get the new FWSAR in short order.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Yea not much in the way of equipment to meet even the specs mentioned in this thread.   I bet the government might even dumb it down more to make more options viable though.   I hope not for your guys sake and the people you rescue.   

Question what if they move away from using Fixed wing SAR air craft alltogether?   

not trying to change topic but is this fesiable or not an option the government has on the table.


----------



## Zoomie

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Question what if they move away from using Fixed wing SAR air craft alltogether?



In order for this to happen, the egg-heads at Boeing, Sikorski and the lot would have to develop a helicopter that can fly close to 300kts!

We have a certain SAR posture that must be maintained at all times (ie 24/7).  Every square inch (unit of measurement, not our rotor head friend) must be feasibly covered by SAR assets.  In order for us to be able to react to a crash in the Yukon, we must have the speed to make the transit from Comox to wherever in short order.  The CH-149 Cormorant (newest and fastest helo in fleet) can't accomplish this feat.  In these fiscally responsible days, we must make do with the assets at hand.  The CF will not stand up new bases all over Canada in order to allow for Helo response - hence the need for robust, capable and fast FWSAR.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

i have no doubt you are right but what if they just place a helo or two at Yellowknife and have crews rotate up.  They have the faciliteis already throught the artic Forward bases for the CF18's and such.  Kinda like the way they always have some 18's in Comox.

Just a thought 

I hope they don't but hey stranger things have happened.


----------



## Inch

Aircraft need servicing, the Hornets can get back to Cold Lake or Bagotville within one or two hops. A helo doesn't fly nearly as fast so it would take quite a few more hops to get back to Comox, Trenton, Greenwood, or Gander where the maintenance is located in the case of SAR birds. This takes time and money to ferry the aircraft back and forth. It's far cheaper to have fixed wing SAR that's able to be on station within a few hours than to have helos located all over the country and the necessary support that goes with them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Careful how you word things Wizard as Zoomie is the Man for this kind of stuff and your wording might be interpreted to be a little bit as doubting what he says.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

There was no disrespect intended with any of those post I was simply asking questions and maybe playing devils advocate. 

But all i was trying to do was get answers for my questions i meant no offense to ZOOMIE nor did i doubt any of his facts.

I agree with Inch it would be a bit unrealistic to have helios at those location but i was only trying to approach this post from a different view.  

Sorry zoomie if i offended you. none was meant.


----------



## Inch

Wizard, it was I that questioned your intent, my apologies, I should have gone via PM.  It appears that I misread your posts and your intent so again, my apologies. 

Believe me, there's nothing I'd rather talk about than flying (and women) so by all means ask away.

Cheers


----------



## Wizard of OZ

thanks Inch  

I just think that the government in all of its infinite wisdom may consider pre positioning equipment such as basing 2 Helios in Yellowknife with the facilities that are there and having the personal rotate up.  and maybe another group up in Terrace BC.  This is by no means a question replacing the need for fixed wing but maybe eliminating it all together.  With that you would have SAR in Cold Lake Yellow knife, terrace, Edmonton and comox and Esqu.  Not the fastest response times but still covered.

It was mentioned in this post that the Herc is not efficient enough for SAR correct?

Are the Links for the proposed planes available?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

For arguments sake, if they chose the C-27J (which I view as a more capable aircraft based on the limited reading I've done), has any thought been given to tying-in certain disaster relief functionality?

I'm just thinking out loud, but if you pre-packaged disaster-relief palettes at each SAR base, (as well as response team scramble protocol) would that not provide a good ROI for communities within Canada?


Thanks in advance,



Matthew.     

P.S.   Of note, this would probably also help the government with the optics of the acquisition and might even speed up funding....


----------



## Inch

The problem with helos is that they're very maintenance intensive. It seems like they're constantly down for maintenance, by basing them at "forward" bases you'd not only need to rotate aircrew but also techs and spare parts plus the facilities to work on a helo. In effect, you'd have to set up a whole operation. It's far cheaper to have fast FWSAR to cover the ground, do the search and drop SAR Techs until a helo can get on station for the extraction.   Helos just don't have the legs to be transiting very far and performing searches. They're perfect for extraction though. The two complement each other, I really think it'd degrade our capabilities if we got rid of one or the other.

Cold Lake, Bagotville and Goose Bay have Combat support sqns that fly hoist equipped Griffons and carry a SAR tech as well. Esquimalt and Halifax have Sea Kings and we're capable of SAR as well, in fact we perform our own SAR during local ops. There's also TacHel Sqns in Edmonton, Barrie, Pet, Valcartier, St. Hubert and Gagetown. So really there's quite a bit of coverage for SAR, it's every CF aircraft's secondary duty.


----------



## Zoomie

Wizard, no worries - not even a doubt in a mind about your comments.  It's all good...

Like my esteemed Rotor-head has mentioned many times, pre-positioning Helo's across Canada would end up costing us (the taxpayer) much more than buying 15 FWSAR.  As it is, we have 5 CH-149s here in Comox.  2 are always available for SAR (standby and backup), the third is for the school, one is a hangar queen and the fifth is in the maintenance cycle.  As you can see, we need quite a few helicopters in the rotation just to maintain normal ops.  

The CF has a base in Yellowknife already and there is an Airforce squadron already posted there.  440 Sqn flies the Twin Otter in a purely transport role.  The planes are painted SAR yellow, yet do not carry SARTechs.  They are able to be tasked in assistance to any crash/search that may occur in its region.  Like Inch said, every CF aircraft has a SAR secondary role - even CF-188s!

Matthew, a quick comment about your disaster relief idea for our SAR aircraft.  19 Wing has a complicated and well thought-out plan for this very contingency.  Our airbase is 100% self-reliant and would most probably be the only functioning airfield on the West Coast (thanks to Airfield Engineers like Spr Earl).  Our SAR aircraft would be able to provide necessary aid to communities cut off by landslides and/or Tsunami related damage (ie Tofino) throughout Vancouver Island and the mainland.  Plse keep in mind that deploying DART to BC would not be as onerous a task as it was to deploy to SE Asia.  A large majority of what DART would require is already in place (ie modular tentage, gas generators, heavy machinery)  the ROWPU's could be airlifted across the mountains and into Comox in short order.  C-17s would be a big help - but we could still do it with our C-130's.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

What is a hanger Queen?

I could not remeber the Sqd up in Yellowknife but 440 it is.  And i knew that all aircraft in the CF have a secondary duty of SAR.  

What are the cost difference between say 10 more of the choppers and 15 FW?

Would the new Cyclones be any good for SAR?

And yes some 17's would be nice hope you aren't holding your breath though.


----------



## Inch

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> What is a hanger Queen?
> Would the new Cyclones be any good for SAR?



A hangar queen is an aircraft that sits in the hangar and never flys. It's usually robbed for parts when spares are not readily available.

The Cyclones are going to be ASW helos, which includes tubes for sonobuoys, a well for a dipping sonar, hard points for missiles/torpedoes and also the consoles for the TACCO and AESOp.  There's not going to be a ton of room in there and we aren't getting enough to be tasked out as SAR helos on top of what we normally do.  It will have a hoist though and be quite capable of performing SAR if needed. If we were to get stripped down Cyclones similar to the Cormorants then yes, they would be just as good for SAR, but since we've got Cormorants for SAR as is, why not just get more Cormorants?


----------



## Kirkhill

> If we were to get stripped down Cyclones similar to the Cormorants then yes, they would be just as good for SAR, but since we've got Cormorants for SAR as is, why not just get more Cormorants?



Better yet buy the Cormorants, paint them green and attach a few to each TacHel Squadron.   Might be better if the Merlin HC3 version of the EH101 was bought though.  

Could always be used as back-up SAR and Disaster platforms.

Better yet if the Griffons were upgraded to the standard considered under "Helos and Hellfires" (CH-146Y???) as well.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

thanks inch

I am getting shelled in another post for playing devils advocate.

I figured on the cyclone conversion because how much more would it cost to tack on some to the new order as opposed to ordering another batch of the Corms


----------



## Inch

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> thanks inch
> 
> I am getting shelled in another post for playing devils advocate.
> 
> I figured on the cyclone conversion because how much more would it cost to tack on some to the new order as opposed to ordering another batch of the Corms



Dissimilar aircraft in different communities is fine (MH vs SAR) since we don't interrelate that much, dissimilar aircraft doing the same job (ie SAR) is a logistical pain in the arse.

Keep in mind that our Cyclones will have all the ASW kit which is part of the order, if you go changing what equipment is going to come onboard, you might as well get Cormorants.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

To true good point.

Is the Corm a good bird?


----------



## COBRA-6

Zoomie, you said the twin otters in yellowknife are painted yellow and carry no sartechs. Are these aircraft going to be replaced by the new SAR platform as well?? How much SAR use do they get up there usualy? With the increase of human activity in/over the arctic would it be a good idea to add a SAR det up there?? Just currious...


----------



## Inch

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> To true good point.
> 
> Is the Corm a good bird?



Can't say with any certainty, I've never flown one. All I know is that the Sea Kings were picking up the SAR slack on the coasts while the CH149s were grounded for tail rotor hub cracks.   From what I've heard from my buddies flying them, they're pretty good other than a few growing pains, but that's second hand info so take it or leave it.   I'm optimistic that the Cyclones won't have similar problems though I'm sure there'll be a few, there always are with aircraft.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Yea like any new model there are always the re-calls.

Hope it won't be a painful experience though.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

The C-27J Spartan is most likely the next SAR fixed wing aircraft.  For example, here in greenwood, we have the cormorant and the Herc for SAR.  Switching the Herc to the Spartan would make sense.  From Four engines to two... cheaper to run.  But up in Yellow Knife; the twin otter is the only certified plane to work in the Arctic.  That Italian bird will probably piss hydraulics from all ends.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes

Looks better in yellow than I thought it would!   Where did you get the pic?


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

Not sure... Typed C-27J Spartan on google, check in images and I simply right click on the picture and picked "copy image location".  I use Mozilla Firefox, a lot better the Explorer. 

Wait a minute...
Just did it to the picture I sent.... http://www.c-27j.ca/index.php?lang_id=1 
enjoy...


----------



## sandhurst91

The battle appears to be joined.... http://www.c-295.ca

EADS CASA looks to have put some thought into their business plan...


----------



## Zoomie

That site is full of misnomers and misdirection - I highly recommend that none of you endorse their plan as it would be bad news for my community.  

They (EADS-CASA) are trying to make up for their aircrafts short-falls by proposing that we have new airforce bases across the Arctic.  Maybe this sort of double-talk worked for when the Government was suckered into buying the LSVW - let's not allow it to happen here.  

I responded to their website and addressed a few of my concerns with their plan.  My primary question was who was going to pay the billions in infrastructure and personnel costs for the establishment of the new facilities and hangar space required at all these northern airfields.

This whole plan stems from the fact that their propsed FWSAR aircraft does not meet the basic requirement of being able to fly fast enough.  All they are doing is getting the procurement plan mired in paperwork and this will soon become our new Sea-King replacement fiasco.  As it is, we have been told to extend the life of the Buff until at least 2012 - totally unacceptable!


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> As it is, we have been told to extend the life of the Buff until at least 2012 - totally unacceptable!



Holly f*** !!!


----------



## sandhurst91

OK, so took some time last night to read the site, so am playing devil's advocate on a few points here...

So if you put one or two aircraft in Yellowknife, Iqaluit and St. John's (if that's what is implied here), then doesn't speed essentially drop off the equation given that they're saying it takes 12 hours to do the run to Tuktoyuktuk (under the current scenario - where would that aircraft come from - Winnipeg, Comox??), whereas if they had an aircraft in Yellowknife, you're cutting the response time down to next to nothing... If speed is really the only difference, and their costing allows this, then its really only a matter of how much we save on purchase price that can be applied to support the cost of putting a plane or two in each of these locations, no? Does this require entirely new facilities? I'm also intrigued by their line on the US Coast Guard which had Lockheed recommend the CASA airframe (in this case, the CN-235) as their solution and not the 27J...

Interested in learning more...


----------



## X-Rigger

Interesting debate so far.  Check out the link below for a nice shot of the C27J performing a complete roll at the 2004 Nova Scotia International Airshow in Halifax.

http://www.c-27j.ca/index.php?page=...7&photo_id=110&scopes=&keywords=&photo_page=1


----------



## sandhurst91

Interesting article... 

El Pais: Spanish military deal with Venezuela is largest on record (La operacion mas importante de la industria militar espanola). 

30 March 2005
The Financial Times 

The deal negotiated between Spanish defense minister Jose Bono and the Venezuelan government on January 25, for the Spanish division of European aeronautic defence and space company EADS and Spanish public shipyard operator Navantia to supply military hardware to the Venezuelan armed forces, is the largest in the history of the Spanish military industry. According to official sources, the deal is worth 1.3bn euros, but the companies say that the true value will depend on Venezuela's exact requirements. 

EADS' Spanish division will supply Venezuela with 12 military aircraft, *comprising 10 C-295 transport craft * and *two C-235 sea patrol aeroplanes*. Navantia will provide eight military vessels and three civil ships.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

Politics: 5 April 2005, Tuesday.

Bulgaria is to purchase eight C-27J Spartan Tactical Transport Aircrafts from Italy, the Italian media revealed.

*Canada is to buy 15 aircrafts of the same type*, Greece - 12, Portugal - ten, and the Czech Republic - four.

The C-27J has been developed by Lockheed Martin Alenia Tactical Transport Systems (LMATTS).

LMATTS is a joint venture company set up by Lockheed Martin and Alenia Aeronautica, which is part of the Finmeccanica company of Italy.

The C-27J Spartan has the same logistical and maintenance characteristics of the Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules Medium Tactical Airlifter, and also shares commonality of the cargo capacity.

The primary roles of the C-27J are cargo transport, troop transport and material and paratroop air drop. Other missions include maritime patrol, tactical operations, medical evacuation, ground refuelling, fire-fighting and aerial spraying.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=46362


----------



## sandhurst91

heheh... maybe the Bulgarian media know something we don't...


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Zoomie said:
			
		

> That site is full of misnomers and misdirection - I highly recommend that none of you endorse their plan as it would be bad news for my community.
> 
> They (EADS-CASA) are trying to make up for their aircrafts short-falls by proposing that we have new airforce bases across the Arctic.   Maybe this sort of double-talk worked for when the Government was suckered into buying the LSVW - let's not allow it to happen here.
> 
> I responded to their website and addressed a few of my concerns with their plan.   My primary question was who was going to pay the billions in infrastructure and personnel costs for the establishment of the new facilities and hangar space required at all these northern airfields.
> 
> This whole plan stems from the fact that their propsed FWSAR aircraft does not meet the basic requirement of being able to fly fast enough.   All they are doing is getting the procurement plan mired in paperwork and this will soon become our new Sea-King replacement fiasco.   As it is, we have been told to extend the life of the Buff until at least 2012 - totally unacceptable!



First i am assuming you don't want the C-295, that is what i am getting out of your post.   If so then i back you on that one.   Not another hey we can build it cheaper and less stuff for ya purchase i thought they would have seen through that on the Cyclone but guess not.   the only way i could see this going through would be if we were to be getting some of the A 400 for dirt cheap prices to make up for the lack of call it capability of the C-295.  But i don't see that happening 

Second till 2012 what do they expect duc tape wings and bondo bodies god what a joke, the people that make these decisions should be forced to fly/drive/sail in the equipment they make us keep for well past its retirment date.

sorry for the rant but good lord that kinda stuff piss me off.


----------



## sandhurst91

I have to say that until I'm entirely clear on the "lack of capability" that you describe, I'm ready to support a proposal that puts more aircraft where they need to be... and if it saves me money and we get comparable functionality, so be it.  If the issue is purely about speed, then I'm not convinced.

National Post printed an article today, it seems - can't access it via the web (restricted to subscribers) but the folks at www.c-295.ca put up a synopsis (though I wonder what they left out? Has anybody else read it?)

Here what EADS CASA put on the site.

----------------------------------------------------

In an in-depth discussion with Martin Sefzig, Canadian representative for EADS-CASA, National Post correspondent Chris Wattie outlines the business case behind the company's solution for Canada's new search-and-rescue aircraft. 

The article explores EADS-CASA's proposal for replacing Canada's current fleet of fixed-wing SAR aircraft, specifically the Canadian Forces' ageing CC-130 and CC-150 Buffalos, with CASA's C-295 aircraft. 

In the article, Sefzig suggests that the C-295's lower purchase price and life-cycle costs would mean that the military could buy more aircraft and situate them in more locations, thereby enhancing its rescue coverage across the country and, in particular, in the Arctic.

"Based on the economic efficiencies our aircraft offers, we could provide the Canadian government with the option to think beyond what they currently have ... to greatly increase the current search-and-rescue coverage and also for sovereignty patrols," Wattie quotes Mr. Sefzig as saying. "With our aircraft, you could actually double the current coverage."

Wattie writes that Canada's search-and-rescue fleet must be able to respond to distress calls over 15.5 million square kilometres. However, Sefzig asserts that by situating the C-295 in Yellowknife, St. John's and Iqaluit, the military would be able to cover remote locations that now take up to 10 hours for southern-based rescue aircraft to reach. Sefzig adds that the C-295 is well suited for this role. "Our aircraft is already certified for the North.... It has been cold-weather tested for Arctic flights." 

Wattie also quotes Sefzig as saying that Northern-situated aircraft would be able to serve multiple roles, including search-and-rescue and sovereignty patrols.


----------



## Zoomie

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> I have to say that until I'm entirely clear on the "lack of capability" that you describe, I'm ready to support a proposal that puts more aircraft where they need to be... and if it saves me money and we get comparable functionality, so be it.   If the issue is purely about speed, then I'm not convinced.



Did you read the rest of my diatribe?  CASA-EADS proposes us buying MORE planes and building NEW airbases.  How is this cheaper?  Not only that - we would be stretched pretty thin for aircrew and maintainers - what we have now works.

99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel...  What CASA-EADS proposes is akin to placing a police department, fire hall and hospital in every location where there is a 1% chance of an occurence happening.


----------



## Inch

CC-150 Buffalo's? New aircraft type that I'm not aware of? I guess I just got confused between the CC-115 Buffalo, CC-150 Polaris and the mystical CC-150 Buffalo.

And why the hell do they keep saying St John's? Are we building a new base there? Is Gander too far away? It's only 109nm but maybe that's a little too far for the C-295.

Sure the airframe may be cheaper, but does the infrastructure required to support the aircraft in new locales offset the savings on the airframe?

Zoomie, amen brother.


----------



## Infanteer

I'm outta way outta my lane here, but....



			
				Zoomie said:
			
		

> 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel...   What CASA-EADS proposes is akin to placing a police department, fire hall and hospital in every location where there is a 1% chance of an occurence happening.



This seems to be the most important factor in considering a SAR purchase so why the hell is this company trying to pimp their plane as some sort of Northern Responder - who the hell really needs to spend a couple billion on that when most people up their are Inuit who's culture revolves around surviving in the Arctic?

Sounds to me like this company is trying to sell Defence Policy with their planes - not good in my books.  I, for one, would think getting posted to Iqaluit to fly a SAR plane is downright silly.

...gee, I haven't even bothered to look at the technical complaints that the guys on the ground are picking on because the way these guys are trying to sell this thing (equal SAR coverage for ALL CANADIANS!) stinks.

Infanteer Out


----------



## Sam69

Zoomie said:
			
		

> 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel...  What CASA-EADS proposes is akin to placing a police department, fire hall and hospital in every location where there is a 1% chance of an occurence happening.



OK Z... I'm going stir the faeces for a minute. 

If your premise is valid that 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel, then why should we be overly concerned about Arctic response times. My point being is that we typically aim for the 90th percentile (or less) in most of our acquisition strategies (because the remaining 10% is either prohibitively expensive or unavailable) so why should we be worried about the unlikely 99th percentile?

As an example, it is my informed contention that the MHP specifications were limited on a number of key performance parameters to ensure that an open and cost-effective competition was possible. If we are willing to do that for a combat platform, why would we not apply the same consideration to a SAR platform?

A last question. If it is the stated policy of the Government to enhance our Arctic presence, then would not CASA's proposition seem to kill two (or three) birds with one stone: provide a FW SAR aircraft, enhance Arctic presence, and replace the Twin Otter. If so, then the increased O&M costs of operating a few new Arctic bases might be considered moot (depending on the magnitude of the costs) since they are no longer simply chargeable against the FW SAR project.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse here - I'm actually debating this issue with myself at the moment and trying to figure out, in my own mind, what the optimal solution for the CF and Canadians really is.

Sam


----------



## karl28

Sam69 I believe the concern for artic respones times is as following .  First the severe weather (example freezing Temp & Blinding snow storms)  any one of which the  crash survivors can find them selves in. Response times  has to be quickly than normal and they need reliable equipment to handle those extreams in weather .           Also I am not sure if you where  awear of this   but a few years ago here in Trenton we lost one of our Herc's on its way to ALERT  and a few number of lives where lost.  I don't remember the exact amount please forgive me.  What hampered the rescue was bad weather and the fact that the aircraft and helicopters had difficulties getting to them because of the weather .  Hopes this helps you out abit .


----------



## Sam69

Thanks Karl, I am aware of everything that you have said, including the tragic loss of Boxtop 22, however this does not address the issue of demand, i.e. if there is virtually no demand why should we commit scarce defence dollars to this capability. And, if it is an issue and CASA's option meets the required response times while also enhancing our Arctic presense, should we not consider it.

Finally, using Boxtop 22 as an example of why response times are important in the Arctic is a bit of a specious argument. Given the extreme weather and the extreme distances involved, it is highly unlikely that either of the FW SAR options under consideration would have changed the tragic outcome. Indeed, it is only because of the exceptional determination and bravery of all of those involved in the rescue that anyone survived at all.

Sam


----------



## Sam69

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm outta way outta my lane here, but....
> 
> This seems to be the most important factor in considering a SAR purchase so why the heck is this company trying to pimp their plane as some sort of Northern Responder - who the heck really needs to spend a couple billion on that when most people up their are Inuit who's culture revolves around surviving in the Arctic?



There is a broader issue here: the polar air routes are becoming heavily utilized by commercial air traffic and Canada has a legal responsibility, by international agreement, to provide SAR coverage throughout its territory for commercial air traffic (but I am not aware of any agreements on minimum levels of service or response times - maybe Zoomie can add more here). 

As well, as I've stated above, the government has made it a matter of policy to enhance our presence in Canada's north for reasons of sovereignty and not just SAR response. 

Sam


----------



## Infanteer

Ok Sam, that makes their case sound more plausible - although getting tasked to Iqaluit may not be the most ideal posting, I can understand the government's aim.

Can these SAR birds also be configured as more general-purpose surveillence birds as well (if that is not already the main capability of a FW SAR airframe - as I've said I'm way out of my lane here).  It would make sense to set up a Northern Air Wing if these planes had more to do then just wait around for the 1% to happen.


----------



## aesop081

What is it about maritime patrol that makes you guys want to stick a transport into the role ? Although the new FWSAR is said to be getting IR/EO which would help.  But why have a SAR bird do patrol.  You don't see ambulances being used as delivery trucks when there is no emergencies around do you ?  What about fire trucks ?


----------



## Sam69

As if on schedule:



> Military to stage Arctic exercise
> By BOB WEBER
> 
> (CP) - With commercial air traffic over the High Arctic growing faster than government predictions, the Canadian military wants to prepare for the increasing chance that one of those 142,000 annual flights will go down.
> 
> A combined force of regular soldiers and elite reservists drawn from Ranger patrols across the country plans to stage a "rescue" Friday on a remote, storm-pounded Arctic island that is closer to the magnetic North Pole than to anywhere else.
> 
> "We need to develop an ability to be first responders," says Maj. Stewart Gibson of 1 Canadian Rangers Patrol Group.
> 
> The Rangers, who have patrolled with snowmobiles and vintage Lee Enfield rifles from northern Ontario to the pole, are a largely aboriginal reserve unit that is Canada's primary military presence in the North.
> 
> Southern-based search and rescue aircraft can take up to eight hours to get to a crash site, says Gibson, but if the crash is close to one of the 65 communities across the territories, a Ranger patrol could get there faster.
> 
> "The Rangers could very easily go into that crash site, do the initial first aid, set up camp and prepare it for the search-rescue technicians to jump in," he says.
> 
> "We need to develop our own standard operating procedures with regard to air crashes."
> 
> The likelihood of such a crash grows daily as commercial air carriers make increasing use of polar routes. The shorter trips save both time and fuel, allowing non-stop traffic between cities previously without direct links.
> 
> While the earliest polar flights date back to the 1950s, they began in earnest in 1994 when the Russian government liberalized access to its airspace. By 1998, four established polar routes were linking cities such as Hong Kong and New York or Vancouver and Delhi, India.
> 
> By 1999, Foreign Affairs reported 85,000 overflights of the Canadian Arctic. Transport Canada says that figure grew in the next five years to 142,000 commercial flights, about 80 per cent of them international, and most of them passenger flights in large jets.
> 
> Also in 1999, the government predicted polar flights would increase by up to five per cent a year. Now, the expected growth rate is seven per cent annually.
> 
> Safety concerns on polar flights date back to the mid-1990s. The Canadian government has noted a "proportionate rise" in the risk of accidents. The Arctic Council, an international group of countries that ring the area, has also expressed concern about the safety of international polar air routes.
> 
> The military plans to stage its exercise out of an abandoned weather station on the Isachsen Peninsula on Ellef Ringnes Island, about 2,800 kilometres north of Edmonton and only 150 kilometres away from the magnetic North Pole.
> 
> The exercise will make use of a U.S. air force DC-3 that crashed on the island while taking off in 1949.
> 
> It is one component of the Canadian military's ongoing effort to patrol the North to learn how to operate effectively in it and maintain sovereignty over it. As international interest grows in the Northwest Passage, Ranger surveillance is one of Canada's strongest claims to control it.
> 
> The $1-million mission was originally scheduled to visit five islands in the area for reconnaissance. But the notoriously foul weather on Ellef Ringnes, which scores 99 out of 100 on Environment Canada's climate severity index, has already downgraded those plans.
> 
> Visits to Borden and Mackenzie King Islands were shelved after a three-day storm grounded soldiers in the community of Resolute, Nunavut, says Gibson.
> 
> But the storm lifted, and about 30 personnel were stationed on Ellef Ringes on Wednesday, camping in trailers left by an environmental team working on the old weather station.
> 
> Reconnaissance teams are still expected to visit Meighen and Amund Ringnes Islands.
> 
> "We're back on track here," Gibson says. "The mission has been amended somewhat but it's going to be successful."


----------



## karl28

HI there *sam69*  the reason that I used Boxtop 22 as an example was that the new search and rescue choppers have Auto hover. I think thats what it is called .  I  dint know allot about this function I am only a Personal Support Worker .   I had hoped that having the option  might have helped out more in that situation than what the old Labradors could have done . Not that I am insulting the labs efforts please don't be offend I think it was a great chopper for its time but it did not have this function if I recall right ?     Also my final point is if we had a smaller Fixed wing aircraft far the Sar role maby they  could of adapt it for snow landings in rough terrain I am not sure if the Herc can do this . Well  thats all for now have a good day.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Not to be a heretic or anything, but why is SAR in Canada still considered a military activity?  I can understand why we did it in 1945 when we had a virtual monopoly on airfields and aircraft, but why are we still doing it?  What is SAR's "wartime role"?

I'm not taking a shot at the professionalism of SAR crews- just wondering why the Coast Guard or even a civilian contractor couldn't do this role while we concentrate on warfighting, etc with the caveat of course that the CF would hold a secondary capability to respond to any emergency?

Thoughts?


----------



## bossi

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not to be a heretic or anything, but why is SAR in Canada still considered a military activity?   I can understand why we did it in 1945 when we had a virtual monopoly on airfields and aircraft, but why are we still doing it?   *What is SAR's "wartime role"?*
> 
> I'm not taking a shot at the professionalism of SAR crews- just wondering why the Coast Guard or even a civilian contractor couldn't do this role while we concentrate on warfighting, etc with the caveat of course that the CF would hold a secondary capability to respond to any emergency?



Apologies if I oversimplify, but ...
In a discussion with my light blue brethren, we concluded that it makes sense to prepare for Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) by maintaining a peacetime SAR capability.  Also - unlike the US Coast Guard, the Canadian CG is not an "armed service" - it's a union shop.
And, the thought of relying on a contractor for SAR ... sends shivers up and down every cell in my body ...



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Can these SAR birds also be configured as more general-purpose surveillence birds as well (if that is not already the main capability of a FW SAR airframe - as I've said I'm way out of my lane here).   It would make sense to set up a Northern Air Wing if these planes had more to do then just wait around for the 1% to happen.



I guess I could have posted my "Canadian Rangers" idea in here 
(my first thought was to not muddy the waters of the SAR discussion ... but if General Rick wants us to be more "joint" ... maybe it belongs here, anyway ...):

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29346.0.html


----------



## aesop081

Bossi,

I have read your post in the ther thread and have had these things come to mind:

If FWSAR is to be used for sovereignty patrols in the north, what is it going to do when it finds, say a submarine in the north west passage ?In order to protest a violation of our teritory, it helps to know who it is....how would FWSAR do that without adequate sensors ? Or are we to go to this "palletized concept ?

Also, i do not buy into the idea that the savings at purchase will permit the emplacement of new operating locations in the north.  To do this would require sound financial management, the avoidance of cost-overruns and the abscence of political patronage.  Sound far fetched ? It should !


----------



## GGboy

IMHO, the best outcome for all concerned (politicians, industry & operators) is an open competition which will be won by the best a/c for the job. 
The air force for some reason are madly in love with the C-27J, but seem to be overlooking some potentially significant shortcomings/problems with that aircraft.
Towit: they use the same engines that have been consistent under-performers on the C130J, the a/c is still a relatively unproven commodity (no sales to anyone to date and as far as I know it's still only a prototype, although I may be wrong about that) and I'm told that the service & maint costs are way, way higher than the C-295.
If the Italian plane is such a dog, then why are the Chileans using it for SAR in the Andes? As well as 20-odd other countries who've bought it for either the SAR role or as a light transport?
Just curious ...


----------



## aesop081

GGboy said:
			
		

> IMHO, the best outcome for all concerned (politicians, industry & operators) is an open competition which will be won by the best a/c for the job.
> The air force for some reason are madly in love with the C-27J, but seem to be overlooking some potentially significant shortcomings/problems with that aircraft.
> Towit: they use the same engines that have been consistent under-performers on the C130J, the a/c is still a relatively unproven commodity (no sales to anyone to date and as far as I know it's still only a prototype, although I may be wrong about that) and I'm told that the service & maint costs are way, way higher than the C-295.
> If the Italian plane is such a dog, then why are the Chileans using it for SAR in the Andes? As well as 20-odd other countries who've bought it for either the SAR role or as a light transport?
> Just curious ...



I'm not arguing for or against either aircraft as maritme patrol is my domain not SAR/ transport.  I'm just not seeing the merit of the  C-295's manufacturer's buisness case.


----------



## sandhurst91

with respect to the question on sensors... don't you need them for SAR anyways these days. Not sure what the C-27j boys are offering, but from what the C-295 crew have posted on c-295.ca, they've got the goods.

I've also heard that the US have yet to certify the C-27J for side-door para-drops given that they haven't figured out the prop-wash issue. C-295 doesn't have that problem.

I'm still not sure what the big advantage of the C-27J is if --- and I repeat IF -- the business case that the folks at EADS CASA are presenting is doable. The speed issue, which is really the only diff that I can see, becomes moot. The size issue I don't get, since you don't need the extra headroom (given that the C-295 has a 6'3" cabin height) and the C-295 is longer - so can hold 5 palettes instead of the three that the 27 can hold...

I'm not here to piss people off - I just want to get all the facts...


----------



## aesop081

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> with respect to the question on sensors... don't you need them for SAR anyways these days. Not sure what the C-27j boys are offering, but from what the C-295 crew have posted on c-295.ca, they've got the goods.



I'm not sure how familiar you are with the maritime patrol / ASW mission but i am certain, being a aurora crewmember, that SAR has little use for a magnetic anomaly detection system (MAD), a sonobouy reference system, Acoustic data processor, secure HF RATT/SATCOM system, Air to air interogator.  But that is some of the things that are essential to our mission.  Some of this stuff, as previously mentioned, *HAS* to be hard wirred into the aircraft.  This would impose a significant weight penalty to a SAR platform not to mention what it would do the radius of action and loiter time.

SAR is to me like an emergency service in the same fashion as ambulances and fire departments.  We don't use ambulances as delivery trucks when there is no emergencies now do we.  The last thing i would like to hear is how the SAR birds are all broken due to transport usage. The airforce also has YFR issues to contend with.


----------



## bossi

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how familiar you are with the maritime patrol / ASW mission but i am certain, being a aurora crewmember, that SAR has little use for a magnetic anomaly detection system (MAD), a sonobouy reference system, Acoustic data processor, secure HF RATT/SATCOM system, Air to air interogator.   But that is some of the things that are essential to our mission.   Some of this stuff, as previously mentioned, *HAS* to be hard wirred into the aircraft.   This would impose a significant weight penalty to a SAR platform not to mention what it would do the radius of action and loiter time.
> 
> SAR is to me like an emergency service in the same fashion as ambulances and fire departments.   We don't use ambulances as delivery trucks when there is no emergencies now do we.   The last thing i would like to hear is how the SAR birds are all broken due to transport usage. The airforce also has YFR issues to contend with.



Don't worry, pal - I once had a friend who edumacated me about Aurora's - I'm not suggesting the SAR birds or Buffalo/Otter replacements would even attempt to mow the ASW lawn!

However, in general, I'm willing to "take a step back" and have a second look at a bunch of stuff ...
For example - sometimes, maybe a "Mickey Mouse" sovereignty patrol might be "enough"
(i.e. a simple eyeball flight up North, while simultaneously restocking some cairns/caches ... or supporting Ranger patrols ...)

And ... I'm just saying this next one as a frustrated onlooker, from the perspective/experience of watching the synchophantic headlong rush to close bases ... when maybe it wasn't so cost effective ...
Maybe, just maybe ... the Air Reserve could operate a small squadron (or two) of "mini-Hercs"
(i.e. in a fantasy world, it would be just jammy if we could afford to increase our Herc fleet by adding Reserve squadron(s) ... but, as long as we're rethinking our defence strategy ... maybe it's okay to rethink some stuff "oustide the track/box" ...)

For example:   Right now, from my simple-minded perspective, a "mini-Herc" squadron in Borden would be much more useful to "Central Command" (within the context of CanadaCom) - as noted earlier, one of the shortcomings of our present rotary wing fleet is range.   So, perhaps some "seized wing" aircraft with longer ranges would be more useful for moving our troops and supplies around, especially in Northern Ontario ...

And, as also noted previously ... "the secondary role of all CF aircraft is SAR" (I'm quoting from memory).
So, if we were to imagine Central Command being more joint in *design*, then it would be beautiful if it included some "dedicated" mini-Hercs (i.e. an aircraft that could carry more than an emaciated section of troops ... without having preflight drills that include forced bowel/stomach emptying drills to lighten their internal loads ...)

Heck - why do we have to shoot ourselves in the foot all the time ... ?
General Rick has already stated that we should be thinking about buying some medium lift choppers ...
So, why not give some thought to "medium lift" mini-Hercs, too ... ??
Gosh darn it, it would be great if we actually stopped retreating for a change ... and went on the offensive!
We used to have Otters & Caribou's in the inventory (and apparently our Buffalo's need replacement, too), and when we did away with them we virtually erased all memory of their capabilities from our memories ... (i.e. a smaller/cheaper fixed wing aircraft).

I don't want to slag our Reserve Griffon squadrons, but ... heck - we only get to play together in the sandbox once in a blue moon ... when they haven't used up all their flying hours ... and the weather is right ... and the planets are in alignment ...

If the way forward is to be more joint ... then let's go for it.
A "farm team" of mini-Hercs, with transferrable flying/maintenance skills ... to reduce the strain upon our real Hercs ...
Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of "Can Do, instead of Can't Do"!   (chuckle)


----------



## Inch

karl28 said:
			
		

> HI there *sam69*   the reason that I used Boxtop 22 as an example was that the new search and rescue choppers have Auto hover. I think thats what it is called .   I   dint know allot about this function I am only a Personal Support Worker .     I had hoped that having the option   might have helped out more in that situation than what the old Labradors could have done . Not that I am insulting the labs efforts please don't be offend I think it was a great chopper for its time but it did not have this function if I recall right ?        Also my final point is if we had a smaller Fixed wing aircraft far the Sar role maby they   could of adapt it for snow landings in rough terrain I am not sure if the Herc can do this . Well   thats all for now have a good day.



karl, what are you trying to get at with auto hover? The Sea King has had it for decades. However, having auto hover will not get you into places you couldn't get into without it, all it does is ease the workload while hovering. You still need to monitor it since it is a mechanical/electrical/computerized system and those systems tend to break at the most inopportune times. 

Visibility is a major problem and despite what the general public would like to believe, there are very few airports, if any, in Canada that have the necessary equipment to allow aircraft to auto land. So having an auto hover won't help you much if you can't get back to an airfield with the survivors. Not to mention that if you're in your auto hover, the guy working the hoist still has to be able to see the survivors in order to con you onto a spot to maintain that hover. Being in an auto hover a mile away isn't going to help much so you still need to be able to see the ground which is a problem in the winter when the snow is kicked up by a large SAR helicopter.


----------



## aesop081

Bossi..i totaly agree with you.   Could we not buy more of the FWSAR bird and have them as dedicated medium tactical airlifters ?   A dedicated SAR fleet would guarantee SAR coverage and a dedicated TAL fleet would garantee that the army would not see its TAL go away for a SAR mission somewhere's else.

What i was refering to in my earlier post is sandhurst01's proposition that the sensors that we could get for SAR are the ones we need for ASW / AsurW.......


----------



## kj_gully

Hey, listen, I know youall got the future of the Airforce charted out, but as for me, I sure would like a SAR platform that I can stand upright in to work. That leaves out the CASA. Also, with the experience of the Cormorant purchase, common components is critical to success. This also leaves out the CASA, I think. here's an aricle I just read for youall to peruse



RESOLUTE, Nunavut (CP) - Military planners suggest the future defence of Canada's increasingly busy North will require a combination of high-tech surveillance backed up by old-fashioned boots on the ground. 

But the man in charge of that defence says linking those two elements won't work until the Forces solve the same problem that has dogged Canada's overseas military efforts - a lack of enough air transport to move personnel and equipment quickly and efficiently to where they're needed. 

"The type of aircraft we need is more in line with the type of aircraft being looked at elsewhere in the Forces," said Col. Normand Couturier, who was flying in the midnight twilight over the unbroken sea ice and rocky islands of the High Arctic on his way to a training exercise with the Canadian Rangers. 

The days of the venerable old Twin Otter are coming to an end, he said. A staple of northern flying since the 1960s, the Twin is simply too small and too slow to keep up with the evolution of Canada's northern defence. 

"It kind of limits us to what we can do," said Couturier. 

Military planners are developing a vision of northern defence that rests on close surveillance of the Arctic with the capability of moving forces up rapidly from the south when they're needed. 

Planners suggest that surveillance will rest on three pillars of technology currently being developed or tested: a satellite to monitor Arctic waterways, overflights of the North by an unmanned aircraft, and high-frequency radar at the western and eastern entrances to the Northwest Passage. 

Electronic monitoring is the most cost-effective way to keep tabs on an area larger than the entire continent of Europe, said Couturier. 

"If you have the right sensors and right surveillance in place, this is not where you need to have large numbers of forces." 

The Rangers provide local knowledge and first-response capability to an emergency. But Couturier acknowledges the largely aboriginal reserve units that patrol out of 58 of the North's 65 communities can't be expected to shoulder the entire burden of northern defence. 

"As long as we have that reach-back capability to task forces from the south, that's the main thing," he said. 

At present, the only military planes stationed in the North are four Twin Otters in Yellowknife. Canada's Hercules military cargo planes, themselves aging, are often busy on international missions. 

Ideally, Couturier would like to see the role of the Twin Otters supplanted by an equal number of either C-27 Spartans or Casa 295s. Both planes, although slightly smaller than the Hercules, are being considered by the military, he said. 

But something needs to be done to shore up Canada's military presence on its rapidly closing last frontier. 

International mining and energy companies - drawn by diamonds, gold, metals and natural gas - are active from Ellesmere Island to the Mackenzie Delta. Thinning ice due to global warming has led to concerns of increased shipping through the Northwest Passage - a waterway most countries consider international waters in defiance of Canada's claim to control over it. 

More than 140,000 flights now cross the Arctic every year, a figure that is growing at least five per cent annually. Most of those are international passenger flights. As well, as fishing stocks in southern waters become depleted, fleets are likely to sail further north. 

"Natural resources are becoming more and more accessible," said Couturier. "It's important that we maintain sovereignty." 

Gen. Paul Hillier, the recently appointed head of the Canadian Forces, is currently assessing the needs of the North as part of an overall defence review. 


©The Canadian Press, 2005


----------



## karl28

HI there *Inch* all I was trying to get at is that I thought it might be able to help  aid in Rescue operations didn't realize all that was involved with the auto hover .      Also thanks for telling me that the sea king has it didn't know that. I thought it was something new for the comerants  . Learn some thing new every day  cheers


----------



## Sam69

kj_gully said:
			
		

> Hey, listen, I know youall got the future of the Airforce charted out, but as for me, I sure would like a SAR platform that I can stand upright in to work. That leaves out the CASA. Also, with the experience of the Cormorant purchase, common components is critical to success. This also leaves out the CASA, I think.



Hey kj,

I understand your desire for space but, in the world of tight defence budgets, getting you something that you *"sure would like"* means not getting someone something they *"sure would need."* It is a zero sum game and we need to focus on getting the required capabilities not just nice to have things. At the end of the day, I don't profess to be a SAR expert nor am I trying to tell you how to do your job. I'm just trying to build a better understanding of the issue and that is why I am participating in this debate.

As for the CASA / C-27J question, I personally have no preference. But I do note that the 295 advertises 6'3" of headroom (see: c-295.ca) which seems adequate to me. As well, I'm not sure what common components the C-27 offers that the 295 does? If you are referring to commonality with the 130J, then it is important to be clear that a) we still don't have 130Js and b) it is not clear that we will necessarily ever have Js (although I admit it is likely).

Cheers,
Sam


----------



## Zoomie

Good comments all around - this is turning into a well thought out debate.

Let me quickly address a few issues and hopefully I may shed a little more light on the issue.

CASA-EADS has raised my ire due mainly to the double-talk that they are trying to spin on the Canadian taxpayer and the boon-doggle that they have caused to the entire FWSAR project.  The SOR for any new FWSAR aircraft has very specific technical issues that must be addressed.  The one that the CASA-EADS propses does not meet that very basic requirement - it must be able to cruise at least 295KIAS (figure taken from memory - no quoting plse).  The CASA bird can't meet this requirement and thus stems the whole reason as to why they think we should establish 3 squadrons of SAR aircraft in the North for that 1%.

This basic cruising speed stems from a reform in the SAR world.  Our geriatric CC-115 Buffalo's cruise at 227KIAS at sea level - so obviously we are not meeting our own requirements at the moment.  This reform is to improve our SAR coverage all across Canada (including the North) for all the reasons already discussed by Sam et al.  CASA's bid is based on the Federal Government's intent to improve SAR coverage to the North - this has already been done by establishing these very basic requirements.

6'3" is not very much when you consider what goes on in the back of our FWSAR aircraft.  What Gully was alluding to is a very important issue for the GIBs.  We carry SKADs, Pumps and Toboggans - all of which are very heavy and cumbersome.  The rear end of the CASA bird does not allow for a grown adult to stand erect across the entire width of the cabin.  If you look at their website - you will see that the cabin is very much sloped on the sides and has a very narrow cabin.  This is not condusive at all to the manual manipulation of all the gear in the back.  CASA touts that it can fit 7 C-130 pallets in its hold.  What it doesn't say is that these pallets are loaded sideways and take up the entire width of the cabin.  The C-27J can fit 3 pallets loaded correctly, and still allow for plenty of room to move with head-room to boot.  In the Buff - we have SAR storage racks that go right up to the cabin ceiling (at least 7') and we still end up putting all of our personal gear in the head!

Final point before I hand this discussion back to you all - all of our SAR squadrons are also Strategic Transport squadrons.  We conduct resupply for the northern communities and we are also mobile repair parties for broken down aircraft anywhere in Canada.  I don't know if the Spartan is quite big enough to transport an intact propellor, but I definately know that the CASA-EADS bird is not a contender.  We are not the USCG or any of the other nations that have ordered the CASA, in the CF every asset we purchase must be able to conduct more than one role - Transport and SAR is our mantra.


----------



## Steel Badger

My own wee SAR / Tac Pipe dream.....

Manufacturer:   Canadair Aircraft Ltd 

Crew/Passengers:   two pilots in ejection seats 
Power Plant:   two 1,500 hp Lycoming T-53 turboshaft engines   
Performance:   Max Speed: 321 mph ( 517 km/h) Cruising Speed: 309 mph ( 497 km/h) 
 Service Ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,050 m) VTOL Range: 420 mi ( 677 km) 
Weights:   Empty: 8,775 lb ( 3,980 kg) Gross VTOL: 12,600 lb ( 5,714 kg)
 Gross STOL: 14,500 lb ( 6,577 kg)   
Dimensions:   Span: 34 ft 8 in ( 10.56 m) Length: 53 ft 7 1/2 in ( 16.34 m) 
 Height (wing @ 90 deg): 17 ft 11/2 in (5.22 m) Wing Area: 233 sq ft (21.67 sq m) 
Armament:   None but provisions for two 100 gallon (455 litre) drop tanks 
Cost:   Unknown


----------



## Sam69

Thanks Z - great reply.

I will need to think on this further.

Sam


----------



## a_majoor

Bit of cross threading here, but surveillance is important both for military reasons and to guide SAR to the site of the crash. A combination of large UAVs like Global Hawk to do the patrols and SB's CL 84 Dynaverts to actually fly in from bases in the far north would seem to cover the bases (Actually, I am partial to the Dynavert as well, but substitute whatever SAR aircraft you like).


----------



## Zoomie

If only it were that easy....

The "S" in SAR is the hard part - if an ELT is broadcasting the crash site location, a UAV could work well in localizing (sp?) the site down to under a mile.

Most times that we lose an aircraft, the ELT is quiet and we can only go on sighting reports and use of the C1A1 Human Eye.  We lost a float plane out West here about 2 months ago - if it weren't for the discovery of one body, we would have been searching a huge area for weeks.  Luckily (for us) we found debris and human remains after only 3 days.  Could a UAV have helped? I don't see why not, but there isn't a surveillance suite that exists which is more accurate than the human eye in all conditions.


----------



## Steel Badger

More on the dynavert....


It is quite possible to produce a modernized version to cover our SAR and Martime needs as well as gunship models...

Perhaps replacing the tail rotor with a ducted fan ( similar to the mod on the Hughes series of Helos )

Would such an aircraft be usefull in the SAR role?


----------



## Zoomie

Boeing has been working on this very concept for many years.

V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor - if they can fix the technology and make it safe, giddie-up!!


----------



## Steel Badger

Boeing has been working on the Osprey now for many years...


But the Dynavert was flown in the early 70's and performed very well......

Typical for examples of Canadian Ingenuity...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....

Sigh

We could have been using it for the last 30 odd years....


<<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>


----------



## aesop081

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> ...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....



That is incorrect, the western canada aviation museum at the winnipeg airport has one, it is somewhat disassembled but it is complete.  I tried to attach the pics of it i took but the files are too large to attach here


----------



## aesop081

I uploaded the 2 pics i took to the photo gallery in the aircraft section..i will put them here when they have made it into the system.


----------



## aesop081

http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Vehicles/Aircraft/2004_0903WCAM0030.JPG

http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Vehicles/Aircraft/2004_0903WCAM0032.JPG


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> <<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>



Was just HMCS Bras D'Or no _Loch_ in the name.


----------



## Steel Badger

Aesop thx for the Info and pics

Ex-Dragoon, thx again for the correction


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Boeing has been working on the Osprey now for many years...
> 
> 
> But the Dynavert was flown in the early 70's and performed very well......
> 
> Typical for examples of Canadian Ingenuity...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....
> 
> Sigh
> 
> We could have been using it for the last 30 odd years....
> 
> 
> <<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>



So why was the Dynavert cancelled (Ottawa didn't want any?)?  And, if everyone is so high on the Osprey despite it's problems (probably rightly so), why doesn't Bombardier haul-out the plans and start shopping it around?  {This isn't meant to sound sarcastic, I really don't know and am curious}


----------



## Sam69

It is my understanding that, despite the very impressive technical advances of the Dynavert, the reality was that it had virtually no internal cargo capacity (the area behind the pilots  largely occupied by the mechanical mixing and wing tilt mechanicals) and therefore generated little military nor commercial interest. As well, limitations in material technologies at the time would have made it very difficult to scale the aircraft up.

Sam


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

Sam69 said:
			
		

> It is my understanding that, despite the very impressive technical advances of the Dynavert, the reality was that it had virtually no internal cargo capacity (the area behind the pilots  largely occupied by the mechanical mixing and wing tilt mechanicals) and therefore generated little military nor commercial interest. As well, limitations in material technologies at the time would have made it very difficult to scale the aircraft up.
> 
> Sam



Might explain why the Osprey as a much bigger propellor.  I only knew that the Dynavert did very well at the time.  My understanding was that there was no requirements for it at the time.  The lesson learned in Vietnam were not on paper yet.  Same goes for the Bras D'or.


----------



## sandhurst91

Question to folks in Ottawa (if, in fact there are any from this thread)... Is anyone planning to be at Cansec? Apparently both contenders are going to be there in force.... wouldn't mind hearing what they're doing or saying?


----------



## Sam69

I'm registered to go and hope to have time tomorrow or Friday. If I see anything of interest or relevance I'll report it here.

Sam


----------



## Sam69

Sorry to say, I couldn't spare the time to cross the street and go to CANSEC so I can't give you any update on what the FWSAR competitors were peddling at their booths.

Maybe someone else got a chance to tour the show and can provide their impressions.

Sam


----------



## COBRA-6

I made it, saw the C-27J booth, didn't see the CASA... but then again being an infantry officer, I was more interested in the SIMUNITION (belt-fed simunition is gonna hurt!) and EOTech booths, so I could missed it. In the brochure the C-27J folks were giving out they had a direct comparison of the two aircraft in a bunch of areas (range, payload, performance, dimension, etc) and the C-27 was superior in every field...


----------



## onewingwonder

The only superiority CASA/EADS has in this competition is marketing, including the "write your MP" tactic. :rage:


----------



## a_majoor

Sam69 said:
			
		

> It is my understanding that, despite the very impressive technical advances of the Dynavert, the reality was that it had virtually no internal cargo capacity (the area behind the pilots  largely occupied by the mechanical mixing and wing tilt mechanicals) and therefore generated little military nor commercial interest. As well, limitations in material technologies at the time would have made it very difficult to scale the aircraft up.
> 
> Sam



I have a picture in a copy of the ADTB showing at least 17 infantrymen double timing on or off a Dynavert. While this may have been a staged photograph (packing the troops inside like a "clown car", I think this was supposed to be a demonstration of what the plane could do.

The Dynavert also had one huge advantage the V-22 does not: it could fix the wings in the "down" position and take off and land like an ordinary aircraft. This greatly increased the range, and took a lot of stress off the system. A modern version of the Dynavert would have a much more refined wing tilt mechanism, and material science has come a long way since the 1970s.

Maybe SB, as the arch historian, would like to start a thread on this plane?


----------



## jmacleod

HMCS Bras D'or failed because in it's role in ASW it was extremely noisy at sea - interesting point
for Naval Airmen - the Rolls-Royce Griffon engines in the decommissioned vessel were given to
the Canadian Warplane Heritage Foundation (CWHF) Mount Hope, ON, for installation in the
Supermarine "Seafire" restoration and the Supermarine "Firefly" upgrade. Engines were shipped
to Hamilton via an Canadian Navy destroyer of the period 1988-1990, thanks to the efforts of LGen Larry
Ashley former BC, 12 Wing (later CAS) and Chief of Naval Ops, Halifax NS. Regards, MacLeod

Modified to reflect that there is no RCN any longer.


----------



## Blue Max

Interesting info on the CL-84 Dynavert. It sure sounds to me like Canada could not see the potential to carry on with the development of a revolutionary design, hence it disappeared from Canadian aviation only to reapear as the Osprey V-22.

Dare I say this sounds like another Canadian ARROW story :


----------



## kj_gully

It seems to me this thread has gone off the tracks, I was hoping with the new defence policy review that talk would refocus contributors on reality, and stop waxing nostalgic for the optimistic 60's when Canada was spending big money on R&D. Look, I want a plane before I retire, which will be in like 10 more years. The Dynavert does not exist. The osprey (V-22?) does not exist, at least not in the scale we need. Apparently the USCG is looking at a smaller executive version which may be viable in about 10 more years.It is too little, and way too complicated for our Airforce to use and maintain, and probably even scarier to fly in than the Cormorant. Canada has left the door open for a CASA replacement for FWSAR and twin Otter fleet, by considering  allocating more SAR resources to the North. I am looking forward with mixed emotion to the opportunity to be posted to Resolute for a couple years. I hope that you learn thru this thread, that there is no clear-cut perfect replacement for our Sar plane. Being posted to  Comox, home of the Tatonka, I look forward to a pressurized cabin someday, and a palletized cargo system to reduce time consuming gear reconfigs. Like I said before, once onscene, I want to be able to stand up to do my work, instead of hunched over like a dog humping a football,or worse, crawling like a Buff pilot after a mess dinner ;D. It will be great to talk to a doctor from anywhere in Canada, using satelitte comms. Heck, it will be great to talk to anyone down in the hills on radios that aren't tube and resistors, or string and soup cans. I don't think the C27 is a perfect plane for SAR in Canada, but we never get perfect, anyway. It is going to come to us as a steel cylinder, and will take another decade to properly outfit, like always. But I think it will look great on the Ramp in Comox, or Churhill, or Alert painted yellow, and just as good painted Camo in Kabul.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> The only superiority CASA/EADS has in this competition is marketing, including the "write your MP" tactic. :rage:



Do they really say to write to my MP...  :threat:   That is just wrong.. :skull: . Politicians should not be involved in Class A procurements...


----------



## sandhurst91

"Politicians should not be involved in Class A procurements"? ? ? ?

???? (huh?) ????

I may not win much support here - and am willing to be convinced differently... however, it is ultimately the Canadian taxpayers' money that is being spent, no?... if DND were run like a business, it would be up to DND bureaucrats et al to recommend the most appropriate options for maintaining a level of service... and then the CEO/Board - as representatives of "shareholders" (taxpayers) to make the final decision - hopefully an informed one. I would expect my political representative to ask tough questions of DND and to ensure they have all the information they need to approve such a massive expenditure... am I wrong?

update from the various contenders:

EADS CASA C-295 to demonstrate Search and Rescue strengths on Canadian tour (www.c-295.ca)

EADS CASA establishes permanent presence in Canada to pursue Canadian military air transport contracts (www.c-295.ca)

Global Military Aircraft Systems' C-27J Spartan Takes Flight In DC Area (www.c-27j.ca)


----------



## Inch

sandhurst, it's not about asking tough questions, it's about politicians getting their dirty hands into the process and railroading us into getting a substandard piece of kit because it benefits a government friendly company. DND contracts should not be used to prop of failing companies, Bombardier's Iltis ring a bell? Or how about the LSVW? I'm sure people could name many more.


----------



## Slim

The Govt. has proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted whare the procurement of military equipement is concerned. They have, over and over again, turned the wholoe process into a political agenda of rewarding federal defense contracts to whatever company can kiss their political asses the best...With kickbacks I'm sure (although I have no proof...I'll let Gomery find it for me! :)

The CF should be able to say what it needs and make a list of what equipment will do the job the best and how much of it we need to do the job properly. Then, if they want to build it here it has to be built to EXACT SPECIFICATIONS (see the Iltis!) on time and within the approved (military approved) standard, and with complete DND oversite!

Slim


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Wasn't the Griffon and untendered project as well. Needed but no competetion just picked out.?


----------



## jmacleod

DND CF want the C27J "Spartan" - do not see any political implications here, with either aircraft.
Why would one need a FE on the C27J? - just asking. Finding the money for this Project is the
big question in our nation's capital.  Griffon purchase was a political decision, but then, so was 
the F-18A and the F-104 - been around the aerospace trade for many,many years; never saw
anything as complex as the current MHP. MacLeod


----------



## kj_gully

In my experience, the FE is often the most important person on an aircraft. He can calmly go thru a checklist to ensure the smell of smoke the crew is anxious about really is the crew fan and not the flare box, can fix the port engine ignitor so we don't have to spend the night in Lillooet, makes a damn fine cup of coffee, is an awesome spotter, won't leave me without dropping my B-25 kit and the SAR tent, stays back to do his AB checks and make sure we get gassed up while the rest of the crew orders lunch. The Navigator and Loadmaster on the other hand......not so much. Fixed wing pilots think they can't make do without a Navigator, but my Rotary wing crewmates get along just fine without them.


----------



## ROTP Applicant

kj_gully said:
			
		

> Fixed wing pilots think they can't make do without a Navigator.


From what I have heard, ANAVs' responsibilities have been drastically reduced, and that all that fixed wing pilots need is a GPS instead of a navigator.


----------



## onewingwonder

Until the GPS packs it in. It is far from the be all and end all. 

For RW SAR the RAF operated for years with either a Nav or AEOp in the left-hand seat. Support helicopters the same, Chinook, Puma. Dumping important crew positions such as FE for "budgetary" reasons is ridiculous. Safety should be paramount. The RAF are finding this to be true with the C-130J. Two pilots, two loadmasters. The LMs are now somewhat overtasked as one is normally in the cockpit helping with nav, radios, etc.


----------



## Zoomie

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Finding the money for this Project is the big question in our nation's capital.



We already have $1.4 Billion sitting in the proverbial bank account, collecting interest.  This was set aside in last year's budget.


----------



## sandhurst91

Some good close-up snaps of the C-295 in Victoria - inside and out - from their Canadian tour web site (www.c-295.ca)... 
I'm posting one that I had to compress... there's others... all high-res...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> From what I have heard, ANAVs' responsibilities have been drastically reduced, and that all that fixed wing pilots need is a GPS instead of a navigator.



You heard wrong, sonny.

I may not do alot of actual "enroute navigation" anymore, thanks to GPS, but I do a fair bit of "tactical navigation" .  I am also up to my eyeballs in tactics and radios and doing what I actually get paid to do- coordinate operations.  

Any moron can fly a plane from point A to point B on air routes unaided.  It is when you get down in a tight mountain valley doing a SAR that a Nav (and an FE and Loadies and Sar techs) becomes very useful as you try and:

A- find what you are looking for.

B- avoid hitting a mountain while doing so.

It is a team effort in an aircraft.  No one trade can do it all alone.  You may do well to remember that as you progress thru your training.

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Any moron can fly a plane from point A to point B on air routes unaided.  It is when you get down in a tight mountain valley doing a SAR that a Nav (and an FE and Loadies and Sar techs) becomes very useful as you try and:
> 
> A- find what you are looking for.
> 
> B- avoid hitting a mountain while doing so.
> 
> It is a team effort in an aircraft.  No one trade can do it all alone.  You may do well to remember that as you progress thru your training.
> 
> Cheers



LOL!!! Good ness , how I love this site!!~!


----------



## sandhurst91

OK... so what're these guys really doing...? me, I'm not sure what role organisations like CASARA should be playing in this..???

FYI...pulled this off the Whitehorse entry of www.c-295.ca... follow the tour links

The EADS CASA C-295 team learned about Yukon's rich aviation history and Yukon Search and Rescue (SAR) providers had a chance to see the C-295 maneuver over the lakes and mountains surrounding Whitehorse â â€œ as the C-295 Canadian tour continued with a two-day visit to Whitehorse. 

The C-295 team hosted a reception Sunday night at the Yukon Transportation Museum, where they met pilots and spotters with the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association (CASARA) â â€œ Yukon, including President Gerald Bruce and the Yukon's most senior CASARA pilot Murray Biggin, also an avid aviation historian. Other guests included a group from Yukon regional airline Air North, local fire department officials and other emergency service providers, and the President of the Northern Air Transport Association, Hugh Kitchen.

The CASARA group was out in full force on Monday for a demonstration flight in the C-295 with Murray Biggin taking the right seat. The flight path took the SAR aircraft south of Whitehorse to Watson River Valley, along Gray Ridge over Bennett Lake to the Klondike town of Carcross, returning low level through several other remote mountain valleys.

With his knowledge of â Å“all-things aviationâ ? in the area, Murray guided the Spanish crew to fly over several aircraft wrecks alongside Gray Ridge, including the wreckage of an RAF Boxcar which had crashed decades ago. 

The C-295 team also provided a demonstration flight to several members of the Whitehorse media. Passengers on both flights had a chance to see the C-295's superb SAR flight characteristics, including: tight mountain turns to show its excellent mountain capabilities, a demo of its adept slow flight features, down to 80 knots ground speed and maximum performance short take-offs and landings (including a short-field landing of only 900 feet). After the flight, many of the passengers gave the C-295 high marks for its SAR strengths and lauded the idea of having military SAR assets permanently positioned in northern Canada.


----------



## GK .Dundas

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> OK... so what're these guys really doing...? me, I'm not sure what role organisations like CASARA should be playing in this..???
> 
> FYI...pulled this off the Whitehorse entry of www.c-295.ca... follow the tour links
> 
> The EADS CASA C-295 team learned about Yukon's rich aviation history and Yukon Search and Rescue (SAR) providers had a chance to see the C-295 maneuver over the lakes and mountains surrounding Whitehorse â â€œ as the C-295 Canadian tour continued with a two-day visit to Whitehorse.
> 
> The C-295 team hosted a reception Sunday night at the Yukon Transportation Museum, where they met pilots and spotters with the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association (CASARA) â â€œ Yukon, including President Gerald Bruce and the Yukon's most senior CASARA pilot Murray Biggin, also an avid aviation historian. Other guests included a group from Yukon regional airline Air North, local fire department officials and other emergency service providers, and the President of the Northern Air Transport Association, Hugh Kitchen.
> 
> The CASARA group was out in full force on Monday for a demonstration flight in the C-295 with Murray Biggin taking the right seat. The flight path took the SAR aircraft south of Whitehorse to Watson River Valley, along Gray Ridge over Bennett Lake to the Klondike town of Carcross, returning low level through several other remote mountain valleys.
> 
> With his knowledge of â Å“all-things aviationâ ? in the area, Murray guided the Spanish crew to fly over several aircraft wrecks alongside Gray Ridge, including the wreckage of an RAF Boxcar which had crashed decades ago.
> 
> The C-295 team also provided a demonstration flight to several members of the Whitehorse media. Passengers on both flights had a chance to see the C-295's superb SAR flight characteristics, including: tight mountain turns to show its excellent mountain capabilities, a demo of its adept slow flight features, down to 80 knots ground speed and maximum performance short take-offs and landings (including a short-field landing of only 900 feet). After the flight, many of the passengers gave the C-295 high marks for its SAR strengths and lauded the idea of having military SAR assets permanently positioned in northern Canada.


 I do'nt think the is the aircraft we need but they do understand sales very well! remember the car salesman's motto "either bullshit talks or money walks!"


----------



## sandhurst91

it seems the spin-doctors at DND aren't going to get forced into any kind of commitment one way or another:

http://www.c-295.ca/web/id/{C6095C13-D02F-4C5E-B116-8F0C477A7673}/content.asp 

Captain Jim Hutcheson, air force public affairs officer in Ottawa, said the C-295 aircraft could "potentially be a contender for the program." 

"Right now, we're in the final stages of completing the statement of operational requirement," he said. 

Range, speed of the aircraft and capacity will all be considered factors in the decision, he said. The estimated budget for replacing the aircraft, including maintenance, will be $1.3 billion. Hutcheson could not comment on the feasibility of Yellowknife as a potential location for such an aircraft.


----------



## Edward Campbell

404SqnAVSTeach said:
			
		

> Do they really say to write to my MP...  :threat:   That is just wrong.. :skull: . Politicians should not be involved in Class A procurements...



You might find the article below, from today's _Ottawa Citizen_ ( http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=a80c7e81-2083-47f5-9754-f7fa62b4005d ) interesting:



> 'Fast-tracked' search plane deal falls two years behind schedule
> 
> _*Liberals' lobbying forced change in tender specifications*_
> 
> a journalist
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> June 5, 2005
> 
> A program to buy much-needed search and rescue planes, highlighted by Prime Minister Paul Martin as part of his commitment to revitalize the Canadian Forces and supposedly fast-tracked by government, has fallen two years behind schedule.
> 
> Part of the delay is because federal officials ordered the military to change the competition to allow a slower, cheaper aircraft to be considered for the $1.3-billion program.
> 
> Documents obtained by the Citizen show senior military officials told Defence Minister Bill Graham last August they were ready to proceed with the project, with a plan to award a contract for 15 aircraft in July 2005. Deliveries would start in late 2006, based on a timetable that required the government's approval, according to the briefing given to Mr. Graham and released to the Citizen under the Access to Information law.
> 
> An earlier schedule produced for Mr. Graham's predecessor, David Pratt, called for a contract to be awarded this month with aircraft deliveries starting in February 2006.
> 
> Air force officials now say they don't expect a contract to be awarded until the end of 2006 or early 2007. No date has been set for deliveries, but aerospace industry representatives expect those to happen in late 2008 or early 2009.
> 
> "The project has taken the time to further study the requirement and procurement strategy to ensure the program is aligned with the newly released Defence Policy Statement," noted military spokeswoman Maj. Lynne Chaloux in explaining the delay.
> 
> But government and industry officials say besides the defence policy review, the lobbying efforts of Spanish aerospace firm CASA to have its aircraft included in the competition contributed to derailing the schedule. Mr. Martin's government ordered the military back to the drawing board to come up with new aircraft requirements so CASA's C-295 transport plane could be considered. The search-and-rescue project has been a priority for the Liberal government since it was highlighted in October 2003, by then-Defence minister John McCallum.
> 
> In a rousing speech to troops in April 2004, Mr. Martin promised his government would fast-track the project, earning an ovation from appreciative military personnel. Government officials said the aircraft would be delivered 18 months after a deal was inked.
> 
> The project is to replace six Buffalo and 10 Hercules aircraft that are so old they are only available for rescue missions about 50 per cent of the time. The program had been seen in the defence industry as fairly straightforward, since the aircraft would not be outfitted with sophisticated weapon systems and planes were ready to be purchased off the shelf.
> 
> Air force officers had already identified the C-27J, built by the Italian firm Alenia, in addition to CASA's C-295 as the only aircraft to meet the requirements. Officers zeroed in on the C-27J as the best plane for search and rescue, because of its large size and speed, prompting complaints from CASA about favouritism toward it competitor.
> 
> Mr. Graham was told the minimum cruising speed needed for search and rescue, where response time is critical, would be 273 knots, about 500 kilometres an hour. CASA's aircraft has a speed of 260 knots, while the C-27J has a maximum speed of 325 knots.
> The air force was also concerned about the C-295's cabin size and lack of sufficient cockpit visibility needed for rescue missions, according to military documents.
> 
> The concern was the C-295 would be too slow to reach northern areas from existing search-and-rescue bases at Greenwood, N.S., Trenton, Winnipeg, and Comox, B.C.
> 
> But aerospace and defence officials say CASA was able to override those concerns and appeal directly to Mr. Martin's desire for more of a military presence in the North. The company, a branch of the giant European consortium EADS, successfully pitched a scheme to base rescue planes in the Arctic, instead of having them fly up from existing installations.
> 
> The results of CASA's lobbying efforts materialized in the government's recent Defence Policy Statement, which noted the military would examine basing rescue planes in the Arctic. CASA argues that because its C-295 is cheaper to buy than the C-27J, the government could purchase more planes and significantly boost search and rescue capabilities.
> 
> "We believe within the existing budget of capital and in-service support, you could acquire the additional aircraft necessary to effectively revamp or enhance the (search-and-rescue) system for Canadians," said Bruce Johnston, president of EADS Canada. He said the C-295 still faces bias from some in the military.
> 
> Alenia officials declined comment on the decision to alter the aircraft requirements. But Alenia official Marcello Cianciaruso said when the government proceeds with its purchase, the company is ready to bid.
> 
> Some defence officials are not happy about altering the requirements to allow the C-295 to compete. There are concerns the cost of new search-and-rescue bases in the North will likely come out of the military's already-tight budget. There are also questions about why bases have to be built to accommodate a slower and smaller aircraft, when the C-27J would be able to reach northern destinations from current search-and-rescue bases.
> 
> © The Ottawa Citizen 2005



Partisan politics play an important role in defence procurement in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark and so on ... not quite as important as in the USA where the concerns of several key senators and congressmen always, without fail, override military operational requirements, but pretty close.

The Liberals have been pretty successful in the North over the years but the NDP is gaining ground and Ethel Blondin Andrews barely held on to her seat (50 votes, I think) last time out.  Anything which can:

"¢	Keep her on side for every vote in this minority parliament; and

"¢	Buy a few votes for her - or any Liberal - in the next general election is a _good idea_ inside the Liberal Party of Canada.  Military operational requirements and pesky little things like being able to rescue Canadians pale in comparison.

But, I want to re-emphasize: this (partisan, local political issues _driving_ defence procurement) is not a uniquely Canadian problem and the Liberal Party of Canada is no less _guilty_ than the Republican Party in the USA or the Labour Party in Britain.


----------



## sandhurst91

wow! 2 articles in 2 days... Coverage seems to be heating up.... though I'm not sure how the military is saying that it has never allowed aircraft to demo on bases right after the Alenia folks confirmed they had... something seems amiss here...  is anyone planning on going to the CASA demo today in Ottawa (http://www.c-295.ca/web/id/{95BFB378-07A3-4B86-81D4-093696BF8C0D}/content.asp)

another Citizen article, though you need an online subscription to view...

*Air force gives firm's sales pitch short shrift*
Rescue plane maker says DND didn't show for demonstration tour
  
Mike Blanchfield 
The Ottawa Citizen 


June 6, 2005


One of the companies expected to bid for the $1.3-billion contract to supply a new fleet of search and rescue aircraft says the air force is thwarting its efforts to show off its plane.

The complaint comes as the Liberal government attempts this week to revive the stalled process to purchase fixed-wing search and rescue airplanes. Defence Department plans to buy a fleet of 15 new planes have essentially been on hold since late 2003, when the air force first presented its business case for the project.

Efforts are under way to get cabinet approval for the competition before Parliament breaks for the summer recess later this month. An initial $300 million has already been budgeted for the new fleet of planes.

The contract will be Canada's richest military deal since the multibillion dollar Sea King helicopter replacement contract was announced last year.

The government wants to replace its aging fleet of CC-13O Hercules and CC-150 Buffalos by 2010.

Two aircraft will be vying in what is expected to be a heated run-off for the massive federal government contract.

Italian aircraft company Alenia and Lockheed Martin Canada, the Canadian subsidiary of the huge U.S. defence contractor, have teamed up in a consortium to offer their C-27J Spartan.

EADS-CASA, a Spanish-based consortium, is offering its C-295. EADS-CASA is staging a series of test flights across the Canadian Arctic to show off its C-295.

But EADS-CASA says the air force boycotted its northern event, barring military personnel from attending demonstrations.

"We certainly want to express our disappointment and frustration," said Martin Sefzig, director of programs for EADS-CASA Canada.

"I hope the air force remains professional and objective throughout the course of the competition. But again, there's a lack of understanding on our side about why we're not supposed to show the aircraft."

Mr. Sefzig stopped short of accusing the military of being biased.

Marcello Cianciaruso, Alenia North America's search and rescue project director, said the company toured all four air force search and rescue bases in October 2003 with its C-27J Spartan.

"We've done two demo tours. We stopped on the bases of search and rescue. We went to Trenton, Winnipeg, Comox, Greenwood," said Mr. Cianciaruso.

"The people love it. First of all the pilots, it's really a step forward if you compare with the current standard. We are the only twin-engine aircraft that meets or exceeds the current requirement of the Canadian air force."

Defence Department spokesman Jay Milano confirmed the air force did not have anything to do with last week's C-295 tour.

"We're not doing anything with the company," Mr. Milano said. "We're still developing the requirements. ... This company, they can do whatever they want, and they are."

But Mr. Milano denied the military allowed any of the C-295's competitors access to its airbases.

"It would be inappropriate for any of these companies, and us, to engage in any type of activity such as that," said Mr. Milano.

Defence Minister Bill Graham has said he wants to streamline the procurement process to eliminate the long delays the military faces in buying equipment.

Mr. Graham is expected to be briefed today by military officials so he can take a proposal to cabinet in the next few weeks.

It is expected cabinet would quickly approve the start of the tendering process. That would be followed by a Defence Department announcement in July seeking submissions on a pre-qualification phase that would allow the government to assess whether companies meet the minimum requirements to be permitted to submit formal bids.

The formal request for proposals would be issued in the fall, with a winner to be announced in the fall of 2006. The first plane would be due for delivery in 2008, with the rest of the fleet following in 2010.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Two thoughts:
1)  I like the idea of northern-deployed units (arctic sovereignty) and I think CASA is right in their contention we should have that ability
2)  I still think the C-27J is the way to go for too many reasons to list

Ergo, rewrite the spec's for a package to add airframes to include the northern bases, then pick the C-27J....

Priorities:
1)  Ability to operate from rough fields
2)  Range
3)  Tactical Lift Ability
4)  Canadian Content (I love the economic spin-off from Cyclone)
5)  Total Life-Cycle Costs including Maintenance.

JMHO,



M.


----------



## aesop081

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Two thoughts:
> 1)   I like the idea of northern-deployed units (arctic sovereignty) and I think CASA is right in their contention we should have that ability



It is not however CASA's place to drive foreign policy in order to make a sale...which is what they are doing IMHO.  The C-27 operating from the current locations can do the same job as northern based 295s.  These are going to be SAR birds not sovereignty patrol aircrafts after all, right ?


----------



## Infanteer

Have we decided here that the Spartan is the way to go?


----------



## aesop081

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Have we decided here that the Spartan is the way to go?



I certainly hope so !


----------



## sandhurst91

aesop081 said:
			
		

> It is not however CASA's place to drive foreign policy in order to make a sale...which is what they are doing IMHO.   The C-27 operating from the current locations can do the same job as northern based 295s.   These are going to be SAR birds not sovereignty patrol aircrafts after all, right ?



Fair statement, though the way I read it, rather than attempt to drive policy (not sure why you say foreign), they seem to be attempting to interpret Canada's own national policy with respect to the North... though a policy that doesn't seem to currently coincide with reality, IMHO. As to whether or not they're going to be SAR birds not sovereignty patrol, I guess the same question could be asked if the C-27 is going to be SAR and strategic airlift also?... what's wrong with a multi-purpose aircraft, whichever way this goes?


----------



## Infanteer

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> what's wrong with a multi-purpose aircraft, whichever way this goes?



....because usually the concept falls on its head and we get a platform that performs a variety of tasks but none very well.


----------



## aesop081

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> Fair statement, though the way I read it, rather than attempt to drive policy (not sure why you say foreign), they seem to be attempting to interpret Canada's own national policy with respect to the North... though a policy that doesn't seem to currently coincide with reality, IMHO. As to whether or not they're going to be SAR birds not sovereignty patrol, I guess the same question could be asked if the C-27 is going to be SAR and strategic airlift also?... what's wrong with a multi-purpose aircraft, whichever way this goes?



Sorry...i meant defence policy......


----------



## aesop081

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> As to whether or not they're going to be SAR birds not sovereignty patrol, I guess the same question could be asked if the C-27 is going to be SAR and strategic airlift also?... what's wrong with a multi-purpose aircraft, whichever way this goes?



Neither one of them would make an effective sovereignty patrol A/C , IMHO....Its find and all to patrol the north with a C-27/C-295 but when you find someone who shouldnt be there, what do you do ?  None of the FWSAR contenders will carry what is required to ID and prosecute contacts viloating our borders.  The CP-140 has radar, IR/EO, ESM, IFF, the belly cam and hand-held cam to Identify and record viloators and has a belly full of weapons to deal with them should that couse of action be required.

if we want a FWSAR bird, buy a bird for that.  Patroling is a completely different mission


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

aesop081 said:
			
		

> It is not however CASA's place to drive foreign policy in order to make a sale...which is what they are doing IMHO.   The C-27 operating from the current locations can do the same job as northern based 295s.   These are going to be SAR birds not sovereignty patrol aircrafts after all, right ?



1)  As a guy who does consulting it's your job to tell your client if his fly appears to be unzipped.  Ergo, if we're missing a capability that we should have, and they see it, they have not only the right but the obligation to point it out.  The reason I assume they've gone public with it is that this has been a rigged bid from the beginning.  The Air Force knew it wanted the C-27J, and let the EADS spend millions wasting their time in order to give the appearance of it being fair.  Short Version:  I applaud EADS for raising what I see as a very valid issue.  Kudos to them.
2)  I think aircraft (as well as other assets) should be dedicated to various regional commands.  Ergo, if you are going to improve your "Northern Command" you may want to have a multi-task capable aircraft as opposed to a platform that is dedicated to only SAR.  Rename it the "Emergency Response Aircraft".  It's role is to perform SAR as well as to provide emergency tactical lift to either civilian or military specialists should the need arise.  You then pair the aircraft with suitable response teams in each command.  In B.C. you may build a couple of response teams:  Mountain Team (Paratroopers) and a Ultralight Mechanized Team (using our new ATV's where you at least have logging roads).  In the north, you could build air-transportable teams based on snowmobiles (C-27J) or BV-206S (C-130).

Bottom Line:  I don't like niching when it means we specialize to a point we come to a crisis and say "Crap, we really don't have a contingency plan for that....".

That's just me....



M.   

P.S.  Almost forgot....I don't think either plane would make an effective sovereignty patrol aircraft.


----------



## Inch

Blackshirt, I take it you don't know a whole lot about SAR. Let me give you an example of how dedicated SAR is. When we're doing overwater flights in the Sea King we require SAR backup, we have to hold our own SAR backup because of the unavailability of the Cormorants since they're dedicated SAR aircraft. You'd think that since it's a military asset _and_ a SAR asset that they could send a Cormorant to Shearwater to hang out for the period that we require SAR backup. Not the case since if they get called out for a civilian SAR, they'll leave us high and dry. So we hold our own SAR backup which really sucks when there's only one aircraft avail. We've lost more missions here because of no SAR backup than I care to count. 

So tell me again how you think that multi tasking a SAR asset is a good idea? It will not happen, I guarantee it. One loss of life and the public will pin the blame squarely on the lack of avail SAR assets due to them being occupied elsewhere.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Inch said:
			
		

> Blackshirt, I take it you don't know a whole lot about SAR. Let me give you an example of how dedicated SAR is. When we're doing overwater flights in the Sea King we require SAR backup, we have to hold our own SAR backup because of the unavailability of the Cormorants since they're dedicated SAR aircraft. You'd think that since it's a military asset _and_ a SAR asset that they could send a Cormorant to Shearwater to hang out for the period that we require SAR backup. Not the case since if they get called out for a civilian SAR, they'll leave us high and dry. So we hold our own SAR backup which really sucks when there's only one aircraft avail. We've lost more missions here because of no SAR backup than I care to count.
> 
> So tell me again how you think that multi tasking a SAR asset is a good idea? It will not happen, I guarantee it. One loss of life and the public will pin the blame squarely on the lack of avail SAR assets due to them being occupied elsewhere.



Just my opinion, but I think you are confusing two separate issues.   The real issue is we're short airframes in your specific region and it's obviously impacting operations which is justifiably pissing people off.   If the Air Force had procured another 3-6 air frames (rather than cutting the contract to the bone), and based at least one Cormorant permanently in Shearwater (as well as other holes in coverage zones), you wouldn't have a problem at all....

Bottom Line:   If we had the proper number of airframes per region to allow for redundancies and downtime for maintenance, would it not make sense to build in additional functionality including light tactical transport which would allow the CF to address all sorts of civilian/military emergency response needs? 



Matthew.     ???

P.S.  My typing today sucks!!!!  ;D


----------



## Sam69

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Neither one of them would make an effective sovereignty patrol A/C , IMHO....Its find and all to patrol the north with a C-27/C-295 but when you find someone who shouldnt be there, what do you do ?  None of the FWSAR contenders will carry what is required to ID and prosecute contacts viloating our borders.  The CP-140 has radar, IR/EO, ESM, IFF, the belly cam and hand-held cam to Identify and record viloators and has a belly full of weapons to deal with them should that couse of action be required.



A belly full of weapons? I take you are referring to the Mk46 Mod 5 A(S)? Not too useful for prosecuting very many contacts in the north...

 ;D

Sam


----------



## sandhurst91

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The C-27 operating from the current locations can do the same job as northern based 295s.   These are going to be SAR birds not sovereignty patrol aircrafts after all, right ?



Aesop, I also don't think you're correct in your assumption re operating from the same location... The way I read it from the c-295.ca site is that the issue is response time, not speed. ANY aircraft now takes 8 hours to fly from Trenton to Inuvik - forgetting all other factors. If you take the same aircraft and place it in Yellownife, the response time is reduced to 3 hours (thereabouts). This applies equally to c130, C27 and C295. Do the math - it is half the distance from YK to Inuvik than TR to Inuvik (at least). Thus response time is cut in half - a pretty good deal if you are the poor bastard waiting for rescue in the arctic.   

So all that equal, and performance being equal (which is where some of the questions still remain unanswered), and the costs involved in buying a fleet of C-295's being sufficiently less than the C-27's thereby allowing you to cover the cost of maintaining aircraft in the north (according to the CASA folks)... putting aircraft in the north, IMHO, seems a good idea... 

Why would the c-27 boys be against this?


----------



## aesop081

Sam69 said:
			
		

> A belly full of weapons? I take you are referring to the Mk46 Mod 5 A(S)? Not too useful for prosecuting very many contacts in the north...
> 
> ;D
> 
> Sam



Ok..i should have worded that better. The Mk46 mod 5 torp is the obvious ( useful if we find hostile subs in the northwest passage) but the BRU-12 and BRU-15 bob racks can carry other things than torps can they not (i.e AGM-84 Harpoon, SLAM, Mk-84 bombs.....) ?



			
				sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> Aesop, I also don't think you're correct in your assumption re operating from the same location... The way I read it from the c-295.ca site is that the issue is response time, not speed. ANY aircraft now takes 8 hours to fly from Trenton to Inuvik - forgetting all other factors. If you take the same aircraft and place it in Yellownife, the response time is reduced to 3 hours (thereabouts). This applies equally to c130, C27 and C295. Do the math - it is half the distance from YK to Inuvik than TR to Inuvik (at least). Thus response time is cut in half - a pretty good deal if you are the poor bastard waiting for rescue in the arctic.
> 
> So all that equal, and performance being equal (which is where some of the questions still remain unanswered), and the costs involved in buying a fleet of C-295's being sufficiently less than the C-27's thereby allowing you to cover the cost of maintaining aircraft in the north (according to the CASA folks)... putting aircraft in the north, IMHO, seems a good idea...
> 
> Why would the c-27 boys be against this?



Granted that the response time is an issue we face now but i would caution you about taking CASA's website  as a source of anything, after all they are trying to sell us something in competition with someone else. On the issue of cost, if the C-295 is cheaper to purchasse but we need to build instalations for it in the north, where's the saving ? What CASA fails to demonstrate clearly is the cost of establishing infrasructure up north.


----------



## Inch

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just my opinion, but I think you are confusing two separate issues.   The real issue is we're short airframes in your specific region and it's obviously impacting operations which is justifiably pissing people off.   If the Air Force had procured another 3-6 air frames (rather than cutting the contract to the bone), and based at least one Cormorant permanently in Shearwater (as well as other holes in coverage zones), you wouldn't have a problem at all....
> 
> Bottom Line:   If we had the proper number of airframes per region to allow for redundancies and downtime for maintenance, would it not make sense to build in additional functionality including light tactical transport which would allow the CF to address all sorts of civilian/military emergency response needs?
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew.     ???
> 
> P.S.   My typing today sucks!!!!   ;D



Same issue, lack of funds. This is Canada and if you think we're going to be able to multi task the proposed 15 aircraft then my comments stand. You are correct, if we had gotten more airframes this would be a non-factor, but hind sight is 20/20 and it isn't doing us a whole lot of good as it stands. You need two separate fleets (even if it's the same airframe) if you want any kind of guaranteed airlift, IMO. SAR will always take precedence and when the growing pains with the new aircraft rear their ugly head, the serviceable ones will and should be used for SAR and nothing else.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Inch said:
			
		

> Same issue, lack of funds. This is Canada and if you think we're going to be able to multi task the proposed 15 aircraft then my comments stand. You are correct, if we had gotten more airframes this would be a non-factor, but hind sight is 20/20 and it isn't doing us a whole lot of good as it stands. You need two separate fleets (even if it's the same airframe) if you want any kind of guaranteed airlift, IMO. SAR will always take precedence and when the growing pains with the new aircraft rear their ugly head, the serviceable ones will and should be used for SAR and nothing else.



I'd like to back-up one step....  

Do you agree with the concept that if you start with the "Regional Commands" model, we'd be procuring in a much more efficient manner?  

In essence, you would have each regional commander given a set of responsibilities and mandated response times.  They then are then personally and professionally responsible to identify specifically what their needs (procurement/training/infrastructure/etc.) for their area of responsibility.  In addition, instead of the need to generate a single CF-wide White Paper which seems to take forever, you would mandate  regional commanders (and your Expeditionary Force Commander) to produce individual force- specific white papers annual reports wherein each commander needs to sign his name on the report the same way a CEO signs off on a set of Financials to shareholders (because the relationship is similar - the commanders is responsible to the citizens in his are of responsibility).  

You would then overprocure by 25%-33% per region, with the additional capacity in place for surge or support operations should you need to deploy, support or replace the Expeditionary Force replacement due the fact its rotation is complete and Canada for whatever reasons needs to take on a second rotation in the area of operations.  

I would also argue that the Regionally-based command structure becomes the base for all training (except basic training) because as Operation Narwhal showed, we have some issues that don't appear to get highlighted until a joint operation is attempted.

And before you say "We cannot afford it.", let me know how you would structure the model if funds were not an issue.

Thanks in advance....

Cheers,



Matthew.


----------



## Inch

Let me see if I understand what you're proposing. Regional Commands that would train their own forces individually from the rest of the Regions based on their regional requirements. So, instead of one Cormorant training facility, you'd have four, instead of one Maritime Helicopter training facility you'd have two, instead of one Martime Patrol facility you'd have two? Seems counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve.

No, I don't agree with Regional Commands having anything to do with procurement. We're the Canadian Forces, not the Maritime Forces or the Central Canadian Forces. There are regional variations but IMO they're not enough to warrant having individual training facilities and procurement plans for each region. The result of such a system would be eerily familiar to pre-Unification with the 3 services fighting for a bigger piece of pie. No thanks. Regional Commands should be exactly that, commands for operations. Nothing more. Leave the good of the country and the CF in the hands of the Generals in Ottawa where it belongs. 

Narwhal showed a lack of joint operations experience. That's it, and it was to be expected since it had never been done before. Regional Commands won't help that unless you've got the experience or the brains to make it work.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Inch said:
			
		

> Let me see if I understand what you're proposing. Regional Commands that would train their own forces individually from the rest of the Regions based on their regional requirements. So, instead of one Cormorant training facility, you'd have four, instead of one Maritime Helicopter training facility you'd have two, instead of one Martime Patrol facility you'd have two? Seems counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve.
> 
> No, I don't agree with Regional Commands having anything to do with procurement. We're the Canadian Forces, not the Maritime Forces or the Central Canadian Forces. There are regional variations but IMO they're not enough to warrant having individual training facilities and procurement plans for each region. The result of such a system would be eerily familiar to pre-Unification with the 3 services fighting for a bigger piece of pie. No thanks. Regional Commands should be exactly that, commands for operations. Nothing more. Leave the good of the country and the CF in the hands of the Generals in Ottawa where it belongs.
> 
> Narwhal showed a lack of joint operations experience. That's it, and it was to be expected since it had never been done before. Regional Commands won't help that unless you've got the experience or the brains to make it work.



RE: Training Facilities - no.  There would be one Cormorant Training Centre/one Herc Centre/etc. which would train all the basics.  You would just transition a greater proportion of your training to projects like Operation Narwhal where it would be about joint operations (training) built on Regional Commands acheiving specific objectives that they may encounter.  

RE:  Regional Responsibility for Procurement - I think their involvement is absolutely required in order to ensure we don't underprocure as the CF has continually done.  That being said, I think the involvement needs to be limited to the inclusion of the Regional Commanders having a seat at the table when NDHQ is writing their statement of program specifications.  After that point, NDHQ manages the tender, negotiates the contract and the Regional Commanders get what they're given.  My underlying principle is you cannot ask someone to perform a specific role and then not give them the appropriate tools so at least if you do have a "Lack of SAR capability necessary to perform standard operations from Shearwater", you have someone on the hook whether it's the Regional Commander who didn't work out his own numbers, or NDHQ that cut the corner.   Bottom Line:  There is no accountability for underprocurement/bad procurement now, and as such there has to be some type of reform to improve the process.



Matthew.


----------



## Inch

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> RE: Training Facilities - no.   There would be one Cormorant Training Centre/one Herc Centre/etc. which would train all the basics.   You would just transition a greater proportion of your training to projects like Operation Narwhal where it would be about joint operations (training) built on Regional Commands acheiving specific objectives that they may encounter.
> 
> RE:   Regional Responsibility for Procurement - I think their involvement is absolutely required in order to ensure we don't underprocure as the CF has continually done.   That being said, I think the involvement needs to be limited to the inclusion of the Regional Commanders having a seat at the table when NDHQ is writing their statement of program specifications.   After that point, NDHQ manages the tender, negotiates the contract and the Regional Commanders get what they're given.   My underlying principle is you cannot ask someone to perform a specific role and then not give them the appropriate tools so at least if you do have a "Lack of SAR capability necessary to perform standard operations from Shearwater", you have someone on the hook whether it's the Regional Commander who didn't work out his own numbers, or NDHQ that cut the corner.     Bottom Line:   There is no accountability for underprocurement/bad procurement now, and as such there has to be some type of reform to improve the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Sorry, but I still disagree with your Regional idea. I'm an MH Co-pilot, I could care less how Jointness works, I'm told to fly somewhere and execute my mission to best of mine and my crews abilities. The same for the boots on the ground, they don't care about Jointness, you tell them to take an objective and they do it. This training you're talking about comes at the higher levels, like Canadian Forces Staff School in Toronto. The LCols are responsible to integrate the forces into a Joint structure, it has nothing to do with the coal-faced trooper/sailor/airman.

We are under-procured because of lack of funds. All the generals in the country sitting around a giant round table aren't going to make that go away. Nor will all the jointness/Regional HQs in the world. The cheap-ass politicians are the ones that should be held accountable. What are you going to do? "Hey Col, you're going down for not fulfilling your role" to which he'd reply "I asked for the money and I didn't get it, my money tree seems to be bare, what am I supposed to do?" Just keep passing the blame I guess, no different than we do now.

Bottomline, you can't hold someone responsible if their hands are tied, ie lack of money from the Government of the day.


----------



## sandhurst91

aesop081 said:
			
		

> On the issue of cost, if the C-295 is cheaper to purchasse but we need to build instalations for it in the north, where's the saving ? What CASA fails to demonstrate clearly is the cost of establishing infrasructure up north.



How much does it cost to base two aircraft in two locations in the North?... maintaining a couple of northern-based aircraft in 2 locations does not require full CFB infrastructure, it's already there... just look at YK, we've already got a 40-person unit to maintain 4 existing aircraft. Additional costs - equalization etc. - would be incremental.


----------



## Zoomie

Interesting comments these past couple of days (both here at Army.ca and in the news) - I am sorry to wade in a little late - I was deployed to Alberta for a week on training.

EADS-CASA is whining because they were too late to come and visit us - during the SOR phase of acquisition, the competitors are not permitted to interact with any military personnel - this is so that any procurement is not skewed in any way.  Alenia got the chance to show off their C-27J two years ago, only because they have their proverbial poop together.  CASA is playing catch-up and doing a poor job at it.  Their only recourse is the media and show-boating their plane in the arctic to a bunch of people who will never fly it (ie CASARA).

FWSAR's primary role is SAR, we have a 365.25 day commitment to JRCC to provide a serviceable aircraft on a 30 minute or 2 hour NTM.  If aircraft serviceability permits, we can conduct strategic transport and other non-SAR related activities.  These two missions are not mutually inclusive.  I do not carry SARTechs while shipping an engine to Iqualuit, nor do I carry passengers while conducting SAR Ops.

FWSAR as a sovereignty bird?  Every state aircraft is in such a sovereignty aircraft.  You would not believe how many times I have heard of our yellow SAR aircraft being shot at by poachers - we wave the flag, therefore we are conducting SAR Ops.  We do not conduct 10 hour Maritime Patrols (MPAT) - that is the CP-140's mission.  The FWSAR contenders all have advanced EO/IR capabilities and their RADAR is top notch - this is for SAR work, but can be used just as effectively in sovereignty patrols.  I don't relish the idea of flying MPATs in the North, but I guess it could be done as a second line of tasking.

I don't buy EADS-CASA platform for establishing FWSAR in the North - it doesn't make fiscal sense, nor does it make sense for all the reasons that I have harped on before.  If you live/fly in remote areas, you accept the fact that emergency response is not available as quick as dialling 911.  A response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable in the SAR model that exists throughout the world - just think about how long it took to get those Canadian climbers off Mount Logan - the US helicopter was relatively close and still took over a day to get them off it!


----------



## Sam69

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I don't buy EADS-CASA platform for establishing FWSAR in the North - it doesn't make fiscal sense, nor does it make sense for all the reasons that I have harped on before.  If you live/fly in remote areas, you accept the fact that emergency response is not available as quick as dialling 911.  A response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable in the SAR model that exists throughout the world - just think about how long it took to get those Canadian climbers off Mount Logan - the US helicopter was relatively close and still took over a day to get them off it!



Caveat - I really don't have a horse in this race but I am still unclear on the issues so excuse me while I prod a bit.

If we accept your premise that "[a] response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable..." then why not 10? or 12? In fact, if 8 hour response is adequate why do we maintain 30 min / 2 hour stby times? Why 30 min during the work day? Hasn't it been shown, at least in the Pacific SRR, that most SAR calls come in after normal working hours?

And if we also accept your premise that people in remote areas will not have the same level of responsiveness, why is speed being sold as the critical requirement and discriminator for the FWSAR project? 

I accept your argument that opening new operating bases in the North for FW SAR basing makes little fiscal sense (especially without the RW assets to fully enable the "R" in SAR), but if we accept it as a matter of Gov't policy that the military will expand its presence in the North, then combining the FWSAR mandate with the expanded northern presence seems more compelling. In fact, I would intuit that the need for an expanded northern presence would seem to fall in favour of C-27 in that it would offer a more robust airlifter (although I am also aware that the C-295 is likely to come in at a lower per-unit cost which would make it easier to buy more of them).

Anyway, a fascinating issue to be sure.

Sam


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Sam69 said:
			
		

> If we accept your premise that "[a] response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable..." then why not 10? or 12? In fact, if 8 hour response is adequate why do we maintain 30 min / 2 hour stby times? Why 30 min during the work day? Hasn't it been shown, at least in the Pacific SRR, that most SAR calls come in after normal working hours?



What does ICAO say/suggest?


----------



## Zoomie

Tough questions Sam - probably best aimed at the folks in the FWSAR cell at 1 Cdn Air Div.



			
				Sam69 said:
			
		

> If we accept your premise that "[a] response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable..." then why not 10? or 12?



On this issue - I have heard that a response time of 8 hours is ideal for SAR - no direct source nor substantiation - please take it for what it is worth.

[quote author=Sam69] Hasn't it been shown, at least in the Pacific SRR, that most SAR calls come in after normal working hours? [/quote]


Actually in the Victoria SRR (ie BC and Yukon) most of our call outs are during the 30 minute standby.  I have only been called out once so far during quiet hours.

Halifax SRR is very busy during quiet hours - I think you may have reversed which coast you were thinking about.

For me, the driver, I imagine that any of the platforms in competition will be fun to fly.  I only hope that our new lifter will be less restrictive in its role than what we currently have with the Buff.  Heck, as long as it is pressurized, I am a lot happier.


----------



## sandhurst91

Bourque appears to have jumped into the fray: http://www.bourque.com/

He's linking to an article at Flight International: http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/06/14/Navigation/190/198975/Canada+searches+for+rescue+solution.html

14/06/05

Canada searches for rescue solution 

Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) expects to begin the selection process for a new fleet of fixed-wing search-and-rescue (SAR) aircraft in the second half of this year, with a contract expected in late 2006 or early 2007, writes Andrzej Jeziorski.

â Å“We are in the final stages of preparing and reviewing the statement of operational requirements,â ? the DND says. Deliveries will begin before the retirement of its de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalo transports in 2010, it adds.

A request for proposals for the C$1.3 billion ($1 billion) programme was twice delayed, in June and October 2004, say sources close to the programme. The delays were caused by a tangle of political interests and pressure from some quarters in the procurement chain to award a contract to an Alenia Aeronautica/L-3 Integrated Systems team proposing the C-27J Spartan without holding a competition, says one source.

The DND says it has examined the C-27J (www.c-27j.ca) and EADS Casa's C-295 (www.c-295.ca), but has yet to determine the number of aircraft required, suggested by industry sources to be around 15. EADS Casa took a C-295 on a tour of Canada from 26 May to 8 June, but was blocked from showing the aircraft to air force officials because of the imminent start of the SAR procurement, says Martin Sefzig, director of programmes for EADS Casa Canada.

The tour included all three of Canada's northern provinces, as the DND wants to locate some of its new aircraft at two bases in the north, requiring good cold-weather performance. Canada operates six CC-115s from CFB Comox in British Columbia and also uses some of its 32 Lockheed Martin CC-130 transports in the SAR role.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Can any of the SAR guys comment on why the V-22 isn't being considered?

I was thinking about that the other night and as long as it actually became proven technology, it seems like an interesting alternative (trading range for the ability to land/takeoff anywhere).

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.


----------



## Zoomie

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Can any of the SAR guys comment on why the V-22 isn't being considered?



Mainly because the Boeing Company is still flight testing the V-22.  FWSAR project is looking for aircraft that are ready for mass production - not something that is in its infancy.

The CF just recently bought a few new helicopters (aka Cormorant) - therefore the need for a tilt-rotor design recovery vehicle is negated.  FWSAR is not intended for recovering victims, only as a platform for searching and deploying assets.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Mainly because the Boeing Company is still flight testing the V-22.   FWSAR project is looking for aircraft that are ready for mass production - not something that is in its infancy.
> 
> The CF just recently bought a few new helicopters (aka Cormorant) - therefore the need for a tilt-rotor design recovery vehicle is negated.   FWSAR is not intended for recovering victims, only as a platform for searching and deploying assets.



Cool.  Thanks Zoomie....



Matthew.


----------



## Sam69

> *Military shuns Canadian planes*
> Bombardier: Forces shoot down claims by company it's being shut out of $1.3B deal
> 
> a journalist
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> June 19, 2005
> 
> The country's largest aircraft manufacturer says it has been shut out of a $1.3-billion program to provide new search-and-rescue aircraft for Canada's military and that the Armed Forces is instead keen to purchase from its foreign competition.
> 
> Bombardier senior official Derek Gilmour says the company's Dash 8 aircraft, built in Toronto, can fit the bill for Canada's search and rescue needs at a far lower price than the two planes now being considered, the CASA-295 built by a Spanish firm and the C-27J built by an Italian and U.S. consortium.
> 
> The Dash 8 is being used for search-and-rescue duties by the Swedish coast guard, the Australian coastal watch service and with the U.S. Customs agency. But Mr. Gilmour says the homegrown product is being ignored by the nation's military.
> 
> "We've had very little success in getting into the program," he said. "We don't see any Canadian product getting into the program at all."
> 
> Canadian industry is also concerned about the secretive nature of the procurement process, according to Mr. Gilmour, Bombardier's vice-president of government sales.
> 
> The fixed-wing search-and-rescue program is one of the most hotly pursued deals in Ottawa these days as cabinet prepares to give its blessing to the plan, which will see $1.3 billion spent on the aircraft and another $1 billion spent on a long-term maintenance contract.
> 
> Col. Pat Dowsett, in charge of the military's air mobility programs, questioned Bombardier's claims, noting the Forces hasn't settled on any one search-and-rescue aircraft and the process is still in its early stages. He said Bombardier would be welcomed in the competition, expected to start in the coming months.
> 
> "If Bombardier is happy to come to us with their existing aircraft, or any modified versions, we'll deal with that on an even playing field," he said.
> 
> Col. Dowsett denied process has been secretive, noting it has followed the usual government procurement cycle. "They (Bombardier) have received from us as much information as anybody else, as much access as anybody else," he added.
> 
> Col. Dowsett noted that whatever aircraft is selected, Canadian firms will benefit. That is because the winning company is required to provide industrial benefits for Canadian companies, he added.
> 
> Last year, Prime Minister Paul Martin identified the search-and-rescue project as a priority for his government, adding he would fast-track the purchase.
> 
> However, the program has already slipped behind its original schedule and new aircraft are not expected until late 2008 or 2009.
> 
> The project is to replace six Buffalo and 10 Hercules aircraft, which are so old they are only available for rescue missions about 50 per cent of the time. The aircraft would operate out of bases at Greenwood, N.S., Trenton, Winnipeg and Comox, B.C. The military is also looking at basing them in the Arctic.
> 
> Mr. Gilmour said there are more than 100 Dash 8s operating across Canada, giving the military a ready supply of maintenance expertise and parts. But, he noted the Dash 8 might not qualify for the competition because of the Defence Department's insistence the new planes have a folding ramp door at the rear. The Dash 8 does not have such a ramp, although Bombardier is installing a door at the back of its plane so search-and-rescue technicians can parachute from the rear of the aircraft.
> 
> Col. Dowsett, however, said there are good reasons why a rear ramp door is needed. It allows for the quick loading of the three tons of search-and-rescue gear the planes are expected to carry, as well as allowing the rapid transfer of equipment to another plane in case of breakdown.
> 
> Military requirements stipulate that if a main search-and-rescue aircraft broke down, the backup plane would have to be airborne within two hours. Without a back ramp it would take about 10 to 12 hours to move search-and-rescue gear from one plane to another, Col. Dowsett estimated.
> 
> © The Ottawa Citizen 2005


----------



## Allen

If they aren't considering the Dash-8, good! They shouldn't even give it the time of day.

Here's an article in the Sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2005/06/19/pf-1094962.html

The implication seems to be that the C-27J is the "less powerful" & "cheaper" plane. Huh? I thought it was the other way around.


----------



## aesop081

Allen said:
			
		

> If they aren't considering the Dash-8, good! They shouldn't even give it the time of day.
> 
> Here's an article in the Sun:
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2005/06/19/pf-1094962.html
> 
> The implication seems to be that the C-27J is the "less powerful" & "cheaper" plane. Huh? I thought it was the other way around.



The only good thing to come out of the sun is the sunshine girl...not the news articles


----------



## Zoomie

Allen said:
			
		

> The implication seems to be that the C-27J is the "less powerful" & "cheaper" plane. Huh? I thought it was the other way around.



You are correct.  The Toronto Sun has its facts all twisted.  I called them on it, still waiting on a reply.


----------



## kj_gully

Sigh... I fear that the gov't will once again select the crappiest of the lot, just to appease those who may see choosing a vastly superior airframe as favouritism. It is going to double suck that we will have to wait until 2011 to fly in the Casa, waiting until 2008 to fly the C27 was bad enough....

Gully


----------



## sandhurst91

Clarify crappy when, according to the CASA folks on their site (www.c-295.ca), they've sold a wad more aircraft than the Alenia folks... and some to serve similar SAR roles. Hell, even Lockheed recommended the CN-235 for the US Coast Guard over their own airframe. Granted, each country has specific requirements - but crappy is I think a little strong. 

This argument constantly amazes me. Should not the folks in Canada's North have some kind of say in this, as that is where the increasing number of incidents are happening? Yeah, the airframe should satisfy very specific requirements - which both do, if you compare them not against the status quo but against the realities of Canada's SAR environment now but also the future. 

Clearly, all I'm hearing (and perhaps it's selective, so fire back please) are the folks at DND relegating Northern Canada to what they've always assumed it to be - a backwater not worth their time or efforts - using the argument that if you choose to live there, then accept the challenges that it presents. That's a crap argument - particularly for Canada's aboriginal communities, the companies that now work there and their employees, the airlines that fly northern routes, and the tourists that are making the North an increasingly desireable destination. 

Sandy.


----------



## Sam69

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> Clearly, all I'm hearing (and perhaps it's selective, so fire back please) are the folks at DND relegating Northern Canada to what they've always assumed it to be - a backwater not worth their time or efforts - using the argument that if you choose to live there, then accept the challenges that it presents. That's a crap argument - particularly for Canada's aboriginal communities, the companies that now work there and their employees, the airlines that fly northern routes, and the tourists that are making the North an increasingly desireable destination.



This is not correct. It is the official policy of both the Government and DND to enhance and expand the CF's presence in the north. What you are referring to is merely the opinion of an individual, which is not at all indicative of official policy nor, I believe, of the broader opinion of members of DND.

Sam


----------



## kj_gully

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> Clarify crappy when, according to the CASA folks on their site (www.c-295.ca), they've sold a wad more aircraft than the Alenia folks... and some to serve similar SAR roles. heck, even Lockheed recommended the CN-235 for the US Coast Guard over their own airframe. Granted, each country has specific requirements - but crappy is I think a little strong.



I avoid using stronger language, though i would like to. Listen, I don't fly the thing, right? Talk to a pilot, and you will hear how great the Cormorant is. who cares it only flies 2 hours at a time, before the tail rotor needs to be checked, and often replaced due to cracks. The CASA is little. Its tight inside, and will take a complete rethink of our procedures in order to employ effectively. It flies *too slow to meet the requirements of the competition*. I gotta work in the back. Working in the back of the Buff is tough, it's more than a little bumpy in the weather people seem to need us in, and the back is crammed with gear for any possible situation, be it a crash in the Yukon, or a ship sinking @ sea. The Buffalo, is old, not pressurized and an oven/icebox depending on the season, but it is big enough to move around in upright, turns on a dime, flies about as slow as I can walk when fully flapped and gear down.I'd rather keep it than goto a cigar tube. I hope we we have progressed beyond the C47 Dakota. The C27 is c130 compatible, so we can use similar of stowage configs to what the herc sqns do now. It can bring its own replacement parts in, and I think can even fly in an Aurora prop, if needed. I bet the Casa can't, though I do not know. To sum up, I do not want to leave an aircraft half hunched over like a dog humping a football when I am about to parachute into trees @ night with 60-70 lbs of gear. Trust me, it sucks bad enough already.


----------



## Zoomie

Come on Gully - don't hold back - tell us how you really feel...  :-*

The Chevrolet Cavalier has been a best seller for years in North America - is it the best car or just really a good deal?  At present there is only one aircraft that is eligible for the FWSAR replacement project - let's hope we don't repeat the LSVW nonsense.


----------



## kj_gully

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> Clearly, all I'm hearing (and perhaps it's selective, so fire back please) are the folks at DND relegating Northern Canada to what they've always assumed it to be - a backwater not worth their time or efforts - using the argument that if you choose to live there, then accept the challenges that it presents. That's a crap argument - particularly for Canada's aboriginal communities, the companies that now work there and their employees, the airlines that fly northern routes, and the tourists that are making the North an increasingly desireable destination.



In support of this statement, while on Arctic Survival ( which BTW is only taught to Sartechs now, a whole new thread- any opinions?) I learned that the gov't "strongly encouraged" ie. coerced or forced, Natives to move to the High Arctic in the 50's to assert our claim of sovereignty(sp?) up there. So many people did not choose to live there. I believe in providing service to all Canadians. I would much prefer to rescue an Inuit hunter than a foreign fisherman who was fishing cod illegally off the Grand Banks. But the fact is there aren't really that many of them up there, and those up there are very adept at rescuing themselves, or not getting in trouble in the first place. Now the executives flying their Gulfstream in from Capetown to check out the diamond mine, not so adept, but do they require us to provide a 24/7/365 presence in the North? We are providing yeoman service with the Herc right now. This past winter 435 Sqn out of Winnipeg parachuted to a crashed helicopter up in the NWT. They were forced by high winds and whiteout conditions to remain hunkered down in a small tent for 5 days, then were evaced by an Otter on Skis. A Dependable, fast, Sar Dedicated Airframe will increase our response and presense in the North dramatically.


----------



## DJ  Cooper

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> Clarify crappy when, according to the CASA folks on their site (www.c-295.ca), they've sold a wad more aircraft than the Alenia folks... and some to serve similar SAR roles. heck, even Lockheed recommended the CN-235 for the US Coast Guard over their own airframe. Granted, each country has specific requirements - but crappy is I think a little strong.
> 
> This argument constantly amazes me. Should not the folks in Canada's North have some kind of say in this, as that is where the increasing number of incidents are happening? Yeah, the airframe should satisfy very specific requirements - which both do, if you compare them not against the status quo but against the realities of Canada's SAR environment now but also the future.
> 
> Clearly, all I'm hearing (and perhaps it's selective, so fire back please) are the folks at DND relegating Northern Canada to what they've always assumed it to be - a backwater not worth their time or efforts - using the argument that if you choose to live there, then accept the challenges that it presents. That's a crap argument - particularly for Canada's aboriginal communities, the companies that now work there and their employees, the airlines that fly northern routes, and the tourists that are making the North an increasingly desireable destination.
> 
> Sandy.




Sandy, I've been flying SAR for 10 years on the CC-115 and the CC-130, the issue here is not whether or not Canada should have a SAR base in the North. The issue is to provide the best-fixed wing SAR asset for the Canadian public and to give the SAR crews the best resource available to do it. If you based a C-27J in the north, say out of Yellowknife, (by the way if there was a posting there I put in for it tomorrow) the North and the rest of Canada would be better served by its performance and capabilities, than that of the C-295. If you tasked both the C-27J and C-295 to fly from Yellowknife to Alert a distance of 1423nm the C-27J would arrive on scene and could be searching 1 hr ahead of the C-295. Time and speed in response of an emergency is a critical factor and should not be compromised. If you look at the stats, the C-27J outperforms C-295 in every way, (Check the comparison www.C-27J.ca) the C-295 doesn't even have an APU, and I've been into a few airstrips where a power cart wasn't always available. It's pretty hard to start an aircraft without a power cart or an APU! 

The main 3 sales pitches the C-295 has is: 
1	It's cargo space, it clams is compact and perfect for SAR and the C-27J 8ft 6' roof clearance is just extra space never needed for SAR and will double the cost of the FWSAR project.  I find this sales pitch Ignorant to what we do and misleading to others. I can tell you on our CC 130 SAR birds we have SAR equipment containers that are well over 8ft. The reason for this is to optimize floor space for rigging of air droppable equipment and dressing. I've talk with SAR Techs that have seen the cargo space of the 27J and the 295 and there back aches at the thought of working out of the C 295. To give you some insight as to how we are dress for a Para rescue operation, we have a 55 lb parachute plus 60/70 lbs of equipment and 15 to 20 lbs of environmental or protective clothing depending on what we're jumping into, that's 140 lbs +or - of equipment. Being able to stand and move freely with that type of weight is not a nicety it's a necessity and a mater of safety.  

2	C-295 also claims of be being so much cheaper and cost effective, even claiming C27J is twice as expensive. If this is true why haven't they provided any fanatical figures to prove to the Canadian public of the great deal there getting? What is the comparison of cost between the two aircraft? Does any one know? Is the cost in savings worth the compromise, remember this new SAR asset will be around for many years to come, 30, 40 years? Another thing to keep in mind about the other countries that have purchased the C-295 is they do not have Canada's massive land expanse and they do not carry out Para-Rescue operations. The only other country to carry out Para-Rescue operations is the US air force PJs and they use a HC-130 as their SAR bird. 

3.	Its other claim is that if it is purchased, that for it to be an effective FXWing SAR platform for Canada it would have to be located in the Northern Communities, there fore giving better SAR coverage than the C-27J. I find this funny because about a year and half ago I heard a rumor that came out of the FWSAR project in DND. That rumor was that nether the C-27J or the C-295 had the same endurance as the CC-130 and they were looking at positioning the new SAR aircraft further north, Cold Lake / Yellowknife? At that time C-27J was on its way to being fast tracked as the new SAR bird and projected to start delivery of the first 27J in the fall 2004/2005 until the program was stalled. Just because the C-295 jumped on the Northern bandwagon, doesn't mean it's their idea and the two go hand in hand. I think a C-27J in Yellowknife would be a great Idea.     

As for the C 295 being a crappy Joyce? In comparison to the capability of the C-27J I guess you could call it that. 

If you could give the CC-115 the cruising speed of the CC 130, its pressurized cabin, and a little more width and range you'd have the perfect aircraft for SAR in Canada. Seeing how this plane doesn't exist the next best thing is the 27J. I'd rater make the compromise of flying the SAR fleet that we have in place now for the next 20 years that procuring the C-295. But given the currant situation this really isn't an option.  

Quote,  Sigh... I fear that the gov't will once again select the crappiest of the lot, just to appease those who may see choosing a vastly superior airframe as favoritism. KJ Gully        Nicely worded and funny enough it has the ring of truth.


----------



## jmacleod

Ottawa Bureaucrats in DND & Public Works GSC should be talking to SR Techs and Aircrews
about the fixed-wing replacement aircraft, before establishing a procurement policy - no question
they are focused on the "Spartan", but as of two weeks ago, the DASH 8 will be included in
the spec and bid process. Some bureaucrat in Ottawa will deny this, but it will be a fact - not
the first time Canada got caught to buy an aircraft not suitable for a particular role. MacLeod


----------



## kj_gully

The other day on "slash" I took the time to read through the entire thread. Interesting to see how it has evolved since the days of the "fast track" for replacement, seems forgotten now... I realized that there hasn't really been a solid discussion as to why I would prefer one over the other. 
      #1. Rugged military construction. C27 is built as an airforce platform, designed for transport lift, and ruggedly constructed. The other contenders are modified airliners, and must be retro fitted to meet milspec. This *WILL* result in an inferior product.
       #2. Space. It has been debated back and forth quite a bit, but from the one working in the back, appropriate working space is imperitive. C27 provides full height headroom across almost the entire cabin. The C295 provides 6'3" headroom in the dead centre of the cabin, requiring a stooped posture for most of the time (@ just over 6', I am very near, if not over 6"3" with my helmet on, so would probably be hunched all the time.) C295's long cabin is not friendly, as it means the gear and the ramp are further apart. Also the narrow floor means more difficulty avoiding the cargo rollers.
       #3. APU, Auxilliary power unit. It is like a generator that self powers the plane when it is landed remote of services (more or less, an FE/ maintainer can help me here) It allows you to start engines. C27 has one, C295 ( civil aircraft, remember?) does not.
       #4. STOL ( short takeoff and landing) C27: T/O: 550 m, landing: 350 m. CASA: 844m T/O, 680m landing (their specs!) BTW, Buff T/O 377m,Landing 325m
       #5 Fuel dump capability, which lightens aircraft to safe landing weight in an emergency, C27:yes C295:no
        #6 Payload. C27: 11500kg C295:9250kg
         #7 *Speed. C27: 315 kt, C295 260kt *  ( no contest)
         # loading speed. C27 provides a "kneeling" platform, ie it squats in the rear to make loading cargo much easier. C295 does not

we're probably gunna end up with the Dash 8 anyway, so I don't know why I'm taking the time...........

Gully


----------



## sandhurst91

Just noticed that the issue of Northern basing appears to have made it into the Defence Policy Statement... looks like it's at least under consideration if nothing else...

all seems rather quiet on both contender sites... doldrums of summer: www.c-295.ca / www.c-27j.ca

----------

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Reports/dps/index_e.asp

*The Air Forces (Regular and Reserve) will: * 

- place much greater emphasis on protecting Canada. As a result, the CF-18's primary mission will be the defence of Canada and North America. This will include maintaining CF-18 readiness in accordance with NORAD requirements; 
- examine the acquisition of additional radars to provide better coverage of population centres and vital points; 
- increase the surveillance and control of Canadian waters and the Arctic with modernized Aurora long-range maritime patrol aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites; 
*
- enhance capabilities in the North by: 
replacing the Twin Otter fleet with a more modern aircraft, and 
considering the utility of basing search and rescue aircraft in the region; * 

- conduct search and rescue operations with the new Cormorant helicopter, as well as new fixed wing search and rescue aircraft; 
- provide airlift anywhere in Canada for the deployment of the land and command elements of the Special Operations Group, the Standing Contingency Task Force, or one of the Mission-Specific Task Forces; 
- provide a special operations aviation capability to the Special Operations Group for operations anywhere in Canada; and 
- provide maritime and transport helicopters as the air contribution to the Standing Contingency Task Force or the Mission-Specific Task Forces.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just so I'm certain I understand this....
1)  There is an allocated budget sitting in Ottawa gathering dust?
2)  The only delay is that politicians decided to intercede and force a bid situation when a suitable contract was already negotiated with LM?



Matthew.   ???


----------



## KevinB

WOW After reading thru the 12 pages of this I really feel for you airforce guys - I feel your frustration on a number of 031 things...

Cheers


----------



## sandhurst91

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just so I'm certain I understand this....
> 1)   There is an allocated budget sitting in Ottawa gathering dust?
> 2)   The only delay is that politicians decided to intercede and force a bid situation when a suitable contract was already negotiated with LM?



If by delay you mean doing the appropriate thing and ensuring that government procurements are open and transparent and actually providing "Best value", then I think you do understand this... (that said, are we in for a helicopter repeat - I don't think Canadians will allow that to happen, though that's just my informed yet perhaps naive opinion)

Personally, I say put all potential solutions on the table and have at... If LM is the best option, then that'll come out in the wash. If CASA produces a plan that shows it can put more planes in more locations for equal value, without compromising the safety of the people who have to use the aircraft, then that'll come out in the wash also.

[Moderator note:  Edited only to differentiate between original quote, and reply - no content changed]


----------



## Cloud Cover

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> If by delay you mean doing the appropriate thing and ensuring that government procurements are open and transparent and actually providing "Best value", then I think you do understand this... (that said, are we in for a helicopter repeat - I don't think Canadians will allow that to happen, though that's just my informed yet perhaps naive opinion)
> 
> Personally, I say put all potential solutions on the table and have at... If LM is the best option, then that'll come out in the wash. If CASA produces a plan that shows it can put more planes in more locations for equal value, without compromising the safety of the people who have to use the aircraft, then that'll come out in the wash also.



The best way to avoid a repeat of the Sea King Replacement Fiasco is for the procurement people to actually take into account the views of the people who will have to use the equipment. If this project becomes a politically driven mess then it will become so because the contenders are trolling for political friends to push their products.   

The problem with more planes in more locations for equal value is that other options might include a few less planes in less locations for equal price and ostensibly a better airframe for the proposed role. The posts in this thread so far appear to reflect a professional opinion from parts of the SAR community that the CASA model has structural limitations which hinder or obstruct the performance of their mission while on station. This appears to be the main objection to the CASA model, along with other models as well. 

On the other hand, the Spartan cannot be perfect. What are the airframe or other factors which might limit the desirability of the C27?      

[Moderator note:  Edited only to differentiate between original quote, and reply - no content changed]


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The best way to avoid a repeat of the Sea King Replacement Fiasco is for the procurement people to actually take into account the views of the people who will have to use the equipment. If this project becomes a politically driven mess then it will become so because the contenders are trolling for political friends to push their products.
> 
> .... other options might include a few less planes in less locations for equal price and ostensibly a better airframe for the proposed role...



Nicely put whiskey.  

Another option might be another airframe that could be double-hatted and procured in larger numbers as in the case of the C27 taking on some of the Tactical Transport tasks of the CC-130s, CC-115s and CC138s.

The suppliers can argue until the cows come home about the Statement of Requirements and the difficulty of meeting a constantly changing set of requirements, or aircraft and other kit being bought for requirements not stated but situations change quickly and policy changes faster.  It is up to them and the PWGSC to keep up if they wish to sell and if they wish to fill the needs of the CF today.  Not the needs of CF 10 years ago and not the probably incorrect appreciation of needs 10 years from now.

Quicherbichin and start serving your customer.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Sep/Battle_Heats.htm

Article here on the US Army's use of the C23 Sherpa in Iraq and its plan to replace them with 33 C-295s or C-27s

Apparently the C-23 has been getting more use, plane for plane, than any other in the field.


----------



## Cloud Cover

So the Sherpa took on the role of the Caribou in Vietnam. The short runway for the C-27 surprised me, as did the rather long runway for the 235/295. That being said, I wonder how often the C27 would max out in terms of its capacity in actual operations, and would the cheaper costing 235/295 perform the role adequately enough in comparison to the present role of the Sherpa in Iraq.


----------



## Zoomie

I think the C-27J would be more in the running for the ANG's C-23 replacement.  The utility ability of being able to transport an up-armoured Hummer would be a plus for any and all operations in Iraq or OEF.  

The Spartan's STOL ability is ideal - the EADS CASA POS is a STOL in name only - just about as STOL worthy as a Jazz Dash-8!

Add in the superior maneuverability and airspeed of the C-27J plus an adequate RWR/IR protection suite - the survivability factor of aircrews and cargo in theatre goes way up...


----------



## Astrodog

Did a search and didn't come up with the URL, so sorry if it's already been posted but; for those interested in what a spartan in Cdn SAR colours would look like and some info: www.c27j.ca  ... definatly isn't as good or rugged looking as those beautiful buffalo!


----------



## mjohnston39

try www.C-27J.ca not related but similar: http://www.c-130j.ca/splash.php

Mike


----------



## Astrodog

dammit! thanks for the correction there mike... proofread proofread proofread i guess!


----------



## Cloud Cover

Zoomie, can you comment on the runway length requirements for these proposed aircraft and perhaps discuss them in comparison to the Buffalo, Herc and other aircraft they are supposed to replace?  How critical of a factor is this for our SAR birds?


----------



## Astrodog

Zoomie,

  Think i read somewhere that you're just waiting to be put on CP-140s right now... is there any way you would/have a choice to stay on the CC-115 or C-27J if that is chosen?


----------



## jmacleod

Stephen Priestly CASR DND 101 brought to our attention the potential of the EADS PZL Mielec
M28 Skytruck, as the replacement for the aging CC-138 deHavilland (Bombardier) Twin Otter
- this aircraft is now being marketed in the US by Skytruck USA, Naples Florida, and was made
available to the North American market as an industrial benefit from the Polish AF purchase of
Lockheed-Martin F-16's recently. Go on the www.skytruck.us for details about this rugged,
twin engine (P&W Canada turbos) aircraft. We have done a lot of work with PZL companies
(those owned by the Polish government) particularly in the field of agricultural, utility aircraft
which PZL Mielec brought to Canada as the single engine "Dromadar" some thirty plus years ago.
Polish aircraft are noted for their rugged construction and simplicity of design and manufacture
- but having said that, we think that it could only provide a replacement for the "Twotter" -
- probably the best aircraft of it's type ever built. MacLeod


----------



## Astrodog

one ugly bird! Why replace the CC-138s, how long have they been around?


----------



## kj_gully

Hey everyone, back from a busy summer, and thought I would revive the thread with some interesting gossip. While flying this summer the topic once more arose about the FWSAR project. The SOR ( statement of requirements) is on its third rewrite, as the original did not allow for any competition ( C 27 was only aircraft capable of meeting SOR) second version came after new CDS, included a tactical airlift role, #'s upped from 15 to 19, the extra 4 to replace the twin otters up North. Now the third rewrite is a compromise, to allow some limited competion while still maintaining realistic military requirements ( examples could be things like self start capability, austere field landing etc.) There are currently only two competitors. When I heard that I thought C27 Spartan And casa 295. Then I heard that the competition may not proceed, because both competitors are from the same company! Apparently the latest SOR can only be filled by the C27, or the C130J! Further to that, apparently the CDS has directed a limited purchase of C130J to fill the servibility gap in our C130 fleet. Comox Buffalos briefly held Sar standby for Winnipeg and Trenton, when there were no servicable c130s avail west of Greenwood, while deployed on search ops out of Kamloops BC.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Wow, thats a fistful  of rumours!!


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Sources tell us the Defence Department has drafted a detailed plan to buy up to $10 billion of new aircraft over the coming decade, an expenditure just slightly less than this year's entire <military> budget. 

If all goes to plan, the biggest procurement program in Canadian history would include not a single competitive bid. 

Instead, the generals would simply pick the planes they fancy, the government would hand out the contracts, and taxpayers would be stuck with the tab. 

No muss. No fuss. No bids to rig. 

Sources tell us this all-in-one mega-deal, unaffectionately known as the "Four-Pack," includes about 20 Chinook helicopters and 15 Italian-made planes for <search>-and-rescue; a dozen <Hercules> and two giant Antonovs for transport. 

Industry insiders say they expect Defence Minister Bill Graham will take the proposal to cabinet as early as next month, and that it already has a tentative nod from the prime minister. 

Given this government's apparently incurable attention deficit for fiscal prudence, the generals may well smoke this one past the politicians. 

In the realm of bureaucratic efficiency, of course, the plan is pure genius. Paul Martin has long promised to clean up the <military> procurement process after the purchase of new helicopters became a monument to bureaucratic bungling and political bid-rigging. 

In that debacle, the feds took over a decade just to design the bidding process for the new choppers. 

Get rid of bidding, get rid of the problem. 

After the contract was finally awarded to the foreign makers of the <Cormorant>, Jean Chretien's government cancelled the deal in 1993 as an election stunt. 

The Liberals then spent the entire next decade in office trying to rig the bidding process to ensure <Cormorant> didn't win again. Without competitive bids, Oncle Jean could have settled the whole deal over golf at a Shawinigan inn. 

When the Martin bunch took office promising to do things differently, they weren't kidding. Instead of trying to rig the outcome of the troublesome <helicopter> bidding, they got rid of the bidders. 

Last year, the <helicopter> contract was awarded to the American-made Sikorski when all of the other contenders were disqualified after a decade in the running. Lawsuits to follow. 

What all this obviously taught the generals and geniuses in Martin's regime is that so much expense and political embarrassment can be avoided by avoiding competitive bidding. 

Instead, under the plan now heading for cabinet, some general would have picked up the phone and bought the 38 helicopters. 

The proposed Defence Department shopping plan is no doubt a huge hit with Canada's new top general, Rick Hillier, a no-guff man of action who would probably be happiest if he could buy squadrons of planes over the Internet. 

Of course, all brilliance has its critics. 

Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic and a former soldier himself, says: "The problem is once you start abandoning the competitive process, you have no guarantee you're getting the best price. 

"And how do you know you're getting the most effective, efficient piece of equipment?"   
That should help start the rumour pot a boiling.   Can you imagine we might actually get a peice of equipment before it becomes out dated.   Imagine the possibilities.

MOO
Sorry had to modify your post as it was hard to read with the purple font.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Where did that op-ed from O'Connor come from?

Matthew.      ???

[Moderator Answer:  Apparently it was a Sun column by Greg Weston ... ?]
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34817.0.html


----------



## ringo

Are ex-RAF C-130J's being considered?


----------



## Grizzly

It sounds to me like things are very much uncertain at this time. The last proposal announced was for $6 billion, and that included about 20 ch-47's, 15-20 c-130J's and 15 c-27J's. Now they're saying $10 billion, but with 3 to 8 fewer c-130J's and 2 an-124-100M's added? I'm not sure why the two an-124's are supposed to cost 4 billion or more, but maybe the source missquoted the numbers. Will the $10 billion include the Twin Otter replacement too? I expect we'll be seeing varying numbers like this until the deal is finally signed. My only real question is how many birds do we need to meet operational requirements? Are 12 Hercs enough? Are two Anotovs enough?


----------



## ringo

I suspect the 2 Anotovs may be Canada's contribution to NATO's heavy lift plan.


----------



## COBRA-6

It would be something else if the CF was running Antonovs, I would have guessed C-17s... though we've rented so many hours on Antonovs it makes sense to just buy our own... any strategic airlift is a huge step forward.


----------



## mjohnston39

Perhaps the 10B includes the cost of the airframes and a service contract, similar to the MHP contracts???

MIke.


----------



## onewingwonder

Having just finished SAREX '05 in Summerside, I can say that the FWSAR program is in great hands...a Colonel who will make an excellent politician when the time comes. :crybaby: Oh, and he isn't aircrew.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Having just finished SAREX '05 in Summerside, I can say that the FWSAR program is in great hands...a Colonel who will make an excellent politician when the time comes. :crybaby: Oh, and he isn't aircrew.



Based on what I've seen of Hillier, I'm surprised he tolerates that....



Matthew.    ???


----------



## PMars

jmacleod said:
			
		

> Stephen Priestly CASR DND 101 brought to our attention the potential of the EADS PZL Mielec
> M28 Skytruck, as the replacement for the aging CC-138 deHavilland (Bombardier) Twin Otter   MacLeod



There is a good article and flight test on the M28 in Business & Commercial Aviation, September 2005. It turns out the aircraft is very noisy inside, especially in the cockpit which is abeam the props. It is slow but can carry a good load and operate in STOL mode. It is currently the only new build twin STOL aircraft. It is being certified on skiis and there is a proposal to put it on floats. On the downside, it is very expensive, US$5 million a copy. There are a couple of shortfalls, like the entry door in front of the props which are going to be corrected before North American marketing proceeds. The flight manual is also a literal translation from Polish and leaves a lot to be desired.

I don't think this is the option to replace the Twotters.

What has not been made clear is what the requirements are for a Twotter replacement. For example, is the ability to operate on floats important? Should the aircraft be able to operate on skiis? Does it need a fast cruise? What sort of range? What sort of payload? Given the Twin Otter replacement was supposed to be "fast tracked" even faster than the fast tracking of a new FWSAR type, I do not have any optimism that any requirements have been developed, other than some people wishing for the C27J. There might be good reasons to go with the C27J, such as standardizing on type, with concommitant economies of scale in training, maintenance, etc., but first we need to decide what we want the FWNOR to do.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I've seen C130H with skiis, why not the C27? IIRC the C-123B had skiis. Can't imagine any of them with floats!!!


----------



## Zoomie

The CF is out of the float aircraft business - Twotter pilots no longer maintain those quals, another budget cut measure.

Big problem with the Twotter is it is SLOW - Polish EADS STOL is not what we need nor want - Priestly and Demillle at CASR have their own ideas, none of which are based on fact or logic (personal note not a reflection of this website nor the DND).


----------



## Jantor

Hello everyone.

     I didn't know that they stopped using floats on the Twotter.   :-\     Since that's that maybe this aircraft would be something to consider.

     http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c212/

     The Aussies are replacing their Twotters with the Aviocar because they say its got twice the range with twice the payload and can  
     be fitted with either oversized tires or skis. Australia wants to use them in Antarctica.

      An older model, the 300P utility version, used P&WC PT6A-65 turboprops.

      Buz


----------



## Kirkhill

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

L-3 has set up Spar in Edmonton as their lead element in their Air Mobility Systems operation...



> to develop and deliver fleet management solutions for Canada's air mobility platforms.





> The Government of Canada has recently embarked on a major multi-billion dollar acquisition program to upgrade its air mobility capabilities in order to strengthen its ability to move people, equipment and supplies to respond to natural disasters and in a theatre of war.



Do I hear echoes of the Bristol contract......?

In any event, it could be a positive development towards a C-130J/C27J buy.     Anybody have any idea how they might handle the rotary end of the Air mobility issue?

Also, by handling it this way could the government find two or three consortia that could all supply the same aircraft but with different supply and service terms?   Many car dealers can all sell you exactly the same Chevy.

Maybe this adds something to the rotary bit of the puzzle.  L-3 and Agusta-Westland (EH-101) are competing on US Army LUH programme with the AB 139 (Augusta Bell as in Bell Aerospace as Mirabel with engines by Pratt and Whitney Canada?)

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


----------



## Kirkhill

Seems like everyone might like a few C27s (or C295s).....33 for the US Army, maybe 120 - at which time the Air Force wants to take over the project - USANG is also calling for 120 for domestic disaster relief.

Interesting comment that the C130 is too BIG.



> At issue is the Army's "future cargo aircraft" that will replace the aging fleet of C-23 Sherpas. Although the Army so far has committed to buying 33, it could eventually acquire as many as 120. Competing for the award are Global Military Aircraft Systems, with the C-27J Spartan, and the Raytheon Company, which is proposing the CASA C-295 aircraft.





> Last month, Gen. Michael Moseley, chief of staff of the Air Force, told the annual convention of the Air Force Association that the service intends to procure a light cargo aircraft.
> 
> Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq proved that there is "some utility" in having an aircraft that can take off and land in a 2,000 to 2,500 foot runway, can carry two pallets and 25 to 30 people, said Moseley. "Something like that would be useful in the Gulf Coast" for hurricane relief operations, he added.





> Air National Guard Brig. Gen. Duane Lodrige said the Air Guard would be a "key player" in any future light cargo aircraft program. It's become clear that the C-130 is too big for many of today's Guard duties, such as shuttling cargo and troops in Iraq, or providing humanitarian relief, he said.



http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Nov/UF-Military.htm


----------



## Rescue Randy

_Seems like everyone might like a few C27s (or C295s).....33 for the US Army, maybe 120 - at which time the Air Force wants to take over the project _ 


Actually, this is more of a bun fight between Army and Air Force over who controls procurement.  That said, if the USAF takes it over, they probably will not be looking for C27J aircraft - they bought ten C27A (same aircraft, different engine) in the early 90s, took delivery in 92, and parked them in 97 because of unserviceabilities, lack of spare parts (it is an Italian airplane) and high operating costs.  The US State Dept took them over later on for Latin American ops, took the ten airframes to rob parts to keep four flying.  Kind of sounds like the Cormorant....


----------



## Blue Max

As we have heard today the Liberals have pulled back from their fast track commitment of badly needed airframes which included the C27. One of the resons for this about face is vigorous politicking by Bombardier to have their Dash-8 as a made in Canada alternative to purchasing the C27 Spartan, even though DND has repeatedly told Bombardier that the Dash-8 is too small, too slow.

Canadian politics at its best.  :dontpanic:


----------



## Bograt

Not sure if this has been posted yet. Please excuse the potential double re-post. It is a great time to start one's career in Blue.

Streamlined military purchase to go ahead <b>NOVEMBER 20, 2005</b>

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051120.wmilitary1119/BNStory/National/

Ottawa â â€ The federal government expects to announce Tuesday it will proceed with the $4.6-billion purchase of 16 transport aircraft for the Canadian military.

Despite industry protests to the contrary, officials insist the accelerated, streamlined process will be based on open bidding. They say at least two companies â â€ Airbus and Lockheed Martin â â€ are in the running.

The purchase is remarkable because it was part of a larger package that had effectively been shelved one week ago as political dynamite in the days before a federal election. That effort was smothered by competing constituencies in cabinet and corporate Canada.

A relentless series of phone calls from Defence Minister Bill Graham to cabinet colleagues and overseas conversations with Prime Minister Paul Martin travelling in Asia over the past week resurrected a priority portion of the original $12.1-billion purchase.

Defence officials said Mr. Graham realized he would have to scale back his wish list if he was going to win anything for the Forces before an election.

"That snake could not swallow that hog at this point," a senior defence official said.

Mr. Graham would only say he will take "some elements" of the aircraft package that are generally considered "uncontroversial" to cabinet Monday.

"I spoke to the prime minister in Korea and he encouraged me to proceed," Mr. Graham said in an interview.

He said Mr. Martin knows the military has a key role to play in Canada's foreign policy and can't do so without the right equipment.

"Certainly, the airlift capacity is a key part of that," said Mr. Graham. "Take the Hercules fleet â â€ everybody in the country knows it's coming to the end of its useful life."

Department officials and senior military officers later confirmed Graham will propose a plan to purchase the tactical transport aircraft, widely expected to be Lockheed Martin's C-17J, though they insisted no decision on what aircraft has been made.

The Airbus A-400 is also considered a competitor, though it has some hurdles to overcome, a senior official said.

"This project is Priority No. 1 â â€ for the government, the minister, and the chief," a source said on condition of anonymity.

The performance requirements say first deliveries are to be as soon as possible but no later than three years, with final deliveries no later than five years from awarding of the contract.

Another official said planners hope first deliveries can be made within 18-24 months. The expenditure would include in-service support for 20 years.

A senior military officer said the reversal is almost too good to be true.

Uniformed staff at National Defence Headquarters are having a hard time believing Mr. Graham managed to bring the purchase back from the dead â â€ the political equivalent of what one observer called a "back flip with a twist."

"And to see this happen fast is outstanding. It shows a solid commitment that we're not used to."

The aircraft plan had also included heavy-lift helicopters and search-and-rescue planes, but officials say corporate lobbyists convinced some key ministers to resist an initiative they argued would open a political Pandora's box in Quebec and Ontario.

In an effort to reduce a procurement period that has averaged 12 years, defence planners have reduced the transport plane's requirements to a single page of performance needs. Similar documents have numbered 17,000 pages.

The Canadian aerospace industry fears that by producing the performance-based requirements, the government is aiming to sole-source the contracts â â€ targeting Italy's C-27J SaR aircraft along with the U.S.-built Hercules tactical transport plane and Chinook heavy-lift helicopter.

"The minute we announced we were going to do this, a whole host of lobbyists descended like locusts on the summer fields and decided to try to eat the fruit before it could grow," Mr. Graham said.

He said the lobbying campaign â â€ conducted mainly by ex-generals â â€ began before the performance requirements were even published.

"There was a huge campaign based on a lot on rumours and not on fact . . . because everybody felt they wanted to make sure they had a piece of this," said the minister.

"I was distressed because I felt there were some people around town who would rather derail it than see it happen."

Mr. Graham said the NDP announced they would force an election just as he was to present the big package to cabinet.

Cabinet ministers were reminded of what happened when former Tory prime minister Kim Campbell announced a major helicopter purchase just before the 1993 election â â€ it became a tempting political morsel for the Liberals.

"If you get procurement policy mixed up in an election process, it can set the process back rather than further it," said Mr. Graham.

Earlier this month, the Conservative defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor, said he was concerned the government was rushing the process unnecessarily and made the requirements "so precise only one solution's possible."

But some say the acquisitions are inevitable, have been budgeted for and have such widespread support in Parliament they would be implemented by whichever party wins the election.

Mr. O'Connor â â€ the former director of military requirements and an ex-industry lobbyist â â€ said later there is nothing stopping the Liberals from going ahead with plans to replace aircraft.

Officials say the new process, with a single page of performance-based requirements rather than detailed specifications for every nut and bolt, will save $250-million over the project's life.

Lobbyists pay lip service this more streamlined approach but "when the rubber hits the road, it's harder to influence because you have a fewer number of things to influence and they are pretty set in concrete," said one official.

"Before, there were 50,000 things to influence and they weren't necessarily set in concrete. And that's how these guys make their dough."

Some of the military's current Hercules transport aircraft â â€ mid-range planes used to ferry troops, supplies and equipment in and out of theatre â â€ are more than 40 years old.

A senior air force general said Canada is regarded worldwide as the foremost expert in maintaining Hercs with more than 40,000 hours in the air. "We're becoming world leaders in a field of aviation that we don't want to be in."


----------



## Zoomie

The goverment said the same thing about FWSAR back in 2004.  It was to be a streamlined deal, planes would be on the tarmac within 36 months.  Yeah, right!


----------



## Kirkhill

Tactical Transport Aircraft = Lockheed Martin C17Js...... ???


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Tactical Transport Aircraft = Lockheed Martin C17Js...... ???



Globe and Mail only confused the masses by that typo - the C-17 is not a contender.


----------



## Allen

> The goverment said the same thing about FWSAR back in 2004.  It was to be a streamlined deal, planes would be on the tarmac within 36 months.  Yeah, right!



I think they said 18 months, and they meant 18 months from contract award, not from the kickoff of the project. Tight deadlines, but not impossible.

Once gov't signs a contract and passes the ball to industry, things tend to move a lot quicker.

In this case, they're talking 36 months from contract award for the manufacturer to deliver the first planes. Entirely within the realm of possibility.


----------



## Zoomie

Exactly - they have yet to award the contract for FWSAR - the money is already there.


----------



## Kirkhill

> - the money is already there.


  I hope they can get it spent before March.


----------



## kj_gully

I'm simply posting to move this thread back to page one, maybe restart it with all the chatter on the Strat vs tac airlift thread


----------



## Journeyman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I've seen C130H with skiis, ....... Can't imagine any of them with floats!!!



The US Navy was working on it back in the late-1990s. They were aiming for sea state three ops, 10,000 lb payload to 2,200 nm, etc, etc....as part of a Spec Ops funding boom.

I think the project died a quiet death.

   (~Bob: SAR Crse 20)


----------



## Zoomie

Can you imagine trying to conduct a rescue by relying on your ability to land on the water and pick up survivors?   How often do vessels in distress occur in Sea State 0-3?  

The CASR DND 101 site pokes at the choice of FWSAR in Canada, mentioning that we used to use flying boats before the inception of the Herc/Buff platform.  It only further reinforces my already negative opinion of them - they have no clue what they are writing about.  Last thing any SAR operator would want to do is land in any appreciable Sea State hundreds of miles out to sea.

Apparently Bombardier(and CASR) believes that the ramp is not required for a FWSAR replacement - at least CASA and Alenia both agree that it is.  A recent medevac out of Cranbrook would lend credence to the fact that a ramp is very much needed - provincial Medevac teams couldn't facilitate the Evac due to the lack of said ramp.


----------



## Jantor

I have a question. Were the Antonov An-72 or An-74 ever seriously considered for the FWSAR role here in Canada? The reason I'm asking is that Boeing may be involved in talks with Antonov in the Ukraine about getting together and using that aircraft in the FCA competition in the states.

Buz


----------



## sandhurst91

It would appear that somebody in the US has a beef... or an agenda... or perhaps just doesn't like Italians

http://c-27j.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi


----------



## Armymatters

Alenia was recently museing over a production line for the C-27J Spartan somewhere in North America, if it won the US Army and Air Force contract for transports...


----------



## Journeyman

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Apparently Bombardier(and CASR) believes that the ramp is not required for a FWSAR replacement



Damn....all that time palletizing Major Air Disaster kit for the Herc ramp, only to have to break it down and throw it out a side door, piece by piece, of a ramp-less aircraft. The 4x4 Argo is going to go out ugly


----------



## kj_gully

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Damn....all that time palletizing Major Air Disaster kit for the Herc ramp, only to have to break it down and throw it out a side door, piece by piece, of a ramp-less aircraft. The 4x4 Argo is going to go out ugly


...all while hunched over like in the Twotter.... *we'll* go out ugly , nothing like line twists over boreal forest....


----------



## Zoomie

But that's only us speaking (the operators) - obviously the folks at CASR know better...  :

I wonder how those Medevacs would work with the patients that require a ramp?


----------



## Zoomie

sandhurst91 said:
			
		

> It would appear that somebody in the US has a beef... or an agenda... or perhaps just doesn't like Italians



Your link does not work.  I would be interested in seeing this article - could you please post it here.

Right now - whether it is Alenia or CASA - it has got to be better than nothing or Bombardier's Q-400 idea!

We've already been told to extend the CC-115 to 2015.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Zoomie,
That link must have only went down less than an hour ago.......... ???


----------



## Kirkhill

Most peculiar.

By the way I wonder how EADS/Casa's relations are with the US these days?  They seem to be someplace between the "rock" of Venzuela's Hugo Chavez and the US "hard place".

It would probably suck to end up losing out on both contracts.


----------



## Kirkhill

By the way Zoomie you didn't miss much.

It was an article in poor English citing all defects ever listed on the Alenia G222 and the C27A.  Pretty similar to saying that the Herc was a lousy bird because the C-130A had to be modified to create the E/F/H/Ks etc.


----------



## Rescue Randy

I do not agree that you can equate the Herc fleet in its many evolutions to the G-222.  As an ex-Herc driver, I would fully agree that each of subsequent models improved on the basic design, but would also contend that the C-130 aircraft popularity was largely due to the fact that the basic design was robust, dependable, and well supported by the manufacturer.  The same can not be said for the G-222/C-27A.  I would suggest that the list of known deficiencies of that aircraft, as well as for any other aircraft type under consideration, should be a "memory item" for the project office.


----------



## Hawker

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060306/b030652.html

Bombardier sells three Q300 planes worth US$53M for Australia Coastwatch 
13:13:58 EST Mar 6, 2006 
TORONTO (CP) - Bombardier Aerospace (TSX:BBD.SV.B) has won a $53-million-US order to supply three Q300 maritime patrol aircraft for the Surveillance Australia Coastwatch program. 

Comments would be welcome on:
 1. The Aussies seemingly being able to buy stuff with less than a 10 year lead time (both this and the C 17 announcement) and 
2.  The Aussies buying a Canadian made plane that many folks here has said isn't what we want/need in the patrol category


----------



## Kirkhill

FWSAR is not a patrol application.  It is a delivery application.  It delivers SARTECHS, Survival Kits and Majaid Kits. 

WRT the Aussies and them being able to make up their mind in a hurry - we can but hope that somebody in Canada is taking notice.


----------



## Hawker

Agreed sir...looking at this I should have put it in it's own thread as opposed to adding it to the wrong one.  If the mods wish to split it off please do so...if not no worries...


----------



## 32a

Hello Folks.  I'm a new guy in this forum.  Interesting discussion.  Let's try some fuel to the fire.

Did you know that back in '92 CC130s were to replace the CC115s in Comox?  Fleet rationalization was the objective.  Capability lost with the Buff's departure was to be covered off by the newly arriving Cormorant.  "Save the Buff" projects were born.

Interestingly, the folks who wrote up the Buff projects had little to no experience with the Herc, let alone flying the Herc in SAR.  Those ATGHQ principals reviewing the reports, had they flown the Herc, had never flown it in the mountains.  There are very few who have flown both Hercs and Buffs, and in their respective SRRs.  Rescue Randy is one who has done that and RWSAR as well.

Canada needs a domestic transporter.  You can call it tactical or strat but the country in undoubtedly huge.  Canada needs new FWSAR.  How about fleet rationalization?  One crew training stream, one maintenance training stream, one supply chain.

Current Buffs are on SAR stby with 4.5 hrs gas; Hercs 7-8 hrs.  Buffs 3,000 lbs SAR payload; Hercs 10,000.  Level the payload/fuel field and the Herc will be within 10-15 knots in search speeds.  Turn radius is dependent on KTAS not momentum.  Any airplane you get that can cruise in the 300 knots range will not slow down to the Buff numbers for valley shoots and  STOL.  As far as I can see, there are no FWSAR candidates who can do STOL and valley shoots.  Any decent contender will do short field/dirt strip work especially if you disregard VMC (engine out safety speeds) - even the Herc.  The Buff takes-off/lands below VMC everyday.

Sheer empty weight of a Herc type aircraft is a huge negative.  Many small town rwys cannot support the weight.  So what?  Most communities requiring transport have 5,000 ft strips or they should get them.  All of Canada except the Victoria SRR are quite content with Hercs as their primary FWSAR aircraft.  SAR missions call for a FWSAR to show up quickly and provide first aid.  Recovery/retraction is generally a helo effort to the nearest suitable medical facility.  Helicopters can deliver to a strip suitable for a FWSAR aircraft or provincial medevac.  Oh yeah, Buffs are doing more medevacs now than couple years ago because of "large" patients - time for provincial medevac outfits to get bigger air ambulances.

FWSAR is also supposedly replacing Twotters.  If the capability includes austere strip work, skis, and floats - none of the current FWSAR contenders will do that job.  If there is an aircraft to cover the austere work (Chinooks out of Yellowknife anyone?) then the fleet rationalized Tpt and SAR fixed wing bird can handle the rest.

Couple other points from previous discussions: Utility of Navigators nowadays is in mission speciality roles, not navigation.  On scene control especially off-shore in the East can get busy IF you try to search AND control at the same time.  There is an advantage in offloading comms to another crewmember - otherwise it just may take longer to do the job.  Running search sensors needs a competent operator - I've never flown with AESOPs so no opinion here.  Another biggie - first 24 hrs over a sunken ship far offshore needs the kind of continuous air coverage available from Hercs until surface vessels get on-scene.  The numbers for the FWSAR contenders don't look very promising in this area.

Obviously there is more to this argument than just what is presented so far.  I just didn't want anyone to fall asleep.  Canada should carefully consider multiple role aircraft - a CC130 type aircraft maybe the right one for the job.  Now if I could only convince Rescue Randy...


----------



## Rescue Randy

Greek newspapers have recently been commenting on the introduction of the Spartan (C-27J) in the Hellenic Air Force (HAF).   They are of interest to any one following the FWSAR discussion.  I tried to attach them to this post, but suspect they are too large for the system.  If someone wants to see them, PM me and I will forward them – that way you can get your own translation if you wish. 

The Axia newspaper article incorporates two letters in English, one from Alenia, the other from a General Officer in the HAF.  The second letter reads in part, “Despite the efforts of the HAF to accelerate the procedure and improve the performance, the program is currently on the verge of a critical point due to extended delays on deliveries and prolonged low aircraft availability.”

While my Greek is non-existent, the translations that follow appear to be consistent with the two English letters. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 


"Aircraft of the Hellenic Airforce…leak!


·	The C-27J SPARTAN manufactured by Lockheed in cooperation with Alenia, is a tactical transport aircraft that officials considered suitable for the Hellenic Air Force. So, the Greek government ordered 12 aircraft and of course the commissions went…where they usually go. Besides, Greece is known to be, especially in similar cases, a good customer. When the first aircraft (serial number 4117) was delivered to Greece, unfortunately…it started leaking.

·	And miraculously, water leakage was found inside it! The second and third aircraft (serial numbers 4418 and 4121) had the same problem and numerous others as described thoroughly by the technicians. As such, the Hellenic Air Force was forced to stop their delivery until the problems are resolved.

·	We have the letters of communication between the people responsible in the Hellenic Airforce and the representative of the company in Greece, Mr. Leonidas Mazarakis, from which it is deduced that the manufacturing company not only is aware of the fact that the aircraft have serious problems which will be solved soon, but is sending in Greece a group of experts headed by a chief engineer in order to proceed with the repairs. The conclusion?

·	We buy whatever they give to us, we pay them for modern and new and then…we run to put out the fires. Of course, we provide an additional service, by offering ourselves as a test bed for others to use for learning."  



Appeared on the newspaper “Axia” on March 4, 2006

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Problems in deliveries of new tactical transport aircraft of               Hellenic Air Force C-27J SPARTAN


Serious problems were identified in the two new C-27J SPARTAN aircraft accepted by the Hellenic Air Force, resulting to a “freeze” of the deliveries. The most serious problem was that of leak-tightness found initially in one of the two a/c, but was considered coincidental. More specifically, after strong rainfall, water was found in the pilot’s cabin in the front and under the pilot’s seat and behind the co-pilot’s seat. According to initial assessments the incident was considered to be attributed to some open access panel on the upper part of the fuselage. However, some days later the same thing happened with the second aircraft, which happened to be in the hangar during the first rainfall.

According to information, another problem has been identified in the emergency generator of the aircraft, which takes over with a delay when the main generator fails; as a result, the aircraft has no electric power for some seconds. As far as the pilot vehicle interface is concerned and specifically the switches on the instrument board, an important problem exists since the switches for the engine start-up are of the same size and shape with the windscreen-wiper ones. The switches of the two systems are positioned one next to the other. According to the same information, an operator during flight inadvertently switched off the engines while he wanted to put in operation the windscreen-wipers, due to the resemblance. The manufacturing company has been informed of all the above mentioned problems and stated that they will solve them immediately. The Hellenic Air Force is expecting their solution in order to continue accepting the rest of the aircraft."


----------



## Kirkhill

More grist for the mill.......curiously the release studiously avoids speculation as to what aircraft might be under consideration.......reference to capabilities, not platforms.



> Air Force, Army to Purchase Small Cargo Aircraft
> 
> 
> (Source: US Air Force; issued March 30, 2006)
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON --- By 2010, both the Army and the Air Force may be flying the same aircraft to provide airlift inside places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> The Secretary of Defense has given approval for the Army and the Air Force to work together to purchase those aircraft. The Army has been calling it a "Future Cargo Aircraft," while the Air Force calls it a "Light Cargo Aircraft." But ultimately, those names will be gone in favor of "Joint Cargo Aircraft." And it won't just be the name that is the same.
> 
> The Joint Cargo Aircraft will be a small aircraft developed for both the Army and the Air Force. It will be smaller than the Air Force's C-130 Hercules, but larger than the Army's C-23 Sherpa. Most likely, the aircraft will be a variant of an aircraft already available in the civilian sector, and the manufacturer will modify it for military use.
> 
> "What we are not going to do is go out and build, from the bottom up, a new airplane and take six or seven years to get it in the field," said Army Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt, director of Army aviation. "We are looking for something to fill this capability gap now. We have issues with the airframe we have."
> 
> Purchasing an aircraft already being manufactured by a contractor would ensure a lower cost acquisition and a speedier delivery of the capability. Both the services agree the selection will be based on speed, range, capacity, and the ability to land on unimproved runways or in more austere locations.
> 
> "We have always focused on the same goal – to provide the combatant commanders with the tools they need to do the mission, and in the process of developing new capabilities, be good stewards of our taxpayer’s money," said Brig. Gen. Andrew S. Dichter, Air Force deputy director for joint integration. "By adopting a common platform, we believe we are doing just this."
> 
> Both services say they expect delivery of the aircraft to the Army to begin in 2008, with "source selection," that is the choice of the manufacturer, to be made by December 2006. The Air Force should take delivery of its first aircraft in 2010.
> 
> There have been discussions about the purchase of nearly 150 of the aircraft, though that number could change based on any number of factors, including what is determined to be the unified commanders' requirements.
> 
> "At this point, there is general agreement the Army will proceed with about 75 aircraft," General Dichter said. "The Air Force will pick up, using the Army's initial requirement, to round out the fleet at about 145 aircraft. Ongoing studies (will) further refine the requirement. The acquisition authorities are the ultimate decision makers, however."
> 
> For years, the Army has used the C-23 Sherpa, the C-12 Huron and the C-26 Metroliner to provide "organic" intratheater airlift.
> 
> "Intratheater" means inside a theater of operations. For example, anything meant to fly exclusively inside Iraq today would be intratheater. "Organic" means exclusive to a service -- the Army using Army aircraft to move Army supplies and people between Army units is considered organic.
> 
> The Army uses the Sherpa and other rotor-wing assets to move goods "the last tactical mile," the final distance between far out Army depots and the troops scattered in the field in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, General Mundt said.
> 
> The Army's Sherpa fleet is getting old, though. At the same time, the aircraft is no longer meeting the new demands of the Army mission. The plane is not pressurized, for instance, so it has altitude restrictions. In addition, the aircraft has a short range that makes it difficult to get into the Southwest Asia theater of operations.
> 
> General Mundt said that because the aircraft isn't pressurized, it cannot be used for medical evacuation missions. Additionally, the aircraft is not large enough to carry a standard Air Force cargo pallet. So pallets need to be broken down and reconfigured for use on the Sherpa.
> 
> The Air Force also needs new lightweight intratheater airlift. The Air Force has used the C-130 to do intratheater airlift for over 40 years now. But the aircraft is often too large for some aircraft movements today in support of the global war on terrorism.
> 
> The aircraft is frequently not carrying capacity loads, especially when something is needed immediately. There is a significant cost associated with loading up a C-130 with just one pallet of supplies, or 10 people to move when it can carry almost five times that amount. A smaller plane would be ideal to move small amounts of cargo and personnel with the kind of immediacy needed.
> 
> "In our experience in Afghanistan, where we have dispersed strongholds of U.S. forces, we don't have a good infrastructure with highways and roads and safe travel," General Dichter said. "That caused us to pause and look at how we do business and ask, 'Is there something here for both our services?' Yes, we see a place for the Air Force to embrace this mission and be part of it."
> 
> Evidence of the Air Force's need for light intratheater airlift capability came during Hurricane Katrina support efforts in and around New Orleans. Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley realized the Air Force would have been able to put to good use an aircraft that can move a small amount of cargo a short distance from unimproved runways. In the case of Katrina, of course, it wasn't unimproved runways, but damaged runways -- those covered with water and debris from the storm.
> 
> "Our senior leaders see a need for these aircraft," General Dichter said. "That is based on the commitments we have around the world. We are also sensitive to what we saw with Hurricane Katrina disaster relief and the emerging role of U.S. Northern Command and the homeland defense mission."
> 
> The Army and the Air Force had been working separately to develop a small-capacity, intratheater airlift capability. But the Department of Defense asked the services to work together to develop the capability jointly. By October, the services will realize that cooperation when they stand up a Joint Program Office in Huntsville, Ala., to address their similar needs.
> 
> Both services agree they look forward to develop this Joint capability.
> 
> For the Army, it means they will maintain and improve on their ability to move Army supplies out to the very troops that will use them: providing munitions, supplies, and personnel support to soldiers scattered out to the farthest reaches of the global war on terrorism.
> 
> For the Air Force, it means improved responsiveness, flexibility and quality of service to the joint warfighter by pushing supplies out past established, improved runways. It means a new ability to do light cargo and personnel movements inside a theater of operations, and during humanitarian missions in the United States. And, it means doing those things at a cost far lower than what is now possible with the C-130 or the C-17.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34


----------



## kj_gully

well, with no new posts in this thread since March I suppose one should have been able to guess that the project was scrubbed... or at least back, way back, burnered. I love the buff, and any plane would have meant a compromise, but that o2 mask... coulda done without that. oh well, next time we get a new SAR plane, maybe it will be a drone?


----------



## Armymatters

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I stand by my comments.
> 
> My opinion of you is well established, supported by others and unlikely to change.  Its is also reinforced every time you post.



I am a proponent of buying the more capable and more suitable piece of equipment when the prices are similar. I am in favour of A400M to replace the Hercs as they can do more compared to C-130J. If Lockheed had something that was comparable, I would be in favour of a Lockheed proposal.


----------



## aesop081

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am a proponent of buying the more capable and more suitable piece of equipment when the prices are similar. I am in favour of A400M to replace the Hercs as they can do more compared to C-130J. If Lockheed had something that was comparable, I would be in favour of a Lockheed proposal.



I'm not going to get into this with you anymore. You are going with the blinders fully in place.  The C-130J is in production NOW, the USAF has commited itself to buying more of them.  They are available NOW to replace the CC-130s who's life is expiring and has already expired.  The A-400M is still a peice of paper, has not flown yet and is not available anytime soon.  Come see me here and i'll show you whats its like to fly an ageing airplane.


----------



## HItorMiss

Yeah but the A400 doesn't even exist yet....I'm not sure why your a fan of a plane that only exist in peoples mind.

By that logic I'm a fan of the USS Enterprise from Star Trek(tm) and support it as a new fixed wing SAR.


----------



## Armymatters

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get into this with you anymore. You are going with the blinders fully in place.  The C-130J is in production NOW, the USAF has commited itself to buying more of them.  They are available NOW to replace the CC-130s who's life is expiring and has already expired.  The A-400M is still a peice of paper, has not flown yet and is not available anytime soon.  Come see me here and i'll show you whats its like to fly an ageing airplane.



Lockheed can't deliever anytime soon as well, even if we order today. Their production lines are full until early 2010, and the USAF is not willing to give us early spots on the production line as they need to replace their Herc fleet as well. Either way, we are f***ed until at least 2010.


----------



## Armymatters

Lineman said:
			
		

> Don't mean to get in between two fine gentlemen and their disagreement but I was just looking for an opinion on the Utilicraft and its potential use in the CF.



Only problem is the cargo hold dimensions. It only holds 10 LD3 container in a row, which has the dimensions of 64.5"W / 79"W x 60.4"D x 64"H. Compared to the CASA CN-295, or C-27J, they are both larger, and right now, from what I can see, the SAR boys want all the space inside they can get. It also doesn't has the legs compared to C-27J or CN-295, as it can only make 1,650nm, or around 3055 km, unloaded, compared to C-27J's 4685 km. Cruise speed is also lower than both competitors, meaning it can't get to an area fast enough. Only thing that I like about it is that it can carry a lot of dense cargo, up to 10 tons fully loaded.


----------



## Journeyman

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Only thing that I like about it is that it *can carry a lot of dense cargo *


You mean paratroops, as opposed to SAR Techs?   >



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I'm a fan of the *USS Enterprise * from Star Trek(tm) and support it as a new fixed wing SAR.


I want the one with the Borg chick _and_ Dr Crusher.  :-*

...and finally,


			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> Either way, *we are f***ed * until at least 2010.


Perhaps nitpicking, but _we_ are having intimate relations until at least 2010. _You_, however, are a civie and face merely the risk of an antique Herc falling out of the sky and doing a Chicken Little on your head. You don't have to fly in them. 

OK, I'm done contributing nothing of value here for one day


----------



## Kirkhill

> ...and finally,
> 
> Quote from: Armymatters on Yesterday at 20:03:33
> Either way, we are f***ed until at least 2010.
> Perhaps nitpicking, but we are having intimate relations until at least 2010. You, however, are a civie and face merely the risk of an antique Herc falling out of the sky and doing a Chicken Little on your head. You don't have to fly in them.



In the interests of relieving JM's pain/pleasure (something of an S&M theme here perhaps) might I suggest that it is not beyond the possible to speculate that the "digit extraction" might happen a bit sooner than 2010.  Assuming a little imagination on the part of the competitors.

We know that there is a pool of existing C130Js that are surplus to requirement. The RAF wants to get rid of them, preferring to spend the money on other priorities.  While the CF may not want to be seen to be buying anymore used kit from the Brits I can't help but wonder about the possibility of Lockheed buying them back, zero-timing them (they are already low mileage) and then reselling them back to Canada at a reduced rate.  Possibly as part of a bigger buy - say 20 aircraft instead of the planned 17 or perhaps adding the option of inserting plugs into them to turn them into J-30s.

That would put "new" C130Js into the hands of the CF PDQ.

Likewise, incorporating the CHAPS CH-47Ds in the US Army inventory medium lift helicopter proposal would put them into the CF inventory in short order.

As well the C-17s will likely find an aircraft diverted from the US order to the CF within months.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the CF flying C130Js, CH47Ds and at least one C17 before the end of the Liberal leadership race.

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The RAF wants to get rid of them, preferring to spend the money on other priorities.



Thats only partialy true.

The RAF is looking at getting rid of its "short" version C-130J as it feels they are under used in the current british context.  The RAF will retain its "stretched" version C-130J.  The RAF's plan is to used tohe money from the sale of the "shorts" to purchase the 4 C-17s they currently lease and purchase 2 more as they feel that 4 does not fullfil the requirements of the OP tempo of British forces.  The RAF is NOT getting rid of the C-130J.


----------



## GAP

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Thats only partialy true.
> 
> The RAF is looking at getting rid of its "short" version C-130J as it feels they are under used in the current british context.  The RAF will retain its "stretched" version C-130J.  The RAF's plan is to used tohe money from the sale of the "shorts" to purchase the 4 C-17s they currently lease and purchase 2 more as they feel that 4 does not fullfil the requirements of the OP tempo of British forces.  The RAF is NOT getting rid of the C-130J.
> [/quot]
> 
> See this in the The Sandbox and Areas Reports Thread
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46428.30.html
> 
> Blair Promises U.K. Troops in Afghanistan `Anything They Need'
> July 4 (Bloomberg)
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=avBzOwhSc1Xk&refer=canada
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Blair promised British troops in Afghanistan ``anything they need'' to help combat insurgent attacks after two soldiers were killed there this week.


----------



## Kirkhill

You're right aesop081. I wasn't clear enough.  I was only referring to the 10 C130Js - Not the other 15 C130J-30s.

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> Thats only partialy true.
> 
> The RAF is looking at getting rid of its "short" version C-130J as it feels they are under used in the current british context.  The RAF will retain its "stretched" version C-130J.  The RAF's plan is to used tohe money from the sale of the "shorts" to purchase the 4 C-17s they currently lease and purchase 2 more as they feel that 4 does not fullfil the requirements of the OP tempo of British forces.  The RAF is NOT getting rid of the C-130J.
> 
> 
> See this in the The Sandbox and Areas Reports Thread
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46428.30.html
> 
> Blair Promises U.K. Troops in Afghanistan `Anything They Need'
> July 4 (Bloomberg)
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=avBzOwhSc1Xk&refer=canada
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Blair promised British troops in Afghanistan ``anything they need'' to help combat insurgent attacks after two soldiers were killed there this week.



What does that have to do with what i posted ?


----------



## GAP

*DND pushes quick plane deal*
DANIEL LEBLANC  Globe and Mail Update
Article Link

OTTAWA — The Canadian Forces are preparing to spend billions of dollars buying search-and-rescue aircraft through a process that has excluded all but one bid.

The Italian-built Spartan C27J aircraft has been pegged by sources as the only aircraft ready for purchase to replace the Buffalo and Hercules aircraft that currently cover Canada's forests, mountains and coastline.

The old Liberal government announced funding in 2004 for new fixed-wing aircraft and the Department of National Defence is moving to launch the formal process to acquire the aircraft, which were due to be in service by last year.

A DND document obtained by The Globe and Mail confirmed that only one aircraft is being considered as a “viable bidder” for the search-and-rescue contract. The project is worth about $3-billion, including the maintenance of the aircraft over 20 years.

Defence contracts are among the most lucrative deals the government signs, and if the Spartan is bought, it will illustrate a growing government habit of signing multibillion-dollar deals without accepting competing bids.

Last year, Ottawa purchased 16 Chinook helicopters for $2.7-billion, four C17 cargo airplanes for $3.4-billion, and 17 C130J Hercules transport planes for $5-billion. In all these cases, only the winning bid was considered.

In the upcoming search-and-rescue competition, the builders of a rival aircraft, the Spanish C295, are engaged in intense lobbying in Ottawa to change the requirements in the hope of qualifying for the competition.

Their plane is used in a number of countries for search-and-rescue operations, but it cannot meet the current requirements established by the Canadian Forces. The company is frustrated that it has even been prevented from showing its C295 to Defence officials.

“We're interested in a fair, open and transparent competition,” said Martin Sefzig of EADS-CASA, the company behind the C295
More on link


----------



## schart28

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/03/defence-contract.html#skip300x250

Canada's Department of National Defence is poised to buy new search and rescue aircraft, but will look at only one bid for a $3-billion contract because of the military's strict requirements, says a newspaper report.

The Canadian Forces is considering the Italian-built Spartan C27J as the only "viable bidder" when it moves to replace Buffalo and Hercules planes currently deployed in rescue missions in Canada, according to a DND document obtained by the Globe and Mail.

The Italian-built Spartan C27J is being considered to replace Buffalo and Hercules planes in rescue missions in Canada, a report says.
(Courtesy Finmeccanica) The contract includes aircraft maintenance for 20 years.

Lobbying, however, is underway by the makers of a competing aircraft, the Spanish C295, as company officials attempt to persuade DND officials to alter requirements to allow them to take part in the bid.

Martin Sefzig, spokesperson for EADS-CASA, which makes the C295, told the newspaper that the plane is used in eight countries, while the Italian-built plane has not proven itself a search-and-rescue aircraft.

He said the company has not been allowed to show the Spanish plane to DND officials. Both planes, the Italian-built and the Spanish, cost about $30 million to $40 million each, the report says.

Retired Lt.-Gen. George Macdonald, who prefers the Spartan, told the Globe and Mail that it is the only plane that meets DND requirements, and is the largest and fastest of its kind.

"To compromise on the requirements in any way would be a difficult thing to address," Macdonald is quoted as saying. "If you get something that ultimately cannot perform the job as identified by the Canadian Forces, who have the best experience in doing this, (it) would be a fundamental error in the process."

Opposition parties have criticized Ottawa for awarding defence contracts without considering other bids.

Liberal MP and defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh told the newspaper that the procurement process lacks "civilian oversight" because purchases are driven mostly by military requirements, and the Harper government may not be getting the best value for its money without considering other bids.


----------



## Inch

> Liberal MP and defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh told the newspaper that the procurement process lacks "civilian oversight" because purchases are driven mostly by military requirements, and the Harper government may not be getting the best value for its money without considering other bids.



That is the best comment I've ever heard from a Liberal, who would have thought that military purchases are driven mostly by military requirements? That's absurd!


----------



## George Wallace

Inch said:
			
		

> That is the best comment I've ever heard from a Liberal, who would have thought that military purchases are driven mostly by military requirements? That's absurd!



It appears Darwin missed his Riding, if this is the IQ that that Riding deems preferable to be their Elected Member.


----------



## civmick

Dion needs to boot Dosanjh from Defence critic, he has been worse than useless, but I think even supporters of increased CF procurement will look in askance at this, as I do.  Could the C-27J win the contest?  Probably.  Engine commonality with the C-130J will help for one thing.  But the current trend of sole source bids is not a good thing.  That said, unlike some, I am not saying we should just buy An-74s 

Meanwhile I see Mark at the Torch has noted the possibility of increased C-17 orders in UK due to fears of yet another A400M slip.  The difference being of course that the CN-295 is certified and I believe should have been given a shot.


----------



## ArmyRick

Right on !!! No more purchasing of "paper equipment"  

What makes Mr Dosanjh an expert? Haven't the liberals had their moment to shine with their new golden egg, Dion? Can't they leave military matters and responsible leadership to the Conservatives? Guess not. Sore losers still bitter about the last election.

As far as the spanish C295 team trying to change the requirements, F*ck off to them I says. We don't need any 2nd or 3rd rate equipment.


----------



## KevinB

civmick said:
			
		

> The difference being of course that the CN-295 is certified and I believe should have been given a shot.



Certified or not - IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SPECIFIED.

You cannot shoehorn something to be what it is not.  Thats how we got the LSVW and a bunch of other crap.

The Military specifies the requirements and it is put to bid.  If only one platform makes the specs -- well so be it.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Exactly.  Why should sub-standard equipment be "given a shot" simply because its manufacturer is whining?  DND publishes very definitive requirements for equipment it is planning to replace or for new capabilities.  If there are manufacturers that can meet those requirements, they can compete for the business of fulfilling them.  If there happens to be only one, so be it.

The Spanish, Airbus and other whiny Euros need to keep their lawyers on their leashes and quit crying "foul" every time a contract is awarded.  Design an aircraft that's flying and that actually meets our needs and we'll look at it.

As for Dosanjh...  He could care less about what the military requirement actually is and more about how many votes can be gained by awarding Bombardier yet another contract.  All he sees is "regional economic benefits" and views the CF's actually saying what it wants as something akin to a military coup.  He is the worst defence critic in memory and a more articulate, forceful and dynamic minister would have put him in his place months ago.


----------



## GO!!!

schart28 said:
			
		

> Liberal MP and defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh told the newspaper that the procurement process lacks "civilian oversight" because purchases are driven mostly by military requirements, and the Harper government may not be getting the best value for its money without considering other bids.



Imagine, military acquisitions being driven by military requirements!  :

(add that one to the list of Liberal waffling, right under "a proof is a proof is a proof")

Perhaps the Defence critic should be the "civilian oversight" he so craves - care to be dressed in MKIIIs, an 82 pattern ruck and be driven around in the back of an LSVW while we search for a broken down Iltis?

Perhaps some military oversight should be applied to the house of commons, to ensure they don't abuse their authority by giving themselves          a(nother) raise and a pension after 8 years - to make sure the public gets the "best value" for their elected representatives.


----------



## civmick

There is an assumption being made that the people writing the requirements are doing so like in the early 20th century UK where there would be an Air Staff Requirement and manufacturers would build to it.  These days CF Air can design the requirement but the likelihood of an mfg building to order is nil.  Therefore there has to be a realistic expectation that in service/in development types or easy adaptations thereof will suit.  

There is an expectation of benefit to C-27 such as engine and the other L-M contributions but remember this is not a downsized Herc, it's a reworked G.222 so that's only going to go so far.  Commonality went right out the window with the Cyclone purchase.

I do not believe the people who drew up the spec were ignorant of the capabilities of CN-295 or C-27J.  There appears to be a culture now of picking the aircraft and magically a requirement that appears to only fit one aircraft.  That is only going to go on for so long until someone finds a way of leveraging that process against the better interest of the Forces and of Canada.  That may not be the case here but I think some here are too blase about the possibility of it occurring.  It is in the interest of the CF that manufacturers believe our procurement process to be fair.  It is in the interest of the CF for all manufacturers to be aggressive and competitive about seeking business.  The answer to procurement process issues is to make a better process, not end run around it.


----------



## geo

Does anyone know what aspects of the C295 do not meet the requirements of che C27J?

If memory serves me right, many on this forum were peeing on the C27J's cornflakes for one reason or another about this time last year... something about the US not having been too happy with their early production models.

If both aircraft are already certified and in production, how much additional time would it take to give a kick at the tires of both aircraft one last time?

Then again, I'm just a scruffy old engineer


----------



## civmick

geo

The website www.c-295.ca has some quotes from Greek newspapers about water leakage and other issues in two early C-27J frames.  In doing some googling however the HAF does seem to be accepting the rest of the order so presumably corrective action was taken.

To be honest the manner in which those articles are presented on the website seems a bit childish for a professional lobbying exercise but never having been so desperate as to consider being a lobbyist to earn a living I can't speak authoritatively


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Civmick:

The issues I have with the "follow the process" approach that our puppet masters have abused for so long is that there has been a very disturbing tendency for military requirements to take a back seat to both regional industrial porkbarrelling and to "political" considerations (particularly a desire to "spread" defence procurement amongst several countries - which explains the LG1, the Eryx, etc..  Both are French - detect a trend?).

Today's military cannot afford to wait for procurement issues to be settled in the courts or for political considerations to override requirements.  Serving officers today have extensive experience working with specific items of equipment and know - almost intuitively - which of those items are the best fit for the Forces.  The C-17 is a perfect example of an aircraft that Canadians have used to deploy to theatre, have worked alongside for many years, and that is in current service with our major allies.  It is a known quantity and, most importantly, available now against a clearly articulated requirement.  Why should there be a long, drawn out process merely to satisfy Airbus, whose A-400M isn't even flying yet?

I agree: when introducing equipment that is an unknown quantity in order to introduce a new capability, it is best to follow the formal process to mitigate risk.  Should that process be applied here?  Perhaps - I don't know enough about either aircraft to offer a categorical opinion (I believe that there are range issues with the C295).


----------



## cplcaldwell

It's really quite hilarious to listen to Mr Dossanjh sometimes.

IIRC, in early 2005 DND had pretty much made up it's mind on an SAR aircraft for this application. EADS then whined to Mr Martin and Mr Graham that they had not been given a fair shot. 

Despite the speed, range and capacity shortcomings of the CASA aircraft they (EADS) argued that all of these shortcomings could be overcome if CF just decided to build more airstations across the north. (Not full blown CFB's mind you, just CF airstrips or improvements to local civ airstrips, to enable the stationing of SAR aircraft across the north).

Mr Martin then sent DND back to the drawing board, putting a project already two years behind, further behind.

All on the unlikely supposition that a slow, short winded, cramped aircraft could suffice because more of them could be bought and they could be stationed closer to the AOR. 

So it seems that Mr Dossanjh is lobbying for something that has already been done, twice, re-examine the parameters of the requirement, in order to 'ensure transparency'.


*PS* Just looking back at the original post "DND pushes quick plane deal": thanks to the Globe and Mail for the temporal appreciation there, _six or eight years is quick_? More objective journalism from the grey old lady ... sigh


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Some pertinent information from airforce-technology.com:



> The C-27J Spartan has the same logistical and maintenance characteristics of the Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules Medium Tactical Airlifter, and also shares commonality of the cargo capacity.





> The two-pilot cockpit is night-vision goggle (NVG) compatible. The flight deck is very similar to that of the C-130J Hercules.





> The Spartan is constructed with a floor strength equal to that of a Hercules transporter, and the large cargo cabin cross-section is able to accommodate Hercules pallets.



Considering we're buying C-130Js and Lockheed-Martin's role in producing the Spartan, the reasoning behind decision becomes somewhat clearer, no?


----------



## civmick

Teddy R - I agree that processes should not be drawn out to accommodate manufacturers who do not have a plane to deliver, such as A400M.  As I pointed out earlier, that is different from this process, where the contenders are both in service.

I agree that in former times the CN-295 might have been picked to satisfy PWC given their supply of the engines.  I also agree that having a public process of defence procurement is harder than for other government industries given the international nature of military materiel.  However, that's not a reason to scrap it entirely and make it DND only given the reality of industrial offsets *which help pay the bill* and for which DND have no specific experience in industrial policy.

As for your later post - if we wanted Herc commonality we could have asked Lockheed to supply short C-130s as they did for the US FCA or buy the UK Mk5s.  Going C-27J is more common than CN-295 but not fully common, and from an engine POV CN-295 would probably offer commonality when they throw the Twotter replacement to Bombardier-PWC.


----------



## geo

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-27.htm



> Despite the C-27's accomplishments, the Air Force retired its inventory of Spartans in 1999 for financial reasons. Parts and maintenance costs were the leading reasons for the program's cancellation. The final seven C-27 Spartans were flown from Panama to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center in January 1999. The event marked both the end of an era in Panama and the first sign of the impending closure of Howard AFB in accordance with the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977



Though the US had the A model and we are looking at the J model, have the bugs been ironed out?  If the USAF, with their budget, found the C27s to be uneconomical, should we be jumping into this without looking at what the compteition has to offer?


----------



## KevinB

Look what the US Coast Guard uses for fixed wing SAR -- C130's

 I'm not a Pilot so I will STFU now


----------



## aesop081

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Look what the US Coast Guard uses for fixed wing SAR -- C130's




So are we right now.  But this is expensive to do.  We also have limited resources to buy aircraft with.  The money for the new C-130J has to be used for providing airlift for the Cf and there is no money to buy more for FWSAR hence why we are looking at a more cost effective solution to replace the CC-115 and CC-130E being used in the SAR role.


----------



## cplcaldwell

As to 'path forward' on FWSAR it seems that the USCG has decided on the CN-295 as part of Deepwater, designated HC-144A, see this link, First Coast Guard Maritime Patrol Aircraft Arrives in Elizabeth City


----------



## Jantor

The USCG aircraft is actually a CN-235 and is not in the running for the Canadian FWSAR programme.


----------



## cplcaldwell

Ooops, my bad, yes 235 it is. 

Little sister to the CN-295.


----------



## Skaha

from the Comments over at The Torch

Maximum Cruise Speed

- C-27J: 325 KTAS (602 km/h)

- EADS/CASA C-295: 260 KTAS (480 km/h)

---

Maximum Engine Power

- C-27J: 4637 SHP

- EADS/CASA C-295: 2645 SHP

---

Ferry Range

- C-27J: 3200 nm (5926 km)

- EADS/CASA C-295: 2810 nm (5204 km)

---

Range with 8000 kg Payload at 2.25g

- C-27J: 1650 nm (3056 km)

- EADS/CASA C-295: 1187 nm (2198 km)

---

Take-off Run at Max. Take-off Weight

- C-27J: 580 m (634 yards)

- EADS/CASA C-295: 844 m (923 yards)

---

Landing Roll at Max. Landing Weight normal

- C-27J: 340 m (372 yards)

- EADS/CASA C-295: 680 m (743 yards)

---

Ability to perform up to 3.0g force manoeuvres

- C-27J: YES

- EADS/CASA C-295: NO

---

Maximum Take-off Weight

- C-27J: 31,800 kg (70,107 lbs)

- EADS/CASA C-295: 23,200 kg (51,146 lbs)

---

Maximum Payload

- C-27J: 11,500 kg (25,353 lbs)

- EADS/CASA C-295: 9250 kg (20,393 lbs)

---

Hydraulic Circuit

- C-27J: DOUBLE

- EADS/CASA C-295: SINGLE

---

Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)

- C-27J: YES

- EADS/CASA C-295: NO

---

Cockpit Window Area

- C-27J: > 4.5 m2 (48.4 ft2)

- EADS/CASA C-295: ~ 2.25 m2 (24.2 ft2)

---

Engine Restart Options

- C-27J: 3

- EADS/CASA C-295: 1


----------



## geo

Skaha,  mind putting down a few details in your profile.  I like knowing newcomers who join in.

However, based on the comparatives, it certainly looks like the C27J has a lot more to offer than the CASA C295


----------



## Skaha

geo said:
			
		

> Skaha,  mind putting down a few details in your profile.  I like knowing newcomers who join in.
> 
> However, based on the comparatives, it certainly looks like the C27J has a lot more to offer than the CASA C295



for sure, no worries . . . although I have been around and commented before, primarily on aviation issues.    . . 

where do I find the profile page ??


----------



## George Wallace

Skaha said:
			
		

> for sure, no worries . . . although I have been around and commented before, primarily on aviation issues.    . .
> 
> where do I find the profile page ??



Did you look at the top of the page and read the tab that says: "PROFILE"?


----------



## George Wallace

INFO on C 295:   [ http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/cn-295.htm ]

Dimensions    
   Length   24.45 m     80´ 3"     
   Wing Span  25.81 m     84´ 8"     
   Cabin Length   12.69 m     41´ 7"     
   Cabin Height   1.90 m     6´ 3"     
   Cabin Width  2.70 m     8´ 11"     
   
Weights   
   Maximum Take-off Weight   23,200 kg 51,146 lb     
   Maximum Landing Weight  23,200 kg 51,146 lb     
   Maximum Payload   9,700 kg 21,385 lb     
   Maximum Fuel   7,650 l 2,019 US Gal     
   Number of Fully Equipped Troops  78  
   Number of 88´ x 108´ Pallets 5  
   
Performances    
   Maximum Cruising Speed  260 ktas    
   Take-off distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50 ft)    962 m   3,156´      
   Landing Distance (S/L, ISA, MTOW at 50  ft)   774 m   2,541´      
   Maximum Range  5,278 km 2,850 nm     
   Range with full Load   1,333 km 720 nm


----------



## KevinB

Sheez -- I get annoyed when the unwashed chime in on weapons and shooting stuff -- but it seems everyone's an expert when it comes to deal with the AirForce.
I could careless about his profile -- if the spec are correct. Its appears to be a NO BRAINER (caveat I am not a pilot or a SAR Tech and I dont even play one on TV).


----------



## Skaha

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did you look at the top of the page and read the tab that says: "PROFILE"?



obviously not 

George, you must be a married man !!  Delivered that line with perfect Wife_Unit pitch     I find my keys that way as well. 

Profile updated . .  pretty boring stuff.


----------



## cplcaldwell

I've been looking around the net on this subject. 

Seems like EADS is doing a pretty good slag job on the C27 at c-295.ca.

A couple of things come to mind that I wonder if someone 'in the know' could enlighten me. 

On the site (noted above) some rather nasty things are said about the C-27A's that the USAF had. Looking at FAS and GlobalSecurity it seemed that these were rather serviceable aircraft that were retired early for cost reasons, but were considered reasonable enough so that there descendants (C-27J) remained in the running for the JCA program.

A lot seems to be made on c-295.ca about some Hellenic airforce J's with leaky windshields. Now I know it's probably a bit more than a tube of silicone, but is this really a valid criticism or is someone just being pishy?

Finally it seems that they are comparing the CN-295 to the C-27A in some places and to the C-27J in other places. Is this fair? I thought that 27 vs 27J was more like the 130 vs 130J, basically a common airframe with just about everything else different.

Just wondering, when I see this kind of sales job, it tweaks my curiosity, it seems that EADS is being rather nasty about this and perhaps a tad loose with the truth.


----------



## Kirkhill

cplcaldwell,

I believe that the C27A was actually the Alenia G222, a very low production aircraft.  It was essentially adopted by L-M in a joint venture with Alenia as an airframe that was re-engineered with new avionics and engines from the C130J to ensure maximum compatibility.  For some reason L-M has since back-pedalled on the JV and it has been adopted by L3 (Spar in Canada) and Boeing for their entry into both the US FCA programme and the Canadian FWSAR.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c27.asp
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/the-jca-program-key-west-sabotage/index.php#more
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/bulgaria-finalizes-order-for-8-c27j-baby-hercs/index.php#more


----------



## cplcaldwell

thx, Kirkhill

Interesting: I just went to lmco.com, and of course, the C-27 is missing from the product list. I wasn't aware of that. I thought Lockheed Martin was still in on the deal.

As for the FCA, now I understand the kerfuffle, the dreaded "Key West Accord" rears its ugly head.... not only is EADS and (now) Boeing at it, but USAF and USA are taking sides based on Key West (or so it would seem)....


----------



## Rescue Randy

There are a few misleading statements that should be addressed.  First, one advantage the Spartan has when making performance claims is that none are actually operational - it is a developmental aircraft (one of those "paper aircraft" that MND keeps talking about).  For that reason, it is difficult to confirm or deny performance figures.  Also, when you post data to compare aircraft, probably best to post data only from the site that makes the aircraft - the competitor may not have accurate info.  For example, the C-295 is not fitted with an APU, but it is an option - that detail will not be included on an Alenia website.  
The issue of C-27J commonality with the C-130J is now pretty well limited to the propellers.  The engines are smaller and lighter than the 130J, with the multi million dollar upgrades made to the C-130J avionics and software, the cockpit and software commonality "advantage" has vanished.  Both the C-27J and C-295 can handle a Hercules Standard (108 x 88) pallet (loaded 98 inches high) by turning it 90 degrees and reducing the height of the cargo on the pallet.  The difference is that the Spartan can handle 3 pallets loaded 80 inches high, the C-295 can handle 5 pallets loaded 60 inches high.
The C-295 is FAA certified, the Spartan is not, and the G-222 was not.  The CN-235 has Canadian certification.  The CN-235 and G-222 history is important, because the two newer aircraft are just re-engined (and modified) versions of the basic aircraft. The structural advantages and disadvantages of each will remain.  One of those problems for the Spartan is a high stalling speed - about 10 knots higher than a Hercules with the same SAR load and equivalent fuel endurance.  Unfortunately, that is a safety issue for the crew when dealing with mountain contour search, as well significantly degrading the effectiveness of search - the faster a search aircraft goes, the less the spotters see. 
The Spartan did not just have water leaks around the windshield on the Greek aircraft, the problems that the Hellenic Air Force encountered included alignment problems with engines, propellers, and landing gear.   They are holding payment until the problems are resolved, but did agree to let deliveries continue.
Finally, the Spartan or G-222 has never been used as a search aircraft or Maritime patrol aircraft - which means that the type of problems currently being experienced by the Cormorant (grounding due to corrosion, parts and serviceability issues, and lack of integrated EO/IR capability) should be anticipated by the launch customer for a SAR version.  You can ask the SAR techs in Trenton how they are enjoying their Cormorant, but you better duck after you ask - they will not see that aircraft again for at least a couple of years.  Instead they are "making do" with Griffons, because the effort required to take the Cormorant to full mature status has resulted in an availability that is a fraction of what the manufacturer claimed, so Trenton gave up their aircraft to the Coastal squadrons.
The bottom line is that the project office has not written a SOR based on SAR requirements, they have written it based on the specifications of the Spartan.  That  is contrary to Canadian government procurement policy, and does not do either taxpayers or SAR crews any favours in the long run.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Rescue Randy said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that the project office has not written a SOR based on SAR requirements, they have written it based on the specifications of the Spartan.  That  is contrary to Canadian government procurement policy, and does not do either taxpayers or SAR crews any favours in the long run.



Perhaps they have an alternate use in mind?


----------



## Skaha

this says it is in service

http://www.sbac.co.uk/community/cms/content/preview/news_item_view.asp?i=14669&t=0

First C-27J In Service with the Italian Air Force

25/10/2006


After completion of the test activities, the Italian Defence Ministry has accepted the first Alenia Aeronautica C-27J tactical transport aircraft.

This aircraft is part of a 12-unit contract, and its related 5-year logistic support, whose supply will be completed by 2008 to the Italian Air Force 46th Wing, Pisa Air Force Base. A second aircraft will be presented to ItAF for test by the end of the year.


----------



## Rescue Randy

That is possible, although the only aircraft mentioned so far in this thread that are getting "alternate use" (Special Ops) is the CN-235 - there are a dozen of them with small USAF markings floating around....


----------



## cplcaldwell

Thanks for post at 18:41 Rescue Randy, you have clarified a great many things. 

ZB


----------



## Rescue Randy

The issue of the Italian press release also probably could use an explanation.  When a fleet of aircraft is purchased, you do not pick them up and start delivering freight.  The crews need to be trained on the aircraft - since the Spartan is about 1500 KG heavier than the G-222, all the specifications are different, the handling is different, and so on.  There is no simulator for the G-222 or the Spartan, so the crews can not train in advance and just step in the aircraft.  They have to build proficiency, and then can work on building operational capability.  The user will normally declare IOC (initial operational capability) when they are ready to commence limited operations, then FOC (full operational capability) when they are fully mission capable.  It took the Cormorant crews about a year of operations to declare IOC after the first aircraft were delivered.
In the case of the one Italian C-27J that has been "delivered", it is not yet fully configured, does not have air refuelling capability, and is missing some other items required by Italy.  It was quickly signed over to the Italian Air Force and then immediately sent to the US to be a backup aircraft for the factory aircraft being used to conduct the Early User Survey for the US Joint Cargo Aircraft program.  If you look at the remainder of the press release, you will see that it will go back into the factory on return to Italy to have the rest of the installations done prior to being returned to the Air Force.


----------



## observor 69

Inch said:
			
		

> That is the best comment I've ever heard from a Liberal, who would have thought that military purchases are driven mostly by military requirements? That's absurd!





Dosanjh is so partisan in his criticism of the Conservatives that his comments loose all credibility.  Ironic when it wouldn't be hard to present fair and balanced criticism. He seems unable to present positive, constructive alternative options. You would think Afghanistan would call for united multiparty support in the face of soldiers putting their lives on the line. Constructive criticism is valued but partisan snipping is just makes the Liberal Defence critic look small minded.


----------



## observor 69

Rescue Randy you have made a good case for a second look at this decision. Could you give us a brief picture of how you think the decision process should have gone ?

By ex-413 Sqn avionics, Summerside 1969-71


----------



## geo

Baden guy,

though I hate to do it, the present MND was almost as free with his shooting off at the mouth as Mr Dosanjh.  If Mr Harper is preparing for a shuffle of his cabinet, it might be good for Mr Dion to do the same for his party........ PLEASE!!!


----------



## Zoomie

Excellent comments made by all the forum members!  After another 4.8 hours of flying the venerable Buffalo today, I can only cringe at what our replacement might be.  There isn't a production aircraft in the world that can replace the Buff!

Both contending aircraft have their positive attributes - yet both are equally lacking in certain areas.  Rescue Randy has succinctly brought up the Spartan's shortcomings and why it is not a slam dunk purchase - I cannot argue with anything he said.  The EADS-CASA aircraft lacks very basic structural and mechanical attributes that must disqualify it from any competition.  The 295 more closely resembles a beefed up civilian transporter than any sort of SAR platform.  The lack of an APU is troublesome (they talk about a propellor brake as being equal to that of an APU, it isn't).  The 295 is also not set-up very well for the pilots and their flight visibility.  The flight-deck window set up is ideal for an airliner, not for a tactical/SAR transporter that needs to bank heavily in mountainous regions - just take a look at the window set up on the 295 and compare it to the 27J.  Keep in mind that in all countries that have accepted the 295 for their SAR aircraft - none of them perform the same kind of SAR flying that we do.  The US Coast Guard uses C-130s to conduct over-water SAR only - they do not fly in mountains.  Apparently the C-295 and the C-27J might not be as efficient in the mountains as the CC-115 - this is something that we would have to train around and make do.

Keep up the spirited conversation!


----------



## Rescue Randy

Those who know me know that I will not be shy about providing my opinion  ;D  The mandatory requirements for the FWSAR should be based on four simple criterion.  The aircraft must be able to safely and effectively search, it must be able to safely and effectively rescue, it must be reliable, and it must be proven.
In order to safely and effectively search, it must have the capability to have visual search bubble windows on both sides of the fuselage giving full view forward, out, and down, with an intersecting view from both sides meeting at 200 ft below the aircraft.  The reason for the intersecting view is that marine searches are done as low as 300 ft above water, and if you do not have intersecting views you can fly directly over the person in the water and miss him/her.    It must have an integrated electo-optic capability - we need to join the 20th century.  Our SAR folks are still exclusively relying on the mark one eyeball to find people and liferafts in the water, and we have overflown some - we know it, and there is no excuse for buying another aircraft without proven "off the shelf" search kit.  We did it with the Cormorant because the Liberals refused to buy anything more capable than the Labrador, but that does not make it right.
For mountain contour search, you cannot safely fly at speeds over 130 Knots.  This is recognised in the National SAR manual, and the Civil Air SAR Manual.  If an aircraft cannot search with SAR load and six hours fuel, approach flap,  then it is not acceptable for SAR.  Safe search speed is determined by taking power off 45 degree bank stall speed and adding twenty knots.  You can't fudge it, and if you reduce the requirement by pretending that speeds over 130 knots are acceptable, you are putting the lives of the SAR crews at risk.  They will still try to do the job, but you have taken away their safety margin, and we learned this lesson in blood in earlier times.  We do not need to relearn it.
As well, the SAR manual notes that the max effective visual search speed for wreckage is 130 knots - so over that speed, you are neither safe nor effective.

To rescue, the SAR techs need to have visibility down and forward to call drops of kit and personnel.  There are some who dismiss this, saying that the drop can be called by the cockpit.  This is not an army drop to a large DZ, these guys are jumping to ravines, cliffs, trees, etc - they damned well get to call their own drop.  They also need adequate space to get dressed and rig their gear. I was in a C-130 when a little too much G and a crowded rear cabin caused a Loadie to have his leg permanently crushed when a fully dressed (350 lb) SAR tech landed on him in turbulence.  The minimum they need is about 66 sq ft, anything less is flatly unacceptable.  They also need a platform that is fully jump and airdrop certified.

Reliable and proven go hand in hand.  There were some of us who wanted the Chinook instead of the Cormorant, but were overruled because the Liberals refused to go for a larger, more capable aircraft.  My view was that proven was most important - you cannot have a developmental aircraft in Canada's military.  It takes too long for a new model or version to come on line, and the troops and customers suffer.  I really don't care who makes it, a new variant represents unacceptable risk for a SAR platform. The Cormorant has great potential, but for the last five years we are slowly and painfully trying to get it to reach that potential  It has cost us dearly, and will continue to cost us.  The manufacturers glossy brochures look great, but unless maintenance rates are proven by a few years of operational use, you cannot count on them.  "your mileage may vary" "its on the truck" etc.
I would not entertain buying any aircraft that did not have a fleet of at least 50 aircraft operational, and legacy aircraft with at least 10,000 hours on an airframe - that represents a mature platform that you can anticipate flying without ugly surprises from the time you get it.  You also get the advantage of a mature supply chain so spare parts are not an issue, and access to Simulators so you can have crews trained to a basic level before they even see the aircraft.  These are advantages  that only accrue with mature, reliable, proven platforms.
Anyway, thanks for the invite, that is my 2 cents worth...


----------



## George Wallace

Sorry Rescue Randy, but on your comments about joining the 20th century and relying more on sensors and electronics, you are loosing me.  We are now entering the 21st Century and there are certain things that the ole Mark I Eye Ball and Mk 1 A1B1 Brain Stem will still have the upper hand on.


----------



## Rescue Randy

For Zoomie, enjoy the Buff time, it is a unique aircraft - but we will have to replace it eventually.  There are a couple of statements that need to be clarified - I know where you got the misinformation, I have read Alenia's website as well, but that does not make it gospel.
The C-295 was developed as a military transport aircraft - and has done well at that role.  It is not a civilian airliner. Check with the US Special Ops, they are flying the CN-235 in the tactical role. It can handle 3 G, despite Alenia claims to the contrary.  Cockpit vis, etc, are not problems as you will see if you are fortunate enough to actually get a chance to fly it.  I first used the CN-235 in the Sinai in the observation role with the MFO in 1998, and found it to be a great aircraft - which was echoed by the crews that flew it.  It was selected by Portugal over the Spartan for low speed, low level handling - they rated the Spartan handling as unacceptable.  The C-295 aircraft has won once and finished second (to a CN-235) once in the last two years in the European Tactical Air Meet, beating out Transalls, C-130s, and the Alenia G-222 (which finished in dead last position two years ago, and did not compete last year).  As far as mountain operations, it was selected by the Swiss, the Brazilians, and is currently flying tactically in Iraq and Afghanistan - if you check with our Herc crews, you will find that there are mountains there.
The APU is a red herring, while no one has actually ordered one with an APU, it is an option - the engineering is done, and it is available if you want it.  The project office knows that.  Brazil was considering ordering it, then decided it was not necessary - but it is available, if you want it, you can have it.  
The problem is that there are so many people pushing misinformation that the only way to cut through the BS is to have a full, transparent  competition and then make an informed decision, not one that is based on competitor claims.  I would like to see a winter trial in Prince George for about a week in January, followed in July by a week long summer trial in Golden BC.  At that end of that time, you will know what aircraft handling is like in turbulence, and how it stands up when cold soaked. The SAR techs would have their opportunity to turn theory into reality as far as how much space they needed where, and what vis was needed. You also would need a week - any time of year - in the marine environment to see how the integrated search systems worked.  

At this time, there is only one aircraft that is certified and operational with the search window, electro optic integrated capability, and room in the back for the SAR techs to do their job - and that aircraft is not even being considered for evaluation.

For George Wallace, correct, we need to join the 21st century, but we did not even get to the technology that was available in the 20th.  For information, we have had a situation where a boating accident left survivors stranded in the water for hours in the Comox harbour while a Cormorant flew overhead, searching in vain for casualties.  Thankfully, they made it to shore on their own eventually and lived to tell the tale.  It was not the fault of the aircraft or crews, the people in the water were not found due to the lack of IR search capability - which was the fault of the Liberals.  That said, we cannot allow a repeat - and the Spartan has closed systems architecture that does not allow search systems to be integrated into the avionics.  No Spartan or G-222 has ever had surveillance systems.  If you look at the cost of the Aurora Incremental Modernization program, you get an idea of the cost and risk associated with a "one off" installation of electronic surveillance gear.  Hope this helps clarify it a bit.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is the latest from Lawrence Martin from today’s (4 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070104.COMARTIN04/TPStory/TPComment/?page=rss&id=..COMARTIN04


> No competitive bidding please, we're Canadian
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> Competition? Who needs it? Most other advanced democracies, but not this one. Not even with a Conservative government in office and not even if it's costing us billions.
> 
> Our Defence Department is on a hell-bent-for-leather spending spree. With Afghanistan as a rationale -- a dubious one in that most of the new goods won't be used there -- there's no stopping the shopping. There's $3-billion earmarked for search and rescue aircraft, $3.4-billion for cargo planes, $5-billion for Hercules transport planes and $2.7-billion for Chinook helicopters.
> 
> Nominally, there's been competitive bidding on these contracts. But, in practice, the system is set so that the outcome is essentially guaranteed. The military puts out such detailed specifications for the required hardware that only one bidder need apply.
> 
> Critics argue that the practice contravenes Canadian convention and that the resultant waste is wanton. They say, for example, that the government, in paying $5-billion for 17 Hercules transports, is shelling out at least $2-billion more than need be. With real competitive bidding, they say, the supplier would have had to reduce its price sharply to land the deal.
> On average, the critics say, studies show that competitive bidding results in savings of about 30 per cent. That would mean a whopping $4-billion on the aforementioned contracts.
> 
> The Liberals, who were charged with a billion-dollar boondoggle themselves, smell a major controversy, maybe the first Tory scandal, in the works. If not that, they certainly have something to chew on. This is a government, after all, that boasts of fiscal prudence.
> 
> The Grits say that, in 2005, Paul Martin was presented with many of the same military procurement options as Stephen Harper's Tories but that he stopped the process in its tracks. "Mr. Martin wouldn't accept sole-sourcing on contracts," said Eugene Lang, who served as chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham. "He was adamant. I remember him saying to us, 'I'm not going to let the military determine how we buy things. There are broader issues at play here.' "
> 
> The Liberals worried about repercussions. "We thought we'd be sued," Mr. Lang said. "We thought there would be international repercussions. At home, we thought we'd have provinces on our back and industries in Quebec on our back for not giving domestic suppliers opportunities."
> 
> There in a nutshell, some would suggest, is the difference between the Martin and Harper governments. Mr. Martin allowed everyone to pick things apart until he was afraid to move on a file. With Mr. Harper, it's make the play and damn the torpedoes.
> 
> On military procurement, the war in Afghanistan gave Mr. Harper the opportunity. In such an atmosphere, who could say no to rushing forward with a non-competitive process? How dare we not support our troops by giving them all the possible equipment they need? But critics say that reasoning simply doesn't wash because most of the new hardware will not be ready for deployment for at least three years -- and Canada's Afghan mission is set to end in 2009.
> 
> Before the Conservatives took office, there was stronger civilian oversight at Defence. But those checks have diminished. The procurement process is now dominated by Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier and the lead military lobby group in Ottawa, CFN Consultants, which is run by Paddy O'Donnell. The two men have a tight partnership; General Hillier worked under Mr. O'Donnell when Mr. O'Donnell was vice-chief of the defence staff.
> 
> But Liberals who complain about the way the system now operates are not exactly standing on terra firma. Jean Chrétien insisted on competitive bidding, but it was his government that put the Defence Department through a decade-long marathon of political meddling and unconscionable delays in the purchase of helicopters. It left our military to the plight of whirlybirds described by a pilot as "ten thousand nuts and bolts flying in loose formation." The military eventually got around to specifying which chopper it wanted, but its choice, the Cormorant, turned out to be deficient as well.
> 
> Today, circumstances have changed. Everything's being done in the perspective of war. That's a situation -- check the Pentagon's history -- that can lead to appalling abuse. To prevent it happening here, sufficient checks and oversight -- of the type we fail to see in Ottawa today -- are mandatory.
> 
> _lmartin@globeandmail.com_



First off, I agree with Martin that, generally, competitive bidding by *qualified* bidders is the way to go.  It does save money.

On almost every other score he is off base – most likely because in defence procurement, as in almost all matters related to foreign and defence affairs, he is _waaaay_ out of his lane.

To begin with, his ignorance of how military operation s work is, once again, on display when he says, _” With Afghanistan as a rationale -- a dubious one in that most of the new goods won't be used there -- there's no stopping the shopping.”_  He is, I suspect *willfully* forgetful of the fact that all these items were on the pre-Afghanistan Liberal DND _wish list_.  Acknowledging that fact would simply get in the way of an opportunity to take partisan shots as the current, Conservative, government.

There was not _civilian oversight_ at DND when the Liberals were in power; there was, as Martin acknowledges, absolute and highly improper _civilian interference_ with the *military* requirements definition process aimed at steering procurement actions to or away from Liberal _targets_. 

The ‘broader issues’ which Martin says, Eugene Lang says Paul Martin said were in play is _code_ for pork barrel politics – something both Conservative and Liberal governments have practiced, far, far more often than not, with defence procurement.  Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin wanted to buy new aircraft – just as soon as they had figured out how to add a few layers of Liberal friendly, Québec based _management_ to the procurement process.


When he says _“ The procurement process is now dominated by Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier ..”_ Lawrence Martin demonstrates just how disconnecetd he is from the reality of life in the _Pearkes Building_ (NDHQ) and the _Langevin Block_ (Privy Council Office).  Do military requirements matter?  Yes.  Can the military _situate the requirement_ to ‘steer’ to towards one piece of kit?  They can try.   Are there _checks and balances_?  Plenty.

It is important to understand that General Hillier, despite being the ‘biggest, baddest and best' CDS in decades, is a _relative_ lightweight in Ottawa – compared, at least, to PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch, Defence DM Ward Elcock and even ADMs (Pol) and (Mat) Vincent Rigby and  Dan Ross.*  These each have at least as much ‘say’ in procurement issues than Hillier – arguably more in the cases of Elcock and Ross, certainly much, much more in the case of Lynch.  Hillier’s staff minions _might_ have skewed the military operational requirements to favour one system over another – certainly the Chrétien inner circle was convinced military staffs could do and did that.  It is improbable, in the extreme, that much skewing would have passed muster up through the ever sensitive (to both political demands and to threats to their own, civil service, turf by the uniformed services) bureaucrats.

For most of the recent aircraft procurement deals the sole issue has been availability – there are, quite simply, no *available* competitors for the _Chinook_, _Hercules_ or _Globemaster_.

Is the _Spartan_ the *right* aircraft for the mission*s* it will be required to fly over a 30± years life cycle?  I have no idea.  Not my area of expertise.

Is Lawrence Martin correct that Hillier and Paddy O’Donnel *run* defence procurement today?  Not a chance; he’s blowing smoke - either partisan Liberal propaganda smoke or, more likely, personal, anti-military and anti-Harper smoke.  But its smoke, all the same, and, it’s brown smoke because Martin is so full of sh!t his eyes are the same colour.



----------
* Bios at: 
Lynch - http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=clerk&Sub=Biography 
Elcock - http://www.dnd.ca/site/bio/bio_dm_e.asp 
Rigby - http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/content.asp?id={4C52B113-392B-4DA6-9CF9-8ADFE906AE63}
Ross - http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/mat_office/bio_e.asp


----------



## civmick

Reading those specs it makes one think CASA should "pull a Q400" and yank out the PW127s in favour of PW150s  ;D


----------



## ArmyRick

I find this whole thing truly disturbing. We need that kit. We need those aircraft. End of story, too many governments blew it off. It angers me that Lawrence martin is willing to play words games with kit that is long over due.

We are either in the business of making the world safe or we pull our troops back home and keep them their.

Does anybody have Mr L. Martin's email?


----------



## geo

Rick,
I'm a green guy, but there are a couple of Air guys who say that the C27J ain't all that much of a good replacement for the Buffalo...
Sometimes, a sober second look at things might be what the doctor ordered.


----------



## observor 69

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is the latest from Lawrence Martin from today's (4 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:
> 
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070104.COMARTIN04/TPStory/TPComment/?page=rss&id=..COMARTIN04
> First off, I agree with Martin that, generally, competitive bidding by *qualified* bidders is the way to go.  It does save money.
> 
> On almost every other score he is off base – most likely because in defence procurement, as in almost all matters related to foreign and defence affairs, he is _waaaay_ out of his lane.
> 
> To begin with, his ignorance of how military operations work is, once again, on display when he says, _” With Afghanistan as a rationale -- a dubious one in that most of the new goods won't be used there -- there's no stopping the shopping.”_  He is, I suspect *willfully* forgetful of the fact that all these items were on the pre-Afghanistan Liberal DND _wish list_.  Acknowledging that fact would simply get in the way of an opportunity to take partisan shots as the current, Conservative, government.



As I recall most of these items were on Grahams wish list but he managed to get Cabinet approval for only a few of them. Graham certainly knew that to fight for a new FWSAR replacement would be one of the last things he would go for. Unless he could stick it in under the Herc purchase.


----------



## GO!!!

geo said:
			
		

> Rick,
> I'm a green guy, but there are a couple of Air guys who say that the C27J ain't all that much of a good replacement for the Buffalo...
> Sometimes, a sober second look at things might be what the doctor ordered.



Fine, then revisit that particular contract.

There is no real competition from anyone for the Chinook, Globemaster, or new Hercs. Not one. *These* items should be sole sourced.


----------



## chrisf

geo said:
			
		

> Rick,
> I'm a green guy, but there are a couple of Air guys who say that the C27J ain't all that much of a good replacement for the Buffalo...
> Sometimes, a sober second look at things might be what the doctor ordered.



Doesn't the company that manufactures the herc make a "smaller" herc with parts commonality? I seem to recall reading an article about it... seems like a more or less ideal choice... parts commonality, with a proven air-frame?


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> Fine, then revisit that particular contract.
> 
> There is no real competition from anyone for the Chinook, Globemaster, or new Hercs. Not one. These items should be sole sourced.



GO!!!, I agree with you.  But remember who has skin in the game here: EADS makes not only the C-295, but will supposedly be building the A400M one day.  They have every reason to tie the legitimacy of ALL the contracts together, since they'd love a sniff at the tac-lift contract too.

Don't miss the forest for the trees, guys.


----------



## MarkOttawa

That ace observer of things military, Globe columnist Lawrence Martin, credulously gives us this quote:



> "Mr. Martin wouldn't accept sole-sourcing on contracts," said Eugene Lang, who served as chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham. "He was adamant. I remember him saying to us, 'I'm not going to let the military determine how we buy things. There are broader issues at play here.' "...



Mr Martin has forgotten, or chosen to overlook, that in December, 2005, the Conservatives were criticizing those Liberals in government for planning to sole-source the purchase of C-130Js.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0f29bb1a-04c7-4bf5-9a1d-766750faa858&k=49552



> ...it's up in the air whether the Tories will go for 16 mid-range transport planes worth nearly $5 billion, as the Liberals announced Nov. 22, or opt for fewer of those supplemented by larger, heavy-lift aircraft capable of transporting troops and equipment over vast distances...
> 
> [Gordon] O'Connor [then Conservative National Defence critic] said he strongly supports streamlined military procurement practices, but he says the Liberal method will hurt competition and favour certain products -* Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport plane* [emphasis added], for example.
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin has said getting what the military needs takes precedence over regional and industrial benefits...



Liberals and Conservatives sometimes seem like pots and kettles, with the NDP calling Black. But at least in office the Conservatives are really trying to do as best they can for the Canadian Forces.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69

Always nice to have a Herc handy :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/C130-Forrestal.jpg


----------



## MarkOttawa

And a news story in the _Globe_ today:

Opposition MPs to examine aircraft selection process
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070104.DEFENCE04/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/?cid=al_gam_nletter_thehill



> Opposition parties will start probing $14-billion in "de facto sole-sourced" military contracts next month, arguing the interests of taxpayers are at risk as the Canadian Forces acquire new planes and helicopters with minimal competitions...
> 
> The committee's decision to investigate procurement issues was prompted by Ottawa's decision to buy $11-billion worth of aircraft last year. In each of the cases then, only the winning bids were considered as they were the only products that met the specifications of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> "We can't have the Department of National Defence making up grocery lists and then letting us pick up the tab," Bloc Québécois MP Claude Bachand said in an interview yesterday.
> 
> Mr. Bachand said the committee's resolve was increased by a report in yesterday's Globe and Mail, which said that once again only one aircraft met the current requirements for a planned purchase of 15 to 19 search-and-rescue planes...
> 
> DND is negotiating the contract with Boeing Co. to acquire C-17 cargo jets and Chinook heavy-lift helicopters at a total cost of $6-billion, and with Lockheed Martin for the purchase of C-130J transport planes at a cost of $5-billion.
> 
> DND is also planning to acquire new search-and-rescue aircraft at a cost of $3-billion, but Ms. Black [NDP National Defence critic] denounced the fact that only one aircraft -- the Italian-built Spartan C-27J -- seems to be in the running...
> 
> Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh said the current process is flawed, with too much power in the hands of the military and a lack of civilian oversight.
> 
> "These are essentially de facto sole-sourced contracts, masquerading as competitions," he said...



Any House of Commons' committee hearings on the aircraft procurements for the Air Force will be a massive partisan joke (even largely by the Conservatives). These hearings will contribute little or nothing to the public's understanding of what planes are needed (and are available) to perform which missions.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Doesn't the company that manufactures the herc make a "smaller" herc with parts commonality? I seem to recall reading an article about it... seems like a more or less ideal choice... parts commonality, with a proven air-frame?


yes they do.  They make a C130 "short"
from what I understand the UK bought em and is now trying to unload em... not saying there is anything wrong with em but, if the UK is mothballing/selling off a fleet of whatever, do we want to pick em up?


----------



## geo

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Fine, then revisit that particular contract.
> There is no real competition from anyone for the Chinook, Globemaster, or new Hercs. Not one. *These* items should be sole sourced.



WTF  who was talking about the Chinook, C17 or CC130Js in this thread?
I simply pointed out that some of the other members of this forum & this discussion thread have expressed some misgivings on selecting the C27J.  One of em went so far as to state that neither the C27, nor the C295 have something that a competitor has.  This may be the product that should go out (again?) for tender.


----------



## Kirkhill

You know, actually as I listen to this discussion I think a case could be made for option C - none of the above.

The object of the exercise is to replace both the Buffalos and the Twotters as well as some of the Hercs (brought in to replace Buffs in the first place when they started to give up the ghost as I understand it).

Neither the C27J nor the C295 seem to be off the shelf buys for the application although the C295 has a lot more time-in.
Neither the C27J nor the C295 seem to be fully compatible with the existing aircraft in their existing roles.  Either one will result in things being done differently.
There are few/no other aircraft out there in the class.

It seems to me that the CF/Pols/Canadian Aircraft Industry have missed the boat on this one.

There is a niche that no one is filling.  A niche that was filled internationally by the Canadian aircraft that now need to be replaced and nobody out there has got a replacement.  If ever there was a place to invest money there it is.  

It is a prime example of Canada having a need that is particularly great in Canada and exists elsewhere.  Bush planes were Canada's need.  It built them in large numbers. Other people bought them in smaller numbers.

The same situation applies to the CF-18, the C130 and the C17 in reverse.  The US had a need for specific aircraft in large numbers. It built them. Other countries found a use for them in smaller numbers.  They paid more per unit and didn't get exactly what they were looking for so they made do.  But they didn't have to pay the development costs and undertake the marketing risks.

Rather than Bombardier/Dehavilland/Canadair doing what the rest of the world wants as a me-too product striving for 10% of a market dominated by the big players, here is an opportunity for them to build something that meets Canadian specs and market it elsewhere.

As I said the boat has been missed on this one.  Time has run out and now you have to look at buying something that doesn't quite meet any of your specs.  On the other hand the Canadian Government could have kept Dehavilland/McDonnell-Douglas/Bombardier afloat in the 90's if it had started looking at building a Buffalo2 to meet the needs on the horizon.

PS DeHavilland was also the lead team on the Bras D'Or and the hydrofoil corvettes which might have made dandy OPVs as well as ASW and Escort vessels.


----------



## geo

would there be grounds for a new production run of Twins, Buffalos or Short Sherpas?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Well, the Liberals are the party willing to spend a billion dollars to save a human life, so the SAR a/c program pays for itself after 3 lives are saved.


----------



## Kirkhill

;D


----------



## MrWhyt

> Doesn't the company that manufactures the herc make a "smaller" herc with parts commonality? I seem to recall reading an article about it... seems like a more or less ideal choice... parts commonality, with a proven air-frame?


Lockheed-Martin was initially involved with the very same C-27J Spartan that we're talking about. They partnered with Alenia to market the C-27J as a baby brother to the C-130J. They have since ended this parternship and L-3 has stepped in.



> They make a C130 "short" from what I understand the UK bought em and is now trying to unload em... not saying there is anything wrong with em but, if the UK is mothballing/selling off a fleet of whatever, do we want to pick em up?


The Uk is trying to sell off it's regular length C-130Js (Hercules Mk.5 in UK-speak), they prefer the stretched C-130J-30s (Hercules Mk. 4).


----------



## Jantor

I reply to geo's post #59


 As an example,Ericson Aircrane takes old Sikorsky S-64 Sky Cranes and rebuilds them to "zero time" condition, Viking Air of Sidney B.C. holds the type certificates
 for the DHC-1 Chipmunk up to the Dash-7. I was lurking on another forum and it seems Viking is floating the idea of rebuilding the Twin Otter for the civil market. I understand there are still about 600 of them flying around. Perhaps rebuilding a half dozen Buffaloes might not be such a stretch.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Simplistic editorials on procurement:

To get the right planes
_Globe and Mail_
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070104/ETENDER04/Editorials/commentEditorials/Somnia/

End secrecy and rigging of military contracts
_The Gazette_
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1e1e3ab1-7f08-4147-932f-4ecb63249210

Ottawa fails to make its case for single-supplier contracts
_Vancouver Sun_
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=93c753d0-42cd-4368-9324-4e17016c48c3

A useful post by Babbling Brooks at _The Torch_:

Everyone's a procurement expert...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/everyones-procurement-expert.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69

Letter in the G&M today from the president of the union at DeHavilland in Toronto. His letter suggests the Dash 8 Q200/300 as a possible  FWSAR aircraft. Aside from his obvious bias how valid is his suggestion?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Baden Guy: From a non-expert (me): No ramp on Q Series.  Plus the letter writer is economical with the truth.  Other countries are using it for maritime surveillance, not SAR as such.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## old man neri

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Letter in the G&M today from the president of the union at DeHavilland in Toronto. His letter suggests the Dash 8 Q200/300 as a possible  FWSAR aircraft. Aside from his obvious bias how valid is his suggestion?



I think the biggest problem is that it does have a ramp at the back.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> It seems to me that the CF/Pols/Canadian Aircraft Industry have missed the boat on this one.
> 
> There is a niche that no one is filling.  A niche that was filled internationally by the Canadian aircraft that now need to be replaced and nobody out there has got a replacement.



Well said, Kirkhill.


----------



## Loachman

geo said:
			
		

> would there be grounds for a new production run of Twins, Buffalos or Short Sherpas?



Would there be grounds for Ford to re-open production for a 1975 model car and produce a dozen or so?


----------



## chrisf

MrWhyt said:
			
		

> Lockheed-Martin was initially involved with the very same C-27J Spartan that we're talking about. They partnered with Alenia to market the C-27J as a baby brother to the C-130J. They have since ended this parternship and L-3 has stepped in.
> The Uk is trying to sell off it's regular length C-130Js (Hercules Mk.5 in UK-speak), they prefer the stretched C-130J-30s (Hercules Mk. 4).



I admitedly know very little about airplanes (I do however know that parts commonality is a good thing no matter what you're taking about when it comes to military hardware) so it may well have been the Spartan... it was in a copy of "Esprit de corps" that I read recently...basically they described it was a shorter, 2 engined herc... I'll see if I can find the article again, could well have been the same plane...

If it is the same plane I'm thinking about though, does this mean there's no parts commonality now? Or ever was for that matter?


----------



## aesop081

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I admitedly know very little about airplanes (I do however know that parts commonality is a good thing no matter what you're taking about when it comes to military hardware) so it may well have been the Spartan... it was in a copy of "Esprit de corps" that I read recently...basically they described it was a shorter, 2 engined herc... I'll see if I can find the article again, could well have been the same plane...
> 
> If it is the same plane I'm thinking about though, does this mean there's no parts commonality now? Or ever was for that matter?



Are you sure you want to think of EDC as a reliable source of information ?


----------



## MrWhyt

> If it is the same plane I'm thinking about though, does this mean there's no parts commonality now? Or ever was for that matter?


I'm going off my memory of old Aviation Week & Space Technology articles but I believe at the time the commonality was with the engines, the props and the cockpit avionics. I don't know what the situation is now that LM has dropped out.


----------



## Jantor

I was looking at the Rolls Royce website and they claim an 80% parts commonality between the AE 2100D2 (C-27J) and the AE2100D3 (C-130J). The D2 is 6in. shorter and 200lbs. lighter than the D3 yet they both produce the exact same shp. Weird  ???
Also both engines utilise the Dowty R391 six bladed prop.


----------



## observor 69

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Baden Guy: From a non-expert (me): No ramp on Q Series.  Plus the letter writer is economical with the truth.  Other countries are using it for maritime surveillance, not SAR as such.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Hell who needs a ramp:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Hell who needs a ramp:
> http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp   ;D



Now if you wanted an aircraft that could land in the water like the Albatross, then none in this competition would meet the prerequisites.  

Let's just say, a Ramp is necessary, and leave it at that.


----------



## MarkOttawa

C-27J for FWSAR--a letter to the _Globe and Mail_ from MARCELLO CIANCIARUSO, 
vice-president, Canadian programs, Alenia North America
January 9, 2007
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070109/LETTERS09-12/Comment/comment/commentLettersHeadline/1/1/15/



> Re DND Pushes Quick Plane Deal (Jan. 3): As the manufacturer of the C-27J Spartan, Alenia North America-Canada would like to set the record straight about this aircraft.
> 
> The article refers to a statement from a representative of a competing firm that "the Spartan cannot slow down to the appropriate speed of 130 knots." This is incorrect. The stall speed for the C-27J is between 80 to 90 knots, meaning that it can perform searches at any speed from 90 to 325 knots.
> 
> The article also says "the Spartan is a relatively new plane that has been sold only to Greece and Italy." The C-27J also has been sold to Bulgaria and Lithuania and was selected just last month by Romania, with negotiations ongoing. The article says "CASA planes are used for search-and-rescue in eight countries." But the C-295 being proposed by EADS-CASA for Canada's fixed-wing search-and-rescue requirements is not used for search and rescue in eight countries.
> 
> Our production capability would guarantee rapid delivery to provide early relief for Canada's aging C-130 Hercules fleet. We are certain that we have the only twin-engine aircraft that can satisfy Canada's demanding Canadian search-and-rescue requirements.
> 
> Alenia fully supports Canada's insistence on transparency in defence procurements. We would welcome the opportunity to put the C-27J Spartan up against what we know will be extremely demanding performance criteria.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rescue Randy

This is intentional misinformation by Alenia.  In the Canadian Forces, the maneuvering speed that is used for searching and aerial delivery for CC 130s Hercules aircraft is defined as : the 45 degree bank power-off stall speed, plus 20 knots indicated airspeed (for safety consideration).  

Searching is carried out with partial flap selected, in order to reduce stalling speed and provide a slower search speed.  The lower speed is safer in contour search operations and provides far more effective search coverage; the slower the aircraft searches, the more the spotters see. If full (or landing flap) were selected, the aircraft stalling speed would drop further, but this is not done for a number of reasons - the aircraft will have trouble recovering in the event of an engine failure, the aircraft handling is far more labor intensive at full flap, the stresses on the aircraft are considerable (they are not manufactured to fly at full flap continually), and a higher power setting will be required which increases fuel burn, reduces endurance, and increases noise and vibration levels in the cabin. 

Stalling speed for search is computed using aircraft weight in search configuration, with SAR gear on board.  The reason it uses 45 degree bank stalling speed is that if you fly straight and level at just above stalling speed, and do a turn, you will stall.  The 45 degree bank stalling speed is 1.2 times the level flight stalling speed.  Similarly, the reason that power-off stalling speed is used is that while "power on" stall speed is lower, if power is reduced or an engine fails, the aircraft will immediately stall - obviously an unsafe situation.  

With five hours fuel and the 6900 pound SAR load that is required for the FWSAR, the Spartan power -off stalling speed at 45 degrees of bank is 120 knots, when 20 knots airspeed is added for safety margin the maneuvering or Search speed is calculated to be 140 knots.  This is ten knots faster than a Hercules with an identical SAR load and equivalent fuel load, and ten knots faster than the maximum search speed established for visual search in the National SAR Manual.  The only way the Spartan can get to the 80-90 knots that Alenia claims is to have an empty aircraft, wings level, and power on - obviously the aircraft would never search in that configuration.  They are knowingly comparing apples to oranges.

Still, one can hope that if Alenia is calling for a full and transparent competition, DND will oblige.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Rescue Randy: Thanks 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> Still, one can hope that if Alenia is calling for a full and transparent competition, DND will oblige.



Rescue Randy, note the precise language the Alenia spokesman uses: _"We would welcome the opportunity to put the C-27J Spartan up against what we know will be extremely demanding performance criteria."_

They know they're not going to get an ACAN for this procurement, but my read is that they're hoping for an SOIQ that sets the bar high for their aircraft's strengths (top speed, etc), and low for their weaknesses (maneuvering speed as you've laid out).  That way they can say their aircraft won the competition without there being much competition.

Watch what they do if the FWSAR project office puts out specs that focus on handling at low speeds in tight places or some such - I suspect there would be an immediate PR push about 'political considerations watering down military requirements', or a similar narrative.

This is going to be a knife-fight by the companies involved, but in the end it's going to come down to DND's specs.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

*Sparton C27J website*. Have a look at the specs.

http://www.c-27j.ca/index.php?page_id=1&lang_id=1


----------



## kj_gully

I'll remind youall that the rescue scenario painted here repeatedly in this forum is one that may happen in one SARregion only, Pacific. That is why the buff is in Comox, and why Comox will be the last to get a new operational aircraft. There are unique challenges to mountain flying that make all aircraft a compromise. Comox will be the last sqn to go operational in the new aircraft, and presumably all crews will be trained here b4 being posted to their sqns, so we will have a few years of "trial and eval" b4 we ever have to face the situation that some hysterically paint. The buff and lab were the best choice for mountain SAR in the 1970s, for sure. Advances in technology have made them less so today. Our tactics, like any branch of service must evolve to utilize modern tech to solve modern problems. Do not forget the 80% or so of canada's land mass that isn't rugged and mountainous, or the miles of ocean. The c295 is slow, needs more runway, and doesn't self start reliably. Its cargo compartment is long and narrow,meaning that some gear will need to be stowed further from where it is needed ( near the ramp) and doesn't allow normal height people to work or walk upright inside the "tube" ( buff performs this admirably)  the C27 "squats" in the rear enabling gear to be more efficiently loaded into its roomy cargo compartment. yes we will have challenges calling drops out of either aircraft. The c27's landing gear config means we cannot see well from a rear placed bubble. Currently sar crews operate in the herc with no bubble at all, and make do. I don't want to make do, but no matter what, I won't see a pressurized, fast, digital buffalo, so to me capabilities need to be weighed. As an operator, I want to get on scene in a hurry, be able to work on route ( buffalo is unpressurized, and I am pinned to an O2 stand untill we get close and descend). I want to get my gear ready b4 I need it, and maybe prep some stuff I might not need, and not be tripping over it.  I want to get dressed in my 150 lbs or whatever gear, and be able to get out the back as efficiently as possible. I don't think the Casa will be able to do this as well as the C27. Whatever, I'll be falling out the side door of a bombadier probably anyway.

(edited to make myself *seem* smarter.)


----------



## Kirkhill

> Advances in technology have made them less so today. Our tactics, like any branch of service must evolve to utilize modern tech to solve modern problems.



This bit has tended to bother me as well.  As noted by many others none of the aircraft on offer is a one-for-one exchange for what is on hand so it seems to me that procedures will have to change in any event.  At the same time I am a bit surprised that this FWSAR project seems to be largely a "flying box" used for transporting paramedics, tents, a first aid kit and 4 or 5 pairs of eyes to the scene.  With all the advances in technology relative to thermal imaging, IR scanning, Synthetic Aperture Radar, Moving Target Indicators, launchable UAVs, para-dropped cameras etc - not to mention just the ability to take a camcorder on board, do a fast pass over an area and then review it electronically at leisure the way the Coyote does things on the ground - I am a bit surprised that more attention isn't being paid to turning this into more of a SEARCH (read RECCE) platform with a useful transport capability.


----------



## MarkOttawa

kj_gully: Don't worry too much about Bombardier--this appears to be their crumb:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-equipment-for-canadian-forces.html



> * Utility Transport Aircraft. Bombardier is the favourite to win this contract, valued at about $380-million, with its Dash-8 contract [sic].



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Rescue Randy said:
			
		

> This is intentional misinformation by Alenia.  In the Canadian Forces, the maneuvering speed that is used for searching and aerial delivery for CC 130s Hercules aircraft is defined as : the 45 degree bank power-off stall speed, plus 20 knots indicated airspeed (for safety consideration).
> 
> Searching is carried out with partial flap selected, in order to reduce stalling speed and provide a slower search speed.  The lower speed is safer in contour search operations and provides far more effective search coverage; the slower the aircraft searches, the more the spotters see. If full (or landing flap) were selected, the aircraft stalling speed would drop further, but this is not done for a number of reasons - the aircraft will have trouble recovering in the event of an engine failure, the aircraft handling is far more labor intensive at full flap, the stresses on the aircraft are considerable (they are not manufactured to fly at full flap continually), and a higher power setting will be required which increases fuel burn, reduces endurance, and increases noise and vibration levels in the cabin.
> 
> Stalling speed for search is computed using aircraft weight in search configuration, with SAR gear on board.  The reason it uses 45 degree bank stalling speed is that if you fly straight and level at just above stalling speed, and do a turn, you will stall.  The 45 degree bank stalling speed is 1.2 times the level flight stalling speed.  Similarly, the reason that power-off stalling speed is used is that while "power on" stall speed is lower, if power is reduced or an engine fails, the aircraft will immediately stall - obviously an unsafe situation.
> 
> With five hours fuel and the 6900 pound SAR load that is required for the FWSAR, the Spartan power -off stalling speed at 45 degrees of bank is 120 knots, when 20 knots airspeed is added for safety margin the maneuvering or Search speed is calculated to be 140 knots.  This is ten knots faster than a Hercules with an identical SAR load and equivalent fuel load, and ten knots faster than the maximum search speed established for visual search in the National SAR Manual.  The only way the Spartan can get to the 80-90 knots that Alenia claims is to have an empty aircraft, wings level, and power on - obviously the aircraft would never search in that configuration.  They are knowingly comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Still, one can hope that if Alenia is calling for a full and transparent competition, DND will oblige.



So between the lines, the only solution is a C-130, right?

And if that's the case why doesn't the government buy the C-130 under the auspices that it's required to do SAR properly *and* would provide essential emergency tactical lift in the case of a Canadian Disaster or Emergency.  In short, provide dual-funding and a dual-role to justify what appears to be the right aircraft.


Matthew.


----------



## geo

They could go for some of the "short" CC130Js that the UK appears to want to dispose of (in the interest of a uniform fleet)

But.... oh yeah - we did get some slightly used subs from them - didn't we


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> This bit has tended to bother me as well.  As noted by many others none of the aircraft on offer is a one-for-one exchange for what is on hand so it seems to me that procedures will have to change in any event.  At the same time I am a bit surprised that this FWSAR project seems to be largely a "flying box" used for transporting paramedics, tents, a first aid kit and 4 or 5 pairs of eyes to the scene.  With all the advances in technology relative to thermal imaging, IR scanning, Synthetic Aperture Radar, Moving Target Indicators, launchable UAVs, para-dropped cameras etc - not to mention just the ability to take a camcorder on board, do a fast pass over an area and then review it electronically at leisure the way the Coyote does things on the ground - I am a bit surprised that more attention isn't being paid to turning this into more of a SEARCH (read RECCE) platform with a useful transport capability.



Interesting question, Kirkhill, but the Air Force set the precedent with the Cormorant when it eliminated the requirement for a forward-looking infrared sensor on the CH149.  I still shake my head at that decision.

G2G


----------



## GO!!!

geo said:
			
		

> They could go for some of the "short" CC130Js that the UK appears to want to dispose of (in the interest of a uniform fleet)



For you my friend, colonial status special - those subs were an accident I swear - here, have a few hercs filled with SA-80s - a special gift of more excellent kit!

I swear, these ones don't catch fire!  :


----------



## observor 69

Globe and Mail

Military procurement under fire

Purchasing process lacks oversight, ex-bureaucrat says


By DANIEL LEBLANC  

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 – Page A4 



OTTAWA -- The military branch at National Defence has grabbed control of the procurement process from the hands of the department's civilian branch, the former top bureaucrat on the acquisition file at DND said in an interview.

Alan Williams, the retired assistant deputy minister for procurement, said the consequences of this recent change are massive: Canadians stand to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in extra costs in coming military purchases, with no guarantee of obtaining the best product.

The situation also goes against the tradition in which the Canadians Forces run the military aspects of Canada's defence, while civilians are responsible for setting the overall policy objectives and the administration of the department.

Mr. Williams is sounding the alarm as the government is buying $13-billion in aircraft through processes that a number of critics said are uncompetitive, with only one company in the running for each purchase.

"These de facto sole-sourced contracts show there is something wrong in the overall procurement system," Mr. Williams said.

Mr. Williams offered an anecdote to explain what is wrong with the situation, in which the military is trying to direct purchases in favour of hand-picked products.

When General Rick Hillier became Chief of the Defence Staff in February, 2005, he and Mr. Williams had a meeting during which Gen. Hillier laid out his desire for a specific helicopter built by Boeing.

"He told me, 'Alan, we need Chinooks,' " Mr. Williams said. "I said, 'Rick, your job is to define the requirements, and my job is to work the system and find the optimum solution to meet your needs."

Gen. Hillier eventually got his wish, as the Tory government approved the purchase of 16 Chinook helicopters, saying it was the only aircraft to meet the requirements of the Canadians Forces.

Mr. Williams said that Gen. Hillier, who is known as a tough and aggressive leader in the military, is doing his job, but that his civilian counterparts aren't exercising appropriate oversight these days.

"If no one is going to . . . force him to back off a bit, he won't. He certainly won't do it until someone makes him do it," Mr. Williams said. "If you're a military person, I think you feel thrilled with the kind of leadership you're getting from him. It just has to be sort of monitored or managed when he gets outside his lanes, and that kind of thing isn't happening as readily now."

In addition to purchasing Chinook helicopters, DND started last year to acquire C17 cargo planes and C130J transport planes, through processes in which only one aircraft qualified for each competition.

Another top priority at DND is to purchase search-and-rescue planes at a cost of $3-billion, once again through a process in which only one aircraft, Alenia's C27J, is seen to be in the running. 

"There is no strong civilian authority in place to question or to challenge this," Mr. Williams said.

He said that without adequate competitions on these purchases, the government will likely pay 5 to 20 per cent too much to the winning companies.

Mr. Williams worked from 1999 to 2005 at DND, where he assisted in planning for the current purchases. 

When The Globe and Mail asked DND for an official response to his comments, a spokeswoman said that the procurement process is overseen by civilians at the Department of Public Works, and that the cabinet has to approve all major initiatives. Spokeswoman Krista Hannivan added that former military officials have to adhere to the rules governing all civilians when they enter the bureaucracy.

"Before procurement initiatives can become projects, they are scrutinized by and require approval from a number of committees of boards, many of which are comprised solely of civilians . . . like cabinet committees and Treasury Board," Ms. Hannivan said.

In a recent book, Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement, Mr. Williams said the military is using its power to set out technical requirements for new equipment to shut out products from the process.

Mr. Williams is advocating the creation of a body that would be responsible for major purchases from DND and Public Works Canada.

Current Purchases

Product: C-17 Globemaster

Need: Giant cargo planes for "strategic lift"

Possible usage: Bringing armoured vehicles to combat zones

Company: Boeing

Number: 4

Budget (aircraft and maintenance): $3.4-billion

Status: The government is negotiating the purchase with the company.

Product: Hercules C-130J

Need: Transport planes for "tactical lift"

Possible usage: Flying troops and smaller equipment in danger zones

Company: Lockheed Martin

Number: 17 

Budget (aircraft and maintenance): $4.9-billion

Status: The government is in early-stage discussions with the company.

ChinookNeed: Medium- and heavy-lift helicopters

Possible usage: Transporting troops in Afghanistan

Company: Boeing

Number: 16

Budget (aircraft and maintenance): $4.7-billion

Status: The government is negotiating the purchase with the company.

Planned Purchases

Search-and-rescue airplanes

Possible usage: Searching for survivors after a crash in a mountainous area

Number: 15 to 19

Budget (aircraft and maintenance): $3-billion

Status: Waiting for cabinet approval to launch the process; currently, government and industry experts say Alenia's C-27J is the most serious contender.

Support ships for the navy

Possible usage: Transporting equipment across oceans and refuelling other ships

Number: 2

Budget (ship and maintenance): $2.9-billion

Status: Two companies have been hired at a cost of $25-million to propose designs for the new ships.

Medium-sized logistics trucks

Possible usage: Driving around people, equipment and supplies in a theatre of operations

Number: 2,300

Budget (vehicles and maintenance): $1.2-billion

Status: The government is planning to issue three requests for proposals (RFPs) in regards to this purchase in the spring and in the summer.

Source: DND


----------



## George Wallace

WOW!  Looks like Mr. Williams is a Bureaucrat who is concerned about his fat Bonus check at the end of the year and is trying to justify his own position.  A position we all know is only one of the many major delays and expenses in any major DND procurement plan.  The passing of the "Signing Deadline" for the C-17's is only one such example.


----------



## GAP

Sure sounds like bureaucrat whining to me....why buy something with only a year's work when we, the bureaucracy can stretch that out to 10-15 years.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I thought we were getting 3 JSS


----------



## ArmyRick

I was appauled at the line Mr Williams said to General Hillier 'Rick, your job is to define the requirements, and my job is to work the system and find the optimum solution to meet your needs."

Thats the bloody problem right there. End of story. BS Beaurocrats who decide what the military needs and not the soldiers. I think the military should do its own selection of equipment. When these bozos are responsible for procurement then we end up with second rate gear, 10 years too late.

All this crying and whining about "Civilian oversight" is more bullsh*t IMO. How can these people who do not use the equipment tell us what we need?

If a soldier says we need Chinooks, he means CHINOOKS. Not some paper idea of a concept aircraft due to make its maiden flight in 2015.

Too bad clowns like this do not understand that soldiers, airman and sailors put there lives on the line.

The way I see it is that the MND should give the military a procurement budget and let the experts select what they need.


----------



## Sub_Guy

It makes no sense to me how some Civy dude would have any knowledge of what we need and don't need......  I agree with most people on here.  If Ricky says he wants a turkey sandwich for lunch, it means he wants a turkey sandwich for lunch, he doesn't need a bunch of fellas sitting around a table drafting up proposals, organizing bidding processes because there is one company who promises to have a better turkey sandwich by supper time.   

If there is only one aircraft for the job then there is only ONE, if some other company (AIRBUS) whips out the Kleenex complaining that the process is flawed, then perhaps they should get off their collective a$$es and get to work...  Paper airplanes are useless to us.

This sounds like another attempt by the biased media to gain support for another party.


----------



## Kirkhill

The chap in the bow-tie has got a book to sell.  To my knowledge he is one with the Norwegian Blue.  He is an EX-Bureaucrat.


----------



## George Wallace

On this very same subject, but posted by Edward Campbell in the topic on Speeding Up Procurement:



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is more, again citing former DND ADM(Mat) Alan Williams, from today’s (10 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wxdefence10/BNStory/National/home
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Mr. Williams on two points:
> 
> 1.	It is, indeed, the responsibility of the *civilian* administration to decide how much of everything – money, men and materiel – and what sort of everything the CDS will be given in order to accomplish the tasks assigned by the government of the day.  The CDS can beg and plead and explain and bluster and threaten but, at the end of the dsay, a civilians decide; and
> 
> 2.	There ought to be _“a body that would be responsible for major purchases from DND”_ – but I am certain that he and I would disagree on how it ought to work.
> 
> Everything else Mr. Williams says, according to Daniel Leblanc, anyway, is unadulterated rubbish.
> 
> The military has *not* “grabbed control of the procurement process from the hands of the department's civilian branch.”  It may be that some military *operational requirements* have constrained the level to which politicians and bureaucrats can muddy the procurement system to achieve political pork-barreling ends and it may be that Gen. Hillier’s _public diplomacy_ has persuaded ministers and the PCO of the urgency of some procurement actions.  Neither equates to _grabbing control_ of the process.
> 
> "These de facto sole-sourced contracts,” as Williams describes them, show only that DND’s operational and support system were allowed to rust out thanks to a combination of bureaucratic ineptitude – over which Mr. Williams presided – and M. Chrétien’s Trudeau_istic_ political mischief.
> 
> If Gen. Hillier’s ‘civilian counterparts aren't exercising appropriate oversight these days’ then they have only themselves and their political masters to blame.  But, I do not believe that any such failure exists.  Kevin Lynch, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the most senior civil servant in the country, has (perhaps by silence) approved everything DND has done.  That is, as it must be, good enough for every bureaucrat in Canada.  Civilian oversight is alive and well – it is just that decades of neglect have some home to roost and Canada must now face the fact that there are limited choices when suitable kit is required on an urgent basis.
> 
> When Mr. Williams says: "There is no strong civilian authority in place to question or to challenge this," he is really saying, _“I don’t have my old job with the big office and all the power lunches any more.”_  I, for one, say: *”Thank heavens!”*
> 
> There is a need for major reform to the national military procurement system.  It is a totally ineffective and inefficient system which, habitually, takes too long to acquire the equipment DND needs and then pays too much for it.  There are too many cooks; that’s why the broth is so often spoilt.
> 
> DND’s military equipment should be procured by an ‘arms length’ body.
> 
> If Canada can sell its military hardware through such an arms length agency - http://www.ccc.ca/eng/home.cfm then there is no reason why we cannot use a similar, sister agency to buy military hardware.
> 
> We need to get military procurement away from all of DND, Public Works and Government Services, Treasury Board, Industry Canada and a half dozen other government departments and agencies which, routinely, are involved in procurement decisions – almost always slowing the process and adding costs.  We need a system in which:
> 
> •	The military defines its operational requirements – in *performance* terms;
> 
> •	DND civilians confirm the military’ requirements meet approved defence policy objectives and, working with the military staff, secure financial resources from the government;
> 
> •	Cabinet and parliament approve the requirements and budgets;
> 
> •	The Treasury Board allocates the funds; and
> 
> •	The ‘arms length’ works in the market to find, select and purchase equipment and facilities which meet DND’s requirements within the approved budget.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

Well said by Edward Campbell.

I've put up a response of my own here: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/from-department-of-stupefyingly-obvious.html


----------



## Journeyman

Or you can just got to Amazon.ca, buy the ex-bureaucrat's book, and find out how the world _should_ run.  :


----------



## Requirements Guy

Perhaps you all should know that the reason Rescue Randy is so negative about the C27J Spartan and so very complimentary of the CASA 295 is because he is a paid employee of EADS-CASA. His boss, Martin Sefzig, is the director of EADS CASA Canadian Programmes as identified in the recent series of articles in the Globe and Mail. Their primary purpose is to lobby the government to procure the CASA 295. Their recent tactic is to feed the media incorrect information regarding the FWSAR project and other contending aircraft. Despite popular belief, lobbyists don't communicate to politicians directly, but instead prefer the manipulation of the press which is always hungry for controversy even when it doesn't really exist. Truth be damned because all is fair in commerce!

You are all being bamboozled by an industry lobbyist. Don't feel bad, this is not the only forum in which Rescue Randy is spreading his sales pitch. [_non-related info removed by DS_]. 95% of everything he posts is factual and correct. Unfortunately the other 5% is not. That last 5% almost always involves a manipulation of the facts to the detriment of all other aircraft but the CASA 295. Rescue Randy is using this site, and others, to manufacture grass-roots consent for his product while generating doubt for his competitors product. 

Rescue Randy likes to create his own operational requirements for the FWSAR project and then post them on these types of forums as though they are legitimate fact. I can tell you that many of them are fabrications, which not coincidently, are always very unfavourable to the other aircraft. (Specifically, the search speeds information being provided here is inaccurate.)

Both the C27J and the CASA 295 have good points and bad points. The selected aircraft will not come without problems and limitations. This is certain. 

The principle mandate of the FWSAR Project is to ENSURE that the selected aircraft provides Canadians with the Same or Better SAR Service compared to that which is currently delivered. As you can imagine replacing the SAR capability provided by the Buffalo and Hercules with a single type of aircraft will be very challenging. The Statement of Operational (SOR) requirements was developed to meet this challenge.  It is NOT a document purposefully written towards one aircraft at the exclusion of all others. It is what it is.....the manifestation of the Same or Better SAR Service to Canadians. 

If the Government decides to reduce the level of SAR service from that currently provided then the SOR will be changed accordingly. The job of the lobbyist is to pressure the Government to make that decision. All the recent rhetoric about a "fair competitive" process is really just a manipulative ploy to give political justification for the reduction of the legitimate and defensable operational requirements.  A competitve process is the best procurement approach but you can't low-ball the requirements in order to get one. The requirements of the end-user must always trump the procurement process....no matter how loud lobbyists cry.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Perhaps both rescue Randy AND Requirements Guy would like to 'come clean' and tell us all exactly what they are about.


----------



## geo

If randy is 95% on all the data he has provided, he is a lot more accurate than a lot of people on this forum.

If his personal agenda is only 5% then, I can live with that.... 

That being said, if it is true, then I am a little saddened that he did not feel it necessary to "come clean" to express himself.... we would have listened to him anyway.... same as the media types who lurk and occasionaly type.


----------



## Rescue Randy

The following text is from a post which I put forward on Jan 6, 2006, where I believe I "came clean" .  I stand by my comments, and by the text that I have put forward.  It is too bad that there are those with certain agenda's who are now attacking my personal credibility.  I will refrain from retaliating, but suffice to say that I am somewhat saddened that project staff, who are supposed to be impartial, would become promoters for a platform that is at best developmental and would become personally involved.  
I do post as RLP on other sites, those were the letters that I have used in the military email for years.  The reason that I used Rescue Randy on this post is in the text of the following email. For those who are in the Rescue business, there is a SAR tech joke in the nickname.

Text from one year ago follows:

For KJ_Gully and Zoomie, if you looked at my profile you will know that I am the guy from 19 Wing - I have been called that by the SAR community for a long time.  I used this name to ensure that you, and the rest of the SAR community, can identify me, because those who know me will also know that I will neither peddle nor accept BS, regardless of the consequences. 
I am currently self-employed, and while I have done some work for EADS, I have also worked for others who had questions about our current Air Mobility and SAR forces.  My post was intended to provide some basic facts, not slanted to any one product, to raise the level of discussion a bit.  Hopefully it came across that way.  
My main interest remains the SAR community, and ensuring that they get the best new equipment that they can, recognizing that our track record in procurement has been pretty spotty.  We were sold on the Cormorant, and supported the acquisition despite concerns over the tail rotor problems that the aircraft had since the beginning.  We are paying for this today. Our seniors traded off military maintenance personnel in order to get the aircraft – only to find out that the serviceability of the new Cormorant was no better than that of the Labrador.  The CF needs to make sure that they get the facts on the potential candidates prior to making a commitment, something that has not necessarily been done in the past.  
I have done quite a bit of research on the contenders, not only for the FWSAR but also for the transport requirement. I began that research well before I left the military, and have continued it since.  Suffice to say that glossy brochures from any aircraft manufacturer, or from anyone else with an axe to grind (including some from within DND), need to be carefully reviewed and pointed questions asked.  Without slamming anyone, it appears that the procurement process to date has ignored some of the basic questions that have been raised by Stoney in his post.  We need to get the facts out, and have a transparent procurement process.  That does not mean a long process; it means that issues of flying characteristics, payload, range, speed, serviceability, parts, and affordability have to be considered before we make up our mind on what we are buying.  It really does not matter which aircraft or combination of aircraft is procured, but you had better make sure that it will do the job, and be supportable, you cannot afford another Cormorant fleet.  The CF cannot afford the “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” approach to procurement.  Otherwise, we will get exactly what we asked for – just like we did with the Cormorant.  Future generations of CF personnel will have to live with it, and with this procurement decision, for a hell of a long time.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thanks RR. Balls in your court Requirements Guy.


----------



## armyvern

Thanks RR for the post,

I actually remember your post from last year.   

Here it is:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145/post-316955.html#msg316955

Batter up.....


----------



## Good2Golf

Folks, clarification by 'Requirements Guy' if it's coming, then let's please get back on topic...


----------



## Kirkhill

I also recall Randy's post.  Personally I wouldn't have any problem with two "declared" manufacturer's reps having an enlightening discussion on their relative aircraft and the SOR. Always looking to learn.


----------



## Requirements Guy

I am a CF pilot working at the Directorate of Air Requirements as the Deputy Project Director for the FWSAR project. I work with the SAR community, DRDC scientists, Operation Research personnel, and industry consultants to develop the operational requirements for the FWSAR aircraft. First and foremost I represent both the FWSAR community and the victims of SAR (remember them?). I work in conjunction with the project office staff to ensure that we in the SAR community get the aircraft that allows us to provide Canadians with the FWSAR service they expect. As mentioned my prime directive is that the SOR MUST ensure the same or better FWSAR service.

Rescue Randy posted above that, "The bottom line is that the project office has not written a SOR based on SAR requirements, they have written it based on the specifications of the Spartan."

This remark, apart from being absolutely untrue, insults a lot of extremely dedicated and professional members working on this project.
Please explain to me what possible motive we would have to cook the requirements so as to exclude viable contenders?  The requirements are the requirements. They have been scrutinized by 100s of people over the past three years.  

I have no problem if Rescue Randy wants to win converts to his product on on-line forums. I can even take the insulting accusations. This is all harmless and healthy debate. But, when as a result of him, some of these false accusations and false information appear on the front page of the Globe then perhaps it's time for a reality check. 

Don't underestimate the damage done by the recent string of Globe articles. And don't believe everything you read.

For the record I don't advocate any of the potential contenders for the FWSAR project. But to be fair, the C27J can search at speeds of 130 kts and less. Coincidently, this is a Rescue Randy requirement, not one that is specified in the SOR, contrary to what was stated in the Globe.


----------



## Kirkhill

Sounds like the horse just spoke.


----------



## Rescue Randy

In the interests of accuracy, I will add a couple of points, and then you can decide which end of the horse is which.  The issues that I have raised on the SOR have been provided to me by concerned members of the SAR community, who feel that the coalface has lost the ability to have input into the project.  Apparently they are among those who have reviewed the document referred to by Requirements guy.  They have stated to me that there was an essential requirement in Version 2 of the SOR that not only identifies the search speed as 110-130 knots but also states that in the Canadian Forces, the maneuvering speed that is used for searching and aerial delivery for CC 130s Hercules aircraft is the 45 degree bank power-off stall speed, plus 20 knots indicated airspeed.  This matches my knowledge from flying SAR on the Hercules.  The Buff stalling speed is so low that it really doesn't come into play, but for an aircraft with a higher stalling speed, it does.
According to the same folks, Version 4 of the SOR states the mandatory search speed as 110 - 140 knots in the section entitled Manoeuvrability and omits the explanatory sentence from Version 2.  They also tell me that most of the SAR requirements, such as the ability to see below the aircraft to allow effective visual search and equipment delivery, and the requirement for 66 sq ft for the SAR techs to work in at the back of the aircraft, have either been downgraded or reduced below the acceptable minimum in Version 4.  I have said as much in my posts - not sure why Requirements Guy has a different interpretation of the SOR, but I will point out that the SOR for FWSAR has never been available in its entirety to the public, and ATI versions that are available in the reading room are severed to the point where no requirements are included.  If the SAR community is in error, then there is a significant communications problem within the Project Office.  This is in direct contrast to the Joint Support Ship SOR, where the requirements were developed jointly with industry and the customer in full transparency, and the SOR is fully available on the internet at http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp    . The FWSAR aircraft is a SAR airplane, not a stealth fighter, there is no need for such secrecy - all it does is create situations like the one we have here today.

I was notified by PM by Requirements Guy two days ago that he had a different stalling chart for the C-27J, and that I was providing incorrect data.  I replied, asking him to compare notes to reconcile the two charts, as the one that he was quoting has values that are not consistent with power-off operations for the Spartan, but that communication seems to have stopped. Therefore, I will provide the data that I have for full transparency, by scanning and attaching computations for both the C-295 and the C-27J from the respective aircraft operating instructions.  I regret that I do not have one for the Dash-8, or I would include it as well.  The one for the C-27J uses a stalling chart from the C-27A as I do not have the chart for the C-27J, but the data for power off stall will remain valid as the engine does not come into play, and the airframe components (flaps, wings, etc) that mandate stalling speed are unchanged with the modifications made to produce the C-27J.  The nice thing about aeronautics is that calculations are straightforward math, and are not subject to interpretation - the stalling speed is the stalling speed.  I invite Requirements Guy to do the same and provide any charts that he has so that this discussion can be resolved - at the very least, he should be concerned that Alenia is providing different data values for the same airframe and require an explanation.  Once again, this is the type of review that should take place as part of a full and transparent competition, which is the only way this will be really be resolved.  

Finally, if CASA were to pull out of, or lose, the competition, you will continue to see my input on SAR requirements.  The SAR community knows who I am, and appears to appreciate that someone who has served in every SAR region, scaring himself and them in the process, who was with them in the ongoing nightmare of the Cormorant introduction,  and survived to collect a pension still cares enough about what they are doing to raise their concerns.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

Once I saw Rescue Randy's "RLP" handle, I recognized it from my own site:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-aircraft-are-in-supplementary.html#116231587944353722

He is, for better or worse, consistent in his opposition to the Alenia offering.


----------



## Good2Golf

Rescue Randy said:
			
		

> ....
> The nice thing about aeronautics is that calculations are straightforward math, and are not subject to interpretation - the stalling speed is the stalling speed.  I invite Requirements Guy to do the same and *provide any charts that he has so that this discussion can be resolved * - at the very least, he should be concerned that Alenia is providing different data values for the same airframe and require an explanation.  Once again, this is the type of review that should take place as part of a full and transparent competition, which is the only way this will be really be resolved.
> ....



No!  Not if the charts are not publicly released!

I will refer those viewing and interacting in this thread to the Army.ca *CONDUCT GUIDLINES*.

...especially this part:



> You will not post sensitive or non-public information.



There is a difference between measured discussion and goading, Rescue Randy.  Posting material contrary to the CONDUCT GUIDLINES will earn a warning IAW Army.ca *WARNING SYSTEM*.

Let's carry on in an appropriate manner.


----------



## Rescue Randy

My apologies to the site


----------



## Requirements Guy

I can’t divulge any requirements for the FWSAR aircraft since these have not been publicly released. But since the search speed information referred to in the Globe(as provided to them by RR), is not a requirement and is now part of the public domain, I will address it. 

First of all, no FWSAR SOR has ever specified explicit search speed requirements. 

All versions of the FWSAR SOR have an extensive section that explains FWSAR for the benefit of those not in the SAR community (which is often many of the people who are responsible for approving this document). This section has been released numerous times via access to information requests and is therefore in the public domain. The background information section of the SOR is separate from that which outlines explicit requirements and this is very obvious to any reader, even Rescue Randy's (RR) so called “concerned members of the SAR community”. This section is where the only reference to search speeds occurs. The section clearly indicates that FWSAR search speeds are dependent on numerous variables such as terrain, search object, altitude, aircraft weight……and states that search speeds typically vary  between 110-130 knots. This is absolutely not presented as a requirement nor is anything else in this section. The section also outlines how the Canadian Forces Hercules SAR community determines their search speeds by adding 20 knots to the aircraft 45-degree bank stall speed. The 45-degree bank turn is used as a reference because it is the maximum allowable bank-angle for the Herc with flaps down, and flaps are always required for the Herc to achieve a minimum search speed. 

Subsequent to a review of the SOR by the CC-130 SAR community  (1 and ½ years ago) the feedback we received was that in fact the standard CF SAR Herc is not capable of searching at speeds of 130 knots and below until some time after take-off due to aircraft weight. We were obliged to correct this speed information accordingly to ensure accuracy of the document.  This background information regarding typical search speeds was coirrected to 110 to 140 knots. You can construe this change anyway you want, but no one can deny that it is the most correct representation of the FWSAR search speeds typically used by CF Buffalos and Hercs. Regardless, these speeds are are NOT requirements.

The explanation of how the Herc determined its search speed was also removed because, it was deemed to be too much detail and there was direction (and rightly so) to reduce the size of the document. In fact all the extraneous information was removed and the remaining background information was pushed into annexes, including the subject search speed paragraph. The FWSAR SOR was reduced by one third its former size.  All the explicit requirements of the SOR are in the main body of the document. The main body of the SOR is all that matters from a requirements perspective. 

The operating intent (albeit not the operational requirements) of the new FWSAR aircraft is, and has always been, linked to the current operation of the CC-115 Buffalo. In fact the FWSAR Project is often referred to as the Buffalo replacement project in the media.  This is likely based on the assumption that the new FWSAR aircraft will not be a Herc but will be a twin-engine aircraft that more closely resembles the weight and performance of the Buff. In fact, I never even imagined that anybody would be so silly as to suggest that the search speeds for the new FWSAR aircraft should be derived from the methodology used by the Herc. Quite simply this method results in minimum search speeds that are 40 to 50 knots above the wings-level power-off stall speeds of an aircraft. Clearly, this is an excessive amount of speed to carry considering the effect of speed on search effectives and the fact that the vast majority of search time is spent wings level with only occasional gentle turns. The Herc methodology was imposed due to the fact that the aircrew are flying a 155,000 lb airplane with NO stall warning system in a low altitude environment. As such, the balance between search effectiveness and safety was skewed to the safety side due to aircraft specific risks. 

I will use RR’s reference to the Buffalo to illustrate why the legacy Herc methodology is not transferable. RR is correct that the Buffalo never has to worry about the 45-degree stall speed because this speed is always well below the search speeds being employed. However, unlike the Herc the Buffalo is not restricted to turns of 45-degrees of bank or less, and is permitted to use turns in excess of 45 degrees of bank. In fact turns of up to 60 degrees of bank are common. At 39000 lbs the 45-degree bank stall speed (with 7 degrees flap hanging) of the Buffalo is 95 knts and the 60-degree bank stall speed is 113 knts. Standard search speed in the mountains is 120 knts.  At 60 degrees of bank in the Buff you are only 7 knts above the stall speed (not 20).  Since this type of manoeuvring is common on the Buffalo, crews are trained accordingly and the risk is mitigated and acceptable. 

Using the Herc methodology:  since the Buff is manoeuvring at up to 60 degrees of bank therefore the minimum allowable search speed must be the 60-degree bank stall speed plus 20 knots not the 45-dgree bank stall speed plus 20 knts. As a result the minimum search speed for the Buff would be 133 knots, which is 13 knots above what is currently used, 53 knots above the wings-level stall speed and 2 knots above the max allowable speed for the flap setting being used (flap over-speed). This is bloody ridiculous! Anybody that advocates this methodology is being untruthful and likely has an ulterior motive.  

I highly doubt that the replacement aircraft will be cranking 60 degrees of bank in the mountains like the Buff, but I am sure that we won’t be determining search speeds by adding 20 knots onto the stall speed of the highest bank angle we expect to employ.  The point is that the balance between effectiveness and safety is aircraft specific.  The new FWSAR aircraft (whatever it is) will be a fraction of the weight of the SAR Herc and it will have multiple stall warning systems and other advanced system tools to allow the crews to fly safely at the limits of aircraft performance. Even if the CF were to acquire new J-Model Hercs for the FWSAR role (hypothetically), the legacy Herc search speed methodology would NOT be used due to the advanced systems/tools on the new generation Hercs. 

The Project Staff could never defend a decision to impose a “45-degree stall speed plus 20 knots” requirement as contenders and other CF oversight personnel would VERY quickly (and correctly) point out that we were invoking a double standard as the Buffalo often searches at speeds well below the stall speed-plus-20 for the maximum bank angle being utilized. 

For RR to post the old C27A chart with a C27J title at the top is very bizarre but it is indicative of the types of manipulation going on by lobbyists behind the scene. Of course these types of charts are proprietary and cannot be legally posted here without the permission of the intellectual property rights owners (i.e. Alenia and EADS). 

I don’t advocate any of the contending aircraft for FWSAR although I absolutely agree that the CASA 295 is a good aircraft as are the rest. However, in order to address the smear campaign being addressed towards the Project staff, and other FWSAR contenders, I offer the following to show how the information posted by RR is, at the very least invalid, if not purposefully misleading.

Fact: The C27A was never civil certified but retained a US military qualification certification only. The Civil standard for the production of aircraft performance data differs from the Military Standard. The C27J has an EASA/JARS type certificate and  as a result the performance charts are held to a higher standard.  The difference is due to the fact that the military qualification process varies from the civil type in that it places less (if not zero) emphasis on validating performance charts. To mitigate this fact sometimes the military qualification process de-rates performance charts (adds a fudge-factor) to mitigate the fact that they have not been adequately validated by a rigorous process. Stall speeds for the some aircraft may chart higher on a military qualified aircraft compared to a civil certified aircraft despite the fact that the aircraft are identical. The CF Buffalo also holds a military qualification only and some of the performance data for the CF Buffs has been de-rated as a result.

However, more importantly, the flap settings (in degrees) on the C27J are different from those of the C27A. This is due to a 30% increase in aircraft power and an increase in AUW of the C27J, which resulted in the flap settings being altered so as to optimize the new aircraft performance. This is a common practice and is also the case for the miltary versus civil model Buffalos. The performance chart speeds for the C27J are different and not comparable to the C27A. The changing of the flap settings resulted in a Flap 3 setting comparable (but not exactly) to a flap setting between the 50% (mid) and 100% (full) settings on the C27A. Stall speeds for the C27J at Flap 3 are 4 to 6 knots lower than the Flap 2 setting. However, since the C27J has 30% more engine power than the C27A this allows for the safe use of Flap 3 settings for searching, even at 45-degrees of bank following the loss of the critical engine. All this to say that once again the information presented by RR is inaccurate and very misleading. Relying on this information alone would be extremely reckless and irresponsible. 

It is my job within the project to provide subject matter expertise about potential FWSAR aircraft. The information provided above should not be construed as a bias towards the C27J as I have equivalent knowledge of all the other potential FWSAR aircraft. 

As far as RR’s allegations of secret-ism surrounding the FWSAR project. DND is governed by the same project approval process as the rest of the federal government which is dictated by PWGSC and Treasury Board. Technically, a project does not exist until it has received Preliminary Project Approval from Treasury Board, after which the project is officially in the Definition phase. Until a Memo To Cabinet is signed, FWSAR cannot seek Treasury Board approval for PPA, and therefore all requirements documents cannot be released.  The Joint Support Ship Project received PPA approval 2 years ago, that is why it has posted it’s SOR on-line. The SORs for the ACP-S Project (C-17s) and MHLH Project (Chinooks) are also on-line as these projects all have PPA. Once/if FWSAR receives TB/PPA approval the SOR will be released. 

Finally, unlike RR, everyone associated with developing the FWSAR project requirements are 100% accountable for every requirement developed. There are un-countable layers of oversight and continuous reviews by numerous branches of the CF and the operational community. All essential requirements are determined and validated through extensive operational research, scientific analysis and industry consultants. The research notes and technical reports produced by the Ops Research personnel and DRDC scientists are peer reviewed by other scientist to ensure accuracy.  Operational requirements development is subject to extreme rigour.  It is impossible for non-legitimate essential requirements to make it into an approved SOR. 

It is absolutely unacceptable and irresponsible for an industry lobbyist to secretively and unilaterally decide that the new FWSAR aircraft must be able to search at 130 knts and that this can only be determined by the aircraft’s 45-degree bank stall speed plus 20 knots. However, when this false information is provided to a national newspaper where it receives front-page coverage this can only be interpreted as a shameless attempt to discredit the CF, the FWSAR Project Staff and all other potential aircraft contenders. 

There is a maxim that states, “Truth does not do as much good in the world as the semblance of truth does evil.”  What RR is doing is manufacturing the appearance of truth, and this does more harm than blatant lies.


----------



## Rescue Randy

I refuse to be caught up in an unprofessional name calling exercise, nor will I retaliate.   

I believe the fact that the National SAR Manual is on the internet makes it open source,it can be found at  http://www.casaraontario.ca/~webmaster1/Manuals/NationalSARmanual_full_english.pdf .  

Fact - The Speed range for visual search for wreckage is 70-130 knots in the chart at Figure 5-7, page 21, Chapter 5 (PDF page 136 of 336), a statement on contour search that stresses the danger and the requirement for low speed is at para 8, page 38 Chapter 5, (PDF page 153 or 336), and a statement about the impact of search craft speed on effectiveness of search is found at para 6.34, page 18 of Chapter 6, (PDF page 184 of 336).

Fact - If you search at over 130 knots, you are outside of the speed range established by the National SAR Manual.


----------



## Requirements Guy

RR,
The 130 knots search speed is not an explicit  requirement because ALL potential contending aircraft can do it......including the Herc. THAT'S MY POINT!  Therfore, it need not be explicitly stated in the requirements. Some can't do it for all aircraft weights, but ALL of them can do it.

The problem is that you have devised some ellaborate method of determining search speeds that conveniently excludes ALL other aircraft but the CASA 295. Which by some strange coincidence is manufatured by your employer. It is not your domain to dictate how the CF detrmines and expresses its project requirements.


----------



## Good2Golf

Requirements Guy, Randy has checked fire on his previous personalizations of the issue, please do the same.  There is no issue with factual discussion for the most part of your most recent response, but the personal tone can stay at home.    

The thread's about a hair from being locked (and my endorsing MV-22 for "F"WSAR as the last post  ), let's keep things civil and carry on without the personal exchange...

Regards


----------



## Haletown

Just to sure here,   a question for Rescue Randy

Do you work CASA or another company associated with their pursuit of this contract ??


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Haletown said:
			
		

> Just to sure here,   a question for Rescue Randy
> 
> Do you work CASA or another company associated with their pursuit of this contract ??



I find it odd your initial question would be trying to find out if RR works with Casa.....tread lightly.


----------



## Good2Golf

Topic un-locked.  Let's keep things objective and professional.

Regards


----------



## kj_gully

Randy works for CASA.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Speaking as someone who hasn't got a clue about SAR (except as a potential 'client') is there any use in our inventory for an aircraft like the V22 Osprey? It seems to have all the flexibility of a helicopter with the range and speed of fixed wing. 

Could it replace both the helicopter and fixed wing aircraft in our SAR inventory?  

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

"The aircraft is manned by a pilot, copilot, and enlisted aircrew appropriate for the specific service and type of mission being flown. The V-22 is optimized to transport troops (i.e., 24 combat-equipped Marines, or 10,000 pounds of external cargo) to austere landing sites from aviation capable amphibious ships and expeditionary forward operating bases ashore. The V-22 will be capable of flying over 2,100 nautical miles with one aerial refueling, giving the Services the advantage of a Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing aircraft that can rapidly self-deploy to any location in the world."


----------



## kj_gully

Suggest you search "osprey" or @ least peruse the FWSAR thread in the this forum, it has been discussed, I think you will find your answer.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Speaking as someone who hasn't got a clue about SAR (except as a potential 'client') is there any use in our inventory for an aircraft like the V22 Osprey? It seems to have all the flexibility of a helicopter with the range and speed of fixed wing.



It has also been discussed for other missions in addition to SAR.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Seen. Thanks. Looks like cost and complexity is a big factor. Out.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Seen. Thanks. Looks like cost and complexity is a big factor. Out.



I think that the only factor is cost.... purchase and maintenance cost... I can guarantee you that our Techs, with proper training, can maintain any birds out there.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Of course.

Not to try and drag this thread off-topic, but on doing further research (OK, now I'm interested) it looks like the Osprey isn't a huge leap forward performance - wise from other available, cheaper, aircraft.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's accident record is quite high, a very unique aircraft with interesting capabilities, perhaps after it's been in full service for 10 plus years we should consider a similar aircraft.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

The Dynavert had better record than the Osprey.  They only damaged one due to engine failure.  The Main advantage of the Osprey is its speed.  Vertical take off with fixed wing performance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention the Rotodyne!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fairey_Rotodyne.jpg


----------



## GINge!

If you draw it, they will come...

Profile I drew of a CF Osprey painted up as a SAR bird per CC-115 markings


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

THis is looking sharp.... again, any aircraft with the SAR scheme looks sharp.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The more parts are in movements, the more likely it will break.

Max


----------



## daftandbarmy

Just like a rifle company....


----------



## Zoomie

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The more parts are in movements, the more likely it will break.



Like a helicopter?  :


----------



## SupersonicMax

More like two huge hubs rotating on themselves!

Max


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just to muddy things (text subscriber only--reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act):
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2007/01/15/AW_01_15_2007_p028-01.xml&query=a400m#



> ...
> Assuming that Airbus Military can hold to its A400M timetable, something that observers widely doubt, the consortium will begin deliveries of its four-engine turboprop at about the same time that the final C-17 enters service. A400M orders are approaching the 200-unit mark, including sales of a dozen aircraft to non-consortium members. South Africa has become a program participant, and Australia, Finland, Norway and Sweden reportedly have shown high interest in the aircraft.
> 
> Boeing's exit from the military transport market will leave Lockheed Martin to battle it out with Airbus, EADS CASA and Alenia as the world's air forces implement modernization plans. Whether many of the more than 50 nations that operate the C-130 will trade up to the larger A400M or go with the current C-130J remains to be determined.
> 
> One of the most lucrative competitions will be the new U.S. Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA), which could involve as many as 150 units if the requirements of the U.S. Army and Air Force are addressed.
> 
> The replacement of about 30 Shorts C-23 Sherpas operated by the Army is a pressing need, but that service and USAF must also deal with aging C-26s (modified Fairchild Metro 23 twin-turboprops) and C-12 Hurons (Beech Super King Air variants). The consensus is that should the JCA program get the go-ahead, aircraft would be procured at relatively modest rates in the next 15-20 years.
> 
> Alenia's C-27J is pitted against the EADS CASA C-295. In a Johnny-come-lately fashion, Lockheed Martin jumped in to pitch its C-130J. However, the U.S. Army, the lead service for the program, has already rejected that design.
> 
> The program took a new turn in late October when the Air Force said it would pull out of the program if the Army selected the C-295. While this appeared to make the contest a one-horse race, the plot further thickened when a Rand Corp. study commissioned by USAF seemed to provide ammunition for also rejecting the C-27J.
> 
> The study concluded that the Alenia candidate offers similar access to forward operating areas as does the spurned C-130J, but noted that the latter would outperform the C-27J if taking off in a one-engine-out scenario. The Rand analysts say the C-27J offers a "very slight" advantage as far as the types of runways it could use, and summed up the competition as one between a "more capable platform for larger payload, longer range missions" (C-130J) and one offering the potential for procuring "more aircraft" (the less expensive C-27J). Officially, a JCA finalist is expected to be named in February, but as of late fall, the program seemed shaky...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Would that equate to the USAF saying "If there is any flying to be done we will do it.  If there is any money for aircraft to be had we will have it.  And we like the C130J." ?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: Er, yes  :

"Army officials want a smaller aircraft that won't be dominated and controlled operationally by the Air Force."
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-us-army-doesnt-want-c-130jairbus.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

And under the title "Coincidental Timing".....



> Hub-and-spoke missions provide tactical airlift in Iraq
> Staff Sgt. Alice Moore, US Air Force | Jan 16, 2007
> 
> BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq: Whether it's operating from rough dirt strips or dropping off troops and equipment into hostile areas, C-130 Hercules keep convoys off the road in Iraq through airpower.
> 
> Members of the 777th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron deployed from Little Rock Air Force Base, Ark., fly C-130 hub-and-spoke missions daily to ensure cargo and passengers are delivered in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
> 
> "Each pallet contains something different. We've delivered anything from MREs (meals ready to eat) and water to tires and ammo," said Capt. Matt Reece, aircraft commander.
> 
> The missions are based on needs of various locations throughout the area of responsibility and provide supplies to all branches of the military.
> 
> "We ensure bases have what they need. The most important impact of our mission is that people stay off the roads here," Captain Reece said.
> 
> He also said the tactical airlift saves time and additional effort.
> 
> For instance, in one week, C-130 operations can reduce convoy requirements by airlifting the equivalent of cargo carried by more than 22 buses and 42 trucks.
> 
> "If we can take two or three trucks off the road each time, then it's worth it. There's definitely less risk with flying," said Senior Airman Michael Buzbee, loadmaster.
> 
> One particular mission included transporting members of the 524th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit to Kirkuk Regional Air Base, so maintainers could provide support for fighter operations there.
> 
> "This is our only mode of transportation. This helps keep the aircraft operational. The sheer number of hub-and-spoke missions enable us to get there on time," said 1st Lt. Kate Stowe, assistant AMU officer in charge deployed from Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.
> 
> The challenge with the hub-and-spoke missions has to do with the amount of time the crew has from start to finish, said Capt. Kenny Bierman, navigator.
> 
> "The time we take off to the time we land is usually around 12 hours," Captain
> Bierman said. "That's how much time we have to get everything done. We have to be flexible with all the different possibilities of delays."
> 
> The delays can be caused by anything from maintenance issues to weather.
> 
> "There's no room for errors," Captain Reece said. "For example, if weather delays our operations in one location, we have to find a way to cut time somewhere else to keep us within the amount of time we're given for the mission."
> 
> At the end of the day, crew members know that what they do plays a direct role in helping to transition Iraq to democracy, and there comes a deep sense of job satisfaction.
> 
> "It's a good feeling to know every day that you're actually accomplishing something," Captain Reece said. "What we're doing here is critical."



See, the Army don't need no stinking C27Js or C295s.  The Air Force is already doing the job with C130s....  

And to be honest they could be right.  I am pretty sure the real question is "Does the Army believe the Air Force when the Air Force says it can't get an aircraft there?"


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Great this item has made it to the CBC National News  :


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> More like two huge hubs rotating on themselves!
> 
> Max



You mean like a Chinook?   

One should think of JCA as more of a utility aircraft than a "lifter" per se.  That's what the Army requires.  The Navy has the C-2 Greyhound doing similar work with the fleet.  C-130 is still required intra-theatre, but there are many locations out there that the Army wants to be able to access that a fully loaded Herc just won't go in to.  

Interestingly, we could look down under and wonder just how long the Caribou will keep flying for the RAAF.  The Caribou's of 38 Sqn will continue to work quite happily alongside C-17s that 36 Sqn will be operating from RAAF Base Amberly.  I know of no plans that the RAAF has to replace the Caribou.  



			
				http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/aircraft/caribou.htm said:
			
		

> Although introduced in 1964 and employed in the Vietnam War, the Caribou is still recognised as one of the most capable short-haul transport aircraft in the world.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we used to be one of the world's best aircraft builders and designers........sigh


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I know of no plans that the RAAF has to replace the Caribou.



In fact the Aussie's, who have had no trouble finding money, closed the Caribou replacement competition after looking at options, including the C27J and the C295.  They couldn't find anything that filled the bill.

And there is still no market for a designed-to-purpose Twotter/Caribou/Buffalo replacement?  IIRC there were over 1000 aircraft of those types delivered. And in the same class Antonov had a competitor.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to the discussion on the desired capabilities for a Utility/SAR/Transport aircraft I add these two thoughts:

Disposable, airdroppable UAVs with cameras and realtime datalinks. The launch tubes are currently found on the CP-140 and the CH-124 Sea King.  Presumably they could be installed in any aircraft.



> Coyote is a 36-inch long, 12-pound expendable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed to be deployed from sonobuoy launch tubes on Navy aircraft such as the P-3C Orion. The UAV has a digital camera and datalink that can relay real-time video back to the aircraft. It provides surveillance of contacts of interest or visual identification of radar contacts while an aircraft remains at altitude. After launch, Coyote deploys folded wings to maintain stability as it glides down in a spiral designed to keep an object of interest in view.



http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/06_Oct/web_pages/Program_38.htm

And this thread on the precision airdrop capability of JPADS:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56041.0.html

Couple that with capabilities like SKAD (Survival Kit Air Droppable)

http://www.airbornesystems-na.com/skad.html

Or possibly even JPADS delivered cocoons for inserting SAR Techs in high wind conditions where they are likely to break bones on impact....

Does any of this factor into the current decision making process on these aircraft?


----------



## Rigger

> JPADS delivered cocoons for inserting SAR Techs



Good luck getting a SAR Tech into one of those, they like to have some sort of control over there destines. " This will be an FE's brief for the drop of 2 SAR tech pods to the discussed DZ....." Not a hope in hell. As for the air dropable UAV that has some merit, one of the items that is being discussed for the FWSAR replacement is the ability to drop flares above 10,000 feet while pressurized. This would require some sort of system similar to SONO tubes on the Aurora. The JPADS would defiantly be an asset when it come to dropping bundles. The thing with SAR though is you don't know your DZ until you are on scene, so depending on how much time it takes to configure/program the JPADS, the old school of streamers and the mark one eyeball might be better. I personally believe that technology is going to be the way ahead, but it is just a matter which technology we persue.


----------



## Kirkhill

RiggerFE said:
			
		

> Good luck getting a SAR Tech into one of those, they like to have some sort of control over there destines. " This will be an FE's brief for the drop of 2 SAR tech pods to the discussed DZ....." Not a hope in hell.



OK so maybe we have to figure out how to pass the toggles through the shell so they can drive.... ;D

Plan A might be good enough for dropping infanteers .....


----------



## aesop081

Split in order to stay on topic


----------



## MarkOttawa

A certain reporter raises what I think is a fanciful proposition--*C-130J for fixed-wing SAR*--but does at least discuss the capabilities of aircraft (shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act).

Lockheed Martin interested in Canadian Forces contract
CanWest News Service; _Ottawa Citizen_
January 29
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=a06bb157-3ef7-45e0-bb30-4b25e85b8901&k=45337



> Military officials expect a U.S. aerospace giant to enter the race to provide a new search-and-rescue plane for the Canadian Forces, a move that could derail criticism that the process is rigged in favour of an Italian aircraft.
> 
> Defence sources acknowledge the requirements for the search-and-rescue aircraft program won't allow the Spanish-built C-295, or the Dash-8 from Canada's own aircraft manufacturer, Bombardier, to compete in the $1.3-billion competition.
> 
> However, the requirements could allow Lockheed Martin to join the race with its C-130J, the same type of aircraft the Canadian Forces is purchasing for its transport needs, sources said.
> 
> If that happens the move could provide welcome relief for the Harper government. It has been under fire from opposition politicians and a former Defence department bureaucrat for how it has handled more than $10 billion worth of military programs to purchase new helicopters and transport aircraft.
> 
> Critics claimed there has been no real competitive process for the multibillion-dollar deal and the military had pre-selected the winning aircraft.
> 
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor - who made similar claims when in opposition as Liberals considered such aircraft purchases - now says the process is fair and competitive.
> 
> There have also been accusations the requirements for the fourth major project, the purchase of search-and-rescue planes, are being arranged so they will favour the Italian-built C-27J.
> 
> The main stumbling block that could prevent Lockheed Martin's C-130J from entering the search-and-rescue competition is its cost.
> 
> O'Connor has said the planes cost about $80 million US each, while Lockheed puts the price tag at around $70 million US. Either way, the purchase of 15 C-130Js for search and rescue would almost eat up the project's entire budget, leaving little for the initial purchase of spare parts or provision of maintenance and support usually associated with the first few years of a contract.
> 
> At this point Lockheed is not committing to anything. Company spokesman Peter Simmons said the firm has not seen the statement of requirements for the search-and-rescue aircraft.
> 
> "We are currently fully engaged on the tactical airlift program which will meet Canada's urgent need to replace its aging C-130 Hercules fleet with new C-130Js," Simmons said.
> 
> Lockheed's C-130J has been selected for the $4.9-billion program to provide new tactical transport aircraft for the military.
> 
> Even if it decided against offering the C-130J for the search-and-rescue project, Lockheed would still receive work if the C-27J was selected by the Canadian Forces. The C-27J was developed by Alenia of Italy and Lockheed and the U.S. company provides some of the on-board systems for the aircraft.
> 
> Retired vice-admiral Ron Buck said claims the search-and-rescue aircraft requirements were designed in 2005 to select the C-27J are not accurate. The requirements were based on the country's needs and maintaining the current level of service, added Buck, the former vice chief of the defence staff.
> 
> "I think those aspects are missing from the (public) discussions about this program," he said. "The question is, 'Do you want a lower level of service when it comes to search and rescue?' I wouldn't think so."
> 
> OPTIONALEND
> 
> A Defence Department source confirmed the requirements being developed would eliminate from the competition the Spanish-built CASA C-295, considered the C-27J's main rival. The requirements would also eliminate the Bombardier Dash-8.
> 
> But Defence department sources point out the C-295 is lacking in speed, something that is vital in reaching accident victims quickly. The aircraft's cabin is also not high enough for search-and-rescue technicians to stand up properly, according to sources.
> 
> But supporters of the C-295 challenge such claims. They say the airplane's cabin height would indeed allow a search-and-rescue technician to stand upright, adding it is around the same height as the Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopters. They questioned why if the Cormorant height was good enough for search-and-rescue technicians, then why is the requirement being changed now.
> 
> They acknowledged the speed differences between the C-295 but noted the aircraft has significantly much more space than the C-27J so it can carry more search-and-rescue gear. At the same time the C-295 is less expensive and easier to maintain than the C-27J.
> 
> CASA supporters also counter that while the C-27J is designed to fly fast, it has difficulty, unlike the C-295, in flying low and slow. The ability to fly low and slow is a key requirement for search and rescue.
> 
> Alenia said that isn't true and the aircraft performs well at slow speeds and low altitudes. Alenia also said its aircraft is similar in performance to the C-130 Hercules which currently handles search-and-rescue duties.
> 
> The C-27J will give Canadians the same level of search-and-rescue service they now have, according to Alenia.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

well.... if we were to decide to go with the CC130Js, the UK have some slightly used "short" models of the J series they are looking to unload.  

Do the Short & Long CC130Js have +/-90% compatibility between one & the other?

How are the STOL capabilities of the Herc when compared to the Buffalo?


----------



## Kirkhill

If the C130J was bought how much money would be saved on the cost of hardware, software and personnel on an additional training system?

How much money would be saved on the cost of buying a second set of spare parts rather than using a common, larger pool?

How much money would be saved on the cost of buying a second set of maintenance reserve aircraft (necessary to allow for the conduct of operations while some portion of the fleet is in for maintenance)?

Would it be necessary to buy as many aircraft if the FWSAR and the TAL projects both shared a common maintenance reserve?

Would a common aircraft enhance the overall flexibility of the fleet?

Could money saved be applied to Search technologies that also could be applied to the TAL project - thinking here about upgrading the C130s from the common carrier to the special ops carrier version with its improved avionics that would also be beneficial for Combat SAR?   

Could money saved be applied to mounting air-deployable UAVs to assist in search operations in hazardous environments?

Could money saved be applied to purchasing additional Rescue helicopters?

Will there ever be a one-for-one replacement for the Buffalo?

....... As The Stomach Turns..... ;D


----------



## GO!!!

geo said:
			
		

> well.... if we were to decide to go with the CC130Js, the UK have some slightly used "short" models of the J series they are looking to unload.



I don't know - I seem to remember some "slightly used" subs we bought from those guys... :-\


----------



## geo

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I don't know - I seem to remember some "slightly used" subs we bought from those guys... :-\



Sure... but the short 130Js apparently still have the US Mfgs warranty & we're looking into buying long 130Js for our tactical lift.... Am certain that Lockheed Martin would be happy to inspect em before we took delivery


----------



## kj_gully

C130 J has been kicked around as a possible candidate for the replacement, I believe it was discarded as less desirable than c27, and the same contractor could not have 2 aircraft in the competition (c27 built in partnership) not exactly sure about that, but something like that. I know that we would lose a lot of potential airstrips in BC ( we will  lose some anyway), if we went to a larger aircraft requiring longer wider runways. Conversely, a smaller ac for the rest of Canada will open up more staging areas for SAR to take place and train.


----------



## aesop081

I would also think that the operating cost of a larger aircraft like the C-130J would be a factor in the decision to go with smaller......


----------



## Zoomie

geo said:
			
		

> How are the STOL capabilities of the Herc when compared to the Buffalo?



There is no comparison - apples to oranges.

The CC-130E/H was touted as a replacement for the Buff - our new earthquake proof hanger is built to house two of them.  They were rejected to their lack of maneuverability in the rocks.

The whole point of the FWSAR project is to get rid of 2 engines and facilitate the cost savings.  The CC-130J as a FWSAR platform would be gross overkill.  Only a fraction of the load capabilities would be used.  It is akin to taking an HLVW to get a yard of top soil...


----------



## SupersonicMax

Zoomie, I heard rumors of Dash 8-300 for FWSAR, what would you think about that (flyingwise)?

Max


----------



## Zoomie

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I heard *rumors* of Dash 8-300 for FWSAR,



Most likely started by Bombardier themselves - they are not even in the running...


----------



## geo

kj_gully said:
			
		

> C130 J has been kicked around as a possible candidate for the replacement, I believe it was discarded as less desirable than c27, and the same contractor could not have 2 aircraft in the competition (c27 built in partnership) not exactly sure about that, but something like that. I know that we would lose a lot of potential airstrips in BC ( we will  lose some anyway), if we went to a larger aircraft requiring longer wider runways. Conversely, a smaller ac for the rest of Canada will open up more staging areas for SAR to take place and train.


we're already using CC130s for SAR.... thus - NOT a larger aircraft.  Matter of fact, the "short" CC130J is smaller than the CC130s we currently use in the same task.


----------



## MarkOttawa

SupersonicMax: Bombardier looks like getting, as consolation, the Northern Utility Aircraft contract for Twotter replacement:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061124/forces_plan_061124/20061124?hub=TopStories



> Utility Transport Aircraft. Bombardier is the favourite to win this contract, valued at about $380-million, with its Dash-8 contract.



And it would actually make sense if we bought more of these at the link from Bombardier for civilian marine aerial surveillance:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/search?q=bombardier+q

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## C1Dirty

Geo...FWIW the "short J's" are the same size as our current Hercs.  The regular J's are the same length as our stretched Hercs.  I'm glad we're staying away from the RAF mk5 J's.  It seems to me that "off the shelf" is the way to go.

I know very little about the SAR replacement program, but from what I understood the Spartan's not really any better at slow speeds than the Herc.  If that's true, why are we not just sending our H models to the SAR world?  Sure the Buff guys won't be able to grab lunch at the smaller airports, but c'mon, box lunches really aren't that bad.


----------



## geo

I thought the RAF Js were off the shelf "shorts"

Seen - wrt standard Js being = to old "stretch"


----------



## geo

( AF box lunches are premium!)


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> I thought the RAF Js were off the shelf "shorts"
> 
> Seen - wrt standard Js being = to old "stretch"



Some RAF C-130Js are short, some are stretched, so to speak.......2 models of the same bird


----------



## geo

but the "short" Js have been declared surplus by the RAF and are up for sale.....
I hear we can have em for a steal  :


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> but the "short" Js have been declared surplus by the RAF and are up for sale.....
> I hear we can have em for a steal  :



If you go back to the beginning, you will see that these "Short J's" are not compatible with what we have.  They are a 'different' aircraft.  More trouble than they are worth.


----------



## geo

Uh huh....
we are looking to replace our old Es thru H, Buffalos and Twin Otters with long Js and the short Js are incompatible with what we will have by the time this whole exercise is concluded.

Interesting.  We replace a whole range of airframes & parts with a limited similar range of airframes and parts & it's not worth the trouble of persuing the issue?  OK


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> but the "short" Js have been declared surplus by the RAF and are up for sale.....
> I hear we can have em for a steal  :



Well the trouble for the RAF is that, although they want to unload the "short C-130J, they are facing a problem as a result of operational losses:

The RAF has been using six of the old "short" C-130  C.1P for the Special forces role.  Two of these have been lost in operations ( XV206 lost on 24 may 06 in Afghanistan and XV179 lost in Iraq on 30 jan 05) leaving the remaining 4 to provide the SF role. The RAF has supplemented thse  with six of the old "stretched" C-130 C.3A but they dont have the equipment for the SF role that the C.1P have and are not as capable for rough strip operations. The 4 remaining C.1P and 6 C.3A will have to be retired before the A-400M is in service so  a stop-gap measure will have to be sought. Even though the RAF feels that the C-130J is less suited for the SF role when compared to the older versions, it may be forced into retaining them, rather than sell them off.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing (§29) OF THE Copyright Act, from today’s _Globe and Mail_ throws a new light on things:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070216.wxplanes16/BNStory/National/  


> Air force may abandon $3-billion plan
> *Instead of new search-and-rescue planes, officials consider replacing Buffalo engines*
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> 
> OTTAWA — The Canadian Forces are contemplating putting new engines on their 40-year-old unpressurized Buffalo aircraft instead of buying new search-and-rescue planes, defence officials said yesterday.
> 
> The Canadian air force is flush with cash and is getting set to receive $13-billion in new planes and helicopters.
> 
> But the project to buy $3-billion in new search-and-rescue aircraft, which was long deemed a priority, is languishing and could be sacrificed if the military prefers to acquire other combat equipment.
> 
> Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas told the defence committee of the House that search-and-rescue capabilities could continue to be handled by the Buffalo and Hercules aircraft in the future.
> 
> The fleet of six Buffalo aircraft was purchased in 1967, while the 32 Hercules vary greatly in terms of age, having been bought between 1964 and 1996.
> 
> "Fixed-wing search and rescue is a priority for us, but there are mitigation measures there," Gen. Lucas told MPs.
> 
> "There are still a number of hours left in the newer Herc 130s that we have. The Buffalo aircraft is still a very capable platform, but will require some investment in it if, in fact, we choose to go that route," he said.
> 
> A spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence explained that the Buffalo could require new engines to keep flying if the purchase of new aircraft is delayed.
> 
> "Extending the life of the existing Buffalo aircraft fleet is an option under consideration," Lieutenant Carole Brown said. "The engineering and airworthiness requirements for such an extension, including the potential requirement for new engines, are being currently examined."
> 
> Gen. Lucas said it is up to the government to choose what it wants to do with its money. The answer might come in the country's new defence strategy, which is currently before the Harper cabinet.
> 
> "We have a couple of options available to us. Once again, that comes down to a prioritization issue," Gen. Lucas said.
> 
> The previous Liberal government had announced funding for search-and-rescue airplanes in 2004, but other aircraft have since moved to the top of the priority list. The government has signed a contract with the Boeing Co. to buy four C-17 cargo planes, and is moving on the purchase of Chinook medium-and-heavy-lift helicopters and new C130J Hercules transport planes.
> 
> An industry expert expressed disappointment at the proposal to keep the Buffalo in the air in years to come.
> 
> "Refurbishing a very old aircraft is not without risk. It would likely involve significant structural work and could require some avionics replacement, and even an engine upgrade. The supply of spare parts continues to be an issue," the source said. "Overall, such action may forestall a major capital expenditure for some time, but at what resource and operational cost?"
> 
> The Buffalo is a relatively slow aircraft that is stationed on the West Coast for search-and-rescue operations, where it is often tasked to fly over mountainous terrain.
> 
> "Although this is by no means the biggest [search-and-rescue] region in Canada, it is the busiest. The mild West Coast sees hundreds of people getting lost or in trouble while hiking, mountain climbing, boating and flying," DND's website says.
> 
> Regarding the project to buy new search-and-rescue planes, there has been a recent controversy in Ottawa over the fact that only one aircraft was seen to be able to meet DND's requirements. Opposition parties alleged the military was gearing the competition in favour of a specific manufacturer.



This would appear, from a purely political point of view, to buy some time and, for that period of time, to take this issue ‘off the table.’

Is it a good/acceptable/bad idea from an operational/aviation point of view?


----------



## geo

Hmph.... 
1.  Per the SAR community, all proposed options were flawed: C27J, 295 & Dashes so this is not surprising IMHO

2.  New engines - that's nice but, wouldn't that be ongoing maintenance - they pop an engine out, put new(er) one in ?

The biggest question in my mind would be... how are the airframes doing?
Are the avionics & all the wiring still up to scratch?.... or are we going to spend a bundle on a product extension boondoggle?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From what I have gathered here, the crews like the Buff very much, except for the downtime and pressurization issue. It seems that no new aircraft can fit the bill totally at present. If the major components of the aircraft are in good shape, then, a rebuild seems like a decent idea, I wonder if there are any new aircraft on the horizon worth waiting for? It may also be useful to have a mixed fleet at Comox, with a SAR Herc for non-mountain SAR and try to use the Buff for the missions that it is best suited for.


----------



## Rescue Randy

The Buff is a great airplane, and the crews are justifyably very supportive of it.  The problem is that it is an orphan.  It is not just the engines - parts are increasingly hard to find, and since Brazil has decided to retire their Buff fleet, it will get worse.  Everything from tires to de-icing boots to brake pads now require special orders, which means that it gets harder and harder to find a credible manufacturer willing to manufacture such a small order.  This means that in future, it will continue to get more difficult to generate serviceable aircraft to do the job.
Add to this the fact that the aircraft has no EO/IR capability, which means that detection of people in the water, or in liferafts, is entirely dependent on them being visually spotted by the SAR crew.  The guys do a great job, but technology has moved to the point where it is difficult to justify not insisting that SAR aircraft have current off the shelf search equipment.  In theory, the Buff could be retrofitted with this technology, but at considerable cost - and in the end, you still have an unpressurized 40 year old orphan aircraft.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rescue Randy said:
			
		

> The Buff is a great airplane, and the crews are justifyably very supportive of it.  The problem is that it is an orphan.  It is not just the engines - parts are increasingly hard to find, and since Brazil has decided to retire their Buff fleet, it will get worse.  Everything from tires to de-icing boots to brake pads now require special orders, which means that it gets harder and harder to find a credible manufacturer willing to manufacture such a small order.  This means that in future, it will continue to get more difficult to generate serviceable aircraft to do the job.
> Add to this the fact that the aircraft has no EO/IR capability, which means that detection of people in the water, or in liferafts, is entirely dependent on them being visually spotted by the SAR crew.  The guys do a great job, but technology has moved to the point where it is difficult to justify not insisting that SAR aircraft have current off the shelf search equipment.  In theory, the Buff could be retrofitted with this technology, but at considerable cost - and in the end, you still have an unpressurized 40 year old orphan aircraft.





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In fact the Aussie's, who have had no trouble finding money, closed the Caribou replacement competition after looking at options, including the C27J and the C295.  They couldn't find anything that filled the bill.
> 
> And there is still no market for a designed-to-purpose Twotter/Caribou/Buffalo replacement?  IIRC there were over 1000 aircraft of those types delivered. And in the same class Antonov had a competitor.



I’m a novice at the aviation/aero-space industry business but: 

•	Given that the Buffalo is 'great' for the job, but ... 

•	Given that there appears to be a market for similar aircraft; and

•	Given that the government-of-the-day, of any day in Canada, wants to prop up the Québec based aerospace industry.

Why are we not telling _Bombardier_ to dig out the Buffalo drawing package and update the thing so as to produce and sell a new, improved, Buffalo II?  We’re going to keep throwing money at the company, not matter what; why not send money for something we need?


----------



## C1Dirty

> Why are we not telling Bombardier to dig out the Buffalo drawing package and update the thing so as to produce and sell a new, improved, Buffalo II?  We’re going to keep throwing money at the company, not matter what; why not send money for something we need?



I 've wondered the same.  I'm guessing one of Armond's great grand children have decided that there's no money to be made.  Surprised they wouldn't want to enter something other than the DHC8, especially considering that the world's C160s are coming to the end of their service life.  I've heard that a western co is supposed to start up the Twotter line again, if the government stalls long enough maybe they'll have a shot at firing up the Buff.  Maybe the best angle would be to sell the manufacturing rights to Boeing for a buck and then use the Regional Benefits contracts to build a Buffalo II free of cost to the taxpayer.  I should have run for office.


----------



## Zoomie

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Why are we not telling _Bombardier_ to dig out the Buffalo drawing package and update the thing so as to produce and sell a new, improved, Buffalo II?



I love this idea - unfortunately BI does not own the rights to the DHC-5, a company in BC does.  I have recently emailed this company with exactly your idea and was given the response that only the twin otter was deemed fiscally sound for a rebuild.

This idea of modernizing the Buff has been in the works for quite some time now.  We have project Officers working on this very idea - with glass cockpit avionics and updated electrical systems.  The newer engines are something on our wish list that we really didn't expect to get - apparently there are hundreds of the newer variant of the same GE Allison engine that we currently use.  

Keep in mind that I am saying they are newer, not new.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My understanding is that all the people that designed aircraft such as the buf, Otter, Beaver, Caribou went south. do we have anyone left that knows anything about designing this type of aircraft?


----------



## Edward Campbell

If Brazil is retiring their Buffalos is their any merit in buying them and then modernizing them to build up our fleet or sell them to others?

I repeat: I'm _waaaay_ out of my lane!


----------



## 28402 engineers

I know zilch when it comes to this sort of thing, so this is just speculation on my part. since we're talking about updating the Buff, why not give it a serious facelift. I'm talking all the goodies; all glass cockpit, new electronics, instead of turboprops, what about two Rolls-Royce jet engines ? expensive, but it could possibly pay for itself many times over if the newly designed "Buffalo II" is a hit. I bet lots of countries looking for a modern SAR capability would buy, and a few would update the Buffs they already use. With all the money rolling in, maybe Quebec would forget about the C-17 purchase.

my 0.02 worth


----------



## kingfisher

geo said:
			
		

> 1.  Per the SAR community, all proposed options were flawed: C27J, 295 & Dashes so this is not surprising IMHO



My guess is that the problem is not necessarily finding a the most suitable aircraft to replace the Buff, but rather finding the money to do so.  Especially with other big ticket items already in the shopping cart.  As for Buff upgrades...could work, but often these upgrade options work out costing more in the end than buying something new...

On that note...Does anyone on the inside know how close they actually were to signing a FWSAR contract??

Curious.
Kingfisher


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Funnily enough, one of the instructors here in Portage was telling me just the other day that the engines were the only 'real' problem with the Buffs (which I took as an opinion, as much as anything).  Viking has been remanufacturing parts for several DHC types for at least a couple of years now: I'm sure a parts contract for Buffs wouldn't be beyond their capabilities, if a life-extension program was done (presumably with new engines).


----------



## Astrodog

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but the Aussies have just cancelled a replacement search for their Caribou and have extended their lives until at least 2010.


----------



## 28402 engineers

Astrodog said:
			
		

> Not sure if it has been mentioned, but the Aussies have just cancelled a replacement search for their Caribou and have extended their lives until at least 2010.



Yeah it was mentioned, but it's cool. Just goes to show how far we've fallen in the aerospace industry, from producing aircraft lasting over 20 years (maybe more ?), to forking much needed dough over to a company that has yet to really produce.


----------



## Rigger

The Buff airframe still has lots of life in it, one of the benefits of not being pressurized. As for the engines the new ones are just upgraded versions of the ones we use. Infact they are already being used on other Buffalo fleets. They've just up graded problem areas on the current version such as anti-icing, lubrication and the FCU just to mention few. The avionics have been looked at for years and there is already a solid plan as to what we will require to bring the aircraft into this century. The only problem I can see for the avionics is that the plane is not water tight, the roof is full of vent holes. Modern avionics and water don't mix well. The buff is the only aircraft that can do the work we *currently * do in the mountains of BC. Any new aircraft we get is going to change the way we work. The Cormorant went through the same thing when it came on line, they just couldn't operate it the same as the lab. This is starting to look like a "have your cake and eat it" type situation. You want an aircraft that can get down low in the rocks, yet be able to fly high while pressurized. You want an aircraft that can fly over 300 knots, yet still do a valley shoot. You want an aircraft that can carry more further, yet land and take off from small austere strips. If you want an aircraft to do what a Buffalo does, you already have it, if you want another aircraft to all that other stuff there isn't enough upgrades in hell to make the Buffalo that kind of aircraft. You will need a new plane.


----------



## 28402 engineers

RiggerFE said:
			
		

> if you want another aircraft to all that other stuff there isn't enough upgrades in hell to make the Buffalo that kind of aircraft. You will need a new plane.



well, as i said before, what about designing a new plane along the same lines as the Buffalo, but improving on the basic design? compare Leo 1 to Leo 2. technically speaking they're the same series of vehicles, but anybody can see that they are different. why not design a "Buffalo 2" ? heck, we've got nothing better to do. it's either that or buy a plane not near as capable and change our SAR strategy to accommodate it.

my 0.02 worth


----------



## Inch

Stridsvagn_122 said:
			
		

> well, as i said before, what about designing a new plane along the same lines as the Buffalo, but improving on the basic design? compare Leo 1 to Leo 2. technically speaking they're the same series of vehicles, but anybody can see that they are different. why not design a "Buffalo 2" ? heck, we've got nothing better to do. it's either that or buy a plane not near as capable and change our SAR strategy to accommodate it.
> 
> my 0.02 worth



Changing how you operate a new fleet is not isolated to the SAR world. It's a fact of life when getting a new aircraft. Do you think we bought the Sea King replacement to do exactly what the Sea King does? Nope, tons of improvements, most of which outperform the Sea King. However it won't come without some major changes to how we do things. Most of which revolve around getting the helo on the deck of a Frigate or Destroyer, not to mention learning how to operate with NVGs, a much more capable radar and sonar, etc.

Sorry for the tangent, but it's to illustrate that a new aircraft will almost always mean changes to how things are done. No big deal, flexibility is the key to airpower.


----------



## Northernguardian

Look at the Aurora program and you'll see the folly in attempting to keep an aging airframe going with upgrades. We are spending astronomical amounts of money on a program to replace avionics while the airframe itself is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain from a parts/structural integrity standpoint.  The Aurora is likely going to retire in the next decade, as we know ASLEP is off. But only after we eventually spend well over a billion on AIMP.... its CF5 deja vu on a grand scale. The intelligent thing to do in the 1990s was to replace the Aurora (as the USN now is doing with the P3), but we went ahead with AIMP as it was politically impossible to convince the Chretien gov't to even think about a replacement. Ah, the good old "decade of darkness."

Its time to replace the Buffalo. You can replace the avionics and doctor up the airframe, but you'll still be left with a old, slow, unpressurized aircraft. You'll run into structural problems and parts/costs of maintenance will become prohibitive. Is the Aurora experience instructive to this discussion? Perhaps.


----------



## eurowing

I also asked the question of building a modern Buff to the company we contract some of our heavy maintenance to.  They also agree with the company that owns the rights to the Buff.  Today, with upgraded airfields globally, better ground transport than 40 years ago the market just isn't there to build a new airframe.  On a good day, globally there is only 10 airframes flying.  No market... no airplane.  Even if we use the tank analogy, they will sell hundreds of tanks compared to perhaps a couple dozen new Buffs.  It isn't worth tooling up for.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks to several for that reality check.

As I read it:

•	The Buffalo is, indeed, upgradable and if upgraded will, for some period, be suitable for its current tasks; but

•	It cannot live forever or, even, for a whole lot longer – upgrade is an interim term fix, we still need new aircraft, sooner rather than too much later;

•	Buffalo II is not going to happen – the new aircraft will have new and different capabilities and the Air Force will, as it traditionally does, adapt to them.

That seems to me to indicate that:

1.	The upgrade is the way to go for the short term –

a.	for political reasons, to reduce the heat of the current aircraft procurement debate, and
b.	for military reasons, to make more money available for other urgent needs; but

2.	We must, still, and not too long in the future decide on a SAR (and utility?) fleet – hopefully after a full, standard, competitive procurement process.


----------



## Good2Golf

Interestingly, the Aussies abandoned a Caribou-replacement program years ago and decided to stick with old faithful and trageted upgrades.

G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy

I assume this works for them because Australia has little in the way of high arctic or extreme mountainous terrian to deal with and, being mostly one big desert, is covered by suitable landing strips.


----------



## Good2Golf

DB, there is definitely the environmental issue, which turbines handle better than radial engines, but I'm sure if the Aussies had purchased the Buff vice Caribou, they'd still be flying it as well after a methodical and well thought out upgrade.

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> methodical and well thought out upgrade.



No such thing in Canada


----------



## 28402 engineers

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> No such thing in Canada



sad but true.


----------



## Ozymandias

The CF Buffalos turned 40 years old this year. Anybody that thinks that all that needs to be done to extend the life of this aircraft is a couple new engines is smoking crack. Yes it can be extended, but there are many other significant obsolescent parts issues that will ensure an unacceptable serviceability rate for this aircraft in the very near future.  Only 114 Buffalo were ever built and with the impending retirement of the Brazilian Fleet (which are mostly newer D models compared to the CF's older A models) ...Canada, with only 6 aircraft, will become the single biggest operator in the world (with a worldwide fleet of about 20 aircraft).  No aerospace company really wants to bother with repairing and overhauling such a small number of aircraft components. Even by charging exorbidant fees, there simply isn't enough frequency of work to make it profitable for companies. Finding "certified" repair and overhaul facilities to support the Buff is becoming extremely difficult. It may be a very capable aircraft, but it is also becoming a very unsupportable aircraft. The nostalgiac capability of an unserviceable aircraft is a moot point. All the small things will make the Buff a hangar-queen.....even with new engines hanging from its wings. 

So from an engineering point of view, the nostalgia and false hope for the Buff extension is somewhat naive....to say the least! She's got about another 6 or 7 years left in her.....thats it! It's a great aircraft....but the pasture is calling.


----------



## TCBF

Over 120 built, maybe 30 losses by now.  Are the others still flying out there in the third world someplace?


----------



## Good2Golf

Ozymandias said:
			
		

> The CF Buffalos turned 40 years old this year. Anybody that thinks that all that needs to be done to extend the life of this aircraft is a couple new engines is smoking crack. Yes it can be extended, but there are many other significant obsolescent parts issues that will ensure an unacceptable serviceability rate for this aircraft in the very near future.  Only 114 Buffalo were ever built and with the impending retirement of the Brazilian Fleet (which are mostly newer D models compared to the CF's older A models) ...Canada, with only 6 aircraft, will become the single biggest operator in the world (with a worldwide fleet of about 20 aircraft).  No aerospace company really wants to bother with repairing and overhauling such a small number of aircraft components. Even by charging exorbidant fees, there simply isn't enough frequency of work to make it profitable for companies. Finding "certified" repair and overhaul facilities to support the Buff is becoming extremely difficult. It may be a very capable aircraft, but it is also becoming a very unsupportable aircraft. The nostalgiac capability of an unserviceable aircraft is a moot point. All the small things will make the Buff a hangar-queen.....even with new engines hanging from its wings.
> 
> So from an engineering point of view, the nostalgia and false hope for the Buff extension is somewhat naive....to say the least! She's got about another 6 or 7 years left in her.....thats it! It's a great aircraft....but the pasture is calling.



Ozymandias, what are your views on what makes the DHC-5 Buffalo more difficault to support than the DHC-4 Caribou?

G2G


----------



## Ozymandias

TCBF,
30 Losses is a good estimate. The Flight Safety Foundation records 26 losses, but there are probaly other losses that were never publicly acknowledged. Nowithstanding, the vast majority of the remaining Buffalos are grounded, parked and cannabalized. I would be surprised if even 25% of the original fleet were still flying. And many of those that are still flying shouldn't be as they wouldn't meet any Western standard of airworthiness. The CF actually owns 8 Buffalos (registered hulls). One was being used until recently as a battle-damage-repairs training aid in Borden. The other sits in a hangar in Mountainview totally cannabalized and covered in birdshit.  Once Brazil retires her 12 or so remaining airframes, I think 20 will be a fair estimate for the number of flight-worthy Buffalos that will remain throughout the world. And once again, some of those that will remain will be of questionable airworthiness.

G2G,
The issue of support is only relevant when you consider the mission. If the mission is to haul trash domestically for a non-critical Defence role......like the Australian Caribous or the CF Twin Otters..... then any aircraft is relatively easy to support because mission failure has no appreciable consequences. If the CF Twin Otter is U/S then JTF(N) just charters the mission to one of many civilian operators or they just postpone or cancel the mission all together.....nobody dies and nobody really cares.

If your mission is to ensure that 99% of the time you have a Mission Ready SAR aircraft available to conduct SAR then the support issue becomes very critical because failure equates to lives lost!  Currently 442 SQN has a SAR Dispatch rate for the Buffalo of about 97%. Based on the fact that they have six Buffalos, that equates to an Operational Availability (Ao) of about 50-55% per aircraft. That really sucks! As the the aircraft and associated parts get older, the mean-time-between failures will decrease and the Ao will continue to decline (the CF CC130E Hercs have an Ao of about 45%). 

So if your job is to ensure that a 442 SQN Buffalo is available for SAR missions 99% of the time then you will probably concur that support for this aircraft is becoming very difficult. If your job is to ensure an aircraft is available to to haul trash then an Ao of 50% or less (e.g. CC130E Hercs) is good enough as sooner or later an aircraft will come serviceable and the trash will get hauled.

The CF could keep the Buffalo flying for another 40 years.....but the Ao and dispatch rates will continue to decline given the curent circumstances. The issue of Ao does not even consider mission completion rates. Specifically, what percentage of SAR Buffalos will fail to complete their missions due to a breakdown subsequent to being dispatched? As the aircraft and systems age, the reliability rate also declines. When you have 100s of aircraft parts with low and declining mean-time-between failure cycles coupled with a very limited amount of replacement parts support becomes VERY difficult.

So to answer your question G2G, the CF DHC-5 Buffalo is much more difficult to support than the non-CF DHC-4 Caribou because mission readiness actually matters! If we employed DHC-4 Caribous in the SAR role, and to the same readiness standards of today, then we would also have a very difficult time supporting them. However, if we were to utilize either of these aircraft for non-critical domestic trash-hauling.....then support is relatively easy....because nobody dies and nobody cares if the mission is aborted due to an unserviceable aircraft.


----------



## observor 69

Or to put it another way Ozymandias, the Buff replaced the Albatross on SAR dutie in YSU in the early 1970's. 
That means we are both old and lookin' for a nice place to retire.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ozy, thanks....I was actually thinking along techinal lines, though.  I'm tradcking you on msn rdns.  

G2G


----------



## Ozymandias

G2G,
There are no technical limitations for extending the Buff, or that make it less/more easily supportable than the Caribou. Both use mid-century legacy technology which could be easily replicated......just add lots of money and all technical issues are resolved.  

To clarify, the Buffalo is difficult to support for purely economic reasons. If the Government were to commit a significant amount of money and commit to a 10 to 20 year life extension to this aircraft, then aerospace companies might  become interested and the limited parts and overhaul capability could improve, but would not be eliminated. Unless every component on the aircraft is going to be replaced then the aircraft will only be as serviceable as the least reliable component will allow. Buffalos have been grounded for days waiting for a replacement windshield wiper motor.  Nobody wants to open a line to manufacture new buffalo windshield-wiper motors for a 25 unit order. So, alternative motors have to be found and the appropriate engineering has to be done to ensure that they don't compromise the airworthiness of the aircraft.....this takes time, money and valuable personnel. There are plenty of other components like the seemingly insignificant windshield wiper motor. All the cost analysis has indicated that the Buffalo is at the point where the cost to keep her is surpassing the cost to replace her. And most importantly there is a decreasing return on the investment of the life-extension initiative. Meaning that as time goes on it will cost even more to support the old Buffalo yet it's mission readiness (and by proxy dispatch rate) will continue to decline regardless. So we are on the "pay more for less" downward slide. The plane is technically supportable,  but economically, continuance provides a very poor return on investment.

This is a point seldom communicated in the media because it is not well understood. Yes the FWSAR replacement project will cost several billion dollars over 30 years. But maintaining the legacy fleet capability (Buffs and Hercs) will cost much more while providing an appreciably reduced level of service. The only way to reduce costs is to eliminate the FWSAR service all together.....and I have yet to hear anyone advocating this. 

It currently takes 6 Buffalos to provide a 97% SAR dispatch rate for a single line of SAR tasking. The replacement aircraft will provide 99% dispatch with 3 aircraft. Modern aircraft have much higher inherent operational availability. Air Canada has a dispatch rate comparable to the 442 SQN Buffalo fleet and I can ensure you that they don't accomplish this by having 5 additional aircraft in reserve for every scheduled flight. They achieve this through a continuous process of modernization. Because modernization ultimately costs less and provides a better service.


----------



## observor 69

"Buffalos have been grounded for days waiting for a replacement windshield wiper motor.  Nobody wants to open a line to manufacture new buffalo windshield-wiper motors for a 25 unit order. So, alternative motors have to be found and the appropriate engineering has to be done to ensure that they don't compromise the airworthiness of the aircraft.....this takes time, money and valuable personnel. There are plenty of other components like the seemingly insignificant windshield wiper motor."

Take out Buff and insert 104 and you have the problems faced by maintainers at the end of the 104 program.


----------



## C1Dirty

> The only way to reduce costs is to eliminate the FWSAR service all together.....and I have yet to hear anyone advocating this.



I have heard people advocating the use of civilian contractors.  Personally I think it would be a step in the wrong direction for the Air Force however from a cost standpoint there would be some merit to contracting out the "mountainous rescue" duties currently covered by the Buff.  Not sure if there are any operators out West that are in a position to step up to the plate, but there must be somebody operating a Shorts 360 or some other twin with a ramp out that way.  Again, not my opinion, but it would reduce costs and keep some (albeit reduced) form of FWSAR.  Isn't the UK planning to use a civilian company for their rotary wing SAR?


----------



## Haletown

News from Oz land - the  Headline writer is confused, should say  "over EADS Casa c-295

Last line in the story is key.



http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/21/212813/australian-government-gives-nod-to-alenia-over-c-27j-spartan.html

Australian government gives nod to Alenia over C-27J Spartan selection
By Justin Wastnage

The Australian government has given strong indications that it has selected the Alenia Aeronautica C-27J Spartan to fill its tactical transport requirements five years after the Italian company lost the Air 5190 light tactical airlifter project to EADS Casa’s C-295.

Senior sources within the defence department told flightglobal.com onboard a C-27J demonstration flight at the Australian International Air Show at Avalon airport in Melbourne, that a selection had already been made to replace the air force’s de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft and that the deal may not be subject to competition. Senior sources within Alenia confirm that the Italian company has been selected for the renamed Air 8000 phase 2 project, but that a formal announcement is not expected until after the Australian federal election and subsequent defence budget.

The C-295 was selected ahead of the C-27J as the Caribou replacement but the programme was cancelled due to budgetary constraints related to Australian deployment in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Interoperability with US and UK air forces’ Lockheed Martin C-130Js is understood to be the defining factor in the reversal.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Just saw this is the Jane's News Briefs:



> Alenia and Boeing team up to replace Australia's DHC-4 Caribou
> 
> Italy's Alenia Aeronautica announced a teaming agreement with Boeing Australia on 21 March as part of its bid to meet the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF's) requirement to replace its ageing DHC-4 Caribou light transport aircraft.The Air 8000 requirement is a replacement for Air 5190, which was abandoned in July 2000 after EADS CASA's C-295 had been selected ahead of Alenia's C-27J. Air 5190 was terminated in anticipation of a White Paper released later in 2000 and because of operations in East Timor at the time.
> [Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 02 April 2007]



Would there be any merit in or possibility of a combined AUSCAN procurment?


----------



## Rescue Randy

According to what I have read on other sites, this story was generated as a follow-on to an Alenia press release advising that they were going to an airshow in Australia.  Until you see something from the Australia government, I would not get too excited.

The story behind it is that the US is currently involved in a Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) competition, involving the C-295 and C-27J.  The winner should be announced within the next two months.  The US has been canvassing nations such as Australia and Canada to promote others to buy whatever aircraft is selected, in order to have a larger "user pool".  Those discussions have reportedly not made any reference to either aircraft having an edge in the competition.  According to a story on Keypublishing, the follow-on story was generated by someone at the airshow making the statement that Australia would probably buy the aircraft selected as the winner of JCA.
  
The Americans have not yet announced a final decision, and it is doubtful that they would announce it as an aside at an Australian airshow. Both Raytheon and Alenia seem very certain that they will win the competition, obviously, one of them is wrong.
Once the decision has been made, and is announced, the USAF and US Army will be lobbying their allies to buy whatever product they have selected.  For information, the same thing happened when the US Coast Guard held its Deepwater competition for a Fixed Wing - announcements were made by third parties that did not represent the final decision.
  
As to the question of whether or not Canada would wish to buy into whatever the US chooses, that would probably depend on a number of factors, including cost, and delivery date - and I know that Canada is watching the JCA results.  At the same time, the Air Force is broke and lacks funding for the programs that they have already committed to, which has reportedly resulted in a massive cutback in flying hours for some fleets starting on 1 April.  Should be interesting.


----------



## Kirkhill

This is at the high-end for a FWSAR contender but the more interesting part is who is thinking about it - Bombardier's direct competitor Embraer - and this statement: "Our analyses indicate that there is a potential market for this type of aircraft worldwide, especially to replace older models that will reach the end of their useful life over the coming decade," 

If Embraer can build a suitable contender in a decade long time frame - perhaps Bombardier could consider building something similar - something that the CF might actually want to buy.



> Embraer Has Military Transport Aircraft Under Study
> 
> 
> (Source: Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.; issued April 19, 2007)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jet-powered airlifter being mulled by Embraer could well find a sizeable market thanks to its speed and payload combination. (Embraer photo)SAO JOSE DOS CAMPOS, Brazil --- Embraer confirmed, at a press conference held today, during the Latin America Aero & Defense (LAAD) conference, in Rio de Janeiro, that it has been studying the possible development of a military transport aircraft.
> 
> If it is actually launched, the EMBRAER C-390, as it is called, will be the heaviest airplane ever produced by the Company and will be able to transport up to 19 tons (41,888 pounds) of cargo. The new project will incorporate a number of technological solutions developed for the successful EMBRAER 190 commercial jet.
> 
> As a medium-sized military transport jet, the EMBRAER C-390 will have an ample cabin, equipped with a rear ramp for transporting a wide range of types of cargo, including wheeled armored vehicles, and will have the most modern loading and unloading systems.
> 
> The new jet may be refueled in flight, as well as be used to refuel other aircraft, in flight and on the ground. The cargo cabin will allow configurations for transporting the wounded or sick, on Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) missions. The technical advances of the EMBRAER C-390 include fly- by-wire, which lowers the work load of pilots, with the resulting increased safety, and operating on short and unpaved runways, without the need of ground support.
> 
> "Our analyses indicate that there is a potential market for this type of aircraft worldwide, especially to replace older models that will reach the end of their useful life over the coming decade," said Luiz Carlos Aguiar, Embraer's Executive Vice-President, Defense and Government Market. "We are now expanding the studies and looking for the best use of the technological solutions employed in the EMBRAER 170/190 family. They will be carefully adapted to the specific needs of the military operators. This is a good example of spin-off and how Embraer's long-term vision is focused on customer satisfaction."
> 
> Aguiar added, "Based on Embraer's broad experience in leading successful programs, we have discussed with other specialized mainline companies jointly sharing the development, which should follow international best practices for defense programs."
> 
> In good time, Embraer will release more information regarding this study, in order to keep the public informed on Company decisions.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34


----------



## MarkOttawa

The payload puts it in the C-130J class.  And lots of other C-130s will be wearing ten years from now.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

It's also a turbine aircraft - vice turbo-prop.  FWSAR needs the acceleration and responsiveness of a prop, not the spool-up of a high bypass turbine.


----------



## Kirkhill

I wasn't particularly endorsing the Embraer design - just the fact that they are looking at the market place, determining a need that includes the needs of the military community and proposing a workable solution based on their capabilities that they might be able to deliver in a workable time frame.  As opposed to trying to convince people to buy things that they produce but don't match the client's needs.

It seems to me that if Embraer can produce a 20 ton turbine to compete with the 20 ton C130 turboprop which competes with the 30 ton A400M turboprop and the 10 ton C27J and C295 turboprops then perhaps Bombardier might be able to combine with Pratt and Whitney to create a 10 ton turboprop that would meet CF requirements first and be able to compete in that field.  The market place seems to have determined that all of the other contenders have some deficiencies: too large, too expensive to buy and operate for FWSAR/TacSpt, too small, too slow, insufficiently rugged, inability to fly low and slow.......

Maybe now would be a good time to find out if Bombardier can work with the CF to produce a successor to the Buffalo - with the understanding that if they can't come up with a solution that both meets the needs of the market and the CF then the Government won't subsidize it and the CF won't buy it.  R&D support money from Industry Canada - not DND or PWGSC - to match Bombardier's own funding.

I am merely suggesting that if Embraer, a similar company to Bombardier, can contemplate such a project then Bombardier (with PWC) should be able to manage a similar project.


----------



## observor 69

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=4447dd2a-6b78-4123-85c4-f432926ad3cb

Afghan war leaves Forces unable to buy new rescue planes
Strapped for cash, military 'shelves' $1.3-billion purchase
  
David ******** 
The Ottawa Citizen 


Thursday, April 26, 2007


The Canadian military's program to replace its 40-year-old search-and-rescue aircraft has been sidelined because money is being funnelled for more urgent equipment needed into the Afghanistan war, defence industry officials and sources say.

The $1.3-billion program to purchase a fleet of new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft was named as the No. 1 equipment priority in 2003 for the Canadian Forces.

But the project has since been derailed by the urgent purchases of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gear for Afghanistan, the $650-million order for Leopard tanks and the multibillion-dollar purchases of C-17 and C-130J transport aircraft and Chinook helicopters.

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, as well as Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, have pointed out that the C-17, C-130J, Chinook helicopters and tanks are needed for the military's ongoing overseas missions, particularly in Afghanistan.

A defence source confirmed the procurement budget has been stretched by the recent equipment purchases to the point that there is little money available for the search-and-rescue project.

Even some army equipment projects, such as a plan to purchase a bunker-busting missile, have been delayed because of the priority for Afghanistan-related gear.

Aerospace industry officials have been told the search-and-rescue aircraft program, while not dead, will be stalled for several years.

"What they're saying is that it's shelved," said Randy Price, a retired colonel and search-and-rescue pilot. "They don't have any money."

Mr. Price, the former wing commander at Canadian Forces Base Comox, B.C., from which search-and-rescue Buffalo aircraft operate, said the military is reluctant to spend money on equipment not seen as having a direct combat role.

Mr. Price now works as a consultant for EADS Canada, a company that hopes to sell the Canadian Forces the C-295 aircraft for search-and-rescue missions.

The message about lack of money has also reached Alenia North America, the aircraft firm offering Canada the C-27J Spartan for search and rescue.

"We understand the Afghanistan participation has in some way (prompted) the government to give some importance to other programs such as the C-17 or the C-130J or the Chinook, or the tanks," said Giuseppe Giordo, president of Alenia North America.

The purchase of the 15 search-and-rescue planes was supposed to replace the 40-year-old Buffalo aircraft on the west coast as well as the aging Hercules transport planes also being used for such missions.

Mr. Price said it is becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for the aging Buffalo since suppliers have gone out of business over the decades. In some cases, military personnel have had to build new parts for the planes. When he was wing commander at CFB Comox in 2004 his staff had to rush out to purchase brake pads for the aircraft since the original supplier was shutting down.

Defence officials, however, dispute claims the Afghanistan mission has delayed any equipment project.

"While the Department has absorbed some of the costs of the Afghanistan mission, both for equipment acquisition and operating expenses, these funds have been sourced from the overall defence budget and it would be difficult to identify any particular initiative or acquisition that has been affected or delayed," said Canadian Forces spokeswoman Lieut. Carole Brown.

"Certainly, no project has been targeted as a source of funds for Afghanistan."

Military officials also say the Canadian Forces is in a significant period of transformation as well as adjusting strategies and capabilities to meet future operational needs. Defence officials used the example of the Leopard tank purchase to illustrate such changes.

"While the timelines associated with the acquisition of a new (search and rescue) aircraft may be affected by this process, the CF is evaluating options and taking action to ensure that fixed-wing search-and-rescue service is maintained without interruption until the new capability is fielded," added Lieut. Brown.

Mr. Price said he believes it will take several incidents in which the military can't respond to a major search-and-rescue call before the government is forced to proceed with the program.

Mr. Giordo argues that since aircraft such as the C-130J won't be delivered for at least three more years, there should still be money in the military procurement budget now for the search-and-rescue aircraft purchase.

In September 2003 then-chief of the defence staff Gen. Ray Henault announced the project was the top equipment priority for the military. In the spring of 2004 the Liberal government said it was fast-tracking the project. Military officials said they would approach industry in September 2004 to begin the competition. The first aircraft was supposed to be delivered sometime in 2006.

Military officials are still working on the statement of requirement for the aircraft, something they have been doing for more than three years now.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007


----------



## geo

Well... FWIW, if the 1st 13 pages of this thread mean anything, neither the C27J nor the C295 meet exactly what the CF is looking for to look after SAR.

Shelving the project for a wee bit might allow for some tech developments to come on line and make either (or another Mfgs product) a better fit.

stay tuned


----------



## jimmy742

I hope you are right. When I see something considered urgent originally suddenly being shelved, it means politics. I'm willing to bet that if one Buffalo thunders in - and having seen three Hercs personally do just that I really hope not - the money just as suddenly will become available.


----------



## Hawker

Interesting to see army.ca poster Rescue Randy mentioned prominently in the article, and mentioned as a consultant for EDAS Canada.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

Ottawa Citizen said:
			
		

> The Canadian military's program to replace its 40-year-old search-and-rescue aircraft has been sidelined because money is being funnelled for more urgent equipment needed into the Afghanistan war, defence industry officials and sources say.
> 
> The $1.3-billion program to purchase a fleet of new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft was named as the No. 1 equipment priority in 2003 for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> But the project has since been derailed by the urgent purchases of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gear for Afghanistan, the $650-million order for Leopard tanks and the multibillion-dollar purchases of C-17 and C-130J transport aircraft and Chinook helicopters.
> 
> Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, as well as Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, have pointed out that the C-17, C-130J, Chinook helicopters and tanks are needed for the military's ongoing overseas missions, particularly in Afghanistan.
> 
> A defence source confirmed the procurement budget has been stretched by the recent equipment purchases to the point that there is little money available for the search-and-rescue project.
> 
> Even some army equipment projects, such as a plan to purchase a bunker-busting missile, have been delayed because of the priority for Afghanistan-related gear.
> 
> Aerospace industry officials have been told the search-and-rescue aircraft program, while not dead, will be stalled for several years.
> 
> "What they're saying is that it's shelved," said Randy Price, a retired colonel and search-and-rescue pilot. "They don't have any money."
> 
> Mr. Price, the former wing commander at Canadian Forces Base Comox, B.C., from which search-and-rescue Buffalo aircraft operate, said the military is reluctant to spend money on equipment not seen as having a direct combat role.
> 
> Mr. Price now works as a consultant for EADS Canada, a company that hopes to sell the Canadian Forces the C-295 aircraft for search-and-rescue missions.
> 
> The message about lack of money has also reached Alenia North America, the aircraft firm offering Canada the C-27J Spartan for search and rescue.
> 
> "We understand the Afghanistan participation has in some way (prompted) the government to give some importance to other programs such as the C-17 or the C-130J or the Chinook, or the tanks," said Giuseppe Giordo, president of Alenia North America.
> 
> The purchase of the 15 search-and-rescue planes was supposed to replace the 40-year-old Buffalo aircraft on the west coast as well as the aging Hercules transport planes also being used for such missions.
> 
> Mr. Price said it is becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for the aging Buffalo since suppliers have gone out of business over the decades. In some cases, military personnel have had to build new parts for the planes. When he was wing commander at CFB Comox in 2004 his staff had to rush out to purchase brake pads for the aircraft since the original supplier was shutting down.
> 
> Defence officials, however, dispute claims the Afghanistan mission has delayed any equipment project
> 
> "While the Department has absorbed some of the costs of the Afghanistan mission, both for equipment acquisition and operating expenses, these funds have been sourced from the overall defence budget and it would be difficult to identify any particular initiative or acquisition that has been affected or delayed," said Canadian Forces spokeswoman Lieut. Carole Brown.
> 
> "Certainly, no project has been targeted as a source of funds for Afghanistan."
> 
> Military officials also say the Canadian Forces is in a significant period of transformation as well as adjusting strategies and capabilities to meet future operational needs. Defence officials used the example of the Leopard tank purchase to illustrate such changes.
> 
> While the timelines associated with the acquisition of a new (search and rescue) aircraft may be affected by this process, the CF is evaluating options and taking action to ensure that fixed-wing search-and-rescue service is maintained without interruption until the new capability is fielded," added Lieut. Brown.
> 
> Mr. Price said he believes it will take several incidents in which the military can't respond to a major search-and-rescue call before the government is forced to proceed with the program.
> 
> Mr. Giordo argues that since aircraft such as the C-130J won't be delivered for at least three more years, there should still be money in the military procurement budget now for the search-and-rescue aircraft purchase.
> 
> In September 2003 then-chief of the defence staff Gen. Ray Henault announced the project was the top equipment priority for the military. In the spring of 2004 the Liberal government said it was fast-tracking the project. Military officials said they would approach industry in September 2004 to begin the competition. The first aircraft was supposed to be delivered sometime in 2006.
> 
> Military officials are still working on the statement of requirement for the aircraft, something they have been doing for more than three years now.
> 
> © The Ottawa Citizen 2007



http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4447dd2a-6b78-4123-85c4-f432926ad3cb&k=42830


----------



## safeboy43

Hmm. Well, I must say that search and rescue planes would be of no use to us if we were fighting the war against terrorism on OUR soil. Better to wait it out then compromise anything in A-Stan we might need.

My 2 cents,
Cheers


----------



## MikeM

Have to agree with Twitch on this one, as much as we need the SAR planes, operational requirements are clearly dictacting what is more important, and taking a higher priority. It's unfortunate but just the way it is I suppose.


----------



## GAP

Or this whole thing could be that what was offered was not what they wanted.  A lot of the controversy in this and other threads was the shortcomings of this plane over that plane...what if nothing offered would have worked properly. 

Backing away from everyone, drawing up specs that DO the job might be the easiest way out of this quagmire, and just start over.


----------



## McG

As an interim solution, once the new Hercs start arriving could the old Hercs be cascaded down to replace the older Hercs & Buffalo in the SAR role?


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> As an interim solution, once the new Hercs start arriving could the old Hercs be cascaded down to replace the older Hercs & Buffalo in the SAR role?



Not for very long........the "E"s are done....the "H"s arent far behind.


----------



## McG

I see.  So it might buy 1 or 2 years?


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> I see.  So it might buy 1 or 2 years?



not much more than that......

i should be drinking coke out of cans made from our CC-130E already. Some of them are already gathering dust as they are past 40 000 hours on the airframe.  The CC-130H, as i understand it are a little better but not far off.  Its the price, IMHO, of having used a _tactical _ airlifter as a _strategic_ airlifter for so many years with a small number of airframes.

My understanding is that once the CC-130J arrives, the CC-130H will still be used but they dont have too long to live either. I wouldnt be surpised if the CC-115s outlive the Hs


----------



## Good2Golf

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> not much more than that......
> 
> i should be drinking coke out of cans made from our CC-130E already. Some of them are already gathering dust as they are past 40 000 hours on the airframe.  The CC-130H, as i understand it are a little better but not far off.  Its the price, IMHO, of having used a _tactical _ airlifter as a _strategic_ airlifter for so many years with a small number of airframes.
> 
> My understanding is that once the CC-130J arrives, the CC-130H will still be used but they dont have too long to live either. *I wouldnt be surpised if the CC-115s outlive the Hs*



CDNAviator, kind of like the quote about the crew of the last Blackhawk put to bed being picked up and taken home by a Huey.  ;D

You may very well be right...


G2G


----------



## ringo

This seems to be a two horse race, but could a SAR version of the USN's Grumman COD aircraft fill Canada's requirements.
The production line is currently building E-2D Hawkeye's but a few COD types should not be a problem, the USN will be due for another batch of COD types once there Hawkeye buy is fulfilled.


----------



## childs56

Maybe they are waiting for the companys to a actually come up with what we want, instead of what they are telling us we want.


----------



## aesop081

Have you been in a C-2 Greyhound ?

too small


----------



## Rigger

Herc + mountains  = bad. Until they find a plane that can do what the buff does, it will be here for a while.


----------



## time expired

Wrong, blaming the war in A-stan for the government being unwilling to supply the Forces with
the equipment it needs to do any of many tasks it is called upon to do,is IMO wrong.Canada,with
a mere 14mio.population managed to support a 4+div. force in Europe and still have enough left
over to defend the homeland.Now with a population of 30+mio.we cannot support a force of
2500 in A-stan and do SAR at home!.Something wrong with our political direction and their
priorities IMO.
                    Regards


----------



## 28402 engineers

time expired said:
			
		

> Wrong, blaming the war in A-stan for the government being unwilling to supply the Forces with
> the equipment it needs to do any of many tasks it is called upon to do,is IMO wrong.Canada,with
> a mere 14mio.population managed to support a 4+div. force in Europe and still have enough left
> over to defend the homeland.Now with a population of 30+mio.we cannot support a force of
> 2500 in A-stan and do SAR at home!.Something wrong with our political direction and their
> priorities IMO.
> Regards



You've got a point, but back in them days, there was that ever-present danger that Canada may be invaded by first Germany, then the Soviet Union. Besides, decades of neglecting the military, and then suddenly trying to revive it costs money. The conservatives are only a minority, so if they spend too much on anything (especially defence), the opposition's gonna get a might cranky.
I don't agree that we should sacrifice one thing for another when both are needed, but I'd perfer to have to pick and choose rather than get nothing at all. Wouldn't you?

regards,
 Matt


----------



## childs56

SAR is one of the main operations that the CF carrys out. 
I think they are waiting to see what else comes along. None of the contenders provided a proper platform with out adding to extra over head in the way of support bases, and equipment limitations.  

I like the Buff, I think it should be re manufactured, and then built. They still have the jigs for the aircraft, and it would keep Canadian Aerospace industry busy for a while.


----------



## MarkOttawa

You just can't shuffle off those Buffaloes (let's just hope for a decent UAV):

Overseas missions alter plans at air force
40-year-old Buffalo aircraft to stay at CFB Comox
_Victoria Times Colonist_, April 29



> The head of Canada's air force denies reports there's not enough money to replace the country's aging search-and-rescue aircraft, but admits purchasing replacements has been delayed because the air force is acquiring other aircraft to be used, primarily, in Afghanistan.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Steve Lucas, Air Force chief of staff, said the armed forces is spending considerable effort -- and billions of dollars -- in purchasing four C-17 Globemaster long-range heavy-lift aircraft and 17 new Hercules C-130J transport aircraft. The military is also purchasing Chinook helicopters, and leasing tanks for its mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> All of this is reportedly bad news for oft-discussed plans to replace the 40-year-old Buffalo aircraft. Six of the planes are stationed at CFB Comox and, along with Cormorant helicopters, are used to fly rescue missions across British Columbia...
> 
> "It is not a question of money so much as it is a question of the people resources we have to work on this," he told the Times Colonist in an interview Friday in Victoria.
> 
> "We cannot do all of these things at the same time. We have to spread them out a little bit."
> 
> Even with all the money it wanted, the air force would be hard-pressed to find the trained manpower to bring all the new aircraft into service, while also overhauling search and rescue, said Lucas.
> 
> The aging Buffalo should last until 2015 without major investments, he said. That means the military will have to decide on a replacement before 2010 to get the new planes on time, said Lucas.
> 
> Privately, search and rescue crews have grumbled about continued delayed promises...
> 
> A future focus will be intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), said Lucas.
> 
> The current fleet of remote-controlled Canadian Sperwer drones does not react well to the hot conditions of Afghanistan and will likely be replaced by new UAVs in the future, he said.
> 
> Depending on what the military purchases, CFB Comox could see a squadron of UAVs stationed on Vancouver Island, said Lucas.
> 
> "We haven't made up our minds yet as to where out West we are going to base these. But in the longer term, there's a possibility that certainly Comox might factor into that discussion."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## peaches

The CF cannot purchase new SAR aircraft because the $$ is being diverted to the Afghan war.  Total BS.  That's like saying the fire dept cannot buy ladders to get kittens out of tree because they are fighting too many fires.  Combat, war, is the job of the militray.  Give the military more money folks, problem solved.

On the other hand, we do not spend the $$ we get that wisely sometimes.  The CF wastes alot, bases open that shouldn't be, other BS programs that have nothing to do with operations.  Hard questions should be asked about the military roles, perhaps we should not be doing domestic SAR.  Perhaps that should be the responsibility of the Canadian Coast Guard.  Perhaps the CCG should be re-aligned, re-equipped to conduct SAR, leaving the military to deal with the combat, warfighting problems.......


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Perhaps the CCG should be re-aligned, re-equipped to conduct SAR, leaving the military to deal with the combat, warfighting problems.......



Spreading heresies like that will get you thrown out of the Air Force...


----------



## peaches

Sorry, I thought as Airforce types we were supposed to be in the warfighting business....


----------



## Zoomie

peaches said:
			
		

> Sorry, I thought as Airforce types we were supposed to be in the warfighting business....



Not much of that going on right now....  Apart from the Herc community. 

Let's get rid of the CF-188s first - big money sucker there...

SAR is one of the most operational communities in the AF - give the money to those who can and will use it every day.


----------



## Journeyman

peaches said:
			
		

> *Sorry, I thought as Airforce types we were supposed to be in the warfighting business....*



_Some_ of the Airforce is in the warfighting business already. 

As for the others....building overpriced accommodations for people waiting for the Russians to come across the arctic (perhaps Taliban SEALs paddling across Lake Nippising) -- or wasting money on those 'Coast Guard wannabe SAR floppers'??  Hmmmm.....

We _all_ have a role, but you may wish to be careful before you make it an "us" vs. "them".....I think I know whose budget I'd be slashing, introducing their now-surplus PYs to rucks first.


----------



## Good2Golf

Not just Hercs...  

Tac Hel is operating TUAV which, amongst other things like recce and surveillance, can control and direct fires in support of the troops on the ground.  You don't have to be a CF-18 to provide support to your fellow warfighter on the ground.

Re: delay to fixed-wing SAR platform, the Department is simply prioritizing the use of resources against all the demands being placed on the system.  It does not mean that the provision of SAR capability to the Canadian domestic area of operations is any less important.

G2G


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not just Hercs...
> 
> You don't have to be a CF-18 to provide support to your fellow warfighter on the ground.



Hence why i am flying in support of EX MAPLE GUARDIAN in Wainwright for the next little while.


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder if they couldn't do to the Buff what they did to the Hornet.  From what I can gather they basically took the old C/D series drawings on AutoCad and hit the Scale button to create a larger aircraft in all dimensions then adjusted the engines to suit.

How much more cargo volume do Zoomie and Rigger need over what the Buff currently offers?  Range? Altitude? Speed?


----------



## Astrodog

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I wonder if they couldn't do to the Buff what they did to the Hornet.  From what I can gather they basically took the old C/D series drawings on AutoCad and hit the Scale button to create a larger aircraft in all dimensions then adjusted the engines to suit.



  If you're talking about the 18E and Fs then you are wayyy off... they are pretty much new planes..


----------



## Kirkhill

Astrodog - I was talking about the SuperHornets.  I admit to hyperbolic oversimplification  ;D - and I will stand to be proven wrong - but my understanding was that one of the primary reasons that the SuperHornet made it from the drawing boards to the flight line in record time at a manageable cost was the use of the C/Ds as a proven base from which to scale up.  That doesn't mean that engines, avionics, fuel cells, even structural members all have to be revisited - but speaking from experience in other fields it is an awful lot easier to re-engineer a known quantity than to start from a clean sheet of paper.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Astrodog - I was talking about the SuperHornets.



So was astrodog........F/A-18E and F are "superhornets"


----------



## childs56

I think you have it right with the upscaling the present Buff and building new ones. 

This would be the answer for Canadian Aerospace industry that would keep them in business for some time to come. 

The Buff is the best Paltform in the world for what it does. I have yet to hear of any other Airframe that can do the job the Buff does as well as it does it. The whole De Havland series of Aircraft are second to none. 

We need to realize that the Buff is not a be all end all platform either. We need platforms similar to the Herc for it's long range and fast speed. 

What we do not need is a platform that is dictated to our country from a company that says this A/C is what you need. But you need to modify your present structure so our Platform is the best and will fit in. 

We need a few different Platforms that will suit our needs. That might be a few new Buffs and a few new Hercs. Or the European Planes. 

As for handing off the role of SAR. I kinda agree. Why not let the Coast Guard handle this type of duty. Give them the Budget and the resources to carry on with the job. They already handle SAR on the ocean with help from DND. 

The FA18s, Deploy them or get rid of them. Enough of the excuses why they cannot be deployed. Or we do not require them for this mission. 
Send over 12 jets, 6 in country and 6 in UAE area. You will need 100 direct support personalle to run them 24 hrs a day. End of story,, other countrys are doing it so can we. 
They do not need all the newest high tech gizmos. They need bombs and guns and radios. 
They already fly the living daylights out of them now. Minds well let them drop a few lives in support of the troops. And let some newer Pilots get Combat bragging rights.


----------



## Kirkhill

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So was astrodog........F/A-18E and F are "superhornets"



Understood CDN Aviator.  I wasn't sufficiently clear.  Thanks f.or the clarification.


----------



## Astrodog

From talking with a Superhornet driver, the Es and Fs are hornets on steroids; not only is the aircraft larger but some of the design features are distinctly different (very obvious if you see a 3-view).. larger wing area (relatively of course) and larger control surfaces that allow it to be one of the most maneuverable non-thrust vectoring platforms out there.. and also alot of design features included to increase stealth capabilities..but it is definately not a 5th gen fighter, more of a 4.5...

edit: This will do nicely; http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/f18_schem_01.gif


----------



## Kirkhill

And thank you Astrodog.

My error.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> From what I can gather they basically took the old C/D series drawings on AutoCad and hit the Scale button to create a larger aircraft in all dimensions then adjusted the engines to suit.


From an engineering perspective, you can't do this unless you want the plane to fall out of the sky.  Not everything has a linear relationship, so if you make every diminsion x times larger, you'll increase demands on the airframe by x cubed.  If you want bigger, you do have to re-design.


----------



## childs56

Of course one isnt going to just blow up the design and build a plane larger. They will have to re-engineer it for a larger size. 
But that is pretty much how DeHavalind had built on their sucess. 
They had a smaller succesfull plane, then built it up sized, Beaver to the Otter to their twin. 

Are they all the same plane? No but do they follow similar design aspects, yes. 

Take the Buff and up size it a bit. New every thing with a little more head room.  Easy and simple compared the vast array of what is on the market now that does not fit the bill we need. 

Even the Newest models of the F18s followed basic design of the earlier models to follow. 
Not the same A/C but it made for a much better airframe using similarities to the older ones. 

Every one has an opinion and their own ideas. 
I have fixed many different styles of Airframes. My favorite is the DeHavlland. Easy reliable and simplistic from a operator view and a mechaincle view.


----------



## Kirkhill

I have just received a valuable lesson in Democratic politics.  I was prepared to walk away from the discussion and admit defeat.  It appears that that does not necessarily end the discussion.  

As I noted in my earlier post, and as CTD is agreeing apparently, while you can't just "the scale up" without reconfirming many of the underlying assumptions - like size and number of frame components, power of engines etc.  once you know that a particular configuration of parts operates in a fashion that suits you it much easier to scale up the components and systems.    Much of the problem with a brand new system is deciding on what you want it to do, and what limitations you are willing to accept.  Once those things have been decided, and operations have been proven, the engineer's job becomes much easier.

Take a look at the images that Astrodog supplied - note the similarity in outline, angles of attack, airfoil surfaces, undercart placement, cockpit assembly.  Those are the things that largely decide how the aircraft will fly.  Consider also the C130 series, changing power plants, avionics, props, adding plugs (even changing undercarts for skis) - the same basic airframe keeps flying the same basic mission.  

That's what happened with the SuperHornet - same basic mission (longer legs and more load) with similar technology and, I believe, the opportunity to use the same assembly lines as the earlier models.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Much of the problem with a brand new system is deciding on what you want it to do, and what limitations you are willing to accept.  Once those things have been decided, and operations have been proven, the engineer's job becomes much easier.


I think you are over simplifying the engineers work & assuming it away.  An existing design may provide a good start point, but everything has to be revalidated once you start streatching things.  In the end, you have a whole new airplane that looks like its predecessor.  You'd better believe that a lot of engineering went into creating the Super Hornet.



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> Maybe they are waiting for the companys to a actually come up with what we want, instead of what they are telling us we want.


So, without refrence to any existing airframes, what are the capabilities that a new fixed wing SAR aircraft requires?  At what rate must it climb or at what height must it fly or for how long must it loiter?  How much space does it need inside?


----------



## Kirkhill

Aye well, I'll run away after all and go back to my day job engineering processing plants.   Cheers.


----------



## McG

and I'll go back to writing an my MEng thesis. We can all have day jobs.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Aye well, I'll run away after all and go back to my day job *engineering* processing plants.   Cheers.






			
				MCG said:
			
		

> and I'll go back to writing an my* MEng * thesis. We can all have day jobs.



Thats the problem with aviation.......too many damned engineers  ;D


For myself, i'll go back to my day job......flying


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

FWIW, the development of the SuperHornet was driven more by political than engineering interests: it was "sold" as part of the Hornet program, which made it much easier to clear political hurdles (vice an entirely "new" aircraft).


----------



## McG

Getting back to SAR:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ... without refrence to any existing airframes, what are the capabilities that a new fixed wing SAR aircraft requires?  At what rate must it climb or at what height must it fly or for how long must it loiter?  How much space does it need inside?


----------



## CFR FCS

Buying new build Buffalo's may be possible. Viking Air at http://www.vikingair.com in BC has the rights, plans and jigs for most de Havilland products. They have started production of the Twin Otter already.  So Canadian aerospace industry can provide something if we knew what we wanted.


----------



## Zoomie

Viking has already stated that they will not be rebuilding the Buffalo.

Being a SAR guy I can't really condone the schlepping off of SAR to the Coasties.  The cut to the CF budget would be enormous, as would all the PY positions associated with SAR and the Units that support it.

As it currently is setup, the Coast Guard is in no position to accept this task - their basic structure is run as a Federal department (DFO) vice that of the required quasi-military force.  In order for this to happen, the CCG would basically have to become an off-shoot of the CF and adopt its rules and regulations (much like the USCG).  

A civilian organization getting paid by the hour and having a union will never make an efficient airborne SAR unit.

Keep in mind that the FWSAR replacement project was in the 2004 budget - $1.4BCAD.  Where do you think it went?   The CF simply reallocated those funds and diverted them the CC-177 project and others of higher priority.  If we had given the CCG $1.4 Billion it would have stayed in their coffers and there wouldn't be Globemasters getting their shiny Canadian paint job.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Can someone answer me this question: "If the primary concern is search speed vs stall speed, why wouldn't the competitors just extend the flaps?"  Obviously the additional drag would lower top speed and fuel efficiency, but if search speed is the primary hurdle, isn't that a necessary trade-off?


Matthew.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Can someone answer me this question: "If the primary concern is search speed vs stall speed, why wouldn't the competitors just extend the flaps?"  Obviously the additional drag would lower top speed and fuel efficiency, but if search speed is the primary hurdle, isn't that a necessary trade-off?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Lowering your trailing edge flaps will also lower you critical angle of attack.  Something that is not really wanted in the mountains...

Max


----------



## Zoomie

We don't like to fly around with copious amounts of flap - the Buffalo can fly with 7 degrees of flap and be safe around 110kts (perfect speed for just about everything SAR).  

We could fly a lot slower with more flap, but we don't. The reason being is we always fly as if we are just about to lose an engine at the worst possible moment in flight.  If we were to have an engine failure with lots of flap hanging, we might not be able to recover in time to avoid a catastrophic incident.

When we conduct a "STOL" landing, we have 40 degrees of flap hanging with gear down and props selected in approach pitch - this allows us to fly the aircraft at around 70 knots until touch down.  The entire affair is conducted right at the limits of the aircraft.  We all have drills ingrained into our brains as to what will most likely happen if an engine were to fail while on short final.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So IF there were a wing design adjustment to be made, what would it be?


Matthew.


----------



## PO2FinClk

Twitch said:
			
		

> Well, I must say that search and rescue planes would be of no use to us if we were fighting the war against terrorism on OUR soil.



Wartime SAR is a role & responsibility of the SAR occupation, thus would be of absolute use in the condition you mention.

Agreed that the focus is on A-Stan, but the CF must also ensure they maintain their domestic responsibilities which include SAR. The CF's entrusted responsibilities must all be maintained concurently and cannot compromise any for the benefit of another. As others have mentioned, the Herc as mighty as it may is not suited for mountain SAR (I would want to be onbaord while doing a cliff shoot).


----------



## ChrisG

Far too much politics in choosing a ew airplane.  Maybe they should let the pilots and maintenance chaps go try them out and then take their word!

Just as an aside.  It is unfashionable these days but is there any benefit in SAR to being amphibious?  ( I know some of the drawbacks to amphibious aircraft,  I fly one,  but I am wondering whether they compromise operational requirements significantly without offering any advantages at all.)  For instance,  how do the specs of the Canadair CL415 compare to the Buffalo or the Spartan?  (I can't find the CL415 specs and performance,  only sappy pictures of aircraft picking up water!)


----------



## kj_gully

Before the Buffalo, Air Force Rescue units flew Albatross flying boats. There is definite "upside" to having an amphibious aircraft, In fact there is a  picture on pg 2 of the aircraft folder in the Milnet gallery (not super tech saavy, so tried to insert it 2 different ways with no success...) of amphib trial for the buff. From an operator standpoint, I guess that i would say that many times when a Marine incident requires a fixed wing Sar Asset, the sea is WAY too bumpy to want to land. Often when it is not, the Chopper is close at hand to affect (effect?) rescue. I suspect the biggest, or at least some of the biggest factors with amphibs is speed, fuel economy, pressurisation,  things the new aircraft must have to increase our capability. The disclaimer is that I am not a pilot, an aircraft engineer, or in any way involved in the SOR (statement of requirement) for the new aircraft, just an interested observer.


----------



## Good2Golf

Caveat that I'm not a Buff driver, but I think Gully hit the nail on the head.  CL415/215's would have some advantages in very specific situations, but I think that would be far outweighted by the lack of capability that such an aircraft would have in the other...95-98%?...of the time.  If I recall correctly, the CL415/215s do not have particularly low manoeuvring speeds like the Buff has, and it's max dash speed is 60 knots slower than the Buff.  It is also not particularly suited to dispatching SAR Techs without a ramp.

A couple of Buff drivers will probably be along to provide more input.

G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

Is there a problem in terminology that tends to muddy the waters?

We talk about Search and Rescue as a capability, an organization and as platforms.  But aren't they actually three things?

Search, to find the distressed party
Contact, to determine the condition of the party and supply the means to stabilize the situation until a rescue can be effected
Rescue, to extract the distressed party.

On some missions it seems that all those capabilities could be covered by one platform (eg a Twin Otter conducting a beacon search, locating the downed aircraft, putting down on a beach, ice or water, patching up the injured and flying them all out) but on many missions the Search will be conducted by multiple platforms, the Contact by a team of SARTechs dropped from a Buff or a Herc and the extraction, or rescue effected by anything from Cormorant, to a Coast Guard boat, to a Bv206 (as at Alert some years ago).

So when we are talking about a Search and Rescue aircraft which of these capabilities are we talking about.  The Buff and the Herc do the Search and Contact.  They can't do much on the Rescue front.  Other platforms can handle the Search but not do much in the way of dropping SARTechs and gear to stabilize the situation.   Helicopters are brilliant in the rescue mode when the weather permits but from where I sit appear to be limited in their Search abilities by their range.

So what combination of capabilities should be held within the organization and which should be combined in single platforms?


----------



## kj_gully

You bring up a good point. B4 Cormorant, We had very less capability in Search or as you say "contact" phases of a Mission, due to the limitations you pointed out. However, the Cormorant, Despite it's maintenance issues, is quite capable as a Search platform, and has many times been dispatched solo on missions within a few hundred miles from home. That is where the challenge lies with the new FWSAR program, do we look for a plane that does things the same as B4, or look to change the way we do SAR? Enhanced reliance on sensors would be terrific, some of you may be surprised to hear that we have no thermal or infrared capability in the Herc, Buff Or Cormorant. Maybe we don't need a plane to shoot valleys anymore, the Cormorant can do the tight stuff, leave the new plane to tacklke tamer terrain. I think I've already discussed this in another thread, so I'll leave it there, but suffice to say, that if we are to move forward, whatever the aircraft, it will mean some rethinking of our SAR response.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So what combination of capabilities should be held within the organization and which should be combined in single platforms?


Building on this, what performance characteristics must the platform have?



			
				ChrisG said:
			
		

> For instance,  how do the specs of the Canadair CL415 compare to the Buffalo or the Spartan?


How would the V-22 Osprey measure up?


----------



## Zoomie

Excellent discussion!

Valid points brought up by Gully and Kirkhill.  SAR is more of a capability - any aircraft in the CF is capable of SAR, it just takes team work to carry out the complete mission.

Canada has designed its entire SAR structure around individual capabilities working as a part of a well oiled machine.  Just this weekend I was exercising CASARA spotters on the mighty Buffalo.  These awesome volunteers are called upon very frequently by JRCC to conduct ELT searches in lieu of launching the Buffalo or Cormorant.  They are a cog in the SAR world, yet really have no effective means of Rescue.  

The Buffalo is a very capable search platform and can, at times, be called upon to take the mission from start to completion - including the final rescue and recovery.  This is where the STOL capabilities of such a platform is utilized.  The other week, a small light aircraft attempted a landing on a small grass strip in B.C. - the airplane flipped on landing, hurting the two passengers in the back.  We were launched to the airfield and prepared ourselves for the eventual extraction and MEDEVAC of the pax.  As it turned out - we were scooped by EHS out of another city - and we elected to land at another grass strip nearby and await the transfer of the victims to that location.

I must echo what Gully has already astutely stated - FWSAR will not be the same creature when/if a new platform arrives.


----------



## Good2Golf

Zoomie, related to Gully's comment about the Cormorant, would it be fair to say that the Buff was an excellent complement to the Lab, but as the rotary-wing SAR capability increases in envelope, the FWSAR pieace can adjust as well and something other than the Buff may be better suited to the final SAR capability package?

G2G


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I apologize but I have a civvie question.

When minimum search speed requirements were determined, were they based on naked eye ability to identify potential victims or did they take into account alternate systems like thermal imaging to see heat?


Many thanks, Matthew.


----------



## Zoomie

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> When minimum search speed requirements were determined, were they based on naked eye ability to identify potential victims or did they take into account alternate systems like thermal imaging to see heat?



Search speed is always based on the Mark 1 Eyeball - we slow down or speed up according to our ST's wishes.

GTG - Gully is right that the Cormorant is so much more the Search platform than the Lab ever was.  That being said, it does not have the endurance/speed to conduct an effective survivor search.  We need a FWSAR platform that go up and over the rocks (above 10'000MSL) cruise GPS direct to LKP and then slow down to start looking for post-crash fires, flares, signals, etc.


----------



## aesop081

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> into account alternate systems like thermal imaging to see heat?



Now thats what i do for a living.

Let me tell you what searching with IR is like.  Try looking out the aircraft through a straw going at 180 Kts.........not a good search tool.  Mk 1 eyeball is what works best  unless you have a very, very, very specific spot to look at.


----------



## Loachman

And anything swallowed under tree cover is going to be invisible to thermal anyway. I've heard tell of wrecks being found purely because an alert spotter noticed a tree-top snapped off.


----------



## Globesmasher

Loachman said:
			
		

> And anything swallowed under tree cover is going to be invisible to thermal anyway.



Hey fellas:

I was down in Fort Polk, Louisianna one year on JRTC (about 1998 or so) and I was doing a "runner" .... one of the poor saps selected at the end of an 18 hour crew day to be the "downed aircrew" and to go for a run for 24 hours through louisanna swamp land.

I did everything according to the rules, spins etc ... and after about 20 hours of running I made it to the safe house and into "partisan" hands.

I felt really proud of myself ..... but, in the mass debrief ... and entirely unknown to me or the blue force .... the staff showed a video of me as I was tracked by IR from a very high altitude UAV as part of an experiment being conducted by the US on this joint exercise.  They didn't use the info for any "counter CSAR" ops, but I was horrified to see that I was easily tracked under wooded canopy ..... just my "glowing" little fat body jogging along a grey background unaware and oblivious that I was being watched silently from above.

I would have thought IR would be really useful to you SAR folks .... but I know nothing about it .. way out of my lane.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Perhaps it was a seismic shift in the normality continuum because an Air Force personal was actually running that was being tracked?


Oh come on......it was a fastball right down the middle and I had to swing at it. :deadhorse:


----------



## GAP

Did he get to keep the tricycle?  ;D


----------



## kj_gully

We have brought Thermal/ IR resources to bear on search, Aurora, Griffon from 408 Sqn, even "Hawk one" Calgary Police helicopter. however, there has been more than once, when arriving onscene in the black of night over a particularily large stretch of land or Sea, when the crew has commented on how we would like to try out some of this technology. DRDC, or whatever Valcartier R&D is called, has been working on a sensor package for years, but it seems as though that they are unable to provide the technology to us. Every year we hear the same brief at SAREX, as they go over the various mods that have taken place, as each new technology has come along. If they ever get it together we will make a giant leap in Search capability. Pedators in a SAR Sqn? maybe someday, Zoomie could be a joystick pilot!


----------



## bilton090

What a load of s**t, besides the c-130's flying from the (removed by mod) to Afgn. the airforce don't do s**t, choppers that can't fly outside of canada ( junk ), f-18's that are to old ( to many hours ), ship choppers ( to old ), S.A.R plane's to old.  ???




_Edited by Vern to removed OPSEC ... It may be common knowledge, but CF and Government policy is to mention in...people who do that, are EXACTLY the reason it is common knowledge._


----------



## aesop081

bilton090 said:
			
		

> the airforce don't do s**t,



Yeah, thats why i'm not home alot

 :


----------



## mover1

bilton090 said:
			
		

> What a load of s**t, besides the c-130's flying from the (removed by mod) to Afgn. the airforce don't do s**t,



Sir I respectufully ask you to step outside and make love to your hat! And yourself while you are at it.




_Edited by Vern to removed OPSEC ... It may be common knowledge, but CF and Government policy is to mention in...so from now on if you choose to quote someone who's violated OPSEC...please remove the OPSEC portion of the quote before posting._


----------



## C1Dirty

> What a load of s**t, besides the c-130's flying... to Afgn. the airforce don't do s**t



These six guys might disagree... 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070530/nl_vessel_070530/20070530?hub=Canada



> Six crew members from a fishing boat that caught fire off the coast of Newfoundland were rescued from the icy North Atlantic ocean and taken to hospital Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> A coast guard spokesperson said the six men on board issued a garbled mayday at about 12:30 p.m. Atlantic time, and a fixed-wing Hercules aircraft from Greenwood, N.S. and a Cormorant helicopter out of Gander were dispatched to the scene immediately.
> 
> The Cormorant, first to arrive on the scene, discovered the men in the water. They were forced to evacuate the 18-metre Nautical Legacy after it had caught fire.
> 
> "We were on scene overhead the boat within an hour of receiving the call and found six personnel in the water, at which point we hoisted them out of the water and proceeded back to St. John's. Successful results all around," Capt. Chris Herten of the Search and Rescue Squadron, in charge of the cormorant helicopter that plucked the men from the water, told NTV News.
> 
> Five of the six men were able to don survival suits before entering the water. Rescue crews surrounded the young man who wasn't wearing an immersion suit, and got him out first.
> 
> "Two of the men were hypothermic," search and rescue technician Sgt. Dave Payne told NTV News. "They were very cold, but we got there in time." All six men are expected to make a full recovery.
> 
> It's believed the men are from the Clarke's Beach area. NTV News reports the Nautical Legacy had burnt to the water line and is expected to sink shortly. There is no word at this time as to the cause of the fire.


----------



## Zoomie

bilton090 said:
			
		

> What a load of s**t, besides the c-130's flying from the U.A.E to Afgn. the airforce don't do s**t, choppers that can't fly outside of canada ( junk ), f-18's that are to old ( to many hours ), ship choppers ( to old ), S.A.R plane's to old.  ???



 :  Thanks for coming out - come back when you have a "clue".


----------



## Kirkhill

Bilton = South African for jerky.


----------



## C1Dirty

It was terrible, his comments made me say something nice about SAR.  I think I need a shower, I feel dirty.


----------



## Zoomie

kj_gully said:
			
		

> maybe someday, Zoomie could be a joystick pilot!



As long as I get to keep my flying pay!  At least it would be in air conditioned comfort.  Yesterday was a scorcher - 5 hours cooking my head up front.


----------



## ChrisG

For the information of the ignorant:  (That's me,)

1.  How important is pressurisation in a FWSAR aircraft?  I understand it might be more comfortable when repositioning over the BC hills but  is that a significant proportion of flight time?  How inconvenient is Oxygen? Is building a pressurised  aircraft  with a big rear ramp not more expensive than it is worth for this application?

2.  I apologise for asking,  I have tried surfing and not found the answer.  Can anyone tell me how the performance of, say, the Spartan compares to the Buffalo,  and operational cost,  very roughly?

3.  If I read between the lines right a good spec for the next FWSAR is 50 knots over the buffalo for dash, extra range and available time in the air per mission,  still the same slow speed characteristics and STOL.  How about size?  Has the SAR equipment  etc  grown too or can the Buffalo handle it fine?

4.  Again, reading between the lines,  there is no  civilian market that ends up with an airplane that fulfils this spec or even close, so anyone who designs and builds a plane to suit is only looking at military markets for their production run.  Are there any other military uses for which such an aircraft would be suitable?  Given the answer to that, what is the possible market world wide for such a plane.  Surely there must be any number of countries that have a similar need. 

5.  Given the discussion above on suiting operations to the aircraft, is there an obvious change or improvement we could make in our style of operations that would change the ideal spec, and how?  Is there a situation that arises today that we can not handle and what would we need to handle it?

I would be at Comox Saturday  but I have a graduation ceremony to attend.    Infuriating,  I'll be over there 11 Saturday night!


----------



## newfin

Well, I have a question to add to the that i would like answered.  What are other countries using to do SAR in their mountain regions?  We are using the Buffalo.  What are the Americans using?  the European countries around the Alps?
If we need an aircraft to fly slowly through the valleys then they must have the same requirement.


----------



## McG

Mountains are only part of the equation.  European countries don’t have to worry about the distances we find in BC alone.


----------



## geo

... also, landlocked countries don't have to worry about flying over so much water.


----------



## Zoomie

European countries rely upon Helo assets for a majority of their SAR response.  Geography permits this...

The Russians rely on a mixed bag of RW and FW assets - their fledgling federal aviation agency is still working out the details...

We could eliminate the need of FWSAR - we would just have to increase the SAR budget by about 500% and place RW assets at every major aerodrome across the country - or just keep using FWSAR.


----------



## ChrisG

I wish I could wave the magic wand and order the right aircraft right now.  The questions were asked not as criticism or 'may be we don't need'   (I believe we do, more and better,)  but to try and understand what a good spec. would be and ,  when we do make achoice,  why it might be good or bad.

Something I learned from this site:  In a typical forces scenario we order enough planes but after a while,maybe when we are talking about replacement, we don't replace those lost by attrition,  then we end up with a fleet that is 'tight' for purpose and can get stressed over capability.  Had not occurred to me before.


----------



## Haletown

Looks like the Spartan wins won . . .

C-27J tapped for Joint Cargo Aircraft

By Gayle S. Putrich - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jun 13, 2007 19:37:43 EDT

The Pentagon gave the go-ahead late Wednesday for the Army and Air Force to award the $2 billion Joint Cargo Aircraft contract to the C-27J Spartan team of L-3 Communications Holdings, Boeing and Alenia North America, a unit of Italy’s Finmeccanica.

The Italian airframe beat out the smaller C-295, offered by Raytheon and EADS. Lockheed Martin pulled the already-in-service C-130J out of the competition last year.

The services received approval to buy 78 planes over the next six years, with 54 going to the Army and 24 to the Air Force





RTR at 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/06/defense_JCA_070613/


----------



## McG

Haletown said:
			
		

> Looks like the Spartan wins won . . .


Maybe, but the Pentagon does not normally give "the go-ahead" in Canadian equipment selection.  I think you have some lines crossed here.


----------



## Haletown

The information is provided as a point of interest.   

Equipment procurement, esp. expensive bits of kit like aircraft, is influenced by the Pentagon.  The Brick Brain on the Rideau, home of the tall foreheads that make the decisions, probably keeps an eye, or at least a blink, on what the Pentagon is doing.

Just a thought.


----------



## Zoomie

This decision could very well be a defining point in this procurement enterprise.  With the USAF and US Army as large customers, the CF can piggy back on their supply chain and training environment.  We could conceivable alleviate the exorbitant cost of a simulator by buying time off the USAF - like we do with the U.K.'s Merlin simulator for our Cormorant pilots. 

Again the commonality of parts with the J Model hercs may also lend towards making this deal a little sweeter.  Having such a huge pool of engines, props and other components all in North America would drastically shorten the supply chain between our forces (both US and Canadian) and the Italian manufacturer.

Just food for thought - nothing official here, please move on...


----------



## Haletown

good backgrounder

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/12/214528/frontline-warrior-the-alenia-aeronautica-c-27-spartan.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_--C-130J vs. C-27J for tactical airlifter:

...[A certain reporter] reports a great economy with the truth
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/david-********-reports-great-economy.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A post at _The Torch_--C-130J vs. C-27J for tactical airlifter:
> 
> ...[A certain reporter] reports a great economy with the truth
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/david-********-reports-great-economy.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



WTF?  "great economy"?!?  I think the word is "misleading"


----------



## MarkOttawa

I_am_John_Galt: I use the word "misleading" in the text.  "Economy with the truth" is commonly used as a polite way of saying "lying". 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

Mod edit: we've had legal troubles here before, let's not bring that back on us.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haletown: Actually it's space in the _Ottawa Citizen_. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

oops  . . . .    my bads.

My apologies to the Ottawa Citizen for equating then with the Globe & Mail


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I_am_John_Galt: I use the word "misleading" in the text.  "Economy with the truth" is commonly used as a polite way of saying "lying".
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I am well aware of that, it's just that after this and some of his other articles I am starting to wonder if we should start using some plainer language 'cuz he doesn't seem to be getting the message!  We can go on about the difference between operational capabilities and (often rather desperate) marketing hype here (and on The Torch) all we want but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day it's his version that a lot more eyes are seeing (in the Citizen, etc.).


----------



## kj_gully

I am naive, but I don't understand why reporters need to misinform for no good purpose, it is almost propaganda vandalism to so cloud the true picture. I hope this EADS style crying isn't continued, I for one am ecstatic to open My Airforce. ca and read the C27 is coming to America. All the hype about the earlier C27 models problems for the US are now moot, and as Zoomie pointed out, commonality could ease the timeline as is happening for c17 and 130J purchases. Hopefully we can "strike while the iron is hot" and piggyback some for our poor SAR buffs and Herc's, B4 they start having uncommanded prop reversals and go down in a tangled mess.

Gully,out.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Blaming Afstan again, and suggesting more money for the CF than any government will realistically allocate (shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act):

Need rescuing? wait for a weekday
 Colin Kenny , _Calgary Herald_, June 26
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=751dcb20-f093-4b78-86b5-127afdeddaa0



> If you are a foundering fisherman off the Grand Banks, or a lost child in the Alberta foothills, or a downed pilot in remote territory outside of Yellowknife or a missing boater on the Great Lakes, here is my advice to you:
> 
> Do yourself a favour. Wait another five years or so to get in that kind of desperate trouble. Until then, the government of Canada isn't going to have the kind of resources it should have in place to rescue you.
> 
> One more thing. Don't go missing outside office hours. Canada's current search-and-rescue operations tend to go a bit limp on weekends and in the evenings. Urgency takes a breather in the interests of dollars and cents...
> 
> Even this government's Liberal predecessors -- notoriously parsimonious when it came to military spending -- recognized Canadians need an effective search and rescue capacity and in 2003 declared its upgrade a priority. Unfortunately, that government didn't approve the purchase of needed replacement fixed wing aircraft before it left office. The project was still in limbo when an election was called.
> 
> Priorities don't disappear when governments change -- or shouldn't. The Fixed Wing Search and Rescue Aircraft Project seemed to in good hands when the Conservatives announced during the campaign that the heart of their military policy would be "Canada First."
> 
> If there is anything that is "Canada First," it is maintaining a capable search and rescue capacity for its citizens and others visiting the country.
> 
> *But then the new government expanded Canada's commitment in Afghanistan, which has turned out to be a much more expensive proposition than expected* [emphasis added].
> 
> As a result -- shhh!! -- the Canada First policy has become a Canada Second policy, perhaps for the next five years, perhaps for much longer.
> 
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has ordered a review of Canada's Search and Rescue capacity in the wake of growing doubts about the government's claims that Canada will not run short of fixed wing aircraft to provide adequate Search and Rescue.
> 
> Fixed-wing aircraft are essential to Search and Rescue. They can go farther and faster than helicopters and keep the situation in hand while helicopters, ships or ground vehicles are en route. Most of the fixed wing aircraft the Canadian Forces has been using for search and rescue in recent years -- Buffaloes and Hercules -- are old.
> 
> The government announced purchases of 17 new Hercules in June 2006, but these will initially be needed in Afghanistan and will not be available for search and rescue in Canada until our commitment in Afghanistan ends in 2010 -- if it does end then.
> 
> The government claims it will make more of the current fleet of ungrounded Hercules available for search and rescue by purchasing C17s and C130Js for moving troops and equipment over long distances, an argument that has a degree of truth to it. But those Hercules are going to require more and more maintenance -- like the infamous Sea King Helicopters that spent many hours in the shop for every hour they spent in the air.
> 
> Meanwhile, skimping on search and rescue makes responses to potential tragedies more dangerous on weekends. While search-and-rescue squadrons must be ready to fly within 30 minutes of any emergency during daytime working hours from Monday to Friday, the maximum response time is two hours in the evening hours and on weekends.
> 
> The Canadian Press recently reported that the Department of National Defence has estimated that as much as $2 billion would have to be added to DND's budget to ensure a 30-minute response capacity around the clock, seven days a week...
> 
> *Sooner or later a Canadian government is going to have to recognize that we Canadians are spending far less on our military capacity than most other reasonable mid-sized countries. At home or abroad, there is a price to pay for that* [emphasis added].
> 
> Senator Colin Kenny is Chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. He can be reached via email at kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Beat you (for once)  

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63642.0.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

A useful comment on the article at Colin's topic:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63642/post-582935.html#msg582935

I was just trying to keep the needle in the same thread :-*!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

Looks like this is still alive.

Fair dealings.........etc.


Ottawa to replace aircraft
Some search and rescue planes are more than 40 years old
By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press | 4:42 AM
ADVERTISEMENT 



OTTAWA — The new commander of Canada’s air force says proposals to replace the country’s aging fleet of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft will soon be put before the government.

The Conservatives have already spent nearly $13-billion on other new aircraft, notably the gigantic C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift transport.

But Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, who took over air force command on Thursday, said replacing fixed-wing search and rescue planes is a priority.

"Right now for fixed-wing search and rescue we are relying on two of the oldest fleets, which are the Hercules and the Buffalo," he said following sweltering induction ceremony on the tarmac at Canadian Aviation Museum.

"We can continue to extend their lives and they can continue to fly safely, but at a certain point it becomes uneconomical to keep refurbishing."

The former Liberal government proposed to replace the aircraft, some of which are more than 40 years old, with 15 brand new planes.

But the $2.1-billion program has been stalled within the bureaucracy and sidelined by big-ticket purchases, such as the C-17s, the medium-lift C-130J, and the CH-47 Chinook battlefield transport helicopters, all of which are seen as essential for the war in Afghanistan.

Last winter, Watt’s predecessor, Lt.-Gen Steve Lucas, told a House of Commons committee that the air force was looking at putting new engines on the Buffalos, which bear a striking resemblance to Second World War medium bombers.

"What we’re trying to do is find that point where we can draw down those older planes and draw up new airplanes and we’re putting proposals in front of the government to that end," said Watt, a former Sea King pilot who’s also done a deputy-command stint in Afghanistan.

"It takes, from the time we sign the contract (to delivery), three years. The key problem is getting to the signature on the contract. It’s hard to predict how long that will take. The sooner the better."

When the project was first announced in the spring of 2004, it was expected the last of the new planes would be on the tarmac by April 2009.

The EADS-CASA C-295 and the Alenia C-27J Spartan are believed to be the main contenders, but there has also been talk that Montreal-based Bombardier is interested in bidding.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A link for the post immediately above:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/849805.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

If the Buffalo works why not buy new ones.  If Viking can resurrect the DH6 I'm sure they would do the same for the Buf provided the price was right!


----------



## geo

Short answer.... it would only be a very "short" production run.
Most other countries that bought the Buffalo 40 some years ago have phased em out and gone on to other aircraft that meet their regional requirements... So any company that were to tool up a Buff production run would be doing it for the CFs order - ONLY... and that would be a very pricey $$$$$$$$$$$$ option.


----------



## YZT580

I can dream can't I.  It was a great airplane for its time.  But why Bombardier are they thinking of supplying the 415.  Canada went out of the amphib. search and rescue business when they disposed of the Alberts.  Except for the Otters on floats of course.


----------



## geo

well.... who knows?

The CL415 does have some interesting characteristics and landing on water is only one of them.
It's entirely up to the CF to determine what they want in their SAR platform.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

geo said:
			
		

> any company that were to tool up a Buff production run would be doing it for the CFs order - ONLY... and that would be a very pricey $$$$$$$$$$$$ option.



FWIW, the company that has the rights to all of the old DHC aircraft (up to the DHC-7/Dash 7) is based in Victoria, BC (Viking Air ... have we mentioned that already?), so at least CANCON wouldn't be an issue ... I can't help but wonder what kind of numbers they would need to make it profitable to remanufacture the existing airframes...


----------



## George Wallace

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> FWIW, the company that has the rights to all of the old DHC aircraft (up to the DHC-7/Dash 7) is based in Victoria, BC (Viking Air ... have we mentioned that already?), ........



Yes.  In yet another thread.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer

This seemed to fit into the context of this thread....

*Feds scope out Brazilian Buffalos for spare parts*
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2007/10/22/4595130-sun.html
By CP


In order to keep its 40-year-old Buffalo search-and-rescue planes in the air, Canadian air force planners are crossing their fingers that they can get their hands on Brazil's fleet of CC-115s, which may soon be retired. 

The air force intends to keep its six twin-engine Buffalos flying until 2015. But an internal Defence Department analysis warns that extending the life of the aircraft will be "precarious" because of dwindling spare parts. 

One alternative would be to "investigate the potential retirement of the Brazilian Buffalo fleet," said an undated options analysis obtained by the New Democrats under access to information laws. "This could be a potential source of spares for some critically needed components."


----------



## GAP

Air force wants retiring Brazilian planes to keep aging Canadian Buffalos going
Article Link

OTTAWA - In order to keep its 40-year-old Buffalo search and rescue planes in the air, Canadian air force planners are crossing their fingers that they can get their hands on Brazil's fleet of CC-115s, which may soon be retired.

The air force intends to keep its six twin-engine Buffalos, relatively slow planes that operate primarily on the West Coast, flying until 2015.

But an internal Defence Department analysis warns that extending the life of the already antiquated aircraft will be "precarious" because of dwindling spare parts.

One alternative would be to "investigate the potential retirement of the Brazilian Buffalo fleet," said an undated options analysis obtained by the federal New Democrats under access to information laws.

"This could be a potential source of spares for some critically needed components. This option would need to be exercised in a relatively short time period in order to prevent equipment from being sold in bulk to other operators."

Brazil and Canada are the only two countries left in the world that fly that particular variant of the CC-115. The most critical shortage of spares involves the engines, but the analysis warns that many of the suppliers simply don't make parts for the vintage aircraft any longer.

Defence Department officials responsible for material were not available to say whether they have actually pursued the Brazilian option for spare parts.

The former Liberal government set aside $3 billion in 2004 to replace the country's fixed-wing search planes, including the Buffalo and the air force's older model C-130 Hercules.
More on link


----------



## Zoomie

This plan has already slipped to the right.  Apparently the Brazilians are not so eager to get rid of their Buffalo's.  They were replacing them with the EADS C-295 and have discovered that they weren't quite up to the job that was being presented to them.  Apparently EADS made these machines look better on paper than they really were - big shocker there!


----------



## geo

Drats!

Just goes to show you how good the venerable Buffalo is - even in it's geriatric years.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Funny how old tech often offers stuff that new tech doesn't. The key is mixing the old and new into a package that offers the best of both worlds.


----------



## geo

.... also - the expression "reinvent the wheel" comes to mind.

When you get down to it, a Typhoon, a Corsair or a Skyraider would make a good weapons platform for CAS... Low tech solutions to today's problems.


----------



## karl28

http://www.vikingair.com/uploadedFiles/to_brochure.pdf

      Hey every one was just wondering what ever happened to the SAR fixed wing replacement program ?   I found this link in regards to the new Twin Otter production line was wondering if the new Otter would be  a good replacement for the old ones  ?   
        Also to the Mods I couldn't find a Topic on this but if there is one please move thanks


----------



## geo

Karl... if you do a search for "viking air" you will get a hit.... on this thread

Look around post 100.... has been discussed & opinions expressed.


----------



## MarkOttawa

karl28: From July but I think still relevant:

Fixed-wing SAR replacement: "we’re putting proposals in front of the government to that end"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/fixed-wing-sar-replacement-were-putting.html

From October:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/10/21/4594133-cp.html



> In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, the new Chief of Air Staff, Lt.-Gen Angus Watt, said purchasing new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft is among his six top priorities, but couldn't say when the project will move forward.
> 
> Since the replacement program was first announced there have been allegations within the defence industry that the competition was being narrowed so that only one aircraft was seen to be able to meet the Defence Department's requirements.
> 
> The air force has denied the claims and Finnemore said a statement of requirements is still being drafted by military planners.
> 
> In the meantime, the first step in the Buffalo refurbishment program, which has been approved and funded, is to update the electronics, including emergency locator beacons and cockpit voice recorders.
> 
> Replacing the engines and propellers on each of the antiquated aircraft would be the biggest job by far, but Finnemore said that aspect of the upgrade has not been given the green light.



Some context:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/everyones-procurement-expert.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/fixed-wing-sar-replacement-single.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## karl28

geo  Hey man thanks for that information .  I should of did a better search,  I went through  the topics didn't notice this one .


MarkOttawa  

  Thanks for the link will be interesting read


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Has there been a military procurement in the west involving aircraft, that hasn't involved lawsuits, potential corruption and government flip flop? The only one I can think of recently is the Canadian C-17 buy.


----------



## geo

the sole sourcing of C17s DID raise suggestions of corruption or poor management practices... even if Boeing is the only possible provider of this size aircraft.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> the sole sourcing of C17s DID raise suggestions of corruption or poor management practices... even if Boeing is the only possible provider of this size aircraft.....



Canadian definition of poor management in aircraft procurement= Not enough money spent in traditional Liberal riding's....... ;D

Of course O'Connor was accused of being a Lobbyist for the Industrial - military complex, neglecting to mention he worked on behalf of Airbus(t)  :


----------



## geo

I would venture to say that the Conservatives would have howled just as hard if the Lib gov't had single sourced & bypassed the procurement process... It's the nature of the beast IMHO


----------



## MarkOttawa

geo: No "venture" needed:

DEFENCE POLICY: CONSERVATIVES THE NEW LIBERALS (internal link no longer exists)
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005351.html



> National Defence critic Gordon O'Connor (Brig. Gen. ret'd) blows it, in my opinion.
> 
> O'Connor said he strongly supports streamlined military procurement practices, but he says the Liberal method will hurt competition and favour certain products - Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport plane, for example.
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin has said getting what the military needs takes precedence over regional and industrial benefits.
> 
> O'Connor said he also supports what he calls the "sensible" Liberal concept of setting out requirements based on performance needs. But he said regional and industrial benefits are a must in any military procurement.
> 
> It's the regional and industrial benefits that the Liberals have previously always pushed, for votes, that have in large measure made the equipment acquisition process so overly slow and costly.
> 
> And if O'Connor can suggest a better plane than the C-130J for the tactical transport, why does he not do so?



Plus ça...funny old world.  And how soon we forget.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

heh.... something about the king's new clothes


----------



## Bandit1

Well, we'd better get them soon, because apparantly the Liberals want to use them to demonstrate our sovereignty in the North...please, try not to laugh to hard and fall of your chair like I did when I read this...



> *Dion suggests ways to assert Canadian arctic sovereignty*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> December 8, 2007 at 7:52 PM EST
> 
> Yellowknife — Federal Liberal Stephane Dion says a move as simple as stationing a handful of search and rescue planes could help stake out sovereignty over Canada's North.
> 
> Mr. Dion promised a Liberal government would station two planes in Yellowknife and two in Iqaluit, in order to foster both development and a sense that Canada is caring for people who live in the North.
> 
> “This is something important to do for the people here, to have economic opportunity but also to, again, establish our sovereignty, to show that when it's time to rescue life in the north, Canadians are well-equipped.”
> 
> At the Yellowknife airport before departing for Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, Mr. Dion also said he would make another move to show a Liberal government would take care of the north.
> 
> “We'll re-establish the ambassador for the Arctic, something the Conservatives have shamefully cut,” he said.
> 
> He plans to highlight his experiences from his three-day swing through the Arctic when meeting with international leaders about climate change in Bali, Indonesia.
> 
> He says key issues he'll raise will be the massive infrastructure woes that will be caused by melting permafrost and the potential for species to become extinct as temperatures rise.
> 
> “All these buildings, these roads have been created with the certainty the permafrost would stay frozen, and now, because of climate change, it's changing, and it will create a huge infrastructure cost in the North,” he said.
> 
> In an earlier stop in Whitehorse, Mr. Dion pledged to create a centre to study how the North can adapt to climate change, and added similar facilities may make sense in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071208.wdion_north1208/BNStory/National/



Bandit


----------



## Zoomie

Glad you posted it here Bandit - I never stray into the politics section.


----------



## MarkOttawa

M. Dion is ignoring the fact that no-one (other the Danes at Hans Island) is challenging our sovereignty over *land* in the Arctic.  It's the waterways and some parts of the sea that are at issue and SAR aircraft are not terribly relevant to those questions.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

> *Alenia's C-27J Wins Romanian Contract*
> 
> fter a competition that saw the Alenia Aeronautica's C-27J Spartan/ "Baby Herc" face off against EADS-CASA's C-295M, Alenia Aeronautica announced on Dec 1/06 [PDF] that Romania's Ministry of Defence has began exclusive final negotiations for 7 light tactical transports, plus support et. al. The planes will also be equipped with a complete (but as-yet unspecified) self-protection system to allow them to carry out missions in high-threat areas. The Romanian contract was expected to be signed by the end of 2006.
> 
> The contract took much longer, and was interspersed with some drama along the way, but a contract has finally been signed…
> 
> n February 2007, the Romanian Defense Ministry stopped negotiations with Alenia Aeronautica, after Romania's National Authority Controlling the Public Procurement upheld *EADS' complaint that it was the lowest price bidde*r, "which was the parameter defined by the tender procedure as the criteria for decision." *It did not dispute the ministry's technical parameters and evaluations, however, which had given the C-27J an edge.* Alenia appealed the NCSC decision, and the matter was referred to a Romanian court.
> 
> Defense News reported that even if the appeal failed, a Defense Ministry spokesman had said that Romania's Ministry of Defense would simply relaunch its competition. Presumably with a revised set of conditions that gave its technical criteria more weight.
> 
> n the end, that wasn't necessary. The Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, but "it rejected the request made by Alenia to make it mandatory for Romanian authorities to seal the contract with the Italian company." The contract thus remained uncertain, as the C-27J's selection remained controversial in Romania. ...


 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/alenias-c27j-staked-to-lead-role-in-negotiations-for-romanian-contract-02847/


----------



## Blackadder1916

Antique search planes to be replaced in 2014; critics call them Tories' Sea Kings
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/04/13/pf-5275276.html


> By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS  April 13, 2008
> 
> OTTAWA - Canada's geriatric fleet of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, originally ordered replaced five years ago, will have to keep flying until at least 2014 and possibly longer, federal budget documents have revealed.
> 
> The air force has been struggling to keep its 40-year-old, twin-engine Buffalos in the air along the West Coast, where their slow speed makes them ideal for searching mountain ranges.
> 
> Opposition critics say the unacceptable delay in replacing the six aircraft - which face frequent downtime because of a looming shortage of spare parts - makes a mockery the Conservative government's self-titled Canada First defence strategy.
> 
> "It's laughable," said New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black, a British Columbia MP.
> 
> "Search and rescue is becoming the orphan-child of the Canadian Forces in terms of equipment."
> 
> The air force relies on both the Buffalo and an aging flight of C-130 Hercules cargo planes for fixed-wing search. In addition, there 14 CH-149 Cormorant helicopters, which have had a spotty in-service record because of a shortage of spare parts.
> 
> Black said the Conservatives' procrastination over the Buffalo has started to look a lot like the former Liberal government's decade-long puttering replacement program for Sea King helicopters.
> 
> "They are just so preoccupied with the war in Afghanistan that nothing else really registers," said Black, whose party was adamantly opposed to the extension of the Afghan mission.
> 
> *The Defence Department's report on plans and priorities for the new budget year says the Buffalo replacement project will only proceed into its definition phase this year, with the delivery of new aircraft not expected until 2014-15. *
> 
> The new chief of air staff, Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, said at his swearing-in ceremony last summer that a proposal for new fixed-wing search planes would go before the federal cabinet "soon."
> 
> The air force had done contingency planning to keep the Buffalos flying until 2015, but officials said last fall that no firm decision had been made because there was concern about a dwindling supply of spare parts.
> 
> In order to carry on until then, air staff planners said they would have to purchase retired Brazilian air force Buffalos to cannibalize.
> 
> The Conservatives promised in the last election campaign to replace the Buffalos with 15 brand-new aircraft. The pledge came one year after the former Liberal government announced it was spending $3 billion to buy new search planes - a promise that couldn't be fulfilled before the defeat of Paul Martin's government.
> 
> One of the aircraft-makers that has been waiting five years for the replacement project to get under way says Canadian aerospace companies could end up being hurt by a prolonged delay.
> 
> Aleina North America, a subsidiary of Italian-owned Alenia Aeronautica, has been trying to convince the Defence Department to look at its C-27J Spartan.
> 
> The company recently won a major contract with the Pentagon, and president Giuseppe Giordo said they have been talking with potential Canadian part suppliers.
> 
> "The program has already been delayed so long," Giordo said in an interview.
> 
> "The Canadian government has obviously decided to proceed with more pressing programs, related to Afghanistan, such as the C-17 (heavy-lift planes) and the C-130-J (medium-lift aircraft). But clearly one day or another the Canadian government will have to take care of its domestic needs."
> 
> Giordo said the current fleet is old and he wonders whether it can hold on until 2014-15.
> 
> The air force is proceeding with a life-extension program on the Buffalos that is expected to cost around $75 million. The work will focus on replacing the engines, strengthening the airframes and replacing the landing gear.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Mod edited to comply with Milnet.ca policy.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## geo

Viking Air purchased all the DeHaviland designs some years ago... Beaver, Twin Otter & Buffalo

Problem with anyone tooling up for a new fleet of Buffalos is that, we'd probably be the only client for the aricraft - making the unit cost of each plane a very expensive proposition...  Might be wrong but I think everyone else has phased out their Buffs - for lack of spare parts...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Not sure on that geo but according to Wikipedia,



> Operators
> Abu Dhabi
> Brazil
> Cameroon
> Canada Canadian Forces
> Chile: Chilean Air Force (Retired)
> Democratic Republic of the Congo (previously  Zaire)
> Ecuador
> Egypt
> Indonesia
> Kenya
> Mauritania
> Mexico: Mexican Navy
> Oman: Oman Police Air Wing
> Peru Peruvian Air Force (Retired)
> Sudan
> Tanzania
> Togo
> United States: United States Army
> Zambia


----------



## geo

Many have had them but few continue to use em.

You'll find that the US flew the DHC4 Caribou VS the DHC5 Buffalo...



> http://argent.canoe.com/infos/canada/archives/2007/10/20071022-072854.html
> Le Brésil et le Canada sont les deux seuls pays au monde à encore utiliser ce modèle particulier de CC-115. Il a été impossible de rejoindre les dirigeants du ministère de la Défense nationale responsables du matériel afin de savoir s'ils avaient tenté d'exploiter l'option brésilienne pour obtenir des pièces de rechange.



Let,s face it, these birds are long in the tooth and it's only because of our stubborn procrastination that we are continuing to fly the Buffs.  Other countries with a smaller industrial capacity will prolly have had to push em off to the scrap yard a long time ago...


----------



## inferno

So is the aircraft currently near the Terminal in Cold Lake right now a C-27? Because it looks from the back.. like a herc that had 2 engines removed?


----------



## geo

Inferno .... you've just described a Buffalo


----------



## Nfld Sapper

C-27








CC-115  Buffalo

Note the difference between a C-27 and the CC-115.

C-27 looks like a Herc while the CC-115 looks like a DASH-8 Aircraft to me (I.E. Similar body design except for the ramp).


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> Inferno .... you've just described a Buffalo



 :

Or a C-160 transal, or a C-27 or..........


----------



## Haletown

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Or a C-160 transal, or a C-27 or..........



   . . . .  or an Aeritalia/Alenia G.222


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> . . . .  or an Aeritalia/Alenia G.222



Thanks for proving my point !


----------



## Haletown

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thanks for proving my point !



Most welcome sir . .  always try to help.

That's actually a rare bird to be seen in North America  . .. the USAF only has ten (?) of them.


----------



## inferno

They're French C160s.

And the Buff looks nothing like a Herc... unless you ignore the nose, tail, wings, cabin, fuselage, ramp, gear, cockpit...


----------



## geo

... but then again, you didn't specify that they weren't Canadian aircraft.


----------



## Haletown

inferno said:
			
		

> They're French C160s.




  If you are referring to the USAF aircraft in the picture above  in post # 582 . .  it is a  G222  or C27 in USAF livery.

USAF never operated the 160's and those engines aren't RR Tynes.


----------



## inferno

If you are referring to my post above, it is referring to my post above it.

Unless the Americans have started flying around with "Armée de l'Air" stenciled on the side of their aircraft?


----------



## Haletown

inferno said:
			
		

> If you are referring to my post above, it is referring to my post above it.
> 
> Unless the Americans have started flying around with "Armée de l'Air" stenciled on the side of their aircraft?



Well then we must be in agreement.

Because in the post I  referenced, #582, the C27, the one with the big  "US Air Force" stenciled on the fuselage, is clearly not a C160 . . .  engines being a clear Type marker in this  case and the picture clearly shows not a Tyne in sight.

I do miss the unique sound of the Tynes . . .  they were on the Fairchild 227's that Nordair used on DEW Line Lateral flights and when you heard them, it meant you were "getting out".  Fond memories.


----------



## Good2Golf

Haletown said:
			
		

> Well then we must be in agreement.
> 
> Because in the post I  referenced, #582, the C27, the one with the big  "US Air Force" stenciled on the fuselage, is clearly not a C160 . . .  engines being a clear Type marker in this  case and the picture clearly shows not a Tyne in sight.
> 
> I do miss the unique sound of the Tynes . . .  they were on the Fairchild 227's that Nordair used on DEW Line Lateral flights and when you heard them, it meant you were "getting out".  Fond memories.



[OT alert]

Haletown, the Tyne did indeed have a characteristic noise, as did the Dart....funny how there are soem things you remember like that!

Cheers
G2G

[/OT alert]


----------



## Haletown

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> [OT alert]
> 
> Haletown, the Tyne did indeed have a characteristic noise, as did the Dart....funny how there are soem things you remember like that!
> 
> Cheers
> G2G
> 
> [/OT alert]



 ya know, now that I think about it  . .  those 227's had Dart's not Tynes . . . .  and they were a unique sound.

Nothing could vibrate your sinuses like a Dart  . . or a Tyne


----------



## Good2Golf

...yup, the Vanguard had Tynes, though...


----------



## MarkOttawa

From someone there, three French C-160 Transalls.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From someone there, three French C-160 Transalls.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Mark, where is "there" ??

I'm missing something  . . . maybe it's the stupid pills I'm taking for the pain. . .  I have the great joy of having a Shingles attack so I'm not sure sometimes if I'm making any sense


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haletown: The Cool Pool.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Haletown: The Cool Pool.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Clue 1  "there"

Clue 2  "The Cool Pool"

I need clue 3  . . . .   still confusing myself to a point of "no comprende senor"


----------



## McG

Clue 3: 


			
				inferno said:
			
		

> So is the aircraft currently *near the Terminal in Cold Lake* right now a C-27?





			
				inferno said:
			
		

> They're French C160s.





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From someone there, three French C-160 Transalls.


----------



## Haletown

many thnx . . .  

So we are talking about different posts.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haletown: This is the comment I had in mind:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889/post-712726.html#msg712726

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Rescue planes may not last, review warns
Continued support 'very precarious' for aging and balky CC-115 Buffalos that patrol B.C. and Yukon, study finds 
STEVEN CHASE From Monday's Globe and Mail May 26, 2008 at 3:41 AM EDT
Article Link

OTTAWA — The Canadian military has been warned internally that there's no guarantee the aging search-and-rescue planes it uses to patrol the West Coast and B.C. mountains will be able to keep running until 2015, the date for replacement aircraft recently unveiled by the Harper government.

The former Liberal government earmarked $1.3-billion in the 2004 budget to buy new search-and-rescue planes for Canada as early as January, 2009, but they didn't move ahead with it and neither has the Harper government.

Instead, the Conservatives have so far focused military equipment spending on items that are useful for the war in Afghanistan, such as the $3.4-billion paid for gigantic C-17 cargo-lifter planes last year.

In the meantime, Canada's aging search and rescue planes, such as the 41-year-old CC-115 Buffalos that patrol British Columbia and Yukon coastlines and mountains, have been plagued by breakdowns, a shortage of parts and frequent downtime for repairs.
More on link


----------



## Richie

Quote from article:

"NDP defence critic Dawn Black accused the Tories of taking British Columbians for granted by waiting so long to replace search and rescue planes."

'I certainly hope we don't see some sort of disaster before this government acts.'"


Life must be so nice in the Party of Perpetual Opposition; never having to do anything but criticize. It seems to me that the Chretien Liberals took _all_ Canadians for granted by not properly funding the military. The Liberals were in power for thirteen years, the Tories have been in office for just over two years and this is therefore the fault of the Tories. Incredible logic! :


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What would be the likelhood of keeping a couple of the smaller Hercs being replaced by the J model to take up some of the work for the buffs, till a replacement is in place?


----------



## Zoomie

Hercules were initially slated to come to Comox many years ago.  Our new 14 Hangar is designed to hold two of them.  A study determined that they could not maneuver in the rocks as required for the job.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What about keeping one for the coastal/offshore jobs? It would reduce hours on the buff airframe, but I could see it cause some issues with keeping pilots and crews trained in both aircraft.


----------



## Zoomie

Unlike Atlantic Canada and the Halifax SRR - we have under 5 missions a year that involve going out to sea.  The other 200+ missions are all intra-coastal or in the rocks.


----------



## McG

I know the V-22 question has been asked, but all the replies were that it was still developmental and therefore not worth considering.  This thread has been alive for a few years now & the V-22 has its problems ironed out and is operational.  Are opinions of our SAR community still generally fixed against such a platform?

Digging through this thread, it would appear that these are the requirements being put forward by those informed on FWSAR operations:


1.	Capable Search Platform – Must have (or ability to mount) bubble search windows on either side of fuselage & a modern electro-optical search suite including multi-spectral (colour & IR at least).

2.	Speed – Must fly as fast as possible from base to search area

3.	Endurance – Must fly from base to search area, conduct search and return to base (or staging airfield) with longest possible time in the air

4.	low & slow – Must be able to fly sufficiently slow so as to be safe in mountains & allow the observers to do their complicated job (maximum acceptable minimum speed is 130 or 140 knots but the ability to fly even slower is better)

5.	Cabin height – Must allow sufficient room for crew to stand (particularly para-rescue)

6.	Cargo Capacity – Must have space & lift for all required Eqpt (at least 3,000 lbs) & be compatible with Hercules Standard (108 x 88) pallets.

7.	Cargo Ramp – Must have a ramp to drop palletized stores (such as MAJAID kit)

8.	Fit for mountain flying – Must not be overly sensitive to unusual & violent air patterns near the tops of mountains

9.	Fit for the arctic – Must have APU to keep system up in arctic airfields without external power, must not become excessively leaky of POL, and must provide heated crew area

10.	Military ruggedness/durability

11.	Lift – Must be able to take off from very short airstrips (including from the bottom of tight deep valleys)

12.	Reliability, Availability & Maintainability – The aircraft must be in working operational order the vast majority of the time, with system failures being rare & repair being a relatively quick & painless affair (even from austere fields)

… and these would be the nice to haves:


1.	Have the ability to act as air ambulance (patient movement from an airfield/airport to another airport in location with better medical facilities.

2.	Conduct post search recovery (typically the job of helicopters, and not possible by FWSAR unless using some form of VTOL)

3.	Fleet rationalization - Also fit for the role of a light utility transport.

4.	How important is pressurisation in a FWSAR aircraft?


----------



## GAP

Hmmm....the V-22 seems to answer to all those points....


----------



## McG

It might, but I really don't know.

Wikipedia (and I know it can be dangerous to trust) suggests that one of the reasons the V-22 were shipped to Iraq as opposed to flying themselves was a fear of in-flight icing.  If this really is a concern for the the aircraft, then I cannot see it meeting Canada's needs.  But (again) this is Wikipedia information & I have not seen it from any second reliable source.


----------



## GAP

I believe they have solved icing problems in planes.....no?


----------



## Mountie

Could the V-22 also fill the role of the CH-149, permitting them to be sold off or used as tactical helicopters in addition to the future CH-147 Chinook?


----------



## Zoomie

Good synopsis MCG.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> 4.	How important is pressurisation in a FWSAR aircraft?




Currently we operate the Buffalo sans pressurization - it doesn't restrict us from flying over 10,000'MSL - it's just a royal PITA.  I believe that this requirement has been added to the SOR.

In order to fly anywhere except up to Alaska - we require IFR altitudes in excess of 10k' MSL.  This then requires the crew to don helmets and greatly restricts our ability to work effectively, basically we are strictly in transport mode at that time.


----------



## Good2Golf

Mountie said:
			
		

> Could the V-22 also fill the role of the CH-149, permitting them to be sold off or used as tactical helicopters in addition to the future CH-147 Chinook?



The V-22 has incredible rotor downwash that would not be well suited to many of the regions that current rotary-wing SAR assets operate (thinking of mountainous regions, etc...)  The V-22 combines elements of both a helicopter and a plane, but in so doing, not only bridges the differences, but also limits the indiviual benefits of the separate types (i.e. doesn't hover as well as a helicopter, not a fast as the FWSAR assets could be.)  Not surprisingly, it's best suited to the littoral transport of MEU elements as used by the USMC for which it was designed.  

G2G


----------



## McG

Mountie said:
			
		

> Could the V-22 also fill the role of the CH-149, permitting them to be sold off or used as tactical helicopters in addition to the future CH-147 Chinook?


Recognizing that it is a gross oversimplification, here is a bit of a stats comparison (again depending on Wikipedia for accurate information  :-\)


----------



## Zoomie

Those stats are very rough and slightly inaccurate.  The range for the Buff is on the low side with the corresponding range for the Cormorant being a little too high.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Unlike Atlantic Canada and the Halifax SRR - we have under 5 missions a year that involve going out to sea.  The other 200+ missions are all intra-coastal or in the rocks.



Sheesh times have changed, I can remember a lot more sea based searches than that during my days on the R-class cutters and hovercraft.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin, 

I am going to guess it is due to the lack of salmon, lack of whiting and the associated Poles and the rise in inexperienced urbanite rockclimbers, bikers, backpackers, skiers and snowboarders.

Tax dollars are no longer used to support people earning a living but instead idiots putting themselves at risk for fun and excitement.

Chris.


----------



## Don2wing

Here is a news release from Viking Air Ltd's President on the old Buffalo:

Venerable Buffalo is no aviation 'orphan'
Island company owns the plane's production rights, and supplies parts
  
David Curtis 
Special to Times Colonist 


Friday, May 30, 2008


It is wrong to suggest that the Buffalo aircraft -- known as the CC-115 in military service and DHC-5 in civilian use -- is an "orphan" with no "ready supply of spare parts," as has been suggested in the Times Colonist. Viking Air Ltd. will not let that happen.

Viking, which is located at Victoria International Airport, is the Transport Canada-approved design owner (known as a type certificate) for the Buffalo and is responsible for worldwide support of the aircraft.

Viking Air Ltd. takes this responsibility very seriously. Viking did not acquire the DHC-1 through DHC-7 (which includes the Buffalo) type certificates and production rights from Bombardier in 2006 simply to abandon them and their owner/operators.

In fact, the service and support of these aircraft is the primary business focus of Viking and our almost 300 employees. Viking and our support partner Field Aviation of Calgary are committed to supporting the Buffalo fleet and working with the Department of National Defence in building a sustainment model to ensure that the Buffalo aircraft meets the current and anticipated needs of our Armed Forces in a safe and effective manner.

De Havilland Canada aircraft are known the world over as rugged, versatile and effective transports.

Viking is evaluating all the production opportunities related to the aircraft programs it purchased from Bombardier and has already restarted production of the venerable, multi-mission Twin Otter transport, which had been out of production since 1988, because the worldwide demand for new examples is strong.

Viking intends to build the Twin Otters, sell them and support them as only it knows how.

As a long-term supplier of support to the "heritage" de Havilland Canada fleet of DHC-2 Beavers, DHC-3 Otters, DHC-4 Caribous, DHC-5 Buffalos, DHC-6 Twin Otters, and DHC-7 Dash 7s, Viking is, and will remain, dedicated to its in-service support responsibilities.

Of the aircraft types designed in the '60s, the Buffalo is one of the few that can continue in service without having to undergo a major (and massively costly) rebuild/replacement of fuselage or wings in order to remain structurally viable.

According to our records, more than half the original fleet of Buffalos are still in service around the world. Considering that production stopped in 1986, this alone is a testament to the aircraft's durability, the loyalty of its users and the support provided by Viking and our partners.

It is hardly an "orphan."

The Australian army is still actively using the DHC-4 Caribou, the Buffalo's 1950s predecessor, for the simple reason that nothing else can do what it does. Many other aircraft types proposed as replacements were designed in the '60s and have undergone massive modernizations and risen to become aircraft like the C-130J and the C-27J.

The costs to buy these modernized aircraft are unfortunately so astronomical that most air forces have little appetite for a fleet change until it becomes the only operational alternative.

It is our opinion that the Buffalo could be modernized by an all-Canadian team in order for it to serve the specialized mission of the DND for many years to come, at a fraction of the cost of a new fleet of C-27Js.

As we have found with the Twin Otter, there is nothing else produced today that will do what the Buffalo is capable of. This is a Canadian-designed and built aircraft, perfectly suited for a specialized Canadian mission and supported by local Canadian companies.

Instead of looking outside of the country, the best solution is to improve on a good thing by investing in a modernization program to extend the useful life of the existing Buffalo fleet. A Buffalo fleet modernization might be the catalyst to return the Buffalo to production.

There should be absolutely no doubt that Viking and its support partner Field Aviation are committed to supporting the DHC-5 (CC-115) Buffalo until the year 2015 and longer as maybe necessary.

The fact that Viking, located on Vancouver Island and the Buffalo design holder, was not contacted by any media outlet in order to better understand the support arrangements for the CC-115 Buffalo is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

David Curtis is president and CEO of Viking Air Ltd.


----------



## YZT580

So there!!!  The probable reason that the MSM never called Viking is probably that they googled buffalo, saw de Havilland and immediately stopped their research.  It is a good a/c but I suspect the seats need re-upholstering at the very least.  New avionics, new engines, still cheaper than buying new airframes.  And its mission capabilities mean that you can still turn around in the canyons and go real slow without a lot of downwash.  The reason given by Brazil for stopping their purchase programme for the C27 I believe was that it couldn't meet the mission specs that the buffalo could.  Considering that the C47 celebrates 75 years of operations either this year or next, the buffalo is only in early middle age.  It isn't old, it is just 'mature'.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well keeping in mind that Viking does have a dog in this fight, it is good that a supplier is just down the road from Comox, however a glowing press release and reality may be different. Are they producing the spares required? Can they? What is the lead time and do they have to compete in the tender process? Are there enough aircraft to be able to do a major refit on the fleet and still provide 24/7 coverage?

Often it is the lack of one or two critical components that causes headaches, despite having a warehouse full of other parts. Is the engine and parts still in production? What is the cost of getting common wear parts made that specific to the aircraft? Is the support budget adequate?


----------



## Kirkhill

Somebody has to keep inventory on hand.  Either the supplier or the user.  Either way it costs money.  Either way the user ends up paying or the supplier goes out of business.  I think all Viking is proposing is that if the Government of Canada were to give them a long term contract then they could offer security of supply, probably at a lower cost than buying a new fleet of aircraft with their own 25 year supply of completely different spare parts.

I can't see that it would hurt to talk to them.....and I have no idea or how sound the company is or how many customers they are currently servicing with how many aircraft etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect that the twin otter will be there bread and butter, however the demand of decent bush aircraft is high as are the parts required to flying them. The older aircraft lend themselves to bush flying and are easier to fix out there. As long as Viking delivers what it promises and does not act as god favorite, then things should be good.


----------



## WrenchBender

Viking can play the injured party all they want, the parts that are needed to support the fleet are not procurable through Viking.
What is needed is Goodrich, Menasco, Hamilton Standard and GE to step up to the plate and support their out of production components, Actuators, Landing Gear, Props and Engines etc

WrenchBender (ex Buff LCMM)


----------



## Rigger

The Buff's airframe is rock solid. It needs new engines and better props. The avionics are in the process of being updated, but could use more than the "light" project being approved. The landing gear is unique on the Buff as it takes a hell of a pounding on STOL landings, but over all they perform fine. The big complaint crews have is that it's not pressurized, I don't think there is an easy fix for that. If we were to put our 6 Buffs up for sale, they would be bought up in a heart beat. The 2 civi Buffs up north  are in constant demand.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

Buffalo tempest rather overdone
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/buffalo-tempest-rather-overdone.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## eurowing

Some of the article is accurate, some is not.  Even in the small world of Buffalo's, ours are unique amongst them given the engine varient and propeller varient we use.  Much of the problem is our procurement process.  We often wait months for parts, causing us to rob from one ac to another.  This is not unique to our fleet or our military, nor is it a new problem, but it certainly makes the techs work more than required.  

I cannot view the blog.  Filtered out.

If anyone thinks we (or Ottawa) don't know Viking exists they are clearly talking out of their lane.


----------



## kj_gully

Slap my backside and call me a donkey! you mean our technicians have been working from before dawn until well after midnight to just keep one or on good days 2 of the 5 Buffalo in Comox (plus the one constantly at Field Aviation) flying, when all they had to do was call the good folks at Viking (who btw, just put out classified ads in the little Comox papers designed to poach qualified Devhavilland technicians away from the CF to help build Twin Otters) and presto, all our problems go away? Wow, are we ever stupid. Hey, I have an idea. What we *should* do is contract out all our Buffalo maintenance to Viking. That way, we free up our technicians to leave the CF, and Viking can pay them low wages because they already have a pension! I am sure a company striving to turn a profit will be much better able to provide our 24-7- 365 maintenance requirement than the Forces ever could. Hmm this is starting to sound eerily familiar....


----------



## kj_gully

still tapping our toes, arms crossed, waiting for ANY announcement. just one more thing perogietion does to the armed forces......... I was so hoping this session would yield a firm timeline.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an article indicating that something is coming early in the new year:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wplanes13/BNStory/politics/home

 Ottawa readies tender for search and rescue planes

STEVEN CHASE

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
December 12, 2008 at 11:05 PM EST

OTTAWA — The Harper government is readying itself to tender a multi-billion dollar contract for replacing Canada's aging search and rescue planes – evidence the Tories are putting more emphasis on military matters beyond Afghanistan as the clock ticks down on Canada's commitment there.

“There is no greater priority right now for the armed forces. Domestically, we need those aircraft,” Defence Minister Peter MacKay said in an interview.

The next step is obtaining cabinet approval to proceed with a contract, he said, calling it a “top priority” for ministers when they reconvene.

“We're hopeful we're going to move on that early in the new year. What I asked our department to do was accelerate this.”

Mr. MacKay said Ottawa intends to “move as quickly as possible in contracting” for up to 17 planes to replace the 41-year-old Buffalos that patrol the Rockies and coastal British Columbia, as well as the aging Hercules on the East Coast.

The minister said the government is determined to ensure the purchase of these new aircraft fares better than delay-plagued efforts to procure new maritime helicopters.

“I do not want to find ourselves in any situation similar to what happened with the maritime helicopter program. That can't be replicated and there are some hard lessons that were learned,” Mr. MacKay said of efforts to replace the Sea King helicopters that began under the former Liberal government.

The Harper government took office in February of 2006 with a “Canada first” defence strategy that emphasized domestic protection and a promise to replace search and rescue planes. But the intensifying war in Afghanistan quickly shifted their military focus abroad.

Meanwhile, however, the Buffalo planes, which entered service in the late 1960s, have been plagued by breakdowns, a shortage of parts and frequent downtime for repairs.

Although the former Liberal government laid out plans to replace them, the Conservatives have so far primarily focused military equipment spending on items useful for the war in Afghanistan.

This week, however, Canada made it clear it remains determined to pull combat troops from Afghanistan in 2011 even though U.S. president-elect Barack Obama is looking for NATO and non-NATO allies to expand commitments there.

“President Obama should be looking to countries other than Canada,” Mr. MacKay said, adding that Canadians would nonetheless remain “fully engaged” in Afghanistan until combat soldiers begin pulling out in July of 2011.

Mr. MacKay said he'd hoped to seek cabinet's approval to proceed with a contract for new planes before Parliament recessed for Christmas – but “political circumstances intervened.”

Ottawa has already set money aside for the planes, which are expected to cost about $3-billion including maintenance deals, and Mr. MacKay said his department is “in dialogue with companies that would be capable of building these.”

Procurement industry sources speculate the military favours Alenia North America's C27J Spartan aircraft.
--------------------

Can anyone shed any light on who or what the “procurement industry sources” might be? Retired commodores and colonels? Alenia lobbyists? Anyone? 

… Bueller? 


… Anyone?


----------



## Good2Golf

...and other industry sources will say some prefer the Bombardier Q400, while others will say EADS/CASA 295, and so on, and so on...

The thing about "quoting" non-attributable facts is that the writer doesn't have to prove the statement's validity.

Anyone can ATI the FWSAR Statement of Operational Requirements and see what  the CF objectively states is the extant operational requirement.  I wouldn't be surprised if many have already.

G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

The _Globe's_ story editorializes egregiously in blaming delays on Afstan, ignores the real history (giving the previous Liberal government a free pass), and makes a stupid error about where SAR Hercs are based.  MND MacKay, for his part, plays political silly buggers.  A post at _The Torch_:

Speeding up new fixed-wing SAR aircraft acquisition--why? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/speeding-up-new-fixed-wing-sar-aircraft.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kj_gully

Hang around morning brief @ 442 Sqn for a week, and you may be less cynical.  I don't care  about why, so long as it happens.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And now from the _Ottawa Citizen _(reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act):

DND mulls sole-source contract worth $3B 
Cabinet may balk at deal to buy U.S.-made planes
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mulls+sole+source+contract+worth/1088892/story.html



> The Defence Department is looking at proposing to cabinet a multibillion-dollar sole-source contract for the purchase of new search-and-rescue aircraft.
> 
> The plan would see the C-27J, an Italian aircraft to be built in the U.S., as the preferred plane for the $1.5-billion Canadian Forces fixed-wing search-and -rescue (FWSAR) project. Another $1.5 billion would be spent on long-term maintenance for the aircraft.
> 
> Although the C-27J, built by Alenia, is not being used by other countries in a primary search-and-rescue role, the Canadian air force favours the plane because of its range and speed. Defence Minister Peter MacKay is said to be involved in the latest initiative, but that does not guarantee cabinet will approve of such a deal.
> 
> The plan to replace the military's aging Buffalo search-and-rescue planes had stalled over the last five years, but Mr. MacKay recently said the program will now be a top priority.
> 
> "As Minister MacKay has noted, these aircraft are a critical component of Canada's home guard and, simply put, we need to have them," Jay Paxton, the minister's press secretary, said yesterday. "The minister's goal is to procure FWSAR early in the new year. Beyond that, it is premature to speculate on the exact nature of the aircraft."
> 
> Under consideration is a procurement using what is known as an Advance Contract Award Notice, or ACAN. That gives aerospace firms a limited amount of time, usually 15 to 30 days, to respond with a counter-proposal and convince the government they have a product that could compete with the Defence Department's choice, in this case the C-27J.
> 
> The use of ACANs have been criticized by some in the industry, as well as by opposition members of Parliament who argue it can undercut the bargaining position of the government since it gives a firm advance notice that its product has been selected.
> 
> But the Canadian Forces has had success with the process, which it used to purchase C-17 transportation aircraft from the U.S. The same process was used for the purchase of new Chinook helicopters, but that deal has run into difficulties. The process was started in the summer of 2006 and negotiations are still ongoing.
> 
> The latest development on the search-and-rescue aircraft has surprised Alenia's main competitor, Airbus Military, which produces the C-295 aircraft.
> 
> "We're caught off guard by the current initiative calling for an ACAN," said Martin Sefzig, Airbus's director of Canadian programs. "After five years of no evaluation and very little discussion, they now go for an ACAN. No aircraft has been tested. Why?"
> 
> Airbus Military highlights the C-295 as a proven plane with more than 60 in service, including in a search-and-rescue role.
> 
> Some aerospace industry insiders question whether the ACAN procurement method will survive cabinet scrutiny. There is bound to be objections raised by firms such as Bombardier, which had previously proposed the Canadian-built Dash-8 for the search-and-rescue program.



My comments at _The Torch_:

Fixed-wing SAR: The C-27J after all? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/fixed-wing-sar-c-27j-after-all.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kj_gully

I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent convenient instances of "queue jumping" our gracious US allies have allowed recently? I believe the US has selected the C27J to replace their sherpa?


----------



## geo

Heh... I can see it now... Select the Short 360 (Sherpa) & people will start Bombardier bashing all over again.

If the C27J is what the airforce wants for their FWSAR aircraft then that is the aircraft that we should get.  Going to Airbus (or Aliena) for political considerations IS NOT the route to follow...


----------



## thunderchild

I agree lets get the plane the airforce wants and needs.  Here is an Idea to save money "if it would" on a per airframe purchase, buy enough to be used by the Canadian Coast Guard for things like fisheries and pollution patrols. I don't know how many airframes we would need for this but it would remove the pressure on the Aurora fleet and it's replacement.  The MPA could then spend more time watching shipping and doing  patrols.  It could also provide transport support capacity in emergencies.  What do you think?


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> buy enough to be used by the Canadian Coast Guard for things like fisheries and pollution patrols.



They already have shiny DASH-8s fitted with some nice gucci surveillance gear.




> remove the pressure on the Aurora fleet and it's replacement.



 :

Maybe you need to read up on the NASP...........In between PAL and TC, they already take plenty of work. 




> The MPA could then spend more time watching shipping and doing  patrols.



Why ? 

We already spend plenty.


----------



## MarkOttawa

thunderchild: Take a look at this post at _The Torch_:

A civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/11/civilian-maritime-patrol-aircraft-fleet.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I agree lets get the plane the airforce wants and needs.


I'd be careful here.  Our military has a fairly established history of wanting Brand X when it is not only different from what we need, but something that fails to meet our needs.  One of the nice things about competition (aside from appeasing the Treasury Board, government, opposition, industry and Canadian voters) is that it provides a venue through which industry must prove to us which product best meets our requirements (our needs as we've put them into the RFP).

Let the Air Force get what they need.


----------



## kj_gully

I would even go furhter, "Get the Airforce what it needs, as long as it isn't so unique as to be unsupportable"


----------



## Blackadder1916

It seems that Viking Air may be anticipating a business opportunity.
-------------------

*Viking Proposes Resurrection Of DHC-5 Buffalo*
http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/VikingProposesResurrectionDHC5_Buffalo_199455-1.html
By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief  December 23, 2008

Earlier this year Viking Air, of Victoria, B.C. Canada resumed production of the de Havilland Twin Otter and now it has its sights set on an even more ambitious project. The company, which owns the type certificate to seven de Havilland models, is proposing to start building the DHC-5 Buffalo, a large twin-engine utility aircraft with ultra short takeoff and landing capability and a rear cargo door that accommodated bulky cargo. The aircraft has been the backbone of the Canadian Forces' fixed wing search and rescue fleet for decades but the military is now looking for replacements for the 40-year-old aircraft. Viking President Dave Curtis says the most affordable answer is an updated Buff. "The requirement to replace the present fleet is not based on a lack of ability for the Buffalo to do the job, but simply due to the aging of the aircraft," Curtis said.

Curtis said other countries have expressed interest in a modernized Buffalo, which would include more efficient, more powerful Pratt and Whitney Canada PW150 engines, glass cockpit with enhanced vision and NVG capability. There are at least two Buffaloes in commercial service in Canada's north and Viking says there is a potential market for civilian versions of the aircraft. Viking is proposing to phase in the new Buffaloes by upgrading existing aircraft first. New aircraft would be built at Viking's facilities in Victoria and Calgary.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Blackadder1916: A post at _The Torch_:

Buffed up? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffed-up.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## thunderchild

Would the same assembly technique be used  for a new buff as with the Twin Otter? ( parts cut in BC and moved to Calgary for assembly) Or would it be fabrication and assembly in Calgary?

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Zoomie

As it stands - unless Viking dramatically changes the design of the original DHC-5 Buffalo - nothing they make will be sufficient.

a) too slow;

b) not pressurized;

c) insufficient range; and

d) design is outdated.

The Buff was designed to be an intra-theatre tactical lift aircraft.  If Viking wishes to pitch that role to the CF, I am all for it.  It does not meet the needs of our frugal Airforce and its FWSAR replacement program.

Sorry Viking, too little too late.


----------



## thunderchild

I'm no expert so I'll just ask the questions from the pro's, Do you think that the design of the aircraft would allow for such major changes?


----------



## observor 69

Zoomie said:
			
		

> As it stands - unless Viking dramatically changes the design of the original DHC-5 Buffalo - nothing they make will be sufficient.
> 
> a) too slow;
> 
> b) not pressurized;
> 
> c) insufficient range; and
> 
> d) design is outdated.
> 
> The Buff was designed to be an intra-theatre tactical lift aircraft.  If Viking wishes to pitch that role to the CF, I am all for it.  It does not meet the needs of our frugal Airforce and its FWSAR replacement program.
> 
> Sorry Viking, too little too late.



Amen to that. I was in Summerside when we got the Buff as the replacement for the Albatross. Albatrosshttp://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp
As "an intra-theatre tactical lift aircraft" it might have been OK. As a SAR replacement on the east coast it was inferior to the Albatross in
range, weight it could carry, nav package etc. I know the nav package was improved but what we really wanted was Herc's like the US Coast Guard was using.
The C-27 looks very interesting.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_ by Babbling Brooks--politics, _politique_; pork, _porc_:

Putting the push on for Viking Air 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/putting-push-on-for-viking-air.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A post at _The Torch_ by Babbling Brooks--politics, _politique_; pork, _porc_:
> Putting the push on for Viking Air
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/putting-push-on-for-viking-air.html
> Mark
> Ottawa


Problem with dealing with Viking Air is that, while they might have the design rights to the DeHaviland family of aircraft.. they don't have the forms and jigs needed to go into production TODAY.  Notwithstanding the delays we've already seen for replacement aircraft, Viking Air tooling up for production would probably delay new aircraft production for another couple of years..... VS a C27J that is already in production.


----------



## WPA

First i would like to say I am not expert in FWSAR. 

But what would be  the harm of Viking work with DND to upgrade the Buffalo. 

They have already shown success in upgrading other dash aircraft. 

I would like to mix of buffalo and C27J for in FWSAR.  Each aircraft complements  that other for different needs of FWSAR. 

Thus would it not be better for the gov to buy 10 buffalo with an option of 10 - 15 more,
                                                            buy 10 C27j with option  of 10 - 15 more,


----------



## geo

Ummm - how long would you give Viking air to come up with the production facilities ?

All Viking Air has right now are plans & the rights to manufacture from those plans.  All DeHaviland production facilities for Buffs were destroyed a long, long, long time ago -  they do not exist anymore & I may be wrong, but I would expect the FAA & Department of Transport to have to re-certify the aircraft prior to going into production once again.


----------



## FMR

I never heard CF wanted the V-22 has a FWSAR...anyway this VTOL was based on the CL-84 (Canadian made) who was cancelled in 1960s due of the high risk of flight and high cost per hours and maintenance. The V-22 had thousand of confirmed incident or accident since his development and his services in the U.S Marines Corps, so it isn't a safe "aircraft" for Search & Rescue and not much safer for military use on the battlefield. USMC had confirmed this years they need replacement of his twin engine not enough powerful or safer or cancelled the program, just an idea how its safe to use the V-22.







The V-44 its maybe the replacement of the V-22 more safety than the V-22 (In theory)...anyway this kind of "aircraft" are from cold war, a VTOL aircraft (such the F-35) are not an essential tool and so it is a waste of money, image has a FWSAR. 

Moderator edit to remove link IAW guidelines


----------



## geo

Forget the V22, forget the Canadair CL-84...
The Airforce currently needs (near immediate need) aircraft for fixed wing Search & Rescue aircraft.
The Buffalos & Hercules aircraft are all pert much worn out & clapped out - needing a lot more than a lick of paint to make the SAR thing.
Do we have the time to drag things out any longer than we already have - in the hopes that someone can build a new plane.... sometime in the future - should we throw enough money at the problem ???

I don't think so.  The need is real & it is now


----------



## Blackadder1916

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm - how long would you give Viking air to come up with the production facilities ?
> 
> All Viking Air has right now are plans & the rights to manufacture from those plans.  All DeHaviland production facilities for Buffs were destroyed a long, long, long time ago -  they do not exist anymore & I may be wrong, but *I would expect the FAA & Department of Transport to have to re-certify the aircraft prior to going into production once again.*



It would seem that Viking's expectation is that the certification process would be similar to what it is encountering with the Twin Otter,  much less intensive than if it was a new design.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/TWIN12018.xml&headline=Twin%20Otter%20On%20Track%20For%20Mid-2009%20Deliveries&channel=busav


> *Twin Otter On Track For Mid-2009 Deliveries*
> 
> Aviation Week Dec 1, 2008 David Collogan
> 
> Fresh off 60 hours of flight tests with the prototype DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400, officials of manufacturer Viking Air remain confident the first production aircraft will be delivered to a customer this coming summer.
> 
> The float-equipped prototype made its first flight Oct. 1. It was then flown to Orlando where it towered over many of the other aircraft in the static display at the National Business Aviation Association convention during the first week of October. *Because the Series 400 will be built "under an update" of the original Twin Otter type certificate, the number of required flight test hours is far lower than for an all-new aircraft, said David Curtis, president and CEO of the Victoria, British Columbia-based Viking. Since Viking does not have to certify an entire new design, he told BA, the flight test program is "somewhat mundane." The prototype is now back in the hangar where the floats are being removed and technicians are installing digital acquisition units as part of detailed checks and tests of the Honeywell Apex integrated avionics system. The Apex system worked quite well during water tests, Curtis said. Even when the aircraft was put into unusual attitudes and subjected to heavy wave action the Apex system consistently spooled up within 40 seconds of being activated, he said.
> 
> Certification of the Apex installation in the Series 400 is "the long pole in the tent," Curtis said, but he remains confident Transport Canada and European Aviation Safety Agency approval will be nearly concurrent. Officials from both agencies are already engaged in the Apex approval process, he said, and the human factors assessment has been completed. No significant hitches are anticipated because the Apex system was recently approved in the Pilatus PC-12 NG single-engine turboprop so "folks are familiar with it," he said. Viking is pursuing EASA certification before FAA because several of its early customers are based in Europe.
> 
> Curtis is "not naive to the fact we're dealing with two different regulatory organizations," but he said company officials have attempted to engage officials of those agencies early on to help ensure there are no unexpected problems. "So far, so good," Curtis said. The Series 400 certification schedule is aggressive, he acknowledged, but "we're just working hard to minimize those risks." On the production side, Curtis said the first customer aircraft, S/N 845, "just came out of the major jigs" at the company's final assembly facility in Calgary, Alberta, major components for S/N 846 left Victoria for Calgary on Nov. 24 and work on S/N 847 is under way in Victoria.*
> 
> Orders continue to hover "around the 40 mark," a satisfactory level at this point, Curtis said, because with Viking's conservative ramp-up schedule the backlog currently extends into late 2011 or early 2012. There continues to be "a fair amount of activity" on the sales front, Curtis said, noting an order this month for two Series 400 aircraft from Maldivian Air Taxi (MAT). The company already is the "largest Twin Otter seaplane operator in the world," Viking said, with a fleet of 24 heritage Twin Otters in service.
> 
> Viking hopes to deliver seven Series 400 aircraft in 2009 and to reach a production rate of one per month in 2010, climbing to 1.5 per month in 2011. The production rate is purposely being held down next year, Curtis said, to make sure the manufacturing process is completely debugged before the rate is ramped up. The Viking CEO readily acknowledges that the Series 400, like the original Twin Otter, is a niche airplane. But many current operators are now flying aircraft that are 25 or 30 years old, and Curtis is confident there is a "core replacement market" that will supply the orders to get through the challenging economic times that currently prevail.
> 
> As for financing of the Series 400 program itself, Curtis notes that Viking is part of Westkirk Capital, Inc., a Canadian private investment firm that Curtis said is well capitalized. "We're within 5 percent of where we said we would be" on capital costs, Curtis said. "We're not trying to raise any capital," Curtis said, because it is not needed. Viking does have a few customers scheduled to take aircraft deliveries next year that need financing for their purchases, but he said the company is working with Canada's Export Development Corp. to make sure the financing will be there for those who need it.



However, as Zoomie very adequately puts it, it doesn't meet the current needs of FWSAR.  Viking may have business potential for a renewed Buff in the same niche (commercial) market that (primarily) bought Canada's few surplus Buffalos but it is probably unlikely that such a venture will get off the ground unless there was a guarantee of X sales before reopening production.


----------



## Loachman

FMR said:
			
		

> anyway this VTOL was based on the CL-84 (Canadian made)



Not really.



			
				FMR said:
			
		

> anyway this kind of "aircraft" are from cold war



So what? So are our rifles and machineguns, our LAVs, our Leopard 2s, our CF18s, and a lot of our other stuff. So are a lot of other aircraft performing quite well in the current conflicts.



			
				FMR said:
			
		

> VTOL aircraft (such the F-35)



Not all F35 variants are.



			
				FMR said:
			
		

> VTOL aircraft (such the F-35) are not an essential tool and so it is a waste of money,



Those who know far more than you disagree.

You've been on this site for less than twenty-four hours. Read some more here before spouting off about things that you know little about.


----------



## FMR

So Loachman if they're not based on the Canadian made, they're based on German made,the  first "VTOL" aircraft called Weserflug during the end of world war two (1944-1945). The principal idea of a Tilt rotor are very great, but seriously dangerous to use (thousand of incident and accident since his development in 1989). Well maybe you have right..just my opinion.






For my part i'm for the C-27J, and for a new production line of DHC-5 Buffalo.


----------



## McG

FMR said:
			
		

> The principal idea of a Tilt rotor are very great, but seriously dangerous to use (thousand of incident and accident since his development in 1989).


It seems to me that the system has been show safe enough to have been accepted into operational service and deployed.  Can you provide a reference for these thousands of incidents (and maybe also show that the problems have not been overcome), or should I just write-off your contributions as exaggerations in which truth need not get in the way of an argument?


----------



## FMR

It seems to me that the system has been show safe enough to have been accepted into operational service and deployed.  Can you provide a reference for these thousands of incidents (and maybe also show that the problems have not been overcome), or should I just write-off your contributions as exaggerations in which truth need not get in the way of an argument?  



> According to the United States Marine Corp, the V-22 Osprey will revolutionize troop deployment and allow the Corp to retire its aging fleet of troop transport helicopters. However, critics of the Boeing tilt-rotor hybrid call the Osprey a death trap.
> 
> Twenty-three marines have died in Osprey crashes since 2000. Currently, a decision on whether to mass-produce the aircraft is being debated by Pentagon and Marine officials. The $31 billion program is a pet project of the Marines but has been opposed by other military leaders and Pentagon bureaucrats for several years. Critics say that the half helicopter, half plane Osprey is far too complex to safely and effectively complete its mission. The aircraft has a history of maintenance problems that have hampered its chances of winning over detractors. In fact, the maintenance issues are so severe that a top Marine Lieutenant Colonel encouraged his subordinates to misstate maintenance records in an attempt to paint the Osprey in as best light as possible.
> 
> The plane, which can carry 24 soldiers at over 300 miles per hour, is coveted by the Marine Corps because of its ability to fly at speeds comparable to a fixed wing aircraft, yet land and takeoff much like a helicopter. The Osprey is used in sea borne assault missions where troops are transported from ships to coastal areas.
> 
> But why does the Marine Corp insist on supporting an aircraft that is so unreliable and potentially deadly? The Federal government's General Accounting Office has found 22 major deficiencies with the aircraft. Phil Coil, the military's Chief of Testing & Evaluation has called the Osprey "not operationally suitable." In addition, Mr. Coil believes that if full production of the Osprey goes forward, the program "will impose an unacceptable burden in cost, manpower, mission reliability, and operational reliability to the fleet."
> 
> Even after two major crashes of the Osprey on April 18, 2000 and December 11, 2000 which killed nearly two dozen Marines, the Marine Deputy Commandant for Aviation, Lieutenant General Fred Marshal said, "I consider the Osprey to be the best aircraft I have ever been in. This accident is not going to do anything to the Osprey program."



Few picture of the V-22 of fatal crash


----------



## aesop081

FMR.....did you hear that ?

Its the sound of you talking out of your..........


----------



## McG

FMR,
I have concluded that I should not waste my time considering your contributions as you do prefer exaggeration/distortion over the use of facts and logic in an argument.  It proves nothing that there were two crashes 8-9 years ago during the early stages of the Osprey program.  Through your thorough and profound analytical process, one would conclude that all air travel is unsafe.  In fact, when one looks at the number of pers killed at sea in Apr 1912 then we would also conclude that sea travel should never be attempted and lets not get started on the horrors of automobile travel.

... others make take a more intelligent approach.  Maybe there is relevance in the fact that engineering development work continued for a handful more years & lessons from the crashes were integrated into the improved designs.  Maybe there is relevance in the fact that the V-22 has now passed all its airworthiness testing.  It might be worth noting that there are considerably more V-22 with considerably greater flying hours today than back in those early days, and despite this vast increase in aggregate flying hours there are not the catastrophic crashes that your conclusion would have us expect to see.


----------



## ringo

Normally I would advocate DND purchase the best value for there money wether purchased here or foreign, however with the drastic turn in the economy I feel that DND dollars must be used were possible to support Canadian industry.
1st Viking to rebuild existing Buff's.
2nd Viking build new Buff's, numbers to be decided by DND.
3rd Viking new Twin Otters to replace existing aircraft.

Since DND is replacing 28 Herc's with 17 Herc's and 4 C-17's, is it not possible that some of the younger Herc's in DND inventory could be used in SAR role?


----------



## aesop081

ringo said:
			
		

> is it not possible that some of the younger Herc's in DND inventory could be used in SAR role?



Even the younger Hercs are geriatrics.


----------



## Zoomie

ringo said:
			
		

> however with the drastic turn in the economy



Anyone seen evidence of this drastic turn - apart from what we read in the papers?  Christmas sales were as strong as ever, the stock market hasn't tanked and people are still buying homes.

Dropping a couple of billion dollars into an inflated, encumbered vehicle industry does not equal a recession.  Stop paying the bolt tightener $76/hour and maybe the big three will actually make some money.

Making a decision today based on a couple of possible lean years - could potentially put us in worst straights in the future.  Remember, we are going to keep these aircraft for the next thirty years - let's choose the right machine for the job.


----------



## Loachman

FMR said:
			
		

> So Loachman if they're not based on the Canadian made, they're based on German made,the  first "VTOL" aircraft called Weserflug during the end of world war two (1944-1945).



Another tilt-wing versus tilt-rotor design.

Besides, you're still confusing the outer appearance with what is truly important: the technology on the inside.



			
				FMR said:
			
		

> For my part i'm for the C-27J, and for a new production line of DHC-5 Buffalo.



We don't care. You do not get a vote.

And that is, clearly, a Good Thing (TM).


----------



## Nfld Sapper

ringo said:
			
		

> is it not possible that some of the younger Herc's in DND inventory could be used in SAR role?





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Even the younger Hercs are geriatrics.



Like CDN Aviatoar said, The extended range C-130E model entered service in 1962 and the C-130H model initial deliveries began in 1964


----------



## geo

... then there are the few extras we ordered after loosing a few to accidents & such


----------



## ringo

2 Herc's entered service Mar 1985
2 more Nov 1986
5 Herc's with tanker kit 1989
2 1997 may have been last two off production line?
Compared with the rest of Canada's Herc's these aircraft are younger, 2 IIRC were former Kuwait aircraft so are older than service
entry dates.
What will become of the younger Herc's when all C-130J's and C-17's are in service?


----------



## aesop081

ringo said:
			
		

> 2 Herc's entered service Mar 1985



24 years old........geriatric


> 2 more Nov 1986



23 years old....geriatric


> 5 Herc's with tanker kit 1989



20 years old.......severly worn out



> 2 1997 may have been last two off production line?



Oh wow...a whoping 2 aircrafts.


----------



## McG

ringo said:
			
		

> Normally I would advocate DND purchase the best value for there money wether purchased here or foreign, however with the drastic turn in the economy I feel that DND dollars must be used were possible to support Canadian industry.


The Industrial regional benefits program could achieve this even if we buy non-Canadian.  A mandatory part of a bidder's contract proposal would be a plan to spend a specific dollar value of new money in the Canadian economy (and not necessarily directly related to our aircraft purchase).

Using defence procurement funds to build-up an industry which cannot remain self-sustaining at that capacity after the contract is a big gamble that may not turn out to benefit the economy.


----------



## FMR

Loachman said:
			
		

> Another tilt-wing versus tilt-rotor design.
> 
> Besides, you're still confusing the outer appearance with what is truly important: the technology on the inside.
> 
> We don't care. You do not get a vote.
> 
> And that is, clearly, a Good Thing (TM).



it's the same invention but one is much more simple the other one is much more difficult to build..that sound like a electric car and fossil fuel car...same invention but one use complex engine the other one use piston engine much more simple. And "you" don't mean everyone on this forum, in general people agreed about C-27J and DHC-5 production line,if you not agree it's your choice.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FMR said:
			
		

> ... And "you" don't mean everyone on this forum ...




By "you" he means almost all of us who are not members of a small, select group of seasoned military personnel - mostly pilots and aerospace engineers, engineers and bureaucrats who understand how to formulate *operational requirements*, translate those requirements into reasonable contract deliverables and then manage multi-billion dollar projects.

Thankfully you, FMR, and I are not in that small group but Loachman _could_ be, in a pinch.


Edit: typos


----------



## kj_gully

As someone who works in the Buff and loves it, I can say, that the only reason I would prefer a new "tatonka" would be nostalgia. The old "she's good in the mountains" only rings true when we are working down low in them. Any time we are trying to get over them in a hurry, to render aid to anywhere other than Coastal BC, it can be a royal pain to be tethered to an oxygen mask. the buff is box shaped in cross section, and basic geometry states that rectangles aren't stong enough to be pressurized. (maybe its physics, or some other science, but for sure you can't pressurize the buff.) SAR will be different when we get the new plane. I hope it is the C27, for the reasons I have stated way back pages ago when i first started to think we might someday get a new plane. This Viking/ Bombadeer conglomeration is not going to help us find the right plane. it is only going to hurt, and no doubt contribute to muddying and lengthening the procurement process. My planes are worn out. Totally worn out.


----------



## YZT580

KJ, I don't disagree with your basic argument but I wonder if there isn't another solution more appropriate to Canada and our limited resources.  From all sources, it would appear that there are two opposing requirement for the S & R fleet.  One that is suited for operating around the coastal region of B.C. and in the Canadian North where runways are extremely weight dependent and one for the east coast and the rest of Canada.  Rather than introducing a new, albeit beautiful, and additional type (the Spartan) would maintaining either a new or rebuilt fleet of Buffaloes for the west coast and an increased inventory of C130s for the rest of Canada not make greater sense?  Granted 4 engines cost more than 2 to run but the aircraft would then be fully interchangeable with the others in the transport fleet.  In addition, the Buffaloe is eminently suited to provide transportation into those areas of the world that seem to require our assistance the most; namely Africa.


----------



## Zoomie

What you have described is exactly what we have now - a mixed fleet.  We are moving towards a homogenized fleet of identical aircraft with interchangeable parts, crews and responsibilities.  FWSAR does not deploy to Africa - nor will it ever.  Every strip that the Buffalo flies in to up North, so does the Hercules (with a few non-SAR exceptions).

STOL is fun on the Buffalo - but hardly ever used (if at all) operationally.

Like KJ eloquently said - the old girl is a great west coast machine - but as soon as we need to head into the interior we seriously handicap ourselves with the lack of pressurization and power.


----------



## YZT580

By your own argument then, a larger purchase of Hercs would be better than a purchase of Spartans, augmented in the short range by Helicopters correct?


----------



## Zoomie

Sure... but why more Hercs?  We are trying to move to a more economical platform while not sacrificing airspeed and range.  Two fuel efficient turbo-props produce similar results to what we are getting out of our Hercs.


----------



## Don2wing

Not to get anyone's shirt in a knot here is a press release on Bombardier 415MP: 

   Bombardier Delivers First Bombardier 415MP Amphibious Aircraft to Malaysia
January 23, 2009 — Montréal 
Aerospace

Today, Bombardier Aerospace announced that Malaysia’s coast guard agency, the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA), has taken delivery of the first of two Bombardier 415MP amphibious aircraft ordered by the Malaysian government in June 2008. The Malaysian government is the launch customer in Asia for the specialized Bombardier 415MP aircraft.

Present at an official ceremony held in Subang Jaya, Malaysia, was Datuk Seri Najib, Honourable Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia; Datuk Amdan, Director General, MMEA; and Mr. Michel Bourgeois, President, Specialized and Amphibious Aircraft, Bombardier Aerospace.

A variant of the rugged Bombardier 415 amphibious aircraft – the only aircraft specifically designed for aerial firefighting – the Bombardier 415MP amphibious aircraft will be modified for maritime surveillance capabilities to meet the specialized needs of the MMEA. The first Bombardier 415MP aircraft delivered to Malaysia will be equipped with a state-of-the-art surveillance suite that includes two side-looking airborne radars, one forward-looking infrared radar, an airborne maritime surveillance system and other avionics and communications equipment.

“Bombardier Aerospace is proud to deliver its first Bombardier 415MP aircraft to Malaysia.  We are confident this hardworking aircraft, with its multi-purpose capabilities, will prove a worthy tool in Malaysia’s efforts to patrol its extensive waterways and to enhance its search and rescue missions,” said Michel Bourgeois, President, Specialized and Amphibious Aircraft, Bombardier Aerospace.  “The aircraft’s ability to fly at low speed and low altitude with great maneuverability, and to execute direct interventions on water, makes it an ideal aircraft for coastal patrol missions. It is a very capable and cost-effective aircraft, able to carry out a multitude of specialized missions that previously required dedicated vessels and aircraft.”

The multi-purpose Bombardier 415MP aircraft can be used in a variety of specialized missions such as search and rescue, environmental protection, coastal patrol and transportation. It is fitted with sophisticated sensors to locate and identify vessels, people in distress and pollutants.

Since delivery of the first Bombardier 415 aircraft in 1994, Bombardier Aerospace has delivered 69 Bombardier 415 aircraft, including three Bombardier 415MP aircraft, to Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Ontario, Québec and Spain, with 42 aircraft in operation in the Mediterranean region alone.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

You do realize that the 415 Series of Aircraft is generally used as a water bomber.






415 Series aircraft.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

SAR and Law Enforcement Configuration





Performs direct water rescues
Specially designed rigid-hulled inflatable jet boat for sea rescues
Good dash speed (180 knots) and endurance (6.5 hours)
Precision navigation and powerful communications equipment for detecting and locating distressed vessels and persons
Accommodates up to six stretchers
State-of-the-art sensors (FLIR, SAR, nose radar)
Includes complete SAR kits
Sea State 3 capability

Utility Transport





No runway required for optimal operating flexibility
Access via unpaved runways, lakes, rivers and seas
Transport personnel and equipment between land and sea at greater ranges and speeds than helicopters
Excellent low-level, low-speed handling and manoeuvrability (105-knot drop speed)
Remote operations with minimal maintenance and support requirements
2,903-kilogram (6,400-pound) cargo payload


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> You do realize that the 415 Series of Aircraft is generally used as a water bomber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 415 Series aircraft.



The article does state this fact, also Malaysia used to use the Albatross in the same coastal surveillance role, up till 1991 I think. Over the years they have used quite a few Canadian aircraft.


----------



## observor 69

When 413 Sqn in Summerside received Buffalo aircraft to replace the Albatross the general concensus was we had just got screwed by Ottawa, much less range, much less carry weight. Also at that time the nav package was bare bones.

http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/patrol/albatross/index.php?name=Albatross

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp


----------



## geo

Change is always scary..... better the beast you know than the one you don't


----------



## MarkOttawa

Surely the problem with the 415 is that it would not be an effective tactical transport (no ramp to start) to supplement the Jercs within Canada (and maybe the hemisphere), when we get them--as our C-130Es do for the Hs.  Plus its speed would be inadequate for many SAR missions out of Trenton and  Winnipeg:

424 Squadron
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8w-8e/sqns-escs/page-eng.asp?id=664

435 Squadron
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17w-17e/sqns-escs/page-eng.asp?id=412

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Don2wing

Mark,
             The 415MP as with the Canso and Albatross are/were purely FWSAR aircraft as the RCAF had general duty tactical aircraft. The current problem is we are trying to have fewer aircraft doing more jobs. Spec'd for the job, upgraded engines and all, the 415MP could be a candidate for the FWSAR while the new built Buffalo or Spartan could do tactical transport duties.


----------



## aesop081

Don2wing said:
			
		

> Mark,
> The 415MP as with the Canso and Albatross are/were purely FWSAR aircraft as the RCAF had general duty tactical aircraft. The current problem is we are trying to have fewer aircraft doing more jobs. Spec'd for the job, upgraded engines and all, the 415MP could be a candidate for the FWSAR while the new built Buffalo or Spartan could do tactical transport duties.



Does the 415 meet the required specs for FWSAR ?

I'll give you 2 guesses but you're only going to need one.....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

How is an unpressurized 415MP that is even slower than a Buffalo possibly going to get over or around the the Rockies in bad weather?  

Look space cadets and other aviation expert "wannabees"- statements of requirements for CF aircraft are written based on the role they must fulfill- not where they are built.

If a Canadian built aircraft can meet the Statement of Requirements- great.  If not- don't go b@&$)ing to your MP, Cabinet Minister or the media.  Buying substandard crap wastes money and costs lives.


----------



## observor 69

geo said:
			
		

> Change is always scary..... better the beast you know than the one you don't



If you are implying that we were scared of changing from the Albatross to the Buff you are right. While the capabilities of the Buff made it a good potential west coast  FWSAR a/c on the East coast it was an a/c with, by our Albatross standards, short range and a greatly reduced all up weight.
NDHQ had to replace the Albatross due to a number of factors so we got an aircraft that arrived from St.Hubert still in it's army green. 
An examination of the Buff flight manual makes it pretty clear that the aircraft designer didn't have east coast FWSAR in mind.   

And did I mention it had came with a real basic nav package, as one of our navs used to say in reference to a search over the Atlantic "Jeez I hope we don't find anyone, I won't be able to tell anyone where we are."


----------



## Don2wing

Here is the latest on the Buffalo DHC-5NG verus the C-27J from the Viking website:   

http://www.vikingair.com/uploadedFiles/News/News_Item/DHC-5NG%20versus%20C27J%20January%202009.pdf


----------



## geo

> Whereas the engine, propeller and flight deck equipment for the C-27J has been based on the military
> equipment of the C-130J, the DHC-5NG will be equipped with the latest technology commercial
> equipment. The upgrade, which is complete from flight deck through all systems, is centered on the
> engine/propeller combination from the DHC-8Q400. DND and the Canadian taxpayers will benefit
> greatly from using commercial equipment in terms of reliability, supportability and cost of operations.
> The Pratt & Whitney Canada PW-150 engine will, as an example, start off with more than 10,000
> flying hours between overhauls.



Problem I see here is that the C-27J is flying NOW, it is in production NOW while the DBC-5NG is not either of the above.  How long are we as a FWSAR user to wait before a replacement aircraft comes on line.  These old buffalos ain't what they used to be.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I noticed that Viking "conveniently" left out the fact that the "Buff NG" is unpressurized...no discussion of service ceiling is made....there is no comparison in the available payload between the two (the C-27 is way ahead).

I have no dog in this fight, but really, there is no comparison between the two airplanes.  They are designed to do different things.


----------



## geo

From what I can see... Viking is hoping for a DND contract to finance the design & build of their production line.  Without it, am not certain they will ever start producing a new / old Buff


----------



## Don2wing

Speaking out in the C-27J favour, I am glad that the Italian government choose to develop the G.222, paying for the test aircraft and then ordered 46 a/c when no other country would. Then buying more G.222 that were upgraded to a new standard called the C-27J. The Italians have a military industrial strategy from planes, vehicles to naval ships. They build to high standards and can compete with other countries. Now we can reap the rewards.

  As you might have guessed by reading the papers we are in a recession and quite frankly I hope it becomes a economic depression. It will drive home the point that we should help ourselves first and not creat madework projects around the world.


----------



## aesop081

Don2wing said:
			
		

> As you might have guessed by reading the papers we are in a recession and quite frankly I hope it becomes a economic depression.



what ?


and this has to do with the 415MP and Viking air how ?


----------



## geo

Don2wing...
Don't forget that the USAF bought a bunch of the G222/C27s - and parked em as impractical to fly.... that should tell ya something.  If it wasn't for Lockheed Martin, the C27 would still be the same old G222 that the US considered impractical to fly/maintain.... not much of a strategy for that italian military industrial types.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Don2wing how about you listen to those that actually know a thing or two about what we need for a FWSAR Airframe.


----------



## Zoomie

Quite the pretty PDF that Viking has produced.  I would be interested to know where they got their stats for this DHC-5NG from?  For a plane that doesn't exist yet, no prototype, not ever an engineers wet-dream - pretty bold stats.

Interesting that they have Field Aviation as one of their supporters - wonder if they know that Field has declared bankruptcy and closing its doors in March '09.

KFC is also another winner - they are the cheapest solution by far, with little to no follow-through in their product - just what we need.


----------



## Don2wing

Geo,
       Two points,
                         First - The Canadian government including the military gets its funding through taxes from Canadian companies and individuals. If the taxes collected decrease due to recession and /or depression, DND will not be funded at present levels as all government departments. This recession is becoming nastier by the day. Read the business papers about Canada and the rest of the world. The US, Europe, and Asia are suffering and indicators are getting worse. The Americans and Brits are going to continue to nationalize more banks. 
                       
                        Secondly,
                                   Italy has Italian owned aircraft and helicopter manufacturers, to Iveco's military vehicles and the Italian built aircraft carrier Cavour. Canada cannot even build coast guard boats or JSS (  Our big honking boats). Our LAVs are built by GD who could move the factory to its home country. When we look at Germany, France or Sweden they all support home grown manufacturers who build to standards laid out in the public domain and not SORs spec'd to foreign products.  If we want to be a branch plant country then this is what we get. That is going to the mall and buying what ever is on the shelf or the sale bin.


----------



## aesop081

Don2wing said:
			
		

> Italy has Italian owned aircraft and helicopter manufacturers,



So does Canada but unfortunately, none of them build what we require.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Don- 

What has any of that got to do with FWSAR?  Are you saying that, by policy, the CF should only buy Canadian made gear, regardless of it's suitability for the task at hand?  I've got an idea- why don't Canadian manufacturers build stuff we might want, based on our SORs, rather than taking out newspaper ads, calling MPs and generally making us out to be the bad guy when we don't want to fork over billions from our already limited and shrinking capital budget for stuff that won't work the way we want it too?

I got to ask- did you know Field Aviation has gone bankrupt?  Did you know that the Buff NG is only a paper airplane that does not yet exist?  How likely is it that this airplane will ever exist?

And... don't idealize Italian kit.  That's all that I will say on that.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ok....

First......

 :warstory:

Last time we built something totaly Canadian we ended up with the LSVW.  

Much that I would love to see a totally Cdn made item in our inventory, if we can't build it to the SOR then go for something that is already proven.


And yes I know I'm outside my lane..


Now where did I put my safe lane?


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I noticed that Viking "conveniently" left out the fact that the "Buff NG" is unpressurized...no discussion of service ceiling is made....there is no comparison in the available payload between the two (the C-27 is way ahead).
> 
> I have no dog in this fight, but really, there is no comparison between the two airplanes.  They are designed to do different things.



I'd also like to see the "projections" that fly the Buff at 300 kts (vice 235) -- that's a 28% increase in VNE and a 62% increase in power required (approximately the square of the linear speed increase), which would require the planned PW150 turboshaft engines to output 5070 SHP, compared to the existing Buffalo's CT64-820-4 engines currently rated at at 3130 SHP rated.  As SKT notes, there is no mention of the problems associated with an unpressurized cabin, in particular where one must fly in and around the mountains (where the Buff is currently limited to flying through mountain passes as opposed to being able to hop over the mountains while transiting from one area to another).


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Don2wing said:
			
		

> Geo,
> Two points,
> First - The Canadian government including the military gets its funding through taxes from Canadian companies and individuals. If the taxes collected decrease due to recession and /or depression, DND will not be funded at present levels as all government departments. This recession is becoming nastier by the day. Read the business papers about Canada and the rest of the world. The US, Europe, and Asia are suffering and indicators are getting worse. The Americans and Brits are going to continue to nationalize more banks.
> 
> Secondly,
> Italy has Italian owned aircraft and helicopter manufacturers, to Iveco's military vehicles and the Italian built aircraft carrier Cavour. Canada cannot even build coast guard boats or JSS (  Our big honking boats). Our LAVs are built by GD who could move the factory to its home country. When we look at Germany, France or Sweden they all support home grown manufacturers who build to standards laid out in the public domain and not SORs spec'd to foreign products.  If we want to be a branch plant country then this is what we get. That is going to the mall and buying what ever is on the shelf or the sale bin.



Why do I get a smell that you have a vested interest with Viking and the Buffalo project and are trying to "sell" us on the idea of buying it?


----------



## Good2Golf

Don2wing said:
			
		

> As you might have guessed by reading the papers we are in a recession and quite frankly I hope it becomes a economic depression. It will drive home the point that we should help ourselves first and not creat madework projects around the world.




Nice attitude -- yup, let's hope things get worse for all Canadians so that some homegrown industries can cater to internal profiteering while we stop helping some of the worlds' more unfortunate people by turning into "Fortress (self-interested) Canada".


Wow.   :


----------



## KingKikapu

Protectionism has to be one of the biggest boneheaded ways to run an economy.

I realise there are security concerns with outsourcing military hardware from other nations, but god damn it, if a canadian company lacks the product or the skill to provide the necessary service that a purchaser *needs*, then they don't deserve the contract, especially if only for the sake of saving a few canadian jobs.

If it were a major keystone canadian industry with far reaching ripple effects, then maybe you could consider it, but only if you tread lightly.
This is not that situation.  People could very well die if the plane can't do what is asked of it.


----------



## Don2wing

NFLD Sapper,
                I have no interest or connection to Viking. What I have is pride in seeing successful Canadian companies selling their products in Canada and around the world. When I am travelling outside Canada I am always thrilled to see Canadian. So we are talking Viking here but it could be oil companies, engineering sector or riding Bombardier planes on the other side of the world. 
Canadians living in Canada don't always see it that way.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Don2wing said:
			
		

> NFLD Sapper,
> I have no interest or connection to Viking. What I have is pride in seeing successful Canadian companies selling their products in Canada and around the world. When I am travelling outside Canada I am always thrilled to see Canadian. So we are talking Viking here but it could be oil companies, engineering sector or riding Bombardier planes on the other side of the world.
> Canadians living in Canada don't always see it that way.



Like a poor marksman you keep missing the target. We have already pointed out that the Viking refurbished Buffalo or currently any canadian aircraft (I stand to be correct by those in the know in the FWSAR Communit) does not meet the SOR set out by National Defence.

I'm sure that the majority of the people here would like to see a canadian made airframe win but if we can't produce what is needed then we have no other choice but to go with another countries build.


----------



## geo

Don & Sapper....

Remember - there are time constraints for this purchase.

The airframes we currently have are getting old & tired - showing cracks where there shouldn't be any - they need to be replaced sooner VS later.

The C27J is a proven design that is currently in production - we sign up, we put our deposits down & our names are added to the production schdedule.

The Next Generation Buffalo is presently only on paper... like the plans that Viking bought from Bombardier / Dehaviland & conceptual musings of what "new" gear that can be installed.  There are no existing production lines, there are no frame jiggs from which to build these new planes... it will take time and a lot of money to get a Next Gen Buffalo in the air & I do not think we have the time it takes to do it.

Also - WRT your musings about the Italian Air Force flying Italian built planes. Ummm... the fly Italian, American, French & EU planes.  Their forestry service fly the Bombardier CL415.  Alitalia, the state airline flies a mix of Boeing, Airbus, Embraer & MDs... not all that pure italian racing bloodline IMHO


----------



## karl28

Well I think after reading a bit that the C27 is the way go seems to have every thing the Airforce needs  where as the new Buff doesn't .    With that I am not saying that Viking should stop trying to build a new buff but in stead of going for the Airforce  maybe they could build them for the Canadian Cost guard I imagine that they could use some more planes for Fishery Patrols or what ever kind of patrols that they do ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Transport Canada runs the aircraft except for a few Fisheries Patrol aircraft which might be on contract if i recall. A new Buff would not be the configuration they would be looking for. New twin Otters might be a different story.


----------



## geo

Twin otters ... which Viking has started to produce... Great plane
They truly opened up the Great white north - giving reliable pasenger/freight service to distant northern communities.
Takes a licking & keeps on ticking.


----------



## Haletown

27 in A-stan

http://worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/2009/02/italian-af-c-27js-complete-afghan.html


nice video.


----------



## Kirkhill

Is this a fair assessment?

The Twin Otter:  A good search platform because of low and slow capability but limited rescue capability and even more limited transport capability because of volume and doors.
The Buffalo:  Likewise a good search platform because of low and slow capability, better rescue and transport capability because of space and doors but has deployment issues because of speed and range (and altitude)
The Herc:  A good search platform and rescue and transport with better deployability but very expensive to operate.
The C27J:  Too new to have a solid track record but intended to have good low and slow characteristics compatible with search (and rough strip) operations, good rescue and transport capabilities because of space and doors, good deployability due to speed, range and altitude and ALSO cheaper to operate than a Herc.
The C295?  Similar to the C27J but smaller, slower and with shorter legs.

If the above is true then, leaving the C295/C27 discussion aside building Otters, Buffalos and Hercs would meet the requirements of the Air Force with three platforms, buying the C27 would do some of the jobs of all three and reduce the need for multiple maintenance staffs.

I am guessing that if the C27 were procured then there would likely be jobs for L3 Spar? in Edmonton.  

So is this going to be another CF-18 maintenance issue (for the youngsters Hawker? in Winnipeg had the skills and the industrial alliance with McDonnell Douglas, manufacturer of the CF-18 located just down the highway in St-Louis, the maintenance contract was awarded to Bombardier? or CAE? in Montreal where employees had to hired and trained, industrial links and commercial agreements signed to meet the maintenance requirements of the CF - that contributed to the demise of the Conservatives out west and the rise of the Reform party. The Liberals were perceived as screwing the West on oil policy with the NEP, the Conservatives screwed them on the CF18 contract and both of them screwed it with removing the Crow Rate that favoured shipping coal and grain for export and reduced the cost of importing farm machinery IIRC).

My bet is that, given the lack of response from the Quebec electorate, that Stephen Harper will be inclined to play to his core on this one.  That will either allow him to keep the party intact to allow it to fight another day or, if he gets really, really lucky, win a majority without the support of Quebec.


----------



## Don2wing

Kirkhill,
              What version of the Buffalo are you commenting on, the existing CC-115 or the DHC-5NG?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Gonna go out on the limb and say he's talking about the existing Buffalo airframe and not the CONCEPTUAL one by Viking.


----------



## Don2wing

So we are talking not new airframes, but the old Buffs and not upgraded.


----------



## Kirkhill

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Gonna go out on the limb and say he's talking about the existing Buffalo airframe and not the CONCEPTUAL one by Viking.




You can crawl back in now Sapper.  Yes, I am talking about actual, "available" airframes.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Don2Wing: There is NO DHC-5NG.  It does NOT exists...  How can you talk about performance of an airplane that is not even designed on paper yet?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You can crawl back in now Sapper.  Yes, I am talking about actual, "available" airframes.



Good, since I'm afraid of heights  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Good, since I'm afraid of heights  ;D



So that's why you picked a trade making holes is it?


----------



## Don2wing

But sometimes we buy concepts say like the Cyclone. I just want us to be consistent in these matters when there are dollars at stake.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Don2wing said:
			
		

> But sometimes we buy concepts say like the Cyclone. I just want us to be consistent in these matters when there are dollars at stake.



You do realize that the CH-148 is a stretched Sikorsky S-92 /H-92 Superhawk.


----------



## Don2wing

Yes, of course but else is to be flying this aircraft?


----------



## aesop081

Don2wing said:
			
		

> Yes, of course but else is to be flying this aircraft?



Who fucking cares ?

What does the CH-148 have to do with FWSAR and the non-existence of the DHC-5NG ?


----------



## aesop081

Don2wing said:
			
		

> But sometimes we buy concepts say like the Cyclone. I just want us to be consistent in these matters when there are dollars at stake.



Do you know of a Canadian company that builds naval hellicopters capable of meeting the requirements established by the CF ?

I'm going to guess "NO"


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Cause you asked, those operating the S-92 are:

 Operators
 Government operators
 Kuwait 
Emir of Kuwait operates 2 helicopters. 
 Qatar 
Government of Qatar operates 2 helicopters. 
 South Korea 
Government of the Republic of Korea operates 3 helicopters.[8] Introduced into service in November 2007. 
 Saudi Arabia 
Saudi Interior Ministry ordered 16 helicopters at Dubai Airshow November 2007. 
 Turkey 
Government of Turkey operates 1 helicopter. 
 Turkmenistan 
Government of Turkmenistan operates 2 helicopters. 
 United Kingdom 
Her Majesty's Coastguard operates 4 helicopters leased from CHC Helicopter 
 Thailand 
3 ordered for Thai Government 

Civil operators
 Brunei 
Brunei Shell Petroleum – 3 
*Canada 
CHC Helicopter – 12 
Cougar Helicopters – 5* 
 People's Republic of China 
Eastern General Aviation – 1 
 Finland 
Copterline of Finland – 1 
 Norway 
Aircontactgruppen AS – 6 
Norsk Helikopter – 6 
 Qatar 
Gulf Helicopters – 2 
 United Kingdom 
Bristow Helicopters 6 
 United States 
RDV Corporation – 1 
Blackwater Worldwide 
Bristow – 3 
Petroleum Helicopters, Inc (PHI) – 11 
Washington Times Aviation – 1


----------



## SupersonicMax

Don2wing said:
			
		

> But sometimes we buy concepts say like the Cyclone. I just want us to be consistent in these matters when there are dollars at stake.



H-92 (or CH-148 for us) flew for the first time in 1998.  We awarded the contract in 2004.  Concept?!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Concept my ass they fly over my house day in and day out bringing workers to the rigs.


----------



## geo

Don2wing said:
			
		

> But sometimes we buy concepts say like the Cyclone. I just want us to be consistent in these matters when there are dollars at stake.



Don,
Viking bought the design rights & paper plans from Bombardier/DeHaviland.
The original tools & jiggs needed to form and make the old Buffalo don't exist anymore.
If you want to build those new Buffalo-next generation, you have to go back to the drawing board, CADredraw your old designs, make your modifications, build the new tools & jiggs, build your prototype, get Air Safety to approve the prototype and then build your new plane.... so Viking is a long way off from building and delivering on any new order.  Also, given that there are no orders are in yet, the full design cost of the plane would have to be financed on our order - cause there is no telling if someone else will buy the NG edition....

A long way off & I don't think we have the luxury of time necessary to do it that way.


----------



## McG

Don2wing said:
			
		

> I am not suggesting that the majority of planes purchased by DND be built in Canada as in the 1950's but that a lowly transport plane could be built in Canada. This is not just about keeping up with the Jones and their cars rather more the economic development of Canada. Other countries such as the United States use their military purchases for the development of their industrial base and companies to allow American companies to be leaders in the world in those sectors.
> 
> So are we followers or leaders?


 Don2wing,
Your plea attempts to leverage peoples’ emotions and patriotism, but it also ignores realities to the point that it grossly misrepresents the situation.  The government of Canada does not need to buy a Canadian built plane in order to develop Canadian industrial base.  In fact, it has been shown that throwing defence dollars into establishing/propping-up a business does not work.  When the contract with DND runs its course, the business is left with nothing to sustain itself, and it goes under (in the case of major systems such as vehicles or aircraft, this creates a situation where DND must now live with grossly inflated lifecycle costs related to a system with no industrial support).

I recommend you look into the reality of IRBs.  They see winning vendors obligated to spend the equivalent of the contracts full dollar value on work in Canada.  This reinforces independently viable elements already within in our industry.  It makes a lot more sense.

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/83535.0.html


----------



## Nfld Sapper

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Who fucking cares ?
> 
> What does the CH-148 have to do with FWSAR and the non-existence of the DHC-5NG ?



Exactly, MODS time for a topic split please.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> Don2wing,
> Your plea attempts to leverage peoples’ emotions and patriotism, but it also ignores realities to the point that it grossly misrepresents the situation.  The government of Canada does not need to buy a Canadian built plane in order to develop Canadian industrial base.  In fact, it has been shown that throwing defence dollars into establishing/propping-up a business does not work.  When the contract with DND runs its course, the business is left with nothing to sustain itself, and it goes under (in the case of major systems such as vehicles or aircraft, this creates a situation where DND must now live with grossly inflated lifecycle costs related to a system with no industrial support).
> 
> I recommend you look into the reality of IRBs.  They see winning vendors obligated to spend the equivalent of the contracts full dollar value on work in Canada.  This reinforces independently viable elements already within in our industry.  It makes a lot more sense.
> 
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/83535.0.html.



And a couple of good examples of this is the LSVW/Western Star plant in BC(?) and the HLVW/Steryr plant in ONT(?). Both of them are now gone.


----------



## aesop081

Don2wing said:
			
		

> This is not just about keeping up with the Jones and their cars rather more the economic development of Canada.



This isnt about keeping up with the Jones or economic development.

This is about equiping our SAR units with what they need to fucking *SAVE LIVES * !

Not one company in this country offers and aircraft that can do the job. Simple as that. You can argue for a canadian-made solution all you want, you can't get around the fact that there are none at this time, and none will be available in an acceptable time frame.


----------



## YZT580

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> This isnt about keeping up with the Jones or economic development.
> 
> This is about equiping our SAR units with what they need to ******* *SAVE LIVES * !
> 
> On this note, if the intent is to save lives, why are we still basing a/c in southern Canada with such great distances to cover to the north and also to the east coast.  None of the candidate a/c offer a transit time of less than 4 hours and that is a lot of time.  It seems ludicrous to ridicule the Buff with its 180 knot speed when the c27 is still going to take forever to respond.  Maybe more, less capable aircraft located in multiple locations is better than better a/c in centralized locales.


----------



## aesop081

Fuck it...you guys know best...........


----------



## Nfld Sapper

YZT580 said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isnt about keeping up with the Jones or economic development.
> 
> This is about equiping our SAR units with what they need to ******* *SAVE LIVES * !
> 
> On this note, if the intent is to save lives, why are we still basing a/c in southern Canada with such great distances to cover to the north and also to the east coast.  None of the candidate a/c offer a transit time of less than 4 hours and that is a lot of time.  It seems ludicrous to ridicule the Buff with its 180 knot speed when the c27 is still going to take forever to respond.  Maybe more, less capable aircraft located in multiple locations is better than better a/c in centralized locales.
Click to expand...


Hence why they use the god damn hercs, Buffalos are used only in BC .

EDITED TO FIX QUOTING BOXES


----------



## geo

> Maybe more, less capable aircraft located in *multiple * locations is better than better a/c in centralized locales.



Umm... that's why we have SAR resources in the following locations....

103 Rescue Squadron, Gander, *Newfoundland * 
413 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Greenwood, *Nova Scotia* 
424 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Trenton, *Ontario * 
435 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Winnipeg, *Manitoba * 
442 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Comox, *British Columbia*


----------



## Nfld Sapper

:brickwall:


----------



## dapaterson

If I may summarize the past few pages of discussions*:

We've made procurement mistakes buying unproven equipment from foreign companies.  To even things out, we should hire a Canadian company without even a production line open to provide us with aircraft that don't meet our needs.


(*edit because even I was appalled by how bad my typing was...)


----------



## Journeyman

Oh go on, it just sounds silly when you say it that way


----------



## GDawg

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If i may summarize the past few pages of idsucssions:
> 
> We've made procurement mistakes buying unproven equipment from foreign companies.  To even things out, we should hire a Canadian company without even a production line open to provide us with aircraft that don't meet our needs.



Yep. Once Viking has completed production of the FWSAR project we can pull the jigs out of the secret barn and build CF 105s to replace the CF 18. 

If we seriously intended to build everything at home it would require a harmonized plan thoughtful enough to last through multiple Lib/Tory cycles and we simply do not have the time to fiddle around when we are suffering from systemic rust out of multiple platforms in every branch of the CF. 

I'd like to add TCCCS to the list of home grown successes while we're getting nostalgic for Canadiana

We can either get our act together _now_ to produce the _next_ generation of Canadian products or we can drop the Canadian narcissism and stop insisting on buying junk with a big heartwarming maple leaf painted on it.


----------



## Haletown

and MAATS . . .   now there's a home grown money sink.

Based on the proven Canadian CAATS technology.


----------



## Kirkhill

Don2Wing:

There is nothing wrong with buying Canadian - but as everybody has been pointing out there is no Canadian to buy.  Now Canadian industry could go out on a limb and actually develop something that could slot into the delivery schedule 15 to 20 years out....but apparently Canadian investors are risk averse ..... AND.....until recently .... DND had no useful mechanism for long term financing.  They were financed project by project, year by year.  Now, with the current funding formula they supposedly can take a longer view of their needs and how they might meet them.  And, perhaps, once they get past the Afghanistan scramble, they might see themselves clear to issuing Statements of Requirement that industry can respond to in a useful manner.

That, however, will require a massive shift in mindset for an industrial base that has no history in that type of development.  Canada, since the era of the AutoPact, has been comfortable living off the scraps falling from the Yankee table. 

In marketing we call it "me tooism".  I won't take the risk of developing ketchup.  Hey, look at that Heinz is making a killing on ketchup.  Hey, how come your buying that Yankee ketchup.  I could make ketchup too, if you paid me to build a line, learn how to make it and find the suppliers.....and I bet it would be just about as good, eventually.  Me too, eh?


----------



## YZT580

geo said:
			
		

> Umm... that's why we have SAR resources in the following locations....
> 
> 103 Rescue Squadron, Gander, *Newfoundland *
> 413 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Greenwood, *Nova Scotia*
> 424 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Trenton, *Ontario *
> 435 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Winnipeg, *Manitoba *
> 442 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Comox, *British Columbia*
> And all of them are south of 60.  I am aware of the S&R capabilities from having had to initiate calls and flight follow you chaps for many, many years and I am aware of the response times.  this isn't about buying Canadian or Italian but in having the resources within reasonable response time.  It is a huge country and all the locations mentioned don't matter much to the chap on the ground north of Churchill.


----------



## geo

... and that,s why we regularly stage out of places like Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqualuit, Resolute, Kuujuaq & Goose Bay.


----------



## George Wallace

YZT580 said:
			
		

> geo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... that's why we have SAR resources in the following locations....
> 
> 103 Rescue Squadron, Gander, *Newfoundland *
> 413 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Greenwood, *Nova Scotia*
> 424 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Trenton, *Ontario *
> 435 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Winnipeg, *Manitoba *
> 442 Transport and Rescue Squadron, Comox, *British Columbia*
> 
> 
> 
> And all of them are south of 60.  I am aware of the S&R capabilities from having had to initiate calls and flight follow you chaps for many, many years and I am aware of the response times.  this isn't about buying Canadian or Italian but in having the resources within reasonable response time.  It is a huge country and all the locations mentioned don't matter much to the chap on the ground north of Churchill.
Click to expand...


You left out 444 in Goose Bay........Who lost a Griffon on a SAR mission soon after they came into service.


----------



## geo

http://www.nss.gc.ca/site/SARLinks/index_e.asp

I wanted to print a current list of sqns & did a look-up
the SAR secretariat had excluded 444 .... their bad


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> the SAR secretariat had excluded 444 ....



No, they did not. 417 Sqn, 439 Sqn and 444 Sqn are combat support squadrons whos main role is to react to emergencies during local flying operations. Their secondary role is to maintain 12-hour SAR standby for national SAR taskings. They are not part of the NSS assisgned units.



> their bad



Nope.


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> .  Hey, look at that Heinz is making a killing on ketchup.  Hey, how come your buying that Yankee ketchup.  I could make ketchup too, if you paid me to build a line, learn how to make it and find the suppliers.....and I bet it would be just about as good, eventually.  Me too, eh?



Very good example Kirkhill.

[quote author=CDN Aviatior]
Their secondary role is to maintain 12-hour SAR standby for national SAR taskings. [/quote]

Just like 407 recently, eh?


----------



## Don2wing

Kirkhill,
           We have chosen different paths in our lives. For you "me tooism" seems quite important. For myself I have been in business all my life and that means being innovative and developing products/ ideas for markets. Businesses can not afford to be the same as the next guy. We have to have continue bring these new products on stream and/or services needed. To do that we have to think outside of the box.

 Your comments about DND not having any long term financing or directions is correct. The federal government for many years and including both Conservative and Liberal regimes have failed Canada in the renewal of infrastructure for DND and other departments. We know that both parties will justify that lack of spending until the sun goes down. This failure has lead directly to the sad state of defense/ ship building companies we have today.  

 I was down in Australia recently and noticed in a grocery store that they had 8 feet of tomato sauce/ketchup from the floor up to ceiling comprising of many different sized bottles and brands. Surprising only one bottle facing and that was on the bottom was Heinz's. The Australians don't seem deprived by not having Heinz as their market leader in tomato sauces. In this case tomato sauce is tomato sauce and the main difference is the label. Tomato sauce was around long before Heinz was successful in branding their name with tomato sauce in the United States and Canada.
  
  I guess we are slightly off topic.


----------



## George Wallace

Perhaps the strict Australian Regulations and Restrictions placed on importing food products would be a factor here.


----------



## Don2wing

GDawg,
        Nice that you have brought up the Arrow because it gives me a chance to talk about our successes. As you have kindly forgot to mention I will recall for you that the RCAF purchased from Canadair the following planes: Northstars, Cosmopolitans, Yukons/Argus, T-33s, F-86s and CF104s that all were built under license. This allowed Canadair to built the infrastructure for their own designs. Many of these planes were sold to countries adding jobs to the Canadian subcontractors as well as dollars back to Canada.  Canadair became Bombardier Aerospace, a world success story.

  I wish I could say the same about de Haviland Canada, the lack of leadership before, during and after the period when the government owned it. Boeing's ownership didn't help as they shut down the some of the aircraft production lines before they sold it to Bombardier.


----------



## aesop081

Don2wing said:
			
		

> GDawg,
> Nice that you have brought up the Arrow because it gives me a chance to talk about our successes.



An aircraft program that nearly bankrupted national defence and whos mission had all but ceased to exist before it went into production is a success ?


----------



## GDawg

Don2wing said:
			
		

> GDawg,
> Nice that you have brought up the Arrow because it gives me a chance to talk about our successes. As you have kindly forgot to mention I will recall for you that the RCAF purchased from Canadair the following planes: Northstars, Cosmopolitans, Yukons/Argus, T-33s, F-86s and CF104s that all were built under license. This allowed Canadair to built the infrastructure for their own designs. Many of these planes were sold to countries adding jobs to the Canadian subcontractors as well as dollars back to Canada.  Canadair became Bombardier Aerospace, a world success story.
> 
> I wish I could say the same about de Haviland Canada, the lack of leadership before, during and after the period when the government owned it. Boeing's ownership didn't help as they shut down the some of the aircraft production lines before they sold it to Bombardier.



What does the CF-105 have to do with Canadair/de Havilland/Bombardier? You left out the CF-5 from the list as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

Don2wing said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> We have chosen different paths in our lives.  .... I'm not sure about that.  Aside from a stint as a weekend warrior that I can't seem to shake I too have spent a while assisting people with new products and processes, specifically in the food industry.
> 
> For you "me tooism" seems quite important..... To be clear, I'm not recommending "me tooism"
> 
> For myself I have been in business all my life and that means being innovative and developing products/ ideas for markets. Businesses can not afford to be the same as the next guy. We have to have continue bring these new products on stream and/or services needed. To do that we have to think outside of the box.  ..... Perhaps you want to explain that to Canadian auto manufacturers, drug manufacturers and Cotts, to name a few.
> 
> 
> I guess we are slightly off topic...... No, I don't think we are off topic.  The question you raised was whether the Canadian Forces could buy a Canadian aircraft to fulfill at least one of their roles.  The general consensus, with which I am in agreement, is that there is no suitable Canadian transport aircraft availble for the Search and Rescue role.  I agree that, given time and money Canadians could eventually build an aircraft that would sell in sufficient numbers as to be profitable and that would meet the needs of the CF.......at some point in the future.  But the need is now and that aircraft isn't.  Perhaps Bombardier could do some out of the box thinking and look ahead to see what types of products the market WILL require and, pun intended, take a flyer.


----------



## KingKikapu

Maybe another point to consider is *CF procurement isn't a make-work system for Canadian industries.*

Contracts should go to the most competent and comprehensive bidder that actually satisfies the needs of the forces.  NOW.  Not in 5 years with a myriad of caveats and addendums.  NOW.  If nothing currently satisfies the needs, then that is a different story.

The CF is charged with saving our collective asses, not cultivating Canadian business.


----------



## geo

Heh... If we wait 40 years before doing procurement... then there is an immediate need

If there was planning & forethought & specs were issued at 20 years then, fine - local industry would have time to develop products that would meet needs.


----------



## justthefacts

This is quite laughable.
First, they show the C-27J as an upgrade but try to portray the vaporware new Buffalo (which as we know doesn't exist) as a separate aircraft.

As for the so-called fact that the C-27J can't operate on unprepared runways? This video is a pretty good demonstration of those capabilities!

http://www.c-27j.ca/tactical-takeoff-landing

Recent deployments of the C-27J in Afghanistan and for a humanitarian mission in Mali, under very difficult flight conditions show this is a real workhorse ideal for SAR

http://www.c-27j.ca/italian-air-force-c-27js-complete-five-month-deployment-to-afghanistan-0

http://www.c-27j.ca/files/new684_4.pdf

http://www.c-27j.ca/node/1437

Alenia can also offer a lot of opportunities to Canadian aerospace firms, arguably more than even Viking could with immediate access and participation in ongoing global supply lines for 200+ C-27Js going into production in North America starting next year.


----------



## geo

Ummm - justthefacts:
By curiosity - your being new here & all: do you have a personal interest in the selection of the C27J ?


----------



## dapaterson

A Google of "Stuart McCarthy" "Ottawa" suggests that he's a communications consultant.  Nothing wrong with that, but if he's a hired hand with Alenia or their partners he should provide disclosure of that fact.


----------



## geo

Stuart McCarthy, 
Bluesky Strategy Group, 
(for Research Canada)
613-2XX-3512 x 229 or
 613-7XX-4321 (cell),
stuart@blueskystrategygroup.com


----------



## Bomber

Bio for Lisa Crawford
http://blueskystrategygroup.com/team_lisa.html

"She has used her expertise to the benefit of clients as diverse as defence firm Alenia North America"

Does Stuart McCarthy work for them also, and post under the title "justthefacts"


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

Fixed-wing search and rescue, and Greg Weston of the _Sun_ papers 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/fixed-wing-sar-and-greg-weston-of-sun.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A letter in the _Ottawa Sun_, Feb. 7:
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/2009/02/07/8299201-sun.html



> Re: "Plane and simple" (Feb. 5).
> http://www.torontosun.com/comment/2009/02/05/8269471-sun.html
> In his trashing of the federal government's anticipated procurement process for the Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue (SAR) aircraft, Greg Weston missed several key elements.
> 
> For operational and cost effectiveness, Canada needs to purchase a single airframe to replace the two now providing domestic SAR services. As a basic premise, the service provided to Canadians must be at least as good as that which is currently available.
> 
> In accordance with current Canadian procurement practice, the government will release internationally the requirements matrix with the invitation for any aircraft manufacturer meeting these requirements to respond. As part of the eligibility process, each potential applicant will be required to demonstrate its capabilities in a real-time flight test. All respondents demonstrating the capability to meet these requirements will be eligible to bid on the program.
> 
> This process is open and transparent. No matter who wins, Canadian industry will benefit enormously through the implementation of industrial and regional benefit obligations, which require a minimum of 100% of the contract value to be placed in industrial offsets in Canada.
> 
> The capability of the current fixed-wing SAR fleet continues to deteriorate at an alarming pace. The real issue with this program, therefore, is to get it started. Canadian lives are at stake.
> 
> _Alain Pellerin, Colonel (Retired)
> 
> Executive director, Conference of Defence Associations_



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

... good letter Col Pellerin - can't argue with that... (though I know many who will)


----------



## MarkOttawa

_Torch_ post:

Defence procurement scandal!!! 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/defence-procurement-scandal.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

MCG: A _Torch_ post:

Fixed-wing SAR aircraft: Not much of a story 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/fixed-wing-sar-aircraft-not-much-of_26.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> I don’t think we should be sacrificing Canadian lives to create Canadian jobs.  The lives are so much more valuable.



MCG, that's freakin' _BRILLIANT_.  I'm stealing the line and using it on whomever will listen...


----------



## tango22a

Maybe someone hhhhhigherrrr up the ladder should tell the Industry Canada Minister to "pound salt" .
It's  bureaucrats like this and PWSGC that ENSURE it takes literally Years to get needed purchases through the bidding process.

tango22a


----------



## Haletown

This is why so many Canadians despise the civil service.

Get the guilty into one room and tell them to get a decision made in four weeks and put the military and the mission as top priority.  Tell them "If you can't do it in the four weeks, you are all fired, on the spot, and you will be escorted out the door, never to come back."


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> Get the guilty into one room and tell them to get a decision made in four weeks



It's no so much that the decision makers cant......well.....make a decision. Its the inevitable flood of lawsuits ( feature of almost all major North American defence procurment projects) that derail and drag out the process. The fact that the oposition and Viking are playing politics with the lives of Canadians is just a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just so I'm clear - Has Alenia agreed to the 100% industrial offset?


Matthew.


----------



## TimBit

Haletown said:
			
		

> This is why so many Canadians despise the civil service.
> 
> Get the guilty into one room and tell them to get a decision made in four weeks and put the military and the mission as top priority.  Tell them "If you can't do it in the four weeks, you are all fired, on the spot, and you will be escorted out the door, never to come back."



Clearly, Haletown, you've never worked for the PS nor any complex GoC programs... I have. There are TONS of LAWS to observe... you know, the law? Billiions are in play. Politicians pulling on one side, media calling in, citizens whining about the PS (that includes you, apparently). It is not easy. You think we in the military feel the heat from politics? Nope...we don't. Try working in a Minister's office, rewriting papers 20 times between 18:00 and 22:00 because he is afraid to lose his constituent's support.

Most Canadians would probably, in fact, agree that the contract should be an open competition with money coming back to the community. Want to bet? I say, yes do have an open bid, it's the law, there is no _urgent _ operational requirement, not anything like the Chinook or M777. And often, we should not forget either that companies fail to bid because the requirements, which are set by staff officers, cannot be met within the allotted amounts. So maybe everyone should shoulder the blame a bit, rather than just bashing the PS without knowledge of how it works.

Yes there are lazy people in the PS, who can't make up their mind. But what about that crusty old Sgt Bloggins at the QM who never has anything for you and insists on closing at 11:00 on Fridays? Surely you've met one of these?

Sorry for the rant, I just was expecting a bit more support considering we all serve the same department and its minister, some as soldiers, some as civvies, some as both.


----------



## aesop081

TimBit said:
			
		

> there is no _urgent _ operational requirement,



You havent seen the CC-115 and CC-130E serviceability rates lately have you


----------



## TimBit

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You havent seen the CC-115 and CC-130E serviceability rates lately have you



Ok granted, maybe there is. But what I meant is, people are not dying now because of it, which is what prompted the Chinooks to be bought. 

Are the rates worse than the Sea Kings'?


----------



## McG

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just so I'm clear - Has Alenia agreed to the 100% industrial offset?


IRBs can either be direct or indirect, but they must be accepted.  Under Canadian rules, if they do not accept the 100% IRBs, then the bid is non-compliant and they do not get the contract.  

Government demanding 100% direct IRBs is stupid because it can cause delays (as it has done in stalling the Leopard), force the selection of inadaquate equipment (as it may do with FWSAR), increase costs, and/or lead to the creating of buisnesses which are not independaly viable at the end of the government contract (and so the buisness closes or downsizes leaving many unemployed).



			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> .... people are not dying now because of it ....


We should not need to wait for someone to die when the writting is on the wall:  It is inevitable if we don't do something timely.


----------



## TimBit

MCG said:
			
		

> We should not need to wait for someone to die when the writting is on the wall:  It is inevitable if we don't do something timely.



Absolutely true. I still remember the Labrador crash in the 90's. In fact I thought about qualifying my comment earlier, but I guess what is posted is posted...


----------



## aesop081

TimBit said:
			
		

> But what I meant is, people are not dying now because of it,



What do you think the pressure on those people in the minister's office will be when a Canadian citizen dies because SAR assets were on the ramp broken and unavailable ? Look at the critisism that errupted recently in NL just because SAR assets were away on an exercise.




> Are the rates worse than the Sea Kings'?



Probably in the same league.


----------



## dapaterson

However, Industry can look to DND and say "You've known about these problems for years and done nothing to replace the aircraft.  Why are your delays now reasons for you to circumvent the system you know so well?"

It may not look like it from the Rideau centre, by 101 Col By Drive is a pretty big glass house...


----------



## Haletown

TimBit said:
			
		

> Clearly, Haletown, you've never worked for the PS nor any complex GoC programs... I have. There are TONS of LAWS to observe... you know, the law? Billiions are in play. Politicians pulling on one side, media calling in, citizens whining about the PS (that includes you, apparently). It is not easy. You think we in the military feel the heat from politics? Nope...we don't. Try working in a Minister's office, rewriting papers 20 times between 18:00 and 22:00 because he is afraid to lose his constituent's support.



Actually, I have worked on quite a few large Government programs, in Canada and Internationally, including $billion dollar programs and programs for DND.  I'd bet I have forgotten more about DIDs & CDRLs & Contract Regulations than 99% of service members - the Beer Therapy helped a lot and I am almost at a fully recovered level  ;D

Yes there are many laws and they must be observed, but this delay isn't about laws, it is about civil service infighting, turf protection and placing departmental loyalties above the needs of soldiers.  The soldier comes first. 


And I do very much understand what it is like to be at the service of a Minister. I have been working the better part of the last 24 hrs so a Minister can get a press Release out the door - I wasn't really happy about it at 4:00am today as I crunched numbers into a model to create a favorable spin, but I do understand how the system works.


----------



## Good2Golf

Timbit, there's a difference between making a well founded point, and coming out swinging (on shakey ground) at someone for whom you have little knowledge (if you hadn't yet reviewed their posts to see where they were coming from). 

These things are not cut and dry, simple "state your needs, we'll all get along happily as an inter-departmental/industrial family".  Plenty of agendas going on both within, and outside all the involved organizations.

Haletown and dapaterson are not at all far off the mark.

Regards

G2G


----------



## TimBit

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, Industry can look to DND and say "You've known about these problems for years and done nothing to replace the aircraft.  Why are your delays now reasons for you to circumvent the system you know so well?"



Very good point! Delays in procurement are no reason to go above the law.

Otherwise, we could use this reasonning for everything: JSS (or whatever it is/will be called) is mission-critical, let's buy off the shelf from one company. Destroyers must be replaced: let's buy this particular one.

This also applies to any other dept, not just DND (we are not always as special as we kind of hope). RCMP cruisers are in short supply, it's an emergency, let's buy Ford. Coast Guard needs bigger ships, let's buy this one.

And so on and so on. 

I understand when new, flash requirements appear because of deployments and the likes (i.e. Nyala, Chinook, M777, even Globemasters), and that we might want to expedite these. But long-forecasted platform replacement? These should be forecasted long enough in advance so that we can respect the law and follow an objective purchasing process, OUTSIDE the politicians' hands. Why, they do not always favour an option in particular just to please the military (remember Airbus, 1980s?). 

That said, of course I don't want someone to die. But I'm saying, we cannot take any opportunity to skip due process as we please.


----------



## TimBit

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Timbit, there's a difference between making a well founded point, and coming out swinging (on shakey ground) at someone for whom you have little knowledge (if you hadn't yet reviewed their posts to see where they were coming from).
> 
> These things are not cut and dry, simple "state your needs, we'll all get along happily as an inter-departmental/industrial family".  Plenty of agendas going on both within, and outside all the involved organizations.
> 
> Haletown and dapaterson are not at all far off the mark.
> 
> Regards
> 
> G2G



I apologized to Haletown for the outburst. But I don't think I was swinging on shakey grounds. All-out attacks on the PS are as shaky as anything else. 

Let's look at it this way: Industry Canada's job is to promote canadian businesses. Would it not be failing at its job if it didn't ask of DND to follow the law in processing a major equipment purchase program?

I understand there are agendas and everything... within DND as well. Which is why due process, objective procurement processes can, often, avoid giving in blindly to those agendas. Whose agenda would be served by this sole source purchase.


----------



## KingKikapu

Protectionism.  Le sigh.


As someone who is feeling the economic pinch pretty harshly, you would expect me to be all for someone throwing me a home-grown bone.  Screw that.  The right tool for the job is far more important to me than pseudo make work.


----------



## ScottS

Haven't we been through this already?  As far as I remember, the list of requirements was released, and the C27J and C295 were proposed.  Is this not correct?  Seems like a competition to me..


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, Industry can look to DND and say "You've known about these problems for years and done nothing to replace the aircraft.  Why are your delays now reasons for you to circumvent the system you know so well?"


As best as I can tell, we are not circumventing the system.  FWSAR will proceed through competition based on performance and technical specifications produced by DND.  Those specifications were developed to ensure that the aircraft procured meets Canada’s Search & Rescue needs throughout the envisioned life span of the aircraft.  The complaining seems to be that (because no Canadian made aircraft fits the specification) Canadian industry wants DND to water-down the specification.  In other words:  Lower the minimum standard so a Canadian aircraft can be competed, and pass the risk onto the Canadian citizens who’s lives will one day depend on it.


----------



## dapaterson

I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft mechanic nor SAR tech, so I'm not in a position to comment on DND's tech specs for this requirement, but there have been attempts in the past to game the requirements, to deliberately exclude certain competitors, or influence the outcome towards a preferred supplier.

Hence the need for a two engine fighter aircraft - "because, in the arctic, pilots need two engines", put in place to remove the F-16 from consideration; then Boeing snuck in with the F-18 vice the F-15 that was the desired outcome.


DND's hands are not clean either; the constant adversarial clashes between the ECSes and ADM(Mat) and then DND and PWGSC serve only to further slow the processes.


----------



## McG

You are correct there.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft mechanic nor SAR tech, so I'm not in a position to comment on DND's tech specs for this requirement, but there have been attempts in the past to game the requirements, to deliberately exclude certain competitors, or influence the outcome towards a preferred supplier.
> 
> Hence the need for a two engine fighter aircraft - "because, in the arctic, pilots need two engines", put in place to remove the F-16 from consideration; then Boeing snuck in with the F-18 vice the F-15 that was the desired outcome.
> 
> 
> DND's hands are not clean either; the constant adversarial clashes between the ECSes and ADM(Mat) and then DND and PWGSC serve only to further slow the processes.



Actually, both aircraft (F-18 and F-15) were from the same company (McDonnell Douglas).  I don't understand how "they snuck in with the F-18", only to remove the F-15 from the competition.


----------



## Good2Golf

TimBit said:
			
		

> Let's look at it this way: Industry Canada's job is to promote canadian businesses. Would it not be failing at its job if it didn't ask of DND to follow the law in processing a major equipment purchase program?



Are you implying that DND is not following the law?  Could you elaborate on what law you are refering to that Industry Canada believes/claims/states? (Ref:?) that DND is not complying with?

In the world of "Rules", there is legislation (a.k.a. the law), and there are regulations and policies that affect Government of Canada procurement in general, and in some cases by Departmental policies (such as the policies of the Defence Services Program) -- all are being followed by DND.  DND developed operational requirements representing the best balance of a fixed-wing SAR capability that was currently being provided by a number of legacy fleets (CC115, CC130).  The case was presented to and approved by Treasury Board to continue the definition of the capability, which is what DND has done to date.

That non-100% synchronized effort is causing some frustration amonst some involved in the effort is understandable, but care should be taken to not imply that illegal activity is being taken on the part of DND, or any other department or agency, for that matter.

Regards,

G2G


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Actually, both aircraft (F-18 and F-15) were from the same company (McDonnell Douglas).  I don't understand how "they snuck in with the F-18", only to remove the F-15 from the competition.



Mea culpa; I forgot that both were from the same parent company.  However, to my knowledge the overall integration of aircraft, sensors and weapons were proposed by two different consortia; the preferred option was the F-15 (longer range, greater payload, faster).  I don't think the project staff expected the F-18 offer, coming up the middle; otherwise they'd have included a more stringent combat radius requirement (F-15s have nearly triple the range of the F-16 or F-18).

A friend of mine is a professional magician who explained that stacking the deck is much more difficult than it looks, and should be left to professionals - otherwise it looks obvious and no one is fooled.


----------



## KJK

I see Aviation Week has an article about how Viking Air plans to restart Buffalo production. :

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/BUFFALO032709.xml&headline=Viking%20Eyes%20Restarting%20Buffalo%20Line&channel=defense

KJK


----------



## observor 69

Aside from all this elevated argument my 27 frustrated years in the air force is a history of consistent political interference with the optimal military choice. This would be why the C-17 purchase stands out so strongly as an anomaly, the right purchase for the right reasons.
One of the reasons I like many in the military study history is to figure out WTF happened ? Well after a few years as a civy and much reading I find reality is political manipulation and interference is the norm not the exception, as it is in many countries and has been for centuries.

IT'S HARD TO SOAR WITH THE EAGLES WHEN YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY TURKEYS


----------



## TimBit

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Aside from all this elevated argument my 27 frustrated years in the air force is a history of consistent political interference with the optimal military choice. This would be why the C-17 purchase stands out so strongly as an anomaly, the right purchase for the right reasons.
> One of the reasons I like many in the military study history is to figure out WTF happened ? Well after a few years as a civy and much reading I find reality is political manipulation and interference is the norm not the exception, as it is in many countries and has been for centuries.
> 
> IT'S HARD TO SOAR WITH THE EAGLES WHEN YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY TURKEYS



For all the good and the bad reasons, that's why it's called democracy. ;D


----------



## Zoomie

TimBit said:
			
		

> These should be forecasted long enough in advance so that we can respect the law and follow an objective purchasing process, OUTSIDE the politicians' hands.



FWIW FWSAR replacement has been an ongoing project since the turn of the century.  That is plenty of time for any and all competitors to get their proposed product in order.  New additions to the melee have been popping up at the last minute and crying foul about the timing, etc.



> Why, they do not always favour an option in particular just to please the military (remember Airbus, 1980s?).



What about Airbus?  Are you talking about the 5 Polaris aircraft that we picked up off of Canadian Airlines ?


----------



## MarkOttawa

LGen Watt fights back (usual copyright disclaimer):

Air force chief defends $3B plan for new aircraft 
Competition for search-and-rescue planes not rigged, general says
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/force+chief+defends+plan+aircraft/1437937/story.html



> Canada's air force chief blasted lobbyists and aerospace industry players Friday for "beating" on the Defence Department for its handling of the $3-billion plan to buy a new fleet of fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes.
> 
> "We're getting beat up too much on fixed-wing SAR," Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt said Friday afternoon at Defence Department headquarters.
> 
> "The problem is we haven't been able to tell our story because normally it's 'advice to government.' Until the government approves our program, we try and keep things internal to the department," said Watt, who then launched into a Power Point presentation of the detailed specifications of Canada's new fleet of 15 search-and-rescue planes -- specs that have yet to be made public, including to the consortiums that will eventually bid on the airplane contract.
> 
> "Everybody else has had a free rein to pitch their view of what Canada's needs are," said Watt, saying the slides were his "advice to government on what our next planes should look like."
> 
> Watt said he had the blessing of Defence Minister Peter MacKay to discuss the specifications of what he believes the air force needs to replace its ageing fleet of Hercules and Buffalo aircraft that date back to the 1960s. The fixed-wing search-and-rescue procurement has been mired in government and industry infighting that has frustrated the military and led lobbyists to level a familiar accusation that has bedeviled many lucrative military aircraft purchases: That the government has tailored its specifications to favour one particular airplane.
> 
> "Unlike certain accusations that have been floating around, we did not design these high-level capabilities to match a specific airplane. We designed for the mission," said Watt. However, Watt allowed that the Alenia C-27J, an Italian plane that would be built at a U.S. plant, meets the specifications. "That's one, but there's other possibilities," said Watt.
> 
> In January, the Ottawa-based Aerospace Industries Association of Canada complained in a letter to MacKay and Industry Minister Tony Clement that the military reliance on U.S. manufacturers was depriving Canadian companies of jobs. The accusation incensed MacKay, who insisted that the government's regional benefits policy would be respected -- that for every dollar given to a foreign company, one dollar in regional benefits for Canadian industry would be spent.
> 
> Earlier this week, reports emerged that Industry Canada was determined to draw a "line in the sand" with the Defence Department to ensure that the aircraft purchase did not discriminate against Canadian companies. "I'm after an airplane that will provide an equivalent level of service to that which Canadians currently enjoy with the Buffalo and the Herc. I'm not looking to gild the lily. I'm not looking to do anything beyond anything Canadians have a right to expect," said Watt.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kj_gully

uncharacteristically direct from an Airforce General, timely. I hope the CF is allowed more opportunity to speak like this. I love the Buffalo. But she is like an old companion dog, way past her prime, and only around because I don't have the courage to take her out behind the barn. The crews are losing confidence and proficiency, and I think RCC is losing confidence in our ability to complete our task. As I've said before, the buff is rectangular in cross section, and no new buff will be pressurized, so should not be considered. I hope that Viking builds Buffalos. I think it will be great to see that plane continue flying. But I do not want my new plane to be my old plane. I want improved capability. I want to be able to prepare my rescue equipment while in transit, not be tied to an oxygen mask. I want improved sensors, and a proper place to house them. I *Need* a ramp, and I'd like to walk upright in the cabin. I'd love the C27, would make due with the C295, and would prefer a Herc to a Buff. Whatever plane we decide, should be a common platform cross Canada. Crew training in small split fleets is ridiculously time and resource intensive. I think we should have enough C27 to do Domestic transport and SAR, and leave C130J to work internationally with the c17. The Buff is on borrowed time.


----------



## MarkOttawa

A _Torch_ post--with lots of background detail to the issue:

Fixed-wing SAR aircraft: Chief of the Air Staff fights back...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/fixed-wing-sar-aircraf-chief-of-air.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

LGen Watt needs a better PAff O.  Friday afternoon press conferences get lost in the weekend.


----------



## MarkOttawa

dapaterson: 





> Friday afternoon press conferences get lost in the weekend.


  

Hardly, when the press smells blood--for example:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/609870
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/force+hits+back+critics+search+rescue+purchase/1436752/story.html
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/force+hits+back+critics+search+rescue+purchase/1436752/story.html
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/force+hits+back+critics+search+rescue+purchase/1436752/story.html
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=1436752
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm [see end]

May be more.  And then there's this:

CANADA'S BULLY BOY AEROSPACE INDUSTRY BEATS UP ON ANGUS AND NDHQ GANG
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/03/28/canada-s-bully-boy-aerospace-industry-beats-up-on-angus-and-ndhq-gang.aspx

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

> Defence Department under fire over $3B plane contract
> Last Updated: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 | 8:24 PM ET
> CBC News
> 
> The Defence Department has been forced to reconsider its requirements for choosing new search-and-rescue planes for the Canadian military amid accusations the process was rigged, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The department started searching for new aircraft to replace its aging fleet in 2002. Its requirements were so stringent that only one aircraft in the world — the C-27J by Italy's Alenia — could meet them, sources told the CBC.
> 
> That automatically excluded other credible competitors, they said.
> 
> For example, the C-295 — a plane made by the Spanish company EADS — was excluded because its cabin was 15 centimetres too short and its maximum cruising speed 12 knots too slow. Montreal-based Bombardier's Dash 8 was an option, but without a rear ramp it was out, too.
> 
> However, the department is now re-examining those requirements after Industry Canada refused to let the procurement — worth $3 billion — proceed.
> 
> "So everyone is seized with that; what we're trying to do now is get everyone in the comfort zone as to how the bidding process will work, being as inclusive as possible without compromising on the requirements," Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Tuesday.
> 
> Typically, three government departments are involved in military procurement:
> 
> Defence decides what it needs.
> Public Works designs the contracts.
> Industry Canada makes sure the deal is good for Canadian industry by ensuring that companies here benefit — either through direct contracts to build parts or the planes themselves, or through promises by foreign companies to spend the value of the contract in this country.
> A search of the government's lobbyist registry reveals the lengths some airplane companies went to push their case.
> 
> Turin-based Alenia, for example, hired several lobbyists who met 14 times with officials over the last year — including key staff in MacKay's office and other bureaucrats in charge of procurement. Lobbyists working for EADS recorded six meetings with government officials in the same time period.
> 
> Industry Canada's decision to call the requirements into question opens the door for Viking Air, a small aircraft manufacturer in Sidney, B.C.
> 
> In 2004, the Vancouver Island company bought the rights to a series of iconic Canadian planes — the De Havilland Beaver, the Twin Otter and the Buffalo, among others. Now Viking is building updated versions of these planes and selling them around the world
> 
> "The biggest reason why these airframes have survived and people invest in them all the time is because they're so robust," said Robert Mauracher, Viking's vice-president.
> 
> The Buffalo, for example, has been one of the Canadian Forces' primary search-and-rescue aircraft for more than 40 years.
> 
> "The Buffalo is an excellent aircraft. It fits a certain market," Mauracher said. "It's a proven airframe. It's a good airframe, so we don't have to worry about that."
> 
> The redesigned Buffalo has modern engines, upgraded avionics and specialized search gear that ought to put it in the running for the lucrative defence contract, he added.
> 
> Mauracher is considering hiring lobbyists to help make the case for the Buffalo in Ottawa.
> 
> "They have a responsibility to make sure they get the equipment they need to do the job. All I'm saying is give us a chance to show you that what we have [that] may meet your needs. That's really what the bottom line is," he said.


 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/09/defence-plane-contract009.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

DND has a _mandate_ to do _things_, including SAR, and to be accountable for how well (including how cost effectively) those things are done. Industry Canada and PWGSC have somewhat different mandates that include a duty to _”support”_ Canadian industry.

We are seeing a classic conflict of mandates.

Let us assume that DND’s *operational requirement* is correctly stated – in _performance_ terms (how high, how fast, how much room inside, etc) that can be readily justified as being *minimum* and reasonable standards. Even if DND’s requirements are “right” and fully justified they are perceived to be “unfair” to Canadian industry and our industrial leaders will do what they always do: try to change the _specs_ to suit the product they have on the shelf rather than build a product that meets the _specs_. Politicians, being, largely, in the pockets of big business and/or big labour, will go along.

Civil servants are doing what their political masters require. DND's civil servants are trying to buy the aircraft that the Air Force says it needs, IC and PWGSC civil servants are trying to "support" Canadian industry by allowing more bidders into the process.


----------



## CANADIAN F0RCES

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/09/defence-plane-contract009.html

*
Defence Department under fire over $3B plane contract*

The Defence Department has been forced to reconsider its requirements for choosing new search-and-rescue planes for the Canadian military amid accusations the process was rigged, CBC News has learned.

The department started searching for new aircraft to replace its aging fleet in 2002. Its requirements were so stringent that only one aircraft in the world — the C-27J by Italy's Alenia — could meet them, sources told the CBC.

That automatically excluded other credible competitors, they said.

For example, the C-295 — a plane made by the Spanish company EADS — was excluded because its cabin was 15 centimetres too short and its maximum cruising speed 12 knots too slow. Montreal-based Bombardier's Dash 8 was an option, but without a rear ramp it was out, too.

Industry Canada hit the brakes
However, the department is now re-examining those requirements after Industry Canada refused to let the procurement — worth $3 billion — proceed.

"So everyone is seized with that; what we're trying to do now is get everyone in the comfort zone as to how the bidding process will work, being as inclusive as possible without compromising on the requirements," Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Tuesday.

Typically, three government departments are involved in military procurement:

Defence decides what it needs. 
Public Works designs the contracts. 
Industry Canada makes sure the deal is good for Canadian industry by ensuring that companies here benefit — either through direct contracts to build parts or the planes themselves, or through promises by foreign companies to spend the value of the contract in this country. 
A search of the government's lobbyist registry reveals the lengths some airplane companies went to push their case.

Turin-based Alenia, for example, hired several lobbyists who met 14 times with officials over the last year — including key staff in MacKay's office and other bureaucrats in charge of procurement. Lobbyists working for EADS recorded six meetings with government officials in the same time period.

Industry Canada's decision to call the requirements into question opens the door for Viking Air, a small aircraft manufacturer in Sidney, B.C.

Canadian contender builds updated classics
In 2004, the Vancouver Island company bought the rights to a series of iconic Canadian planes — the De Havilland Beaver, the Twin Otter and the Buffalo, among others. Now Viking is building updated versions of these planes and selling them around the world

"The biggest reason why these airframes have survived and people invest in them all the time is because they're so robust," said Robert Mauracher, Viking's vice-president.

The Buffalo, for example, has been one of the Canadian Forces' primary search-and-rescue aircraft for more than 40 years.

"The Buffalo is an excellent aircraft. It fits a certain market," Mauracher said. "It's a proven airframe. It's a good airframe, so we don't have to worry about that."

The redesigned Buffalo has modern engines, upgraded avionics and specialized search gear that ought to put it in the running for the lucrative defence contract, he added.

Mauracher is considering hiring lobbyists to help make the case for the Buffalo in Ottawa.

"They have a responsibility to make sure they get the equipment they need to do the job. All I'm saying is give us a chance to show you that what we have [that] may meet your needs. That's really what the bottom line is," he said.


----------



## YZT580

The 27J has not been selected by a single airforce for S & R.  It has been selected for an in-theatre transport aircraft. Even the Italians didn't buy it for that purpose.  Their Coast Guard use other aircraft.   It is also a 30 year old design.  Maybe a little competition isn't such a bad thing if the specs. are written correctly in the first place and not designed around a single airframe which the ones for this selection process were and that is the reason that it was thrown out.


----------



## dapaterson

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The 27J has not been selected by a single airforce for S & R.  It has been selected for an in-theatre transport aircraft. Even the Italians didn't buy it for that purpose.  Their Coast Guard use other aircraft.   It is also a 30 year old design.  Maybe a little competition isn't such a bad thing if the specs. are written correctly in the first place and not designed around a single airframe which the ones for this selection process were and that is the reason that it was thrown out.



Have you seen the specs -  What are the dimensions of standard SAR pallets?  With gear on, how tall is a 95th percentile SAR tech?  What range do we want to fly?


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is, essentially, a _public relations_ “war” between a small handful of defence contractors and three Conservative ministers:  The Hon. Peter MacKay, The Hon. Tony Clement and The Hon. Christian Paradis. All three ministers have ambitions within the Conservative Party.

There may also be a bit of a feud between some very senior civil servants: in departments and, also, in the political _centre_ (Privy Council Office (PCO), Finance and Treasury Board (TB)). A forthcoming change in PCO clerks might well spell changes (promotions and _resignations_) amongst deputy ministers. Ambition does focus the mind. 

I, of course, have never seen the _specs_ and even if I had I would be unqualified to comment on them – being neither a pilot/SAR specialist nor an aerospace engineer. I’m hoping – for the sake of the military’s overall credibility – that the Air Force can and will justify, line by line, the requirements that led to those _specs_. But I’m guessing that it will be an uphill struggle. I think the IC, PWGSC and industry press agents will find it easier to plant stories about jobs – or lack of same – in regions than to discuss airspeed requirements and time to search area and so on.


----------



## YZT580

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Have you seen the specs -  What are the dimensions of standard SAR pallets?  With gear on, how tall is a 95th percentile SAR tech?  What range do we want to fly?


what loiter time is required, what is the minimum acceptable runway length, composition, transit time.  There are a lot of issues that a ground based radar operator is not aware of[me]  That is why I qualified my initial comment regarding the required specs.  The specifications laid down for this aircraft appear to have taken the Alenia issued materiel and used it to structure a call for tender.  Now if all those figures just happen to coincide with the optimal numbers for a Canadian S & R aircraft then go for it but I don't believe in that much coincidence especially when the aircraft in question was not designed for this purpose in the first place.  Without that justification for each spec. the tender request looks like nothing more than the wishes of an individual who was smitten by C-27J.  You could do the same thing to justify purchasing DC4s from Carl Mallard and equiping them for S & R or 415s from Bombardier.  

Politics not withstanding, you only have one chance in 25 years to get it right so if that right is the Spartan, prove it.  That is what Industry Canada has requested.


----------



## dapaterson

Industry Canada is more concerned with jobs in Canada than DND getting an aircraft that meets its requirements.  Anyone ever seen an LSVW?

Bombardier, if they wish to be taken seriously, could at least do R&D to add a rear ramp - and then have a Dash-8 variant with easier cargo access they could market to their non-military clients.  

Sounds to me like the SPAC did not go well.


----------



## YZT580

Bombardier lost their creativity when they disbanded their research division in Downsview and decided that STOL capable rugged aircraft were not in demand.  Now they only green build and leave it to others, such as Field to be creative.


----------



## Haletown

Maybe we should send some of the Industry Canada tall foreheads off on some military missions and see what it is like at the very pointy end of the stick they want to control where they can see and feel the life and death consequences of their decisions.

Couple of night SAR missions in the BC mountains - let's all pray for marginal weather to give them maximum butt clench factor  and maybe as observers on a few anti IED patrols in the Sand Box.

Might give them a different insight into their "mandate".


----------



## George Wallace

Bomb ardier has proven their total lack of "business sense" so often in the past; why should this be any different.  They only exist because of Government subsidies, Grants, Contracts, and forgivable Loans.


----------



## observor 69

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The 27J has not been selected by a single airforce for S & R.  It has been selected for an in-theatre transport aircraft. Even the Italians didn't buy it for that purpose.  Their Coast Guard use other aircraft.



Are our SAR requirements the same as Italy?


----------



## kj_gully

Sigh... what are we going to do when we have no Buffalos left? I guess they will reallocate H model Hercs to Comox. Maybe they should just give SAR away to Contractors, who can charge a fee for service. I wonder how many private pilots will keep Rescue insurance?


----------



## MarkOttawa

MND MacKay responds. Good on him, now let's see how much clout he has in Cabinet:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/10/mackay-plane010.html



> Defence Minister Peter MacKay lashed out at allegations that his department rigged a $3-billion contract for new aircraft in favour of an Italian airplane manufacturer.
> 
> His remarks came after CBC News reported Tuesday that Industry Canada had ordered the military to re-examine its requirements for new search-and-rescue planes because of the allegations. The federal Public Works Department also opposed the deal for the same reason.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with CBC News in his Parliament Hill office Tuesday, MacKay said military requirements for the new aircraft were designed to save lives, not favour one manufacturer over another.
> 
> "*We need to get on with the process," he said. "We, as National Defence, we have specific operational requirements* [emphasis added]."
> 
> Those requirements are well thought-out and include the distance the plane must be able to fly, its speed, cargo capacity and ability to allow search and rescue technicians to parachute out into dark nights, over stormy oceans or rough Arctic terrain, he said.
> 
> "All of those requirement go into defining what type of aircraft we need. It's not tailored for any particular company."..
> 
> MacKay said his department is willing to meet with airplane manufacturers to discuss the military's requirements as it seeks to replace its aging search-and-rescue fleet.
> 
> "Our requirements are based on performance and ability to do the job. It's as basic as that, and we know what's at stake — people's lives."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## blogwatcher

This is incorrect.

Both the Hellenic Air Force (Greece) and the Italian Air Force use the C-27J for search and rescue.
Italy does have other aircraft for maritime patrol (I believe they are Alenia's ATR-42 and 72s) just like Canada has the Auroras for MPA.

This was in the press release on the 12th C-27J being delivered to the Italian Air Force:

"The C-27Js replace the AMI fleet of G.222s, from which they have inherited capability and excellent operating performances displayed in operations both in Italy and overseas for the transport of troops and materials, civilian protection, airdrop of cargo and paratroopers, fire fighting, and search and rescue."


The last line of this web page on the HAF's 354 Tactical Squadron (http://www.haf.gr/en/structure/units/day/units/354mtm.asp) says:

"The incorporation of the C-27J, an advanced technology aircraft, opens new ways to the tactical transportation section for the military operations. Also C-27J contributes to the public sector, with search and rescue, humanitarian aid, and medical evacuation missions."


As for the C-27J being a 30-year-old aircraft, that's like saying the C-130J Hercules or the Bombardier's Q-400 Dash-8 are 30 year-old aircraft, just because they have a similar shape to their predecessors.  

The Buffalos and C-130H Hercs ARE 40 year old (plus) aircraft and the few still flying need replacing more urgently now than when this whole process started back in 2002.


----------



## Don2wing

Blogwatcher,
                  In Italy the Italian Air force may use the C-27 for search and rescue but the Corps of the Port Captaincies - Coast Guard is  responsible for search and rescue. The Coast Guard run the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres, the boats, the helicopters and the planes (ATR 42s and Piaggio P.166). The air force is the backup group.


----------



## Kirkhill

.......and battle is rejoined.

I wonder if Zoomie and KJ will get a new ride before they retire?


----------



## blogwatcher

Don2wing said:
			
		

> Blogwatcher,
> In Italy the Italian Air force may use the C-27 for search and rescue but the Corps of the Port Captaincies - Coast Guard is  responsible for search and rescue. The Coast Guard run the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres, the boats, the helicopters and the planes (ATR 42s and Piaggio P.166). The air force is the backup group.



I didn't say it was the only aircraft used but it _is_ used and it is part of the mission in two of the countries which have purchased the aircraft, contrary to the original post.  Even in Canada, we have military, Coast Guard and civilian agencies and volunteers who are all part of the search and rescue spectrum.


----------



## dapaterson

Keep in mind, though, that Italy's SAR requirements are exponentially less than Canada's.  Indeed, Europe as a whole is smaller...


----------



## kj_gully

Zoomie can correct me, but I'm fairly sure that the C27 is already a compromise. The "Gold standard" would be an increased Herc fleet. That would be one less airframe to cross train on. However, the specs was settled on as a suitable minimum compromise between the current capabilities of the mixed herc and buff SAR fleet, with economy gained from the reduction of engines and fuel. there is a very good presentation on a SAR mission from Winnipeg to Alert, allowing minimum loiter time, and recover to closest airport within a SAR crew day. The C27 can do it, though it would be no problem for a herc. A C295 needs to be pre positioned in the North, ie new SAR base, when 90% of missions occur close to 49 parallel, ie where people live.


----------



## Rescue Randy

At the risk of going over old ground, which has been previously beat to death, a C-295 does not need to be stationed in the North to meet the requirement.  If the CF orders on Crew day are used, the C-295 can do the mission to the North from Winnipeg or Comox, as per the CF requirement, in one crew day.  The calculations used to eliminate it assumes 2 hours of crew day burned prior to takeoff, which is not valid - crew day starts when the first guy turns up for work after the AC elects to launch, which means a max of 90 minutes crew day burned before launch.  KJ gully knows that he and the crew are usually airborne within one hour when on standby at home, which is why one hour was used in the CSH SOR calculations.  The definition of crew day that is used to eliminate the C-295, which starts crew day when the AC is notified instead of when the first guy shows up for work, only exists for purposes of this acquisition.  
This discussion is probably about 50 pages back, but to repeat, the problem with an increased Herc fleet is someone has decided that they are only going to have one aircraft type for SAR, and the Herc is not a good machine in the mountains.   If they were going to have a split fleet, like the USCG does, then it would make a lot of sense to have the Hercs for the ocean ops and Arctic, and a smaller machine, more manoueverable with a lower stalling speed, to handle the mountains.  The reality is that none of the twin engine candidates will be able to provide the same time on station at the north pole, or at 30 west, that the Herc currently provides.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I was always under the impression that the crew day, when on call, starts from the moment you receive the call at home.


----------



## kj_gully

I'm sure you know the scenario far better than me Randy, since you have been paid to provide rebuttals. I know we are often airborne within an hour, but we both know callout time is 2 Hours from call to launch. . There is also only 1 hour allotted for refuelling. I don't think we can count on getting gas in the Arctic in winter in an hour, but the competitors are content to let  that number stand. Really it comes down to getting the best plane we can for the money we have. Your old plane the Buff is well overdue for a retirement party and a VA claim. Face it the CASA is smaller,and by smaller I mean too small to stand up in or move around in, not cubic feet, slower, and has no parts in common with the c130J. Listen, the C27 is not perfect. It isn't as slow and maneuverable as the Buff, nor have the space and range of the Herc, but it does a better job of finding the middle ground between those two aircraft than your plane. Stop trying to sell your former comrades an inferior product. More on Rescue Randy here: https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/_ls70_ls75_ls62_ls6c_ls69_ls63_ls53_ls75_ls6d_ls6d_ls61_ls72_ls79?_ls6c_ls61_ls6e_ls67_ls75_ls61_ls67_ls65=_ls65_ls6e_ls5f_ls43_ls41&_ls72_ls65_ls67_ls44_ls65_ls63=562016&_ls73_ls4d_ls64_ls4b_ls79=1243014941943&_STRTG3=tr


----------



## kj_gully

Since we are so many pages later going over the same tired pipe dream of a new SAR bird, thought I'd dig out my old post on how the C27 kicks C295 a$$ 





			
				kj_gully said:
			
		

> The other day on "slash" I took the time to read through the entire thread. Interesting to see how it has evolved since the days of the "fast track" for replacement, seems forgotten now... I realized that there hasn't really been a solid discussion as to why I would prefer one over the other.
> #1. Rugged military construction. C27 is built as an airforce platform, designed for transport lift, and ruggedly constructed. The other contenders are modified airliners, and must be retro fitted to meet milspec. This *WILL* result in an inferior product.
> #2. Space. It has been debated back and forth quite a bit, but from the one working in the back, appropriate working space is imperitive. C27 provides full height headroom across almost the entire cabin. The C295 provides 6'3" headroom in the dead centre of the cabin, requiring a stooped posture for most of the time (@ just over 6', I am very near, if not over 6"3" with my helmet on, so would probably be hunched all the time.) C295's long cabin is not friendly, as it means the gear and the ramp are further apart. Also the narrow floor means more difficulty avoiding the cargo rollers.
> #3. APU, Auxilliary power unit. It is like a generator that self powers the plane when it is landed remote of services (more or less, an FE/ maintainer can help me here) It allows you to start engines. C27 has one, C295 ( civil aircraft, remember?) does not.
> #4. STOL ( short takeoff and landing) C27: T/O: 550 m, landing: 350 m. CASA: 844m T/O, 680m landing (their specs!) BTW, Buff T/O 377m,Landing 325m
> #5 Fuel dump capability, which lightens aircraft to safe landing weight in an emergency, C27:yes C295:no
> #6 Payload. C27: 11500kg C295:9250kg
> #7 *Speed. C27: 315 kt, C295 260kt *  ( no contest)
> # loading speed. C27 provides a "kneeling" platform, ie it squats in the rear to make loading cargo much easier. C295 does not
> 
> we're probably gunna end up with the Dash 8 anyway, so I don't know why I'm taking the time...........
> 
> Gully


 Dare to dream, dare to dream... ah for the heady days of 2005, when a new SAR Bird was to be delivered any time, and the Buff only had to survive until 2012,


----------



## Zoomie

Sigh....

A big thank you to the Canadian companies that want to get a piece of the big pie with their inferior products.

FWIW - the SOR is based on a 1/3 Buffalo and 2/3 Hercules requirement.  Most SAR dogs would state that the only real replacement for FWSAR is the J Model Herc.  We are already comprising by downgrading to a twin engine aircraft.


----------



## blogwatcher

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Sigh....
> 
> A big thank you to the Canadian companies that want to get a piece of the big pie with their inferior products.
> 
> FWIW - the SOR is based on a 1/3 Buffalo and 2/3 Hercules requirement.  Most SAR dogs would state that the only real replacement for FWSAR is the J Model Herc.  We are already comprising by downgrading to a twin engine aircraft.



Actually, the C-27J has far better agility than the C-130J which is why it it makes a better plane for FWSAR. The flight capabilities of the C-27J match the current C-130s in use, so there is no "downgrade" at all.


----------



## Zoomie

blogwatcher said:
			
		

> Actually, the C-27J has far better agility than the C-130J which is why it it makes a better plane for FWSAR.



I'm interested to read what you think we do while flying SAR?  Are you envisioning us doing barrel rolls and 90 degree bank angle turns?

We need a robust platform with speed, range and payload.  If you pit the Jerc against the 27J, the Jerc will always win.


----------



## GAP

Today's DID review of the tendering, RFP, etc

 Rescue Required: Canada’s Search-And-Rescue Aircraft Program
19-Jul-2009 17:09 EDT
Article Link

The USA isn’t the only country whose SAR aircraft program is having a hard go of it lately. In 2004, Canada announced a program to replace its aging DHC-5 (CC-115) Buffalo (West Coast) and CC-130E/H Hercules (East Coast) search-and-rescue planes with at least 15 new aircraft. Some of the Canadian Forces’ CC-130s have already been grounded after flying 40,000 – 50,000 hours, and a contract has been signed for C-130J replacements. 

The first SAR aircraft was to be delivered in 2006, with all deliveries complete by 2009. The competitors were a familiar duo: the Alenia C-27J Spartan with its speed advantage and C-130J compatibility, vs. the EADS-CASA C-295M with its longer fuselage and lower operating costs. The competition was put on hold, but 2009 looks set bring in a new C$ 3 billion RFP, with new competitors added to the mix. Or will it be a fixed single-choice process instead, per media reports? 

Further reports indicate it may be a 3rd option: a rigged process, designed to look like a contest. The latest “Industry Day” did little to quell those suspicions, as the program was formally re-launched…

Canada is the 2nd-largest country in the world in terms of square area. Its 9,976 km3 exceeds both China (9,596 km3) and the USA (9,363 km3), and 3 ocean borders to the east, west and north expand its required coverage into large and hostile environments. Each year, the JRCCs handle an average of 8,000 air and marine SAR cases, and Canadian Forces SAR aircraft conduct over 1,000 missions per year. In 2008, the JRCC handled 9,097 SAR cases across Canada.

Canadian Joint Rescue Coordination Centres (JRCC) are staffed by a combination of coast Guard and Canadian Forces personnel, and are currently located in Halifax, NS; Trenton, ON; and Victoria BC. The SAR crews and aircraft are based in Gander, NL (EH-101 derivative CH-149 Cormorant helicopters); Greenwood, NS (CH-149 Cormorant helicopters and C-130E/H “CC-130” Hercules aircraft); Trenton, ON (Bell 412 derivative CH-146 Griffon helicopters and CC-130 Hercules aircraft); Winnipeg, MB (CC-130 Hercules aircraft); and Comox, BC (CH-149 Cormorant helicopters and DHC-5/ CC-115 Buffalo fixed-wing aircraft). 

These are supplemented as required by Canadian Forces’ zGriffon helicopters in Goose Bay, Labrador, NL; Bagotville, QC; and Cold Lake, AB; and by a small arctic fleet of DHC-6/ CC-138 Twin Otter aircraft based in Yellowknife, NWT.
More on link


----------



## ezbeatz

Zoomie said:
			
		

> We need a robust platform with speed, range and payload.  If you pit the Jerc against the 27J, the Jerc will always win.



Ya, but is a government going to purchase 17 Hercs just so they park them on a tarmac for SAR standby? There's an economic reality involved. Guaranteed if the Herc was purchased for SAR that it would spend most of the time in a transport role. Heck, the reason the C-27J was pushed was that it too could be used for tactical transport to support the Herc fleet.


----------



## Good2Golf

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Ya, but is a government going to purchase 17 Hercs just so they park them on a tarmac for SAR standby? There's an economic reality involved. Guaranteed if the Herc was purchased for SAR that it would spend most of the time in a transport role. Heck, the reason the C-27J was pushed was that it too could be used for tactical transport to support the Herc fleet.



ezbeatz, please stop.  This is talk that has no basis of accuracy or truth.  Why do you think that assets procured for SAR would spend most of their time in transport?  What would the new transport fleet that was sized appropriately to conduct all the required transport roles then be doing?  Is there information you know about the FWSAR program that the FWSAR project staff don't know about?

G2G


_*edit for spelling*_


----------



## Zoomie

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Heck, the reason the C-27J was pushed was that it too could be used for tactical transport to support the Herc fleet.



Maybe strategic lift (STRAT) but in no way with FWSAR be used in a TAL role.

15 aircraft over 4 FWSAR MOB's = Primary and Secondary SAR aircraft (2x4=8) with 7 airframes left over for STRAT, maintenance and training.


----------



## Loachman

karl28 said:
			
		

> ezbeatz hasn't done anything wrong I have read all 5 of the guys post and don't see any thing wrong with them .



There are now more than five, and I, too, find them annoying.

We have reduced tolerance to this because we have seen it before, and will see it again.



			
				karl28 said:
			
		

> If you dont like  his opinion fine but there is other ways of responding to it than the above .



Yes, but, in truth, I am not far behind my colleague in "ways of responding".



			
				karl28 said:
			
		

> Like in response you can with all your experience and explain in a civil manor why he is wrong to regards subject .



That, apparently, has no effect.



			
				karl28 said:
			
		

> To the mods I apologize if I stepped out of line here but the report to  moderator button is broken  I am just tired of behaviour like the above it has no place in this forum



No apology necessary.

I appreciate your concern, but please try and appreciate this from our point of view: experienceless "experts" who know everything can be extremely exasperating.


----------



## pylon

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/07/333174/lockheed-starts-building-new-version-of-the-c-130j.html

*Lockheed starts building new version of the C-130J
By Stephen Trimble*

Lockheed Martin officially launched production on 5 October of the first C-130 Hercules acquired by the US Air Force to support search and rescue missions since the Vietnam War.

The ceremony inside Lockheed's Marietta production facility also marked the launch of a new C-130 variant tailored for special operations missions, which company officials hope could lead to dozens - if not hundreds - of new orders by domestic and foreign customers for the 55-year-old tactical airlifter.

The USAF plans to acquire 22 new HC/MC-130Js to begin replacing 78 HC-130s flown by search and rescue teams and 37 MC-130s operated by special forces. More orders are expected to follow as the USAF continues to renew the ageing fleet.


 © Michael Balter MBAviation-Images

The new design boosts the C-130J's maximum take-off weight to 74,400kg (164,000lb) and the assault landing weight to 64,400kg. The heavier model also includes an advanced wing design that guarantees longer service life, which has become a major issue for the C-130E models that the C-130J replaces.

Lockheed has also adapted the C-130J production process for the new variant. The refuelling receptacle is produced in-line instead of as a post-production modification. That single change eliminates eight months of extra production time, saving $8 million in manufacturing costs per aircraft, Lockheed officials say.

Lockheed has also fitted a forward looking infrared (FLIR) turreted pod - the Raytheon multi-spectral targeting system (MTS-A) - to the airframe structure beneath the flightdeck. The company is investing internal funds to design a retractable turret that could extend the HC/MC-130J's mission radius.

Company officials have also disclosed internal plans to develop a new outer-mould line for the venerable airlifter that can accommodate more equipment for special operations missions. One design concept displayed publicly so far reveals an enlarged nose section and a wider cross-section for the fuselage.

Lockheed is in the midst of a major sales boom for the C-130J programme. The company is doubling annual production from 12 aircraft in 2008 to more than 24 aircraft in 2010. Lockheed will be building five different models of the C-130J simultaneously in 2010, including new HC/MC-130Js and KC-130Js, and C-130J-30s ordered by Canada, Qatar and India.


kc


----------



## hauger

pylon said:
			
		

> http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/07/333174/lockheed-starts-building-new-version-of-the-c-130j.html
> 
> Lockheed has also fitted a forward looking infrared (FLIR) turreted pod - the Raytheon multi-spectral targeting system (MTS-A) - to the airframe structure beneath the flightdeck. The company is investing internal funds to design a retractable turret that could extend the HC/MC-130J's mission radius.



Sweet.  FLIR is a slick toy to have.

I need a bit of education though on how SAR does business with it's aircraft.  Does it need the roughly 50 - 70K payload capacity of the J?  I guess what I'm asking is would using 130's, either H's or J's be somewhat overkill for the role (I know using the H's is easy since we already own a bunch and they will be somewhat freed up soon-ish with the J delivery)?


----------



## aesop081

That system is NOT a FLIR.......


----------



## hauger

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That system is NOT a FLIR.......



Okay, capitalizing the "NOT" shows me you feel awful strong about this.  So if it's not part of a FLIR system, then what is it?  

See, I first read the article, and it said they were fitting the FLIR turreted pod, the ratheon MTS.  I took that to mean that they were fitting, oh, I don't know, a FLIR turreted pod.  When I looked up the multi-spectral system, I found out it in fact does support FLIR (among other imagining tech).  Still, I guess somehow I got that wrong.

So, help me out a bit here and maybe instead of just proclaiming my being incorrect, maybe throw out a bit of education and explain where I went wrong.


----------



## aesop081

calling it a FLIR is like saying T-Ball is the same as MLB.

The system you refered to is called an EO/IR system as it is much more capable that a FLIR.

A FLIR system operates a camera in the IR spectrum....thats it. I operated the OR-5008 FLIR when we still had it. It was good but very limited.

An EO/IR system usualy incorporates 2 or more cameras ( my MX-20 has 3) , one of which work in IR and the others in the visual spectrum ( and can incorporate filters such as NIR). They also tend to incorporate other tools such as laser pointers/designators, spot trackers, range finders , etc.....

If you read the Raytheon site for the MTS , they refer to it as an EOIR system.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/mts/



> Dependable, flexible and easily supported, the MTS will continue to be the world’s most advanced integrated EO/IR system. The MTS is designated as the AN/AAS-52.



Small point it may be but if you called a LAV III a "tank", what responses would you get ?


----------



## hauger

Thanks CDN, that was a constructive and informative response. 

Calling the AN/AAS-52 though T-ball compared to FLIR's MLB is probably corrent.  The MTS is an EO/IR device, but you know what, that doesn't really mean anything by itself.  EO (Electro-Optical) means visible light.  IR means the whole IR spectrum.  What IR are we talking about here then?  Near spectrum IR is used in NVGs (along with some EO), and produces one type of image.  FLIR uses generally far IR to gather its image.

So what does the AN/AAS-52 do?  Well, Raytheon themselves (the nice guys that make the product) call it a FLIR device in their product sheet (http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/sas/documents/content/rtn_sas_ds_an_aas52.pdf).  Actually, they call it an "Advanced FLIR" system.  

So, you're right in at least as far as symantics go, the MTS in this case is not just a FLIR system, but an EO/IR system capable of fusing numerous sensors together into a nice image.  That doesn't mean to say it's not FLIR capable, it seems to be, and it seems to be how Raytheon is selling the kit.

Honestly though, I think we're just arguing stupid points.  The point here is that it's a nice piece of kit that produces useful, nice images to look at.


----------



## aesop081

:

Back to SAR planes......i like planes.....


----------



## Zoomie

hauger said:
			
		

> Does it need the roughly 50 - 70K payload capacity of the J?



FWSAR requires a palletized on/off load capability that can be configured to meet the requirements of the mission at hand.  That being said - there is nothing in the order of that kind of weight requirement for SAR loads.  The Buff SAR loads would have to be hand-bombed on to each aircraft, as we did not have a palletized load.

FWSAR is all about range and speed - our best asset is our ability to find a crash site and send in the orange suits.  EO/IR and an effective method to dispatch jumpers (read ramp) is what we need.


----------



## Haletown

Does anyone know where to find a current version of the procurement docs for the the FWSAR ?

I am curious to know how much, if any, emphasis is placed on the other general purpose uses for the aircraft other than SAR.  

Or can anyone here provide an answer?


----------



## Zoomie

The only other use for current FWSAR aircraft is strategic air lift.  I don't see that changing in the future.  What general purpose ideas did you have in mind?


----------



## McG

Haletown said:
			
		

> I am curious to know how much, if any, emphasis is placed on the other general purpose uses for the aircraft other than SAR.


It is all great to include recognition for broader capabilities within procurement selection criteria, but if one does it just for the sake of including recognition for broader capabilities then one may only be committing themselves to paying more for something they will not use.

In the case of FWSAR, if we only buy enough airframes to meet our need in the FWSAR role then any additional millions-billions spent for greater transport or ISR capability will be wasted (because the aircraft will just not be available to do that transport or ISR work).

It might also be worthwhile if we knew the next project would be a light transport aircraft.  In that case, we could give added recognition to any aircraft that met both requirements and include an option to buy X additonal airframes in the future (in this case, X would be the number of light transport airframes required).  But, I don't think we have any such projects waiting in the backrooms.

There is only so much $$$ available to DND.  Just as we cannot afford to sink $$$ into equipment which lacks the capabilities we really need, we also cannot afford to squander $$$ in fancy features we won't be able to use.


----------



## SupersonicMax

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That system is NOT a FLIR.......



The Sniper pod isn't technically ony a FLIR pod, however on my displays, it does say FLIR for the Sniper pod selection.  Even the aircraft tells me it's a FLIR, even though it's not.   :

I think it's fair to say that people understand what you mean when you say FLIR pod.


----------



## aesop081

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Even the aircraft tells me it's a FLIR, even though it's not.   :



We also had legacy software that said FLIR in our aircraft. That has since been removed. same with all references to FLIR in the AOIs.


----------



## SupersonicMax

This isn't legacy software, but brand spanking new software.


----------



## Loachman

FLIR is also a manufacturer: http://www.flir.com/CA/


----------



## Kirkhill

If Jack Harris wants 15 minute response (let alone 15 minute recovery) everywhere in Canada and its EEZ then he better plan on buying an awful lot of helos, crews and techies.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If Jack Harris wants 15 minute response (let alone 15 minute recovery) everywhere in Canada and its EEZ then he better plan on buying an awful lot of helos, crews and techies.



Depends how you define 15 min response.  If it`s a crew on standby, ready to launch within 15 mins we could do that...

Out of Winnipeg (middle of Canada).  Could be a slight delay in getting to Newfoundland.

On the other hand, overlapping circles of 15 min response time would be prohibitively expensive.


I do like the idea of having the CF ditch SAR responsibility.  It`s not a core military function (other than CSAR, which we don`t do) - but I know CAS would blow a headvalve if he lost that many PYs...


----------



## Nfld Sapper

News Room

Canadian fixed-wing search and rescue
BG–10.005 - March 18, 2010

In a country as vast as Canada, the search and rescue environment is complex. The men and women of the Canadian Forces who carry out these life-saving missions require modern and up-to-date equipment. 

Fixed-wing search and rescue (FWSAR) is a vital component of this SAR system because it provides the response that is so important in the time period immediately following the occurrence of a distress incident. With the Canadian Forces’ current Buffalo FWSAR aircraft approaching the end of their supportable life spans, acquiring a new aircraft is essential for the Department of National Defence (DND) to perform effective SAR services across the country. It is absolutely critical that the right aircraft be selected because not only the lives of the crews that conduct these operations will depend on it for the next 30 years but also the lives of Canadians in distress. 

As a part of the Canada First Defence Strategy, the replacement of Canada's Fixed Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) fleet is a high priority for the Government. 

ACQUIRING A NEW FWSAR AIRCRAFT

Approximately every 30 years, new aircraft must be acquired to allow dedicated SAR crews to continue providing their essential service. As aircraft age, they reach a point where the cost and effort associated with maintenance increase significantly, resulting in decreased availability. The Hercules and Buffalo aircraft being used in this role today entered service in the mid-1960s. While the addition of the new C-130J Hercules for the Tactical Air Transport mission will allow the retirement of the older CC-130E models and the use of the newer CC-130H models in the interim, the recent life extension initiatives for the Buffalo fleet ends in 2015. 

Efforts are underway to acquire a new FWSAR capability to allow the retirement of the Buffalo aircraft as quickly as possible. A FWSAR project office at the Department of National Defence (DND) was established; and, in 2004, a Statement of Requirements (SOR) was drafted. The SOR outlines the technical aspects that an aircraft requires to effectively carry out SAR missions in Canada’s harsh operating environment. 

 In June 2006 the Government announced that it planned to acquire Strategic and Tactical Airlift fleets.  The CanadaFirst Defence Strategy, established in 2008, outlines that these prioritized acquisitions are building a solid foundation for the continued modernization and strengthening of the military. Based on a detailed assessment of requirements, this 20-year plan commits to renewing the Forces’ core equipment platforms, which includes FWSAR.  

Canada's CC-177 Globemaster III strategic lift fleet was delivered in 2008, and the delivery of the first CC-130J Hercules tactical lift aircraft is expected to begin in summer 2010.  

In July 2009, in an effort to move forward with the FWSAR procurement, the Government of Canada requested industry’s feedback on the high level considerations for FWSAR requirements, which were detailed during the FWSAR Industry Day. Industry was given 60 days to comment. The submission period concluded on September 15 and DND, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), and Industry Canada (IC) reviewed the submissions from industry.  This demonstrated the Government’s commitment to an open dialogue with industry and helped assess the Canadian industrial ability to support the procurement of a new fleet.

Following consultation with the aerospace industry, the government engaged the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct an independent review of the FWSAR SOR.  The final report was received from the NRC in March 2010 and officials from DND, PWGSC, and IC are reviewing the report’s findings and recommendations. The report’s findings, as well as industry’s feedback, will complement the work already done by DND to ensure the best possible solution for Canada’s complex SAR environment.  

THE ENVIRONMENT

Canada is one of the most challenging countries in the world in which to conduct Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. With the world’s second largest land mass surrounded by the longest coastline, the area to be covered is immense: approximately 18 million square kilometres. As shown in Figure 1, the Canadian SAR region far exceeds that of all Western European countries combined. The geography Canadian SAR Region ranges from the Rocky Mountain peaks, to vast territorial waters, to Arctic tundra, most of which is sparsely populated with little infrastructure. Weather can be extreme and temperatures vary from -50C to +40C and beyond. All of which place enormous demands on the people and equipment that must work in this environment. In terms of SAR, these demands are unique to Canada.







Figure 1. Comparison of Canada’s SAR Area of Responsibility to Western Europe. 

In 1947, the Department of National Defence (DND) was assigned primary federal responsibility for providing aeronautical SAR services across Canada. The aeronautical SAR service provided by the Canadian Forces is an essential component of the overall National SAR Program, which includes resources contributed by the Canadian Coast Guard, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provincial and municipal police forces, the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association (CASARA), and many others. 

Canada’s vast area is divided into three Search and Rescue Regions (SRR) as shown in Figure 1, with Joint Rescue Coordination Centres (JRCC) located in Halifax, NS; Trenton, ON; and Victoria BC. The JRCCs are staffed by Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Forces’ personnel who can call upon any SAR resources in their area to respond to incidents of distress 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 365 days/year. Each year, JRCCs handle an average of 8,000 air and marine SAR cases. In 2008, the JRCC handled 9,097 SAR cases across Canada. On average, Canadian Forces SAR aircraft conduct over 1,000 missions per year.

Canadian Forces primary SAR crews and aircraft are based in:

Gander, NL (Cormorant helicopters); 

Greenwood, NS (Cormorant helicopters and Hercules fixed-wing aircraft); 

Trenton, ON (Griffon helicopters and Hercules fixed-wing aircraft); 

Winnipeg, MB (Hercules fixed-wing aircraft); and 

Comox, BC (Cormorant helicopters and Buffalo fixed-wing aircraft). 

However, any Canadian Forces aircraft can be called upon to conduct SAR operations when required. Particularly, Griffon helicopters based in Goose Bay, NL; Bagotville, QC; and Cold Lake, AB, often conduct SAR missions in addition to their primary role. The Canadian Forces Twin Otter aircraft fleet based in Yellowknife, NWT is often similarly tasked as a secondary FWSAR resource. As shown in Figure 2, the current mix of helicopter and fixed-wing SAR aircraft are strategically located to maximize the level of SAR service where it is needed most, given the resources and base locations across Canada. 






Figure 2. Location of Primary Canadian Forces SAR Aircraft and Distribution of Incidents involving FWSAR Response from 1998 to 2001. (ORD Technical Report TR 2005/03)

FWSAR AIRCRAFT WITHIN THE SAR SYSTEM

The overall SAR solution for the Canadian Forces involves the ability to respond rapidly to SAR incidents near and far, and to provide both immediate assistance and rescue for all possible SAR events. The combination of helicopters and fixed-wing SAR aircraft provide a rapid and effective SAR solution, as the unique attributes of each play a critical role. The FWSAR aircraft is the first to arrive on-scene and provide immediate assistance by dispatching life-saving SAR technicians and/or equipment to persons in distress thus requiring superior speed, range and cargo capacity. In the long range scenarios, the helicopter arrives later to extract the distress victims along with the SAR technicians. Both aircraft types are essential for providing a rapid and effective SAR service to a large area.

CANADA’S INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL BENEFITS (IRB) POLICY

Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) requirements for procurements such as FWSAR are applied in a manner that does not affect the Department of National Defence’s operational requirements.
The IRB Policy is an important element of the Government of Canada’s overall procurement process for major defence and security purchases. This policy enables the Government of Canada to leverage major investments in military equipment to encourage long-term industrial development and significant economic activity here in Canada. 

Established in 1986, the Policy ensures that prime contractors undertake high quality and advanced technology business activities in Canada, typically in amounts equal to 100 percent of the contract value. Canada’s IRB Policy is firmly in line with over 150 industrialized countries around the world that implement similar industrial participation programs. 

Industry Canada is responsible for the administration of the IRB Policy, and is the IRB Authority. Industry Canada works in partnership on procurement projects with Public Works and Government Services Canada, which oversees the procurement process, and with the Department of National Defence, which establishes the technical requirements. Industry Canada consults with and conducts evaluations of IRB proposals along with the Regional Development Agencies. 

IRB OBJECTIVES

A key objective of Government of Canada procurement is to ensure that the right goods and services are purchased at the best possible price for the taxpayer. Sometimes, Canadian firms meet the procurement requirements and provide significant Canadian content in their goods or services. Other times, global firms provide goods and services that combine high-value Canadian content with world-class items sourced outside of Canada. 

The IRB Policy does not dictate where the goods and services are purchased. Instead, it allows for the best available balance between quality and value for money, while ensuring that an equivalent amount of high-value economic stimulus is injected into the Canadian economy. IRBs help ensure that the Canadian economy in all regions benefits from procurement, regardless of the final outcome of the procurement process and which company wins the contract.

The IRB Policy requires prime contractors to select their Canadian partners based on what makes the best business sense, with the goal of generating long-term, sustainable business relationships in Canada. These strategic relationships stimulate the Canadian economy while helping to ensure a more competitive Canadian industry. The long-term focus of the IRB Policy provides Canadian companies with an opportunity to develop and apply their own strengths and competitive solutions and to take advantage of real business opportunities that will last years beyond the initial IRB commitment.

IRB REQUIREMENTS

During the bidding process for a project with IRB requirements, bidders must submit an IRB proposal as part of the overall bid. The IRB proposal is a specific plan that outlines how the bidder plans to engage with Canadian companies over the life of the contract. The IRB proposal responds to several key requirements, such as providing plans for regional and small business participation, along with specifically identifying business activities being proposed. A team, which includes representation from the Regional Development Agencies, is led by Industry Canada to evaluate each IRB proposal and determine whether it satisfies the requirements of the IRB Policy. 

The IRB Policy recognizes both “direct” and “indirect” types of business activities. Direct IRBs are goods, services or investments that relate directly to the item being procured by Canada under the contract. Indirect IRBs are goods, services or investments that relate to the contractor’s other product or business lines. Each IRB activity must meet established eligibility criteria and is measured for its Canadian content value (i.e., Canadian labour and materials).

The Government of Canada does not force winning bidders to do business with specific Canadian companies. The government asks them to identify and undertake high-value business opportunities in Canada that make good business sense to all parties involved. 

SUSTAINABLE, LONG-TERM BENEFITS

The IRB Policy benefits the Canadian economy by:

securing major investments in the Canadian economy 

providing the incentive for contractors to partner with Canadian companies 

increasing Canadian industrial competitiveness, through improved market access of advanced-technology sectors 

facilitating the entry of Canadian firms in the global supply chains of major international corporations 

developing and maintaining a capacity in Canada to deliver long-term equipment support to the Canadian Forces 

promoting growth of Canada’s small and medium-sized enterprises and the development of regional industrial capacity 

For more information on Canada’s IRB Policy and a description of ongoing and future federal procurements subject to the IRB Policy, please visit www.ic.gc.ca/irb.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems the politicans are muddying the waters in hopes of landing a juicy contract in their neck of the woods and doing damge to other political parties in the process. If I recall correctly the Buff only operate along the BC coast and interior and that's why the DND requirements were written as they were. Those requirement precluded a lot of aircraft. It would seem that for the politicans it's easier to move mountains than to have the correct aircraft come to them.


----------



## kj_gully

"Depends how you define 15 min response.  If it`s a crew on standby, ready to launch within 15 mins we could do that..." our 30 minute response is wheels off ground in 30, takes more than 15 minutes to start CF Aircraft. There aren't enough aircrew to man 24/7 30 minute response. We barely have enough FE to man the posture we have now, no way to recruit or train them any faster than we are now (only  so many training aircraft available). Contract out SAR? OK by me, but there are even fewer people out walking around on the street able to do this job without a bunch of training. I guess Canada will need to degrade the SAR service they provide in order to have people ready faster to do less. I live in Gander, on my 2 hour response (bed fast asleep sometimes) I am at the hangar loading the plane in 15 minutes. This is smoke and mirrors, by lobbyists, and ignorance by politicians. I don't mean rude ignorance, just not understanding what the postures mean. 30 minute posture= doing our currency training. 2 hour posture means ready to SAR fly, not at work doing PER (evaluations), exchanging worn out boots, or flying. We are near the hangar,  the aircraft  is gassed and ready, the only delay is from the time the pager goes off until we get in and dressed. Just because we are sometimes actually in the air already during our 30 min response doesn't mean we arrive at an incident faster. If we are training off St John's, and there is a mission off Labrador, ,we will be slower to arrive than if you woke me up at 0 dark 30. This is all politics, and isn't helping Canadians at all.

best fixed wing SAR plane for Canada? c130J. Buy more.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> This isn't legacy software, but brand spanking new software.



That's because yours is from "FLIRTM Systems" while CA's is from "L3 WESCAM"...


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

Union selfishness and new Air Force aircraft
http://unambig.com/union-selfishness-and-new-air-force-aircraft/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump....

Another strange thought from left field:

One of the critical requirements for all military operations is “eyes in the skies”.  This drives the NOCTUA, MPA and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the JSF programmes (JSF due to its touted all aspect sensing abilities).  It also, it seems to me, to be a key factor in the FWSAR project. 

If I am not mistaken the original FWSAR aircraft were Transports that were pressed into service to conduct searches as a secondary mission.  Once the “target” was located it could then be “bombed” with people on parachutes capable of stabilizing the situation until somebody could figure out how to extract the victims.  And then along comes the helicopter, another transport asset, to perform the extraction.  But those operations evolved during the era where the Mark 1 Eyeball was still the primary search technology.

Further, and again if I’m not mistaken, there is very little to distinguish the conduct of a search to locate a downed civilian than the conduct of a reconnaissance to locate and identify an unidentified and imprecisely located truck or boat.  Both use the best available technology to supplement the Mark 1 Eyeball to achieve their goals.

From that I come to this observation:

It seems to me that the FWSAR aircraft is still largely seen as a Transport platform that conducts searches (reconnaissance).  

Could we reverse the situation and look at the FWSAR as a reconnaissance aircraft that also transports?

My thinking here is that instead of looking at the FWSAR as a stand-alone programme that has to justify itself on its own merits, could it be looked at as a Multi-Purpose platform (an aerial Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship – aka Canada’s Littoral Combat Ship) capable of conducting a number of missions?
What would happen if the SOR for the FWSAR stipulated that the candidate aircraft not only had to have long legs and carry a payload of an “embarked force with supplies” but also had to be equipped with the surface search capabilities of the CH-148 cyclone and perhaps, even, be equipped with probe and drogue equipment so as to conduct refuelling of other aircraft and be refuelled in flight?

The rationale is:

Multiple roles make for an easier sell;

The surface search capability, I believe, would make the aircraft a more effective search platform and would also permit the FWSAR candidate to assist the MPA in some of its duties;

The in-flight refuelling capability would both allow the FWSAR to be maintained on station during the search for longer periods and also allow other shorter-ranged aircraft, like rescue helicopters and perhaps even the JSF, to be “sling-shot” forwards, permitting them to transit to the scene faster and travel farther to get there.

It could also make the FWSAR a more useful permanent resident of the Arctic.

Just some more Saturday Morning Weirdness after my coffee and Tuaca....


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The surface search capability, I believe, would make the aircraft a more effective search platform and would also permit the FWSAR candidate to assist the MPA in some of its duties;



There is nothing that a sensor-equiped FWSAR aircraft can bring to the table that an MPA needs help with. In the same breath, you can imagine what a GMTI-equiped block 3 Aurora brings to a search in poor weather.

You start adding too much and try to make FWSAR everything to everyone and it will never get delivered.


Further to that, IMHO, you are ignoring the political reality that SAR in Canada must be available for SAR. There was enough finger pointing when that cougar helo went down and the SAR guys were out on a SAR exercise. Imagine the shytstorm that would come if  SAR asset was unavailable because it was out doing "playing soldier".


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There is nothing that a sensor-equiped FWSAR aircraft can bring to the table that an MPA needs help with. In the same breath, you can imagine what a GMTI-equiped block 3 Aurora brings to a search in poor weather.



How about a GMTI equipped FWSAR?  There will be more FWSAR located across Canada than all of the LRP fleet. Why not put all the whizz bang technology on our new search aircraft - it will make locating that sinking boat at night in heaving seas that more effective.  

I like the idea of AAR - something akin to what the USAF does with their CSAR assets - Blackhawk tankers off the Herc.  Modifying a Cormorant would be an expensive feat.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> How about a GMTI equipped FWSAR?



Sure, why not. Sure would help a Search wouldn't it. Though it wouldn't help you very much in looking for a sinking boat in heaving seas.


----------



## Good2Golf

...although GMTI needs target movement to operate most effectively, so situations like lost travellers in stuck vehicles might not be the best case for the expensive of GMTI.  It would likely have to be justified as "one of many" sensors to provide maximum search effectiveness overall.  At the very least, the aircraft should have FLIR (unlike the CH149 Cormorant which oddly has no FLIR).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There is nothing that a sensor-equiped FWSAR aircraft can bring to the table that an MPA needs help with. In the same breath, you can imagine what a GMTI-equiped block 3 Aurora brings to a search in poor weather.
> 
> You start adding too much and try to make FWSAR everything to everyone and it will never get delivered.
> 
> 
> Further to that, IMHO, you are ignoring the political reality that SAR in Canada must be available for SAR. There was enough finger pointing when that cougar helo went down and the SAR guys were out on a SAR exercise. Imagine the shytstorm that would come if  SAR asset was unavailable because it was out doing "playing soldier".



I can understand that the MPA doesn't need help to do its job.  But as I understand it we have too few MPAs as it is and will have fewer in the future.  So if that is the case couldn't we offload some of the demand from the MPA fleet and task it to another fleet like the FWSAR?  Then you wouldn't have to call the MPAs off their patrols to assist in SAR ops as often.

And you're right about the availability of assets but in Canada isn't that as much a result of basing and distances as it is numbers?  As I understand it one of the arguments against positioning SAR assets in the Arctic is that they would spend much of their time on the runway or in the hangar.  If those airframes could contribute to other tasks, such as Sovereignty Patrols and Assistance to OGDs then wouldn't there be more of a case for deploying those assets forward?  Perhaps a case could be made for additional FWSARs (3 or 4) if they were more generally useful - and given the sunk costs of establishing training and logistics systems - so that Quick Reaction Aircraft could be maintained on the ground while others are conducting standing patrols.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So if that is the case couldn't we offload some of the demand from the MPA fleet and task it to another fleet like the FWSAR?



There are no demands on the MPA fleet that can be offloaded onto the the SAR fleet.



> Then you wouldn't have to call the MPAs off their patrols to assist in SAR ops as often.



It doesn't happen that often.



> such as Sovereignty Patrols and Assistance to OGDs



There are already a multitude of assets doing these things.



> and given the sunk costs of establishing training and logistics systems -



What you propose only increases the costs of training and logistics.


----------



## Kirkhill

Sorry, I forgot.   ;D

All problems can be solved by more Auroras.  ;D 

Cheers.


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill - don't be discouraged.  I like the direction that you are taking, it is the out-of-the-box direction that we need to lean towards.

While FWSAR and LRP are worlds apart and neither can do the others job effectively - why not look towards a future that has us flying an airframe that can do both?  We currently use an airframe that effectively carries out FWSAR, AAR and TAL (CC-130E/H). Some of the airframes that FWSAR has on the horizon are MPA/LRP variants too (CASA and EADS).  If Bombardier truly was interested in military aviation they would jump on the band-wagon and produce a true North American turbo-prop that can fill all these future niches - instead of just offering up their wholly inadequate passenger plane (Q400).


----------



## Kirkhill

Not discouraged Zoomie,  it's far too nice a day out here in  Lethbridge for that.  We're seeing the sun for the first time in a couple of weeks.

One thing that I was thinking of adding to an earlier post was that I was not intending to make a case to dumb down the FWSAR SOR so that a low-wing aircraft (like Bombardier's stuff) would qualify.   In fact I was thinking explicitly about the many roles that the Herc has fulfilled (and to those that you have mentioned I would add the Talons and Spectres for their ability see what is going on on the ground) and the possibility of the Mini-Herc being employed in some similar roles.

But thanks for the ENcouragement.

Cheers.

Edited to remove smartarse comment that demonstrates Cdn Aviator is right and I don't know what I am talking about.  The Q400 is actually a high-wing monoplane......oh well.


----------



## aesop081

Yeah what would I know about the LRP business....


----------



## Kirkhill

Aviator:

Nobody is doubting your credentials, least of all me.  Equally nobody will confuse me with an expert.  As I have often noted in the past my "bright ideas" usually indicate that I am a "dollar short and a day late" in the ideas sweepstakes.  And this current case seems to be no exception......

As I have no doubt you, Zoomie and G2G are aware, the USCG pipped me at the post back in August of 2010 when they equipped their EADS CN-235 (HC-144A Ocean Sentry) with a Mission Support Pallet that supported the Ocean Eye AN/APS-143C(V)3 as well as a SAFIRE EO/IR turret - (I believe your CP-140 is similarly equipped - in addition to a number of other systems - and that the CH-148 will also be similarly equipped although perhaps with the AN/APS-143B(V)3).  All of this while endeavouriing to maintain the multi-role capabilities of the aircraft itself:



> The Ocean Sentry plays a crucial role in Coast Guard aviation missions that include maritime patrol, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, cargo and personnel transport, and disaster relief.



Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news/29963/EADS_awarded_USCG_contract_for_HC-144A_Maritime_Patrol_Aircraft.htm#ixzz1OQQZjqFg

Now I understand the dogfight going on between EADS and Alenia (with Bombardier and Viking on the outside looking in) so I make no comment on which airframe is best suited for which task and what compromises are likely to be necessary and possible.  

My interest is simply in understanding how best we can deploy sensors as broadly as possible so that they can be tactically, operationally and strategically useful.

The fact that these types of radars (if I include the Lynx AN/APY-8 as a similar capability) are being hung from Auroras, Predators, King Airs, Fire Scouts and many other rotary and fixed wing aircraft - not to mention LTAs - suggests strongly to me that:

a) they are a mature capability
b) they are a valuable capability
c) they are a cost-effective capability
d) they do not impose a significant weight/aerodynamic penalty.

Having said that some other questions come to mind:

Would it be necessary to add a SENSO/AESOP to every FWSAR crew?  How about a TACCO?
On the other hand could the sensors be operated remotely by ground personnel as they are employed when used with UAVs?
The ASTOR/Global Express programme seems to use a hybrid mix that minimizes the personnel carried on board. 

Finally, with respect to the value of a platform with capabilities less than those of the Aurora, and ignoring Provincial Airlines MPA King Airs with their AN/APS 504(V)5 there is this (from Wikipedia - sorry):



> CP-140A Arcturus
> 
> Lacking the expensive, heavy and sensitive anti-submarine warfare as well as the anti-surface warfare fittings of the CP-140 Aurora, the Arcturus was more fuel efficient and was used for crew training duties (such as touch-and-go landing practice), general maritime surface reconnaissance (detecting drug operations, smuggling of illegal immigrants, fisheries protection patrols, pollution monitoring, etc.), search-and-rescue assistance and Arctic sovereignty patrols. The Arcturus did possess a superior AN/APS-507 surface search radar, incorporating modern functions such as track-while-scan that the Aurora's AN/APS-506 radar lacks but the Acturus did not have an integrated mission computer, or mission systems. It did, however, maintain the same military communications suite as the CP-140 Aurora.[citation needed]



Why would similarly equipped  FWSAR candidates not be equally useful both if deployed below 60 and in support of sovereignty operations in the Arctic.

As to the concern that aircraft on standing patrols would not be available for SAR duties, might that not be alleviated by the AAR capability and ensuring that at each deployment base there are sufficient aircraft to ensure a Quick Reaction aircraft is on the runway while the patrolling AC is in the air?  In fact, with a suitable sensor equipped aircraft in the air (and a SARtech Tm on board) might that not reduce the time to locate the target in trouble?

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081

> suggests strongly to me that:
> 
> a) they are a mature capability
> b) they are a valuable capability
> c) they are a cost-effective capability
> d) they do not impose a significant weight/aerodynamic penalty.



I would agree with that. I do not beleive this is the issue i was aluding to.




> Would it be necessary to add a SENSO/AESOP to every FWSAR crew?



As far as i know, that is the intent.



> On the other hand could the sensors be operated remotely by ground personnel as they are employed when used with UAVs?



I suppose it could be done but i personaly place alot of value on being (actualy) there to react to situations.




> Why would similarly equipped  FWSAR candidates not be equally useful both if deployed below 60 and in support of sovereignty operations in the Arctic.



Unless you are willing to arm FWSAR assets, they do not represent much of a deterence.



> As to the concern that aircraft on standing patrols would not be available for SAR duties,



I'm not sure i understand what you mean by "standing patrols".



> might that not be alleviated by the AAR capability



We have a much limited tanker capability as it is. Now you want to spend money on new FWSAR aircraft *AND* more tankers ?  I'm not debating the utility of it, even without much an an airborne SAR background i can see it for myself. I am doubting the realism of it as our resources, financial and PYs, are finite.




> In fact, with a suitable sensor equipped aircraft in the air (and a SARtech Tm on board) might that not reduce the time to locate the target in trouble?



No debate on the sensors. My contention is that FWSAR is already far too overdue. To add even more into the concept of operations will only delay it further and increase costs to a point where it will no longer be affordable. Some of the missions you propose are already being done by other assets (aircraft and otherwise). What you propose is, IMHO, the 100% solution and is is, again IMHO, unattainable.


----------



## Kirkhill

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I would agree with that. I do not beleive this is the issue i was aluding to.


  

My error.




> As far as i know, that is the intent.



Thanks.  I told you I was playing catch-up.



> I suppose it could be done but i personaly place alot of value on being (actualy) there to react to situations.



I agree wrt to the reaction. I suppose I was more thinking along the lines of simultaneously linking the data back to maintain the National Maritime Picture.




> Unless you are willing to arm FWSAR assets, they do not represent much of a deterence.



I wasn't thinking about arming the FWSAR.  Its sovereignty value, as far as I am concerned, is in its presence, its ability to observe activities and to demonstrate the Government of Canada's ability to intervene in a variety of ways up to, but not including, armed intervention.  However there would be nothing to prevent the FWSAR from staying on station, assuming a C&C role - or at least a recce role - and vectoring armed assets to the situation.  Those assets could be anything from an RCMP ERT on board an AOPS to a CF-35 or even an CP-140.



> I'm not sure i understand what you mean by "standing patrols".



Typically I understand a "standing patrol" to be a planned, regularly scheduled patrol, in a particular geographic area, often with a pre-planned route, to gather information and update situational awareness.  Such patrols, I believe, not only gather useful information, but also offer valuable training experience for people needing to accumulate hours to build and maintain skills.



> We have a much limited tanker capability as it is. Now you want to spend money on new FWSAR aircraft *AND* more tankers ?  I'm not debating the utility of it, even without much an an airborne SAR background i can see it for myself. I am doubting the realism of it as our resources, financial and PYs, are finite.


.

And that is why I am suggesting that the FWSAR be equipped with both a probe to allow it to be refuelled and a Buddy-Pack type drogue to permit the transfer of fuel to supporting aircraft.  In fact I wonder if the Aurora couldn't benefit from both of those capabilities as well.

The advantage of the AAR capability with the FWSAR is that it would improve the mission effectiveness of the FWSAR and the effectiveness of supporting aircraft.

One of the disadvantages of the current fleet of 2 (or is it 3?)  CC-150 MRTTs and the pair of CC-130H tankers is that there are too few of them and they are centrally held.  Therefore they need to transit the same, or longer, distances as the aircraft they are supporting and they cover the ground slower.  All the while they are burning gas that could be more effectively employed by the supporting aircraft.

If the FWSAR was AAR equipped then it would permit fuel stored at the fringes to be made airborne to top up centrally based aircraft transitting to the response site.  This would extend the range of response by the Government and decrease the reaction time as the aircraft could deploy faster without having to worry about husbanding fuel for loitering or wasting time (and more fuel) by landing, refuelling and taking off again.




> No debate on the sensors. My contention is that FWSAR is already far too overdue. To add even more into the concept of operations will only delay it further and increase costs to a point where it will no longer be affordable. Some of the missions you propose are already being done by other assets (aircraft and otherwise). What you propose is, IMHO, the 100% solution and is is, again IMHO, unattainable.



No argument on the FWSAR delivery schedule either.  WRT the sensors: perhaps it is enough to buy an aircraft that can support the addition of sensors and other capabilities over time.  As noted, many platforms are flying with these types of sensors and equally, many platforms are fitted with AAR capabilities.  Not all of them were fitted as original equipment.

Thanks for the considered responses.

Cheers.


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would it be necessary to add a SENSO/AESOP to every FWSAR crew?  How about a TACCO?


I won't wade into much of your post - as the FWSAR SOR has not been released and it would be improper for me to make any posts that might be taken as official.
As to the AESOP on board issue, as much as we would love to have them, I don't think the AF PY's could handle it.  Adding an extra body to a crew equates to another 10 members per unit.  Most likely what we will see is the current complement with the ACSO and FE sharing the duties of handling everything in the back.  In the case of para-drops etc, the pilots would be able to take over and the NFP could slave the gear as required.  In the SAR world, we are only actively searching in a small % of the airborne time - the rest being attributed to the actual rescue or deployment of assets.  A veritable jack of all trades is what a FWSAR crew needs - someone who can dispatch jumpers, reconfigure the cabin, act as LM, conduct A/B checks, refuel the aircraft, etc - this has been best served by the FE in our world.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I don't think the AF PY's could handle it.



I hear you on that one but i think that the recent explosive growth of the trade makes it manageable. Time will tell i guess.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest from MERX - an "industry consultation day" coming 16 Aug 11 (highlights mine):


> .... INVITATION
> 
> The Government of Canada is now ready to engage industry representatives on August 16, 2011, in the National Capital Region, on the next steps to achieve the best approach to deliver FWSAR capability.
> 
> Industry representatives interested in the FWSAR project must confirm their attendance by contacting the undersigned before August 15, 2011, at 11:59AM. Attendance at this event is strictly reserved to properly registered industry representatives. Further details will be provided upon registration.
> 
> OBJECTIVES
> 
> The Government of Canada will consider all options to ensure the best possible SAR service to Canadians and best value for taxpayers. *The main goals of this consultation include:  reviewing project status; reviewing the updated requirements; and seeking Industry opinions on Alternate Service Delivery options.*
> 
> During the consultation, *Government of Canada officials will discuss the outcome of the NRC independent review (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/final-report-eng.asp), and provide a summary of the revised key requirements followed by a discussion on potential procurement approaches for FWSAR including Alternate Service Delivery options.*
> 
> Subsequent to the plenary information session, one-on-one meetings with individual firms will be offered, if requested, to discuss and answer specific questions.  Participants will be invited to prepare discussion papers on the possible approaches available to procure FWSAR capability. Industry will be given four weeks following the consultation session to provide their feedback ....



Independent review also attached in case link doesn't work.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Re:  the above-mentioned MERX invitation to the "industry consultation day", is anybody reading this part:


> .... The Government of Canada will consider all options to ensure the best possible SAR service to Canadians and best value for taxpayers. The main goals of this consultation include:  reviewing project status; reviewing the updated requirements; and seeking Industry opinions on Alternate Service Delivery options.
> 
> During the consultation, Government of Canada officials will discuss the outcome of the NRC independent review .... and provide a summary of the revised key requirements followed by a discussion on potential procurement approaches for FWSAR including Alternate Service Delivery options ....


to mean the CF's considering privatizing SAR?  Or is it more "leasing-vs-buying?"?  Or both?  Some observers out there seem to be.


----------



## aesop081

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Re:  the above-mentioned MERX invitation to the "industry consultation day", is anybody reading this part:to mean the CF's considering privatizing SAR?  Or is it more "leasing-vs-buying?"?  Or both?  Some observers out there seem to be.



ASD could mean many things.


----------



## Zoomie

They make comparisons to our current use of civilians to augment the RWSAR program.  This is not as permanent as they make out.  Apart from the huge SAR system that exists off the coast of Newfoundland (Cougar helicopters), any other civilian rotor assets are individually tasked by JRCC to conduct pickups, not rescues.  This happens more often in the high arctic where it is more advantageous for a local asset to pickup an errant backpacker.  How this would work effectively for FWSAR - I don't know.  If they want ASD to happen, they would need to go into it 100%, not piecemeal.  Purchase the aircraft, station them, train them, have them sit there for hours - waiting and waiting.


----------



## WingsofFury

Zoomie said:
			
		

> They make comparisons to our current use of civilians to augment the RWSAR program.  This is not as permanent as they make out.  Apart from the huge SAR system that exists off the coast of Newfoundland (Cougar helicopters), any other civilian rotor assets are individually tasked by JRCC to conduct pickups, not rescues.  This happens more often in the high arctic where it is more advantageous for a local asset to pickup an errant backpacker.  How this would work effectively for FWSAR - I don't know.  If they want ASD to happen, they would need to go into it 100%, not piecemeal.  Purchase the aircraft, station them, train them, have them sit there for hours - waiting and waiting.



Would CASARA and their role fit in with what you described above?


----------



## Zoomie

CASARA is an excellent partner in the whole SAR picture in Canada.  It is a key partner and is sometimes overlooked.   That being said, they are not in a position to conduct rescues - they are a search asset.  What this article is pointing towards is the complete picture from launch to EMS tranfer of the survivors - all through ASD.  It is entirely possible, but I really don't think it can be done at a cheaper cost.  We have learned through experience how using ASD for training our pilots just ends up costing us more in the end.


----------



## kj_gully

Hopefully, our recent experience with uav will come home to our benefit. Forget putting AESOP on the Rescue Callsign, UAV can do search missions and provide onscene radio relay for the rescue assets following up. Presumably could even deliver a limited survival payload. As for civilianizing SAR, it will lead to a reduced level of service, as a company cannot afford to spend the money training to the level that we do now. Maybe we don't need to be trained as well, but who wants to find out?


----------



## The Bread Guy

And the political backlash has begun ....


> Two federal members of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador are alarmed at news that the federal government is looking at privatizing some elements of search and rescue services.  "The notion of privatization of search and rescue capability is abhorrent," said Jack Harris, the MP for St. John's East and the NDP defense critic.  A statement from the government on Thursday said that the Department of National Defence, which is responsible for fixed-wing search and rescue, is looking at all options to ensure the best possible equipment and service.  Harris acknowledged that DND has been wanting to replace its aging Buffalo and Hercules aircraft for nearly a decade, but Harris said that shouldn't mean privatization.  "The first priority of the Canadian Forces is the defence of Canada and the protection of Canadians," said Harris. "That's what we have a Canadian Forces for. And search and rescue is a part of the mandate of the Canadian Forces. So the idea that they're proposing to contract out this core responsibility to private industry, they're really letting down the people of this country on their mandate." ....


Source:  CBC.ca, 22 Jul 11


----------



## Good2Golf

kj_gully said:
			
		

> Hopefully, our recent experience with uav will come home to our benefit. Forget putting AESOP on the Rescue Callsign, UAV can do search missions and provide onscene radio relay for the rescue assets following up. Presumably could even deliver a limited survival payload. As for civilianizing SAR, it will lead to a reduced level of service, as a company cannot afford to spend the money training to the level that we do now. Maybe we don't need to be trained as well, but who wants to find out?



Gully, logical thinking will be ruthlessly pursued and dealt with accordingly!  Start SERE ops now!


----------



## kj_gully

roger, request SAR dot


----------



## mariomike

July 24, 2011 
"Premier says unilateral privatization of search and rescue “not on”: Dunderdale was asked about the speculation the federal government will be looking at the hiring of private operators to provide air search and rescue services.":
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2011-07-24/article-2672613/Premier-says-unilateral-privatization-of-search-and-rescue-not-on/1


----------



## Good2Golf

mariomike said:
			
		

> July 24, 2011
> "Premier says unilateral privatization of search and rescue “not on”: Dunderdale was asked about the speculation the federal government will be looking at the hiring of private operators to provide air search and rescue services.":
> http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2011-07-24/article-2672613/Premier-says-unilateral-privatization-of-search-and-rescue-not-on/1





> And, before you have any consideration at all about changing the way you do this business, you come to Newfoundland and Labrador and you talk to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and you talk to the people involved in this industry before you take any moves whatsoever,” Dunderdale said.



Wow, no arrogance there!  :

She appears not to understand the concept of ASD, that the capability is still provided.  If the federal government so chose to transfer the capability either to the Coast Guard or through contracting to provide the same (or better?) levels, then who are the provinces to tell the Feds how a federal service is provided?

Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I suppose the Province is more than welcome to set up their own SAR service, if they feel we are so inept at it.


----------



## Zoomie

They pretty much have with Cougar and PAL.  The oil companies pay for their extended SAR coverage - it can be done but at what cost?  FWIW none of the FWSAR machines that PAL uses could do the job to the same degree (range, on station, loiter, etc) as the machines that currently do the job.  Civilians can step up, but they need to fly something bigger and better than a Dash 8.


----------



## WingsofFury

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Civilians can step up, but they need to fly something bigger and better than a Dash 8.



I agree with you regarding the fact that civilians can step into the role if they fly something beefier than a Dash 8 (thinking that anyone who flies a Herc would be able to fulfill the role).

Found this on the Australian SAR page, and an fyi - there's some interesting reading to be found at the page linked below.



> The cooperative nature of Search and Rescue in Australia is borne out by the involvement of volunteer rescue organisations. These organisations promote safety and conduct local rescues and come under the control of State/Territory Police for these operations. There are certain commercial and private organisations which are capable of providing assistance during a Search and Rescue incident. AusSAR provides specific training to selected aircraft operators, who are known as Search and Rescue Units (SRU). Aircraft and marine craft in transit may be able to assist in cases of distress within their area of operations. Other commercial and private organisations which might volunteer to assist in a Search and Rescue operation are: commercial airlines, general aviation operators, oil companies, fishing companies, aero clubs, and large landholders.



Reference:  http://www.amsa.gov.au/Search_and_Rescue/Search_and_Rescue_in_Australia/Arrangements_in_Australia.asp


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Civilians already do lot's of SAR, on land, water and air. Pretty well every time I am out in the North I hear of a rescue done with local resources. It's not uncommon for the local remote small town RCMP to call up a local helicopter company to assist in a rescue. Same up the coast. Not to diss Federal SAR resources, but the reality is the gaps are far and wide and locals often know they are on their own and act accordingly.


----------



## benny88

Colin P said:
			
		

> Civilians already do lot's of SAR, on land, water and air. Pretty well every time I am out in the North I hear of a rescue done with local resources. It's not uncommon for the local remote small town RCMP to call up a local helicopter company to assist in a rescue. Same up the coast. Not to diss Federal SAR resources, but the reality is the gaps are far and wide and locals often know they are on their own and act accordingly.



   Agreed, but you don't not have infantry battalions because mall cops keep busy stopping shoplifters. Those civilian SAR operators do important work, and frequently, but I'm not sure they will have the training/infrastructure/capabilities to handle a major incident. As (I think it was) kjgully said, they may be able to offer the same level of service, but who wants to be the ones to find out?


----------



## Zoomie

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not to diss Federal SAR resources, but the reality is the gaps are far and wide and locals often know they are on their own and act accordingly.


Not a "diss" at all.  While it may seem that you are on your own - who do you think chartered and paid for that local assets fuel, costs and salary?  Yup, the Federal Government did.  JRCC can and will task whatever unit/aircraft it has available.  If there weren't any locals around, the closest military/government asset would be making its way there.


----------



## mariomike

Some emergency services operate their own SAR. Toronto EMS, in partnership with Metro Police, operates a Marine Unit with a main station, and three substations.  Their operational jurisdiction is from the Etobicoke creek (Peel Region) to Rouge River (Durham Region) and extends 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border. They are responsible for all waterways within Toronto, and approximately 460 square miles of open water on Lake Ontario. They operate a fleet of 15 boats.
The Marine Unit is responsible for all ice rescues, swift water rescue ( river rescues ), search and rescues, and other water related rescues within its jurisdiction. 
Some of the mandatory courses for all members ( police and paramedics ) are Coxswain level 1, Husky Airboat Operation, Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB),  Personal Watercraft, and, eventually, Master Mariner Certification.

The City of Toronto also operates Heavy Urban Search and Rescue HUSAR: 
http://www.torontoems.ca/main-site/service/husar.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My point was that SAR currently exist on several levels already, DND, CCG, Provincial, municipal, volunteer and adhoc arrangements at local level. I fear this reality will be lost in any discussion, in particular the media  who (with a few notably exceptions) will go babbling about a subject they know nothing about.

I think using an open mind to address areas where there are gaps or resources are stretched thin is important. Building on local resources in remote areas can be good value for the money. The problem of course is we are now moving into an area that is mix of responsibilities which always makes it interesting


----------



## Kirkhill

benny88 said:
			
		

> Agreed, but you don't not have infantry battalions because mall cops keep busy stopping shoplifters. Those civilian SAR operators do important work, and frequently, but I'm not sure they will have the training/infrastructure/capabilities to handle a major incident. As (I think it was) kjgully said, they may be able to offer the same level of service, but who wants to be the ones to find out?



That raises an interesting point.  Soldiers involved in Aid to the Civil Power are soldiers first (regardless of environment) that apply skills that are useful to the military to civilian situations.  CF SAR seems to be unique in that it is a permanently formed ACP capacity supplied out of the military budget.

Should the SAR capability be aligned primarily with the civil need or the military need?

That would seem to me to be at the heart of this discussion.  If the requirement is capable of being met with Beech Kings and S92s crewed by civilians then should the CF budget be tasked to the requirement.

On the other hand, if the CF needs an integral SAR capability (or transport capability or reconnaissance capabilty) that can be made available to the civil authority in extremis then that is another matter.

Rather than supplying equipment that is designed to operate in a civil environment would it be better to take that budget and apply it to military requirements to conduct reconnaissance (Search), infiltrate small bodies of troops (Rescue) and exfiltrate small bodies of troops and "refugees" (Recovery)?

That then drives the SOR on the equipment because SAR becomes a secondary task for a Military Asset rather than a primary task of a civil asset.  Would it have been better to buy additional Chinooks and paint yellow stripes on some of them rather than buying a dedicated SAR machine like the Cormorant?  Does the FWSAR platform have to be capable of operating overseas from rough strips or is it only necessary that it operate from civil hardstands within Canada?

My own inclination is to suggest that the military budget should be used to supply capabilities that benefit the military first.  If those capabilities can be employed to the benefit of the civil authority then they absolutely should be used.  

But one always needs to be careful about tails wagging dogs.


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My own inclination is to suggest that the military budget should be used to supply capabilities that benefit the military first.


Be very careful what you wish for.  Do you really think that the CF will retain the sizeable chunk of its budget if it were to lose its SAR role?  Make no mistake, we are flying these aircraft and conducting these missions on a very tight budget tightrope.  If we cut the rope, the money goes to where ever we tie it off to next (ie civilians).   FWSAR/RWSAR provides an excellent source of highly trained and confident aviators - we fly operationally every day in challenging conditions.  These skills pay dividends when these aviators move on to instructing or flying combat missions into austere strips over "there".  The tangible costs/benefits associated with this role is huge.


----------



## Kirkhill

I see what you are saying Zoomie.  And I see the value of having the military conduct SAR ops for all the reasons that you state.

I was trying to suggest that the gear you guys are given to operate should first and foremost conform to military requirements and that those capabilities should be put to the use of the civil power as and when necessary.  I don't see, for example, any problem with a Combat SAR squadron, providing civil SAR coverage when necessary.  Equally I don't see any problem with Recce or Tpt assets being tasked when appropriate.   I do see a problem with buying platforms that can't be usefully employed in the more rugged military environment.  Equally I do see a problem when available platforms are under-utilized in the name of economy by not fully equipping them - here I'm thinking of not including sensors on transport and even SAR platforms when the sensors are relatively inexpensive and in common use on similar platforms by allies.

I am not advocating that the military disengage from SAR.  I am suggesting that military assets, and not civil assets crewed by military personnel, be assigned to backstop the National SAR system.

Apologies for the confusion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When the RCAF gave up it's Marine Search and Rescue branch, the whole thing was turned over to the newly formed Coast Guard, at Kits that included, base, boats, spare bits and almost all of the crew. That happened in 1964 if I recall correctly, so the transfer of SAR assets from the military to civilian use is not without precedent.

Still surprised that the Comox crashboats have never formally been tasked with a SAR role.


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am suggesting that military assets, and not civil assets crewed by military personnel, be assigned to backstop the National SAR system.


<Click>  I read you five by five.  This is why we don't want a Bombardier Q-400.  We want a mil-spec transport aircraft that can carry NATO palletized loads and is a capable member of airlift.  Our current FWSAR very much have a transport role that is in current high demand.  We deploy our FWSAR to the high arctic and as far south as Mexico and places like Haiti (earthquake response was all SAR crews).  Having a robust machine is paramount for this role.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of what was said after an "industry consultation day" today:


> .... Since 2004, the government has been looking at replacing the ageing CC-115 Buffalo and the CC-130 Hercules aircraft, which have been central components in Canada's search and rescue system.
> 
> "Thorough consultation is necessary to fulfil the government's duty to ensure all options have been considered before any decision is made," said Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino.
> 
> Consultations between aerospace firms and government procurement officials took place in Gatineau, Que., on Tuesday.
> 
> Air Force vets are not fighting the move to outsource some of the work - they just want to see the project take flight.
> 
> "If industry is able to provide input that will get this moving, fine - love it," said retired Maj.-Gen. Marc Terreau. "The real, fundamental issue in search and rescue is human lives. Time is of the essence. The faster you get there, the higher the chances of people being rescued alive."
> 
> Former Canadian Air Force Cmdr. Lloyd Campbell says the Buffalo and the Hercules are at the end of their military lives and a new winger is urgently needed to tackle unique search and rescue demands in Canada, including the need to travel great distances in a short amount of time.


Toronto Sun, 16 Aug 11


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Ah! We'll have to re-educate the journalists all over again.

Obviously, the begining of the last paragraph of the quote should read: "Former Royal Canadian Air Force Cmdr. Lloyd Campbell says ..."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thoses advocating UAV for SAR should remember that UAV currently have difficulty flying in civilian airspace due to their lack of ablity to avoid other traffic. Apparently a C-130 and Reaper just had a collision in Afghanistan.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Ah! We'll have to re-educate the journalists all over again.
> 
> Obviously, the begining of the last paragraph of the quote should read: "Former Royal Canadian Air Force Cmdr. Lloyd Campbell says ..."



Not at all.  If his service was between '68 and '11, it's entirely possible that he never served with the RCAF.  Just like a sailor who served 1970-2005 never served with the RCN.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here's the CF Info-Machine's version of the history of the project from a just-out Backgrounder:


> The planning for this program has evolved. A Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR) was first developed in 2004 outlining the technical requirements for an aircraft to effectively carry out search and rescue missions in Canada’s harsh and vast environment.   In fall 2009, industry feedback was solicited on the high level considerations for the Fixed Wing Search and Rescue SOR. This consultation demonstrated the commitment to an open dialogue with Canadian industry and helped assess its ability to support the procurement of a new fleet. Following the industry consultation, the National Research Council (NRC) was engaged to conduct an independent review of the SOR. In its review, NRC focused on the technical requirements as well as the assumptions and constraints underlying them. The Government received the NRC report in March 2010 and then proceeded to review the report’s findings and recommendations. Based on the NRC review, the SOR has been amended to allow for a wider range of Fixed Wing Search and Rescue solutions and to reflect a capability-based rationale.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This just in from someone who appears to have attended the industry info session - highlights mine:


> At the end of Wednesday’s Fixed Wing SAR industry day, some participants were impressed enough to applaud the government’s new approach to a problem that has been getting old – buying a new search and rescue aircraft. A full complement of the right ADM’s and DG’s from Industry, Public Works and DND turned out, and it was noteworthy that they stayed until the end of the day.
> 
> In a procurement with this kind of history, little things can mean a lot, so government representatives handed out all their slide decks and notes in advance, before they worked through an agenda that looked at:
> There appears there were multiple objectives to the recently hosted FWSAR Industry Day including:
> 1) Providing an Update to the Project Status
> 2) Providing to industry an outline of the essential elements
> 3) Open discussion about the impending procurement strategy options
> 4) Seek industry feedback on options
> 
> On that last point, *industry has until September 16 to get back to the government with its feedback, with a major focus on where the fixed-wing purchase can and should sit on a spectrum from full government ownership and ISS all the way through to full ASD, provided it still delivers the same ‘world-class’ capability as today.*
> 
> This does not appear to be the only interaction the Crown intends, as this briefing is being followed by individual one on one corporate briefings, with the promise of follow-up sessions once inputs have been received and digested.


Source:  Richard Bray (editor), _Vanguard Canada_ blog, 17 Aug 11


----------



## Kirkhill

New Information on the PWGSC Website on the FWSAR Project - PPT presentation and revised SOR

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/svtvn-rscfw-eng.html
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/documents/partie-part-2-eng.pdf
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/documents/partie-part-3-eng.pdf

Highlights

Speed/Range – Anywhere in Canadian SAR Area within one crew day (2hrs briefing, 13 hrs flying, 1 fuelling stop)
Cargo Compartment – Must have ramp
Cargo Compartment – Height now Rated (97th Percentile Equipped Standing plus Clearance)
Certification, Cockpit Visibility, Delivery, Manoeuverability – Reworded to achieve the same effect
Fleet Size, Basing, Personnel – Alternate Basing Plans and Mixed Fleets considered on cost basis
-	Military Personnel Only
ASD acceptable for Ground Support and Maintenance

Sensors, Gravel Runways, SAR Interagency Comms – Uprated to mandatory requirements.

Crew: 6 
Pilot and Co-Pilot
Sensor Operator and Technical Crewman
2 SAR Techs

My take on the above is that the outcome of the delays and NRC review and the Air Force Ergonomic study is that the winner will be...... the Alenia C27J, perhaps supported by IMP or Spar or some such.

If I understand all the comings and goings it is the only one that meets the ramp requirement, the cargo bay height requirement, and the cargo bay width requirements - as restated.  Not to mention gravel strip capability etc.

The only real difference that I can see in the impact of the SOR is that the new SOR delivers an aircraft that WILL have an EO/IR suite (complete with SensO or AESOP) instead the EO/IR suite merely being a "nice-to-have" add-on.


----------



## Zoomie

Interesting time-line.  Not holding my breathe, but we'll see in 4 years where we are.  It would pigeon hole nicely for my next posting.  Standing up the OTU in Comox would be definitely up my alley.


----------



## benny88

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Interesting time-line.  Not holding my breathe, but we'll see in 4 years where we are.  It would pigeon hole nicely for my next posting.  Standing up the OTU in Comox would be definitely up my alley.




Need an eager young student?  ;D


This raises the question about switching between aircraft types. From what I've seen, pilots flying the legacy Herc switched pretty easily between SAR and TAL (obviously provided they get their SAR conversion, etc) Will pilots on the new FWSAR platform rotate between 424, 435, and 442 only, or will there be mobility between airframes? If we go with the C-27J, how similar is the avionics suite to the CC-130-J?


----------



## benny88

benny88 said:
			
		

> This raises the question about switching between aircraft types. From what I've seen, pilots flying the legacy Herc switched pretty easily between SAR and TAL (obviously provided they get their SAR conversion, etc) Will pilots on the new FWSAR platform rotate between 424, 435, and 442 only, or will there be mobility between airframes? If we go with the C-27J, how similar is the avionics suite to the CC-130-J?



This may be poor forum etiquette, but I'd like to bump this as I'm very curious. Zoomie?


----------



## Zoomie

Sorry Benny - totally got occupied with learning the E-3's subsystems...

Rotation amongst all the multi-engine platforms is common-place.  A dedicated FWSAR will definitely provide opportunities for experience to be built on that new machine that exceeds 4 years in length.  Much like the current E/H Hercules - SAR pilots move from posting to posting - flying the same airplane just a different SOR.

It benefits the RCAF and the taxpayer to retain that experience and eliminate the 3-6 months of training required every 4 years.  In my case I have always been flying on orphan fleets (CC-115, BE-90, now E-3B/C) - so it is inevitable that I must be trained on a new machine every 4 years.  It may very well be difficult to leave the FWSAR community once trained - usually the way to "escape" from the multi-posting airframes (E/H Herc, CP-140, CF-188, CH-146, CH-124) is to take a tour doing instructing.  Orphan fleets now out-number the multi-posting fleets, allowing for move places to move about in the RCAF.

As to the question of avionics - similarity really doesn't mean anything to a pilot.  In the end avionics are pretty similar in what they portray to the pilot - flying a plane is about power/thrust settings, airspeeds, pitch angles and SOPs.


----------



## benny88

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Sorry Benny - totally got occupied with learning the E-3's subsystems...
> 
> Rotation amongst all the multi-engine platforms is common-place.  A dedicated FWSAR will definitely provide opportunities for experience to be built on that new machine that exceeds 4 years in length.  Much like the current E/H Hercules - SAR pilots move from posting to posting - flying the same airplane just a different SOR.
> 
> It benefits the RCAF and the taxpayer to retain that experience and eliminate the 3-6 months of training required every 4 years.  In my case I have always been flying on orphan fleets (CC-115, BE-90, now E-3B/C) - so it is inevitable that I must be trained on a new machine every 4 years.  It may very well be difficult to leave the FWSAR community once trained - usually the way to "escape" from the multi-posting airframes (E/H Herc, CP-140, CF-188, CH-146, CH-124) is to take a tour doing instructing.  Orphan fleets now out-number the multi-posting fleets, allowing for move places to move about in the RCAF.
> 
> As to the question of avionics - similarity really doesn't mean anything to a pilot.  In the end avionics are pretty similar in what they portray to the pilot - flying a plane is about power/thrust settings, airspeeds, pitch angles and SOPs.



     Thanks for the reply. Hard to predict whether I'll want to/have the opportunity to swtich between airframes, but good to know that it's a possibility. I'm thinking that going between Trenton-Winnipeg-Comox might agree with me.
     Cheers, enjoy the AWACS.


----------



## dimsum

benny88 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply. Hard to predict whether I'll want to/have the opportunity to swtich between airframes, but good to know that it's a possibility. I'm thinking that going between Trenton-Winnipeg-Comox might agree with me.
> Cheers, enjoy the AWACS.



The worst part will be leaving Comox   ;D


----------



## benny88

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The worst part will be leaving Comox   ;D



Going for Sea Survival in Feb, and taking leave while I'm out there to ride Whistler and generally bum around. I'm fully expecting to fall in love.


----------



## Haletown

The AW&ST version of events . . .

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2011/09/28/02.xml&headline=Canada%20Retries%20Fixed-Wing%20SAR%20Aircraft


----------



## McG

While the article is about the Cormorant and VH-71, I have trimmed it down to the comments about another airframe that has come up in this thread:


> *Spare parts for Cormorants?
> Buying surplus U.S. choppers an option, says MacKay*
> Murray Brewster
> The Chronicle-Herald
> 29 Sept 11
> 
> OTTAWA - Defence Minister Peter MacKay says buying surplus American aircraft will boost the availability of Canada's beleaguered Cormorant helicopters.
> 
> His comments came Wednesday as more questions were raised about how often the country's 14 front-line search-and-rescue helicopters are in the shop.
> 
> Defence planners are also paying more attention to a controversial U.S. tilt-wing aircraft, seen as a possible magic-bullet replacement.
> 
> …
> 
> One possible solution under serious consideration is the purchase of Bell-Boeing's V-22 Osprey, which could fill the gap in not only helicopter operations, but with the country's aging fixed-wing search planes that the government has been trying to replace for a decade.
> 
> The Osprey, which had a series of spectacular crashes in the developmental stage, is expensive at almost US$67 million per aircraft. It is currently flown by U.S. marines.
> 
> The Conservative government sent the company a letter of interest in late 2009, according to defence sources.
> 
> In the meantime, the air force has plugged along, trying to keep the Cormorants flying. Its availability rate has often dipped below 40 per cent, according to the documents.
> 
> …


----------



## GAP

I was under the impression that the long range endurance of the V-22 Osprey didn't come close to the other contenders, but I stand to be corrected......

Is not the downwash on the V-22 Osprey much higher than on a helicopter?


----------



## benny88

After speaking to a SAMEO, I gathered they had serious concerns about the ability of the V-22 to have a good sortie rate due to servicability issues. It's a cool aircraft for sure, with some really interesting implications for SAR, but it would be pretty ironic to replace or supplement a fleet with a history of maintenance problems with one that is just as bad or even worse.

I think this may be a knee-jerk reaction to this story, coming out tonight:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/09/fifth-estate-examines-canada%E2%80%99s-maritime-search-and-rescue-capabilities/


> Fifth Estate examines Canada’s maritime search and rescue capabilities
> Posted by Hugh Thompson on September 29, 2011 · Leave a Comment
> 
> The North Atlantic Ocean is one of the most hostile marine environments in the world. The Atlantic-Canadians who make their living from the fishery, merchant shipping and offshore oil and gas go about their work shadowed by an ever-present danger.
> 
> So why, then, must they rely on a search and rescue service with one of the slowest response rates in the world?
> 
> This Friday, Sept. 30, at 9 p.m. ET, the fifth estate’s Linden MacIntyre presents Mayday, a detailed look at the questionable state of Canada’s maritime search and rescue capabilities. The show recounts the memories of those who have survived brushes with death, and the stories of those who perished in the frigid waters, waiting for rescue. There are also new details about the tragedy of the Melina and Keith II, on which four men perished in 2005.
> 
> On the show, MacIntyre asks why the Department of National Defence believes three helicopters are sufficient to cover the search and rescue needs of an area the size of Europe, and why required response times can stretch up to two hours.
> 
> Mayday airs Friday, Sept. 30, at 9 p.m. (9:30 NT) on CBC TV.





Pretty quick to decry the performance of our SAR crews, but even quicker to complain about funding and procurement for more aircraft...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As the tech progresses and the costs of beacons goes down (such as SPOT) the focus will switch more to rescue than search. Coast Guard went through this in the late 80's, we were good at searching but not so much on the rescue and care of the survivors. Hence the start of the Rescue Specialist program (which was fought tooth and nail by management).


----------



## Zoomie

cypres78 said:
			
		

> Imagine in instead of new planes we bought more med lift helos(Cormorants?) and spread them throughout the country.


That is a relevant plan on a smaller nation scale (like the UK, or any other European nation).  With the vast distances involved - the need for FWSAR will always exist.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

cypres78 said:
			
		

> Hence spreading out helo's appropriately. "Pararescue" only happens because  a Herc/Buff beats a chopper to the scene. A Cormorant in Yellowknife will be more effective then a Herc in Trenton.



Really?  You know this based upon what?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Hmmm.  I have "a bit" of experience with helicopters and some of that involves SAR. Your experience appears o be currently unquantifiable.


I'll just state that I think the answer to SAR in Canada is a bit more complicated than liberally distributing rescue helicopters though out the country.


----------



## Zoomie

cypres78 said:
			
		

> A Cormorant in Yellowknife will be more effective then a Herc in Trenton.



True enough - if a plane goes down within 50nm of YZF.  What happens when JRCC tasks the asset to go out north of the arctic circle to a place where there isn't an airport within 500nm?  Helicopters lack range, speed and endurance.  FWSAR can sprint on-scene, drop equipment, flares, ST's and remain on scene for hours if needed.  Unless you plan on basing a chopper every 200nm, I will always see the need for what currently works.

FWIW - I agree 100% that if a RWSAR and FWSAR arrive on-scene at the same time, the helo will always dispatch its ST's.  It only makes sense for the FWSAR to retain its SAR capability for any other cases that might pop up.  Once the helo arrives - it is effectively negating its usefulness as a SAR asset until it drops off its survivors to the next level of care.  On the other hand, I have also been involved in SAR cases where the ability of the FWSAR to climb over 10,000' MSL and sprint to the crash location has enabled the follow-on helo asset to assist in recovery, with the FWSAR crew doing the lion share of the work.

We have a great system in place.


----------



## Good2Golf

cypres78 said:
			
		

> I got to admit, I'm not convinced that we need new FWSAR. In fact I'd wager the days FWSAR have come and gone. Imagine in instead of new planes we bought more med lift helos(Cormorants?) and spread them throughout the country. You'd see faster access and more actual missions(the current stats are skewed) happening which in my opinion would keep SAR relevant.
> 
> Probably a logistical nightmare, but just a thought.
> 
> Just my opinion.



Others' opinions are that RWSAR's days are numbered, primary RWSAR that is.  Spare parts from the VH-71 fleet may make a small dent, but some feel that the Primary RWSAR capability has passed the tipping point and it is but a matter of time before things change dramatically for Military primary RWSAR.  Private RWSAR, resourced by industry to provide specific response as a matter of business, is growing exponentially.  RWSAR, on the other hand....well, your guess is a good as the next persons how much longer, if at all, it will take to regain original CH149-based Primary RWSAR.

FWSAR is what can reach the large areas of Canada's geography and put medical capability on the scene.  When you say that "'Pararescue' only happens because  a Herc/Buff beats a chopper to the scene," this seems to imply that it would be better if RWSAR was present -- is a ST from a hoist in some way more capable of stabilizing a casualty than a parachuted ST?  I was under the impression that stabilization was a higher priority than extraction.  Is this not the case?  Wouldn't you want a ST on scene as soon as possible, and doesn't a jumper ST from a significantly faster FW platform achieve this?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Good2Golf

???

Are you saying JRCC tasks Ornge medivac helicopters because RWSAR assets aren't "nearby"?  Really?


Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Okay, I now i think i see what you are saying.

Can you explain why you think having civilian RWSAR would be a logistical and financial nightmare, if you acknowledge that in certain parts of the country, it appears to work better?


----------



## Good2Golf

cypres78 said:
			
		

> Yes. That is exactly what Im saying.



To do National SAR?  I think you might be mistaken or misinformed.  

Ornge provides medical transport of patients identified through the ambulance dispatch service, not SAR serviced requested by JRCC Trenton.  



> Unlike emergency medical service providers, Ornge is not accessible to the public through 911. The coordination of Ornge services is the responsibility of the Ornge Communications Centre (the OCC). The OCC provides communication services as defined in the Ambulance Act. When requested by local land ambulance dispatch centres, an Ornge helicopter will be deployed to respond to an accident or travel to a remote area, if the patient meets the established guidelines for transport.



Ornge does not have SAR Techs on board its helicopters either, it has Critical Care and Advance Care Flight Paramedics.

I'll confirm with a friend who is a Regional Director at Ornge what involvement they have regarding National SAR tasking, but the point remains, that outside of Zoomie's old haunts, the FWSAR requirement is even stronger than the Buff/Cormorant pairing.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Zoomie

This topic has taken on two separate but closely aligned services of the SAR system. MEDEVAC and SAR. Orange would most definiitely be tasked with conducting MEDEVAC of patients - as this is very much a provincial responsibility.   RWSAR assets would only be tasked if the provincial asset was unable to conduct the airlift.  I have worked with commercial helicopters on quite a few occasions when the situation warranted it.


----------



## mariomike

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ornge does not have SAR Techs on board its helicopters either, it has Critical Care and Advance Care Flight Paramedics.



They also have Primary Care Flight Paramedics:
http://www.ornge.ca/Careers/Pages/FlightParamedicThunderBayBase.aspx


----------



## Good2Golf

mariomike said:
			
		

> They also have Primary Care Flight Paramedics:
> http://www.ornge.ca/Careers/Pages/FlightParamedicThunderBayBase.aspx



True, should have added those on as well as the default crewing.

Regards
G2G


----------



## aesop081

cypres78 said:
			
		

> I challenge anybody to gather up the mission reports from one unit and see how many of those missions were "stood down on route" due to some other resource arriving on scene first compared to how many were actually rescued by that unit.



You can scatter helos every 500 miles in this country and things like that will still happen. I've arrived on scene to a few incidents before dedicated SAR assets simply because i was airborne in the area on another task. That in itself is not an indication of a flawed system.



> However if military SAR is going to stay relevant I_ personally _ believe it needs a serious rethinking.



Our SAR may be *done by* the military but it hardly "military SAR".


----------



## aesop081

cypres78 said:
			
		

> Nope but if you look at the numbers the proof is in the pudding as they say.



Proof of what, exactly ? RCAF SAR was stood down because someone else got there first........what does that prove ? 15 people were rescued by logging helos and only 1 by RCAF SAR........what does that prove ?

Like i said, i showed up at an incident ( a sinking sail boat) before anyone else (despite being a 17 minute flight from a SAR base ) just because i was flying a previously scheduled training mission on a non-SAR aircraft, 2 minutes from the incident. Does me getting there first mean there is a flaw in the system ?

Numbers are often deceiving and only tell one part of the story.



> going outside the box tends to ruffle feathers...



You won't ruffle mine, i have jack shyte to do with SAR.


----------



## Good2Golf

cypres78 said:
			
		

> I am speaking from first hand experience, not from misinformation.



So you have a firsthand experience where Ornge was called by the JRCC to join a search?

The example you gave previously sounds like an Ornge helicopter that had been dispatched by the Provincial ambulance service to conduct medevac transportation, was extended for whatever reason on scene to a point where the crew were no longer able to fly out (not being NVG-equipped), hence the call for a 424 Sqn helo to come and evac all.  If that's not what happened, perhaps you could clarify your example and help us understand better?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Zoomie

It is the province's job to provide emergency services to their population.  If you get in a car accident  and call 911 - they will dispatch an ambulance to pick you up.  The province is then tasked with ensuring that you get to medical care - whether it be by ambulance or helicopter.  Ornge can be tasked through the ambulance network to pick up critically ill patients - anywhere in Ontario.  This can and will entail landing on roads, open fields, etc to evac that patient.  Do not mistake this for SAR.  Federal SAR is not in the business of ambulance driving - some times we are asked to provide such a service - this is always a last resort, as the province will end up paying for those services.  This is most likely what happened with your example of Ornge and the setting of the sun - the CF possessed the NVG hoist capability that was needed.


----------



## Good2Golf

cypres78 said:
			
		

> ...Anyways I am going to bow out of this thread as it's gotten away from the original point and going outside the box tends to ruffle feathers...




The thread was doing fine until someone suggested that new FWSAR wasn't required here.


----------



## Civvymedic

Interesting discussion. I work as an Advanced Care Paramedic in Ontario. I often call ORNGE for either an on scene response or a quick meet up at a helipad for a medevac. I really appreciate what SAR-Techs do and have on ocasion over the last 14 years had what I thought was a need for a SAR-Tech response from Trenton but when I asked was given ORNGE and/or the Police chopper via the Police on scene. A few years ago 424 Sqn held an info session and demo at CFB Trenton for EMS with the messsage being here is what we do, please call us when needed. In my experience we just call ORNGE and use the Police chopper for search. The SAR asests at Trenton I think could be better utilized at times but thats just my anecdotal opinion. On a side note ORNGE did just buy some large new choppers. AW 139's that we cant understand why they need. They have on ocasion had to circle around our scene to burn fuel so that they are not too heavy to land either on scene or at the hospital pad. I never saw that before with the old S-76. These new birds do have an all weather capability and I was told by a pilot last year that they were getting NVG's so they may be working with that now. Who knows where they are going with this...


----------



## Civvymedic

Ok, not to de-rail the thread even more but the examples I was thinking about were an injured hiker about 30 min into the forest, Ski-doo accident deep into the woods and an overturned boat in Lake Ontario in April with people in the water. The Police chopper flew cover and Police grabbed a boat from the marina for the last one. ORNGE did the first 2. I was thinking Trenton SAR but the answer was no.


----------



## dapaterson

Ideally, the CF should do only Combat SAR, and leave the rest to others.  It ties up military resources in a civilian role.  Good PR, yes, but not a core "defence of Canada" mission.

Frankly, if something can be done by civilians, it probably should be.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson is precisely right.  If it does not involve putting "iron on a target", why is the military doing it (yes- I am aware of the history of SAR in Canada, back to 1946...)?


----------



## aesop081

cypres78 said:
			
		

> haha guess I'm not getting out of this one that easy.



A good discussion, that is worth having, wont end like that. I dont agree with you but i still like what we are talking about.


CDN Aviator,



> but in this case they lie in the sense that there are many, many more mission reports then actual people helped. You'd be very surprised.



No, i would not be. Although i have no link to the SAR community, i am "in the know" as it is (was) my secondary role. Irregardless, the number of missions compared to the number of people helped is not an indicator of success.




> To me that scenario would prove that military SAR(in the sense that its run by the military and not civilians..this does not mean rescuing of military personnel, please PM for clarification) is not effective because logging helos are doing the rescuing...scratch that... how about extraction.



Again....so what ? If a logging helo is closer because of its operations, it does not mean a fail on the CF's part. You *cannot* be everywhere at once. As i have said, i have beat SAR to scenes of action simply because other work had me in that area.....by pure chance. That does not mean that 442 ( or other) could not have responded more than adequately. Stroke of luck meant i was already there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Canada is a strange place.

It is a massive country with a handful of pockets of population that approximate European densities.  Curiously most lost people get lost close to where there are people: Algonquin Park, the North Shore of Lake Huron, Georgia Straits,  off of Cap Chat.   In those places there are also lots of ways to rescue the poor drunken blighter that got himself lost on the backside of Cypress Mountain.  

Perhaps the RCAF isn't the best response, the necessary response, the only response in those areas and a Euro-style civvy solution is appropriate.  (Or dare I say even a Reserve solution - given that many of the SAR units seem to be manned by part-time civilian volunteers).

On the other hand there are whole chunks of Canada and its claimed water where there is nobody home at all and where even the prospect of being found and rescued in 72 hours would seem like a blessing compared to the alternative.

It seems to me that the domestic role of the CF, as I have said elsewhere, is to guard the spaces between the places.  The civvies are managing the places (the settlements) quite well.  The role of the CF, and principally the RCAF, is to bring the Government to those places the civvies ARE NOT (yet).  And once the Government arrives it can elect to help (SAR or Disaster Relief) or not (the other stuff that the military does).

If Southern Ontario and the Georgia Strait don't need Buffs, Hercs and Cormorants I am guessing that the Gulf of Alaska, Nunavut and the Atlantic fishing grounds wouldn't say no to more resources.   ???


----------



## Zoomie

In an effort to put this thread back on track - I submit to you an article outlining the CV-22 as a RWSAR and FWSAR replacement.

Best to read it here - it has a pretty picture


----------



## Good2Golf

Zoomie said:
			
		

> In an effort to put this thread back on track - I submit to you an article outlining the CV-22 as a RWSAR and FWSAR replacement.
> 
> Best to read it here - it has a pretty picture



Imagine if Bell and Boeing agreed to do some manner of final assembly in Mirabel. 


Regards
G2G


----------



## Zoomie

There are no ends to the industry spin offs that such a deal could produce. The entire sensor suite and back end equipment could be a made in Canada venture.   Third line maintenance out of Montreal will even keep the Bloc/NDP happy. 

The only downside that I see if the inevitable mixing of helo and multi  pilots flying the machines. It would be like dogs and cats suddenly getting along -  :trainwreck:


----------



## kj_gully

Just to add more fuel, at the end of the day as it currently stands- any civilian based SAR/ Casevac has one last ditch "phone a friend" they can call on when things get hairy. One last ditch effort that spends exorbitant amounts of money to train for worst case scenarios that are rarely seen, but sometimes makes the news. once that is gone, there will be a reduction in service. Unlimited liability does not fit well with civilian employee insurance plans or OHS regulations, methinks...


----------



## kj_gully

osprey 275 ish knots
c 27 spartan 325 knots

would be kinda cool...


----------



## Journeyman

Zoomie said:
			
		

> The only downside that I see if the inevitable mixing of helo and multi  pilots flying the machines. It would be like dogs and cats suddenly getting along


As long as they continued to mutually agree that fighter pilots squirrels are irritating....


----------



## mariomike

kj_gully said:
			
		

> Unlimited liability does not fit well with civilian employee insurance plans or OHS regulations, methinks...



As far as ORNGE flight paramedics are concerned, their right to refuse work is limited if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person. Ref: Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43.
It is understood ORNGE is not trained in SAR - and I am not saying they should. But, Toronto has trained some of their paramedics in HUSAR and marine - ice SAR. 

Edit to add


			
				cypres78 said:
			
		

> The civilian companies are slowly expanding on their own and I believe will take over the SAR scene one day. STARS in Alberta is another example. ...rumour has it the have recently installed hoists on their helo's...
> 
> ..RUMOUR



“I can say STARS’ goals were established to find an aircraft that would fly further, faster, have greater patient capacity and de-icing, and eventually hoisting capability,” says Cameron Heke, senior public relations advisor for STARS.":
http://www.helicoptersmagazine.com/content/view/2174/61/


----------



## Civvymedic

I have to agree with KJ_Gully. Totally depending on civillian SAR would be a nightmare. OHS regulations, WSIB claims and public service unions would make it a nightmare for those trying to get the job done. Training and standards I think would slip, you just woulden't be able to maintain the same level of service and discipline. You do need the Military to sit in the "big chair" sometimes in these situations. I have gotten in trouble a few times for stepping up and doing what I thought was right but violated some safety rules. The best was getting in trouble from one end, and getting the Medal of bravery from the GG for the exact same act.  : ...on the other end. Putting SAR completely into civillian hands is a BAD idea!!!!


----------



## McG

Zoomie said:
			
		

> In an effort to put this thread back on track - I submit to you an article outlining the CV-22 as a RWSAR and FWSAR replacement.


I think Canada has room for tilt-rotor SAR, RWSAR and FWSAR within our requirements.  I would be surprised if we have room for all three in our budget.
I like the idea of V-22 as a hybrid capability, but is it worth the cost if that cost is either of RWSAR or FWSAR?


----------



## AAF

I think that the idea of purchasing the V-22 for arctic capability in the SAR role would be ideal...give us a positive for any disasters that happen up there and give us a quicker response


----------



## cphansen

What about resurrecting the Canadian CL-84 Dynavert. It never was adopted by anyone in spite of all the test pilots liking and supporting it. It would need a lot of changes but it would be a Canadian piece of kit and may have potential for roles other than SAR

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/canadair_dynavert.php has some info on the aircraft


----------



## KevinB

I'm a big fan of the V-22, especially in a CSAR application, anything faster that a UH/MH-60 is a good thing when green tracer is welcoming you...

  That said I've always been amazed at the lack of combat application in the Canadian SAR role -- with a few noteable exceptions most SAR techs are of a VERY Blue AirForce mentality


----------



## aesop081

KevinB said:
			
		

> VERY Blue AirForce mentality



Go ask Ghadaffi or the Taliban about our air force mentality...........

 :


----------



## Good2Golf

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Go ask Ghadaffi or the Taliban about our air force mentality...........
> 
> :



I think he's referring to the very light blue view of SAR, vice the cam green version of JPR/CR/CSAR/SFR... (joint pers recovery / combat recovery / combat SAR / special forces recovery).

 :camo:


----------



## Zoomie

About half of the ST's we employ are ex-green pers - some with SF experience.  The other half were medics, techs, pilots,divers etc.  The light blue mentality is beaten into them over their time in the orange suit.  When making the transfer they all get kicked back to Corporal - senior NCOs in the orange suit have spent a good amount of time blue, hence the wide spread acceptance of RCAF ways.


----------



## Journeyman

Zoomie said:
			
		

> The light blue mentality is beaten into them over their time in the orange suit.


Or rather, the cam pattern mentality is eased out of them in a Flight Safety-mandated, one-to-a-room, four-star hotel.  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell

News, I guess, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35-maker-lockheed-martin-set-to-bid-on-search-and-rescue-planes/article2234859/


> F-35 maker Lockheed Martin set to bid on search and rescue planes
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> OTTAWA— The Canadian Press
> 
> Published Sunday, Nov. 13, 2011
> 
> Lockheed Martin, builder of the controversial F-35 stealth fighter, is lining up to make a bid on the Harper government's planned purchase of fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes — an idea that's apparently being warmly received in deficit-minded Ottawa.
> 
> The giant U.S. manufacturer, the world's largest defence contractor, is preparing a bid to build more Hercules transports for the air force, say several defence and industry sources.
> 
> A spokesman confirmed the interest, but was coy on the details.
> 
> “We look forward to seeing the detailed statement of requirements and look forward to offering a cost-effective, affordable solution,” Peter Simmons, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, told The Canadian Press.
> 
> The entrance of the Bethesda, Md.-based corporation is bound to cause waves within the political and defence communities.
> 
> Aside from the continuing debate over the stealth fighter, the company was the recipient of a multibillion-dollar, sole-sourced contract for cargo planes and irked Industry Canada when it came to appropriation of regional benefits. The department was so put out, it held up cabinet approval of the F-35 for about a year.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force will soon take delivery the last of 17 brand-new C-130J transports, ordered by the Harper government through that 2006 sole-source contract.
> 
> It already uses H-model Hercules transports for rescue missions and defence sources said some within the air force see the purchase of newer ones as natural fit at time of shrinking budgets.
> 
> The Defence Department is currently studying its requirements for the fixed-wing search-and-rescue replacements.
> 
> Defence insiders are split on when the federal cabinet will release a notice of proposed procurement — or even a specific request for proposals. The Conservative strategy doesn't envision replacing those planes until 2015, even though both Defence Minister Peter MacKay and associate defence minister Julian Fantino have named it as a top priority.
> 
> The $3.1-billion program has been delayed almost a decade.
> 
> It was Paul Martin's Liberal government that first proposed replacing both the existing Hercules and the nearly 50-year-old C-115 Buffalos, which hunt for missing people among the mountain folds of Western Canada.
> 
> Despite repeated promises, the Conservatives have failed to get the program on track and critics have accused them of being as ham-fisted as the Liberals with their pledge to replace the Sea King helicopters.
> 
> The search-plane proposal was sidelined by a combination of material focus on the Afghan war and charges that the air force's original statement of requirement was rigged in favour of the Italian-made C-27J an accusation both the Defence Department and the maker, Aleina, have strongly denied.
> 
> Nevertheless, the Harper government ordered the National Research Council to review the requirements to make sure there was no bias. The report found the air force had limited its scope.
> 
> A spokesman for Mr. Fantino said a review of the report is still underway.
> 
> “Our government recognizes that quick and efficient Search and Rescue service is critical to many Canadians,” said Chris McCluskey.
> 
> “That is why we are looking at all options to ensure the best possible equipment and service.”
> 
> Once it is released, a request for proposals is expected to draw interest from not only Lockheed Martin and Aleina, but European-based Airbus Military, Bombardier in Montreal and perhaps Viking Air, another Canadian company.
> 
> Hercules supporters within National Defence say the government could save on training, infrastructure and long-term support costs by sticking with one fleet.
> 
> Lockheed Martin currently builds a search-and-rescue variant of the Hercules — known as the HC-130 — for the U.S. coast guard. Mr. Simmons wouldn't say if that was what the company plans to offer to Canada.
> 
> Ontario New Democrat MP Matthew Kellway said he's worried the government will be tempted to short-circuit the process with another sole-source contact.
> 
> “Lockheed Martin has every right to bid on this contract, but where I'm concerned is how it could tie into the F-35,” Kellway said.
> 
> “Despite the bravado, the Conservatives are in deep trouble on the F-35 file and need to find a way to save themselves from enormous political embarrassment.”
> 
> Delivering long-delayed search planes quickly might be a way to accomplish that, he suggested.
> 
> But Mr. McCluskey said the government is committed to an open competition.
> 
> “Our government demonstrated its ongoing commitment to a competitive, open and transparent process,” he said, pointing to consultation with the defence industry that took place in the summer 2010.




There are obvious supply and maintenance advantages to an all _Herc_ solution ...


----------



## Zoomie

cypres78 said:
			
		

> Imagine chasing around patients as the roll through the woods ;D


The front-enders need to get their funny stories from somewhere.


----------



## kj_gully

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/06/pol-cp-search-planes-contract.html




*link fixed by mods*

thanks!!!


----------



## Haletown

Wonder if/how this peeing match south of the border will play into the procurement . . .


http://tinyurl.com/7h7db76


----------



## kj_gully

interesting, but I am less certain that SAR will get a unique aircraft. I wonder how many j hercs 3.7 billion would buy?

*edited to add* more than enough apparently
will try this link thing again....

http://www.casr.ca/doc-gov-c130j-hercules.htm


----------



## dapaterson

kj_gully said:
			
		

> interesting, but I am less certain that SAR will get a unique aircraft. I wonder how many j hercs 3.7 billion would buy?
> 
> *edited to add* more than enough apparently
> will try this link thing again....
> 
> http://www.casr.ca/doc-gov-c130j-hercules.htm



Keep in mind that the $3.7B figure likely includes 20 years of in-service support; the actual funds available to buy aircraft are probably less than half that amount (when you account for training costs, infrastructure costs, initial spares etc).


----------



## Kirkhill

Given that much of the infrastructure, training, ops and maint capital costs have already been accounted for under the existing C130J plan, what would be the impact if TB/DND/RCAF decided just to go with additional C130s?

I know from previous posts that the C130J couldn't do low and slow through the mountains but how about buying an additional 6 pack of CH-147Fs for that role?


----------



## kj_gully

a third helo in the SAR fleet? No thanks- but maybe the loss of low slow fixed wing search is offset by the increased capability of CH 149, and advances in technology? I loved Buffalo SAR, but for the sake of a common fleet, maybe the new herc, with a sensor suite, could replace the unpressurized buff with visual search no NVG capability? To be clear, I think a dedicated SAR platform is best, but maybe in terms of training and maintaining more jays might be a reasonable compromise, if they buy enough- i.e. more than they want to.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Given that much of the infrastructure, training, ops and maint capital costs have already been accounted for under the existing C130J plan, what would be the impact if TB/DND/RCAF decided just to go with additional C130s?
> 
> I know from previous posts that the C130J couldn't do low and slow through the mountains but how about buying an additional 6 pack of CH-147Fs for that role?



Infra costs for the Herc-J's have been paid at Trenton, not at any other potential MOBs.  Training costs don't scale linearly, but there would still be incremental costs associated with the larger training audience for conversion (though there may be some steady-state economies).

Maint costs would also have to be revisited - the spare parts scaling would require adjustment - more a/c means more of certain spares; more basing locations with high readiness levels means more redundant spares at all locations.  Again, there may be some savings.

There may be a business case for such an option - let's see if Lockheed makes an offer.


However, I don't see a Chinook/Herc-J mix as being on the table, as I don't think Lockheed and Boeing would be willing to co-operate.  Both would want to sell a full solution of all their own equipment.


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Given that much of the infrastructure, training, ops and maint capital costs have already been accounted for under the existing C130J plan, what would be the impact if TB/DND/RCAF decided just to go with additional C130s?



AFAIK the tactical J-herc contract calls for all maintenance support to be restricted to 8 Wing - not much good for those future FWSAR to be based elsewhere.

If Lockheed wanted to throw in their J-Herc into the competition - the model that they would most probably offer would be the shorty-J and its SAR add-ons would make the aircraft substantially different machine than those in our current inventory.  We would also inevitably paint them yellow - in order to counter any temptation to use them as back-ups for the TAL fleet.


----------



## fireman1867

Lockheed's new C-130XJ will most likely be the aircraft offered, it's basically a J lacking the automated  cargo handling system. BTW their is no issue with flying a stubby Herc in the mountains...just sayin.....


----------



## Kirkhill

fireman1867 said:
			
		

> ..... BTW their is no issue with flying a stubby Herc in the mountains...just sayin.....



Stand corrected, happily.

Cheers.


----------



## Zoomie

fireman1867 said:
			
		

> BTW their is no issue with flying a stubby Herc in the mountains...just sayin.....


Source?
The current fleet of CF "stubby hercs" were deemed unfit for mountainous FWSAR by the air force.  Enough so that the Buffalo fleet was extended to where it is today - as no other capability was in our fleet.


----------



## Haletown

Looks like there will be 38 x C 27J's for sale . . maybe we could pick up enough for the FWSAR on the cheap

pg. 9


----------



## aesop081

Haletown said:
			
		

> Looks like there will be 38 x C 27J's for sale . . maybe we could pick up enough for the FWSAR on the cheap
> 
> pg. 9



I don't know if "divesting" will necessarily mean "sell"...............


----------



## Zoomie

Certainly plausible - smart economics even with the necessary refit for FWSAR requirements.


----------



## dapaterson

As I recall, those were originally a US Army requirement, taken over by the USAF, who's now divesting them - I suspect the US Army is going to be miffed about losing their tac lift.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As I recall, those were originally a US Army requirement, taken over by the USAF, who's now divesting them - I suspect the US Army is going to be miffed about losing their tac lift.



From Pg. 8 of Haletown's posting:



> Example: The new strategic guidance emphasizes flexibility and adaptability. The C-­‐27J was
> developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs
> in difficult environments such as Afghanistan where we thought the C-­‐130 might not be able
> to operate effectively. However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield
> constraints for C-­‐130 operations in Afghanistan and expect these constraints to be marginal
> in future scenarios. Since we have ample inventory of C-­‐130s and the current cost to own
> and operate them is lower, we no longer need


----------



## dapaterson

It's a question of ownership of the assets - originally they were to be US Army owned & operated.  The USAF got them instead, and now is cutting them - so the US Army will retain its old tac lift airframes at considerable cost in R&O and ongoing O&M.

Interservice rivalries in the US military are pretty fierce...


----------



## Kirkhill

Sorry DAP,

I just realized I lost part of my previous post.  Without that it comes across in an unintended manner.

When I read the "official" version it skirts the fact the Air Force wasn't getting the job done.  So one more time they are being ordered to kiss and make nice with the Army.... What are the odds of that?

The same thing has happened with the JHSVs, also an Army led transport programme, this time because the Navy wasn't getting them where they needed to be on time.  Programme transferred to the USN.  8 hulls removed from the programme.


----------



## Zoomie

Ironically these are similar circumstances that got us the Buffalo back in the late 60's.  RCAF picked them up cheap from DeHaviland when the US pulled out of the program.


----------



## AAF

If if the USAF did sell this C-27s, its hard to say if the our government would be bright enough to pick up on a possible good deal for these aircraft for FWSAR, and go ahead and make a deal for them...not necessarily all of them but enough to cover what we need including possibly putting a couple in Yellowknife...just my two cents on the idea


----------



## dapaterson

AAF said:
			
		

> If if the USAF did sell this C-27s, its hard to say if the our government would be bright enough to pick up on a possible good deal for these aircraft for FWSAR, and go ahead and make a deal for them...not necessarily all of them but enough to cover what we need including possibly putting a couple in Yellowknife...just my two cents on the idea



Buying used isn't always a great idea - ask the RCN about "submarines".  There are also significant costs above and beyond the aircraft themselves including: supporting infrastructure; training for operators and maintainers; training aids such as simulators; spares; and maintenance contracts.

Indeed, with DND tending to go more to outsourced maintenance for many fleets, the support costs end up being greater than the acquisition costs.  Much like Gillette used to give away razors to sell you the blades, the acquisition cost for the aircraft is only one part of the purchase decision.


----------



## Zoomie

Excellent points noted above.  It's more than just swiping the VISA and getting the new planes.

While infrastructure would only be an issue in YZF (all other MOBs have hangars to fit H model Hercs) - there is the maintenance contract to consider.  

If Alenia would be willing to broker a deal for lightly used USAF C-27Js - run through some sort of FWSAR adaptation/refit - with a 20 year 3rd line contract - maybe it might "fly".  Although, an easier way to sell this to the Canadian taxpayer (not that SAR is a hard sell) would be to secure a made in Canada solution when it comes to 3rd line maintenance (Cascade, Field, IMP, Viking, ?)


----------



## dapaterson

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Excellent points noted above.  It's more than just swiping the VISA and getting the new planes.
> 
> While infrastructure would only be an issue in YZF (all other MOBs have hangars to fit H model Hercs) - there is the maintenance contract to consider.
> 
> If Alenia would be willing to broker a deal for lightly used USAF C-27Js - run through some sort of FWSAR adaptation/refit - with a 20 year 3rd line contract - maybe it might "fly".  Although, an easier way to sell this to the Canadian taxpayer (not that SAR is a hard sell) would be to secure a made in Canada solution when it comes to 3rd line maintenance (Cascade, Field, IMP, Viking, ?)



Infra is never as simple as it first appears - every manufacturer takes perverse pride in including some odd, obscure requirement that makes the current facilities require a costly retrofit - whether it's specialized tooling that needs 372W DC power, or someone deciding that a space can hold two a/c (which works in two dimensions only, not three) or needign to install a new ventilation system...

All this to say, it's never as simple as it first appears.


----------



## OOTBthinker

Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum but I'd like to join the discussion by proposing something slightly different for FWSAR.

I am aware that the intent was to replace the Buffalos and the older Hercs with a sinlge aircraft type, but it is interesting to note what the NRC report had to say about this approach:

v. Single Aircraft Type assumption: Throughout the SOR is an implicit assumption that a single aircraft
type with twin engines will be selected to meet all requirements. It is stated as a preferred option as
quoted below.
“…preliminary costing data indicates that replacement with a new twin‐engine aircraft would cost less
than the status quo over a 30‐year life cycle. The preferred option is to replace the CC‐115 Buffalo and
up to ten older CC‐130 Hercules with a new multi‐engine aircraft, which would be common to all current
and/or proposed FWSAR bases.” (A 1.3.3)
Analysis and Discussion
The preferred option is also presumed in the Statement of Operating Intent (DND, 2005) to be a single
aircraft type with two engines. This assumption effectively precludes serious consideration of a
multiple‐fleet solution.
If the small number of very long distance scenarios is distinguished from the majority of SAR incidents, it
may be practicable to provide FWSAR coverage for those scenarios using a small number of long‐range,
relatively high‐speed aircraft. The balance of scenarios could then be served by an aircraft with range
and speed capabilities more modest than those required by the present SOR. Stating the single aircraft
type assumption in the SOR is a significant disincentive to multi‐fleet proposals from industry and may
therefore be seen as an unnecessary constraint on the project.
Conclusion
Despite the preliminary costing data, the assumption of a single aircraft solution should be removed to
allow industry to submit single or multi‐fleet proposals. Such proposals can then be assessed on the
basis of their merits including costs.

I'd like to offer that SAR services in Canada might best be served by a fleet of V-22s supported by C-130Js with AAR capabilities for long range scenarios and to support the V-22s by providing them extended range. The V-22s would also be the ideal aircraft to replace the Twin Otters in Yellowknife, providing better support to the Rangers and improving SAR capabilities up north. The V-22s could eventually replace the Griffons in Cold Lake, Bagotville, Goose Bay and Trenton, and be added in Winnipeg; this would also allow us to develop a CSAR capability.

I am aware that this would be a more expensive proposal, but it could be implemented in increments over a number of years (something like 4 V-22s and 1 C-130J every year over 5 to 10 years).
One thing is for sure: SAR capabilities in Canada would be greatly improved.

By the way, does anyone know if the C-27J is capable of AAR?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum but I'd like to join the discussion by proposing something slightly different for FWSAR.
> 
> I am aware that the intent was to replace the Buffalos and the older Hercs with a sinlge aircraft type, but it is interesting to note what the NRC report had to say about this approach:
> 
> v. Single Aircraft Type assumption: Throughout the SOR is an implicit assumption that a single aircraft
> type with twin engines will be selected to meet all requirements. It is stated as a preferred option as
> quoted below.
> “…preliminary costing data indicates that replacement with a new twin‐engine aircraft would cost less
> than the status quo over a 30‐year life cycle. The preferred option is to replace the CC‐115 Buffalo and
> up to ten older CC‐130 Hercules with a new multi‐engine aircraft, which would be common to all current
> and/or proposed FWSAR bases.” (A 1.3.3)
> Analysis and Discussion
> The preferred option is also presumed in the Statement of Operating Intent (DND, 2005) to be a single
> aircraft type with two engines. This assumption effectively precludes serious consideration of a
> multiple‐fleet solution.
> If the small number of very long distance scenarios is distinguished from the majority of SAR incidents, it
> may be practicable to provide FWSAR coverage for those scenarios using a small number of long‐range,
> relatively high‐speed aircraft. The balance of scenarios could then be served by an aircraft with range
> and speed capabilities more modest than those required by the present SOR. Stating the single aircraft
> type assumption in the SOR is a significant disincentive to multi‐fleet proposals from industry and may
> therefore be seen as an unnecessary constraint on the project.
> Conclusion
> Despite the preliminary costing data, the assumption of a single aircraft solution should be removed to
> allow industry to submit single or multi‐fleet proposals. Such proposals can then be assessed on the
> basis of their merits including costs.
> 
> I'd like to offer that SAR services in Canada might best be served by a fleet of V-22s supported by C-130Js with AAR capabilities for long range scenarios and to support the V-22s by providing them extended range. The V-22s would also be the ideal aircraft to replace the Twin Otters in Yellowknife, providing better support to the Rangers and improving SAR capabilities up north. The V-22s could eventually replace the Griffons in Cold Lake, Bagotville, Goose Bay and Trenton, and be added in Winnipeg; this would also allow us to develop a CSAR capability.
> 
> I am aware that this would be a more expensive proposal, but it could be implemented in increments over a number of years (something like 4 V-22s and 1 C-130J every year over 5 to 10 years).
> One thing is for sure: SAR capabilities in Canada would be greatly improved.
> 
> By the way, does anyone know if the C-27J is capable of AAR?



Can you give a little on your background so potential respondents to your points will be better able to guage your experience level to make fair comments.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect the cost savings of buying the existing C27 fleet will be weighing heavily on the DND senior management. The aircraft are flying, there are spare parts and they would only need fitting of certain gear and paint job. It would certainly appear to be a solution to make a thorny problem go away for awhile and would look good to the public.
That being said, it would be interesting for Canada to lease a couple of V-22 to assess them in the SAR role, mainly using them in exercises to determine their strength and weaknesses for the role.


----------



## The Bread Guy

U.S. trying to flog V-22's to Canada?


> The U.S. government is eyeing Israel, Canada and the United Arab Emirates as possible initial foreign buyers of the V-22 Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft built by Boeing Co and Bell Helicopter, a top U.S. Marine Corps official told Reuters. Lieutenant General Terry Robling, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, said U.S. officials were continuing to drive down the cost of the aircraft and hoped to sell it to allies overseas to keep the production line running past 2018 .... Washington is increasingly looking to foreign military sales to keep the cost of weapons systems from rising as the Pentagon cuts its own orders to strip $487 billion from its planned defense budgets over the next decade. Robling said Israel, Canada and the UAE had expressed interest in the aircraft, but had not received formal pricing and technical information for the Osprey ....


Imperial Valley Press, 26 Feb 12


----------



## Haletown

The Leafs will win back-to-back Cups playing on frozen ponds in hell before Canada even considers buying Ospreys.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## YZT580

Good a/c for troop insertions but at 8500 plus per hour operating cost it is not a cost effective SAR tool, IMHO.


----------



## kj_gully

in seeking replacements for fixed wing sar, it would be negligent not to inquire about capabilities and cost of osprey, if only to rule it out as a competitor...


----------



## PuckChaser

kj_gully said:
			
		

> in seeking replacements for fixed wing sar, it would be negligent not to inquire about capabilities and cost of osprey, if only to rule it out as a competitor...



Especially if we don't even consider it, the opposition will pick it up as their alternative to whatever we choose to buy and say our process was not competitive. Kinda like the Super Hornet vs the F-35.


----------



## Jammer

Osprey for SAR? That should be under the heading of "dumbest thing heard thing heard today.


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> Osprey for SAR?



Could you elaborate ?

I don't know how it would do at SAR back here but during OP MOBIlE, i was pretty happy knowing that the V-22s were there for CSAR.


----------



## Jammer

"C" SAR in the open desert is somewhat different than the conventional SAR that Canada does. Sure it has long legs...a definite advantage...waaaay to many moving parts though and a very spotty track record. In Iraq it had less than sixty percent availabilty rate on any given day for operations. It also takes up a fair bit of real estate on the ground if it does have to touch down.


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> that the V-22s were there for CSAR.


Hey hey now - we're talking about nice and easy SAR here.  You know, the gentleman's flying club, no risk or danger.  We don't even mutter the acronym CSAR in the halls of 101.

Seriously though - I don't see us ever standing up a CSAR capability.  We send our aircrews in to combat situations far too infrequently to justify the expense.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Back on the actual SAR topic at hand- I think an examination of the Osprey for FWSAR is at least warranted, whether we actually decide to go that route or not. It may give us some good insights.


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> It also takes up a fair bit of real estate on the ground if it does have to touch down.



So would the C-27 but, at least, the V-22 could touch down more places.


----------



## YZT580

If it got there in one piece without a mechanical and could you imagine the downblast if it had to go into a hover over an evac?  And I believe that the price tag for one is significantly higher than the C27 or Vikings offer of a new DH5.  Better to buy more C130's the price is similar and at least we would have fleet commonality and the herc is about as reliable as they come.


----------



## McG

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ... could you imagine the downblast if it had to go into a hover over an evac?


I find it interesting that a common objection to the V-22 as a FWSAR replacement is that the prop-wash would be too great if the AC went into a hover.  It is as if there is some other FWSAR replacement which can go into a hover without this problem … The V-22 should not be ruled out for FWSAR because it has a characteristic that makes it unsuitable as a RWSAR replacement.

If V-22 can do everything we are asking of a FWSAR platform, then it also brings the option to land the aircraft in places that no other FWSAR platform will be able.  If the V-22 is not able to support activities from a hover in the same way that a RWSAR platform does, it is possible our aircrew, SAR Techs and technical staff are smart enough to find other ways to exploit the platform’s hover capability to achieve similar effects.  I’d like to think the appropriate SME have already been engage to go through the exercise of determining how we might use a tilt-rotor platform (including potential new ways of operating). 

If deciding to go with the V-22 (or not) as a FWSAR replacement, the decision is not about the platform’s ability to fill the rotary-wing role.  If the platform can meet the requirements for FWSAR, then it is a potential candidate.  Beyond that, it is a matter of deciding if the unique capabilities are worth the trade-offs (?speed, range, maintainability, reliability, etc?) and the higher costs (initial purchase and life-cycle).

The V-22 is an interesting option for FWSAR.  It may or may not be the right option.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have no doubt that the Marines, company and DOD would be happy to lend us a V-22, crew and support to take part in some SAR exercises. We would have to pay operating costs likely but it would be a quick and cheap way to check it out, without any commitments. It would also assist in developing any written criteria for it’s use in SAR missions and future aircraft selection.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dopey question from a not-even-close-to-expert:  is anyone considering using Ospreys in non-C SAR applications?  Usual Wikipedia caveats notwithstanding, it appears the Norwegians have rejected them as a replacement for Sea Kings in a SAR role:


> .... The V-22 Osprey was a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) which is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[115] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[116] The V-22 was eliminated from the competition in 2012.[117] ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I could see a lot of reasons for their rejection that does not even involve their flight performance. Such as fitting onto existing vessels or platforms or not offering enough golden gummy bears to the right electoral district. Also Norway does not have the vast distances we have to deal with. Regardless it will be interesting to see what criteria they did not meet. Of course there would never be any political interference in a helicopter replacement program would there be?


----------



## dapaterson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Dopey question from a not-even-close-to-expert:  is anyone considering using Ospreys in non-C SAR applications?  Usual Wikipedia caveats notwithstanding, it appears the Norwegians have rejected them as a replacement for Sea Kings in a SAR role:



Then again, they're still looking at the S-92 (aka CH-148), so what does that say about their taste in aircraft?


----------



## CountDC

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Good a/c for troop insertions but at 8500 plus per hour operating cost it is not a cost effective SAR tool, IMHO.



Is that Canadian Dollars you are talking about?

But actually - what all is in that price?  Is it just estimated fuel or is there other factors such as maintenance included?  

Amount of fuel used should be a factor considered when looking into replacement aircraft.


----------



## Good2Golf

As MCG noted, if a V-22 can do everything that FWSAR operational (and supportability) requirements dictate, without ever tilting a rotor "in anger", then there is no reason to at not least consider it within that context...not by how poorly it might do the RWSAR role.  As others have alluded to, a Buffalo or C-27 or C130J for that matter, would have quite the downwash if they were to attempt to hover.  

In a purely fixed-wing mode, 260 kts cruise and 800 km operational radius with mission load (8,000 lb payload) is pretty appealing.  I suspect in-service support costs might be more a discriminating factor that whether the Osprey can fulfill the operational capability demanded by DND.  The fact that it could, _in extremis_, provide a vertical recovery capability, downwash notwithstanding is besides the point, vis a vis FWSAR missions.

At least it should be assessed to determine if removal from further consideration is warranted.

Regards
G2G


----------



## kj_gully

I'm pretty sure as the mandate is currently envisioned, the osprey is too slow and its legs are too short for FWSAR. It is a hybrid, with many of the characteristics of both rotary wing and fixed wing platform, but not capable of doing either as well as what we currently have. it does both admirably, and if we were to choose one platform for SAR, and only one, then this is an obvious choice. but for the role we are currently looking for, to fly to Alert, Search for a co-operative target (i.e. elt), deploy SAR techs and equipment, as quickly as possible the Osprey falls far short of our requirement. The suppositions are covered pretty clearly here . Whether the suppositions are valid, or if we should be positioning resources in new locations during this time of fiscal restraint and down right sizing is not for me to say, but if there's C 27's on sale somewheres, I say lets grab em.

_- mod edit to fix link -_


----------



## YZT580

Even in Europe where buy local is of prime importance, the C27 is not the aircraft of choice for SAR, not even in Italy.  Most countries position small numbers of a/c in multiple locations rather than trying to service large areas with centralized resources.  Maybe it is time to develop a northern SAR capability by standing up a squadron in Churchill or some such place.  Since transit times would not be as great the speed requirement could be reduced somewhat, allowing the use of helicopters as the primary local a/c with the 
C130 as the long distance, loitoring choice.   And Norway isn't so little by the way.  It is a long way from Oslo to Harstad if you need help just as its a long way from Resolute to Trenton.  Their SAR positions a/c such that travel time is reduced significantly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's long, but not very wide which would have a lot of bearing on aircraft types. At rougly 1800km long, 3 bases could give you a max coverage area of perhaps 450Km in length.


----------



## dapaterson

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Even in Europe where buy local is of prime importance, the C27 is not the aircraft of choice for SAR, not even in Italy.  Most countries position small numbers of a/c in multiple locations rather than trying to service large areas with centralized resources.  Maybe it is time to develop a northern SAR capability by standing up a squadron in Churchill or some such place.  Since transit times would not be as great the speed requirement could be reduced somewhat, allowing the use of helicopters as the primary local a/c with the
> C130 as the long distance, loitoring choice.   And Norway isn't so little by the way.  It is a long way from Oslo to Harstad if you need help just as its a long way from Resolute to Trenton.  Their SAR positions a/c such that travel time is reduced significantly.



There's also the simple fact that we can't have 20 minute SAR response everywhere, and assets are going to be positioned to provide maximum benefit to maximum population, with considerations for areas where SAR issues are commmon as well.

So if you choose to live hundres of kilometres away from large population centres, SAR response times will be slower.


----------



## FoverF

Alenia's top brass is talking hard-ball about embargoing a Canadian buy of C-27Js.  

And while talk is cheap, Alenia *does* have literally billions of dollars on the line.  


[quote author=Giuseppi Giordo, CEO of Alenia Aermacchi]
Giuseppi Giordo, CEO of Alenia Aermacch explained that the company... would exercise its contractual rights not to support the aircraft originally sold to the U.S. if those planes were resold on the international market, essentially competing with Giordo’s company.

“If they want to sell additional airplanes as FMS, we will support them, but not those 21 airplanes,” Giordo said. “In fact, we will do our best — not only us, but the Italian government — not to support those planes.
[/quote]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120227/DEFREG02/302270007/Alenia-Warns-U-S-Over-C-27J-Sales?odyssey=mod_sectionstories


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Do Airplane companies think threats like that actually work?

Sure- Alenia is going to (potentially) give up 20-30 years worth of selling parts, support and engineering (where the real money is BTW) because we bought used instead of new?

Riiight.... :

Maybe we should avoid the C-27 just on the principle that the OEM appears to be too stupid to live...


----------



## YZT580

Canadian assets are definitely not located where they can do the most good.  There are numerous resources in southern ontario yet Trenton gets the nod.  Even if YYB had been selected it would have made more sense being at least an hour closer to the north country and yet the same distance from most of southern ontario.  Trention as an SAR location had more to do with the  primary traffic patterns back in the days of the DC3s, the proximity to hdq. and the collocation with one of the primary transport squadrons. (plus the river for servicing the Alberts)


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Do Airplane companies think threats like that actually work?
> 
> Sure- Alenia is going to (potentially) give up 20-30 years worth of selling parts, support and engineering (where the real money is BTW) because we bought used instead of new?
> 
> Riiight.... :
> 
> Maybe we should avoid the C-27 just on the principle that the OEM appears to be too stupid to live...



A generally accepted rule of thumb is 3:1, in-service costs to initial acquisition expenditures.  Based on this position by Alenia, one should perhaps consider that the in-service costs to maintain a ex-USAF C27J will now become prohibitive relative to additional new-build C130Js, which would have significant commonality and scales of economy with the existing 17-plane fleet.

Food for thought for Signore Giordo, although he seems to have already spoken...and not only for his company, but for his Nation.


Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That is my point- just how much money is Alenia planning on making off a fleet of USAF C-27s sitting in the desert for the next 30 years?

How much more would they make off the same fleet getting the wings flown off them in Canadian service over the same period?

BTW- I actually have no dog in this fight, in the sense that I really am not following FWSAR all that closely. I just thought that Alenia's threat was both transparent and stupid.


----------



## GAP

> Maybe we should avoid the C-27 just on the principle that the OEM appears to be too stupid to live...



excellent idea


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...BTW- I actually have no dog in this fight, in the sense that I really am not following FWSAR all that closely. I just thought that Alenia's threat was both transparent and stupid.



Same...unbelievable, really.


----------



## Kirkhill

Better plan for Alenia.....

Buy the C27Js back from the USAF at 25 cents on the dollar (not an uncommon offer for used industrial plant), reset them to factory standards for sale at 75 cents on the dollar.  Then they can Canadianize them and sell them to us at 90 cents on the dollar and they get the After Sales Service contract. Everybody wins.

Always better to keep control of the used equipment you manufacture otherwise you end up competing with it.


----------



## FoverF

It seems to me that there's little skin off our nose whether we buy from the US gov or from Alenia. If it's the right plane, then it's the right plane, it was the front-runner for years, even before we had the option of buying them used. And while initial procurement costs are going to be a little cheaper from the US probably, the difference in through-life costs isn't likely to be dramatic. 

So Alenia wouldn't have to kick up much of a fuss to make buying used more cost and trouble than it's worth. I doubt they have any intention of backing up their talk about not supporting the fleet, but even if they just gouge us a little extra (which I have every expectation that they would), then it would no longer be worth out while to buy from the US. 

And while buying from the USAF vs Alenia is a very small difference to us, it would be hundreds of millions if not billions for Alenia, and represents years worth of productivity. 

And just playing the devil's advocate here, but we don't know what kind of financial situation the company is in. For a relatively small manufacturer like Alenia, losing out on that much money and two years of productivity could be the difference between the company continuing to exist or not. They might be in a situation where if they lose out on this, they might not be around to cash in on the engineering and overhaul work 10-20 years from now, and so have no choice but to play hardball.


----------



## Kirkhill

FoverF said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there's little skin off our nose whether we buy from the US gov or from Alenia. If it's the right plane, then it's the right plane, it was the front-runner for years, even before we had the option of buying them used. And while initial procurement costs are going to be a little cheaper from the US probably, the difference in through-life costs isn't likely to be dramatic.
> 
> So Alenia wouldn't have to kick up much of a fuss to make buying used more cost and trouble than it's worth. I doubt they have any intention of backing up their talk about not supporting the fleet, but even if they just gouge us a little extra (which I have every expectation that they would), then it would no longer be worth out while to buy from the US.
> 
> And while buying from the USAF vs Alenia is a very small difference to us, it would be hundreds of millions if not billions for Alenia, and represents years worth of productivity.
> 
> And just playing the devil's advocate here, but we don't know what kind of financial situation the company is in. For a relatively small manufacturer like Alenia, losing out on that much money and two years of productivity could be the difference between the company continuing to exist or not. *They might be in a situation where if they lose out on this, they might not be around to cash in on the engineering and overhaul work 10-20 years from now, and so have no choice but to play hardball.*



Point.


----------



## OOTBthinker

The Canadian government plans to buy 17 new aircraft under the FWSAR project. The U.S. has 21 C-27Js to sell. Australia and Taiwan are also apparently interested in these planes. Together, these three nations likely require much more than 21 of these aircrafts. Couldn't the three nations divide amongst themselves the 21 aircrafts from the U.S. with an order of more to Alenia or through a FMS through the U.S.? In this way, Alenia gets additional purchases of its aircraft and can no longer claim to have an issue in supporting the used aircrafts sold by the U.S.


----------



## aesop081

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> The U.S. has 21 C-27Js to sell.



Given that the document previously posted mentions that the US will be "divesting" 38 C-27s (program was ended at 21), it does not necessarily mean that they will be for sale.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120227/DEFREG02/302270007/Alenia-Warns-U-S-Over-C-27J-Sales?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE



> Officials have not specified plans for the C-27Js, and options include parking them in the desert for future use, transferring the planes to the Air Guard, Special Operations Command or another agency, such as Homeland Security, or reselling the aircraft internationally.





> “I think there are a number of avenues available to us. We have not selected a particular course of action. We will be putting that together and it does include potentially making these airframes available for sale to [partners].”


----------



## YZT580

Isn't it amazing how history repeats itself.  It seems to me that the Buffalo was the victim of an earlier U.S. airforce takeover of an army procurement plan way back in the 60's.  That one almost did in DeHavilland Now it is Alenia's turn to get burnt.  From 6 billion to 1.6 and then to have the ones already delivered being rejected has got to hurt.


----------



## Kirkhill

It may not be over wrt the C27J in US service.

The National Guards, both Air and Army, as well as States that planned on using them for Homeland Security missions,  are pushing back hard against the decision.  Congress may yet keep them on active duty but perhaps not on the Air Force budget.

This Dec 2011 Air Force Times  article defines the ultimate rationale:



> ...The C-27J is cheaper to fly than the C-130J and the CH-47 Chinook, according to a senior Air National Guard official. *Flying one cargo pallet or 10 soldiers in a C-130J costs about $7,100 per hour, while the C-27J can accomplish the same mission for $2,100 per hour.*
> “It’s not to say that the C-130J cannot accomplish the same mission as the C-27J; however, the C-27J is a much more cost-effective, ‘right-sized’ platform moving forward in the current budget environment, and also gives the Army the greatest amount of flexibility in fixed-wing airlift,” the official said.
> 
> While the CH-47 Chinook helicopters can accomplish the same mission, it is not the best use of them, according to a former Army commander.
> 
> “We flew some of our CH-47s on routes that should have been fixed-wing routes at a cost in lost combat assault sorties and extended use of the CH-47,” the former Army division commander in Afghanistan said.



You can find articles on Maryland, Ohio, North Dakota and others where the States are finding support to keep the C27Js and even add to them.

The problem still remains that the US Air Force still sees itself as being a strategic and not a tactical force.  They will get you into the appropriate State (foreign or domestic) on their time and under their conditions (full loads only) but getting it to the point of use is apparently someone else's problem.  The user can get the goods to the point of use any way they want it.  They just can't used fixed wing assets to get it there.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Remember last August's "Industry Day"?

If Canadian Press is correct, the CF has gotten back to the companies who were interested....


> The Harper government's plan to buy new fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes has been pushed off until next year, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> Despite years of study and preparation, National Defence has postponed until the spring of 2013 issuing a tender call to replace nearly 50-year-old C-115 Buffalos and C-130 Hercules transports, many of which are in their third decade of service.
> 
> The procurement branch of the military has notified companies interested in bidding that it will carry out "consultations" over the next 12 months, and there will be workshops to outline expectations.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> A senior defence official, who asked not to be identified, said the specifications are now wide. Companies will be asked to submit proposals that demonstrate their aircraft will be able to cover the country's three search-and-rescue geographic sectors; carry survival and life-saving gear; possess a rear-loading ramp; and be able to conduct operations within a 15-hour crew day.
> 
> The specifications would require the winning bidder to provide a single aircraft to be on stand by in each sector 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The parameters are so broad they even leave it up to the companies to suggest where the planes should be based.
> 
> Taken together the requirements have led to speculation the federal government is prepared to farm out fixed-wing search-and-rescue, possibly as an alternative service delivery contract ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Next step for FWSAR?  ANOTHER industry get-together!  This from MERX:





> .... The Government of Canada is now ready to resume industry engagement on FWSAR and will start by holding an Industry Workshop on April 11, 2012. For this workshop, attendance will be restricted to companies who can identify themselves and can attest their capability of playing a significant role in the context of the Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue as an aircraft provider, or as a Canadian in-service support integrator ....



Full posting here (3 page PDF) if link doesn't work, and more in the "Industry Engagement Rules" (9 page PDF) here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well it may be a good move, hopefully they have learned from the Ship building contract, the C-17, C-130J and the Chinook contracts on how to run the competition. 

Actually when you think about it, we have had several well run contracts in the last few years and they certainly went to great pains to ensure the ship building contract didn't go off the rails (at least not yet). So there may well be light at the end of the tunnel and may even come to pass that other western countries will turn to Canada to show them how to run a military procurement program. Because by the time they are finished replacing everything that needs replacing now, we should be experts at it.


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> on how to run the competition.



Which competition. Most of the programs you mentioned were sole-source, no ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes, such a coincidence, I wonder if there is a pattern?  8)


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... scheduled for 11 Apr 12 in attached bid document update.


----------



## OOTBthinker

I thought this article by Murray Brewster was somewhat interesting and revealing at the same time:



> National Defence was close to getting a green light from cabinet to buy new fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes three times since 2007, but the $3.1-billion plan has been shot down by objections from other departments, say senior defence sources.
> 
> Frustration among senior defence and military officials over the Conservative government's inability to move forward with the project to replace nearly 50-year-old C-115 Buffalos and three-decade-old C-130-H Hercules transports was palpable Friday.
> 
> Potential bidders were informed this week that a formal tender call has been put off until next year, raising questions about whether the continued delays could potentially cost lives.
> 
> The Buffalos reach their end of their service life in less than three years and face severe parts shortages.
> 
> Defence sources said Industry Canada has raised concern about the regional industrial benefits, and Public Works questioned the process for selecting the new search plane.
> 
> "It's been close three times, but it's been pulled back three times," said one senior official.
> 
> The program, originally announced by the Martin government, has been stuck for nearly a decade.
> 
> The Harper government had been hoping for an announcement this summer to highlight the plan. But information released Friday shows the project will still be deep in the consultation and discussion phase.
> 
> Public Works released a notice, asking prospective bidders to come forward with letters of interest and said that the first in a series on information workshops on the program will take place on April 11.
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps, chief of the air staff, said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press that once formal proposals are received they'll face further review against the air force's "criteria for mission success."
> 
> But the fact it will take another year to get to that stage worries Liberal defence critic John McKay.
> 
> "I don't get it," he said Friday. "It's not as if this procurement hasn't been around for years, decades in fact. And I, for the life of me, can't figure out why this is such a complicated procurement."
> 
> There were allegations five years ago that the air force had rigged the bid criteria to favour the Italian-built C-27J Spartan, prompting defence minister to order an arms-length review by the National Research Council.
> 
> But McKay said the issue has been studied and consulted in detail, and it's time to open up to formal tender.
> 
> It's a matter of public safety, he said.
> 
> "The longer this goes, the greater the likelihood that something bad is going to happen," McKay said.
> 
> He warned the availability of fixed-wing search planes could decline, despite the best efforts of mechanics, and a potentially tragic situation could planes are not around when they're needed.
> 
> The Conservatives have for years made political hay over the Liberals inability and unwillingness to replace the air force's aging Sea King helicopters when they were in power.
> 
> McKay said the Harper government has lost its bragging rights thanks to the search plane dilemma.
> 
> Read it on Global News: Global BC | Search plane replacement vexes Tories, as more industry consultations announced



Who's leading this government? When people talk about bringing about changes to the defence procurement process, this is what they are talking about; too many departments having a say in the decision.


----------



## DavidAkin

Hi folks - **Reporter alert** (See my profile)

Looking to chat with current/former SAR techs.

You can be on-the-record or off-the-record but mostly I hope to pick the brain of someone who's jumped out of the back of a plane with a 100 pound pack on their back. 

Call or write: My contact info at www.davidakin.com

Thanks!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

David-

Generally, the smart SARTechs jump out of planes with a parachute on their backs- not a rucksack.

(sorry- couldn't resist)   

Good luck with your story.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some of the latest - one academic’s answer to replacing the old Buffalo search and rescue planes – buy new Buffaloes!





> …. The good news is that the Canadian government now has one last chance to solve the immediate problem: By quickly replacing the Buffalos with low-cost, Canadian-made planes that can fly ultra slow. The obvious option is to replace old Buffalos with new Buffalos. Victoria-based Viking Air has purchased the designs for the early line of “de Havilland” aircraft and is already building and selling new Twin Otters. Viking would equip the new Buffalos with the same state-of-the-art Pratt & Whitney Canada engines that power the Dash-8 Q400s that Air Canada and Porter Airlines fly. Alternatively, Montreal-based Bombardier could produce Dash-8 Q400s modified for search-and-rescue with a hydraulic ramp at the back of the plane ….



And DavidAkin's take of where the process stands:





> …. with the possibility that the search-and-rescue purchase process could be tied up in the bureaucracy for yet another year (followed by delivery of planes years after that!) the government may be ready to slice through this Gordian Knot and simply turn to our American allies to pick up most of their fleet of C-27 Spartans. In this case, America’s misfortune — the country is broke and is shutting down several military programs — may be Canada’s good fortune. Some of the American Spartans are already flying, while a handful are in the final stage of being built. Canada could end up getting these new and nearly new planes for 50 cents on the dollar, one official said. Canada’s air force generals think the Spartan has all the right specs ….


----------



## GAP

David missed the part about the manufacturer saying they won't provide parts/service?


----------



## The Bread Guy

GAP said:
			
		

> David missed the part about the manufacturer saying they won't provide parts/service?


To be fair, this comes up later in the article:





> .... Now here’s one of the weird wrinkles that could gum up this deal: The Spartans’ manufacturer, Italy’s Alenia Aermacchi, is dead set against the U.S. selling off its fleet of C-27s to Canada or anyone else (Australia and some other countries might be interested), going so far as to threaten that it will not provide parts and support to any country that buys the used planes.
> 
> No one in the industry can recall a manufacturer ever making such a threat, but Canadian officials have some ideas about helping Alenia change its mind. And after that, Canada’s generals and politicians will have to fight off the bureaucracy and Alenia’s competitors.
> 
> But given the fact that Canada’s search-and-rescue teams would get the gear they need without waiting another decade, and that Canada would get it for cheap, the politicians and generals would be crazy not to fight to buy America’s Spartans.


----------



## aesop081

GAP said:
			
		

> David missed the part about the manufacturer saying they won't provide parts/service?



No mention of the fact that the US has not decided what they will do with the C-27s already in use. Some parts of the ANG are chomping at the bit to get them.


----------



## Zoomie

Nice to see you back on these forums David!  

I'm disheartened to see the Viking myth perpetuated by the MSM.  They may own the original plans to the DHC-5 but that doesn't mean that they are in a position to build any airplanes any time soon.  I've beaten this subject to death and may be accused of being anti-Viking - which I am most definitely not - I'm just interested in replacing and upgrading our FWSAR capabilities not relegating ourselves to an old/slow/unpressurized design that really does not meet the requirements of modern-day First World Nation SAR.


----------



## YZT580

I'm just interested in replacing and upgrading our FWSAR capabilities not relegating ourselves to an old/slow/unpressurized design 

Yet you continue to trumpet the C27.  It too dates back to a slow unpressurized aircraft from the 60's and it has been rejected as an SAR machine by just about everyone.  Viking says they can produce a higher speed pressurized version of the DH5  that can still turn around in the canyons.  If they can, shouldn't they be at least asked to show us what they have?  But more than that, SAR in Canada needs a total review.  Our resources are too widely scattered, too few, and, at least as far as TR is concerned, they are in the wrong places.  We watched a few years back as a kid in a canoe died whilst waiting for a helicopter from Trenton fly the length of Lake Ontario to pick him up off Grimsby.  Well, maybe a few more than a few years but it is something you don't forget and it was not necessary so you might say I have personal reasons for agreeing with you: we need the right equipment in the right places.  The C27 may not be that right equipment.  I am not convinced.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of clarification from an update to the bid document (update attached):


> .... Question #2:  What is an OEM?
> 
> Clarification to Question #2 :  In the context of this Project, an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) is the aircraft. Manufacturer.
> 
> Question #3:  Does it rule out an ASD provider of new aircraft?
> 
> Clarification to Question #3:  The FWSAR solicitation objective is to find the best capability-based solution for procuring and operating new aircraft including the associated In-Service Support. Additional details on the procurement strategy will be shared at the April 11 workshop and on the FWSAR website.  However, a complete Alternative Service Delivery Solution does not form part of the chosen procurement strategy ....


----------



## kj_gully

so  YZT-you think a slower plane will be better? New ( imagined) buffalo will only be pressurized in the cockpit- the work of SAR Happens in the back... sorry pilots, the bulk of the physical work. the dispatching of crew and equipment is low altitude, but preparing the equipment and personnel often takes place at altitudes where pressurization or oxygen is required- and trust me trying to rig equipment while tethered to an oxygen mask is not fun, easy or efficient. Maybe big picture wise- more commonality is the answer? bigger pool of crew, and spare parts? C27 shares the same engine and some other parts as Ci30 J  but maybe more c130J is an even better tradeoff? maintaining a mixed fleet is a big training burden that a leaner meaner RCAF can do without.


----------



## YZT580

No, I don't want to put the back crew on O2 and   no I don't believe slower is better.  If I were putting a fleet together it would not be a one size fits all purchase.  It doesn't work.  There would definitely be a requirement for additional C130s.  Aircraft placement should be YYB instead of YTR possibly YXE,  Yellowknife, Gander or Goose and Comox.  YYB & YXE would centralise the positioning and provide better and faster coverage than the current squadron placements.  Churchill would be good but getting people to accept a posting there would be a bitch.  There is also a need for a station on the Lower St. Lawrence but dollars will not permit proper deployment.  The only place a low and slow aircraft is needed is in the Pacific Mountain region so the requirement for a DH5 performance is limited to that and possibly locally based in the north with full time northern crews to man them on a 60 minute call out or something like that.  Still be faster than freighting a Herc in from the south.  As for the Spartan, the herc offers more flexibility and reduces the fleet complexity.  We don't need a intertheatre freighter such as the C27 except for SAR and the C27 can't do anything more than the C130.    

.


----------



## kj_gully

ok. so you don't want the back end crew on oxygen, but want the mountainous region ( higher altitudes required for terrain clearance) to get an unpressurized aircraft? They get the same as they got. no gain. Give up on low slow visual search and get a modern aircraft with sensors. If Comox  get faster pressurized aircraft, maybe they could expand their SRR and actually enhance SAR coverage in Canada?


----------



## YZT580

I have already stated that the role for low and slow is limited but unfortunately it is still there.  We certainly don't need 15 of them.  We are in need of new a/c and I believe my previous post suggests the C130 would be better than the C27.  We are also in need of some careful thought being put into where these resources are based.  In early VietNam days the greatest sound to the guys on the ground was not the igniting afterburners of the fast movers but the sound of the original Puff (a C47).  When they heard that sound they knew they were covered.  Faster is not always better and new ideas need to demonstrate that they are better than old.    Electronics are not the perfect answer.  You still need the mark 1 eyeball and a slow stable platform from which to make it work.


----------



## kj_gully

slow stable platform- like say a Cormorant?


----------



## YZT580

kj_gully said:
			
		

> slow stable platform- like say a Cormorant?


The Cormorant is another old design and is plagued with the same problems as the DH5: too slow and too far to go and although we have been packing the hours on the ones we currently own have they really stood up as well as say the old seakings or labradors did?  Again, part of the solution may come down to positioning but we do need something with a little more speed.


----------



## OOTBthinker

Fast versus slow...

The V-22 offers both, and more; no need for long runways and in certain situations it could even do the job of the Cormorant.


----------



## YZT580

Others with more mechanical knowledge than I have questioned the V-22 because of its complexity.  So far at any rate you need to have 10 in order to get 6 in the air.  They are working on improving the reliability but so far that is where things stand.  We don't have the dollars to keep a spare around just to ensure that one will start.


----------



## kj_gully

ytz- your argument goes around in circles. Sounds like what you want the RCAF to supersize the manning of SAR and create new bases. I am all for this. However, I am also a realist, and find it hard to believe there would be much appetite for increasing the number of personnel and adding more infrastructure in the current political and economic environment. I suggest that we need a faster pressurized plane you say we still need an unpressurized low slow plane. I point out that we already have a plane that flies lower and slower than the buffalo, the Cormorant, and you suggest that it is too similar to the buffalo, the plane with the capabilities you say we need to maintain. You ask about its serviceability- we are about to curtail our flying so we do not exceed our YFR this year- when does that happen? What ( or maybe who?) are you really lobbying for? I think C27 is the best compromise for SAR. I think that C130 J is a good compromise for the RCAF. I do not think a mixed fleet of aircraft in a small community is in the best interests of anybody. What do you think YZT?


----------



## YZT580

Sorry KJ I am not trying to go around in circles.  With reference bases, the consideration should be to re-locate so they are more central to our airspace in all directions east/west AND north/south.  Currently the main response base YTR is right on the southern boundary for example.  Additional bases would be wonderful but I agree that in this political climate it is highly unlikely.   Hence the suggestion to position the slower aircraft in terrain specific locations.  I believe that re-positioning our current assets is a necessary first step that could be accomplished fairly quickly and would help to reduce response times. 

I spent the last decade in Europe working with AENA, EC, LFT and others and none of them like the C27: hence my reluctance to sign on to that particular purchase.  If the Italians don't like it and they make it why are we so keen?  The cormorant may be a good aircraft to replace the DH5.  If they are, go for it but there is an individual purchase price and maintainence cost that goes with rotary wing that is much lower with fixed wing.  Also most fixed wing are faster (even the proposed BUF by Viking will have greater speed than the cormorant) and there have been a lot of maintenance issues with the cormorant in particular thanks to Jean for buying the cheapest alternative he could find.  Would more Labs be a better solution since we already have some?  We used to use them.  Its a complex issue that needs looking at from all angles and quickly before the airframes time out completely.


----------



## Kirkhill

Buy 6 more Chinook CH-147Gs for 450 and attach a 6-ship det to 408.  Add hoists and put removable orange stripe decals on a pair of them and you're golden.  The Mountains can be served by both CH-149s and CH-147s from east and west.  Skip the C27s and add C130Js.  Rotate the 147s through Pet and the 130s through Trenton and/or Winnipeg for maintenance.  Treat Comox, Yellowknife, Gander, Greenwood, (Resolute?) as FOLs with dets on permanent standby.

Not so humble opinion.  >


----------



## kj_gully

OK. It is finally 100 per cent clear to me I have been wasting my time.  spend a few minutes researching the current fleet of SAR resources.  We currently use CH 149 and CH 146, CC115 and C130 aircraft for SAR ( and unfortunately  partly if not totally due to the prolonged and oft delayed FWSAR procurement, CP 140). I don't want us to buy more LABS, since we will have to retrieve the ones we have from parks, museums , and mothballs before we use them, nor purchase more Cormorant. I suggest the low slow visual search role in the mountains can be fulfilled using the SAR rotary aircraft currently in service, and that SAR capabilities would be enhanced by procuring a relatively swift, pressurized aircraft common across canada and possibly common to tactical airlift fleet outfitted with 20th century ( not dreaming of 21st century) thermal/ IR/ something else that I don't know but is probably better/ sensors. I think we should place these resources smack dab on the mean ( average not nasty) centre of the historical incident points for our primary mandate, Aviation incident response, as opposed to positioning them to quickly reach the 5 percent (my guess) of incidents that are dramatic and distant from our current locations. We will receive a lot more bad press when we are slow to respond from iqualuit South to an incident just like we currently receive bad press when we take a long time to respond to Igloolik from Trenton currently, it will just happen a lot more often, since there's more traffic down South. If you drive a tow truck, you want your garage close to the freeway, not out in the gravel road, even if it means that every once and awhile you have to drive a lot extra to pull a tractor out of the ditch.


----------



## kj_gully

maybe more Chinooks... they would have to be yellow tho  ;D


----------



## Loachman

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I spent the last decade in Europe working with AENA, EC, LFT and others and none of them like the C27:



Why not?



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> Would more Labs be a better solution since we already have some?



_*Had*_ some.

They were retired several years ago.


----------



## Kirkhill

kj_gully said:
			
		

> maybe more Chinooks... they would have to be yellow tho  ;D



Alright - you win.  New Chinook covering system....



> Qualcomm's Mirasol screens can handle all of those applications and even display video. Much like E Ink screens, Marisol displays are reflective and require little to no power until the on-screen content needs to change. A little ambient light is also all that's needed to see the screen. These displays are consequently ideal for a task such as reading, when the screen doesn't have to change very often. But the Qualcomm device differs greatly when it comes to other applications, such as video or text messaging, that require frequent changes on screen. In those scenarios, Cathey says, Marisol's displays perform much better than E Ink's because they require less power per screen change. "As the content changes, the user experience changes and so do the requirements," he says.



Link

How about Government Tartan with SAR Yellow Polka Dots?


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Others with more mechanical knowledge than I have questioned the V-22 because of its complexity.  So far at any rate you need to have 10 in order to get 6 in the air.  They are working on improving the reliability but so far that is where things stand.  We don't have the dollars to keep a spare around just to ensure that one will start.



I have a friend in the USMC who flies the 22 and he loves it and that's including flying operationally in both Irag and, more demandingly, Afghanistan.  He doesn't think the V-22 proved any more complex operationally (vice engineering, which it is, he acknowledges) in actual use than a _Phrog_ (a.k.a. CH-46E Sea Knight) -- serviceability rates were about the same and maintenance was comparable.  10 in order to have 6 (i.e. 60% average serviceability) is not bad at all.  Ask what the actual serviceability rates of a CH149 or CC-130H or CC-115 is.

If I were king for a day, I think I would be looking at a capability (vice specific platform) composed of something more like that which I think kj_gully is leaning towards; I'd invest in rebuilding some of the VH-71's to the CH149 configuration, building up the Comox RWSAR capability to perhaps include a detachment in the interior to cover the historical/statistical inland SAR cases in the Rockies, then look at augmenting the remainder FWSAR capability with more C130Js.  I think that would be the best use/investment of the taxpayers' money from a purely DND point of view -- however, I do acknowledge that DND considerations do not represent 100% of the Government's considerations. 

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## FoverF

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I do acknowledge that DND considerations do not represent 100% of the Government's considerations.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Nor should they, which is something often overlooked here.

And even from a purely military-oriented view, there is:

a) a lot to be said for maintaining a domestic military aerospace manufacturing base, even though it means sometimes not having the absolute-best-in-the-world equipment every time. 

b) a trickle-down effect from government pork - more tax revenues mean more money available for defence.

c) a political benefit from Made In Canada, that could potentially come into play in a number of ways. If the CF was demanding SAR-configured Dash-8s, do you think it would take 15+ years to get them?


----------



## Zoomie

For those wishing a "made in Canada" solution - conduct the following task:

a) google Viking and Bombardier;

b) navigate to their website;

c) search their site for a page dedicated towards FWSAR, military aircraft, or anything of that matter; and

d) when you don't find anything, come back on here and read the rest of my post.

The simple fact of the matter is our aerospace industry is not interested in producing military aircraft - they simply shot and pout for a piece of the pie, yet do nothing to deserve it - apart from being Canadian.

If Viking was truly serious about the Buffalo NG - they would be bending metal right now, building a demonstrator aircraft that would make us wet our pants in anticipation.  They would put the required $millions into R&D'ing an airframe that has what the basic needs of any future FWSAR would require.  Instead, they have been quiet - relying on the MSM to dredge up old stories about how they once had a pipe dream called the Buffalo NG.  Any 50 hour pilot will tell you that this dream is impossible.

Same story with Bombardier - they're not going to make a new airframe that has a rear cargo ramp.  You can't do anything to the current Q-400 airframe that will allow a ramp to be retrofitted - not going to happen, ever.

The government of Canada is looking to replace these airframes within years of inking the contracts - for that sort of timeframe you need something that is already being made.  Do you really think the Gov't is going to choose another Cyclone-style replacement project?


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If I were king for a day, I think I would be looking at a capability (vice specific platform) composed of something more like that which I think kj_gully is leaning towards; I'd invest in rebuilding some of the VH-71's to the CH149 configuration, *building up the Comox RWSAR capability to perhaps include a detachment in the interior to cover the historical/statistical inland SAR cases in the Rockies*, then look at augmenting the remainder FWSAR capability with more C130Js.  I think that would be the best use/investment of the taxpayers' money from a purely DND point of view -- however, I do acknowledge that DND considerations do not represent 100% of the Government's considerations.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



SAR detachment in Kelowna?  Banff?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Prince George.


----------



## Zoomie

Cranbrook.  Far enough East to be worthwhile. Serviced by an ILS. Big enough town to support a Det.


----------



## YZT580

Europes problem with the C27-  doesn't carry enough so they end up using the C130s or larger most of the time.  Low and slow manoeuverability is just adequete.  In previous comments, meant Chinook not Lab dating myself I guess.   I will vote for Kirkhills concept.  As for relocating Trenton KJ I am certain that you are familiar with triangulation.  The point to point from YYB to most of southern Ontario west of YYZ is identical to the same point from Trenton and often closer.  The area that isn't covered is the area between YYZ YUL and YOW and all three cities have very few requirements for SAR.  It is the areas in all other directions that would benefit the most and these are the places where SAR is needed the most.  Airplanes disappear in forests and lakes but not so often in farm fields and towns.  With the exception of international traffic feeding Toronto the vast majority of traffic crosses well north of Toronto or starts to enter Canadian airspace over YYZ heading for Michican.  Thus the coverage from YYB would be the same as from YTR.  Traffic from overseas crosses OW and then north of London heading towards ORD and the American midwest.  North Bay wins again for track distance to the preferred flight paths.  It has been a long time since V300 or HL555 were the most congested routes except as I say into Pearson itself.


----------



## Zoomie

I will admit that North Bay is a far more logical FWSAR base than Trenton - simple logistics/economics will trump that logic.


----------



## kj_gully

concur. 300 km approx? 45 minutes flying time, just a guess... then you are 45 minutes further away from Lake Ontario.... and when a boat sinks the Canadian Coast Guard will be relieved that the RCAF is such an obvious scapegoat, just as the RCMP are silent when we are late to a ground SAR incident...


----------



## Good2Golf

kj_gully said:
			
		

> concur. 300 km approx? 45 minutes flying time, just a guess... then you are 45 minutes further away from Lake Ontario.... and when a boat sinks the Canadian Coast Guard will be relieved that the RCAF is such an obvious scapegoat, just as the RCMP are silent when we are late to a ground SAR incident...



Excellent point.

It seems the public (and the media) don't understand that there are three different lead providers of search and rescue services in Canada, depending on the situation: maritime (Coast Guard); ground (local police) and air (CF).  The CF also assists CCG for maritime SAR, but DFO/CCG has lead for maritime SAR, including the Great Lakes.  

National Search and Rescue Secretariat - Annex A to National SAR Program: Roles and Responsibilities for Search and Rescue Program

Often when things don't go smoothly in a maritime or ground SAR situation, it seems that the CF gets blamed for failing to respond appropriately...even if it is a secondary responder and has to reposition airborne SAR assets away from primary SAR responsibilities.


Regards
G2G


----------



## mariomike

kj_gully said:
			
		

> ... then you are 45 minutes further away from Lake Ontario....



There is a limited amount of SAR availability at the municipal level on Lake Ontario. The joint Toronto Police and EMS Marine Unit have a main station, three substations and 15 boats. ( Cross-trained paramedics staff the patrol vessels. ) 
Their response area includes approximately 460 square miles of open water on Lake Ontario. Their operational jurisdiction is from the Etobicoke creek (Peel Region) to Rouge River (Durham Region) and extends 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border. 

Peel, Halton, Durham, Niagara, York and Hamilton also operate marine units.


----------



## Loachman

Toronto should stop being cheap lefty bastards and buy a police helicopter.


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:
			
		

> Toronto should stop being cheap lefty bastards and buy a police helicopter.



Hoists on the ORNGE helicopters already flying in and out of city hospitals is the rumour we sometimes hear.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Excellent point.
> 
> It seems the public (and the media) don't understand that there are three different lead providers of search and rescue services in Canada, depending on the situation: maritime (Coast Guard); ground (local police) and air (CF).  The CF also assists CCG for maritime SAR, but DFO/CCG has lead for maritime SAR, including the Great Lakes.
> 
> National Search and Rescue Secretariat - Annex A to National SAR Program: Roles and Responsibilities for Search and Rescue Program
> 
> Often when things don't go smoothly in a maritime or ground SAR situation, it seems that the CF gets blamed for failing to respond appropriately...even if it is a secondary responder and has to reposition airborne SAR assets away from primary SAR responsibilities.
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Sometimes they don't get credit when things go right either, "large yellow Coast Guard helicopter rescues people from burning boat" I have seen sevral times in the local paper.

Frankly I think we are all missing the boat when it comes to a proper SAR aircraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIcltyMwJRg   :stirpot:


----------



## The Bread Guy

mariomike said:
			
		

> Hoists on the ORNGE helicopters already flying in and out of city hospitals is the rumour we sometimes hear.


At least while ORNGE is still flying.....


----------



## Zoomie

Ornge will not be in a position to facilitate rescues - as that is not their contracted job.  They also don't carry any sort of rescue specialist.  They simply transport victims from one locale to another (hopefully a hospital).

Keep the yellow CH-146s in YTR - move the heavy hitters to North Bay - FWSAR and RWSAR (Cormorant).  A small detachment of RWSAR at YTR won't be hard to maintain - especially with the current infrastructure already in place there.


----------



## Good2Golf

mariomike said:
			
		

> Hoists on the ORNGE helicopters already flying in and out of city hospitals is the rumour we sometimes hear.



So you guys in EMS will start doing ground SAR too, now?  ???

As Zoomie said, Ornge is just an ambulance with rotors instead of wheels.


Regards
G2G


----------



## YZT580

"Frankly I think we are all missing the boat when it comes to a proper SAR aircraft."  Don't speak too loudly or Bombardier will be proposing the CL415.  Do the hangars for the G64s still exist in Trenton?  Could put them back in use and have 415s for the Great Lakes.  Be just like the 60s and with 415s at only 26 million each......


----------



## Zoomie

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Don't speak too loudly or Bombardier will be proposing the CL415.


If we were to diversify the fleet and have fixed niche roles for them - I would be all over that idea.  CL415's for the Great Lakes, NWT, West Coast, etc.  Now that is forward thinking...  Short range, amphib - put some skis on it and we have a winner for the 500nm SAR solution.  Still need long range stuff for the far away stuff.


----------



## mariomike

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So you guys in EMS will start doing ground SAR too, now?  ???



T-EMS does HU-SAR. 
Other than watching the inter-agency bun fights for years, I have no dog in the surf and turf wars which are legendary in this city. Especially now that I am retired. I still prefer to believe we are all on the same team.
As far as the rumour of hoists ever being installed in ORNGE helicopters goes, some of it I have read in this thread,
"Honestly the feeling in the RWSAR community is that we will eventually all be civies. Take Ontario for example.  Companies such as ORNGE helicopters regularly scoop the missions. Why? because they are spread through out Ontario...they beat Hercs and Griffons to scenes because of where their bases are located. If ORNGE ever installs hoists and trains pilots to fly NVGs, we are out of a job....or more likely into a civy job."
Reply #922 on: September 30, 2011, 23:52:55 

"The civilian companies are slowly expanding on their own and I believe will take over the SAR scene one day. STARS in Alberta is another example. ...rumour has it they have recently installed hoists on their helo's...
..RUMOUR":
Reply #926 on: October 01, 2011, 02:05:38 

Regards
mm


----------



## YZT580

Whilst it may be true that southern Ontario and central Alberta can manage their own SAR with the resources those provinces have, there will, at least for the foreseeable future, be a requirement for the RCAF to manage the rest of the area: including offshore.  Noone but the military is going to send an aircraft out looking for a distressed ship in a gale.  Insurance rates would be prohibitive.   So your folks are stuck with it and why not, there is nothing wrong with your job performance that is for sure.


----------



## Good2Golf

I was referring to Ground SAR in any region of Canada, but the development of HUSAR capability in major city centers, that can deploy regionally, provincially and nationally is an excellent development. 

Re: helos and SAR -- Poster in #922 was hypothesizing WHAT IF Ornge ever added hoists, but has not provided proof that they are outfitting their AW139s with hoists.  He also has not yet provided the requested specific example where an Ornge helicopter was called by JRCC to conduct primary National RWSAR in place of CF RWSAR assets - his example was of involvement of an Ornge aircraft conducting provinicially-mandated Heli MEDEVAC that dutied out due to lack of NVGs.

As well, his post in #926 was exactly what he stated, rumour.


Many of us continue to wait for an example where a non-CF helicopter was tasked by JRCC to conduct a National SAR mandated RWSAR mission in accordance with the National SAR Support Plan.

The only civilian helicopter I know of to be fitted with a hoist to conduct Company/Industry-specific RWSAR specific to their region of operation is Cougar in support of Hibernia for company traffic.  If there was anywhere a JRCC would request non-CF RWSAR assistance, if would be off the East Coast, where JRCC Halifax might contact Cougar to help out (since they have both hoists and SAR technicians) were CF RWSAR assets not to be in the immediate area. 


Regards
G2G


----------



## kj_gully

this is the FWSAR thread....


----------



## Good2Golf

kj_gully said:
			
		

> this is the FWSAR thread....



Yeah!  :nod:

How did choppers got into this thread, anyway?  ???





			
				kj_gully said:
			
		

> slow stable platform- like say a Cormorant?





			
				kj_gully said:
			
		

> maybe more Chinooks... they would have to be yellow tho  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

cypres78 said:
			
		

> Here we go, back on topic. Big news on the FWSAR front...They are opening a "project office".   :
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> Date: Wednesday Mar. 21, 2012 6:16 AM ET
> 
> Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120321/search-and-rescue-plane-purchase-120321/#ixzz1pl0RksTa



There's been staff working on this for quite some time - this is just formalizing it and probably assigning more full-time personnel to it.


----------



## kj_gully

OK Guilty. I hope that we can get a deal from our neighbours, but hopefully they still conduct a competition. Price is after all only one factor, way cheaper but not appropriate is worse than getting nothing, because we are stuck with it for a looooong time. I have been woo'd by stats, but they are just figures... if they can't fly in the cold, or can't land in austere arctic airstrips, it is not too useful...


----------



## Good2Golf

As a general rule-of-thumb, in-service support costs are about three times more than conventional acquisition costs, so it's important to understand clearly what the cost would be to maintain aircraft that may have been procured at a discount.

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As a general rule-of-thumb, in-service support costs are about three times more than conventional acquisition costs, so it's important to understand clearly what the cost would be to maintain aircraft _*submarines*_ that may have been procured at a discount.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Yours is a multi-purpose comment, easily reused.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yours is a multi-purpose comment, easily reused.




Yep, agreed ...


----------



## Privateer

CBC article: "Ornge overspending slammed by Ontario auditor general
Province operated air ambulance service like a 'mini-conglomerate"

includes:


> The long-awaited report by Jim McCarter was released Wednesday, and says the Health Ministry did little to oversee the $700 million it handed to Ornge over the past five years.
> 
> Orgne also borrowed almost $300 million to buy more airplanes and helicopters than it needed. and used taxpayer dollars to repay the debt, McCarter found.
> 
> Since the creation of Ornge in 2006, taxpayer funding of the air ambulance service shot up 20 per cent while the number of patients transported dropped six per cent, McCarter found.
> 
> ...
> 
> The auditor also found Ornge bought three more helicopters and four more airplanes than its own analysis showed it needed and planned to allow the private companies to use them.
> 
> The agency is selling some of those used helicopters it bought with the money at a loss.
> 
> ...
> 
> McCarter said he has not been given access to the paper trail from all the Ornge spinoff companies, meaning he has not been allowed to review details of a $5-million payment from an Italian helicopter maker.
> 
> That payment is now the subject a criminal probe by the Ontario Provincial Police.
> 
> Among McCarter's other findings:
> 
> The number of patients Ornge carried fell while its budget increased.
> A land-based ambulance service added by Ornge carried only 15 per cent of the number of passengers projected at a per-patient cost that was almost as high as air transfers.
> The way Ornge reports its response times made it difficult to tell how well it was serving patients.
> Frequent problems with how Ornge aircraft was dispatched.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/03/21/toronto-matthews-ornge.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The federal cabinet is expected give approval this week to open a project office to buy new fixed-wing search and rescue planes, according to senior federal officials.
> 
> It is the first step in getting the stalled, nearly decade-old program to replace C-115 Buffalos and older model C-130-H transport aircraft.
> 
> The $3.1 billion replacement plan has been mired in controversy and bureaucratic in-fighting almost since it was announced by the Martin government — obstacles that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has yet to overcome.
> 
> Potential bidders were informed a couple of weeks ago that a formal tender call is not expected until next year and there will be more industry consultation.
> 
> Part of the delay has involved accusations that the air force had rigged initial specifications to favour one aircraft — the C-27-J Spartan, built by the Italian company Alenia.
> 
> The U.S. Air Force recently announced it intended to sell its fleet of Spartan transports, both existing and soon-to-be-delivered.
> 
> It's part of a cost-cutting move, but it has yet to receive Congressional approval.
> 
> Senior defence officials say they intend to ask Washington how much it wants for the planes, but took pains to emphasize that there will be an open competition ....


The Canadian Press, 21 Mar 12


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Question # 1:
> Must an Aircraft Provider be an OEM?
> 
> Clarification # 1:
> A single point of accountability (SPA) is a requirement for this project in which the SPA or prime contractor will be responsible for providing the aircraft fleet and In-Service Support.  Currently, the type of aircraft provider ( i.e. OEM, ISS integrator, any other party) has not been determined, as it will be a point of discussion with industry.


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile.......

In the alternate universe known as Australia:



> Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that the Government had agreed to purchase 10 Alenia C-27J Spartan Battlefield Airlift aircraft at a cost of $1.4 billion. .....
> 
> The C-27J was assessed by Defence as the aircraft which best met all the essential capability requirements and provides the best value for money. It was assessed as being able to fly further, faster, higher while carrying more cargo and requiring a smaller runway than the other aircraft under consideration, the Airbus Military C-295.....




Read the article  for a chuckle on the seller.


----------



## Rifleman62

Info in this article re the Spartan.

http://defensetech.org/2012/05/08/congress-keeps-adding-billions-to-pentagon-budget/
*
Congress Keeps Adding Billions to Pentagon Budget*

Extract:

As the clock ticks ever closer to the triggering of the sequestration time bomb — you know, the massive cuts to government spending that are set to take effect next January unless Congress moves to eliminate them — lawmakers are still forcing more cash on the Pentagon than it says it needs during this time of belt-tightening.

Yup, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) is set to add nearly $3 billion to the Pentagon’s weapons buying accounts in its version — called a markup — of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that’s set to be unveiled tomorrow. And yes, the HASC’s bill along with a similar effort by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, is meant to bar the Air Force from retiring its fleet of C-27J Spartan airlifters. The appropriators also moved to keep the service flying its Block 30 Global Hawk spy drones that Air Force brass want to retire in favor of keeping U-2 spylanes.

Extract:

AIR FORCE

• Aircraft procurement rose $389 million, largely on the strength of plus-ups to the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper UAV programs and $138 million to keep its C-27Js. Advance procurement funds deemed excessive for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter were cut by $64 million, along with another $23 million in “premature” spares for the aircraft, which has not yet entered service.

And this:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120507/DEFREG02/305070016/U-S-House-Appropriators-Boost-Defense-Bill-by-3-1B?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

May. 7, 2012

*U.S. House Appropriators Boost Defense Bill by $3.1B*

Extract:

Young’s (House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman C.W. Bill Young) legislation directs the Air Force to continue the Alenia Aermacchi C-27 cargo plane program. It also keeps the Northrop Grumman Block-30 Global Hawk, which the Air Force has proposed canceling.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., in his mark of the 2013 defense authorization bill, directed the Air Force to keep its C-27s in service.


----------



## Zoomie

More food for thought. I'm working with USCG assets where I am and they hate the C-295. They have all but given up on that airframe and are looking forward to picking up the Spartan. 

So if our two closest allies are all gung-ho for that machine - why not us?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bombardier, Viking Air.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

Zoomie said:
			
		

> More food for thought. I'm working with USCG assets where I am and they hate the C-295. They have all but given up on that airframe and are looking forward to picking up the Spartan.
> 
> So if our two closest allies are all gung-ho for that machine - why not us?



Perhaps we should define the requirement then look for capabilities to meet it, instead of pickign a favourite and finessing the requirements to match.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should define the requirement then look for capabilities to meet it, instead of pickign a favourite and finessing the requirements to match.



I thought that had been done....two or three times, and by NRC. IIRC the net result was:"That can't be right.  There is only one aircraft on the market that meets that requirement.  And it isn't Canadian.  Do it again."


----------



## Zoomie

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should define the requirement then look for capabilities to meet it,


That was done back in 2004.


> instead of pickign a favourite and finessing the requirements to match.


MSM and politics aside - this was/is a huge misnomer.


----------



## Kirkhill

It seems that even the Aussie's aren't immune to "Gotcha" politics and Airbus doesn't mind being "loose" in its interpretation of numbers.



> Response of 11 May 2012 Provided to David Ellery, The Canberra Times
> 
> (Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued May 11, 2012)
> 
> Australia’s selection of the C-27J medium transport aircraft, at a cost of $1.4 billion for 10 aircraft, has attracted substantial criticism because of its cost and the way the acquisition was decided. Airbus the losing competitor, has issued a statement saying it could have supplied the aircraft earlier and at much lower cost. Below are the Australian Defense Minister’s answers to related questions asked by The Canberra Times:
> 
> 
> Q: In view of the Airbus Statement does the Minister stand by his assertion that there was a “competition”?
> 
> Yes. A competitive down select to the C-27J was made following an exhaustive assessment by Defence, the DMO and Air Force of information provided by the manufacturers of the aircrafts, including Airbus Military and the C-295.
> 
> Can he specificy the nature of that competition? When was it called? How was it conducted? Who was specifically asked to participate?
> 
> Information was sought from various suppliers throughout 2011.
> 
> Alenia, Airbus Military, Raytheon and the US FMS Office were asked to participate in the process.
> 
> Each was asked to provide information on the performance of their aircraft, as well as costing data, in order to enable Defence, DMO and Air Force to conduct a comparative assessment of each aircraft/performance/configuration.
> 
> This competitive, comprehensive and comparative analysis of the attributes of each aircraft against the ADF’s mission requirements was conducted by Defence, the DMO and Air Force.
> 
> Defence seeks to acquire the solution that best meets the operational requirements of the ADF.
> 
> The C-27J flies higher, further, faster and can access more airfields in our area of interest.
> 
> The C-295 is unable to carry some of the equipment that is vital to support ADF military and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief operations.
> 
> Can the Minister/Defence provide written documentation, including communications with Airbus Military, to confirm that a formal competition process was conducted and that Airbus Military was given the same opportunity to put its case as Alenia?
> 
> An equal and same opportunity was given to both Airbus Military and Alenia.
> 
> Correspondence exchanges between respective suppliers and Defence are commercial-in-confidence.
> 
> While I realise that is an unusual request we have the interesting situation where a major – and reputable – military contractor appears to be calling the Australian Defence Minister a liar.
> 
> That is not a characterisation the Minister places on Airbus Military’s Press Release.
> 
> The most favourable interpretation that could be placed on their remarks is that the Minister was poorly briefed and does not have a clear understanding of what is happening in his own department. Could you comment on which of these scenarios is the most accurate?
> 
> Again, that is not a characterisation the Minister places on Airbus Military’s Press Release.
> 
> A competitive down select to the C-27J was made following an exhaustive assessment by Defence, the DMO and Airforce of information provided by the manufacturers of the aircraft. The decision to acquire the C-27J was made by the National Security Committee of Cabinet on the recommendation of the Department of Defence, the DMO and Air Force, together with advice from central line agencies including Treasury and Finance.
> 
> 
> SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS FROM DAVID ELLERY, THE CANBERRA TIMES, 1:50PM 11 MAY 2012
> 
> The Minister’s press release says the 10 C27Js will cost $1.4 billion (at a per unit price isn’t that close to/even more than the cost of a JSF?) What is the actual unit cost per plane and what is the support/spare parts/roof racks/hub caps and fox tail aerial decoration component?
> 
> Nine of these aircraft will be ones that the US is no longer taking. I understand the US price was around $30 – $31 million per unit – why are they costing us so much?
> 
> Airbus Military could have sold us 10 C295s for about $35 million per unit (representing a savings to the taxpayer of $1 billion). Is the additional capability alluded to by the Minister really worth three times as much?
> 
> The costs of $1.4 billion include the acquisition cost of the aircraft, modifications to the aircraft for equipment needed for specific ADF roles, initial logistics support (including spare parts, training, materiel handling equipment, technical data, management fees) testing and certification, and facilities. These costs are be applied to any aircraft platform chosen. The aircraft being acquired by Australia are new build aircraft.
> 
> The costs quoted by Airbus Military refer only to the cost of aircraft and do not account for these essential additional costs.
> 
> Airbus would be aware of these essential program costs being included in Defence projects through its own experience with the KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft project.
> 
> Defence seeks to acquire the solution that best meets the operational requirements of the ADF. The C-27J flies higher, further, faster and can access more airfields in our area of interest and was chosen for performance, configuration and suitability.
> 
> -ends-



Defense-Aerospace

What happens when you are a government subsidized enterprise producing products that don't fare well in the market and your currency is falling as are your governments?

Edit: 'Though when you are comparing a Spanish aircraft to an Italian aircraft does it really make any difference?


----------



## Kirkhill

And further to my last - from the same source:



> L-3 Selected As Prime Contractor to Provide C-27J for Australian Battlefield Airlifter Program
> 
> (Source: L-3 Communications; issued May 11, 2012)
> 
> NEW YORK --- L-3 Communications announced today that it has been selected by the Commonwealth of Australia to provide the C-27J Spartan for the country’s Battlefield Airlifter program. The U.S. Foreign Military Sales program has an approximate contract value of $600 million and includes the supply of 10 new C-27J aircraft worth about $300 million, plus contractor logistics support, spares and training.
> 
> The announcement was made by the Australian Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Materiel on May 10.
> 
> “L-3 is proud to have been selected for the Australian Battlefield Airlifter program,” said John McNellis, L-3 corporate senior vice president and president of L-3 Integrated Systems Group. “We look forward to working with the U.S. and Australian governments to deliver this vital capability. The C-27J will serve the Commonwealth of Australia with superb performance, interoperability with international forces, as well as significant total life-cycle savings over the life of the program.”
> 
> To support the future force, the Battlefield Airlifter must be a multifunctional aircraft, able to perform logistical re-supply, medevac, troop movement, airdrop operations and humanitarian assistance. The C-27J is equipped to address each of these mission requirements and outperforms every other aircraft in its class, as demonstrated through exceptional performance during the U.S. Air Force’s current deployment in Afghanistan. The U.S. selected the C-27J over the C-295 through a competitive tender process in 2007.
> 
> 
> Headquartered in New York City, L-3 employs approximately 61,000 people worldwide and is a prime contractor in C3ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) systems, aircraft modernization and maintenance, and government services. L-3 is also a leading provider of a broad range of electronic systems used on military and commercial platforms. The company reported 2011 sales of $15.2 billion.
> 
> -ends-


----------



## The Bread Guy

> After a seven-year delay marked by controversy about the fairness of the procurement process, the Harper government is moving ahead with a $3.8-billion purchase of new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's ancient fleet of Buffalo and C-130-H transports.
> 
> Following cabinet approval late last year, the government has set a new schedule that will see a draft request for proposal issued in September, with final selection of the winning bidder or bidders expected in 2014, Postmedia has learned. Treasury Board has granted first-phase approval of a budget of $3.8-billion, with $1.9-billion of that going to so-called 'in-service support' or maintenance.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The likely front-running contenders are Italy-based Alenia's C-27 J, Airbus Military's C-295 and Lockheed-Martin's updated C-130J Transport. Viking Air's DHC-5 Buffalo and Bombardier's Q400 turboprop also have been mentioned as possible candidates.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The decision to move ahead on SAR caps what has become the most tortuous and long-delayed military procurement project in recent memory. Plans to replace the RCAF's dilapidated C-115 Buffalos and C-130-H models were first unveiled in the fall of 2003. The Chief of the Defence Staff at the time, Gen. Ray Henault, declared that acquiring new SAR craft was the military's top priority ....


Postmedia News, 29 May 12


----------



## Loachman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The decision to move ahead on SAR caps what has become the most tortuous and long-delayed military procurement project in recent memory



I guess that the Sea King replacement, which began over a decade before this one and has cost far more, no longer qualifies as "recent memory" since it was finally completed, um, how long ago now?

Oh, well, at least it hasn't been delayed as long, or been more tortuous.


----------



## DavidAkin

This piece mixes FWSAR with the Griffons and Cormorants but what the hey:

Search-and-rescue needs saving:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/05/29/canadas-search-and-rescue-needs-saving

Looking forward to the gang here letting me know what I got right and what I got wrong.

Cheers.


----------



## eurowing

"In other parts of the country, SAR techs get to work in a helicopter, sometimes a CH-146 Griffon and sometimes a CH-149 Cormorant."

Cormorants are also in Comox. While I respect SAR Techs very much, (one of my best friends is one) they are not maintainers.  I would still fly with the Buff anywhere.  Engines fail, Tires go flat..  yada yada.  It is an old machine (Late 60s), but a lot more reliable than people think.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

eurowing,
They are having a hard time maintaining 25% serviceability.  :-[


----------



## Loachman

So are a lot of newer aircraft, for a variety of reasons.

Low serviceability does not equal hazardous. Low serviceability could be due to parts shortage.

Things go wrong with aircraft of any age.


----------



## Loachman

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> Looking forward to the gang here letting me know what I got right and what I got wrong.



I think that it's a little simplistic and overly government-bashing.

One can only explain so much in a brief column, though, and, as in any complex situation, the vast bulk of the public has little interest in even a simplistic explanation, let alone a real one.

Have you read back through all of the posts here?


----------



## DavidAkin

Yup. Though, even with all that reading, I'm not trying to pass myself off as a know-it-all expert around here.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

David,

I won't comment on your conclusions, but your article seems to leave the impression that anyone who flies on a SAR aircraft is a SAR Tech.

SAR technician is an occupation in the Canadian Forces.  They are (obviously) the ones that effect the rescues.  However, a SAR Crew is made up of people from several occupations, including (and dependant on aircraft type) Pilots, Air Combat Systems Officers and Flight Engineers.

I would also point out that many searches and rescues each year are carried out by other military aircraft and crews that are not dedicated SAR assets.  These include (but are not limited to) Sea King, Aurora and Griffon aircraft.


----------



## GAP

So theSAR technicians are used only to effect rescues and other similiar situations? 

I did not know that, I, probably like most, assumed SAR technicians were used in all call outs....


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Hopes of filling Canada's fixed-wing search and rescue (FWSAR) requirement to replace its aging de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalo fleet are driving would-be contractors to cement partnerships with local companies.
> 
> Canada's minister of public works, Rona Ambrose, who oversees defence procurement, says that her department has setup a new FWSAR secretariat to consult with industry on the project.
> 
> The creation of a new secretariat could be a sign that the moribund effort to replace the decrepit Buffalo is starting to gain momentum. Canada first signaled its intent to replace the antiquated twin-engined turboprop more than six years ago. The FWSAR programme will be a competitive procurement, Ambrose says. A "fairness monitor" will work to ensure the competition is open and fair, she adds. The contract, when it is awarded, will include training and support for at least 20 years.
> 
> The exact size and scope of the FWSAR tender is currently unknown, industry officials say. That is because the Canadian government has yet to finalize those requirements ....


flightglobal.com, 30 May 12

The Canadian Press' take:





> Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose told defence contractors today she's tired of duplication and competing agendas within government when it comes to military purchases.
> 
> It was a rare a moment of public exasperation from a usually composed cabinet minister.
> 
> Ambrose, who has largely escaped the political fury over the stealth fighter procurement, faced contractors at an annual military trade show.
> 
> Many are frustrated with the Conservative government's seeming inability to deliver on some long-standing commitments, such as search-and-rescue planes, which have been stuck in the system for nearly a decade.
> 
> Ambrose expressed sympathy, but offered no quick fixes.
> 
> The industry was told privately that the issuing of a full tender call to replace nearly 50-year-old C-115 Buffalos and C-130 Hercules transports likely won't happen until the end of next year.



The Government Info-machine's even vaguer take:





> Speaking at the annual defence and security industries’ CANSEC conference, the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, today highlighted how Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is working on improving and leveraging procurement to benefit Canadian industry and the Canadian economy.
> 
> "“Our Government is committed to improving procurement, in consultation with Canadian industries, so that we can maximize job creation, support Canadian innovation and bolster economic growth across the country,”" Minister Ambrose told industry leaders. "“The Government of Canada is changing the way it does business by trying to drive innovation and investment in the Canadian economy.”"
> 
> As the host of CANSEC, the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) is the voice for the Canadian defence and security industries. The Association exists to strengthen the relationship and dialogue between government and our industries and to maximize the contribution its members can make to national defence and security. As the primary advocate for the defence and security industries, CADSI represents the interests of industry to governments, politicians, the media, special interest groups, opinion leaders, and the public.
> 
> PWGSC is continuously improving and updating its procurement processes to engage suppliers, to leverage government procurement and to better govern large and complex procurements.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to Tony's posting above about the CP take:



> Ms. Ambrose expressed sympathy, but offered no quick fixes.“Frankly, when it comes to procurement, I’m a little tired of being told why something can’t be done,” she said.
> 
> “I’m also tired of being told I can only get partial buy-in for new ideas because people would rather see things fail first. And I’ve become tired of all of the duplication and competing agendas.
> 
> “I am fully aware of all of the internal obstacles to change, but I realize we won’t be able to transform the procurement system overnight.”



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135592/canadian-minister-decries-defense-procurement-problems%2C-promises-fix.html

Rona for the CD Howe award AND for Next PM.


----------



## GAP

Yeah, but once the problem is identified, are they actually going to do something about it..... :


----------



## Edward Campbell

Normally, politicians need a crisis (read: something that embarrasses the hell out of the prime minister) to spur them to action and to override _officials_ ~ the people who are not afraid to see someone else's programme fail. I don't think the F-35 accounting debacle is a crisis of sufficient magnitude. But, maybe, ships + FWSAR + F-35 + drones might be enough. Sometimes Kevin Page and the media (fed by Page) are our friends.


----------



## Kirkhill

How's this for a solution?

Rona invites the DM's of ND, PWGSC, Industry Canada and Uncle Tom Cobley and all down to Scotiabank Place and tells them to bring as many advisers, consultants and dogs bodies as they like.

When they all get comfortable in their seats she tells them what she wants to do.  The first person that says "You can't do that", she fires on the spot.  The first person that offers a solution to the problem that the firee proposed gets promoted on the spot.  Repeat as necessary until everybody gets the message.

In my history of fantasies and managing projects that is particularly high on my list.  Just behind something involving Catherine Bell and chocolate.....but I digress.....as usual.


----------



## Kirkhill

Poor Buggers at Defense-Aerospace  apparently can't follow the bouncing ball anymore than our home grown press-corps (and auditors?) can.

Note the Editor's Rant.



> Pentagon Contract Announcement
> 
> (Source: US Department of Defense; issued May 31, 2012)
> 
> L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P., Greenville, Texas, is being awarded a $321,770,026 firm-fixed-price contract to purchase 10 C-27J aircraft, 10 option kits, and one lot each production cost and software reports and contractor logistic support cost and software reports for the Commonwealth of Australia by issuing a delivery order.
> 
> The location of the performance is Greenville, Texas. Work is to be completed May 24, 2012.
> 
> ASC/WLNJ, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-07-D-0099 0078).
> 
> 
> (EDITOR’S NOTE: It is high time for the Australian Ministry of Defence to come clear on the true cost of this purchase, as there are too many contradictions in official statements regarding this contract.
> 
> Announcing the deal on May 10, Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the “acquisition of the 10 C-27J aircraft with associated support equipment will be conducted through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) arrangement with the United States at a cost of around $1.4 billion.”
> 
> He noted that this price only covered “initial logistic support, including training for aircrew and maintenance personnel…” and that follow-on support would be covered by “a separate agreement with the C-27J manufacturer, Alenia” obviously at additional cost.
> 
> 
> The very next day, L-3 Communications announced that it had been selected by Australia to provide C-27Js at “an approximate value of $600 million [which] includes the supply of 10 new C-27J aircraft worth about $300 million, plus contractor logistics support, spares and training.”
> 
> 
> There is thus a discrepancy of about $800 million between the two figures, or over 50% of the contract’s value.
> 
> Furthermore, the Pentagon contract announced yesterday (see above) confirms L-3’s price estimate, and sets the price of the ten aircraft at precisely $321.7 million.
> 
> It is obviously impossible that the “initial logistic support, including training for aircrew and maintenance personnel” described by the minister could account for the difference, or $1,079 million.
> 
> There are only very few ways to account for the missing billion+ dollars: (a) supporting the ten aircraft for an “initial” period is three times as expensive as buying them; (b) the minister and his staff can’t count, or (c) the missing billion + is headed elsewhere.
> 
> Australia’s defense procurement system is well-known for its cavalier disregard of costs, prices and over-billing, but in this case the discrepancy is so massive that a clear and cogent ministerial explanation is clearly necessary.)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> .... Rona invites the DM's of ND, PWGSC, Industry Canada and Uncle Tom Cobley and all down to Scotiabank Place and tells them to bring as many advisers, consultants and dogs bodies as they like.
> 
> When they all get comfortable in their seats she tells them what she wants to do.  The first person that says "You can't do that", she fires on the spot.  The first person that offers a solution to the problem that the firee proposed gets promoted on the spot.  Repeat as necessary until everybody gets the message ....


Cabinet Minister don't hire/switch/fire DMs - her boss does.


----------



## dapaterson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Cabinet Minister don't hire/switch/fire DMs - her boss does.



Actually, DMs are hired, fired and retired by this gentleman.


----------



## Kirkhill

Might as well bring him along to the party as well.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The Harper government should be looking into a made-in-Canada solution to its search-and-rescue woes, especially when it comes to buying new fixed-wing planes, a new report suggests.
> 
> The study, funded by the Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute, was to be released Tuesday at a news conference in Ottawa, but an advance copy was obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> National Defence has been fuzzy in laying out its expectations for the new search planes, which have been proposed for nearly a decade, warns the report, which raises concern the process will favour large, multinational aircraft-makers — such as U.S.-based Lockheed Martin, Bell-Boeing Co., European aerospace-owned Airbus Inc., and Alenia Aeronautica, of Italy.
> 
> Both Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. and Viking Air of Saanich, B.C., are interested in participating in the $3.8 billion program, which the Conservatives have tried and failed to push forward since being elected in 2006.
> 
> "The Canadian government should ensure the (statement of requirements) does not preclude consideration of made-in-Canada aircraft," said the report, penned by University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers and research associate Stewart Webb ....


The Canadian Press, 18 Jun 12

This from the Rideau Institute (the same folks who bring you ceasefire.ca) blog:





> .... The authors offer three recommendations for the government as they prepare to address Canada’s FWSAR aircraft:
> 
> • The Canadian government should clearly articulate a Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR) for Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue aircraft that recognizes the unique requirements on Canada’s West Coast and the necessity of a mixed fleet.
> 
> • The Canadian government should ensure the SOR does not preclude consideration of made-in-Canada aircraft.
> 
> • The Canadian government should conduct a transparent competition that will provide the Canadian Forces with effective FWSAR aircraft at the best value to Canadians in terms of cost, performance, and jobs.
> 
> Most importantly, the authors want to see a clear and open process for acquiring the aircraft. The Statement of Operational Requirements, which outlines the performance specifications that the aircraft must be able to achieve, has never been made public ....


If you don't want to share your e-mail address with the Rideau Institute, you can find the full report here.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest from MERX (highlights mine):





> .... The FWSAR Secretariat is publishing this Letter of Interest (LOI) to inform industry that *the summary of the industry workshop held on April 11, 2012 is now available on demand*. The FWSAR Secretariat is also *ready to release the FWSAR Incidents Database*: copies will be provided upon request to the FWSAR Secretariat e mail address: ARSVF.FWSAR@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
> 
> UPDATED INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT SCHEDULE
> 
> To continue with industry consultations, *the FWSAR Secretariat is planning to host another industry workshop on the 17, 18 and 19 October 2012 to discuss specific topics and to entertain one-on-one sessions with potential bidder's team*: details to follow. Starting this summer, the FWSAR Secretariat will start sharing elements from the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) ....


Not much more detail in the MERX posting support documents here.


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... on "plan to use what we already have" - from the latest amendment to the MERX pacakage (attached):





> .... The number of military personnel available for FWSAR must remain within the existing resource envelope of Air Force personnel currently utilized for fixed-wing SAR. Analysis based on existing human resource planning assumptions indicates that a maximum of five Main Operating Bases (MOBs) could be operated within the current RCAF personnel envelope.
> 
> The capability to respond to simultaneous FWSAR incidents in each of Canada's three Search and Rescue Regions (SRRs) must be  maintained. For clarity, this means the capability to respond to simultaneous incidents at each of the three extremes (i.e. the North Pole, the eastern boundary of the Halifax SRR (also called "30 West") and the western boundary of the Victoria SRR).
> 
> Additionally, one or more FWSAR continuous stand-by aircraft shall be dedicated to each SRR Commander, to enable continuous coverage of their SRR.
> 
> Proposals that include changes to the existing MOBs of Comox, Winnipeg, Trenton and Greenwood, or the establishment of a new operating location, must account for all associated costs, including infrastructure.
> 
> As previously advised via the Essential Elements document version 2.0, "Each FWSAR unit, located at an MOB, shall be capable of ensuring 99% probability of having one aircraft continually ready to launch on a SAR mission as per mandated standby postures." The term "Main Operating Base (MOB)" includes all annually recurring operating locations. Thus, seasonal operating locations (e.g. 3-6 months each year) would be subject to the 99% requirement ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

_Viking Air is looking to relaunch production on the de Havilland DHC-5 Buffalo following strong interest in an upgraded version from existing operators of the 50-year-old twin-engined turboprop.

"We launched a market study last month to gauge customer demand, determine the potential size of this market globally and to fully assess the feasibility of relaunching this legacy product," says Rob Mauracher vice president of Viking, which owns the Buffalo's type certificate. "We know there is demand from both commercial operators and governments worldwide as we have already received a couple of letters of intent."_


Rest of article here http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-viking-evaluates-market-for-dhc-5-buffalo-relaunch-374237/


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin P said:
			
		

> _Viking Air is looking to relaunch production on the de Havilland DHC-5 Buffalo following strong interest in an upgraded version from existing operators of the 50-year-old twin-engined turboprop.
> 
> "We launched a market study last month to gauge customer demand, determine the potential size of this market globally and to fully assess the feasibility of relaunching this legacy product," says Rob Mauracher vice president of Viking, which owns the Buffalo's type certificate. "We know there is demand from both commercial operators and governments worldwide as we have already received a couple of letters of intent."_
> On top of that I suspect that you could even improve it's STOL abilities  with a tweak or two . Although any shorter of a either take off or landing and you're damn near approaching vertical ! :nod:
> 
> Rest of article here http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-viking-evaluates-market-for-dhc-5-buffalo-relaunch-374237/


----------



## YZT580

Nothing whatsoever to do with the current topic but the folks at DH did this some 40 years ago. "On top of that I suspect that you could even improve it's STOL abilities  with a tweak or two .  Although any shorter of a either take off or landing and you're damn near approaching vertical !"    Way back when, they developed what was called then an augmenter wing which damned near did go vertical.  If I remember correctly, they also experimented with landing in water on an air cushion; using the wing to give them a near vertical descent.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NASA did some work on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_eDutgh4IU


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Nothing whatsoever to do with the current topic but the folks at DH did this some 40 years ago. "On top of that I suspect that you could even improve it's STOL abilities  with a tweak or two .  Although any shorter of a either take off or landing and you're damn near approaching vertical !"    Way back when, they developed what was called then an augmenter wing which damned near did go vertical.  If I remember correctly, they also experimented with landing in water on an air cushion; using the wing to give them a near vertical descent.



If that is the case, then it may be appropriate to spend a few federal research dollars to assist in an effort to complete that design and develop it as a replacement for the Twotter.   Not for the FWSAR programme.

The Twotters need to be replaced.  A slightly larger aircraft with a rear ramp that can get into the same places wouldn't go amiss.  And increasing the number of aircraft available to support Northern and Bush operations couldn't be bad.  Plan on a delivery programme starting around 2025 or so, after the F-18 replacement is in place.

That gives time for research, development, prototyping and proving.  And who knows maybe Viking can pull off a mass-market success like the Twotter and the Buffalo.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Latest with the process:  an info package is out for the 17-19 Oct 12 "industry engagement"


----------



## The Bread Guy

_"Media Advisory: Airbus Military and Discovery Air To Make Announcement About Future of Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue in Canada"_ tomorrow (10 Oct 12) in Yellowknife - more, as it happens....


----------



## dapaterson

Discovery Air bought out "Top Aces" and has numerous other government contracts.  Do I smell an unsolicited offer to outsource the SAR function, in whole or in part?


----------



## Ciskman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Discovery Air bought out "Top Aces" and has numerous other government contracts.  Do I smell an unsolicited offer to outsource the SAR function, in whole or in part?



Could be interesting. Outsourcing has been tossed around in the past.


----------



## The Bread Guy

HappyWithYourHacky said:
			
		

> Could be interesting. Outsourcing has been tossed around in the past.


Just a reminder, though, that there's still "industry consultation" to be done - latest deadline for such input is still (as of this post, anyway) 21 Dec 12.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> In the presence of the Honourable Mr. Bob McLeod, Premier of the Northwest Territories,  the CEO of Discovery Air, Mr.  Brian Semkowski, and the SVP Commercial of Airbus Military, Mr. Antonio Rodriguez-Barberan, announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to jointly offer a solution for the Canadian Fixed Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) Program.  Under the terms of the MoU, Discovery Air, as the Airbus Military (AM) primary Canadian partner, will provide the in-service support for the program.
> 
> Brian Semkowski stated: "We are delighted to be able to offer this solution in conjunction with Airbus Military to the Canadian Forces. We are very excited about the C295 aircraft; a proven and reliable SAR platform that has been sold all over the world with over 110,000 flying hours to its credit. With proven, state of the art search capabilities, it offers a low-risk, low-cost solution, high in Canadian content."  He added: "We believe that Discovery Air is ideally placed to provide the 20 year support package that will be required for this program."
> 
> Antonio Barberan said: "We are extremely pleased with this agreement. Discovery Air is the perfect partner for Airbus Military and the ideal Canadian solution for the FWSAR program. The C295 is a proven platform as a world leader in terms of maritime patrol, search and rescue and related missions for twin engine military aircraft.
> 
> "The C295 FWSAR is a robust, reliable aircraft that does not have the risk associated with unproven technologies and Airbus Military, being part of Airbus, is backed by the solid fundamentals and reputation of Airbus. Furthermore, it has the lowest life-cycle costs in its class, and compared to competitors could save Canada up to $1 billion in fuel costs alone over the life of the airframe."
> 
> The C295 aircraft is a proven and reliable SAR platform of which 114 examples have been sold in 17 countries. With proven, state of the art search capabilities, it offers a low-risk, low-cost solution, high in Canadian content.  In addition to Discovery Air, established partners include Pratt & Whitney Canada, CAE, L-3 Wescam and Vector Aerospace.  Airbus Military is the world market leader in military SAR, maritime patrol and related missions ....


Joint news release, 10 Oct 12

More on the various partners here.


----------



## Ciskman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Joint news release, 10 Oct 12
> 
> More on the various partners here.



From the Airbus Military c295 website.

http://www.c295.ca/c295-canadian-sar/sar-cabin/







"The comfort of SAR Techs is secured through fully functional, closed toilets."

SOLD!


----------



## PuckChaser

HappyWithYourHacky said:
			
		

> "The comfort of SAR Techs is secured through fully functional, closed toilets."
> 
> SOLD!



Everybody poops, including SAR Techs.  8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well with the current direction of this government is going, the SARtech will just sit in the back and audit the search and rescue by others. So they might as well be comfortable.


----------



## Kirkhill

> The C295's ergonomically-designed spotter seats include an armrest and cup holder for extended searches while avoiding neck and back injuries.



How long does a Double Double stay warm?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

So, AirBus supplies sthe aircraft, Discovery Air does the maintenance, CAE and Thales provide the simulators and avionics; So, does that mean the aircrew and SAR Techs will still be military?


----------



## Ciskman

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> So, AirBus supplies sthe aircraft, Discovery Air does the maintenance, CAE and Thales provide the simulators and avionics; So, does that mean the aircrew and SAR Techs will still be military?



I'm guessing it would be similar to the Cormorant and IMP deal.


----------



## Zoomie

Has DND signed off on contracted maintenance?  Is this move something that might end up disqualifying Airbus/EADS before any competition begins?  Seems pretty risky to team up for something that might not even be wanted/needed. If the RCAF keeps blue-suit maintenance, Discovery is out of the picture.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest - more than one airframe?


> Defence Minister Peter MacKay has opened the door to replacing Canada's aging fixed-wing search-and-rescue fleet with other kinds of planes.
> 
> "We've broadened the specs to include the possibility of a mixed fleet," MacKay told the House of Commons defence committee Tuesday.
> 
> The public works department has given airplane manufacturers until Dec. 21 to express interest in bidding on the project to replace Canada's fleet Buffalo and Hercules search-and-rescue planes.
> 
> MacKay was coy when reporters asked him whether he officially backed continuing with a mixed fleet of planes for search and rescue.
> 
> "I think that's a question now that has to go to Public Works, as they're the ones now that are consulting with industry and seeing what's available on the market with regard to our operational needs," MacKay said as his communications assistant tried to pull him away ....


----------



## Ciskman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The latest - more than one airframe?



Got to explore all the options. We wouldn't want to rush anything now would we! :


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another update on the "industry engagement" process - another draft RFP expected early in the new year for industry comment - via MERX from the attached amendment:


> .... The purpose of this amendment (007) is to notify Industry that the FWSAR Secretariat will continue to share information after the closing date of this LOI (21 December 2012).
> 
> To continue with Industry Engagement, the FWSAR Secretariat will publish a new Letter of Interest (LOI) in early 2013. The purpose of this new LOI will be to continue sharing elements of the "Draft RFP" in multiple releases, allowing Industry to review and provide comments before the issuance of a complete Draft RFP ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

> A pair of leading U.S. aircraft-makers is urging Ottawa to think outside the box as the government prepares to revive a long-stalled program to replace the country's search-and-rescue planes.
> 
> Boeing and Bell Helicopter, partners in the V-22 Osprey, plan to enter into the competition the tilt-rotor aircraft that can fly like a plane, but also hover like a helicopter.
> 
> In an unusually candid statement, company officials expressed concern that the revolutionary aircraft's suitability for search-and-rescue might not be appreciated under the government's approach to the program.
> 
> Robert Dompka, a senior executive at Bell Helicopter, says the firm would like to see "extra criteria" added to the planned $3.1-billion procurement.
> 
> "We believe the full value of the V-22 would not be ascertained with the way the requirement is currently structured," he said in an interview.
> 
> He says the plan is weighted toward replacing legacy aircraft, the 50-year-old C-115 Buffalos and nearly four decade-old C-130 Hercules, rather than looking to the future.
> 
> Dompka says Bell would like to see defence planners take a "broader perspective" and consider alternative ways of conducting missions, such as using an aircraft that can search, arrive at a scene, hover and conduct a rescue.
> 
> Right now, the Canadian air force uses a fixed-wing plane to search and then has to call in a CH-149 Cormorant helicopter to carry out the rescue.
> 
> Kathy Anthony, a senior executive at Boeing, says the V-22 brings a whole new look at search-and-rescue and would be invaluable in saving lives.
> 
> "It reduces the time for survivors to reach safety and their (hospital) treatment," she said.
> 
> The program, which ambled along in fits and starts for a decade, is still a long way from delivering aircraft because the government has conducted two rounds of consultations with industry.
> 
> Last year, the government told contractors a tender call had been delayed until spring of 2013.
> 
> Government officials were reluctant to comment on the latest suggestions ....


The Canadian Press, 7 Jan 13


----------



## McG

... and here is what it might look like:


----------



## Dissident

I am waaaayyy out of my lane but I find the idea exciting. The operational history of the V-22 leaves me lukewarm but the idea seems to have merit. Edit: I don't know what I am talking about.

Who wants to dampen my enthusiasm with some cold hard reality?


----------



## KevinB

operationally in Iraq the V-22 kicks ass -- fast in and out.


----------



## PuckChaser

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Who wants to dampen my enthusiasm with some cold hard reality?



Its too new and cutting edge, we're not allowed to have those things. We get second hand or 30 year old designs.


----------



## Dissident

KevinB said:
			
		

> operationally in Iraq the V-22 kicks *** -- fast in and out.



I stand corrected. This sounds promising!



> Its too new and cutting edge, we're not allowed to have those things. We get second hand or 30 year old designs.



Oh. Well.  Hum. Yeah. Now I have a sad.  :'(


----------



## Duckman54

Sign me UP!!

Real-life CPL (fixed-wing), Multi-IFR, recently applied for DEO pilot...  we'll see.

BUT, if selected/accepted, I'd be honored to strap my butt into that beast and blast off into the always-friendly weather where rescues occur! Too new? Relatively untested? Dubious record? HUMBUG!  lol

For SAR, that thing would rock! I can't imagine a better platform to replace the Buffalos. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now I understand Buff's only in use outta Comox?  **IF** we acquired the Osprey, or whichever fixed-wing SAR a/c, is it planned to replace more than just Buff's?  And thus be operated out of more than just Comox?

'Greg.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from MERX:


> .... The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is to continue to share information as part of the Industry Engagement Strategy in the context of the Fixed Wing Search and Rescue Aircraft Replacement (FWSAR) Project. By sharing additional information, the intent from the FWSAR Secretariat is to seek industry
> feedback to allow the Government of Canada to better understand what industry has to offer and to help the FWSAR project team progress the definition work.
> 
> Feedback from Industry may be used to support Canada's decision-making process such as finalizing its requirements in an effort to assist in improving project documentation prior to official release as part of any eventual Request for Proposal (RFP).
> 
> FWSAR WEBSITE
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/svtvn-rscfw-eng.html
> 
> (....)


Not much more detail in the bid package attachment here (Google Docs).


----------



## The Bread Guy

An update:  potential bidders can ask for a video to learn more - see attached bid document amendment ....


> .... As requested by Industry, the FWSAR PMO has produced an educational video that is intended to provide a better understanding of the current daily operations at a primary FWSAR unit in Canada. This 20-minute video, called "A Day in the Life of a FWSAR Crew" was filmed at 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario, utilizing a CC130H aircraft, which is the only aircraft available at the 8 Wing Trenton to perform fixed wing SAR operations. The video should be used in conjunction with other documentation provided to Industry to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the fixed wing SAR operations in Canada ....



FWSAR WEBSITE
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/svtvn-rscfw-eng.html

FWSAR INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT RULES
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/rei-ier-eng.html

Let the industry engagement continue .....


----------



## Ciskman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> An update:  potential bidders can ask for a video to learn more - see attached bid document amendment ....
> FWSAR WEBSITE
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/svtvn-rscfw-eng.html
> 
> FWSAR INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT RULES
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/rei-ier-eng.html
> 
> Let the industry engagement continue .....



Thanks for all the updates. As a SAR guy this is exciting stuff. I am hoping they don't drop the ball on FWSAR like they did with many aspects of the Cormorant (which I love btw). Oh, and if any industry or military decision makers are reading this, we would like whatever it is in yellow...bright beautiful yellow!


----------



## Ciskman

Duckman54 said:
			
		

> For SAR, that thing would rock! I can't imagine a better platform to replace the Buffalos.



I've got to say, as the guy underneath working on patients I am opposed to the V-22. We have major issues with the downwash of a Cormorant as it is(dropping trees on Sar Techs and victims, flipping stokes etc) and the Osprey appears to be much worse. I am curious to see what 'helo' applications the V-22 could be used in, and is capable of, if any. (hoisting, water work etc.)  All that aside, I love the looks of that thing!


----------



## Gorgo

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and here is what it might look like:



That, my friend, looks seriously awesome.  ;D

Now, how the hell are we going to persuade the Land of Oz to buy some of these beauties?

EDIT:  But taking into account what HWYH said in the previous post, dealing with some major downdrafts from two turboprop engines would be a problem.

Then again, wouldn't it be possible to hover a lot higher than a Cormorant hovers?  Or is that just as unsafe?


----------



## Good2Golf

HappyWithYourHacky said:
			
		

> I've got to say, as the guy underneath working on patients I am opposed to the V-22. We have major issues with the downwash of a Cormorant as it is(dropping trees on Sar Techs and victims, flipping stokes etc) and the Osprey appears to be much worse. I am curious to see what 'helo' applications the V-22 could be used in, and is capable of, if any. (hoisting, water work etc.)  All that aside, I love the looks of that thing!



It would be a mistake to assume regular helicopter-mode usage.  It would be first and foremost a 'fast' mover getting on scene, and vertical mode used _in extremis_, so the slightly higher downwash (second-hand opinion based on first-hand feedback from AFSOC PJs) compared to the Cormorant platform would be considered acceptable, were Primary RWSAR not responsive enough to a specific situation.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Ciskman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> "It would be a mistake to assume regular helicopter-mode usage."
> 
> Agreed. Which is why I am curious to what the proposed vertical applications entail.
> 
> "It would be first and foremost a 'fast' mover getting on scene, and vertical mode used _in extremis_,"
> 
> What would the vertical mode in extremis entail? Landing/take off only? Hoisting?
> 
> "so the slightly higher downwash (second-hand opinion based on first-hand feedback from AFSOC PJs) compared to the Cormorant platform would be considered acceptable"
> 
> I guess it depends on who is doing the considering...
> 
> 
> Good points G2G, I am looking forward to hearing about the proposed V-22 applications in domestic SAR. Who knows, maybe I'll even become a fan.


----------



## Good2Golf

> I guess it depends on who is doing the considering...



The PJs and other operators.  Maybe CF SAR Techs would think differently, not sure?

My discussion with guys who've worked 53s, 47s, 60s, 22s, etc... is that they all have their own quirks and characteristics.  They mention that the 22 actually has a bit of a calm area directly beneath the centre hatch when fast roping, spy-rigging and recovering.


Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> An update:  potential bidders can ask for a video to learn more - see attached bid document amendment ....
> 
> 
> 
> .... As requested by Industry, the FWSAR PMO has produced an educational video that is intended to provide a better understanding of the current daily operations at a primary FWSAR unit in Canada. This 20-minute video, called "A Day in the Life of a FWSAR Crew" was filmed at 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario, utilizing a CC130H aircraft, which is the only aircraft available at the 8 Wing Trenton to perform fixed wing SAR operations. The video should be used in conjunction with other documentation provided to Industry to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the fixed wing SAR operations in Canada ....
> 
> 
> 
> FWSAR WEBSITE
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/svtvn-rscfw-eng.html
> 
> FWSAR INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT RULES
> http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/rei-ier-eng.html
> 
> Let the industry engagement continue .....
Click to expand...

The latest - expect a Request for Proposals in "late summer 2013" - a bit more in this latest bid document update here (Google Docs).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

US firm to take over Duke of Cambridge's helicopter fleet

The Bristow Group, an American company, is expected to be unveiled on Tuesday as the winner of the multi-billion pound contract to take over the service from 2015.

The anticipated announcement to the London stock exchange ends 70 years of search and rescue operations by the RAF and Royal Navy, who have saved thousands of lives both at sea and off mountain tops.

The contract, which is due to last from 2015 until 2026, is thought to be worth more than £3bn.

It is understood the firm, headquartered in Texas, has plans to replace ageing RAF and Royal Navy Sea King helicopters with modern Sikorsky S-92s and AgustaWestland 189s.

The Ministry of Defence’s distinctive fleet of yellow Sea King helicopters, which the Duke flies as a search-and-rescue pilot, were already due to be retired by March 2016. 



Reports on Monday night suggested that as a result the government had concluded that search and rescue should therefore be contracted out.

The technology is at such an advanced stage that the US State Department had to give its approval for it to be used in Britain, Sky News reported.

Sole responsibility for Britain’s search and rescue was transferred to the Department for Transport that began a procurement process for the private sector to provide civilian crews on a 10-year contract.

When the privatisation was announced in 2011, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Duke privately lobbied David Cameron to save the service.

At the time aides refused to confirm whether the Duke had lobbied the Prime Minister on the future of the Search and Rescue Force.

A Clarence House spokesman referred inquiries to the MoD on Monday night.

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We are due to make an announcement soon." Spokesmen for the MoD and the company were unavailable.

Bristow, which already provides transport services in Britain, to ferry oil-rig workers to and from North Sea platforms, also operates in parts of Europe, Asia, North America, Australia and Africa.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9953757/US-firm-to-take-over-Duke-of-Cambridges-helicopter-fleet.html


----------



## Gorgo

Oh, my God!  That is utterly insane!  Actually putting a vital service like SAR into _*civilian*_ hands?!

Hope to God it doesn't happen up here!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In keeping with how they done things for awhile, RNLI, mostly volunteer. Nav aids, Trinity House, sort of a Crown Corp. Even here the closure of Kits CCG base is a sign of divesting inshore SAR and I believe they even had a civilian SAR helo on contract in Prince Rupert for awhile back in the 90's


----------



## Kirkhill

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Oh, my God!  That is utterly insane!  Actually putting a vital service like SAR into _*civilian*_ hands?!
> 
> Hope to God it doesn't happen up here!



Fred,Falcksupplies fire and ambulance services in many countries in the world, including workers' paradises like Denmark and Germany.

Emergency services are not necessarily the purview of civil servants.


----------



## Gorgo

True.  And yes, I did over-react . . . but I'm afraid that once civilian companies - who are normally concerned about how much money they make - get control of something vital like that, things will be missed and lives would be put at greater risk.

I just hope this will still be heavily watched over by the British government.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Unlikely, thing will truck along, then at some point cost cutting will take place, some bad incident happens that can be connected to cost cutting, finger pointing starts, funds allocated, a few people retire, services restored for the time being. Repeat as required.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> Unlikely, thing will truck along, then at some point cost cutting will take place, some bad incident happens that can be connected to cost cutting, finger pointing starts, funds allocated, a few people retire, services restored for the time being. Repeat as required.



Which also happens when the military is responsible for SAR.  For example, in Labrador.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest - potential bidders get more time to sort out who fixes what - from the attached bid document update....


> .... The purpose of this document is to provide the FWSAR Secretariat’s conceptual view on the anticipated split of responsibilities between the Government of Canada and the selected Contractor. It is anticipated that the new FWSAR fleet will incur damage during the course of normal operations. The damage will be characterized either as inherent (anything considered as the Contractor’s responsibility), or as non-inherent (anything that could be attributable to DND).  The selected Contractor will be requested to minimize downtime and keep sufficient spare parts to cover any potential damage, including non-inherent damage. Early industry feedback is being sought on the concept of inherency by 12 April 2013 ....


----------



## Kirkhill

No problem.

Aircraft damaged.
Contractor repairs.
We'll sort out who pays what bill later......

What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Edward Campbell

The Auditor General's Spring 2013 Report is our, one chapter deals with SAR.


----------



## GAP

Part way through it and all I can say is they are "being damned by faint praise"......what a clusterf#%k...........


----------



## Ciskman

A lot of valid points in that report. Some of the effects are already being seen. 424 sqn is going to a 1200-2000hrs standby posture with 'weekends' happening during the week.


----------



## GAP

MacKay to announce major review of search and rescue system
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mackay-to-announce-major-review-of-search-and-rescue-system-1.1263500#ixzz2S8zZeCr6

 CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:46AM EDT

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is set to announce a wide-ranging review of the country's search and rescue operations Thursday, CTV News has learned.

The news comes just days after Auditor General Michael Ferguson said Canada's search-and-rescue system was in distress and some aspects were even at the "breaking point" -- particularly when it comes to aircraft. Ferguson said the country doesn't have enough, or the right type, of planes to respond to emergencies.

Ferguson's report appears to have spurred quick action from the federal government, said CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife.

Today at noon Defence Minister Peter MacKay is going to announce a comprehensive review of search-and-rescue operations, that will also include a lot of input from the provinces, particularly on the east coast and west coast, as well as public input on how the government can fix this as quickly as possible," Fife reported Thursday from Ottawa.

The review will be broad in scope, looking at all aspects of Canada's search-and-rescue efforts and finding ways to improve delivery and ensure the necessary tools are available to the military.

The Harper government has long promised new aircraft. The air force's fleet of C-115 Buffalo planes and older C-130 Hercules transport aircraft are aging and in need of replacement.

In his report, Ferguson noted the Hercules lack sensors and data management found on search aircraft in other countries.

And maintenance on the Buffalo fleet alone has climbed to $20 million a year
end


----------



## Colin Parkinson

*cough, kits base, cough* 

CCG facing many of the same problems, not enough rescue specialists, which is not surprising, this was a grass root initiative pushed from the bottom up despite the indifference of management. Back in the 80's CCG was seen to be good at searching and not so good with the rescue bit. With the advent of GPS, ERIB's and SPOTs searching is becoming less of an issue, bring the ability to actually rescue to the forefront.


----------



## Ciskman

Watched the whole announcement live today. A lot of smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ooops  :-[ :-[

I was so taken by the moment I posted in the wrong thread....

Please check CBC thread for unadulterated gloating.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Note to FWSAR potential bidders:  you wanna include an estimated cost for your planes, either fully-equipped or empty, in your submissions?  More in the latest bid document amendments (7 page PDF via Google Docs) here


----------



## The Bread Guy

Next bit of homework for potential FWSAR bidders:  tell us how much work Canadian companies can expect from your bids.


> .... Industry is requested to use the document titled Industrial and Regional Benefits Direct Requirement to provide information on the current and planned level of Direct work (Canadian Content) for the acquisition portion of the potential FWSAR contract. Industry is also to submit the planned level of Direct work on the in service support (ISS) portion of the potential FWSAR contract. The information provided by industry will assist the Government in determining a separate direct requirement for the acquisition and ISS portions of the FWSAR contract and will be included in the FWSAR RFP ....


More in the latest bid document update (3 page PDF) here


----------



## The Bread Guy

Am I reading this right?  Is Canada asking companies to come up with an incentive plan to ensure all SAR aircraft needed (if not more) will be available as required?  This from the latest amendment to the FWSAR bidding package:


> .... By a significant degree, the most important Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to Canada is Aircraft Operational Availability. Not achieving the required aircraft operational availability represents a serious failure as it puts Canadian lives at risk. For this reason, this KPI, and only this KPI, provides the opportunity to earn an incentive payment (a payment for performance above the contractual standard). It is Canada's expectation that Industry would propose a sufficient number of aircraft and an ISS solution that is robust enough to exceed the contractually required aircraft operational availability and thereby earn an incentive for this KPI. It is also part of Canada's expectation that any solution proposed would consider and include the performance implication of DND personnel assigned to first level maintenance ....



If I'm reading this wrong, I'm happy to correct myself - happy to hear from SME's on this one.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest ....


> Today the Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, announced that the project to replace Canada’s fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft has moved forward with a draft Request for Proposals (RFP). The draft is being shared with industry for final comments before the RFP phase is launched in early 2014.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The principles of Smart Procurement have been applied throughout this procurement, including good governance, early engagement and consultation with industry, and the use of third-party independent advisors, such as the fairness monitor appointed to oversee the integrity of the process.
> 
> Since August 2011, industry representatives have provided feedback on a number of Letters of Interests, and during one-on-one consultations and workshops, ranging from the Basis of Payment concept, to the role of the Canadian In-service Support Integrator, to the aircraft requirements. The feedback received provided useful information in order to assist the Government in improving project documentation prior to launching the actual procurement.
> 
> Following analysis of comments received from industry on the draft, the final RFP will be posted on the Government Electronic Tendering Service (Buyandsell.gc.ca/tenders) in early 2014 ....



According to the buyandsell.gc.ca listing, the full RFP is available on request - see attached.


----------



## Privateer

From Fox News: New Air Force cargo planes fly straight into mothballs

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/07/new-air-force-cargo-planes-fly-straight-into-mothballs/



> The Pentagon is sending $50 million cargo planes straight from the assembly line to mothballs because it has no use for them, yet it still hasn’t stopped ordering the aircraft, according to a report.
> 
> A dozen nearly new Italian-built C-27J Spartans have been shipped to an Air Force facility in Arizona dubbed “the boneyard,” and five more currently under construction are likely headed for the same fate, according to an investigation by the Dayton Daily News.  The Air Force has spent $567 million on 21 of the planes since 2007, according to purchasing officials at Dayton’s Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Of those, 16 have been delivered – with almost all sent directly to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, where some 4,400 aircraft and 13 aerospace vehicles, with a total value of more than $35 billion, sit unused. ...


----------



## Kirkhill

I weep.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I weep.




No, no, no ... look on the brights side:

     1. New RCAF mess dress;

     2. Rumour has it that the RCAF will get new (old) rank badges and new (old) rank designations; and

     3. Pips and crowns for the Army and the executive curl for the RCN.

These are the priorities we can manage under the Conservatives' _Canada First Defence Strategy_; there's no time to fuss about friggin' foreign flying machines.

 :sarcasm: in case it wasn't obvious


----------



## Colin Parkinson

_"They are too near completion for a termination to be cost effective and *other government agencies have requested the aircraft,*" Mayer told the paper._


Hmm might be spoken for, are these the same aircraft the maker said they would refuse to support if sold to us?


----------



## Zoomie

Colin P said:
			
		

> are these the same aircraft the maker said they would refuse to support if sold to us?


Yes - Alenia has pretty much stated that anyone who buys these planes off the USAF will not be supported by them.  Parts would be impossible to obtain.

Alenia has stated that the USAF could return them to Italy - have them reconditioned to factory new (they do have at least 10 hours on them) and then sold to Canada.   :


----------



## Kirkhill

Nudder bright idear Zoomie.

You and your mates volunteer for a long term TDY with the USAF to fly the C27s over Canada.....  :nod:


----------



## George Wallace

What if we just bought them as "Scrap Metal"?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Yes - Alenia has pretty much stated that anyone who buys these planes off the USAF will not be supported by them.  Parts would be impossible to obtain.


Attention bright idea fairies:  would this still be the case if Canada _leases_ the planes from the U.S.?   >


----------



## Ostrozac

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What if we just bought them as "Scrap Metal"?



Buying the aircraft isn't a problem -- they belong to the US government. But Canada would risk having no support from the original manufacturer. Now, this is certainly possible -- that's the situation that Iran are in with their F-14 Tomcats, for example -- but it is a complicating factor.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if the company will pull away from that position once the deal is done. Pretty much not supporting their products will be the kiss of death for any major buys.


----------



## dapaterson

Purchases from the US military are considered as "Foreign Military Sales" and are a real PITA to execute.  Rentals are even more so, particularly when you remove the property from the USA.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The ownership could be transferred back to the company and the plane "resold" by the company without the planes moving. A "broker fee" of modest portions would be acceptable and the company would make money supporting the fleet and the ability to use the fleet as a marketing tool.


----------



## Ostrozac

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Purchases from the US military are considered as "Foreign Military Sales" and are a real PITA to execute.  Rentals are even more so, particularly when you remove the property from the USA.



I disagree. I have found the FMS process to be no more cumbersome and daunting then the standard CF procurement system. But I guess that's small praise.


----------



## dapaterson

At the front end, they are equally frustrating.  FMS cases, however, suffer from the two national FYs being out of sync by 6 months, plus the US affinity for keeping FMS cases open forever, and conducting a final settling of the account years after the main activities are complete.  This imposes a significant accounting burden, and adds exchange rate risk to any Canadian purchase.


For example: Today the CAF acquires a widget through an FMS case.  On 31 March 2014, the CAF sets aside $100US = $100 CAD to pay for it, using a PAYE.  (This assumes the $ CAD is at par)

Finally, in 2018, the FMS case is settled, and payment is due for the $100 USD.  Normally, you'd just pay it out of the PAYE.  However, exchange rates have changed since then - that $100 USD now costs $120 CAD.  Now, in 2018, the purchasing unit has to scramble to find an additional $20 CAD to make up the difference between the PAYE - $100 CAD - and the current exchange rate - $120 CAD.


----------



## KevinB

As a manufacturer I love FMS sales...
 Mainly as UNLIKE the typical Foreign Sale it is a simple item/system that is on .gov contract, and not some Nationlistically modified setup I will only build for Country X.
Generally the Country buying via FMS sale will get a much better price - as items is sold to the USG at the contracted price -- the FMS entity will tack on 25-30% for admin fees --- but generally due to the contract with the USG, the FMS buyer will save around 30%.
Now the wheels come off the cart when the FMS item is not a standard US contracted item (like Weapon NV, where the FOM needs to be less than 1800 and no auto-gated/film-less tubes can be exported**).
  Also the wheels come off the cart if the Manufacturer no longer builds the items and the USG is "surplusing" items via FMS, or the Manufacturer did not want the sale to go FMS...


Of course I am then no obligated to support the item to Country X - as my sale was to the USG, so logical support has to be negotiated either via FMS (unlikely) or direct with the Manufacturer.


** DOS regulated NV systems - most non weapon mounting systems are fairly easy to export, however depending on country of destination and how the USG feels towards them at the time of the sale, it can affect what is allowed to be sold.


It also depends which FMS entity is selling the items, SOCOM via Crane, SOCOM via Tampa, US Army, USMC, USN, or USAF - which most of the services having at least two FMS locations (for different items) and how it is done/contracted can vary greatly.


----------



## Zoomie

Kevin - I bet you can't include more acronyms in your next post....


----------



## Kirkhill

Reading between the letters I thought he was trying to say Foreign Military Sales are easy...... except when they're not.


----------



## Kirkhill

Defense Aerospace

Alternatives:  FWSAR/MarPat/SovPat/CAS-Gunship/Short Field Lifter - all on one platform. How much can be done with rolling things in and out of the Cargo Bay?



> Alenia Aermacchi and Italian Air Force Sign An Agreement to Provide Development and Industrialization of MC-27J Praetorian
> 
> 
> (Source: Alenia Aermacchi; issued Nov. 18, 2013)
> 
> 
> 
> DUBAI --- Alenia Aermacchi and the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) signed today, during the Dubai Airshow 2013, an agreement to provide development, testing, certification, industrialization and logistic support of the Praetorian. The Praetorian, a specialized version of the MC-27J, will support missions for the Italian Special Forces, Comando Operativo Forze Speciali (COFS).
> 
> The Praetorian project will consist of two phases. During Phase One, Alenia Aermacchi will develop and deliver a prototype of the Praetorian to the Italian Air Force in spring 2014, immediately followed by testing in an operational scenario. Phase Two will encompass the industrialization of the Praetorian configuration and related logistic support.
> 
> The Italian Air Force plan to transform three C-27J’s, currently in service, into the Praetorian configuration during 2016 and will include mission systems, C3ISR equipment and palletized support / fire systems. An additional three aircraft will also have the same mission package capabilities.
> 
> Alenia Aermacchi, in partnership with US based ATK, will develop the Praetorian mission and air-to-ground support systems. Selex ES will partner with Alenia Aermacchi for the communication and data link equipment.
> 
> The MC-27J is an advanced defense system jointly developed by Alenia Aermacchi and ATK. The MC-27J is based on the C-27J, the most state-of-the-art twin-engine turboprop tactical transport aircraft currently available on the market providing unequalled performance. The ability to accommodate NATO standard pallets allows a wide range of palletized roll-on/roll-off solutions increasing the effectiveness of its tactical and strategic mission capabilities at lower costs, benefitting the Comando Operativo Forze Speciali (COFS) particularly strict operating requirements.
> 
> -ends-


----------



## CougarKing

Although Canada was already identified as potential V22 customer in the list below from earlier this year, we can already scratch-off Israel from the list as they already ordered 6 units. 



> *100 Export Orders Expected for V-22*
> 
> Jun. 17, 2013
> 
> Quote:
> PARIS — The V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor is set to see 100 export orders over the next nine years, the program manager predicted at the Paris Air Show on Monday.
> 
> US Col. Greg Masiello said that more than three potential customers are “at paperwork stage.”
> 
> “I could see a scenario of 100 export sales over nine years,” he added.
> 
> Among the three potential customers for the Bell-Boeing Osprey are Israel and probably the United Arab Emirates. “In one year we will have multiple countries named,” as possible customers,” he said.
> 
> *The UK, France, Canada, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Italy, Colombia, Brazil, Israel, India, Japan and Singapore were on the list.*
> 
> 
> More at:
> Defense News
> 
> ---


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> .....How much can be done with rolling things in and out of the Cargo Bay?





> ARLINGTON, Va. --- ATK announced that the Alenia/ATK team has been notified by the Italian Air Force they have been selected for the integration of the Roll-On/Roll-Off (RORO), palletized Command and Control, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C2-ISR) and gun systems onto the Italian Air Force (ITAF) MC-27J multi-mission aircraft.
> 
> ...The gun system incorporates ATK's GAU-23 30mm cannon in a side-firing configuration, and is designed to fire numerous types of NATO 30MM X 173 rounds, including the 30MM PGU-46/B munitions. The gun suite will use a simple, automatic feed system in order to minimize crew size and reduce overall operating costs. .....



Defense Aerospace


----------



## Zoomie

Interesting article from The Aviationist



> Pentagon has recently announced  the decision to assign seven C-27J Spartan airlifters to the U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command).
> 
> The aircraft are part of the batch of 21 tactical transport aircraft procured by the U.S. Air Force before the service took the controversial decision to store them all because they were too expensive to operate.
> 
> Therefore, instead of laying in the desert in near active condition at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG), at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, seven aircraft will be assigned to SOCOM (Special Operations Command).
> 
> Three SOCOM aircraft were reportedly moved to Pope Field, in North Carolina, whereas the remaining four (two of those are still being assembled in Turin, Italy) will be delivered by the first half of 2014.
> 
> What about the remaining 14?
> 
> Along with U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Coast Guard has shown interests in the C-27J. In an interesting interview with Defense News, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Papp said that the service wanted all 21 aircraft scrapped by the Air Force. However, they will get 14 or less (considered that U.S. Forest Service will eventually get a few of them).
> 
> “Ideally, out of the remaining aircraft, we’d like to get 14 because that allows us to fully outfit three air stations. Anything less than that and we would have to go back and really re-evaluate the project,” Papp told Defense News.
> 
> Dealing with the ending purchase of the CASA C-295 he explained: “We would do a new lay down of aircraft because the C-27J has a lot of the avionics and the engines that our C-130Js have. So there’s a lot of logistics compatibility there that we can gain synergies from. It’s a little bit more capable aircraft. It’s one of the aircraft we looked at when we started the Deepwater project. So we’re going to press ahead and get as many of those as we can.”
> 
> Coast Guard, that plans to equip an Alaskan station with the Spartan, could employ the same special SAR (Search And Rescue) configuration pitched to Canada for a fixed wing solution with SAR capability.
> 
> Although the new configuration is under definition and is going to be tailored to the customer’s requirements, it should include, Mission System (palletized solution), a SAR/MTI radar on the nose, a EO/IR turret on the nose, spotter windows and launcher in the cargo bay.



USCG has further determined their purchase of the C-295 was in error - they should have gone with the C-27J for their Deepwater project - why do we bother with SORs when our closest ally can make all the mistakes and spend the $ only to come up with our same aircraft choice that was made in 2001?

Original article found here :  http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/19/uscg-wants-c-27j/


----------



## Rescue Randy

The article is in error.  The USCG bought the CN235, not the C295.   Further, the reason for the USCG interest in the C-27J is that they can get them for free.


----------



## fireman1867

Coasties rejoice this is the end of the CASA project as it has been a complete failure for their service. 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140106/DEFREG02/301060008/Coast-Guard-Take-Control-Last-USAF-C-27Js


----------



## McG

It seems keeping the Buffalo flying has surpassed replacing it as far as severity of concern goes.


> *Military going to the ends of the earth to keep search-and-rescue airplanes flying*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Postmedia News
> 07 January 2014
> 
> OTTAWA – The Canadian military has been going across the globe to keep its aging search-and-rescue airplanes flying, reiterating the desperate need for replacement aircraft following decades of delays and political squabbling.
> 
> Top Defence Department officials were told in a secret briefing last year that the military had been forced to “purchase spare parts from around the world” to ensure the “continued airworthiness” of the Air Force’s 47-year-old Buffalo airplanes.
> 
> “In addition, we have purchased 16 used engines of a different variant than those of the Buffaloes for parts,” reads a briefing note obtained by Postmedia News. “By using common parts, we can maintain and prolong the operational life of the existing Buffalo engines.”
> 
> The briefing came after Auditor General Michael Ferguson reported last spring that the federal government’s search-and-rescue capabilities are in danger of crumbling, in part because the Air Force’s six Buffalo and eight Hercules rescue aircraft are on their last wings.
> 
> The airplanes are used to respond to thousands of emergencies across the country every year, but Ferguson noted they are becoming prohibitively expensive to operate and maintain.
> 
> Senior defence officials were told in the briefing that “other avenues” were being considered to keep the Buffaloes flying, “but only those strategies that represent good value for public funds will be pursued.”
> 
> At the same time, they stated search-and-rescue is a “no-fail mission” for the military, meaning it must be able to respond when Canadians’ lives are in danger.
> 
> NDP defence critic Jack Harris said National Defence had previous chances to upgrade the Buffalos and collect spare parts when the replacement project started running into problems nearly a decade ago, but refused to do so.
> 
> “It seems like opportunities for due diligence have been passed up,” he said. “Now they face a situation where these planes are going to have to be flying for another couple of years and they’re in panic mode.”
> 
> Efforts to replace the Buffaloes, first purchased in 1967, and the Hercules were launched in 2002, with money set aside in 2004 in anticipation of the first new plane being delivered in 12 to 18 months.
> 
> But the Defence Department was accused by some companies of rigging requirements for the new search-and-rescue airplane so one specific aircraft, the Italian C-27J Spartan, would win.
> 
> The military denied it rigged the process, but a National Research Council report published in March 2010 backed up the allegation and called for the requirements to be rewritten.
> 
> The project was subsequently taken out of National Defence’s hands and given to the Department of Public Works, which has overseen a complete restart.
> 
> Aircraft manufacturers were asked last month to indicate whether they are interested in having their airplanes compete for what will likely be a $3-billion contract.
> 
> But new airplanes aren’t expected until at least the second half of 2017, according to National Defence, and an entire fleet won’t be fully operational until 2019.
> 
> Even that may be optimistic as Public Works is bending over backwards to hold a completely fair and transparent competition, which some fear will draw out the process.
> 
> Ferguson found the Buffaloes already cost about $20 million per year to maintain, and even then they were unavailable on 119 occasions in 2011.
> 
> In five of those cases, there was no other airplane available to perform the mission.
> 
> Those numbers are expected to rise until replacements are obtained as the Buffaloes and Hercules continue getting older and breaking down.
> 
> The auditor general said the situation facing the Air Force fleet has gotten so bad that “the risk associated with aircraft replacement is significantly lower than the risk of maintaining the old fleet.”
> 
> Then-defence minister Peter MacKay said in December 2008 that there was “no greater priority” than replacing the Buffaloes and Hercules with new aircraft.


 http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/07/military-going-to-the-ends-of-the-earth-to-keep-search-and-rescue-airplanes-flying/


----------



## The Bread Guy

Ladies and gentlemen, we appear to have a short list!


> .... Sorted alphabetically, the following vendors have positively responded to the referenced LOI and are now incorporated on the Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Aircraft Replacement (FWSAR) Source List:
> 
> *·	Airbus Defense and Space (formerly Airbus Military)
> ·	Alenia Aermacchi
> ·	Bell Boeing Joint Project Office
> ·	Embraer Defense and Security
> ·	Lockheed Martin *
> 
> The goal of the FWSAR Source List is to ensure faster and more efficient communications. Vendors listed on the Source List will be automatically and directly provided information as soon as it becomes available, including the communication of the final competitive solicitation documentation. Vendors that are not listed on the FWSAR Source List will still be allowed to request and receive a copy of the FWSAR solicitation documentation. The final qualification will be applied against the FWSAR Request for Proposal (RFP) ....


----------



## stonington

At the same time, they stated search-and-rescue is a “no-fail mission”

Just wondering what a "fail" mission would be.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In general, say something like a pilot proficiency flight, where they are just going to pound the circuit for a while, etc.  Something like that, if the aircraft goes U/S during pre-flights, the flight just gets pushed back/rescheduled.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

According to a recent article, the aircraft supplier is also responsible for selecting the site that the aircraft is going to operate out of. Which could mean that we like the aircraft, but their deployment plan sucks, not to mention the political wanking that would go on. Please tell me that incorrect?


----------



## jdl902

jmacleod said:
			
		

> I will surprised in fact, if any aircraft is bought by the
> Federal government for the fixed-wing S&R role in the next decade, having been involved in what
> is now called the MHP for nearly twenty years. MacLeod



With only 4 months to go until the above post is 10 years old, it looks pretty prophetic!


----------



## Kirkhill

Aussie's again.  Private Challengers for the nonce, until a better aircraft is provided.

Would this leave the RCAF free to pursue a dedicated light transport aircraft which has SAR as a secondary role?

Private coverage in the populated south.  RCAF coverage in the north.



> New Search And Rescue Aircraft Contract Awarded
> 
> 
> (Source: Australian Maritime Safety Authority; issued Oct 24, 2014)
> 
> 
> 
> The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has awarded a new contract to continue its dedicated airborne search and rescue capability when the current contracts expire.
> 
> Cobham SAR Services Pty Ltd will begin providing a search and rescue service for AMSA from August 2016.
> 
> AMSA utilises aircraft based in strategic locations across the country to perform search and rescue tasks such as searching for missing people, locating activated distress beacons, providing communications support during an incident, and dropping survival equipment to people in distress.
> 
> AMSA Chief Executive Officer Mick Kinley said following an open tender process, Cobham SAR Services Pty Ltd had been chosen to provide this service.
> 
> “This contract will continue the search and rescue capability for AMSA utilising Bombardier Challenger CL-604 jet aircraft specially modified for this role. The future capability will use faster and longer range aircraft to provide a similar level of capability to our current service, but using fewer aircraft,” Mr Kinley said.
> 
> Mr Kinley said the aircraft that will be provided by Cobham SAR Services will be fitted with a suite of electronic sensors, and will also be drop capable to allow for equipment such as life rafts, satellite phones, food and water to be dropped to a person in distress.
> 
> The contract is for a period of 12 years with an option to continue for up to a further three years.
> 
> The contract value, including estimated flying charges, is expected to be $640 million over 12 years. Under this contract, Cobham will provide a comprehensive service to AMSA that includes owning, modifying, maintaining and operating the aircraft. The aircraft will be available for search and rescue tasking by AMSA at short notice 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
> 
> Cobham SAR Services will commence search and rescue operations for AMSA from August 2016 in Perth, while operations will commence by the end of 2016 from Cairns and Melbourne. The current contractor, AeroRescue Pty Ltd, will continue to provide the service until that time.
> 
> Cobham SAR Services currently operates aviation services throughout Australia and is an experienced provider of special mission services internationally and across Australia.
> 
> AMSA would like to take this opportunity to thank those companies who responded to the initial market engagement and subsequent tender for their invaluable input into the process.
> 
> -ends-



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/158263/cobham-wins-a%24640m-sar-contract.html


----------



## YZT580

640 million over 12 years seems like an extremely low price.  There was no indication of the number of aircraft involved but there were 3 locations given so I would guess at a minimum 4 aircraft with one at each location and one active reserve  and it seems unreasonable to imagine a country the size of Australia making due with only 4 aircraft.


----------



## Kirkhill

Some more tools in the toolbag - I debated whether to put this article here or on the "Ships without sailors" thread 

Courtesy of Defense-Aerospace

Next step is to integrate UUVs/AUVs (Uninhabited Underwater Vehicles / Autonomous Underwater Vehicles) into the mix.

As the paragraph at the bottom suggests, successful completion of these projects could have broad implications beyond the Search and Rescue world.



> CMRE Enhances Autonomy and Integration Between Unmanned Vehicles As Part of the ICARUS Search and Rescue Project
> 
> 
> (Source: NATO Science & Technology Organisation; issued Oct 24, 2014)
> 
> 
> 
> Floating and flying robots have been successfully tested and demonstrated at CMRE during the 2014 sea trials.
> 
> The NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE), part of the NATO Science and Technology Organization, recently hosted maritime sea trials delivered in the context of the ICARUS (Integrated Components for Assisted Rescue and Unmanned Search operations) project, which is funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP7). The trials were held between 13 October and 24 October 2014.
> 
> ICARUS has been developing advanced robotic platforms which can support crisis intervention teams in detecting, locating and rescuing humans in danger, in maritime and land disaster scenarios, since 2012. Unmanned Search and Rescue (SAR) devices offer a valuable tool for saving human lives and for speeding up the SAR process. This is particularly crucial for maritime incidents, in which survival times are short and during which even SAR teams take considerable risks. For such events, Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs), capable of transporting SAR equipment and deploying first aid devices, can greatly improve the efficiency of
> operations.
> 
> The integration of robotic platforms, including Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV) and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), was successfully tested and demonstrated at CMRE during the ICARUS 2014 sea trials.
> 
> Existing technologies have been improved to strengthen resilience, and new developments include robotic vehicles that can deploy autonomous lifesaving capsules, using mission planning software, new sensors and new data acquisition capabilities to detect and track survivors. CMRE has world-leading expertise in maritime robotics and target recognition.
> 
> In the framework of the ICARUS project, the Centre is collaborating with INESC (Laboratory of Microgrids and Electric Vehicles, Portugal), to enhance the autonomy of the robotic surface vehicles and is also involved in the integration of the main USV into the ICARUS Command, Control and Interface (C2I) station for collaborative operations with aerial robots.
> 
> The ICARUS project is managed by a consortium of 24 partners from 10 countries which includes stakeholders from industry, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, research institutes and end-users, such as the Portuguese Navy and the Belgian First Aid and Support Team (B-FAST).
> 
> One of the main objectives of the project is to bridge the gap between robotic laboratories and the application of novel robotic devices to real-life situations in the field, paving the way for cutting-edge technologies to be used in Search and Rescue operations.
> 
> The technologies developing during the ICARUS project will be tested in 2015 during two major demonstration events: a simulated earthquake exercise in Belgium and a maritime accident exercise in Portugal.
> 
> 
> The STO-CMRE (Science and Technology Organization – Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation) is located in La Spezia, Italy. Formerly the NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC), the Centre focuses on research, innovation and technology in areas such as defence of maritime forces and installations against terrorism and piracy, secure networks, development of the common operational picture, the maritime component of expeditionary operations, mine countermeasures systems, non-lethal protection for ports and harbours, anti-submarine warfare, modelling and simulation, and marine mammal risk mitigation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Searching is boring and eye straining, it would take enormous computing power for a UAV to pick up all of the clues being looked for on the surface of the ocean or flying over a endless forest. An AUV is a great way to search for a sunken vessel, but still requires someone to look at the collected data.


----------



## Kirkhill

True but rather than putting 6 pairs of eyes in one aircraft looking at one spot of the ocean you could have dozens of uavs looking at dozens of parts of the ocean simultaneously with dozens of feeds to dozens of screens surveyed by dozens or viewers. You could even make the feed available to the public and have millions of pairs of eyes looking.

In addition the platforms can add sensors (IR, Thermal, Acoustic, Magnetic, Platforms) that can be viewed in analog mode or that can be digitally alarmed to report anomalies.

It isn't an either/or situation.  It is a matter of piling on the layers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> True but rather than putting 6 pairs of eyes in one aircraft looking at one spot of the ocean you could have dozens of uavs looking at dozens of parts of the ocean simultaneously with dozens of feeds to dozens of screens surveyed by dozens or viewers. You could even make the feed available to the public and have millions of pairs of eyes looking.



Oh that would be some quality info.  I'll go with a good LKP and a trained crew who can actually do something once they get there and start the search, i.e. who can drop kit and/or pers to the crash site/raft/etc.

Dozens of feeds.  And who would be watching those feeds, and who would be operating these UAVs?  Sounds pretty expensive to have something go out there that might find something and then be able to do_ nothing _about it.

UAV/Remote systems and sensors have their uses but there are places I think their use can be "not worth the bang for the buck".  If I have a Herc in a SAR Sqn, I can also use it in a Transport function.  If I have a SAR UAV, I have...a SAR UAV.  

Just some quick thoughts...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A small drone hovering over a SAR team on the ground would be useful and allow them to scout difficult areas. launching one off a SAR vessel at sea might be a one way trip as winds could easily exceed 25kts.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A FWSAR platform with something like a MX-15 onboard would be a huge benefit too IMO.


----------



## YZT580

Please don't put the idea in OW's head until after they sign a deal for new SAR aircraft.  They don't need another excuse for delay.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

For the payload or the UAV?  8)


----------



## YZT580

The UAV.  Programme would require 20, they would order 10 go through a budget review and reduce to 8 and contract for delivery in another 10 years.


----------



## George Wallace

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The UAV.  Programme would require 20, they would order 10 go through a budget review and reduce to 8 and contract for delivery in another 10 years.



Then the Liberals will run on the platform that they will cancel the contract.


----------



## Spencer100

Maybe something happening....but don't count on it  

Opps  Sorry......I did not read the byline at time.

The article can be googled....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering the plummeting cost of small drones, eventually a search aircraft could drop one in the search area for it to search various areas perhaps with a datalink to the aircraft and then to an operator back at the base.

another scenario
plane spots wreckage/raft/survivors. Drop conditions are not safe/doable.  A small drone could be dropped that flies to the site, acts as a beacon and has two way communications. It could also send video data back to the aircraft to assess the scene such any survivors, which would help determine what level of risk the SAR techs will take. If the drone can show that everyone is deceased, then parachuting might not be worth the risk when a recovery crew can walk 10 km from a place a helicopter can land or vis versa, survivors in desperate need of help means the risk of jumping is justified.


----------



## quadrapiper

By "two way communications," do you mean accessible to survivors as a dropped package or ditched, floating drone?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For a crash site, after the drone has sent video feedback it could land and provide survivors with 2 way comms whether voice or text. For marine it could survey the site and then land and float will providing a electronic and light beacon, or even fly right to the liferaft and land. While the SAR guys are great at dropping a raft package with a line to survivors it's not perfect. The drone would not replace a raft but could provide a good comms link and beacon. Right now the biggest downsides to this idea are costs and battery life. I expect in 5 years costs will drop significantly again and battery life will likely jump by 15-30%


----------



## Loachman

"UAV", please.

Thermal imagery on the main aircraft would be cheaper and simpler.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with a UAV bearing in at me in (likely) crappy conditions/IMC.  If its shitty enough the SAR Tech's can't get to me...

I know a lot of people really like the idea of UAVs, I don't see them as useful in applications like SAR and stuff MPAs normally do.   :2c:


----------



## Loachman

There are far too many limitations.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with a UAV bearing in at me in (likely) crappy conditions/IMC.  If its shitty enough the SAR Tech's can't get to me...
> 
> I know a lot of people really like the idea of UAVs, I don't see them as useful in applications like SAR and stuff MPAs normally do.   :2c:



As Loachman and you have said, UAVs currently have too many limitations (IMC flight being one of the big ones).  I wouldn't rule it out permanently, just not now.  The big benefit compared to an LRPA would be endurance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Any idea from a 'cost per hour' perspective what an avg MALE costs in the air per hour, all-in?


----------



## kev994

I don't see the advantage, the current weather limitations for FWSAR  800' ceiling and 1 SM vis, any less than that and you can't see anything anyway. So you have the uav transit 1000 miles, have a look, then send a manned aircraft behind it hours later to effect the rescue? Seems like a big waste of time. EO/IR doesn't see through cloud.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> "UAV", please.
> 
> Thermal imagery on the main aircraft would be cheaper and simpler.



Back when I was in it was RPV  ;D

What I am talking about is a very small drone dropped by the aircraft near the scene to actually get a close look. Drone could be controlled by either someone onboard or datalinked to someone at base. 

We talking this size and the tech is growing leaps and bounds, own GPS, some will operate in winds 25kts and stay on station


----------



## Loachman

If it's controlled, it's not a "drone". Drones are preprogrammed prior to launch, with no alterations to the mission possible once launch has occurred.

RPVs are controlled.

Both are subsets of the UAV species.

As for EITS' cost question, I don't know, but Sperwer was the most expensive aircraft in the CF during its day, when all costs were included.

We would still have to pay for a crew, plus expensive ground control systems and, for longer-range missions, satellite control systems, and the only gain for that would be endurance.

There were several times, during my Sperwer tour, when we were the only ISAF aircraft flying in Kandahar Province. The bigger and fancier UAVs could not operate as low as we could, and could not see through cloud layers that we flew under. The same was generally true of manned aircraft. Weather conditions sometimes precluded helicopter operations as well, but we would be up.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with a UAV bearing in at me in (likely) crappy conditions/IMC.  If its shitty enough the SAR Tech's can't get to me...
> 
> I know a lot of people really like the idea of UAVs, I don't see them as useful in applications like SAR and stuff MPAs normally do.   :2c:



But UAVs don't require pensions  ;D


----------



## KevinB

Maybe the UAV folks could pitch it as a secondary duty  

I'm a total layman on UAV operations, but generally for the ground mission, you send a recon robot somewhere you don't want to go first.  Which again as not a SAR guy, I do not think is the application.
  
I think some ISR UAV's may have carry over into the S of SAR, but they cannot affect a rescue - and while some of the large payload enabled ones could drop items - more often than not a person (or persons) are going to have to go in to get the rescuee.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> If it's controlled, it's not a "drone". Drones are preprogrammed prior to launch, with no alterations to the mission possible once launch has occurred.
> 
> RPVs are controlled.
> 
> Both are subsets of the UAV species.
> 
> As for EITS' cost question, I don't know, but Sperwer was the most expensive aircraft in the CF during its day, when all costs were included.
> 
> We would still have to pay for a crew, plus expensive ground control systems and, for longer-range missions, satellite control systems, and the only gain for that would be endurance.
> 
> There were several times, during my Sperwer tour, when we were the only ISAF aircraft flying in Kandahar Province. The bigger and fancier UAVs could not operate as low as we could, and could not see through cloud layers that we flew under. The same was generally true of manned aircraft. Weather conditions sometimes precluded helicopter operations as well, but we would be up.



Regardless of "correct terminology" people have latched onto the word drones and I suspect the name is going to stick for these small systems just like many trademark names now represent all products in that class. Plus the tech is likely going to outpace both the vocabulary and regulations. Most of the small ones available for civilian purchase come with some sort of pre-flight programming and with inflight input. 

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

I say start a Reserves UAV unit, bring in bright kids, give them a budget and let them experiment and then incorporate the best ideas into the various branches. 

Dragging this thread back a bit did anyone note that KC-390 just had it's first flight? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxRDSB7rPnQ


----------



## Loachman

Colin P said:
			
		

> I say start a Reserves UAV unit, bring in bright kids, give them a budget and let them experiment and then incorporate the best ideas into the various branches.



Can we do this with weapons training as well?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually the firearms training one can get outside puts much of the army stuff to shame, although to be fair the training has improved vastly since my day.

This field is so dynamic and the tech is evolving so fast, having a group of young smart kids finding ways to experiment and incorporate it into the various parts of the services that have not even considered it is likely the best and cheapest way. What you need is the more mature and thoughtful leaders picking the best ideas out of the mix to move forward on. I was on a tasking supporting some of the DRES stuff in Suffield back in the 80's using RPV for supporting arty, very interesting to see us involved back then and one of my MWO was involved with the Drone stuff in the 60's


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> Regardless of "correct terminology" people have latched onto the word drones and I suspect the name is going to stick for these small systems just like many trademark names now represent all products in that class. Plus the tech is likely going to outpace both the vocabulary and regulations. Most of the small ones available for civilian purchase come with some sort of pre-flight programming and with inflight input.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdlmoLAbbiQ
> 
> I say start a Reserves UAV unit, bring in bright kids, give them a budget and let them experiment and then incorporate the best ideas into the various branches.



I could see that for something Scan Eagle sized or smaller (AKA the same thing that 4AD uses right now), operating at lower altitudes and speeds.  But, MALE/HALE (Reaper/Global Hawk) are fully in the realm of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS - yet another acronym for these things) and the training and quals required are more suited to aircrew, if for nothing else than the fact that aside from not having their crews in the airplane itself, the thing flies at altitudes and speeds just like every other airplane.  

Give it a decade or less, and I'll bet you $ that they will be incorporated into the world's ATC systems and flight paths, where it'll share the same chunk of airspace with airliners and the like.  I'd want something that big and that fast to be crewed by folks that have a similar background/training as their manned peers.

Mods, can we break this off into another topic?


----------



## ringo

Any opinions on CAF procurement of KC-390 for FWSAR role?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Prototype just flew last month.  Not much info on how it will perform down low and slow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

let competitors bring the aircraft to Comox, have them carry out various training exercises starting simple to more complex and more mountain terrain, start with their pilots flying and ours running the exercises and see how the aircraft perform, if they can do the essential task at least as well as the Buff, then they can enter the final phrase of the competition which will be based on costs, supply. politics.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin P said:
			
		

> let competitors bring the aircraft to Comox, have them carry out various training exercises starting simple to more complex and more mountain terrain, start with their pilots flying and ours running the exercises and see how the aircraft perform, if they can do the essential task at least as well as the Buff, then they can enter the final phrase of the competition which will be based on costs, supply. politics.


   If It happens it will undoubtedly be viewed as proof of the apocalypse and the end times .


----------



## MilEME09

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> If It happens it will undoubtedly be viewed as proof of the apocalypse and the end times .



next youll tell me it takes less then 20 minutes to log into the DAWN


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have a dream  8)

IT and IM system that work for the user

Logical and on time procurement systems 

stable, sustainable and suitable defence budget

Long term positive role for Reserves

Mortars and Howitzers where they belong

SAR aircraft younger than their crews (threaddrift prevention device)


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have a dream  8)
> 
> IT and IM system that work for the user
> 
> Logical and on time procurement systems
> 
> stable, sustainable and suitable defence budget
> 
> Long term positive role for Reserves employees
> 
> Mortars and Howitzers where they belong
> 
> SAR aircraft younger than their crews (threaddrift prevention device)



OK Martin Luther....

Modified your dream to a more generally applicable version.

Most of your identified problem area are not unique to the military or even government service.  They appear to be endemic in the modern work place.

What I wouldn't give for a decent secretary rather than a PDA and a server.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What I wouldn't give for a decent secretary rather than a PDA and a server.



But you must consider the times.  With a PDA and a server, one can surreptitiously look at porn - with a secretary, similar actions result in a lawsuit.


----------



## Kirkhill

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> But you must consider the times.  With a PDA and a server, one can surreptitiously look at porn - with a secretary, similar actions result in a lawsuit.



:rofl: :cheers:

Not that I would be ever so tempted  ;D  I am that bothered that I wouldn't mind if she had hairy legs, a pot belly and one eye.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> :rofl: :cheers:
> 
> Not that I would be ever so tempted  ;D  I am that bothered that I wouldn't mind if she had hairy legs, a pot belly and one eye.



Ok, whatever turns your crank.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oooooh. Kinky!


----------



## Spencer100

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/03/31/tender-call-finally-issued-in-decade-long-plan-to-replace-military-search-planes/#.VRrZr2cg-Ul

Look like the tender is going out.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/03/31/tender-call-finally-issued-in-decade-long-plan-to-replace-military-search-planes/#.VRrZr2cg-Ul
> 
> Look like the tender is going out.


More from the public tender page:


> NOTICE - Distribution of the Request for Proposal (RFP) to the FWSAR Source List
> 
> OBJECTIVE
> The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement to replace the existing Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue fleet of CC115 (Buffalo) and CC130H (Hercules) aircraft. The intent of the Department of National Defence (DND) is to procure a fleet of new sensor-equipped aircraft, including long-term In-service Support (ISS) for a period up to 20 years, in order to provide an effective response to SAR incidents anywhere  in the Canadian Area of Responsibility, and to support the National Search and Rescue Program.
> 
> AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
> The FWSAR Secretariat has approved the Request for Proposal (RFP) publication to the FWSAR Source List. This RFP is available on request only, and will be distributed to industry suppliers or subcontractors whom request it. In accordance with standard practices for RFP's containing high volumes of documentation, the RFP is only available in DVD format. A copy of the FWSAR RFP will be provided by the FWSAR Secretariat upon request to the following e-mail address:  ARSVF.FWSAR@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca.  Requesters must indicate the complete mailing address and contact name, in order for the documentation to be mailed via Canada Post or alternatively, indicate that their preference is to make arrangements to pick up a copy during business hours at the Louis St-Laurent Building, located at 555Blvd de la Carrière, Gatineau (Québec) J8Y 6V7.
> 
> STATEMENT OF CAPABILITIES
> It is important to note that only companies appearing on the FWSAR Source List will be permitted to submit proposals. To be added to the FWSAR Source List, a company or consortium must have an aircraft product, or be capable of proposing a solution that could meet the conditions of the FWSAR RFP.   The FWSAR Source List form is a document that was previously released to Industry in December of 2013, and is available to prospective new FWSAR bidders by requesting it from the FWSAR Secretariat at the following email address:  ARSVF.FWSAR@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca.  Any duly signed new submission of the FWSAR Source List form must be accompanied by a Statement of Capabilities. The FWSAR Secretariat will make the final decision on the validity of any requests, and of any submitted Statement of Capability ....


----------



## Spencer100

More info 

The Canadian FWSAR Program and Its Diverse Surface Search Radar Candidates

(Source: Forecast International; issued June 2, 2015)


Although the Canadian Forces' efforts to replace its aging Fixed Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) aircraft was formalized in 2004, advancements were stymied repeatedly. On March 31st, 2015, this changed when Canada released a new Request for Proposals (RFP); the due date is September 2015. The all-new aircraft will feature an all-new electronics suite, with new radars and new electro-optics, making for a long-lived, lucrative prospect for airborne electronics manufacturers. 

 The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) currently operates six CC-115 Buffalo (DHC-5) and 13 CC-130H Hercules aircraft in the SAR role. The DHC-5 went out of production in 1986 and the C-130H had reached the end of its heyday by the late 1990s. According to the Canadian Military Journal, the RCAF's DHC-5s date mostly from the 1960s and many of the C-130Hs were built in the 1970s, both platforms carry similarly dated surface search radar architectures. The need to revise the aging fleet with new platforms and new electronics is clear, especially considering the dual challenges of Canada's broad range of terrain and expansive territory. 

 The FWSAR requirement stipulates the choice of one to two platforms, and, to date, five manufacturers have emerged as strong potential bidders. The leading manufacturers are seen as Lockheed Martin with the C-130J which, like the U.S. Coast Guard's HC-130Js, could carry the Exelis APY-11 radar (a licensed Elta EL/M-2022) and FLIR Systems' Star Safire III EO/IR sensor, and Alenia Aermacchi with the C-27J Spartan for which the most probable electronics setup is currently unknown. 

 It is believed that if Canada selects the C-27J, it will follow the U.S. Coast Guard's lead concerning the electronics setup. The USCG is in the process of identifying a surface search radar for its HC-27Js, but the process has been complicated by the service possessing an insufficient amount of technical data. A belly-mounted or nose cone-mounted radar are both options. 

 The three other candidates are viewed as having a distinctly less likely chance of winning the award. These are: Airbus Military's C-295, Embraer's KC-390, and Viking Air's DHC-5NG. Brazil's Embraer has only just recently been identified as a bidder. Its KC-390 aircraft could be hurt by the fact that it only recently rolled out its first prototype in October 2014; its equipment set, like the C-27J's, is unknown at this time, but could feature an Italian-made Selex ES Gabbiano radar. 

 Airbus's C-295 may have a higher chance of winning the contest than the KC-390 and DHC-5NG. In its most common SAR outfits, the C-295 carries the APY-11 (EL/M-2022), like the C-130J. It also carries the APN-241 navigation radar in its nose like the C-27J, which could give the two aircraft a similar layout if the USCG selects a nose cone-mounted surface search radar for its C-27Js and the technology is then ported to the C-295. 

 Even though the aircraft is produced by a Canadian company, Viking Air and its DHC-5NG are seen in a distant last place. The platform has seen limited market uptake and its electronics are unknown. 

 If performance of past SAR choices is a guide, the winning FWSAR platform or platforms could be a part of the RCAF's fleet for a very long time. Considering the potential need for future radar upgrades and support contracts, competition for this award will be hard fought. Circumstances favor the RCAF following the USCG's example and procuring the C-130J with the APY-11 radar and/or the C-27J with an as-yet unidentified radar. 

 -ends- 

_- mod edit to add link -_


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> More info
> 
> The Canadian FWSAR Program and Its Diverse Surface Search Radar Candidates
> 
> (Source: Forecast International; issued June 2, 2015)
> 
> The leading manufacturers are seen as Lockheed Martin with the C-130J which, like the U.S. Coast Guard's HC-130Js, could carry the Exelis APY-11 radar (a licensed Elta EL/M-2022) and FLIR Systems' Star Safire III EO/IR sensor



A decent suite, on initial quick-look at their websites although for SAR, some of the bells and whistles could be left out to reduce costs.




> and Alenia Aermacchi with the C-27J Spartan for which the most probable electronics setup is currently unknown.
> 
> It is believed that if Canada selects the C-27J, it will follow the U.S. Coast Guard's lead concerning the electronics setup. The USCG is in the process of identifying a surface search radar for its HC-27Js, but the process has been complicated by the service possessing an insufficient amount of technical data. A belly-mounted or nose cone-mounted radar are both options.



360 radar coverage seems like a sweet setup, the Japanese have gone to this in their latest MPA.   



> Circumstances favor the RCAF following the USCG's example and procuring the C-130J with the APY-11 radar and/or the C-27J with an as-yet unidentified radar.
> 
> -ends-
> 
> _- mod edit to add link -_



Nor sure what the SAR community is hoping for.  J model would seem to fit better into current fleets for maint, parts, tech trg, crewing, etc.

Either way, its going to be a good thing for the SAR community and, if things go the way they are looking, for the AES Op trade who are likely going to take on the sensor operation/employment stuff.


----------



## captloadie

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Either way, its going to be a good thing for the SAR community and, if things go the way they are looking, for the AES Op trade who are likely going to take on the sensor operation/employment stuff.


You don't think the ACSOs are going to fight tooth and nail to keep themselves on the SAR platform and use this function to justify it?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I have no idea what the ACSO mafia is up to, but I do know how many SENSOR OPERATORS the RCAF is looking to add to the current stock of AESOps.  ACSOs aren't sensor operators.  Why pay a Capt to operator kit a Cpl can and is already trained to do?

I haven't heard there is no requirement for a Nav on SAR missions yet.  Anyone know the plan there?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

From my CoC it is confirm AESOP will have a seat on the new fix wing SAR platform while ACSO lost theirs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Prof. Michael Byers jumps in:



> Italian Search and Rescue Plane Wrong for BC: Expert
> Feds ignore more agile craft fitting province's terrain -- and built in Victoria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A plan to purchase one model of search and rescue airplanes for the entire country will end up putting people on Canada's west coast in danger because the craft aren't suited to the terrain, says an expert on government procurement.
> 
> Last week Michael Byers issued a report [ https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/smart-defence ] on the shortcomings of Canada's military procurement, including failures to purchase desperately needed equipment.
> 
> Byers is a professor at the Political Science Department at UBC and once ran for the federal New Democrats in Vancouver Centre. He has been a vocal critic of the federal government's planned F-35 purchase.
> 
> Tuesday [June 30] he told The Tyee another shortcoming of the Harper government's military procurement strategy is its a plan to purchase long-range, fast, fixed-wing aircraft for search and rescue duty across Canada.
> 
> He said such aircraft may be fine for the East Coast, but British Columbia needs something different.
> 
> "We need a plane that can fly lower and slower and can turn more sharply than these bigger, faster planes," he said...
> 
> An updated request for proposals was released in April [ http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/svtvn-rscfw-eng.html ] and Byers said the craft suited to the request is consistent with planes like the C-27J.
> 
> He said that doesn't help B.C. and suggests Canada purchase locally made aircraft, such as the new Viking Twin Otter built in Victoria or the Bombardier Q400.
> 
> Byers said the Twin Otter is already being built and sold specifically for rescue capabilities in other countries.
> 
> "The solutions are there and yet our government in its pigheaded way is pressing forward toward a single aircraft for all of Canada," he said. "The specifications have been written in such a way to exclude the Viking aircraft and the Bombardier."
> 
> One such requirements written in the RFP required a rear ramp so that rescuers could parachute out of the plane, but that's an old method of search and rescue used before long-range helicopters existed and has been phased out in developed countries except Canada, according to Byers...
> 
> But purchasing new helicopters that can winch people on and off after aircraft have spotted them is a far better way to conduct a rescue than parachuting rescuers out to wait with those being rescued, he said...
> http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/07/02/Plane-Wrong-For-BC/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Twin Otter is a great aircraft, but not for this type of SAR, Byers sigh


----------



## GR66

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Twin Otter is a great aircraft, but not for this type of SAR, Byers sigh



For those uneducated readers like myself, could you please give your take on the shortcomings of the Twin Otter for SAR?


----------



## dapaterson

GR66 said:
			
		

> For those uneducated readers like myself, could you please give your take on the shortcomings of the Twin Otter for SAR?



Other than range, speed and carrying capacity?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, I am no expert (like prof. Byers I suppose  ;D), but just off the top of my head, I would say that the Spartan having TWICE the speed of the Twin Otter is a pretty good reason to chose it over the T.O. in a huge country like Canada.

And I am pretty sure the Spartan is just about as manoeuvrable as a T.O.


----------



## dapaterson

Comparing the Twin Otter to a Herc: Half the speed, half the range, one third the cargo carrying capacity, and no commonality with the transport fleet for reduced crewing and maintenance costs.


----------



## GR66

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Other than range, speed and carrying capacity?



I'm thinking that baseline specs might not always show the whole picture.  Other contending aircraft might have greater range, speed and carrying capacity, but are there other performance factors that make them less capable to actually perform their job once they get there?  A Twin Otter might have LESS range, speed and carrying capacity, but does it have ENOUGH range, speed and carrying capacity for the task?  Do its other attributes make up for those baseline shortcomings (at least in relation to the specific issue of BC SAR requirements)?  

I have absolutely no knowlege of these matters and no stake in or preference over which aircraft is selected.  I'm simply interested in understanding the issues a little bit better.

Thanks


----------



## Blackadder1916

GR66 said:
			
		

> . . . . . Do its other attributes make up for those baseline shortcomings (at least in relation to the specific issue of BC SAR requirements)?



Its other attributes in relation to this topic?

Mmm . . . .  It's made in Canada.  It has a traditional sounding Canadian name and pedigree.  It may be able to operate from shorter and less developed airfields, but that's because it is smaller and thus less capacity for personnel and equipment - so let's call that a wash.  Can't think of anything else.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GR66 said:
			
		

> For those uneducated readers like myself, could you please give your take on the shortcomings of the Twin Otter for SAR?



Cramped cabin for SAR gear, it will be at max payload most of the time. Slower speed, lower operating ceiling. Can it do SAR, yes it can. Can it effectively cover the vast areas we require our limited resources to cover, I do not think so and we are not likely to create new SAR air stations to spread aircraft around so we can benefit from it's strengths. The Buff is as likely the smallest aircraft that would fit the current needs.


----------



## Blackadder1916

GR66 said:
			
		

> For those uneducated readers like myself, could you please give your take on the shortcomings of the Twin Otter for SAR?



While my previous response was sarcastic (_but the best sarcasm should be mostly factual_), I will add this.  The CAF  already operate four Twotters, however, those airframes date from the early 1970s which make them middle aged in Twin Otter years.  They are already painted in SAR livery, though I don't know how much of their operational use is SAR vice transport and utility tasks.  It's nearly 30 years since I last flew in one (shortly after this) and that was on an aeromedevac - nothing too exciting, really just a patient transfer.  In that instance, we had to configure the a/c for a stretcher (along with minimal eqpt and a two pers med crew); there wasn't a lot of room left in the cabin.  While the Twin Otter is legendary for its ability to operate in marginal areas there is more to the requirement than flying low and slow.


----------



## GR66

Thanks everyone for the education.


----------



## Kirkhill

Actually, if Byers were intellectually consistent he would be arguing for the elimination of FWSAR over the Rockies and replacing the Buffs with an additional 6 pack of CH147/148/149.

He argues that dropping more victims(rescuers) out the back of serviceable aircraft is silly.  Consequently none of the Fixed Wing solutions make sense using his criteria.

Equally he argues the value of low and slow.  Ain't nuffink going lower and slower than a helicopter.

I'd would use his argument as a club to buy additional FW Tactical Lift that can be used for long range search (Herc or C27J) and also to buy another half dozen CH-147s to be stationed in Edmonton to cover the Rockies from the East.   Paint Yellow stripes on 2 of them.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rescuers ready for the call if trouble hits on Mount Rainier

Link

You know what I find truly amazing?  There isn't a scrap of yellow anywhere on that Chinook.  How did the guys on the ground find it?


----------



## dapaterson

The larger question is why is SAR a role for the CAF.  While MND is the lead for SAR in the Government of Canada, that could easily be transferred to Public Safety, and the CAF could pass off this legacy function to someone else.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The larger question is why is SAR a role for the CAF.  While MND is the lead for SAR in the Government of Canada, that could easily be transferred to Public Safety, and the CAF could pass off this legacy function to someone else.



I believe it is a great example of the dog being wagged.  What started as a secondary task for any available air assets, transport in particular, became a publicity generating department that demanded its own budget and specialized gear.


----------



## Ostrozac

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The larger question is why is SAR a role for the CAF.  While MND is the lead for SAR in the Government of Canada, that could easily be transferred to Public Safety, and the CAF could pass off this legacy function to someone else.



Good point. I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I can't see SAR being done in a country like Canada except by a unlimited liability force. But on the other hand, take the two countries that have the distance and climate issues most similar to Canada (Russia and the USA); neither have their primary SAR service as a branch of their defence department. The primary SAR service in the USA is the US Coast Guard, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (and before that, the Department of the Treasury) and the primary SAR service in Russia is the Maritime Border Guards, an agency of the FSB (and before that the KGB).

Is there scope for one of our civilian agencies expanding to full unlimited liability, and then incorporating the SAR task? Maybe under the umbrella of DFO or the RCMP? Or is the current system working better than what DFO or the RCMP would do with the job? After all, there is only one taxpayer, and if those yellow birds and men in orange are transferred out of DND, a chunk of the defence budget will go with them to the new agency.


----------



## Underway

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Good point. I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I can't see SAR being done in a country like Canada except by a unlimited liability force. But on the other hand, take the two countries that have the distance and climate issues most similar to Canada (Russia and the USA); neither have their primary SAR service as a branch of their defence department. The primary SAR service in the USA is the US Coast Guard, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (and before that, the Department of the Treasury) and the primary SAR service in Russia is the Maritime Border Guards, an agency of the FSB (and before that the KGB).
> 
> Is there scope for one of our civilian agencies expanding to full unlimited liability, and then incorporating the SAR task? Maybe under the umbrella of DFO or the RCMP? Or is the current system working better than what DFO or the RCMP would do with the job? After all, there is only one taxpayer, and if those yellow birds and men in orange are transferred out of DND, a chunk of the defence budget will go with them to the new agency.



That's a bit disingenous.  The US and Russia have massive populations and militaries as well.  The US Coast Guard is armed and a part of their military structure no matter which budget it comes from.  If you were to give up SAR in the CAF then enjoy spending the money on developing your entirely new training, maintenance, infrastructure etc...  One more reason to cut the defense budget as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

What is wrong with the Washington State / US Army Reserves solution?

The personnel involved are military seconded from other duties.  The helicopters they use are military seconded from other duties.  The helicopters and personnel are used because they have militarily advantageous capabilities that can be employed usefully in Aid to the Civil Power.

The helicopters are well equipped with comms and surveillance capabilities to permit air-ground co-operation.  It makes them effective SAR systems. That makes them useful not just to the military but also to the civilian powers.   That allows the military to defray the costs, financial and political, of maintaining a capability by hiring themselves out to the civil power.

What the Americans don't do is purchase high tech systems for civilian aircraft with no combat utility while, at the same time, starving the military of equally vital, useful kit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The larger question is why is SAR a role for the CAF.  While MND is the lead for SAR in the Government of Canada, that could easily be transferred to Public Safety, and the CAF could pass off this legacy function to someone else.



Well that is exactly what happened in 1962, elements of marine SAR was transferred from the RCAF to the newly formed Coast Guard with assets from the Department of Marine. Kitsilano base was handed over to the CCG, including base, boats and personal.

However I am not sure the CCG would be up to the task, as much of the SAR calls are away from the coast. Considering CCG is already wracked with internal politics between nearshore vs offshore SAR and Navigation aids groups, I suspect they would do badly at it.


----------



## kev994

I can't imagine a Twotter doing a mission in the middle of the Pacific....


----------



## YZT580

If Canada were to purchase a dozen DH6 aircraft and position them in pairs across the north country, attaching them to local ranger battalions then the twin otter makes sense but not as a primary SAR aircraft for the rest of the country.  A revitalized buffalo would be great to replace the current fleet but again not as a primary aircraft unless they produce a  pressurized aircraft similar to the one Boeing created back when they owned Dehavilland.  The Q400 does not have the performance specs to make a suitable SAR aircraft at all.  It lacks the wing structure of the earlier dehavilland products that made them such great performers.  The DH7 was the last true STOL machine.  Folks were criticizing the DH6 for being so slow well, all the aircraft in contention are slow in comparison to the C17 for example which has all the same advantages as the Spartan and herc plus an additional 200 plus knots to get somewhere faster.  Maybe we should invest in a few more of those before they are gone and equip them with a helicopter in the belly for after they locate the victims.  They could still air-drop rafts, technicians, radios, food and then land and unfold the chopper long before one could be ferried up from TR.  (dreaming)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually the day of a remotely controlled drone helicopter being dropped into the area to affect rescue is not far off. For a rescue in a remote area, subject is found alive and moving. C-17/C130-J flies in with a drone helo, that deploys out the back possibly on chutes till it can fly itself. Then it flies in, lands, persons clambers aboard and is flown to a pickup point. The hardest part is the transition from deploying the drone till it can fly itself. The technical difficulties make make it impractical cost wise.


----------



## Kirkhill

Don't over complicate.

Find site.  Deploy Scan Eagle to monitor site.  Land C17/C130 at nearest airfield (there are some 5000 landing fields scattered across Canada IIRC).  Deploy and assemble stowed rotary wing device.  CH-147/CH-146/KMax/Firescout B or C.

All the above technology currently exists.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect the next generation of high speed helicopters might change the mix and threaten the Osprey niche. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_X3

Frankly we should lease a few Osprey's and their crews and let them do SAR and training up here to see how much difference it may make to how we do things.


----------



## Ostrozac

Not to try to oversimplify things -- but if you want an aircraft capable of jumping in SAR Techs and bundles, a fixed-wing transport aircraft to get them there, and a rotary wing helicopter to recover casualties and move them to a hospital, then didn't you just describe the V-22 Osprey? It isn't pressurized, so it shares that weakness with the Twin Otter and Buffalo, but unlike older aircraft it can be mid-air refuelled. 

But I guess it doesn't matter, as the Ottawa Citizen reports that Boeing has dropped out of the FWSAR competition.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Have you ever been in the rotor wash of a V-22 hovering above you?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sadly my career fell into between the times of the Canadair CL-84 and the V-22, but I got to experience the joys of slinging stuff with a Chinook, S61, plus winching exercises with Sea Kings and Labradors.  

As for V-22, I suggested leasing the crews and aircraft to experiment and learn with, not necessarily to buy. It's good to step outside the box and look at things differently once and awhile.


----------



## Ostrozac

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Have you ever been in the rotor wash of a V-22 hovering above you?



Nope. Just watched them take off and land at KAF. But people seem to use them as a fast-rope and sling-load platform, so it can be done.

As I said, though, it's all academic if Boeing's dropped out of the competition.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I have, both standing outside and sitting in an aircraft.  Both time, it was relatively scary.  After talking to the pilots, they don't even think it would be possible to pick up somebody safely from the hover.  They said they would have to land away to get the injured loaded up...


----------



## Infanteer

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I have, both standing outside and sitting in an aircraft.  Both time, it was relatively scary.  After talking to the pilots, they don't even think it would be possible to pick up somebody safely from the hover.  They said they would have to land away to get the injured loaded up...



They didn't seem to have issues fast-roping us out of them; it ain't that scary.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The wash itself is not.  The shit that gets thrown everywhere is.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The wash itself is not.  The shit that gets thrown everywhere is.



SKAD or winch PPE in for the rescuees.  ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax

If you mean Personnal Protection Equipment, it may be fine if the survivor has no injury.  If the survivor has a broken back however...  Why pick something that will beat the shit out of the survivor when there are better options out there?

It is a kick ass PR platform (mix of speed and unprepared site landing, can bring half a TRAP team, AAR capable) Domestic SAR?  Not so much.  Exactly how many countries use it ad a Domestic SAR platform?


----------



## Loachman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Don't over complicate.



But do not over-simplify, either.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Deploy Scan Eagle to monitor site.



Where would the GCS (Ground Control Station) be? Range is limited. If you are suggesting an airborne control station, why not just keep the controlling aircraft overhead and use an onboard MX-15 or similar sensor to do the job?

UAVs are more weather-limited than manned aircraft. Not many are able to see through cloud, or operate under it - and lower altitudes also compromise range from the GCS.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Land C17/C130 at nearest airfield (there are some 5000 landing fields scattered across Canada IIRC).



Of suitable minimum length?

With instrument approaches in the event of poor weather?



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Deploy and assemble stowed rotary wing device.  CH-147/CH-146/KMax/Firescout B or C.



A Griffon takes several hours to re-assemble, if transported by C17. It takes at least a day if transported by C130. A Chinook takes two days to re-assemble if deployed by C17. Similar time is required to prep and load. There are few small airfields around that have hangars, and doing this work outside, especially in cold or poor weather, is not easy.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> All the above technology currently exists.



And is not the easy or practical solution that some might think.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Exactly how many countries use it ad a Domestic SAR platform?



Lets start with how many countries even have Ospreys. Last I checked it was only the US, and Japan has recently  approved a purchase but not gotten any yet.


----------



## SupersonicMax

And even the US doesn't use it as Domestic SAR...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Isn't it because their domestic SAR is NOT military? In fact, in the US, isn't SAR, other than maritime SAR which is a Coast Guard responsibility, a State function instead of a Federal one?


----------



## SupersonicMax

The Coast Guard is responsible for Marine SAR.  They use helicopters.

USAF has 4 rescue wings (ANGs or AFRC) which do a similar role than our SAR squadrons across the country (albeit within their States).  None of them have V-22.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Like I said out of the box thinking, back in the day many SAR aircraft were flying boats and no helicopters, bit by bit the helo's took over many of the roles and flying boats faded away. My suggestion was to borrow them and their crews to try out ideas. I suspect the SAR techs would be quite stoked to take part.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> But do not over-simplify, either.
> 
> Where would the GCS (Ground Control Station) be? Range is limited. If you are suggesting an airborne control station, why not just keep the controlling aircraft overhead and use an onboard MX-15 or similar sensor to do the job?
> 
> UAVs are more weather-limited than manned aircraft. Not many are able to see through cloud, or operate under it - and lower altitudes also compromise range from the GCS.
> 
> Of suitable minimum length?
> 
> With instrument approaches in the event of poor weather?
> 
> A Griffon takes several hours to re-assemble, if transported by C17. It takes at least a day if transported by C130. A Chinook takes two days to re-assemble if deployed by C17. Similar time is required to prep and load. There are few small airfields around that have hangars, and doing this work outside, especially in cold or poor weather, is not easy.
> 
> And is not the easy or practical solution that some might think.



I bow.   :nod:


----------



## Loachman

A UAV tour and a little experience stuffing helicopters into fat seized-wing machines shows the deficiencies and/or problems with both.

We do not like putting Griffons into Hercs at all. We've probably done it, but I do not remember when, if ever.

There is not much space in a Herc around a Griffon-sized helicopter. In September 1983, a MAMS crew in Trenton tried to impress their supervisor, who'd wandered into the hangar in search of porcelain, with their abilities to load one of three Bardufoss-bound Twin Hueys into the back of a Herc. They ended up winching it in too far, thereby smunching the nose of the Slug and the forward bulkhead of the Herc cargo area. Neither machine went to Norway, and both were laid up for extended periods. One of the remaining Slugs turned out to be US on arrival as well. Our three Kiowas, more happily, were all just fine at the other end.

We can put three Griffons (and the crews and enough techs, with pers kit) into a C17, and the rotor mast can remain in place on all of them. Other than the first one going into KAF, wherein the C17's ramp was lowered while the tailboom was still chained to it, I cannot remember any damage being done - and we do this several times each year.

Main rotor blades, horizontal stabilizers, and one tailrotor blade of the rear-most Griffon have to come off, and that requires something sturdy and safe for a bunch of guys to stand on.

It's only been done once with a Chinook, so far, as a trial run.


----------



## Ostrozac

Loachman said:
			
		

> We do not like putting Griffons into Hercs at all. We've probably done it, but I do not remember when, if ever.



Isn't that how we got them to and from Alert and Eureka for Op Hurricane, back in the day? It's probably a C-17 role now, but I thought there was plenty of experience loading and unloading Griffons for C-130 move to Ellesmere Island.


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:
			
		

> Where would the GCS (Ground Control Station) be? Range is limited. If you are suggesting an airborne control station, why not just keep the controlling aircraft overhead and use an onboard MX-15 or similar sensor to do the job?
> 
> UAVs are more weather-limited than manned aircraft. Not many are able to see through cloud, or operate under it - and lower altitudes also compromise range from the GCS.



I agree that UAVs/RPAs/"whatever the fashionable name is these days" have their limitations, but if it is controlled via SATCOM, then range becomes less of an issue.  You still would need a Launch and Recovery Element at whatever airfield/airport you take off/recover from, though.  Also, if landing/takeoff is automatic (not hand-flown), then the airfield will probably need to have been pre-surveyed for DGPS markers, etc.  

Of course, this is assuming MALE (Reaper) or larger RPA vice ScanEagle.


----------



## Loachman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I agree that UAVs/RPAs/"whatever the fashionable name is these days" have their limitations, but if it is controlled via SATCOM, then range becomes less of an issue.  You still would need a Launch and Recovery Element at whatever airfield/airport you take off/recover from, though.  Also, if landing/takeoff is automatic (not hand-flown), then the airfield will probably need to have been pre-surveyed for DGPS markers, etc.
> 
> Of course, this is assuming MALE (Reaper) or larger RPA vice ScanEagle.



Yup, but I was only adressing the original points. Is satellite feasible in the Arctic? Are we dependent upon geo-stationary satellites for UAV control?

Weather limits still apply. Sperwer was able to operate when other UAVS - and all seized-wing and occasionally helicopters - could not, as we operated lower than Scan Eagle did, and were heavier and more robust. Synthetic Aperture Radar on B1 consistently failed to impress us - they could not tell the difference between wild dogs and motorcycles.


----------



## Loachman

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Isn't that how we got them to and from Alert and Eureka for Op Hurricane, back in the day? It's probably a C-17 role now, but I thought there was plenty of experience loading and unloading Griffons for C-130 move to Ellesmere Island.



I was never a Slug driver, so cannot say that we ever did or not. I do know that at least some Hurricanes involved self-deployment. Self-deployment was the norm for the Griffon until C17 came along. That can be a comically frustrating effort, though. I've seen it drag out for six weeks - weather, things breaking that do not normally break, wrong replacement parts being sent (I always advise people to look in the box rather than trust what's on the label as a result of a 400 Squadron deployment several years ago; the box said "Left Hand Windscreen, but, of course, contained a ...), haphazard commercial deliveries, no hangars in which to cure temperature-dependant sealants, rescues by Rangers when the weather is too bad to get the last five or ten miles, no useable fuel caches...

We do a mix now, but there is no guarantee which is best. C17s break, too.

Whatever decision is made appears to always be the wrong one.


----------



## kev994

I don't get what you are adding by having a scan eagle on scene. The whole point of keeping the Hercules on scene after finding the search object is that it carries ~10,000 lbs of equipment that may be useful if the situation on the ground changes. You may as well skip the UAV and tell casualties that we need to save gas money so they should call us on the sat phone when they think they're about to die of exposure.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Isn't that how we got them to and from Alert and Eureka for Op Hurricane, back in the day? It's probably a C-17 role now, but I thought there was plenty of experience loading and unloading Griffons for C-130 move to Ellesmere Island.



Twin Hueys regularly, yes.  Griffons, rarely.


----------



## Harrigan

Loachman said:
			
		

> I was never a Slug driver, so cannot say that we ever did or not. I do know that at least some Hurricanes involved self-deployment. Self-deployment was the norm for the Griffon until C17 came along. That can be a comically frustrating effort, though. I've seen it drag out for six weeks - weather, things breaking that do not normally break, wrong replacement parts being sent (I always advise people to look in the box rather than trust what's on the label as a result of a 400 Squadron deployment several years ago; the box said "Left Hand Windscreen, but, of course, contained a ...), haphazard commercial deliveries, no hangars in which to cure temperature-dependant sealants, rescues by Rangers when the weather is too bad to get the last five or ten miles, no useable fuel caches...
> 
> We do a mix now, but there is no guarantee which is best. C17s break, too.
> 
> Whatever decision is made appears to always be the wrong one.



 :nod:

Absolutely true!


----------



## Spencer100

I would guess this puts the KC-390 out of the running, if it every really was in.  

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/165779/embraer-delays-kc_390-delivery%2C-warns-of-defense-revenue-drop.html

In the end it will be back to the two plane competition is was 10 years ago.


----------



## YZT580

At least the delays are getting shorter.  Final date for submissions put off until January


----------



## The Bread Guy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> At least the delays are getting shorter.  Final date for submissions put off until January


More on that here, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ....


> The two confirmed bidders for Canada's long-running fixed-wing search and rescue requirement (FWSAR) are using the latest in a long line of delays to the process to hone their offers.
> 
> Ottawa has been attempting to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) fleet of six aged de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalos and 13 Lockheed Martin CC-130 Hercules since 2004, with the latest request for proposals issued in March this year.
> 
> Submissions were originally due by 28 September but, faced with a highly complex set of capability-based requirements contained in a document numbering over 4,000 pages, bidders were in some cases forced to make assumptions about what was required.
> 
> As a result, the nation's Public Works and Government Services Canada procurement body has extended the deadline to 11 January 2016.
> 
> So far, only Airbus Defence & Space and Alenia Aermacchi – along with their Canadian partners – have confirmed their participation in the FWSAR contest, offering the C295 and C-27J Spartan, respectively. However, Embraer and Lockheed Martin may also respond to the tender.
> 
> "I think this is actually a good thing because it will allow us to make sure the aircraft and mission system and so on are all able to move forward," says Steve Lucas, a strategic advisor to Alenia-led Team Spartan and former Canadian Forces chief of air staff.
> 
> "We consider ourselves in a much better position now to provide Canada with what it wants in the way of a solid bid."
> 
> Lucas says the RFP stipulates that bidders must submit both three- and four-base solutions, with an option to also offer a fifth base, if needed, to meet the requirements.
> 
> "Alenia doesn't have that issue. Our submission is only the three- and four-base bids."
> 
> He declines to be drawn on the number of aircraft it has proposed, only noting that an earlier RFP called for 15 units. Alenia's bid is "plus or minus" that figure, he says.
> 
> Airbus, meanwhile, says it will be able to satisfy the requirements "using Canada’s existing basing structure". The RCAF's fixed-wing SAR fleet operates from four locations, with a fifth site providing rotary-wing cover.
> 
> Describing the C295 as a "proven, reliable and low-risk solution", Airbus says the deadline extension "means that Canada will be able to make the clearest choice and get the aircraft that it needs."
> 
> An initial down-select next year will be followed by flight and ground evaluations for the remaining bidders.
> 
> Airbus is partnered with Pratt & Whitney Canada, L-3 Wescam, CAE, Vector Aerospace, and Provincial Aerospace as its primary pattern. Team Spartan comprises General Dynamics Canada, IMP Aerospace, KF Aerospace, and CMC Esterline.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I like to see the thoughts of some people who have SAR sqn time on either of those 2 airframes.  Payload, endurance, mountain ops considerations, etc.  I was pretty critical of the 295 as a possible MPA for the UK, but perhaps in this role...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Any new non-Conservative government could well simply, and politically very easily, go without competition for Viking Air new-build Buffalos:
http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-buffalo-specs.htm

http://www.aviationnewsreleases.com/2009/03/viking-eyes-restarting-buffalo-line.html

With lure of foreign sales as with new-build Twotters:
https://www.wingsmagazine.com/operations/the-tenacity-of-a-viking-7359

https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/mark-collins-why-not-just-buy-new-build-viking-air-twotters-for-rcaf/

Cool Viet paint job:







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ostrozac

Ah, the legend of the Viking Buffalo. Have they even built an airframe yet, or is it still vapourware?

I get the sense that after our recent small "hiccups" with JUSTAS, MMA, Cyclone and Lightning that buying an aircraft that is not even in prototype may not be in the cards. FWSAR has been stalled long enough -- the contract should be signed, soon, and it should be for an aircraft that is actually in production. Which aircraft I'm not picky about, but the FWSAR guys need their planes. Soon.


----------



## YZT580

Viking hasn't even filed a bid, at least not as of yet.  Unless a new government launches a new competition, I don't believe that they even qualify as they do not have an aircraft that is actually flying to supply.  From what I recall, the process requires an aircraft, not a prototype and not a set of plans.  Unfortunately, both aircraft up for tender are less than optimal.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, both aircraft up for tender are less than optimal.



Anything you feel comfortable elaborating on? 

Why not just get more J models.  Can't they do the low/slow and short landing "almost" as good as a Buffalo?


----------



## YZT580

neither a/c offers the manoeuvering capability of the Buf. and neither a/c  can handle the short field landings of a Buf.  The speed differential is not that great either.  The best you can say is that they are pressurized, which is about the only really good thing.  When you think about it, both airframes date to the mid-60's with very few significant improvements.  The best deal imho is increase the fleet of helicopters for the west coast to cover the mountains, purchase enough new-build Dh6's to properly service the north (3 hour coverage from wheels up), at least along the major traffic corridors, and contract with the airlines already operating in the north to operate them, purchase new-build C130's as your prime S&R a/c.  The transit time for any a/c to the arctic makes too long a response time; hence the northern bases a/c.  Few CF crews are going to happily accept a 6 month posting in Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet or Resolute Bay; hence the contracting.  The DH6 is a proven commodity in the north and a lot cheaper than supplying any other airframe.  Should be able to get at least 3 for one which goes a long way towards attaining sufficient coverage even at the admittedly slower transit times.  Helicopters on the west coast because neither of the airframes offered can do what the BUF does in the fiords and the Buffalo isn't available unless you want to pay Viking to completely rebuild our current fleet: which is doable.  Finally, we already have C130's, it is a great a/c and offers the additional benefit of commonality.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thanks.  This is a pulse I am trying to keep my thumb on somewhat as the talk about us (AES Ops) being employed on the new airframe as payload/sensor ops continues.  

I'll take 3 months in ZF over 3 months in Camp Happy ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

HC-130 seems like an interesting a/c if they place a bid, considering the gap we have in CSAR right now. Would give our SAR techs perhaps something to do expeditionary, similar to a PJ in the USAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There is a huge difference in the way SAR operates when you put a "C" in front of it though...


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> HC-130 seems like an interesting a/c if they place a bid, considering the gap we have in CSAR right now. Would give our SAR techs perhaps something to do expeditionary, similar to a PJ in the USAF.



We don't, as a nation, do CSAR, full stop.  EITS is bang on...add the "C" and it is an entirely different beast...a system of systems, in fact, and the last three letters take second place to the first one.  Take a look at Figure 1.1 Spectrum of Joint Personnel Recovery excerpt from Joint Warfare Publication 3-66 Joint Personnel Recovery.  Combar Rescue, Combat Search and Rescue and SF Ops are all COMBAT operations first and foremost.  SAR as conducted by Canada is way left on the scale of intensity.


To go further, read JP 3-50 TTPs for CSAR, and you'll appreciate that anything in Canada that's yellow with a red stripe would likely be the last thing that goes anywhere near a CSAR situation.  if...IF...Canada ever conducted a CSAR, it would most likely be conducted with Allies and at most might include a package of: CP-140M over top for ISR/C2, C-17s to take the SOF CH-146 in (if not near littorals) or CH-124 is near littoral, and maybe a C-130J in the mix to bring some of the SOF bubbas into the area who didn't come in on the C-17 transporting the SOF CH-146.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## George Wallace

I have a strong suspicion that someone associated the "C" with "Canadian" as in the Aircraft designation, not the job description.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Tangent:

WRT the Twin Otter.

Is there a justification for more Twin Otter flights to be stationed around Canada just as "Utility" aircraft?  Trainers?  Local hops?  Local Search?  Remote locations (pontoons, skis, "fat wheels")?  OGD support?

It might beef up the SAR response, off-load some Helo time and perhaps allow for more Medium/Medium-Heavy lift helos and Hercs that could be used for both logistic support and SAR.

I am extending YZT580's thoughts beyond the north and wondering if the Twotter shouldn't be part of every Transport Sqn/Base/Wing?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

And the people to man and fix them come from where? (Yes, yes- I know we have a problem with too many and too large HQs).


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And the people to man and fix them come from where? (Yes, yes- I know we have a problem with too many and too large HQs).



Actually I was thinking more along the lines of finding them from the bodies that support and maintain the Army Reserve.  Another Squadron's worth of dogsbodies flying and maintaining Twotters seems to me to be a more worthwhile use of my tax dollars than the largely inefficient investment in the Army Reserve.  Heck - you could even up the Air Reserve to assist.

As for fixing them - Send them home to Viking from time to time.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is there a justification for more Twin Otter flights to be stationed around Canada just as "Utility" aircraft?  Trainers? (training who?) Local hops? (who would be hopping - the already useless bodies in over-inflated HQs looking for a role?) Local Search? (searching for who? -  the CF's primary role is searching for downed aircraft) Remote locations (pontoons, skis, "fat wheels")? ((what is the CF doing in remote locations that isn't accessible by existing larger a/c or by commercial means) OGD support? (what government departments are willing to pay for service that they don't already do in-house or contract from private sector)



Unless there is a "defined" mission that needs a new, currently non-existent, resource (in the form of a Twotter) it's just another waste of money.  I remember our existing Twin Otters, back 30 years ago when I was posted to Edmonton.  I even flew a couple of times in them as pax.  If my memory hasn't been affected too badly by aluminium mess tins, they were only marginally used for SAR back then and my impression when Edmonton closed as an airbase, the remaining a/c were permanently moved north (a/c and crews previously had rotated in sup of NR) because they couldn't find a job for them anywhere else.  It was more of an asset in search of a mission than a mission in need of an asset.


----------



## Kirkhill

Naaah. You're right. What was I thinking?


----------



## YZT580

That is why I specified the north for the DH6.  Larger a/c are useable once they get there but the transit time is in the order of 6 hours for the Herc staging from TR.  Otters locally based and crewed, perhaps by qualified rangers make far more sense then responding from the banana belt. If the hercs were moved north out of TR even as close as YB it would help although Churchill would probably serve the north better.  Failing that, having a second type of a/c in the north even with a cruise speed of 180 knots is a better solution than purchasing relatively expensive mini-hercs and placing them half a day away from most of Canada.   

On the side, as for reserve squadrons, I can still remember the DHC3 squadrons based in Downsview and if memory serves, Winnipeg.  Their standard mission I believe they fulfilled was supply runs into northern lakes in support of army training since they operated on wheel floats and a bit of mapping as well.


----------



## quadrapiper

Apologies if someone else has already brought this up - would something along the lines of the Japanese US-2 amphibian be worth considering? Not sure if it's suitable for parachutists, but something that can land on lakes, not to mention along the coasts, seems interesting.


----------



## Blackadder1916

The suitability of an amphib a/c has been raised a few times on this thread.  The following replies (from over 8 years ago) were in response to a question similar to yours.



			
				kj_gully said:
			
		

> Before the Buffalo, Air Force Rescue units flew Albatross flying boats. There is definite "upside" to having an amphibious aircraft, In fact there is a  picture on pg 2 of the aircraft folder in the Milnet gallery (not super tech saavy, so tried to insert it 2 different ways with no success...) of amphib trial for the buff. From an operator standpoint, I guess that i would say that many times when a Marine incident requires a fixed wing Sar Asset, the sea is WAY too bumpy to want to land. Often when it is not, the Chopper is close at hand to affect (effect?) rescue. I suspect the biggest, or at least some of the biggest factors with amphibs is speed, fuel economy, pressurisation,  things the new aircraft must have to increase our capability. The disclaimer is that I am not a pilot, an aircraft engineer, or in any way involved in the SOR (statement of requirement) for the new aircraft, just an interested observer.





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Caveat that I'm not a Buff driver, but I think Gully hit the nail on the head.  CL415/215's would have some advantages in very specific situations, but I think that would be far outweighted by the lack of capability that such an aircraft would have in the other...95-98%?...of the time.  If I recall correctly, the CL415/215s do not have particularly low manoeuvring speeds like the Buff has, and it's max dash speed is 60 knots slower than the Buff.  It is also not particularly suited to dispatching SAR Techs without a ramp.
> 
> A couple of Buff drivers will probably be along to provide more input.
> 
> G2G



There was also a short discussion starting here http://army.ca/forums/threads/23889/post-803513.html#msg803513


----------



## CougarKing

Another platform Ottawa is considering?

Defense-Aerospace



> *Embraer Promotes KC-390 Military Transport for Search And Rescue Missions At the Canadian Aerospace Summit 2015*
> 
> OTTAWA, Canada --- Embraer is attending the 2015 Canadian Aerospace Summit, which takes place November 17-18 at the Shaw Center, in Ottawa, Canada. The Company is located at Booth 527 and is promoting the KC-390 tactical transport aircraft for search and rescue missions in Canada.
> 
> The KC-390 is designed to set new standards in its category, while presenting the lowest life-cycle cost of the market and the ability to perform multiple missions such as transport and airdrop of troops and cargo, search and rescue (SAR), medical evacuation, aerial refueling and firefighting among others.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## kev994

One of the requirements is that it has to be a production aircraft, the embraer was expected to be excluded on that basis, but I'm not sure how the change in timeline affects that.


----------



## ringo

Delay FWSAR use the funds to buy last C17 from Boeing.
KC390 to be in production 2018, prototype flying, almost laughable for Canada to insist on quick delivery for 11 year old program.
Would make excellent replacement for Canada's KC130 as well.


----------



## YZT580

One of the issues concerning SAR aircraft has always been manoeuverability.  Is there enough information on the Embraer to know how it will perform in close areas such as the west coast valleys?  The aircraft seems to measure up or be superior in other aspects including speed, endurance and carrying capability and with that wing short field performance shouldn't be a problem either.


----------



## kev994

Turning radius is a direct measure of airspeed, so very little data is required. C-130 manoeuvres at 20 kts above power off stall speed for 45 degrees bank, or roughly 130-140 kias for example.


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:
			
		

> Turning radius is a direct measure of airspeed, so very little data is required. C-130 manoeuvres at 20 kts above power off stall speed for 45 degrees bank, or roughly 130-140 kias for example.



To be pedantic, turning radius is actually proportional to the square of the airspeed (faster = exponentially larger radius).

It is also inversely proportional to the tangent of the bank angle (greater bank, tighter circle).

radius =  velocity2 / gravity x tan(bank angle)


So aircraft B flying 10% faster than aircraft A, but with the same bank angle, will have a 21% larger turn radius.


----------



## YZT580

so function of stall speed.  How slow can it go


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I, for one, have a big problem with the Embraer KC-390, and it has nothing to do with the airplane itself or the fact that we don't make anything in that category of airplane ourselves, but why would the Government of Canada want to financially help the only direct competitor of Canada's sole and largest aircraft manufacturer?

I would hope we would not even entertain the idea of acquiring such aircraft (besides, it is a little bigger than a Herc. so if you want bigger, why not just go for an A-400?)


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I, for one, have a big problem with the Embraer KC-390, and it has nothing to do with the airplane itself or the fact that we don't make anything in that category of airplane ourselves, but why would the Government of Canada want to financially help the only direct competitor of Canada's sole and largest aircraft manufacturer?
> 
> I would hope we would not even entertain the idea of acquiring such aircraft (besides, it is a little bigger than a Herc. so if you want bigger, why not just go for an A-400?)



Probably for the same reason that the Government supported Air Canada purchasing a large portion of its short-medium range small jet fleet from Embraer (EJ170s & EJ190s) to ease the high tensions that had formed between Embraer and Bombardier in the late-90s and early-2000s?


----------



## Zoomie

YZT580 said:
			
		

> One of the issues concerning SAR aircraft has always been manoeuverability.


Is this something that the SOR addresses?  We're not looking for 1960's style SAR - yanking and banking while searching with the Mark-One eyeball is not the intent.  Good Ol' R2D2 will be peering down those hard-to-reach valleys with its electro-optical eyeball, while the platform safely flies overhead.   Mountain SAR is mostly done by Cormorant - the old Buff sits nice and pretty on the ramp at QQ.


----------



## quadrapiper

Ditch said:
			
		

> Is this something that the SOR addresses?  We're not looking for 1960's style SAR - yanking and banking while searching with the Mark-One eyeball is not the intent.  Good Ol' R2D2 will be peering down those hard-to-reach valleys with its electro-optical eyeball, while the platform safely flies overhead.   Mountain SAR is mostly done by Cormorant - the old Buff sits nice and pretty on the ramp at QQ.


Manoeuvrability of that calibre required to place parachutists in those same valleys?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to long ago i saw the buff and Cormorant working together in Howe Sound on a search, low and do a grid search.


----------



## ringo

Used RAF C130J's?
RAF to retire 10 of 24 C130J's, some websites indicate 10 short C130J's will go leaving 14 stretched models in service.
Would CAF be interested in 10 used Herc's for FWSAR program?


----------



## GAP

So.......based on past purchases, flying them home .....

2 will start on fire

6 of 8 will have to be reconditioned.....

hope the price is good.......


----------



## ringo

Liberal PM Chretien gave navy choice Upholders or nothing.


----------



## kev994

We can hope all we want but I suspect the operating costs, when compared with a twin, will still make a herc too expensive, even if the acquisition cost is substantially reduced.


----------



## ringo

Recondition at SPAR aerospace, some could be plumbed as tankers to replace KC130H's.
Reduce fleet types to C130Js & C17s.
Delivery almost immediate.

BTW Boeing still has one unsold C17 CAF should snap it up ASAP, must be money somewhere with all delays to other programs.


----------



## PuckChaser

ringo said:
			
		

> BTW Boeing still has one unsold C17 CAF should snap it up ASAP, must be money somewhere with all delays to other programs.



Haven't you heard? They're throwing money at the Navy, no one else gets any. The $500m for that white tail just got spent on a climate change slush fund for third world dictators.


----------



## ringo

And $$$ spent on refugees when they should be spending on Army Navy & Air Force, looks likes same old same old for CAF last on the list.


----------



## MilEME09

ringo said:
			
		

> And $$$ spent on refugees when they should be spending on Army Navy & Air Force, looks likes same old same old for CAF last on the list.



Well star wars comes out in a few weeks, its the 70's all over again


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ringo said:
			
		

> Recondition at SPAR aerospace, some could be plumbed as tankers to replace KC130H's.
> Reduce fleet types to C130Js & C17s.
> Delivery almost immediate.
> 
> BTW Boeing still has one unsold C17 CAF should snap it up ASAP, must be money somewhere with all delays to other programs.



Tell them the RCAF needs it to fly refugees to Canada and DART to countries impacted by climate change.


----------



## YZT580

That is actually a great idea.  If Trudeau was serious about the forms of assistance he is willing to provide the one piece of kit we will need is additional transport and providing global assistance is the only way to convince the latte crowd.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

How healthy is the Herc YFR of recent years?  Going down?  Treading water?


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well star wars comes out in a few weeks, its the 70's all over again



Is Soul Train coming back?  Please tell me Soul Train is coming back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXbP4JBf8To


----------



## Kirkhill

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Is Soul Train coming back?  Please tell me Soul Train is coming back.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXbP4JBf8To



Much preferred the 80s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQuZpp3G6ck


----------



## Zoomie

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How healthy is the Herc YFR of recent years?  Going down?  Treading water?


Dismal - most machines are heading to Cascade for parts.  The few we have per FWSAR squadron are being watched very carefully.  Not every day is a fly day.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Is there flyable hours left at the end of the year (would it help to have more tails)?


----------



## YZT580

The 390 has several advantages: range, speed and perhaps most of all, it is a new design not a re-working of 60's level technology as the other two are.  Perhaps the biggest disadvantage is in politics: Embraer is Bombardiers primary competition and giving a contract to the opposition has terrible optics


----------



## RaceAddict

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The 390 has several advantages: range, speed and perhaps most of all, it is a new design not a re-working of 60's level technology as the other two are.  Perhaps the biggest disadvantage is in politics: Embraer is Bombardiers primary competition and giving a contract to the opposition has terrible optics



That would be like the USAF buying their tanker from Airbus.  :


----------



## chuckt5

Maybe (if they decide the KC390 is right for us) some kind of agreement could be made where both Embraer and Bombardier end up both being happy. We buy some Embraer product, Brazil some Bombardier.

The ability of the 390 to get on scene faster OR to carry a helo opens some interesting possibilities! Not to mention is load carrying and arial refueling abilities.

I'm not a 390 fanboy, but a jet powered SAR asset sounds interesting. I'll leave it up to the experts to decide.


----------



## YZT580

chuckt5 said:
			
		

> I'm not a 390 fanboy, but a jet powered SAR asset sounds interesting. I'll leave it up to the experts to decide.


In a perfect world perhaps, but here you will leave it to the politicians


----------



## kev994

There is no point buying an AAR capability until we know if our next fighter will use a boom or drogue.


----------



## chuckt5

Makes sense.

More info:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rescue-required-canadas-searchandrescue-aircraft-program-03350/


----------



## CougarKing

Another update on Canada's SAR aircraft replacement program:

Air Recognition



> *Airbus DS and Provincial Aerospace join forces for Canada's SAR aircraft replacement program*
> 
> Today, following the submission of their proposal for Canada’s Fixed Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) replacement program; Airbus Defence and Space and Provincial Aerospace formally announced the establishment of AirPro SAR Services (AirPro), Airbus DS announced on Jan. 12, 2016.
> 
> Airbus DS and Provincial Aerospace join forces for Canada s SAR aircraft replacement program 640 001Airbus Defence and Space submitted its C295W aircraft for Canada's new SAR aircraft requirement
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bids in--no Embraer KC390?



> Jockeying underway for Canadian military search plane contract
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2446922/jockeying-underway-for-canadian-military-search-plane-contract/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ostrozac

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Bids in--no Embraer KC390?



Yeah, on the surface it looks like Embraer didn't get approval to submit a prototype aircraft. There was speculation that the SOR as written specified that the aircraft already be in service, but I haven't actually read the document.

As it stands with the choices being Airbus C-295, Alenia C-27, and Lockheed Martin C-130J, I know that my money's on Lockheed Martin. But we'll have to see how the dice roll.


----------



## Kirkhill

Guessing it won't be the C-27J.  For the same reason the S-92 beat out the EH-101.


----------



## YZT580

Too bad about the EMbraer.  IMHO it was the best out there, especially for a landmass the size of Canada.  Of the alternatives, I think I too would vote for the C130.  It has the best range of the three options and we already have the infrastructure in place to support it and the crews to man it and training is simplified.


----------



## kev994

C130 is going to be too expensive to be competitive IMHO.


----------



## MarkOttawa

YZT580; kev994: LockMart does seem rather a Canadian defence octopus--RCN section:

1) A/OPS:
http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/ca/news-events/strengthening-canadascapabilityinthearcticlockheedmartincanadaaw.html

2) CSC (very likely the CSI):
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/snac-nsps/prequalification-eng.html

3) On-going frigates' FELEX:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ca/news-events/lockheed-martin-canadamstcelebratesthemodernizationofthefirstfou.html

Big company puff-piece:
http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/content/dam/lockheed/data/canada/documents/CDR_Article.pdf

Then there's the F-35...
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/22809.3325.html

Though the Jerc, esp. with the transport capability, would be sweet for FWSAR--note this about transport, not said publicly since as far as I've seen:



> ...
> The origins of the FWSAR project began in the late 1990s, but it wasn't until September 2003 that it took on a higher profile when then chief of the defence staff Gen. Ray Henault announced it was the top equipment priority for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> That was followed by the commitment from the Liberal government in the spring of 2004 to fast-track the purchase. A competition would be held in September of that year, with the first of the 15 aircraft to be delivered sometime in 2006.
> 
> There were two top contenders. Alenia North America was offering the Canadian Forces the C-27J aircraft, while Airbus Military/KADS, through its CASA subsidiary, was intending to bid with its C-295.
> 
> Air force Col. Dave Burt, director of aerospace requirements, said at the time that search and rescue was the priority, adding that the service wanted "something that is smaller and (more) cost efficient than a Hercules _but still has some of the transport type qualities that a Hercules has_."..
> https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-278081197.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie

Spartan and to a limited degree the CASA both have transport capability.  Herc has too much wasted space IMO - Buff is cramped with the SAR load on board - a happy medium would be best.


----------



## YZT580

CASA has no range with any kind of a payload on board and it is 60 knots slower than Spartan.  For both of them, any response from YTR north would require a fuel stop before being able to effect any search pattern but at least the Spartan can carry a good load going there.


----------



## dapaterson

kev994 said:
			
		

> C130 is going to be too expensive to be competitive IMHO.



If it's acquire + operate, their advantage of a single fleet may push them ahead - fewer sims required; economy of scale in training, spares and repair & overhaul; greater fleet flexibility...


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If it's acquire + operate, their advantage of a single fleet may push them ahead - fewer sims required; economy of scale in training, spares and repair & overhaul; greater fleet flexibility...


Did the RFP describe selection criteria that would give points for these advantages?


----------



## RaceAddict

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If it's acquire + operate, their advantage of a single fleet may push them ahead - fewer sims required; economy of scale in training, spares and repair & overhaul; greater fleet flexibility...



Wasn't that one of the main selling points of the C-27J? The shared powerplants and avionics with the C-130J were supposed to make the Spartan the perfect complimentary aircraft for anyone that already had Hercs.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Yeah, on the surface it looks like Embraer didn't get approval to submit a prototype aircraft. There was speculation that the SOR as written specified that the aircraft already be in service, but I haven't actually read the document.



Plus, the fact that the company last July announced a two year delay in its certification probably didn't help any.


----------



## suffolkowner

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> Wasn't that one of the main selling points of the C-27J? The shared powerplants and avionics with the C-130J were supposed to make the Spartan the perfect complimentary aircraft for anyone that already had Hercs.



What is the performance benefit of a C-27 over the C-130?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the C-27's soft field performance is worse than the C-130's. Can anyone confirm that?
Did not the USAF rid themselves of the C-27 due to costs?
Does anyone know what the takeoff distances are? I pulled 2100ft for the C-27 and 3127 for the C-130 off the internet


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner:  there are 54 pages before this one addressing those very questions and many, many more.


----------



## Grizzly

It appears, according to the news this morning, that Lockheed Martin never submitted a bid, but Embraer did. Alenia and Airbus were the only other bidders. Looks like the C-130J is out, but the KC-390 is a go, along with the C-27J and CN-295. It's a bit of a surprise for a lot of people I'm sure.


----------



## RaceAddict

From a flightglobal.com article published last month:



> Canada has not mandated a certain number of aircraft, and will even accept mixed-fleet proposals. The government reportedly expects a contract award in 2016 and final delivery by 2023.
> 
> This puts the squeeze on Embraer, which expects to certify the KC-390 in 2017 with first deliveries in 2018. _“We don’t see any issue to comply with the delivery schedule,”_ the company says, while declining to reveal the quantity of aircraft offered.



Ok... but when, in the last decade or two, has _any_ large aircraft been delivered on time?


----------



## YZT580

We have waited almost two decades for new a/c.  If, and I emphasise the IF the 390 is a better match for our needs than I would suggest that waiting an extra period of time would be in our long-term best interests.


----------



## dimsum

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> From a flightglobal.com article published last month:
> 
> Ok... but when, in the last decade or two, has _any_ large aircraft been delivered on time?



C-17 comes to mind.


----------



## h3tacco

Dimsum said:
			
		

> C-17 comes to mind.



The C-17 had a troubled development and was nearly cancelled a number of times in the 1990s. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/12/business/pentagon-warns-mcdonnell-it-may-cancel-c-17-program.html

The Canadian purchase of the C-17 is pretty much the exact opposite of the KC-390. We bought the C-17 at the end of its production cycle, years after all developmental issues had been solved. If we buy the KC-390 it will be a purchase of a developmental aircraft at the start of its production. There are risks and benefits to both apporaches but if the goal is to replace an old fleet(s) quickly buying a developmental aircraft is not a good way to go.


----------



## YZT580

There are risks and benefits to both apporaches but if the goal is to replace an old fleet(s) quickly buying a developmental aircraft is not a good way to go.
[/quote]

I have been non-active since the turn of the century.  Renewing the SAR fleet was becoming a priority topic then. Unless our current fleet is actually grounded or arguably about to be grounded as unsafe a delay of even 24 months is totally acceptable.  A properly written contract would contain penalties if the aircraft were not delivered on time.  These penalties can be tailored around the refurbishing costs of our current aircraft (including replacing engines on the DH5 {Viking would be delighted to help]) so it is a no-lose proposition if and again I emphasize IF, the KC-390 best suits our needs. On paper it looks far superior: it has range, lift, loiter time before re-fueling, and the speed to actually get to there from here sometime before next week.  Handling, short field performance, cold weather capability and other task related criteria should but probably won't be the dominant factor.


----------



## h3tacco

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There are risks and benefits to both apporaches but if the goal is to replace an old fleet(s) quickly buying a developmental aircraft is not a good way to go.
> 
> 
> I have been non-active since the turn of the century.  Renewing the SAR fleet was becoming a priority topic then. Unless our current fleet is actually grounded or arguably about to be grounded as unsafe a delay of even 24 months is totally acceptable.  A properly written contract would contain penalties if the aircraft were not delivered on time.  These penalties can be tailored around the refurbishing costs of our current aircraft (including replacing engines on the DH5 {Viking would be delighted to help]) so it is a no-lose proposition if and again I emphasize IF, the KC-390 best suits our needs. On paper it looks far superior: it has range, lift, loiter time before re-fueling, and the speed to actually get to there from here sometime before next week.  Handling, short field performance, cold weather capability and other task related criteria should but probably won't be the dominant factor.



I have no opinion of which aircraft we should buy. However, buying a developmental aircraft from a yet  to be developed production line is riskier from both a technical and schedule point view. The question to those making the decision is whether the benefit is worth the risk.


----------



## RaceAddict

Dimsum said:
			
		

> C-17 comes to mind.



I was talking about the delivery of a brand new aircraft...

The C-17 was first ordered in 1985 with delivery scheduled for 1990. First _flight_ (not delivery) was in 1991 and introduction into service was 1995.


----------



## YZT580

and flight crews are unanimous that the end product justified the delays.  Its a good airplane.  Give the same timeline to Embraer and you have entry into service in 2018/19.  They have enough hours now to be able to give a reasonable guarantee of performance and Embraer is no rookie at bringing new aircraft to market.  If the product is good and affordable and is the best one out there to meet our requirements then wait.  I admit that there are a lot of if's in that statement but the competition are all 40 year old airframes that have been updated.  You might just as well sole source a contract to Viking to rebuild the buffalo or to bombardier to come up with a ramp for the Q400.  At least then the jobs would stay in Canada and goodness knows Toronto in particular could use the cash to try and make up for 15 years of liberal spending.


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT580 said:
			
		

> and flight crews are unanimous that the end product justified the delays.  Its a good airplane.  Give the same timeline to Embraer and you have entry into service in 2018/19.  They have enough hours now to be able to give a reasonable guarantee of performance and Embraer is no rookie at bringing new aircraft to market.  If the product is good and affordable and is the best one out there to meet our requirements then wait.  I admit that there are a lot of if's in that statement but the competition are all 40 year old airframes that have been updated.  You might just as well sole source a contract to Viking to rebuild the buffalo or to bombardier to come up with a ramp for the Q400.  At least then the jobs would stay in Canada and goodness knows Toronto in particular could use the cash to try and make up for 15 years of liberal spending.



You could make much the same argument for the Bombardier C-series...... Bombardier has a lot of experience building aircraft and bringing developmental craft on line.  And yet they seem to be struggling.


----------



## YZT580

Bombardier ran into difficulty trying to integrate new technology.  The 390 does not require cutting edge fabrication so, provided their pause is not because of any huge design flaws, it should be good to go as scheduled.  On another note though, assuming the purchase of one of the other two for a moment, what would be the best allocation of assets?  Should Comox and Trenton remain as primary centres or should the aircraft be stationed elsewhere?  Do you propose a purchase mix of say a fleet of medium helicopters for Comox and fix wing elsewhere?  What would be best for us?


----------



## Kirkhill

My view is that for the RCAF the primary focus of any aircraft, other than fighters and bombers (and I will include the LRPAs in the latter category) should be on transport.  Search and Rescue should be a secondary function on which the aircraft can be employed.

The SAR functionality of a modern transport aircraft is/could-be/should-be enhanced by greater capabilities in low level navigation and optics in all aircraft, unlike an old Dakota with someone hanging out the hatch spotting the ground.

I would opt for the C27 if it is truly half-a-herc.  If it isn't then I would have added more Hercs with good low-level, night navigation, eo/ir systems.   And added more Chinooks and/or Cormorants to the fleet.


----------



## YZT580

Agree with your comments re: transport Chris.  But if you are truly after that capability than only the C130 (in current production) and the 390 would suit.  Neither of the other two candidates have sufficient range to be considered an effective transport.  At full gross (25000 lb load) the Spartan can only manage 1100nm and change while the 295 needs refueling after on 700nm with 22000 lb of useful load.  Those are pathetic numbers for a country of our size.


----------



## Zoomie

Transporting cargo is a second line of tasking for SAR squadrons.  They don't really do it.  We have dedicated lift in the MAG community in the form of J-Hercs, C-17s, Airbus and Twotter.  It is very rare that a dedicated SAR squadron will get tasked by 1 CAD to transport cargo - let the trash hauler units take care of that.  The C-130 is overkill for SAR and really too big to be an effective platform in any sort of dynamic environment.


----------



## Good2Golf

> _Chris Pook:_
> I would opt for the C27 if it is truly half-a-herc.  If it isn't then I would have added more Hercs with good low-level, night navigation, eo/ir systems.   And added more Chinooks and/or Cormorants to the fleet.



...or a 390 since it's like 1/3 of a C-17...not so much to do the transport secondary role, but to carry everything that the SAR Techs will want to have on board. :nod:


----------



## quadrapiper

Ditch said:
			
		

> ...dynamic environment...


Messing about in fjords and among mountains in poor weather?


----------



## Zoomie

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Messing about in fjords and among mountains in poor weather?


That's a good example.  I've worked below cloud cover - at 500' doing a shore crawl in a Fjord.  There's no way a Herc could turn in that - can't see through clouds either.  

Here's my one main concern about the 390 - ok maybe I have a few:
1) Embrarer has a spotty serviceability record - Air Canada has excess of the jungle jet so that they have extras to fill in when the birds are broken; and
2) The 390 is a turbo-fan - it lacks the instantaneous power that a turbo-prop has.  It's thrust curve will limit the low end throttle response that is required down low and slow.

Admittedly my first concern is not anecdotal - in that I am basing it on previous maintenance woes.  My second concern is related to all turbo-fan aircraft - props are far superior when it comes to low speed acceleration and reaction.  This is based on experience - I've flown both.


----------



## kev994

One of the c130 sim instructors flies embraer for AC, he claims the throttle lag is not nearly as bad as it once was and should be a non-issue


----------



## Eye In The Sky

How often has it he flown the profiles being discussed though?


----------



## Zoomie

It's a matter of physics - not engine design.  Fighter aircraft use AB during their takeoff role to overcome the initial slow acceleration.  Turbo-prop acceleration is near instantaneous.

Some rather basics of flight - compare a Power Curve vice a Thrust Curve.  Turbo-props produce POWER, turbo-fans produce THRUST.  The thrust curve is slow at the start, but quickly gains on the power curve and exceeds it (hence why Jet aircraft are faster than prop).  That being said, the power curve shows an inverse relationship with a high side on the slow side (ie fast acceleration) and it slowly leveling off.

Jet engine (aka turbo-fans) generate THRUST through application of fuel into the burner cans of a turbine - if you want to go faster, you push up the throttles and the engine accelerates with fuel addition.  Turbo-props (Q-400, King Air, Hercules, Buffalo, etc) use constant speed propellers mated through a gear box to a turbine.  The turbine is usually spinning at full RPMs - it's just the pitch of the blades that is changed to increase/decrease speed.  As the pitch of the blades change, the drag-force of the blade will slow the turbine, which will prompt its fuel handler to add more fuel to keep the turbine spinning at the same speed.  Most turbo-prop aircraft use a combination of controls to select their performance in-flight - throttles and prop controls.  Some larger turbo-props (Hercules/Electra) don't control their prop RPMs, they just add HP/Torque/whatever and the airspeed increases.  **This is a very basic description of what is going on "under the hood" - purists please forgive me.

That all being said - when I'm "licking the bowl" of a mountain cirque, or close contouring a mountain ridge - I want/need instantaneous response.  Any sort of lag really won't cut it.

Can this be overcome by jet aircraft - absolutely.  Modern motors have FADEC engine controls - not fiddling with power setting, just slam the throttles full forward - this helps.  What else can be done is that the use of large drag devices and a spun up turbine combination can be used.  Basically conducting a "brake stand" with your expensive airplane.  Push up the throttles high enough that they are producing good thrust - put out your flaps, landing gear, speed brakes - something that can be retracted tout-suite.

Personally I think the 390 looks like a good contender - the old SAR dog method of searching is fading - EO/IR and friends like EITS will do all the grunt work while I fly orbits in the sky.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> the old SAR dog method of searching is fading - EO/IR and friends like EITS will do all the grunt work while I fly orbits in the sky.



That's the big reason I'm following this one along...having been in normal/stretch model Hercs, and been around aircraft like the CN-235, I'm interested what people thing will work that know stuff about SAR loads, mission profiles, etc.

I think airframes the size of the 235, etc are very small and have a hard time imagining them doing SAR in Canada.


----------



## YZT580

There is a reason why the use of the buffalos were confined to the west coast.  They are a niche aircraft operating in a specific environment.  SAR in every nation I have worked in has matched the aircraft to the airspace.  GB for instance is a small country: helicopters serve most of their needs admirably while the US coast guard deploys C130s.  They need the range and endurance that that platform supplies.  The 390 appears to be a good airplane for most of our needs.  The west coast may still need a Buffalo style asset or perhaps more cormorants.  We may also need to disperse our assets to more adequately serve.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'll add a few 'wish list' items from a sensor view.

- EO/IR. HD, color EOW/EON cameras with continuous-zoom for all 3.
- RADAR.  Would be swept up to have something that does LRCS/low-freeboard/low vis, interleaved SART for maritime, SAR (landspot/stripmap) for overland.
- DMS.  Falconview/GoogleEarth Imagery capable moving map overlays.  Obviously, you'd want to ability to fuse all data onto your display.  Once console for the operator, displays similar to B3 or heck, the P-8 to view 'everything at once'.  

Any reason the big honkin' searchlight like the Argus had couldn't be added, even as a retractable one on the belly?


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll add a few 'wish list' items from a sensor view.
> 
> - EO/IR. HD, color EOW/EON cameras with continuous-zoom for all 3.
> - RADAR.  Would be swept up to have something that does LRCS/low-freeboard/low vis, interleaved SART for maritime, SAR (landspot/stripmap) for overland.
> - DMS.  Falconview/GoogleEarth Imagery capable moving map overlays.  Obviously, you'd want to ability to fuse all data onto your display.  Once console for the operator, displays similar to B3 or heck, the P-8 to view 'everything at once'.
> 
> Any reason the big honkin' searchlight like the Argus had couldn't be added, even as a retractable one on the belly?



Isn't that putting you into the realm of this aircraft?



> The MC-130J includes: advanced two-pilot flight station with fully integrated digital avionics; fully populated Combat Systems Operator (CSO) and auxiliary flight deck stations; 13 color multifunctional liquid crystal displays; head-up displays; fully integrated navigation systems with dual inertial navigation system and global positioning system; integrated defensive systems; low-power color radar; digital moving map display; new turboprop engines with six-bladed, all-composite propellers; digital auto pilot; improved fuel, environmental and ice-protection systems; enhanced cargo-handling system; Universal Air Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI), air refueling pods, Electro Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) System; dual SATCOM for voice/data; 60/90 KVA generators; increased DC electrical output, loadmaster/scanner restraint system; and LAIRCM provisions.



With the added benefits of retaining transport capability, additional inflight refuelling to extend the range/endurance of Cormorants/Chinooks and an Air-to-Ground strike capability.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

13 displays...may be a few too many.   ;D   And minus the LAIRCM too.  

I'd like to see more specs on the 'low power' RADAR;  todays RADARs don't need to be able to fry seagulls from 100m, but I'd personally like something that can detect/track out to 200nm (large contacts...group 3 size).  Weather mode...yup, chuck that in.

Add AIS, its a nice to have and great for SA.

As for it being a '130...I haven't worked or been on a SAR mission except on the Aurora, so I don't know enough to comment;  Ditch has previously mentioned a Herc means wasted space.  Me, I am a fan of 4 fans turning when I'm feet wet and far from home.  You can always loiter to extend your ONSTA/PLE when you have 4, not so much when you only have 2.  Something like an Atlantique has great endurance with 2 engines, but is slower getting ONSTA.

Gadgets like EO/IR and RADAR can certainly aide in a search, but if you are looking for a person in the water in a poopy-suit at night...well that's why I asked about a big ol searchlight that could be extended/retracted (if not on the wing like the Argus or Nimrod), because times like that I'd personally like to have spotters able to see like its daytime around them and it would help the EO dude/dudette pick out the orange stuff in the water at night.  A PIW is hard to see in the water at night with IR (my experience, at least).

Ideally, I'd put two Sensor folks on the crew with that gear, and have 2 stations that were fully capable of employing the entire sensor suite.  If you have one station and that WSC or display goes down mid-mission, you're SOL.  If both were up and running, the workload would be better managed IMO.

 :2c:

_However_, after saying all that, and with the reluctance of Canada to spend $$ on 'military stuff', and the way our MH replacement, fighter replacement, FWSAR replacement, CPF replacement...and the list goes on...procurement has gone, I've included a picture below of what might end up being the 'sensor suite' on the Unicorn new platform if/when it is actually delivered...







 ^-^


----------



## Loachman

A searchlight would be great for picking up reflective items even better than orange ones. Nite Sun was marvellous when looking for a-holes trying to hid in bushes when I was doing police helicopter work. They always wore running shoes with small reflective areas, and always left their feet sticking out. Thirty million candlepower just loved it.


----------



## Zoomie

We use LUU-2B flares.  Lights up the entire area for 5 mins at a time.


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> A searchlight would be great for picking up reflective items even better than orange ones. Nite Sun was marvellous when looking for a-holes trying to hid in bushes when I was doing police helicopter work. They always wore running shoes with small reflective areas, and always left their feet sticking out. Thirty million candlepower just loved it.



Thirty million candlepower.......AH!  Memories of the Leo C1 A1.   [


----------



## Baz

Ditch said:
			
		

> We use LUU-2B flares.  Lights up the entire area for 5 mins at a time.



The first night of Swissair 111 was spooky.  I don't know how many LUU-2Bs the Herc dropped, but I could read my log in the back without turning up any lights.  Of course, I didn't have old man eyes back then...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Loachman said:
			
		

> A searchlight would be great for picking up reflective items even better than orange ones. Nite Sun was marvellous when looking for a-holes trying to hid in bushes when I was doing police helicopter work. They always wore running shoes with small reflective areas, and always left their feet sticking out. Thirty million candlepower just loved it.



Not to mention, for fun, if the SAR crew comes upon a submarine on the surface by chance, you go at them and turn the light on at the last moment: It still scares the living "daylight" out of them even today.

Bonus  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> We use LUU-2B flares.  Lights up the entire area for 5 mins at a time.



Part of our SAR load as well, BUT I'd like to have the searchlight as well myself...hard to keep a LUU moving along as 200kts.  Less to worry about if fuel on the surface is a concern.  Nice to have options...

The Argus had a 70 million candlelight power searchlight.  I never saw it but Dad said it literally was the difference between night and day.   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loachman said:
			
		

> A searchlight would be great for picking up reflective items even better than orange ones. Nite Sun was marvellous when looking for a-holes trying to hid in bushes when I was doing police helicopter work. They always wore running shoes with small reflective areas, and always left their feet sticking out. Thirty million candlepower just loved it.



We had 2 on the SRN 6 hovercraft, in fact we rented them out to the movies, you know when you see the "UFO" light beam from the sky in X files, that was one of our Night Suns on a tall crane.  8)


----------



## Blackadder1916

Happened upon an episode of "Mighty Planes"* on Discovery Channel that profiled the Buffalo.  While it is mostly (like the majority of episodes of the series) a puff piece extolling the wonderfulness of the aircraft and crew (doesn't touch at all on possible replacement project), it may be interesting to some of the participants of this thread to see how much SAR gear is packed into the back and what a typical mission profile may entail.  Since the last time I flew in a Buff was the late 1980s (as pax between Ottawa and Andrews AFB when it replaced the Cosmo on that scheduled run), it did remind me that it doesn't take much to fill it up.

One feature that I did notice and that was specifically mentioned was the Buff's STOL capability. During one of the exercises that served as the background to the story the a/c was required to land at Gilles Bay (?) along with a Cormorant to transfer (mock) casualties and SAR Techs.  How important is STOL (equivalent to the CC-115) in the SAR mission - particularly on the West Coast, and do the potential replacements have a STOL capability that matches the Buffalo or at least is adequate to the requirement?


*_The episode may not be available for viewing from Discovery Channel's website, I wasn't able to - had to watch it the old fashioned way, on a TV according to their schedule._


----------



## YZT580

I have always loved DH products going all the way back to the chipmunk.  The buffalos are unique and there is nothing on the market short of rotary wing or vstol that can match them.  Do we need their performance characteristics?  SAR experts from BC could answer that better than I can but you wouldn't want a complete fleet based on the Buf, much as I wish otherwise.  It is too slow and does not have sufficient range.  If I had been Lockheed I would have bid a fleet of c130's for the major part of the country and arranged a sub-contract with Viking to zero time the bufs (something they can easily do and have been doing for the twin otter and beavers for years) complete with new engines and avionics to cover the west coast. But that isn't going to happen.  Whatever we decide on will not be able to compete in the mountains with the current aircraft.  Do we need it?  We will have to rely on the cormorants instead I guess so there will have to be a mixed fleet on the west coast.


----------



## Zoomie

I can't quote a SAR mission to you that required any sort of STOL capabilities.  Plenty of short/soft field - but any military grade transport can do that.  We practiced doing STOL all the time in the Buff - it was fun to land in 400'.


----------



## kev994

Most short fields don't have de-ice and don't have a lot of spare fuel. I'd rather have the legs to use a bigger field with more appropriate services.


----------



## Zoomie

Most short fields (I'm talking 1500-2500') don't have instrument approaches - so the lack of de-ice capability is moot.  I've landed on grass strips to do a patient transfer from a medevac helicopter to FWSAR for transport to Vancouver for higher medical care following a plane crash two mountain valleys over.  Retaining this type of ability is a good idea - I'm pretty even the fat Hercules can manage that sort of performance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

But can a Herc do this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1GUTtCiTmg


----------



## MilEME09

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But can a Herc do this?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1GUTtCiTmg



sure it can

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOvoO-6nWQ


----------



## Kirkhill

or this

https://youtu.be/BjNyQvhsQE8


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> sure it can
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOvoO-6nWQ



True. True. But if you do that in the bush, I think the Forest Fire Service may not appreciate having to send a water bomber to clean up behind you  ;D.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> or this
> 
> https://youtu.be/BjNyQvhsQE8



I am pretty sure you know Chris, that the Forestal is a little more than two football fields long, so it doesn't beat a single Baseball diamond. You also know that the Forestal was going 36 Kts into the wind, giving the landing and takeoff more than a 45 Kts advantage at the time. At that rate, I think a Buffalo can almost make a vertical landing and take-off  :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser

Why CAF procurement is a joke:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/02/03/bids-for-new-military-search-planes-needed-moving-vans-to-be-delivered-2/#.VrKX8tCgWjx



> Bids for new military search planes needed moving vans to be delivered
> 
> By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press — Feb 3 2016
> 
> OTTAWA — At least two of the companies bidding to provide Canada's long-delayed, new fixed-wing search planes had to rent moving vans to submit the tonnes of paperwork required by the bureaucrats evaluating the project.
> 
> Critics and analysts say it's a sign of how "obscenely complicated" and risk-adverse military procurement has become, despite promises by both the Liberals and Conservatives to fix the system.
> 
> The bid from Alenia Aermacchi North America weighed some 2,700 kilograms, while Airbus Defence and Space used a U-Haul van to deliver 1,500 kilograms of documents to Public Services and Procurement Canada on Jan. 11.
> 
> It's not known how big the pitch was from Embraer, the Brazilian aerospace firm that appeared to wait until the last minute to enter the race to join the $3.1-billion program.
> 
> In total, almost 100,000 pages were submitted for all of the bids.
> 
> The federal government was asking not only what kind of planes were available, but also solicited recommendations on how many planes were needed and where to station them, among other things.
> 
> Even so, former defence procurement boss Alan Williams — who oversaw the first attempt to buy the planes a decade ago — called it jaw-dropping that contractors were required to submit all that paper.
> 
> "I have no idea why anything, any kind of process, would result in that kind of paperwork," Williams said in an interview.
> 
> "I find it absolutely perverse."
> 
> Williams said he's astounded because search planes are neither jetfighters nor complex warships, both of which have countless systems and moving parts. The aircraft in the competition have flown and have a service history that is well-known.



I'm sure PSPC also has a total of 2 people assigned to read all those bid documents and evaluate, as well. FWSAR program to be delivered FOC sometime in 2045....


----------



## Quirky

The companies making these bids should come together and agree not to sell anything to Canada, just because of all the non sense. The government needs to pull their heads out of their asses. 

If it takes this long to pick a relatively simple SAR aircraft I don't want to see what the fighter replacement competition will be like. Lockheed and Boeing should tell Canada to fuck off, its not worth their time to prepare hundreds of thousands of pages for a measely 60-65 jets.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Even so, *former defence procurement boss Alan Williams* — who oversaw the first attempt to buy the planes a decade ago — called it jaw-dropping that contractors were required to submit all that paper.
> 
> "*I have no idea why anything, any kind of process, would result in that kind of paperwork," Williams said* in an interview.
> 
> "I find it absolutely perverse."



Really?


----------



## Journeyman

Quirky said:
			
		

> .....I don't want to see what the fighter replacement competition will be like.


Ah, but the RCAF is run by the fighter mafia, that's why CF-18 replacement is a priority and FWSAR and MH fall below badges and leather jackets.   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The current Comd RCAF is a AirNav who flew on Herc's and as an EWO on T-33s and CE-144s.  Also, the Comd of 2 Cdn Air Div is also a Herc Air Nav by roots.  Not sure who is taking over 1 Cdn Air Div, but maybe the fighter mafia is being flanked.   8)


----------



## Kirkhill

In related news:



> Maybe Coderre was right:* The National Energy Board wants TransCanada to rework its application for the Energy East pipeline because the document is too hard to understand *— even for experts. In a letter to TransCanada the NEB said it’s not requesting a whole new application but wants the information repackaged so they can make sense of it. *The original 2014 filing was 30,000 pages long — filling 68 binders in 11 boxes *— and the NEB says it’s since become even more complicated.



Trailer loads of paper do not equal informed decisions.  

And, unfortunately, piling departmental SMEs on top of each other, does nothing to improve the decision making process.

A friend of mine, in industry, once described the requirements for making a pitch in his company - 1 page, double-spaced, 14 pt.

The decision was made on that basis.  The company was owned an operated by a guy that grew one of the world's major conglomerates in less than 20 years starting from scratch.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No, trailer loads of paper do not equal informed decisions. But neither do they entail that the submitted material is complex or unintelligible. However, since the NEB itself wants it re-submitted because they can't make sense of it in the present case, we can assume that it is unintelligible. And the combination of massive submissions with non intelligibility is usually a good sign that the person making the submission is either incompetent or has something to hide.

On the other hand, Chris, you cannot compare your friend who works for Lord Branson at Virgin (wild guess on my part here) pitching a new idea internally with the requirements for an application for a permit made to an independent government board charged with application of a complex technical act.

That does not mean that the application must be complex, even if extensive.

I have worked on such applications before and, while they were in the hundred of thousand of pages, the actual submission was all in the first 400 to 500 page binder. The rest is the supporting documentation. 

In one such case, to give you an idea on a single aspect, we had to demonstrate the reliability and environmental quality of large transformers during the preceding permit period (10 years) and that their inspections were made in accordance with the regulation. There were about 100 such transformers, each inspected annually, and with a 5 pages inspection report for each. That aspect of the submission alone thus included about 5 thousand pages. And that is just one aspect.

However, the actual reference to this in the application binder only needed ten pages. It listed in a table all one hundred transformers and indicated where you could find their inspection reports for each year in the supporting docs, followed by  a table of the 17 environmental incidents (PCB oil leaks) that had been found, listing the transformers affected, referring to the specific location in the supporting docs where the "failed" inspection reports, the related Incident Report to authorities and the Certificate from the Environment Department confirming that the remedial work had been carried out to their satisfaction could be found.  

So, I am not surprised at a 30,000 pages submission for an oil pipeline going from Alberta to Saint John (I suspect just the plans of the location of the right of ways and the proof of obtention of all the easements and "droits de passage" would be in the tens of thousand of pages). That the NEB can't make heads or tails of it however, that is surprising. You would think that TC pipelines would know how to make a proper submission.

/Digression off

Mods, since the Canada East pipeline is going to be with us for a while (NEB decision not expected before 2018) and will certainly raise issues (and political clashes :nod along the way, perhaps a new thread in the Canadian Politics category?


----------



## Kirkhill

Wrong answer on Branson 

And I do understand the difference between supporting docs and an executive summary.


----------



## Edward Campbell

In at least a few of the great big projects (tens of thousands of pages of documents, etc) with which I had some involvement, the process was, really, fairly simple:

     The 25,000 pages were, in fact, in, say, 125 discrete "packages," each dealing with some specific part of the specification and each between 50 and 500 pages long. Each package went to a 'team,' sometimes just one guy, often three
     or four people. In no time at all each team had digested its "package" and produced its own one or two page summary: basically "Yes," or "No, because ...." Those 125 summaries went to the Project Manager who sorted them and produced
     his own very short summary which went up the chain to the ADM, etc. At the very top, ministers, it was a single page brief. But someone, experts, read all 25,000 pages.

We, the big _we_ which includes DND and PWGSC and Industry Canada and, and, and everyone and his brother including the Commissioner of Official Languages, asked all the questions and insisted upon the detailed answers, so the 25,000 pages was a "self inflicted wound," but it was, really, 100+ tiny little flesh wounds that are taken by 100+ directorates and branches and agencies and the PMO, itself, so we expected the truckloads of paper and we knew how to handle them.


----------



## Good2Golf

> _From: Eye in the Sky_
> Not sure who is taking over 1 Cdn Air Div, but maybe the fighter mafia is being flanked.



The  CANFORGEN message listed MGen Drouin, a Tactical and Special Operations helicopter pilot, as the next Commander of 1 CAD, so perhaps the fighter boys' club has seen its halcyon days?

No matter, the only thing remotely " Defence-ish" about defence procurement is the lower-case "d" in defence.  Operational requirements may make the "Top 5" list on a good day, but it's about Canadian industry and how it will be strengthened/reinforced/established.

Remember, Mr. Williams, who in Washington DC in 2002 was the guy who physically signed the very first MOU committing Canada as a participant in the JSF Program, is the guy who tell us that Canada's (him, actually!) signing the MOU was for Canada's aerospace industry, and in no way committed Canada to actually buying the jets... :


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Let me put this in perspective, i worked on the site C review process, the paperwork including the Environmental Impact Studies, various studies on particular issues like dam design,ice, caribou, raptors, economics, archaeology  downstream hydrology, seismic stability ran about 60,000 pages. this is for a dam creating a 83km reservoir, downstream effects way into Alberta and with a life of roughly 200 years.

So please tell me why a buy of 5-8 planes lasting 40 years at best needs more paperwork for review than the above?


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin 

My original disgust pertaining to the paperwork was threefold:

First the source of the utterance -  Alan Williams is something other than a credible critic, for the reasons that G2G alludes to.

Second the utterance - If he is surprised by the amount of paperwork that all of these silly bugger requests generate, then it would seem unlikely that he ever had a plan for managing the responses to the requests.  And therein lies the ultimate problem with all these government projects.  Too many of the managers have little to no understanding of what they are asking or how to interpret the responses.  Thus you have "shovel ready projects" that never put a shovel to dirt, you have projects where the entire budget is spent on administration when the same amount of cash could easily have actually built something, and you have 20 year delays in acquiring ships, planes and trucks.

Third the alternative - Supporting documents are just that. They are supporting documents.  Too often they are used as cover for people unwilling to take decisions.  Ask a few more questions and the promotion board will take this cup from their hands.

I alluded to the difference in a responsive organisation positioned to take advantage of opportunities:  The boss did not expect to see all the supporting documents.  He expected that his staff had done their homework and they offered a clear, single page summary of the opportunity, the costs and the risks.  

Not every factoid that went into that summary was recorded for posterity.  Many times a lot of the information came from -what shall we call it? Transient Intelligence? - ideas picked up in conversation, mulled over with cup of coffee or a pint of beer and never committed to paper.  I'm sure it left the accountants and the lawyers frustrated that the paper trail was incomplete but the process itself was speedy, responsive and I believe very thorough as people in various departments argued their corners informally.

And if I read the tea leaves on the new government and its decision making process and gurus the love of process is only going to increase.



> During the October election, Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister’s principal secretary, took a pause in the campaign to tweet a picture of a book on forecasting the future that he was buying at *McGill University*.
> 
> Mr. Butts has now hired one of the authors of that book to help the Prime Minister’s Office make better decisions.
> 
> “We had good long discussions about my book, about decision making,” said Dan Gardner, a former Ottawa Citizen columnist and, until yesterday, the editor of Policy Options. “I have to say, I’m really impressed with Gerry’s own capacity for self-examination, self-criticism. He’s a very astute and informed thinker.”
> 
> Mr. Gardner will not be working directly out of Langevin Block, where the rest of the Prime Minister’s Office toils, but he said he expects to be “on call” when they need an external point of view to clear their heads.
> 
> “I’m going to bring, I hope, a critical perspective, where I look at the work that’s going on, the decision-making that’s going on, and I try to apply exactly the things which I talk about in Superforecasting and my other books.”
> 
> Mr. Gardner is the author of three books that look at how to evaluate risk and what clouds the thinking and predictions of experts.
> 
> “If there’s one theme to all three books, and all of the work that I do, it’s that good decision-making requires vastly more self-criticism and self-awareness than people typically deliver,” he said.
> 
> Between resettling thousands of Syrian refugees in a short period of time to climate change policies, Mr. Gardner said he expects there will be no end to the difficult decisions facing the Liberals in the early days.
> 
> “I think it’s fair to say this is a very ambitious government.”


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-hires-adviser-to-help-him-make-better-decisions/article28549451/



> The Trudeau Liberals are determined to make no rash decision, to subject every important choice to rigorous critical tests — which is good, surely. But there’s a dawning political question: At what point does Solomonic mulling begin to look like dithering?
> 
> ....
> 
> It is no secret the Liberal leadership team has long believed that among Stephen Harper’s chief managerial failings was the reactiveness of his office. It’s actually a problem that extends back well beyond Harper. Decisions that get made quickly, based on gut instinct or headlines or the need to put out the political fire of the moment, can often be quite bad decisions. The Mike Duffy Senate mess stemmed from a series of such decisions. *As part of an effort to make its decision-making more rigorous, the PMO this week announced it has recruited Dan Gardner, a co-author with Philip Tetlock of the 2015 non-fiction book Superforecasting, to serve as a consultant.*
> 
> *Superforecasting is a marvelous book,* as much a manual for leadership as it is an exploration of political and economic soothsaying. *Among its central tenets is that gut feeling, or “tip of the nose” judgment, should never be a substitute for rigorous analysis, open-mindedness and critical thinking. It urges decision makers to subject their pending choices to a battery of systemic practices, including contrary opinion and uncertainty, to prevent their taking disastrous wrong turns* such as, to name one example, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
> 
> *But as the book’s authors point out in chapter 10, The Leader’s Dilemma, “leaders can’t ruminate endlessly. They need to size up the situation, make a decision, and move on.” How to prevent decision paralysis? The authors posit a solution which, boiled down, is to delegate.* The leader sets an objective, based on an overarching vision. His or her subordinates, subject-area experts, determine the best way to achieve that end. Sounds like Trudeau’s government-by-cabinet.
> 
> ...



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/michael-den-tandt-wishy-washy-trudeau-risks-getting-stuck-with-the-mr-dithers-tag

I am reminded of a Harvard Business Review article of the difference between Soldiers and Marines in the US vs Air Force and the Navy.  The latter were particularly rigorous in their adherence to process, which suited them well to working within large, established companies.  The former were used to making decisions based on only having, at best 70% of the situation clear before them.  They would then act and make another 70% decision based on the revised situation.

Process is necessary, and has its merits, but not if it just used as an excuse to defer decisions indefinitely out of fear of the unknown.  Somewhere along the line it is necessary to commit to a course of action and then just manage the situation as it evolves.

Or putting it another way:  Comes the time you have to roll the dice.

And I don't get any sense of dice rollers here. 

"*McGill's political family*

Gerald Butts is one of Trudeau's most influential advisors and also a close friend. The two first met when they were students at McGill University in Montreal.

But the Liberal McGill network extends far beyond that.

Three downtown Toronto Liberal MPs were also part of the 1994 graduating class with Trudeau.

Arif Virani, Parkdale-High Park, lived one floor up from Butts in the same dorm. Julie Dabrusin, Toronto-Danforth, didn't know the Butts-Trudeau gang at McGill but got to know Virani when they both studied law at U of T. Julie Dzerowicz, MP for Davenport, also graduated in 1994. Also part of that 1994 gang: York Centre MP Michael Levitt (though he was a '93 grad).

Overall, 25 MPs are McGill grads and 21 of them are Liberals, including cabinet ministers John McCallum, Jim Carr and Catherine McKenna.

On the opposition benches, McGill grads include NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and former Conservative minister Steven Blaney."

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/29/cracking-down-on-hecklers-and-the-liberal-mcgill-mafia-a-week-on-the-hill


----------



## Colin Parkinson

we are on the same page (singular) on this one. I left my job for a bit, they had someone replace me, when I returned the files and their organization was a thing of beauty, until I found a rather thick folder labelled "for decision" The guy somehow avoided having to make a decision on the files for quite sometime, sigh. that being said, it seems most of the legal challenges against the government are not so much on what it decides, but on the process to get there. I am afraid C.D. Howe would not do so well in this day and age. for defense related companies I would like to that if the tribunal rules that their appeals are frivolous in nature they are fined a significant penalty, that would leave the door open for real grievances but stop the whiny "i didn't get picked" current problems


----------



## ringo

Canada operates 6 buffalo's and C-130 in SAR? are 5 of the C-130 also tasked as tankers?


----------



## Zoomie

6 Buffs are located in Comox - they manage to barely maintain one line of tasking (FWSAR standby).

Winnipeg, Trenton and Greenwood have the other FWSAR assets - namely CC-130H Hercules.  Each squadron will have roughly 2-3 Hercs each.  Winnipeg has CC-130H that are plumbed for AAR - they maintain this role along with a SAR role (ie two separate machines holding each task).


----------



## ringo

Thanks for reply, so is there any requirement that some of the new FWSAR aircraft to be tanker capable or will Herc tanker's retire without replacement?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ditch said:
			
		

> 6 Buffs are located in Comox - they manage to barely maintain one line of tasking (FWSAR standby).
> 
> Winnipeg, Trenton and Greenwood have the other FWSAR assets - namely CC-130H Hercules.  Each squadron will have roughly 2-3 Hercs each.  Winnipeg has CC-130H that are plumbed for AAR - they maintain this role along with a SAR role (ie two separate machines holding each task).



What's the main bottleneck for the buffs being serviceable?


----------



## dapaterson

I would guess parts availability.  But eqpt readiness info is classified so no one who knows should be posting details.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Opsec for SAR assets bespeaks of covering up the embarrassing failures of those who command and lead at the top, for combat resources I can see OPSEC.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Article from Frontline Defence magazine on FWSAR bids (and its appears the Embraer KC-390 is a player):

http://defence.frontline.online/article/2016/1/4086-%22Bids-In%22-for-FWSAR%21%21


----------



## SupersonicMax

Finally, we may see this project come to term... Only 13 years later!


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Finally, we may see this project come to term... Only 13 years later!



13 years?  Pffft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sea_King_replacement

 >


----------



## CougarKing

C27J pitched:

Air Recognition



> *Leonardo promotes its C-27J for Canada's Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Program*
> 
> Leonardo and the Team Spartan, offering the C-27J for the Canadian Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Program, are promoting its Canadian-led and Canadian-supported industry partners during Canada’s global defence and security trade show, CANSEC, May 25-26, 2016 in both the DRS Technologies Canada stand and the General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada stand.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Airbus C295W road show!


> After the successful C295W tour through Latin America last year, Airbus Defence and Space has now taken C295W on tour through North America, in collaboration with the Mexican Air Force. From 18-29 June it will expose the C295W to the region´s diverse weather conditions to demonstrate again its robustness, reliability and its versatility ...


Stopping in Thunder Bay this week!


> ... The C295W and invited passengers and delegates will fly to Pickle Lake and Kasabonika where the aircraft will demonstrate its short takeoff and landing capabilities.


Attached is Airbus Info-machine photo of the 295 in Resolute.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I love this part of the Thunder Bay news report:

"_The tour will expose the C295W to Canada’s diverse and extreme weather conditions and terrain. With stops in cities such as Saskatoon, Yellowknife, Winnipeg, and Thunder Bay, and landing in more remote communities like Resolute Bay, Churchill, Pickle Lake, and Kasabonika, the tour will demonstrate the robustness, reliability and versatility of the C295W which make it perfectly suited for operations in Canada’s challenging environments._"

How about you come back to those communities in mid-February, as an exposure test to our "extreme weather conditions"? Mid-June just doesn't cut it for me, sorry!


----------



## YZT580

They are demonstrating its capabilities in high, hot conditions as per the Airbus publicity clip.  I guess that is why they are going to Churchill.  High latitude, high altitude, same thing.


----------



## Journeyman

Post deleted because, as mentioned below, it was right over my head -- must have been the altitude at this latitude.   :facepalm:


----------



## Loachman

Your sarcasm-detector's circuit breaker seems to have popped and needs a reset.


----------



## kev994

Pickle Lake is almost 5000 feet, that's not short at all. Kasabonika is 3520, pretty short but nothing to write home about, I've used a 3500 foot runway with a CC130H, though it limits the weight.


----------



## YZT580

was it British airways who landed a B707 in Cartierville with only 4000 available?  If I remember correctly the captain had to pay for his own flight home


----------



## Good2Golf

It was an Air Canada DC-9.  They had to strip the seats and interior out, and fly min fuel the additional five miles to Dorval that the pilot should have flown the first time.  Although, in fairness, for those who have flown around the Island back in the day, Cartierville certainly looked a lot like Dorval and it was almost perfectly lined up with a similar runway configuration.  In fact, if you had the LOC-only ILS dialed in for YUL RWY 24, the needle would be well within the on-course indication if you were back East of Laval...


----------



## captloadie

For those who are in the Trenton area and want to get a close up glimpse, the aircraft will be at the Quinte International Airshow all weekend as a static aircraft put on by the Mexican Air Force (and apparently not a as a sales pitch).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To his discharge, however, it is important to note that he was probably not familiar with that approach.

The 10-28 runway at Dorval (Cartierville's sole runway was also a 10-28) is the shortest of three runways and goes across the other two (06-24 left and Right), so it is seldom used except for smaller planes when the weather prevents use of the two main ones or after hours at night for small prop planes authorized to land to go to the private operators terminals on the south east corner of the airport.

So the pilot may not have been familiar with that approach and found an airport in his path about where he expected it (though a little earlier than expected) with a runway that lined up exactly with the expected lay of the land.  :nod:

Of course, no possible confusion nowadays: Nobody would attempt to land on condos rooftops  ;D.

One of the main reasons for Canadair/Bombardier moving the CL-215/415 production and testing to Mirabel was actually that it was getting very hard to coordinate test flights with Dorval. The Cartierville 28 glide path interfered with the two main glide path to Dorval when (almost all the time) using the two 24 runways.


----------



## Good2Golf

OGBD, precisely.  I meant to say 28 in my last post, vice 24.  You're right, with modern day avionics/flight management systems, you like wouldn't have it ever happen.  Having done approaches to Cartierville myself, I can absolutely see how it could happen back in the day, and it wouldn't even have to be poor weather to make that mistake. :nod:

Might be worthe a visit to Quinte to see the show overall, and the 295W specifically.  Quinte is always a good Airshow.

G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Apparently pilots aviators have landed at the wrong place before.... "you mean this _isn't_  my carrier?"   ;D










			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Quinte is always a good Airshow.


  :nod:
Currently herding cats, trying to agree an RV, departure time, which parking lot.....

Of course, QIAS is also going to have a F-22 Raptor; expect a spike in "_that's_  what we should get for our new fighter;  I know because I've seen one now."


/tangent


----------



## Harrigan

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I love this part of the Thunder Bay news report:
> 
> "_The tour will expose the C295W to Canada’s diverse and extreme weather conditions and terrain. With stops in cities such as Saskatoon, Yellowknife, Winnipeg, and Thunder Bay, and landing in more remote communities like Resolute Bay, Churchill, Pickle Lake, and Kasabonika, the tour will demonstrate the robustness, reliability and versatility of the C295W which make it perfectly suited for operations in Canada’s challenging environments._"
> 
> How about you come back to those communities in mid-February, as an exposure test to our "extreme weather conditions"? Mid-June just doesn't cut it for me, sorry!



Kasabonika is an interesting choice, clearly done to demonstrate its suitability to access the "standard" remote community airstrip in the north (and yes, Kasabonika may not be far north in latitude, but it is north in remoteness).  

Airbus normally does cold-weather testing in Iqaluit. Anyone know if the C295 was tested there when it was in the development stage?

Harrigan


----------



## kev994

I know that my buddy flew the 235 and although it was capable of all weather Ops, the anti-ice is electrical and drew so much power that you couldn't run the mission system, kinda defeats the purpose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What is this all about? https://twitter.com/PoliticsWatch/status/783711862508498944/photo/1


----------



## kev994

Colin P said:
			
		

> What is this all about? https://twitter.com/PoliticsWatch/status/783711862508498944/photo/1


Appears to be one of the scenarios in the RFP. IIRC the requirements had scenarios that the proposed solutions would have to meet, AFAIK one of those scenarios was to fly to the edge of the SRR in the Atlantic, conduct a search, and recover in the U.K.  (It's closer)


----------



## Spencer100

I don't even want to say anything about this piece.  I'll just let you read it.
http://politicswatch.com/fwsar-oct192016.html


----------



## Journeyman

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I don't even want to say anything about this piece.  I'll just let you read it.
> http://politicswatch.com/fwsar-oct192016.html


"The Trudeau Liberals inherited this procurement file, known as the Fixed Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) program, from the Harper Conservatives.....
When the FWSAR program began back in the early 2000s.... "
     Gee, I could have sworn that the 2000 election was a majority win by Chrétien's Liberals.  Oh well, bad Harper Conservatives, bad!

Other than that blatant politicking, what's wrong with the article?


----------



## kev994

The article tries to imply that the spartan is a luxury aircraft based on the USAF saying that medium range lift capability is a luxury. That's not a logical argument, we're not buying it for that capability, though it is an alternative use for whatever aircraft wins.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From 2013:



> RCAF’s New Fixed-Wing SAR Plane: Slowly, Slowly
> 
> Nine years ago [2004] the Liberal government declared this project a major priority (see top right of second column here http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo6/no3/doc/commentary-commentair-eng.pdf )...
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/mark-collins-rcafs-new-fixed-wing-sar-plane-slowly-slowly/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I don't even want to say anything about this piece.  I'll just let you read it.
> http://politicswatch.com/fwsar-oct192016.html



When they wrote "New CH-149 Cormorant helicopters also came into service with several still unused remaining in storage to this today." I start to turn off; I guess they don't want facts to get in the way of a good story.

When they say (paraphrased) "Hey, keep those Herc-H models flying!" I start to ask "Gee, did IMP write this article?"  


Unsigned articles laden with opinion that's not sourced make Wikipedia look positively authoritative.


----------



## Kirkhill

kev994 said:
			
		

> The article tries to imply that the spartan is a luxury aircraft based on the USAF saying that medium range lift capability is a luxury. That's not a logical argument, we're not buying it for that capability, though it is an alternative use for whatever aircraft wins.



Nothing there about the US Army wanting to buy over a hundred Spartans because the US Air Force wasn't flying where the Army wanted to go, when the Army wanted to go.
(Kind of the same reasoning with the Navy and the JHSV now I think about it).

Nothing there about the US Air Force dragging the project to their side of the line then downsizing it, stomping on it and booting it out the inventory with the Coast Guard picking up a "freeby" orphan fleet that the supplier wouldn't/couldn't profitably support.

I wonder how many COTS ships and aircraft 6 BCAD in foreign aid could buy?

Edit:  How long before the "Cadillac" line is trouted out?  Or will it be "Lexus" because this is, after all, 2016?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well the luxury term is already out there, can't use "Cadillac" as it's tied to the Sea King fiasco, so Luxury will do.


----------



## kev994

Comox has been announced as the training center, I think this was widely expected but it's official now:
http://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/news/397851751.html?mobile=true
According to media reports, 19 Wing Comox has been named as the training facility for the new search and rescue fixed wing aircraft.

The announcement is the culmination of more than a year's work by a 12-person Comox Valley Economic Development Society team, which had been promoting the Comox site as the best of the four possible locations for the training centre.

The other locations being considered for the training centre were 17 Wing Winnipeg (Man.), 8 Wing Trenton (Ont.), and 14 Wing Greenwood (NS).

For local reaction to the announcement, see Tuesday's Record.


----------



## quadrapiper

kev994 said:
			
		

> For local reaction to the announcement, see Tuesday's Record.


Preemptive noise complaints, probably.


----------



## Sub_Guy

kev994 said:
			
		

> The announcement is the culmination of more than a year's work by a 12-person Comox Valley Economic Development Society team, which had been promoting the Comox site as the best of the four possible locations for the training centre.



Really?  You needed a team of 12 for this?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Having a new plane is superfluous to the plan.


----------



## RaceAddict

Colin P said:
			
		

> Having a new plane is superfluous to the plan.



As long as _someone's_ getting paid, who needs planes at all? :


----------



## RaceAddict

Amidst all the F-35 vs. F-18E/F talk over the past week it seems like this was missed:



> Thu Nov 24, 2016 | 8:45pm GMT
> Canada to take December decision on SAR aircraft -sources
> 
> By Allison Lampert | MONTREAL
> 
> Nov 24 Canada's federal government is expected to take a decision in early December on new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft, with Airbus Group SE's C-295 and Leonardo Aircraft's C-27J Spartan emerging as front-runners, two aerospace industry sources familiar with the matter said.
> 
> The federal Treasury Board is expected on Dec. 8 to authorize the government to enter into a contract with the winning bidder for the purchase and in-service support of aircraft, a third industry source said on Thursday.
> 
> All three sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal is not public and the timing of the Treasury Board decision could be changed.
> 
> The value and number of aircraft in the procurement have not yet been made public, a spokesman for Canada's National Defence Department said. The value of the deal, including the acquisition and in-service support, has been estimated in media reports at about C$3 billion ($2.22 billion).
> 
> Embraer's KC-390 is also part of the competition, but the aircraft is not expected to win because the program is still in development and Canada's government wants an aircraft that is already certified, two of the sources said.



Full Story


----------



## MarkOttawa

History:



> A Canadian Forces Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Project Timeline
> http://casr.ca/id-fwsar-project-timeline.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kev994

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> History:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Thanks! I was under the mistaken impression that there would be a contract awarded this week. It seems that TB is authorizing a contract, but that contract won't be entered until later this month or sometime next month. Still lots of time left to scrap the whole thing and start over.


----------



## fireman1867

> Still lots of time left to scrap the whole thing and start over.



Amen


----------



## George Wallace

Looks like Airbus has been announced as the winner with their C295


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So this is what is replacing all the buff 's AND Hercs?


----------



## George Wallace

Announcement is supposed to be this Thursday.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Announcement is supposed to be this Thursday.



Do you have a source, George?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There is a National Post article posted about an hour ago that states this (can't post/link the article on the forum).  It also states the contract was awarded based on Airbus having a lower price.  It also suggests that the original # of 17 aircraft will be changed to 'capability based' #s. I'll take that to mean "less than 17".

AES Ops aren't going to be part of the crew, so I'll take that to mean there will be limited sensor capability.  Too bad, really.  SAR Imaging (RADAR) and EO/IR really make a difference.  

I don't believe the 295 can replace the Herc; they have pretty short legs IMO.  Hopefully, in the future, the 295 isn't the MPA that replaces the Aurora.


----------



## YZT580

Can't say that I am surprised but I am disappointed.  S&R the Wal-Mart way.  Many of the call-outs are to the Territories and Labrador and the C295 just can't get there without having to make a fuel stop on route.  Sure hope that those folks bobbing around on their ice floes and little rubber boats don't mind waiting.  But perhaps they will maintain a couple of hercs for those longer trips.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

> AES Ops aren't going to be part of the crew, so I'll take that to mean there will be limited sensor capability.  Too bad, really.  SAR Imaging (RADAR) and EO/IR really make a difference.



From what we've been briefed, the new fix wing SAR will have sensors on board, but they'll be manned by ACSOs and potentially FEs.


----------



## jmt18325

I could have predicted this.  The military did this to themselves by tailoring the requirements the first time.  That's why this project took so long.

That and the company selling the C-27J did themselves no favours by blocking Canada from buying the surplus US aircraft a few years back.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> From what we've been briefed, the new fix wing SAR will have sensors on board, but they'll be manned by ACSOs and potentially FEs.



Was told the same thing.  I am not surprised as our trade seems to be lacking the ability to plan ahead (manning continues to be an issue).  We are in no position to send people to the FWSAR world.  While 402 is probably going to be manned 100% this summer the rest of the Sqns are ghost towns.      

We just don't have the people.  402 can pump out all the students they want, but until they give the OTUs more instructors, those students will just end up sitting around with their feet up.

For what it is worth, we were also told that once they (as in the RCAF) knows what the full capabilities are, then they will most likely revisit having SENSOR OPERATORS operating SENSORS...    Apparently the new FWSAR bird will have a decent sensor suite.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I could have predicted this.  The military did this to themselves by tailoring the requirements the first time.  That's why this project took so long.
> 
> That and the company selling the C-27J did themselves no favours by blocking Canada from buying the surplus US aircraft a few years back.



True, I liked the aircraft, but the company is a bunch of wankers. Airbus should have good part support at least.


----------



## jmt18325

The aircraft will do fine - it's used in places like Chile, Spain, and Finland.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Without going back through 58-pages, my recollection was that one of Airbus's arguments was that with lower costs, the air force would be able to purchase additional air frames and position them closer to the hotspots, than they would have been able to with the more expensive C-27J (with the assumption that forward basing would offset the lower speed of C-295).

Does anyone know if that was part of the final pitch from Airbus?


M.


----------



## jmt18325

The RFP allowed the aircraft maker to specify the number of aircraft and where they should be based, so I would assume so.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The RFP allowed the aircraft maker to specify the number of aircraft and where they should be based, so I would assume so.



Well that just made the announcement a little more interesting....very cool.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Announcement is supposed to be this Thursday.


That's now official ...


> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan, Public Services and Procurement Minister Judy M. Foote and the Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force Lieutenant-General Michael Hood will make an announcement on the project to replace fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft.
> 
> When:
> 8:30 a.m. (Eastern) on Thursday, December 8, 2016.
> Where:
> 8 Wing Passenger Terminal,
> 6 Northstar Dr.,
> CFB Trenton
> 
> -30-​
> Notes to editor / news director:
> 
> For more information, and to confirm attendance, please contact Lieutenant Karyn Mazurek, 8 Wing Public Affairs Officer, at karyn.mazurek@forces.gc.ca or 613-965-7384. Please register no later than 10 p.m. on Wednesday, December 7, 2016.
> 
> Media interested are advised that group transportation will be departing from the Passenger Terminal at 7:30 a.m. There are no exceptions. Parking is available at the Passenger Terminal parking lot.
> 
> In addition, members of the media outside Trenton can listen to the announcement via teleconference. Please note this will be a listen-only mode line. Media call-in information:
> 
> Number
> 
> 613-960-7526 / 877-413-4814
> 
> Access Code
> 
> French: 3241855
> English: 8286485
> Bilingual: 4464103 ...


Don't be shy about dialing in all you "media"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think they desperately need to change the buzz on all things defense and they are hoping this announcement will do it.


----------



## Loachman

I am half-expecting them to announce an interim buy of four or five to cover a capability gap and punt a final decision for five years pending another "competition".


----------



## CBH99

Oh my goodness Loachman, don't say such things!

Not just because it is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, but because it sounds sooooooooo damn plausible....


----------



## RaceAddict

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am half-expecting them to announce an interim buy of four or five to cover a capability gap and punt a final decision for five years pending another "competition".




I hope nobody in the Procurement Minister's office is reading this thread... you're giving them ideas.  :


----------



## RaceAddict

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Don't be shy about dialing in all you "media"



What about "curious tax payer" types? What number do we dial?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am half-expecting them to announce an interim buy of four or five to cover a capability gap and punt a final decision for five years pending another "competition".


We'll know whose fault it is if it happens ...


			
				RaceAddict said:
			
		

> What about "curious tax payer" types? What number do we dial?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


I'm guessing if you dial the number, you might be able to just listen in without identifying yourself.  YMMV, though ...


----------



## Loachman

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Oh my goodness Loachman, don't say such things!
> 
> Not just because it is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, but because it sounds sooooooooo damn plausible....



Loachman's Law: The level of support and funding applied towards an idea is directly proportional to its stupidity.


----------



## MilEME09

Just read an article stating that the official announcement for the contract will be made thursday and is expected to announce  the airbus C-295 as the winner.


----------



## YZT580

If memory serves me, the C295 is based upon the C235 which had its maiden flight in early 80's. So we are buying a legacy SAR equipment to assist in the location of our legacy combat aircraft.  Might just as well have let Viking build us new Buffalos.  At least we would have the satisfaction of being "made in Canada".  As for other customers of the aircraft, none of them using the current version require the range that we do. It should be interesting though to see where they visualize placing them.  Perhaps CYYB or even Yellowknife.


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If memory serves me, the C295 is based upon the C235 which had its maiden flight in early 80's. So we are buying a legacy SAR equipment to assist in the location of our legacy combat aircraft.  Might just as well have let Viking build us new Buffalos.  At least we would have the satisfaction of being "made in Canada".  As for other customers of the aircraft, none of them using the current version require the range that we do. It should be interesting though to see where they visualize placing them.  Perhaps CYYB or even Yellowknife.



Well the C-295 first flew in 1997, and introduced into service in 2001. my guess is we would get the C-295W which is the latest version, with improved engines, atleast thats what i can find online.


----------



## RaceAddict

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The aircraft will do fine - it's used in places like Chile, Spain, and Finland.



Chile: 743,812 km²
Finland: 338,424 km²
Spain: 505,990 km²

Canada: 9,985,000 million km²

Not sure how their use corresponds to ours... :-\


----------



## jmt18325

Would you prefer a Russian aircraft?  They have the right amount of area.

Chile is cold and mountainous.

Finland is cold.

Spain is an ally that spends a similar amount of money.


----------



## dimsum

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> Chile: 743,812 km²
> Finland: 338,424 km²
> Spain: 505,990 km²
> 
> Canada: 9,985,000 million km²
> 
> Not sure how their use corresponds to ours... :-\



To be fair, neither contender has the legs of the Herc, so straight numbers is a bit of a moot point unless the Spartan is significantly better in that regard.


----------



## PuckChaser

Spartan has a reported range that's 500km more than C295.


----------



## MilEME09

According to what I read the C-295 won on cost over the C-27


----------



## jmt18325

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If memory serves me, the C295 is based upon the C235 which had its maiden flight in early 80's. So we are buying a legacy SAR equipment to assist in the location of our legacy combat aircraft.  Might just as well have let Viking build us new Buffalos.  At least we would have the satisfaction of being "made in Canada".  As for other customers of the aircraft, none of them using the current version require the range that we do. It should be interesting though to see where they visualize placing them.  Perhaps CYYB or even Yellowknife.



Well, the C-27j was developed from the G.222, which was developed during the 60s.

The C-295 flew only two years before the C-27j.  It's just as modern.  It's simply less expensive, slower, and shorter legged.  We'll know more tomorrow.


----------



## kev994

The shots of the press conference room show a model of a 295w, so if there was any doubt...


----------



## RaceAddict

The teleconference number requests your full name and affiliation.... so, yeah... I'm not willing to fudge that. I guess they only want actual media types... not "media" types.  ;D


----------



## jmt18325

The Liberals refused to close Winnipeg, and bought 4 planes for each of the 4 bases.


----------



## kev994

CBC live streamed it. The only real announcement that we didn't know already was that airbus agreed to industrial offsets equal to the full value of the contract. They already use P&W Canada engines so it's a pretty easy promise to keep.


----------



## The Bread Guy

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> The teleconference number requests your full name and affiliation.... so, yeah... I'm not willing to fudge that. I guess they only want actual media types... not "media" types.  ;D


Too many people dialing in & saying, "Joseph Bloggins, Army.ca", I guess  ;D


----------



## RaceAddict

My take on the press conference:

They all spent more time talking about how well they did in holding an open, fair and transparent competition and all the subsequent business benefits to Canadian companies than they did talking about the actual airplane, it's capabilities, and how it will be used in the SAR role.

So, business as usual.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

kev994 said:
			
		

> CBC live streamed it. The only real announcement that we didn't know already was that airbus agreed to industrial offsets equal to the full value of the contract. They already use P&W Canada engines so it's a pretty easy promise to keep.



Ignoring all other issues, I am happy about this part of the deal.  The economy needs all the help it can get.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This, from the Airbus info-machine, for the record ...


> *Canada's Department of National Defence orders 16 aircraft*
> 
> TRENTON, ON, Dec. 8, 2016 /CNW/ - Today, the Government of Canada announced that it had selected the Airbus C295W aircraft for its Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Program.
> 
> As part of the FWSAR program, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) will receive 16 C295Ws modified for Search and Rescue (SAR).
> 
> The contract will also include in service support, provided through a joint venture between Airbus Defence and Space and PAL Aerospace.
> 
> Simon Jacques, Head of Airbus Defence and Space in Canada said: "We are acutely conscious of the importance of search and rescue in Canada's vast and challenging territory and we are honoured to have been selected to provide the aircraft and service to ensure that the role is carried out effectively."
> 
> The C295W features substantial Canadian content. Every C295 is powered by Pratt & Whitney Canada engines, pilots and technicians will be trained at a new facility developed by CAE in Comox, BC, and the electro-optical systems for FWSAR will be provided by L3 Wescam of Burlington, ON. In-service support for the life of the program will be provided by AirPro, a joint venture between Airbus Defence and Space and PAL Aerospace of St John's, Newfoundland.  In-service support will be conducted by Canadians in Canada.
> 
> Jacques added: "About 20 percent of the aircraft is already Canadian, meaning that it already serves as a global ambassador for the skills, innovation and expertise of Canadians. Now it will get to serve them directly."
> 
> Canada's C295Ws will be delivered starting three years after contract award. In service, they will join five Airbus CC-150 aircraft used in the air-to-air refueling, transport, and VIP travel roles.
> 
> When the contract is finalized, 185 C295s will have been ordered by 25 countries.
> 
> About Airbus Defence and Space
> 
> Airbus Defence and Space, a division of Airbus Group, is Europe's number one defence and space enterprise and the second largest space business worldwide. Its activities include space, military aircraft and related systems and services. It employs more than 38,000 people and in 2015 generated revenues of over 13 billion Euros.
> 
> For more information visit http://www.C295W.ca.
> 
> SOURCE Airbus Defence and Space ...


Company photo attached.


----------



## kev994

The other tidbits I noted were that the expected 20 year in service support is actually 5 years with an option for another 15, and the CEO of Airbus Canada is already talking about the availability of additional features, which we can bet would come at additional expense.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And now this, from the CAF/DND info-machine ...


> Search and rescue is an essential public service for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That’s why the Government of Canada is building a more agile, better-equipped military, while ensuring the best value for Canadians.
> 
> Following a rigorous, open and transparent competition, the Government of Canada today announced the awarding of a contract for $2.4 billion to Airbus Defence and Space to replace Canada’s fleets of CC115 Buffalo and legacy CC130 Hercules aircraft. The company has partnered with Newfoundland-based PAL Aerospace for maintenance and support services.The contract will provide a complete, modern and technologically advanced search and rescue solution, including maintenance and support services up to 2043.
> 
> As part of this contract, Airbus will provide 16 C295W aircraft, equipped with advanced technology systems, to support Canada’s search and rescue operations, construct a new simulator-equipped training centre in Comox, British Columbia, and provide ongoing maintenance and support services. The contract also includes options to extend the maintenance and support services for an additional 15 years. Should Canada choose to exercise these additional options, the contract value would increase to $4.7 billion.
> 
> The new technology being acquired includes state-of-the-art communications systems that will allow search and rescue personnel to share real-time information with partners on the ground. Using integrated sensors, crews will be able to locate persons or objects, such as downed aircraft, from more than 40 kilometres away, even in low-light conditions.
> 
> As part of its proposal Airbus Defence and Space has committed to make investments in the Canadian economy equal to the value of the contract, creating and maintaining good middle class jobs. Through Canada’s Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy, the company will incorporate many of Canada’s leading aerospace firms into its global supply chain and establish strategic partnerships with Canadian companies to ensure the aircraft are supported in Canada by Canadians. This work will help grow Canada’s innovative and strong aerospace sector, while providing well-paying jobs for the middle class and those working hard to join it.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> “"In a country as large as Canada, our search and rescue personnel must have the right equipment to face the varying challenges they encounter every day. Working closely with partners through a fair, open competition, we have selected aircraft and advanced technology that will ensure the safety of Canadians from coast to coast to coast while providing good middle class jobs."”
> The Honourable Judy M. Foote
> Minister of Public Services and Procurement
> 
> “"Members of the Royal Canadian Air Force search and rescue community are among the best trained in the world and respond to incidents in every type of environment, whether in the Arctic, over the Rockies or in the middle of the ocean. Canadians in distress can count on them to give their very best to save lives. With this technology, we are giving our women and men in uniform the tools they need to continue to deliver effective and essential search and rescue operations."”
> The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan
> Minister of National Defence
> 
> “"Through the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy, 100 percent of the contract value will be invested into the Canadian economy. Airbus Defence and Space will ensure that the maintenance, training, repair and overhaul work of the aircraft are performed in Canada which will create high-value, well-paying jobs for middle class Canadians and generate sustainability and growth for Canada’s aerospace and defence sector."”
> The Honourable Navdeep Bains
> Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development
> 
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces is responsible for providing aeronautical search and rescue operations. In collaboration with federal, provincial/territorial and municipal governments, as well as local search and rescue organizations, the Armed Forces respond to Canadians in distress across the country and at sea.
> The initial contract for a period of 11 years is valued at $2.4 billion (plus applicable taxes) and includes 6 years of acquisition and set up, including the construction of a new training centre in Comox, British Columbia, as well as the first 5 years of maintenance and support services.
> The contract is performance-based, which means the contractor will only be paid when equipment and services are delivered and accepted by Canada.
> The contract also includes options to extend the maintenance and support services for an additional 15 years. Should Canada choose to exercise these additional options, the contract value would increase to $4.7 billion (plus applicable taxes).
> A fairness monitor was engaged to oversee and report on the openness and transparency of the procurement process. The fairness monitor’s report identified no fairness‑related issues.
> Canada’s CC115 Buffalo and CC130 Hercules have served Canada well over the last 20 to 40 years. These aircraft perform over 350 missions annually and are responsible for saving thousands of Canadian lives every year.
> During the transition the existing fleets will continue to be maintained and operated to ensure search and rescue responsibilities.
> 
> Related Products
> 
> Backgrounder: A modern and effective search and rescue solution for the Canadian Armed Forces
> Backgrounder: Fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft procurement process
> Infographic: Procuring Canada’s future fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft (attached PDF)
> Infographic: Capability (attached JPEG)


----------



## MarkOttawa

milnews.ca: From Airbus news release:



> ...
> Canada's C295Ws will be delivered starting three years after contract award. In service, they will join five Airbus CC-150 aircraft used in the air-to-air refueling, transport, and VIP travel roles...



Why doesn't RCAF or our gov't mention those important subsidiary roles?  The RCAF’s 32 older-model Hercules are being followed-on by just 17 new C-130Js; my impression is the RCAF has always wanted the new SAR aircraft to be able to double when necessary as a tactical transport in order to keep that capability up.

Something that has not been mentioned publicly for years for no good reason that I can understand.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> milnews.ca: From Airbus news release:
> 
> Why doesn't RCAF or our gov't mention those important subsidiary roles?  The RCAF’s 32 older-model Hercules are being followed-on by just 17 new C-130Js; my impression is the RCAF has always wanted the new SAR aircraft to be able to double when necessary as a tactical transport in order to keep that capability up.
> 
> Something that has not been mentioned publicly for years for no good reason that I can understand.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The C-295W has a fair bit of cargo capacity as well, not C-130J good, but enough to fill that light tactical transport role


----------



## kev994

Enough to take the weekly pallet of fresh food and passengers to Alert


----------



## jmt18325

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The C-295W has a fair bit of cargo capacity as well, not C-130J good, but enough to fill that light tactical transport role



It's apparently got a longer cargo hold than the C-130, so it should do well with light but large loads.


----------



## RaceAddict

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's apparently got a longer cargo hold than the C-130, so it should do well with light but large loads.



Longer than the older Hercs, not longer than our C-130J-30s.







Much less useful in terms of diameter though.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Detailed image from Airbus:






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> milnews.ca: From Airbus news release:
> 
> Why doesn't RCAF or our gov't mention those important subsidiary roles?  ...


My guesses:  
-  They forgot.
-  They don't know.
-  It's back to only one use.
-  The RCAF isn't trying to sell the plane, only explain how it'll be using it.
 ;D


----------



## ringo

How many a/c did Embraer KC390 or Leonardo C-27J offer for FWSAR and how did there cost compare, or is everyone sworn to secrecy.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And, from one of the other contenders ...


> Team Spartan, which includes a joint-venture between Leonardo Aircraft and General Dynamics Mission Systems–Canada, has been informed that it was not the successful bidder in the competition for the Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) program.
> 
> As Team Spartan has not yet had the opportunity to avail itself of a debrief, it is not in a position to make any further comments at this time.


----------



## MarkOttawa

I goofed on Airbus news release and C295W transport/refueling role (though the transport role still there)--should have grokked on VIP bit.  A tweet:



> Scott Davy
> ‏@ScottMDavy
> 
> @Mark3Ds FYI, when you mentioned air to air refuelling etc., Airbus is talking about the CC-150. Re-read it and it will make sense.
> https://twitter.com/ScottMDavy/status/807007986338197504



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## speedbird

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I goofed on Airbus news release and C295W transport/refueling role (though the transport role still there)--should have grokked on VIP bit.  A tweet:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Happens to the best of us 

-Scott at Defence Major Projects


----------



## dapaterson

ringo said:
			
		

> How many a/c did Embraer KC390 or Leonardo C-27J offer for FWSAR and how did there cost compare, or is everyone sworn to secrecy.



All that material would be a commercial confidence, and not releasable information by DND.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I was under the impression that the KC390 was not considered has it hadn't been certified for flight at the time of the "competition".

On the other hand, Airbus should have no problem whatsoever with the 100% commercial offset. It's a little known fact that Canada's aerospace industry, and in particular most of the Montreal technopole companies, already build for every constructors worldwide. Heck! Even Bombardier builds parts for Boeing's larger airplanes at their Quebec and Ontario plants. So most companies here already build parts for Airbus. All they have to do is place a few extra contracts over the course of construction and probably have it covered.

Just a question for those who know (if permitted): The release does not specify the type of the 360 degrees radar. Anybody knows if it's the same that Airbus proposes on its 295MPA version? And can it be used as a overland search radar or will it be limited to ocean surface search?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So, 16 C-295W replacing how many Buffalo's and Short-Herc's?


----------



## captloadie

We have to get away from looking at now many new airframes are replacing how many old airframes. The C295 is expected to be a single role aircraft, that role being SAR. Yes, it could be used, if required and available for other things (like the Buffalo is now), but its primary role will be SAR. The number purchased is the number required to fill this primary role.

As the Comd RCAF stated in his response to a media question, we don't have a plan in place yet on what we will do with the Buffaloes and H-Model Hercs. It is likely that the Bufs will be retired and disposed of. The H-model question is more difficult, because they do more than just SAR. They provide tactical AAR, which we don't have replacement for, and they still have a transport role. I'm not certain whether the J-model can be modified to do AAR, under the current contract we have with LM.


----------



## kev994

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that the KC390 was not considered has it hadn't been certified for flight at the time of the "competition".


I believe they submitted a bid but suspect it was non-compliant for not being in production.


----------



## RaceAddict

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> So, 16 C-295W replacing how many Buffalo's and Short-Herc's?



CC-130 says we have 13 Hercs (12 H, 1 E)

CC-115 says 6 Buffs.


----------



## jmt18325

I doubt that we're retiring the C-130H aircraft in Winnipeg as a result of this order.  There are 4 - 5 of those (not sure if the one that burned was scrapped).


----------



## RaceAddict

captloadie said:
			
		

> The H-model question is more difficult, because they do more than just SAR. They provide tactical AAR, which we don't have replacement for, and they still have a transport role. I'm not certain whether the J-model can be modified to do AAR, under the current contract we have with LM.



Perhaps when the H Hercs are due to be retired the KC-390 will be in production. Competitive with the C-130J in terms of airlift capabilities, plus AAR with 160,000L fuel capacity. They're supposedly going ultra-aggressive on pricing vs LockMart and Airbus. (Plus it already has Canadian content via Héroux Devtek landing gear.)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

captloadie said:
			
		

> We have to get away from looking at now many new airframes are replacing how many old airframes. The C295 is expected to be a single role aircraft, that role being SAR. Yes, it could be used, if required and available for other things (like the Buffalo is now), but its primary role will be SAR. The number purchased is the number required to fill this primary role.
> 
> As the Comd RCAF stated in his response to a media question, we don't have a plan in place yet on what we will do with the Buffaloes and H-Model Hercs. It is likely that the Bufs will be retired and disposed of. The H-model question is more difficult, because they do more than just SAR. They provide tactical AAR, which we don't have replacement for, and they still have a transport role. I'm not certain whether the J-model can be modified to do AAR, under the current contract we have with LM.



It seems odd that the RCAF would post a Request for Bid for new assets, without having first determined what their objective structure looks like. 

More the point, it would seem most rational to first agree upon and approve the future structure, then write the RFB for the new assets to dovetail into that objective structure....

Or am I the crazy one?   :warstory:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RaceAddict said:
			
		

> Longer than the older Hercs, not longer than our C-130J-30s.
> 
> 
> Much less useful in terms of diameter though.



I don't buy their personal which must be midgets


----------



## RaceAddict

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't buy their personal which must be midgets



Sorry, I should have been clear... that graphic was about the C-27J, not the C295, but it included the 235/295 and -130 for comparison so I put it up there.


----------



## Mountie

Anyone know what designation and name the C-295 will have once in service?  I'm guessing CC-295 is too simple.


----------



## RaceAddict

Mountie said:
			
		

> Anyone know what designation and name the C-295 will have once in service?  I'm guessing CC-295 is too simple.



Going by the Globemaster's Canadian nomenclature, it might end up being the CC-2955. :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The C-295W has a fair bit of cargo capacity as well, not C-130J good, but enough to fill that light tactical transport role



It's a SAR platform right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't buy their personal which must be midgets



IMO these are small aircraft and not much room on the inside.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's a SAR platform right?



For us it is, we are the only ones using it as such, everyone else seems to use it in the light transport role, as I don't see anyone operating the AWAC's, maritime patrol, or the gunship model.....though I wonder how great it would be to have AC-295 in the RCAF  >


----------



## RaceAddict

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> For us it is, we are the only ones using it as such, everyone else seems to use it in the light transport role, as I don't see anyone operating the AWAC's, maritime patrol, or the gunship model.....though I wonder how great it would be to have AC-295 in the RCAF  >



Brazil uses it in a SAR capacity, as does the USCG and Mexico (according to c295.ca)


----------



## kev994

USCG uses the 235


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IMO these are small aircraft and not much room on the inside.



Here is another photo showing Peruvian paratroopers in the back of a C-295.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Here is another photo showing Peruvian paratroopers in the back of a C-295.



Yes, all of them sitting down and not a bit of combat equipment in that picture, looks to me they are jumping bare - ass.  That space would fill up quicker with rucksacks, weapons etc.  Cut the number of jumpers in half at least.  I have been around the MPA version, they are smallish IMO.  The 140 is big inside stripped out too, not so much when all the bits and pieces are installed.   :2c:


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

When I stepped onboard the Mexican Air Force 295W, I was surprised how tight it is. I'm 6'1 tall and felt I had to bend over my head so I don't hit the ceiling. From my exposure with this A/C, it will be a tight space for the SAR Techs to don their gear (and they have a lot of it).


----------



## dimsum

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> When I stepped onboard the Mexican Air Force 295W, I was surprised how tight it is. I'm 6'1 tall and felt I had to bend over my head so I don't hit the ceiling. From my exposure with this A/C, it will be a tight space for the SAR Techs to don their gear (and they have a lot of it).



I wonder if the folks that give the final nod to this have seen both competitors kitted out in a SAR role with our equipment.

Yes, this is a rhetorical question.


----------



## kev994

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I wonder if the folks that give the final nod to this have seen both competitors kitted out in a SAR role with our equipment.
> 
> Yes, this is a rhetorical question.


I've witnessed at least 3 iterations of groups showing up to Sqns to measure gear, SARTechs, cabins, you name it. I'm pretty sure fuselage size was one of the requirements, though I have no idea what the minimum size was.


----------



## Eland2

I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of new-build Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.

The support infrastructure for the Buffalo is already there, so there's no need to build a totally new infrastructure, although some upgrades might be needed as the avionics of the new aircraft will be different. Parts can be directly obtained in Canada, rather than having to have them shipped in from overseas. 

The Buffalo is already well known to the RCAF and so you wouldn't need to change the training syllabi either.

By having Viking Air build the aircraft, jobs are created, or at least retained in Canada.

If you need a bit more cargo and payload capacity, it might be possible to build a stretched Buffalo. The Buffalo is a STOL aircraft, meaning it can be operated from virtually anywhere, including places where ad-hoc runways are built. This STOL capability also allows the aircraft to fly low and slow, which is of value in SAR taskings. The Buffalo is built to withstand Canada's harsh winter climate.

Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?


----------



## dimsum

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?



First guess is cost.  We would be the launch customer (and potentially only customer), so unit price would be much higher than either C-295 or C-27.


----------



## kev994

The Buff is square so it can't be pressurized, it isn't currently being manufactured so it's not off the shelf. Why would you want to land on an ad-hoc runway? Send a helicopter.  
The Halifax SRR goes out to 30W, can a buff fly 1500 NM out into the ocean, be on scene 2 hours and recover in a crew day? Nobody knows because none have been built.


----------



## Kirkhill

kev994 said:
			
		

> I've witnessed at least 3 iterations of groups showing up to Sqns to measure gear, SARTechs, cabins, you name it. I'm pretty sure fuselage size was one of the requirements, though I have no idea what the minimum size was.



Standing up in the cabin was deemed to give an unfair advantage to the C27.


----------



## kev994

Part of the "too many requirements will stifle competition" argument? I'd believe that.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just checking on what the US Coast Guard wanted the C295/ HC-144 for:



> The HC-144 Ocean Sentry and the C-27J make up the Coast Guard’s *medium range surveillance aircraft fleet*. These aircraft are instrumental in providing the capability necessary for the Coast Guard *to fulfill its maritime patrol, drug and migrant interdiction, disaster response, and search and rescue missions* more effectively.
> 
> Why this program?
> 
> The program was established in fiscal year 2002 *to expand the Coast Guard’s patrol hour capacity *and replace the aging aircraft fleet. The Coast Guard needed greater endurance to remain on-scene longer and track targets for longer periods of time. Improved sensor capability and increased passenger capacity also were identified as necessary for better mission effectiveness.



https://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/mrs/

Loiter time, not speed of response.  Surveillance, not cargo.


----------



## kev994

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Just checking on what the US Coast Guard wanted the C295/ HC-144 for:
> 
> https://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/mrs/
> 
> Loiter time, not speed of response.  Surveillance, not cargo.


They call the C130 a long range surveillance aircraft. It's supposed to be a 'generic' naming convention, I wouldn't put too much thought into what they call it. They do SAR (well mostly the search portion) with the 144 (it's a 235, not a 295) and the C27 as well as fishery patrols, drug patrols, etc.
Edit: to clarify that the platforms are multi- use


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen kev.  Thanks


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eland2 said:
			
		

> I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of new-build Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.
> 
> The support infrastructure for the Buffalo is already there, so there's no need to build a totally new infrastructure, although some upgrades might be needed as the avionics of the new aircraft will be different. Parts can be directly obtained in Canada, rather than having to have them shipped in from overseas.
> 
> The Buffalo is already well known to the RCAF and so you wouldn't need to change the training syllabi either.
> 
> By having Viking Air build the aircraft, jobs are created, or at least retained in Canada.
> 
> If you need a bit more cargo and payload capacity, it might be possible to build a stretched Buffalo. The Buffalo is a STOL aircraft, meaning it can be operated from virtually anywhere, including places where ad-hoc runways are built. This STOL capability also allows the aircraft to fly low and slow, which is of value in SAR taskings. The Buffalo is built to withstand Canada's harsh winter climate.
> 
> Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?



If we applied that logic to tanks, we'd likely still be using the Centurion.


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If we applied that logic to tanks, we'd likely still be using the Centurion.



or the Sharman, proven platforms are great but eventually it's more a collectors item then it is a economical piece of kit


----------



## George Wallace

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> or the Sharman, proven platforms are great but eventually it's more a collectors item then it is a economical piece of kit



[PS.....It is SHERMAN   :warstory:]

......and we would be down to 19 tanks by now..................................WAIT!...........................................
We were down to ZERO (0) and had it not been for Afghanistan, we would not have returned to one Regiment's worth, the lowest we had sunk in numbers sunk since the '70's.


----------



## Don2wing

I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of rebuild Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.

The support infrastructure for the Buffalo is already there, so there's no need to build a totally new infrastructure, although some upgrades might be needed as the avionics of the new aircraft will be different. Parts can be directly obtained in Canada, rather than having to have them shipped in from overseas. 

The Buffalo is already well known to the RCAF and so you wouldn't need to change the training syllabi either.

By having Viking Air build the aircraft, jobs are created, or at least retained in Canada.

If you need a bit more cargo and payload capacity, it might be possible to build a stretched Buffalo. The Buffalo is a STOL aircraft, meaning it can be operated from virtually anywhere, including places where ad-hoc runways are built. This STOL capability also allows the aircraft to fly low and slow, which is of value in SAR taskings. The Buffalo is built to withstand Canada's harsh winter climate.

Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?

To Daftandbarmy,
                          Canadian governments over the years have not helped companies develop products through to completion. Both Conservative and Liberal regimes have been consistent on this. The Spartan C-27J started off life as the G.222 way back in 1970 and was backed by the Italian air force buying 44 aircraft. Over the years it evolved into the C-27J Spartan and was sold around the world. The C-295 started life from the CN-235 which was developed in Spain and jointly with Indonesia. Again, both countries bought aircraft for their respective air forces or other air services. These 2 aircraft companies with help from their home governments have gone on to sell aircraft successfully to many countries around the world. 
  In Canada the governments have not encouraged manufacturers such as Viking with the Buffalo, or Bombardier with the Dash-8 and an engineered rear door. Certainly, both these aircraft engineered as DHC-5NG or the Dash-8 with a rear door could have sold to a number of countries around the world. Canada should pick and choose what products it helps in development. There are other companies that have great technology in this country and can be helped for future success. Our governments talk about doing this but don't actually walk the walk.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Don2wing said:
			
		

> I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of rebuild Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.
> 
> The support infrastructure for the Buffalo is already there, so there's no need to build a totally new infrastructure, although some upgrades might be needed as the avionics of the new aircraft will be different. Parts can be directly obtained in Canada, rather than having to have them shipped in from overseas.
> 
> The Buffalo is already well known to the RCAF and so you wouldn't need to change the training syllabi either.
> 
> By having Viking Air build the aircraft, jobs are created, or at least retained in Canada.
> 
> If you need a bit more cargo and payload capacity, it might be possible to build a stretched Buffalo. The Buffalo is a STOL aircraft, meaning it can be operated from virtually anywhere, including places where ad-hoc runways are built. This STOL capability also allows the aircraft to fly low and slow, which is of value in SAR taskings. The Buffalo is built to withstand Canada's harsh winter climate.
> 
> Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?
> 
> To Daftandbarmy,
> Canadian governments over the years have not helped companies develop products through to completion. Both Conservative and Liberal regimes have been consistent on this. The Spartan C-27J started off life as the G.222 way back in 1970 and was backed by the Italian air force buying 44 aircraft. Over the years it evolved into the C-27J Spartan and was sold around the world. The C-295 started life from the CN-235 which was developed in Spain and jointly with Indonesia. Again, both countries bought aircraft for their respective air forces or other air services. These 2 aircraft companies with help from their home governments have gone on to sell aircraft successfully to many countries around the world.
> In Canada the governments have not encouraged manufacturers such as Viking with the Buffalo, or Bombardier with the Dash-8 and an engineered rear door. Certainly, both these aircraft engineered as DHC-5NG or the Dash-8 with a rear door could have sold to a number of countries around the world. Canada should pick and choose what products it helps in development. There are other companies that have great technology in this country and can be helped for future success. Our governments talk about doing this but don't actually walk the walk.



The other big problem with Viking Air (whom I, as a native of Victoria, love by the way, as a great example of local manufacturing and entrepreneurial excellence) is that unfortunately it's not from Quebec, or eastern Canada, or any place that votes the right way in various elections.


----------



## PuckChaser

Don2wing said:
			
		

> I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of rebuild Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.



Because the rebuilt DHC-5NG Buffalo proposed by Viking Air doesn't exist? Only reference to Viking building anything other than Twin Otter 400s online is a CASR article with their proposal from 2009.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

First of all, Don2wing, I don't know what you are talking about when you say the Government of Canada doesn't support its air industry.

You mention the Buffalo. Well, the Canadian government bought some, and so did 18 other countries with a total of more than 120 aircraft built originally. But there hasn't been any orders in a long time, and while rebuilding is nice, it is simply an airplane that has done its time. 

What about the DASH-8? Again, Canada bought some, and so did 26 other countries. And after more than 1200 being built, it is still going strong as the Q-400.

What about others? Well, the CL-215/415 water bombers were certainly acquired in good numbers by the various Canadian governments, and that has led to reasonable international sales. Could the government have done more here. perhaps. When it was time to retire the Trackers short range maritime patrol planes, I suppose the government could have replaced them with a maritime surveillance plane based on the CL-415. It is amphibious after all. That may or may not have led to more international sales. We will never know, because we simply decided that the capability was no longer required on top of the existing fleet of Auroras.

What else? You did not mention the Challengers. The government bought some, and it has sales in 12 other countries, with more than 1000 units built to date.

So while I realize you would have loved to see some work going the way of Viking Air, your statement that  the government of Canada does not encourage Canadian manufacturers is simply not true.

And in your calculations, did you consider the fact that there are only six Buffalo in service, then 13 Hercs in SAR livery? Refurbishing Buffalos at Viking only covers one third of the problem. And there is probably more Canadian work in producing the 32 engines of the C-295's at Pratt & Whitney Canada than would go in a rebuild of those six Buffalos at Viking.


----------



## jmt18325

I'm unclear - is this the end of the KC-130?  Or will those aircraft be kept and relieved of their SAR role?


----------



## CBH99

I think what Don2Wing is getting at is a general & well purposed question:  Could we have not found a way to manufacture a suitable aircraft in Canada?

Yes, there is work being done by Canadian companies for a healthy portion of the C-295W.  Engines, sensors, cameras, etc - all Canadian.  We all agree that is a good thing, for various reasons.

I think the question being asked (and I could be wrong) - is could we have done a bit better?  Canadian content on a foreign built aircraft is good, but Canadian content on a Canadian built aircraft is better.  

*In my humble opinion - which admittedly is probably lacking in roundness of information - we could have asked Bombardier to build an aircraft that had the capabilities we need.  Canadian aircraft, Canadian engines, Canadian sensors, etc.  

Would it have been prohibitively expensive?  Considering it would most likely just be a rear door on an already existing aircraft in production, probably not so much.   :dunno:


----------



## dapaterson

Custom-design and flight certification? What could possibly go wrong?

#CycloneLessonsNotLearned


----------



## CBH99

Fair enough!!


----------



## PuckChaser

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I think what Don2Wing is getting at is a general & well purposed question:  Could we have not found a way to manufacture a suitable aircraft in Canada?



More political pork barrelling for failing industries? I guess we didn't learn any lessons from the LSVW, or HLVW?

Why would we possibly want to pay start up costs for manufacturing lines to turn out 6 aircraft?


----------



## Good2Golf

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?



Advanced multi-spectral visible and 3-5μm IR optronics sensors integrated with an advanced 360-degree, multi-mode long-range radar capable of tracking and mission managing over 100 individual targets of interest, all relayed back to the JRCCs in real-time over multi-band satcom and narrow-band comms channels and directly feeding into aircraft avionics management system and flight director cuing systems to optimize search area coverage and dwell over high-probability areas of interest?  ???


----------



## dapaterson

You left out speed...


----------



## YZT580

Viking offered to initiate manufacturing of a fully modern and pressurized DHC5 that would meet the requirements for a competitive dollar value and were soundly rejected.  At the time, 2009 they would have used that contract as leverage to advertise world-wide and with their reputation established after the DHC6 success  probably would have been able to make global sales.  I suspect the remarks that can be found earlier in this thread were typical of the reaction in OW.  With the ministry putting out the tender based upon a proven a/c they could not even apply on this latest competition so we will never know whether it would have been a success.  But that is finished with now.  The a/c we have bought is no better than the one Viking offered.  It is slow, small, has limited range at full payload and cannot meet our needs in the north.  In order to respond to an Artic call-out we will either have to maintain (in other words re-build) at least 4 of the C130s or admit that we just can't get there on time.  So could we have gone for a Canadian aircraft.  Yes. And with the choice we made, perhaps it would have been better.  We didn't so, as usual, it will be a matter of making in work which the CAF has become very good at doing.  Oh and by the way, Viking is not a failing company and does not require federal support.  It offered to new-build at a comparable cost so it wasn't pork barreling any more than Airbus is


----------



## PuckChaser

KC390 was rejected because it was not a full tested and operational aircraft. Why should Viking get special treatment? If they were able to meet the requirements of the competition, they would have been considered.

This was also a contract to replace both the CC-130 and the DHC-5 Buffalo. Are we to believe you wanted to replace all our Hercs with Buffs? Or do we end up buying 295s as well to supplement?


----------



## Good2Golf

PC, they were referring to the tanker Herc, commonly called the "KC-130", although that's a USAF designation, not a RCAF one...they're still technically CC-130s.


----------



## suffolkowner

I think in one of the news releases I read it made mention of the AAR Hercs staying on.  By the time we take delivery anything is possible


----------



## quadrapiper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why should Viking get special treatment?


Perhaps in aid of the same sort of national infrastructure support or capability building as the multi-yard shipbuilding scheme?


----------



## PuckChaser

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Perhaps in aid of the same sort of national infrastructure support or capability building as the multi-yard shipbuilding scheme?



What sort of long-term buys can we be expected to complete from a STOL/small aircraft manufacturer? The ship building scheme works because it'll take 20 years to get everything built, plus the constant refit work. Viking could build 6 Buffalos in a year and we wouldn't hear from them for 30 years when we needed more.


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think in one of the news releases I read it made mention of the AAR Hercs staying on.  By the time we take delivery anything is possible



I sure hope so - that would be 3/4 of our tanker fleet


----------



## Loachman

If sanity returns, then they'll be completely unnecessary as we'll have F35.


----------



## jmt18325

That's a completely different timeline though - by the late 2020s when the F-35 would be arriving, we'll need to replace the KC-130 as well as the C-150 and C-150 MRTT with a single purchase of new MRTTs.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Something tells me this isn't over. 

I'm not as familiar with this area as fighter capabilities, but from what I know the C-295 isn't the better aircraft... the C-27 won hands down the first iteration and nothing has really changed since then. The C-27J is significantly faster (key for reaching remote locations quickly). As someone joked to me "I guess the government is mandating people stay alive for an extra few hours while in distress. The C-27 also had much more power, which was seen as extremely useful while flying in mountainous terrain. Furthermore the C-295 does not have cockpit ceiling vision, another strike against it while flying in difficult terrain. Finally there is the Cabin size, which the -295 is a bit of a tight squeeze for a sartech. 

Basically this decision was based on Cost and the new Value proposition format, which allowed IRBs to dictate what the Military gets. Yes the C-295 is better than the Buffallos, but its significantly less capable than the C-27. It just puts our personnel and the civilians we serve at greater risk.


----------



## jmt18325

I'm quite sure it's over.  The specs were drawn up by the NRC and an independent fairness monitor signed off on the entire process - it's over.


----------



## PuckChaser

It's standard for CAF procurement. The best equipment doesn't win, the cheapest with most kickbacks to the economy wins. Nothings changed in 30 years.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's standard for CAF procurement. The best equipment doesn't win, the cheapest with most kickbacks to the economy wins. Nothings changed in 30 years.



And you base this assessment on your years of experience in requirements definition and procurement?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There several good examples of procurement done with substandard results;  pick any of the latest models of operational boots for the Army and The Clunkers in the RCAF.   LSVW.   TACVEST.  Cyclone.  .........

It's not absolutely necessary to understand the procurement process when you have to live with the results that fall short of requirements.   My shitty issued flashlight is an example, and I spent $40USD of my own money at the PX to replace it with something that actually worked when I needed it to.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> My shitty issued flashlight is an example, and I spent $4 USD at the PX to replace it with something that actually worked when I needed it to.



 :rofl:  

I keep my SIF in my helmet bag...as a holder for 2x AAA batteries for my mini Pelican flashlight.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And you base this assessment on your years of experience in requirements definition and procurement?



Sometimes all that experience in requirements definition and procurement doesn't mean those individuals have any clue about how things actually work on the ground. Ask some of the people who had boots fall apart after 3 weeks in an office about how they don't know how good they have it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I keep my SIF in my helmet bag...as a holder for 2x AAA batteries for my mini Pelican flashlight.



I think of mine as my "inspection flashlight" for those times when appearance counts and usefulness doesn't   ;D


----------



## Zoomie

Happy to have a replacement finally on the books.  Like it or not - this is the future FWSAR.


----------



## blacktriangle

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And you base this assessment on your years of experience in requirements definition and procurement?



I think someone having years of actually _using_ the results of projects should provide them the experience they need to make such comments.


----------



## RaceAddict

I don't speak legalese, so I can't make heads nor tails of the http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ website, but what are the chances of using the Access to Information Act to get access to the final procurement report with all the relevant info about the capabilities of the aircraft, the company's ISS programs, ITBs, etc?


----------



## Good2Golf

As good as any other citizen or resident submitting such a request through ATIP.  Don't forget, there are nominal request fees so if the response is lengthy, you would have to pay those fees.  You would not be able to pick only those documents you would like.  You would get an inter response noting set hong along the lines of, "Your requested information is comprised of XXX pages of material for which the processing fee is $XX.XX.  Do you wish to proceed with your request?"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There are ways to reduce the fees, by selecting dates, locations, no duplicates(which they are supposed to remove) and actual document names rather than a generic requests. Sometimes when i get a massive request and I have a good guess about what they really want I send suggestions to the ATIP office they can pass on to the requester. Frankly I am a big believer in the ATIP process and will do my best to ensure the right documents go out.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Very good and comprehensive article on endless FWSAR acquisition and C295 vs C-27J by someone who seems to really know his stuff and has good sources:



> FWSAR: Analysis of the C295W Airbus Acquisition
> http://www.happydiver.space/?p=277



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Very good and comprehensive article on endless FWSAR acquisition and C295 vs C-27J by someone who seems to really know his stuff and has good sources:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWSAR: Analysis of the C295W Airbus Acquisition
> http://www.happydiver.space/?p=277
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
Click to expand...


Very damning of the Liberal's politics in military aircraft purchases.

I just saw on the news their finalizing the deal to purchase Super Hornets.  

 [


----------



## suffolkowner

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Mark
> Ottawa
> 
> 
> Very damning of the Liberal's politics in military aircraft purchases.
> 
> I just saw on the news their finalizing the deal to purchase Super Hornets.
> 
> [



I wonder how often successive governments have reversed these directions in CAF past? Would the Leo 2 acquisition count?
I mean there's nothing stopping the next government from buying F-35's or C-27's if that is what they determine to be best, I mean other than money and will of course.

Private businesses often turn their back on billion dollar plans after determining that it was not in their best interests


----------



## MarkOttawa

George Wallace:



> I just saw on the news their finalizing the deal to purchase Super Hornets.



Not "finalizing" rather formally notifying Pentagon of intent to, er, negotiate purchase if deal can be done (which it will):
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1480167.html#msg1480167

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Private businesses often turn their back on billion dollar plans after determining that it was not in their best interests



Yep often after spending millions, in fact I know of 1 project where the new owner immediately spent 100 million to buy out First Nations interests that they original owner had agreed to to get the project through the Environmental Assessment process, now the project is dead in the water with only glimmer of hope to be revived.


----------



## Blair Gilmore

Mark from Ottawa,
Thanks for posting my article. I used to work SAR with the CCG plus 442 Sqn in Comox, so I have a passion for the subject and connections with the field. Word in the SAR community is they will make do with the Airbus as it's better than nothing. The Buffalos will be @60 years old by the time they're replaced (if that actually happens of course). They are tough old, reliable birds and decent for maintaining but the saga of replacing them has been ridiculous. The probable main reason for the decision was money as this aircraft was the cheapest option up front. Another issue though is it isn't interoperable with the rest of the RCAF fleets whereas the Spartan would have dovetailed in as a 'Baby' Herc, which would have saved money downstream.

SAR isn't as sexy as refugees and wasn't an election item this last cycle. The RCAF will be saddled with an inadequate aircraft for decades to come.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Blair Gilmore: Just thanks for the excellent piece.  Best I've seen on the matter.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

Blair Gilmore said:
			
		

> .
> 
> SAR isn't as sexy as refugees and wasn't an election item this last cycle. The RCAF will be saddled with an inadequate aircraft for decades to come.



For almost the first time I am hoping that an appeal will win.  It would appear that the Italians have reasonable grounds for complaint and Viking can do a complete rebuild on the Bufs to keep them running for a little while longer.  Not only is the airbus inadequate but it has the potential for costing lives between its limited range, slow response time and limited capacity.  Perhaps the third time round will be more successful


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Very good and comprehensive article on endless FWSAR acquisition and C295 vs C-27J by someone who seems to really know his stuff and has good sources:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



An excellent article.  



> Maybe the bean counters and politicians should pay more attention to the recommendations of the people risking their lives.



An excellent summary.  Thanks, Mr Gilmore.  BZ.

I know its hard for people to get how small the 235 & 295 are;  I've been up next to these on the ramp before.  I never once thought "ya, this is the platform we need for SAR".  One of our tasks as AES Ops is to get into cap's and lim's of aircraft we are/may operate with, which I'd done back in 2015 for a NATO ex and the MPA version of the 235/295 was one of the players.  I was surprised (not in a good way) on its ONSTA/payload limits, etc.  I never actually thought it would stand a chance as a Herc/Buff replacement.  

I, too, hope this selection is reversed, don't care how.  Lives literally depend on it.

*quick sidenote - I do say that sensors are important on a SAR FW platform.  Yes, the Mark 1 eyeball is needed but at night, a good RADAR is going to see a raft (well...most likely), IR is awesome at night, SAR modes can *see* nice big shiny backscatters that may stand out miles away if staring at a fuselage.  Keep the sensors, add 1 or 2 swept up sensor operators, they can rotate thru your spotter rotation when not smashing buttons.  It has happened before where LRP has been called in to RADAR/EOIR search and area that was being worked already, fogged in and no dice.  They found the boat on RADAR and then EO/IR.  So, keep the spotter Mk 1 Eyeball and add a few key electronic ones.  Neither work perfectly all the time/every situation.   Hopefully the RCAF will come to its senses when the airframes are on the way and put sensor operators with thousands of hour experience operating the sensors.   :2c:


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Hopefully the RCAF will come to its senses when the airframes are on the way and put sensor operators with thousands of hour experience operating the sensors.   :2c:



I can't remember where I heard/read it (might have been on this forum for all I know), but I thought the reason for having an ACSO and FE on the FWSAR was that it kept the arrangement from the Buff, but strictly as a means to avoid having to go through the airframe competition and personnel complement considerations at the same time, causing more staff work.

ie. Figure out the airframe, then figure out if it's ACSO/FE or 2 AESOPs that are required.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Part of the decision to keep ACSOs was to FG enough executive officers (Majs and CO) in the SAR Sqn because the pilot trade would have a difficult time filling all those positions. That's what was briefed to us back in Dec. anyway the decision was made, nothing we can do about it. I simply wish the best to the SAR community with the new platform.


----------



## dimsum

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Part of the decision to keep ACSOs was to FG enough executive officers (Majs and CO) in the SAR Sqn because the pilot trade would have a difficult time filling all those positions. That's what was briefed to us back in Dec. anyway the decision was made, nothing we can do about it. I simply wish the best to the SAR community with the new platform.



Interesting.  Well if it's exec experience they need (ie. they're not the line drivers), then why not parachute in an ACSO from a different community, esp if they've done a staff tour and would have to re-qual on their original platform anyway?  Breadth of experience and all that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oh, I suspect I'll be CRA when the dust settles so it won't affect me.   :nod:

That is both funny and not funny.


----------



## jmt18325

I don't see how the Italians have a chance when the NRC designed the criteria, and international fairness monitor signed off on the entire thing.  This is simply normal legal maneuvering.

We're getting an aircraft used around the world by a very reputable company at a lower price than the other aircraft.  That's good use of taxpayer dollars.  That's why Harper had the NRC and the fairness monitor.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Part of the decision to keep ACSOs was to FG enough executive officers (Majs and CO) in the SAR Sqn because the pilot trade would have a difficult time filling all those positions.



 :facepalm:



> I simply wish the best to the SAR community with the new platform.



Ya, I'll echo that.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's good use of taxpayer dollars.



An inadequate, or less-than-adequate, machine does not fit my definition of "good use of taxpayer dollars".


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> An inadequate, or less-than-adequate, machine does not fit my definition of "good use of taxpayer dollars".



It meets the specifications that we put out - specifications designed independently because of earlier problems caused by DND itself.  There is actually no evidence that this plane won't perform the role we've bought it to perform.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> We're getting an aircraft used around the world by a very reputable company at a lower price than the other aircraft.  That's good use of taxpayer dollars.  That's why Harper had the NRC and the fairness monitor.



You say this, despite most people who fly and have done SAR in one environment or another saying "WTF are we getting this platform for"?  Did you bother to read the article at all?  *A lower price*...who cares?  Can it do the job?  No?

If you needed a lawn mower to cut your grass, would you say the same thing if I tried to sell you a big pair of scissors?  After all, they will cut your grass, and at a lower price than a stupid expensive lawn mower.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It meets the specifications that we put out - specifications designed independently because of earlier problems caused by DND itself.  There is actually no evidence that this plane won't perform the role we've bought it to perform.



Read the article from some SAR SMEs.  The 3 main actual requirements when you scrape away the fat, are similar to ours for LRP (SAR is a secondary task for us as well).  

- ability to get to LKP ASAP.  *Time to get from runway to place I need to be*.
- ONSTA time.  *once I am there, how long can I remain there to conduct the task*
- payload. *what can I take, and how much of it, to do the job*

Generally speaking, the more I take, and the faster I go to get there, then I will reduce my ONSTA (on station) time.  Its a balancing act to get to the right place, at the right time, with the right things.  I am not a pilot, but I do fly for a living and have done practice and *real* SAR and my somewhat informed opinion is this airframe will fall short.  If/when it does, it may cost lives.

You can put more weight in stupid studies and stuff from folks who don't do the job, or you can put more weight in the articles linked above from people who actually do / have done SAR for a living, coast to coast to coast.  Pretty simple choice to me.  

Article:  FWSAR: Analysis of the C295W Airbus Acquisition


----------



## jmt18325

I get that a lot of people aren't happy with the decision - that kind of thinking is why the NRC got to make the requirements.  The C-27j is almost certainly better.  The C-225M met the requirements for less money.  End of story.


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I get that a lot of people aren't happy with the decision - that kind of thinking is why the NRC got to make the requirements.  The C-27j is almost certainly better.  The C-225M met the requirements for less money.  End of story.



Seriously?  

I have a strong feeling that we will find the same story occurred here as we had with the purchase of the LSVW for the Army so many years ago.......And that is not a good thing.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Meeting the requirements is one piece of the puzzle (the least important IMO).  Can it do the job is the more important question.  That's why we train (at a very expensive cost) test pilots, fly the airplanes and make recommendations regarding how it will perform in the role we intend before we make a decision.  

Requirements, in an idea world, would match exactly what we need.  It is rarely if ever the case.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The C-2235M met the requirements for less money.  End of story.



If you haven't, take 5-10 minutes and read the article.  I think you'll find it time not wasted, if you already haven't.  

No arguing that the process is the issue, and the end result of the entire process is the 235.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you haven't, take 5-10 minutes and read the article.  I think you'll find it time not wasted, if you already haven't.
> 
> No arguing that the process is the issue, and the end result of the entire process is the 235.



295 - I hit the wrong button.

It would be nice if budgets and needs aligned.  In a world where budgets matter, netting requirements is seen as good enough - Leonardo doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 295 - I hit the wrong button.



I was thinking the CASA.  My bad!



> It would be nice if budgets and needs aligned.  In a world where budgets matter, netting requirements is seen as good enough - Leonardo doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO.



*Tweaking requirements to meet budgets*.  The wrong way to buy military aircraft that perform or are on the line for real world operational missions 365/24/7.  

Time will tell I guess!


----------



## suffolkowner

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Read the article from some SAR SMEs.  The 3 main actual requirements when you scrape away the fat, are similar to ours for LRP (SAR is a secondary task for us as well).
> 
> - ability to get to LKP ASAP.  *Time to get from runway to place I need to be*.
> - ONSTA time.  *once I am there, how long can I remain there to conduct the task*
> - payload. *what can I take, and how much of it, to do the job*
> 
> Generally speaking, the more I take, and the faster I go to get there, then I will reduce my ONSTA (on station) time.  Its a balancing act to get to the right place, at the right time, with the right things.  I am not a pilot, but I do fly for a living and have done practice and *real* SAR and my somewhat informed opinion is this airframe will fall short.  If/when it does, it may cost lives.
> 
> You can put more weight in stupid studies and stuff from folks who don't do the job, or you can put more weight in the articles linked above from people who actually do / have done SAR for a living, coast to coast to coast.  Pretty simple choice to me.
> 
> Article:  FWSAR: Analysis of the C295W Airbus Acquisition



not to rehash this whole thread but didn't the characteristics that made the C-27J a good C-130H replacement make it a poor Buffalo replacement ie stall speed, soft field performance?

As you say above its a matter of trade-offs and how they were weighted in the decision process. Faulty assumptions and faulty weighting of attributes combined with faulty scoring will lead to poor acquisition every time, not just this once. To me these acquisitions are political and should remain so-that's why I elect politicians, not to shirk their responsibilities.

This process will be repeated for all other procurement's as both the Liberals and Conservatives seem to have bought in


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well, that's another issue.  *1 type to replace 2 types*.   You end up with 1 platform that is possibly not suited to really replace either airframe.

I recall the mention too about the difference in SHP, with concerns noted about the lesser with the 295.

C295W Power Concerns

One other important issue with the Airbus C295 that raises concerns with former SAR Buffalo pilot Scott Goebel is the aircraft’s power plant. The plane uses two Pratt & Whitney Canada PW 127G turboprop engines with a stated Engine Power (each) of 1972 kW / 2645 SHP. He believes that the aircraft may be under-powered for safe and effective flight in mountainous terrain. Moreover, he worries that the seemingly under-powered aircraft will not allow crews to use published air routes during instrument meteorological conditions that require it to maintain high minimum obstruction clearance altitudes, common for the Victoria region, in the event of the loss of an engine. In these situations crews must plan alternate routes that often lead to extended periods of time before reaching an area to deliver necessary aid.

For comparison, the C27J’s Maximum Engine Power is 4637 SHP per engine and the Buffalo uses a General Electric CT64-820-4 turboprop, generating 3,133 hp (2,336 kW) per engine.

The Buff - good for mountain SAR.  Not good on the east coast when the Capt in the article was flying out of CFB S'side (that was a while ago).   

The article says both the researchers AND military thought 300+ knots cruise was the right speed to go for.  244 is fairly far short of that, IMO.   Getting to the datum/LKP quicker is pretty important to me.


----------



## jmt18325

Chile uses the C-295.  I'm pretty sure they have mountains in Chile.


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Chile uses the C-295.  I'm pretty sure they have mountains in Chile.



Do they do contour flying to drop SAR Techs in Chile?

Not being facetious, but that is what the Buffs do in the west coast.


----------



## jmt18325

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Do they do contour flying to drop SAR Techs in Chile?
> 
> Not being facetious, but that is what the Buffs do in the west coast.



I just can't imagine Airbus selling us a product that would be unsafe for the mission profile.  In the long run, it would probably be bad for them, being as their aircraft will be competing at some point in the near future to replace the CC-150.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I just can't imagine Airbus selling us a product that would be unsafe for the mission profile.  In the long run, it would probably be bad for them, being as their aircraft will be competing at some point in the near future to replace the CC-150.



Yeah.

You have clearly never spent a day around an arms manufacturer. Or used one of their products.

This is how the defence industry works: it is truly "buyer beware". Kit that does not do the job is never, ever, ever the fault of the manufacturer. Each manufacturer has battalions of lawyers that make sure they never get blamed. Ever.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I just can't imagine Airbus selling us a product that would be unsafe for the mission profile.  In the long run, it would probably be bad for them, being as their aircraft will be competing at some point in the near future to replace the CC-150.



I just can't imagine a used car dealer selling me a product that would have more flaws than he knows. In the long run, it would probably be bad for him, as he will be competing at some point in the near future to replace other people's cars.

There's a sucker born every minute.

Birth interval for Liberals is probably about the same.


----------



## jmt18325

This is the thing though - this plane is regularly used as an MPA with great effect.  It's used by countries with mountains, like India and Chile, and it's used by some of our NATO allies.  What we're doing with it is more similar to that than it is different.  It has also gained far more orders than the C-27j.  I see this as more of the kind of argument that Matthew Fisher is (repeatedly) making about the Super Hornet.  I also see this as a bit of sour grapes over not getting the plane that the air force wanted - that the air force doctored requirements to make sure that they got.  

As far as I can tell, the C-27j never had a chance no matter who was in power, as the Liberals used a process and fairness monitor that was set up by the previous government.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This is the thing though - this plane is regularly used as an MPA with great effect.  It's used by countries with mountains, like India and Chile, and it's used by some of our NATO allies.  What we're doing with it is more similar to that than it is different.  It has also gained far more orders than the C-27j.  I see this as more of the kind of argument that Matthew Fisher is (repeatedly) making about the Super Hornet.  I also see this as a bit of sour grapes over not getting the plane that the air force wanted - that the air force doctored requirements to make sure that they got.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the C-27j never had a chance no matter who was in power, as the Liberals used a process and fairness monitor that was set up by the previous government.



Well, you are the expert.


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This is the thing though - this plane is regularly used as an MPA with great effect.  It's used by countries with mountains, like India and Chile, and it's used by some of our NATO allies.  What we're doing with it is more similar to that than it is different.  It has also gained far more orders than the C-27j.



Using the platform as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft is not the same as using it as a Search and Rescue aircraft, where SAR Techs will be moving around in the back with all their gear and parachuting off the back.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I get that a lot of people aren't happy with the decision - that kind of thinking is why the NRC got to make the requirements.  The C-27j is almost certainly better.  The C-225M met the requirements for less money.  End of story.



I worked with our SAR Techs seen the way they load up an aircraft, they may be flying SAR on the west coast with a search, drop a pump and or liferaft, finish that mission , fuel in Sandspit, then be tasked from there to the Yukon and be asked to parachute into a forest. The plane is going to be loaded to the max all the time. There is almost no headroom in it, except for a narrow strip down the centre. Yes Airbus will be better than the Italian company for support, but the C-27J is still the far, far better aircraft and far more versatile.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Using the platform as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft is not the same as using it as a Search and Rescue aircraft, where SAR Techs will be moving around in the back with all their gear and parachuting off the back.



Dimsum, please. You are arguing with an expert. Stop it.


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This is the thing though - this plane is regularly used as an MPA with great effect blah blah blah ...



You have, of course, discussed this directly with personnel who have operated it in the countries mentioned, and not just based this on magazine/internet articles, right?

You do not seem to have much success with reading comprehension, analytical thought, or ability to differentiate between good sources and not-so-good ones.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Loachman said:
			
		

> You have, of course, discussed this directly with personnel who have operated it in the countries mentioned, and not just based this on magazine/internet articles, right?
> 
> You do not seem to have much success with reading comprehension, analytical thought, or ability to differentiate between good sources and not-so-good ones.



Loach- you are wasting electrons. JMT is an expert in this field. You are not. I mean with nearly 40 years of military aviation under your belt, what could you possibly know about aircraft, in comparison to him?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This is the thing though - this plane is regularly used as an MPA with great effect.



Source please?  What are the criteria to classify 'great effect' for a MPA?  I'm genuinely curious what this is in your mind.  



> I also see this as a bit of sour grapes over not getting the plane that the air force wanted - that the air force doctored requirements to make sure that they got.



So, the Air Force can't determine what is the best platform for the lines of taskings they are going to be using a platform for?   ???  What better SMEs are there for SAR FW aircraft than people who use the current one and know its caps and lims??  



> As far as I can tell, the C-27j never had a chance no matter who was in power, as the Liberals used a process and fairness monitor that was set up by the previous government.



Would that be what you would say if you were talking to the family of a loved one who was lost, but could have been saved if the SAR Techs had reached them an hour sooner?  

Summary from the article...


> Maybe the bean counters and politicians should pay more attention to the recommendations of the people risking their lives.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Years ago, my department wanted to sell our 4x4 truck to buy a fuel efficient crossover, since one of the decision makers was out on the coast, I sent them off with an officer to do a site inspection, after having a few cavities knocked out on the old roads we have to use, they agreed we needed a real 4x4. I suspect part of our problem is that the committees make their decisions in the comfort of warm offices and not being bounced around in the back of a buff twisting through mountains and being hammered by downdrafts, nor droning for hours in a herc on a mid ocean search. Forcing these creatures out of their environment and spending some quality time with the folks doing the job and also having their lives at risk will focus their minds to the task.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Sometimes its hard to picture something in your head...specs on height, size and all that stuff.  When talking about how small the interior of the CASAs are (235, 295...whichever), I mean they are small.

So, here's a video of the inside of a C295.  Its the MPA version, but you still get an idea of how small the interior of this aircraft is.  295 part starts at 2:04.  Note the dude in the grey suit around 3:01.  

And in comparison, here is video of the RAAF first C27J.  There's 30 seconds of  good video of the backend starting at 7:00.


----------



## HB_Pencil

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Something tells me this isn't over.
> 
> I'm not as familiar with this area as fighter capabilities, but from what I know the C-295 isn't the better aircraft... the C-27 won hands down the first iteration and nothing has really changed since then. The C-27J is significantly faster (key for reaching remote locations quickly). As someone joked to me "I guess the government is mandating people stay alive for an extra few hours while in distress. The C-27 also had much more power, which was seen as extremely useful while flying in mountainous terrain. Furthermore the C-295 does not have cockpit ceiling vision, another strike against it while flying in difficult terrain. Finally there is the Cabin size, which the -295 is a bit of a tight squeeze for a sartech.
> 
> Basically this decision was based on Cost and the new Value proposition format, which allowed IRBs to dictate what the Military gets. Yes the C-295 is better than the Buffallos, but its significantly less capable than the C-27. It just puts our personnel and the civilians we serve at greater risk.





			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm quite sure it's over.  The specs were drawn up by the NRC and an independent fairness monitor signed off on the entire process - it's over.



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?


----------



## Zoomie

So here's the unsanctioned opinion of a private citizen - it's better than what we currently have.

Buff's are underpowered.  Hercs are old, expensive to run and way too much for what is needed.

FWSAR will undergo a complete re-org when it comes to how they do their job.  Valley-shoots, close contouring, soft-field landings, etc - will most probably no longer be required.  We will enter the 20th century and use a synergistic blend of high tech sensors and human factors to get the job done.

By choosing the C-295W, the government has effectively given the RCAF their marching orders on what limitations they now have to develop their new FWSAR tactics and procedures.  We knew we weren't getting another Buff or Herc.  These are our limitations, time to accept them and adapt accordingly to using this new machine to its fullest extent.  SARTechs will continue to jump, we will continue to cover Cormorant missions over open water, we will drop equipment to people in need, we will find people in distress, we will continue to do our job "That Others May Live".


----------



## HB_Pencil

Ditch said:
			
		

> So here's the unsanctioned opinion of a private citizen - it's better than what we currently have.
> 
> Buff's are underpowered.  Hercs are old, expensive to run and way too much for what is needed.
> 
> FWSAR will undergo a complete re-org when it comes to how they do their job.  Valley-shoots, close contouring, soft-field landings, etc - will most probably no longer be required.  We will enter the 20th century and use a synergistic blend of high tech sensors and human factors to get the job done.
> 
> By choosing the C-295W, the government has effectively given the RCAF their marching orders on what limitations they now have to develop their new FWSAR tactics and procedures.  We knew we weren't getting another Buff or Herc.  These are our limitations, time to accept them and adapt accordingly to using this new machine to its fullest extent.  SARTechs will continue to jump, we will continue to cover Cormorant missions over open water, we will drop equipment to people in need, we will find people in distress, we will continue to do our job "That Others May Live".



From what I hear, that's exactly what's going on. As is apparent in other areas of war, sensors are vastly improving in their ability to do work. However its just going to cost more to do it on the 295, because it has performance limitations that will require those capabilities more than the C-27. Its false economies, especially when the outcome was dictated in significant part by ITB considerations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> Buff's are underpowered.



If the numbers I am reading are accurate, isn't the 295 *more* underpowered then?  And as the engines age, over time they will be less efficient/more underpowered?  



> We will enter the 20th century and use a synergistic blend of high tech sensors and human factors to get the job done.



Even us self-loading meat sacks in the back agree on the blend aspect.  



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *quick sidenote - I do say that sensors are important on a SAR FW platform.  Yes, the Mark 1 eyeball is needed but at night, a good RADAR is going to see a raft (well...most likely), IR is awesome at night, SAR modes can *see* nice big shiny backscatters that may stand out miles away if staring at a fuselage.  Keep the sensors, add 1 or 2 swept up sensor operators.. keep the spotter Mk 1 Eyeball and add a few key electronic ones.  Neither work perfectly all the time/every situation...


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> I worked with our SAR Techs seen the way they load up an aircraft, they may be flying SAR on the west coast with a search, drop a pump and or liferaft, finish that mission , fuel in Sandspit, then be tasked from there to the Yukon and be asked to parachute into a forest. The plane is going to be loaded to the max all the time.



As opposed to the Buffalo that they would have been using instead?


----------



## jmt18325

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## jmt18325

Ditch said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## suffolkowner

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?


----------



## jmt18325

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.


----------



## jmt18325

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> 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.



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



That would be mostly correct.


----------



## kev994

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## suffolkowner

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.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Hat tip to suffolkowner for explanation...


----------



## jmt18325

kev994 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder how the Aussies are making out with their Spartans?

Unlike the Yanks the Aussies didn't stiff Alenia



> 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.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

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.


----------



## kev994

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## kev994

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Blair Gilmore

I was contacted by LGen(Ret'd) Steve Lucas, a spokesperson for Leonardo, on their position reference the awarding of the contract. Below are the items that we discussed:

 http://www.happydiver.space/?p=347


----------



## suffolkowner

Looks like a repeat of the cyclone/cormorant

I wonder if the government just decided it couldn't afford the C-27?


----------



## Blair Gilmore

Actually, after discussing the issue with LGen(Ret'd) Lucas, the Spartan bid was the same as Airbus's. In fact, Airbus was allowed to overbid for the back end of the contract by $1.3B! That money might be part of the Defence spending that was pushed out by the Budget but Airbus shouldn't have been allowed to do that and still win the contract.


----------



## suffolkowner

Well I look forward to the increased transparency promised by the Liberals


----------



## MarkOttawa

As ever Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!



> Industry offsets played key role in fixed-wing SAR award
> 
> Price may have been the determining factor in the selection of the C295W for Canada’s next fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, but opportunities for Canadian companies in the Airbus Defence & Space supply chain were also critical to the successful bid.
> 
> The C295W edged out Leonardo’s C-27J in December for a $2.4 billion contract to provide the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) with 16 aircraft to replace aging CC-115 Buffalos and CC-130H Hercules, a new operational training centre, and an initial five years of in-service support. Options for an additional 15 years of maintenance and support services could bring the total contract value to $4.7 billion.
> 
> Both bids were deemed compliant, and the final decision ultimately “came down to price,” Judy Foote, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada, told Skies in an interview at the time.
> 
> However, proposals for industrial and technological benefits (ITBs), or offsets, for Canadian defence and aerospace companies received considerable weight in the final analysis, said Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), speaking in Montreal on April 3 during International Aerospace Week.
> 
> “Airbus won the competition in large part because its value proposition [VP] included strong partnerships with Canadian industry,” he said.
> 
> Bains noted the government’s relatively new VP requirement, which is tailored in consultation with prospective bidders for each major capital defence procurement, was purposely structured to take advantage of Canada’s commercial and defence technological strengths and “ensure the aircraft would be maintained in Canada by Canadians.”
> 
> ...Bains and [John] MacInnis [deputy director of ITBs for ISED] pointed to Airbus partnerships with Pratt & Whitney Canada, CAE, Heroux-Devtek and Provincial (PAL) Aerospace as examples of what well-crafted ITBs can deliver. Airbus and Pratt & Whitney, for example, plan to develop a variant of the PW127G turboprop engine for Canadian and other C295 customers, while CAE is expected to build a “turnkey training solution” that could be exported.
> 
> And for ISS, Airbus and PAL have created AirPro, a Canadian company that could eventually provide ISS-related program management, engineering and other services to international fleets of C295 aircraft.
> 
> Both also emphasized that similar opportunities for small- and medium-sized businesses would be available under the CF-188 fighter jet replacement and interim F/A-18 Super Hornet acquisition projects.
> https://www.skiesmag.com/news/industry-offsets-played-key-role-fixed-wing-sar-award/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I had a discussion very recently with a SAR Tech who has been in the 295, and talked with similar professionals from another/other country(s) that are using the 295 in a similar role.  The operators all basically say the same thing;  it sucks, it's not the right platform.  Everything from the potential to have to man-handle the loads of the aircraft if it goes U/S, to the power and icing issues, to increased risk of injury to the folks operating in and out of the back of these.  There will be a loss of flexibility in the way the A/C can be employed and there is concern from our SAR SMEs, even before the first a/c is even close to be handing over, on this platform.

I can't remember which AF the SAR Tech I was talking to said he'd done some cross training with, but the main point was the plane was the shits for SAR.  However, this SAR Techs informed opinion was something like the Herc J with the right sensors and operators on board would be the best single platform to replace the current ones.  There was also some head shaking over not having the RCAFs dedicated Sensor Operator trade not IDd as part of the crew.


----------



## jmt18325

A J Herc would seem to have been the best - too bad they didn't bid.


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> As ever Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



If, god forbid, one goes down and there are casualties/fatalities, imagine the public outcry of "how dare the RCAF buy inferior equipment!"


----------



## jmt18325

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If, god forbid, one goes down and there are casualties/fatalities, imagine the public outcry of "how dare the RCAF buy inferior equipment!"




I don't know that it's inferior in that it's unsafe to fly - it's simply that in a perfect world, there were probably better aircraft.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

*Not good in icing* + Canadian SAR Regions = .............

Ice can make things go REALLY bad for a crew and their ride.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> *Not good in icing* + Canadian SAR Regions = .............
> 
> Ice can make things go REALLY bad for a crew and their ride.



I've been looking for some kind of source for those issues - so far, nothing.  I'd be interested in seeing the information.


----------



## YZT580

Try this.  http://www.baaa-acro.com/2012/archives/crash-of-a-casa-c-295m-in-mende-6-killed/  and that was over the Med.  now try Atlantic Canada or even around Toronto


----------



## suffolkowner

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Try this.  http://www.baaa-acro.com/2012/archives/crash-of-a-casa-c-295m-in-mende-6-killed/  and that was over the Med.  now try Atlantic Canada or even around Toronto



That's a little disconcerting to say the least. I would definitely like more information on how the decision was made. Is the FWSAR the first project to go through the new acquisition process, or maybe MSVS-SMP?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I understand the issue, they can deice or run the equipment in the back, but not both, I suspect if I am wrong I will be shortly corrected here.  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Try this.  http://www.baaa-acro.com/2012/archives/crash-of-a-casa-c-295m-in-mende-6-killed/  and that was over the Med.  now try Atlantic Canada or even around Toronto



Anywhere, really.  You have to content with Wx from homeplate to the Op area, and back or to an Alt.  It might be really sunny and awesome where you take off, but that is rarely the same place you're operating.  Not many things really scare the crap out of me about flying;  fire and (bad) icing are 2 of them.  Honourable mention goes to losing RADAR at night/in IMC with thunderstorms and stuff kicking about.

I am not sure about the limitations of the 295 to de-ice and run mission systems, but personally I don't like the idea of having to pick between to *fly blind or de-ice*.  RADAR is usually a go/no-go item if Wx is expected.  So is de-icing equip.


----------



## Kirkhill

One of my more memorable flights - and I have had a couple - was as a passenger in a DASH 8 sitting beside the props climbing out through an ice-cloud,  and suddenly wondering where that machine gun was.  Disconcerting when the props start flinging chunks of ice up against the fuselage on which you are leaning.


----------



## Loachman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IMC



For those unaware, IMC is Instrument Meteorological Conditions, ie "can't see nuffin".


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One of my more memorable flights - and I have had a couple - was as a passenger in a DASH 8 sitting beside the props climbing out through an ice-cloud,  and suddenly wondering where that machine gun was.  Disconcerting when the props start flinging chunks of ice up against the fuselage on which you are leaning.



There is a protective shield or patch on the Dash-8 fuselage right abeam the propeller to protect the skin of the aircraft for damage caused by ice shedding from the propellers.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is a protective shield or patch on the Dash-8 fuselage right abeam the propeller to protect the skin of the aircraft for damage caused by ice shedding from the propellers.



Thanks.  I wish you had been there to hold my hand at the time.   ;D


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin P said:
			
		

> As I understand the issue, they can deice or run the equipment in the back, but not both, I suspect if I am wrong I will be shortly corrected here.  :nod:



This is because of the lack of APU noted in the happydiver posts?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think so, but not sure


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Hmmmm.  APUs can be used when flying but within certain parameters (at least, in our fleet).  Max altitude and airspeed limits, but it is the exception not the rule.  I can't ever remember the APU being used airborne (but...I am a backender, this is flight deck stuff) .   What I know is *icing is bad, de-icing takes power and takes away some endurance*.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Hmmmm.  APUs can be used when flying but within certain parameters (at least, in our fleet).  Max altitude and airspeed limits, but it is the exception not the rule.  I can't ever remember the APU being used airborne (but...I am a backender, this is flight deck stuff) .   What I know is *icing is bad, de-icing takes power and takes away some endurance*.



I have never operated in an aircraft where the APU could be run in flight. Many aircraft are designed with a weight on wheels switch preventing the APU even being started while airborne.

But, maybe the C-295 has an airborne APU.  :dunno:


----------



## kev994

My buddy flew the 235 for USCG. He said that if you were in icing conditions you would not dare run the mission system (belly radar and WO/it etc). I know it had something to do with the electrical load. But that was a slightly different airframe with a specific mission system. Whether it applies to ours, dunno.  I'm fairly certain this would not affect the aircraft weather radar as it would be separate from the mission system radar. 
You would generally only run an APU airborne for a malfunction such as a loss of a generator (or the engine that turns said generator).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:
			
		

> I'm fairly certain this would not affect the aircraft weather radar as it would be separate from the mission system radar.
> You would generally only run an APU airborne for a malfunction such as a loss of a generator (or the engine that turns said generator).



Not all RADARs are 'seperate' though.  The one I operate, Wx is just one of the multiple modes I can select, with the option to have 2 operators;  1 doing a non-Wx mode (surface/maritime surveillance) and 1 in Wx mode.  Again, though, not all systems can run this way.

Unless you meant the WRS (aka *storm scope*)?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have never operated in an aircraft where the APU could be run in flight. Many aircraft are designed with a weight on wheels switch preventing the APU even being started while airborne.



IIRC the SGOD can do it but only within certain limits.  I'd have to look at AOIs for certain.


----------



## kev994

C130H and J can both run the APU in flight


----------



## SeaKingTacco

kev994 said:
			
		

> C130H and J can both run the APU in flight



Thanks for that. I am unfamiliar with both airframes.


----------



## Zoomie

I am unable to decipher anywhere that the C-295W does not meet ICAO requirements for flight into known icing conditions.  That linked article refers to the CASA entering clear icing (severe clear) and an attempt was made to climb out of it - resulting in a spin.  There are no aircraft in the world that are certified for flight into Severe Icing.  Even the mighty SGOD, C-27J, C-130J would have been unable to shed that ice and would have had an interesting day.

Airplanes 101 - shedding ice off surfaces (ie leading edge of wing, tail, etc) is hardly ever a function of electrical power - this is pneumatic or bleed air driven.  The C-295 has pneumatic "boots" on the leading edges of all critical flight surfaces - just look at any picture and you will see the black rubber.  The faster the aircraft, the less requirement for de-ice boots - C-130's have a hot wing.  Modern jets fly fast enough and high enough that wing ice isn't an issue.

Required Vernacular to understand:

DE-ICE ----> action taken to remove ice/frost/snow after it has been deposited on the lifting surfaces

ANTI-ICE ----> action taken before entering icing conditions to stop the acretion of ice/frost on critical surfaces.

Modern turbo-props (like the C-295) use anti-ice//de-ice on pitot tubes, static ports, windshields, propeller blades, engine nacelles, cooling intake ports, etc etc.  Some of these are electrical and draw huge Amps (prop de-ice for example).  While the rest are pneumatic (ie bleed air off the turbine engine).

LGen Lucas (ret'd) certainly is a well respected member of our community - I will not comment on his interaction with this proposal.  I do, however, believe that we have had the choice made for us and we need to move on.  This is, of course, in my humble opinion.

Regards,

Ditch


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> Required Vernacular to understand:
> 
> DE-ICE ----> action taken to remove ice/frost/snow after it has been deposited on the lifting surfaces
> 
> ANTI-ICE ----> action taken before entering icing conditions to stop the acretion of ice/frost on critical surfaces.



Remember, most people don't take the mental energy to distinguish between *tank* and *APC* or *RPA* and *drone*.  De-ice, re-ice, anti-ice...same same to 99.9% of folks.

The issue isn't so much the one about anti/de-icing, (to me) it is the "not able to run mission systems and de-ice at the same time very well".  I don't know how the 295 works, I am (somewhat) familiar with the one on our fleet (some is bleed air, some is electrical) but I do know I wouldn't be a fan of hearing "mission system powering off for de-icing".  Generally any time we are in icing we'd really like to keep RADAR up for Wx and IFF ... its commonly a go/no-go item (for us).

Not sure what the current aircraft doing the job have now for RADAR *but* I am confident in saying that the new platform, if it has a good multimode RADAR with a experienced operator will be a super addition to the crew.  It would be a detrimental to the mission and crew to shut off a RADAR in challenging Wx and could also negatively impact time to the location and ONSTA time.


----------



## kev994

So I asked my buddy for clarification and he said the 235 is mostly run on DC power with the exception of the mission system and the prop and engine deice/anti-ice systems, which are all AC powerand run off of separate AC generators, you could theoretically run it all but with surges you might run into issues. The issue is supposed to be solved in the 295, but of course he's never flown that. The mission system was separate from the weather radar and TCAS, they both stayed online.


----------



## CPTGabeyP

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Hmmmm.  APUs can be used when flying but within certain parameters (at least, in our fleet).  Max altitude and airspeed limits, but it is the exception not the rule.  I can't ever remember the APU being used airborne (but...I am a backender, this is flight deck stuff) .   What I know is *icing is bad, de-icing takes power and takes away some endurance*.



Severe icing is {imo} worse than a fire on-board because it's all exterior and hard to reach (de-icing boots will obviously help quite a bit but they're not perfect)
You can lose 30% lift and drag can increase by 40% in the worst of conditions.. that is scary af


----------



## Loachman

Fires are no less scary.

Ask the passengers and crew of Swissair 111, or a Nationair DC8 in the middle east sometime in the 1980s when a pilgrim on his way to Mecca decided to brew tea with a Coleman-type stove, or a bunch of other people who met similar miserable deaths.

Both fire and ice are to be avoided.


----------



## CPTGabeyP

Loachman said:
			
		

> Fires are no less scary.
> 
> Ask the passengers and crew of Swissair 111, or a Nationair DC8 in the middle east sometime in the 1980s when a pilgrim on his way to Mecca decided to brew tea with a Coleman-type stove, or a bunch of other people who met similar miserable deaths.
> 
> Both fire and ice are to be avoided.


I didn't mean to downplay the severity of a fire. 
I've only experienced icing conditions so I guess my post was a little bias.

Both situations are extremely dangerous


----------



## Good2Golf

CPTGabeyP said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to downplay the severity of a fire.
> I've only experienced icing conditions so I guess my post was a little bias.
> 
> Both situations are extremely dangerous



Icing usually leads to a quick thump.  The men of "Stinger 25" endured much worse before the end (RCAF: Flight Comment - Flight Safety magazine pp.9/16 RIP: Wally & Bob  ).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman

CPTGabeyP said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to downplay the severity of a fire.
> I've only experienced icing conditions so I guess my post was a little bias.
> 
> Both situations are extremely dangerous



Yup.

There is no shortage of things that can kill one, but some are of more concern than others regardless of actual likelihood.

I was more concerned about fire, not necessarily while airborne, and wirestrikes than anything else, plus a little concerned about being attacked by unseen mad bulls while hovering in their fields - but that, of course, was due to our rather unique operating environment.

I managed to avoid all but the middle one, but was charged by two herds of cows and missed.

We were VFR only, and did all of our simulated IFR on sunny days, so icing was never a big worry.

One of our guys did encounter unforecast freezing rain once, and ended up flying sideways during his really-short-final approach, and landed sideways, as it built up on his windscreen bubble very quickly. Between one-quarter and one-half of an inch accumulated within a couple of minutes and he could not see a thing straight ahead. He was already on final for the pad due to a hasty all-aircraft recall, and about 100 feet up, when he picked up the first few drops.


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Icing usually leads to a quick thump.



There's often plenty of time to experience fear and horror and denial before that bump, though.

More recent fire-related incidents, with one unhappy and one happy ending:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ch146434-griffon-epilogue-flight-safety-investigation-report/hldepc5a

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ch147202-chinook-epilogue-flight-safety-investigation-report/hl6j9ilb


----------



## suffolkowner

Looking for corroboration, but looks like Leonardo wants to know why Airbus was allowed to go/knew that the budget for FWSAR had been changed.... 
https://www.skiesmag.com/news/exclusive-team-spartan-reveals-details-fwsar-court-challenge/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If Leonardo can prove even a reasonable doubt to the court that Airbus received information that they did not get, the court might toss the decision on that basis alone. Of course if Airbus/government shows that Leonardo did receive the information at the same time and failed to account for it, much face will be lost.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/exclusive-team-spartan-reveals-details-fwsar-court-challenge/


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin P said:
			
		

> https://www.skiesmag.com/news/exclusive-team-spartan-reveals-details-fwsar-court-challenge/



It's like deja vu [lol:

The article does a good job explaining the APU situation. It seems hard to believe that Leonardo could be cheaper than Airbus based on the published numbers but that is why you put it out for tender! I'd like to know what Leonardo was offering for that much of a price difference. I think the CPFH difference would be interesting as well but 3000 versus 2000 is a lot different than 30000 versus 20000.

More importantly I wonder where the RCMP investigation is on this file how exactly did Airbus know they could go over the budget by that much and not Leonardo. What would be the justification for the government not informing both bidders?


----------



## dapaterson

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It's like deja vu [lol:
> 
> The article does a good job explaining the APU situation. It seems hard to believe that Leonardo could be cheaper than Airbus based on the published numbers but that is why you put it out for tender! I'd like to know what Leonardo was offering for that much of a price difference. I think the CPFH difference would be interesting as well but 3000 versus 2000 is a lot different than 30000 versus 20000.
> 
> More importantly I wonder where the RCMP investigation is on this file how exactly did Airbus know they could go over the budget by that much and not Leonardo. What would be the justification for the government not informing both bidders?



Notice that Leonardo is not raising the budget issue in their court filings.  Which is curious - if there was information asymmetry that could be an actionable thing, yet it's not part of the appeal.  Reading the article, it almost sounds as if Leonardo is arguing against the evaluation criteria.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Notice that Leonardo is not raising the budget issue in their court filings.  Which is curious - if there was information asymmetry that could be an actionable thing, yet it's not part of the appeal.  Reading the article, it almost sounds as if Leonardo is arguing against the evaluation criteria.



They likely can't/would be overly difficult to prove the asymmetry. It's better for them to focus on the actual SOR and how they believe the C-27J is the superior aircraft, and force PSPC to release the scoring criteria and scores on how they came up with the winner.


----------



## suffolkowner

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They likely can't/would be overly difficult to prove the asymmetry. It's better for them to focus on the actual SOR and how they believe the C-27J is the superior aircraft, and force PSPC to release the scoring criteria and scores on how they came up with the winner.



I would certainly like to know how things were scored, to me it's not a good start to our non political procurement process!


----------



## dapaterson

Generally, the evaluation criteria are part of the package released to bidders.  And afterwards, the bidders are given (on request) a debrief and information on how they scored.


----------



## PuckChaser

How they scored, but are they given the other bidders scores, or is that held in confidence? The first step to an open and fair procurement process is publishing the scoring for each company for the public to see.


----------



## suffolkowner

You can see the problem in developing a scoring system though. If you can't manage FWSAR how are you going to do with more complicated procurements?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Leonardo claims gov't played dirty with them:



> Losing search plane bidder not aware of feds 'budget flexibility'
> _Public works says the max $3.4B search plane budget 'never a mandatory requirement'_
> 
> A new and crucial wrinkle has emerged in the Liberal government's first major military equipment purchase: the ongoing saga to replace the air force's fixed-wing search and rescue planes.
> 
> The losing bidder in the $4.7-billion program has told CBC News that it was never informed there was flexibility within the federal government's proposed acquisition budget.
> 
> Leonardo S.p.A., an Italian aircraft maker, found itself on the outside of the deal last fall when the Liberal government chose to buy 16 new C-295W transports from rival Airbus Defence and Space.
> 
> The company with the losing bid, which offered its C-27J aircraft, has launched a Federal Court challenge. It also recently lost a bid before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to halt the project.
> 
> Central to its case is how the program budget envelope went to $4.7 billion from $3.4 billion, which was initially approved and set aside by the previous Conservative government.
> 
> [further links]
> Trade challenge of RCAF search plane contract tossed
> Airbus search plane contract faces court challenge
> Airbus chosen to build Canada's new search planes
> 
> The three companies bidding on the replacement contract and 20 years of in-service support — Leonardo, Airbus Defence and Space  and Embraer — were told that exceeding the budget envelope could lead to disqualification.
> 
> "If the financial proposal of the winning bid is higher than the notional budget, Canada could, at its sole discretion exercise any of its rights," which includes rejection of the offer, said the request for proposals.
> 
> Federal officials, in explaining the mechanics of the decision last December, told CBC News that the contract was being broken up into two stages.
> 
> The Airbus bid came in at $2.4 billion and included only 11 years of maintenance. There would be an option to renew in-service support for up to 15 years, and, if fully extended, it would add an additional $2.3 billion to the value of the tender.
> 
> As the Canadian partner of Airbus, Provincial Aerospace in St. John's would be the main beneficiary of those contract extensions.
> 
> *Bidder left in the dark?*
> 
> Public works conducted extensive consultations with the bidders and trumpeted the openness and transparency of the contract process.
> 
> Yet, a senior official at Leonardo says nowhere in those discussions was his company given the indication that the project budget could be exceeded.
> 
> "All efforts made by Leonardo during the proposal preparation were focused, for the benefit of Canada, on considering the notional budget as a target to meet," Filippo Bagnato, the managing director of Leonardo Aircraft Division, told CBC News.
> 
> "Leonardo was not aware of any budget flexibility, beyond that described in the RFP (request for proposal), and that an increase in budget would be remotely possible."
> 
> A spokesperson for public works underlined the fact the program budget was "notional," meaning it was hypothetical with figures that were prepared a few years ago when bids were first solicited.
> 
> "While the Government of Canada shared a notional budget of $3.4 billion as information for the replacement of its fleet of Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) aircraft with bidders, it was never a mandatory requirement nor was it a ceiling price that bidders had to bid under," said spokesperson Pierre-Alain Bujold.
> 
> "The notional budget was based on best information available at the time when the solicitation was released to industry. The solicitation documents clearly identified a best value approach for the selection of the winning bid, which considered capability and socio-economic benefits as well as cost."..
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/search-rescue-plane-contract-1.4136145



I.e. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile Twotters will be kept flying until 55 years old--but some Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!



> Canada Invests in Maintenance of Buffalo and Twin Otter Aircraft
> 
> ...maintenance contracts were awarded to KF Aerospace of British Columbia as a result of open, transparent and competitive processes. With much of the work being done in the country, these contract will help support Canada’s world-class aerospace industry and _maintain approximately 40 high-value middle-class jobs_ [emphasis added] for Canadians...
> 
> The second contract, valued at $9.6 million (including taxes), will help maintain the Royal Canadian Air Force’s CC-138 Twin Otter aircraft for a period of four years and includes the possibility of four additional one-year extensions. Canada’s four Twin Otters are based in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. These aircraft are used in transport roles for the Canadian Armed Forces’ northern operations and occasionally in search and rescue missions. This investment will help maintain the equipment until at least 2025, so that the Canadian Armed Forces can continue delivering operations in the northern territories...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/05/canada_invests_inmaintenanceofbuffaloandtwinotteraircraft.html



Sigh...what about this jobs alternative?



> Why Not Just Buy New-Build Viking Air Twotters for RCAF?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/mark-collins-why-not-just-buy-new-build-viking-air-twotters-for-rcaf/



From that post, new Twotter with Vietnamese navy, great paint job:







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With a "trade in" clause that Viking takes and resell the older Otters, which they would be happy to do I suspect. Write a sole source contract, because they are the only ones that seem to work.


----------



## suffolkowner

The Twin Otter seems like a slam dunk solution, especially if one considers the jobs aspect.

Regarding FWSAR it seems hard to believe that Leonardo could match Airbus's numbers, I sure would like to know how their bids compared. You would think the RCMP would be investigating this instead of Admiral Norman


----------



## Loachman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Leonardo claims gov't played dirty with them:



Further down in that article, it states:

"Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan ... "When we made the announcement I was very happy to hear from our search and rescue community that this aircraft is going to deliver all the necessary tools and be able to enhance our ability. I'm looking forward to having new equipment for our search and rescue because our men and women deserve that."

One wonders who told him that, or if he's imagineering again.

I've not heard anybody in the SAR community speak favourably about this decision, but there could be some who feel that anything shiny is better than anything old, I suppose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

His career would not have him rub shoulders with the day to day SAR ops. Likely he is hearing what the hand puppets at the top want him to hear.


----------



## dimsum

So, has anyone seen/toured the Brazilian C-295 that did the tours of Comox, Winnipeg and Trenton?  If so, now that you've seen it in the flesh, how does it compare to the Buffalo?


----------



## my72jeep

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So, has anyone seen/toured the Brazilian C-295 that did the tours of Comox, Winnipeg and Trenton?  If so, now that you've seen it in the flesh, how does it compare to the Buffalo?


Looks like a herc that never grew up.


----------



## Zoomie

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So, has anyone seen/toured the Brazilian C-295 that did the tours of Comox, Winnipeg and Trenton?  If so, now that you've seen it in the flesh, how does it compare to the Buffalo?



Apologies for delay - I spent about 4 hours crawling over the Brazilian variant of our new CC-295.  

It is superior in every way to the Buffalo - faster, more comfortable, pressurized and more room.   

It's not a Herc - nor was it ever meant to be.  

Airbus has built a nice package for our SAR crews - it will be a welcome addition to our modern fleet.


----------



## George Wallace

Ditch said:
			
		

> Apologies for delay - I spent about 4 hours crawling over the Brazilian variant of our new CC-295.
> 
> It is superior in every way to the Buffalo - faster, more comfortable, pressurized and more room.
> 
> It's not a Herc - nor was it ever meant to be.
> 
> Airbus has built a nice package for our SAR crews - it will be a welcome addition to our modern fleet.



???

So?  What happens when SAR has to jump?  Rapid decompression?....  :warstory: ......I know.....The cabin will be depressurized and then the doors opened, and away they or cargo go.  

That was my initial impression though.   [


----------



## jmt18325

I thought I read here earlier that it would be nothing but a total disaster?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I thought I read here earlier that it would be nothing but a total disaster?



The comparison was to the Buffalo only the 295 isn't just replacing the Buffalo. I'd also wait to hear what the backenders think, they are the ones doing to work in the back right?  The Buffalo isn't the ideal 1-solution FW platform either and I don't remember anyone saying that.  I'd expect Buff drivers to love the new plane, glass cockpit etc.  Doesn't mean it was the ideal choice over the other available choices for a single FWSAR.

The RCAF also announced that the sensors would not be operated by the RCAF sensor operators.  That also shows you how some of the RCAF thought processes occur.   :


----------



## jmt18325

It's also worth noting that while it's not replacing only the buffalo, it's only replacing one role of the SAR Hercs.  It's not meant to replace their other functions.


----------



## suffolkowner

the status of defence recruitment in canada where anything is better than nothing


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting that while it's not replacing only the buffalo, it's only replacing one role of the SAR Hercs.  It's not meant to replace their other functions.



The one role of SAR Hercs.  Isn't that .... SAR?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

SAR and Air to Air refuelling.


----------



## jmt18325

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> SAR and Air to Air refuelling.



I thought some still did the occasional transport?  Or is that completely done now?


----------



## SupersonicMax

They do.  I flew on a SAR-configured Herc from Winnipeg to Resolute Bay.


----------



## YZT580

and it took, what, 4:30 to 5:00 hours.  Be grateful it was the herc, our new SAR aircraft will do the same trip in 7:00 and running from Trenton it will take over 8.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I misunderstood the role comment.   But the last comment is getting us back to the steak and not the peas.  Time to LKP can literally be the difference between life and death.

Recently I was part of a mission on the east coast that saw us retasked to a SAR.  PIW, no flotation device off a small vessel, dark clothes on and the sun was just starting to set when it came over the radio.  Survival times without poopy suits were low (despite the time of year, it can still be an hour or less).

The ability to get ONSTA quicker in cases like that is extremely important.  Extremely.  + \ - 70-80kts can be the difference between life and death.  A PIW (person in the water) with no flotation device isn't going to get many chances to survive when they are offshore.  

It also demonstrates the requirement for search lights and trained crews, spotters.  IR and RADAR aren't worth jack shit in a maritime SAR like that.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Why don't immersion suit manufacturers include some sort of inflatable radar balloon with their immersion suits?

Similar to this product.  https://www.plastimo.com/en/safety/radar-reflectors/reflecteur-radar-gonflable.html

Given the fidelity of our radar systems it would definately make it easier to locate a survivor.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Cost?

And.  Make it orange please.  Very bright orange.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I misunderstood the role comment.   But the last comment is getting us back to the steak and not the peas.  Time to LKP can literally be the difference between life and death.



I'll just point on that the National Research Council came to the conclusion that said quality was an arbitrary criterion.  That's probably because we're doing the job on the west coast an in the north (secondary role) with slower aircraft now.


----------



## jmt18325

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> They do.  I flew on a SAR-configured Herc from Winnipeg to Resolute Bay.



It looks like there's one being used in BC right now, also.


----------



## Zoomie

AAR role will disappear - at least from the current squadron that is tasked to provide.

Transport will continue to be done - with SAR being the first line of tasking.

Speed is arbitrary and inconclusive at this moment - if speed was the ultimate factor we would have Hornets equipped with SKADs on all our coasts.

There's still some glimmer of hope for a 7 man crew (AESOP being the 7th, sorry loadies).  MTF as the role is expanded upon with new capabilities.


----------



## captloadie

We can barely meet the LM demand on the current fleets. I don't think we'll be devastated not being hunched over in the back  >


----------



## Zoomie

Even better for your guys then - with the removal of the H models - you won't have three SAR squadrons plus one school to worry about.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Ditch said:
			
		

> if speed was the ultimate factor we would have Hornets equipped with SKADs on all our coasts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Cost?
> 
> And.  Make it orange please.  Very bright orange.



SAR orange = +10% to cost, SAR Marine= add another %15, SAR aviation = add %75


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'll just point on that the National Research Council came to the conclusion that said quality was an arbitrary criterion.  That's probably because we're doing the job on the west coast an in the north (secondary role) with slower aircraft now.



Great.  As someone who has been on SAR missions at the coal face I will dismiss anyone who says speed to the scene is not important.  At least in some cases, such as the one I mentioned above.  That wasn't a fictitious story for benefit of supporting my opinion.     

We used muskets and horses in combat back in the day.  Is that valid argument today to not improve combat force capabilities?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> AAR role will disappear - at least from the current squadron that is tasked to provide.
> 
> Transport will continue to be done - with SAR being the first line of tasking.
> 
> Speed is arbitrary and inconclusive at this moment - if speed was the ultimate factor we would have Hornets equipped with SKADs on all our coasts.
> 
> There's still some glimmer of hope for a 7 man crew (AESOP being the 7th, sorry loadies).  MTF as the role is expanded upon with new capabilities.



I know you've oodles more SAR experience than I do but I still have to say I think speed is important.  Not all the time but some of the time.  Missions like the one I mentioned earlier are rare but happen and minutes can be crucial.  

Sensor ops manning sensors makes sense of course but I am also aware of the challenges our trade faces and supply/demand realities.  I still think the SAR mission is a real day to day operational mission that we can plan for before the first 295s are in place.


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know you've oodles more SAR experience than I do but I still have to say I think speed is important.  Not all the time but some of the time.  Missions like the one I mentioned earlier are rare but happen and minutes can be crucial.




Since this is an area that I have some expertise, I feel I can contribute.  Yes, minutes count.  With SAR, and general rescue, hours don't count so much.  The difference between many hours and many many hours is usually not as significant.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That depends when you have a drift rate of 6kts from the last known point and wind that shears or conflicting tidal currents, you search areas grows very much wider by the hour. I was on one call where the search was for a skiff missing between Sandspit and Rivers Inlet. We found them ok and it was a bright sunny day with almost no chop, they were sitting on the edge of the Buffs search pattern, watching it fly back and forth just outside of the grid, a passing fishboat picked up them up on radar and alerted us and sent over a boat to investigate. Every hour not searching means your search takes longer and is more costly. There is a limited budget even for SAR.


----------



## jmt18325

I was being more....dire than that.  Hours usually means dead.  Not always, mind you, but with each hour, your percentage chance of being found alive gets a lot smaller.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In this case it ended well for the 2 of them, many times it has been to late. I did marvel at how efficient our first "electronic" rescue went getting a canoeist off of Brooks Peninsula after getting smashed onto the rocks, he had a early 406/151mhz beacon loaned to him and it led us right to him. We could save money just by giving those away to every commercial boat.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Since this is an area that I have some expertise, I feel I can contribute.  Yes, minutes count.  With SAR, and general rescue, hours don't count so much.  The difference between many hours and many many hours is usually not as significant.



FWSAR is its own flavour though which is what this is about.  You can only fly so slow and lack the ability to hover and hold position.  

A another good example is the sail race SAR last summer mid Atlantic.   Getting there quick and being able to determine reality and assets was very important.  Herc got their quick but lacked electronic search ability.  Aurora got on station and added vital info gained by doing some things we do extremely well (radar surface plot + AIS + comms + EOIR...) and regularly.

The new FWSAR will have the sensor package and comms (not sure what the comms package will be) but not as much speed.  I've no idea what legs it will have compared to Hercs and 140s but the 140 mission was 12+ hours.  Depending on transit times etc the quicker you can get there and the longer you can stay the less chance of gaps in the search.  

It doesn't feel great to go offsta with no success and a XX gap in time before your relief is on scene.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> In this case it ended well for the 2 of them, many times it has been to late. I did marvel at how efficient our first "electronic" rescue went getting a canoeist off of Brooks Peninsula after getting smashed onto the rocks, he had a early 406/151mhz beacon loaned to him and it led us right to him. We could save money just by giving those away to every commercial boat.



Great points in both your posts.  SARTs would be great as well IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So, had a chat with a friend who is a fling-wing SAR type earlier today.  I wasn't aware that the new FWSAR wasn't going to have an APU.

Interesting, and likely not in a good way.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Did he have anything to say about the lack of headroom in the back for techs and the lack of upper window in the cockpit?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Did he have anything to say about the lack of headroom in the back for techs and the lack of upper window in the cockpit?



The lack of headroom stuff, yes.  Most of the talk was about lack of speed, legs, APUs, how well composite props like gravel and rocks, and 'why the Spartan would have been the right pick of the two' for military, operational capabilities reasons.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 'why the Spartan would have been the right pick of the two'.



Maybe for the CAF and any end-users of said airplane, but to the penny-pinchers?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good point...edited!   8)


----------



## Ping Monkey

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ... but to the penny-pinchers?




Except that Airbus bid was $1.3 billion (_with a "B"_) *over budget *set in the RFP.  Link   ???


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, had a chat with a friend who is a fling-wing SAR type earlier today.  I wasn't aware that the new FWSAR wasn't going to have an APU.
> 
> Interesting, and likely not in a good way.



Had a nav buddy that said you need to be about hobbit height to work well in that airframe


----------



## SupersonicMax

From my limited visibility on the project, the back end is apparently not all that bad for SAR techs.


----------



## suffolkowner

duffman said:
			
		

> Except that Airbus bid was $1.3 billion (_with a "B"_) *over budget *set in the RFP.  Link   ???



This is the part I don't understand. How were they allowed to go over budget? How did they go over budget since pretty much every published number has the C-295 substantially cheaper than the C-27? What happened with Leonardo's challenge was it thrown out?


----------



## Ciskman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> From my limited visibility on the project, the back end is apparently not all that bad for SAR techs.



It looks like an ergonomic disaster from my perspective. Par for the course I suppose.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> From my limited visibility on the project, the back end is apparently not all that bad for SAR techs.



For some perspective...you can really see how tight the 295 is in the video and how spacious the Spartan is.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/23889/post-1480492.html#msg1480492


----------



## SupersonicMax

Lets see how the test and evaluations go before we make damning conclusions


----------



## Ciskman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Lets see how the test and evaluations go before we make damning conclusions



Agreed. Though I am basing my thoughts on experience on all four platforms. Guess we'll see.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The only good news I can see is that Airbus part support will be far better than Leonardo's.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RADAR piece sorted out. 

https://defpost.com/iai-supply-maritime-patrol-radars-canadian-c295-msa-aircraft/


----------



## cf100mk5

Link removed.

Reference,
https://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0

*
** Edit by DS IAW site policy ***


----------



## Spencer100

Basically that post was the planes are going to be painted yellow not grey.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There's talk the crew compliment might be up for discussion...I've heard a few things thru my trade CofC that the Div Comd wants sensor operators to operate sensors.  AES Ops on the crew might be on the table again.   :dunno:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There's talk the crew compliment might be up for discussion...I've heard a few things thru my trade CofC that the Div Comd wants sensor operators to operate sensors.  AES Ops on the crew might be on the table again.   :dunno:



Logical, but your trade is in no position, currently, to actually fill those seats....


----------



## Kirkhill

Are there any technical trades, or for that matter any trades, currently capable of meeting establishment?


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Are there any technical trades, or for that matter any trades, currently capable of meeting establishment?



If you have DWAN access you can consult the monthly PARRA report.

YOu'd also be advised t oseek out a copy of the CAF Establishment Study from a few years ago on that question.


----------



## Kirkhill

No DWAN, not even padawan.

I shall have to satisfy myself with ancient history.  Thanks


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Logical, but your trade is in no position, currently, to actually fill those seats....



Demand is certainly outpacing supply at this time.


----------



## Mountie

I've read that the Airbus will be designated the CC-295, but what is it being named?  Airbus calls the MPA variant the Persuader.  That's the only name I've ever come across for any variant.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I don't think they've decided yet...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

First C295 rollout video

Article Link - Building Canada's first C295

Canada’s dedicated search and rescue (SAR) crews regularly put their lives on the line, relying on aircraft to overcome the significant challenges presented by dangerous weather and terrain.

The requirements for Canadian SAR aircraft have been well-documented – from demanding mountain contour search, Arctic and North Atlantic storms, to extreme temperatures, icing and precipitation. Airbus’ C295, which has been selected for the country’s Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Program, is perfectly suited to these duties.

Canada’s no. 1 C295 is proceeding through its final assembly process, and once all assembly phases are finished – including painting and tests – the milestone aircraft will be inspected by authorities from the Spanish Ministry of Defence (DGAM), with its delivery scheduled for the end of 2019.

* Additional videos in the article;  the 3rd one (Consoles for the management of mission systems and sensors) shows how much headroom etc there is in the tube.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You can really see the lack of headroom when they are fitting the consoles.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe that was the trade off for the wireless ICS (which would rock if it's reliable!)...


----------



## Gorgo

Mountie said:
			
		

> I've read that the Airbus will be designated the CC-295, but what is it being named?  Airbus calls the MPA variant the Persuader.  That's the only name I've ever come across for any variant.



Most likely, it'll be CC-195 since there are still loads of 100-series type numbers available to be used.  As for name, I haven't seen anything.


----------



## Good2Golf

Perhaps they’ll re-use the ‘Chimo’ they tried earlier with the original EH-101 NSH?


----------



## Gorgo

Oh, yeah.  That would be perfect.  It's in Inuktitut, thus gets around the English/French language requirement.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Oh, yeah.  That would be perfect.  It's in Inuktitut, thus gets around the English/French language requirement.



Yes, of course: Hornet, Buffalo, Twin Otter, Challenger, Globemaster, Tutor, Hawk, Jet Ranger. Yep! The RCAF really pays attention to linguistic balance.


----------



## OceanBonfire

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> First C295 rollout video
> 
> Article Link - Building Canada's first C295
> 
> Canada’s dedicated search and rescue (SAR) crews regularly put their lives on the line, relying on aircraft to overcome the significant challenges presented by dangerous weather and terrain.
> 
> The requirements for Canadian SAR aircraft have been well-documented – from demanding mountain contour search, Arctic and North Atlantic storms, to extreme temperatures, icing and precipitation. Airbus’ C295, which has been selected for the country’s Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Program, is perfectly suited to these duties.
> 
> Canada’s no. 1 C295 is proceeding through its final assembly process, and once all assembly phases are finished – including painting and tests – the milestone aircraft will be inspected by authorities from the Spanish Ministry of Defence (DGAM), with its delivery scheduled for the end of 2019.
> 
> * Additional videos in the article;  the 3rd one (Consoles for the management of mission systems and sensors) shows how much headroom etc there is in the tube.



And a CAF article about it days later:




> *First CC-295 rolls off assembly line*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 3, 2019 – On March 8, 2019, the first of our 16 new CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft rolled off the assembly line in Spain, bringing us one step closer to first delivery.
> 
> This aircraft is the first of 16 to be built following a contract award in December 2016 to Airbus Defence and Space. The CC-295, as it has been designated by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), will replace the Buffalo and H-model Hercules fleets in the fixed-wing search and rescue role.
> 
> The RCAF will operate the new fleet from 19 Wing Comox, 17 Wing Winnipeg, 8 Wing Trenton, and 14 Wing Greenwood. A training centre for CC-295 aircrew and maintainers is also being built at 19 Wing Comox.
> 
> The first aircraft is on track to be accepted by Canada in Spain in late 2019, and to be flying in Canadian skies in the spring of 2020.



https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=476923343048052

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2019/05/28211


----------



## RaceAddict

The first C-295 that will eventually end up in Canada flew for the first time yesterday:

https://twitter.com/Rotorfocus/status/1147141664638668802


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Short SAR Techs needed....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> Short SAR Techs needed....



From 2 years ago.  Really shows how tight things are inside...https://army.ca/forums/threads/23889/post-1480492.html#msg1480492

IMO the RAAF got it right, and we didn't.  Same situation with fighters and MPAs.


----------



## Ciskman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> From 2 years ago.  Really shows how tight things are inside...https://army.ca/forums/threads/23889/post-1480492.html#msg1480492
> 
> IMO the RAAF got it right, and we didn't.  Same situation with fighters and MPAs.



Watching suit guy walk through the cabin with his head lowered so he doesn't hit it makes me cringe.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yup.  We have more head space than that on the '140 and I get nervous when we're down low, riding a decent sea state;  I usually have one hand on the overhead rail just for insurance.  I'm not walking around with all the kit on you guys have...I feel for the folks who have to work the back end of the 295.

Forget the crappy Wx days, just normal moderate mech can be enough to deal with sometimes if you're not in a seat/strapped in.


----------



## Zoomie

We don’t have our crews walking around the cabin during turbulent flying conditions.   They are usually strapped into their spotter positions.   The cabin height is almost the same as what Cormorant crews experience in the back, the STs will be fine.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

One of them seems to be 'cringing' from the video.   ;D


----------



## Ciskman

Ditch said:
			
		

> We don’t have our crews walking around the cabin during turbulent flying conditions.




I've been up an walking around in turbulent conditions more times than I can count. I'll admit though, it is usually (not always though) during a tasking thus 'justified'.



> The cabin height is almost the same as what Cormorant crews experience in the back, the STs will be fine.



 The Cormorant cabin isn't as round as the 295. The 295 looks like it'll get more difficult to work in the more one strays off the center line of the aircraft. Plus working in a  SAR fixed wing cabin is quite different than working on a rotary wing so not totally comparable.

I suppose it doesn't really matter as that's what we have. More padding for the neck claims when the time comes.


----------



## cld617

Ditch said:
			
		

> The cabin height is almost the same as what Cormorant crews experience in the back, the STs will be fine.



Tell them that after they've been throwing thousands of lbs of flares out the back on a search while hunched over.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> We don’t have our crews walking around the cabin during turbulent flying conditions.   They are usually strapped into their spotter positions.   The cabin height is almost the same as what Cormorant crews experience in the back, the STs will be fine.



After thought and not to pick fly shit out of pepper...but don't spotters rotate every XX minutes?  I've not done as much SAR as SAR Sqn folks do, but I have done some (maritime and overland)...folks still have to move around.


----------



## YZT580

6 hours in transit, someone is going to have to hit the head.  You can't prepare for a jump without standing up


----------



## Zoomie

I'll say it again - our STs and crews will be fine.  We take what we have been given and adapt.  The Buff and the Herc are not SAR platforms - we adapted and dealt with what we had.

Nobody on these forums have any idea of what the future of FWSAR will be - I'm currently flying the Buff and I have no idea.  I am happy to have a new platform from which we will carry out Canada's SAR mandate.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> I'll say it again - our STs and crews will be fine.



Maybe it will "be fine";  I don't think that is the same as "being ideal'...I see potential for head/neck injuries from (1) the lack of headroom, and (2) my experience flying mid and tail section in FW aircraft.

Will the 295 do the job?  I'm sure it will, and SAR crews and Sqn's will adjust and employ it to the max capability. 

My overall point though, is the Spartan was the better platform IMO and would have been a better choice for FWSAR.  I know...water under the bridge long ago, and if I was in or going to the SAR community, I'd want to focus on 'looking ahead' not over my shoulder.

Curious;  how much smaller is the working end of the Buff (width, height) compared to the 295?  There was a comparison to the Corm earlier...I've flown in those.  I've never been in a Buff.  I've not been up close to a 295 yet, but I have a 235.


----------



## Zoomie

Categorically - every operator of the C-27J have expressed buyers remourse and it has enjoyed a 10% serviceability rate.  It was a close save that we aligned with Airbus and not Alenia.  The USAF dumped their fleet without shedding a tear.  We dodged a lemon.

Working space is at a premium, but, like I said, future SAR is not what we have been doing.  We’re moving away from our current system of building up bundles in the back and moving towards a containerized approach.  The toboggan is going away.  We won’t throw as many LUU’s since we will all be under NODs and have an electronic eye.

There will be plenty of complainers, especially from the 130 fleet.


----------



## Spencer100

Just a point, I think the dumping of the USAF's C27J was more of a intermural fight between Army and USAF.  The original order was placed by the ARMY then put with the USAF.  Keywest agreement and all.


----------



## YZT580

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Just a point, I think the dumping of the USAF's C27J was more of a intermural fight between Army and USAF.  The original order was placed by the ARMY then put with the USAF.  Keywest agreement and all.


 Sounds very similar to the Buffalo, Caribou saga.


----------



## Ciskman

> Working space is at a premium, but, like I said, future SAR is not what we have been doing.




This I agree with. In fact, I'd be willing to take it a step further and question whether dedicated FWSAR(in it's current form) is necessary at all...but that is a whole other giant can of worms that really doesn't matter.



> The toboggan is going away.



Sure, but there will still be manouvering of heavy equipment happening in the back. Hell simply getting ready for confined area para is a pain in the best of cabin spaces.



> We won’t throw as many LUU’s since we will all be under NODs and have an electronic eye.



Some of the longest nights throwing flares are generally for other SAR agencies. I would wager that isn't about to change.



> There will be plenty of complainers, especially from the 130 fleet.



This complainer's opinion comes from  extensive time working in the back of all four SAR platforms. Ergonomics matters for us. (Don't get me started on the 146 ;D) 

Anyways, like I said earlier, it really doesn't matter at this point....it is what it is. The 295 has significant advantages over our laughably old FWSAR fleet that is to the benefit of our clients. Ultimately, this is what matters the most.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> Categorically - every operator of the C-27J have expressed buyers remourse and it has enjoyed a 10% serviceability rate.  It was a close save that we aligned with Airbus and not Alenia.  The USAF dumped their fleet without shedding a tear.  We dodged a lemon.



Well...that I didn't know.  I'd heard the RAAF was pretty happy with them and never dug deeper.  

That electronic eye will be a help in some cases, and in others, it will be a bigger job to explain to people it's caps/lims.  I recall being called in on R12 to 'do an IR search for a PIW'...who'd been in the water for 24ish hours.   :facepalm:  From a sensor op POV....it is going to be a nice piece of kit to crew.  The rollout plan doesn't match up with my QOL *stuff* so I'm off to different pastures, but I know people are looking forward to the chance to change fleets.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Aren’t we getting Kestrel (or something similar) on the FWSAR bird?

This would greatly enhance the detection capability of our newest toy.

http://www.sentientvision.com/products/kestrel-maritime/#1453962295872-a8e957ea-f104


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That electronic eye will be a help in some cases, and in others, it will be a bigger job to explain to people it's caps/lims.



Simple.  Take a paper towel roll, put it over one eye so that you can see only through it, close the other one, and try to go about your day-to-day business. 

Same for RPAs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> This would greatly enhance the detection capability of our newest toy if it is properly embedded into the IMS/DMS architecture and not ran on Laptop #4.



Just had to add a little bit on that...Flush!  Brush!  Flush!   8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Simple.  Take a paper towel roll, put it over one eye so that you can see only through it, close the other one, and try to go about your day-to-day business.
> 
> Same for RPAs.



Truth!  Then try to get them to understand IR sees temp differences...so things that have been in the water for 24 hours are more than likely around the same temp as the water...I suggest we start getting folks in our own fleet to understand this (looking at you, Pilots and WOps DutyOs).   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Of course, you meant to say “an adjustable, multi-diameter paper towel roll...”


----------



## Kirkhill

RAAF article on the C27J

Interesting take on maintenance being handled at the squadron level - including battlefield damage repair (potentially)
Apparently happy that the engines are common to their Hercs.

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/08/a-different-beast-the-raafs-c-27j-spartan/


Meanwhile - in Britain



> A row erupted at a recent Nato conference over the RAF's new £2.6billion transporter planes as it has emerged *engine problems mean just two of 20-strong fleet are able to fly at any one time*.
> 
> The delay in bringing into service* the new A400M plane for the RAF* and other partner nations led to a major disagreement between Airbus, the aircraft manufacturer, and Nato Ministers.
> 
> Stuart Andrew, the MoD’s Minister for Procurement, said that after an “extremely robust meeting” the problems with the A400M aircraft should be fixed by next year.
> 
> Concerns have been raised over the new aircraft since its inception in 2003. A recent* Defence Select Committee was told that engineering staff at RAF Brize Norton called the aircraft “a dog” and that on occasion only two out of the fleet of 20 aircraft were serviceable*.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/10/raf-nato-row-totally-unacceptable-engine-problems-keep-26bn/


----------



## Kirkhill

Nuvver interesting link on the C27J.

The Aussie National Audit Office report on the C27J

Battlefield Airlifter - Australian National Audit Office
https://www.anao.gov.au/file/32396/download?token=hqDQV4c2

You will have to cut and paste the headline into your search engine.  I couldn't establish a link to the pdf.

Big issue appears to have been in getting ahold of spares via the US Foreign Military Sales programme, as well as training, after the USAF reneged on the US Army contract.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ditch said:
			
		

> Categorically - every operator of the C-27J have expressed buyers remourse and it has enjoyed a 10% serviceability rate.  It was a close save that we aligned with Airbus and not Alenia.  The USAF dumped their fleet without shedding a tear.  We dodged a lemon.
> 
> Working space is at a premium, but, like I said, future SAR is not what we have been doing.  We’re moving away from our current system of building up bundles in the back and moving towards a containerized approach.  The toboggan is going away.  We won’t throw as many LUU’s since we will all be under NODs and have an electronic eye.
> 
> There will be plenty of complainers, especially from the 130 fleet.



There is no doubt that Airbus will be the better support company, just that the plane they offer is not going to be as useful as the C-27J.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Colin,

Procurement is not about buying the best platform but buying a good enough platform.  Comparing platforms and saying “this one is way better” is futile when the one we chose meets our requirements.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Only if your requirements are correct and coherent


----------



## Good2Golf

It’s not ‘better’ if it has a significantly lower serviceability and operational availability rate because of, amongst other factors, a small, unique supply chain. 

Ex. “It uses the same engine as the C-130J.”   A generalization, but by specific model that an operator must procure from Rolls Royce for spares, not true. While the difference between an AE2100-D2A (Spartan’s engine) and an AE2100-D3 (Herc’s) engine may seem like a ‘dash number’ (D2A vs D3) one has about 250-300 articles in circulation and supported worldwide while the other has 10,000’s in life-cycle management. Internal components aside, users pay for uniqueness. 

Perhaps if SAR Techs needed to carry a HMMV and an air-droppable RHIB all the time perhaps the the C-27J would have been the better machine, but I look to experts like Ditch to provide the practical view of the role and the tools provided.   Having a suite of advanced sensors and a modern mission management system on-board seem to be significant enhancements, no matter the platform, to the SAR mission - glad that rescuers are getting those tools after all. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It’s not ‘better’ if it has a significantly lower serviceability and operational availability rate because of, amongst other factors, a small, unique supply chain.
> 
> Perhaps if SAR Techs needed to carry a HMMV and an air-droppable RHIB all the time perhaps the the C-27J would have been the better machine, but I look to experts like Ditch to provide the practical view of the role and the tools provided.   Having a suite of advanced sensors and a modern mission management system on-board seem to be significant enhancements, no matter the platform, to the SAR mission - glad that rescuers are getting those tools after all.



Exactly.  Headroom aside (which is valid), I think people are getting hung up that the back end will have to still use the same kit configuration in the 295 as in the Buff/Herc, and also forgetting the impact of the new systems (EO/IR and presumably search radar).  Those new systems will change the requirement for kit carried, and reduce the amount of flares needed at night since visual search isn't necessarily the first option now.  

This may then open up the can of worms that if a "flare truck" is what we need, do we then use Hercs/Auroras as those with a SAR load (which we already have in the Aurora) as that and just have the 295 drop SAR Techs with their gear?  :dunno:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I understand it the "new systems" are a common requirement of the contract. A C27J made by Airbus would have been my dream choice, i fully get that Aliena does not have a great track record of support and I suspect that was a factor.


----------



## YZT580

To change thoughts for a moment, I would think that time in transit is the most critical drawback to the airbus.  How many call-outs in the last year have required 5  or more hours in transit for the hercs before they arrived in the search area?  Response time to the territories and to mid-Atlantic will be critical.  The preferred speed in the requirements document is 50 knots or there-abouts greater than that of what we bought.  Without forward positioning of a/c I don't see a way around it, and who wants TD in Stephenville or Churchill?


----------



## Good2Golf

And Tac Hel would ‘prefer’ an Apache, and LRPA ‘prefer’ HD imaging and conformal BLOSCOM and Transport ‘prefer’ to have 8 C-17s and Fighter Force ‘prefer’ to no be flying 37-year old planes...

Desirable (Preferred) does not equal Mandatory in the operational requirements of the procurement world. 

G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Headroom aside (which is valid), I think people are getting hung up that the back end will have to still use the same kit configuration in the 295 as in the Buff/Herc, and also forgetting the impact of the new systems (EO/IR and presumably search radar).  Those new systems will change the requirement for kit carried, and reduce the amount of flares needed at night since visual search isn't necessarily the first option now.
> 
> This may then open up the can of worms that if a "flare truck" is what we need, do we then use Hercs/Auroras as those with a SAR load (which we already have in the Aurora) as that and just have the 295 drop SAR Techs with their gear?  :dunno:



I've said this a few times;  EOIR is not the end all, be all.  I've done night martime SAR and EOIR is next to useless sometimes, where a searchlight like the Argus had (70 million candlepower) would always be useful.  This was also true when we were on the SAR for the down helo IVO Timmins last winter.  I think both tools are required for SAR.  Putting all your eggs in the EOIR basket isn't the best COA.  

WRT to getting people to understand, or dealing with those who think they understand sensor employment...on the Timmins helo SAR...someone dufus actually asked if we were using MAD during our search.  :rofl: The same will come with Imaging Radar, EOIR...etc.  Tell us the effect you're looking for, we will tell you if we can provide it.  Don't embarrass yourself asking for an "IR search for a body that has been in the water for 24 hours".  That kind of thing.  

The 140's main task WRT flares is top cover for the rotary wing asset (assist in providing a horizon)...if the 295 is working with a Corm, is it not going to spit LUUs like the Herc's do/we do?


----------



## suffolkowner

The aircraft upon which the C-27J is derived the Aeritalia G.222 did not have a great performance record either so it is interesting to hear that the C-27J is suffering from similar problems.

The infographic in the link below shows the SAR events responded to and I believe I read somewhere that 80% were within 800 km of the various SAR bases. Outside of that tough luck I guess

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fixed-wing-search-and-rescue-procurement-project/infographic.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Is it that SAR only got tasked to those calls? What we found in the CCG is that an asset in an area that we did not normally go to would get calls that we would otherwise not get tasked to. A lot of SAR happens without the primary resources involved.


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is it that SAR only got tasked to those calls? What we found in the CCG is that an asset in an area that we did not normally go to would get calls that we would otherwise not get tasked to. A lot of SAR happens without the primary resources involved.



No.  Technically all RCAF (and RCN I think) assets are secondary SAR.  That's why the Auroras (for example) practice SAR scenarios.  

There are situations where the actual SAR asset can't get there or aren't in place, and other assets have to be top cover or whatever to make sure the survivors have a chance.  Sometimes it could be just having a datum for when the SAR assets do arrive.


----------



## Throwaway987

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> And Tac Hel would ‘prefer’ an Apache, and LRPA ‘prefer’ HD imaging and conformal BLOSCOM and Transport ‘prefer’ to have 8 C-17s and Fighter Force ‘prefer’ to no be flying 37-year old planes...
> 
> Desirable (Preferred) does not equal Mandatory in the operational requirements of the procurement world.
> 
> G2G



Slight tangent but isn’t this reality a small part of the reason why we’re having retention issues? i.e. The frustration of not having the “right” tool for the job contributes to low sense of pride at work. Front line workers are trying their best to make do with what they have but they’re constantly reminded of how little control they have in their work/life (and how little the GoC truly cares about them via procurement, policy, etc.). How can you blame a SAR tech for thinking about releasing when they step into this brand new plane, see the impractical aspects of it, and realize it was only chosen for non-operational reasons?

Is half our retention issues related to people with a highly internal locus of control/internal motivation struggling to reconcile with the true nature of their jobs? They’re at 6-12 years in, not over the pension point of no return, and are in such a bad place that they’re willing to throw away a life of free money on the gamble of private employment. The knife cuts both ways and these members are ‘preferring’ not to be in the CAF either. Can you blame them?

Family quality of life is probably still number one but this quote really reminded me of my own bureaucratic morale killers at work. Feel free to move or delete this post if it’s too far off topic.  

Edit: I think about that other post about the CoC running into conflict with the 30 day release admin period. Many of us agree that the story sounds ridiculous but how does it look from the other side? Although this policy change is great for the member, that poor CoC now has even less manpower to do an ever increasing amount of work. 

Could their vindictive decision represent their own mishandled stress and frustration with the system? They see the impact of reduced manpower on the morale of their remaining personnel. They’re scared about burning out other staff and feel helpless. Should we pity them as much as we want to mock them?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm not sure it feeds directly into retention, but I'll say it definitely feeds into the feeling of being second-rate next to allies when working alongside them, and people's GAFF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> No.  Technically all RCAF (and RCN I think) assets are secondary SAR.  That's why the Auroras (for example) practice SAR scenarios.
> 
> There are situations where the actual SAR asset can't get there or aren't in place, and other assets have to be top cover or whatever to make sure the survivors have a chance.  Sometimes it could be just having a datum for when the SAR assets do arrive.



Most of the RCC types I have spoken with always saw Federal assets as their primary SAR tool, mainly as they have more control over them and often in a big search it will be the DND or CCG asset that take over as on scene commander.


----------



## dimsum

Still wish that Planey McPlaneFace was on there.  The real choices are Canso II, Guardian, Iris, Kingfisher and Turnstone.



> Help choose the name of Canada’s new SAR aircraft
> 
> The RCAF has narrowed the contenders to five possible names for the upcoming CC-295 Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue aircraft.
> 
> The RCAF Commander will have the final say, but if you were the Commander, which of these names would you choose? We’ll share the results with the commander, and he'll take them into consideration when he makes his final decision later this year.
> 
> See below for more information about the names.



http://rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/cc-295-name.page?fbclid=IwAR0QtfrUiV6JlxgwCnssjdFfU4pXe4qMpuD3eSOlpHKCNI4KJ8CuvY3kBSo


----------



## Sub_Guy

The only name I like is out of the 5 is Guardian.


----------



## dapaterson

Gotta be Iris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdYWuo9OFAw


----------



## NavyShooter

I voted IRIS...


----------



## Loachman

Dammit.

Planey McPlaneface was not an option.


----------



## brihard

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Still wish that Planey McPlaneFace was on there.  The real choices are Canso II, Guardian, Iris, Kingfisher and Turnstone.
> 
> http://rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/cc-295-name.page?fbclid=IwAR0QtfrUiV6JlxgwCnssjdFfU4pXe4qMpuD3eSOlpHKCNI4KJ8CuvY3kBSo



That’s why you only go to the Internet with multiple choice- never fill in the blanks.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=RCAFCommander]The RCAF Commander will have the final say
[/quote]

Chicken.


----------



## kev994

We value your opinion but...


----------



## Zoomie

FWIW I voted “Guardian”. 

 I had to sound out each name and see how it would sound doing a traffic advisory. 

 “Straits traffic, Snake 502, military Guardian aircraft,1,000 ft, 3 miles south of Hornby Island, southbound.” 

 Try that sentence with any of the proposed names and decide for yourself.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ditch said:
			
		

> FWIW I voted “Guardian”.
> 
> I had to sound out each name and see how it would sound doing a traffic advisory.
> 
> “Straits traffic, Snake 502, military Guardian aircraft,1,000 ft, 3 miles south of Hornby Island, southbound.”
> 
> Try that sentence with any of the proposed names and decide for yourself.



So “Straights Traffic, Snake 502, a military CASA 295, .......” is out?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Ditch said:
			
		

> FWIW I voted “Guardian”.



Since a few manufacturers have used "Guardian" as a designation for variants of their a/c, would there not be confusion.  Maybe Viking will claim trademark infringement on their "Guardian 400" Twotter.

I like "Iris", but then I once dated a woman named Iris and her skills were amazing.  She could raise me from the dead.


----------



## dapaterson

The choice is obvious.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The choice is obvious.



As long as there’s a good curry to go with it, of course.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Spartan would be a great name for a SAR aircraftZ.  Oh wait...


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

I vote for Cheesy Dispenser.


----------



## quadrapiper

Kingfisher/Cormorant has a certain commonality.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I like "Iris", but then I once dated a woman named Iris and her skills were amazing.  She could raise me from the dead.



Details??  :cheers:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Voted for Kingfisher - beautiful bird.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Pegasus... they could have called it Pegasus  :not-again:


----------



## MilEME09

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Voted for Kingfisher - beautiful bird.



We also have a thing in Canada for usually naming things after animals when we name equipment our selves


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We also have a thing in Canada for usually naming things after animals when we name equipment our selves



True, the CH-147F was named after a salmon....




/jk  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> True, the CH-147F was named after a salmon....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /jk  ;D



And a warm wind/ hot air


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We also have a thing in Canada for usually naming things after animals when we name equipment our selves



Argus, Aurora, Hercules, Globemaster, Cyclone....


----------



## Spencer100

We named three of those.   
Globemaster and Hercules was American names

But we did name things Bison, Cougar, Grizzly, Lynx, Huskie, Buffalo, Badger, Beaver, Fox, Ram, Coyote, Otter, Bobcat and Kangaroo.


----------



## Spencer100

Aircraft names, Otter, Chipmunk, Beaver, Caribou, Buffalo, Cormorant,


----------



## Dale Denton

Kingfisher, already sounds CDN as heck.


----------



## NavyShooter

It's already American as Heck...

https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_OS2U_Kingfisher


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wanted to call it Cantire, it's not really the plane you want but you can make it work.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Just curious about what happens with the six CC-115 Buffalo once the new aircraft takes over: do they get re-rolled or declared surplus?


----------



## kev994

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Just curious about what happens with the six CC-115 Buffalo once the new aircraft takes over: do they get re-rolled or declared surplus?


Not re-roled. I believe they are being sold or destroyed. Will definitely leave the CF inventory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## YZT580

perhaps Viking will take them, re-build and sell them back.


----------



## Zoomie

They are being sent to CAF Museums.  Borden, Comox, Trenton are on the list so far.


----------



## observor 69

Just about the end of aircraft I worked on going to a museum.
Feeling old yet?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Just about the end of aircraft I worked on going to a museum.
> Feeling old yet?



Not really... our C6s and Carl Gs must be over 40 years old


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Not really... our C6s and Carl Gs must be over 40 years old



let's not talk about our pistols either


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Not really... our C6s and Carl Gs must be over 40 years old



Current Small Arms - C7,C9 and C6 date from about 1987.
Carl G has been around since early 70s but that’s just a guess


----------



## dimsum

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Current Small Arms - C7,C9 and C6 date from about 1987.
> Carl G has been around since early 70s but that’s just a guess


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Current Small Arms - C7,C9 and C6 date from about 1987.
> Carl G has been around since early 70s but that’s just a guess



Now that I've derailed this thread....


----------



## tomydoom

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Just about the end of aircraft I worked on going to a museum.
> Feeling old yet?



About 10 years ago, I was in Les Invalides in Paris and they had a M101 Howitizer (C1 in Canadian service) on display. As there were no ropes or security cameras, proceeded to see if I remembered my training from 20 years previous and removed the breach, disassembled the firing lock. Then at my wife’s frantic begging, I put it all back.  So I have indeed seen equipment I have trained on in a museum. Sadly a slightly evolved version of this same gun is still in service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Old Sweat

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Current Small Arms - C7,C9 and C6 date from about 1987.
> Carl G has been around since early 70s but that’s just a guess



When I was a lieutenant liaison officer in HQ 4CIBG in 1965-66, I staffed the plan for the introduction of the Carl G.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Ditch said:
			
		

> They are being sent to CAF Museums.  Borden, Comox, Trenton are on the list so far.



A fitting end. I was worried they would be scrapped!


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Carl G has been around since early 70s but that’s just a guess



I first fired it in the mid-70s


----------



## daftandbarmy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> When I was a lieutenant liaison officer in HQ 4CIBG in 1965-66, I staffed the plan for the introduction of the Carl G.



Wow!  :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> When I was a lieutenant liaison officer in HQ 4CIBG in 1965-66, I staffed the plan for the introduction of the Carl G.



One of the best weapon system we ever bought, it has certainly earned it's keep!!!


----------



## CBH99

Are we using modern versions of the Carl G, or still the same ones we purchased in the 70’s??   (Then we should get this thread back on track, sorry - always wondered about this!)


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Are we using modern versions of the Carl G, or still the same ones we purchased in the 70’s??   (Then we should get this thread back on track, sorry - always wondered about this!)



We use both the M2 and the M3 version of the Carl G, with the M2 being the main stay of the fleet. That said Ive heard procurement of the M4 is coming down the pipe but I do not know details.


----------



## Spencer100

Getting a paint job

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT3Ucb1b-j4&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3MjSmxQabTcO2QtlqwQbvCfpUQtZDyVeFKSpupEvGJcpbGKT7ESdyFbD4


----------



## CBH99

Looks sharp!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It does.

trade-off for the lower mounted radome....360'ish ability (great for Sfc Search etc)...limits Wx RADAR though. 

But...ya nice looking paint on her!


----------



## Zoomie

Wx RADAR is in nose radome.  Only really care about the weather in front of us.  The Synthetic Aperature RADAR also has a Wx mode for all the other quads.

Very sharp looking in yellow - happy to see 501 ready to go.  517 will be here in January - looking forward to crawling all over her.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> Wx RADAR is in nose radome.  Only really care about the weather in front of us.  The Synthetic Aperature RADAR also has a Wx mode for all the other quads.



Oh.  Nice!  The best of both worlds...I heard a few rumours about the bells/whistles like A-Scan filtering...sounds like some nice kit.

Truth to the rumour that ZX will see this platform before 8 Wg?


----------



## Zoomie

I’ll send you a work email...


----------



## Sub_Guy

I thought I read somewhere that this new bird has a better radar and EO/IR than the Aurora.

If that is true or not, doesn’t matter, I’m just happy to see another new piece of kit.  

Exciting times for the FWSAR community.

I thought the initial plan was 19 Wing, followed by 14 Wing, then 8 Wing with 17 Wing being last.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> I’ll send you a work email...



check!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I thought I read somewhere that this new bird has a better radar and EO/IR than the Aurora.



I'm finding out that "newer" doesn't always = "better"...


----------



## CF_Pilot

Is there a Buffalo “retirement party” planned?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## daftandbarmy

CF_Pilot said:
			
		

> Is there a Buffalo “retirement party” planned?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



A DWD: Departure Winged Dignity?


----------



## MilEME09

CF_Pilot said:
			
		

> Is there a Buffalo “retirement party” planned?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



If sustainment costs aren't crazy I would hope they keep it as a training aircraft. Either for pilot training or technical training


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If sustainment costs aren't crazy I would hope they keep it as a training aircraft. Either for pilot training or technical training



No.  We have training platforms already.  We don't need more that are different.

The CAF need to stop being hoarders, keeping everything.


----------



## Zoomie

The Buffalo will be retired/removed from RCAF inventory by 2021.  Some museums will receive a few for display, the others will be disposed of through standard practices.

The Sea King had a retirement gala last year, I imagine we should start planning something similar for the Buffalo.


----------



## Baz

Ditch said:
			
		

> The Buffalo will be retired/removed from RCAF inventory by 2021.  Some museums will receive a few for display, the others will be disposed of through standard practices.
> 
> The Sea King had a retirement gala last year, I imagine we should start planning something similar for the Buffalo.



Some (one?) Of the Sea Kings went to Borden for a training aid, which is appropriate.

That should be the closest a 40 year old airplane comes to being used for training.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ditch said:
			
		

> The Buffalo will be retired/removed from RCAF inventory by 2021.  Some museums will receive a few for display, the others will be disposed of through standard practices.
> 
> The Sea King had a retirement gala last year, I imagine we should start planning something similar for the Buffalo.



If you do, plan for it to be held in a football stadium.... and then land everyone there for the party in Buffaloes


----------



## Spencer100

Don't retire the Buff yet. Problems!

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/military-facing-likely-delay-in-delivery-of-new-search-and-rescue-plane/ar-BBX3tyY?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Things like 'useful/accurate' AOIs (Aircraft Operating Instructions) etc are extremely valuable and important.  No iron in this particular fire, but I say "wait it out".


----------



## Spencer100

Question?  Why would there be a document problem with a plane in production forever by the biggest manufacturer of planes in the world? 

It can't be a "French Language" problem as Airbus is basically a French company.  I know the plane is made in Spain but really?  Could it be the special equipment just for Canada?  

It just sounds super amateurish from a first class company and it's not their first rodeo.


----------



## Spencer100

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Question?  Why would there be a document problem with a plane in production forever by the biggest manufacturer of planes in the world?
> 
> It can't be a "French Language" problem as Airbus is basically a French company.  I know the plane is made in Spain but really?  Could it be the special equipment just for Canada?
> 
> It just sounds super amateurish from a first class company and it's not their first rodeo.



Oops my English bias coming out.  Could it be with the English version?


----------



## Spencer100

Brazil just got theirs!


https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/207593/brazilian-air-force-receives-second-c_295-sar.html


----------



## Zoomie

Canada has purchased the latest variant of the -295, no other operator has our flight deck.


----------



## OceanBonfire

Irish procuring the C295:

https://www.facebook.com/IrlAirCorps/posts/3316985611662372

https://twitter.com/IrishAirCorps/status/1205530881751998469

https://twitter.com/GOCAirCorps/status/1205530636204810248

https://twitter.com/AirbusDefence/status/1206493353589776385


----------



## Eye In The Sky

From the CAF FB Page:  There's several good pictures of her there as well.

Canada’s first Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue aircraft was formally accepted in Spain on December 18.

We are excited about the addition of the CC-295 to our fleet of search and rescue aircraft. This first aircraft will support further qualification work and initial operational testing and evaluation by Royal Canadian Air Force crews in Spain. It’s expected that this work will be completed by mid-2020, after which the aircraft will be on its way to Comox, B.C. to begin the fleet transition from the Buffalo aircraft.

In the meantime, we expect a training aircraft to arrive in Comox, B.C., in January. This aircraft will be a valuable training device for our maintenance crews. It will be disassembled upon arrival, and partially reassembled inside our new FWSAR training centre. 

The new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft will carry out critical, life-saving search and rescue missions across Canada’s vast and challenging territory, including the Arctic.


----------



## jmt18325

I saw one of these when I was taking off from SVQ the other day.  Unfortunately, too dark/no time for a picture.


----------



## Spencer100

Old ones breaking down.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/aircraft-breakdowns-refuelling-problems-hit-military-search-and-rescue-missions/ar-BB10WTv5?ocid=spartanntp

I thought one of the new birds was already in Canada


----------



## MilEME09

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Old ones breaking down.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/aircraft-breakdowns-refuelling-problems-hit-military-search-and-rescue-missions/ar-BB10WTv5?ocid=spartanntp
> 
> I thought one of the new birds was already in Canada



Yes and that one was flown to the school, disassembled and to be used as a trainer. It is not the first operational aircraft


----------



## Zoomie

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I thought one of the new birds was already in Canada


No trained crews to fly them.  It will be be some time before we are able to fight this aircraft operationally.  All part of the plan to replace them, it just takes more than just rubber on the tarmac.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Airbus Defence Twitter

4 in a row! The Canadian  #FWSAR program continues marking milestones with the 1st 4 operational #C295 already painted and ready to fly!


----------



## Good2Golf

Looking good!  Glad there getting in the line.


----------



## QiioetSpike2020

Am I the only one that feels this aircraft could have been utilized in a different, more important role? 
This could have been used as an ISTAR aircraft of some kind, something we need and don't have (aside from the 3 King Air 350ERs). 

It drives me nuts that the RCAF prioritizes domestic SAR. We don't even have a modern fighter fleet to meet the basic requirements of NORAD for the defense of the northern hemisphere nor do we have close support helicopters. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Canadian Coast Guard Bell 412EPs would be a more capable SAR aircraft if they were simply outfitted with a SAR hoist opposed to the CH-146 Griffon. 

Am I the only one who thinks the RCAF should slowly phase out domestic SAR?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That discussion has been kicked around over several threads, it's doable and similar was done in 1960's. However I suspect DND does not want to lose it as it buys brownie points with the taxpayer, which helps when DND must beg with the Treasury Board for funds for other stuff.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

QuietSpike2020 said:
			
		

> This could have been used as an ISTAR aircraft of some kind, something we need and don't have (aside from the 3 King Air 350ERs).



Ya, if only we had an platform that could've been deployed to something like OP IMPACT to do deliberate/dynamic targeting/POL/etc tasks...

Unless...

881 sorties flown by a CP-140 Aurora. It flew between October 30, 2014 and December 11, 2017.  (Iraq and Syria)

* I know, you probably mean a dedicated platform.  

Question; what would you replace the Buff's and H Herc's with?


----------



## Drallib

New FWSAR birds arriving in Comox.



> First CC-295 FWSAR aircraft arrives at 19 Wing Comox
> 
> The first of 16 new Canadian Armed Forces CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue (FWSAR) aircraft has arrived at 19 Wing Comox, B.C.
> 
> Though the Department of National Defence has yet to make an official announcement, a spokesperson confirmed the arrival of the CC-295 aircraft at its home base on Vancouver Island. The plane was spotted refuelling at 3 Wing Bagotville, Que., on Sept. 16 as it travelled from Airbus Defence and Space facilities in Spain.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) accepted the first operational aircraft in Seville last December following test and evaluation by members of the search and rescue flight at 434 Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron.
> 
> A maintenance training variant of the aircraft was delivered to Comox in February by an Airbus flight crew and will be disassembled and reassembled inside 418 Search and Rescue Operational Training Squadron’s new training centre. This will allow technicians to gain hands-on experience with parts and systems installation before working on operational aircraft.
> 
> “With the arrival of this aircraft in Canada, several key activities at CFB Comox will begin to support the transition of the Canadian fixed-wing search and rescue responsibility to the CC-295,” the spokesperson said in an email to Skies. “This includes the start of aircrew training, operational testing, and the opening of the new training facility.”
> 
> The CC-295 is replacing six CC-115 Buffalos that entered service almost 50 years ago and several of the 12 CC-130 H-model Hercules aircraft that perform a search and rescue role. Airbus was awarded contracts valued at up to $4.7 billion in December 2016 for acquisition and in-service support.
> 
> Production was disrupted in the spring by the COVID-19 pandemic, but has since resumed, DND confirmed. Aircraft are expected to roll off the production line at an average rate of five per year until mid-2022. The final aircraft should be delivered to the RCAF by that fall.
> 
> Transition to the new fleet will begin with 442 Transport and Rescue Squadron at 19 Wing.
> 
> “Each of the aircraft (including the new search and rescue equipment on board and communications systems) must complete Initial Operational Capability preparations and testing to be ready for service,” said the spokesperson. “This means passing all tests, evaluations, and inspections, and includes that our people have been trained to operate and maintain the aircraft, allowing them to assume search and rescue responsibilities with the CC-295 aircraft. With better knowledge of this required work and the added impacts of COVID-19, we now expect to start assuming search and rescue responsibilities in 2022.”
> 
> While the Air Force has yet to give the bright yellow aircraft its moniker, Canadians were asked to vote on one of five potential names in 2019: Canso II, Guardian, Iris, Kingfisher and Turnstone.
> 
> https://www.skiesmag.com/news/first-cc295-fwsar-aircraft-arrives-19-wing-comox-rcaf/


----------



## kev994

I stumbled on a pretty good overview, produced by Airbus so maybe some exaggeration, such as the “massive” flight deck and payload. 

 https://youtu.be/_LcYDpmDpEo


----------



## armrdsoul77

New kid on the flight line...


----------



## armrdsoul77

Comox Heritage Air Park gets a Buffalo.

https://www.facebook.com/ComoxAirForceMuseum/videos/419061439099459/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I remember watching SAR Techs jump out of these at CFB Summerside when I was in Grade 1;  that would have been 1975-76 - a testament to how long the Buffalo served Canada and Canadians for.   

457 is the aircraft featured on the RCAF website as well.  http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/cc-115.page


----------



## Old Sweat

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I remember watching SAR Techs jump out of these at CFB Summerside when I was in Grade 1;  that would have been 1975-76 - a testament to how long the Buffalo served Canada and Canadians for.
> 
> 457 is the aircraft featured on the RCAF website as well.  http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/cc-115.page



I learned aircraft drills for the Buffalo on my Basic Para serial in 1968. At that time there was a Buffalo squadron in a tactical transport role in 10 TAG in FMC.


----------



## armrdsoul77

CC-115 Buffalo Retirement Roundup - Comox Air Force Museum


----------



## suffolkowner

Are they actually retiring all the Buffalo's? I see that we have accepted 8 aircraft in Spain but how many have made it to Canada? 3?






						Fixed-wing search and rescue procurement project - Canada.ca
					

The Government of Canada is procuring a new fleet of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. The new aircraft fleet will be more reliable and reduce search times.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## kev994

suffolkowner said:


> Are they actually retiring all the Buffalo's? I see that we have accepted 8 aircraft in Spain but how many have made it to Canada? 3?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed-wing search and rescue procurement project - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> The Government of Canada is procuring a new fleet of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. The new aircraft fleet will be more reliable and reduce search times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


Yeah, the C130 is supposed to cover the AOR; based out of Winnipeg for the slow season and Comox ~May 24 to Labour Day.


----------



## suffolkowner

kev994 said:


> Yeah, the C130 is supposed to cover the AOR; based out of Winnipeg for the slow season and Comox ~May 24 to Labour Day.


You would think they could get the planes up and running by May 24th. How can it be that hard to fly 5 or 6 planes over? What is the holdup, some kind of covid bs?


----------



## dapaterson

Acceptance of the initial aircraft and testing against requirements, including identification of any discrepancies.  Acceptance of each aircraft.  Training crew and maintainers.  All while maintaining ongoing operations.

It's not like the RCAF can declare "Ok, SAR is closed for nine months while we retrain, retool, and test new aircraft."


----------



## kev994

They still need to figure out how to drop stuff from the airplane, train the school, then train 442, my guess is we’re still years away.


----------



## suffolkowner

I was more thinking that it shouldn't be that hard to fly the planes from Spain to Comox. 

In that case then it really seems premature to retire the Buffalos. Of the 3 planes(?) here does that include the one that is just for maintenance training?


----------



## kev994

suffolkowner said:


> I was more thinking that it shouldn't be that hard to fly the planes from Spain to Comox.
> 
> In that case then it really seems premature to retire the Buffalos. Of the 3 planes(?) here does that include the one that is just for maintenance training?


The Buffs were extended a few times but from what I understand the airframes are toast and maintenance did a great job to keep them running as long as they did.


----------



## suffolkowner

kev994 said:


> The Buffs were extended a few times but from what I understand the airframes are toast and maintenance did a great job to keep them running as long as they did.


so the Kingfishers are coming in just in time or a day late in the tradition of the CAF depending how you look at it. One of these days our procurement issues are going to really cost us. It's like the so called premature retirement of  Preserver/Protecteur and the Tribals that should have been replaced long before


----------



## Zoomie

suffolkowner said:


> so the Kingfishers are coming in just in time or a day late in the tradition of the CAF depending how you look at it.


Just one or two days late…


----------



## OceanBonfire

Retired from operational flight:






						Final operational flight of the CC-115 Buffalo aircraft - Canada.ca
					

The final operational flight for the CC-115 Buffalo aircraft was flown today by 442 Transport and Rescue Squadron, based out of 19 Wing Comox, British Columbia.




					www.canada.ca
				





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482518458109767680


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Going to miss them flying overhead, grew up with the Martin Mars, Argus and Buffs thundering past our house.


----------



## dimsum

suffolkowner said:


> One of these days our procurement issues are going to really cost us


They have already.  It's a freaking miracle that some of our equipment works as well as it does, thanks to the maintainers.


----------



## daftandbarmy

IIRC that Viking Air will start pumping them out now:

DHC-5 Buffalo​With nearly twice the payload as the DHC-4 Caribou and improved STOL capabilities, the DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be a tactical transport aircraft for militaries worldwide. Many Buffalo would also later be used for search-and-rescue operations by the Canadian Air Force.
Viking owns the Type Certificate for the DHC-5 Buffalo and provides parts and support services to the fleet worldwide. If you would like more information on Viking's support for this aircraft, please visit our Customer Support page for details.









						DHC-5 Buffalo
					

With nearly twice the payload as the DHC-4 Caribou and improved STOL capabilities, the DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be a tactical transport aircraft for militaries worldwide. Many Buffalo would also later be used for search-and-rescue operations by the Canadian Air Force.




					www.vikingair.com


----------



## armrdsoul77

kev994 said:


> The Buffs were extended a few times but from what I understand the airframes are toast and maintenance did a great job to keep them running as long as they did.


I thought it was the engines became to difficult to support due to a lack of spare parts.


daftandbarmy said:


> IIRC that Viking Air will start pumping them out now:


Viking Air is going to start producing new Buffalo?

A company in the U.S. is putting turbo props on Caribou.
HOME | penturbo


----------



## daftandbarmy

armrdsoul77 said:


> I thought it was the engines became to difficult to support due to a lack of spare parts.
> 
> Viking Air is going to start producing new Buffalo?
> 
> A company in the U.S. is putting turbo props on Caribou.
> HOME | penturbo
> 
> View attachment 68170



I have no information to suggest that Viking is actually going to build the Buff... but I wouldn't be surprised!


----------



## kev994

daftandbarmy said:


> I have no information to suggest that Viking is actually going to build the Buff... but I wouldn't be surprised


They tried to sell it as the FWSAR replacement but as far as I know nobody has bought any. It can’t be pressurized due to the fuselage being square so there was this brainiac idea to build a capsule in the flight deck…. But not everyone sits there…


----------



## WestIsle

My memory was that at the time the proposal was fully thought out and more them raising their hand in class kinda thing.


----------



## YZT580

armrdsoul77 said:


> I thought it was the engines became to difficult to support due to a lack of spare parts.
> 
> Viking Air is going to start producing new Buffalo?
> 
> A company in the U.S. is putting turbo props on Caribou.
> HOME | penturbo
> 
> View attachment 68170


I didn't realize that there were any caribous left flying but that was obviously a mistake.  Was the buf ever certified as a civilian a/c


----------



## Spencer100

daftandbarmy said:


> I have no information to suggest that Viking is actually going to build the Buff... but I wouldn't be surprised!


Viking has there hands full.  They have to finish producing the Dash 8s. Move the plant and set up service parts distribution.


----------



## Kirkhill

armrdsoul77 said:


> I thought it was the engines became to difficult to support due to a lack of spare parts.
> 
> Viking Air is going to start producing new Buffalo?
> 
> A company in the U.S. is putting turbo props on Caribou.
> HOME | penturbo
> 
> View attachment 68170



Love that look.  Dan Dare flies.


----------



## armrdsoul77

For anyone missing the Buffalo already here is a link to the 2nd part of an episode of The Littlest Hobo starring 424 rescue sqn. Features some exceptional acting by sar techs.


----------



## FJAG

armrdsoul77 said:


> For anyone missing the Buffalo already here is a link to the 2nd part of an episode of The Littlest Hobo starring 424 rescue sqn. Features some exceptional acting by sar techs.


The star was London. 424 played a supporting role.

😁


----------



## Weinie

Had a ride in a Buf in 1988. Did a STO and then did several circuits around the base, followed by a short landing. Very cool.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

aesop081 said:


> Not so long agot, the federal government anounced the replacement of the Herc in the SAR role.  As there been any developements since then ?  I have seen some of the contenders for this project but i have no heard of any final decisions.
> 
> As well, can anyone tell me what the specifications for the project are (I.E. crew composition, sensors, performance.......)


1st post in this thread.  Almost two decades later and those Hercs are still going strong.

😁


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> 1st post in this thread.  Almost two decades later and those Hercs are still going strong.
> 
> 😁


Yeah, this project is a $h!t$h0w. I’m surprised the media doesn’t care yet.


----------



## Dana381

I used to see the buffs and the labs fly over Summerside in the 90's. Went to an air show where the buff did a stol demo. It blew a tire on the landing. It was truly amazing how short it could get airborne and how short it could land. It was sad to see her leave Summerside, it's sad now to see her gone for good. Let's hope her successor is as good a plane as promised. 

Seeing the buffs and labs flyover daily probably Kickstart my love of aviaton.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

kev994 said:


> Yeah, this project is a $h!t$h0w. I’m surprised the media doesn’t care yet.


You could say the same for almost every other project undertaken in the past twenty years.  I can think of only a handful that actually went well:

CH47 procurement 
C17 procurement
M777 procurement 

Any procurement project that has gone well has been because we bought it OTS due to an UOR.  Literally everything else has been a dogs breakfast.


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You could say the same for almost every other project undertaken in the past twenty years.  I can think of only a handful that actually went well:
> 
> CH47 procurement
> C17 procurement
> M777 procurement
> 
> Any procurement project that has gone well has been because we bought it OTS due to an UOR.  Literally everything else has been a dogs breakfast.


Good point, they could probably just pull any procurement news story and change the name and it would be accurate.


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> Yeah, this project is a $h!t$h0w. I’m surprised the media doesn’t care yet.


We have...um...other issues that give the MSM enough fodder.  

"Govt procurement delayed" isn't nearly as sexy of a headline, unless people die from lack of SAR assets.  Or airlift, or fighter, or helicopter, etc.


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> We have...um...other issues that give the MSM enough fodder.
> 
> "Govt procurement delayed" isn't nearly as sexy of a headline, unless people die from lack of SAR assets.  Or airlift, or fighter, or helicopter, etc.


Tax payers should be far more outraged by the lost billions in defense procurement due to delays then they are, maybe if we showed the how many day care spots it could provide they would care?


----------



## YZT580

MilEME09 said:


> Tax payers should be far more outraged by the lost billions in defense procurement due to delays then they are, maybe if we showed the how many day care spots it could provide they would care?


Bad idea!  Instead they would agitate for the moneys to be used for daycare so it wouldn't go to waste on useless things like bullets, planes, and ships


----------



## Edward Campbell

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You could say the same for almost every other project undertaken in the past twenty years.  I can think of only a handful that actually went well:
> 
> CH47 procurement
> C17 procurement
> M777 procurement
> 
> Any procurement project that has gone well has been because we bought it OTS due to an UOR.  Literally everything else has been a dogs breakfast.


And you may recall that all three were "directed" (by the MND of the day ~ mostly by the hated by many Gord O'Connor) and sole sourced, too, over the objections of the opposition, the media, many senior civil servants and a few admirals and generals who were (already) in bed with the defence industry.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You could say the same for almost every other project undertaken in the past twenty years.  I can think of only a handful that actually went well:
> 
> CH47 procurement
> C17 procurement
> M777 procurement
> 
> Any procurement project that has gone well has been because we bought it OTS due to an UOR.  Literally everything else has been a dogs breakfast.


Technically, of the Chinooks, only the IMLC CH-147D project for AFG was a UOR (but it still followed the DSP’s five phases of a major capital project: ID; Options Analysis; Definition; Implementation and Close Out).  

The MHLH CH-147F was a ‘regular’ (policy-based) major capital program, ID started in 2005, closed out in 2019/2020.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> DSP’s five phases of a major capital project: ID; Options Analysis; Definition; Implementation and Close Out).


You mean not ID, Re-scope, Dither, Return to Drawing Board, and Give Up?


----------



## dapaterson

If Give Up were part of the process lots of PMOs diligently working to deliver 1990s technology in the 2030s would have been closed by now.


----------



## suffolkowner

CH-147F procurement might have been a good one for the CAF but I don't know if I would classify it as an example of a good procurement. I believe there's a couple of Auditor's reports on it

What was the deal with O'Connor anyways? Why was he disliked?


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> If Give Up were part of the process lots of PMOs diligently working to deliver 1990s technology in the 2030s would have been closed by now.


It's an aspirational step.


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> CH-147F procurement might have been a good one for the CAF but I don't know if I would classify it as an example of a good procurement. I believe there's a couple of Auditor's reports on it



Everything could likely be torn apart by the AG.  If you read Sheila Fraser’s Speing 2014 report, you’ll see the focus was on the Cyclone’s failings. Fraser’s biggest complaint of the MHLH, was her take was that it was indiscriminately sole-sourced, vice the Department’s position that is was single bidder-compliant, followed shortly by PWGSC’s ACAN.  For delivering the capability, it seems to have done it successfully, within the 2009 TB EPA(Imp) assigned budget and timeline.

Compared to MHP, FWSAR, FFCP (CF-188 replacement) and other big ticket items, it’s pretty solid. Canadians that have been evac’d from forest fires or floods appreciated it, wounded troops in Mali appreciated it…seems to be working fine, notwithstanding AG’s beef on some aspects of the path to get there.


----------



## suffolkowner

From the 2010 fall report

_ “We found that National Defence’s needs and priorities were not precisely defined at the outset and… were not finalized until the contract with Boeing was signed in 2009…The June 2006 statement of operational requirements was not reviewed or endorsed by the Senior Review Board or by the Joint Capability Requirements Board until October 2006 and, consequently, did not benefit from the rigorous challenge these bodies are expected to provide… The intended configuration of the Canadianized Chinook evolved as decisions were made… According to National Defence, *the seven high-level mandatory requirements could have been met by a basic Chinook model*_ (emphasis added)._ However, in the process of detailing its specifications with Boeing, National Defence also drew from the set of rated operational requirements, effectively treating extended-range fuel tanks, an upgraded electrical system, and aircraft survivability equipment as mandatory requirements, though none had been originally identified as such. These additional modifications resulted in significant changes to a basic Chinook model and also had an impact on the timing and complexity of certification for airworthiness…
 The full extent of modifications was not initially presented to decision makers.… We disagree with the characterization of this helicopter as being off-the-shelf. It is evident that from the beginning, National Defence did not intend to procure an off-the-shelf Chinook but rather a modified one… So significant were the modifications to the basic Chinook helicopter that Boeing’s estimate included nearly US$360 million for one-time engineering costs… National Defence knew, prior to seeking preliminary project approval from the Treasury Board and issuing the ACAN, that significant modifications to a basic Chinook were desired and planned. It knew also that these would increase the risks to cost and schedule. However, this was not presented to the Treasury Board when seeking preliminary project approval… Ultimately, Canadian-required modifications *increased the cost of each aircraft by 70 percent more than initially quoted by Boeing in early 2006 *_(emphasis added)_. This prolonged the negotiation of the contract by over two years and delayed the delivery of the aircraft.”
 …Overall, in our opinion, the manner in which PWGSC used the 2006 ACAN did not comply with the letter or intent of the applicable regulations and policies and, consequently, the contract award process was not fair, open, and transparent. In addition, we believe a second ACAN should have been issued in 2009 and should have included the final helicopter requirements and specifications, the revised delivery and certification schedule, an indication of willingness to pay one-time engineering development costs, and other significant changes made to the project scope.”
The OAG report compares the C$ 2 billion advertised cost for 16 helicopters with the current C$ 4.9 billion, but it’s not an even comparison because the current program total includes long term support contracts, and the original cost did not. They do note, correctly, that planned delivery of the first fully capable CH-147 has been delayed from 2008 to 2010, and then again to 2013, while the buy was cut to 15, due in part to poor decision making within DND”_

Don't get me wrong, I don't get seriously excited about how much the CAF capital equipment procurements cost as I often think we spend way too much time,money and resources trying to maintain to tight of a control especially on the big purchases, but playing fast and loose always comes back to bite the CAF on the ass


----------



## FJAG

suffolkowner said:


> ... What was the deal with O'Connor anyways? Why was he disliked?


O'Conner was Hillier's CO in the early years and I think Hillier got a dislike for him and his leadership style then. That subsequently became more of an issue as, while they agreed on most things, they had some different viewpoints on certain things and both of them had strong personalities. That led to the press picking up on the tension and, as the press is won't to do, running with it. Hillier was the CAF's golden child at the time so naturally O'Conner became the opposite. Personally I was never a Hillier fan. I didn't like a whole lot of things he did at the time vis a vis army transformation and the growth of the central headquarters. The DCDS shop needed reform for the Afghan War but I think Hillier took things far too far. Army transformation, again in my view, was myopic with too much concentration on Bosnia and OOTW. When you build an army down, it's hard to build it back up.

🍻


----------



## kev994

suffolkowner said:


> From the 2010 fall report
> 
> _ “We found that National Defence’s needs and priorities were not precisely defined at the outset and… were not finalized until the contract with Boeing was signed in 2009…The June 2006 statement of operational requirements was not reviewed or endorsed by the Senior Review Board or by the Joint Capability Requirements Board until October 2006 and, consequently, did not benefit from the rigorous challenge these bodies are expected to provide… The intended configuration of the Canadianized Chinook evolved as decisions were made… According to National Defence, *the seven high-level mandatory requirements could have been met by a basic Chinook model*_ (emphasis added)._ However, in the process of detailing its specifications with Boeing, National Defence also drew from the set of rated operational requirements, effectively treating extended-range fuel tanks, an upgraded electrical system, and aircraft survivability equipment as mandatory requirements, though none had been originally identified as such. These additional modifications resulted in significant changes to a basic Chinook model and also had an impact on the timing and complexity of certification for airworthiness…_
> _The full extent of modifications was not initially presented to decision makers.… We disagree with the characterization of this helicopter as being off-the-shelf. It is evident that from the beginning, National Defence did not intend to procure an off-the-shelf Chinook but rather a modified one… So significant were the modifications to the basic Chinook helicopter that Boeing’s estimate included nearly US$360 million for one-time engineering costs… National Defence knew, prior to seeking preliminary project approval from the Treasury Board and issuing the ACAN, that significant modifications to a basic Chinook were desired and planned. It knew also that these would increase the risks to cost and schedule. However, this was not presented to the Treasury Board when seeking preliminary project approval… Ultimately, Canadian-required modifications *increased the cost of each aircraft by 70 percent more than initially quoted by Boeing in early 2006 *_(emphasis added)_. This prolonged the negotiation of the contract by over two years and delayed the delivery of the aircraft.”_
> _…Overall, in our opinion, the manner in which PWGSC used the 2006 ACAN did not comply with the letter or intent of the applicable regulations and policies and, consequently, the contract award process was not fair, open, and transparent. In addition, we believe a second ACAN should have been issued in 2009 and should have included the final helicopter requirements and specifications, the revised delivery and certification schedule, an indication of willingness to pay one-time engineering development costs, and other significant changes made to the project scope.”
> The OAG report compares the C$ 2 billion advertised cost for 16 helicopters with the current C$ 4.9 billion, but it’s not an even comparison because the current program total includes long term support contracts, and the original cost did not. They do note, correctly, that planned delivery of the first fully capable CH-147 has been delayed from 2008 to 2010, and then again to 2013, while the buy was cut to 15, due in part to poor decision making within DND”_
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't get seriously excited about how much the CAF capital equipment procurements cost as I often think we spend way too much time,money and resources trying to maintain to tight of a control especially on the big purchases, but playing fast and loose always comes back to bite the CAF on the ass


I think we get royalties for some of these developments if other buyers pick them up. Don’t see any complaints about that.


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> From the 2010 fall report
> 
> _ “We found that National Defence’s needs and priorities were not precisely defined at the outset and… were not finalized until the contract with Boeing was signed in 2009…The June 2006 statement of operational requirements was not reviewed or endorsed by the Senior Review Board or by the Joint Capability Requirements Board until October 2006 and, consequently, did not benefit from the rigorous challenge these bodies are expected to provide… The intended configuration of the Canadianized Chinook evolved as decisions were made… According to National Defence, *the seven high-level mandatory requirements could have been met by a basic Chinook model*_ (emphasis added)._ However, in the process of detailing its specifications with Boeing, National Defence also drew from the set of rated operational requirements, effectively treating extended-range fuel tanks, an upgraded electrical system, and aircraft survivability equipment as mandatory requirements, though none had been originally identified as such. These additional modifications resulted in significant changes to a basic Chinook model and also had an impact on the timing and complexity of certification for airworthiness…_
> _The full extent of modifications was not initially presented to decision makers.… We disagree with the characterization of this helicopter as being off-the-shelf. It is evident that from the beginning, National Defence did not intend to procure an off-the-shelf Chinook but rather a modified one… So significant were the modifications to the basic Chinook helicopter that Boeing’s estimate included nearly US$360 million for one-time engineering costs… National Defence knew, prior to seeking preliminary project approval from the Treasury Board and issuing the ACAN, that significant modifications to a basic Chinook were desired and planned. It knew also that these would increase the risks to cost and schedule. However, this was not presented to the Treasury Board when seeking preliminary project approval… Ultimately, Canadian-required modifications *increased the cost of each aircraft by 70 percent more than initially quoted by Boeing in early 2006 *_(emphasis added)_. This prolonged the negotiation of the contract by over two years and delayed the delivery of the aircraft.”_
> _…Overall, in our opinion, the manner in which PWGSC used the 2006 ACAN did not comply with the letter or intent of the applicable regulations and policies and, consequently, the contract award process was not fair, open, and transparent. In addition, we believe a second ACAN should have been issued in 2009 and should have included the final helicopter requirements and specifications, the revised delivery and certification schedule, an indication of willingness to pay one-time engineering development costs, and other significant changes made to the project scope.”
> The OAG report compares the C$ 2 billion advertised cost for 16 helicopters with the current C$ 4.9 billion, but it’s not an even comparison because the current program total includes long term support contracts, and the original cost did not. They do note, correctly, that planned delivery of the first fully capable CH-147 has been delayed from 2008 to 2010, and then again to 2013, while the buy was cut to 15, due in part to poor decision making within DND”_
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't get seriously excited about how much the CAF capital equipment procurements cost as I often think we spend way too much time,money and resources trying to maintain to tight of a control especially on the big purchases, but playing fast and loose always comes back to bite the CAF on the ass


What also changed was that between the original specifications and requirements were established, Cánada went green and decommissioned and remediated all the Northern Fuel chaches spread throughout the Canadian arctic archipelago, so now explain how to get to the north to respond to a MAJAID, for example, in a timely fashion when your basic fuel load won’t reach between the northern airbases. That’s one very significant change that had to be taken into account.  US Army standard Chinooks don’t need long legs because they’re always part of a larger package.  Take a look at what the US Army does when if operates it’s Chinooks over very long ranges and desolate operational theatres 😉 …Canadian Chinooks do now and will in the future operate autonomously at the types of extended rates that precisely demand the final configuration that the CH-147F ended up in.  And anybody who tries to portray that the RCAF was building the Chinook with gold to put on defensive protection suites?  Then I know such a person would be just parroting some imperfect assessment from the AG.  Just because she and her team wrote it, doesn’t make everything inside accurate.  The last bit I’ll critique was her point that senior leaders didn’t look at the specific requirements developed for….three whole months!  Imagine taking 90 days to get reviewing something that would take another 8-10 years by the very process mandated in DND by government.  I mean, it’s not like there was much going on with the CAF in 2005-2006, right? 😆


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> I think we get royalties for some of these developments if other buyers pick them up. Don’t see any complaints about that.


Not exactly royalties, but credits against the support contract.  Yes. 👍🏼


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:


> Not exactly royalties, but credits against the support contract.  Yes. 👍🏼


I have been meaning to ask.  Does that in include the Marine One contract?  We get a credit for those?  Plus I think that is the only only customer?


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> I have been meaning to ask.  Does that in include the Marine One contract?  We get a credit for those?  Plus I think that is the only only customer?


AFAIK just CH-47 specific, as it was for modifications to the baseline CH-47F for the CH-147F that Boeing wanted to market to other CH-47 customers.  For example, while there are other ‘fat tank’ Chinook variants out there, they had essentially all been based on the CH-47D (even MH-47E and G Block 1 are remanufactured D-model airframes). The CH-147F was the first Chinook to integrate the fat tanks into an F-model monolithically-machined airframe (ie. all the stringers and formers are machined from a single piece of metal…there is no multi-piece buildup with overlaps and riveting, like on D-models - that saves weight and increases structural integrity).  SOCOM MH-47G Block II aircraft, for example, now use the same design as the CH-147F, using new-build monolithic airframe structure with the fat tanks. MH-47G Block IIs also have the solid-state electrical system of the CH-147F, using simpler and more reliable high-power MOSFETs to switch and distribute system power, in place of older style mechanical relays.


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You could say the same for almost every other project undertaken in the past twenty years.  I can think of only a handful that actually went well:
> 
> CH47 procurement
> C17 procurement
> M777 procurement
> 
> Any procurement project that has gone well has been because we bought it OTS due to an UOR.  Literally everything else has been a dogs breakfast.


Our favourite defence analyst that we don’t talk about picked it up. It’s like they can hear what I’m saying.


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:


> AFAIK just CH-47 specific, as it was for modifications to the baseline CH-47F for the CH-147F that Boeing wanted to market to other CH-47 customers.  For example, while there are other ‘fat tank’ Chinook variants out there, they had essentially all been based on the CH-47D (even MH-47E and G Block 1 are remanufactured D-model airframes). The CH-147F was the first Chinook to integrate the fat tanks into an F-model monolithically-machined airframe (ie. all the stringers and formers are machined from a single piece of metal…there is no multi-piece buildup with overlaps and riveting, like on D-models - that saves weight and increases structural integrity).  SOCOM MH-47G Block II aircraft, for example, now use the same design as the CH-147F, using new-build monolithic airframe structure with the fat tanks. MH-47G Block IIs also have the solid-state electrical system of the CH-147F, using simpler and more reliable high-power MOSFETs to switch and distribute system power, in place of older style mechanical relays.


Thanks.  That is a great answer and interesting too.  

I got the Cyclone and this one mixed up in my head.  I had read somewhere that there is a deal with Lockheed too about the CH-148 upgrades (total fly by wire I think) that if they sold the S-92 with those upgrades Canada would receive a royalty.  IE the Marine One.


----------



## Good2Golf

Ah, got it.  Conceivably, Lockheed/Sikorsky could have had the same incentivization built into their proposal, it’s quite common, but I’m not very familiar with the specifics of the MHP project.


----------



## Zoomie

kev994 said:


> Our favourite defence analyst that we don’t talk about picked it up. It’s like they can hear what I’m saying.


Eerie timing no doubt. 

Funny how nobody in the MSM seeks actual SME input from these anonymous sources found on army.ca.   That story could have been written a year ago.


----------



## Quirky

IOC delayed to 2025-26 with FOC pushed back to 2029-30.









						Initial operational capability of Canada’s CC-295 FWSAR aircraft delayed to 2025-26 - Skies Mag
					

The initial operational capability of Canada's CC-295 Kingfisher SAR aircraft has been delayed from the summer of 2022 to the 2025-2026 timeframe.




					skiesmag.com
				




Which will achieve FOC first, the CC295 or CF355?


----------



## Good2Golf

Quirky said:


> IOC delayed to 2025-26 with FOC pushed back to 2029-30.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initial operational capability of Canada’s CC-295 FWSAR aircraft delayed to 2025-26 - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> The initial operational capability of Canada's CC-295 Kingfisher SAR aircraft has been delayed from the summer of 2022 to the 2025-2026 timeframe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which will achieve FOC first, the CC295 or CF355?


CC330…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Wow.   Unfortunate but… I’m not surprised. We really don’t seem to do this stuff well a large % of the time.


----------



## SupersonicMax

« Although operationalization of the CC-295 will take more time, the DND said it currently expects “to remain within the project’s approved budget. »

Hey, we’ll be a bit behind (by almost 100% of the original timeline) but worry not.  Your money is safe.  In project management, we balance scope, budget and schedule.  You can only really achieve two of the three.  Seems like the priority is remaining on budget at the expense of timely capabilities.  Maybe it’s a symptom of a technical organization led by engineers managing the delivery of capabilities?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So we should have not retired the buffs so soon?


----------



## Quirky

Colin Parkinson said:


> So we should have not retired the buffs so soon?


I’m glad they did, we can’t keep stretching current equipment because of political incompetence to procure new. This goes for every piece of kit, when it outlives its use then throw it out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Quirky said:


> I’m glad they did, we can’t keep stretching current equipment because of political incompetence to procure new. This goes for every piece of kit, when it outlives its use then throw it out spent enormous amounts of money 'extending its' operational life' while dithering about spending money wisely (replacing it).



😁


----------



## kev994

The article says the H will stay in Trenton, not true, Trenton will get J for SAR next summer.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:


> ... We really don’t seem to do this stuff well a large % of the time.


... and you're being kind ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

"_Crews will be able to locate __individuals__ or objects (like downed aircraft) __from more than 40 kilometers (25 miles) away__, even in low-light conditions, according to the DND_".

Uhhhhhh.....ok?  I guess if they fired a Radaflare or something...


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> "_Crews will be able to locate __individuals__ or objects (like downed aircraft) __from more than 40 kilometers (25 miles) away__, even in low-light conditions, according to the DND_".
> 
> Uhhhhhh.....ok?  I guess if they fired a Radaflare or something...


Should say “like a cruise ship”


----------



## OldSolduer

kev994 said:


> Should say “like a cruise ship”


OK that is quite a small target.....


----------



## Quirky

Are the Herc crews posted to Comox in the meantime or do they just rotate out?


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Are the Herc crews posted to Comox in the meantime or do they just rotate out?


Rotate short term, there’s a handful of people with herc time in Comox who have gotten requalified, a handful of people posted there this APS (I think all volunteers), and supposed to be a bunch of people posted next APS. There will still be some rotations after this APS but not as many as this summer. 442 SARTechs I think are mostly done their conversions, or at least enough of them are (many had herc time).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> Should say “like a cruise ship”



Sensors are great, in most (some?) cases.  In some cases, they're useless.  We did a SAR (PIW, SS 4ish)...we had Low RCS radar, IR (just turned night when we started the search).  What we *really* needed was the big honkin' search light off the Argus...

Their caps/lims aren't very well appreciated outside the op flying community.  One time, we were tasked to do an "IR search for a PIW" (pers who was in the water for 24+ hrs).  

Another one...helo down overland in Ont.  We actually got asked if we were "using MAD during the search".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> Rotate short term, there’s a handful of people with herc time in Comox who have gotten requalified, a handful of people posted there this APS (I think all volunteers), and supposed to be a bunch of people posted next APS. There will still be some rotations after this APS but not as many as this summer. 442 SARTechs I think are mostly done their conversions, or at least enough of them are (many had herc time).



BZ to the crews and support pers who are 'making it happen'.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> Sensors are great, in most (some?) cases.  In some cases, they're useless.  We did a SAR (PIW, SS 4ish)...we had Low RSC radar, IR (just turned night when we started the search).  What we really needed was the big honkin' search light off the Argus...
> 
> Their caps/lims aren't very well appreciated outside the op flying community.  One time, we were tasked to do an "IR search for a PIW" (pers who was in the water for 24+ hrs).
> 
> Another one...helo down overland in Ont.  We actually got asked if we were "using MAD during the search".


OK OK even I can understand that there are certain limitations. Love the GIF.

and a PIW for 24 hours is likely a dead PIW. And I know what a MAD is.


----------



## kev994

OldSolduer said:


> OK OK even I can understand that there are certain limitations. Love the GIF.
> 
> and a PIW for 24 hours is likely a dead PIW. And I know what a MAD is.


Their family always swears that they always wear their life jackets. I did a search last summer in one of the Great Lakes and the water temp was 27C. The theoretical survival time is pretty long if they’re wearing a life jacket. Easy to find too though unless it’s camouflage.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> Should say “like a cruise ship”



Large maritime contacts, even in a heavy SS, the ranges are really good (XXXnm).  Those fishers and rec boaters...low freeboard/RCS folks...not so much.  Life rafts, even less.

I have had a change to look at the data on the RADAR, EOIR and AIS...(love AIS).  Nice systems, for sure.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:


> OK OK even I can understand that there are certain limitations. Love the GIF.
> 
> and a PIW for 24 hours is likely a dead PIW. And I know what a MAD is.



Here's  how that search likely would have went.

MADMARK!

10 seconds later...

MADMARK!

19 seconds later...

MADMARK!

"crew, TAC, MAD power is going off"

MAD operator...


----------



## The Bread Guy

In case anyone wants a giggle or two, here's the info-machine's version ...





						Government of Canada provides an update on the operationalization of the CC-295 Kingfisher - Canada.ca
					

A modern and capable military is critical to Canada’s domestic security and our contribution on the world stage. This includes our role in domestic maritime search and rescue.




					www.canada.ca
				








						Backgrounder – Delay in Initial Operational Capability (IOC) of the CC-295 Kingfisher - Canada.ca
					

A modern and capable military is critical to Canada’s domestic security and our contribution on the world stage. This includes our role in domestic search and rescue (SAR).




					www.canada.ca
				



Also archived here and here in case the links don't work.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Bread Guy said:


> In case anyone wants a giggle or two, here's the info-machine's version ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Canada provides an update on the operationalization of the CC-295 Kingfisher - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> A modern and capable military is critical to Canada’s domestic security and our contribution on the world stage. This includes our role in domestic maritime search and rescue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backgrounder – Delay in Initial Operational Capability (IOC) of the CC-295 Kingfisher - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> A modern and capable military is critical to Canada’s domestic security and our contribution on the world stage. This includes our role in domestic search and rescue (SAR).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also archived here and here in case the links don't work.



_While the delay is unfortunate, these types of issues are not unusual given the complexity of the capability being developed _shitty procurement system that is allowed to continue without adopting Lessons Learned from projects like the Sea King replacement that is too politically based vice operational requirements based.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:


> _While the delay is unfortunate, these types of issues are not unusual given the complexity of the capability being developed _shitty procurement system that is allowed to continue without adopting Lessons Learned from projects like the Sea King replacement that is too politically based vice operational requirements based.


Like my tagline says ... “The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams


----------



## FSTO

What version of the Chinook is this?


----------



## kev994

FSTO said:


> What version of the Chinook is this?
> View attachment 70533


Looks like a lab to me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The younger  smaller/slower/weaker brother version?


----------



## Quirky

Who makes the final decision to retire a fleet, in this case, the buff?


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Who makes the final decision to retire a fleet, in this case, the buff?


not sure, but I know it was dragged out a number of times until it just became not workable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My guess would be the MND, thru recommendations from the Airworthiness Advisory Board  and/or Airworthiness Review Board.  4.6 -> 4.10 of the DAOD...






						DAOD 2015-1, DND/CF Airworthiness Program - Canada.ca
					

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 2015-1 - DND/CF Airworthiness Program




					www.canada.ca
				




* maybe AAB/ARB recommendations, thru the AA (RCAF Comd), to the CDS, to the MND.   RCAF Comd chairs the AAB so...


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> My guess would be the MND, thru recommendations from the Airworthiness Advisory Board  and/or Airworthiness Review Board.  After several fall out of the sky because Orville Wright himself flew the prototype.


FTFY


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:


> What version of the Chinook is this?
> View attachment 70533


Technically a ‘Voyageur’.  Labs were always RCAF/CAF.  Voyageurs from 1THP RCASC (1 Transport Helicopter Platoon, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps) the after unification transferred to 450 Squadron, then moved from 10 TAG (Tactical Air Group) to ATG (Air Transport Group) and rebuilt at Labradors.  The tell of whether a Labrador was an original RCAF SAR Labrador or an Army Voyageur converted to Labrador(ish) configuration is the additional forward *upper cockpit windows on a Voyageur/Labrador(A) that make it look like eyes above the smiling banana.  Original Labradors don’t have the *upper glass that a pilot would look out of to use as a hover reference during hoisting (I know…don’t ask).



> The younger smaller/slower/weaker brother version?


Touché @Eye In The Sky


----------



## Good2Golf

Original Labrador:

See no glass either side of the radome.

CH-113A Voyageur
 
Glass on either side of the radome.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Original Labrador:
> View attachment 70538
> See no glass either side of the radome.
> 
> CH-113A Voyageur
> View attachment 70539
> Glass on either side of the radome.


I thought closing your eyes and using the force was a valid COA for you


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Bread Guy said:


> In case anyone wants a giggle or two, here's the info-machine's version ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government of Canada provides an update on the operationalization of the CC-295 Kingfisher - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> A modern and capable military is critical to Canada’s domestic security and our contribution on the world stage. This includes our role in domestic maritime search and rescue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backgrounder – Delay in Initial Operational Capability (IOC) of the CC-295 Kingfisher - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> A modern and capable military is critical to Canada’s domestic security and our contribution on the world stage. This includes our role in domestic search and rescue (SAR).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also archived here and here in case the links don't work.



I was wondering what these guys were doing lately....nice work!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

This just keeps getting more depressing.  The funny thing is it never gets better only worse, all the trend lines are there in plain view.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This just keeps getting more depressing.  The funny thing is it never gets better only worse, all the trend lines are there in plain view.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

No?  I thought it was a good one...but it's been a long day...


----------



## Blackadder1916

FSTO said:


> What version of the Chinook is this?
> View attachment 70533



Already identified as a Voyager.  This particular airframe was the only one of the Army's Voyagers that wasn't changed to a Labrador.






						Canadian Warplanes 7: Boeing Vertol CH-113 Labrador and CH-113A Voyageur helicopter
					

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...




					www.silverhawkauthor.com
				





> Boeing Vertol CH-113A Voyageur Helicopter (Serial No. 10409), later (Serial No. 11309), Canadian Army, Rockcliffe, Ontario, ca 1965. This Voyageur was taken on strength in 1964 and was flown by No. 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon, a component of the Canadian Army and part of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, based at CJATC, Rivers, Manitoba.  It was *destroyed in a crash* fter control was lost when entering a fog bank at Kinchloe AFB, Michigan, while on a ferry flight from Rivers, Manitoba to the unit's new base at St. Hubert, Quebec, on *14 August 1966*.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Quirky said:


> Who makes the final decision to retire a fleet, in this case, the buff?


Comd RCAF for RCAF fleets.  The AAB only manages the airworthiness aspects, not the readiness/capability aspect.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> Comd RCAF for RCAF fleets.  The AAB only manages the airworthiness aspects, not the readiness/capability aspect.



I honestly thought it would be higher than him/her.


----------



## Quirky

Eye In The Sky said:


> BZ to the crews and support pers who are 'making it happen'.



Just to add to this, what's the RCAFs plan for housing in Comox? There is almost nothing available for a regular APS, nevermind an extra xx amount of people for SAR coverage.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Quirky said:


> Just to add to this, what's the RCAFs plan for housing in Comox? There is almost nothing available for a regular APS, nevermind an extra xx amount of people for SAR coverage.


Yes housing is a big issue here. All the barracks and single quarters are full.  Weeks ago the WComd mentioned they’re looking at renting hotels to house our members. I don’t know if it materialized.


----------



## Quirky

Eagle_Eye_View said:


> Yes housing is a big issue here. All the barracks and single quarters are full.  Weeks ago the WComd mentioned they’re looking at renting hotels to house our members. I don’t know if it materialized.



Besides the Old House, is there anything else available with kitchens?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eagle_Eye_View said:


> Yes housing is a big issue here. All the barracks and single quarters are full.  Weeks ago the WComd mentioned they’re looking at renting hotels to house our members. I don’t know if it materialized.


I have a solution.... 






I mean it's BC, half the population already lives in vans anyways.  The CAF may as well just set up a van park, it'll be trendy with the youths!


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I have a solution....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean it's BC, half the population already lives in vans anyways.  The CAF may as well just set up a van park, it'll be trendy with the youths!


I heard rumours that people were trying to get a camping spot without the raffle because they needed a place to live. Apparently the camping raffle is serious business in Comox.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have heard elsewhere that one of the Kingfishers issues is the dummies they toss out to imitate a SAR tech jumping keeps hitting the tail? If true, one would have thought that they would have tested that during the trials. I just wish the Spartan was being supported by Airbus. My gut feeling in all of this is wrong airframe and right company.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have heard elsewhere that one of the Kingfishers issues is the dummies they toss out to imitate a SAR tech jumping keeps hitting the tail? If true, one would have thought that they would have tested that during the trials. I just wish the Spartan was being supported by Airbus. My gut feeling in all of this is wrong airframe and right company.



SAR Techs be like...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely we can solve the issue if we only hire dwarfs or Hobbits for the job.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have heard elsewhere that one of the Kingfishers issues is the dummies they toss out to imitate a SAR tech jumping keeps hitting the tail? If true, one would have thought that they would have tested that during the trials. I just wish the Spartan was being supported by Airbus. My gut feeling in all of this is wrong airframe and right company.


You forgot.... just like boots, the only testing required was could it be procured from Québec 😁


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You forgot.... just like boots, the only testing required was could it be procured from Québec 😁


We can't even use that line as an excuse - the aircraft is Spanish


----------



## kev994

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have heard elsewhere that one of the Kingfishers issues is the dummies they toss out to imitate a SAR tech jumping keeps hitting the tail? If true, one would have thought that they would have tested that during the trials. I just wish the Spartan was being supported by Airbus. My gut feeling in all of this is wrong airframe and right company.


I’m not fully up to speed on this issue but I believe it’s solved, I know there was some successful static line testing at various speeds but I don’t know what the fix was or whether it resolved the issues completely. FWIW an old FE told me the herc does this too.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I jumped out of a Herc a few times.  I don't remember hitting the tail...but if I did that would explain a lot to my wife.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> I jumped out of a Herc a few times.  I don't remember hitting the tail...but if I did that would explain a lot to my wife.


The issue isn’t when jumping per se but when a static line parachutist becomes hung up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> The issue isn’t when jumping per se but when a static line parachutist becomes hung up.



Ahh.  Tracking now.  It’s been 30 years since I learned that stuff.  I don’t even remember the procedure from ramp or door now.

“BPT deploy your reserve if you can’t be retrieved” rings a bell…harder to do if you’ve been windmilling of a fuselage at XXX KIAS.


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> The issue isn’t when jumping per se but when a static line parachutist becomes hung up.


You shouldn’t hit the tail on a Herc when hung up.  Bounced on the airframe if a door exit - yes, but even on a ramp the A/C would need to actively try to dive you into the tail.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> You shouldn’t hit the tail on a Herc when hung up.  Bounced on the airframe if a door exit - yes, but even on a ramp the A/C would need to actively try to dive you into the tail.



All the more reason to be nice to the aircrew at the pre-invasion piss up the night before


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> All the more reason to be nice to the aircrew at the pre-invasion piss up the night before


Don’t piss in their helmet bags (or steal them). 

When flying to the USMC Mountain Warfare Training Center, in Bridgeport California (we landed in Reno) as a 1 in 5 passenger on a Herc from Calgary, I went out of the way prior to chat to the crew.   Before the flight, they even explained their CBU and what foods worked best so we didn’t need to suffer through a CAF soggy box lunch.   They also let us take turns flying on the way down.

Interestingly enough we had a good laugh about why they’d often crank the heat during arctic jumps to make us popciles once we jumped - and we found the whole vicious circle of pissing in the helmet bags was counter productive to all.


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> You shouldn’t hit the tail on a Herc when hung up.  Bounced on the airframe if a door exit - yes, but even on a ramp the A/C would need to actively try to dive you into the tail.


I am talking about the CC295.  We have other issues with our Hercs and paratroopers but that’s unrelated.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I


SupersonicMax said:


> I am talking about the CC295.  We have other issues with our Hercs and paratroopers but that’s unrelated.



I recall my issues in detail;  twisted risers on exit, a gully, coming in for a left front that turned into a “rear” immediately before landing and hitting something very hard called “Buzton”.

Worth about $380/month tax free for life!  🤙🏻

The first 6 or so pages of this thread are a good read!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> I
> 
> 
> I recall my issues in detail;  twisted risers on exit, a gully, coming in for a left front that turned into a “rear” immediately before landing and hitting something very hard called “Buzton”.
> 
> Worth about $380/month tax free for life!  🤙🏻
> 
> The first 6 or so pages of this thread are a good read!



Holy. Crap.

DZ Buxton was really good at flattening out my helmet on one side during a winter jump. I think landing on an ice rink would have been safer


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> Holy. Crap.
> 
> DZ Buxton was really good at flattening out my helmet on one side during a winter jump. I think landing on an ice rink would have been safer



I’d bet more than a few people have fond memories of being there 😂


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> Holy. Crap.
> 
> DZ Buxton was really good at flattening out my helmet on one side during a winter jump. I think landing on an ice rink would have been safer


I sprained both ankles on my second jump there. Since I was in no mood to re-do J stage, I tied my combat boots as tight as I could and hobbled off the DZ. Luckily, we got stop dropped for a blizzard the next day which gave me time rest up and it considerably softened the DZ after that…


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> The first 6 or so pages of this thread are a good read!


I just saw the first couple of posts.

Wow - 18 years ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> I just saw the first couple of posts.
> 
> Wow - 18 years ago.



And a few comments on why the 295 was not the right to choice to make. And then “we did it!”.


----------



## GR66

This is probably my favourite quote (from January 2005)



aesop081 said:


> Agreed, SAR is a high profile task that the government actualy understands and supports, you guys will get the new FWSAR in short order.


----------



## Good2Golf

GR66 said:


> This is probably my favourite quote (from January 2005)


In fairness *to aesop081, he hadn’t experienced the depth of Canada’s procurement ineptitude at that point, just operationally experienced.  He since learned more…and is now out and happily AESOPing where the Sun always shines and snow is something that happens thousands of kilometers further North. 🏝


----------



## GR66

Good2Golf said:


> In fairness you aesop081, he hadn’t experienced the depth of Canada’s procurement ineptitude at that point, just operationally experienced.  He since learned more…and is now out and happily AESOPing where the Sun always shines and snow is something that happens thousands of kilometers further North. 🏝


Ah yes....I remember fondly the days of my youth when I had hope and faith!


----------



## dimsum

GR66 said:


> This is probably my favourite quote (from January 2005)


Yeah, but remember that Airbus filed a lawsuit when they lost.  They won, then Leonardo was going to file a lawsuit, then it was dropped.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> In fairness *to aesop081, he hadn’t experienced the depth of Canada’s procurement ineptitude at that point, just operationally experienced.  He since learned more…and is now out and happily AESOPing TACing where the Sun always shines and snow is something that happens thousands of kilometers further North. 🏝



Yup and he won’t be getting any sympathy cards from me!  😁


----------



## armrdsoul77

Eye In The Sky said:


> The first 6 or so pages of this thread are a good read!


Agreed. Wondering if the V22 would now be considered a good option for the SAR role as it is a more mature platform. Usaf uses it in that role. Hoisting from the rear ramp. Could it replace both fixed and rotary for someones SAR needs?


----------



## dapaterson

My understanding is that the prop wash would likely disqualify it from a RW SAR role, but I'll defer to the experts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Years ago I suggested that we lease a few along with US flight crews to test it in the Arctic and FWSAR role. Data from those tests would inform the next generation of aircraft and viability of these hybrid aircraft in the SAR role.


----------



## Good2Golf

I would wager that you wouldn’t find many rotary SAR aircrew complaining about flying either the Osprey or a Chinook, compared to a Cormorant. The only hard data points I have in the Cormorant v Chinook category was unanimous “WTF were we thinking?” in favor of the Hook.


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> And a few comments on why the 295 was not the right to choice to make. And then “we did it!”.


Of course we did!  I mean I know this won't make sense to anybody who hasn't been in, but...like...why wouldn't we? 😅




SeaKingTacco said:


> I sprained both ankles on my second jump there. Since I was in no mood to re-do J stage, I tied my combat boots as tight as I could and hobbled off the DZ. Luckily, we got stop dropped for a blizzard the next day which gave me time rest up and it considerably softened the DZ after that…


Geesus, where was this place!?  And why was it even a thing??


KevinB said:


> You shouldn’t hit the tail on a Herc when hung up.  Bounced on the airframe if a door exit - yes, but even on a ramp the A/C would need to actively try to dive you into the tail.


So even further reason to not piss in their helmet bag.  Solid copy.


----------



## Spencer100

dimsum said:


> We can't even use that line as an excuse - the aircraft is Spanish


Oh contraire!

Airbus is now a huge part of the Quebec aerospace industry.  Really going forward the largest one. With the A220 now being an Airbus program watch from many more Airbus products coming our way.  The government will have to keep contracts rolling to maintain that A220 production base in Quebec.  It won't be a direct link but it will be implied in every contract going forward.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> I sprained both ankles on my second jump there. Since I was in no mood to re-do J stage, I tied my combat boots as tight as I could and hobbled off the DZ. Luckily, we got stop dropped for a blizzard the next day which gave me time rest up and it considerably softened the DZ after that…



2 sprained ankles must = "feet and knees together".  I bet your PI said "good job...give me 25 for each!". 😁

Ref the underlined part...I seem to remember a Van Doo Cpl on the Franco course who sprained or broke an ankle on the night jump and sucked it up on the ramp jump for the same reason.  A level of motivation I'd not seen previous on the folks on BP - I think 1 pers went off the Mock Tower 20-some times to get his check.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> Geesus, where was this place!?  And why was it even a thing??



Back in the day, the CABC (Cdn Airborne Center) and Canadian Forces Parachute Maintenance Center were located in Griesbach (Edmonton).  The CABC building and Mock Tower were close to the old DB;  IIRC, students were housed in MacKenzie Barracks.  There was a decent bar (Boca's Beach Club) within walking distance of the Main Gate.  

"Nosedock" (where you would kit up, manifest and board the plane) was out at Lancaster Park (where Base Edmonton is now).  Drop Zone Buxton was close to there, with the control tower and the famous monument to CWO Buxton, who was the RSM of the CAR who died on a MFF jump on the DZ.

At the end of Week 2, after completing all PCs, students who were moving on to Week 3 (Jump Stage or J-Stage) were taken out to Lancaster Park, shown around NOSEDOCK and Herc, then taken out to the DZ Control Tower.  While there, we went single file past the Monument to read it before going back to Griesbach.  There was a certain...effect on some/most of us after that.

I think we finished that week to a place called JR's All American on the other side of the city, 2 for 1 highballs.  😁

I was there late winter '92.  Sometime after that, everything moved to Trenton.

It was one of the best 3 weeks I spent in the CF;  injuries aside.


----------



## suffolkowner

If the problems with the 295 are not solvable maybe we need to find another job for them in the RCAF? Or give them to Ukraine?

Replace with C130J?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The 295s are config'd for air ops in a permissive environment.  Outside of SAR, the only task I could see them reasonably used for would be maritime surveillance in Dom Ops tasks (as currently kitted out).  But, all of the money used to maintain, gas and crew them and the associated YFR would come out of....where?


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> The 295s are config'd for air ops in a permissive environment.  Outside of SAR, the only task I could see them reasonably used for would be maritime surveillance in Dom Ops tasks (as currently kitted out).  But, all of the money used to maintain, gas and crew them and the associated YFR would come out of....where?


DFO


----------



## Colin Parkinson

DFO is already flying Dash 8's, eventually it may make sense to convert to the same airframe, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, unless their aircraft are having issues.


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> Back in the day, the CABC (Cdn Airborne Center) and Canadian Forces Parachute Maintenance Center were located in Griesbach (Edmonton).  The CABC building and Mock Tower were close to the old DB;  IIRC, students were housed in MacKenzie Barracks.  There was a decent bar (Boca's Beach Club) within walking distance of the Main Gate.
> 
> "Nosedock" (where you would kit up, manifest and board the plane) was out at Lancaster Park (where Base Edmonton is now).  Drop Zone Buxton was close to there, with the control tower and the famous monument to CWO Buxton, who was the RSM of the CAR who died on a MFF jump on the DZ.
> 
> At the end of Week 2, after completing all PCs, students who were moving on to Week 3 (Jump Stage or J-Stage) were taken out to Lancaster Park, shown around NOSEDOCK and Herc, then taken out to the DZ Control Tower.  While there, we went single file past the Monument to read it before going back to Griesbach.  There was a certain...effect on some/most of us after that.
> 
> I think we finished that week to a place called JR's All American on the other side of the city, 2 for 1 highballs.  😁
> 
> I was there late winter '92.  Sometime after that, everything moved to Trenton.
> 
> It was one of the best 3 weeks I spent in the CF;  injuries aside.View attachment 70640


IIRC it moved sometime in ‘95 or ‘96 
  I went through CABC, but I know guys in my Platoon in 1VP Calgary, who went through Trenton, and the BN moved summer of ‘97


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> DFO is already flying Dash 8's, eventually it may make sense to convert to the same airframe, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, unless their aircraft are having issues.


PAL just newly converted airframes for that contract and TC added another -8 to NASP, so it would be a case of casting something down that wasn’t wanted, or spec’d, etc.  And to be honest, overkill to the task.


----------



## Quirky

Rumour has it, a base-wide email was sent out to address the current housing crisis in Comox. The suggestion from the CoC was for families struggling to find affordable housing to apply to Habitat Humanity Van Island North.  🤦‍♂️

Housing seems to be a serious issue at 19 Wing, getting people to support SAR won't be easy.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Quirky said:


> Rumour has it, a base-wide email was sent out to address the current housing crisis in Comox. The suggestion from the CoC was for families struggling to find affordable housing to apply to Habitat Humanity Van Island North.  🤦‍♂️
> 
> Housing seems to be a serious issue at 19 Wing, getting people to support SAR won't be easy.



Billie and Nathan's story:









						Billie and Nathan's Story - Habitat for Humanity Vancouver Island North
					

After being accepted to Habitat's homeownership program, Billie and Nathan are realizing a long-term goal of having a safe and affordable home.




					www.habitatnorthisland.com


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:


> Housing seems to be a serious issue at 19 Wing, getting people to support SAR won't be easy.


And...well, the other, larger, squadron on base.









						407 Long Range Patrol Squadron - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> And...well, the other, larger, squadron on base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 407 Long Range Patrol Squadron - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


 Honestly, I don’t know how Jnr ranks make it out there, especially Avr’s and Standard pay group trades.  I did BPAAC a few back with an Avr who was posted to 407 and he was very concerned about how he was going to live at first.  I can’t imagine now, with the COL and housing being even higher.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> Honestly, I don’t know how Jnr ranks make it out there, especially Avr’s and Standard pay group trades.  I did BPAAC a few back with an Avr who was posted to 407 and he was very concerned about how he was going to live at first.  I can’t imagine now, with the COL and housing being even higher.


I suspect they're rooming with others, like in the NCR (if CAF Reddit is to be believed).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> I suspect they're rooming with others, like in the NCR (if CAF Reddit is to be believed).


 That must be fun for married/CL people 😬


----------



## Quirky

Learn to live in your vehicle on IR - Comox posting solution.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> I suspect they're rooming with others, like in the NCR (if CAF Reddit is to be believed).


CAF Reddit posted the other day that WComd is suggesting Jr NCMs with families approach Habitat for Humanity to get housing.




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/unpfqr/_/i8azho3

kind of a sad state of affairs if this is legit


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> CAF Reddit posted the other day that WComd is suggesting Jr NCMs with families approach Habitat for Humanity to get housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/unpfqr/_/i8azho3
> 
> kind of a sad state of affairs if this is legit



If true.......

As the WComd probably has a nice house around there somewhere, I would probably go with something like:

'Irresponsible', and

'Unprofessional', and

'Privileged'


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> CAF Reddit posted the other day that WComd is suggesting Jr NCMs with families approach Habitat for Humanity to get housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/unpfqr/_/i8azho3
> 
> kind of a sad state of affairs if this is legit


In Comox, a WComd wouldn't be saying "Ma'am, Sir", etc.  That person is the highest rank on base.

It _could_ be the WCWO but even that seems weird.


----------



## Fabius

It reads like a HQ Branch Head/ Unit Staff email out to unit or sub unit commanders.


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> CAF Reddit posted the other day that WComd is suggesting Jr NCMs with families approach Habitat for Humanity to get housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/unpfqr/_/i8azho3
> 
> kind of a sad state of affairs if this is legit


It seems to me to be one of those sarcastic joke emails one receives. 

IF this is legit then it is indeed sad.


----------



## Zoomie

It’s legit.   Came from DWComd section.


----------



## MilEME09

Zoomie said:


> It’s legit.   Came from DWComd section.


something something retention issues


----------



## daftandbarmy

Zoomie said:


> It’s legit.   Came from DWComd section.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With all the greenspace they have, these are an option


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> With all the greenspace they have, these are an option



And there are thousands of Canadian workers living in camps built by these guys all across the country:


TEMPORARY MODULAR LIVING QUARTERS FOR ANY INDUSTRY​Living and working far from friends, family and the comforts of home can be tough for your people. We know the importance of providing them with a home away from home. That’s why we offer fully serviced accommodations that cater to both the practical side of your business and the wellbeing of your team.

Remote job sites don’t always have accommodations nearby, so you need flexible, custom housing options that work with your location, size of workforce, budget and timeline. From temporary construction camps to permanent operating facilities and everything in between, our turnkey workforce accommodations offer a comfortable and enjoyable space to live throughout the lifecycle of your project. 






						ATCO | Structures | Workforce Housing
					

When you need flexible, custom housing options that work with your location, size of workforce, budget and timeline, from temporary construction camps to permanent operating facilities and everything in between, our turnkey workforce accommodations offer a comfortable and enjoyable space to live...



					structures.atco.com


----------



## dimsum

Zoomie said:


> It’s legit.   Came from DWComd section.


Oh man.  Why some reporter hasn't written a scathing article on this already is beyond me.  

Busking in Cold Lake is one thing, but effectively taking housing spots from lower-income civies is _NOT _going to go well in the public eye.

RIP to the PAO who has to deal with it.


----------



## KevinB

I don't get why the CAF doesn't make more PMQ and Singles Quarters on bases.
   Yes, I understand the infrastructure requirements, and associated costs, but in some areas, it is the only reasonable method of housing, unless you expect they to take on second jobs.   Frankly secured housing will also eliminate financial vulnerabilities that enemies can and will exploit.


----------



## Quirky

KevinB said:


> I don't get why the CAF doesn't make more PMQ and Singles Quarters on bases.
> Yes, I understand the infrastructure requirements, and associated costs, but in some areas, it is the only reasonable method of housing, unless you expect they to take on second jobs.   Frankly secured housing will also eliminate financial vulnerabilities that enemies can and will exploit.



One does not simply build more housing.  Something something cost something quotes and contracting something years.


----------



## KevinB

Quirky said:


> One does not simply build more housing.  Something something cost something quotes and contracting something years.


Agreed- but something something costs something etc was a known issue years ago. 

It’s like the CAF enjoys being asleep at the switch.  Which someone probably sold as a cost cutting endeavor…


----------



## lenaitch

KevinB said:


> I don't get why the CAF doesn't make more PMQ and Singles Quarters on bases.
> Yes, I understand the infrastructure requirements, and associated costs, but in some areas, it is the only reasonable method of housing, unless you expect they to take on second jobs.   Frankly secured housing will also eliminate financial vulnerabilities that enemies can and will exploit.


I doubt any government really wants to be in the housing business for its employees and our federal government seems to want to treat military personnel just like any other public servant.  In some areas, would provided housing at local market rates just mean more places that cannot be afforded?

I think members would be torn between 'more of' and fix/modernize what exists.


----------



## lenaitch

KevinB said:


> Agreed- but something something costs something etc was a known issue years ago.
> 
> It’s like the CAF enjoys being asleep at the switch.  Which someone probably sold as a cost cutting endeavor…


Is it even a CAF issue?  It strikes me it would be DND or even Treasury Board.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> It’s like the CAF enjoys being asleep at the switch. Which someone probably sold as a cost cutting endeavor…


The CAF is along for the ride in this, KevinB.  The Govt reinforces the theme that CAF members and family are to be treated no differently than other Canadians when it comes to housing, hence why CFHA penny packeting housing in limited quantities but equalized to prevailing housing market pricing, and slow rolling PLD adjustments is the order of the day.  I&Ws in the past let CAF members know that there would be less and less consideration to them and their families…elimination of Service Air benefits to dependents, etc.

Many of us don’t foresee the Govt doing much, if anything to assist more vulnerable CAF members and their families.   “They’re asking more than [Canada] can give.”TM


----------



## Quirky

They can build all the PMQs in Comox but with the requirement to price them at market value, they'll be $1500/month anyway completely defeating the purpose. Step 1 should be to standardize PMQ prices across the country, Step 2 will be to cut provincial income tax for CAF members, Step 3 etc.

Damn it I thought I was in the PLD thread.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Quirky said:


> They can build all the PMQs in Comox but with the requirement to price them at market value, they'll be $1500/month anyway completely defeating the purpose. Step 1 should be to standardize PMQ prices across the country, Step 2 will be to cut provincial income tax for CAF members, Step 3 etc.


TBS will never allow that because PSAC will flip their lid, again, because we were getting a benefit that they weren't entitled to. 

Tying our pay to the PS has become more of a hinderance than a help unfortunately. They are able to CB for things we never will see, for less money. Not to mention a lot of trades within the CAF get screwed because our pay isn't tied to our equivalent PS Union based on classification. 

PIPSC makes sure that an IT-3 is paid what industry would pay for those skills and experience, but since we base Specialist Pay on a percentage above the Basic Rate we are with to PSAC, Spec 1 trades in an equivalent role with the same skills and experience make 20k Less. Some with Aircrew, MPs, and Navy trades comparable to other unions the GoC have to negotiate with (RCMPPA, CBSAPA, CCGPA, etc). 

If by some stroke of luck the CAF gets tax relief, or standardized rates for housing, I give it til the next round of PSAC bargaining before it disappears into thin air.


Quirky said:


> Damn it I thought I was in the PLD thread.


Sorry for the derail, however, I don't think most of the CAF or DND leaders are realizing this "administrative hiccup" has very real operational and strategic impacts. They talk about crews to fly and maintain them, but forget that they need a place to keep their kit and kin while they're there. 

It can and will bite us in the ass eventually and I don't see it being treated like the operational linchpin it truly is.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I'm still gob smacked that the Deputy Wing Commander at CFB Comox has apparently sent out the suggestion that CAF members and their families can just apply for housing through a local to BC social housing scheme for 'on the edge of financial ruin' families, thus setting comparatively well paid CAF members up to compete with underpriviledged residents for limited housing resources.

'Pound sand' or 'Let them eat cake' might be comments that more accurately reflect the look and feel of that message from the Boss.


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm still gob smacked that the Deputy Wing Commander at CFB Comox has apparently sent out the suggestion that CAF members and their families can just apply for housing through a local to BC social housing scheme for 'on the edge of financial ruin' families, thus setting comparatively well paid CAF members up to compete with underpriviledged residents for limited housing resources.
> 
> 'Pound sand' or 'Let them eat cake' might be comments that more accurately reflect the look and feel of that message from the Boss.


to bring this back towards the topic of the thread, while we have the official reason, how much do we think personal shortages and issues have caused delays in the fielding of the new aircraft?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm still gob smacked that the Deputy Wing Commander at CFB Comox has apparently sent out the suggestion that CAF members and their families can just apply for housing through a local to BC social housing scheme for 'on the edge of financial ruin' families, thus setting comparatively well paid CAF members up to compete with underpriviledged residents for limited housing resources.
> 
> 'Pound sand' or 'Let them eat cake' might be comments that more accurately reflect the look and feel of that message from the Boss.


Can we bring back tar and feathers?


----------



## Blackadder1916

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm still gob smacked that the Deputy Wing Commander at CFB Comox has apparently sent out the suggestion that CAF members and their families can just apply for housing through a local to BC social housing scheme for 'on the edge of financial ruin' families, thus setting comparatively well paid CAF members up to compete with underpriviledged residents for limited housing resources.
> 
> 'Pound sand' or 'Let them eat cake' might be comments that more accurately reflect the look and feel of that message from the Boss.



While not familiar with BC's chapters of "Habitat For Humanity", I assume that they are similar to branches of the organization elsewhere, such as here in Alberta.  To characterize them as "social housing" would probably elicit a quick and firm denial that they fall under that label.  Their common theme is "a hand up, not a handout".  While they provide an affordable mortgage (with no down payment) to families who may otherwise not be able to move into home ownership, one of the requirements is the ability to pay that mortgage from a regular income that is not dependent on any form of assistance (e.g., EI, Income Assistance, etc).

Social housing, on the other hand, is usually defined as subsidized accommodation.

While it may be somewhat at odds with the vision one has of "comparatively well paid CF members", the income levels to qualify for subsidized housing in BC could place some of the more junior in the category of qualifying.






						Subsidized Housing | BC Housing
					






					www.bchousing.org


----------



## Zoomie

To be fair - RHUs are not costed at industry standard.  4 bedroom Q at Comox is close to $1k/month.   That would be around $3k on the street. 

We (DND, CFHA) have built 4 new apartment buildings - each with 8 x 2 bedroom apartments.  Only helps a niche group of troopies posted to QQ.


----------



## kev994

MilEME09 said:


> to bring this back towards the topic of the thread, while we have the official reason, how much do we think personal shortages and issues have caused delays in the fielding of the new aircraft?


I only hear rumours but it seems to be all airbus this far. We haven’t made it far enough for crewing/staffing to be a problem yet


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Can we bring back tar and feathers?


How about the stocks and pillories? So other commoners like us can toss rotten potatoes and tomatoes and very small rocks at the guilty bastards.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Zoomie said:


> It’s legit.   Came from DWComd section.



Unbelievable.   Wow.


----------



## Dana381

Blackadder1916 said:


> While not familiar with BC's chapters of "Habitat For Humanity", I assume that they are similar to branches of the organization elsewhere, such as here in Alberta.  To characterize them as "social housing" would probably elicit a quick and firm denial that they fall under that label.  Their common theme is "a hand up, not a handout".  While they provide an affordable mortgage (*with no down payment*) to families who may otherwise not be able to move into home ownership, one of the requirements is the ability to pay that mortgage from a regular income that is not dependent on any form of assistance (e.g., EI, Income Assistance, etc).
> 
> Social housing, on the other hand, is usually defined as subsidized accommodation.
> 
> While it may be somewhat at odds with the vision one has of "comparatively well paid CF members", the income levels to qualify for subsidized housing in BC could place some of the more junior in the category of qualifying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidized Housing | BC Housing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bchousing.org



I had two friends get a habitat house one in P.E.I. and one in Kitchener. Both had to give "sweat equity" the down payment required was volunteer hours helping with the build and other builds going on at the time. Even if the person had little building skills they would be trained or they could do other things like clean up the work site or fundraising.


----------



## Quirky

Dana381 said:


> I had two friends get a habitat house one in P.E.I. and one in Kitchener. Both had to give "sweat equity" the down payment required was volunteer hours helping with the build and other builds going on at the time. Even if the person had little building skills they would be trained or they could do other things like clean up the work site or fundraising.



Build your own house on work time. I like this idea.


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Build your own house on work time. I like this idea.


That's a PER point too, community involvement.


----------



## kev994

Here’s a new article but I don’t really see any new information in it. 








						Canada delays operational capacity for new search and rescue fleet up to four years
					

The Canadian armed forces' new fleet of 16 Airbus Defence & Space CC-295 Kingfisher search and rescue aircraft may not reach initial operating capacity until 2026.




					www.flightglobal.com


----------



## Dana381

Quirky said:


> Build your own house on work time. I like this idea.


Yes, it's a good system. The house isn't free, they pay a mortgage to Habitat with the payments based on what you can afford. I forget the terms but there is little or no interest on the principal. The sweat equity is for the down payment. Habitat tries to get donations for materials, they use the money paid to buy land and pay a carpenter to oversee the volunteers. There are rules about selling the house also, I forget what the rules are but they are free to sell it.


----------



## suffolkowner

How a delay to CC-295 operations could impact RCAF search-and-rescue - Skies Mag
					

Pushing back initial operational capability of the CC-295 will disrupt SAR pilots and maintenance technicians preparing to transition to the new aircraft.




					skiesmag.com
				




a decent update hopefully the IOC/FOC timelines are very conservative and they can get this thing working


----------



## Blackadder1916

Dana381 said:


> Yes, it's a good system. The house isn't free, they pay a mortgage to Habitat with the payments based on what you can afford. I forget the terms but there is little or no interest on the principal. The sweat equity is for the down payment. Habitat tries to get donations for materials, they use the money paid to buy land and pay a carpenter to oversee the volunteers. *There are rules about selling the house also, I forget what the rules are but they are free to sell it.*



If you sell the house, Habitat has the first option to purchase and the price is based on an independent appraisal for "fair market value".  There is also a amount deducted (5% here in AB) in lieu of real estate commissions to cover legal fees and other program costs associated with the sale.


----------



## lenaitch

suffolkowner said:


> How a delay to CC-295 operations could impact RCAF search-and-rescue - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> Pushing back initial operational capability of the CC-295 will disrupt SAR pilots and maintenance technicians preparing to transition to the new aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a decent update hopefully the IOC/FOC timelines are very conservative and they can get this thing working



Two thoughts from the article:

_"Airbus made 30 design changes to the platform to meet Canadian mandatory and rated requirements."_​
Is this a reflection of our tendency to Canadianize everything, or an indirect way of saying they are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

_"Though there is now a “defined safe envelop for jumpers to leave the aircraft,” the test teams are still finalizing procedures to retrieve a jumper whose parachute gets snagged behind the airplane. “There is a way of pulling them back into the airplane safely . . . "_​
Is this something done with every 'egress-type aircraft', or a reflection of something mentioned a while back that there might be a problem with jumping out of this particular airframe?


----------



## kev994

lenaitch said:


> Two thoughts from the article:
> 
> _"Airbus made 30 design changes to the platform to meet Canadian mandatory and rated requirements."_​
> Is this a reflection of our tendency to Canadianize everything, or an indirect way of saying they are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?
> 
> _"Though there is now a “defined safe envelop for jumpers to leave the aircraft,” the test teams are still finalizing procedures to retrieve a jumper whose parachute gets snagged behind the airplane. “There is a way of pulling them back into the airplane safely . . . "_​
> Is this something done with every 'egress-type aircraft', or a reflection of something mentioned a while back that there might be a problem with jumping out of this particular airframe?


I believe airbus made the changes on their own accord in an effort to meet the requirements (eg range and tasks in a crew day). 
They’re jumping SARTechs and retrieving them if they hang up. We don’t egress airborne other than ejection seats and for some reason the Grob.


----------



## Blackadder1916

lenaitch said:


> Is this something done with every 'egress-type aircraft', or a reflection of something mentioned a while back that there might be a problem with jumping out of this particular airframe?



I don't know how often parachutists get snagged but it does happen.






						CC130J608 Paratrooper Accident - Epilogue - Flight Safety - Royal Canadian Air Force - Canada.ca
					

During Exercise Swift Response 2019, a paratrooper on the starboard side became hung-up outside the aircraft and subsequently experienced a sudden static line failure which resulted in an uncontrolled descent. The paratrooper sustained fatal injuries.




					www.canada.ca
				





> . . .
> The preventative measures recommended include: re-evaluating current hung-up jumper detection and associated hung-up parachutist retrieval procedures; amending publications to document aircraft equipment stowage location; securing ancillary equipment when configuring the CC130J aircraft for paratrooper operations; and addressing the Airworthiness Program with respect to parachute operations across the CAF.



And Canada is not the only country concerned.









						New airborne system to save Soldiers' lives
					

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. -- Jumping out of a plane may be a routine part of an airborne Soldier's training, but if the equipment doesn't function properly, it can be deadly.




					www.army.mil
				





> . . . "Generally, there are a handful of towed jumpers per year, which can be potentially dangerous situations," said Samuel Corner, project manager for the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command Soldier Center Aerial Delivery Directorate.
> 
> Until recently, there were two ways to help a towed jumper, which occurs when the static line attached to the aircraft anchor cable becomes tangled with the jumper and/or the equipment and the parachute is not released -- cut the jumper's static line so the Soldier can deploy his or her reserve parachute or pull the Soldier back into the aircraft. Both scenarios are dangerous because the Soldier is dragged alongside or behind the aircraft until he is either released or pulled into the aircraft.
> 
> March 2017, in an effort to eliminate the possibility of a towed jumper situation, the Aerial Delivery Directorate's Airdrop Technology team submitted a project proposal to the U.S. Army Foreign Comparative Testing Program, which is embedded in RDECOM's Global Technology Office, as part of their annual call for proposals. The proposal was selected, enabling the Airdrop Technology Team to purchase ten Hung Up Parachutist Release Assemblies, or HUPRA, from the United Kingdom company, IrvinGQ (formally Airborne Systems Europe) for tests and evaluation.
> 
> The HUPRA, which includes an emergency parachute that is released once the Jumpmaster cuts the aircraft anchor line cable, is manufactured by IrvinGQ in the UK. The HUPRA is used by the UK as well as other nations on C-130 and other military aircraft.
> 
> By purchasing the system from the UK, the Army saved approximately $500,000 in non-recurring engineering costs and additional costs to develop, integrate and validate a new recovery system.
> 
> "Testing, which includes aircraft time and manpower to design validation tests, is very expensive," Corner said. "We built on efforts of the UK by using their lessons learned to accelerate our process and decrease our costs."
> 
> The tests, which were conducted at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, used mannequins that "jumped" out from the aircraft's side doors and ramp. The testing was conducted on C-130 aircraft and divided into seven phases; minor changes were made to the system after the first phase was completed.
> 
> Before a Soldier jumps out of an aircraft, a Jumpmaster conducts a personnel inspection of the Soldier's attaching, jumping and releasing equipment. Jumpmasters must complete a rigorous training program before they manage airborne jump operations.
> 
> . . .


----------



## PuckChaser

lenaitch said:


> Is this something done with every 'egress-type aircraft', or a reflection of something mentioned a while back that there might be a problem with jumping out of this particular airframe?


It's a flight safety and jumper safety requirement for static line parachuting. The parachutist can't do anything about it if they get hung up, and normally are now beyond the DZ so they need to be brought back in by a winch-like system.

On my BPara, flight safety changed the rules just before J Stage by limiting the full up jumper weight allowed to exit the Herc due to a weakness in this retrieval system. Forced half the course into a Skyvan to do their equipment jumps (its system could handle full rated weight of the parachute) while the rest of us skinny folks got to stay in the Herc.


----------



## SupersonicMax

suffolkowner said:


> How a delay to CC-295 operations could impact RCAF search-and-rescue - Skies Mag
> 
> 
> Pushing back initial operational capability of the CC-295 will disrupt SAR pilots and maintenance technicians preparing to transition to the new aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skiesmag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a decent update hopefully the IOC/FOC timelines are very conservative and they can get this thing working


They are not conservative.


----------



## kev994

SupersonicMax said:


> They are not conservative.


I can’t even keep track of the C130 ELE anymore, it seems every 6 months they add 2 years.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Herc Hs and 140s;  could almost change their C/S to “2 Bell”…


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> Herc Hs and 140s;  could almost change their C/S to “2 Bell”…


It’s not bad now, but ~5 years ago we had a bad batch of prop seals and the fire department started asking “is this a real emergency or just another one of those props?”


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> It’s not bad now, but ~5 years ago we had a bad batch of prop seals and the fire department started asking “is this a real emergency or just another one of those props?”



Ahhh.  The song of my people…lol.

(I’ve watched a few planes with upside down engines come in on 3 from my office in ‘22 😬)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:


> Ahhh.  The song of my people…lol.
> 
> (I’ve watched a few planes with upside down engines come in on 3 from my office in ‘22 😬)


Ah yes, the dreaded three engine landing…

(Sorry- I am riffing off of a memory of an F-16 driver ribbing a B-52 driver after he declared an emergency for losing an engine, when he still had 7 left…)


----------



## Zoomie

To be fair, it’s not the approach (3 engine or OEI) that we worry about - it‘s what might happen if we end up having to go-around.   Three engine asymmetric go-arounds  with any sort of rudder issue is not a good day.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I


Zoomie said:


> To be fair, it’s not the approach (3 engine or OEI) that we worry about - it‘s what might happen if we end up having to go-around.   Three engine asymmetric go-arounds  with any sort of rudder issue is not a good day.


 I know- it was not fair, but it sparked a memory of the B52 story


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> I
> 
> I know- it was not fair, but it sparked a memory of the B52 story


I heard the tower tape of it decades ago.  Wish I could find it again, it was funny AF!


----------



## suffolkowner

Canadian Forces urged to contact Habitat for Humanity amid housing crunch - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The email, confirmed as authentic by the Department of National Defence, included a link and contact information for the charity's northern Vancouver Island chapter.




					globalnews.ca
				




Its in the news now


----------



## kev994

suffolkowner said:


> Canadian Forces urged to contact Habitat for Humanity amid housing crunch - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The email, confirmed as authentic by the Department of National Defence, included a link and contact information for the charity's northern Vancouver Island chapter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its in the news now


Thread split?


----------



## Quirky

Related to the housing issue in Comox and Canada so I'll just post here since it's more aircraft-related.

Is fixed wing SAR worth all the cost of moving a herc squadron, personnel, equipment etc into the cost of living hornet nest on the Island? Do we really need to put all this effort into a capability that's seldom used anyway?


----------



## GR66

Quirky said:


> Related to the housing issue in Comox and Canada so I'll just post here since it's more aircraft-related.
> 
> Is fixed wing SAR worth all the cost of moving a herc squadron, personnel, equipment etc into the cost of living hornet nest on the Island? Do we really need to put all this effort into a capability that's seldom used anyway?


Couldn't the same be said of almost every role performed by the CAF?  Expensive and seldom used?  Like insurance, some things you pay for knowing/hoping that you won't need it but when you DO need it you're awfully glad you have it.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

GR66 said:


> Couldn't the same be said of almost every role performed by the CAF?  Expensive and seldom used?  Like insurance, some things you pay for knowing/hoping that you won't need it but when you DO need it you're awfully glad you have it.


Understood, with a but... 
Like Op LENTUS (its various iterations), We blow a shit tonne of the defense budget backstopping the piss poor planning of provincial and other federal departments that should have the bulk of the responsibility to fund and provide these services. Public Safety is not a defense issue. There I said it. A lot of SAR Techs and Aircrews would be better used flying operationally into theatre, or providing support a la PJs of the USAF, than saving Jim Bob from himself out in the Rockies/in a fishing vessel of the coast of Nova Scotia.

SAR should be a function of the CCG in the water and the RCMP on land. Use the Public Safety budget to provide these services and keep the CAF for the pointier end of things like Defense, ATCP, and only as needed when provincial or OGD supports fail.


----------



## Mick

rmc_wannabe said:


> SAR should be a function of the CCG in the water and the RCMP on land. Use the Public Safety budget to provide these services and keep the CAF for the pointier end of things like Defense, ATCP, and only as needed when provincial or OGD supports fail.



Just for clarification: who takes over the air rescue mission from the RCAF?  Do you envision CCG and RCMP operating SAR aircraft fleets?


----------



## GR66

rmc_wannabe said:


> Understood, with a but...
> Like Op LENTUS (its various iterations), We blow a shit tonne of the defense budget backstopping the piss poor planning of provincial and other federal departments that should have the bulk of the responsibility to fund and provide these services. Public Safety is not a defense issue. There I said it. A lot of SAR Techs and Aircrews would be better used flying operationally into theatre, or providing support a la PJs of the USAF, than saving Jim Bob from himself out in the Rockies/in a fishing vessel of the coast of Nova Scotia.
> 
> SAR should be a function of the CCG in the water and the RCMP on land. Use the Public Safety budget to provide these services and keep the CAF for the pointier end of things like Defense, ATCP, and only as needed when provincial or OGD supports fail.


Understood from a strictly CAF viewpoint, but ultimately whether the fixed-wing SAR squadron at Comox is operated by the RCAF, the RCMP or the CCG the costs will be roughly the same to the GOC (and the collective "us" as taxpayers).  Remove the task from the CAF and the budget allocated for the capability will be removed from the CAF budget as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The CAF will never do operational (Combat) SAR independently.  Without getting into high side talk about it, we do not have the resources. Full stop.  A SAR Tech is a permissive environment asset.

We will never spent the money required to do this task.  We rely on Allies for CSAR in theatre.

People don’t get how far out over the water we do SAR, how far up north.  We are the only Dept with assets that can do this.

Yes, we need to keep doing it.  Lives depend on it.  You’d likely feel differently if you ever get on a SAR mission, especially when you start to climb out on OFFSTA unsuccessful…hard to sleep those nights.  Peoples lives just changed in a horrible way forever. 

Some fleets do operational SAR (I’ve done 1 for sure).  SAR isn’t always “behind enemy lines”.

Also - SAR Techs are aircrew.  Just say SAR crews.  😁


----------



## SupersonicMax

rmc_wannabe said:


> SAR should be a function of the CCG in the water and the RCMP on land. Use the Public Safety budget to provide these services and keep the CAF for the pointier end of things like Defense, ATCP, and only as needed when provincial or OGD supports fail.


If that was to happen, you can bet that the money we get for SAR and the PYs would be redistributed to other government agencies. Not really a good thing for the CAF.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Mick said:


> Just for clarification: who takes over the air rescue mission from the RCAF?  Do you envision CCG and RCMP operating SAR aircraft fleets?


I do envision them operating SAR fleets. The fact that they don't is an anomaly to me and always has been.



GR66 said:


> Understood from a strictly CAF viewpoint, but ultimately whether the fixed-wing SAR squadron at Comox is operated by the RCAF, the RCMP or the CCG the costs will be roughly the same to the GOC (and the collective "us" as taxpayers).  Remove the task from the CAF and the budget allocated for the capability will be removed from the CAF budget as well.


I'm not advocating for a different portioning of the pie or a reallocation of the pie; I'm advocating for a new pie to be baked and the CAF to take what we have and move along. 

If we are the only federal department capable of operating far out in the water and that far up north, fix it. It's ludicrous to believe we have a Coast Guard and National gendarmie that are unable to look after the Public Safety duties they're charged with. Does that mean cutting the CAF PYs and budget to do so? Like anything this government does, when you print the money, you can do whatever you have the will for.

Sadly in this thought experiment, there is no will, so the CAF will be footing the bill for the foreseeable future, where other countries and jurisdictions will actually fund both their military and SAR capabilities properly and separately.


----------



## Quirky

Eye In The Sky said:


> People don’t get how far out over the water we do SAR, how far up north. We are the only Dept with assets that can do this.
> 
> Yes, we need to keep doing it. Lives depend on it.



Do we have data on how many lives were saved over the last 10-20 years because Fixed Wing SAR was available?


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> I do envision them operating SAR fleets. The fact that they don't is an anomaly to me and always has been.
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating for a different portioning of the pie or a reallocation of the pie; I'm advocating for a new pie to be baked and the CAF to take what we have and move along.
> 
> If we are the only federal department capable of operating far out in the water and that far up north, fix it. It's ludicrous to believe we have a Coast Guard and National gendarmie that are unable to look after the Public Safety duties they're charged with. Does that mean cutting the CAF PYs and budget to do so? Like anything this government does, when you print the money, you can do whatever you have the will for.
> 
> Sadly in this thought experiment, there is no will, so the CAF will be footing the bill for the foreseeable future, where other countries and jurisdictions will actually fund both their military and SAR capabilities properly and separately.


Domestic SAR is not CSAR.
  A good CSAR team can do domestic SAR, the inverse is not true.  Right now Canada's only CSAR assets are in CANSOFCOM.
If I was King, the Yellow and Red would be gone from SAR birds, and they'd be a reasonable Green/Black, and each and every SAR group would have a primary CSAR role -- but that would be a massive mind set change in the RCAF, and I don't see that occurring unless at gun point.

All that said I think SAR in Canada needs to be a CAF mission - the CAF needs all the goodwill it can get at this point.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

KevinB said:


> Domestic SAR is not CSAR.
> A good CSAR team can do domestic SAR, the inverse is not true.  Right now Canada's only CSAR assets are in CANSOFCOM.
> If I was King, the Yellow and Red would be gone from SAR birds, and they'd be a reasonable Green/Black, and each and every SAR group would have a primary CSAR role -- but that would be a massive mind set change in the RCAF, and I don't see that occurring unless at gun point.


That in and of itself is part of the problem. The RCAF (as commented previously in another thread about WASF) has grown accustomed to bringing others to the fight or dropping ordinance on fight from 35,000ft. They are not a "combat" element within the CAF, at least that is the prevailing attitude I have noticed in working with RCAF members. Until that changes, I fear you're correct in seeing CSAR as a CANSOF or "someone else will do it" responsibility.



KevinB said:


> All that said I think SAR in Canada needs to be a CAF mission - the CAF needs all the goodwill it can get at this point.


We don't (or shouldn't rather) fund capabilities based on "Good will"; only on what capabilities it brings to the defence and security of Canada. If that were the case, we would have battalions of Forest Fire trained personnel, equipped to the teeth with the best gear to protect the B.C. interior or Squadrons of hovercrafts capable of bringing aid and relief to flooded communities in Manitoba or Quebec.
Instead, we are the Bat Phone for the provinces when their lack of Emergency Preparedness/Management comes to roost. Once that does happen, we're often times the least equipped or trained to support the crisis at hand.
So what is the goal? Are we a combat capable Armed Forces that will bring sea power, drop bombs, and close with and destroy an enemy, or are we the "good will" ambassadors to the Canadian public so they can see their tax dollars at work whenever OGDs shit the bed? We currently do both very poorly, and one is often at the expense of another.


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> That in and of itself is part of the problem. The RCAF (as commented previously in another thread about WASF) has grown accustomed to bringing others to the fight or dropping ordinance on fight from 35,000ft. They are not a "combat" element within the CAF, at least that is the prevailing attitude I have noticed in working with RCAF members. Until that changes, I fear you're correct in seeing CSAR as a CANSOF or "someone else will do it" responsibility.


I'd suggest the Naval focused MH folks and the Tac Helo folks are much more oriented towards "the job".
  The other arts of the RCAF don't view it that way -- which I find strange as the Fighter Pilot mafia has a lot of lose by limited CSAR...



rmc_wannabe said:


> We don't (or shouldn't rather) fund capabilities based on "Good will"; only on what capabilities it brings to the defence and security of Canada. If that were the case, we would have battalions of Forest Fire trained personnel, equipped to the teeth with the best gear to protect the B.C. interior or Squadrons of hovercrafts capable of bringing aid and relief to flooded communities in Manitoba or Quebec.
> Instead, we are the Bat Phone for the provinces when their lack of Emergency Preparedness/Management comes to roost. Once that does happen, we're often times the least equipped or trained to support the crisis at hand.
> So what is the goal? Are we a combat capable Armed Forces that will bring sea power, drop bombs, and close with and destroy an enemy, or are we the "good will" ambassadors to the Canadian public so they can see their tax dollars at work whenever OGDs shit the bed? We currently do both very poorly, and one is often at the expense of another.


I agree with you, BUT, those SAR assets put Military Capabilities into those areas.
   I view the Goodwill aspect of it as a bonus for having CAF flying remote areas.   SAR isn't a replacement for EM/EP at the Province level either, it's a safety net for a population that often does dumb stuff, or has accidents.
  If the SAR was a true Provincial Backstop EM force, you'd have a slew more squadrons everywhere.   Right now it is a reasonable force based on average calls for service.


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> Domestic SAR is not CSAR.
> A good CSAR team can do domestic SAR, the inverse is not true.  Right now Canada's only CSAR assets are in CANSOFCOM.
> If I was King, the Yellow and Red would be gone from SAR birds, and they'd be a reasonable Green/Black, and each and every SAR group would have a primary CSAR role -- but that would be a massive mind set change in the RCAF, and I don't see that occurring unless at gun point.
> 
> All that said I think SAR in Canada needs to be a CAF mission - the CAF needs all the goodwill it can get at this point.


And that’s not actually CSAR, more like Personnel Recovery.


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Do we have data on how many lives were saved over the last 10-20 years because Fixed Wing SAR was available?


Yes. CJOC tracks that, I don’t have the number but the collective ‘we’ certainly does.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> And that’s not actually CSAR, more like Personnel Recovery.


👍🏼 most Canadians, even many in the RCAF conflate Domestic SAR, which in Canada is National or NSAR as other NATO nations would call it, with any type of deployed operational SAR capability, which is incorrect.  Yellow aircraft/helicopters with a red stripe on them are essentially domestic capabilities only with a rare exception of international capacity building, eg. OP JAGUAR, where yellow RCAF SAR CH-146 deployed to Jamaica to help the JDF develop its National SAR capability.

Otherwise, as  SupersonicMax hints at, personnel recovery is a task for larger integrated air and ground forces.  Current Canadian air doctrine (B-GA-403-000/FP-001, Canadian Forces Aerospace Shape Doctrine) tends to pigeon-hole CSAR and Combat Recovery (CR) under Special Air Operations, such that a Special
Ops Aviation Task Unit (SOATU - assigned to theatre ops) or Direct Support Aviation Task Unit (DSATU - assigned OPCOM to a specific SOTG/SOTU/SOTF) would conduct any CSAR or CR mission, per allocation of standby mission in the Air Tasking Order (ATO).

In reality, it could not only be a SOATU/DSATU (like a 427 SOAS detachment), but in practice could be Tactical Aviation Unit (TAU)/Det that conducts CSAR or CR as part of a larger integrated air and land package, where a SOATU/DSATU may not be available or present.  Either the SOA or TA crews as well as Fast Air/TACP (and even TAL) pers are very well-versed in Air-Land Integration (ALI) and joint operations and how to plan and/or participate in CSAR/CR personnel recovery operations.  The pure domestic/yellow/national-only SAR folks I’ve spoken with, when the tell me “we should do CSAR!” very quickly run out or answers as to what it actually is, what it takes to do it, and the interaction/integration with an almost unbelievable number of agencies and forces to plan, execute/support and reset the capability.

For any SAR-related discussions, “yellow” (National peace-time) SAR and “black/green” CSAR/CR should be kept as far apart as Lithium and water…


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:


> Is fixed wing SAR worth all the cost of moving a herc squadron, personnel, equipment etc into the cost of living hornet nest on the Island? Do we really need to put all this effort into a capability that's seldom used anyway?


They did an audit 2 years ago and part of it was about SAR callouts.

Table 6. CAF SAR Responses.


*CAF SAR Responses*2014201520162017*2018**Average*Cat 1 and Cat 2 Aeronautical incidents189224239228185213Cat 1 and Cat 2 Air SAR responses517466624760Average Air SAR response time on RP30 (in min)282642234132Average Air SAR response time on RP2hrs (in min)696978737172Cat 1 and Cat 2 Air SAR responses to Maritime incident215215248216216222Cat 1 and Cat 2 Air SAR responses to Humanitarian incident129128183176178159Total Cat 1 and 2 Responses395417497454441441

So no, not a seldom-used capability.  Looks like at least one callout a day, usually more.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Quirky said:


> Do we have data on how many lives were saved over the last 10-20 years because Fixed Wing SAR was available?



Why not ask how many lives were lost because we did not have enough FWSAR...

Let's not kid ourselves;  Canada and the CAF isn't stumbling over "too many SAR assets".  RCAF aircraft are only 1 part of the National SAR strategy.  We don't get launched on every SAR.  Most of our SAR are dual role aircraft.  Transport and SAR, LRP holds SAR as a Sec duty...etc.  

It's ok to have an opinion on SAR...but it's better if you have one that includes log book entries to support that opinion.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

rmc_wannabe said:


> That in and of itself is part of the problem. The RCAF (as commented previously in another thread about WASF) has grown accustomed to bringing others to the fight or dropping ordinance on fight from 35,000ft. They are not a "combat" element within the CAF, at least that is the prevailing attitude I have noticed in working with RCAF members. Until that changes, I fear you're correct in seeing CSAR as a CANSOF or "someone else will do it" responsibility.



I don't know where the fairy tale in yellow comes from.  Maybe you should talk to *Air Ops branch* members vice "RCAF".  Lots of people in blue who know nothing about planning/supporting/conducting air ops...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Here;  wide view look at the SAR program and agencies...






						National Search and Rescue Program
					

National Search and Rescue Program




					www.publicsafety.gc.ca


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eye In The Sky said:


> I don't know where the fairy tale in yellow comes from.  Maybe you should talk to *Air Ops branch* members vice "RCAF".  Lots of people in blue who know nothing about planning/supporting/conducting air ops...


Not speaking about purple folks who happen to wear blue when I speak to this. I worked with Air Ops folks in both Egypt and Kuwait that had a pretty weird opinion about things like Force Protection measures, weapons proficiency, threat assessments, and other tactical considerations while in an active theater.

ACSOs, AC Ops, Pilots, and a few AES Ops as well. It was hard for my brain to understand, as a Combat Support soldier from the Army of The West. 

Perhaps I was working with a junk group, but hey, first impressions and all that...


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> The RCAF (as commented previously in another thread about WASF) has grown accustomed to bringing others to the fight or dropping ordinance on fight from 35,000ft. They are not a "combat" element within the CAF, at least that is the prevailing attitude I have noticed in working with RCAF members.


I think the LRP and MH communities would disagree with you, as well as parts of the Tac Hel community. 

Unless dropping torpedoes at low level against a submarine isn't considered combat.



rmc_wannabe said:


> I worked with Air Ops folks in both Egypt and Kuwait that had a pretty weird opinion about things like Force Protection measures, weapons proficiency, threat assessments, and other tactical considerations while in an active theater.


I'll admit that in Kuwait, a bunch of LRP crews were just getting used to sustained overland ops (Libya was, AFAIK, only a Det or two).  Depending on when you were there, those considerations may have not been ingrained yet.  

Almost like a "fish out of water" scenario in more ways than one.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dimsum said:


> I think the LRP and MH communities would disagree with you, as well as parts of the Tac Hel community.
> 
> Unless dropping torpedoes at low level against a submarine isn't considered combat.


It is actually the sport of kings…


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is actually the sport of kings…


The world's largest cat-and-mouse game


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dimsum said:


> The world's largest cat-and-mouse game


Awfully Slow Warfare…

3d chess…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

rmc_wannabe said:


> Not speaking about purple folks who happen to wear blue when I speak to this. I worked with Air Ops folks in both Egypt and Kuwait that had a pretty weird opinion about things like Force Protection measures, weapons proficiency, threat assessments, and other tactical considerations while in an active theater.



They were likely more concerned with what happened when they "hopped the fence".  Kuwait was just a Irving BigStop to aircrew (before TacHel went in).

Tactical considerations...in Kuwait?  "Dont play with scorpions...avoid the LSA and anything HQ..."...and then there are the people who just think "nothing happened yesterday so nothing will happen tomorrow".  The 'threat' just becomes Ops Normal and you just go fly your missions.  

I talked to lots of non-flyers over there too.  If I didn't see them in the DMSC, I wasn't likely going to discuss "actual business" with them at the Rock or anything.  Need to know, etc.



rmc_wannabe said:


> ACSOs, AC Ops, Pilots, and a few AES Ops as well. It was hard for my brain to understand, as a Combat Support soldier from the Army of The West.
> 
> Perhaps I was working with a junk group, but hey, first impressions and all that...



Or...we just think about and care about different things.  I don't really care how many 9mm rounds I carried, but I did care about how far away FNDLY bomb trucks and fighters were...


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> Awfully Slow Warfare…
> 
> 3d chess…


10 min wait to see if your torpedo countermeasures work or not while thrashing around in the ocean at max speed.  At least with a missile you'll know in under 2min even with the slow ones.


----------



## Good2Golf

5.56 for a C8….


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Some folks were asking about numbers/stats:

Search and Rescue (SAR) in Eastern Canada​Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) Halifax leads and directs all SAR operations in the Halifax search and rescue region (SRR). This region covers eastern Canada. The commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic (JTFA) is responsible for SAR operations in the Halifax SRR.
The Halifax SRR has more than 29,000 kilometres of coastline. It is an area of some 4.7 million square kilometres that is 80 percent water. This area includes:

all four Atlantic provinces
the eastern half of Quebec
the southern half of Baffin Island in Nunavut
the north-western quadrant of the Atlantic Ocean
Regional SAR response centres​JRCC Halifax is located in Halifax, N.S. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) run it. JRCC Halifax monitors the eastern region for SAR incidents. It also directs SAR alerts and emergency response in the region.
There is also one Marine Rescue Sub-centre (MRSC) located in Quebec City. The function of a MRSC is to reduce the JRCC's workload in areas of high marine activity.
JRCC Halifax receives about 2500 calls for assistance per year. This breaks down approximately as follows:

75 percent relate to maritime incidents
10 percent are air incidents
15 percent are requests for humanitarian aid

Search and Rescue (SAR) in the North​
Responsibility for launching an air or marine SAR response in Canada’s North generally rests with the Joint Rescue Coorination Centre (JRCC) in the region where the response is needed:

JRCC Victoria provides the primary SAR response to the Yukon Territory
JRCC Trenton covers the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, including the north of Baffin Island
JRCC Halifax covers the southern half of Baffin Island
Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) SAR assets are carefully managed and strategically located across the country. These assets are based where they can effectively respond to SAR incidents in all regions. This takes into consideration:

where SAR incidents occur the most
how those areas are affected by weather
making sure there is supporting infrastructure
A JRCC can call on any SAR squadron to respond to a distress call in the North. It can also request the support of any nearby military asset. The JRCC can also call on nearby civilian or commercial vessels or aircraft to help if needed.
The CAF also sponsors the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association (CASARA). It has member organizations throughout Canada, including the North. Specifically, this includes Northern-based commercial operators in Arctic Bay and Pond Inlet. This will help speed initial response to SAR incidents. It will get help sooner to those in need.
Northern Ground Search and Rescue (SAR)​Ground SAR in the North falls under the legal authority of each territory. They delegate the authority for ground SAR response to the police services in the area. Parks Canada takes the lead for SAR in national parks.
The Canadian Rangers often help with ground SAR in the North, upon request.
Arctic SAR agreement​The CAF cooperates with other countries to cover SAR in the Arctic. Canada also runs joint SAR exercises with other Arctic nations. In May 2011, Canada and seven other Arctic Council member states signed an Arctic SAR agreement in Nuuk, Greenland. This strengthened how Arctic Council members respond to emergencies in the Arctic.


Search and Rescue (SAR) in central Canada​
Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) Trenton leads and directs all SAR operations in the Trenton search and rescue region (SRR), which covers central Canada. The Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC), based in Winnipeg Manitoba, is responsible for SAR operations in the Trenton SRR.  The Trenton SRR is an area of more than 10 million square kilometres. This is the bulk of Canada's land mass. The Trenton SRR also includes:

Hudson's Bay
James Bay
the Canadian portions of the Great Lakes and the Arctic Ocean
The Trenton SRR extends from Trenton, Ontario on the shore of Lake Ontario, east to Québec City and west to the Alberta–British Columbia border. From south to north, it extends from the Canada–United States border to the North Pole.
Regional SAR response centre​JRCC Trenton is located at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Trenton, Ontario. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) run it. JRCC Trenton monitors the central region for SAR incidents. It also directs SAR alerts and emergency response in the region.
JRCC Trenton receives about 4000 calls for assistance per year. They break down approximately as follows:

70 percent of the responses are maritime
20 percent air
10 percent humanitarian

Search and Rescue (SAR) in Western Canada​
Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) Victoria leads and directs all SAR missions in the Victoria search and rescue region (SRR). This region covers western Canada. The commander of Joint Task Force Pacific (JTFP) is responsible for SAR operations in the Victoria SRR.
The Victoria search and rescue region (SRR) covers the following land and sea areas:

British Columbia and Yukon Territory. This is about 1,427,000 square kilometers of mainly mountainous terrain.
Some 687,000 square kilometers of the Pacific Ocean. The area extends to about 600 nautical miles off Canada's west coast.
Much of the land area of the Victoria SRR is remote and rugged. There are few people and the area is not easily accessed. However, there is plenty of recreational activity. This can result in SAR incidents. The region also includes the city of Vancouver. It is one of the largest shipping ports of North America.
Regional SAR response centre​JRCC Victoria is located in Esquimalt, B.C. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) run it. JRCC Victoria monitors the Western Canada region for SAR incidents. It also directs SAR alerts and emergency response in the region.
JRCC Victoria receives about 3000 calls for assistance per year. This breaks down approximately as follows:

75 percent relate to maritime incidents
10 percent are air incidents
15 percent are requests for humanitarian assistance

Source:  Search and rescue operations - Canada.ca




That is a LOT of land and water to cover.  Like I said...we're far from stumbling over "too many SAR assets" in Canada.  Halifax SRR extends WAY past the southern tip of Greenland.  That is a pretty long flight just to get to the search area.


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> Halifax SRR extends WAY past the southern tip of Greenland.  That is a pretty long flight just to get to the search area.


It goes to 30 West, so fuel-wise we’re usually better off to Bingo out to UK from there.


----------



## kev994

Underway said:


> 10 min wait to see if your torpedo countermeasures work or not while thrashing around in the ocean at max speed.  At least with a missile you'll know in under 2min even with the slow ones.


That is not the impression I got from “The Hunt for Red October”. I guess 10 mins of waiting would have made for a less exciting film.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> It goes to 30 West, so fuel-wise we’re usually better off to Bingo out to UK from there.



Right?  That's a pretty empty swath of ocean...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> Awfully Slow Warfare…



The phases of ASW as experienced by ASOs:

Phase 1







Phase 2






Phase 3






Phase 4 also known as “now-fading contact”…






😂


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So there's not much new on the FWSAR file today...are we still chirpin' ASOs?  Yes?



So theraputic! I should use this to de-stress every day!!  😁


----------



## MarkOttawa

I find it hard to believe that the whole acquisition will simply be abandoned whatever the CC-295's deficiencies; but the whole procurement process was completely FUBAR, far too much politics and media hoo-hah. The final para really is not material:



> Sovereignty in the Arctic and the struggles of the CC-295 Kingfisher: Richard Shimooka in the Hill Times​While some of the deficiencies of the CC-295 Kingfisher are fixable, the problems around weight, power and icing capabilities are very likely not.​_This article originally appeared in the_ Hill Times.
> 
> 
> *By Richard Shimooka, May 30, 2022*
> 
> 
> A few weeks ago, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) announced that its new search and rescue (SAR) aircraft, the CC-295 Kingfisher, will not reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) until the 2025-2026 timeframe—a decade after it was selected in a competition. In truth, it is doubtful the aircraft will ever enter into service.
> 
> SAR is far from being a “sexy” military capability. However, it is one of the more publicly appreciated and crucial functions that the RCAF provides on a day-to-day basis. So it is with some irony that the _Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue _(FWSAR) aircraft replacement remains among the most disappointing procurement programs in Canada.
> 
> The program’s failures are rooted in its origins over 20 years ago. Canada’s primary SAR aircraft at the time was the venerable De Havilland Buffalo. Its range and speed was limited, so it was supplemented by the CC-130 Hercules to cover areas that the Buffalo could not reach. This was problematic: the Hercules was and is one of the most heavily used capabilities in the RCAF, and much more costly to operate. As a result, by the early 2000s, it was envisioned that the FWSAR program would lead to a single fleet replacement aircraft capable of covering all of Canada’s SAR response needs.
> 
> At the time, the Department of National Defence could only find one aircraft that could meet its requirements, the Leonardo C-27J. The aircraft was fast enough and possessed the range, size and cockpit visibility to cover all of Canada’s FWSAR needs. Another option would be to acquire additional Hercules, though these aircraft were seen as providing too much plane for the country’s SAR needs. A third was the CASA (now Airbus) C-295. At the time, this aircraft was found to be ill suited—it was not particularly powerful, had insufficient speed and range to cover all of Canada’s Area Of Responsibility (AOR) in one crew day, lacked cockpit visibility essential for maneuvering and posed difficulties for SAR technicians to move around inside when fully equipped with rescue gear. Because the C-295 was not able to meet a number of Mandatory Requirements, it was ruled out too.
> 
> The C-27J was to be sole source selected, and the government, prepared an Advanced Contract Award Notice (ACAN), that gave potential competitors time to respond if they could meet the requirements. It was likely that the C-27 would be selected. Yet, about a week before the ACAN, the entire purchase was scrapped due to circumstances that remain unclear today.
> 
> Progress on Buffalo replacement stalled until 2014. In that year, the Conservative government also unveiled the Defence Procurement Strategy (DPS), a series of reforms intended to improve outcomes after several controversies over the prior decade. Two areas were of particular relevance to FWSAR.
> 
> First, it was part of a broader effort to move away from sole-sourcing procurements and mandate competition in all but exceptional cases. Second, it was related to the Industrial and Technical Benefits (ITB) policy. Previously, meeting the offset requirements were a pass/fail. The DPS enabled ITBs to now play a role in a platform’s selection—it could be up to 25 per cent of the assessment criteria. The percentage is misleading. If all other factors are equal, the 25 per cent could be decisive in a selection. This occurred with FWSAR, which was one of the first major programs to utilize the new procurement system.
> 
> Under the mandate of creating competition, the requirements were loosened significantly, allowing the C-295 to compete and, thus, blunting the C-27J’s advantages. The FWSAR aircraft no longer had to be able to reach all parts of Canada’s AOR within one-crew day. Airbus also promised over 30 modifications that would allow the aircraft to meet the minimum requirements. These changes allowed the C-295’s industrial benefits package to be a decisive factor in its selection, which was backed by the aviation conglomerate Airbus.
> 
> Since winning the competition, the C-295 has struggled to meet its promised performance. Modifications increased the aircraft’s weight and is now underpowered for its missions. In the event of an engine failure, such as during take-off or when flying through mountainous canyons, the aircraft might not have sufficient power to operate safely. This, along with a number of other major deficiencies, such as with its avionics, operation in icing, paradrop limitations and problematic centre of gravity, severely impacts the aircraft’s ability to operate effectively, and even safely, in its given role.
> 
> Consequently, the recent announcement to push back the IOC to the 2025 timeframe is a clear punt by the current government to offload these problems until a later date. While some of the deficiencies are fixable (e.g., avionics), the problems around weight, power and icing capabilities are very likely not— as they are fundamental to the aircraft’s design. There is a significant chance that Canada will need to scrap the entire $2.9-billion purchase, and seek a different outcome.
> 
> The debacle has broader significance for Canadian defence procurement beyond SAR, especially with Canada potentially spending tens of billions of dollars in new programs to defend the Arctic. By artificially trying to create competition where one cannot effectively exist, and demanding as much domestic offsets as possible, this lays the foundation for future failures on much larger projects.
> 
> *Richard Shimooka*_ is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereignty in the Arctic and the struggles of the CC-295 Kingfisher: Richard Shimooka in the Hill Times | Macdonald-Laurier Institute
> 
> 
> While some of the deficiencies of the CC-295 Kingfisher are fixable, the problems around weight, power and icing capabilities are very likely not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> macdonaldlaurier.ca



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580

It won't be abandoned completely.  they will find some use for the damn things.   But it was predictable.  The advertised performance stats. on the a/c were far below the requirements for our landmass.   The only way that the kingfisher would work is if their was a squadron posted in every province including the territories so that response time would stay within a crew day.  As far as a/c performance is concerned it was no real improvement on the Buffalo except for being pressurized.  Still think that the KC390 was the way to go.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:


> Still think that the KC390 was the way to go.


The baby C-17 is not a bad machine.  No head-bonking for SAR Techs.


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:


> The baby C-17 is not a bad machine.  No head-bonking for SAR Techs.


It wasn’t compliant because they weren’t in production when the bids were due


----------



## suffolkowner

engine upgrade possible?
Is the icing thing related to a lack of APU?

Its amazing how much time energy and money we waste on procurement and still cant get it right or even know how the decision was made. Cue another Auditors report


----------



## Eye In The Sky

suffolkowner said:


> engine upgrade possible?
> Is the icing thing related to a lack of APU?



The APU would likely add some additional electrical power but if the anti/de-icing system itself is lacking it wouldn’t make much difference.  

Anti/de-icing systems use power and that burns more fuel.  The only times I’ve been on an Aurora where we used the APU airborne was during acceptance testing coming out of IMP.  APU screaming = fuel burn though. 

I don’t know anything about the 295 systems but generally speaking there is engine anti-icing, prop and spinner systems, wing leading edges and the whole empennage to consider.  If you’re doing that with lower electrical power, it is potentially going to be on a cycle system.

Ice can build up incredibly fast.  When it starts creeping back over leading edges the pucker factor kicks in quickly as well.  

Losing an engine is likely going to mean losing a generator and now you’re degraded further.  



suffolkowner said:


> Its amazing how much time energy and money we waste on procurement and still cant get it right or even know how the decision was made. Cue another Auditors report



We generally suck at procurement and sustainability of our kit.  It’s demoralizing…


----------



## Dana381

This is a plane that took its first flight 25 years ago. Why are they having de-ìcing problems now? 
I would have thought the de-icing system would be mature by now. Is the issue more where we will be using it? Low level search patterns.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Without having any access to any info on the systems on a 295 (I did a quick search on google) I’d be WAGing.  

Part of the issue might be the additional weight.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> Without having any access to any info on the systems on a 295 (I did a quick search on google) I’d be WAGing.
> 
> Part of the issue might be the additional weight.


Or (also a WAG) that the C-295 was certified to a level of icing expected in southern/western Europe, and it's having issues dealing with the amount we get in Canada.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The leading edges look like pneumatic systems.   🤷🏻‍♂️

I’m only familiar with the 140 systems and then only basic knowledge.   I’d have to crawl the AOIs for detail.


----------



## kev994

Dana381 said:


> This is a plane that took its first flight 25 years ago. Why are they having de-ìcing problems now?
> I would have thought the de-icing system would be mature by now. Is the issue more where we will be using it? Low level search patterns.


It’s predecessor, the 235, also had de-icing problems, so there’s that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> It’s predecessor, the 235, also had de-icing problems, so there’s that.



Did an ex with them (Manta) from the Turkish Navy.  Remember them coming in as our relief a/c…slowly.


----------



## Dana381

Is this something one could reasonably expect the CAF procurement people to know or is this airbus pushing a plane they hoped they could make work without disclosing these potential problems?


----------



## kev994

Dana381 said:


> Is this something one could reasonably expect the CAF procurement people to know or is this airbus pushing a plane they hoped they could make work without disclosing these potential problems?


You would think that the engine upgrade would have resolved any power issues.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dana381 said:


> Is this something one could reasonably expect the CAF procurement people to know or is this airbus pushing a plane they hoped they could make work without disclosing these potential problems?


“Procurement people” (PSPC) are only as informed as the SMEs that they support.  The issue with our model is that if it’s not in the contract, we can’t enforce it.


----------



## Zoomie

It’s not currently certified for flight in known icing - it’s just a certification issue.  It has boots, props, scoops, etc.


----------



## Dana381

Zoomie said:


> It’s not currently certified for flight in known icing - it’s just a certification issue.  It has boots, props, scoops, etc.



The certification issue appears to be that the system is inadequate. TC won't certify it if it dosent work.


MarkOttawa said:


> Consequently, the recent announcement to push back the IOC to the 2025 timeframe is a clear punt by the current government to offload these problems until a later date. While some of the deficiencies are fixable (e.g., avionics), the problems around weight, power and icing capabilities are very likely not— as they are fundamental to the aircraft’s design. There is a significant chance that Canada will need to scrap the entire $2.9-billion purchase, and seek a different outcome.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dana381 said:


> The certification issue appears to be that the system is inadequate. TC won't certify it if it dosent work.


Pedantic point: Transport Canada has zero say about certification of military aircraft in Canada. DND is its own airworthiness authority, from the MND.

Now, as to whether or or not the anti-ice/de-ice systems work adequately is a separate issue.


----------



## Good2Golf

It also depends on whether DND’s Directorate of Technical Airworthiness accepts Airbus’ articles of certification/conformity for the anti-icing system and aircraft performance.  If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be the first time that DND has not (at least initially) not accepted OEM stated aircraft anti-ice capability/performance.  The CH-147F was prohibited from flying in any icing conditions for at least a year while DND/ADM(Mat)/DGAEPM/DTAES/DTA assessed then finally accepted Boeing’s articles of conformity for certification.  For a moment, there was discussion about DND/RCAF having to conduct a complete icing test program on the CH-147F to allow it to fly in any conditions that even trace icing might occur.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The aircraft can fly into known icing but the performance factors just don’t work for what we do.  This is due to the conservative nature of the civil certification standard CASA used.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> The aircraft can fly into known icing but the performance factors just don’t work for what we do.  This is due to the conservative nature of the civil certification standard CASA used.


And that may be the rub, where SOR and contract have differences that didn’t make the translation from technical to contractual terms. It happens and can be inadvertent, deliberate or a mix of both.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> And that may be the rub, where SOR and contract have differences that didn’t make the translation from technical to contractual terms. It happens and can be inadvertent, deliberate or a mix of both.


It is really difficult to craft SORs that take into account every single scenario.  It’d help of we had a general suitability clause but in my experience with PSPC, we can’t really effectively do that.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> It is really difficult to craft SORs that take into account every single scenario.  It’d help of we had a general suitability clause but in my experience with PSPC, we can’t really effectively do that.


Absolutely, Max.  Trying to hit the balance between ‘got enough details’ and ‘over-prescriptive’ can be a fine line, indeed. Ts&Cs in the contract can provide some buffer, but things will almost always then come down to the cost side of the Time-Scope-Cost triangle, and you’re looking at ECPs or AWRs to leverage that buffer and both those absorb $$$.


----------



## Dana381

SeaKingTacco said:


> Pedantic point: Transport Canada has zero say about certification of military aircraft in Canada. DND is its own airworthiness authority, from the MND.
> 
> Now, as to whether or or not the anti-ice/de-ice systems work adequately is a separate issue.



Civi mistake, I knew better too I just forgot at the time I posted. Thanks for the reminder


----------



## armrdsoul77

One Buffalo aircraft without a home yet.









						Ottawa museum collection moratorium prompts U.S. organization to bid on last available Buffalo aircraft - Skies Mag
					

The organization responsible for the Canada Aviation and Space Museum has put a moratorium on collecting, prompting Arizona’s Pima Air and Space Museum to make a bid for the last available CC-115 Buffalo.




					skiesmag.com


----------



## Good2Golf

That’s rather……..pathetic.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> That’s rather……..pathetic.



Don't mean nuthin'... Viking Air will make sure it lives on 


DHC-5 Buffalo​With nearly twice the payload as the DHC-4 Caribou and improved STOL capabilities, the DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be a tactical transport aircraft for militaries worldwide. Many Buffalo would also later be used for search-and-rescue operations by the Canadian Air Force.
Viking owns the Type Certificate for the DHC-5 Buffalo and provides parts and support services to the fleet worldwide. If you would like more information on Viking's support for this aircraft, please visit our Customer Support page for details.








						DHC-5 Buffalo
					

With nearly twice the payload as the DHC-4 Caribou and improved STOL capabilities, the DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be a tactical transport aircraft for militaries worldwide. Many Buffalo would also later be used for search-and-rescue operations by the Canadian Air Force.




					www.vikingair.com


----------



## Spencer100

daftandbarmy said:


> Don't mean nuthin'... Viking Air will make sure it lives on
> 
> 
> DHC-5 Buffalo​With nearly twice the payload as the DHC-4 Caribou and improved STOL capabilities, the DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be a tactical transport aircraft for militaries worldwide. Many Buffalo would also later be used for search-and-rescue operations by the Canadian Air Force.
> Viking owns the Type Certificate for the DHC-5 Buffalo and provides parts and support services to the fleet worldwide. If you would like more information on Viking's support for this aircraft, please visit our Customer Support page for details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DHC-5 Buffalo
> 
> 
> With nearly twice the payload as the DHC-4 Caribou and improved STOL capabilities, the DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be a tactical transport aircraft for militaries worldwide. Many Buffalo would also later be used for search-and-rescue operations by the Canadian Air Force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vikingair.com


Now back to DeHavilland Canada, I am kind of glad they went with the old name.  I like it. 






						News Release | De Havilland
					






					dehavilland.com


----------



## MJP

daftandbarmy said:


> Don't mean nuthin'... Viking Air will make sure it lives on
> 
> 
> DHC-5 Buffalo​With nearly twice the payload as the DHC-4 Caribou and improved STOL capabilities, the DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be a tactical transport aircraft for militaries worldwide. Many Buffalo would also later be used for search-and-rescue operations by the Canadian Air Force.
> Viking owns the Type Certificate for the DHC-5 Buffalo and provides parts and support services to the fleet worldwide. If you would like more information on Viking's support for this aircraft, please visit our Customer Support page for details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DHC-5 Buffalo
> 
> 
> With nearly twice the payload as the DHC-4 Caribou and improved STOL capabilities, the DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be a tactical transport aircraft for militaries worldwide. Many Buffalo would also later be used for search-and-rescue operations by the Canadian Air Force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vikingair.com


At the rate we divest things the Depots will hold parts for them for free for years!!


----------



## armrdsoul77

Harrowing Video Of Deadly 2017 MV-22 Osprey Crash Emerges


----------



## Skysix

Eye In The Sky said:


> 2 sprained ankles must = "feet and knees together".  I bet your PI said "good job...give me 25 for each!". 😁
> 
> Ref the underlined part...I seem to remember a Van Doo Cpl on the Franco course who sprained or broke an ankle on the night jump and sucked it up on the ramp jump for the same reason.  A level of motivation I'd not seen previous on the folks on BP - I think 1 pers went off the Mock Tower 20-some times to get his check.


27. Slow learner and not very body position aware. Yes Buxton in January is 'solid' but the shuttle runs inside were kinder to the body than 5 miles of literally freezing the lining of your lungs at -30. And landing inside the old NORAD ammo storage dump fenceline on my first jump cost me a $#!+ ton of beer. Somehow the jumpmaster never got tagged for that...

Civilian buddy on a FF jump working on his A license burned in there in '81. RIP.


----------



## Skysix

Quirky said:


> Related to the housing issue in Comox and Canada so I'll just post here since it's more aircraft-related.
> 
> Is fixed wing SAR worth all the cost of moving a herc squadron, personnel, equipment etc into the cost of living hornet nest on the Island? Do we really need to put all this effort into a capability that's seldom used anyway?


Or  maybe move 442 to Whitehorse.....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Skysix said:


> Or  maybe move 442 to Whitehorse.....



Whitehorse is awesome, if expensive in it's own way.

Which leads me to muse that it's a funny old world when, despite Russia coming out of the closet recently as the greatest threat to world peace since Nazi Germany, we continue kick around ideas about how to deploy our national defence assets using housing prices and cost of living as the key success factor.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> Which leads me to muse that it's a funny old world when, despite Russia coming out of the closet recently as the greatest threat world peace since Nazi Germany,  we continue kick around ideas about how to deploy our national defence assets using housing prices and cost of living as the key success factor.


Honestly, if this government wanted to make it work, they would throw enough money at our problems for them to disappear so we can get the job done effectively.

The problem is that this government, including the policy makers setting it's priorities, doesn't want to.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> Honestly, if this government wanted to make it work, they would throw enough money at our problems for them to disappear so we can get the job done effectively.
> 
> The problem is that this government, including the policy makers setting it's priorities, doesn't want to.



Of course, you're correct.

I'm therefore looking forward to the upcoming wave of GOFO resignations in protest at what is likely a journey down a 'global conflict losing' path.


----------



## Quirky

Skysix said:


> Or  maybe move 442 to Whitehorse.....



I still standby my opinion that SAR needs to be cut from the DND and contracted out. This is a huge burden on our Air Force that we can't adequately support.


----------



## YZT580

Quirky said:


> I still standby my opinion that SAR needs to be cut from the DND and contracted out. This is a huge burden on our Air Force that we can't adequately support.


Perhaps just separating the budget out so it isn't a burden and so its costs are not buried from the public eye.  Private would cost significantly more.  No private business would rely on assets positioned every 3000 miles across the country.  They would open at least 4 bases below 60 and at least 2 above.  Liability would define the mission.  They couldn't get away with half-ass


----------



## suffolkowner

You could separate the SAR budget out but I dont see the net gain for the CAF. The CAF budget would just be smaller


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Skysix said:


> Or  maybe move 442 to Whitehorse.....



I think the location on the island is much better.   I’d like to back that up with some data, but I think it’s safe to say a majority of calls are closer to the more populate areas and waterways .


----------



## suffolkowner

Eye In The Sky said:


> I think the location on the island is much better.   I’d like to back that up with some data, but I think it’s safe to say a majority of calls are closer to the more populate areas and waterways .








						Infographic: Fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft replacement - Canada.ca
					

This project is acquiring a new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft fleet.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> I think the location on the island is much better.   I’d like to back that up with some data, but I think it’s safe to say a majority of calls are closer to the more populate areas and waterways .


In the COA stage the rumoured number that was being tossed around off the top of my head was something like 90% of the cases were within 150 NM of Comox. OTOH there’s less thinking involved to launching an airplane when it’s so close, ie I don’t know if there’s more or less consideration given to other assets when the professional asset is that close.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

kev994 said:


> In the COA stage the rumoured number that was being tossed around off the top of my head was something like 90% of the cases were within 150 NM of Comox. OTOH there’s less thinking involved to launching an airplane when it’s so close, ie I don’t know if there’s more or less consideration given to other assets when the professional asset is that close.


There are just more cases around southern Vancouver Island. I personally responded to a SAR a day, three days running once, and I was not even primary SAR.


----------



## Weinie

SeaKingTacco said:


> There are just more cases stupid people around southern Vancouver Island. I personally responded to a SAR a day, three days running once, and I was not even primary SAR.


FTFY.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Weinie said:


> FTFY.


Potato. Potatoe…


----------



## YZT580

suffolkowner said:


> You could separate the SAR budget out but I dont see the net gain for the CAF. The CAF budget would just be smaller


Shouldn't affect the overall budget one iota.  Would just move SAR, equipment, personnel (seconded from CAF), training, operations onto its own line in the budget but the sum would be the same.  It would also mean that when budget cuts come, Transport wouldn't have to slice and dice elsewhere in order to maintain the SAR budget which cannot effectively be reduced at all.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:


> There are just more cases around southern Vancouver Island. I personally responded to a SAR a day, three days running once, and I was not even primary SAR.


On the old SRN 6 Hovercraft supoorting the herring roe fleet off of Comox, I got to deal with 3 separate hand/finger amputations and a heart attack in about 2 hrs. A lot of things can happen concurrently in the South Coast Region. The synergy between the SAR Techs, CCG and USCCG was pretty awesome.


----------



## dapaterson

Make it revenue neutral, and start charging stupid people for saving their lives.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Make it revenue neutral, and start charging stupid people for saving their lives.



North Shore GSAR enters the chat....

They're strongly opposed to charging for rescue ostensibly to make sure that more lives are saved, but also to avoid risk to volunteers and aircraft etc trying to find people who get really, really lost and/or injured because they're trying to avoid paying for rescue.









						BCSARA launch video series to remind public there is no charge for search and rescue in B.C.'s outdoors
					

'We do not charge for search and rescue. The goal of our member SAR groups is to save lives'




					www.nsnews.com


----------



## dapaterson

Knowing that "Oh, if the swell gets too bad when I'm out in my canoe, and they launch a helicopter to save my sorry unfit ass, it's going to cost me $100K" might just deter a few stupid people.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Knowing that "Oh, if the swell gets too bad when I'm out in my canoe, and they launch a helicopter to save my sorry unfit ass, it's going to cost me $100K" might just deter a few stupid people.



If you look at the people saved by NS Rescue which, I think, is the busiest SAR team in North America (someone will correct me now) many 'rescuees' looks like they just stepped out of Metrotown Mall.

I've seen crowds of these people following well trodden paths, set earlier by properly equipped back country travellers, in the snow right through steep avalanche terrain wearing thousand dollar running shoes, stylish jeans and 'gangsta' jackets. My main goal is to avoid them (I'll usually be on backcountry skis wearing an avvie beacon and carrying the essentials) so they don't trigger an avalanche on me. I've tried to turn some back e.g., "you know, if you step off this track you'll be up to your waist in snow" but they usually think I'm just being a jerk.

I've often wondered why SAR doesn't station 'helpful and informative' volunteers at the easier backcountry access points that see the most traffic, like Mt Seymour, Grouse Mountain and Cypress Mountain, to deter the poorly equipped from venturing further than the edge of the pavement. Maybe they do that and I missed it...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> Knowing that "Oh, if the swell gets too bad when I'm out in my canoe, and they launch a helicopter to save my sorry unfit ass, it's going to cost me $100K" might just deter a few stupid people.


Regrettably, that is not how human nature works.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> If you look at the people saved by NS Rescue which, I think, is the busiest SAR team in North America (someone will correct me now) many 'rescuees' looks like they just stepped out of Metrotown Mall.
> 
> I've seen crowds of these people following well trodden paths, set earlier by properly equipped back country travellers, in the snow right through steep avalanche terrain wearing thousand dollar running shoes, stylish jeans and 'gangsta' jackets. My main goal is to avoid them (I'll usually be on backcountry skis wearing an avvie beacon and carrying the essentials) so they don't trigger an avalanche on me. I've tried to turn some back e.g., "you know, if you step off this track you'll be up to your waist in snow" but they usually think I'm just being a jerk.
> 
> I've often wondered why SAR doesn't station 'helpful and informative' volunteers at the easier backcountry access points that see the most traffic, like Mt Seymour, Grouse Mountain and Cypress Mountain, to deter the poorly equipped from venturing further than the edge of the pavement. Maybe they do that and I missed it...


Sounds like it should be covered by the BC Tourism budget.


----------

