Author Topic: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities  (Read 819727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 241,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,373
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1600 on: March 15, 2017, 19:40:19 »
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.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,221
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1601 on: March 15, 2017, 19:49:21 »
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.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 241,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,373
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1602 on: March 15, 2017, 19:57:03 »
295 - I hit the wrong button.

I was thinking the CASA.  My bad!

Quote
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!

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 499
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1603 on: March 15, 2017, 20:01:02 »
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


Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 241,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,373
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1604 on: March 15, 2017, 20:23:44 »
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.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 20:29:41 by Eye In The Sky »

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,221
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1605 on: March 15, 2017, 21:54:23 »
Chile uses the C-295.  I'm pretty sure they have mountains in Chile.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 217,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,277
  • Living the staff life
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1606 on: March 15, 2017, 21:56:25 »
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.
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,221
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1607 on: March 15, 2017, 23:30:20 »
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.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 175,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,993
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1608 on: March 16, 2017, 01:22:45 »
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.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,504
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1609 on: March 16, 2017, 06:06:00 »
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.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,221
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1610 on: March 16, 2017, 09:13:34 »
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. 

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 175,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,993
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1611 on: March 16, 2017, 09:47:26 »
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.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 217,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,277
  • Living the staff life
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1612 on: March 16, 2017, 09:58:15 »
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. 
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,548
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1613 on: March 16, 2017, 10:12:49 »
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.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 175,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,993
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1614 on: March 16, 2017, 10:13:58 »
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.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,872
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,504
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1615 on: March 16, 2017, 10:25:46 »
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.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 175,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,993
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1616 on: March 16, 2017, 10:45:15 »
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?

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 241,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,373
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1617 on: March 16, 2017, 11:37:52 »
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. 

Quote
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?? 

Quote
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...
Quote
Maybe the bean counters and politicians should pay more attention to the recommendations of the people risking their lives.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2017, 11:45:58 by Eye In The Sky »

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,548
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1618 on: March 16, 2017, 12:52:11 »
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.   

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 241,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,373
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1619 on: March 16, 2017, 13:22:58 »
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.

Offline HB_Pencil

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 257
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1620 on: March 16, 2017, 14:01:13 »
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.

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?




Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,502
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,537
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1621 on: March 16, 2017, 14:23:29 »
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".

Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline HB_Pencil

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 257
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1622 on: March 16, 2017, 14:27:39 »
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.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 241,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,373
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1623 on: March 16, 2017, 14:48:31 »
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? 

Quote
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. 


*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...

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,221
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1624 on: March 16, 2017, 19:46:21 »
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?