Army.ca Forums

Air-Force.ca => Fixed-wing Aircraft => Topic started by: aesop081 on December 17, 2004, 13:33:18

Title: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on December 17, 2004, 13:33:18
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.......)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on December 18, 2004, 13:26:13
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on December 18, 2004, 13:40:33
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.......
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on December 19, 2004, 12:20:02
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on December 19, 2004, 12:34:52
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on December 19, 2004, 13:47:32
Great answer. This is going to be yet another interesting political football but I think it will ultimately go the way we hope.

Sam
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Bograt on December 19, 2004, 20:23:49
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on December 19, 2004, 23:01:59
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: canuck101 on December 20, 2004, 01:02:11
We are just going to have to wait and see who the government picks.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on January 05, 2005, 18:18:42
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: canuck101 on January 07, 2005, 00:21:15
I loved the   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D good one. ;D
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on January 19, 2005, 17:00:41
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...??

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 20, 2005, 13:04:55
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 20, 2005, 18:12:50
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? 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 20, 2005, 21:05:10
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.

Quote
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).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 20, 2005, 21:09:00

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

(begin sarcasm) hummmm......why on earth would you say that ? (end sarcasm)  ;D
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 21, 2005, 12:33:09
Ok Seen

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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 21, 2005, 13:08:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 21, 2005, 13:48:38
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 21, 2005, 14:03:10
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: jmacleod on January 21, 2005, 14:16:12
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: carpediem on January 21, 2005, 14:23:41
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 21, 2005, 14:51:36

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 21, 2005, 15:09:14
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 21, 2005, 15:48:41
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 21, 2005, 15:58:20

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 21, 2005, 15:59:03
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 21, 2005, 17:58:33
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 23, 2005, 19:08:06
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 23, 2005, 19:31:42
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 24, 2005, 10:03:29
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 24, 2005, 14:42:20
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 24, 2005, 15:41:33
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 24, 2005, 15:57:36
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on January 24, 2005, 16:07:24
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.     :salute:

P.S.   Of note, this would probably also help the government with the optics of the acquisition and might even speed up funding....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 24, 2005, 16:17:57
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 24, 2005, 17:17:29
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 12:07:23
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.  :)

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 25, 2005, 16:25:24
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 25, 2005, 16:49:52
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 18:38:32
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 25, 2005, 18:47:18
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 18:49:40
To true good point.

Is the Corm a good bird?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: COBRA-6 on January 25, 2005, 18:55:24
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 25, 2005, 18:57:29
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on January 25, 2005, 21:00:57
Yea like any new model there are always the re-calls.

Hope it won't be a painful experience though.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on February 03, 2005, 13:56:02
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c-27j.ca%2Fimages%2Fslides%2Fdesign_for_military_success2.jpg&hash=a40d5222749cad0be0ff909f70c8d231)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: I_Drive_Planes on February 04, 2005, 02:54:33
Looks better in yellow than I thought it would!  :D Where did you get the pic?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on February 04, 2005, 18:29:50
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on March 31, 2005, 16:54:53
The battle appears to be joined.... http://www.c-295.ca

EADS CASA looks to have put some thought into their business plan...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on March 31, 2005, 19:34:50
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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on March 31, 2005, 20:39:18
  As it is, we have been told to extend the life of the Buff until at least 2012 - totally unacceptable!

Holly f*** !!!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on April 01, 2005, 06:31:00
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...



Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: X-Rigger on April 01, 2005, 09:40:39
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=photos_halifax_airshow&lang_id=1&page_id=57&photo_id=110&scopes=&keywords=&photo_page=1

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on April 03, 2005, 20:56:40
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on April 06, 2005, 07:20:29
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on April 06, 2005, 09:18:03
heheh... maybe the Bulgarian media know something we don't...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on April 07, 2005, 17:19:29
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.



Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on April 07, 2005, 18:28:57
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on April 07, 2005, 18:47:57
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on April 07, 2005, 18:55:00
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Infanteer on April 07, 2005, 19:32:27
I'm outta way outta my lane here, but....

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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 07, 2005, 21:33:40
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: karl28 on April 07, 2005, 21:57:45
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 .
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 07, 2005, 22:13:25
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 07, 2005, 22:17:09
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Infanteer on April 07, 2005, 22:59:32
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 08, 2005, 07:03:34
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 ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 08, 2005, 07:22:41
As if on schedule:

Quote
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."
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: karl28 on April 08, 2005, 11:20:24
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SeaKingTacco on April 08, 2005, 11:55:47
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: bossi on April 08, 2005, 12:08:27
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 ...

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/index.php/topic,29346.0.html
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 08, 2005, 12:27:55
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 !
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: RangerBoy on April 08, 2005, 13:32:03
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 ...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 08, 2005, 14:00:00
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on April 08, 2005, 17:20:47
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 08, 2005, 18:32:31
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: bossi on April 08, 2005, 19:35:03
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)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on April 08, 2005, 19:48:35
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 08, 2005, 19:51:21
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.......
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on April 09, 2005, 01:42:57
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: karl28 on April 09, 2005, 03:47:47
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 09, 2005, 08:29:56
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on April 09, 2005, 16:12:03
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Le Adder Noir on April 09, 2005, 18:37:07
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




Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 09, 2005, 21:50:57
Thanks Z - great reply.

I will need to think on this further.

Sam
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Thucydides on April 09, 2005, 21:52:52
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).

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on April 10, 2005, 00:02:33
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Le Adder Noir on April 10, 2005, 18:24:45
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?



Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on April 10, 2005, 20:13:00
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!!

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Le Adder Noir on April 10, 2005, 21:40:22
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 >>>
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 10, 2005, 21:46:14

...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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 10, 2005, 21:50:18
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 10, 2005, 21:52:50
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 10, 2005, 22:13:01
Quote
<<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>

Was just HMCS Bras D'Or no Loch in the name.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Le Adder Noir on April 10, 2005, 22:27:08
Aesop thx for the Info and pics

Ex-Dragoon, thx again for the correction
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Aden_Gatling on April 11, 2005, 13:41:02
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}
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 12, 2005, 18:17:06
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on April 12, 2005, 22:00:39
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on April 13, 2005, 17:01:52
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 13, 2005, 19:51:47
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on April 15, 2005, 18:11:45
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: COBRA-6 on April 15, 2005, 18:53:20
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: onewingwonder on April 17, 2005, 09:40:12
The only superiority CASA/EADS has in this competition is marketing, including the "write your MP" tactic. :rage:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Thucydides on April 18, 2005, 15:08:01
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: jmacleod on April 18, 2005, 15:50:11
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Blue Max on April 18, 2005, 16:29:36
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 ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on April 21, 2005, 11:55:54
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on April 25, 2005, 11:40:00
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... :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on May 17, 2005, 17:43:47
"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)







Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on May 17, 2005, 17:51:05
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Slim on May 17, 2005, 18:00:25
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on May 17, 2005, 22:55:53
Wasn't the Griffon and untendered project as well. Needed but no competetion just picked out.?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: jmacleod on May 17, 2005, 23:41:00
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on May 18, 2005, 01:19:01
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Civi U(ntrained) on May 18, 2005, 02:07:53
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: onewingwonder on May 18, 2005, 09:36:11
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 18, 2005, 20:18:29
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on May 29, 2005, 16:50:59
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SeaKingTacco on May 30, 2005, 01:29:09
Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cloud Cover on May 30, 2005, 13:46:14

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!!~!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on May 31, 2005, 10:19:38
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 “ 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 “ 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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GK .Dundas on May 31, 2005, 14:35:43
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 “ 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 “ 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!"
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on June 03, 2005, 13:37:29
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.



Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 05, 2005, 08:51:24
Do they really say to write to my MP...  :threat:   That is just wrong.. :skull: . Politicians should not be involved in Class A procurements... :salute:

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:

Quote
'Fast-tracked' search plane deal falls two years behind schedule

Liberals' lobbying forced change in tender specifications[/b]

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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on June 06, 2005, 09:24:47
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 06, 2005, 10:28:33
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.    :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on June 06, 2005, 12:47:01
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 ? 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Infanteer on June 06, 2005, 12:54:00
Have we decided here that the Spartan is the way to go?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on June 06, 2005, 13:06:57
Have we decided here that the Spartan is the way to go?

I certainly hope so !
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on June 06, 2005, 13:38:32
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Infanteer on June 06, 2005, 13:40:07
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on June 06, 2005, 13:41:37
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......
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on June 06, 2005, 13:47:42
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 06, 2005, 13:48:31
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.   :salute:

P.S.  Almost forgot....I don't think either plane would make an effective sovereignty patrol aircraft.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on June 06, 2005, 17:05:41
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 06, 2005, 17:41:32
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on June 06, 2005, 17:45:16
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on June 06, 2005, 17:47:05
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 ******* 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?

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on June 06, 2005, 17:56:40
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.....) ?

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 ******* 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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on June 06, 2005, 18:02:49
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 07, 2005, 10:33:49
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on June 07, 2005, 11:36:17
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 07, 2005, 11:54:37
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on June 07, 2005, 12:08:01
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.     :salute:

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-*** 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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on June 07, 2005, 12:20:27
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 11, 2005, 22:10:44
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!

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on June 11, 2005, 22:59:00
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Aden_Gatling on June 13, 2005, 15:43:20
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 13, 2005, 22:24:37
Tough questions Sam - probably best aimed at the folks in the FWSAR cell at 1 Cdn Air Div.

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 from: Sam69
Hasn't it been shown, at least in the Pacific SRR, that most SAR calls come in after normal working hours?


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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on June 14, 2005, 14:32:02
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 15, 2005, 20:30:47
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.    :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 15, 2005, 23:10:09
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 16, 2005, 13:19:53
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on June 19, 2005, 08:45:27
Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Allen on June 20, 2005, 22:43:24
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on June 20, 2005, 23:00:09
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 21, 2005, 14:33:49
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 23, 2005, 23:09:06
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on June 24, 2005, 10:18:14
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Sam69 on June 24, 2005, 10:27:18
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 27, 2005, 00:01:27
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 27, 2005, 03:22:03
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 28, 2005, 11:38:31

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: DJ Cooper on June 30, 2005, 23:56:25
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: jmacleod on July 05, 2005, 07:11:07
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on July 07, 2005, 13:33:20
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on July 18, 2005, 15:30:49
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.


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 18, 2005, 16:01:07
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.   ???
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: KevinB on July 18, 2005, 18:29:57
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on July 18, 2005, 18:36:05
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]
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 09, 2005, 12:33:33
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]
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on August 09, 2005, 13:18:03
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.
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on August 18, 2005, 16:05:25
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 18, 2005, 16:13:15
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.

 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on August 18, 2005, 17:38:27
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Astrodog on August 18, 2005, 19:42:59
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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: mjohnston39 on August 19, 2005, 00:58:03
try www.C-27J.ca not related but similar: http://www.c-130j.ca/splash.php

Mike
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Astrodog on August 19, 2005, 04:08:43
dammit! thanks for the correction there mike... proofread proofread proofread i guess!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 19, 2005, 12:47:17
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Astrodog on August 19, 2005, 14:41:14
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: jmacleod on August 19, 2005, 15:03:33
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Astrodog on August 19, 2005, 17:51:37
one ugly bird! Why replace the CC-138s, how long have they been around?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on September 18, 2005, 16:08:38
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 18, 2005, 23:37:06
Wow, thats a fistful  of rumours!!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Wizard of OZ on September 20, 2005, 16:10:51
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on September 20, 2005, 18:47:00
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/index.php/topic,34817.0.html (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,34817.0.html)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ringo on September 21, 2005, 06:45:44
Are ex-RAF C-130J's being considered?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Grizzly on September 21, 2005, 16:23:23
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ringo on September 22, 2005, 01:10:10
I suspect the 2 Anotovs may be Canada's contribution to NATO's heavy lift plan.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: COBRA-6 on September 22, 2005, 06:06:33
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: mjohnston39 on September 26, 2005, 05:18:36
Perhaps the 10B includes the cost of the airframes and a service contract, similar to the MHP contracts???

MIke.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: onewingwonder on September 26, 2005, 09:38:49
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on September 26, 2005, 14:29:59
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.    ???
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: PMars on October 02, 2005, 23:26:47

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cloud Cover on October 02, 2005, 23:35:48
I've seen C130H with skiis, why not the C27? IIRC the C-123B had skiis. Can't imagine any of them with floats!!!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on October 03, 2005, 03:18:40
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).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Jantor on October 03, 2005, 12:30:14
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/ (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      :cdn:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on October 04, 2005, 12:26:17
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...

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

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on October 20, 2005, 02:14:58
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on November 17, 2005, 09:31:34
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....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Blue Max on November 17, 2005, 16:20:25
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:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Bograt on November 20, 2005, 18:18:15
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 NOVEMBER 20, 2005

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

Ottawa 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 ” Airbus and Lockheed Martin 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 ” 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 ” 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 ” 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 ” 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 ” conducted mainly by ex-generals 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 ” 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 ” the former director of military requirements and an ex-industry lobbyist 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 ” mid-range planes used to ferry troops, supplies and equipment in and out of theatre 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."

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on November 20, 2005, 19:40:30
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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on November 20, 2005, 21:25:47
Tactical Transport Aircraft = Lockheed Martin C17Js...... ???
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on November 21, 2005, 14:25:44
Tactical Transport Aircraft = Lockheed Martin C17Js...... ???

Globe and Mail only confused the masses by that typo - the C-17 is not a contender. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Allen on November 21, 2005, 22:13:17
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on November 22, 2005, 15:43:47
Exactly - they have yet to award the contract for FWSAR - the money is already there. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on November 22, 2005, 22:38:03
Quote
- the money is already there.
  I hope they can get it spent before March.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on January 05, 2006, 13:30:51
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Journeyman on January 18, 2006, 20:21:13
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)   


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 19, 2006, 10:52:30
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.



Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Jantor on January 24, 2006, 11:21:48

  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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: sandhurst91 on February 20, 2006, 15:06:53
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Armymatters on February 20, 2006, 15:26:21
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Journeyman on February 20, 2006, 19:41:17
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  ;)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on February 21, 2006, 11:24:19
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....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on February 21, 2006, 13:47:43
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on February 21, 2006, 14:09:54
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on February 21, 2006, 14:33:40
Zoomie,
That link must have only went down less than an hour ago.......... ???   
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on February 21, 2006, 16:12:18
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on February 21, 2006, 16:52:27
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on February 22, 2006, 10:41:04
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Hawker on March 06, 2006, 19:54:21
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2006, 21:05:43
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Hawker on March 07, 2006, 02:28:21
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 32a on March 18, 2006, 20:37:45
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... :)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on March 25, 2006, 17:18:37
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."
      
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on March 31, 2006, 12:44:06
More grist for the mill.......curiously the release studiously avoids speculation as to what aircraft might be under consideration.......reference to capabilities, not platforms.

Quote
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 22, 2006, 12:11:56
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Armymatters on July 03, 2006, 23:49:38
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on July 03, 2006, 23:54:20
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: BulletMagnet on July 03, 2006, 23:54:50
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Armymatters on July 04, 2006, 00:03:33
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Armymatters on July 04, 2006, 00:51:15
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Journeyman on July 04, 2006, 10:24:27
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?   >:D

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,
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   ;)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on July 04, 2006, 13:29:41
Quote
...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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on July 04, 2006, 18:15:58
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on July 04, 2006, 18:23:38
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/index.php/topic,46428.30.html (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on July 04, 2006, 18:24:05
You're right aesop081. I wasn't clear enough.  I was only referring to the 10 C130Js - Not the other 15 C130J-30s.

Cheers.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on July 04, 2006, 18:35:58
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/index.php/topic,46428.30.html (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,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 ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on January 03, 2007, 08:06:31
DND pushes quick plane deal
DANIEL LEBLANC  Globe and Mail Update
Article Link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070103.waircraft03/BNStory/National/home)

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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: schart28 on January 03, 2007, 10:35:50
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.




Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on January 03, 2007, 10:46:10
Quote

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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on January 03, 2007, 10:50:42
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: civmick on January 03, 2007, 11:50:50
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 :D

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ArmyRick on January 03, 2007, 12:01:29
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, **** off to them I says. We don't need any 2nd or 3rd rate equipment.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: KevinB on January 03, 2007, 12:11:17
  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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on January 03, 2007, 12:22:44
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GO!!! on January 03, 2007, 12:38:34
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: civmick on January 03, 2007, 13:15:56
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 (http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/061018/cit/061018be.htm), not end run around it.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 03, 2007, 13:19:55
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 ;)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: civmick on January 03, 2007, 14:12:17
geo

The website www.c-295.ca has some quotes from Greek newspapers (http://www.c-295.ca/web/id/c27j_greece1.html) 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 :D
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on January 03, 2007, 14:18:27
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).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: cplcaldwell on January 03, 2007, 14:21:22
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on January 03, 2007, 14:30:13
Some pertinent information from airforce-technology.com:

Quote
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.

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

Quote
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: civmick on January 03, 2007, 14:37:46
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 03, 2007, 14:56:59
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-27.htm

Quote
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: KevinB on January 03, 2007, 15:05:07
Look what the US Coast Guard uses for fixed wing SAR -- C130's

 I'm not a Pilot so I will STFU now

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 03, 2007, 15:13:12
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: cplcaldwell on January 03, 2007, 15:53:39
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 (http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/)

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Jantor on January 03, 2007, 16:06:55
The USCG aircraft is actually a CN-235 and is not in the running for the Canadian FWSAR programme.  ;)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: cplcaldwell on January 03, 2007, 16:14:50
Ooops, my bad, yes 235 it is.

Little sister to the CN-295.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Skaha on January 03, 2007, 16:24:27
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 03, 2007, 16:38:18
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Skaha on January 03, 2007, 16:42:42
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 ??
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on January 03, 2007, 16:47:54
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"?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on January 03, 2007, 16:50:29
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     
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: KevinB on January 03, 2007, 16:53:51
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).

 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Skaha on January 03, 2007, 17:00:55
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: cplcaldwell on January 03, 2007, 17:03:53
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 (http://www.c-295.ca/web/id/compare.html).

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 03, 2007, 17:30:32
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: cplcaldwell on January 03, 2007, 17:48:07
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)....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 03, 2007, 19:41:58
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cloud Cover on January 03, 2007, 19:57:46
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? 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Skaha on January 03, 2007, 20:02:58
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.





Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 03, 2007, 20:04:03
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....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: cplcaldwell on January 03, 2007, 20:15:33
Thanks for post at 18:41 Rescue Randy, you have clarified a great many things.

ZB
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 03, 2007, 20:28:00
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 03, 2007, 20:45:11
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 03, 2007, 20:51:10
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  :D
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 03, 2007, 21:07:02
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!!!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 03, 2007, 21:20:39
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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 03, 2007, 21:29:03
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on January 03, 2007, 21:34:26
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 03, 2007, 22:18:47
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 04, 2007, 09:45:22
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
Quote
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 missions 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} (http://ttp://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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: civmick on January 04, 2007, 11:05:04
Reading those specs it makes one think CASA should "pull a Q400" and yank out the PW127s in favour of PW150s  ;D
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ArmyRick on January 04, 2007, 11:10:23
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 04, 2007, 11:12:49
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 04, 2007, 12:31:55
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GO!!! on January 04, 2007, 12:33:12
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Not a Sig Op on January 04, 2007, 12:42:35
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Babbling Brooks on January 04, 2007, 13:13:13
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 04, 2007, 17:55:59
That ace observer of things military, Globe columnist Lawrence Martin, credulously gives us this quote:

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

Quote
...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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 04, 2007, 17:57:42
Always nice to have a Herc handy :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/C130-Forrestal.jpg
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 04, 2007, 18:05:12
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 04, 2007, 18:20:13
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 04, 2007, 18:26:07
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 04, 2007, 19:18:18
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.


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 04, 2007, 19:27:10
would there be grounds for a new production run of Twins, Buffalos or Short Sherpas?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 04, 2007, 19:35:26
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 04, 2007, 19:41:12
 ;D
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MrWhyt on January 04, 2007, 19:42:33
Quote
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.

Quote
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).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Jantor on January 04, 2007, 19:49:47
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 04, 2007, 20:32:47
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 04, 2007, 20:39:46
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 04, 2007, 20:48:40
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: old man neri on January 04, 2007, 20:52:28
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Babbling Brooks on January 04, 2007, 22:18:31
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Loachman on January 05, 2007, 00:37:18
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Not a Sig Op on January 05, 2007, 00:48:28
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?

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 05, 2007, 00:55:55
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 ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MrWhyt on January 05, 2007, 02:07:17
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Jantor on January 05, 2007, 06:27:41
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 05, 2007, 08:38:32
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 :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on January 05, 2007, 11:37:57
Hell who needs a ramp:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp   ;D :salute:


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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 09, 2007, 11:11:48
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/

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 09, 2007, 12:05:07
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 09, 2007, 13:27:15
Rescue Randy: Thanks ;)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Babbling Brooks on January 09, 2007, 13:42:09
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: retiredgrunt45 on January 09, 2007, 14:12:21
Sparton C27J website. Have a look at the specs.

 http://www.c-27j.ca/index.php?page_id=1&lang_id=1 (http://www.c-27j.ca/index.php?page_id=1&lang_id=1)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on January 09, 2007, 14:31:29
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.)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 09, 2007, 15:04:29
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 09, 2007, 17:01:07
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

Quote
* Utility Transport Aircraft. Bombardier is the favourite to win this contract, valued at about $380-million, with its Dash-8 contract [sic].

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on January 09, 2007, 21:46:19
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 09, 2007, 23:28:40
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 :o
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on January 09, 2007, 23:29:09
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GO!!! on January 09, 2007, 23:39:30
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!  ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 10, 2007, 08:52:16
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
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on January 10, 2007, 09:14:22
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on January 10, 2007, 09:17:32
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.....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 10, 2007, 09:18:37
I thought we were getting 3 JSS
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ArmyRick on January 10, 2007, 10:15:21
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on January 10, 2007, 11:50:28
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 10, 2007, 12:03:46
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on January 10, 2007, 12:41:42
On this very same subject, but posted by Edward Campbell in the topic on Speeding Up Procurement (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,49914.0.html):

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 Trudeauistic 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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Babbling Brooks on January 10, 2007, 13:14:52
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Journeyman on January 10, 2007, 13:34:19
Or you can just got to Amazon.ca, buy the ex-bureaucrat's book (http://www.amazon.ca/Reinventing-Canadian-Defence-Procurement-Inside/dp/0978169301/sr=8-1/qid=1168450218/ref=sr_1_1/701-7463763-0063545?ie=UTF8&s=books), and find out how the world should run.  ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Requirements Guy on January 10, 2007, 22:21:31
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.


 




 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 10, 2007, 22:35:36
Perhaps both rescue Randy AND Requirements Guy would like to 'come clean' and tell us all exactly what they are about.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 10, 2007, 23:10:06
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 10, 2007, 23:20:40
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 10, 2007, 23:23:59
Thanks RR. Balls in your court Requirements Guy.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ArmyVern on January 10, 2007, 23:26:04
Thanks RR for the post,

I actually remember your post from last year.   :o

Here it is:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,37145.msg316955.html#msg316955 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,37145.msg316955.html#msg316955)

Batter up.....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on January 10, 2007, 23:26:30
Folks, clarification by 'Requirements Guy' if it's coming, then let's please get back on topic...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 11, 2007, 00:20:22
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Requirements Guy on January 11, 2007, 01:28:57
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. 



Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 11, 2007, 02:04:03
Sounds like the horse just spoke.  :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 11, 2007, 09:42:58
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Babbling Brooks on January 11, 2007, 13:01:13
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on January 12, 2007, 01:37:07
....
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 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24937.0.html).

...especially this part:

Quote
  • 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 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24937.msg75702.html#msg75702).

Let's carry on in an appropriate manner.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 12, 2007, 08:40:40
My apologies to the site
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Requirements Guy on January 12, 2007, 14:33:13
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on January 12, 2007, 15:58:02
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Requirements Guy on January 12, 2007, 16:18:35
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on January 12, 2007, 16:18:45
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on January 14, 2007, 11:23:32
Just to sure here,   a question for Rescue Randy

Do you work CASA or another company associated with their pursuit of this contract ??
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 14, 2007, 12:04:26
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on January 14, 2007, 14:11:55
Topic un-locked.  Let's keep things objective and professional.

Regards
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on January 15, 2007, 00:37:37
Randy works for CASA.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 15, 2007, 00:50:23
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."

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on January 15, 2007, 01:25:21
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 15, 2007, 07:13:20
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 15, 2007, 11:45:10
Seen. Thanks. Looks like cost and complexity is a big factor. Out.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on January 17, 2007, 12:19:20
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 17, 2007, 12:43:57
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on January 17, 2007, 13:06:34
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on January 17, 2007, 14:36:46
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. 

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcaf.com%2Faircraft%2Fphotos%2Fdynavert_2.jpg&hash=460d2afe63613349f09c1441e000e2e4)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on January 17, 2007, 14:43:01
Not to mention the Rotodyne!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fairey_Rotodyne.jpg
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GINge! on January 17, 2007, 14:44:21
If you draw it, they will come...

Profile I drew of a CF Osprey painted up as a SAR bird per CC-115 markings
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on January 17, 2007, 14:51:35
THis is looking sharp.... again, any aircraft with the SAR scheme looks sharp. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on January 17, 2007, 17:04:47
The more parts are in movements, the more likely it will break.

Max
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 17, 2007, 17:20:37
Just like a rifle company....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 17, 2007, 17:28:00
The more parts are in movements, the more likely it will break.

Like a helicopter?  ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on January 17, 2007, 19:36:28
More like two huge hubs rotating on themselves!

Max
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 17, 2007, 20:39:35
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#

Quote
...
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2007, 20:46:09
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." ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 17, 2007, 20:50:14
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2007, 21:40:32
And under the title "Coincidental Timing".....

Quote
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?"
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 17, 2007, 22:14:14
Great this item has made it to the CBC National News  ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on January 18, 2007, 09:23:13
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. 

Quote from: http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/aircraft/caribou.htm
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on January 18, 2007, 11:28:56
Well we used to be one of the world's best aircraft builders and designers........sigh
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2007, 13:45:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 21, 2007, 14:40:12
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.

Quote
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/index.php/topic,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?






Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: RiggerFE on January 21, 2007, 23:36:19
Quote
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 22, 2007, 01:17:18
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 .....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 23, 2007, 01:23:56
Split in order to stay on topic
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 29, 2007, 09:30:24
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 29, 2007, 09:44:08
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on January 29, 2007, 11:48:36
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GO!!! on January 29, 2007, 12:41:37
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... :-\
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 29, 2007, 13:38:56
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on January 29, 2007, 15:10:48
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 29, 2007, 15:16:24
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......
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 29, 2007, 21:14:05
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on January 29, 2007, 21:32:01
Zoomie, I heard rumors of Dash 8-300 for FWSAR, what would you think about that (flyingwise)?

Max
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 30, 2007, 12:51:00
I heard rumors of Dash 8-300 for FWSAR,

Most likely started by Bombardier themselves - they are not even in the running...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 30, 2007, 13:40:59
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 30, 2007, 14:08:39
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: C1Dirty on January 30, 2007, 20:37:11
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.   

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 30, 2007, 23:10:18
I thought the RAF Js were off the shelf "shorts"

Seen - wrt standard Js being = to old "stretch"
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 30, 2007, 23:11:03
( AF box lunches are premium!)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 30, 2007, 23:11:50
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 30, 2007, 23:16:48
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  ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on January 30, 2007, 23:26:12
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 30, 2007, 23:32:14
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 30, 2007, 23:33:53
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 16, 2007, 07:58:01
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/ 
Quote
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 16, 2007, 09:44:54
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on February 16, 2007, 11:12:10
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on February 16, 2007, 12:48:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 16, 2007, 13:11:53
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.

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?

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: C1Dirty on February 16, 2007, 13:44:34
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on February 16, 2007, 13:48:05
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on February 16, 2007, 13:48:40
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 16, 2007, 13:50:57
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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Stridsvagn_122 on February 16, 2007, 17:06:30
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kingfisher on February 16, 2007, 17:07:54

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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Aden_Gatling on February 16, 2007, 17:23:23
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).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Astrodog on February 16, 2007, 22:16:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Stridsvagn_122 on February 16, 2007, 22:31:23
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: RiggerFE on February 17, 2007, 00:49:08
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Stridsvagn_122 on February 17, 2007, 07:12:28
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Inch on February 17, 2007, 09:09:29
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Northernguardian on February 17, 2007, 11:41:52
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: eurowing on February 17, 2007, 12:11:20
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 17, 2007, 12:21:52
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on February 17, 2007, 13:56:09
Interestingly, the Aussies abandoned a Caribou-replacement program years ago and decided to stick with old faithful and trageted upgrades.

G2G
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: daftandbarmy on February 17, 2007, 14:35:41
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on February 17, 2007, 14:43:46
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on February 17, 2007, 14:45:13
  methodical and well thought out upgrade.



No such thing in Canada
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Stridsvagn_122 on February 17, 2007, 14:47:18
No such thing in Canada

sad but true.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ozymandias on February 18, 2007, 01:14:40
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: TCBF on February 18, 2007, 01:36:57
Over 120 built, maybe 30 losses by now.  Are the others still flying out there in the third world someplace?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on February 18, 2007, 14:00:30
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ozymandias on February 19, 2007, 10:26:06
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on February 19, 2007, 14:07:42
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.  ;)
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on February 19, 2007, 14:58:43
Ozy, thanks....I was actually thinking along techinal lines, though.  I'm tradcking you on msn rdns.  ;)

G2G
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ozymandias on February 20, 2007, 09:32:48
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on February 20, 2007, 09:40:46

 "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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: C1Dirty on February 20, 2007, 17:29:36
Quote
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on March 21, 2007, 12:17:02
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 06, 2007, 15:51:03
Just saw this is the Jane's News Briefs:

Quote
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 (http://jdw.janes.com) - 02 April 2007]

Would there be any merit in or possibility of a combined AUSCAN procurment?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on April 06, 2007, 17:33:14
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on April 20, 2007, 13:44:58
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.

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 20, 2007, 14:49:23
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on April 21, 2007, 14:45:35
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on April 21, 2007, 16:33:46
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on April 26, 2007, 08:44:35
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 Pugliese
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
 




 
 
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on April 26, 2007, 09:25:26
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: jimmy742 on April 26, 2007, 13:41:32
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Hawker on April 26, 2007, 21:00:30
Interesting to see army.ca poster Rescue Randy mentioned prominently in the article, and mentioned as a consultant for EDAS Canada.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: 404SqnAVSTeach on April 27, 2007, 08:46:45
Quote from: Ottawa Citizen
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 (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4447dd2a-6b78-4123-85c4-f432926ad3cb&k=42830)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Twitch on April 27, 2007, 12:20:07
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MikeM on April 27, 2007, 14:53:21
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on April 27, 2007, 14:58:02
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on April 27, 2007, 23:22:02
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 27, 2007, 23:23:44
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on April 27, 2007, 23:25:45
I see.  So it might buy 1 or 2 years?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 27, 2007, 23:31:42
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on April 28, 2007, 04:48:18
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ringo on April 28, 2007, 06:03:01
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: CTD on April 28, 2007, 11:11:50
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on April 28, 2007, 13:04:12
Have you been in a C-2 Greyhound ?

too small
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: RiggerFE on April 28, 2007, 13:04:51
Herc + mountains  = bad. Until they find a plane that can do what the buff does, it will be here for a while.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: time expired on April 28, 2007, 14:31:39
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Stridsvagn_122 on April 29, 2007, 13:46:26
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,
 :army: Matt
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: CTD on April 29, 2007, 20:25:15
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 30, 2007, 16:12:18
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

Quote
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: peaches on May 02, 2007, 18:56:11
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.......

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SeaKingTacco on May 02, 2007, 19:43:19
Quote
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: peaches on May 02, 2007, 20:24:06
Sorry, I thought as Airforce types we were supposed to be in the warfighting business....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 04, 2007, 00:05:40
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Journeyman on May 04, 2007, 10:12:55
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.   ;)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on May 05, 2007, 15:02:48
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on May 05, 2007, 15:20:24
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 05, 2007, 16:02:54
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Astrodog on May 05, 2007, 16:42:43
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..
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 05, 2007, 17:11:32
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on May 05, 2007, 17:14:19
Astrodog - I was talking about the SuperHornets. 

So was astrodog........F/A-18E and F are "superhornets"



Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: CTD on May 05, 2007, 18:04:45
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 05, 2007, 20:46:08
So was astrodog........F/A-18E and F are "superhornets"


Understood CDN Aviator.  I wasn't sufficiently clear.  Thanks f.or the clarification.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Astrodog on May 05, 2007, 22:11:33
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 06, 2007, 05:49:27
And thank you Astrodog.

My error.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 06, 2007, 06:36:00
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: CTD on May 06, 2007, 15:07:32
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 06, 2007, 16:04:10
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 06, 2007, 16:20:11
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.

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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 06, 2007, 16:22:33
Aye well, I'll run away after all and go back to my day job engineering processing plants.   Cheers.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 06, 2007, 16:27:52
and I'll go back to writing an my MEng thesis. We can all have day jobs.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on May 06, 2007, 16:34:16
Aye well, I'll run away after all and go back to my day job engineering processing plants.   Cheers.


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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Aden_Gatling on May 06, 2007, 17:04:12
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). 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 06, 2007, 17:15:18
Getting back to SAR:
... 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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: CFR FCS on May 06, 2007, 20:21:19
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.   
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 06, 2007, 21:01:07
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 06, 2007, 23:06:38
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on May 06, 2007, 23:53:42
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.   :salute:

Lowering your trailing edge flaps will also lower you critical angle of attack.  Something that is not really wanted in the mountains...

Max
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 07, 2007, 00:42:48
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. 

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 07, 2007, 11:05:04
So IF there were a wing design adjustment to be made, what would it be?


Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: FinClk on May 07, 2007, 12:15:35
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).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ChrisG on May 26, 2007, 21:55:27
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!)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on May 27, 2007, 13:49:57
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on May 27, 2007, 15:45:58
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 27, 2007, 16:33:21
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on May 27, 2007, 21:03:33
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 27, 2007, 22:13:49
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?

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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 28, 2007, 02:36:49
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on May 28, 2007, 10:38:57
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 28, 2007, 14:39:19
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.    :salute:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 28, 2007, 14:47:10
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on May 28, 2007, 18:21:04
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Loachman on May 30, 2007, 14:58:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Globesmasher on May 30, 2007, 19:21:34

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on May 30, 2007, 19:32:20
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:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on May 30, 2007, 19:49:29
Did he get to keep the tricycle?  ;D
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on May 31, 2007, 11:25:56
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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: bilton090 on May 31, 2007, 12:23:28
     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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on May 31, 2007, 12:39:39
   the airforce don't do s**t,

Yeah, thats why i'm not home alot

 ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: mover1 on May 31, 2007, 13:18:02
     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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: C1Dirty on May 31, 2007, 14:53:46
Quote
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 (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070530/nl_vessel_070530/20070530?hub=Canada)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 31, 2007, 15:44:29
     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".
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 31, 2007, 15:46:29
Bilton = South African for jerky.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: C1Dirty on May 31, 2007, 15:47:11
It was terrible, his comments made me say something nice about SAR.  I think I need a shower, I feel dirty.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 31, 2007, 15:48:00
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ChrisG on June 01, 2007, 02:47:38
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! 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: newfin on June 03, 2007, 16:41:59
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on June 03, 2007, 16:47:45
Mountains are only part of the equation.  European countries don’t have to worry about the distances we find in BC alone.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on June 04, 2007, 09:44:36
... also, landlocked countries don't have to worry about flying over so much water.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 04, 2007, 15:03:55
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. :)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ChrisG on June 04, 2007, 22:20:10
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on June 13, 2007, 23:26:23
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/


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on June 13, 2007, 23:41:42
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on June 14, 2007, 09:41:10
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 14, 2007, 16:24:47
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on June 14, 2007, 16:47:39
good backgrounder

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/12/214528/frontline-warrior-the-alenia-aeronautica-c-27-spartan.html


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 15, 2007, 10:30:29
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-pugliese-reports-great-economy.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Aden_Gatling on June 15, 2007, 11:19:52
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-pugliese-reports-great-economy.html

Mark
Ottawa

WTF?  "great economy"?!?  I think the word is "misleading"
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 15, 2007, 11:37:41
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on June 15, 2007, 12:10:11
Mod edit: we've had legal troubles here before, let's not bring that back on us.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 15, 2007, 12:40:13
Haletown: Actually it's space in the Ottawa Citizen. ;)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on June 15, 2007, 12:57:58
oops  . . . .    my bads.

My apologies to the Ottawa Citizen for equating then with the Globe & Mail
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Aden_Gatling on June 15, 2007, 13:06:41
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.).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 15, 2007, 21:00:42
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 26, 2007, 17:06:14
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

Quote
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on June 26, 2007, 17:09:07
Beat you (for once)  ;)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,63642.0.html
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 26, 2007, 17:20:46
A useful comment on the article at Colin's topic:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,63642.msg582935.html#msg582935

I was just trying to keep the needle in the same thread :-*!

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Spencer100 on July 27, 2007, 11:48:20
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.


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 27, 2007, 16:43:42
A link for the post immediately above:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/849805.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on August 07, 2007, 08:52:27
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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on August 07, 2007, 09:47:13
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on August 07, 2007, 09:51:51
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on August 07, 2007, 10:03:20
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Aden_Gatling on August 07, 2007, 18:52:47
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on August 07, 2007, 18:56:53
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Moody on October 22, 2007, 14:21:44
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."
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on October 22, 2007, 15:35:20
Air force wants retiring Brazilian planes to keep aging Canadian Buffalos going
 Article Link (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iLbsoAgXm451ivF2ok_MeART36jA)

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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on October 22, 2007, 23:55:01
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!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on October 23, 2007, 09:03:48
Drats!

Just goes to show you how good the venerable Buffalo is - even in it's geriatric years.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on October 23, 2007, 11:18:26
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on October 23, 2007, 12:30:51
.... 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.
Title: SAR Fixed Wing Replacement
Post by: karl28 on November 26, 2007, 19:40:38
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on November 26, 2007, 19:54:40
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 26, 2007, 20:43:05
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

Quote
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


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: karl28 on November 26, 2007, 21:58:19
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
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on November 27, 2007, 11:15:06
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on November 27, 2007, 11:29:52
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.....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on November 27, 2007, 16:15:11
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)  ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on November 27, 2007, 19:33:25
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 27, 2007, 20:08:38
geo: No "venture" needed:

DEFENCE POLICY: CONSERVATIVES THE NEW LIBERALS (internal link no longer exists)
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005351.html

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on November 28, 2007, 08:36:24
heh.... something about the king's new clothes
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Bandit1 on December 09, 2007, 14:55:31
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...

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on December 09, 2007, 15:24:31
Glad you posted it here Bandit - I never stray into the politics section.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 09, 2007, 17:20:07
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Aden_Gatling on December 10, 2007, 20:17:09
Quote
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 bidder, "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/
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Blackadder1916 on April 14, 2008, 12:01:28
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 12, 2008, 13:21:12
Mod edited to comply with Milnet.ca policy (http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,99046.0.html).

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on May 12, 2008, 13:41:19
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on May 12, 2008, 13:48:56
Not sure on that geo but according to Wikipedia,

Quote
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
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on May 12, 2008, 16:36:56
Many have had them but few continue to use em.

You'll find that the US flew the DHC4 Caribou VS the DHC5 Buffalo...

Quote
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...

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: inferno on May 13, 2008, 22:21:55
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on May 14, 2008, 10:11:02
Inferno .... you've just described a Buffalo
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on May 14, 2008, 11:10:02
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fman%2Fdod-101%2Fsys%2Fac%2Fc-27-9811253a.jpg&hash=fec05efdb9fc22bbd2480e686593658c)     
C-27

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airforce.forces.gc.ca%2F19wing%2Fphoto_gallery%2Fwallpaper%2FCAYR8BNW.jpg&hash=1abe621a0d7696e0f642b6427658f780)(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airforce.forces.gc.ca%2F19wing%2Fphoto_gallery%2Fwallpaper%2FBuffalo_in_flight.jpg&hash=0935329411cbffcdb590b6952e3f32ab)
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).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on May 14, 2008, 11:41:18
Inferno .... you've just described a Buffalo

 ::)

Or a C-160 transal, or a C-27 or..........
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on May 14, 2008, 11:52:00
::)

Or a C-160 transal, or a C-27 or..........

   . . . .  or an Aeritalia/Alenia G.222
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on May 14, 2008, 11:54:35
   . . . .  or an Aeritalia/Alenia G.222

Thanks for proving my point !
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on May 14, 2008, 12:09:08
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: inferno on May 15, 2008, 00:34:32
They're French C160s.

And the Buff looks nothing like a Herc... unless you ignore the nose, tail, wings, cabin, fuselage, ramp, gear, cockpit...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on May 15, 2008, 08:53:13
... but then again, you didn't specify that they weren't Canadian aircraft.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on May 15, 2008, 15:31:42
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. 

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: inferno on May 15, 2008, 19:42:15
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on May 15, 2008, 20:11:31
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.








Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on May 15, 2008, 20:34:23
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]
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on May 15, 2008, 20:50:51
[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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on May 15, 2008, 20:53:52
...yup, the Vanguard had Tynes, though...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 15, 2008, 23:41:39
From someone there, three French C-160 Transalls.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on May 16, 2008, 09:28:29
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  :P

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 16, 2008, 09:36:52
Haletown: The Cool Pool.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on May 16, 2008, 10:20:21
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"



Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 16, 2008, 10:57:21
Clue 3:
So is the aircraft currently near the Terminal in Cold Lake right now a C-27?
They're French C160s.
From someone there, three French C-160 Transalls.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on May 16, 2008, 11:05:25
many thnx . . . 

So we are talking about different posts.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 16, 2008, 16:03:58
Haletown: This is the comment I had in mind:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23889.msg712726.html#msg712726

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Rescue planes may not last, review warns
Post by: GAP on May 26, 2008, 09:20:55

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 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080526.wplanes26/BNStory/National/?cid=al_gam_nletter_newsUp)

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
Title: Re: Rescue planes may not last, review warns
Post by: Richie on May 26, 2008, 18:59:23
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! ::)
Title: Re: Rescue planes may not last, review warns
Post by: Colin P on May 27, 2008, 21:09:19
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 27, 2008, 21:27:39
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on May 27, 2008, 21:54:19
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 27, 2008, 22:44:05
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 27, 2008, 23:26:12
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:


… and these would be the nice to haves:

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on May 27, 2008, 23:46:00
Hmmm....the V-22 seems to answer to all those points....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 27, 2008, 23:49:44
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on May 27, 2008, 23:55:50
I believe they have solved icing problems in planes.....no?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Mountie on May 28, 2008, 00:00:23
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 28, 2008, 00:19:38
4.   How important is pressurisation in a FWSAR aircraft?[/list]

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on May 28, 2008, 00:34:20
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on May 28, 2008, 01:51:01
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  :-\)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on May 28, 2008, 04:08:56
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on May 28, 2008, 11:48:55
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 29, 2008, 14:46:52
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on May 30, 2008, 11:41:47
 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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on May 30, 2008, 12:06:36
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'.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on May 30, 2008, 12:37:21
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on May 30, 2008, 13:13:52
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on May 30, 2008, 13:29:28
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: WrenchBender on May 30, 2008, 13:47:28
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)

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: RiggerFE on May 30, 2008, 14:21:14
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 30, 2008, 14:33:21
A post at The Torch:

Buffalo tempest rather overdone
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/buffalo-tempest-rather-overdone.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: eurowing on May 30, 2008, 14:52:22
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 05, 2008, 12:11:41
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....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on December 06, 2008, 21:43:06
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 13, 2008, 08:33:49
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?

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on December 13, 2008, 17:22:55
...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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 13, 2008, 18:40:49
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on December 14, 2008, 13:28:50
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 18, 2008, 10:41:26
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on December 18, 2008, 11:19:05
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on December 18, 2008, 12:11:13
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: thunderchild on December 18, 2008, 12:25:39
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on December 18, 2008, 12:36:14
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
The MPA could then spend more time watching shipping and doing  patrols. 

Why ?

We already spend plenty.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 18, 2008, 13:17:48
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on December 19, 2008, 09:06:57
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on December 19, 2008, 20:39:40
I would even go furhter, "Get the Airforce what it needs, as long as it isn't so unique as to be unsupportable"
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Blackadder1916 on December 25, 2008, 12:19:38
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 25, 2008, 12:33:23
Blackadder1916: A post at The Torch:

Buffed up?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffed-up.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: thunderchild on December 25, 2008, 17:38:57
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on December 25, 2008, 19:39:54
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: thunderchild on December 25, 2008, 21:02:56
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on December 25, 2008, 21:31:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 06, 2009, 20:21:22
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 06, 2009, 20:56:35
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: WPA on January 08, 2009, 11:27:27
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,

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 08, 2009, 14:17:57
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: FMR on January 08, 2009, 15:36:28
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.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg131.imageshack.us%2Fimg131%2F8564%2Fairbellboeingqtrconceptxc9.jpg&hash=6b2dd326ecd607b904901ac8d57b358f)

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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 08, 2009, 16:18:06
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Blackadder1916 on January 08, 2009, 17:46:05
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
Quote
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 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23889.msg792698.html#msg792698), 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.

 
 

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Loachman on January 09, 2009, 01:04:00
anyway this VTOL was based on the CL-84 (Canadian made)

Not really.

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.

VTOL aircraft (such the F-35)

Not all F35 variants are.

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: FMR on January 09, 2009, 03:16:36
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.
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg211.imageshack.us%2Fimg211%2F7167%2Fp100303gr9.jpg&hash=644aeab11303ea64bb797fe04d85e58d)


For my part i'm for the C-27J, and for a new production line of DHC-5 Buffalo.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on January 09, 2009, 08:56:56
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? 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: FMR on January 09, 2009, 15:33:34

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? 

Quote
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
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg379.imageshack.us%2Fimg379%2F2130%2F75090800da0.jpg&hash=913dc96c88cbeff96a7c82ae9ef89c4f)

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg404.imageshack.us%2Fimg404%2F4708%2Fv22crashio9.jpg&hash=80a4859006404176ce60e2d2ee7cb9bf)


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 09, 2009, 17:22:42
FMR.....did you hear that ?

Its the sound of you talking out of your..........
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on January 09, 2009, 18:30:17
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ringo on January 09, 2009, 18:48:39
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 09, 2009, 19:48:10
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 09, 2009, 23:01:43
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Loachman on January 10, 2009, 07:31:44
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.

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).
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 10, 2009, 13:12:26
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.

Like CDN Aviatoar said, The extended range C-130E model entered service in 1962 and the C-130H model initial deliveries began in 1964
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 10, 2009, 13:39:06
... then there are the few extras we ordered after loosing a few to accidents & such
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ringo on January 10, 2009, 15:37:15
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?
 

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 10, 2009, 17:24:50
2 Herc's entered service Mar 1985

24 years old........geriatric
Quote
2 more Nov 1986

23 years old....geriatric
Quote
5 Herc's with tanker kit 1989

20 years old.......severly worn out

Quote
2 1997 may have been last two off production line?

Oh wow...a whoping 2 aircrafts.


 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on January 10, 2009, 18:58:27
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: FMR on January 10, 2009, 19:31:45
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 10, 2009, 19:45:02
... 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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on January 11, 2009, 19:46:00
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on January 12, 2009, 08:53:59
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 12, 2009, 09:29:55
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on January 12, 2009, 09:43:30
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 12, 2009, 11:35:23
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on January 23, 2009, 19:44:43

  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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 23, 2009, 19:55:10
You do realize that the 415 Series of Aircraft is generally used as a water bomber.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bombardier.com%2Ffiles%2Fen%2Fsupporting_docs%2Fimage_and_media%2Fbanners%2FB3-BA_AMPHIBIOUS_ABOUTUS-00-20080221-01-K7AB.JPG&hash=22ff355bd0a7819262002352c21e9331)
415 Series aircraft.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 23, 2009, 19:58:32
SAR and Law Enforcement Configuration

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bombardier.com%2Ffiles%2Fen%2Fsupporting_docs%2Fimage_and_media%2Fproducts_technical_drawing%2FP2-Amphibious_Aircraft_415_MultiRole_-_Search_and_rescue-EN-20080303-00.gif&hash=d9eb70693a853cad0048e8d2f1e61a98)
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

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bombardier.com%2Ffiles%2Fen%2Fsupporting_docs%2Fimage_and_media%2Fproducts_technical_drawing%2FP2-Amphibious_Aircraft_415_MultiRole_-_Utility_transport-EN-20080303-00.gif&hash=fa5bf164bfecb9b03c0d1eb81ebfb1be)
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on January 24, 2009, 04:59:47
You do realize that the 415 Series of Aircraft is generally used as a water bomber.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bombardier.com%2Ffiles%2Fen%2Fsupporting_docs%2Fimage_and_media%2Fbanners%2FB3-BA_AMPHIBIOUS_ABOUTUS-00-20080221-01-K7AB.JPG&hash=22ff355bd0a7819262002352c21e9331)
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 24, 2009, 09:29:16
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 24, 2009, 14:05:19
Change is always scary..... better the beast you know than the one you don't
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 24, 2009, 14:34:06
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on January 24, 2009, 16:24:44

    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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 24, 2009, 16:39:21
    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.....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 24, 2009, 16:49:58
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on January 24, 2009, 18:20:54
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."  :)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on January 25, 2009, 02:04:40

  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

 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 25, 2009, 08:11:58
Quote
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 25, 2009, 11:11:21
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 25, 2009, 11:45:17
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on January 25, 2009, 12:55:59

  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. 
 
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 25, 2009, 13:06:59


  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 ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 25, 2009, 13:09:03
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 25, 2009, 13:12:47
Don2wing how about you listen to those that actually know a thing or two about what we need for a FWSAR Airframe.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 25, 2009, 14:31:28
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on January 25, 2009, 14:54:00
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 25, 2009, 15:04:01
                                  Italy has Italian owned aircraft and helicopter manufacturers,

So does Canada but unfortunately, none of them build what we require.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 25, 2009, 15:04:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 25, 2009, 15:27:00
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on January 25, 2009, 17:15:31
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).

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 25, 2009, 17:50:34
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on January 25, 2009, 18:10:15
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.   ::)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: KingKikapu on January 25, 2009, 22:51:36
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on January 26, 2009, 01:54:09
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.

 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on January 26, 2009, 02:30:33
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 26, 2009, 08:56:18
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: karl28 on January 26, 2009, 11:36:52
             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 ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Colin P on January 26, 2009, 11:58:52
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on January 26, 2009, 12:06:16
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on February 01, 2009, 18:02:59
27 in A-stan

http://worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/2009/02/italian-af-c-27js-complete-afghan.html


nice video.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on February 01, 2009, 19:41:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on February 01, 2009, 20:56:13
  Kirkhill,
              What version of the Buffalo are you commenting on, the existing CC-115 or the DHC-5NG?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 01, 2009, 20:59:27
Gonna go out on the limb and say he's talking about the existing Buffalo airframe and not the CONCEPTUAL one by Viking.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on February 01, 2009, 21:15:08

 So we are talking not new airframes, but the old Buffs and not upgraded.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on February 01, 2009, 21:34:06
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on February 01, 2009, 21:47:26
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 01, 2009, 21:50:28

You can crawl back in now Sapper.  Yes, I am talking about actual, "available" airframes.



Good, since I'm afraid of heights  ;D
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on February 01, 2009, 21:52:43
Good, since I'm afraid of heights  ;D

So that's why you picked a trade making holes is it?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on February 01, 2009, 22:41:03
 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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 01, 2009, 22:50:35
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on February 01, 2009, 22:55:32

 Yes, of course but else is to be flying this aircraft?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on February 01, 2009, 22:58:15
Yes, of course but else is to be flying this aircraft?

Who ******* cares ?

What does the CH-148 have to do with FWSAR and the non-existence of the DHC-5NG ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on February 01, 2009, 23:03:36
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"
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 01, 2009, 23:05:08
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on February 01, 2009, 23:09:43
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?!
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 01, 2009, 23:20:44
Concept my *** they fly over my house day in and day out bringing workers to the rigs.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 01, 2009, 23:34:04
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on February 02, 2009, 12:43:52
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/index.php/topic,83535.0.html
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 02, 2009, 12:44:27
Who ******* 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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 02, 2009, 12:46:38
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/index.php/topic,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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on February 02, 2009, 13:06:56
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 ******* 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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on February 02, 2009, 13:47:21
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on February 02, 2009, 14:37:24
frig it...you guys know best...........

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 02, 2009, 15:07:39
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.

Hence why they use the god damn hercs, Buffalos are used only in BC .

EDITED TO FIX QUOTING BOXES
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 02, 2009, 15:12:06
Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 02, 2009, 16:53:42
 :brickwall:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on February 02, 2009, 17:02:07
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...)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Journeyman on February 02, 2009, 17:12:17
Oh go on, it just sounds silly when you say it that way   ;)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GDawg on February 02, 2009, 17:18:59
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on February 02, 2009, 17:53:12
 and MAATS . . .   now there's a home grown money sink.

Based on the proven Canadian CAATS technology. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on February 03, 2009, 01:11:07
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on February 03, 2009, 05:22:32
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 03, 2009, 05:43:54
... and that,s why we regularly stage out of places like Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqualuit, Resolute, Kuujuaq & Goose Bay.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on February 03, 2009, 05:57:39
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. 

You left out 444 in Goose Bay........Who lost a Griffon on a SAR mission soon after they came into service.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 03, 2009, 06:04:27
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on February 03, 2009, 10:32:16


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.

Quote
their bad

Nope.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on February 03, 2009, 10:38:03
.  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 from: CDN Aviatior
Their secondary role is to maintain 12-hour SAR standby for national SAR taskings.

Just like 407 recently, eh?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on February 03, 2009, 13:25:13
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on February 03, 2009, 13:27:06
Perhaps the strict Australian Regulations and Restrictions placed on importing food products would be a factor here.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on February 03, 2009, 15:08:04
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. 
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on February 03, 2009, 15:13:59
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 ?

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GDawg on February 03, 2009, 15:28:42
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on February 03, 2009, 19:17:58
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: KingKikapu on February 04, 2009, 04:30:21
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 04, 2009, 09:01:41
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: justthefacts on February 04, 2009, 11:20:30
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.





Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 04, 2009, 12:28:29
Ummm - justthefacts:
By curiosity - your being new here & all: do you have a personal interest in the selection of the C27J ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on February 04, 2009, 12:40:52
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 04, 2009, 12:46:46
Stuart McCarthy,
Bluesky Strategy Group,
(for Research Canada)
613-2XX-3512 x 229 or
 613-7XX-4321 (cell),
stuart@blueskystrategygroup.com
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Bomber on February 04, 2009, 14:10:03
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"
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 05, 2009, 20:20:15
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 08, 2009, 13:41:17
A letter in the Ottawa Sun, Feb. 7:
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/2009/02/07/8299201-sun.html

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: geo on February 08, 2009, 18:56:41
... good letter Col Pellerin - can't argue with that... (though I know many who will)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 10, 2009, 22:25:24
Torch post:

Defence procurement scandal!!!
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/defence-procurement-scandal.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 27, 2009, 10:24:46
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Babbling Brooks on March 27, 2009, 11:43:54
Quote
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: tango22a on March 27, 2009, 11:53:20
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on March 27, 2009, 12:06:03
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."

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on March 27, 2009, 12:36:28


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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 27, 2009, 12:37:32
Just so I'm clear - Has Alenia agreed to the 100% industrial offset?


Matthew. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: TimBit on March 27, 2009, 12:45:35
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on March 27, 2009, 12:52:22
there is no urgent operational requirement,

You havent seen the CC-115 and CC-130E serviceability rates lately have you
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: TimBit on March 27, 2009, 12:56:57
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'?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on March 27, 2009, 12:59:49
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).

.... 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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: TimBit on March 27, 2009, 13:05:37

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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on March 27, 2009, 13:15:07
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.


Quote
Are the rates worse than the Sea Kings'?

Probably in the same league.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on March 27, 2009, 13:22:31
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on March 27, 2009, 13:35:35
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.









Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on March 27, 2009, 13:55:35
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: TimBit on March 27, 2009, 14:00:36
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: TimBit on March 27, 2009, 14:04:33
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: KingKikapu on March 27, 2009, 14:15:52
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ScottS on March 27, 2009, 14:44:52
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..
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on March 27, 2009, 14:59:20
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on March 27, 2009, 15:17:46
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on March 27, 2009, 15:22:32
You are correct there.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on March 27, 2009, 16:15:29
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on March 27, 2009, 16:27:58
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

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on March 27, 2009, 16:42:03
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: KJK on March 27, 2009, 16:58:34
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 :cdn:
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on March 27, 2009, 17:39:18
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: TimBit on March 27, 2009, 17:40:34
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on March 28, 2009, 00:32:45
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.

Quote
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 ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 28, 2009, 13:20:45
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on March 28, 2009, 15:19:12
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 28, 2009, 16:09:46
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on March 28, 2009, 17:43:12
LGen Watt needs a better PAff O.  Friday afternoon press conferences get lost in the weekend.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 28, 2009, 20:59:01
dapaterson:
Quote
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
Title: FWSAR - Industry Canada hits the brakes on $3B project
Post by: MCG on June 10, 2009, 08:46:51
Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 10, 2009, 09:23:30
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.

Title: Defence Department under fire over $3B plane contract
Post by: CANADIAN F0RCES on June 10, 2009, 09:35:32


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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on June 10, 2009, 09:38:07
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on June 10, 2009, 10:14:05
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?

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 10, 2009, 10:56:11
This is, essentially, a public relations “war” between a small handful of defence contractors and three Conservative ministers:  The Hon. Peter MacKay (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/bio.asp?id=46), The Hon. Tony Clement (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/bio.asp?id=69) and The Hon. Christian Paradis (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/bio.asp?id=80). 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 (http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1575694) 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.


Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on June 10, 2009, 11:09:31
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on June 10, 2009, 11:23:30
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: YZT580 on June 10, 2009, 11:42:30
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on June 10, 2009, 12:14:07
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".





Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: George Wallace on June 10, 2009, 12:26:23
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Baden Guy on June 10, 2009, 13:24:16
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 10, 2009, 13:27:17
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 10, 2009, 16:56:30
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: blogwatcher on June 10, 2009, 17:30:13
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.
 




Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Don2wing on June 10, 2009, 23:15:10
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on June 11, 2009, 00:34:31
.......and battle is rejoined.

I wonder if Zoomie and KJ will get a new ride before they retire?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: blogwatcher on June 11, 2009, 15:42:16
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on June 11, 2009, 18:28:52
Keep in mind, though, that Italy's SAR requirements are exponentially less than Canada's.  Indeed, Europe as a whole is smaller...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 11, 2009, 20:09:49
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Rescue Randy on June 11, 2009, 21:38:34
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.

Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on June 12, 2009, 01:06:35
I was always under the impression that the crew day, when on call, starts from the moment you receive the call at home.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 12, 2009, 01:33:49
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 (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)
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: kj_gully on June 12, 2009, 02:10:43
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$$
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,
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 12, 2009, 13:05:47
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: blogwatcher on June 12, 2009, 15:17:53
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. 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on June 12, 2009, 18:25:29
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: GAP on July 20, 2009, 17:48:17
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 (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rescue-required-canadas-searchandrescue-aircraft-program-03350/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_medium=textlink)

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
 
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: ezbeatz on August 10, 2009, 21:48:34
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Good2Golf on August 10, 2009, 22:29:05
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*
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on August 11, 2009, 15:45:00
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Loachman on August 11, 2009, 23:00:24
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.

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".

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.

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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: pylon on October 10, 2009, 08:52:56
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
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: hauger on January 28, 2010, 12:11:36
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)?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 28, 2010, 12:16:23
That system is NOT a FLIR.......
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: hauger on January 28, 2010, 14:30:32
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 28, 2010, 14:42:13
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/

Quote
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 ?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: hauger on January 28, 2010, 15:31:32
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 (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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 28, 2010, 16:37:44
 ::)

Back to SAR planes......i like planes.....
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 30, 2010, 04:14:46
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Haletown on January 30, 2010, 10:56:59
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Ditch on January 31, 2010, 14:57:50
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?
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: MCG on January 31, 2010, 15:24:04
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on January 31, 2010, 21:26:44
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: aesop081 on January 31, 2010, 21:47:01
  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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: SupersonicMax on January 31, 2010, 22:33:06
This isn't legacy software, but brand spanking new software.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Loachman on February 01, 2010, 01:35:50
FLIR is also a manufacturer: http://www.flir.com/CA/
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: Chris Pook on March 17, 2010, 10:14:21
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.
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: dapaterson on March 17, 2010, 10:23:45
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...
Title: Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
Post by: NFLD Sapper on March 19, 2010, 12:11:25
News Room
 
Canadian fixed-wing search and rescue
BG–10.005 - March 18, 2010 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3304)

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.


(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forces.gc.ca%2Fsite%2Fnews-nouvelles%2Fimages%2Ffig1.jpg&hash=0f5cf2252da475aeea9946b754fbfbfd)
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.


(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forces.gc.ca%2Fsite%2Fnews-nouvelles%2Fimages%2Ffig2.jpg&hash=b833aa21f0b948ac24d5fbe69650a71a)
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,