Author Topic: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities  (Read 777740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 28,492
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,424
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2005, 18:34:50 »
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!
Per Ardua Ad Astra

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2005, 19:39:18 »
  As it is, we have been told to extend the life of the Buff until at least 2012 - totally unacceptable!

Holly f*** !!!

Offline sandhurst91

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #52 on: April 01, 2005, 05:31:00 »
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...




Offline X-Rigger

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16
  • Who says beavers can't fly?!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #53 on: April 01, 2005, 08:40:39 »
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


Offline sandhurst91

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #54 on: April 03, 2005, 19:56:40 »
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.


Offline 404SqnAVSTeach

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 96
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2005, 06:20:29 »
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
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

Offline sandhurst91

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2005, 08:18:03 »
heheh... maybe the Bulgarian media know something we don't...

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2005, 16:19:29 »
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.



« Last Edit: April 07, 2005, 16:26:17 by Wizard of OZ »
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline sandhurst91

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2005, 17:28:57 »
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.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 28,492
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,424
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #59 on: April 07, 2005, 17:47:57 »
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.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,231
  • CH124 Driver
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2005, 17:55:00 »
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.

You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 180,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,388
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #61 on: April 07, 2005, 18:32:27 »
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
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #62 on: April 07, 2005, 20:33:40 »
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
« Last Edit: April 07, 2005, 20:42:43 by Sam69 »

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #63 on: April 07, 2005, 20:57:45 »
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 .

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #64 on: April 07, 2005, 21:13:25 »
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

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #65 on: April 07, 2005, 21:17:09 »
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

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 180,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,388
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #66 on: April 07, 2005, 21:59:32 »
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.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #67 on: April 08, 2005, 06:03:34 »
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 ?

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #68 on: April 08, 2005, 06:22:41 »
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."

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #69 on: April 08, 2005, 10:20:24 »
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.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 155,585
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,542
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #70 on: April 08, 2005, 10:55:47 »
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?

Offline bossi

  • "vae soli, vae victus"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 2,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,764
  • The puck stops here ('War On Ice'!) Fight Smarter!
    • My pix (on MSN)
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #71 on: April 08, 2005, 11:08:27 »
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
Junior officers and NCOs who neglect to guide the thinking of their men are shirking a command responsibility.
-Feb 1955 Cbt Forces Journal
Those who appreciate true valour should in their daily intercourse set gentleness first and aim to win the love and esteem of others. If you affect valour and act with violence, the world will in the end detest you and look upon you as wild beasts. Of this you should take heed.
-Emperor Meiji: Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, 4 January 1883

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #72 on: April 08, 2005, 11:27:55 »
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 !

Offline RangerBoy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 109
  • I
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #73 on: April 08, 2005, 12:32:03 »
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 ...
"Canadians are good fighters, but their politicians are weak."
Mullah Dadullah Akhund (late)

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #74 on: April 08, 2005, 13:00:00 »
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.