Author Topic: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities  (Read 753679 times)

tomydoom, Dolphin_Hunter and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,783
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1750 on: April 28, 2019, 14:59:55 »
Maybe that was the trade off for the wireless ICS (which would rock if it's reliable!)...
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Fred Herriot

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
  • New Recruit
    • http://NA
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1751 on: April 28, 2019, 23:57:00 »
I've read that the Airbus will be designated the CC-295, but what is it being named?  Airbus calls the MPA variant the Persuader.  That's the only name I've ever come across for any variant.

Most likely, it'll be CC-195 since there are still loads of 100-series type numbers available to be used.  As for name, I haven't seen anything.
Non Nobis Sed Patriae
Servire Armatis

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 210,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,027
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1752 on: April 29, 2019, 04:51:37 »
Perhaps they’ll re-use the ‘Chimo’ they tried earlier with the original EH-101 NSH?

Offline Fred Herriot

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 261
  • New Recruit
    • http://NA
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1753 on: April 29, 2019, 14:52:16 »
Oh, yeah.  That would be perfect.  It's in Inuktitut, thus gets around the English/French language requirement.
Non Nobis Sed Patriae
Servire Armatis

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1754 on: April 30, 2019, 19:03:45 »
Oh, yeah.  That would be perfect.  It's in Inuktitut, thus gets around the English/French language requirement.

Yes, of course: Hornet, Buffalo, Twin Otter, Challenger, Globemaster, Tutor, Hawk, Jet Ranger. Yep! The RCAF really pays attention to linguistic balance.  ;)

Offline OceanBonfire

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 119
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1755 on: May 03, 2019, 14:35:12 »
First C295 rollout video

Article Link - Building Canada's first C295

Canada’s dedicated search and rescue (SAR) crews regularly put their lives on the line, relying on aircraft to overcome the significant challenges presented by dangerous weather and terrain.

The requirements for Canadian SAR aircraft have been well-documented – from demanding mountain contour search, Arctic and North Atlantic storms, to extreme temperatures, icing and precipitation. Airbus’ C295, which has been selected for the country’s Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Program, is perfectly suited to these duties.

Canada’s no. 1 C295 is proceeding through its final assembly process, and once all assembly phases are finished – including painting and tests – the milestone aircraft will be inspected by authorities from the Spanish Ministry of Defence (DGAM), with its delivery scheduled for the end of 2019.

* Additional videos in the article;  the 3rd one (Consoles for the management of mission systems and sensors) shows how much headroom etc there is in the tube.

And a CAF article about it days later:


Quote
First CC-295 rolls off assembly line



May 3, 2019 – On March 8, 2019, the first of our 16 new CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft rolled off the assembly line in Spain, bringing us one step closer to first delivery.

This aircraft is the first of 16 to be built following a contract award in December 2016 to Airbus Defence and Space. The CC-295, as it has been designated by the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), will replace the Buffalo and H-model Hercules fleets in the fixed-wing search and rescue role.

The RCAF will operate the new fleet from 19 Wing Comox, 17 Wing Winnipeg, 8 Wing Trenton, and 14 Wing Greenwood. A training centre for CC-295 aircrew and maintainers is also being built at 19 Wing Comox.

The first aircraft is on track to be accepted by Canada in Spain in late 2019, and to be flying in Canadian skies in the spring of 2020.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=476923343048052

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2019/05/28211
Recruiting Center: Montreal
Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
Occupation choice: Logistics Officer
Current application: March 28, 2017
CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
Interview: July 11, 2017
Medical: August 2017
Competition list: October/November 2017
Position Offered: May 25, 2018
Swearing In: August 21, 2018
BMOQ: August 25, 2018
BMOQ Graduation: November 16, 2018

Offline RaceAddict

  • New Member
  • **
  • 2,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 47
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1756 on: July 05, 2019, 10:23:11 »
The first C-295 that will eventually end up in Canada flew for the first time yesterday:

https://twitter.com/Rotorfocus/status/1147141664638668802

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,473
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1757 on: July 05, 2019, 17:47:44 »
Short SAR Techs needed....

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,783
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1758 on: July 06, 2019, 08:51:11 »
Short SAR Techs needed....

From 2 years ago.  Really shows how tight things are inside...https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23889.msg1480492.html#msg1480492

IMO the RAAF got it right, and we didn't.  Same situation with fighters and MPAs.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 08:54:40 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline HappyWithYourHacky

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1759 on: July 06, 2019, 20:10:28 »
From 2 years ago.  Really shows how tight things are inside...https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23889.msg1480492.html#msg1480492

IMO the RAAF got it right, and we didn't.  Same situation with fighters and MPAs.

Watching suit guy walk through the cabin with his head lowered so he doesn't hit it makes me cringe.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,783
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1760 on: July 06, 2019, 22:15:56 »
Yup.  We have more head space than that on the '140 and I get nervous when we're down low, riding a decent sea state;  I usually have one hand on the overhead rail just for insurance.  I'm not walking around with all the kit on you guys have...I feel for the folks who have to work the back end of the 295.

Forget the crappy Wx days, just normal moderate mech can be enough to deal with sometimes if you're not in a seat/strapped in. 
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,962
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,406
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1761 on: July 07, 2019, 13:01:12 »
We don’t have our crews walking around the cabin during turbulent flying conditions.   They are usually strapped into their spotter positions.   The cabin height is almost the same as what Cormorant crews experience in the back, the STs will be fine.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,783
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1762 on: July 08, 2019, 16:45:48 »
One of them seems to be 'cringing' from the video.   ;D
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline HappyWithYourHacky

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1763 on: July 09, 2019, 20:32:14 »
We don’t have our crews walking around the cabin during turbulent flying conditions.



I've been up an walking around in turbulent conditions more times than I can count. I'll admit though, it is usually (not always though) during a tasking thus 'justified'.

Quote
The cabin height is almost the same as what Cormorant crews experience in the back, the STs will be fine.

 The Cormorant cabin isn't as round as the 295. The 295 looks like it'll get more difficult to work in the more one strays off the center line of the aircraft. Plus working in a  SAR fixed wing cabin is quite different than working on a rotary wing so not totally comparable.

I suppose it doesn't really matter as that's what we have. More padding for the neck claims when the time comes.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 20:43:12 by HappyWithYourHacky »

Offline cld617

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1764 on: July 10, 2019, 10:06:46 »
The cabin height is almost the same as what Cormorant crews experience in the back, the STs will be fine.

Tell them that after they've been throwing thousands of lbs of flares out the back on a search while hunched over.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,783
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1765 on: July 10, 2019, 14:40:10 »
We don’t have our crews walking around the cabin during turbulent flying conditions.   They are usually strapped into their spotter positions.   The cabin height is almost the same as what Cormorant crews experience in the back, the STs will be fine.

After thought and not to pick fly crap out of pepper...but don't spotters rotate every XX minutes?  I've not done as much SAR as SAR Sqn folks do, but I have done some (maritime and overland)...folks still have to move around.

Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 746
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1766 on: July 10, 2019, 14:49:56 »
6 hours in transit, someone is going to have to hit the head.  You can't prepare for a jump without standing up

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,962
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,406
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1767 on: July 10, 2019, 18:11:29 »
I'll say it again - our STs and crews will be fine.  We take what we have been given and adapt.  The Buff and the Herc are not SAR platforms - we adapted and dealt with what we had.

Nobody on these forums have any idea of what the future of FWSAR will be - I'm currently flying the Buff and I have no idea.  I am happy to have a new platform from which we will carry out Canada's SAR mandate. 
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,783
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1768 on: July 10, 2019, 20:36:12 »
I'll say it again - our STs and crews will be fine.

Maybe it will "be fine";  I don't think that is the same as "being ideal'...I see potential for head/neck injuries from (1) the lack of headroom, and (2) my experience flying mid and tail section in FW aircraft.

Will the 295 do the job?  I'm sure it will, and SAR crews and Sqn's will adjust and employ it to the max capability.

My overall point though, is the Spartan was the better platform IMO and would have been a better choice for FWSAR.  I know...water under the bridge long ago, and if I was in or going to the SAR community, I'd want to focus on 'looking ahead' not over my shoulder.

Curious;  how much smaller is the working end of the Buff (width, height) compared to the 295?  There was a comparison to the Corm earlier...I've flown in those.  I've never been in a Buff.  I've not been up close to a 295 yet, but I have a 235.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 21:02:34 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,962
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,406
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1769 on: July 11, 2019, 10:09:40 »
Categorically - every operator of the C-27J have expressed buyers remourse and it has enjoyed a 10% serviceability rate.  It was a close save that we aligned with Airbus and not Alenia.  The USAF dumped their fleet without shedding a tear.  We dodged a lemon.

Working space is at a premium, but, like I said, future SAR is not what we have been doing.  We’re moving away from our current system of building up bundles in the back and moving towards a containerized approach.  The toboggan is going away.  We won’t throw as many LUU’s since we will all be under NODs and have an electronic eye.

There will be plenty of complainers, especially from the 130 fleet.

Per Ardua Ad Astra

Online Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 392
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1770 on: July 11, 2019, 10:24:54 »
Just a point, I think the dumping of the USAF's C27J was more of a intermural fight between Army and USAF.  The original order was placed by the ARMY then put with the USAF.  Keywest agreement and all.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 746
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1771 on: July 11, 2019, 10:53:04 »
Just a point, I think the dumping of the USAF's C27J was more of a intermural fight between Army and USAF.  The original order was placed by the ARMY then put with the USAF.  Keywest agreement and all.
Sounds very similar to the Buffalo, Caribou saga.

Offline HappyWithYourHacky

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1772 on: July 11, 2019, 11:48:15 »
Quote
Working space is at a premium, but, like I said, future SAR is not what we have been doing.


This I agree with. In fact, I'd be willing to take it a step further and question whether dedicated FWSAR(in it's current form) is necessary at all...but that is a whole other giant can of worms that really doesn't matter.

Quote
The toboggan is going away.

Sure, but there will still be manouvering of heavy equipment happening in the back. Hell simply getting ready for confined area para is a pain in the best of cabin spaces.

Quote
We won’t throw as many LUU’s since we will all be under NODs and have an electronic eye.

Some of the longest nights throwing flares are generally for other SAR agencies. I would wager that isn't about to change.

Quote
There will be plenty of complainers, especially from the 130 fleet.

This complainer's opinion comes from  extensive time working in the back of all four SAR platforms. Ergonomics matters for us. (Don't get me started on the 146 ;D)

Anyways, like I said earlier, it really doesn't matter at this point....it is what it is. The 295 has significant advantages over our laughably old FWSAR fleet that is to the benefit of our clients. Ultimately, this is what matters the most.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 11:53:33 by HappyWithYourHacky »

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,783
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1773 on: July 11, 2019, 14:59:40 »
Categorically - every operator of the C-27J have expressed buyers remourse and it has enjoyed a 10% serviceability rate.  It was a close save that we aligned with Airbus and not Alenia.  The USAF dumped their fleet without shedding a tear.  We dodged a lemon.

Well...that I didn't know.  I'd heard the RAAF was pretty happy with them and never dug deeper. 

That electronic eye will be a help in some cases, and in others, it will be a bigger job to explain to people it's caps/lims.  I recall being called in on R12 to 'do an IR search for a PIW'...who'd been in the water for 24ish hours.   :facepalm:  From a sensor op POV....it is going to be a nice piece of kit to crew.  The rollout plan doesn't match up with my QOL *stuff* so I'm off to different pastures, but I know people are looking forward to the chance to change fleets.
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Online Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 16,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1774 on: July 11, 2019, 15:10:51 »
Aren’t we getting Kestrel (or something similar) on the FWSAR bird?

This would greatly enhance the detection capability of our newest toy.

http://www.sentientvision.com/products/kestrel-maritime/#1453962295872-a8e957ea-f104