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

[kj_gully]

Randy works for CASA.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Speaking as someone who hasn't got a clue about SAR (except as a potential 'client') is there any use in our inventory for an aircraft like the V22 Osprey? It seems to have all the flexibility of a helicopter with the range and speed of fixed wing.

Could it replace both the helicopter and fixed wing aircraft in our SAR inventory? 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm

"The aircraft is manned by a pilot, copilot, and enlisted aircrew appropriate for the specific service and type of mission being flown. The V-22 is optimized to transport troops (i.e., 24 combat-equipped Marines, or 10,000 pounds of external cargo) to austere landing sites from aviation capable amphibious ships and expeditionary forward operating bases ashore. The V-22 will be capable of flying over 2,100 nautical miles with one aerial refueling, giving the Services the advantage of a Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing aircraft that can rapidly self-deploy to any location in the world."

 

[kj_gully]

Suggest you search "osprey" or @ least peruse the FWSAR thread in the this forum, it has been discussed, I think you will find your answer.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Speaking as someone who hasn't got a clue about SAR (except as a potential 'client') is there any use in our inventory for an aircraft like the V22 Osprey? It seems to have all the flexibility of a helicopter with the range and speed of fixed wing.

It has also been discussed for other missions in addition to SAR.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Seen. Thanks. Looks like cost and complexity is a big factor. Out.

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

Seen. Thanks. Looks like cost and complexity is a big factor. Out.

I think that the only factor is cost.... purchase and maintenance cost... I can guarantee you that our Techs, with proper training, can maintain any birds out there.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Of course.

Not to try and drag this thread off-topic, but on doing further research (OK, now I'm interested) it looks like the Osprey isn't a huge leap forward performance - wise from other available, cheaper, aircraft.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's accident record is quite high, a very unique aircraft with interesting capabilities, perhaps after it's been in full service for 10 plus years we should consider a similar aircraft.

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

The Dynavert had better record than the Osprey.  They only damaged one due to engine failure.  The Main advantage of the Osprey is its speed.  Vertical take off with fixed wing performance. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not to mention the Rotodyne!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fairey_Rotodyne.jpg

 

[GINge!]

If you draw it, they will come...

Profile I drew of a CF Osprey painted up as a SAR bird per CC-115 markings

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

THis is looking sharp.... again, any aircraft with the SAR scheme looks sharp. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

The more parts are in movements, the more likely it will break.

Max

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just like a rifle company....

 

[Zoomie]

The more parts are in movements, the more likely it will break.

Like a helicopter?  :

 

[SupersonicMax]

More like two huge hubs rotating on themselves!

Max

 

[MarkOttawa]

Just to muddy things (text subscriber only--reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act):
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2007/01/15/AW_01_15_2007_p028-01.xml&query=a400m#

...
Assuming that Airbus Military can hold to its A400M timetable, something that observers widely doubt, the consortium will begin deliveries of its four-engine turboprop at about the same time that the final C-17 enters service. A400M orders are approaching the 200-unit mark, including sales of a dozen aircraft to non-consortium members. South Africa has become a program participant, and Australia, Finland, Norway and Sweden reportedly have shown high interest in the aircraft.

Boeing's exit from the military transport market will leave Lockheed Martin to battle it out with Airbus, EADS CASA and Alenia as the world's air forces implement modernization plans. Whether many of the more than 50 nations that operate the C-130 will trade up to the larger A400M or go with the current C-130J remains to be determined.

One of the most lucrative competitions will be the new U.S. Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA), which could involve as many as 150 units if the requirements of the U.S. Army and Air Force are addressed.

The replacement of about 30 Shorts C-23 Sherpas operated by the Army is a pressing need, but that service and USAF must also deal with aging C-26s (modified Fairchild Metro 23 twin-turboprops) and C-12 Hurons (Beech Super King Air variants). The consensus is that should the JCA program get the go-ahead, aircraft would be procured at relatively modest rates in the next 15-20 years.

Alenia's C-27J is pitted against the EADS CASA C-295. In a Johnny-come-lately fashion, Lockheed Martin jumped in to pitch its C-130J. However, the U.S. Army, the lead service for the program, has already rejected that design.

The program took a new turn in late October when the Air Force said it would pull out of the program if the Army selected the C-295. While this appeared to make the contest a one-horse race, the plot further thickened when a Rand Corp. study commissioned by USAF seemed to provide ammunition for also rejecting the C-27J.

The study concluded that the Alenia candidate offers similar access to forward operating areas as does the spurned C-130J, but noted that the latter would outperform the C-27J if taking off in a one-engine-out scenario. The Rand analysts say the C-27J offers a "very slight" advantage as far as the types of runways it could use, and summed up the competition as one between a "more capable platform for larger payload, longer range missions" (C-130J) and one offering the potential for procuring "more aircraft" (the less expensive C-27J). Officially, a JCA finalist is expected to be named in February, but as of late fall, the program seemed shaky...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Would that equate to the USAF saying "If there is any flying to be done we will do it.  If there is any money for aircraft to be had we will have it.  And we like the C130J." ?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: Er, yes  :

"Army officials want a smaller aircraft that won't be dominated and controlled operationally by the Air Force."
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-us-army-doesnt-want-c-130jairbus.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

And under the title "Coincidental Timing".....

Hub-and-spoke missions provide tactical airlift in Iraq
Staff Sgt. Alice Moore, US Air Force | Jan 16, 2007
 
BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq: Whether it's operating from rough dirt strips or dropping off troops and equipment into hostile areas, C-130 Hercules keep convoys off the road in Iraq through airpower.

Members of the 777th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron deployed from Little Rock Air Force Base, Ark., fly C-130 hub-and-spoke missions daily to ensure cargo and passengers are delivered in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"Each pallet contains something different. We've delivered anything from MREs (meals ready to eat) and water to tires and ammo," said Capt. Matt Reece, aircraft commander.

The missions are based on needs of various locations throughout the area of responsibility and provide supplies to all branches of the military.

"We ensure bases have what they need. The most important impact of our mission is that people stay off the roads here," Captain Reece said.

He also said the tactical airlift saves time and additional effort.

For instance, in one week, C-130 operations can reduce convoy requirements by airlifting the equivalent of cargo carried by more than 22 buses and 42 trucks.

"If we can take two or three trucks off the road each time, then it's worth it. There's definitely less risk with flying," said Senior Airman Michael Buzbee, loadmaster.

One particular mission included transporting members of the 524th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit to Kirkuk Regional Air Base, so maintainers could provide support for fighter operations there.

"This is our only mode of transportation. This helps keep the aircraft operational. The sheer number of hub-and-spoke missions enable us to get there on time," said 1st Lt. Kate Stowe, assistant AMU officer in charge deployed from Luke Air Force Base, Ariz.

The challenge with the hub-and-spoke missions has to do with the amount of time the crew has from start to finish, said Capt. Kenny Bierman, navigator.

"The time we take off to the time we land is usually around 12 hours," Captain
Bierman said. "That's how much time we have to get everything done. We have to be flexible with all the different possibilities of delays."

The delays can be caused by anything from maintenance issues to weather.

"There's no room for errors," Captain Reece said. "For example, if weather delays our operations in one location, we have to find a way to cut time somewhere else to keep us within the amount of time we're given for the mission."

At the end of the day, crew members know that what they do plays a direct role in helping to transition Iraq to democracy, and there comes a deep sense of job satisfaction.

"It's a good feeling to know every day that you're actually accomplishing something," Captain Reece said. "What we're doing here is critical."

See, the Army don't need no stinking C27Js or C295s.  The Air Force is already doing the job with C130s.... 

And to be honest they could be right.  I am pretty sure the real question is "Does the Army believe the Air Force when the Air Force says it can't get an aircraft there?"