• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

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.

 
I'm outta way outta my lane here, but....

Zoomie said:
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
 
Zoomie said:
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
 
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 .
 
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
 
Infanteer said:
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
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
As if on schedule:

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."
 
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.
 
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?
 
SeaKingTacco said:
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 ...

Infanteer said:
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/threads/29346.0.html
 
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 !
 
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 ...
 
GGboy said:
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.
 
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...
 
sandhurst91 said:
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.
 
aesop081 said:
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)
 
karl28 said:
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.
 
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.......
 
Back
Top