• 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

  • Thread starter Thread starter aesop081
  • Start date Start date
Further to Tony's posting above about the CP take:

Ms. Ambrose expressed sympathy, but offered no quick fixes.“Frankly, when it comes to procurement, I’m a little tired of being told why something can’t be done,” she said.

“I’m also tired of being told I can only get partial buy-in for new ideas because people would rather see things fail first. And I’ve become tired of all of the duplication and competing agendas.

“I am fully aware of all of the internal obstacles to change, but I realize we won’t be able to transform the procurement system overnight.”

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135592/canadian-minister-decries-defense-procurement-problems%2C-promises-fix.html

Rona for the CD Howe award AND for Next PM.
 
Yeah, but once the problem is identified, are they actually going to do something about it..... ::)
 
Normally, politicians need a crisis (read: something that embarrasses the hell out of the prime minister) to spur them to action and to override officials ~ the people who are not afraid to see someone else's programme fail. I don't think the F-35 accounting debacle is a crisis of sufficient magnitude. But, maybe, ships + FWSAR + F-35 + drones might be enough. Sometimes Kevin Page and the media (fed by Page) are our friends.
 
How's this for a solution?

Rona invites the DM's of ND, PWGSC, Industry Canada and Uncle Tom Cobley and all down to Scotiabank Place and tells them to bring as many advisers, consultants and dogs bodies as they like.

When they all get comfortable in their seats she tells them what she wants to do.  The first person that says "You can't do that", she fires on the spot.  The first person that offers a solution to the problem that the firee proposed gets promoted on the spot.  Repeat as necessary until everybody gets the message.

In my history of fantasies and managing projects that is particularly high on my list.  Just behind something involving Catherine Bell and chocolate.....but I digress.....as usual.
 
Poor Buggers at Defense-Aerospace apparently can't follow the bouncing ball anymore than our home grown press-corps (and auditors?) can.

Note the Editor's Rant.

Pentagon Contract Announcement

(Source: US Department of Defense; issued May 31, 2012)

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P., Greenville, Texas, is being awarded a $321,770,026 firm-fixed-price contract to purchase 10 C-27J aircraft, 10 option kits, and one lot each production cost and software reports and contractor logistic support cost and software reports for the Commonwealth of Australia by issuing a delivery order.

The location of the performance is Greenville, Texas. Work is to be completed May 24, 2012.

ASC/WLNJ, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-07-D-0099 0078).


(EDITOR’S NOTE: It is high time for the Australian Ministry of Defence to come clear on the true cost of this purchase, as there are too many contradictions in official statements regarding this contract.

Announcing the deal on May 10, Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the “acquisition of the 10 C-27J aircraft with associated support equipment will be conducted through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) arrangement with the United States at a cost of around $1.4 billion.”

He noted that this price only covered “initial logistic support, including training for aircrew and maintenance personnel…” and that follow-on support would be covered by “a separate agreement with the C-27J manufacturer, Alenia” obviously at additional cost.


The very next day, L-3 Communications announced that it had been selected by Australia to provide C-27Js at “an approximate value of $600 million [which] includes the supply of 10 new C-27J aircraft worth about $300 million, plus contractor logistics support, spares and training.”


There is thus a discrepancy of about $800 million between the two figures, or over 50% of the contract’s value.

Furthermore, the Pentagon contract announced yesterday (see above) confirms L-3’s price estimate, and sets the price of the ten aircraft at precisely $321.7 million.

It is obviously impossible that the “initial logistic support, including training for aircrew and maintenance personnel” described by the minister could account for the difference, or $1,079 million.

There are only very few ways to account for the missing billion+ dollars: (a) supporting the ten aircraft for an “initial” period is three times as expensive as buying them; (b) the minister and his staff can’t count, or (c) the missing billion + is headed elsewhere.

Australia’s defense procurement system is well-known for its cavalier disregard of costs, prices and over-billing, but in this case the discrepancy is so massive that a clear and cogent ministerial explanation is clearly necessary.)

 
Kirkhill said:
.... Rona invites the DM's of ND, PWGSC, Industry Canada and Uncle Tom Cobley and all down to Scotiabank Place and tells them to bring as many advisers, consultants and dogs bodies as they like.

When they all get comfortable in their seats she tells them what she wants to do.  The first person that says "You can't do that", she fires on the spot.  The first person that offers a solution to the problem that the firee proposed gets promoted on the spot.  Repeat as necessary until everybody gets the message ....
Cabinet Minister don't hire/switch/fire DMs - her boss does.
 
Might as well bring him along to the party as well.
 
The Harper government should be looking into a made-in-Canada solution to its search-and-rescue woes, especially when it comes to buying new fixed-wing planes, a new report suggests.

The study, funded by the Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute, was to be released Tuesday at a news conference in Ottawa, but an advance copy was obtained by The Canadian Press.

National Defence has been fuzzy in laying out its expectations for the new search planes, which have been proposed for nearly a decade, warns the report, which raises concern the process will favour large, multinational aircraft-makers — such as U.S.-based Lockheed Martin, Bell-Boeing Co., European aerospace-owned Airbus Inc., and Alenia Aeronautica, of Italy.

Both Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. and Viking Air of Saanich, B.C., are interested in participating in the $3.8 billion program, which the Conservatives have tried and failed to push forward since being elected in 2006.

"The Canadian government should ensure the (statement of requirements) does not preclude consideration of made-in-Canada aircraft," said the report, penned by University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers and research associate Stewart Webb ....
The Canadian Press, 18 Jun 12

This from the Rideau Institute (the same folks who bring you ceasefire.ca) blog:
.... The authors offer three recommendations for the government as they prepare to address Canada’s FWSAR aircraft:

• The Canadian government should clearly articulate a Statement of Operational Requirements (SOR) for Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue aircraft that recognizes the unique requirements on Canada’s West Coast and the necessity of a mixed fleet.

• The Canadian government should ensure the SOR does not preclude consideration of made-in-Canada aircraft.

• The Canadian government should conduct a transparent competition that will provide the Canadian Forces with effective FWSAR aircraft at the best value to Canadians in terms of cost, performance, and jobs.

Most importantly, the authors want to see a clear and open process for acquiring the aircraft. The Statement of Operational Requirements, which outlines the performance specifications that the aircraft must be able to achieve, has never been made public ....
If you don't want to share your e-mail address with the Rideau Institute, you can find the full report here.
 
The latest from MERX (highlights mine):
.... The FWSAR Secretariat is publishing this Letter of Interest (LOI) to inform industry that the summary of the industry workshop held on April 11, 2012 is now available on demand. The FWSAR Secretariat is also ready to release the FWSAR Incidents Database: copies will be provided upon request to the FWSAR Secretariat e mail address: ARSVF.FWSAR@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

UPDATED INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT SCHEDULE

To continue with industry consultations, the FWSAR Secretariat is planning to host another industry workshop on the 17, 18 and 19 October 2012 to discuss specific topics and to entertain one-on-one sessions with potential bidder's team: details to follow. Starting this summer, the FWSAR Secretariat will start sharing elements from the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) ....
Not much more detail in the MERX posting support documents here.
 
.... on "plan to use what we already have" - from the latest amendment to the MERX pacakage (attached):
.... The number of military personnel available for FWSAR must remain within the existing resource envelope of Air Force personnel currently utilized for fixed-wing SAR. Analysis based on existing human resource planning assumptions indicates that a maximum of five Main Operating Bases (MOBs) could be operated within the current RCAF personnel envelope.

The capability to respond to simultaneous FWSAR incidents in each of Canada's three Search and Rescue Regions (SRRs) must be  maintained. For clarity, this means the capability to respond to simultaneous incidents at each of the three extremes (i.e. the North Pole, the eastern boundary of the Halifax SRR (also called "30 West") and the western boundary of the Victoria SRR).

Additionally, one or more FWSAR continuous stand-by aircraft shall be dedicated to each SRR Commander, to enable continuous coverage of their SRR.

Proposals that include changes to the existing MOBs of Comox, Winnipeg, Trenton and Greenwood, or the establishment of a new operating location, must account for all associated costs, including infrastructure.

As previously advised via the Essential Elements document version 2.0, "Each FWSAR unit, located at an MOB, shall be capable of ensuring 99% probability of having one aircraft continually ready to launch on a SAR mission as per mandated standby postures." The term "Main Operating Base (MOB)" includes all annually recurring operating locations. Thus, seasonal operating locations (e.g. 3-6 months each year) would be subject to the 99% requirement ....
 
Viking Air is looking to relaunch production on the de Havilland DHC-5 Buffalo following strong interest in an upgraded version from existing operators of the 50-year-old twin-engined turboprop.

"We launched a market study last month to gauge customer demand, determine the potential size of this market globally and to fully assess the feasibility of relaunching this legacy product," says Rob Mauracher vice president of Viking, which owns the Buffalo's type certificate. "We know there is demand from both commercial operators and governments worldwide as we have already received a couple of letters of intent."



Rest of article here http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-viking-evaluates-market-for-dhc-5-buffalo-relaunch-374237/
 
Colin P said:
Viking Air is looking to relaunch production on the de Havilland DHC-5 Buffalo following strong interest in an upgraded version from existing operators of the 50-year-old twin-engined turboprop.

"We launched a market study last month to gauge customer demand, determine the potential size of this market globally and to fully assess the feasibility of relaunching this legacy product," says Rob Mauracher vice president of Viking, which owns the Buffalo's type certificate. "We know there is demand from both commercial operators and governments worldwide as we have already received a couple of letters of intent."

On top of that I suspect that you could even improve it's STOL abilities  with a tweak or two . Although any shorter of a either take off or landing and you're damn near approaching vertical ! :nod:

Rest of article here http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-viking-evaluates-market-for-dhc-5-buffalo-relaunch-374237/
 
Nothing whatsoever to do with the current topic but the folks at DH did this some 40 years ago. "On top of that I suspect that you could even improve it's STOL abilities  with a tweak or two .  Although any shorter of a either take off or landing and you're damn near approaching vertical !"    Way back when, they developed what was called then an augmenter wing which damned near did go vertical.  If I remember correctly, they also experimented with landing in water on an air cushion; using the wing to give them a near vertical descent. 
 
YZT580 said:
Nothing whatsoever to do with the current topic but the folks at DH did this some 40 years ago. "On top of that I suspect that you could even improve it's STOL abilities  with a tweak or two .  Although any shorter of a either take off or landing and you're damn near approaching vertical !"    Way back when, they developed what was called then an augmenter wing which damned near did go vertical.  If I remember correctly, they also experimented with landing in water on an air cushion; using the wing to give them a near vertical descent.

If that is the case, then it may be appropriate to spend a few federal research dollars to assist in an effort to complete that design and develop it as a replacement for the Twotter.  Not for the FWSAR programme.

The Twotters need to be replaced.  A slightly larger aircraft with a rear ramp that can get into the same places wouldn't go amiss.  And increasing the number of aircraft available to support Northern and Bush operations couldn't be bad.  Plan on a delivery programme starting around 2025 or so, after the F-18 replacement is in place.

That gives time for research, development, prototyping and proving.  And who knows maybe Viking can pull off a mass-market success like the Twotter and the Buffalo.
 
Discovery Air bought out "Top Aces" and has numerous other government contracts.  Do I smell an unsolicited offer to outsource the SAR function, in whole or in part?
 
dapaterson said:
Discovery Air bought out "Top Aces" and has numerous other government contracts.  Do I smell an unsolicited offer to outsource the SAR function, in whole or in part?

Could be interesting. Outsourcing has been tossed around in the past.
 
Back
Top