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

[SupersonicMax]

And even the US doesn't use it as Domestic SAR...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Isn't it because their domestic SAR is NOT military? In fact, in the US, isn't SAR, other than maritime SAR which is a Coast Guard responsibility, a State function instead of a Federal one?

 

[SupersonicMax]

The Coast Guard is responsible for Marine SAR.  They use helicopters.

USAF has 4 rescue wings (ANGs or AFRC) which do a similar role than our SAR squadrons across the country (albeit within their States).  None of them have V-22.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Like I said out of the box thinking, back in the day many SAR aircraft were flying boats and no helicopters, bit by bit the helo's took over many of the roles and flying boats faded away. My suggestion was to borrow them and their crews to try out ideas. I suspect the SAR techs would be quite stoked to take part.

 

[Kirkhill]

But do not over-simplify, either.

Where would the GCS (Ground Control Station) be? Range is limited. If you are suggesting an airborne control station, why not just keep the controlling aircraft overhead and use an onboard MX-15 or similar sensor to do the job?

UAVs are more weather-limited than manned aircraft. Not many are able to see through cloud, or operate under it - and lower altitudes also compromise range from the GCS.

Of suitable minimum length?

With instrument approaches in the event of poor weather?

A Griffon takes several hours to re-assemble, if transported by C17. It takes at least a day if transported by C130. A Chinook takes two days to re-assemble if deployed by C17. Similar time is required to prep and load. There are few small airfields around that have hangars, and doing this work outside, especially in cold or poor weather, is not easy.

And is not the easy or practical solution that some might think.

I bow.  :nod:

 

[Loachman]

A UAV tour and a little experience stuffing helicopters into fat seized-wing machines shows the deficiencies and/or problems with both.

We do not like putting Griffons into Hercs at all. We've probably done it, but I do not remember when, if ever.

There is not much space in a Herc around a Griffon-sized helicopter. In September 1983, a MAMS crew in Trenton tried to impress their supervisor, who'd wandered into the hangar in search of porcelain, with their abilities to load one of three Bardufoss-bound Twin Hueys into the back of a Herc. They ended up winching it in too far, thereby smunching the nose of the Slug and the forward bulkhead of the Herc cargo area. Neither machine went to Norway, and both were laid up for extended periods. One of the remaining Slugs turned out to be US on arrival as well. Our three Kiowas, more happily, were all just fine at the other end.

We can put three Griffons (and the crews and enough techs, with pers kit) into a C17, and the rotor mast can remain in place on all of them. Other than the first one going into KAF, wherein the C17's ramp was lowered while the tailboom was still chained to it, I cannot remember any damage being done - and we do this several times each year.

Main rotor blades, horizontal stabilizers, and one tailrotor blade of the rear-most Griffon have to come off, and that requires something sturdy and safe for a bunch of guys to stand on.

It's only been done once with a Chinook, so far, as a trial run.

 

[Ostrozac]

We do not like putting Griffons into Hercs at all. We've probably done it, but I do not remember when, if ever.

Isn't that how we got them to and from Alert and Eureka for Op Hurricane, back in the day? It's probably a C-17 role now, but I thought there was plenty of experience loading and unloading Griffons for C-130 move to Ellesmere Island.

 

[dimsum]

Where would the GCS (Ground Control Station) be? Range is limited. If you are suggesting an airborne control station, why not just keep the controlling aircraft overhead and use an onboard MX-15 or similar sensor to do the job?

UAVs are more weather-limited than manned aircraft. Not many are able to see through cloud, or operate under it - and lower altitudes also compromise range from the GCS.

I agree that UAVs/RPAs/"whatever the fashionable name is these days" have their limitations, but if it is controlled via SATCOM, then range becomes less of an issue.  You still would need a Launch and Recovery Element at whatever airfield/airport you take off/recover from, though.  Also, if landing/takeoff is automatic (not hand-flown), then the airfield will probably need to have been pre-surveyed for DGPS markers, etc. 

Of course, this is assuming MALE (Reaper) or larger RPA vice ScanEagle.

 

[Loachman]

I agree that UAVs/RPAs/"whatever the fashionable name is these days" have their limitations, but if it is controlled via SATCOM, then range becomes less of an issue.  You still would need a Launch and Recovery Element at whatever airfield/airport you take off/recover from, though.  Also, if landing/takeoff is automatic (not hand-flown), then the airfield will probably need to have been pre-surveyed for DGPS markers, etc. 

Of course, this is assuming MALE (Reaper) or larger RPA vice ScanEagle.

Yup, but I was only adressing the original points. Is satellite feasible in the Arctic? Are we dependent upon geo-stationary satellites for UAV control?

Weather limits still apply. Sperwer was able to operate when other UAVS - and all seized-wing and occasionally helicopters - could not, as we operated lower than Scan Eagle did, and were heavier and more robust. Synthetic Aperture Radar on B1 consistently failed to impress us - they could not tell the difference between wild dogs and motorcycles.

 

[Loachman]

Isn't that how we got them to and from Alert and Eureka for Op Hurricane, back in the day? It's probably a C-17 role now, but I thought there was plenty of experience loading and unloading Griffons for C-130 move to Ellesmere Island.

I was never a Slug driver, so cannot say that we ever did or not. I do know that at least some Hurricanes involved self-deployment. Self-deployment was the norm for the Griffon until C17 came along. That can be a comically frustrating effort, though. I've seen it drag out for six weeks - weather, things breaking that do not normally break, wrong replacement parts being sent (I always advise people to look in the box rather than trust what's on the label as a result of a 400 Squadron deployment several years ago; the box said "Left Hand Windscreen, but, of course, contained a ...), haphazard commercial deliveries, no hangars in which to cure temperature-dependant sealants, rescues by Rangers when the weather is too bad to get the last five or ten miles, no useable fuel caches...

We do a mix now, but there is no guarantee which is best. C17s break, too.

Whatever decision is made appears to always be the wrong one.

 

[kev994]

I don't get what you are adding by having a scan eagle on scene. The whole point of keeping the Hercules on scene after finding the search object is that it carries ~10,000 lbs of equipment that may be useful if the situation on the ground changes. You may as well skip the UAV and tell casualties that we need to save gas money so they should call us on the sat phone when they think they're about to die of exposure.

 

[Good2Golf]

Isn't that how we got them to and from Alert and Eureka for Op Hurricane, back in the day? It's probably a C-17 role now, but I thought there was plenty of experience loading and unloading Griffons for C-130 move to Ellesmere Island.

Twin Hueys regularly, yes.  Griffons, rarely.

 

[Harrigan]

I was never a Slug driver, so cannot say that we ever did or not. I do know that at least some Hurricanes involved self-deployment. Self-deployment was the norm for the Griffon until C17 came along. That can be a comically frustrating effort, though. I've seen it drag out for six weeks - weather, things breaking that do not normally break, wrong replacement parts being sent (I always advise people to look in the box rather than trust what's on the label as a result of a 400 Squadron deployment several years ago; the box said "Left Hand Windscreen, but, of course, contained a ...), haphazard commercial deliveries, no hangars in which to cure temperature-dependant sealants, rescues by Rangers when the weather is too bad to get the last five or ten miles, no useable fuel caches...

We do a mix now, but there is no guarantee which is best. C17s break, too.

Whatever decision is made appears to always be the wrong one.

:nod:

Absolutely true!

 

[Spencer100]

I would guess this puts the KC-390 out of the running, if it every really was in. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/165779/embraer-delays-kc_390-delivery%2C-warns-of-defense-revenue-drop.html

In the end it will be back to the two plane competition is was 10 years ago.

 

[YZT580]

At least the delays are getting shorter.  Final date for submissions put off until January

 

[The Bread Guy]

At least the delays are getting shorter.  Final date for submissions put off until January

More on that here, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) ....

The two confirmed bidders for Canada's long-running fixed-wing search and rescue requirement (FWSAR) are using the latest in a long line of delays to the process to hone their offers.

Ottawa has been attempting to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) fleet of six aged de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalos and 13 Lockheed Martin CC-130 Hercules since 2004, with the latest request for proposals issued in March this year.

Submissions were originally due by 28 September but, faced with a highly complex set of capability-based requirements contained in a document numbering over 4,000 pages, bidders were in some cases forced to make assumptions about what was required.

As a result, the nation's Public Works and Government Services Canada procurement body has extended the deadline to 11 January 2016.

So far, only Airbus Defence & Space and Alenia Aermacchi – along with their Canadian partners – have confirmed their participation in the FWSAR contest, offering the C295 and C-27J Spartan, respectively. However, Embraer and Lockheed Martin may also respond to the tender.

"I think this is actually a good thing because it will allow us to make sure the aircraft and mission system and so on are all able to move forward," says Steve Lucas, a strategic advisor to Alenia-led Team Spartan and former Canadian Forces chief of air staff.

"We consider ourselves in a much better position now to provide Canada with what it wants in the way of a solid bid."

Lucas says the RFP stipulates that bidders must submit both three- and four-base solutions, with an option to also offer a fifth base, if needed, to meet the requirements.

"Alenia doesn't have that issue. Our submission is only the three- and four-base bids."

He declines to be drawn on the number of aircraft it has proposed, only noting that an earlier RFP called for 15 units. Alenia's bid is "plus or minus" that figure, he says.

Airbus, meanwhile, says it will be able to satisfy the requirements "using Canada’s existing basing structure". The RCAF's fixed-wing SAR fleet operates from four locations, with a fifth site providing rotary-wing cover.

Describing the C295 as a "proven, reliable and low-risk solution", Airbus says the deadline extension "means that Canada will be able to make the clearest choice and get the aircraft that it needs."

An initial down-select next year will be followed by flight and ground evaluations for the remaining bidders.

Airbus is partnered with Pratt & Whitney Canada, L-3 Wescam, CAE, Vector Aerospace, and Provincial Aerospace as its primary pattern. Team Spartan comprises General Dynamics Canada, IMP Aerospace, KF Aerospace, and CMC Esterline.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I like to see the thoughts of some people who have SAR sqn time on either of those 2 airframes.  Payload, endurance, mountain ops considerations, etc.  I was pretty critical of the 295 as a possible MPA for the UK, but perhaps in this role...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Any new non-Conservative government could well simply, and politically very easily, go without competition for Viking Air new-build Buffalos:
http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-buffalo-specs.htm

http://www.aviationnewsreleases.com/2009/03/viking-eyes-restarting-buffalo-line.html

With lure of foreign sales as with new-build Twotters:
https://www.wingsmagazine.com/operations/the-tenacity-of-a-viking-7359

https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/mark-collins-why-not-just-buy-new-build-viking-air-twotters-for-rcaf/

Cool Viet paint job:

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ostrozac]

Ah, the legend of the Viking Buffalo. Have they even built an airframe yet, or is it still vapourware?

I get the sense that after our recent small "hiccups" with JUSTAS, MMA, Cyclone and Lightning that buying an aircraft that is not even in prototype may not be in the cards. FWSAR has been stalled long enough -- the contract should be signed, soon, and it should be for an aircraft that is actually in production. Which aircraft I'm not picky about, but the FWSAR guys need their planes. Soon.

 

[YZT580]

Viking hasn't even filed a bid, at least not as of yet.  Unless a new government launches a new competition, I don't believe that they even qualify as they do not have an aircraft that is actually flying to supply.  From what I recall, the process requires an aircraft, not a prototype and not a set of plans.  Unfortunately, both aircraft up for tender are less than optimal.