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

[Kirkhill]

Nuvver interesting link on the C27J.

The Aussie National Audit Office report on the C27J

Battlefield Airlifter - Australian National Audit Office
https://www.anao.gov.au/file/32396/download?token=hqDQV4c2

You will have to cut and paste the headline into your search engine.  I couldn't establish a link to the pdf.

Big issue appears to have been in getting ahold of spares via the US Foreign Military Sales programme, as well as training, after the USAF reneged on the US Army contract.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

There is no doubt that Airbus will be the better support company, just that the plane they offer is not going to be as useful as the C-27J.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Colin,

Procurement is not about buying the best platform but buying a good enough platform.  Comparing platforms and saying “this one is way better” is futile when the one we chose meets our requirements.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Only if your requirements are correct and coherent

 

[Good2Golf]

It’s not ‘better’ if it has a significantly lower serviceability and operational availability rate because of, amongst other factors, a small, unique supply chain.

Ex. “It uses the same engine as the C-130J.”  A generalization, but by specific model that an operator must procure from Rolls Royce for spares, not true. While the difference between an AE2100-D2A (Spartan’s engine) and an AE2100-D3 (Herc’s) engine may seem like a ‘dash number’ (D2A vs D3) one has about 250-300 articles in circulation and supported worldwide while the other has 10,000’s in life-cycle management. Internal components aside, users pay for uniqueness.

Perhaps if SAR Techs needed to carry a HMMV and an air-droppable RHIB all the time perhaps the the C-27J would have been the better machine, but I look to experts like Ditch to provide the practical view of the role and the tools provided.  Having a suite of advanced sensors and a modern mission management system on-board seem to be significant enhancements, no matter the platform, to the SAR mission - glad that rescuers are getting those tools after all.

Regards
G2G

 

[dimsum]

It’s not ‘better’ if it has a significantly lower serviceability and operational availability rate because of, amongst other factors, a small, unique supply chain.

Perhaps if SAR Techs needed to carry a HMMV and an air-droppable RHIB all the time perhaps the the C-27J would have been the better machine, but I look to experts like Ditch to provide the practical view of the role and the tools provided.  Having a suite of advanced sensors and a modern mission management system on-board seem to be significant enhancements, no matter the platform, to the SAR mission - glad that rescuers are getting those tools after all.

Exactly.  Headroom aside (which is valid), I think people are getting hung up that the back end will have to still use the same kit configuration in the 295 as in the Buff/Herc, and also forgetting the impact of the new systems (EO/IR and presumably search radar).  Those new systems will change the requirement for kit carried, and reduce the amount of flares needed at night since visual search isn't necessarily the first option now. 

This may then open up the can of worms that if a "flare truck" is what we need, do we then use Hercs/Auroras as those with a SAR load (which we already have in the Aurora) as that and just have the 295 drop SAR Techs with their gear?  :dunno:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I understand it the "new systems" are a common requirement of the contract. A C27J made by Airbus would have been my dream choice, i fully get that Aliena does not have a great track record of support and I suspect that was a factor.

 

[YZT580]

To change thoughts for a moment, I would think that time in transit is the most critical drawback to the airbus.  How many call-outs in the last year have required 5  or more hours in transit for the hercs before they arrived in the search area?  Response time to the territories and to mid-Atlantic will be critical.  The preferred speed in the requirements document is 50 knots or there-abouts greater than that of what we bought.  Without forward positioning of a/c I don't see a way around it, and who wants TD in Stephenville or Churchill?

 

[Good2Golf]

And Tac Hel would ‘prefer’ an Apache, and LRPA ‘prefer’ HD imaging and conformal BLOSCOM and Transport ‘prefer’ to have 8 C-17s and Fighter Force ‘prefer’ to no be flying 37-year old planes...

Desirable (Preferred) does not equal Mandatory in the operational requirements of the procurement world.

G2G

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Exactly.  Headroom aside (which is valid), I think people are getting hung up that the back end will have to still use the same kit configuration in the 295 as in the Buff/Herc, and also forgetting the impact of the new systems (EO/IR and presumably search radar).  Those new systems will change the requirement for kit carried, and reduce the amount of flares needed at night since visual search isn't necessarily the first option now. 

This may then open up the can of worms that if a "flare truck" is what we need, do we then use Hercs/Auroras as those with a SAR load (which we already have in the Aurora) as that and just have the 295 drop SAR Techs with their gear?  :dunno:

I've said this a few times;  EOIR is not the end all, be all.  I've done night martime SAR and EOIR is next to useless sometimes, where a searchlight like the Argus had (70 million candlepower) would always be useful.  This was also true when we were on the SAR for the down helo IVO Timmins last winter.  I think both tools are required for SAR.  Putting all your eggs in the EOIR basket isn't the best COA. 

WRT to getting people to understand, or dealing with those who think they understand sensor employment...on the Timmins helo SAR...someone dufus actually asked if we were using MAD during our search.  :rofl: The same will come with Imaging Radar, EOIR...etc.  Tell us the effect you're looking for, we will tell you if we can provide it.  Don't embarrass yourself asking for an "IR search for a body that has been in the water for 24 hours".  That kind of thing. 

The 140's main task WRT flares is top cover for the rotary wing asset (assist in providing a horizon)...if the 295 is working with a Corm, is it not going to spit LUUs like the Herc's do/we do? 

 

[suffolkowner]

The aircraft upon which the C-27J is derived the Aeritalia G.222 did not have a great performance record either so it is interesting to hear that the C-27J is suffering from similar problems.

The infographic in the link below shows the SAR events responded to and I believe I read somewhere that 80% were within 800 km of the various SAR bases. Outside of that tough luck I guess

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fixed-wing-search-and-rescue-procurement-project/infographic.html

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Is it that SAR only got tasked to those calls? What we found in the CCG is that an asset in an area that we did not normally go to would get calls that we would otherwise not get tasked to. A lot of SAR happens without the primary resources involved.

 

[dimsum]

Is it that SAR only got tasked to those calls? What we found in the CCG is that an asset in an area that we did not normally go to would get calls that we would otherwise not get tasked to. A lot of SAR happens without the primary resources involved.

No.  Technically all RCAF (and RCN I think) assets are secondary SAR.  That's why the Auroras (for example) practice SAR scenarios. 

There are situations where the actual SAR asset can't get there or aren't in place, and other assets have to be top cover or whatever to make sure the survivors have a chance.  Sometimes it could be just having a datum for when the SAR assets do arrive.

 

[Throwaway987]

And Tac Hel would ‘prefer’ an Apache, and LRPA ‘prefer’ HD imaging and conformal BLOSCOM and Transport ‘prefer’ to have 8 C-17s and Fighter Force ‘prefer’ to no be flying 37-year old planes...

Desirable (Preferred) does not equal Mandatory in the operational requirements of the procurement world.

G2G

Slight tangent but isn’t this reality a small part of the reason why we’re having retention issues? i.e. The frustration of not having the “right” tool for the job contributes to low sense of pride at work. Front line workers are trying their best to make do with what they have but they’re constantly reminded of how little control they have in their work/life (and how little the GoC truly cares about them via procurement, policy, etc.). How can you blame a SAR tech for thinking about releasing when they step into this brand new plane, see the impractical aspects of it, and realize it was only chosen for non-operational reasons?

Is half our retention issues related to people with a highly internal locus of control/internal motivation struggling to reconcile with the true nature of their jobs? They’re at 6-12 years in, not over the pension point of no return, and are in such a bad place that they’re willing to throw away a life of free money on the gamble of private employment. The knife cuts both ways and these members are ‘preferring’ not to be in the CAF either. Can you blame them?

Family quality of life is probably still number one but this quote really reminded me of my own bureaucratic morale killers at work. Feel free to move or delete this post if it’s too far off topic. 

Edit: I think about that other post about the CoC running into conflict with the 30 day release admin period. Many of us agree that the story sounds ridiculous but how does it look from the other side? Although this policy change is great for the member, that poor CoC now has even less manpower to do an ever increasing amount of work.

Could their vindictive decision represent their own mishandled stress and frustration with the system? They see the impact of reduced manpower on the morale of their remaining personnel. They’re scared about burning out other staff and feel helpless. Should we pity them as much as we want to mock them?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm not sure it feeds directly into retention, but I'll say it definitely feeds into the feeling of being second-rate next to allies when working alongside them, and people's GAFF. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No.  Technically all RCAF (and RCN I think) assets are secondary SAR.  That's why the Auroras (for example) practice SAR scenarios. 

There are situations where the actual SAR asset can't get there or aren't in place, and other assets have to be top cover or whatever to make sure the survivors have a chance.  Sometimes it could be just having a datum for when the SAR assets do arrive.

Most of the RCC types I have spoken with always saw Federal assets as their primary SAR tool, mainly as they have more control over them and often in a big search it will be the DND or CCG asset that take over as on scene commander.

 

[dimsum]

Still wish that Planey McPlaneFace was on there.  The real choices are Canso II, Guardian, Iris, Kingfisher and Turnstone.

Help choose the name of Canada’s new SAR aircraft

The RCAF has narrowed the contenders to five possible names for the upcoming CC-295 Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue aircraft.

The RCAF Commander will have the final say, but if you were the Commander, which of these names would you choose? We’ll share the results with the commander, and he'll take them into consideration when he makes his final decision later this year.

See below for more information about the names.

http://rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/cc-295-name.page?fbclid=IwAR0QtfrUiV6JlxgwCnssjdFfU4pXe4qMpuD3eSOlpHKCNI4KJ8CuvY3kBSo

 

[Sub_Guy]

The only name I like is out of the 5 is Guardian.

 

[dapaterson]

Gotta be Iris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdYWuo9OFAw

 

[NavyShooter]

I voted IRIS...