New Aircraft in the Offing?

[Good2Golf]

Chinook G is on the way, not the F - I hereby volunteer for the first OTU down in the states

Shortfinal, after I finish my "recce" in the 'stan, I'll meet you down in Rucker for the AQC (a/c qual course).  Of course, some of us will pop up/over to Ft. Campbell for a bit more "OJT" with the Nightstalkers...ah, to be flying back with the boys again, NSDQ huah!  8)

Hold on gents, I predict the wager I made with a buddy for a bottle of 18yr Highland Park if I'm sitting my arse in a cockpit in the fall of '06 may actually happen... 

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Kirkhill]

Could you go over it again for us that are slow on the uptake?

I KNEW you could Duey.  Cheers and Thx ;D

 

[Cloud Cover]

After what has happened down in the US with Katrina, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they Canada does not even remotely possess the capability to deal with a major disaster like Katrina.

There is not a single piece of kit on this air force list that would not be deemed essential in dealing with a major disaster. I expect the government to fill this list,and then some, without any balking whatsoever. There is not a single piece of offensive equipment on the list.. fill it, the sooner the better.

FWIW.

 

[TR23]

What would the additional(over the 6 Buffalo's) C-27j's be used for?  More SAR - perhaps in the east?  Or as a transport aircraft in a light role?  Sensor Platform?
How do you guys feel about the suitability of the C-27j?  It sure seems like a neat plane from its canadian website - www.c-27j.ca, but does it stack up for what we need?
If we purchased 20 Hercules, how many more do we need?  Note I'm not asking how many more will we get, but how many do our operational requirements demand?
Would the 20 chinooks be centralized, or spread across several bases?  Is 20 a good number to work from?

 

[Kirkhill]

Dear TR23:

I think you will find an airing of a full range of opinions on the roles and capabilities of C27/C130/C295 etc on these threads.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22920.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33214.0.html

Cheers.

Look forward to hearing from you later.

 

[Zoomie]

Thanks for that Kirkhill... Saves me a ton of typing...

 

[TR23]

Thanks, I had tried a search, but I must have had a typo or something, because I didn't find these.  Reading now.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Sorry for not getting here sooner, guys...I was digging/moving a tree in the back yard...nothing better to do with embarkation leave than move trees...    ;D


anyhow...my quick run at the numbers would be ~45M CAD for a CH-47F cargo variant and $55M CAD for an MH-47G SOF/msn spec model...let's say I'm dreaming in technicolour and we get 20 G's since the refuelling boom would make transit up North for a MAJAID very responsive (and a bunch of other missions that we could discuss over a beer), then multiply the airframes x 3 (an amazinginly accurate SWAG for total lifecycle costs and we would have:

20 x 55M = $1.1B CAD for up front costs (as an example the CH146 cast ~$0.95B), and

another $2.2B over 30 years = $73M/year for in-service support.

Overall, these figures are consistent with what I would expect the department is looking at...re: CH146, I wouldn't be surpized to see about 35-40 kept in the Tac Avn role (no clue about "CSS" in YOD, YBG, YGB) with likely some kind of "power and performance" upgrades (likely not a fully "UH-1Y" upgrade) an improved EO/IR sensor and some lighterweight precision munitions (laser seeking CRV-7's)


I'm cautiously optimistic that some of this might actually happen.   Personally, I'm glad to see the TAL/TPT guys getting looked after as well, although I'm still not convinced the 130-J is the best way to do it.   The C-27J is not a bad hummer for FWSAR...

Let's see how this one goes down...hopefully before the November election...   :-\


p.s.   This also smack of trial ballooning...although Chris Wattie is a relatively straight shooter and the stuff that seeps out of the MND's office is usually fairly accurate when it comes down to the short strokes...

Cheers,
Duey

I wish we'd just copy the Australian procurement model....

Their HQ says they need it.  They negotiate terms.  The government funds it.  They announce the contract.  Timespan: 18 months - 24 months.



Matthew.  :-\

 

[mover1]

What would the additional(over the 6 Buffalo's) C-27j's be used for?   More SAR - perhaps in the east?  

Well lets see, two to three in Greenwood for SAR to replace the hercs. Another two to three in Trenton to replace the hercs and Winnipeg to replace thier hercs that are dedicated for SAR. For Sar and one to keep aroun for training and in Case the others broke.

 

[TR23]

OK, well I've learned a lot.  I still have some questions.
With 15 C-27Js replacing Buffalo's and some hercules, SAR looks like it's taken care of.  Could a few more C-27s help out the current Herc lifespan by filling a dedicated light cargo role?  Perhaps only within Canada?  Or also serve as JTF's transport, since I assume they need less stuff moved then a typical larger force?
What are the downfalls of the C-130J which some members have mentioned?  Is it having teething problems with its new technology?  The numbers on it sure seem impressive, and from what little I know of military aviation, anything bearing the Hercules name is respected.  I thought I did read somewhere that the stretched version had some difficulty on takeoff-I can't remember any details, and I could be very mistaken.

 

[Kirkhill]

Over to you Zoomie

 

[Zoomie]

Bah... thanks

Not being a Herc driver - I really can't comment with any great authority on the pros and cons of the new J model.  I have heard that there are teething problems and that some airforces are trying to get rid of them - that's all I can say.

C-27J would make a great light utility aircraft - the 15 that have been initially planned for will fill that niche along with SAR.  All of our SAR squadrons fill a Transport and Rescue role [442(T&R) Sqn - for example] - therefore a second or third line of tasking will most probably be in the North American domestic airlift role.  As it is, our CC-115's have a second line task to support the Skyhawks during the airshow season - we deploy a Buffalo across Canada from May-Sept.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

L3/Alenia making their pitch for the C27 for the US Army.

 

[Astrodog]

  As it is, our CC-115's have a second line task to support the Skyhawks during the airshow season - we deploy a Buffalo across Canada from May-Sept.

Zoomie, I've always wondered why this is... wouldn't it be easier to use a civvy a/c jump platform or griffon that to shuttle a Buffalo from the left coast to say here in London? (even been?)... can't say that i mind having the buffalo here, always enjoyed the fast pass and 'buffalo dance'...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If the fates smile kindly upon the CF for a change and we actually do get these aircraft, what will the Air Froce approach be to squadron organization?
1) Will exisiting squadrons be re-roled and topped up with air craft
2) Will squadrons that have had their colours laid up be reformed
3) Will additional squadron(s) be stood up
Thoughts?

 

[Zoomie]

The only real change that will happen will be with our helo brethren.  The introduction of a new airframe could stand up a new squadron, or simply introduce another flight within an existing structure.  I am sure that Duey has the better gen on this...

 

[Inch]

If the fates smile kindly upon the CF for a change and we actually do get these aircraft, what will the Air Froce approach be to squadron organization?
1) Will exisiting squadrons be re-roled and topped up with air craft
2) Will squadrons that have had their colours laid up be reformed
3) Will additional squadron(s) be stood up
Thoughts?

I agree with Zoomie, it'll probably play out just like with the Sea King Sqns, we're Maritime Helicopter Sqns more accurately, so when we get a new Maritime Helicopter, it'll be the existing Sqns that take it over. I would assume that the same thing will happen with the new airframes, the Transport and Rescue Sqns will have C-27s vice Hercs and Buffs and the Transport Sqns will have new Hercs to replace the E models currently in service. The only thing I'm not sure of would be the organization for the medium/heavy lift helos. My guess would be they'll just be integrated into the Tac Hel Sqns as separate flights vice setting up a new Sqn or two to support them. It's not uncommon for a Sqn to have 2 different airframes, the transport and rescue Sqns have been doing it for years with Labs and Hercs or Labs and Buffs and now with the Cormorant and Hercs/Buffs. The Tac Hel Sqns did it with the Kiowa and the Twin Huey and up until a few years ago, the Combat Support Sqns had Griffons/Hueys as well as T-33s.

 

[Good2Golf]

Ex-Dragoon, my gut feel is that we (1 Wing) will operate "composite" squadrons (i.e. 2 a/c types, or more) at many of the units.  This was simliar to what used to occur at 402/408/427/430 with Kiowa and Twin Hueys, and at 450 Sqn (my alma matter) with Chinooks and Twins flying RCMP SERT (albeit a short overlap of about a year and a bit).  Here's my total guess at how things will bed down

403 Gagetown - CH146 OTU (ops trg unit) and TALC (Med/Hy lift) Ops
408 Edmonton - CH146 Ops unit and CU161 (Sperwer and follow on TUAV) OTU and Ops
427 Petawawa - CH146 SOA, TALC SOA (and TALC OTU?)
430 Valcartier - TALC Ops and CU161 Ops

I really don't know what will happen with the Reserves, so I didn't address 400 or 438 Sqn...airframes will be tight, so unit relevance will have to be proven and maintained if any resources are to be given their direction.

This is just a quick guess and I have to be honest, have not thought about anything to far out of the existing box, although you will occasionally hear about a !st Special Operation Aviation Reg't bandied about from time to time...we live in interesting times!

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Kirkhill]

Duey:

In light of what is going on down on the Gulf Coast wouldn't a Med/Hvy capability in the West be advisable? Or should we rely on CH-148s/CH-149s at Esquimalt and Comox surviving?

Just a thought from a prospective client.

Cheers.

 

[Good2Golf]

Kirkhill, if the TALC fleet is as large as 20, then yes I'd put a fair capability back in the west, a la 447 Sqn (450's hvy lift brother in Edmonton)....would also go to support CMTC and provided a MAJAID cap out West.  A lot of it depends on how big the fleet will really be, and where the primary user groups will be.  It is reasonable to think that ops based out of Pet, Shearwater and abroad would bias principal basing to centrally/easterly located units, with a smaller yet adequately responsive capability in the West.  I hope to be involved in Standards/Tactics/Instruction not implementation...I was the last official CH146 Impl O, simply because I was one of only two guys closing down 10 TAG and moving to 1 Wing in Kingston...gotta hate being the only guy walking down the hallway when Gen Pennie stuck his head out his door and asked, "Who's going to Kingston this summer?"...DOH!  :-\  I want a cockpit...not a conference room!  ;D

Cheers
Duey