• 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
Rescue Randy you have made a good case for a second look at this decision. Could you give us a brief picture of how you think the decision process should have gone ?

By ex-413 Sqn avionics, Summerside 1969-71  :D
 
Baden guy,

though I hate to do it, the present MND was almost as free with his shooting off at the mouth as Mr Dosanjh.  If Mr Harper is preparing for a shuffle of his cabinet, it might be good for Mr Dion to do the same for his party........ PLEASE!!!
 
Excellent comments made by all the forum members!  After another 4.8 hours of flying the venerable Buffalo today, I can only cringe at what our replacement might be.  There isn't a production aircraft in the world that can replace the Buff!

Both contending aircraft have their positive attributes - yet both are equally lacking in certain areas.  Rescue Randy has succinctly brought up the Spartan's shortcomings and why it is not a slam dunk purchase - I cannot argue with anything he said.  The EADS-CASA aircraft lacks very basic structural and mechanical attributes that must disqualify it from any competition.  The 295 more closely resembles a beefed up civilian transporter than any sort of SAR platform.  The lack of an APU is troublesome (they talk about a propellor brake as being equal to that of an APU, it isn't).  The 295 is also not set-up very well for the pilots and their flight visibility.  The flight-deck window set up is ideal for an airliner, not for a tactical/SAR transporter that needs to bank heavily in mountainous regions - just take a look at the window set up on the 295 and compare it to the 27J.  Keep in mind that in all countries that have accepted the 295 for their SAR aircraft - none of them perform the same kind of SAR flying that we do.  The US Coast Guard uses C-130s to conduct over-water SAR only - they do not fly in mountains.  Apparently the C-295 and the C-27J might not be as efficient in the mountains as the CC-115 - this is something that we would have to train around and make do.

Keep up the spirited conversation!
 
Those who know me know that I will not be shy about providing my opinion  ;D  The mandatory requirements for the FWSAR should be based on four simple criterion.  The aircraft must be able to safely and effectively search, it must be able to safely and effectively rescue, it must be reliable, and it must be proven.
In order to safely and effectively search, it must have the capability to have visual search bubble windows on both sides of the fuselage giving full view forward, out, and down, with an intersecting view from both sides meeting at 200 ft below the aircraft.  The reason for the intersecting view is that marine searches are done as low as 300 ft above water, and if you do not have intersecting views you can fly directly over the person in the water and miss him/her.    It must have an integrated electo-optic capability - we need to join the 20th century.  Our SAR folks are still exclusively relying on the mark one eyeball to find people and liferafts in the water, and we have overflown some - we know it, and there is no excuse for buying another aircraft without proven "off the shelf" search kit.  We did it with the Cormorant because the Liberals refused to buy anything more capable than the Labrador, but that does not make it right.
For mountain contour search, you cannot safely fly at speeds over 130 Knots.  This is recognised in the National SAR manual, and the Civil Air SAR Manual.  If an aircraft cannot search with SAR load and six hours fuel, approach flap,  then it is not acceptable for SAR.  Safe search speed is determined by taking power off 45 degree bank stall speed and adding twenty knots.  You can't fudge it, and if you reduce the requirement by pretending that speeds over 130 knots are acceptable, you are putting the lives of the SAR crews at risk.  They will still try to do the job, but you have taken away their safety margin, and we learned this lesson in blood in earlier times.  We do not need to relearn it.
As well, the SAR manual notes that the max effective visual search speed for wreckage is 130 knots - so over that speed, you are neither safe nor effective.

To rescue, the SAR techs need to have visibility down and forward to call drops of kit and personnel.  There are some who dismiss this, saying that the drop can be called by the cockpit.  This is not an army drop to a large DZ, these guys are jumping to ravines, cliffs, trees, etc - they damned well get to call their own drop.  They also need adequate space to get dressed and rig their gear. I was in a C-130 when a little too much G and a crowded rear cabin caused a Loadie to have his leg permanently crushed when a fully dressed (350 lb) SAR tech landed on him in turbulence.  The minimum they need is about 66 sq ft, anything less is flatly unacceptable.  They also need a platform that is fully jump and airdrop certified.

Reliable and proven go hand in hand.  There were some of us who wanted the Chinook instead of the Cormorant, but were overruled because the Liberals refused to go for a larger, more capable aircraft.  My view was that proven was most important - you cannot have a developmental aircraft in Canada's military.  It takes too long for a new model or version to come on line, and the troops and customers suffer.  I really don't care who makes it, a new variant represents unacceptable risk for a SAR platform. The Cormorant has great potential, but for the last five years we are slowly and painfully trying to get it to reach that potential  It has cost us dearly, and will continue to cost us.  The manufacturers glossy brochures look great, but unless maintenance rates are proven by a few years of operational use, you cannot count on them.  "your mileage may vary" "its on the truck" etc.
I would not entertain buying any aircraft that did not have a fleet of at least 50 aircraft operational, and legacy aircraft with at least 10,000 hours on an airframe - that represents a mature platform that you can anticipate flying without ugly surprises from the time you get it.  You also get the advantage of a mature supply chain so spare parts are not an issue, and access to Simulators so you can have crews trained to a basic level before they even see the aircraft.  These are advantages  that only accrue with mature, reliable, proven platforms.
Anyway, thanks for the invite, that is my 2 cents worth...
 
Sorry Rescue Randy, but on your comments about joining the 20th century and relying more on sensors and electronics, you are loosing me.  We are now entering the 21st Century and there are certain things that the ole Mark I Eye Ball and Mk 1 A1B1 Brain Stem will still have the upper hand on. 
 
For Zoomie, enjoy the Buff time, it is a unique aircraft - but we will have to replace it eventually.  There are a couple of statements that need to be clarified - I know where you got the misinformation, I have read Alenia's website as well, but that does not make it gospel.
The C-295 was developed as a military transport aircraft - and has done well at that role.  It is not a civilian airliner. Check with the US Special Ops, they are flying the CN-235 in the tactical role. It can handle 3 G, despite Alenia claims to the contrary.  Cockpit vis, etc, are not problems as you will see if you are fortunate enough to actually get a chance to fly it.  I first used the CN-235 in the Sinai in the observation role with the MFO in 1998, and found it to be a great aircraft - which was echoed by the crews that flew it.  It was selected by Portugal over the Spartan for low speed, low level handling - they rated the Spartan handling as unacceptable.  The C-295 aircraft has won once and finished second (to a CN-235) once in the last two years in the European Tactical Air Meet, beating out Transalls, C-130s, and the Alenia G-222 (which finished in dead last position two years ago, and did not compete last year).  As far as mountain operations, it was selected by the Swiss, the Brazilians, and is currently flying tactically in Iraq and Afghanistan - if you check with our Herc crews, you will find that there are mountains there.
The APU is a red herring, while no one has actually ordered one with an APU, it is an option - the engineering is done, and it is available if you want it.  The project office knows that.  Brazil was considering ordering it, then decided it was not necessary - but it is available, if you want it, you can have it. 
The problem is that there are so many people pushing misinformation that the only way to cut through the BS is to have a full, transparent  competition and then make an informed decision, not one that is based on competitor claims.  I would like to see a winter trial in Prince George for about a week in January, followed in July by a week long summer trial in Golden BC.  At that end of that time, you will know what aircraft handling is like in turbulence, and how it stands up when cold soaked. The SAR techs would have their opportunity to turn theory into reality as far as how much space they needed where, and what vis was needed. You also would need a week - any time of year - in the marine environment to see how the integrated search systems worked. 

At this time, there is only one aircraft that is certified and operational with the search window, electro optic integrated capability, and room in the back for the SAR techs to do their job - and that aircraft is not even being considered for evaluation.

For George Wallace, correct, we need to join the 21st century, but we did not even get to the technology that was available in the 20th.  For information, we have had a situation where a boating accident left survivors stranded in the water for hours in the Comox harbour while a Cormorant flew overhead, searching in vain for casualties.  Thankfully, they made it to shore on their own eventually and lived to tell the tale.  It was not the fault of the aircraft or crews, the people in the water were not found due to the lack of IR search capability - which was the fault of the Liberals.  That said, we cannot allow a repeat - and the Spartan has closed systems architecture that does not allow search systems to be integrated into the avionics.  No Spartan or G-222 has ever had surveillance systems.  If you look at the cost of the Aurora Incremental Modernization program, you get an idea of the cost and risk associated with a "one off" installation of electronic surveillance gear.  Hope this helps clarify it a bit.
 
Here is the latest from Lawrence Martin from today’s (4 Jan 07) Globe and Mail, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070104.COMARTIN04/TPStory/TPComment/?page=rss&id=..COMARTIN04
No competitive bidding please, we're Canadian

LAWRENCE MARTIN

Competition? Who needs it? Most other advanced democracies, but not this one. Not even with a Conservative government in office and not even if it's costing us billions.

Our Defence Department is on a hell-bent-for-leather spending spree. With Afghanistan as a rationale -- a dubious one in that most of the new goods won't be used there -- there's no stopping the shopping. There's $3-billion earmarked for search and rescue aircraft, $3.4-billion for cargo planes, $5-billion for Hercules transport planes and $2.7-billion for Chinook helicopters.

Nominally, there's been competitive bidding on these contracts. But, in practice, the system is set so that the outcome is essentially guaranteed. The military puts out such detailed specifications for the required hardware that only one bidder need apply.

Critics argue that the practice contravenes Canadian convention and that the resultant waste is wanton. They say, for example, that the government, in paying $5-billion for 17 Hercules transports, is shelling out at least $2-billion more than need be. With real competitive bidding, they say, the supplier would have had to reduce its price sharply to land the deal.
On average, the critics say, studies show that competitive bidding results in savings of about 30 per cent. That would mean a whopping $4-billion on the aforementioned contracts.

The Liberals, who were charged with a billion-dollar boondoggle themselves, smell a major controversy, maybe the first Tory scandal, in the works. If not that, they certainly have something to chew on. This is a government, after all, that boasts of fiscal prudence.

The Grits say that, in 2005, Paul Martin was presented with many of the same military procurement options as Stephen Harper's Tories but that he stopped the process in its tracks. "Mr. Martin wouldn't accept sole-sourcing on contracts," said Eugene Lang, who served as chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham. "He was adamant. I remember him saying to us, 'I'm not going to let the military determine how we buy things. There are broader issues at play here.' "

The Liberals worried about repercussions. "We thought we'd be sued," Mr. Lang said. "We thought there would be international repercussions. At home, we thought we'd have provinces on our back and industries in Quebec on our back for not giving domestic suppliers opportunities."

There in a nutshell, some would suggest, is the difference between the Martin and Harper governments. Mr. Martin allowed everyone to pick things apart until he was afraid to move on a file. With Mr. Harper, it's make the play and damn the torpedoes.

On military procurement, the war in Afghanistan gave Mr. Harper the opportunity. In such an atmosphere, who could say no to rushing forward with a non-competitive process? How dare we not support our troops by giving them all the possible equipment they need? But critics say that reasoning simply doesn't wash because most of the new hardware will not be ready for deployment for at least three years -- and Canada's Afghan mission is set to end in 2009.

Before the Conservatives took office, there was stronger civilian oversight at Defence. But those checks have diminished. The procurement process is now dominated by Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier and the lead military lobby group in Ottawa, CFN Consultants, which is run by Paddy O'Donnell. The two men have a tight partnership; General Hillier worked under Mr. O'Donnell when Mr. O'Donnell was vice-chief of the defence staff.

But Liberals who complain about the way the system now operates are not exactly standing on terra firma. Jean Chrétien insisted on competitive bidding, but it was his government that put the Defence Department through a decade-long marathon of political meddling and unconscionable delays in the purchase of helicopters. It left our military to the plight of whirlybirds described by a pilot as "ten thousand nuts and bolts flying in loose formation." The military eventually got around to specifying which chopper it wanted, but its choice, the Cormorant, turned out to be deficient as well.

Today, circumstances have changed. Everything's being done in the perspective of war. That's a situation -- check the Pentagon's history -- that can lead to appalling abuse. To prevent it happening here, sufficient checks and oversight -- of the type we fail to see in Ottawa today -- are mandatory.

lmartin@globeandmail.com

First off, I agree with Martin that, generally, competitive bidding by qualified bidders is the way to go.  It does save money.

On almost every other score he is off base – most likely because in defence procurement, as in almost all matters related to foreign and defence affairs, he is waaaay out of his lane.

To begin with, his ignorance of how military operation s work is, once again, on display when he says, ” With Afghanistan as a rationale -- a dubious one in that most of the new goods won't be used there -- there's no stopping the shopping.”  He is, I suspect willfully forgetful of the fact that all these items were on the pre-Afghanistan Liberal DND wish list.  Acknowledging that fact would simply get in the way of an opportunity to take partisan shots as the current, Conservative, government.

There was not civilian oversight at DND when the Liberals were in power; there was, as Martin acknowledges, absolute and highly improper civilian interference with the military requirements definition process aimed at steering procurement actions to or away from Liberal targets.

The ‘broader issues’ which Martin says, Eugene Lang says Paul Martin said were in play is code for pork barrel politics – something both Conservative and Liberal governments have practiced, far, far more often than not, with defence procurement.  Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin wanted to buy new aircraft – just as soon as they had figured out how to add a few layers of Liberal friendly, Québec based management to the procurement process.


When he says “ The procurement process is now dominated by Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier ..” Lawrence Martin demonstrates just how disconnecetd he is from the reality of life in the Pearkes Building (NDHQ) and the Langevin Block (Privy Council Office).  Do military requirements matter?  Yes.  Can the military situate the requirement to ‘steer’ to towards one piece of kit?  They can try.  Are there checks and balances?  Plenty.

It is important to understand that General Hillier, despite being the ‘biggest, baddest and best' CDS in decades, is a relative lightweight in Ottawa – compared, at least, to PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch, Defence DM Ward Elcock and even ADMs (Pol) and (Mat) Vincent Rigby and  Dan Ross.*  These each have at least as much ‘say’ in procurement issues than Hillier – arguably more in the cases of Elcock and Ross, certainly much, much more in the case of Lynch.  Hillier’s staff minions might have skewed the military operational requirements to favour one system over another – certainly the Chrétien inner circle was convinced military staffs could do and did that.  It is improbable, in the extreme, that much skewing would have passed muster up through the ever sensitive (to both political demands and to threats to their own, civil service, turf by the uniformed services) bureaucrats.

For most of the recent aircraft procurement deals the sole issue has been availability – there are, quite simply, no available competitors for the Chinook, Hercules or Globemaster.

Is the Spartan the right aircraft for the missions it will be required to fly over a 30± years life cycle?  I have no idea.  Not my area of expertise.

Is Lawrence Martin correct that Hillier and Paddy O’Donnel run defence procurement today?  Not a chance; he’s blowing smoke - either partisan Liberal propaganda smoke or, more likely, personal, anti-military and anti-Harper smoke.  But its smoke, all the same, and, it’s brown smoke because Martin is so full of sh!t his eyes are the same colour.



----------
* Bios at:
Lynch - http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=clerk&Sub=Biography
Elcock - http://www.dnd.ca/site/bio/bio_dm_e.asp
Rigby - http://www.forces.gc.ca/admpol/content.asp?id={4C52B113-392B-4DA6-9CF9-8ADFE906AE63}
Ross - http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/mat_office/bio_e.asp
 
Reading those specs it makes one think CASA should "pull a Q400" and yank out the PW127s in favour of PW150s  ;D
 
I find this whole thing truly disturbing. We need that kit. We need those aircraft. End of story, too many governments blew it off. It angers me that Lawrence martin is willing to play words games with kit that is long over due.

We are either in the business of making the world safe or we pull our troops back home and keep them their.

Does anybody have Mr L. Martin's email?
 
Rick,
I'm a green guy, but there are a couple of Air guys who say that the C27J ain't all that much of a good replacement for the Buffalo...
Sometimes, a sober second look at things might be what the doctor ordered.
 
Edward Campbell said:
Here is the latest from Lawrence Martin from today's (4 Jan 07) Globe and Mail, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070104.COMARTIN04/TPStory/TPComment/?page=rss&id=..COMARTIN04
First off, I agree with Martin that, generally, competitive bidding by qualified bidders is the way to go.  It does save money.

On almost every other score he is off base – most likely because in defence procurement, as in almost all matters related to foreign and defence affairs, he is waaaay out of his lane.

To begin with, his ignorance of how military operations work is, once again, on display when he says, ” With Afghanistan as a rationale -- a dubious one in that most of the new goods won't be used there -- there's no stopping the shopping.”  He is, I suspect willfully forgetful of the fact that all these items were on the pre-Afghanistan Liberal DND wish list.  Acknowledging that fact would simply get in the way of an opportunity to take partisan shots as the current, Conservative, government.

As I recall most of these items were on Grahams wish list but he managed to get Cabinet approval for only a few of them. Graham certainly knew that to fight for a new FWSAR replacement would be one of the last things he would go for. Unless he could stick it in under the Herc purchase.

 
geo said:
Rick,
I'm a green guy, but there are a couple of Air guys who say that the C27J ain't all that much of a good replacement for the Buffalo...
Sometimes, a sober second look at things might be what the doctor ordered.

Fine, then revisit that particular contract.

There is no real competition from anyone for the Chinook, Globemaster, or new Hercs. Not one. These items should be sole sourced.

 
geo said:
Rick,
I'm a green guy, but there are a couple of Air guys who say that the C27J ain't all that much of a good replacement for the Buffalo...
Sometimes, a sober second look at things might be what the doctor ordered.

Doesn't the company that manufactures the herc make a "smaller" herc with parts commonality? I seem to recall reading an article about it... seems like a more or less ideal choice... parts commonality, with a proven air-frame?
 
Fine, then revisit that particular contract.

There is no real competition from anyone for the Chinook, Globemaster, or new Hercs. Not one. These items should be sole sourced.

GO!!!, I agree with you.  But remember who has skin in the game here: EADS makes not only the C-295, but will supposedly be building the A400M one day.  They have every reason to tie the legitimacy of ALL the contracts together, since they'd love a sniff at the tac-lift contract too.

Don't miss the forest for the trees, guys.
 
That ace observer of things military, Globe columnist Lawrence Martin, credulously gives us this quote:

"Mr. Martin wouldn't accept sole-sourcing on contracts," said Eugene Lang, who served as chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham. "He was adamant. I remember him saying to us, 'I'm not going to let the military determine how we buy things. There are broader issues at play here.' "...

Mr Martin has forgotten, or chosen to overlook, that in December, 2005, the Conservatives were criticizing those Liberals in government for planning to sole-source the purchase of C-130Js.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0f29bb1a-04c7-4bf5-9a1d-766750faa858&k=49552

...it's up in the air whether the Tories will go for 16 mid-range transport planes worth nearly $5 billion, as the Liberals announced Nov. 22, or opt for fewer of those supplemented by larger, heavy-lift aircraft capable of transporting troops and equipment over vast distances...

[Gordon] O'Connor [then Conservative National Defence critic] said he strongly supports streamlined military procurement practices, but he says the Liberal method will hurt competition and favour certain products - Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport plane [emphasis added], for example.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said getting what the military needs takes precedence over regional and industrial benefits...

Liberals and Conservatives sometimes seem like pots and kettles, with the NDP calling Black. But at least in office the Conservatives are really trying to do as best they can for the Canadian Forces.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Always nice to have a Herc handy :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/C130-Forrestal.jpg
 
And a news story in the Globe today:

Opposition MPs to examine aircraft selection process
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070104.DEFENCE04/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/?cid=al_gam_nletter_thehill

Opposition parties will start probing $14-billion in "de facto sole-sourced" military contracts next month, arguing the interests of taxpayers are at risk as the Canadian Forces acquire new planes and helicopters with minimal competitions...

The committee's decision to investigate procurement issues was prompted by Ottawa's decision to buy $11-billion worth of aircraft last year. In each of the cases then, only the winning bids were considered as they were the only products that met the specifications of the Canadian Forces.

"We can't have the Department of National Defence making up grocery lists and then letting us pick up the tab," Bloc Québécois MP Claude Bachand said in an interview yesterday.

Mr. Bachand said the committee's resolve was increased by a report in yesterday's Globe and Mail, which said that once again only one aircraft met the current requirements for a planned purchase of 15 to 19 search-and-rescue planes...

DND is negotiating the contract with Boeing Co. to acquire C-17 cargo jets and Chinook heavy-lift helicopters at a total cost of $6-billion, and with Lockheed Martin for the purchase of C-130J transport planes at a cost of $5-billion.

DND is also planning to acquire new search-and-rescue aircraft at a cost of $3-billion, but Ms. Black [NDP National Defence critic] denounced the fact that only one aircraft -- the Italian-built Spartan C-27J -- seems to be in the running...

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh said the current process is flawed, with too much power in the hands of the military and a lack of civilian oversight.

"These are essentially de facto sole-sourced contracts, masquerading as competitions," he said...

Any House of Commons' committee hearings on the aircraft procurements for the Air Force will be a massive partisan joke (even largely by the Conservatives). These hearings will contribute little or nothing to the public's understanding of what planes are needed (and are available) to perform which missions.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Just a Sig Op said:
Doesn't the company that manufactures the herc make a "smaller" herc with parts commonality? I seem to recall reading an article about it... seems like a more or less ideal choice... parts commonality, with a proven air-frame?
yes they do.  They make a C130 "short"
from what I understand the UK bought em and is now trying to unload em... not saying there is anything wrong with em but, if the UK is mothballing/selling off a fleet of whatever, do we want to pick em up?
 
GO!!! said:
Fine, then revisit that particular contract.
There is no real competition from anyone for the Chinook, Globemaster, or new Hercs. Not one. These items should be sole sourced.

WTF  who was talking about the Chinook, C17 or CC130Js in this thread?
I simply pointed out that some of the other members of this forum & this discussion thread have expressed some misgivings on selecting the C27J.  One of em went so far as to state that neither the C27, nor the C295 have something that a competitor has.  This may be the product that should go out (again?) for tender.
 
You know, actually as I listen to this discussion I think a case could be made for option C - none of the above.

The object of the exercise is to replace both the Buffalos and the Twotters as well as some of the Hercs (brought in to replace Buffs in the first place when they started to give up the ghost as I understand it).

Neither the C27J nor the C295 seem to be off the shelf buys for the application although the C295 has a lot more time-in.
Neither the C27J nor the C295 seem to be fully compatible with the existing aircraft in their existing roles.  Either one will result in things being done differently.
There are few/no other aircraft out there in the class.

It seems to me that the CF/Pols/Canadian Aircraft Industry have missed the boat on this one.

There is a niche that no one is filling.  A niche that was filled internationally by the Canadian aircraft that now need to be replaced and nobody out there has got a replacement.  If ever there was a place to invest money there it is. 

It is a prime example of Canada having a need that is particularly great in Canada and exists elsewhere.  Bush planes were Canada's need.  It built them in large numbers. Other people bought them in smaller numbers.

The same situation applies to the CF-18, the C130 and the C17 in reverse.  The US had a need for specific aircraft in large numbers. It built them. Other countries found a use for them in smaller numbers.  They paid more per unit and didn't get exactly what they were looking for so they made do.  But they didn't have to pay the development costs and undertake the marketing risks.

Rather than Bombardier/Dehavilland/Canadair doing what the rest of the world wants as a me-too product striving for 10% of a market dominated by the big players, here is an opportunity for them to build something that meets Canadian specs and market it elsewhere.

As I said the boat has been missed on this one.  Time has run out and now you have to look at buying something that doesn't quite meet any of your specs.  On the other hand the Canadian Government could have kept Dehavilland/McDonnell-Douglas/Bombardier afloat in the 90's if it had started looking at building a Buffalo2 to meet the needs on the horizon.

PS DeHavilland was also the lead team on the Bras D'Or and the hydrofoil corvettes which might have made dandy OPVs as well as ASW and Escort vessels.


 
Back
Top