• 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
Geo...FWIW the "short J's" are the same size as our current Hercs.  The regular J's are the same length as our stretched Hercs.  I'm glad we're staying away from the RAF mk5 J's.  It seems to me that "off the shelf" is the way to go.

I know very little about the SAR replacement program, but from what I understood the Spartan's not really any better at slow speeds than the Herc.  If that's true, why are we not just sending our H models to the SAR world?  Sure the Buff guys won't be able to grab lunch at the smaller airports, but c'mon, box lunches really aren't that bad. 

 
I thought the RAF Js were off the shelf "shorts"

Seen - wrt standard Js being = to old "stretch"
 
geo said:
I thought the RAF Js were off the shelf "shorts"

Seen - wrt standard Js being = to old "stretch"

Some RAF C-130Js are short, some are stretched, so to speak.......2 models of the same bird
 
but the "short" Js have been declared surplus by the RAF and are up for sale.....
I hear we can have em for a steal  ::)
 
geo said:
but the "short" Js have been declared surplus by the RAF and are up for sale.....
I hear we can have em for a steal  ::)

If you go back to the beginning, you will see that these "Short J's" are not compatible with what we have.  They are a 'different' aircraft.  More trouble than they are worth.
 
Uh huh....
we are looking to replace our old Es thru H, Buffalos and Twin Otters with long Js and the short Js are incompatible with what we will have by the time this whole exercise is concluded.

Interesting.  We replace a whole range of airframes & parts with a limited similar range of airframes and parts & it's not worth the trouble of persuing the issue?  OK
 
geo said:
but the "short" Js have been declared surplus by the RAF and are up for sale.....
I hear we can have em for a steal  ::)

Well the trouble for the RAF is that, although they want to unload the "short C-130J, they are facing a problem as a result of operational losses:

The RAF has been using six of the old "short" C-130  C.1P for the Special forces role.  Two of these have been lost in operations ( XV206 lost on 24 may 06 in Afghanistan and XV179 lost in Iraq on 30 jan 05) leaving the remaining 4 to provide the SF role. The RAF has supplemented thse  with six of the old "stretched" C-130 C.3A but they dont have the equipment for the SF role that the C.1P have and are not as capable for rough strip operations. The 4 remaining C.1P and 6 C.3A will have to be retired before the A-400M is in service so  a stop-gap measure will have to be sought. Even though the RAF feels that the C-130J is less suited for the SF role when compared to the older versions, it may be forced into retaining them, rather than sell them off.
 
This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing (§29) OF THE Copyright Act, from today’s Globe and Mail throws a new light on things:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070216.wxplanes16/BNStory/National/ 
Air force may abandon $3-billion plan
Instead of new search-and-rescue planes, officials consider replacing Buffalo engines

DANIEL LEBLANC
From Friday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The Canadian Forces are contemplating putting new engines on their 40-year-old unpressurized Buffalo aircraft instead of buying new search-and-rescue planes, defence officials said yesterday.

The Canadian air force is flush with cash and is getting set to receive $13-billion in new planes and helicopters.

But the project to buy $3-billion in new search-and-rescue aircraft, which was long deemed a priority, is languishing and could be sacrificed if the military prefers to acquire other combat equipment.

Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas told the defence committee of the House that search-and-rescue capabilities could continue to be handled by the Buffalo and Hercules aircraft in the future.

The fleet of six Buffalo aircraft was purchased in 1967, while the 32 Hercules vary greatly in terms of age, having been bought between 1964 and 1996.

"Fixed-wing search and rescue is a priority for us, but there are mitigation measures there," Gen. Lucas told MPs.

"There are still a number of hours left in the newer Herc 130s that we have. The Buffalo aircraft is still a very capable platform, but will require some investment in it if, in fact, we choose to go that route," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence explained that the Buffalo could require new engines to keep flying if the purchase of new aircraft is delayed.

"Extending the life of the existing Buffalo aircraft fleet is an option under consideration," Lieutenant Carole Brown said. "The engineering and airworthiness requirements for such an extension, including the potential requirement for new engines, are being currently examined."

Gen. Lucas said it is up to the government to choose what it wants to do with its money. The answer might come in the country's new defence strategy, which is currently before the Harper cabinet.

"We have a couple of options available to us. Once again, that comes down to a prioritization issue," Gen. Lucas said.

The previous Liberal government had announced funding for search-and-rescue airplanes in 2004, but other aircraft have since moved to the top of the priority list. The government has signed a contract with the Boeing Co. to buy four C-17 cargo planes, and is moving on the purchase of Chinook medium-and-heavy-lift helicopters and new C130J Hercules transport planes.

An industry expert expressed disappointment at the proposal to keep the Buffalo in the air in years to come.

"Refurbishing a very old aircraft is not without risk. It would likely involve significant structural work and could require some avionics replacement, and even an engine upgrade. The supply of spare parts continues to be an issue," the source said. "Overall, such action may forestall a major capital expenditure for some time, but at what resource and operational cost?"

The Buffalo is a relatively slow aircraft that is stationed on the West Coast for search-and-rescue operations, where it is often tasked to fly over mountainous terrain.

"Although this is by no means the biggest [search-and-rescue] region in Canada, it is the busiest. The mild West Coast sees hundreds of people getting lost or in trouble while hiking, mountain climbing, boating and flying," DND's website says.

Regarding the project to buy new search-and-rescue planes, there has been a recent controversy in Ottawa over the fact that only one aircraft was seen to be able to meet DND's requirements. Opposition parties alleged the military was gearing the competition in favour of a specific manufacturer.

This would appear, from a purely political point of view, to buy some time and, for that period of time, to take this issue ‘off the table.’

Is it a good/acceptable/bad idea from an operational/aviation point of view?
 
Hmph....
1.  Per the SAR community, all proposed options were flawed: C27J, 295 & Dashes so this is not surprising IMHO

2.  New engines - that's nice but, wouldn't that be ongoing maintenance - they pop an engine out, put new(er) one in ?

The biggest question in my mind would be... how are the airframes doing?
Are the avionics & all the wiring still up to scratch?.... or are we going to spend a bundle on a product extension boondoggle?
 
From what I have gathered here, the crews like the Buff very much, except for the downtime and pressurization issue. It seems that no new aircraft can fit the bill totally at present. If the major components of the aircraft are in good shape, then, a rebuild seems like a decent idea, I wonder if there are any new aircraft on the horizon worth waiting for? It may also be useful to have a mixed fleet at Comox, with a SAR Herc for non-mountain SAR and try to use the Buff for the missions that it is best suited for.
 
The Buff is a great airplane, and the crews are justifyably very supportive of it.  The problem is that it is an orphan.  It is not just the engines - parts are increasingly hard to find, and since Brazil has decided to retire their Buff fleet, it will get worse.  Everything from tires to de-icing boots to brake pads now require special orders, which means that it gets harder and harder to find a credible manufacturer willing to manufacture such a small order.  This means that in future, it will continue to get more difficult to generate serviceable aircraft to do the job.
Add to this the fact that the aircraft has no EO/IR capability, which means that detection of people in the water, or in liferafts, is entirely dependent on them being visually spotted by the SAR crew.  The guys do a great job, but technology has moved to the point where it is difficult to justify not insisting that SAR aircraft have current off the shelf search equipment.  In theory, the Buff could be retrofitted with this technology, but at considerable cost - and in the end, you still have an unpressurized 40 year old orphan aircraft.
 
Rescue Randy said:
The Buff is a great airplane, and the crews are justifyably very supportive of it.  The problem is that it is an orphan.  It is not just the engines - parts are increasingly hard to find, and since Brazil has decided to retire their Buff fleet, it will get worse.  Everything from tires to de-icing boots to brake pads now require special orders, which means that it gets harder and harder to find a credible manufacturer willing to manufacture such a small order.  This means that in future, it will continue to get more difficult to generate serviceable aircraft to do the job.
Add to this the fact that the aircraft has no EO/IR capability, which means that detection of people in the water, or in liferafts, is entirely dependent on them being visually spotted by the SAR crew.  The guys do a great job, but technology has moved to the point where it is difficult to justify not insisting that SAR aircraft have current off the shelf search equipment.  In theory, the Buff could be retrofitted with this technology, but at considerable cost - and in the end, you still have an unpressurized 40 year old orphan aircraft.

Kirkhill said:
In fact the Aussie's, who have had no trouble finding money, closed the Caribou replacement competition after looking at options, including the C27J and the C295.  They couldn't find anything that filled the bill.

And there is still no market for a designed-to-purpose Twotter/Caribou/Buffalo replacement?  IIRC there were over 1000 aircraft of those types delivered. And in the same class Antonov had a competitor.

I’m a novice at the aviation/aero-space industry business but:

• Given that the Buffalo is 'great' for the job, but ...

• Given that there appears to be a market for similar aircraft; and

• Given that the government-of-the-day, of any day in Canada, wants to prop up the Québec based aerospace industry.

Why are we not telling Bombardier to dig out the Buffalo drawing package and update the thing so as to produce and sell a new, improved, Buffalo II?  We’re going to keep throwing money at the company, not matter what; why not send money for something we need?

 
Why are we not telling Bombardier to dig out the Buffalo drawing package and update the thing so as to produce and sell a new, improved, Buffalo II?  We’re going to keep throwing money at the company, not matter what; why not send money for something we need?

I 've wondered the same.  I'm guessing one of Armond's great grand children have decided that there's no money to be made.  Surprised they wouldn't want to enter something other than the DHC8, especially considering that the world's C160s are coming to the end of their service life.  I've heard that a western co is supposed to start up the Twotter line again, if the government stalls long enough maybe they'll have a shot at firing up the Buff.  Maybe the best angle would be to sell the manufacturing rights to Boeing for a buck and then use the Regional Benefits contracts to build a Buffalo II free of cost to the taxpayer.  I should have run for office.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Why are we not telling Bombardier to dig out the Buffalo drawing package and update the thing so as to produce and sell a new, improved, Buffalo II? 

I love this idea - unfortunately BI does not own the rights to the DHC-5, a company in BC does.  I have recently emailed this company with exactly your idea and was given the response that only the twin otter was deemed fiscally sound for a rebuild.

This idea of modernizing the Buff has been in the works for quite some time now.  We have project Officers working on this very idea - with glass cockpit avionics and updated electrical systems.  The newer engines are something on our wish list that we really didn't expect to get - apparently there are hundreds of the newer variant of the same GE Allison engine that we currently use.  

Keep in mind that I am saying they are newer, not new.
 
My understanding is that all the people that designed aircraft such as the buf, Otter, Beaver, Caribou went south. do we have anyone left that knows anything about designing this type of aircraft?
 
If Brazil is retiring their Buffalos is their any merit in buying them and then modernizing them to build up our fleet or sell them to others?

I repeat: I'm waaaay out of my lane!
 
I know zilch when it comes to this sort of thing, so this is just speculation on my part. since we're talking about updating the Buff, why not give it a serious facelift. I'm talking all the goodies; all glass cockpit, new electronics, instead of turboprops, what about two Rolls-Royce jet engines ? expensive, but it could possibly pay for itself many times over if the newly designed "Buffalo II" is a hit. I bet lots of countries looking for a modern SAR capability would buy, and a few would update the Buffs they already use. With all the money rolling in, maybe Quebec would forget about the C-17 purchase.

my 0.02 worth
 
geo said:
1.  Per the SAR community, all proposed options were flawed: C27J, 295 & Dashes so this is not surprising IMHO

My guess is that the problem is not necessarily finding a the most suitable aircraft to replace the Buff, but rather finding the money to do so.  Especially with other big ticket items already in the shopping cart.  As for Buff upgrades...could work, but often these upgrade options work out costing more in the end than buying something new...

On that note...Does anyone on the inside know how close they actually were to signing a FWSAR contract??

Curious.
Kingfisher
 
Funnily enough, one of the instructors here in Portage was telling me just the other day that the engines were the only 'real' problem with the Buffs (which I took as an opinion, as much as anything).  Viking has been remanufacturing parts for several DHC types for at least a couple of years now: I'm sure a parts contract for Buffs wouldn't be beyond their capabilities, if a life-extension program was done (presumably with new engines).
 
Back
Top