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

[dapaterson]

Given that much of the infrastructure, training, ops and maint capital costs have already been accounted for under the existing C130J plan, what would be the impact if TB/DND/RCAF decided just to go with additional C130s?

I know from previous posts that the C130J couldn't do low and slow through the mountains but how about buying an additional 6 pack of CH-147Fs for that role?

Infra costs for the Herc-J's have been paid at Trenton, not at any other potential MOBs.  Training costs don't scale linearly, but there would still be incremental costs associated with the larger training audience for conversion (though there may be some steady-state economies).

Maint costs would also have to be revisited - the spare parts scaling would require adjustment - more a/c means more of certain spares; more basing locations with high readiness levels means more redundant spares at all locations.  Again, there may be some savings.

There may be a business case for such an option - let's see if Lockheed makes an offer.


However, I don't see a Chinook/Herc-J mix as being on the table, as I don't think Lockheed and Boeing would be willing to co-operate.  Both would want to sell a full solution of all their own equipment.

 

[Zoomie]

Given that much of the infrastructure, training, ops and maint capital costs have already been accounted for under the existing C130J plan, what would be the impact if TB/DND/RCAF decided just to go with additional C130s?

AFAIK the tactical J-herc contract calls for all maintenance support to be restricted to 8 Wing - not much good for those future FWSAR to be based elsewhere.

If Lockheed wanted to throw in their J-Herc into the competition - the model that they would most probably offer would be the shorty-J and its SAR add-ons would make the aircraft substantially different machine than those in our current inventory.  We would also inevitably paint them yellow - in order to counter any temptation to use them as back-ups for the TAL fleet.

 

[fireman1867]

Lockheed's new C-130XJ will most likely be the aircraft offered, it's basically a J lacking the automated  cargo handling system. BTW their is no issue with flying a stubby Herc in the mountains...just sayin.....

 

[Kirkhill]

..... BTW their is no issue with flying a stubby Herc in the mountains...just sayin.....

Stand corrected, happily.

Cheers.

 

[Zoomie]

BTW their is no issue with flying a stubby Herc in the mountains...just sayin.....

Source?
The current fleet of CF "stubby hercs" were deemed unfit for mountainous FWSAR by the air force.  Enough so that the Buffalo fleet was extended to where it is today - as no other capability was in our fleet.

 

[Haletown]

Looks like there will be 38 x C 27J's for sale . . maybe we could pick up enough for the FWSAR on the cheap

pg. 9

 

[aesop081]

Looks like there will be 38 x C 27J's for sale . . maybe we could pick up enough for the FWSAR on the cheap

pg. 9

I don't know if "divesting" will necessarily mean "sell"...............

 

[Zoomie]

Certainly plausible - smart economics even with the necessary refit for FWSAR requirements.

 

[dapaterson]

As I recall, those were originally a US Army requirement, taken over by the USAF, who's now divesting them - I suspect the US Army is going to be miffed about losing their tac lift.

 

[Kirkhill]

As I recall, those were originally a US Army requirement, taken over by the USAF, who's now divesting them - I suspect the US Army is going to be miffed about losing their tac lift.

From Pg. 8 of Haletown's posting:

Example: The new strategic guidance emphasizes flexibility and adaptability. The C-­‐27J was
developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs
in difficult environments such as Afghanistan where we thought the C-­‐130 might not be able
to operate effectively. However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield
constraints for C-­‐130 operations in Afghanistan and expect these constraints to be marginal
in future scenarios. Since we have ample inventory of C-­‐130s and the current cost to own
and operate them is lower, we no longer need

 

[dapaterson]

It's a question of ownership of the assets - originally they were to be US Army owned & operated.  The USAF got them instead, and now is cutting them - so the US Army will retain its old tac lift airframes at considerable cost in R&O and ongoing O&M.

Interservice rivalries in the US military are pretty fierce...

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry DAP,

I just realized I lost part of my previous post.  Without that it comes across in an unintended manner.

When I read the "official" version it skirts the fact the Air Force wasn't getting the job done.  So one more time they are being ordered to kiss and make nice with the Army.... What are the odds of that?

The same thing has happened with the JHSVs, also an Army led transport programme, this time because the Navy wasn't getting them where they needed to be on time.  Programme transferred to the USN.  8 hulls removed from the programme.

 

[Zoomie]

Ironically these are similar circumstances that got us the Buffalo back in the late 60's.  RCAF picked them up cheap from DeHaviland when the US pulled out of the program.

 

[AAF]

If if the USAF did sell this C-27s, its hard to say if the our government would be bright enough to pick up on a possible good deal for these aircraft for FWSAR, and go ahead and make a deal for them...not necessarily all of them but enough to cover what we need including possibly putting a couple in Yellowknife...just my two cents on the idea

 

[dapaterson]

If if the USAF did sell this C-27s, its hard to say if the our government would be bright enough to pick up on a possible good deal for these aircraft for FWSAR, and go ahead and make a deal for them...not necessarily all of them but enough to cover what we need including possibly putting a couple in Yellowknife...just my two cents on the idea

Buying used isn't always a great idea - ask the RCN about "submarines".  There are also significant costs above and beyond the aircraft themselves including: supporting infrastructure; training for operators and maintainers; training aids such as simulators; spares; and maintenance contracts.

Indeed, with DND tending to go more to outsourced maintenance for many fleets, the support costs end up being greater than the acquisition costs.  Much like Gillette used to give away razors to sell you the blades, the acquisition cost for the aircraft is only one part of the purchase decision.

 

[Zoomie]

Excellent points noted above.  It's more than just swiping the VISA and getting the new planes.

While infrastructure would only be an issue in YZF (all other MOBs have hangars to fit H model Hercs) - there is the maintenance contract to consider. 

If Alenia would be willing to broker a deal for lightly used USAF C-27Js - run through some sort of FWSAR adaptation/refit - with a 20 year 3rd line contract - maybe it might "fly".  Although, an easier way to sell this to the Canadian taxpayer (not that SAR is a hard sell) would be to secure a made in Canada solution when it comes to 3rd line maintenance (Cascade, Field, IMP, Viking, ?)

 

[dapaterson]

Excellent points noted above.  It's more than just swiping the VISA and getting the new planes.

While infrastructure would only be an issue in YZF (all other MOBs have hangars to fit H model Hercs) - there is the maintenance contract to consider. 

If Alenia would be willing to broker a deal for lightly used USAF C-27Js - run through some sort of FWSAR adaptation/refit - with a 20 year 3rd line contract - maybe it might "fly".  Although, an easier way to sell this to the Canadian taxpayer (not that SAR is a hard sell) would be to secure a made in Canada solution when it comes to 3rd line maintenance (Cascade, Field, IMP, Viking, ?)

Infra is never as simple as it first appears - every manufacturer takes perverse pride in including some odd, obscure requirement that makes the current facilities require a costly retrofit - whether it's specialized tooling that needs 372W DC power, or someone deciding that a space can hold two a/c (which works in two dimensions only, not three) or needign to install a new ventilation system...

All this to say, it's never as simple as it first appears.

 

[OOTBthinker]

Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum but I'd like to join the discussion by proposing something slightly different for FWSAR.

I am aware that the intent was to replace the Buffalos and the older Hercs with a sinlge aircraft type, but it is interesting to note what the NRC report had to say about this approach:

v. Single Aircraft Type assumption: Throughout the SOR is an implicit assumption that a single aircraft
type with twin engines will be selected to meet all requirements. It is stated as a preferred option as
quoted below.
“…preliminary costing data indicates that replacement with a new twin‐engine aircraft would cost less
than the status quo over a 30‐year life cycle. The preferred option is to replace the CC‐115 Buffalo and
up to ten older CC‐130 Hercules with a new multi‐engine aircraft, which would be common to all current
and/or proposed FWSAR bases.” (A 1.3.3)
Analysis and Discussion
The preferred option is also presumed in the Statement of Operating Intent (DND, 2005) to be a single
aircraft type with two engines. This assumption effectively precludes serious consideration of a
multiple‐fleet solution.
If the small number of very long distance scenarios is distinguished from the majority of SAR incidents, it
may be practicable to provide FWSAR coverage for those scenarios using a small number of long‐range,
relatively high‐speed aircraft. The balance of scenarios could then be served by an aircraft with range
and speed capabilities more modest than those required by the present SOR. Stating the single aircraft
type assumption in the SOR is a significant disincentive to multi‐fleet proposals from industry and may
therefore be seen as an unnecessary constraint on the project.
Conclusion
Despite the preliminary costing data, the assumption of a single aircraft solution should be removed to
allow industry to submit single or multi‐fleet proposals. Such proposals can then be assessed on the
basis of their merits including costs.

I'd like to offer that SAR services in Canada might best be served by a fleet of V-22s supported by C-130Js with AAR capabilities for long range scenarios and to support the V-22s by providing them extended range. The V-22s would also be the ideal aircraft to replace the Twin Otters in Yellowknife, providing better support to the Rangers and improving SAR capabilities up north. The V-22s could eventually replace the Griffons in Cold Lake, Bagotville, Goose Bay and Trenton, and be added in Winnipeg; this would also allow us to develop a CSAR capability.

I am aware that this would be a more expensive proposal, but it could be implemented in increments over a number of years (something like 4 V-22s and 1 C-130J every year over 5 to 10 years).
One thing is for sure: SAR capabilities in Canada would be greatly improved.

By the way, does anyone know if the C-27J is capable of AAR?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum but I'd like to join the discussion by proposing something slightly different for FWSAR.

I am aware that the intent was to replace the Buffalos and the older Hercs with a sinlge aircraft type, but it is interesting to note what the NRC report had to say about this approach:

v. Single Aircraft Type assumption: Throughout the SOR is an implicit assumption that a single aircraft
type with twin engines will be selected to meet all requirements. It is stated as a preferred option as
quoted below.
“…preliminary costing data indicates that replacement with a new twin‐engine aircraft would cost less
than the status quo over a 30‐year life cycle. The preferred option is to replace the CC‐115 Buffalo and
up to ten older CC‐130 Hercules with a new multi‐engine aircraft, which would be common to all current
and/or proposed FWSAR bases.” (A 1.3.3)
Analysis and Discussion
The preferred option is also presumed in the Statement of Operating Intent (DND, 2005) to be a single
aircraft type with two engines. This assumption effectively precludes serious consideration of a
multiple‐fleet solution.
If the small number of very long distance scenarios is distinguished from the majority of SAR incidents, it
may be practicable to provide FWSAR coverage for those scenarios using a small number of long‐range,
relatively high‐speed aircraft. The balance of scenarios could then be served by an aircraft with range
and speed capabilities more modest than those required by the present SOR. Stating the single aircraft
type assumption in the SOR is a significant disincentive to multi‐fleet proposals from industry and may
therefore be seen as an unnecessary constraint on the project.
Conclusion
Despite the preliminary costing data, the assumption of a single aircraft solution should be removed to
allow industry to submit single or multi‐fleet proposals. Such proposals can then be assessed on the
basis of their merits including costs.

I'd like to offer that SAR services in Canada might best be served by a fleet of V-22s supported by C-130Js with AAR capabilities for long range scenarios and to support the V-22s by providing them extended range. The V-22s would also be the ideal aircraft to replace the Twin Otters in Yellowknife, providing better support to the Rangers and improving SAR capabilities up north. The V-22s could eventually replace the Griffons in Cold Lake, Bagotville, Goose Bay and Trenton, and be added in Winnipeg; this would also allow us to develop a CSAR capability.

I am aware that this would be a more expensive proposal, but it could be implemented in increments over a number of years (something like 4 V-22s and 1 C-130J every year over 5 to 10 years).
One thing is for sure: SAR capabilities in Canada would be greatly improved.

By the way, does anyone know if the C-27J is capable of AAR?

Can you give a little on your background so potential respondents to your points will be better able to guage your experience level to make fair comments.

Milnet.Ca Staff

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect the cost savings of buying the existing C27 fleet will be weighing heavily on the DND senior management. The aircraft are flying, there are spare parts and they would only need fitting of certain gear and paint job. It would certainly appear to be a solution to make a thorny problem go away for awhile and would look good to the public.
That being said, it would be interesting for Canada to lease a couple of V-22 to assess them in the SAR role, mainly using them in exercises to determine their strength and weaknesses for the role.