• 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
Hey, listen, I know youall got the future of the Airforce charted out, but as for me, I sure would like a SAR platform that I can stand upright in to work. That leaves out the CASA. Also, with the experience of the Cormorant purchase, common components is critical to success. This also leaves out the CASA, I think. here's an aricle I just read for youall to peruse



RESOLUTE, Nunavut (CP) - Military planners suggest the future defence of Canada's increasingly busy North will require a combination of high-tech surveillance backed up by old-fashioned boots on the ground.

But the man in charge of that defence says linking those two elements won't work until the Forces solve the same problem that has dogged Canada's overseas military efforts - a lack of enough air transport to move personnel and equipment quickly and efficiently to where they're needed.

"The type of aircraft we need is more in line with the type of aircraft being looked at elsewhere in the Forces," said Col. Normand Couturier, who was flying in the midnight twilight over the unbroken sea ice and rocky islands of the High Arctic on his way to a training exercise with the Canadian Rangers.

The days of the venerable old Twin Otter are coming to an end, he said. A staple of northern flying since the 1960s, the Twin is simply too small and too slow to keep up with the evolution of Canada's northern defence.

"It kind of limits us to what we can do," said Couturier.

Military planners are developing a vision of northern defence that rests on close surveillance of the Arctic with the capability of moving forces up rapidly from the south when they're needed.

Planners suggest that surveillance will rest on three pillars of technology currently being developed or tested: a satellite to monitor Arctic waterways, overflights of the North by an unmanned aircraft, and high-frequency radar at the western and eastern entrances to the Northwest Passage.

Electronic monitoring is the most cost-effective way to keep tabs on an area larger than the entire continent of Europe, said Couturier.

"If you have the right sensors and right surveillance in place, this is not where you need to have large numbers of forces."

The Rangers provide local knowledge and first-response capability to an emergency. But Couturier acknowledges the largely aboriginal reserve units that patrol out of 58 of the North's 65 communities can't be expected to shoulder the entire burden of northern defence.

"As long as we have that reach-back capability to task forces from the south, that's the main thing," he said.

At present, the only military planes stationed in the North are four Twin Otters in Yellowknife. Canada's Hercules military cargo planes, themselves aging, are often busy on international missions.

Ideally, Couturier would like to see the role of the Twin Otters supplanted by an equal number of either C-27 Spartans or Casa 295s. Both planes, although slightly smaller than the Hercules, are being considered by the military, he said.

But something needs to be done to shore up Canada's military presence on its rapidly closing last frontier.

International mining and energy companies - drawn by diamonds, gold, metals and natural gas - are active from Ellesmere Island to the Mackenzie Delta. Thinning ice due to global warming has led to concerns of increased shipping through the Northwest Passage - a waterway most countries consider international waters in defiance of Canada's claim to control over it.

More than 140,000 flights now cross the Arctic every year, a figure that is growing at least five per cent annually. Most of those are international passenger flights. As well, as fishing stocks in southern waters become depleted, fleets are likely to sail further north.

"Natural resources are becoming more and more accessible," said Couturier. "It's important that we maintain sovereignty."

Gen. Paul Hillier, the recently appointed head of the Canadian Forces, is currently assessing the needs of the North as part of an overall defence review.


©The Canadian Press, 2005
 
HI there Inch all I was trying to get at is that I thought it might be able to help  aid in Rescue operations didn't realize all that was involved with the auto hover .      Also thanks for telling me that the sea king has it didn't know that. I thought it was something new for the comerants  . Learn some thing new every day  cheers
 
kj_gully said:
Hey, listen, I know youall got the future of the Airforce charted out, but as for me, I sure would like a SAR platform that I can stand upright in to work. That leaves out the CASA. Also, with the experience of the Cormorant purchase, common components is critical to success. This also leaves out the CASA, I think.

Hey kj,

I understand your desire for space but, in the world of tight defence budgets, getting you something that you "sure would like" means not getting someone something they "sure would need." It is a zero sum game and we need to focus on getting the required capabilities not just nice to have things. At the end of the day, I don't profess to be a SAR expert nor am I trying to tell you how to do your job. I'm just trying to build a better understanding of the issue and that is why I am participating in this debate.

As for the CASA / C-27J question, I personally have no preference. But I do note that the 295 advertises 6'3" of headroom (see: c-295.ca) which seems adequate to me. As well, I'm not sure what common components the C-27 offers that the 295 does? If you are referring to commonality with the 130J, then it is important to be clear that a) we still don't have 130Js and b) it is not clear that we will necessarily ever have Js (although I admit it is likely).

Cheers,
Sam
 
Good comments all around - this is turning into a well thought out debate.

Let me quickly address a few issues and hopefully I may shed a little more light on the issue.

CASA-EADS has raised my ire due mainly to the double-talk that they are trying to spin on the Canadian taxpayer and the boon-doggle that they have caused to the entire FWSAR project.  The SOR for any new FWSAR aircraft has very specific technical issues that must be addressed.  The one that the CASA-EADS propses does not meet that very basic requirement - it must be able to cruise at least 295KIAS (figure taken from memory - no quoting plse).  The CASA bird can't meet this requirement and thus stems the whole reason as to why they think we should establish 3 squadrons of SAR aircraft in the North for that 1%.

This basic cruising speed stems from a reform in the SAR world.  Our geriatric CC-115 Buffalo's cruise at 227KIAS at sea level - so obviously we are not meeting our own requirements at the moment.  This reform is to improve our SAR coverage all across Canada (including the North) for all the reasons already discussed by Sam et al.  CASA's bid is based on the Federal Government's intent to improve SAR coverage to the North - this has already been done by establishing these very basic requirements.

6'3" is not very much when you consider what goes on in the back of our FWSAR aircraft.  What Gully was alluding to is a very important issue for the GIBs.  We carry SKADs, Pumps and Toboggans - all of which are very heavy and cumbersome.  The rear end of the CASA bird does not allow for a grown adult to stand erect across the entire width of the cabin.  If you look at their website - you will see that the cabin is very much sloped on the sides and has a very narrow cabin.  This is not condusive at all to the manual manipulation of all the gear in the back.  CASA touts that it can fit 7 C-130 pallets in its hold.  What it doesn't say is that these pallets are loaded sideways and take up the entire width of the cabin.  The C-27J can fit 3 pallets loaded correctly, and still allow for plenty of room to move with head-room to boot.  In the Buff - we have SAR storage racks that go right up to the cabin ceiling (at least 7') and we still end up putting all of our personal gear in the head!

Final point before I hand this discussion back to you all - all of our SAR squadrons are also Strategic Transport squadrons.  We conduct resupply for the northern communities and we are also mobile repair parties for broken down aircraft anywhere in Canada.  I don't know if the Spartan is quite big enough to transport an intact propellor, but I definately know that the CASA-EADS bird is not a contender.  We are not the USCG or any of the other nations that have ordered the CASA, in the CF every asset we purchase must be able to conduct more than one role - Transport and SAR is our mantra.
 
My own wee SAR / Tac Pipe dream.....

Manufacturer:   Canadair Aircraft Ltd

Crew/Passengers:   two pilots in ejection seats
Power Plant:   two 1,500 hp Lycoming T-53 turboshaft engines  
Performance:   Max Speed: 321 mph ( 517 km/h) Cruising Speed: 309 mph ( 497 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,050 m) VTOL Range: 420 mi ( 677 km)
Weights:   Empty: 8,775 lb ( 3,980 kg) Gross VTOL: 12,600 lb ( 5,714 kg)
Gross STOL: 14,500 lb ( 6,577 kg)  
Dimensions:   Span: 34 ft 8 in ( 10.56 m) Length: 53 ft 7 1/2 in ( 16.34 m)
Height (wing @ 90 deg): 17 ft 11/2 in (5.22 m) Wing Area: 233 sq ft (21.67 sq m)
Armament:   None but provisions for two 100 gallon (455 litre) drop tanks
Cost:   Unknown




 
Thanks Z - great reply.

I will need to think on this further.

Sam
 
Bit of cross threading here, but surveillance is important both for military reasons and to guide SAR to the site of the crash. A combination of large UAVs like Global Hawk to do the patrols and SB's CL 84 Dynaverts to actually fly in from bases in the far north would seem to cover the bases (Actually, I am partial to the Dynavert as well, but substitute whatever SAR aircraft you like).

 
If only it were that easy....

The "S" in SAR is the hard part - if an ELT is broadcasting the crash site location, a UAV could work well in localizing (sp?) the site down to under a mile.

Most times that we lose an aircraft, the ELT is quiet and we can only go on sighting reports and use of the C1A1 Human Eye.  We lost a float plane out West here about 2 months ago - if it weren't for the discovery of one body, we would have been searching a huge area for weeks.  Luckily (for us) we found debris and human remains after only 3 days.  Could a UAV have helped? I don't see why not, but there isn't a surveillance suite that exists which is more accurate than the human eye in all conditions.
 
More on the dynavert....


It is quite possible to produce a modernized version to cover our SAR and Martime needs as well as gunship models...

Perhaps replacing the tail rotor with a ducted fan ( similar to the mod on the Hughes series of Helos )

Would such an aircraft be usefull in the SAR role?



 
Boeing has been working on this very concept for many years.

V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor - if they can fix the technology and make it safe, giddie-up!!

 
Boeing has been working on the Osprey now for many years...


But the Dynavert was flown in the early 70's and performed very well......

Typical for examples of Canadian Ingenuity...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....

Sigh

We could have been using it for the last 30 odd years....


<<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>
 
Steel Badger said:
...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....

That is incorrect, the western canada aviation museum at the winnipeg airport has one, it is somewhat disassembled but it is complete.  I tried to attach the pics of it i took but the files are too large to attach here
 
I uploaded the 2 pics i took to the photo gallery in the aircraft section..i will put them here when they have made it into the system.
 
http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Vehicles/Aircraft/2004_0903WCAM0030.JPG

http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Vehicles/Aircraft/2004_0903WCAM0032.JPG
 
Steel Badger said:
Boeing has been working on the Osprey now for many years...


But the Dynavert was flown in the early 70's and performed very well......

Typical for examples of Canadian Ingenuity...the last remaining CL84 is in Ottawa, as a museum piece.....

Sigh

We could have been using it for the last 30 odd years....


<<Refrains with difficulty from mentioning HMCS Loch Bras Dor and the Bobcat >>>

So why was the Dynavert cancelled (Ottawa didn't want any?)?  And, if everyone is so high on the Osprey despite it's problems (probably rightly so), why doesn't Bombardier haul-out the plans and start shopping it around?  {This isn't meant to sound sarcastic, I really don't know and am curious}
 
It is my understanding that, despite the very impressive technical advances of the Dynavert, the reality was that it had virtually no internal cargo capacity (the area behind the pilots  largely occupied by the mechanical mixing and wing tilt mechanicals) and therefore generated little military nor commercial interest. As well, limitations in material technologies at the time would have made it very difficult to scale the aircraft up.

Sam
 
Sam69 said:
It is my understanding that, despite the very impressive technical advances of the Dynavert, the reality was that it had virtually no internal cargo capacity (the area behind the pilots  largely occupied by the mechanical mixing and wing tilt mechanicals) and therefore generated little military nor commercial interest. As well, limitations in material technologies at the time would have made it very difficult to scale the aircraft up.

Sam

Might explain why the Osprey as a much bigger propellor.  I only knew that the Dynavert did very well at the time.  My understanding was that there was no requirements for it at the time.  The lesson learned in Vietnam were not on paper yet.  Same goes for the Bras D'or.
 
Question to folks in Ottawa (if, in fact there are any from this thread)... Is anyone planning to be at Cansec? Apparently both contenders are going to be there in force.... wouldn't mind hearing what they're doing or saying?
 
Back
Top