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

[YZT580]

Even in Europe where buy local is of prime importance, the C27 is not the aircraft of choice for SAR, not even in Italy.  Most countries position small numbers of a/c in multiple locations rather than trying to service large areas with centralized resources.  Maybe it is time to develop a northern SAR capability by standing up a squadron in Churchill or some such place.  Since transit times would not be as great the speed requirement could be reduced somewhat, allowing the use of helicopters as the primary local a/c with the
C130 as the long distance, loitoring choice.  And Norway isn't so little by the way.  It is a long way from Oslo to Harstad if you need help just as its a long way from Resolute to Trenton.  Their SAR positions a/c such that travel time is reduced significantly. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's long, but not very wide which would have a lot of bearing on aircraft types. At rougly 1800km long, 3 bases could give you a max coverage area of perhaps 450Km in length.

 

[dapaterson]

Even in Europe where buy local is of prime importance, the C27 is not the aircraft of choice for SAR, not even in Italy.  Most countries position small numbers of a/c in multiple locations rather than trying to service large areas with centralized resources.  Maybe it is time to develop a northern SAR capability by standing up a squadron in Churchill or some such place.  Since transit times would not be as great the speed requirement could be reduced somewhat, allowing the use of helicopters as the primary local a/c with the
C130 as the long distance, loitoring choice.  And Norway isn't so little by the way.  It is a long way from Oslo to Harstad if you need help just as its a long way from Resolute to Trenton.  Their SAR positions a/c such that travel time is reduced significantly.

There's also the simple fact that we can't have 20 minute SAR response everywhere, and assets are going to be positioned to provide maximum benefit to maximum population, with considerations for areas where SAR issues are commmon as well.

So if you choose to live hundres of kilometres away from large population centres, SAR response times will be slower.

 

[FoverF]

Alenia's top brass is talking hard-ball about embargoing a Canadian buy of C-27Js. 

And while talk is cheap, Alenia *does* have literally billions of dollars on the line. 


[quote author=Giuseppi Giordo, CEO of Alenia Aermacchi]
Giuseppi Giordo, CEO of Alenia Aermacch explained that the company... would exercise its contractual rights not to support the aircraft originally sold to the U.S. if those planes were resold on the international market, essentially competing with Giordo’s company.

“If they want to sell additional airplanes as FMS, we will support them, but not those 21 airplanes,” Giordo said. “In fact, we will do our best — not only us, but the Italian government — not to support those planes.
[/quote]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120227/DEFREG02/302270007/Alenia-Warns-U-S-Over-C-27J-Sales?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Do Airplane companies think threats like that actually work?

Sure- Alenia is going to (potentially) give up 20-30 years worth of selling parts, support and engineering (where the real money is BTW) because we bought used instead of new?

Riiight.... :

Maybe we should avoid the C-27 just on the principle that the OEM appears to be too stupid to live...

 

[YZT580]

Canadian assets are definitely not located where they can do the most good.  There are numerous resources in southern ontario yet Trenton gets the nod.  Even if YYB had been selected it would have made more sense being at least an hour closer to the north country and yet the same distance from most of southern ontario.  Trention as an SAR location had more to do with the  primary traffic patterns back in the days of the DC3s, the proximity to hdq. and the collocation with one of the primary transport squadrons. (plus the river for servicing the Alberts) 

 

[Good2Golf]

Do Airplane companies think threats like that actually work?

Sure- Alenia is going to (potentially) give up 20-30 years worth of selling parts, support and engineering (where the real money is BTW) because we bought used instead of new?

Riiight.... :

Maybe we should avoid the C-27 just on the principle that the OEM appears to be too stupid to live...

A generally accepted rule of thumb is 3:1, in-service costs to initial acquisition expenditures.  Based on this position by Alenia, one should perhaps consider that the in-service costs to maintain a ex-USAF C27J will now become prohibitive relative to additional new-build C130Js, which would have significant commonality and scales of economy with the existing 17-plane fleet.

Food for thought for Signore Giordo, although he seems to have already spoken...and not only for his company, but for his Nation.


Regards
G2G

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That is my point- just how much money is Alenia planning on making off a fleet of USAF C-27s sitting in the desert for the next 30 years?

How much more would they make off the same fleet getting the wings flown off them in Canadian service over the same period?

BTW- I actually have no dog in this fight, in the sense that I really am not following FWSAR all that closely. I just thought that Alenia's threat was both transparent and stupid.

 

[GAP]

Maybe we should avoid the C-27 just on the principle that the OEM appears to be too stupid to live...

excellent idea

 

[Good2Golf]

...BTW- I actually have no dog in this fight, in the sense that I really am not following FWSAR all that closely. I just thought that Alenia's threat was both transparent and stupid.

Same...unbelievable, really.

 

[Kirkhill]

Better plan for Alenia.....

Buy the C27Js back from the USAF at 25 cents on the dollar (not an uncommon offer for used industrial plant), reset them to factory standards for sale at 75 cents on the dollar.  Then they can Canadianize them and sell them to us at 90 cents on the dollar and they get the After Sales Service contract. Everybody wins.

Always better to keep control of the used equipment you manufacture otherwise you end up competing with it.

 

[FoverF]

It seems to me that there's little skin off our nose whether we buy from the US gov or from Alenia. If it's the right plane, then it's the right plane, it was the front-runner for years, even before we had the option of buying them used. And while initial procurement costs are going to be a little cheaper from the US probably, the difference in through-life costs isn't likely to be dramatic.

So Alenia wouldn't have to kick up much of a fuss to make buying used more cost and trouble than it's worth. I doubt they have any intention of backing up their talk about not supporting the fleet, but even if they just gouge us a little extra (which I have every expectation that they would), then it would no longer be worth out while to buy from the US.

And while buying from the USAF vs Alenia is a very small difference to us, it would be hundreds of millions if not billions for Alenia, and represents years worth of productivity.

And just playing the devil's advocate here, but we don't know what kind of financial situation the company is in. For a relatively small manufacturer like Alenia, losing out on that much money and two years of productivity could be the difference between the company continuing to exist or not. They might be in a situation where if they lose out on this, they might not be around to cash in on the engineering and overhaul work 10-20 years from now, and so have no choice but to play hardball.

 

[Kirkhill]

It seems to me that there's little skin off our nose whether we buy from the US gov or from Alenia. If it's the right plane, then it's the right plane, it was the front-runner for years, even before we had the option of buying them used. And while initial procurement costs are going to be a little cheaper from the US probably, the difference in through-life costs isn't likely to be dramatic.

So Alenia wouldn't have to kick up much of a fuss to make buying used more cost and trouble than it's worth. I doubt they have any intention of backing up their talk about not supporting the fleet, but even if they just gouge us a little extra (which I have every expectation that they would), then it would no longer be worth out while to buy from the US.

And while buying from the USAF vs Alenia is a very small difference to us, it would be hundreds of millions if not billions for Alenia, and represents years worth of productivity.

And just playing the devil's advocate here, but we don't know what kind of financial situation the company is in. For a relatively small manufacturer like Alenia, losing out on that much money and two years of productivity could be the difference between the company continuing to exist or not. They might be in a situation where if they lose out on this, they might not be around to cash in on the engineering and overhaul work 10-20 years from now, and so have no choice but to play hardball.

Point.

 

[OOTBthinker]

The Canadian government plans to buy 17 new aircraft under the FWSAR project. The U.S. has 21 C-27Js to sell. Australia and Taiwan are also apparently interested in these planes. Together, these three nations likely require much more than 21 of these aircrafts. Couldn't the three nations divide amongst themselves the 21 aircrafts from the U.S. with an order of more to Alenia or through a FMS through the U.S.? In this way, Alenia gets additional purchases of its aircraft and can no longer claim to have an issue in supporting the used aircrafts sold by the U.S.

 

[aesop081]

The U.S. has 21 C-27Js to sell.

Given that the document previously posted mentions that the US will be "divesting" 38 C-27s (program was ended at 21), it does not necessarily mean that they will be for sale.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120227/DEFREG02/302270007/Alenia-Warns-U-S-Over-C-27J-Sales?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Officials have not specified plans for the C-27Js, and options include parking them in the desert for future use, transferring the planes to the Air Guard, Special Operations Command or another agency, such as Homeland Security, or reselling the aircraft internationally.

“I think there are a number of avenues available to us. We have not selected a particular course of action. We will be putting that together and it does include potentially making these airframes available for sale to [partners].”

 

[YZT580]

Isn't it amazing how history repeats itself.  It seems to me that the Buffalo was the victim of an earlier U.S. airforce takeover of an army procurement plan way back in the 60's.  That one almost did in DeHavilland Now it is Alenia's turn to get burnt.  From 6 billion to 1.6 and then to have the ones already delivered being rejected has got to hurt. 

 

[Kirkhill]

It may not be over wrt the C27J in US service.

The National Guards, both Air and Army, as well as States that planned on using them for Homeland Security missions,  are pushing back hard against the decision.  Congress may yet keep them on active duty but perhaps not on the Air Force budget.

This Dec 2011 Air Force Times article defines the ultimate rationale:

...The C-27J is cheaper to fly than the C-130J and the CH-47 Chinook, according to a senior Air National Guard official. Flying one cargo pallet or 10 soldiers in a C-130J costs about $7,100 per hour, while the C-27J can accomplish the same mission for $2,100 per hour.
“It’s not to say that the C-130J cannot accomplish the same mission as the C-27J; however, the C-27J is a much more cost-effective, ‘right-sized’ platform moving forward in the current budget environment, and also gives the Army the greatest amount of flexibility in fixed-wing airlift,” the official said.

While the CH-47 Chinook helicopters can accomplish the same mission, it is not the best use of them, according to a former Army commander.

“We flew some of our CH-47s on routes that should have been fixed-wing routes at a cost in lost combat assault sorties and extended use of the CH-47,” the former Army division commander in Afghanistan said.

You can find articles on Maryland, Ohio, North Dakota and others where the States are finding support to keep the C27Js and even add to them.

The problem still remains that the US Air Force still sees itself as being a strategic and not a tactical force.  They will get you into the appropriate State (foreign or domestic) on their time and under their conditions (full loads only) but getting it to the point of use is apparently someone else's problem.  The user can get the goods to the point of use any way they want it.  They just can't used fixed wing assets to get it there.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Remember last August's "Industry Day"?

If Canadian Press is correct, the CF has gotten back to the companies who were interested....

The Harper government's plan to buy new fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes has been pushed off until next year, The Canadian Press has learned.

Despite years of study and preparation, National Defence has postponed until the spring of 2013 issuing a tender call to replace nearly 50-year-old C-115 Buffalos and C-130 Hercules transports, many of which are in their third decade of service.

The procurement branch of the military has notified companies interested in bidding that it will carry out "consultations" over the next 12 months, and there will be workshops to outline expectations.

( .... )

A senior defence official, who asked not to be identified, said the specifications are now wide. Companies will be asked to submit proposals that demonstrate their aircraft will be able to cover the country's three search-and-rescue geographic sectors; carry survival and life-saving gear; possess a rear-loading ramp; and be able to conduct operations within a 15-hour crew day.

The specifications would require the winning bidder to provide a single aircraft to be on stand by in each sector 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The parameters are so broad they even leave it up to the companies to suggest where the planes should be based.

Taken together the requirements have led to speculation the federal government is prepared to farm out fixed-wing search-and-rescue, possibly as an alternative service delivery contract ....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Next step for FWSAR?  ANOTHER industry get-together!  This from MERX:

.... The Government of Canada is now ready to resume industry engagement on FWSAR and will start by holding an Industry Workshop on April 11, 2012. For this workshop, attendance will be restricted to companies who can identify themselves and can attest their capability of playing a significant role in the context of the Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue as an aircraft provider, or as a Canadian in-service support integrator ....

Full posting here (3 page PDF) if link doesn't work, and more in the "Industry Engagement Rules" (9 page PDF) here.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well it may be a good move, hopefully they have learned from the Ship building contract, the C-17, C-130J and the Chinook contracts on how to run the competition.

Actually when you think about it, we have had several well run contracts in the last few years and they certainly went to great pains to ensure the ship building contract didn't go off the rails (at least not yet). So there may well be light at the end of the tunnel and may even come to pass that other western countries will turn to Canada to show them how to run a military procurement program. Because by the time they are finished replacing everything that needs replacing now, we should be experts at it.