Others with more mechanical knowledge than I have questioned the V-22 because of its complexity. So far at any rate you need to have 10 in order to get 6 in the air. They are working on improving the reliability but so far that is where things stand. We don't have the dollars to keep a spare around just to ensure that one will start.
ytz- your argument goes around in circles. Sounds like what you want the RCAF to supersize the manning of SAR and create new bases. I am all for this. However, I am also a realist, and find it hard to believe there would be much appetite for increasing the number of personnel and adding more infrastructure in the current political and economic environment. I suggest that we need a faster pressurized plane you say we still need an unpressurized low slow plane. I point out that we already have a plane that flies lower and slower than the buffalo, the Cormorant, and you suggest that it is too similar to the buffalo, the plane with the capabilities you say we need to maintain. You ask about its serviceability- we are about to curtail our flying so we do not exceed our YFR this year- when does that happen? What ( or maybe who?) are you really lobbying for? I think C27 is the best compromise for SAR. I think that C130 J is a good compromise for the RCAF. I do not think a mixed fleet of aircraft in a small community is in the best interests of anybody. What do you think YZT?
Sorry KJ I am not trying to go around in circles. With reference bases, the consideration should be to re-locate so they are more central to our airspace in all directions east/west AND north/south. Currently the main response base YTR is right on the southern boundary for example. Additional bases would be wonderful but I agree that in this political climate it is highly unlikely. Hence the suggestion to position the slower aircraft in terrain specific locations. I believe that re-positioning our current assets is a necessary first step that could be accomplished fairly quickly and would help to reduce response times.
I spent the last decade in Europe working with AENA, EC, LFT and others and none of them like the C27: hence my reluctance to sign on to that particular purchase. If the Italians don't like it and they make it why are we so keen? The cormorant may be a good aircraft to replace the DH5. If they are, go for it but there is an individual purchase price and maintainence cost that goes with rotary wing that is much lower with fixed wing. Also most fixed wing are faster (even the proposed BUF by Viking will have greater speed than the cormorant) and there have been a lot of maintenance issues with the cormorant in particular thanks to Jean for buying the cheapest alternative he could find. Would more Labs be a better solution since we already have some? We used to use them. Its a complex issue that needs looking at from all angles and quickly before the airframes time out completely.
I spent the last decade in Europe working with AENA, EC, LFT and others and none of them like the C27: hence my reluctance to sign on to that particular purchase. If the Italians don't like it and they make it why are we so keen? The cormorant may be a good aircraft to replace the DH5. If they are, go for it but there is an individual purchase price and maintainence cost that goes with rotary wing that is much lower with fixed wing. Also most fixed wing are faster (even the proposed BUF by Viking will have greater speed than the cormorant) and there have been a lot of maintenance issues with the cormorant in particular thanks to Jean for buying the cheapest alternative he could find. Would more Labs be a better solution since we already have some? We used to use them. Its a complex issue that needs looking at from all angles and quickly before the airframes time out completely.
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
Buy 6 more Chinook CH-147Gs for 450 and attach a 6-ship det to 408. Add hoists and put removable orange stripe decals on a pair of them and you're golden. The Mountains can be served by both CH-149s and CH-147s from east and west. Skip the C27s and add C130Js. Rotate the 147s through Pet and the 130s through Trenton and/or Winnipeg for maintenance. Treat Comox, Yellowknife, Gander, Greenwood, (Resolute?) as FOLs with dets on permanent standby.
Not so humble opinion. >
Not so humble opinion. >
OK. It is finally 100 per cent clear to me I have been wasting my time. spend a few minutes researching the current fleet of SAR resources. We currently use CH 149 and CH 146, CC115 and C130 aircraft for SAR ( and unfortunately partly if not totally due to the prolonged and oft delayed FWSAR procurement, CP 140). I don't want us to buy more LABS, since we will have to retrieve the ones we have from parks, museums , and mothballs before we use them, nor purchase more Cormorant. I suggest the low slow visual search role in the mountains can be fulfilled using the SAR rotary aircraft currently in service, and that SAR capabilities would be enhanced by procuring a relatively swift, pressurized aircraft common across canada and possibly common to tactical airlift fleet outfitted with 20th century ( not dreaming of 21st century) thermal/ IR/ something else that I don't know but is probably better/ sensors. I think we should place these resources smack dab on the mean ( average not nasty) centre of the historical incident points for our primary mandate, Aviation incident response, as opposed to positioning them to quickly reach the 5 percent (my guess) of incidents that are dramatic and distant from our current locations. We will receive a lot more bad press when we are slow to respond from iqualuit South to an incident just like we currently receive bad press when we take a long time to respond to Igloolik from Trenton currently, it will just happen a lot more often, since there's more traffic down South. If you drive a tow truck, you want your garage close to the freeway, not out in the gravel road, even if it means that every once and awhile you have to drive a lot extra to pull a tractor out of the ditch.
- Reaction score
- 22,025
- Points
- 1,360
YZT580 said:
I have a friend in the USMC who flies the 22 and he loves it and that's including flying operationally in both Irag and, more demandingly, Afghanistan. He doesn't think the V-22 proved any more complex operationally (vice engineering, which it is, he acknowledges) in actual use than a Phrog (a.k.a. CH-46E Sea Knight) -- serviceability rates were about the same and maintenance was comparable. 10 in order to have 6 (i.e. 60% average serviceability) is not bad at all. Ask what the actual serviceability rates of a CH149 or CC-130H or CC-115 is.
If I were king for a day, I think I would be looking at a capability (vice specific platform) composed of something more like that which I think kj_gully is leaning towards; I'd invest in rebuilding some of the VH-71's to the CH149 configuration, building up the Comox RWSAR capability to perhaps include a detachment in the interior to cover the historical/statistical inland SAR cases in the Rockies, then look at augmenting the remainder FWSAR capability with more C130Js. I think that would be the best use/investment of the taxpayers' money from a purely DND point of view -- however, I do acknowledge that DND considerations do not represent 100% of the Government's considerations.
:2c:
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Good2Golf said:
Nor should they, which is something often overlooked here.
And even from a purely military-oriented view, there is:
a) a lot to be said for maintaining a domestic military aerospace manufacturing base, even though it means sometimes not having the absolute-best-in-the-world equipment every time.
b) a trickle-down effect from government pork - more tax revenues mean more money available for defence.
c) a political benefit from Made In Canada, that could potentially come into play in a number of ways. If the CF was demanding SAR-configured Dash-8s, do you think it would take 15+ years to get them?
- Reaction score
- 332
- Points
- 880
For those wishing a "made in Canada" solution - conduct the following task:
a) google Viking and Bombardier;
b) navigate to their website;
c) search their site for a page dedicated towards FWSAR, military aircraft, or anything of that matter; and
d) when you don't find anything, come back on here and read the rest of my post.
The simple fact of the matter is our aerospace industry is not interested in producing military aircraft - they simply shot and pout for a piece of the pie, yet do nothing to deserve it - apart from being Canadian.
If Viking was truly serious about the Buffalo NG - they would be bending metal right now, building a demonstrator aircraft that would make us wet our pants in anticipation. They would put the required $millions into R&D'ing an airframe that has what the basic needs of any future FWSAR would require. Instead, they have been quiet - relying on the MSM to dredge up old stories about how they once had a pipe dream called the Buffalo NG. Any 50 hour pilot will tell you that this dream is impossible.
Same story with Bombardier - they're not going to make a new airframe that has a rear cargo ramp. You can't do anything to the current Q-400 airframe that will allow a ramp to be retrofitted - not going to happen, ever.
The government of Canada is looking to replace these airframes within years of inking the contracts - for that sort of timeframe you need something that is already being made. Do you really think the Gov't is going to choose another Cyclone-style replacement project?
a) google Viking and Bombardier;
b) navigate to their website;
c) search their site for a page dedicated towards FWSAR, military aircraft, or anything of that matter; and
d) when you don't find anything, come back on here and read the rest of my post.
The simple fact of the matter is our aerospace industry is not interested in producing military aircraft - they simply shot and pout for a piece of the pie, yet do nothing to deserve it - apart from being Canadian.
If Viking was truly serious about the Buffalo NG - they would be bending metal right now, building a demonstrator aircraft that would make us wet our pants in anticipation. They would put the required $millions into R&D'ing an airframe that has what the basic needs of any future FWSAR would require. Instead, they have been quiet - relying on the MSM to dredge up old stories about how they once had a pipe dream called the Buffalo NG. Any 50 hour pilot will tell you that this dream is impossible.
Same story with Bombardier - they're not going to make a new airframe that has a rear cargo ramp. You can't do anything to the current Q-400 airframe that will allow a ramp to be retrofitted - not going to happen, ever.
The government of Canada is looking to replace these airframes within years of inking the contracts - for that sort of timeframe you need something that is already being made. Do you really think the Gov't is going to choose another Cyclone-style replacement project?
- Reaction score
- 17,027
- Points
- 1,010
Prince George.
Europes problem with the C27- doesn't carry enough so they end up using the C130s or larger most of the time. Low and slow manoeuverability is just adequete. In previous comments, meant Chinook not Lab dating myself I guess. I will vote for Kirkhills concept. As for relocating Trenton KJ I am certain that you are familiar with triangulation. The point to point from YYB to most of southern Ontario west of YYZ is identical to the same point from Trenton and often closer. The area that isn't covered is the area between YYZ YUL and YOW and all three cities have very few requirements for SAR. It is the areas in all other directions that would benefit the most and these are the places where SAR is needed the most. Airplanes disappear in forests and lakes but not so often in farm fields and towns. With the exception of international traffic feeding Toronto the vast majority of traffic crosses well north of Toronto or starts to enter Canadian airspace over YYZ heading for Michican. Thus the coverage from YYB would be the same as from YTR. Traffic from overseas crosses OW and then north of London heading towards ORD and the American midwest. North Bay wins again for track distance to the preferred flight paths. It has been a long time since V300 or HL555 were the most congested routes except as I say into Pearson itself.
concur. 300 km approx? 45 minutes flying time, just a guess... then you are 45 minutes further away from Lake Ontario.... and when a boat sinks the Canadian Coast Guard will be relieved that the RCAF is such an obvious scapegoat, just as the RCMP are silent when we are late to a ground SAR incident...
- Reaction score
- 22,025
- Points
- 1,360
kj_gully said:
Excellent point.
It seems the public (and the media) don't understand that there are three different lead providers of search and rescue services in Canada, depending on the situation: maritime (Coast Guard); ground (local police) and air (CF). The CF also assists CCG for maritime SAR, but DFO/CCG has lead for maritime SAR, including the Great Lakes.
National Search and Rescue Secretariat - Annex A to National SAR Program: Roles and Responsibilities for Search and Rescue Program
Often when things don't go smoothly in a maritime or ground SAR situation, it seems that the CF gets blamed for failing to respond appropriately...even if it is a secondary responder and has to reposition airborne SAR assets away from primary SAR responsibilities.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
kj_gully said:
There is a limited amount of SAR availability at the municipal level on Lake Ontario. The joint Toronto Police and EMS Marine Unit have a main station, three substations and 15 boats. ( Cross-trained paramedics staff the patrol vessels. )
Their response area includes approximately 460 square miles of open water on Lake Ontario. Their operational jurisdiction is from the Etobicoke creek (Peel Region) to Rouge River (Durham Region) and extends 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border.
Peel, Halton, Durham, Niagara, York and Hamilton also operate marine units.
