• 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
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Just my opinion, but I think you are confusing two separate issues.   The real issue is we're short airframes in your specific region and it's obviously impacting operations which is justifiably pissing people off.   If the Air Force had procured another 3-6 air frames (rather than cutting the contract to the bone), and based at least one Cormorant permanently in Shearwater (as well as other holes in coverage zones), you wouldn't have a problem at all....

Bottom Line:   If we had the proper number of airframes per region to allow for redundancies and downtime for maintenance, would it not make sense to build in additional functionality including light tactical transport which would allow the CF to address all sorts of civilian/military emergency response needs?



Matthew.    ???

P.S.   My typing today sucks!!!!   ;D

Same issue, lack of funds. This is Canada and if you think we're going to be able to multi task the proposed 15 aircraft then my comments stand. You are correct, if we had gotten more airframes this would be a non-factor, but hind sight is 20/20 and it isn't doing us a whole lot of good as it stands. You need two separate fleets (even if it's the same airframe) if you want any kind of guaranteed airlift, IMO. SAR will always take precedence and when the growing pains with the new aircraft rear their ugly head, the serviceable ones will and should be used for SAR and nothing else.
 
Inch said:
Same issue, lack of funds. This is Canada and if you think we're going to be able to multi task the proposed 15 aircraft then my comments stand. You are correct, if we had gotten more airframes this would be a non-factor, but hind sight is 20/20 and it isn't doing us a whole lot of good as it stands. You need two separate fleets (even if it's the same airframe) if you want any kind of guaranteed airlift, IMO. SAR will always take precedence and when the growing pains with the new aircraft rear their ugly head, the serviceable ones will and should be used for SAR and nothing else.

I'd like to back-up one step.... 

Do you agree with the concept that if you start with the "Regional Commands" model, we'd be procuring in a much more efficient manner? 

In essence, you would have each regional commander given a set of responsibilities and mandated response times.  They then are then personally and professionally responsible to identify specifically what their needs (procurement/training/infrastructure/etc.) for their area of responsibility.  In addition, instead of the need to generate a single CF-wide White Paper which seems to take forever, you would mandate  regional commanders (and your Expeditionary Force Commander) to produce individual force- specific white papers annual reports wherein each commander needs to sign his name on the report the same way a CEO signs off on a set of Financials to shareholders (because the relationship is similar - the commanders is responsible to the citizens in his are of responsibility). 

You would then overprocure by 25%-33% per region, with the additional capacity in place for surge or support operations should you need to deploy, support or replace the Expeditionary Force replacement due the fact its rotation is complete and Canada for whatever reasons needs to take on a second rotation in the area of operations. 

I would also argue that the Regionally-based command structure becomes the base for all training (except basic training) because as Operation Narwhal showed, we have some issues that don't appear to get highlighted until a joint operation is attempted.

And before you say "We cannot afford it.", let me know how you would structure the model if funds were not an issue.

Thanks in advance....

Cheers,



Matthew.  :salute:
 
Let me see if I understand what you're proposing. Regional Commands that would train their own forces individually from the rest of the Regions based on their regional requirements. So, instead of one Cormorant training facility, you'd have four, instead of one Maritime Helicopter training facility you'd have two, instead of one Martime Patrol facility you'd have two? Seems counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve.

No, I don't agree with Regional Commands having anything to do with procurement. We're the Canadian Forces, not the Maritime Forces or the Central Canadian Forces. There are regional variations but IMO they're not enough to warrant having individual training facilities and procurement plans for each region. The result of such a system would be eerily familiar to pre-Unification with the 3 services fighting for a bigger piece of pie. No thanks. Regional Commands should be exactly that, commands for operations. Nothing more. Leave the good of the country and the CF in the hands of the Generals in Ottawa where it belongs.

Narwhal showed a lack of joint operations experience. That's it, and it was to be expected since it had never been done before. Regional Commands won't help that unless you've got the experience or the brains to make it work.
 
Inch said:
Let me see if I understand what you're proposing. Regional Commands that would train their own forces individually from the rest of the Regions based on their regional requirements. So, instead of one Cormorant training facility, you'd have four, instead of one Maritime Helicopter training facility you'd have two, instead of one Martime Patrol facility you'd have two? Seems counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve.

No, I don't agree with Regional Commands having anything to do with procurement. We're the Canadian Forces, not the Maritime Forces or the Central Canadian Forces. There are regional variations but IMO they're not enough to warrant having individual training facilities and procurement plans for each region. The result of such a system would be eerily familiar to pre-Unification with the 3 services fighting for a bigger piece of pie. No thanks. Regional Commands should be exactly that, commands for operations. Nothing more. Leave the good of the country and the CF in the hands of the Generals in Ottawa where it belongs.

Narwhal showed a lack of joint operations experience. That's it, and it was to be expected since it had never been done before. Regional Commands won't help that unless you've got the experience or the brains to make it work.

RE: Training Facilities - no.  There would be one Cormorant Training Centre/one Herc Centre/etc. which would train all the basics.  You would just transition a greater proportion of your training to projects like Operation Narwhal where it would be about joint operations (training) built on Regional Commands acheiving specific objectives that they may encounter. 

RE:  Regional Responsibility for Procurement - I think their involvement is absolutely required in order to ensure we don't underprocure as the CF has continually done.  That being said, I think the involvement needs to be limited to the inclusion of the Regional Commanders having a seat at the table when NDHQ is writing their statement of program specifications.  After that point, NDHQ manages the tender, negotiates the contract and the Regional Commanders get what they're given.  My underlying principle is you cannot ask someone to perform a specific role and then not give them the appropriate tools so at least if you do have a "Lack of SAR capability necessary to perform standard operations from Shearwater", you have someone on the hook whether it's the Regional Commander who didn't work out his own numbers, or NDHQ that cut the corner.  Bottom Line:  There is no accountability for underprocurement/bad procurement now, and as such there has to be some type of reform to improve the process.



Matthew.  :salute:
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
RE: Training Facilities - no.   There would be one Cormorant Training Centre/one Herc Centre/etc. which would train all the basics.   You would just transition a greater proportion of your training to projects like Operation Narwhal where it would be about joint operations (training) built on Regional Commands acheiving specific objectives that they may encounter.  

RE:   Regional Responsibility for Procurement - I think their involvement is absolutely required in order to ensure we don't underprocure as the CF has continually done.   That being said, I think the involvement needs to be limited to the inclusion of the Regional Commanders having a seat at the table when NDHQ is writing their statement of program specifications.   After that point, NDHQ manages the tender, negotiates the contract and the Regional Commanders get what they're given.   My underlying principle is you cannot ask someone to perform a specific role and then not give them the appropriate tools so at least if you do have a "Lack of SAR capability necessary to perform standard operations from Shearwater", you have someone on the hook whether it's the Regional Commander who didn't work out his own numbers, or NDHQ that cut the corner.    Bottom Line:   There is no accountability for underprocurement/bad procurement now, and as such there has to be some type of reform to improve the process.



Matthew.    :salute:

Sorry, but I still disagree with your Regional idea. I'm an MH Co-pilot, I could care less how Jointness works, I'm told to fly somewhere and execute my mission to best of mine and my crews abilities. The same for the boots on the ground, they don't care about Jointness, you tell them to take an objective and they do it. This training you're talking about comes at the higher levels, like Canadian Forces Staff School in Toronto. The LCols are responsible to integrate the forces into a Joint structure, it has nothing to do with the coal-faced trooper/sailor/airman.

We are under-procured because of lack of funds. All the generals in the country sitting around a giant round table aren't going to make that go away. Nor will all the jointness/Regional HQs in the world. The cheap-ass politicians are the ones that should be held accountable. What are you going to do? "Hey Col, you're going down for not fulfilling your role" to which he'd reply "I asked for the money and I didn't get it, my money tree seems to be bare, what am I supposed to do?" Just keep passing the blame I guess, no different than we do now.

Bottomline, you can't hold someone responsible if their hands are tied, ie lack of money from the Government of the day.
 
aesop081 said:
On the issue of cost, if the C-295 is cheaper to purchasse but we need to build instalations for it in the north, where's the saving ? What CASA fails to demonstrate clearly is the cost of establishing infrasructure up north.

How much does it cost to base two aircraft in two locations in the North?... maintaining a couple of northern-based aircraft in 2 locations does not require full CFB infrastructure, it's already there... just look at YK, we've already got a 40-person unit to maintain 4 existing aircraft. Additional costs - equalization etc. - would be incremental.
 
Interesting comments these past couple of days (both here at Army.ca and in the news) - I am sorry to wade in a little late - I was deployed to Alberta for a week on training.

EADS-CASA is whining because they were too late to come and visit us - during the SOR phase of acquisition, the competitors are not permitted to interact with any military personnel - this is so that any procurement is not skewed in any way.  Alenia got the chance to show off their C-27J two years ago, only because they have their proverbial poop together.  CASA is playing catch-up and doing a poor job at it.  Their only recourse is the media and show-boating their plane in the arctic to a bunch of people who will never fly it (ie CASARA).

FWSAR's primary role is SAR, we have a 365.25 day commitment to JRCC to provide a serviceable aircraft on a 30 minute or 2 hour NTM.  If aircraft serviceability permits, we can conduct strategic transport and other non-SAR related activities.  These two missions are not mutually inclusive.  I do not carry SARTechs while shipping an engine to Iqualuit, nor do I carry passengers while conducting SAR Ops.

FWSAR as a sovereignty bird?  Every state aircraft is in such a sovereignty aircraft.  You would not believe how many times I have heard of our yellow SAR aircraft being shot at by poachers - we wave the flag, therefore we are conducting SAR Ops.  We do not conduct 10 hour Maritime Patrols (MPAT) - that is the CP-140's mission.  The FWSAR contenders all have advanced EO/IR capabilities and their RADAR is top notch - this is for SAR work, but can be used just as effectively in sovereignty patrols.  I don't relish the idea of flying MPATs in the North, but I guess it could be done as a second line of tasking.

I don't buy EADS-CASA platform for establishing FWSAR in the North - it doesn't make fiscal sense, nor does it make sense for all the reasons that I have harped on before.  If you live/fly in remote areas, you accept the fact that emergency response is not available as quick as dialling 911.  A response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable in the SAR model that exists throughout the world - just think about how long it took to get those Canadian climbers off Mount Logan - the US helicopter was relatively close and still took over a day to get them off it!

 
Zoomie said:
I don't buy EADS-CASA platform for establishing FWSAR in the North - it doesn't make fiscal sense, nor does it make sense for all the reasons that I have harped on before.  If you live/fly in remote areas, you accept the fact that emergency response is not available as quick as dialling 911.  A response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable in the SAR model that exists throughout the world - just think about how long it took to get those Canadian climbers off Mount Logan - the US helicopter was relatively close and still took over a day to get them off it!

Caveat - I really don't have a horse in this race but I am still unclear on the issues so excuse me while I prod a bit.

If we accept your premise that "[a] response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable..." then why not 10? or 12? In fact, if 8 hour response is adequate why do we maintain 30 min / 2 hour stby times? Why 30 min during the work day? Hasn't it been shown, at least in the Pacific SRR, that most SAR calls come in after normal working hours?

And if we also accept your premise that people in remote areas will not have the same level of responsiveness, why is speed being sold as the critical requirement and discriminator for the FWSAR project?

I accept your argument that opening new operating bases in the North for FW SAR basing makes little fiscal sense (especially without the RW assets to fully enable the "R" in SAR), but if we accept it as a matter of Gov't policy that the military will expand its presence in the North, then combining the FWSAR mandate with the expanded northern presence seems more compelling. In fact, I would intuit that the need for an expanded northern presence would seem to fall in favour of C-27 in that it would offer a more robust airlifter (although I am also aware that the C-295 is likely to come in at a lower per-unit cost which would make it easier to buy more of them).

Anyway, a fascinating issue to be sure.

Sam
 
Sam69 said:
If we accept your premise that "[a] response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable..." then why not 10? or 12? In fact, if 8 hour response is adequate why do we maintain 30 min / 2 hour stby times? Why 30 min during the work day? Hasn't it been shown, at least in the Pacific SRR, that most SAR calls come in after normal working hours?

What does ICAO say/suggest?
 
Tough questions Sam - probably best aimed at the folks in the FWSAR cell at 1 Cdn Air Div.

Sam69 said:
If we accept your premise that "[a] response time of 8 hours is more than acceptable..." then why not 10? or 12?

On this issue - I have heard that a response time of 8 hours is ideal for SAR - no direct source nor substantiation - please take it for what it is worth.

[quote author=Sam69] Hasn't it been shown, at least in the Pacific SRR, that most SAR calls come in after normal working hours? [/quote]


Actually in the Victoria SRR (ie BC and Yukon) most of our call outs are during the 30 minute standby.  I have only been called out once so far during quiet hours.

Halifax SRR is very busy during quiet hours - I think you may have reversed which coast you were thinking about.

For me, the driver, I imagine that any of the platforms in competition will be fun to fly.  I only hope that our new lifter will be less restrictive in its role than what we currently have with the Buff.  Heck, as long as it is pressurized, I am a lot happier.
 
Bourque appears to have jumped into the fray: http://www.bourque.com/

He's linking to an article at Flight International: http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/06/14/Navigation/190/198975/Canada+searches+for+rescue+solution.html

14/06/05

Canada searches for rescue solution

Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) expects to begin the selection process for a new fleet of fixed-wing search-and-rescue (SAR) aircraft in the second half of this year, with a contract expected in late 2006 or early 2007, writes Andrzej Jeziorski.

â Å“We are in the final stages of preparing and reviewing the statement of operational requirements,â ? the DND says. Deliveries will begin before the retirement of its de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalo transports in 2010, it adds.

A request for proposals for the C$1.3 billion ($1 billion) programme was twice delayed, in June and October 2004, say sources close to the programme. The delays were caused by a tangle of political interests and pressure from some quarters in the procurement chain to award a contract to an Alenia Aeronautica/L-3 Integrated Systems team proposing the C-27J Spartan without holding a competition, says one source.

The DND says it has examined the C-27J (www.c-27j.ca) and EADS Casa's C-295 (www.c-295.ca), but has yet to determine the number of aircraft required, suggested by industry sources to be around 15. EADS Casa took a C-295 on a tour of Canada from 26 May to 8 June, but was blocked from showing the aircraft to air force officials because of the imminent start of the SAR procurement, says Martin Sefzig, director of programmes for EADS Casa Canada.

The tour included all three of Canada's northern provinces, as the DND wants to locate some of its new aircraft at two bases in the north, requiring good cold-weather performance. Canada operates six CC-115s from CFB Comox in British Columbia and also uses some of its 32 Lockheed Martin CC-130 transports in the SAR role.

 
Can any of the SAR guys comment on why the V-22 isn't being considered?

I was thinking about that the other night and as long as it actually became proven technology, it seems like an interesting alternative (trading range for the ability to land/takeoff anywhere).

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.    :salute:
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Can any of the SAR guys comment on why the V-22 isn't being considered?

Mainly because the Boeing Company is still flight testing the V-22.  FWSAR project is looking for aircraft that are ready for mass production - not something that is in its infancy.

The CF just recently bought a few new helicopters (aka Cormorant) - therefore the need for a tilt-rotor design recovery vehicle is negated.  FWSAR is not intended for recovering victims, only as a platform for searching and deploying assets.
 
Zoomie said:
Mainly because the Boeing Company is still flight testing the V-22.   FWSAR project is looking for aircraft that are ready for mass production - not something that is in its infancy.

The CF just recently bought a few new helicopters (aka Cormorant) - therefore the need for a tilt-rotor design recovery vehicle is negated.   FWSAR is not intended for recovering victims, only as a platform for searching and deploying assets.

Cool.  Thanks Zoomie....



Matthew.  :salute:
 
Military shuns Canadian planes
Bombardier: Forces shoot down claims by company it's being shut out of $1.3B deal

a journalist
The Ottawa Citizen

June 19, 2005

The country's largest aircraft manufacturer says it has been shut out of a $1.3-billion program to provide new search-and-rescue aircraft for Canada's military and that the Armed Forces is instead keen to purchase from its foreign competition.

Bombardier senior official Derek Gilmour says the company's Dash 8 aircraft, built in Toronto, can fit the bill for Canada's search and rescue needs at a far lower price than the two planes now being considered, the CASA-295 built by a Spanish firm and the C-27J built by an Italian and U.S. consortium.

The Dash 8 is being used for search-and-rescue duties by the Swedish coast guard, the Australian coastal watch service and with the U.S. Customs agency. But Mr. Gilmour says the homegrown product is being ignored by the nation's military.

"We've had very little success in getting into the program," he said. "We don't see any Canadian product getting into the program at all."

Canadian industry is also concerned about the secretive nature of the procurement process, according to Mr. Gilmour, Bombardier's vice-president of government sales.

The fixed-wing search-and-rescue program is one of the most hotly pursued deals in Ottawa these days as cabinet prepares to give its blessing to the plan, which will see $1.3 billion spent on the aircraft and another $1 billion spent on a long-term maintenance contract.

Col. Pat Dowsett, in charge of the military's air mobility programs, questioned Bombardier's claims, noting the Forces hasn't settled on any one search-and-rescue aircraft and the process is still in its early stages. He said Bombardier would be welcomed in the competition, expected to start in the coming months.

"If Bombardier is happy to come to us with their existing aircraft, or any modified versions, we'll deal with that on an even playing field," he said.

Col. Dowsett denied process has been secretive, noting it has followed the usual government procurement cycle. "They (Bombardier) have received from us as much information as anybody else, as much access as anybody else," he added.

Col. Dowsett noted that whatever aircraft is selected, Canadian firms will benefit. That is because the winning company is required to provide industrial benefits for Canadian companies, he added.

Last year, Prime Minister Paul Martin identified the search-and-rescue project as a priority for his government, adding he would fast-track the purchase.

However, the program has already slipped behind its original schedule and new aircraft are not expected until late 2008 or 2009.

The project is to replace six Buffalo and 10 Hercules aircraft, which are so old they are only available for rescue missions about 50 per cent of the time. The aircraft would operate out of bases at Greenwood, N.S., Trenton, Winnipeg and Comox, B.C. The military is also looking at basing them in the Arctic.

Mr. Gilmour said there are more than 100 Dash 8s operating across Canada, giving the military a ready supply of maintenance expertise and parts. But, he noted the Dash 8 might not qualify for the competition because of the Defence Department's insistence the new planes have a folding ramp door at the rear. The Dash 8 does not have such a ramp, although Bombardier is installing a door at the back of its plane so search-and-rescue technicians can parachute from the rear of the aircraft.

Col. Dowsett, however, said there are good reasons why a rear ramp door is needed. It allows for the quick loading of the three tons of search-and-rescue gear the planes are expected to carry, as well as allowing the rapid transfer of equipment to another plane in case of breakdown.

Military requirements stipulate that if a main search-and-rescue aircraft broke down, the backup plane would have to be airborne within two hours. Without a back ramp it would take about 10 to 12 hours to move search-and-rescue gear from one plane to another, Col. Dowsett estimated.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005
 
Allen said:
The implication seems to be that the C-27J is the "less powerful" & "cheaper" plane. Huh? I thought it was the other way around.

You are correct.  The Toronto Sun has its facts all twisted.  I called them on it, still waiting on a reply.
 
Sigh... I fear that the gov't will once again select the crappiest of the lot, just to appease those who may see choosing a vastly superior airframe as favouritism. It is going to double suck that we will have to wait until 2011 to fly in the Casa, waiting until 2008 to fly the C27 was bad enough....

Gully
 
Clarify crappy when, according to the CASA folks on their site (www.c-295.ca), they've sold a wad more aircraft than the Alenia folks... and some to serve similar SAR roles. Hell, even Lockheed recommended the CN-235 for the US Coast Guard over their own airframe. Granted, each country has specific requirements - but crappy is I think a little strong.

This argument constantly amazes me. Should not the folks in Canada's North have some kind of say in this, as that is where the increasing number of incidents are happening? Yeah, the airframe should satisfy very specific requirements - which both do, if you compare them not against the status quo but against the realities of Canada's SAR environment now but also the future.

Clearly, all I'm hearing (and perhaps it's selective, so fire back please) are the folks at DND relegating Northern Canada to what they've always assumed it to be - a backwater not worth their time or efforts - using the argument that if you choose to live there, then accept the challenges that it presents. That's a crap argument - particularly for Canada's aboriginal communities, the companies that now work there and their employees, the airlines that fly northern routes, and the tourists that are making the North an increasingly desireable destination.

Sandy.

 
Back
Top