• 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
Most peculiar.

By the way I wonder how EADS/Casa's relations are with the US these days?  They seem to be someplace between the "rock" of Venzuela's Hugo Chavez and the US "hard place".

It would probably suck to end up losing out on both contracts.
 
By the way Zoomie you didn't miss much.

It was an article in poor English citing all defects ever listed on the Alenia G222 and the C27A.  Pretty similar to saying that the Herc was a lousy bird because the C-130A had to be modified to create the E/F/H/Ks etc.

 
I do not agree that you can equate the Herc fleet in its many evolutions to the G-222.  As an ex-Herc driver, I would fully agree that each of subsequent models improved on the basic design, but would also contend that the C-130 aircraft popularity was largely due to the fact that the basic design was robust, dependable, and well supported by the manufacturer.  The same can not be said for the G-222/C-27A.  I would suggest that the list of known deficiencies of that aircraft, as well as for any other aircraft type under consideration, should be a "memory item" for the project office.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060306/b030652.html

Bombardier sells three Q300 planes worth US$53M for Australia Coastwatch
13:13:58 EST Mar 6, 2006
TORONTO (CP) - Bombardier Aerospace (TSX:BBD.SV.B) has won a $53-million-US order to supply three Q300 maritime patrol aircraft for the Surveillance Australia Coastwatch program.

Comments would be welcome on:
1. The Aussies seemingly being able to buy stuff with less than a 10 year lead time (both this and the C 17 announcement) and
2.  The Aussies buying a Canadian made plane that many folks here has said isn't what we want/need in the patrol category
 
FWSAR is not a patrol application.  It is a delivery application.  It delivers SARTECHS, Survival Kits and Majaid Kits.

WRT the Aussies and them being able to make up their mind in a hurry - we can but hope that somebody in Canada is taking notice.
 
Agreed sir...looking at this I should have put it in it's own thread as opposed to adding it to the wrong one.  If the mods wish to split it off please do so...if not no worries...
 
Hello Folks.  I'm a new guy in this forum.  Interesting discussion.  Let's try some fuel to the fire.

Did you know that back in '92 CC130s were to replace the CC115s in Comox?  Fleet rationalization was the objective.  Capability lost with the Buff's departure was to be covered off by the newly arriving Cormorant.  "Save the Buff" projects were born.

Interestingly, the folks who wrote up the Buff projects had little to no experience with the Herc, let alone flying the Herc in SAR.  Those ATGHQ principals reviewing the reports, had they flown the Herc, had never flown it in the mountains.  There are very few who have flown both Hercs and Buffs, and in their respective SRRs.  Rescue Randy is one who has done that and RWSAR as well.

Canada needs a domestic transporter.  You can call it tactical or strat but the country in undoubtedly huge.  Canada needs new FWSAR.  How about fleet rationalization?  One crew training stream, one maintenance training stream, one supply chain.

Current Buffs are on SAR stby with 4.5 hrs gas; Hercs 7-8 hrs.  Buffs 3,000 lbs SAR payload; Hercs 10,000.  Level the payload/fuel field and the Herc will be within 10-15 knots in search speeds.  Turn radius is dependent on KTAS not momentum.  Any airplane you get that can cruise in the 300 knots range will not slow down to the Buff numbers for valley shoots and  STOL.  As far as I can see, there are no FWSAR candidates who can do STOL and valley shoots.  Any decent contender will do short field/dirt strip work especially if you disregard VMC (engine out safety speeds) - even the Herc.  The Buff takes-off/lands below VMC everyday.

Sheer empty weight of a Herc type aircraft is a huge negative.  Many small town rwys cannot support the weight.  So what?  Most communities requiring transport have 5,000 ft strips or they should get them.  All of Canada except the Victoria SRR are quite content with Hercs as their primary FWSAR aircraft.  SAR missions call for a FWSAR to show up quickly and provide first aid.  Recovery/retraction is generally a helo effort to the nearest suitable medical facility.  Helicopters can deliver to a strip suitable for a FWSAR aircraft or provincial medevac.  Oh yeah, Buffs are doing more medevacs now than couple years ago because of "large" patients - time for provincial medevac outfits to get bigger air ambulances.

FWSAR is also supposedly replacing Twotters.  If the capability includes austere strip work, skis, and floats - none of the current FWSAR contenders will do that job.  If there is an aircraft to cover the austere work (Chinooks out of Yellowknife anyone?) then the fleet rationalized Tpt and SAR fixed wing bird can handle the rest.

Couple other points from previous discussions: Utility of Navigators nowadays is in mission speciality roles, not navigation.  On scene control especially off-shore in the East can get busy IF you try to search AND control at the same time.  There is an advantage in offloading comms to another crewmember - otherwise it just may take longer to do the job.  Running search sensors needs a competent operator - I've never flown with AESOPs so no opinion here.  Another biggie - first 24 hrs over a sunken ship far offshore needs the kind of continuous air coverage available from Hercs until surface vessels get on-scene.  The numbers for the FWSAR contenders don't look very promising in this area.

Obviously there is more to this argument than just what is presented so far.  I just didn't want anyone to fall asleep.  Canada should carefully consider multiple role aircraft - a CC130 type aircraft maybe the right one for the job.  Now if I could only convince Rescue Randy... :)
 
Greek newspapers have recently been commenting on the introduction of the Spartan (C-27J) in the Hellenic Air Force (HAF).  They are of interest to any one following the FWSAR discussion.  I tried to attach them to this post, but suspect they are too large for the system.  If someone wants to see them, PM me and I will forward them – that way you can get your own translation if you wish.

The Axia newspaper article incorporates two letters in English, one from Alenia, the other from a General Officer in the HAF.  The second letter reads in part, “Despite the efforts of the HAF to accelerate the procedure and improve the performance, the program is currently on the verge of a critical point due to extended delays on deliveries and prolonged low aircraft availability.”

While my Greek is non-existent, the translations that follow appear to be consistent with the two English letters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Aircraft of the Hellenic Airforce…leak!


· The C-27J SPARTAN manufactured by Lockheed in cooperation with Alenia, is a tactical transport aircraft that officials considered suitable for the Hellenic Air Force. So, the Greek government ordered 12 aircraft and of course the commissions went…where they usually go. Besides, Greece is known to be, especially in similar cases, a good customer. When the first aircraft (serial number 4117) was delivered to Greece, unfortunately…it started leaking.

· And miraculously, water leakage was found inside it! The second and third aircraft (serial numbers 4418 and 4121) had the same problem and numerous others as described thoroughly by the technicians. As such, the Hellenic Air Force was forced to stop their delivery until the problems are resolved.

· We have the letters of communication between the people responsible in the Hellenic Airforce and the representative of the company in Greece, Mr. Leonidas Mazarakis, from which it is deduced that the manufacturing company not only is aware of the fact that the aircraft have serious problems which will be solved soon, but is sending in Greece a group of experts headed by a chief engineer in order to proceed with the repairs. The conclusion?

· We buy whatever they give to us, we pay them for modern and new and then…we run to put out the fires. Of course, we provide an additional service, by offering ourselves as a test bed for others to use for learning." 



Appeared on the newspaper “Axia” on March 4, 2006

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Problems in deliveries of new tactical transport aircraft of              Hellenic Air Force C-27J SPARTAN


Serious problems were identified in the two new C-27J SPARTAN aircraft accepted by the Hellenic Air Force, resulting to a “freeze” of the deliveries. The most serious problem was that of leak-tightness found initially in one of the two a/c, but was considered coincidental. More specifically, after strong rainfall, water was found in the pilot’s cabin in the front and under the pilot’s seat and behind the co-pilot’s seat. According to initial assessments the incident was considered to be attributed to some open access panel on the upper part of the fuselage. However, some days later the same thing happened with the second aircraft, which happened to be in the hangar during the first rainfall.

According to information, another problem has been identified in the emergency generator of the aircraft, which takes over with a delay when the main generator fails; as a result, the aircraft has no electric power for some seconds. As far as the pilot vehicle interface is concerned and specifically the switches on the instrument board, an important problem exists since the switches for the engine start-up are of the same size and shape with the windscreen-wiper ones. The switches of the two systems are positioned one next to the other. According to the same information, an operator during flight inadvertently switched off the engines while he wanted to put in operation the windscreen-wipers, due to the resemblance. The manufacturing company has been informed of all the above mentioned problems and stated that they will solve them immediately. The Hellenic Air Force is expecting their solution in order to continue accepting the rest of the aircraft."


 
More grist for the mill.......curiously the release studiously avoids speculation as to what aircraft might be under consideration.......reference to capabilities, not platforms.

Air Force, Army to Purchase Small Cargo Aircraft
 
 
(Source: US Air Force; issued March 30, 2006)
 
 
WASHINGTON --- By 2010, both the Army and the Air Force may be flying the same aircraft to provide airlift inside places like Afghanistan and Iraq. 

The Secretary of Defense has given approval for the Army and the Air Force to work together to purchase those aircraft. The Army has been calling it a "Future Cargo Aircraft," while the Air Force calls it a "Light Cargo Aircraft." But ultimately, those names will be gone in favor of "Joint Cargo Aircraft." And it won't just be the name that is the same. 

The Joint Cargo Aircraft will be a small aircraft developed for both the Army and the Air Force. It will be smaller than the Air Force's C-130 Hercules, but larger than the Army's C-23 Sherpa. Most likely, the aircraft will be a variant of an aircraft already available in the civilian sector, and the manufacturer will modify it for military use. 

"What we are not going to do is go out and build, from the bottom up, a new airplane and take six or seven years to get it in the field," said Army Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt, director of Army aviation. "We are looking for something to fill this capability gap now. We have issues with the airframe we have." 

Purchasing an aircraft already being manufactured by a contractor would ensure a lower cost acquisition and a speedier delivery of the capability. Both the services agree the selection will be based on speed, range, capacity, and the ability to land on unimproved runways or in more austere locations. 

"We have always focused on the same goal – to provide the combatant commanders with the tools they need to do the mission, and in the process of developing new capabilities, be good stewards of our taxpayer’s money," said Brig. Gen. Andrew S. Dichter, Air Force deputy director for joint integration. "By adopting a common platform, we believe we are doing just this." 

Both services say they expect delivery of the aircraft to the Army to begin in 2008, with "source selection," that is the choice of the manufacturer, to be made by December 2006. The Air Force should take delivery of its first aircraft in 2010. 

There have been discussions about the purchase of nearly 150 of the aircraft, though that number could change based on any number of factors, including what is determined to be the unified commanders' requirements. 

"At this point, there is general agreement the Army will proceed with about 75 aircraft," General Dichter said. "The Air Force will pick up, using the Army's initial requirement, to round out the fleet at about 145 aircraft. Ongoing studies (will) further refine the requirement. The acquisition authorities are the ultimate decision makers, however." 

For years, the Army has used the C-23 Sherpa, the C-12 Huron and the C-26 Metroliner to provide "organic" intratheater airlift. 

"Intratheater" means inside a theater of operations. For example, anything meant to fly exclusively inside Iraq today would be intratheater. "Organic" means exclusive to a service -- the Army using Army aircraft to move Army supplies and people between Army units is considered organic. 

The Army uses the Sherpa and other rotor-wing assets to move goods "the last tactical mile," the final distance between far out Army depots and the troops scattered in the field in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, General Mundt said. 

The Army's Sherpa fleet is getting old, though. At the same time, the aircraft is no longer meeting the new demands of the Army mission. The plane is not pressurized, for instance, so it has altitude restrictions. In addition, the aircraft has a short range that makes it difficult to get into the Southwest Asia theater of operations. 

General Mundt said that because the aircraft isn't pressurized, it cannot be used for medical evacuation missions. Additionally, the aircraft is not large enough to carry a standard Air Force cargo pallet. So pallets need to be broken down and reconfigured for use on the Sherpa. 

The Air Force also needs new lightweight intratheater airlift. The Air Force has used the C-130 to do intratheater airlift for over 40 years now. But the aircraft is often too large for some aircraft movements today in support of the global war on terrorism. 

The aircraft is frequently not carrying capacity loads, especially when something is needed immediately. There is a significant cost associated with loading up a C-130 with just one pallet of supplies, or 10 people to move when it can carry almost five times that amount. A smaller plane would be ideal to move small amounts of cargo and personnel with the kind of immediacy needed. 

"In our experience in Afghanistan, where we have dispersed strongholds of U.S. forces, we don't have a good infrastructure with highways and roads and safe travel," General Dichter said. "That caused us to pause and look at how we do business and ask, 'Is there something here for both our services?' Yes, we see a place for the Air Force to embrace this mission and be part of it." 

Evidence of the Air Force's need for light intratheater airlift capability came during Hurricane Katrina support efforts in and around New Orleans. Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley realized the Air Force would have been able to put to good use an aircraft that can move a small amount of cargo a short distance from unimproved runways. In the case of Katrina, of course, it wasn't unimproved runways, but damaged runways -- those covered with water and debris from the storm. 

"Our senior leaders see a need for these aircraft," General Dichter said. "That is based on the commitments we have around the world. We are also sensitive to what we saw with Hurricane Katrina disaster relief and the emerging role of U.S. Northern Command and the homeland defense mission." 

The Army and the Air Force had been working separately to develop a small-capacity, intratheater airlift capability. But the Department of Defense asked the services to work together to develop the capability jointly. By October, the services will realize that cooperation when they stand up a Joint Program Office in Huntsville, Ala., to address their similar needs. 

Both services agree they look forward to develop this Joint capability. 

For the Army, it means they will maintain and improve on their ability to move Army supplies out to the very troops that will use them: providing munitions, supplies, and personnel support to soldiers scattered out to the farthest reaches of the global war on terrorism. 

For the Air Force, it means improved responsiveness, flexibility and quality of service to the joint warfighter by pushing supplies out past established, improved runways. It means a new ability to do light cargo and personnel movements inside a theater of operations, and during humanitarian missions in the United States. And, it means doing those things at a cost far lower than what is now possible with the C-130 or the C-17. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34

 
well, with no new posts in this thread since March I suppose one should have been able to guess that the project was scrubbed... or at least back, way back, burnered. I love the buff, and any plane would have meant a compromise, but that o2 mask... coulda done without that. oh well, next time we get a new SAR plane, maybe it will be a drone?
 
aesop081 said:
I stand by my comments.

My opinion of you is well established, supported by others and unlikely to change.  Its is also reinforced every time you post.

I am a proponent of buying the more capable and more suitable piece of equipment when the prices are similar. I am in favour of A400M to replace the Hercs as they can do more compared to C-130J. If Lockheed had something that was comparable, I would be in favour of a Lockheed proposal.
 
Armymatters said:
I am a proponent of buying the more capable and more suitable piece of equipment when the prices are similar. I am in favour of A400M to replace the Hercs as they can do more compared to C-130J. If Lockheed had something that was comparable, I would be in favour of a Lockheed proposal.

I'm not going to get into this with you anymore. You are going with the blinders fully in place.  The C-130J is in production NOW, the USAF has commited itself to buying more of them.  They are available NOW to replace the CC-130s who's life is expiring and has already expired.  The A-400M is still a peice of paper, has not flown yet and is not available anytime soon.  Come see me here and i'll show you whats its like to fly an ageing airplane.
 
Yeah but the A400 doesn't even exist yet....I'm not sure why your a fan of a plane that only exist in peoples mind.

By that logic I'm a fan of the USS Enterprise from Star Trek(tm) and support it as a new fixed wing SAR.
 
aesop081 said:
I'm not going to get into this with you anymore. You are going with the blinders fully in place.  The C-130J is in production NOW, the USAF has commited itself to buying more of them.  They are available NOW to replace the CC-130s who's life is expiring and has already expired.  The A-400M is still a peice of paper, has not flown yet and is not available anytime soon.  Come see me here and i'll show you whats its like to fly an ageing airplane.

Lockheed can't deliever anytime soon as well, even if we order today. Their production lines are full until early 2010, and the USAF is not willing to give us early spots on the production line as they need to replace their Herc fleet as well. Either way, we are f***ed until at least 2010.
 
Lineman said:
Don't mean to get in between two fine gentlemen and their disagreement but I was just looking for an opinion on the Utilicraft and its potential use in the CF.

Only problem is the cargo hold dimensions. It only holds 10 LD3 container in a row, which has the dimensions of 64.5"W / 79"W x 60.4"D x 64"H. Compared to the CASA CN-295, or C-27J, they are both larger, and right now, from what I can see, the SAR boys want all the space inside they can get. It also doesn't has the legs compared to C-27J or CN-295, as it can only make 1,650nm, or around 3055 km, unloaded, compared to C-27J's 4685 km. Cruise speed is also lower than both competitors, meaning it can't get to an area fast enough. Only thing that I like about it is that it can carry a lot of dense cargo, up to 10 tons fully loaded.
 
Armymatters said:
Only thing that I like about it is that it can carry a lot of dense cargo
You mean paratroops, as opposed to SAR Techs?  >:D

HitorMiss said:
I'm a fan of the USS Enterprise from Star Trek(tm) and support it as a new fixed wing SAR.
I want the one with the Borg chick and Dr Crusher.  :-*

...and finally,
Armymatters said:
Either way, we are f***ed until at least 2010.
Perhaps nitpicking, but we are having intimate relations until at least 2010. You, however, are a civie and face merely the risk of an antique Herc falling out of the sky and doing a Chicken Little on your head. You don't have to fly in them.

OK, I'm done contributing nothing of value here for one day  ;)
 
...and finally,

Quote from: Armymatters on Yesterday at 20:03:33
Either way, we are f***ed until at least 2010.
Perhaps nitpicking, but we are having intimate relations until at least 2010. You, however, are a civie and face merely the risk of an antique Herc falling out of the sky and doing a Chicken Little on your head. You don't have to fly in them.

In the interests of relieving JM's pain/pleasure (something of an S&M theme here perhaps) might I suggest that it is not beyond the possible to speculate that the "digit extraction" might happen a bit sooner than 2010.  Assuming a little imagination on the part of the competitors.

We know that there is a pool of existing C130Js that are surplus to requirement. The RAF wants to get rid of them, preferring to spend the money on other priorities.  While the CF may not want to be seen to be buying anymore used kit from the Brits I can't help but wonder about the possibility of Lockheed buying them back, zero-timing them (they are already low mileage) and then reselling them back to Canada at a reduced rate.  Possibly as part of a bigger buy - say 20 aircraft instead of the planned 17 or perhaps adding the option of inserting plugs into them to turn them into J-30s.

That would put "new" C130Js into the hands of the CF PDQ.

Likewise, incorporating the CHAPS CH-47Ds in the US Army inventory medium lift helicopter proposal would put them into the CF inventory in short order.

As well the C-17s will likely find an aircraft diverted from the US order to the CF within months.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the CF flying C130Js, CH47Ds and at least one C17 before the end of the Liberal leadership race.

Cheers.
 
Kirkhill said:
The RAF wants to get rid of them, preferring to spend the money on other priorities. 

Thats only partialy true.

The RAF is looking at getting rid of its "short" version C-130J as it feels they are under used in the current british context.  The RAF will retain its "stretched" version C-130J.  The RAF's plan is to used tohe money from the sale of the "shorts" to purchase the 4 C-17s they currently lease and purchase 2 more as they feel that 4 does not fullfil the requirements of the OP tempo of British forces.  The RAF is NOT getting rid of the C-130J.
 
aesop081 said:
Thats only partialy true.

The RAF is looking at getting rid of its "short" version C-130J as it feels they are under used in the current british context.  The RAF will retain its "stretched" version C-130J.  The RAF's plan is to used tohe money from the sale of the "shorts" to purchase the 4 C-17s they currently lease and purchase 2 more as they feel that 4 does not fullfil the requirements of the OP tempo of British forces.  The RAF is NOT getting rid of the C-130J.
[/quot]

See this in the The Sandbox and Areas Reports Thread

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46428.30.html

Blair Promises U.K. Troops in Afghanistan `Anything They Need'
July 4 (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=avBzOwhSc1Xk&refer=canada

Prime Minister Tony Blair promised British troops in Afghanistan ``anything they need'' to help combat insurgent attacks after two soldiers were killed there this week.
 
You're right aesop081. I wasn't clear enough.  I was only referring to the 10 C130Js - Not the other 15 C130J-30s.

Cheers.
 
Back
Top