• 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

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
641
Points
1,060
Herc Hs and 140s; could almost change their C/S to “2 Bell”…
It’s not bad now, but ~5 years ago we had a bad batch of prop seals and the fire department started asking “is this a real emergency or just another one of those props?”
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
It’s not bad now, but ~5 years ago we had a bad batch of prop seals and the fire department started asking “is this a real emergency or just another one of those props?”

Ahhh. The song of my people…lol.

(I’ve watched a few planes with upside down engines come in on 3 from my office in ‘22 😬)
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,799
Points
1,010
Ahhh. The song of my people…lol.

(I’ve watched a few planes with upside down engines come in on 3 from my office in ‘22 😬)
Ah yes, the dreaded three engine landing…

(Sorry- I am riffing off of a memory of an F-16 driver ribbing a B-52 driver after he declared an emergency for losing an engine, when he still had 7 left…)
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,799
Points
1,010
I
To be fair, it’s not the approach (3 engine or OEI) that we worry about - it‘s what might happen if we end up having to go-around. Three engine asymmetric go-arounds with any sort of rudder issue is not a good day.
I know- it was not fair, but it sparked a memory of the B52 story
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
650
Points
940
Related to the housing issue in Comox and Canada so I'll just post here since it's more aircraft-related.

Is fixed wing SAR worth all the cost of moving a herc squadron, personnel, equipment etc into the cost of living hornet nest on the Island? Do we really need to put all this effort into a capability that's seldom used anyway?
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
825
Points
1,040
Related to the housing issue in Comox and Canada so I'll just post here since it's more aircraft-related.

Is fixed wing SAR worth all the cost of moving a herc squadron, personnel, equipment etc into the cost of living hornet nest on the Island? Do we really need to put all this effort into a capability that's seldom used anyway?
Couldn't the same be said of almost every role performed by the CAF? Expensive and seldom used? Like insurance, some things you pay for knowing/hoping that you won't need it but when you DO need it you're awfully glad you have it.
 

rmc_wannabe

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,316
Points
990
Couldn't the same be said of almost every role performed by the CAF? Expensive and seldom used? Like insurance, some things you pay for knowing/hoping that you won't need it but when you DO need it you're awfully glad you have it.
Understood, with a but...
Like Op LENTUS (its various iterations), We blow a shit tonne of the defense budget backstopping the piss poor planning of provincial and other federal departments that should have the bulk of the responsibility to fund and provide these services. Public Safety is not a defense issue. There I said it. A lot of SAR Techs and Aircrews would be better used flying operationally into theatre, or providing support a la PJs of the USAF, than saving Jim Bob from himself out in the Rockies/in a fishing vessel of the coast of Nova Scotia.

SAR should be a function of the CCG in the water and the RCMP on land. Use the Public Safety budget to provide these services and keep the CAF for the pointier end of things like Defense, ATCP, and only as needed when provincial or OGD supports fail.
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
129
Points
530
SAR should be a function of the CCG in the water and the RCMP on land. Use the Public Safety budget to provide these services and keep the CAF for the pointier end of things like Defense, ATCP, and only as needed when provincial or OGD supports fail.

Just for clarification: who takes over the air rescue mission from the RCAF? Do you envision CCG and RCMP operating SAR aircraft fleets?
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
825
Points
1,040
Understood, with a but...
Like Op LENTUS (its various iterations), We blow a shit tonne of the defense budget backstopping the piss poor planning of provincial and other federal departments that should have the bulk of the responsibility to fund and provide these services. Public Safety is not a defense issue. There I said it. A lot of SAR Techs and Aircrews would be better used flying operationally into theatre, or providing support a la PJs of the USAF, than saving Jim Bob from himself out in the Rockies/in a fishing vessel of the coast of Nova Scotia.

SAR should be a function of the CCG in the water and the RCMP on land. Use the Public Safety budget to provide these services and keep the CAF for the pointier end of things like Defense, ATCP, and only as needed when provincial or OGD supports fail.
Understood from a strictly CAF viewpoint, but ultimately whether the fixed-wing SAR squadron at Comox is operated by the RCAF, the RCMP or the CCG the costs will be roughly the same to the GOC (and the collective "us" as taxpayers). Remove the task from the CAF and the budget allocated for the capability will be removed from the CAF budget as well.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
The CAF will never do operational (Combat) SAR independently. Without getting into high side talk about it, we do not have the resources. Full stop. A SAR Tech is a permissive environment asset.

We will never spent the money required to do this task. We rely on Allies for CSAR in theatre.

People don’t get how far out over the water we do SAR, how far up north. We are the only Dept with assets that can do this.

Yes, we need to keep doing it. Lives depend on it. You’d likely feel differently if you ever get on a SAR mission, especially when you start to climb out on OFFSTA unsuccessful…hard to sleep those nights. Peoples lives just changed in a horrible way forever.

Some fleets do operational SAR (I’ve done 1 for sure). SAR isn’t always “behind enemy lines”.

Also - SAR Techs are aircrew. Just say SAR crews. 😁
 
Last edited:

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,224
Points
1,110
SAR should be a function of the CCG in the water and the RCMP on land. Use the Public Safety budget to provide these services and keep the CAF for the pointier end of things like Defense, ATCP, and only as needed when provincial or OGD supports fail.
If that was to happen, you can bet that the money we get for SAR and the PYs would be redistributed to other government agencies. Not really a good thing for the CAF.
 

rmc_wannabe

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,316
Points
990
Just for clarification: who takes over the air rescue mission from the RCAF? Do you envision CCG and RCMP operating SAR aircraft fleets?
I do envision them operating SAR fleets. The fact that they don't is an anomaly to me and always has been.

Understood from a strictly CAF viewpoint, but ultimately whether the fixed-wing SAR squadron at Comox is operated by the RCAF, the RCMP or the CCG the costs will be roughly the same to the GOC (and the collective "us" as taxpayers). Remove the task from the CAF and the budget allocated for the capability will be removed from the CAF budget as well.
I'm not advocating for a different portioning of the pie or a reallocation of the pie; I'm advocating for a new pie to be baked and the CAF to take what we have and move along.

If we are the only federal department capable of operating far out in the water and that far up north, fix it. It's ludicrous to believe we have a Coast Guard and National gendarmie that are unable to look after the Public Safety duties they're charged with. Does that mean cutting the CAF PYs and budget to do so? Like anything this government does, when you print the money, you can do whatever you have the will for.

Sadly in this thought experiment, there is no will, so the CAF will be footing the bill for the foreseeable future, where other countries and jurisdictions will actually fund both their military and SAR capabilities properly and separately.
 

Quirky

Sr. Member
Reaction score
650
Points
940
People don’t get how far out over the water we do SAR, how far up north. We are the only Dept with assets that can do this.

Yes, we need to keep doing it. Lives depend on it.

Do we have data on how many lives were saved over the last 10-20 years because Fixed Wing SAR was available?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,492
Points
1,140
I do envision them operating SAR fleets. The fact that they don't is an anomaly to me and always has been.


I'm not advocating for a different portioning of the pie or a reallocation of the pie; I'm advocating for a new pie to be baked and the CAF to take what we have and move along.

If we are the only federal department capable of operating far out in the water and that far up north, fix it. It's ludicrous to believe we have a Coast Guard and National gendarmie that are unable to look after the Public Safety duties they're charged with. Does that mean cutting the CAF PYs and budget to do so? Like anything this government does, when you print the money, you can do whatever you have the will for.

Sadly in this thought experiment, there is no will, so the CAF will be footing the bill for the foreseeable future, where other countries and jurisdictions will actually fund both their military and SAR capabilities properly and separately.
Domestic SAR is not CSAR.
A good CSAR team can do domestic SAR, the inverse is not true. Right now Canada's only CSAR assets are in CANSOFCOM.
If I was King, the Yellow and Red would be gone from SAR birds, and they'd be a reasonable Green/Black, and each and every SAR group would have a primary CSAR role -- but that would be a massive mind set change in the RCAF, and I don't see that occurring unless at gun point.

All that said I think SAR in Canada needs to be a CAF mission - the CAF needs all the goodwill it can get at this point.
 
Top