• 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

jmacleod

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
At the moment, a British company is converting a BAe-146 into a Water Bomber. I do not think
this fine British commercial passenger carrier (which has been converted to an air cargo freighter
by Pemco Aviation Dothan Alabama USA) is suitable as a water bomber - ideal water bombers are
turbo-prop or reciprocating, water cooled, propeller equipped engines. The same theory applies
to conversion of what is essentially a commercial carrier to military S&R configuration. A major
purchase of Lockheed C-130J's is the answer, but that program, like a lot of military aircraft
programs in the US is in financial trouble. I will surprised in fact, if any aircraft is bought by the
Federal government for the fixed-wing S&R role in the next decade, having been involved in what
is now called the MHP for nearly twenty years. MacLeod
 

carpediem

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
I think this paper, The CC130 Hercules is misemployed in the Search and Rescue role. by Maj Spurgeon Stewart, provides some interesting background. Enjoy:

http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc29/exnh/stewart.htm

 

Wizard of OZ

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
Inch said:
For aerodynamic reasons that I'm not going to get into it because typing a couple paragraph response can't do the theory justice, but in short, propeller driven aircraft tend to be more suited to low level slow flight, whereas jets tend to be more suited to high level high speed flight. So given the tasks that FWSAR tends to perform, I'd say that a turbo prop is probably the best option.

Not trying to argue but the A10 is jet powered air craft and if can fly low and slow in support of ground forces.  What about something along that line.

I just looked on Janes and there really is not much out there in the way of SAR aircraft other then a few different models of the same thing.  In the fixed wing anyway.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Wizard of OZ said:
Not trying to argue but the A10 is jet powered air craft and if can fly low and slow in support of ground forces.   What about something along that line.

You're right, but that's a little different situation. The A10 is designed similar to a fighter, a giant airframe with a tiny cockpit, it's slow for a fighter, but it's quite fast compared to a Buff. The A10 stalls out around 120 kts clean, Zoomie can confirm the numbers but I'm willing to bet the Buff can go a wee bit slower than that.
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
195
Points
680
Inch said:
The A10 stalls out around 120 kts clean, Zoomie can confirm the numbers but I'm willing to bet the Buff can go a wee bit slower than that.

Slightly....  We do our STOL approach around 70kts - which is usually right at the stall.

We are moving away from the C-130 as a SAR platform due to its cost effectiveness (ie fuel burn) and its size (too big).  The Herc can not fly in mountains like the Buff, it simply has too much momentum.  A twin turbo-prop is what we need and want - hence the only two contenders are the LMATTS C-27J and CASA.  Keep in mind that these new aircraft will not be for any tactical use (ie troop transport, TAL, para-training, etc).  The H model Hercs will keep that role and allow the newer aircraft to take up the slack of SAR throughout Canada.

Unlike the naysayers in the crowd, I anticipate seeing rubber on tarmac relatively sooner than later -please do not compare the FWSAR to the MHP replacement project - apples and oranges.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Zoomie said:
Unlike the naysayers in the crowd, I anticipate seeing rubber on tarmac relatively sooner than later -please do not compare the FWSAR to the MHP replacement project - apples and oranges.

Agreed, SAR is a high profile task that the government actualy understands and supports, you guys will get the new FWSAR in short order.
 

Wizard of OZ

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
Yea not much in the way of equipment to meet even the specs mentioned in this thread.  I bet the government might even dumb it down more to make more options viable though.  I hope not for your guys sake and the people you rescue.  

Question what if they move away from using Fixed wing SAR air craft alltogether?  

not trying to change topic but is this fesiable or not an option the government has on the table.
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
195
Points
680
Wizard of OZ said:
Question what if they move away from using Fixed wing SAR air craft alltogether?  

In order for this to happen, the egg-heads at Boeing, Sikorski and the lot would have to develop a helicopter that can fly close to 300kts!

We have a certain SAR posture that must be maintained at all times (ie 24/7).  Every square inch (unit of measurement, not our rotor head friend) must be feasibly covered by SAR assets.  In order for us to be able to react to a crash in the Yukon, we must have the speed to make the transit from Comox to wherever in short order.  The CH-149 Cormorant (newest and fastest helo in fleet) can't accomplish this feat.  In these fiscally responsible days, we must make do with the assets at hand.  The CF will not stand up new bases all over Canada in order to allow for Helo response - hence the need for robust, capable and fast FWSAR.
 

Wizard of OZ

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
i have no doubt you are right but what if they just place a helo or two at Yellowknife and have crews rotate up.  They have the faciliteis already throught the artic Forward bases for the CF18's and such.  Kinda like the way they always have some 18's in Comox.

Just a thought

I hope they don't but hey stranger things have happened.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Aircraft need servicing, the Hornets can get back to Cold Lake or Bagotville within one or two hops. A helo doesn't fly nearly as fast so it would take quite a few more hops to get back to Comox, Trenton, Greenwood, or Gander where the maintenance is located in the case of SAR birds. This takes time and money to ferry the aircraft back and forth. It's far cheaper to have fixed wing SAR that's able to be on station within a few hours than to have helos located all over the country and the necessary support that goes with them.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Careful how you word things Wizard as Zoomie is the Man for this kind of stuff and your wording might be interpreted to be a little bit as doubting what he says.
 

Wizard of OZ

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
There was no disrespect intended with any of those post I was simply asking questions and maybe playing devils advocate.

But all i was trying to do was get answers for my questions i meant no offense to ZOOMIE nor did i doubt any of his facts.

I agree with Inch it would be a bit unrealistic to have helios at those location but i was only trying to approach this post from a different view. 

Sorry zoomie if i offended you. none was meant.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Wizard, it was I that questioned your intent, my apologies, I should have gone via PM.  It appears that I misread your posts and your intent so again, my apologies.

Believe me, there's nothing I'd rather talk about than flying (and women) so by all means ask away.

Cheers
 

Wizard of OZ

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
thanks Inch  :)

I just think that the government in all of its infinite wisdom may consider pre positioning equipment such as basing 2 Helios in Yellowknife with the facilities that are there and having the personal rotate up.  and maybe another group up in Terrace BC.  This is by no means a question replacing the need for fixed wing but maybe eliminating it all together.  With that you would have SAR in Cold Lake Yellow knife, terrace, Edmonton and comox and Esqu.  Not the fastest response times but still covered.

It was mentioned in this post that the Herc is not efficient enough for SAR correct?

Are the Links for the proposed planes available?
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
36
Points
530
For arguments sake, if they chose the C-27J (which I view as a more capable aircraft based on the limited reading I've done), has any thought been given to tying-in certain disaster relief functionality?

I'm just thinking out loud, but if you pre-packaged disaster-relief palettes at each SAR base, (as well as response team scramble protocol) would that not provide a good ROI for communities within Canada?


Thanks in advance,



Matthew.    :salute:

P.S.   Of note, this would probably also help the government with the optics of the acquisition and might even speed up funding....
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
The problem with helos is that they're very maintenance intensive. It seems like they're constantly down for maintenance, by basing them at "forward" bases you'd not only need to rotate aircrew but also techs and spare parts plus the facilities to work on a helo. In effect, you'd have to set up a whole operation. It's far cheaper to have fast FWSAR to cover the ground, do the search and drop SAR Techs until a helo can get on station for the extraction.  Helos just don't have the legs to be transiting very far and performing searches. They're perfect for extraction though. The two complement each other, I really think it'd degrade our capabilities if we got rid of one or the other.

Cold Lake, Bagotville and Goose Bay have Combat support sqns that fly hoist equipped Griffons and carry a SAR tech as well. Esquimalt and Halifax have Sea Kings and we're capable of SAR as well, in fact we perform our own SAR during local ops. There's also TacHel Sqns in Edmonton, Barrie, Pet, Valcartier, St. Hubert and Gagetown. So really there's quite a bit of coverage for SAR, it's every CF aircraft's secondary duty.
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
195
Points
680
Wizard, no worries - not even a doubt in a mind about your comments.  It's all good...

Like my esteemed Rotor-head has mentioned many times, pre-positioning Helo's across Canada would end up costing us (the taxpayer) much more than buying 15 FWSAR.  As it is, we have 5 CH-149s here in Comox.  2 are always available for SAR (standby and backup), the third is for the school, one is a hangar queen and the fifth is in the maintenance cycle.  As you can see, we need quite a few helicopters in the rotation just to maintain normal ops. 

The CF has a base in Yellowknife already and there is an Airforce squadron already posted there.  440 Sqn flies the Twin Otter in a purely transport role.  The planes are painted SAR yellow, yet do not carry SARTechs.  They are able to be tasked in assistance to any crash/search that may occur in its region.  Like Inch said, every CF aircraft has a SAR secondary role - even CF-188s!

Matthew, a quick comment about your disaster relief idea for our SAR aircraft.  19 Wing has a complicated and well thought-out plan for this very contingency.  Our airbase is 100% self-reliant and would most probably be the only functioning airfield on the West Coast (thanks to Airfield Engineers like Spr Earl).  Our SAR aircraft would be able to provide necessary aid to communities cut off by landslides and/or Tsunami related damage (ie Tofino) throughout Vancouver Island and the mainland.  Plse keep in mind that deploying DART to BC would not be as onerous a task as it was to deploy to SE Asia.  A large majority of what DART would require is already in place (ie modular tentage, gas generators, heavy machinery)  the ROWPU's could be airlifted across the mountains and into Comox in short order.  C-17s would be a big help - but we could still do it with our C-130's.
 

Wizard of OZ

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
What is a hanger Queen?

I could not remeber the Sqd up in Yellowknife but 440 it is.  And i knew that all aircraft in the CF have a secondary duty of SAR. 

What are the cost difference between say 10 more of the choppers and 15 FW?

Would the new Cyclones be any good for SAR?

And yes some 17's would be nice hope you aren't holding your breath though.  :)

 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Wizard of OZ said:
What is a hanger Queen?
Would the new Cyclones be any good for SAR?

A hangar queen is an aircraft that sits in the hangar and never flys. It's usually robbed for parts when spares are not readily available.

The Cyclones are going to be ASW helos, which includes tubes for sonobuoys, a well for a dipping sonar, hard points for missiles/torpedoes and also the consoles for the TACCO and AESOp.  There's not going to be a ton of room in there and we aren't getting enough to be tasked out as SAR helos on top of what we normally do.  It will have a hoist though and be quite capable of performing SAR if needed. If we were to get stripped down Cyclones similar to the Cormorants then yes, they would be just as good for SAR, but since we've got Cormorants for SAR as is, why not just get more Cormorants?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,721
Points
1,060
If we were to get stripped down Cyclones similar to the Cormorants then yes, they would be just as good for SAR, but since we've got Cormorants for SAR as is, why not just get more Cormorants?

Better yet buy the Cormorants, paint them green and attach a few to each TacHel Squadron.   Might be better if the Merlin HC3 version of the EH101 was bought though. 

Could always be used as back-up SAR and Disaster platforms.

Better yet if the Griffons were upgraded to the standard considered under "Helos and Hellfires" (CH-146Y???) as well.
 
Top