• 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

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
214
Points
710
Ostrozac said:
Yeah, on the surface it looks like Embraer didn't get approval to submit a prototype aircraft. There was speculation that the SOR as written specified that the aircraft already be in service, but I haven't actually read the document.

Plus, the fact that the company last July announced a two year delay in its certification probably didn't help any.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
726
Points
1,060
RaceAddict said:
Wasn't that one of the main selling points of the C-27J? The shared powerplants and avionics with the C-130J were supposed to make the Spartan the perfect complimentary aircraft for anyone that already had Hercs.

What is the performance benefit of a C-27 over the C-130?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the C-27's soft field performance is worse than the C-130's. Can anyone confirm that?
Did not the USAF rid themselves of the C-27 due to costs?
Does anyone know what the takeoff distances are? I pulled 2100ft for the C-27 and 3127 for the C-130 off the internet
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,513
Points
1,060
suffolkowner:  there are 54 pages before this one addressing those very questions and many, many more.
 

Grizzly

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
10
It appears, according to the news this morning, that Lockheed Martin never submitted a bid, but Embraer did. Alenia and Airbus were the only other bidders. Looks like the C-130J is out, but the KC-390 is a go, along with the C-27J and CN-295. It's a bit of a surprise for a lot of people I'm sure.
 

RaceAddict

Jr. Member
Reaction score
96
Points
330
From a flightglobal.com article published last month:

Canada has not mandated a certain number of aircraft, and will even accept mixed-fleet proposals. The government reportedly expects a contract award in 2016 and final delivery by 2023.

This puts the squeeze on Embraer, which expects to certify the KC-390 in 2017 with first deliveries in 2018. “We don’t see any issue to comply with the delivery schedule,” the company says, while declining to reveal the quantity of aircraft offered.

Ok... but when, in the last decade or two, has any large aircraft been delivered on time?
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
491
Points
930
We have waited almost two decades for new a/c.  If, and I emphasise the IF the 390 is a better match for our needs than I would suggest that waiting an extra period of time would be in our long-term best interests. 
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,066
Points
1,260
RaceAddict said:
From a flightglobal.com article published last month:

Ok... but when, in the last decade or two, has any large aircraft been delivered on time?

C-17 comes to mind. 
 

h3tacco

Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
Dimsum said:
C-17 comes to mind.

The C-17 had a troubled development and was nearly cancelled a number of times in the 1990s.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/12/business/pentagon-warns-mcdonnell-it-may-cancel-c-17-program.html

The Canadian purchase of the C-17 is pretty much the exact opposite of the KC-390. We bought the C-17 at the end of its production cycle, years after all developmental issues had been solved. If we buy the KC-390 it will be a purchase of a developmental aircraft at the start of its production. There are risks and benefits to both apporaches but if the goal is to replace an old fleet(s) quickly buying a developmental aircraft is not a good way to go.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
491
Points
930
There are risks and benefits to both apporaches but if the goal is to replace an old fleet(s) quickly buying a developmental aircraft is not a good way to go.
[/quote]

I have been non-active since the turn of the century.  Renewing the SAR fleet was becoming a priority topic then. Unless our current fleet is actually grounded or arguably about to be grounded as unsafe a delay of even 24 months is totally acceptable.  A properly written contract would contain penalties if the aircraft were not delivered on time.  These penalties can be tailored around the refurbishing costs of our current aircraft (including replacing engines on the DH5 {Viking would be delighted to help]) so it is a no-lose proposition if and again I emphasize IF, the KC-390 best suits our needs. On paper it looks far superior: it has range, lift, loiter time before re-fueling, and the speed to actually get to there from here sometime before next week.  Handling, short field performance, cold weather capability and other task related criteria should but probably won't be the dominant factor. 
 

h3tacco

Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
YZT580 said:
There are risks and benefits to both apporaches but if the goal is to replace an old fleet(s) quickly buying a developmental aircraft is not a good way to go.


I have been non-active since the turn of the century.  Renewing the SAR fleet was becoming a priority topic then. Unless our current fleet is actually grounded or arguably about to be grounded as unsafe a delay of even 24 months is totally acceptable.  A properly written contract would contain penalties if the aircraft were not delivered on time.  These penalties can be tailored around the refurbishing costs of our current aircraft (including replacing engines on the DH5 {Viking would be delighted to help]) so it is a no-lose proposition if and again I emphasize IF, the KC-390 best suits our needs. On paper it looks far superior: it has range, lift, loiter time before re-fueling, and the speed to actually get to there from here sometime before next week.  Handling, short field performance, cold weather capability and other task related criteria should but probably won't be the dominant factor.

I have no opinion of which aircraft we should buy. However, buying a developmental aircraft from a yet  to be developed production line is riskier from both a technical and schedule point view. The question to those making the decision is whether the benefit is worth the risk.
 

RaceAddict

Jr. Member
Reaction score
96
Points
330
Dimsum said:
C-17 comes to mind.

I was talking about the delivery of a brand new aircraft...

The C-17 was first ordered in 1985 with delivery scheduled for 1990. First flight (not delivery) was in 1991 and introduction into service was 1995.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
491
Points
930
and flight crews are unanimous that the end product justified the delays.  Its a good airplane.  Give the same timeline to Embraer and you have entry into service in 2018/19.  They have enough hours now to be able to give a reasonable guarantee of performance and Embraer is no rookie at bringing new aircraft to market.  If the product is good and affordable and is the best one out there to meet our requirements then wait.  I admit that there are a lot of if's in that statement but the competition are all 40 year old airframes that have been updated.  You might just as well sole source a contract to Viking to rebuild the buffalo or to bombardier to come up with a ramp for the Q400.  At least then the jobs would stay in Canada and goodness knows Toronto in particular could use the cash to try and make up for 15 years of liberal spending.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,513
Points
1,060
YZT580 said:
and flight crews are unanimous that the end product justified the delays.  Its a good airplane.  Give the same timeline to Embraer and you have entry into service in 2018/19.  They have enough hours now to be able to give a reasonable guarantee of performance and Embraer is no rookie at bringing new aircraft to market.  If the product is good and affordable and is the best one out there to meet our requirements then wait.  I admit that there are a lot of if's in that statement but the competition are all 40 year old airframes that have been updated.  You might just as well sole source a contract to Viking to rebuild the buffalo or to bombardier to come up with a ramp for the Q400.  At least then the jobs would stay in Canada and goodness knows Toronto in particular could use the cash to try and make up for 15 years of liberal spending.

You could make much the same argument for the Bombardier C-series...... Bombardier has a lot of experience building aircraft and bringing developmental craft on line.  And yet they seem to be struggling.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
491
Points
930
Bombardier ran into difficulty trying to integrate new technology.  The 390 does not require cutting edge fabrication so, provided their pause is not because of any huge design flaws, it should be good to go as scheduled.  On another note though, assuming the purchase of one of the other two for a moment, what would be the best allocation of assets?  Should Comox and Trenton remain as primary centres or should the aircraft be stationed elsewhere?  Do you propose a purchase mix of say a fleet of medium helicopters for Comox and fix wing elsewhere?  What would be best for us?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,513
Points
1,060
My view is that for the RCAF the primary focus of any aircraft, other than fighters and bombers (and I will include the LRPAs in the latter category) should be on transport.  Search and Rescue should be a secondary function on which the aircraft can be employed.

The SAR functionality of a modern transport aircraft is/could-be/should-be enhanced by greater capabilities in low level navigation and optics in all aircraft, unlike an old Dakota with someone hanging out the hatch spotting the ground.

I would opt for the C27 if it is truly half-a-herc.  If it isn't then I would have added more Hercs with good low-level, night navigation, eo/ir systems.  And added more Chinooks and/or Cormorants to the fleet.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
491
Points
930
Agree with your comments re: transport Chris.  But if you are truly after that capability than only the C130 (in current production) and the 390 would suit.  Neither of the other two candidates have sufficient range to be considered an effective transport.  At full gross (25000 lb load) the Spartan can only manage 1100nm and change while the 295 needs refueling after on 700nm with 22000 lb of useful load.  Those are pathetic numbers for a country of our size.
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
Transporting cargo is a second line of tasking for SAR squadrons.  They don't really do it.  We have dedicated lift in the MAG community in the form of J-Hercs, C-17s, Airbus and Twotter.  It is very rare that a dedicated SAR squadron will get tasked by 1 CAD to transport cargo - let the trash hauler units take care of that.  The C-130 is overkill for SAR and really too big to be an effective platform in any sort of dynamic environment.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,301
Points
1,360
Chris Pook:
I would opt for the C27 if it is truly half-a-herc.  If it isn't then I would have added more Hercs with good low-level, night navigation, eo/ir systems.  And added more Chinooks and/or Cormorants to the fleet.

...or a 390 since it's like 1/3 of a C-17...not so much to do the transport secondary role, but to carry everything that the SAR Techs will want to have on board. :nod:

 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
quadrapiper said:
Messing about in fjords and among mountains in poor weather?
That's a good example.  I've worked below cloud cover - at 500' doing a shore crawl in a Fjord.  There's no way a Herc could turn in that - can't see through clouds either. 

Here's my one main concern about the 390 - ok maybe I have a few:
1) Embrarer has a spotty serviceability record - Air Canada has excess of the jungle jet so that they have extras to fill in when the birds are broken; and
2) The 390 is a turbo-fan - it lacks the instantaneous power that a turbo-prop has.  It's thrust curve will limit the low end throttle response that is required down low and slow.

Admittedly my first concern is not anecdotal - in that I am basing it on previous maintenance woes.  My second concern is related to all turbo-fan aircraft - props are far superior when it comes to low speed acceleration and reaction.  This is based on experience - I've flown both.
 
Top