FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities

[kev994]

Just checking on what the US Coast Guard wanted the C295/ HC-144 for:

https://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/mrs/

Loiter time, not speed of response.  Surveillance, not cargo.

They call the C130 a long range surveillance aircraft. It's supposed to be a 'generic' naming convention, I wouldn't put too much thought into what they call it. They do SAR (well mostly the search portion) with the 144 (it's a 235, not a 295) and the C27 as well as fishery patrols, drug patrols, etc.
Edit: to clarify that the platforms are multi- use

 

[Kirkhill]

Seen kev.  Thanks

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of new-build Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.

The support infrastructure for the Buffalo is already there, so there's no need to build a totally new infrastructure, although some upgrades might be needed as the avionics of the new aircraft will be different. Parts can be directly obtained in Canada, rather than having to have them shipped in from overseas.

The Buffalo is already well known to the RCAF and so you wouldn't need to change the training syllabi either.

By having Viking Air build the aircraft, jobs are created, or at least retained in Canada.

If you need a bit more cargo and payload capacity, it might be possible to build a stretched Buffalo. The Buffalo is a STOL aircraft, meaning it can be operated from virtually anywhere, including places where ad-hoc runways are built. This STOL capability also allows the aircraft to fly low and slow, which is of value in SAR taskings. The Buffalo is built to withstand Canada's harsh winter climate.

Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?

If we applied that logic to tanks, we'd likely still be using the Centurion.

 

[MilEME09]

If we applied that logic to tanks, we'd likely still be using the Centurion.

or the Sharman, proven platforms are great but eventually it's more a collectors item then it is a economical piece of kit

 

[George Wallace]

or the Sharman, proven platforms are great but eventually it's more a collectors item then it is a economical piece of kit

[PS.....It is SHERMAN  :warstory:]

......and we would be down to 19 tanks by now..................................WAIT!...........................................
We were down to ZERO (0) and had it not been for Afghanistan, we would not have returned to one Regiment's worth, the lowest we had sunk in numbers sunk since the '70's.

 

[Don2wing]

I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of rebuild Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.

The support infrastructure for the Buffalo is already there, so there's no need to build a totally new infrastructure, although some upgrades might be needed as the avionics of the new aircraft will be different. Parts can be directly obtained in Canada, rather than having to have them shipped in from overseas.

The Buffalo is already well known to the RCAF and so you wouldn't need to change the training syllabi either.

By having Viking Air build the aircraft, jobs are created, or at least retained in Canada.

If you need a bit more cargo and payload capacity, it might be possible to build a stretched Buffalo. The Buffalo is a STOL aircraft, meaning it can be operated from virtually anywhere, including places where ad-hoc runways are built. This STOL capability also allows the aircraft to fly low and slow, which is of value in SAR taskings. The Buffalo is built to withstand Canada's harsh winter climate.

Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?

To Daftandbarmy,
                          Canadian governments over the years have not helped companies develop products through to completion. Both Conservative and Liberal regimes have been consistent on this. The Spartan C-27J started off life as the G.222 way back in 1970 and was backed by the Italian air force buying 44 aircraft. Over the years it evolved into the C-27J Spartan and was sold around the world. The C-295 started life from the CN-235 which was developed in Spain and jointly with Indonesia. Again, both countries bought aircraft for their respective air forces or other air services. These 2 aircraft companies with help from their home governments have gone on to sell aircraft successfully to many countries around the world.
  In Canada the governments have not encouraged manufacturers such as Viking with the Buffalo, or Bombardier with the Dash-8 and an engineered rear door. Certainly, both these aircraft engineered as DHC-5NG or the Dash-8 with a rear door could have sold to a number of countries around the world. Canada should pick and choose what products it helps in development. There are other companies that have great technology in this country and can be helped for future success. Our governments talk about doing this but don't actually walk the walk.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of rebuild Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.

The support infrastructure for the Buffalo is already there, so there's no need to build a totally new infrastructure, although some upgrades might be needed as the avionics of the new aircraft will be different. Parts can be directly obtained in Canada, rather than having to have them shipped in from overseas.

The Buffalo is already well known to the RCAF and so you wouldn't need to change the training syllabi either.

By having Viking Air build the aircraft, jobs are created, or at least retained in Canada.

If you need a bit more cargo and payload capacity, it might be possible to build a stretched Buffalo. The Buffalo is a STOL aircraft, meaning it can be operated from virtually anywhere, including places where ad-hoc runways are built. This STOL capability also allows the aircraft to fly low and slow, which is of value in SAR taskings. The Buffalo is built to withstand Canada's harsh winter climate.

Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?

To Daftandbarmy,
                          Canadian governments over the years have not helped companies develop products through to completion. Both Conservative and Liberal regimes have been consistent on this. The Spartan C-27J started off life as the G.222 way back in 1970 and was backed by the Italian air force buying 44 aircraft. Over the years it evolved into the C-27J Spartan and was sold around the world. The C-295 started life from the CN-235 which was developed in Spain and jointly with Indonesia. Again, both countries bought aircraft for their respective air forces or other air services. These 2 aircraft companies with help from their home governments have gone on to sell aircraft successfully to many countries around the world.
  In Canada the governments have not encouraged manufacturers such as Viking with the Buffalo, or Bombardier with the Dash-8 and an engineered rear door. Certainly, both these aircraft engineered as DHC-5NG or the Dash-8 with a rear door could have sold to a number of countries around the world. Canada should pick and choose what products it helps in development. There are other companies that have great technology in this country and can be helped for future success. Our governments talk about doing this but don't actually walk the walk.

The other big problem with Viking Air (whom I, as a native of Victoria, love by the way, as a great example of local manufacturing and entrepreneurial excellence) is that unfortunately it's not from Quebec, or eastern Canada, or any place that votes the right way in various elections.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of rebuild Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.

Because the rebuilt DHC-5NG Buffalo proposed by Viking Air doesn't exist? Only reference to Viking building anything other than Twin Otter 400s online is a CASR article with their proposal from 2009.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

First of all, Don2wing, I don't know what you are talking about when you say the Government of Canada doesn't support its air industry.

You mention the Buffalo. Well, the Canadian government bought some, and so did 18 other countries with a total of more than 120 aircraft built originally. But there hasn't been any orders in a long time, and while rebuilding is nice, it is simply an airplane that has done its time.

What about the DASH-8? Again, Canada bought some, and so did 26 other countries. And after more than 1200 being built, it is still going strong as the Q-400.

What about others? Well, the CL-215/415 water bombers were certainly acquired in good numbers by the various Canadian governments, and that has led to reasonable international sales. Could the government have done more here. perhaps. When it was time to retire the Trackers short range maritime patrol planes, I suppose the government could have replaced them with a maritime surveillance plane based on the CL-415. It is amphibious after all. That may or may not have led to more international sales. We will never know, because we simply decided that the capability was no longer required on top of the existing fleet of Auroras.

What else? You did not mention the Challengers. The government bought some, and it has sales in 12 other countries, with more than 1000 units built to date.

So while I realize you would have loved to see some work going the way of Viking Air, your statement that  the government of Canada does not encourage Canadian manufacturers is simply not true.

And in your calculations, did you consider the fact that there are only six Buffalo in service, then 13 Hercs in SAR livery? Refurbishing Buffalos at Viking only covers one third of the problem. And there is probably more Canadian work in producing the 32 engines of the C-295's at Pratt & Whitney Canada than would go in a rebuild of those six Buffalos at Viking.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm unclear - is this the end of the KC-130?  Or will those aircraft be kept and relieved of their SAR role?

 

[CBH99]

I think what Don2Wing is getting at is a general & well purposed question:  Could we have not found a way to manufacture a suitable aircraft in Canada?

Yes, there is work being done by Canadian companies for a healthy portion of the C-295W.  Engines, sensors, cameras, etc - all Canadian.  We all agree that is a good thing, for various reasons.

I think the question being asked (and I could be wrong) - is could we have done a bit better?  Canadian content on a foreign built aircraft is good, but Canadian content on a Canadian built aircraft is better. 

*In my humble opinion - which admittedly is probably lacking in roundness of information - we could have asked Bombardier to build an aircraft that had the capabilities we need.  Canadian aircraft, Canadian engines, Canadian sensors, etc. 

Would it have been prohibitively expensive?  Considering it would most likely just be a rear door on an already existing aircraft in production, probably not so much.  :dunno:

 

[dapaterson]

Custom-design and flight certification? What could possibly go wrong?

#CycloneLessonsNotLearned

 

[CBH99]

Fair enough!!

 

[PuckChaser]

I think what Don2Wing is getting at is a general & well purposed question:  Could we have not found a way to manufacture a suitable aircraft in Canada?

More political pork barrelling for failing industries? I guess we didn't learn any lessons from the LSVW, or HLVW?

Why would we possibly want to pay start up costs for manufacturing lines to turn out 6 aircraft?

 

[Good2Golf]

Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?

Advanced multi-spectral visible and 3-5μm IR optronics sensors integrated with an advanced 360-degree, multi-mode long-range radar capable of tracking and mission managing over 100 individual targets of interest, all relayed back to the JRCCs in real-time over multi-band satcom and narrow-band comms channels and directly feeding into aircraft avionics management system and flight director cuing systems to optimize search area coverage and dwell over high-probability areas of interest?  ???

 

[dapaterson]

You left out speed...

 

[YZT580]

Viking offered to initiate manufacturing of a fully modern and pressurized DHC5 that would meet the requirements for a competitive dollar value and were soundly rejected.  At the time, 2009 they would have used that contract as leverage to advertise world-wide and with their reputation established after the DHC6 success  probably would have been able to make global sales.  I suspect the remarks that can be found earlier in this thread were typical of the reaction in OW.  With the ministry putting out the tender based upon a proven a/c they could not even apply on this latest competition so we will never know whether it would have been a success.  But that is finished with now.  The a/c we have bought is no better than the one Viking offered.  It is slow, small, has limited range at full payload and cannot meet our needs in the north.  In order to respond to an Artic call-out we will either have to maintain (in other words re-build) at least 4 of the C130s or admit that we just can't get there on time.  So could we have gone for a Canadian aircraft.  Yes. And with the choice we made, perhaps it would have been better.  We didn't so, as usual, it will be a matter of making in work which the CAF has become very good at doing.  Oh and by the way, Viking is not a failing company and does not require federal support.  It offered to new-build at a comparable cost so it wasn't pork barreling any more than Airbus is

 

[PuckChaser]

KC390 was rejected because it was not a full tested and operational aircraft. Why should Viking get special treatment? If they were able to meet the requirements of the competition, they would have been considered.

This was also a contract to replace both the CC-130 and the DHC-5 Buffalo. Are we to believe you wanted to replace all our Hercs with Buffs? Or do we end up buying 295s as well to supplement?

 

[Good2Golf]

PC, they were referring to the tanker Herc, commonly called the "KC-130", although that's a USAF designation, not a RCAF one...they're still technically CC-130s. 

 

[suffolkowner]

I think in one of the news releases I read it made mention of the AAR Hercs staying on.  By the time we take delivery anything is possible