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

[suffolkowner]

Mark
Ottawa


Very damning of the Liberal's politics in military aircraft purchases.

I just saw on the news their finalizing the deal to purchase Super Hornets. 

[

I wonder how often successive governments have reversed these directions in CAF past? Would the Leo 2 acquisition count?
I mean there's nothing stopping the next government from buying F-35's or C-27's if that is what they determine to be best, I mean other than money and will of course.

Private businesses often turn their back on billion dollar plans after determining that it was not in their best interests 

 

[MarkOttawa]

George Wallace:

I just saw on the news their finalizing the deal to purchase Super Hornets.

Not "finalizing" rather formally notifying Pentagon of intent to, er, negotiate purchase if deal can be done (which it will):
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1480167.html#msg1480167

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Private businesses often turn their back on billion dollar plans after determining that it was not in their best interests

Yep often after spending millions, in fact I know of 1 project where the new owner immediately spent 100 million to buy out First Nations interests that they original owner had agreed to to get the project through the Environmental Assessment process, now the project is dead in the water with only glimmer of hope to be revived.

 

[Blair Gilmore]

Mark from Ottawa,
Thanks for posting my article. I used to work SAR with the CCG plus 442 Sqn in Comox, so I have a passion for the subject and connections with the field. Word in the SAR community is they will make do with the Airbus as it's better than nothing. The Buffalos will be @60 years old by the time they're replaced (if that actually happens of course). They are tough old, reliable birds and decent for maintaining but the saga of replacing them has been ridiculous. The probable main reason for the decision was money as this aircraft was the cheapest option up front. Another issue though is it isn't interoperable with the rest of the RCAF fleets whereas the Spartan would have dovetailed in as a 'Baby' Herc, which would have saved money downstream.

SAR isn't as sexy as refugees and wasn't an election item this last cycle. The RCAF will be saddled with an inadequate aircraft for decades to come.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Blair Gilmore: Just thanks for the excellent piece.  Best I've seen on the matter.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[YZT580]

.

SAR isn't as sexy as refugees and wasn't an election item this last cycle. The RCAF will be saddled with an inadequate aircraft for decades to come.

For almost the first time I am hoping that an appeal will win.  It would appear that the Italians have reasonable grounds for complaint and Viking can do a complete rebuild on the Bufs to keep them running for a little while longer.  Not only is the airbus inadequate but it has the potential for costing lives between its limited range, slow response time and limited capacity.  Perhaps the third time round will be more successful

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Very good and comprehensive article on endless FWSAR acquisition and C295 vs C-27J by someone who seems to really know his stuff and has good sources:

Mark
Ottawa

An excellent article. 

Maybe the bean counters and politicians should pay more attention to the recommendations of the people risking their lives.

An excellent summary.  Thanks, Mr Gilmore.  BZ.

I know its hard for people to get how small the 235 & 295 are;  I've been up next to these on the ramp before.  I never once thought "ya, this is the platform we need for SAR".  One of our tasks as AES Ops is to get into cap's and lim's of aircraft we are/may operate with, which I'd done back in 2015 for a NATO ex and the MPA version of the 235/295 was one of the players.  I was surprised (not in a good way) on its ONSTA/payload limits, etc.  I never actually thought it would stand a chance as a Herc/Buff replacement. 

I, too, hope this selection is reversed, don't care how.  Lives literally depend on it.

*quick sidenote - I do say that sensors are important on a SAR FW platform.  Yes, the Mark 1 eyeball is needed but at night, a good RADAR is going to see a raft (well...most likely), IR is awesome at night, SAR modes can *see* nice big shiny backscatters that may stand out miles away if staring at a fuselage.  Keep the sensors, add 1 or 2 swept up sensor operators, they can rotate thru your spotter rotation when not smashing buttons.  It has happened before where LRP has been called in to RADAR/EOIR search and area that was being worked already, fogged in and no dice.  They found the boat on RADAR and then EO/IR.  So, keep the spotter Mk 1 Eyeball and add a few key electronic ones.  Neither work perfectly all the time/every situation.  Hopefully the RCAF will come to its senses when the airframes are on the way and put sensor operators with thousands of hour experience operating the sensors.  :2c:

 

[dimsum]

Hopefully the RCAF will come to its senses when the airframes are on the way and put sensor operators with thousands of hour experience operating the sensors.  :2c:

I can't remember where I heard/read it (might have been on this forum for all I know), but I thought the reason for having an ACSO and FE on the FWSAR was that it kept the arrangement from the Buff, but strictly as a means to avoid having to go through the airframe competition and personnel complement considerations at the same time, causing more staff work.

ie. Figure out the airframe, then figure out if it's ACSO/FE or 2 AESOPs that are required.

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

Part of the decision to keep ACSOs was to FG enough executive officers (Majs and CO) in the SAR Sqn because the pilot trade would have a difficult time filling all those positions. That's what was briefed to us back in Dec. anyway the decision was made, nothing we can do about it. I simply wish the best to the SAR community with the new platform.

 

[dimsum]

Part of the decision to keep ACSOs was to FG enough executive officers (Majs and CO) in the SAR Sqn because the pilot trade would have a difficult time filling all those positions. That's what was briefed to us back in Dec. anyway the decision was made, nothing we can do about it. I simply wish the best to the SAR community with the new platform.

Interesting.  Well if it's exec experience they need (ie. they're not the line drivers), then why not parachute in an ACSO from a different community, esp if they've done a staff tour and would have to re-qual on their original platform anyway?  Breadth of experience and all that.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Oh, I suspect I'll be CRA when the dust settles so it won't affect me.  :nod:

That is both funny and not funny.

 

[jmt18325]

I don't see how the Italians have a chance when the NRC designed the criteria, and international fairness monitor signed off on the entire thing.  This is simply normal legal maneuvering.

We're getting an aircraft used around the world by a very reputable company at a lower price than the other aircraft.  That's good use of taxpayer dollars.  That's why Harper had the NRC and the fairness monitor.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Part of the decision to keep ACSOs was to FG enough executive officers (Majs and CO) in the SAR Sqn because the pilot trade would have a difficult time filling all those positions.

:facepalm:

I simply wish the best to the SAR community with the new platform.

Ya, I'll echo that. 

 

[Loachman]

That's good use of taxpayer dollars.

An inadequate, or less-than-adequate, machine does not fit my definition of "good use of taxpayer dollars".

 

[jmt18325]

An inadequate, or less-than-adequate, machine does not fit my definition of "good use of taxpayer dollars".

It meets the specifications that we put out - specifications designed independently because of earlier problems caused by DND itself.  There is actually no evidence that this plane won't perform the role we've bought it to perform.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We're getting an aircraft used around the world by a very reputable company at a lower price than the other aircraft.  That's good use of taxpayer dollars.  That's why Harper had the NRC and the fairness monitor.

You say this, despite most people who fly and have done SAR in one environment or another saying "WTF are we getting this platform for"?  Did you bother to read the article at all?  *A lower price*...who cares?  Can it do the job?  No?

If you needed a lawn mower to cut your grass, would you say the same thing if I tried to sell you a big pair of scissors?  After all, they will cut your grass, and at a lower price than a stupid expensive lawn mower. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It meets the specifications that we put out - specifications designed independently because of earlier problems caused by DND itself.  There is actually no evidence that this plane won't perform the role we've bought it to perform.

Read the article from some SAR SMEs.  The 3 main actual requirements when you scrape away the fat, are similar to ours for LRP (SAR is a secondary task for us as well). 

- ability to get to LKP ASAP.  *Time to get from runway to place I need to be*.
- ONSTA time.  *once I am there, how long can I remain there to conduct the task*
- payload. *what can I take, and how much of it, to do the job*

Generally speaking, the more I take, and the faster I go to get there, then I will reduce my ONSTA (on station) time.  Its a balancing act to get to the right place, at the right time, with the right things.  I am not a pilot, but I do fly for a living and have done practice and *real* SAR and my somewhat informed opinion is this airframe will fall short.  If/when it does, it may cost lives.

You can put more weight in stupid studies and stuff from folks who don't do the job, or you can put more weight in the articles linked above from people who actually do / have done SAR for a living, coast to coast to coast.  Pretty simple choice to me. 

Article:  FWSAR: Analysis of the C295W Airbus Acquisition

 

[jmt18325]

I get that a lot of people aren't happy with the decision - that kind of thinking is why the NRC got to make the requirements.  The C-27j is almost certainly better.  The C-225M met the requirements for less money.  End of story.

 

[George Wallace]

I get that a lot of people aren't happy with the decision - that kind of thinking is why the NRC got to make the requirements.  The C-27j is almost certainly better.  The C-225M met the requirements for less money.  End of story.

Seriously? 

I have a strong feeling that we will find the same story occurred here as we had with the purchase of the LSVW for the Army so many years ago.......And that is not a good thing.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Meeting the requirements is one piece of the puzzle (the least important IMO).  Can it do the job is the more important question.  That's why we train (at a very expensive cost) test pilots, fly the airplanes and make recommendations regarding how it will perform in the role we intend before we make a decision. 

Requirements, in an idea world, would match exactly what we need.  It is rarely if ever the case.