- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Astrodog said:
Yeah it was mentioned, but it's cool. Just goes to show how far we've fallen in the aerospace industry, from producing aircraft lasting over 20 years (maybe more ?), to forking much needed dough over to a company that has yet to really produce.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
The Buff airframe still has lots of life in it, one of the benefits of not being pressurized. As for the engines the new ones are just upgraded versions of the ones we use. Infact they are already being used on other Buffalo fleets. They've just up graded problem areas on the current version such as anti-icing, lubrication and the FCU just to mention few. The avionics have been looked at for years and there is already a solid plan as to what we will require to bring the aircraft into this century. The only problem I can see for the avionics is that the plane is not water tight, the roof is full of vent holes. Modern avionics and water don't mix well. The buff is the only aircraft that can do the work we currently do in the mountains of BC. Any new aircraft we get is going to change the way we work. The Cormorant went through the same thing when it came on line, they just couldn't operate it the same as the lab. This is starting to look like a "have your cake and eat it" type situation. You want an aircraft that can get down low in the rocks, yet be able to fly high while pressurized. You want an aircraft that can fly over 300 knots, yet still do a valley shoot. You want an aircraft that can carry more further, yet land and take off from small austere strips. If you want an aircraft to do what a Buffalo does, you already have it, if you want another aircraft to all that other stuff there isn't enough upgrades in hell to make the Buffalo that kind of aircraft. You will need a new plane.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
RiggerFE said:
well, as i said before, what about designing a new plane along the same lines as the Buffalo, but improving on the basic design? compare Leo 1 to Leo 2. technically speaking they're the same series of vehicles, but anybody can see that they are different. why not design a "Buffalo 2" ? heck, we've got nothing better to do. it's either that or buy a plane not near as capable and change our SAR strategy to accommodate it.
my 0.02 worth
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Stridsvagn_122 said:
Changing how you operate a new fleet is not isolated to the SAR world. It's a fact of life when getting a new aircraft. Do you think we bought the Sea King replacement to do exactly what the Sea King does? Nope, tons of improvements, most of which outperform the Sea King. However it won't come without some major changes to how we do things. Most of which revolve around getting the helo on the deck of a Frigate or Destroyer, not to mention learning how to operate with NVGs, a much more capable radar and sonar, etc.
Sorry for the tangent, but it's to illustrate that a new aircraft will almost always mean changes to how things are done. No big deal, flexibility is the key to airpower.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Look at the Aurora program and you'll see the folly in attempting to keep an aging airframe going with upgrades. We are spending astronomical amounts of money on a program to replace avionics while the airframe itself is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain from a parts/structural integrity standpoint. The Aurora is likely going to retire in the next decade, as we know ASLEP is off. But only after we eventually spend well over a billion on AIMP.... its CF5 deja vu on a grand scale. The intelligent thing to do in the 1990s was to replace the Aurora (as the USN now is doing with the P3), but we went ahead with AIMP as it was politically impossible to convince the Chretien gov't to even think about a replacement. Ah, the good old "decade of darkness."
Its time to replace the Buffalo. You can replace the avionics and doctor up the airframe, but you'll still be left with a old, slow, unpressurized aircraft. You'll run into structural problems and parts/costs of maintenance will become prohibitive. Is the Aurora experience instructive to this discussion? Perhaps.
Its time to replace the Buffalo. You can replace the avionics and doctor up the airframe, but you'll still be left with a old, slow, unpressurized aircraft. You'll run into structural problems and parts/costs of maintenance will become prohibitive. Is the Aurora experience instructive to this discussion? Perhaps.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I also asked the question of building a modern Buff to the company we contract some of our heavy maintenance to. They also agree with the company that owns the rights to the Buff. Today, with upgraded airfields globally, better ground transport than 40 years ago the market just isn't there to build a new airframe. On a good day, globally there is only 10 airframes flying. No market... no airplane. Even if we use the tank analogy, they will sell hundreds of tanks compared to perhaps a couple dozen new Buffs. It isn't worth tooling up for.
- Reaction score
- 4,332
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks to several for that reality check.
As I read it:
• The Buffalo is, indeed, upgradable and if upgraded will, for some period, be suitable for its current tasks; but
• It cannot live forever or, even, for a whole lot longer – upgrade is an interim term fix, we still need new aircraft, sooner rather than too much later;
• Buffalo II is not going to happen – the new aircraft will have new and different capabilities and the Air Force will, as it traditionally does, adapt to them.
That seems to me to indicate that:
1. The upgrade is the way to go for the short term –
a. for political reasons, to reduce the heat of the current aircraft procurement debate, and
b. for military reasons, to make more money available for other urgent needs; but
2. We must, still, and not too long in the future decide on a SAR (and utility?) fleet – hopefully after a full, standard, competitive procurement process.
As I read it:
• The Buffalo is, indeed, upgradable and if upgraded will, for some period, be suitable for its current tasks; but
• It cannot live forever or, even, for a whole lot longer – upgrade is an interim term fix, we still need new aircraft, sooner rather than too much later;
• Buffalo II is not going to happen – the new aircraft will have new and different capabilities and the Air Force will, as it traditionally does, adapt to them.
That seems to me to indicate that:
1. The upgrade is the way to go for the short term –
a. for political reasons, to reduce the heat of the current aircraft procurement debate, and
b. for military reasons, to make more money available for other urgent needs; but
2. We must, still, and not too long in the future decide on a SAR (and utility?) fleet – hopefully after a full, standard, competitive procurement process.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,627
- Points
- 1,160
I assume this works for them because Australia has little in the way of high arctic or extreme mountainous terrian to deal with and, being mostly one big desert, is covered by suitable landing strips.
- Reaction score
- 18,561
- Points
- 1,360
DB, there is definitely the environmental issue, which turbines handle better than radial engines, but I'm sure if the Aussies had purchased the Buff vice Caribou, they'd still be flying it as well after a methodical and well thought out upgrade.
Cheers,
G2G
Cheers,
G2G
A
aesop081
Guest
Good2Golf said:
No such thing in Canada
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
cdnaviator said:
sad but true.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
The CF Buffalos turned 40 years old this year. Anybody that thinks that all that needs to be done to extend the life of this aircraft is a couple new engines is smoking crack. Yes it can be extended, but there are many other significant obsolescent parts issues that will ensure an unacceptable serviceability rate for this aircraft in the very near future. Only 114 Buffalo were ever built and with the impending retirement of the Brazilian Fleet (which are mostly newer D models compared to the CF's older A models) ...Canada, with only 6 aircraft, will become the single biggest operator in the world (with a worldwide fleet of about 20 aircraft). No aerospace company really wants to bother with repairing and overhauling such a small number of aircraft components. Even by charging exorbidant fees, there simply isn't enough frequency of work to make it profitable for companies. Finding "certified" repair and overhaul facilities to support the Buff is becoming extremely difficult. It may be a very capable aircraft, but it is also becoming a very unsupportable aircraft. The nostalgiac capability of an unserviceable aircraft is a moot point. All the small things will make the Buff a hangar-queen.....even with new engines hanging from its wings.
So from an engineering point of view, the nostalgia and false hope for the Buff extension is somewhat naive....to say the least! She's got about another 6 or 7 years left in her.....thats it! It's a great aircraft....but the pasture is calling.
So from an engineering point of view, the nostalgia and false hope for the Buff extension is somewhat naive....to say the least! She's got about another 6 or 7 years left in her.....thats it! It's a great aircraft....but the pasture is calling.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
TCBF,
30 Losses is a good estimate. The Flight Safety Foundation records 26 losses, but there are probaly other losses that were never publicly acknowledged. Nowithstanding, the vast majority of the remaining Buffalos are grounded, parked and cannabalized. I would be surprised if even 25% of the original fleet were still flying. And many of those that are still flying shouldn't be as they wouldn't meet any Western standard of airworthiness. The CF actually owns 8 Buffalos (registered hulls). One was being used until recently as a battle-damage-repairs training aid in Borden. The other sits in a hangar in Mountainview totally cannabalized and covered in birdshit. Once Brazil retires her 12 or so remaining airframes, I think 20 will be a fair estimate for the number of flight-worthy Buffalos that will remain throughout the world. And once again, some of those that will remain will be of questionable airworthiness.
G2G,
The issue of support is only relevant when you consider the mission. If the mission is to haul trash domestically for a non-critical Defence role......like the Australian Caribous or the CF Twin Otters..... then any aircraft is relatively easy to support because mission failure has no appreciable consequences. If the CF Twin Otter is U/S then JTF(N) just charters the mission to one of many civilian operators or they just postpone or cancel the mission all together.....nobody dies and nobody really cares.
If your mission is to ensure that 99% of the time you have a Mission Ready SAR aircraft available to conduct SAR then the support issue becomes very critical because failure equates to lives lost! Currently 442 SQN has a SAR Dispatch rate for the Buffalo of about 97%. Based on the fact that they have six Buffalos, that equates to an Operational Availability (Ao) of about 50-55% per aircraft. That really sucks! As the the aircraft and associated parts get older, the mean-time-between failures will decrease and the Ao will continue to decline (the CF CC130E Hercs have an Ao of about 45%).
So if your job is to ensure that a 442 SQN Buffalo is available for SAR missions 99% of the time then you will probably concur that support for this aircraft is becoming very difficult. If your job is to ensure an aircraft is available to to haul trash then an Ao of 50% or less (e.g. CC130E Hercs) is good enough as sooner or later an aircraft will come serviceable and the trash will get hauled.
The CF could keep the Buffalo flying for another 40 years.....but the Ao and dispatch rates will continue to decline given the curent circumstances. The issue of Ao does not even consider mission completion rates. Specifically, what percentage of SAR Buffalos will fail to complete their missions due to a breakdown subsequent to being dispatched? As the aircraft and systems age, the reliability rate also declines. When you have 100s of aircraft parts with low and declining mean-time-between failure cycles coupled with a very limited amount of replacement parts support becomes VERY difficult.
So to answer your question G2G, the CF DHC-5 Buffalo is much more difficult to support than the non-CF DHC-4 Caribou because mission readiness actually matters! If we employed DHC-4 Caribous in the SAR role, and to the same readiness standards of today, then we would also have a very difficult time supporting them. However, if we were to utilize either of these aircraft for non-critical domestic trash-hauling.....then support is relatively easy....because nobody dies and nobody cares if the mission is aborted due to an unserviceable aircraft.
30 Losses is a good estimate. The Flight Safety Foundation records 26 losses, but there are probaly other losses that were never publicly acknowledged. Nowithstanding, the vast majority of the remaining Buffalos are grounded, parked and cannabalized. I would be surprised if even 25% of the original fleet were still flying. And many of those that are still flying shouldn't be as they wouldn't meet any Western standard of airworthiness. The CF actually owns 8 Buffalos (registered hulls). One was being used until recently as a battle-damage-repairs training aid in Borden. The other sits in a hangar in Mountainview totally cannabalized and covered in birdshit. Once Brazil retires her 12 or so remaining airframes, I think 20 will be a fair estimate for the number of flight-worthy Buffalos that will remain throughout the world. And once again, some of those that will remain will be of questionable airworthiness.
G2G,
The issue of support is only relevant when you consider the mission. If the mission is to haul trash domestically for a non-critical Defence role......like the Australian Caribous or the CF Twin Otters..... then any aircraft is relatively easy to support because mission failure has no appreciable consequences. If the CF Twin Otter is U/S then JTF(N) just charters the mission to one of many civilian operators or they just postpone or cancel the mission all together.....nobody dies and nobody really cares.
If your mission is to ensure that 99% of the time you have a Mission Ready SAR aircraft available to conduct SAR then the support issue becomes very critical because failure equates to lives lost! Currently 442 SQN has a SAR Dispatch rate for the Buffalo of about 97%. Based on the fact that they have six Buffalos, that equates to an Operational Availability (Ao) of about 50-55% per aircraft. That really sucks! As the the aircraft and associated parts get older, the mean-time-between failures will decrease and the Ao will continue to decline (the CF CC130E Hercs have an Ao of about 45%).
So if your job is to ensure that a 442 SQN Buffalo is available for SAR missions 99% of the time then you will probably concur that support for this aircraft is becoming very difficult. If your job is to ensure an aircraft is available to to haul trash then an Ao of 50% or less (e.g. CC130E Hercs) is good enough as sooner or later an aircraft will come serviceable and the trash will get hauled.
The CF could keep the Buffalo flying for another 40 years.....but the Ao and dispatch rates will continue to decline given the curent circumstances. The issue of Ao does not even consider mission completion rates. Specifically, what percentage of SAR Buffalos will fail to complete their missions due to a breakdown subsequent to being dispatched? As the aircraft and systems age, the reliability rate also declines. When you have 100s of aircraft parts with low and declining mean-time-between failure cycles coupled with a very limited amount of replacement parts support becomes VERY difficult.
So to answer your question G2G, the CF DHC-5 Buffalo is much more difficult to support than the non-CF DHC-4 Caribou because mission readiness actually matters! If we employed DHC-4 Caribous in the SAR role, and to the same readiness standards of today, then we would also have a very difficult time supporting them. However, if we were to utilize either of these aircraft for non-critical domestic trash-hauling.....then support is relatively easy....because nobody dies and nobody cares if the mission is aborted due to an unserviceable aircraft.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Or to put it another way Ozymandias, the Buff replaced the Albatross on SAR dutie in YSU in the early 1970's.
That means we are both old and lookin' for a nice place to retire.
That means we are both old and lookin' for a nice place to retire.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
G2G,
There are no technical limitations for extending the Buff, or that make it less/more easily supportable than the Caribou. Both use mid-century legacy technology which could be easily replicated......just add lots of money and all technical issues are resolved.
To clarify, the Buffalo is difficult to support for purely economic reasons. If the Government were to commit a significant amount of money and commit to a 10 to 20 year life extension to this aircraft, then aerospace companies might become interested and the limited parts and overhaul capability could improve, but would not be eliminated. Unless every component on the aircraft is going to be replaced then the aircraft will only be as serviceable as the least reliable component will allow. Buffalos have been grounded for days waiting for a replacement windshield wiper motor. Nobody wants to open a line to manufacture new buffalo windshield-wiper motors for a 25 unit order. So, alternative motors have to be found and the appropriate engineering has to be done to ensure that they don't compromise the airworthiness of the aircraft.....this takes time, money and valuable personnel. There are plenty of other components like the seemingly insignificant windshield wiper motor. All the cost analysis has indicated that the Buffalo is at the point where the cost to keep her is surpassing the cost to replace her. And most importantly there is a decreasing return on the investment of the life-extension initiative. Meaning that as time goes on it will cost even more to support the old Buffalo yet it's mission readiness (and by proxy dispatch rate) will continue to decline regardless. So we are on the "pay more for less" downward slide. The plane is technically supportable, but economically, continuance provides a very poor return on investment.
This is a point seldom communicated in the media because it is not well understood. Yes the FWSAR replacement project will cost several billion dollars over 30 years. But maintaining the legacy fleet capability (Buffs and Hercs) will cost much more while providing an appreciably reduced level of service. The only way to reduce costs is to eliminate the FWSAR service all together.....and I have yet to hear anyone advocating this.
It currently takes 6 Buffalos to provide a 97% SAR dispatch rate for a single line of SAR tasking. The replacement aircraft will provide 99% dispatch with 3 aircraft. Modern aircraft have much higher inherent operational availability. Air Canada has a dispatch rate comparable to the 442 SQN Buffalo fleet and I can ensure you that they don't accomplish this by having 5 additional aircraft in reserve for every scheduled flight. They achieve this through a continuous process of modernization. Because modernization ultimately costs less and provides a better service.
There are no technical limitations for extending the Buff, or that make it less/more easily supportable than the Caribou. Both use mid-century legacy technology which could be easily replicated......just add lots of money and all technical issues are resolved.
To clarify, the Buffalo is difficult to support for purely economic reasons. If the Government were to commit a significant amount of money and commit to a 10 to 20 year life extension to this aircraft, then aerospace companies might become interested and the limited parts and overhaul capability could improve, but would not be eliminated. Unless every component on the aircraft is going to be replaced then the aircraft will only be as serviceable as the least reliable component will allow. Buffalos have been grounded for days waiting for a replacement windshield wiper motor. Nobody wants to open a line to manufacture new buffalo windshield-wiper motors for a 25 unit order. So, alternative motors have to be found and the appropriate engineering has to be done to ensure that they don't compromise the airworthiness of the aircraft.....this takes time, money and valuable personnel. There are plenty of other components like the seemingly insignificant windshield wiper motor. All the cost analysis has indicated that the Buffalo is at the point where the cost to keep her is surpassing the cost to replace her. And most importantly there is a decreasing return on the investment of the life-extension initiative. Meaning that as time goes on it will cost even more to support the old Buffalo yet it's mission readiness (and by proxy dispatch rate) will continue to decline regardless. So we are on the "pay more for less" downward slide. The plane is technically supportable, but economically, continuance provides a very poor return on investment.
This is a point seldom communicated in the media because it is not well understood. Yes the FWSAR replacement project will cost several billion dollars over 30 years. But maintaining the legacy fleet capability (Buffs and Hercs) will cost much more while providing an appreciably reduced level of service. The only way to reduce costs is to eliminate the FWSAR service all together.....and I have yet to hear anyone advocating this.
It currently takes 6 Buffalos to provide a 97% SAR dispatch rate for a single line of SAR tasking. The replacement aircraft will provide 99% dispatch with 3 aircraft. Modern aircraft have much higher inherent operational availability. Air Canada has a dispatch rate comparable to the 442 SQN Buffalo fleet and I can ensure you that they don't accomplish this by having 5 additional aircraft in reserve for every scheduled flight. They achieve this through a continuous process of modernization. Because modernization ultimately costs less and provides a better service.
