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

[Rescue Randy]

At the risk of going over old ground, which has been previously beat to death, a C-295 does not need to be stationed in the North to meet the requirement.  If the CF orders on Crew day are used, the C-295 can do the mission to the North from Winnipeg or Comox, as per the CF requirement, in one crew day.  The calculations used to eliminate it assumes 2 hours of crew day burned prior to takeoff, which is not valid - crew day starts when the first guy turns up for work after the AC elects to launch, which means a max of 90 minutes crew day burned before launch.  KJ gully knows that he and the crew are usually airborne within one hour when on standby at home, which is why one hour was used in the CSH SOR calculations.  The definition of crew day that is used to eliminate the C-295, which starts crew day when the AC is notified instead of when the first guy shows up for work, only exists for purposes of this acquisition. 
This discussion is probably about 50 pages back, but to repeat, the problem with an increased Herc fleet is someone has decided that they are only going to have one aircraft type for SAR, and the Herc is not a good machine in the mountains.  If they were going to have a split fleet, like the USCG does, then it would make a lot of sense to have the Hercs for the ocean ops and Arctic, and a smaller machine, more manoueverable with a lower stalling speed, to handle the mountains.  The reality is that none of the twin engine candidates will be able to provide the same time on station at the north pole, or at 30 west, that the Herc currently provides.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I was always under the impression that the crew day, when on call, starts from the moment you receive the call at home.

 

[kj_gully]

I'm sure you know the scenario far better than me Randy, since you have been paid to provide rebuttals. I know we are often airborne within an hour, but we both know callout time is 2 Hours from call to launch. . There is also only 1 hour allotted for refuelling. I don't think we can count on getting gas in the Arctic in winter in an hour, but the competitors are content to let  that number stand. Really it comes down to getting the best plane we can for the money we have. Your old plane the Buff is well overdue for a retirement party and a VA claim. Face it the CASA is smaller,and by smaller I mean too small to stand up in or move around in, not cubic feet, slower, and has no parts in common with the c130J. Listen, the C27 is not perfect. It isn't as slow and maneuverable as the Buff, nor have the space and range of the Herc, but it does a better job of finding the middle ground between those two aircraft than your plane. Stop trying to sell your former comrades an inferior product. More on Rescue Randy here: https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/_ls70_ls75_ls62_ls6c_ls69_ls63_ls53_ls75_ls6d_ls6d_ls61_ls72_ls79?_ls6c_ls61_ls6e_ls67_ls75_ls61_ls67_ls65=_ls65_ls6e_ls5f_ls43_ls41&_ls72_ls65_ls67_ls44_ls65_ls63=562016&_ls73_ls4d_ls64_ls4b_ls79=1243014941943&_STRTG3=tr

 

[kj_gully]

Since we are so many pages later going over the same tired pipe dream of a new SAR bird, thought I'd dig out my old post on how the C27 kicks C295 a$$

The other day on "slash" I took the time to read through the entire thread. Interesting to see how it has evolved since the days of the "fast track" for replacement, seems forgotten now... I realized that there hasn't really been a solid discussion as to why I would prefer one over the other.
      #1. Rugged military construction. C27 is built as an airforce platform, designed for transport lift, and ruggedly constructed. The other contenders are modified airliners, and must be retro fitted to meet milspec. This WILL result in an inferior product.
      #2. Space. It has been debated back and forth quite a bit, but from the one working in the back, appropriate working space is imperitive. C27 provides full height headroom across almost the entire cabin. The C295 provides 6'3" headroom in the dead centre of the cabin, requiring a stooped posture for most of the time (@ just over 6', I am very near, if not over 6"3" with my helmet on, so would probably be hunched all the time.) C295's long cabin is not friendly, as it means the gear and the ramp are further apart. Also the narrow floor means more difficulty avoiding the cargo rollers.
      #3. APU, Auxilliary power unit. It is like a generator that self powers the plane when it is landed remote of services (more or less, an FE/ maintainer can help me here) It allows you to start engines. C27 has one, C295 ( civil aircraft, remember?) does not.
      #4. STOL ( short takeoff and landing) C27: T/O: 550 m, landing: 350 m. CASA: 844m T/O, 680m landing (their specs!) BTW, Buff T/O 377m,Landing 325m
      #5 Fuel dump capability, which lightens aircraft to safe landing weight in an emergency, C27:yes C295:no
        #6 Payload. C27: 11500kg C295:9250kg
        #7 Speed. C27: 315 kt, C295 260kt ( no contest)
        # loading speed. C27 provides a "kneeling" platform, ie it squats in the rear to make loading cargo much easier. C295 does not

we're probably gunna end up with the Dash 8 anyway, so I don't know why I'm taking the time...........

Gully

Dare to dream, dare to dream... ah for the heady days of 2005, when a new SAR Bird was to be delivered any time, and the Buff only had to survive until 2012,

 

[Zoomie]

Sigh....

A big thank you to the Canadian companies that want to get a piece of the big pie with their inferior products.

FWIW - the SOR is based on a 1/3 Buffalo and 2/3 Hercules requirement.  Most SAR dogs would state that the only real replacement for FWSAR is the J Model Herc.  We are already comprising by downgrading to a twin engine aircraft.

 

[blogwatcher]

Sigh....

A big thank you to the Canadian companies that want to get a piece of the big pie with their inferior products.

FWIW - the SOR is based on a 1/3 Buffalo and 2/3 Hercules requirement.  Most SAR dogs would state that the only real replacement for FWSAR is the J Model Herc.  We are already comprising by downgrading to a twin engine aircraft.

Actually, the C-27J has far better agility than the C-130J which is why it it makes a better plane for FWSAR. The flight capabilities of the C-27J match the current C-130s in use, so there is no "downgrade" at all. 

 

[Zoomie]

Actually, the C-27J has far better agility than the C-130J which is why it it makes a better plane for FWSAR.

I'm interested to read what you think we do while flying SAR?  Are you envisioning us doing barrel rolls and 90 degree bank angle turns?

We need a robust platform with speed, range and payload.  If you pit the Jerc against the 27J, the Jerc will always win.

 

[GAP]

Today's DID review of the tendering, RFP, etc

Rescue Required: Canada’s Search-And-Rescue Aircraft Program
19-Jul-2009 17:09 EDT
Article Link

The USA isn’t the only country whose SAR aircraft program is having a hard go of it lately. In 2004, Canada announced a program to replace its aging DHC-5 (CC-115) Buffalo (West Coast) and CC-130E/H Hercules (East Coast) search-and-rescue planes with at least 15 new aircraft. Some of the Canadian Forces’ CC-130s have already been grounded after flying 40,000 – 50,000 hours, and a contract has been signed for C-130J replacements.

The first SAR aircraft was to be delivered in 2006, with all deliveries complete by 2009. The competitors were a familiar duo: the Alenia C-27J Spartan with its speed advantage and C-130J compatibility, vs. the EADS-CASA C-295M with its longer fuselage and lower operating costs. The competition was put on hold, but 2009 looks set bring in a new C$ 3 billion RFP, with new competitors added to the mix. Or will it be a fixed single-choice process instead, per media reports?

Further reports indicate it may be a 3rd option: a rigged process, designed to look like a contest. The latest “Industry Day” did little to quell those suspicions, as the program was formally re-launched…

Canada is the 2nd-largest country in the world in terms of square area. Its 9,976 km3 exceeds both China (9,596 km3) and the USA (9,363 km3), and 3 ocean borders to the east, west and north expand its required coverage into large and hostile environments. Each year, the JRCCs handle an average of 8,000 air and marine SAR cases, and Canadian Forces SAR aircraft conduct over 1,000 missions per year. In 2008, the JRCC handled 9,097 SAR cases across Canada.

Canadian Joint Rescue Coordination Centres (JRCC) are staffed by a combination of coast Guard and Canadian Forces personnel, and are currently located in Halifax, NS; Trenton, ON; and Victoria BC. The SAR crews and aircraft are based in Gander, NL (EH-101 derivative CH-149 Cormorant helicopters); Greenwood, NS (CH-149 Cormorant helicopters and C-130E/H “CC-130” Hercules aircraft); Trenton, ON (Bell 412 derivative CH-146 Griffon helicopters and CC-130 Hercules aircraft); Winnipeg, MB (CC-130 Hercules aircraft); and Comox, BC (CH-149 Cormorant helicopters and DHC-5/ CC-115 Buffalo fixed-wing aircraft).

These are supplemented as required by Canadian Forces’ zGriffon helicopters in Goose Bay, Labrador, NL; Bagotville, QC; and Cold Lake, AB; and by a small arctic fleet of DHC-6/ CC-138 Twin Otter aircraft based in Yellowknife, NWT.
More on link

 

[ezbeatz]

We need a robust platform with speed, range and payload.  If you pit the Jerc against the 27J, the Jerc will always win.

Ya, but is a government going to purchase 17 Hercs just so they park them on a tarmac for SAR standby? There's an economic reality involved. Guaranteed if the Herc was purchased for SAR that it would spend most of the time in a transport role. Heck, the reason the C-27J was pushed was that it too could be used for tactical transport to support the Herc fleet.

 

[Good2Golf]

Ya, but is a government going to purchase 17 Hercs just so they park them on a tarmac for SAR standby? There's an economic reality involved. Guaranteed if the Herc was purchased for SAR that it would spend most of the time in a transport role. Heck, the reason the C-27J was pushed was that it too could be used for tactical transport to support the Herc fleet.

ezbeatz, please stop.  This is talk that has no basis of accuracy or truth.  Why do you think that assets procured for SAR would spend most of their time in transport?  What would the new transport fleet that was sized appropriately to conduct all the required transport roles then be doing?  Is there information you know about the FWSAR program that the FWSAR project staff don't know about?

G2G


*edit for spelling*

 

[Zoomie]

Heck, the reason the C-27J was pushed was that it too could be used for tactical transport to support the Herc fleet.

Maybe strategic lift (STRAT) but in no way with FWSAR be used in a TAL role.

15 aircraft over 4 FWSAR MOB's = Primary and Secondary SAR aircraft (2x4=8) with 7 airframes left over for STRAT, maintenance and training.

 

[Loachman]

ezbeatz hasn't done anything wrong I have read all 5 of the guys post and don't see any thing wrong with them .

There are now more than five, and I, too, find them annoying.

We have reduced tolerance to this because we have seen it before, and will see it again.

If you dont like  his opinion fine but there is other ways of responding to it than the above .

Yes, but, in truth, I am not far behind my colleague in "ways of responding".

Like in response you can with all your experience and explain in a civil manor why he is wrong to regards subject .

That, apparently, has no effect.

To the mods I apologize if I stepped out of line here but the report to  moderator button is broken  I am just tired of behaviour like the above it has no place in this forum

No apology necessary.

I appreciate your concern, but please try and appreciate this from our point of view: experienceless "experts" who know everything can be extremely exasperating.

 

[pylon]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/07/333174/lockheed-starts-building-new-version-of-the-c-130j.html

Lockheed starts building new version of the C-130J
By Stephen Trimble

Lockheed Martin officially launched production on 5 October of the first C-130 Hercules acquired by the US Air Force to support search and rescue missions since the Vietnam War.

The ceremony inside Lockheed's Marietta production facility also marked the launch of a new C-130 variant tailored for special operations missions, which company officials hope could lead to dozens - if not hundreds - of new orders by domestic and foreign customers for the 55-year-old tactical airlifter.

The USAF plans to acquire 22 new HC/MC-130Js to begin replacing 78 HC-130s flown by search and rescue teams and 37 MC-130s operated by special forces. More orders are expected to follow as the USAF continues to renew the ageing fleet.


© Michael Balter MBAviation-Images

The new design boosts the C-130J's maximum take-off weight to 74,400kg (164,000lb) and the assault landing weight to 64,400kg. The heavier model also includes an advanced wing design that guarantees longer service life, which has become a major issue for the C-130E models that the C-130J replaces.

Lockheed has also adapted the C-130J production process for the new variant. The refuelling receptacle is produced in-line instead of as a post-production modification. That single change eliminates eight months of extra production time, saving $8 million in manufacturing costs per aircraft, Lockheed officials say.

Lockheed has also fitted a forward looking infrared (FLIR) turreted pod - the Raytheon multi-spectral targeting system (MTS-A) - to the airframe structure beneath the flightdeck. The company is investing internal funds to design a retractable turret that could extend the HC/MC-130J's mission radius.

Company officials have also disclosed internal plans to develop a new outer-mould line for the venerable airlifter that can accommodate more equipment for special operations missions. One design concept displayed publicly so far reveals an enlarged nose section and a wider cross-section for the fuselage.

Lockheed is in the midst of a major sales boom for the C-130J programme. The company is doubling annual production from 12 aircraft in 2008 to more than 24 aircraft in 2010. Lockheed will be building five different models of the C-130J simultaneously in 2010, including new HC/MC-130Js and KC-130Js, and C-130J-30s ordered by Canada, Qatar and India.


kc

 

[hauger]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/07/333174/lockheed-starts-building-new-version-of-the-c-130j.html

Lockheed has also fitted a forward looking infrared (FLIR) turreted pod - the Raytheon multi-spectral targeting system (MTS-A) - to the airframe structure beneath the flightdeck. The company is investing internal funds to design a retractable turret that could extend the HC/MC-130J's mission radius.

Sweet.  FLIR is a slick toy to have.

I need a bit of education though on how SAR does business with it's aircraft.  Does it need the roughly 50 - 70K payload capacity of the J?  I guess what I'm asking is would using 130's, either H's or J's be somewhat overkill for the role (I know using the H's is easy since we already own a bunch and they will be somewhat freed up soon-ish with the J delivery)?

 

[aesop081]

That system is NOT a FLIR.......

 

[hauger]

That system is NOT a FLIR.......

Okay, capitalizing the "NOT" shows me you feel awful strong about this.  So if it's not part of a FLIR system, then what is it? 

See, I first read the article, and it said they were fitting the FLIR turreted pod, the ratheon MTS.  I took that to mean that they were fitting, oh, I don't know, a FLIR turreted pod.  When I looked up the multi-spectral system, I found out it in fact does support FLIR (among other imagining tech).  Still, I guess somehow I got that wrong.

So, help me out a bit here and maybe instead of just proclaiming my being incorrect, maybe throw out a bit of education and explain where I went wrong.

 

[aesop081]

calling it a FLIR is like saying T-Ball is the same as MLB.

The system you refered to is called an EO/IR system as it is much more capable that a FLIR.

A FLIR system operates a camera in the IR spectrum....thats it. I operated the OR-5008 FLIR when we still had it. It was good but very limited.

An EO/IR system usualy incorporates 2 or more cameras ( my MX-20 has 3) , one of which work in IR and the others in the visual spectrum ( and can incorporate filters such as NIR). They also tend to incorporate other tools such as laser pointers/designators, spot trackers, range finders , etc.....

If you read the Raytheon site for the MTS , they refer to it as an EOIR system.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/mts/

Dependable, flexible and easily supported, the MTS will continue to be the world’s most advanced integrated EO/IR system. The MTS is designated as the AN/AAS-52.

Small point it may be but if you called a LAV III a "tank", what responses would you get ?

 

[hauger]

Thanks CDN, that was a constructive and informative response.

Calling the AN/AAS-52 though T-ball compared to FLIR's MLB is probably corrent.  The MTS is an EO/IR device, but you know what, that doesn't really mean anything by itself.  EO (Electro-Optical) means visible light.  IR means the whole IR spectrum.  What IR are we talking about here then?  Near spectrum IR is used in NVGs (along with some EO), and produces one type of image.  FLIR uses generally far IR to gather its image.

So what does the AN/AAS-52 do?  Well, Raytheon themselves (the nice guys that make the product) call it a FLIR device in their product sheet (http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/sas/documents/content/rtn_sas_ds_an_aas52.pdf).  Actually, they call it an "Advanced FLIR" system. 

So, you're right in at least as far as symantics go, the MTS in this case is not just a FLIR system, but an EO/IR system capable of fusing numerous sensors together into a nice image.  That doesn't mean to say it's not FLIR capable, it seems to be, and it seems to be how Raytheon is selling the kit.

Honestly though, I think we're just arguing stupid points.  The point here is that it's a nice piece of kit that produces useful, nice images to look at.

 

[aesop081]

:

Back to SAR planes......i like planes.....

 

[Zoomie]

Does it need the roughly 50 - 70K payload capacity of the J? 

FWSAR requires a palletized on/off load capability that can be configured to meet the requirements of the mission at hand.  That being said - there is nothing in the order of that kind of weight requirement for SAR loads.  The Buff SAR loads would have to be hand-bombed on to each aircraft, as we did not have a palletized load.

FWSAR is all about range and speed - our best asset is our ability to find a crash site and send in the orange suits.  EO/IR and an effective method to dispatch jumpers (read ramp) is what we need.