Author Topic: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities  (Read 727501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aesop081

  • Guest
Not so long agot, the federal government anounced the replacement of the Herc in the SAR role.  As there been any developements since then ?  I have seen some of the contenders for this project but i have no heard of any final decisions.

As well, can anyone tell me what the specifications for the project are (I.E. crew composition, sensors, performance.......)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 14:34:47 by kratz »

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2004, 12:26:13 »
Please keep in mind that most items I will mention here are available for public consumption and are not considered sensitive - I am purposedly biting my tongue on a few issues re. FWSAR as there is a competition still in the works.

To answer a few of your questions as simply as possible:

There still is development, this project is still on the rails.

Contenders are LMATTS SPARTAN C-27J and EADS CASA.  (PM me for the name of the only acceptable aircraft)

Crew composition won't change much from what it is now with the Buffalo -  We will most likely build a station for the Nav in the back and create a workspace for an FE in the front.

We should see something in the news around March '05.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2004, 12:40:33 »
Wors here at CFANS and around 1 CAD.......sorry 1 Cdn Air Div  ::) is that the new A/C will incorporate IR/EO for doing searches and that it will be operated by an AESOp.  As for the only acceptable aircraft, i will PM you, i'm currious.......

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2004, 11:20:02 »
Contenders are LMATTS SPARTAN C-27J and EADS CASA.  (PM me for the name of the only acceptable aircraft)

Could you explain what "acceptable" means? (And you can't just say "meets the spec" because we've seen in the recent past that specs can be "adjusted" to meet the marketplace) ;)

Sam

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2004, 11:34:52 »
Good point Sam... I guess what I would consider acceptable is not just a matter of meeting the basic specifications (which one aircraft does not).  I would deem it that only one aircraft is physically able to do the job that we are asking of it.  You can change the specs all you like, but if you want to take that plane in the mountains and do some close and dirty contour flying - one of them is not up to it.  For me, acceptable = survivable in SAR config.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2004, 12:47:32 »
Great answer. This is going to be yet another interesting political football but I think it will ultimately go the way we hope.

Sam

Offline Bograt

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 601
  • Dream Big, Work Harder
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2004, 19:23:49 »
Why would this be a political football? Does the current government have a "history" (pleasant or otherwise) with either manufacturer?

Was Jean's brother "friendly" with the European company?
Hannah and Robbie's Dad

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2004, 22:01:59 »
I don't think it has much to do with any government connection to one manufacturer or the other but the government has shown great reluctance to let the military drive a contract to a sole source bid by declaring that only one competitor (usually the most expensive) fits the bill.

Sam

Offline canuck101

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,881
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2004, 00:02:11 »
We are just going to have to wait and see who the government picks.

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2005, 17:18:42 »
We are just going to have to wait and see who the government picks.

Aaahhhhh..... aaaahhhhhh.... Blinding flash of the obvious!

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sam

Offline canuck101

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,881
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2005, 23:21:15 »
I loved the   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D good one. ;D

Offline sandhurst91

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2005, 16:00:41 »
Sorry for the new thread (now locked?) - hadn't seen this one... but curious to know if anyone knows where this one is heading and where sentiment lies with respect to the contending aircraft... C-27 and C-295... what are the advantages / disadvantages... haven't seen a complete head-to-head comparison yet...??


Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2005, 12:04:55 »
Sandhurst, please take the time to read this thread.  I believe you will find a concise picture of what the board member's thoughts are in this matter.  As for coming out publicly and stating which aircraft would be best for the CF and why, I am afraid that nothing official can be posted here.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2005, 17:12:50 »
We are just going to have to wait and see who the government picks

If we could rely on this i don't think this site would be as popular as it is.

Just curious does it have to be a fixed wing aircraft to replace the old SAR birds?

Would an Osprey work?  i don't know about thier legs though? 
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2005, 20:05:10 »
Just curious does it have to be a fixed wing aircraft to replace the old SAR birds?

YES - FWSAR = Fixed Wing SAR - we have sufficient helo assets for this job, we need the speed and versatility of a fixed wing platform.

Quote
Would an Osprey work?   i don't know about thier legs though?  

The V-22 Osprey is unproven in any field - there is talk of cancelling this project.  When it comes to SAR we need a reliable platform that has all its bugs ironed out (no comments about CH-149 plse).
Per Ardua Ad Astra

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2005, 20:09:00 »

........(no comments about CH-149 plse).

(begin sarcasm) hummmm......why on earth would you say that ? (end sarcasm)  ;D

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2005, 11:33:09 »
Ok Seen

I take it the Dash 9's are to small for that sort of work?

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2005, 12:08:36 »
I take it the Dash 9's are to small for that sort of work?

Not even a contender my friend...  The Dash series by Bombardier are very much like our Spanish friends and their CASA.  Civilian airliner converted to a role that it is not quite suited for.

FWSAR requires a robust aircraft with large cargo capacity and easy loading of equipment via a rear ramp. You would be surprised to learn how much stuff is jammed into our SAR birds on a daily basis.  The back of the Buff is jammed full - I suspect the only reason we don't put the ATV's in the back and strap parachutes on them would be lack of space.  SARtechs are a peculiar lot - anything that they might need, they strap a chute on it and carry it on board.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2005, 12:48:38 »
What about the J series of the Herc?

Could you use a Jet engine?

does it have to be prop driven?

I don't know much about your specs and am interested.

I just hope you guys get what you need, But more then likely you will have to make do with what ever they (the Ivory Tower) buys for ya.

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2005, 13:03:10 »
Could you use a Jet engine?

does it have to be prop driven?


For aerodynamic reasons that I'm not going to get into it because typing a couple paragraph response can't do the theory justice, but in short, propeller driven aircraft tend to be more suited to low level slow flight, whereas jets tend to be more suited to high level high speed flight. So given the tasks that FWSAR tends to perform, I'd say that a turbo prop is probably the best option.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline jmacleod

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 372
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2005, 13:16:12 »
At the moment, a British company is converting a BAe-146 into a Water Bomber. I do not think
this fine British commercial passenger carrier (which has been converted to an air cargo freighter
by Pemco Aviation Dothan Alabama USA) is suitable as a water bomber - ideal water bombers are
turbo-prop or reciprocating, water cooled, propeller equipped engines. The same theory applies
to conversion of what is essentially a commercial carrier to military S&R configuration. A major
purchase of Lockheed C-130J's is the answer, but that program, like a lot of military aircraft
programs in the US is in financial trouble. I will surprised in fact, if any aircraft is bought by the
Federal government for the fixed-wing S&R role in the next decade, having been involved in what
is now called the MHP for nearly twenty years. MacLeod

Offline carpediem

  • New Member
  • **
  • -45
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2005, 13:23:41 »
I think this paper, The CC130 Hercules is misemployed in the Search and Rescue role. by Maj Spurgeon Stewart, provides some interesting background. Enjoy:

http://198.231.69.12/papers/csc29/exnh/stewart.htm

To lose patience is to lose the battle.--Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2005, 13:51:36 »

For aerodynamic reasons that I'm not going to get into it because typing a couple paragraph response can't do the theory justice, but in short, propeller driven aircraft tend to be more suited to low level slow flight, whereas jets tend to be more suited to high level high speed flight. So given the tasks that FWSAR tends to perform, I'd say that a turbo prop is probably the best option.


Not trying to argue but the A10 is jet powered air craft and if can fly low and slow in support of ground forces.  What about something along that line.

I just looked on Janes and there really is not much out there in the way of SAR aircraft other then a few different models of the same thing.  In the fixed wing anyway.
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2005, 14:09:14 »
Not trying to argue but the A10 is jet powered air craft and if can fly low and slow in support of ground forces.   What about something along that line.

You're right, but that's a little different situation. The A10 is designed similar to a fighter, a giant airframe with a tiny cockpit, it's slow for a fighter, but it's quite fast compared to a Buff. The A10 stalls out around 120 kts clean, Zoomie can confirm the numbers but I'm willing to bet the Buff can go a wee bit slower than that.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,272
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2005, 14:48:41 »
The A10 stalls out around 120 kts clean, Zoomie can confirm the numbers but I'm willing to bet the Buff can go a wee bit slower than that.

Slightly....  We do our STOL approach around 70kts - which is usually right at the stall.

We are moving away from the C-130 as a SAR platform due to its cost effectiveness (ie fuel burn) and its size (too big).  The Herc can not fly in mountains like the Buff, it simply has too much momentum.  A twin turbo-prop is what we need and want - hence the only two contenders are the LMATTS C-27J and CASA.  Keep in mind that these new aircraft will not be for any tactical use (ie troop transport, TAL, para-training, etc).  The H model Hercs will keep that role and allow the newer aircraft to take up the slack of SAR throughout Canada.

Unlike the naysayers in the crowd, I anticipate seeing rubber on tarmac relatively sooner than later -please do not compare the FWSAR to the MHP replacement project - apples and oranges.
Per Ardua Ad Astra