Author Topic: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities  (Read 827203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 179,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,610
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #850 on: March 19, 2010, 14:00:23 »
Seems the politicans are muddying the waters in hopes of landing a juicy contract in their neck of the woods and doing damge to other political parties in the process. If I recall correctly the Buff only operate along the BC coast and interior and that's why the DND requirements were written as they were. Those requirement precluded a lot of aircraft. It would seem that for the politicans it's easier to move mountains than to have the correct aircraft come to them.

Offline kj_gully

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 387
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #851 on: March 20, 2010, 16:17:39 »
"Depends how you define 15 min response.  If it`s a crew on standby, ready to launch within 15 mins we could do that..." our 30 minute response is wheels off ground in 30, takes more than 15 minutes to start CF Aircraft. There aren't enough aircrew to man 24/7 30 minute response. We barely have enough FE to man the posture we have now, no way to recruit or train them any faster than we are now (only  so many training aircraft available). Contract out SAR? OK by me, but there are even fewer people out walking around on the street able to do this job without a bunch of training. I guess Canada will need to degrade the SAR service they provide in order to have people ready faster to do less. I live in Gander, on my 2 hour response (bed fast asleep sometimes) I am at the hangar loading the plane in 15 minutes. This is smoke and mirrors, by lobbyists, and ignorance by politicians. I don't mean rude ignorance, just not understanding what the postures mean. 30 minute posture= doing our currency training. 2 hour posture means ready to SAR fly, not at work doing PER (evaluations), exchanging worn out boots, or flying. We are near the hangar,  the aircraft  is gassed and ready, the only delay is from the time the pager goes off until we get in and dressed. Just because we are sometimes actually in the air already during our 30 min response doesn't mean we arrive at an incident faster. If we are training off St John's, and there is a mission off Labrador, ,we will be slower to arrive than if you woke me up at 0 dark 30. This is all politics, and isn't helping Canadians at all.

best fixed wing SAR plane for Canada? c130J. Buy more.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2010, 16:22:48 by kj_gully »

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,330
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #852 on: April 18, 2010, 16:09:03 »
This isn't legacy software, but brand spanking new software.

That's because yours is from "FLIRTM Systems" while CA's is from "L3 WESCAM"...  ;)

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,185
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #853 on: July 30, 2010, 10:03:12 »
A post at Unambiguously Ambidextrous:

Union selfishness and new Air Force aircraft
http://unambig.com/union-selfishness-and-new-air-force-aircraft/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #854 on: June 04, 2011, 12:55:13 »
Bump....

Another strange thought from left field:

One of the critical requirements for all military operations is “eyes in the skies”.  This drives the NOCTUA, MPA and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the JSF programmes (JSF due to its touted all aspect sensing abilities).  It also, it seems to me, to be a key factor in the FWSAR project.

If I am not mistaken the original FWSAR aircraft were Transports that were pressed into service to conduct searches as a secondary mission.  Once the “target” was located it could then be “bombed” with people on parachutes capable of stabilizing the situation until somebody could figure out how to extract the victims.  And then along comes the helicopter, another transport asset, to perform the extraction.  But those operations evolved during the era where the Mark 1 Eyeball was still the primary search technology.

Further, and again if I’m not mistaken, there is very little to distinguish the conduct of a search to locate a downed civilian than the conduct of a reconnaissance to locate and identify an unidentified and imprecisely located truck or boat.  Both use the best available technology to supplement the Mark 1 Eyeball to achieve their goals.

From that I come to this observation:

It seems to me that the FWSAR aircraft is still largely seen as a Transport platform that conducts searches (reconnaissance). 

Could we reverse the situation and look at the FWSAR as a reconnaissance aircraft that also transports?

My thinking here is that instead of looking at the FWSAR as a stand-alone programme that has to justify itself on its own merits, could it be looked at as a Multi-Purpose platform (an aerial Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship – aka Canada’s Littoral Combat Ship) capable of conducting a number of missions?
What would happen if the SOR for the FWSAR stipulated that the candidate aircraft not only had to have long legs and carry a payload of an “embarked force with supplies” but also had to be equipped with the surface search capabilities of the CH-148 cyclone and perhaps, even, be equipped with probe and drogue equipment so as to conduct refuelling of other aircraft and be refuelled in flight?

The rationale is:

Multiple roles make for an easier sell;

The surface search capability, I believe, would make the aircraft a more effective search platform and would also permit the FWSAR candidate to assist the MPA in some of its duties;

The in-flight refuelling capability would both allow the FWSAR to be maintained on station during the search for longer periods and also allow other shorter-ranged aircraft, like rescue helicopters and perhaps even the JSF, to be “sling-shot” forwards, permitting them to transit to the scene faster and travel farther to get there.

It could also make the FWSAR a more useful permanent resident of the Arctic.

Just some more Saturday Morning Weirdness after my coffee and Tuaca....

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #855 on: June 04, 2011, 14:31:05 »


The surface search capability, I believe, would make the aircraft a more effective search platform and would also permit the FWSAR candidate to assist the MPA in some of its duties;

There is nothing that a sensor-equiped FWSAR aircraft can bring to the table that an MPA needs help with. In the same breath, you can imagine what a GMTI-equiped block 3 Aurora brings to a search in poor weather.

You start adding too much and try to make FWSAR everything to everyone and it will never get delivered.


Further to that, IMHO, you are ignoring the political reality that SAR in Canada must be available for SAR. There was enough finger pointing when that cougar helo went down and the SAR guys were out on a SAR exercise. Imagine the shytstorm that would come if  SAR asset was unavailable because it was out doing "playing soldier".

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,682
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,547
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #856 on: June 04, 2011, 15:46:04 »
There is nothing that a sensor-equiped FWSAR aircraft can bring to the table that an MPA needs help with. In the same breath, you can imagine what a GMTI-equiped block 3 Aurora brings to a search in poor weather.

How about a GMTI equipped FWSAR?  There will be more FWSAR located across Canada than all of the LRP fleet. Why not put all the whizz bang technology on our new search aircraft - it will make locating that sinking boat at night in heaving seas that more effective. 

I like the idea of AAR - something akin to what the USAF does with their CSAR assets - Blackhawk tankers off the Herc.  Modifying a Cormorant would be an expensive feat.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #857 on: June 04, 2011, 15:52:45 »
How about a GMTI equipped FWSAR? 

Sure, why not. Sure would help a Search wouldn't it. Though it wouldn't help you very much in looking for a sinking boat in heaving seas.

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,330
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #858 on: June 04, 2011, 16:10:51 »
...although GMTI needs target movement to operate most effectively, so situations like lost travellers in stuck vehicles might not be the best case for the expensive of GMTI.  It would likely have to be justified as "one of many" sensors to provide maximum search effectiveness overall.  At the very least, the aircraft should have FLIR (unlike the CH149 Cormorant which oddly has no FLIR).

Regards
G2G

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #859 on: June 04, 2011, 16:13:26 »
There is nothing that a sensor-equiped FWSAR aircraft can bring to the table that an MPA needs help with. In the same breath, you can imagine what a GMTI-equiped block 3 Aurora brings to a search in poor weather.

You start adding too much and try to make FWSAR everything to everyone and it will never get delivered.


Further to that, IMHO, you are ignoring the political reality that SAR in Canada must be available for SAR. There was enough finger pointing when that cougar helo went down and the SAR guys were out on a SAR exercise. Imagine the shytstorm that would come if  SAR asset was unavailable because it was out doing "playing soldier".

I can understand that the MPA doesn't need help to do its job.  But as I understand it we have too few MPAs as it is and will have fewer in the future.  So if that is the case couldn't we offload some of the demand from the MPA fleet and task it to another fleet like the FWSAR?  Then you wouldn't have to call the MPAs off their patrols to assist in SAR ops as often.

And you're right about the availability of assets but in Canada isn't that as much a result of basing and distances as it is numbers?  As I understand it one of the arguments against positioning SAR assets in the Arctic is that they would spend much of their time on the runway or in the hangar.  If those airframes could contribute to other tasks, such as Sovereignty Patrols and Assistance to OGDs then wouldn't there be more of a case for deploying those assets forward?  Perhaps a case could be made for additional FWSARs (3 or 4) if they were more generally useful - and given the sunk costs of establishing training and logistics systems - so that Quick Reaction Aircraft could be maintained on the ground while others are conducting standing patrols.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #860 on: June 04, 2011, 16:21:34 »
So if that is the case couldn't we offload some of the demand from the MPA fleet and task it to another fleet like the FWSAR?

There are no demands on the MPA fleet that can be offloaded onto the the SAR fleet.

Quote
Then you wouldn't have to call the MPAs off their patrols to assist in SAR ops as often.

It doesn't happen that often.

Quote
such as Sovereignty Patrols and Assistance to OGDs

There are already a multitude of assets doing these things.

Quote
and given the sunk costs of establishing training and logistics systems -

What you propose only increases the costs of training and logistics.



Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #861 on: June 04, 2011, 17:10:29 »
Sorry, I forgot.   ;D

All problems can be solved by more Auroras.  ;D :salute:

Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,682
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,547
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #862 on: June 04, 2011, 17:56:37 »
Kirkhill - don't be discouraged.  I like the direction that you are taking, it is the out-of-the-box direction that we need to lean towards.

While FWSAR and LRP are worlds apart and neither can do the others job effectively - why not look towards a future that has us flying an airframe that can do both?  We currently use an airframe that effectively carries out FWSAR, AAR and TAL (CC-130E/H). Some of the airframes that FWSAR has on the horizon are MPA/LRP variants too (CASA and EADS).  If Bombardier truly was interested in military aviation they would jump on the band-wagon and produce a true North American turbo-prop that can fill all these future niches - instead of just offering up their wholly inadequate passenger plane (Q400).
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #863 on: June 04, 2011, 20:06:49 »
Not discouraged Zoomie,  it's far too nice a day out here in  Lethbridge for that.  We're seeing the sun for the first time in a couple of weeks.

One thing that I was thinking of adding to an earlier post was that I was not intending to make a case to dumb down the FWSAR SOR so that a low-wing aircraft (like Bombardier's stuff) would qualify.   In fact I was thinking explicitly about the many roles that the Herc has fulfilled (and to those that you have mentioned I would add the Talons and Spectres for their ability see what is going on on the ground) and the possibility of the Mini-Herc being employed in some similar roles.

But thanks for the ENcouragement.

Cheers.

Edited to remove smartarse comment that demonstrates Cdn Aviator is right and I don't know what I am talking about.  The Q400 is actually a high-wing monoplane......oh well.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 20:19:04 by Kirkhill »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #864 on: June 04, 2011, 21:13:37 »
Yeah what would I know about the LRP business....

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #865 on: June 05, 2011, 14:19:15 »
Aviator:

Nobody is doubting your credentials, least of all me.  Equally nobody will confuse me with an expert.  As I have often noted in the past my "bright ideas" usually indicate that I am a "dollar short and a day late" in the ideas sweepstakes.  And this current case seems to be no exception......

As I have no doubt you, Zoomie and G2G are aware, the USCG pipped me at the post back in August of 2010 when they equipped their EADS CN-235 (HC-144A Ocean Sentry) with a Mission Support Pallet that supported the Ocean Eye AN/APS-143C(V)3 as well as a SAFIRE EO/IR turret - (I believe your CP-140 is similarly equipped - in addition to a number of other systems - and that the CH-148 will also be similarly equipped although perhaps with the AN/APS-143B(V)3).  All of this while endeavouriing to maintain the multi-role capabilities of the aircraft itself:

Quote
The Ocean Sentry plays a crucial role in Coast Guard aviation missions that include maritime patrol, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, cargo and personnel transport, and disaster relief.


Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news/29963/EADS_awarded_USCG_contract_for_HC-144A_Maritime_Patrol_Aircraft.htm#ixzz1OQQZjqFg

Now I understand the dogfight going on between EADS and Alenia (with Bombardier and Viking on the outside looking in) so I make no comment on which airframe is best suited for which task and what compromises are likely to be necessary and possible. 

My interest is simply in understanding how best we can deploy sensors as broadly as possible so that they can be tactically, operationally and strategically useful.

The fact that these types of radars (if I include the Lynx AN/APY-8 as a similar capability) are being hung from Auroras, Predators, King Airs, Fire Scouts and many other rotary and fixed wing aircraft - not to mention LTAs - suggests strongly to me that:

a) they are a mature capability
b) they are a valuable capability
c) they are a cost-effective capability
d) they do not impose a significant weight/aerodynamic penalty.

Having said that some other questions come to mind:

Would it be necessary to add a SENSO/AESOP to every FWSAR crew?  How about a TACCO?
On the other hand could the sensors be operated remotely by ground personnel as they are employed when used with UAVs?
The ASTOR/Global Express programme seems to use a hybrid mix that minimizes the personnel carried on board.

Finally, with respect to the value of a platform with capabilities less than those of the Aurora, and ignoring Provincial Airlines MPA King Airs with their AN/APS 504(V)5 there is this (from Wikipedia - sorry):

Quote
CP-140A Arcturus

Lacking the expensive, heavy and sensitive anti-submarine warfare as well as the anti-surface warfare fittings of the CP-140 Aurora, the Arcturus was more fuel efficient and was used for crew training duties (such as touch-and-go landing practice), general maritime surface reconnaissance (detecting drug operations, smuggling of illegal immigrants, fisheries protection patrols, pollution monitoring, etc.), search-and-rescue assistance and Arctic sovereignty patrols. The Arcturus did possess a superior AN/APS-507 surface search radar, incorporating modern functions such as track-while-scan that the Aurora's AN/APS-506 radar lacks but the Acturus did not have an integrated mission computer, or mission systems. It did, however, maintain the same military communications suite as the CP-140 Aurora.[citation needed]


Why would similarly equipped  FWSAR candidates not be equally useful both if deployed below 60 and in support of sovereignty operations in the Arctic.

As to the concern that aircraft on standing patrols would not be available for SAR duties, might that not be alleviated by the AAR capability and ensuring that at each deployment base there are sufficient aircraft to ensure a Quick Reaction aircraft is on the runway while the patrolling AC is in the air?  In fact, with a suitable sensor equipped aircraft in the air (and a SARtech Tm on board) might that not reduce the time to locate the target in trouble?

Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #866 on: June 05, 2011, 14:38:37 »
Quote
suggests strongly to me that:

a) they are a mature capability
b) they are a valuable capability
c) they are a cost-effective capability
d) they do not impose a significant weight/aerodynamic penalty.


I would agree with that. I do not beleive this is the issue i was aluding to.


Quote
Would it be necessary to add a SENSO/AESOP to every FWSAR crew?

As far as i know, that is the intent.

Quote
On the other hand could the sensors be operated remotely by ground personnel as they are employed when used with UAVs?

I suppose it could be done but i personaly place alot of value on being (actualy) there to react to situations.
 

Quote
Why would similarly equipped  FWSAR candidates not be equally useful both if deployed below 60 and in support of sovereignty operations in the Arctic.

Unless you are willing to arm FWSAR assets, they do not represent much of a deterence.

Quote
As to the concern that aircraft on standing patrols would not be available for SAR duties,

I'm not sure i understand what you mean by "standing patrols".

Quote
might that not be alleviated by the AAR capability

We have a much limited tanker capability as it is. Now you want to spend money on new FWSAR aircraft AND more tankers ?  I'm not debating the utility of it, even without much an an airborne SAR background i can see it for myself. I am doubting the realism of it as our resources, financial and PYs, are finite.


Quote
In fact, with a suitable sensor equipped aircraft in the air (and a SARtech Tm on board) might that not reduce the time to locate the target in trouble?

No debate on the sensors. My contention is that FWSAR is already far too overdue. To add even more into the concept of operations will only delay it further and increase costs to a point where it will no longer be affordable. Some of the missions you propose are already being done by other assets (aircraft and otherwise). What you propose is, IMHO, the 100% solution and is is, again IMHO, unattainable.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #867 on: June 05, 2011, 16:12:00 »
I would agree with that. I do not beleive this is the issue i was aluding to. 
 

My error.


Quote
As far as i know, that is the intent.

Thanks.  I told you I was playing catch-up.

Quote
I suppose it could be done but i personaly place alot of value on being (actualy) there to react to situations.

I agree wrt to the reaction. I suppose I was more thinking along the lines of simultaneously linking the data back to maintain the National Maritime Picture.
 

Quote
Unless you are willing to arm FWSAR assets, they do not represent much of a deterence.

I wasn't thinking about arming the FWSAR.  Its sovereignty value, as far as I am concerned, is in its presence, its ability to observe activities and to demonstrate the Government of Canada's ability to intervene in a variety of ways up to, but not including, armed intervention.  However there would be nothing to prevent the FWSAR from staying on station, assuming a C&C role - or at least a recce role - and vectoring armed assets to the situation.  Those assets could be anything from an RCMP ERT on board an AOPS to a CF-35 or even an CP-140.

Quote
I'm not sure i understand what you mean by "standing patrols".

Typically I understand a "standing patrol" to be a planned, regularly scheduled patrol, in a particular geographic area, often with a pre-planned route, to gather information and update situational awareness.  Such patrols, I believe, not only gather useful information, but also offer valuable training experience for people needing to accumulate hours to build and maintain skills.

Quote
We have a much limited tanker capability as it is. Now you want to spend money on new FWSAR aircraft AND more tankers ?  I'm not debating the utility of it, even without much an an airborne SAR background i can see it for myself. I am doubting the realism of it as our resources, financial and PYs, are finite.
.

And that is why I am suggesting that the FWSAR be equipped with both a probe to allow it to be refuelled and a Buddy-Pack type drogue to permit the transfer of fuel to supporting aircraft.  In fact I wonder if the Aurora couldn't benefit from both of those capabilities as well.

The advantage of the AAR capability with the FWSAR is that it would improve the mission effectiveness of the FWSAR and the effectiveness of supporting aircraft.

One of the disadvantages of the current fleet of 2 (or is it 3?)  CC-150 MRTTs and the pair of CC-130H tankers is that there are too few of them and they are centrally held.  Therefore they need to transit the same, or longer, distances as the aircraft they are supporting and they cover the ground slower.  All the while they are burning gas that could be more effectively employed by the supporting aircraft.

If the FWSAR was AAR equipped then it would permit fuel stored at the fringes to be made airborne to top up centrally based aircraft transitting to the response site.  This would extend the range of response by the Government and decrease the reaction time as the aircraft could deploy faster without having to worry about husbanding fuel for loitering or wasting time (and more fuel) by landing, refuelling and taking off again.


Quote
No debate on the sensors. My contention is that FWSAR is already far too overdue. To add even more into the concept of operations will only delay it further and increase costs to a point where it will no longer be affordable. Some of the missions you propose are already being done by other assets (aircraft and otherwise). What you propose is, IMHO, the 100% solution and is is, again IMHO, unattainable.

No argument on the FWSAR delivery schedule either.  WRT the sensors: perhaps it is enough to buy an aircraft that can support the addition of sensors and other capabilities over time.  As noted, many platforms are flying with these types of sensors and equally, many platforms are fitted with AAR capabilities.  Not all of them were fitted as original equipment.

Thanks for the considered responses.

Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,682
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,547
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #868 on: June 05, 2011, 19:37:33 »
Would it be necessary to add a SENSO/AESOP to every FWSAR crew?  How about a TACCO?
I won't wade into much of your post - as the FWSAR SOR has not been released and it would be improper for me to make any posts that might be taken as official.
As to the AESOP on board issue, as much as we would love to have them, I don't think the AF PY's could handle it.  Adding an extra body to a crew equates to another 10 members per unit.  Most likely what we will see is the current complement with the ACSO and FE sharing the duties of handling everything in the back.  In the case of para-drops etc, the pilots would be able to take over and the NFP could slave the gear as required.  In the SAR world, we are only actively searching in a small % of the airborne time - the rest being attributed to the actual rescue or deployment of assets.  A veritable jack of all trades is what a FWSAR crew needs - someone who can dispatch jumpers, reconfigure the cabin, act as LM, conduct A/B checks, refuel the aircraft, etc - this has been best served by the FE in our world.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #869 on: June 05, 2011, 19:52:49 »
I don't think the AF PY's could handle it. 

I hear you on that one but i think that the recent explosive growth of the trade makes it manageable. Time will tell i guess.

Offline Bread Guy

  • Bread Baker & Info Curator (still learning @ both)
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 456,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,977
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #870 on: July 20, 2011, 07:36:30 »
The latest from MERX - an "industry consultation day" coming 16 Aug 11 (highlights mine):
Quote
.... INVITATION

The Government of Canada is now ready to engage industry representatives on August 16, 2011, in the National Capital Region, on the next steps to achieve the best approach to deliver FWSAR capability.

Industry representatives interested in the FWSAR project must confirm their attendance by contacting the undersigned before August 15, 2011, at 11:59AM. Attendance at this event is strictly reserved to properly registered industry representatives. Further details will be provided upon registration.

OBJECTIVES

The Government of Canada will consider all options to ensure the best possible SAR service to Canadians and best value for taxpayers. The main goals of this consultation include:  reviewing project status; reviewing the updated requirements; and seeking Industry opinions on Alternate Service Delivery options.

During the consultation, Government of Canada officials will discuss the outcome of the NRC independent review (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/final-report-eng.asp), and provide a summary of the revised key requirements followed by a discussion on potential procurement approaches for FWSAR including Alternate Service Delivery options.

Subsequent to the plenary information session, one-on-one meetings with individual firms will be offered, if requested, to discuss and answer specific questions.  Participants will be invited to prepare discussion papers on the possible approaches available to procure FWSAR capability. Industry will be given four weeks following the consultation session to provide their feedback ....

Independent review also attached in case link doesn't work.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 04:30:58 by milnews.ca »
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Bread Guy

  • Bread Baker & Info Curator (still learning @ both)
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 456,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,977
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #871 on: July 21, 2011, 04:45:51 »
Re:  the above-mentioned MERX invitation to the "industry consultation day", is anybody reading this part:
Quote
.... The Government of Canada will consider all options to ensure the best possible SAR service to Canadians and best value for taxpayers. The main goals of this consultation include:  reviewing project status; reviewing the updated requirements; and seeking Industry opinions on Alternate Service Delivery options.

During the consultation, Government of Canada officials will discuss the outcome of the NRC independent review .... and provide a summary of the revised key requirements followed by a discussion on potential procurement approaches for FWSAR including Alternate Service Delivery options ....
to mean the CF's considering privatizing SAR?  Or is it more "leasing-vs-buying?"?  Or both?  Some observers out there seem to be.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #872 on: July 21, 2011, 10:18:38 »
Re:  the above-mentioned MERX invitation to the "industry consultation day", is anybody reading this part:to mean the CF's considering privatizing SAR?  Or is it more "leasing-vs-buying?"?  Or both?  Some observers out there seem to be.

ASD could mean many things.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,682
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,547
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #873 on: July 21, 2011, 13:55:39 »
They make comparisons to our current use of civilians to augment the RWSAR program.  This is not as permanent as they make out.  Apart from the huge SAR system that exists off the coast of Newfoundland (Cougar helicopters), any other civilian rotor assets are individually tasked by JRCC to conduct pickups, not rescues.  This happens more often in the high arctic where it is more advantageous for a local asset to pickup an errant backpacker.  How this would work effectively for FWSAR - I don't know.  If they want ASD to happen, they would need to go into it 100%, not piecemeal.  Purchase the aircraft, station them, train them, have them sit there for hours - waiting and waiting. 
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline WingsofFury

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 517
Re: FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities
« Reply #874 on: July 21, 2011, 15:12:44 »
They make comparisons to our current use of civilians to augment the RWSAR program.  This is not as permanent as they make out.  Apart from the huge SAR system that exists off the coast of Newfoundland (Cougar helicopters), any other civilian rotor assets are individually tasked by JRCC to conduct pickups, not rescues.  This happens more often in the high arctic where it is more advantageous for a local asset to pickup an errant backpacker.  How this would work effectively for FWSAR - I don't know.  If they want ASD to happen, they would need to go into it 100%, not piecemeal.  Purchase the aircraft, station them, train them, have them sit there for hours - waiting and waiting.

Would CASARA and their role fit in with what you described above?