Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canada And The Fwsar  
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Posted (2 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 14496 times:

So, what is an FWSAR you say ? In Canadian Forces-speak, it's a "Fixed Wing Search and Rescue" a/c. CF have been looking to replace a mixed bag of Twin Otters, Buffaloes, and C-130Hs for some time now. Laid out some things the were looking for:

- one type in tis role;
- higher transit speeds;
- longer range;
- ability t carry current standard kit.

So they framed a set of requirements that inevitably led to the Alenia C-27J, which is the /ac they wanted all along. And don't get me wrong, it's a fine a/c.

But along the way it looks like the program planners got tunnel vision and were so focussed on ensuring they got the C-27J thay they did not consider some mission requirements. And now, having pissed away several years of effort, it all starts over again. How very Canadian !

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...4e8892-efa5-400a-a5df-9e81be980c8a

http://www.casr.ca/bg-af-fwsar-project.htm

A Canadian blogger's assessment of how the overall program was rigged in favour of the C-27J:

http://davidpugliese.wordpress.com/tag/fwsar/

and CF's response to the report from NRC about how the FWSAR program had been run:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/statement-declaration-eng.asp

This is likely not surprising to A.netters who have been involved in procurement, particularly military, previously. But geez, Louise, it seems to me that if you run a transparent, non-biased evaluation exercise, then you inevitably arrive at the best solution.

So, it looks like it will be at least several more years before the FWSAR hardware begins t oarrive. At that point, the Buffs and Hercs will be 50+ years old. Is this any way to run an air force ?


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1060 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14476 times:

Hey connies4ever...

Are these A/C to be used as strictly Territorial / Coast Guard SAR or are they also to used as CSAR A/C for the Military?



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14434 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 1):
Are these A/C to be used as strictly Territorial / Coast Guard SAR or are they also to used as CSAR A/C for the Military?

Howdy-
My understanding is that they are intended for mainly civilian SAR, acknowledging that sometimes even the military need to be rescued. Coastal Patrol missions are the preserve of the Coast Guard, which contracts it out for the most part. Raising the question of do we even need a military SAR component to basically serve civilian distress. Many nations are now contracting out the whole bit.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14351 times:

Granted I know next to nothing about the specifics of SAR but for Coastal operations, wouldn't
the likes of Beriev's A40 series or the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 be a useable platform,
They both have the range and the speed, can carry fairly big loads and can be used to land and take off
from the sea, albeit within limits.

Has this ever been contemplated by big coastal services like in Canada, the US or Australia/New Zealand ?

ShinMaywa US-2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/US-1A-KAI-Flying_boat01.jpg
Beriev's Albatros
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Beriev_A-40_Gelendzhik_2Sept2004.jpg/800px-Beriev_A-40_Gelendzhik_2Sept2004.jpg



[edit post]
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 14322 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 3):
Granted I know next to nothing about the specifics of SAR but for Coastal operations, wouldn't
the likes of Beriev's A40 series or the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 be a useable platform,
They both have the range and the speed, can carry fairly big loads and can be used to land and take off
from the sea, albeit within limits.

Has this ever been contemplated by big coastal services like in Canada, the US or Australia/New Zealand ?

Great photos, b.t.w. !

Not sure if any possible civilian operator would want to get into amphibs/boats. Operating costs could be very high, and of course open water operations limited by sea state. Swells probably no more than 2m or so. That's usually called a calm day on the North Atlantic. I'd bet any civilian SAR operator would be looking at a helo in mid-size range which would limit off-shore access to perhaps 300-400 km. The EH101 can exceed this, and do so in far worse conditions than most Sikorsky/Agusta/Eurocopter a/c, but it's fabulously expensive.

For further out into the chuck, something like a turbine twin suitable modified with an extra fuel tank, rafts/floats etc. would be the likely choice.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1060 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14256 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):
Howdy-
My understanding is that they are intended for mainly civilian SAR, acknowledging that sometimes even the military need to be rescued.

So here lies the the problem...

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
- one type in tis role;
- higher transit speeds;
- longer range;
- ability t carry current standard kit.

I think the single A/C type is the biggest obstacle to this discussion?

I totally understand Canada's love affair w/ the buffalo (I love it too) but that is really just a jobs program at this point...

Additionally, nationalism could play a role (Nothing wrong with that btw!) in other tenders. Like any A/C that has P&W Canada engines... for instance?

The C-27J is an excellent A/C as far as relative price, capabilities and compatibility with already in service A/C (C-130J). Though adds another A/C type with all the related training, specific spares and supply chain.

IMHO, I believe the C-130J (more precisely the HC-130J) would be a wise choice for Canada. Because, It offers:

- The type is already in service with the CAF and can expand the capabilities of the Military as well as provide long range and long endurance SAR to the civilian sector. (and in the SAR role these 4 engine A/C can extend their TOT by feathering 2 engines).

- The HC like the KC can provide aerial refueling and increase the endurance of Rotary wing A/C (If that is a capability they desire).

- The one type in this role; higher transit speeds; longer range; ability to carry current standard kit. question? Really only fits the C-130J for a Country the size of Canada.

And before you ask.. No! I an Not a LM salesman...  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14223 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 5):
I totally understand Canada's love affair w/ the buffalo (I love it too) but that is really just a jobs program at this point...

So do I, as an a/c. And as a SAR a/c it has a really valuable feature: can fly low and slow. However, very short-legged, and transit speeds are not exactly galloping. The BuffNG program would wind up giving the CF a fleet of a/c unique in the world, both good and bad, and as you say it would be a jobs program.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 5):
The C-27J is an excellent A/C as far as relative price, capabilities and compatibility with already in service A/C (C-130J). Though adds another A/C type with all the related training, specific spares and supply chain.

Agreed, but fair bit of commonality with the Super Herc. Also can serve as a tactical transport if need be.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 5):
IMHO, I believe the C-130J (more precisely the HC-130J) would be a wise choice for Canada. Because, It offers:

Very expensive for SAR work. It would add a lot of capability, but that could also be achieved by SAR pallets installed in existing fleets C-130Js - done now with the 'H's.

Which points to the need to really look hard at outsourcing SAR work, and let the civilian operator decide the a/c of choice. If at that point CF feels it still needs more medium lift, they can go to DND/MoD and justify another purchase of C-130Js, like 7 or 8.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14218 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Which points to the need to really look hard at outsourcing SAR work, and let the civilian operator decide the a/c of choice. If at that point CF feels it still needs more medium lift, they can go to DND/MoD and justify another purchase of C-130Js, like 7 or 8.

Those civilian SAR operators do important work, and frequently, but I'm not sure they will have the training/infrastructure/capabilities to handle a major incident.

Do you really think that the CF will retain the sizeable chunk of its budget if it were to lose its SAR role? Make no mistake, we are flying these aircraft and conducting these missions on a very tight budget tightrope. If we cut the rope, the money will not go back to the Canadian Forces; it will go elsewhere. FWSAR/RWSAR provides an excellent source of highly trained and confident aviators as SAR pilots fly operationally every day in challenging conditions. These skills pay dividends when these aviators move on to instructing or flying combat missions into austere strips overseas. The tangible costs/benefits associated with this role is huge.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14151 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
Do you really think that the CF will retain the sizeable chunk of its budget if it were to lose its SAR role? Make no mistake, we are flying these aircraft and conducting these missions on a very tight budget tightrope. If we cut the rope, the money will not go back to the Canadian Forces; it will go elsewhere. FWSAR/RWSAR provides an excellent source of highly trained and confident aviators as SAR pilots fly operationally every day in challenging conditions. These skills pay dividends when these aviators move on to instructing or flying combat missions into austere strips overseas. The tangible costs/benefits associated with this role is huge.

Oh I am quite aware the CF want to retain the FW/RWSAR roles so they can have dual/multi-purpose frames available for whatever tasking is required, and the budget allocation to support that. The bigger question is: what is in the best interest of the Canadian nation (as opposed to the Canadian Forces -- the two don't necessarily have the same needs).



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14122 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
So, it looks like it will be at least several more years before the FWSAR hardware begins t oarrive. At that point, the Buffs and Hercs will be 50+ years old.

And run the risk of needing rescuing themselves.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 4):
The EH101 can exceed this, and do so in far worse conditions than most Sikorsky/Agusta/Eurocopter a/c, but it's fabulously expensive.

Couldn't a few of the VH-71 frames acquired by Canada for a song be made airworthy and converted for this mission? Of course, it's not from there and would no longer be FW.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Quoting mffoda (Reply 5):
The C-27J is an excellent A/C as far as relative price, capabilities and compatibility with already in service A/C (C-130J). Though adds another A/C type with all the related training, specific spares and supply chain.

Agreed, but fair bit of commonality with the Super Herc. Also can serve as a tactical transport if need be.

http://news.finmeccanicausa.com/images/9038/media_gallery/C27Jphoto.JPG
http://news.finmeccanicausa.com/imag...s/9038/media_gallery/C27Jphoto.JPG

Hints of railroading aside, the Spartan is nonetheless an eminently suitable platform, and versatile to boot.   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14116 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 9):
And run the risk of needing rescuing themselves.

  

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 9):
Couldn't a few of the VH-71 frames acquired by Canada for a song be made airworthy and converted for this mission? Of course, it's not from there and would no longer be FW.

Not sure what state the VH-71 airframes were in when acquired. Stated as being bought for spares, so I assume knocking them down quickly is a priority.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 9):
Hints of railroading aside, the Spartan is nonetheless an eminently suitable platform, and versatile to boot.

No railroading read in, the C-27J as I have mentioned a couple of times is a terrific platform both for SAR and as a tactical transport. As long as the main SAR resource is designated as the CF, then having a dual-use platform makes a lot of sense.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14101 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
No railroading read in

I was referring to the article's charge that the specs were written to favor the C-27J.  



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 14044 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 11):
I was referring to the article's charge that the specs were written to favor the C-27J.

What is difficult to explain is how the specs were determined.

Canada's SAR coverage is divided into multiple zones. All but one SAR coverage zone is served by the C-130 Hercules, the bulk being E's and H's. Only one coverage zone is covered by the DHC-5 Buffalo, the Victoria SAR region. Thus the specifications naturally favour a larger, more capable aircraft. The Buffalo used to cover every coverage zone, but the Ocean Ranger disaster in the 1980's changed all of that; the Buffalo was determined to be too slow, and too short legged to adequately cover all of Canada. Therefore, C-130's stepped into to provide SAR coverage, except for the Victoria SAR region, where due to mountainous terrain, C-130's that we had had a hard time operating due to a lack of stall warning system which made flying at slow speeds very harzardous, and the large size made it difficult to maneuver in the mountains, and the small coverage area compensated for the slow speed and short range of the Buffalo. Thus the specifications, lean towards one end of the spectrum of capabilities than the other because of this simple fact.

FWSAR requires a robust aircraft with large cargo capacity and easy loading of equipment via a rear ramp (preferably palletized equipment, like on the C-130, not hand loaded like the DHC-5). You would be surprised to learn how much stuff is jammed into SAR aircraft on a daily basis. SARtechs are a peculiar lot - anything that they might need, they strap a chute on it and carry it on board.

We are moving away from the C-130 as a SAR platform due to its cost effectiveness (i.e. fuel burn) and its size (too big). FWSAR is about providing a new aircraft that has at minimum, the capability of providing the same level of coverage we have today, or better. Therefore, the performance specs were set in such a way to reflect this; for example, there is a minimum speed requirement and range requirement, which of the 2 main bidders, only one qualifies.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 8):
Oh I am quite aware the CF want to retain the FW/RWSAR roles so they can have dual/multi-purpose frames available for whatever tasking is required, and the budget allocation to support that. The bigger question is: what is in the best interest of the Canadian nation (as opposed to the Canadian Forces -- the two don't necessarily have the same needs).

There is really no other institution in Canada willing to take on the SAR role in Canada. The Canadian Coast Guard is essentially a union shop unlike the US Coast Guard and despises SAR, and their crews are minimally trained in SAR capabilities. The RCMP, while having the right mindset, doesn't have the capability to provide front line SAR capabilities. Only the Canadian Forces has the capabilities to provide SAR coverage.

[Edited 2011-09-30 18:45:19]

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13169 posts, RR: 78
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14008 times:

Sounds more like FUBAR than FWSAR!

User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2038 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13988 times:

Canada's SAR coverage is too limited, and a C-27J fleet isn't going to change that fact. The lack of CAF presence in the Arctic is widely seen as a major strategic flaw, which includes the lack of SAR capabilities and lengthy response times. It is totally unacceptable for air crash survivors, or victims of other incidents/accidents, to wait 6 hours for trained SAR techs to be deployed on scene. Expecting a rag-tag, poorly trained, and ill-equipped group of civilian reservists to tend to the needs of said survivors and victims is, again, totally unacceptable. Over the next 20 years, climate change and new cost efficient technology will make natural resources in the Arctic more accessible, therefore increasing major on-shore and off-shore mining, oil, and gas operations. In addition, new shipping lanes, which will cut transit time in half for ships, will be made accessible due to the melting ice packs. To support the major infrastructure change, you can bet that air-traffic will also increase 10-fold as large companies build their own private airstrips adjacent to their camps to haul employees back and forth. In addition to an Arctic port, it is clear that a permanent CFB, with the ability to launch SAR operations, is needed up north. Buying a new fleet of aircraft for the RCAF isn't going to improve SAR operations much. The chances of a major plane crash, or some other disaster, is going to increase as commercial activity in the Arctic increases. The next time it happens, the Canadian Forces won't be next door to rescue people.


No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13982 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
We are moving away from the C-130 as a SAR platform due to its cost effectiveness (i.e. fuel burn) and its size (too big). FWSAR is about providing a new aircraft that has at minimum, the capability of providing the same level of coverage we have today, or better. Therefore, the performance specs were set in such a way to reflect this; for example, there is a minimum speed requirement and range requirement, which of the 2 main bidders, only one qualifies.

Which was exactly the conclusion of the NRC review of the program definition: the specs were written in such a way that only the C-27J would qualify, ergo, a false 'competition'. Also, not all relevant issues taken into account.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
There is really no other institution in Canada willing to take on the SAR role in Canada. The Canadian Coast Guard is essentially a union shop unlike the US Coast Guard and despises SAR, and their crews are minimally trained in SAR capabilities. The RCMP, while having the right mindset, doesn't have the capability to provide front line SAR capabilities. Only the Canadian Forces has the capabilities to provide SAR coverage.

Has it even been proposed that a pan-Canadian civilian SAR operation take over ? Have civilian operators been privy to the requirements and specifications (or service levels, if you will) they would need to meet ? All of the above institutions you mention are military or quasi-military (i.e., uniformed with some type of command structure). Does this indicate tunnel vision ?

Quoting GDB (Reply 13):
Sounds more like FUBAR than FWSAR!

Common in Canada for government procurement programs, military or otherwise. I'm sure this is true elsewhere (see: Nimrod)

Quoting TheCol (Reply 14):
Canada's SAR coverage is too limited, and a C-27J fleet isn't going to change that fact. The lack of CAF presence in the Arctic is widely seen as a major strategic flaw, which includes the lack of SAR capabilities and lengthy response times. It is totally unacceptable for air crash survivors, or victims of other incidents/accidents, to wait 6 hours for trained SAR techs to be deployed on scene. Expecting a rag-tag, poorly trained, and ill-equipped group of civilian reservists to tend to the needs of said survivors and victims is, again, totally unacceptable. Over the next 20 years, climate change and new cost efficient technology will make natural resources in the Arctic more accessible, therefore increasing major on-shore and off-shore mining, oil, and gas operations. In addition, new shipping lanes, which will cut transit time in half for ships, will be made accessible due to the melting ice packs. To support the major infrastructure change, you can bet that air-traffic will also increase 10-fold as large companies build their own private airstrips adjacent to their camps to haul employees back and forth. In addition to an Arctic port, it is clear that a permanent CFB, with the ability to launch SAR operations, is needed up north. Buying a new fleet of aircraft for the RCAF isn't going to improve SAR operations much. The chances of a major plane crash, or some other disaster, is going to increase as commercial activity in the Arctic increases. The next time it happens, the Canadian Forces won't be next door to rescue people.

Much of the above I absolutely agree with. As the NW Passage opens to 'normal' sea traffic, at least in the summer months, we're likely going to have more Arctic 'SOS's' than ever, and with increasing flights direct into China ex Europe/Eastern N America, the probability of a need for a MAJAID situation increases, but we are woefully lacking in rapid response capability. Therefore some type of Arctic presence will be necessary. Perhaps when the facility at Arctic Bay/Nanisivik ("Ft Harper") is ready then this will be addressed.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13948 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15):
Which was exactly the conclusion of the NRC review of the program definition: the specs were written in such a way that only the C-27J would qualify, ergo, a false 'competition'. Also, not all relevant issues taken into account.

The specs were written in a way that the performance spectrum leaned towards an aircraft with similar performance to the C-130 Hercules, as that's the current FWSAR aircraft for most of Canada. The preference is that we go with an aircraft with similar performance to the C-130 to maintain the existing capabilities; anything slower and shorter on legs would not do.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15):
Has it even been proposed that a pan-Canadian civilian SAR operation take over ? Have civilian operators been privy to the requirements and specifications (or service levels, if you will) they would need to meet ? All of the above institutions you mention are military or quasi-military (i.e., uniformed with some type of command structure). Does this indicate tunnel vision ?

Never; there are a number of issues that prevent a civilian operator from performing front line SAR in Canada; liability and insurance. For example, some of the private mountain rescue groups in BC in the past have stopped performing search and rescues because of liability considerations, and the cost of insurance. It was only until the government stepped in that private groups resumed search and rescue work.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15):

Much of the above I absolutely agree with. As the NW Passage opens to 'normal' sea traffic, at least in the summer months, we're likely going to have more Arctic 'SOS's' than ever, and with increasing flights direct into China ex Europe/Eastern N America, the probability of a need for a MAJAID situation increases, but we are woefully lacking in rapid response capability. Therefore some type of Arctic presence will be necessary. Perhaps when the facility at Arctic Bay/Nanisivik ("Ft Harper") is ready then this will be addressed.

The analysis is that 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel. It is fiscally unfeasible to establish a full time SAR presence in the North because of this.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2038 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13936 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
The analysis is that 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel. It is fiscally unfeasible to establish a full time SAR presence in the North because of this.

That will change over the next 20 years. The Canadian government needs to quit delaying plans for the future of the Arctic territories. It's not only a strategic issue, it's also a big economic issue as well. Big oil, gas, and mining companies will be less willing to operate in the Arctic with no support infrastructure. Each company has a long list of operating requirements for their transport and private aerodrome contractors, as well as for the availability of air traffic and general support services provided to the civil aviation industry. If those requirements aren't met, then those companies won't do business with us. The same can be said for large ship lines. Like you said about private SAR operators, it all comes down to liability and insurance.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1060 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13936 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
The analysis is that 99% of all SAR call-outs happen below the 60th parallel. It is fiscally unfeasible to establish a full time SAR presence in the North because of this.

"fiscally unfeasible"

So the unfortunate 1% (10 in a thousand human beings) are out of luck? The entire principle behind SAR is to go out (at great personal risk) and rescue the needy!

Let me put it this way?

Breaking News!!!... Canadian PM's aircraft goes down above 60th parallel! No rescue will be attempted... As it is "fiscally unfeasible" to proceed... end of message!  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13898 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 18):
"fiscally unfeasible"

So the unfortunate 1% (10 in a thousand human beings) are out of luck? The entire principle behind SAR is to go out (at great personal risk) and rescue the needy!

Let me put it this way?

Breaking News!!!... Canadian PM's aircraft goes down above 60th parallel! No rescue will be attempted... As it is "fiscally unfeasible" to proceed... end of message!

To provide the same level of coverage all across Canada for the North, there would be a need to invest billions of dollars in getting the necessary infrastructure and equipment, not to mention the need for personnel. The Canadian public doesn't have the stomach to invest billions for search and rescue in the North unfortunately, and we are already extremely stretched thin in terms of personnel.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13899 times:

Remarkably, most FWSAR missions happen out where the population is very sparse. Canada always has been and always will be a country where the vast majority of the people live a great distance from the Arctic. Ironically, that's where, not only, the greatest challenge to our national sovereignty is but in the next decade or so, will see the largest percentage growth in economic influence and population growth.

There is never any good economic reason to save some poor bugger who is lost at sea...so why would that be any more of a consideration in the Arctic compared to the North Atlantic?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
The preference is that we go with an aircraft with similar performance to the C-130 to maintain the existing capabilities; anything slower and shorter on legs would not do.

...unless we have stations closer to where they would be needed. How often have the capabilities of the Buffalo been inadequate where the C-27 would have excelled, in real rescue missions?

While the C-27 may be better at some things, speed isn't one of them...being only 15kt faster than the Viking Buffalo...hardly a deal breaker. Not only that, the new Buffalo can fly slower, take off and land in a significantly shorter distance, (needing almost half as much runway), and use unimproved strips.

Here is a perspective presented by Viking so they put their best spin on things but specs are specs;

http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-buffalo-specs.htm



What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 13843 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 20):

...unless we have stations closer to where they would be needed. How often have the capabilities of the Buffalo been inadequate where the C-27 would have excelled, in real rescue missions?

While the C-27 may be better at some things, speed isn't one of them...being only 15kt faster than the Viking Buffalo...hardly a deal breaker. Not only that, the new Buffalo can fly slower, take off and land in a significantly shorter distance, (needing almost half as much runway), and use unimproved strips.

Here is a perspective presented by Viking so they put their best spin on things but specs are specs;

http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-viking-b...s.htm

1 phrase says it all: paper airplane.

As it stands - unless Viking dramatically changes the design of the original DHC-5 Buffalo (resulting in a whole new airplane) - nothing they make will be sufficient.

a) too slow;

b) not pressurized;

c) insufficient range; and

d) design is outdated.

The DHC-5 Buffalo was designed to be an intra-theatre tactical lift aircraft. If Viking wishes to pitch that role to the CF, I am all for it. It does not meet the needs of our frugal Airforce and its FWSAR replacement program. When it moved into the SAR role in the 1970's to replace the Grumman Albatrosson the east coast it was inferior to the Albatross in every which way, from range, weight it could carry, nav package etc. The general consensus in the East Coast SAR community was that the SAR techs got screwed with an inferior aircraft, and people died as a result.

The old "she's good in the mountains because it can fly slow" only rings true when we are working down low in them. Any time we are trying to get over them in a hurry, to render aid to anywhere other than Coastal BC, it can be a royal pain to be tethered to an oxygen mask. The DHC-5 is box shaped in cross section, and basic geometry and physics states that rectangles aren't strong enough to be pressurized. We want an aircraft that can be pressurized so our crew can work in the back during transit to a rescue site and fly above the weather and not have to be tethered to oxygen masks or be forced to fly through long, winding mountain passages to get to a rescue site.

The DHC-5 is a good airplane if you understand the restrictions it has; but as soon as we need to head into the interior we seriously handicap our SAR capabilities with the lack of pressurization and power.

I would be interested to know where they got their stats for this DHC-5NG from? For a plane that doesn't exist yet, no prototype, not ever an engineers wet-dream - pretty bold stats. Not to mention the pretty glaring omissions and details that they left out; for example, I'd also like to see the "projections" that fly the DHC-5NG at 300 kts (vice 235) -- that's a 28% increase in VNE and a 62% increase in power required (approximately the square of the linear speed increase), which would require the planned PW150 turboshaft engines to output 5070 SHP, compared to the existing Buffalo's CT64-820-4 engines currently rated at at 3130 SHP rated. Not to mention the planned PW150 engine is more fuel thirsty; so any proposed DHC-5NG would have a even more shorter range than the current DHC-5.

The technical issues have been discussed ad nauseum here.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 13837 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21):

As it stands - unless Viking dramatically changes the design of the original DHC-5 Buffalo (resulting in a whole new airplane) - nothing they make will be sufficient.

a) too slow;

b) not pressurized;

c) insufficient range; and

d) design is outdated.

They are changing the engines and the instruments...with proven engines and instruments. Not anything like a whole new plane.

a) within 15kts of the speed of the C-27

b) except for transiting over the mountains in BC, (where the current buffalos seem to be doing just fine), it's not an issue. To do any SAR work, the doors will be open so pressurization is moot.

c) I can't find any documents with the range of the NG.

d) You mean like the herc? Or the Viking twin otter which is selling quite well, despite being 'outdated'.

The Buffalo will be able to fly slower than the C-27, important during SAR ops, will require runways almost half the length required by the C-27, and require less improved runways, giving them significantly more staging options

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21):
I would be interested to know where they got their stats for this DHC-5NG from? For a plane that doesn't exist yet, no prototype, not ever an engineers wet-dream - pretty bold stats.

Because they are using a known airframe, and improving them from known components. They get their stats the same way every airline manufacturer gets theirs when they are planning an aircraft; from calculation, testing and logic.

It's the same way that Airbus can offer stats for their yet to be built A350 or NEO, or any maker for any aircraft they are planning. It is very close to rocket science, but folks have been doing it even longer.



What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1680 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 16 hours ago) and read 13797 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
They are changing the engines and the instruments...with proven engines and instruments. Not anything like a whole new plane.

a) within 15kts of the speed of the C-27

b) except for transiting over the mountains in BC, (where the current buffalos seem to be doing just fine), it's not an issue. To do any SAR work, the doors will be open so pressurization is moot.

c) I can't find any documents with the range of the NG.

d) You mean like the herc? Or the Viking twin otter which is selling quite well, despite being 'outdated'.

The Buffalo will be able to fly slower than the C-27, important during SAR ops, will require runways almost half the length required by the C-27, and require less improved runways, giving them significantly more staging options

Umm... have you read the previous discussion?

Quote:
Did anyone catch that the DHC-5 Buffalo's Vne is only 235 knots? Viking Air has proposed that they can increase the speed to 300 knots. That's at least 21.6% increase in maximum speed. In order to achieve that speed, you need a 62% increase in power required. There is no way they can even hope of reaching that speed with the engine performance they are proposing to use (a de-rated PW150). This is all assuming that the airframe is capable of withstanding aerodynamic forces that will result from such a massive increase in speed, which it won't, which would entail a lengthy and costly redesign process, which would require complete type re-certification by all of the major aviation authorities before any customer is allowed near it.

Viking Air deliberately dropped information from their proposal (such as range), choosing to select information that would make their proposal 'look' superior. However, looking at the information they are providing, the basic analysis is that their DHC-5NG would have a shorter range than the current DHC-5, because they haven't increase the fuel tank size, but they are using bigger, more fuel thirsty engines.

Pressurization is a major issue. The Herc that we use for SAR is pressurized. SAR techs want a pressurized aircraft because it means during a transit, they can fly high and fast, and fly above weather and still be able to move around in the cabin to configure equipment. Right now the DHC-5, there are a lot of restrictions placed because of a lack of pressurization. It's also either an icebox or a oven depending on the season. In order to fly anywhere except up to Alaska - we require IFR altitudes in excess of 10k' MSL. This then requires the crew to don helmets and greatly restricts the ability to work effectively, basically the SAR crew are then strictly in transport mode at that time. The current lack of pressurization creates significant issues with crew fatigue. We currently severely handicap our capabilities right now with the lack of pressurization in the DHC-5.

STOL is fun on the DHC-5 - but hardly ever used (if at all) operationally. Every strip that the DHC-5 flies to right now, the C-130 can fly to right now (with a few non SAR exceptions).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):
Because they are using a known airframe, and improving them from known components. They get their stats the same way every airline manufacturer gets theirs when they are planning an aircraft; from calculation, testing and logic.

It's the same way that Airbus can offer stats for their yet to be built A350 or NEO, or any maker for any aircraft they are planning. It is very close to rocket science, but folks have been doing it even longer.

Umm, unless Viking Air has some voodoo magic up their sleeves, some elements of their proposal are not technically feasible. I'm not an aviation engineer, but the ones I have asked say they have more questions than answers looking over Viking Air's proposal.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months ago) and read 13742 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 23):

So far, other than amateur guesses, I haven't seen a single professional aerospace engineer claiming that they could prove Viking could not get the buffalo to do what they claim.

It's up to Buffalo to put up or shut up come decision time but there also needs to be something more than, "I asked around a couple of guys and they didn't think so", to disprove their claims.


That's not exactly conclusive science.

I'm curious...are you a SAR tech or pilot?



What the...?
25 ThePointblank : Ok, for starters, how are they going to increase Vne by 28%? They are proposing a minimally changed DHC-5 with new engines, and their proposed Buffal
26 JoeCanuck : First off, I don't have to. They claim they can. If you don't believe it, it's up to you to prove they can't. I have yet to see that proof. Second, V
27 ThePointblank : That's it. They claim that they can with a minimally changed DHC-5. All they are proposing in a nutshell is changing the engines and replacing the av
28 connies4ever : Don't always agree with ThePointBlank, but in this case I do. The DHC-5NG is not a good solution for ROC, although in the coastal areas of BC it coul
29 imiakhtar : Did Bombardier ever offer a Dash8-400 variant for this role? To my untrained eye, there doesn't seem to be much between the C-27J and Q400.
30 connies4ever : The rear loading ramp is a big one, I would think . It would be a significant effort for BBD to come up with something like that for the Q. Also the
31 JoeCanuck : Not necessarily. You are assuming those are the weakest points resulting in the current Vne...the fact is, you don't know what it would take to incre
32 ThePointblank : They are the weakest points on any aircraft when it comes to Vne. 1. Not much; the airframe isn't designed to be pressurized. There are aircraft in t
33 Post contains links JoeCanuck : You don't think Viking might be found out at some point if they couldn't produce? The secret would probably get out eventually and Viking then wouldn
34 Post contains links ThePointblank : We do know that ALL of the original drawings of the DHC-5 were destroyed; Boeing is the company that was responsible for that move. Years ago when Bo
35 JoeCanuck : So the plans and jigs were destroyed so it's impossible to restart production...except for the example of the twin otter which, you say, had the very
36 Bureaucromancer : Something just appeared on an Ottawa Citizen blog suggesting that Boeing is now interested in bidding with the V-22. Honestly this seems like the best
37 bravo1six : The Q400 can operate from primitive airstrips. Hydro Quebec does it with theirs all the time. The rear ramp would be a challenge, however.
38 ThePointblank : Some of the tooling and jigs and paperwork relating to the DHC-6 survived. There was enough to go on for restarting production of the DHC-6, plus a m
39 JoeCanuck : A ramp would be an interesting exercise for the Q400. It already has the upswept shape in the rear, that looks like it could hold a ramp. Name one man
40 ThePointblank : Have fun with that. Beyond the fact that the Dash 8 has insufficient range, is not maneuverable, and none of the CF's pallets can fit in it. It is no
41 Post contains links and images Devilfish : The quest continues..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...g-search-and-rescue-effort-372492/ Quote: "Hopes of filling Canada's fixed-wing search
42 Post contains images connies4ever : The Twotter 400 I think shows that you are at least in some small, teeny weeny way, wrong. Agree with that. I would think the 80 or so orders from ar
43 Post contains links ThePointblank : Look at the type certificate of the Twotter series 400 and come back to me on that. Scratch that, here's the DHC-6 type certificate from Transport Ca
44 Post contains images connies4ever : Can't argue with that, and I have to compliment you on your ferreting skills. Have looked at the FAA TC database looking for the TC for the -70 serie
45 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Don't look now.....but in the current job hungry economy, the DHC-5NG might just exactly what could be prescribed for the RCAF..... http://www.flight
46 Post contains images kanban : one with pontoons...
47 Post contains links ThePointblank : Reviving an old topic due to new news: The Buffalo's are increasingly difficult to support and may be on their last legs: http://news.nationalpost.com
48 Post contains images voodoo : As an 'Intermission' post:
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Canada And The Fwsar
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force One And The E4B posted Fri May 4 2012 21:31:42 by Max Q
IAF And The Osprey posted Wed Jan 18 2012 05:39:01 by india1
Kenya's F-5s And The Somali Intervention posted Sun Oct 23 2011 01:13:09 by Osprey88
Mil Av And The Japanese Quake posted Sat Mar 12 2011 06:43:25 by Spacepope
Polish AF And The E175 posted Wed Feb 23 2011 10:35:35 by csturdiv
Ozzie Nelson And The F-100 Super Sabre posted Sat Feb 5 2011 18:54:23 by RogerThat
Croatia To Join SAC And The C-17 Fleet? posted Fri Jul 30 2010 00:25:18 by tripledelta
Terminator Movie And The A10 posted Mon Jun 1 2009 06:47:10 by Petera380
Herschel & Planck And The Origins Of The Universe posted Thu May 14 2009 11:05:20 by NoUFO
YF-23, F-117, And The Future Of Fighter/bombers posted Wed Feb 4 2009 20:44:23 by PanAm788
Ozzie Nelson And The F-100 Super Sabre posted Sat Feb 5 2011 18:54:23 by RogerThat
Croatia To Join SAC And The C-17 Fleet? posted Fri Jul 30 2010 00:25:18 by tripledelta
Terminator Movie And The A10 posted Mon Jun 1 2009 06:47:10 by Petera380
Herschel & Planck And The Origins Of The Universe posted Thu May 14 2009 11:05:20 by NoUFO
YF-23, F-117, And The Future Of Fighter/bombers posted Wed Feb 4 2009 20:44:23 by PanAm788

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format