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

[Haletown]

many thnx . . . 

So we are talking about different posts.

[MarkOttawa]

Haletown: This is the comment I had in mind:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,23889.msg712726.html#msg712726

Mark
Ottawa

[GAP]

Rescue planes may not last, review warns
Continued support 'very precarious' for aging and balky CC-115 Buffalos that patrol B.C. and Yukon, study finds
STEVEN CHASE From Monday's Globe and Mail May 26, 2008 at 3:41 AM EDT
Article Link

OTTAWA — The Canadian military has been warned internally that there's no guarantee the aging search-and-rescue planes it uses to patrol the West Coast and B.C. mountains will be able to keep running until 2015, the date for replacement aircraft recently unveiled by the Harper government.

The former Liberal government earmarked $1.3-billion in the 2004 budget to buy new search-and-rescue planes for Canada as early as January, 2009, but they didn't move ahead with it and neither has the Harper government.

Instead, the Conservatives have so far focused military equipment spending on items that are useful for the war in Afghanistan, such as the $3.4-billion paid for gigantic C-17 cargo-lifter planes last year.

In the meantime, Canada's aging search and rescue planes, such as the 41-year-old CC-115 Buffalos that patrol British Columbia and Yukon coastlines and mountains, have been plagued by breakdowns, a shortage of parts and frequent downtime for repairs.
More on link

[Richie]

Quote from article:

"NDP defence critic Dawn Black accused the Tories of taking British Columbians for granted by waiting so long to replace search and rescue planes."

'I certainly hope we don't see some sort of disaster before this government acts.'"


Life must be so nice in the Party of Perpetual Opposition; never having to do anything but criticize. It seems to me that the Chretien Liberals took all Canadians for granted by not properly funding the military. The Liberals were in power for thirteen years, the Tories have been in office for just over two years and this is therefore the fault of the Tories. Incredible logic!

[Colin P]

What would be the likelhood of keeping a couple of the smaller Hercs being replaced by the J model to take up some of the work for the buffs, till a replacement is in place?

[Zoomie]

Hercules were initially slated to come to Comox many years ago.  Our new 14 Hangar is designed to hold two of them.  A study determined that they could not maneuver in the rocks as required for the job.

[Colin P]

What about keeping one for the coastal/offshore jobs? It would reduce hours on the buff airframe, but I could see it cause some issues with keeping pilots and crews trained in both aircraft.

[Zoomie]

Unlike Atlantic Canada and the Halifax SRR - we have under 5 missions a year that involve going out to sea.  The other 200+ missions are all intra-coastal or in the rocks.

[MCG]

I know the V-22 question has been asked, but all the replies were that it was still developmental and therefore not worth considering.  This thread has been alive for a few years now & the V-22 has its problems ironed out and is operational.  Are opinions of our SAR community still generally fixed against such a platform?

Digging through this thread, it would appear that these are the requirements being put forward by those informed on FWSAR operations:

1.   Capable Search Platform – Must have (or ability to mount) bubble search windows on either side of fuselage & a modern electro-optical search suite including multi-spectral (colour & IR at least).

2.   Speed – Must fly as fast as possible from base to search area

3.   Endurance – Must fly from base to search area, conduct search and return to base (or staging airfield) with longest possible time in the air

4.   low & slow – Must be able to fly sufficiently slow so as to be safe in mountains & allow the observers to do their complicated job (maximum acceptable minimum speed is 130 or 140 knots but the ability to fly even slower is better)

5.   Cabin height – Must allow sufficient room for crew to stand (particularly para-rescue)

6.   Cargo Capacity – Must have space & lift for all required Eqpt (at least 3,000 lbs) & be compatible with Hercules Standard (108 x 88) pallets.

7.   Cargo Ramp – Must have a ramp to drop palletized stores (such as MAJAID kit)

8.   Fit for mountain flying – Must not be overly sensitive to unusual & violent air patterns near the tops of mountains

9.   Fit for the arctic – Must have APU to keep system up in arctic airfields without external power, must not become excessively leaky of POL, and must provide heated crew area

10.   Military ruggedness/durability

11.   Lift – Must be able to take off from very short airstrips (including from the bottom of tight deep valleys)

12.   Reliability, Availability & Maintainability – The aircraft must be in working operational order the vast majority of the time, with system failures being rare & repair being a relatively quick & painless affair (even from austere fields)

… and these would be the nice to haves:

1.   Have the ability to act as air ambulance (patient movement from an airfield/airport to another airport in location with better medical facilities.

2.   Conduct post search recovery (typically the job of helicopters, and not possible by FWSAR unless using some form of VTOL)

3.   Fleet rationalization - Also fit for the role of a light utility transport.

4.   How important is pressurisation in a FWSAR aircraft?

[GAP]

Hmmm....the V-22 seems to answer to all those points....

[MCG]

It might, but I really don't know.

Wikipedia (and I know it can be dangerous to trust) suggests that one of the reasons the V-22 were shipped to Iraq as opposed to flying themselves was a fear of in-flight icing.  If this really is a concern for the the aircraft, then I cannot see it meeting Canada's needs.  But (again) this is Wikipedia information & I have not seen it from any second reliable source.

[GAP]

I believe they have solved icing problems in planes.....no?

[Mountie]

Could the V-22 also fill the role of the CH-149, permitting them to be sold off or used as tactical helicopters in addition to the future CH-147 Chinook?

[Zoomie]

Good synopsis MCG.

4.   How important is pressurisation in a FWSAR aircraft?[/list]

Currently we operate the Buffalo sans pressurization - it doesn't restrict us from flying over 10,000'MSL - it's just a royal PITA.  I believe that this requirement has been added to the SOR.

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 our ability to work effectively, basically we are strictly in transport mode at that time.

[Good2Golf]

Could the V-22 also fill the role of the CH-149, permitting them to be sold off or used as tactical helicopters in addition to the future CH-147 Chinook?

The V-22 has incredible rotor downwash that would not be well suited to many of the regions that current rotary-wing SAR assets operate (thinking of mountainous regions, etc...)  The V-22 combines elements of both a helicopter and a plane, but in so doing, not only bridges the differences, but also limits the indiviual benefits of the separate types (i.e. doesn't hover as well as a helicopter, not a fast as the FWSAR assets could be.)  Not surprisingly, it's best suited to the littoral transport of MEU elements as used by the USMC for which it was designed. 

G2G

[MCG]

Could the V-22 also fill the role of the CH-149, permitting them to be sold off or used as tactical helicopters in addition to the future CH-147 Chinook?

Recognizing that it is a gross oversimplification, here is a bit of a stats comparison (again depending on Wikipedia for accurate information  )

[Zoomie]

Those stats are very rough and slightly inaccurate.  The range for the Buff is on the low side with the corresponding range for the Cormorant being a little too high.

[Colin P]

Unlike Atlantic Canada and the Halifax SRR - we have under 5 missions a year that involve going out to sea.  The other 200+ missions are all intra-coastal or in the rocks.

Sheesh times have changed, I can remember a lot more sea based searches than that during my days on the R-class cutters and hovercraft.

[Kirkhill]

Colin,

I am going to guess it is due to the lack of salmon, lack of whiting and the associated Poles and the rise in inexperienced urbanite rockclimbers, bikers, backpackers, skiers and snowboarders.

Tax dollars are no longer used to support people earning a living but instead idiots putting themselves at risk for fun and excitement.

Chris.

[Don2wing]

 Here is a news release from Viking Air Ltd's President on the old Buffalo:

Venerable Buffalo is no aviation 'orphan'
Island company owns the plane's production rights, and supplies parts
 
David Curtis
Special to Times Colonist


Friday, May 30, 2008


It is wrong to suggest that the Buffalo aircraft -- known as the CC-115 in military service and DHC-5 in civilian use -- is an "orphan" with no "ready supply of spare parts," as has been suggested in the Times Colonist. Viking Air Ltd. will not let that happen.

Viking, which is located at Victoria International Airport, is the Transport Canada-approved design owner (known as a type certificate) for the Buffalo and is responsible for worldwide support of the aircraft.

Viking Air Ltd. takes this responsibility very seriously. Viking did not acquire the DHC-1 through DHC-7 (which includes the Buffalo) type certificates and production rights from Bombardier in 2006 simply to abandon them and their owner/operators.

In fact, the service and support of these aircraft is the primary business focus of Viking and our almost 300 employees. Viking and our support partner Field Aviation of Calgary are committed to supporting the Buffalo fleet and working with the Department of National Defence in building a sustainment model to ensure that the Buffalo aircraft meets the current and anticipated needs of our Armed Forces in a safe and effective manner.

De Havilland Canada aircraft are known the world over as rugged, versatile and effective transports.

Viking is evaluating all the production opportunities related to the aircraft programs it purchased from Bombardier and has already restarted production of the venerable, multi-mission Twin Otter transport, which had been out of production since 1988, because the worldwide demand for new examples is strong.

Viking intends to build the Twin Otters, sell them and support them as only it knows how.

As a long-term supplier of support to the "heritage" de Havilland Canada fleet of DHC-2 Beavers, DHC-3 Otters, DHC-4 Caribous, DHC-5 Buffalos, DHC-6 Twin Otters, and DHC-7 Dash 7s, Viking is, and will remain, dedicated to its in-service support responsibilities.

Of the aircraft types designed in the '60s, the Buffalo is one of the few that can continue in service without having to undergo a major (and massively costly) rebuild/replacement of fuselage or wings in order to remain structurally viable.

According to our records, more than half the original fleet of Buffalos are still in service around the world. Considering that production stopped in 1986, this alone is a testament to the aircraft's durability, the loyalty of its users and the support provided by Viking and our partners.

It is hardly an "orphan."

The Australian army is still actively using the DHC-4 Caribou, the Buffalo's 1950s predecessor, for the simple reason that nothing else can do what it does. Many other aircraft types proposed as replacements were designed in the '60s and have undergone massive modernizations and risen to become aircraft like the C-130J and the C-27J.

The costs to buy these modernized aircraft are unfortunately so astronomical that most air forces have little appetite for a fleet change until it becomes the only operational alternative.

It is our opinion that the Buffalo could be modernized by an all-Canadian team in order for it to serve the specialized mission of the DND for many years to come, at a fraction of the cost of a new fleet of C-27Js.

As we have found with the Twin Otter, there is nothing else produced today that will do what the Buffalo is capable of. This is a Canadian-designed and built aircraft, perfectly suited for a specialized Canadian mission and supported by local Canadian companies.

Instead of looking outside of the country, the best solution is to improve on a good thing by investing in a modernization program to extend the useful life of the existing Buffalo fleet. A Buffalo fleet modernization might be the catalyst to return the Buffalo to production.

There should be absolutely no doubt that Viking and its support partner Field Aviation are committed to supporting the DHC-5 (CC-115) Buffalo until the year 2015 and longer as maybe necessary.

The fact that Viking, located on Vancouver Island and the Buffalo design holder, was not contacted by any media outlet in order to better understand the support arrangements for the CC-115 Buffalo is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

David Curtis is president and CEO of Viking Air Ltd.

[YZT580]

So there!!!  The probable reason that the MSM never called Viking is probably that they googled buffalo, saw de Havilland and immediately stopped their research.  It is a good a/c but I suspect the seats need re-upholstering at the very least.  New avionics, new engines, still cheaper than buying new airframes.  And its mission capabilities mean that you can still turn around in the canyons and go real slow without a lot of downwash.  The reason given by Brazil for stopping their purchase programme for the C27 I believe was that it couldn't meet the mission specs that the buffalo could.  Considering that the C47 celebrates 75 years of operations either this year or next, the buffalo is only in early middle age.  It isn't old, it is just 'mature'.

[Colin P]

Well keeping in mind that Viking does have a dog in this fight, it is good that a supplier is just down the road from Comox, however a glowing press release and reality may be different. Are they producing the spares required? Can they? What is the lead time and do they have to compete in the tender process? Are there enough aircraft to be able to do a major refit on the fleet and still provide 24/7 coverage?

Often it is the lack of one or two critical components that causes headaches, despite having a warehouse full of other parts. Is the engine and parts still in production? What is the cost of getting common wear parts made that specific to the aircraft? Is the support budget adequate?

[Kirkhill]

Somebody has to keep inventory on hand.  Either the supplier or the user.  Either way it costs money.  Either way the user ends up paying or the supplier goes out of business.  I think all Viking is proposing is that if the Government of Canada were to give them a long term contract then they could offer security of supply, probably at a lower cost than buying a new fleet of aircraft with their own 25 year supply of completely different spare parts.

I can't see that it would hurt to talk to them.....and I have no idea or how sound the company is or how many customers they are currently servicing with how many aircraft etc.

[Colin P]

I suspect that the twin otter will be there bread and butter, however the demand of decent bush aircraft is high as are the parts required to flying them. The older aircraft lend themselves to bush flying and are easier to fix out there. As long as Viking delivers what it promises and does not act as god favorite, then things should be good.

[WrenchBender]

Viking can play the injured party all they want, the parts that are needed to support the fleet are not procurable through Viking.
What is needed is Goodrich, Menasco, Hamilton Standard and GE to step up to the plate and support their out of production components, Actuators, Landing Gear, Props and Engines etc

WrenchBender (ex Buff LCMM)