Canada and the C17

[rigpiggy]

Just to stir the pot why not go with the MV22. 300 knots and you can pick up any survivors also. As it is they want to replace the twotter, buff and herc on the SAR mission

[WJflyer]

Just to stir the pot why not go with the MV22. 300 knots and you can pick up any survivors also. As it is they want to replace the twotter, buff and herc on the SAR mission

The Osprey is totally unproven in any field, and the CF wants proven equipment. It has to be already developed, and be in service.

The name of the competition says everything: FWSAR (Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue). The CF has sufficient rotary assets for the job, we need a platform that is both fast, and can carry a lot. The platform is to work in conjunction with a helicopter by first arriving at the scene first to find where it needs to be, and to first deploy assets such as jumpers, life rafts, etc and then to wait for the helo to come in, and then, the job of the platform is to render assistance to the helicopter, such as dropping illumination flares when it is dark, and to work as a radio platform to base.

[yultoto]

The Osprey is totally unproven in any field, and the CF wants proven equipment. It has to be already developed, and be in service.

The name of the competition says everything: FWSAR (Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue). The CF has sufficient rotary assets for the job, we need a platform that is both fast, and can carry a lot. The platform is to work in conjunction with a helicopter by first arriving at the scene first to find where it needs to be, and to first deploy assets such as jumpers, life rafts, etc and then to wait for the helo to come in, and then, the job of the platform is to render assistance to the helicopter, such as dropping illumination flares when it is dark, and to work as a radio platform to base.

Sounds like a perfect job for the IL-76

[yultoto]

Anyone consider that Kandahar is a risky airport with all the fighting and pontential for attack while landing there. Maybe the C-17 is suited better becuase they come in tactical like and have the ability to dump flairs and chaff if some Jalalabad Joe decides to take a pop at them with a shoulder launched missle?

What abilities does this civilian company have in edvading attack, or was there a premium the Canadian taxpayers would have to fork out instead of landing in Kyrgyzstan and shuttling them in with the C-17?

In the early days of the Afghan operation, a British MP asked the UK Minister of Defence why AN-124s were being chartered into Afghanistan (when they had already taken delivery of their 4 C-17s at the time). Since you know by now I always give references for all my claims (which is not case of all people on this forum), It can be found here

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ in the Uk Commons Hansard Written answers of Feb 1 2002.

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of transporting two Tornados to the Falklands by (a) Antonov 124 and (b) C-17; what assessment he has made of the cost of using the (i) Antonov 124 and (ii) C-17 in operations in Afghanistan; and how many times the Antonov 124 has been leased by the RAF since the operational use of C-17s began. [32146]


Mr. Ingram: A full assessment has been made of the transportation of Tornado aircraft from the UK to the Falkland Islands. This included options for air-to-air refuelling, airlift charter, ship and C-17. Given all of the constraints, the C-17 was deemed to be the most suitable operational option and the one that gave the best value for money and best value for effort.

Until mid-January 2002, the threat assessment presented by surface-to-air missiles, specifically to identifiable military aircraft, limited our use of RAF aircraft operating into Afghanistan. The use of civilian Antonovs was less restricted. We therefore, chartered Antonovs for the essential operational movement of vehicles, equipment and supplies. While the C-17 is now being used for airlift to Afghanistan, the size of the task necessitates the continued charter of Antonov aircraft.

The Antonov has been chartered by MOD on 35 occasions since the delivery of the C-17 in May 2001. All of the tasks have been in support of operations.


What happened is those expensive C-17s, which were leased, could not be put at risk in a dangerous War zone, so the UK MOD chartered un-protected AN-124s instead

By the way, in some pictures of the Leopards being unloaded from C-17s in Kandahar, there is right behind the C-17 a Silk Way IL-76 also parked in Kandahar. This is the company MDN charters to Kandahar. Why was this IL-76 able to land at Kandahar that same day with its load, while the AN-124s with the Leopards were not ? Maybe they were just hauling less important supplies for Tim Hortons ?

The truth is the Antonovs went to Kyrkyzstan because that is where MDN asked for the Leopards to be delived, period.

[chubbee]

Using one aircraft type to replace three very different, existing SAR types in a country as diverse as Canada seems unreasonable. Why is one replacement type cost effective or desirable?

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

The truth is the Antonovs went to Kyrkyzstan because that is where MDN asked for the Leopards to be delived, period.

I thought you said you always have a reference. I wouldn't be surprised one way or another however do you think it's possible that the 124 is too heavy to land on the newly surfaced runway?

[WJflyer]

Anyone consider that Kandahar is a risky airport with all the fighting and pontential for attack while landing there. Maybe the C-17 is suited better becuase they come in tactical like and have the ability to dump flairs and chaff if some Jalalabad Joe decides to take a pop at them with a shoulder launched missle?

What abilities does this civilian company have in edvading attack, or was there a premium the Canadian taxpayers would have to fork out instead of landing in Kyrgyzstan and shuttling them in with the C-17?

In the early days of the Afghan operation, a British MP asked the UK Minister of Defence why AN-124s were being chartered into Afghanistan (when they had already taken delivery of their 4 C-17s at the time). Since you know by now I always give references for all my claims (which is not case of all people on this forum), It can be found here

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ in the Uk Commons Hansard Written answers of Feb 1 2002.

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of transporting two Tornados to the Falklands by (a) Antonov 124 and (b) C-17; what assessment he has made of the cost of using the (i) Antonov 124 and (ii) C-17 in operations in Afghanistan; and how many times the Antonov 124 has been leased by the RAF since the operational use of C-17s began. [32146]


Mr. Ingram: A full assessment has been made of the transportation of Tornado aircraft from the UK to the Falkland Islands. This included options for air-to-air refuelling, airlift charter, ship and C-17. Given all of the constraints, the C-17 was deemed to be the most suitable operational option and the one that gave the best value for money and best value for effort.

Until mid-January 2002, the threat assessment presented by surface-to-air missiles, specifically to identifiable military aircraft, limited our use of RAF aircraft operating into Afghanistan. The use of civilian Antonovs was less restricted. We therefore, chartered Antonovs for the essential operational movement of vehicles, equipment and supplies. While the C-17 is now being used for airlift to Afghanistan, the size of the task necessitates the continued charter of Antonov aircraft.

The Antonov has been chartered by MOD on 35 occasions since the delivery of the C-17 in May 2001. All of the tasks have been in support of operations.


What happened is those expensive C-17s, which were leased, could not be put at risk in a dangerous War zone, so the UK MOD chartered un-protected AN-124s instead

By the way, in some pictures of the Leopards being unloaded from C-17s in Kandahar, there is right behind the C-17 a Silk Way IL-76 also parked in Kandahar. This is the company MDN charters to Kandahar. Why was this IL-76 able to land at Kandahar that same day with its load, while the AN-124s with the Leopards were not ? Maybe they were just hauling less important supplies for Tim Hortons ?

The truth is the Antonovs went to Kyrkyzstan because that is where MDN asked for the Leopards to be delived, period.

Sigh...

The UK cannot risk their C-17's because they don't own them. Boeing does. Under terms of their lease contract, they cannot risk the birds. We will be owning C-17's, so we are free to do what we like to them. Think about the difference between leasing a house and owning it. With leasing, you have to ask for permission from the owner to renovate the house, while if you owned it, you can renovate it without asking for permission, as you are the owner.

[RLP]

[quote="WJflyerThe Osprey is totally unproven in any field, and the CF wants proven equipment. It has to be already developed, and be in service.]

If that is the case, I am confused why there is such a fixation on the C-27J as the candidate of choice for FWSAR, given that the C-27J is neither proven, nor considered for use by any nation as a SAR platform, nor in operational service with any nation in any role at this time.

[costermonger]

nor in operational service with any nation in any role at this time.

So Greece and Italy have theirs just sitting somewhere collecting dust?

[RLP]

Actually, Greece had two delivered and refused the third due to quality control problems in January of this year, no progress since that time; Italy had its first delivered last month and promptly turned it back to Alenia to do the EUS evaluation, they will hopefully get it back before year end. So, yes, they are basically gathering dust.

[costermonger]

I knew a few had been delivered and have made appearances at airshows, but beyond that I haven't been able to find any info about what (if anything) they're being used for.

The USAF got rid of their C-27's a few years after they bought them due to maintenance problems.. What changes have been made in the J model to rectify that? I see that Lockheed Martin and Alenia are trying to get the USAF to buy Spartans again, so logic dictates that they've done something to solve the problems.. Anybody got any more info?

[WJflyer]

I knew a few had been delivered and have made appearances at airshows, but beyond that I haven't been able to find any info about what (if anything) they're being used for.

The USAF got rid of their C-27's a few years after they bought them due to maintenance problems.. What changes have been made in the J model to rectify that? I see that Lockheed Martin and Alenia are trying to get the USAF to buy Spartans again, so logic dictates that they've done something to solve the problems.. Anybody got any more info?

Engine swap for the Rolls-Royce AE2100 engines (as found in C-130J), avionics change so that the cockpits are very similar between C-27J and C-130J. Pretty much, the C-27J is a mini-Herc in all aspects.

If that is the case, I am confused why there is such a fixation on the C-27J as the candidate of choice for FWSAR, given that the C-27J is neither proven, nor considered for use by any nation as a SAR platform, nor in operational service with any nation in any role at this time.

C-27J is the most attractive of all the offers because of its speed, performance, ruggedness, capacity, economy and value. The fact that it is considered a mini-Herc by many when the CF is poised to make a purchase of C-130J's to replace our current Herc fleet also is a matter, as it can help streamline parts and maintenance.

[chubbee]

Perhaps an idea would be to replace the Herc SAR aircraft with DND C-27J's and then contract another type for the west coast Buffalo and arctic Twin Otter SAR missions using private industry, as they do with the Helicopter SAR in the UK.

[mellow_pilot]

Perhaps an idea would be to replace the Herc SAR aircraft with DND C-27J's and then contract another type for the west coast Buffalo and arctic Twin Otter SAR missions using private industry, as they do with the Helicopter SAR in the UK.

If that was the case, why not just go with Hercs to replace Hercs? The 27 is meant to replace the Buffalo as I understand it, and it just made sense to use a common type.

[WJflyer]

Perhaps an idea would be to replace the Herc SAR aircraft with DND C-27J's and then contract another type for the west coast Buffalo and arctic Twin Otter SAR missions using private industry, as they do with the Helicopter SAR in the UK.

If that was the case, why not just go with Hercs to replace Hercs? The 27 is meant to replace the Buffalo as I understand it, and it just made sense to use a common type.

The Buffs and the Hercs are being replaced in the FWSAR role by the C-27J, along with the Twin Otter (hopefully).

And private SAR? Forget it. The CF wants to maintain SAR capabilities because they concluded that it makes sense to prepare for Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) by maintaining a peacetime SAR capability. It is not a far leap from peacetime plucking a pilot who ditched somewhere in the B.C. North to pulling a CF pilot out of a sticky situation if he is shot down.

[mellow_pilot]

Ya, I understand that they are replacing both airframes with the FWSAR. I was simply responding to the quoted post. I meant that it makes no sense to replace hercs with FWSAR instead of hercs if you're contracting out the buff (and twotter maybe). You might as well keep an all herc fleet (so you can swap AC between sar and transport/fewer types, easy training+maint) if you're not going to tromp around the rocks loking for granola-eating Vancouverites who went hiking to commune with nature and got lost.

[chubbee]

So SAR is about what's convenient for the DND not what best serves Canadians?

[Smurfjet]

One would assume what is convenient for the DND serves Canadians' best interests.

[mellow_pilot]

So SAR is about what's convenient for the DND not what best serves Canadians?

That's kinda what I've been arguing aginst the whole time... I suggest you re-read the thread. The last comments were a somewhat sarcastic response to a bunch of nonsense...

Perhaps an idea would be to replace the Herc SAR aircraft with DND C-27J's and then contract another type for the west coast Buffalo and arctic Twin Otter SAR missions using private industry, as they do with the Helicopter SAR in the UK.

This just doesn't make any sense at all. The whole reason for considering the C27 is because we need to replace the Buff. If we were to contract out mountain SAR, then why buy Buff when the Herc carries more stuff? Talking to some SAR tech a while back (who were riding a Herc, by the way) left me with the impression they like to have every little piece of kit they can on the A/C so that if they need it, it's there. They're very fond of options. Ergo, if not rescuing people in the mountains, buy Hercs.

The reason for the smaller (more manouverable) 27s is because of the work the Buffs do in the mountains, Hercs aren't exactly the best airframe for running canyons or doing valley shoots. (or so I've been told)

This is precisely why the C295 is not the right airplane. It can't do what the Buffalo does. So why reduce capabilities and put Canadians at greater risk? Cause CASA wants to sell airframes?

This all goes back to government/industry interference in military procurement. The military's only real agenda is to gain equiptment to complete their missions. All the interference of whiny politicians and CEOs does nothing to help Canadians.

[RLP]

As stated earlier, the C-27J is actually 10 knots higher in stall speed than the Hercules - that would be about 30 knots faster than the Buffalo. It is totally unsuited to mountain SAR. We learned this the hard way by putting Trackers and other aircraft in the mountains with too high of a stalling speed. We learned it again in Chibougamou when we crashed the Herc in SAR - you need to search at or under 130 knots. The C-27J cannot do that. We do not need to learn this lesson again.
The much vaunted C-27J commonality with a Hercules is a myth. The aircraft uses a different engine, smaller and lighter than the J model Herc. The avionics of the J model are modified since the C-27J was designed, and the only other similarity is the props. The only other similarity is that the C-27J looks like a Herc. Although Lockheed Martin promoted the C-27J for a few years, they have since severed ties with Alenia and the C-27J. There is a message there. Contrary to the myth, the C-27J cannot handle a fully loaded Hercules pallet (98 inches high), it has to be broken down and reconfigured. The closest aircraft to the Buffalo in performance is actually the C-235-300, which, when carrying the same load as the C-27J (6900 pounds of SAR gear and 6 hours fuel) still has a stall speed 25 knots slower than the C-27J.
The only way that you are going to find out what the aircraft can actually do is have a flyoff competition; you do not find out by reading glossy brochures or company propaganda. You really should ask yourself why the C-27J proponents are afraid of a competition. The reality is that CASA has never lost a flyoff competition against the C-27J. In fact, the reason that the C-295 beat out the C-27J in Portugal was low level, low speed handling.
For those who want to know more about the problems Greece is having, check out these two links.

http://www.c-295.ca/web/id/c27j_greece1.html

http://www.c-295.ca/web/id/c27j_greece2.html

[mellow_pilot]

While I find your argument interesting, I put no stock in anything that CASA publishes. They have more spin than my dryer.

I base this on reading their website, which I have concluded is aimed at convincing the general public (who are ignorant of aviation) that CASA is the best option. Their information is mis-leading.

Watching a C-27 perform a loop is much more convincing than reading CASAs henny-penny assesment of Canadian SAR.

[yultoto]

However do you think it's possible that the 124 is too heavy to land on the newly surfaced runway?

Go here:http://worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=AF60849
You will see the infomation for Kandahar airport.
Under runways, there is a label called PCN, meaning pavement classification number. The PCN is 059FAWT, meaning, meaning flexible pavement, High Pavement subgrade category. To land there legally, an aircraft must have an Aircraft classification number (ACN) equal to or under 059 for that king of pavement. The AN-124, has, for flexible pavement, high subgrade, such as Kandahar, an Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) of 51 (reference:http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Inter ... Tables.pdf)
According to these numbers, it can land at Kandahar.
As for runway length and width, it is 10,500 feet long, which is adequate for just about any aircraft in the World to LAND on.

[Smurfjet]

Watching a C-27 perform a loop is much more convincing than reading CASAs henny-penny assesment of Canadian SAR.

Allow me sir, to submit, that both are half ass assessments

1-Almost any fixed wing can be made to loop or roll in the hands of an experienced test pilot.
2-Show me an SAR mission that had to perform a loop to accoplish the mission.

Can we focus on the C17, and you guys can open a thread for SAR?

Cheers.

[WJflyer]

However do you think it's possible that the 124 is too heavy to land on the newly surfaced runway?

Go here:http://worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=AF60849
You will see the infomation for Kandahar airport.
Under runways, there is a label called PCN, meaning pavement classification number. The PCN is 059FAWT, meaning, meaning flexible pavement, High Pavement subgrade category. To land there legally, an aircraft must have an Aircraft classification number (ACN) equal to or under 059 for that king of pavement. The AN-124, has, for flexible pavement, high subgrade, such as Kandahar, an Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) of 51 (reference:http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Inter ... Tables.pdf)
According to these numbers, it can land at Kandahar.
As for runway length and width, it is 10,500 feet long, which is adequate for just about any aircraft in the World to LAND on.

Doesn't mean you can land there legally means that there is space to put the airplane. Kandahar airbase is a fairly busy airport with military traffic, and as such, ramp space is often at a premium. AN-124's are too big to squeeze into the limited ramp space, as most of the airbase is still not fully cleared of mines and UXO's. C-17's are smaller and as such, can more easily fit at the airbase.

[mellow_pilot]

Watching a C-27 perform a loop is much more convincing than reading CASAs henny-penny assesment of Canadian SAR.

Allow me sir, to submit, that both are half ass assessments

1-Almost any fixed wing can be made to loop or roll in the hands of an experienced test pilot.
2-Show me an SAR mission that had to perform a loop to accoplish the mission.

Can we focus on the C17, and you guys can open a thread for SAR?

Cheers.

A valley shoot may require a sharp climbout at the end of a descent. Not quite a loop, but the 3G airfrfame is better than what CASA offeres in this area.

The reason that FWSAR was brough up was that C-17 procurement suffers for the same problems of any other procurment in the CF and that is interference from outside forces (gov/industry). FWSAR is just one anecdotal example of the problem. The CF needs to be able to draw up requirements without fear of the goverment of the the day introducing political candidates for the job that don't meet said requirements.

If the C-17 is the only contender for the job, based on what the military says it needs, then that's what it needs. F what the politicians think.