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

[Colin Parkinson]

Longer than the older Hercs, not longer than our C-130J-30s.


Much less useful in terms of diameter though.

I don't buy their personal which must be midgets

 

[RaceAddict]

I don't buy their personal which must be midgets

Sorry, I should have been clear... that graphic was about the C-27J, not the C295, but it included the 235/295 and -130 for comparison so I put it up there.

 

[Mountie]

Anyone know what designation and name the C-295 will have once in service?  I'm guessing CC-295 is too simple.

 

[RaceAddict]

Anyone know what designation and name the C-295 will have once in service?  I'm guessing CC-295 is too simple.

Going by the Globemaster's Canadian nomenclature, it might end up being the CC-2955. :nod:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The C-295W has a fair bit of cargo capacity as well, not C-130J good, but enough to fill that light tactical transport role

It's a SAR platform right?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I don't buy their personal which must be midgets

IMO these are small aircraft and not much room on the inside.

 

[MilEME09]

It's a SAR platform right?

For us it is, we are the only ones using it as such, everyone else seems to use it in the light transport role, as I don't see anyone operating the AWAC's, maritime patrol, or the gunship model.....though I wonder how great it would be to have AC-295 in the RCAF  >

 

[RaceAddict]

For us it is, we are the only ones using it as such, everyone else seems to use it in the light transport role, as I don't see anyone operating the AWAC's, maritime patrol, or the gunship model.....though I wonder how great it would be to have AC-295 in the RCAF  >

Brazil uses it in a SAR capacity, as does the USCG and Mexico (according to c295.ca)

 

[kev994]

USCG uses the 235

 

[Retired AF Guy]

IMO these are small aircraft and not much room on the inside.

Here is another photo showing Peruvian paratroopers in the back of a C-295.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Here is another photo showing Peruvian paratroopers in the back of a C-295.

Yes, all of them sitting down and not a bit of combat equipment in that picture, looks to me they are jumping bare - ass.  That space would fill up quicker with rucksacks, weapons etc.  Cut the number of jumpers in half at least.  I have been around the MPA version, they are smallish IMO.  The 140 is big inside stripped out too, not so much when all the bits and pieces are installed.  :2c:

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

When I stepped onboard the Mexican Air Force 295W, I was surprised how tight it is. I'm 6'1 tall and felt I had to bend over my head so I don't hit the ceiling. From my exposure with this A/C, it will be a tight space for the SAR Techs to don their gear (and they have a lot of it).

 

[dimsum]

When I stepped onboard the Mexican Air Force 295W, I was surprised how tight it is. I'm 6'1 tall and felt I had to bend over my head so I don't hit the ceiling. From my exposure with this A/C, it will be a tight space for the SAR Techs to don their gear (and they have a lot of it).

I wonder if the folks that give the final nod to this have seen both competitors kitted out in a SAR role with our equipment.

Yes, this is a rhetorical question.

 

[kev994]

I wonder if the folks that give the final nod to this have seen both competitors kitted out in a SAR role with our equipment.

Yes, this is a rhetorical question.

I've witnessed at least 3 iterations of groups showing up to Sqns to measure gear, SARTechs, cabins, you name it. I'm pretty sure fuselage size was one of the requirements, though I have no idea what the minimum size was.

 

[Eland2]

I'm having trouble understanding why the government went with the C-295 instead of new-build Buffalo CC-115's from Viking Air.

The support infrastructure for the Buffalo is already there, so there's no need to build a totally new infrastructure, although some upgrades might be needed as the avionics of the new aircraft will be different. Parts can be directly obtained in Canada, rather than having to have them shipped in from overseas.

The Buffalo is already well known to the RCAF and so you wouldn't need to change the training syllabi either.

By having Viking Air build the aircraft, jobs are created, or at least retained in Canada.

If you need a bit more cargo and payload capacity, it might be possible to build a stretched Buffalo. The Buffalo is a STOL aircraft, meaning it can be operated from virtually anywhere, including places where ad-hoc runways are built. This STOL capability also allows the aircraft to fly low and slow, which is of value in SAR taskings. The Buffalo is built to withstand Canada's harsh winter climate.

Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?

 

[dimsum]

Help me out here. What does the C-295 have that the Buffalo doesn't, apart from the fact that it's made by Airbus?

First guess is cost.  We would be the launch customer (and potentially only customer), so unit price would be much higher than either C-295 or C-27. 

 

[kev994]

The Buff is square so it can't be pressurized, it isn't currently being manufactured so it's not off the shelf. Why would you want to land on an ad-hoc runway? Send a helicopter. 
The Halifax SRR goes out to 30W, can a buff fly 1500 NM out into the ocean, be on scene 2 hours and recover in a crew day? Nobody knows because none have been built.

 

[Kirkhill]

I've witnessed at least 3 iterations of groups showing up to Sqns to measure gear, SARTechs, cabins, you name it. I'm pretty sure fuselage size was one of the requirements, though I have no idea what the minimum size was.

Standing up in the cabin was deemed to give an unfair advantage to the C27.

 

[kev994]

Part of the "too many requirements will stifle competition" argument? I'd believe that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just checking on what the US Coast Guard wanted the C295/ HC-144 for:

The HC-144 Ocean Sentry and the C-27J make up the Coast Guard’s medium range surveillance aircraft fleet. These aircraft are instrumental in providing the capability necessary for the Coast Guard to fulfill its maritime patrol, drug and migrant interdiction, disaster response, and search and rescue missions more effectively.

Why this program?

The program was established in fiscal year 2002 to expand the Coast Guard’s patrol hour capacity and replace the aging aircraft fleet. The Coast Guard needed greater endurance to remain on-scene longer and track targets for longer periods of time. Improved sensor capability and increased passenger capacity also were identified as necessary for better mission effectiveness.

https://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/mrs/

Loiter time, not speed of response.  Surveillance, not cargo.