Canadian fwsar development concept

Section 2 V-22 FWSAR Concepts of Employment Issue No.: 01-2009 FWSAR Project

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – UNCLASSIFIED This document contains information exempt from mandatory disclosure under the FOIA. Exemption 2 applies.

2-1

Canadian Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR)

2.0 V-22 FWSAR Concepts of Employment

Figure 2-1 Flight Sequence – Conversion from Hover Mode to Airplane Mode

Tiltrotor fixed-wing aircraft are specifically designed for long-range situations where a mid-mission hover capability means the difference between life and death and are a revolutionary step in aviation, not just an incremental improvement over current technology.

Missions are flown to austere locations without improved airfields; where a mid-mission hover for personnel recovery or drop-off is anticipated and speed and range are crucial to mission success. The V-22 capability enables the FWSAR aircrew to significantly decrease response times to rescue from distress call to JRCC squadron tasking to personnel recovery at sea or in remote mountainous regions. Short take-offs/landings (STOL) further increase response ranges.

Tiltrotor Benefit to FWSAR: Once persons, ships or other craft which are in distress or imminent danger are located by the V-22, personnel recovery can begin immediately. This includes retrieval of critically injured persons in distress, provisions for their initial medical or other needs, and their delivery to a place of safety. Medical equipment is available on board or can be delivered to the scene, to aid the survivor immediately upon recovery. Because V-22 vibration is significantly less than that of helicopters, on-board surgical procedures can be accomplished, having a positive effect in recovery and victim survival.

Tiltrotor Benefit in the Concept of Operations (CONOPS): Tiltrotor capabilities offer opportunities never before considered using legacy rotary & fixed-wing platforms. V-22 employment in a SAR role can mitigate risk to SAR Crews while decreasing rescue time-to-survivor. With the exception of extreme weather conditions, no longer will commanders need to risk the lives of valiant SAR Techs parachuting into hostile environmental conditions to stabilize patients. Commanders will not have to order SAR Techs to remain overnight on ice flows while waiting for rotorcraft extraction, and costly survival equipment will no longer be considered consumables.

Tiltrotor Impact to Conventional CONOPS: Worldwide both fixed wing and rotary wing customers are engaged in analysis of V-22 tiltrotor applications; each country having unique military and civil agency interaction and mission sets. Truly understanding the opportunity that V-22 fixed-wing tiltrotor can provide requires new analyses of how tiltrotor capabilities would affect the concept of operations (CONOPS) – beginning with what works from a legacy CONOPS augmenting it with the capabilities V-22 provides. Like many countries, this capability may offer challenges to Canada in many respects such as procedural, command



2-2


structure, political and mission tasking; however, these same challenges can offer the greatest benefits to Canada not only in the arena of SAR operations but more importantly in the improve the numbers of lives saved.

We present below an approach to such a CONOPS analysis, outlining the discriminating factors V-22 offers to Canada in SAR responsiveness, mission risk reduction, environmental impacts and operational cost factors.

2.1 Bases Which Could Support V-22 FWSAR Coverage Operations Our analysis begins with a notional basing strategy aimed at supporting the entire Canadian

Area of Responsibility (AOR). Proposed main basing options both for CFB and forward operating location (FOL) options are shown in following figures. Given the increased shipping traffic through the Northern Passages and requirements to be responsive to Canadian sovereignty rights, we have proposed Alert, Nanisivik and Resolute as northern FOLs in addition to flexibility that Inuvik, Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit, Gosse Bay and Gander can provide. For our analysis, we would also include commercial facilities with fuel (notably Sachs Harbor and Sandspit) as reasonable recovery locations, but not as initial launch points. Typically, these additional FOLs could be used as detachments or just as fuel stops with aircraft based at the four main operating bases along the Canadian/US border.

Extending our analysis toward the full utilization of the V-22’s capability of not only performing the search, but also the immediate rescue of isolated personnel, Figure 2-2 below illustrates the V-22’s nominal unrefueled 450 nm radius capability with a one-hour loiter time, 10 min hover time for extraction, and necessary reserves. Response times are based on conservative 230kts cruse best range, V-22 is qualified up to 310kts when time is of the essence.

Figure 2-2. Unrefueled Search and Rescue capability from FWSAR, FOL, and other bases



2-3


2.2 Responsiveness V-22 Fixed-Wing Search & Recovery Coverage Allowing for very limited use of aerial refueling and/or fuel stops at commercial fields

missions with a one-hour loiter time and necessary reserves. Purple areas show where additional aerial refueling would be required to service the whole of the Canadian SAR area of responsibility at turboprop transit speeds. Typically, only a single refueling is required, although a second refueling is needed in the far, eastern corners. Sea based oil rigs or shipboard refueling are options to consider for long range missions. Our analysis assumes that the refueling would take place prior to the “bingo” point, or that point where there is still sufficient fuel onboard to return to a land base.

Main Operating BasesMain Operating Bases

Forward Operating LocationsForward Operating Locations

Figure 2-3 Depicting V-22 Coverage Area Out-and-Back (with refueling)

The V-22 is able to recover personnel within the entire AOR within the required

15-hour timeframe.

Figure 2-4 illustrates selected examples of mission times for key survivor sites. Even with a requirement for a second refueling in the far eastern corners, our response/recovery time is well within the requested timeframe.



2-4


Figure 2-4. Selected Search & Assist Mission Durations If aerial refueling resources are a concern, it is important to note that the V-22 can, with

some development, be fitted with an aerial refueling kit to provide a self-AR capability that would not tax alternative AR resources. That kit is depicted below.

Figure 2-5. V-22 Aerial Refueling Kit Concept

For reference, during typical V-22 flight operations the aircraft flies 80-90% in the fixed-wing forward-flight airplane mode, cruising at standard speeds exceeding 230+ kts. For calculation factors given weight, temperature and altitude NAVAIR uses 230 kts as conservative cruise airspeed, although V-22 has a flight clearance up to 310 kts. For most missions, V-22 is able to fly at its maximum speed, sacrificing distance only slightly.

In Figure 2-6 our analysis depicts a conservative estimate of response time to recover a survivor for typical fixed wing and helicopter speeds in comparison to V-22 where the benefits

800n

m80

0nm

650n

m65

0nm

650n

m65

0nm

450nm450nm

1100nm1100nm750nm

750nm

500n

m50

0nm

Western AoR Coverage - 7.5hour mission: Comox-AR-

Rescue-Comox

Eastern AoR Coverage - 10.5 hour mission: Greenwood-Gander-AR-

Rescue-AR-Gander

North Pole Coverage - 12.5 hourmission: Winnipeg-Rankin Inlet-Nanisivik-Alert-North Pole-Alert

V-22 response time given ground refueling. Aerial refueling would decrease ground time by 30 min at each stop



2-5


utilizing the V-22 are readily seen in comparison to conventional fixed-wing/helicopter approaches. Not only do we estimate a 30 percent savings in overall time to pick up the survivor(s), but we believe there could be a substantial reduction in the number of air/ground assets required to perform an operation, freeing those assets for other missions or needs within the Canadian set of responsibilities.

In the end, the V-22 can augment the total capability of Canadian fleet forces to optimize the use of assets for missions where each asset is best used, resulting in substantial overall cost savings and much-improved performance.

Figure 2-6. Time & Aircraft to Rescue Survivor

V-22 was designed for shipboard environments, SAR missions may have a need to extend

ranges with lilly pad refueling. NATO’s Helicopter Operating Ships other Than Aircraft Carriers (HOSTAC) identifies three Canadian ships as capable of recovering H-53 or H-46 which is comparable in dimensions and weight to V-22. The Canadian Navy future Joint Support Ship (JSS) would be ideal operating base for V-22. These and other sea based options such as oil rigs for refueling can supplement aerial or land based refueling.

Time to Rescue Point - Hours 0 hrs 4 hrs

400 NM

Helo Fixed Wing

V- 22

0 hrs 2 hrs 4 hrs0 hrs 2 hrs 4 hrs

Helo

Pickup

PickupFixed WingMissionMission requires 2 aircraft

Mission requires 1 aircraft

Assumptions:Assumptions: • Includes ½ Hr Search allocation• Rescue helo launches simultaneously

Time to Rescue Point - Hours 0 hrs 4 hrs

400 NM

HeloFixed Wing

V - 22

0 hrs 2 hrs 4 hrs0 hrs 2 hrs 4 hrs

Helo

Pickup

Pickup

On Station/ Begin Search

Fixed WingMissionMission requires 2 aircraft

Mission requires 1 aircraft

Assumptions:Assumptions: • Includes ½ Hr Search allocation• Rescue helo launches simultaneously

30% Savings in Total Recovery Time

Figure 2-7. V-22 on deck

USS SAN ANTONIO (LPD-17)

Figure 2-8. V-22 on deck and in flight UK HMS ILLUSTRIUS



2-6


2.3 SAR Mission Scenarios Reviewed Below, we have taken several real life rescue missions and developed a narrative description

of how each might have been conducted using the V-22 as an alternative SAR platform. Outlined below are based on recent Canadian Air Force (CAF) web-site news articles (referenced in each). Specifics relative to mission timing, aircraft speeds, fuel stops, aircrew and SAR Tech personnel are our estimates.

These missions are offered as generic examples of the discriminating advantages V-22 offers and to elicit consideration of these factors for FWSAR evaluation. In each narrative, we have provided an alternative mission profile/routing and discussed various discriminating factors related to the execution of each mission reflective of operational cost & aircraft availability, human factors, response time, overall recovery time, and the related mission carbon footprint impact. In each scenario presented, we estimate substantial benefits for each of these factors and often multiple factors for a particular mission.

2.4 Mission One - Overview

Figure 2-9. Arctic SAR Mission Remote Water Rescue 50 mi east of Hall Beach, NT

435 Sqn Two CC-130s

Est. 2274 km (1412 miles) 300 knots (Est. 5 hrs)

424 Sqn One CC-130

Est. 2254 km (1711 miles) 300 knots (Est. 6 hrs)

405 Sqn One CP-140

Est. 2847 km (1769 miles)

350 knots (Est. 5 hrs)

103 Sqn One CH-149

Est. 2646 km (1644 miles) 150 knots

(Est. 11 hrs)

Multiple aircraft Long range mission Airdrop of fuel, supplies and SKAD Recovery by rescue sea vessel



2-7


Synopsis of a Canadian SAR mission on June 26, 2006 – This SAR mission involved a long range-search, Canadian SAR mission to rescue hunters from Fox Basin. (http://www.airforce.forces.ca/8w-8e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?page=5). Three hunters from Hall Beach, Nunavut were rescued after three days at sea after their 22-foot freighter canoe ran out of fuel approximately 50 kilometers from their departure point at Hall Beach in Fox Basin. The CC-130 Hercules and crew from 424 Sqn, from 8 Wing Trenton, airdropped fuel to the hunters in austere arctic conditions. Once the vessel received the fuel it began sailing for a short period but then became disabled by flooding. As the crew day ended for the 424 Sqn, the two additional CC-130 Hercules from 435 Sqn at 17 Wing Winnipeg relieved the Trenton crew and to provide top cover. In the end One CC-130 from 8 Wing, 424 Squadron in Trenton Ontario was dispatched, and then two CC-130 aircraft from 17 Wing, 435 Squadron in Winnipeg, Manitoba and in addition one CP-140 from 14 Wing, 413 Squadron and one CH-149 from Gander, Newfoundland were also dispatched to support the operation which took 11 hrs to arrive on the site. While providing this top cover, the CC-130 dropped a Survival Kit Air Droppable (SKAD) containing basic survival material such as a life raft, survival suits, food and water. Following the drop, the CC-130 Hercules crews were relieved by a CP-140 Aurora aircraft and crew from 405 Maritime Patrol Squadron located at 14 Wing Greenwood. The CP-140 watched the canoeists until they were picked up, by an 18-foot rescue vessel which happened to be in the area. The CH-149 arrived to assist if required, and the CC-130 from Trenton returned and dropped sleeping bags, a stove and other survival supplies to sustain the group on a nearby beach after being dropped off by the rescue vessel. The hunters were picked up by a rescue vessel at a later time; in the end no aircraft recovered the hunters.



2-8


2.4.1 Mission One – V-22 FWSAR Scenario

Figure 2-10. V-22 Scenario Arctic SAR Remote Water Rescue

2.4.2 Mission One – V-22 Scenario Discriminating Factors: Operational Cost & Aircraft Availability – Cost reduction by reducing aircraft and

crew requirements from five aircraft to two V-22 aircraft. Human Factor – Risk reduction to SAR Techs to either hoist or land at rescue site,

providing improved recovery and extraction of survivors. Response time – V-22 speed (230 – 310 Knots) and CC-130 Cruise Speed (300 knots)

are comparable. Recovery time - V-22 can reduce mission requirement by excluding CH-149 Cormorant

and additional supporting aircraft. Possibility to eliminate extra crew day and top cover aircraft reducing extraction time by at least 11 hours.

Carbon footprint – reduction of three fixed wing C-130 (4 engines), fuel and hydraulic consumption, hours of loiter time on station for fixed wing.

V-22 Osprey provides: Reduce aircraft from 5 to 2 requirement Reduce rescue / recovery time Reduce risk survivors

435 Sqn

One V-22 Est. 2274 km (1413 miles)

230 kts (Est. 5 hrs)

424 Sqn

One V-22 Est. 2254 km (1711 miles)


Ground or aerial refuel



2-9


2.5 Mission Two – Overview

Figure 2-11. Arctic SAR Mission Remote Water Location 960 km NW of Yellowknife, NT

Synopsis of a Canadian SAR mission on February 16, 2007 – Arctic SAR Mission for a rescue a stranded boater on ice flows in extreme weather conditions. (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17w-17e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=8760). This mission involved a long-range search and then later rescue which included a parachute jump by two SAR Techs in extreme weather conditions. One CC-130 from 17 Wing, 435 Squadron and one CC-138 from 17 Wing, 440 Squadron in Winnipeg were dispatched to support; and a CH-149 from 19 Wing, 442 Squadron in British Columbia for later extraction. The Two SAR Techs parachuted from the CC-130 at more than 900 meters at night in 45-50 kilometer winds and extreme wind-chill of -50 to -60 Celsius onto the arctic ice flow near Cape Parry about 960 kilometers northwest of Yellowknife. After landing on the ice flow, the SAR Tech’s and boater spent 18 hours in a tent on the arctic. The CH-149 and civilian helicopter coordinated the extraction of survivors and SAR Techs. A Park Ranger ground search party assisted the rescue by narrowing the search area. The Twin Otter from 440 Squadron in Yellowknife located the missing hunter and the Cormorant Helicopter from Comox flew for over 11 hours one way, to conduct the extraction.

442 Sqn One CH-149



435 Sqn One CC-130


300 kts (Est. 5.5 hrs)

440 Sqn One CC-138


181kts (Est. 3 hrs)

Multiple aircraft High risk parachute jump 18 Hours exposure to Arctic conditions 11 Hr flight by CH-149



2-10


2.5.1 Mission Two – V-22 FWSAR Scenario

Figure 2-12. Arctic SAR Mission Remote Water Rescue from Ice Flow

2.5.2 Mission Two – V-22 Scenario Discriminating Factors Operational Cost and Aircraft Availability – Cost reduction from three aircraft to one

V-22 aircraft. Human Factor – Risk reduction using V-22 to hoist or land SAR Techs to rescue site

lowers risk to SAR Tech from parachute insertion and extended time waiting for survivor extraction. Increased risk to victims and SAR Techs in extreme arctic missions.

Response time – Based on SAR cargo and weather conditions the V-22 speed (230 – 310 Knots) and CC-130 Cruise Speed (300 knots) are comparable.

o V-22 can reduce complexity & mission risk by excluding CH-149 Cormorant and civilian helicopter from the mission scenario and elimination of the 11 hr flight.

Recovery time – Dependant on weather conditions; o V-22 recovery would occur upon arrival to site instead of waiting 18 hours for a

risky 11 hour one leg helo flight

Carbon footprint - reduction of two fixed wing (4 & 2 engines), one rotary wing (2 engine) fuel and hydraulic consumption, hours of loiter time on station for fixed wings.

V-22 Osprey provides: Reduce rescue / recovery time Reduce aircraft requirement from 3 to 1 Reduce risk to SAR and survivor Eliminate 11 hour CH-149 flight

435 SqnOne V-22






2-11


2.6 Mission Three – Overview

Figure 2-13. V-22 Scenario SAR Mission Remote Water (Lake) Location

Synopsis of a Canadian SAR mission on July 28, 2009 – This mission involved a rescue two survivors with injuries from a water/land location after an aircraft crash. (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/19w-19e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=9055). A CC-115 from 442 Squadron assisted conducted a search for a plane crash with injured survivors, with an extraction at a later time by a CH-149. At 10 a.m. a Cormorant helicopter and a Buffalo aircraft flew to provide support and rescue of the survivors. The float plane had crashed on Azure Lake, approximately 185 kilometers north of Kamloops, BC. The SAR Technicians onboard the Buffalo were ready to parachute in the water once the aircraft would arrive on scene. After flying over the Lake once, the crew noticed that the two survivors had been brought on shore by friends of the survivors who were flying another float plane. The SAR Techs parachuted on the shore from 3,000 feet to attend to the patients; they assessed the patients and prepared them for the evacuation. The survivors suffered from multiple non life-threatening injuries. A civilian helicopter from Clearwater was called upon to transport one SAR Tech and the two patients while the Cormorant was on its way to the site. The SAR helicopter met with the group in Clearwater and evacuated the patients to Kamloops where Emergency Health Services personnel took them to a local hospital. The Cormorant then returned to Azure Lake to recover the two remaining SAR Techs and their equipment.

185 km North Kamloops, BC

Clearwater

444422 SSqqnn CCHH--114499 TTrraannssppoorrttss ttoo

EEmmeerrggeennccyy SSeerrvviicceess KKaammllooooppss,, BBCC

444422 SSqqnn CCHH--114499

DDiivveerrtteedd ttoo CClleeaarrwwaatteerr ttoo ppiicckkuupp ssuurrvviivvoorrss

EEsstt.. 443300 kkmm 115500 kknnoottss CCHH--114499 EEsstt.. 11 hhrr 4400 mmiinn

Est. 80 km(50 miles)

Civilian Helo


150 knots CH-149 (Est. 50 min)

Est. 314 km(195 miles)

150 knots CH-149 (Est. 1 hr 30 min)

442 Sqn One CH-149 One CC-115


CC-115 (Est. 1 hr 10

min)

Kamloops, BC

Parachute jump into remote location Civilian helicopter extraction of victims CH-149 diversion from crash site



2-12


2.6.1 Mission Three – V-22 FWSAR Scenario

Figure 2-14. V-22 Scenario SAR Mission Remote Water (Lake) Location

2.6.2 Mission Three – V-22 Scenario Discriminating Factors Operational Cost and Aircraft Availability – Cost reduction from three aircraft to one

V-22 aircraft. Human Factor – Risk reduction using V-22 to hoist or land SAR Techs to rescue site

rather than parachute insertion will improved victim’s extraction time risk to SAR Techs. Civil helicopter personnel risks.

Response time – V-22 speed 230 – 310 Knots o CC-115 Cruise Speed 224 knots (based on weight and conditions) o CH-149 Cormorant speed 150 knots and comparable civilian helicopter

Recovery time – Recovery time improves with V-22 and return flight medical services. o V-22 can reduce evacuation to medical services by 2 to 3 hrs to Kamloops, BC.

Carbon footprint - - reduction of one fixed wing (2 engines), two rotary wing (2 engine) fuel and hydraulic consumption, hours of loiter time on station for fixed wing.

185 km North Kamloops, BC

Clearwater

Est. 314 km(195 miles) 230 knots

(Est. 45 min)

442 Sqn One V-22


(Est. 1 hr 10 min)

Kamloops, BC

V-22 Osprey provides: Reduce rescue / recovery time Reduce aircraft requirement from 2 to 1 Reduce risk to SAR Techs and survivors Reduce response to emergency services


(Est. 30 min)



2-13


2.7 Mission Four – Overview

Figure 2-15. Dual Mission Water SAR and Remote Location Rescue

Synopsis of a Canadian SAR mission on July 15, 2008 – These missions involved a dual SAR response for one CC-130 from 14 Wing, 413 Squadron from Greenwood, Nova Scotia. (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/14w-14e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=6654). One CC-130 Hercules and CH-149 from 14 Wing, 413 Squadron responded to a fisher complaining of chest pains from a fishing vessel 30 nautical miles south of Sable Island in the morning. The CH-149 Cormorant helicopter lowered three SAR Techs to the vessel to extract the sick man and transport him to a hospital in Halifax. The CC-130 Hercules provided top cover for the Cormorant, but responded to the Second SAR Mission for an aircraft crash to also provide top cover duties. The second SAR mission involved additional assets of one CH-149 from 5 Wing, 444 Squadron Gander, Newfoundland and one CH-146 Griffin from 5 Wing Goose Bay. A Beaver float plane crashed also in the morning 70 nautical miles east of Schefferville, Quebec with seven people on board. Two of the passengers had critical injuries with the others receiving injuries that included broken bones. The re-tasked C-130 dropped three SAR Techs on site to help the victims of the crash. The CH-146 and CH-149 recovered all passengers were then transported to hospitals in Wabush and Goose Bay, Labrador for further medical treatment.

SAR #1 413 Sqn

One CC-130

342 km (Est. 212 Miles)

CC-130 300 kts

(Est. 45 min) One CH-149

CH-149 150 kts

(Est. 1 hr 30 min)

WWaabbuusshh

SSAARR ##22 444444 SSqqnn

OOnnee CCHH--114466

999944 kkmm ((EEsstt.. 661177 MMiilleess))

CCHH--114466 111155 kknnoottss

((EEsstt.. 55hhrrss 3300 mmiinn))

SSAARR ##22 55 WWiinngg

OOnnee CCHH--114499

115500 kkttss ((EEsstt.. 44 hhrrss))

SSAARR 22 7700 mmii EEaasstt

SScchheeffffeerrvviillllee,, LLaabbrraaddoorr

SAR #2 1381 km

(Est. 858 Miles) CC-130 300 kts

(Est. 2 hrs to 3 hrs)


CH-146 115 kts

(Est. 1 hr 30 min)

SSAARR ## 22 441133 SSqqnn

OOnnee CCCC--113300 SSuuppppoorrtt 22nndd

mmiissssiioonn

SSAARR ## 11 3300 mmiilleess

ssoouutthh SSaabbllee IIss..

Multiple aircraft response Dual mission by CC-130 Parachute jump into remote location



2-14


2.7.1 Mission Four – V-22 FWSAR Scenario

Figure 2-16. V-22 Scenario One Aircraft Both Missions

2.7.2 Mission Four Discriminating Factors Operational Costs and Aircraft Availability – Cost reduction from four aircraft

(CC-130 /CH-146, 2 ea./CH-149) to one V-22. Allow other aircraft & personnel to support alternate missions/training.

Human Factor – Risk reduction using V-22 to hoist SAR Techs or land at rescue site instead of parachute jump reducing risk to personnel, faster extraction time will save lives.

Recovery time – Based on cargo and weather conditions the V-22 speed (230 – 310 Knots) and CC-130 Cruise Speed (300 knots) have comparable response times.

o CH-149 Cormorant & CH-146 Griffon (est.150 knots) to site. o V-22 can reduce evacuation by approximately 3 hrs and 30 min.

Carbon footprint - reduction of one fixed wing (4 engines), three rotary wing (2 engine) fuel and hydraulic consumption, hours of loiter time on station for fixed wing.


230 kts (Est. 45 min)

V-22 Osprey provides: Reduce aircraft requirement from 4 to 1 Reduce rescue / recovery time to emergency services Reduce risk to SAR Techs and survivors

SAR #2 281 km

(Est. 175 Miles) 230 kts

(Est. 30 min)

SAR #1 435 Sqn One V-22

1287 km

(Est. 800 Miles) 230 kts

(Est. 3 hrs)


Canadian fwsar development concept

Health & Medicine