• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

What can replace the Twin Otter?

Kirkhill

Fair Scunnert WASP.
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,307
Points
1,160
I see the budget has plans to finally replace the Twin Otters that fly out of Yellowknife.

That demands a question that has interested me for a while now.  What is there out there that can replace the Twin Otter?  I have flown on Otters electric and twin, Widgeons and Geese, Beavers and various Cessna and Pipers up in Alaska and along the West Coast.  Is there anything out there amongst the modern aircraft that is as good as the Twin Otter?
 
I haven't heard of anything near as capable as the De Havland  family of aircraft, except some Russian ones. If we were smart we would buy new ones. Lets face it bush plane production is limited, With Canada being one of the old leaders in it's start up. I think that the Twin Otter and the Buffalo should both be replaced with new ones of that type. give a contract to a Company and say this is what we went done to the inside and these are the upgraded specs we want, Lets face it those two planes are excellent in their present operating areas. They could both use a little tweaking as any equipment can as new things come up. The basic handling characteristics i think show their worth in the type of ops they are used for. But it is a great question as to what else could do these jobs to an equal or better level.
 
Technically... nothing can replace the twin otter.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no other plane that can stand the Arctic cold.  Afterall it is the only plane to go in the antarctic during their winter time.
Having said that... the leadership wants to buy a Spanish or Italian bird.  Just go in the SAR replacement forum...
 
big bad john said:
Cessna Caravan?
Only one engine... You want at least two up north.  I would pick the Canadian built CL-415MP.  THey are looking at the C-27J or the C-295
 
404SqnAVSTeach said:
Only one engine... You want at least two up north.    I would pick the Canadian built CL-415MP.   THey are looking at the C-27J or the C-295

I rode in a Caravan a few times - also held on the ground due to weather many times.  Preferred flying 1942 vintage Grumman Goose - more reliable service.

404:

How do the old CC130 E/Hs do up north in the winter?  I know that the J's have different engines and avionics but their is a degree of airframe compatibility I believe.  The reason I ask is that if they are thinking of adding 4 more A/C to the FWSAR order then is there any way we can extrapolate from the CC130 E/H to the C27J - which has a high degree of commonality with the C130J.


Having said that I do like CTD's idea about getting more Buffalos and Otters built except for the costs of construction and operation.  I would expect them to be pretty exorbitant - especially after some bright spark decided to "update" the design.
 
The aircraft would require significant redesign in order to put them back into production and to recieve certification. Things like moving and upgrading fuel systems. We could however restore all of our airframes to like new for far less. Good enough for the owner of Oakley who has two Smells new Beavers that I have pushed around a hangar.

Viking now has all of the tooling required.

Nothing has ever replaced the Beaver or Otters as they are still flying. New aircraft cost so much it makes sense to keep the older ones flying. This makes it very hard to sell specialized multi million dollar aircraft let alone design and put a new one into production.
 
What is there out there that can replace the Twin Otter? 

The Twin Otter replacement will be combined with the FWSAR program to produce a "light-weight" (lighter than a Herc anyway) tactical air lifter that can perform SAR, support to CFNA and be deployed to support Canadian troops abroad.
 
Air4ce said:
What is there out there that can replace the Twin Otter?  

The Twin Otter replacement will be combined with the FWSAR program to produce a "light-weight" (lighter than a Herc anyway) tactical air lifter that can perform SAR, support to CFNA and be deployed to support Canadian troops abroad.

I didn't know the FWSAR bird would be deployed over seas. Some of the pilots on this board have stated the bird will be yellow only. Cheers. Presumably, the numbers will be modified as well, if the machine is going to be deployed?
 
whiskey 601 said:
I didn't know the FWSAR bird would be deployed over seas. Some of the pilots on this board have stated the bird will be yellow only. Cheers. Presumably, the numbers will be modified as well, if the machine is going to be deployed?

I too was under the impression that the FWSAR replacement would be in the same situation as the Cormorants, which is that they'll be for domestic use only.

As for resurrecting the Twin Otter production lines to produce half a dozen aircraft, it's not financially realistic to do that. It would cost far more money than it'd be worth unless you could find buyers for additional aircraft. Otherwise, I say stop these ridiculous procurement plans that cost millions more than they should and instead, buy something that's already in production.
 
Air4ce said:
The Twin Otter replacement will be combined with the FWSAR program to produce a "light-weight" (lighter than a Herc anyway) tactical air lifter that can perform SAR, support to CFNA and be deployed to support Canadian troops abroad.

Pretty bold statement... Care to back it up?  FWSAR squadrons do not presently have any international role - "little T big R" is the gambit for all of our SAR squadrons.  The only support that I could invision FWSAR for the north would be fuel resupply for CFS Alert and other northern stations (ie Op Hurricane).

The only tactical air lifter that the CF has is the CC-130 - FWSAR will not complement nor replace that role.

 
Zoomie said:
Pretty bold statement... Care to back it up? FWSAR squadrons do not presently have any international role - "little T big R" is the gambit for all of our SAR squadrons. The only support that I could invision FWSAR for the north would be fuel resupply for CFS Alert and other northern stations (ie Op Hurricane).

The only tactical air lifter that the CF has is the CC-130 - FWSAR will not complement nor replace that role.

You've got to stop living in the past (or in the present) Zoomie.  If you listen to what Gen Hillier is telling us, there will be a whole new way of doing business in the CF. 

The plan is to have two task forces concurrently deployed around around the world.  These task forces will/could be supported by a six pack of CF-18, a couple of Auroras, some medium lift helicopters and tactical airlifters.  It was suggested by a senior officer visiting Cold Lake last week that these tactical airlifters did not have to be C-130s.  One can extrapolate from this suggestion that there will be an expanded role for the FWSAR/Twin Otter replacement aircraft.  Maybe 440 Sqn will be given more aircraft and more roles?  However it could also mean we are not replacing the Herc with more Hercs.
 
Good Gen - the brass haven't made it out to QQ yet - I await their arrival.

It will be interesting to see what other tactical lifter they might be referring to.   A SAR squadron can carry out strat-lift, but the training requirements for maintaing a skill-set in SAR and TAL would be unimaginable.   It might make my career prospects a little more broad though - exciting times ahead.
 
Air4ce said:
You've got to stop living in the past (or in the present) Zoomie.   If you listen to what Gen Hillier is telling us, there will be a whole new way of doing business in the CF.  

The plan is to have two task forces concurrently deployed around around the world.   These task forces will/could be supported by a six pack of CF-18, a couple of Auroras, some medium lift helicopters and tactical airlifters.   It was suggested by a senior officer visiting Cold Lake last week that these tactical airlifters did not have to be C-130s.   One can extrapolate from this suggestion that there will be an expanded role for the FWSAR/Twin Otter replacement aircraft.   Maybe 440 Sqn will be given more aircraft and more roles?   However it could also mean we are not replacing the Herc with more Hercs.

Air4ce, did you get a briefing from anyone out West...MGen Bouchard, anyone else?...Guys were telling us that he spoke to the folks in WPG and mentioned some intersting ideas?  Not sure if that fits exactly with what Gen Hillier has been talking about regarding 3D / Team Canada, but there were some interesting things coming out of Winnipeg...

 
Reviving this necro-thread rather than starting a new one.

Canada originally purchased nine CC-138 Twin Otters in 1971 and four remain in service with 440 Transport Squadron in Yellowknife.

In 2017's Strong, Secure, Engaged the Liberals committed to replacing the Twin Otters but then announced that they would instead undergo life extension (completed between 2018 and 2020) which would extend their service life until at least 2025.

According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen by author that we do not quote on this site the previously planned replacement of the Twin Otters after 2025 has now been put on hold while the government conducts an evaluation of what would be required to further extend their service life instead.

This is a head scratcher for me. A fairly small project in the grand scheme of defence spending (apparently with a cost estimate of between $250 and $499 million) with a Canadian vendor for the most likely replacement aircraft (i.e. new Twin Otters). With all the renewed interest in Arctic sovereignty, Global Warming and improving the lot of Indigenous Canadians you'd think this would be an easy sell and a much desired capability (although in my opinion the fleet should definitely be increased, especially with the development of Nanisivik and the upcoming NORAD upgrades).
 
Can't answer the "why?" question (but there's tons of content all over the boards re: political and procurement issues galore), but as to "replace it with what?", anyone know how much more/less capable these version 2.0 ones are compared to v1.0?
Or do we need "more plane" to do more stuff now than this can do?
 
Can't answer the "why?" question (but there's tons of content all over the boards re: political and procurement issues galore), but as to "replace it with what?", anyone know how much more/less capable these version 2.0 ones are compared to v1.0?
Or do we need "more plane" to do more stuff now than this can do?

The DHC3, single turbine, I guess:

DHC-3 Otter​

Using the DHC-2 Beaver as a basis, the DHC-3 Otter was designed to be a larger and more powerful STOL aircraft. The finished aircraft is a single-engined (Pratt & Whitney R-1340), high-wing, short take-off and landing aircraft which seats 10 or 11 passengers, making it one of the most popular bush aircrafts of its time.

Viking owns the Type Certificate for the DHC-3 Otter and provides parts and support services to the fleet worldwide. If you would like more information on Viking's support for this aircraft, please visit our Customer Support page for details.

 
My thoughts as a crayon eater.

Maybe upgrades? Eg avionics upgrades, nav etc.

Like I said - crayons
 
Different orgs manage upgrades vs acquisition. Different budgets as well.

It may be staff capacity to execute an acquisition of new a/c isn't there - MRTT, FFCP, CMMA will all be higher priority, so leave the LCMM to keep the current fleet operating instead.
 
Back
Top