# The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter



## Infanteer (4 May 2019)

Couldn't find a thread on the Twin Otter.  Interesting piece at War on the Rocks about the Twin Otter.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/uplifted-the-case-for-small-tactical-airlift/



> One of the assumptions that underpins the need for distributed operations is the expectation that our airfields will come under effective attack. There’s no sense putting all of our eggs in one basket, and aircraft destroyed on the ground are aircraft destroyed. It’s difficult to destroy a runway, but precision munitions can damage one. The fact that airfields are solidly made helps – runways are not destroyed but rather cut into segments too small to utilize. But “too small to utilize” is entirely aircraft-dependent. Three hits can cut an 8,000 foot runway into 2,000 foot segments, all too short to launch a loaded C-130. The same runway has to be hit seven times to cut it into 1,000 foot strips too short for a Twin Otter, and even then a Twin Otter could still operate off the taxiways, or nearby roadways, or the turf next to the runway.





> Air transport is only as viable as the aircraft that fly the routes and the airfields that make up the network. Europe has the airfields to sustain a robust air effort, right up to the point where Russian missiles start hitting them. After that point, the kind of aircraft we have matter a lot more if they can fly into short, damaged, or makeshift airfields. The Russians simply cannot deliver the weight of precision ordnance necessary to prevent Twin Otter operations across the theater – there aren’t that many missiles in their inventory. Given the huge cost disparity between the C-130 and the Twin Otter, it would seem that a relatively paltry investment in new small airlift aircraft could pay big dividends. It also offsets requirements for redundant personnel and equipment by reducing what we have to send forward in the initial dispersal by providing a more dynamic re-supply capability that can adjust for local conditions and operational requirements. Just having this kind of aircraft in the inventory will greatly complicate the targeting picture for Russian forces and add to the weight of NATO’s deterrent.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 May 2019)

I personally know alot of Viking Air folks. I am sure that they would be only too happy to take an order for 50-100 Twin Otters from the Pentagon...


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 May 2019)

Is the tilt rotor Osprey too small?


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 May 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I personally know alot of Viking Air folks. I am sure that they would be only too happy to take an order for 50-100 Twin Otters from the Pentagon...


Have they got a militarized version available right now to demonstrate, or is Canadian air force flying them. I was thinking a modern, more ruggedized version of the Caribou might be an idea.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2019)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2053rank.html

OTOH:

The US had 13,513 airfields in 2013 per the CIA.
Mexico had 1,714
Canada had 1,467

Given that the UK had 460
France had 464
And Germany had 539
It is not unreasonable to suggest that the EU has a density comparable to the US

The means an awful lot of runways to chop up - not to mention the taxiways and highways that are dual-purposed in a number of countries.

I don't particularly see the lack of airfields as a determining factor in the developed world.

OTOH 

Russia only has 1218 airfields
China has 507

While this limits the ability of the locals to move around (a security advantage) and the number of gateways to be exploited or forced (another security advantage) it also reduces the number or sally-ports (a strategic disadvantage).

But RCAF TWOTTERs are unlikely to be sliding into Siberia any time soon.

OTOH (I try to be even-handed)

Chad has 59 airfields
Niger has 30
Mali has 25

Those are places where VSTOL utility aircraft like the TWOTTER (and the Buffalo and the Caribou) come into their own.

And places where the US Army decided it wanted something like the C27 to replace its Sherpas.

The Aussies likewise wanted the C27 to replace its Caribous.
https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/aircraft/air-mobility/c-27j-spartan


----------



## Kirkhill (4 May 2019)

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/08/a-different-beast-the-raafs-c-27j-spartan/

An article on how the the Aussies are building the C27 into their fleet as they explore its capabilities - walk (permissive environment), crawl (non-permissive), run (special ops).

Also interesting commentary on Command and Control and Utilization



> “If we employ this the same way as a C-130 or a C-17, we’d be doing it a disservice. This aircraft is more for intra-lift on the battlefield and our focus is in air-land integration closely aligned to the employment of the Chinook in a capability sense.”
> 
> WGCDR Poxon explained that *C-130J or C-17 missions will typically sit on an air tasking order (ATO) generated by an air operations centre (AOC) that runs on a 72-hour cycle.* This represents centralised command and decentralised execution.
> 
> ...



Interesting to me, also, is how the aircraft has been purchased and then its utilization is being fleshed-out after the fact.  That suggests, to this on-looker, that the original SOR was probably rather loosely defined.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 May 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> . . .  a modern, more ruggedized version of the Caribou might be an idea.



De Havilland Canada had the same idea.  It was called the "Buffalo".


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 May 2019)

> > ...In March 1963, the US Army awarded de Havilland a contract for four aircraft (CV-7A), each capable of lifting a payload of 12,000 lbs. Development proceeded quickly and the first DHC-5 flew from Downsview in December 1964. By September 1965, the four Buffaloes had been delivered to the US Army, but were the only ones supplied because of a policy change within the US military."..
> > https://www.warplane.com/aircraft/collection/details.aspx?aircraftId=12
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 May 2019)

Viking also has the rights to build Buffalos again, if they get a customer.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 May 2019)

What about the Turbo Beaver?!?



> https://www.vikingair.com/viking-aircraft/dhc-2t-turbo-beaver



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum (4 May 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting to me, also, is how the aircraft has been purchased and then its utilization is being fleshed-out after the fact.  That suggests, to this on-looker, that the original SOR was probably rather loosely defined.



Having had some experience with how they work, that unusual for them.  Their procurement process has been described once by someone in it as "bull in a china shop".


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 May 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> De Havilland Canada had the same idea.  It was called the "Buffalo".


Sheesh, I forgot about those.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 May 2019)

So did the US Army after being the prime motivator for the Buffalo--damn the overweening USAF and its attitude to fixed-wing aircraft!


> ...Development was funded by a collaboration of the US Army and the Canadian government, with DHC also contributing funding.
> 
> Four evaluation machines were ordered by the US Army, with the first taking to the air on 9 April 1964...US Army evaluated the Buffalo in Vietnam, but there were no further US orders. The Buffalos were passed on the Air Force in 1967 along with the Caribous, with the Air Force designating the Caribous "C-8A". They were used mostly in test and trials by other US government agencies -- see below. Apparently political pressure to "buy American" and USAF disinterest in the type played roles in not following up the initial evaluation buy...
> http://www.airvectors.net/avdhc4.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (5 May 2019)

Now that y’all mention this it does make sense to have a smaller tactical fixed wing aircraft. I’ve read about some of the exploits of aviators who flew this type of aircraft in Vietnam.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 May 2019)

Well the USAF and USMC did bring back the OV-10 Bronco to support SoF in Iraq and Syria. Apparently it preformed well at CAS given we had air superiority


----------



## Loachman (6 May 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Now that y’all mention this it does make sense to have a smaller tactical fixed wing aircraft. I’ve read about some of the exploits of aviators who flew this type of aircraft in Vietnam.



When one has half of a million troops in theatre - in their peak year, 1968, the US had 536100 pers in Vietnam - yes.

When one cannot even put a full brigade into a theatre, and there is only one airfield in one's smallish area of operations, not so much.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2019)

Viking should work on a "Monkey model of the twin and Single Otter to sell to 3rd world countries and militaries, focusing on their STOL capabilities.


----------



## GK .Dundas (9 May 2019)

As I recall reading somewhere the Caribou actually started out as  monkey model for the Canadian Army who wanted a very basic cargo aircraft (think deuce and a half with wings). It as to carry roughly 4-4500lbs.have very,very simple controls and be flown by a corporal.
Then the RCAF came into the picture and became rather offended about the concept.
I'm not sure if was the idea that Army wanted it's own cargo aircraft or the fact the A/C would be.flown and even worse commanded by a mere corporal.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 May 2019)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well the USAF and USMC did bring back the OV-10 Bronco to support SoF in Iraq and Syria. Apparently it preformed well at CAS given we had air superiority



There is a video out on the net of some weirdness with the cargo space on that plane. Dudes with parachutes assuming a sex position and then sliding out of the rear... Army.ca SAR techs probably know the deets.


----------



## Zoomie (9 May 2019)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Then the RCAF came into the picture and became rather offended about the concept.
> I'm not sure if was the idea that Army wanted it's own cargo aircraft or the fact the A/C would be.flown and even worse commanded by a mere corporal.


Probably because they realized it was an inherently unsafe idea and in the end saved countless lives with the whole professional aviator concept.  

Buffalo has basic flight controls and is an easy to fly dump-truck - it’s the decision making that goes into operating that machine tactically that requires a CGO at the helm.


----------



## YZT580 (9 May 2019)

should at least be sergeants.


----------



## GK .Dundas (9 May 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> There is a video out on the net of some weirdness with the cargo space on that plane. Dudes with parachutes assuming a sex position and then sliding out of the rear... Army.ca SAR techs probably know the deets.
> [S/quote] Some year ago I got to talk to a retired marine aviator who flew OV10's and he said you could do pinpoint airdrops were incredibly simple. You opened the rear door and simply raised the nose slightly and it all just slid out.
> He raved about it really loved it.


----------



## Loachman (10 May 2019)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> As I recall reading somewhere the Caribou actually started out as  monkey model for the Canadian Army who wanted a very basic cargo aircraft (think deuce and a half with wings). It as to carry roughly 4-4500lbs.have very,very simple controls and be flown by a corporal.
> Then the RCAF came into the picture and became rather offended about the concept.
> I'm not sure if was the idea that Army wanted it's own cargo aircraft or the fact the A/C would be.flown and even worse commanded by a mere corporal.



Rank is really irrelevant. Training is critical.

The Buffalo was bought as small short-range transport and was initially operated by Mobile Command (as was the CF5). Mobile Command was the Army with its own seized-wing transport and close air support plus Tac Hel. I can't remember when the Buffs were stripped out, but the CF5s were moved into the newly-formed Fighter Group around 1981 or early 1982.


----------



## GK .Dundas (10 May 2019)

Trying to remember some of basic payloads of the buffalo.something on the order of an M37 CAN PATTERN and a C 1 howitzer or a couple of jeeps.
Anybody ?


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 May 2019)

We used the Shorts Skyvan in Oman (that even rhymes!).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_SC.7_Skyvan

Excellent small cargo plane, that could land on the desert floor if required, and we even parachuted from them a few times.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 May 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Rank is really irrelevant. Training is critical.
> 
> The Buffalo was bought as small short-range transport and was initially operated by Mobile Command (as was the CF5). Mobile Command was the Army with its own seized-wing transport and close air support plus Tac Hel. I can't remember when the Buffs were stripped out, but the CF5s were moved into the newly-formed Fighter Group around 1981 or early 1982.



Rank, when related to pay, is very important if you want to attract quality candidates for those positions and, more importantly, retain them.  If I was paid as a Cpl, I would have much more lucrative employment elsewhere.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 May 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Rank, when related to pay, is very important if you want to attract quality candidates for those positions and, more importantly, retain them.  If I was paid as a Cpl, I would have much more lucrative employment elsewhere.



And that is an excellent point. It's hard enough to keep (very expensive to train and retain) pilots as it is.

If we're focused on shipping cargo - and not troops - it would be interesting to see the application for AI enabled airframes in this realm. If we have people flying armed/recce drones over Asia from North America, it's not a big leap to imagine that they could also be delivering CSupps to BGps.


----------



## Journeyman (10 May 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If I was paid as a Cpl, I would have much more lucrative employment elsewhere.


I suspect that DND and Treasury could work together in announcing a new CAF rank, _Flight_  Cpl/Sgt/'Aviatrix'/whatever, and insert one or two lines in the CAF pay scale of the suitably commensurate pay and benefits.... with their own special, retention-enhancing badge, of course.


Mind you, that ignores the "reality" that only a commissioned officer could possibly possess the decision making abilities to properly fly an aircraft.   :not-again:


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2019)

The front cabin of a Porter Dash-8 makes less (combined) than a senior Captain pilot in the RCAF.  Certain pilots types are expensive to train with rare skillsets; others are not.  Compensation needs to reflect that.

Much as it pains me to say so, it's fighter pilots who are the hardest to train and can't be brought in off the street, and therefore the ones who should be the focus of any pilot retention efforts.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 May 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The front cabin of a Porter Dash-8 makes less (combined) than a senior Captain pilot in the RCAF.  Certain pilots types are expensive to train with rare skillsets; others are not.  Compensation needs to reflect that.
> 
> Much as it pains me to say so, it's fighter pilots who are the hardest to train and can't be brought in off the street, and therefore the ones who should be the focus of any pilot retention efforts.



That nicely explains some of the adventures I've had after leaving the side door, or ramp, of a C-130


----------



## Kirkhill (10 May 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And that is an excellent point. It's hard enough to keep (very expensive to train and retain) pilots as it is.
> 
> If we're focused on shipping cargo - and not troops - it would be interesting to see the application for AI enabled airframes in this realm. If we have people flying armed/recce drones over Asia from North America, it's not a big leap to imagine that they could also be delivering CSupps to BGps.



Still not a big fan of relying on electrons, me.

The Germans at Arnhem were appreciative of the RAF/USAAF efforts to resupply the Paras.  Hackers everywhere would have a field day.  Not to mention the opportunities just to swamp the spectrum with noise, or spoof the GPS systems --- and all the while suffering from the impact of bandwidth limiting the number of objects in communication.

I like electrons, like a minefield, they are kept under observation and covered by fire - or in this case, a kill switch.


----------



## GK .Dundas (10 May 2019)

Ouch ! I can just see a drone resupply op being hacked and suddenly being retasked as a strike against one of your better defended but under attack positions. 
Several hundred kilos of lung in a bag might not be so that scary but then there's the 350 odd mortar rounds and what not in the rest of the load.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 May 2019)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Ouch ! I can just see a drone resupply op being hacked and suddenly being retasked as a strike against one of your better defended but under attack positions.
> Several hundred kilos of lung in a bag might not be so that scary but then there's the 350 odd mortar rounds and what not in the rest of the load.



I'm pretty sure that Amazon, or someone like that, would happily contract to deliver our autonomous vehicle enabled logistics supply chain needs, which would represent an infinitesimally small proportion of their global commercial traffic volume


----------



## Kirkhill (10 May 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that Amazon, or someone like that, would happily contract to deliver our autonomous vehicle enabled logistics supply chain needs, which would represent an infinitesimally small proportion of their global commercial traffic volume



I can see Amazon taking on a resupply responsibility for a Canadian CoIn/Peace-Support type operation on a trial basis.  We would likely pay them handsomely for the privilege of helping them how to figure out the UAV dream they have yet to realize.

Do we really see them being able to deliver the volume necessary to support a major war effort?  

I still get my Amazon delivered by a man in a white van to neighbouring streets on occasion.


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2019)

How large of an aircraft are we really looking for? If a Twin Otter is the "max", it might be worth looking to next generation tilt rotors like the V-280. It answers many of the questions raised (even the cut runway isn't an issue if you take off and land vertically), and the in flight performance is similar to many aircraft. 

This also raises the possibility of a much larger buy and economies of scale, especially if other users are interested (Coast Guard, CBSA), and we also use them to replace both tactical and shipboard helicopters as well.

General characteristics
Crew: 4
Capacity: 14 troops
Length: 50.5 ft (15.4 m)
Width: 81.79 ft (24.93 m)
Height: 23 ft 0 in (7 m)
Empty weight: 33,069 lb (15,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 57,320 lb (26,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric T64 turboshaft
Propellers: 35 ft (11 m) diameter

Performance
Cruise speed: 322 mph; 519 km/h (280 kn)
Combat range: 575–921 mi; 926–1,482 km (500–800 nmi)
Ferry range: 2,417 mi; 3,889 km (2,100 nmi)
Service ceiling: 6,000 ft (1,800 m) ; in hover out of ground effect at 95 °F (35 °C)
Disk loading: 16[51] lb/sq ft (78 kg/m2)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 May 2019)

The premise seems a little wonky. If Russians are denying airfields with strikes, are we really going to be flying Twin Otters in that area? What would we be carrying in them? We are not going to use Hercs to move supplies up close to the FEBA, and even Hercs can only carry so much. We will use aviation (helicopters). A real conventional conflict is going to rely on trucks, rail and pipelines. In any case, the Argentinians repaired the runway at Stanley quite quickly to enable Hercs. The airfields to worry about from a logistical perspective the ones used by strategic lift. I don't think that Twin Otters are how we enact the TransAtlantic Bond.  

I get Twin Otters for austere theatres without a real conventional threat. I don't think that a swarm of Twin Otters is going to deter the Russians.


----------



## YZT580 (11 May 2019)

A DHC6 is too small to employ for strategic airlift and it has too short a range.  Helicopters and VTOL suffer from the same limitations unless talking Labrador or larger and there again you are looking at range limitations.  When we used to deploy Caribou with the UN we had our bases in Europe to stage from.  Now all aircraft have to come from Canada.  Very impractical.  Better to buy an upgraded Buffalo or new build Embraer so you can stage from Canada and carry your supplies during the staging.


----------



## GK .Dundas (12 May 2019)

I honestly believe that a next gen buffalo wou!e be incredibly useful.
That actually is the rationale for a small tactical airlifter. Your C 17 and Airbuses land at your main operating base (MOB) and C130s transport supplies to the forward operating basese and the Small tactical airlifter to outposts.
Now.the only reason I'm suggesting it for arctic defence is that there are very few places where you can land a C130 much less C 17 .


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2019)

The fact that we are flying 40 year old Twin Otters instead of supporting a aviation company making new ones is telling. I suspect the number of maintenance hours per flight would drop significantly as well, meaning less stress on the maintainers.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 May 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The fact that we are flying 40 year old Twin Otters instead of supporting a aviation company making new ones is telling. I suspect the number of maintenance hours per flight would drop significantly as well, meaning less stress on the maintainers.



Too bad Viking Air is based on Vancouver Island. If it was in Quebec....


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 May 2019)

Post of mine from 2015:



> Why Not Just Buy New-Build Viking Air Twotters for RCAF?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And worse for Viking Air with Liberals (though why wouldn't Conservatives buy them?) the new-build Twotters are made in, gasp, Calgary:



> ...2010 introduction of the Viking Air DHC-6 Series-400 Twin Otter, a modern version of the proven workhorse, built in the company’s Calgary assembly plant...
> https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/local-flight-training-company-set-to-become-world-training-hub-for-historic-calgary-built-aircraft



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2019)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS0-5WVIHMM

Just a reminder of what a Twin Otter can do - limits the need for a helicopter

1 to 2 tonne payload with up to 20 passengers and up to 700 km range (185 km at 1842 kg, 741 km at 1375 kg, 1435 km at 0 kg, 1815 km with extra fuel tankage)

https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-information/technical-description

Something between a Griffon and a Cormorant for lift and range.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 May 2019)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Post of mine from 2015:
> 
> And worse for Viking Air with Liberals (though why wouldn't Conservatives buy them?) the new-build Twotters are made in, gasp, Calgary:
> 
> ...



I flew the single engine turbines Otters a couple of times last week, to and from VAncouver, with Harbour Air. An awesome aircraft.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2019)

This article talks mostly about Warrant Officer Pilots, but does bring up the Twin Otter in that context.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/unwarranted-reconsidering-the-air-force-warrant-officer/?fbclid=IwAR2A8pyAM1GWC9N6V7qIfVDi63dBPYDATc0iTXfGgaYXvm-_G0TluGyb8P4


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 May 2019)

How about the Skytruck ? 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c-145a-skytruck-light-twin-engine-aircraft/ 

The C-145A Skytruck is a light cargo and troop transport aircraft designed and manufactured for the US Air Force (USAF). The aircraft is primarily used to assist Aviation Foreign Internal Defence (AvFID) missions of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC).
The C-145As were deployed to support theatre special operations commands in Afghanistan and eastern Africa. The Air Force Special Operations Warfare Center operates up to ten C-145A Skytrucks and is expected to deploy an additional six by 2015.


----------



## Loachman (22 May 2019)

I have yet to see us in a theatre where such a beast would be useful.

That includes 4 CMBG in Germany and TFK in Afghanistan.

Brigade-sized areas are too small, and seldom contain more than one suitably-sized airfield (if even one).

Moving a reasonable-sized load internally in a small seized-wing aircraft is inefficient and impractical, either short-range or long-range.

This is much easier done as slung loads carried by large helicopters.

Especially when there are no airfields.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 May 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I have yet to see us in a theatre where such a beast would be useful.
> 
> That includes 4 CMBG in Germany and TFK in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Or C-130 LAPES.... which we don't do anymore, of course.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2019)

Mali strikes me as a theatre where they would definitely play a part. You can build the runway into the road or in a flat area which there is a lot of. It's a big effing country and resupply by a smaller fixed wing will be cheaper in the long run. One option would be to contract out the requirement to a company with suitable small aircraft. We don't have that many helicopters and you will quickly pile up the hours on them resupplying bases in that country. Yes you may have to build airfields, but that is also good for the longterm health of the country. Allowing civilian air travel to expand eventually.


----------



## Loachman (22 May 2019)

If one builds a runway, one then has to defend it constantly. IEDs can take out aircraft as well as vehicles. Insurgents with small arms and RPGs can hide in jungle or scrub.

How many people - with associated equipment and vehicles - would be needed to defend an airfield in uncontrolled territory, and how many airfields should be buiilt?

We are not re-supplying anything. Our primary task is medevac.

Regardless, a Chinook will lift more (and more efficiently), has more flexibility, and is not tied to airfields.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 May 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Mali strikes me as a theatre where they would definitely play a part. You can build the runway into the road or in a flat area which there is a lot of. It's a big effing country and resupply by a smaller fixed wing will be cheaper in the long run. One option would be to contract out the requirement to a company with suitable small aircraft. We don't have that many helicopters and you will quickly pile up the hours on them resupplying bases in that country. Yes you may have to build airfields, but that is also good for the longterm health of the country. Allowing civilian air travel to expand eventually.



Maybe so, but if Mali wants to improve their internal transportation infrastructure let them buy and operate the aircraft and build whatever airfields are necessary.  It is very easy to say this or that aircraft type could be used to good effect in that mission but remember that Canada is only providing a limited aviation capability and did not agree to provide anything more than what we already have in theatre.  We are only a very small player in the UN operation.  It might be a different story if we were independently conducting large scale combat (peace support?) operations in that country and had a requirement to move our own elements about a widely dispersed battle space, but we aren't.  Just like every other nation involved in that UN operation, Canada is providing what it said it would provide, though many may disagree with the limited Canadian participation.  What do you do with such aircraft after Canada's participation in the mission is over, if they could even be procured, crews trained and doctrine written in the time available before repat?

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/military-operations/current-operations/op-presence.html


> The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is supporting the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). This is part of the Government of Canada’s overall efforts to help set conditions for durable peace, development, and prosperity in Mali.
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/military-operations/current-operations/op-presence.html
> Operation PRESENCE - Mali will be twelve months long. Follow the timeline of the mission here. The core mission is to provide MINUSMA with the 24/7 capability to medically evacuate UN forces by air. CAF members are also supporting MINUSMA headquarters. When possible, the CAF provides other services:
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2019)

Maybe support Northern operations in our North?

I suspect we will be asked back into Mali and if we have a different government, they might agree to a much more broader scope. We don't have as many Chinooks as we would like and helicopters are maintenance heavy compared to fix wing. I see them as complimentary to each other.

As for airfields

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arTG-TE8uio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Cfq_3N6BI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoJJlImOYQY


----------



## Journeyman (22 May 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect we will be asked back into Mali and if we have a different government, they might agree to a much more broader scope  will _hopefully_  say "lame attempt at garnering points for a UN seat;  not interested, thanks."


  :2c:


----------



## dapaterson (22 May 2019)

Twin Otter: $7M.  Chinook $35M. 

Depending on what you're doing (like northern Canada) five for the price of one has no small appeal.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Twin Otter: $7M.  Chinook $35M.
> 
> Depending on what you're doing (like northern Canada) five for the price of one has no small appeal.



Both are a proven commodity.  In this old infantry dude’s brain  - and guys like G2G can weigh in - I reckon it would depend on a number of factors where you’d use a Twin Otter or a Chinook.


----------



## YZT580 (22 May 2019)

Rather than buy otters, why not just send the buffalos in to Viking and have them zero time the airframe and update the cockpit.  Probably cost you the same per aircraft as buying new DHC6s and you would end up with a more useful aircraft and one that could theoretically be deployed.  And we have qualified crews for them too.  The only drawback is we don't have a job description for them and we really could use a new interceptor or two rather than a new fleet of delivery vans.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 May 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Both are a proven commodity.  In this old infantry dude’s brain  - and guys like G2G can weigh in - I reckon it would depend on a number of factors where you’d use a Twin Otter or a Chinook.



Hook flies faster, farther, carrying more and doesn’t need runways.  Can a Twin Otter fast rope a platoon of troops onto a vessel in the Arctic archipelago?  Can the Twin Otter operate in non-cooperative environments without physical and electronic protective measures. The Govt invested in Chinook for a reason.  Their acquisition was a sunk cost so irrelevant now in the discussion.  The only thing cheaper than a military Twin Otter is a civilian Twin Otter operated by inexpensive pilots that aren’t a tax on the remainder of the RCAF manning system and only serve when you actually need it.

Energy is better spent on making what we have work more effectively, and not just the Air Force, but Army and Navy as well.  I don’t see folks suggesting we get a whole lot of M113s or flotilla of riverine craft to spew around our coast lines...

While we’re at it, why don’t we replace computers with typewriters for our administrative personnel...they’d get more done with a greater number of cheaper devices. 

This is a low-yield thread.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 May 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> While we’re at it, why don’t we replace computers with typewriters for our administrative personnel...they’d get more done with a greater number of cheaper devices.



Um... er.... uh... don't look now but...


Like vinyl and turntables, vintage typewriters are making a comeback with millennials

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/107353010/like-vinyl-and-turntables-vintage-typewriters-are-making-a-comeback-with-millennials

 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2019)

It's not a terrible idea, but the RCAF has spent a lot of time saying those planes are to old and we need new ones, then turning around and getting them upgraded is going to make people look bad, can't have that. No doubt a number of them will continue to fly for a long time yet. Same with the Sea kings, I bet a couple will be up the coast, slinging logs.

A fleet of Helo's and Otters could be something we offer to any UN mission and likely appreciated. Wiki says the 400 Twin Otter can haul 3,000lbs over 400Nm.

As to Good2golf
There is a reason no one other than a military supports missions with helicopter only when they can use fixed wings, the helo's bleed money, the only place I saw a sustained effort using helo's was Galore Creek Mine, 175man camp run completely on helo's they bled the project dry doing it. Not to mention how many flight hours are you going to allow on those machines? As I recall the brits in Afghanistan had hard limits of flight hours that they could use each month. Using a Chinook to do a weekly milk run that can be easily done by an Twin Otter, does not make fiscal sense. Better to save the Chinooks for the tasks that they excel at.

According to the web Chinook costs are about $6500 per hr with under a $1,000 for the Twin Otter


----------



## Zoomie (23 May 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Rather than buy otters, why not just send the buffalos in to Viking and have them zero time the airframe and update the cockpit.


Viking doesn’t have any tooling to support the Buffalo - not one bench.  All the parts for this bird are ultra rare, nobody has a bench open anymore that tools DHC-5 components.   Slapping new engines on a “zero timed” airframe means zero if you don’t have ramp actuators, rudder pumps, TRU fans etc.  Might as well just build a brand new SPRO-style aircraft with modern avionics and engines - oh HEY we did that - it’s called the CC-295.


----------



## MAJONES (23 May 2019)

As much as it pains my fixed wing heart to say this, more Chinooks would probably be a more versatile answer for moving small loads around in theatre.  It’s got a similar payload to the Twin Otter and can get in and out of more places.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 May 2019)

MAJONES said:
			
		

> As much as it pains my fixed wing heart to say this, more Chinooks would probably be a more versatile answer for moving small loads around in theatre.  It’s got a similar payload to the Twin Otter and can get in and out of more places.



Except you can jam about 80 troops in a Chinook if you really need to, as the Gurkhas demonstrated in the Falklands War.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 May 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ...A fleet of Helo's and Otters could be something we offer to any UN mission and likely appreciated. Wiki says the 400 Twin Otter can haul 3,000lbs over 400Nm.
> 
> As to Good2golf
> There is a reason no one other than a military supports missions with helicopter only when they can use fixed wings, the helo's bleed money, the only place I saw a sustained effort using helo's was Galore Creek Mine, 175man camp run completely on helo's they bled the project dry doing it. Not to mention how many flight hours are you going to allow on those machines? As I recall the brits in Afghanistan had hard limits of flight hours that they could use each month. Using a Chinook to do a weekly milk run that can be easily done by an Twin Otter, does not make fiscal sense. Better to save the Chinooks for the tasks that they excel at.
> ...



"when they can use fixed wings"   Care to define 'when'?  

Just how tactical are these small tactical airlifts to be?  What AORs will they be permitted to operate in.  What equipment will they have added to them to be tactically feasible?  Ballistic protection?  Armament?  RWR, MAWS, CMDS, DIRCM?  Put that crap on a Twin Otter and it will be able to carry 0 lbs for 0 nm.  I still hear no quantitative reasoning where a CC-138 or equivalent should be used in place of assets we already have...the current airlift spectrum of CC-177>CC-130J>CH-147F>CH-146 seems to (have) work(ed) well in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, etc. without needing to squeeze a CC-1XX into the mix.

CH-147F hasn't come close to exceeding its flight hour usage spectrum, lines of task are aligned with operational availability.

Cost per hour?  It's funded, and not stopping the aircraft from being deployed and operating internationally, so what is the concern.  Are you proposing that if a CC-138 Twin Otter, for example, replaced the CH-147F say in Mali, that the government would save $5,500/hr and reinvest elsewhere? ???

Again, a solution looking for a requirement...

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2019)

Actually I never said "replace", but to work together and supplement the Chinook where it makes sense. Some light kevlar around the cockpit, but not being armed. Use them to fly milk runs to the more secure FOB's or resupply patrols that don't have a proper runway. 

Considering how long we keep airframes, using the hours wisely is good management. We already have Twin Otters in the fleet, we can gradually increase and modernize that fleet and expand their operational role. Plus there is domestic role for them as well in Arctic ops.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 May 2019)

So armour it (lightly), but don’t protect it with self-protection equipment?  That doesn’t seem like something one should be flying into a FOB...


----------



## GR66 (23 May 2019)

From all accounts the Twin Otter is a very good aircraft and I don't doubt that good use could be made of it in the CF.  The Arctic in particular looks like it could benefit from such a platform.

However, it's becoming clearer to me that like every other thread which proposes a new and useful platform (Corvettes, Bombardier MPAs, F15-X / F-35 split fighter fleets, converted commercial "Big Honking Ships", light attack aircraft, etc.) that while a good case can be made for the proposed platform/capability, the cost in additional support, training overhead, staffing requirements, logistics tail, etc. is argued to be too much for an already thinly spread CF to support without cutting into other, existing capabilities.

No doubt there is fat in the CF that could be trimmed to free up budget space, but as has been mentioned by others before perhaps the only real solution is a proper and full defence review to determine (REALISTICALLY) what the CF is expected to be able to do within the budgets that the governments (of both stripes) appear to be willing to provide.  

Only then can the CF be properly organized and equipped to fulfill these capabilities.  Anything beyond that should be left to other departments if they are required (or new budget specifically added if there are new CF requirements added).  Until then we'll likely try to keep our fingers in every capacity at every level and not be able to do any of those things really well.

 :2c:


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 May 2019)

Post from 2015:



> Why Not Just Buy New-Build Viking Air Twotters for RCAF?
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/mark-collins-why-not-just-buy-new-build-viking-air-twotters-for-rcaf/
> 
> [cool photo of one with Vietnam's navy]
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 May 2019)

Would the C23 Sherpa be too large for Canadian requirements ? 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sherpa+aircraft&view=detail&mid=6BD74C02E13F6B9799916BD74C02E13F6B979991&FORM=VIRE


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2019)

Ah yes the Short Skyvan lives on :0 Great aircraft, but since we have Twin Otters already and a Canadian company building them, likley any money would go that way.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 May 2019)

I can see buying Canadian but that has not been sustainable in the past with aircraft and ship building. Boeing could build a few of these in Canada. I was trying to remember the designation of the aircraft the USAF had that looked like a small C130 but had 2 props and had 2 small jet packs on each wing for rocket assisted takeoffs. Can anyone think of it ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14#/media/File:Boeing_YC-14A_at_Andrews_AFB_1976.JPEG

I found it at last. The C123 !!

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=c-123+aircraft+youtube&&view=detail&mid=19D18E51A7C8208AB7F219D18E51A7C8208AB7F2&rvsmid=323577A114695D4C102F323577A114695D4C102F&FORM=VDQVAP


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 May 2019)

Believe it or not some aviation companies are capable of succeeding without government subsidies https://www.vikingair.com/


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 May 2019)

This is interesting, and might be relevant to this discussion (but I haven't got time to read it!):


Shaping Air Mobility Forces for Future Relevance

This report asks whether the national air mobility system (NAMS) of the
United States will or will not be able to accomplish its full spread of mission
responsibilities in an uncertain future fraught with emerging challenges and
threats. More specifically, this report will examine operational, institutional,
doctrinal, and technological trends shaping a useful answer to that question.
That answer will recognize the unequalled readiness of the NAMS for future
wars and conflicts while also identifying some of its more troubling shortfalls
in specific task areas. In the end, this study will identify opportunities to mitigate
those shortfalls in the near term and without breaking the defense budget,
and it will propose some initial steps along a path to further reducing or
even eliminating them over the longer term. Accordingly, this report proceeds
in four sections. It begins with a brief discussion of some of the more
influential and enduring contextual elements of air mobility policy—namely
structure, mission, and technology. It describes some emerging challenges to
the nation’s ability to conduct global air mobility operations effectively. It then
discusses shortfalls in the current program of record fleet’s ability to address
those challenges and ends by identifying near- and longer-term opportunities
to make things better in a “challenging fiscal environment.”


https://media.defense.gov/2017/Jun/19/2001765023/-1/-1/0/AP_2017-1_OWEN_AIR_MOBILITY_FORCES.PDF


----------



## observor 69 (24 May 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> "Hook flies faster, farther, carrying more and doesn’t need runways.  Can a Twin Otter fast rope a platoon of troops onto a vessel in the Arctic archipelago?  Can the Twin Otter operate in non-cooperative environments without physical and electronic protective measures. The Govt invested in Chinook for a reason.  Their acquisition was a sunk cost so irrelevant now in the discussion.  The only thing cheaper than a military Twin Otter is a civilian Twin Otter operated by inexpensive pilots that aren’t a tax on the remainder of the RCAF manning system and only serve when you actually need it."
> 
> Wow I honestly had no idea "Capable of a top speed of 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h), upon its introduction to service in 1962, the helicopter was considerably faster than contemporary 1960s utility helicopters and attack helicopters, and is still one of the fastest helicopters in the US inventory. "
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 May 2019)

GR66 said:
			
		

> From all accounts the Twin Otter is a very good aircraft and I don't doubt that good use could be made of it in the CF.  The Arctic in particular looks like it could benefit from such a platform.
> 
> However, it's becoming clearer to me that like every other thread which proposes a new and useful platform (Corvettes, Bombardier MPAs, F15-X / F-35 split fighter fleets, converted commercial "Big Honking Ships", light attack aircraft, etc.) that while a good case can be made for the proposed platform/capability, the cost in additional support, training overhead, staffing requirements, logistics tail, etc. is argued to be too much for an already thinly spread CF to support without cutting into other, existing capabilities.
> 
> ...



You will be happy to learn that the RCAF operates four CC-138 Twin Otters out of Yellowknife. They've been doing so for years.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 May 2019)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Good2Golf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most frequent radio call to a Chinook from other helicopters in AFG? “Slow down!”  

One Chinook would replace an entire multi-vehicle Combat Logistic Patrol (CLP) running through IED-alley down to the Horn of the Panjwai with a single, 20-minute flight lifting 10,000-15,000 lbs of stuff, and back at the DFAC at KAF for dinner time pizza and ice cream.  CC-138 doesn’t come close to being that useful. 

:2c:

G2G


----------



## GK .Dundas (24 May 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Wow I honestly had no idea "Capable of a top speed of 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h), upon its introduction to service in 1962, the helicopter was considerably faster than contemporary 1960s utility helicopters and attack helicopters, and is still one of the fastest helicopters in the US inventory. "
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook
> 
> Spent my career mostly working on fighters with a little time spent around the ASW community.
> ...


The more I look at our casualties from our latest unpleasantness. I find myself wondering how many of them could have been avoided if only we had more Chinooks and had them earlier.
I'm curious as to the percentage of those wia/Kia o  ground based resupply operations as opposed to other operations.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 May 2019)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> The more I look at our casualties from our latest unpleasantness. I find myself wondering how many of them could have been avoided if only we had more Chinooks and had them earlier.
> I'm curious as to the percentage of those wia/Kia o  ground based resupply operations as opposed to other operations.



GK, if you look at the IED WIA/KIA stats, there is a statistically significant decrease after the 147Ds showed up in Dec08/Jan09.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 May 2019)

Getting rid of the Chinook was horribly stupid idea.


----------



## Strike (24 May 2019)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> The more I look at our casualties from our latest unpleasantness. I find myself wondering how many of them could have been avoided if only we had more Chinooks and had them earlier.
> I'm curious as to the percentage of those wia/Kia o  ground based resupply operations as opposed to other operations.



There are a whole bunch of people who are still alive because of the speed of the Chinooks operating in Mali right now.


----------



## GK .Dundas (24 May 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Getting rid of the Chinook was horribly stupid idea.


I'd like to think that there is a special place in hell for.those brass hatted morons who made that decision.
Perhaps having to suffer every death and.feel the pain of the casualties of perhaps having every dollar they saved shoved down their throats.


*


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 May 2019)

I have a lot of fond memories of the sh*thook. It is a versatile aircraft. I think the tilt rotor may be the future but lets keep the Hook around just in case.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 May 2019)

And over forty years ago, one of our early Chinooks.


----------



## suffolkowner (24 May 2019)

Below the old CASR take on the Twin Otter. 

https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/twin-otters-for-twin-otters-buying-new-makes-financial-sense-so-does-adding-similar-guardian-400-surveillance-aircraft-to-the-mix/


https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/twin-option-for-the-twin-otters-simple-solutions-are-often-the-best/

With regards to the Chinook's I believe I read on CASR as well that they were sacrificed in favor of mothballing Huey's??? The new Bell tilt rotors and SB-Defiant sure look interesting/promising going forward


----------



## Good2Golf (24 May 2019)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> With regards to the Chinook's I believe I read on CASR as well that they were sacrificed in favor of mothballing Huey's???



CSAR was wrong.  The Twin Huey’s flew until 1997. 

The decision to kill the Chinooks was made in 1990 by the Army, or more accurately, then FMC (Force Mobile Command).  FMC at that point was responsible for funding land aviation, not Air Command, and FMC chose not to spend the $400M required to rebuild the seven remaining C-model Chinooks to D-model configuration.

Fortunately 17 years later, Chinooks were brought back albeit in the form of ‘well-seasoned’ D-models approaching the end of their useful life, then a few years later in a state-of-the-art version that is the envy of many. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## GK .Dundas (24 May 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CSAR was wrong.  The Twin Huey’s flew until 1997.
> 
> The decision to kill the Chinooks was made in 1990 by the Army, or more accurately, then FMC (Force Mobile Command).  FMC at that point was responsible for funding land aviation, not Air Command, and FMC chose not to spend the $400M required to rebuild the seven remaining C-model Chinooks to D-model configuration.
> 
> ...


Quite frankly the only thing wrong with the Chinook,is that there are not enough of them.


----------



## Spencer100 (28 May 2019)

Twin Otter rescue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCNQOtIdhaM&feature=share


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2019)

As far as self protection and other issues are concerned, the Cessna 208B Caravan is in operational use by several air forces, and can be adapted to carry weapons like the Hellfire missile. Unarmed the Caravan is also a pretty heavy duty load hauler and can be considered a 21rst century version of the Twin Otter (including the ability to fit floats and skis if required).

Of course most of these air forces use the Caravans as utility transports and the occasional support aircraft in low intensity conflicts. A deployment like Mali would be the closest equivalent for us.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jun 2019)

It still adds nothing useful. Our prime role is medevac. Few casualties occur near usable and defendable/clearable airfields, and there are precious few of those anyway. Helicopters are still the best option, by far - the only option, in fact.


----------



## BurmaShave (13 Jun 2019)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As far as self protection and other issues are concerned, the Cessna 208B Caravan is in operational use by several air forces, and can be adapted to carry weapons like the Hellfire missile. Unarmed the Caravan is also a pretty heavy duty load hauler and can be considered a 21rst century version of the Twin Otter (including the ability to fit floats and skis if required).
> 
> Of course most of these air forces use the Caravans as utility transports and the occasional support aircraft in low intensity conflicts. A deployment like Mali would be the closest equivalent for us.



Caravan, Twotter, An-2...none of those matter in a world where the Chinook exists. Yeah, they're "short takeoff and landing". Still need at least a quarter mile. The Chinook needs a dirt patch. Five times the payload capacity. Same cruise speed.

Light transports can have better range. Good for up north (Two Otter) or SAR. More importantly:

Light transports are cheaper. Cheaper to operate, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain. Good for civilian bush pilot stuff. Good if you're poor. We, for all our issues, are not poor.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jun 2019)

BurmaShave said:
			
		

> Still need at least a quarter mile _IED- and insurgent-free_.



Runways, even primitive ones, are obvious.

That small clearing behind those trees, this open patch here, that one over there, and the one behind it, and that spot just to the left, and, and, and, and ... not so much.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2019)

Burma 1944 Medevac of Chindits from White City - The entire field cleared by hand (with explosive assistance) in order to get a pilot and a stretcher in and out.






Coincidentally, also in Burma in 1944






https://chindits.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/return-of-the-chindits-part-2/


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jun 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Burma 1944 Medevac of Chindits from White City - The entire field cleared by hand (with explosive assistance) in order to get a pilot and a stretcher in and out.



Worst case, a ‘Hook wouldn’t even need a STANAG-compliantly sized cleared pad at all, and could hover rock still for hours to load injured onto the ramp hovering 3-5’ directly about a narrow cleared route.  

As Burma Shave said, for all our issues, we’re not a force that needs cheap, operationally narrowly-employable crack-fillers where we have invested in capabilities that were invested in to provide breadth of service.  A Grand Caravan can’t mount a couple of M134Ds to ‘address LZ surprises,” etc.

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jun 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> we’re not a force that needs cheap, operationally narrowly-employable crack-fillers



Hey, I'm in the room man  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jun 2019)

I echo the suggestion to use the Chinook for the mission.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Worst case, a ‘Hook wouldn’t even need a STANAG-compliantly sized cleared pad at all, and could hover rock still for hours to load injured onto the ramp hovering 3-5’ directly about a narrow cleared route.
> 
> As Burma Shave said, for all our issues, we’re not a force that needs cheap, operationally narrowly-employable crack-fillers where we have invested in capabilities that were invested in to provide breadth of service.  A Grand Caravan can’t mount a couple of M134Ds to ‘address LZ surprises,” etc.
> 
> ...



Does the twin rotor have an issue with the vortex ring state?


----------



## Loachman (15 Jun 2019)

One has to either deliberately or very stupidly cause that to happen.

I know of only one case in the CF, many years ago - a Sea King at an air show in the US.

A couple of us tried in a Jet Ranger in Portage once, with lots of recovery altitude, and couldn't make it happen.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jun 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Does the twin rotor have an issue with the vortex ring state?



Abused/improperly operated, any helicopter can be placed into vortex ring state, however, a Chinook has three factors in its favour for generally avoiding VRS: 1) relatively lower rotor-disc loading (eg. 8.5 lbs/sqft CH-147F vs 11.5 lbs/sqft for the CH-149 Cormorant) so it tends not to force induced flow into a recirculating condition leading to VRS; 2) high available power, which can serve to break the recirculation of rotor induced flow (not a recommended recovery technique); and 3) a non-circular overall rotor shape, which tends to also make recirculation of induced flow easier to stop once formed.  One would have to fly a Chinook rather badly to induce VRS, and the recovery technique (simple side-slip, or a pedal-turn to swing sideways) if rather effective to recover with minimal altitude loss.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jun 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> One has to either deliberately or very stupidly cause that to happen.
> 
> I know of only one case in the CF, many years ago - a Sea King at an air show in the US.
> 
> A couple of us tried in a Jet Ranger in Portage once, with lots of recovery altitude, and couldn't make it happen.



It happened again to a Sea King during a simulated freestream south of Victoria in 2015. The copilot (a student) mismanaged the evolution and the instructor pilot let it get too far so he could not recover in time. They impacted the water, did an integrity check then lifted off and returned to CYYJ. They were lucky- the aircraft suffered almost no damage.


----------



## Loachman (25 Jun 2019)

Okay - so there are now two cases of which I am aware, both involving Sea Kings. Is that simply a coincidence, or is was there something about the Sea King that made it more prone?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (7 Jul 2019)

To swing back to the premise of the article quoted and linked in the OP, the author was primarily discussing Air Force "distributed operations" and the utility of smaller aircraft and expedient airfields.


> Taking Distributed Ops Seriously
> 
> This article isn’t intended to substitute a detailed analysis done by air logistics professionals. If NATO is going to consider distributed operations in Europe, we need to consider them seriously. That means we need a more detailed look at the logistics requirements of distributed operations and the ability of current airlifters to service them in a difficult environment. Logisticians cannot rely on long-haul ground transport for timely movement of crews and weapons – it’s bad enough that NATO will likely have to rely on ground transport for fueling a very thirsty fighter force. The Russians are aware of this and can be expected to make ground transportation as difficult as possible. We have a case study that shows how to air supply dispersed locations – the story of Vietnam is one of shifting bases, changing requirements, and use of distributed forces. In Vietnam, the enemy was often foliage, water, and terrain, but was a difficult and unforgiving adversary for all of that.
> 
> Air transport is only as viable as the aircraft that fly the routes and the airfields that make up the network. Europe has the airfields to sustain a robust air effort, right up to the point where Russian missiles start hitting them. After that point, the kind of aircraft we have matter a lot more if they can fly into short, damaged, or makeshift airfields. The Russians simply cannot deliver the weight of precision ordnance necessary to prevent Twin Otter operations across the theater – there aren’t that many missiles in their inventory. Given the huge cost disparity between the C-130 and the Twin Otter, it would seem that a relatively paltry investment in new small airlift aircraft could pay big dividends. It also offsets requirements for redundant personnel and equipment by reducing what we have to send forward in the initial dispersal by providing a more dynamic re-supply capability that can adjust for local conditions and operational requirements. Just having this kind of aircraft in the inventory will greatly complicate the targeting picture for Russian forces and add to the weight of NATO’s deterrent.



I came across this "example" of exercising such in Europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_cxkF6qSY8

The airlift specific stuff starts around the 1:00 mark and at the 3:49 mark there is a quick Canadian connection.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Jul 2019)

Especially convenient for ‘most of NATO’ where intra-AO travel occurs over distances notably smaller than in Canada.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jul 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> To swing back to the premise of the article quoted and linked in the OP, the author was primarily discussing Air Force "distributed operations" and the utility of smaller aircraft and expedient airfields.
> I came across this "example" of exercising such in Europe.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_cxkF6qSY8
> ...



If we're talking major ground offensives conducted by large armoured formations in Europe we'd better be talking about trains, giant planes, and 10 tonner type automobiles....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jul 2019)

Portugal elects to buy the Brazilian KC-390

 https://www.janes.com/article/89838/portugal-orders-kc-390-airlifters


----------



## Spencer100 (13 Jul 2019)

I think Portugal selected the KC 390 more as an industrial policy than anything.  They planned it as they did need to replace the C130 and they got some workspace out of it


----------

