# Strategic vs. Tactical Airlift - What balance do we need? (from: Military wins no matter what after election)



## AoD71 (5 Dec 2005)

C17's are friggin cool. But what I would like to know is what's the difference between Strategic/Tactical airlifts?


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2005)

AoD71 said:
			
		

> C17's are friggin cool. But what I would like to know is what's the difference between Strategic/Tactical airlifts?


Have you done a search?   Try these:

Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!

Tactical Airlift - Replace the Herc!


----------



## AoD71 (5 Dec 2005)

lol, no. I haven't done a search. I was just looking for the answer in a "nutshell" is all, because I didn't understand those terms. But thanks anyways.


----------



## Sf2 (5 Dec 2005)

Strategic airlift is moving huge amounts of equipment over long distances to support long term operations.

Tactical airlift is moving less amount of stuff, over shorter distances.


----------



## AoD71 (5 Dec 2005)

Thanks mate! Thats exactly what I needed. Short and easy to remember  :blotto: . Just to be sure, a C17 would be a Strategic lift, while something smaller, like a C-27J, would be tactical? Right on!


----------



## Bert (20 Dec 2005)

The C-17 is perceived as strategic and the C-27J as tactical.  However, in many continental taskings
requiring rapid movement of personnel or cargo, the C-27J may be too small for the job.  The C-130 type
aircraft may be better suited.  Its all about have the right tool for the job.


----------



## MdB (20 Dec 2005)

AoD71,

Try Wikipedia, salt mine.

Strategic airlift

Tactical airlift


----------



## AoD71 (20 Dec 2005)

That was a good read! It is easy to tell the difference between the two, seeing all the pictures of the planes. Thanks, MdB, I never thought of going to Wikipedia >_<. It should have came to mind, since I always go there to make fun (by editing the pages) of the hate groups that are on it.  :threat:


----------



## McG (21 Dec 2005)

> *2010 too late for new planes, DND contends *
> Contract to be awarded in 2007, file says
> By MICHAEL DEN TANDT
> Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Posted at 4:05 AM EST
> ...


This begs the question: What mix of Tactical & Stratigic lift does Canada need?  Can we go all one way or the other?  Would a "middle of the road" aircraft best meet our needs?


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Dec 2005)

Actually the very words Tactical or Strategic airlift might be imposing too much of a constraint on thinking.

As stated earlier - Tactical usually means short ranges, small loads while strategic means long ranges, large loads.   However tactical also means being able to influence the battle by delivering close to, if not on the FEBA.   By that definition both large and small aircraft are capable of being operated tactically.   The C-17, A-400, C130, Il-76, C-27, C-295 and CC-115 are all capable of conducting airdrops, dropping paratroopers and landing on short rough strips which can be close to FEBA.   I am not clear but I believe that the AN-124 can be operated in a similar environment although the "rough strips" probably can't be short.

At the other end of the spectrum - civvy freighters, like the CC-150, various other passenger conversions and aircraft like the 747 all need airports with hard, long runways and cargo unloading facilities. They can only be operated in a strategic role. On the other hand there are lots of them available and can be chartered at relatively reasonable rates. For establishing a supply conveyor to a secure terminus, or even for surging forces forward is this such a bad option?   It is no different than chartering civvies to carry supplies in semi-trailers in Canada.   Delivery to the secure terminus could also be by sea.

The real challenge occurs not in getting supplies into the general vicinity but in getting them to FEBA.

The military lifters can be operated both strategically and tactically.   They are most valuable when operated tactically it seems to me, operating as the final link between the secure terminus and FEBA.   Effectively they would form a shuttle service from the terminus to FEBA.   The distance between the two, the size of the deployed force and the size of the components shipped will all impact on the numbers and sizes of aircraft.   

I think it might be more beneficial to state the issue as what type of heavy and light lift is needed (AN-124/C-17 vs C27/C295), how much of each and what benefits the middle weights like the IL-76/A-400/C130J/C130J-30 bring?

If there are any professional logisticians out there please feel free to jump in and correct errors here - but just to give a sense of scale

A common pallet used in a civilian warehouse and handled by a bog standard forklift is designed to handle roughly one tonne of material and occupies roughly one square meter of floor and one cubic meter of volume.   Depending on the material loaded   one or more of those parameters will change.

1 tonne of water - enough to supply 4l per man per day for a platoon of 30 for more than a week = 1 pallet
1 tonne of diesel - enough to supply 4 Bv206s with fuel   to carry a   platoon of 30 for about 500 km = 1 pallet
A one tonne pallet can deliver 48 crates of 5.56 mm ammunition for C7s and C9s or about 80,000 rounds.   By my reckoning that is enough to resupply 270 riflemen or 135 C9 gunners with small arms ammunition.
A pallet of rations, weighing about half a tonne, will keep a platoon fed for about a week.   

Four pallets - 3.5 tonnes would keep one platoon supplied, and then some, for a week.   One C27/C295 with a 10 tonne payload could lift that with room to spare, even at maximum range.   2 or 3 flying daily missions could keep 25 to 50 platoons supplied - by my reckoning that would be about 750 to 1500 troops.   Those types of flights are the norm.   

Flying in vehicles in large numbers happens infrequently as is the case for troops - once the force is established there will be a smaller, steady flow of individual vehicles flying in and out.

Large carriers are needed for these bulky items but a small number can be well employed if they only have to shuttle a short distance from the terminus to FEBA,   making up in frequency of flights what they lack in numbers.     Once the rush is over then they frequency of flights can be scaled back.

Setting aside the FWSAR project a Squadron of 8 C27s backed up by one or two C17s could likely keep a Task Force supplied.   Two such groupings could sustain two Task Forces.   A similar grouping could be on hand in Canada for domestic ops - including FWSAR (large aircraft can carry helicopters into the arctic).   The C-17s could be held centrally at Trenton and tasked out to support the forward deployed squadrons.

Given that scenario the need for middle weight lifters would be greatly reduced.   Possibly eliminated?


----------



## FSTO (21 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill, there is quite the debate going on Norman Spector website regarding military procurement. Could I transfer your post to his blog because it is the best reply I have seen.

Link to Norman Spector

http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/

Look under Fed Follies


----------



## MdB (21 Dec 2005)

As stated on Norman's Spector's website, under the Fed Follies blog, if the C-17 would be a better deal and in fact reducing the cost of airlift, now I feel that there's a big great damn powerful lobby drive behind the Grits choice of buying C-130J. Yeah, our pilot can only pilot C-130 and that'd be too costly to train them on C-17... go figure what's the logic!


Kirkhill, repost from A-400 thread, which more relevent here.

Here's a Wikipedia article on the C-17 casting a light on the issue comparable to your commment:



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III said:
			
		

> The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and resultant tsunamis placed a strain on the global strategic airlifter pool. The impressive performance of the C-17 in USAF and RAF service have persuaded Germany to consider acquiring 2-4 C-17s for the Luftwaffe in a dry lease arrangement, at least until the A400M is available in 2009. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated in the German news magazine Der Spiegel that the government needed its own organic strategic transport capability to be able to respond to disasters in a better manner than it was able to for this incident. During the tsunami relief effort, Germany tried to acquire transport through its usual method of wet leasing Antonov airlifters via private companies, but found to its dismay that there were no available aircraft. While the stated goal of a C-17 lease would be to last until the A400M's arrival, it is always possible that the Luftwaffe may undergo an experience similar to that of the RAF, and elect to retain them.



It seems Canada would do good by looking what others do. And it seems Canada has been lucky too. Note that Minister Joschka Fischer is from the Green Party, not really a right-winger.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Dec 2005)

FSTO - feel free.

Glad to be of service.


----------



## Bert (21 Dec 2005)

> Kirkhill>
> Given that scenario the need for middle weight lifters would be greatly reduced.  Possibly eliminated?



From limited perspective, the need for medium lift is more necessary for domestic ops where C-17s would
be overkill or several C-27s may be impractical.  Using CFS Alert, Boxtops, Eureka, OP Hurricane, deployment to
FOLs, regular or rapid transport of smaller units or detachments as an example, the C-130 type is much more 
suited.  Alot of unsung OPS don't require larger aircraft or support paved runways of sufficient length.  A
balance of light lift/SAR/SPECOPS, medium for more involved load-outs, and heavy lift or major transport may be
a better approach.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2005)

Seen Bert.


----------



## FoverF (22 Dec 2005)

The biggest issue with splitting the transport requirement into a strategic and tactical type is that we would be (at least transitionally) operating at least FOUR types, the Polaris, the newer   Hercs, and the two new kids. However our lack of strategic transport is one of the reasons we're in this situation right now (flying the crap out of Hercs trying to support far flung overseas missions), and I think it needs to be adressed. So while our newer Hercs are still very viable, I think it might be a good idea to sell them while they still have some hours left, and a relatively modern equipment fit. They could be retained, but that would definitely limit us to buying only one type. I think having three outsized transports, plus Twotters, Challengers, and the Polaris would be out of the question, and a major waste of money. So I'm going to stick to two-type combinations.

A C-130H/C-27J mix is basically just trading-down our Hercs for smaller birds. We get a slight decrease in operating costs, but probably an equal drop in capability. Not a good thing.

A C-130J/C-27J mix has the upshot that they have a lot of commonality. The C-27J actually has a lot more commonality with the C-130J than the older Hercs do. This would be the cheapest option to operate by far. A lot of missions don't require a Herc (dropping SAR techs for example), and can be done just fine by a C-27J. We *MIGHT* be able to afford enough airframes with this option (since we ARE also talking about 20 years support contracts) to make it viable, and get a good increase in capabiltiy. Provided we can get a lot of birds, this might be a viable option, but probably not the best.

But it leaves us with the same lack of strategic airlift we have today. And I'm not convinced of the cost savings involved in trying to support operations in places like Afghanistan with lots of sorties of C-130s, rather than far fewer sorties with a real heavy lifter. Not to mention the fact that the whole doctrine of having a light, highly mobile force, bereft of tanks and other heavy equipment, is a a complete and total farce if you have absolutely no means of deploying that force except by sea. Or waiting for the USAF to move our stuff for us, by which time we're pretty much superfluous anyways. 

Keeping our newer Hercs, and trading our old ones up for C-130Js would probably be our cheapest option in terms of purchase price, but would cost more than replacing the whole old Herc fleet in terms of operating costs. The C-130J will be a bit cheaper in the long run than the -H model, since we're talking about 20 years of maintenance and fuel. It wouldn't boost our capabilties by much, and we would still have to adress the same problem in 10-20 years as the -H models start hitting the wall. But it's also the most likely to happen, since it involves the least political risk. Doesn't involve spending much money up front, and doesn't have a whole lot of controversay. 


The C-17/C-27J mix is not a bad option, but as has been pointed out, there is a very large gap between the two. It would be like giving your infantry only pistols and high-end ATGMs, when a rifle is really what's needed most of the time. The C-130 is so popular exactly because MOST of the time, it's exactly what you need. 

A C-130J/C-17 mix is the most expensive option, and maybe the most capable, but I can't see us having a large enough fleet of C-17s to make it really work. An option here might be to lease the C-17s from the US, while owning the C-130Js. You would have to do some major numbers crunching to see if that would work out in dollar terms though. 

The A400 is just too far away for my tastes. It hasn't flown yet, and we have no guarantees it will be delivered on time (and every expectation that it won't be). It's a good middle-of-the-road option, is on the small side of strategic, and the large side of tactical, and will probably see a fairly large production run. One option that could make the A400 option work would be leasing some C-17s until the A400 comes. This is a very popular option right now, with the RAF already doing it, and Germany looking closely at it. 

However, my personal favorite option would be to use aircraft like the Twin Otter to replace most of the Buffalo's roles. Maybe buy some C-27Js, but I prefer something much smaller and cheaper.  keep the -H models hercs, and lease some Il-76s until a Canadian model can be produced. The Il-76 is still in full-swing production, with a wide variety of avionics and engine fits. There are a lot of customers who want fully westernized Candids, but I'm not so convinced that this would result in much real benefit. The engines do have shorter TBOs, but they are also essentially sealed units. Virtually no maintenance in between overhauls, and extremely easy to replace. So long as we had a reasonably large stock of spare engines, I really can't see any reason to use western ones. We just send them back to the factory a few dozen at a time, and get a few dozen back in exchange, and we're good to go. The avionics, on the other hand, aren't quite as good as their western counterparts, so upgrading some of them might be worth looking into, but a pre-production avionics upgrade is not   big deal. Just lift out 90% of the avionics from the Polaris (only changing the proprietary airbus stuff, that they wouldn't want on their competition's aircraft), and build one prototype. The avionics would be fitted to the aircraft before they're produced, which is easy as pie. Even if we insisted on a western engine, and all western avionics, the Candids would still be cheaper than A400s, or C-17s, the only really heavy-lift competitors.

In addition, unlike any of the other contenders (except the KC-130J) it also comes in a proper strategic tanker version, something Canada, and a lot of our allies, is desperately short of. The Candid is extremely viable as both a strategic AND tactical airlifter, and was designed specifically to operate in arctic conditions, something that we are going to be needing to do a lot more of, if current trends are anything to go by. It is also far cheaper to purchase (even with western engines) than any other strategic lifter. 

Eventually, as the -H model Hercs run out of life, we could replace them with C-27Js, or maybe get more Candids and whatever we replace the Twotter and Beaver with.  Shorts Sherpas maybe?  

The real black-sheep contender, westernized An-124s, is economically viable, but not likely. The key to that deal being that WE would then be leasing the highly demanded, and highly profitable aircraft to other militaries, and would not have to wait on them when WE need to lease them. That's a much more controversial option though, since we would be de-facto supporting any mission than used them, something liable to put politicians in hot water. I don't really see it happening, and that's probably for the better.

But I'm still behind the Il-76 option. It a proven serious heavy lifter, that was designed to operate in our climate, and can fulfill any tactical or strategic mission we need. Forget not being able to lift an MGS, the thing will haul Leopards. It's also cheap. The only thing it DOESN'T have going for it is a large political lobby. Now, if we made sure that it had an avionics suite designed and manufactured by Bombardier... Or if P&WC started licence producing an engine large enough to fit an Il-76... 
Barring that, I think keeping the C-130Hs, and leasing C-17s until we can get some A400s would be the way to go.


----------



## Bert (22 Dec 2005)

Interesting post.  However, one can compare the specs of light, medium, and heavy lift aircraft.
Knowing the type of airfields light and medium lift aircraft may face, the requirement to support
smaller operations especially in remote regions is still a day to day requirement in Canada and abroad.  
Acquiring light lift, like the C-27, significantly reduces the ability to transport supplies and heavier
machinery where C-17s are impractical to go (assuming medium lift is phased out).  I've looked 
into the cargo area of the C-27 and be hardpressed to believe light lift could replace medium lift in 
the circumstances I'm referring.

Just speculating the scenario of the acquisition of  light and heavy lift with limited or no medium lift, 
the number of heavy lift aircraft would not be significant.  The heavy aircraft would be rotated from
active duty to maintenance leaving the light lift to do most of the shorter domestic or in-threatre distribution
runs. Without medium lift, the CF may have to contract other militaries to move cargo light lift is
not able to.  I'm referring to tactical supply of helicopters, BVs, vehicles, beer, food, FOL and rapid 
deployments, boxtops, mixed runs, and supply of smaller taskings that keeps locations operating day to
day.

The light, medium, and heavy lift all have their own characteristics of flight, maintenance, capacity, and 
scope.  The need for strategic lift is important but what the C-130 and its type are doing now to maintain
CF operations can't be ignored.


----------



## FSTO (22 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> FSTO - feel free.
> 
> Glad to be of service.



Thanks


----------



## FoverF (23 Dec 2005)

I don't really see a big issue with phasing out medium lift, so long as your heavy lift replacement isn't ridiculously large. We're still going to have Hercs for many years to come. And when they are replaced, we'll have to look at what kind of tasking they're getting to determine a proper replacement. In my opinion (which in not set in stone), a smaller machine should be fine for most work (obviously not all). And whie the Il-76 is a pretty large machine, anything  too big for a C-27 or CN-235 (or whatever you want to call it) should be able to justify it. We'd be looking at moving vehicles, or tens of tons of freight, in which case the Ilyushin (or A400M) is not really overkill anyways. And it's low purchase price means we can afford enough airframes to do the dirty work. 

Basically, anything a Herc can do, an Il-76 or A400M can do too (albeit for a bit more money in fuel burned). But having these heavier birds around means that we have a while range of capabilties the CF has never had before. Like moving several Griffons at a time without having to disassemble except to stow the blades. Or being able to airflift whole mech companies overseas in a matter of days.


----------



## Hawker (23 Dec 2005)

Now I know that this is a bit of a swerve out of the current discussion, but what about the idea of adding to our current Polaris fleet?
With the conversion of two the air to air refueling and one as a VIP plane, there is only two for the 'airport to airport' strategic lift.
Now in no way would this eliminate the need for a C-17/A-400 for bulky equipment etc, but could it perhaps reduce the need by having more of these planes for passenger/relatively light cargo duties?   As compared to other aircraft, A 310's are readily available (I believe there are even a couple of former Canada 3000 planes available, hearkening back to how we got the Polaris in the first place), they would be relatively inexpensive and are already in our fleet.


----------



## Bert (23 Dec 2005)

FoverF

The comparative features of the C-130J and A400M are similar in regards to medium lift.   My point in the
other posts were there are deployments and taskings that do not require the size of the IL-76 or C-17 or
there are soft FOD littered airfields these jet engined aircraft cannot land on.   The C-27/G-235 types do not
have the capacity for larger cargo like vehicles or mixed cargo.   Each type; light, medium and heavy, has its
own niche and purposes.   The CF has used the Herc as a main carrier and its been successful partially due to 
the fact it meets the needs of many remote and internal operations.   Acquiring strategic lift allows for faster,
controlled, larger deployments with decent airfields and light lift for SAR, surveillance, multi-purpose support.   
Medium lift falls into maintaining operations that require more robust cargo and vehicle lift where larger aircraft
cannot go or cannot be slated to go.   These are only a few examples, but search for Boxtop, Op Hurricane,
Eureka, and CFS Alert and note references to airfields, scope and supply.   I doubt strategic lift and light lift
(unless many aircraft are involved) are suitable for the job in these cases.   There are other examples.   In this regards, 
phasing out medium lift is more cumbersome as not having or contracting out stategic lift especially at current tasking
levels.   Any improvement to air-lift is a good thing however.

As far as adding to the Polaris fleet, its out of my lane.   In theory, one can look across the aircraft in the CF and
see definite excellent quality acquisitions and compare it to mixed contractor and maintenance solutions.   Domestically,
i don't know if A310 acquisition would be beneficial as civilian carriers are often convenient.   Good question.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2005)

Quibbling a bit here Bert

But as I understand it the C-17, with a light load, not a 70 tonne Abrams, can land on rough strips and is being used that way just now.   The problem is that FOD is reducing engine life and the stress of landing on the strips is reducing airframe life.   Early model C-17s (the first 50 to 70) are losing 10   to 20 years of service life as a result - a major problem not just because of the loss of 165 MUSD aircraft but also because of the need to replace them AND add a few more.   Unfortunately it seems that the USAF hasn't quite bitten that bullet yet.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTAIRMO.HTM   
April 17, 2005 article


> The C-17 entered service ten years ago, and those first few aircraft quickly compiled 3,000 flight hours supporting peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Each C-17 has a useful life of 30,000 flight hours, but the current force is flying such long, and hard (landing on rough fields) flights that many of the early model C-17s will be worn out within five or so years. This attrition is accelerated by the fact that the early model C-17s are structurally different, and weaker, than the later model C-17s. The wing box in the center of the fuselage was insufficiently strong   for the loads placed on it. This was corrected later in the production run, but those early planes are going to wear out faster than later model planes of the same flight hours. Adding to this problem is the fact that many C-17s are landing on rough fields with heavy loads and are taking life time shortening structural damage. We have flown a lot of C-17s into northern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other 'stans with rough/short strips in 2001 and 2003. The C-17 was built for this sort of thing, but lots of these landing come at the price of shorter useful life.




Both these items reference the C-17 situation.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/05/us-congress-passes-441b-budget-for-fy-2006/index.php

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/us-cbo-gives-ok-to-hula-airships-for-airlift/index.php

Peculiar that IIRC the Senate/Congress had to "force" the Air Force to buy 6 unbudgeted C-17s to keep the line open though.   I can only assume it has to do with cash flow in the Air Force budget.

C-17s would supply a rough strip capability but it might be husbanded for critical situations (NEO perhaps? Or other wartime taskings). As you suggest, if there are regular flights to gravel strips something else, like the C-130 or the A-400   is probably more appropriate.

In the absence of those aircraft perhaps, as I suggested on another thread, buying or leasing aircraft like the C-17 and C27/G-235/C-295 which appear to be more readily available, could offload some C-130H hours and extend their useful life that way,   at least for a couple more years than currently projected.


----------



## canuck101 (23 Dec 2005)

I was just reading this article on http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-tactical.htm and i thought it looked interesting. I did not hear anything about airbus offering this solutions sounds interesting.


----------



## Zoomie (25 Dec 2005)

Interesting discussion here folks.

Let me add to your propositions with a concrete fact that needs to be addressed.  The FWSAR aircraft which is scheduled to replace the CC-115 and CC-130E's must be able to fly 300kts and still be able to work in the mountains.  This effectively eliminates all EADS-CASA products (too slow) and there goes the Twotter idea too - the Herc is fast enough, it just can't work in the rocks (established fact).

So...  If you want Strat and Tactical lift, you must take into account that $1.4BCAD is already set aside for FWSAR which is not any of those two.

Merry Christmas


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Dec 2005)

Zoomie:

I know that you have been pretty pleased with the C27 as a FWSAR platform.  How do you feel about its production status, the reliability of Alenia as a supplier and its possible value as a transport?


----------



## McG (27 Dec 2005)

Between the tactical and strategic levels is the operational level.  It might be said that the Herc is operational level airlift (movement from a staging area into theatre and within the theatre) with tactical and limited strategic level functions.

The C-17 may be able to by-pass the staging area and fly direct into theatre (eliminating or reducing one function of operational airlift) but may often be overkill for operational or tactical airlift requirements within a theatre of operations.

But where is the balance?  If we use charter & CC-150 to move pers to a staging areas (for onward travel in operational airlift) and move material direct to theatre in C-17, what do we need?

I see tactical airlift primarily filled by Chinooks and fixed wing aircraft conducting parachute operations.


. . . or, maybe I am confusing things by redefining our vernacular?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2005)

No McG, I don't think you are confusing things by redefining the vernacular.

I think you are right to open up the discussion.  The vernacular of Strategic, Operational, Tactical, Fixed or Rotary, or for that matter Air, Sea, Road, Rail or Cross-Country, imposes a series of fixed cells (silos or stovepipes if I understand those current buzz words from the vernacular).  The real issue is the effect (more jargon).  Where, how much and how fast can men and materiel be delivered and recovered?  From a very large spectrum of transportation options, some of which are readily available and some of which are not, which are currently available to the CF and which are most compatible with CF needs?

It may simplify discussions by being able to split transport into defined categories but when the platforms start to cross the boundaries of the categories (ie is a hovercraft a boat, a plane or a truck? or less extreme is a 7.5 tonne truck a heavy medium or a light heavy?) it seems to me to force looking at the entire spectrum, even if that spectrum consists of hundreds of individual options, some radically different in their capabilities and some overlapping.


----------



## Sf2 (29 Dec 2005)

We need something that will transport a few Griffons without having to dismantle the damn things.


----------



## FoverF (30 Dec 2005)

Apologies in advance for a long-winded post :

I'm 100% with shortfinal on this one; we need something that can haul ready-to-go equipment. You may not have the need all the time, but when you do have a need to hit the ground rolling, it can be the difference between success and impotence. This goes for Griffons, MGS's, those BV206 doo-hinkeys, and a whole lot of other kit which is very easily transported by air with minimal disassembly (maybe folding some rotors, or dropping some suspension). This gives us the option of deploying everything at an air-head, or (given that we do have a rough field requirement) drop them off on an airfield or farmer's field, or prepped highway 20km from the fighting.

There is also the very real scenario (which the CAF has had to face a number of times in recent history) of not having a secure air-head. This was the case in Sarajevo, was an issue in Afghanistan before our guys arrived, and WOULD have been the case in Rwanda. 

And I'm going to have to hammer on that last scenario a bit. Even had there been the political will to intervene, the Canadian military was completely unable to do so. And this was mainly due to the complete absence of strategic airlift. Having to lease your heavy lift is not an 'inconvenience'. It is a disgrace, and can be a catastrophe. In the event, the Canadian military was pretty much a no-show, despite the fact that a deployment there should have been well within the abilities of the CF (I'm not saying we could have secured the entire country, but we certainly could have created some safe zones). Although not the sole cause ,the biggest contributor to this failure was an absence of heavy lift. If the events were repeated today, the outcome would probably be identical. Leasing aircraft would not be an option, since Vogla Dnepr can simply say 'no thanks, too dicey for us, find your own ride'. The essential need for a Canadian heavy-lift capability was cruelly highlighted, and promptly ignored. 

But this is exactly the kind of scenario that we can expect to continue popping up (Congo, Sudan, Chad anyone?), and exactly the reason we need strategic lift capability. As I said before, having a secure air-head or staging area is not a guarantee. And even if it is, in these kinds of sparse conditions, we may have to essentially drop into a hostile country, with little or no infrastructure and resources on the ground. With even a modest fleet of heavy lift (say 6 a/c) you can drop enough armour and helo support to secure the airfield on day one, and enough to start serious operations within a few days afterwards. 

You can distribute poeple and equipment within-theatre in whatever fashion you see fit (Chinooks, C-27Js, Griffons, balloons, whatever you want), but you still have to get them into the theatre, sometimes on VERY short notice, and sometimes that will have to happen under less-than-ideal conditions. Tactical, and utility transport are only issues if you have the strategic transport to get in-theatre in the first place. Operational and strategic transport become very blurred when the situation on the ground is unstable. You need something that can do both (which is why virtually all heavy-lifters are also rough-field and/or semi-STOL capable). I realize that simply having bigger airplanes isn't going to necessarily give you the ability to do a mission. But there are a lot of missions that can't be done without them. And yes, I do realize that even these kind of light-combat operations would soak up all the manpower we could possibly generate and then some, but getting other nations to contribute boots on the ground is the easy part. It's getting those boots where you want them, and getting them their beans, bullets and band-aids that's that hard part.

Shifting gears completely, and addressing the fixed-wing SAR issue;

The need to operate from short strips, and in the mountains is obviously a given. No flexibility there. 
But I don't see the need to have much more than a 'utility' class payload. More is obviously better, but if you expect more than, say, six casualties, you should be sending Hercs, and choppers, and anything else that can fly too. Generally, I think that anything big enough to go far, and drop some bundles and a SAR tech or two is just fine. Also, I'm not so sure about the requirement for such a high speed. Obviously getting to an emergency quickly is critical, but it all depends on what you're planning to do when you get there. And this requirement eliminates a lot of a/c that are very desirable from a cost/short-field/off-base supportability stand-point. I think the number of airframes, and particularly how easy they are to forward deploy is more important than how fast they are. I would much rather see a 50 a/c fleet of Twin-Otters (not all of which need be dedicated SAR) than 15 C-27Js. Heck, howabout (brace for it)... Cessna Caravans? Not the least because if I plunk an airplane into the bush by Slave Lake,, a Twin Otter may only have to fly from their detachment Yellowknife, or Edmonton. Or we could park a Caravan just about anywhere there's an air cadet detachment. But a C-27J is much less likely to be based away from home due to cost and supportability issues. Of course the cost of more pilots, and basing considerations are going to limit this, but it's a LOT more feasible to have SAR detachments with the smaller airframes. Also, I think that amphibious capability is something we should be looking closely at. Being able to push stuff out the back is good, but if someone's in the water, it's always nice to just land, and pick them up. And on this score, a Twin Otter or Caravan (on amphibs) can get you home just as quick as it found you. And while the SAR tech deployment might prove to be a bit problematic, what about the CL-415 too. Amphibious, great for maritime ops, reasonably priced, Made In Canada. 

All things considered, however, I'm fine with C-27s, but would like to see a much more widely distributed, and cheaper aircraft, even if this means sacrificing payload and speed. There are a LOT of good options to fill this role, and I don't think that limiting the contest to larger, transport-types is necessarily going to give us the best solution. (dangit, we should just build some re-engined Buffalos... Stupid technological progress...)


----------



## Rescue Randy (30 Dec 2005)

The problems with the CL415 are a lack of range, and a basic inability to fly in bad weather (icing conditions).  Caravan has the same weather problem, there have been a number of them gone down in weather related (icing) conditions.  Most of the time that SAR is called, the weather is a good part of the reason for the emergency, and the SAR aircraft has to have  good ability to fly in bad weather.  Agree fully with the requirement for the aircraft to deploy to remote locations and operate there unsupported, it should be able to work for at least a week away from home base in austere locations with just the crew.  At this time I don't think that is being considered as a factor by those who are involved in trying to get a new FWSAR aircraft - I am not sure on this one, maybe someone can advise?


----------



## mover1 (30 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If there are any professional logisticians out there please feel free to jump in and correct errors here - but just to give a sense of scale



OK I will..... 


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A common pallet used in a civilian warehouse and handled by a bog standard forklift is designed to handle roughly one tonne of material and occupies roughly one square meter of floor and one cubic meter of volume.   Depending on the material loaded   one or more of those parameters will change.
> 
> 1 tonne of water - enough to supply 4l per man per day for a platoon of 30 for more than a week = 1 pallet
> 1 tonne of diesel - enough to supply 4 Bv206s with fuel   to carry a   platoon of 30 for about 500 km = 1 pallet
> ...


Mail, spare parts, food, paper, medicine.....
Wow what a light load... Most of our Aircraft pallets are 108x88 inches they have a capacity to hold between 7-10000 lbs and the only restrictions in size are we cant go higher than 110 inches for the Herc and 76 inches for the airbus. A lot of items are incompatible and are "cargo Aircraft only" therefore the airbus would be a non option.
The average Herc palette I have seen has been around 3-4 thousand pounds. We often bulk out before we weigh out



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Flying in vehicles in large numbers happens infrequently as is the case for troops - once the force is established there will be a smaller, steady flow of individual vehicles flying in and out.



Yep thats sounds right........except for the swapping of ROTO's


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Large carriers are needed for these bulky items but a small number can be well employed if they only have to shuttle a short distance from the terminus to FEBA,   making up in frequency of flights what they lack in numbers.     Once the rush is over then they frequency of flights can be scaled back.
> 
> Setting aside the FWSAR project a Squadron of 8 C27s backed up by one or two C17s could likely keep a Task Force supplied.   Two such groupings could sustain two Task Forces.   A similar grouping could be on hand in Canada for domestic ops - including FWSAR (large aircraft can carry helicopters into the arctic).   The C-17s could be held centrally at Trenton and tasked out to support the forward deployed squadrons.


ITs not the flying thts hard on the airplanes....its the taking off and landing.
I disagree, where are you going to land these big aircraft in the Arctic.. they need long STURDY runways....It takes us 8 Herc loads to get a fighter Sqn to Inuvik....Anything other than a Herc is too heavy for the airport.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Given that scenario the need for middle weight lifters would be greatly reduced.   Possibly eliminated?


Never.... you said so yourself in the above quote......I have moved a lot of things and I have loaded a lot of A/C of all different types and nationalities....All I can say is the bigger the Aircraft, the longer it takes to on/ offload.
The Airbus is a great freighter but its no cargo plane, The Herc is tried true and tested, there still is a need for them. As well a small cargo plane would be beneficial as well to get IOR's and mission critical equipment to a location when you can't or don't want to spare a bigger plane......


----------



## McG (31 Dec 2005)

FoverF said:
			
		

> You can distribute poeple and equipment within-theatre in whatever fashion you see fit (Chinooks, C-27Js, Griffons, balloons, whatever you want),


Don't forget that Canada is a theatre of operations.  Our requirement for domestic operational lift is probably in the range of the CC-130 (and not just C-27).


----------



## kj_gully (31 Dec 2005)

Although I will hate to see FWSAR get sidetracked by the tactical transport requirement, I disagree with the assertion that the C27J is unsuited to medium transport within Canada. Consider that currently, CC115's participate in op hurricane, and you will agree that the c27 will fill that role with ease. The fact that at least for the next 20 year, Canada will have a fleet of highly serviable aircraft to rely on at a "reasonable" cost is the most important thing. The US experience in Afghanastan showed that in some cases, the smaller, more manouverable aircraft was preferable to even the c130. My vote would be for say 4 C17's( 2 servicable and available, with the 3rd at "reserve" or short term maintenance, and the 4th in refurb), with c27's in theater. That's the thought of an operator not a strategic planner.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Dec 2005)

Thanks  mover1  

Just to clarify - I was referring to warehousing pallets not the 463L air transport pallet.  

I take your point on the advantages of medium lift aircraft in certain situations.  I also see the merits in maintaining aircraft that can continue to operate with facilities that were built to support them.  At the same time, it strikes me that if those aircraft had not been available then facilities would have been built to accomodate the aircraft that were available.

As to the actual load - yes it is a light load.  That was actually the point I was trying to convey.  That a viable military force like a platoon, or even a battalion, might be maintained with relatively light supply runs.  Therefore, beyond the bulky, but relatively light vehicles, actual supplies can be maintained on a conveyor of smaller aircraft.


----------



## McG (31 Dec 2005)

kj_gully said:
			
		

> I disagree with the assertion that the C27J is unsuited to medium transport within Canada.
> ...
> 
> My vote would be for say 4 C17's( 2 servicable and available, with the 3rd at "reserve" or short term maintenance, and the 4th in refurb), with c27's in theater.


I can't find the assertion that the C27J is unsuited to medium transport within Canada.  I think it could fill many of our domestic airlift needs.  However, I do not think it can do this itself; it needs a bigger brother (the herc).

I think back to moving a Sqn to conduct a SOVOP on Baffin Island.  Two Herc chalks were all we could get.  We barely fit everything into those two flights (had to leave a lot behind, and there were no vehicles).  I have a hard time imagining that with smaller aircraft we would get many more chalks, no could I see a C17 being made available for these types of Ops (they would remain stratigic & supporting international ops or domestic emergencies) - especially with a fleet as small as you've proposed.


----------



## kj_gully (1 Jan 2006)

I hear you, and if we can get' em, then 130 J (same powerplant as C27J) would be great. You got 2 chalks on a herc probably because there were hardly any serviceable in Canada, and the cost to fly, fuel and maintain is prohibitive. The smaller plane hopefully will require less to maintain, be more efficient, and the Airforce will have enough frames and manpower to properly support the Army. The C17 has to fly. The crew has currency requirements that would include precisely the thing that the Army wants them to do. Loadies gotta load, FE's gotta run in flight checklists pilots gotta fly, navs gotta do whatever nav's do ( book hotels?) joking, kinda. If you could get 2 c27's for everything you ever got 1 c130 for, I hink the Army would come out way ahead.


----------



## Sf2 (1 Jan 2006)

what about my Griffon?   I don't what to have to fly a full test card after it gets off-loaded from an aircraft.


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2006)

kj_gully said:
			
		

> If you could get 2 c27's for everything you ever got 1 c130 for, I hink the Army would come out way ahead.


Is it possible that we could double our number in aircraft?  Sure the airframes are cheaper to buy, but what is the bill in manpower (aircrew and ground crew)?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jan 2006)

C27J/C295 - 2 in the cockpit (pilot - copilot)
CC-130 E/H - 4 in the cockpit (pilot - copilot - navigator - flight engineer)

C27J/C295 - 2 engines 
CC-130H - 4 engines

One for one on airframes and avionics

On the other hand updated kit is not expected to cost as much to maintain as old kit.

Might could afford 2 for 1?


----------



## mover1 (3 Jan 2006)

Just rmember that for every pound of freight you put on an airframe, you have to compensate for something else. That something else is range, 

The more weight the more fuel used or fuel not put on the AC because you have or will exceed your Max Payload MPL.  
A smaller A/C may also not be an option in moving around some of the wonky equipment, the beauty of a C-130 is we have enough space to move the load around, which helps us do a proper weight and balance.......


----------



## kj_gully (3 Jan 2006)

Yeah, I know, I know. I am just using the Canadian mindset that if we have to make do, which we do, the c27 is an excellent compromise. we will be getting some, so why not just get more. less airframes to train on ,less parts to stock (commonality) . I do not think we can get 2 c27 for ea c130, but what I mean is that we can have @ least twice as many available ( servicable) than we have c130s now or for the past ... 10 years.


----------



## Rescue Randy (3 Jan 2006)

If you are planning on using the FWSAR aircraft for domestic transport, you should consider cargo capability and passenger capability.  The C27J can carry 3 standard 108" by 88" pallets loaded 80" high as well as a partial (1/2) pallet on the ramp; the CASA 295 can carry 5 standard 108" by 88" pallets loaded 65.5" high.  Incidentally, the Chinook also carries standard pallets, and is also limited at 65.5" high.
The C27J is rated to carry 46 troops with 23.35 sq m floor space, the CASA 295  can carry 71 troops with 29.95 sq m of floor space.  
The point is that you need to consider cube size, as well as what you plan to do with the cargo when you deliver it.


----------



## kj_gully (4 Jan 2006)

I've beat up the Casa 295 to death, Randy ( BTW there's a "rescue Randy" employed by Casa out there somewhere, used to run 19 wing...) in the FWSAR thread, so I won't get into a pissing match abourt its unsuitability here, suffice to say, IMO, that c295 is not a suitable SAR platform, hence not suited to our "tactical" or domestic transport role. you can load a pallet into a c295, sure, but you can't move past it... and it's too slow.


----------



## STONEY (4 Jan 2006)

Didn't the US have to ground their c27's after 10 years due to maintenance nightmares & lack of spares.
Is the C27J any better, will we be getting hanger queens?  Can Alenia support the a/c in service. Its been around awhile how many are in operational service?  Is the CASA any better?  At least there are large numbers in service with quit a few countries. The Aussies don't think there is even an A/C  that can match the old Caribou in performance even though there trying to keep theirs going with bailing wire.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2006)

kj_gully said:
			
		

> I am just using the Canadian mindset that if we have to make do, which we do, the c27 is an excellent compromise.


If you were not looking for the compromise soloution, what do you think the right mix of C27J, C130J, C130J-30, and C17 would be (or would it be other aircraft)?


----------



## big bad john (4 Jan 2006)

I thought that this article on the C-130J might be of interest to readers of this thread:  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,17672908,00.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Print this page 
Flights risk shaking fight out of troops
John Kerin
28dec05

PARATROOPERS who fly to war zones on an RAAF C-130 Hercules - the main transport plane of the Australian Defence Force - could be left too shaken up to fight.

A report by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation suggests engine noise and vibration aboard the C-130J transport aircraft can at least temporarily impair human motor and memory skills. 
It suggests troops to be parachuted into war zones aboard a C-130J should be seated to avoid the aircraft's high-vibration zones - usually the cabin seating area nearest the engines. 

It also suggests ADF medical staff and the often critically ill patients they evacuate from war and disaster zones should avoid sitting in these areas. 

And though there are few long-term or chronic effects for healthy crew or passengers, some have reported back aches, stomach aches, temporary loss of feeling in the legs and fatigue. 

The report says some types of airborne noise and vibration can harm passengers after as little as 30 minutes' exposure. Troops seated in high-vibration zones for long periods "might not be able to carry out their duties at peak level even some time after leaving the aircraft", it says. 

"Alarmingly, there is some evidence that exposure to vibration might result in some suppression of reflex responses. 

"In the absence of scientific evidence that the vibration environment of the C-130J has no significant impact on the physical and mental functioning required for military operations, (those involved in) airdrop and combat air-land operations should not be seated in the high-vibration zone for long periods." 

The report says the impact of vibrations on patients is unknown but recommends passengers also not be seated in high-vibration zones for long periods. 

The C-130J and its predecessor the C-130H are considered to be among the safest aircraft in the RAAF - but they have never been known for comfort. 

The Hercules has performed outstandingly in ferrying troops and supplies in war zones and disaster zone evacuations. 

Among solutions, the report suggests fitting the aircraft with padded seating and better insulation for the aircraft floor. 

The report comes at a time when Defence Minister Senator Robert Hill is considering leasing or buying either four giant US C-17s or eight smaller Airbus A400M propeller-driven aircraft to update the transport fleet. 

The purchase of the big jets would mean the Government is likely to replace fewer of its 24-strong Hercules fleet.



privacy       terms      © The Australian


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2006)

I wonder if that "high vibration" has anything to do with those 6 bladed "mix-master" propellers?  They apparently also contributed to concerns about a high level of turbulence affecting jumpers on exit IIRC.

Interestingly the C-295, the C27J and the A400M all use/will use similar types of propellers (8 blades on the A400).  I believe that these are largely responsible for increases in fuel efficiency and altitude.


----------



## Zoomie (4 Jan 2006)

kj_gully said:
			
		

> BTW there's a "rescue Randy" employed by Casa out there somewhere, used to run 19 wing



KJ, I think they are one and the same - peruse his profile.

You could be right Kirkhill - about the vibration issues.  Flying on turbo-prop aircraft has never been a comfortable experience.  Take out the excess insulation and vibration dampening niceties and the ride only gets worse.  I don't think the answer is moving the troops out from the high vibration area though, as that would dramatically reduce the number of troops it could carry into theatre.


----------



## Rescue Randy (4 Jan 2006)

For KJ_Gully and Zoomie, if you looked at my profile you will know that I am the guy from 19 Wing - I have been called that by the SAR community for a long time.  I used this name to ensure that you, and the rest of the SAR community, can identify me, because those who know me will also know that I will neither peddle nor accept BS, regardless of the consequences. 
I am currently self-employed, and while I have done some work for EADS, I have also worked for others who had questions about our current Air Mobility and SAR forces.  My post was intended to provide some basic facts, not slanted to any one product, to raise the level of discussion a bit.  Hopefully it came across that way.  
My main interest remains the SAR community, and ensuring that they get the best new equipment that they can, recognizing that our track record in procurement has been pretty spotty.  We were sold on the Cormorant, and supported the acquisition despite concerns over the tail rotor problems that the aircraft had since the beginning.  We are paying for this today. Our seniors traded off military maintenance personnel in order to get the aircraft – only to find out that the serviceability of the new Cormorant was no better than that of the Labrador.  The CF needs to make sure that they get the facts on the potential candidates prior to making a commitment, something that has not necessarily been done in the past.  
I have done quite a bit of research on the contenders, not only for the FWSAR but also for the transport requirement. I began that research well before I left the military, and have continued it since.  Suffice to say that glossy brochures from any aircraft manufacturer, or from anyone else with an axe to grind (including some from within DND), need to be carefully reviewed and pointed questions asked.  Without slamming anyone, it appears that the procurement process to date has ignored some of the basic questions that have been raised by Stoney in his post.  We need to get the facts out, and have a transparent procurement process.  That does not mean a long process; it means that issues of flying characteristics, payload, range, speed, serviceability, parts, and affordability have to be considered before we make up our mind on what we are buying.  It really does not matter which aircraft or combination of aircraft is procured, but you had better make sure that it will do the job, and be supportable, you cannot afford another Cormorant fleet.  The CF cannot afford the “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” approach to procurement.  Otherwise, we will get exactly what we asked for – just like we did with the Cormorant.  Future generations of CF personnel will have to live with it, and with this procurement decision, for a hell of a long time.


----------



## kj_gully (5 Jan 2006)

I don't know that the C27 is the best medium tranport aircraft for Canada. I don't know that there is a "best" Aircraft for SAR in Canada. I know that if I could, I would take a pressurized Buffalo over either the c27 or the c295. *That* isn't even the best plane for Canada, just Western Canada. All I know, is that there will be a New FWSAR bird, and there will be new transport birds in the reasonable future. My limited aircrew experience shows me that unique aircraft lead to maintenance nightmares and loss of flight hours. IMO, the more streamlined we are, the simpiler ( is that a word?) easier logistically and for training. Stating the obvious, we need new planes now. Unfortunately, whatever decision gets made is a compromise, but a decision needs to be made."Dithering " is a disease rampant in the military procurement process. Take guidance from Hillier, and just decide. Procurement should not be done in isolation. We shouldn't buy 1 transport plane, one maritime patrol plane, 1 sar plane. We need a family of aircraft, interconnected, with continuity throughtout the training and supply chain. I think LMAAT is closer to offering that than EADS.


----------



## Armymatters (31 Jan 2006)

If we want a Herc replacement on the cheap, there is another option, and it is from China  :
Shaanxi Aircraft Industry (Group) Co. Ltd's Y-8F600
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/airlift/y8f600.asp
The design is based off the Antonov AN-12 Cub, which is a Soviet copy of the C-130. This particular model is fitted with four P&W PB150B turboprop engines, and British Dodi all-composite six-blade R-408 propeller's. Has a glass cockpit as well. If we get this bird, it will definetely shock the Americans big time.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jan 2006)

Armymatters

There is a lot more to making this decision, than looking up aircraft in a Magazine.  Just a little info for you when it comes to Open Source Info like that; it is often not that accurate for Security Reasons.  No Nation will permit the exact specs of their military hardware to go public.  It is call National Defence, Official Secrets Act, Classified Materials, etc. for a reason.  

I would highly doubt that the Canadian Forces would be purchasing any major piece of military hardware from a Non-Allied Nation.


----------



## Armymatters (31 Jan 2006)

I am well aware of that. However, what is of note is that normally, Chinese airplane manufacturers do not use or install Western avionics or western engines if the design is meant for the PLA. The particular model I mentioned is meant for export, with either civilian or military use abroad, hence Western avionics and engines.

Then again, the Chinese example of how they organize their strategic airlift may be of note. For example, officially all IL-76s belong to the China United Airline (CUA), a sort of a crown corporation in China. As such, the IL-76s are registered with the four digit civilian aircraft numbering (B-XXXX), and some of them are in the CUA colour scheme. The PLA regularly "charters" these jets for military usage, such as paratrooper drops, air drops, etc. When not in military service, these jets are made available for charter airlift commerically. In theory, in Canada, such aircraft (like the IL-76 or even a AN-124) can operate under the same scheme, where they are owned and registered by a Crown Corporation (let's call this company Canadian Heavy Airlift Limited, or CHA) under a civilian registration (C-FXXX or C-GXXX), but are regularly "chartered" by the Canadian Forces for work, such as airlifting troops, cargo, vehicles, etc, and while not on CF airlift "charters", they are made available for civilian outsided charter work, which helps pay for the costs of the airplanes, and if properly managed, can be a source of revenue for the government, which such revenues can be used for adding new or replacing/updating old equipment within the Crown Corporation. In theory, legally, this should be all clear and legit, the only problem will be getting a type license from Transport Canada (easily done with some of the airlifters such as the IL-76, as that jet is getting a global certification, and is currently being built to international standards), but that should not be much of a problem.


----------



## Zoomie (1 Feb 2006)

I have serious doubts of the Canadian Forces ever contemplating the idea of purchasing from the CHICOM - communists = bad guys.

Your idea of a Crown Heavy-Lift corporation has merit, and has been discussed on these means in the past.  If such a venture were to go forth, why not C-17's or any other RO-RO military aircraft.  If the savants at CASR DND 101 had their way, we would be picking up stock piled IL-76's and converting them to western avionics and engines - good thing that nobody important reads their "research".  
If the newly minted government wants a strategic presence - we will require an airframe that is being used by other allied nations that are not half a world away.  We will need access to someone's simulator (usually more expensive than the actual plane) and have a dedicated parts line and maintenance pool.  If this means that the C-17 is the only choice, sobeit.


----------



## Armymatters (1 Feb 2006)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I have serious doubts of the Canadian Forces ever contemplating the idea of purchasing from the CHICOM - communists = bad guys.
> 
> Your idea of a Crown Heavy-Lift corporation has merit, and has been discussed on these means in the past.  If such a venture were to go forth, why not C-17's or any other RO-RO military aircraft.  If the savants at CASR DND 101 had their way, we would be picking up stock piled IL-76's and converting them to western avionics and engines - good thing that nobody important reads their "research".
> If the newly minted government wants a strategic presence - we will require an airframe that is being used by other allied nations that are not half a world away.  We will need access to someone's simulator (usually more expensive than the actual plane) and have a dedicated parts line and maintenance pool.  If this means that the C-17 is the only choice, sobeit.



I had a look at the C-17, and the proposed BC-17X commerical variant just recently. The only thing I would have against a C-17 or a BC-17X proposal is due to costs. The C-17 was not designed to be a cheap plane to build or operate. It was designed to do a job and fuel costs were near the bottom of the list of priorities. The unit price for a BC-17X civilian variant is a little hard to stomach; around $175 million dollars US. Military variants have been quoted to be around a quarter of a billion dollars US. Even the US Military is finding the costs of the C-17 hard to stomach; early build airframes apparantly are getting very clapped out and their airframe life span has been cut short due to the abuse the airframes have gone through, forcing the US Military to search for ways to either rebuild the airframes or purchase new airframes to replace these airframes.

In our theoretical Crown Corporation, a purchase of 4 An-124 Ruslan's would be appropriate. However, there are roadblocks to new airframes, as production halted in 2004 due to lack of parts to assemble new airframes. Apparantly, new build An-124's will cost around $70 to $80 million, if the specifications do not change. However, the price will inflate to rougly $100 million after modernization of the aircraft (building aircraft of 1992 standard does not make sense, so the drawings have to be digitized for higher manufacturing efficiency, and avionics must be newer as well) and designing new engines, according to some officials at Volga-Dnepr, if the airframe uses a reworked Russian engine. Volga-Dnepr also did calculations that reveal it will still be profitable if the airframe costs rises to $250 to $270 million each, if they are forced to use Western engines. 

In short, I am left scratching my head as to how to acquire strategic lift capablities. All options for strategic lift is expensive, some even prohibitively expensive. Strategic airlifters can get us there faster, but carry less, while sealifters, while carrying a lot more, gets there much slower. Both options are being considered by the DND, but costs are the main issues.

Leasing the aircraft may be cheap, getting when we wanted is difficult. Assured lease arrangements are understandably expensive. A 2002 DND briefing note stated that, based on the CF's future strategic airlift needs, a charter company would have to guarantee access to two An-124s within 48 hours of a request, and two more within seven days. These aircraft would have to be available for approximately 1,000 flying hours per year. Such an arrangement would cost approximately $8.5 billion over a 30-year period ($280-million annually) - which means that cost wise, it is the same as purchasing 12 A400M or six C-17 aircraft.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Feb 2006)

Wow, for a guy who has never spent anytime in the Air Force, you sure are alot more sure of the "answer" than I am...

I am pretty sure, however, that the "answer" does not involve buying used Russian or Chinese aircraft...


----------



## Armymatters (1 Feb 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Wow, for a guy who has never spent anytime in the Air Force, you sure are alot more sure of the "answer" than I am...
> 
> I am pretty sure, however, that the "answer" does not involve buying used Russian or Chinese aircraft...



In any way we deal with this lack of strategic lift, there will always be an issue. Either the airplane's availability for purchase is iffy, or it is available, just extremely expensive. We are screwed either way if something goes horribly wrong.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Feb 2006)

Welcome to life- where "perfect" decisions are the enemy of "good enough".


----------



## Grizzly (6 Mar 2006)

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued March 3, 2006)
  
  
 I am pleased to announce that the Australian Government will acquire up to four new Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft and associated equipment to provide the Australian Defence Force (ADF) with a heavy airlift capability.  

The Government has selected the C-17 by for its ability to meet the needs of the ADF over the next 30 years.  

This is the only aircraft currently in production which has a proven capability to meet ADF operational commitments, in Australia, the region and globally. The C-17 has four times the carrying capacity of the RAAF C-130 Hercules.  

The C-17 aircraft has the load capacity and range that will allow the ADF to rapidly deploy troops, combat vehicles, heavy equipment and helicopters. This includes the M1A1 Abrams Tank, as well as Black Hawk, Sea Hawk, and Chinook helicopters. Each C-17 has the capacity to transport five Bushmaster Infantry Vehicles, or three Tiger helicopters.  

The fleet of up to four aircraft will give Australia a new Responsive Global AirLift (RGA) capability, significantly enhancing the ADF's ability to support national and international operations, and major disaster rescue and relief efforts.  

As the C-17 aircraft is currently in production, it is possible for the first aircraft to be delivered later this year with the balance of the fleet to be delivered by mid 2008. This will give the ADF the Responsive Global Airlift operating capability it needs within a short time-frame.  

Acquisition of the C-17 will also provide significant opportunity for our aerospace industry with Boeing proposing an Australian Industry Capability program valued at $345m over the life of the aircraft.  

I had the pleasure of inspecting a United States Air Force C-17 today with my colleague, the Member for Macquarie, Mr Kerry Bartlett, at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Richmond.  

This investment of up to $2 billion is in addition to the Howard Government's commitment of $28.5 billion in increased spending on defence capability over the 10-year period to 2010, building on the 2000 White Paper to increase Defence funding by three per cent annually, in real terms, until 2010/11.  

-ends-  



I wonder if the Australian decision to purchase C-17's will have any influence on future airlift purchases by DND...


----------



## Blue Max (6 Mar 2006)

Grizzly said:
			
		

> (Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued March 3, 2006)
> 
> As the C-17 aircraft is currently in production, it is possible for the first aircraft to be delivered later this year with the balance of the fleet to be delivered by mid 2008. This will give the ADF the Responsive Global Airlift operating capability it needs within a short time-frame.



Meanwhile DND is still twittling their thumbs as to what to do.  :'(


----------



## HDE (6 Mar 2006)

Check out Defense Industry Daily for more


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Mar 2006)

Sooooo... a country the size of Canada could never afford C-17s, eh?


----------



## McG (7 Mar 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> If we want a Herc replacement on the cheap, there is another option, and it is from China  :
> Shaanxi Aircraft Industry (Group) Co. Ltd's Y-8F600.  The design is based off the Antonov AN-12 Cub, which is a Soviet copy of the C-130.


Is the Cub not visibly smaller than a CC-130?


----------



## ringo (8 Mar 2006)

Dream airlift

1st 6 C-17's to replace C-130E's, before 2010

2nd 18 Lochkeed C-27's for SAR and intermediate lift, 2010-15

3rd 12 A400M's to replace C-130H's, 2015-20


----------



## Blue Max (10 Mar 2006)

Australia to Spend Up to $1.5 Bn on 4 C-17s (updated)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/03/australia-to-spend-up-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated/index.php

The Australian government has just announced that the Australian Defence Forces will acquire up to 4 new Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlift planes and associated equipment for A$ 2 billion ($1.49 billion at today's conversion). The first aircraft will be delivered to Australia later in 2006, with the balance of the fleet to be delivered by mid 2008.

The C-17 was in competition with the Airbus A400M to become Australia's next-generation transport aircraft

While the A400M's flyaway price tag of USD$ 100 million or so would be approximately half that of a C-17 in return for about half the payload and two-thirds of the cargo volume, M1 tanks would not be transportable in an A400M, and the Long Beach Press-Telegram quotes industry observers who said it was the C-17's ability to tote Australia's M1 Abrams tanks and CH-47 Chinook helicopters that won over the Australian government. As a secondary consideration, the A400M lacks even a test model and would not have been available sooner than 2009 at the very earliest.

Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 lb (77,500 kg), and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 lb (265,350 kg). With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17 has an unrefueled range of 2,800 nautical miles (5,200 km). The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,000 ft (900 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although this is rarely done due to the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft). The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three-point (or in some cases, multi-point) turn maneuver.

The C-17 is designed to airdrop up to 102 paratroopers and equipment. In Australian terms, it ca also can carry one 60-ton M1 Abrams tank, as well as loads ranging from 5 Bushmaster infantry vehicles to 3 Tiger reconnaissance/attack helicopters.

Australia now joins the USA and Britain as operators of the C-17 Globemaster III. The ministerial release did not specify, but its wording and known cost figures for the C-17 suggest that the $372.5 million per aircraft amount represents unit procurement cost. If so, this would include the aircraft purchase price plus procurement costs, initial spare parts, maintenance equipment, basing alternations, technical data et. al. 

The timing is fortuitous for Boeing, as C-17 production is expected to shut down in 2008 and each new C-17 aircraft ordered reportedly extends Boeing's C-17 line by 3 weeks. Nevertheless, as Copley News Service explains, Boeing is slightly ahead of schedule and will be able to deliver the additional four aircraft without affecting its timelines for closure. The US Air Force has listed obtaining 7 more C-17s as its top unfunded requirement, however, and this could buy enough time to extend C-17 production into early 2009 while Boeing hunts for more orders.
Many of these deals also come with maintenance support provisions, and the C-17 comes with an established model in the C-17 Sustainment Partnership program.

The more I think about it the more it seems to make sense for Canada...We may even be able to spin some political favours from Boeing, back our way for a price of say 4xC-17.


----------



## Skaha (9 Jun 2006)

the C17 isn't really expensive . . at $250 million each it sounds expensive but to put that number into perpspective, Oprah just paid over $ 50 Million for a Bombardier Executive Jet.

Go price a 747, 777, A340 or A380.

Planes cost big bucks

The C17 is worth every penny.

No more "saving" money buying militarized civvy kit or second hand submarines.


----------

