daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 46,659
- Points
- 1,160
Um… that sounds a lot better
Canada's strategic airlift capability megathread (CC177, CC130J, A400M?)
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
Um… that sounds a lot better
- Reaction score
- 41,389
- Points
- 1,210
Is there a source for real world (not manufacturer pamphlet) takeoff / landing distances? That may be another consideration.
It's not just speed. The C130 is increasingly constrained on dimensions and payload weight. Given that reality, if the C130 fleet isn't replaced, there's a bunch of short haul and intra theater lift where you might just have to use C-17s. So maybe just increase the C-17 fleet to 20 frames if we don't want to swap the Herc for the bigger Atlas?
- Reaction score
- 13,450
- Points
- 1,160
I am not a fan of continually making things bigger and heavier.
I like the idea of constraining designs to the CH-47 / CC-130 standards. In Iraq the US Army wanted the smaller C27 because the needed to move small packages over short distances frequently and the USAF wouldn't commit even C130s to on-demand flights. They wanted to consolidate loads and fly their aircraft economically.
Keeping the smaller aircraft makes sense. Especially when we are talking about shunting missiles, munitions and UxVs around dispersed locations.
By keeping vehicles and loads constrained by the smaller aircraft then the bigger aircraft can carry more loads between hubs but the loads can be distributed rapidly down the spokes in the smaller aircraft.
The C130 is perfectly fine for moving ISVs, Bv206s, Ukrainian SKIFs (M113 rebuilds), CAVS, HIMARS, UGVs and pallets of whatever you like. Not to mention troops hanging from chutes.
The C130J30 can drop 92 troopers
The A400M drops 116
The C17 drops 102.
Bigger doesn't necessarily translate into more efficient.
- Reaction score
- 20,324
- Points
- 1,160
Here are the basic specs - in addition to what's listed by the replies above is the range.
Airbus A400M Atlas - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Lockheed C-130 Hercules - Wikipedia
I favour the A400 over the C130 for strategic lift (mostly because we can't get more C-17s). I think we have, and should keep, enough C-130s for tactical lift.
Do we ever make use of the c130 rough field capability? On the KC390 side; is its longer field length requirement limiting possible airports?
The Atlas can do tactical lift though. And really so can a C-17. The advantage of a Herc is actually rather small.
And a big part of why the Atlas and even the C-390 are growing in popularity is the realization that we don't do as much hard tactical lift (to short unprepared airstrips) as we think. Even in Afghanistan many operators just ended up flying C-17s right to the country. Given that threats grow with near peer, nothing large will be flown this close again.
I think we're reaching the point that there's only 1-2 theaters (Pacific and Africa) where the edge of the C-130 over the A400 or C17 in rough field ops truly matters. In every other place? You're better off having the larger cargo box, speed and range of the Atlas or the full strat lift capability of the C-17. So it's a question of how much do we truly see ourselves doing rough field ops in those places. Keep in mind that you can always just drop without landing (LAPES drops). And the coming future vertical lift ideas will provide that long range personnel lift anyway.
This would matter if paratroop drops was a major part of their employment. It's not. And we're not really reconstituting an airborne brigade anytime soon either. It's mostly SOF that does regular jumps these days. And they don't really care what the airplane is, nor do they need the numbers. They just need an airplane with a ramp and the reach.
Not as much as people imagine. First because we aren't doing the island hopping thing the Americans are doing. And next, because it's going to be rare to get a commander who will risk a Herc the same way they'd risk a Chinook. Might as well recognize reality and go to a platform that gets more utility.
Now, if the American FVL Heavy comes closer to replacing a Herc than a Chinook (as some speculate), then maybe we'll have different arguments....
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 46,659
- Points
- 1,160
And we don't 'do LAPES' anymore either, so we might as well just get a squadron of refurbished 737s with the gravel airfield kits added as required
Gravel Kits: How Boeing 737s Could Land On Dirt Runways
Gravel kits are required when traveling to isolated towns or villages in places like Alaska and Northern Canada.
simpleflying.com
- Reaction score
- 27,556
- Points
- 1,360
Atlas is a prudent move. Canada can only dream of new C5Ms, so more C-17s as ‘canstrat’ and A400M as new ‘cantacstrat’ and make the best use of the existing Jerks as possible in the tac-only role.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 46,659
- Points
- 1,160
What would a fatter herc do to the equation? Of a certainty, Lockheed is watching the market to see which changes to pursue.
- Reaction score
- 629
- Points
- 810
One needs to be careful about fawning too much over the A400. Take a look at what they are saying about the maintenance costs to keep them in the air, and the durability of the engines.
Also, efficiency is a real thing in Air Movements. It is always better to send the smallest asset needed (from a cost benefit and available hours benefit). And so are some specific mission sets that while technically can be done by larger aircraft, doesn't mean they should be. While the CC130J may not do a whole lot of rough terrain landings/takeoffs, it has the capability to go into smaller northern aerodromes (remember that whole area up North that we need to operate in) that we can't reliably put an A400 or C17 into.
Bigger aircraft also make bigger targets, and traditionally are less maneuverable when it counts.
Also, efficiency is a real thing in Air Movements. It is always better to send the smallest asset needed (from a cost benefit and available hours benefit). And so are some specific mission sets that while technically can be done by larger aircraft, doesn't mean they should be. While the CC130J may not do a whole lot of rough terrain landings/takeoffs, it has the capability to go into smaller northern aerodromes (remember that whole area up North that we need to operate in) that we can't reliably put an A400 or C17 into.
Bigger aircraft also make bigger targets, and traditionally are less maneuverable when it counts.
- Reaction score
- 13,450
- Points
- 1,160
Re C17 and rough strip landings:
While I recognize it is possible and has been done I also understand that those landings eat up aircraft and operators prefer to use them on prepared runways. And as @captloadie points out, you don't want to use a bigger aircraft than necessary. That is why outfits like PenAir and Alaska, which flew 737s with gravel kits, also fly Otters, and even Cessna 150s (I have landed on fat tires on beaches).
Do most of our domestic needs fit inside a Herc or do we need the larger volume or payload of the A400?
I would prefer more C17s but they fall into "then tinkers would ride" territory. They don't exist. The A400 exists but its roll out has been slow. The C130 has lots of company.
All things considered I prefer the civilian RoRo ferry route for strategic lift, and even for northern ops. The ferry can transport the vehicles and disembark them on to mexeflotes as well as docks. The troops can be flown in to join them in by chartered civilian aircraft where appropriate and if necessary. The cabins on the ferries then become base accommodations. And the ferries require bolt on air defences and qualified air defence operators.
Reg force uniformed airlift is necessary for the routine and for the opposed.
While I recognize it is possible and has been done I also understand that those landings eat up aircraft and operators prefer to use them on prepared runways. And as @captloadie points out, you don't want to use a bigger aircraft than necessary. That is why outfits like PenAir and Alaska, which flew 737s with gravel kits, also fly Otters, and even Cessna 150s (I have landed on fat tires on beaches).
Do most of our domestic needs fit inside a Herc or do we need the larger volume or payload of the A400?
I would prefer more C17s but they fall into "then tinkers would ride" territory. They don't exist. The A400 exists but its roll out has been slow. The C130 has lots of company.
All things considered I prefer the civilian RoRo ferry route for strategic lift, and even for northern ops. The ferry can transport the vehicles and disembark them on to mexeflotes as well as docks. The troops can be flown in to join them in by chartered civilian aircraft where appropriate and if necessary. The cabins on the ferries then become base accommodations. And the ferries require bolt on air defences and qualified air defence operators.
Reg force uniformed airlift is necessary for the routine and for the opposed.
Sure. But that needs to be traded off against the cost of operating another type or even just a larger C-17 fleet. And this is all a bigger headache as the army's kit gets bigger. Even the Americans are worried about that. Part of the motivation to restating C-17 production.
The way I see it, we either buy 15 C-17s when the line repoens. Or we buy 5-6 C-17sand then start looking at replacing the Hercs with the Atlas just like the Brits did.
Is there that much of a difference between the Stretch Herc and Atlas here? And aren't some of those airfields getting upgrades with the coming strategic infrastructure investments?
Sure. But who will even risk a Herc to begin with these days? Especially with manpad and drone threats being what they are? An Atlas would only be marginally harder to defend. And no commander is dispatching that aircraft if they are the point of debating whether a Herc is more survivable.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 27,556
- Points
- 1,360
By ‘fatter herc’ I’m going to assume you mean the A400M. I have experienced (lived the ‘dream’) of ops where a C-17 wasn’t anywhere in the equation and the crossroad/split across numerous Hercs was painfully, operationally, where a dispatched larger intra-Canada lift platform would have worked perfectly and not stranded a significant fraction of the deploying force. Is a Jerk nicer to be a pax in than an H/E? Absolutely! Colleagues still in air mobility say it’s not bad, but that there remains a gap payload/range-wise between the J and the 17. The additional factor of the A400M is diversified basis of augmenting the current 100% U.S.-beholden mobility capability.
Interesting discussion especially as there is now adult supervision allowing problems to be solved .
As YTZ has stated there seems to be real discussion on acquiring more CC-330's as there are used A/C with relatively low hours due to Covid on the Commercial market so the question is out there . How many More CC-330's?
Is there an immediate need for whats available in Tac lift now ? More Herc's or say 10 New A-400's to compliment what we have now. Or does the P.M. pull on the sleeve of Trump this week and promise tails if Boeing re opens the C-17 line?
If the States plans to replace the Ton airmiles of the C-5's I reckon that alone would justify 150 new C-17's and replacement of the first 50 C-17's with out the larger fuel tank takes American needs to 200 A/C before breakfast. India is short at least 5 , Canada is at least 3 Short and Japan would probably buy 12. Hmm throw in YTZ's plan for 12-15 new C-17 and it makes you wonder when Boeing should make the commitment.
As YTZ has stated there seems to be real discussion on acquiring more CC-330's as there are used A/C with relatively low hours due to Covid on the Commercial market so the question is out there . How many More CC-330's?
Is there an immediate need for whats available in Tac lift now ? More Herc's or say 10 New A-400's to compliment what we have now. Or does the P.M. pull on the sleeve of Trump this week and promise tails if Boeing re opens the C-17 line?
If the States plans to replace the Ton airmiles of the C-5's I reckon that alone would justify 150 new C-17's and replacement of the first 50 C-17's with out the larger fuel tank takes American needs to 200 A/C before breakfast. India is short at least 5 , Canada is at least 3 Short and Japan would probably buy 12. Hmm throw in YTZ's plan for 12-15 new C-17 and it makes you wonder when Boeing should make the commitment.
