Author Topic: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter  (Read 9450 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2019, 19:52:42 »
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

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 555,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,178
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2019, 21:36:33 »
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:

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 462,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,774
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2019, 22:15:51 »
Twin Otter: $7M.  Chinook $35M.

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

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 228,507
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,318
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2019, 22:18:55 »
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.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 25,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 760
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #54 on: May 22, 2019, 22:23:00 »
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.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,156
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2019, 01:07:33 »
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

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 248,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,869
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2019, 01:14:08 »

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
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2019, 01:17:57 »
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

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 28,182
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,413
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2019, 01:31:43 »
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.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline MAJONES

  • Directing Staff
  • Member
  • *
  • 4,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 148
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #59 on: May 23, 2019, 08:48:06 »
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.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 248,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,869
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #60 on: May 23, 2019, 09:29:33 »
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.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,156
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #61 on: May 23, 2019, 12:32:41 »
...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

"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
 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #62 on: May 23, 2019, 14:42:19 »
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.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,156
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #63 on: May 23, 2019, 15:28:31 »
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...

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 56,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 626
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #64 on: May 23, 2019, 16:34:13 »
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:

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 110,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,854
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2019, 17:23:13 »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2019, 19:14:29 »
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.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 110,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,854
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2019, 21:38:39 »
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
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 22:00:43 by tomahawk6 »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #69 on: May 24, 2019, 09:52:31 »
Believe it or not some aviation companies are capable of succeeding without government subsidies https://www.vikingair.com/

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 248,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,869
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #70 on: May 24, 2019, 11:31:20 »
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
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,047
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,883
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #71 on: May 24, 2019, 12:06:53 »
"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

 Spent my career mostly working on fighters with a little time spent around the ASW community.
Thanks for the info you are contributing to this thread and others.


Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,804
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #72 on: May 24, 2019, 13:02:22 »
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:

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.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,156
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #73 on: May 24, 2019, 13:15:14 »
"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

 Spent my career mostly working on fighters with a little time spent around the ASW community.
Thanks for the info you are contributing to this thread and others.

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

Offline GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 18,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 456
Re: The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter
« Reply #74 on: May 24, 2019, 13:59:20 »
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.
Thanks for the info you are contributing to this thread and others.


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
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.
"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"