Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!

[a_majoor]

Back on topic:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift.htm

I especially like the business model proposed. Anyone care to chip in?

 

[Kirkhill]

I am a big fan of this type of solution.  For both air and sealift.

Have the government subsidize a private and/or Crown Corporation (probably Crown) to purchase 12 Airlifters (eg) and paint 4 of them Grey and have the others doing White livery work on the commercial market.  Crewed and maitained by a mix of regs, reservists and civvies.

Same scenario for sealift (as opposed to sea based sustainment and command although perhaps there could be some commonality in hulls and machinery).

 

[canuck101]

What do you think of this option instead of trying to get C-17.  Getting four of these may help us.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm

 

[a_majoor]

The lack of airlift is totally unacceptable, especially given the inability of the Government to "project" any sort of help to the Indian Ocean region, which undermines any pretensions of our being a "caring" nation or us having a "Responsibility to Protect".

Between all of us here, we should have the combined brainpower and financial smarts to get into the airfreight business, purchasing a few Il -76 "Candids" and upgrading them on the CASR model. We could give the Government a "first call" contractfor emergency services in exchange for the yearly insurance payments (for example). Reduced military contract rates for providing routine services such as supply runs to Alert, yearly rentals for the BTE and Reserve summer concentrations (shuttling equipment to and from, and providing one or two lifts for the jumpers) would be a "base" for the business, while we would make money flying heavy equipment for civvie companies doing work in Northern Alberta or the Arctic when not otherwise engaged. (Candids can also be used for fighting forest fires, among other things)

I realize this is a huge project (Just purchasing and upgrading the Candids would run into the $50 million dollars each range), but if we wait for Paul Martin and Co, we will NEVER achieve this ability.

 

[Meridian]

Ive got about 100$. But Im in.

 

[a_majoor]

Thanks for the cash offers (we should be able to install flight ready cup holders in our Candids now!).

I realize this is pretty startling , but if we start doing research, putting our heads together, brainstorming ideas, either here or via PM, this idea could fly (well, I couldn't resist  )

We all know something must be done, we are all aware of the Liberal's 30 + year record on Defense, so who else is going to pick up the load?

What is needed is some serious research into such things as:

The air freight market in Canada. How much need for heavy air freight is there? Will there be enough non government work available to make this a paying proposition? How much? How many aircraft would be needed to service this market?
Regulatory issues, especially involving the purchase, ownership and certification of aircraft (particularly modified ones)
Support issues: Who can do these sorts of conversions suggested by CASR?
Government relations issues. How do we convince the government to buy these services (saying we are the only game in town is a non answer. The EH 101 was the only game in town for a decade, but the government stalled until there was a semi-viable alternative (prototype) helicopter available just to "save face")

I'm sure there are lots of other issues I haven't even considered, so the business plan on the back of the napkin has lots of blank spaces.

Am I pissed? You bet. Am I talking through my hat? I don't know (yet). We are all in the military not just for the Dental plan, but because somewhere in our lives, we decided we were going to do something. Here is another opportunity. Lets see if Transport.ca  is a viable idea!

 

[Kirkhill]

Good enough for me Inch. 

Now back to the point at hand.  How do we get Kit to distant places fast?  And how can we get more of the Herc drivers into the air?

 

[Jungle]

I'm not sure we need to replace the Herc, but we certainly need to supplement it. With something BIG !!!
We will always need the medium lift C-130s provide, and we have a number of them that are 20 years old or less, and that are still serviceable. Keep those and scrap the rest. We will certainly need to replace them eventually, but for now we should concentrate on acquiring a heavy lift capability.
Since I'm no expert in this field, I'll leave the type of aircraft and transaction details for others...

 

[Infanteer]

It seems that replacing the older C-130's with a new "J" model and getting a few C-17's would be the ideal strategy for supplementing our tactical and strategic airlift needs (it would be something I would vote for anyways).  I heard a rumor that the Government has 9 billion to spare....

 

[Meridian]

Not anymore, they already spent it on the debt.

 

[Inch]

I think you've got a pretty good idea Jungle. The latest happenings in the world would suggest that having 4-6 C17s loaded with the DART and a TacHel sqn complete with their aircraft would be a serious help. I'd prefer something other than the Griffon, but there isn't much else.

Zoomie suggested it in another thread, but I'll repost part of it here. C17s, Hercs and Spartans would give us an awesome airlift capability. I'm a firm believer in multiple platforms vice the "do everything ok but nothing particularly well" consolidation that we seem to have done in the past few years.

I know you guys have a real love on for the IL-76 but I'm not a big fan of this for the simple fact that it's Russian built. We have a hard enough time getting parts for our Italian made Cormorants let alone parts for a Russian strat airlifter. My pick and IMO, the only one avail at present is the C-17.

Cheers,

Infanteer, you posted while I was typing, we're on the same page on this one.

 

[Fraz]

If the Gov't were truly serious about maintaining a strategic airlift capability it is necessary to replace the older 'E' models of the Hercs as their airframes are damn near 40 years old and showing it.  In the early nineties we bought a couple of stretch 'H' models i believe from a middle eastern country but regardless we should replace all of the older 'E' models at the very least with the newer 'J' as well as make sure the current avionics upgrades coincide with the newer aircrafts. Additionally the Buffalo replacement programme seems to be gaining speed as well as support so an ideal aircraft would seem to be the C-27J made by lockheed and CASA. The avionics are identical to the C-130J and would therefore be easier on trg and maintainance for spare parts.  
As brought up by AMajoor on CASR/DND101 there are several minds of thought on how to aquire a heavy strategic lift capability which we DO need and need NOW.  
option a) initiate a Crown Corporation and aquire whatever aircraft: AN 124, or IL 76's or C-5's give       the CF priority, and make it a money making organization to operate independantly
option b) purchase newly made IL 76's (1/4 of the cost of a C-17 which we cannot alone afford) which now come available with western engines and avionics and either stand up a new Sqn of 8-10 aircraft? or just add to 437 in Trenton while the CC-150's remain as troop/vip/and air to air refuelers (upgrades for 2 ongoing in Germany) or...
option c) approach our allies in the UK and US about a lend lease agreement like the way NATO has with AWACS, all of the members share the costs for the aircraft, maintanance, flight and ground crews, this would increase operational ability as well as markedly decrease costs as well as eleviate redundancy. Such a measure would surely fit with regards to NATO rapid reaction forces as well as Northern Command plans...
Either way we can all understand that the current events in the Tsunami affected areas have shown that we desparately need our own strategic lift capability to rapidly deploy and react to situations within hours and not weeks after they happen. We can no longer afford to be at the whim of the private sector to deploy at their leisure and convenience.  The world is too small to be an introvert which our gov't has arguably been the last little while

 

[Infanteer]

As good as any piece of kit from Europe may be (cost, durability) the advantages of buying "continental" are big in terms of the ease of getting parts and service from either the US or Canada.

As well, I'm not really a fan of anything Soviet.  Having a used airframe built under communist inefficency doesn't seem to be a good fix, no matter how much modern gloss you paint over it with.  You see how wacky people get over second-hand British subs having problems, wait until junky Warsaw Pact garbage starts falling from the sky (full of Canadian troops and gear).

 

[raider43]

I'm no expert either, but I sure think it is foolish that we have this DART group and don't have the capacity to deliver it on a timely basis.  Seems to me we need our own Canadian Heavy Lift aircraft, and just from my assessment (not professional), I believe we should have at least two C17 Globemasters  III.  Although I can't really judge whether this aircraft would liift the DART, I suspect it would, albeit perhaps with some other support, such as a second flight.  But this aircraft's ability to fly into remote (even unpaved) sites seems to me to be an ideal solution for Canada's proclaimed role as a peace keeper and for disaster response

 

[Fraz]

Yes I too am fairly skeptical of Soviet aircraft, and i do prefer western nay N. American kit.
However, with the C-5's just as old as the Herc, we'd have to do some serious upgrades WRT avionics, and even airframes, and control surfaces and that would be costly.
We could buy brand new C-17's but with the Liberals record i sincerely doubt that they'll doll out the needed $ for that. Re: my option C if we did in fact choose the C-17 and go in together with the Yanks and the Brits to share the operating costs. the Airbus 400M is also a new aircraft but the jobs to build it would predominantly be in two factories (one in France and one in Germany)
The other albeit less popular options were to either aquire FORMER Soviet made aircraft although if you look into it the factories are now building aircraft to western standards with western equipment.
To throw something out there why not support Canadian industry by buying the licence to build Strategic heavy lift aircraft here, just like we should be building ships and more armoured vehicles

 

[a_majoor]

I too am sceptical about the idea of used ex-Soviet airlifters bought "as is", but there are several factors that make this the most practical of all the various ideas:

a. The planes exist already. New C-17s would have to be ordered,while Airbus A-400s don't even exist. The only other choice in that size range is the AN-70/77, which is not in series production. I believe the former USSR built over 500 Il-76 transports.

b. Candids are very cheap compared to C-17s, starting around $20 million per unit, while one C-17 costs $250 million. (The AN-70/77 is @ $40 million, while the A-400 is supposed to come in at $100 million).

c. All the various plans involve refurbishing the Candids before bringing them into service, including new engines, avionics and airframe overhaul. Purchase could be contingent on airframes passing inspection, so if they tried to pawn old "crap" off on us, we would just walk away.

d. The Candid is a much more versatile craft than most of us realize. It is designed for use on unimproved forward airstrips, it has on board cargo handling equipment and even an on board "tool kit" that allows the crew alone to do everything including changing an engine. If you are doing commercial work in Inuvik to pay the bills while waiting for the CF contract, this sort of capability is a big bonus. If you are doing CF contract work in Dafur, it is a must. The Candid also has the size and lift ability to carry at least two LAV IIIs, and continental range, unlike a Herc.

e. Fraz' idea of building under licence would only make sense if there was a big market for these planes. Would you think there are buyers for (say) 20-40 AN-70/77 type cargo planes in Canada? Any less then it would be much cheaper to buy from the factory. (Getting into the air transport industry on a shoe string to backfill the CF like I am suggesting would suggest "airlift.ca" would have a fleet of 2 to 5 aircraft).

Keep thinking about this, I am sure there are lots of factors yet to address before we can say if this is a reasonable idea or not. (The prospectus will be in the mail soon after).

 

[Infanteer]

Out of the box thinking for sure, and you are very wise to point out price in a "military-on-the-cheap".   However, are we requiring unimproved airstrip capability out of our strategic airlift requirement?   I am of the same nature as Mr Inch, prefering a mixed bag of airframes for different tasks rather then trying to get a "system-of-systems" silver bullet approach.

PS...I am willing to bet I could take some "organizational scissors" and find you four C-17's real quick   ;D   The cost is a matter of how bad we want it.   If we want to stick to a bloated, Cold War organizational structure built around bureaucratic imperative and mobilizing for the Fulda Gap - then we can do so without modern strategic airlift.... :-\

 

[Bograt]

I've taken the initative, and put this together... entirely plagerized from various sources:

From a US Congressional Report on Strategic Airlift
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5938&sequence=0

The need for strategic airlift, the planes that carry troops and equipment between continents, has lessened markedly in recent years. Current requirements for the first two weeks of a major regional conflict are 36 percent to 58 percent lower than those estimated during the Cold War for a confrontation with the Soviet Union. However, during the 1980s, the actual number of airlift aircraft was insufficient to handle the deliveries that the Department of Defense (DoD) estimated would be needed for a NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict. Current plans to maintain an airlift fleet with a theoretical capacity of 49 million to 52 million ton-miles per day come much closer to meeting delivery requirements that the Pentagon has set for itself. Yet critics might question why meeting DoD's airlift requirements is receiving relatively more emphasis today.

The defense bill for fiscal year 1996 will complete funding for 40 C-17 aircraft. Some military analysts would prefer to buy 80 to 100 additional C-17s to replace the Air Force's aging C-141 Starlifters. But a combination of C-17s and the Lockheed Martin C-5D or the C-33, a military version of Boeing's 747-400 freighter, might provide sufficient capability at lower cost.

The Congress might want to consider three criteria for evaluating airlift options: ability to meet delivery requirements for two major regional conflicts; ability to perform special missions, such as air-dropping a brigade after traveling between continents or repositioning outsize equipment within a theater by air; and cost. How to balance the tradeoffs between performance and cost depends on the likelihood that the United States will become involved in two major conflicts at the same time or in crises that will require U.S. forces to perform special missions.

After the Air Force retires its C-141s, purchasing 80 more C-17s would allow it to meet its airlift requirements, increase the share of planes in its fleet that can carry outsize cargo, and address special military missions. Based on the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) estimates, the Air Force would pay more than $36 billion (in 1996 dollars) to purchase and operate 80 additional C-17s through 2020.

DoD is planning to send less outsize cargo to major regional contingencies than it would have sent to a NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict. Thus, a mixture of C-17s and planes that cannot carry most outsize equipment, such as C-33s, might still meet requirements to deliver cargo to major regional contingencies. If there was adequate room at airfields in regions of potential conflict, buying 32 more C-17s plus 30 C-33s would provide the same delivery capability as 80 additional C-17s. That option would also be nearly $8 billion cheaper: it would cost about $28 billion to buy and operate the planes through 2020 (in 1996 dollars). If, however, U.S. forces were limited to a few airfields that had a small amount of ramp space, that option might not deliver cargo as quickly as would 80 more C-17s. And such a combination would not provide as much flexibility to handle specific military missions such as strategic brigade airdrops.

Compared with the C-33, the C-5D might enhance DoD's ability to perform some military missions but still cost less than buying only C-17s. CBO estimates that buying and operating 65 C-5Ds would cost more than $27 billion through 2020--nearly $9 billion less than 80 additional C-17s (in 1996 dollars). However, the C-5D does not have all of the C-17's capabilities. For example, it could not be used to land on the shortest runways. And if access to airfields was limited, a fleet with 65 C-5Ds might not deliver cargo as quickly as could 80 additional C-17s.

The appropriate mixture of planes depends on how much DoD and the Congress are willing to pay for the flexibility provided by 80 additional C-17s. The options described in this memorandum could cost $8 billion to $9 billion less through 2020. The near-term costs of those alternatives could be higher or lower than for 80 more C-17s, depending on the timing of the purchases. Those cost issues may be of particular concern now, when the Congress is adding acquisition programs to the defense budget and, at the same time, trying to eliminate the federal budget deficit.

From a Defence Manufacturer (hows this for thinking out of the box?)
http://www.aerosml.com/pr04-26-04b.asp

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has launched the WALRUS Program, which will study the feasibility of a new air vehicle capable of transporting 500-1,000 tons of military payload across 6,000 miles within 4 days.


The Aeroscraft for WALRUS

The US military identified deficiencies in its strategic airlift capability as far back as after the first Gulf War. Interest waned by the mid-1990's, but the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have again underscored the airlift need. Additionally, the need has been amplified by a key change in US military doctrine referred to as the "10-30-30" objective: to be able to deploy to a distant theater in 10 days, defeat an enemy within 30 days, and be ready for an additional fight within another 30 days. DARPA WALRUS envisions transporting an entire battle-ready Unit of Action from its operational US base to near enemy lines, termed "from fort to fight". The WALRUS air vehicle would dwarf every aircraft in existence today, with a total hull length anywhere from 600 to 1,000 feet.

Aeros sees its Aeroscraft vehicle as a natural solution to the strategic airlift need. "Our experience in certification, Aeroscraft development, and recent DoD high-profile programs put us in an excellent position to secure a prime placement," says Aeros CEO Igor Pasternak. "Additionally, we are excited DoD recognizes that LTA technologies have the capability to meet our country's strategic airlift needs."

Release of the formal WALRUS RFP is expected within the next several weeks, with multiple awards expected this summer for the 1-year Phase I study. The $50MM Phase II will produce a smaller 30-ton Advanced Technology Demonstrator by 2007, which the US armed services will use to evaluate mission utility and CONOPS. If adopted by a service, a full-scale Phase III vehicle would be developed and evaluated for potential production.

Or this suggestion from Canadian American Strategic Review:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm

 

[a_majoor]

Out of the box thinking for sure, and you are very wise to point out price in a "military-on-the-cheap".  However, are we requiring unimproved airstrip capability out of our strategic airlift requirement? 

Actually, yes! Strategic airlift should not presuppose the existence of friendly or functioning airfields at the receiving end, and I would bet a lot of money a Candid could use many airports in the Tsunami zone which are not currently "functional" for one reason or the other.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has launched the WALRUS Program, which will study the feasibility of a new air vehicle capable of transporting 500-1,000 tons of military payload across 6,000 miles within 4 days.

Projects like this are useful (if ever carried to fruition), but are in the same category as the A-400, i.e. paper airplanes. In fact they are worse in one way, the A-400 is an extension of the plane maker's art and could be built "soon", while projects like the "Walrus", Boeing "Pelican" Wing In Ground (WIG) transport, Areon hybrid airships etc. are more theory than fact. The Areon corporation proposed an airship which was in the shape of a flying wing to generate extra lift during flight, and even built a very small scale prototype in the 1970s, but never demonstrated anything bigger than a Piper Cub. WIG aircraft have been around for a long time (Flying boat pilots pioneered the technique in the 1930s to extend their range), but there are still many unknowns in that flying regime. A German company also proposed the Cargolifter airship with a 160 tonne payload, and got as far as a scale prototype and building the hanger before they went bankrupt....

What I would like to focus on is the "here and now" needs of Canada. Since we know the Government is unwilling to make the investment for large strategic airlifters (much less tactical airlifters like the C-130J), then there is an opportunity for "us" to step in.

The Candid exists, and is relatively inexpensive. It may be possible to make a living doing non government air freight, while giving the government a "stand by" contract and capability of responding to a crisis in short order (i.e. any non tasked airplane goes to Trenton right away, while any plane on charter finishes that run and returns home to take up the follow on loads). There are also existing military needs such as ferrying equipment to Alert, setting up and taking down the BTE, and doing mass drops at the CPC to think an air charter company set up as suggested could be the preferred supplier of airlift to the CF on the basis of having the right equipment, familiarity with the CF and offering the "right" price, whatever that is. Like I said before, do you really want to read today's headlines in 2015 because no one would step up to the plate?

 

[Wizard of OZ]

I still think the C130J is the best for Canada, however if we could ever afford a plane like the C-17( about $170 mil US a piece) It would great too. The Brit's have just decided to buy the C-17's they leased and i think they are even buying a few more. The A-400 from Airbus is an unproven a/c so I would be hesitant to buy that one. As for Canada to buy an Antonov a/c, well ????? I just don't think so even if we now   use them for airlift.

   

The Problem is we have a tendency to buy unproven technology and that would be just the reason the governments needs to buy the new A-400.   Then again the Antonov's are going into production again backed by Western based airline companies and the Ukraine's themselves for more civilian purposes.   If they work and are cost effective why not get them as we don't seem to want to use American made goods.