The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter

[YZT580]

should at least be sergeants.

 

[GK .Dundas]

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

 

[Loachman]

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

Rank is really irrelevant. Training is critical.

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

 

[GK .Dundas]

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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

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

 

[SupersonicMax]

Rank is really irrelevant. Training is critical.

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

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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

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

 

[Journeyman]

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

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


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

 

[dapaterson]

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

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GK .Dundas]

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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

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

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

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

 

[a_majoor]

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

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

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

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

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

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

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

 

[YZT580]

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

 

[GK .Dundas]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

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