The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter

[MarkOttawa]

Post of mine from 2015:

Why Not Just Buy New-Build Viking Air Twotters for RCAF?

https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/mark-collins-why-not-just-buy-new-build-viking-air-twotters-for-rcaf/

And worse for Viking Air with Liberals (though why wouldn't Conservatives buy them?) the new-build Twotters are made in, gasp, Calgary:

...2010 introduction of the Viking Air DHC-6 Series-400 Twin Otter, a modern version of the proven workhorse, built in the company’s Calgary assembly plant...
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/local-flight-training-company-set-to-become-world-training-hub-for-historic-calgary-built-aircraft

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS0-5WVIHMM

Just a reminder of what a Twin Otter can do - limits the need for a helicopter

1 to 2 tonne payload with up to 20 passengers and up to 700 km range (185 km at 1842 kg, 741 km at 1375 kg, 1435 km at 0 kg, 1815 km with extra fuel tankage)

https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-information/technical-description

Something between a Griffon and a Cormorant for lift and range.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Post of mine from 2015:

And worse for Viking Air with Liberals (though why wouldn't Conservatives buy them?) the new-build Twotters are made in, gasp, Calgary:

Mark
Ottawa

I flew the single engine turbines Otters a couple of times last week, to and from VAncouver, with Harbour Air. An awesome aircraft.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This article talks mostly about Warrant Officer Pilots, but does bring up the Twin Otter in that context.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/unwarranted-reconsidering-the-air-force-warrant-officer/?fbclid=IwAR2A8pyAM1GWC9N6V7qIfVDi63dBPYDATc0iTXfGgaYXvm-_G0TluGyb8P4

 

[tomahawk6]

How about the Skytruck ?

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c-145a-skytruck-light-twin-engine-aircraft/

The C-145A Skytruck is a light cargo and troop transport aircraft designed and manufactured for the US Air Force (USAF). The aircraft is primarily used to assist Aviation Foreign Internal Defence (AvFID) missions of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC).
The C-145As were deployed to support theatre special operations commands in Afghanistan and eastern Africa. The Air Force Special Operations Warfare Center operates up to ten C-145A Skytrucks and is expected to deploy an additional six by 2015.

 

[Loachman]

I have yet to see us in a theatre where such a beast would be useful.

That includes 4 CMBG in Germany and TFK in Afghanistan.

Brigade-sized areas are too small, and seldom contain more than one suitably-sized airfield (if even one).

Moving a reasonable-sized load internally in a small seized-wing aircraft is inefficient and impractical, either short-range or long-range.

This is much easier done as slung loads carried by large helicopters.

Especially when there are no airfields.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have yet to see us in a theatre where such a beast would be useful.

That includes 4 CMBG in Germany and TFK in Afghanistan.

Brigade-sized areas are too small, and seldom contain more than one suitably-sized airfield (if even one).

Moving a reasonable-sized load internally in a small seized-wing aircraft is inefficient and impractical, either short-range or long-range.

This is much easier done as slung loads carried by large helicopters.

Especially when there are no airfields.

Or C-130 LAPES.... which we don't do anymore, of course.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Mali strikes me as a theatre where they would definitely play a part. You can build the runway into the road or in a flat area which there is a lot of. It's a big effing country and resupply by a smaller fixed wing will be cheaper in the long run. One option would be to contract out the requirement to a company with suitable small aircraft. We don't have that many helicopters and you will quickly pile up the hours on them resupplying bases in that country. Yes you may have to build airfields, but that is also good for the longterm health of the country. Allowing civilian air travel to expand eventually.

 

[Loachman]

If one builds a runway, one then has to defend it constantly. IEDs can take out aircraft as well as vehicles. Insurgents with small arms and RPGs can hide in jungle or scrub.

How many people - with associated equipment and vehicles - would be needed to defend an airfield in uncontrolled territory, and how many airfields should be buiilt?

We are not re-supplying anything. Our primary task is medevac.

Regardless, a Chinook will lift more (and more efficiently), has more flexibility, and is not tied to airfields.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Mali strikes me as a theatre where they would definitely play a part. You can build the runway into the road or in a flat area which there is a lot of. It's a big effing country and resupply by a smaller fixed wing will be cheaper in the long run. One option would be to contract out the requirement to a company with suitable small aircraft. We don't have that many helicopters and you will quickly pile up the hours on them resupplying bases in that country. Yes you may have to build airfields, but that is also good for the longterm health of the country. Allowing civilian air travel to expand eventually.

Maybe so, but if Mali wants to improve their internal transportation infrastructure let them buy and operate the aircraft and build whatever airfields are necessary.  It is very easy to say this or that aircraft type could be used to good effect in that mission but remember that Canada is only providing a limited aviation capability and did not agree to provide anything more than what we already have in theatre.  We are only a very small player in the UN operation.  It might be a different story if we were independently conducting large scale combat (peace support?) operations in that country and had a requirement to move our own elements about a widely dispersed battle space, but we aren't.  Just like every other nation involved in that UN operation, Canada is providing what it said it would provide, though many may disagree with the limited Canadian participation.  What do you do with such aircraft after Canada's participation in the mission is over, if they could even be procured, crews trained and doctrine written in the time available before repat?

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/military-operations/current-operations/op-presence.html

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is supporting the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). This is part of the Government of Canada’s overall efforts to help set conditions for durable peace, development, and prosperity in Mali.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations/military-operations/current-operations/op-presence.html
Operation PRESENCE - Mali will be twelve months long. Follow the timeline of the mission here. The core mission is to provide MINUSMA with the 24/7 capability to medically evacuate UN forces by air. CAF members are also supporting MINUSMA headquarters. When possible, the CAF provides other services:
•transport troops, equipment, and supplies
•logistics support

CAF members have joined 56 MINUSMA partner countries in their efforts to bring sustainable peace and stability to Mali and the Sahel.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

 

[Journeyman]

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:

 

[dapaterson]

Twin Otter: $7M.  Chinook $35M.

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

 

[OldSolduer]

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.

 

[YZT580]

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.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

 

[Zoomie]

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.

 

[MAJONES]

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.