Bert said:
Globesmaster, though you state some interesting generalizations, they may overgeneralize. The
specs of the tradational tactical lifters and the C-17 are different in key areas. There are operations,
airfields, and situations where C-17 and the type are not required or cannot land without higher or
unnecessary risk. The C-130 is a more appropriate airframe in some circumstances the CF finds itself in.
The tactical and the strategic capability as it relates to airframe still has relevance. Some older threads
in the forum from the past year have various perspectives regarding tactical and strategic.
I appreciate the discussion ...
You are correct to a point Bert, and my submission about strategic vs tactical airlift may at first appear to be an over-generalization. It is difficult to relate to such a subject and keep it small and interesting for the reader on the forum. :boring: The subject is in fact huge and beyond the scope of the thread or the forum.
Since its inception, and since we have a manpower shortage in the pilot trade, I have been helping CF AWC (on and off) at 8 Wing Trenton address and rewrite our old and outdated Airlift Doctrine. Believe it or not, this issue has not been revisited since 1990. That is the latest copy or rendition of anything that resembles "TAL doctrine". We've never actually had any "Strat doctrine" but we have always been collectively quoting from the American "Strategic vs Tactical Airlift" / "Inter versus Intra theatre Airlift" paradigm.
Establishments such as CF AWC are long overdue ... hopefully we'll have some decent doctrine to go from in the not too distant future. This will be a first for us ..... shocking as that may seem.
You are correct in that the employment and use of either a C-130 or a C-17 into a certain combat FOL is very much determined based on the actual situation, threat assessment and airfield conditions. This is why each TALCE has a planning staff and someone who makes the determination. But now, Self Protection Suite (SPS) technology has meant that the threat situation and assessment really have very little to do with which aircraft to employ. They are both equally well equipped to defend themselves in the SA, AAA & EW spectrum. It really boils down to what kind (size) of FOL are we dealing with.
Whilst I have been astounded at the eye-watering performance of the C-17 and it's ability to land (being 3.5 times larger than the C-130) fully loaded on austere runways 3500' x 90', I must also remember that the C-130 can operate on 3000' x 60' under the same circumstances. The C-130 will always be "THE quintessential tactical airlifter" in my mind. But it will never be, and can never be, a strategic airlifter by any definition. And now the C-17 is encroaching on the realm of operations that have been heretofore "Hercules only".
Exposure to risk ... good argument. What if we had 18 pallets of vitally needed ammunition to deliver to a forward LZ that was 3500' x 90'. Do you, as the TALCE Commander, want to expose 1 x C-17 once to the risk to deliver that entire load .... or do you want to expose 1 x C-130 4 times (or 4 Hercs once each) to the same risk as it tries to deliver the same quantity of load? If the LZ is smaller than those dimensions, then the debate is moot and there is really only one aircraft that can do the job (although it will take 4 sorties).
The one issue that is now completely derailing the discussion on "strat vs tact" is the new, modern equipment that the army is using. Let's look at the LAV lll for example. To me, this appears to be the backbone of mounted infantry operations and the requirement for this robust AFV will always in predominant in current and near-future operations. Years from now I see the "LAV lV" (or whatever the next generation AFV is) as being even bigger, even heavier as it develops and employs technological counter measures against whatever weapon has been designed to deafeat it. Bearing that in mind, the C-130 cannot currently carry a fully configured LAV lll (ready to drive off and fight), and it never will even if it stays the same size as the AFV eveloves and develop es .... and future AFVs will not fit either. So now it is "equipment" that is driving what type of airlift we employ to get "the kit to the fight" for the army. It is not longer the nature of the operation or the risk assessment. The C-17 is as robust (in fact more so) than the C-130 E/H and is equally as well defended as the C-130J with it defensive suite. The threat is no longer really the driving issue when it comes to airlift aircraft employment in a given circumstance.
The one thing to bear in mind with the C-130J - it is only the cockpit, avionics and engines that have been redesigned. The cargo compartment, while it has an upgraded cargo handling system, is the same size as the venerable E and the H, be it a stubby or a stretch J. The Lav lll does not fit in the C-130 E or H and it will not fit in the C-130 J, or the K or the L or the M, N, O , P .... (you get the picture) or whatever model they come up with until Lockheed enlarges the cargo compartment. By then, it will no longer be called the C-130 anymore but something else ...... they are already designing the future "AMC-X" for the 2020 timeframe. The fact that Airbus has the A400M is also indicative of the "new airlift paradigm".
So now, decisions on which aircraft a TALCE Commander is to employ in a certain situation is longer driven by the threat scenario, but more by which aircraft can actually take the required cargo into the target objective.
New technology, both equipment required by the army in modern conflicts, and new aircraft to carry that new equipment, have now made the "strat vs tact" discussion almost moot.
