Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!

[Infanteer]

Umm, you are wrong. The Arrow was the first fly by wire aircraft to employ a gyro stabilized fly by wire control system. The interesting thing is that it used a non moveable "stick" that converted pressure into a control input (kind of like the initial F-16s) through the use of pressure capsules. Almost all of the Arrows control system was servo controlled hydraulics. The cable system was mostly used to control the aircraft trim (This is the system that required the adaptation of automatic tensioners which would maintain constant tension despite the drastic thermal expansion of the aircraft). Hydraulic force is how the "fly by wire" computer actuates the control surfaces.

...Inch already pointed that out.

Believe it or not, the Arrow actually had a primitive fly-by-wire flight control system. I used the pulleys and push rods comment more in jest but I guess something was lost in the translation.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Since the Candid is a rough copy of the Starlifter (although with better rough field performance), then this is certainly the way to go if the USAF is really retiring them in 2006 (might have to hang on due to a series of unfortunate events in the Middle East), and, big IF, our government is willing to pony up the ongoing cost of O&M.

I wonder if the US has restrictions on selling used Starlifters to a private consortium?

My take:   If you can get used C-141B's with a minimal upfront cost, I would suggest ditching the Crown Corporation structure and use them to upgrade your Canadian Forces airlift capability.  

Current Airlift:
32 CC-130's in various states of falling apart.

Proposed Airlift (2008):
12 CC-141C (refit communications gear, etc, as necessary)
16 CC-130 (select best airframes and upgrade engines/avionics as necessary)


The Crown Corporation's structure would be more hassle than it's worth and I would only consider if you had to go with a "new purchase" solution in order to offset the high acquisition costs.   That being said, I think we have all come to the conclusion that since the only real "new purchase" alternative is the C-17 due to our abject fears about the construction and reliability of Ukranian design and workmanship, you still don't have a solution because the C-17 doesn't have the huge internal capacity of the big Antonov-124 which based on my observations is required for the business model in question.

Take it for what it's worth....

Cheers,



Matthew.    

 

[McG]

Why not purchase the upgraded C-141B's being retired by US Air Mobility Command in 2006?

That is a pretty old airframe though.  The first C-141A was delivered in October 1964 and began operations in April 1965 and the fleet was then upgraded to C-141B between 1979 and 1982.

 

[Garbageman]

That is a pretty old airframe though.   The first C-141A was delivered in October 1964 and began operations in April 1965 and the fleet was then upgraded to C-141B between 1979 and 1982.

True, but it could be used as a short-term fix while we wait and see what the A400 will look like.  This may be politically difficult though, as it would look like we're asking for new kit yet again 5-10 years down the road.

 

[1feral1]

We use the new C130J's and manage quite well, but in a pinch, I am sure Uncle Sam would come to the party   ;D

I can't see the CF ever buying a Com-Bloc aircraft.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

That is a pretty old airframe though.   The first C-141A was delivered in October 1964 and began operations in April 1965 and the fleet was then upgraded to C-141B between 1979 and 1982.

Some additional information....

The last C-141B was originally intended to be retired from service in February of 2004.
There are 20 additional C-141C's that were refit with new avionics starting in 1997 and completed in 2001.
They are currently in active reserve at Wright-Patterson Air Base, Ohio and March Air Reserve Base, California.
Based on cargo capacities they should just be able to carry two combat-loaded LAV-III's each although range would be limited unless we could provide adequate in air refueling.
Unfortunately my recollection is that model uses a different in-air refueling method than our other aircraft (boom versus drogue) which means we'd need to double check our new airbuses have that capability as well, or refit either the airbuses or C-141's to ensure compatibility.




Matthew.    

 

[aesop081]

Some additional information....

The last C-141B was originally intended to be retired from service in February of 2004.
There are 20 additional C-141C's that were refit with new avionics starting in 1997 and completed in 2001.
They are currently in active reserve at Wright-Patterson Air Base, Ohio and March Air Reserve Base, California.
Based on cargo capacities they should just be able to carry two combat-loaded LAV-III's each although range would be limited unless we could provide adequate in air refueling.
Unfortunately my recollection is that model uses a different in-air refueling method than our other aircraft (boom versus drogue) which means we'd need to double check our new airbuses have that capability as well, or refit either the airbuses or C-141's to ensure compatibility.




Matthew.    

I have pictires of the modified C-141s you mention and they were modified for support to special ops. As fo the refueling in flight, not much of a technical challenge to modify the starlifters, just modify it with a probe, would be cheaper that re-modifying our airbus tankers.

 

[Bomber]

Convert an airbus a380.  Make a clamshell door on it, order 4 of them straight form the factory with no seats, carpet, or even floors, and you have a plane that takes outsize cargo, like 6 LAV's if you wanted.  They carry 150 000kg, and can fly 555 passengers across the pacific in one shot.  Deliveries start in 2006.  Does anyone know how difficult it was to turn the current airbus into a modular cargo plane?  Could we do it again?

 

[Infanteer]

Convert an airbus a380.   Make a clamshell door on it, order 4 of them straight form the factory with no seats, carpet, or even floors, and you have a plane that takes outsize cargo, like 6 LAV's if you wanted.   They carry 150 000kg, and can fly 555 passengers across the pacific in one shot.   Deliveries start in 2006.   Does anyone know how difficult it was to turn the current airbus into a modular cargo plane?   Could we do it again?

Are you sure you would want to do that...look at our history of Civy-pattern vehicles being used for military kit <cough-Griffon-cough>.  May as well by a purpose built tool to do the job right.

 

[AftOf245]

Sam69,

MTOW of the C-17 is 585,000 lbs
The EOW is 276,000 lbs
Max Fuel 180,000 lbs
Fuel Burn 22,800 lbs/h

That would give us a max payload of 57 Tonnes to get across the Atlantic.  Max Payload is 76 Tonnes (25% penalty)  Yes AR is an option, but very expensive.

As for the restrictions, The British were unable to operate a flight to Libya using the Aircraft because of restrictions.  I suggest you contact Boeing to confirm this.  This is the same restriction that virtually killed the MD-17 project.

And your 3rd question.  Volga Dnepr and Antonov Design Bureau (ADB) both had availability of aircraft.  ECA's aircraft has just gone in for inspection but will be in the marketplace in 30 days or so.  That aircraft is brand new and has approx 600 hrs TT.  I know some people will point out that ADB are unable to operate into North America at the moment because of the TMR lawsuit, however the Canadian courts upheld the argument by ADB that if the aircraft are on military work the courts cannot sieze the aircraft.

And believe me at US$880,000 per trip, aircraft would be available.

 

[Zoomie]

As for the restrictions, The British were unable to operate a flight to Libya using the Aircraft because of restrictions.   

The RAF leased these aircraft from Boeing - and as such were not permitted to fly them in any theatre in which they might be shot down.  They (the Brits) are regretting this particular agreement and I do not see us making the same mistake.

 

[Sheerin]

If we get C-17s, firstly would we be able to buy them outright?  Or if we lease them is there any way we can get around the 'danger clause'?

 

[Cloud Cover]

The RAF leased these aircraft from Boeing - and as such were not permitted to fly them in any theatre in which they might be shot down.   They (the Brits) are regretting this particular agreement and I do not see us making the same mistake.

Not poking you with a stick, but how do you know what the terms of the leasing agreement are? I do not see this as a loss of aircraft concern, perhaps it is more of a concern about technology falling into enemy hands from the debris.  Cheers.

 

[Cloud Cover]

This link is interesting with the UK C-17 project:


Look at the source, and pay particular attention to comments accessed by the minutes of evidence button.


And, here is some evidence in the UK Parliament of costs, flying hours etc of the RAF C-17. [scroll to the bottom of the page] Was this a good deal for the Brits?
[url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040916/text/40916w29.htm] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040916/text/40916w29.htm

 

[Zoomie]

... I do not see this as a loss of aircraft concern, perhaps it is more of a concern about technology falling into enemy hands from the debris.  

Why would that be an issue? USAF C-17's were flying over Iraq during the war and were not subjected to any such restrictions, they are the same piece of kit as the RAF ones.

 

[AftOf245]

From what the peolple at Boeing said, it was a Technology issue. 

 

[Sam69]

Sam69,

MTOW of the C-17 is 585,000 lbs
The EOW is 276,000 lbs
Max Fuel 180,000 lbs
Fuel Burn 22,800 lbs/h

That would give us a max payload of 57 Tonnes to get across the Atlantic.  Max Payload is 76 Tonnes (25% penalty)  Yes AR is an option, but very expensive.

From Boeing's C-17 page:

"With a payload of 160,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off from a 7,600-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles, and land on a small, austere airfield in 3,000 feet or less."

see: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17_back.htm

Since the distance from St Johns (YYT) to London Heathrow (LHR) is approximately 2310 NM, it would seem that Boeing disagrees with your original assertion that the C-17 cannot carry a full load transoceanic. (In case you are wondering, rwy 11/29 at YYT is 8,500 feet long) So for fun, let's say that it's about 4.3hrs at 0.8 IMN, which will take 91,200 lbs plus let's add another hour for reserve, so 114,000 lbs of juice. That leaves room for about 195,000 lbs of lift, with a max payload of approx 160,000 lbs that leaves 35,000lbs for crew â Å“baggage.â ?

And even carrying 75% of its payload with 100% fuel is darn impressive in the first place. Any Herc bubbas want to offer what the max load for a Herc is under similar conditions? (I guess if you are really "aft of 245" you will probably know the answer)

A bit more from Boeing:

" C-17s have set 33 world records â “ more than any other airlifter in history â “ including payload to altitude, time-to-climb, and short-takeoff-and-landing marks in which the C-17 took off in less than 1,400 feet, carried a payload of 44,000 pounds to altitude, and landed in less than 1,400 feet. These records were set during flight-testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif."

Finally, as Zoomie has clearly pointed out, you cannot logically take the restrictions that were placed on the leased UK C-17s as indicative of any such limitations that would be placed on the aircraft if we bought them. Did McD place limits on the CF-188 when we bought them? Are we limited on where we can fly with any number of weapons that we have bought from the US? The only normal restrictions in such cases are export limits in the event of a re-sale.

Anything else to add?

Sam

 

[aesop081]

Sam,

as usual you make a good point  ;D

I'm sure that this is all a case of someone with a blank profile knowing more than everyone else !  Of course, with a rebutal like this one :

From what the peolple at Boeing said, it was a Technology issue.

...its hard to not be convinced.  :

 

[AftOf245]

Sam,

Don't get me wrong, I like the C-17 as an aircraft.  My opinion is that the C-17 has limitations as a Strategic Airlifter.  There is nothing strategic about stopping every 2,300 miles.  Commercially, the AN 124 has its limitations as well.  The lobby from Dequettville is strong and all those in the military want a new toy to play with.  I believe that there are people within the system misdirecting the media with  accusations towards the commercial operators inability to perform. 

Also, my analysis was based out of Trenton, seeing as that is where the DART was originating. But using your numbers, lets say we have to fly across the Pacific, what routing would we take then? (YTR - ANC - SYA/UHPP) If stopping is not a problem (as you suggest, the old Herc can take a full load across the Atlantic.

As the F-18's are not used for humanitarian operations and tend to operate from military instalations, I don't think there is any similarity between the 2.  Lets talk apples to apples.  Also Boeing has talked to Canada about the lease option, so should we not be aware of the restrictions as we progress with the dialogue???

C-130 across the pond (YYT-LHR) approx 10Tonnes, dependant upon winds and aircraft.

 

[Gobsmacked]

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

As DAVID RUDD notes today in the Winnipeg Free Press, and acknowleged in DND documents,
"it would be impractical to consider the acquisition of Russian-built cargo aircraft, as some have suggested. Transport Canada requires Canadian owners-operators to certify every nut and bolt, tracing them back to their original suppliers. The process is so costly and complex that no allied nation has considered it to be a serious option. And securing a reliable supply of spare parts is a crap-shoot, as India discovered after buying Sukhoi fighter aircraft from Moscow."
This process would be even more convoluted with the substitution of Western avionics and engines as a full regeime of flight trials would have to be completed - ie. basically a Never Flown aircraft configuration.

Additionally, the New-build IL-76MF using their high-bypass Perm PS-90A turbofan engines barely meet Stage 3 Noise Certification requirements, let alone the more stringent Stage 4 requirements that will be in place sometime after 2006.
Meanwhile, older IL-76s do Not meet Stage 3 requirements and are actually banned in Europe proper, they are only allowed into NorthAmerica on a Temporary Certificate basis - as is An-124-100M - due to lack of Civilian NorthAmerican built HeavyLift aircraft.
Once a NorthAmerican-built Civilian Outsize airlifter was in existence (naescent BC-17X), the IL-76 would never be able to obtain Temp Certs, while An-124-100M would only be able to obtain in instances where BC-17X was too small to carry the Outsize item in question.