Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!

[Zoomie]

It was my understanding that the FW SAR will not result in the retirement of all the Es... just those currently dedicated to SAR...

Sounds logical Sam - I know that Greenwood's fleet of CC-130's are pretty much all E models.  The AAR model hercs in Winnipeg will most likely move to Trenton - thus freeing up some more of 8 Wing's E-models for retirement.  How many of these geriatric models we still have - that would be a good question for my Herc driver brethren - I only know Wet Coast stats.

 

[Hawker]

Sounds logical Sam - I know that Greenwood's fleet of CC-130's are pretty much all E models.   The AAR model hercs in Winnipeg will most likely move to Trenton - thus freeing up some more of 8 Wing's E-models for retirement.   How many of these geriatric models we still have - that would be a good question for my Herc driver brethren - I only know Wet Coast stats.

According to Forces.ca, there are still 19 E models (out of 24 bought starting in 1964) still operating.  I bow to the collective intel of the people on the board as to where they are all stationed.

 

[big bad john]

Making a case for some C-17s
Why not rent them out to NATO allies during down time?
 
Matthew Fisher
CanWest News Service


Monday, February 21, 2005

 
The Martin government has made much lately of its firm commitment to prepare the Canadian Armed Forces for the 21st century. It gets a chance to put its money where its mouth is with Wednesday's budget.

Given how much recent Canadian governments have given the Canadian Forces to do, and how little money they have given these forces to do it with, expectations are naturally very low.

It has been known for some time that after cutting the Armed Forces' fighting capability to the bone for decades, Ottawa intends to increase the number of combat troops by about 5,000 to 16,000 or 17,000. However, details about exactly how this is to be done have been hazy and long in coming.

Will Canada's three remaining infantry regiments -- the Vandoos, the Royal Canadians and the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry -- each gain a new battalion? Or will an entirely new brigade be built around a new regiment?

Will some of the new combat troops join a reconstituted Canadian Airborne Regiment? Or will many of the new soldiers be part of the inelegantly named Joint Task Force, or JTF, whose many heroic combat missions in Afghanistan have been kept secret from Parliament and the public?

Whatever is decided, it will cost a small fortune to house, train and equip these new troops so that they and the rest of the army can operate efficiently alongside U.S. or NATO forces on today's high-tech battlefield.

Yet all the money Ottawa intends to spend on new combat troops will be wasted unless Canada solves its most urgent military problem, which is how to get soldiers and their kit half-way across the planet in a timely fashion. As was once again revealed during the Asian tsunami disaster, the second-largest country in the world has no strategic airlift capability and its tactical airlift capability depends entirely on the ability of overworked ground crews to coax 40-year-old CC-130 Hercules transports to keep flying.

The Armed Forces have been pleading with Ottawa for new airlift assets for years. Canada's ability to intervene in Rwanda after the genocide was seriously compromised by its inability to get troops and equipment there in a hurry. Although only a couple of hundred Canadian infantrymen were sent to Timor, the Air Force's ancient CC-130s had great difficulty supporting them. To get the Canadian army up and running in Afghanistan in 2002, Canada had to depend on the caprices of Russian and Ukrainian commercial outfits and the Pentagon for almost all of its airlift.

Getting Ottawa to understand the gravity of this situation has not been easy. When the Air Force sent a senior officer to make the case to the outgoing Chretien government that Canada desperately needed to improve its airlift capability, he was shouted at and told to never come back.

What was proposed was that Canada buy Lockheed C-17 transport aircraft or lease them as the Royal Air Force recently did. Canada's embarrassing airlift shortcomings would disappear for a generation if the acquisition of three or four C-17s was combined with the purchase of 10 or 15 new J-series C-130 Hercules or a slightly smaller number of Airbus' new A400M transports.

The argument against buying such large transports as the C-17 is that Canada does not need them very often, so it is better to rent them when required.

Alas, the moment that Canada badly needs such aircraft is also, inevitably, exactly the same time other countries have the same pressing requirements.

Recent events in the Middle East and Asia suggest Canada needs such aircraft more often than it used to.

As Canada is twice as far away from these hot spots as Europe is, and therefore needs such an airlift capability more than most of NATO's European members, it makes sense to buy or lease a few C-17s. A novel way to help pay for them would be to rent these aircraft out, crews and all, to its NATO allies when Canada does not need them. This would guarantee that Canada could always dispatch its troops where it wanted when it wanted while quieting NATO anger over Ottawa's niggardly defence spending. It would also fit with the growing alliance requirement that every nation bring specific military capabilities to the table.

Such an arrangement would demonstrate the Martin government's firm commitment to support its 5,000 new combat troops, too.

© National Post 2005

 

[McG]

Canada's war on terror depended on despot's planes
(Edmonton Journal, 18 Mar 05)
Ottawa Citizen
OTTAWA

The Canadian Forces have paid out almost $3.2 million to the national airline of Turkmenistan â ” a despotic regime that rivals North Korea in its style of government -  to airlift military equipment to Afghanistan.

The 36 Turkmenistan Airlines flights are among the 286 flights that cost Ottawa $90 million.  The flights carried heavy equipment to and from Kabul, where Canadian troops have been contributing to NATO's protection force for Afghanistan, and to Kandahar for a 2002 mission, according to figures tabled in the House of Commons last week.  Canada also paid the United States Air Force $37 million to fly Canadian soldiers and cargo out of Afghanistan in 2002.

The Forces do not have airlift capacity, but have come under pressure, most recently from departing U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci, to buy heavy, long-distance cargo planes that would cost billions. Cellucci said recently that buying such aircraft would enable Canada to proudly fly its troops in and out of international hotspots while touting its new 3-D foreign policy; which boasts of the integration of defence, diplomacy and develop mental aid.  The Forces are considering buying heavy; long-distance transport planes, but won't make any decisions until the long-awaited review of defence policy is completed later this year.

Canada either rents transport, or buys passage with the U.S. However, the U.S. is growing reluctant to provide airlift because it is stretched militarily in Iraq.  On 250 of the flights, the Canadian military equipment was flown mainly on Russian and Ukraine cargo airlines. But on 36 flights, Canada made use of 'Turkmenistan Airlines Ilyushin 76 cargo plane, a long-range military and civilian freighter with a maximum flying range of 6,700 kilometres.

Turkmenistan is a former Soviet Union republic in central Asia.  The country is ruled by a president-for-life, Saparmurat Niyazov, who also likes to be called â Å“Turkmenbashi the Great.â ? Niyazov took power in 1991 and has outlawed all opposition parties, dissent and free expression.  â Å“The perverse cult of personality around President Niyazov dominates public life and the educational system,â ? writes Human Bights Watch.

Amnesty International calls the human rights situation in the country â Å“appalling.â ?  Amnesty blames all of Turkmenistan's human rights woes on Niyazov, and the â Å“cult of personality he has developed.â ? Niyazov has erected statues of himself across the county; including one in the capital, Ashgabat, that rotates so that it always faces the sun. The country of six million people has an unemployment rate of 50 per cent. He has banned opera, ballet, classical music and all other non-Turkmen culture, and has jailed 20,000 dissidents.

Can West News Service

 

[Infanteer]

Wow, you know there is a problem with sovereignty when the ability of Canada to commit its Force to carry out the policies of the government depends on Turkmenistan....

 

[aesop081]

He's banned ballet and classical music............the horror of it  ;D

Why isnt the oposition crying up and down commons about this ?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Wow, you know there is a problem with sovereignty when the ability of Canada to commit its Force to carry out the policies of the government depends on Turkmenistan....

Yes, but Turkmenistan can afford strategic airlift because it doesn't have a health care crisis.




M.  :blotto:

 

[X-Rigger]

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

You read my mind.  We built many of our now-retired US-desgined fighters (F-86's, CF-104's, CF-5's) and even current aircraft (CH-124) under license in Canada.  I think it's still the way to go.  I believe we could do this for strategic sealift as well, rather than waiting 20 more years for a pure Cdn design.  And we're actually puting people to work in meaningful jobs...what a concept.

 

[a_majoor]

The main reason this is not a good idea is the production run would be so small. The price of each C-xx would have to include the licence fee, plus the cost of the factory and all the special tooling needed to make these things.

If we were buying the licence for something like the AN-77, then we would also have a huge R&D bill to bring the design up to western standards and modify everything for western avionics, engines etc.

Alternative plans like buying existing airframes such as the Starlifter or IL-76 Candid and rebuilding them (since they are used aircraft with many hours on them) would be cheaper, since you also have the option of picking up extra aircraft as ground training articles and spares.

The only way I can think of to get new designs built here would be to gather up all the potential users (airlines, air freight companies, other government agencies, other branches of the Armed Forces [i.e bring the Navy on board with this airframe as the Aroura replacement]) and get them to commit (with cash) for a combined production run of at least 15-20 airplanes.

 

[Inch]

The only way I can think of to get new designs built here would be to gather up all the potential users (airlines, air freight companies, other government agencies, other branches of the Armed Forces [i.e bring the Navy on board with this airframe as the Aroura replacement]) and get them to commit (with cash) for a combined production run of at least 15-20 airplanes.

The Navy doesn't own the Auroras. All aircraft except the TUAV's are Air Force assets.

 

[aesop081]

The Navy doesn't own the Auroras. All aircraft except the TUAV's are Air Force assets.

Thats right....i ain't no sailor  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

The Navy doesn't own the Auroras. All aircraft except the TUAV's are Air Force assets.

True enough, but they probably supply the requirment to have such platforms, and don't they pay for their operation? If that is the case, then their cash and "political" support for the project is vital. (BTW, even though a heavy transport is not the "best" platform for naval surveillance, it is better than no platform at all).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

True enough, but they probably supply the requirment to have such platforms, and don't they pay for their operation? If that is the case, then their cash and "political" support for the project is vital. (BTW, even though a heavy transport is not the "best" platform for naval surveillance, it is better than no platform at all).

Nope...its still comes out of the Air Force budget vice the Navy budget.

(BTW, even though a heavy transport is not the "best" platform for naval surveillance, it is better than no platform at all).

Playing devils advocate here but  could that statement not be used in support of the MGS? After all its better to have a vehicle with a big gun on it then none at all?

 

[Jungle]

Yes, but Turkmenistan can afford strategic airlift because it doesn't have a health care crisis.

The so-called health care crisis here is artificial. Kick people with a simple cold, a diarrhea or doing a pregnancy test out of the emergency room and the crisis will be over in a matter of weeks.
There's no 2 ways about it, we need to replace our older model C-130s with a few C-17s now. When the rest of the C-130s are retired, replace them with whatever is available "off the shelf" at the time, likely the C-130J.
I don't think eastern European flying coffins are the way to go, as I don't think it would be practical to westernize them.

 

[Inch]

True enough, but they probably supply the requirment to have such platforms, and don't they pay for their operation? If that is the case, then their cash and "political" support for the project is vital.

Their budget comes from the Air Force, just like ours does. Believe me, we're closer to the navy than anyone and our budget comes from Air Command. The same for TacHel, their budget is also Air Force even though they spend the majority of the time supporting the Army.

(BTW, even though a heavy transport is not the "best" platform for naval surveillance, it is better than no platform at all).

I suppose, but after you're done modifying it for torpedo and sonobuoy launchers as well as all the required sensors and computers, it'd probably be cheaper to just get a proper MPA instead of turning a transport aircraft into some mutant that doesn't do maritime patrol all that good and is no longer useful as a transport aircraft either.

 

[jmacleod]

We are consultants in the technology and aerospace sector, with nearly 30 years of activity
(seems longer). We have been focused on heavy lift air for CF for several years, and often
communicate with Stephen Priestly of CASR DND 101 ( one of the best sites of it's type
in the world). Have looked at the IL-76 "Candid" at some length, as well as Boeing BC-17X
it was like the C-17 an McDonnell-Douglas design from their Long Beach CA plant, well known
to us. There are a lot of good ideas expressed on this particular site, and a lot of knowledge
imparted - I would suggest however, that people familier with the Lockheed-Martin C-130
series go to Air Safety Week 21 Feb 2005, for a review of structural problems with the C-130
main plane. These problems can be traced back to the Lockheed "Electra", which had major
mainplane/engine mount problems, caused by high speed flutter. The mainplane designs by
Lockheed of the "Electra" period have essentially carried on into the life of the C-130. As we
see it, the big problem is convincing the present government that DND CF need much better
and effective heavy airlift capacity. MacLeod

 

[a_majoor]

I suppose, but after you're done modifying it for torpedo and sonobuoy launchers as well as all the required sensors and computers, it'd probably be cheaper to just get a proper MPA instead of turning a transport aircraft into some mutant that doesn't do maritime patrol all that good and is no longer useful as a transport aircraft either.

Just some "out of the box" thinking here, but could not much of that equipment be modularized and pallatized?. The main change would then be a new rear ramp which would have "torpedo tubes" to allow  weapons and sensors to be ejected from from the pallets, and perhaps a different nose cone mounting a sensor turret..

 

[aesop081]

Just some "out of the box" thinking here, but could not much of that equipment be modularized and pallatized?. The main change would then be a new rear ramp which would have "torpedo tubes" to allow   weapons and sensors to be ejected from from the pallets, and perhaps a different nose cone mounting a sensor turret..

Take a tour of a CP-140 aurora ........try and palletise that !

 

[Inch]

Just some "out of the box" thinking here, but could not much of that equipment be modularized and pallatized?. The main change would then be a new rear ramp which would have "torpedo tubes" to allow   weapons and sensors to be ejected from from the pallets, and perhaps a different nose cone mounting a sensor turret..

Palletizing the radar? That would be pretty difficult if you ask me. MPA's fly at 200ft over the ocean, they get bumped all over the place and anything that is not hardmounted to the aircraft would run the risk of getting disconnected or damaged. Not to mention that putting all your stores at the back of the aircraft would give you a huge pitch up moment (aft Centre of Gravity, Mk 46 torpedoes weigh in the neighbourhood of 525lbs, there's a reason they're in the centre of the fuselage on both the Sea King and the Aurora and will be on the Cyclones). I suppose you could put external hardpoints on the airframe for the torps, but internal is much better for aerodynamics.

As aesop said, I'd suggest you hop into an Aurora and have a look for yourself. That equipment is used for surveillance and to prosecute submarines, very sophisticated and accurate. I can't help but think you'd have some degradation of the accuracy if it's quick connect plugs and roll on equipment.

With all this talk of modularized equipment on aircraft (we already went through this with the Cyclone), I'd suggest you have a good read of some aerodynamics books and accident reports and then tell me how good an idea it is to be screwing around with your centre of gravity and weight on a continuous basis.

 

[Sam69]

My $0.02 on the palletised approach.

IMO, having lived through years of this debate within the MH world, the only people afraid of the palletised approach are members of the back-end union. While taking an entire MPA capability and moving it to a Herc has significant challenges and is of dubious value, having a plug-and-play mission suite only makes a world of sense for a Maritime Helicopter. The reality is that the entire processing power of a CP-140 is easily exceeded by a single modern PC. If we were ever to move our intellectual capacity beyond seeing a mission suite as a set of black boxes strung together and looked instead at the overall processing requirements, we could easily move to a PC-like solution where components are simply hot-plugged into a databus.

Sam