Canadian air drops 'save lives', avoid risky Afghan roads

[C1Dirty]

Well done...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/afghanistan/story.html?id=adebf893-dc1c-4d03-bd86-d527568e0876&k=31755

Canadian air drops 'save lives', avoid risky Afghan roads
Matthew Fisher, CanWest News Service
Published: Sunday, September 30, 2007

ABOVE GHORAK, Afghanistan - Canada has begun making dramatic air drops from CC-130 Hercules aircraft to troops in hostile territory to spare the lives of convoy crews that would otherwise face a long and perilous land journey to carry out the same mission.

During one such flight last week, a four-engine Hercules turboprop popped over the crest of a spectacularly beautiful mountain range before making a dramatic rock-and-roll lunge down toward a purple smoke marker on the desert floor below. Seemingly defying gravity, the 33-year old pilot, Capt. Aidan Costelloe, forced the nose of his aircraft up at the last possible moment and seven tonnes of urgently needed food, water, fuel and ammo rolled out the back door. Several parachutes that were attached quickly opened and the load floated to the ground.

Not long after getting back to the home airfield at Kandahar, the air crew received word from those on the ground at Ghorak - a small group of Canadian troops mentoring Afghan security forces - that the drop had been a success.


Except for a few cases of water, which had ruptured, the cargo had landed on target, in good condition and, quite literally, at the exact second it was supposed to.

The rationale for sometimes using air drops to supply troops in remote locations is clear. More than half of the 71 Canadian deaths in Afghanistan have been caused by suicide bombers or improvised explosive devices that have struck Canadian vehicles. Many of those deaths have occurred on resupply convoys.

"This saves lives, big time. To not use this resource if it is available would be a crime," said Lt.-Col. Nicolas Eldaoud, who oversees the Canadian Forces' immensely complicated logistics chain in Central Asia from the main base at Kandahar. "Every time we have an air drop, it means we don't need to send out a combat logistics patrol that puts my soldiers in harm's way."

Sgt. Rob Gearns, who as loadmaster ran the air drop at the back of the Hercules, agreed.

"What the convoys do is very dangerous and we can eliminate that by delivering cargo right to their doorstep," the 43-year-old Hamiltonian said. "We will do this for any NATO nation that asks, but there is extra meaning when do it for the Canadians because they can see the Maple Leaf on our tail when we fly past."

The air drops are not, however, without risks. The relatively slow and awkward Hercules are purpose-built for such tactical missions but they present quite a big target, no matter how well they are flown.

"Essentially we establish a run-in track, come in as quick as we can, slow down suddenly to drop the cargo and then get out fast," Capt. Costelloe, who is also from Hamilton, said after the flight. "Everything is about limiting our exposure to ground fire as much as we can."

Surprisingly, the air crew and those waiting on the ground seldom speak with each other.

"They know the game plan. We know the game plan. So there is no need for us to talk with each other," Gearns said. "We saw the smoke they threw and that was enough. We try to keep everything as simple as we can."

In order to keep the enemy guessing, the flight profiles and drop points always vary, as do the timings for such runs, which can also be conducted at night. Although Canada made a few such air drops to troops here last year, doing so regularly only became possible last month when several Canadian Hercules were based at Kandahar for the first time. Before that they were located at an airfield several hours away in the Middle East.

The move has been welcomed by the Van Doos battle group, which has already placed several emergency resupply orders with the air force. It has also been a boon to NATO which, with 36,000 troops here, has many pressing in-theatre transport requirements in what is a complex, crowded flying environment that includes dust storms, fast air (fighters and bombers) and slow air (transport planes, drones and helicopters).

Canadian, British and American Hercules aircraft now run a regular passenger and cargo service from Kandahar to International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters in Kabul. They also make frequent, sometimes hairy landings at remote dirt strips to resupply combat troops from half a dozen countries.

"This is all part of the job, but for us air drops are special and, from an air crew standpoint, we would like to do as many as we can. That's our bread-and-butter and the need out there is sometimes critical," said Capt. Costelloe, who like Gearns has already served several 56-day tours in support of Canadian operations in Afghanistan. "For us, it means a chance to live and breathe the mission over here. It is the most challenging and energizing flying I've done in my career."

The Kandahar air detachment's boss, Capt. Stephen McLean, 38, of Ottawa, who is also a Hercules pilot, said basing Canadian aircraft in Afghanistan had already produced many benefits.

"We are now much more involved in ISAF operations," McLean said. "Whenever we do anything it means they can free up a helicopter to do something else.

I have the feeling we will be getting a lot more calls, not just from the Canadians but from ISAF."


© CanWest News Service

 

[geo]

Well done...

wonder if they have attempted "low level extractions" - allowing the parachute to pull out pallets of goods at ground level.  Have seen some tremeodous examples of this technique...... sometimes they work.... sometimes they don't

 

[aesop081]

Well done...

wonder if they have attempted "low level extractions" - allowing the parachute to pull out pallets of goods at ground level.  Have seen some tremeodous examples of this technique...... sometimes they work.... sometimes they don't

LAPES ...Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System

IIRC we havent trained for this in many years

 

[GAP]

Even on a smooth runway there is a real danger of damage to the drops, flipping, skewing sideways, etc.

That was 30+ years ago in Khe San, and the technology has probably grown leaps and bounds since then...from what I seen in videos.

Are the skids they use now applicable to makeshift runways?

 

[BernDawg]

I don't think we have trained in the LAPES system since we lost a Herc in Wainwright.  IIRC we ceased all LAPES trg and outlawed the technique in the CF due to the risk of losing another A/C.

Found it:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930722-0

 

[geo]

GAP
while I remember seeing a dozer coming apart on such an extraction, I would imagine that the dead weight of supplies would make the operation feasable.  Figured that on an airdrop, the plane remains a little too exposed to ground fire.

 

[GAP]

Even with every North Vietnamese in the surrounding area taking potshots and whole lot more, the planes making the drops to us made it out, mostly.  (it was our spectator sport of the day to see who won) The point being, with times and drop areas varied, you would have to be in exactly the right place at the right time to take out an aircraft dropping supplies. It is still possible, but I don't think Timmie Taliban is that sophisticated, nor that spread out.

Was there not a recent article about making air drops using chutes controlled by a GPS controller attached to the system? Apparently is was supposed to drop supplies on a dime.

 

[PMedMoe]

This is the LAPES accident I recall.  We listened to the black box recording on my Tfc Tech QL3 course.

 

[GAP]

This is the one I was thinking of...the Sherpa system used by the Marine Corps

GPS-Guided Sherpas Provide Safer Supply Drops
Marine Corps News | James B. Hoke | April 26, 2006
Article Link

Al Asad, Iraq - The cargo bay doors of a KC-130J Hercules opened, bringing the night air into view, as a chill wind circulated through the inside of the plane. Five Marines braced themselves against the front of the cargo bay watching the two remaining parachute systems attentively.

The massive plane jumped as its airspeed slowed to half of what it had been moments before. A heavy hum vibrated through the walls of the aircraft, as the pilots powered up its engines and aimed it toward the stars. The two crates slid from the bay and disappeared into the darkness.

For the past five years, the Marine Corps has been utilizing a different style of parachute than the traditional round system used to airdrop heavy packages. This new parachute system, the Sherpa, has the ability to guide itself to the drop zone from up to 25,000 feet in the air and 15 miles away, landing within 100 yards of the targeted point of impact while carrying up to 2,200 pounds of supplies.

"The Sherpa is one system of precision-guided airdrop systems," said Staff Sgt. Christine Weber, an assistant air delivery project officer with Infantry Weapons Section, Raids and Reconnaissance, Marine Corps Systems Command. "There are many systems in the family of precision-guided systems that utilize the Global Positioning System to 'fly' to a target."

Equipped with a 1,200-square-foot canopy, the Sherpa is programmed with the information of where it needs to go, as well as how long after it falls from the aircraft before it opens the parachute.
More on link

LAPES = Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System
Article Link
Some good pictures of C-17 and C-130's dropping supplies

LAPES low altitude- we're talking really low altitude. Passes are made at about 2 to 10 feet off the ground. It's done at high speed too, around 130 knots.

The delivery aircraft must maintain stability and have great controllability. Typically, C-130s and C-17s are used as the delivery aircraft. The pilot must give nose down pitch control as the payload rolls out the back. Once the payload is clear of the aircraft - nose down would fly the aircraft into the ground. The pilot must give nose up control inputs to keep the aircraft level and then climb out after delivery. The margin of error is small since they are flying 2-10 feet off the deck at 130 knots.
More on link

 

[Globesmasher]

I don't think we have trained in the LAPES system since we lost a Herc in Wainwright.  IIRC we ceased all LAPES trg and outlawed the technique in the CF due to the risk of losing another A/C.

Found it:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930722-0

BD:

You are absolutely correct.  This was the last LAPES mission that we, the CF, have flown.  Both the Cdns and the USAF have ceased flying LAPES - the techniques is simply too dangerous and too many aircraft have been lost to accidents with either the extraction system malfunctions or to pilot error.

Was there not a recent article about making air drops using chutes controlled by a GPS controller attached to the system? Apparently is was supposed to drop supplies on a dime.

GAP:

Yes, you are right that we are trialling SHERPA along with the USAF.  We are also checking out Screamer as well.  These systems are incredibly accurate.

These are high altitude precision guided air drop systems .... or PGADS ... if you wish.  The advantage of these systems is that it does keep the aircraft up high out of the small arms, AAA and also some of the less sophistaicated MANPADS WEZ (weapon engagement zones).  They are also extremely accurate as well since the chute system and the initial release point is calculated by GPS as well as being corrected by GPS as well.

The only drawback is their expense and the fact that we now require very accurate atmospheric condition reports/predictions (winds and temp deviations etc ...).  Typically airdroping is predicated as a "cheap" method of quickly delivering loads.  The pallets, chutes and other rigging material is factored into the cost assuming that none of that material can or will be recovered after the drop.  Now, using SHERPA or Screamer, not being able to recover the chutes and steering systems suddenly makes the process a little more costly.

Quite a lot of trials have been conducted here in 8 Wing between the Air Force CC130s, ATESS and also the folks down at CFLAWC and the systems are meeting with a great deal of success.

 

[Globesmasher]

Typically, C-130s and C-17s are used as the delivery aircraft. The pilot must give nose down pitch control as the payload rolls out the back. Once the payload is clear of the aircraft - nose down would fly the aircraft into the ground. The pilot must give nose up control inputs to keep the aircraft level and then climb out after delivery. The margin of error is small since they are flying 2-10 feet off the deck at 130 knots.

The C-17 has been "trialled" for LAPES and has been certified for LAPES by Boeing.  It is also a capability of the aircrat - it is capable of doing LAPES and it exists in a checklist, however it has never flown LAPES by any military crew from either the USAF or the CF.  It is a delivery process that simply isn't done anymore.  But, it's a nice looking website - some cool photos in there too!

 

[geo]

Globesmasher,
How are SHERPA & Screamer with heavy equipment? 
Is airdropping a dozer from a C130 or C17 a possibility these days?

Also, WRT to the cost of equipment being a drawback... the cost of replacing a bunch of troops & vehicles shot up on a supply run is, to many, even higher. 

 

[Globesmasher]

Globesmasher,
How are SHERPA & Screamer with heavy equipment? 

SHERPA and Screamer have only been trialled as CDS (rigged and dropped as CDS) right now.

Is airdropping a dozer from a C130 or C17 a possibility these days?

Yes - all this stuff is dropped as "Heavy Equipment" but it is not extracted from the aircraft using LAPES procedures or rigging.
This can be rigged as HE for the C-17, or rigged as HE but dropped using the "Dual Rail" airdrop procedure - in a sense it is a hybrid of rigging the HE as HE, but letting it be gravity extracted just like CDS from the logistics rails instead of the air drop rails.

Also, WRT to the cost of equipment being a drawback... the cost of replacing a bunch of troops & vehicles shot up on a supply run is, to many, even higher. 

Good God man!!! 
I would NEVER compare the cost of doing business to the cost of a human life!!!

The cost comparison I discussed was done between "conventional Airdrop" versus the cost of modern PGADS.
NEVER between the cost of human life and risk for a road move vs the cost of PGADS.

Believe me when I say that us airdrop transport crews would prefer to risk our lives performing airdrop for the guys "outside the wire and up front" than have people put up with the FAR greater risk of death and injury on road moves of supplies.

Perhaps I should have been clearer in the original post.
My cost comparison was meant to deal with the cost of conventional airdrop vs PGADS - certainly NOT to that of human life.

 

[geo]

whups.... sorry for the missunderstanding.... didn't want to paint the AF as a bunch of penny pichers - wasn't my intention.