• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Paul Jackson- The A 400 is a better plane

We already "Lillypad" with the CC150 - CC130 -but we are stuck to conventional bagged containers with the CC150

However unless we get something larger than a C130J we will still be limited in what we can "puddle jump" from the Lilypad.  For the J or smaller Herc's are not doing any LAVIII's in the amounts that we would require.


So we will end up needing three airlift platfroms  - if we wish to go that route
Long Range Strategic C5A, A400, 747ERF
Tactical   C17    (pers, kit and vehicles)
Tactical   C130  (pers, kit and SMALL vehicles)



 
In discussion with Kirkhill about airlift, I conceptualized the idea in the following manner.   I think we have a continuum that goes like this:
  • Strategic Lift: 747
  • Strategic/Operational Lift: C-17
  • Operational/Tactical Lift: C-130J
  • Tactical Lift: C-27
The two aircraft in the middle represent a "dual-purpose" aircraft that can perform either function, thus enhancing their utility.  The Airbus should fit in between those two (making it a pure operational lifter?) but the thing doesn't friggen exist yet.  If anything, the two in the middle should be acquired.   The bottom and the top can help by reducing the load on the middle two.   The C-27 would be a great in-theatre transport, while the 747 could correspond with a "Lillypad" Strategy.   Get the big stuff to the lillypad via 747 (with help from a C-17); get it in theatre by the middle two; get it around theatre by the C-27 (with help from the Herc).   More to chew on, I guess.
 
You'd think we could at least come to a concensus about not doing our procurement on the bleeding edge.  We don't have the deep pockets necessary to be early adopters.
 
'Bout right Infanteer. ;) Thanks for the hat tip.

My own view is that the Civvy world can handle things like the 747 and the government should be encouraging the purchase of those types of aircraft (tax breaks etc) by civvy operators.  They, along with Strategic Sealift can get troops and materiel into the general vicinity, landing on one of your lilypads.

Then as both you and Kevin have identified there is a need to "jump the puddle" and that needs an ability to lift large chunks - and that demands something bigger than a C130, people and small mixed loads of supplies (rats, ammo, POL, spares, canvas, ATVs etc) to a variety of locations.  To that end, if the budget demanded only two aircraft, both currently available, and the bosses have already decided to buy 16 to 20 C130s and 15 to 20 C27s, I would take the same funds and buy 4 C17s (equal dollars to 16 C130Js) and 20 C27Js for FWSAR with an additional 8 C27Js in place of the extra 4 C130Js.  (1 C130J equal dollars with 2 C27Js).  You might even be able to buy another 3 or 4 C27s due to reduced maintenance on engines.

Current proposal calls for 64 to 80 C130 engines (16 to 20 times 4) and 30 to 40 C27 engines (same ones as the C130 I believe) for a total of 94 to 120 engines.  The 4xC17/28xC27 solution would result in 16 C17 engines and 56 C27J engines (2x28) for a total of 72 engines and a similar capital cost.

If the money exists then what they are proposing PLUS the 3 or 4 C17s would be the best fit.

The A400 would be a good mid-ground if it was flying.

Cheers all.






 
I would just like to add that if pigs could fly, that would be our strategic airlifter.  Until such time, our airlift will continue to be air"left"- i.e. something borrowed, something blue, something promised, nothing true.

 
I am saddened to see that my CL-130 Seaplane fleet/global fleet of seaplane tender ships/Airborne Marine Armoured regiment proposal have not even warranted a single column in the mainstream media. :mad:
 
Britney Spears said:
I am saddened to see that my CL-130 Seaplane fleet/global fleet of seaplane tender ships/Airborne Marine Armoured regiment proposal have not even warranted a single column in the mainstream media. :mad:

Well at least I was trying to be serious.
 
So embarrassed that my mess was implicated in this, well "mess".  Hopefully Mr. Jackson just took a comment out of context to confirm his pre-existing opinion, but who knows.
 
RCPalmer said:
So embarrassed that my mess was implicated in this, well "mess".  Hopefully Mr. Jackson just took a comment out of context to confirm his pre-existing opinion, but who knows.

Not to worry, Sir - read the article again and you find that in sentence one, Jackson admits he was talking to "former officers" in the Mess.  I am quite sure the sensible thing to do for serving members would be to shun the little gentleman.  ;)
 
The A400 is a C130 replacement for many Air Forces, but it is also a strategic airlifter.  Basically a dual tactical-strategic aircraft.  It probably would be a better option for the Canadian Forces but I don't think they can wait that long.  The first A400 hasn't even been built yet. 
 
With a nod to Britney for her inspired comments on seaplanes   ;) :salute:   I will studiously ignore the humour and prognosticate further.

When and if the A400 gets off the ground it may indeed be a better bet for Canada than the C130 but as Mountie and others (including yours truly) have pointed out, the CF can't wait that long.

Plan Z, or maybe its Plan AA.1

Purchase immediately C27s (24 to 30 of them) to cover the FWSAR and Tactical Ops.   LEASE immediately 3 or 4 C27s for 7 years.   Refurbish C130Hs and limit their use to critical missions.   Monitor A400 progress and review progress annually to see if it is going the right direction or if the C130J-30 is still the right answer.

Cheers.

Note: as W601 points out the second group of C27s were supposed to be C17s
 
Kirkhill said:
Purchase immediately C27s (24 to 30 of them) to cover the FWSAR and Tactical Ops.   LEASE immediately 3 or 4 C27s for 7 years.   Refurbish C130Hs and limit their use to critical missions.   Monitor A400 progress and review progress annually to see if it is going the right direction or if the C130J-30 is still the right answer.

Kirkhill, though that sounds like a very feasible plan do you not think the need for strategic airlift is greater? After all why rush the purchase of a tactical lift aircraft that we already posses and does not cater to all our needs, when we can be at the front of the line for strategic airlift and perhaps negotiate for a better price (seeing as not a lot of strategic airlift is being bought/ordered globally).

IMHO, I believe that strategic airlift should be the nu# 1 purchase if all other CF requirments must wait for expediency (money/politics).
 
Blue Max:

It depends what you are envisaging the aircraft doing.  I am not really convinced that we need a large "Strategic" airlift capacity.  As George and many others have pointed out we are not going to be rushing Brigades around the globe a 24 hours notice.  Even the Yanks can't do that with their available lift.  Strategically I am much more comfortable with the notion of investing the price of 2 C17s in a Very Large Ship for use as a mobile warehouse (One C17 will buy you 45,000 sq meters of garage space on a RoRo and leave you spare change.  2 would allow you to invest in survivability technology for the ship and maybe some other goodies).

We do need "Strategic" lift to move spare parts, replacement vehicles and personnel, ammo and rations into theater and wrecked vehicles and kit, wounded and rotating personnel out of theater but that doesn't require surge lift so much as a regularly scheduled conveyor.  Much of that movement can be done in "safe skies" using civilian lifters to cover the long "strategic" distances.

Once you get within a thousand kilometers or so of the fighting you are now down to tactical/operational distances.  In those circumstances where you are now within 2 or 3 flying hours of the troops you still don't need large numbers of large aircraft, especially for Canadian deployments.  You do need a few large aircraft that can ferry things like the LAV in and out.  For these aircraft the dominant requirement is not for tonnage or volume so much as floor area and height.  You also need aircraft that can lift small packages to varied destinations.  For these aircraft tonnage and volume become the dominant drivers.

Look at it this way - one tonne of ammo boxes, about a pallet, can be broken down and stuffed into odd corners of something as constrained as an Otter.  A LAV can't be broken down.

Either way its looked at I see Canada needing not so much aircraft with the ability to fly 'strategic distances' so much as shuttle aircraft.  A small number need to be available to handle shipments like the LAVs, HLVWs and Helicopters -  they can be used both domestically and internationally to shuttle kit forward - making up in frequency of sorties what they lack in numbers.  A larger number of smaller tactical lifters capable of air drops and rough strip landing to keep dispersed small units supported, or which can be formed up into packets to deliver an airborne force, again over relatively short distances.

Domestically it is possible to get almost anywhere from anywhere in Canada in 4 to 8 hours.  An Air delivered and supported force is a relatively cost effective way of ensuring that troops can be rapidly on scene to react to any situation - including a MAJAID deployment in the High Arctic.

The C27J is not a bad size to handle the frequent shuttles and small unit deployments as well as the FWSAR program.  To be fair the C295 could probably also work - although some feel that it wouldn't do as well.

Shuttling large vehicles needs a large aircraft and in that regard we are down to the C130, A400 and the C17 (for those of us that wish to stick to "allied" suppliers - another story).  Our C130s can handle much of our kit but it seems to be a squeeze and they are long in the tooth.  Replacing them with the C130J would still leave the squeeze factor and would also limit the equipment that we could deploy.

Acquiring the C17 would remove the limits and allow for any vehicle or helo to be deployed but at a very high price.

The A400 would expand the limits so that we could lift anything we have in the current and anticipated inventory with the exception of helos like the CH147/CH148/CH149  and MBTs at a considerably better price.

Eliminating the "squeeze factor" because it means less time and effort on the ground (both for air and ground personnel) prepping, loading and unloading kit.  It would also likely reduce the risk of damage to the aircraft and the kit.

All of the aircraft could self-deploy over strategic distances.

I don't really see the need for a Strategic Airlift Fleet as a need for a Tactical/Operational shuttle fleet that can lift outsize cargo as well as service dispersed small units. 

It seems more effective to maintain a fleet of small aircraft that can be used on a daily basis  and brigaded for large ops than a fleet of large aircraft that will either sit idle, fly mostly empty or else have to fly more infrequently thus reducing the timeliness of the support available.

 
Kirkhill: why would you purchase and lease C27's. Or was that meant to say purcahse C27's and lease C-17's?

Also, are there not some refurbished C-141's coming available?
 
My error Whiskey - I did mean C17s not C27s on the leased aircraft.

Typing faster than thinking again.

I didn't know about the C141s.  Do you have any news or links on them?
 
The C141B Starlifter
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-141.htm

The USAF was to retire them from service in 2006 -- Not sure if the GWOT has overtaken that intent
 
Thanks Kevin.  From that article it sounds as if the fleet is in kind of rough shape.
 
Well no doubt some are -- I am sure a lot are in better shape than our Hercs though -- but I smell a potentialBritish Sub fiasco if the CF went that route.

  It may be practical to get some from the USAF as a transition piece for the C17?  But I am not airforce guru so I dont knwo if that would help or hinder -- and given we dont seem to be getting C17's anytime soon...

 
 
WRT the C141s....
Recently, the C-141 went through a series of major repairs. Wing Station 405, windshield post crack repairs and center wing box repair/replacement are complete. As the aircraft continues to age, it is quite possible new structural problems may limit the readiness of the force. To slow aircraft aging of the active duty fleet, 56 PAI aircraft have been transferred to the UE Guard and Reserve as of FY95. Additionally, the process of retiring high flight hour equivalent aircraft will culminate with the retirement of the entire AMC active duty fleet by FY03.
Given the war effort the US has been fighting over the last 4 years I would venture to think that these aircraft have probably deteriorated a lot faster than was 1st planned. Don't think we have the luxury of borrowing / training our pilots on these big birds.
 
I became very familiar with the 141 on ops a couple of years ago.  They're on their last legs - engines that gulp fuel, skin wrinkling, etc..  Remember - they're older (in some cases) than our old CC-130Es...  Not worth the hassle (nor are the ancient C-5s still aloft, although these have had the benefit of significant rebuilds).
 
Back
Top