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

The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,415
Points
1,160
MAJONES said:
As much as it pains my fixed wing heart to say this, more Chinooks would probably be a more versatile answer for moving small loads around in theatre.  It’s got a similar payload to the Twin Otter and can get in and out of more places.

Except you can jam about 80 troops in a Chinook if you really need to, as the Gurkhas demonstrated in the Falklands War.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,390
Points
1,360
Colin P said:
...A fleet of Helo's and Otters could be something we offer to any UN mission and likely appreciated. Wiki says the 400 Twin Otter can haul 3,000lbs over 400Nm.

As to Good2golf
There is a reason no one other than a military supports missions with helicopter only when they can use fixed wings, the helo's bleed money, the only place I saw a sustained effort using helo's was Galore Creek Mine, 175man camp run completely on helo's they bled the project dry doing it. Not to mention how many flight hours are you going to allow on those machines? As I recall the brits in Afghanistan had hard limits of flight hours that they could use each month. Using a Chinook to do a weekly milk run that can be easily done by an Twin Otter, does not make fiscal sense. Better to save the Chinooks for the tasks that they excel at.

According to the web Chinook costs are about $6500 per hr with under a $1,000 for the Twin Otter

"when they can use fixed wings"  Care to define 'when'? 

Just how tactical are these small tactical airlifts to be?  What AORs will they be permitted to operate in.  What equipment will they have added to them to be tactically feasible?  Ballistic protection?  Armament?  RWR, MAWS, CMDS, DIRCM?  Put that crap on a Twin Otter and it will be able to carry 0 lbs for 0 nm.  I still hear no quantitative reasoning where a CC-138 or equivalent should be used in place of assets we already have...the current airlift spectrum of CC-177>CC-130J>CH-147F>CH-146 seems to (have) work(ed) well in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali, etc. without needing to squeeze a CC-1XX into the mix.

CH-147F hasn't come close to exceeding its flight hour usage spectrum, lines of task are aligned with operational availability.

Cost per hour?  It's funded, and not stopping the aircraft from being deployed and operating internationally, so what is the concern.  Are you proposing that if a CC-138 Twin Otter, for example, replaced the CH-147F say in Mali, that the government would save $5,500/hr and reinvest elsewhere? ???

Again, a solution looking for a requirement...

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,880
Points
1,160
Actually I never said "replace", but to work together and supplement the Chinook where it makes sense. Some light kevlar around the cockpit, but not being armed. Use them to fly milk runs to the more secure FOB's or resupply patrols that don't have a proper runway.

Considering how long we keep airframes, using the hours wisely is good management. We already have Twin Otters in the fleet, we can gradually increase and modernize that fleet and expand their operational role. Plus there is domestic role for them as well in Arctic ops.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,390
Points
1,360
So armour it (lightly), but don’t protect it with self-protection equipment?  That doesn’t seem like something one should be flying into a FOB...
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,030
Points
1,040
From all accounts the Twin Otter is a very good aircraft and I don't doubt that good use could be made of it in the CF.  The Arctic in particular looks like it could benefit from such a platform.

However, it's becoming clearer to me that like every other thread which proposes a new and useful platform (Corvettes, Bombardier MPAs, F15-X / F-35 split fighter fleets, converted commercial "Big Honking Ships", light attack aircraft, etc.) that while a good case can be made for the proposed platform/capability, the cost in additional support, training overhead, staffing requirements, logistics tail, etc. is argued to be too much for an already thinly spread CF to support without cutting into other, existing capabilities.

No doubt there is fat in the CF that could be trimmed to free up budget space, but as has been mentioned by others before perhaps the only real solution is a proper and full defence review to determine (REALISTICALLY) what the CF is expected to be able to do within the budgets that the governments (of both stripes) appear to be willing to provide. 

Only then can the CF be properly organized and equipped to fulfill these capabilities.  Anything beyond that should be left to other departments if they are required (or new budget specifically added if there are new CF requirements added).  Until then we'll likely try to keep our fingers in every capacity at every level and not be able to do any of those things really well.

:2c:
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Post from 2015:

Why Not Just Buy New-Build Viking Air Twotters for RCAF?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/mark-collins-why-not-just-buy-new-build-viking-air-twotters-for-rcaf/

[cool photo of one with Vietnam's navy]
thuyphico_souk.jpg

https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/mark-collins-why-not-just-buy-new-build-viking-air-twotters-for-rcaf/

Mark
Ottawa
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Would the C23 Sherpa be too large for Canadian requirements ?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sherpa+aircraft&view=detail&mid=6BD74C02E13F6B9799916BD74C02E13F6B979991&FORM=VIRE

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,880
Points
1,160
Ah yes the Short Skyvan lives on :0 Great aircraft, but since we have Twin Otters already and a Canadian company building them, likley any money would go that way.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
I can see buying Canadian but that has not been sustainable in the past with aircraft and ship building. Boeing could build a few of these in Canada. I was trying to remember the designation of the aircraft the USAF had that looked like a small C130 but had 2 props and had 2 small jet packs on each wing for rocket assisted takeoffs. Can anyone think of it ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14#/media/File:Boeing_YC-14A_at_Andrews_AFB_1976.JPEG

I found it at last. The C123 !!

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=c-123+aircraft+youtube&&view=detail&mid=19D18E51A7C8208AB7F219D18E51A7C8208AB7F2&rvsmid=323577A114695D4C102F323577A114695D4C102F&FORM=VDQVAP
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,880
Points
1,160
Believe it or not some aviation companies are capable of succeeding without government subsidies https://www.vikingair.com/
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,415
Points
1,160
This is interesting, and might be relevant to this discussion (but I haven't got time to read it!):


Shaping Air Mobility Forces for Future Relevance

This report asks whether the national air mobility system (NAMS) of the
United States will or will not be able to accomplish its full spread of mission
responsibilities in an uncertain future fraught with emerging challenges and
threats. More specifically, this report will examine operational, institutional,
doctrinal, and technological trends shaping a useful answer to that question.
That answer will recognize the unequalled readiness of the NAMS for future
wars and conflicts while also identifying some of its more troubling shortfalls
in specific task areas. In the end, this study will identify opportunities to mitigate
those shortfalls in the near term and without breaking the defense budget,
and it will propose some initial steps along a path to further reducing or
even eliminating them over the longer term. Accordingly, this report proceeds
in four sections. It begins with a brief discussion of some of the more
influential and enduring contextual elements of air mobility policy—namely
structure, mission, and technology. It describes some emerging challenges to
the nation’s ability to conduct global air mobility operations effectively. It then
discusses shortfalls in the current program of record fleet’s ability to address
those challenges and ends by identifying near- and longer-term opportunities
to make things better in a “challenging fiscal environment.”


https://media.defense.gov/2017/Jun/19/2001765023/-1/-1/0/AP_2017-1_OWEN_AIR_MOBILITY_FORCES.PDF
 

observor 69

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
430
Good2Golf said:
"Hook flies faster, farther, carrying more and doesn’t need runways.  Can a Twin Otter fast rope a platoon of troops onto a vessel in the Arctic archipelago?  Can the Twin Otter operate in non-cooperative environments without physical and electronic protective measures. The Govt invested in Chinook for a reason.  Their acquisition was a sunk cost so irrelevant now in the discussion.  The only thing cheaper than a military Twin Otter is a civilian Twin Otter operated by inexpensive pilots that aren’t a tax on the remainder of the RCAF manning system and only serve when you actually need it."

Wow I honestly had no idea "Capable of a top speed of 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h), upon its introduction to service in 1962, the helicopter was considerably faster than contemporary 1960s utility helicopters and attack helicopters, and is still one of the fastest helicopters in the US inventory. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook

Spent my career mostly working on fighters with a little time spent around the ASW community.
Thanks for the info you are contributing to this thread and others.
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,232
Points
1,110
GR66 said:
From all accounts the Twin Otter is a very good aircraft and I don't doubt that good use could be made of it in the CF.  The Arctic in particular looks like it could benefit from such a platform.

However, it's becoming clearer to me that like every other thread which proposes a new and useful platform (Corvettes, Bombardier MPAs, F15-X / F-35 split fighter fleets, converted commercial "Big Honking Ships", light attack aircraft, etc.) that while a good case can be made for the proposed platform/capability, the cost in additional support, training overhead, staffing requirements, logistics tail, etc. is argued to be too much for an already thinly spread CF to support without cutting into other, existing capabilities.

No doubt there is fat in the CF that could be trimmed to free up budget space, but as has been mentioned by others before perhaps the only real solution is a proper and full defence review to determine (REALISTICALLY) what the CF is expected to be able to do within the budgets that the governments (of both stripes) appear to be willing to provide. 

Only then can the CF be properly organized and equipped to fulfill these capabilities.  Anything beyond that should be left to other departments if they are required (or new budget specifically added if there are new CF requirements added).  Until then we'll likely try to keep our fingers in every capacity at every level and not be able to do any of those things really well.

:2c:

You will be happy to learn that the RCAF operates four CC-138 Twin Otters out of Yellowknife. They've been doing so for years.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,390
Points
1,360
Baden Guy said:
Good2Golf said:
"Hook flies faster, farther, carrying more and doesn’t need runways.  Can a Twin Otter fast rope a platoon of troops onto a vessel in the Arctic archipelago?  Can the Twin Otter operate in non-cooperative environments without physical and electronic protective measures. The Govt invested in Chinook for a reason.  Their acquisition was a sunk cost so irrelevant now in the discussion.  The only thing cheaper than a military Twin Otter is a civilian Twin Otter operated by inexpensive pilots that aren’t a tax on the remainder of the RCAF manning system and only serve when you actually need it."

Wow I honestly had no idea "Capable of a top speed of 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h), upon its introduction to service in 1962, the helicopter was considerably faster than contemporary 1960s utility helicopters and attack helicopters, and is still one of the fastest helicopters in the US inventory. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook

Spent my career mostly working on fighters with a little time spent around the ASW community.
Thanks for the info you are contributing to this thread and others.

Most frequent radio call to a Chinook from other helicopters in AFG? “Slow down!” 

One Chinook would replace an entire multi-vehicle Combat Logistic Patrol (CLP) running through IED-alley down to the Horn of the Panjwai with a single, 20-minute flight lifting 10,000-15,000 lbs of stuff, and back at the DFAC at KAF for dinner time pizza and ice cream.  CC-138 doesn’t come close to being that useful.

:2c:

G2G
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
360
Points
730
Good2Golf said:
Wow I honestly had no idea "Capable of a top speed of 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h), upon its introduction to service in 1962, the helicopter was considerably faster than contemporary 1960s utility helicopters and attack helicopters, and is still one of the fastest helicopters in the US inventory. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook

Spent my career mostly working on fighters with a little time spent around the ASW community.
Thanks for the info you are contributing to this thread and others.


Most frequent radio call to a Chinook from other helicopters in AFG? “Slow down!” 

One Chinook would replace an entire multi-vehicle Combat Logistic Patrol (CLP) running through IED-alley down to the Horn of the Panjwai with a single, 20-minute flight lifting 10,000-15,000 lbs of stuff, and back at the DFAC at KAF for dinner time pizza and ice cream.  CC-138 doesn’t come close to being that useful.

:2c:

G2G
The more I look at our casualties from our latest unpleasantness. I find myself wondering how many of them could have been avoided if only we had more Chinooks and had them earlier.
I'm curious as to the percentage of those wia/Kia o  ground based resupply operations as opposed to other operations.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,390
Points
1,360
GK .Dundas said:
The more I look at our casualties from our latest unpleasantness. I find myself wondering how many of them could have been avoided if only we had more Chinooks and had them earlier.
I'm curious as to the percentage of those wia/Kia o  ground based resupply operations as opposed to other operations.

GK, if you look at the IED WIA/KIA stats, there is a statistically significant decrease after the 147Ds showed up in Dec08/Jan09.
 

Strike

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
GK .Dundas said:
The more I look at our casualties from our latest unpleasantness. I find myself wondering how many of them could have been avoided if only we had more Chinooks and had them earlier.
I'm curious as to the percentage of those wia/Kia o  ground based resupply operations as opposed to other operations.

There are a whole bunch of people who are still alive because of the speed of the Chinooks operating in Mali right now.
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
360
Points
730
Colin P said:
Getting rid of the Chinook was horribly stupid idea.
I'd like to think that there is a special place in hell for.those brass hatted morons who made that decision.
Perhaps having to suffer every death and.feel the pain of the casualties of perhaps having every dollar they saved shoved down their throats.


*
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
I have a lot of fond memories of the sh*thook. It is a versatile aircraft. I think the tilt rotor may be the future but lets keep the Hook around just in case.
 
Top