Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!

[Zoomie]

I'm still not even close to being sold on this whole Il-76 CANDID idea.  My first reservation is the stigma that all Russian equipment has attached to it - my second being the plan on how to best utilize this strat lift.

Quite frankly I have seen the IL-76's that come into Trenton and conduct our lift missions - they are pieces of crap!  I don't think we could put enough riders on a contact to ensure that the planes we get are in good order.  As it is, our brand new Cormorants, produced by a western nation, are proving to be strife with design flaws.

Any future plans that involve contracting out the flying hours on any strat lift would be a bad idea.  From what I can tell about your plan, you are suggesting that we have civilian drivers for these birds - Civilians would be useless when it comes to the flying that the CF requires.  They would not be able to maintain the skills required for true strategic lift in the military sense of it.  I understand that it looks like a great idea and should work - but it can't!  Military pilots need to train and hone their proficiencies at every opportunity.  There would be scarcely a time when the planes would be available for other duties.  Also the military is not a cargo airline - if we get true strat lifters, they will be for purely governmental taskings - not for delivering toilet paper to the NWT.

 

[a_majoor]

I realize a lot of people will agree with Zoomie's assessment, but this is the "best of a bad situation" response. IF there were existing arframes other than the Candid, then I would be all for getting them, but what else is there?

As for pilot proficiency, once again, IF the government were to have an existing fleet of air transporters and the required pool of aircrew, then this discussion would not even be happening. Unless Bill Gates decides to sponsor this project, no one has the financial ability to buy new or used transport planes and park them, or lease them to the government as the sole customer. Flying bulk cargo to Inuvik, or Labrador or wherever at least covers the costs of getting and operating the planes, and the aircrews will be familier enough with the routine operation of the craft to do the routine military tasks I have suggested. Since this is a private venture and a civillian company, it would be unreasonable to expect the company or the crews to perform the really "hot" military tasks, such as overflying a defended airspace or making an assault landing at night. A really creative solution would be to make the "company" an air reserve unit with every employee also an air reservist, but why not just set up a real unit and purchase new transports in that case?

Even with those limitations, the CF would still have the ability to purchase "surge" airlift for domestic and international emergencies, and could reasonably expect to get bulk payloads right up to the edge of the theater, where military assets like the C-130 could take over for the final leg.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm of two minds with this debate:

I can see the value in Mr Majoor's argument.  Since we can't buy the Lincoln Navigator, we may as well buy the Lada Niva in the used-car garage, because even that beats sticking out our thumb and waiting for the American's to pick us up.  Strategic air transport should be a matter of national security, for our national interest demands the global projection of our forces.  If we are not able to independently deliver our military to where it is needed, then what is the point of sustaining a military force?

However, I'm inclined to agree with Zoomie - when we're playing around with big-ticket acquisition, I would want to stick to the maxim "If you're going to do something, do it right.  To me, it seems that the effort required to patch up some cheap old Soviet lifters and giving them to some private/public corporation to keep costs low would entail a good amount of effort.  With all the potential pitfalls in this proposal, I would rather like to see this same effort expenditure going into sorting a few departmental matters and developing a gradual acquisition of a couple of excellent strategic airlifters that are made and serviced from plants a few hours drive south.

 

[aesop081]

I'm of two minds with this debate:

....   Strategic air transport should be a matter of national security, for our national interest demands the global projection of our forces.   If we are not able to independently deliver our military to where it is needed, then what is the point of sustaining a military force?

Although i like my job and i would like to keep it, i couldn't agree more with infanteer on this.

However, I'm inclined to agree with Zoomie - when we're playing around with big-ticket acquisition, I would want to stick to the maxim "If you're going to do something, do it right.   To me, it seems that the effort required to patch up some cheap old Soviet lifters and giving them to some private/public corporation to keep costs low would entail a good amount of effort.   With all the potential pitfalls in this proposal, I would rather like to see this same effort expenditure going into sorting a few departmental matters and developing a gradual acquisition of a couple of excellent strategic airlifters that are made and serviced from plants a few hours drive south.

Personaly, i like the IL-76 idea but i do have some reservations about it. Manufacturing standards, IMHO, remain below what we require. Also, i see the supply of spare parts as being a problem ( due to both the source and our "just in time" concept). Granted that it is not the "cadilac" of airlifters, i think that realisticly, the C-17 Globemaster III, will remain out of reach for the CF. The IL-76 is much larger than our current airlifters and would greatly increase our ability to project power.  This being said, realisticly, what choices do we have, bearing in mind that alot of our current systems are/will be in need of replacement and that there will always be only so much money.

 

[George Wallace]

 8 Jan 2005   Ottawa Citizen article on Tory Plan for new CARGO JETS
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=24c6de76-2754-4429-9e07-ee56071d7aa2

Tory plan for new cargo jets a good idea, DND concludes
A Conservative party proposal to acquire aircraft to quickly transport overseas Canadian Forces units like the Disaster Assistance Response Team is feasible and relatively inexpensive, says a newly released Defence Department analysis.

This article in the Saturday, 8 Jan 2005 edition of the Ottawa Citizen, goes on to state that the plan put forward in the last election, by the Conservatives and ridiculed by the Liberals, was studied by DND and found to be more cost effective than continually renting Soviet Transport Aircraft.   It concluded, that the purchase of four or six giant C-17 Transports would be cheaper and more reliable than constantly renting aircraft.  

This would be a great improvement and moral builder for the Air Force.  Would C-17 Transports be what we want though?  Would the older C-5 be a larger more versitile bird?  Would the new fly by wire A-400 be a contender?  Would we keep the Herc fleet for access to shorter fields? 

Biggest question.......will the Liberals listen?

GW

 

[Inch]

I think that C-17s are what we want, they're not as big as the C5s thus they're not restricted to large airfields. According the the USAF website, the C17 only requires 3000 ft, that's pretty short, especially for a strat airlifter that can do it with a 170,000 lb payload.

As for fly by wire, pretty much every aircraft is fly by wire, pulleys, push rods and bell cranks are pretty rare on modern aircraft, especially one that big. "The quadruple-redundant electronic flight control system also has a mechanically-actuated backup system", again as stated on USAF's website.

I think we'd still need the Herc since there'd be some jobs not big enough to require something the size of the C17.

How big is a jump company? About 100 troops? How would you like to be all dropped in one drop? That's right, C17 can do it.

I sure hope the Liberals listen, it really is a capability that would be invaluable to have.

Here's a pic for the local turretheads, oh my, what's that rolling off the plane? ;D

 

[Slim]

Wow...Ex Zipperhead wahts Canada to by the Globemaster!!

They won't of course as it makes too much sense. But there you are...


Slim

 

[JBP]

Now that is impressive, that's a damn heavy tank! 170,000lbs is about what? 2-3, maybe even 4 tanks!?!?! That would be fantastic to have!!!

As for this:

As for fly by wire, pretty much every aircraft is fly by wire, pulleys, push rods and bell cranks are pretty rare on modern aircraft, especially one that big.

My airforce friend, the F-16 was the first true "fly-by-wire" aircraft in the world, using "off the shelf" fly-by-wire components from the Space Shuttles. Example: F-14Athru-D Tomcats are HYDRAULIC controlled. Hence not fly-by-wire. Last time I think an aircraft was produced to fly with push-rods and pulleys etc was the poor old Avro Arrow!  ;D

Most modern aircraft are fly by wire. Even our CF-18's are hydraulic... The new F-22A Raptor of the US Airforce will eventually be upgraded to fiber-optic controls... Now that would be incredibly responsive!!! Instant response to the control stick, also with no lag or ability to "over control" the plane and cause a potential crash...

Anyway, just a brand-new grunts who loves aircraft's input...

 

[a_majoor]

Personaly, i like the IL-76 idea but i do have some reservations about it. Manufacturing standards, IMHO, remain below what we require. Also, i see the supply of spare parts as being a problem ( due to both the source and our "just in time" concept). Granted that it is not the "cadilac" of airlifters, i think that realisticly, the C-17 Globemaster III, will remain out of reach for the CF. The IL-76 is much larger than our current airlifters and would greatly increase our ability to project power. This being said, realisticly, what choices do we have, bearing in mind that alot of our current systems are/will be in need of replacement and that there will always be only so much money.

Exactly so. For the spare part issue, in the short term, a few "extra" airframes could be held for cannibalization, and the company is still manufacturing a varient (IL-76 MF) today. If there is a Canadian aerospace company with the werewithal to remanufacture the Candids for this scheme, then they should also be able to either source spare parts for the western upgrades or make some of the parts themselves.

Remember, this is an emergency, short to medium term response to allow the government the ability to discharge its duties in regard to defense and emergency response. Even if airlift.ca was in existence on Dec 24 2004, the planes don't "have" to be used by the government, the Canadian Red Cross would probably rent them right away if the CF or government does not invoke the "first use" clause in the contract. We may all hope that after the next election, or in a few years, some Canadian government decides to go shopping and buy the proper kit, A-400, or Walrus or whatever the state of the art happens to be.

 

[George Wallace]

Nope....they'll only carry one......the C-5 will carry two.  They are both large planes, but there is the load factor.  Not being a TN guy, I can't accurately explain the load restrictions and tiedown requirements of aircraft.  I recall seeing a load layout for a C-5 once and I am sure it was two M1 and two five Ton SMP that it could carry maximum.  The nice thing about the C-5 is that it is drive on/drive off, where the C-17 is back on/drive off.

Gw

 

[KevinB]

But we can jump from a C17...

C5 has nothing for us, unless we get motivated and get into the MBT arena again...

 

[aesop081]

But we can jump from a C17...

C5 has nothing for us, unless we get motivated and get into the MBT arena again...

Kevin B,

I know you are famous now and all but radical ideas like that.......

 

[George Wallace]

Kev....You can still do Ramp Jumps.......or......We still have the Airbus...

GW

 

[Inch]

Now that is impressive, that's a damn heavy tank! 170,000lbs is about what? 2-3, maybe even 4 tanks!?!?! That would be fantastic to have!!!

Actually, the M1 weighs in at around 70 tons or 140,000 lbs, so.....one tank. I don't recall off hand how much the Leos weigh, but 40 tons seems to ring a bell. You can load 3 Bradleys on there, so probably 3 or so LAVs.

My airforce friend, the F-16 was the first true "fly-by-wire" aircraft in the world, using "off the shelf" fly-by-wire components from the Space Shuttles. Example: F-14Athru-D Tomcats are HYDRAULIC controlled. Hence not fly-by-wire. Last time I think an aircraft was produced to fly with push-rods and pulleys etc was the poor old Avro Arrow!   ;D

Most modern aircraft are fly by wire. Even our CF-18's are hydraulic... The new F-22A Raptor of the US Airforce will eventually be upgraded to fiber-optic controls... Now that would be incredibly responsive!!! Instant response to the control stick, also with no lag or ability to "over control" the plane and cause a potential crash...

Yes you are correct, not too sure why you brought it up since I didn't really mention anything about the history of fly-by-wire. Anyway, the F-16 was designed in the 1970's, the C-17 is 10 years newer in design and also has a fly-by-wire system. In any case, the control surfaces are moved with hydraulics since that's really the only thing powerful enough to move that kind of loading and the hydraulics are actuated by either electrical (fly-by-wire) or mechanical (as in your CF18/F-14 example) inputs from the cockpit. 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.

As for instant response, sounds like G-LOC city to me. I'm sure it'll happen more than a few times until the guys get used to it.

 

[AftOf245]

I would like to comment to all those who think that Canada should get its own heavy lift aircraft.   What aircraft should the CF buy?   Most people would say the C17.   The problem with the C17 is its performance, it does not have the legs to get across the Atlantic with anything close to a full load.   The second problem is, the Americans have restrictions on where we would be able to operate the aircraft, beacause the aircraft is export restricted (top secret stuff) .

I do not believe for a moment that we had difficulty obtaining charter aircraft.

 

[Sam69]

I would like to comment to all those who think that Canada should get its own heavy lift aircraft.  What aircraft should the CF buy?  Most people would say the C17.  The problem with the C17 is its performance, it does not have the legs to get across the Atlantic with anything close to a full load.  The second problem is, the Americans have restrictions on where we would be able to operate the aircraft, beacause the aircraft is export restricted (top secret stuff) .

WHOOP! WHOOP! - Warning, Warning - BS Alert

You've made three assertions (llimited payload, limited operating area, and easy accessibility to charter lift), care to back any of them up with facts?

Sam

 

[Zoomie]

The problem with the C17 is its performance, it does not have the legs to get across the Atlantic with anything close to a full load.  

Hrmmm, if that is even true - I would say that inflight refuelling would negate this problem.

The second problem is, the Americans have restrictions on where we would be able to operate the aircraft, beacause the aircraft is export restricted (top secret stuff)
This would have to be the most ludricrous comment that I have ever seen before.  Are you telling me that the C-17 has more secret stuff than our american bought CF-188s??  Export restrictions are not in place against Canada by the US.  They won't sell them to North Korea, but I think Canada is OK!

Let's move on...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'd like to propose an alternative.

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

The B version is already significantly more advanced than our C-130's and we could probably pick them up for a song as the USA would love us to have the capability.

Link to FAS Page:   http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-141.htm


Matthew.    

Key Excerpts:

"The C-141B is a stretched C-141A with in-flight refueling capability. Stretching of the Starlifter consisted of lengthening the plane 23 feet, 4 inches (53.3 centimeters), which increased cargo capacity by about one-third - 2,171 extra cubic feet (65.13 extra cubic meters). Lengthening of the aircraft had the same effect as increasing the number of aircraft by 30 percent.

A universal air refueling receptacle on the C-141B transfers 23,592 gallons (89,649.6 liters) of fuel in about 26 minutes, allowing longer non-stop flights and fewer fuel stops during worldwide airlift missions.

The Starlifter, operated by the Air Mobility Command, can airlift combat forces, equipment and supplies, and deliver them on the ground or by airdrop, using paratroop doors on each side and a rear loading ramp. It can be used for low-altitude delivery of paratroops and equipment, and high-altitude delivery of paratroops. It can also airdrop equipment and supplies using the container delivery system. It is the first aircraft designed to be compatible with the 463L Material Handling System, which permits off-loading 68,000 pounds (30,600 kilograms) of cargo, refueling and reloading a full load, all in less than an hour.

The C-141 has an all-weather landing system, pressurized cabin and crew station. Its cargo compartment can easily be modified to perform around 30 different missions. About 200 troops or 155 fully equipped paratroops can sit in canvas side-facing seats, or 166 troops in rear-facing airline seats. Rollers in the aircraft floor allow quick and easy cargo pallet loading. A palletized lavatory and galley can be installed quickly to accommodate passengers, and when palletized cargo is not being carried, the rollers can be turned over to leave a smooth, flat surface for loading vehicles.

Several C-141s have been modified to carry the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile in its special container, up to a total weight of 92,000 pounds (41,400 kilograms). Some C-141s have been equipped with intraformation positioning sets that enable a flight of two to 36 aircraft to maintain formation regardless of visibility.

The first C-141B was received by the Air Force in December 1979. Conversion of 270 C-141s from A to B models was completed in 1982. C-141 modifications aim to preserve the remaining force by reliability and maintainability improvements and capability improvements necessary for effective use through 2006. Thirteen aircraft will receive additional SOLL II upgrades under the Special Operations Forces Improvement program. Sixty-three aircraft in the current C-141 fleet will undergo major modification. Each will receive the All Weather Flight Control System (AWFCS) consisting of a digital autopilot, advanced avionics display, and Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS). Other major improvements include a Defensive Systems (DS), Fuel Quantity Indicating System, and GPS modifications. As a general rule, these 63 aircraft are the "youngest" (fewest equivalent damage hours) in the fleet and will carry the weapon system through programmed retirement in 2006.


All Weather Flight Control System (AWFCS) The AWFCS modification is necessitated to alleviate reliability and maintainability problems presently being experienced due to the aging (or rather aged) avionics systems on the C-141. The system's functionality includes: autopilot, autothrottle, yaw damping, ground collision warning, primary flight instrument display, and warning display. LRUs installed by this modification (4 6x8" AMLCD Display Units (DUs), 2 Automatic Flight Control Processors (AFCPs), 2 Display Processor Units (DPUs), and 2 Display Avionics Management Units) replace approximately 19 antiquated LRUs, Indicators, and Controls. Additionally, a new Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS) and Multi-function Standby Airspeed/Attitude/Altitude Indicator (w/independant airdata source) are installed during this modification.
GPS Enhanced Navigation System (GPSENS) GPSENS integrates into the AWFCS aircraft to provide GPS based navigation and centralized and consolodated control of the majority of aircraft communication and navigation equipment via 3 Multifunction Control Display Units and 2 Navigational Processors. The Fuel Saving Advisory System (FSAS) LRUs are removed and their functionality is rehosted within the Nav. Processors.
Digital Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) The new digital FQIS provides a display of fuel quantity in the same manner as the old analog system - one indicator for each tank and a totalizer to sum each individual tank reading (except in a digital format vs the analog dail). All components and wiring of the old system are replaced when the new system is installed. A complete aircraft kit consists of 11 Digital Fuel Qauntity Indicators (one part number which is interchangeable for all tank indicator positions and totalizer), 68 Full Height Compensated (FHC) Fuel Probes, and associated wiring. BIT capabilities facilitate ease of maintenance and trouble shooting.
Airlift Defensive System (ADS) ADS provides C-141 aircraft with a common self-protection capability against shoulder fired man portable Surface-to-Air Missile threat.
L-Band Satcom System Operating on the Inmarsat and GPS satellites with interconnection to international telex, fax and switched data networks, the L-Band Satcom system provides automatic (and manual) data reporting and message transfer of position reports, performance data and operational messages on a 24 hour global basis. Coverage is provided from sea level to 55,000 feet from 70 degrees north to 70 degrees south.
Interim GPS Provisions The C-141 aircraft is equipped with provisions to allow the use of hand-held GPS equipment. Power and antenna access plugs are located at the aft end of the center pedestal. Hand-held GPS units in use consist of the Precise Lightweight GPS Receiver (PLGR) and the Bendix-King KLX-100 (Comm functions not allowed for on-aircraft use).
Traffic Collision Aviodance System (TCAS) Current plans include the installation of a TCAS on the C-141 aircraft.

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".

 

[a_majoor]

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?

 

[Gunnerlove]

My airforce friend, the F-16 was the first true "fly-by-wire" aircraft in the world, using "off the shelf" fly-by-wire components from the Space Shuttles. Example: F-14Athru-D Tomcats are HYDRAULIC controlled. Hence not fly-by-wire. Last time I think an aircraft was produced to fly with push-rods and pulleys etc was the poor old Avro Arrow! 

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.