Tactical Airlift - Replace the Herc!

[a_majoor]

One of the common objections to the LAV, MGS and MMEV concepts is the fact they are at the very limits of C-130 Hercules capabilities. The common rant seems to be "redesign or get something smaller and just as capable", although in truth, there are probably not many choices to replace or suppliment the LAV.

On the other hand, the C-130 dates back to the 1950's, making it perhaps the most successful design of all time (after the DC-3). We need to go into the 21rst century with an airlift capability which has developed beyond 1950 era airframes, and in Canada, we need to replace our fleet of C-130's simply because they are 30-40 years old. Why not get a bigger and better plane which can lift the LAV family while we are at it? For consideration, I give you the Carter Heli-plane: http://www.cartercopters.com/heliplane_overview.htm

Feel free to offer your own suggestions.

 

[XJimmy]

I am far from having air force smarts, but what about a core fleet of smaller tactical transports backed up by some (plug-in your own numbers here) large strategic lifters that we could rent/lease back to the U.S. for instance as they need them?  Taxpayers would pay less overall and the forces would have better airlift capability.  I think Britain does something along these lines with C-17's.

 

[X Royal]

How long is it taking to get our few Sea Kings replaced. Now were talking replacing the Herc's fleet. I doubt anyone now currently serving will still be around to see it. I suspect more sub contracting of airlifts. Not a fan of sub contracting of airlift services or even service contracts for our military aircraft but I suspect it is what we'll see due to no up front large costs. (pay me now or pay me later) Pay a certain amount for a given flight. Also reduced manpower & training costs but a major loss of flexibility/capability. :rage: :skull:

 

[Inch]

Well Maj, I must say that from my perspective, I'd like to know just how they plan on going from 5000 shp engines to 30,000 shp without making them 8 ft in diameter and not sucking 1000+ lbs of fuel per hour. Granted it won't be hovering all the time, but look at the problems they're having with the Osprey. Not to mention that it will be quite limited in speed due to having a rotor, even if the rotor is not turning it's still quite a bit of profile drag just having the rotor system. The fastest helicopter out there goes about 180 kts, and that's balls out.  I'm all for radical designs to lead us into the future but I myself have too much of a self-preservation instinct to be hovering a 150,000lbs hybrid. Another problem with hovering a 155,000lbs machine, make sure it's not too close to your biv or anything else that's not tied down. That's a lot of downwash my friend, I'd assume it'd be confined to airports, in which case, why don't you just get a bunch of fixed wing airlifters?

Anyway, I don't profess to be an engineer but those are the things that jump out at this helo driver.

Cheers

 

[a_majoor]

I am far from having air force smarts, but what about a core fleet of smaller tactical transports backed up by some (plug-in your own numbers here) large strategic lifters that we could rent/lease back to the U.S. for instance as they need them? Taxpayers would pay less overall and the forces would have better airlift capability. I think Britain does something along these lines with C-17s.

The C-130 is considered a tactical airlifter, so getting a smaller one, while maybe cheaper and more flexible in some senses, misses the point of not being able to lift the LAV. (We do need a new generation of smaller transports to replace the Twin Otters, Buffalo, Caribou and other assorted small transports in the fleet anyway).

Well Maj, I must say that from my perspective, I'd like to know just how they plan on going from 5000 shp engines to 30,000 shp without making them 8 ft in diameter and not sucking 1000+ lbs of fuel per hour. Granted it won't be hovering all the time, but look at the problems they're having with the Osprey. Not to mention that it will be quite limited in speed due to having a rotor, even if the rotor is not turning it's still quite a bit of profile drag just having the rotor system. The fastest helicopter out there goes about 180 kts, and that's balls out.  I'm all for radical designs to lead us into the future but I myself have too much of a self-preservation instinct to be hovering a 150,000lbs hybrid. Another problem with hovering a 155,000lbs machine, make sure it's not too close to your biv or anything else that's not tied down. That's a lot of downwash my friend, I'd assume it'd be confined to airports, in which case, why don't you just get a bunch of fixed wing airlifters?

Anyway, I don't profess to be an engineer but those are the things that jump out at this helo driver.

Cheers

I don't know how they plan to do this either, but they seem confident. (If I am reading their site correctly, the engines will be versions of the turbines used in Navy warships). I believe there is another design out there which mates a C-130 sized airframe to two sets of V-22 wings and engines (i.e. 4 tiltrotors), which seems to be a mechanical nightmare just waiting to happen. Perhaps we need the bigger fuselage of the Carter design mated to a modern high efficiency wing to make a C-130 fixed wing replacement?

 

[Inch]

I don't know how they plan to do this either, but they seem confident. (If I am reading their site correctly, the engines will be versions of the turbines used in Navy warships). I believe there is another design out there which mates a C-130 sized airframe to two sets of V-22 wings and engines (i.e. 4 tiltrotors), which seems to be a mechanical nightmare just waiting to happen. Perhaps we need the bigger fuselage of the Carter design mated to a modern high efficiency wing to make a C-130 fixed wing replacement?

That could work. If you design the wing right you could get incredible STOL capabilities and with good anti-FOD systems, you could operate quite a large aircraft from small unprepared fields. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the "grown ups" in NDHQ figure out.

Cheers

Oh yeah, we don't fly Caribou's anymore. 

 

[casca]

That Carter heliplane is intresting. However to replace the older Hercs you should replace them with the new C130J's, they are an awesome a/c.

 

[a_majoor]

That Carter heliplane is intresting. However to replace the older Hercs you should replace them with the new C130J's, they are an awesome a/c.

No doubt the C-130J is an awesome aircraft, but the US Stryker program is running into difficulties because even their late model "J" isn't up to the task of carrying a Stryker. While I actually don't believe it is sensible or wise to pin all our hopes on airlifting a combat team into the AOR (which is estimated to take 25 C-17 chalks!), having a big, capable, tactical airlifter makes sense on a lot of other levels. A strategic carrier (even leasing a squadron's worth of C-17's) also makes a lot of sense, if only because we are a long way from where we have to go.

 

[Infanteer]

A Majoor,

As much as I'm loath to bring up the vaunted "paper airplane", do you think the Airbus C-400 (or whatever its called) will fit the bill?

As well, seeing as the Stryker-LAV is intended as an interim vehicle (for the US, maybe not for us  :-\), perhaps we're being a little hasty on seeking to design a tactical airlifter based around moving it.  Perhaps that requirement might be gone in the near future.

 

[Kirkhill]

It does seem that the current state of the armoured art is that a vehicle of about 30 tonnes is what is needed to beat most man-portable threats (RPGs and lesser) on the battlefield.  That is the rough weight range of everything from the up-armoured Warriors and Bradleys to the CV-90s, Pumas and Dardos as well as the Boxer Wheeled APC.

If we really want to fly these things around the world then that seems to be the minimum load requirement.  In that case we are stuck looking at the A-400 and the C-17. 

Of course I still think that most vehicles, most of the time, will cover most distance by sea. But the ability to cover the last leg by air is certainly a desirable option.

On the other hand the Royal Marines are accepting higher risks in the name of greater deployability by restricting themselves to the 10 tonne Viking armoured version of the Bv206 which is armoured against anti-personnel threats (7.62mm, air bursts and 0.5 kg mines -  note however it has very low ground pressure).

 

[a_majoor]

From what I have been able to see, the Airbus is "supposed" to be a strategic airlifter along the lines of the C-17 or Antonov. Once again, a squadron for our strategic needs might be worth considering.

Although you are right about letting the cart drive the horse, a bigger and better tac airlifter is still worth considering, since lots of outsized kit exists today that didn't in the 1950's, and a larger cargo bay lends itself to secondary uses like disaster relief (imagine a portable operating room or similar set-up in the cargo bay), as well as lending itself to modifications to act as AWAC/JSTARS/air to air tanker or airborne laser platform (among other possibilities). If the Herc is going to undergo a C-130K or above mod, this should be considered as well.

 

[casca]

I still think the C130J is the best for Canada, however if we could ever afford a plane like the C-17( about $170 mil US a piece) It would great too. The Brit's have just decided to buy the C-17's they leased and i think they are even buying a few more. The A-400 from Airbus is an unproven a/c so I would be hesitant to buy that one. As for Canada to buy an Antonov a/c, well ????? I just don't think so even if we now  use them for airlift.

 

[Big Foot]

Well, theres one thing i'm sure we can all agree on, we need something newer than the Hercs

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Royal New Zealand Air Force upgrading its C130s at Spar in Edmonton.

Spar did some work on ours IIRC.  Is there any life at all left in our H's, even with an upgrade or do we have to go with that ridiculous wing and fuselage exchange?

Inch and Zoomie, you have any insights?

 

[RCD]

Replace them with the new current C-130J models.
Buy 2 x a month for 24 months will all most bring us to current levels.
Get about 4 x C17 for the heavy lift

 

[Kirkhill]

I get your drift ReconMan.

At your rate of acquisition it would only take about 16 months to replace the entire current C130 fleet of 32 frames - (not aircraft, aircraft can fly and apparently a good chunk of our current fleet can't)

Actually I agree with you.  As do most folks here and a number of other folks like Barney Danson.

My question was prompted by the Article and a continuing search to find the "What if" answer, as in "What if the government doesn't come up with the money for a new air transport fleet?"

Cheers.

 

[Bograt]

My question was prompted by the Article and a continuing search to find the "What if" answer, as in "What if the government doesn't come up with the money for a new air transport fleet?"

The most important thing to remember when it comes to lift capabilities is to lift with you knees, not you back. That's what will happen if we do not replace the Hercs.

 

[McG]

In that case we are stuck looking at the A-400 and the C-17.

In coming to this conclusion, you have focused on the strategic airlift uses that we have often us the C130 to fill.  I think it is important that we not loose its tactical range of capabilities (parachute operations, SAR, in theater airlift, etc).  I think a mix of C-130J and C-130J-30 would meet our tactical airlift needs well.

The C-5, C-17, or Il-76 could be looked at for a separate but complementary strategic airlift fleet.

 

[Cloud Cover]

And maybe GDSL will build  a LAV with a rotor head. I think most of the Herc fleet will dissappear with the new FW SAR, perhaps the 5 tanker models and maybe a dosen new c130j will form the basis of tactical airlift. There just isn't any likelihood of money actually going on the table for anything else right now or in the future.

 

[aesop081]

.......I think most of the Herc fleet will dissappear with the new FW SAR

The point of FW SAR replacement i beleive is to replace the Buffs and the E-model CC-130s currently employed in the SAR role. The H-models are old as well but have more airframe-hours left on them compared to the E-models. C-130Js would make a good replacement for our fleet of H-models in the tac airlift role. I can see the hercs losing the AAR role as the tanker-modified CC-150s enter service.