I have long been a believer that as the UK armed forces move towards a 3 tier tactical and strategic transport fleet comprising the A400, c17 and A330 there exists a need for a small utility aircraft that can be used for a wide variety of functions. Some of our readers are not convinced and in the context of a shrinking budget and pressing matters elsewhere in the equipment programme I can see their point.
But could we ‘invest to save’ by purchasing a smaller aircraft with a multitude of uses that would relieve the larger aircraft of some tasks and crucially, take some of the roles of the hard pressed and very expensive to operate Support helicopter fleet (Chinook and Merlin)
Whilst it might be said that such an aircraft could not match the range and payload of its much larger partners or the versatility of the support helicopter one wonders that if these limitations and costs of introducing another airframe into an overstretched logistics, maintenance and training pipeline are accepted, would it still result in an overall cost reduction whilst increasing utility?
Without seeing a detailed costs breakdown it is impossible to say but worth asking nevertheless.
In a previous post I proposed the idea of an RAF COIN/Mentoring force that would use cheap to own and operate logistics aircraft to develop host nations air despatch capabilities. Whilst the USAF is seeking to create a similar force that will comprise both light attack and logistics capabilities I think the RAF might focus on one area, that of logistics, because it has a wider impact and can be achieved quicker and with less resources. The force could concentrate on mission planning, air logistics and other ‘back office’ type functions that are a precursor to combat operations.
The idea didn’t get much backing from the Think Defence readers but I am not going to let that stop me from flogging one of my pet hobby horses!
Any reader of this blog will know I appreciate the value of logistics and my continuing fascination with Mexeflotes and unmanned logistics is only encouraged by people like the born again Canadian (Jed), who proposed the Viking Twin Otter as the base aircraft for the USAF LiMA capability.
I did actually include the Twin Otter in my list for Group 1 aircraft, twin engined mid size, in the original post but recent news has meant that this option becomes even more attractive. Conventional wisdom says that if you want a small military airlifter you buy a Casa C212 or M28 Skytruck, going up the size scale would be the Casa 235 or even C27J but these start getting very expensive and complex.
Cost is the starting point for any such discussions, let’s be clear about that.
With the reduction in orders for the the Nimrod MRA4 there exists an obvious gap for quasi military maritime patrol and air sea rescue capabilities both in the UK and specifically in the Falkland Islands. We have already mentioned the combat logistics, training/mentoring in a conflict reduction capacity and there are many others.
Viking of Canada recently resurrected production of the venerable DHC Twin Otter and have been getting some serious orders from customers as diverse as the Vietnamese Navy and Zimex Aviation in Switzerland
The Series 400 has many improvements over the old model and its versatility is obvious; wheels floats or skis and the environmental hardening to operate in these diverse environments mean its legendary toughness has been retained.
Performance highlights are as follows;
STOL Takeoff and Landing Distance: 1200 ft (366m) (Takeoff distance to 50 ft)
Maximum Cruise Speeds: TAS Sea Level: 170 kt, 5,000 ft: 181 kt, 10,000 ft: 182 kt
Payload for 100 nautical mile (185km) range: 4280 lb (1941 kg), 400 nautical mile (741 km) range: 3250 lb (1474 kg)
Maximum Endurance with Standard Tankage (2583 lb (1172 kg) fuel): 7 hr 10 min, with Long Range Tankage (3190 lb (1447 kg) fuel): 9 hr
Viking have also introduced the Guardian 400 specifically for the surveillance, security, sovereignty and search and rescue market that has an extended range fuel tank (10 hour operations) and an electro-optical and infrared imaging turret which can be displayed on either the flight deck Honeywell Primus Apex Multi Function Display, or on a separate cabin console.
Other features might a include spotter camera, laser range finder, laser illuminator a light weight, 360 degree digital color radar system with Track-While-Scan capability, including long range navigation position update, target positions transmission, location latitude and longitude, target heading and velocity. The Guardian 400 will be equipped with 4 crew observation stations, rescue equipment drop hatch, air operable cargo door, search light, and a galley with adjacent lavatory and not forgetting, 4 wing hard points for additional stores.
Viking Twin Otter Guardian
Any takers, anyone with any other uses for a couple of squadrons worth?
What I still struggle with is this: How would they be operated in the current conflict?
For example, the Chinooks resupply the FOBs by coming down and landing right in or next to the FOB usually, or just dropping an under-slung load. To replace that job, even with a STOL aircraft, you have to secure and clear a fairly long strip of flat land (400-500m minimum) that isn’t too soft (desert sand can’t be the most fun thing to try and land on). This then needs protecting along its entire length whenever the aircraft needs to land or take off, using up many more men than protecting a small square next to a FOB would. It would also require either constant over watch when not in use or a rechecking for IEDs before every use.
I say all this because I assume that Afghanistan doesn’t have many operational airstrips conveniently dotted around and protected for coalition use, hence the need for helos, or air drops (which I think could be utilised more, but that requires C130s or A400s, or C17s – which we already have).
And if you’d like one more reason, the aircraft you suggested above has 1/6th the payload of a single Chinook, so they’d need to do the whole “protect the airstrip” thing a whole lot more often.
Personally I can’t see the value in the concept. It would cost a fair bit to start a new type and add to the logistics pool needed in theatre, and when you add in all of the above (plus some more things i’ve probably not seen yet) is a 1/3 the price of a Chinook really all that good. I know which one i’d put my money on.
Oh and just noticed one final thing, this Viking would fly too fast for an Apache escort, making it more vulnerable (even if it flies a little faster and higher *some* of the time – anyone have any facts on that, it isn’t pressurised is it?) nor would it have the 2 Vulcans and 12.7mm stuck on it for self protection, and I doubt it has as much in the way of soft protection as a Chinook, certainly not for the quoted price. And we can’t even borrow bits or share R&D costs with the Yanks.
Wow – ubelievable, your psychic ! I was just navigating my way here to post a link to an Ottawa Citizen Defence Watch posting about the sale to Vietnam, and you have a whole article …
Go Canada Go…..
Grim I am with you on this. Although I drew the attention of the Viking via my comments, for the US LiMA requirement, I don’t think the UK needs such an aircraft, unless it was replace the RC12′s.
Grim, I am with you on the whole STOL strips thing, its a point I have repeatedly made, especially in relation to the Super Tucano and K Max unmanned. The idea with this is to compliment, not replace and not solely in Afghanistan.
Without seeing the numbers its hard to say one way or the other but I would imagine an airframe that has been proven time and time again in austere conditions with commercial operators so running costs are likely to be a fraction of rotary, now if the total costs add up to too much then clearly its a non starter but I have a sneaky feeling that even factoring in these other costs the overall impact would still be low.
There must be hundreds of uses even outside of Afghanistan, everything from continuation parachute training to night time air dispatch. In Afghanistan its 9 hour endurance at a much lower overall cost than UAS would support route surveillance and denial operations or even shuttling personnel and small loads between KAF and Bastion would be a help
Would Islanders / Defenders be useful? Smaller than a twin otter but the AAC already have a few on the books.
Some stats . . .
http://www.britten-norman.com/products/bn2t4s/
So the uses you’ve found are basically as a manned UAV and a light shuttle between KAF and Bastion? Correct me if i’m wrong but don’t we have at least one type in service that can do exactly that, the King Air?
It’s all well being having complimentary capabilities, but i’m not really seeing ANY uses that would be better served by Chinooks or other in service aircraft.
some good points made by grim, just going to add some points made by myself in earlier posts but i’ve changed my mind on my choice of aircraft.
The americans have made amazing advances in airdrops dropping supplies from 10,000+ feet equipped with GPS controlled steering and are landing within 15m of the target. They are also trialling once only chutes and an airbag cushioning pallet. so in my opinion there is a use, however the otter is just to small.
As a point to note if the American head sheds get their way there won’t be any lifts required to bastion as we won’t be there!!
On earlier posts i said we should folow the french example as they have got 8 eads 235′s whilst waiting for their A400M’s (although i went for the 295).
I have changed my mind as we owe eads nothing after all the contract rubbish earlier, so i would go for C-27′s (just like everyone else)! mainly as they have dimensions good enough for more equipment than the 235/295 plus, it has common parts/systems with the C130 which i think answers grims point of commonality with other aircraft. i would even reduce the number of A400 to offset costs (we can reduce by another 8 before incurring penalties). Plus by the time we get A400 we may have more funds or a reduced need as everyone bar labour has said the afghan wind down when they get in.
Well that’s my ramble, not a perfect solution, just an idea!!
Paul, I wouldn’t use an Islander/Defender in anything but (very?)low intensity ops. It is a fine aircraft and is good from rough strips etc, but I wouldn’t like to be sat in one when the AAA starts coming in. When I say AAA, I mean anything from 7.62 upwards. Although it can fit armoured seats it is nowhere near a war fighting machine.
The BN2T-4S on the link has something of an Achilles heel in that I’m sure that the fuel system is of the re-circulating type. This means that a few bullet holes in the wings and all the fuel leaks out, and the leak is constantly fed by the fuel pumps. Better to have the older type system on the BN2T with manual fuel shut-off valves that isolate the seperate tanks. I can remember having the same conversation with one of BN’s reps, but I never got any feed back.
Also the BN2T isn’t the fastest of cats, and although you can fit 7.62mm underwing machine gun pods, I wouldn’t attack anyone unless they only had a Browning 9mm. Best to use it for comms and light duties where there’s only a small chance of getting hit.
An interesting concept by BN was a larger Islander/Trilander which had a ramp at the back, but I don’t think it didn’t get further than the drawing board.
as usual, some excellent points by everyone but in response to Grims point about the King Air.
I was thinking that the King Air is more a thoroughbred and something like the Twin Otter more of a donkey. My examples were just that, I am sure there are hundreds more. The key differentiator is rough field performance
Hey, perhaps it was a bad idea but I do like the odd indulgent flight of fantasy
I’m also in the negativity camp on this one I’m afraid, it doesn’t add up in my opinion and if we did need a small aircraft the Britten Norman Defender would be it without much question. I think we should really practice with the GPS airdropping kit which we now have and keep an eye on what the yanks are doing to supplement supply options. My three tiered airlift would be the C-17 at the strategic end of thing’s the A400M in the middle and something smaller at the bottom either the C-27J or C-295.
Paul from what I have heard the C-27J is nowhere near as common as people think it was spun that way to make it more attractive when Lockheed Martin were involved with the aircraft development. There is some commonality don’t get me wrong but other factors should have much more significance when comparing this aircraft with others. Furthermore if I had my way the C-130J would not be in service as long as the MoD want it to be as I would continue with the A400M purchase in a steady state.
Hmm! I see people have worked out how to edit comments:P
right then, I am going off in a big girly strop now
I did consider the Islander and we have a handful already in service, including a few with all the FLIR bells and whistles but it has a very small payload
There does seem to be a gap in the future fleet for hauling ~10t around although I don’t think its of high enough priority in times of budgetary restrictions to warrant a new platform. The current helo plans will give the RAF ~70 CH-47′s which should be enough.
My personal flight of fancy would be a large autogyro – near vertical take off and landing and none of the complications of hovering, but since none exist I’ll leave it there.
On the GPS parachutes, I’ve heard their not as cheap and reusable as you might think, and you still have to secure and clear a large area just in case it misses. I don’t think their quite at the stage where you can drop one into a FOB.
For another approach to disposable airdrop of small packages check out “copterbox”
Thanks C, now you have mentioned copterbox I remember reading something ages ago and had forgotten until you mentioned it. Might do a blog post and shamelessly steal all the credit !
Euan I’m with you there my thoughts centred on my experiences in the Islander, no good due to small doors very awkward with loads, if we were going down the size route that others have suggested here then I would look at the 212 purely because it has a rear ramp although as I have said I agree these are too small, I erred towards the C-27J after seeing a cut-through of the diameters of the 295 and 27, you cannot walk past the standard size pallet on the 295 and the height restricts it to landrovers (just) shame airbus can’t do a A200, baby 400!!!!
C the problem with relying on Chinook is cost/availability flight time and maintainence time between fixed and rotary is hugely different and helos spend a lot of the time on the deck.
It would be far better to use fixed wing where possible, not a dig just better tasking.
I keep looking at the fairey rotordyne video on youtube and think if only, once again the bean counters stop us when we are world leaders in something, that aircraft is 50 years old, stopped because of exccesive noise, what a set of …. (insert your own insult here)
Admin, there was a concept not that long ago which saw the C-130 with a large rotor, similiar to the 1960′s Rotordyne prototype. This would give the Herc the ability to autorotate into a FOB and ultra-short STOL capability. I’ll have a dig and see what I can find.
How’s that for a bag of apples? Not a perfect picture, but demonstrates the concept.
http://www.prachapter34.com/P%20West%20clip%20&%20credit.JPG
http://www.cartercopters.com/index.html
Dare to dream
Such small aircraft have faced little demand by European air forces since the 60′s.
Let L-410, Dornier Do 128 and 228, GAF Nomad, BN Islander, Handley Page Jetstream, Twin Otter, Beech King Air – they didn’t do more than to fit into niches (such as air crew trainers, SigInt platforms or cheap maritime surveillance aircraft).
The demand seems to be minimal.
The yanks are going C-12 for manned watching and UAV for unmanned. The Twotter could do the same as the C-12, and carry things that drop & go bang on its hardpoints. Bog/sand tires let you drop into, and later leave, many more soft places than you might think.
I dunno the UK stats but the Indian stats show the An-32 doesn’t normally carry anything like its full load. The Twotter could do the job. Wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the actual deliveries in Afghan are very often not at Chinook capacity.
To all,
After reading the comments on TD’s future of the RAF – Vertical Lift the basics. I was wondering if we could do a poor man’s E-2C Hawkeye, using the new Twin Otter? Could we mount the SearchWater radar underneath?
Strengthen the undercarriage more, add a tailhook and folding wings and maybe uprate the engines more + internal fuel tank. Even if the actual conversion costs 4x that of the twin otter its self. That would mean that each “Sea Otter” would cost $10m (bargain at only $2m a piece) or about £6.5m. We could also have a COD version.
So what do you guys think? Is it possible and if it is, is it worth it?