Re; The cost of Aghanistan supply,
I’d be very surprised if the bulk of that cash is being spent purely on airlift. Don’t forget we’re talking about food, fuel, bombs, bullets, water, batteries and god knows what else for almost 10,000 men. What isn’t flown in has to be shipped to Pakistan and then driven by contractors all the way through the tribal areas to the north. None of that is cheap,

Re; Fedaykin
“No I have not walked in and accused of lying”
– Erm, I think you’ll find you have. You keeping going on about debunking things and holes in the article etc, yet you can’t produce evidence to support your assertion. The only evidence in this isolated argument was brought against you. And your response? “Oh well, Northrop Grumman are only interested in the next big thing”. Their interest, I would imagine, lies where the money is and right now the money is in supporting Sentry. Your whole argument on this issue, your whole “debunking”, centres around people accepting the premise that Northrop Grumman are lying because you haven’t heard something on your personal “grapevine”. That’s a tough ask.

Then we end up going back to the engines. Where do we even start? New engines. Old engines. Not the same. Can’t put most parts from new engine into old engine. That’s about as low as I can break it down.

And you still can’t seem to accept that even if, even if, the AEW&C issue was “debunked” as you put it, it’s an aside, a bonus, what TD himself might call a ‘capability plus’. It would not alone undermine the general premise of the article. You seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding that concept.

Still, the plane is stepping into a niche where the inhabitants are dying of old age (for the Hercs, that might take 30 years or more!)

No I have not walked in and accused of lying, I have walked in and pointed out that I think your ideas around Sentry are poorly conceived and researched. In my opinion they are debunk-able as ideas and your retorts have been weak or even childish.

You are still banging on about engine Blocks and are painting it as some major issue. I do know the difference between the blocks and also know that it doesn’t appear to present Boeing or CFM any issues when they are bidding or in the case of our new RC135 delivering new upgrades. In the end they are hung on pylons and it will be five shades of cheaper then paying for your new fantasy AEW. In respect of Northrop Grumman they are not the MOD and their interests lie in the Boeing 737 AEW&C…I have never heard anything out of the MOD about this and going on USAF plans for even older examples of the Sentry plus the recent procurement of the RC135 within the RAF we can presume a long career for the Sentry. As you are more intent on treating me like a moron rather then taking some criticism on the chin that is your problem so by all means carry on insulting me if it makes you feel bigger. As far as I am concerned the whole article has holes a mile wide in it and I am not entirely sure I wasted my time on it.

I take you’re ‘horses for courses’ point. I guess a balance between various methods and assets is necessary both from a practical cost point of view but also from a flexibility standpoint.

@x

Yes that was sort of what I was getting at. A sensible approach is to look at what is affordable and also what provides a complimentary asset. It would be pure madness to start thinking that heavy lift alone can sustain deployments.

It would indeed be interesting to speculate on an Afghanistan scenario taking place in a coastal nation. I think that would have had all kinds of implications, not just on the cost and mix of transport capability.

We need the sort of fleet Chris B has set out. The things are far too useful. But what we have to guard against is those who think air can be a substitute for sea. It can’t. Physics says it can’t. The technology as it stands says it can’t.

I do wonder how much Afghanistan would cost per day if Afghanistan was say Somalia; that is to say on the coast. A good chunk of that £12million per day, about the cost of a Bay for a year, must be on air freight costs.

Well that maybe true Chris but the nations involved were the ones who insisted that they must develop a new engine in Germany ect when they wanted to buy a similar engine off the shelf from p&w. Had airbus been allowed the freedom to design the a/c to the required spec without the political interference it would have in service and cost less. They weren’t bluffing sure it would have been a hit on there profit but there civil jets are much more profitable and sell in very large quantities( they deliver the equivalent of the entire a400m order book every 4 months on the 320 series alone)

Perhaps it’s more like 90:10?

In a nutshell Airbus turned around and said to the partner nations “Blimey chaps, this thing isn’t half costing a lot to develop, so how about you guys give us some more development money or we’ll just pull the plug on the whole thing,”. Should have just called them on it, let them take the hit. The bloody cheek of some of these companies.

What’s this ” based on our part of what was tantamount to a bail out of the project”?

At first I read it as us bailing out, with a parachute. But the project was indeed bailed out with a loan (2.5 bn?) from the participating gvmnts. Unique repayment terms: only becomes payable from export proceeds, over and above the orders that are from participants… so really, quasi-equity, but gets around the WTO rules about subsidies, I guess

The ones finally acquired are ex-TNT and have large cargo side doors (best seen in the piccies here showing them airborne: http://forum.scramble.nl/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=83357 )

RE: A more cargo based solution was looked at to lift the capacity short haul across the area.

Cheers for stopping by, reading, and sharing your thoughts. Not sure as we can afford to up the Atlas buy. It wasn’t long ago that the gov reduced it from 25 to 22, based on our part of what was tantamount to a bail out of the project.

@ Challenger,

Horses for courses. The bulk of the supplies going into Afghanistan such as fuel go through a couple of land based routes through Pakistan, coming in at Pakistani ports, driven by contractors. The fees charged by Pakistan and the money that has to be paid to keep people away from the supply routes is quite a source of irritation given that Pakistan are supposed to be our allies in this one!

Thus the air bridge can take some of the burden off. You’d also much prefer to have sensitive and/or expensive cargo like troops brought in directly, without having to worry about the wants and whims of contractors or the Pakistani Police and military.

For other operations, air cargo is a trade off. You’re trading speed against cost and capacity. An A330 can fly to a hot spot in a matter of hours taking certain troops and cargo with it, as opposed to days or weeks, but there is a finite limit on how much you can carry and it costs more to fly things than it does to ship them.

Obviously in an all out emergency it’s also better if you can utilise every access point you have, so ship most of the heavy cargo in through the ports while flying the men and some of the lighter cargo in through the airports. Not only do you get men on the ground quicker but the ships that would otherwise have to carry the men would also have to carry enough grub for them all, impacting their cargo margins.

Horses for courses.

You’re comments about the extent of the contribution RAF heavy lift has made in land-locked Afghanistan are interesting because it brushes on something I was thinking about earlier.

Huge amounts of supplies, personnel and other equipment have been flown in-to Afghanistan. However a couple of very good points are how much of this has been put on chartered aircraft as opposed to actual RAF assets and also how do these figures compare to the amount that has been sent over land?

This is the problem I find with heavy lift in general. We know we can’t have the kind of power that provides real strategic capabilities, that would require something like the hundreds of C17′S and Hercules the Americans operate and just isn’t possible.

So if we can’t have a heavy lift fleet that can actually influence events by projecting power, what exactly do we need?

Most of the suppliers went in overland. And a good chunk of UK supplies delivered by air was taken in by contractors.

Repatriations and MEDEVAC on C17s doesn’t sound right to me. Palletised A330 flights sounds much more sensible. Having said that I suspect the flow of material is outbound and the inbound flights have the capacity.

It never ceases to amaze me how ships, planes and helicopters are ordered with “missing” capabilities. Whilst I would need some persuading that creating a new militarised airframe for ISTAR/AEW&C/MPA ASTOR it certainly would be great to be using a newer and more standard family of aircraft for these platforms. Sadly we have ships and submarines without antiship defences and CIWS, tanker aircraft that cant refuel our C17s and very shortly aircraft carriers without planes.

Personally I would prioritise in the following order

C130Js : Staggered that these could be “dead” so soon. First introduced in 1999 (so not even 13 years old). The C130 is the longest running production miltary aircraft, these things seem to last forever. Having said that, I accept I have heard from multiple sources that there is a view that a SLEP would be seriously expensive. I’d do it if it made sense.

Atlas : current order 22 increase to 30 with the additional 8 units being fitted for aerial refueling (1 based permanently in Falklands). This would finally provide refueling capability to our helicopters (some fitted for but not with probes). I would consider conversion of palletised additional capabilities as and when funds provided for Intel/HarvestHawk style capabilities.

Voyager : I would consider using one of these planes for what was previously (rudely) referred to as Blair Force One. It seems utterly crazy UK Plc and HM Government to be flying the PM his advisers and business bigwigs to India in a BA Boeing jet whilst trying to sell Bae/Airbus. Given these bigwigs are paying for their flights not flying cattle-class doesnt seem unreasonable, and the PM/Royals having privacy/rest capabilities doesn’t seem unreasonable either. The current jets being permanently fitted with seats would be less suitable than palletised arrangements. Furthermore as mentioned by Chris.B the AAR cant refuel the C17s (nor probably RivetJoint). Given the C17s would struggle to get to the Falklands should it be needed this is an example of a half-baked capability that needs to be available. Time to consider some more A330s? I like Chris’s idea, cargo and boom capable. Able to take palletised medivac, seats and even fuel. I’d get 4 more.

I’d leave it at that. The RAF, in my view, is the least honest of the three services about its issues/messups/needs. Afganistan has been a very unique conflict in that it is land locked. Indeed in many ways it is also surrounded by hostile land and is uniquely dependent on aircraft for supplies. The RAF have done a sterling job, mostly they have coped and that in itself is an indication that maybe this is a resource and capability that we have and do not need to expand upon. Our amphibious/non RORO capabilities perhaps instead should be reviewed.

For $145,000,000 about the cost of one A400m this will move 13,000 containers.

http://jiyolive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2.jpg

Bottomless pit air transport isn’t it?

@ Mark,
"A330 (28 a330 sorties would move the entire afghan force personnel wise) and a400 will offer a excellent capability at a cheaper cost to a c17/747 combo imo. We can then keep c17 for moving the really big out-sized stuff so needed in expeditionary"
– That's really hit the nail on the head and perhaps I should have developed this point in more detail in the article. The extra A330 proposed would be used to take up the bulk of the direct flights to Afghanistan and back. Repatriation flights, bulk medical extractions, bulk palletised cargo, large personnel moves. All the kind of things for which a C-17 is really overkill.

With the superb range and payload capacity of the A330 you would be able to fly the vast majority of those flights direct country to country and at a reduced cost compared to the C-17's. The goal would be to essentially "protect" the C-17 and save its availability (and it's lifespan) for tasks which are more appropriate for it, such as carrying the over sized/odd loads like vehicles and helicopters.

When dealing with flights into less prepared/less capable airports, the C-17 could be sent in first carrying the equipment (stairs, lifts, forklifts) needed to unload the A330's which could follow on later.

The only difference to your suggestion is that I would use the left over cash from not buying A400M to buy additional, shiny new C-130J-30's, probably about 16 (assuming 8xA330 @ about $220 million each, A400M assumed price @ $140 million each, C-130J-30 @ $80 million each).

‘At present vc-10 cant carry passengers’ Not strictly true, they can on some flights with it being signed off. I think on a case by case basis. I flew on one just a few months ago. Although in effect it’s rare and small amounts it’s not much in the grand scheme of things.

What the civil airlines and indeed the military are now thinking is you fly point to point its cheaper saves on a/c operating costs dont see how 747 helps there (they only really operate on very high density routes). This means defensive aid fitted a/c with range and reasonably gd short take-off landing performance. At present vc-10 cant carry passengers we have 8 tri stars availability unknown to me I think only 3 are pure passenger ones and all carry less than the a330. Hercs are working so hard all are approaching major service intervals and need some relief.

A330 will relieve pressure but a change to DAS requirements on the a/c is holding that up and getting them into service take time. A330 (28 a330 sorties would move the entire afghan force personnel wise) and a400 will offer a excellent capability at a cheaper cost to a c17/747 combo imo. We can then keep c17 for moving the really big out-sized stuff so needed in expeditionary

It’s nothing very secret from what I know, although I will add I’m not involved with this UOR at all. So what I do know isn’t a great deal more than online. I know it’s to bolster the cargo capacity across the ME, the 146s from 32 Sqn did this role however thet weren’t ideal. A more cargo based solution was looked at to lift the capacity short haul across the area. I believe there are out there now.

Aside from that I do think it odd that the idea was looked at when both Telic and Herrick were both running and was dismissed by those far up the CoC, yet a couple of years later it was brought in. I never found out why it was dismissed and accepted just a few years apart.

@ x

We do already, we supplement large scale ops/high sustained air bridges with civ contracts. I would imagine it’s similar to RFA with what they buy in extra from civ companies.

The idea is we buy second hand ones and use them sparingly to save hours on C17. Surely if you can fly C17 you can fly a 747? Isn’t that normal career progression for an RAF pilot?

@ Topman

No we need aircraft on hand to go when we need them. Not if some parcel carrier from the Mid-West can fit us insometime between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

What are they actually using the 146′s for, if you’re allowed to say?

I’ve no doubt they could, haven’t been myself yet, but I understand it’s a busy runway, if it was in the UK it think it would be in the top 5. The USAF use 747s, provided by contractors quite a bit from what I remember, if we need them I would just contract it in.

Go figure.

I see fair enough I just think it’s odd why people say we should use them more, they are asking to move from a level of usage that doesn’t yet exsist to another unspecified number.

As to the shortfall; currently that’s been made up some what by the 146s which as you say are there to ‘the reduction in Hercules numbers and the general strain of Afghanistan.’ Civilian companies can also fill in the extra required, we don’t need a 100% capacity at all times. The DPA will keep a base line then top up with civilian charter as req’d, it’s not really cost affective to do it any other way. No-one else does not even the USAF they rely on lots of civilian a/c.

As to the future, who knows what levels of equipment or people will be required to be moved around.