The Need for a Small Tactical Airlifter

[Infanteer]

Couldn't find a thread on the Twin Otter.  Interesting piece at War on the Rocks about the Twin Otter.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/uplifted-the-case-for-small-tactical-airlift/

One of the assumptions that underpins the need for distributed operations is the expectation that our airfields will come under effective attack. There’s no sense putting all of our eggs in one basket, and aircraft destroyed on the ground are aircraft destroyed. It’s difficult to destroy a runway, but precision munitions can damage one. The fact that airfields are solidly made helps – runways are not destroyed but rather cut into segments too small to utilize. But “too small to utilize” is entirely aircraft-dependent. Three hits can cut an 8,000 foot runway into 2,000 foot segments, all too short to launch a loaded C-130. The same runway has to be hit seven times to cut it into 1,000 foot strips too short for a Twin Otter, and even then a Twin Otter could still operate off the taxiways, or nearby roadways, or the turf next to the runway.

Air transport is only as viable as the aircraft that fly the routes and the airfields that make up the network. Europe has the airfields to sustain a robust air effort, right up to the point where Russian missiles start hitting them. After that point, the kind of aircraft we have matter a lot more if they can fly into short, damaged, or makeshift airfields. The Russians simply cannot deliver the weight of precision ordnance necessary to prevent Twin Otter operations across the theater – there aren’t that many missiles in their inventory. Given the huge cost disparity between the C-130 and the Twin Otter, it would seem that a relatively paltry investment in new small airlift aircraft could pay big dividends. It also offsets requirements for redundant personnel and equipment by reducing what we have to send forward in the initial dispersal by providing a more dynamic re-supply capability that can adjust for local conditions and operational requirements. Just having this kind of aircraft in the inventory will greatly complicate the targeting picture for Russian forces and add to the weight of NATO’s deterrent.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I personally know alot of Viking Air folks. I am sure that they would be only too happy to take an order for 50-100 Twin Otters from the Pentagon...

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is the tilt rotor Osprey too small?

 

[Cloud Cover]

I personally know alot of Viking Air folks. I am sure that they would be only too happy to take an order for 50-100 Twin Otters from the Pentagon...

Have they got a militarized version available right now to demonstrate, or is Canadian air force flying them. I was thinking a modern, more ruggedized version of the Caribou might be an idea.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2053rank.html

OTOH:

The US had 13,513 airfields in 2013 per the CIA.
Mexico had 1,714
Canada had 1,467

Given that the UK had 460
France had 464
And Germany had 539
It is not unreasonable to suggest that the EU has a density comparable to the US

The means an awful lot of runways to chop up - not to mention the taxiways and highways that are dual-purposed in a number of countries.

I don't particularly see the lack of airfields as a determining factor in the developed world.

OTOH

Russia only has 1218 airfields
China has 507

While this limits the ability of the locals to move around (a security advantage) and the number of gateways to be exploited or forced (another security advantage) it also reduces the number or sally-ports (a strategic disadvantage).

But RCAF TWOTTERs are unlikely to be sliding into Siberia any time soon.

OTOH (I try to be even-handed)

Chad has 59 airfields
Niger has 30
Mali has 25

Those are places where VSTOL utility aircraft like the TWOTTER (and the Buffalo and the Caribou) come into their own.

And places where the US Army decided it wanted something like the C27 to replace its Sherpas.

The Aussies likewise wanted the C27 to replace its Caribous.
https://www.airforce.gov.au/technology/aircraft/air-mobility/c-27j-spartan

 

[Kirkhill]

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/08/a-different-beast-the-raafs-c-27j-spartan/

An article on how the the Aussies are building the C27 into their fleet as they explore its capabilities - walk (permissive environment), crawl (non-permissive), run (special ops).

Also interesting commentary on Command and Control and Utilization

“If we employ this the same way as a C-130 or a C-17, we’d be doing it a disservice. This aircraft is more for intra-lift on the battlefield and our focus is in air-land integration closely aligned to the employment of the Chinook in a capability sense.”

WGCDR Poxon explained that C-130J or C-17 missions will typically sit on an air tasking order (ATO) generated by an air operations centre (AOC) that runs on a 72-hour cycle. This represents centralised command and decentralised execution.

But because the battlefield is a dynamic environment, the C-27J will operate in direct support of Army units alongside helicopters from a forward location so they can be quickly re-tasked if necessary. Therefore, the C-27J may be employed in a decentralised command framework.

“The C-27J has the ability to operate on a reduced battle rhythm of less than 24-hours. So, our crews will plan with the people that actually conduct the tasking. This will provide more responsive, reactive tasking to our customers,” WGCDR Poxon said.

“Where the C-27J would take the mission instead of a Chinook, depends on the range from the base and what’s at the other end. The C-27J can go at least three to four times further, faster, and can carry more, but obviously we need a landing strip or something to land on. We provide a unique niche of capability between the C-130 and Chinook in this sense.”

Interesting to me, also, is how the aircraft has been purchased and then its utilization is being fleshed-out after the fact.  That suggests, to this on-looker, that the original SOR was probably rather loosely defined.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . .  a modern, more ruggedized version of the Caribou might be an idea.

De Havilland Canada had the same idea.  It was called the "Buffalo".

 

[MarkOttawa]

...In March 1963, the US Army awarded de Havilland a contract for four aircraft (CV-7A), each capable of lifting a payload of 12,000 lbs. Development proceeded quickly and the first DHC-5 flew from Downsview in December 1964. By September 1965, the four Buffaloes had been delivered to the US Army, but were the only ones supplied because of a policy change within the US military."..
https://www.warplane.com/aircraft/collection/details.aspx?aircraftId=12

And from Viking Air on their new build Twotters:

With its multi-role capability in a single airframe, the Series 400 Twin Otter is the most cost efficient solution for special missions. Offering a specialized solution for surveillance, search and rescue, critical infrastructure support, and a range of other Special Missions applications, the Series 400 Twin Otter has proved itself in a range of worldwide government and military support operations.

https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-versatility/special-missions

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Viking also has the rights to build Buffalos again, if they get a customer.

 

[MarkOttawa]

What about the Turbo Beaver?!?

https://www.vikingair.com/viking-aircraft/dhc-2t-turbo-beaver

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

Interesting to me, also, is how the aircraft has been purchased and then its utilization is being fleshed-out after the fact.  That suggests, to this on-looker, that the original SOR was probably rather loosely defined.

Having had some experience with how they work, that unusual for them.  Their procurement process has been described once by someone in it as "bull in a china shop".

 

[Cloud Cover]

De Havilland Canada had the same idea.  It was called the "Buffalo".

Sheesh, I forgot about those.

 

[MarkOttawa]

So did the US Army after being the prime motivator for the Buffalo--damn the overweening USAF and its attitude to fixed-wing aircraft!

...Development was funded by a collaboration of the US Army and the Canadian government, with DHC also contributing funding.

Four evaluation machines were ordered by the US Army, with the first taking to the air on 9 April 1964...US Army evaluated the Buffalo in Vietnam, but there were no further US orders. The Buffalos were passed on the Air Force in 1967 along with the Caribous, with the Air Force designating the Caribous "C-8A". They were used mostly in test and trials by other US government agencies -- see below. Apparently political pressure to "buy American" and USAF disinterest in the type played roles in not following up the initial evaluation buy...
http://www.airvectors.net/avdhc4.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[OldSolduer]

Now that y’all mention this it does make sense to have a smaller tactical fixed wing aircraft. I’ve read about some of the exploits of aviators who flew this type of aircraft in Vietnam.

 

[MilEME09]

Well the USAF and USMC did bring back the OV-10 Bronco to support SoF in Iraq and Syria. Apparently it preformed well at CAS given we had air superiority

 

[Loachman]

Now that y’all mention this it does make sense to have a smaller tactical fixed wing aircraft. I’ve read about some of the exploits of aviators who flew this type of aircraft in Vietnam.

When one has half of a million troops in theatre - in their peak year, 1968, the US had 536100 pers in Vietnam - yes.

When one cannot even put a full brigade into a theatre, and there is only one airfield in one's smallish area of operations, not so much.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Viking should work on a "Monkey model of the twin and Single Otter to sell to 3rd world countries and militaries, focusing on their STOL capabilities.

 

[GK .Dundas]

As I recall reading somewhere the Caribou actually started out as  monkey model for the Canadian Army who wanted a very basic cargo aircraft (think deuce and a half with wings). It as to carry roughly 4-4500lbs.have very,very simple controls and be flown by a corporal.
Then the RCAF came into the picture and became rather offended about the concept.
I'm not sure if was the idea that Army wanted it's own cargo aircraft or the fact the A/C would be.flown and even worse commanded by a mere corporal.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Well the USAF and USMC did bring back the OV-10 Bronco to support SoF in Iraq and Syria. Apparently it preformed well at CAS given we had air superiority

There is a video out on the net of some weirdness with the cargo space on that plane. Dudes with parachutes assuming a sex position and then sliding out of the rear... Army.ca SAR techs probably know the deets.

 

[Zoomie]

Then the RCAF came into the picture and became rather offended about the concept.
I'm not sure if was the idea that Army wanted it's own cargo aircraft or the fact the A/C would be.flown and even worse commanded by a mere corporal.

Probably because they realized it was an inherently unsafe idea and in the end saved countless lives with the whole professional aviator concept. 

Buffalo has basic flight controls and is an easy to fly dump-truck - it’s the decision making that goes into operating that machine tactically that requires a CGO at the helm.