Home » Air » AF Wants 60 Light Airlifters

AF Wants 60 Light Airlifters

By Colin Clark Thursday, July 30th, 2009 5:19 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

In yet another sign of the Air Force’s commitment to new aspects of warfare, my colleague Stephen Trimble has broken the story that there’s a Request for Information out to industry asking for “fixed-wing platforms available for passenger and cargo transport in support of Irregular Warfare.”

Steve says there are a couple of likely candidates including “the Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350 [pictured], Cessna 208 Grand Caravan and EADS CASA C-212.”

If you put this together with the Air Force secretary’s support for a counter-insurgency air wing, and his persistent touting of the exploits of air men and women who fight on the ground or otherwise in support of the joint force it seems Gen. Norton Schwartz really is intent on remaking the service. It helps, of course, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has, as Trimble notes, plans eventually to commit 10 percent of military resources to irregular warfare.

I’m sure some perceptive readers have noted I did not mention the service’s recent UAS plan as part of Schwartz’s commitment. That, from what I’ve heard, was much more a product of pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the service to show its support for unmanned systems than it was the product of the service.

Join the Conversation

	cvn July 30th, 2009 at 10:52 pm I bet nancy pelosi is excited to have a whole new airforce at her disposal…
	Charles Phillips July 31st, 2009 at 12:04 am Aren’t these what embassies, etc use for transportation? And what would these do for combat anyway — are people going to look out the windows and see if they can spot insurgents? Sounds like something is being acquired under false pretenses?
	Drake1 July 31st, 2009 at 12:34 am They may intend to use them for surveillance, training of indigenous forces, and as an economical way to move small groups of people.
	mike j July 31st, 2009 at 12:47 am When Air Tractor announced their modified COIN crop duster, I did some digging and found a research paper USAF Maj Samuel D. Cox wrote two years ago. Google “USAF Counterinsurgency Shortfalls” for the pdf. What’s interesting is how closely present policy seems to be following that paper. The main argument is keeping costs down by purchasing off-the-shelf, reliable turboprops.
	Pogmusic July 31st, 2009 at 8:44 am Isn’t this what the C-27J was supposed to be used for?
	Musket 104 July 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am Sounds like a need for a “Gooneybird II”. Sort of a “swiss Army Knife” airplane that can adapt itself to a variety of missions like the old C-47: C-47: basic personnel & cargo transport EC-47: ELINT /SIGINT Platform AC-47: Gunship (Puff) The current C-130 has the same adaptability, but on a larger scale. The King Air is a great airplane, essentially an enlarged C-12 that’s been in service for 20+ years in a variety of configurations. I hope Big Acquisition doesn’t muck it up.
	Charles D Phillips, LtCol, USAF (Ret) July 31st, 2009 at 1:53 pm What a concept — the new COIN aircraft would be the AC-12 with two 7.62mm machine guns pointing out the side! Seriously, with all of the air assets we have over there now (a dozen kinds of helicopters, AC-130s, Ospreys, etc etc) what would be the role for this aircraft? A Blackhawk could land on much smaller landing zones. The AC-130 (both the AF and now the new Marine versions) carry a lot more armament. This just does not make sense as a “irregular warfare” purchase. This has got to be more executive or VIP transport. It will be the first “combat” aircraft with mahogany trim and leather seats and a jumpseat for the steward.
	Chief Houston July 31st, 2009 at 3:10 pm SPECOPS needs it’s own support craft first, then suppport by regular military assets. We are moving to a dedicated air support for our operators.
	Carlo July 31st, 2009 at 6:07 pm What corruption and stupidity? The C-27J is designed for this role and is in production. They recently cut the planned buy, so what’s this crap? It sounds like an attempt to buy more VIP aircraft.
	Drake1 July 31st, 2009 at 6:35 pm Cheaper operating costs and you can have local operators fly it.
	Chief Holderness August 1st, 2009 at 8:51 am I’m with Musket 104 — The C12 with some modification could easily fill the bill. Or we could resurrect the OV-10.
	Chief Warrant August 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am First the Army already fields these aircraft, second, why does the Air force have to have a special ops unit? The Navy has the Seals, the Army the Green Berets, etc. How about fielding just one unit that encompasses all SOF units.
	Hans Wagemueller August 1st, 2009 at 11:19 am What a load of garbage. Just another way to waste more money than is already being wasted. Sounds like what they need is a C-7 Caribou or a C-123 Provider to fulfill this role. However I thought that was what the C-27 was to be used for. Must not have enough windows for Congress members.…
	Drake1 August 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am Byron Skinner was suggesting on DefenseTech that spec ops should become an independent branch of the military. The Bronco seems like a no brainer, but considering how hard it is to get anything going quickly, and with minimum costs, maybe that’s the reason why it has not been resurrected.
	mike j August 1st, 2009 at 7:10 pm Would it help you guys if the photo above was of one painted dark grey? Or an interior with the seats ripped out and some cargo strapped down? These aircraft are less expensive to purchase and operate than C-130s or C-27s, and are capable of doing the job. The job is to insert small teams and light cargo into short fields. The economics show they’ll save considerable money on operations and wear-and-tear on our other aircraft. It makes good sense.
	Nate326 August 1st, 2009 at 7:45 pm We, (Army) already do this mission with the C-23 Sherpa. Air Force hs already proven, they won’t do the mission. It takes about 3 days to get a ride on one of there aircraft, if your lucky. We haul stuff at the drop of a hat. May not be economical sometimes, but if a commander on the ground needs food, water and ammo, or even a 10 lb. box of blood, we get it to him ASAP. The Air Force does not operate this way. They operate like a civilian run business.
	mike j August 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 am Nate326– Thanks for that perspective. So far this has all been about USAF, other service’s pov has been missing.
	Chief Houston August 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm Nate326, Roger that about speed and effectiveness. Joint OPS dictate that the USAF step up to the plate. The USAF has to get it’s head on straight when things are about the ground support mission other than C-17 flights, pathfinders and PJ’s. I suspect these planes will be used as a dedicated joint special ops support or at least they should be. Team, any idea why we never use old airframes from DM AFB. WE can make almost anything we need from these, with good structural integrity. Let the best techs at it and see what can be done with contractor support.
	FormerDirtDart August 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm I would have to guess that the CASA C-212 would be the logical choice. Its high wing and engine configuration is ideal for austere landing strips. Not to mention it is the only plane of the three that is available with a cargo ramp.
	FormerDirtDart August 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 am It should also be noted that the Cessna 208 Grand Caravan is already used by a number of militaries in a COIN role. This of course include the current Iraqi AF, as an ISR platform, as well as pilot training. The King Air 350 family has also long been used as a sensor platform by the US Army. Of course, it is quite likely the USAF won’t be procuring a single type of A/C, and will likely be a mixture of all three. Whileit is not noted in this limited article, I doubt the AF is planning on any long aquisition time frame. This would make a mixed fleet all the more likely. I would not be surprised to see the US Army’s C-23 Sherpas transferred over as the C-27J’s come on line either. It is also worth noting that the Army already has a few CASA C-212 assigned to SOCOM flying out of Macdill
	Ken August 3rd, 2009 at 9:48 am This shouldn’t be news, AFSOC was looking at the CASA 212 back in the ‘90s at Hurlburt.
	NAVAIR53 August 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm Make the projects cost effective. Use composites; new high tech composites to make better more durable cost effective air frames. i was thinkin about Nancey Pelosi. Probably she flies military for fear of airline sabotage. Murphys Law is like a set of quality control golden rules. Americans have suffered the loss of jobs due to profit securing almost inhuman machine like corporations. Many once American corporate structures have off shored to tax havens and to manufacturing and services industries. Some profit hungry industrialists have chosen a global share of marketing and manufacturing over the charity begins at home nationalism. Securing cost effective profitable contracts for American industries will keep our aerospace industries online for the U.S.A. Not to be cruel but American patriots should procure American industry goods and services that preserve and enrich America as a nation of free enterprise. The bail out money should have been tagged for a buy American priority over all. All wars are about economics and about other factors.
	Cobber August 4th, 2009 at 2:59 am With several coalition nations looking for a light lifter that can land and take off from short and rough dirt air strips, maybe it’s time for some company to build a small plane for just such circumstances. Counter insurgency or irregular warfare requires such air craft.
	Capt. Max Pucker August 4th, 2009 at 10:47 am I have extensive experience using the CASA-212 for parachute drop tests (up to 3500 lb in a single item drop) and IMHO, CASA-212 would be ideal for a new generation COIN aircraft. It’s ugly (apparently a requirement); the payload is about 6,000#; short field take-off is less than 1200ft; cruise speed is 160–190 knots; Vne is 205Kts; the ramp can be opened at any speed; the AC can fly with any or all of the side doors open. The fixed gear is very rugged and easily maintained. On the other hand the KingAir-350 would be a far better executive transport as it’s prettier and the cruise speed is over 300 knots. Although Caravan is very capable, I can see no scenario for a single engine aircraft in this environment. Therefore, IMHO we need a mix of KingAir-350s and CASA-212s.
	doc75 August 5th, 2009 at 7:15 am @NAVAIR53: “NAVAIR53 August 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm Make the projects cost effective. Use composites; new high tech composites to make better more durable cost effective air frames.” Wrong answer. 1.) High tech composites would make the entry price too high. 2.) Delay the entry of airframes into service and provide a choke point in construction. The Air Force can’t get enough Predators out there fast enough. Two reasons: pilots, autoclaves 3.) We don’t know that they would be more durable cost effective. Not enough time in service for composite airframes/components to judge that. Airbus keeps giving us good reasons to wonder about long-term stability of composites in aircraft. And, if you use non-autoclave composites to speed production you can kiss this argument goodbye 4.) Also on durability. Look at the durable planes planes being discussed here: C-7, C-23, C-123, C-130. All built with aluminum. If you want combat capability now and at low cost, the choice is aluminum. If the Air Force wants to be irrelevant and price itself out of existence (again), go with the high tech composites.
	MH60M August 5th, 2009 at 11:19 am don’t forget that specforces, the 160th, do use the MH60K/L in a gunship role, MiniGun, 30MM and Rockets. It is very effective. Once the new Mike models reach the field the CAS support will be even better. The King Air is not a great CAS airplane because of the low wing. You do not have max ground visibility. The Casa has already been proven in rugged and austere environments around the world. just add some weapons to it and call it a day. I agree with Doc75. Composite has no place in a forward environment. it is too complicated to repair, often time a damaged composite wing has to be replaced. aluminum and steel wing can be cut and riveted and down time would be minimum
	Mario Covi August 5th, 2009 at 10:59 pm How abought the C-7A We used in Vietnam? I think that was a great Airplain and it can be used in the present War.
	Retired USAF/Vietnam Vet August 6th, 2009 at 2:09 am I remember seeing USAF C-23 Sherpas in England in 1987 during a deployment to Mildenhall. I was told that some USAF Europe (USAFE) general wanted a few of the planes for intra-theater puddle-jumping trash-hauling flights, assets that did not require a lot of time to prepare and fly. When he left, the USAFE promptly inactivated them. Guess they did not gel with the brass as “economical” or what not (or maybe not sexy enough?). The Army had the Caribou in SE Asia, the USAF took them over as the C-7, and they disappeared. Qoogle Caribou, check out the Wikipedia entry for the deHaviland Caribou, and note that there was a turboprop variant certified for use. Off-the-shelf can work, with a little or no modification.
	Trashhauler August 6th, 2009 at 9:08 am Wow, I must have read another story. The one I read said nothing about CAS. It only said that the Air Force was looking at some light aircraft for SUPPORT of irregular warfare. SUPPORT. Not Close Air Support, but hauling in small teams, maybe that unscheduled 10-lb. box of blood, or needed cargo. I would think the airframe(s), assigned to a joint IW force, could be more flexible than a larger (C-130) in terms of schedule, etc. And to buy an off the shelf aircraft, especially the King Air, which lots of AF pilots come out of UPT rated on, would save in training costs, as well. They will have better range and speed than a helicopter, and they will be pressurized for flight above 10K, unlike the Sherpa or Caribou. It will cost considerably less than a C-27J. The CASA is another decent example, but it trades off these things for a cargo ramp. Add to this the fact that all these aircraft are fully mature designs and you should see the practicality in this.
	ATC Retired August 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am This is where contracting out has saved money. For the cost of one or two of these aircraft, Presidential Air has done all the cargo hauling to the remote sites in northern Afghan for a whole year. And when the mission goes away, so do the contractors.
	George August 6th, 2009 at 1:10 pm The C-212 is ideal for the spec ops mission. It is a small, quiet and survivable aircraft that can operate from/to short, non-improved fields with short notice and little mechanical support. It is very reliable in the field and has been used by other nations’ militaries and U.S. contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. It is very inexpensive to acquire and maintain and would be used SOLELY by AFSOC for USSOC missions, eliminating the need for requesting big Air Force aircraft for the missions. Aircraft that can be tied up doing other things elsewhere (as Nate said, they don’t want to wait for support). The point is to have these aircraft available ONLY for Spec Ops missions. The C-212 does it better than anything. The ramp allows delivery of cargo at low altitude, eliminating the need to land in the first place. The low noise and altitude and night operations allows the aircraft to operate safely behind enemy lines. The C-212 is ideal for special ops movement and resupply, which is exactly why it’s being looked at by AFSOC.
	Sam Cox November 22nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm I’m late to this discussion but if some of you would read the “USAF Counterinsurgency Shortfalls” paper I wrote, you might begin to understand the concept even if you do not agree. Thanks Mike J for the plug!
	Roger doger May 11th, 2011 at 8:23 pm I heard she inspired a new aircraft component . The “variable bitch prop”!

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

AF Wants 60 Light Airlifters

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments