CASR
|
- |
|
In Detail |
|
by Herman
A. |
|
Strategic |
|
|
|
Strategic Airlift Capability – Procurement – February 2006 [Ed: Canada lacks a genuine strategic airlift capability. Although referred to as a strategic airlifter, the in-service CC-150 Polaris is simply a civilian Airbus jetliner. The CF’s Future Strategic Airlift project dominated much of Air Force planning from early 2000 until it was cancelled by the Minister of National Defence in April 2003. Although the FSA examined both the Lockheed Martin C-130J and Airbus A400M, neither of these two tactical transports could be seriously considered as a strategic airlifter. Also under consideration was the Ukraine’s experimental Antonov An-70 (or its proposed ‘westernized’ derivative, the unbuilt An-7X ). Dominating FSA considerations was the American Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. In the background, was the de facto choice of CF strategic airlift – the enormous Antonov An-124 Ruslan leased to do the job from Antonov or from Volga Dnepr. The author has firsthand experience working with Volga Dnepr and the An-124. In this article, he will review and compare the capabilities of both the C-17 and the An-124-100, while laying out various options for the Canadian Forces.] [ NB : for details on how Herman Kurapov arrived at his costing of An-124-100s, see: Average and Median Historic An-124-100 Acquisition / Purchase Costs.]  IntroductionStrategic airlift is a matter of great importance for the Canadian Forces (CF) but airlift is also critical for the Canadian national economy in general. The choice of strategic airlifter type for the CF can have huge implications not only for the Canadian military but for the Canadian civilian air transport industry as well. Canada also lacks a civilian airlift capability. There are no long-range, heavy air freighters in Canada, and this seriously undermines the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. This, along with the high purchase cost of strategic airlifters, is why all Canadian taxpayers should be concerned. With the revived interest in a Canadian Forces strategic airlift capability, the Government of Canada must make two separate choices: 1) the type of aircraft that best suits CF strategic lift needs 2) the ‘model’ for the acquisition of a strategic airlifter – whether to purchase, to lease, or to arrange some combination of the two. I will analyze the pros and cons of different aircraft types for the strategic airlift requirement, the comparative advantages of the various acquisition models, and possible strategies for future ‘profit-generating’ operations of this airlifter. Aircraft Types The Airbus A400M has not yet been built and the Antonov An-7X appears to have been cancelled. So, this analysis will be limited to the two production types that actually exist today: the Boeing C-17 and the Antonov An-124-100 Ruslan. Canadian Forces pilots have expressed their preference for the C-17. The C-17 is aviation’s equivalent of the Lamborghini – very sophisticated and fun to drive. Certainly more fun than the An-124-100, which is more ‘truck’ than ‘sportscar’. But, this isn’t about fun. When going out for a weekly shopping trip, do we really need a ‘very cool’ piece of equipment to drive? Or is it more important to have the greatest practical carrying capacity? What about when the price comes into play? The cost of purchase and of yearly operations? There are many important consid- erations to take into account besides whether the aircraft in question ‘looks cool’.  Below is a short
comparative analysis of the C-17 and
the An-124-100, comprised of three major characteristics:
technical aspects, financial considerations and the long - term,
operational costs of both aircraft types.Technical Aspects For a strategic airlifter, the technical characteristics deemed most important are: payload, cargo-cabin volume / max volume, and range with maximum payload. Critical to the effectiveness of a modern strategic airlifter is its capability to carry heavy, out-sized cargo – projecting and sustaining an effective combat force as close as possible to potential battle, or humanitarian/peacekeeping mission areas. Threats to Canadian interests have changed in recent years. The size and weight of Canadian Forces mechanized firepower and equipment have grown such that, currently, 75% of air shipments for the military qualify as heavy, out - sized cargo. So the main questions are these: How far can the aircraft fly with a normal load? How heavy can the maximum load be? How big a load can fit into the aircraft? Let’s compare the An-124-100 and C-17 based on these technical characteristics.
From this table we can see that, compared with the C-17, an An-124-100 has: • 55 % greater maximum load than the C-17 • 115 % more of a maximum cargo-cabin volume • 33 % greater range (when carrying 77t – the C-17’s maximum load) Put simply, the An-124 can carry loads which are 1.5 times heavier, cargo that is more than twice as large, and it can travel almost 1,500 km further than the C-17 with a similar load. Taking an average of the above performance characteristics (55%, 115% & 33% better / 3), we come to the conclusion that An-124-100 has a critical strategic airlifter performance which is 68% better than that of the C-17. [1] Herman A. Kurapov, MA is a Master of Engineering in Logistics candidate at MIT. Mr. Kurapov has an MBA (International Aviation program) from Concordia. Please see 'Author's Bio' for details of Mr. Kurapov's relevant experience. > Part 2 – Cost Comparisons & Dispelling Myths about the An-124-100 |