MILITARY MILITARY AIRLIFT
Those consulted differed in their perceptions
of relative importance depending on whether
they came from the military or industry and
consultants. Over a third (37%) of military
respondents wanted investment in modular
components against only 24% from industry and
analysts. A wider gulf in priorities was apparent
in investment in OAS; more than a quarter of
the military (26.3%) identi ed it as important
while a mere 6% of industry considered it so.
This is perhaps a consequence of the different
objectives of the two groups: one wants to save
money and the other wants to make it. Open
architecture allows ongoing development and
improvement of systems or changing the use of
a piece of kit without replacing an entire system
or buying a discrete computer for each individual
task. OASs are designed to make adding,
upgrading and swapping components easy,
usually with commercially available off-the-shelf
components.
This is much to the liking of consumers, of
course, but not so good for manufacturers
who might prefer a closed architectureto which only they have access, thereby
providing them with a monopoly over its
improvement, modi cation and maintenance.
Another stark difference was between the
importance ascribed by industry to airframe
development (18%) and the military (5%).
Again, budgets dictate air forces use a
basic aeroplane for as long as it is safe and
economic to do so; they are in no rush to buy
another one. Industry’s priorities are obviously
different, with a desire to shift units to make
money for shareholders.
The survey then asked about research and
development over the next ve to ten years,
particularly the areas where respondents
perceived the greatest need in advances
being made. Clear leaders, each polling
16%, were modular airframe components
and interoperability, satellite-based datalinks
and OAS. Closely behind these were airframe
development (14%) and counter radar/
evasive radar technologies (12%). Industry
respondents’ expectations for development
were highest in airframe development andmodular airframe components, each at
24%. Industry agreed with the military on
the likelihood of the second category being
very important (both 26%), but it put much
less importance on airframe development
(11%). Again, this is not at all surprising. Both
parties can be expected to see the bene ts
of reduction in cost brought about by greater
commonality of components leading to a
requirement of less training for users and
maintainers. The system provides a exibility
in design allowing augmentation of a system
by simply plugging in a new module. However,
air forces are not so keen on trying out new
designs of aeroplane. President Clinton’s Keep
It Simple Stupid (KISS) dictum is beloved
of those responsible for buying expensive
platforms and support equipment in any eld.
It is hard to think of any military programme
that has performed as advertised from the
get go. While some of the costs associated
with bringing an airframe up to speci cation
can be recouped from the manufacturer, a lot
of time and effort can be expended bringing
a platform up to scratch and it’s not just the
nancial penalties. New programmes are
scheduled to be introduced according to
an exacting schedule and the inability for a
new aircraft to perform as advertised can
also cause scheduling dif culties that can
potentially lead to a loss of life at worst and
almost guarantee severe logistical problems.
A leader of one of the world’s most advanced
air forces was overheard saying, apropos of
his nation’s purchase of a new eet: “If I ever
suggest going lead on a new programme
again, shoot me!”Airlift operating models
Finally, the survey participants were asked to
rank their preferences in mode and platform in
procuring airlift assets. The choices presented
to the survey-takers were: single-country,
single-role aircraft; single-country, multi-role
aircraft; multi-country; resource pooling; and
multi-country, interoperable craft. For the
military, the most important consideration
when buying an airlifter is exibility. Ideally, a1
who might prefer a closed architecture were highest in airframe development and when buying an airlifter is exibility. Ideally, a1 A heavy container plunges from the back of a C-17 Globemaster III during an airdrop using the container
delivery system. SSgt Russ Jackson/US Air Force 2 Airmen offl oad an HH-60G Pave Hawk from a C-17 Globemaster
III at Bagram Airfi eld, Afghanistan. This shot was taken at the end of May 2015 by which time US Air Force airlift
aircraft had delivered 19,900 short tons of cargo throughout Afghanistan. TSgt Joseph Swafford/US Air Force 3 Joint
operation. Volgar-Dnepr crew and US Marines load equipment on an An-124 Ruslan aircraft at Marine Corps Air
Station Futenma, Japan. Antonov, manufacturer of the An-124, says the aircraft can carry a 176,000lb payload
4,000 nautical miles. Lance Cpl Brooke Deiters/US Marine Corps 4 An HH-60G Pave Hawk waits to be loaded onto a
C-5M Super Galaxy, the world’s original strategic airlifter in service with the US Air Force since 1970. The C-5M
is the latest variant powered by GE F138-GE-100 (CF6-80C2) engines and new components. According to
Lockheed Martin, a C-5M Super Galaxy loaded with a 120,000lb payload has a range of 5,250 nautical miles.
Airman 1st Class Eli Chevalier/US Air Force