Archive for category Paracargo

Paracargo: Contractors And Low Cost, Low Altitude Aerial Resupply In Afghanistan

“These airdrops bring the supplies closer to the troops, and lowers the risk of IED attacks by taking convoys off dangerous roads,” Bobby Robinson, a government civilian logistician, told an Air Force public affairs officer last year.

I don’t think people realize how significant LCLA resupply is to the war effort. Every paracargo bundle dropped, is one less convoy operation that could be exposed to IED’s. It get’s the troops off of the roads and diminishes the effectiveness of IED’s. That’s unless the Taliban can figure out how to mine the sky? lol

But what is key here is the amount of contractor involvement with this crucial logistics method. Below I have posted three separate bits of news that when combined, are pretty significant.

The first is a video showing an old Caribou dropping paracargo in Afghanistan. Wired’s Danger Room did a great little post on this and got some quotes about what was going on with it. No word on what company this is, but I am sure the Caribou clubs know and are cheering them on. I also would not be surprised if the pilots are former smokejumper pilots, because the way they were dropping that stuff is exactly how the jumpers would do this.

The Army deployed to Marzak in January. Anticipating the need to supply it and other remote locations, in October the Army hired a boutique resupply company built around a single, 50-year-old DeHavilland Caribou and 15 civilian pilots, staff and ground crew. The Caribou and its crews, based at Bagram airfield near Kabul, are asked to do things most military airlifters cannot: Fly low and fast to drop small loads of critical supplies with pinpoint accuracy.

The company, whose name we’ve been asked to keep secret, began flying resupply missions in October. Since then, it has delivered more than a million pounds of cargo, according to a source close to the company. The secret to its success is the skill of the flight crews, the mechanics’ meticulous maintenance of the 1960s-vintage Caribou and upgrades to the rugged plane’s engines that give it extra oomph. “It makes for a perfect LCLA airdrop platform,” the source tells Danger Room.

“Low-Cost, Low-Altitude airdrops by civilians in Afghanistan is an extremely vital asset that’s usually overlooked by most,” the source continues. The lack of publicity could be intended to spare the Air Force any embarrassment. After all, until recently the flying branch did possess one small airlifter in the Caribou’s general category that could possibly have equaled the civilian plane’s low, pinpoint drops. The would be the C-27J, built by Alenia.

On a side note, smokejumpers used this aircraft for operations back in the day. We have used all sorts of aircraft, and we still use the DC-3 from WW2! lol  I remember watching this really cool 70′s video of some smokejumpers doing some loadmaster work out of a Caribou over some forest fire. The footage was amazing and vintage, and in color!  If I find it or someone posts it on youtube, I will put it up one of these days.

The next bit of news is that FlightWorks Inc. just won a $13,182,338 firm-fixed-price contract for LCLA resupply in Afghanistan.  They also have to provide short take off and landing aircraft for the contract.  That means aircraft that can land on small runways up in the mountains, much like how smokejumpers use their aircraft to supply folks. No word yet on what type of aircraft Flightworks Inc. will use, or if they will be using their own loadmasters or not.

Last I had heard, contract aircraft would fly the stuff, but military loadmasters would kick it. Maybe that has changed and we will see. I would also be curious as to what this company will do for preparing pilot, air crew, and aircraft for combat operations? Because dumping this stuff at low levels will definitely expose them to enemy attacks. Dangerous stuff, and if an aircraft crashes, that air crew must have the tools necessary to survive until rescue. From weapons to first aid supplies to survival items–they must be prepared.

The last story though is the most eye opening. The military just announced multiple contracts totaling $838 million for the manufacture and purchase of pre-packed paracargo chutes. That is a lot of cargo chutes.

But what I was most concerned with is that they are one time use–supposedly. That is surprising to me if true. These chutes should be re-packed and used over and over again. What a waste of parachutes by just using them once and throwing them away?  If anything, a company could be contracted to re-pack them in Afghanistan, and re-distribute those chutes to aerial resupply units that need them. Either use a local company that is managed well by professional cargo chute packers (contract civilian Master Riggers?) and re-use these things. That is what makes the concept ‘low cost’. Here is the quote from the author of the post.

These so-called LCLV parachutes are one-time-use ‘chutes designed to deliver fuel, ammo and food to troops at isolated bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They’re packed into a “Low-Cost Container” as part of the Army’s “Low Cost Aerial Delivery Systems” program. Beginning to notice a pattern?

Perhaps the author of the blog post made a mistake here and that there is a paracargo packing system in place to re-use this stuff? That is how we used paracargo chutes in the smokejumpers, and those things can last forever if taken care of properly.  One chute can be used for hundreds of paracargo missions, and when I was jumping, we would pack and use everything form the old French Cross military cargo chutes to converted and chopped up older/out of service canopies. Jumpers would repair these cargo chutes to get even more use out of them, and it was a system that worked great. Even our rigging was re-usable.

Either way, this is great to see private industry meet the requirements for these crucial logistics. We are also flying helicopters and cargo aircraft all over Afghanistan, and private aviation is crucial to the logistics there. It also saves lives, because every bundle that can be flown, is one less bundle that has to be transported on IED infested roads. -Matt

 

 

FlightWorks, Inc., Kennesaw, Ga., was awarded a $13,182,338 firm-fixed-price contract.
The award will provide for the short take off and landing and low cost low altitude aerial resupply services in Afghanistan.
Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 26, 2012.
One bid was solicited, with one bid received.
The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W560MY-11-C-0005).

 

Paracargo: Contractors And Low Cost, Low Altitude Aerial Resupply In Afghanistan

Air Force photo / Staff Sgt. Chad Chisholm A flock of Low-Cost, Low-Velocity parachutes gently drop bundles of needed supplies to a remote forward operating base in Afghanistan.

 

They Better Be 100% Silk
By Mark Thompson
April 18, 2012
Five of the first six contract awards announced Tuesday were for parachutes costing nearly $1 billion. All five contracts were for “low-cost, low velocity parachutes.” Alas, as is becoming increasingly common, the contract announcements don’t specify how many are being bought, so it’s difficult to assess the “low cost” claim. We trust the competition keeps prices down.
These so-called LCLV parachutes are one-time-use ‘chutes designed to deliver fuel, ammo and food to troops at isolated bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They’re packed into a “Low-Cost Container” as part of the Army’s “Low Cost Aerial Delivery Systems” program. Beginning to notice a pattern?
The parachutes aren’t made of silk, but of a polypropylene fabric similar to that often used for sand bags. “These airdrops bring the supplies closer to the troops, and lowers the risk of IED attacks by taking convoys off dangerous roads,” Bobby Robinson, a government civilian logistician, told an Air Force public affairs officer last year. “LCLV parachutes look like a big Hefty bag flying in mid-air.”
They’re dropped at a rate of less than 28 feet a second from cargo planes at altitudes ranging from 500 to 1,250 feet. Each can deliver up to 2,200 pounds.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Paracargo: Afghanistan Airdrops Surpass Record Levels In 2011

“We’re surrounded by mountains — the snow sets in. The helicopter passes are impassible by helicopter and the roads could be clogged up,” Poe said in the report. “Utilizing airdrops with the GPS-guided parachutes allows us that avenue to use in case we can’t get resupplied by helicopters or vehicles by the road, which is a typical case come winter here.”

This is very cool. Logistics is so important to the war effort, and it looks like paracargo is really shining in Afghanistan. I like it because it reduces the amount of convoy operations needed, which then equates to less targets for the enemy on the ground. Attacking logistics is definitely a goal of the enemy, and paracargo is a great way to get around that. Especially when we are using precision guided paracargo systems like the JPADS. -Matt

 

120109 F PA987 004Paracargo: Afghanistan Airdrops Surpass Record Levels In 2011

Afghanistan airdrops surpass record levels in 2011
Posted 1/9/2012
by Master Sgt. Scott T. Sturkol
Air Mobility Command Public Affairs
In 2011, mobility Airmen delivering airdrops reached a new annual record with 75,956,235 pounds of cargo delivered. That’s nearly 16 million more pounds delivered than the previous record set in 2010 of 60,400,000.
At more than 75.9 million pounds – that’s the equivalent of standing on a mountain top and watching 553 Army M1 Abrams tanks — or even 11,868 Chevrolet Silverado trucks — floating down from the sky with parachutes to a landing zone.
The record number, as recorded by Air Forces Central’s Combined Air Operations Center at a non-disclosed base in Southwest Asia, is also larger than the total number of pounds delivered in Afghanistan by airdrop from 2006 to 2009 which combined is 60,525,969 pounds.
On average mobility Airmen airdropped 6,329,686 pounds of cargo each month in 2011. Mobility Airmen completing the airdrops flew C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster III aircraft from various deployed bases. They also completed the airdrops in various forms – from the the use of the traditional Container Delivery System, or CDS, bundles to the Joint Precision Airdrop System, or JPADS.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

Publications: Journal Of International Peace Operations, September-October 2011

Tags: , , , ,

Paracargo: GPS-guided Parachutes May Soon Drop Blood, Medical Supplies To Wounded Troops In Afghanistan

     I like this, but I have to think, what took you guys so long to think it up?  I mean they have already been using these types of paracargo systems for years, and just now the military is thinking about using it for medical resupply?

     What really kills me is that they predict they might be up and running with the project by January? I am sorry, but this is ridiculous and so typical of how government operates.  Put the stuff in a box, and drop it out of the airplane like you would with ammo, food, and water. Surround it with as much cushioning as it takes to insure it lands in one piece, but either way, get it done.

     In the smokejumpers, we have been dropping medical paracargo for a long time.  Stuff like oxygen bottles, IV’s and whatever else the mission required. Which is another point to bring up.  If they are going to drop this kind of bundle in any kind of wooded areas, it might be wise to also have a set of tree climbing equipment that you can toss out of the aircraft as well.  Maybe something that you could drop by GPS chute, and then at a certain altitude the tree climbing box is released with a small drogue keeping it straight but still allowing for speed of the bundle.  That way the thing can plow through the trees to the ground.

     Or if the aircraft can do a low pass, they could toss out the thing as well. In the jumpers, this is how we would do it, and those boxes would plow through the trees just so the guys on the ground could get to it for tree climbing operations.   Because getting medical supplies out of a tree requires the right equipment, and you definitely do not want to keep your patient waiting because of a bundle that is hung up.

    The aircraft could also just drop another medical bundle, but if that one gets hung up in the trees or gets lost in a river or destroyed by enemy fire, it will be equally problematic.  So it pays to have some back up tree climbing equipment just to be prepared.  That is how we did it in the smokejumpers. I realize that most of Afghanistan is not that bad tree-wise, but for those areas that guys are operating in where trees are tall enough, it is something to think about.

    Another idea is to use UAV helicopters for the task. If you want to put medical supplies on the ground and with precision, use something like that.  That’s if it is too dangerous or the conditions suck for manned flight into that spot.

     But going back to the time frame for this.  Imagine how many folks have already died, just because this capability was not in place?  I say do a couple of test runs to figure out the right kind of packaging for the load, and start this program immediately. You could get this done in a week or two, and not wait until January of next year.  Lives could be saved because of it. -Matt

——————————————————————-

GPS-guided parachutes may soon drop blood, medical supplies to wounded troops in Afghanistan

By MARK PATTON

August 11, 2010

WIESBADEN, Germany — GPS-guided parachutes soon could be dropping blood supplies to medics on the battlefield, cutting down the time life-saving medical supplies reach wounded troops.

The military already uses the technology to deliver food, water and ammunition to U.S. forces in remote parts of Afghanistan. Now, the Armed Services Blood Program is working with an Army research center to put blood and other medical supplies under the parachutes instead.

If testing goes as planned, the system could be up and running by January.

Troops needing blood on the battlefield usually have to be evacuated and transported to the nearest medical facility. But evacuation is not always possible when units are under fire or if the weather prevents an emergency vehicle from traveling.

That’s when the Global Position System-guided parachutes can be a lifesaver and allow a wounded servicemember to receive blood during the critical period following an injury, said Air Force Maj. David Lincoln, Armed Services Blood Program deputy director for operations.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , ,

Publications: GAO Report On DoD’s Progress And Challenges For Logistics In Afghanistan

     Thanks to David Isenberg for identifying this report and pointing out all the goodies. What was interesting to me was how absolutely vital contractors are to the logistics of the war in Afghanistan.  Especially for the routes coming out of Pakistan, because US military forces are not allowed to escort that stuff.  Nothing new, but as you go through this report, you get the idea of how essential we really are.  It also signifies how important it is that we get a handle on how to manage it all, because logistics is going to be big…. really big.

   Some of the things that jumped up at me as obvious fixes for some of the problems, is to stop depending on Fedex type tracking measures and gadgets, and start depending on humans as the tracking mechanism of this stuff. Because Afghan and Pakistani companies will do all they can to get rid of those GPS trackers, or not even care about these tracking mechanisms.  What matters to them is money and their ability to pilfer the cargo and blame it on a combat loss or whatever. No one is there to stop them or witness them doing this, and they will do whatever they want.  I say put competent expat companies in charge of these deliveries, with expat convoy leaders and teams, and use local Pakistani or Afghani drivers and guards as the manpower/interpreters.  This is the optimum set up if you cannot use the military to escort this stuff, and especially on the Pakistan side.

     The point is, is that you need a human that you can trust on these convoys, because gadgets can be defeated. But you also need something else that is lacking for these convoys.  And that is communications, appropriate fire power and support.  In order to have communications, appropriate fire power and support, you need folks who can help facilitate that.  Because without these basic tools for the defense of convoys, you will continue to see them get attacked and pilfered.

     As more troops pour into Afghanistan, the stability of logistics will be crucial and the current set up is unacceptable. I say put expat companies in charge, set up Pakistani QRFs and air support on their side, and US military QRF and air support on the Afghan side, and call it a day.  These forces are purely dedicated to protecting the contractor led convoys in Pakistan, and if we want, we attach military escorts as they cross into Afghanistan. Hell, we might actually kill a few bad guys along the way, and use these convoys as decoys. If the enemy wants them that bad, they will have to pay a price to get them.

     Or we can allow our logistics to be torn apart by the enemy, and we can allow untrained, mismanaged, corrupt and undisciplined Afghani or Pakistani companies to do whatever they want with that stuff. They will continue to pilfer, they will continue to shoot wildly into towns and villages as they protect convoys, and they will continue to pay off the enemy for safe transport.  That is unacceptable to me, and there is a better way.

     Might I also add that we put expat companies in charge of convoys in Iraq, and that arrangement works far better for any kind of unity of effort between civilian and military forces sharing the roads. Companies like Armorgroup definitely bet their lives on the delivery of goods and people, and they did an outstanding job(they also lost a lot of guys due to their brave work). Our lessons learned from Iraq were also built on this concept of expats being in charge, and not the other way around with Afghanis or Pakistani companies in charge of this stuff.

     Hell, in Iraq, you would see military convoys join in the protection of a expat convoy operations.  But when it came to all Iraqi security companies, military convoys or patrols would have nothing to do with them because they had no way of communicating and they really didn’t trust them. It pays to have expats in charge of operations, and it really pays when those expats have all the tools and support necessary to be successful for those convoy operations.

    I also mentioned in an earlier post about the aviation side of logistics.  The report further emphasized the difficulties that come with aviation logistics in Afghanistan.  It seems we do not have enough space on runways to handle these large transport aircraft. It will take a massive effort to construct more landing strips that can handle the large aircraft, because unfortunately, that stuff requires modern and durable runways.  In Iraq, this wasn’t an issue, but in Afghanistan this is definitely an issue. That is why I thought the STOL aircraft/paracargo contract was interesting. That is the kind of capability that can answer the call for immediate cargo or transport needs, when the troops are in trouble and things are locked up at one of the big air bases. Small and many versus the few and large for logistics. Well, check out the report and let me know what you think. -Matt

——————————————————————

GAO: Preliminary Observations On DoD’s Progress And Challenges In Distributing Supplies And Equipment To Afghanistan

June 25, 2010

Within Afghanistan, cargo is moved to forward operating bases primarily by means of contractor-operated trucks, though military trucking assets are used in some instances.

*****

Because no U.S. military transportation units operate in Pakistan, DOD must rely solely on private contractors to transport supplies and equipment along ground routes through the country and to provide security of the cargo while in transit. Privately contracted trucks can transport cargo through Pakistan via two routes: the northern, which crosses into Afghanistan at the border town of Torkham, and the southern, which crosses at the border town of Chaman.

*****

Limitations on what items can be transported through Pakistan and the amount of damage sustained by cargo transiting through Pakistan also can delay the delivery of necessary supplies and equipment to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Private trucking contractors do not transport sensitive equipment on the Pakistani ground routes. Instead, such equipment must be flown into Afghanistan and then be installed onto the vehicles in Regional Command-East.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Logistics: Air America Redux In South Central Asia

     The requirement includes, but is not limited to, fixed wing aircraft, personnel, equipment, tools, material, maintenance and supervision necessary to perform passenger, cargo, passenger and cargo combination (COMBI) and LCLA airdrop operations using STOL air transportation services between locations in the Areas of Responsibility (AOR) of Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. The contractor shall provide all direct labor, transportation, supervision, training, fixed wing aircraft, administrative support for conducting air operations and all other items and services necessary to perform Air Support Services (parachute operations) for Government directed aerial delivery missions.

*****

     This is neat.  This solicitation at FBO is for a very unique contract that would certainly provide for some interesting and extremely dangerous work.  Basically they want STOL aircraft to fly around in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan to drop paracargo and transport people and things. And with STOL aircraft, that means airplanes that can land on short mountain top strips, roads, or flat valley areas. They are also cheaper to run than helicopters.

     The other thing I clued in on with this contract, is it looks like the company tasked with performing this work will do ‘everything’. Does this mean using their own kickers or spotters, who are tasked with pushing the paracargo out of the aircraft? I would assume so.  In the past, this was done primarily by Air Force loadmasters (or Army loadmasters).

   If you go back to the Vietnam war, the kickers that Air America used were contractors.(mostly former smokejumpers or ex-military loadmasters) They also kicked cargo all over South East Asia and the missions were dangerous and very specialized. Personally I think this is great news, because this is the kind of work that could easily be done by non-military loadmasters.

     My small community of smokejumpers continue to specialize in these kind of operations for forest fire work, and they don’t even bother with the GPS guided stuff.  We specialized in putting the ‘low cost’ into the Low Cost, Low Altitude paracargo mission, and have been doing it that way for a very long time.

    Either way, this would be some interesting work, and if you check out the interested venders list, you will see just how big this is.  Presidential Airways and Evergreen Aviation have put in for this contract, as well as tons of other companies I have never heard of. With the surge of troops and thousands of guys spread throughout the region, aviation work will continue to be a very lucrative contract in this war. And fixed wing STOL is about as cheap as you can go for aviation transport or paracargo operations. -Matt

——————————————————————–

picPilatusPorterNepalTomClaytorLogistics: Air America Redux In South Central Asia

An old Pilatus Porter on a remote mountain strip. 

V–Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) and Low Cost and Low Altitude (LCLA) Aerial Delivery Services – Afghanistan

Solicitation Number: W52P1J-10-R-0100

Agency: Department of the Army

Office: Army Contracting Command

Location: Rock Island Contracting Center (RI-CC)

Notice Type:Solicitation

Original Posted Date: February 18, 2010

Posted Date:June 23, 2010

Response Date:July 26, 2010

Original Response Date:July 26, 2010

Archiving Policy:Automatic, on specified date

Original Archive Date:April 26, 2010

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Aviation: The Twin Otter Turboprop To Go Into Production Again

   This awesome news.  As a smokejumper, this was my favorite aircraft to jump out of.  It was stable, had great power, plenty of room inside, and you could land them anywhere.  They have also been used all over the world and in some crazy climates.  I actually flew in a Twin Otter when I was traveling in Nepal, and it handled the mountain airstrips and high elevations very well.

   This aircraft is also excellent for paracargo, and most pilots that I talked to loved flying this aircraft for such missions. So I am definitely glad to see it back in production again, and I think it was a good move on Viking Air Ltd. to take this on. -Matt

——————————————————————

dhc6 06Aviation: The Twin Otter Turboprop To Go Into Production Again

The rebirth of a Canadian icon

May 14, 2010

By Brent Jang

The robust Twin Otter turboprop earned a reputation for being able to operate in any conditions. Two decades after the last one rolled off the line, it’s taking to the air again thanks to a small Alberta plane maker

On the shop floor of Viking Air Ltd.’s sprawling Calgary plant, Ken Copiak makes his way from one work station to another, inspecting the aluminum shells of Twin Otter planes as they begin to take shape.

The manager of the final assembly plant sometimes has to pinch himself when he sees the fabled bush plane back in production – 22 years after the last Twin Otter, serial number 844, came off the line in Ontario.

Viking workers are now putting the finishing touches on the first Twin Otter assembled in Alberta, the 845th built in Canada since 1965. Subject to certification from Transport Canada, the turboprop will be delivered next month to Switzerland’s Zimex Aviation Ltd., which has earmarked the new-generation plane for oil and gas exploration duties in Algeria.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Paracargo: New Uses For UAV’s–The K-MAX Dropping LCLA Or JPADS Paracargo

     This is cool.  To be able to drop paracargo like this, would be a very interesting capability, and especially dropping JPADS.  The K-MAX is such a work horse as well, and can totally handle high elevations a lot better than others in it’s class.  So for unmanned cargo missions, this might be the helicopter/UAV we will see more of in the near future.

     Some other interesting uses for this helicopter, would be SPIE operations or moving around people with a long line. Although that would probably be for only special incidents where survival would depend on having a means of getting out of a spot quickly (medevacs, attacks, etc.), and manned helicopters are not available.  Weaponizing it would be cool too, and to have a dual use helicopter UAV for anything that pops up would be a nice little tool to have in the battlefield tool kit for a commander.

     Having a robotic cargo hauler like this, will probably inspire many innovative uses for the thing as troops utilize it on the battlefield.  Especially if they could harden up this bird a little to give it some more combat survivability. Kind of like the A 10 Warthog of UAV helicopters.  Interesting stuff. -Matt

——————————————————————

22484e2f 349b 4950 843e bd3433a2a92e.FullParacargo: New Uses For UAVs  The K MAX Dropping LCLA Or JPADS Paracargo

K-Max Drops ‘Em in Cargo Demo

by Graham Warwick

5/5/2010

No sign yet of an RFP from the US Navy for umanned cargo resupply of Marine Corps units in Afghanistan, but team-mates Lockheed Martin and Kaman continue to develop the capability of their unmanned version of the K-Max external-lift helicopter. In late April, they demonstrated the ability to airdrop supplies, which would improve the helicopter’s survivability in combat zones.

The 11 drop tests from 300-400ft altitude used the US Army’s LCLA low-cost low-altitude parachute, a one-time-use aerodynamic decelerator that costs just $375 and can be used with loads up to 600lb, the team says. Loads were dropped from the K-Max’s four-hook carousel. Kaman says future tests could include the JPADS precision airdrop system, a GPS-guided steerable parachute that would allow loads to be dropped from higher altitudes and take advantage of the K-Max’s ability to lift 4,300lb to 15,000ft.

The airdrop tests were conducted with a safety pilot on board, but the K-Max operated unmanned during a cargo resupply demonstration for the Marine Corps earlier this year. Boeing’s A160T Hummingbird unmanned helicopter participated. Both teams are now waiting for an RFP from the Navy. Inside Defense, meanwhile, is reporting the Army is pushing for an unmanned cargo demonstration.

Story here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Paracargo: Army Testing New Airdrop System For Afghanistan

     Boy, I don’t know about this one.  Dropping paracargo without a chute, is the holy grail I guess, but in practice, there are a ton of issues.  If an aircraft has to drop low and slow, then now they are a prime target for an enterprising enemy.  How many aircraft will have to be shot down, before this ‘chute-less’ system becomes a failure is my question?

     The other point I want to make, is that if there is a need for more paracargo operations in Afghanistan, then a quick fix to get more folks over there, is for Dept. of Homeland Security to detail out the smokejumper units during the off season.  You have pilots, spotters (kickers), and tons of smokejumpers who all specialize in paracargo operations, who have nothing to do during the winters.  They could be called upon for disaster relief or the war effort, and they are all federal assets.  Or if companies wanted to tap into that resource, they could easily spread the word throughout the various lofts of smokejumper bases, and say they are looking for folks who specialize in small bundle paracargo operations.

     I think it is also pretty funny that the Army or whomever came up with this LCLA concept, and thinks that it is new or revolutionary. I have news for you folks, Low Cost Low Altitude paracargo operations is nothing new and the military, NGO’s, and smokejumpers have been performing such operations for a long time.

     At least with the smokejumpers, we actually make a point of retrieving, repairing, and reusing those cheap parachutes that the military is currently just throwing away.  But I guess if you guys are going to throw away paracargo chutes, then at least make the cheapest chutes possible.  In my experience, just a square piece of canopy with four lines made out of tubular webbing attached to it, worked pretty good.  Or you can take all of those old parachutes that the Army and Marines threw out, and convert them into usable paracargo chutes.  I know there are warehouses filled with that stuff, and it wouldn’t take much to get the machine of industry to modify all of that stuff for the war effort.  That is the kind of Low Cost paracargo operations that I am talking about. -Matt

——————————————————————-

Army Testing New Airdrop System for Afghanistan

By USArmy

February 25, 2010

WASHINGTON: The supply requirement in Afghanistan will dramatically increase this year according to the Army’s top logistician, and he said the Army is testing a new airdrop system to help meet the demand.

Speaking at an Association of the U.S. Army Land Warfare Institute breakfast series Feb. 19, Lt. Gen. Mitchell H. Stevenson, Army G-4, told the attendees that he hopes the new delivery system will be ready for deployment to Afghanistan by the end of summer.

The Army Freedrop Packaging Concept Project is currently developing and testing a new airdrop system called the Freedrop Delivery System forAfghanistan.

The new system will allow bundles of supplies such as ammunition, small generators and other Class IX repair parts, Meals Ready to Eat, and bottled water of up to 150 pounds to be freedropped (no parachutes) at about 70 knots airspeed from under 75 feet above ground level at the current 19Afghanistan outposts which can only receive supplies by air.

“The idea here was to develop a package that you just kick out the side of a helicopter or airplane when you’re flying very low… 50 feet above ground,” Stevenson said. “You eliminate the problem of packing, rigging the chute and of course doing any kind of recovery operation.”

The freedrop system is currently being developed and tested by the Army G-4′s Logistics Innovation Agency and involves a number of key stakeholders, to include operational partners in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C.

The Army already uses four airdrop systems in Afghanistan. Getting supplies to Soldiers there is tough because the country has no seaport and relies on two main land routes so “airdrop has become big business” said the Army’s chief logistician.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Paracargo: The On-again, Off-again Saga Of Airdrops In Haiti

    Only in a military briefing like this, where in one breath they say that air drops are unacceptable because of a lack of security, yet in the next breath, the idea of parachuting soldiers in to provide that security was out of the question. Or they say that parachuting in would have sent the wrong message?  Sooooo thousands of troops pouring in by airport or by ship sends a better message?

   I don’t know folks.  I think as soon as we said we were going to help, and do everything in our power to help, airdrops and securing those drop zones for such a thing, should have been considered.  Wrong message or not, air drops send the right message of ‘doing all we can to help’.  It would have also put tools in the hands of the people, along with food and water, to hold them over until the main effort gets under way.

   At least they dropped what they did, but how many days were wasted until they finally came to this logical conclusion? In the fire services, I would have been fired (if that is even possible in the federal government) for such a poor initial attack response. That, and an investigation. -Matt

——————————————————————

DOD Background Briefing with Senior Military Officials from the Pentagon About Haiti Operations

Presenter: Senior Military Officials

January 20, 2010

(airdrops and parachuting in troops section)

Q     Could you explain this on-again, off-again story of air drops: first it was no way, then there was an air drop, then another — more were scheduled for today and, as I understand, they didn’t happen. So what’s going on with air drops?

SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL 1: Yeah, two things on that point, if I may. First off, air drops can be, obviously, very successful and very quick. And we know that yesterday they were both. They brought in over 15,000 meals and 15,000 liters of water.

     There are two requirements for air drops.  We just explained one, which is the actual availability of the aircraft. And sometimes you have to divert that aircraft to another mission, because in the — in the particular case — again, bringing 2/82 out of their home station, you know, either you bring the food and the water from there or you bring the people from there or you bring the trucks from there. So does that — that tradeoff about what gets on the aircraft is point number one.

     And then point number two is, you have to have a safe and secure area to drop the water and the food: either that there is — it’s a controlled area, that there are either U.S. forces, MINUSTAH forces or government of Haiti forces there that can actually supervise the area, and it doesn’t become a scene where people are injured, and instead of distributing food and water, it becomes just — you know, a calamity, because people are crawling in to get there. So you want to secure the area.

     With that amount of food and water, you need a big area. And in the aftermath of the quake, a lot of the displaced and the victims moved to the areas that we would have normally used for either LZs or PZs, and places where we would have distributed food and water or picked up people. And part of that would have been, for example, our embassy evacuation plan. So we had to make sure that the area we were going to drop the food and water in was, indeed, safe and secure.

Q     The — early on, was there ever any — and you may have just answered this — any consideration to jumping the 82nd itself in; they then set up — you know, you’re clear, you got a landing zone, and then vehicles and supplies come in?

SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL 1: I would have to, you know, defer to the commander on the ground out there. I don’t think at this — from my point of view right here, I don’t believe there was a conscious decision to do that, because we didn’t think that was a — the prudent thing to do. It was a –

Q     It wasn’t really considered?

SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL 1: No.  And it’s — and there’s also an issue of optics here, because we are there to assist and enable. This is not a jump into a combat zone; this is not a jump.

     So we’re there to assist and enable. It’s a peaceful nation. It’s a very dramatic and, as General Keen said, epic proportions, the disaster there. And we’re there to get there quickly and to help. And to parachute in or to drop in, it was not required and would have probably sent the wrong message.

Q     Did you say there will be more airdrops that you’re planning?

SR. MILITARY OFFICIAL 1: Yeah. That is on the horizon. We’re always looking at the opportunity to do that. Right now the aircraft for today are filled, and we’re looking at moving cargo and personnel and drugs. But, you know, when we get that request, those are decisions that General Fraser and General Keen will make about the appropriate time and place to do that.

Link to briefing here.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,