Recent major earthquakes- Indonesia, Haiti, Japan have shown that rotary assets are preferable to fixed wing

for humanitarian relief.

David Smith Royal Air Force

Contents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Introduction Infrastructure and logistics Speed, Distance, Time Flexibility is the key to Airpower Its all about size Weather Volume, size and diversity of cargo Airdropping or parachuting Engineering The war-fighting dimension So, which is preferable? Conclusion References Bibliography Appendices p.2 p.2 p.3 p.3 p.4 p.4 p.4 p.5 p.5 p.5 p.6 p.6 p.6 p.7 p.7

2|P a g e

Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.

1.

Introduction

Aircraft participation in Humanitarian Relief (HR) raises many issues and thoughts that should be considered but, this cannot be done without putting a context to it. HR manifests itself in many guises and various different countries throughout the world, at times in warzones, which can add a very different dimension. Wartime suitability requires sensitive information to be examined, which is not for the public domain therefore this document will predominately be considering the statement in the context of peacetime HR. Helicopters are a relatively new addition to the airlift environment and did not have the performance to carry large volumes of cargo both internally and externally until the 1960s. During the Korean War, Rotary Wing (RW) aircraft were deployed for Search and Rescue (SAR) and small resupplies (1), it was not considered a platform with which to move large volumes of stores or people. This changed during the Vietnam War with the introduction of the CH-47 Chinook in 1966, which at the time could carry a record-breaking load of 35 fully equipped troops or 3.6 tons of cargo over a distance of 100 miles. Fixed wing (FW) aircraft were instantly accepted as a means of transporting people and cargo over greater distances and at speed almost as soon as the first flight occurred. 2. Infrastructure and logistics

Anybody who has flown in an aircraft will have observed that they require an infrastructure in order to operate. As a rule, FW aircraft require a huge amount of space to operate in contrast to RW. The ability to hover and move in any direction is the greatest strength of the helicopter; it can land in any area slightly larger than itself. They do not require any kind of runway (fig. 1) or hard-standing to land onto. Clearly, FW aircraft require taxiways, runways, passenger stairs, baggage carousels, radar, airfield lighting, the list is huge. FW aircraft generally fly in cloud at high level using navigation aids and Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) to get from airfield to airfield, which is not always possible during a HR effort, such as after an earthquake. This can cause legal issues, as crews may not be permitted to depart an airfield if they cannot arrive safely at a destination that has no ATC. RW crews however, operate every day reading a map and looking at the ground as they are normally too low for navigation beacons to work correctly.

Fig. 1 - CH-53 Landing on a sloping road No Runway required (Courtesy Sgt D Smith)

Although FW require runways, on occasion these do not have to be concrete, the C-130 Hercules, backbone of most HR operations, can land on dust, snow, beaches and grass strips (fig. 2). Nonetheless, FW still require a huge piece of ground; in the case of the An-225 it requires 3.5km of runway at its maximum take-off weight. This severely limits the payload carried and where FW can operate. RW crews and aircraft are accustomed to working in the field environment in both the civilian and military world. Once the aircraft has landed a small army of personnel are required to service, refuel, maintain and turn it around again for its next flight. In addition to the 6 crew an aircraft such as the An-225 needs there will be around a dozen engineers, a couple of refuel crew, logisticians, baggage handlers, operations staff and

3|P a g e

Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.

numerous others that are vital to keep the aircraft operating efficiently. As the normal crew for a helicopter is two or three aircrew and a similar amount of engineers the burden on short supplies of water, food, medical supplies and accommodation is significantly less. One thing aircraft cant operate without is fuel, the An-225 can receive 300,000kgs in a single refuel. The same would fully refuel 71 Mi-26 Halos; the implication for an already fragile and overstretched logistics chain is alarmingly apparent. As helicopters are able to land in very remote and austere places, road transport is either not required or can be significantly reduced. This translates into less of a burden on supplies and budgets as it can be used on front line operations and less on logistics such as trucks and the associated personnel required to administer the logistics chain. Helicopters are a force and money multiplier as alternative arrangements are not required to distribute aid to the interior of a country. FW are not as they are the only option over continental distances.

Fig. 2 - Not all FW require concrete runways. (USAF)

3.

Speed, Distance, Time

When operating in adverse weather there is the inevitable trade off between risk and carrying out the task in hand safely. Both airframes have their own idiosyncrasies and problems. As RW are slower, fly lower and have the ability to hover, this makes them ideally suited to bad weather operations as they can slow down and avoid bad weather such as a low cloud base. If it is unavoidable there is always the option to land anywhere and wait for the weather to pass before continuing. This is bread and butter helicopter operations that is taught to military and to a lesser extent civilian crews very early on in their careers. FW do not have the choice of sitting-it-out in bad weather, they must avoid it or at least have an Air Traffic Controller directing them if they are in cloud. An added benefit of slower flight and hovering in the HR role is the ability to survey areas of a disaster such as an earthquake zone to distinguish where aid is most necessary. This is exactly how the distribution of aid was determined in Mozambique in 2001 by a DFID humanitarian specialist (2). Trying something similar in a FW aircraft is not viable at bare minimum speeds of 100 mph and they cannot loiter as easily over a specific area due to a turning circle of up to one mile. Helicopters can hover or even land in order to give the best view of the situation to HR agencies. Hans-Peter Kurz (3), sums it up well, One of the first and foremost tasks during a disaster is to gain an overall view of the situation in order to be able to mount a rescue operation.... Swift reconnaissance is therefore top priority... Helicopters should be used to carry out this task as they have the advantage of being able to combine an excellent field of view with the necessary ability to cope with both the terrain and weather conditions. A huge advantage of FW assets is the distances that can be covered and the time scale required to do so. The An-225 could fly from London to Libya with a full payload of 200 tons in 5 hours and with a single tank of fuel. If it was required to fly further the An-225 could fly from London to Australia without a payload on a single tank of fuel in 19 hrs or 1 single flight. There is no doubt that this is beneficial to HR, for a helicopter to cover these distances without time taken for sleep, engineering or refuel stops would take 21 hours and 79 hours respectively. 4. Flexibility is the key to Airpower

4|P a g e

Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.

HR operations by their very nature are a fluid situation and require a flexible mindset if they are to be successful in delivering the effects required. With this in mind aircraft must be as adaptable as possible and be able to change from one role to another with the greatest of ease. FW aircraft are generally configured for one role at a time and do not have the flexibility of changing the aircraft role mid-flight. For example if a FW aircraft such as a Boeing 737 were called upon to move cargo it would take several hours to remove all 150 seats. Normally a rerole of a military C-130 from a passenger-carrying role to an airdrop role would take at least an hour. Helicopters on the other hand have been designed from the start to be multi-role and take 2 minutes approximately to convert to a similar role fit as the C-130 mentioned above. Helicopters also have a further advantage that can make them indispensible in some situations as they can perform three or four roles concurrently. An example of this is carrying an underslung load (USL) of cargo, two passengers, a stretchered casualty and a rescue winch permanently fitted. This makes the helicopter very versatile. This was used to great effect by the Royal Air Force (RAF) during Operation Barwood in Mozambique, March 2000. Puma helicopters were the only way to rescue people trapped by floods by winching them to safety and distributing aid over a two week period (4), the crews flew a gruelling 350 hours, airlifted 563 people to safety and distributed 425 tonnes of vital supplies. 5. Its all about size

Whilst helicopters are undoubtedly more flexible they have a very distinct disadvantage, they cannot lift huge quantities of cargo or passengers (5). The capability of helicopters to operate and hover diminishes as the operating altitude or temperature increases such as during Operation Haven, the Kurdish Refugee Crisis in Northern Iraq. This limited all aircraft operating there post Gulf War One substantially (6). An aircraft such as the Mi-26 Halo, the largest helicopter in the world (5) can lift 90 passengers or 20 tons of cargo in ideal conditions at sea level and cool temperatures. This is tiny in comparison to the An-225 (7), the largest FW aircraft in the world that can carry 385 passengers or 200 tons of cargo. The distance that helicopters can fly is severely restricted as there is a constant trade-off between payload and fuel which is not so restrictive for FW aircraft. The Mi-26 can fly 1036 miles with auxiliary fuel tanks and empty of cargo, this would be greatly reduced if transporting cargo as fuel would have to be factored in. The An-225 can fly 9750 miles when empty with maximum fuel or 2500 miles with maximum payload.

Fig 3 An 124 swallowing up a whole train. Could RW do this? (Antonov Design Bureau)

6.

Weather

For all but the most modern of helicopters icing conditions are a concern, a temperature of below zero and visible moisture in the air such as cloud, mist of fog. Very few RW can fly in these conditions for very long, if at all. This means that operations in colder conditions can be severely limited. This is not a problem for FW aircraft as they have heating systems to combat ice accumulations and weather radars to avoid bad weather. Bad weather can, on occasion stop FW Humanitarian flights from landing especially if there is no ATC infrastructure. Helicopters are generally not travelling huge distances so in some cases looking out of the window tells them all the crew need to know about the weather. Even if RW are caught out in bad weather they can land and sit it out. Tied into this issue FW aircraft are flying at far greater speeds and the majority of the time in cloud, tight airspace control is therefore implemented to prevent collisions. This will not always be possible if the local infrastructure is crippled.

5|P a g e

Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.

7.

Volume, size and diversity of cargo

The strength of a FW aircraft has to be the volume and size of cargo that can be carried which depending on the aircraft employed can be up to 200 tons. This is not a case of multiplying what a helicopter can carry to working out an equivalent capability. FW has an added bonus in that the cargo carried can be significantly more wideranging and possibly a single unit that is larger in size and weight. A helicopter is unable to carry very large vehicles or machinery such as lorries, excavators, heavy industrial machinery, ISO containers, boats, portable operating theatres, the list is endless (fig. 3). These kind/types of cargoes are so important that they could be termed a game changer. From a political point of view FW assets can deliver an effect very quickly, which shows a clear intent from countries providing aid. Two or three planeloads of medical aid will stretch a very long way; FW are a strategic asset in this respect, RW are more tactical. 8. Airdropping or parachuting

Although FW require a runway this is not always possible such as after an earthquake or flood. There is the option with certain aircraft for Air Dropping (AD). This entails an aircraft that has a rear cargo ramp such as a C130 Hercules flying very low over the ground and with the help of parachutes, dropping aid or personnel (8) near to where it is required. This was used to great effect in the Balkans by the United States Air Force (USAF) in Operation Provide Promise with 2,863 sorties and 160,000 tons of aid (9). The Royal Air Force (RAF) in Ethiopia on Operation Bushel delivered 32,158 tons of grain over 2,152 sorties (10)(fig. 4). This strategy allowed a large volume of cargo or personnel to be put within an area that requires a large volume of aid within the minimum of time. This can provide a huge impact that may not always be measurable. A. Martin Lidy (11) remarked although the psychological impact of air drops defies precise measurement, observers indicate that the impact was immediate, sustained, positive, and important.

Fig. 4 - C-130 Hercules Air Dropping grain, Operation Bushel, Ethiopia 1984 (Courtesy MoD)

9.

Engineering

In general FW aircraft are less complicated than RW which means RW can be less reliable. This causes issues with both manpower and logistics which are already strained resources in a HR operation. As FW are less intricate and less likely to break down or require off-line time for scheduled maintenance they can spend more time conducting HR operations. The other side of the equation however, is when FW are unserviceable it tends to be for a longer period of time or with issues that prevent carrying of a fault such as an engine change. RW however, are able to carry faults the majority of the time as they are not normally as serious due to the slower and lower flight profiles, for instance a small oil leak from a gearbox. 10. The war-fighting dimension

Several wars have caused HR issues, therefore, at some point aircraft will have to expose themselves to hostile fire. Without straying into tactics that the RAF employ it is fair to say that all aircraft are susceptible to ground fire. This can be in the form of Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) and Small Arms Fire (SMARMs) which are
6|P a g e Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.

machine guns and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs). The decision to employ FW or RW will depend on the threat type. In broad terms RW are better suited to a SAM threat as they fly lower and do not have to approach a runway from a predictable direction. FW are better suited to a SMARMs threat as they have the height advantage, this keeps them outside the engagement range of these weapons until the last few moments of a take-off or landing. War time HR is very complex and risky, one such example was Operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation of American and Vietnamese nationals from Saigon, 1975. This started as a FW mission, but, due to Saigon Airport coming under rocket attack, FW operations were suspended. The only viable option was a RW airlift as Saigon Airport was too dangerous, this operation evacuated 50,493 people by FW and 6,968 by RW in 2 days. This problem is a huge subject in itself, this has been added for completeness and to acknowledge the fact that it should be a consideration when planning HR ops. 11. So, which is preferable?

To answer this it needs some kind of perspective to at least attempt to conclude. As most HR operations happen a long way from the UK, cargo and people will invariably have to be flown over huge distances which cannot be covered by helicopters in any meaningful timescale. HR by its very nature is normally time sensitive and requires a prompt response that only FW can provide over continental distances. Once aid reaches the affected country FW fleets could struggle if there is a lack of infrastructure such as ATC, runways or refuel trucks. FW will require a huge logistics chain to keep them airborne; RW assets on the other hand do not require such a mammoth chain. Most helicopters and their crews are designed and trained to operate in field conditions which can be miles from an airhead with the minimum of control and logistics such as ATC or aircraft handlers. If weather becomes an issue then the RW assets are better suited to grovelling at low level to make sure aid gets to the deprived areas in all but the worst weather. If weather is not an issue then FW could move larger volumes of aid into the interior of countries for AD, such as grain in Ethiopia, this could allow very quick and strategic gains to be made which could be a game changer 12. Conclusion

The short answer is that neither is preferable. Both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses; these are addressed by the other platform. FW is required to move very large volumes of aid over huge distances before RW can distribute it to an affected countries interior. This can be summed up with the following quote. The more extensive the disaster area, the more remote the location, the more inaccessible the terrain, and the more difficult the approach - the greater the advantage, indeed the necessity, of rapid assistance by air. (Kurz, 1998). Generally you cannot have one without the other as they are so reliant on each other to complete the overall task of Humanitarian Relief (12). 13. References 1. Kreisher O (2007) The Rise of the Helicopter During the Korean War. URL: http://www.historynet.com/the-rise-of-the-helicopter-during-the-korean-war.htm [16 Jan 07] 2. 3. Department for International Development (2001), DFID support to Mozambique Kurz H (1998) The use of Helicopters for Disaster Relief, Journal of Rescue and Disaster Medicine. 1998 Volume 1 Number 1, p.1 Department for International Development (2001) Mozambique floods - Situation update 2 Mar 2001. URL: http://reliefweb.int/node/77453 [2 Mar 2001] Mi26, the worlds largest helicopter. URL: http://www.topmilitarynews.com/mi-26-the-worldslargest-helicopter/ [3 Feb 2011] Boeing Aircraft Company, CH-47 Hover Performance Graph. Antonov Design Bureau (2010) AN-225 Mriya Basic Performance.
Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.

4.

5. 6. 7.
7|P a g e

8. 9. 10. 11.

United States Air Force (2006), Pararescue. RAND corporation (2003), Interoperability of U.S. and NATO Allied Air Forces: Supporting Data and Case Studies Royal Air Force, Return to Expeditionary Warfare. Lidy, Arthur Kunder J, Packer S H (1999) Bosnia Air Drop Study, Institute for Defence Analyses. Department for International Development (2000), Britain boosts emergency aid to Mozambique.

12.

14.

Bibliography

Books LLC, Vietnam During the Ford Administration: 1974 in Vietnam, 1975 in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh Campaign, Operation Frequent Wind, Fall of Saigon Directorate Of Air Staff Ministry Of Defence (1999), British Air Power Doctrine, AP3000 3rd edition Ripley T (1998) Jane's Pocket Guide: Modern Military Helicopters Janes Information Group (2008) Janes: All the Worlds Aircraft The Rise of the Helicopter during the Korean War. URL: http://www.historynet.com/the-rise-of-the-helicopterduring-the-korean-war.htm/4 [16 Jan 2007] 15. Appendices (i) (ii) Boeing Aircraft Company, CH-47 Hover Performance Graph Comparison table - Mi-26 versus An-225

8|P a g e

Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.

Appendix (i) CH-47D Hover Performance

9|P a g e

Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.

Appendix (ii) - Comparison table - Mi-26 versus An-225

Maximum Take off Weight Maximum payload Maximum Fuel Size (length x Width) Maximum Speed Maximum Range (no payload) Maximum Range (maximum payload)

Mi-26 56,000kgs 20,000kgs 11,900 litres 40m x 32m 295kph 800km 475 - 800km

An-225 600,000kgs 250,000kgs 300,000kgs 84m x 88.4m 850kph 15,400km 4,500km

10 | P a g e

Rotary Wing are preferable to Fixed Wing assets for humanitarian relief.