Emergency airdrop from C-17 rescues stranded British ship

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11336

Quote:

1/6/2008 - HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE, Hawaii -- Teamwork, flexibility and airpower were used to deliver critical repair parts to a stranded British fishing vessel, the Argos Georgia, and its 25-person crew Jan. 4. The vessel had lost all main power and been frozen in the ice flow off the Ross Ice Shelf since Christmas Eve, New Zealand time.

"Considering the unforgiving Antarctic climate, we recognized the potential for this to become a life or death situation," said Lt. Gen. Loyd S. "Chip" Uttterback, 13th Air Force and Joint Task Force-Support Forces Antarctica's Operation Deep Freeze commander. "Quick action was needed and versatile airpower was the response."

In an 11-hour mission, a C-17 Globemaster III and crew launched from Christchurch, New Zealand, and airdropped approximately 150 pounds of supplies abeam the Argos Georgia.

"This is what we train for, what we're experts at," said Lt. Col. Jim McGann, 304th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron commander. "It's a challenging mission, but this capability is inherent in the C-17 and epitomizes the Global Reach concept."

The Argos Georgia had suffered serious engine failure from negotiating ice while heading south in the Ross Sea, leaving it without propulsion and drifting with the ice. The owning company, Argos Georgia Limited, researched potential options to get the needed engine parts to the stranded crew. When no quick response options were available, the company requested U.S. military assistance. To assist with the operation, Argos Georgia Limited provided the spare parts and floatation aids.

A C-17 and aircrews and support personnel from the 62nd Airlift Wing and 446th Airlift Wing at McChord AFB, Wash., are currently deployed to Christchurch to support the 13th AF-led JTF-SFA's ODF. Operation Deep Freeze is a unique joint and total-force mission that annually supports the National Science Foundation and U.S. Antarctic Program that began in 1955.

Due to their on-going support for ODF, the McChord crew is a highly-experienced Antarctic airdrop qualified team.

(Courtesy of 13th Air Force Public Affairs)

aeroeng · **Posted:** Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:48 pm

That's pretty cool. The C-17 is a great aircraft.

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

Cool. It took an airplane that can carry my entire house to haul 150 pounds of supplies.

At a cost of at least $20,000 an hour (A Gulfstream 5 costs ONLY $10,000 an hour) they also spent $220,000 to deliver that 150 pounds of supplies to a British fishing ship.

I'm sure Britian will be sending us a check in the near future to cover it.

Heck I'll bet you money that FEDX would have done it for less than half that cost................... and if they didn't get it there on time, it would have been free....

For those here who may depend on a Social Security check so they may eat in the future, better learn to stick smiley faces on kids at WalMart.

Mark H

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11336

Yeah, I suppose you're right. A few Brits aren't worth saving after all. They can recover the bodies (well, the boat really) after the spring thaw...

I suppose that FedEx can drop packages in flight?

One of the selling points of the C-17 (that the Brits are purchasing as well) is for humanitarian missions.

You also assume that the C-17 mission was dedicated to this one operation.

Canso42 · **Posted:** Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:38 pm

RE operating costs-how much does the Big Antonov cost per hour? About four tank trucks worth of wodka?

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:27 am

P51Mstg wrote:

Cool. It took an airplane that can carry my entire house to haul 150 pounds of supplies.

At a cost of at least $20,000 an hour (A Gulfstream 5 costs ONLY $10,000 an hour) they also spent $220,000 to deliver that 150 pounds of supplies to a British fishing ship.

I'm sure Britian will be sending us a check in the near future to cover it.

Heck I'll bet you money that FEDX would have done it for less than half that cost................... and if they didn't get it there on time, it would have been free....

For those here who may depend on a Social Security check so they may eat in the future, better learn to stick smiley faces on kids at WalMart.

Mark H

In the military we used to participate in goofy-ass rigged or slanted training exercises...then
something real world like this incident comes up where your efforts actually mean something..TODAY!
These guys are there 24/7...they're going to be doing bidness everyday...let the bean-counters
suck wind as to how they're going to adjust for it in the budget. Quantifying actual lives saved into $$$...phfttt..can't do it...I'd go into the breech everytime for the "real deal"...

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:56 am

Quote:

Cool. It took an airplane that can carry my entire house to haul 150 pounds of supplies.

At a cost of at least $20,000 an hour (A Gulfstream 5 costs ONLY $10,000 an hour) they also spent $220,000 to deliver that 150 pounds of supplies to a British fishing ship.

I'm sure Britian[sic] will be sending us a check in the near future to cover it.

Heck I'll bet you money that FEDX would have done it for less than half that cost................... and if they didn't get it there on time, it would have been free....

For those here who may depend on a Social Security check so they may eat in the future, better learn to stick smiley faces on kids at WalMart.

So you are getting upset that $220,000.00 was spent on a humanitarian mission? I wonder how it must make you feel to pay for a "war" that costs upwards of $60,000,000.000 per day. Are you also waiting for a cheque from the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to cover expenses for "coming to their rescue"? Maybe next time you can offer up your Gulfstream V and pilots and they might consider that rather than mobilizing a C-17 and crew who probably wanted the practice anyway. Just out of curiosity, how else would you propose to deliver rescue supplies to the Antarctic? Last time I checked FedEx didn't have aerial drop capabilities on any of their airplanes. A sad day has indeed been reached when one feels compelled to demand repayment for helping out a fellow man. :roll:

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:02 am

The jets are flying every day, regardless of if they are doing a real-world rescue airdrop or not.

The fuel is being burned either way, the flying hours come out of that unit's allocated yearly flying hours, the operations money comes out of that unit's allocated yearly operations budget. The "gas bill" is paid over a year in advance (ergo, FY defense budget of the previous year). Doesn't matter if that fuel is spent shooting practice instrument approaches at the home airfield, or on a cross-country navigation proficiency sortie, or delivering troops and supplies to Afghanistan.

The crews are there, the airplanes are there, and they are flying training sorties as per their normal daily schedule. This recsue likely just replaced a mundane training mission. What difference does it make to the taxpayer where that flying is taking place?

If you want the USAF to save money, just ground us -- then we won't burn ANY fuel.

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:04 am

well said Randy.

phil65 · **Posted:** Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:13 am

Don't worry our F117 engines now run on vegetable oil :wink:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10 ... t-use.html

Phil

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

So you are getting upset that $220,000.00 was spent on a humanitarian mission?

Actually YES.

Sorry guys, but we live in a country that seems to take care more about people who do not live here than people that do live here.

I live in the mountains of southern WV. While you live in a nice subdivision, I live in a rather poor area. I know of at least 3 familys that live within 3 air miles of my house that do not have running water in their houses. They are a few of the no running water houses in the area, but these are special because they don't have "hard floors". Hard floors are the floors that are you in YOUR HOUSE. Their floors are DIRT. DIRT covered with carpet from the dumpster at the local carpet store. They are darn poor people.

So when you think about sending some supplies to help someone else in the most expensive way possible, think about spending some of that money at home. These people would love to have a USED FEMA trailer.

Oh yeah, BTW you don't have to spend your budget every year and you don't have to ask for a bigger budget next year either.

Before you guys come up with some cool reply, think about this for a moment: THERE, BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, GO I.

Without getting political, you all need consider that this country is spending its self in to a deep hole and someone is going to have to pay it off. Nice thing to leave your grandchildren......

Mark H

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:39 am

P51Mstg wrote:

Oh yeah, BTW you don't have to spend your budget every year and you don't have to ask for a bigger budget next year either.

Not how the process works, unfortunately. The money is "spent" the minute it is allocated. It's sort of like buying a 6-pack at the grocery store -- you can't return the other two if you only want to drink four of them, even though theoretically you could save yourself some money if you did.

Your overall point about spending is well taken and correct, but the avenue you are pursuing to try and fix it -- how USAF flying hours are used -- is way off the mark.

Warbird Information Exchange

Emergency airdrop from C-17 rescues stranded British ship

Who is online