Light Airlift

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

The second you put a pod or ball on it you will cease to have it as an option for airlift.

There is no limit to the thirst for FMV from manned platforms. Honestly the only way to protect an airlift platform is to make sure it can’t be used as a jack of all trades crappy substitute for GOCO C-12s or U-28s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A potential problem no doubt but methinks the Bobs could only be sold on this if it was cheap, has multiple capabilities and little to no developmental risks.  Hence, a platform like the Churchill modified Caravan or another similar turn key solution with sensor stations, hard points, payload capability, etc... already engineered is the only option, if acquired.

Just my two cents but I would see the fleet of these switching roles as the conflict changes.  During major combat ops, it serves as a liaison platform for light cargo/pax movement where it can operate, during stabilization ops with low threat airspace established it can swing as required to ISR support.

[dream big]

On 8/26/2019 at 6:49 PM, jice said:

Awesome points; would be interested to see how many airframes would be required to generate an air bridge to sustain something like that. Asking because I’ve got no concept: Do you think it would be possible to surge and provide that type of flexible resupply (assuming the admin were no factor) for any period of time with the current fleet? What would need to change if no? Is that something the MAF thinks about/trains for?

Happy to exchange .mil/other via PM if you’re more comfortable answering there. 

Without going into details, many C-130 and C-17 units are researching and developing these capabilities as we speak.  These ideas are in their infancy stages but MAF leadership is starting to focus heavily on the near peer fight and what that logistical situation (ie adaptive basing) would look like. 

[jazzdude]

Without going into details, many C-130 and C-17 units are researching and developing these capabilities as we speak.  These ideas are in their infancy stages but MAF leadership is starting to focus heavily on the near peer fight and what that logistical situation (ie adaptive basing) would look like. 

That's the problem-it's an logistics enterprise issue, not an airlift issue. You can solve the airlift issue relatively easily (it'll take work, but it's solvable). This only solves the tactical problem.

The real (operational) problem is how to move and stage people/units/equipment/fuel/etc for airlift/movement.

[Lawman]

On 12/29/2019 at 7:40 PM, Clark Griswold said:

A potential problem no doubt but methinks the Bobs could only be sold on this if it was cheap, has multiple capabilities and little to no developmental risks.  Hence, a platform like the Churchill modified Caravan or another similar turn key solution with sensor stations, hard points, payload capability, etc... already engineered is the only option, if acquired.
Just my two cents but I would see the fleet of these switching roles as the conflict changes.  During major combat ops, it serves as a liaison platform for light cargo/pax movement where it can operate, during stabilization ops with low threat airspace established it can swing as required to ISR support.

 

I just don’t see that logic tracking through the demands of high level people.

We already have a fleet of non utilized liaison aircraft and instead we fly important people on their own much more expensive aircraft that could be used for any other mission. We flew the Chinook hours out of an entire Brigade in Iraq because for some reason we couldn’t use a C-12 to move 2 people regularly. Honestly it would have been smarter to just pull one of the dozen manned ISR platforms and make it do that job.

Likewise we have “airlift” capability in aircraft that will never because of the demand of their other mission be used as airlift in the minds of the planners. How often is anybody sticking pallets in a KC-10 when it can do that and in some cases do it at greater volume than other airlift in country. Not talking about "hey we can take our stuff TDY" I mean looking at the available lines and taking aircraft from mission A to task to mission B. It doesn’t happen because nobody is giving up a tanker to move pallets of stuff. ISR would get the same treatment. Even if it’s pod mounted, you might as well weld it on, because when the COCOM with the big show going on is trying to steal assets from other theatres like CENTCOM in 16-17, you aren’t going to see them turn one of your available TOC porn relay stations into a high value low density parts transport.


Oddly enough... this is exactly the mission the C-27 was intended to do. Irregular immediate request logistical support. It don’t fly ring routes, and it’s not for anybody else to retask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Lawman

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, Lawman said:

I just don’t see that logic tracking through the demands of high level people.

We already have a fleet of non utilized liaison aircraft and instead we fly important people on their own much more expensive aircraft that could be used for any other mission. We flew the Chinook hours out of an entire Brigade in Iraq because for some reason we couldn’t use a C-12 to move 2 people regularly. Honestly it would have been smarter to just pull one of the dozen manned ISR platforms and make it do that job.

Likewise we have “airlift” capability in aircraft that will never because of the demand of their other mission be used as airlift in the minds of the planners. How often is anybody sticking pallets in a KC-10 when it can do that and in some cases do it at greater volume than other airlift in country. Not talking about "hey we can take our stuff TDY" I mean looking at the available lines and taking aircraft from mission A to task to mission B. It doesn’t happen because nobody is giving up a tanker to move pallets of stuff. ISR would get the same treatment. Even if it’s pod mounted, you might as well weld it on, because when the COCOM with the big show going on is trying to steal assets from other theatres like CENTCOM in 16-17, you aren’t going to see them turn one of your available TOC porn relay stations into a high value low density parts transport.

Oddly enough... this is exactly the mission the C-27 was intended to do. Irregular immediate request logistical support. It don’t fly ring routes, and it’s not for anybody else to retask.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree that it would get shanghaied often with too much visibility / control by high level / centralized folks so I would argue due to the low cost, low footprint and low capability of this support asset, it should be penny packet'd down to the Wing/OG level to allow for that support you alluded to with the gone too soon Spartan.  

The AF would have to relax it's typical death grip of control and junkie like addiction to constant visibility on every asset and allow the lower echelons to self-organize and manage these small airlift requirements and maybe even ISR requirements.  Likely a mutual support system at a peer to peer level, help your bros and your bros will help you, don't and you're probably on your own.

Now that (de-centralized control) could come with a lot of second order effects (good and bad) - quick support to units with requirements that fell below the line in a centralized planning process but airspace coordination/control issues by unknown players showing up if not communicated properly as examples.

[Cooter]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 5:07 PM, Lawman said:

 

 

The second you put a pod or ball on it you will cease to have it as an option for airlift.

There is no limit to the thirst for FMV from manned platforms. Honestly the only way to protect an airlift platform is to make sure it can’t be used as a jack of all trades crappy substitute for GOCO C-12s or U-28s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Whether organic or for partners there is utility in having a similar platform for that conduct a variety of missions (lift/airdrop/ISR/strike/etc.). Especially for partner nations when you start talking small fleet dynamics. Your run into the "jack of all, master of none" issue but makes for easier fleet/aircrew management. Not to mention the systems being employed, I can train pretty much anyone to do either fairly quickly to a basic level. I have guys right now doing all to one degree or another, the flexibility is awesome. And makes for easier integration i.e. AC-208 escort/armed overwatch for C-208 airdrop that can the roll into ISR/armed overwatch for a ground unit.

Cooter

 

[Lawman]

Whether organic or for partners there is utility in having a similar platform for that conduct a variety of missions (lift/airdrop/ISR/strike/etc.). Especially for partner nations when you start talking small fleet dynamics. Your run into the "jack of all, master of none" issue but makes for easier fleet/aircrew management. Not to mention the systems being employed, I can train pretty much anyone to do either fairly quickly to a basic level. I have guys right now doing all to one degree or another, the flexibility is awesome. And makes for easier integration i.e. AC-208 escort/armed overwatch for C-208 airdrop that can the roll into ISR/armed overwatch for a ground unit.
Cooter
 

Which is fine for AVFID. We are talking about making this item part of the conventional order of battle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

You've got to give the Devil his due...

Intelligent article undermining the position for a renewed light fixed wing tactical airlift capability:

https://warontherocks.com/2020/04/the-future-of-tactical-airlift-is-here-and-it-is-vertical/

Sidebar:

After reading it and finding some of it's points valid, still believe in a manned light utility fixed wing requirement exists, I did start to wonder if the AF is not considering the changing operational environment and is missing a capability that will be required in the 2030 fight and beyond, namely a medium/heavy rotor/tilt wing vertical flight capable Air Mobility platform capable of operating in low/med threat environments...

Thoughts?  Is this a replacement for the C-130 (no hate at all on the Herc) or a compliment to it?  Or vice versa?  If the future is fighting without a large close ground footprint, platforms that can operate at distance from MOB/FOBs very far to avoid long range fires will be necessary (Pacific theater with tyrannical distance for instance) this seems like where the AF should take the lead role in a heavy direct vertical Air Mob capability

[Lawman]

You've got to give the Devil his due...

Intelligent article undermining the position for a renewed light fixed wing tactical airlift capability:

https://warontherocks.com/2020/04/the-future-of-tactical-airlift-is-here-and-it-is-vertical/

Sidebar:

After reading it and finding some of it's points valid, still believe in a manned light utility fixed wing requirement exists, I did start to wonder if the AF is not considering the changing operational environment and is missing a capability that will be required in the 2030 fight and beyond, namely a medium/heavy rotor/tilt wing vertical flight capable Air Mobility platform capable of operating in low/med threat environments...

Thoughts?  Is this a replacement for the C-130 (no hate at all on the Herc) or a compliment to it?  Or vice versa?  If the future is fighting without a large close ground footprint, platforms that can operate at distance from MOB/FOBs very far to avoid long range fires will be necessary (Pacific theater with tyrannical distance for instance) this seems like where the AF should take the lead role in a heavy direct vertical Air Mob capability

 

That guys numbers on available cargo loads were obviously limited to his experience on google. I would love to see the mission profile that has an Osprey lifting 20k anywhere in Afghanistan from the months of April-Oct with enough fuel to go anywhere outside the pattern.

 

There is a reason nobody has come up with a “heavy lift” tilt rotor design that works. It’s because tilt rotor ACLs are more drastically effected by negative environmental performance due to the effective lift generated by the disk. That’s why the 53 and 47 are still projected out well into the middle of the century.

 

You want to buy something to make a big impact in the log train? Let’s get more small robust/spartan interior Intra-theatre transport planes. Give us a plane big enough in cube space and forgiving enough on CG to put 2-3 randomly loaded pallets on with minimal effort to JI and move. That’s the reason the Army uses rotary wing to move stuff all the time at the cost of more blade hours and maintenance. It’s because when 2x ISUs and a dozen dudes need to go from KAF to JAF and I don’t have 3-4 days to wait to do it. Col wants that stuff up there now, and I’ve got 47Fs that can move it... unfortunately that means I take 2 chinooks doing a job to move 1/2 of a chinooks worth of stuff.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

That guys numbers on available cargo loads were obviously limited to his experience on google. I would love to see the mission profile that has an Osprey lifting 20k anywhere in Afghanistan from the months of April-Oct with enough fuel to go anywhere outside the pattern.

There is a reason nobody has come up with a “heavy lift” tilt rotor design that works. It’s because tilt rotor ACLs are more drastically effected by negative environmental performance due to the effective lift generated by the disk. That’s why the 53 and 47 are still projected out well into the middle of the century.

You want to buy something to make a big impact in the log train? Let’s get more small robust/spartan interior Intra-theatre transport planes. Give us a plane big enough in cube space and forgiving enough on CG to put 2-3 randomly loaded pallets on with minimal effort to JI and move. That’s the reason the Army uses rotary wing to move stuff all the time at the cost of more blade hours and maintenance. It’s because when 2x ISUs and a dozen dudes need to go from KAF to JAF and I don’t have 3-4 days to wait to do it. Col wants that stuff up there now, and I’ve got 47Fs that can move it... unfortunately that means I take 2 chinooks doing a job to move 1/2 of a chinooks worth of stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur - I am somewhat skeptical of the performance cited as every number depends... high/hot/shitty conditions likely making rosy numbers provided by vendors somewhat off the mark.

I also found this somewhat over-promsing:

But, in a word, their value is utility. They can perform all of the historical roles of light airlifters, light-attack aircraft, and liaison aircraft, and do it from either a hover or without a runway.

Again, what loads, configurations, conditions, ranges, etc... but where they have the most valid point, secondary costs for standing up a new squadrons/training/mx/etc... is where they miss the point, the liaison aircraft will be to the max extent possible organic, sharing the resources of already existing flying units.  Yes, some cost will be associated with it but the point is to not waste the time and opportunity by tasking a valuable asset with a mundane mission that obligates an asset that could be used much more meaningfully elsewhere, it will pay for itself then.

As to the theoretical requirement you set out to make a dent in the log chain, that might be beyond this proposed platform, would just depend how much the AF would be willing to invest, likely nothing unfortunately.

Another platform to add to the list that would fill this role well methinks:

Twin Otter Guardian 400 

https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-versatility/special-missions

Light Airlift, ISR, Sensor platform, etc... 

Edited April 12, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[Breckey]

And a jump platform!

Edited April 12, 2020 by Breckey

[Lawman]

And a jump platform!

F that.

Look how many damned times do we have to learn the same lesson on airplanes/helicopters that carry cargo (or passengers who disembark without landing).

Ramps are a requirement. Period full stop. Anybody saying otherwise has never tried to put something not luggage into a “light cargo aircraft.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

More grist for the mill:

Pacific Aviation P750...

https://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/p-750-xstol/description

Light, simple, capable and cheap for the want / requirement (light cargo, small pax parties over relatively short distances in permissive/low threat environments).

Circling back to the above ref article shitting all over the idea of a manned fixed wing liaison aircraft, I was surprised that the authors didn't suggest a rotatory wing liaison platform then.

Granted cheap and helicopters seldom go together but something like the LH-72, R66 or MD600 for the liaison / very light airlift could be affordable, still not as cheap as fixed wing but way less than sending an Osprey to deliver a few Pelican cases and couple of dudes from MOB X to FOB Y.

[SPAWNmaster]

14 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

More grist for the mill:

Pacific Aviation P750...

https://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/p-750-xstol/description

Light, simple, capable and cheap for the want / requirement (light cargo, small pax parties over relatively short distances in permissive/low threat environments).

Circling back to the above ref article shitting all over the idea of a manned fixed wing liaison aircraft, I was surprised that the authors didn't suggest a rotatory wing liaison platform then.

Granted cheap and helicopters seldom go together but something like the LH-72, R66 or MD600 for the liaison / very light airlift could be affordable, still not as cheap as fixed wing but way less than sending an Osprey to deliver a few Pelican cases and couple of dudes from MOB X to FOB Y.

The PAC-750 is a proven platform. I've known Ray Bozard for years who brought it into the recreational skydiving community and was part owner of Pacific Aerospace. It climbs like a rocket and you can G it up, it is also insanely economical to operate (price parity to super caravans with the BH conversion) but all the benefits of newer spars and design components. If you've never seen one IRL the one challenge I foresee would be how low the mission equipment would be. Hanging a pod and some hard points is going to cause some clearance issues. Where the PAC excels just like the Kodiak and Twotter, are the back country performance. 750XL's get beaten up daily in Malaysia flying into impossible mountain villages with sloping 200 meter dirt strips. Now it is starting to fly in Africa as well from what I've heard. Great machine for a mission like manned ISR or light airlift. It's basically already doing it every day in south east asia.

[Tank]

What about the Cessna SkyCourier?

https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/skycourier

Edited April 13, 2020 by Tank

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, SPAWNmaster said:

The PAC-750 is a proven platform. I've known Ray Bozard for years who brought it into the recreational skydiving community and was part owner of Pacific Aerospace. It climbs like a rocket and you can G it up, it is also insanely economical to operate (price parity to super caravans with the BH conversion) but all the benefits of newer spars and design components. If you've never seen one IRL the one challenge I foresee would be how low the mission equipment would be. Hanging a pod and some hard points is going to cause some clearance issues. Where the PAC excels just like the Kodiak and Twotter, are the back country performance. 750XL's get beaten up daily in Malaysia flying into impossible mountain villages with sloping 200 meter dirt strips. Now it is starting to fly in Africa as well from what I've heard. Great machine for a mission like manned ISR or light airlift. It's basically already doing it every day in south east asia.

Good stuff, I was googling to see if a single engine ramp equipped turbo STOL capable aircraft existed, didn't think one did but ask google see what happens, it brought back the PAC 750 in the search query

Read the brochure and I was impressed, some good videos of the airplane getting into some challenging dirt strips in BFE.  It was the first low wing STOL back country aircraft I've ever seen.  

That aircraft (along with others like the Otter, Caravan, Kodiak, EA500, etc..) is probably what a good modern Liaison Aircraft could/should be, just my two cents.

3 hours ago, Tank said:

What about the Cessna SkyCourier?

https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/skycourier

Skycourier is a good light airlifter, might be more than a Liaison Aircraft but could probably be the light airlifter @Lawman said would be worth the effort to acquire in capability.  

If it had a ramp capable of airdrop like the C-145, combined with its fatter fuselage for containers, winner winner chicken dinner.

Only thing, the bigger more capable the aircraft the more it undermines the case for a Liaison Aircraft being an inexpensive, simple asset to be used by a Wing to move odds/ends.  An aircraft simple enough that Dual Qual is feasible, to me an aircraft in civil use that doesn't require a type rating is probably what should be for a mil Liaison Aircraft.  

Some of the types we have been discussing are probably outside that scope but to be worth the trouble/cost, would a modern Liaison Aircraft need to be just that much more in capability?

More plane porn:

Extra EA-500 would give some speedier options...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_EA-500#Specifications_(Extra_EA-500)

Edited April 13, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[Hawg15]

 

I love planes and wish I could fly them all, but from a practical standpoint I don’t see the need of a tiny, slow, low payload, low range GA plane besides some congressman/general wanting yet another aircraft in their district/command. Cheap, and aircraft don’t go together. If it needs to be done on the cheap, then its not urgent enough to require air transport. Put it on a truck. If we are talking Air Force, C-130s aren’t really that large, and are significantly cheaper to operate than even a “cheap” fighter. As well as there being tons of vertical lift capability across all branches. If AFSOC wants yet another obscure, permissive environment aircraft to do something that doesn’t support the big fight then contract it out. We need to stop trying to structure our military to fight a guy driving around with an AK in his hilux. We have a problem with what our government constantly gets itself involved in, not our aircraft.

[Chuck17]

6 hours ago, Hawg15 said:

I love planes and wish I could fly them all, but from a practical standpoint I don’t see the need of a tiny, slow, low payload, low range GA plane besides some congressman/general wanting yet another aircraft in their district/command. Cheap, and aircraft don’t go together. If it needs to be done on the cheap, then its not urgent enough to require air transport. Put it on a truck. If we are talking Air Force, C-130s aren’t really that large, and are significantly cheaper to operate than even a “cheap” fighter. As well as there being tons of vertical lift capability across all branches. If AFSOC wants yet another obscure, permissive environment aircraft to do something that doesn’t support the big fight then contract it out. We need to stop trying to structure our military to fight a guy driving around with an AK in his hilux. We have a problem with what our government constantly gets itself involved in, not our aircraft.

Shack.

But, but, but... distributed operations! MICAP! Landing on dirt strips and beaches and highways! Pit n Go sorties galore for our four ship of F-35s launching out of some wide spot in the road! How will we get them gas, ammo, parts If we don’t have this capability, etc!? If we don’t have/own/operate/control this platform and OPCON we’ll lose against the (insert scary ultra-capable near peer military force and/or next shithole militia dudes on motorbikes with SA-7s and AKs here) !

Always entertaining what comes out ACC/AFSOC/Army when it comes to this topic - if they could just get the funding and pilots to fly them.

Airlift is no different than any other airpower asset - high demand, low density. Every air/ground commander doesn’t need their own, every TF doesn’t need their own; prevalence for misuse is high. For the niche, it works; on the whole, not so much...

This one won’t get solved by big blue. USAF will leave airlift to the airlifters instead of dreaming up ways everyone can get their own perfectly tailored airlift support.

Chuck

Edited April 14, 2020 by Chuck17

[skibum]

14 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

More plane porn:

 

I realized the only reason I open this thread or the light attack thread is to see if anyone posted pics of hot airplanes or maybe hot chicks near average airplanes.

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, Hawg15 said:

I love planes and wish I could fly them all, but from a practical standpoint I don’t see the need of a tiny, slow, low payload, low range GA plane besides some congressman/general wanting yet another aircraft in their district/command. Cheap, and aircraft don’t go together. If it needs to be done on the cheap, then its not urgent enough to require air transport. Put it on a truck. If we are talking Air Force, C-130s aren’t really that large, and are significantly cheaper to operate than even a “cheap” fighter. As well as there being tons of vertical lift capability across all branches. If AFSOC wants yet another obscure, permissive environment aircraft to do something that doesn’t support the big fight then contract it out. We need to stop trying to structure our military to fight a guy driving around with an AK in his hilux. We have a problem with what our government constantly gets itself involved in, not our aircraft.

Only one truck with escort vehicle could compete with a plane for this kind of quick direct delivery...

But seriously I hear your point, when I started this thread I would not say I was skeptical but I didn't see a clear requirement justified with historical data and reasonable projections of future ops, still it is/was intriguing to me.  

I don't think it is a matter of it being done on the cheap but timeliness is the desired main delivery characteristic.  We've gotten used to long sustained operations and we naturally look for efficiencies versus conveniences, there's a place I suspect for quick, peer to peer delivery of small pax/cargo but likely regionally focused and paid for by the using GCC / UCC.  

We have/had C-12s that basically fill this role in specific theaters, just a variation on that idea.

Copy your point on assets that don't support the big fight but this one (if acquired) would support just not directly in the fight like most Air Mob / Utility platforms, some portion of forces will always be based out of the WEZ of long range fires or at the edges of it, this guy would be there to shuttling stuff to/fro behind.

1 hour ago, skibum said:

I realized the only reason I open this thread or the light attack thread is to see if anyone posted pics of hot airplanes or maybe hot chicks near average airplanes.

Valid reason

Since you brought up Light Attack and this is a Liaison Aircraft thread, combine both.  Cargo pod for a Light Attack platform, boom done.

 

[nsplayr]

13 hours ago, Hawg15 said:

If AFSOC wants yet another obscure, permissive environment aircraft to do something that doesn’t support the big fight...

 Whoa whoa whoa that hits too close to home 🥺 

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Since you brought up Light Attack and this is a Liaison Aircraft thread, combine both.  Cargo pod for a Light Attack platform, boom done.

 

I know it’s called sarcasm but:

There’s already a “precision strike / light airlift” aircraft being flown for liaison purposes...  it’s called the AC-208 Armed Caravan.  
There’s definitely no reason to combine light attack and light airlift!

[Clark Griswold]

I know it’s called sarcasm but:
There’s already a “precision strike / light airlift” aircraft being flown for liaison purposes...  it’s called the AC-208 Armed Caravan.  
There’s definitely no reason to combine light attack and light airlift!

Yeah I should’ve put a trigger warning on that but on that subject of light attack and light cargo delivery if the AF wanted this and wanted light strike, a new OV-10X would / could do this.

FAS article on it:

https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/ov-10.htm

BL - about 3k stuff or 5 pax/2 med litters

Cargo bay would limit what could go but no different than adapting a GA turboprop that doesn’t have a ramp/cargo door option.

Liaison, Light Strike, RPA hunter, ISR, Sentry platform for sensor/comm, etc... this is a good jack of all trades platform and mission set for the ARC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Yeah I should’ve put a trigger warning on that but on that subject of light attack and light cargo delivery if the AF wanted this and wanted light strike, a new OV-10X would / could do this.

FAS article on it:

https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/ov-10.htm

BL - about 3k stuff or 5 pax/2 med litters

Cargo bay would limit what could go but no different than adapting a GA turboprop that doesn’t have a ramp/cargo door option.

Liaison, Light Strike, RPA hunter, ISR, Sentry platform for sensor/comm, etc... this is a good jack of all trades platform and mission set for the ARC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ll never get Flag officers into the back of an OV-10. It’s cramped and there are no windows for their aide to lick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scuba]

AVFID question: How do our host nation friends fare with multi-mission aircraft?  Anyone trained Iraqi or Afghani AF crews?

AVFID seems like an enjoyable and rewarding mission.