CAN UNCLASSIFIED

Strategic and operational airlift data

Data collection for decision support to Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) Movements

Jim Chan DRDC – Centre for Operational Research and Analysis

The body of this CAN UNCLASSIFIED document does not contain the required security banners according to DND security standards. However, it must be treated as CAN UNCLASSIFIED and protected appropriately based on the terms and conditions specified on the covering page.

Defence Research and Development Canada Reference Document DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 November 2020

CAN UNCLASSIFIED

CAN UNCLASSIFIED

IMPORTANT INFORMATIVE STATEMENTS

This document was reviewed for Controlled Goods by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) using the Schedule to the Defence Production Act.

Disclaimer: This publication was prepared by Defence Research and Development Canada an agency of the Department of National Defence. The information contained in this publication has been derived and determined through best practice and adherence to the highest standards of responsible conduct of scientific research. This information is intended for the use of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces (“Canada”) and Public Safety partners and, as permitted, may be shared with academia, industry, Canada’s allies, and the public (“Third Parties”). Any use by, or any reliance on or decisions made based on this publication by Third Parties, are done at their own risk and responsibility. Canada does not assume any liability for any damages or losses which may arise from any use of, or reliance on, the publication.

Endorsement statement: This publication has been published by the Editorial Office of Defence Research and Development Canada, an agency of the Department of National Defence of Canada. Inquiries can be sent to: [email protected].

Template in use: EO Publishing App for SR-RD-EC Eng 2018-12-19_v1 (new disclaimer).dotm

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Department of National Defence), 2020 © Sa Majesté la Reine en droit du Canada (Ministère de la Défense nationale), 2020

CAN UNCLASSIFIED

Abstract

In the fall 2019, a question on how many charter flights should Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) use was raised by the Command. The CJOC Operational Research and Analysis (OR&A) team was tasked to address the question. During the first phase of the study, from February 1st until March 13th, 2020, the author was temporarily embedded in CJOC Movements (J4 Mov) to observe and understand the flight selection process. Meanwhile, an external data source was identified to collect data on CJOC’s airlift demand. This document describes the flight selection process, explains the data collection methodology, and summarizes the collected data.

Significance to defence and security

A roundoff error is found in the YFR Tracker workbooks. As many Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fleets use the workbooks to collect the yearly flying rate (YFR), the error has a widespread effect on the accuracy of the measure. The service-exchange program Air Transport, Air-to-air Refueling, and other Exchange of Services (ATARES) did not see much utility but it has potential of easing the stress on the CC-177 fleet.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 i

Résumé

À l’automne 2019, le commandement a soulevé une question concernant le nombre de vols nolisés que devrait utiliser le Commandement des opérations interarmées du Canada (COIC). L’équipe d’analyse et de recherche opérationnelle (EARO) du COIC a été chargée de répondre à cette question. Au cours de la première phase de l’étude, menée du 1er février au 13 mars 2020, l’auteur a été affecté temporairement aux mouvements du COIC (J4 Mouv) afin d’observer et de comprendre le processus de sélection des vols. Pendant ce temps, une source de données externe a été choisie pour recueillir des données sur les demandes de transport aérien du COIC. Le présent document décrit le processus de sélection des vols, explique la méthode de collecte des données et résume les données recueillies.

Importance pour la défense et la sécurité

Une erreur d’arrondi se trouve dans les classeurs de suivi du contingent annuel d’heures de vol (CAHV). Puisque toutes les flottes de l’Aviation royale canadienne (ARC) utilisent les classeurs pour déterminer le CAHV, cette erreur a une incidence importante sur l’exactitude de la mesure. Le programme d’échange de services, l’Accord relatif au transport aérien, au ravitaillement en vol et à d’autres échanges de services (ATARES), n’a pas été très utile, mais il pourrait atténuer les contraintes qui pèsent sur la flotte de CC 177.

ii DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

Table of contents

Abstract ...... i Significance to defence and security ...... i Résumé ...... ii Importance pour la défense et la sécurité ...... ii Table of contents ...... iii List of figures ...... iv List of tables ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Sharing the strategic/operational airlift capability ...... 1 1.2 Airlift planning ...... 2 1.3 Other flight options ...... 3 1.4 Aim ...... 4 1.5 Scope ...... 5 1.6 Outline ...... 5 2 Aerospace Planning Tool (APT) ...... 6 2.1 Background ...... 6 2.2 Collected data ...... 8 2.3 Summary of data ...... 11 3 YFR Tracker ...... 19 3.1 Background ...... 19 3.2 Collected data ...... 21 3.3 Summary of data ...... 24 4 ATARES ...... 29 4.1 Background ...... 29 4.2 Collected Data ...... 29 4.3 Summary of data ...... 31 5 Discussion and conclusion ...... 33 References ...... 35 List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms ...... 36

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 iii

List of figures

Figure 1: A screenshot of the remote desktop portal for accessing APT...... 6 Figure 2: A screenshot of “Plan Board” in APT...... 7 Figure 3: A screenshot of a sample of “Serial Details.” ...... 8 Figure 4: A sample “Serial Details” of inconsistent columns of “Flying Time” and “Assigned YFR,” in addition to missing distance between CFS Alert and CFB Trenton. ... 10 Figure 5: A map of flight stops listed in Figure 4...... 10 Figure 6: Flight stop distribution for airlift tasks that support CJOC missions...... 16 Figure 7: Flight stop distribution by different fleet for airlift tasks that support CJOC missions...... 17 Figure 8: A screenshot of the “Front Cover” worksheet in a typical YFR Tracker workbook. 19 Figure 9: A screenshot of the “K1017 Tracking” worksheet in a typical YFR Tracker workbook...... 20 Figure 10: An example of interchanged squadron number and aircraft tail number...... 21 Figure 11: Two screenshots of some rearranged YFR Tracker data...... 23 Figure 12: A screenshot of the worksheet “ATARES CONSUMED.” ...... 30 Figure 13: A screenshot of the worksheet “ATARES Summary.” ...... 30 Figure 14: Airlift arrangement process at CJOC J4 Mov...... 33

iv DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

List of tables

Table 1: CDS’s Strategic Priority List FY19/20...... 1 Table 2: CJOC J4 Mov airlift expenditure in FY18/19, and forecasted expenditure in FY19/20. 3 Table 3: CJOC charter flights in the first 11 months of FY19/20...... 4 Table 4: Number of requested airlift tasks in FY18/19 and FY19/20...... 11 Table 5: Number of employed aircraft type in FY18/19 and FY19/20...... 12 Table 6: Number of tasks that fulfilled at least one RFE or none at all in FY18/19 and FY19/20...... 13 Table 7: Distance flew for the supported organizations in FY18/19 and FY19/20...... 14 Table 8: Most frequently stopped airports by the CJOC’s airlift tasks in FY18/19 and FY19/20...... 14 Table 9: Number of airlift tasks supporting CJOC’s sub-organizations in FY18/19 and FY19/20...... 18 Table 10: YFR of the three transport fleets in FY17/18, FY18/19 and FY19/20...... 25 Table 11: YFR for flights from or to CFB Trenton...... 26 Table 12: YFR for flights from or to Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait...... 27 Table 13: YFR for flights from or to Souda Air Base, Greece...... 27 Table 14: YFR for flights from or to Glasgow Prestwick International Airport, United Kingdom...... 28 Table 15: YFR for flights from or to Cologne Bonn Airport, Germany...... 28 Table 16: Airlift by the ATARES program before April, 2020...... 31 Table 17: Sample YFR data for estimating the YFR in the ATARES missions...... 32

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 v

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank everyone in CJOC J4 Mov for their hospitality during the time when he was collecting the airlift data. The advices, patience, music, and snacks are greatly appreciated.

vi DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

1 Introduction

Airlift plays an important role in military logistics because it is the fastest way to project and sustain a force. Unfortunately, its largest drawback is the associated costs, which include the aircraft, personnel, maintenance, and infrastructure. While there is a significant cost involved in utilizing airlift capability, a part of it could be hidden from the service users. Airlift resources are limited and require prudent planning to avoid wasteful use and to optimize effectiveness. 1.1 Sharing the strategic/operational airlift capability

The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) currently has three fleets of transport aircraft to meet the strategic and operational airlift demands; these are CC-150 Polaris, CC-177 Globemaster III, and CC-130J Hercules. Their annual usage, measured in yearly flying rate (YFR), is apportioned among the supported Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) commanders via the Total Aerospace Resource Management (TARM) process. However, it is no longer a RCAF-led, fleet-based process; it has evolved into one that takes a holistic view of operational requirements and Force Generation (FG) demands in the joint environment [1]. It apportions, in a more generic sense, aerospace effects based on the Strategic Priority List (see Table 1) that is approved by the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) every year.

Every fiscal year (FY), the Level 1 and Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) organizations forecast their requirements for aerospace support and submit their TARM Requests for Effect (RFEs) to the RCAF. This includes the RCAF forecasting its FG demands in order to project a comprehensive picture. As a part of the TARM process, the Yearly Aerospace Planning Conference (YAPC) was created as a forum for the stakeholders to discuss their concerns, deconflict competing TARM RFEs, and apportion the resources based on the CDS priorities.

It is important to point out that unforecasted RFEs can be submitted to the RCAF at any time of the year, and could be fulfilled if the associated activity is sufficiently important. After all, it is the relative importance of the activity that determines the airlift fulfillment. On the other hand, an apportioned TARM RFE is not guaranteed to be honoured when the airlift resources are scarce. (For example, relatively low priority activity with inflexible date of flight could have difficulty booking an RCAF flight in summer.)

Table 1: CDS’s Strategic Priority List FY19/20.

Description Priority Operations/Missions to detect, deter and defend against threats to or attacks on Canada. 1 Operations/Missions to detect, deter and defend against threats to or attacks on North America. 1 Expeditionary operations/missions to deter or defeat adversaries, support global stability, contribute 1 to international peace operations, stabilization operations, and capacity building operations. Search and Rescue Operations. 1 Code 1 Flights. 1

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 1

Description Priority Support to civil authorities and other government departments (OGD)s in response to a 2 domestic emergency as part of a CAF operation. Support to OGDs, International Aid organizations and foreign governments in response to 2 international disasters or major emergencies as part of a CAF operation. Code 2 Flights. 2 Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM) Force Generation (FG) Missions. 3 Support to High Readiness Units. 4 Support to Environmental Chief of Staff (ECS) Readiness/FG Requirements. 4 Support to Joint Exercises contained in the Joint Managed Readiness Plan coordinated by the 4 Joint Training Authority. Non Code 1 or 2 flights. 5 Scheduled passenger flights. 6 Airlift support to Formulation/Unit FG, including exercises not covered under Priority 4. 7 Provision of aerospace effects not related to CAF operations. 7

1.2 Airlift planning

Forecasting airlift demand is different from planning for the airlift; many details are required for coordinating with other move organizations [2]. Consider Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) as an example. All CJOC missions and exercises are supported by CJOC Movements (J4 Mov), which provides strategic and operational movement services such as sustainment to missions and exercises, postal planning, etc. When a need to transport passengers and/or cargo arises, J4 Mov Plans will help to develop and estimate courses of action (COAs) for the mission or exercise. For example, it helps developing a route that allows landing and refuelling of a CC-177. After a particular COA has been chosen, J4 Mov Plans provides assistance in creating an initial Move Plan and coordinating with other move organizations (e.g., 1 Canadian Air Division (1 CAD) Force Employment Lead Planners (FELPs), Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) (ADM(Mat)) Directorate Major Procurement 8 (D Maj Proc 8), Air Transport, Air-to-air Refueling, and other Exchange of Services (ATARES)) to initialize their work. After those organizations have confirmed the bookings, the Move Plan is ready for transferring to J4 Mov Ops for monitoring the process and coordination with the stakeholders [3].

During the process, an intended or arranged flight could become unavailable for many reasons. The RCAF could deny a TARM RFE (due to a significant change in flight requirements1), or a higher priority mission could bump an arranged flight. If the affected mission or exercise is flexible enough, J4 Mov Plans or J4 Mov Ops could help negotiating and finding alternatives, which include another RCAF flight (at another time), ATARES flight, or charter flight. It is understood that a change in flight has a domino effect of impacting the passenger/cargo readiness, reception facilities, cost, logistic complexity, and so on but

1 If a TARM RFE requested a flight of moving 100 people but the number reduced to 75 at the planning stage, 1 CAD could deny the RFE on the basis of changed requirement.

2 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

nonetheless it happens sometimes. Hence, it is useful to gain a better understanding of the other two types of flights other than the RCAF ones. 1.3 Other flight options

The selection of a means of airlift is sometimes restricted by factors such as aircraft range, destination runway length, cargo size, cargo nature (e.g., ammunition), geopolitical reasons (e.g., landing rights), landing environment (e.g., seasonal bird infestation, soft runway in summer), and so on. Unless the RCAF aircraft clearly cannot match the airlift requirements (e.g., sending 300 passengers in one flight), or the J4 Mov staff are instructed to avoid using the RCAF aircraft, the staff always consider the RCAF assets first. The availability of the transport aircraft can be easily checked on the Defence Wide Area Network (DWAN). If the RCAF assets are not capable or available for the task, the ATARES assets are the next option to explore. As a service-exchange system with the other allied militaries [4], ATARES becomes a realistic option only if the Department of National Defence (DND) has enough ATARES credits for the task (or not too much in deficit). Otherwise, charter flight is the last option to fulfill the task.

The ATARES services cannot be bought by money; they must be earned by providing services to other program members. The services are quantified by a debit/credit system that has been agreed upon by the participating countries. Canada does not utilize a lot of ATARES flights because it is not well known to the CAF due to DND’s brief participation. Moreover, we have not earned many credits. Nevertheless, the program is worthwhile for consideration of meeting occasional airlift demands.

Employing a charter flight is always expensive. Table 2 illustrates the scale of the cost for airlift contracts in CJOC [5]. As a result, each contract requires justification, which is documented in the expenditure initiation report (EIR). Hiring a charter flight can be time consuming (for competitive contracts, which are the norm), it can take as long as 45 days to complete. Once J4 Mov has the statement of work (SOW) ready, D Maj Proc 8 takes over and put the contract for bidding. The received bids are evaluated by J4 Mov Plans and J4 Mov Ops in order to determine the winner. Once the contract has been signed, J4 Mov Ops will monitor and coordinate the move as usual.

Table 2: CJOC J4 Mov airlift expenditure in FY18/19, and forecasted expenditure in FY19/20. FY18/19 FY19/20 Operation Mode Expenditure Requested Funding (in USD) (in USD) Op REASSURANCE Airlift $3,479,268 $3,827,195 Op PRESENCE Airlift $12,194,829 $13,414,312 Regional Sustainment Charter Airlift $2,881,985 $4,106,844 total $18,556,082 $21,348,351

Table 3 shows six actual CJOC airlift contracts in FY19/20 as of February, 2020. The total contract value is over seven million United States dollars (USD). DND did not pay the full cost because some serials were optional, and some were even cancelled. The forecasted cost (as shown in Table 2) is very conservative with respect to the actual cost. In general, past contract data indicate a wide fluctuation in cost over the years. For example, CJOC’s total contract value in FY18/19 was nearly 40 million Canadian dollars while FY17/18 had less than two million worth of contracts [5]. The averaged contract value between 2006 and

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 3

2012 (at the height of Operation ATHENA) is even higher than that in FY18/19 [6]. As a result, a large amount of historical contract data are required in order to better understand, and model, the contracting trend.

Table 3: CJOC charter flights in the first 11 months of FY19/20.

Date Title Requirements Aircraft Origin Destination SOW Flight OP PRESENCE 03-Jul-19 18-Sep-19 14 Serials Ilyushin Gao, Mali Dakar, Senegal Closure – Cargo to IL-76 01-Oct-19 OP 21-Aug-19 15-Sep-19 1 Serial with return Boeing CFB Trenton Riga, Latvia, REASSURANCE to to CFB Trenton 767-300F Constanta, Romania, / OP UNIFIER 30-Sep-19 Lviv, Ukraine Cargo OP PRESENCE 03-Sep-19 02-Oct-19 6 Serials with Ilyushin Gao, Mali Dakar, Senegal Closure – Cargo 02 to 6 optional serials IL-76 13-Oct-19 OP 26-Sep-19 16-Oct-19 1 Serial McDonnell CFB Trenton Riga, Latvia, REASSURANCE to Douglas Constanta, Romania, / OP UNIFIER 17-Oct-19 MD-11F Lviv, Ukraine Cargo – OCT 19 OP PRESENCE 07-Oct-19 28-Oct-19 3 Serials Antonov Dakar, Senegal Montreal Closure – Cargo 03 to AN-124 04-Nov-19 OP 20-Nov-19 08-Jan-20 6 Serials – Airbus Edmonton Riga, Latvia REASSURANCE to 1,080 passengers A330-200 Riga, Latvia Winnipeg/ Jan 20 RIP 16-Jan-20 Edmonton

1.4 Aim

The Operational Research and Analysis (OR&A) team at CJOC was tasked by the CJOC Deputy Commander to provide decision support in seeking a balance between RCAF flights and charter flights for CJOC’s airlift requirements. Further discussion with the staff of CJOC J4 Mov focused the study on the following question [7]:

How many additional yearly flying hours would have to be provided by the RCAF for a given funding transfer such that CJOC’s airlift requirement continue to be met?

As a first step of the study, airlift data for the CJOC’s operations and exercises needed to be collected. This included all airlift means: RCAF flights, ATARES flights, and the charter flights. The YFR of the military flights and the cost of charter flights are the objects of interest in this study.

4 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

1.5 Scope

The data collection process started in February, 2020. The author was embedded in CJOC J4 Mov Ops to observe the airlift arrangement process, and to search for useful data. Due to CJOC’s Business Continuity Planning (BCP) for the COVID-19 pandemic in mid-March, the process was disrupted. Fortunately, data collection for the RCAF flights and ATARES flights could be continued off-site and was completed in May. The charter flight data collection process was ceased upon BCP because of data security concerns. As a result, this document covers only the RCAF and the ATARES flight data. Some test data of the charter flights were obtained before the BCP (as shown in Table 3, which does not include individual contract values), and were briefly discussed before. 1.6 Outline

The RCAF strategic/operational flight data come from two sources. Sections 2 and 3 of this document discuss the data coming from Aerospace Planning Tool (APT) and YFR Tracker, respectively. Brief introduction of the data source, and the collected data fields are discussed. In Section 4, the ATARES program is explained along with the collected data. The last sub-section provides some examples of how the RCAF flight data can be used. A brief overall discussion and a conclusion are in the last section.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 5

2 Aerospace Planning Tool (APT)

2.1 Background

APT is an RCAF application used by the FELPs to manage the employment of aerospace resources. It shows the tasking line availability of all RCAF aircraft in real time. The RCAF hosts and maintains this unclassified tool at 17 Wing (Winnipeg) on a terminal server. Network users log in the server (e.g., from DWAN) via a remote desktop protocol and gain access to the tool. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of a remote client’s desktop interface, in which the APT window has been opened.

Figure 1: A screenshot of the remote desktop portal for accessing APT.

As the name suggested, APT is designed to allow the FELPs to arrange aerospace services; airlift is only one of the provided services. This study utilized the tool as a historical information depot, details about using the tool for service arrangement are beyond the scope of this document. As a FELP, CJOC J4 Mov employs the CC-150, CC-177 and CC-130J to meet CJOC’s strategic and operational airlift demands. Consequently, only these three types of transport aircraft are considered. As of March, 2020, airlift tasks data between April 1st, 2018 and March 31st, 2020 were included in the tool. Figure 2 shows a Plan Board screenshot that lists the tasking lines for the three fleets in March, 2020.2 Each horizontal colour bar represent one activity for the aircraft. Most blue bars represent maintenance; other coloured bars mark various other activities. The RCAF has five CC-150 aircraft, five CC-177 aircraft and 17 CC-130J aircraft; Figure 2 shows that at any given time, there are at most three CC-150, three CC-177 and seven CC-130J aircraft tasked. It illustrates the difference between aircraft inventory and tasking lines, this is particularly clear for CC-130J.

2 The procedures of selecting the three types of aircraft, and defining the time period of interest are ignored in the discussion because they are beyond the scope of this document.

6 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

Figure 2: A screenshot of “Plan Board” in APT.

Figure 2 shows an example in which a CC-130J tasking line was selected. As a result, the Missions Informations pane at the bottom of the diagram provides a summary of the task for convenience. For this study, the displayed information in the pane is sufficient for analysis. However, more information is available and can be accessed in order to better understand each task.

On the Plan Board, each colour bar embeds a hyperlink that leads to the Serial Details of the task as shown in Figure 3. The screenshot shows the details of a selected task in Figure 2 (i.e., SPT TO RCAF-SPT TO RCAF-426 SQN CRC NATTM 11–13 MAR 20.) It is unfortunate that not all information in a Serial Details can be captured in this study because APT only displays the information in graphical format. The graphical user interface (GUI) is the only data portal, and computer screenshots are the only means to capture the information. The GUI even forbids selection of text for the copy-and-paste procedure. As a result, all textual information is manually entered into a computer; the laborious and error-prone process restricts the amount of data that can feasibly be captured.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 7

Figure 3: A screenshot of a sample of “Serial Details.”

2.2 Collected data

As of March 2020, 24 months of historical data were available in APT. The tool has 1,375 airlift tasks3 (by CC-150, CC-177 and CC-130J) for all organizations; the same number of Serial Details screenshots were taken. Information on these screenshots was manually recorded as usable data, stored in a Microsoft® (MS) Excel workbook. The following data fields were captured from each Serial Details: 1. First date of flight; 2. Aircraft type; 3. Flight numbers; 4. Supported organization; 5. Serial number; 6. RFE numbers; 7. Total distance (in nautical miles); 8. Total time (in hour-minutes); and 9. List of flight stops.

3 The tasks for the three types of transport aircraft are collectively called airlift tasks but it is understood that not every one involves moving passengers or cargo from one place to another. According to some Serial Details, measuring the dimensions of a cargo bay for mission preparation constitute a task that consumes some YFR.

8 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

The first four data fields allow one to find a task of interest on the Plan Board (e.g., Figure 2). Name of the task is not captured because it is laborious to do so, and the name is not helpful in finding a task of interest in the Plan Board. The serial number (data field 5) helps identifying correct task details. In Figure 3, the serial number in the upper left corner reads “0301114.” However, this study records it as “030111-4A” because there are two tabs under the “Missions” tab in the screenshot. Since Tabs A and B have the same serial number, a suffix is added for clarification (“030111-4B” happens to be the second last task on March 11th in Figure 2). When there is only one “Missions” tab in a Serial Details, it is unnecessary to add any alphabet suffix to the corresponding serial number. This work found that the serial number is a six to ten digit long integer. The first two digits represent the planned month while the next two digits represent the supported organization. Confusion arises for the other digits because they represent the sub-organization and flight serial. The sub-organization code could be one to two digits long but there is no simple way to determine its length. As a result, a dash is inserted between the sub-organization code and flight serial for clarity.

The data fields 6 to 8, i.e., the RFE number, total distance, and time, are the focus of this study. The RFE number is a clear indication of whether or not YFR has been allocated by YAPC. The total distance is the covered ground distance but Figure 3 is an example of incorrect calculation. The sum of flying distances between the flight stops at the upper right of the diagram does not match with the total distance at the lower centre (“3030”) because the return leg (from Edmonton to Trenton) was ignored. Incorrect data are not limited to the distance. “Total Time” in the lower centre in Figure 3 (“11:15”) refers to the sum of the entries in the column “Assigned YFR.” In the diagram, the corresponding entries in the columns “Flying Time” and “Assigned YFR” are the same, and “Total Time” equals to the sum of the assigned YFRs, but this is not always the case. Figure 4 shows an example in which the flying times and assigned YFRs are different. In this example, the ground distance is wrong as well because the sum in the list is 3,651 nm, which is 367 nm short from the total distance at the lower centre. It is not difficult to see that neither the sum of the list nor the total distance are correct because Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Alert and Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Trenton are significantly more than 367 nm apart. In order to validate the total distance and time, the list of flight stops (in the form of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) airport code) in each Serial Details is captured as a part of the dataset. By comparing the total distance with the sum of distances between the stops, 18% of the records have a discrepancy of more than 10%. In the rest of this document, the total distance will refer to the sum of the calculated ground distance between the stops. In addition to data validation, the flight stops provide another means to understand the task by using maps. An example is given in Figure 5. The distance between each pair of stops in the map is calculated using the Haversine “great circle” formula for a perfect sphere [8] for simplicity.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 9

Figure 4: A sample “Serial Details” of inconsistent columns of “Flying Time” and “Assigned YFR,” in addition to missing distance between CFS Alert and CFB Trenton.

Figure 5: A map of flight stops listed in Figure 4.

10 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

In Figure 3 and Figure 4, each sample Serial Details contains only one RFE but this is not always the case. A Serial Details could have no RFE at all, or several RFEs. If there are more than one RFEs, it is assumed that they all belong to the same supported organization. This is known to be incorrect because a task can serve more than one organizations by sharing the same aircraft. However, the Serial Details only shows one supported organization, and it is impossible to properly map the RFEs to the supported organizations. 2.3 Summary of data

A total of 1,375 airlift tasks were found in the assessed 24-month period. Of these, 507 tasks supported CJOC’s missions while the remaining 868 tasks supported other organizations that include, in descending order of the number of tasks, RCAF, Canadian Army (CA), Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM), Military Personnel Command (Mil Pers Comd), Government of Canada (GoC), Strategic Joint Staff (SJS), Vice Chief of the Defence Staff (VCDS), North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). These tasks are quite evenly spread throughout the year as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Number of requested airlift tasks in FY18/19 and FY19/20. Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec total 49 29 40 39 42 44 45 48 52 36 34 49 507 CJOC 3.6% 2.1% 2.9% 2.8% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 3.5% 3.8% 2.6% 2.5% 3.6% 36.9% 33 50 37 41 53 38 50 36 31 50 45 19 483 RCAF 2.4% 3.6% 2.7% 3.0% 3.9% 2.8% 3.6% 2.6% 2.3% 3.6% 3.3% 1.4% 35.1% 6 13 16 12 12 16 9 9 5 14 10 8 130 CA 0.4% 0.9% 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 1.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 9.5% 13 13 8 7 5 10 9 6 9 11 12 10 113 CANSOFCOM

0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 8.2% 4 3 5 0 4 1 4 1 8 2 1 0 33 Mil Pers Comd 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 2.4% 1 2 0 2 1 5 3 3 1 4 3 3 28 GoC 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 2.0%

Organization 1 2 10 1 5 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 26 SJS 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 1.9% 0 0 1 0 5 3 1 1 3 6 0 0 20 VCDS 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0 0 1 1 2 3 2 0 3 1 1 4 18 NORAD 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 1.3% 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 1 2 2 17 RCN 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1.2% 107 113 118 104 132 123 123 106 118 127 108 96 1,375 total 7.8% 8.2% 8.6% 7.6% 9.6% 8.9% 8.9% 7.7% 8.6% 9.2% 7.9% 7.0% 100%

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 11

Among the three fleets, the CC-130J Super Hercules remains to be the most used asset, as shown in Table 5. It serves only 48.6% of all tasks; however, the fleet accounts for over half of all airframes and tasking lines. The lower than expected percentage is a result of dedicated long-term CC-130J tasking lines for supporting important operations. In APT, each one of these tasking lines has a task that lasts a long period without breaking down into multiple flying missions.

Table 5: Number of employed aircraft type in FY18/19 and FY19/20.

Aircraft Type CC-150 CC-177 CC-130J total 114 188 205 507 CJOC 8.3% 13.7% 14.9% 36.9% 163 69 251 483 RCAF 11.9% 5.0% 18.3% 35.1% 41 4 85 130 CA 3.0% 0.3% 6.2% 9.5% 11 45 57 113 CANSOFCOM

0.8% 3.3% 4.1% 8.2% 10 7 16 33 Mil Pers Comd 0.7% 0.5% 1.2% 2.4% 20 1 7 28 GoC 1.5% 0.1% 0.5% 2.0% Organization 8 0 18 26 SJS 0.6% 0.0% 1.3% 1.9% 8 3 9 20 VCDS 0.6% 0.2% 0.7% 1.5% 2 1 15 18 NORAD 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 1.3% 9 3 5 17 RCN 0.7% 0.2% 0.4% 1.2% 386 321 668 1,375 total 28.1% 23.3% 48.6% 100%

The 1,375 tasks fulfilled 1,573 RFEs; 141 airlift tasks are not associated with any RFEs as seen in Table 6 (they are presumably unforecasted tasks.) Among the CJOC’s tasks, 58 out of 507 (i.e., 11%) did not have any apportioned RFE; this is slightly higher than the overall average as shown at the bottom in Table 6. It is interesting to note that SJS has the highest number of presumably unforecasted tasks (11 out of 26). A close look at those reveals that they all support “CDS initiatives.” In particular, nine of them took place in March 2020 to support return-to-base for the troops due to the COVID-19 pandemic. By removing these nine outlier cases, the percentage of unforecasted SJS tasks is close to the other organizations.

12 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

Table 6: Number of tasks that fulfilled at least one RFE or none at all in FY18/19 and FY19/20.

Number of Tasks With Apportioned RFE Without Any RFE total 449 58 507 CJOC 32.7% 4.2% 36.9% 425 58 483 RCAF 30.9% 4.2% 35.1% 129 1 130 CA 9.4% 0.1% 9.5% 110 3 113 CANSOFCOM 8.0% 0.2% 8.2% 31 2 33 Mil Pers Comd 2.3% 0.1% 2.4% 24 4 28 GoC 1.7% 0.3% 2.0%

Organization 15 11 26 SJS 1.1% 0.8% 1.9% 20 0 20 VCDS 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 15 3 18 NORAD 1.1% 0.2% 1.3% 16 1 17 RCN 1.2% 0.1% 1.2% 1,234 141 1,375 total 89.7% 10.3% 100%

Table 7 summarizes the total (ground) distance covered by the three fleets for the ten most demanding organizations. By combining the number of tasks in Table 5, the average flying distance per task for each type of aircraft can be easily calculated. As it turns out, the data for flight distance are the best spatial data captured in this study4 because each flight stop in APT has a name and ICAO code that allow cross-checking.

4 Although the APT data were manually entered, they were double-checked for accuracy, and all ICAO codes and stop location names were cross-checked for consistency.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 13

Table 7: Distance flew for the supported organizations in FY18/19 and FY19/20.

Number Total Ground Distance of Tasks CC-150 CC-177 CC-130J total CJOC 507 953,405 nm 2,088,567 nm 1,311,959 nm 4,353,931 nm RCAF 483 773,525 nm 320,217 nm 938,217 nm 2,031,959 nm CA 130 246,912 nm 34,373 nm 174,666 nm 455,951 nm

CANSOFCOM 113 53,210 nm 367,534 nm 242,443 nm 663,187 nm Mil Pers Comd 33 48,774 nm 0 nm 23,976 nm 72,750 nm GoC 28 181,909 nm 4,649 nm 23,088 nm 209,646 nm SJS 26 42,038 nm 0 nm 87,785 nm 129,822 nm

Organization VCDS 20 51,271 nm 11,842 nm 16,889 nm 80,002 nm NORAD 18 7,901 nm 1,741 nm 69,324 nm 78,966 nm RCN 17 79,967 nm 50,494 nm 8,356 nm 138,818 nm total 1,375 2,438,911 nm 2,879,417 nm 2,896,704 nm 8,215,032 nm

Over the two analyzed fiscal years (24 months) the airlift tasks supporting CJOC missions stopped at 162 different airports. The top 51 most frequently visited airports are listed in Table 8. The other 111 airports are not tabulated because they were visited fewer than ten times. As the fleets’ home base, CFB Trenton is naturally the most visited airport, with the number of visits several times higher than the second most frequently-visited airport. However, even the second, third and fourth airports were visited over 100 times over the two years (i.e., more than once a week). The table divides the number of visits into eight groups in different colours. It goes from red (over 100 times) to magenta (once in two years), black represents nil visit.

Table 8: Most frequently stopped airports by the CJOC’s airlift tasks in FY18/19 and FY19/20. Airports Number of Stops in the 24 Months ICAO Name Coordinates CC-150 CC-177 CC-130J Total CYTR CFB Trenton (44° 7' 8", -77° 31' 43") 261 401 398 1,060 GOOY Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport (14° 44' 17", -17° 29' 5") 4 90 74 168 BGTL Thule Air Base (76° 31' 48", -68° 42' 52") 8 35 114 157 CYLT CFS Alert (82° 31' 7", -62° 16' 21") 0 45 96 141 EGPK Glasgow Prestwick International Airport (55° 30' 8", -4° 34' 39") 33 43 21 97 CYOW Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (45° 18' 57", -75° 39' 36") 74 4 17 95 GAGO Gao Airport (16° 14' 58", 0° 0' 8") 0 51 43 94 OKAS Ali Al Salem Air Base (29° 20' 56", 47° 31' 20") 0 61 29 90 CYQB Québec City International Airport (46° 47' 35", -71° 23' 4") 61 20 5 86 CYHZ Halifax Stanfield International Airport (44° 52' 44", -63° 30' 34") 38 17 20 75 CYEG Edmonton International Airport (53° 18' 31", -113° 35' 20") 54 12 7 73 CYWG Winnipeg International Airport (49° 54' 38", -97° 14' 17") 44 3 20 67 CYFB Iqaluit Airport (63° 45' 23", -68° 33' 21") 3 8 50 61 EDDK Cologne Bonn Airport (50° 52' 4", 7° 8' 20") 14 44 3 61 CYBG CFB Bagotville (48° 19' 53", -70° 59' 42") 13 21 23 57

14 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

Airports Number of Stops in the 24 Months ICAO Name Coordinates CC-150 CC-177 CC-130J Total CYQX Gander International Airport (48° 56' 8", -54° 34' 25") 23 3 24 50 CYZF Yellowknife Airport (62° 28' 16", -114° 26' 48") 6 15 29 50 CYRB Resolute Bay Airport (74° 43' 0", -94° 58' 7") 0 6 43 49 LRCK Mihail Kogălniceanu International Airport (44° 21' 52", 28° 29' 11") 14 32 1 47 EVRA Riga International Airport (56° 55' 20", 23° 58' 22") 22 20 2 44 LPLA Lajes International Airport (38° 45' 54", -27° 5' 30") 16 2 26 44 GOBD Blaise Diagne International Airport (14° 39' 56", -17° 4' 24") 3 36 2 41 CYQQ Comox Valley Airport (49° 42' 24", -124° 54' 28") 17 18 2 37 BIKF Keflavík International Airport (63° 59' 5", -22° 37' 36") 7 15 7 29 DRRN Diori Hamani International Airport (13° 29' 4", 2° 11' 11") 0 19 10 29 CYZX CFB Greenwood (44° 59' 2", -64° 55' 2") 1 17 8 26 CYOD CFB Cold Lake (54° 24' 18", -110° 16' 44") 8 9 8 25 HUEN Entebbe International Airport (0° 2' 42", 32° 26' 30") 0 0 24 24 CYYR Goose Bay Airport (53° 19' 8", -60° 25' 2") 6 0 16 22 CYPM Pikangikum Airport (51° 49' 11", -93° 58' 24") 0 0 21 21 ORBI Baghdad International Airport (33° 15' 45", 44° 14' 4") 0 21 0 21 CYYT St. John's International Airport (47° 37' 11", -52° 44' 53") 6 0 14 20 ORER Erbil International Airport (36° 14' 16", 43° 56' 56") 0 20 0 20 OKBK Kuwait International Airport (29° 13' 19", 47° 57' 53") 19 0 0 19 LFOE Évreux-Fauville BA105 Air Base (49° 1' 50", 1° 13' 20") 0 18 0 18 UKLL Lviv Danylo Halytskyi International Airport (49° 48' 38", 23° 57' 26") 5 13 0 18 LCPH Paphos International Airport (34° 43' 5", 32° 29' 21") 1 6 9 16 LFMN Nice Côte d'Azur Airport (43° 39' 34", 7° 12' 48") 0 14 1 15 CYRT Rankin Inlet Airport (62° 48' 36", -92° 6' 46") 0 11 3 14 LICZ Sigonella Air Base (37° 24' 13", 14° 55' 20") 1 11 2 14 CYEU Eureka Airport (79° 59' 39", -85° 48' 30") 0 0 13 13 CYFC Fredericton International Airport (45° 52' 13", -66° 32' 6") 5 0 8 13 ENBO Bodø Airport (67° 15' 52", 14° 20' 52") 5 8 0 13 CYYU Kapuskasing Airport (49° 24' 30", -82° 27' 50") 0 0 12 12 EBBR Brussels Airport (50° 54' 4", 4° 28' 50") 0 12 0 12 HESH Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport (27° 58' 46", 34° 23' 33") 0 10 2 12 PANC Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (61° 10' 52", -149° 59' 52") 0 11 0 11 CYEV Inuvik Airport (68° 18' 20", -133° 29' 24") 0 4 6 10 CYQT Thunder Bay International Airport (48° 22' 20", -89° 19' 38") 0 0 10 10 DFFD Ouagadougou International Airport (12° 21' 1", -1° 30' 45") 0 9 1 10 PHIK Hickam Air Force Base (21° 19' 59", -157° 57' 6") 0 10 0 10

Visited for over 100 times Visited between 6 and 10 times Visited between 51 and 100 times Visited between 2 and 5 times Visited between 26 and 50 times Visited only once Visited between 11 and 25 times Never visited

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 15

Figure 6 shows a map in which all 162 airports are on display. Each airport is represented by a coloured circle. The colour scheme is identical to the one in Table 8, with black (no flights) omitted. The size of the circles is tied to the colour in order to better visualize the frequency of the visits. As a map of visited airports, Figure 6 also shows the CJOC mission locations, which include Europe (mostly western), Persian Gulf, west and east Africa, and Canada. Airports in the United States are visited either as stopovers, or they can be supporting joint Canada-US exercises and liaison teams. Two green circles stand out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Keflavík International Airport (ICAO: BIKF) in Iceland, and the Macaronesia archipelagos (e.g., Lajes International Airport (ICAO: LPLA), João Paulo II Airport (ICAO: LPPD) and Santa Maria Airport (ICAO: LPAZ)) are popular stopovers for flights between Canada and Europe.

Figure 6: Flight stop distribution for airlift tasks that support CJOC missions.

In order to allow for better viewing, Figure 7 shows three similar maps for the three employed fleets. It is obvious that Keflavík International Airport and the airports in the Macaronesia archipelagos are mostly used by the CC-130J fleet due to the shorter range of the aircraft. On the other hand, the CC-177 fleet has the farthest footprint while the CC-150 fleet has a limited footprint, probably due to the aircraft’s restricted runway requirements. The large CC-130J footprint may be contributed to by the presence of dedicated aircraft supporting specific operations (i.e., those airframes are not departing and returning to their normal home base in Canada.

16 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

Flew by CC-150

Flew by CC-177

Flew by CC-130J

Figure 7: Flight stop distribution by different fleet for airlift tasks that support CJOC missions.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 17

Finally, Table 9 summarizes the airlift tasks that support the sub-organizations of CJOC. They are, in descending order of demand, Expeditionary Operations, CFS Alert Support, Joint Task Force North (JTFN), CJOC Headquarters (HQ), Christmas Flights, Search and Rescue (SAR) Operations, Humanitarian Operations and Disaster Relief (HODR), Joint Task Force East (JTFE), Joint Task Force Central (JTFC), Joint Task Force Atlantic (JTFA), Joint Task Force Pacific (JTFP), CJOC Maritime Component Commander (MCC), Joint Task Force West (JTFW), Non-combatant Evacuation (NEO) Operations, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Operations. The sub-organization list of the other organizations can be found in [9]. Table 9: Number of airlift tasks supporting CJOC’s sub-organizations in FY18/19 and FY19/20. Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 24 14 17 22 23 24 30 33 33 25 22 18 285 Expeditionary 4.7% 2.8% 3.4% 4.3% 4.5% 4.7% 5.9% 6.5% 6.5% 4.9% 4.3% 3.6% 56.2% 9 9 10 14 8 7 6 6 10 9 7 9 104 CFS Alert Support 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 2.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 2.0% 1.8% 1.4% 1.8% 20.5% 0 4 11 1 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 34 JTFN 0.0% 0.8% 2.2% 0.2% 0.6% 1.2% 0.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 2 2 2 0 3 5 1 2 9 1 4 2 33 HQ 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.4% 1.8% 0.2% 0.8% 0.4% 6.5% 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 32 Christmas Flights 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 6.3%

0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 SAR Ops 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 HODR 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

Organization JTFE - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 JTFC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

CJOC Sub CJOC JTFA 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 JTFP 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 CJOC MCC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JTFW 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEO 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NATO 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 49 29 40 39 42 44 45 48 52 36 34 49 507 Total 9.7% 5.7% 7.9% 7.7% 8.3% 8.7% 8.9% 9.5% 10.3% 7.1% 6.7% 9.7% 100%

18 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

3 YFR Tracker

3.1 Background

RCAF uses multiple Excel workbooks to collect the actual YFR of each fleet. Staff at each squadron records the flying time on these workbooks after each flight. Many file names contain the term “YFR Tracker” such as “CC130J - 436 YFR Tracker FY19-20.xlsb.” The files for the three fleets are stored on a SharePoint site; archived workbooks are also available. Each workbook has the same format in order to easily manage the information. Figure 8 shows a screenshot of an archived workbook, the bottom of the diagram shows the worksheet structure.

Figure 8: A screenshot of the “Front Cover” worksheet in a typical YFR Tracker workbook.

According to the Instruction worksheet (red-tabbed one in Figure 8), the squadrons’ actual YFR consumption information should be recorded in the K1017 Tracking worksheet (white-tabbed one). The worksheet, which is shown in Figure 9, collects the operational information such as supported mission name and mission management code [9], and the tactical information such as aircraft tail number, flight departure and arrival time, and aircraft commander. All worksheet columns that accept user entries are on display in Figure 9. It is unfortunate that the collected information does not include the mission’s RFE number and therefore cannot be cross-referenced with the planned tasking.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 19

Figure 9: A screenshot of the “K1017 Tracking” worksheet in a typical YFR Tracker workbook.

The column “Flight Hours” (column U) in Figure 9 shows the calculated difference between the departure and arrival time (columns K, O, Q, and R) on each data row. Unfortunately, the calculation applies a roundoff of the result to one decimal point. This is not a formatting issue, say showing π, as 3.1 on the screen while internally still representing it as 3.14159…, it turns π into 3.1. This procedure induces a significant roundoff error when the column sum is calculated in another part of the workbook. In this study, the flight time is re-calculated without applying any roundoff to the result.

Figure 9 shows an example of Rows 6 to 8 in the diagram showing a flight by the same aircraft and pilot on the same date for the same mission but with the three consecutive rows not in chronological order (see column O). Consequently, this work assumes that consecutive data rows (i.e., no blank rows in between) in the K1017 Tracking worksheet are related flight legs but not necessarily in chronological order.

Figure 10 illustrates an example in which the squadron and aircraft tail number are switched after row 890. Mistakes of this kind are easy to identify and rectify but the data contain many other entries that are questionable and difficult to validate. In most cases, these entries are left intact because there is no other reference to cross-check them. The departure time and flying time in the APT data are only estimates at the planning stage, and as such they cannot be used to cross-check the YFR Tracker data. However, flight stops can be cross-checked as they are less volatile than the departure and arrival times. As a reminder, the ICAO codes in the APT data have a higher degree of correctness because each code is accompanied by the location

20 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

name as shown in Figure 3. Hence, any questionable ICAO entries in the YFR Tracker data (columns J and P) were cross-checked with the APT data if possible. Rectifications were made if the ICAO entries in the YFR Tracker data were inconsistent with the APT counterparts.

Figure 10: An example of interchanged squadron number and aircraft tail number.

The YFR Tracker data for the CC-150, CC-177 and CC-130J fleets from FY17/18, FY18/19 and FY19/20 were downloaded from SharePoint for analysis. Data for March 2020 were incomplete as of May 28th, 2020. 3.2 Collected data

Data are pooled from multiple YFR Tracker workbooks of different squadrons and different fiscal years. Only the data from the K1017 Tracking worksheets5 are combined together. As blank rows act as separators for the related data rows in the K1017 Tracking worksheets, rows in each block of data rows (i.e., consecutive non-empty data rows without any blank row in between) are sorted by the aircraft tail number followed by the departure date/time. Afterward, the blank rows are removed.

Each block of data rows in the K1017 Tracking worksheets are supposedly related but this is not always the case. Figure 9 shows an example in which a block contains data rows for missions supporting different organizations and using different aircraft (between row 13 and row 56 that is not shown). While two aircraft flew for CJOC’s OPERATION DISTINCTION6 (between rows 13 and 27), a third one flew for the Canadian Army (between rows 28 and 30). As shown by this example, there is sometimes a need to sub-divide a block in order to better group individual flights. This study sub-divided these blocks by considering the continuity of the supported agency and arrival/departure locations. That is to say, a change in the supported agency from one data row to the next data row was considered as a change in flying

5 Some YFR Tracker workbooks are protected and forbid the copy-and-paste manipulation. A macro was created to extract the data from the K1017 Tracking worksheet. 6 Support Agency along column D in Figure 9 shows the supported agency codes listed in [9]. The first letter of “F” represents CJOC while the sub-code (second letter) of “A” indicates that the supported agency is CJOC HQ.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 21

mission. Even when the supported agency remained the same in two consecutive data rows, if the arrival location in the first row did not match the departure location in the second row,7 the two data rows were considered as two different flying missions.

Figure 11 shows two screenshots of the rearranged YFR Tracker data using the aforementioned procedures. MS Excel’s conditional format was used to highlight different flying missions. For example, rows 11 to 15 represent one mission while rows 16 and 17 represent another mission. The first screenshot shows how the data rows in Figure 9 were shuffled. The columns left of and including Mission Number in the second screenshot were added by the author in order to facilitate this conditional formatting. It is important to point out that the rearranged data do not contain any new information, data rows are simply re-organized and new data fields are calculated from the existing data.

After this initial data manipulation, the result has 2,387 records for the CC-150 fleet, 2,799 records for the CC177 fleet, and 8,866 records for the CC-130J fleet between April 2017 and March 2020.

7 The tail number and departure date/time has been sorted previously.

22 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

Figure 11: Two screenshots of some rearranged YFR Tracker data.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 23

3.3 Summary of data

Altogether, the three aircraft fleets logged 51,369 hours of flight time8 over the analyzed 36-month period. Of these CC-150, CC-177 and CC-130J contributed 9,065 hours, 12,827 hours and 29,477 hours, respectively (Table 10). CJOC missions consumed 54.4% of all YFR, this is significantly higher than the percentage of the number of requests (36.9%) in Table 4. Nevertheless, this is quite understandable because most CJOC missions are expeditionary.

The historical data in the YFR Tracker can be used to estimate the flight time between any two locations. As the home base of the CC-150, CC-177 and CC-130J fleets, CFB Trenton naturally connects to many other airports. For example, the data contain 242 flights between CFB Trenton and Macdonald-Cartier International Airport in Ottawa, 129 of them were made by the CC-150 fleet. The average and median YFR is 0.8 hour while the minimum and maximum are 0.5 and 1.4 hours, respectively. The data contain 253 airports that have at least one flight that flew to or from CFB Trenton. Table 11 lists 38 airports that most frequently connect to CFB Trenton; it provides a simple way to estimate the YFR between CFB Trenton and another airport. Tables analogous to Table 11 can also be built for different transportation hubs. Table 12, Table 14 and Table 15 list the direct connections with Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait (OKAS), Glasgow Prestwick International Airport, Scotland (EGPK), and Cologne Bonn Airport, Germany (EDDK), respectively.

These tables not only help estimate the YFR but also indicate the most likely transit route. For example, a CC-130J aircraft does not have the range to go directly from CFB Trenton to Ali Al Salem Air Base. This is why OKAS is not in Table 11. In Table 12, it can be seen that Souda Air Base (LGSA) is mostly used by the aircraft to leave the region (12 times in three years). Once at Souda Air Base, it will fly to Glasgow Prestwick International Airport (see Table 13) where it can fly directly to CFB Trenton (see Table 14).

It is naïve to think that the historical YFR Tracker data can provide good YFR estimate between any two flight stops. The description of estimating YFR between two stops that are not in the historical data will be given in the next section. In between are the cases for which historical data are available but they could yield poor estimate. For example, in the YFR Tracker data, the average and median YFR for a CC-177 flight between CFB Trenton and Peterborough Airport (CYPQ) equals 3.2 hours. This is clearly a poor estimate; it happened because there were only two historical records for such a flight. One record said the YFR was 0.6 s and the other 5.9 hours. It is difficult to assert that the long flight time is impossible for this trip, but it is reasonable to consider it at best an outlier. Therefore, Table 11 to Table 15 provide the occurrence count, minimum and maximum YFR; this will enable exercising due diligence, especially when the sample size is small.

8 The time includes both force employment and force generation for the RCAF.

24 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

Table 10: YFR of the three transport fleets in FY17/18, FY18/19 and FY19/20. Month Organization Aircraft Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec total CC-150 493 207 201 373 395 437 194 552 475 298 359 481 4,466 CC-177 913 573 656 734 518 816 706 966 872 678 614 529 8,576 CJOC CC13J 1,559 1,489 1,556 1,061 976 863 1,096 1,326 1,157 1,100 1,304 1,441 14,927 Overall 2,965 2,269 2,413 2,168 1,889 2,117 1,996 2,844 2,504 2,076 2,277 2,451 27,968 Pct. 5.8% 4.4% 4.7% 4.2% 3.7% 4.1% 3.9% 5.5% 4.9% 4.0% 4.4% 4.8% 54.4% CC-150 184 557 393 96 205 292 182 205 109 181 274 90 2,769 CC-177 162 233 203 107 349 224 308 117 164 209 260 88 2,424 RCAF CC13J 611 793 670 982 1,140 883 919 996 978 1,115 882 487 10,454 Overall 957 1,582 1,266 1,185 1,694 1,399 1,409 1,318 1,251 1,504 1,416 666 15,647 Pct. 1.9% 3.1% 2.5% 2.3% 3.3% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.4% 2.9% 2.8% 1.3% 30.5% CC-150 5 0 137 173 83 165 57 44 19 46 8 8 746 CC-177 0 50 33 0 64 0 0 0 0 15 16 0 179 CA CC13J 69 260 134 71 155 199 70 34 57 109 77 118 1,354 Overall 74 310 305 244 302 364 127 78 77 170 101 126 2,278 Pct. 0.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 4.4% CC-150 9 15 0 38 53 0 3 17 24 0 0 1 160 CC-177 80 102 118 54 119 50 67 180 121 132 208 120 1,351 CANSOFCOM CC13J 61 124 227 216 64 147 56 68 199 98 224 28 1,514 Overall 150 242 345 308 236 197 125 265 344 231 433 149 3,025 Pct. 0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% 0.8% 0.3% 5.9% CC-150 0 0 0 0 4 0 96 0 0 0 14 0 114 CC-177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mil Pers Comd CC13J 0 0 13 57 42 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 112 Overall 0 0 13 57 45 0 96 1 0 0 14 0 226 Pct. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% CC-150 77 60 0 51 21 17 87 0 8 64 111 68 562 CC-177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 33 58 GoC CC13J 0 12 0 0 7 9 29 7 7 0 0 32 103 Overall 77 71 0 51 28 26 115 20 28 64 111 133 723 Pct. 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 1.4% CC-150 0 0 17 40 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 23 98 CC-177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SJS CC13J 16 27 0 27 145 72 84 36 59 11 0 0 476 Overall 16 27 17 68 145 90 84 36 59 11 0 23 574 Pct. 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% CC-150 0 22 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 38 CC-177 0 0 0 0 9 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 VCDS CC13J 32 0 12 12 12 22 12 14 2 0 0 0 118 Overall 32 22 12 12 25 51 12 14 2 13 0 0 195 Pct. 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% CC-150 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 11 0 0 0 0 31 CC-177 0 0 0 0 19 0 29 0 0 7 0 0 54 NORAD CC13J 0 0 18 18 47 61 5 11 58 101 19 53 392 Overall 0 0 18 18 66 61 53 22 58 108 19 53 477 Pct. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% CC-150 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 15 0 0 0 82 CC-177 0 0 0 0 46 83 17 0 0 0 0 0 146 RCN CC13J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 13 0 27 Overall 0 0 0 0 46 149 17 0 29 0 13 0 255 Pct. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% CC-150 768 861 748 771 764 995 639 829 651 603 766 672 9,065 CC-177 1,154 958 1,010 895 1,125 1,203 1,126 1,276 1,169 1,041 1,098 770 12,827 total CC13J 2,347 2,704 2,630 2,444 2,587 2,257 2,271 2,493 2,532 2,535 2,520 2,159 29,477 Overall 4,269 4,523 4,388 4,110 4,476 4,454 4,035 4,598 4,352 4,178 4,384 3,601 51,369 Pct. 8.3% 8.8% 8.5% 8.0% 8.7% 8.7% 7.9% 9.0% 8.5% 8.1% 8.5% 7.0% 100.0%

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 25

Table 11: YFR for flights from or to CFB Trenton. Ground Airport from/to Flew by CC-150 Flew by CC-177 Flew by CC-130J ICAO Distance CFB Trenton (CYTR) (nm) Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. CYOW Macdonald-Cartier International Airport, Ottawa 107 129 0.8 hr 0.8 hr 0.5 hr 1.4 hr 20 0.8 hr 0.7 hr 0.6 hr 1.6 hr 93 0.9 hr 0.8 hr 0.5 hr 9.1 hr BGTL Thule Air Base, Greenland 1,959 21 4.9 hr 4.9 hr 4.1 hr 5.4 hr 38 5.1 hr 4.9 hr 4.5 hr 7.7 hr 108 6.7 hr 6.7 hr 6.0 hr 7.7 hr CYBG CFB Bagotville 371 31 1.5 hr 1.3 hr 1.1 hr 4.8 hr 51 1.5 hr 1.3 hr 1.1 hr 4.0 hr 48 1.7 hr 1.6 hr 1.3 hr 4.9 hr CYOD CFB Cold Lake 1,407 54 3.6 hr 3.6 hr 3.1 hr 4.5 hr 18 4.1 hr 3.8 hr 3.1 hr 7.5 hr 46 5.1 hr 5.2 hr 4.2 hr 8.5 hr CYEG Edmonton International Airport 1,512 42 3.7 hr 3.8 hr 0.6 hr 5.0 hr 9 4.0 hr 4.1 hr 3.4 hr 4.8 hr 61 5.5 hr 5.5 hr 4.3 hr 8.0 hr CYWG Winnipeg International Airport 875 40 2.6 hr 2.6 hr 2.1 hr 3.1 hr 18 3.0 hr 2.6 hr 2.3 hr 8.4 hr 52 3.3 hr 3.2 hr 2.5 hr 4.2 hr GOOY Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport, Senegal 3,507 3 8.2 hr 8.1 hr 7.8 hr 8.8 hr 99 8.6 hr 8.6 hr 7.4 hr 10.5 hr 1 22.8 hr 22.8 hr 22.8 hr 22.8 hr CYZX CFB Greenwood 542 3 1.7 hr 1.8 hr 1.4 hr 1.8 hr 34 1.8 hr 1.8 hr 1.5 hr 2.0 hr 58 2.3 hr 2.2 hr 1.7 hr 5.9 hr CYFB Iqaluit Airport 1,218 5 3.0 hr 3.0 hr 3.0 hr 3.1 hr 14 3.9 hr 3.3 hr 2.9 hr 6.8 hr 75 4.4 hr 4.4 hr 3.8 hr 5.2 hr EDDK Cologne Bonn Airport, Germany 3,266 8 7.3 hr 7.1 hr 6.8 hr 8.3 hr 86 8.1 hr 8.0 hr 7.0 hr 9.7 hr 0 CYTA Pembroke Airport 105 0 0 86 1.1 hr 0.8 hr 0.3 hr 4.2 hr CYQB Québec City Jean Lesage International Airport 304 18 1.8 hr 1.3 hr 1.0 hr 4.3 hr 16 1.3 hr 1.3 hr 1.0 hr 1.7 hr 48 1.7 hr 1.5 hr 1.1 hr 4.5 hr EGPK Glasgow Prestwick International Airport, UK 2,770 23 6.8 hr 6.9 hr 6.0 hr 7.5 hr 43 7.0 hr 7.1 hr 5.9 hr 8.5 hr 10 8.0 hr 8.0 hr 7.5 hr 8.5 hr CYQQ Comox Valley Airport 1,939 11 4.8 hr 4.7 hr 4.2 hr 6.0 hr 25 5.0 hr 4.9 hr 4.2 hr 6.4 hr 28 6.6 hr 6.5 hr 5.5 hr 7.7 hr CYQX Gander International Airport 987 1 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 4 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 1.9 hr 3.1 hr 54 3.8 hr 3.8 hr 2.8 hr 6.4 hr CYHZ Halifax Stanfield International Airport 601 6 1.9 hr 1.9 hr 1.8 hr 2.0 hr 18 1.8 hr 1.8 hr 1.6 hr 2.2 hr 28 2.5 hr 2.4 hr 2.0 hr 3.2 hr KCOS City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, USA 1,257 7 3.3 hr 3.2 hr 3.0 hr 3.7 hr 0 40 4.9 hr 4.7 hr 3.5 hr 7.9 hr CYYR Goose Bay Airport 871 7 2.6 hr 2.6 hr 2.3 hr 2.8 hr 2 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 2.4 hr 2.7 hr 35 3.4 hr 3.3 hr 2.6 hr 4.8 hr CYRB Resolute Bay Airport 1,895 0 18 5.1 hr 4.9 hr 4.3 hr 7.5 hr 26 6.3 hr 6.4 hr 3.9 hr 7.3 hr EVRA Riga International Airport, Latvia 3,582 15 8.3 hr 8.3 hr 7.2 hr 9.3 hr 28 8.7 hr 8.5 hr 7.8 hr 10.3 hr 0 CYYT St. John's International Airport 1,052 11 4.0 hr 3.2 hr 1.6 hr 8.1 hr 2 2.7 hr 2.7 hr 2.6 hr 2.7 hr 27 4.2 hr 4.2 hr 3.1 hr 5.8 hr CYLT Alert Airport 2,324 0 25 6.0 hr 6.0 hr 5.3 hr 7.4 hr 14 7.4 hr 7.6 hr 1.5 hr 9.3 hr CYZF Yellowknife Airport 1,684 1 4.7 hr 4.7 hr 4.7 hr 4.7 hr 5 4.3 hr 4.2 hr 3.8 hr 4.9 hr 29 5.9 hr 6.1 hr 4.8 hr 6.9 hr GOBD Blaise Diagne International Airport, Senegal 3,528 0 35 8.7 hr 8.6 hr 8.0 hr 9.6 hr 0 CYFC Fredericton International Airport 478 18 1.6 hr 1.5 hr 1.2 hr 2.6 hr 4 1.6 hr 1.5 hr 1.4 hr 1.8 hr 11 2.2 hr 2.0 hr 1.7 hr 4.4 hr CYXX Abbotsford International Airport 1,846 1 4.9 hr 4.9 hr 4.9 hr 4.9 hr 0 32 6.4 hr 6.2 hr 5.3 hr 8.0 hr BIKF Keflavík International Airport, Iceland 2,175 4 5.2 hr 5.1 hr 4.9 hr 5.6 hr 12 5.8 hr 5.8 hr 5.4 hr 7.0 hr 16 7.4 hr 7.3 hr 6.7 hr 8.2 hr LPLA Lajes International Airport, Azores, Portugal 2,257 8 5.7 hr 5.8 hr 4.9 hr 6.6 hr 1 5.2 hr 5.2 hr 5.2 hr 5.2 hr 18 7.0 hr 7.0 hr 5.3 hr 8.8 hr CYHM John C. Munro Hamilton International 119 7 2.5 hr 2.8 hr 0.7 hr 5.4 hr 8 1.4 hr 1.1 hr 0.8 hr 2.4 hr 11 1.6 hr 1.2 hr 0.8 hr 4.4 hr MZBZ Philip S. W. Goldson International Airport, Belize 1,686 0 20 4.6 hr 4.6 hr 4.1 hr 5.7 hr 3 6.7 hr 6.5 hr 6.2 hr 7.4 hr CYMX Montréal–Mirabel International Airport 175 17 1.5 hr 1.1 hr 0.8 hr 4.2 hr 1 0.8 hr 0.8 hr 0.8 hr 0.8 hr 1 1.0 hr 1.0 hr 1.0 hr 1.0 hr KLRF Little Rock Air Force Base, USA 872 2 2.4 hr 2.4 hr 2.3 hr 2.5 hr 0 15 3.5 hr 3.3 hr 2.5 hr 5.1 hr KPSP Palm Springs International Airport, USA 1,901 2 4.5 hr 4.5 hr 4.2 hr 4.7 hr 4 4.6 hr 4.5 hr 4.3 hr 5.3 hr 11 6.7 hr 6.4 hr 5.5 hr 8.7 hr EGVN RAF Brize Norton, UK 2,949 5 7.3 hr 7.5 hr 6.4 hr 8.0 hr 11 7.8 hr 7.9 hr 6.5 hr 9.1 hr 0 LKPR Václav Havel Airport Prague, Czech Republic 3,524 2 8.8 hr 8.8 hr 8.4 hr 9.2 hr 13 8.5 hr 8.4 hr 7.6 hr 9.6 hr 0 LRCK Mihail Kogălniceanu International Airport, Romania 4,191 1 9.1 hr 9.1 hr 9.1 hr 9.1 hr 14 9.7 hr 9.6 hr 8.5 hr 10.8 hr 0 CYYZ Toronto Pearson International Airport 95 7 0.9 hr 0.8 hr 0.7 hr 1.5 hr 1 0.9 hr 0.9 hr 0.9 hr 0.9 hr 6 0.8 hr 0.8 hr 0.7 hr 1.2 hr CYHU Saint-Hubert Airport 194 0 0 14 1.2 hr 1.1 hr 1.0 hr 2.2 hr

26 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

Table 12: YFR for flights from or to Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait.

Ground Airport from/to Flew by CC-150 Flew by CC-177 Flew by CC-130J ICAO Distance Ali Al Salem Air Base (OKAS) (nm) Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. ORBI Baghdad International Airport, Iraq 289 0 37 1.9 hr 1.4 hr 1.1 hr 5.3 hr 491 1.5 hr 1.4 hr 1.2 hr 5.3 hr OJMS Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, Jordan 574 0 0 269 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 1.9 hr 4.2 hr ORER Erbil International Airport, Iraq 451 0 33 2.4 hr 1.9 hr 1.0 hr 8.2 hr 225 2.0 hr 2.0 hr 1.6 hr 3.6 hr ORTI Al Taji Army Air Field, Iraq 301 0 6 2.4 hr 2.6 hr 1.2 hr 3.4 hr 229 1.6 hr 1.6 hr 1.1 hr 3.3 hr ORAA Al Asad Airbase, Iraq 373 0 0 143 2.1 hr 2.0 hr 1.4 hr 3.5 hr ORQW Qayyarah Airbase, Iraq 445 0 0 44 2.3 hr 2.3 hr 1.8 hr 4.3 hr EDDK Cologne Bonn Airport, Germany 2,218 0 42 6.4 hr 6.3 hr 5.6 hr 7.4 hr 0 OJAM Amman Civil Airport, Jordan 616 0 12 2.0 hr 2.0 hr 1.1 hr 2.9 hr 5 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 2.4 hr 2.6 hr OBBI Bahrain International Airport, Bahrain 248 0 16 1.3 hr 1.2 hr 1.0 hr 1.6 hr 0 LICZ Sigonella Air Base, Italy 1,695 0 11 4.9 hr 4.8 hr 4.2 hr 6.7 hr 2 6.2 hr 6.2 hr 6.1 hr 6.2 hr LGSA Souda Air Base/Chania International Airport, Greece 1,238 0 0 12 4.7 hr 4.6 hr 4.2 hr 5.3 hr EGPK Glasgow Prestwick International Airport, UK 2,701 0 12 7.8 hr 7.7 hr 6.7 hr 9.0 hr 0 LCPH Paphos International Airport, Cyprus 829 0 3 2.6 hr 2.6 hr 2.4 hr 2.7 hr 8 3.6 hr 3.7 hr 3.1 hr 4.3 hr HESH Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport, Egypt 696 0 9 2.5 hr 2.4 hr 2.0 hr 3.4 hr 0 OAKB Hamid Karzai International Airport, Afghanistan 1,146 0 8 4.4 hr 4.2 hr 4.1 hr 5.3 hr 0 LFMN Nice Côte d'Azur Airport, France 2,101 0 5 5.4 hr 5.0 hr 4.9 hr 6.6 hr 2 8.1 hr 8.1 hr 8.0 hr 8.2 hr LKPR Václav Havel Airport Prague, Czech Republic 1,950 0 6 5.4 hr 5.2 hr 5.1 hr 6.3 hr 0 EBBR Brussels Airport, Belgium 2,314 0 6 6.4 hr 6.0 hr 6.0 hr 7.1 hr 0

Table 13: YFR for flights from or to Souda Air Base, Greece.

Ground Airport from/to Flew by CC-150 Flew by CC-177 Flew by CC-130J ICAO Distance Souda Air Base (LGSA) (nm) Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. EGPK Glasgow Prestwick International Airport, UK 1,680 0 0 15 6.3 hr 6.3 hr 5.7 hr 7.3 hr OKAS Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait 1,238 0 0 12 4.7 hr 4.6 hr 4.2 hr 5.3 hr

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 27

Table 14: YFR for flights from or to Glasgow Prestwick International Airport, United Kingdom. Airport from/to Ground Flew by CC-150 Flew by CC-177 Flew by CC-130J ICAO Glasgow Prestwick International Airport Distance (EGPK) (nm) Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. CYTR CFB Trenton 2,770 23 6.8 hr 6.9 hr 6.0 hr 7.5 hr 43 7.0 hr 7.1 hr 5.9 hr 8.5 hr 10 8.0 hr 8.0 hr 7.5 hr 8.5 hr CYQX Gander International Airport 1,838 0 0 41 6.6 hr 6.7 hr 5.2 hr 7.8 hr LCPH Paphos International Airport, Cyprus 1,968 2 4.8 hr 4.8 hr 4.8 hr 4.9 hr 5 5.4 hr 5.4 hr 5.3 hr 5.5 hr 23 7.5 hr 7.6 hr 6.6 hr 8.7 hr LRCK Mihail Kogălniceanu International Airport, Romania 1,424 3 3.6 hr 3.6 hr 3.5 hr 3.6 hr 24 3.9 hr 3.9 hr 3.4 hr 4.5 hr 1 5.3 hr 5.3 hr 5.3 hr 5.3 hr LGSA Souda Air Base/Chania International Airport, Greece 1,680 0 0 15 6.3 hr 6.3 hr 5.7 hr 7.3 hr CYBG CFB Bagotville 2,400 3 6.5 hr 6.3 hr 6.0 hr 7.3 hr 11 6.4 hr 6.7 hr 5.3 hr 7.5 hr 0 OKAS Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait 2,701 0 12 7.8 hr 7.7 hr 6.7 hr 9.0 hr 0 EVRA Riga International Airport, Latvia 950 6 2.4 hr 2.4 hr 2.3 hr 2.7 hr 2 3.0 hr 3.0 hr 2.8 hr 3.3 hr 3 3.6 hr 3.6 hr 3.3 hr 3.9 hr CYYT St. John's International Airport 1,819 1 5.6 hr 5.6 hr 5.6 hr 5.6 hr 0 10 6.9 hr 7.1 hr 6.0 hr 7.9 hr OKBK Kuwait International Airport, Kuwait 2,722 11 7.5 hr 7.4 hr 6.7 hr 8.4 hr 0 0 UKLL Lviv Danylo Halytskyi International Airport, Ukraine 1,085 4 3.0 hr 3.0 hr 2.7 hr 3.1 hr 5 3.3 hr 3.3 hr 3.0 hr 3.7 hr 1 3.9 hr 3.9 hr 3.9 hr 3.9 hr CYOW Macdonald-Cartier International Airport 2,663 6 6.5 hr 6.6 hr 5.5 hr 7.4 hr 1 5.6 hr 5.6 hr 5.6 hr 5.6 hr 1 7.6 hr 7.6 hr 7.6 hr 7.6 hr BIKF Keflavík International Airport, Iceland 742 0 2 3.1 hr 3.1 hr 2.3 hr 3.9 hr 5 3.0 hr 2.8 hr 2.7 hr 3.4 hr CYZX CFB Greenwood 2,321 1 6.0 hr 6.0 hr 6.0 hr 6.0 hr 3 6.0 hr 5.9 hr 5.6 hr 6.4 hr 3 6.6 hr 6.6 hr 6.3 hr 6.8 hr CYOD CFB Cold Lake 3,271 0 6 8.2 hr 8.1 hr 7.8 hr 8.9 hr 0 CYEG Edmonton International Airport 3,398 6 7.9 hr 7.8 hr 7.5 hr 8.4 hr 0 0 EGVN RAF Brize Norton, UK 249 0 2 1.1 hr 1.1 hr 1.0 hr 1.2 hr 3 2.2 hr 2.6 hr 1.3 hr 2.9 hr CYYR Goose Bay Airport 1,903 1 6.1 hr 6.1 hr 6.1 hr 6.1 hr 0 4 6.5 hr 6.4 hr 5.5 hr 7.7 hr EGQS RAF Lossiemouth, UK 139 0 1 0.8 hr 0.8 hr 0.8 hr 0.8 hr 3 1.0 hr 1.0 hr 0.9 hr 1.0 hr EPPO Poznań-Ławica Airport, Poland 775 2 2.3 hr 2.3 hr 2.2 hr 2.4 hr 2 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 2.4 hr 2.5 hr 0 EYKA Kaunas International Airport, Lithuania 974 0 0 4 3.6 hr 3.5 hr 3.3 hr 3.9 hr Table 15: YFR for flights from or to Cologne Bonn Airport, Germany. Ground Airport from/to Flew by CC-150 Flew by CC-177 Flew by CC-130J ICAO Distance Cologne Bonn Airport (EDDK) (nm) Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. Count Avg Med Min. Max. CYTR CFB Trenton 3,266 8 7.3 hr 7.1 hr 6.8 hr 8.3 hr 86 8.1 hr 8.0 hr 7.0 hr 9.7 hr 0 OKAS Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait 2,218 0 42 6.4 hr 6.3 hr 5.6 hr 7.4 hr 0 LCPH Paphos International Airport, Cyprus 1,466 3 4.0 hr 3.9 hr 3.8 hr 4.3 hr 5 4.2 hr 4.1 hr 3.9 hr 4.5 hr 1 5.8 hr 5.8 hr 5.8 hr 5.8 hr OJAM Amman Civil Airport, Jordan 1,705 0 7 5.2 hr 5.2 hr 4.7 hr 5.9 hr 0 UKLL Lviv Danylo Halytskyi International Airport, Ukraine 646 0 3 2.0 hr 1.9 hr 1.9 hr 2.2 hr 1 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 2.5 hr 2.5 hr EVRA Riga International Airport, Latvia 695 0 3 2.2 hr 2.1 hr 2.0 hr 2.6 hr 1 5.4 hr 5.4 hr 5.4 hr 5.4 hr HESH Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport, Egypt 1,846 0 4 5.0 hr 4.9 hr 4.8 hr 5.2 hr 0 OKBK Kuwait International Airport, Kuwait 2,240 4 6.1 hr 6.2 hr 5.5 hr 6.7 hr 0 0

28 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

4 ATARES

4.1 Background

Cash payment for services is often not the best solution for the militaries of Movement Coordination Centre Europe (MCCE) member nations. Money is often lost to central treasuries and the military does not benefit from provision of reciprocal lift [10]. Thus, the ATARES program was designed as a cashless system for air transport service exchange. 28 European and some non-European NATO nations are part of this arrangement. Canada only joined the program since December 1st, 2017. Canada is also a partner of MCCE’s Surface Exchange of Services (SEOS) program but the program is beyond the scope of this document. Due to Canada’s brief participation, by March 2020 only 14 Canadian missions were flown by other nations.

As a cashless service exchange system, ATARES services must be earned by providing services to other member militaries. Services are quantified by a debit/credit system; the unit of credit is called Equivalent Flying Hour (EFH). The baseline platform is a C-130 transport aircraft. That is to say one flying hour of a C-130 equals to 1.0 EFH. In other words, one flying hour of a CC-130J aircraft earns Canada 1.0 EFH, and one flying hour of the Royal Netherlands Air Force’s C-130H costs Canada 1.0 EFH (or -1.0 EFH). For the CC-150 and CC-177 fleets, one flying hour earns 1.9 EFH and 3.0 EFH, respectively. The ATARES system is flexible enough for a nation to run in deficit for a short time.

Although the ATARES program in Canada is managed by SJS on behalf of DND/CAF, CJOC, as a heavy airlift user and force employer is the primary point of contact for executing all DND/CAF’s ATARES transactions [11]. Hence, CJOC J4 Mov has the know-how of utilizing the ATARES assets and promoting the RCAF services to the member militaries. CJOC is pre-authorized to spend up to 50 EFH for any CJOC missions. 4.2 Collected data

CJOC J4 Mov maintains a MS Excel workbook on ATARES and SEOS missions (for being a service provider and a consumer). This study only considered the worksheet ATARES CONSUMED. Figure 12 shows a screenshot of this worksheet. One cannot deny that the information in the worksheet is simplistic, each mission record only has the date of flight, service providing country, origin and destination airports, a brief description of the cargo/passengers, and an indicator of whether or not the flight is a dedicated one. It does not even have a flight number for tracking purposes.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 29

Figure 12: A screenshot of the worksheet “ATARES CONSUMED.”

Figure 13 shows another worksheet that summarizes the ATARES missions. For convenience, it puts the information from ATARES CONSUMED into a one-row-for-one-mission format. In this format, it is easier to spot any incorrect entries.

Figure 13: A screenshot of the worksheet “ATARES Summary.”

30 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

4.3 Summary of data

The 14 ATARES missions for CJOC are tabulated in Table 16. The missions are sorted in ascending order in time, and some erroneous data were rectified. Two columns for total distance and estimated YFR were added. The total distance is calculated by summing the ground distance of each leg along the route. The YFR is estimated using the YFR Tracker data. For example, the CC-130J fleet flew between CFB Trenton (CYTR) and Keflavík International Airport (BIKF) 16 times in three years (see Table 11). The median YFR of the 16 trips is 7.3 hours. As a result, the ATARES mission 18/0379 is estimated to have a YFR of 7.3 hours based on 16 samples. According to ATARES CONSUMED the mission only cost 0.706 EFH (Figure 13); this was because CJOC only used a small portion of the cargo hold.

Table 16: Airlift by the ATARES program before April, 2020.

ATARES Start Total Asset Route Estimated YFR Number Date Distance 18/0190 A330 2018-06-25 CYQB → KRIV 2,201 nm 5.2 hr (1) 19/0276 A330 2018-06-25 CYOW → LFQQ 3,032 nm 6.7 hr (15) 18/0300 C-130H 2018-06-29 GOOY → GAGO 1,015 nm 3.7 hr (173) 18/307 C-17 2018-07-27 CYBG → OAKB 5,393 nm N/A 18/0379 C-130J 2018-08-09 CYTR → BIKF 2,175 nm 7.3 hr (16) 18/0461 C-17 2018-09-20 OAKB → EGVN 3,132 nm 8.0 hr 18/0408 C-17 2018-10-26 EGVN → OAKB 3,132 nm 8.0 hr 18/05566 C-17 2018-12-16 EGVN → OKAS 2,547 nm 7.1 hr 19/0145 C-17 2019-03-30 CYTR → EGVN → LCPH → OLBA 4,889 nm 7.9 hr (11) + 5.3 hr (1) + 0.8 hr 19/0155 C-130† 2019-05-07 GAGO → GABS → GAGO 1,026 nm 4.2 hr (87) 19/0205 C-17 2019-05-12 OAKB → OMDM → EGVN 3,942 nm 3.5 hr + 7.9 hr C-130 2020-02-01 GAGO → GABS 513 nm 2.1 hr (87) C-130 2020-02-09 GOOY → GABS 572 nm 2.3 hr (80) 19/11329 Airbus 2020-03-19 GABS → EDDK 2,417 nm 6.3 hr

† The source data did not specify the aircraft type but the EFH and flight distance suggest the use of Hercules.

In Table 16, estimated YFRs in black represents that the YFR Track data have the same trips on record.9 On the other hand, the grey YFRs indicate that there are no corresponding trips in the YFR Tracker data. In this case, linear extrapolation using the total distance is used to estimate the YFR of a trip. For example, consider the trip OAKB-to-EGVN (Hamid Karzai International Airport to RAF Brize Norton, 3,132 nm apart) by a CC-177. Although the YFR Tracker data do not have any example of this trip, they contain the trips EGVN-to-KDOV and EGVN-to-PAEI. The first trip is slightly shorter than OAKB-to-EGVN while the second one is longer (Table 17). The two sample trips with known median YFR yield an extrapolated YFR of 8.0 hours for a 3,132 nm ground distance. This is only a rough estimate because the approach is not unique. For two distinct routes with the same distance apart, the median YFR could be different because

9 For planning purposes, this study assumes that the flight direction makes no difference to YFR. That is to say the YFRs for the trips CYTR-to-BIKF and BIKF-to-CYTR are the same. Otherwise, there are insufficient data for many flights.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 31

one route could be more weather-prone than the other one. This is why caution must be exercised in choosing the reference routes.

Finally, it is important to point out that the ATARES mission from CFB Bagotville (CYBG) and Hamid Karzai International Airport (OAKB) has no estimated YFR because C-17 does not have the range to make a non-stop flight. It is clear that the source data are not detailed enough to include the stopovers. This renders estimation impossible.

Table 17: Sample YFR data for estimating the YFR in the ATARES missions.

Flight Leg Record YFR Distance Fleet Stop 1 Stop 2 Count Average Median Minimum Maximum EGVN KDOV 3,064 nm CC-177 1 7.9 hr 7.9 hr 7.9 hr 7.9 hr EGVN PAEI 3,635 nm CC-177 1 8.7 hr 8.7 hr 8.7 hr 8.7 hr EGVN CYHZ 2,431 nm CC-177 1 6.9 hr 6.9 hr 6.9 hr 6.9 hr EGVN KDOV 3,064 nm CC-177 1 7.9 hr 7.9 hr 7.9 hr 7.9 hr CYTR CYOW 107 nm CC-177 20 0.8 hr 0.7 hr 0.6 hr 1.6 hr LCPH LLBG 202 nm CC-177 3 1.0 hr 1.0 hr 1.0 hr 1.1 hr OAKB OBBI 1,081 nm CC-177 5 3.8 hr 3.7 hr 3.5 hr 4.3 hr OAKB OAKN 250 nm CC-177 1 2.7 hr 2.7 hr 2.7 hr 2.7 hr EDDK OKBK 2,240 nm CC-150 4 6.1 hr 6.2 hr 5.5 hr 6.7 hr EDDK CYTR 3,266 nm CC-150 8 7.3 hr 7.1 hr 6.8 hr 8.3 hr

32 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

5 Discussion and conclusion

Requests for a strategic or operational airlift in support of CJOC missions or exercises are handled by CJOC J4 Mov. The unit can arrange for the RCAF, ATARES, and charter flights (with assistance from D Maj Proc 8). Figure 14 summarizes the arrangement process, which was described in Section 1. The preference of the three means of airlift is illustrated in the flowchart (i.e., RCAF → ATARES → charter); this is only a CJOC J4 Mov rule of thumb based on expenditure consideration; there is no official directive to guide the order of usage.

Figure 14: Airlift arrangement process at CJOC J4 Mov.

As was shown in Section 3, the YFR Tracker data make a comprehensive account of fleet usage. Although the YFR Tracker workbooks are a convenient tool for collecting flight information for all fleets, there are several problems associated with the tool. As was noted in Section 3.1, the “Flight Hours” calculation along column U in the K1017 Tracking worksheet induces a roundoff error10 to each flight leg. Due to the volume of flights, the accumulated error in YFR can become quite noticeable.

For each mission, a large amount of information is manually entered into the workbook. Typographical errors are bound to happen; the problem was observed from time to time during the data consolidation process, and was illustrated in Section 3.1. A large portion of the YFR Tracker workbooks is on analyzing the user entries in which the YFR has a roundoff error. There is little to no provision to ensure the correctness of the entries. While some user entries would be difficult to validate (e.g., callsign and pilot name), other could be easily validated with the help of technology. For example, MS Excel’s Date and Time Picker could help with the entry of dates,

10 The roundoff error problem has been reported to 1 CAD.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 33

Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) can help maintaining chronological order,11 and VBA’s Userforms can provide an improved GUI for the data entry process. In their current state of quality, the YFR Tracker data are too cumbersome and inconsistent to be fully exploited.

APT, as the name suggests, is a tool for planning the usage of airlift assets (more generally aerospace assets). The information in it only projects the usage while the YFR Tracker data contain the actual usage. As a result, the APT data are less useful than the YFR Tracker data. However, they can be useful in two ways. Firstly, the APT data contain the RFE numbers that serve as indicators of forecasted missions. Hence, the difference between the APT data and YFR Tracker data can be used to quantify the annual unforecasted missions. Secondly, the flight routes in the APT data are generally more accurate than those in the YFR Tracker data. There were a few occasions in which the flight routes in the APT data helped rectifying the typographical errors in the YFR Tracker data. The APT data, while somewhat useful, are very difficult to use. The APT terminal server only feeds the clients with graphical information. Since the tool forbids even the copy-and-paste procedure of capturing information, data collection is extremely laborious and time-consuming. If the APT data is shown to be useful in the next phase of the OR&A study, it might be beneficial to request 1 CAD to consider opening up the data (at least read-only) to the OR&A community.

The ATARES data show that during the short period of Canada’s participation (since 2017) the program did not play a significant role in strategic and operational airlift. Not many missions were flown under this program so far. However, this does not preclude greater reliance on this program in the future. The program offers a way to transform one mode of airlift to another one. For example, if a military has excessive operational airlift capacity but insufficient strategic airlift, the service exchange program provides a way to use the operational airlift for other member militaries and obtain strategic airlift for itself in return. According to the APT data (e.g., Figure 2), this is exactly the situation for Canada. The CC-177 fleet is fully booked while there is some spare capacity in the CC-130J fleet. Using the ATARES program could ease the stress on the CC-177 fleet in the medium term. However, the program will only work well for Canada if it designs a feasible plan of earning ATARES credits (e.g., through appropriate usage policy). Without a predictable credit accumulation it is difficult to plan on using the ATARES flights.

11 VBA enables the use of geocoding Application Programming Interface (API), which was used to build a local library of ICAO codes in the author’s Excel workbook for this work. Such a library could help users to correctly enter the ICAO codes in the YFR Tracker workbook.

34 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

References

[1] Interim policy for the Total Aerospace Resource Management (TARM) process, CDS, 7500-1 (SJS DSOC Mov), August 21st, 2018.

[2] Chinook to Mali, YourTV Belleville, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJorG0QU5lk (Last accessed on July 13th, 2020.)

[3] Movement Process Map and Mov File Checklist, Movement Process, J4 Mov SharePoint https://collaboration-cjoc.forces.mil.ca/sites/mov/J4Mov/20160623-U-3000- CJOCHQ_J4MOVPLANS-The_Mov_Process_Map_and_Other_Helpful_Stuff.xlsx (Last accessed on July 13th, 2020.)

[4] ATARES, European Air Transport Command, https://eatc-mil.com/en/what-we-do/atares (Last accessed on July 13th, 2020.)

[5] Meeting with CJOC J4 Mov staff, CJOC HQ, November 26th, 2019.

[6] Contracting Airlift, Sealift & Rail, Genevieve Grenier, D Maj Proc 8, September 2019.

[7] RCAF/contracted airlift — What is the right mix? Proposal for a way ahead, M. Rempel, November 2019.

[8] Great-circle distance, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great-circle_distance (Last accessed on July 13th, 2020.)

[9] 1 Canadian Air Division Orders, Volume 1, 1–617, 1 Canadian Air Division, 2010.

[10] J4 Movements Handover Notes, Briefings, J4 Mov SharePoint, https://collaboration- cjoc.forces.mil.ca/sites/mov/J4Mov/20190820-J4%20Mov%20Handover%20Notes.pptx (Last accessed on July 13th, 2020.)

[11] Canadian Air Transport and Air To Air Refueling and Exchange of other Services (ATARES) and Surface Exchange of Services (SEOS) Governance Agreement, October 3rd, 2019.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 35

List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms

1 CAD 1 Canadian Air Division ADM Assistant Deputy Minister ADM(MAT) Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) API Application Programming Interface APT Aerospace Planning Tool ATARES Air Transport, Air-to-air Refueling, and other Exchange of Services BCP Business Continuity Planning CA Canadian Army CAF Canadian Armed Forces CANSOFCOM Canadian Special Operations Forces Command CDS Chief of the Defence Staff CFB Canadian Force Base CFS Canadian Force Station CJOC Canadian Joint Operations Command COA course of action D Maj Proc 8 Directorate Major Procurement 8 DND Department of National Defence DWAN Defence Wide Area Network ECS Environmental Chief of Staff EFH Equivalent Flying Hour EIR expenditure initiate report FELP Force Employment Lead Planner FG force generation FY fiscal year GoC Government of Canada GUI graphical user interface HODR Humanitarian Operations and Disaster Relief HQ Headquarters ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization J4 Mov CJOC Movements JTFA Joint Task Force Atlantic JTFC Joint Task Force Central JTFE Joint Task Force East

36 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

JTFN Joint Task Force North JTFP Joint Task Force Pacific JTFW Joint Task Force West MCCE Movement Coordination Centre Europe MCC Maritime Component Commander Mil Pers Comd Military Personnel Command MS Microsoft NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NEO Non-combatant Evacuation NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command nm nautical miles OR&A Operational Research and Analysis OGD other government departments RCAF Royal Canadian Air Force RCN Royal Canadian Navy RFE Request for Effect SAR Search and Rescue SEOS Surface Exchange Of Services SJS Strategic Joint Staff SOW statement of work TARM Total Air Resource Management USD United States dollars VBA Visual Basic for Applications VCDS Vice Chief of the Defence Staff YAPC Yearly Aerospace Planning Conference YFR yearly flying rate

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119 37

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA *Security markings for the title, authors, abstract and keywords must be entered when the document is sensitive 1. ORIGINATOR (Name and address of the organization preparing the document. 2a. SECURITY MARKING A DRDC Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, is entered (Overall security marking of the document including in Section 8.) special supplemental markings if applicable.)

DRDC – Centre for Operational Research and Analysis CAN UNCLASSIFIED Defence Research and Development Canada Carling Campus, 60 Moodie Drive, Building 7S.2 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2 2b. CONTROLLED GOODS Canada NON-CONTROLLED GOODS DMC A

3. TITLE (The document title and sub-title as indicated on the title page.)

Strategic and operational airlift data: Data collection for decision support to Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) Movements

4. AUTHORS (Last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc., not to be used)

Chan, J.

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION 6a. NO. OF PAGES 6b. NO. OF REFS (Month and year of publication of document.) (Total pages, including (Total references cited.) Annexes, excluding DCD, covering and verso pages.) November 2020 43 11

7. DOCUMENT CATEGORY (e.g., Scientific Report, Contract Report, Scientific Letter.)

Reference Document

8. SPONSORING CENTRE (The name and address of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development.)

DRDC – Centre for Operational Research and Analysis Defence Research and Development Canada Carling Campus, 60 Moodie Drive, Building 7S.2 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2 Canada

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable 9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under research and development project or grant number under which which the document was written.) the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)

06ac

10a. DRDC PUBLICATION NUMBER (The official document number 10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be by which the document is identified by the originating assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.) activity. This number must be unique to this document.)

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D119

11a. FUTURE DISTRIBUTION WITHIN CANADA (Approval for further dissemination of the document. Security classification must also be considered.)

Public release

11b. FUTURE DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE CANADA (Approval for further dissemination of the document. Security classification must also be considered.)

12. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Use semi-colon as a delimiter.)

Airlift; Data Collection

13. ABSTRACT (When available in the document, the French version of the abstract must be included here.)

In the fall 2019, a question on how many charter flights should Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) use was raised by the Command. The CJOC Operational Research and Analysis (OR&A) team was tasked to address the question. During the first phase of the study, from February 1st until March 13th, 2020, the author was temporarily embedded in CJOC Movements (J4 Mov) to observe and understand the flight selection process. Meanwhile, an external data source was identified to collect data on CJOC’s airlift demand. This document describes the flight selection process, explains the data collection methodology, and summarizes the collected data.

À l’automne 2019, le commandement a soulevé une question concernant le nombre de vols nolisés que devrait utiliser le Commandement des opérations interarmées du Canada (COIC). L’équipe d’analyse et de recherche opérationnelle (EARO) du COIC a été chargée de répondre à cette question. Au cours de la première phase de l’étude, menée du 1er février au 13 mars 2020, l’auteur a été affecté temporairement aux mouvements du COIC (J4 Mouv) afin d’observer et de comprendre le processus de sélection des vols. Pendant ce temps, une source de données externe a été choisie pour recueillir des données sur les demandes de transport aérien du COIC. Le présent document décrit le processus de sélection des vols, explique la méthode de collecte des données et résume les données recueillies.