How can we get to the Russians in the Arctic?

12 671 32
How can we get to the Russians in the Arctic?

The Air National Guard's unique LC-130H ski-landing aircraft are in dire need of replacement as the importance of their Arctic mission increases and the existing aircraft reach critical aging.

The US Air Force is one step closer to finally receiving a replacement for its LC-130H "Ski Bird" polar transport aircraft. The Air Force and the Pentagon have adjusted their budget to advance the modernization plan, which is becoming increasingly urgent as the Arctic region gains greater strategic importance.




A New York Air National Guard LC-130 aircraft flies over the Capitol in 2020.

The situation is quite interesting: the Americans really want to work in the Arctic, but... they have no means to do so. Their existing aircraft, to put it mildly, have reached the end of their service life. You see, the whole point is that the term "work in the Arctic" encompasses not only the roaming of nuclear submarines and missile-carrying ships, but also a huge amount of peaceful work, such as geological exploration, mining, and so on. And while the US is doing well with its nuclear submarines, the peaceful component, represented by icebreakers and transport aircraft, is more than a little problematic.

And a decision was made to reallocate the Pentagon's budget. By law, the US armed forces must obtain Congressional approval to reallocate funding from one part of the budget to another.

The document states that $29 million in funds should be reallocated within the Air Force's research, development, test and evaluation (RDT) appropriations.

"This action allows for the reallocation of funds within appropriations for proper execution," the document states. "The reallocation is necessary to ensure the use of funds consistent with Congressional intent. These actions are deemed necessary in the public interest."


$29 million may seem like a small sum, but that doesn't make it any less significant. Essentially, this document concerns the transfer of funds to fund the development of modifications (known as one-time engineering solutions, or IEDs) that will be required to create the new LC-130J—a version of the more modern C-130J airframe with skid landing gear in a new configuration that has not yet been developed.

From an administrative perspective, the result has been a reallocation of funds from the larger C-130 project to specialized Hercules variants, including the HC-130J, MC-130J, and now the LC-130J.


Today, the ski-equipped LC-130H is used exclusively by the New York Air National Guard's 109th Airlift Wing, based at Stratton Air National Guard Base. These aircraft are primarily used for resupply at Arctic and Antarctic research stations and radar sites in the high Arctic. They land on ice and hard-packed snow runways. The Air National Guard has performed these missions since 1956, having begun using earlier versions of the Hercules for this purpose in 1959.


The Distant Early Warning (DEW) radar in Greenland was delivered on an LC-130 aircraft in 1972.

The Air Force's fleet of 10 LC-130Hs includes three aircraft converted from former Navy LC-130Rs. The newest of these are three aircraft built in 1995–1996. Since then, the aircraft have been upgraded with eight-bladed NP-2000 propellers, digital cockpit displays, new flight management systems, a multi-function radar, and other enhancements. The aircraft were also upgraded, along with other Air Force C-130Hs, as part of the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP).

However, the LC-130H aircraft, some of which were built in the 1970s, are clearly outdated: only five out of ten aircraft can fly their missions at any given time. Overall, these aircraft suffer from reliability issues and high maintenance costs, but that's better than nothing. The problem is compounded by the fact that all the aircraft have parts that require complete replacement, which is now virtually impossible as these components are no longer manufactured.

Congress has been pushing for a successor based on the C-130J for some time.


An LC-130 Ski Bird from the 109th Airlift Wing sits on the runway at Kangerlussuaq Airport, Greenland.

Back in 2017, Inside Defense reported that the National Guard was in talks with Lockheed Martin about potentially replacing its older aircraft with LC-130Js, but it wasn't until June of last year that the Senate appropriated $290 million to replace two LC-130Hs with two new LC-130Js.

Chuck Schumer, then the Senate Majority Leader and a vocal supporter of the LC-130H recapitalization, said, "We need the House to follow our lead as we continue to fight to secure this funding in the year-end appropriations bill. There's no time to waste when it comes to new aircraft for the 109th Airborne Division, and I will fight tooth and nail to ensure this funding is included in the final bill."

Schumer is calling on the Air Force to fund the production of new versions of aircraft capable of landing on ice and snow to replace its fleet of aircraft that are 30 to 50 years old. Schumer called the 109th Airlift Wing "a key element in supporting the National Science Foundation's polar research mission and maintaining U.S. presence and leadership in the Arctic and Antarctic."

"After more than thirty years of year-round operation in the harshest conditions, these aircraft have deteriorated and require constant maintenance, jeopardizing the safety of crews and their ability to perform their missions. That's why I've been pushing for years for the Air Force to renew this critical fleet so that new aircraft can land in the Capital Region."


Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Ray Shields, Adjutant General of the National Guard, said, "The acquisition of two new LC-130J Ski Bird aircraft through the FY 2025 NDAA is vital to our national security and supports the Department of Defense's Arctic Strategy and the National Science Foundation's missions in Antarctica and the Arctic."


Maintenance personnel from the New York Air National Guard's 109th Airlift Wing check a ski-equipped LC-130H aircraft after a mission to a remote scientific outpost in Greenland, July 29, 2010.

Last August, the Senate Appropriations Committee, a key congressional panel, outlined its requirements for the LC-130H replacement, recommending funding for the LC-130J. In its findings on the fiscal year 2025 defense spending bill, the committee called for $200 million to begin work on the project, stating the following:

"The Committee notes the importance of tactical airlift capabilities in polar regions for operations in the Arctic and Antarctic. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the study conducted by the Secretary of the Air Force, in collaboration with the Commander of U.S. Northern Command and the Director of the Air National Guard, entitled "LC-130 Fiscal Year 2023 Report," outlines improvements made in recent years to the LC-130H fleet currently serving in this mission. The study also notes that continued investments in modernization and performance enhancements will ensure the aircraft's relevance, viability, and future demand. However, the Committee understands that this report may not fully address the operational performance of these aircraft."


Supporters of the LC-130 and its continued use note that the aircraft are vital to maintaining and strengthening the United States' presence, operations, and research in the Arctic and Antarctic.


U.S. Marines from the 5th Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment load rocket M142 High-Impact Rocket Assault System (HIMARS) on a U.S. Air Force LC-130H aircraft during U.S. Northern Command's Arctic Edge exercise.

Yes, the Arctic is gaining increasing strategic importance as a region where the United States and its allies will face increasingly serious security challenges. It's understandable that not only Russia, which has always been content to hang out in the ice, but also others are developing a desire to be present in the region. China, for example, is working diligently to expand its presence in the region. The Chinese have long calculated that navigating the freezing temperatures of the Northern Sea Route is much safer than navigating the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal.

An increasingly strategic race for expanding control and military influence in the Arctic region is already unfolding. This is normal, just as it is normal for Russia to respond by increasing its permanent presence above the Arctic Circle.

Russia's many investments in the region include increasing its air and naval forces in the Arctic Circle, and the Russian military is establishing new bases and rebuilding those that fell into disuse after the Cold War.


A Russian MiG-31BM interceptor fighter jet at the Rogachevo Air Base on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, north of the Arctic Circle.

The Russian Ministry of Defense described this as "an experimental combat duty to protect the state border of the Russian Federation in Arctic airspace," but the experiment, which is yielding positive results, is already becoming a regular practice.

In fact, for many years, Russia has had over 50 facilities, airfields, and ports in the Arctic region from which it can launch air and sea strikes, potentially denying the United States and its allies access to the Arctic. Russia's maritime activity in the region is largely supported by its large and growing fleet Icebreakers, which significantly outnumber the US and allied fleets combined. Considering that the US and its allies have only one (one) icebreaker of the 9th ice class, and that the newest, most environmentally friendly Finnish icebreakers look like children's toys compared to Russia's nuclear-powered icebreakers, it's a bit unclear what they're even planning to use to break through the four-meter-thick Arctic ice.

Are they counting on global warming?

That's possible. As melting glaciers open up new shipping routes and provide access to natural resources that were previously inaccessible or at least much more difficult to exploit, the Arctic region's strategic importance will only grow. But this is a long-term matter. Will competitors wait? That's the question.

A relatively new player in this arena is China, which is eyeing new sea routes and natural resources. As a result, Beijing is expanding its presence in the Arctic, and in response, the Pentagon has called the Arctic an "increasingly competitive sphere," issuing specific warnings about China's growing interest in the region. But warning China is no less promising than waiting for the polar ice to melt.


The Zhong Shan Da Xue Ji Di, a Liberian-flagged ice-breaking research vessel owned by Sun Yat-sen University of China

But precisely because there are so many people who want to develop the Arctic and the US has so little manpower, it will be difficult for the American side, especially the military, to expand its presence in the Arctic in peacetime, let alone in wartime. Yes, nuclear-powered missile submarines are a good thing, they provide power and strength, but they are very difficult to hold territory with and practically impossible to develop. Submarines have a different purpose. But with all the other components, America is somewhat... tense, or something.

Incidentally, many in the world today believe that it is precisely this reality that is fueling interest in gaining control over Greenland, or at least in expanding the US military presence there, which Trump has talked about so much.

Meanwhile, existing LC-130Hs and 109th Squadron crews are also adapting to the new conditions.


For example, earlier this year, an LC-130H aircraft landed on freshwater ice for the first time in decades. In March, a Ski Bird landed on Parsons Lake in Inuvik, Canada, as part of a joint US-Canadian exercise.


An LC-130 Hercules aircraft assigned to the 109th Airlift Wing flies over Parsons Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada, March 4.

“We look forward to what the future holds for the LC-130 Hercules and the 109th Airlift Wing as we continue to develop our capabilities in the Arctic,” Lt. Col. Matthew Sala, 109th Airlift Wing commander, said in a press release.

Now that the LC-130J is on the horizon, the 109th Airlift Wing should be much better prepared to support operations—both military and civilian—in the challenging Arctic and Antarctic regions.

However, the 109th Air Wing's capabilities are, to put it mildly, limited. It must be acknowledged that its flight and maintenance crews are top-notch, know their business, and perform it superbly. During the 2011–2012 season, the crews of six LC-130H Ski-Herc transport aircraft completed 359 flights between McMurdo Station in Antarctica and eighteen destinations inland, transporting over 3,000 tons of cargo and fuel, as well as over 1,600 passengers.

The air wing effectively maintains the entire supply chain for US Antarctic stations. Every year, its aircraft provide personnel rotation and supplies to offshore research stations in Antarctica, transporting military personnel to northern outposts, and are an indispensable asset in this regard.

However, the number of aircraft the 109th Wing possesses is not just paltry, I'd say laughable. Six or seven aircraft, under the conditions they're used in in the US, are insufficient to provide everything necessary for the number of people who will be required to operate in the Arctic.


Two new aircraft are certainly a good thing, but they don't solve the problem of deploying a supply service to the Arctic if needed. The LC-130J Ski Bird offers some hope for the future, because without an icebreaker fleet comparable to Russia's, the US can only rely on transport aircraft with experienced crews capable of landing on ice and snow.

Playing on equal terms with Russia in the Arctic is catastrophically difficult, and the cost of such a game would be in the billions of dollars. This is something that needs to be understood on the other side of the world.
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -9
    8 October 2025 04: 01
    The only option for the US in the Arctic is to defeat Russia in war and take over its resources along with its icebreakers! (from alternative fiction - unwritten).
    1. 0
      8 October 2025 07: 09
      Quote: andrewkor
      The only option for the United States in the Arctic is to defeat Russia in war and take over its resources along with its icebreakers!
      Besides war, there is another way - to put someone in the Kremlin the conditional alcoholic Yeltsin with his Gaidar-Chubais collective Rasputin And all the resources will immediately be in their pockets. We already had this in the 90s...
  2. 12+
    8 October 2025 04: 32
    I apologize for my modest opinion, but I think, to compare Arctic air supply capabilities, it would be interesting to see what we can counter with potential Arctic adversaries. It turns out the US has six or seven aircraft, while we have, say, 50, or even two. I'd like to see the full picture. Perhaps this is a topic for a future article, or perhaps it's already been covered and I missed it...
    1. +5
      8 October 2025 05: 27
      Quote from turembo
      I would like to see the full picture.

      We definitely don't have machines like that to land on an ice floe.
      1. +3
        8 October 2025 22: 21
        We definitely don't have such machines.
        Until 2020, Russia annually built the Barneo ice airfield, located 100-200 km from the North Pole. Air traffic was maintained throughout the summer, but the airfield was closed for the winter. This continued until 2020. Then, due to COVID-19, and then due to the North Pole Air Defense, construction at Borneo was halted. During Soviet times, An-12 and Il-18 aircraft flew to Antarctica, but these were later replaced by Il-76s.
        1. +1
          9 October 2025 03: 48
          Quote: qwertyui_1
          During the Soviet era, they flew to Antarctica

          The USSR has been gone for 34 years.
          1. +1
            9 October 2025 16: 16
            The USSR has been gone for 34 years.
            What does the USSR have to do with this? I mentioned flights during the Soviet era to show that Arctic aviation began developing in our country a very long time ago. As for Russian aviation flights to Antarctica, the most widely covered was the arrival of Prince Harry of Wales at Lazarevskaya Station in 2013. Furthermore, a recent media report appeared about India leasing an Il-76 aircraft for flights to Antarctica.
  3. 11+
    8 October 2025 04: 40
    The main thing is that the neighbor's cow died. As for the fact that our roof is leaking and the whole yard is covered in manure, that's nothing.
    1. -7
      8 October 2025 07: 16
      Quote: vladimirvn
      The main thing is that the neighbor's cow died. As for the fact that our roof is leaking and the whole yard is covered in manure, that's nothing.
      I would really like for ours to have conditional neighbor The cow died. Fixing the roof and removing manure from your yard is just a matter of life. But unfortunately, the neighbor's cow just can't seem to die...
      1. +2
        8 October 2025 14: 16
        Quote: Luminman
        Quote: vladimirvn
        The main thing is that the neighbor's cow died. As for the fact that our roof is leaking and the whole yard is covered in manure, that's nothing.
        I would really like for ours to have conditional neighbor The cow died. Fixing the roof and removing manure from your yard is just a matter of life. But unfortunately, the neighbor's cow just can't seem to die...


        And the owner of everyday affairs has "hands from the butt"...
        It's the same in everything...
  4. +4
    8 October 2025 04: 52
    Knowing the current state of aircraft manufacturing in Russia, the article seems a bit vague – what kind of C-130 equivalents do we have that fly better? (Or maybe it's like this: the Americans have 5 C-130s, while we have a whopping 10... and even those are civilian An-24s.)
    1. -1
      8 October 2025 05: 29
      Quote: eskulap
      So, for example, the Americans have 5 with 130, and we have as much as 10... and -24

      The An-24 isn't equivalent to the C-130, which has four engines. We still have the An-12s flying, but they're likely to be retired soon.
      1. +1
        8 October 2025 08: 25
        That's what I'm hinting at - there probably aren't any military equivalents to the S-130 that can land on packed snow.
  5. 0
    8 October 2025 07: 03
    Quote: Puncher
    We definitely don't have machines like that to land on an ice floe.
    I believe we once used an An-12 with ski landing gear in the Arctic. But skis are not a panacea for landing an aircraft in Arctic conditions. An aircraft can land on a conventional wheeled landing gear, but this requires a solid snow and ice strip equipped with directional beacons and inertial navigation, which allows for precise positioning of the aircraft, even if the crew cannot see the runway due to a lack of visual references. As an example, I can cite the world's first landing on a snow-ice airfield in Antarctica in the late 90s of a heavy transport Il-76While ski landing gear certainly expands landing capabilities somewhat, it is not a necessary attribute for aircraft operations in northern latitudes.

    Well, to finish - in my opinion Any aircraft can be converted to ski landing gear, but only this landing gear will be non-retractable and will cause a significant loss of speed...
    1. +1
      8 October 2025 10: 35
      I think we once used an An-12 with ski landing gear in the Arctic.

      In 1961, a variant with fixed ski landing gear and air-heated skis used to propel the aircraft when they froze was tested—the An-12PL. Two examples were built.
  6. +2
    8 October 2025 07: 32
    The state of Arctic aviation in Russia is interesting.
  7. -2
    8 October 2025 08: 09
    Domestic aircraft such as the AN-3, AN-74, and AN-24 actively operate in the North, but the AN-2, which flew in the Arctic during Soviet times, stands out among them. It has undergone extensive modernization, including being equipped with new turboprop engines and modern navigation equipment, allowing it to operate in the changed conditions of the far north.
  8. +1
    8 October 2025 09: 59
    In Russia there are only 50 An 12 aircraft, which were produced until 1972.
    The amount of C 130 is off the charts.
    We don't even have the An 12 on ski chassis.
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      8 October 2025 11: 07
      What a crowd of polar aviation experts gathered here...

      Well, judging by your comment, you're far from an expert in this field either. Yes, the Il-18, Il-76, and An-74 can use snow and ice runways. But creating such a runway is far from a simple matter. Do you know what the VSN 37-76 MGA is?
  10. +1
    8 October 2025 13: 32
    We voluntarily stopped producing our An-12s. And there's nothing to replace them with in the next decade. Or even 20 years.
    1. +2
      8 October 2025 14: 08
      And we voluntarily stopped producing our An12s.

      The An-12 ceased production in 1972 due to the introduction of the Il-76. There were more than enough replacements—the An-70, Tu-330, and Il-276. But the USSR was gone, and with it, the Soviet civil and transport aircraft industries. Today, the ruins of the USSR, individually, cannot create anything competitive.
      1. +1
        8 October 2025 14: 15
        All of this is bigger than the An12. They stopped making the twin-turbocharged version.
        1. +2
          8 October 2025 14: 23
          The An-12 has four turboprop engines. The An-8, which ceased production in 1961, has two.
        2. 0
          8 October 2025 22: 08
          In fact, replicating the An-12(22) isn't all that difficult. Take an Il-76, replace its engines with NK-12 engines from a Tu-95, adapt an SV-27 (Russian) propfan from an An-70, and you've essentially got yourself an An-12 analogue. Nothing impossible about it; it would even be a better aircraft than the An-12.
          1. 0
            9 October 2025 09: 27
            The An112 is no longer difficult to replicate
            1. 0
              9 October 2025 11: 17
              If we're talking about the An-2, then it can't be repeated; there's simply no need, it's impractical and unprofitable.
              The accepted standard is two engines for aircraft with more than nine passengers, so two engines are required. A cheap piston engine is needed, so these two engines must be piston engines. Anything else is a waste of time and effort.
  11. -2
    8 October 2025 14: 14
    Has anyone already asked the author of this opus: how many ski-equipped planes of this class are there in the Russian Federation?
    thirty? 3? 2?
    or zero?
    otherwise, the author is somehow very mocking with the following phrase: The situation is quite interesting: the Americans really want to work in the Arctic, but... they have nothing to do with it.

    Although below it is written about 10 aircraft, of which 5 are guaranteed to be in service.
    1. +2
      8 October 2025 15: 10
      How many ski-equipped planes of this class are there in the Russian Federation?

      Russia doesn't have ski-equipped aircraft of this class. But they're not needed for the Arctic. This author is a "jack of all trades, out of boredom," he writes. Lockheed LC-130 aircraft weren't designed for the Arctic, but for Antarctica. In the Arctic, they are used situationally. In the Arctic, the C-130 can land on ice using its wheels, just like the An-12 or Il-76 (photo below), without any skis. In Antarctica, creating ice airfields is much more difficult. In areas suitable for airfields, the snow-firn cover is several tens or hundreds of meters thick, and only below is there a thick continental ice cover, which doesn't affect the load-bearing capacity.
      The snow-firn cover's ability. It is precisely this snow-firn cover that forms the foundation and the only building material for highly durable airfields. Building an airfield from firn requires specialized equipment and time, as it requires creating a meter-thick cushion with a density of up to 620 kg/m³. The Americans decided it was easier to put an airplane on skis than to transport specialized equipment to Antarctica. The USSR decided to build an airfield, and after testing ski landing gear on an An-12 in 1961, they abandoned the experiment.
      1. -5
        8 October 2025 15: 44
        Quote: Nikname2025
        How many ski-equipped planes of this class are there in the Russian Federation?

        Russia doesn't have ski-equipped aircraft of this class. But they're not needed for the Arctic.

        It is strange to consider only the territory of the Arctic Ocean as the Arctic.
        In fact, if you look at the map of the Russian Federation, then almost 1000-1500 km from the edge of the Arctic Ocean to the south may be needed in winter.
        There is a strong need for snow runways for aircraft.
        Which are made in a week. In any village.
        Which are much less demanding in terms of clearing freshly fallen snow.
        Which do not require serious airport infrastructure.
        As if we don't have remote villages, flights to which are much more popular by plane with skis than by helicopter.
        Amazing.

        I understand that in Soviet times they did crazy things while rolling in money.
        without worrying about the cost of construction and maintenance.
        When the money ran out, all Soviet people abandoned everything.
        Now, perhaps, it's worth studying again the experience of others, which allows us to do the same thing as we did before, but, let's say, this time "without money."
        1. -2
          8 October 2025 17: 13
          Which are made in a week. In any village.

          For An-12 class aircraft. In a week? In any town?
          Have you read the article?
  12. +3
    8 October 2025 16: 36
    Meanwhile, India chartered an Ilyushin IL-76 from Russia to replace its polar explorers in Antarctica. The Americans weren't even considered – they're such suckers. How do you like that, Trump?
  13. 0
    23 October 2025 11: 52
    What would happen if we hit the 109th Air Wing at the airfield with missiles... all 7 planes? Deer, dogs?