The C27's are a coming [Archive]

TBM-Legend

28th Dec 2011, 05:52

WASHINGTON, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Monday it approved the sale to Australia of 10 C-27J transport aircraft built by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc and Finmeccanica SpA unit Alenia, as well as associated equipment, in a deal worth about $950 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees major arms sales, said it notified Congress on Friday about the sale, which would also include 23 engines built by Britain's Rolls-Royce Group Plc and an array of sensors and radar systems. U.S. lawmakers have 30 days to block the sale, although such action is rare. The Pentagon agency said the proposed sale would allow the Australian Defense Force (ADF) to improve its capability to meet current and future air mobility needs and humanitarian operations and disaster relief efforts in Southeast Asia.

Gundog01

28th Dec 2011, 09:06

Think H model replacement rather than Caribou and that might suggest where they will be based.

I would suspect 38SQN would keep the kingair rather than getting rid of the capability 4-5 years after getting it....

Bushranger 71

28th Dec 2011, 19:55

The C-27 Spartan is more or less a mini-Herc not having comparable characteristics of the Caribou for remote regional wet tropics operations. Yet another move downgrading proven capabilities for operations in Australia's near neighbourhood. Only an upgraded 'Bou would adequately replace its predecessor.

TBM-Legend

28th Dec 2011, 20:54

B71, your key assumption is that the role hasn't changed. The whole AO of the ADF has shifted. Basing a need on a few trips to some remote corners of PNG to qualify the Caribou replacement is outdated. The Chinook can do that short rage small airfield stuff better than a 'bou.

The C-27J mission is very different. Transiting from TVL to DRW in a Caribou is an all day affair with no payload to speak of is where the Spartan beats the 'bou hands down. It is also equipped for ops in A/Stan or other likely hot spots.
You may recall the Caribou operations with the UN in the Kashmir last century. The aircraft could barely clear some of the mountains up there without any real payload.

Like the airlines moving on from the DC-3 it is time to move on from the wonderful Caribou...

FoxtrotAlpha18

29th Dec 2011, 01:13

Word is 35SQN will be resurrected within 84WG for the C-27Js and will be based at Richmond.

If the Penn-turbo or similar mod is such a good idea, why hasn't anyone else done it? It's time to step away from the 'upgrade 40+ year old airframes' mentality.

The C-27J will be a mini-Herc with some STOL capability, but nothing except a V-22 can replace a Caribou.

TBM-Legend

29th Dec 2011, 04:10

The other version of that is that 38 Sqn will hand their late model KA350's to 32 Sqn who phase their older models out and 38 will get the C-27's. Hawker Pacific I think have tied up the C-27 maintenance and are planning to use their big hangar in TVL.

Oh, time will tell. Either way it's a good move for Ronnie-RAAF....

Old Fella

29th Dec 2011, 08:29

Gundog01. The only aircraft which can replace the C130H is the C130J. The Spartan certainly could not be considered a replacement for the C130H, two very different aircraft with very different capabilities.

Trojan1981

29th Dec 2011, 10:31

Like this - Do that

To be honest I think it's about time the Army Air Dispatchers caught up with the rest of the aerial delivery world. The US mil are using GPS guidance units on ram-air cargo parachutes for pinpoint airdrop and here we are still thinking about LAPES and all that other stuff that puts high value aircraft in danger of being brought down by low value weapons.

This is a vital capability and Im glad it's coming. Once again we may be able to operate in our own region. I think holistic change is required though, not just platform change; and I fear that will not happen until we actually face a real threat in our own region. Sadly the Air Dispatch fraternity has been it's own worst enemy at times.

Like This - Do That

29th Dec 2011, 20:17

Trojan

Agreed that changes should come, and most expect that changes WILL come. What changes are going to be made? The JPADS approach has its fans but YIKES it's expensive. There's a snowball's chance in Hell that this will be done in the ADF other than have it approved and done once a year ... just to show it can be. Imagine how many times each year we'll drop boxes of rocks at $500k per sortie (aircraft cost not included) :eek:

The lightweight, low-cost disposable systems look promising; I have no idea if ALSPO or AMTDU have done work much in that regard.

LAPES may very well have gone; it certainly hasn't been done for a few years.

Will shoot you a PM to discuss further.

Cheers

wessex19

29th Dec 2011, 21:49

you are wrong Gundog01!!

Gundog01

29th Dec 2011, 22:02

Sorry guys a very ordinary post from me. When I said replacing H models I didn't mean capability i meant where the aircraft would be based. I will be more specific in the future.

I have also heard the 35SQN rumour...

For those who think 32SQN will update to the 38SQN Kingairs it is not a simple swap due to the mods required for the ACO training hardware. Besides tender has gone out for proline 2 SIM in East Sale.

Wessex 19 i guess only time will tell..

Arm out the window

29th Dec 2011, 22:40

Get those old Wallaby Airlines patches out of the shoebox on the top shelf of the cupboard, boys and girls ... I'd like to see that!

TBM-Legend

29th Dec 2011, 22:50

The tender for the Sim is only for 5 years. The changeover was mentioned by the powers that be in pre-qualification meetings.

Anyway the ADF needs some comms acft to support the troops so keeping two lots would be better..

Bushranger 71

30th Dec 2011, 01:52

Hi TBM-L; re your post #18. Defence White Paper 2009 says: The ADF's Primary Operational Environment - "Our strategic interests and defence posture suggest a primary focus for the ADF on tasks in our geographical vicinity (my emphasis). To guide defence planning, the Government has decided that the ADF's primary operational environment extends from the eastern Indian Ocean to the island states of Polynesia, and from the equator to the Southern Ocean..." Ergo, the whole AO for the ADF has not shifted, although some seem to be dreaming about trundling largish expeditionary forces around to fight more wars in faraway places.

Considering the pretty wobbly political scenarios among island States throughout the SW Pacific (PNG for example), it seems more likely than not that Australian intervention might be requested at some stage to help quell insurrection/ insurgency.

The traditional military short range transport (SRT) function has not changed, this generally being to provide cost-effective intra-theatre direct support; and neither has the harsh and difficult near neighbourhood operating environment altered. Sure the Chinook can do better is some respects; but generally speaking not always cost-effectively. SRT elements are usually logically based within an AO so your contention regarding longish range utilisation is irrelevant.

Regarding SRT helos, when the MRH90 (and Tiger) finally get into service, the ADF will soon realise the compound overhead costs of trying to operate them in remote environments and rue the path being taken with so-called helo fleet rationalisation. Operating costs for the ADF are going to soar prodigiously over the next few years and the huge reckless spend on defence will have to begin shrinking pretty soon.

The Caribou performed admirably in PNG and an enhanced turbo version would excel. I would wager that such a breed will emerge elsewhere in the world, as for the Dakota/BT-67. I think like many, you are ignoring the lessons of 60 plus years of military air operations in the nearby challenging wet tropics environs since WW2.

Wiley

30th Dec 2011, 02:45

Of their many complaints about RAAF support – (or their perceived lack thereof) – by the Army when the RAAF provided the helicopter support, the one that drew the most passion from Army was the RAAF’s unwillingness to leave their air assets (usually Iroquois and Caribous) out in the field, right on the FEBA, overnight. (I think ‘FEBA’ might be an out of date term today?) In the late 70’s and into the 80’s, the RAAF bent overboard to accommodate the Army over this demand, so that we saw, (I think ridiculously), Caribou crews digging shell scrapes beside their aircraft before they retired for the night to get their ‘rest’.

There was a double bunger effect in this misguided policy.

(1) The Army unit the Caribou crews was supporting would be doing its (only) two weeks in the field for the year, after which, it would retire back to its base, take a week to clean and service its equipment before everyone went on a well-earned leave break after living rough in the field. The Caribou crews would return Richmond or Townsville (where their aircraft could be properly serviced, which they couldn’t in the field) and be back in the field with a different aeroplane two or three days later supporting another Army unit for two more weeks, and so on ad infinitum for the whole year.

(2) No one ever seemed to ask the question how any potential enemy could fail to miss the massive ‘mortar magnet’ of a Caribou tail (even camouflaged, as they attempted to do) sticking up like a bloody beacon in the countryside or how the poor bloody groundies could hope to do anything but the most basic servicing on their aircraft after dark in a tactical environment demanding no or minimal lighting.

(3) As unfashionable as it was to say it, (and continues to be to this day, it would seem), this left crews dangerously unrested when forced to fly day after day (and all too often, night after night, sometimes with NVGs) in very demanding circumstances. It’s a fact, not an opinion, that this ridiculous situation lead to the death of a very experienced Iroquois crew who were killed in a CFIT accident when approaching an aerodrome at night after attempting (the operative word being ‘attempting’) to rest during the day for days on end in tents in the middle of a busy Army encampment in near 50 degree heat.

What makes this old Army sticking point and myth (“the RAAF work Tuesday to Thursday, from 1030 to 1330 and insist on staying in five star hotels”) even more problematic is the equipment they’ve purchased since taking over the rotary wing element. Without exception, it’s been ultra high tech ‘hangar queen’ equipment that will demand a high level of expert maintenance on a daily basis and which will be almost impossible to do in the field - and much of this maintenance, thanks to the horribly misguided policy that a recently-retired CDF and some before him allowed to be implemented, saw much of the ADF’s maintenance ‘outsourced’ to civilian contractors.

I wait with bated breath to see if – or how – they’re going to get civilians living in the field to service the Tigers and MRH90s.

The end result will be that the glossy, plastic wunderfleigers will be, (just as the RAAF Iroquois and Caribous did 40 years ago), be returning to a main base most nights if not every night so that they can be kept operating. Surely to God they're not going to insist that C-27 crews dig themselves shell scraps and sleep under their aircraft wing as the Caribou crews did in the 80s and beyond?

Arm out the window

30th Dec 2011, 03:48

I'm with you, BR71, in that I believe a turbine engined STOL cargo lifter like a re-engined Caribou would be a very capable and cost-effective way of continuing to fulfil our obligations in disaster relief and so on around the region, not to mention supporting exercises and operations as they arise.

Not only that, it would provide great opportunities for young aircrew to develop and maintain skills by flying a lot of hours (and interesting, challenging hours at that) rather than the kind of bare currency maintenance that is often the lot of the boggie on expensive, maintenance intensive types.

Wiley, I remember well those days of digging shell scrapes and wondering about the logic that dictated I should lower my hutchie during the day so the 'enemy' wouldn't be alerted by its presence, notwithstanding the towering Bou tails and rotor heads of our 35 SQN Iroquois parked nearby. A lot of shoulder-shrugging and 'ours is not to reason why'-ing went on! :)

TBM-Legend

30th Dec 2011, 05:26

It is of interest that no other country believes that their Air Force should operate 40+ year old re-engined Caribous or the like. Why would the ADF?

Let's enjoy the memories and move on. I too spent many a night in the boonies under the wing of a Caribou and if that had been the real thing then all would have been lost....

Andu

30th Dec 2011, 05:58

TBM, I have to agree... if we'd ever gone to war using the tactics employed back then, we wouldn't be having this debate about refurbishing 40+ year old airframes, because every one of them would have been destroyed the very first night they were deployed - to say nothing of the poor bloody crews sheltering in shallow shell scrapes under their wings or the unfortunate grunts camped within 300 metres of each huge Caribou tail.

But let's not forget what the real plan of action was - it got those softie Brylcreem Boys out of their hotel rooms and roughing it out in the field. Unfortunately, from too many comments I've seen here and elsewhere, the myth Wiley refers to above has been transplanted all too successfully into the minds of far too many of the young pilots in today's AAVN.

I wouldn't mind a beer for each of the Sundays I pre-positioned so as to be on station with the Army unit I was to support at 0900 Monday morning - not to mention how many weekends I flew in support of CMF/Reserve units. We usually got home on the Friday though, (if frequently quite late), 'cos 1530 Friday was sacrosanct - POETS* day for every grunt unit I ever worked with.

(POETS day: "Piss Off Early, Tomorrow's Saturday")

Like This - Do That

30th Dec 2011, 06:56

OK, so let's forget what it replaces :ugh: or doesn't.

What does it bring to the table? Triple spar wings, Blue Force Tracker, RWR, adaptive countermeasures, software-defined radios, IFF, encrypted comms .... all the stuff needed to do clever and sneaky peaky things over hostile terrain (not just hostile physical terrain).

I like the sound of cheap & cheerful old busses like Iroquois and Caribou ... but I also like the sound of the Spartan. And if others refuse to budge intellectually than so can I: I hope my diggers get to push sh1t out the back of them - Ronnie Loadie Mafia - and progress - be damned :ok:

Bushranger 71

30th Dec 2011, 06:58

TBM-L, Andu; just in case you have not noticed, Australia is one of few countries in the world boring ahead with unaffordable defence expenditure toward capabilities based on a questionable defence policy. Nowhere in air capabilities planning has there seemed any intent to provide the most cost-effective (optimised) hardware that will adequately do the job and so make the defence dollar go further. It just astounds me that some more recent retirees and many serving members seem blase regarding the continued reckless splashing of taxpayer dollars.

Well; it is all going to catch up somewhere down the track and the ADF will predictably become somewhat neutered because many of its overly-ambitious expensive capability programs will not be able to be maintained because operating costs will soar and some military roles may even have to be curtailed. In harder times coming, taxpayers are not going to be very supportive of increased defence expenditure by an organisation that a Senate Committee has already deemed dysfunctional.

I guess we will just have to wait and see which sensible nation around the world reintroduces the Caribou into military service, for cost-effective reasons. Maybe it will be Air America (the CIA) as they found them very useful previously! Have another peep at this site: Pen Turbo Aviation (http://www.penturbo.com/)

TBM-Legend

30th Dec 2011, 08:50

B71, your comments are as always interesting but let's look at the facts. No first or second rate Air Force or Army has gone ahead with Huey 11 or Turbine Caribou. Both have been around for a long time. The first turbine Caribou flew 10-15 years ago and no takers. The same could be said for the S-2 Tracker. Mighty ship in their day but only Brasil converted a handful to turbines and a few more got a new lease as turbine S-2T firebombers mainly because the airframes were given to the CDF [California] and Conair in Canada did a few more.

The F27/HS748 types mostly replaced the DC-3 but they're just about extinct as well.

Your argument on defence expenditure might make some sense but I think in Australia the mob in charge today are wasting billions of $$$$ on pink batts/BER and other social issues. At least the ADF gets a new set of toys which if they wait they may never get and we are worse off.....

Airlift with the RAAF is really pretty good with KC-30/C-17/C-130J and now C-27J:ok:

Can they keep them flying? Well only the politicians know that!

PS: what has Amrock Aviation, new "owner" of the last 7 'bous done lately with them??

Arm out the window

30th Dec 2011, 09:51

I don't think anyone is suggesting we'd send crews to sleep under Caribou wings - that was never going to work in reality, even when we practiced it.

Nor would I want to go back to trying to coax old airframes and engines to hang together just that little bit longer to get the job done - too unreliable and costly.

I'd like to see rigorous assurances given that a re-engined Caribou wouldn't run into problems with airframe fatigue as put the final nail in the RAAF Caribou coffin, but if that could be done it'd be a great asset.

We can get all theoretical about what Australia's future role in conflicts might be, but the type has proven itself over and over in the afore-mentioned disaster relief work, which is undeniably a very important part of our defence presence in the region.

The development of skilled aircrew in a relatively low-cost, capable platform is not to be dismissed either, if we're to maintain a robust pool of operators with surge capability. Instead of spending gazillions on a small number of really expensive aircraft that are hard and costly to maintain, it makes sense to me to mitigate the situation somewhat by having a cheaper machine that flies heaps of hours, does lots of work, keeps the Army happy because it can turn up reliably, and provides some of the most useful and challenging flying available to Australian crews by allowing ops into most of the strips in PNG.

As for battlefield survivability, I'd suggest a Chinook would be just as vulnerable as a turbo Caribou fitted with equivalent countermeasures.

This isn't sentimentality speaking - trying to resurrect old buggered Caribous, as we did for a long time, was a losing battle. However, the sheer usefulness of the type makes it well worth considering for replacement with a revamped, reliable equivalent.

How much is a Pen Turbo Bou, Bushy 71, do you know? I bet you could get a bunch of them for the cost of a C-27, and maintain them for a lot less.

BBadanov

30th Dec 2011, 10:16

Nor would I want to go back to trying to coax old airframes and engines to hang together just that little bit longer to get the job done - too unreliable and costly.

Yes, old airframes. This led to the grounding of the Caribou - I believe it was a cracked elevator bracket which gave the crew a windscreen of dirt approaching Iron Range. They were so lucky, and the only Caribou flights after that were to storage and museums.

I bet you could get a bunch of them for the cost of a C-27, and maintain them for a lot less.

Yes, you are right. While we need to be assured the integrity of the airframes are "new build" standard, our recent "Rolls Royce" selections of Tiger and MRH90 have been disastrous. And having seen C-27 doing rolling aeros at Avalon, I am not convinced this is the criteria for a Caribou replacement. I have also made the point, we could be stuck with an orphan here, with US production of C-27J being ratcheted right back because of US Army/USAF infighting. If US production does stop around 15, aren't we mugs tacking 10 more on the end?

Doors Off

30th Dec 2011, 13:33

BBadinov, B71,

maybe you should update your expert knowledge of the Tiger. Disastrous? They are all go and shooting at night - what is the issue? There are a bunch of articles on the net. Your statements of how disastrous the Tiger is got me searching and alas, I found a bunch of recent articles.

MRH, no argument yet. It still seems to be in trouble. I am sure that it will be good in the end though.

I don't think anything can "replace" the Caribou. The next best thing is a Chinook with aerial refuelling capability, after that the C27J. But I doubt the Air Force would want to give up a Sqn to the Army (can't say I blame them). They seem stuck in the dark ages (the army that is).

Cheers,

Doors Off

rigpiggy

30th Dec 2011, 15:31

I like the idea of an upgraded "Bou". It is called the Buffalo, and if the RAAF, asked for new builds with either PW150's or Ae2100's in conjunction with a RCAF FWSAR requirement you would have what you need for short/nasty/brutish ops

bingo doubt

30th Dec 2011, 16:21

And we should re-engine the pigs for supercruise and strap slammers to them....

Though, they do roll the old big-donk Canberra out of the shed for a spin here every now and then...

At least the C27 will work, so from an acquisition perspective, it's way ahead of numerous other problem children.

Bushranger 71

30th Dec 2011, 19:38

A couple of aspects are disturbing so a final input from me this topic.

In multiple threads this forum and elsewhere, inherent apprehension seems conveyed by some who may have served in recent conflicts regarding aircraft platform survivability and risk of personnel casualties. Most types can be optimised by fitment of enhancements to improve combat readiness and hardware manufacturers usually get type certifications for new kit pretty quickly so they can sell more of their gear. But alas, Australia has largely not gone down that track as evidenced by systems deficiencies in Chinook and Blackhawk when they were first considered for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. And of course, useful hardware that is shed is inevitably refurbished/optimised by others for service elsewhere in the world.

Military involvement in conflict is unpredictable and nations have historically had to make best use of platforms in service. Survivability always depends more on operating practices than any other factors and there will inevitably be some equipment losses and personnel casualties in combat (521 Australians killed and 3,000 plus wounded in the Vietnam War). But one has to ponder the underlying culture within the Australian DoD when many media announcements over-emphasize the suitability of expensive new platforms for aid to civil power tertiary roles, be it disaster relief, humanitarian aid or whatever. The primary purpose for acquiring such hardware is military applications and if that is going to be subordinated, then the Australian Government is giving the ADF a warm and fuzzy 'Peace Corps' flavour.

AOTW; specific cost of a Penn-Turbo Caribou unknown, but there is some interesting discussion re cost factors at this link: http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Turbo-Caribou-July-05.pdf . The base price for a Basler BT-67 (turbo-Dakota) is about $4.5 million, depending on how configured (see here: Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.baslerturbo.com/faq.html)) so maybe thereabouts for a turbo-Caribou. Perhaps 5 or so for the unit price of one MRH90 or 7 for one C-27 Spartan!

That turbo-'Bou are not yet operated militarily by others matters nought if it is the most cost-effective option for fixed wing SRT operations in Australia's near neighbourhood. See the military/para-military operators for BT-67 versions (USAF gets mention).

Enough from me. Wishing all a satisfying Year 2012.

BBadanov

30th Dec 2011, 20:00

Doors off: maybe you should update your expert knowledge of the Tiger. Disastrous? They are all go and shooting at night - what is the issue?

So DO,
You suggest the AIR87 project to get a helo to "shoot at night" - which has taken now 20 years - is not an issue??
It comes back to our system of procurement. Drawn-out studies, goal posts changed for capability creep, Australian mods, more committees, more creep and delays, "enter service" but no IOC for a further 6 years...

Yep, a classic procurement. What's the issue indeed !!

TBM-Legend

30th Dec 2011, 22:15

Buying Off the shelf of proven technologies is the only answer for a small nation like ours. If you look at the successful programs they follow that model. All the other where we've created some role or platform configuration that no-one else has have ended in financial and or operation performance disaster. There is a message right there.

Gundog01

31st Dec 2011, 01:15

BBadanov

This led to the grounding of the Caribou - I believe it was a cracked elevator bracket which gave the crew a windscreen of dirt approaching Iron Range. They were so lucky, and the only Caribou flights after that were to storage and museums.

This is incorrect. The broken bracket had more to do with non-RAAF maintenance forgetting to put some bolts in than fatigue. I personally flew several ADF support taks and in PNG following the incident without any concern about airframe fatigue.

Bushranger 71

31st Dec 2011, 02:06

Returning briefly only to answer post #35.

TBM-L; it does not matter a bugger really what anybody else operates for SRT roles. The requirement should be about 'horses for courses' best suited to what we should have learned from 60 plus years of military air operations throughout the northern archipelago.

Respectfully Mate; do some research. There are around 500 or so DC3/Dakota/BT-67 still flying around the world today, including for military requirements, and the Penn Turbo program is a manufacturing rebuild of the Caribou. Similarly for the Huey II which derives from an ongoing Bell Helicopter rebuild/enhancement program and there are still around 5,000 Hotel model Iroquois flying in military and civilian roles around the world with upwards of 200 Huey II now in military and civilian service with long supportability envisaged.

It is very easy to write a requirement in Canberra around whatever a particular lobbyist is peddling and thus scratch other competitors because they do not exactly equate. That was going on during my time in that place.

Just consider these estimated unit cost numbers without making any allowance for presumed whole of life support.

50 x Huey II would cost around $100million and another $100million would get maybe 10 BT-67 plus 10 Turbo-'Bou, depending on configuration requirements.

Assuming unit cost of MRH90 and C-27 Spartan similar, 46 x MRH90 plus 10 x C-27 Spartan may have an overall unit cost of around $1.7billion for 56 airframes.

So; about $200million for 70 basic reliable and easily maintainable platforms versus around $1.7billion for 56 more complex and somewhat unproven airframes that will foreseeably be more difficult to maintain and support in remote operating environs.

Its a no-brainer; but thinking outside the square and cost-effectively seems to be beyond that lot in Canberra.

There are no issues with airframe soundness for either the BT-67 or Turbo-Caribou otherwise they would not have received airworthiness certification.

I rest my case. Happy New Year!

Arm out the window

31st Dec 2011, 03:06

Further to the grounding of the Caribou fleet, the main driver for that was the one that had a structural failure due fatigue at Efogi in PNG in 2008.

Many would have seen the photos
(here, in post 15: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/345235-raaf-retire-caribou.html of the port engine hanging a foot or so lower than the starboard. I believe they landed for a crew changeover, which was thankfully when the damage was noticed.

If they'd just turned around and taken off again without anyone getting out for a look, it would have been very nasty.

Gundog01

31st Dec 2011, 08:46

AOTW, All,

Further to the grounding of the Caribou fleet, the main driver for that was the one that had a structural failure due fatigue at Efogi in PNG in 2008.

With respect to the above, I generally only bite when I am fairly confident something posted is incorrect. Hence I must mention that while Aus Aviation is a reputable source of info on aviation matters, in this instance it is not accurately reporting the cause of the Efogi Accident.

Sections of the wing spar were sent to DSTO for analysis and there was no actual findings (from my understanding) of fatigue as such. The cause (again from my understanding) is still an unknown failure mode.

It may be more than coincident that the same aircraft spent extended periods in deep maintenenace getting repairs for an engine fire that damaged the wing spar and surrounding area.

I am not a Turbo Caribou spruiker as i think the output that the Caribou genrated in it's final years (2006-2008) was minimal with most of my hours coming from Continuation Training and Pilot deveopment or PNG trainers. The odd occasion when you need to land on a 1500ft, 12.5% upslope runway are so few and far between that the cost of maintaining it outways the benefits.

C27J is good for RAAF and good for Aus. Will be deployable to all AO's where Aus is likely to operate, will supplement Herc strategic lift when required and complement rotary assests in tactical airlift. SF will be well looke after with a relaiable and capable aircraft for work up and deployment.

Just need to get in contact with DP to secure my place.......

Arm out the window

1st Jan 2012, 22:38

Fair enough, if the jury's still out on the cause of the structural failure at Efogi then there might be long life in the old airframes yet. If there was any serious thought about acquiring revamped airframes then obviously we'd need to be as sure as possible that they wouldn't run into fatigue problems a few years down the track.

Even if the argument seems pretty much academic now, I still think it'd be a great platform for developing good operators while fulfulling our obligations in the region. PNG trainers are, of course, training, but they provide some of the best aircrew development I can think of.

I keep coming back to the idea that for a robust flexible aircrew pool, boggies should be flying their bums off learning their trade under conditions that require them to plan carefully, exercise their skills and make important decisions, all of which are encompassed in things like PNG flying.

I haven't been involved in the airlift game for some time, so I don't know - how is it for boggies in the transport world these days? Do they get the flying and development they need?

TBM-Legend

1st Jan 2012, 22:41

They are flying King Air 350's now which are the best in their class. 32 and 38 Sqn's have 16 of these machines. What are we talking about that there are no birds to fly for boggies?

Arm out the window

1st Jan 2012, 23:07

Yeah, that's a point, as long as the tasking is varied and challenging enough.

TBM-Legend

2nd Jan 2012, 00:17

Back on the Turbine 'bou. It is not capable of carrying any of the current Army vehicles as they like us have got bigger and heavier. Even the C295 is out for the same reason. Its hold dimensions are similar to the Chinook [well a bit longer]..

Gundog01

2nd Jan 2012, 04:12

AOTW, nothing more vaired and definately challenging than dragging 4 ACOs around Australia!!!:zzz:

Andu

2nd Jan 2012, 04:26

Let's all hope and pray that the Spartan's introduction to service goes as smoothly as the C-17's did - which it should if DMO is kept at arm's length.

My good wishes to those fortunate enough to get to fly - and fly in - the new beast. I'm sure it will be a welcome addition after flying the King Air.

Like This - Do That

31st Jan 2012, 13:11

Reports now surfacing of the USAF's intention to ditch the aircraft altogether :eek:

USAF woes clip C-27J’s wings in Australia (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-woes-clip-c-27js-wings-in-australia-367521/)

Panetta Said to Seek Cancellation of L-3’s U.S. Army C-27J Transport Plane (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/panetta-is-said-to-seek-cancellation-of-u-s-army-c-27j-transport-aircraft.html)

Here we go ....

Anonymous Australian DMO Official: "Hello, can I speak to Mr Martin Lockheed please"
L3 Receptionist: "I'm sorry, Mr Lockheed is in a meeting at the moment, can I take a message?"
AADMOO: "Errr yes please ... can you find out if we can arrange for the delivery of some C-130Hs please? We'll be in next week, apart from pay week raffle on Thursday afternoon and early knock off on Friday" :ugh:

500N

31st Jan 2012, 16:28

Like this do that

No, that would go against the trend in our purchases of Defence equipment,
we'll buy it as they know that we can stuff around with the configuration
and make a Square peg fit in a round hole !!!

BEagle

31st Jan 2012, 16:42

Perhaps sir might consider some alternatives?

C295 CN235 C212 (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Tactical.aspx)

From the company who brought your the KC-30A......

.....hang on just a minute :\!!

FlareHighLandLong

1st Feb 2012, 11:07

Why not just buy 10 more Js????

No extra parts pool/regulation/sim
Better range/payload/workforce flex

Tiny extra cost per mile due fuel and 2 extra donks to maintain

Very similar short field performance

herkman

1st Feb 2012, 21:44

Because the C130 particularly the stretched version cannot operate where the C 27 can.

If the C27 cannot be supplied or supported then it looks like we have to start again.

Bugger

Regards

Col

BBadanov

2nd Feb 2012, 01:19

If the C27 cannot be supplied or supported then it looks like we have to start again.
Bugger

That's right Col.

See my post #9 of 23 Dec, and #37 of 30 Dec. It's gonna be an orphan!! :ugh:

BBad

Barry Bernoulli

2nd Feb 2012, 08:20

Col,

If the C27 cannot be supplied or supported then it looks like we have to start again.
If the project documentation is written around a requirement there should be no need to start again; just look to the next best available option.

Of course, if BR71's assertion below is as true now as it was then, that would be another matter.

It is very easy to write a requirement in Canberra around whatever a particular lobbyist is peddling and thus scratch other competitors because they do not exactly equate. That was going on during my time in that place.

NURSE

2nd Feb 2012, 09:14

if Lockheed isn't selling are the Italians still building them?

FlareHighLandLong

2nd Feb 2012, 11:13

Because the C130 particularly the stretched version cannot operate where the C 27 can.

Are you sure????

Like This - Do That

2nd Feb 2012, 11:58

Hardly the point. Exercising one's Google-Fu will show that the USAF and the US Army are at 20 paces over urgent small scale tactical lift. A C-130J is too expensive and too valuable for the Air Force to task with lifting small - but urgent - loads or pers.

Do I detect a familiar story developing? :}

US Army is apparently spitting chips, and frankly I can't blame them, considering it was (in the US) a green system before its ownership was reallocated.

ADF can't afford such a pissing contest: we're too small; we're too underfunded; we're too vulnerable to bureaucratic argy-bargy; we're too risk-averse. An off-the-shelf solution is necessary and its need is immediate. On a day-to-day basis I see profound capability gaps due to the lack of tactical lift.

BTW we're now the proud owners of another couple of Chooks:

Minister for Defence – Acceptance of two CH-47D Chinook Helicopters (http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/02/01/minister-for-defence-acceptance-of-two-ch-47d-chinook-helicopters/)

Gee. Seven airframes Two of which will be deployed, two will be available for tasking and ... you get the message. All the while we're spending how many dollars per job supporting the car industry? Methanol production? Spending how much on detention centres? Good thing we'll never have to fight any wars ever again.:(

500N

2nd Feb 2012, 12:05

ltdt

"Gee. Seven airframes Two of which will be deployed, two will be available for tasking and ... you get the message. All the while we're spending how many dollars per job supporting the car industry? Methanol production? Spending how much on detention centres? Good thing we'll never have to fight any wars ever again.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif"

Don't forget the solar panel rebate, roof insulation, over inflated prices for the school rebuilding program .........., oh, and propping up the sub builder, yep, I agree with you, off the shelf the way to go and quickly.
.

herkman

2nd Feb 2012, 17:57

Taken straight from the Alenia site

Maximum AUW 70,105 lbs Take off length 550m or 1806 ft

landing at 66140 lbs which is maximun length 1067 ft

Whilst I have crewed a C130 which went close it was not a C130J and one would consider it unlikely to be achievable unless all the cargo was the crews lunches.

As you would know I am a fan of the C130 but for short field operations the C27J has the edge.

Regards

Col

herkman

2nd Feb 2012, 18:15

Taken from Lockheed site, however as the C27 Has no clearance at 50ft have used the clean ones which will make it a level playing field.

Max AUW 155,000 lbs 3290 feet

Landing 1400 feet

dems are the fact from the manufacturer

Col

rjtjrt

2nd Feb 2012, 23:26

"Taken from Lockheed site, however as the C27 Has no clearance at 50ft have used the clean ones which will make it a level playing field.

Max AUW 155,000 lbs 3290 feet

Landing 1400 feet"

Col
Surely a fairer comparison would be to see what landing and takeoff distance for C-130J is, carrying same payload as C-27 can.
Possibly much harder to get the comparable figures though.
John

FlareHighLandLong

3rd Feb 2012, 01:46

Herkman,

Consider significantly improved J performance over H/SuperE, and make sure to check out the Max Effort tables, not the standard ones.

Let's also consider departure performance in some hot and high locations, like, for example, Afghanistan. How do you think a C27J on one would compare to a J on 3 after a single engine failure. I'd suggest the C27 would be in struggle town with anything more than 'the crew lunches'.

ozbiggles

3rd Feb 2012, 02:28

You don't send a truck to do a ute worth of work or
You don't send a C17 to do a twin otters worth of load.
Sending a C130J around a war zone with a 2000lb load doesn't make sense IF you can afford the options.
Finding a fixed wing aircraft around the place with Caribou performance but Herc load capability isn't going to happen.
This is about finding a smaller but capable trash hauler that can have half a chance of defending itself and operate at a cheaper rate. Now there is the challenge.
What the reduction in the USAs defence force (and current state of their space program shows) is just how out of control their financial situation is becoming.

MTOW

3rd Feb 2012, 03:35

You don't send a truck to do a ute worth of work or
You don't send a C17 to do a Twin Otter's worth of load.It seems to me that that is EXACTLY what the ADF is doing with their future rotary wing force (both in troop lift and gunship/recce) - that's when they can get either one of them to work.

Barry Bernoulli

3rd Feb 2012, 06:05

To compare apples with apples:

From the brochure on the C-27J website: The C-27J Spartan | C27J (http://www.c27j.com/)

The C-27J has a range of 1000nm with 22046lbs of payload for logistics operations. Logistics operations have a MTOW of 70107lbs. The tactical take-off ground run of 1903ft, however, applies to basic operations which have a MTOW of 67241lbs. Thus for a 1903ft tactical ground run and a 1000nm transit, the max payload will be about 19200lbs.

A C-130J-30 with an identical 19200lb payload and fuel, including reserves, for a 1000nm transit would have a take-off weight of around 127000lbs. The max-effort take-off ground run for a C-130J-30 at 127000lbs is 1800ft, 100ft less that the C-27J with an equivalent payload.

Note that minimum field length (includes abort distance) for max-effort take-off for C-130J in that configuration would be around 2400ft. I can't find equivalent figures for the C-27J.

Simarly, the max landing weight of a C-27J is 60627lb. With an empty weight of 37500lbs, that means that max payload on landing with IFR fuel reserves would be around 20000-21000lbs. A C-130J-30 landing with IFR fuel reserves and a 21000lb payload would have a max-effort landing ground roll of around 1300ft compared to the C-27J's 1115ft. Not much in it.

Dems also the facts Col.

Beware the snake oil salesman.

Turkeyslapper

3rd Feb 2012, 06:47

Apologies if this has been done before but what about the Osprey...surely that is the best of both worlds and it doesn't need a runway?

Is it price?

Cheers

Turkey

ozbiggles

3rd Feb 2012, 10:28

MTOW
That might have been the intent, however I think the actual performance of the newbies is just a little bit (:})less than what might have been in the glossy sales magazine.
Therefore we may have paid for a truck and got a ute anyway!

Martin the Martian

3rd Feb 2012, 15:24

Can somebody please explain to me in words of one syllable how the USAF cancelling the C-27J would affect whether or not the RAAF still buy it. Last time I checked, it was built in Italy, and had been happily sold to other countries regardless of US interest. So, even if the USAF are out of that particular game, wouldn't the RAAF still go to Alenia?:confused:

FlareHighLandLong

4th Feb 2012, 00:58

Because modern frames require constant upgrading of software and systems. THIS IS A BIG DEAL! It's all about network centric warfare - platforms that facilitate effective co-operation and communication to play as part of the bigger team - Link, SATCOM etc etc. All this is why the F-111, bou were never going to be retained. It's not just about the capability numbers. It's about the english speaking good guys going to war together and being able to co-operate because a large percentage of our kit is the same or very similar.

Even if the C27 makes sense from a capability perspective, we don't want to be the only western force using it, it will end up sucking a disproportionate amount of resources.

C27 is the 'baby J'
and
C130J has constant block upgrade requirements
Therefore
C27J will need constant upgrading as well

C130J block upgrades are driven by USAF
but
USAF/US Army aren't playing with C27
therefore
no-one will be taking the lead in keeping upgrades up to speed

Together:
C27 needs upgrades
and
no-one will be taking the lead
therefore
we have an orphan type that we do not have the technical ability or resources to maintain

FoxtrotAlpha18

6th Feb 2012, 02:13

C-27J site survey at RIC has been done, and RAAF is still keen to press. Minister will need some convincing though.

New wing boxes for the C-130Hs anyone?

GreenKnight121

6th Feb 2012, 09:02

The US Air National Guard has a number of C-27J delivered and flying, including 2 hopping about somewhere "hot, high, and hectic"... so you'd get pretty quick delivery if Congress doesn't step in.

Like This - Do That

9th May 2012, 23:44

Announced today:

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – New Battlefield aircraft for the Air Force (http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/05/10/minister-for-defence-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-joint-media-release-new-battlefield-aircraft-for-the-air-force/)

FoxtrotAlpha18

10th May 2012, 00:00

Finally...doesn't appease the displaced C-130H Navs...sorry, ACOs though!

ol-mate

10th May 2012, 00:33

Anyone got any info on which squadron will operate them?

I was under the impression 38 Squadron would take them on, clearly not the case, unless they're moving to Richmond.

FoxtrotAlpha18

10th May 2012, 00:58

35SQN will be resurrected at Richmond

FlareHighLandLong

10th May 2012, 11:42

My compliments to the RAAF.
12 H models effectively now 6 C17s. Capability increase
?? Bonus now 10 C27. We could argue all night, but at least these are useful for the real world not just PNG/FNQ. (Capability increase in my book)

Both not a bad upgrade, PLUS there's now a spare 8 KA350s floating around.

Nifty work to get nice new modern planes and some bonus King Airs for 3 FTS/streaming/whatever you want to call it face the facts it's now how we get kids ready to fly multi-crew multi-eng automation because god knows 2FTS doesn't do it.

BluenGreen

11th May 2012, 07:45

38 SQN has got its KA350's, PEA has contract SAR, Nowra (PTS) has 2 x SkyVan. Where is there left that makes any sense?:ooh:

TBM-Legend

11th May 2012, 10:12

Actually the RAAF is in its best equipment phase ever. For once we've got most roles covered with a "Rolls" solution.:D

Slezy9

11th May 2012, 12:16

Nifty work to get nice new modern planes and some bonus King Airs for 3 FTS/streaming/whatever you want to call it face the facts it's now how we get kids ready to fly multi-crew multi-eng automation because god knows 2FTS doesn't do it.

I hope you are not having a go at the instructors at 2FTS, we are working with an aircraft that is 20 years old, no GPS, no AP and a fast jet controlled curriculum.

The goal of 2FTS is to graduate a student who is in theory capable of passing 79SQN, nothing more. The multi-crew/engine training is and always has been done on the OCU.

Captain Sand Dune

11th May 2012, 12:48

FlareHighLandLong

11th May 2012, 13:00

Definitely know what I am talking about. You may not though.

Not criticizing the instructors, just the system. Just because it has always been this way doesn't Mean it should be. Come back when you can accept change when it's necessary.

Crm and automation are the core skills of most of the raaf's pilots, but we use big swept wing jets to teach. Apparently 2 dedicated training sqns is not enough for the knucks, the schools need to be set up for their convenience as well.

Remember the experience levels in the non qfi workforce that mentors the boggies after opcon has dropped to a tiny fraction of what it was even 10 years ago. Like it or not the training system needs to prep these guys better or it will come home to roost soon.

Will be interested to see how the raaf structures training when the Ucavs take over post f35.

500N

11th May 2012, 20:28

A major Defence contractor has accused Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, of failing to tell the truth when he said there had been a competition to choose Australia's next battlefield airlifter.
"Airbus Military is obliged to place on the public record our disappointment at the Minister's choice of words," a spokesman said. "There was no tender process and certainly no competition."
Mr Smith, responding to a specific question at a press conference yesterday, said there had been a competition between Airbus Military's C295 and the Alenia C-27J. "We down-selected the C27J," he said.
Advertisement: Story continues below
"Whenever a choice is made between competitors, there is always someone who's pleased with the outcome and someone who's disappointed. We've done the due diligence and we've come to the conclusion that the C-27 was the preferred choice for us."
Airbus Military says due diligence was lacking and that Defence is spending three times as much money for planes that can't be delivered before 2015.
"Defence seems to have rejected its own tried, tested and proven process of evaluating competing platforms," the spokesman said.
"Selection of the C-27J for $1.4 billion appears to have been based largely on the RAAFs own desktop assessments. This effort falls short of a full evaluation process."
Airbus said it could have had planes ready for delivery in six months - not three years - and that they would have cost a third of what is going to paid for the C-27J.
"Despite Airbus Military expending considerable resources responding to inquiries and requests for rudimentary information we are concerned the outcome may have been predetermined from the start.
An industry insider said there had been plenty of time to conduct a rigorous and formal competition between the two planes - the Rudd Government retired the Caribous, which the new aircraft will replace, in 2009 and the ADF has been having to make do in the meantime.
"The Minister says 10 C27Js will cost $1.4 billion - isn't that close to or even more than what you would pay for a JSF," he said.
"My understanding is nine of the 10 Australian aircraft are ones the US (which has mothballed its C-27J fleet) is no longer taking. I believe the US price was around $30 million or $31 million a unit (roughly the same as the C295). Why are they costing us so much?"
The Canberra Times has sought comment from Mr Smith's office on the Airbus Military claims.

Read more: Airbus accuses Smith of lying about Defence tender (http://www.smh.com.au/national/airbus-accuses-smith-of-lying-about-defence-tender-20120511-1yhfs.html#ixzz1uawZjEfG)

Are we getting the mothballed US fleet ?

Flyingblind

11th May 2012, 23:10

I remember the RAAF having a look at the CASA aircraft in the early 90's at RAAF Richmond.

It stood at in front of the 1 AMTDU (Air Movements Training and Development Unit: Royal Australian Air Force (http://www.airforce.gov.au/units/amtd.aspx))
hanger for a few weeks completing load/air drop trials.

I asked one of the RAAF engineers what his thoughts were and (from memory) he said, "it's alright......a bit soft though....wouldn't last long in the bush and it's biggest problem?....an Aussie grunt in parachute rig cannot jump out of the para doors, there too small in both height and width! In essence it's a Hyundai when we need a Toyota".

Captain Sand Dune

11th May 2012, 23:25

it's now how we get kids ready to fly multi-crew multi-eng automation because god knows 2FTS doesn't do it.
The way that was written I understood that you were of the opinion that M-E training should be 2FTS' role. Hence my response.
The ADF has never had a dedicated M-E training capability such as you suggest, however we seem to get by.
Nevertheless I agree with your assertion that a separate M-E training system would be advantageous. However there must be a commensurate reduction of the length of OPCONs. A secondary task for such a unit could be ferrying around ADF personnel rather than using operational types as personal taxis for senior officers as is currently the case.

herkman

11th May 2012, 23:31

For what we need the C27 the is a good airplane and will do the job well. The USAF which operated a squadron of early C 27's were very happy with their performance. They will serve us well as did the Caribou.

Airbus antics do not impress many of us and I suspect we are going to find out with our tankers how good their support is.

The problem is the c295 is a Woolworths solution and I doubt if it will hack the grade.

Airbus need to understand that their antics will not cut the metal. It is real simple the C27 is a better aircraft.

regards

Col

Like This - Do That

12th May 2012, 02:17

Defence seems to have rejected its own tried, tested and proven process of evaluating competing platforms

Which one was that? Uncontested procurement announced suddenly appear to have been far more successful of late.

500N - - - nope, new builds apparently.

500N

12th May 2012, 02:21

Like This

Good, because I would hate to think we were buying US Cast off / moth balled aircraft which for some reason I just think would have problems !!! LOL

layman

12th May 2012, 03:56

Another whole discussion ... but perhaps another role for a "suitably upskilled"(?) 32 on way to OC with 350's (or similar) offering M/E, modern cockpit, CRM

Be interesting to see the savings in costs / time for OPCON.

Gundog01

12th May 2012, 05:00

ozbiggles

12th May 2012, 06:34

Regarding ME traning an idea I chucked around awhile a go was that we should do all the NZ initial pilot training up to 2FTS wings and then they do,all the multi traning. A few exchange postings goes with the deal and sweet as bro!

Captain Sand Dune

12th May 2012, 06:40

Could the RNZAF handle the numbers? Or would we have to stump up the cash for extra airframes?

FlareHighLandLong

12th May 2012, 07:27

Even on the ka350, one of the problems experienced has been that you wouldn't send someone to fly one without 3000 hours, getting an appropriate training package has been hard, especially without our own sim.

I reckon opcons have taught basic flying well, but haven't taught captaincy/decision making/crm/emergency handling for the me environment well, and I don't mean efatos. That Is stuff you could learn on the line from captains with1000s of military command hours on multiple types.

Much harder to learn on a kc30 in the current environment.

C27s will probably be some of the best military flying for boggies. Diverse, challenging and operational.

TBM-Legend

12th May 2012, 07:32

KA350 sim tender out now for Sale..

Joker89

12th May 2012, 08:00

I believe the ME training unit was bandied around several years ago but no FEG could offer up any reduction in OPCON length/cost. Not sure how the length of RAAF Herc/P3 conversions compare to RNZAF Herc/P3 conversions considering the Kiwi's get their wings on a twin.

32 and 38 are doing a reasonable job of giving guys hours on an automated jet, and typically (at 32 anyway) most 2FTS grads are getting a second tour on something bigger. Can only think of 1 2FTS guy from 32 that has gone to a ground job (and that was GTO at Pearce).

It will be interesting to see how the H model drivers are distributed around the airforce in the gap between H model retirement and C27 arrival. DP and ALG manning will have their hands full right about now.....

Yep, and they still have about a 1 year wait for 2FTS graduates. Will be interesting to see what shaftings are handed out.
38 guys are not overly optimistic about second tours. Some H model boggies have only just finished conversion. Any flying job is going to be valuable. I guess they will need some guys going to the states to learn to fly the c27 in 2014 but that's a 2 year ground job away.

Gundog01

12th May 2012, 08:15

It is a reality for all RAAF pilot aspirants that the only aircraft they might get to fly in their careers is a Kingair. It is a legitimate (if not disapponting) career path in the RAAF to be a Kingair pilot for life.

Agree the C27 will provide some great flying. Hope ex caribou guys get a look in rather than it being manned by Herc types.

Old Fella

12th May 2012, 08:56

FlareHighLandLong. On what do you base your statement re the KingAir350 that "you would not send someone to fly one without 3000 hours"? Surely you jest. Gundog01, most of the ex Caribou pilots have probably either been flying another type or gone civvy by now. It is a good while since the Caribou was removed from active flying. Anyway, I thought the RAAF pilots were all in the same Air Force and very few get to spend long tours on one type.

SIMUL8D

12th May 2012, 09:12

Re Airbus Military Comments, there is some background worth sharing.

Airbus is part of EADS, and EADS owns Eurcopter. Eurocopter has not yet received (all) the money for the Tiger Helicopters, because they have not met the milestones that were required under the contract. They did, however, fork out a LOT of money up-front to the OEM suppliers (Engines, Avionics and armament especially). Eurocopter spent more than they have thus far recovered from the ADF. A lot more.

The MRH90 has gone the same way and it has chewed up the cash flow for Eurocopter. Allof it in fact, and the some!

EADS was propping up Eurocopter using the sales of it's Airbus aircraft. Between notable and tragic 'issues' with its Airbus Fleet, and the GFC, that support isn't there.

I suspect the comments from Airbus are because they are desperate to recover SOME funding to help make their business work.

What happens to the MRH90 if Eurocopter goes under? Support for the Tiger? And add a 'lesser' Tactical Transporter to the Bill? That's a lot of eggs in one basket....

500N

12th May 2012, 09:34

SIMUL8D

Re your comments

" Re Airbus Military Comments, there is some background worth sharing.

Airbus is part of EADS, and EADS owns Eurcopter. Eurocopter has not yet received (all) the money for the Tiger Helicopters, because they have not met the milestones that were required under the contract. They did, however, fork out a LOT of money up-front to the OEM suppliers (Engines, Avionics and armament especially). Eurocopter spent more than they have thus far recovered from the ADF. A lot more.

The MRH90 has gone the same way and it has chewed up the cash flow for Eurocopter. Allof it in fact, and the some!

EADS was propping up Eurocopter using the sales of it's Airbus aircraft. Between notable and tragic 'issues' with its Airbus Fleet, and the GFC, that support isn't there."

All I can say is tough, they signed the contract and I very much doubt they signed it without reading it and running it past lawyers so they have to suffer the consequences of signing something with performance / payment milestones installed which they were not capable of meeting.

I would guess they really wanted the contract and the flow on effect of that is what is occurring.

Meet the milestones and they will get paid, pretty simple really.

Gundog01

12th May 2012, 22:46

Old Fella,

You're right, us Caribou guys that saw the old girl out have all been flying other types.

I think you will find there a a bunch of Herc and P3 guys who will never fly anything else (except Ct4 or PC9 when they go instructors).

Trojan1981

13th May 2012, 03:26

It is a reality for all RAAF pilot aspirants that the only aircraft they might get to fly in their careers is a Kingair. It is a legitimate (if not disapponting) career path in the RAAF to be a Kingair pilot for life.

You mean you can go through your whole career without ever being operational...Never!!! :E

At a recent airshow I heard an interview with Roulette seven and was surprised to hear that he had only flown the PC9 and B350 in RAAF service. Not the fault of the guys but a very sad state of affairs none the less. If you're not flying a tactical machine then what is the point of being in the ADF? You might as well fly a bus...

Bring on the 10 C-27s, and more if we can get them. Hopefully this will revive tactical airlift/airdrop in the ADF.

Joker89

13th May 2012, 03:57

You mean you can go through your whole career without ever being operational...Never!!! :E

At a recent airshow I heard an interview with Roulette seven and was surprised to hear that he had only flown the PC9 and B350 in RAAF service. Not the fault of the guys but a very sad state of affairs none the less. If you're not flying a tactical machine then what is the point of being in the ADF? You might as well fly a bus...

Yep, it's a sad state of affairs. The king airs along with 34should be used for initial multi posting for 2 years then into bigger types. Progression onto these types should be based on how well you perform as a multi crew pilot not based on a combination of luck and how much of a Santa clause your instructor at 2FTS was.

Currently there has been no change in a system that may have worked before the arrival of the c17, kc30. The operational squadrons will continue to received pilots who either fail conversion or do not progress at a rate that will make them captain in the normal period.

Arm out the window

13th May 2012, 04:40

I heard an interview with Roulette seven and was surprised to hear that he had only flown the PC9 and B350 in RAAF service

Not really a sad state of affairs, as R7s are relatively junior people who don't fly in the team aerobatically, aren't QFIs and will often go on to bigger and better things later.

FlareHighLandLong

13th May 2012, 04:50

FlareHighLandLong. On what do you base your statement re the KingAir350 that "you would not send someone to fly one without 3000 hours"? Surely you jest.

Perhaps I was unclear. My point is not that the military wouldn't - I was comparing to civil expectations. If you can find me a civil employer who will employ a 200 hour pilot in a King Air I would be very surprised. The RAAF routinely progresses its pilots much faster than their civil peers, and the KA350 is no different. The King Air is typically flown single pilot, therefore the people being trained to fly them often arrive with 1000s of hours including plenty of multi. I think you would be the jester if you think they'd put a new CPL on one!:eek:

Trojan1981

13th May 2012, 05:11

Arm Out The Window

Not really a sad state of affairs, as R7s are relatively junior people who don't fly in the team aerobatically, aren't QFIs and will often go on to bigger and better things later.

I didn't realise that, thanks. I will say though that if he was direct entry then his IMPS is more than 50% complete; without an operational posting. We've seen similar things in AAvn and the FAA in recent years.

Arm out the window

13th May 2012, 06:46

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how things go these days, being out of the system now, but I've always thought it would be better to concentrate on giving pilots time to really develop in the squadrons rather than push them through the flying tour - ground job - flying tour - promotion into another ground job - flying exec job mill.

Give us a good pool of experienced B Cat FLTLTs in the squadrons rather than pushing them up the tree or out. Two full flying tours in a row of at least 2.5 years duration before any thought of a ground job, I say!

Not realistic thinking in these days of austerity measures I guess.

FoxtrotAlpha18

13th May 2012, 06:58

I think a lot of the pilot career progression will be ironed out as part of the AIR 5428 process...if it ever bloody well happens!

Captain Sand Dune

13th May 2012, 07:00

AoTW for CAF!!
How true.
Given the complexity of today's aircraft and the environment they operate in, experience is paramount. However the RAAF sticks to the same old dogma when it comes to pilot manning. Gotta keep pushing them through the training system so we can keep the promotion system fed. Let's totally ignore capability and the dwindling experience levels in the squadrons. We can always recruit laterals from other air forces at the expense of developing our own guys:yuk:.
Want SRP? How about reducing the numbers of officers above unit command level by 50% and doing something to reduce the top heavy nature of our the RAAF? I'm sure the effect on operational effectiveneness will be negligible.

Gundog01

13th May 2012, 07:27

Speaking to the C-17 and MRTT guys there is virtually no practical way for a 2FTS grad to become captain on a 3 year first tour. The squadrons get no return on investment as the guys are out just as they are about to become really useful (i.e. C-CAT).

KA350 is good in that guys learn about life outside 40TAC of Pearce but unless the OPCONs can reduce conversion length (or at least time to make captain) based on KA350 time the no-one is better off. There is now the first batch of ex 32/38 Kingair guys who are on or about to be on OPCONs so it will be interesting to see what happens with their progression.

Old Fella

13th May 2012, 07:49

Yes FHLL, you did not make it clear that you were talking about the civil environment. My response was indeed based on the RAAF where I expect the KingAir is flown as a ME/MC operation. As for needing 3000 hours in civil ops I am not sure that there are not PIC's in 350's with less than 3000 hours.

FlareHighLandLong

13th May 2012, 09:47

Old fella,

I was not trying to prepare an irrefutable argument for a court of law. As a general rule, king air pilots would typically start with lots of time, the exact figure or the occasional exception is not important to the point I am making.

In the civil environment junior pilots generally do long apprenticeships before they would get near any of the alg or srg types, even as cojo. Because it is generally single pilot, the king air requirements would typically be higher than the rest. Therefore the development of training packages has been difficult, and I would argue they still don't provide the captaincy and decision making development the guys need.

The civvies have reduced the time train candidates, but only by focussing all the training on the automation and crew interaction. I still believe the boggies need all those basic hands and feet stuff they get at 2 fts, but there has to be a very strong case to provide accelerated me/mc development. Given how heavily the civvies are using simulation we are way behind. I spoke to a Cathay SO recently who told me he is sent to the sim constantly, way more than the minimum, simply for his development.

I ack the points about the raaf's attitude that it's ok to send pc9 pilots to big jets, and that it must be possible for them to develop in time without the extra resources. Winded what it will take to change this perception?

Old Fella

13th May 2012, 12:22

FHLL, I have no idea what the current RAAF situation is, I can only draw on my RAAF experience on the C130 & B707 fleets in regard to the RAAF system. I well recall any number of graduates from 2FTS being posted into 36 Sqn and spending much of their tour in the RH seat. Most, as I recall, made command during that tour and, most if not all, were good Captains. I have no doubt that the environment within the C130 especially was one where co-pilots were in the company of a considerable amount of experience on most operations. I think they learned CRM although the term was never mentioned, maybe not yet invented in my RAAF days, with a crew compliment of three Commissioned Officers and two SNCO's at least. The B707 was different in that, especially in the initial days, all crew members were highly experienced. The initial six pilots comprised five former C130 Captains (two of whom had also had KC135 exhange postings), one P3 Captain and three C130 F/E's and we were all trained by Qantas to their standard of operation. Our first 3 LM's all came from the C130's. Given the 54 years of C130 operations, most if not all under the system as I knew it, and the record of never having lost a C130 speaks for itself in terms of the effectiveness of the RAAF system, I think. I am sure improvements can be made, as they always can.

FlareHighLandLong

14th May 2012, 06:28

I think we're now in furious agreement.

It did work a treat in your day. No longer. 2 crew flight deck, slower progression and rates of flying = much lower corporate knowledge, and a need to rely upon more rigorous training schemes. Hence my comments.

C27s will not have such a luxury of those high experience levels available. I know of some good operators who will probably get a start, but on the whole it's less than it would have been in days gone by. Once they get going, it should be superb.

Old Fella

14th May 2012, 12:44

FHLL, I would have thought that the demise of the C130H, which I presume is currently being flown by a number of highly experienced crew, will release those crew to be posted into other squadrons. Surely, as was the case with the B707, some of those highly experienced pilots will be used in the introduction of the C27 into RAAF service. Obviously the FE's will not be used in the C27 and, if required, will be employed in the maritime role.

As far as pilot progression due to being a 2 pilot aircraft it did not seem to be a problem on the C130 which has always been a 2 pilot aircraft, albiet assisted by the FE until the J model.

I hope your concerns prove to be unfounded and that the C27 proves to be a successful replacement for the venerable 'Boo.

FlareHighLandLong

14th May 2012, 13:06

Don't get me wrong - I think the C27J will be one of the healthiest platforms. It will provide fun and interesting flying and I hope plenty of boggies who start on it will want to stay.(all those conversions to civvy types 737/A330/CL604 will be very attractive). Given the profiles and the number of sectors the guys get they will develop faster than just about any of their peers. It should go from strength to strength.

Your presumption about the H model workforce is a bit of a problem. Between those who left for greener pastures (such as C17), and those recently forced into promotion you will find very few senior FLTLTs left to form the core of the C27J workforce. Besides, you might find a very specific effort by RAAF to post in a blend of bodies to ensure it doesn't get swamped with H culture and attitudes. Remember, 20 years ago you probably needed 1000 command to start QFIs, the current generation only need 300, and I believe that is often waived. It was offered to me once when DP came looking for fresh meat for the schools, when I had about 150 command, and was getting more at about 10 hours a month. By the way, the guys on the H right now are top blokes, but that workforce has been smashed by terrible management since Timor.

The comment about 2 crew is because C130AEH and 707 had 4 on the flight deck. The whole crew learned and taught each other. Reducing that to 2 guarantees that knowledge will degrade quicker.

Old Fella

14th May 2012, 23:40

FHLL, very sorry mate, only 3 in the cockpit of the B707, in my time at least. Our Navigator was by Delco INS. Maybe later went to Litton as on the "H".

FlareHighLandLong

15th May 2012, 00:02

Ah yes, I think the 707 Navs I knew only flew for tanking. 4 some of the time then, and even the Bou had three if you include the FENGLOAD (Bracing for imcoming!!)

Old Fella

15th May 2012, 03:35

FHLL, your reference to the FENGLOAD on the Caribou is interesting. Some of my best friends were Loadmasters or CrewmanTech and they were an integral part of the operation. Loadmaster airborne and Technician on the ground, never a Flight Engineer. Don't know the reasoning behind their role ever being defined as a Flight Engineer. Many moved into the Flight Engineer role post Caribou of course and they were excellent FE's. (Maybe I had better brace for incoming)

LT Selfridge

15th May 2012, 08:33

FLGOFF Bograt: You wanted to see me Sir?

XO 35SQN: Bograt, Was that you hacking your name onto the flying program?

Boggie: No Sir that was the other Bograt.

XO: Well somehow you've got the job. Right - Army support Shoalwater Bay, 5 days. Take the new guy and Crusty to look after you. We've got two Techos and the GL SGT to go with you. Bit of low level airland, para, some helibox stuff and don't forget your NV gear. I'll Auth. Any questions?

Boggie: Sir, my parents live just outside of Rocky...

XO: Don't even think about it.

Boggie: No questions Sir.

XO: Right - sort it out. And Bograt...

Boggie: Yes Sir?

XO: Don't Fu*$ up!

Doors Off

15th May 2012, 13:49

Old Fella,

nice to hear. My father (passed way before his time) was a Bou LM in Vietnam and a Bou FE when he got back in. I remember him, other LM/FE's and Pilots all gathering at our home or waterskiing. I also had the privilege of going on a few trips in the Bou as a young fella. The relationship seemed very respectful and inclusive, certainly set me a good example of CRM for my flying career.

(P.S. The Bou - it, the Bronco or Mirage - the only Fixed Wing I would want to be seen in)

Cheers,

Doors Off

backseatjock

15th May 2012, 17:29

Interesting piece (maybe) published online by Flight Global this evening:

Australia has defended its decision to acquire the L-3 Communications/Alenia C-27J tactical airlifter following a press release by Airbus Military expressing dissatisfaction with the decision.

In a point-by-point statement on the department of defence web site, minister for defence Stephen Smith dismissed Airbus Military's contention that there was no "competition" to fill the AIR 8000 Phase 2 requirement for 10 battlefield airlifters.

"A competitive down select to the C-27J was made following an exhaustive assessment by the [department of defence], defence materiel organisation, and air force of information provided by the manufacturers of the aircraft, including Airbus Military and the C-295."

Trojan1981

15th May 2012, 23:55

Doors Off,

I found the culture at the Caribou Sqn (38 at Amberley when I was in) exactly as you describe. In fact looking back I still believe it is the best workplace I have ever had, military or civilian. It all came down to the people. The Caribou crews and ground staff were always a very friendly, inclusive bunch. The Sqn had a healthy social scene and a real camaraderie that I have not found anywhere else. Very happy times.

:ok:

Old Fella

16th May 2012, 02:58

Doors Off, firstly I was sorry to read regarding your Dad's passing and I can relate to your feelings as my own father passed away when I was only 27. I also can relate to the sentiments expressed regarding the camaraderie in the the Caribou squadron as related by you and Trojan1981. I enjoyed the same in 36 Squadron, and also during my attachment to 37 Sqn, pre the C130H being brought into service. Although only a very small outfit in the initial B707 days, as 33 Flight of 37 Squadron, we did enjoy a great relationship among our crews and I would like to think that continued after my time and as the B707 fleet grew.

500N

16th May 2012, 03:20

Sorry for the thread drift.

Did either of you ever fly to the following places with Army members on board or pick them up from the following places ?

Albury Airport - para jump into Lake Hume (I think Caribou)
Phillip Island Grand Prix - (Caribou - their was a blackhawk as well and
a race back by the two of you from Phillip Island to RAAF Laverton.
Portland Airport - Night extraction of raiding force (C130)
Murray bridge range - dirt strip (Caribou)
Woomera Rocket Range - Night extraction of raiding force (C130)
Laverton and Point Cook - both C130 and Caribou - jumps
Singleton to Laverton (Caribou) - who ever was the pilot did me a great service by doing a fly by over my house before landing !!! Even the neighbours commented.

Always had great service from all of the groups mentioned.:ok:

Old Fella

16th May 2012, 04:34

Sorry mate, I think you are a bit too young for me to have been involved. By your profile you would have been only 16 years of age when I left the RAAF. Geez, am I that old?

500N

16th May 2012, 04:55

No problems, you left the light blue as I joined the green about a year later.:ok:

I am trying to find my Army folder that has one of the Squadron stickers on it
so I can post a photo.

Trojan1981

16th May 2012, 13:25

Geeez Old Fella, I wasn't even born when you left the RAAF! I'm gen Y! The old 'bou does span generations... :ok:

Old Fella

17th May 2012, 03:47

Trojan1981, yes the 'Bou does. So also the C130. I joined the RAAF in February 1958, the same year the C130A came into RAAF service. I operated the A-E&H models. Picked up A97-001 & A97-012 in July & October 1978 respectively. Former A97-212, now N131EC, is still being flown in the USA out of Louisiana by Earl Cherry Aviation. As far as I am aware it is the only C130A still flying using Aeroproducts propellers. Google up N131EC and you will see the old girl if you are interested. There are several references to it.

BBadanov

17th May 2012, 04:56

Picked up A97-001 & A97-012 in July & October 1978 respectively

Hey OF. I also picked up A97-012 (came back via Canada), and an earlier one, A97-008 I think (away from home at the moment).

:)

Old Fella

17th May 2012, 05:09

Hi BBadanov. Correct, via Edmonton to check out their setup for SAR work. Modified paradoor, crew seat on small pallet etc. JC was the Skipper and PG the Loadie. Can't recall the rest of the crew, just remember having to "hurry" back to Richmond to catch up on schedule. PM me if you like.

Trojan1981

17th May 2012, 13:29

I will check it out OF, Cheers. :)

FoxtrotAlpha18

17th May 2012, 22:53

Here she is... Photos: Lockheed C-130A Hercules (L-182) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Charlie-130-Corporation/Lockheed-C-130A-Hercules/1648507/L/&sid=f0c22f6741af8f134c675e45d0f416e3)

Trojan1981

17th May 2012, 23:16

She looks very straight for an aircraft of her age, let's hope they've carried out applicable wing center section ADs. Thanks for posting :ok:

Wiley

18th May 2012, 05:25

Picked up A97-001 & A97-012 in July & October 1978 respectively.Am I having a major 'senior moment'? In my addled brain, I recall the first RAAF 'A' model as A97-005 and the last, A97-016.

There were (are?) some who said the Herc was a bit like an MG - they stopped making sports cars after the 'A'.

GreenKnight121

18th May 2012, 06:46

Am I having a major 'senior moment'? In my addled brain, I recall the first RAAF 'A' model as A97-005 and the last, A97-016.

No, you are almost correct.

According to ADF Aircraft Serial Numbers - RAAF A97 Lockheed C-130A/E/H/J Hercules (http://www.adf-serials.com.au/2a97.shtml) the 12 C-130As (A97-205 through -216) were delivered 1958-59. These were at the end of RAAF series 2 serials*.

The 12 C-130Es (A97-159 through -190) were delivered in 1966.

The 12 C-130Hs were delivered as follows: A97-001 through -003 7/78, -004 through -006 8/78, -007 through -009 9/78, and -010 through -012 10/78

The 12 C-130J-30s (A97-440 through -468) were delivered in 2000.

So Old Fella was talking about the C-130H in 1978, not the C-130A in 1958.

* Welcome to ADF Serials (http://www.adf-serials.com/)

FoxtrotAlpha18

18th May 2012, 07:01

Beat me by (this) much GK...

Great website that. Some of the newer stuff is a little thin, but the older information looks to be spot on!:ok:

Old Fella

18th May 2012, 10:46

Thanks for the comments. A97-212 is now modified. The pylon tanks have been removed and Hose & Drogue pods fitted. She is being used for trialing a new helo aerial refuelling system. Some thought of using her as a test bed for a new Sunstand 8 blade composite propeller as well.

Like This - Do That

1st Jul 2012, 00:30

Was talking with a bloke from the AIR 8000 office last week. He said they're running a book on IOC for the C27J. As of last week the smart money was a shift in the entire programme 12 months to the left.

Bring it on!:ok:

Gundog01

1st Jul 2012, 10:01

First time in history a RAAF procurment project would move left....something to be said for MOTS.

Trojan1981

2nd Jul 2012, 02:47

Ahh yes! But will those of our ilk ever get on one, LTDT?

C-27 + JPADS, bring it on :ok:

FoxtrotAlpha18

3rd Jul 2012, 06:18

LTDT - have heard the same thing through ALG & AFHQ...they're keen to fast-track the whole program. :ok:

Trackmaster

3rd Jul 2012, 06:32

Some recently built aircraft that just have to be flown across the Pacific?

FoxtrotAlpha18

4th Jul 2012, 03:47

Won't be aircraft already in US service, but there may be a green airframe or two already on the Alenia line that can quickly be flown to L-3 for missionising sooner than planned...:ok:

Like This - Do That

18th Jan 2013, 03:52

Wallaby Airlines returns to Air Force (http://news.defence.gov.au/2013/01/14/wallaby-airlines-returns-to-air-force/)

The re-establishment of No.35 Squadron will see it prepare for our fleet of ten C-27J Spartan Battlefield Airlift aircraft, due to arrive in Australia from 2015.

So ... maybe the project hasn't been pushed to the left after all ...

herkman

18th Jan 2013, 22:25

I have no doubt that the C27J will be a good airplane and will serve us well.

The program if it is run using the guide lines of the C17, will come into service with few hick ups.

The introduction of the C130E went in a like fashion and were on operations within days of arrival.

Just needs good planing to make it work.

The bigger transports record is something to be proud of, The C130 must have flown over one millions hours with the RAAF with no loss of life or airframes.

Regards

Col

Frazzled

19th Mar 2013, 09:54

No - it's **** , should have bought more C130's:ugh:

Gooey

19th Mar 2013, 11:06

Agreed Frazzled.
Should have bought new M/C-130Js for ALS, SF spt, and (if pockets are deep enough) USMC type Tac AAR/gunship capability to replace the 37SQN H and Js. C-27A adds another aircraft to KC-30A, C-17, and current stuffed C-130Js and will struggle to replace the H in tac roles.
If the RAAF really wanted STOL capability how about some 'cheap as chips' GA8 Airvans types that can actually do this mission and also keep pilots happy with base flights for local flying.
And another thing; Chooks back to some people who can actually operate them.

keesje

19th Mar 2013, 11:49

Seems a good choice over the EADs C295. A higher cabin able to move serious vehicles no doubt played in its favor.

In Europe the combination A400M and C27 could squeeze the Hercs.

I saw an article that stated the C-17 on average uses about 20 % of their payload capabilities.

I wonder how the new Embraer Transport will do..

Mk 1

19th Mar 2013, 13:09

Gooey,

Yeah right - because the GA8 is such a well known load carrier with its 891kg capacity (see Gipps aero website). And that ramp to aid loading and unloading....:ugh:

As to the comment about those who really know how to operate the Chooks - Pfft. The air liason bloke I went bush with (A RAAF fighter pilot) didn't even have the first idea what went in his backpack when he was issued it. What makes you think that the RAAF know more about army ops than say...Ohhh, the army?

500N

19th Mar 2013, 15:59

keesje

"I saw an article that stated the C-17 on average uses about
20 % of their payload capabilities. "

Any source, what criteria was used ?

Considering they seem to be used for flying people around
including bringing soldiers home by themselves, if you took
all flights, that might well be so.

keesje

19th Mar 2013, 16:45

"I saw an article that stated the C-17 on average uses about
20 % of their payload capabilities. "

Any source, what criteria was used ?

N500, luckily I found it back, its for USAF 2005/2006 and even less: 17%. And 22% for the C130.

Quiz: How loaded do US Air Force transport aircraft operate? | The Blog by Javier (http://theblogbyjavier.com/2013/03/01/quiz-how-loaded-do-us-air-force-transport-aircraft-operate/)

Doesn't mean you shouldn't have the capability (ask the french..) but knowing the direct operating costs of big aircraft it sure makes a case for having aircraft like the C-27..

Frazzled

19th Mar 2013, 22:51

but if it's so good why are the americans getting rid of it and just using C-130's:

In a move similar to the Global Hawk decision, the Air Force plans to divest itself of 38 C-27Js, small cargo aircraft tagged for Air National Guard units with few, if any, miles on them. USAF has argued that its remaining fleet of 318 C-130s would ultimately be more cost-effective because the larger aircraft have a broader mission portfolio and do not rely on contractor logistics support, as the C-27Js do.
"I think we made the right strategic choice here," Donley told the Senate Armed Services Committee, adding that the C-27 is a "nice-to-have" capability designed specifically to provide support to the Army.
The move to favor the C-130 reflects DOD’s preference for multirole platforms over more niche capabilities. Still, it was not an easy decision for the Air Force to make. Service leaders had previously pledged that they would support the C-27 program, and Schwartz said the Spartan airlifter was the last item to get cut from the service’s 2013 budget.

The Austerity Budget Hits the Hill (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/June%202012/0612budget.aspx)

Like This - Do That

20th Mar 2013, 09:37

Fraz, c'mon man .... selective quoting? How about this from the same source:

Still, it was not an easy decision for the Air Force to make. Service leaders had previously pledged that they would support the C-27 program, and Schwartz said the Spartan airlifter was the last item to get cut from the service’s 2013 budget.

And it should be no surprise that 'airforce-magazine' doesn't mention that C-27J was originally a US Army system, reallocated to ANG & USAF as a result of a budget-driven p1ssing contest.

Not that I'm picking the scab of THAT argument in the @rse-end-of-the-world setting. There are plenty of cranky threads that deal with that ...

GreenKnight121

20th Mar 2013, 09:58

They are getting rid of it because the USAF managed to get its way and screw the USA over again.

The USAF NEVER wanted the C-27J*... it was bought into as a "US Army only" replacement (Future Cargo Aircraft, 2004) for the ~45 C-23A/B/C (Shorts Sherpa/Sherpa 300) which the Army had gotten (initially) from the USAF because the USAF didn't want to keep them anymore.
Panel cuts Air Force funding for JCA - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/airforce_jca_091508/)
One military observer said the Air Force’s interest in the C-27, which could be mistaken for a pint-sized C-130, was more about protecting the service’s fixed-wing turf and less about the service’s need.“The requirement originated in the Army rather than a joint need,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. “I never felt the Air Force’s interest in the C-27 was more than a desire to protect its airlift role.”The USAF saw Congress express a likelihood of approving 33-75 "Future Cargo Aircraft" for the Army and began throwing a "turf war" fit over the Army moving into fixed-wing tactical transports (the C-23 counted as a "liaison aircraft", which the Army is allowed to operate). In August 2005, General John Jumper, then Air Force chief of staff, summed up his feelings regarding the Army's Future Cargo Aircraft during a roundtable discussion with reporters by stating, "My thought on that is you don't need to go out and buy yourself an Air Force - we've got one."

In September 2005, the USAF declared they were looking for a 'Light Cargo Aircraft" (USAF Generals had been "discussing" whether they had a need for such an aircraft for all of 2-3 months, only after the Army sought industry input on a replacment for the aging C-23 Sherpa fleet), and that the same aircraft should be bought by both services (in December 2005 DOD directed that both programs be merged, with the Army as "lead").

The USAF then convinced Congress to let it have 70 of the 145 (up to 200) aircraft buy (Joint Cargo Aircraft program, June 2006) AND to transfer "lead" on the reduced-to-78 aircraft program (April 2009) from the Army to the USAF.

Then the USAF got Congress to eliminate the Army part of the buy without adding them to the USAF part (December 2009)... and finally got the program killed altogether (2012)... after ~1/3 of the buy had been delivered, and the aircraft had made its first Afghanistan deployment!

* http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539920
This paper discusses repeated analysis by the USAF claiming that airlifters smaller than the C-130 were "less efficient than the same number of C-130s'.
While the Air Force has done some recent studies to find specific scenarios where a C-27J might be optimal, most of the work done has shown that the C-130J is more cost effective over a variety of mission areas.
Examination shows that the "specific scenarios" that favored the C-27J were the missions the Army wanted it for, while the "variety of mission areas" included many USAF-specific missions.

It also contains a good "capsule history" of the program on pages 27+.

Frazzled

20th Mar 2013, 11:04

Like This..

Sorry for the brief quote - I wasn't trying to be selective, if I was then I would not have included the link. Agreed the "us and them" arguement is best left for another thread (but having flown for both organisations in previous lives there isn't really a lot of difference despite the various puffing of chests and pointing of fingers).

Beleive me I would like this project to succeed - I just personally feel that we could have just bought more Herc's (maybe even for less $$) and had a better capability.

Yes a Herc with three pallets is not "full" but neither is it at max AUW and therefore has a perfomance margin if something goes wrong and if you lose an engine then you've only lost 25% of your power not 50%. A Spartan with three pallets is maxed out and the performance margin is less, meaning if something goes wrong then your margin for error in mishandling an emergency is less.

It's main cutomer (army) is buying new toys that are bigger and heavier - look at the g wagon compared to 110 landrover or even how a fully equiped soldier goes into battle compared to 30 years ago - and we don't need a smaller aircraft...

I got this feeling its performance is not all it's craked up to be and fear 5 years down track this project will be discussed along other "successes" we have bought recently (Seasprite anyone or Tiger, AWACS, tanker etc...) rather than in company of C-17.

anyway - off the soapbox and I'll wait 5 years and see..:ugh:

keesje

20th Mar 2013, 11:15

Well the average utilization in the USAF of the C130 is ~22%.

Many of them carry big loads, so to balance the score many close to empty too.

the larger aircraft have a broader mission portfolio and do not rely on contractor logistics support, as the C-27Js do.

With C-27 being able to fly >> 50% of the C-130s missions bean counters could start asking questions. Add a bit of Buy America & better get rid of them ASAP.

Opponents of pork barrel politics often cite the C-130 as a prime example of corruption. These critics highlight the fact that Congress funds the program without the Air Force's request or consent.

C-130 Procurement (http://lobby.la.psu.edu/_107th/092_C_130_Procurement/frameset_c_130.html)

US Herk

20th Mar 2013, 13:40

Comparing average load of a strategic airlifter to that of a tactical transport is a little disingenuous. The C17 and other strat lifters operate both scheduled and non-scheduled lines. Scheduled lines, like airlines, operate regardless of cargo capacity (for the most part), thus reducing their average payload.

Tactical airlifters aren't about maxing out useful load, rather, performing specific airlift into specific areas that (normally) strategic airlifters either can't get into, or aren't cost effective (moving one pallet into a smaller airfield).

Consequently, these utilization numbers end up being just so much niff naff and trivia trotted out to justify things when they're convenient. I wouldn't read too much into any of them.

As for the C27, it's been "pursued" and "discussed" in some of the niche areas for a long, long time in the USAF. In fact, ever since the C27A left Panama. Many South American strips will not support a C130 and the C27 is a perfect fit (and why the A-model was purchased in the first place). The J-model C27 is a very good aircraft and as far more performance margin than the earlier A model. Special Ops has also expressed interest when Alenia and Lockheed first got together on the project many years ago. SOF, however, can rarely procure their own aircraft - they have to piggy-back on a "big blue" buy (or Navy, in the case of CV22) and then use SOF-specific MFP-11 money to make modifications.

Once the C27J program was announced, AFSOC was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon with AC27J - A light gunship. They didn't ask for MC27J, which was one of their real desires, simply because they were busying trying to increase their MC130J buy from 30-75 and if they got more lift in the form of MC27J, they would've had a harder time justifying more MC130J and the need to recapitalize the aging MC130 fleet was the higher priority.

C27 is a good niche tactical airlifter. Army-Air Force bickering aside, I'm very disappointed it got cut - I know both SOUTHCOM and AFSOC are as well.

Frazzled

8th Oct 2013, 07:53

Great we have bought an orphan aircraft....:ugh:

http://www.stripes.com/new-air-force-planes-parked-in-arizona-boneyard-1.245554 (http://www.stripes.com/new-air-force-planes-parked-in-arizona-boneyard-1.245554)

BBadanov

8th Oct 2013, 08:17

This is what I was talking about two years ago.
Here is my post of 2 FEB 12, referring to posts at the end of 2011.

"Quote:
If the C27 cannot be supplied or supported then it looks like we have to start again. Bugger"

That's right Col.

See my post #9 of 23 Dec, and #37 of 30 Dec. It's gonna be an orphan!! :ugh:

BBad
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=6994457) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/misc/progress.gif

Smurf_au

19th Oct 2013, 16:33

They won't be there for long - three other US agencies are lobbying to take them off USAF's hands.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/14/agencies-wait-for-decision-on-c-27js-dod-fate/

Frazzled

19th Dec 2013, 04:49

Department of Defence
Media Release

Defence
Media Release

19 December 2013
Maiden flight of the first Australia C-27J Battlefield Airlifter
Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) Mr Warren King today announced the Royal Australian Air Force’s first C-27J Spartan has successfully completed its maiden flight in Italy.
Mr King said this was an exciting milestone for the DMO and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) as it represents a major step towards further strengthening Air Force’s airlift capability.
Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO said the C-27J will significantly improve Air Force’s ability to provide air power to smaller runways in our region that cannot be reached by larger aircraft.
“The C-27J is the missing piece in our air lift capability. The C-17A Globemaster and C-130J Hercules provide medium and heavy airlift, however, we need a battlefield airlifter to ensure we can land at the locations throughout Australia and our region with smaller runways to provide air power when and where it is needed most,” Air Marshal Brown said.
The C-27J’s flexibility allows it to undertake a wide range of missions, from delivering ammunition to front line troops, to conducting aero-medical evacuation of casualties and to supporting humanitarian assistance missions in remote locations and high threat environments.
Mr King said the C-27J project remains on budget and on schedule for delivery. The first two C-27J’s are expected to arrive in Australia in 2015. The C-27J Spartan capability is expected to achieve initial operational capability in late 2016.
“As we all know, humanitarian assistance is very topical at the moment with the recent events in the Philippines,” Mr King said.
The C-27J Spartan is intended to complement the capabilities of the current C-130J Hercules and C-17A Globemaster fleets and has common infrastructure, engines, avionics and cargo handling systems with the C-130J Hercules.
The C-27J Spartan replaces the Caribou, which was retired from service in 2009. The C-27J was selected for its performance, configuration and suitability after it was assessed as having the ability to fly further, faster and higher while carrying more cargo and requiring a smaller runway than the other aircraft under consideration.
Air Force has re-established Number 35 Squadron to operate the ten C-27J aircraft.
Media note:
Imagery is available through the Defence Image Library: http://images.defence.gov.au/S20132515
Media contact:
Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

Defence News and Media » Maiden flight of the first Australia C-27J Battlefield Airlifter (http://news.defence.gov.au/2013/12/19/maiden-flight-of-the-first-australia-c-27j-battlefield-airlifter/)

Fox3WheresMyBanana

19th Dec 2013, 10:56

C27A is a great airplane.Riiight.
From Solution to Scrapheap: The Afghan AF?s C-27A Transports (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/c-27as-for-the-afghan-air-force-05094/)
Extract
Dec 10/13: Why? The SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan) is investigating the C-27A contract. The 16 planes in Kabul are reportedly unflyable after logging only just of 4,500 planned hours in 2012, and having 6 cannibalized for spare parts. There are another 4 in Germany. USAF Lt. Gen. Charles Davis was unsparing, citing the plane’s issues in the hot, dusty environment, and saying that:

“Just about everything you can think of was wrong for it other than the airplane was built for the size of cargo and mission they needed…. Other than that, it didn’t really meet any of the requirements…. It was contractor performance, [pilot recruitment], a very unsustainable airframe…. everything you could think of that went into this…. We looked for buyers, people to accept those, and nobody was interested in trying to maintain an airplane that was no longer sustainable,…”

Let's face it. The C@&A was dumped on the Afghan Air Force because the USAF didn't want them because they were useless and wanted to hide the evidence.

Why not replace one DHC aircraft with another, Caribou for NG Buffalo?
http://www.vikingair.com/uploadedFiles/News/News_Item/DHC-5NG%20versus%20C27J%20January%202009.pdf

NutLoose

19th Dec 2013, 11:34

The A and the J are to total different animals, the A was poor, indeed the Afghans refused them, some never even made it on delivery from the factory.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

19th Dec 2013, 12:13

Agreed Nutloose, which is why I posted the comparison of the NG and the J model.

There again - it's generally a better principal to build on success.

TBM-Legend

19th Dec 2013, 21:16

Aviation Rule 1 ; Never by the "A" model of anything....

Biggest problem with the G-222 aka C-27A was the engine. The aircraft was underpowered and the reliability of that GE engine being squeezed to death was problematic. I'm also sure that Alenia has learn't a lot more about product support since building and selling the J model to the USA..

The US Army and USAF effectively cancelling out on the program is not about the aircraft but rather funding an additional type. The C-130J is their baseline so no room for the C-27J under the current defense budget and cuts although I note the SOCOM want some as does the USCG and Forest Service. It will continue to sell albeit in smaller numbers for years to come. Canada could be the next 'cab off the rank' for SAR project..

khaki83

20th Dec 2013, 23:00

Aviation Rule 1 ; Never by the "A" model of anything....

I disagree. The A model C-130's and F/A-18's we purchased performed very well in their careers.

Big Pistons Forever

21st Dec 2013, 00:50

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/images/020710c-130.jpg

The crew of this "A" model C 130 might disagree with the above posters sentiment....

500N

21st Dec 2013, 01:11

That's a long bow to pull considering how long it had been in mil service.
1957 to 1978, then stored for 10 years plus the reports on the accident.

Frazzled

21st Dec 2013, 05:31

A very very long bow

Frazzled

21st Dec 2013, 05:57

Link to some more photos:ugh:

http://http://m.flickr.com/lightbox.gne?id=11437147155 (http://m.flickr.com/lightbox.gne?id=11437147155)

herkman

21st Dec 2013, 09:36

The C130A shown in previous posts has at best to be said very incomplete
servicing records. Also may of the main plane tech orders had not been complied with.

Was a total failure of the wing attachment points and nothing to do with the three
crew members who just did not have a chance.

The aircraft was sure old but large periods of its service the maintanence could not be establish. all part of the poor service of the government agencies who operated the airplane for a long period.

At the time of its release the C130A way out the best of transport aircraft in its catergory.

Regards

Col\

ancientaviator62

21st Dec 2013, 11:26

I agree with herkman ref the incomparable C130. The fatal firefighter crash can not be attributed to the crew or the basic design. IMHO he crash report makes clear the reasons for this unfortunate accident. I believe the RAAF have the best safety record of any C130 military operator regardless of mark. Only flew in an 'A' once, with the RAAF and there were major differences between that and our 'K' models. Had a conducted tour of an AC130A gunship in Thailand during the Vietnam war. Very impressive.

rigpiggy

23rd Dec 2013, 23:33

right up until you try getting into a "Bou" strip. Be interesting if Viking/DHC gets the Buffalo NG going

NutLoose

24th Dec 2013, 00:23

Stoll think the best thing for Australia would have been a new build Caribous with turboprops. I often think progress isn't always for the better, just a shame they were not available or possible.

Delta_Foxtrot

24th Dec 2013, 00:42

NutLoose, I would have liked the DHC light tac transport tradition continue, but a major drawback with the Caribou was that the gear Army wanted it to carry just wouldn't fit. I can recall getting a Series 2 Land Rover inside one (late 70s in Indonesia) - just! And that was without any role equipment fitted (antenna mounts etc). The 110 Defender had no hope. We stuffed a 110 inside a CN235 during trials in 1995. Had to remove rear canopy, windscreen, cabin roof etc. Highest bit was the seat headrests and they nearly had to come out too. Took three days to put the 110 back together, so hardly a battle-ready load! One of the big selling points (for loaders) is that a full-height C130 L pallet will fit vertically.

TBM-Legend

24th Dec 2013, 00:56

The "A" model is a euphemism meaning first off the line. The RAAF C-130A's were the last ones built in that series. I wonder if the C-130B would have been even better given the change of model..

When one looks at great products they usually have long productions if the need persists. The cautious approach on the F-111 buy meant outs were proven...tas 'ol

herkman

24th Dec 2013, 02:48

The RAAF C130A's where the last of the transport versions produced and were followed down the line by the RC130A's which if I recall were eighteen.

The had a hole cut in the cargo floor and cameras that ran back and forth in rails.

When they were no longer needed they too were converted to transport floors.

The C130B was an improved aircraft and had the following improvements.

Long range flight deck with two bunks

A crew galley

Increased wing tanks which did away with the A model pylons.

Four bladed Hamilton standard props which greatly reduced noise but at low level a slight decrease in performance.

GTC doors which could be opened from flight deck, which allowed use on the ground without the LM getting out an opening the doors.

Slight increase in engine HP

Increase in AUW which called for beefed up landing gear.

Generally an all round improvement particularly in long range tasks.

In hindsite would have suited us better but that is all history.

Regards

Col

TBM-Legend

24th Dec 2013, 03:45

At least the RAAF purchased the right machine. The A models did a great job and our E's and H's even better .

BBadanov

24th Dec 2013, 08:35

Basically you are right TBM.
I served briefly on the E (for conversion), then the A (waiting, as the H was late), then the H for pickups.
It was a good time - but a bit like sheep - you don't talk about it afterwards!

Lyneham Lad

7th Jan 2014, 14:29

On Flight International - US Coast Guard to acquire USAF's remaining C-27J Spartans (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-coast-guard-to-acquire-usafs-remaining-c-27j-spartans-394575/)

The US Air Force’s 14 remaining Alenia Aermacchi C-27J Spartans will soon come out of mothballs.
The tactical transports, which were operated briefly by the service before being removed from use starting last year, will resume their flying for the US Coast Guard, under an aircraft swap directed by the US Defense Authorisation Bill for fiscal year 2014.

Signed by President Barack Obama on 26 December 2013, the bill directs US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to make the transfer after the coast guard transfers seven of its Lockheed Martin C-130s to the USAF. The air force must then convert these into tankers to be used by the US Forest Service.
The aircraft swap brings closure to open questions about the fate of the USAF’s remaining C-27Js, most of which are in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona. The air force calls the base the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group, but it informally goes by another name: the boneyard.

Unlike other aircraft resting at Davis-Monthan, the relatively-new C-27Js were not put out to pasture – they have been kept in flying condition while the Department of Defense decides their fate, says the USAF.

Click on the link for the rest of the article.