The C27's are a coming
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?
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 !!
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBadanov
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 31st Dec 2011 at 20:50. Reason: Readability
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-aircr...e-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.
Many would have seen the photos
(here, in post 15: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...e-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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOTW, All,
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.......
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.
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.......
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?
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?
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?
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]..
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand ....
Reports now surfacing of the USAF's intention to ditch the aircraft altogether 
USAF woes clip C-27J’s wings in Australia
Panetta Said to Seek Cancellation of L-3’s U.S. Army C-27J Transport Plane
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"
USAF woes clip C-27J’s wings in Australia
Panetta Said to Seek Cancellation of L-3’s U.S. Army C-27J Transport Plane
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"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!
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 !!!
Perhaps sir might consider some alternatives?
C295 CN235 C212
From the company who brought your the KC-30A......
.....hang on just a minute
!!
C295 CN235 C212
From the company who brought your the KC-30A......
.....hang on just a minute
!!
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
If the C27 cannot be supplied or supported then it looks like we have to start again.
Bugger
Regards
Col
If the C27 cannot be supplied or supported then it looks like we have to start again.
Bugger
Bugger
See my post #9 of 23 Dec, and #37 of 30 Dec. It's gonna be an orphan!!
BBad
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col,
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.
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.