Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

The C27's are a coming

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

The C27's are a coming

Old 2nd Feb 2012, 12:13
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The crew room
Posts: 50
Because the C130 particularly the stretched version cannot operate where the C 27 can.


Are you sure????
FlareHighLandLong is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2012, 12:58
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 53
Posts: 431
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

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.
Like This - Do That is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2012, 13:05
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
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."


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.
.
500N is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2012, 18:57
  #64 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
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 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2012, 19:15
  #65 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
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
herkman is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 00:26
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 856
"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
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 02:46
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The crew room
Posts: 50
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'.
FlareHighLandLong is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 03:28
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 584
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.
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 04:35
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
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.
MTOW is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 07:05
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 66
To compare apples with apples:

From the brochure on the C-27J website: The C-27J Spartan | C27J

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.

Last edited by Barry Bernoulli; 3rd Feb 2012 at 07:27.
Barry Bernoulli is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 07:47
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 201
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
Turkeyslapper is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 11:28
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 584
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!
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2012, 16:24
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 48
Posts: 930
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?
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2012, 01:58
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The crew room
Posts: 50
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
FlareHighLandLong is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2012, 03:13
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
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?
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2012, 10:02
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
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.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 00:44
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 53
Posts: 431
They ARE a coming!!!

Announced today:

Defence Ministers Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – New Battlefield aircraft for the Air Force
Like This - Do That is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 01:00
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
Finally...doesn't appease the displaced C-130H Navs...sorry, ACOs though!
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 01:33
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 22
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.
ol-mate is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 01:58
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
35SQN will be resurrected at Richmond
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.