The C27's are a coming

[Old Fella]

130's

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]

THREAD RESURRECTION!!!

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!

[Gundog01]

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

[Trojan1981]

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

C-27 + JPADS, bring it on

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

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

[Trackmaster]

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

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

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...

[Like This - Do That]

Wallaby Airlines

Wallaby Airlines returns to Air Force

Originally Posted by Chief of Air Force AM Geoff Brown

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]

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]

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

[Gooey]

seconded

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

"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

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]

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

[Like This - Do That]

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]

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

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]

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..

[keesje]

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