The C27's are a coming
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great we have bought an orphan aircraft....
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
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!!
BBad
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!!
BBad
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: A long way from home
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/ag...27js-dod-fate/
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/14/ag...27js-dod-fate/
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gettin closer
Department of Defence
Media Release
Defence
Media Release
19 December 2013
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
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
C27A is a great airplane.Riiight.
From Solution to Scrapheap: The Afghan AF?s C-27A Transports
Extract
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/uploadedFil...ary%202009.pdf
From Solution to Scrapheap: The Afghan AF?s C-27A Transports
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,…”
“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,…”
Why not replace one DHC aircraft with another, Caribou for NG Buffalo?
http://www.vikingair.com/uploadedFil...ary%202009.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,002
Received 2,893 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
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.
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..
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..
Last edited by TBM-Legend; 20th Dec 2013 at 00:25.
The crew of this "A" model C 130 might disagree with the above posters sentiment....
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
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.
1957 to 1978, then stored for 10 years plus the reports on the accident.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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\
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\
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,002
Received 2,893 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Delta_Foxtrot; 24th Dec 2013 at 02:40. Reason: Punctuation
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
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