Australia to buy aircraft the US rejected

[attitude]

AUSTRALIA will buy 10 new Alenia C-27J Spartan tactical transport aircraft, even though they have been labelled "not operationally suitable" by a US agency and are set to be dropped from US military service.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1226352411129

[~Alan~]

Perhaps the RAAF have different needs to that of the USAF. ?

[swerve]

The US army is mad keen on them. The USAF wants rid of them because it doesn't want to do the job they're designed for, & the army wants them to do. The evaluation as 'not operationally suitable' means they don't do the job the USAF wants to do, & ignores the fact that the US army (i.e. the consumer of the service the aircraft would provide) is crying out for them, because it wants a different job done.

Australia has the good fortune to have an air force which is more responsive to the needs of the military as a whole.

[obligatory]

What are the notable differences to the old 130 Hercules ?

[swerve]

Most of them? Half the number of engines, for a start.

It's a revamped Fiat (now Alenia) G.222, along the lines of the C-130H to C-130J revamp.

[forester]

What are the notable differences to the old 130 Hercules ?

Well.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD57c8-WFJ8

[~Alan~]

Was it one of these which had a heavy landing at Fairford a few years ago ?

[Jezza]

About time, the Caribou fleet was retired in 2009

[kev 99]

Sounds like a decent purchase to me, those Aussies are good at getting bargaisn that other countries no longer have a use for.

[Fedaykin]

The US army is mad keen on them. The USAF wants rid of them because it doesn't want to do the job they're designed for, & the army wants them to do. The evaluation as 'not operationally suitable' means they don't do the job the USAF wants to do, & ignores the fact that the US army (i.e. the consumer of the service the aircraft would provide) is crying out for them, because it wants a different job done.

Australia has the good fortune to have an air force which is more responsive to the needs of the military as a whole.

Of course this begs an interesting question, if the C27 is blocked now is there scope for an upgrade program for the Sherpa?

Airframe overhaul, new wing spas, cockpit upgrade and new engines might give some capability for the US army without messing about with the USAF. If I was Bombardier I might be considering doing some speculative work, possibly levering technology off other programs for example the Dash 8 flight deck upgrade and a dash of composites. The engines are PT6 so huge scope for an affordable upgrade to newer more powerful/economical units.

[BME330]

Sounds like a decent purchase to me, those Aussies are good at getting bargaisn that other countries no longer have a use for.

What bargain? those are brand new planes, and about 1.4 Bn bucks

[Fedaykin]

Was it one of these which had a heavy landing at Fairford a few years ago ?

Kind of, that was a G.222:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5IZFobV5G0

[Sintra]

AUSTRALIA will buy 10 new Alenia C-27J Spartan tactical transport aircraft, even though they have been labelled "not operationally suitable" by a US agency and are set to be dropped from US military service.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1226352411129

Good for the Aussies.

[J-20 Hotdog]

The US army is mad keen on them. The USAF wants rid of them because it doesn't want to do the job they're designed for, & the army wants them to do. The evaluation as 'not operationally suitable' means they don't do the job the USAF wants to do, & ignores the fact that the US army (i.e. the consumer of the service the aircraft would provide) is crying out for them, because it wants a different job done.

Australia has the good fortune to have an air force which is more responsive to the needs of the military as a whole.

could you go into detail why the USAF didn't feel the C-27j was up to the job?

[SpudmanWP]

The US Army wanted a transport that could be quickly sent to an area and land on a short dirt strip (or paradrop) in order to deliver supplies to nearby units.

The USAF wanted a larger transport that would wait on the TARMAC to fill up and would either deliver the supplies via paradrop or land at airstrips that would likely be farther away from the units that need supplies. The units would then have to come get their stuff if they wanted it.

Bottom line: The C-27J could deliver supplies quicker (did not have to wait for a full cargo load before taking off), deliver them closer (access to smaller airstrips than the C-130), and be under the direct control of the Army (ala Sherpa).

[19K11]

the Air Force never wanted the C-27J, they just didnt want the Army to have them. Once they stole them from the Army, they said they had no need of these brand new planes, and are tossing them.

[J-20 Hotdog]

The US Army wanted a transport that could be quickly sent to an area and land on a short dirt strip (or paradrop) in order to deliver supplies to nearby units.

The USAF wanted a larger transport that would wait on the TARMAC to fill up and would either deliver the supplies via paradrop or land at airstrips that would likely be farther away from the units that need supplies. The units would then have to come get their stuff if they wanted it.

Bottom line: The C-27J could deliver supplies quicker (did not have to wait for a full cargo load before taking off), deliver them closer (access to smaller airstrips than the C-130), and be under the direct control of the Army (ala Sherpa).

is it me or it sounds like what the USAF wanted is more C-17s or C-130s

[slipperysam]

There was a thread on here about this which was started a few years ago and revived a few weeks ago, but seems like its disappeared.

The USAF basically said it was "too expensive".... It was the US ARMY that orginally wanted a replacment for the Shorts Sherpa (which is now at least 25yrs old and useless), but the USAF squashed those plans.

World News
U.S. senators are demanding that the Air Force explain the metrics it used to estimate the lifetime cost of operating the C-27J cargo plane, which the service has proposed canceling in the Pentagon’s 2013 budget proposal.

Democrats and Republicans, primarily from states where Air National Guard units fly or are slated to fly the aircraft, questioned the Air Force’s rationale for scrapping the fleet of 21 purchased aircraft.

Thus far, the Air Force has yet to provide congressional defense committees with the metrics it used to determine that each C-27J would cost $308 million over its lifetime, which the Air Force used in its rationale to terminate the program.

Lawmakers and defense analysts have questioned the lifecycle costs, particularly because three Air Force assessments of these costs vary between $111 million and $308 million per aircraft.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other members of the panel questioned Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz about the varying C-27J lifecycle cost estimates during a March 20 hearing.

“There’s a big gap there that I don’t think they adequately explained at all here today,” Levin said after the hearing when asked about the $200 million gap in the estimates.

The committee will continue to look at this issue during its markup of the Pentagon’s 2013 budget proposal, he said................

Rest of the article here...

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...27-Cost-Claims

There is NOTHING wrong with the C27, other then the fact the USAF didnt want them given to the US army

[Fedaykin]

What is so amazing is this is an exact repeat of what happened with the US Army C-7 Caribou in the 60's. An Army aircraft performing a vital mission in Vietnam grabbed by the USAF who promptly retired it as they said the same task could be performed by the C130.

[ZuluAlfaKilo]

The US Army wanted a transport that could be quickly sent to an area and land on a short dirt strip (or paradrop) in order to deliver supplies to nearby units.

The USAF wanted a larger transport that would wait on the TARMAC to fill up and would either deliver the supplies via paradrop or land at airstrips that would likely be farther away from the units that need supplies. The units would then have to come get their stuff if they wanted it.

Bottom line: The C-27J could deliver supplies quicker (did not have to wait for a full cargo load before taking off), deliver them closer (access to smaller airstrips than the C-130), and be under the direct control of the Army (ala Sherpa).

Some interesting comparisons between the C-27J and C-130:

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2...the-air-force/

"In Australia, the C-27J can access over 1900 airfields compared to around 500 for the C-130 Hercules aircraft. In our region, the C-27J will be able to access over 400 airfields compared to around 200 for the C‑130 Hercules aircraft."

[comoford]

could you go into detail why the USAF didn't feel the C-27j was up to the job?

According to the Pentagon Jan 26 2012:

The C-27J was developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs in difficult environments such as Afghanistan, where we thought the C-130 might not be able to operate effectively ... However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield constraints for C-130 operations in Afghanistan and expect these constraints to be marginal in future scenarios. Since we have ample inventory of C-130s and the current cost to own and operate them is lower, we no longer need nor can we afford a niche capability like the C-27J.

ie "We have helicopters and if an runway is too small for C-130s, we'll build a bigger one."

(The US Army doesn't really do expeditionary airfield construction. Thats in the hands of the USAF and Navy Seabees.)

[J Boyle]

In the proposed defense budget the uSAF had to cut several "nice to have" things to keep the more important stuff funded.
Remember, the USAF is not an airline...if they use a larger than necessary aircraft to get an urgent mission done, no big deal...they don't have to worry about profit and loss.
There is always more money..tax money...available.

They'd rather use more fuel and have higher flying costs for the few missions than spend a lot of money on a new airframe.

[irtusk]

They'd rather use more fuel and have higher flying costs for the few missions than spend a lot of money on a new airframe.

that could be used to justify not buying any more

BUT the USAF has ALREADY spent a lot of money on new airframes and is now looking to ditch these new airframes that happen to be cheaper to operate.

That is what people are choking on

"Let's spend all this money buying new planes and then 1 year later decide we really don't need these planes after all so let's scrap them"

[Fedaykin]

In the proposed defense budget the uSAF had to cut several "nice to have" things to keep the more important stuff funded.
Remember, the USAF is not an airline...if they use a larger than necessary aircraft to get an urgent mission done, no big deal...they don't have to worry about profit and loss.
There is always more money..tax money...available.

They'd rather use more fuel and have higher flying costs for the few missions than spend a lot of money on a new airframe.

These aircraft were for the US-Army replacing the elderly Shorts Sherpa, the reason the Army needs this aircraft is because the USAF has consistently failed to transport the loads the Army needs. The USAF does not want the Army to do fixed wing as has been proven with the C-7 (and the A-10 Warthog). The USAF plays politics and takes these aircraft off the Army saying "We can do what you want nooooo problem" then promptly cancels the program using all the same excuses that were made in the 1960's with the C-7 Caribou!

The USAF didn't need to play politics and take these aircraft, if they had been an Army asset the money would of come out of the Armies budget meaning the USAF wouldn't of had to worry about having to cut several "nice to have" things to keep the more important stuff funded! Of course the USAF needs all the money it can find to try and get that boondoggle of an F22 to actually work properly without killing the pilots whilst taxing on the ground or just generally falling to pieces!

[19K11]

In the proposed defense budget the uSAF had to cut several "nice to have" things to keep the more important stuff funded.
Remember, the USAF is not an airline...if they use a larger than necessary aircraft to get an urgent mission done, no big deal...they don't have to worry about profit and loss.
There is always more money..tax money...available.

They'd rather use more fuel and have higher flying costs for the few missions than spend a lot of money on a new airframe.

The Air Force could have thought of that befor they stole them from the Army.

[frankvw]

I think they just don't want the Army to operate large fixed wing airplanes...

[TooCool_12f]

basically, it's not about operational capabilities but just interservice rivalry

obviously, for some top brass in USAF, getting things their way "against" other branches comes before operational suitability

[invictus_slo]

I think plane is to cheap and to effective for USAF.

They should just double the price for it. It would be more appealing for them.

[d'clacy]

I notice in the article from the Minister for Defence, where the C27J and the C130 are compared, the airlift capacity of the RAAF is listed, with no mention of the Airbus KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport. Doe'snt it ever get used to carry equipment or personnel?

[tiddles]

I notice in the article from the Minister for Defence, where the C27J and the C130 are compared, the airlift capacity of the RAAF is listed, with no mention of the Airbus KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport. Doe'snt it ever get used to carry equipment or personnel?

AFAIK the RAAF MRTTs are able to carry personel but have not been modified at this point to allow them to carry pallets etc. This suited the RAAF initially as they quietly wanted the planes to be used exclusively as tankers and were worried they might end up being permanently be used for other roles if they became true MRTTs, after all there are only 5 of them. At the time of order there were no mods in place similar to the A310 MRTT used by Canada, for the A330 MRTT ordered by OZ
Tiddles