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 ?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.