Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Spartan To Replace Australian Caribous?  
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 16977 times:

In a dramatic reversal to a previous competition, Alenia's C-27J Spartan is reported to be replacing Australia's aging Caribous in the tactical transport role. Interoperability with US and UK C-130Js was cited as the main reason for the selection.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicola Maraspini
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Krzysztof Skowronski



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wojciech Kuzia [epwa_spotters]
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas Wirtenberger




http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-to-alenia-over-c-27j-spartan.html

Quote:
"at Avalon airport in Melbourne, that a selection had already been made to replace the air force's de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou transport aircraft and that the deal may not be subject to competition. Senior sources within Alenia confirm that the Italian company has been selected for the renamed Air 8000 phase 2 project, but that a formal announcement is not expected until after the Australian federal election and subsequent defence budget.

The C-295 was selected ahead of the C-27J as the Caribou replacement but the programme was cancelled due to budgetary constraints related to Australian deployment in Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor). Interoperability with US and UK air forces' Lockheed Martin C-130Js is understood to be the defining factor in the reversal."


Another court battle for EADS?


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 16882 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
Another court battle for EADS?

I think you can count on that. Airbus is not going to be satisfied will selling the RAAF "only" 5 KC-30Bs. The C-27J is an outstanding airplane, I believe the USCG also recently selected it, too.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16810 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The C-27J is an outstanding airplane, I believe the USCG also recently selected it, too.

Actually, the USCG selected the C-295, designated the HC-144A. Three are under contract; planned procurement is 36.

Quote:
The HC-144A is a derivative of EADS CASA’s CN-235/C-295 airlifter family, and is the first all-new aircraft developed for the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System modernization program. EADS CASA is supplying the aircraft under contract to the Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, with three HC-144As currently under contract. The Deepwater implementation plan calls for production and system integration of 36 aircraft through 2017.

http://www.team-jca.com/Media_Corner...press_release/press_release31.html



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16745 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 2):
Actually, the USCG selected the C-295, designated the HC-144A. Three are under contract; planned procurement is 36.

I really need to pay more attention to what I read. Sorry. You are correct, the USCG is buying the EADS C-295.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5705 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 16733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
Interoperability with US and UK air forces' Lockheed Martin C-130Js is understood to be the defining factor in the reversal."

Interoperability with Australian C-130Js might also play a part!
This would be good news for Aussie Airlift and if EADS have an issue, build something with the same capability.

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 16711 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Actually, the USCG selected the C-295, designated the HC-144A. Three are under contract; planned procurement is 36.

I really need to pay more attention to what I read. Sorry. You are correct, the USCG is buying the EADS C-295.

Actually, it's the shorter one, the CN-235.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rafael García



http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...i-mission-aircraft-arrives-in.html

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
Interoperability with Australian C-130Js might also play a part!

I totally forgot those. And shame on FLIGHT for missing it too!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gabriel Savit - AirTeamImages



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
and if EADS have an issue, build something with the same capability.

Given that the A-400M is still 24 months behind, it might take them a long while yet before they could start development of a smaller version. They'll probably still offer the C-295 or CN-235 for upcoming tenders.

[Edited 2007-03-25 05:31:40]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16210 times:

Update:

In another reversal, it now appears that the Caribou replacement will be competitively tendered.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...o-compete-caribou-replacement.html

Quote:
"Australia's National Security Committee is expected to give initial project approvals by year-end to launch an open competition for a new light tactical airlifter to replace the nation's de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribous.

Royal Australian Air Force sources said during the Australian air show in March that a sole-source acquisition of the Alenia Aeronautica C-27J Spartan was being actively planned, but the Australian government now says there will be a fully competitive tender process."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16194 times:

USCG bought CN-235 because it was less expensive and no other reason. Same as the Polish, Swiss and a few others where the money per unit was more important to the governments than capability.

THe US Army just selected C-27J because it did the job better than anything else, and it was compatible with other aircraft in the inventory in many ways.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 15848 times:

Enjoy this jumpseat ride in the Spartan.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...tica-c-27j-spartan-as-it-desc.html

[Edited 2007-09-26 19:09:19]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 15785 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 6):
Royal Australian Air Force sources said during the Australian air show in March that a sole-source acquisition of the Alenia Aeronautica C-27J Spartan was being actively planned, but the Australian government now says there will be a fully competitive tender process."

After the current debacle with the SuperHornet procurement there will likely never be another major single source acquisition again (the JSF aside). That being said it is certainly favouring the C-27J and would be a fantastic addition to the fleet as the DH-4s are old, they're still using WWII bomber engines!


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 14536 times:

Update:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 9):
After the current debacle with the SuperHornet procurement there will likely never be another major single source acquisition again (the JSF aside). That being said it is certainly favouring the C-27J and would be a fantastic addition to the fleet

After four years, it appears sole-sourcing is not completely out of the picture.....

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_C-27J_Begins_Takeoff_lg.jpg

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...sport-Replacement-07160/#more-7160

Quote:
"Oct 19/11: Australia’s government announces that they have sent a formal Letter of Request to the USA re: the C-27J Spartan, to meet the needs of project AIR 8000, Phase 2 with up to 10 planes.

[.....]

The release says that other aircraft will also be considered, and specifically names Airbus Military’s C-295. On the other hand, it also says that the response to their LoR will determine 'whether a broader tender process will be pursued,' implying the possibility of a sole-source buy."



As to the Super Bug, Defence seems pleased that the acquisition was on time and under budget, that it's now studying whether to proceed with the conversion of the 12 pre-wired frames to full Growler standard.....

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-18F_RAAF_Armed_AIM-9X_ATFLIR_AGM-154C_lg.jpg

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/#more-2898

Quote:
"Oct 19/11: During an interview with Australia Broadcasting Corporation Radio, Labor government defense minister Stephen Smith discusses the possibility of turning 12 of Australia’s Super Hornets into EA-18G Growler electronic warfare fighters, whose conversion price tag is described by the interviewer as 'upwards of A$ 300 million.' The EA-18G recently saw their its combat use over Libya, and:

[.....]

The minister does not contradict the price figure, and in a related ABC TV interview, he mentions costs of 'hundreds of millions.' The minister also implied that further delays or issues with the F-35A could make an EA-18 conversion more likely, as a way to strengthen Australia’s air capability in the interim."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5682 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14425 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 10):

The release says that other aircraft will also be considered, and specifically names Airbus Military’s C-295. On the other hand, it also says that the response to their LoR will determine 'whether a broader tender process will be pursued,' implying the possibility of a sole-source buy."

I sure hope they include Viking and the revamped DHC-5 Buffalo in the possibilities. After mire than 10 years there's still nothing to really replace a "Bou!!!!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 13942 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 11):
I sure hope they include Viking and the revamped DHC-5 Buffalo in the possibilities. After mire than 10 years there's still nothing to really replace a "Bou!!!!

There's this glaring difference in this Flightglobal report from the other two above.....

http://paper.li/Flightglobal/flightglobal

Quote:
"On 19 October, minister for defence materiel Jason Clare said DoD analysis had determined that the C-27J is the best aircraft for Air 8000 Phase 2, and that Australia issued the letter of request owing to the pending closure of the C-27J production line."


If such indeed is the case, then Viking should work on getting their act together for the Buffalo to stand a better chance.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William T Shemley



OTOH, it could be just a bait for the RAAF to rush their selection of the Spartan. Otherwise, it would also mean that Finmecanicca had given up on getting further orders from their JCA win.

[Edited 2011-10-31 12:36:30]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12835 times:

A holiday present for a beleaguered company.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art..._27j-transporters-for-%24950m.html

Quote:
"WASHINGTON --– The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Dec. 16 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia for 10 C-27J aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $950 million."


And very reasonably priced too! Hopefully, the deal wouldn't get tangled in the budgetary maze.   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12725 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 13):
Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia for 10 C-27J aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $950 million."

While not overly surprising, (the Spartan is by far the preferred plane by everyone Ive talked to in RAAF circles ), it is great news to finally see a proper successor to the Caribou. 38 SQNs KingAirs dont really 'fit', and the Spartan should slide right into its own little niche in RAAF service.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 13):
And very reasonably priced too! Hopefully, the deal wouldn't get tangled in the budgetary maze.

The current Government has shown recently that they are quite willing to allocate funds quite readily to acquisitions such as this one. Check the recent 5th and possible 6th C-17 acquisition for an example, and it wouldn't surprise me if these funds had not already been set aside for some time, pending a decision on the airframe.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12569 times:

Quoting legs (Reply 14):

While not overly surprising, (the Spartan is by far the preferred plane by everyone Ive talked to in RAAF circles ), it is great news to finally see a proper successor to the Caribou.

Apparently not if EADS could help it.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ter-project%2C-offers-savings.html

Quote:
"The US notice prompted a spokesman for Airbus Military, Ted Porter, to urge the government to create a competitive process to allow Airbus to prove the C295's value for money.

'We believe that a competition, rather than a sole-source supplier, is in the best interests of Australia and the Australian taxpayer,' Mr Porter said."




Quoting legs (Reply 14):
The current Government has shown recently that they are quite willing to allocate funds quite readily to acquisitions such as this one.

Funding could be available, but depending on which source is read, may not readily be spent until the procurement method is decided.....

Quote:
"A US bid document has prompted a European competitor to suggest its offer could save as much as $300 million in the lifetime of the project.

[.....]

It is unclear if the government will engage in a fully competitive tender process, or simply choose the Spartan via a US 'foreign military sale' option, which can reduce complexity in the tender process.

[.....]

He said the Spartan burnt much more fuel per hour than the C295 (as much as 60 per cent more), which meant the C295 could save as much as $300 million on fuel over the 30-year lifespan of a 10-aircraft fleet."



http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...sport-Replacement-07160/#more-7160

Quote:
"The cost is estimated at up to $950 million, but actual pricing would depend on negotiations, which can begin after the 15-day notification limit that Australia shares with NATO and other very close allies. Australia is also trying to decide whether or not to pursue a sole-source buy, which may introduce additional delays.

Since they’re buying through the USA, the prime contractor isn’t Alenia, but rather their US Joint Cargo Aircraft contract lead: L-3 Integrated Systems Group in Waco, TX. Australia wouldn’t need any addition US government or contractor personnel in Australia if the sale takes place."



That could easily add another 1 - 3 years to the acquisition process, and leave Oz without a 'Bou replacement far longer.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11227 times:

Now that the Pentagon has cancelled the C-27J, look for L-3 wanting to divest the balance if not all of the USAF frames ordered.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ers-in-new-budget-proposal-367457/

Quote:
"The US Air Force will eliminate six fighter squadrons, divest the L-3 Communications C-27J and retire 27 Lockheed Martin C-5As and 65 ageing C-130s under a new round of sweeping budget cuts announced on 26 January."


Not sure if the Army would try to retain the 13 already delivered from the first batch of 21 frames ordered. In any case, there could be a number of cheap Spartans ready and ripe for picking.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Agustin Anaya




"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11222 times:

Got it would be great f the us army grabbed those ex-air force C-27's. Hopefully with the Air Force dumping them they will stop whining about the Army encroaching on their mission and let the get the equipment they need.

Those C-23's they are flying aren't getting any newer and need replacement badly. There are still gets in The AKNG who are still ticked off that the had to give up their OV-18 Twin Otters.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11074 times:

Not surprised. The USAF never wanted the C-27J in the first place, they only created a need for a type to start a turf war with the US Army by hijacking the Army's plans.

It's a question of ownership of the assets - originally they were to be US Army owned & operated. The USAF got them instead, and now is cutting them - so the US Army will retain its old tac lift airframes at considerable cost in R&O and ongoing O&M.

Inter-service rivalry is pretty high in the US military; same thing has happened with the JHSVs, also an Army led transport programme, this time because the Navy wasn't getting them where they needed to be on time. Programme transferred to the USN. End result of transfer? 8 hulls removed from the programme. Go back even more, and the C-8 Buffalo was also a victim of inter-service rivalry. The USN, USAF, and US Army don't always want to play nice with each other sometimes.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10994 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
Not surprised. The USAF never wanted the C-27J in the first place

The orginal proposal was between the C-295 and the C-27J. The Air Force decided they wanted the Casa and the Army wanted the C-27. Apparently the fact that the C-295 isn't wide enough apparently to accomidate a Humvee. Which if you are talking a small transport the argument that you should be able to carry your standard ton and a quarter truck would make sense. I guess the USAF figured if you are hauling something that large you can send a Herk instead.

The funny part is that the USAF flew the original G.222 version as the C-27A as a support aircraft in Panama for years.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
so the US Army will retain its old tac lift airframes at considerable cost in R&O and ongoing O&M.

Again I hope not, I know about five years ago when everybody was fighting over who woudl make this buy that there where rumors that the AKNG was going to get 2 C27 airframes independently so they could start to replace the Sherpas.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
Go back even more, and the C-8 Buffalo was also a victim of inter-service rivalry.

Yup, the USAF has always felt the skies was their domain. At one point not only did they want the Army to give up their C-8's but they also wanted to have all Helo ops too. The comprimise at that time was that the Army would operate rotory wing and USAF would be Fixed wing.

There over time has been other suggestions that may not have worked. At one point in the late 1990's it was suggested that the US army take over the A-10's as the Air Force retired them. Which is one reason the USAF decided to keep a bunch of them in service.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3371 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 10980 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 19):
The orginal proposal was between the C-295 and the C-27J. The Air Force decided they wanted the Casa and the Army wanted the C-27.

I thought it was other way round? The army wanted the C-295 since it was cheaper and capable enough for their milk-run supply missions considering there are also a lot of C-130s, C-17s and C-5s for the bulkier stuff. The air force wanted the C-27 due to commonality with the C-130.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10860 times:

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 20):
I thought it was other way round? The army wanted the C-295 since it was cheaper and capable enough for their milk-run supply missions considering there are also a lot of C-130s, C-17s and C-5s for the bulkier stuff. The air force wanted the C-27 due to commonality with the C-130.

The USAF never wanted a transport aircraft smaller than the C-130 in the first place.

It all started with the US Army's FCA program to replace the C-23B Sherpa and C-12 Huron. The USAF felt compelled to protect its turf in the air lift business by joining the program, and then promptly delayed the program by dragging its feet on its portion of the joint requirement. They then continued to drag out the program, and cut the numbers planned so the Army never got its allocation of aircraft. Now they are canceling the program all together and disposing of the aircraft.

It is instructive to note that, only after the Army has announced the request for proposal for the FCA, did the Air Force start making noise about its similar requirements, yet did not have its set of requirement ready right away.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10767 times:

Apparently, a "revised agreement" was overtaken by events.....

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...012_p27-415858.xml&channel=defense

Quote:
"Army officials are less than satisfied with the Air Force’s delays in delivering C-27Js to the field. At least six were to be in Afghanistan by now, and why they have not been deployed is the 'golden question,' the anonymous Army official said.

One industry official says the Army is 'trying to hold the Air Force’s feet to the fire to do what they signed up for' in the 2009 pact.

[.....]

Meanwhile, Crutchfield notes that the Army’s C-23 Sherpas still support war operations. Without better direct support from USAF, the Army would have to pay $350 million to keep old C-23s operating, and they would still lack a pressurized cabin, Tierney says. Carlislie expects the updated pact to be signed in days."


http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_C-27J_HMMWV_Unloading_lg.jpg
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...s/AIR_C-27J_HMMWV_Unloading_lg.jpg


In the meantime, the ANG and AANG could just enjoy doing this while they can.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=mH23bTTK0h4


With the RAAF looking for only ten aircraft, there may still be enough bargain frames to fill the CF's requirements.  


Meanwhile, now that AFSOC have all but given up on the Stinger II idea, ATK has again come up with another teaser.....  http://defensetech.org/2011/10/19/atks-light-gunship-package/





[Edited 2012-01-29 14:31:04]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10631 times:

Now, the "real" bargaining begins.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-c-27js-wings-in-australia-367521/

Quote:
"Any US decision to divest itself of the L-3 Communications C-27J Spartan will change the dynamics of Canberra's Air 8000 Phase 2 requirement for 10 battlefield airlifters. Australia is considering two aircraft for the requirement: Alenia Aeronautica's C-27J and the Airbus Military C-295.

'What the United States has announced in recent days has essentially been a decision to produce and purchase no more C-27s and to divest itself of its current capability,' said Minister of Defence Stephen Smith.

'That is obviously a very, very relevant material fact so far as our consideration of these two aircraft is concerned, and that is something that we are now giving exhaustive consideration to'."



L-3 will need to sharpen its pencils more...crunch time.   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10563 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 23):
Now, the "real" bargaining begins.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-c-27js-wings-in-australia-367521/

Quote:
"Any US decision to divest itself of the L-3 Communications C-27J Spartan will change the dynamics of Canberra's Air 8000 Phase 2 requirement for 10 battlefield airlifters. Australia is considering two aircraft for the requirement: Alenia Aeronautica's C-27J and the Airbus Military C-295.

'What the United States has announced in recent days has essentially been a decision to produce and purchase no more C-27s and to divest itself of its current capability,' said Minister of Defence Stephen Smith.

'That is obviously a very, very relevant material fact so far as our consideration of these two aircraft is concerned, and that is something that we are now giving exhaustive consideration to'."


L-3 will need to sharpen its pencils more...crunch time.

Also provides an advantageous situation for Canada for FWSAR; we can get C-27J's on the cheap, and convert them to SAR aircraft.


25 antidote : Nice thought but the original acquisition was shelved specifically because of the perception that the air force wrote its requirements specifically t
26 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Things may not be quite as simple and straightforward now..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ntagon-new-contracting-truths.html Quote: "In a
27 cmb56 : That's our Air Force for you. If it doesn't have 4 engines or go Mach 2+ they don't want it. Meanwhile the Army is still stuck with their worn out Sho
28 KC135TopBoom : The C-27J would be a great addition to the RAAF, but don't buy them because the USAF has them. We are getting rid of ours. Even though they should, th
29 Post contains links and images Devilfish : It's official..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...billion-deal-for-10-c-27js-371648/ Australia confirms A$1.4 billion deal for 10 C-27Js Quote
30 connies4ever : Haven't Finmeccanica stated that they will not under any circumstances maintain these ex-USAF a/c ? And Canada already has a shortage of such people
31 trex8 : They did then backed off. This stuff does not go down well with any customer present or future. A tried to do that with the ex SQ A343s and had to ba
32 trex8 : They did then backed off. This stuff does not go down well with any customer present or future. A tried to do that with the ex SQ A343s and had to ba
33 connies4ever : OK, if Alenia have backed down on this (and I think it's a good thing they apparently have done so) then Canada should try to scoop up the US-flagged
34 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Better yet, give those to AFSOC for their Stinger II and personnel recovery platforms and let Homeland Security retain the rest, if they do not want
35 Post contains images trex8 : Hey, they're just like a real world power air force like the USAF now!
36 legs : Finding a replacement for the Caribou has been a far longer saga than just whats in this thread. If memory serves, it's been under study for at least
37 connies4ever : AIR 8000 came to life about 1999-2000 IIRC. At that point the Caribous were already 35 years old. Too bad they didn't opt for the Buffalo. Canada sti
38 legs : Very good question, and I don't have an exceptional answer. As far as I know however, operational funding wasn't cut for any of the services in the l
39 stealthz : I don't think it is just anecdotal. Does make one wonder how they will crew the 12 boats they seem so intent on buying/building/leasing. Back to the
40 Post contains links Devilfish : Apparently, "sacrificing" the C-130H Herks was a much "easier" decision to make..... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...erial-Transport-Replaceme
41 Post contains links Devilfish : It seems the fat lady hasn't sung yet..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-australia-on-c_27j-selection.html Quote: (Source: Australian Depart
42 connies4ever : But does the C-295M have the same capability as the C-27J ? I know Australia is going through belt-tightening in all areas, but this is not like the
43 legs : Not according to those people making the decision. According to the Defence Department, So it would seem
44 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Sounds like the "protestations" had come to naught..... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...sport-Replacement-07160/#more-7160 Quote: "May 31/12: A
45 Post contains links legs : The Defence Minister has addressed some of those concerns, which were raised in Parliament by Opposition Senator Johnston in this media release (horr
46 connies4ever : Question for you, Legs: with the recent budget cuts to the ADF, can it actually afford the C-27J (or any other nominee) ? With the upcoming F-35 purc
47 stealthz : My lay persons opinion, Not sure the ADF can afford NOT to buy these Spartans. Just find the money from somewhere, cancel a couple of subs or similar
48 legs : My thoughts exactly. Like I said upthread a bit, the ADF cuts seem to be structured in a way to leave *most* operational and acquisition funding inta
49 Post contains links Ozair : They will be operated by a reformed 35SQN initially out of Richmond and then moved north sometime either late this decade or early next. http://austr
50 connies4ever : I hear that...Canada is about to leap into the CH-47F world (had 'D's a while ago). Purpose-built facility at CFB Petawawa, just down the road from m
51 stealthz : No airlifter for sure, not sure what the different uses were*** but they do perform an important task in getting aircrews and maintainers up to speed
52 QFA380 : The Spartan is an incredible plane and I'm glad the RAAF is finally getting them. Not sure why its taken so long considering the fast acquisition of t
53 legs : The Air Force newspaper last week (or the week before, perhaps?) had a brief piece about the 38SQN King Airs taking part in an exercise in Malaysia (
54 stealthz : There has been talk of an AIP version of the Virginia that would have two major failings, the NIMBYs will not discriminate and just think of it as an
55 connies4ever : Do you have any idea how fantastically expensive these boats are ? On the order of $3B per, not to mention all the infrastructure needed to handle nu
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Spartan To Replace Australian Caribous?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cecil Field Being Looked At To Replace Oceana posted Sun Jul 31 2005 21:45:42 by DeltaGuy
New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5? posted Tue Aug 31 2004 18:44:04 by N328KF
Dover AFB To Replace C-5s With C-17s posted Fri Apr 19 2002 21:57:21 by Galaxy5
P38 ..."Glacier Girl" Will Fly To Great Britain. posted Sat Mar 17 2007 23:25:40 by Ferrypilot
Pratt & Whitney Selected To Supply Engines KC-767 posted Tue Mar 13 2007 22:12:56 by Keesje
What Ever Happened To The Mexican Sukhois? posted Tue Mar 13 2007 00:23:35 by Marcus
Tornados To Afghanistan posted Fri Mar 9 2007 17:37:24 by NoUFO
Emotional Tribute To CF Members posted Fri Mar 9 2007 09:29:47 by ZBBYLW
Raaf To Buy 24 Super Hornets posted Tue Mar 6 2007 10:46:07 by Anthonyspider
Boeing To End C-17 Production posted Fri Mar 2 2007 21:19:41 by Slz396

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format