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, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 16921 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, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 16826 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 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 16754 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, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 16689 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, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 16677 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, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16655 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, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 16154 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 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16138 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15792 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, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 15729 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 offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 14480 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, 5659 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 14369 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 offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13886 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 offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 12779 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 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12669 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 offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 12513 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 offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11171 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, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11166 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, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11018 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, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 10938 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 onlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3369 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10924 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, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10804 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 offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10711 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 offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10575 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, 1718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10507 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.


User currently offlineantidote From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10593 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Also provides an advantageous situation for Canada for FWSAR; we can get C-27J's on the cheap, and convert them to SAR aircraft.

Nice thought but the original acquisition was shelved specifically because of the perception that the air force wrote its requirements specifically to suit the C-27J. The revised acquisition program announced earlier this month to replace the Buffs and early Hercs precludes any sort of sole-sourcing. The news story referenced interested bidders - apart from Alenia and EADS - as Lockheed Martin with an SAR version of the Hercules and Bell-Boeing with the V-22 Osprey. Interesting times ahead for both Canada and Australia.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 9682 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):

Also provides an advantageous situation for Canada for FWSAR; we can get C-27J's on the cheap, and convert them to SAR aircraft.
Quoting antidote (Reply 25):
Interesting times ahead for both Canada and Australia.

Things may not be quite as simple and straightforward now.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ntagon-new-contracting-truths.html

Quote:
"In an eye-opening Defense News article, editor Vago Muradian reports that Italy's Alenia has informed the Pentagon that if it sells the Air Force's 28 surplus C-27J tactical airlifters to a foreign country the company will refuse to support them. DoD had been shopping the C-27Js overseas in direct competition with the manufacturer. What makes the company's action all the more surprising and significant is that it plans to bid on a multi-billion dollar program to provide the Air Force with its new jet trainer.

[.....]

Regarding the C-27J contract, the Pentagon demanded a very low price for the original firm fixed-price contract but proposed to buy 145 aircraft. Progressively, the size of the buy was reduced first to 78, then 38 and finally 21. Not only had Alenia lost money on the reduced buy but now DoD was going after the company's international business."


It would be enlightening how a deal could be consummated now under these circumstances.   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9745 times:

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 Shorts Sherpas. The AF swore they would operate the Spartan on the Army's behalf. LOL, I say give the Spartans to the Army who wanted them all along and screw the Air Force for once. They had their chance with this one. You don't want the dirty gritty jobs fine then give the tools to the people who have to get the job done.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9510 times:

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, the USAF polititics won't let the US Army have them.

Maybe the solution is to give the USAF C-27Js to the USMC, who can fly the missions they Army needs them to fly.

[Edited 2012-03-05 13:07:34]

User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8004 times:

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:
"Australia has confirmed that it will obtain 10 Alenia C-27J Spartan tactical transport aircraft for A$1.4 billion ($1.4 billion) through the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Mechanism.

'The C-27J was assessed by Defence as the aircraft which best met all the essential capability requirements and provides the best value for money,' Australia's Department of Defence says in a statement. 'It was assessed as being able to fly further, faster, higher while carrying more cargo and requiring a smaller runway than the other aircraft under consideration, the Airbus Military C-295.'

[.....]

'The C-27J has the capacity to carry significant loads and still access small, soft, narrow runways that are too short for the C-130J or runways which are unable to sustain repeated use of larger aircraft,' says the statement.

These comments counter a key rationale given by the US Air Force (USAF) to retire the C-27Js in US service. The USAF contends that the C-130 can access most of the airfields accessible to the smaller, lighter C-27J."



All's well that ends well.....hopefully.   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 30, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7867 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Also provides an advantageous situation for Canada for FWSAR; we can get C-27J's on the cheap, and convert them to SAR aircraft.

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 in the CF. Beautiful.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 31, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7855 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30):
Haven't Finmeccanica stated that they will not under any circumstances maintain these ex-USAF

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 back down then . US will probably not try push any sales of used planes where Alenia is already pitching the Spartan. I could see the US trying to flog these for special mission platforms and Alenia gets the vanilla cargo contracts.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 32, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7853 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30):
Haven't Finmeccanica stated that they will not under any circumstances maintain these ex-USAF

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 back down then . US will probably not try push any sales of used planes where Alenia is already pitching the Spartan. I could see the US trying to flog these for special mission platforms and Alenia gets the vanilla cargo contracts.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 33, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7815 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 31):
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 back down then . US will probably not try push any sales of used planes where Alenia is already pitching the Spartan. I could see the US trying to flog these for special mission platforms and Alenia gets the vanilla cargo contracts.

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 a/c for the FWSAR role. Probably can be had for a good price and they are only just 'broken in'. Our requirement to retire older a/c in this role is becoming urgent.

One thing the Spartan probably won't be able to do as well as the Buffalo is to fly low and slow, an important consideration in SAR work. But then again transit time to the area of concern will be reduced.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7796 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):

Maybe the solution is to give the USAF C-27Js to the USMC, who can fly the missions they Army needs them to fly.

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 the Army to have them... (bet LM would hate that).

.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/ai...it%20USAF-thumb-560x371-136121.jpg

Quoting trex8 (Reply 32):
I could see the US trying to flog these for special mission platforms

        

Quoting trex8 (Reply 32):
They did then backed off.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 33):
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 a/c for the FWSAR role.

The $450M price difference from the previous deal probably went a long way towards mollifying Alenia.....   From the link.....

Quote:
"The A$1.4 billion figure is considerably higher than the $950 million the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency quoted for the deal in a 23 December 2011 notification to Congress. Under the FMS deal, the prime contractor will be US firm L-3 Communications."

Quoting trex8 (Reply 32):
US will probably not try push any sales of used planes where Alenia is already pitching the Spartan.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 33):
Probably can be had for a good price and they are only just 'broken in'.

I think Trex8 is right, and your earlier assumption in the F-35 thread still holds.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ports-in-a%241.4-bn-fms-deal.html#

Quote:
"The acquisition of the 10 C-27J aircraft with associated support equipment will be conducted through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) arrangement with the United States (US) at a cost of around $1.4 billion. The first aircraft are expected to be delivered in 2015 with the Initial Operating Capability scheduled for the end of 2016.

Initial logistic support, including training for aircrew and maintenance personnel will be provided through the FMS program, utilising the system that has been established in the US. Defence will seek a separate agreement with the C-27J manufacturer, Alenia, in order to ensure that RAAF can operate, maintain and modify the aircraft throughout its planned life."


So, new-builds most likely.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 33):
Our requirement to retire older a/c in this role is becoming urgent.

Amazing that it has taken five years from the start of this thread to this buy decision (excluding the prior back and forths) for a plain intra-theater airlifter for the RAAF, with IOC not till end 2016!!!   


[Edited 2012-05-10 11:03:08]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4768 posts, RR: 14
Reply 35, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 7749 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 34):
Amazing that it has taken five years from the start of this thread to this buy decision (excluding the prior back and forths) for a plain intra-theater airlifter for the RAAF, with IOC not till end 2016!!!

Hey, they're just like a real world power air force like the USAF now!  


User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7690 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 34):
five years from the start of this thread

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 a decade, if not longer. AIR 8000 has been kicking around for at least 5 years too, I think.

I was very surprised (happily, however) to hear about this. Given the slashing other sections of Defence got in the Budget and the dogged determination to bring the Budget back to surplus, it would have been very, very easy to defer a decision for another day and another government. That being said, I think the Spartan will be a very good fit in RAAF service, and I look forward to seeing them with a kangaroo roundel on the side.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 37, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7649 times:

Quoting legs (Reply 36):
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 a decade, if not longer. AIR 8000 has been kicking around for at least 5 years too, I think.

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 still has a smallish cadre in service, and will be for 2-4 more years, given the way our procurement system works. Which now has been taken away from DND and given to Public Works.

Off-topic, but I wonder with the defense cutbacks in Oz, how on Earth will the RAN keep the Collins subs in service ? My understanding is that there are 6 and only 1 is at sea at any time.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7548 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 37):
RAN keep the Collins subs

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 latest budget, so they should have no issues moving forward.

From what I've heard (mostly anecdotally), the big problem for the sub fleet is getting a full complement of crew on board before setting sail. While the Collins are a bit of a maintenance dog (apparently), crewing seems to be at least as responsible for keeping the boats in dry dock.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 39, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting legs (Reply 38):
From what I've heard (mostly anecdotally), the big problem for the sub fleet is getting a full complement of crew on board before setting sail...... .....crewing seems to be at least as responsible for keeping the boats in dry dock.

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 Spartan, pleased someone bit the bullet and made a decision, been along time coming.

Breathes a bit more life into RAAF Richmond as well.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7532 times:

Quoting legs (Reply 36):
Given the slashing other sections of Defence got in the Budget and the dogged determination to bring the Budget back to surplus, it would have been very, very easy to defer a decision for another day and another government.

Apparently, "sacrificing" the C-130H Herks was a much "easier" decision to make.....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...erial-Transport-Replacement-07160/

Quote:
"May 10/12: Buying new. The Australian government agrees to buy 10 C-27J Spartan light transports from Alenia, for A$ 1.4 billion. It’s an offsetting move, as Australia is retiring its 4 remaining C-130H transports by 2013."

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2...t-2012-13-defence-budget-overview/

Early retirement of the C-130H aircraft: $250 million from the early retirement of the C-130H aircraft, which is being retired early in order to minimise costs associated with maintaining and operating the ageing fleet. Current activities undertaken by the C130H aircraft fleet will be redistributed across the remaining Air Force air mobility fleet, including C-130Js, C-17s and the replacement for the Caribou aircraft.

[Edited 2012-05-11 08:44:01]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7282 times:

It seems the fat lady hasn't sung yet.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-australia-on-c_27j-selection.html

Quote:
(Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued May 11, 2012)

"Australia’s selection of the C-27J medium transport aircraft, at a cost of $1.4 billion for 10 aircraft, has attracted substantial criticism because of its cost and the way the acquisition was decided. Airbus the losing competitor, has issued a statement saying it could have supplied the aircraft earlier and at much lower cost. Below are the Australian Defense Minister’s answers to related questions asked by The Canberra Times:"



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...4300m%2C-plus-%24300m-support.html

Quote:
(Source: L-3 Communications; issued May 11, 2012)

"NEW YORK --- L-3 Communications announced today that it has been selected by the Commonwealth of Australia to provide the C-27J Spartan for the country’s Battlefield Airlifter program. The U.S. Foreign Military Sales program has an approximate contract value of $600 million and includes the supply of 10 new C-27J aircraft worth about $300 million, plus contractor logistics support, spares and training."



Plenty of unharvested grapes?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 42, posted (2 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7270 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 41):
"Australia’s selection of the C-27J medium transport aircraft, at a cost of $1.4 billion for 10 aircraft, has attracted substantial criticism because of its cost and the way the acquisition was decided. Airbus the losing competitor, has issued a statement saying it could have supplied the aircraft earlier and at much lower cost.

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 F-35.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 4 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7227 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 42):
C-295M have the same capability as the C-27J ?

Not according to those people making the decision. According to the Defence Department,

Quote:
The C-27J flies higher, further, faster and can access more airfields in our area of interest.

The C-295 is unable to carry some of the equipment that is vital to support ADF military and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief operations.
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 41):
Plenty of unharvested grapes?

So it would seem


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6594 times:

Sounds like the "protestations" had come to naught.....

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

Quote:
"May 31/12: Aircraft contract. L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, LP in Greenville, TX receives a $321.8 million firm-fixed-price contract to buy 10 C-27J aircraft, 10 option kits, 1 lot each of production cost and software reports, and 1 lot each of contractor logistic support cost and software reports.

Recall the $1.275 billion total cost (vid. May 10/12); this is just a portion of that, for the base aircraft. Work will be performed in Greenville, TX, and will be complete by May 24/12. The ASC/WLNJ at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract, on behalf of its Australian FMS client (W58RGZ-07-D-0099, 0078)."



Is that now the Fat Lady singing?   

This illustrates how an acquisition for a simple airlifter could be made to drag on for decades by the unsatiable distorting the tender process to the detriment of those actually needing the capability.

To wit.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...australia%E2%80%99s-c_27j-buy.html

[Edited 2012-06-01 07:53:06]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6508 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 44):

The Defence Minister has addressed some of those concerns, which were raised in Parliament by Opposition Senator Johnston in this media release (horrible proofreading notwithstanding).

The paragraph in question:

Quote:
What Senator Johnston fails to understand and acknowledge is that the $1.4 billion includes not only the acquisition cost of the aircraft, but also the modifications to the aircraft for equipment needed for specific ADF roles, initial logistics support (including spare parts, training, materiel handling equipment, technical data, management fees) testing and certification, and facilities. These costs would apply to any aircraft platform chosen, including the C-295.

Admittedly, it isn't exactly a qualitative retort that shows exactly where the money is going, but lots of recent purchases have had big 'per aircraft costs' that were sunk into facilities and long term sustainment, eg the Super Hornet acquisition.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6453 times:

Quoting legs (Reply 45):
Admittedly, it isn't exactly a qualitative retort that shows exactly where the money is going, but lots of recent purchases have had big 'per aircraft costs' that were sunk into facilities and long term sustainment, eg the Super Hornet acquisition.

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 purchase, should it go ahead, or possible further F-18F buys, and the mooted new submarine program, that's a big bite. IMHO, the C-27J, or that capability, is fairly important, but that has to be tempered by the available dollars.

Rgds,



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6413 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 46):
can it actually afford the C-27J (or any other nominee) ?

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(can't crew them anyway!)

There is a school of thought, especially in the Army that tactical airlift can be performed by CH-47x (and the Army is incrementally adding to that fleet.)
Chinooks cost a heap to operate and have range limitations... doing sterling work central Asia but range and mx make the C-27 a pretty good option for other ADF missions.

I keep seeing references to the Spartan as a battlefield airlifter, the Caribou performed sterling service in Vietnam(my dad flew in and mantained the 'bou of RTFV) but the majority of their service was in Peacekeeping and Humanitarian work here in Oz and abroad.

I am sure the C-27J will maintain that tradition.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6314 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 47):
Not sure the ADF can afford NOT to buy these Spartan

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 intact, while cutting non-essential expenditures like unnecessary bureaucracy and some travel allowances (admittedly I havent dug into things too far, though).

The King Airs 38 SQN have been operating, while Im sure they are a fine aircraft, are a lousy substitute for a small/medium airlifter. Although I hear they are using them in some ways that a Caribou wouldn't let them previously.

Ansother thought that just occurred to me, the media releases say that the Spartans will be based at Richmond, does that mean that 38 SQN will be moving back down there, or will they be operated by 37SQN?


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6309 times:

Quoting legs (Reply 48):

Ansother thought that just occurred to me, the media releases say that the Spartans will be based at Richmond, does that mean that 38 SQN will be moving back down there, or will they be operated by 37SQN?

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://australianaviation.com.au/2012/05/raaf-c-27j-buy-confirmed/


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 47):
Chinooks cost a heap to operate and have range limitations... doing sterling work central Asia but range and mx make the C-27 a pretty good option for other ADF missions.

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 me, costing a fortune. It's basically 1 sq km of concrete plus hangarage. But yes, helo's cost a fortune to maintain and the a/c do have range issues, although these ones will have a probe so can be refueled by Super Hercs (if around).

IIRC, 16 frames for something over $2B. Would have been cheaper if bought 'as is', but we had to 'Canadianize' them. Mx facility 'slight' extra cost.

CF also have their eyes on 16 C-27Js, although the procurement process has, inevitably, gotten bogged down in politics, with what appears to have been a (gasp) rigged bid to eliminate the CN-295 (or anything else).



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting legs (Reply 48):
The King Airs 38 SQN have been operating, while I'm sure they are a fine aircraft, are a lousy substitute for a small/medium airlifter. Although I hear they are using them in some ways that a Caribou wouldn't let them previously.


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 with (more) modern turbine aircraft. Likely most importantly kept the unit together, always easier to requip a squadron than restablish from scratch years after all the human resources have moved on and other assetts have been disposed of or reassigned.

*** UPDATE. Some were fitted with a surveillance capability and have been used extensively around Australia and deployed to other areas of activity



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2068 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6107 times:

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 the C-17 and SuperHornets.

I remember seeing it at Avalon in 2007 and the order seemed imminent then thinking it was a done deal, hopefully Stephen Smith managed a good deal. The defence industry is extremely worried about austerity at the moment and will appreciate any cash they can get.

The RAAF would have appreciated them during the floods last year but better late than never.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 39):

Breathes a bit more life into RAAF Richmond as well.

That place certainly needs a shot in the arm, the infrastructure -like most ADF bases- is terrible though. Hopefully it will find life as a second airport once the base is closed after the Spartans move north and the C-130Js are retired in 2026. I don't see why it can't become like avalon with LCCs, the runway is able to handle up to lightly loaded A330s and could probably be extended another 1500ft or so.

As much as the government wants to move the ADF north they're going to come under a great deal of pressure when they're competing with the mines for 20 year olds willing to move to the ends of the earth.
This could become something that favours the Navy in recruiting, at least we won't force you up to Townsville or Darwin, or worse somewhere like Learmonth.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 39):

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.

I don't know what the subs are like but I'd say the fact that they are so problem plagued would contribute to the lack of people signing up for them. Who wants to work on a boat that is constantly breaking down, let alone one that lurks a few hundred metres beneath the waves.

As far as subs go I wish we would just get some Virginia class boats. Certainly wouldn't need 12 of them, although China would be greatly displeased if we did that. Ambassador Bleich has already said they'd consider it which is a soft yes. Hopefully the opposition can find the gumption to do it.


User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 51):
different uses were

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 (Bersama Shield, I think). It sounded to me like they were playing targets during the exercise.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 52):
mines for 20 year olds willing to move

Personally, I think the lure of the mines is a bit overblown, and I'd also argue that the overlap between those young people willing to join the ADF or head to a mining job is even smaller. I'm sure it is a concern for the ADF, though, and I certainly think they need to work a bit harder on selling themselves.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 52):
Navy in recruiting, at least we won't force you up to Townsville or Darwin

No, but they will put them on a ship or a submarine for up to months at a time. I'd take Townsville over sailing every day of the week.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 52):
Virginia class boats.

Would be nice, but is so completely out of the question on a whole bunch of levels it hardly bears discussing unfortunately. F-22's will wear kangaroo roundels far before nuclear boats are even considered in Australia. I can hear the screams from the NIMBY crowd now.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting legs (Reply 53):
F-22's will wear kangaroo roundels far before nuclear boats are even considered in Australia. I can hear the screams from the NIMBY crowd now.

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 American Nuclear sub, the 2nd is worse.. the $$$(and there would be many, many 000,000's, likely many 000,000,000 in those numbers) that would be required to redevelop the Virginia into a viable SSK/SSG



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6035 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 52):
As far as subs go I wish we would just get some Virginia class boats. Certainly wouldn't need 12 of them, although China would be greatly displeased if we did that. Ambassador Bleich has already said they'd consider it which is a soft yes. Hopefully the opposition can find the gumption to do it.

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 nukes. And then there are the NIMBYs, lying down in front of the home port yadda yadda.

Even the Yanks are limiting acquisition of these things.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
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