Are there any new sales in the works for this remarkable aircraft ?


Despite its capabilities it doesn’t seem to have lit the world on fire in production numbers

The C27 was a bespoke derivative/warmup of the Fiat G.222 ( major taker at the time: IT, US
and a lot of smallish deployments for smaller nations.)
G.222 111 frames over 20++ years
C27 <90 frames projected.
It seems to be an "OK" plane. but nothing more.

Hmm

Doesn’t seem to be an accurate assessment, every review I’ve read of the C27 from operators worldwide is extremely positive

Just saw that a NG version has been developed for an as yet undisclosed operator

Glowing opinions of of a niche plane doesn’t t necessarily translate into success. A lot of politics and budget constraints killed it in US Mil, now retired except for USCG and some SOF planes.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Glowing opinions of of a niche plane doesn’t t necessarily translate into success. A lot of politics and budget constraints killed it in US Mil, now retired except for USCG and some SOF planes.

Since production is still continuing any judgment as to the C27’s commercial success would be premature, I think it’s unique attributes will attract more orders however



No question that technologically it has advanced the state of the art, current operators are happy with this aircraft and big proponents of its capabilities


Most likely why a NG version has been developed at the specific request of an additional operator

Max Q wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Glowing opinions of of a niche plane doesn’t t necessarily translate into success. A lot of politics and budget constraints killed it in US Mil, now retired except for USCG and some SOF planes.

Since production is still continuing any judgment as to the C27’s commercial success would be premature, I think it’s unique attributes will attract more orders however



No question that technologically it has advanced the state of the art, current operators are happy with this aircraft and big proponents of its capabilities


Most likely why a NG version has been developed at the specific request of an additional operator

Well, it’s based on a design that first flew in 1970, from a 1962 NATO requirement, and was “updated” by adding C-130J engines, props and avionics; I find it hard to believe it advanced much technology.

Max Q wrote:

I think it’s unique attributes will attract more orders however.

It would seem that acquisition costs are the biggest hindrance to its further success.....

Max Q wrote:

No question that technologically it has advanced the state of the art, current operators are happy with this aircraft and big proponents of its capabilities

Potential operators may be put-off by what they perceive as "half the C-130J's capabilities for a lot more than half its price"

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Well, it’s based on a design that first flew in 1970

Reminds me of these.....

Devilfish wrote:

It would seem that acquisition costs are the biggest hindrance to its further success.....

Isn't it always...

Devilfish wrote:

Potential operators may be put-off by what they perceive as "half the C-130J's capabilities for a lot more than half its price"

I like the C-27. But the price-to-capability ratio doesn't look so great when you put it next to the C-130. For a bit more $$, you get quite a lot more, and get to join a worldwide support community. I think the C-27 sells when you have a lot of scratchy airfields around that a C-130 can't do, but you want a halfway decent cargo bay and not something so small like a CN-295. That market is not terribly big. Africa would be a good candidate for sales.

Not sure how much it applies to the J model. But the A models that were part of the Afghan AF program had some major issues. 16 airframes bought for $ 287 US Million in 2008. Sold for scrap in 2014 for $ 32,000.

mechatnew wrote:

Not sure how much it applies to the J model. But the A models that were part of the Afghan AF program had some major issues. 16 airframes bought for $ 287 US Million in 2008. Sold for scrap in 2014 for $ 32,000.

Purchases forced by the invasion force. Ruski out, US in
Any place that actually worked out well?

The C-27J needs a stretched C-27J-30 model to reach perfection. Just like with airliners when you add engines and MTOW increases the manufacturer often makes a stretched model that sells really well. The stretched C-130J-30 stretch has added excellent value over the C-130J.

The original G.222 had a perfect cargo hold size for its capability and could do 9t of payload 700nm. The C-27J NG can carry 40% more payload that same distance or fly the same 9t payload 40% further. It now has ability to lift the weight of two light armoured vehicles but the cargo hold is not long enough.

A 3m stretch is critical to allow two light armoured vehicles to fit. This is the same number of vehicles as a normal length C-130H or C-130J. You now get the same number of vehicles transported for half the number of engines.

At the current fuselage length the C-27J will usually fit half the number of vehicles as the C-130J. The C-130J-30 can carry 3 vehicles which is why it is selling so sell.

RJMAZ wrote:

The C-27J needs a stretched C-27J-30 model to reach perfection. Just like with airliners when you add engines and MTOW increases the manufacturer often makes a stretched model that sells really well. The stretched C-130J-30 stretch has added excellent value over the C-130J.

The original G.222 had a perfect cargo hold size for its capability and could do 9t of payload 700nm. The C-27J NG can carry 40% more payload that same distance or fly the same 9t payload 40% further. It now has ability to lift the weight of two light armoured vehicles but the cargo hold is not long enough.

A 3m stretch is critical to allow two light armoured vehicles to fit. This is the same number of vehicles as a normal length C-130H or C-130J. You now get the same number of vehicles transported for half the number of engines.

At the current fuselage length the C-27J will usually fit half the number of vehicles as the C-130J. The C-130J-30 can carry 3 vehicles which is why it is selling so sell.

Very interesting. Which makes me wonder why the trend from four to two engines in commercial airliners doesn't seem to apply here. Certainly bigger propellers with lower disk loading should give more efficiency, and there seems to be plenty of clearance for bigger props. I don't know much about what turboshaft engines are currently available, so maybe that's where the hiccup is.

IADFCO wrote:

Very interesting. Which makes me wonder why the trend from four to two engines in commercial airliners doesn't seem to apply here. Certainly bigger propellers with lower disk loading should give more efficiency, and there seems to be plenty of clearance for bigger props. I don't know much about what turboshaft engines are currently available, so maybe that's where the hiccup is.

Mainly because performance is the biggest metric by which potential aircraft are measured, followed closely by price, then political/spread the wealth considerations, a WHOLE bunch of other stuff, THEN fuel efficiency somewhere near the bottom (I mean Aerial Refueling aircraft need a reason to exist don't they?).

Also due to the nature of being a military aircraft, the more engines available the better as many aircraft have come back with an engine missing, destroyed, on fire ect, and most of them had more than 2. It's about the ability to survive damage which on an aircraft with less engines would be fatal. This however goes right out the window when you consider the Navy ordering the F-35C (a decision that still makes most people wonder WTF, including me and I build part of it).

The big issue with the C-27J, is that it is expensive for the capabilities (the best description I've heard was that a C-27J was half the capability of a C-130J, but it isn't half the price, closer to 3/4 of the price), and Leonardo's after sales support has been found... lacking. A number of users have reported problems getting Leonardo to fix issues with their aircraft, and getting spare parts.

Max Q wrote:

Most likely why a NG version has been developed at the specific request of an additional operator

So, other than the ItAF, who might this "mystery" customer be that will take delivery of its first C-27J NG in 2021

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 84.article

IADFCO wrote:

Very interesting. Which makes me wonder why the trend from four to two engines in commercial airliners doesn't seem to apply here. Certainly bigger propellers with lower disk loading should give more efficiency, and there seems to be plenty of clearance for bigger props. I don't know much about what turboshaft engines are currently available, so maybe that's where the hiccup is.

The main advantage to multiple props is you get more of the prop air flowing into the wing and flaps. Engine reliability like in commercial airliners have reached the point where transport aircraft should just have two engines. At the time no engine was big enough to do a twin engine Hercules.

ThePointblank wrote:

The big issue with the C-27J, is that it is expensive for the capabilities (the best description I've heard was that a C-27J was half the capability of a C-130J, but it isn't half the price, closer to 3/4 of the price),

This is the main problem as they aircraft sits currently. There are multiple metrics to determine the capability. The C-27J being 75% of the price of the C-130J will always have to be taken into account.

1) The C-27J can carry 50% of the payload weight the same distance as the C-130J.

2) The C-27J can carry 60% of the max payload weight of the C-130J. But it can carry it approx half the distance.

3) Taking off empty the C-27J requires a runway 75% of the length of the C-130J and nearly half the length of the C-130J-30 (rotation issues).

4) The C-130J can carry twice the number of light armoured vehicles and the C-130J-30 can carry three times the number of vehicles. Against the longer Hercules here the C-27J has only 33% of the capability for 75% of the price.

This is where the stretched C-27J-30 becomes critical. It can carry just as many light armoured vehicles as the normal C-130J while being cheaper to buy, maintain and fuel up.

The USAF and Lockheed have held off updating the engines of the C-130J. Rolls Royce and Leonardo have the opportunity to close the capability gap by using engines that burn less fuel. This makes extra cargo volume of the stretch ration crucial once the engines are improved. With extra thrust it will also allow increased takeoff weights and payload without sacrificing runway length requirements. A large European order might be able to lower the price from 75% to 70% of the C-130J. This then improved the cost versus capability.

The C-27J-30 could easily carry 60% of the payload the same distance, carry 66% of the max payload and carry 100% of the light vehicles for 70% of the price of the C-130J. That clearly makes the aircraft very attractive. When combined with the A400M the C27J-30 becomes a perfect combo.

IADFCO wrote:

Which makes me wonder why the trend from four to two engines in commercial airliners doesn't seem to apply here. Certainly bigger propellers with lower disk loading should give more efficiency, and there seems to be plenty of clearance for bigger props. I don't know much about what turboshaft engines are currently available, so maybe that's where the hiccup is.

The C-130 has FOUR engines. that won't change.
As long as new offers are just accessorizing the basic design from the 50ties ...

IADFCO wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The C-27J needs a stretched C-27J-30 model to reach perfection. Just like with airliners when you add engines and MTOW increases the manufacturer often makes a stretched model that sells really well. The stretched C-130J-30 stretch has added excellent value over the C-130J.

The original G.222 had a perfect cargo hold size for its capability and could do 9t of payload 700nm. The C-27J NG can carry 40% more payload that same distance or fly the same 9t payload 40% further. It now has ability to lift the weight of two light armoured vehicles but the cargo hold is not long enough.

A 3m stretch is critical to allow two light armoured vehicles to fit. This is the same number of vehicles as a normal length C-130H or C-130J. You now get the same number of vehicles transported for half the number of engines.

At the current fuselage length the C-27J will usually fit half the number of vehicles as the C-130J. The C-130J-30 can carry 3 vehicles which is why it is selling so sell.

Very interesting. Which makes me wonder why the trend from four to two engines in commercial airliners doesn't seem to apply here. Certainly bigger propellers with lower disk loading should give more efficiency, and there seems to be plenty of clearance for bigger props. I don't know much about what turboshaft engines are currently available, so maybe that's where the hiccup is.

For a military transport payload that can be lifted from short runways is a big topic. On a 4 engine design, you only need 33% reserve power on the engines, on a 2 engine you need 100%, to keep the performance constant in case of one engine failing.

RJMAZ wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

Very interesting. Which makes me wonder why the trend from four to two engines in commercial airliners doesn't seem to apply here. Certainly bigger propellers with lower disk loading should give more efficiency, and there seems to be plenty of clearance for bigger props. I don't know much about what turboshaft engines are currently available, so maybe that's where the hiccup is.

The main advantage to multiple props is you get more of the prop air flowing into the wing and flaps. Engine reliability like in commercial airliners have reached the point where transport aircraft should just have two engines. At the time no engine was big enough to do a twin engine Hercules.

ThePointblank wrote:

The big issue with the C-27J, is that it is expensive for the capabilities (the best description I've heard was that a C-27J was half the capability of a C-130J, but it isn't half the price, closer to 3/4 of the price),

This is the main problem as they aircraft sits currently. There are multiple metrics to determine the capability. The C-27J being 75% of the price of the C-130J will always have to be taken into account.

1) The C-27J can carry 50% of the payload weight the same distance as the C-130J.

2) The C-27J can carry 60% of the max payload weight of the C-130J. But it can carry it approx half the distance.

3) Taking off empty the C-27J requires a runway 75% of the length of the C-130J and nearly half the length of the C-130J-30 (rotation issues).

4) The C-130J can carry twice the number of light armoured vehicles and the C-130J-30 can carry three times the number of vehicles. Against the longer Hercules here the C-27J has only 33% of the capability for 75% of the price.

This is where the stretched C-27J-30 becomes critical. It can carry just as many light armoured vehicles as the normal C-130J while being cheaper to buy, maintain and fuel up.

The USAF and Lockheed have held off updating the engines of the C-130J. Rolls Royce and Leonardo have the opportunity to close the capability gap by using engines that burn less fuel. This makes extra cargo volume of the stretch ration crucial once the engines are improved. With extra thrust it will also allow increased takeoff weights and payload without sacrificing runway length requirements. A large European order might be able to lower the price from 75% to 70% of the C-130J. This then improved the cost versus capability.

The C-27J-30 could easily carry 60% of the payload the same distance, carry 66% of the max payload and carry 100% of the light vehicles for 70% of the price of the C-130J. That clearly makes the aircraft very attractive. When combined with the A400M the C27J-30 becomes a perfect combo.

Agree, a small stretch would seem to provide a significant improvement in capability

Max Q wrote:

Agree, a small stretch would seem to provide a significant improvement in capability

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_L-ATV

I consider this the standard of a light armoured vehicle. So I will give some measurements.

Mass Gross vehicle weight: 10,266 lb (4,657 kg)
Length: 20.5 ft (6.2 m) (nominal)
Width :8.2 ft (2.5 m) (nominal)
Height:8.5 ft (2.6 m) (nominal)

The C-27J cargo bay is 3.33m wide and 2.6m. 40cm each side to slide of the vehicle which is a perfect fit. The cargo length is 8.58m but about 9.5m usable with the ramp.

C-295 can fit zero due to a 2m height limit.
C-27J can fit only one.
C-130J can fit two with 12.19m plus ramp
C-130J-30 can fit three with 16.76m plus ramp

A 3m stretch of the C-27J would increase the cargo bay length to 11.58m or 12.5m usable with the ramp. Two of these vehicles can now fit and the cargo buy is now 95% the length of the short C-130. Most C-130H operators would now look at the C-27J-30 as a suitable replacement.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... on-spartan

At the heart of the improved C-27J is an enhanced avionics suite that complies with next-generation air traffic control requirements, to ensure that the aircraft remains fully capable of operating in future airspace and to further enhance safety levels. Systems such as FANS 1/A+ datalink, TCAS 7.1, Cat III instrument landing system, and enhanced video terrain avoidance and warning system are included. ... Most noticeable of the aerodynamic improvements are drag-reducing winglets, which enhance short take-off and landing performance as well as improve cruise economy.

No stretched fuselage.

I wonder how many more the expect to sell. Unless this generates additional sales (or refurbishments), it's not profitable.

kitplane01 wrote:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-11-12/leonardo-unveils-next-generation-spartan

At the heart of the improved C-27J is an enhanced avionics suite that complies with next-generation air traffic control requirements, to ensure that the aircraft remains fully capable of operating in future airspace and to further enhance safety levels. Systems such as FANS 1/A+ datalink, TCAS 7.1, Cat III instrument landing system, and enhanced video terrain avoidance and warning system are included. ... Most noticeable of the aerodynamic improvements are drag-reducing winglets, which enhance short take-off and landing performance as well as improve cruise economy.

No stretched fuselage.

I wonder how many more the expect to sell. Unless this generates additional sales (or refurbishments), it's not profitable.

It's a really cheap upgrade to be honest. Most of the avionics upgrades are available off-the-shelf. I have seen several of them retrofitted to 30 year old ATRs among other types. The most significant bit would be the addition of CAT III capability, but since it already had auto throttles, it will mostly be a software modification that can easily be sold for retrofitting to existing C-27Js.

Interesting idea, add CAT III to a military airlifter. Military fields with CAT II are pretty rare and the capability would add zero to the military mission.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Interesting idea, add CAT III to a military airlifter. Military fields with CAT II are pretty rare and the capability would add zero to the military mission.

Probably because they spend 99% of their careers shuffling around in Europe doing liaison and training tasks. Northern Italy, where the C-27J is built, is notoriously foggy in the winter.

I know, but military fields with CAT III are next to impossible to find for the simple reason there’s no combat reason for it. HUD with advanced EFVS would be a better bet.

Anyone wanna take an about-sort-of guess how many more C-27s will be sold?

My uninformed guess is zero, but these changes might be retrofitted to existing planes.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I know, but military fields with CAT III are next to impossible to find for the simple reason there’s no combat reason for it. HUD with advanced EFVS would be a better bet.

You still have to merge in with civil air traffic, not only around civil airfields were you want to visit.

kitplane01 wrote:

Anyone wanna take an about-sort-of guess how many more C-27s will be sold?

My uninformed guess is zero, but these changes might be retrofitted to existing planes.

I expect there might be another 10 to 15 sales possible and we could wake up one day and read about the Saudi's ordering twenty as a low end C-130 replacement. The G.222 only sold just over that hundred mark so you would expect the C-27J to have a similar market appeal.

WIederling wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I know, but military fields with CAT III are next to impossible to find for the simple reason there’s no combat reason for it. HUD with advanced EFVS would be a better bet.

You still have to merge in with civil air traffic, not only around civil airfields were you want to visit.

I didn’t say military traffic didn’t, just that few military fields where most Ops are don’t have an economic argument for CAT III and don’t have it. Mil traffic does need RVSM, CPDLC, 8.33 comms, whic we were late to adopting. The C-27 won’t likely need RVSM, though

Australia seems very happy with theirs but they only have 10 aircraft

I’d not be surprised to see a follow up order

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I know, but military fields with CAT III are next to impossible to find for the simple reason there’s no combat reason for it. HUD with advanced EFVS would be a better bet.

There are still a lot of shared civil-military airports around with CAT III available. But I agree that there is little use for it. It's not like they are an airline with 12+ flights a day, and a schedule that falls apart because because visibility was worse than CAT II on the first leg.

WIederling wrote:

You still have to merge in with civil air traffic, not only around civil airfields were you want to visit.

CAT III has nothing to do with that. CAT I / II / IIIA / IIIB / IIIC is all about how low your decision height and visibility can be during landing. If the visibility is lower than the precision approach category you can do, you just have to wait or divert.

CAT II is a decision height as low as 100 ft and an RVR of 350 meters. The different CAT IIIs allow you to land in visibility as low as zero, ergo the pilots can't even see the taxiway below them.

VSMUT wrote:

ergo the pilots can't even see the taxiway below them.

Wait...is Harrison Ford the pilot?

Max Q wrote:

Australia seems very happy with theirs but they only have 10 aircraft

I’d not be surprised to see a follow up order

Very unlikely Max, the RAAF doesn't need any more C-27J sized aircraft. They had already gone with a capability gap between DHC-4 and C-27J for five years between 2009 and 2014. The next transport requirement is a C-130J replacement around 2030 which could be the A400M or just as likely another set of C-130Js. The proposed Airbus sized C-130J replacement is also a good option as long as that capability gets funded, is sized appropriately and not too delayed.

Ozair wrote:

Very unlikely Max, the RAAF doesn't need any more C-27J sized aircraft. They had already gone with a capability gap between DHC-4 and C-27J for five years between 2009 and 2014. The next transport requirement is a C-130J replacement around 2030 which could be the A400M or just as likely another set of C-130Js. The proposed Airbus sized C-130J replacement is also a good option as long as that capability gets funded, is sized appropriately and not too delayed.

Actually the RAAF has found the C-27J extremely popular and with their excellent long term planning I could see another C-27J order.

Nearly all of the C-130J flights done by the RAAF could have been done by the C-27J. This would provide a massive cost saving. On the rare occasion where the full capability of the C-130J was used the RAAF could just use two C-27J aircraft.

The USAF C-X transport program is highly likely to get purchased by the RAAF. It will be the only large western airlifter in production. Most likely it will be a vanilla strategic orientated aircraft using a pair of engines. I assume mature 787 engines and with that kind of thrust it would produce an aircraft with around 50t payload. The C-17 fleet might be fresh now but it will need to be supplemented in the 2030's or fully replaced by 2040. The rest of the tactical airlift should be planned around this purchase.

In 2040 I could see the RAAF with 10 large C-X transports with approx 50t payload and 30 C-27J NG

Effectively the fleet of 12 C-130J-30 gets replaced with say 18 C-27J NG aircraft.

The 8 C-17 aircraft get replaced with 10 slightly smaller C-X aircraft.

RJMAZ wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Very unlikely Max, the RAAF doesn't need any more C-27J sized aircraft. They had already gone with a capability gap between DHC-4 and C-27J for five years between 2009 and 2014. The next transport requirement is a C-130J replacement around 2030 which could be the A400M or just as likely another set of C-130Js. The proposed Airbus sized C-130J replacement is also a good option as long as that capability gets funded, is sized appropriately and not too delayed.

Actually the RAAF has found the C-27J extremely popular and with their excellent long term planning I could see another C-27J order.

Nearly all of the C-130J flights done by the RAAF could have been done by the C-27J. This would provide a massive cost saving. On the rare occasion where the full capability of the C-130J was used the RAAF could just use two C-27J aircraft.

The USAF C-X transport program is highly likely to get purchased by the RAAF. It will be the only large western airlifter in production. Most likely it will be a vanilla strategic orientated aircraft using a pair of engines. I assume mature 787 engines and with that kind of thrust it would produce an aircraft with around 50t payload. The C-17 fleet might be fresh now but it will need to be supplemented in the 2030's or fully replaced by 2040. The rest of the tactical airlift should be planned around this purchase.

In 2040 I could see the RAAF with 10 large C-X transports with approx 50t payload and 30 C-27J NG

Effectively the fleet of 12 C-130J-30 gets replaced with say 18 C-27J NG aircraft.

The 8 C-17 aircraft get replaced with 10 slightly smaller C-X aircraft.

All good in theory mate but the recently released Defence Strategic Plan makes it very clear to 2040 what the RAAF is looking to replace and maintain. https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/defau ... et_Air.pdf

The C-130J, KC-30 and E-7 are all up for replacement within the 2020-2040 period, the C-17 is not.

From the Force Structure plan on Air Mobility.

Air mobility
5.11 Air mobility is a core air power role, and its availability underpins most
Defence Force activities and Australia’s ability to project power. As a result
of previous significant Government investment, Australia has a robust
air mobility capability. Government will maintain this through continued
investment in support and upgrades to the C-130J Hercules medium
mobility aircraft, the C-17A Globemaster III heavy mobility aircraft, the
existing KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft, and the C-27J
Spartan light mobility aircraft.
5.12 Government intends to further strengthen the ADF’s air mobility capability
to project and sustain the ADF’s presence in the strategic operating
environment, including through:
• Procurement and integration of a Large Aircraft Countermeasures
System across the Air Mobility Group to enhance the survivability of
aircrew and aircraft against modern threats;
• An expanded replacement fleet for the C-130J Hercules aircraft to
improve the lift capacity of the ADF in response to growing demand
for these assets; and
• An expanded replacement fleet for the KC-30A air-to-air refuelling
aircraft, including crewed and/or remotely piloted platforms, to
enhance the capacity of the Air Force to operate at long range and
sustain operations.

https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/defau ... e_Plan.pdf

I don't read that as increasing the C-27J fleet when a C-130J replacement is required. It is easy to write off the C-130 today as being too big for many roles but it gave the RAAF sterling service throughout its approx 18 year deployment to the Middle East and was often flying with a max payload of pallets/people/vehicles. I don't see the RAAF giving up that size range.

Ozair wrote:

All good in theory mate but the recently released Defence Strategic Plan makes it very clear to 2040 what the RAAF is looking to replace and maintain. https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/defau ... et_Air.pdf

The C-130J, KC-30 and E-7 are all up for replacement within the 2020-2040 period, the C-17 is not.

The C-17 retirement date depends on if it is supplemented by a medium size airlifter. The sooner this medium size airlifter arrives the longer the service life of the C-17 will be. The same applies with the USAF and their C-17 fleet is much older with higher usage.

This is why enthusiasts keep talking about the A400M for the RAAF. Not that the RAAF would buy such an overpriced aircraft but the theory is that it allows the C-17 fleet to last a very long time flying long fights from perfect runway.

The RAAF operating the C-27J, C-130J-30, A400M and C-17 all at once would be ridiculous. In only a few years the RAAF will know exactly what the C-X transport will be. The oldest USAF C-17's will hit 40 years old in 2031. The replacement C-X will need to be in service by 2035. The words 2030's get used.

Ozair wrote:

I don't read that as increasing the C-27J fleet when a C-130J replacement is required. It is easy to write off the C-130 today as being too big for many roles but it gave the RAAF sterling service throughout its approx 18 year deployment to the Middle East and was often flying with a max payload of pallets/people/vehicles. I don't see the RAAF giving up that size range.

I read it as a C-X purchase to replace the RAAF C-130J-30 and expanding the C-27J fleet. The RAAF could then buy an additional batch of C-X aircraft once the C-17's retire. Probably around 2045 once the USAF retires its youngest C-17.

If the RAAF know the C-X will enter service in 2035 but our C-130J fleet needs to be replaced in 2030 then they have a problem. A C-27J NG purchase now would allow for reduced hours on the current C-130J aircraft allowing them to fly until the C-X arrives.

RJMAZ wrote:

Ozair wrote:

All good in theory mate but the recently released Defence Strategic Plan makes it very clear to 2040 what the RAAF is looking to replace and maintain. https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/defau ... et_Air.pdf

The C-130J, KC-30 and E-7 are all up for replacement within the 2020-2040 period, the C-17 is not.

The C-17 retirement date depends on if it is supplemented by a medium size airlifter. The sooner this medium size airlifter arrives the longer the service life of the C-17 will be. The same applies with the USAF and their C-17 fleet is much older with higher usage.

This is why enthusiasts keep talking about the A400M for the RAAF. Not that the RAAF would buy such an overpriced aircraft but the theory is that it allows the C-17 fleet to last a very long time flying long fights from perfect runway.

The RAAF operating the C-27J, C-130J-30, A400M and C-17 all at once would be ridiculous. In only a few years the RAAF will know exactly what the C-X transport will be. The oldest USAF C-17's will hit 40 years old in 2031. The replacement C-X will need to be in service by 2035. The words 2030's get used.

Ozair wrote:

I don't read that as increasing the C-27J fleet when a C-130J replacement is required. It is easy to write off the C-130 today as being too big for many roles but it gave the RAAF sterling service throughout its approx 18 year deployment to the Middle East and was often flying with a max payload of pallets/people/vehicles. I don't see the RAAF giving up that size range.

I read it as a C-X purchase to replace the RAAF C-130J-30 and expanding the C-27J fleet. The RAAF could then buy an additional batch of C-X aircraft once the C-17's retire. Probably around 2045 once the USAF retires its youngest C-17.

If the RAAF know the C-X will enter service in 2035 but our C-130J fleet needs to be replaced in 2030 then they have a problem. A C-27J NG purchase now would allow for reduced hours on the current C-130J aircraft allowing them to fly until the C-X arrives.

RJMAZ, do you have substantiation for claims of a C-X, the expected tonnage, planning timeframe, range expectations etc? I can not find a single reference to it as a program of record nor even preliminary studies. Conversely a couple of links that LM is looking at pushing the C-5 out to 2050 or 2060 and I fully expect Boeing are doing the same with the C-17. The rest of the above is just conjecture. The RAAF have no plans to retire the C-17s before 2040 and the plan remains to replace the C-130J. As the Air Mobility plan states, an expanded replacement fleet to improve lift capacity, that speaks to me as a bigger fleet, perhaps 15-18 aircraft over the current twelve, of similar or larger aircraft and maintaining the light/medium and heavy fleet types.

So the C-27J will have another customer. An interesting review and release of information by the Slovenian Government, a whole set of options were reviewed, decision on going for a tactical transport and then clearly the C-27J and C295 were two that were assessed. Not a lot of frames though, just one or two likely depending on budget so it isn't going to extend production in a meaningful way.

Slovenia to procure Spartan airlifter

Slovenia is to acquire the Leonardo C-27J Spartan transport aircraft, with the country’s government announcing on 15 January that the Covid-19 pandemic had exposed a lack of national airlift capacity and capability.

Having evaluated a number of options, the Slovenian 15th Aviation Wing (15th Polk Vojaskega Letalstva: 15th PVL) component of the joint Slovenian Armed Forces (SAF) is to receive one or two of the Italian-built airlifters by 2025.

“A market study was conducted involving manufacturers and users of potential types of aircraft belonging to the category of light (CASA C295 manufactured by Airbus, and C-27J Spartan manufactured by Leonardo), and medium (C-130J-30 Hercules manufactured by Lockheed Martin, C-390 Millennium by Embraer, A400M by Airbus) transport aircraft and used aircraft providers,” the government said.

As the government noted, with Slovenia’s medium and heavy-lift requirements already adequately catered for under both the NATO-supported Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) and NATO-supported Strategic Airlift International Solution (SALIS) programmes, the decision was taken to acquire a light transport aircraft, which in turn led to the decision to go with the C-27J. “Two types of tactical transport aircraft were included in the final assessment, but after examining the minimum military technical requirements, the C-27J Spartan proved to be the best,” the government said. “The purchase of one C-27J Spartan aircraft will also partially meet the [NATO] alliance’s performance targets. Two such aircraft would be needed to fully meet the performance targets.”

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... -airlifter

WIederling wrote:

mechatnew wrote:

Not sure how much it applies to the J model. But the A models that were part of the Afghan AF program had some major issues. 16 airframes bought for $ 287 US Million in 2008. Sold for scrap in 2014 for $ 32,000.

Purchases forced by the invasion force. Ruski out, US in
Any place that actually worked out well?

Germany

SteelChair wrote:

WIederling wrote:

mechatnew wrote:

Not sure how much it applies to the J model. But the A models that were part of the Afghan AF program had some major issues. 16 airframes bought for $ 287 US Million in 2008. Sold for scrap in 2014 for $ 32,000.

Purchases forced by the invasion force. Ruski out, US in
Any place that actually worked out well?

Germany

no US stuff was bought to replace the phased out Soviet designs used by GDR's NVA forces.
But getting access to Soviet Seeker Heads kicked of a round of "we need better stuff" from imu MBDA.
Bit of a wake up call.
On the civil side the Soviet Airliner types were "put to sleep"
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spB1vZU0Aj8
and the freshly acquired Interflug A310s were taken up by the Luftwaffe Flugbereitschaft.
Those frames were used as feeding stock for the Luftwaffe Airbus MRT(T) conversions.

WIederling wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Purchases forced by the invasion force. Ruski out, US in
Any place that actually worked out well?

Germany

no US stuff was bought to replace the phased out Soviet designs used by GDR's NVA forces.
But getting access to Soviet Seeker Heads kicked of a round of "we need better stuff" from imu MBDA.
Bit of a wake up call.
On the civil side the Soviet Airliner types were "put to sleep"
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spB1vZU0Aj8
and the freshly acquired Interflug A310s were taken up by the Luftwaffe Flugbereitschaft.
Those frames were used as feeding stock for the Luftwaffe Airbus MRT(T) conversions.

You're talking about the 80s and 90s. I'm talking about the 50s and 60s. See F-104, among others. Not to mention little things like NATO keeping the Bear at bay. The US strategy in Western Europe was ultimately successful.

SteelChair wrote:

WIederling wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Germany

no US stuff was bought to replace the phased out Soviet designs used by GDR's NVA forces.
But getting access to Soviet Seeker Heads kicked of a round of "we need better stuff" from imu MBDA.
Bit of a wake up call.
On the civil side the Soviet Airliner types were "put to sleep"
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spB1vZU0Aj8
and the freshly acquired Interflug A310s were taken up by the Luftwaffe Flugbereitschaft.
Those frames were used as feeding stock for the Luftwaffe Airbus MRT(T) conversions.

You're talking about the 80s and 90s. I'm talking about the 50s and 60s. See F-104, among others. Not to mention little things like NATO keeping the Bear at bay. The US strategy in Western Europe was ultimately successful.

Moving goal posts are we?

The Starfighter was engulfed in corruption and a voracious pilot killer. POS. perfect for California but nothing else.
And none of the stuff from the US _replaced_ Soviet types.

The US had pi**ed of the Soviets at the end of WWII ( trying to have Soviets, an ally, and Hitler annihilate each other. )
They urgently needed help and wanted a future conflict go "bang" in Europe and not on American ground.
With all the Duck and Cover hysterics in the US an atomic conflict would have glazed Europe and we didn't even get a choice.
Guess why (W-)Germany was back in good odor in no time .. and rearmed.