|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 12, 2023 7:54:33 GMT 12
What? They only just got their Spartans. How old are they? About ten years?
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 12, 2023 10:25:49 GMT 12
What? They only just got their Spartans. How old are they? About ten years? I suspect some folk are overanalyzing removal of the "battlefield airlifter" moniker. Seriously, sending ADF C-27J "Battlefield Airlifters" into places like PNG, the Solomon Islands or Vanuatu would be sending all the wrong signals.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 12, 2023 10:26:25 GMT 12
What? They only just got their Spartans. How old are they? About ten years? They won't go in this term of the current government as it was the ALP who bought the aircraft whilst in power in 2012. So no freebies to hit the current government over the head with, and besides they need all the new C130J flying before retirment happens. RAAF C27J arrived between 2015-2018 IOC in 2016 failed to reach FOC in 2017 and 2019 it was announced a couple of years ago that RAAF redefined role of C-27J Spartan fleet to focus primarily on HADR operations which has left a operational capbilty gap in tactical transport hence why under the previous government they were talks of up to 30 new C130J and the early retirement of C27J the current government have reduced the order to 20 but is an actual increase in net improved load capabilty overall. I want to keep C27J there are a number of options for its use in Australia and the region in general I dont know what it is why the ADF has so many problems when it comes to Euro equipment.
|
|
|
Post by falcon124 on Aug 12, 2023 11:26:22 GMT 12
C-27J can't get its Infra-Red Counter Measures (IRCM) systems installed, integrated & certified so it can't be sent into hot environments. There's also been problems with sustainment including supply of parts, etc, which could be a combination of FMS + European + ADF maintenance systems. That's why it was shifted to Humanitarian Assistance & Disaster Relief (HADR) missions instead of combat. That said, it is cleared for use in "warm" environments but only once it's confirmed that there are no nasties with missiles in the area.
Somewhat telling that the US Army, ANG & USAF have dumped the aircraft, primarily due to budgetary reasons and claiming to not really have a role for it due to sufficient other airframes. Chief of Army here in Oz was referring to the C-27J as a fixed-wing CH-47 that could take items forward for less cost per hour than a Chinook but has gone quiet on that for the above reasons. I concur with the view that we can expect more CH-47F orders soon (beyond the three additional new CH-47Fs arriving this year).
Sad it's happened but c'est la vie.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 12, 2023 12:26:51 GMT 12
C-27J can't get its Infra-Red Counter Measures (IRCM) systems installed, integrated & certified so it can't be sent into hot environments. There's also been problems with sustainment including supply of parts, etc, which could be a combination of FMS + European + ADF maintenance systems. That's why it was shifted to Humanitarian Assistance & Disaster Relief (HADR) missions instead of combat. That said, it is cleared for use in "warm" environments but only once it's confirmed that there are no nasties with missiles in the area. I doubt the ADF would willingly send a C-17 or C-130 into a “hot”environment either, though. Both would be huge, slow moving targets on any approach. The downside risk would be pretty extreme for a small force like the RAAF. The C-27Js seem to be pretty active in exercises like Talisman Sabre.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 12, 2023 12:34:17 GMT 12
Wow, less time than I thought. Eight years' service is not very long for a military transport.
I think the ADF should outsource their purchases to NZ, we choose stuff that lasts forever. Lol
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 12, 2023 13:50:05 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 12, 2023 13:51:54 GMT 12
So they are getting replaced but not retired. Good move.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 12, 2023 14:01:32 GMT 12
So they are getting replaced but not retired. Good move. I don't see C-27J mentioned at all, though. The last announcement re the J-27Js was for their avionics upgrade, which is due for completion in 2026.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Aug 12, 2023 14:08:45 GMT 12
Reckon a couple of them would be fantastic freight-liners for Air Chats
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Aug 12, 2023 17:05:09 GMT 12
A US DoD system designed to keep lots of Federal civil servants in a job and give customers very few rights. And heaven help you if you do a mx of FMS and direct commercial sales from the OEM. irrespective if sales are via FMS or DCS each have to clear civil hurdles under ITAR and congress notifications. FMS & DCS are not in completion with each other, FMS will not release any data to client nations unless all direct negotiations cease due to the vast difference between negotiating under FMS & DCS. But the letter of request under FMS might only be for the actual equipment of pricing and availability then use DCS for the spare furnishings and so forth. Agreed but when DOD turn up to inspect FMS purchases (Golden Sentry) and also find DCS purchased identical items together concern and confusion, on their part, is interesting to watch.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 12, 2023 17:24:15 GMT 12
So they are getting replaced but not retired. Good move. Yes, in the battlefield airmobilty role. C27J no longer fit for purpose of the original intended role.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 12, 2023 17:37:11 GMT 12
So they are getting replaced but not retired. Good move. I don't see C-27J mentioned at all, though. The last announcement re the J-27Js was for their avionics upgrade, which is due for completion in 2026. Think that's more to do with Pacfic reset and to keep them compatible to the rest of the fleet. First new C130J is not expected until late 2027 so depending on the cost to keep the original C130J operational its most likely a cost saving to retire those first than C27 as they are still cheaper to operate......... just a guess on my part though. Hence why it still has a function in RAAF
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 12, 2023 17:43:17 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 12, 2023 19:39:56 GMT 12
The C-27Js will always be able to deliver cargo to far more airfields in Aus and across the region than is possible with a C-130, so it will be interesting to see what happens in the long term. Sooner or later the US Army's future vertical lift program will be focussing on a CH-47 replacement, which may be much more of a like for like replacement in terms of payload/range, speed, and the ability to land where a C-130 or C-17 can't.
|
|
|
Post by falcon124 on Aug 13, 2023 17:32:55 GMT 12
I doubt the ADF would willingly send a C-17 or C-130 into a “hot”environment either, though. Both would be huge, slow moving targets on any approach. The downside risk would be pretty extreme for a small force like the RAAF. The C-27Js seem to be pretty active in exercises like Talisman Sabre. Valid point re C-17 & C-130, although with the IRCM and other self-protection measures, they can go places where the C-27J can't as it has zero protection at all. Definitely in use in the exercises and being used as much as possible throughout the area, just not how they were originally envisaged.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 13, 2023 20:57:20 GMT 12
I doubt the ADF would willingly send a C-17 or C-130 into a “hot”environment either, though. Both would be huge, slow moving targets on any approach. The downside risk would be pretty extreme for a small force like the RAAF. The C-27Js seem to be pretty active in exercises like Talisman Sabre. Valid point re C-17 & C-130, although with the IRCM and other self-protection measures, they can go places where the C-27J can't as it has zero protection at all. Definitely in use in the exercises and being used as much as possible throughout the area, just not how they were originally envisaged. The ADF's interest in the C-27J was always due to its ability to access air fields that cannot be used by the C-130. "The C27J has the capacity to carry significant loads and still access small, soft, narrow runways that cannot be used by C-130J or are unable to sustain repeated use by larger aircraft. Within Australia, the C-27J can access over 1900 airfields compared with approximately 500 for the C-130. In our region, the C-27J can access over 400 airfields compared to around 200 for the C-130." researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/land-power-forum/reinvigorating-aerial-delivery-supporting-our-conventional-land-forces#:~:text=Within%20Australia%2C%20the%20C%2D27J,200%20for%20the%20C%2D130. If things "heated up" in the region, no doubt there would be money and resources for self protection systems. But how effective they would be against 1940s technology ballistic threats likely to be encountered is another question.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 14, 2023 0:06:56 GMT 12
I doubt the ADF would willingly send a C-17 or C-130 into a “hot”environment either, though. Both would be huge, slow moving targets on any approach. The downside risk would be pretty extreme for a small force like the RAAF. The C-27Js seem to be pretty active in exercises like Talisman Sabre. Valid point re C-17 & C-130, although with the IRCM and other self-protection measures, they can go places where the C-27J can't as it has zero protection at all. Definitely in use in the exercises and being used as much as possible throughout the area, just not how they were originally envisaged. But it does make you wonder what exactly is the problem and why can't it be overcome? Considering that Alenia did extensive trials back in 2006 with the defensive aids subsystem (DASS) And the FMS deal
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 14, 2023 9:01:23 GMT 12
Valid point re C-17 & C-130, although with the IRCM and other self-protection measures, they can go places where the C-27J can't as it has zero protection at all. Definitely in use in the exercises and being used as much as possible throughout the area, just not how they were originally envisaged. But it does make you wonder what exactly is the problem and why can't it be overcome? Considering that Alenia did extensive trials back in 2006 with the defensive aids subsystem (DASS) And the FMS deal Public announcements from DoD have always been pretty nuanced. The C-27J lacks the ability to fly into “all types of battle zones” in “fully contested” airspace. That’s probably a limitation faced by most, if not all, current western transport aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by falcon124 on Aug 15, 2023 9:53:03 GMT 12
Correct, the C-27J was indeed supposed to be the tactical battlefield airlifter that could get into lots of tight little strips that the C-130 could never consider. I'm not sure of the exact reasons why its IRCM system isn't getting certified but I suspect the FMS situation is not helping as it creates some of the most complicated environments ever imagined when you have two+ government bodies, multiple vendors, ITARs, etc. You can wind up in the situation where a manufacturer and/or third party vendor cannot get access to the information required to allow them to tailor & install the system. It can become a total nightmare unless you get 100% identical to what the US is operating.
Sadly, battlefields are no longer in the C-27J's future unless all hell really does breakout and then we're going to see a lot of *very* interesting situations, solutions & innovations.
|
|