It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Air Force probed over scrapping of aircraft

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 05:07 AM
a reply to: aholic

That is just littering the sea bed. I wonder if they drained the fuel and oil first, somehow I doubt it.

Is this just typical of the military mind. Using the sea bed as a colossal dump.

It just seems wrong to me.


posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 05:34 AM
The dumping of the aircraft into the sea occurred during the end of the Vietnam War.

The aircraft were dumped overboard to make room for more aircraft to be able to land on the aircraft carrier. While aircraft carriers have huge amounts of space, that space is not infinite. These were mostly land based aircraft that were evacuating refugees that had gathered at the US Embassy in Saigon while the North Vietnamese were invading the city.

During the evacuation the decision was made to get as many people out as possible and once it was made clear that there were going to be more aircraft landing than the carrier could handle, it was decided to dump the aircraft overboard to allow more incoming flights.

It was more important to get the people out than it was to worry about the costs of the aircraft. A correct decision in my opinion.

Operation Frequent Wind

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 05:41 AM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: grey580 There are foreign countries interested as well. Australia wanted to buy the C-27Js that the Air Force just got rid of IIRC.

Ah yes you do recall correctly. However we pulled out when the manufacturer refused to cover them for not just warranty but any kind of support full stop. So instead we were led by the nose (or is that b*lls?) into buying identical "new' C-27J's at a massively inflated price. I believe we are now north of a billion dollars for just ten aircraft.


posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:51 PM
a reply to: thebozeian

It is US$950 million, and it is not "just" for 10 aircraft:

The Government of Australia requested a possible sale of 10 C-27J aircraft; 23 AE2100D2 Rolls Royce engines; 12 Electronic Warfare Self Protection Suites; 12 AAR-47A(V)2 Missile Warning Systems; 12 ALE-47(V) Threat Adaptive Countermeasures Dispensing Systems; 12 APR-39B(V)2 Radar Warning Receivers; 13 AN/APN-241 Radar Systems; 44 AN/ARC-210 Warrior Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency Communication Systems; 12 KY-100 Units; 12 HF 9550 Radios; 12 APX-119 Identification Friend or Foe (Mode 4); 14 Blue Force Trackers; 12 Portable Flight Mission Planning Systems; support and test equipment; repair and return; spare and repair parts; aircraft ferry and tanker support; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical data; Operational Flight Simulator, Fuselage, and Maintenance trainers; U.S. Government and contractor representative engineering, logistics, and technical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $950 million.
- Defence security co-operation agency

This was before the USAF announced it was retiring its C-27J fleet - November 2011 viz February 2012.

All the ex-USAF fleet have been absorbed by the US Coast Guard, fire service and SOCOM.

ETA: the disposal screw up reminds me of het Australian calibration flight sale - the F-28's were all sold fairly cheap - obsolete type, not much market, etc. But the guy who got them reportedly sold the 2 or 3 spare engines for as much as he paid for the entire fleet & the rest was pure profit!! ......nice if you can get it!!
edit on 12-10-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 03:38 AM
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
No I am sorry Aloysius you have your facts wrong, or more correctly you have been mislead.

It is NOT $950 million US as has been misleadingly put out in the press, rather it is actually $1.4 billion AUD. This is on the public record as announced by the Australian Minister for Defence when the C-27J selection was declared on 10 May 2012. This cost is also backed up by the Australian National Audit Office's (ANAO) report into the selection of the C-27J which drew very strong criticism and inquiries for its cost and also from Airbus who released a very blunt and plainly worded press release condemning the minister for having essentially publicly lied that a competition had been run between the LM/Alenia C-27J product and Airbus Military's C-295 offering, when no such competition actually took place.

As for your query about the dates of the Australian C-27J buy and the announcement of the US C-27J draw down, negotiations had been going on for quite some time and long proceeded the US announcement. In fact knowing that the Australian requirement had attempted to be filled with the US surplus aircraft BEFORE the Australian announcement clearly shows that they did fake the competition and never intended on buying anything else, even at a vastly inflated price. It is also a matter of record that the head of Alenia warned the US administration that they would refuse to support any of the USAF ordered aircraft that were on sold to other Air-force's or operators outside the US in a public statement. And one can understand this in part given that Alenia apparently had stumped up a lot of the cash and manpower to develop the G-222 into the C-27J on the proviso that the USAF order happened in full Australian defence project announcements (notable exclusion is the F-35, because it comes with such a huge price) generally include the equipment purchase plus spares, training, specialist tooling etc and some base/facility upgrades. However even if we take the $950 million for the 10 aircraft which is close to triple the price per airframe the US was paying back in the 2010-2011 period of around $31 million, that still leaves us at least $400 million for the rest which is far above what is really needed or justifiable. Using the source you quoted above, I would be interested in seeing if the US spec aircraft were similarly fitted out with the same electronic suite and if that also makes up the final "price" of the US aircraft. Because if it doesn't then that means paying twice the airframe cost for the add-on's, which is both ridiculous and questionable. The project should probably have cost closer to $500-600 million, all up. Airbus itself stated that it could have delivered a C-295 based solution for about $400 million. And there is every likelihood that there will be some cost creep above the $1.4 billion as I have just read something from the Defence Material Organisation (DMO) who are responsible for managing/mismanaging defence purchases that seems to indicate about a $155 million AUD odd increase if I read correctly. And given the collapse in the $AUD recently it will probably be even worse.

Understand that I have no problem in principle with the C-27J and it will add a useful contribution to battlefield airlift. Although I question whether simpler solutions were better. I also know that Airbus had an axe to grind and its offering was possibly deficient in certain areas. The issue lies with the less than clear process that led to it being chosen and the unacceptable cost blowout which is far above what it was projected to be or should be. Frankly we would have been better off with a re-engined and stretched Caribou force of around 14-20 airframes and some additional C-130J's, say 6 standard fuselage for this price. This is following a sadly all too familiar course of recent ADF defence purchases which seemingly are short on fact and justification and long on rhetoric, out of control cost increases and murky selection processes.

And tying it all back, it all seems part of the same vicious circle that led to a bunch of aircraft being ordered at hugely inflated cost for an Afghan Air force that didn't need, could never pay for by itself, and couldn't operate, all to appease some contractors looking for one last profit scam and politicians to dumb and desperate to realize it was a bad idea to begin with.


posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 04:31 AM
a reply to: thebozeian

Did you mean to link to any supporting evidence for those claims?

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 07:02 AM
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Really, you had to go there?

What do you take me for? Why do people have to be so lazy they cant even Google a specific referenced subject matter on face value without inferring "fake" if it's not spoon fed to them? I'm disappointed in you Aloysius.

Caribou replacement
And as reported in the media:
SMH Article
Canberra Times article


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in