USAF and US Army initially buying 78 C-27Js

USAF and US Army initially buying 78 C-27Js
The US Air Force and US Army are initially buying 78 C-27Js, but the total could rise to 207 over the next decade.


L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P., of Greenville, Texas, was awarded a firm-fixed price contract June 13, 2007, estimated at $2.04 billion for procurement of up to 78 Joint Cargo Aircraft (C-27J Spartan).

This includes pilot and loadmaster training, and contractor logistics support for the United States Army and Air Force.

The contract consists of three 12-month ordering periods for Low-Rate Initial Production and two 12-month options for Full-Rate Production.

Four bids were received under the full and open competition in response to the March 17, 2006, request for proposals.


The C-27J is a mid-range, multifunctional and interoperable aircraft, able to perform logistical re-supply, MEDEVAC, troop movement, airdrop operations, humanitarian assistance and homeland security missions in support of Homeland Security for the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force.

The C-27J will replace the U.S. Army's C-23 Sherpas, C-12 and C-26 aircraft and augment the U.S. Air Forces' existing fleet of intratheater airlifters. The aircraft will play a key role in providing responsive aerial sustainment and critical re-supply support for the maneuver force to maintain operational momentum.
The C-27J Spartan is the latest in a successful tradition of military airlifters including the C-27A Spartan and the G-222, which have been deployed by the United States, NATO, Coalition Forces, the United Nations, and Italy in support of military and humanitarian operations in Albania, Armenia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Congo, Operations Desert Shield and Storm, East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Honduras, Kosovo, Libya, Mali, Panama, Rwanda, Somalia, Uganda and Yemen. C-27A Spartans are currently carrying out vital counter-drug activities for the United States in Central and South America.

link
link
Cant wait to see what the RAAF does now?
Minister Nelson will order and rush through an order of C-27s as well.

I'm in the same boat jezza with watching canada. The dnd here are saying they have to delay buying buffalo replacements due to the costs of the afghanstan mission and the fact are budget is nothing close to RAAFs or USAFs. They do have a site though for the purposed C-27s for the CFs.

www.c-27j.ca...

Cant wait to see what the RAAF does now?
Minister Nelson will order and rush through an order of C-27s as well.

.... And there in lies the problem jezza. In the space of barely 7 months our defence minister has rushed through the C-17 purchase, put another nail in the F-111's coffin without real justification, and in the space of a few weeks signed on for Super Hornets that a couple of months previously were unneeded, and I'll bet my bottom dollar he will announce in the next few weeks an "urgent" contract for C-27's(Could this be an election year stunt? Nah, of course not!). And probably later in the year CH-47 additions/upgrades and C-130H replacements etc, etc. All this and little real study of defence needs let alone WHAT we actually want our defence force to do, AND HOW to pay for it. Should I also mention the total lack of adherence to government defence acquisition rules 'a la' the FA-18F purchase? You know, the bit where any democratic Govt is supposed to justify why it is spending "X" taxpayers dollars on "Y" equipment over "Z" competitors offerings to fulfill "W" plan.

Dont get me wrong recapitalising ANY defence force is an important and perpetual process, but it needs a plan. At present we dont seem to know what we want the RAAF airlift group to do, and this has been the problem for some years. Sorry for the Australia centric rant but allies and like minded observers take note, DON'T make the same mistakes. You must always have a plan, and a 7 year old white paper is not a plan, it's an anachronism.

LEE.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by thebozeian]

[edit on 15-6-2007 by thebozeian]

I agree, but will the C-27J replace the Caribou (not that that will bother the Minister, I'm sure!)? We still have a regional requirement for an aircraft with the Caribou's capabilities, as demonstrated by the fact that we have kept them alive for so long (man, I was flying them in 1975 when I got out of the RAAF!).

Indeed, what (in production) can replace a Caribou, other than an Osprey?

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
I agree, but will the C-27J replace the Caribou (not that that will bother the Minister, I'm sure!)? We still have a regional requirement for an aircraft with the Caribou's capabilities, as demonstrated by the fact that we have kept them alive for so long (man, I was flying them in 1975 when I got out of the RAAF!).

Indeed, what (in production) can replace a Caribou, other than an Osprey?

The Winged Wombat

Its true there is nothing that can do what the caribou can do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
New build caribou or buffalos and we cant do that it would cost to much.
and yor right LEE it will be a political stunt again.

What's tech tHE g.222 used to become a STOL cargo?

The G.222 has always been a STOL transport. In its very early days it was even designed to be a VTOL rival for the Do 31 with lift jets behind the turboprops in extended nacelles until a rush of common sense saw them switch to just the two turboprops in the later design stage.

Actually, I think there are elements within the RAAF (the Caribou Mafia? - possibly with Army support?), who have been stalling over this particular requirement, so that they can get the Osprey - it's just taken far too long to come to maturity. (Bliss - the same load at twice the speed, same footprint AND VTOL - sure would make fodder drops and flood relief much more accurate - note: the C-130 was always just a little too quick for the accuracy required in that kind of work!)

I really don't think the C-27J can do the specialized jobs as well, and it has been in the aborted competition in the past. (Did it win it?)

The Winged Wombat

Of course, one thing that would be really dodgy in an Osprey would be a LAPES! Either too high or no rotor tips!

[edit on 17/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

I ask this: Why would we as a nation want to buy any more aircraft that are "strategic bomber capable" when the invasion is already happening. What do they want to do, bomb the arrivals lounges at the major airports! Surely they can see that Australian defence spending on F111's, F/a 18's and any other major superior strike aircaft is wasting tax payers money, the RAAF are a fairly useless bunch unless they are out plucking stupid dipsh1ts like Tony Bullimore out of the Southern Ocean.

Well, Let's see......

What's the population of Indonesia at the moment.... hmmmm

No, seriously, every nation must have an effective defence force. History proves that, especially if your lifestyle and standard of living are higher than those around you. Countries that are so isolated geographically that they can do without significant defence forces are few and far between (eg - New Zealand)

Equipment does not last forever - it wears out - or becomes less effective due to technological advances. Probably the overiding factor, these days, is that the equipment carried by military aircraft (which doesn't have the economy of scale of the much larger numbers of civil aircraft produced) becomes harder and much more expensive to maintain with what quickly becomes unobtainable spare parts. Consider how difficult and costly, if not impossible, it would be to repair your computer if it was as old as our F-111s.

If you feel that Australia is already being invaded, then that's a matter for the ballot box. Remember that the defence forces of a country are merely a tool of the government, to be used under certain, reasonably well defined (by government policy) circumstances.

That you see those forces as useless means that they are doing their job - detering someone else from coming along and taking the lifestyle (and the resources that make that happen), that you apparently take for granted, away from you. Think of them as a lock on your house door, or the alarm on your car.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 17/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Well, Let's see......

What's the population of Indonesia at the moment.... hmmmm

No, seriously, every nation must have an effective defence force. History proves that, especially if your lifestyle and standard of living are higher than those around you. Countries that are so isolated geographically that they can do without significant defence forces are few and far between (eg - New Zealand)

Equipment does not last forever - it wears out - or becomes less effective due to technological advances. Probably the overiding factor, these days, is that the equipment carried by military aircraft (which doesn't have the economy of scale of the much larger numbers of civil aircraft produced) becomes harder and much more expensive to maintain with what quickly becomes unobtainable spare parts. Consider how difficult and costly, if not impossible, it would be to repair your computer if it was as old as our F-111s.

If you feel that Australia is already being invaded, then that's a matter for the ballot box. Remember that the defence forces of a country are merely a tool of the government, to be used under certain, reasonably well defined (by government policy) circumstances.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 17/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Our biggest defence against the Indon is distance, unfriendly and remote areas, crocodliles, desert. This you would know of course.
I see F/A 18's and Hawks daily, leaving the WLM base, flying around the training area, they don't do much else, they shoot up the range, an occassional ship is sent to the bottom using an F111's, (purchased when the Soviet era was at its highest). I agree they should keep upto date, but I can't see the logic of buying an upto date defence system, that is not upto the requirements of the nation, F111's have out lived their use, The JSF is a fruitless buy, it hasnt the capability of the Raptor. (www.ausairpower.net...).
The invasion that the common civilian people can see is happening, not from hordes rushing ashore in the NT, Qld and WA, but are coming here as migrants. I would love to know how many are sleeper agents, waiting for the day they can rise up.
In reality, I can see another defence spending bungle like the present Hornet upgrade, where they cant decide how many they want to upgrade or whether they want to go the fully monty on the Super Hornet.

mukiwa,

We are getting well off topic, but....

Your comments reflect Australian policy of the WWII era, when Australia's economy 'rode on the sheeps back'. Much of our resources, which are driving our economic boom are in the North and the Northwest and need to be defended, rather than the WWII policy of retreating from the North and burning all behind us, so that invaders could not reach the economic Southeast. This is why bases (albeit 'bare bones' bases) have been constructed across the North and Northwest coastlines and various military units have been re-located to places like Darwin.

It is not a simple matter replacing equipment. Our country is unique when you consider that it is nearly equal in area to the continental USA, yet we have little more than 20 million people in it. Therefore, what suits America, doesn't necessarily suit Australia. We can neither afford to develop what would be the ideal weapons to defined the country, nor to employ weapons that would require larger numbers of units to operate them (eg- our fighters have to double as strike aircraft - and they ALL need to be 'all weather', 'day' and 'night'). We could never afford the number of squadrons, or the specialization, that the USAF can, because of their taxpayer base of over 300,000,000 citizens.

So, perhaps you can see that we are in a position (as are most other countries) that we have to pick and choose what we buy to do the job that we need done (if that actually exists). Yes, there has been political pressure by the USA, on many nations to buy the F-35 in the name of inter-operability (blackmail, if you wish), but we can still only choose from what is available. I think, if you carefully examine the capabilities of the F-22, that is not designed for what we need a fighter/strike aircraft to do, in Australia, over the distances involved, at a price we can afford - ergo - it just wouldn't work for us, just as Britain's short range English Electric Lightning wouldn't have worked for us in the 60s, nor the F-15 in the 80s. So, you figure out what we actually need and how we get the perfect aircraft to do the job, if it actually exists. In short, we require aircraft to do a particular job, we get to choose from aircraft designed to do one or more jobs, and if those match we put them on a short-list for bids - all others are useless to us, no matter how well they do the jobs they were designed to do.

Although the Minister says that the F/A-18 Super Hornet purchase is not because of delays in the F-35, it is obviously the case, and even though the RAAF doesn't really want the aircraft, there will be a capability gap unless we buy something to replace the F-111. (Actually, the F-111 hasn't outlived its usefulness to us - we just can't obtain parts or afford to obtain parts to be able to keep them running - simple as that)

In peacetime, the job of fighter pilots is to hone their skills for when they are needed - would you rather squadrons of pilots who don't know how to fly their aircraft or use them effectively - what use would that be? Visit a transport base and see just what the RAAF is doing day to day. Or ask the people of Maitland at the moment. How do you think stock gets fed when areas are isolated by floodwaters and trucks can't even get near the areas affected?

The matter of immigration is a controversial one - there are many theories - but basically the greater the population, the more a country can afford and collectively the richer it CAN become. Obviously, there are dangers regarding how the population increases and how quickly it is done - once again political issues. But, no doubt, there is a problem for Australia, because, on a world scale, we are reasonably affluent and have suffered a decline in our birthrate similar to other countries of similar affluence - so any increase in population has to originate elsewhere, and there are people of many skills more than willing to come here to live and work.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 17/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by Canada_EH
I'm in the same boat jezza with watching canada. The dnd here are saying they have to delay buying buffalo replacements due to the costs of the afghanstan mission and the fact are budget is nothing close to RAAFs or USAFs. They do have a site though for the purposed C-27s for the CFs.

www.c-27j.ca...

Canada_EH,

While I'm not aware of the figures, I would have thought that Canada's military budget would be larger than Australia's considering your commitments around the world and relative populations (there are almost half again of you for each of us - not referring to dietary consequences, by the way - that would be your southern neighbours ).

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by thebozeian


All this and little real study of defence needs let alone WHAT we actually want our defence force to do, AND HOW to pay for it. Should I also mention the total lack of adherence to government defence acquisition rules 'a la' the FA-18F purchase? You know, the bit where any democratic Govt is supposed to justify why it is spending "X" taxpayers dollars on "Y" equipment over "Z" competitors offerings to fulfill "W" plan.

thebozeian,

Fortunately we are presently in a situation (which we haven't been for a long time) of having no foreign debt, so that makes these purchases much more viable. I suppose you could say that this is a benefit of budgetary policy.

With regards the F/A-18F purchase, what would you suggest that would be a suitable 'stop-gap' between the aging F-111 fleet and a delayed F-35, available when it's needed. Given the history of defence acquisition policy and previous competitions in this country (where's that Caribou replacement, again? - HOW old are our Sea Kings?), I'd cynically say that if that were done in this case, we would get the 'stop-gap' about 10 years after the F-35 was delivered and in service! My biggest question concerning these aircraft, is what do we do with them after the F-35 is in service. Do we retire some F/A-18As (already 20 years old, and which further complicates the issue of upgrading our A models again - which in turn would make future upgrades of fewer of these aircraft more expensive) or sell them back to the USN?

Perhaps a leasing arrangement similar to the F-4E Phantom between the Canberra and the delayed F-111, or Italy's lease of Tornado F.3s to cover the gap to Typhoon, might have been a smarter solution, provided, of course, that it was available as an option.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 17/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Winged Wombat I totally agree on the lease idea. In fact I would say we are not that far apart on thinking on the whole issue.

My point is not about which aircraft but which solution is best, and why and how a defence dept justifies it. For all we may know a fleet of 20+ odd CH-47F's could do the job of the "Chuck Truck".

Of further point is that the official word changed in the space of 3 months from there being no need for a stopgap fighter to a stopgap being ordered, and yet perversely the DoD, STILL doesn't admit that there is a delay in the F-35 program or a capabillity gap post 2010. Instead they prefer to lay any blame at the feet of an "ageing" F-111" with unknown and unspecified future problems which is just superficial crap. This is backed up by a self absorbed ass covering justification by the RAAF chief in the latest issue of Australian Aviation. The same chief that late last year told us a stop gap would be unneeded. All the while extolling the virtues of the Super Hornet and avoiding any talk about its very real short comings or WHY it's annoited successor won't be available in the time frame it was supposed to be. And don't get me started on the F-35, I can rant all decade on the Joke Strike Fighter.

As for this invasion rubbish concerning Indon and migrants by Mukiwa, dude relax. The Indonesians can hardly afford jet fuel let alone mount an attack on us, that is one reason why East Timor is now a free country. They are a declining power, not an expanding one, they only got as big as they were because, 1) the world and the UN turned a blind eye. 2) They had several dictators who used expansionism as a political tool, internally and externally 3) They HAD petro dollars to buy their expansionism. This doesn't mean they cant or wont get their act together in the future, they probably will, but the practical call of the allmighty dollar will drive it, not the call of a handfull of radical Mullah's. As for immigration this is a problem throughout the West, not just Australia. But with an active community the negative affects of immigration can be nullified. What do you REALLY think Pauline Hanson represented? For better or worse she showed that community concerns need to be addressd and surprise, surprise much more "right" wing anti immigration policies have crept up in such radical places as, ohh.... The Netherlands.

.... And back to the thread topic. I for one would not like to see V-22's in service and it seems no one in the Army is game to raise that puppy either. At their present cost they are a joke. I could buy a C-130J for what they cost. My feeling is that defence may well buy C-27J's but they could probably get the same benefit from a larger CH-47F fleet and some additional C-130J's and another 12-20 MRH-90's for the Army/Navy. Otherwise the ADF's airlifter fleet is going to get ridiculous and very costly in terms of the number of different types opperated. And afterall is that not the prime driver in standardizing on one fighter/attack type airframe and reducing the number of helicopter types used by the ADF to about half the current types?

Yep it seems increasingly that our defence is run by the same self annointed, career driven, desk bound idiot's that have infected so many other western defence forces like the US and UK. No wonder we all keep making the same mistakes and buying the same interoperable pork barrelled equipment.

LEE.

the bozeian,

The problem with the CH-47 as a Caribou replacement, even though it fulfills a valid Army requirement and has similar speed and load, is its range (as with all helos). It just doesn't have the range to reposition, unassisted, across the breadth of Australia. No doubt Canada has similar problems replacing the Buffalo. Perhaps the company who has taken over the rights to the Caribou and Buffalo (and is restarting production of the Twotter) could start a new Buffalo line - there would still be more than a few customers.

The Indonesian problem is always going to be there... so many people on so many islands..... I'm not at all sure that ultimately it can ever be governed efficiently, by anyone, purely due to logistical issues. Although Islamic issues seem to dominate the news, Indonesia always seems to have more than a few provinces attempting to break away from the central regime, for a multitude of reasons. It is in our interests that these attempts don't succeed, because, as with East Timor, you end up with lots of tiny countries with little in the way of resources or an economy, which become dependent upon us (militarily and financially) for the foreseeable future. How long do you think it will be before East Timor can police its own problems without the assistance of Australia, or the UN? 10 years, 50 years....... So the more help we can give the Indonesians to keep it all together (which those Indon dictators did quite well until some smart-ass cash 'fighting fund' decided to drive a wedge into some Asian currencies), the better for us.

Let's be realistic (someone has to, eventually), when was the last time a major military aircraft project came in on-time and on-budget and with all the promised capabilities (particularly from Fantasy Land, er... America)? The politicians and the military chiefs have to be optimistic in public, otherwise nothing is ever going to be ordered because of public outcry. Hell, the Yanks can't even get the Seasprite right and that's a mature airframe. Even in-service equipment, throughout history, has often been absolutely ineffective - but it is rarely made public - and if it is (eg:- Hawker Typhoon - the original 'lemon' fighter of WWII), then often it is shrouded in mythology (Typhoon the mighty ground attack aircraft - but let's not mention the tails fell off). (For the Brits out there - admit it - it was a WOFTAM - Waste Of F**** Time And Money)

On the other hand, sometimes the concept is so flawed that there is no alternative to coming clean - eg:- Nimrod AEW.3 - and dumping the whole program. Nothing was learned - the same thing just happened again with the US for a similar requirement for the same reason. All the required gear just wouldn't fit into the available airframe space.

Might I suggest that the F-35 could eventually fall into the same category - Hey, we solved all the problems but it now costs X times more and won't quite do the job we said it would, even though it's 10 years late, kinda like the V-22 for instance - a pertinent example, I think. But it is pointless to tell the public these things, because as a customer nation, we have very little influence on what is available, when, or what the aircraft must be capable of, so all that would happen would be that the messenger loses his job, but the situation won't change because it is largely out of our control. You can't just say, well we won't buy that piece of junk, because more often than not, there is little else available and to not buy leaves an even bigger hole in your capabilities.

So to find a stop-gap, or to fill a requirement, everyone still has a limited choice from what's available - and really, there's not much in the required time frame. If F-35 does turn out to be a lemon, then there are going to be a lot of people with big gaps in their strike capabilities.

'Chuck Truck'? - Hey, let's be nice and call it the best aircraft ever built that can be caught and passed by a DC-3! And there is at least one twin that it can catch, but that's only the B-N Islander, so that doesn't really count, I guess

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 17/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

C-27 Spartan
www.youtube.com...

Winged Wombat,

Yes I am aware of the CH-47's range deficiency compared to the "Boo". I only raised it as an example idea. My concern is that there tends to be a knee jerk response when it comes to the issue of replacing aircraft rather than replacing capabillities (actually you could put the Army dream of the V-22 in here depending how you look at it). This is the problem I have with the C-27J, it is seen as simply having to replace the DHC-4 rather than looking for a replacement capabillity system. There is nothing wrong with it, but it might not be the best choice "system".

Actually I am surprised that De Havilland Canada never persisted with highly STOL aircraft beyond the Buffalo. The market is crying out for something in the DHC-4/7 bracket that can give a bit more of everything those 2 great workhorses deliver.

As for the stopgap decision, I would feel vastly more comfortable with it if I actually could be reasonably sure that all possibilities had been considered. On the face of it an F-15E is a much more logical stopgap for the F-111. However I feel 3 things other than this drove the decision.

1) political ambition, namely the minister being seen to "take charge" and make a decision.

2) Slick salesmen from the USN and Boeing. With an international sale the FA-18E/F gains more clout in potentially much bigger international fighter competions a la India. And the USN can use our sale to leverage more airframes from congress because the per unit price drops.

3) NCWGH. Network centric warfare gizmo hypnotism. The RAAF are more keen on getting their hands on an aircraft that acts as a lead in to the F-35/22's 5th gen sensor fused ISR capabillity than they are with bridging any strategy gap. Strictly speaking this means they are providing an excuse for a new toy now that they have lost interest in the old one, after seeing what is on the horizon. It isnt that the capabillities of the FA-18F are not valid its just that if the airframe cant really do the job of the F-111(ie fulfill a specific strategic roll) you may as well pack the radar, networking and ISR gear into a Caribou for all the relavance to the job it gives you.

On the subject of being held by the short and curlies over choice in a real world. That is precisely why a rebuilt F-111 would have given us a better deal. It would have been OUR F-111 NOT someone elses. It would have been spec'd for our needs and would give us better leverage when sourcing new equipment for it. Suddenly you get the choice of more than one engine or radar, etc If you buy a new car and dont like the gearbox there isnt a whole lot you can do about it because the sales man just smiles and says "sorry that's the only way it comes".

I only use the term "Chuck Truck" out of deep affection and admiration for the "Boo". Yes it is amazing that they are actually slower than a C-47. But I have seen Caribou's in the hands of good RAAF pilots do things that make your jaw drop! They seem to be able to defy the laws of physics.

LEE.

thebozelian,

It all comes back to what you can afford and your particular requirements. DHC obviously discontinued ultra STOL transports because the market for them didn't justify the investment to build them. There are only a few customers who really need the advantages of these types of aircraft over others. From our perspective, we missed a golden opportunity when the design rights to DHC aircraft before the Dash-8 got sold off.

Due to our population and economic size, we could no more afford to build F-111s tailored to our specific needs, than to build a replacement from scratch, therefore we, and many other countries are really at the mercy of those countries who can afford to build good platforms. But those manufacturers want a good return on their investment and that means that they are designing for the needs of their prime customer, not for the relatively few extra airframes they will be able to sell to other countries.

It has been obvious from the beginning that the interoperability card was aimed at Europe to force them to buy US, rather than building something themselves that might better suit their particular needs. The rest of us suffer the flow on, in that there is an overall reduction in choice of platforms. Ultimately this can only lead to everyone using equipment that is designed for American requirements, rather than their own requirements. The rest of the world will be left to build those bits and pieces for countries that cannot afford the price of the technology built into the American product.

Given the choices available at the moment for a stop-gap between F-111 and F-35 (and there are few), I would suggest that the leasing option was not made available to us. To use your car analogy, you have to put up with the lousy gearbox (or catch a bus) unless you can afford to build a better one, and that infers making a reasonable profit on your investment.

I totally agree with your comments regarding politicians micro-managing military equipment acquisition. An increasing trend, unfortunately. If you are not going to listen to your qualified advisors, then why have them (I seem to recall a certain Herr Hitler falling into that trap a while ago).

The Winged Wombat



[edit on 18/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by thebozeian
2) Slick salesmen from the USN and Boeing. With an international sale the FA-18E/F gains more clout in potentially much bigger international fighter competions a la India. And the USN can use our sale to leverage more airframes from congress because the per unit price drops.

Not too many sales yet, but Boeing is offering 172 F-18E/F's at a unit cost of $49.9 million. This is enough to get the navy to order more according to the article. So they may not need the Indian sale as much as previously thought to wring more airframes out of congress.

If you get AWST its in this weeks issue.