C-17 or A400M for Australia?

[swerve]

...
I think it unlikely we'll operate A400M's, unless a plan can be devised to swap or sell the existing C-130J-30's and according to Magoo's figures that doesn't seem likely. If anything MORE C-130J-30's are likely to be acquired, which would SURELY sound the death knell for the A400m in RAAF service...

The capability most likely to be forgone (if any) out of that group is the C-27/C-295, IMHO. There is not that much advantage in operating these ...

Interesting to see what happens anyway...

Yeeess - C-17/A400M/C-27 (or C-295) covers just about every need fairly well. But with C-130J, you start getting overlaps with A400M & the smaller types.

Dunno about the C-130J/C-27J, but I remember the original Italian G.222 being used for aid missions in preference to a C-130 because it could land, where a C-130 could only airdrop. Since the C-27J is to the G.222 what the C-130J is to - ooohhh - the C-130H? - perhaps there still is a worthwhile difference in short-field performance.

 

[old faithful]

Inefficient, compared to what?

Operating, C-17, C-130J-30, C-130H, DHC-4 Caribou, KC-30B, CH-47D, which is the CURRENT situation, or will be by 2009 even IF current plans aren't implemented?

Unfortunately RAAF needs different aircraft for different roles and Army needs heavy lift helo's, meaning: Chinooks.

I think it unlikely we'll operate A400M's, unless a plan can be devised to swap or sell the existing C-130J-30's and according to Magoo's figures that doesn't seem likely. If anything MORE C-130J-30's are likely to be acquired, which would SURELY sound the death knell for the A400m in RAAF service...

The capability most likely to be forgone (if any) out of that group is the C-27/C-295, IMHO. There is not that much advantage in operating these aircraft as opposed to C-130J-30's in my opinion, as they apparently don't offer much of an advantage in STOL performance compared to the C-130J-30 but there IS a big difference in load capacity/range performance...

Additional Chinooks seems likely in any case and "tanked" Chooks (via KC-130J's) may ease the requirement for the C-27J/C-295 and ease the logistical burden somewhat.

Interesting to see what happens anyway...

I tend to agree with you regarding the C27J/C295 option. Its not like they have the stol capability of the Bou. Nor do they represent a huge saving on operational costs over the Chinook fleet. Maybe another lesser buy of J herks and Chooks is what we really need. OTOH, C27J,s may be cheaper to run when used as a troop transport, or for lighter loads where a herc isnt needed. Either way, i dont really see a need for the A400,s in the next 10+ years.

 

[rickshaw]

The advantage of the C27J/C130J mix is that pilots fly both types without a need for retraining, as both use identical "glass" cockpits. This would effectively double the usage rates of both aircraft types and reduce costs, as it would not require seperate training programmes or certification. Instead of pilots being trained to fly as they are now Caribous and Hercules, they would be effectively trained to fly the one aircraft which came in a two and a four engined version. A not insubstantial saving IMHO.

While the A400 might have some other useful attributes, that isn't one of them, unfortunately.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The advantage of the C27J/C130J mix is that pilots fly both types without a need for retraining, as both use identical "glass" cockpits. This would effectively double the usage rates of both aircraft types and reduce costs, as it would not require seperate training programmes or certification. Instead of pilots being trained to fly as they are now Caribous and Hercules, they would be effectively trained to fly the one aircraft which came in a two and a four engined version. A not insubstantial saving IMHO.

While the A400 might have some other useful attributes, that isn't one of them, unfortunately.

True. I doubt the need for the A400m in Australian service to be perfectly honest and I cannot think that RAAF would be willing to operate C-130J AND A400m, unless it were only for a short period of time, during a transition from one type to another, ala C-130H to C-17.

The A400M reputedly will have better STOL performance than the C-130J, IIRC and thus might be able to "bridge the gap" a bit better than a C-130J /C-27J fleet, so it might be an option. The lift capacity increase would certainly be useful, but I doubt if it will be the cheapest option though.

The cheapest option will be to keep our existing C-130J's as there is plenty of life left in them and add another 6 aircraft of the same type would probably fill most of our needs for "medium" (I'm going to call it) Tactrans.

The C-27's would be mostly used for "intra-theatre" work I'd imagine. The fleet is likely to be less in size than the C-130J and it has less payload and range in any case.

Apart from perhaps a slightly better STOL performance, I see few advantages in operating this aircraft in instead of additional C-130J's. Let's hope IF the aircraft is bought, that the STOL performance is SIGNIFICANTLY enhanced with this aircraft...

 

[rickshaw]

If the C-27J retains the G-222's capability, it will be more than sufficient in the STOL area. I question the need for medium lifters to have the same STOL capability as the smaller transports - afterall, they are meant to be only moving cargo forward to the larger airstrips where, if necessary it can be transhipped to the smaller transport aircraft. If it can't, they can always then do a LAPES mission and land the cargo directly on the airstrip, without physically having to land themselves. If we are talking personel/vehicles then the C-27J should be able to handle most of those.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If the C-27J retains the G-222's capability, it will be more than sufficient in the STOL area. I question the need for medium lifters to have the same STOL capability as the smaller transports - afterall, they are meant to be only moving cargo forward to the larger airstrips where, if necessary it can be transhipped to the smaller transport aircraft. If it can't, they can always then do a LAPES mission and land the cargo directly on the airstrip, without physically having to land themselves. If we are talking personel/vehicles then the C-27J should be able to handle most of those.

Tactrans move people as well. I don't want to know how successful the last attempt to LAPES 90 odd soldiers went...

C-130's are used for both intra (internally) and inter (between) theatre work, hence the importance of STOL performance even for C-130 class airlifters...

 

[old faithful]

regarding LAPES, to the best of my knowledge, on the caribou did lapes drops for the RAAF. It is a very risky operation to carry out. eg, if the load moves to the l or R on dispatch you have a real problem, no one wants a truck and and an extraction rig hanging out the back of their Herc, and it has happend. AMTDU basiclly put a stop to it. 39ADE were responsible for all the rigging of heavy drops, and none were rigged for lapes in the 12 months i spent there.

 

[Magoo]

Whilst the C-27J and C-130J do, potentially offer a virtual common type rating, it is unlikely the RAAF would use this in practice due to its conservative type streaming practices.

The advantages of the C-27J are many - there are several dozen in service or on order by European nations and, unless something goes awry, it will likely be chosen for the 200+ order for the USAF/US Army JCA program early in the new year; it shares common engines and avionics systems with the C-130J, therefore reducing the support and spares streams required; its smaller size, ability to be refuelled in flight, and NVG compatible cockpit has much special forces support work potential; and it carries C-130-compatible pallets (old faithful may be able to elaborate on the importance of this seeing as he has AMTDU time ).

Perhaps more importantly, ALG has determined that, given a capable EW kit, a C-27J could probably handle about 90% of the missions currently being flown by C-130Js in the MEAO, with the only exceptions perhaps being some of the longer range support missions up into Afghanistan. Further, a smaller and lighter twin like the C-27J could operate into some of the shorter, narrower and/or higher strips currently off limits to the Hercs.

Re the C-130J tankers - there is currently an internal study looking at whether to go for the proven shorter fuselage model as used by the USMC, or to see if the longer fuselage -30 can be certified for pods and hoses. The pods are quite draggy and would need to be cleared by LockMart and ARDU, as would any CofG issues. The fuel bladders for AAR missions are pallet mounted and can be quickly removed for conventional cargo missions.

Re more C-17s - don't count on it. I think there are additional tankers on the wish-list ahead of more C-17s. The C-17s will offer a relatively niche bulky/heavy lifting capability unmatched by anything else around, but a cargo-convertible KC-30B (if the cargo option is taken once Airbus finally gets round to launchung the A330-200F) should be able to handle most light to medium weight, medium to long-range lift missions with one stop to the MEAO and non-stop to our regional neighbours. This would include light vehicles, field hospitals and medical equipment, and other civil defence related equipment which may be too much for one Herc.

Magoo

 

[old faithful]

Whilst the C-27J and C-130J do, potentially offer a virtual common type rating, it is unlikely the RAAF would use this in practice due to its conservative type streaming practices.

The advantages of the C-27J are many - there are several dozen in service or on order by European nations and, unless something goes awry, it will likely be chosen for the 200+ order for the USAF/US Army JCA program early in the new year; it shares common engines and avionics systems with the C-130J, therefore reducing the support and spares streams required; its smaller size, ability to be refuelled in flight, and NVG compatible cockpit has much special forces support work potential; and it carries C-130-compatible pallets (old faithful may be able to elaborate on the importance of this seeing as he has AMTDU time ).

Perhaps more importantly, ALG has determined that, given a capable EW kit, a C-27J could probably handle about 90% of the missions currently being flown by C-130Js in the MEAO, with the only exceptions perhaps being some of the longer range support missions up into Afghanistan. Further, a smaller and lighter twin like the C-27J could operate into some of the shorter, narrower and/or higher strips currently off limits to the Hercs.

Re the C-130J tankers - there is currently an internal study looking at whether to go for the proven shorter fuselage model as used by the USMC, or to see if the longer fuselage -30 can be certified for pods and hoses. The pods are quite draggy and would need to be cleared by LockMart and ARDU, as would any CofG issues. The fuel bladders for AAR missions are pallet mounted and can be quickly removed for conventional cargo missions.

Re more C-17s - don't count on it. I think there are additional tankers on the wish-list ahead of more C-17s. The C-17s will offer a relatively niche bulky/heavy lifting capability unmatched by anything else around, but a cargo-convertible KC-30B (if the cargo option is taken once Airbus finally gets round to launchung the A330-200F) should be able to handle most light to medium weight, medium to long-range lift missions with one stop to the MEAO and non-stop to our regional neighbours. This would include light vehicles, field hospitals and medical equipment, and other civil defence related equipment which may be too much for one Herc.

Magoo

Sorry for any confusion, but I was never with AMTDU, was a seco in 3RAR and did a 12mth stint as a para rigger with 39ADE,packing every type of parachute in the inventry. Packed a lot of heavy drop rigs, and learned how to pack the LAPES gear,althogh transport and AMTDU would rig the load,but LAPES was restricted to CC08 (caribou) only. A bit like the Navy as far as Hercs go...fitted for but not with! only trained for but not practiced! Cant ever see C17 or A400 conducting LAPES although it would be entertaining watching an Abrams or SP Arty getting draged out!

 

[rickshaw]

Tactrans move people as well. I don't want to know how successful the last attempt to LAPES 90 odd soldiers went...

As I said, if you must land/extract personnel, then the C-27J can handle most of those missions. Otherwise they can jump out the back of the C-130, if a C-130 can't put down because of the small size of the strip.

C-130's are used for both intra (internally) and inter (between) theatre work, hence the importance of STOL performance even for C-130 class airlifters...

Apart from personnel (who can jump out the back anyway), everything else can be delivered by LAPES if the strip is so short that the C-130J can't land on it.

 

[rickshaw]

regarding LAPES, to the best of my knowledge, on the caribou did lapes drops for the RAAF. It is a very risky operation to carry out. eg, if the load moves to the l or R on dispatch you have a real problem, no one wants a truck and and an extraction rig hanging out the back of their Herc, and it has happend. AMTDU basiclly put a stop to it. 39ADE were responsible for all the rigging of heavy drops, and none were rigged for lapes in the 12 months i spent there.

As you mentioned, you did the training on how to rig it. THerefore the capability still exists. As the old saying goes, "if needs be..." Don't assume simply because it hasn't been used, it won't be. If the situation calls for it and it is the only solution, it will be used. The risk would be taken.

 

[Jezza]

Whilst the C-27J and C-130J do, potentially offer a virtual common type rating, it is unlikely the RAAF would use this in practice due to its conservative type streaming practices.

The advantages of the C-27J are many - there are several dozen in service or on order by European nations and, unless something goes awry, it will likely be chosen for the 200+ order for the USAF/US Army JCA program early in the new year; it shares common engines and avionics systems with the C-130J, therefore reducing the support and spares streams required; its smaller size, ability to be refuelled in flight, and NVG compatible cockpit has much special forces support work potential; and it carries C-130-compatible pallets (old faithful may be able to elaborate on the importance of this seeing as he has AMTDU time ).

Perhaps more importantly, ALG has determined that, given a capable EW kit, a C-27J could probably handle about 90% of the missions currently being flown by C-130Js in the MEAO, with the only exceptions perhaps being some of the longer range support missions up into Afghanistan. Further, a smaller and lighter twin like the C-27J could operate into some of the shorter, narrower and/or higher strips currently off limits to the Hercs.

Re the C-130J tankers - there is currently an internal study looking at whether to go for the proven shorter fuselage model as used by the USMC, or to see if the longer fuselage -30 can be certified for pods and hoses. The pods are quite draggy and would need to be cleared by LockMart and ARDU, as would any CofG issues. The fuel bladders for AAR missions are pallet mounted and can be quickly removed for conventional cargo missions.

Re more C-17s - don't count on it. I think there are additional tankers on the wish-list ahead of more C-17s. The C-17s will offer a relatively niche bulky/heavy lifting capability unmatched by anything else around, but a cargo-convertible KC-30B (if the cargo option is taken once Airbus finally gets round to launchung the A330-200F) should be able to handle most light to medium weight, medium to long-range lift missions with one stop to the MEAO and non-stop to our regional neighbours. This would include light vehicles, field hospitals and medical equipment, and other civil defence related equipment which may be too much for one Herc.

Magoo

quite liked that informative post Magoo keep up the good work

 

[old faithful]

As you mentioned, you did the training on how to rig it. THerefore the capability still exists. As the old saying goes, "if needs be..." Don't assume simply because it hasn't been used, it won't be. If the situation calls for it and it is the only solution, it will be used. The risk would be taken.

I know what you are saying, but i doubt very much that a tank would be delivered by lapes, i dont even know where to begin...as for soldiers just jumping out the back of a moving herc cause it cant land? i dont know what you mean?? if you mean at a speed where the thing can take off again, then id want to watch your demonstration first!nfloorl: I met a pole on ANZAC day once who seeing my wings started a conversation about jumping, he asked me how many jumps id done. I replied (insert # not important) and he looked suitabley impressed. He then told me how many he had done. 2! he said, a training jump and one into Arhnem. So suppose its not that hard to raise a para Bn if really needed!

 

[rickshaw]

I know what you are saying, but i doubt very much that a tank would be delivered by lapes, i dont even know where to begin...as for soldiers just jumping out the back of a moving herc cause it cant land? i dont know what you mean?? if you mean at a speed where the thing can take off again, then id want to watch your demonstration first!nfloorl: I met a pole on ANZAC day once who seeing my wings started a conversation about jumping, he asked me how many jumps id done. I replied (insert # not important) and he looked suitabley impressed. He then told me how many he had done. 2! he said, a training jump and one into Arhnem. So suppose its not that hard to raise a para Bn if really needed!

The dropshorts who dropped at Nadzab had about the same number.

When I said they could jump out of a Herc, I meant with a chute from altitude. :lol:

As for delivering a tank by LAPES, it was how the M551 Sheridans were intended to be delivered. I can't see one of the new M1a1 parade-ground queens going out of the back of a C-17 that way, but I suppose it would be one method by which they could move them out of Darwin or Pucka. :wink:

 

[old faithful]

The dropshorts who dropped at Nadzab had about the same number.

When I said they could jump out of a Herc, I meant with a chute from altitude. :lol:

As for delivering a tank by LAPES, it was how the M551 Sheridans were intended to be delivered. I can't see one of the new M1a1 parade-ground queens going out of the back of a C-17 that way, but I suppose it would be one method by which they could move them out of Darwin or Pucka. :wink:

nice pic of a sheriden...but by todays standard,it hardly qualifys as a tank....my last comment on lapes. IT WONT HAPPEN WITH AUST ASSETS with any equip worth more than $47

 

[Aussie Digger]

nice pic of a sheriden...but by todays standard,it hardly qualifys as a tank....my last comment on lapes. IT WONT HAPPEN WITH AUST ASSETS with any equip worth more than $47

Nor will ALL of Army become para-qualified so that they can jump out of Hercules... Quite the opposite in fact...

 

[rickshaw]

Both of you under-estimate things, I suspect. If needs must, then it shall be done.

However, its all academic, I admit. I sincerely doubt we would need to deliver anything by medium transport aircraft into a strip that was so small that a C-130J couldn't fit.

BTW, Old Faithful, were you aware that the Oz Army nearly adopted the M551 Sheridan? I still have a copy of the Division in Battle pam somewhere where it is featured as supposedly standard equipment.

 

[old faithful]

no rickshaw,wasnt aware of sheridens on the wish list during the late 70,s or 80,s. Lucky we didnt get em eh! Would be pretty useless to us! I reckon an ASLAV could take one out pretty eisily.

 

[rickshaw]

no rickshaw,wasnt aware of sheridens on the wish list during the late 70,s or 80,s. Lucky we didnt get em eh! Would be pretty useless to us! I reckon an ASLAV could take one out pretty eisily.

Twas the early 60s actually. They were knocked back because of the rather alarming way they jumped backwards over a metre when they fired the main gun, despite having the brakes hard on. They were badly over-gunned. Not much armour but they were more a "tank destroyer" than a "tank", as such.

 

[PETER671BT]

I was looking at a military directory,and please anyone out there can enliten me why the herk can carry 128 troops,and the A400M can carry120 troops.Is this book wrong?