Wow that certainly seems to reduce the chances of the RAAF getting a cheap buy of ex USAF C-27Js! Back to the drawing board?
Tas
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Tas
Not really. Our plan was to acquire C-27J through FMS. I don't think that will change, though where the actual airframes come from is not really our concern I guess, as long as we are not charged extra or are stuck with an orphan aircraft down the track...
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Quick question,
Are all C27J airframes, including the "current" 7 non-US customers, produced in the same way, eg, airframe built in Italy and completed by L3 in the US or is it only the US aircraft that are manufactured / delivered this way?
Andrew McL
New Member
The US C-27Js are flown 'green' from Alenia and finished by L-3 in Texas. Other customer aircraft are delivered direct from Alenia.
Then why not just buy direct from Alenia? Wouldn't that be a cost effective option, because L3 would have only been fitting US specific gear.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Thanks for that Andrew.
I noticed in that press release about the C27, that Alenia was not prepared to support the already ordered aircraft, but would support further/future FMS sales.
Ok fair enough, from a business point of view you can understand their position not wanting to support the already ordered aircraft, playing hard ball at the moment, be interesting to see where that goes, but I don't think we want to sit and wait for that saga to drag on for years.
So why not order direct, as the other 7 customers have?
Yes FMS has served us well with, for example FA-18F's, C17's, etc, but when the US is not going to be a user of a system we are interested in and it doesn't have to be built / completed in the US, why not purchase direct from the manufacturer?
Or are their systems that are specific to the US C27's?? Such as LAIRCM (is it planned to be fitted?), which as I understand is still an issue with the KC30A's because the US wouldn't let EADS install / activate, etc.
If we are also thinking of the CN-295, then I suppose it puts both choices in the same position, eg, non US FMS purchases.
Because without that US gear its just an aircraft. RAAF wants something they can fly in a warzone, they want a weapon system.
Ok. From what I've read you (and maybe us if we decide to buy) can still buy them through FMS, as long as they are not the USAF aircraft. I can understand Alenias position because I think that they have be shafted. I read somewhere (might have been on this thread) that the USAF saw the US Army C27J program as competition and via political manouevering had the program transfered to it and low and behold the program is reduced fom 145 aircraft to 33 to zero. Strange that.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Abe, thats the answer that I was wondering, not all C27J's are the same.
As Andrew McL had said, the US airframes were completed in the US, but I wasn't sure if that also meant they had the "US" specific systems that we also required.
So if we do proceed with a purchase of the C27J's, it will obviously be a US FMS sale of the same configuration as the US aircraft.
Which brings up another question.
Now that the US is going to cease using C27J's, what sort of ongoing support / upgrades of those "US" specific systems will we be guaranteed of into the future?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,070
Not really. If one wishes to see shenanigans, look into the 1948 Key West agreement which delineated which US military service would be responsible for specific areas, and see what direction the USAF moved in terms of capability and force structure and the direction that the US Army took in terms of army aviation.
The USAF was supposed to provide the army with a CAS capability, much like Marine Aviation provided for USMC ground elements. However the USAF was much more interested in jet fighters, strategic bombers and ballistic missiles. IIRC the USAF even fought attempts by the Army to setup armed helicopters, becaused armed aircraft were supposed to be USAF assets, despite the USAF never really funding or researching armed helicopters, despite requested from the army to do so. The justification that the USAF gave to fighting the army over armed helicopters was because the Key West agreement gave the Air Force and Naval Aviation (USN & USMC) responsibility for arming aircraft. The fact that the army wanted a capability which the USAF was not interested in developing apparently did not matter.
I suspect that the C-27J was another area where the army conops required a certain capability, one the that USAF was not keen on providing (or allocating resources to develop and sustain), so the army attempted to develop the capability on its own. Unfortunately, it seems that the USAF then managed to get control of the project and 'killed' it to retain control of fixed wing airlift.
-Cheers
It's the fitout that triggers the major FMS issues.
A little appreciated element is that FMS components outside of that platform acquisition can also influence a buy.
its not just about the platform, or even about the platform as a distinct system, it's also about how that platform solution fits within the broader warfighting system construct.
eg C2/C3/C4/C5 fitouts and preferred suites have a significant impact on what can and will be acquired
The specific kit we've requested beyond the basic C-27J airframe includes:
AN/AAR-47 (v2) Missile Approach Warning Systems, AN/ALE-47 (V) Threat Adaptive Countermeasure Dispenser Systems, AN/APR-39B v2 Radar Warning Receiver systems, AN/APN-241 Tactical Transport Radars and secure radio and data-link systems.
These systems are the standard Electronic Warfare Self-Protection systems for all USAF airlifters including C-130, C-5 and C-17 and US Army, Marine and Air Force helicopters including AH-1W/Z, UH-1N/Y, MH-60, MH-47, V-22 and MH-53.
I don't think sustainability or future upgrades are a huge worry...
John Newman
The Bunker Group
GF, you and Abe make it very clear that its not just about obtaining a "trash hauler" to move cargo from point A to B.
Its about a system that will get you from point A to B, where the "s&*t is hitting the fan" so you can get in out of with as much safety as possible.
And also a system that intergrates with all the others too.
Which makes me also wonder if we did bypass the C27J and went for the EADS CN-295 what extra "kit" would have to be installed above and beyond the basic kit it comes with.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Thanks ADMk2,
What you've said also proves that not all C27J's are "born equal", it is an important point when people are comparing C27's against CN-295's.
And as far as sustainability, the fact that those system are also used on a very broad range of aircraft it good to know too.
Yep, the exact configuration on the C-27J may differ slightly but those systems are all in wide use.
I think the upgrade path is certainly assured, despite the USG's decision in relation to the C-27J.
I think that's right. Alenia bid low, in the reasonable expectation of getting a big order from the US army. In winning its turf war & shafting the US army, the USAF has also shafted Alenia. Instead of selling 145 aircraft, it's now faced with selling 21 at a loss, then having those 21 displace other, profitable, sales.
Unless it can squeeze a lot of compensation or cancellation fees out of the Pentagon, it's screwed. This is the second deal it's lost to internal US politics recently, where it's behaved impeccably & delivered the product exactly as requested.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
Personally, although I can see Alenia's point of view in this (ex-USAF C-27Js taking away new build orders), I don't think it was a good move. Regardless of contractual obligations or exact wording, many are going to see this as Alenia not supporting their products.
It screws over the resale value to a purchaser when disposing of the aircraft after service. Who is going to pay top dollar for a used (but still very serviceable) aircraft that the manufacturer refuses to support?
Are air forces now going to start wondering if Alenia is going to screw them over when it comes time to sell their surplus C-27Js down the road?
Will it give potential M-346 purchasers pause for extra thought about the assumptions they had made regarding residual values during the life of the type?
You don't see Lockheed Martin throwing a fit every time an air force buys ex-USAF F-16s or C-130s. Bell and Sikorsky don't throw their toys out of the pram if anyone buys surplus UH-1s or U/SH-60s.
It screws over the resale value to a purchaser when disposing of the aircraft after service. Who is going to pay top dollar for a used (but still very serviceable) aircraft that the manufacturer refuses to support?
Are air forces now going to start wondering if Alenia is going to screw them over when it comes time to sell their surplus C-27Js down the road?
Will it give potential M-346 purchasers pause for extra thought about the assumptions they had made regarding residual values during the life of the type?
You don't see Lockheed Martin throwing a fit every time an air force buys ex-USAF F-16s or C-130s. Bell and Sikorsky don't throw their toys out of the pram if anyone buys surplus UH-1s or U/SH-60s.
Looks like Alemia isn't the only foreign company getting shafte by the USAF. US Air Force cancels deal for Brazilian-made aircraft | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk That makes three if you count the KC30 debacle.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
When the US sells off surplus aircraft like the ones you mentioned, they are usually 10, 15, 20+ years old already, so I don't think you are really comparing apples with apples in this case.
Apart from the US, Alenia has 7 current customers for the C27J and is talking to other too, including the RAAF.
I haven't read anywhere where they said the won't support those, in fact they have said they will support further sales through the FMS system.
Sure they are playing hard ball at the moment, why wouldn't they under these circumstances.
I'm sure Alenia and the US will eventually come to a settlement, but I don't think that's going to happen for a while, and anyway, the Caribou replacement project has gone on way too long as it is.
If we can still get them through FMS, as was planned, and we get the same deal and same support arrangement, then why not do it.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3,080
The USAF putting the Super Tucano deal on hold is IMO a bit different based off what I have read in the US.
In the CAS light prop programme, the hold on the deal is the USAF is investigating how the programme was awarded. From what I have come across in US media, a US competitor to the programme was disqualified, which left only the Super Tucano in the competition. From some of the comments made by Pentago officials, it appears that the documentation on why the US company was disqualified is questionable.
While this does not look good for the USAF and its various procurement programmes, in the AT-29 programme, it does appear as if there was hinkiness involved in disqualifying one of the two competitors.
-Cheers