Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[t68]

I am at a loss in how the Spartan is not fit for purpose as a battlefield lifter as the press release from Stephen Smith MP Minister for Defence & Jason Clare MP Minister for Defence Materiel at the time in regards to the C27J

New Battlefield aircraft for the Air Force - APDR (asiapacificdefencereporter.com)

A Battlefield Airlifter needs to be able to operate in a high threat environment. The C-27J with its missile warning systems, electronic self protection, secure communications and battlefield armour provides protection from threats ranging from small arms to highly lethal man portable air defence systems (MANPADS).

The DCSA for the C27 shows that they bought for self defence

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (dsca.mil)

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 ALE47(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;

When you consider that the C17A were bought with;

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (dsca.mil)

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of up to 4 C-17A Globemaster III aircraft, 19 F117- PW-100 Pratt & Whitney engines, 4 AN/AAQ-24V Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems, 4 Small Laser Transmitter Assemblies, 4 System Processors, 4 AN/AAR-54 Missile Warning Sensors, 1 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser, 1 AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System, 5 Trimble Force 524 Receivers, 2 GAS-1 Antenna Units, 2 Controlled Reception Pattern Antennas, 1 AN-USC-43V Advanced Narrowband Voice Terminal, 16 Honeywell H-764 ACE Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems

What capabilities do the C130 have that the C27J does not or C17 for that matter?


Airbus just unveiled an armed version of the C295 would it also not have the same limitations in the battlefield to C27J?

New C295 Armed Version Unveiled at Dubai Air Show 2017 - Defence - Airbus

 

[chis73]

Something in the news report doesn't seem to add up here. These aircraft were bought via FMS weren't they (for AU$1.4b if I recall), so they should have been the same configuration as those for the US Army. It seems unlikely that 'deficiencies' in the self-protection systems would result in only 35% of planned flying hours being flown. That sounds like a more serious problem - either reliability or issues with logistics supply (be it materiel or manpower).

I would disagree slightly with Marcus Hellyer's comments. My understanding is that although the Chinook can replace the C-27J as a battlefield lifter, the problem is the cost (especially per ton of cargo moved) of doing so. The Chinook is horrendously expensive to operate, you don't really want it to fly any further than it absolutely has to. It would be best used to lift things over 'the final mile' from the forward operating base to near the front line. The C-130J, in contrast, would have limitations in getting into many rough forward airfields close to the front to my mind (it is simply too big & requires too long a runway). In peacetime you may be OK (presuming you are flying into established airfields).

I don't see a catastrophic problem here, and I wouldn't expect the C-27Js to be replaced anytime soon.

 

[spoz]

And, ah, what exactly is the definition of “crisis response”? Lifting troops into an AO, and moving them about the AO? Short range battlefield airlifters have been helos for years; as CAF said, the advantage of the C27 is range at speed. That makes it a tactical transport, good for the tasks mentioned. This looks more like a definition of terms issue rather than a real change - and Defence is pretty good at developing and using terms in new ways.

 

[old faithful]

One of the issues I have heard of, is that when used to deploy Paratroopers, the Spartan suffers extreme stress on the airframe when the side doors are opened.
On another note, it's great to see Australian participation on the EW front, with the development of a mid frequency jammed for the growers. Maybe the 12th airframe will be replaced.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-ea-18g-growler-makes-multiple-enemy-radars-go-bye-bye-at-the-same-time-165026.html

 

[Redlands18]

One of the issues I have heard of, is that when used to deploy Paratroopers, the Spartan suffers extreme stress on the airframe when the side doors are opened.
On another note, it's great to see Australian participation on the EW front, with the development of a mid frequency jammed for the growers. Maybe the 12th airframe will be replaced.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-ea-18g-growler-makes-multiple-enemy-radars-go-bye-bye-at-the-same-time-165026.html

This years Budget includes funding for a project to look at how to replace the lost Growler, whether that could be one or more new Aircraft or conversion of one or more of the pre-wired Super Hornets or something else, we will have to wait and see.

 

[t68]

One of the issues I have heard of, is that when used to deploy Paratroopers, the Spartan suffers extreme stress on the airframe when the side doors are opened.
On another note, it's great to see Australian participation on the EW front, with the development of a mid frequency jammed for the growers. Maybe the 12th airframe will be replaced.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-ea-18g-growler-makes-multiple-enemy-radars-go-bye-bye-at-the-same-time-165026.html

not like we would have used the capability in the extreme anyhow after 3RAR lost the role,CDO/SAS would most likely be jumping of the ramp

Special Forces parachute into Exmouth - YouTube

 

[hauritz]

This years Budget includes funding for a project to look at how to replace the lost Growler, whether that could be one or more new Aircraft or conversion of one or more of the pre-wired Super Hornets or something else, we will have to wait and see.

On the subject of which I did recently find an image of the burnt out Growler I hadn't seen before.

https://i0.wp.com/theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/EA-18G-engine-failure-at-Nellis-detail.jpg?ssl=1

Yeah ... that isn't going to buff out.

 

[hauritz]

Another close-up of the damage from the same source

 

[Takao]

I would disagree slightly with Marcus Hellyer's comments. My understanding is that although the Chinook can replace the C-27J as a battlefield lifter, the problem is the cost (especially per ton of cargo moved) of doing so. The Chinook is horrendously expensive to operate, you don't really want it to fly any further than it absolutely has to. It would be best used to lift things over 'the final mile' from the forward operating base to near the front line. The C-130J, in contrast, would have limitations in getting into many rough forward airfields close to the front to my mind (it is simply too big & requires too long a runway). In peacetime you may be OK (presuming you are flying into established airfields).

I don't see a catastrophic problem here, and I wouldn't expect the C-27Js to be replaced anytime soon.

I can't find open source figures for the CH-47F, but here are those for the C-27J: nearly $25k per hour. I can tell you the CH-47 is less than that by a fair amount.

When you look at payload, the C-27J can lift 1000 kg more than a CH-47F in theory. In practice, they take the same load and hence $$/tonne is comparable to $$/hour. The CH-47F has the advantage of access and outsized loads (A M777 can't fit in a C-27J), the C-27J has the advantage of range and speed. Of those four positives (two each), we can fix one: the range difference can be mitigated through AAR.

The C-130J v C-27J take-off/landing requirements aren't that different. Unlike the Caribou, the C-27J isn't really a STOL aircraft. It's runway needs are not that different to a C-130J - certainly not the difference that the public perceives. A mate of mine who has been senior aircrew on C-130J and C-27J tells me that their rule of thumb is that if one fits, they both do. The C-27J's advantage is that it can operate on lower PCN runways, but that combination is not as common in the region or Australia - generally speaking if they have the length to take a C-27J/C-130J then they have the PCN to take a Herc.

If you gave me the ADF's structure airlift structure and $5 b to improve it, I'd buy C-17s, then C-130s. If one wasn't available I'd spend it all on the other. If neither were available, I'd buy CH-47F. There is no light aircraft that I could justify purchasing for the ADF.

 

[Redlands18]

I can't find open source figures for the CH-47F, but here are those for the C-27J: nearly $25k per hour. I can tell you the CH-47 is less than that by a fair amount.

When you look at payload, the C-27J can lift 1000 kg more than a CH-47F in theory. In practice, they take the same load and hence $$/tonne is comparable to $$/hour. The CH-47F has the advantage of access and outsized loads (A M777 can't fit in a C-27J), the C-27J has the advantage of range and speed. Of those four positives (two each), we can fix one: the range difference can be mitigated through AAR.

The C-130J v C-27J take-off/landing requirements aren't that different. Unlike the Caribou, the C-27J isn't really a STOL aircraft. It's runway needs are not that different to a C-130J - certainly not the difference that the public perceives. A mate of mine who has been senior aircrew on C-130J and C-27J tells me that their rule of thumb is that if one fits, they both do. The C-27J's advantage is that it can operate on lower PCN runways, but that combination is not as common in the region or Australia - generally speaking if they have the length to take a C-27J/C-130J then they have the PCN to take a Herc.

If you gave me the ADF's structure airlift structure and $5 b to improve it, I'd buy C-17s, then C-130s. If one wasn't available I'd spend it all on the other. If neither were available, I'd buy CH-47F. There is no light aircraft that I could justify purchasing for the ADF.

Maybe a buy of KC-130J and CH-47F fitted with a re-fuelling probe as per that fitted to the MH-47G could be the way to go.

 

[Goknub]

Boosting the CH47 fleet would also reduce pressure/reliance on the Taipan fleet. It's a pity the costs are already sunk but a split buy of additional CH47/C130 would have been better. Additional heliopters would have cost RAAF funding though which I can't help see had an influence. If a STOL light utility platform is useful maybe a small buy of a Cessna Skycourier type aircraft.

 

[Depot Dog]

Below are two documents from airpower Australia. The articles point out the niche capabilities of the Caribou. The one thing I didn't know was the engines were its archilles heal. They were 1940's technology and difficult to maintain.

Chris73 post 7,582 about Chinook operational cost are confirmed in DT-Turbo_Caribou. Like the DC3 the Caribou is economic, unique and irreplaceable.

Interesting that the C27 lacks STOL and have the field deployment charactistics of a Herc. In other words it wasn't destine to do the Caribou unique role.

The articles go through various replacement options from C27 to MV-22 Osprey to balloons. If your interested in this subject I recommend the read.

Regards
DD

 

[Redlands18]

Below are two documents from airpower Australia. The articles point out the niche capabilities of the Caribou. The one thing I didn't know was the engines were its archilles heal. They were 1940's technology and difficult to maintain.

Chris73 post 7,582 about Chinook operational cost are confirmed in DT-Turbo_Caribou. Like the DC3 the Caribou is economic, unique and irreplaceable.

Interesting that the C27 lacks STOL and have the field deployment charactistics of a Herc. In other words it wasn't destine to do the Caribou unique role.

The articles go through various replacement options from C27 to MV-22 Osprey to balloons. If your interested in this subject I recommend the read.

Regards
DD

I would not make a habit of using Air Power Australia as a source material on Defencetalk, it does not have a particularly good reputation on any reputable Defence Forum.

 

[Depot Dog]

I would not make a habit of using Air Power Australia as a source material on Defencetalk, it does not have a particularly good reputation on any reputable Defence Forum.

Really!! On face value my sources looked factual. It summaries my thoughts and I couldn't see any major flaws. Would you rather me say an uninformed statement like we should replace the C27 with X. X being a thought bubble from my backside.

I believe in the spirit of the forum rules. I look for articles that summaries and confirm multiple points. I have a preferance to read research and government papers. I find Wiki is a lazy source. Murdoch newspapers are controversial and get members fired up. That is the reason I try to avoid them and look to other factual sources. All this takes time and careful reading .

If you are going to critcize my sources or opinion I take no offence. However you do it in the spirit of this forum and produce a counter point. We have a debate or conversation not a reply that my sources suck.

Regards
DD

 

[ngatimozart]

I would not make a habit of using Air Power Australia as a source material on Defencetalk, it does not have a particularly good reputation on any reputable Defence Forum.

That's putting it mildly.

 

[ngatimozart]

Really!! On face value my sources looked factual. It summaries my thoughts and I couldn't see any major flaws. Would you rather me say an uninformed statement like we should replace the C27 with X. X being a thought bubble from my backside.

I believe in the spirit of the forum rules. I look for articles that summaries and confirm multiple points. I have a preferance to read research and government papers. I find Wiki is a lazy source. Murdoch newspapers are controversial and get members fired up. That is the reason I try to avoid them and look to other factual sources. All this takes time and careful reading .

If you are going to critcize my sources or opinion I take no offence. However you do it in the spirit of this forum and produce a counter point. We have a debate or conversation not a reply that my sources suck.

Regards
DD

Air Power Australia is about as reliable as the CCP. Put it this way Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson are more authoritive on defence than they are. They were / are the biggest anti F-35 merchants this side of the black stump. If they had valid evidence and arguments we wouldn't had a problem with it, but they didn't. They published rubbish, lies, and innuendo that had no basis in fact, science, and engineering. The last time they appeared before a Senate Hearing in Canberra, they started spouting there rubbish and were shown the door before they were finished.

If you are going to critcize my sources or opinion I take no offence. However you do it in the spirit of this forum and produce a counter point. We have a debate or conversation not a reply that my sources suck.

@Redlands18 isn't telling you that your sources suck because he's being mean; he's pointing out that Air Power Australia is not a reliable nor accurate source, and as such is not acceptable here. So don't come the raw prawn with him over it.

FYI one of the quickest ways to annoy the DEFPROs and Moderators, is to cite APA as a source.

 

[Depot Dog]

I try to repect and not annoy everyone in this community. I am in the classical terms a lover not a fighter.

@Redlands18 I would not make a habit of using Air Power Australia as a source material on Defencetalk, it does not have a particularly good reputation on any reputable Defence Forum.
He is well known member not a DEFPRO or Moderator. Being a member of this forum qualifies him as a good bloke. But with all the respect in the world his response doesn't say why it is a bad source or why I shouldn't use it. I have pride in my posts and try to abide by the rules. That is why I lashed out. I apologies for any offence anybody had with my response but not the content.

All I ask is give me an informed opinion as I try to give informed posts.

I put the effort in to make my posts factual as possible. This takes effort. From a private message I now understand why Airpower Australia is a bad source. I wont be using them in the future.

 

[John Newman]

The C-27J has been a troubled project for a fair while now.

I remember reading this article by Andrew McL of ADBR a year ago:

RAAF C-27J Spartan capability put on notice | ADBR

The Royal Australian Air Force’s Leonardo/L-3 C-27J Spartan battlefield airlifter capability operated by 35SQN at Amberley has been added to Defence’s Projects of Interest watch-list after missing several key capability…

adbr.com.au

The aircraft had continued to fail reaching FOC a few times and was (or still is) on the ‘Projects of Interest’ list.

The article suggests that a year ago availability rates were below 50%.

There are also these two interesting paragraphs:

“There have also been undefined delays in installing the C-27J’s infra-red countermeasures (IRCM) systems, a key capability requirement when operating in contested environments where small man-portable surface-to-air anti-aircraft (MANPAD) missile systems are common.

“The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) 2017–18 Major Projects Report noted that; ‘…the project office is working through a number of capability baseline considerations identified post-establishment of the FMS Case. These baseline issues are associated with the configuration and certification status of the USAF JCA C-27J program, which were not finalised by the USAF at the time of divestiture.”


Cheers,

 

[Redlands18]

I try to repect and not annoy everyone in this community. I am in the classical terms a lover not a fighter.

@Redlands18 I would not make a habit of using Air Power Australia as a source material on Defencetalk, it does not have a particularly good reputation on any reputable Defence Forum.
He is well known member not a DEFPRO or Moderator. Being a member of this forum qualifies him as a good bloke. But with all the respect in the world his response doesn't say why it is a bad source or why I shouldn't use it. I have pride in my posts and try to abide by the rules. That is why I lashed out. I apologies for any offence anybody had with my response but not the content.

All I ask is give me an informed opinion as I try to give informed posts.

I put the effort in to make my posts factual as possible. This takes effort. From a private message I now understand why Airpower Australia is a bad source. I wont be using them in the future.

My apologies if i came across a bit strong, it was meant as some friendly advice, i have been here long enough to know where APA stands on this forum and it makes Wikipedia look like good.

 

[Takao]

Really!! On face value my sources looked factual. It summaries my thoughts and I couldn't see any major flaws. Would you rather me say an uninformed statement like we should replace the C27 with X. X being a thought bubble from my backside.

I believe in the spirit of the forum rules. I look for articles that summaries and confirm multiple points. I have a preferance to read research and government papers. I find Wiki is a lazy source. Murdoch newspapers are controversial and get members fired up. That is the reason I try to avoid them and look to other factual sources. All this takes time and careful reading .

If you are going to critcize my sources or opinion I take no offence. However you do it in the spirit of this forum and produce a counter point. We have a debate or conversation not a reply that my sources suck.

Regards
DD

Before we all jump on @Depot Dog, I'd point out that APA didn't write those articles. They are Defence Today articles. APA does host a number of good references they use as primary and secondary sources; in this respect the offer value to defence analysis.

While DD wouldn't know, they are also written by two respected names and nothing in them looks out of place. I will quibble with the cost and time figures in the turboprop conversion article; but as sources both are fine.