A slight suggestion. Can we NOT respond to that article. It's a load of rubbish and has been done to death in the past.
Lets not dignify it with responses.
Lets not dignify it with responses.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
This "argument" is ridiculous. ADF is NOT considering replacing Chooks with Spartan's. They are considering replacing Caribou's with Spartans or C-295's.You are assuming the C-27J cant operate off the LHD.
For the Combat Rescue Tanker i heard GMAS mentioned the C-27J's carrier compatibility. If that is indeed true, which is highly likely considering C-130 has easily operated off an aircraft carrier and the C-27J is smaller with superior STOL performance. The C-27J would be great for the RAAF even if its just to refuel helicopters and for long distant resupply to a deployed LHD. Mini-MRTT
There are a lot of assumptions going on here regarding the C-27J vs Chinook.
Most of the reasons mentioning why the Chinook should be purchased over the C-27J i think are completely invalid. Pretty much ever scenario used to justify the Chinook could also be performed by the C-27J if required. Unless you want to float on a lake..
Well i know the Spartan definitely wont fit the hanger.
AIR-8000 has not been decided upon yet, so we cannot say for certain that the C-27J WILL even be chosen for RAAF.
Chinooks will be in ARMY's inventory for a long time. An order for an additional 3x was placed by former Defmin Nelson immediately before the election last year and these are to be delivered from 2012.
Speculation abounds that additional orders will be placed as well including: upgrades for our existing "D" models to the "F" model standard and additional new build "F" (with "G" model enhancements for special forces usage) to bring the fleet to somewhere around 12x aircraft.
Discussing this "can C-27 replace CH-47" is a waste of time. It's not going to happen.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Australia has signed up as a partner in the US Navy's BAMS project and has contributed funding already. We have to decide over the next few months whether to join the SDD phase (as we did with the F-35) but I expect the current GAO protest over the winner (Northrop Grumman and it's Global Hawk) will allow us some "leeway" as even the US Navy won't be able to work any further on the project until the protest has been decided.
There have been snippets that ADF is interested in acquiring the MQ-1C Sky Warrior that has been adopted by the US Army. This is basically a Predator, but with an expanded airframe size, a "heavy fuel" engine (ie: diesel) a greater sensor capacity (Lynx SAR radar, EO/IR and SIGINT loads carried simultaneously) the ability to carry up to 4x Hellfires at any one (Predator can only carry 2x) time, plus greater endurance.
A Squadron of those (12x) would be a fantastic capability to support our troops in Afghanistan, (or anywhere else we needed to deploy) but it remains to be seen how quickly they could be delivered, with the US desperate to get it's hands on every possible UAV they can produce...
It wasn't easily operated at all. In fact the whole C-130 launch from a super carrier has been misrepresented considerably. whilst it could land and take off it effectively killed all other air operations.
the whole reason for the development of the "greyhound" was because the C-130 was impractical
a Spartan would be just as impractical for the same reasons.
- it would compromise existing air ops,
- it would not fit into the elevator space without rework,
- a rework would add weight and require recertification ( a non trivial task, and of no benefit)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,266
Just a niggling little detail. The CH-46 Sea Knight design preceeded the CH-47 Chinook by about 3 years, and is slightly smaller, being about 5m shorter in length.
Honestly yes, I do assume that the C-27J will not be able to operate off of a Canberra-class LHD. The length of a Canberra-class LHD is expected to be approximately 2/3rds that of a USN carrier, meaning less distance available for takeoff. The potential inclusion of a ski-ramp might assist matters, or given the larger size of a Spartan vs. fighters, make matters worse. Also US carriers have CATO, which could be used to assist. Then there is the whole matter of if a Spartan could survive a landing upon an LHD while delivering a useful payload.
-Cheers
my bad, I was being lazy and meant to indicate that it was like the chinook.... ie a flying banana
Can you confirm you are suggesting the C-27J can be operated off a Canberra class LHD? Apart from the lack of arrestor gear, flight deck length and a crash barrier you may want to consider wing span.
Edit: sorry just read the preceeding posts, it appears the lunacy of this idea has already been examined.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We ALL are.
C-27J wingspan: 94.5 feet (31.5m's).
Canberra class beam: 32.0m's (96 feet).
What is that large superstructure type thing on the right side of the ship again? Is it really necessary? Does it really HAVE to protrude a good 10-15m's into the flight deck from the starboard side of the ship?
What about this then.
The C-27J could operate off the port side edge of the ship, with the port side fuselage of the aircraft perfectly in-line with the port side of the boat.
Spool up maximum power, have the starboard landing gear run over a ramp when it reaches the designated point so the starboard wing travels OVER the superstructure in a parabolic arc, operate super tough landing gear on the starboard side, capable of handling the landing and then shoot off into the sky off the ski ramp?
Sure there might be a few test issues to work out, but is this idea really so far fetched? I'm sure the testing required could be funded by the withdrawal and sale of the CH-47D from the Australian order of battle.
And some people said this idea was lunacy...
nfloorl:
Last edited by a moderator:
battlensign
New Member
We ALL are.
C-27J wingspan: 94.5 feet (31.5m's).
Canberra class beam: 32.0m's (96 feet).
What is that large superstructure type thing on the right side of the ship again? Is it really necessary? Does it really HAVE to protrude a good 10-15m's into the flight deck from the starboard side of the ship?
What about this then.
The C-27J could operate off the port side edge of the ship, with the port side fuselage of the aircraft perfectly in-line with the port side of the boat.
Spool up maximum power, have the starboard landing gear run over a ramp when it reaches the designated point so the starboard wing travels OVER the superstructure in a parabolic arc, operate super tough landing gear on the starboard side, capable of handling the landing and then shoot off into the sky off the ski ramp?
Sure there might be a few test issues to work out, but is this idea really so far fetched? I'm sure the testing required could be funded by the withdrawal and sale of the CH-47D from the Australian order of battle.
And some people said this idea was lunacy...
Whilst that all seems perfectly logical:
1) The parabolic arc of the starboard wing will not be generating lift in opposition to the weight of the aircraft to sufficiently create stable lift. I therefore suggest a raised edge of the starboard wing sufficient to allow it to pass over the Bridge. Weight to be counterbalanced on the port wing.
2) The distance between the flight deck surface on the starboard side and the port wing operating over the port side of the ship (and thus over the water 50 or so feet below) may create different lift characteristics even if 1) can be overcome. As such, I sugges that planking be erected on the port side to create an artifical sponson capable of reducing this differential. (Recommend postponement/cancellation of 4 MRH-90 to cover costs).
Brett.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I second that, but just to point out to those who may be unaware of what a hypocrite he is, he put THIS diagram (which he himself created) on his own website, back when he WAS a fan of the Super Hornet (ie: before it interferred with HIS financial plans for RAAF's future fighter project).
http://www.ausairpower.net/000-Super-Bug-loadout.jpg
Let's all count those AMRAAM's shall we?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
By a second engine, only on the port wing perhaps? That way, if the port side engine fails, there's a spare.
It's win, win.
At least folding planking. We wouldn't want it looking stupid, when the C-27's weren't being employed from it...
Speaking of folding, that's how we could solve the issue of fitting C-27's into the hangar. We'd need at least 2x folds per wing and it would operate in a similar way to the method by which one folds up a tarpaulin...
Oh, and the tail would need one too. Given it's 31 feet or so high...
You could always do a "CREDIBLE SPORT" style conversion on the C-27's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_Sport
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo"]YouTube - Credible Sport Test YMC 130 H[/ame]
Of course those downward facing rockets would seriously mess up your flight deck, but MY GOD would it look AWESOME!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_Sport
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo"]YouTube - Credible Sport Test YMC 130 H[/ame]
Of course those downward facing rockets would seriously mess up your flight deck, but MY GOD would it look AWESOME!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That's the silliest idea I've ever heard of.You could always do a "CREDIBLE SPORT" style conversion on the C-27's.
Of course those downward facing rockets would seriously mess up your flight deck, but MY GOD would it look AWESOME!
Now back to the ideas for squeezing a C-27J into the hangar of a Canberra Class LHD thanks...
Why waste time trying to modify a C-27J? The RAAF could put folding wings and RATOG gear on to the surplus C-130Hs and provide the navy with real fire support by also modifying them as gunships. Landing on an LHD wouldn't be a problem as the island would serve as a natural barrier to pull them up before the end of the flight deck!
Where would we be without rjmaz1? His ideas provide the best entertainment value in this thread and occasionally he does have a practical and workable idea.
Tas
Since we are talking fantasy and we don't need large helicopters, why don't we redesign the vessel with an angled flight deck, trade some of the of the F-35A's for C's, add a catapult and bingoBy a second engine, only on the port wing perhaps? That way, if the port side engine fails, there's a spare.
It's win, win.
At least folding planking. We wouldn't want it looking stupid, when the C-27's weren't being employed from it...
Speaking of folding, that's how we could solve the issue of fitting C-27's into the hangar. We'd need at least 2x folds per wing and it would operate in a similar way to the method by which one folds up a tarpaulin...
Oh, and the tail would need one too. Given it's 31 feet or so high...
We have an amphibous aircaft carrier ................... which is too restricted to do anything well (and probably too small for F-35B;s)
Sorry I could not resist
I was refering to the infantries ability to build rafts, I was referring to the fact your heavy lift element has to spend time going to and from the rivers and the rest of the army is advancing, heavy lift helo's or any helo's for that matter are used to supply frontline forces with their supplies. When you have that element tied up in one spot you are hampering the rest if your frontlines supply.
The ability to build rafts is covered thoroughly by my last post, but I'll re-state it in different terms.
Building rafts takes time. What if you don't have it? It needs a waterway calm enough for them, it needs accessible loading points, it needs materials. Rafts have to be powered, unless you have both shallow & still water (engines & propellors needed - what if you don't have them?), or hauled across (what if it's too wide, or you don't have strong enough & long enough cables?). Etc., etc.
Of course your heavy lift helicopters have to spend time going backwards & forwards. But this is their job.
If you're advancing (what's postulated in this scenario), with armour & artillery, then I doubt very much you're supplying your front line by helicopter, except at the margins, for urgent, relatively low weight stuff. Sitting in a garrison in the middle of bandit country in Afghanistan & having helicopters fly everything in is atypical. Most of the time, just getting the fuel for the helicopters up to the point where they can pick it up ties up more logistics than the stuff they haul, so why not cut out the middleman?
Helicopters are needed when nothing else will do - e.g. for crossing obstacles, & getting into difficult places. That's the point I was trying to get across to rjmaz, by constructing a scenario where nothing but a heavy lift helicopter could do the job. You've countered by complaining it would take them away from doing what a lorry can do.
I could construct a scenario where nothing but an F-22 could do the job.
I could construct a scenario where nothing but a C-5M Galaxy could do the job.
So we should buy the F-22/C-5M according to your logic. I wouldn't buy either of them as they both provide excesive overlap with existing systems and operating an extra aircraft type would reduce overall capability with any given budget. Not operating the Chinook will sacrifice its few unique missions, i've admitted this many times now, but the overall increase is worth the sacrifice.
Anyone who would take 3 Chinooks over 12 C-27J for the same money either has no idea or are avoiding picking the overall superior 12 C-27J option as it would prove its better value for money.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145735&postcount=1233
You may have missed that post. I even highlighted the key points in bold.
Or they simply disagree with. It does not mean you are right. Noting a C-27J needs a runway (albeit shorter than many other aircraft) it still means it is constrained as to where it can land and the landing site needs to be secure. Helos are flexible in this regard and the Chook allows large load to be put where they are needed in, as has been proved, reasaonlly hot tactical situations. If urgently needed support was required that would max out a MRH (either in space, laod and/or hot-high load) the I wouel hate to be the poor grunt that waits for vehicle to drive to their assistance from landing strip that coule be many hours away.......... not forgetting the mass of the vehcile and its fuel is a deduction from the aircraft delivey capability in any case.
We need a decent tactical STOL transport, decent heavy VTOL support and air mobility for troops (MRH). Your suggestion short changes to ground force in a critical area.
I would love to see the C-27J selcted as the Bou replacement, and would expect that this may happen. But I would never advocate killing off the chooks for it. Lets face it they are a differnet part of the budget in any case.