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

[the road runner]

Operating both C-17 and C-27J is there any real need to retain the C-130J long term? Why not just buy some additional C-17s with the line is still hot and order additional C-27s as the Hercs time out or even consider selling them as additional C-27s can be delivered?

Australia would use the C-17 to fly into an "established base/airport" unload and use C-130J and C-27 to fly into a forward operating base.The reason being a FOB would be less secure than a established base.I read this a while ago,in Defence Today Mag.

If a C-17 was to be lost at a FOB it could close the Airfield for days.While smaller C-130 and C-27 could be removed with less time.The author may have been Carlo Kopp or even Abe.I did read this before C-17 were delivered to RAAF so it was approx 10 years ago.

Dont quote me on this tho

Edit,sorry to use your name Abe in the same line as CKopp.

 

[STURM]

Operating both C-17 and C-27J is there any real need to retain the C-130J long term?

There might be times when 'x' tonnes of cargo that needs to be transported might not fit in a C-27J but also might not justify the use of a C-17. If for instance, certain spares or supplies needed to be flown to the Middle East or elsewhere, it would make no sense to use a C-17 that would be flying with most of its cargo bay empty. IMO, all 3 types complement each other.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I thought it went more like this.

C17. Flies into international capable airport. Somewhere with refueling capabilities, logistic capabilities to handle C17's. So this would fly into the country (say Dili airport East timor). Sydney to Dili, Brisbane to Dili etc. Backbone of logistics (with sealift), able to move trucks, APC, tanks, bulk ammunition, etc. Its secure, it can handle this type of aircraft and 100's of tons of cargo. C17 is just doing the biggest economical flights not going over risky airspace dropping a single pallet to a platoon in the jungle.

C-130 does smaller flights direct to regional airports, darwin to Baucau etc. Things like medical, specific munitions, light vechicals (cars, bobcats), food, etc. The requirements for 10's of tons of cargo.

C-27J is your intra theatre lift, Going from Dili or the regional airports to bumfruk WWII strips. Part of the logistics train in the country your operating in. Moving some of the resources from Dili to those regional airports or to bumfruck. Medical from some arse end strip into some major hospital in the country. They might drop off a couple of tons of cargo and might do multiple stops/drops on a run. Cheaper to run than a Chook, faster than a chook, cheaper than a C-130, gets into tighter areas than a C-130.

You chook then does intra theatre vertical lifts, medical out of the jungle, dropping 155mm + supplies on mountain tops, operating to and from the LHD (which I would imagine would be a major medical centre in places like ET where there is basically nothing) etc.

Obviously when working with the Americans, everything changes. They probably use C-17 as intra theatre lift on some WWII airfield they have completely paved in a few days. But hey when you have 100's of the buggers you can. But when operating with out them, or with minimal US support we can offer a full range of airlift.

 

[Volkodav]

I suppose the question is what can a C-130J do that a C-27J can't, that we wouldn't be able to do with a C-17, or even a KC-30A?

Now considering the C-27J would cover the tactical roles Abe and gf mentioned previously would there still be a place in the ADF ORBAT for a light tactical / utility type to replace the Kingairs or more to the point the Porter and Nomad? Cheaper to operate than helos but very useful just the same.

 

[STURM]

What StingrayOZ and Volkodav have mentioned makes a lot of sense but in my mind, practicality and costs also play a major part, especially in peacetime. If say 1 tonne of cargo of urgently needed spares had to be rapidly flown to destination 'X', which was beyond the range of a C-27 but had a runway capable of taking a C-17, the C-130 would be perfect as it would make no sense to use a C-17, which would be flying with most of its cargo bay empty. For the same reason, when there are no deployments abroad to support, no major excercises or natural disasters, C-130s and C-27s would have a much higher tasking than C-17s.

 

[south]

C-130 will have a significant load advantage over the same range, or a significant range advantage with the same load as a C27. You could use a C-17 for C-130 lifts but that strikes me as being pretty inefficient - we dont have enough of them, they cost too much (to buy) and to operate.

Sort of like using AWD when you need a patrol boat.

Good luck trying to get a KC30 trying to haul ass and trash missions. For starters the cargo hold isnt going to take the size of stuff that any of the above aircraft can, and it needs a big piece of concrete to take off and land from.

As to if there is a role for a kingair type for liason or whatever.. I dunno... pretty much what 38 has been doing with them lately anyway.. Might as well keep the kingairs anyway rather than getting a whole new type.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I suppose the question is what can a C-130J do that a C-27J can't, that we wouldn't be able to do with a C-17, or even a KC-30A?
.

A c130 is one of the most common cargo planes on the planet. We tied into a knowledge and parts base that is shared with the US and the UK, even indonesia flies them. You can move double the cargo. I don't think you can get a M113 into a C27. However a C130 can move two at a time. There are lots of oversized cargo that has been specifically designed to be C130 transportable. C130 can land on beaches, I doubt anyone has tried that with a c-17 or a KC30

Just to add some thoughts. A C130 carries twice the load, so half the airframe hours, half the landings/take offs, half the pilots. A C130 seems to have longer range. While a C-130 could move from darwin to ET with a useful load (to many places in the SEA region) a C27J would struggle, reducing loads to tiny amounts or not be able to make it at all. I don't see C27J doing Antarctic runs for example.

You basically have a doubling(ish) of loads going from C27J-C130-C17.

 

[aussienscale]

Just as an aside, I do recall some time ago the proposal of a tactical airlifter version of the C17, does anyone know if anymore has come of it ?

 

[hairyman]

Iwould say the KC30 will come into its own when we have to move a lot of personnel in a hurry.

 

[STURM]

Iwould say the KC30 will come into its own when we have to move a lot of personnel in a hurry.

I'm curious as to why a small country like Qatar, which does not participate in UN operations, has no military deployments abroad and which is under Uncle Sam's protection, would want C-17s.

 

[MickB]

I suppose the question is what can a C-130J do that a C-27J can't, that we wouldn't be able to do with a C-17, or even a KC-30A?

Now considering the C-27J would cover the tactical roles Abe and gf mentioned previously would there still be a place in the ADF ORBAT for a light tactical / utility type to replace the Kingairs or more to the point the Porter and Nomad? Cheaper to operate than helos but very useful just the same.

The Australian company GippsAero has bought the rights and is marketing the (hopefully improved) Nomad.

I would like to see it with the swing open tail section as origianly designed. This would quickly facilitate loading/unloading and cargo transfer between the Nomad and CH47/ MH90s.

This along with their GA8 light utility aircraft would go a long way to reducing the operating costs when compaired to helecopters.

Perhaps a mixed squadron of both for army avation.

An introduction of Warrent Officer pilots similar to the US and British armies would provide additional aircrew at reduced costs.

 

[MickB]

An introduction of Warrent Officer pilots similar to the US and British armies would provide additional aircrew at reduced costs.

That is if I understand how they are used correctly.

Our current all officer aircrew need a big enough pool to cover not only flying duties, but also those who are carrying out administration tasks, attending training for promotion, hold staff positions, on deployment with other parts of the ADF or with our allies. All very necessary to rise to a command position.

The Warrant Officer requires none of this. being a dedicated full time pilot with little command responsabilites beyond the aircraft.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I'm curious as to why a small country like Qatar, which does not participate in UN operations, has no military deployments abroad and which is under Uncle Sam's protection, would want C-17s.

Have you seen the C-17 in civilian Qatar airline paint job?

C-17 are great lifters, there was talk about using them for civil freight. But they could be used for humanitarian, moving allies/friendly resources around. Particularly useful if you don't want the US to know what your moving around, or the US wouldn't move it for you (for example luxury cars, or miltiary/police in civil unrest etc). In the region if there was any unrest, they would want to get resources in and there would be some delay in getting US aircraft to help them.

The peacetime capabilities of the C-17 is most likely one of the reasons we have 6 of them.

While the C-17 is good at what it does, KC-30 taps into commercial flight parts and the costs are even lower per engine. With half the number of engines (each of which are cheaper I believe to operate and KC-30 was more fuel efficient (almost twice as)) yet far greater passenger capability and comfort. Your not going to drive a g-wagon into a KC30 (but you can into a C-27J), but it by far the best way to move people (+ light misc cargo with them) and it can also refuel.

The Australian company GippsAero has bought the rights and is marketing the (hopefully improved) Nomad.

I don't see the RAAF getting much more in terms of lift. I'm not sure the Nomad is what we are really after any more. Its an interesting plane (could it land/take off on a LHD, ha! or maybe a float version craned off and on LHD/Choles? Or even floated/rolled out the dock) . Still you would be better off with a Cessna Caravan with floats.

But look at what we have, just get a C27J to fly over and drop personnel or cargo.It could drop 10 times more cargo, to 10 different spots in 1 flight. Yet taps into C-130/C27J engines, systems and spares etc. If its a pick up, send in a helo.

 

[Volkodav]

That is if I understand how they are used correctly.

Our current all officer aircrew need a big enough pool to cover not only flying duties, but also those who are carrying out administration tasks, attending training for promotion, hold staff positions, on deployment with other parts of the ADF or with our allies. All very necessary to rise to a command position.

The Warrant Officer requires none of this. being a dedicated full time pilot with little command responsabilites beyond the aircraft.

The Army uses Short Service Officers (SSO) as pilots in addition to the usual Duntroon and ADFA graduates. I don't know if this is instead of using NCO's but it is a way to increase the number of specialist pilots who aren't required to receive the same variety of postings and additional training career officers require to move up the ranks.

 

[STURM]

Have you seen the C-17 in civilian Qatar airline paint job?

I had no idea they were painted in Qatar airline colours. I agree on the usefulness of C-17s and the numerous peacertime roles they can perform and I understand why certain countries would want C-17s but I was just curious as to why Qatar, of all countries, would want any. As you indicated, one reason could be for heavy freight and possible Qatari participation in future disaster relief.

 

[AegisFC]

I had no idea they were painted in Qatar airline colours. I agree on the usefulness of C-17s and the numerous peacertime roles they can perform and I understand why certain countries would want C-17s but I was just curious as to why Qatar, of all countries, would want any. As you indicated, one reason could be for heavy freight and possible Qatari participation in future disaster relief.

Qatar was involved in the Hatian earthquake relief efforts and there is a picture of several standard color C-17's parked on the airfield and standing out was the Qatar one in a nice, noticible paint job.

 

[hairyman]

The Australian company GippsAero has bought the rights and is marketing the (hopefully improved) Nomad.

Did'nt I read recently where GippsAero has been taken over by an Indian company?

 

[ASSAIL]

An introduction of Warrent Officer pilots similar to the US and British armies would provide additional aircrew at reduced costs

Reduced costs?
A quick glance at the ADF Pay scales shows virtually no difference between the remuneration of WO I/WO II vs LT/CAPT ie all in the range $60k to $105k depending on increment and tier.

 

[MickB]

ASSAIL please read my post that followed this one where I have questions about the greater number of officer aircrew required (because of the additional duties they undertake) for the same number of flying positions.

So if my assumption is true, then yes it is cheaper to employ WOs because you will need fewer of them to fly the same number of aircraft.

Nor do they require the cost of training courses to advance in rank.

I beleve also that an officer that does not rise in rank is retired early, with the loss of all that expensive training. (I have no dought you will correct me if i'm wrong).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Reduced costs?
A quick glance at the ADF Pay scales shows virtually no difference between the remuneration of WO I/WO II vs LT/CAPT ie all in the range $60k to $105k depending on increment and tier.

The wild card is that when they look at $ cost for staffing they only assess on positions, not rank. eg its usually a pure FTE issue.

not long ago projects tried to cut costs by using Reservists to maintain uniform expertise, even that tap has been turned off now.