"Selection of the C-27J for $1.4 billion appears to have been based largely on the RAAFs own desktop assessments. This effort falls short of a full evaluation process."
Airbus said it could have had planes ready for delivery in six months - not three years - and that they would have cost a third of what is going to paid for the C-27J.
Besides the way the procurement was done, was the value perceived by Defence worth 3 times the cost? Was it worth twice the cost?
Below is a cool video illustrating the multi-mission palletized system for the C-295 for use as SAR, ISR, and light cargo. Note: SAR/ISR was never stated in the Defence requirement.
Clarification on my previous post with C-295 endurance figures. When suited up as a dedicated ISR/ASW aircraft, the C-295 has 11 hours of endurance. Don't know what the endurance is with the palletized solution.
38 comments:
Wouldn't listen to a thing airbus says after their KC-30 dealings. I wouldn't be surprised if that's got a big part to play in the C-27 decision.
Both in civil and military projects, Airbus is consistent in only one thing - promising the customer the world but delivering (always late, way over budget and grossly under performing) something far less than what was promised. I shudder to think what a dog's breakfast the KC-30 will become and the implications that has for our future defence posture. Perhaps Airbus will be saved embarrassment (if they're capable of being embarrassed) because we may not have any fighters to be refuelled! But that's another story.
6 Months to deliver a C-295? No way. They couldn't deliver an A330 AAR conversion in years... and it still doesn't work...
Interesting set of assertions there, Anonymous #1.
What's the drum behind what you are telling us all?
Anon the C295 is ending it's production run, and is available for early delivery.
Agree with the KC30, however this aisraft came out of a different organisation originally.
"6 Months to deliver a C-295? No way." Yes, but it will not stop EADS promising they can do so if it gets a signature for a contract on their books.
Hopefully the ADF has been burnt enough by Europeans recently to stop considering their offerings.
Ah, anon th C27j is European
Stupid is as stupid does, don't you know!
Nothing wrong with the decision. Can't speak about the price, but the 27J is the "better" plane.
Distiller the better and proper aircraft is?
"In addition the nonsense proffered by the RAAF that it is a replacement for the Caribou is exactly that.
They note that that the C27J lands in more places than the C130H which is also meaningless.
The Caribou can land in a paddock, which gives the capability to land in hundreds of thousands of places, which is what is needed.
The Caribou was retired on a lie, the RAAF advising structural problems and being riddled with asbestos, both untrue.
My business partner at the time was an executive of the Company that maintained them in Brisbane. Many thousands of hours left. No structural problems that tin bashing could not fix.
They could have easily been upgraded to PT6 and new avionics for peanuts. Pen Turbo does it. In fact a “herd” of 7 ex RAAF machines are currently undergoing conversion for a purchaser for use in, yes that place.
An example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycQEiLcl8dQ&feature=related
It would appear that the RAAF is seeking to downgrade its tactical airlift. They have forgotten the lessons of history once again."
More Reading
http://www.ausairpower.net/Turbo-Caribou.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Turbo-Caribou-July-05.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/Precis_Benefits.pdf
Bravo Perplexed. Despite comprehensive tactical air transport activities in SE Asia and the regional wet tropics archipelago since WW2, incontestably proving the need for cost-effective STOL light airlift capacity, both the USAF and RAAF have gone into denial mode re this essential capability.
But the Pentagon now seems intent to dispose of 38 unwanted C-27 Spartans and Australia may have been 'heavied' into being a customer to offset the flawed Caribou disposal decision.
The argument re 'little Hercs' being able to use more airfields than C-130 is obfuscation. The C-27 does not have the STOL performance of the 'Bou and will be more limited regarding low pavement strengths and small manoeuvring areas on majority of rudimentary airfields in the regional wet tropics.
Just guessing, but 50 percent on-line availability for airlift assets may be achievable these days. It thus seems that shedding of the Caribou and the C-130H will reduce tactical airlift capacity and the King Airs cannot be considered worthwhile tactical assets. The C-17 is arguably more a strategic airlifter.
Flown the Caribou: I mean flown it. At sea level, the C-27J will need a longer runway to operate at maximum weight than did the Caribou: about 2700 ft v 2000 ft. However, carrying double the maximum 2700 kg Caribou payload payload and offering much greater range than the Caribou ever could, the C-27J can take off in the same runway length as a Caribou (2000 ft) and climb with gear and flap down with an engine failure at rotate which the Caribou could never achieve. The C-27J dimensions are the same of less than the Caribou so I do not know why anyone would ever think that turning areas or parking areas would be restrictive.
Try ground pressure.
Suggest you redo your calculations regarding STOL.
I hope I never get in any aircraft you fly.
CBR 2-4 against CBR 1: so? Nothing wrong with the take-off runway requirements. Look up your performance manual and remember to add the safety margins.
Caribou take-off:
* flap 25, sea-level, ISA+10, take-off factor 12, nil wind, nil slope, dry hard runway, 28 500 lb take-off weight, take-off ground roll 1120 ft: minimum runway for STOL technique 1680 ft.
* same but dry turf take-off ground roll 1230 ft: minimum runway for STOL technique 1845 ft.
Caribou one engine inopertive, flaps 25, LG down, rate of climb minus 300 fpm. Need more?
Although civil aviation criteria, the table at this link provides some interesting information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Classification_Number
Note the data for DC-3, Caribou, Buffalo, C-130. Presumably, the C-27 will have similar single wheel loading considerations to the Herc.
Thanks Bushranger, good information.
I also note dead silence from others.
The ACN-PCN method is not the best indicator of utility in unrated pavements: the C-130 has an ACN starting at 17 on a sub-grade D (California Bearing Ratio <4) flexible pavement and the C-17 starting at 35 yet both can be safely and effectively operated on natural surface runways: the C-130 at CBR 4-6 and the C-17 at CBR6-8: CBR being a measure of the load bearing capacity of the ground compared to crushed limestone. The Caribou has an ACN up to 7; the C-295 is up to 12 as is the CH-47 Chinook and the C-27J 14; so what? Review the load bearing capacity of the runways in the immediate neighbourhood will show many natural and sealed runways with a PCN 12-14 sub-grade B or C. Natural runways may be rated using Class or SECN, so what? More critical in the environments in Australia's region is the steep terrain needing steep approach paths (Caribou is good); high density altitudes needing high power to weight and sustainable power (Caribou is poor); short runways requiring low take-off and landing distance (Caribou is good); heavy and bulky military equipment needing large cargo mass and volume capability (Caribou is bad); long distances between fuel requiring long range capability (Caribou is poor). Any trash-hauler knows the balance between range, payload and access. If the need is to caryy heavy stuff a long way and land on a short, narrow and soft runway what is the answer?
The solution, a combination of all aircraft mentioned.
Anonymous (plus numbers); the Pen-turbo former RAAF Caribou platform, as already in Afghanistan service, is what should be considered the cost-effective LIGHT TACTICAL TRANSPORT benchmark considering its STOL characteristics and superior overall performance to the piston-engined Caribou. Unfortunately, the Pen website seems down at present (maybe for upgrade) so performance info temporarily unavailable.
Try twisting the argument however you wish, but the basic fact is big or little Hercs are more likely to sit on their bellies on slushy movement areas than the basic 'Bou platform because of their wheel loadings. The RAAF operated extensively throughout the wet tropics archipelago post-WW2 and many of us became fully aware of high DA and soggy airfield constraints.
Your argument about large cargo mass/volume and long range sounds like Army talk. They have always had a bad habit of seeking newer toys without adequate regard for the capabilities of airlift assets in service, which are of course a long-term capital investment.
Not Army; but have flown Chinook, Caribou and a few others. The Caribou was not operated as you suggest as the risk of parking it in mud is too high.
Already well researched the Pen Turbo data.
P&W PT6A-67T gas turbine dry weight 250 kg
TO power 1424 shp
Max cruise power: 172 KTAS @ 1090 shp
Normal cruise: 155 KTAS @ 880 shp
Fixed reserve: 500 lb (est based on 30 minutes at 1000 lb/h)
Maximum range: 820 nm
Take-off Weight 28 500 lb
Landing Weight 28 500 lb
Max Zero Fuel Weight 27 000 lb
Max Payload 10 000 lb (doubt it: not at 28 500 lb take-off weight and 27 000 MZFW; achieving this requires removing 4845 lb (more than 2000 kg) from the DHC4A basic weight–the only mass that could be removed is forward of the wing which will move the CG well aft if uncompensated)
Max Fuel 5540 lb (AVTUR SD=0.82)
Basic weight: 19 500 lb (assumes no ballast has been added for CG with lighter engines—which I doubt–and the AVGAS burning cockpit and cargo compartment heaters remain in situ for CG)
Max payload-range: 7100lb; 120nm (est)
Max range-payload: 820nm; 3140lb
STOL
Take-off (flaps 25º, both engines at TO power) ground run 800 ft
Landing (flaps 40º) [the DHC-4A is laterally unstable with flap 40 and rarely used; flap 30 improved handling with little increase in landing ground roll and distance] ground Run 425 ft
Normal Landing (flaps 30º) ground run 1100 ft
I posit that the PT6A tabulated values are optimistic and they do not match the charts offered on the Pen Turbo website: 950 ft is derived from the performance chart whereas the table shows 800 ft. Further, the charts do not show corrections for runway surface (dry turf; soft turf; etc) hence I doubt they show certification data and rate them marketing brochures. DeHavilland Canada claimed the DHC-4A short field ground roll is 725 ft.
The take-off speed schedule does not look right. The charted PT6A flap 25 take-off speed is 89 KIAS; the R2000 flap 25 take-off speed is 63 KIAS. Proposing that the PT6A accelerate the DHC-4T to 89 KIAS in 800 ft verses the R2000 accelerating the same mass DHC-4A to 63 KIAS in 1120 ft for the same engine power does not make sense.
Further, the:
* P&W R2000-7M2 TO power is 1450 bhp (50" @ 2700rpm) driving a 3.99 m diameter 3-blade propeller;
* P&W PT6A-67T TO power is 1424 shp driving a 2.92 m diameter 5-blade propeller.
Aerodynamicists: what will be the variation in thrust (which determines take-off acceleration and, inter alia, ground roll) of like power driving through a smaller diameter propeller?
I doubt that the take-off ground roll will be much different between the two power plants below 3000 ft (above 3000 ft the R2000 will not achieve 50" boost hence not achieve 1450 bhp). At higher DA is where the PT6A provides better performance.
Landing ground roll and landing distance for the PT6 is unlikely to be much different to the R2000.
Pen Turbo literature states that the smaller propeller diameter provides a narrower propeller-wash cone reducing stress on the tail. The smaller cone lessens the wing area wet by propeller wash, increasing the power-on stall speed, affecting the STOL take-off and climb speeds, but it shouldn't be 16 knots.
Further, the aircraft is still limited to 10 000-13 000 ft as the DHC-4T is unpressurised and any payload advantages depend heavily on weight reduction which creates a CG problem. Much like Airbus Military I do not rate the marketing information.
Anon, what is your point?
As far as I can see the C27J has one purpose, the Caribou another.
There is some adventurous positing, conjecture and amateur speculation going on here regarding the PenTurbo "Turbo Caribou" STC and related performance enhancement modifications. For example:
"I posit that the PT6A tabulated values are optimistic and they do not match the charts offered on the Pen Turbo website: 950 ft is derived from the performance chart whereas the table shows 800 ft."
The data & information provided, including that for the PT6A-67T engine, are accurate.
The data in the performance chart agrees with the table. Someone needs a refresher on how to read a simple WAT takeoff performance chart.
Just because something doesn't look right, particularly to the incognate, doesn't mean it is not right.
The data on the PenTurbo website is from the approved AFM and are correct.
BTW - The STC is dual certificated - by both the FAA and Transport Canada!
As for the question directed to aerodynamacists in the way some of the more impertinent drivers of aircraft have a tendendy to do, particularly when hiding behind anonymity, the simple answer is called the activity (J) factor of the propeller and the better engine/prop matching.
Greater SL static thrust is the resulting measure. Then there is is the engine exhaust thrust, though, IIRC, this was not credited for certification.
And while on the aerodynamics of the STC, note the much lower drag of the engine nacelles with greater lift contribution, particularly during the higher AoA sequences right out to accelerated stalls. Funny about that.
The weight delta between the R2000 radial piston engines and the turbines does result in ballast up in the nose area. The CG is more aft than the standard DHC-4 but does not impare nor degrade operations.
The summary TO performance data as well as the charts on the website are as stated:
ISA conditions at the design gross weight of 28,500 lbs. Takeoff and landing distances are given at sea level, zero wind, and from a dry level surface.
Factors for other runway surfaces and conditions are listed in Part 4 of the AFM, including factors for snow and ice contamination.
Clearly, it would seem a good idea to use factors when some are challenged reading even thse simple charts.
..
p.s.
Obviously, the Turbo Caribou didn't get the memo about it being limited to 10 - 13 kft, just like all those other non pressurised aircraft do, like fighters and the like.
Oxygen, anyone?
where are you going to find Oxy for a platoon of grunts in PNG.... Might be okay for the flight crew, probably not practical for pax
Anon are you a dill.
I wonder how they flew the C47during WW2 in that area and the Caribou over decades.
I wonder how other unpresurised aircraft manage it now?
Have you ever been to PNG?
What is your point?
Horde seems to think that it would be fine to run around above 10k with oxy.
And it is, however I seem to think that its going to be hard to source LDBO and breathing apparatus for the platoon of grunts in the backwoods of PNG
So my point is - try getting approval from your Authorising officer to rip around at 13k without oxy for the 30 guys in back.
The other point is that even though it has labelled the program as a Caribou replacement, it is quite obvious that they have moved on from a pure STOL, light load, slow airmover to a far more capable in the vast majority of circumstances. Maybe some other people need to move along aswell....
Ah, I see it now.
You now have to fly OVER every peak in PNG.
Silly me.
I belive the airfields are not on the peaks, and non presurised aircraft access all airfields in PNG every day.
However , anon,you being an expert I bow to your superior knowledge.
what is the LSALT from Port Moresby to Wewak?
Ah, now I see, the whole of PNG is over 13,000ft.
Silly me.
I wonder how they actuallly get by flying non-presurised aircraft every day throughout the country.
actually i think you'll find it goes up to 16k.
No big deal.
You are a silly duffer arent you.
I dont suppose that you have any real arguments to support your position? you arent perplexed red headed step child by chance?
Wow, now we have to fly at over 16,000 feet over the whole of PNG.
Gets better by the day.There are no areas lower than that?
I wonder how all those unpresurised aircraft flying daily in PNG cope.
You have not mentioned helicopters yet.
Look forward to your undoubted experience and wisdom.
As a student on holidays in the late 60s and early 70's I flew as a passenger with Bill Baldwin(who came from Northern NSW), the brother of an employee of my father, in a Skyvan, all through PNG.
Did not notice the problems you state.
I would love to see how a C27J would land in almost any of the strips we accessed.It would be useless.
You sprout nonsense, and I am still to see what your point is.
"As a student on holidays in the late 60s and early 70's I flew as a passenger with Bill Baldwin(who came from Northern NSW), the brother of an employee of my father, in a Skyvan, all through PNG.
Did not notice the problems you state.
I would love to see how a C27J would land in almost any of the strips we accessed.It would be useless."
Quote of the year.
Quote from Anon.
“I don’t suppose that you have any real arguments to support your position? you aren’t perplexed red headed step child by chance?”
I think I can identify and stand up for myself at any time.
I have posted my thoughts earlier in the thread, and I have no more to say.Once again the facts speak for themselves.
Your comments would tend to show you have some sort of problem with Horde and others who know what they are talking about. Severe physiological problems I would expect .
Therefore I would observe that you are the bastard illegitimate love child of Aussie Digger and Bonza, if not one and the same.
Anon with numbers; apologies for a delayed response to your 18 May post.
Clumsy language from me re 'slushy' surfaces whereas I meant mostly softish mown grass that may or may not have a firm rocky base. Certainly often slippery and any apron areas might be small and even softer. The engineering resources for more substantial airfield construction are just not available in many areas.
Re range/endurance/altitude. Light tactical transport are generally SRT for employment intra-theatre close to the FEBA, whether fixed or rotary wing, as for Vietnam, the regional wet tropics archipelago and Afghanistan today. Better ability of C-27 to operate from Townsville into PNG for example is more an MRT function than SRT.
In PNG/Irian Jaya, you have to learn how to fly the valleys and gaps, often in IMC, and many of the airfields are well below the peaks and ridges. Less tricky now than it was in pre-GPS days. I ponder whether you actually operated Caribou and Chinook in PNG!
Bushranger71, you are a gentleman, unlike others who seem to play the man rather than the issue.
Yes, your right, I have no time in PNG in CH-47: did I inadvertently imply that I had? I have only a bit of flying around the highlands, Owen Stanley and Finisterre Ranges, New Britain, New Ireland, Bougainville and a minor transit to the Solomon Islands: around 200 hours in country; about 100 through the highlands and Finisterre Range.
Problem for Australia is that the bit inbetween the NSB and the FEBA is liquid, making placement of third and second line support bases for the SRT a bit tricky and turning the intra-theatre problem in to an inter-theatre one.
Potential performance aspects aside, the R2000 or PT6 Caribou just cannot lift the payload needed (start mass of a troop is 260 lb = 120 kg), in the number needed, over the range needed. The choice comes down to be able to transport not enough to more places or what is needed to less places but within range of the CH-47, Blackhawk or MRH-90 to fill the last gap. It'd be great to have the Caribou to diversify the the third or second line to first line support but between needing an in-theatre support base and not being able to get the needed supply to the theatre, the in-theatre support base will always be the choice.
Post a Comment