DOD contract for FMS sale of 10 C-27Js to Australia

DOD Contract...

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P., Greenville, Texas, is being awarded a $321,770,026 firm-fixed-price contract to purchase 10 C-27J aircraft, 10 option kits, and one lot each production cost and software reports and contractor logistic support cost and software reports for the Commonwealth of Australia by issuing a delivery order. The location of the performance is Greenville, Texas. Work is to be completed May 24, 2012. ASC/WLNJ, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-07-D-0099 0078).

Spend-thrift Defence faces new budget reality--badly

The Defence project to equip 12 of the 24 RAAF Block II Super Hornets with jamming gear that the U.S. Navy has stated is obsolete against emerging threats has blown out by almost 6-times or $1.4B dollars The Australian has learned.

Back in the Joel Fitzgibbon regime as Defence Minister, the project was supposed to cost $300M. Recently, a U.S. Government Defence proposal has stated this work would cost up to $1.7B.

This conversion which turns a two-seat F-18F Super Hornet into an electronic jamming F-18G would cost Defence and you the tax-payer $142M per jet. This is almost twice the cost of a new F-18F Super Hornet. A new F-18G costs the U.S. Government around $90-100M each.

Defence, uses the argument that the jamming capability of the F-18G was used successfully in last years fight against Libya. This is a crock. Libya's air defence capability was a joke and will be nothing close to the emerging threat picture in the Pacific Rim. Also, the F-18G is draggy, short-ranged and highly dependent on air-refueling resources.

While the F-18G may be fine to electronically jam older (or "legacy") air defence systems from the Soviet-era, the single-seat F-18E Super Hornet and the two-seat F-18F Super Hornet, in their Block II configuration, can already detect, pin-point and destroy this kind of threat. This includes the fact that the on-board jamming system and towed-decoy of the E and F Super Hornet provide outstanding self-defence capability against older threats.

Defence does not seem to be acting in a responsible manner with our tax dollars in the current budget environment.

A few days after the federal budget announcement, Defence spent $1.4B for 10 C-27J light airlift aircraft stating they were a Caribou replacement when they were not. The other reason Defence used justify this purchase was that the C-27J gets into more airfields than a C-130. True, but the C-130J's purchased by Defence were justified as "strategic air-lifters". And, while a variety of aircraft can get into more airfields than a C-130J, there was no formal tender for the C-27J against its world-wide competitor, the Airbus C-295.

Using the justification that they have to make ends meet under the new federal budget, Defence has cut funds used to get single enlisted soldiers fighting in Afghanistan home on leave. These troops in a combat theatre will have to pay for their own flights. The general that helped make this decision, can easily afford such flights.

Smith and the C-27 decision

More here of how Defence selected the C-27. It does sound like a weak process.

"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.

ADF--It is expensive, it must be good?

Plane Talking has a letter from the maker of the C-295 in response to the C-27 choice by Defence. And, it can't all be labelled as sour-grapes. The decision was pre-determined. There was no fly-off.

First, neither the C-295 or the C-27 are a Caribou replacement. While the C-27 may be able to get to a lot more airfields in the ADF area of interest compared to a C-130, there are some rugged areas that the Caribou can (and did) get to just fine. The Caribou is a true short-take-off-and-landing (STOL) light airlifter.

The Caribou was pushed aside because it was not new and there was no new-car smell. It could have been refurbished with turbine-engines and given (kept) our soft-power (and Special Forces) with plenty of options in the tool bag.

Right after the controversial budget announcement proclaiming $5.4B in Defence cuts earlier in the week, the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy completes the deal for 10 C-27J aircraft at the cost of $1.4B. Now, most of us know that includes a lot of the things you need to operate the aircraft in squadron service, but the fact remains that neither the C-295 or C-27 are a Caribou replacement.

So if it is not a Caribou replacement, what is it? It is a light airlifter that can get into more airfields than a C-130.

Compared to the Airbus, the C-27 is more expensive to operate (it consumes a lot more gas and more expensive spares) has better self-defense gear against things like man-portable-air-defense (MANPADS) and in a pinch has better one-engine performance.

The C-27 is shorter in pallet carry ability (3 vs 5 in the C-295) however the cargo hold is slightly taller and wider.

The C-27 will probably be useful for something, but I am more in the C-295 (and similar) family of aircraft for this "Caribou replacement". The Airbus aircraft has more variants to take advantage of in the larger force-structure picture. Variants can be not only light airlift but maritime search and rescue (SAR) or maritime intelligence surveillance reconnaissance (ISR). These kinds of aircraft are in use by other countries. While slower, the Airbus has more endurance (12 hours) vs. about 9 hours for the C-27.

With Defence getting rid of the 12 C-130H aircraft, the ADF will have a mix of C-27J, C-130J and C-17 aircraft.

The closest thing to a "Caribou replacement" will be the CH-47 helicopter.

One may label the C-27J as another Defence mistake. However, given the class-curve against other massive procurement mistakes, it will go largely unnoticed.

USAF boss General Schwartz argument about not needing C-27 is shot down by Australia

The boss of the USAF is wrong.

Again.

Australia will purchase 10 C-27J aircraft. Read the reasons why below from the Defence press release. Note the airfield comparison metrics between the C-130 and C-27.

Schwartz (never a 4-star genius on air power issues) assumes America will never need to get into airfields unavailable to the C-130.

Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – New Battlefield aircraft for the Air Force

10 May 2012

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that the Government had agreed to purchase 10 Alenia C-27J Spartan Battlefield Airlift aircraft at a cost of $1.4 billion.

The C-27J will replace the Caribou aircraft which was retired from service in 2009 after a career spanning more than four decades. The C-27J complements the capabilities of the C-130 and C-17 aircraft and uses common infrastructure and aircraft systems such as engines, avionics and the cargo handling systems.

The acquisition of the C-27J will significantly improve the ADF’s ability to move troops, equipment and supplies. The C-27J has the capacity to carry significant load and still access small, soft, narrow runways that are too short for the C-130J or runways which are unable to sustain repeated use of larger aircraft.

In Australia, the C-27J can access over 1900 airfields compared to around 500 for the C-130 Hercules aircraft. In our region, the C-27J will be able to access over 400 airfields compared to around 200 for the C‑130 Hercules aircraft.

These aircraft will provide battlefield airlift but are also capable of conducting airlift in our region. They will be able to operate from rudimentary airstrips in Australia and overseas and will be able to support humanitarian missions in remote locations.

The flexibility of the C-27J allows it to undertake a wide range of missions from delivering ammunition to front line troops to undertaking aero-medical evacuation of causalities.

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 C-27J was assessed by Defence as the aircraft which best met all the essential capability requirements and provides the best value for money. It was assessed as being able to fly further, faster, higher while carrying more cargo and requiring a smaller runway than the other aircraft under consideration, the Airbus Military C-295.

The acquisition of the 10 C-27J aircraft with associated support equipment will be conducted through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) arrangement with the United States (US) at a cost of around $1.4 billion. The first aircraft are expected to be delivered in 2015 with the Initial Operating Capability scheduled for the end of 2016.

Initial logistic support, including training for aircrew and maintenance personnel will be provided through the FMS program, utilising the system that has been established in the US. Defence will seek a separate agreement with the C-27J manufacturer, Alenia, in order to ensure that RAAF can operate, maintain and modify the aircraft throughout its planned life.

Since the retirement of the Caribou fleet in 2009, Australia’s military airlift capability has comprised C‑17 heavy lift aircraft, C‑130 H and J model Hercules aircraft, the Interim Light Transport aircraft (8 Beechcraft King Air 350 aircraft) and Navy and Army helicopters.

In the Budget the Government announced the retirement of the C-130H, which will proceed in an orderly fashion over the course of the year.

The 10 C-27J will be based in Richmond.

Media Contacts:

Mr Smith’s Office: Andrew Porter (02) 6277 7800 or 0419 474 392

Mr Clare’s Office: Korena Flanagan (02) 6277 7620 or 0418 251 316

Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999

Interesting C-27 numbers from a discussion on the Hill

Interesting numbers from a SASC C-27 meeting last week. Again, the main justification seems to be supporting Afghanistan; which we are leaving.

Portman said he believed the C-27J cost $2,100 an hour to operate. The CH-47 Chinook helicopter costs $11,000 an hour and the C-130 costs between $5,100 and $7,100 per hour, he added. "From a taxpayer perspective, the C-27 is not only enabling you to land at smaller airstrips and providing unique performance, but it's saving the taxpayer money," he added.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has conducted a 25-year life-cycle-cost projection of the C-27J, C-130J and the C-130H aircraft, Schwartz told reporters at a Feb. 29 Defense Writer's Group breakfast. The cost of the C-130 aircraft is less than a C-27J, he said. "If I recall the numbers correctly, it was $308 million an airplane life-cycle cost for the C-27J," he noted. "It was $209 [million] for the J-model C-130 and it was $185 million for the [C-130H]."

Odd numbers.

The C-27s that have been bought will go into storage.

So if there is no justification for this aircraft, why was this effort ever started?

No support from Italian maker if U.S. tries to sell C-27s bought for DOD

I agree with this. It is a business. Why should the DOD be allowed to under-cut Italian sales because of poor planning?

C-27J pushed out of U.S. DOD budget planning

The U.S. DOD's newly released budget plan has heavy words for the light C-27J.

The new strategic guidance emphasizes flexibility and adaptability. The C-­27J was developed and procured to provide a niche capability to directly support Army urgent needs in difficult environments such as Afghanistan where we thought the C‐130 might not be able to operate effectively. However, in practice, we did not experience the anticipated airfield constraints for C­‐130 operations in Afghanistan and expect these constraints to be marginal in future scenarios. Since we have ample inventory of C­‐130s and the current cost to own and operate them is lower, we no longer need nor can we afford a niche capability like the C-­27J aircraft. The Air Force and the Army will establish joint doctrine relating to direct support.

Hardcore.

Big money for Caribou replacement

Defence is now infamous for getting rid of existing capability and replacing it with something that has dumbed-down logistics/support, is much more expensive and in the end isn't a real "replacement".

Consider this read about the Caribou "replacement" project. Both the C-295 and C-27 are good aircraft however they are not a "replacement" for the Caribou. Certainly not with the money involved.

The Caribou had a lot of potential to soldier on for those who were not lazy. Performing a refurb was not impossible. See this PDF on the topic.

Today, the C-295 is cheaper to procure and operate than a C-27. The C-27 is probably more survivable.

The replacement could cost around $1.5 billion.

We are seeing more and more signs that this Defence bureaucracy is not responsible with tax dollars. The Caribou "replacement" is just one more example.