Maintainers work on the left wingtip of a Vietnam War-era DHC-4 Caribou, operated by Flightworks Inc. at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, May 11, 2012. The charter aircraft drops supplies by parachute to special forces and other clandestine units deployed in hard-to-reach locations around Afghanistan, according to Air Force and Army officials at Bagram. Visible in the foreground are portions of the right wing and tail of an AC-130 gunship. (AFA staff photo by John. A. Tirpak)
Showing posts with label caribou. Show all posts
Showing posts with label caribou. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Caribou in Afghanistan
Photo-- Turbo-Caribou sighting; Afghanistan.
Friday, May 11, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)