Status of RAAF STOL transport

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I was wondering what the status of ADF STOL transport is. I saw on the DMO site Project AIR 5190 to extend the Caribou to 2010, but when googling AIR 8000, not much came up except this article http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Caribou-Pt.1.pdf#search=" "air 8000""

Has the concern about loss of STOL capability taken a back seat following the purchase of the C-17, or has a decision been made on how to retain the capability? Also, has AIR 8000 been dropped, since it's not on the DMO site?
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Wasn't Australia looking at the V-22 Osprey?
Ha yeah right, with its history. With a bit of field testing, and given a few years of hard yakka maybe, till then, doubt it.
The Air 5190 project came down to a C-295 Vs C-27J, at the time the C-295m was recommended but did not get Ministirial approval and it was canned in 2000. Since Army is getting what ever it feels like at the moment, if it re-launched Air 5190, same deal with same aircraft, then it would most likely get passed, with 12-18 aircraft.
The original Air 8000 calling for the caribou to be replaced by 2010, which i doubt, and i think its been extended.
The problem with replacing the Caribou is its unique aspects, its designed to survive with a sole flight engineer as its mechanic in the middle of nowhere if needed, and with what little tools and parts he has, something that any modern aircraft would not be able to match, also, the Caribou runs on AVGAS, not jet fuel like most aircraft, so its cheaper to operate, and uses less fuel compared with many 10 ton class airlifters.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Todjaeger said:
I was wondering what the status of ADF STOL transport is. I saw on the DMO site Project AIR 5190 to extend the Caribou to 2010, but when googling AIR 8000, not much came up except this article http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Caribou-Pt.1.pdf#search=%22%20%22air%208000%22%22

Has the concern about loss of STOL capability taken a back seat following the purchase of the C-17, or has a decision been made on how to retain the capability? Also, has AIR 8000 been dropped, since it's not on the DMO site?
Nope, AIR-8000 was confirmed as proceeding in the Defence Capability plan 06, released back in June. The only thing holding it up is the on-going airlift study RAAF has been conducting for about 20 years, which is designed to find the optimal mix of platforms between C-17, C-130 and whatever might be chosen to replace the "Bou".

Options include a C-27/C-295 fleet or perhaps a much larger CH-47 Chinook fleet, fitted with A2A refuelling capability or a combination of these things, which is my bet...
 

contedicavour

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
Nope, AIR-8000 was confirmed as proceeding in the Defence Capability plan 06, released back in June. The only thing holding it up is the on-going airlift study RAAF has been conducting for about 20 years, which is designed to find the optimal mix of platforms between C-17, C-130 and whatever might be chosen to replace the "Bou".

Options include a C-27/C-295 fleet or perhaps a much larger CH-47 Chinook fleet, fitted with A2A refuelling capability or a combination of these things, which is my bet...
The C27J is now operational in the Italian Air Force and is proving to be a very good replacement of the already excellent G-222 (capable of landing on short unprepared terrain) with the same engines as C130 J.
The US are still considering the plane, and Greece, Lithuania and Bulgaria have already bought it. The market for G-222 replacements is huge.
Could you just refresh me on the Austrialian requirement's characteristics ?

cheers
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
contedicavour said:
The C27J is now operational in the Italian Air Force and is proving to be a very good replacement of the already excellent G-222 (capable of landing on short unprepared terrain) with the same engines as C130 J.
The US are still considering the plane, and Greece, Lithuania and Bulgaria have already bought it. The market for G-222 replacements is huge.
Could you just refresh me on the Austrialian requirement's characteristics ?

cheers
Australia is looking for new tactical airlifters to conduct intra-theatre and some inter-theatre airlift tasks and replace our curent DHC-4 Caribou airlifters, under Phase 2 of Project AIR-8000. Phase 1 refers to the replacement of upgrade of our existing 12x C-130H airlifters.

An option exists to select an upgrade for the Caribou's to allow them to continue in-service, but it's considered unlikely that this will be selected as proposals to upgrade them have been rejected several times already.

The common thought is that between 12 and 18 new airlifters will be chosen, possibly along with additional CH-47 Chinooks to replace the STOL capability of the Caribou. If sufficient Chinooks are chosen it's possible that a tactical airlifter will not be chosen and additional C-130J-30 Hercules will be chosen to increase airlift capacity and standardise the fleet.

An alternative option may be the selection of the A400m to replace the C-130H and the Caribou and the replacement of the C-130J-30's in the 2015-2020 timeframe with additional A400m's.

There is an airlift capacity study being undertaken by RAAF at the moment and any decisions on AIR-8000 will be made after RAAF and Army decides what it's best options are to increase it's airlift capacity, improve it's STOL capacity and rationalise the numbers of aircraft types it operates in this role (currently 3, but will increase to 4 in December when C-17 arrives)...
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I'm getting a severe case of de ja vu here, but anyway.

ADF airlift circa 2015

4 x C-17
5 x KC-30B (A330MRTT)
12 x C-130J-30
6 x KC-130J
16 x C-27J
10-12 x CH-47F (6 x new build + 6 x remanufactured Ds)

As much as the Caribous are loved, they are not survivable in anything but the most basic of conflicts, they cruise at about 150kts and max out at about 175, and although they have great STOL characteristics, they really can't carry much when doing so.

The C-27J will likely replace both the Caribou and C-130H in the tactical airlifter roles, with the additional Chinooks being brought in for those very rarely required STOL missions. The KC-130Js will be used to refuel the CH-47Fs and the MRH90s which can be fitted with A2A probes.

Magoo
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Magoo said:
I'm getting a severe case of de ja vu here, but anyway.

ADF airlift circa 2015

4 x C-17
5 x KC-30B (A330MRTT)
12 x C-130J-30
6 x KC-130J
16 x C-27J
10-12 x CH-47F (6 x new build + 6 x remanufactured Ds)

As much as the Caribous are loved, they are not survivable in anything but the most basic of conflicts, they cruise at about 150kts and max out at about 175, and although they have great STOL characteristics, they really can't carry much when doing so.

The C-27J will likely replace both the Caribou and C-130H in the tactical airlifter roles, with the additional Chinooks being brought in for those very rarely required STOL missions. The KC-130Js will be used to refuel the CH-47Fs and the MRH90s which can be fitted with A2A probes.

Magoo
Yes, I seem to recall having this discussion not so long back myself...

Have those numbers (C-130J / KC-130J, C-27 and Chinook) been confirmed?

I understood RAAF was still "studying" the matter, hence my somewhat caustic "20 years" comment earlier...
 

rjmaz1

New Member
The question i have is.

Does the C-27 offer better STOL performance than the C-130J?

And will the C-27 have cheaper operating costs once you take into account the fact we are now operating two aircraft types?

Maintenance would be more expensive operating two different aircraft than just a larger fleet of C-130J in my opinion.

When the C-27J is loaded up to it maximum payload limit im pretty sure the C-130J would take off and land in a shorter distance due to the fact the Hercules will not be anywhere near its maximum takeoff weight.

The performance gap between the C-17 and C-130 is fairly large, the difference between a C-130 and C-27 is much smaller.

A good step down would be from the C-17 to the C-130 and then from the Hercules straight to the Chinooks. Considering the Chinook can carry most payload just as fast and as far as Caribou means we could skip the Caribou completely and order more C-130J's and Chinooks to compensate.

Im not a fan of having excesive overlap when it comes to military equipment. This is even more important when it comes to a country with a fairly limited budget like Australia.

Opinions?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Aussie Digger said:
Yes, I seem to recall having this discussion not so long back myself...

Have those numbers (C-130J / KC-130J, C-27 and Chinook) been confirmed?

I understood RAAF was still "studying" the matter, hence my somewhat caustic "20 years" comment earlier...
Aye, this had been done a few months ago. The reason I had asked the question again was that I hadn't been able to locate any projects covering STOL aside from the Caribou life extension to 2010. I'd seen mention of the AIR 8000 but since they weren't on the DMO website, I wasn't sure if it was an active project or not. Thought I'd ask.
 

contedicavour

New Member
rjmaz1 said:
The question i have is.

Does the C-27 offer better STOL performance than the C-130J?

And will the C-27 have cheaper operating costs once you take into account the fact we are now operating two aircraft types?

Maintenance would be more expensive operating two different aircraft than just a larger fleet of C-130J in my opinion.

When the C-27J is loaded up to it maximum payload limit im pretty sure the C-130J would take off and land in a shorter distance due to the fact the Hercules will not be anywhere near its maximum takeoff weight.

The performance gap between the C-17 and C-130 is fairly large, the difference between a C-130 and C-27 is much smaller.

A good step down would be from the C-17 to the C-130 and then from the Hercules straight to the Chinooks. Considering the Chinook can carry most payload just as fast and as far as Caribou means we could skip the Caribou completely and order more C-130J's and Chinooks to compensate.

Im not a fan of having excesive overlap when it comes to military equipment. This is even more important when it comes to a country with a fairly limited budget like Australia.

Opinions?
I'm not an expert but I have witnessed take-offs by G-222 (on which the C27 is based) and C130s by the Italian Experimental Wing (RSV) side by side, both empty at first and both fully loaded afterwards. In both configurations the G222 was airborne using half the airstrip space as the C130.
There is really no overlap between the 2 types of airlifters, unless you always have big and well maintained airstrips available (then just order C130s).
Also, a Chinook is still well below the payload of a G222/C27.
So IMHO there is ample space for all 3 systems, Chinook, C27, C130.
Regarding the cost aspect of operating C27 and C130 side by side, let's not forget commonality between the 2 airlifters, starting from the engines (identical) up to cockpit and electronics (identical again).

cheers
 

WaterBoy

New Member
Howdy All,

By virtue of their asymmetric performance requirements 2 engines always outperform 4 engines on take-off, both in field length & climb gradients. Landing performance is determined by brake energy dissipation limitations, surface braking coefficient & vertical sink rates. These factors being equal, the 2 engine aircraft should outperform a 4 engine aircraft due to the lower power loading required by single engine performance requirements during a missed approach.

In very simple terms; (both A/C same weight)
4 engine aircraft has a 4% Gross climb gradient on 4 engines
4 engine aircraft has a 3% Gross climb gradient on 3 engines
4 engine aircraft has ~ 0% Gross climb gradient on 2 engines

2 engine aircraft has a 6% Gross climb gradient on 2 engines
2 engine aircraft has a 3% Gross climb gradient on 1 engine
2 engine aircraft has an ultra quiet stealth glide on 0 engines

Because the C-27 is designed to capable of flying on one engine, it has a greater excess performance; i.e. it is less heavily loaded. As braking energy dissipation requirements effectively double with weight increases (10% increase in weight equals 20 % in required brake energy dissipation) the C-130 brakes would have to be 3- 4 times ‘better’ than the C-27J’s.

All this is really academic however if they choose Chinooks. I would imagine, however that the C-27J is much cheaper to run & maintain than a chook.

Regards

WaterBoy :p:
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
WaterBoy said:
Howdy All,

By virtue of their asymmetric performance requirements 2 engines always outperform 4 engines on take-off, both in field length & climb gradients. Landing performance is determined by brake energy dissipation limitations, surface braking coefficient & vertical sink rates. These factors being equal, the 2 engine aircraft should outperform a 4 engine aircraft due to the lower power loading required by single engine performance requirements during a missed approach.

In very simple terms; (both A/C same weight)
4 engine aircraft has a 4% Gross climb gradient on 4 engines
4 engine aircraft has a 3% Gross climb gradient on 3 engines
4 engine aircraft has ~ 0% Gross climb gradient on 2 engines

2 engine aircraft has a 6% Gross climb gradient on 2 engines
2 engine aircraft has a 3% Gross climb gradient on 1 engine
2 engine aircraft has an ultra quiet stealth glide on 0 engines

Because the C-27 is designed to capable of flying on one engine, it has a greater excess performance; i.e. it is less heavily loaded. As braking energy dissipation requirements effectively double with weight increases (10% increase in weight equals 20 % in required brake energy dissipation) the C-130 brakes would have to be 3- 4 times ‘better’ than the C-27J’s.

All this is really academic however if they choose Chinooks. I would imagine, however that the C-27J is much cheaper to run & maintain than a chook.

Regards

WaterBoy :p:
No matter how great it's STOL performance, none of the 3 fixed wings are ever going to match the Chinook in capability and this is why:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WaterBoy

New Member
Actually I was only responding to the question posed by rjmaz1. Each option has capabilities the other doesn’t possess. Airplanes carry more further & faster than helicopters. Planes don’t hover! An Osprey can do both but is expensive.

Luckily the ADF has a wide range of current helicopters to choose from when it comes to landing on rooftops.

WaterBoy
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Aussie Digger said:
No matter how great it's STOL performance, none of the 3 fixed wings are ever going to match the Chinook in capability and this is why:
Chinook is nothing to the V-22.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Chinook is nothing to the V-22.
It does have a greater lift ability though. 12.000kgs compared to the V-22s 9,000kgs.
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
rjmaz1 said:
The question i have is.

Does the C-27 offer better STOL performance than the C-130J?

And will the C-27 have cheaper operating costs once you take into account the fact we are now operating two aircraft types?

Maintenance would be more expensive operating two different aircraft than just a larger fleet of C-130J in my opinion.

When the C-27J is loaded up to it maximum payload limit im pretty sure the C-130J would take off and land in a shorter distance due to the fact the Hercules will not be anywhere near its maximum takeoff weight.

The performance gap between the C-17 and C-130 is fairly large, the difference between a C-130 and C-27 is much smaller.

A good step down would be from the C-17 to the C-130 and then from the Hercules straight to the Chinooks. Considering the Chinook can carry most payload just as fast and as far as Caribou means we could skip the Caribou completely and order more C-130J's and Chinooks to compensate.

Im not a fan of having excesive overlap when it comes to military equipment. This is even more important when it comes to a country with a fairly limited budget like Australia.

Opinions?
You also have the cost comparisons of sustained operations between the two.

Half the engines, one less crew member, quicker turn-arounds, similar cruise speeds, better field performance. In short, you'd rather be operating a full C-27J than a half-full C-130J, although I agree with your premise that a half full C-130J may give you more flexibility.

Airlift is one area where you need overlap - you need to be able to offer the most flexibility possible due to the traditionally slow response times of airlift when compared to combat aircraft. Better to have overlap than gaps in capability.

V-22 is not an option at present, although it may come back into view once our amphibs are in service and it has a few years of reliable service under its belt.

Magoo
 

Magoo

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Chinook is nothing to the V-22.
When comparing cruise speeds and range, this is true. But an F model Chinook has much greater lifting capacity, both internal and external, has better handling characteristics when hovering IGE, and costs between a third and a half as much each (A$40m vs A$100+m).

On paper I would love to see us get V-22s, but let's let it get a few years of combat service and its OT&E behind it before we compare its true capabilities.

Magoo
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Whiskyjack said:
It does have a greater lift ability though. 12.000kgs compared to the V-22s 9,000kgs.
Yes but it is soooo much faster. The 1/4 difference in load to x2 speed means more lift in shorter time spans.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Yes but it is soooo much faster. The 1/4 difference in load to x2 speed means more lift in shorter time spans.
Don't disagree with the performance, but as mentioned above, the price is a major factor, also its not a proven tech as yet. One other point is that it doesn't matter if the load is 10,500kgs! :D
 
Top