MARKMILES77
Active Member
Thought likely to be an Air to Air Missile Launcher which can drop down when required.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I guess the Ghost bat will evolved. The question is how quickly.
At the end or the day you would want to maximise the units potential.
Other like systems may point the way.
A voyage of discovery for everyone.
Cheers S
Considering the prominence of armed UAVs in the Russian Ukraine war and that the Ghost bat is being considered as part of the US Cyborg program I think it would develop quite quickly. If you take the human pilot out of the loop it removes a lot of the problems in evolving and adapting a design. They are essentially expendable robots so you can take many more short cuts and risks with the design.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Article today from APDR regarding the planned 24 x C-130J-30 procurement:
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
Some interesting points made in the article.
* The first 12 are reportedly scheduled to be delivered in the 2027-28 timeframe.
* The potential procurement of 6 x KC-130J appears to have been shelved.
* The article also suggests that the C-27J fleet may end up being retained in service too.
Another interesting thing is the cost of the aircraft, ‘simple maths’, eg, project cost, divided by number of aircraft, works out at approx A$400m per aircraft, which appears to be a $hit load of money (but as we know project cost divided by number of aircraft is not as simple as often appears on the surface).
(One more point, the article was written by Andrew McLaughlin, formerly of ADBR and AA, I’ve found Andrew to be usually pretty accurate in his reporting, far more than many other Defence writers too).
US approves sale of new C-130Js to Australia - APDR
The US State Department has approved the sale of 24 Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 Hercules medium air mobility transport aircraft to Australia.
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
Some interesting points made in the article.
* The first 12 are reportedly scheduled to be delivered in the 2027-28 timeframe.
* The potential procurement of 6 x KC-130J appears to have been shelved.
* The article also suggests that the C-27J fleet may end up being retained in service too.
Another interesting thing is the cost of the aircraft, ‘simple maths’, eg, project cost, divided by number of aircraft, works out at approx A$400m per aircraft, which appears to be a $hit load of money (but as we know project cost divided by number of aircraft is not as simple as often appears on the surface).
(One more point, the article was written by Andrew McLaughlin, formerly of ADBR and AA, I’ve found Andrew to be usually pretty accurate in his reporting, far more than many other Defence writers too).
Completely agree re Andrew McLaughlin. A very reliable, well researched and informative writer IMO.
Tas
Aardvark144
Active Member
Remember, the costs advised in the DSCA release are estimates at the upper end of costs only and are highly likely to be nowhere near as high. Whilst I agree that McLaughlin is one of the better writers, I am disappointed at his comments related to the costs as he would be well aware of how DSCA notification works. The DSCA notification reads - 'the description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements........'.Article today from APDR regarding the planned 24 x C-130J-30 procurement:
US approves sale of new C-130Js to Australia - APDR
The US State Department has approved the sale of 24 Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 Hercules medium air mobility transport aircraft to Australia.
Some interesting points made in the article.
* The first 12 are reportedly scheduled to be delivered in the 2027-28 timeframe.
* The potential procurement of 6 x KC-130J appears to have been shelved.
* The article also suggests that the C-27J fleet may end up being retained in service too.
Another interesting thing is the cost of the aircraft, ‘simple maths’, eg, project cost, divided by number of aircraft, works out at approx A$400m per aircraft, which appears to be a $hit load of money (but as we know project cost divided by number of aircraft is not as simple as often appears on the surface).
(One more point, the article was written by Andrew McLaughlin, formerly of ADBR and AA, I’ve found Andrew to be usually pretty accurate in his reporting, far more than many other Defence writers too).
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I don’t see a problem with Andrews comments regarding the DSCA notification, I think he did qualify reasons why to a degree.
Just as I qualified my comments regarding the project cost too.
I think you’re nit picking just a bit, but hey, we are all entitled to our opinions here.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
One more point regarding the potential cost of the C-130J replacement project is the budget allowance that was published in the 2020 DSU:
The budget allowance range is A$8.8b - A$13.2b.
The budget allowance range is A$8.8b - A$13.2b.
Aardvark144
Active Member
Whilst I rate Andrew as a Defence writer, not so much for the publication though.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I don’t think anyone that’s been here for a long time would disagree that articles written by APDRs Kym Bergmann are questionable at the best of times, but I don’t know what that has to do with Andrew McL?
It would appear that Andrew had recently departed (or sold out of ADBR?), and disappeared for a little while.
And very recently too, started contributing articles to APDR, one would hope that his contributions become a bit more regular and those contributions will lift the tone of that publication.
Anyway, across Defence media publications, it’s not so much the publication, but who writes the articles.
What does the Super Hercules deal have to do with the Spartan Fleet? Why are people constantly pulling at straws which don’t exist?
It’s pretty damn simple to recognise that the much smaller and lighter Spartans can actually get to places (and in turn actually be utilised) where Hercules are either too big or massive overkill (with associated fiscal waste in operations).
It’s pretty damn simple to recognise that the much smaller and lighter Spartans can actually get to places (and in turn actually be utilised) where Hercules are either too big or massive overkill (with associated fiscal waste in operations).
Not really…
Spartans require almost as much runway as a C-130J as makes no real difference between the 2, they can do lower PCN runways (strength of the pavement) but that coincides with lighter loads and in any case apparently there are not that many runways RAAF will or could use that can’t handle C-130 type loads anyway.
C-27’s are cheaper to run, but a deep dive would be required to see if that cost outweighs the added expense of running dual fleets and all that entails with sustainment, training etc.
I’d say it would be cheaper and more capable to go all C-130 personally given most Western nations do for their tactical airlift needs, with King Air 350 etc used if a C-130 really is ‘overkill’…
The CJ27s are a sunk cost. The work to set up for facilities, maintenance and training is already spent. Like most Aussie families the ADF need to make do with what they have. Defence went through a long process before deciding on the capability. The mindset that it’s no longer exactly right so let’s flip it and get something else with other peoples money is infuriating to me. A billion here a billion there…. Defence just needs to get the message you put a ring on it, you keep it.
I don’t think we will retain the C-27Js. They were intended to be battlefield airlifters but clearly proved to be unsuited to the role. I think they are more likely to suffer the same fate as the tigers and taipans and just get moved on in favour of more suitable kit.
Ok so as in my new role as Def Min I’m going to the decision makers on this and saying you are all sacked. I don’t understand what has changed between choosing the 27s and now. Have airfields that these were going to operate from all of a sudden disappeared? Have the loads they were going to carry evaporated? How is that a CJ130 can do this work now but couldn’t previously? If they have proven unsuitable why wasn’t that understood before selection? Have the performance parameters of the aircraft changed since selection? If correct and these are disposed of…..Who are the people responsible Other peoples money…..
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Decision made in Dec 2011, RAAF hierarchy at the time of ordering, all retired, DEFMIN at the time was Smith, retired and now recommending their future. PM at the time was Gillard, no longer in parliament. Who's left to sack? Middle rank Officers and Defence Civilians who made recommendations but not the final decisions?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
What changed between choosing the C-27J and now?
It would appear they were hit with the ‘perfect storm’, everything that could go bad did.
There are multiple C-27J operators and configurations (much like the MRH90 and Tiger ARH).
The RAAF C-27J should have been to the same configuration as the US JCA program of approx 150 aircraft, but as we know the US canned the project early and retired the aircraft from frontline service.
Instead of being part of a much larger user and development project, we ended up with a small orphan fleet of 10 airframes.
Not a lot of detail has ever been released, but sustainment is/has been an issue, the bigger issue appears to be around the self protection suite that would allow the aircraft to operate in the battlefield role intended for them.
Again, very little has been in the public domain regarding that issue, I’d really like to know why that hasn’t or can’t be resolved (it’s not like self protection hasn’t been able to be effectively installed on C-130, C-17, KC-30A, etc, aircraft).
Much like MRH90 and Tiger, I don’t think the actual C-27J aircraft itself is a complete dud, but as a complete combat capable system, it’s fallen short.
Interesting ADBR article from a few years ago:
RAAF C-27J Spartan capability put on notice | ADBR
The Royal Australian Air Force’s Leonardo/L-3 C-27J Spartan battlefield airlifter capability operated by 35SQN at Amberley has been added to Defence’s Projects of Interest watch-list after missing several key capability…
adbr.com.au
Specifically this paragraph:
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) 2017–18 Major Projects Report noted that; ‘…the project office is working through a number of capability baseline considerations identified post-establishment of the FMS Case. These baseline issues are associated with the configuration and certification status of the USAF JCA C-27J program, which were not finalised by the USAF at the time of divestiture.’
M113’s are a sunk cost. Neither they nor the C-27J’s can do the job we bought them for.
There’s sunk cost and then there is throwing good money after bad.
What grinds my gears is the ‘out there’ choices, of which C-27J is one of them. Most ‘tier one’ western militaries don’t bother operating an aircraft in the C-27J class. They just run decent fleets of Chinooks and C-130J’s.
Like we should have.
If Chinooks were flown by the lads and ladettes in Blue, I would bet pounds to pennies we’d never have seen C-27J in-service.
I have to find someone!