Green light

The battlefield airlifter will fill the requirement left vacant by the retirement of the last remaining DHC-4 Caribou tactical transports in December 2009. The first C-27J is to be delivered in 2015 and initial operational capability is due for late 2016.

35SQN, whose distinguished wartime pedigree goes back to its formation in 1942, will be re-formed to operate the C-27J at RAAF Base Richmond. It was disbanded in 1999 when Caribou operations were consolidated with 38SQN.

The C-130H decision will save $250 million in operational and maintenance costs. A Defence spokesperson told Aus-tralian Aviation: “Air Force is still deter-mining the planned withdrawal date for its final C-130H but it is expected to cease flying in the second half of 2012. ” The ministers said: “The C-27J was as-sessed 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 C295. ” The statement also cited RAAF claims that the C-27J could access nearly four times the number of airfields in Australia as the larger C-130J and double the number of airfields in our wider region, as well as being able to operate into softer or unpre-pared fields.

The ministers’ statement read: “Initial logistic support, including training for aircrew and maintenance personnel will be provided through the FMS program, utilising the system established in the US. Defence will seek a separate agreement with the C-27J manufacturer, Alenia, to ensure that RAAF can operate, maintain and modify the aircraft throughout its planned life. ” The eight flyable C-130Hs, operated by 37SQN from RAAF Richmond, were due to be retired from 2013 but last Octo-ber Mr Smith and Mr Clare announced Defence was developing options to retain the C-130H fleet out to 2016. The latest decision turns this on its head. Current activities undertaken by the C-130Hs currently in service would be redistributed across the remaining air mo-bility fleet including C-130Js, C-17s and “the replacement for the Caribou aircraft”, Smith said.

However, the purchase, although good news for the RAAF as it was its preferred option, brought more questions in its wake, especially over the transition from C-130 retirement, as the C-27J is not due to come into service for three years.

When asked about the fate of 37SQN C-130H ACOs and flight engineers, the Defence spokesperson noted: “Pilots and loadmasters will be posted to another aircraft type, or into a ground position where they can best lend their expertise. Loadmas-ters on the C-130H will require a minimum of re-training to operate the C-130J.

“Air combat officers will have the option of transferring to other RAAF aircraft or other air combat officer roles, such as air battlespace management, or be posted to ground positions requiring their expertise.

“Flight engineers will likewise have the opportunity to transfer to the AP-3C Ori-on or other aircrew roles, such as loadmas-ter or air refuelling operator. Alternatively, they will be able to commission – into engineering officer or operations officer roles – or lend their expertise to ground positions within Air Force. ” The spokesperson added that the major-ity of maintenance personnel would remain with 37SQN to support C-130J operations. Technicians also will be involved with the disposal plan for the C-130H, expected to take place throughout 2013.

Another question is the matter of whether the C-130J fleet would be subject to a higher rate of effort until the C-27J’s introduction into service.

Despite there being a three-year gap between the C-130H’s early retirement and the C-27J’s arrival, the Defence response was: “There are currently no plans to increase the rate of flying hours for the C-130J. Introduction of the KC-30A and additional C-17A will come with an in-creased rate of flying, allowing the C-130J to conduct more dedicated medium and tactical airlift. ” On the C-130J’s ability to perform Spe-cial Forces support as currently undertaken by the C-130H, the Defence spokesperson said 37SQN was developing this role, which would involve new systems inte-grated on the C-130J as well as training of crews. The Air Force did not expect any limitations to the C-130J’s ability to sup-port this type of role.

Moving on to plans for 38SQN and its interim King Air fleet in light of the selec-tion of the C-27J, Defence said the King Air would continue to operate from RAAF Base Townsville with 38SQN for the fore-seeable future beyond the introduction of the C-27J to RAAF service.

There’s also some good news for Aus-tralian industry over the C-27J acquisi-tion, with Defence saying some industry involvement may be required for spe-cific C-27J infrastructure at RAAF Base Richmond as well as through-life support contract arrangements.

The C-27J is being purchased through a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the US Department of Defense and so any Australian industry involvement would need to occur within this framework.

Naturally, Alenia Aermacchi is all smiles. CEO Giuseppe Giordo said: “This is a confirmation that when the capabilities lead a requirement, the Spartan is the best choice in the market. The C-27J is a combat proven tactical airlifter that will guarantee to the RAAF performance, effectiveness and interoperability with the existing transport fleet.

“We are fully committed to enable RAAF to operate and maintain the capa-bility autonomously throughout the aircraft service life. ” The C-27J already has been ordered by the air forces of Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Morocco, Mexico and by the US Air Force, and selected by Slovakia’s air force. Total aircraft ordered is now 89, according to Alenia.

Prime contractor L-3’s corporate senior vice president John McNellis said: “We look forward to working with the US and Australian governments to deliver this vital capability.

“The C-27J will serve the Common-wealth of Australia with superb perfor-mance, interoperability with international forces, as well as significant total life-cycle savings over the life of the program. ” But there were sour grapes aplenty from Airbus Military, which took the extraor-dinary step of issuing a public statement decrying the process behind the selection of the C-27J.

But it was the comment by Minister Smith that so angered Airbus Military when, in response to a journalist’s question at the Air Power Conference on May 10 about whether there had been a competi-tion to select the C-27J, he said: “There was a competition between the C295 Airbus Military aircraft and the C-27 and we down-selected the C-27. ” And the minister continued to a sub-sequent question: “From our perspective we’ve done the due diligence and we’ve come to the conclusion firstly that we needed to fill that gap. Secondly, that the C-27 was the preferred choice for us. ” And the missile-swift response from Airbus Military: “We are obliged to place on the public record our disappointment at the Minister’s choice of words, because there was no tender process and certainly no competition.

“We are even more disappointed that this decision appears not to have been made out of rigorous evaluation of tender-quality information for which Australia is justly renowned and which is normally required before such large sums of taxpayer dollars are spent.

“The Department of Defence seems to have rejected its own tried, tested and proven process of evaluating competing platforms. ” Strong words from a company running years late in delivering the KC-30 tanker – and one that in time would hope to offer its A400M airlifter as an eventual replacement for the RAAF’s C-130Js.

The statement continued: “We certainly do not begrudge the ADF making decisions about preferred capability and platforms fol-lowing careful consideration of tender-quality and commercially-binding information. But on this occasion, selection of the C-27J for $1. 4 billion seems to have been based largely on the RAAF’s own desktop assessments.

“Despite Airbus Military expending con-siderable resources responding to enquiries and requests for rudimentary information, we are concerned that the outcome may have been pre-determined from the start. ”