Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Transportation Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: C-27J
Professor Fickle    4/4/2006 7:49:27 PM
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20060322.aspx Mini-C-130 for U.S. Army and Air Force March 22, 2006: The U.S. Army and Air Force have agreed to replace the C-23 two engine transports the U.S. Army National Guard operates, with 145 new aircraft of approximately the same capability. The air force will get about half these aircraft, and the army the rest. But both services would establish joint maintenance e and support facilities, in order to keep the costs down. Currently the Army National Guard is allowed to operate 44 of the two engine (propeller) C-23 aircraft. This is a freight version of the British Shorts 330 passenger airliner. The 12 ton C-23 can carry up to 3.5 tons of cargo, or up to 30 troops. The C-23s are twenty years old, and efforts to get a replacement, especially a larger and more numerous replacement, initially ran into air force opposition. After all, the air force has 500, 75 ton, C-130s. But in Iraq, the army C-23s have proved invaluable in getting priority army cargos where they are needed. Despite all the air force C-130s there, the army has to wait up to five days to get a C-130. The air force has the final word on what their C-130s carry, and that's why the army wants some of its own transports. The army originally asked for 128 C-23 replacements, but the air force protested, and the current deal was worked out. The new transport would be a militarized version of an existing transport (CN-235, C-295 and C-27J are most often mentioned, as is the navy C-2.) What all these aircraft have in common is greater capacity (about half the C-130s 20 ton load), and the ability to fly higher than the C-23s 20,000 foot maximum altitude (which prevents it from being used in Afghanistan). The air force also sees a need for an aircraft smaller than their current C-130. They had some C-27s (basically, half size, two engine "C-130s"), but retired them in 1999 because they were too expensive to maintain, for the amount of cargo they moved. However, in wartime, a smaller "C-130" is far more useful for many situations where many smaller cargos have to be moved. -=-= I like the C-27J nice to have a commonality with C-130J for parts.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gf0012-aust    RE:C-27J   4/4/2006 8:31:53 PM
I like the mini herc - they've got a bright future. and eminently sensible at the overall logistics view.
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver    RE:C-27J   4/4/2006 9:55:44 PM
Will there be an AC-27J gunship?
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-27J   6/27/2006 9:32:32 AM
There seem to be pronounced niches in military air transport: Take the C-130 as the benchmark it is: There is a need for ½ a Herkybird, as the C-27, ( in fact nearer a quarter to a 20% C-130)- responding to the realistic needs on btn level, whereas the C-130 is more likely to be the brigades aircraft. On a Corps level there is a need for a C-5/C-141/C-17 type aircraft, that can lift about 3 times C-130 at a bit further range. On company/Platoon level the chore is left to helicopters, Chinook at cmp and Blackhawk at platoon. These level seem to be a trade off between cost of airfare, and mess at the ground.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:C-27J - Funny Thomas   6/27/2006 11:39:31 PM
We are on different wavelengths; I want a carrier-capable JSA at 75-90% of C-130 MTOW, with greater ceiling, speed, range...what is the point of your pint-size C-27 when there are helos?
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-27J - Nichevo   6/28/2006 6:19:08 AM
Well that's what you never gonna get - sort of, as The C-130 over it's long carrier has gotten greater cieling, speed (that makes it not too unrealistic as a tanker) and range. It a "square" aircraft i.e. carries morer or less full load to max range. Fat Alberts problem is not weight; but volume (hence streached versions) and door size. Several attemts have been made to build a better Hercules; but the improvements were marginal - and very expensive. That is why I use C-130 as a benchmark. Tactical transport function in a distribution system getting supplies and troops from where they are to where they are needed. One of the failings of rail transport is that it moves goods and people from where they are not produced/live to where they aren't used/want to go. One of the limitations of strategic transport C-5/C-141/C-17 is that when they offload their cargo on the tarmac and go back for more, it has to be moved from the tarmac, possibly on allready overloaded roads of poor quality. The C-130 takes over and move them to facilities with poorer infrastructure nearer the troops that need the supplies/reinforcements. Now as far as I understand it from the C-27 aquisitions: As You move around in the world - not to fancy well kept NATO runway (possibly slightly dented) connected to four-lane roads - but to Nowhere with pitted gravel roads and hardly cleared strips, the low altitude extraction systems etc. of the C-130 are not quite enough (the question about the "empties" and wounded springs to mind). Today it seem like there is a lot of C-130 mucking about half empty and taking up space waiting at airports or not available for their real job. AFAIR the C-27 can take all cargoes of the C-130; but not so much of it. That makes it effective as a lot of rewrapping of parcels is avoided - and you avoid some lorry-traffic that is having a hard time getting to whereever they are supposed to. As to the last level: The helicopters: Well there is ONE redeeming quality about helicopters: They don't need facilities at the recieving end. Heloes have a dirt poor range, rotten speed (especially with a load) plus it is mashine that is specifically designed to tear itself apart. I surmise the C-27 role as allieviating a bottleneck in the supply chain from brigade to btn. Why haven't they found out before???? Partly because the Nato facilities are quite good - but of decreasing importance as the move out of problem to the third world persists, but I suppose there is another factor: Any Operational Research analyst will tell You: Multilevel storage calculation is one mean bitch. They have to be simulated - and simultion is always very sensitive to changes in assumptions. Simple models like Wilson's formula are out of the question. There is no available methods to determine the optimum stock size at each level, let alone the number of levels.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-27J - Nichevo   6/28/2006 6:21:29 AM
And I'm NOT funny - I'm redicileous - or whatever.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:C-27J - Tom   6/28/2006 11:08:36 AM
No, I meant "Funny, Thomas," as in "Funny, Thomas, I was just thinking about new support aircraft." My JSA concept, which you can see on the FBR board and elsewhere, fills a number of roles besides straight cargo, and is carrier and STOL/rough-field capable. It is also decisively faster and higher-flying than C-130, which admittedly is a fine airframe. For smaller loads to smaller places, I would be thinking about PGM airdrops a la Sherpa. Not that a mini-C-130 could not be justified, especially with the logistic advantages you describe (commonality of parts). In truth we are solving different prolems.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:C-27J - Tom   6/28/2006 11:08:41 AM
No, I meant "Funny, Thomas," as in "Funny, Thomas, I was just thinking about new support aircraft." My JSA concept, which you can see on the FBR board and elsewhere, fills a number of roles besides straight cargo, and is carrier and STOL/rough-field capable. It is also decisively faster and higher-flying than C-130, which admittedly is a fine airframe. For smaller loads to smaller places, I would be thinking about PGM airdrops a la Sherpa. Not that a mini-C-130 could not be justified, especially with the logistic advantages you describe (commonality of parts). In truth we are solving different problems.
 
Quote    Reply

buyer    RE:C-130J   7/4/2006 6:03:34 PM
Maybe you should just get moore C-130Js. With their new propulsion system they will be able to meet the take off and landing requirments and they also now have legs that make them capable of many strategic in addition to tactical jobs.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:C-130J   7/4/2006 8:41:04 PM
That is one of the problems: The C-130 is so good, that it often is cheaper to "abuse" the Hercules than buying a new type.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics