about 18 months ago there was a view that 4 J's might get the conversion but it was stillborn.  don't know how serious it was, but it cam up a list of aircraft that were theorised as being put into service over the next 4-6 years.

 

list also included A400's and Spartans - and the silence re those is now just as deafening

except we don't have an enormous budget.... we're hoping that generosity will spill over from other capabilities.  the socom budget has been belted - in fact it's worse compared to others considering that they are operational.

 

 

Sorry guy's but I'm not convinced on the A400M being a good C-130 replacement for Australia for the following reasons.

 

The C-130H has been in RAAF service for 30 years this year and looks like it is going to be around for a while yet. What this means is that the C-130J(which first came into service in 1999 - >>) is likely to be around until at least 2030. If we began to replace the H's with A400M's when they become available (they are talking about 2010 for the first export customer South Africa if there aren't any delays), then we are looking at operating three types of aircraft in a similar class for nearly 2 decades. That means three logistics trails and three lots of training requirements with the associated expense and reduction in flexibility (i.e. personel not being able to easily transfer between units with different types).

I'm not against that if we were going to get a substantially different capability from the A-400M. However it is squeezed between the C-17 and the C-130, and doesn't offer us anything different. The C-17 outperforms it with respect to outsized loads and moving armoured vehicles. AD, I don't agree that the C-130 will be marginalised for its poorer ability to move AFV's. Any mission where the ADF is going to move AFV's by air is going to require airlift for a myriad of other stores, as well as missions to move troops. As such a mission progresses is going to require a number of smaller re-supply missions/troop transfers/medivacs etc for which using an A400M or C-17 would be an overkill. The C-130 is complementary to the C-17 in this regard, just as a smaller battlefield lifter to replace to Bou would be equally complementary. I also have a problem imagining the RAAF wanting to risk and A400M on missions to drop in or resupply SF when a C-130 will do. There is still a requirement for a medium lifter AFAIC.

Other problems with the A400M is that the costs are reported to be spiralling (in some reports from $80-$90 to up to $150m US), it hasn't flown yet and we don't know when we might get hold of them (first flight delayed in September) and we would be ordering a non-mature design with the associated increased in risk. AFAIC if boosting our ability to move armoured vehicles and outsized loads is a priority then we should replace the H's with a couple of extra C-17's. If having a larger number of airframes and being able to shift lighter, bulky cargo like personel is the priority we should get extra C-130J's. We might also look at a combination of both.

It seems to me that an increase in the tanker numbers from 5, would also assist with the transport situation, as each can easily carry more that the Herc's.

IMPO the C-130J is not dissimilar to the Super Seasprite saga (except that with the Sprog we were offered new build but chose rebuilt airframes), in that it was meant to be a an inexpensive, low risk option of updating a proven design with new engines and avionics to deliver 70 to 90% of the capability of a totally new design.  In the long run we chose not to wait or pay for the bugs to be ironed out on the Sprog but had no choice but to persist with the C-130J.  In both cases legacy platforms had to be worked harder, which logic dictates will cut their useful service lives significantly.

 

The C-130J is the last of a line that stretches back to the mid 50's, it is very definitely an old though updated design and will never be able to perform or be developed to the degree a new design, such as the A400, can.  Both the A400 and C-17 have similar rough field performance to the C-130 but vastly superior cruising speed and payload/range, so why buy more of an inferior out dated design?  Where the A400 has the edge over the C-17 is price, we can afford to replace 12 C-130H with 10 to 12 A400's.  While an extra couple of C-17's would be nice, we can not afford, nor do we need 10 to 12 of them.

 

Another factor is the event of high altitude precision air drop using GPS guided airfoils which is an ideal mission for C-17 / A400 types with their large internal volumes and high transit speeds.  The US is trialing airdroping Strykers and intend to do the same with FCS, with airdrops seen as the fastest and most economical way to get heavy equipment to where it is needed.  Think of it this way the C-17 / A400 will not need to land to unload, the GPS guided pallet is simply dropped out the back at high altitude then the aircraft returns to base for another load at a very significant saving in fuel and time and the aircraft its self is never in harms way.  The Herc is simply too small and its performance too low to effectively conduct a mission such as this.

 

The other developing method is the Low Cost / Low Altitude (LCLA) airdrop which is an extremely accurate and inexpensive method of delivering supplies to troops in the field and FOB's, it is in actual fact cheaper and safer than using helicopters.  A C-27 is probably about the largest airframe you would want for this role with the US currently using leased CASA 212's for the role in Afghanistan, where they have been dropping fuel and ammunition to remote FOB's for a while now.  155mm rounds are the perfect example with this method getting pallets into firebases faster, cheaper and more safely than a Chinook ever could.

 

The US is also looking at basing many of their new "specials" on the C-27 instead of the Herc.  i.e. new gunships and SF support types.  The reason for this is the C-27 is cheaper, can operate closer to the action and while smaller than the Herc is still large enough.  There is a school of thought that the C-130 has always been larger than ideal for these missions but was all that was available once the various smaller C-119 and C-123 left service.

 

While that C-130 has served us well for half a century it is time to acknowledge that there are now better options and that moving to a mixed force of C-17, A400 and C-27J (or similar) will provide us with the best capability for our dollar going forward.

 

....... I'd personally love to see a "special" squadron of Hercs including MC-130's, perhaps HC-130's (both of which can conduct helecopter refuelling operations in ) and AC-130's.

I think the 27J would be a good buy for Australia. It will fill a rather large hole that needs filling. We need something, cheap, something we can have a whole bunch of airframes for not a lot of cash, cheap to run and uses existing logistics. Its smaller size is better suited to australia's smaller force size, requiring smaller sized drops. I doubt we could really justify a special Herc, but with the 27J being smaller and more numerous, its more of a real proposition. Replacing some portion of the Herc fleet and the Bou fleet entirely. I would even say they would be an easy thing to sell on to NZ/Friendlies/Indonesia if we bought a few extra to meet requirement until the A400 is better known.