It seems someone is not happy for the C27J prize…..

this has become so standard and routine that maybe it’s time to start assessing penalties on companies that file protests that aren’t upheld

help prevent this ‘sore loser syndrome’

currently the risk/reward ratio is so small (practically zero risk, potentially huge reward) that they could potentially face a shareholder lawsuit for NOT protesting every single competition they lose, whatever the merits

You still don’t get it … a plane is not about the cost per unit at all.
Even C-27 cost more to acquire in longer term will cost less to operate due to commonalities with C-130J. maintenance is not only refueling… is about spare parts, about mechanics, about training personal, about base equipment, etc) … You have no Idea what a new plane can be for a force what ever that been (USAF, etc).
:dev2:

so yes there are several factors for operating costs:
– fuel
– maintenance hours
– training
– parts and ground equipment

fuel:
we know the C-295 uses less

maintenance hours:
Alenia claims 2 maintenance hours per flight hour for the C-295 vs. 5 maintenance hours per flight hour for the C-27J. Take it with a grain of salt, but i certainly don’t see anything to indicate that the C-295 would require MORE maintenance, ie certainly no advantage for C-27J in this category

training:
all pilots will have to be trained for either craft. Perhaps existing C-130J pilots would train faster (less expense) on the C-27J, but i would suspect most existing C-130J pilots will stay C-130J pilots as they are fairly new planes. For people coming straight out of flight school i’m not sure of any reason why it would be more expensive to train on one vs the other. There is also the existing Coast Guard training program for the C-235, but i’m not sure what impact (if any) that has. The same goes for mechanics. Mechanics will have to be certified on whichever plane and i’m not sure why either one would necessarily be cheaper to certify on.

parts and ground equipment:
well the C-27J is touted have commonality with the C-130J, but there will still be plenty of unique parts, and all those parts will still have to be added to the system

the C-295 might have some commonality with the coast guard’s C-235 but will still probably have more parts that have to be added to the system

but this is a one time cost and so i don’t see it as having a major impact on lifetime costs

after parts are in the system, they still have to be bought and paid for. Two things affect the price of the part
1) how expensive the base price is (duh)
2) how much of a bulk discount you get

as to point 1, i can’t imagine that the C-295 parts are more expensive and in fact i would expect them to be less expensive (mainly from the engine, you would hope a smaller and less powerful engine would also be cheaper)

as to point 2, once you get to 78 planes and hopefully 145 and beyond, you are buying in bulk and getting bulk discounts. If the number were boosted by an additional 200 (the number of C-130J’s delivered and/or on order) you MIGHT be able to get an additional 1-2% off, but nothing substantial

in sum, beyond the one time cost of adding parts to the system and possibly lower training costs for pilots converting from the C-130J, i’m not seeing the logistics savings of the C-27J over the C-295. By buying 78+ planes we are guaranteeing volume discounts for whichever platform.

if i’m wrong on this or if you have hard numbers on this, i would love to hear it

What you’ve actually demonstrated is that a fairly lightly loaded C-130J can take off in the same distance as a C-27J at max T/O weight. Now, if you think it makes sense to buy aircraft that cost twice as much, weigh twice as much, need twice the maintenance, & burn twice the fuel, because when operated half-empty they can match the field performance of a cheaper, lighter, aircraft, I want you to take charge of the other sides logistics.

Consider the implications: it isn’t just cost. To lift that C-27J sized load using a C-130J means supplying more fuel, & more maintenance crews. That means more load further up the supply chain.

BTW, what take-off run does a C-17 need with the same payload? According to Boeing (see below), it’s taken off in less than 1400 feet. Who needs C-27s or C-130s? What about an all C-17 fleet? :diablo:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf

wow wow wow your reply is just so perfect 😀

if the only choices were either running a pure C-130 fleet or a mix of C-130 and C-27J your analysis would be spot on

but . . . there is a third option!

a mix of C-130 and C-295

if you believe like i do that there is only a small fraction of missions that the C-27J can do that the C-295 can’t, then the cost of running the C-130 on those missions is more than made up for by the savings of running a C-295 on the rest of the missions (as the made-up example in my previous reply demonstrates)

like you said, it doesn’t make sense to buy an aircraft that costs more, weighs more, needs more maintenance and burns more fuel just because it has better field performance than a cheaper, lighter aircraft

(and i think your comment on the C-17 just shows how the C-27J doesn’t bring any unique capability to the table, and if it doesn’t bring some substantial, new capability that our current fleet doesn’t have, then might as well go for the cheaper aircraft)

ok i’ve actually gone and spent way more time on this than i should, but here are some hard figures

http://c-27j.com/essential-facts

tactical take off ground run (MTOW, ISA, S.L.) – 1903 ft
Maximum take off weight (logistic) – 31800 kg

http://www.c-295.ca/compare/compare.htm

C-27J basic empty weight 17150 kg

this means at MTOW, the C-27J is carrying 31800-17150 = 14650kg of payload and fuel

this is 32298 lbs

http://www.c-130j.ca/document/Spec_Book.pdf

page 28

a graph of Maximum Effort Takeoff Roll (Standard Day) at different altitudes

the curve for 0 (sea level) seems to reach 1900 foot takeoff distance at a gross weight of 125000 lbs

page 5

operating empty weight = 86188lb

125000-86188 = 38812 lbs of payload and fuel

this is 6514 more lbs of payload and fuel the C-130J can carry for the same take-off roll. Given the increased fuel demands of the C-130J, this probably evens out

in summary, while the C-27J and C-130J have very similar short field capabilities, it is definitely not correct to call the C-27J superior

Why? The C27J can carry more than c295 (bigger volume). It means that the fuel of 2 C295 are more than enough for a C27J.

in the usual case (pax and/or pallets) you are wrong as the C-295 carries both more pallets and more pax

max payload C-27J 25,353 lbs
max payload C-295 20,400 lbs

so 54% more fuel burn for the POSSIBILITY of carry 24% more weight (which would happen fairly infrequently, don’t forget that the average payload of the C-130J was 4,600 lbs, well less than the capability of either aircraft)

Yes, as well as anything the C295 can do, the Spartan can do better.

and if that’s your final argument, then they should have gotten the C-130J as it is undeniably more capable

Above all, the biggest range and payload that the Spartan permits, it gives an increase of capability to the Army that can works without the C130 of USAF.

well if they had gotten the C-130J then it would be theirs and they wouldn’t be relying on the USAF 😉

are you a commercial of EADS?

are you a commercial for Alenia?

i think the C-295 would have been a better choice, you think the C-27J was the better choice, that is all

the C-130J can do better (including short field performance)

I work with C-130 people everyday, and I can tell you that short-field performance is something the C-27J most certainly does better than the C-130 series. It makes since seeing as the C-27 is about half the weight of the C-130.

actually it’s not so clear since the C-130J has twice the power and a larger wing

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3241924461/m/95100006713/p/5

Lockheed Martin Protests the Army’s JCA Downselect

Aviation Week & Space Technology
08/21/2006

David A. Fulghum
Washington

Asked about the C-130J’s ability to compete with smaller aircraft when flying from small, poorly surfaced runways, Lockheed Martin officials contend that the C-130J is designed to operate from austere runways with soft surfaces made up of dirt, clay or gravel. Because of the C-130J’s high “flotation” design, it can land on the same soft surfaces as smaller twin-engine aircraft and carry 30,000 lb. more payload than twin-engine aircraft. Under the California Bearing Ratio system of measurement, the C-130J is Level 3, which is the same as other aircraft in the JCA competition. But since the JCA RFP “Soft-Field Requirement” does not specify a CBR, the comparison is still considered only a conjecture at this point, they say.

SUPPORTERS OF the twin-engine designs say several studies in the analysis of alternatives have shown that the larger C-130J can’t meet some of the tactical scenarios for takeoffs from 2,000-ft. runways that are prevalent in operational hots spots such as South America, Africa and the Middle East. Lockheed Martin says its aircraft is the best performer in high-altitude/hot-temperature conditions.

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3241924461/m/95100006713/p/3

Yesterday, I had the unique opportunity to speak to the Chief Experimental Test pilot for the C-130J. The bottom line with out getting in to much detail that the reader can “Google,” the C-130J requires less distance for take off than the C-27J.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123057181

General Sabol relayed some personal experience from Iraq as to why the JCA is needed.

The Air Force flew C-130 Hercules aircraft many times in Iraq, carrying just a few passengers or a single pallet of medical goods, because that is what the warfighters needed at that moment, he said. This is not a very efficient use of an aircraft, but the warfighters’ needs come first.

This underutilization of the cargo area in a C-130 is a main reason the JCA was developed. The C-130 and the Army’s C-12, C-26 and C-23 do not efficiently satisfy the requirements for the warfighter, the joint leaders said.

“We have always been there to support the warfighter,” General Sabol said. “Where this aircraft will fit extremely well (is where) it will relieve the C-130s usage and provide us the ability to meet the time-sensitive, mission-critical needs to the forward deployed warfighter.”

http://www.af.mil/letters/
couple different letters to the airforce with different perspectives:

one for C-295

Why did they not choose the CASA? It already had a logistics pipeline, and much of the hard work (research and money spent) had already been done by the Coast Guard. They selected a CASA-235 variant and are building it and training crews at Mobile, Ala., right now. Seems like commonality with other services in the face of increasing budgets would have played a more significant part in the selection process between so similar aircraft.

one against the entire JCA program

With all due respect to the people who want the JCA, I truly think it is a waste of money. Maj. Gen. Marshall K. Sabol mentioned that the C-130 Hercules is underutilized. Well I am sitting at a base in Iraq and I will tell you that we have to pretty much fight to get pallet positions on C-130s because most stations have enough cargo and pax to fill their C-130s on a daily basis. That’s why there is a commercial tender system in place in the desert — because we have more cargo than we have C-130s to take it out. In my opinion, the services would be better benefited in paying for a few more C-130s and crew members to keep them up as opposed to an entirely new, unproven airframe.

which to me emphasizes the importance of pallet hauling and why the C-295’s ability to haul 5 pallets (the same as a C-130 coincidentally) is more important than the C-27J’s ability to haul outsize cargo but only 3 pallets

http://thehill.com/business–lobby/senate-language-could–take-away-armys-control-of-jca-2007-05-30.html

Senate language could take away Army’s control of JCA

May 30, 2007

Questioning whether the Army and Air Force should share the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program, Senate defense authorizers are directing the Pentagon to assign responsibility to the Air Force for all fixed-wing airlift functions and missions.

. . .

The language accompanies a shift of $157 million from the Army’s budget request for the JCA to the Air Force’s budget line in the Senate’s version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

that was a neat trick, use the army’s money to buy more planes for the air force 😮

The transfer of money from the Army to the Air Force is not immediately expected to affect the program’s schedule and the contract award. However, the Army has expressed an urgent need for the JCA, while the Air Force is not planning to buy it until 2010. The money the Army has requested for the new cargo aircraft comes out of the cancellation of the Comanche helicopter program.

Last year, Senate defense authorizers slashed almost the entire Army request for the JCA, citing a lack of defined requirements.

When conferees restored the funding for JCA, they put it in the Air Force’s budget line with strings attached. They directed the Pentagon and the two services to conduct an analysis on the right mix and number of intra-theater assets required for the JCA mission.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/31/pentagon_puts_off_decision_on_military_cargo_plane/

Pentagon puts off decision on military cargo plane
Thu May 31, 2007 4:58PM ED
WASHINGTON (Reuters)

Lockheed’s C-130J cargo plane, favored by some Air Force officials, was dropped from the competition last year.

Air Force officials have not been entirely enthusiastic about the joint project from the start. Some experts said the Air Force would have preferred to buy more of the C-130J planes it already uses, rather than a wholly new plane.

….

The Army solicited bids and ran the competition with the Air Force joining in the evaluation. But the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a fresh complication, is now seeking to give the Air Force responsibility for running the program.

so the army cancels the Commanche program and decides to use the money for desperately needed inter-theater lift. The airforce feels threatened but sees an opportunity to expand its own C-130J fleet at the army’s expense. So they opens their own program and force a merger. However the army was able to quickly kill the C-130J bid before the airforce was able to wrestle away control. Since they could no longer get C-130Js, they went for the closest thing to it, totally ignoring whatever the army wanted.

My concern is that the C-27J was not chosen because the army deemed it superior for their needs, but because it was the closest thing to the C-130J the airforce could get the army to buy for them.