You seemed to agree earlier that the C-130 fleet was pretty heavily tasked….now you’re going back on that statement?

it is heavily tasked NOW, once the JCA is operational it’s load will drop off considerably

All companies have a way of making their aircraft look better…you have to take what they ALL say with a grain of salt.

sure, examine it critically, but you can’t just dismiss it out of hand

Are you a pilot yourself? It certainly does matter what the flight crews want and need in something like this. The whole crux of the C-17 program was to design an airlifter that was built with input from loadmasters, pilots, etc. Obviously pilot input is not the only thing you take into account, but it’s certainly an important factor in many cases.

obviously pilot input is and should be considered

it just isn’t always the most important factor

Cost is not the end all be all of everything. Flexibility, as they taught me during my officer training, is the key to airpower. When you gain an aircraft with not only the capability to replace the one you need replaced, but to do a much wider variety of missions

the JCA isn’t replacing the C-130

You seem to think that relativley small increase in cost compared to the C-295 is simply not worth it

50% difference in operating costs isn’t small

if the Army gains additional capabilities that not only allow it to do everything the C-23, C-12, and C-26 could do, but it is also able to relieve some of the burden on the C-130 fleet as well as perform some missions that helicopters might be forced into at this point……then it’s certainly worth it.

the C-295 will do all this

Dude are you joking????
What do u expect that EADS-CASA says about the C27J ant their C295?
A good source……

just because it’s from the competition doesn’t mean it’s not true

Open your eyes, look the contenders and read data You will discover a true military plane and not an adapted cilvilian freighter.

i think we established that. The question is how much difference does it make

Or better ask to a military pilot that has to fly Iraq or Afghanistan if He prefers to have an airplane that land and take off quickly, has more safety system or if He preferes a civilian freighter

as cold as it sounds, it doesn’t particularly matter what the pilot wants

that save the cost of fuel about 15% (not more Eads-Casa says bullocks with 50%)

source?

in case of engine stop has not APU to restart the engine.

this is only an issue if both engines fail simultaneously

in what situation would that occur but they both be recoverable? (for instance out of gas, both fail, but can’t restart even with apu)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/06/joint-cargo-aircraft-we-have-a-winner/index.php#more

C-295M has a longer fuselage for more cargo pallets, comes with a nifty pallet loading system, and is cheaper to maintain and fly, but lacks the internal dimensions and/or floor strength required for tactical loads like Humvees, small helicopters, et. al.

. . .

EADS-CASA claims the C-27J’s fuel and maintenance needs give it operational costs that are over 50% more expensive than the C-295’s, but C-130J commonality may bring those numbers down slightly and the C-27J’s internal dimensions and floor strength give it the flexibility to carry light tactical loads.

. . .

Surprisingly, word was that the US Army wanted the C-295 despite its tactical limitations, and the USAF wanted the C-27J despite is operating and maintenance costs.

50% cheaper to operate is NOT ‘a buck or two’ that is absolutely HUGE

granted that is the competitor’s claim, but i don’t see them refuting it either. If it’s even halfway based in reality that is tough to swallow

Now let’s recall that the C-130J’s AVERAGE payload was 2.3 tons. Let us thus say that the median payload was 2.3 tons (i know that’s not necessarily true, but probably close enough). If this follows anything approaching a normal distribution curve, the C-295’s capability of over 10.2 tons will handle >90% of all C-130 missions. The C-27J’s 12.7 ton capacity plus bigger dimensions would probably push that to >95%.

is 50% extra operating costs worth being able to handle 5% more missions?

you can argue that it gives more flexibility for moving vehicles, but
1. once you reduce the C-130’s workload by 90% (assuming a big enough fleed of JCA’s), you will have PLENTY of capacity to move all the vehicles you want
2. the army doesn’t fly their vehicles around that often
3. if that was a serious point, why not just get C-130s and be done with it?
4. the coup de grace, the army itself DIDN’T WANT THE CAPABILITY

they apparently viewed being able to do the vast majority of missions far cheaper as more important than being able to occasionally move vehicles which now the Herc fleet will have plenty of time to do.

as far as the militarization, i would be surpised if more than 2 C-295s would have been lost over their career because they weren’t as ‘robust’ as the C-27J. (not saying only 2 would have been lost, but that the difference between the C-27J and the C-295 wouldn’t have been more than 2) And with 50% lowering operating costs, they could probably lose 10 extra and still have it be worthwhile.

and it still really bugs me that that the C-27J can only carry 3 pallets (they call it 3.5 but you can’t cut a pallet in half). I really, really wish they had extended it to make it at least 4. That would be a 33% increase in pallet capacity for a minimal increase in cost. If you have to deliver 4-5 pallets that will take 2 C-27J’s instead of 1 C-295, increasing risk and exposure.

finally take a look at this page:
http://www.c-295.ca/compare/compare.htm

it makes it seem like it doesn’t use the hydraulic system for flight control so a dual system isn’t necessary(?) and it makes the point that the C-27A’s in air force service were retired because of high operating costs and support problems

irtusk,
have you seen th comparison that I posted?
The true difference is that the C27J is a military aircraft, born with military standard. Not the same for C295.
For the Army is important that when in dangerous operation the airplane can operates at the best. C27J chas more Engine Restart Options, Apu, double Hydraulic Circuit, less runaway to land and take off, more power on the engine, etc.

the double hydraulics is undoubtedly a nice feature, but how useful is it really? if you were onboard and happened to need it, obviously you would say it is critically important. But in the clinical sense, i can’t find any instances where Army Sherpas were lost because they only had 1 hydraulic system. 2 were lost because of center-of-gravity issues. There may be more, i just haven’t been able to find them

i compare it to the F-35 for carrier ops. It only has one engine. Some people say that’s no good because if one goes out you’re in deep trouble. That is true, but it happens so infrequently the navy can afford the losses (cold as it may sound)

an interesting link on this:

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0507/index.php?startpage=38

makes a few points:
1. fuel-efficiency of the C-295 will reduce need for forward air-refuelling points
2. the C-295’s cabin dimensions more closely match the CH-47’s tall hold, speeding any transfer of Army-size pallets between the two aircraft
3. the C-27J is wider but not as tall as the CH-47
4. the airforce likes the C-27J because it shares engines and avionics with the C-130J

although i must admit i’m not sure about the point about taller pallets as the C-295 seems to claim it that it’s cargo bay is 74″ high while the C-27J claims it can accomodate 83″ pallets.

the main beneficiary in the program is the Army. The C-27 provides both commonality with the C-130J

how many C-130J’s does the army operate?

as well as allows the Army the capability to provide its own airlift for relatively lighter payloads (certain vehicles namely, some of which won’t fit in the C-295).

yes there are 2 parts to this:
1. army independence of air force
2. cheaper milk runs

i can see the argument about moving vehicles independently, but what the hey? let’s give the army their own C-17s so they can move their own tanks . . .

the army has relied on the air force for vehicle transports all this time, i’m sure they can continue to deal with it

and actually from what i heard the C-295 was the army’s choice (since it was cheaper) while the C-27J was the airforce’s choice (c-130 compatibility). But who knows if there was any truth to that rumor.

The C-27, as mentioned in the article, provides better short-field capability and a longer range, both of which are beneficial in any cargo aircraft no matter what your requirements may be. Shorter runways allow access to more areas, and longer range means less time is spent stopping for fuel or taking away tankers for airborne refuelling needs.

1. most places it’s going will want to accomodate C-130’s too, so not sure how much difference short-field capability is going to make
2. the range difference isn’t that much (C-27J is 2,300 nm with over 13,227 lbs (6,000kg) of payload, C-295 is 2,300 nm with 10,000 lbs of payload
3. does either one actually support aerial refuelling anyways? i can’t find any evidence that they do . . .
4. again, if there is a run that needs more capability, we have C-130s and C-17s

One C-130J unit’s AVERAGE cargo was a whopping 2.3 tons (http://warisboring.com/?p=230). For a plane that can carry over 35 tons, that’s a massive squandering of resources.

We need smaller, cheaper planes for these milk runs

Having seen some pretty cool clips of this thing in action

look, no doubt the C-27J is a cool plane, but it just isn’t what we need

here’s a story that demonstrates something fundamentally wrong with the current transportation scheme

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10821&Itemid=128

C-17s from the 172nd Airlift Wing have performed more than 350 aerovac missions since October 2005 from Iraq to Ramstein and the States

Why in the world are we using C-17s for this task?

It’s a waste of the C-17’s service life, a waste of gas and a waste of time (as the C-17 isn’t the swiftest bird in flock).

And the GAO is complaining that they haven’t properly ‘justified’ the need for cargo/medevac capability in the KC(X).

The KC(X) can’t get here soon enough.