@ the paragraph on top:
I’m well aware that these are the facts, but then they should be honest enough to give those two planes to the Feuerwehr or Technisches Hilfswerk or Innenministerium, not the armed forces.

If you’re really aware of the facts, why do you keep going on about all these requirements the C-295 supposedly doesn’t meet… :rolleyes:
Well, the air force probably does a better job maintaining them.
It’s not a question of honesty (the objectives are well declared), but simply practicality.

As for the rest: I take this sort of rhetoric as an expression of your lack of self confidence that needs compensation, paranoia, and hatered. No need to go on from here. :rolleyes:

For Switzerland the situation is even simpler. They will only land on civilian airfields, deliver some food, medicine or civilian personal after a natural disaster. They don’t need a tactical transporter.
So the cheaper transporter saves some money, that can be invested in new fighters as replacement for the F-5. 😀

This basically brought it to the point.

More in detail: The three primary roles the Swiss government assigns to the C-295 are 1) humanitarian aid 2) transport of troops and material to training missions in other European countries (like NORAD) and 3) cheap and discreet return flights for illegal immigrants.
Further it relies on the planned European transport pool for missions that require bigger payload. (source: today’s “Der Bund” newspaper.)

The only real drawback of the C-295M is that the Mowag Eagle II scout vehicle doesn’t fit in, but it’s probably a lot cheaper to buy a couple of smaller other scout vehicle versions than opting for a bigger transport plane model.

Are WE white ? Are WE of western and christian culture ? Or did you speak about the 1950’s ? Then you are right, of course.

Indeed. It also shows in the rhetoric: Today’s US president talks about “American values” and “the American way” all the time, not about “Western values”, “Liberal values”, or “Global Human values” anymore.

These contemporary “American values” indeed seem to be a little different from the rest of the West’s. They seem to be more and more influenced by Christian fundamentalism, nationalism, anti-Islamic paranoia, and anti- European resentments.
If one cares to look at the latest Amnesty International report, one can clearly see that these contemporary American values differ quite a bit from good old Liberalism nowadays. Indeed no need to take up this “big daddy” attitude. 😀

Regarding CN-295 vs C-27J: The first is a souped-up civil transporter, the other (sure on the light side) a viable military asset. And the reason services go for the CN and not the 27J, is because the average politician doesn’t give a **** about capabilities (because he’s on average too ignorant and incompetent to know his ass from his head, let alone know about military hardware, and anyway doesn’t wish to be bothered with such affairs at all), but only goes for the cheaper option to look good at the next elections.

Now at what size exactly does an transport airplane start being a military asset? According to your logic somewhere between a C-295 and a C-27J. What about all those smaller tactical transporters that do tireless jobs around the globe? This argument is ridiculous.

Sure you know all about our politicians :rolleyes: (By the way: Swiss executive politicians “Bundesräte” don’t have to get re-elected, only formaly approved by the parliament).
Another flaw in your logic is that it was not the politicians who decided in the evaluation, but the military.

Maybe, Suisse has rarely been involved in Peacekeeping mission, but it is a wealthy nation and they could have choosen something more performing. 🙂

We might be wealthy, but we are terribly stingy, too! 😉
There’s an old Swiss saying that states: If you want to learn how to save money, look at how the rich do it.

It is a matter of comparing performances such as range, n° of soldiers to be carried, speed, STOL capacity and not only price, for a performance stand point I think there is no arguing

Bye

Good article that offers a comparison of the two and answers a few questions, maybe:

CASA C-295M and LMATTS C-27J Spartan Battle for Markets

Two new European twin-turboprop rear-loading cargo aircraft are battling for the lucrative medium tactical transport market, with advantages claimed for each type. Both are developments of earlier successful transports, with similar maximum payloads of around nine tonnes.

CASA’s C-295M led the field with a first flight on November 28, 1997, followed by the initial production aircraft on December 22, 1998. Weighing a maximum 51,147 pounds for take-off, it proved able to lift a 9.7-tonne payload over a 728 nmi range on two 2,920 shp Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127G turboprops. The C-295M also features advanced integrated digital avionics, based on Thales’ Topdeck suite.

Developed jointly by Lockheed Martin Alenia Tactical Transport Systems (LMATTS), the substantially heavier (66,138-pound) C-27J Spartan is a mini-Hercules in concept. It has two of the C-130J’s 4,637 shp Rolls-Royce AE 2100 D2 powerplants, and uses similar Honeywell digital glass cockpit avionics and new systems in an upgraded G222 airframe.

The C-27J’s use of many C-130J components is logistically attractive for operators of the new Hercules seeking smaller and more economical transport aircraft. Since the C-27J’s first flight on September 24, 1999, three prototypes achieved JAR-25 civil type certification in June 2001, followed by Italian military certification that December. The C-27J’s quoted range with an eight-tonne payload is 540 nmi.

CN-295M production is well ahead, following a Spanish air force (EdA) launch order for nine aircraft in January 2000, for deliveries from 2001. In EdA service the C-295M is taking over some C-130H/H-30 missions, for considerably lower costs. After competitive evaluations, the Polish air force ordered eight CASA C-295Ms, plus four options, costing $212 million in August 2001, for 2003 deliveries. Jordan became third C-295M customer in February with a $45 million contract for two, for year-end service.

Four C-295M Persuader MPA versions costing $140 million, with EADS CASA FITS mission avionics, were selected by the UAE in March 2001, but still await funding. A similar situation prevails in Brazil, which announced C-295M selection last October over the C-27J, to meet its CL-X DHC-5 replacement requirement. A $270 million contract was planned for 12 C-295Ms, plus 12 options, for delivery from late 2004. Switzerland selected two C-295Ms in December 2000 over the C-27J, but again, funding shortages resulted in program suspension in June 2001. Swiss Defense Ministry figures then quoted a program unit cost of $46.5 million for the C-295M and $71.42 million for the C-27J.

As launch customer, the Italian air force (AMI) signed a 206 million euro ($241 million) contract with Alenia in June 2002 for five C-27Js, plus seven options, for delivery from mid-2005. After competitive evaluations, the C-27J achieved its first export order from a 297 million euro ($347.4 million) Greek government contract this January for 12 Spartans, plus three options. Greek C-27Js have less advanced specifications than the AMI’s, although four will incorporate air refueling probes and systems, for initial August 2004 deliveries.

C-27J evaluations are also being made by Australia, Israel, Portugal, and Saudi Arabia. Portugal is inviting bids for up to 12 medium-lift transports, for which the C-295M has obvious location advantages for logistic and technical support over the C-27J, as well as lower acquisition and life-cycle costs. With its substantial extra power, however, the C-27J has a better field and climb performance, particularly in hot and high conditions.

By John Fricker

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/03paris/aircraft13.htm

As you can see, both have their advantages, but the price difference is quite big, it seems to me.