Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: nebnoswal on March 07, 2012, 07:39:24 PM
-
Found these today
(http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac162/nebnoswal/raaf_cj27wm2.png)
(http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac162/nebnoswal/raaf_cj27-wm.png)
-
Nice! where were those from?
It will be interesting to see what happens with the RAAF's planned C-27J acquisition now that the USAF are no longer getting theirs (this being a key part of the Australian decision). Mind you, it still makes the most sense from my perspective.
Now, to see one of those in a AC-27J layout would be nicer too.
-
Nice! where were those from?
It will be interesting to see what happens with the RAAF's planned C-27J acquisition now that the USAF are no longer getting theirs (this being a key part of the Australian decision). Mind you, it still makes the most sense from my perspective.
Now, to see one of those in a AC-27J layout would be nicer too.
When did that happen Greg ? I've missed something ----
-
When did that happen Greg ? I've missed something ----
kit': It was announced by Panetta on 26 January 2012. Alenia Aermacchi then announced that it wouldn't support any ex-USAF C-27Js sold by the US government. In other words, having lost their tie-in to the USAF supply/mtx chain, the RAAF doesn't have the option of picking up cheaper Spartans from the US either.
-
When did that happen Greg ? I've missed something ----
kit': It was announced by Panetta on 26 January 2012. Alenia Aermacchi then announced that it wouldn't support any ex-USAF C-27Js sold by the US government. In other words, having lost their tie-in to the USAF supply/mtx chain, the RAAF doesn't have the option of picking up cheaper Spartans from the US either.
So that's the Tanker contract, the trainer contract and now the transport contract, what's next ----- ;D
-
One could point out that the serial number is missing a number...Probably a 5 or a 6...still, they look great! Now if only I could get a 1/48 kit...
-
What about a single engined C-27...with a Europrop International TP400-D6 (11,000 sip) mounted in the tail in a similar arrangement to the Britten-Norman Trislander? Remove the Rolls-Royce AE 2100s (4,640 hp each) from under the wings all together.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Great_barrier_airline.jpg/797px-Great_barrier_airline.jpg)
-
Or stretch it and replace both engines with TP400s. Make it a Euro competitor to legacy C-130s in the ~16 ton category. I bet apophenia could mock up either of those proposals pretty beautifully. I know he has done C-27s before.
Cheers,
Logan
-
What about a single engined C-27...with a Europrop International TP400-D6 (11,000 sip) mounted in the tail in a similar arrangement to the Britten-Norman Trislander? Remove the Rolls-Royce AE 2100s (4,640 hp each) from under the wings all together.
It would end up looking somewhat like an Ekranoplan...
(http://www.travelcentre.com.au/travel/Aviation/Images/ekranoplan-3.jpg)
-
Yep
-
How about giving the C-27J back the STOVL/ESTOL capability originally considered for the G.222:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/new%20one/G222v1.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/new%20one/G222v2.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/new%20one/G222v3.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/new%20one/G222v4.jpg)
-
Its offical, 2 days after massive budgets cuts to the ADF, and now the govt announce they are going to purchase 10 C-27's
"The RAAF will buy 10 Alenia C-27J transports to fulfil the AIR 8000 Phase 2 Battlefield Airlifter (BFA) requirement, Defence Minister Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare have confirmed today.
The announcement – which comes just 36 hours after the 2012-13 federal budget confirmed the RAAF’s eight remaining C-130H Hercules would be retired early as part of Defence’s contribution to government’s plan to return to surplus – has been a long-time coming, with AIR 8000 being active for more than 12 years, and the previous AIR 5190 running for more than a decade before that. The BFA will fill the requirement left vacant by the retirement of the last remaining DHC-4 Caribou tactical transports in December 2009.
“The C-27J was assessed by Defence as the aircraft which best met all the essential capability requirements and provides the best value for money. It was assessed as being able to fly further, faster, higher while carrying more cargo and requiring a smaller runway than the other aircraft under consideration, the Airbus Military C295,” a ministerial statement reads.
The statement also cited RAAF claims that the C-27J can access nearly four times the number of airfields in Australia than the larger C-130J, and double the number of airfields in our wider region, as well as being able to operate into softer or unprepared fields.
The new aircraft will be based at RAAF Richmond west of Sydney with a resurrected 35SQN – which was disbanded in 1999 when Caribou operations were consolidated with 38SQN – under the command of 84WG.
The aircraft and associated spares, training and equipment will cost about $1.4 billion. The first RAAF C-27J is due to be delivered in 2015, and initial operational capability is scheduled for late 2016.
“Initial logistic support, including training for aircrew and maintenance personnel will be provided through the FMS program, utilising the system that has been established in the US,” the ministers’ statement reads. “Defence will seek a separate agreement with the C-27J manufacturer, Alenia, in order to ensure that RAAF can operate, maintain and modify the aircraft throughout its planned life.”
Australia requested pricing for 10 C-27Js through the US FMS process late last year."
-
Yes, this particular line:
This has disappointed the customer in the US. This item is extremely important to us all, as it is effectively demonstrating to the business how well the suppliers in Australia can perform. This will provide the point of reference for convincing other Procurement people in the Electronic System business that we can make the Global Supply chain work.
is very interesting when one looks at some of the fallout from the USAF C-27J cancellation...
Anyway, they will be good...pity it took them over 10yrs to get what they had originally decided upon ...
-
(http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/07/03/MC-27J%20ad%20560.jpg)
Article (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/07/c-27j-to-turn-spooky-at-farnbo.html)
-
That would look good as a National Guard a/c.
-
G.222 nacelle centreline drawings from AvWeek 19 July, 1965.
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/G222_01.png)
-
Some links for the Spartan:
C-27J Spartan web page (c27j.com) (http://www.c27j.com/)
c.27j.com - C-27J Essential Facts (http://www.c27j.com/essential-facts)
Aleniana Aermacchi C-27J Spartan Tactical Transport Aircraft (http://www.aleniana.com/c-27j-spartan-tactical-transport-aircraft)
Wikipedia - C-27 Spartan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_C-27J_Spartan)
Aeritalia G.222 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_G.222)
Wikipedia - Aeritalia(formerly Fiat Aviazione, now Alenia Aeronautica) G.222 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_G.222)
Google Search Results for C-27J Spartan (http://www.google.com/search?q=C-27+Spartan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)
Google Image Search Results for C-27J Spartan (http://www.google.com/search?q=C-27j+Spartan&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=J7h&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lcT9T6HTNILJrQHbvZiLCQ&ved=0CD8Q_AUoAQ&biw=1610&bih=1047)
***edit to include link to Wikipedia page on the G.222
-
([url]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/07/03/MC-27J%20ad%20560.jpg[/url])
Article ([url]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/07/c-27j-to-turn-spooky-at-farnbo.html[/url])
For about 20-years I've been an advocate for a more affordable 'gunship' variant of the G.222 (and the C-27J when it gestated!) for the RAAF. But I am just as adamant that it has to have the the 105mm soft-recoil howitzer of its big brother - the AC-130 Specter!! This is imperative for the 105mm through-weight and HE value against hard targets, which neither the 30mm-40mm cannon can achieve. Also without the 105mm stand-off range, the AC-27J will be made to be more vulnerable to hostile AAA and MANPAD's used by insurgence.
P.S. would very much appreciate a profile drawing of a AC-27J (with 105mm howitzer), 1 x 30-40mm cannon and 1 x 25mm rotary cannon in RAAF colours and marking ;)
M.A.D
-
Ah, but these days, the role of the 105mm has been overtaken by Hellfire or similar:
(http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/kc-130j.jpg)
-
The specific role of the 105mm M102 on-board a gunship is the destruction of vehicles and buildings. The anti-vehicle role comes from interdicting trucks on the Ho Chi Minh trail and is no longer appropriate in current counter insurgency operations due to the high level of splinters and the like. Hellfires or other guided munitions are used to destroy enemy vehicles. The house busting role has also been taken over by JDAMs dropped by strike fighters or bombers. In both cases single weapons can now be used to destroy these targets rather than a number of 105mm shells (2 per truck and 8 per house). Which leaves the gunship providing the most useful service of persistent automatic cannon and ISR support. Basically it’s like an Apache gunship but it stays overhead for eight hours and carries lots more radios, eyes and mouths to run the battle. The 105mm was to be replaced by a 120mm mortar that could fire guided shells but in the end it’s just a lot cheaper and easier to load Hellfires, Griffins and other missiles.
-
Pretty...
(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MC-27J1.jpg) (http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/18/italy-mc-27j-gunships/#.UoqfpOI6xUQ)
http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/18/italy-mc-27j-gunships/#.UoqfpOI6xUQ (http://theaviationist.com/2013/11/18/italy-mc-27j-gunships/#.UoqfpOI6xUQ)
Italy to operate a small fleet of MC-27J Praetorian gunships, special operations planes
By David Cenciotti
During the Dubai airshow 2013, Alenia Aermacchi (a Finmeccanica Company) and the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) signed an agreement to provide development, testing, certification, industrialization and logistic support of the specialized version of the MC-27J known as Praetorian.
The Praetorian, is a specialized version of the MC-27J, that will support missions for the Italian Special Forces, Comando Operativo Forze Speciali (COFS).
Among the supported configurations one of the most interesting is the Fire Support one, that sees a Spartan cargo plane transformed into a Gunship (a mini-AC-130 Spectre) equipped with a side GAU-23 30 mm gun.
Still, of particular interest for the Italian Air Force are those that envisage the Spartan equipped with Communications Intelligence (COMINT), EO/IR (Electro optical/Infra-red) sensors for ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance), Border Surveillance, Command and Control missions.
“The Italian Air Force plan to transform three C-27J’s, currently in service, into the Praetorian configuration during 2016 and will include mission systems, C3ISR equipment and palletized support / fire systems. An additional three aircraft will also have the same mission package capabilities,” an Alenia Aermacchi press release explains.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Love the Praetorian name.
-
Love the Praetorian name.
Bags of scope for whiffed Roman Legion colour schemes. :)
-
Love the Praetorian name.
Eagle and "SPQR" plaque from the Legions' standards on the vertical tail?
-
Anybody got any information on the proposed ASW version?
Wasn't there also an ECM version?
-
Two C-27J variants apparently under study:
An early AEW variant:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/E27J.jpg)
And a stretched variant:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/S27J.jpg)
-
Some more EC-27Js:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps0a6ca4b4.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpsb0b2af59.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps01c63796.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps4984eca0.jpg)
-
And this
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpsa4053101.jpg)
-
There needs to be a kit of this in The ONE True ScaleTM (1/48) so that I can make a quad tiltrotor from it.
-
The Italeri 1/72 kit is quite decent -- got one in the stash and it has lots of potential -- It's too short for a QTR though (already had a look at that)
-
What's a 'QTR' please Robert?
-
What's a 'QTR' please Robert?
Quad Tilt Rotor Kit, using rotors from a V-22 I found you need at least a Transall for length, in 1/72 scale the rotors measure 6" (152mm) in diameter so you need 6 1/8" between each engine nacelle when in the vertical. The C-27 just doesn't have the length ---
-
maybe the blades could overlap?
-
maybe the blades could overlap?
All the rotors would have to be ""geared"" then gingie, so that they stay syncronized. I know they are all connected if an engine fails, but the rotors still 'free' spin.
-
There needs to be a kit of this in The ONE True ScaleTM (1/48) so that I can make a quad tiltrotor from it.
Amen brother!(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss346/thespi21/smileys/1lg147amen-1.gif)
-
There needs to be a kit of this in The ONE True ScaleTM (1/48) so that I can make a quad tiltrotor from it.
Amen brother!([url]http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss346/thespi21/smileys/1lg147amen-1.gif[/url])
the older people get and the more their eye sight worsens the more convert you get
-
the older people get and the more their eye sight worsens the more convert you get
I still build 1/144 scale airliners, and I've only ever built one 1/48 scale model in my whole life, and I'm one of the oldest on here. :) :D
-
Quad Tilt Rotor Kit, using rotors from a V-22 I found you need at least a Transall for length, in 1/72 scale the rotors measure 6" (152mm) in diameter so you need 6 1/8" between each engine nacelle when in the vertical. The C-27 just doesn't have the length ---
What is the usable fuselage length for the C-27? Would it be possible to clip the rotor diameter back a skosh and make them fit? Or perhaps go with a longer forward wing or drastically alter the sweep of both wings to get the needed separation of the rotors?
-
Quad Tilt Rotor Kit, using rotors from a V-22 I found you need at least a Transall for length, in 1/72 scale the rotors measure 6" (152mm) in diameter so you need 6 1/8" between each engine nacelle when in the vertical. The C-27 just doesn't have the length ---
What is the usable fuselage length for the C-27? Would it be possible to clip the rotor diameter back a skosh and make them fit? Or perhaps go with a longer forward wing or drastically alter the sweep of both wings to get the needed separation of the rotors?
I'll have to find the kit now, I had a tidy-up in the hobby room and I put it in a box ---- now which one was it ---- :-X
-
The pictures of the Navy liveried AEW aircraft got me thinking, could the C-27 fit on a Carrier? Common AEW and COD aircraft perhaps? ASW as well?
-
A C-130 does, or did, so why not C-27?
-
maybe the blades could overlap?
All the rotors would have to be ""geared"" then gingie, so that they stay syncronized. I know they are all connected if an engine fails, but the rotors still 'free' spin.
I was thinking overlapping, not in the intermeshed//same plane over lap, but the rear pair mounted higher that the front pair, like how a CH46/47 have the rear rotor mounted higher, maybe the hole rear wing or engine mount could be built the same way? Or does that still reqr synch?
-
maybe the blades could overlap?
All the rotors would have to be ""geared"" then gingie, so that they stay syncronized. I know they are all connected if an engine fails, but the rotors still 'free' spin.
I was thinking overlapping, not in the intermeshed//same plane over lap, but the rear pair mounted higher that the front pair, like how a CH46/47 have the rear rotor mounted higher, maybe the hole rear wing or engine mount could be built the same way? Or does that still reqr synch?
It certainly does with a Chinook, maybe because the blades droop so much at low rotor speeds that there's still a chance they'd smite each other in mid-rotate some time.
-
I was thinking overlapping, not in the intermeshed//same plane over lap, but the rear pair mounted higher that the front pair, like how a CH46/47 have the rear rotor mounted higher, maybe the hole rear wing or engine mount could be built the same way? Or does that still reqr synch?
On the QTR below (top pic), the rear engines are higher and wider gingie, bottom pic shows a plan view
-
The pictures of the Navy liveried AEW aircraft got me thinking, could the C-27 fit on a Carrier? Common AEW and COD aircraft perhaps? ASW as well?
I like your thinking! :)
-
Replace props with Jets ala Do328...or maybe even go overwing ala An-72/74/YC-14...or put podded RR Pegasus engines... :icon_fsm:
-
A couple of Bristol notions that could be applied to the G.222:
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/BRISTOL_208_224_01.png)
-
I was thinking overlapping, not in the intermeshed//same plane over lap, but the rear pair mounted higher that the front pair, like how a CH46/47 have the rear rotor mounted higher, maybe the hole rear wing or engine mount could be built the same way? Or does that still reqr synch?
I've been giving this some thought, if the rear rotors are set higher than the fronts there will be problems when the nacelles are turned into airplane mode, the prop circles will collide as the rotors of the rear engines turn down and the front ones turn up, the two arcs will intersect. However, if the 'front' rotor is set higher, this doesn't happen ---
-
([url]http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/BRISTOL_208_224_01.png[/url])
Bloody hell Jon! , that u/c arrangement looks like what I've done here --
-
A C-130 does, or did, so why not C-27?
True but I was thinking more along the lines of "fit on a carrier with all the other aircraft," Kit. ;)
-
A C-130 does, or did, so why not C-27?
True but I was thinking more along the lines of "fit on a carrier with all the other aircraft," Kit. ;)
I'm not at all certain they'd be able to strike below deck without a bunch of alterations including, but not limited to, folding wings and a folding vertical tail. I could see a "kneeling" landing gear, too.
-
A C-130 does, or did, so why not C-27?
True but I was thinking more along the lines of "fit on a carrier with all the other aircraft," Kit. ;)
I'm not at all certain they'd be able to strike below deck without a bunch of alterations including, but not limited to, folding wings and a folding vertical tail. I could see a "kneeling" landing gear, too.
Maybe not below decks but folding wings and in the deck park....
-
Random Internet find:
(http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?app=downloads&module=display§ion=screenshot&id=1949)
-
Coincidently while at the LMS yesterday, I was considering whether to buy the Italeri G.222 they had right next to a C-27 boxing (got one of those already)
-
First RAAF C-27J:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/20131210dmo000-1-630_zpsb7e88d70.jpg)
-
Very pretty. Looks almost Brazilian with those colors. By the way, your links are no good.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Hence why I removed them.
-
Unusual colour for a RAAF tactical aircraft....
-
Not necessarily…
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Hercules-A97-008/GC_2A97_009.jpg)
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Hercules-A97-008/GC_2A97_008_Amberley_October_2008.jpg)
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Hercules-A97-008/Hercules_A97_008_Amberley_4th_October_2008.jpg)
-
The C-27J appears darker to my eye, which was what I was remarking on. Perhaps it just needs some time in the antipodean sun?
I note that Janes doesn't know it's Australian Geography. Can you pick the mistake? ;)
http://www.janes.com/article/31772/maiden-flight-for-australia-s-c-27j-spartan-airlifter (http://www.janes.com/article/31772/maiden-flight-for-australia-s-c-27j-spartan-airlifter)
-
(http://www.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-US/Media/Lists/PhotogalleryHomePageStructureList/C-27J%20RAAF_1st%20flight_19-12-2013_3.jpg)
-
I note that Janes doesn't know it's Australian Geography. Can you pick the mistake? ;)
Nah! They just don't know when to keep quiet about top secret installations such as the "other" RAAF Richmond …the one in South Australia ;)
-
The C-27J appears darker to my eye, which was what I was remarking on.
Not sure but I think it might be the lighting conditions or even possible filters the photographer has applied. In some cases the RAAF C-130s can appear a lot darker too (click on image to see close up):
(http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2008/nov/20081106/20081101raaf8144078_0207.jpg)
-
I note that Janes doesn't know it's Australian Geography. Can you pick the mistake? ;)
Nah! They just don't know when to keep quiet about top secret installations such as the "other" RAAF Richmond …the one in South Australia ;)
Bah! To 98 % of the world's population, everything in Australia is "south"! ;)
-
I note that Janes doesn't know it's Australian Geography. Can you pick the mistake? ;)
Nah! They just don't know when to keep quiet about top secret installations such as the "other" RAAF Richmond …the one in South Australia ;)
Bah! To 98 % of the world's population, everything in Australia is "south"! ;)
Really?
(http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/mcarthur-large.jpg)
;D ;D
-
The C-27J appears darker to my eye, which was what I was remarking on.
Not sure but I think it might be the lighting conditions or even possible filters the photographer has applied. In some cases the RAAF C-130s can appear a lot darker too (click on image to see close up):
Thing is, it's obviously a bright day in the picture of the C-27J. I'm well aware that what comes out of a lot of cameras, digital and wet-film is pretty subjective and what appears on the computer screen as well but it definitely appears darker than the C-130s, Greg.
-
I note that Janes doesn't know it's Australian Geography. Can you pick the mistake? ;)
Nah! They just don't know when to keep quiet about top secret installations such as the "other" RAAF Richmond …the one in South Australia ;)
Ah, yes, the other RAAF Richmond, which is spelt "Edinburgh"? While it actually makes sense for the RAAF to station it's tactical transport squadron next to the new Army "superbase", I somehow thing the flyboys might not like being separated from the bright lights of Sydney. ;D
-
Nope, not Edinburgh nor Woomera (know both of those very well from personal experience)...the secret one...
-
I note that Janes doesn't know it's Australian Geography. Can you pick the mistake? ;)
Nah! They just don't know when to keep quiet about top secret installations such as the "other" RAAF Richmond …the one in South Australia ;)
Bah! To 98 % of the world's population, everything in Australia is "south"! ;)
Really?
([url]http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/mcarthur-large.jpg[/url])
;D ;D
Ah, finally the map that is correctly aligned with the rest of the Universe...
-
The C-27J appears darker to my eye, which was what I was remarking on.
Not sure but I think it might be the lighting conditions or even possible filters the photographer has applied. In some cases the RAAF C-130s can appear a lot darker too (click on image to see close up):
Thing is, it's obviously a bright day in the picture of the C-27J. I'm well aware that what comes out of a lot of cameras, digital and wet-film is pretty subjective and what appears on the computer screen as well but it definitely appears darker than the C-130s, Greg.
Looking at the shadows it might be getting latish in the day ...
-
Or early... ;D
-
Supposedly the C-130J and the new RAAF C-27J are both the same colour greys: Dark Grey FS36099 and Blue Grey FS-35237.
-
Supposedly the C-130J and the new RAAF C-27J are both the same colour greys: Dark Grey FS36099 and Blue Grey FS-35237.
Age and lighting then, I'd suggest. The C-27J is fresh from the paint shop (more or less) while the C-130s are a little older and a little more faded.
-
Most likely.
-
I do like the dark grey scheme on the new RAAF C-27Js:
(https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/images/Aircraft/Air-Force-declares-Initial-Operating-Capability-for-the-C-27J-Spartan.jpg)
-
Smooth. kind of like the USAF spec ops scheme. nice :smiley:
-
Classic shot:
(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/20170926raaf8558864_136.jpg)
-
Random inspiration:
(https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C5622AQFv3KH545qAdw/feedshare-shrink_1280/0/1636954285835?e=1639612800&v=beta&t=u5ngemGo3Idw4n9iw52tOuPQUb59q2nHVFBdAyLSW3A)
(https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C5622AQHzCDYADZLXWw/feedshare-shrink_1280/0/1636954285638?e=1639612800&v=beta&t=OjtFNULKpnMsjbS_vM1bTZtTLCpqBCA-aQ-PPwLeYhc)
-
Is this activity of a mass aircraft take-off called a Kangaroo Walk?
-
Funny man!!
-
Is this activity of a mass aircraft take-off called a Kangaroo Walk?
Not a Wallaby Waddle?
-
Ooooh! so that's where all the C-27J's went ----- ;D
-
Is this activity of a mass aircraft take-off called a Kangaroo Walk?
Not a Wallaby Waddle?
This is a much better analogy Jeff. ;D
-
You guys are probably all to well aware of this, but the RAAF's C-27J fleet has been redesigned from 'tactical airlifters' to the primarily role of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) operations.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.janes.com/amp/raaf-redefines-role-of-c-27j-spartan-fleet-to-focus-primarily-on-hadr-operations/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2 (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.janes.com/amp/raaf-redefines-role-of-c-27j-spartan-fleet-to-focus-primarily-on-hadr-operations/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2)
After all that on again, off again effort....
MAD
-
There is some talk of the RAAF doubling its C-130J fleet which might see the C-27Js retired. They have not had a happy life to date. Mind you, if the RAAF gets rid of them do they perhaps get donated to regional nations thus giving some options for what's...Fijian C-27J anyone? Maybe PNGAF? Others...?
-
Maybe the US Coast Guard would pick up a few more.
Why are these perfectly good aircraft causing so much trouble for USAF and RAAF? I know, probably politics.
Poly means many and tick is a blood sucking arachnid.
-
No not politics as far as I am aware but sustainment issues as I understand it. There are also problems sourcing spares for some items.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/beginning-of-the-end-for-spartan (https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/beginning-of-the-end-for-spartan)
-
No not politics as far as I am aware but sustainment issues as I understand it. There are also problems sourcing spares for some items.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/beginning-of-the-end-for-spartan (https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/beginning-of-the-end-for-spartan)
Another orphan platform but this one was thanks entirely to the USAF. It was an Army program, the USAF gained control of it then killed it, effectively wiping out the FMS supported global fleet Australia was buying into.
-
No not politics as far as I am aware but sustainment issues as I understand it. There are also problems sourcing spares for some items.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/beginning-of-the-end-for-spartan (https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/beginning-of-the-end-for-spartan)
Another orphan platform but this one was thanks entirely to the USAF. It was an Army program, the USAF gained control of it then killed it, effectively wiping out the FMS supported global fleet Australia was buying into.
Not that simple, support from Leonardo (formerly Alenia) has been an ongoing problem for other customers
of other products. It's been messy for a long time and evidently the various reorganizations haven't made
much of a difference.
-
One more:
(https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C5622AQEI0h_AqJ3YUg/feedshare-shrink_1280/0/1637559899523?e=1640217600&v=beta&t=7zH4whpYOpgMr9hqpOJuoM7pd4MNIN0V6bXa9Sm3gK4)