|
Part 1 of 2
AIR 5190 is the Defence project
for acquisition of aircraft to succeed the DHC-4 Caribou short takeoff
and landing (STOL) transports. The search for a new aircraft commenced
in the mid-1970s and since then numerous types of light transport
aircraft (LTA) have been proposed by industry. Some of these LTA have
been assessed and found largely suitable but the project has continued
without apparent resolution. Major causes of delay have been the
customary iterative discussions between Defence and industry,
consideration of aircraft not yet proven in service, and the difficulty
of maintaining agreement on a target specification within Defence. An
aggravating factor has been the intense annual competition for
allocation of provisional funding.
Recently as announced in Defence White Paper 2000 (DWP2000), planning
for AIR 5190 has been revised. The Caribous are to receive an austere
refurbishment to extend their life-of-type until about 2010 when they
will be replaced. But though AIR 5190 seems set to continue on a slow
and tortuous course, early replacement of the Caribou is probable. This
article reviews ADF airlift and the history of AIR 5190, examines the
characteristics of the short listed contenders and assesses the likely
outcome of the project.
ADF Airlift in the 20th Century
The DHC-4 Caribou was developed by de Havilland Canada with an emphasis
on STOL capabilities to enable use of short, confined and rudimentary
airstrips with soft and rough surfaces and in wet conditions. First
flight of the prototype was in July 1958 and production ended in 1973
with some 300 aircraft delivered. These included 29 to the Royal
Australian Air Force (RAAF) and 159 to the US Army. Service with Air
Force commenced in 1964 with delivery of 18 aircraft from an order
placed in May 1963. An additional seven aircraft were delivered in 1966
and a final four between 1968 and 1971. Three were lost without crew
fatalities in South Vietnam: one crashed on landing, one ditched and one
destroyed by mortar fire.
Caribou over Dili (Defence)
Currently 14 Caribou are in service with 38 Squadron with some of the
off-lined seven in reserve for attrition and cannibalising. In other
countries only 10 Caribou continue in military use: two in Costa Rica,
two in Liberia and six in Malaysia (plus several in reserve). The main
factors leading to retirement of the DHC-4 by other armed forces have
been the maintenance and fuel needs of its 14-cylinder twin-row radial
piston engines, lack of pressurisation of the cargo cabin, and the
capabilities of more modern turbine-powered aircraft.
To complement the Caribou in light tactical airlift, the ADF has six
Boeing Vertol CH-47D Chinook helicopters. The Chinook's rear ramp and
cabin - length 9.2m, minimum width 2.28m, minimum height 1.98m with an
upper corner radius maximum of 39cm - are well sized and it can load
standard 463L pallets or a 4x4 Perentie light truck (height reduced).
The lift capability of the Chinook also results in its frequent use as a
flying crane. For this role it has triple hooks for multiple slings and
pendulum-inhibiting. The main hook is rated at 12.7 tonnes, and the
forward and rear hooks are each rated at nine tonnes. In clean condition
the Chinook has a maximum cruise speed at low altitude of 155kt, a
service ceiling in or out of ground effect of less than 15,000ft and a
normal operating radius of less than 300 nautical miles (nm). Hence as a
transport it is less effective and more vulnerable than similar capacity
fixed wing aircraft except in circumstances where hover or vertical
takeoff and landing (VTOL) capabilities are required.
CH-47 with bulldozer (Army)
ADF airlift also has 68 utility helicopters: 25 Bell UH-1H Iroquois'
and 36 Sikorsky S-70A-9 Blackhawks operated by Army, and 7 Westland Mk
50 Seakings operated by Navy. These helicopters have sling lift
capabilities of about 1.5, 3.6 and 2.7 tonnes respectively but all lack
a cargo ramp and hence are generally unsuitable for line-haul freighting.
Moving up in capacity, Air Force has twelve Lockheed C-130H Hercules
freighters with supplementary underwing fuel-tanks which have been in
service as medium tactical transports since 1978. They are complemented
by twelve C-130J-30 delivered in 1999 and 2000 under project AIR 5216
Strategic Airlift Capability as replacements for C-130E aircraft that
had been primarily used for long-range freighting. The C-130J-30 has a
fuselage stretched by fifteen feet to provide more space for low-density
loads. Due mainly to higher power from its engines and propellers, it
has better short field performance than the C-130H. Similar to the
Caribou all versions of the Hercules freighter have reversible pitch
propellers for use while manoeuvring on the ground and for routine
braking during the landing run. If conditions permit use of aggressive
profiles and maximum engine power and braking, then normal takeoff and
landing runs and distances can be usefully reduced. The takeoff and
landing figures for both the C-130H and C-130J-30 can be further reduced
by carrying a light load and limited fuel but neither can match the STOL
performance of the Caribou with its normal maximum load. See Table 1.
C-130Hs in the Blue Mountains (Defence)
PB1996-2000 described the project as AIR 5401 Medium Tactical Airlift
Capability. It showed acquisition of aircraft as Phase 1 to be completed
by 2004/05 in the cost category $500m - $1000m, and added Phase 2 as
acquisition of a flight simulator in the cost category $20m - $200m.
Provisional arrangements made at the time of signing for the C-130J-30s
included no-cost options for acquisition of up to 26 more J-model
freighters: 12 or more C-130J-30s or C-130Js, up to six KC-130Js, and
for New Zealand up to eight C-130J to succeed its five C-130Hs and two
Boeing 727-100 transports. These options were later reported to apply
until 2002.
The KC-130J is a dual role freighter/tanker with integral plumbing plus
a palletised ancillary tank and underwing dispensing pods for
hose-drogue refuelling of slow flying aircraft. The standard body C-130J
and KC-130J are less likely to incur tail-scrape during short field
operations so it seemed that from about 2005 the ADF Hercules fleet
might comprise for example and at most: twelve C-130J-30, twelve C-130J
and six KC-130J; or on a one-for-one replacement basis: twelve C-130J-30
and twelve C-130J with some of the latter in KC-configuration.
The KC-130J was of special interest to the ADF because continuance and
expansion of the ADF air-to-air refuelling (AAR) capability was being
separately studied in project AIR 5402. During the 1970s and 1980s, Air
Force acquired six ex-airline Boeing 707-338C passenger jets. One was
destroyed in an accident with the loss of its crew, one continued as a
VIP transport, and from 1988 to 1991 four were partially converted into
strategic tanker/transports. In the conversion the under-floor hold of
each 707-338C may have been fitted with tanks so that its total load
could comprise fuel for transfer. However - due to what was officially
described as concerns for international political sensitivity - the 707s
were fitted only with underwing hose-drogue dispensing pods for AAR of
probe-equipped aircraft such as the F/A-18 fighter, and not with an
extendable tailboom for refuelling receptacle receivers such as the
F-111 strike fighter. Also but for reasons of economy, the upper deck
side-loading door (3.35m x 2.28m) was not lengthened for alternate
transport of large pallets. Hence the secondary transport capability is
limited to troops and 463L size pallets and containers. A full-flight
simulator was ordered later in a phase of project AIR 5369. This was
much delayed and the simulator was not delivered until late-1998.
Boeing 707-338C refuelling F/A-18A (Defence)
AIR 5402 first appeared in PB1996-2000. Its scope was described as
enhancement of the ADF's AAR capability in two phases. Phase 1 was
initial aircraft acquisition in the cost category $200m - $500m to be
expended from 1999/00 - 2003/04. Phase 2 was a follow-on acquisition
phase in the cost category $20m - $200m with expenditure from 2000/01 -
2004/05. Capital investment funds are limited and each generation of
aircraft tends to be replaced by a similar or smaller number of
successors. With provisional allocation on a project by project basis it
was likely that funds earmarked for AIR 5402 would provide only four or
five aircraft of about the same size as the 707s. A force of five
tanker/transports is generally regarded as the minimum needed to
maintain two in refuelling orbits, supported by two in transit or on the
ground and one in off-line maintenance. AIR 5402 Phase 1 might cover
system items, a flight simulator and three tanker/transports; and Phase
2 would acquire two more.
PB1996-2000 included another new project associated with AAR: AIR 5403
Noise Reduction for Boeing 707 Aircraft. It was described as acquisition
of engine hushkits to comply with international and national noise
regulations. The cost category was $20m - $200m with expenditure from
1997/98 - 1999/00. There was no mention of airframe refurbishment or
avionics modernisation. Taken in conjunction with AIR 5402 the apparent
purpose was to retain the 707-338s for only an interim period.
In order to obtain more and more modern AAR capability as an enabler
and force-multiplier for patrol, fighter and transport aircraft, it was
possible that Defence would look to its other airlift project, AIR 5401
the C-130H upgrade and replacement. The fuel offload-radius capability
of the KC-130J is inevitably lower than that of aircraft designed to
operate only from paved runways. Also strategic tanker/transports are
commonly large aircraft but the KC-130J has a useful capability
especially when only short airstrips are available. This combined with
concern to arrange for surge during a crisis or conflict situation
indicated that some J-model Hercules' acquired under AIR 5401 would be
KC-130Js in accordance with the option arranged under AIR 5216.
Industry sources estimate the flyaway cost of a new C-130J at $US65m to
$US70m. The more expensive KC-130J configuration is able to transfer
more than 20 tonnes of fuel at a radius of 1,000nm, increasable during
an emergency or conflict to about 30 tonnes at overload maximum all-up
weight. As an approximation, the flyaway cost of a young but outmoded
airline jet converted into a medium-weight tanker/transport and able to
transfer 40 to 50 tonnes of fuel at a radius of 2,000nm is about 125%
that of a new KC-130J. The flyaway cost of a similarly converted heavy
tanker/transport with an offload of 80 to 90 tonnes at 2,000nm is
approximately 175% of a new KC-130J. These ratios can be used also as a
low estimate of the system cost of introducing each one of a new type of
aircraft relative to the system cost of incrementing the number of
J-model Hercules.
Despite the low exchange rate of the $A, the scale of funds earmarked
for AIR 5402 was sufficient for acquisition of five refurbished
medium-weight tanker/transports, and almost sufficient for four
medium-weight brand-new tanker/transports. It seemed unlikely that AIR
5402 would directly acquire the KC-130J but the approximate cost
category was sufficient for five. Acquisition of three heavy
tanker/transports was a remote possibility. A bigger problem in terms of
declared scope and cost category was AIR 5401. If the twelve C-130H were
to be replaced on a one-for-one basis by the C-130J, then expenditure
for Phase 1 would be more than 50 percent above the Pink Book cost
category. If additional funds could not be obtained, then AIR 5401 might
acquire at least six C-130J or KC-130J and fund extensive refurbishment
of six C-130H.
Summarising the above paragraphs and using all planning outlines
released for projects AIR 5401 and 5402 through until 1996, the ADF in
about 2005 might have - or might have had - the following transport
aircraft in addition to its LTA:
| Option A |
4
medium T/T |
12
x C-130J-30 |
6
x C-130H |
6
x KC-130J |
| Option
A+ |
4
medium T/T |
12
x C-130J-30 |
6
x C-130J |
6
x KC-130J |
Similar expenditures
could have delivered for example:
| Option
B |
3
heavy T/T |
12
x C-130J-30 |
6
x C-130H |
6
x KC-130J |
| Option
B+ |
3 heavy T/T |
12
x C-130J-30 |
6
x C-130J |
6
x KC-130J |
| Option
C |
5
x KC-130J |
12
x C-130J-30 |
6
x C-130H |
6
x KC-130J |
| Option
C+ |
5
x KC-130J |
12
x C-130J-30 |
6
x C-130J |
6
x KC-130J |
The competitive costs tendered for acquisition or lease might vary
substantially from the estimates used in this summary. Depending also on
funding, many other options could be developed and some would be more
practical than Options A through C+. But this was the general context of
airlift planning in the mid-1990s. It was in this context that the study
for an aircraft to replace the capability of the Caribou began to move
more rapidly.
Development of Air 5190
The formal search for a successor to the DHC-4 Caribou began in 1976
when the Government initiated a project development including an
industry feasibility study. As described in DWP1976, the purpose of the
study was to obtain responses from manufacturers interested in
development of an existing or new aircraft type to satisfy Australia's
need for a tactical fixed-wing short range transport aircraft in the
mid-1980s. The study received many responses from industry.
One of the leading contenders was the DHC-5 Buffalo designed as a STOL
turboprop successor to the Caribou with a pressurised cabin sized for
463L pallets and bigger vehicles. The Buffalo was designed also to
complement the Chinook and the two aircraft have similar cabin
dimensions. The US Army did not acquire the Buffalo and instead
standardised on the Chinook. With a takeoff weight of about 19 tonnes
the Buffalo can lift a payload of 5.5 tonnes from a 300m rough airstrip.
At 22 tonnes all-up, this increases to 8 tonnes from a 600m prepared
airstrip. It also carries these loads faster, higher and further than
the Caribou.
In late-1978 it was reported that the LTA study was being stopped due
to pressure on the Defence budget and because no proposal fully
satisfied the draft specification especially in regard to
part-manufacture or assembly in Australia. Instead the Caribou
life-of-type was to be extended and subject to fatigue studies the
aircraft would continue in service into the late-1980s.
At some time in the late-1970s or early-1980s, the continuing study for
a successor to the Caribou received the serial AIR 5190. During the
1980s it was reported that the Canadians would seek to provide
refurbished DHC-5 Buffalos to succeed the Caribou, and new-build utility
helicopters for project AIR 87 (troop lift component since moved to AIR
5046) offset against acquisition of three or four Collins-class fleet
submarines for their Navy. However this prospect evaporated due in part
to development problems with the Collins-class. Also large expenditure
was already committed or expected throughout the 1980s for acquisition
of F/A-18 fighters, S-70A-9 helicopters and PC-9 trainers, and
conversion of the 707-338s.
Pallet with trailer and stores being extracted from C-130 (Defence)
Planned expenditure on aircraft in the 1990s included that for
acquisition of the C-130J-30 freighters, CH-47D helicopters and Hawk 127
lead-in-fighter/trainers, and for upgrade of P-3C maritime
patrol/anti-submarine aircraft and F-111C and F-111G strike fighters. In
1990 it was reported that a rationalisation study for ADF air transport
needs had recommended extension of the Caribou life-of-type to about
2000 pending examination of three options. The options were described -
without comment on relative capability or cost - as acquisition of
either eight more C-130H freighters, thirty more S-70A-9 helicopters or
ten to twelve light fixed-wing transports. The next White Paper
(DWP1994) noted that options to replace the Caribou capability were
being reviewed in an Airlift Study and included fixed and rotary wing
aircraft. Also in 1994/95, Defence included AIR 5190 as an unapproved
project in the Pink Book.
The publicly released version of PB1995-1999 described AIR 5190 as a
light tactical airlift capability (LTAC) for acquisition of LTA to
maintain the capability provided by the Caribou. The cost category was
shown as more than $200m scheduled from 1997/98 to 2003/04 with a
1996/97 Year of Decision (YOD). This meant that a joint military/public
service project team would prepare a more detailed feasibility and
acquisition strategy and plan for comment within Defence. If review
confirmed that the project could lead to a cost-effective solution, then
the plan would be refined and - depending upon other provisional
expenditure and priorities - might in that YOD be recommended to and
approved by Government. Typically the plan would have four main steps:
Invitation to Register Interest (ITR), short-listing of potential
suppliers, formulation of a Request For Tender (RFT) followed by
competitive selection. Less frequently a plan commences with a Request
for Proposal (RFP) from a selected supplier or suppliers. Subject again
to Government approval a contract might then be signed and thereafter
funds would be obtained from the defence vote as approved in the annual
budget. The project could be halted at any time prior to signature
without prejudice to the Commonwealth.
Also in 1995/1996, Defence was reviewing its latest Airlift Study which
had as a major issue the needs of the Army 21 reorganisation. All
options for tactical airlift must have been re-visited and examined in
detail. Despite or as a result of recommendations from the Airlift
Study, the entry for AIR 5190 was expanded in PB1996-2000 to show two
concurrent phases: acquisition of LTA, cost category $200m - $500m; and
acquisition of a full-flight/mission simulator, category 4, $20m -
$200m; each with an Integrated Logistic Support system. The YOD and
expenditure timeframes were slipped by one year. However, commencement
of both phases was approved by Government in December 1996 as part of
its new initiatives.
Advancing to mid-1997 the annual Defence budget and activity report
papers recorded that ADF airlift resources had been heavily tasked
during 1996-97, particularly the Caribou on international drought relief
operations in Papua and Irian Jaya. They noted also that C-130 aircraft
had underflown allocated training and support hours due to involvement
in and standby for contingency operations. The same papers revealed that
the flying cost per hour of the Blackhawks had been only marginally
below that of the Chinooks. This may have been due to Chinooks also
being held on standby. Comparative figures were not provided for the
Caribou and C-130. Statistics can be inadvertently distorted, however
there were consistent rumours that operational costs for the Caribou
were approximately the same per flying hour as for the C-130H. Even if
distorted it was apparent that the Caribou needed a high level of engine
maintenance. Also it had become the only ADF airlifter still using AVGAS
which is more costly and difficult to handle than turbine fuel. Anyway
and although the Caribou provided lesser capabilities, it was apparently
regarded as indispensable and so had to be kept flying.
Also in mid-1997 another Pink Book was issued. PB1997-2001 listed AIR
5190 as an approved project with two phases and no further details. For
other airlift it included a revised entry for AIR 5401 Medium Tactical
Airlift Capability. AIR 5401 Phase 1 was now to replace or refurbish the
C-130H fleet in a cost category $500m - $1000m, expended from 1999/00 to
2003/04; Phase 2 was to replace or refurbish the C-130H simulator in a
cost category $20m - $200m, expended from 1999/00 to 2002/03. The entry
for AIR 5402 ADF Air Refuelling Capability had also been revised. Phase
1 was described as enhancement of the existing AAR capability
incorporating the AIR 5403 Noise Reduction for B707 Proposal, with a
cost category of $500m - $1000m, to be expended as previously from
1999/00 to 2003/04. Phase 2 was not mentioned.
January 1997 and the ITR
A world-wide ITR for AIR 5190 was issued in January 1997. It was
followed by a 12 February industry briefing in Canberra for potential
primes, their already selected and would-be partners and
sub-contractors, and the media. Objectives specified for the ITR process
were to:
- provide information to industry for formation of teams;
- identify potential prime contractors, candidate aircraft
and any modifications to meet essential criteria and required in-service
date;
- determine potential for Australian and New Zealand Industry
involvement:
- obtain initial risk and schedule estimates, and key
parameters affecting life-cycle costs for the project
- draft the RFT specification.
The ITR included standard caveats and a disclaimer. Requirements could
be varied at any time before requesting tender responses from industry.
The proposed acquisition process could be varied at any time. Companies
that did not respond to the ITR could be included in later acquisition
processes. The project would not necessarily proceed. No financial
support would be provided for expenditure in connection with the ITR.
The main criteria specified for ITR short-listing were: the aircraft
capability requirement; company management and finance including
organisation with current and prospective teaming; track record on
complex projects, technical and financial risk and mitigation
strategies; and technical and design authorised contractor
accreditations. Additional information to be supplied for early
development of the RFT included: prospective delivery schedule; flyaway
cost in 1996 dollars; intellectual property; export restrictions; plan
for Australian Industry Involvement (AII); current accredited aircraft
performance; engineering processes involved in aircraft structure and
fatigue design and testing; reliability, availability and maintenance
parameters for repair and failure; logistics support analysis;
life-cycle costing; logistics support - training; follow-on support; and
for Phase 2, provision of a flight simulator upgradeable for tactical
mission training.
The closing date for potential primes was 16 April 1997, and the draft
schedule subject to Government approvals was release of RFT in
late-1997, RFT closing date unspecified, contract signature in
early-1999, and aircraft delivery 2000-2001. After short-listing,
development of draft and final versions of the RFT would involve only
the project office and short-listed primes. So the ITR and industry
briefing have to be relied on for general details of the capability
requirements. Tag G indicates provided as guidance; E, essential for
compliance; I, important and should be provided; and D, desirable
provided supply represents value for money. Double brackets have been
used to distinguish expansion from the general content of the ITR and
briefing.
| General: |
| G |
acquire
12 to 18 aircraft for airborne and air-land operations; ((prime
to propose number adequate to satisfy overall capability
requirement)) |
| G |
provide
concurrency, accessibility and regional considerations; fill
capability gap between Hercules and Chinook; soft footprint,
STOL and austere operating ability to essentially maintain
capability provided by Caribou; |
| E |
aircraft
currently certified or a variant thereof, and either currently
or after modification fully compliant with the essential
capability requirements. |
| Configuration,
Airframe and Engines: |
| G |
fixed-wing,
rotary wing or derivative; wing in high or mid position; |
| E |
rear
cargo ramp and door; |
| I |
turbine
powered using military grade AVTUR fuel; |
| I |
built-in
protection against combat damage, redundant flight critical
systems; |
| D |
two
paratroop doors. |
| Cockpit
and Avionics: |
| E |
controllable
by one pilot in all phases of flight; lighting/displays for
visual unaided night operations and compatible with Generation
III Night Vision Glasses (Gen3 NVG); |
| E |
provision
for air-air and air-ground radios, electronic warfare systems,
data recorders; ((equipment furnished by government and other
contractors)) |
| I |
pressurised; |
| D |
maximum
of two crew; air-conditioned; radar with weather and ground
mapping modes, global positioning system (GPS), independent
passive navigation such as inertial, and flight management
system. |
| Cabin
and Roles: |
| E |
paratrooping
with static line, freefall, high altitude low opening (HALO),
HAHO; |
| E |
compatible
with Army litters and Mobile Intensive Care Resuscitation
Facility; |
| E |
airdropping;
((parachute supported bundles, compacts and other containers,
pallets and platforms with vehicles/boats/cargo, some
unsupported items)) |
| I |
pressurised; |
| D |
airdrop
of stores by parachute extracted platforms; ((large/heavy
pallets/platforms: includes supported and unsupported such as
Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES) to deliver
cushioned/uncushioned load from a height of 2-3 metres)) |
| D |
air-conditioned;
lighting compatible with Gen 3 NVG. |
| Loads: |
| E |
platoon-size
element of 30 fully equipped troops (118kg) or operational
paratroops (136kg), (seat width 24in; admin order 30+ at 20in /
95kg), 3,600kg or 4,100kg; |
| E |
aero-medical
evacuation (AME) equipped with 4 litter patients and one
attendant, 1,000kg; |
| E |
Perentie
6x6 Long Range Patrol Vehicle (LRPV), driven on/off, length
6.02m, width 2.14m, height 2.15m reducible to 1.57m, operational
weight range with 45 minutes fuel reserve: |
| D |
sustained
cruise of 220kt at optimum altitude and 90% max AUW; ((takeoff
weight)) |
| D |
service
ceiling at max AUW of 5,300ft with one engine inoperative; |
| E |
radius
of action at least 350nm flying a HI-LO-LO-HI mission profile
with low level legs of at least 50nm, deliver payload to 1000m
strip under California Bearing Ratio 4 (CBR4) conditions and
return unladen, or fly to unladen and return laden; ((CBR: measure of
shearing stress tolerated without significant distortion by a paved or
unpaved surface)) |
| I |
ditto
… CBR less than 4; |
| I |
range
at least 800nm flying a HI-LO mission profile, at least 50nm at
low level; |
| D |
range
at least 1,000nm flying a HI-LO mission profile, at least 50nm
at low level; |
| E |
AME
range at least 650nm; |
| I |
AME
range at least 650nm with cabin pressure at sea-level
equivalence; |
| E |
landing/takeoff
roll on airstrip under CBR 4 conditions does not exceed 1000m; |
| I |
landing/takeoff
roll on airstrip under CBR 4 conditions does not exceed 800m; |
| E |
deliver
100 tonnes over a 3-day period using at most 7 aircraft, over a
350nm radius of action with HI-LO-LO-HI mission profile and a
minimum useful load of 2.4 tonnes per sortie, to/from one
airstrip at CBR 4 without creating requirement for airstrip to
be repaired; |
| D |
ditto
… CBR less than 4. |
| Operations
on the Ground: |
| G |
indicative
basing: main operating base at Townsville with detachments at
Pearce, Darwin and Richmond; |
| G |
autonomous
operation at remote airfields; |
| E |
rapid
self-starting; |
| D |
manoeuvring
in confined spaces; taxying backwards; |
| D |
independent
of materials handling equipment and external power sources. |
The target specified for AII was at least 35% of the contract value,
and emphasised long-term support of aircraft and simulator. These were
expanded as: through-life support including deeper maintenance and
provision of spares; repair of battle, corrosion and structural damage;
software support for avionics, ground test and training equipment;
manage, maintain, upgrade, adapt and enhance the LTA and specified
systems (including test and support equipment) for its life-of-type and
particularly during surge or short warning conflict; systems engineering
and integration and software development. ((Intellectual property may be
present in all the above and particularly in software.)) Priority 2
objectives were local manufacture of aircraft control surfaces,
structural, avionics or system components; participation of ANZ industry
in technical maintenance areas, fluid control and power systems, and
fatigue testing.
4x4 Perentie being hooked to Blackhawk (Army)
Only 27 LRPVs were acquired. The LRPV is a soft-top but already
obsolescent. Several of the 4x4 Perentie variants - covering more than
1700 vehicles - could be used in the role for which the LRPV was
primarily acquired: patrol on the Australian mainland carrying a 3-man
special forces crew, light weapons and a motor bike. So the LRPV may
have been specified in the ITR simply as an estimate of the size of a
successor for many of the 6x6 Perenties. There was no mention of loading
a typical engineer or construction vehicle such as routinely needed to
maintain and extend rudimentary and short airstrips.
The public record indicates that five companies responded formally to
the ITR:
- Ayres Corporation from the U.S.A. with the LM-250
Loadmaster;
- CASA (Construcciones Aeronauticas Sociedad Anonima) from
Spain with two aircraft, the CN235-300M and the C-295M;
- Field Aviation from Canada with the DHC-5D(mod) Buffalo;
- IPTN (Industri Pesawat Terbang Nusantara) from Indonesia -
CASA's design associate on the CN235 - with the CN235-330 Phoenix; and
- Lockheed Martin Alenia Tactical Transport Systems (LMATTS),
a joint American-Italian company, with the C-27J Spartan.
On 1 July 1997, the Minister for Defence announced that three companies
had been short-listed as potential suppliers of new LTA: CASA with the
CN235-300M and the C-295M, IPTN with the CN235-330; and LMATTS with the
C-27J. The reasons for excluding the Ayres Loadmaster and the Field
modified-Buffalo were not made public. However, the Loadmaster was
entirely new and uncertified, so its proposal was fundamentally
non-compliant. (In mid-2001 and despite orders and options for more than
300 commercial aircraft, Ayres is in Chapter 11 bankrupcy protection and
seeking further funds to complete development of the LM200 basic
version.) Contrastingly, the capabilities of the DHC-5 Buffalo were
proven and closely matched those specified in the ITR. Hence, the
Canadians could reasonably expect that their proposal for refurbished
and modernised DHC-5D aircraft - whose production had ended in 1985 or
1986 - would make the shortlist at least. But despite new current-model
engines and modernised avionics, Defence - with recent experience of
corrosion in its Blackhawks and Orions - was evidently not prepared to
shortlist a part-paper concept based on airframes more than ten years
old even if refurbished to zero-time standard.
Each of the four short-listed aircraft was also a part-paper concept
for a then uncertified aircraft. But with some stretch of meaning those
aircraft were variants of others already in service elsewhere, and the
CASA, IPTN and LMATTS proposals were for new-build aircraft. The
proposed aircraft had much else in common. All are fixed-wing with twin
turboprop engines and a high power/weight ratio. Their short field
landing depends upon precise computer-assisted approach to touch-down
near the landing aim-point and rapid deceleration with synchronised use
of reverse pitch, control surfaces and anti-skid braking to reduce the
run and minimise damage to the airstrip surface.
The aircraft undercarriages are of similar configuration and all were
designed by Messier-Bugatti which is now part of the SNECMA Group. Each
has two semi-retractable main units with two wheels in tandem on
independent trailing lever suspension. The nose unit is forward folding
and fully retractable. In a C-27J on the ground, the pressure in the
oleo pneumatic shock absorbers can be varied to adjust the loading/
unloading height and attitude. The other contenders may have this
feature also. Each of the contenders has a single point refuelling
system and could be readily fitted with an AAR receiving probe.
CASA CN235-300M
The CN-235 was developed by CASA in conjunction with IPTN using a joint
company - Aircraft Technology Industries (Airtech) - with an Indonesian
president and a Spanish vice-president. Design work commenced in 1980. A
prototype was rolled out in each country on 10 September 1983 and first
flights occurred in late-1983. Separate final assembly lines were
established in Indonesia and Spain but production of major assemblies
was on a one-for-both basis. CASA was responsible for production with
its sub-contractors of the cockpit and forward fuselage, centre
fuselage, wing centre section and inboard flaps, and nacelles. IPTN was
similarly responsible for the outer wings with flaps and ailerons, rear
fuselage with ramp, vertical fin and rudder, tailplane and elevators.
First flight of a production-standard CN-235-10 with CT7-7A engines was
in mid-1986. During 1988 production moved to CASA's -100 and IPTN's -110
with CT7-9C engines. Further improvements to the fuselage and
aerodynamic surfaces resulted in the -200 series with CASA's -200 and
IPTN's -220 certified in 1992.
Variants of the CN-235 include military transports designated CN-235M
and maritime patrol versions usually designated CN-235MP. The overall
dimensions of these aircraft have remained essentially the same across
all models. The cabin is wide but has an airliner style cross-section
with sloped shoulders and windows. There is a forward crew/passenger
door on the starboard side, an emergency door on the port side, and a
paratroop door on each side at the rear. The cabin can have high-density
4-abreast seating in its forward part with baggage behind. In the usual
troop/cargo/airdrop arrangement, foldable sidewall seats are augmented
by stowable seating. The cabin floor and ramp include a roller system,
tie-downs and treadways. The local and area load ratings are similar to
those of the C-130. Usable space is extended by the fixed-length
ramp/door which can be closed while supporting part of a load. Clearance
for loading/unloading and airdrop is increased by a further door opening
upward into the rear fuselage.
During 1990, Turkey entered into a license agreement to establish a
third assembly line and build 52 military transports for its Air Force.
The run was extended to add nine more in two maritime patrol versions
for its Navy and Coast Guard. One of these was lost with its crew during
takeoff on a test flight in May 2001. This closely followed the loss of
two Turkish Air Force aircraft with 37 fatalities in January and May.
Investigations have apparently focussed on aircraft handling at high
weights, and Turkish pilots have criticised the lack of an in-country
simulator to assist their practising emergency procedures.
At some time during progression to the -200 series, CASA and IPTN
agreed that they would develop variants independently and compete for
orders. This involved changes also in the sourcing of some components
and possibly sub-assemblies. CASA went on to develop the CN-235-300M and
IPTN the CN-235-330.
For the CN-235-300M, CASA changed from the CT7-9C engine to the CT7-9C3
with a 5% increase in baseline power and improved hot/high takeoff
performance. The 4-bladed Hamilton Standard (now Hamilton Sundstrand)
propellers were succeeded by a new 6-bladed design which provide 15%
more thrust at takeoff power. Normal maximum all-up weight was increased
by 500kg. A company brochure issued during 1997 listed other changes
including: improved hydraulic system operating the flaps; increased
pressurisation differential in cabin; new air-conditioning in cockpit
and cabin; and as options underwing hard points rated at 800, 500 and
300kg; and a twin nose-wheel configuration for higher flotability on
rudimentary airstrips. This may have reduced its CBR rating below the
level 4 of earlier CN-235s. The brochure referred also to a redesigned
instrument panel with dual flight management system, and an integrated
engine data system (IEDS). This IEDS provides engine, fuel and warning
data on two liquid crystal displays (LCD) and also records data for
post-flight maintenance purposes. Certification of the upgraded aircraft
was expected before end-1998, and a demonstrator was shown overseas
during 1999.
Further upgrade of the CN-235-300M was pending. On 15 February 1999,
CASA and Sextant Avionique signed a contract for supply of a new fully
integrated Topdeck avionics suite for the CN-235-300M and also the
C-295M. The announcement of this contract noted that the avionics suite
should be certified by the end of 2000 with deliveries to commence in
2001. The -300M for AIR 5190 may have been intended to have this suite,
and it would definitely have been proposed with the twin nose-wheel unit.
Orders for airline and military versions of the CN-235 from
Airtech/CASA/IPTN exceed 250 with more than 230 delivered. The airline
versions have each been offered in quick-change configuration but only
about 50 have been ordered as few commercial operators are prepared to
carry the costs of an aircraft designed with integral ramp. In
early-1998 the Australian Defence Magazine reported that National Jet
Systems (NJS) had placed an order for two aircraft from IPTN with an
option for five more for prospective use in Australian and international
coastal surveillance and maritime rescue. The current status of the
order is not known, and for that role NJS - a subsidiary of FR
Aviation/Cobham PLC - is already using several Bombardier-de Havilland
Canada Dash 8 aircraft. These are of similar size to the CN-235 but lack
its rear ramp. In 2001, there are more than 190 CN-235s in military
service. They include more than 60 transport and maritime patrol
aircraft with the air forces and navies of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Papua New Guinea, South Korea and Thailand. Recent orders include one by
Pakistan in mid-2001 for four CN-235-220s from IPTN.
IPTN CN-235-330 Phoenix
IPTN uses the name Phoenix for all airline and military CN-235s from
its assembly line. During 1997, the Indonesian airworthiness authority
determined that - because IPTN had changed part of the wing leading edge
on its CN235-220 military version - the pneumatic boot anti-icing system
would have to be re-qualified to the original European Joint
Airworthiness Requirement (JAR) Part 25 standard. This ruling delayed
delivery of six aircraft to the Malaysian Air Force by more than 18
months. A brochure for the CN-235-330 referred to further improvements
including CT7-9C3 turboprop engines, with an option for the CT7-11;
new-model Hamilton Standard propellers; and an increase in normal
maximum all-up weight from 16,000kg to 16,800kg. It noted that the -330
had excellent rough field, hot/high, and single-engine capabilities; and
claimed a consistently demonstrated ability to operate from fields with
a CBR of 2 and below. The aircraft may have been intended to have a dual
nose-wheel but this was not displayed in the brochure, and it was
unclear if the main units had been modified for a softer footprint.
Operation at and below CBR 2 would definitely be at less than the
maximum all-up weight.
The brochure noted also that the -330 would have a 'glass' cockpit with
databus integration of all major systems including a flight management
system with full mission and conduct modes, inertial and global
positioning and navigating, and an option for digital flight instruments
or liquid crystal displays. As part of AII for AIR 5190, Honeywell
Australia was involved in the electronic design and integration of the
cockpit and would provide follow-on logistic support, while Hawker de
Havilland/Tenix was already manufacturing metal and composite components
for CN-235s and would provide through-life support of aircraft in
Australia.
Development and testing seemed to be progressing on schedule although a
CN-235-10 and its crew were lost on 22 May 1997 during tests of a
parachute extraction system probably intended for the -330. The cause
was reported as apparent failure of a parachute harness which left a
4,000kg load on the ramp.
In late-1997, the draft RFT being discussed by the project office and
potential primes was reported as specifying shortened runway performance
and increased maximum payload. According to some press reports, this led
the chairman of state-owned IPTN and concurrently a Minister in the
Indonesian Government to make a direct approach to the Australian
Government. These reports were officially refuted. Nonetheless after
visits by the project team to the primes, the draft RFT was apparently
revised by early-1998 and all short-listed contenders were retained.
Soon afterwards during the economic crisis in Asia, conditions on
emergency loans provided by the International Monetary Fund to the
Indonesian government prevented another injection of development funds
into IPTN. The company was unable to obtain an alternative source of
funding - understood to be about $US50m - to complete development,
testing and certification of the -330. On 26 June 1998 IPTN announced
its withdrawal from AIR 5190. Later the technical company representing
IPTN would complain that the manufacturer had been close to obtaining
the needed funding but this had not been finalised, in part because of a
refusal to allow a 2-month extension of the deadline for responses to
the AIR 5190 RFT.
Development of the -330 was halted. Since then IPTN has concentrated
its developmental resources on the N-250 regional airliner which is
derived in part from the CN-235 and of similar size to the C-295M.
CASA C-295M
Development of the C-295M was commenced independently by CASA in
November 1996. This followed a survey of potential customers which
apparently revealed strong interest in LTA with greater payload weight
and volume that the CN-235. CASA reportedly received some $US90m in
development loans from the Spanish Ministry for Industry. The prototype
was built by modifying a CN-235 and stretching its fuselage. This
aircraft had its first flight in November 1997 and was joined in the
flight test and validation program by a new-build prototype which first
flew in December 1998.
The production standard C-295M has some components and many sub-systems
in common with the CN-235-300M. The wing has been strengthened to carry
more powerful engines and propellers, and increased all-up weight; while
the fuselage has been reinforced and lengthened by 3m. Sponsons on the
C-295M are larger and the vertical fin and rudder have been extended.
Fuel capacity has been increased by almost 50%. The main undercarriage
units have been strengthened and fitted with larger wheels/tyres, and
the nose gear has twin wheels. Similar to the CN-235-300M,
air-conditioning in the cockpit and cabin has been improved, and the
pressurisation differential has been increased to 0.38bar: equivalent to
7,900ft when at 25,000ft. Options include a receiving probe for AAR, and
three hardpoints under each wing rated for 800, 500 and 300kg.
CN-235-300M and C-295M (EADS)
Commencing in 2001, new production C-295M aircraft will have a 'glass'
cockpit similar to that planned for the CN-235-300M. The Topdeck
avionics suite has an open architecture based on multiple central
processor/control units and ARINC-429 and MIL-Standard-1553B digital
buses. The configuration chosen by CASA has four main 15x20cm LCDs and
provision for two head-up displays. Features include integrated inertial
navigation system/global positioning system (INS/GPS), traffic alert and
collision avoidance system (TCAS), ground proximity warning system, NVG
compatibility, colour weather radar with search and beacon modes and
vertical ground mapping, and computed airdrop release point capabilities.
Sextant Avionique is also the prime contractor for integration of all
systems in the cockpit including IEDS and full authority digital engine
control (FADEC), communications and electronic warfare. Video images
from forward-looking infra-red, low-light television and other
electro-optical sensors can be shown on the main LCDs. Options include
laser gyro navigation, enhanced TCAS, microwave landing system, and
integrated communications, navigation and surveillance. Similar
capabilities are provided in the glass cockpits of all modern
airlifters, and integrating their complexities could delay certification
of any new aircraft. The 3-year delivery timespan for the Spanish Air
Force might have been set to provide for the possibility of such delay.
As pre-committed offset for CASA's proposals for AIR 5190, Air New
Zealand Engineering Services (AirNZES) was contracted to build elevators
for Airbus A340 airliners. Arrangements for AII included AirNZES for
through-life maintenance, and Adacel for simulator software.
In promoting its aircraft CASA has emphasised their attributes as:
* wide armed forces acceptance of the CN-235 as a
cost-effective LTA;
* development of the C-295M with the longest cabin
in its class;
* compatibility with loads carried by C-130s.
However, CASA may be concerned that their cabin cross-section is more
suitable for the transport of passengers/troops and mounded pallets than
rectangular freight and vehicles.
LMATTS C-27J Spartan
The C-27J is an extensively modified variant of the Alenia G.222 which
was first produced in Italy during the 1970s. In that timeframe also
Lockheed was competing to meet the lower end needs of tactical airlift
and proposing development of an L400 aircraft which was to be a cropped
twin-engine derivative of its C-130 freighter. The L-400 was intended to
carry a 10-ton payload over 500nm from a 1000m airstrip. However due
probably in part to availability of the G.222, Lockheed did not proceed
with the L-400 and instead directed its effort into upgrading the C-130.
Final sales of the G.222 were modest with some 100 examples sold to nine
nations including ten in a variant for the US Air Force designated the
C-27 Spartan. The C-27 and most versions of the G.222 had a normal
maximum all-up weight of 28 tonnes and were powered by General Electric
T64-GE-P4D turboprop engines rated at 2,535kW driving 3-bladed
propellers. The USAF C-27s were taken out of service and stored during
the 1980s pending disposal or re-commissioning.
In 1995 during development by Lockheed of the C-130J with new and more
powerful engines and a modernised 'glass' cockpit based on a digital
electronics architecture, Alenia Aerospace and Lockheed Martin
Aeronautical Systems formed a joint team to study development of a
similarly updated J-model of the C-27. One publicised conclusion of the
study was that the C-27J should have the same external dimensions and
improved STOL characteristics. LMATTS was officially formed in November
1996 as a 50/50-owned company to complete development of the aircraft
with Alenia Aerospace - a subsidiary of Finmeccanica - as the design
authority responsible for manufacture, flight testing and certification;
and Lockheed Martin responsible for powerplant and avionics aspects,
through-life support and marketing.
C-27J flyby (Lockheed Martin)
The production standard C-27J has the same basic engine, gearbox and
propeller as the C-130J. For its twin engines the C-27J has a
depopulated version of the cockpit developed for the C-130J with a
MIL-Standard-1553B databus, dual Sanders mission computers, FADEC,
GPS/INS and five LCDs integrated by Honeywell. Commonality between the
cockpits has been advertised as 60 percent in line replaceable units and
80 percent in software. Also the C-27J nosecone is large enough to
accommodate the same AN/APN-241 low-power/low-observable pulse Doppler
colour radar by Northrop Grumman as installed in the C-130J. Radar modes
include long-range weather (reported as 250nm) with detection of
turbulence and wind-shear, vertical obstacle/ground mapping and moving
map display, and aerial delivery. The new cockpit is arranged for two
pilots whereas the original G.222 had a flight deck crew of three
including a flight engineer/radio operator. Both old and new cockpits
have jumpseats for a loadmaster or other observer.
Load diagrams released by LMATTS confirm that in the C-27J the bulkhead
between the cockpit and cargo cabin has been moved into the space
previously occupied by the flight engineer and crew stairway/lobby. The
external crew door has been retained in its original position on the
forward port side of the fuselage but now opens into the cargo cabin,
the length of which has been increased from 8.58m to about 9.6m. To
assist load-splitting, the floor and hydraulically-operated rear loading
ramp with integral tie-downs, rollers and treadways are designed to have
the same strength as in the C-130. Unobstructed height over the
ramp/door as stowed enables its full length to be used for cargo. The
overall 11.4m long cargo space is sealed by an upward opening door that
forms the underside of the rear fuselage. Maximum pressurisation
differential for the cabin is 0.41 bar. Previous seating arrangements
for 53 troops or 40 paratroops have been revised upward. Of greater
utility relative to the G.222 and C-27, the load capacity of the C-27J
has increased from three to four 463L pallets, and for Perentie vehicles
from two 4x4 GS to one 4x4 GS plus one 6x6 LRPV.
For use on the ground one sponson includes an outlet to enable transfer
of fuel to another fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter. Alenia reportedly
considered developing an austere hose-drogue tanker capability for the
original G.222. It was to rely on the integral tanks without a
supplementary tank in the cabin. That did not proceed and there were no
apparent sales of any other AAR tanker kits linked to the G.222 or C-27
nor certification of either for use as a tanker. The C-27J might be
offered with an option of roll-on/roll-off tank and hose-drogue
dispensing unit conditional on certification.
Testing of the production standard C-27J began during 2000.
Certification to the European JAR Part 25 light transport standard was
obtained in June 2001 and the publicised schedule expects military
certification by the Italian Ministry of Defence in November 2001. There
has been no report of delay due to changes in the airflow from its more
powerful engines and propellers. The same combination in the C-130J
affected its stall and icing characteristics and required modifications
in software and hardware that lengthened the test and development
program. Also as the US armed forces had not at that time placed an
order for any J-models, certification had to be conducted by the US
civil aviation authority rather its military equivalent. The flow-on
affects delayed deliveries of new C-130Js and C-130J-30s - to first the
Royal Air Force as launch customer and then the RAAF as second customer
- by about two years.
The launch order for the C-27J was placed by the Italian Air Force in
November 1999, and was for 12 aircraft for delivery in 2001-2004. The
C-27J is competing for service with the US Army as the platform for its
Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program, and with the National Guard as a
successor for the Air Force Shorts C-23 Sherpa intra-theatre light
transport. LMATTS has announced that if selected for the ACS a second
assembly line could be established in the United States. Promotion by
Lockheed has emphasised the attributes of the C-27J as:
- rugged construction designed for the stress of tactical
operations;
- mini-Hercules with large cabin cross-section for freight
and vehicles;
- high degree of commonality with the C-130J and consequent
reduction in shared life cycle costs.
Nonetheless a factor of concern to LMATTS must be the extent to which a
lightly loaded C-130 could be used in lieu of a C-27J into and from a
proportion of rudimentary and short airstrips. Also for Lockheed that
success in selling the C-27J could in some instances reduce the sales
prospects of its C-130J.
Press releases indicate that the C-27J proposal had a list of companies
arranged for AII. These included RLM Systems for software development
and support, British Aerospace Australia and Lynwood Systems for test
and diagnostic aids, and ADI Limited for computer-based instruction.
Boeing Australia would receive work on Boeing 767 wings from Alenia, and
was also sub-contracted to provide and manage through-life ground and
logistic support. This involved Honeywell and Milflight for avionics,
Standard Aero for engine maintenance, Safe Air NZ for propellers, Tenix
for undercarriages, NJS for auxiliary power units, and Normalair-Garret
for air-conditioning.
More Recent History
Reverting to late-1997: IPTN complained that the draft RFT discussed by
the project office with potential primes specified shortened runway
performance and increased maximum payload. For some mix of reasons,
finalisation of the definitive RFT for Phase 1 took six months longer
than originally scheduled. It was provided to the short-listed primes on
1 May 1998 with tenders due by 14 August. Contract signature was
re-scheduled for mid-1999 with delivery of the aircraft to commence in
late-2000/early-2001. The RFT for the Phase 2 simulator was re-scheduled
for late-1998. On 26 June 1998 IPTN announced that it had withdrawn from
the project.
The primes and Defence might have counted on a win here leading to a
boost in production and sales, and all presumably had expected that the
Spanish, Indonesian and Italian air forces would become early customers
for CASA, IPTN and LMATTS new aircraft. However they must have expected
also that few new aircraft would be ready for any customer in late-2001,
so the RFT included an option of leased aircraft for some interim
period. CASA later reported it had proposed 14 ex-Spanish CASA C-212
Aviocar aircraft (max payload 3 tonnes / 230nm). LMATTS did not publicly
disclose details of its proposals but these were reported as including
lease of six G.222s or possibly C-27s previously used by the Italian or
US air forces.
No public version of the Pink Book was released during 1998 and the
series was effectively discontinued. A compendium of Defence Major
Capital Equipment Projects published in June 2000 included little data
on planned expenditure. Much later it transpired that the next detailed
summary of unapproved capital projects would be released in mid-2001.
Defence continued to provide general information on planning and groups
of projects, and project offices issued updates on individual projects.
During October and November, a team from the AIR 5190 project office
visited Italy and Spain for another round of flight and ground
evaluations.
At a military-industrial seminar on ADF airlift in late-1998, Air Force
was explicit about various difficulties especially in respect of
personnel, training and new aircraft. Its squadrons had too few current
aircrew and maintainers to fly the required levels of operational
missions, and a big move into simulation was being made to prepare,
augment and support practical skills. Meanwhile current aircraft were
hard worked and some needed refurbishment or replacement. (Many pilots
are routinely posted on rotation to non-flying duties such as staff and
projects. The reference to simulation may have included computer-based
instruction-refresher/workaids for all musterings.)
C-130J-30 (Defence)
The seminar did not discuss the financial dangers of early orders. Late
delivery causing under-spend in programmed expenditure can ripple into
later years. Acquisition projects are programmed with contingency
margins for short internal delays and advances. Separate provision is
made for exchange rate fluctuations. In any given year delivery of some
in-stock or short lead-time manufactures can be accelerated and
adjustments made between projects. Also a carryover of funds is
specifically permitted in the Defence budget. With Government approval,
it may also be possible for under-spend funds to be placed in a specific
trust account held against delivery. There are limits on all such
arrangements and in the worst case funds approved and budgeted but
unspent in the fiscal year are effectively lost from the overall
investment program. The system cost of the C-130J-30s was about $1.4
billion in contract-year dollars programmed over several years.
In early-1999, Defence announced that the project team's evaluation of
Phase 1 tenders - rumoured to have been completed in January - was being
examined by the Defence Source Selection Board (DSSB) with a decision
expected by April. If that proceeded and a recommendation was approved
by Government, then it was planned to announce the preferred tenderer in
May with contract signature in about August. The later schedule was
delivery of aircraft to commence in early-2001, then test and evaluation
trials, and entry into squadron service in late-2001. It was not clear
if this was meant to involve new model or leased aircraft.
In April 1999 the Spanish Air Force placed the launch order for nine
C-295M with deliveries expected to commence in late-2000. The C-27J had
yet to obtain its launch order. An item in the technical press commented
the final countdown for AIR 5190 had begun; the DSSB was scheduled to
meet on 28 April; contract signature was expected in August with initial
deliveries in early-2001 followed by operational test and evaluation and
aircraft entering squadron service in late-2001. Also in April the
president and chief executive officer (CEO) of LMATTS commented that its
10,000 page proposal included options starting with 10 aircraft. Another
news item referred to an LMATTS proposal for ten aircraft with an option
for 5 more. Evidently both related to the acquisition rather than
interim lease. The CEO was also reported as saying the C-27J had better
overall performance than its competitors, and with a 6 tonne load was
rated at 3G relative to 2.5G for the G.222.
In July 1999 Defence announced that: the CN-235-300M would not be
required; neither of the other tenders currently met all requirements;
CASA and LMATTS had been asked to clarify and resubmit their tenders for
the C-295M and C-27J; re-assessment and selection of a preferred
tenderer would extend into 2000 with announcement and contract signature
expected in February and May, and the first delivery unchanged in
mid-2001. In August the Defence Reporter Australia & Asia-Pacific
commented that it had learned from separate sources that each tenderer
had offered 10 aircraft and that each had put in a satisfactory AII
proposal. Also that from some source or sources, Defence's list of
questions to assist CASA's review of its tender was 20 pages long and
the list to LMATTS was 8 to 10 pages.
Notwithstanding possible revision of the draft RFT to retain IPTN's
CN235-330 - and presumably CASA's CN235-300M - this finally confirmed
that the required capabilities did include a maximum payload larger than
specified in the ITR. Also taken in conjunction with the comments of
LMATTS' CEO and complaints of IPTN, it could be inferred that the draft
RFT had required a shorter runway performance with a reduced load of
about 6 tonnes. Had the 5 and 2.4 tonne loads specified in the ITR
become 9 and 6 tonnes in the draft RFT? Even if these had been relaxed
in the definitive RFT, the project had two competitors which could
apparently deliver those capabilities. Neither was yet proven or
available for the delivery timeframe but lease arrangements could
suffice.
However, tenders had to be revised, evaluated by the project office,
its assessment examined by the DSSB and higher in Defence, and any
recommendation for acquisition approved by Government. Also there was a
budget crunch yet to be uncovered and another White Paper pending.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. This
analysis includes quoted material and substantial extracts from the
following documents copyright Commonwealth of Australia reproduced by
permission:
AIR 5190 - Light Tactical
Airlift Capability - Invitation to Register Interest for the Supply of a
Light Transport Aircraft to the Australian Defence Force - AFMAT 5/97;
AIR 5190 - Light Tactical
Airlift Capability - Industry Brief - AFMAT 5/97;
Australian Perspectives on
Defence: Report of the Community Consultation Team - CCT, DPS September
2000;
Defence 2000: Our Future Defence
Force - DoD, DPS OCT010/2000;
Media Release: Major Defence
Capital Equipment Projects - MIN 146/01 22 May 2001;
Defence Capability Plan
2001-2010: Public Version - DMO, DPS JUN004/01.
TABLE 1: DHC-4 Caribou and
C-130 Hercules
| |
DHC-4
|
C-130H
|
C-130J-30
|
|
Power-plant
|
Pratt and
Whitney
|
Allison
|
Rolls-Royce
Allison
|
|
Engine
|
2 x R-2000-7M2
|
4 x T56-A-15
|
4 x AE2100D3
|
|
max
continuous power
|
1,080kW
|
3,360kW
|
3,425kW
|
|
Propeller /
blades
|
HS
43D50-7107A / 3
|
HS 54H60 / 4
|
S-D R-391 / 6
|
|
Fuel capacity
|
3,135 litre
|
36,630 litre (1)
|
26,340 litre
|
|
Overall
Dimensions
|
|
Wingspan
|
29.15m
|
40.25m
|
40.41m
|
|
Length
|
22.12m
|
29.79m
|
34.37m
|
|
Height
|
9.68m
|
11.68m
|
11.81m
|
|
Wing area
|
84.7sqm
|
162.1sqm
|
162.1sqm
|
|
Flight Crew
|
3 + load/
jumpmaster(s)
|
4 + load/
jumpmaster(s)
|
2 or 3 +
load/ jumpmaster(s)
|
|
Cabin
Dimensions
|
|
Length
|
8.76m
|
12.19m
|
16.76m
|
|
Maximum width
|
2.20m
|
3.12m
|
3.12m
|
|
Width at floor
|
1.87m
|
2.90m
|
2.90m
|
|
Centreline
height
|
1.90m
|
2.70m
|
2.70m
|
|
Unobstructed
height over floor
|
1.75m
|
2.70m
|
2.70m
|
|
Transport
Capacity
|
|
Troops
|
32
|
92
|
128
|
|
Paratroops
|
26
|
64
|
92
|
|
Max
Freight (including stowage on lower part of ramp)
|
|
463L pallets
(2.74m x 2.24m)
|
nil
|
6
|
8
|
|
4x4 GS
(4.83m, 3,000kg)
|
1 ht &
width reduced
|
3
|
3
|
|
6x6 LRPV
(6.02m, 5,000kg)
|
nil
|
2
|
3
|
|
Performance
and Weights (2)
|
|
High speed
cruise
|
155kt
|
325kt
|
345kt
|
|
Initial
cruise altitude
|
10,000ft
(with troops)
|
23,000ft
|
28,000ft
|
|
Operating
empty weight
|
8,285kg
|
33,035kg
|
35,970kg
|
|
Normal max
takeoff weight
|
12,925kg
(2.5G)
|
70,305kg
(2.5G)
|
70,305kg
(2.5G)
|
|
max payload
/range (3)
|
3,830kg /
210nm (4)
|
18,145kg/1,945nm(5)
|
17,265kg/2,735nm(6)
|
|
takeoff
distance to 15m
|
430m
|
1,375m
|
1,435m
|
|
takeoff run
|
245m
|
1,095m
|
1,005m
|
|
landing
distance from 15m
|
380m
|
1,145m
|
780m @
59,000kg
|
|
landing run
|
205m
|
650m
|
430m @
59,000kg
|
|
nominal CBR
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
|
Overload max
takeoff weight
|
14,195kg
(2.25G)
|
79,380kg
(2.25G)
|
79,380kg
(2.25G)
|
|
Unrefuelled
ferry range (7)
|
1,130nm
|
4,760nm
|
5,450nm
|
Notes.
1. Integral tanks hold 26,340
litres, each underwing tank 5,145 litres. Underwing tanks are standard
on C-130H, optional on C-130J-30.
2. Takeoff/landing data is known
or assumed to be for a flat, dry airstrip at SL, ISA + 15 or 20ºC, zero
wind.
3. Safety reserve incorporated
in payload / range parameters typically allows for a diversion of at
least 100nm or 5% of range, and holding at low altitude for 30 or 45
minutes.
4. Payload / range bounds at
RAAF reduced takeoff weight of 11,800kg: 2,700kg / 140nm and 1,000kg /
950nm.
5 & 6. With a payload of
11,340kg and fuel for more than 500nm, the C-130H using USAF maximum
effort procedures has a takeoff run of approx 540m paved, 640m unpaved;
the C-130J (and C-130J-30 with 9,640kg) has a takeoff run of approx 450m
paved, 520m unpaved.
7. Range on full tanks at
economical cruising speed without cargo.
TABLE 2: CASA and LMATTS
Contenders
| |
CN-235-300M
|
C-295M
|
C-27J
|
|
Power-plant
|
General
Electric
|
Pratt and
Whitney
|
Rolls-Royce
Allison
|
|
Engine
|
2 x GE CT7-9C3
|
2 x PW127G
|
2 x AE2100D2
|
|
takeoff
power/engine
|
1,395kW
|
2,175kW
|
3,460kW
|
|
max
continuous power
|
1,305kW
|
1,970kW
|
3,130kW
|
|
Propeller
|
Hamilton
Sundstrand
|
Hamilton
Sundstrand
|
Smiths-Dowty
|
|
model,
diameter / blades
|
HS14RF-37,
3.6m / 4
|
HS568F-5,
3.9m / 6
|
R-391, 4.11m
/ 6
|
|
Fuel capacity
|
5,264 litre
|
7,650 litre
|
12,300 litre
|
|
Overall
Dimensions
|
|
Wingspan
|
25.81m
|
25.81m
|
28.70m
|
|
Length
|
21.40m
|
24.45m
|
22.70m
|
|
Height
|
8.18m
|
8.60m
|
9.80m
|
|
Max fuselage
width
|
2.90m
|
2.90m
|
3.55m
|
|
Max fuselage
depth
|
2.62m
|
2.62m
|
3.55m
|
|
Wing area
|
59.10sqm
|
59.10sqm
|
82.00sqm
|
|
Flight Crew
|
2 + load/jump
-master(s)
|
2 + load/jump
-master(s)
|
2 + load/jump
-master(s)
|
|
Cabin
Dimensions
|
|
Length
|
9.65m
|
12.69m
|
est 9.6m (1)
|
|
Max width
|
2.70m
|
2.70m
|
3.33m
|
|
Width at floor
|
2.36m
|
2.36m
|
2.45m
|
|
Centre-line
height
|
1.90m
|
1.90m
|
2.60m
|
|
Unobstructed
height over floor
|
est 1.50m
|
est 1.50m
|
2.25m
|
|
![Australia's First Online Journal Covering Air Power Issues [ISSN 1832-2433]](apa-analyses.png "Australia's First Online Journal Covering Air Power Issues [ISSN 1832-2433]")
