Airlift does not appear to have a significant role in the SAF.

Ops-wise, the restricted area of airspace means lesser transport needs. Although overseas deployments occur regularly, much of the lift is performed via ship or even via commercial assets. Times to redeploy land assets overseas and back are not critical either. Air assets such as fighters can re-deploy fairly quickly on their own power.

Currently airlift is being serviced by 5 C-130Hs. Additionally, 4 KC-135s, 4 KC-130Bs and 1 KC-130H can also operate as tanker/transports. In US, KC-130s are normally deployed 80% of the time in the aerial refuelling role and the remaining 20% only in the logistics role.

C-130H has a L 12.31m x W 3.12m x H 2.74m cargo compartment with a L 3.12m x W 3.02m rear ramp. The C-130H has a max payload of 19,090 kg. At payloads of 16,590 (normal) and 15,900, range is ~1,050nm and 1,300nm. Translated, it can carry 6 pallets/74 litters/16 CDS/92 combat troops/64 paratroopers (/ = or).

The KC-135 has a 37,648 kilograms cargo payload/6 pallets capability (although it has 6 -8 times the payload for fuel transfer compared to the KC-130.

In total that translates into ~300 tons of any one-time airlift/84 pallets for the RSAF.

Transport aircraft have a significant lifespan as the lack of jet use creates less airframe stress. The 4 C-130B were bought in 1977, 4 C-130Hs in 1980 and the remaining 2 in 1987. Hence most have quite a bit of airframe life left.

----------------------------------------

Could the C-27J appeal to the RSAF?

The C-27J has 1/2 the transport capability of a C-130 but @ ~US$40m per piece is offered at 1/3 to 1/4 the price of a C-130 or KC-767. Inflation has seen the cost of mid- to heavy transports including the A-400, C-17 and other similar transport aircraft skyrocketing. Problems with production lines and lack of orders mean later deliveries. In sharp contrast, Alenia has start deliveries on time and more importantly on budget.

Payload is useful @ 11.5 ton/3 pallet/12 CDS/68 troop/46 para. Range is 1,000/2300 nm with 10k/6k kg payload. It fulfils a light transport role which minimises cost through efficiency of use. This means no wasted space and waiting to consolidate packages for transport. It can fulfil most of the current roles of the C-130 and it is no surprise that it is becoming a very popular cost-efficient choice for many armed forces.

No wonder total orders are now 121 for US army/USAF (78), Italy (12), Romania (7), Lituania (3), Bulgaria (5) Morocco (4) and Greece (12).

Edit (2 Jan 2010): One of the major drawbacks is that its hull is not large enough to carry a wide variety of vehicles eg Pegasus 155mm howitzer, Primus, Bionix or Himars which requires a C-130 size or larger transport aircraft. <end edit>

Critically, the tanker role is of vital importance. With more numerous C-27 that can be acquired due to the lower cost, more C-27s could mean more tankers in the air when needed.

The C-27J is currently competing for the US combat search and rescue tanker role currently performed by the C-130.

----------------------------------------

Heavy transport - a commercial solution

Would having a C-27 centred military transport fleet restrict heavy transport requirements? Not if commercial airlift can be used.

SIA and silkair current fleets have the capacity to lift over 3,000 tons of cargo and
30,000 passengers at one time. SIA cargo itself has 14 B-747-400Fs capable of lifting 110 tons/39 pallets. SIA is also phasing out its remaining fleet of 747-400s passenger aircraft by 2010/11 and this could mean more freighter conversions.

Using commercial airlift during peacetime maximises the economic value of these transport aircraft and eliminates the need for military transport aircraft beyond tanker/LAPES/CSAR and other similar roles. All of which the C-27 can perform.

At the same time, commercial aircraft are now being fitted with more and more military defensive gadgets to make it more surviveable in unforseen hostile situations.

Since most war scenarios involving Singapore are not likely to see significant long-range airlift needed, a trend towards lighter transport aircraft undertaking LAPES/light transport missions might be a cost-effective solution adopted by the RSAF mixed possibly with a smaller but more expensive mid-sized MRTT fleet (maybe 4-5 a/c).

Missed out the Fokker 50, 5 of which serve as MPA and another 4 as light transport and utility. The transport aircraft has a payload of ~13k lbs or 5-6 tons. Delivered between Oct 1993 to Jul 1995 (registration numbers 710 to 718) and achieved FOC in Feb 1997. These have served 13 to 15 years and have quite a number of years of service left.

The F-50s are equipped with a surface surveillance radar and an infra-red detection system which provides as with other aircraft in the RSAF, a data link. It is also credited with Israeli sigint equipment but not officially confirmed. Similarly, the aircraft is credited by net sources as having an asw capability (with the eurotorp) but again not confirmed officially.

24 harpoons were acquired for US$39m in May 1996 to arm the F-50s which are located in 121 sqn. Pics of harpoon-armed F-50s can be seen on the Internet. The sqn also has a distinguish record in safety having logged more than 120k accident free hours and recently garnered the best unit tactical support sqn.

The sqn served as a transport training unit and regularly doubles up for medivac (utility), SAR and wide area maritime air surveillance, a role that was formerly performed by the Skyvan which it replaced.

Italian C-27Js complete Afghan ops... To receive last 2 of 12 this year.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...channel=defense

no offence weasel but i think RSAF not planning to acquire any transport soon or in the near future.

i posted a link about august last year about a country upgrading the C-130 J standards and someone (cant remember who, i think might have been LL) posted that RSAF recently awarded a SLEP and prop upgrade program to STK aerospace.

doubt we would be in the market for C-27J. maybe around 2025/2030 before we see a need for C-130s to be replaced ?

the KC135 might be replaced before that though, airframe is a little old.

No idea what RSAF/DSTA plans are. Yup, agreed if they are not planning to replace their transport fleet, then no need to talk about transport aircraft.

However, no plan is ever constant. Have to take into account fleet changes, new tech, cost/budget etc. If a need, for whatever reason, arises that requires transport aircraft, I think the C-27J is a transport aircraft that can satisfy certain needs.

If replacement is 15 years from now, then during that time, there may be new transport aircraft that may appear or needs that may change. Until then, I'll stick to my support of the C-27J for the reasons stated.

The only thing i'm not supportive of the C-27J is the fact that the RSAF can lift more with the same number of operators with a C-130J-30 when it comes to logistics/personnel numbers.

I totally agree on the cost though. I know that the C-27J is being used as MPA for some countries, so it may be possible that these be considered as Fokker-50 replacements when the time comes.

Agree with the load / sortie ability when compared to the C-27J. However, I am more inclined to believe the MPA role will be handed over to UAV. Longer loiter time, and cheaper operating cost.

How important is Eyeball Mk I for MPA duties? If it is still required than I guess UAVs will never fully replace Manned MPAs

2025-2030? Thought I read a previous interview in a mag where the COAirforce said something along the lines of middle of next decade.

Not fully. The optimum solution, IMO, is the USN's solution. I think it makes sense to offload part of the duties of the MPA to long endurance UAVs, specifically the patrolling and surface track/ID duties. But for parts of the mission like reacquiring and prosecution of contacts, more specifically sub contacts, I don't think manned MPAs are replaceable with UAVs yet.

speculation on my part. they just went for prop and airframe SLEP. that should have reset the flight hours on them back to zero.

the first c130 was acquired back in 1977. so can say a good 32 years of service life thus far.

There was an RSN model of the plane displayed to public sometime back during the CNB open house. It shows the bird with 1 or 2 torps carried on each of it's wing.

was it new when we got it in 77? I flew in them in 81 to Crescendo, it was harrowing.

dont think so. if this site is accurate.

http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_08.htm

you probably flew either a Ex-USAF or jordanian one. i wonder why the jordanians sold us the C130. interesting.

C130s were used to bring troopers to thailand for exercises when the shin corp thing blew out of proportion. didnt fly in on SQ or TG flights.

if thats the case, the first 4 KC-130s are pretty old. any news on whether they have been converted back to regular c-130s ? or do they still serve alongside the KC-135 ?

[edit] typo

the first 4 may need to be replaced sooner than the next 6. maybe thats when the C-27J can come into the picture ?

I physically sat in two of them because of mechanical problems. can't remember the one I came back on, but I will look for the old photos and check the tail number.

From USAF records. 130B- 1958 and 1960.

58-0724 (c/n 282-3519) - RSAF serial 720
60-0308 (c/n 282-3620) - RSAF serial 725
60-0302 (c/n 282-3611) - RSAF serial 724

721 should be 58- (c/n 282-3557) as well.

Airframe is ~50 years old.

130Hs are 78-79 series. So airframe is ~30 years.

KCs not much better. 1959, 1961, 2x 1963. However, expected airframe life = 80 years.

I have this on my hard-drive. Not too sure if this is the one;

C-17 production will continue for a while longer.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3937528&c=AME&s=AIR

Hope this will influence a relook at RSAF's air transport requirement.

I understand that we will need to eventually replace the aging C-130, the old KC-135 and the out of production F-50 fleets in RSAF but how does the much larger C-17 fit into SAF's overall transport requirement?

I understand having strategic transport assets will be beneficial to us as we have many overseas training detachments. The C-17 is more for strategic transport rather than tactical transport replacement requirement which is more urgent for SAF.

one might surmise they could be waiting for A400M to prove itself, allowing a more informed decision between that and Charlie-J. right now LM is selling Charlie-Js at rather steep prices, and the smart thing would be to wait til one has the leverage that comes from having the choice of a proven competitor.

There are also some turbine medium transports such as the C-390 on the drawing board though i'm not sure how that would go down with the RSAF.

Personally i feel that the A-400M costs way too much (estimated to be 127mil Euro vs the C-130J-30 which is already quite expensive @ ~<100mil USD)

The internal dimensions allows 120 troopers vs 92 troopers in the C-130j-30. (Which curtails the actual volume of logisitcs though things being delivered can be alot heavier)

Unless the SAF is interested in flying a BX in the A-400M, the extra power provided by the A-400m is IMO not very useful for the added price tag.

The A-400M will however be a leap in capability vs a C-130H.

stop baiting Star!

ha ?

im happily enjoying the discussion, never had much c130 interest. my only worry as the C130 gets older, could they be flying hazards ? they conduct alot of operations over mainland singapore.

anyone knows if the C130 can fly on two engines if the others goes down ?

Of cos it can...again it depend on the all up weight at that time..

U will be surprise how durable and reliable the C 130 can be.. B)

(Weasel's note: A bit of news on C-17 pricing)

Boeing Turns to Cost Reduction on C-17 Sales

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...channel=defense

Selected extracts:

"Boeing officials have shifted their strategy on future C-17 sales from reducing the annual production rate and toward cutting per-unit cost instead, according to industry officials.

The new focus is possible because of new opportunities in the international market including, possibly, interest from countries disappointed in consistent delays by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS) in delivering its A400M airlifter."

"International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each."

Even though the A400m is similar in price range to the discounted C-17, i'm quite sure their application is certainly different. I wonder why someone's going to come up with an enlarged C-130(not just stretched) that can carry 30+ tons to compete with the A400M directly.

Demand and supply. If there's a demand, then people will build. But looking at current demand, I doubt if there will be enough orders to sustain competing types.

Technical specs:
C-130J
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/c13...130j-specs.html

A-400
http://www.eads.com/1024/en/businet/airbus...m/teca400m.html

C-17
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17spec.htm

I'm not too sure about this, but i was comparing the photos within RSAF database at airliners.net, and this C-130 seems to have a new antenna configuration. Is it upgraded under the recent Singapore Technologies project?

Airliners.Net (Photo ID No. 1483387) (Link)
Spotted In Afghanistan On November 2008.

More C-27j brochure & tech specs...

http://www.alenia-aeronautica.it/Eng/Media...j%20spartan.pdf

http://www.alenia-aeronautica.it/Eng/Media...ata%20sheet.pdf

But no boeing participation. Looks like competition is too hot to handle...

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3965712&c=AME&s=AIR

Italy's Military Chief: It's Wise To Be Out Of A400M

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3986311&c=EUR&s=TOP

Good pic. Thanks

4 year delay for A400. Export to Malaysia not thought to be affected.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3994153&c=AME&s=AIR

From what I see, only the HF wire antenna(from vertical stab to just behind the cockpit top) has been replaced by the antenna painted white.

It's safer as they have been known to snap in flight.

Edit:
IIRC, more blade(VHF) antennas than before. Probably re-bro function.

German Official: Dropping A400M a 'Serious Option'

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3997003&c=EUR&s=AIR

"The A400M has been plagued by setbacks, with the aircraft's first flight postponed to a date that has yet to be determined because of engine problems."

"On March 18, French defense official Laurent Collet-Billon said Paris might reduce the number of planes it has ordered."

Australian Caribou Replacement More Open

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...channel=defense

Some interesting snippets...
"Planners are considering wider options than simply ordering a suitable number of direct replacements for the Caribous—ether C-27J Spartans from L-3 and Alenia or C-295s from EADS.

More Boeing CH-47 Chinooks could help fill the Caribou’s role, while the replacement fixed-wing aircraft may be combined with more Lockheed Martin C-130Js to replace Australia’s old C-130Hs and thereby rationalize the force structure."

"But C-130s are too big and costly for many missions and need longer runways, say industry and government officials, while CH-47s are almost twice as expensive to run as light military transport airplanes and cannot fly as far or as fast."

“The majority of [Australian C-130] missions that are being flown are with three pallets or fewer,” says the L-3 executive responsible for the Australian requirement, Gary Upshaw. C-27s or C‑295s could do those jobs more cheaply.

Alenia Talks With Northrop About C-27J Role

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4021418&c=AME&s=AIR

Boeing replacement?

A400M contract renegotiation. US$26b contract at risk. Likely 4-5 years late.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4030744&c=EUR&s=AIR

Something a little new...the Embraer KC-390.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...anker/Transport

Quick Specs:

Twin Engines, Turbo Fan
Payload: 19ts

I'm not sure if the RSAF would dare go for a untested platform in terms of transport aircraft. Engines would be an issue in this case since if these are brazilian engines, there will be maintainence and spare parts fears.