 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AIR
5190 - The Perennial Lightweight Project - analysis of an Australian defence acquisition |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Similar expenditures could have delivered for example:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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
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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||