'Maintenance issues and low readiness': Countries are abandoning the C-27J

Australia's National Defence Strategy includes a decommissioning clause fleet C-27J Spartan military transport aircraft (consisting of 10 units). Commercial airliners will be used instead, for example, for transporting personnel and cargo, while the C-130J will handle missions requiring greater cargo capacity.

The Spartans are relatively new aircraft. The first C-27Js entered service with the Royal Australian Air Force in 2015, and the last in 2018. This makes them between 8 and 11 years old. However, as early as 2020, the Australian government began complaining about "maintenance issues and low operational readiness" of these aircraft. As Australian Defence Magazine reported, these problems have plagued the Spartans since their introduction. As a result, the aircraft were reassigned from military support to humanitarian and disaster relief missions.

The exact date for the retirement of the C-27Js has not yet been determined, but when this happens, Australia intends to put them up for sale. This news caused a stir in the Slovak publication Future Army:

If Australia saturates the used aircraft market with them, this could complicate Slovakia's position.

In November 2024, Slovakia's Minister of Defence, Robert Kalinjak, announced the planned retirement of the C-27J for the same reasons as Australia, with the aim of purchasing the more powerful Brazilian Embraer C-390 instead.

If Australia puts 10 C-27Js on the market, it could lower the price of the Slovak aircraft.

The two countries' withdrawal from the Spartan is just the tip of the iceberg of problems that plague this model. In 2013, the US Air Force retired all 21 C-27Js practically new (some were sent straight to the Arizona "aircraft boneyard"). The reason was the high operating cost compared to the larger C-130 and the redundancy of its features. This was the most high-profile story.

At the same time, the Italian concern Leonardo, which produces the C-27J, is actively promoting the new version of the C-27J Next Generation, which features updated avionics and winglets for fuel economy.

Comments

[Arkady007]

It would be better if the VO did not raise the problem with Australia's military transport aircraft.
Because the Russian Armed Forces have not received anything new for the military transport aviation since the collapse of the Union (for almost 40 years).

[Skobaristan]

What new things did the US get for the Military Transport Aviation? I'm just curious. I couldn't find anything other than the old workhorses, albeit modified, C130s.

[TermNachTer]

I'll go further: the last S-17 was produced in 2015, and S-5 production ended even earlier. Currently, no one except Russia and China operates in the heavy-lift category. And the service life of Western military transport aircraft, starting in 2022, is rapidly depleting.

[solar]

Production of the C-5M Super Galaxy ended in 2018. Old airframes were used, but new engines and avionics were installed. The C-17 is a new aircraft by aviation standards.

Current projections indicate that both the C-5M and C-17 are expected to remain in service until 2045 and 2075, respectively.

The U.S. Air Force plans to replace its fleet of C-5M Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III aircraft with a new fleet, dubbed the Next-Generation Airlifter (NGAL), starting in 2038.

[TermNachTer]

What theorists on the ground envision and what's happening in the sky are two entirely different things. Airframe lifespans aren't determined in Congress. The first "Galexy" aircraft were built in the late 60s—they're already over 50 years old. And since February 2022, military transport aircraft have been flying at full tilt—their lifespans are depleted very quickly. Regarding replacements, the mattress makers were very optimistic that the "Pegasus" would quickly be replaced by "Stratotankers." However, the "Pegasus" program is proceeding with great difficulty.

[TermNachTer]

P.S. In 2018, the conversion of the old aircraft to the S-5M model was completed, but they are not new at all. The airframes are old and already quite worn.

[solar]

The airframe's life is not determined by Congress.

The remaining life of an airframe is determined technically—by flaw detection and all that. Currently, it's 80 percent. It should last for a long time.

The first "Galaxies" were produced in the late 60s.

The first ones were written off.

[TermNachTer]

Where did that 80% come from? The second ones aren't exactly new either. The last one was built in 1989, making it almost 40 years old. Wing loadings are present even when it's on the ground; the wing is almost 40 meters long, with two heavy engines underneath—a real slam dunk.

[solar]

What new things did the US get for the Military Transport Aviation? I'm just curious. I couldn't find anything other than the old workhorses, albeit modified, C130s.

Specifically, the US Air Force (and they have the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the National Guard - these are different agencies with different aviation, each has its own)
Heavy long-range Lockheed C-5M Super Galaxy, about 50 units in total.
The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III is a medium-sized aircraft. It has been in service since 1995, with over 200 aircraft in service.
The medium- and long-range Lockheed C-130 Hercules, in the C-130H Hercules and C-130J/J-30 Super Hercules versions, is approximately 270 in total. The C-130 comes in a wide variety of configurations, including some quite modern ones; a total of 2600 have been produced worldwide. The Super Hercules, a relatively new aircraft, has been in service since 1999. The Air Force has 150 of them.
I suspect the US Air Force simply doesn't need a fourth type of transport aircraft, especially in small numbers. The National Guard, Forest Service, Coast Guard, and Special Operations Forces all competed for the C27, and some of them received them.

[Cool90]

What about the Il-76? Since 2023, Russia has been producing 6 Il-76 aircraft per year, and 7 were produced in 2025.

And Australia produces its own VTA aircraft, and in general there are Australian-made aircraft and helicopters.

[Skobaristan]

This is different, you don't understand) This is all the USSR. They can't do anything of their own!!! For how long?! (By the way, this is sarcasm).

[Arkady007]

Is the Il-76 a new aircraft?
What else new has been built - the Il-212 (Shoigu promised to launch it by 2026), the Il-112, the Tu-214 (promised to go into production by 2022), or the Tu-204, or the Be-32?
In the mid-80s, the Tashkent plant produced 28 aircraft a year. But we weren't losing that many back then. I'm afraid I'd run out of fingers to count them starting with the 22nd.
I don't give a damn what they produce in Australia, what matters to me is what we have.

[Cool90]

The Il-76 is a new aircraft, they were just built.

For example, they promised to build a Japanese plane, spent 10 billion, and then closed the project. This is normal, plans may not work out.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

In the mid-80s, the Tashkent plant produced 28 aircraft per year.

Not true. We (TAPOiCh) made six cars a month and had a seventh in reserve.
Total 72 cars per year.
That's how it all happened.

[Arkady007]

You've gone too far. You need to cut down on the bream.
Open information about the plant, or maybe Wikipedia.

[Arkady007]

If production began in 1973 and roughly continued through 1991 (various sources estimate that only 860 to 950 aircraft were produced), that's no more than 53 units per year. We also need to consider how many were sold abroad. This is the Russian Military Transport Aviation (VTA) we're talking about.
If the Russian Armed Forces had only 499 IL-76s in service, that would be just right for them to receive 27 aircraft per year.

[boris]

Incorrect figures. TAPOiCh produced in the mid-80s
60 planes a year. In one year (I can't say the exact year)
65 aircraft were produced.

[KCA]

Are you an aviation specialist? Do you think the IL-76M and IL-76MD-90A are the same plane? Of course, they're both IL-76s, right? And the fact that over 70% of everything, including the engines, has been updated, and the payload capacity has been increased from 40 to 60 tons—well, nothing new at all in 40 years...

[Arkady007]

By a strange coincidence, I was transporting 60 tons of cargo on an Il-76 MD back in the late 90s using old engines, and I wasn’t the only one; I was really hungry.

[KCA]

Gazelles have a load capacity of 1500 kg, so you don't have to take a truck driving test. There was a case where a Gazelle hauled 4500 kg. I don't think it was very good, as was the case with acceleration, braking, and handling. Most likely, a VIL-76M can also carry 80 tons. The main thing is to take off, gain altitude in half an hour, and, most importantly, land. The chances of success are small, but there are some. And here, the MD has a load that is one and a half times heavier than the standard one.

[Arkady007]

So, speaking of cars, after the Gazelles, they also learned to make new GAZ and KAMAZ trucks. But there's no sign of any new aircraft.

[KCA]

If the aircraft is successful and meets requirements, why rush? Constant modernization is essential; it's not war, after all. On average, a new aircraft takes five years to develop, five years to test, and then enter service. This isn't WWII, when a gasoline engine was installed on a plywood fuselage and that's it. The new aircraft is ready. Many didn't even have a technical specification, and were brought to full combat readiness based on real-world use. How much electronics are in any aircraft these days? There's no rush; you can lick everything clean, cleaner than a cat's genitals.

[Arkady007]

There is no need to lick anything from the cat.
Over the past year, 35 new dollar billionaires have emerged in Russia.
And how many men died for this achievement?
SMERSH is needed, and Stalin is needed, too. The SVO will be over in a month.

[boris]

Especially for KSA.
Indeed, the engines and radio equipment have changed.
The wing became one-piece. However, the aircraft type remains the same.

[KCA]

The type is the same, the planes are different, the Su-27 and Su-35 are also the same type, but the Su-27 is purely an air defense fighter, and the Su-35 is an MFI, you can add the Su-34, dad is also an Su-27

[commbatant]

For domestic airlifts, it is easier to use the CH-47 Chinook, and for long-range missions, the C-130 Hercules or commercial aircraft.
Do the Australian continent even need such aircraft? They'd probably be more suitable for neighboring New Zealand.

[isv000]

Judging by the events in Peru, Australian officials will first jump on a kangaroo and, once they've cleared their heads, buy a couple dozen more C-27Js...

[Radical]

Quote: Skobaristan

What new things did the US get for the Military Transport Aviation? I'm just curious. I couldn't find anything other than the old workhorses, albeit modified, C130s.

However, the total number of aircraft in the US Air Force's military transport fleet is impressive.

[Skobaristan]

I'm sure there were more there, even compared to the USSR. And that's understandable. But even looking at the overall numbers, one must carefully examine the composition and what's not just the roster, but the actual capabilities.

[Arkady007]

But I am not sure that under the USSR we had fewer military transport aircraft than the USA.
For.
At the time of the collapse of the USSR, the military transport aviation consisted of 20 regiments. It operated 657 aircraft, including 55 An-22s, 26 An-124s, 120 An-12s, and 456 Il-76s.
In total, the security forces (the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Air Force and the Strategic Missile Forces) had 499 Il-76s in service.

[Skobaristan]

I agree. I shouldn't have used the word "confident." The data needs to be verified. I was relying on the crudest logic. The US's needs for military transport were greater. Because the goal was to quickly transfer forces and supplies to bases around the world. The USSR didn't have such a goal. As I recall, we couldn't even get all of our airborne forces into the air at once.

[Arkady007]

The airborne division was raised more than once.
Why raise everyone?
I don’t remember the US raising everyone up somewhere at once.

[Cool90]

So the USSR had to redeploy 7 airborne divisions, now, as many commentators here say, in our time the airborne forces are not needed, and therefore so many planes are not needed.

[solar]

50 Galaxy + 200 Globemaster + 270 C-130. Smaller ones, like a couple dozen Beechcraft C-12 Huron, and VIP planes, also several dozen, can’t be counted.

[easy]

This isn't surprising. I've noticed over the last ten years that Colorado aircraft have been constantly promoted, while in reality, there have been more and more scandals over their poor quality. I read VO and see how some of our comrades firmly believe in the absolute superiority of the F-35 striped aircraft, but they absolutely refuse to acknowledge the criticism from all corners of the planet about their compliance with the stated specifications. They've heard and read enough of their advertising, and that's it! It's the same with these aircraft.

[solar]

In 2013, the US Air Force retired all 21 C-27Js practically new (some went straight to the "aircraft boneyard" in Arizona).

Fourteen of them were transferred from the Air Force to the Coast Guard, which is satisfied with the aircraft. Another seven aircraft are operated by the Special Operations Service. The US Forest Service has stated that it would also like to receive seven aircraft converted for firefighting if the Air Force declines them.

In November 2024, Slovakia's Minister of Defence Robert Kalinjak announced the planned decommissioning of the C-27J.

Slovakia has two C-27J aircraft.
A total of 117 C-27 aircraft have been produced by 2022.

[Cympak]

I saw the C-27J's flight program at MAKS-2009. I was impressed by its takeoff. For such a "pot-bellied" military transport aircraft, it was short and unexpectedly steep, meaning the C-27J has a considerable thrust-to-weight ratio and wing high-lift devices.