Raytheon says it is protesting losing the Joint Cargo Aircraft contract for three reasons:
a) the joint program office rated performance equally between the two competitors
b) Raytheon's C-295 procurement price tag beat L-3's C-27J acquisition cost by 15%
c) and lifecycle costs were not factored into the joint program office's evaluation
B and C are interesting points but may not be very meaningful in a "best value" competition.
But, if Raytheon's claims are accurate, A would be a stunner. How could the joint programme office devise an evaluation system that created an equal rating for these two aircraft. I've never heard Raytheon make the claim that the C-295 is the equal of the C-27J as a military aircraft. That's because, by all reasonable measures, it's not. That doesn't mean it isn't more cost effective and more appropriate for the army's mission (if not the air force's), but the question remains.
on July 5, 2007 11:15 PM | Reply
I'm not sure the JPO did say the two aircraft were "equal", merely that they were both compliant with the requirement.
Both made the grade therefore both ticked the same boxes.
>>I've never heard Raytheon make the claim that the C-295 is the equal of the C-27J as a military aircraft. That's because, by all reasonable measures, it's not.
This reads like big swing at the C-295, and that's a little unfair. There are things the C-27J can clearly do that the C-295 can't, and vice versa.
How many of those things are actually in the JCA requirement?
And, by all accounts, the Army assessed the C-295 as superior in terms of pallet load and troop accommodation...
on July 6, 2007 12:36 AM | Reply
I will concede that the C-295 can move more people and more pallets. It's a very good civil transport, which is what it was designed to be. (Yes, the Spanish Air Force was the first customer, but it was designed with the intention of becoming a civil transport, not a military one). This is why the C-27J should rank as the superior MILITARY aircraft, particularly with better speed and survivability.
on July 12, 2007 12:21 AM | Reply
>>I will concede that the C-295 can move more people and more pallets.
OK. I'm going to have to stop you right there. More people. More pallets – and the job of this military TRANSPORT aircraft is to do what now exactly?
The C-295 was always a military transport. There are no civil C-295s. None. Not ever. Its smaller predecessor the CN-235 was designed (back, way back) as a multi-purpose civil/military aircraft but almost no-one bought it for civil use because it was so skewed in favour of the military mission it made a lousy airliner.
The C-295 may look a bit like a big CN-235 but it was a military programme from day one.
The JCA is supposed to be a replacement for C-12s, C-23s and C-26s. None of these aircraft are up there in the ranks of the speedy, or the survivable – but they have plodded along doing what was asked of them which is to haul as much stuff as possible from A to B.
If the C-295 really is cheaper than the C-27J and carries more guys and carries more stuff then explain to me again why it's so inferior?
BTW it's defensive aids that make a turboprop survivable, and you can hang them on whatever platform you like for the same result, surely?
on July 12, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply
I agree with you at least as much as I disagree with you. I would understand if the army decided to go with the C-295 as a straight-up replacement for the C-23. But the army clearly wanted an aircraft with better performance than a straightforward C-23 replacement, and the fact is that the C-27J is an overall more capable airplane than the C-295. Survivability is as much a function of speed and design as it is defensive aids, although that certainly helps in IR-threat situations.