Notices
Military Military Aviation

C-27's going away

Old 02-29-2012, 04:43 AM
  #21  
Sequester bait
 
DustoffVT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: UH-60, AS-350, C-550
Posts: 273
Default

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged

That is also what most of us believe who have been intimately involved in the program. The political side of this disgusts me. OPSEC considerations prevent me from speaking in full, but suffice it to say that several warriors in my unit shed blood over this BS! We faced enormous risk by flying this aircraft in combat.


Not without reason. Your efforts kept our (Tallil dustoff) airframes up and saved lives. Thanks.
DustoffVT is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 06:15 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
LowSlowT2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Default

Originally Posted by dtfl View Post
Pretty much...BUT...they compared the C27 with the C-130J-30 not the shorty....which could pretty much perform the same. (Assault speeds are lower...plus some other differences...takes too long to explain here)
Not really. The J-model Herk is now limited by landing distance. With the "classic" Herk, we can land places we can't take off from. With the J-model, you can take off from places you could never land & stop in. You have to look at landing distances, not takeoff runs...the C27 can still get into places the Herk can't.
LowSlowT2 is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 03:29 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
propfails2FX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 266
Default Well I'll be......

Air Force, Coast Guard talk C-27J deal - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Air Force, Coast Guard talk C-27J deal



By Marcus Weisgerber - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Mar 11, 2012 10:14:18 EDT
Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp told lawmakers last week that he has talked with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz about the feasibility of transferring C-27Js to the sea service. The Coast Guard is conducting a business case analysis of transferring the cargo haulers.
The Coast Guard flies C-130Js and EADS-produced CN-235s, which it calls the HC-144. The Coast Guard opted for the HC-144 over the C-27J because of lower life-cycle costs, Papp said at a House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee hearing. Still, he’s not ruling out a mixed fleet of HC-144s and C-27Js.
“[S]ometimes things fall in your laps and if we can get … basically free from the Air Force, we might be able to come up with the plan that would allow us a mix of the [CN-235s], a mix of the C-27s, and, oh by the way, that might put some extra money in our budget that we could devote to some of these other projects,” Papp said March 6.
Papp noted that the C-27J and C-130J use the same engines, which would help cut the logistical costs of operating two aircraft.
propfails2FX is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 10:21 PM
  #24  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 20
Default

I didn't believe it either until I saw the article. Knew you would like that one, Monty. Is it possible that common sense could win the day??
BugT56 is offline  
Old 03-13-2012, 04:26 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
propfails2FX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 266
Default

Originally Posted by BugT56 View Post
I didn't believe it either until I saw the article. Knew you would like that one, Monty. Is it possible that common sense could win the day??
We'll see Bug. How long did it take to missionize the J's? I know they were flying around as slick transports for years.

I hope simulator time can be part of the deal. Not having a CASA sim has hurt the quality of our training.

This news is definitely a step in the right direction. The C-27 might not be living up to expectations as a tactical airlifter at fields with high density altitude, but could do nicely out of coastal airports in the maritime patrol regime of flight.
propfails2FX is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 11:09 PM
  #26  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 20
Post

Originally Posted by propfails2FX View Post
We'll see Bug. How long did it take to missionize the J's? I know they were flying around as slick transports for years.

I hope simulator time can be part of the deal. Not having a CASA sim has hurt the quality of our training.

This news is definitely a step in the right direction. The C-27 might not be living up to expectations as a tactical airlifter at fields with high density altitude, but could do nicely out of coastal airports in the maritime patrol regime of flight.
Monty, It took them 6 years to missionize the J. I am glad they figured it out, as the H's will not fly forever. We did just buy two more J's last year and will be opening Barbers up as the second J Airsta sometime in the future. Just think, in 15 years when the H's are all max fatigued, we could have J's, big and small throughout the fleet. There has to be more efficiencies there than buying 40 casas....probably wishful thinking though....
BugT56 is offline  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:55 AM
  #27  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 20
Thumbs up C27J Update

Heard a recent update on this issue, it looks like it is progressing at light speed in comparison to how acquisitions usually go. Rumor is that the CG has submitted the proposal to the appropriate approval authorities. The Chief of Staff of the AF is onboard with the transfer. I have heard various numbers as far as airframes go, last rumor I heard was for 32 C27 airframes. Does anyone know the exact number of airframes that the Air Guard had, both actively flying and yet to be delivered? Also heard a rumor that the deal may include the C130J Hurricane Hunters from Keesler....Anyone out there heard anything on that?
BugT56 is offline  
Old 08-13-2015, 01:57 AM
  #28  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 1
Default

Do you have the CASA 235 simulator? And what are the cost for the initial course
mahomed is offline  
Old 08-13-2015, 06:19 PM
  #29  
Get me outta here...
 
HuggyU2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Boeing right seat
Posts: 1,541
Default

Bump.... I guess.
HuggyU2 is offline  
Old 08-27-2015, 12:49 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Spike from flyi's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: B777; Left Seat.
Posts: 253
Default

The C-27J was originally a joint project between Alenia (Italy - originator of the C-27A), and Lockheed-Martin (C-130J). When LM realized that the C-27J could supplant the need for some C-130Js, they dropped it like it were hot.

Flash Back: The Army used C-7 Caribous in Vietnam, until the Air Force asked if they could get in on that program with the Army. The Army agreed, and the Air Force then asked if they could be the lead service for the program. The Army agreed again, and the Air Force immediately killed the Caribou program [a few remained in the Army Guard, until they were forced (Tip O'Neil and Robert Byrd) to get rid of the Caribou and replace it with the Shorts C-23 (much less capable)].

Flash Forward: The Army wound up with a fixed wing airplane that even the Air Force didn't mind them having. It was truly a turd, no matter how you tried to polish it. As a result, the Army developed force structure and doctrine around this airplane they never asked for. After 9/11, there was so much need for assets in theater, and the doctrine was there, so the C-23s went, and the crews did an incredibly good job with that POS. The Army validated a requirement for 72 C-27s to replace the C-23, the Air Force never validated a requirement for a single airplane, but they asked the Army (like so many years ago) if they could get in on this Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA); they would rename it the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA); the Air Force would obviously have to be the lead service on the program. The Army agreed, and the Air Force quickly killed the program. It's all about retiring from the Air Force, and getting a Job at Lockheed-Martin, making sure the Air Force continues to buy C-130s. Get over it.
Spike from flyi is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices