Pilots helping pilots

View over 100 airline profilesAdd to Google



Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
Register FAQ Advertising Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Military Career | Transition to airline pilot

 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums

    Already registered? Login above

OR
 
To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of
the largest community of airline pilots in the U.S. and beyond.

The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-07-2012, 05:11 AM   #1 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
satpak77's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: B-350 Part 91 Captain
Posts: 364
Default C-27's going away

C-27J Chopped in U.S. Budget Cuts | Aviation International News

So let me understand this, XXXX millions spent to purchase something that shockingly the C-130 could have done all along ?

where do I get in on some of this contracting gravy ?
satpak77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
Old 02-07-2012, 05:42 AM   #2 (permalink)
Moderator
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 8,475
Default

I asked this before and now can't remember the answer - - but wasn't the USCG getting some of these aircraft too?

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 06:17 AM   #3 (permalink)
On Reserve
 
Squawk 1277's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Position: C-130
Posts: 11
Default

No, we went with a Casa 235 variant, the HC-144A.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg7/cg711/c144a.asp
Squawk 1277 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 06:22 AM   #4 (permalink)
Moderator
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 8,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawk 1277 View Post
No, we went with a Casa 235 variant, the HC-144A.

HC-144A : Platforms : CG-711
So the USCG was looking at the C-27J and then went with a different aircraft right?
These are for the Falcon replacement, not the C-130 right?

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 06:47 AM   #5 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
LowSlowT2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by satpak77 View Post
C-27J Chopped in U.S. Budget Cuts | Aviation International News

So let me understand this, XXXX millions spent to purchase something that shockingly the C-130 could have done all along ?

where do I get in on some of this contracting gravy ?
The C27 and C130 missions overlap. The C130 can't do at one end what the C27 can do and the C27 can't do at the other end what a C130 can do. There are missions for each...
LowSlowT2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 07:34 AM   #6 (permalink)
On Reserve
 
Squawk 1277's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Position: C-130
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
These are for the Falcon replacement, not the C-130 right?

USMCFLYR
Yes, they were selected to replace the aging Falcon; we still have C-130Hs and a few C-130Js with plans to buy more. From what I heard, along with a couple of other factors, the C-27J was priced out of competition during the selection process.
Squawk 1277 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 09:08 AM   #7 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Atlas Shrugged's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: 744 FO
Posts: 86
Default

The C-27 emerged out of the FUTURE ARMY CARGO aircraft program as a replacement for the C-23 only found in the Army National Guard. The C-23 (Shorts 330) was the replacement for the Carribou. The Guard got the C-23 in 1991 after the active Air Force got rid of their C-23A models in Europe. We acquired additional aircraft to round out a fleet of about 44 airframes.

The C-27 was a CONUS only cargo asset. It is not a military airplane in any capacity. It has metal fuel tanks! It has no military radios either. The C-23 was deployed to combat in Iraq for political reasons steming from the age old fight between the Army and MAC over lift assets. It quickly became a valuable tool for the Army filling a gap between the C-130 requiring no outside approval.

We flew the aircraft in a tactical profile all over Iraq and suffered numerous casualties but luckily, no fatalities. She was the little plane who could. She was not only ugly, but slow and under powered too. We worked miracles with that plane to include flying it with NVGs with an expedient modification. We were the first to fly an Army aircraft with NVGs in combat.

The active Army was so impressed with the asset that they piggy backed on to the Guard's acquisition program and asked for 100 aircraft for the active component. The AF freaked out over this and began a political battle to stop it. The Guard was originally going to acquire about 30 airframes to replace the C-23 which did not threaten the AF. The Army Guard got screwed and here we are. The Guard did get some airframes but I don't know the current status as I now fly HH60s in the Air Guard.
__________________
I fly junk, so you don't have to.

Last edited by Atlas Shrugged; 02-07-2012 at 09:13 AM. Reason: Spelling
Atlas Shrugged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 09:26 AM   #8 (permalink)
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged View Post
The active Army was so impressed with the asset that they piggy backed on to the Guard's acquisition program and asked for 100 aircraft for the active component. The AF freaked out over this and began a political battle to stop it. The Guard was originally going to acquire about 30 airframes to replace the C-23 which did not threaten the AF. The Army Guard got screwed and here we are. The Guard did get some airframes but I don't know the current status as I now fly HH60s in the Air Guard.
I have had it explained to me that the only reason the AF ordered its limited number of airframes was just to lead us to this point. If they had part ownership in the program then they could have a say in when to kill it.
Dizzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 09:37 AM   #9 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Atlas Shrugged's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: 744 FO
Posts: 86
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy View Post
I have had it explained to me that the only reason the AF ordered its limited number of airframes was just to lead us to this point. If they had part ownership in the program then they could have a say in when to kill it.
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.
__________________
I fly junk, so you don't have to.
Atlas Shrugged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 10:05 AM   #10 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: C-5, Fat Fred
Posts: 42
Default

You can bet that some people in the house or senate made millions on this.
bigskyflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:49 AM.


vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2012 Internet Brands, Inc.