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 ?

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

USMCFLYR

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

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg7/cg711/c144a.asp

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

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...

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.

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 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.

You can bet that some people in the house or senate made millions on this.

The USCG would have been much better served with the C27J over the Casa. I am not completely familiar with the acquisition process, but from what I heard there were many promises made about the capes and lims of the Casa that it has failed to deliver on. I know there would be many happy people if the USCG went and resurrected the C27J and sold off the 144's. JMHO.

A big +1 for the political side...However, what really irks me though is the fact that the airframes are essentially BRAND NEW. What "cost savings" is there in retiring new aircraft? It's just a crock of "Big Blue" B.S. What threat to "Big Blue" did the C-27J program present...none. End result, perfectly good aircraft getting retired and the Army Guard units who were supposed to get this aircraft taking it in the shorts.

An article from Oct '09:

chair1009

A really good read. It makes you wonder if "Big Blue" really had solid plans for this aircraft or just got involved with a program with the intention to kill it.

BBUUUUGGGGG! After all the conversations we've had, you know better than to strike a match on this powder keg. Edited my response. Went on a rant about blah blah, mission sensor pallet, blah blah, electrical system, blah blah, anti-ice/de-ice, blah-blah, cockpit ergonomics, spare parts, dispatch rate, $39 mil per copy, blah OT&E not complete, blah blah deepwater debacle = 144 program too big to fail blah.

Hey man, was this the guy you were talking about?

EADS North America - Vice Admiral (Ret.) Terry Cross named as EADS North America’s Director of Homeland Security Programs

http://www.uscg.mil/history/people/CrossTerryMbio.pdf

I figured that would bring you out of the shadows just like this thread finally got me to sign up and quit lurking. I was not implying anyone in particular, just referencing people I knew who went through TPS and had some knowledge of the 144 program. Ultimately we will make the aircraft work, but I know how you and most everyone who flies it feels. It is wishful thinking to think that the CG would move on the C27J. The AF is also parking a bunch of H2's and H3 Hercs that are newer and could have a nice home in the CG. I am sure current budgets preclude any of this from happening though.

It would be nice if the CG jumped on the C27 airframes, but I agree, it's probably not going to happen at this point. The cost of training and support for two medium MRS airframes would probably be too much for a service this size. Still can't believe they went for the 144 over the C27.

Interesting how CG CASA and AF C-27 folks share a similar sentiment about the political processes which have influenced acquisition of both aircraft.

Sorry, it was someone else who pointed out that the Vice Commandant during the period EADS was awarded the CASA contract was hired by EADS into a position tailor made for him after retiring and not taking a two year grace period.

"Cross was the Coast Guard’s Vice Commandant from 2004 to 2006, with oversight responsibility for the development and implementation of strategic plans and budget priorities. He also served as the Agency Acquisition Executive and had requirements decision authority for major Coast Guard acquisitions requirements, including aircraft, boats, ships, technology systems and facilities. "

No big deal, just because it looks and smells fishy doesn't mean it is. His career path has further degraded morale of us folks flying the CASA, but in the end the crews will make it work. For the non-CG folks reading this, our enlisted aircrew are also our maintainers (aka fixers/flyers). They bore the true brunt of this platform transition and my hat goes off to them.

Army Hopes to Hold on to C-27Js: Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said he hopes that the Defense Department will retain the C-27J Spartan transports it's already acquired, even though the Air Force last month announced plans to divest the entire Spartan fleet. For now, Odierno said the few C-27s that are already in use in Afghanistan will remain there until officials decide what to do with the fleet. "Here is our problem. We have [C-23] Sherpas, which are old and no longer effective," Odierno told defense reporters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. "What I don't want to have to do is modernize the Sherpas. I'd like to keep the C-27s we've already purchased. But we haven't purchased that many. That's another problem." The Air Force has already procured 21 of the 38 C-27s it had intended to acquire for the Air National Guard. The plan had been for the Air Guard to use the tiny airlifters to provide direct support to Army units. Instead, the Air Force now intends to attach C-130s to Army units down range to provide that type of support,*said Odierno. (See also Spartan Beginnings from Air Force Magazine's 2011 archive.)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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?

Do you have the CASA 235 simulator? And what are the cost for the initial course

Bump.... I guess.

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.

There is a 235 sim in Mobile. Not sure as to the cost of the course other than your self pride. :D Some falcon/puffin guys on here may know the answer.

An old friend was one of the AF guys who were given an Army checkout in the Caribou during the changeover. He told the Army IP: "You're going to land where?! There's not enough roo...Aieeee!" :eek:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qAqmCdc_KK4

My last flight in an OV-1D Mohawk was in May of 1992. I was assigned at Fort Hood Texas, and liked to do my training flights to the very end of our "leash". I was interested in going to Clinton-Sherman, OK. They had a runway 13,000' long by 300' wide. They didn't even have Class D airspace. I got gas from the FBO there, and the fellow who owned it gave me a royal welcome. He was a retired USAF major. He had flown C-7As in Vietnam, and had done a liaison tour with an Army C-7A unit. He had some great admiration for Army pilots. He said the Army would let them land on a 700' dirt strip, while the USAF required a minimum of 1,000'. He also said that the USAF required two pilots in the C-7, while the Army would let a 19 year old WO-1 fly it by himself. Later, after I checked the weather and found a huge line of thunderstorms between me and Fort Hood, he drove me and my right seater to the Holiday Inn, and told the manager to take good care of us. He even loaned me $50. I think he would have given me the shirt off of his back. Nice guy; I'll never forget him.

Great video, I love those white helmets! Did crews actually wear those in theater?

In 2011 while flying out of Bagram, a contract C-7 showed up and was flying sorties from next to our squadron.

It was gorgeous. Looked like new. And was powered by a pair of PT-6's. Super quiet.

It would taxi to the intersection, go full power, and take off in what seemed to be a few hundred feet. I'm sure it was more, but it looked great.

Who would have thought to put the power quadrant on the overhead panel?

Loved those plastic baseball hats!