Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Possible Usaf C-27Js To Uscg  
User currently offlineandydtwnwa7 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 82 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9432 times:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...oast-guard-talk-c27j-deal-031112w/

Looks like the USAF may be working a deal with the USCG for their C-27Js. It would definitely be interesting seeing a mixed USCG fleet. However if this does go through, it looks like the rumor of transferring the C-27Js to the Army or individual NG units is over.

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinealberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2920 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9419 times:

Why didn't the air force let the army operate them as they originally wanted to ?


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9371 times:

Don't see it. Especially with USCG CASA's already entering service.

But I can see the ARNG going either way now.

Either the C-27 or going with their own version of the C-235.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9311 times:

Taking the C-27J away from the service which had worked hard for and needed it all along, and tossing the same to an unexpectant receiver.....

Quote:
"[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."

.....makes the AFCoS' statement about the C-27J termination being a hard choice ring hollow.....

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/23/af...j-was-a-particularly-tough-choice/

Quote:
"The C-27 descision was a particularly difficult one for me, because Gen. George Casey, when he was chief of staff of the Army, and I agreed that we would migrate the C-27 to the Air Force and I assured him that I wouldn’t back out,' said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz during a speech at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here."


The Army was outmaneuvered and shortchanged again.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 8945 times:

This makes no sense at all, what the hell is the USAF doing? They need to give these airplanes to the US Army, not the USCG. The Coast Guard doesn't need them, they have 36 HC-144As on order, about 12 of those have already been delivered.

User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 8921 times:

The markings on the aircraft clearly say who those belonged to.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bruce Leibowitz


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Leandro Rocha
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Osciak

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
This makes no sense at all, what the hell is the USAF doing?

Could they be using the C-27J to get more concessions in the ongoing horsetrading, before they return the Spartans to the Army/ANG?.....

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...er-Cuts?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

Meanwhile, the Deputy Army G-8 is telling Congress they need airlift, not more tanks.....

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Quote:
“'These are hard choices,' Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, deputy chief of staff for Army programs (G-8), said March 8 before the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee. The Army has decided to stop buying tanks it doesn’t need and instead wants to invest in higher priorities such as aviation and providing a battlefield network, he said."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12549 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 8887 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
This makes no sense at all, what the hell is the USAF doing? They need to give these airplanes to the US Army, not the USCG.

That would mean the blue-suiters would be giving up mission "turf"...

USCG is a convenient, non-threatening place to get them off the USAF budget without letting the Army gain a mission.

Makes perfect sense to me.

It was said back in WWII that the Navy's biggest enemy was the Army (including AAC) instead of the Japs/Germans, and some things never change, except that the USAF has proven to be damn good at building and maintaining their empire.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8644 times:

The first mission of any beauracracy is to preserve itself at any cost, to others.
The USAF is no different.
They would rather burn those C-27s than see the Army operate them.
What is best for the country is secondary.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8433 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
It was said back in WWII that the Navy's biggest enemy was the Army (including AAC) instead of the Japs/Germans, and some things never change, except that the USAF has proven to be damn good at building and maintaining their empire.
Quoting cmb56 (Reply 7):
The first mission of any beauracracy is to preserve itself at any cost, to others.
The USAF is no different.
They would rather burn those C-27s than see the Army operate them.
What is best for the country is secondary.

Sigh..... this is a much different Air Force than the one I retired from. In my days in the USAF, there was interservice fighting, but when it came to national defense, we all spoke from the same sheet of music.


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6959 times:

Here's something of a surprise.....

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_29_2012_p0-472546.xml

June 29, 2012

Quote:
"Finmeccanica said the United States might restart ordering C-27J military cargo aircraft, a key part of the relaunch of the Italian aerospace and defence group’s Alenia Aermacchi unit.

Earlier this year, the United States ended the procurement of C-27Js when contracts for 17 out of 38 aircraft initially planned had yet to be finalized.

Finmeccanica said a committee at the U.S. Congress had reconsidered the decision."



Wishful thinking?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6944 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 7):
What is best for the country is secondary.

cmb56 does NOT speak for the Air Force...we certainly don't think that.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6847 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting checksixx (Reply 10):

I don't know who the we is that you speak of... but in my experience cmb56 is pretty close to the truth, at least where light fixed wing aviation is concerned.

I watched USAF abandon the C-23 @ close range in the 80s. That they did the same to C-27 is no surprise.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6769 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
USCG is a convenient, non-threatening place to get them off the USAF budget without letting the Army gain a mission.

Makes perfect sense to me

Even better spot would be with the Department on the Interior, Office of Aircraft Services. Right now they are using a mix of aircraft, including turbine 3's and Sherpa A's to support smokejumpers

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
That would mean the blue-suiters would be giving up mission "turf"...

Yeah, that battle has been going on since Nam, when the Army had to give up it's C-7's. I remember at the time the C-7 could operate from 7-% of the airstrips in Nam and Cambodia at the time, the C-123 the airforce flew could fly from 25-30%

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 7):
The USAF is no different.
They would rather burn those C-27s than see the Army operate them.
What is best for the country is secondary.

Thats the sad part.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6765 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 10):
cmb56 does NOT speak for the Air Force...we certainly don't think that.

You should check out the history of the genesis of the A-10 if you don't believe cmb56. It went through the exact same turmoil and in the end they only took it up to prevent the CAS funding stream from being handed over to the Army (in doing so they killed the development of the AH-56 Cheyenne).

The development of the F-14/F-15 and F-16/F-18 programmes is litttered with exactly the same in-fighting. Throughout the cold war the upper echelons of the USN and the USAF considered each other as big an enemy as the Russians.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6709 times:

The C27 seems to be a much better plane than the EADS product? Sad if the army cant get what it actually needs.

User currently offlineHumanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6625 times:

The Coast Guard story is now old news. The latest is that the USAF is parking the C-27J and waiting for Congress to make up its mind on the fate of the aircraft. At this time the House and Senate vary on what to do about the USAF reductions. See excerpt below:

Quote:
June 22, 2012—The Air Force is no longer operating C-27J Spartan airlifters in Afghanistan and currently has no plans to return them to that theater, according to service officials.
Earlier this week, officials at Kandahar AB, Afghanistan, inactivated the 702nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron that had operated two C-27Js from there since last August.

[.....]

Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy told the Daily Report June 21 that the Air Force leadership decided to pull the C-27Js at this time, following the release of the service's Fiscal 2013 budget proposal, to avoid having to spend another $20 million to $25 million on L-3 contractor support for another year in Afghanistan. The budget proposal included the service's plan to divest the C-27J fleet in Fiscal 2013 to save money for higher priorities. However, lawmakers have thus far put the kibosh on that move in their budget mark-ups for next fiscal year.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Fea...er/Pages/box062212spartanless.aspx


User currently onlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6536 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 12):
the C-7 could operate from 7-% of the airstrips in Nam

Hey L-188, did you leave some numbers out of that, I would think the C-7 could operate in & out of more strips in SE Asia than the C-123 could

Cheers

Full disclaimer, My father was a Vietnam based C-7(actually RAAF DHC-4) maintainer in 1964-5, he took this photo...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Griffiths



Which shows a USAF C-123 dropping supplies onto a strip which it wouldn't land at even if there was no broken 'bou parked there



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6438 times:

I think I

Quoting stealthz (Reply 16):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 12):
the C-7 could operate from 7-% of the airstrips in Nam

Hey L-188, did you leave some numbers out of that, I would think the C-7 could operate in & out of more strips in SE Asia than the C-123 could

Yeah, the zero got shot off the tail there.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAeroweanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1609 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6382 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This strikes me as a continuation of a long-standing con job conducted by the USAF. They grabbed all of the Army's Caribous and then promptly retired them. At the same time, they took over the Army's order for Buffalos and cancelled it. Admittedly, they did operate C-123s for a while, but finally retired them with no real replacement. To get short-range airlift, the Army was forced to take ex-airline Short 330s and put H-tails on them, resulting in C-23Cs. Some of the Air Force C-23As did end up with the Army, but most went to the Forest Service or were declared surplus. Now that the Army C-23s are worn out from heavy use, the Air Force conned the Army into sharing an order for C-27Js, then they took over the order and now they are cancelling it and ditching the airframes.

The Army trusts the Air Force so little that when the Air Force was forced to buy MC-12Ws, the Army went out and bought King Air 300s on the civil market and modified them to a similar standard so that they could count on having them available.

I think they should bust all of the Air Force officers that had anything to do with the C-27J con job to the rank of Airman First Class. They swore to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States." No where in the Constitution does it say "screw the Army."


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6068 times:

Quoting Humanitarian (Reply 15):
The latest is that the USAF is parking the C-27J and waiting for Congress to make up its mind on the fate of the aircraft.

To follow up on #9 and expound further on that..... what are the chances of those Spartans ending up with SOCOM? There appears to be a RO/RO weapons scheme being proposed by ATK for it.....

.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...-27j-to-turn-spooky-at-farnbo.html

Quote:
"You didn't hear this from me, but something 'Spooky' is going to happen to Alenia Aermacchi's normally innocent-looking C-27J transport at next week's Farnborough air show.

Sharp-eyed readers of Flight International's new and largest issue of the year (which we affectionately nickname the 'Fattie') might have spotted this intriguing advert nestled amid the satisfying variety of feature articles. It heralds the arrival of the MC-27J - an armed version of the 'Spartan', to be offered by Alenia Aermacchi and ATK.

Don't mistake this beastie for a previous Alenia proposal to develop an aircraft to support Italy's special forces requirements - this one is aimed squarely at the export market. Mission equipment will be roll-on, roll-off in design.

The key addition visible from the image used above is what appears to be a 30mm cannon protruding from the side of the cargo hold. That'd be useful for border surveillance and close air support missions, and might even make some of those Somali pirates think twice."



Not many air forces would embark on or have a need for such a program. So, if different from Italy's Praetorian project, could this be a reincarnation of the stillborn Stinger II in a new form?

The previous M230 effort with an AC130U didn't pan out.....but if they make it work now, this may be one ATK scheme I'd like.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6008 times:

Quoting Aeroweanie (Reply 18):
I think they should bust all of the Air Force officers that had anything to do with the C-27J con job to the rank of Airman First Class. They swore to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States." No where in the Constitution does it say "screw the Army."

It burns me up to think about how the Army got screwed out of the C-27J. If the Air Force's leadership wasn't so busy guarding their turf they'd remember what team they're on and more importantly who they work for. It doesn't matter what branch you're in, everyone works for the troops on the ground, whether they're Soldiers, Marines, Airmen or Sailors.

Cutting the C-27Js is the Air Force giving Army and Marine ground commanders the big middle finger. Absolutely ridiculous.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Possible Usaf C-27Js To Uscg
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Usaf Going To Release Findings In B-2 Crash Today posted Thu Jun 5 2008 04:55:04 by Jgarrido
CIA/USAF Wants To Remove A-12 From Minnesota Museu posted Fri Jan 12 2007 16:53:36 by Lt-AWACS
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp
Usaf Wants To Deploy Space Based Weapons posted Thu May 19 2005 00:17:01 by KC135TopBoom
Possible Usaf Order For KC-130Js. posted Tue Jan 18 2005 01:04:34 by CX747
Usaf Charters To FRA posted Wed May 12 2004 04:58:20 by AATriple7
Usaf C-9A To Retire In 2004 posted Thu Jul 24 2003 18:43:04 by Lt-AWACS
Usaf Cancels Global Hawk, Extends U2 To 2023? posted Tue Jan 24 2012 15:00:43 by LimaNiner
USAF- Carrier Landings Possible? posted Mon Jan 23 2012 13:59:10 by andydtwnwa7

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format