Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bureaucracy Strikes Again: C-27 Goes Down Fighting  
User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 511 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6580 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-for-new-c-27j-contractor-385932/

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but what I get from this news release is that the USAF has issued a semi-RFI for a contractor to build C-27 Spartans. With the outcome being: "Responses to this survey will be used to influence the programme's acquisition strategy."

The article states that due to some apparent existing T&Cs on previously granted funding, the USAF must conduct the research despite having terminated the program and looking at ways to dispose of in-service aircraft.

Would any companies actually waste time and resources responding to such a request?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6164 times:

L-3, Boeing, and at one time LM were all involved in the C-27J program. While L-3 does not build airplanes, both Boeing and LM do.

But, LM may have the best chance and capability to produce the C-27J as it shares engines, propellers, and avionics with the C-130J.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5934 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
But, LM may have the best chance and capability to produce the C-27J as it shares engines, propellers, and avionics with the C-130J.

But what's the point when they're not going to actually end buidling anything!?


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7560 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 5735 times:

Very confusing they are issuing an RFI for someone to supply Spartans, but they have a new fleet they are intending to dispose of? Nuts!!!

User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5714 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think there is the possibility that the Pentagon recognises that there may be potential FMS opportunities for the Spartan even id the USAF don't want the ones they have.
They may be just maintaining a capability listing in case any of those opportunities develop.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

A nice line up, C27-A400M-C17, hercs are somewhere between the A400M and the C27, better to skip on of them.

User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3957 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

I suggest that they write to: Alenia Aeronautica SpA, Via Campania 45, I-00187 Rome, Italy.

The C-27 is being built there. What am I missing?

[Edited 2013-05-20 07:05:21]


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A nice line up, C27-A400M-C17, hercs are somewhere between the A400M and the C27, better to skip on of them.

Why not just skip the A-400M and save a boat load of money when you replace it with the C-130J?

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 6):
I suggest that they write to: Alenia Aeronautica SpA, Via Campania 45, I-00187 Rome, Italy.

Them being built there is just a rumor.

But seriously, I just don't understand why the C-27Js in the ANG units, and some new builds just could not go to the US Army Reserves and Army National Guard units. The USAF is just being anal about all of this. Of course, the USAF has been anal since 1992, when I retired from it.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5075 times:

"Of course, the USAF has been anal since 1992, when I retired from it".

Are these two linked  


User currently offlineBacon907 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4770 times:

The USAF doesn't want the C-27J or the theater airlift mission.
They just don't want the Army to have it.
It all comes down to service rivalries and turf wars at the Flag officer levels.


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3957 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Quoting Bacon907 (Reply 9):
The USAF doesn't want the C-27J or the theater airlift mission.
They just don't want the Army to have it.
It all comes down to service rivalries and turf wars at the Flag officer levels.

And that's why they are looking for a contractor to build an aircraft that's currently in production in Italy?  
Mind-boggling.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineaeroweanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4558 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Back in 1967, the Air Force felt threatened by the Army's fixed-wing operations and grabbed the tactical airlift mission, getting the Army C-7 Caribous that were in service and the C-8 Buffalos that were on order. The Air Force promptly retired the Caribous and cancelled the Buffalo order. The Air Force did operate some C-123s, but retired them as soon as they could. This was despite the lessons learned in Vietnam, where the C-130 was just too big for many front-line airfields. This forced the Army to buy second-hand Short 360s, glue a Short 330 tail on them and use them for airlift as C-23s.

Now the C-23s are worn out from supporting front-line troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army needed a replacement and the Air Force played a con game on them, going in as a "partner" on the C-27J buy. The Air Force ended up grabbing the program and then quickly terminating it. I personally think that every Air Force officer involved in the C-27J scam should be demoted to Airman First Class.


User currently offlineBacon907 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 4254 times:

As a C-23 FE and a tax payer I couldn't agree more. Lock those money wasting officers/ bureaucrats up in Levenworth.

The Army is partially to blame though. They wanted a C-23 replacement and wound up buying a baby Herc. The C-27J is too much airplane.
I think the AF would have had a harder time stealing the program if the Army decided to go it alone and get some CASA-235 or -295's.

As far as the article is concerned, Congress got a bit upset that the AF was parking brand new airplanes. They were told to spend the money the way they were told to spend it. So now the AF is going to make it so expensive that it's irresponsible to buy them at the new prices. They don't want the plane or the mission and will do anything to make sure they both disappear.


User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 4172 times:

Could they not give the C-27s to the Afghan Air Force - I'm sure they'd appreciate any aircraft they can get!

User currently offlinelipzoan From Italy, joined Jan 2011, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

..i seriously doubt USAF could imagine to move any C27J to ANAAC after theyr decision to stop C27A (600 millions US$ program ended with 10 READY TO FLIGHT airplanes grounded at Kabul airfield)..

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

At this point the army just needs give the air force the finger and see if they can tag a couple additional CASA fromesonto the USCG roger.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Bureaucracy Strikes Again: C-27 Goes Down Fighting
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...
Another Usaf F-15 Goes Down posted Fri Feb 1 2008 23:42:38 by Dahawaiian
US Army Black Hawk Goes Down Italy posted Thu Nov 8 2007 06:45:33 by Michlis
P-51 Goes Down posted Sun Dec 24 2006 19:22:48 by Seefivein
India Goes American (Boeing) Again.. posted Tue Oct 25 2011 07:39:21 by mffoda
Turkish F-16 Down, Pilot Dies after Ejecting posted Mon May 13 2013 07:49:25 by TK787
M-346 Down In Italy, Pilot Safely Ejected posted Sat May 11 2013 14:20:37 by 777
When Did The Fighting Falcon Turn Into A Viper? posted Sat Mar 23 2013 01:40:49 by a380heavy
EA-6from NAS Whidbey Island Down In E-Wash posted Mon Mar 11 2013 11:25:48 by flyingfysh
Video Of Syrian Copter Being Shot Down posted Tue Mar 5 2013 12:39:14 by TK787
A4R Down In Argentina 2/14 posted Thu Feb 14 2013 08:18:56 by LVTMB

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format