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?
stealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5898 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6753 times:
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!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12368 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6339 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.
ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4227 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5879 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?
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
aeroweanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1612 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5784 times:
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.
Bacon907 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5480 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.