C-27J Spartans: Leaves the factory and heads straight to the boneyard....

sublight_

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
25 August 2012
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
486
Website
www.reddit.com
New cargo planes on order for the U.S. Air Force are being delivered straight into storage in the Arizona desert because the military has no use for them, a Dayton Daily News investigation found.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/new-air-force-planes-parked-in-arizona-boneyard-1.245554
 
So if I have the sequence right:

1. The Army says it needs small airlifters and wants the C-27.

2. The Air Force protests that they should be involved so are given half of them.

3. The Air Force protests that they are solely responsible for fixed-wing aircraft so are given all of them.

4. The Air Force decides that it doesn't want them and removes them from service.

5. The Army gets shafted, as usual.

Is that how it went?
 
Tony Williams said:
So if I have the sequence right:

1. The Army says it needs small airlifters and wants the C-27.

2. The Air Force protests that they should be involved so are given half of them.

3. The Air Force protests that they are solely responsible for fixed-wing aircraft so are given all of them.

4. The Air Force decides that it doesn't want them and removes them from service.

5. The Army gets shafted, as usual.

Is that how it went?

No thats not "how it went." You see in between steps 3 and 4, this thing called Sequestration happened. Where massive automatic cuts took place and will continue to take place. So what happened is the USAF bought these aircraft under the crazy notion that there would be funding to support them years in the future. Then that changed. So the USAF had to make the decision to withdraw them from service. The Air Force is getting shafted, as is the USN, USMC and the Army under sequestration. Sequestration was a 100 percent political decision, and had nothing to do with the USAF and their preferences.

No buck, no Buck Rogers.
 
Nonetheless, the priorities of the USAF are clearly revealed when they have to make cuts.

I see that the A-10 is likely to be chopped, in the latest of the USAF's decades-long attempts to get rid of it.
 
Tony Williams said:
Nonetheless, the priorities of the USAF are clearly revealed when they have to make cuts.

Cuts are funny that way, when you can't afford everything you have to actually prioritize. I'm sure the USAF would rather have the funding and the planes along with the people and pilots. But we don't live in that world do we? If you want to go grind your USAF axe, you should really take it somewhere else as there isn't a whole helluva lot they can do about it short of a coup.

It sure seems to me that no matter the reason, you have a bone to pick. please don't act like the USAF early retiring less than a couple dozen C-27s suddenly means the US Army is without the support of the literally thousands of transport aircraft that help support the army already.

I see that the A-10 is likely to be chopped, in the latest of the USAF's decades-long attempts to get rid of it.

You realize General Welsh is an A-10 pilot with 1,000 hours in it?
 
FMS = Foreign Military Sales = recipent country's money, U.S. facilitation and support
FMF = Foreign Military Financing = American money in the form of grants or loans
So the Aussies are paying for their own aircraft.

GTX said:
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
It sure seems to me that no matter the reason, you have a bone to pick.

And you seem to be remarkably sensitive about the subject.

It is a fact that the USAF has made more than one attempt to scrap the A-10 over a period of decades (see A-16, for example) because they prefer multi-purpose aircraft which can be switched to other tasks as required, whereas the Army prefers dedicated close-support planes because they can't be switched away.

It has long been an endemic characteristic of the culture of independent air forces to prefer to carry out the tasks which only they can do, rather than tasks which are in support of other services.
 
cluttonfred said:
FMS = Foreign Military Sales = recipent country's money, U.S. facilitation and support
FMF = Foreign Military Financing = American money in the form of grants or loans
So the Aussies are paying for their own aircraft.


And?? I did not say otherwise. Nevertheless, FMS deals are typically more favourably priced than direct purchase.
 
What will this decision do though, to support for the RAAF's purchase of the C-27J through FMS?
 
GTX said:
cluttonfred said:
FMS = Foreign Military Sales = recipent country's money, U.S. facilitation and support
FMF = Foreign Military Financing = American money in the form of grants or loans
So the Aussies are paying for their own aircraft.


And?? I did not say otherwise. Nevertheless, FMS deals are typically more favourably priced than direct purchase.

True, but the title of the link you supplied suggested, to my reading, that the funds were coming through FMS and not just a purchase via FMS:

"The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has received funding of $1.4bn for the purchase of 10 C-27J Spartan battlefield airlift aircraft from Alenia Aeronautica through a US foreign military sales (FMS) programme..."
 
And you seem to be remarkably sensitive about the subject.

indeed. I always get frustrated when people who aren't at fault get the blame.

It is a fact that the USAF has made more than one attempt to scrap the A-10 over a period of decades (see A-16, for example) because they prefer multi-purpose aircraft which can be switched to other tasks as required, whereas the Army prefers dedicated close-support planes because they can't be switched away.

the problem is this isn't the Era of the A-16 anymore. Technology marches on. The A-16 is a product of the 1980s. No one envisioned satellite guided bombs being dropped in support of troops in contact from a miles high B-52 at the time.

The Army prefers whatever it can get, and If that is USAF B-1s and B-52s doing CAS, Norwegian F-16s, UAVs, Brit or Marine Harriers, or Mud Hens then so be it. The GWoT has seen a vast expansion of CAS capable aircraft that have actually been used in combat. These are not theoretical tests performed under ideal conditions in a lab environment. This has all been proven. and Apparently it was never worth paying attention to until suddenly talk of the A-10 being retired surfaced again and then all the sudden the USAF was dog meat despite all its done over the last 12 years. And it has done an awful lot.

There are also incidents like Operation Anaconda where the US Army launched a huge operation and didn't bother to tell the USAF which sent them into "emergency savior" mode when the mission went south. The USAF pulled off some miracles on that one. Including scrambling A-10s long distance to get to the fight.

I would also like to mention how thanks to restrictions on the AV-8B, A-10, and AC-130 in Libya meant that F-15Es and other assets were the sole aircraft in support of our special forces who weren't there. With issues like that cropping up its not a surprise that the USAF might start to see diminishing returns, and other aircraft that can do the job better in some cases.

I also want to throw this in, because it can't be said enough: The USAF does not use A-10s like A-10s anymore. All A-10 Upgrades have been about catching it up electronically with other aircraft and increasing its distance from the enemy including the ability launch PGMs and use targeting pods to increase its altitude and other stand off advantages.

It has long been an endemic characteristic of the culture of independent air forces to prefer to carry out the tasks which only they can do, rather than tasks which are in support of other services.

The Bottom line is the USAF has been providing sterling service for the ground forces without pause for the last 12 years now. I try to judge things on a case by case basis myself. Do some research, I think you might be pleasantly surprised at what the USAF has been doing now (Right up to providing thousands of ground troops themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan and I don't just mean JTACs and SpecOps) I know this because I work with people from the Air Force who lost limbs in combat in these places.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10314346

The Military overall is a helluva lot more connected and jointly oriented than it was in the 1980s. You also have an entire generation of young blue suiters that have cut their teeth in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya who probably wouldn't even recognize the 80's army/air force rivalry.
 
I don't think the Air Force is the problem here, its mostly the Ohio Senate delegation that made the Air Force buy them. The Air Force is in a tough position. It cant complain about Senate or Congressional interference, else those same legislators will exact a hefty revenge, yet the Air Force looks like the bad guy when it cant afford the planes that were shoved down its throat....
 
cluttonfred said:
True, but the title of the link you supplied suggested, to my reading, that the funds were coming through FMS and not just a purchase via FMS:

"The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has received funding of $1.4bn for the purchase of 10 C-27J Spartan battlefield airlift aircraft from Alenia Aeronautica through a US foreign military sales (FMS) programme..."


Err...no. To me that reads that the Aust. Govt has approved funding for the RAAF to purchase the C-27Js via the FMS program.
 
Kadija_Man said:
What will this decision do though, to support for the RAAF's purchase of the C-27J through FMS?


There will be no impact. The support of the RAAF C-27Js is being handled via separate arrangements and is not going through FMS.
 
Tony Williams said:
It has long been an endemic characteristic of the culture of independent air forces to prefer to carry out the tasks which only they can do, rather than tasks which are in support of other services.

This is hardly an Air Force specific problem... Navies invest far more in sea control than they do in river control, and Armies invest far more in - uh - ground control than they do in coastal defense or air base security. The Air Force is willing to dump the A-10 to protect its core capabilities (like the F-35) and the Army is willing to dump MEADS to protect its core capabilities (like the GCV.)
 
GTX said:
Kadija_Man said:
What will this decision do though, to support for the RAAF's purchase of the C-27J through FMS?


There will be no impact. The support of the RAAF C-27Js is being handled via separate arrangements and is not going through FMS.

I was referring more to the decision by the USAF to dump the C-27s on the Coast Guard.
 
GTX said:
Not sure I understand the linkage between USCG and RAAF.

The RAAF has stated it is adverse to purchasing aircraft that aren't in production and have large scale support behind them. Will the USCG supply the same level of support as the USAF to the RAAF?
 
The RAAF support solution is being worked independent to the USA, the acquisition was via FMS and the first 3yrs of support is via L3 but other than that there is no linkage to whatever the USA does.
 
A humble suggestion on how to use the aircraft. :mad:
 

Attachments

  • 1950s-aircraft-DC6-Diner-restaurent-1.jpg
    1950s-aircraft-DC6-Diner-restaurent-1.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 524
Footage of personnel at AMARG applying spraylat to an aircraft going into the boneyard.
http://youtu.be/XxsJQQ4j9QM
Code:
http://youtu.be/XxsJQQ4j9QM


I hope, I see them flying again at US SOF, USCG, U.S. Forest Service etc..
 
The C-27J story continues to unfold. when USAF killed the program, the Army wasn't the only one it betrayed. In an attempt to recover some of the costs, USAF/DoD discussed selling them on the open market. Thing was, Alenia was also marketing the aircraft around the world themselves. They wouldn't be able to match the USAF price, though, because they had to make a profit on their sales. I believe Alenia announced that it would not provide support to any of the surplus USAF/Army C-27Js operated by anyone else, thus rendering them unsalable. Although it is an FMS sale, the RAAF's C-27Js are coming straight from Alenia

The C-27Js were not "dumped" on the Coast Guard, they want them badly. They wanted all 21, which would allow them to retire their HC-144A fleet but seven have been promised to SOCOM. Coast Guard says if it gets the remaining 14 it can save $1.3 billion and fill its operational need for Maritime Patrol Aircraft eight years early.

Forest Service, though, has been wanting to have its own large tanker firefighting fleet for years, one of the reasons it's been making it hard on civilian firms flying large tankers. It wants the C-27Js for its very own. Senator McCain is proposing a compromise where the Coast Guard gets the Spartans and transfers some older HC-130Hs to the Forest Service.

FWIW, I'd say Tony Williams got the story exactly right, except he left out the part where before USAF took over the program, they had somehow managed to negotiate contracts where their C-27Js would cost them twice as much per plane as Army was going to pay for essentially identical aircraft. USAF has been against the C-27J from the start and when they got the program transferred to them in 2009, well before Sequestration actually hit, the betting was they would find some way to kill the program
 
"Deal May Be Near In Fight Over Mothballed C-27Js"
by Amy Butler and Jen DiMascio
November 20, 2013
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_20_2013_p0-639241.xml

As the Forest Service and the Coast Guard made their cases, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on Oct. 25 signed orders to dedicate the first seven of the aircraft to Army Special Operations Command for use in soldier free-fall training, replacing aging Casa 212s. “There is no plan to upgrade the aircraft at this time,” says Lt. Col. Darryl Gerow, requirements and resources officer for the Army’s special operations forces. However, Socom rarely operates single-use platforms, and the command previously shelved mature plans to outfit the C-27J with a gunship kit due to bureaucratic wrangling over the program at the Pentagon. It is possible the command could unearth the concept, especially in light of Italy’s decision to move forward with its own gunship variant.

However, it is unlikely Socom would push a gunship modification kit now, as it is in the beginnings of buying its AC-130J fleet and converting MC-130W Dragon Spear aircraft to the AC-130W configuration, and any competing program could raise questions on Capitol Hill.

Three of the seven have already been transferred for special operations use, with the remaining four to be delivered from Alenia, according to an industry source.

Meanwhile, officials at the Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Agriculture are haggling over the disposition of the remaining 14 airlifters. Both the Forest Service and the Coast Guard have made a play for the aircraft. Some experts suggest federal regulations on the transfer of excess defense hardware give priority to military departments over other government agencies, bolstering the case made by the Coast Guard.

Coast Guard Commandant Adm. R.J. Papp says transfer of the remaining 14 C-27Js to his service would allow for cost avoidance of at least $1.3 billion for its maritime patrol mission and fill its operational need eight years faster than current plans. “The receipt of 14 or more C-27Js would allow the Coast Guard to return (maritime patrol aircraft/medium-range surveillance) capability to the West Coast,” and outfit three units, Papp says in an Aug. 13 memo to lawmakers. Maritime patrol is currently handled by the aging Lockheed Martin HC-130H and HC-144 (a missionized EADS Casa CN-235). Papp says the C-27J can provide “approximately three-quarters of the capability at half the operating cost” of the HC-130H.

But the Forest Service, which has pushed its own case for converting the small airlifters to fire tankers, has been backed by McCain, a powerful voice on Capitol Hill, making some in the Pentagon concerned the transfer will get mired in further wrangling over a deal. McCain is known for digging in his heels on matters, especially when Pentagon force structure and management issues are involved.
 
Is the United States Army still operating the 43 Short C-23 Sherpa/Super Sherpa transport aircraft that the 54 Alenia C-27J Spartan transport aircraft were intended to replace? Or is the C-23 being retired and the Army has to rely on the Air Force?
 
Triton said:
Is the United States Army still operating the 43 Short C-23 Sherpa/Super Sherpa transport aircraft that the 54 Alenia C-27J Spartan transport aircraft were intended to replace? Or is the C-23 being retired and the Army has to rely on the Air Force?



The C-27Js were also intended to be used for missions presently being flown by CH-47s that don't actually require VTOL capability.

There were 34 Sherpas in the Guard, operating in 16 states. 15 of those had two, while Alaska had four. I use the past tense because they are being retired for claimed cost cutting reasons and the Army will have to rely on USAF largesse, except when CH-47s are available, although those alternatives are noticeably more expensive .
 
An update:

Senators Feinstien (D) and McCain (R) have inserted language in the defense bill that will transfer seven Coast Guard HC-130Hs to the Forest Service. I don't know who will pay for the required strengthening of the center wing box so they can be used as tankers, but I suspect DoD will be stuck with it.

In addition, 15 of the C-23s being retired are to be given to the Forest Service as well. This seems to be a continuation of the Forest Service's desire and moves over the last decade or so to have its own air fleet at the expense of civilian companies. 10 years ago there were 44 large tankers available. This year there were eight.
 
"Coast Guard to Take Control of Last USAF C-27Js"
Jan. 6, 2014 - 12:05PM |
By AARON MEHTA

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140106/DEFREG02/301060008

WASHINGTON — The US Coast Guard will take control of the last of the US Air Force C-27J cargo planes, putting an end of a years-long saga deciding a long-term home for the platforms.

The planes will be transferred to the Coast Guard within six to 12 months, with the goal of filling “medium range surveillance USCG missions such as maritime patrol, drug and migrant interdiction, disaster response, and search and rescue,” according to a press release from Italian contractor Alenia Aermacchi.

The C-27J is a tactical transport designed for use on small, rough airfields. The Air Force initially planned on fielding 38 planes before deciding they were too expensive to operate. That decision set off a firestorm of controversy in Congress, where members were eager to make sure local Air National Guard units received the platforms.

The Air Force purchased 21 planes. In November, the service transferred seven to US Special Operations Command. The US Forest Service had also submitted a request for the planes.

Congress has made sure the Forest Service won’t lose out entirely. Under the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act passed last month, the transfer of the C-27Js is dependent upon the completion of the Coast Guard transferring seven C-130s to the Air Force, which will then be required to shoulder the cost of modifying them into firefighting aircraft for the Forest Service.

The budget also requires the secretary of the Air Force to “provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than January 30, 2014, a quarterly report or briefing on the cost, schedule, and execution of notable events related to the aircraft transfers and modifications required within the provision.”
 
Triton said:
Under the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act passed last month, the transfer of the C-27Js is dependent upon the completion of the Coast Guard transferring seven C-130s to the Air Force, which will then be required to shoulder the cost of modifying them into firefighting aircraft for the Forest Service.

The budget also requires the secretary of the Air Force to “provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than January 30, 2014, a quarterly report or briefing on the cost, schedule, and execution of notable events related to the aircraft transfers and modifications required within the provision.

Something tells me that will be the last the US Forest Service will hear about 'their' C-130s, unfortunately.
 
Was the Army's original plan to purchase 54 Alenia C-27J Spartan transports a violation of the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966 in which the Army agreed to relinquish all claims "for future fixed-wing aircraft designed for tactical airlift."?

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966
 
No because they are considered "intra-theater" transport, not tactical.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/09/us-usa-afghanistan-idUSKCN0HY2M120141009

Par for the course with the current management...
 
As I understand Alenia Aeronautica announced they would not service or support in any manner,the US planes, if sold by the US on the world market. Makes business sense.
 
Adventurer104 said:
As I understand Alenia Aeronautica announced they would not service or support in any manner,the US planes, if sold by the US on the world market. Makes business sense.

Totally.
 
Is it just me or is that article have a few conflicts? It cites the aircraft as being C-27Js.. But The aircraft to be supplied to the Afghans were surplus C-27A's, and though refurbished.. I don't believe they were brought up to J standard.
 
RobertWL said:
Is it just me or is that article have a few conflicts? It cites the aircraft as being C-27Js.. But The aircraft to be supplied to the Afghans were surplus C-27A's, and though refurbished.. I don't believe they were brought up to J standard.

I was wondering that myself. But this article seems to confirm they weren't brought up to C-27J standard: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141009/DEFREG03/310090049/DLA-Junks-Multimillion-Planes-Afghan-Air-Force-Sells-Scrap-6-Cents-Pound
 
On a happier note: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/avalon-raaf-gets-to-grips-with-c-27j-434685/
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom