Why does the AF want to split the C-27J mission with the Army? If the Army has their own mini airlifter, why would they request AF assistance? Either the AF flys the aircraft only or just give the total mission/aircraft to the Army. Must be some reason why the AF wants in the JCA program.

Will any of the AF C-27J be assigned to active duty squadrons?

Excerpt from AFA's Aerospace World, dated Jul'06, Vol.89, No.7:

Panel Cuts Army’s JCA Budget ...
The Senate Armed Services Committee opted to cut nearly all of the Army’s budget request for a new small airlifter, insisting the service wait and work with the Air Force on the program.

Of $113 million requested for a new small cargo airplane to replace the C-23 Sherpa and C-12 Huron, the Senate cut $109 million.

The Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee, chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said in making the cut that the Air Force hadn’t set its requirements for a similarly sized aircraft yet, even though the two services have agreed to pursue the program, called the Joint Cargo Aircraft, cooperatively. (See “Aerospace World: News Notes,” May, p. 23.) The Senate panel does not want the aircraft to be skewed to Army requirements that would not meet Air Force needs.

The two services want the JCA to support widely dispersed ground forces that would be using short, austere runways lacking typical airfield navigational aids. The Army, citing an “urgent need,” wants to field something starting in 2008, because its Sherpas and Hurons are old and increasingly unreliable, but USAF plans to wait until 2010. The Air Force requested just $15 million for the JCA in its 2007 budget request.

The House authorization bill fully funded the Army’s request, leaving a resolution to the budget conference in August.


... While JCA Battle Emerges
While the Air Force and Army develop their requirements for the Joint Cargo Aircraft program, contractors have set up a number of industry teams to compete for the program.

Boeing said on April 30 it would join as a subcontractor a US-Italian venture headed by L-3 Communications and Finmeccanica’s Alenia unit to offer the C-27J Spartan aircraft. Boeing’s role in the venture was undisclosed as of late May. Rolls Royce also is on the team, as the engine supplier.

Raytheon is heading up a team offering the C-295 and CN-235 aircraft along with European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co.’s CASA unit, based in Spain. The aircraft would be built at an EADS plant in Mobile, Ala.

Lockheed Martin has decided to offer a version of the C-130J Hercules. Separately, Lockheed also is involved with the C-27J program as a cockpit electronics supplier.

The Air Force and Army hope to open the Joint Cargo Aircraft Program office in October and expect to see deliveries of the first aircraft not later than 2010.

It appears to be a joint service, joint defense contracting program, designed to make services integrate similar resources under budgetary constraints. Having flown cargo, I'd say if you speculated, this bird would be assigned to active and reserve fleets and whatever or wherever the Army decides to station it. Army runways wouldn't be an issue.

This is one program the USAF should have stayed out of.

The Army has a pressing need for it. When the USAF heard about it, the acft was referred to as a "nice to have" and "a requirement we need to look at."

I really do not see a USAF mission for it. If a load needs delivery to a site that can not support a C-130 or is too small to warrant generating a C-130 mission, let the Army handle it. The load will more than likely be theirs. If it isn't, then so what - deliver it anyway and I am sure they would. There has to be a point when the recipient of the cargo assumes responsibility for it.

If the USAF can finds funds for this, why not some of their more pressing unfunded requirements?

As long as it doesn't turn out to be another C-123(thanx for the catch) Provider, which was notorious for crashing, during Vietnam.
Actually, it appears to be an updated version of the Transall 160 with six-bladed props. The aircraft could prove useful teaming up with the CV-22 in SOCOM, if the CV-22 doesn't prove to be a disaster.
It would be one thing if it were just pilot error, like the 27 AV-8As the Marine Corps crashed in their first active year, but the V-22 has serious flaws mechanically and electronically. If it failed and the C-27J turns out to be a good aircraft, it would do well in the Spec-Ops theatre.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Torch8306,

Yeah, didn't really think of it as a special ops bird, but it might have a role there.

If so, let the Army develope the acft and the USAF can modify as required.

No, I don't think the C-27 will have the same problem as the C-123.

Read in AF mag that a mini gunship version of the C-27 is being talked about.

You guys realize the AF has already had a go around with the C-27. It was a huge waste of money in Panama in the late early 90's. Did they not learn that a plane that is at its max gross weight with just full fuel tanks was a bad idea. The plane couldn't even reach the continental US from Panama without stopping for gas in Mexico.

http://www.c-27j.com/essential-facts

22,046 lbs. Cargo 1000 nm range
13,277 lbs. Cargo 2300 nm range
Ferry (all gas?) 3200 nm range

Is this the same as the C27A?

Looks like they have gone to a composite prop and maybe new engines. Still, what is the point of a plane that has the cargo capacity of a MH-47?

quote:

what is the point of a plane that has the cargo capacity of a MH-47?

From what I have read, the demand for this kind of load was greater than the C130 size in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shorter fields too.

Great idea, but that plane wouldn't be operational until at least five years. For missions that require less cargo than a C-130 and shorter airfields you have what is called an airdrop. Very precise and you can get vast amounts of cargo on targe without any plane landing. Granted it won't help get cargo out, but why start a whole supply chain and congressional waste of money in buying a new plane. Spend the money on the aging C-130's that are older than just about everyone on this board. We are litteraly flying the wings off of these things and nothing is being actively done to replace them. Sure the J-model is slowly metriculating it's way into the AF, but not at the pace needed to replace the 1962 and 1963 model herks that are doing the daily grind around the world.

dude has a point...especially about the airdrop. If the load is small, than it's small enough to float to the Earth under a canopy. We already have a supply chain for canopies.

I can think of several better ways to tackle this particular issue, but then again, I'm not a contractor, and I don't have any golfing biddies in Washington DC, so I am uniquely un-qualified to chime in on how they get to blow more of my tax dollars out the tube and baseplate.

Poof...goes the cash.

They've already decided to fly Herks and $h!t hooks (CH-47's) until the wings and rotors fall off (respectively), so the logic of another line of economic misery baffles me.

I should have stuck with my initial instinct, and respected the fundamental separation of logic and State.

Well, the Army is the driver here. It's their program, USAF is a "me too" player. They seem to like the idea of getting the goods delivered and have the aircraft stop in and say howdie, maybe even pick something up?

The USAF made the decision years ago not to re- capitalize tactical airlift. Congress has kept alive the C130 line with aircraft for the Guard units, now being "harvested" for the active duty. Many of the old gals could be rebuilt for far less than a new "J," but that would take years and is less sexy for Congress. Remember the "J" was offered up to the Army for consideration, but rejected.

I think they like the smaller size. It has been done before with C-7 and the C-123.

Even with the reduction in crew size, Lockheed has over priced the "J" and this is driving operators elsewhere.

Interesting stuff; I wonder how it will all work out?

I think you have some bad data on 130's. They have been the backbone of active duty tactical airlift since Vietnam. There were eleven units flying the slicks each having 16 or more aircraft. That was actually the majority of the C-130's flying. The Guard units that fly them usually have the newest in the Air Force. Most active units flew the E model, most reserve and guard units had H models. The guard units picked the Herk up on a large scale when congress took away their fighters so they tended to have the newer aircraft. Not true for all units, but true in most cases.

To refit the E models is impossible. The problem lies in the center wing box being over its allowed flying time. Seems like an easy fix, but Lokheed doen't have enough wing boxes to refit all the planes (hardly any infact). So if you are LM would you start producing them to fix old aircraft, or say it is too complicated and offer the J model at a price just above what it is going to cost to replace the center wing boxes?

The problem truly snuck up on the Air Force a few years ago too. Forms are filled out by flight engineers to track flying time. It logs landings, low level, and high level among many other things. The numbers looked great for a bunch more years till some engineer at LM realized the data was being input wrong. One hour of low level equated to many more hours of high level flying time. The calculated hours on the center wing boxes tripled over night in some cases. So the problem honestly did "fall out of the sky" so to say.

You are right about the equivalent flight hours sneaking up, with the proof on some nasty wing box damage found. Still, the replacement of the "E" fleet should have started in the 90s. It was delayed for other programs.

Either wing box replacement and/or an AMP program would require a long lead time for the "Es." If they had gotten the engine upgrade proposed in the 80s, it might have been worth it to upgrade the "E" fleet, but new H3s would have been better than repairing old. Instead, the H line went dry and Lockheed went off and built their proprietary "J" and started feeding it into the Reserve and Guard units via Congress. The Coast Guard got 6 leftovers from Norway pulling out. As I was getting out last year, the CG was doing wingbox inspections on its five H1s. Some repairs and a 4000 hour extension on the wing. Some of the H2s are racking up time too.

I just read about a team (in Aviation Week) that says they can repair the wing boxes and give them a 35,000 hr. extension for half the cost of replacement. Humm?

130 wing boxes are being replaced as we speak at the depot in Warner Robins. They are very labor intensive and are being done to only a select few at a time.

Crestview aerospace (now L3) in Florida will also start doing them soon.

http://www.defensenews.com/dubaiairshow/video.php?id=97
Watch this bird do a barrel roll.

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
You guys realize the AF has already had a go around with the C-27. It was a huge waste of money in Panama in the late early 90's. Did they not learn that a plane that is at its max gross weight with just full fuel tanks was a bad idea. The plane couldn't even reach the continental US from Panama without stopping for gas in Mexico.

That was theG222. Same airframe, but less powerful engines, and an out of date avionics package.

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
Looks like they have gone to a composite prop and maybe new engines. Still, what is the point of a plane that has the cargo capacity of a MH-47?

The point is we are tired of letting the AF dictate when we can fly from FOB to FOB. Everytime I had to fly somewhere, I had to wait 3 or 4 days until the AF decided they had enough cargo to haul. And the C-23 can't haul that much, so I think the C-27J is much needed by the army.

quote:

Originally posted by 6492520:

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
Looks like they have gone to a composite prop and maybe new engines. Still, what is the point of a plane that has the cargo capacity of a MH-47?

The point is we are tired of letting the AF dictate when we can fly from FOB to FOB. Everytime I had to fly somewhere, I had to wait 3 or 4 days until the AF decided they had enough cargo to haul. And the C-23 can't haul that much, so I think the C-27J is much needed by the army.

That is it right there. The Army is getting sick of having to submit a request 3 or 4 days in advance when they need something moved now. I as a loadmaster got sick and tired of flying around the AOR empty because Gen(ret)Jumper wanted to generate more sorties to prove the AF was doing something. This is where the Army is getting it's justification for the 27. My father is a C-23 sherpa pilot and over in the desert they are flying the wings off of those planes to FOB's that 130's can't get to. I'm all about the Army getting them. The Army is our customer and we are not serving them the way we should. The AF messed up by concentrating all of it's money and attention to the F-22 and F-35 instead of where it needed to be, mobility.

quote:

Originally posted by 6492520:

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
Looks like they have gone to a composite prop and maybe new engines. Still, what is the point of a plane that has the cargo capacity of a MH-47?

The point is we are tired of letting the AF dictate when we can fly from FOB to FOB. Everytime I had to fly somewhere, I had to wait 3 or 4 days until the AF decided they had enough cargo to haul. And the C-23 can't haul that much, so I think the C-27J is much needed by the army.

If Army aviation is so spot on, why not call in a Chinook instead of the Air Force? There are plenty of them over there. And if you think the C-27 will get you on a plane faster than three days you are mistaken. That is how long AMC wants to generate a crew and plane no matter what they are flying. Movement of aircraft isn't like a taxi service. It takes time to make sure the assets are being utilized as efficiently as possible. The C23's go on scheduled trips around the AOR on regular basis. That is why it is so easy for you to catch a ride there.

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
If Army aviation is so spot on, why not call in a Chinook instead of the Air Force? There are plenty of them over there.

The idea is that the AF is supposed to provide that support. That is if I understand the way things are supposed to be. I could be way off base, but it does seem to be logical as well.

quote:

Originally posted by caninedale:
And if you think the C-27 will get you on a plane faster than three days you are mistaken. That is how long AMC wants to generate a crew and plane no matter what they are flying. Movement of aircraft isn't like a taxi service. It takes time to make sure the assets are being utilized as efficiently as possible. The C23's go on scheduled trips around the AOR on regular basis. That is why it is so easy for you to catch a ride there.

Maybe the problem is AMC. Maybe AMC could learn from the Army.

I spent 2 years at a base in Europe. When our customer asked for airlift, we were wheels up as soon as we met min crew rest and pre-mission planned. Hours. Not days.