Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

C-27J reemerges despite Air Force Boneyard plans

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
This one is really going to make some heads hurt. Thank god for Sequestration! [/sarcasm]

The original plan for the Air Force was to buy 38 C-27Js, under the Joint Cargo Aircraft program, which would put them in both Guard and Active Duty units.

Currently the Air Force plans to send all 21 C-27Js to the Boneyard (including four set to come from the factory, which will go straight to Arizona). The claim is that while it costs slightly more to operate the C-130 (they said in 2012 $9,000 an hour to operate the C-27, as compared to $10,400 for the C-130), the C-130 is already established in the force, where the C-27 would have to create facilities and repair areas, etc. Ohio disagreed with those numbers and says that it costs $2,100 an hour for the C-27, as opposed to $7,000 an hour for the C-130. The Air Force also says the overall life cycle costs of the C-130 are lower.

Now here's where the fun starts. In May of this year, the Air Force Mobility Directorate sent out an RFP (Request For Proposal) for more C-27s. With the 2013 NDAA bill, the Air Force was ordered to add 32 airlifters to the fleet, including ordering "the Secretary of the Air Force shall obligate and expend funds previously appropriated for the procurement of C-27J Spartan aircraft for the purposes for which such funds were originally appropriated."

The NDAA doesn't specify that the aircraft have to be C-27s, and the RFP may be to show Congress that the Air Force is willing to consider buying more of the aircraft, even though they have no intention of operating them in the fleet.

What I wonder is what's the point of sequestration to cut spending, if Congress is just going to order the military to spend the money that they were trying to cut? I'll almost guarantee that the Spartan would be operated or maintained in at least one Congressperson's district.


The Air Force is set to discard 21 C-27Js before the end of fiscal year 2013, yet service officials still issued a request to industry on May 10 for proposals to purchase even more of the same exact aircraft that will likely sit in the boneyard.

The C-27J Spartan is the cargo aircraft that has found itself in the middle of a battle between the Air Force’s active duty and the Air National Guard. Active duty leaders have said the service likes the aircraft, but can’t afford it with the forthcoming budget cuts. Guard leaders have responded saying the aircraft will save the service money and the Guard, which was set to receive the bulk of the fleet, is being unfairly targeted to absorb the brunt of the service’s budget cuts.

Congress has for the most part taken the Guard’s side in the debate. Lawmakers have ordered the service to consider buying more C-27Js even though the service is set to follow through on plans to send the C-27J fleet to the service’s boneyard at Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., with the 309th Aerospace Maintenance And Regeneration Group. There the aircraft will sit in storage unless another federal agency claims them.

www.dodbuzz.com...




posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Madness!

Yeah looks like someones constituents needs jobs.
Thank god for lobbyists. ;p



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Well, the real reason staff is axing them is that they didn't want them or the mission in the first place. They only agreed to buy and operate them to keep Army Aviation from buying them.

The Army wanted them for in-theatre direct support when/where C-130's weren't available -- and more specifically for missions where the capabilities (and requirements) of the C-130 were overkill. They needed a smaller airframe for flexible support missions without relying on the Air Force for logistics and tasking. Once they convinced Congress to buy them, the Air Force suddenly expressed an interest.

The Air Force convinced Congress they could/would better fulfill the mission than the Army. And then shortly after acquiring control over the operations, the USAF about-faced and said the C-27 wasn't needed, and they later redefined the mission saying it could be done by the Herc afterall. They went on with the plan to send them all to AMARC (including the ones still on the production lines at delivery).

The whole saga has been a splendid example of how not to run an acquisition program.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Just one of many in recent years. Another great example is the creative bookkeeping to make the RQ-4 more expensive than the U-2 to operate.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 
It wasn't really a joint program involving USAF to begin with. What is stopping the ARMY from acquiring them?

A little timeline on the C-27J.


Even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat, questioned the Air Force’s forthrightness in his opening statement:

“The Air Force had established a requirement, validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, for 38 C-27 aircraft to provide direct support to Army ground forces,” Levin said. “Again, all were going to the Guard. No one forced the Air Force to join what was a joint program with the Army, and then take sole ownership of it. No one forced the Air Force to testify that they needed to pursue the C-27 because the C-130 could not meet requirements when the committee questioned why the Air Force couldn’t rely on the C-130 fleet and instead had to start the C-27 program. Now the Air Force says that the C-130 is perfectly fine for meeting the direct support mission.”


SOURCE



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


The fact that the Air Force will find some way to stop the Army from having fixed wing aviation. As far as the USAF Chiefs are concerned, fixed wing aviation is their area of expertise. They suffer allowing the Navy and Marines to have some planes, but want the vast majority of fixed wing aviation under the USAF.

The Air Force had no interest at all in the Spartan until the Army announced that they were going to buy them. Then suddenly they decided they'd buy them and operate them for the Army.
edit on 8/20/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
There is definetly no reason to put these in the Boneyard. Why not convert these to use to put Fire's out, or for scientific reasons. Australia bought some C-27J's, and I think Italy did also.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Glassbender777
 


They're only going to end up there if no other agency lays claim to them. Any government agency has the right to say they want them, and claim them, to use them however they decide. If no one does, they go to the Boneyard.



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
And they did it. Twelve C-27Js went to the Boneyard, and five more under construction will go straight from Alenia Aermacchi to the Boneyard. They spent $567M on 21 aircraft, and almost all of them are in the Boneyard.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Glassbender777
 


They're only going to end up there if no other agency lays claim to them. Any government agency has the right to say they want them, and claim them, to use them however they decide. If no one does, they go to the Boneyard.


Apparently this applies to any agency other than the one which actually could use it, the Army.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The good news is that they have apparently all found a home, and won't sit rotting in the Boneyard. SOCOM will get 7. Three have been moved to Pope field, the other four are still being assembled in Italy, and will be delivered in the first half of 2014. The Coast Guard wanted the remaining 14, but it appears that at least some will go to the Forest Service. The USCG plans on putting some in Alaska for Search and Rescue operations. If they can get all 14 they can outfit three stations.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This is good news. They are better used to save lives with the USCG and the Dept. of Interior than rot in the desert.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Wrong airframe-nevermind.

I was thinking of the C-17.
edit on 19-11-2013 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

edit on 19-11-2013 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Just a bit off topic here, but it drives me nuts when the services compare hours to dollars. Thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per hour of flight time? There has to be some shady math going on there.

I know, I know. Maintenance, wages of those who maintain, fuel etc, etc.

But once my car is paid off, the cost ratio is in my favor for the the above same reasons. Buying aircraft, just to park them at Davis-Montham and part them out makes no sense from a national security viewpoint.

Selling my Jeep right now as is, I may get $2500. But if I had the space to store it, I could part it out for at least $7000.

We know the Government isn't that smart. Are they?



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammamishman
 


If you were about to smack me down for being a bonehead, it was warranted.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


No worries, I did the same this morning on another thread.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The air force juggles numbers better than a juggler tossing flaming sticks, that has been doing it for fifty years.

When they tried to justify flying Global Hawk straight to the boneyard because the U-2 was cheaper, there's evidence they shifted some of the costs onto the Global Hawk to make it appear more expensive than it is.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Here's a bit of good news. If it is approved.

www.businessinsider.com...

I understand aircraft being dismantled after their useful life span. But brand new aircraft should not be built just for the sake of providing jobs, and then parking them at Davis Montham.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The fight now is for the other 14. The Coast Guard wants all of them to refit three air stations, but the Forest Service wants a couple too.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join