CSA praises doomed C-27J’s role in Afghanistan

CSA praises doomed C-27J’s role in Afghanistan

Lawmakers on Capital Hill are making no secret about their heartburn over the Air Force’s recent decision to kill its new C-27J Spartan joint aircraft.

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee appeared to second-guess the controversial budget decision as they questioned the Army’s senior leadership on the C-27 on Thursday.

Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman voiced his concern that the Air Force would pull C-27Js out of Afghanistan, despite the much-need support those aircraft are providing to Army ground units there.

Portman reenforced his point by asking Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno to describe the C-27J’s performance in Afghanistan.

Odierno told lawmakers that the C-27J “impacted very positively” on 82nd Airborne Division’s ability to accomplish its mission by delivering supplies to remote locations.

“It’s important for us to sustain air assets dedicated to ground forces,” Odierno said. “The Air Force made the decision; they think they can do this with C-130s. If we get that same support — that is what we need. I would say that this has been supplied very successfully by the C-27.”

Portman seized on Odierno’s statements to criticize the Air Force for failing to consider the money C-27s save when compared to older aircraft.

“The C-27 does it for $2,100 per hour, the CH-47 does it for about $11,000 per hour, the C-130 does for between $5,100 to $7,100 an hour — so from a taxpayer perspective, the C-27 not only allows you to land on smaller air strips, it’s saving the taxpayer money,” Portman said. He wants to make sure the Pentagon isn’t pulling a capability out of theater that meets a requirement. “I have never seen the military do this before.”

Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker also made a point of asking Army officials about their involvement in the Air Force’s C-27 decision. He expressed concern when Odierno said he learned about the C-27’s demise at a joint meeting between the two services.

Army Secretary John McHugh caused the line of questioning to fizzle when he told Wicker that the Army was given the opportunity to discuss the C-27 before the Air Force killed it.

Join the Conversation

Not sure that the Air Force will be able to make the C-27J “Go Away”. With the usual smoke and mirrors move, they took over the Army program to replace the C-23 Sherpas. The Army Sherpas are still there and they still need replacing, by the C-27J. When the pols finish kicking the ball around, the AF will quietly transfer the C-27J to the Army and let the 40+ C-23 Sherpas retire. On that day, the AF will become a “C-130 Only” organization again.

So the Navy and Marine Corps and the Coast Guard can fly just about anything they want (Navy and MC have supersonic jet fighters and MC and CG both have C130s for example) without a problem, but the moment the Army so much as THINKS about anything involving fixed wings, the Air Force throws hissy fits, steals the programs and basically acts like a spoiled little kid.

No chance the Air Force will give the C27 to the Army unless congress wrests it from their fingers. The Air Force is myopic when it comes to maintaining a monopoly on fixed wing assets. It’s historical and pervasive.

Yep, you nailed it.

I think the AF might have to take the C-27J because some Sen may hold up someone’s promotion or commission if AF doesn’t bow to Congress.

I doubt the Army will get anything like a C-27J in service the air force wont allow it. Besides the Army is killing all other programs to save money for JLTV and GCV for now they don’t want anything else. If anything a newer short take off C-130 upgraded package would be adopted. C-130s with JATO rockets would be fine for such missions. Its too bad the DoD wasted so much money on this now failed project.

If the US Army wanted a Pocket C-130, they could have gone with either the V-22 or even buy the rights to the EADS CASA C-295, CN-235 or C-212

The C-21 is less capable than the Sherpa. The CN-235, and C-295 were both considered along with the C-27J. And, the V-22 carries significantly less, and is more expensive to operate than a CH-47.

So, in other words, you’re an idiot

Casa 212 is significantly smaller than a C27, you can barely fit 12 paratroops in one

Articles and discussions elsewhere actually suggest the Army leaders who wanted JCA in the first place actually preferred the C 295 (longest cargo floor of the three).

Anyone thinking/fearing Army would” gunship it” themselves, it could be done quite easily: Apache kit. Optics and the 30mm M230 (traversable pairs even) would suit it quite well.
Enough is known of the M230’s ballistics that an aircraft’s sensors and fire control can get the shells sufficiently accurate enough to 4000m.

And now Army is going for BAE APKWS II’s to arm Kiowas, Apaches, and even drones.
Any JCA could’ve lobbed in a salvo of 70mm’s, steered away well out of ADA range (10km or so), and even could’ve used other assets to lase the targets (shucks, even a B-1B carries Sniper targetting pods now, no reason a JCA couldn’t).

Maybe much of this is, in part, a subtle secret why USAF behaved the way it did in this program.…?

Nicky — You need to do your research. The C27 was an Army project. The Air Force threw a hissy fit that the Army was getting some fixed wing. The Army relented on buying the aircraft with the understanding thet that Air Force would buy and operate them for the Army. Then the Air Force welched.

The Air Force’s fall back position is C130s will do the C27 mission which they weren’t doing before, justifying the purchase of the C27.

Not to mention the Key West Agreement of 1947 is still in effect.

Anyone see what the Afghan Air Force is doing with their C-27’s over on Defense-tech? Yeah. Real important.

The Key West agreement and subsequent agreements allow for smaller transport aircraft to conduct intratheatre resupply.

I think if the US Army wanted a Compact C-130, they should have gone with either a CN-235 or C-295. They only need something that can land in small tight spaces and that can support their special ops teams.

I wonder how they factored in the costs per flight hour for the various aircraft. If it includes gas, maintenance hours, man hours, etc? While the C-27 may carry half the capability of a C-130, that means to do the same work it would require two trips, twice the air time, twice the crew load, twice the exposure to whatever is out there. So a round trip 4 hour flight for a C-130 would mean 8 hours for a C-27. Additionally, if they wanted to add on the C-27 in addition to the C-130 (not reducing buys or retiring C-130s) it would also mean generating new aircrews, new basing, new maintenance, new training facilities, and increased down range ramp space; all during a time when the military is downsizing (in personnel and budgets).

There is alot of bigger picture info that is lacking in the article. The politicians who are gnashing teeth against the cancellation of the program(s) should have considered that you can’t increase (or maintain) spending without increasing taxes (or war bonds) or the federal debt.

After Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan went under the New World Order umbrella, there were less than a half-dozen Nation States without a central bank controlled by the Zionist cartel. And, it won’t be long before it’s just Cuba and Panama are left to find their seat under the umbrella, unless of course, they are already so corrupted as to be insignificant in the banksters scheme of things. Darn shame the US pays about 3/4 of the costs in blood and treasure for this UN/NATO ponzi rip.
Forgot to mention that Syria and Iran are not Nations with central banks under Zionist control. Therein lies the rub.
It’s not the Citizens of the US that want this march to hegemony — we really have no choice in being the beat cop for the World Order. Hey, they got a monopoly on our money Mar. 9, 1932 — it was only a matter of time before the tyrants had the absolute monopoly.
Talk radicals, talk banksters, talk world hegemony, but isn’t there a pipeline waiting to go through to the med (for Israel/Zion)- maybe a narcotic pipeline as well as Afghan’n is the world’s largest producer of opium and hash?

Read it and Weep

And you folks thought I just pulled this stuff out of my a$$ (insert meniachal laugh here)!

re: defensetech(dot)org/2012/03/09/shocker-afghan-air-force-investigated-for-drug-running/?comp=1198882887570&rank=3

It’s called — Central-bankster cartel hegemony

I’m taking that bow now!

What’s bringing out all of the crazies this weekend?

States are looking to keep their Air Guard Flying and see the C-27 as a way of helping them as well.

No. The need was for something to do intratheatre lift more efficiwently than the CH47. YOU may think the Army needed something smaller. The ARMY thought different. I’m going to bet the Army might know what it needs to provide intratheatre transport.

BTW, there are quite a few conventional units opersating our of small bases. Spec Ops might get the visibility but they aren’t the only ones deserving support.

An article in the AF Times is now stating that the Coast Guard has expressed interest in the aircraft: http://​www​.airforcetimes​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​2​/​0​3​/​a​i​r​-​for

Why is DoDBuzz deleting my relevant posts while promoting off topic garbage & profanity. Is DoDBuzz trying to lose its readership???

The U.S.Coast Guard is now looking to take them since they have the same engines as the HC-144 that they are not being allowed to buy enough of.

The flaw in your argument is in the assumption that the folks at the receiving end need a C-130 load of stuff. Most likely, they need half that or just a few passengers. So, do you send a C-130 out with a less than optimal load or to just shuttle a few passengers? Heck no…

Thanks Arby.

Yep, that’s the kind of logic that will support using a C5 for every supply run because it’s more efficient per pound. What the zoomies forget is often the Army can’t wait to fill up the airplane because there’s a war going on.

Seen the same smoke and mirrors when those against CAS says it’s more efficient to kill the enemy deel in their marshalling areas. That’s always a heartwarming thought to the grunt fighting for his life on the front line.

it would also mean generating new aircrews, new basing, new maintenance, new training facilities, and increased down range ramp space; all during a time when the military is downsizing (in personnel and budgets). ”

ajspades, that was already factored in. They were going to put most of the C-27 fleet in the Air Guard. There are now Guard squadrons with empty hangars because they were supposed to get these planes.

This is not about the C-27J’s . This is about the army cutting the air force out of the prime counter insurgency role in Vietnam, The air force wanted it and the army said NO. The air force tried to say the HU-1 was not a stable gun platform and all aircraft fire missions should be done by the air force. Trying to put a 500LB bomb on a Hutch at 500 knots would have killed more Army troops than the VC. The deal that was cut still holds today. The air force flies in the cargo the army takes the turf with gun ships. The air force never wants the cargo roil and tries to weasel out of it every chance it gets. The air force just has other priorities and filing prop airplanes is not one of them. Lets get the air force out of the Army support roil once and for all and stop the whineing.

Its time for Gen. Odeirno to stand up for his own Aviators and soldiers and take back the C-27J. There is an unfortunate culture inside the Army to deemphasize its own Aviation branches uniqueness i.e. Aviator wings no longer Worn on ACU’s, reluctance to paint the National Stars and Bars on its aircraft (look at the tiny ” U.S. Army” only marking on the side of the only C-27 that made it the Army so as not to offend the Air Force). The loss of the Caribous to the AF in Viet Nam was in part related to the General staff not fighting hard enough for its own Aviators– “after all they’re no different than tankers” attitude is alive and well in the Army. Come back General Cody.

Congress isn’t taking into consideration that it costs more to train/maintain personnel for multiple aircraft than it does to have one. What is saved in hourly operations costs is spent in having 2 sets of training/maintenance/inventory supplies.

Now, if Congress REALLY wanted to save money, they’d reverse all their recent self-determined pay raises.

You’re smoking dope. No officers wear branch insignia on their combat uniforms. Welcome to the club. There have been PLENTY of aviation generals by thw way. As for having an American flag on the aircraft like the Air Force, get a clue. You’re in the ARMY!!! When’s the last time you saw a US Flag painted on a tank, truck or HMMWV. Your whining and desires to be considered “unique” are more in place in the Air Force than the Army. Next thing you’ll be saying is the Army isn’t smart enough to operate fixed wing.

The only rational point you made was taking back the C27. Two issues, money and more importantly the AIR FORCE’s ability to block the army from procuring the airplane which is why we have the situation in the first place.

You’ve lost your bearings.

I stand by remarks, no dope being smoked here. For the record the U.S. Army is part of the U.S.A which uses the Statrs and Bars to identify its aircraft from all services. Its not a good feeling to wonder if a foreign intercepting figther pilot can read U.s. Army in english while flying near Eygpt, thats why national insignia exist. Everyone knows what a C-130 is but not a C-23(2100 hours PIC time inthe Sherpa). I am proud of the Army fixed wing operation and want to see it supported-the point of my comments. Standing up for your troops isn’t whining. Check your phoney tough guy attitude at the door.

Since when are aviators wings no longer allowed to be worn on the ACUs?

Officers branch insignia has never been authorized on the ACU’s. It’s not aviation specific.

Phoney tough guy? Nah, nothing phoney but I don’t consider myself exceptionally tough. Your whining is a totally different matter. Yes, fighters are a real threat to our helicopters and US flags make a difference. You might want to check USAF markings now. They are low visibility and most fighters don’t have a flag on them, guess they aren’t as afraid as some helo pilots.

BTW, “Stars and Bars” is the confederate flag. We use the “Stars and Stripes” now.

The fighter mafia will do anything to keep the adorable, fast jets, regardless of the job they need to do. they wanted to kill off the A-10 for years, and we would’ve been hosed w/r/t Iraq and Afghanistan if they hadn’t been forced to build up the MAC (and if not for Saddam, the A-10’s would all be gone now). As much as I hate congressional meddling directly into military affairs, when it comes to the fighter mafia and their obvious (and historical) leanings, interference is what they clearly need. Because their judgement has historically stunk.

Anyone saying the Army wanted anything other than a C-27J does not know what they are talking about. The titlle of the first draft Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) written by the Army was “Initial Capabilities Document for the C-27J” and said nothing about “Joint Cargo Aircraft” or C-295. I understand that it was the Air Force who told the Army not to put the name of the desired solution on the cover of the ICD because that would be contrary to supposed “fair and open” competition. It is also a matter fo public record that the Army kicked the C-130J out of the competition it did not meet the Army’s requirement for being compliant with air space management directives. The fact is the C-27J does not meet them either, none of the aircraft already delivered nor any of the remaining aircraft on contract meet are compliant with the air space management directives — the same ones the Army used as justification for kicking the C-130J out of the competition. Now if you want to talk about quality and performance we could open a thread on wing skin, parts falling off during flight, aircrew training, chaffed wires, etc. etc.…

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | , and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.