Agencies Await Decision on C-27J’s Fate

Agencies Await Decision on C-27J’s Fate

The fate of the C-27J in the U.S. fleet hasn’t been settled even though Air Force generals decided the service can’t afford the cargo aircraft two years ago.

Leaders from U.S. Special Operation Command, U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Forestry Service have contacted the Air Force with interest in accepting the C-27Js the Air Force has bought. However, before the Air Force hands over the aircraft, the Pentagon must decide if any will stay within the Defense Department.

Frank Kendall, the under secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, will make the final decision on the fate of the C-27J and whether any go to SOCOM or the Coast guard. He can authorize the Air Force’s transfer of the aircraft to SOCOM or the Coast Guard. However, if Kendall determines the Defense Department can’t afford the fleet and labels them excess, the aircraft will likely go to the Forestry Service.


The Coast Guard asked for all 21 of the Air Force’s C-27Js saying it would save the Coast Guard at least $1 billion in capital avoidance costs.

“We are in the midst of a fixed-wing recapitalization effort and the C-27J meets the key performance parameters for our medium-range surveillance maritime patrol aircraft,” Vice Adm. J.P. Currier wrote to Lt. Gen. Michael Moeller in a letter in April. “It is an ideal aircraft that is capable of replacing portions of both the USCG Medium and Long-Range Maritime Patrol.”

SOCOM has asked for eight C-27Js, according to a letter by Maj. Gen. Thomas Trask dated March 25. SOCOM would use the eight C-27Js to replace the fleet of CASA 212 aircraft that support training at the U.S. John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School.

“These aircraft are reaching the end of their service life and the C-27J is a perfect platform to fill this requirement,” Trask wrote in the letter to the Air Force.

Meanwhile, the Forestry Service says it could use seven C-27J and C-130J aircraft to serve as air tankers.

“The C-130J has consistently performed as an outstanding air tanker, and we believe the C-27J has the potential for perform as an excellent air tanker as well,” Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

The Air Force had planned to field a fleet of 38 C-27Js across the service as part of the Joint Cargo Aircraft Program. The Air Force had 15 C-27Js stationed at Guard bases and another two at Waco, Texas, at a L-3 Communications plant.

Four more were purchased from Alenia Aermacchi and sent to the U.S. in fiscal year 2013. Those newly built aircraft were scheduled to be sent directly to the  309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. — better known as the boneyard..

The Air Force spent about $1.6 billion to purchase those first 21 aircraft. However, soon after the first C-27Js arrived in Afghanistan in 2011 to start resupplying deployed Army units, the Air Force said it could no longer afford the luxury of the aircraft.

As SOCOM, the Coast Guard and the Forestry Service wait for an answer from the Pentagon, the Air Force has started shipping the 21 C-27Js to the boneyard.

If a decision had come sooner, the agencies could have picked up the aircraft directly from the Air Force unit, an Air Force official said. However, the defense budget called for the Air Force to retire the C-27J by the end of fiscal year 2013.

Tags:

Join the Conversation

It is incredible to me that SOCOM, USFS and USCG can assert a claim to this project while the Army can’t. Absolutely insane.

This is why the US Coast Guard should have picked up the C-27J. They would have been perfect as an MPA aircraft for Large AOR with Adverse weather. Places such as Cape cod,Kodiak and Astoria would be perfect for the C-27J

The Army has already stated that they will not take them. They don’t have the budget to support them. The Army accepted the matter as settled with the Air Force signing the MoA to provide intra-theater lift support via C-130s

Apparently the USCG was satisfied with acquiring the HC-144 (years before the C-27J was selected as the JCA)

Where did the Army state it would not take them? Do you have a copy of that MOA because the only one I know of was for the operation of the C27J by the Air Force?.

I’d like to see the specifics. Will the Air Force operate C130’s subordinate to Army aviation brigades as they did with the C27J’s?

No doubt money is an issue with the Army taking the largest cut of all the services but considering this is the second time the Air Force has obstructed Army intratheatre lift needs the issue is guaranteed to raise its head again down the road. That said and knowing the Air Force I doubt the Army was ever asked…

Lets also include the A-10 Warthogs in this discussion! Why can’t the Army or Marines take them and provide their own close air support (CAS)? Is it be cause the USAF does not want the competition in fixed wing aircraft? Or maybe the Pentagon has decided that the Army won’t be fighting any more ground combat? OK then, lets get rid of armor and infantry and by the way we won’t need tube artillery either. The Navy long ago mothballed the big guns, 16″ and 8″, on battleships and cruisers; the point being obsolescence demands divesting of unnecessary assets. If USAF cannot afford C-27J’s and the A-10’s and other services are willing to pick them up AND CAN AFFORD the O&M then let them have them. Bone-yarding viable assets, especially by USAF, is vindictive and vile!! By the way I’m retired Navy!

The army might not have asked because they (I believe) still have this asinine limitation that they aren’t supposed to have fixed-wing (piloted) aircraft imposed on them via some strange deal with the USAF years ago.

This of course, was somewhat side-stepped with the advent of UAV’s, b/c the USAF didn’t believe they would work (after all, they didn’t have a fighter jockey at the stick). Once the army (etc.) demonstrated how useful they were (and bought lots of them, and started arming them), the USAF tried to make the grandstand play of taking over ALL UAV/UCAV’s (and lost, to coin a phrase, “big-time”).

Personally, I think the army would probably be better off with the ground support and air transport missions, neither of which the USAF seems very keen about. The USMC as you know, held onto their fixed wing assets to ensure that their boots would be assured proper air cover/ground support.

The above said, I would hope the USAF would give the C-27’s to the USCG, b/c they are *always* hurting for assets, and *always* get the shortest end of the stick when it comes to budget.

Still trying to find article on MoA.
“U.S. Army Won’t Fight if C-27J Is Canceled“
”…The U.S. Army is not prepared to fight to keep the C-27J cargo aircraft program alive should an Air Force recommendation to cancel the program be finalized by senior Pentagon officials…” http://​www​.defensenews​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​2​0​1​1​1​2​0​6​/​D​E​FSE

USAF can’t afford 38 or 21 C-27Js but can afford 1773 JSFs? Do they think all are stupid? The real reason is the budget priority given to the unready Just So Failed that will push soon several other good planes (A-10C,F-16C, F-15C, B-1B and C-130H) to the boneyard.

Dirt Dart — Let me know when you find that MOU.

Not fighting for the USAF to keep the planes is not the same as “The Army has already stated that they will not take them.” The Army is highly limited as to what fixed wing the Air Force allows it to fly. There is a long history of the Air Force being involved in Army aviation programs and how aircraft are used. The C27J is just the latest chapter. That same history of obstructionism doesn’t exist with other gov’t agencies and there appears to be no congressional requirement to switch aircraft between services that already own them. Likely because the Air Force won’t raise the issue there.

At the core of this abortion is the Air Force’s maniacal obsession to keep anything that flies out of Army hands. It’s a cultural by product of once being part of the Army and a deep felt insecurity that any use of fixed wing by the Army somehow diminishes the Air Force. It’s continues to be the most damaging example of branch partisanship among all the services.

You don’t see that silliness returned as the Air Force procures armored vehicles or increases its capability to defend air bases.

Thankfully the Falcon F-16 and F-15 are not to be all replaced by the brass lust for the crappy JSF. I do think again more reason to fire those Pentagon idiots.

I think we should give them to the Forestry Department and the shale could be used for current fleet upgrades (F-15, F-16, A-10 and F-18)

was’t that the Key West Accords?

I think we should give A-10s to the Border Patrol…that’ll stop the illegal immigration problem!

Actually, the Key West Accord includes the following language: “in general the Army shall include land combat/and service forces and such aviation and water transport as may be organic therein.” http://​cgsc​.cdmhost​.com/​u​t​i​l​s​/​g​e​t​f​i​l​e​/​c​o​l​l​e​c​t​i​on/
The Pace-Finletter MOU 1952 placed limitations on Army aviation assets. Then the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966 removed tactical fixed wing airlift from the Army’s purview.
But, it could be said that both of these actions were voided when the Air Force transferred the C-23 EDSA aircraft to the Army in 1990.

So, your answer is to execute people for committing what is essentially a misdemeanor?
Following this logic, should we bayonet jaywalkers?

Seems to me the wise move would be to transfer all C-27Js to the Coast Guard. Save some money and place all the aircraft under one umbrella.

Too many in the pentagon are now politicians looking for what they are going to do after they retire from the military. Kickbacks and side deals are made at the expense of those still serving and just to infuriate those of us who have served under a government that believed in a strong national defense and therefore could project that strength around the world while still taking care at home. I have 2 son’s currently serving along with a brother in law and several friends. The core group is no longer there and things such as leadership and taking care of the troops and each other have all fallen to looking out for number one no matter who’s back I have to break to get there. This applies in this instance as well. I am sure someone got something for building the aircraft and now someone else will benefit by getting rid of them. The “common sense” thing would be if the USAF truly does not want them, then keep them in DoD and get them where they are needed. I am retired USAF / USAFR and actually saw the days when the services bickered amongst each other but in the end they worked out the best plan to where everyone got what was needed to do the job. Thank you to all of you who have served and who are currently undergoing these truly trying times.

What’s maddening is that this actually started out as an Army proposal, to improve their organic intra-theater airlift. The Air Force whined and fussed, so the Army worked out a deal to share aircraft, AF signed on, THEN whined again to get all the planes. Once they got the A/C, the Air Force (suddenly) determined that the C-27’s intended roles could be filled by C-130s, so the C-27s headed to the boneyard.

Don’t think we should execute illegal aliens but it shouldn’t be treated as a misdemeanor. THAT attitude is why illegal immigration is such a problem.

They are not jaywalking. They are invading out country.

It is amazing the stupidity of so many people in the DoD and Air Force especially. We send 2 C-130’s to Afghanistan but we can NOT give SOCOM, the USCG, and Foprestry service the planes the are “brand new” and send them to the bone yard because the Air Force has no use for them. Does the word sequestrian mean anything to these A-holes in Washington!

I’m not sure if the country would benefit from revising the citizenship-by-birthright laws.

I suppose if you do it right…

I love the comments on this but could use some help on some acroynms,MOU and MoA (dirtdart) I do remember reading some of the 1966 Johnson-McConnel agreement ‚It was the end for all Army fixed wing FAC birds like the Mohawk.But help me understand this as a Army Father and a TAXPAYER aka SUCKER! I remember a Oct.7 th. article about the C-27Js,I think the AF knew when the contract was signed they could do the same job with the C-130 fleet Yes Once again Its congress, and lobyists,Porkbarrel spending But If the AF accepted the aircraft Its thier DIME and OURS ! This Is were I need anyone to weigh in.The C-27 fleet is now owned by the Dept. of the AF and in turn the DoD.(.destination Mothballs) If the( U.S.C.G./dept. of homeland Sec./D.O.T.) or the Dept. of the Interior I think that s what the U.S.F.S. falls under,can afford the O.M. costs for the aircraft long term OR a lease for the U.S.F.S. then why cant the NEW C-27Js be given to those services ?Because they are outside the DoD? The Army did get hit hard budget wise, The Marines got the Osprey and maybe a replacement for thier AAV/LVT7 and will probably be the only service to benefit from the JSF F/A 35 to replace the AV-8B.

contued:As far as SOCOM let them assert themselves and have AFSOC take over a portion of the A-10s any ground pounder or Spec.Operator would be just as happy to see them overhead in a low threat AO as they would the AC-130 U/H Spectre/Spooky gunships! Better to have C-27s as med. and long range MPAs or putting out forest fires then supporting the local groundhog population in Arizona in shrinkwrap Remember we the taxpayer have already bought them! I think the AF has already made a decision on the A-10s but I would love to see them fly one more sortie over the Capitol when CONGRESS was in session !

The Coast Guard aquisition budget is so under funded that these 21 aircraft would no doubt benefit them much more than the other agencies… The Air Force also seems to be hell bent on getting rid of a large number of 130’s currently operated by the ANG, so send those to the forest service.

MOU is memorandum of understanding, and MoA is memorandum of agreement.

The Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966 had absolutely nothing to do with Army fixed wing observation planes like OV-1 Mohawks. The Army and ARNG Mohawks were finally retired in the mid-90’s. The agreement required the Army to:
”…relinquish all claims for CV-2 and CV-7 aircraft and for future fixed-wing aircraft designed for tactical airlift…“
Now, the CV-2 refers to the DHC-4 Caribou, later designated C-7. The CV-7 is the DHC-5 Buffalo, later designated C-8.

I have 300 hours in the “hog”.….….…..Possibly the biggest threat to an enemy ground force.
Lets get real Washington.….….……How many of U that grounded the hog have ever flown it??
With her protective bathtub, she is a sweetie!

Thank You former dirt dart !I never knew the Army operated the Mohawk that long! I do remember the Caribou,twin engine Canadian made from the Viet Nam war,I would ask one more thing If you would​.Is it feasible for the DoD to relinquish the fleet of C-27s to non mill. Depts. like the U.S.C.G. and U.S.F.S.?

Gentlemen, this is just another SNAFU! Replace the toilet seats with ones bought at Home Depot and they will no longer be a “luxury”! Get a grip! The U.S. government is leaving, what -$8 billion in assets on the ground in the Mid-East! Tell the Commander –In-Chief to host a garage sale instead of giving away assets! $.25 on the dollar and you could double the inventory plus parts!

Just to be clear and tell both sides of the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966 this is what the Air Force agreed to (and violated)…

“To relinquish all claims for helicopters and follow-on rotary wing aircraft which are designed and operated for intratheater movement, fire support, supply and resupply of Army Forces…” One must wonder why the Air Force was obstructing Army efforts to tactically transport troops on the battlefield in the first place.

“That in cases of operational need, the CV-2 and CV-7, and C-123 type aircraft performing supply, resupply or troop-lift functions in the field army area, may be attached to the subordinate tactical echelons of the field army (corps, division, or subordinate commander), as determined by the appropriate joint/unified commander.” The violation of this agreement by the Air Force is what initiated the Army’s desire to develop the C27J. AFTER the Congress funded the C27J the Air Force again became interested in tasking USAF aircraft to ground commanders.

“To consult with the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, in order to arrive at take-off, landing and load carrying characteristics of follow-on fixed wing aircraft to meet the needs of the Army for supply, resupply, and troop movement functions.” Another portion of the agreement the Air Force violated driving the Army to develop an intratheatre airlift carrier.

This is how the USAF does business. It will continue and demonstrates the Air Force’s attitude when it comes to the Army owning ANYTHING that flies.

Air Force Generals are mostly idiots. If they knew 2 years ago that they could not afford the planes then they should have started looking to unload them. How about Afghanistan. Instead of C-130’s give them C-27J’s. Tell the Commander-in-Chief to keep his civilian nose out of military business!

Appreciate your service and love the hog but it isn’t Congress recommending mothballing the A10.

How about giving it to the Army?

don’t drink and type

I agree, Pete. But why stop at giving the C-27’s back to the Army (where they belong in the first place). The USAF (in which I served) has NOT supported the Army as they should. Let the USAF keep the intercontinental bomber and give everything else that flies BACK to the Army Air Corps. The ICBM missiles go to Navy, who will do to those land targets just what the USAF did the the Army’s intra-theater airflit. Kill it off!

I must be missing something. No-one has mentioned Afghanistan. Is there some reason they can’t take some of these instead of the C-130s and get them back to a higher number of planes to replace their grounded fleet? Seems like a better match.

A Classic Example how The House and Senate refuse to listen to the Top Brass of the Military Services. The Democrats, 6 particular ones fought to have these Planes build even though the Air Force Top Generals said, “We Do NOT want them”. Just like the JSF F-35 Program being Shoved on the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The Navy has NO need for a SINGLE Engine Aircraft, let alone one that cost $245 Million each compared to the Proven, Trusted and Reliable F/A-18E/F Super Hornets at $65 Million each. Have your ONLY engine go out in an F-35 and you drop it in the Ocean. With your F/A-18 TWIN Engine, you can make it back to the Carrier.

As I responded to a similar post on a different article a week ago:
Transferring these aircraft to the Afghan military will only lead to greater problems with services than those that ended the Afghan Air Force G.222(C-27A) effort. Alenia has been quite adamant that they will provide absolutely no parts or services to these aircraft should they be transferred to another country. Alenia is not about to let the US move these aircraft and limit their possible future sales of newly manufactured C-27Js

You’re confused. The Air Force said they needed these arcraft.

Depends on how reliable your engines are under heavy use.

Anyone have crashes/flight-hour/aircraft numbers to compare the F-16 against the same-generation F-15?

Curious, why did the Alenia G.222 not meet USCG requirements (and conversely, why didn’t we go with the HC-144/CASA CN-235 for the JCA program).

Sometimes I wonder why services start new programs instead of looking at what the other services have.

Use it or lose it when it comes to budget allocation!

As I recall, the CN-235 was eliminated from the FCA competition early on due to a FAA certification problem. Now, I don’t understand how the HC-144 somehow made it past this hurdle, if it existed.
One reason the C-295 lost was that a HMMWV won’t fit, in essence, the ceiling is to low. And, the CN-235 has the same cabin dimensions, aside from length.

Personally, I wondered if the Army had gone with the CN-235/HC-144, would there been a push to merge the Army FCA and Air Force LCA programs.
The HC-144 would have been a significant improvement over the Sherpa. But. not so much of a increase in capability that it became a redundant capability to Air Force lift.
I also think the Army might have better used the Multi-Mission Tactical Transport/Future Cargo Aircraft program to develop a super-short takeoff and landing (SSTOL) using a partial tilt-wing. Hell, everyone has known this works since the XC-142 program. Not talking about a full vertical tilt, but the same partial tilt explored by the Boeing Super Frog Advanced Theater Transport (ATT) concept.

The Army did not want the C27J initially but in hindsight foolishly decided to move in that direction to be a team player with the Air Force’s preference for the C27J. It was a smart, fiscally responsible and common sense move for services that should work together.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Do you think especialy as a former “Hog Driver” If A. the AF dumped the already paid for (that would be you and I that paid for It) And recived some compensation from U.S.C.G./U.S.F.S.In dollars.and that B. we cut the pending 1773 JSF F/A-35 to 1000 even and C.Halted anymore poduction of the AC-130 H/U the AF could continue the mait. of the fleet of A-10s with a upgrade when needed and spread them across the ANG/and active AF?sorry that was alot!I have friends that have returned from Afghanistan and they would want a A-10 or a AH-64D overhead covering thier ass every day of the week!!! The knock on the A-10 is its a “mission specific” platform THE BEST EVER MADE @CAS but a AF pilot @ the stck!

continued: didnt the AF learn the hard way in Viet Nam… when they used Interceptors in the century seris of aircraft NONE of them worked for the CAS role !SO we built one of the best in the A-10 I think In a low threat enviorment “hogs” fair better then spookys/spectres

As dumb as it sounds I’l bet that the DoD has decided that the Army will not be fighting any more ground wars as “rockyshoals” suggested. I know that sounds crazy but with what has been coming out of the Sec of Defense office they just might be thinking that way. I’ll bet their thinking is to shrink the Army to a number of specialty units and a few of light divisions and thats it. The Army reserve and National Guard would be used to form the large fight units if ever needed.

Government “excess?” If there were more multi-engine pilots, I’m sure the Civil Air Patrol could use these aircraft for searches, disaster relief and photo recon missions. Past history has shown CAP received T-34’s and O-1’s through government “excess.” Hmmmmm.…. put this on the table for discussion!

True, but why did they go so far to merge the programs together under the Air Force? Two services can procure an aircraft and perhaps give it a few modifications. Army and Marines procured Cobras at one point. Air Force and Marines have Hueys (though perhaps different versions?) Hrm.

Are you asking about why both services didn’t pursue the C27. That was a DoD driven. Remember Gates was SecDef.

I guess it’s more a question about the nature of procurement. There’s always a “lead service” that handles procurement (or in some cases, destroys the program)?

Would it? 90 miles of shark infested waters doesn’t stop immigrants from crossing shores. The South Vietnamese took to boats to flee communism and died on the water for a chance at freedom (but most likely, death at sea). You underestimate human desperation. What’s an A-10 to being decapitated in Sinaloa?

The unit in SOCOM getting them is US ARMY!

Thats funny. CAP could never get the budget or maintenaince package that comes with this aircraft..

A close examination of this cargo aircraft’s acquisition from it’s inception through today will reveal a long laundry list of errors, mismanagement and issues with DoD acquisition and leadership. You could say it is a comedy of errors if it wasn’t for the fact that not a single taxpayer would find it funny. For AF officials–the same officials who are buying F22s and F35s while asking Congress for more money to upgrade F-15s and F-16s–to say they “can’t afford the ‘luxury’” of this aircraft is hard to fathom. After retiring from nearly 25 years in the AF flying transports in combat (including both C-130J and C-27J), I’m ashamed of AF leadership and embarrassed by their handling of this acquisition. For those who said the AF would never do the Army DS mission, you were right. AF leaders aren’t able to understand the importance of it and won’t commit the resources to it when there are other bills (next gen fighters, etc) to be paid. As the song goes, “…nothing can stop the US Air Force;” except for an extremely important mission for our soldiers. Sad.

The bigger problem is not the initial cost, it is the upkeep. The C27J suffers from being an Alenia product. Having dealt with them on the Civilian side, their spare parts are both VERY expensive and have an extremely long lead time. That is, order it today, get it in a month or four. Unacceptable. It is much the same with CASA in Spain, as the USCG is finding out with their CASA 295 aircraft. It is unfortunate that Boeing or LM is not producing a mid-sized aircraft that is suitable.

Well that’s a bummer. Well, “assembled in the USA with foreign parts” will only get you so far.

And you can’t get into the business without the blessing of Lockheed or Northrop or Boeing…

“I bless thee, in the name of Lockheed, Northrop or Boeing. Go forth and do business in front of Congress”

http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​P​a​c​e​-​F​i​n​l​e​t​t​e​r​_​M​O​U_1

http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​J​o​h​n​s​o​n​-​M​c​C​o​n​n​e​l​l​_ag
“The Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, and the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, have reached an understanding on the control and employment of certain types of fixed and rotary wing aircraft and are individually and jointly agreed as follows:

a. The Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, agrees to relinquish all claims for CV-2 and CV-7 aircraft and for future fixed-wing aircraft designed for tactical airlift. These assets now in the Army inventory will be transferred to the Air Force. (CSA and CSAF agree that this does not apply to the administrative mission support fixed wing aircraft.)”

“does not apply to the administrative mission support fixed wing aircraft”

Not sure what this leaves for the army. VIP aircraft? Worthless.

“b. The Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, agrees:

To relinquish all claims for helicopters and follow-on rotary wing aircraft which are designed and operated for intratheater movement, fire support, supply and resupply of Army Forces and those Air Force control elements assigned to DASC and subordinate thereto. (CSA and CSAF agree that this does not include rotary wing aircraft employed by Air Force SAW [Special Air Warfare] and SAR [Search and Rescue] forces and rotary wing administrative mission aircraft.) (CSA and CSAF agree that the Army and Air Force will jointly continue to develop VTOL aircraft. Dependent on the evolution of this type aircraft, methods of employment and control will be matters for continuing joint consideration by the Army and Air Force.)”

Air Force gets to keep all the helicopters they wish (forfeiting aircraft they never had, “all claims for helicopters and follow-on rotary wing aircraft which are designed and operated for intratheater movement, fire support, supply and resupply of Army Forces and those Air Force control elements assigned to DASC and subordinate thereto” except CSAR, etc)

Would that kind of thing be nabbable with a Freedom of Information Act?

I don’t think so. The MoA where the USAF negotiated with the Army for C130s to conduct intratheatre lift doesn’t exist. That’s why I asked for it.

The MoA was for the Air Force to fly the C27’s under Army aviation brigades command. No C27J’s, the MoA is OBE. C’mon you don’t seriously think the Air Force would give the Army a say in whether they wanted the C27J or the C130 did you?

Try getting Cessna parts,same thing, we make a parts run of “x” which is a cost effective number. If you need the part it goes in the parts slot, when we have say “30” requests we will make 50, sucks if you are the 21st extra as it could be years before the next parts run

Definitely the HC144 could be a better and affordable choice for the USCG. The C27 are not suited at all for MPA missions as the HC144 does. Prepare the C27 for MPA mission could cost at least over 4 or $5 millions per aircraft.
One more thing: the US ARMY must have their own fixed wing cargo aircraft as the US Marines has. The ARMY always wanted the C295 due the low cost of adquisition and operations but seems that political consideration made the C27 being selected, which is also a good aircraft anyway, but more expensive to operate

*required

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 | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.