AF to chop C-27J?

[war007afa]

You mean other than this?

[hobbitcid]

Once again the USAF sticks it to themselves and other services to fund a pet project. I've just recently briefed a conference on irregular warfare and several LAAR advocates were there (military, GS and contractor). All of them said the fate of the LAAR was tied like the C-27J to the F-35. Until JSF is fully funded the USAF will shut down all other projects not deemed nationally critical (e.g. MQ-9 and RQ-4 production) and re-program those funds.

This is an old story as well. While on active duty I watched as several vital and viable weapons systems were shut down before they had adequate replacements (F-4G, RF-4, ABCCC, E-10, EF-111). Yes they were expensive but their replacements; if they had a replacement (think ABCCC, RF-4 and E-10) were either not immediately up to the task or were simply discounted. But the key requirement was the development and production of the F/A-22 - I had several colleagues in the Acquisition world who referred to the F/A-22 as the vampire as it sucked everyone else's programs dry.

So now we have the F/A-22 that has not been down range yet, the F-35 which probably won't go down range anytime soon and we as an AF are shutting down F-16 and F-15 guard units, slashing at needed airlift (no more C-17s, reduced upgrades for C-5s) and ignoring the lessons of current conflicts (Afghanistan, Columbia) to go after the top shelf weapons systems over something that is available, safe and cheap (AT-6) ready made for low level conflicts and irregular missions (convoy support, immediate CAS against emerging targets in urban environments).

But its coming back around. The Army is getting screwed on the C-27J and LAAR so they may soon go their own way. I expect to see LAAR and C-27J contracts for SOF and Army - which further begs the question: If the USAF cannot actually support the Army, Navy and Marines then what does it actually do? Cyber warfare, Space, strategic air lift and defence?

One of our speakers, a Professor from a National Military University noted increased calls for the USAF to go back to being the US Army Air Corps. Don't think for a moment, they won't do it. Warrant Officers now fly Apache - in many ways more complex than current fighters so that argument is lost. The only thing the USAF can hang its hat on is Strategic defence and once the Navy takes over with subs and the army takes over Space command (ICBMS are just big guided mortars after all) then the USAF has nowhere to go. Our leadership really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Otherwise we'll all be going green and it won't have anything to do bio fuels and bio-degradable paint.

[TrainerModel]

...noted increased calls for the USAF to go back to being the US Army Air Corps. Don't think for a moment, they won't do it.

...yea right

[OverTQ]

The Army spent almost 20 years working on the Comanche. In the end when they finally cut the program, it freed up enough money to recap almost the entire fleet of Army Aircraft.

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-23/us/helicopter.cancel_1_comanche-sikorsky-aircraft-corporation-schoomaker?_s=PM:US

[135ASelect]

We got BRAC'd in 2005. They didn't take our last C-130J until September of this year. We've got 3 C-27Js on the ramp right now and a fourth one on the way. There's currently a successful deployment of the aircraft in theater with an upcoming deployment for our unit in the spring. From the guys in the desert we're being told that the Army is happy with what we're doing for them and they support us. We continue to train for the fight. I believe this thing is far from over.

[TrainerModel]

The Army spent almost 20 years working on the Comanche. In the end when they finally cut the program, it freed up enough money to recap almost the entire fleet of Army Aircraft.

I think we had good return on that program investment this past summer

[brock]

I think we had good return on that program investment this past summer

Some time around May 2nd maybe?

[OverTQ]

Three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Defense News

U.S. senators are demanding that the Air Force explain the metrics it used to estimate the lifetime cost of operating the C-27J cargo plane, which the service has proposed canceling in the Pentagon’s 2013 budget proposal.

Democrats and Republicans, primarily from states where Air National Guard units fly or are slated to fly the aircraft, questioned the Air Force’s rationale for scrapping the fleet of 21 purchased aircraft.

Thus far, the Air Force has yet to provide congressional defense committees with the metrics it used to determine that each C-27J would cost $308 million over its lifetime, which the Air Force used in its rationale to terminate the program.

Lawmakers and defense analysts have questioned the lifecycle costs, particularly because three Air Force assessments of these costs vary between $111 million and $308 million per aircraft.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and other members of the panel questioned Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz about the varying C-27J lifecycle cost estimates during a March 20 hearing.

“There’s a big gap there that I don’t think they adequately explained at all here today,” Levin said after the hearing when asked about the $200 million gap in the estimates.

The committee will continue to look at this issue during its markup of the Pentagon’s 2013 budget proposal, he said.

“We’re not going to take any actions until we’ve had a chance to markup the bill,” Levin said.

An Air National Guard unit in Levin’s home state of Michigan is supposed to receive C-27Js.

One Air Force analysis of the Alenia Aermacchi C-27J shows that each plane would cost the service as little as $111 million, but cautions that additional factors could push the estimate above $200 million over a 30-year period.

That estimate is still well below the $308 million figure the service provided to Congress. The number was repeated by Schwartz at a Feb. 28 House Armed Services Committee hearing.

The $111 million lifecycle estimate is listed in a draft cost-benefit analysis of the twin-engine C-27J and the quad-engine Lockheed Martin C-130H. The 2012 Defense Authorization Act required the Air Force to conduct the assessment that gleaned the $111 million figure. Although dated February 2012, the Air Force has not provided the report to Congress. Defense News obtained a copy of the 13-page report on March 19.

The Air Force called that assessment a “draft report” that was prepared by a Pentagon action officer last fall and “pre-dated” for release in February 2012, according to Kevin Williams, deputy director of the Air Force’s studies and analyses, assessments and lessons learned directorate (A-9).

“As it went through the coordination process, it became apparent that the initial number, $111M was incorrect,” Williams wrote in a statement provided by a service spokeswoman. “A more current, updated version of this document is almost fully coordinated and we expect to send it to Congress in the near future.”

Asked about the lower $111 million lifecycle cost estimate during a March 16 briefing at the Pentagon, Williams told reporters and think tank analysts that any reference to that number was “preliminary” and possibly from a “piece of staff work from last fall, where some things were being bounced around.”

“$111 [million] has never been published by anybody in A-9,” he said last week. “It doesn’t exist in any formal, authorized, signed document.”

Still, three separate Air Force reports show a nearly $200 million difference in opinion.

The large discrepancy between the numbers in the three reports have left lawmakers scratching their heads and questioning the reliability of the lifecycle estimates of the C-27J, an aircraft built to shuttle troops and supplies around the battlefield.

“What I’ve seen trickle out of the Air Force over the past six weeks is confusing to say the least,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said during the hearing. “That data has been inadequate, inconsistent. It’s left us all with more questions than answers.”

The Ohio National Guard operates the C-27J and has deployed with the aircraft to Afghanistan.

While the Air Force cites the $308 million figure, an Air Force background paper states one C-27J aircraft will cost $270 million per aircraft. If operated like C-130s, the C-27J could cost as little as $166 million per aircraft.

And yet the newly unveiled draft cost benefit analysis, which the Air Force says was written in the fall, compares the C-27J to the C-130H. The document notes that the $111 million estimate represents “best case” scenarios, when the aircraft is operated like a C-130. The “Air Force Service Cost Position” — which factors in different crew ratios, maintenance, flying hours and basing — could top $200 million.

At the March 20 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Schwartz said the C-27J flying hour cost is much higher because contractors maintain the aircraft. The Air Force maintains the C-130.

“There’s a considerable difference in relative expense there that goes into the flying hour calculation,” Schwartz said.

However, Air National Guard and industry officials say the C-27Js that have been flying in Afghanistan since last year have used only a small fraction of the more than $60 million in spare parts the unit deployed with the aircraft. Only about $200,000 has been used, according to these sources.

Also, a November 2011 Air Mobility Master Plan — developed by Air Mobility Command, the division of the Air Force that oversees cargo and tanker aircraft — states the “C-27J training and sustainment (supply chain and maintenance) strategies were assessed by a business case analysis to provide the best value approach for the suitable solutions between organic and contractor support.”

The Air Force has not publicly released the document, which describes the C-27J as “an efficient tool to deliver smaller loads within the Joint Operations Area.”

The lifecycle cost estimates were first questioned by Ohio National Guard Capt. Dave Lohrer, who conducted his own assessment, which disputed the Air Force’s personnel and maintenance projections. Lohrer briefed congressional staffers on his work last week.

Defense News reported Lohrer’s findings on March 12. Since then, the Air Force has questioned his metrics.

“We got the pros, the experts, who actually said, ‘No, that’s not right,’” Williams said last week.

Still, the Air Force has not provided the metrics it used to develop the $308 million C-27J lifecycle cost estimates

.

[BQZip01]

In one of the units we had a saying, "I have been fvcked before, and it felt a lot like this".

remind me not to get transferred to that unit...

Three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Schwartz saying one thing and then doing another? Say it isn't so!

[BitteEinBit]

...and the hits just keep on coming.

[135ASelect]

I'll admit this is a fun airplane to fly and I'm not even through basic qual yet. However, the writing has been on the wall format long time. This divestiture is going to happen a lot sooner than we think. I just don't see the airplane surviving, even if people get caught lying with their pants down.

[herkbum]

Where is the C-27 FTU?

[135ASelect]

Robins AFB, GA. In an Army building...surprise surprise....run by L-3. Place has been a non stop rumor mill for two months.

[herkbum]

Robins AFB, GA. In an Army building...surprise surprise....run by L-3. Place has been a non stop rumor mill for two months.

Can you PM me some contact info for L3 down there? Need to ask questions about syllabi and simulators.

[HoHum]

Three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Defense News

Look at the bottom of that article - how'd a Guard Captain end up toe-to-toe with A-9? You'd think the Bureau or the Ohio Wing would be throwing the BS flag, not a guy on his own.

[OverTQ]

Captains are a dime a dozen. You think some O6 who has stars in his eyes is going to jump into the fire when a eager CPT is willing to?

[nsplayr]

Coast Guard set to begin acquisitions process for C-27J.

I've heard flying FW for the coast guard is a sweet deal...looks like it would get even better if this goes through.

[Hookdriver]

Well, that is good news at least. The CG will put those aircraft to good use.

[Bushmaster]

What does a C-27 do that a C-130 can't?

Land a lot of places that a Herc can't. There's a book out on the C-27 by a guy who flew them in Panama, and while he takes liberties the fact is the C-27 needs a lot less room to do its thing. And I, too, hated flying half a cargo load of twinkies when a smaller plane could have done it.

That said, a plane only makes sense if you can pay for it. The Herc can get 90% of the jobs done 90% of the time, so we don't need a luxury twin-engine weighing on the budget.

[Joey Freshwater]

The Herc can get 90% of the jobs done 90% of the time

[Tonka]

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/unwanted-air-force-c-27j-spartans-future-will-be-decided-soon/

USSOCOM: Two successive leaders at SOCOM, current boss Adm. William H. McRaven and his predecessor Adm. Eric T. Olson, have argued for an MC-27J gunship to introduce flexibility into the air-to-ground mission now performed by the AC-130U Spooky and AC-130J Ghostrider. Alenia, in partnership with ATK, has proposed an MC-27J Stinger version that employs the GAU-23 roll-on/roll-off 30mm gun system on a pallet

Might as well put a gun on them!

http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/2013/11/atk-alenia-to-integrate-c-27j-palletized-gun.html

[HU&W]

In other news... Ghostrider?

[LJ Driver]

Now add TF/TA, FLIR, EA, LAIRCM, RWR and we have an airplane! MC27J would be an awesome addition to AFSOC fleet.

[tac airlifter]

Now add TF/TA, FLIR, EA, LAIRCM, RWR 1 x MX-20 DiD & 1 x MTS-B + SOPGM and we have an airplane! MC27J would be an awesome addition to AFSOC fleet.

yup.

[nsplayr]

tac, you're speaking my language man, hell yea. C-27 would be sweet in AFSOC either as a mini gunship, a big U-28, a different flavor of MC or all of the above. Haven't they been talking about this since like 2008?