AF to chop C-27J?

[Skitzo]

Yeah. I for one have no desire to fly a herc but would love the gunship light.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

One small gun on an airplane with a crew, no missiles, no bombs, slower than most cars. Sounds expensive, not reality. Keep the AC-130, now that's a combat platform.

Edited December 26, 2013 by matmacwc

[Champ Kind]

One small gun on an airplane with a crew, no missiles, no bombs, slower than most cars. Sounds expensive, not reality. Keep the AC-130, now that's a combat platform.

Up vote.

[tac airlifter]

One small gun on an airplane with a crew, no missiles, no bombs, slower than most cars. Sounds expensive, not reality. Keep the AC-130, now that's a combat platform.

Valid. If it has a gun it should have hard points for -114R2's, GBU-39B or internal SOPGMs. AC-130 is a great platform for its purpose. But we're fighting a lot of places (and projected to continue post-OEF) where you just can't have a ground footprint that large, an audible signature that loud or a plane flying that close or that low to target; nor do you have any need for RWR, LAIRCM, etc. There are numerous similarly envisioned twin engine CONOPs out there; unfortunatly AFSOC has chosen the worst of the lot.

[LJ Driver]

Pretty sure that might be a straight AC-27J then...

There is absolutely a niche for a small LL penetrator with Talon 2-like capabilities, MC-27J could be modular that way also. And since when would a gunship platform not have any need for LAIRCM/RWR?

[tac airlifter]

Pretty sure that might be a straight AC-27J then...

There is absolutely a niche for a small LL penetrator with Talon 2-like capabilities, MC-27J could be modular that way also. And since when would a gunship platform not have any need for LAIRCM/RWR?

If you're putting a gun on it, it won't be an MC anything for long. Recall the metamorphasis of MC-130W to AC-130W. I'd postulate the need for strike exceeds the niche need for infil; and the idea of crews exceling at both mission sets simultaneously is a fallicy. As for why would a 'gunship' not need all that extra gear.... maybe it shouldn't be a gunship. There's a current and future role for robust F3 platforms with a small footprint. That's a different animal than a gunship entirely.

[Bender]

It's funny...I know from a VERY good source that we we're about ready to operationally test the conversion to blue-suit maintenance on the C-27J before it got shut down.

Now "we" use the contract maintenance as too much of a cost to keep aircraft we already purchased?

The end is not in sight. It's going to be a long and bumpy ride down!

Bendy

[ElLoco]

There is absolutely a niche for a small LL penetrator with Talon 2-like capabilities, MC-27J could be modular that way also. And since when would a gunship platform not have any need for LAIRCM/RWR?

Gettin that half-pallet of gatorade on target, anytime, anywhere

[Liquid]

Valid. If it has a gun it should have hard points for -114R2's, GBU-39B or internal SOPGMs. AC-130 is a great platform for its purpose. But we're fighting a lot of places (and projected to continue post-OEF) where you just can't have a ground footprint that large, an audible signature that loud or a plane flying that close or that low to target; nor do you have any need for RWR, LAIRCM, etc. There are numerous similarly envisioned twin engine CONOPs out there; unfortunatly AFSOC has chosen the worst of the lot.

MC-12Ws are being divested by ACC and AFSOC is getting them at no cost. Not the perfect replacement for the U-28, but a great value. The MC-12s will be modified to match U-28 capes and they will have more range with the safety margin an additional engine provides. There are better twins for manned ISR, but none that make as much fiscal sense in these rough budget times. AC-27J was a SOCOM initiative that was killed in budget drills. The technology investment was moved to the MC-130W and is buying down risk and schedule for the ACJ. 8 x C-27Js the AF is divesting will go to USASOC and I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up in AFSOC a few years from now.

[MC5Wes]

Makes perfect Air Force sense. Transfer the aircraft to AFSOC. Spool up logistics and maintenance at the new locations. Then once its up and running. Transfer them to the Army.

Fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill requires the Defense Secretary to draft a plan for the “potential” transfer of MC-12 Liberty to the Army,

[Liquid]

Makes perfect Air Force sense. Transfer the aircraft to AFSOC. Spool up logistics and maintenance at the new locations. Then once its up and running. Transfer them to the Army.Fiscal 2014 defense authorization bill requires the Defense Secretary to draft a plan for the “potential” transfer of MC-12 Liberty to the Army,

Not sure what you are talking about. The Army will get the 8 x MC-12W they requested. This is independent of the 33 going to AFSOC and was agreed upon by OSD, DA, HAF and USSOCOM. Why do you think this doesn't make sense in your smart ass way?

[Tonka]

...is buying down risk and schedule for the ACJ.

Money doesn't solve everything, should be an interesting year for that program. Flying next month?

8 x C-27Js the AF is divesting will go to USASOC

...HA! So, the Army wants them, we steal them, we can't afford them, we give them back to Army in hopes we can steal them back when we're done sinking $ else where. Alenia has one heluva business model.

At least with a roll-on gun you can show up without the obvious business-end sticking out the side... I think their version has the sensor mounted to the gun, a limited FOV but very non-descript until you need it.

Edit:quoting errors

Edited December 27, 2013 by Tonka

[Liquid]

Money doesn't solve everything, should be an interesting year for that program. Flying next month?...HA! So, the Army wants them, we steal them, we can't afford them, we give them back to Army in hopes we can steal them back when we're done sinking $ else where. Alenia has one heluva business model.

At least with a roll-on gun you can show up without the obvious business-end sticking out the side... I think their version has the sensor mounted to the gun, a limited FOV but very non-descript until you need it.

Edit:quoting errors

Yeah, that is some messed up shit. I think it was more that we didn't want them more than we couldn't "afford' them. USASOC has no plans to modify the C-27J, only to use them for airdrop training. No doubt they will eventually look at tricking it out for multi-role, but when that happens, it will be time to move it back into the AF. Limited spare parts and high contract mx costs will challenge the small program. Industry is developing some great armed capability on AC-27J and CN-235. Saw a Jordanian CN-235 with AGM-114, 2.75 rockets and roll on 30mm gun with MX-15i the other day. Great aircraft.

[olevelo]

Money doesn't solve everything, should be an interesting year for that program. Flying next month?

Yeah, our first few flying qualities flights start mid-month. It'll probably be at least another month, if not two, before we actually start playing with the systems.

[tac airlifter]

MC-12Ws are being divested by ACC and AFSOC is getting them at no cost. Not the perfect replacement for the U-28, but a great value. The MC-12s will be modified to match U-28 capes and they will have more range with the safety margin an additional engine provides. There are better twins for manned ISR, but none that make as much fiscal sense in these rough budget times. AC-27J was a SOCOM initiative that was killed in budget drills. The technology investment was moved to the MC-130W and is buying down risk and schedule for the ACJ. 8 x C-27Js the AF is divesting will go to USASOC and I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up in AFSOC a few years from now.

Thanks for making an appearance; I've been telling everyone who will listen what a terrible plan the MC-12 conversion is, you've now given me an opportunity to plant one more seed.

First let's start with your assurance that MC-12's will be modified to match U-28 CAPES. The current plan has us using single sensor MC12. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade. There are numerous talking papers on the subject including an excellent one from CC of the 34th SOS. If you follow his paper this will be a true upgrade. If you don't this will be a huge step back and the mission will suffer.

Second, you make the standard point about how two engines increases safety. How times have U-28s lost an engine? You're attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Law of unintended consequences: your solution makes me significantly louder. Without upgrading from a 15" to 20" sensor I'm stuck at a further Echo from target, giving a shittier picture to the GFC. Again, the mission will suffer with this change.

Third you talk about the increased range. I'm sure you're aware that current B-350 types and U28s have the same block time on ISR sync without staging from further bases. I won't delve into the regulatory foolishness forcing this, but if you really were to add all the extra stuff to bring MC12 to the level of current U28, plus the weight of an extra engine, plus compliance with multiengine departure rules you'd have about an extra 15 minutes on target..... But be louder and need to stay further away. The unanimous opinion from your experts in the ops SQ's is this change as currently constructed will be worse for the mission.

Finally, you claim AFSOC is getting them at no cost. You sure there is zero cost at all from AFSOC to take these aircraft? No hidden fees? I'm tracking otherwise.

I've heard your talking points before; I'm disappointed at the lack of depth. Unless we add 2 x 20" balls (and some other stuff) this will be degradation in capability and worse for the mission.

Edited December 27, 2013 by tac airlifter

[Bender]

...compliance with multiengine departure rules

Have no fear, the MC-12 does not hinder itself with such things. Jeppsen will craft you "compliance" after you pay them for it.

The MC-12s will be modified to match U-28 capes and they will have more range with the safety margin an additional engine provides.

MC-12s must give up something to be modified. Unless we waive the Beech 350's maximum gross takeoff weights (an unwise decision), matching the U-28's capes may come at the expense of anything gained in the range department. Also new worthy, the additional engine isn't all safety oriented (the MC-12 is far from stealthy, we have proven this multiple times).

Why don't we just turn back on Mansfield's blue suit maintenance? The C-27J boggles my mind...no doubt there are forces at work I am unaware of...

Bendy

[Liquid]

Thanks for making an appearance; I've been telling everyone who will listen what a terrible plan the MC-12 conversion is, you've now given me an opportunity to plant one more seed.

First let's start with your assurance that MC-12's will be modified to match U-28 CAPES. The current plan has us using single sensor MC12. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade. There are numerous talking papers on the subject including an excellent one from CC of the 34th SOS. If you follow his paper this will be a true upgrade. If you don't this will be a huge step back and the mission will suffer.

Second, you make the standard point about how two engines increases safety. How times have U-28s lost an engine? You're attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Law of unintended consequences: your solution makes me significantly louder. Without upgrading from a 15" to 20" sensor I'm stuck at a further Echo from target, giving a shittier picture to the GFC. Again, the mission will suffer with this change.

Third you talk about the increased range. I'm sure you're aware that current B-350 types and U28s have the same block time on ISR sync without staging from further bases. I won't delve into the regulatory foolishness forcing this, but if you really were to add all the extra stuff to bring MC12 to the level of current U28, plus the weight of an extra engine, plus compliance with multiengine departure rules you'd have about an extra 15 minutes on target..... But be louder and need to stay further away. The unanimous opinion from your experts in the ops SQ's is this change as currently constructed will be worse for the mission.

Finally, you claim AFSOC is getting them at no cost. You sure there is zero cost at all from AFSOC to take these aircraft? No hidden fees? I'm tracking otherwise.

I've heard your talking points before; I'm disappointed at the lack of depth. Unless we add 2 x 20" balls (and some other stuff) this will be degradation in capability and worse for the mission.

If you really want to talk about requirements, programming and capabilities, head on over to A5K or shoot me a note on SIPR. We are not going to go into the depth you want on this message board.

[tac airlifter]

If you really want to talk about requirements, programming and capabilities, head on over to A5K or shoot me a note on SIPR. We are not going to go into the depth you want on this message board.

I appreciate the offer. But I'm deployed and unlikely to seek out a stranger on SIPR; might I suggest a representative with details of the conversion attend a CC call at one of the SQ's to dispel myths and address legitimate concerns in person? There's a perception that decisions are made in a vacuum, void of any ISR experienced crews, and outcomes will decrease mission effectiveness. This isn't standard aircrew whining, we're genuinely afraid HQ will hamper the mission.

[stract]

how about take the discussion over to Baseops SIPR? It exists for this very reason...

[MC5Wes]

Not sure what you are talking about. The Army will get the 8 x MC-12W they requested. This is independent of the 33 going to AFSOC and was agreed upon by OSD, DA, HAF and USSOCOM. Why do you think this doesn't make sense in your smart ass way?

Not trying to be a smart ass. The point I was making is the Air Force never learns. Its rinse and repeat on the MC-12s just like the C-27J. I haven’t read anywhere that the Air Force wants to transfer 8 of them from ACC to AFSOC. I just read the news and the NDAA that was just signed.

17 SEC. 144. MC–12 LIBERTY INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE,

18 AND RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT.

19 (a) AUTHORITY.—Beginning on the date that is 60

20 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense sub

21mits the report under subsection (d)(1), the Secretary may

22 transfer MC–12 Liberty intelligence, surveillance, and re

23connaissance aircraft from the Air Force to the Army in

24 accordance with the plan developed under subsection

25 (b)(1).

Anyways this is very good news. I need a job at Sierra Nevada when I retire from my Air Force civilian servant job next year. Hopefully I will be going to Duke.

[DFRESH]

how about take the discussion over to Baseops SIPR? It exists for this very reason...

This

[LJ Driver]

Gettin that half-pallet of gatorade on target, anytime, anywhere

Naïve and un-informed.

[wannabeflyer]

It's somewhat ironic to me that the Air Force spent half a billion dollars on C-27s, then mothballed new aircraft in the name of "cost savings." It's also interesting that we spent $500 million on the same aircraft for the Afghani Air Force. Apparently that didn't go well either, so all told about a cold billion spent on planes that no one's flying. Now I get that the Afghani story is probably more complicated, and I'm sure corruption in their ranks is partly to blame, but us buying brand new planes and sending them straight to the bone yard is unacceptable. Sure it's a drop in the DOD budget, but with $500 mill put towards hiring some support staff for flying squadrons, we could boost pilot morale Air Force wide and alleviate some of the coming hurt when the mass exodus for the airlines happens.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/12/probe-launched-over-500m-spent-on-afghanistan-planes/

[Tank]

Yeah, that is some messed up shit. I think it was more that we didn't want them more than we couldn't "afford' them. USASOC has no plans to modify the C-27J, only to use them for airdrop training. No doubt they will eventually look at tricking it out for multi-role, but when that happens, it will be time to move it back into the AF. Limited spare parts and high contract mx costs will challenge the small program. Industry is developing some great armed capability on AC-27J and CN-235. Saw a Jordanian CN-235 with AGM-114, 2.75 rockets and roll on 30mm gun with MX-15i the other day. Great aircraft.

The 30mm gun on the Jordanian AC-235 is not a roll on system.

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_CN-235_Gunship_Conversion_Concept_lg.jpg

Edited December 29, 2013 by Tank

[backseatdriver]

If Liquid is who I think he is, I'm gonna go with him over an artist rendering that's been around since about 2 years before the 235 was even put together.

Edited December 29, 2013 by backseatdriver