US takes delivery of BRAND NEW Spartan C-27J fleet straight to the boneyard
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
US takes delivery of BRAND NEW Spartan C-27J fleet straight to the boneyard
Barking madness isn't it..
U.S. Air Force shelving brand new C-27J Spartan aircraft after spending millions - NY Daily News
U.S. Air Force shelving brand new C-27J Spartan aircraft after spending millions - NY Daily News
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
ohh and they might be buying even more
Alenia Receives 1st Fuselage Parts for Italian F-35s | Defense News | defensenews.com
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0
.
Alenia Receives 1st Fuselage Parts for Italian F-35s | Defense News | defensenews.com
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 9th Oct 2013 at 11:22.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of the A10 potential debacle, order 233 new wingsets to upgrade and extend the lifespan of the remaining fleet at a cost of 1.1 billion$ and at the same time make serious plans to definitely retire/mothball the whole fleet.
Future of A-10s uncertain | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com
A-10 gets its new wings at Hill
Future of A-10s uncertain | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com
A-10 gets its new wings at Hill
We should take them off their hands and replace our knackered C130Js with these - after all UK PLC won't be embarking on any more foreign intervention missions in the near future! These would be ideal for intra-Europe travel!!
Last edited by Grimweasel; 9th Oct 2013 at 13:30.
We must recall the fight by the Air Force against the Army ever having Airplanes of any capability.....the downsizing of the force structure that will once again put the National Guard into the aircraft/vehicle maintenance business....and the ever increasing stupidity of the US Military Senior Leadership compounded by the even more corrupt Political leadership.
In the article you may have seen a mention that "other government agencies are interested in obtaining the aircraft".
Which Agencies do you think they are referring to when they make that comment?
In the article you may have seen a mention that "other government agencies are interested in obtaining the aircraft".
Which Agencies do you think they are referring to when they make that comment?
10News - SD County asks for military planes: Air Force plans to turn over C27 aircraft to U.S. Forest Service - 10News.com - News
We certainly need tankers. Preparing for my taxes to go up should it happen.
We certainly need tankers. Preparing for my taxes to go up should it happen.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark my words they will serve the RAAF well.
Those who have flown the C27J speak highly of it.
If they are only half as good as the C7 they will more than meet the need.
Regards
Col
Those who have flown the C27J speak highly of it.
If they are only half as good as the C7 they will more than meet the need.
Regards
Col
Yup we really could be doing with these. Wonder what we'd get quoted. And what we could cut to make way for them. I'm sure a few forthright suggestions will be incoming in due course!
And maybe fit a couple out as tankers for the Falklands job?
Although the MoD is contractually obliged to use AirTanker for all its aerial refuelling needs (and by association the Voyager), the cost of operating and supporting a single aircraft down at MPA will likely be so prohibitative for AirTanker that they'll be more than happy to strike a deal with the MoD for the RAF to do it themselves with the A400M.
My experience is a single Civilian aircraft can do the job of three or four Military operated aircraft with far fewer personnel than the Military thinks necessary.
One S-58T or Bell 212 with Nine Pilots and Engineers total did the job the RAF was going to use three Wessex and Forty Two personnel to accomplish. We had that contract for years.
I can not imagine things have changed that much over the years in that regard.
One S-58T or Bell 212 with Nine Pilots and Engineers total did the job the RAF was going to use three Wessex and Forty Two personnel to accomplish. We had that contract for years.
I can not imagine things have changed that much over the years in that regard.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup we really could be doing with these. Wonder what we'd get quoted. And what we could cut to make way for them. I'm sure a few forthright suggestions will be incoming in due course!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
I'm sure a trade for some good Aussie beer can be worked out.
Maybe the US could sell them the aircraft but gift them some of Goose Island's finest as an aid package.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
"My experience is a single Civilian aircraft can do the job of three or four Military operated aircraft with far fewer personnel than the Military thinks necessary."
No.
A single civilian aircraft can however do ONE of the primary tasks (SAR etc) of that military outfit with far less aircraft and personnel. What you lose is the multitude of unquantifiable other things that that military unit used to do.
ie
Training new baby engineers, pilots, officers.
Provide a respite tour for a warrior.
Disaster relief.
Lifting that big rock to the top of the hill because someone asks nicely.
Rescuing that cow from halfway down a cliff. (yes, I remember my first cow rescue)
Providing fire cover when the firemen strike, again.
Provide manning to fill gaps overseas.
Providing a pool of trained manpower should "the big one" happen.
Provide flexible manpower who will do what is required without a contract negotiation.
Respond to change as required.
I have worked on a few mixed and civilianised units, and they certainly have their advantages as you say, but as a big picture, they are totally inflexible. If the job changes, they get very expensive very quickly or if there is no cash to pay for a new contract, irrelevant.
"My experience is a single Civilian aircraft can do the job of three or four Military operated aircraft with far fewer personnel than the Military thinks necessary."
No.
A single civilian aircraft can however do ONE of the primary tasks (SAR etc) of that military outfit with far less aircraft and personnel. What you lose is the multitude of unquantifiable other things that that military unit used to do.
ie
Training new baby engineers, pilots, officers.
Provide a respite tour for a warrior.
Disaster relief.
Lifting that big rock to the top of the hill because someone asks nicely.
Rescuing that cow from halfway down a cliff. (yes, I remember my first cow rescue)
Providing fire cover when the firemen strike, again.
Provide manning to fill gaps overseas.
Providing a pool of trained manpower should "the big one" happen.
Provide flexible manpower who will do what is required without a contract negotiation.
Respond to change as required.
I have worked on a few mixed and civilianised units, and they certainly have their advantages as you say, but as a big picture, they are totally inflexible. If the job changes, they get very expensive very quickly or if there is no cash to pay for a new contract, irrelevant.
Go gettem Tourist.
Equally the PFI route might sound appealing to those of a particular political persuasion.
Right up to the point that its not lend/lease High Schools your talking about, its contracted out Lineys standing on Q waiting for the most advantageous moment to aim for renegotiation of contract or go on strike.
Take it to its logical conclusion and you dont have an Air Force, you have a charter company.
Equally the PFI route might sound appealing to those of a particular political persuasion.
Right up to the point that its not lend/lease High Schools your talking about, its contracted out Lineys standing on Q waiting for the most advantageous moment to aim for renegotiation of contract or go on strike.
Take it to its logical conclusion and you dont have an Air Force, you have a charter company.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Ryanair with attitude 
I could never understand how anyone else could do it cheaper than the RAF in house, after all if air tankers can secure the tankerage at a good price contract AND make money on it, why can't the UK PLC do it cheaper as they are not reliant on the profit.. Look at air tankers, ok they may well have built the infrastructure up at Brize etc, but you are paying for it, and then some to form their profit margins.
Cost of maintenance, if air tanker etc bring in contractors to their or should that be your facilities and make money, why can the RAF not do similar....
You have the guys, they have the skills, this is something the RAF do not seem to recognise, a lot of those folks brought in by Civi contractors to work on RAF aircraft doing repairs etc are ex RAF who are simply freed from the stigma and limitations placed upon them during their service, and doing jobs that the RAF deemed to complex etc for them to carry out.
The VCTen rewire, that was done by Hunting, why the RAF couldn't have done that in house cheaper is beyond me, a lot of ex RAF contractors were used along with Hunting staff, the only thing I can think is simply the rank structure.. Civi street has unLicensed, Licensed supervisory engineers, management and senior management structures, 4 or 5 possible steps with a separate tech records dealing with those aspects. Put that across to the services you could ditch several rank levels totally. Chief tech, Sgt, corporal could merge with simple pay increments on qualifications, the same goes for LAC, SAC, SAC Tech, and Flight Sgt, WO..... Officer grades more so.
When you look at some structures Civi wise and the coverage it involves, they take in most RAF ranks
Some civilian qualifications could cover UnLicensed, Licensed, Supervisory, Chief Engineer, and what was a Nominated Engineer in which one would inspect and recommend Certificates of Airworthiness which the CAA endorse based on the inspections of both the aircraft, repairs and all of the Airworthiness issues, Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletiens , Service Letters etc.. That in effect is about the whole of the RAF ranks structure rolled into one. And can be held and carried out by a single individual covering hundreds of different aircraft types and engines.
I could never understand how anyone else could do it cheaper than the RAF in house, after all if air tankers can secure the tankerage at a good price contract AND make money on it, why can't the UK PLC do it cheaper as they are not reliant on the profit.. Look at air tankers, ok they may well have built the infrastructure up at Brize etc, but you are paying for it, and then some to form their profit margins.
Cost of maintenance, if air tanker etc bring in contractors to their or should that be your facilities and make money, why can the RAF not do similar....
You have the guys, they have the skills, this is something the RAF do not seem to recognise, a lot of those folks brought in by Civi contractors to work on RAF aircraft doing repairs etc are ex RAF who are simply freed from the stigma and limitations placed upon them during their service, and doing jobs that the RAF deemed to complex etc for them to carry out.
The VCTen rewire, that was done by Hunting, why the RAF couldn't have done that in house cheaper is beyond me, a lot of ex RAF contractors were used along with Hunting staff, the only thing I can think is simply the rank structure.. Civi street has unLicensed, Licensed supervisory engineers, management and senior management structures, 4 or 5 possible steps with a separate tech records dealing with those aspects. Put that across to the services you could ditch several rank levels totally. Chief tech, Sgt, corporal could merge with simple pay increments on qualifications, the same goes for LAC, SAC, SAC Tech, and Flight Sgt, WO..... Officer grades more so.
When you look at some structures Civi wise and the coverage it involves, they take in most RAF ranks
Some civilian qualifications could cover UnLicensed, Licensed, Supervisory, Chief Engineer, and what was a Nominated Engineer in which one would inspect and recommend Certificates of Airworthiness which the CAA endorse based on the inspections of both the aircraft, repairs and all of the Airworthiness issues, Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletiens , Service Letters etc.. That in effect is about the whole of the RAF ranks structure rolled into one. And can be held and carried out by a single individual covering hundreds of different aircraft types and engines.
Last edited by NutLoose; 11th Oct 2013 at 23:37.