C-27J/ US Army

[ncart326]

Looking for any news on the JCA,as well as photos, video, as well as production line photos.

[God Bless USA]

We site for C27J www.c-27j.com/c-27j-for-the-jca-program and www.c-27j.ca/. I hope this helps.

[ncart326]

Thank and yes that helps

[ncart326]

This is JCA-1. The first C-27J that the Ga National Guard will receive in September. Man I can't wait to fly in it.

[Marc 1]

Pity that no-one knows who is going to build them then.

[ncart326]

Pity that no-one knows who is going to build them then.

What do you mean? Alenia Aeronautica, with final assembly in Jax, Fla. by L-3.

[Marc 1]

What do you mean? Alenia Aeronautica, with final assembly in Jax, Fla. by L-3.

This:

Last week, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems President Jim Albaugh is said to have decided to pull out of the partnership to build the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) over disagreements concerning Boeing’s work share. Boeing was in talks to establish a new production facility for the aircraft in Jacksonville, Fla. (Aerospace DAILY, June 6).

Aparently Boeing's decision to pull out is now being reviewed though:rolleyes:

[ncart326]

This:

Last week, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems President Jim Albaugh is said to have decided to pull out of the partnership to build the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) over disagreements concerning Boeing’s work share. Boeing was in talks to establish a new production facility for the aircraft in Jacksonville, Fla. (Aerospace DAILY, June 6).

Aparently Boeing's decision to pull out is now being reviewed though:rolleyes:

Wow, did not know. Will have to look into this further. Many thanks. I have no doubt though that we will receive the 1st aircraft this fall.

[ROCK45]

I found this and it does mention Boeing back out.

Alenia Flies First C-27J JCA For U.S. Army


Jun 17, 2008

Graham Warwick

Alenia Aeronautica has flown the first C-27J Spartan Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) for the U.S. Army at its Caselle plant in Turin, Italy.

The 40-minute first-flight on June 16 was conducted in poor weather, Alenia says, and focused on functional checks. It marks the beginning of a 70-hour flight-test and 180-hour ground-test program, the majority to be conducted at Caselle.

Alenia and prime contractor L-3 Communications was awarded a potential $2 billion contract in June 2007 for up to 78 JCAs for the Army and Air Force. Six are under contract and the first C-27J is scheduled for delivery before the end of September, with the second to be handed over in November.

In 2010, Alenia North America plans to begin JCA deliveries from a new final assembly plant to be built in Jacksonville, Fla. The aircraft will be delivered to L-3 Integrated Systems in Waco, Texas, for installation of the mission equipment.

Alenia faces the challenge of building the U.S. assembly line quickly to meet government expectations, as well as crafting an efficient process to produce the aircraft at a high rate. In an unusual turn of events recently, Boeing backed out of its partnership with Alenia over JCA (AW&ST, June 16, 2008, p.27).

Photo: Alenia Aeronautica

Link
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/C2706178.xml&headline=Alenia%20Flies%20First%20C-27J%20JCA%20For%20U.S.%20Army

[F-15 Eagle]

Why does the Army need the C-27? The USAF has over 600 C-130s, 190 C-17s and 200 C-5s.

[irtusk]

Why does the Army need the C-27? The USAF has over 600 C-130s, 190 C-17s and 200 C-5s.

because the Army and USAF aren't the same organization and sometimes have different priorities (ie get into pissing matches with each other), so the army wants some organic airlift of its own

(and it's closer to 500 C-130s and 130 C-5s and lots of those are old models that basically aren't flyable anymore)

[ROCK45]

The US Army wants more control over how and when there assets get moved and wanted to buy something already built and in production to save on costs. I don't follow transports much what does the US Air Force currently use for transports for smaller then C-130 type missions?http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif
Question

[winnyfield]

The 'Spartan' is also intended to replace the US Army's C-23s so there's not a signifcant doctrinal shift.

In Iraq the C-23 takes a lot of pressure off Chinooks and ground convoys.
YouTube - Alaska C23 Sherpa's flying in Iraq

[ncart326]

This was the first test flight of JCA-1, flying somewhere over Italy. Hopefully we will still see the first in September. I'll be in BNCOC, so it won't matter for me. Darn.....

[ncart326]

Pics of first C-27J arriving at Waco, Tx.

[DDerrick51]

The USMC is a quarter the Army size and has approx. 80 C-130's. So why can the Army not own 54 C-27's?

[swerve]

The USMC is a quarter the Army size and has approx. 80 C-130's. So why can the Army not own 54 C-27's?
Because that's what the US Air Force is for. Or at least, what it's supposed to be for. There are rules which prohibit the US army from building an air force, & although I don't know of any converse rule, I expect the USAF would be prevented from having its own army. Otherwise, what's the point of the separate services?

Better questions would be "Why does the USMC have its own air transport fleet?", "Why does the USA have two distinct armies?", & "Why don't the USAF & US army agree on how the USAF should support army operations, thus rendering any thought of an army air force pointless?". And so on . . .

[DDerrick51]

How about this, "Why does the AF have over 250 helicopters. Why is okay for the Army to have approx 200 FW aircraft already. Just not the C-27. Still not armed."

There are rules which prohibit the US army from building an air force, & although I don't know of any converse rule, I expect the USAF would be prevented from having its own army. Otherwise, what's the point of the separate services?

You are referring to the Key West Agreement. To quote Bill Murry, “it is more of a guideline than a rule”. So if I understand you correctly, only the AF should have FW aircraft? Navy, USMC and Army should have what? I am for breaking down barriers and despise the service rivalry, but the whole reason the Army is doing this is because the AF won’t. As a curiosity, how would you break down the responsibilities between the services? I wish the AF would develop its own army. That would the Army and USMC guys out. Good discussion.

[swerve]

Let me get this straight - you think the USAF should have its own army? Carry that idea on a bit . . . the USAF recruits an army, then a navy, builds its own aircraft carriers to take its tactical air where it can't currently reach. The US army builds an air force & navy . . . The navy already has an air force, & used to have an army, but it seceded, so it needs a new one. The USMC has an air force, but has to borrow ships from the USN, so it should build its own navy.

You end up with four complete sets of armed forces. Crazy!

I don't care what the division of responsibilities your armed forces have, but the current mess is irritating. Why can't they get their act together? What's the point of having a DoD if it can't bang heads together & sort them out?

[DDerrick51]

I wish the AF would develop its own army
That was more of a lamination on the over deployment we in the Army and USMC have endured. I guess subtleties are a bit too subtle in print. However, you still did not answer my question of
"Why does the AF have over 250 helicopters. Why is okay for the Army to have approx 200 FW aircraft already. Just not the C-27. "
Again I ask, what would be your division of assets?

[swerve]

That was more of a lamination on the over deployment we in the Army and USMC have endured. I guess subtleties are a bit too subtle in print. However, you still did not answer my question of

Again I ask, what would be your division of assets?
There are two different things to consider here: ownership, & operational control. I think the USA is a little too hung up on whoever owns the assets having operational control, the USAF being unwilling to see itself as serving the army, probably due to its long battle for independence. If that could be overcome, then I see no reason why the USAF shouldn't own everything that flies except carrier-borne aircraft (we tried the air force owning them here & it didn't work well) & tactical UAVs (best leave them to the ground troops).

That would require the USAF to place a large number of aircraft it owns under wartime operational control of not just the army, but fairly low-level army commanders. Perhaps it could be done by creating an army support command within the USAF, to control most tactical transport aircraft & helicopters.

Oh, & while you're at it, cut the USMC back to security detachments on board ships, commandos, base guards, & the like. What country needs two armies?

[DDerrick51]

It is an interesting thought. But (keep in mind I am prior AF) the AF has not always responded to what the ground forces say they need. I don’t think the AF likes the idea of being support. The strategic role is much more appealing.
The Army gave up the Caribou mission to the AF before and it went away. Had they know that, I am certain they would have not relinquished it. They only developed the A-10 because the Army was arming it Mohawks, it gave helos’ to the Army because it thought that they would be of little use and fell so fare behind in the current war that the Army has started buying it’s own ISR (manned and unmanned platforms). ISR, UAS and C-27’s are not as sexy as a F-22. The problem is that the Army is completely reliant on the AF for FW lift and FW CAS. The USMC is not. Oh, the USMC function was to be expeditionary in nature. We are all calling ourselves expeditionary now so where does that leave us. Maybe we should go back to being one service.

[ncart326]

The reason is simple. We, the Army, are at the mercy of the airforce. We have to wait until they get the load factor above a certain percentage even when troops on the ground are waiting for troops, ammo, or equipment. I know this firsthand. More later.

[Marc 1]

[QUOTE=swerve;153164]although I don't know of any converse rule, I expect the USAF would be prevented from having its own army. [QUOTE]


Not so far fetched - the RAAF has ADGE's (basically RAAF 'infantry') used to protect RAAF assets.

As has been pointed out previously its more for the convenience of having these direct forces under your command and within your chain of command. That way you can be sure the troopies or in the case of the army and the C27's - aircraft are available when you want them. Is this duplication? Yeah, but its not as though the RAAF ADGEies are going to be leading the assault in Tarin Kowt, or the US army's C27's will be doing strategic airlift from CONUS to the other side of the globe. It's not their role.

With the existing setup in most defence forces (for right or wrong) it is far easier to ask someone within your own organisation to undertake a minor task than to have to co-ordinate with another service to organise the same.

I'm sure also there is a small element of 'empire building' involved here too;)

[swerve]

The RAF has the RAF Regiment, for the same purpose. Nothing wrong with that. It gets ridiculous when you start doing what the US military has done, & built up entire parallel structures: two armies, three combat air forces, etc. It's arguable that the USCG is now a second navy.Everyone wants an integrated all-arms force. As I've said, the problem boils down to operational control, & the assumption that is has to follow ownership - and that is down to empire building & inter-service rivalry.

[swerve]

The reason is simple. We, the Army, are at the mercy of the airforce. We have to wait until they get the load factor above a certain percentage even when troops on the ground are waiting for troops, ammo, or equipment. I know this firsthand. More later.
So sort out the reporting lines & operational control. There seems to be a universal assumption that it's easier to buy billions of dollars worth of equipment & recruit & train thousands of specialised personell than make organisational changes.

The history of the USMC should be a warning. And remember how the USAF began.

[t68]

If that could be overcome, then I see no reason why the USAF shouldn't own everything that flies except carrier-borne aircraft (we tried the air force owning them here & it didn't work well) & tactical UAVs (best leave them to the ground troops).



What were the problems with USAF having control over carrier based aircraft?
I am only asking this as their is talk of RAN getting another lhd and putting some F35b on them under RAAF colours

[swerve]

What were the problems with USAF having control over carrier based aircraft?
I am only asking this as their is talk of RAN getting another lhd and putting some F35b on them under RAAF colours
RAF, not USAF. The RAF took over both the Royal Flying Corps & the Royal Naval Air Service in 1918, & controlled carrier-based aircraft until 1937, when they were handed back to the RN. It's generally agreed that the poor state of the Fleet Air Arm in 1937 was largely due to RAF neglect of it. Funds were tight, & the FAA was low-priority within the RAF. It got converted land-based aircraft, whether suitable or not, not enough of them to fill its carriers, & not enough carrier-trained pilots even for those it had.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[sgtgunn]

Looks like the USAF is considering the C-27 airframe for the AC-XX gunship program:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004433.html

Mini Spectre!

Adrian

[ncart326]

Boeing Drops Out of C-27J Military Plane Program (Update2)
Email | Print | A A A

By Gopal Ratnam

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co., citing deteriorating economic conditions, pulled out of plans to assemble the U.S. military’s C-27J cargo planes, a $2 billion program led by New York-based L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.

Boeing had been in negotiations to assemble the planes for L-3’s partner in the program, Finmeccanica SpA’s Alenia North America unit, and decided against it because of the “current global economic climate,” the Chicago-based company said in a statement today.

“We were going to set up a production facility in Florida,” Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale said in an interview. “Looking at the objectives, based on analysis and in the current business conditions we couldn’t satisfy our shareholders,” he said of the company’s decision to drop out. Alenia will continue with its plan to build an assembly plant in the state, spokesman Ben Stone said in an interview.

The C-27J began as a joint venture in June 2007 between L-3 and Finmeccanica’s Alenia North America to replace the Army’s and Air Force’s fleet of older transport planes. Boeing later began negotiations with Alenia to build an assembly plant in Jacksonville, Florida.

Boeing, the world’s second-biggest defense contractor as well as the No. 2 commercial-jet builder, is cutting 10,000 jobs, or about 6 percent of its workforce, as the global recession hurts airlines’ profits and could divert U.S. military spending.

78 Aircraft

L-3 won a $2.04 billion contract in June 2007 to build 78 C- 27J aircraft for the Army and Air Force, company spokesman Jason Decker said in an interview. The first two planes produced at Alenia’s Turin, Italy-plant were delivered to the Army in 2008, he said. The company plans to make 16 planes a year on average.

Under the contract, Alenia builds the airplanes and L-3 outfits it with communication and electronic equipment to meet U.S. military needs.

Alenia is moving forward with plans to build a 350,000 square feet assembly plant in Jacksonville, Stone said. “We’ll have a groundbreaking ceremony in a month,” he said.

The company plans to invest about $100 million in the factory and employ 300 people, Stone said. With an annual capacity to make 30 aircraft, the facility can meet U.S. military needs for C-27J and any potential foreign sales, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at gratnam1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 26, 2009 14:21 EST