C-27J Update
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 609
#12
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 31
We flew the C23 in Iraq for over 5 years. I am out of the program now, but I understand that a few C27s did make it to the Guard inventory. Sadly, states like California, which needed them most due to the mountains, did not get them at all. The Guard was to get about 40 airframes to replace the C23.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: C47 PIC/747-400 SIC
Posts: 2,100
not dissing the blue, but the A10 would have been an awesome part of the Marine Air inventory,best CAS since the Able Dog,the Hawg drivers have done good work for the grunts,no slam on them.
#16
While I wear Navy blue, I dont think your post was a slam on the AF or the A-10s at all...Why would the Army and Marines need the A-10? The Army leverages the A-10 as we speak in Afghanistan and we all know what the A-10 did in Iraq for our forces on the ground both SOF and conventional. Adding the A-10 to the Army's inventory I dont think changes the effects is all I'm saying. Same would hold true for Marines absent their organic CAS platforms.
#18
The point that is being missed is that this was a Guard program called the FCA, future cargo aircraft. The details had already been sorted and funding was provided. The big Army saw how effective the "little plane that could"(C23) was in Iraq and jumped on the band wagon. This is when Big Blue got their effing panties in a wad and ruined the program with no concern for the damage done to the Guard who still had a stateside mission for these aircraft.
#19
Atlas I agree with you, this should have been a guard asset. However the new "joint" mindset is here to stay and so however the guys at the top want to lay it out is how were gonna do it. Of course politics play a huge role, look at the extra c-17s we bought and didn't want or need.
#20
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post