C-27J Update
11-17-2013, 05:22 AM
#22
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Sorry for the drift (away from C-27), but a Marine Question: the Air Force is hell-bent on getting rid of the A-10, and replacing it with the F-35. The F-35, in my view, is a weaker replacement for the F-16 (not as maneuverable, not as much load capability, not as much station time, and higher operating costs).
It is a pathetic replacement for the A-10, for the same reasons, but even more so for CAS because of a limited amount of gun rounds AND smaller caliber. (25mm vs 30mm, and I've heard 220 rounds vs 1100).
A three-star Admiral (can't remember who) testified before Congress that "...there's no question the A-10 is the best platform for CAS, but how important is CAS?"
It seems to me, for the last 23 years, CAS has been THE single most important facet of our airpower fight.
I read, and saw pictures thereof, that the USMC bought all of the RAF's Harriers after the RAF retired them. I saw pictures of them, dismantled, stored at Davis-Monthan. (They've been there for about two years). I wondered "Why?" The only answer I can come up with is that the Corps is hedging their bets that the F-35 won't work out or will get curtailed. If so, they would need some Harrier parts to keep the fleet flying. The Brit Harriers are different from the US Harriers, but there must be some common parts.
The question: do you think it could be possible the Air Force would park the A-10s, and the Marines would pick them up? Price is cheap, operating costs are low, and CAS is maximized.
11-17-2013, 07:49 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
A three-star Admiral (can't remember who) testified before Congress that "...there's no question the A-10 is the best platform for CAS, but how important is CAS?"
It seems to me, for the last 23 years, CAS has been THE single most important facet of our airpower fight.
It seems to me, for the last 23 years, CAS has been THE single most important facet of our airpower fight.
11-17-2013, 08:10 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
BDGER and Grumble:
Sorry for the drift (away from C-27), but a Marine Question: the Air Force is hell-bent on getting rid of the A-10, and replacing it with the F-35. The F-35, in my view, is a weaker replacement for the F-16 (not as maneuverable, not as much load capability, not as much station time, and higher operating costs).
It is a pathetic replacement for the A-10, for the same reasons, but even more so for CAS because of a limited amount of gun rounds AND smaller caliber. (25mm vs 30mm, and I've heard 220 rounds vs 1100).
A three-star Admiral (can't remember who) testified before Congress that "...there's no question the A-10 is the best platform for CAS, but how important is CAS?"
It seems to me, for the last 23 years, CAS has been THE single most important facet of our airpower fight.
I read, and saw pictures thereof, that the USMC bought all of the RAF's Harriers after the RAF retired them. I saw pictures of them, dismantled, stored at Davis-Monthan. (They've been there for about two years). I wondered "Why?" The only answer I can come up with is that the Corps is hedging their bets that the F-35 won't work out or will get curtailed. If so, they would need some Harrier parts to keep the fleet flying. The Brit Harriers are different from the US Harriers, but there must be some common parts.
The question: do you think it could be possible the Air Force would park the A-10s, and the Marines would pick them up? Price is cheap, operating costs are low, and CAS is maximized.
Sorry for the drift (away from C-27), but a Marine Question: the Air Force is hell-bent on getting rid of the A-10, and replacing it with the F-35. The F-35, in my view, is a weaker replacement for the F-16 (not as maneuverable, not as much load capability, not as much station time, and higher operating costs).
It is a pathetic replacement for the A-10, for the same reasons, but even more so for CAS because of a limited amount of gun rounds AND smaller caliber. (25mm vs 30mm, and I've heard 220 rounds vs 1100).
A three-star Admiral (can't remember who) testified before Congress that "...there's no question the A-10 is the best platform for CAS, but how important is CAS?"
It seems to me, for the last 23 years, CAS has been THE single most important facet of our airpower fight.
I read, and saw pictures thereof, that the USMC bought all of the RAF's Harriers after the RAF retired them. I saw pictures of them, dismantled, stored at Davis-Monthan. (They've been there for about two years). I wondered "Why?" The only answer I can come up with is that the Corps is hedging their bets that the F-35 won't work out or will get curtailed. If so, they would need some Harrier parts to keep the fleet flying. The Brit Harriers are different from the US Harriers, but there must be some common parts.
The question: do you think it could be possible the Air Force would park the A-10s, and the Marines would pick them up? Price is cheap, operating costs are low, and CAS is maximized.
11-17-2013, 08:30 AM
#25
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Tom, you always have awesome retorts!
11-17-2013, 09:45 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
11-17-2013, 02:01 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 266
7. Reform Military Retirement. The US military sustains one of the last defined-benefit retirement plans in the United States. Most private businesses have switched to defined-contribution plans and federal civilian government employees were largely transitioned to a defined-contribution plan in 1983. In fact, the military retirement system was reformed at about the same time, but that reform was reversed in the late 1990s. With the budget contracting, the military retirement system must be reformed. The current system provides retirement benefits to only 17 percent of military personnel, mainly those who serve the minimum required 20 years, with limited to no benefits to most leaving prior to 20 years, and thus constitutes an inflexible personnel management tool. Reform also would achieve significant savings. Even if all current service members were “grandfathered” into the old system, BloombergGov estimates that implementing a variation of the Defense Business Board’s proposed defined-contribution plan would save $700 million in its first year and close to $2 billion in fiscal year 2015, with savings growing to $7 billion a year by the end of a decade.
11-20-2013, 08:27 PM
#28
New Hire
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 5
Interesting.........
7. Reform Military Retirement. The US military sustains one of the last defined-benefit retirement plans in the United States. Most private businesses have switched to defined-contribution plans and federal civilian government employees were largely transitioned to a defined-contribution plan in 1983. In fact, the military retirement system was reformed at about the same time, but that reform was reversed in the late 1990s. With the budget contracting, the military retirement system must be reformed. The current system provides retirement benefits to only 17 percent of military personnel, mainly those who serve the minimum required 20 years, with limited to no benefits to most leaving prior to 20 years, and thus constitutes an inflexible personnel management tool. Reform also would achieve significant savings. Even if all current service members were “grandfathered” into the old system, BloombergGov estimates that implementing a variation of the Defense Business Board’s proposed defined-contribution plan would save $700 million in its first year and close to $2 billion in fiscal year 2015, with savings growing to $7 billion a year by the end of a decade.
7. Reform Military Retirement. The US military sustains one of the last defined-benefit retirement plans in the United States. Most private businesses have switched to defined-contribution plans and federal civilian government employees were largely transitioned to a defined-contribution plan in 1983. In fact, the military retirement system was reformed at about the same time, but that reform was reversed in the late 1990s. With the budget contracting, the military retirement system must be reformed. The current system provides retirement benefits to only 17 percent of military personnel, mainly those who serve the minimum required 20 years, with limited to no benefits to most leaving prior to 20 years, and thus constitutes an inflexible personnel management tool. Reform also would achieve significant savings. Even if all current service members were “grandfathered” into the old system, BloombergGov estimates that implementing a variation of the Defense Business Board’s proposed defined-contribution plan would save $700 million in its first year and close to $2 billion in fiscal year 2015, with savings growing to $7 billion a year by the end of a decade.
11-21-2013, 02:51 AM
#29
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 38
BDGER and Grumble:
Sorry for the drift (away from C-27), but a Marine Question: the Air Force is hell-bent on getting rid of the A-10, and replacing it with the F-35. The F-35, in my view, is a weaker replacement for the F-16 (not as maneuverable, not as much load capability, not as much station time, and higher operating costs).
It is a pathetic replacement for the A-10, for the same reasons, but even more so for CAS because of a limited amount of gun rounds AND smaller caliber. (25mm vs 30mm, and I've heard 220 rounds vs 1100).
A three-star Admiral (can't remember who) testified before Congress that "...there's no question the A-10 is the best platform for CAS, but how important is CAS?"
It seems to me, for the last 23 years, CAS has been THE single most important facet of our airpower fight.
I read, and saw pictures thereof, that the USMC bought all of the RAF's Harriers after the RAF retired them. I saw pictures of them, dismantled, stored at Davis-Monthan. (They've been there for about two years). I wondered "Why?" The only answer I can come up with is that the Corps is hedging their bets that the F-35 won't work out or will get curtailed. If so, they would need some Harrier parts to keep the fleet flying. The Brit Harriers are different from the US Harriers, but there must be some common parts.
The question: do you think it could be possible the Air Force would park the A-10s, and the Marines would pick them up? Price is cheap, operating costs are low, and CAS is maximized.
Sorry for the drift (away from C-27), but a Marine Question: the Air Force is hell-bent on getting rid of the A-10, and replacing it with the F-35. The F-35, in my view, is a weaker replacement for the F-16 (not as maneuverable, not as much load capability, not as much station time, and higher operating costs).
It is a pathetic replacement for the A-10, for the same reasons, but even more so for CAS because of a limited amount of gun rounds AND smaller caliber. (25mm vs 30mm, and I've heard 220 rounds vs 1100).
A three-star Admiral (can't remember who) testified before Congress that "...there's no question the A-10 is the best platform for CAS, but how important is CAS?"
It seems to me, for the last 23 years, CAS has been THE single most important facet of our airpower fight.
I read, and saw pictures thereof, that the USMC bought all of the RAF's Harriers after the RAF retired them. I saw pictures of them, dismantled, stored at Davis-Monthan. (They've been there for about two years). I wondered "Why?" The only answer I can come up with is that the Corps is hedging their bets that the F-35 won't work out or will get curtailed. If so, they would need some Harrier parts to keep the fleet flying. The Brit Harriers are different from the US Harriers, but there must be some common parts.
The question: do you think it could be possible the Air Force would park the A-10s, and the Marines would pick them up? Price is cheap, operating costs are low, and CAS is maximized.
11-23-2013, 02:30 PM
#30
New Hire
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 5
Back on the Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) to Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) to No Cargo Aircraft replacement for the C23 discussion….. The requirements determination process is a long one and is often seen as separate from experiences of operational commanders….as all of you that have flown C23 and C12s in recent conflicts have probably thought to yourself. The Air Force position over the years was that they had sufficient assets to support the Army intra-theater missions. Many Army dudes believed the mission tasking cycle of the Air Force didn’t provide the flexibility and/or speed needed to properly/best support missions. The rest of the debate seems to come down to the efficiency versus effectiveness argument. It is not efficient to send an aircraft capable of hauling thousands of pounds of cargo on a mission to carry 100-200 pounds of cargo. It is not efficient to have an aircraft capable of hauling 20-30 troops on a mission to transport a key leader and his/her staff (5-10 pax) to meetings. As the Army dudes know, the combat support hospital commander that needs 100-200 pounds of blood to infuse casualties prioritizes effectiveness over being efficient. The commander doing key leader engagements with foreign governmental officials prioritizes effectiveness over efficiency. Certainly efficiency is a consideration, but not the prime consideration. Absent congressmen getting involved to put FCA back in the Army, I believe the next chance for Army Aviators to fly something that can better accomplish the high priority, time sensitive missions, the ground combat commander determines are necessary, is in the hands of the TRADOC capability manager-Lift (TCM-Lift). They are the ones that will need to work on the Future Utility Aircraft (FUA), or whatever it is called now, that will replace the C12 and UC35, 5-10-20 years down the road. Wish them luck as they work their way through the requirements determination process during a time when “efficiency” may be weighted higher in the decision making process due to the fiscal realities the DOD is facing. That’s all I have to say about that!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
