• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

McKinley suggests F-18 for ANG, C-27J out..

LearLove

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
4,451
Total Time
12000+
I was in a bookstore this evening and flipped thru the latest copy of Air Combat.

FWIW there was an article/interview with Gen McKinley. He made a few statements like "restarting production of the F-16 or F-15 for direct delivery to the guard" or even a "land based " version of the Super Hornet for the guard.

He also spoke of the C-27 compared to the C-130 and mentioned that the C-27 may be better left to the Army as originally intended.
 

SIG600

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Posts
1,592
Total Time
375
I was in a bookstore this evening and flipped thru the latest copy of Air Combat.

FWIW there was an article/interview with Gen McKinley. He made a few statements like "restarting production of the F-16 or F-15 for direct delivery to the guard" or even a "land based " version of the Super Hornet for the guard.

He also spoke of the C-27 compared to the C-130 and mentioned that the C-27 may be better left to the Army as originally intended.

Block 6x Vipers would be the best bet. Line is still open. A "land based" Super Hornet would require a whole new airplane, although with about a 5000 # diet to shed all the bulk of carrier aviation, it would be a sweet ride.
 

LearLove

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
4,451
Total Time
12000+
Block 6x Vipers would be the best bet. Line is still open. A "land based" Super Hornet would require a whole new airplane, although with about a 5000 # diet to shed all the bulk of carrier aviation, it would be a sweet ride.

I agree that an F16 in production would be the logical answer. In a past life I worked as an engineer for a company owned Gen Dy then Lock Mart.

While I didn't work on the project my company had a contract to adapt a navy aircraft part (electronic software) for the F16. I think the cost of red tape type issues far out weighed the cost of the engineering modification. In fact the guys involved said they should have just started from scratch with the design it would have gone to production faster and cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Posts
18
Total Time
Once
McKinley is the Air Guard guy. Of course he supports the Army having the C27; he has to contend with all tose TAGs (blue and green) who want it in their force structure.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Posts
18
Total Time
Once
Why would the USAF want the C130 mission, but not the C27J?

Air Force pilots make general officer and retire. They go to work for Lockheed Martin. They make fantastic money selling what ever crap LM makes to the Air Force, because their former subordinates are the decision makers and want their retirement jobs at LM as well. No one in the Air Force wants to fly C-130s or have anything to do with supporting the Army.

The Army doesn't always have six months advanced notice of when they're going to need something in a combat situation, so they would like to have their own intratheater lift capability. They want something self-deployable, but not necessarily something that does the global reach on a routine basis. The C27 fills that role nicely. The Air Force sees the C27 as a threat to their budget, so they craft arguments against it. Just like they killed the Army's C7 Caribou program, they have taken the approach, suggesting to the Army that they make the C27 a "Joint" program (of course they must be the "lead" service, so they can later kill it).

The name of the game is money, and budget, and end-strength. The Air Forcce couldn't care less about the guys on the ground.
 
Last edited:

Be 23

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Posts
127
Total Time
3500
Why would the USAF want the C130 mission, but not the C27J?

How about this idea instead? Dedicated airlifters wanting to do the job right want the mission. Pointy headed USAF bureaucrats look at the mission and realize it's their turf. (Anything theater wide through the air is their job doctrinally.) If congress is going to fund the acquisition and manpower then it should go to the AF. Either the dedicated or the bureaucrat wants to do it.

Then once they have it, they're stuck with the same end strength and budget they had before with more work to do. They look at the least efficient system per ton-mile and find the little planes. They realize if they cut it the Army will do it out of their own budget. There's no rational argument to keep the mission (and cost) because soldiers will be supported regardless of who does it.

Wait 6 months to 3 years for the decision makers to be replaced and for reasons to be lost to history, then start the cycle over.
 

JungleJett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Posts
1,111
Total Time
1
The Air Forcce couldn't care less about the guys on the ground.
As we near the end of the year, we have seen many post that smack of stunning ignorance and at times, simple stupidity. There have been many that have neared the top of the heap...but as we close the year, we have one that may beat them all. And this quote is it.

Anyone who has served in the USAF should find this both personally and professionally offensive.


As for the OP, I think some Hornets in the AF would be cool.
 
Last edited:

Be 23

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Posts
127
Total Time
3500
The whole post was a sweeping overgeneralization. And since I haven't actually read AFM 1-1 in over 20 years, I'll take your word for it that the line is technically incorrect.

As for your opinion of what the Air Force cares about, I've heard it before. I've heard it from soldiers after I've risked everything for them. I'll hear it again.

My slam was on both the empire builders that grab for missions and those that don't live up to their agreements.
 
Last edited:

SIG600

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Posts
1,592
Total Time
375
As we near the end of the year, we have seen many post that smack of stunning ignorance and at times, simple stupidity. There have been many that have neared the top of the heap...but as we close the year, we have one that may beat them all. And this quote is it.

Anyone who has served in the USAF should find this both personally and professionally offensive.


As for the OP, I think some Hornets in the AF would be cool.

Haywood's posts reek of DaveGriffin. For someone that just joined the forum 6 days ago (about the time I ignored him), I'd have to say it's more than coincidence. Anyone that honestly thinks that, has never worked with the Air Force, or seen them work in combat. At least not recently.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Fly Navy!
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
720
Total Time
11000
The Air FOrce had C-27s until the late 1990s at Howard in Panama. Even though every other service wanted them the Air Force didn't and they used the excuse of pulling out of Panama to get rid of them. Now there is a proven need and the Air Force wants their toy back.

Give the C-27 to the Army. They will appreciate them and know how to use them.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Posts
18
Total Time
Once
Haywood's posts reek of DaveGriffin. For someone that just joined the forum 6 days ago (about the time I ignored him), I'd have to say it's more than coincidence. Anyone that honestly thinks that, has never worked with the Air Force, or seen them work in combat. At least not recently.


Bite me. Go back to your thread on which service's "Fighter Jocks" are less GAY!
 

JungleJett

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Posts
1,111
Total Time
1
That was witty...

You better hope they don't cut the internet connection in your mom's basement...what would you do over the holidays?
 

bssthound

Enormous Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
541
Total Time
xx00
Haywood's posts reek of DaveGriffin. For someone that just joined the forum 6 days ago (about the time I ignored him), I'd have to say it's more than coincidence.

Wow. You beat me to the punch. First thing came to my mind. I don't know about anyone else, but I think you're pretty durn smart, Sig!!!!;)
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Posts
18
Total Time
Once
The Air FOrce had C-27s until the late 1990s at Howard in Panama. Even though every other service wanted them the Air Force didn't and they used the excuse of pulling out of Panama to get rid of them. Now there is a proven need and the Air Force wants their toy back.

Give the C-27 to the Army. They will appreciate them and know how to use them.


The C-27s in Panama were 'A' models. The Air Force had Chrysler doing contract maitenance support for them. They beat the crap out of those airplanes and then complained about their reliability.

The Army is buying J model C-27s. They are really pretty good. Since most of the C-27s will be in the Amy Guard, the Air Force will never be able to muster the political power to take them away. In fact, this is part of the reason that the president sh!t canned the AF secretary and that sack of sh!t Mosely. "Thanks for playing. Go clean out your desk!"

Except to try and screw up the Army, I guarantee that the Air Force doesn't want them back. The Army validated a requirement for 75 airplanes. The Air Force vadlidated the requirement for zero airplanes.
 
Last edited:

Big Wave

Why Yes I Fly Jets
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Posts
16
Total Time
7000
Since most of the C-27s will be in the Amy Guard...

"Amy Guard"--tasked with protecting the Amys of America. Amy Yasbeck, Amy Adams, Amy Fisher, Amy Grant...you may sleep soundly in your beds tonight--your Amy Guard is on the job!
 

414Flyer

Down with Chemtrails!
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Posts
4,948
Total Time
4200
Block 6x Vipers would be the best bet. Line is still open. A "land based" Super Hornet would require a whole new airplane, although with about a 5000 # diet to shed all the bulk of carrier aviation, it would be a sweet ride.

Northrop had an F-18L in the 80s proposal they were trying to get buyers for, it was a F/A-18A without any carrier gear.
 
Top