Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

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

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

LearLove

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
4,451
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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:
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.
 
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:
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:

Latest resources

Back
Top