Talk:Alenia C-27J Spartan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Naming choice

I chose to name this article Alenia C-27J rather than C-27J Spartan for one simple reason: "C-27J Spartan" is not, as of yet anyway, an official US DOD designation, but is instead a company name based on the "C-27A Spartan" designation for the G.222 in US service. I have no real objection to this being moved to C-27J Spartan, provided there is a consensus to do so. (Note, it will have to be moved by an admin, as that page is a redirect.) However, at this point I don't know if the DOD will make the "C-27J Spartan" name official, or asign a new desingation, and perhaps a new name. Therefore, I felt that Alenia C-27J would be the best choice for the time bieng, and we can move it to the official desingnation/name when that choice is announced. - BillCJ 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. That was my guess on the name. It's not the official name yet. I added the JCA page to See also, but I missed where it is already linked in the text. Looks like the AF will have control of the JCA intratheater.[1] -Fnlayson 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems that way. Anyway, I think we should talk about merging the JCA article here, as there really isn't much new there execpt some good references. - BillCJ 16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hum, I just thought the JCA page would be left alone like Advanced Tactical Fighter. Either way can work though. -Fnlayson 17:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there isn't much there to begin with, the program didn't last a year and a half, and JCA is hardly a program comparable to the ATF. Just my opinon, but I think the JCA content could be moved here and to the C-295 page without much loss. - BillCJ 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, I'm fine with that. I was looking at the text on the 2 pages. That really means the ATF page could use more details. -Fnlayson 17:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the ATF page could use expansion, but the pictures of the various company concepts are worth having the page as it is anyway. Maybe when I get though with my other projects I might put some time in on it. - BillCJ 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Article focus

I created this page as a split from the Alenia G.222 page with the intention of covering all the C-27J users, not just the USAF/US Army. I've been promoting a split of the C-27J from the G.222/C-27A page for awhile, but until the US purchase, there really hasn't been enough content to warant it. At some point in the future, we may need to rethink the coverage, but for now, I think this will work. Also, I plan on making sure Italy gets a little more coverqage in the text as the launch customer, and a little more on the development at that time. - BillCJ 01:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen anything about any other users signed up for the J version. OK, they're making them for Greece, and Italy with Canada considering it.[2] Crap, I missed all that.. -Fnlayson 01:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on JCA for USAF

I find it interesting that the USAF is now buying the JCA, and C-27J in particular. Over forty years ago, it had an aircraft of similar size and weight, and a similar shape, called the C-123 Provider. The C-123 was used for similar roles as envisioned for the C-27J, as were the C-7 and C-8. The major difference between the C-123 and the C-27J is performance, esp speed and range, mainly due to its turboprop engines, whereas the C-123 used radials, and even turbojet boosters on some models. Just goes to show you that the more things change, the more they stay the same! - BillCJ 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's what the Army wants, it seems. I bet the AF wouldn't get a cargo plane smaller than a C-130 or C-17 if they had their way. Or re-engine more C-5s. :) -Fnlayson 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember, the AF wanted something smaller than a C-130 also, and Congress forced them to combine with the Army for the JCA. The AF realized operating in Afghanistan and Iraq that the C-130 was too big for some missions, and very underloaded for others, and that a smaller airlifter was needed. (Something very like what they used to have in the C-123!) As things settle down with my other wikitasks, I'll try to research this more, and get something put in the text about the AF's desires here. - BillCJ 04:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is an older piece from when the JCA was first announced, but it gives a good overview of the similar needs of the Army (FCA) and AF (LCA) that led to the JCA. - BillCJ 04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Here's another page on LCA [3]. -Fnlayson 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does the J in C-27J come from anyway? The J in JCA maybe? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft design

For the C-27J, that article says they changed to "advanced avionics, a glass cockpit and new engines" from the G.222. Was any dimensions changed, like length or wingspan? Thanks. -Fnlayson 01:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from comparing the specs, no. Seems to be the same airframe, though it might be beefed up for the new engines and higher max weights. - BillCJ 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm still learning about this one. I'll see what I can find.. -Fnlayson 03:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the DOD made a good choice with the C-27J, especially given the commonality with the C-130J in engines and avionics. From reading the original JCA press releases, it seems they expected a civil transport, which would be modified for military duties. However, both the CN-235/C-295 and the G.222/C-27J were desigend from the start as military tactical transports. Either aircraft would have been a good choice though. - BillCJ 03:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I'm very happy that the C-27J won. It was touch-and-go there for a while because of the turf war between the Army and the Air Force. The Air Force seemed ready to spike the whole competition with its late backing of the C-130J. They certainly don't like the Army operating fixed wing aircraft, but it's hard to argue with the Army's need for such aircraft, especially after all the hot-and-high missions they've had to fly in Afghanistan and Iraq.--Wikiwackiness 04:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

THe decision was: No contest. Will hold off actual merge until final decision is made regarding CASA's contesting of the award to Alenia. Will megre then if no opposition is raised here. - BillCJ 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Joint Cargo Aircraft → Alenia C-27J

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for detailes on performing meregers.)

The Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA} competition was a fairly minor program by US DOD standards, and lasted only about 15 months. Already, there is more detail on the competition in the Alenia C-27J and EADS CASA C-295 articles. There are some good references and details here that could be incorporated into those articles. - BillCJ 21:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ 21:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that the articles should be merged.--Wikiwackiness 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support -

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose -

Discussion

• Neutral on merging. -Fnlayson 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think that "JCA" as a concept, while valid, will fade into history now that the C-27J has won, just as most other high-profile competitions have done.--Wikiwackiness 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

C-27J is only the Alenia aircraft

THe C-27J is Alenia's marketing name for the aircraft, derived from the Alenia G.222/C-27A, as stated in the article. I've read the short article on Raytheon's protest of the JCA award to Alenia (it would have been a suprise if Raytheon hadn't protested; protesting seems par for the course in military competions nowaday - bunch of sore losers!), and there is not even an inference that the CASA entry would have been named the C-27J if it had won. That would be like saying the winner of the USAF tanker program would be designated the KC-767, even if Airbus had won! However, I see nothing wrong with adding "Alenia" to C-27J in that paragraph. - BillCJ 01:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• That is my understanding, too. I'm betting that it's just an ill-informed reporter thinking it's the "C-27J competition" and not the JCA. Still, in the spirit of accuracy I thought it worth doing.--Wikiwackiness 02:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, gotcha. As I said, there's nothing wrong with the clarification. We get our share of not-so-bright users on Wiki, so I don't doubt that clarification might be necessary. - BillCJ 02:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I kinda missed it, but I think simply C-27J would have been OK, since that was Alenia's plane. That's explained previously in the article. The Alenia plane may end up getting the C-27J designation, C-27B or something else. -Fnlayson 02:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Navy COD?

With slight modification (tail hook, landing gear) you could have a possible replacement for the Navy's C-2 Greyhound. Since the C-130 was able to land on a carrier (see C-130 article), it will be no problem for the smaller C-27 to land on a CVN. Just a thought. 205.174.22.26 (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting. That may be possible. Depends on the C-27J's landing characteristics and if it can be handled like a C-2 (elevators and storing below deck). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be cheaper to order new C-2s than to make the C-27J carrier-capable. THe original C-2A were from the late 60s, and were suplemented/replaced by a new batch of C-2As in the early 80s. Since the E-2D (with glass cockpit) is in the works, it would probably be simpler to put the C-2 fuselage back in production, and just order new C-2s. - BillCJ (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Humm, I had guessed the E-2Ds were rebuilds, but are actually new builds per [4]. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice link. I noticed that one of the E-2D pics in that article is USN-credited, which means we can use it (I think). Would be nice in the E-2 article, and might be worth scouring htat site to see if there are any more US Gov't-credited pics. - BillCJ (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the C130 landed without a tail hook. A c-27 should have no trouble at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.41.5 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As a special event, no, but not in regular service. You'll notice in the pics of the C-130 carrier landing that the deck was completely clear. I have no doubt that the C-2 and E-2 are capable of taking off and landing on a carrier without assistance, but they would need a lot more deck space to do so safely. Catapults and arrestor gear enable aircraft to take-off and land in much shorter distances and at higher weights than without them, and also enable more planes to be on the deck at the same time. - BillCJ (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gunship lite coverage?

The US DoD is making money available to purchase a C-27J to serve as a prototype for a AC-XX or Gunship Lite.[5][6][7] This article seems like the best place to cover an AC-27 gunship. I was thinking of adding a subsection in the Design and development section. Any objections? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems appropriate here. If its existence warrants an expansion, we can always create another page. A redirect to this page wouldn't hurt either. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Page name change

Are there any objections to moving the article to C-27J Spartan? I held of putting it there originally (see above discussion), as we did not know if the USAF would even use the "C-27" designation or not. This year, the US Army wanted to keep it at "C-27J", while the USAF wanted "C-27B". The issue now appears to have been settled, with the USAF OKing "C-27J". (See Designation-Systems.Net, which gets designation info from the USAF, and is generally accurate.) I've not heard if "Spartan" is totally official for the US DOD, but I've not heard anything to the contrary either, and it is Alenia's official name. - BillCJ (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been "Alenia C-27J" for like a year or so. It'll be fine until Spartan or whatever is official, in my opinion. Maybe I'm still burnt from those numerous KC-X moves. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Understandable. I'll write Andreas at Designation-Systems.Net, and see if his sources included the name or not. Anyway, the "J" is from "C-130J", per Frawley's entry on p. 109 (Lockheed section, under LMATS). The C-27J uses the same engines, and probably much of the same avionics, as the C-130J. Lockheed was originally a partner, but they pulled out to enter the C-130J in the JCA competition, then L3 came on board to be lead contractor in the US. As far as I can tell, Alenia North America is doing the assembly here, so I don't see a need to change the manufacturer in the infobox, or in the title. It's still Alenia's plane, and they're even planning to sell C-27Js to other users from the US assembly line as a second production source. - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I would have never guessed the C-130J tie-in knowing the engines are common. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Andreas checked the DOD 4120.15-L Addendum list file he has from the US DOD, and it does list "Spartan" as the official name. I don't think the doc is available on the internet, so it's not verifiable, but I doubut the info is incorrect. Anyway, "C-27J Spartan" is Alenia's official name for the aircraft, and the article covers all the versions, not just the US version. - BillCJ (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturing?

Lockheed Martin is providing propulsion, avionics, and software (mostly from C-130). Will there be any additional manufacturing or modification be done in the US? I can't find much about manufacturing on the c-27j.com and c-27j.ca sites. I guess it won't be like the EC 145 & UH-72 with a US assembly plant. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the US version will be assebmled at a plant in/near Jacksonville, FL (at an airport, possibly an ex-NAS). This link] alludes to it, and talks about the US plant being a second source for international J orders, probably with US equipment. I guess that would be appealing to some customers, if they use mostly US avioncs anyway, or at leas like wha the US version has. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Per this story, it's Cecil Field in Duval County (Jacksonville), FL. Btw, that is in the article, and I found it through Google! Oh well, I guess I should always look at our pages first! - BillCJ (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well dang. I missed the Cecil Field part too. Thanks Bill! -Fnlayson (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• December's Combat Aircraft briefly mentions that L-3 and Alenia North America ended plans to assembly C-27Js in Jacksonville. The reduction in planned US orders to 38 seems to be the reason. Will see if i cvan find out more.. -fnlayson (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe that Alenia AC-27J should be merged into this page. Among other reasons, last I saw the project was dead at least for now, and there isn't much additional information there, on a variant that hasn't flown yet, no less. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - It generated a lot of interest initially, but is dead for now. No money available for soemting that might actually save the lives of soldiers. We have to pay for a health care system we won't get until 2014! - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The Army is out of the C-27J involvement now and the US plans only order about 40. Then the USAF does not seem to have funding for new gunships. The AC-27J does not seem to be going anywhere any time soon. I think the proposed AC-27J info can summarized and put in a Variant section in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is done. - The Bushranger (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good deal, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Alenia recently started working on a gunship version on its own. See this Flight Global article for more. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Senators raising questions

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/07/army_airforce_c27_controversy_070810w/

In a letter sent Wednesday to the secretaries of the Army and the Air Force, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Christopher Bond, R-Mo., recommend the Pentagon buy more C-27Js in coming years. The senators serve as co-chairmen of the Senate National Guard Caucus.

Since this is really only 2% of one branch I don't think it quite qualifies yet, but I would like to see the removal of the Army from the project stated better in the article. Hcobb (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Papal excommunication

Alenia Corp. says they will refuse to support or re-certifie any ex-usmil C-27J planes sold on the international market, because dump sale by usgov't would kill their whole market for future, forcibly closing the Alenia assembly line. Either USgov will have to pay Alenia's full losses due to breach of contract or push the whole C-27J fleet into Arizona desert storage for good.

Italian gov't is considering to pull out of the otherwise way too expensive F-35 programme if USA stabs and humiliates them with the C-27 snafu and instead will buy more Eurofighters, as well as some Sea Gripens for the Cavour flattop ship, that's bound to lose the current Harriers. (With some more Gripen possible also as an F-16 replacement and advanced supersonic trainer, likely in co-manufacturing with the Swiss. Experience has shown that the Eurofighter is too costly to act to as the sole jetfighter within ItAF and the AMX will retire soon.)

Anyhow, Uncle Sam really toppled the table on the poor talians with this C-27J scandal of betrayal, it hurts like losing 20 years of good bi-lateral relations. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note this talk page is for improving the article and is not a discussion forum. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cost of operations

Both USCG and USAF have said that the reason they DO NOT want this aircraft is that it costs too much to operate.

I have added this in a well reffed manner and my edit got reversed.

Why? Hcobb (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your use of the ref to back up your statement is misleading. The issue is far more complicated than your statement implies, as the ref itself points out. Further, the USCG isn't mentiond in your ref at all, while your statement implies that it is, especelly tacked on after the USCG interest statement. The full reason the USAF wants to cancel the C-27J isn't that it costs too much to operate, but that something needs to be eliminated under the budget cuts enforced on the USAF, and that's ended up being the C-27J. Rather than take up a long paragraph trying to present a balanced view of the issue, it's better to just leave the whole statement out, as it's not really necessary here. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So the program is being cut and a reason is being offered by the USAF as to why it is being cut and the USAF is not a reliable source worth mentioning? Hcobb (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not when the resons are being challenged, and not without mentioning why theu are being cut in the first place. It was always known that the C-27J had higher operating costs than the C295, but it was beleived that the costs were worth it for the better overall capability, along with the fact the C-27J uses the same engines as the C-130, as the ref you cited points out. - BilCat (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The C-27J Spartan was eliminated in Canada as a SAR aircraft for mainly the same reasons, economic constraints on procurement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a different reason. The costs of buying are not an issue with the existing aircraft. It's that they cost much more to operate than an equivalent force of C-130s. The conflict is that the USAF wants to run big loads that fill C-130s, while the US Army wants just in time delivery of small loads rather than having to stop shooting simply because they run out of ammo. Hcobb (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable ref saying all of that, or is this your own synthesis? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want what The Force actually says, then don't revert out my ref which said: "Schwartz said the C-27J flying hour cost is much higher because contractors maintain the aircraft. The Air Force maintains the C-130." Hcobb (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not how that works, Hcobb (and you have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that). We don't put your disputed content back into the article just to see if your claim is true. You present your source here so that we can look at it. Do you have a source that you will present, or do you not? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me whip out my diff, so we can see how it measures up.

But like the USAF, the USCG found that the C-27Js were much more expensive to operate than alternative aircraft.{ref)"Senators to Air Force: Prove C-27J cost claims." AirForce Times. March 20, 2012.{ref)

In this ref we find lots of ways that the USAF holds the aircraft to be more expensive to operate, and the biggie is "Schwartz said the C-27J flying hour cost is much higher because contractors maintain the aircraft. The Air Force maintains the C-130."

Nothing actually about the USCG in my ref, but the ref right above it says:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/03/air-force-coast-guard-talk-c27j-deal-031112w The Coast Guard opted for the HC-144 over the C-27J because of lower life-cycle costs,

Which supports the part in my text that reads "the USCG found that the C-27Js were much more expensive to operate than alternative aircraft"

So it is all quite notable and verifiable, if not of course the real reasons why the USAF is balking at the use of the C-27. (And that is of course that doing things their own way reduces the inconvenience of supporting the US Army in the way the USAF sees fit to do so.) Hcobb (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The way you've written the sentence implies a new decision by the USCG to reject the C-27J, since it occurs after the intial statement about the USCG's renewed interest in the C-27J. That's what I thought the ref was going to say, so I read the ref. As the ref didn't say that USCG had again rejected the C-27J, I removed the sentence. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally we see a reason. Very well, writing the guard out of it. Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on usage

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25589&catid=74&Itemid=30 Ghana was originally interested in acquiring the C-27J Spartan from Alenia Aeronautica and requested four C-27Js in September 2009, but this was never followed through. The contract for the two C295s was announced on August 4, 2011.

This aircraft is not napping, it is not pining for the fjords. It is an ex-project. Hcobb (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why the Philippine DND still wants to buy 3 C-27Js - dead aircraft will be cheaper to operate. - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

From FlightGlobal

"The company has also not given up on delivering more aircraft under the JCA programme, citing the C-27J's popularity within the US Army and Air National Guard units which operate the type. This, it believes, could yet see the additionally planned 17 aircraft manufactured."

and

"A boost came in May when Australia confirmed a 20-aircraft deal, placed via the US government's Foreign Military Sales mechanism, in association with JCA prime contractor L-3 Communications Integrated Systems. The fuselage for its first example is due to arrive in Turin late this month. Another, so-far undisclosed nation has also recently signed up under a direct deal with Alenia Aermacchi, and "several customers have already defined numbers, price and delivery schedules" for additional examples..."

It ain't dead yet. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Aussie deal has already been cut in half to 10 aircraft. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-confirms-a14-billion-deal-for-10-c-27js-371648/ Hcobb (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an older story, and doesn't mean they can't order more. The undisclosed new buyer is probably the Philippines, but it could be some other country too. So their is still interest in the aircraft, even in the US, but the problem there is the budget. With Sequestration a good possibility, the Army and ANG probably will lose the aircraft they have rather than receive more, but time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Still alive and kicking, per Peru to sign for two C-27J Spartans. Note that Chad has the aircraft on order too, and Australia's first aircraft is n early complete. - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. Added the ref to the actual article to replace the dreaded CN. Hcobb (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

NDAA notable yet?

I keep getting reverted on this article, so even though we all know fnording well that the NDAA is a done deal, do we gotta wait until BHO2 signs it before pointing out where the C-27Js are headed?

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20131216-c27.html

Hcobb (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The link you gave speculates what will happens "if" so not a done deal. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)