Sign In
Register
Help
I just found this out while wondering around on another forum.
Yes I realize it is old news but I searched the board to see if anyone else had discussed this topic.
http://www.airforcet...go_army_042809/
http://www.reuters.c...140410720090521
The Army NEEDS these aircraft to replace 20+ year old C-23s that are getting worn out from constant use. Gates is pandering to the airforce crowd giving them aircraft that do not need or do not know what to do with. I guess I figured out who he is working for! :angry2: What is he thinking?
Page 1 of 1
Joint Combat Aircraft cut from Army budget!
MultiQuote
#3
- Crew
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 329
- Joined: 22-April 08
Posted 29 May 2009 - 0004 AM
The next obvious step here is for the USAF to drastically cut the JCA numbers (possibly even terminate it altogether), claiming they need to free up money for other more critical projects (projects more critical in the USAF eyes, at least).
Who didn't see this coming?
Shame on the US Army for capitulating on this issue.
Seeing as their FCS systems have been drastically cut back (terminated, really, save for a handful of smaller bits),
where is Big Army going to spend its budget dollars?
On resetting (rebuilding) old legacy equipment that obviously isn't going to be replaced with expensive new generation hardware?
(Ugh, the more I delve into the politics of it all, the more I'm disgusted with it.)
Funny thing about the whole JCA program: the US Army actually favored the C-295, as having a longer cargo floor than the C-27, allowing additional cargo pallets.
The USAF, tricksters that they are, convinced the Army that the C-27's ability to carry Humvee-sized vehicles (and the coming (maybe) Joint Light Tactical Vehicle) made it the superior candidate, even though the ability to carry such vehicles was never an Army priority, nor was sheer cargo capacity (maximum weight of payload) a critical requirement (Sherpas were used for hauling critical components, not vehicles as a whole, and moving palletized loads was more an Army priority than moving entire vehicles).
The USAF also pushed the whole compatible-with-C-130-components-commonality argument and that money could be saved when it came time for maintenance, but we all know that USAF funds would never be spent to assist in maintaining US Army inventory on that scale.
The C-295 actually shares some commonality with the CN-235s that the USCoastGuard already operates as the HC-144 Ocean Sentry.
A buy for the EADS/CASA aircraft may have seen more of the CN-235 airframes offered for the USCG, something even the Dept of Homeland Security would've given the nod to (especially in the stretched C295 form, these aircraft would prove ideal in disaster scenarios, and wouldn't be confounded by the USAF crying about having to give up its assets in such an event, not to mention having to shell out the coinage to pay for them out of their own budget during such an operation (my own personal opinion there, totally lacking in hard evidence, but it wouldn't surprise me at all)).
Who didn't see this coming?
Shame on the US Army for capitulating on this issue.
Seeing as their FCS systems have been drastically cut back (terminated, really, save for a handful of smaller bits),
where is Big Army going to spend its budget dollars?
On resetting (rebuilding) old legacy equipment that obviously isn't going to be replaced with expensive new generation hardware?
(Ugh, the more I delve into the politics of it all, the more I'm disgusted with it.)
Funny thing about the whole JCA program: the US Army actually favored the C-295, as having a longer cargo floor than the C-27, allowing additional cargo pallets.
The USAF, tricksters that they are, convinced the Army that the C-27's ability to carry Humvee-sized vehicles (and the coming (maybe) Joint Light Tactical Vehicle) made it the superior candidate, even though the ability to carry such vehicles was never an Army priority, nor was sheer cargo capacity (maximum weight of payload) a critical requirement (Sherpas were used for hauling critical components, not vehicles as a whole, and moving palletized loads was more an Army priority than moving entire vehicles).
The USAF also pushed the whole compatible-with-C-130-components-commonality argument and that money could be saved when it came time for maintenance, but we all know that USAF funds would never be spent to assist in maintaining US Army inventory on that scale.
The C-295 actually shares some commonality with the CN-235s that the USCoastGuard already operates as the HC-144 Ocean Sentry.
A buy for the EADS/CASA aircraft may have seen more of the CN-235 airframes offered for the USCG, something even the Dept of Homeland Security would've given the nod to (especially in the stretched C295 form, these aircraft would prove ideal in disaster scenarios, and wouldn't be confounded by the USAF crying about having to give up its assets in such an event, not to mention having to shell out the coinage to pay for them out of their own budget during such an operation (my own personal opinion there, totally lacking in hard evidence, but it wouldn't surprise me at all)).
#5
- Armchair Admiral
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,913
- Joined: 02-September 07
- Gender:Male
Posted 29 May 2009 - 1559 PM
Yay, budget cuts! :angry: Lets keep using the same old aircraft/tanks/rifles/everything for the next 50 years!
I don't think Gates has been in any way pandering to the USAF, he actually seems to hate them. This is just more political stupidity. After all we can just talk our enemies into giving up... right?
I don't think Gates has been in any way pandering to the USAF, he actually seems to hate them. This is just more political stupidity. After all we can just talk our enemies into giving up... right?
#6
- Now flouridating a water-source near You!
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 10,222
- Joined: 07-January 02
- Gender:Male
- Location:Achmed's Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
- Interests:درکادرکاستان
Posted 29 May 2009 - 2206 PM
I think gates is just attempting to do what he can re procurement, a bit of shock therapy I guess, with his view being largely practical with the focus on the current war.
There isn't really a win situation for him though, he can either cancel some gold plated made-in-the-USA unnecessarily aircraft to haul ass & trash around CONUS or buy less bullets for the infantry.
He may be smashing a nut with a sledge-hammer but he probably views it as necessary.
There isn't really a win situation for him though, he can either cancel some gold plated made-in-the-USA unnecessarily aircraft to haul ass & trash around CONUS or buy less bullets for the infantry.
He may be smashing a nut with a sledge-hammer but he probably views it as necessary.
#7
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,646
- Joined: 18-May 00
- Gender:Male
- Interests:everything (almost)
Posted 30 May 2009 - 0200 AM
Gates is canceling This, That, and the Other to scrape up funds so that the USA will not be defeated on any battlefield today. If that causes defeat tomorrow then that will be the problem of a future Sec Def.
Page 1 of 1