# Army to get AF MC-12 Aircraft



## DA SWO (Jun 28, 2011)

Looks like the AF will transfer it's MC-12 aircraft to the Army; good deal for all (IMO).

*




Senators Say MC-12 Switch Would Avoid Mission Duplication:* The Senate Armed Services Committee's move to transfer ownership of the Air Force's MC-12W Liberty aircraft fleet to the Army came because these Senators believe that Liberty's tactical intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance mission is best conducted by the land service, said a committee spokeswoman. "The committee felt that this was an enduring mission of the Army, that these aircraft could best be operated and supported in the long term within the Army force structure, and transferring the aircraft would avoid the duplications of pursuing the Army's [Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System] program," Tara Andringa, press secretary for Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), SASC chairman, told the _Daily Report_. Andringa said the SASC airland subcommittee chairman included the language directing the switch in the subcommittee's mark-up package, based on staff recommendations. The full committee accepted it. MC-12s are providing invaluable real-time streaming imagery and signals intelligence to ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Army envisions a fleet of EMARSS aircraft to perform a similar mission. Last December, it chose Boeing to supply the EMARSS fleet, which like Liberty aircraft, will be based on the Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350.


----------



## AWP (Jun 28, 2011)

While I agree, I can't wait to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the AF over this. I envision the "A-10 to the Army" or "Pave Low to the Army" all over again unless Congress forces the issue.


----------



## Brill (Jun 28, 2011)

Guardrail?


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 28, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> While I agree, I can't wait to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the AF over this. I envision the "A-10 to the Army" or "Pave Low to the Army" all over again unless Congress forces the issue.


$5 bucks says the AF pushes the plane as fast as law/Army will allow.
MC-12 never really fit in, current CSAF is supportive, but a small number of planes is difficult to deal with.  That and the AF has been trying to dump C-12 frames forever.
I wonder if this is actually gonna end up as an ARL replacement.  I also find it funny that a successful Army Aircraft Acquisition program is being handed to the Army by the AF.
I also think the AF and Army should start splitting front end crews ASAP.  Some of the back enders may need to stay AF until the gear/training is accomplished, but this is something that should be going "balls to the wall".


----------



## AWP (Jun 28, 2011)

SOWT said:


> $5 bucks says the AF pushes the plane as fast as law/Army will allow.
> MC-12 never really fit in, current CSAF is supportive, but a small number of planes is difficult to deal with. That and the AF has been trying to dump C-12 frames forever.
> I wonder if this is actually gonna end up as an ARL replacement. I also find it funny that a successful Army Aircraft Acquisition program is being handed to the Army by the AF.
> I also think the AF and Army should start splitting front end crews ASAP. Some of the back enders may need to stay AF until the gear/training is accomplished, but this is something that should be going "balls to the wall".



I agree. The backend guys will be the challenge...but we have a member here who flew MC-12's in Afghanistan and he was a MC-130 guy who volunteered for the deployment. I think the AF doesn't know what to do with the sudden "MC-12 Community" and career paths that have/ will crop up.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 28, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> I agree. The backend guys will be the challenge...but we have a member here who flew MC-12's in Afghanistan and he was a MC-130 guy who volunteered for the deployment. I think the AF doesn't know what to do with the sudden "MC-12 Community" and career paths that have/ will crop up.


Agree, which is why they will be happy to chuck the plane.
Front end and linguists will be easy to transfer over, I don't know enough about the sensor suite to know what kind of start up problems the Army may have (if any).


----------



## AWP (Jun 28, 2011)

LOL...how many Blue Suiters will leave to go to the Army?


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 28, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> LOL...how many Blue Suiters will leave to go to the Army?


Not too many.
Pilots are drawn from other frames, so they have a home.  Linguists have a wide variety of frames to go back to.  The sensor guys/gals may be tempted, but I doubt the Army would take them without making them do a "standard" intel tour first, plus they have other (very good) gigs they can do.  Blue to Green hasn't seen a huge number of applicants, that and you have to re-accomplish Basic Training.


----------



## Vat_69 (Jun 29, 2011)

Maybe I'm just a simple pilot but when I flew the Liberty I flew my ass off for big green, ISAF SOF, Marines, SOTF-S, etc without many complaints.  Now I understand there are some real retards out there that were allowed in the Liberty program, I was not one of them.  We provided some real good work for the ground guys.  Isn't that the whole point of the Air Force?  Support the trigger pullers?  So why the boner for moving planes to the Army to avoid duplicate work?  My understanding of the MARRS program was that it plays a role for a very small slice of the Army pie anyway.  Either way F--k it I'm back in my Combat Wombat err...Dragon Spear...or something.  Standing by calls for fire....


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 29, 2011)

Vat_69 said:


> Maybe I'm just a simple pilot but when I flew the Liberty I flew my ass off for big green, ISAF SOF, Marines, SOTF-S, etc without many complaints. Now I understand there are some real retards out there that were allowed in the Liberty program, I was not one of them. We provided some real good work for the ground guys. Isn't that the whole point of the Air Force? Support the trigger pullers? So why the boner for moving planes to the Army to avoid duplicate work? My understanding of the MARRS program was that it plays a role for a very small slice of the Army pie anyway. Either way F--k it I'm back in my Combat Wombat err...Dragon Spear...or something. Standing by calls for fire....


I don't think it's an issue of the support not being there, I think it's really a log issue.  Army will have a greater number of RC/MC-12's so transferring the AF birds will be cost effective.  The guys at the low end always do a good job, it's the bean counters at the flag-pole that muck it up.

Also PM out with a website you may enjoy.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 1, 2011)

The MC-12, I had to look it up!

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=15202


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 7, 2011)

Good deal for the AF but it looks like the Army is getting screwed again.

This week's AF Times (and I suspect Army Times) gives a few more details.
Looks like the Army's Guardrail Program (137 Acft per the times) gets the 37 Project Liberty Aircraft, and then gets their program chopped.  Should have known the Sen from Michigan was screwing the Army over.


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Good deal for the AF but it looks like the Army is getting screwed again.
> 
> This week's AF Times (and I suspect Army Times) gives a few more details.
> Looks like the Army's Guardrail Program (137 Acft per the times) gets the 37 Project Liberty Aircraft, and then gets their program chopped. Should have known the Sen from Michigan was screwing the Army over.



So dropping 100 ISR a/c is best for our country? Um, WTF? Guardrail has problems, car and I discussed those offline and I don't know if the MC-12 has the same limited performance envelope as the Guardrail, but to kill it entirely? Wow.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 8, 2011)

Here is the on-line version.  I may have mis-read the original story.  Hopefully the Army gets it's full fleet, and the AF can chuck a mission it really shouldn't be doing.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/06/army-air-force-liberty-transfer-plan-surprises-063011w/


----------



## Vat_69 (Jul 8, 2011)

I wouldn't be so quick as to dismiss the Mc-12's role as a mission the Air Force shouldn't really be doing. There are alot of Air Force/Navy/Marine fingers, esp. AFSOC side, in that pie.  Just because the Army has been doing it longer, doesn't necessarily imply it is doing it better.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 8, 2011)

Vat_69 said:


> I wouldn't be so quick as to dismiss the Mc-12's role as a mission the Air Force shouldn't really be doing. There are alot of Air Force/Navy/Marine fingers, esp. AFSOC side, in that pie. Just because the Army has been doing it longer, doesn't necessarily imply it is doing it better.


I agree.  The biggest issue I saw before retiring was the AF's not knowing how to manage the airframe from a career progression standpoint.  I think they blew it.  IMHO the frames could have been slated for the Air Guard so PCS/Career Progression would not have been an issue.  Another possible solution (IMO) would have married the MC-12 squadrons with the RPV units and let pilots be "Dual Qualified" or bounce back and forth between the missions.
You are the Shadow Spear expert (MC-12 wise) here, would it be that hard to maintain currency in a C-12 and fly RPV missions?  I ask because we had a program for co-pilots (ACE) that allowed LT's to fly T-37/T-38's and maintain currency in a heavy airframes (C-141 and KC-135 IIRC).


----------



## Vat_69 (Jul 8, 2011)

completely agree with that idea.  A dual qual would be easy but taboo in today's Big Blue Air Force.  Even AFSOC has moved away from allowing guys to be dual qualed.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jul 9, 2011)

So what would this mean for current MC-12 crews?  My brother is a sensor operator and loves what he does.  Evidently, the door kickers on the ground have nothing but good things to say about the missions they (MC-12) fly.
Thanks in advance guys.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 9, 2011)

SkrewzLoose said:


> So what would this mean for current MC-12 crews? My brother is a sensor operator and loves what he does. Evidently, the door kickers on the ground have nothing but good things to say about the missions they (MC-12) fly.
> Thanks in advance guys.


My guess is he'd go to another AF Airframe.
It's not a done deal yet, the house has to agree.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 13, 2011)

SOWT said:


> My guess is he'd go to another AF Airframe.
> It's not a done deal yet, the house has to agree.



Looks like the Sec AF and Sec Army want the planes to stay where they are.  Interesting, wonder what the dope deal was/is?

*No Surrender of Liberty:* 

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Army Secretary John McHugh urged lawmakers to keep the MC-12W Liberty fleet with the Air Force. In a letter to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, the two service Secretaries "strongly recommend the Congress not incorporate" a provision in the final version of the Fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill that would transfer these manned ISR aircraft to the Army. The MC-12s would replace the land service's RC-12 Guardrail platforms. Among their arguments, Donley and McHugh said they're convinced that the transfer "would be disruptive to ongoing military operations" since MC-12s are "relied upon daily by US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to identify, track, and locate terrorists and Taliban forces." Further, Liberty aircraft, which provide full-motion video and signals intelligence, would require "extensive internal aircraft modifications" to conform to Guardrail's different mission set—tethered communications/electronic intelligence, they wrote in their Sept. 20 missive. The Senate's draft bill included language calling for the transfer, while the House's version did not, meaning lawmakers will decide this issue in conference.


----------



## AWP (Oct 13, 2011)

Wonder how many brigades this deal was worth?

"You keep the MC-12's and we'll keep x number of troops."


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 13, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> Wonder how many brigades this deal was worth?
> 
> "You keep the MC-12's and we'll keep x number of troops."


Good point, hadn't thought about that.
Doesn't make sense to add a new air-frame if you have to whack a line Brigade to cover for the troop cuts.  Wonder how "big Blue" is going to pay for it.  I'd still like to see it go to the Guard, too bad they are based at Beale.


----------



## ÉIREGOBRÁCH1922 (Oct 13, 2011)

Very interesting.


----------



## AWP (Oct 13, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Wonder how "big Blue" is going to pay for it.



Kill off the B-1's, maybe cut an F-16 wing or ditch a few squadrons of F-15Cs, but my money would be on the B-1.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Oct 13, 2011)

Dammit, I wish I could get my brother on this site.  He's a sensor operator on the MC-12 and he might have some inside info.  I'm assuming Free and/or SOWT would hear anything through the grape vine that my brother would know though.
Wouldn't it be a waste to have all those relatively newly trained airmen to have their A/C sold out from under them?  If the deal had gone through, would the equipment from the MC-12 be used on a different airframe and the same type of missions flown? or would the entire program, missions, capabilities all go over to the green side?
If any of this is OPSEC, could you just shoot me a PM.  I'd still be interested in knowing.  Thanks!!


----------



## AWP (Oct 13, 2011)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Wouldn't it be a waste to have all those relatively newly trained airmen to have their A/C sold out from under them?



I've heard talk/ rumors of two previous plans to send AF assets over to the Army: MH-53's and A-10's. IF what I heard was true, or close to it, the Army balked at both once the details were sorted out. Basically, the Army would inherit airframes (and in the case of the -53's the crews would be allowed to cross over), but not the money to run them. I also want to say that the A-10's wouldn't come with any support equipment (AGE)  and then there's that pesky deal struck in Key West back in the 50's (1956?) which gave the AF control over armed fixed-wing a/c.

In short, the AF could divest itself of airframes and their operating costs, keep the money, and the Army wouldn't see a budget increase to support the airframes.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 13, 2011)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Dammit, I wish I could get my brother on this site. He's a sensor operator on the MC-12 and he might have some inside info. I'm assuming Free and/or SOWT would hear anything through the grape vine that my brother would know though.
> Wouldn't it be a waste to have all those relatively newly trained airmen to have their A/C sold out from under them? If the deal had gone through, would the equipment from the MC-12 be used on a different airframe and the same type of missions flown? or would the entire program, missions, capabilities all go over to the green side?
> If any of this is OPSEC, could you just shoot me a PM. I'd still be interested in knowing. Thanks!!



The AF really doesn't have a C-12 career ladder for pilots, that's why I believe the MC-12 would be a great mission for the Air Guard.  Another option would let the AF keep the planes, and allow the Army to provide some of the pilots (like the Joint AF/Navy EW Squadrons) they could let the Army fly the planes and the let the AF man the back end.



Freefalling said:


> I've heard talk/ rumors of two previous plans to send AF assets over to the Army: MH-53's and A-10's. IF what I heard was true, or close to it, the Army balked at both once the details were sorted out. Basically, the Army would inherit airframes (and in the case of the -53's the crews would be allowed to cross over), but not the money to run them. I also want to say that the A-10's wouldn't come with any support equipment (AGE) and then there's that pesky deal struck in Key West back in the 50's (1956?) which gave the AF control over armed fixed-wing a/c.
> 
> In short, the AF could divest itself of airframes and their operating costs, keep the money, and the Army wouldn't see a budget increase to support the airframes.



The cost to the Army wouldn't be that bad as the RC-12 fleet would go away and the operating costs transferred to the MC-12.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 14, 2011)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Dammit, I wish I could get my brother on this site. He's a sensor operator on the MC-12 and he might have some inside info. I'm assuming Free and/or SOWT would hear anything through the grape vine that my brother would know though.
> Wouldn't it be a waste to have all those relatively newly trained airmen to have their A/C sold out from under them? If the deal had gone through, would the equipment from the MC-12 be used on a different airframe and the same type of missions flown? or would the entire program, missions, capabilities all go over to the green side?
> If any of this is OPSEC, could you just shoot me a PM. I'd still be interested in knowing. Thanks!!



I can't speak from an AF perspective or even an informed opinion on the difference between the Army and AF missions.

Having worked in the airline business.  The logistics and cost associated with maintaining a very small fleet of aircraft is huge.  If you have the Army and AF both maintaining the same basic airframes it's much cheaper to have one service maintain all those airframes.  You get rid of duplicate spare parts inventory, duplicate parts acquisition operation, mechanic training programs, pilot training etc.  Plus the work necessary to maintain the policies and procedure for the operation and maintenance on an aircraft can be huge.  You still have many of the same requirements for maintaining a fleet of 12 planes as you do for a fleet of 500 aircraft.

I think the intentions of merging the two programs has a lot of merit when looking at all the back-end cost.  It would be much cheaper to have one service maintaining one larger fleet than having 2 smaller fleets.  My comments are of course not knowing enough about the particular missions of each programs.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 14, 2011)

Scotth said:


> I can't speak from an AF perspective or even an informed opinion on the difference between the Army and AF missions.
> 
> Having worked in the airline business. The logistics and cost associated with maintaining a very small fleet of aircraft is huge. If you have the Army and AF both maintaining the same basic airframes it's much cheaper to have one service maintain all those airframes. You get rid of duplicate spare parts inventory, duplicate parts acquisition operation, mechanic training programs, pilot training etc. Plus the work necessary to maintain the policies and procedure for the operation and maintenance on an aircraft can be huge. You still have many of the same requirements for maintaining a fleet of 12 planes as you do for a fleet of 500 aircraft.
> 
> I think the intentions of merging the two programs has a lot of merit when looking at all the back-end cost. It would be much cheaper to have one service maintaining one larger fleet than having 2 smaller fleets. My comments are of course not knowing enough about the particular missions of each programs.


I want to say C-12 maintenance is contractor.  For the reasons you stated.
Getting to the point where we should just eliminated the DoD (except for Generals and SGM's) and contract everything out.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 3, 2014)

http://www.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123423007

ACC appears to be pulling the MC-12's out of Afghanistan, but I doubt they will be gone long as the airframes are transferring to the Guard and AFSOC.


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2014)

SOWT said:


> http://www.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123423007
> 
> ACC appears to be pulling the MC-12's out of Afghanistan, but I doubt they will be gone long as the airframes are transferring to the Guard and AFSOC.


 
Those are KAF's birds. Bagram has as many if not more airframes. KAF is shutting down, most of it, but Bagram's still running. They just shuttered the AF EOD Det. down there as well. USAF presence at KAF will be a mere fraction in another month or two.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 18, 2015)

MC-12 saga continues.
AAF was going to transfer to AFSOC (and Air Guard)  and replace U-28/PC-12 fleet.
Congress stopped, it and said justify or they go to the Army (with the assumption that the Army/Guard would get the aircraft)
AFSOC/CC just gave a speech where he said the OKANG conversion from F-16 to MC-12 was approved and will continue.

"The Air National Guard is going ahead with standing up a new MC-12 Liberty special operations unit at Will Rogers ANGB, Okla., "later this year," Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold, commander of Air Force Special Operations Command said on Feb. 12.  "We have been given authorization to put 13 of them at Oklahoma, so we're doing that," said Heithold at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. The ANG unit will conduct special operations ISR and aviation foreign internal defense training in support of US Special Operations Command, said Heithold. AFSOC planned to replace its U-28 fleet with MC-12s divested by Air Combat Command and acquired via US Special Operations Command. Congress blocked the move pending a report on its rationale, which Heithold said will be briefed to legislators "in the very near future."  If USSOCOM gets the go-ahead, AFSOC will receive a total of 43 MC-12s—33 shed by ACC, and 10 USSOCOM-owned airframes, which would be split between Cannon AFB, N. M., Hurlburt Field, Fla., and the ANG at Will Rogers. In the meantime, "we're going to keep flying U-28s," said Heithold."


----------



## AWP (Feb 18, 2015)

43 airframes...maybe the pilots would receive some type of career path instead of "Who wants to fly C-12's for a year?" or "Hey recent UPT grad turned instructor, go fly C-12's for a year and we can find you an actual airframe and mission instead of burying you at the schoolhouse."

I also have to wonderif there's an agreement for the a/c to return to ACC if needed. That would be hilarious for them to request the birds and AFSOC deny the request. At least we're keeping some of them around.

Bagram's ramp looks like a ghost town now.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 18, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> 43 airframes...maybe the pilots would receive some type of career path instead of "Who wants to fly C-12's for a year?" or "Hey recent UPT grad turned instructor, go fly C-12's for a year and we can find you an actual airframe and mission instead of burying you at the schoolhouse."
> 
> I also have to wonderif there's an agreement for the a/c to return to ACC if needed. That would be hilarious for them to request the birds and AFSOC deny the request. At least we're keeping some of them around.
> 
> Bagram's ramp looks like a ghost town now.


They could request support via theater commander, but the frames would stay AFSOC.
Other have a better look on this then I, but I wonder if AFSOC groups all the light/non-standard airframes as a single group (which would give enough numbers for a career field).


----------



## RetPara (Feb 19, 2015)

This all boils down to the willingness to scrap the 1948 Key West Agreement.   Basically - the short version is the Navy got to keep NavAviation.  The Army got to keep recon, rotor, and medevac birds.   The new Air Force got all the fixed wing stuff.  This has been the basis of maintaining an aviation status quo within the E Ring for most of my so called adult life.   

For your further edification and boredom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement

http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/KeyWest.pdf


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 19, 2015)

RetPara said:


> This all boils down to the willingness to scrap the 1948 Key West Agreement.   Basically - the short version is the Navy got to keep NavAviation.  The Army got to keep recon, rotor, and medevac birds.   The new Air Force got all the fixed wing stuff.  This has been the basis of maintaining an aviation status quo within the E Ring for most of my so called adult life.
> 
> For your further edification and boredom.
> 
> ...



The Army never lost all fixed wing stuff, there is some BS provision for unarmed aircraft, but they always had some F/W aircraft.
No different than the AF giving Rapier units to the RAF for air base defense in the UK, Army bitched about a KW violation and we had to find another way to man the system.


----------



## RetPara (Feb 19, 2015)

That is the crux of the A10 debate.   The Army has always had artillery spotters and the like.   But the Mohawk was originally built for ground attack/COIN for the Army.   It saw a little use in Nam but then had to go the MI side for SLAR and other collection because God Forbid the Army have armed fixed wing.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 19, 2015)

so, keeping in accordance with the key west agreement, the army just needs to adopt a modified Osprey platform.  It's rotary wing!


----------

