Army to get AF MC-12 Aircraft
- Thread starter DA SWO
- Start date
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
Member
Very interesting.
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.
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!!
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'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 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.
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
Verified Military
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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
SOF Support
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
For your further edification and boredom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/KeyWest.pdf
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
SOF Support
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.
so, keeping in accordance with the key west agreement, the army just needs to adopt a modified Osprey platform. It's rotary wing!
Similar threads
