Talk:Alenia C-27J

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
The following discussion is archived. 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)

[edit] Requested merger

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 -

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

  • Oppose -

[edit] 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Manufacuring?

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)