# USAF Buys 78 C-27J's



## MechEng (18 Jun 2007)

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070613/army_jca_contract.html?.v=2

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. on Wednesday beat out rival Raytheon Co. to win a Pentagon contract worth up to $2 billion to build cargo planes for the military.
A senior advisory panel at the Pentagon picked a team led by New York-based L-3 to build 78 C-27J Spartan cargo planes by 2013, replacing the military's aging light cargo aircraft, senior Army and Air Force officials said."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/14/214634/team-of-c-27j-spartan-wins-jca-contest.html


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2007)

Joint Cargo Aircraft: We Have a Winner
30-Sep-2007 11:48 
Article Link

DID's coverage of the WALRUS super-heavy cargo airship's cancellation noted complaints from combat commanders that C-130s were not able to get equipment close enough to the front lines due to short airfield restrictions. Delays in buying a small cargo aircraft to fill that role, replace aging C-23 Sherpas et. al., and ferry troops, supplies, and/or small vehicles within a theater of operations were making that problem worse. "The JCA Program: Key West Sabotage?" looked at the different levels of urgency and priority in the US Army and US Air Force and the resulting Congressional SNAFUs, and covered early-stage developments. 

JCA could be worth up to $6 billion before all is said and done, and the finalists were a familiar duo. After EADS-CASA's CN-235 and a shortened version of Lockheed Martin's C-130J were disqualified for failing to meet requirements, JCA became yet another international competition between EADS-CASA's C-295M vs. Alenia's C-27J. The decision was expected in March 2007, but it seems we now have a winner. Oddly, we can't quite tell yet how much they've won – but at least the GAO protest is settled now. The C-27J is the winner… but how many will be ordered, and will the USAF really support the program?
More on link


----------



## kj_gully (2 Oct 2007)

Another opportunity for the CF to "jump the queue?" I sure hope so. maybe this will kick our derailed/sidetracked Fix wing sar replacement program


----------



## 28402 engineers (2 Oct 2007)

kj_gully said:
			
		

> Another opportunity for the CF to "jump the queue?" I sure hope so. maybe this will kick our derailed/sidetracked Fix wing sar replacement program



I think any kind of decisions on that subject will have to wait at least until after the throne speech, or...*shudder*....an election.


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2007)

kj... as far as I know, the C27J was considered by the CF and someone decided that it didn't meet our needs.
There is another thread on army.ca that discusses this subject.


----------



## MechEng (3 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> kj... as far as I know, the C27J was considered by the CF and someone decided that it didn't meet our needs.
> There is another thread on army.ca that discusses this subject.



I thought that I saw an article that the FWSAR was put on hold when we ordered the C-17's.


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2007)

That too... but they did not appear ready to proceed - regardless of C17 or C130


----------



## Spencer100 (10 Oct 2007)

From Aviation Week.  post with the diclaimers.

Raytheon Lost JCA Over Aircraft Performance Concerns

Oct 10, 2007 
Jefferson Morris/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report 

The U.S. Army picked the C-27J for the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program, despite its higher cost, because of concerns about the C-295's ability to meet certain performance requirements, according to the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) decision rejecting Raytheon's bid protest.

Raytheon had the cheaper proposal, at $1.77 billion, versus L-3's $2.04 billion bid. But despite the 15 percent cost difference, "based on the high performance risk of the C-295's air vehicle, the cost trade-off is justified," the Army source selection authority (SSA) told GAO.

Raytheon teamed with EADS North America to offer the C-295 for JCA. The C-27J team consists of L-3 Communications, Alenia North America and Boeing. GAO rejected Raytheon's protest of the award last month (DAILY, Sept. 28).

The Army selection authority was worried about the C-295's ability to meet the "threshold" minimum service ceiling requirement to fly at 25,000 feet pressure altitude while carrying a crew of four, a 12,000-pound payload and enough fuel for a 1,200-nautical mile mission plus 45 minutes reserve.

The C-295, which is powered by a Pratt & Whitney engine, could only meet that and certain other JCA requirements through the use of a "new operational mode," which made the Army nervous. Details of the new operational mode were withheld by GAO.

The service "sought responses to a variety of questions regarding Raytheon's 'new operational mode,' including a query as to whether it was certified by FAA. Raytheon replied that it wasn't, although a certification program was under way.

The C-295 was able to demonstrate the required performance during the program's Early User Survey (EUS), but only with caveats, the details of which were withheld by GAO.

The JCA teams submitted final proposals in January, and both bids received the same overall adjectival ratings on technical, logistics, management/production, and past performance. But Raytheon's proposal was rated "marginal" in terms of the aircraft, and "high risk" in terms of aircraft performance.

The SSA decided that the C-27J had a "superior military operational envelope," and "provides superior military utility," GAO said. Although both proposals were evaluated as being capable of meeting the same basic performance requirements, L-3's proposed aircraft demonstrated an ability to exceed many of them by significant margins, the SSA told GAO.

Further, the SSA noted that Raytheon's "predicted performance margin may be easily eroded for cruise airspeed, self deployment and service ceiling."

In its bid protest, Raytheon challenged its "marginal" air vehicle rating, as well as the "high risk" performance rating, arguing that the assessments were unreasonable or based on unstated evaluation criteria.

The company argued that the service ceiling threshold requirement shouldn't have been considered, because none of the mission profiles included in the request for proposals specified all three of the service ceiling requirements - altitude, payload and endurance. GAO disagreed.


----------

