With insurgent attacks making road convoys in Iraq more dangerous than ever, there’s been a push to haul more supplies by air to forward bases. With that in mind, the Army decided to replace its ancient, lightweight C-23 Sherpa cargo planes with bigger, more powerful “baby C-130s.” The Air Force, desperate to shore up its ailing airlifter fleet, hopped on board the program, and this year the services jointly picked the Alenia C-27J Spartan for the role. It’s a rugged, reliable airplane, and it’ll do wonders for short-range airlift.
That is, if the services can stop fighting over the plane and focus on getting it into service. You see, no sooner had the so-called “Joint Cargo Aircraft” program picked up steam than the Air Force started calling into question the very notion of the Army having its own fixed-wing planes. Now Congress has entered the fray, slicing one of the first four C-27s from the budget and asking for more “roles and missions” studies, according to the Air Force Association newsletter:
The Army and Air Force jointly have pursued the JCA program, but lawmakers have been at odds over the role of the Army in tactical airlift. Some say the Army should continue to fly its own fixed-wing airlifters, while others believe the issue is part of a larger roles and missions creep that has led to duplication of effort. The matter, writes [Michigan Senator Carl] Levin, will be subject of discussion in the conference over the 2008 defense authorization bill. He asked [Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard] Cody to respond to eight questions by Oct. 12. Levin questions whether the Pentagon will gain greater effectiveness and efficiency from two services performing the same mission …
The Army’s main aviation lobbyist, Brigadier General Steve Mundt, has had enough of this back-and-forth. “It’s not a roles and missions issue,” he said last week. “It’s about replacing a bad platform,” the C-23.
“The Army had battlefield supply [aircraft] before and this is the same,” he added, referring not just to the Sherpa, but also to fixed-wing C-12s and CH-47 Chinook helicopters. Mundt says that “last tactical mile” of supply lift has always belonged to the Army.
Plus Mundt says that fielding C-27s in the Army will greatly benefit the Air Force, because it will relieve the Air Force from flying so many short-haul missions in Iraq, a duty that is fast wearing out larger planes such as the C-130 and C-17. With the Army flying much of its own ”intra-theater” airlift, the Air Force could focus more on long-range strategic hauls and niche missions, including domestic ones, using its own new C-27s. “I need the Air Force to do the air force mission they do better than any air force in the world,” Mundt said.
In other words, hands off my Army airplanes.
Related:
A.F. eyes small gunships
Airlift confusion
New Herk not so tough?
Related posts:

















[...] A procurement squabble between Air Force and Army about transport planes, covered at War is Boring. As a non-expert, I can identify only one issue at stake: the cost savings which come from the economies of scale to be had if both parties use the same model. For deeper analysis, War is Boring has better coverage. [...]
You shouldn’t paint this as a parochial service issue. The Air Force has a long tradition of ignoring other services’ needs, thus the Marine Corps has its own tac air etc. The main reason why the Army developed attack helos for supporting ground ops back in the 1950s-60s was because the Air Force relegated interdiction/close air support to the bottom of its priorities. When fighter/intercepters, strat bombers and strat lift are the priorities, what’s the Army supposed to do? The only way the Army gets its tac-lift requirements met is to do it themselves. This ought not be another case of “if it flies, then it ought to be owned by the AF” as the joint UAV argument was.
Not for nothing, but does anyone remember this?
http://www.scaled.com/projects/ATTT.html
Hate to play woulda/coulda/shoulda, but there was a replacement for the Sherpa in the pipeline a while ago.
[...] Note that the letter is in PDF format. David Axe adds that: [...]
[...] Related: Why the A.F. sucks Prototypes, please Army to A.F.: hands off Release the gunships, part one Part two A.F. eyes small gunship F-35 over-budget A.F. lacks COIN planes A.F. “going out of business” No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
XXX & I have still been discussing the Pkk issues past the 9-10 incident. We see the escalating issues to be a more serious issue. Several 1,000 Turkish troops are entering the region of Northern Iraq. The newer Bin Laden video may be focussing in on the Pkk as a newer support element for the AQ’s weakening forces.