I was in vietnam when the Army had to give up the beloved Caribou to the Air Force. The Army air crews were pretty p-s-d off.
Keep the Air in Army BY: Lou Hennies, Defense News 12/13/2005 The U.S. Air Force has suddenly turned its roles-and-mission radar on a potential $1 billion Army program. The Army has a compelling justification to replace its aging and limited C-23 Sherpa fleet, which is a mainstay in forward-most resupply of combat operations in Southwest Asia as well as more remote areas in the global war on terrorism. The Air Force has had years to get serious about the light cargo aircraft business since it retired the C-7, but has chosen not to do so. Suddenly, now it is interested, but for all the wrong reasons. The Army’s requirement for fixed-wing, cargo, short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft has existed since the late 1950s. Gen. Maxwell Taylor, former Army chief of staff, wrote in “The Uncertain Trumpet” that tactical airlift was an Army mission, claiming the Air Force had neglected this responsibility. That’s a major reason why the CV-2 Caribou entered Army service in 1961. It provided tactical airlift to forward battle areas, bridging the gap between its medium-and heavy-lift helicopter forces and Air Force fixed-wing airlift. Army crews handled rapidly changing combat situations driven by decisions made at much lower authority levels than they would have been in the Air Force. The aircraft quickly went where and when they were needed in response to ground commanders’ immediate needs. That enduring requirement is as valid today as it was 45 years ago. However, in April 1966, in a mutual appeasement decision surrounding rotary and fixed-wing roles and missions, the service chiefs of staff agreed to transfer ownership of the Army’s 133 Caribous to the Air Force, which it redesignated the C-7. The planes were later retired by the Air Force with no comparable replacement. The Army National Guard purchased 44 C-23s to support Guard missions with apparently no encroachment objections on the part of the Air Force. The Army has wisely deployed these aircraft in support of war on terrorism missions. No one anticipated the important daily niche these aircraft would fill in the down-and-dirty part of the war, except of course the Army. Now that the Army has established a legitimate basis for purchasing an off-the-shelf, non-developmental solution to replace the Guard’s C-23 fleet, the Air Force feels threatened and bristles at the possibility. Air Force Resistance Earlier this year, Gen. John Jumper, then Air Force chief of staff, summed up his feelings regarding the Army’s Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) initiative during a roundtable discussion with reporters by stating, “My thought on that is you don’t need to go out and buy yourself an Air Force — we’ve got one.” Make no mistake about it, no one does heavy and medium strategic and tactical airlift like the Air Force. Its ability to plan and execute strategic lift operations is unsurpassed. But the issue here is getting beans and bullets on that final critical destination to the forward-most shooter on the ground. In a tactical sense, if an Army commander suddenly needs troop, supply or equipment support close to the action, he wants it now and not after extensive reconfiguration of Air Force global mission schedules for the tactical level. So what’s the Army’s Future Cargo Aircraft in layman terms? The Army’s vice chief of staff described it as “bigger than a C-23 and smaller than a C-130.” What the Army wants now is a reliable, larger, faster, higher flying, off-the shelf airframe that can conduct the tactical missions of resupply, medical evacuation, troop movement, air drop and humanitarian aid under the harshest field conditions. Quick Deployment These aircraft will be rightfully assigned to Army National Guard aviation units, and must be capable of supporting the full spectrum of Guard missions. And there’s no need to go through a developmental drill since there are several legitimate candidates that can fill the bill now. One is the Raytheon/EADS North America team, offering the Spanish-built CASA C-295 and CN-235. The U.S. Coast Guard chose the CN-235 to be its future maritime patrol aircraft. It has also been purchased by 30 military and government users in 24 countries. The larger C-295 is currently in use by the air forces of Spain, Jordan and Poland and has been selected by Switzerland, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates. EADS has established a customer and logistics center in Mobile, Ala., to support its Coast Guard requirements. Another option is the C-27J Spartan, offered by the team of L-3 Integrated Systems and the Italian firm of Alenia. Greece received its first delivery of 12 aircraft in August, and the Italian Air Force will start receiving the first of five aircraft by the end of this year. Bulgaria has also ordered two aircraft but has yet to formally sign its contract. With an FCA contract expected in June, hopefully the Army’s timetable will work against any Air Force attempt to derail this critical program in the name of roles-and-missions warfare. It is crunch time, and the Army must move out undeterred on this critical initiative. • Lou Hennies, a retired major general and 41-year Army and Air Force veteran, commanded the U.S. Army Safety Center and was the state of Alabama’s adjutant general. http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=8334