As a pilot and fan of DeHavilland aircraft, as well as private industry, this story makes me feel warm inside.
As an outside observer and non-fan of the United States Air Force and its institutional insecurity, it angers me; at least, the background does.
Basically, the Army and Air Force were going to buy a bunch of C-27Js, twin engine turboprop transport aircraft that can go places and do things that C-130s can’t, albeit with a smaller payload. Still, something that was very interesting to the Army and Special Operations types, who have a need to support small units in weird places.
The Air Force got worried that the other services would think they were weak for allowing the Army to have decently sized fixed wing aircraft, so they fought hard to take the Army’s airplanes away – and won. There is absolutely no practical reason for this. It goes back decades to when the Air Force was struggling to exist and managed to twist some arms, forbidding the Army from performing certain tasks. If the Air Force can perform these tasks, fine – it’s silly, but fine. But they can’t.
Fast forward to today’s budget cuts, and the Air Force has cut the C-27Js out of its budget in order to save money. Has this magically eliminated the Army’s need to supply small units? No. So the Army had to go to a private contractor to perform a mission that the Air Force promised but couldn’t deliver. The contractor is probably doing it better and cheaper than the Air Force could have, so it’s a win, but the situation still bothers me.
I personally think that the Air Force should just be given plenty of money to go play with missiles, satellites, and lasers – things that we may have a dire need for in the future, or might not – and let the other services handle the vital functions that the Air Force as an institution just has no enthusiasm for, like supplying small units in the field.
Sorry bro, I call foul. While working in a dynamic AOC I can see some flaws with this. Not to say that you’re not correct with the CJ-27s and the contracting issue, but you’re wrong to say that the USAF can’t support these missions, we do–and that we don’t have small units on the ground–we do. There are quite a few USAF units within SOCOM and key operators in JSOC taskings. You would be surprised to see what we do besides lasers, satellites, and aircraft…
I’m not saying that individuals in the Air Force don’t want to get the job done – I’m saying that the AF leadership is unnecessarily sacrificing the less exciting stuff. As an aside, I’m well aware of what AFSOC does, and some of the SOSs with BT-67s, etc.
To Jeff’s point (as an AFSOC veteran), AFSOC has always run far outside of the normal “Big Blue”. AFSOC had actually worked some “back room” deals to get it’s own CJ-27s to make into gunships, but pretty much got busted after the Army lost their CJ-27 funding (cut by Congress). Once those suckers moved over to the ANG, that was back into “Big Blue”, and into the #1 target for budget cuts (ANG). If they had stayed in AFSOC, they would have been safe, and the pilots would certainly have delivered. At this point, ALL services have to cut $450 billion over the next decade so it’s gonna be hard to sell regardless of who owns it.
It sucks, but it’s all about the $$$.
I kind of disagree with your last paragraph. I say the Air Force should just go away…
They have no mission anymore that is largely unique in nature.
You’ve probably seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zbbLrIfA_sU
Its caused a bit of a stir here in Australia as we still have a long (like 25 years or so!!!) outstanding requirement to replace our Caribou’s who have gone WAY past the hours they were originally supposed to.
C-27J is the stated PRIME candidate plane to replace them, hopefully this year.
The video shows an absolutely brilliant piece of logistics paradropping by the Contractor crew……my hat off to them!
Regards,
BUG
You’re spot on except for the contractors being cheaper and better. Contractors always charge as much as they can get away with.
That said, this is a shortsighted move from some fighter jock somewhere. The C-27 would be a valuable asset to small units and for disaster responses. Eliminating that capability is irresponsible.
Big Air Force (read: the pilots in charge) has always had little-dick syndrome, to the detriment of us guys on the ground who don’t really fit in (PJ’s, JTAC, EOD, etc). Easily 50% of Air Force jobs could either go away or be contracted out, and the rest of us folded back into the “Army Air Corps” under the Army. But then the pilots couldn’t be in charge anymore…so we can’t have that. I can’t wait to hit 20 and pop smoke. Love my job, hate the Air Force.
Our state was scheduled to receive a set of planes and had already begun training support crews. It sucks.
But I don’t think it is a matter of green suit vs. blue suit. The Army also wants a better rifle. The Marines want a new machine gun. The Navy wants a bunch of smaller ships. The Air Force wants a fighter plane. Every branch of service wants new uniforms. And each branch wants its very own special operations unit with an unlimited budget. There is a limit. I think the C-27 would have been a good purchase. But I don’t think it is a high priority.
We are all left to guess what the rationale was for cancelling the planes. But it does us no good to assume either ignorance or evil was the motivation.
IMO, the Air Force should have been limited to air superiority, strategic, and theater level plus logistics with the Army and Marines (who actually do this) fielding their own tactical aircraft.
All attack aircraft should be either Army or USMC. It makes zero sense for the Army to not be in charge of their own CAS.
+1 Mike
The Problem is not with the Air Force, just with the Leaders we elect and the creatures who get promoted.
Warrior and True Leaders only get so far. American peoples own fault.
Now we will pay for it in Spades!!!
The Soviets had three commands corresponding to the purview of the US Air Force: frontal aviation, air defense and strategic missile command. I wonder if this caused more or fewer turf wars.
Likewise, I wonder if Canada’s unified armed force structure causes more or less squabling.
Well, the USAF had TAC (frontal/fighter), SAC (strategic/missles), and MAC (transport), and AFSOC, which was kind of part of MAC and kind of not. I can tell you this caused it’s own turf wars. Whenever you let that TAC/SAC pussies get involved with anything, life turns bad.
If this article was on Facebook, I’d hit the “Like” button. I just discovered Vuurwapen Blog on YouTube last week. Keep up the good work.
Thanks!
First off, full disclosure: I’m former Air Force (B-52 crewmember) and am an Ops Analyst for Lockheed. The latter means I analyze operational employment of weapons systems and determine the pros/cons/limitations/selling points of them and what modifications are worthwhile to the warfighters and to the holders of the purse strings.
Leaving the Army/Air Force politics aside, here’s a quick take on the technical merits. The airdrop in the video was not heavy and it was in winter. A C-27J could have done that, for sure. However, it would have had little operating margin in summer, as would the Caribou. The C-27J is great for many operational uses, but falls flat in the high/hot/heavy arena, never minding any damage causing thrust degradation (i.e. small arms or MANPADS damage). While it might be a “waste” for small airdrops, the C-130J has far more operating margin, even with an engine out, especially in high/hot/heavy conditions. For an Army-relevant comparison, consider a UH-60 vs. a CH-47 operating in the mountains of Afghanistan. That, plus having an extra aircraft type increases the logistics requirements.
FWIW, I think Caribous are awesome. As a kid, I always enjoyed seeing ’em fly low & slow at airshows, and once I became an aerospace engineer and flier, I was impressed with their flying characteristics. They’re even more impressive when powered by turboprops.
Interesting. Thanks for the input.