C-27J/ US Army

[swerve]

That was more of a lamination on the over deployment we in the Army and USMC have endured. I guess subtleties are a bit too subtle in print. However, you still did not answer my question of

Again I ask, what would be your division of assets?

There are two different things to consider here: ownership, & operational control. I think the USA is a little too hung up on whoever owns the assets having operational control, the USAF being unwilling to see itself as serving the army, probably due to its long battle for independence. If that could be overcome, then I see no reason why the USAF shouldn't own everything that flies except carrier-borne aircraft (we tried the air force owning them here & it didn't work well) & tactical UAVs (best leave them to the ground troops).

That would require the USAF to place a large number of aircraft it owns under wartime operational control of not just the army, but fairly low-level army commanders. Perhaps it could be done by creating an army support command within the USAF, to control most tactical transport aircraft & helicopters.

Oh, & while you're at it, cut the USMC back to security detachments on board ships, commandos, base guards, & the like. What country needs two armies?

 

[DDerrick51]

It is an interesting thought. But (keep in mind I am prior AF) the AF has not always responded to what the ground forces say they need. I don’t think the AF likes the idea of being support. The strategic role is much more appealing.
The Army gave up the Caribou mission to the AF before and it went away. Had they know that, I am certain they would have not relinquished it. They only developed the A-10 because the Army was arming it Mohawks, it gave helos’ to the Army because it thought that they would be of little use and fell so fare behind in the current war that the Army has started buying it’s own ISR (manned and unmanned platforms). ISR, UAS and C-27’s are not as sexy as a F-22. The problem is that the Army is completely reliant on the AF for FW lift and FW CAS. The USMC is not. Oh, the USMC function was to be expeditionary in nature. We are all calling ourselves expeditionary now so where does that leave us. Maybe we should go back to being one service.

 

[ncart326]

The reason is simple. We, the Army, are at the mercy of the airforce. We have to wait until they get the load factor above a certain percentage even when troops on the ground are waiting for troops, ammo, or equipment. I know this firsthand. More later.

 

[Marc 1]

although I don't know of any converse rule, I expect the USAF would be prevented from having its own army.

Not so far fetched - the RAAF has ADGE's (basically RAAF 'infantry') used to protect RAAF assets.

As has been pointed out previously its more for the convenience of having these direct forces under your command and within your chain of command. That way you can be sure the troopies or in the case of the army and the C27's - aircraft are available when you want them. Is this duplication? Yeah, but its not as though the RAAF ADGEies are going to be leading the assault in Tarin Kowt, or the US army's C27's will be doing strategic airlift from CONUS to the other side of the globe. It's not their role.

With the existing setup in most defence forces (for right or wrong) it is far easier to ask someone within your own organisation to undertake a minor task than to have to co-ordinate with another service to organise the same.

I'm sure also there is a small element of 'empire building' involved here too

 

[swerve]

The RAF has the RAF Regiment, for the same purpose. Nothing wrong with that. It gets ridiculous when you start doing what the US military has done, & built up entire parallel structures: two armies, three combat air forces, etc. It's arguable that the USCG is now a second navy.Everyone wants an integrated all-arms force. As I've said, the problem boils down to operational control, & the assumption that is has to follow ownership - and that is down to empire building & inter-service rivalry.

 

[swerve]

The reason is simple. We, the Army, are at the mercy of the airforce. We have to wait until they get the load factor above a certain percentage even when troops on the ground are waiting for troops, ammo, or equipment. I know this firsthand. More later.

So sort out the reporting lines & operational control. There seems to be a universal assumption that it's easier to buy billions of dollars worth of equipment & recruit & train thousands of specialised personell than make organisational changes.

The history of the USMC should be a warning. And remember how the USAF began.

 

[t68]

If that could be overcome, then I see no reason why the USAF shouldn't own everything that flies except carrier-borne aircraft (we tried the air force owning them here & it didn't work well) & tactical UAVs (best leave them to the ground troops).

What were the problems with USAF having control over carrier based aircraft?
I am only asking this as their is talk of RAN getting another lhd and putting some F35b on them under RAAF colours

 

[swerve]

What were the problems with USAF having control over carrier based aircraft?
I am only asking this as their is talk of RAN getting another lhd and putting some F35b on them under RAAF colours

RAF, not USAF. The RAF took over both the Royal Flying Corps & the Royal Naval Air Service in 1918, & controlled carrier-based aircraft until 1937, when they were handed back to the RN. It's generally agreed that the poor state of the Fleet Air Arm in 1937 was largely due to RAF neglect of it. Funds were tight, & the FAA was low-priority within the RAF. It got converted land-based aircraft, whether suitable or not, not enough of them to fill its carriers, & not enough carrier-trained pilots even for those it had.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[sgtgunn]

Looks like the USAF is considering the C-27 airframe for the AC-XX gunship program:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004433.html

Mini Spectre!

Adrian

 

[ncart326]

Boeing Drops Out

Boeing Drops Out of C-27J Military Plane Program (Update2)
Email | Print | A A A

By Gopal Ratnam

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co., citing deteriorating economic conditions, pulled out of plans to assemble the U.S. military’s C-27J cargo planes, a $2 billion program led by New York-based L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.

Boeing had been in negotiations to assemble the planes for L-3’s partner in the program, Finmeccanica SpA’s Alenia North America unit, and decided against it because of the “current global economic climate,” the Chicago-based company said in a statement today.

“We were going to set up a production facility in Florida,” Boeing spokesman Bill Barksdale said in an interview. “Looking at the objectives, based on analysis and in the current business conditions we couldn’t satisfy our shareholders,” he said of the company’s decision to drop out. Alenia will continue with its plan to build an assembly plant in the state, spokesman Ben Stone said in an interview.

The C-27J began as a joint venture in June 2007 between L-3 and Finmeccanica’s Alenia North America to replace the Army’s and Air Force’s fleet of older transport planes. Boeing later began negotiations with Alenia to build an assembly plant in Jacksonville, Florida.

Boeing, the world’s second-biggest defense contractor as well as the No. 2 commercial-jet builder, is cutting 10,000 jobs, or about 6 percent of its workforce, as the global recession hurts airlines’ profits and could divert U.S. military spending.

78 Aircraft

L-3 won a $2.04 billion contract in June 2007 to build 78 C- 27J aircraft for the Army and Air Force, company spokesman Jason Decker said in an interview. The first two planes produced at Alenia’s Turin, Italy-plant were delivered to the Army in 2008, he said. The company plans to make 16 planes a year on average.

Under the contract, Alenia builds the airplanes and L-3 outfits it with communication and electronic equipment to meet U.S. military needs.

Alenia is moving forward with plans to build a 350,000 square feet assembly plant in Jacksonville, Stone said. “We’ll have a groundbreaking ceremony in a month,” he said.

The company plans to invest about $100 million in the factory and employ 300 people, Stone said. With an annual capacity to make 30 aircraft, the facility can meet U.S. military needs for C-27J and any potential foreign sales, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at [email protected].

Last Updated: February 26, 2009 14:21 EST