DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » Cargo Chaos: Key West’s Revenge

Cargo Chaos: Key West’s Revenge

The mil­i­tary is sup­posed to be one big, happy fam­ily these days. But in The Hill, Roxana Tiron reports on yet another episode of inter-​​service rivalry that’s cost­ing the Defense Department big bucks and com­pro­mis­ing capabilities.

c-23_sherpa-s.jpgToday in Iraq, the mil­i­tary is min­i­miz­ing its con­voy pres­ence by mov­ing the materiel and peo­ple through the air instead. In many sit­u­a­tions, such as fly­ing mail between FOBs, it is not effi­cient to use Air Force’s C-​​130. That’s why the mil­i­tary is rely­ing heav­ily on its fleet of intra-​​theater cargo air­planes, like the Army’s C-​​23 Sherpa and C-​​12 Huron. [The Air Force left the intra-​​theater busi­ness when it retired the C-​​27 Spartans after Panama Canal han­dover.] However, the C-​​23s and C-​​12s are rapidly wear­ing out. So the Army went look­ing for the replace­ment Future Cargo Aircraft, to be fielded in 2008.

Because the Air Force had sim­i­lar require­ments, DoD merged the two into the now Joint Cargo Aircraft. However, there is a mis­match in insti­tu­tional pri­or­i­ties. The Army needs the air­craft in 2008, but the Air Force, hav­ing C-​​130s, is wait­ing until 2010. So for the 2007 bud­get request, the Army requested $113m for the JCA, while the Air Force $15m. The Airland Subcommittee asked the Air Force about the sta­tus of the JCA pro­gram, and the Air Force responded that “it is nowhere near buy­ing the air­craft.” Thus the sub­com­mit­tee cut $109m from the Army bud­get. (Huh? It doesn’t make sense to me either.) Fortunately, the House did not make the same mis­take. Hopefully they’ll fix the prob­lem in conference.

This entire screwup is another sad legacy of the Key West Agreement, which divided up the skies between the Army, Air Force, and Navy. It’s time we scrap it, and start over again.

Because of the Key West Agreement, the Army and Air Force shares the air lift func­tion, the Army intra-​​theater, and the Air Force inter-​​theater. However, in today’s non-​​linear bat­tle­field, it’s dif­fi­cult to tell where to draw the “the­ater” line. So when the Army ini­ti­ated the FCA, the Air Force felt com­pelled to pro­tect its turf in the air lift busi­ness by join­ing the pro­gram, and then delayed the pro­gram by drag­ging its feet on its por­tion of the joint require­ment. I think it was instruc­tive to note that, only after the Army has announced the request for pro­posal for the FCA, did the Air Force start mak­ing noise about its sim­i­lar require­ments, yet did not have its set of require­ment ready right away. What was the Air Force rep on the JROC doing? Isn’t it his job to tell the Air Force before the Army announces its RFP?

In the 1960s, the Air Force did the same thing by appro­pri­at­ing the intra-​​theater C-​​123s from the Army using the same argu­ments, and then promptly retired the fleet. Similarly, the Air Force took over the CAS func­tion from the Army, and has let it atro­phy ever since. Just look at the ongo­ing attempts to sand­bag the A-​​10 fleet. Today the Air Force flies F-​​16s to con­duct the CAS sur­veil­lance mis­sion for con­voys in Iraq. As David Axe noted ear­lier, the Air Force is mov­ing its focus toward the deep strike arena and mov­ing away from CAS as it recasts the AF J-​​UCAS into a deep strike platform.

We need to abol­ish the Key West Agreement. Obviously, the Air Force has no insti­tu­tional inter­est in either the CAS nor intra-​​theater lift func­tions. The Air Force needs to get out of the way and give A-​​10s to the Army. The Air Force needs to stop stalling JCA and let the Army buy as soon as pos­si­ble. The Air Force can get in on the order later after it has com­pleted its require­ment process. Afterall, the AF is already using the C-​​130 to ful­fill most of its intra-​​theater require­ments any­way. The Army has a war to fight and the insti­tu­tional Air Force needs to under­stand that.

– Jimmy Wu

Share |

May 10th, 2006 | Planes, Copters, Blimps | 320911 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/05/10/cargo-chaos-key-wests-revenge/Cargo+Chaos%3A+Key+West%27s+Revenge2006-05-10+15%3A02%3A03hampton You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Contact Bombs in Iraq | Ray Gunners Make Deals » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Cranky Observer says:
    May 10, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    Isn’t another issue here that of for­eign pur­chases? The C-​​27 would seem to be able to fill this require­ment off-​​the-​​shelf, but if an order were placed today the first two dozen or so would come from Italy. Which is a big red flag from Congress, even though we ask other coun­tries to buy our hard­ware.
    Cranky

    Reply
  2. Jimmy Wu says:
    May 10, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    The 3 most expen­sive com­po­nents of a mod­ern mil­i­tary air­craft are:
    1. engine
    2. elec­tron­ics
    3. plane body
    C-​​27, et al, are not the hi-​​tech planes like F-​​22, full of com­pos­ites. So the body is likely rel­a­tively cheap.
    Since the engine and elec­tron­ics will likely come from American ven­dors, the vast major­ity of the dol­lar value will be American. Hence there will be lit­tle Congressional oppo­si­tion from that direction.

    Reply
  3. Wm Ediger says:
    May 11, 2006 at 6:10 am

    I retired from the Air Force in 1997 and was with the 18th TFS for 4 years while they were fly­ing A-​​10s. A finer CAS air­plane has not been invented! It was cheap to buy, cheap to main­tain, and as his­tory has shown, a deadly addi­tion to the mod­ern bat­tle­field. However, the Air Force has always (even in Army Air Corps days) had an insti­tu­tional bias against the CAS role. They don’t mind Air to Ground, just not … on demand! I agree that the Army should take over the CAS role for itself and retrieve all those moth­balled A10s from DM as well as those the AF has redes­ig­nated OA-​​10s in its’ frenzy to get fur­ther away from the ground. I’ve always been a bit embarassed by that and it comes from the top, not the bottom.

    Reply
  4. TheWanderingMind says:
    May 12, 2006 at 8:54 am

    The Key West agree­ment — and the Army’s sur­ren­der of its Caribous and Buffaloes in the late 60’s — are scan­dals of the first order.
    The Air Force refuses to honor its part of the bar­gain to pro­vide on-​​call close air sup­port and “bat­tle taxi” air­lift at the cost of Army lives and bod­ies, pre­fer­ring to do “Deep Strike” and “Air Supremacy” and “Strategic Airlift” roles instead. While all three are vitally impor­tant mis­sions, none is as impor­tant as sup­port­ing troops in con­tact.
    If the President and SecDef truly cared about the revi­tal­iza­tion of the mil­i­tary, the next U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff would be the Marine Corps chief avi­a­tion offi­cer. The Marines get it. The “go-​​fast boys” don’t.
    Scrap the Key West agree­ment, autho­rize fixed wing close sup­port air­craft for the Army, and allow those AF fly­ing and sup­port peo­ple who wish to do so to trans­fer inter­ser­vice. You’d be sur­prised at how many would switch uni­forms just for a chance to really sup­port the troops on the ground.

    Reply
  5. Cranky Observer says:
    May 12, 2006 at 9:50 am

    Giovanni, Jimmy, etc.: you don’t have to con­vince ME. You do have to con­vince the US Congress, and I think their view of for­eign pur­chases is a bit dif­fer­ent.
    Cranky

    Reply
  6. James says:
    May 13, 2006 at 8:42 am

    Having a sep­a­rate Air Force was the first mis­take. Key West flowed nat­u­rally from it. Navy should have taken long range bomb­ing, Army ICBMs and CAS. We would have been spared much non­sense over the last fifty years.

    Reply
  7. Piero says:
    May 24, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    Look at the US ven­dor con­tent of the first half dozen air­craft built in Europe the other would be built in Florida.
    Engines,avionics 2/​3 of the value
    Piero

    Reply
  8. texan says:
    December 6, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Finally some­one with some sense. The Key WEst should be scrapped for its bud­get agree­ment more than the air­plane divi­sion role. Current wars have lit­tle mis­sion for the sea ser­vices, (navy and marines ) and also lit­tle for the Air Corps espe­cially when they despise the CAS role. In Iraq and Afghan the Sea Services and the Airforce are fight­ing to prove they can con­tribute to the war but what this has resulted in is dupli­ca­tion of Army ser­vices and roles.. Ie CAS for the Airforce and the Marines for the Navy. Key west ensures that the Navy and the Airforce receive the lion’s share of the bud­get.. ie we don’t sup­port the warfight­ers to ensure that other parts of the pen­ta­gon that don’t have a mis­sion con­tinue to receive a large bud­get. What a disgrace!!

    Reply
  9. Taylor McKinnon says:
    March 25, 2009 at 1:14 am

    I felt a twinge of pain in my lower regions when I read of the Panama, USAF C-​​27s going to the bone yard. Now my fears have been realised. C-​​7 Caribou episode de ja vu. I was in Viet Nam when it hap­pened. I sus­pect that the air­craft going to Afganistan now are those same Panama C-​​27s. It was a seren­de­pitous save. Not due to good plan­ning on the part of any­one. I am a retired AF offi­cer. what do I think? The Army uses rifles, does this mean that the AF can­not have rifles? The Atmy has trucks,does this mean that ther AF can­not have trucks? There is plenty of turf to keep us both busy fot the extended future. Let the Army have their air trucks! TaylorMAC

    Reply
  10. Scott Gilbertson says:
    September 17, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Reading the bood “Boyd” (about Col. John R. Boyd, inven­tor of the “OODA Loop” con­cept), both the F-​​16 and the A-​​10 were shoved down the Air Force brass’s col­lec­tive throats by SecDef Schlesinger. They wanted more F-15’s; not –16’s, and didn’t want the A-​​10 only. When they DID get the –10, what they do with it? It was the first USAF plane that went DIRECTLY to Reserve units upon deliv­ery! SCRAP KEY WEST, YAJOHL. The Army has been left twist­ing in the wind on CAS much, much too long.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "Now please tell me where in the Bible Jesus or his disciples...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      No, I am not a muslim. And no, the Koran does not say anything about...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      You aren't. You're just annoying. Like a paper cut between...
      bdwilcox
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      Zandor, Don't you have to go play in traffic or play...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Welcome to paralysis induced by political correctness.
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      It's too bad a brave soul like you wasn't in that room....
      bdwilcox
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage