Stargazer2006 said:
F-14D said:
Besides , if they actually were going to give up attack helicopter battalions, they'd be better served (here it comes) by Harriers, which USAF would never let them have.
F-14D said:
Also, don't forget, even if all this was resolved, Army would not be allowed to develop a replacement when the time came, so why bother?
The Air Force grew up as part of the Army and eventually got separated from it in 1948. After that, most commentaries make it seem like it is the Army which was submitted to the Air Force... But who is in charge of the U.S. armed forces, anyway? Isn't it the DoD which has the ultimate say in procurement? (the Hornet example was quoted above). Isn't it the President who is the Commander in Chief? Is the U.S.A.F. a law by its own, or are they not obliged to comply with whatever gets decided above? In other words, if a Secretary of Defense, backed by his President, decided on a fixed-wing aircraft procurement for the Army and allocated a budget for that, what would the U.S.A.F. have to say?
This may be taking us too far off topic, this nuance is discussed elsewhere on the forum. Simply put, USAF has traditionally had the most effective lobbying effort within DoD and generally Congress. Yasotay in his post
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,941.msg144646.html#msg144646 touched on this.
I'll just use his C-27J example to illustrate, in very simplified form, this effectiveness:
1. Army has need for light intratheater transport, smaller than C-130 that can get into more areas that is more economical and faster than helicopters.
2. USAF says no need for such a thing, Their C-130s can do it.
3. It turns out that C-130s can't because of type of airfield, cost and USAF availability (C130s are stretched thin). USAF then recommends a "joint" program.
4. DoD agrees, and since majority of users and majority of aircraft will be Army, puts Army in charge.
5. Selection takes place with C-27J as Joint Cargo Aircraft. Services are to use common aircraft, each service buys its own.
6. Questions raised as to why AF is paying twice as much as Army for planes that are pretty much identical for some radios and paint. "Fixit" strategy for this problem announced: AF is put in charge of program.
7. New Program Management Office announces that number of JCAs for both services to be drastically reduced, especially Army's.
8. Reduction gives rise to AF position that program is not that economical given reduced numbers.
9 Procurement was terminated at the numbers already under contract. A couple of weeks ago it was announced that delivered C-27Js are to be sold off Not to worry. After all, we were always told there was no need for such a thing and USAF C-130s can do it all. Army Guard, though, can still feel free to stand up the units that were to operate the JCA, it's just that they'll have no aircraft.
Now this is
waaay overly simplified and off topic except as an illustration of the way things work. The AH-56 also was affected by this. It wasn't the
only reason the aircraft died, but it was one of the big ones.
