Panel cuts Air Force funding for JCA - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

Panel cuts Air Force funding for JCA

A congressional panel wants to take the “joint” out of the Army and Air Force’s Joint Cargo Aircraft.

The House Appropriations defense subcommittee stripped $32.1 million of Air Force funding in fiscal 2009 for JCA research and development and aircraft acquisition.

Additionally, the lawmakers expressed strong reservations about whether the Air Force, as planned, should purchase 24 C-27 Spartan cargo planes by 2013 at all.

In a report obtained by Air Force Times, appropriators justified their decision by characterizing the Air Force’s commitment to the JCA as lukewarm.

“The Air Force is neither able to articulate an employment plan for the Joint Cargo Aircraft nor explain the roles and missions of the aircraft,” the report read.

The report cited a congressionally mandated Air Force study that concluded the Air Force could better use the resources that would fund the C-27 to acquire additional C-130Js for less money.

Appropriators also recommended the Army’s portion of the program be cut almost in half for fiscal 2009, from $264 million to $151 million, and the number of aircraft be cut from seven to four.

Despite the strong position of the subcommittee, the Air Force’s role in the JCA program is far from settled. Three other congressional committees will weigh in, and program decisions will not become final until both the House and the Senate approve funding.

Air Force officials said Sept. 11 that both services were still keen to get their own JCAs.

Maj. Gen. William Rew, director of operational planning, policy and strategy at Air Force headquarters, said Army and Air Force decision-makers met Sept. 8 and began to flesh out both services’ role for the JCA.

“We’re all about supporting the joint war fighter,” Rew said.

For the Army, the C-27, a twin-engine turboprop light cargo plane, would replace its fleet of C-23 Sherpas. The Army has long wanted to replace the aging Sherpa with a tactical light transport plane for forward operations.

One military observer said the Air Force’s interest in the C-27, which could be mistaken for a pint-sized C-130, was more about protecting the service’s fixed-wing turf and less about the service’s need.

“The requirement originated in the Army rather than a joint need,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. “I never felt the Air Force’s interest in the C-27 was more than a desire to protect its airlift role.”

But if the Air Force is tentative about JCAs, the National Guard is not.

The Army and the Air Force have promised to deliver most of the more than 70 planes to National Guard units by the end of 2013. For several Air Guard units, JCAs will replace C-130s as their air transport mission.

“The program is very important to the Army and the Air Guard,” said John Goheen, a spokesman for the National Guard Association. “To say we’re interested is an understatement.”

For several Air Guard units, delivery of the JCAs would fulfill a promise from the Air Force that they will remain relevant following the decisions of the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment commission. Several Air National Guard units lost their C-130s, including the 179th Airlift Wing, based in Mansfield, Ohio. Some units were promised JCAs to replace their lost C-130s.

The 179th is still expecting a roster of C-27s by 2013, wing commander Col. Mark Stephens said. After the unit’s C-130s leave the 179th in 2010, the unit will temporarily field several C-21s, a military version of the Learjet 35A business jet.

Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican who represents the 179th’s district, has said his office would raise a stink if the House goes through with the cuts to the Air Force’s portion of the JCA program.

“We see it as the fulfillment of a promise made, post-BRAC, that these C-27s are housed at the 179th in Mansfield,” said Ray Yonkura, a spokesman for Jordan.

The Air Force’s lack of clarity on the future of the C-27 is a point of constant consternation for Guard advocates, Goheen said, adding that “if it’s going to be a different aircraft, when is it going to be delivered?”