Supporters rally around Army cargo aircraft

Some National Guard leaders are rallying against a new Pentagon plan that would leave the Army without coveted cargo planes used to ferry supplies into battlefields and aide U.S. communities during national emergencies.

The president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States (AGAUS) and Delaware’s adjutant general, Maj. Gen. Frank Vavala, this week wrote to the secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to express “adamant opposition” to the Pentagon plan that would leave the Air Force solely in charge of C-27J Spartan aircraft, also known as the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA).

{mosads}AGAUS represents the National Guard leaders from each state.

The Army and the Air Force have been jointly overseeing the nearly $3 billion program. The Army and Air Force National Guard units were supposed to fly most of the C-27Js. A team of L-3 Communications and Alenia North America holds the contract for the C-27J. Alenia North America, part of the Italian conglomerate Finmeccanica, builds the plane.

The Hill reported this week that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his inner circle are considering purchasing only 38 C-27Js — instead of the initially planned 78 — and leaving the Air Force in charge of the remaining planes. The Pentagon has not made public yet the fate of the program. The details will be revealed when the Pentagon submits its budget request for fiscal 2010 in early May.

Vavala called the shift in policy “alarming.” Vavala stressed that the initial plans for purchasing and fielding the C-27J are “imperative to our national security and our Governors’ emergency response requirements.”

Vavala’s letter is just the first salvo in a battle that is likely to ignite lawmakers and state leaders alike. Lawmakers this week, particularly Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a veteran defense authorizer whose Air and Land subcommittee has jurisdiction over the program, expressed frustration about the lack of visibility over the major changes in the program and the inability to glean more details about the proposed plan. Lawmakers also expressed frustration over the reported cuts because military officials for years have insisted they needed the smaller cargo plane.

Meanwhile, Army leaders who, at Gates’ request, signed non-disclosure forms to keep the lid on budget details, reiterated their need for the plane at a House hearing on Thursday.

“Nothing has changed with respect to the requirement,” Brigadier General Walter Davis, the director of Army Aviation, said at the hearing.

The plan to take the C-27J away from the Army could create havoc in Congress and among the governors of multiple states that were expecting to house the aircraft on their bases. Without the C-27J, those bases may now be left without a critical mission: Apart from flying in combat, those planes were going to be used for homeland security missions, particularly for helping out during natural and other disasters.

Such a decision is likely to spark an intense debate on Capitol Hill and stir a lobbying campaign from state officials. Governors and their adjutants general in the past have sounded alarm that without these planes, the Guard’s ability to respond to domestic emergencies could be significantly jeopardized.

Already Reps. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) have started rallying their colleagues to support the initial program before the proposed cuts.

“I, along with many of my colleagues, am concerned about
the reports that the Joint Cargo Aircraft program has been cut in half
and responsibility transferred to the Air Force.  The program of record
was based on solid needs and requirements,” Bordallo said in a statement to The Hill.  “Cuts to the program would
certainly risk serious readiness issues with our Army and Air National
Guard units across the country.  I am working closely with many of my
colleagues to make our concerns clear to the Secretary of Defense.  We
hope that this decision, if final, can be re-evaluated.”

The Army National Guard was expecting to receive the C-27J in 12 states: California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Alaska and Washington state. Each was supposed to receive four airplanes. Alaska was supposed to share its airplanes with Guam.

The secretary’s plan to put the Air Force in charge of the program also comes after the extremely divisive debate over the program’s jurisdiction was believed to have been settled.

The Pentagon in late January submitted a congressionally mandated “roles and missions” report that concluded both the Army and Air Force should be assigned the C-27J. The latest proposal would change that.

Lawmakers have been skeptical about whether the Air Force has a clear need for the aircraft, and defense appropriators in this year’s budget slashed the Air Force’s funding request to procure the aircraft, but left about $16 million to fund the research and development for the Air Force’s portion of the program.

The Air Force was expected to receive the aircraft a couple years after the Army, which has already received two C-27J and has 11 others under contract. It’s unclear what is going to happen to the Army’s aircraft that were delivered and those under contract. They were initially meant to replace 43 of the Army’s beaten-up C-23 Sherpas.

The Army in particular has been adamant about buying a smaller cargo aircraft that can go deep into the battlefield to deliver needed supplies to troops. The Army has been relying heavily on its Chinook helicopters for that purpose. Army officials have argued for months that Afghanistan’s terrain, for example, has put much pressure on these helicopters, which are now filling the void of a cargo aircraft that can fly “the last tactical mile.”

Under the initial plan, the Air Force was expected to receive 24 C-27Js — four planes in six states across the country: Connecticut, Michigan, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and Mississippi. Now, under the proposed plan, the remainder of the 38 aircraft will likely go into the active Air Force.