4 ms·

How does this choice play into the longstanding fuzzy line between US Army and US Air Force responsibilities? This is neither fixed wing nor rotary wing; has th

How does this choice play into the longstanding fuzzy line between US Army and US Air Force responsibilities? This is neither fixed wing nor rotary wing; has the range for tactical airlift… Is Johnson-McConnell still considered binding? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of...

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
I ponder this too. Very interesting modern development. And am happy to see the hughly-dogmatic line somewhat slipping. The AH-56 Cheyenne stands out as what could have been an absurdly well equipped very fast helicopter. Speed, and a huge 360 degree underbelly turreted cannon would have been a ridiculous fire support craft. But it had a pusher prop on the back and the Air Force really really really didn't like that at the time (and was also probably hella jealous of the cannon too). I'm not sure what makes me as ok with I am at eroding the air force's role somewhat. Some is probably seeing these great craft (AH-56, V280) & feeling like: if the army is going to have anything in the air, it should be great. It sure feels like the v280 is heralding in a massive shift in policy/what is permitted.
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  It does help that tilt rotars are totally rotary craft... In any case, V-280 being primarily transport is for sure helpful. While the range might raise some eyebrows, it also means that V-280 can potentially more meaningfully self-deploy. That means less USAF strategic lift assets to spend on the army - USAF is pondering how it can keep forward bases supplied in the Indo-Pacific - strategic lift certainly has a role to play here. I think the reality is that USAF realizes that trying to stonewall the V-280 will NOT meaningfully give it more budget, and that the V-280's capabilities means USAF gets more effective budget.
  - jameshart 3y ago
    Might be less of a case of ‘can’ self deploy and more ‘has to’. Not entirely sure one of these will even fit in a C17. (In comparison, you can fit three Blackhawks in a Globemaster)
warner25 3y ago
There's some interesting recent history involving the C-27 Spartan. The Army saw a capability gap between its CH-47 and the Air Force C-130 for intra-theater, tactical lift in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it pursued the acquisition of this small fixed-wing cargo aircraft. There was another agreement for the Army to give that up in favor of the Air Force continuing the program, but the DoD / Air Force quickly reneged and canceled the program. The Army ended up relying on a lot of contract airlift support instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_C-27J_Spartan#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_C-27J_Spartan#United_St... Looking at the Indo-Pacific theater, I think it's clear to everybody that there's a serious shortage of capable airlift and sealift assets across the board.
openasocket 3y ago
The line is fuzzy and getting fuzzier with every passing day. I wouldn't even consider the introduction of the tiltrotor to be the best example of that. The US Army straight up operates the MQ-1C, which is a derivative of the predator drone. That's an armed fixed wing aircraft! I haven't been able to find any statement from the Army explaining how that isn't a complete breach of Johnson-McConnell. The only thing I can think of is that it's unmanned? Actually it doesn't just call Johnson-McConnell into question, it would seem to defy the Key West agreement as well

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

I ponder this too. Very interesting modern development. And am happy to see the hughly-dogmatic line somewhat slipping. The AH-56 Cheyenne stands out as what could have been an absurdly well equipped very fast helicopter. Speed, and a huge 360 degree underbelly turreted cannon would have been a ridiculous fire support craft. But it had a pusher prop on the back and the Air Force really really really didn't like that at the time (and was also probably hella jealous of the cannon too). I'm not sure what makes me as ok with I am at eroding the air force's role somewhat. Some is probably seeing these great craft (AH-56, V280) & feeling like: if the army is going to have anything in the air, it should be great. It sure feels like the v280 is heralding in a massive shift in policy/what is permitted.

icegreentea2 3y ago
It does help that tilt rotars are totally rotary craft... In any case, V-280 being primarily transport is for sure helpful. While the range might raise some eyebrows, it also means that V-280 can potentially more meaningfully self-deploy. That means less USAF strategic lift assets to spend on the army - USAF is pondering how it can keep forward bases supplied in the Indo-Pacific - strategic lift certainly has a role to play here. I think the reality is that USAF realizes that trying to stonewall the V-280 will NOT meaningfully give it more budget, and that the V-280's capabilities means USAF gets more effective budget.
- jameshart 3y ago
  Might be less of a case of ‘can’ self deploy and more ‘has to’. Not entirely sure one of these will even fit in a C17. (In comparison, you can fit three Blackhawks in a Globemaster)

warner25 3y ago

There's some interesting recent history involving the C-27 Spartan. The Army saw a capability gap between its CH-47 and the Air Force C-130 for intra-theater, tactical lift in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it pursued the acquisition of this small fixed-wing cargo aircraft. There was another agreement for the Army to give that up in favor of the Air Force continuing the program, but the DoD / Air Force quickly reneged and canceled the program. The Army ended up relying on a lot of contract airlift support instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_C-27J_Spartan#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_C-27J_Spartan#United_St... Looking at the Indo-Pacific theater, I think it's clear to everybody that there's a serious shortage of capable airlift and sealift assets across the board.

openasocket 3y ago

The line is fuzzy and getting fuzzier with every passing day. I wouldn't even consider the introduction of the tiltrotor to be the best example of that. The US Army straight up operates the MQ-1C, which is a derivative of the predator drone. That's an armed fixed wing aircraft! I haven't been able to find any statement from the Army explaining how that isn't a complete breach of Johnson-McConnell. The only thing I can think of is that it's unmanned? Actually it doesn't just call Johnson-McConnell into question, it would seem to defy the Key West agreement as well