Source: The Hill
Amid fears that the Joint Cargo Aircraft program is under threat, supporters are intensifying lobbying efforts to shore up support for it and change Senate bill language that would transfer Army responsibility for the program entirely to the Air Force.
The spike in lobbying activity also comes as the head of the National Guard Bureau and adjutants general around the country are sounding alarm that a significant delay — or a cancellation — of the program could wreak havoc on the Guard’s ability to respond to domestic emergencies.
Under the most recent round of Base Realignment and Closure, the Air National Guard is expected to lose significant airlift capability, and Guard leaders are planning to fill those gaps, in at least eight states, with the new Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA).
“If the JCA is delayed or is not fielded as planned that would be a loss of capability for our nation,” Lt. Gen. Steven Blum told The Hill in a wide-ranging interview. “That to me would be probably harshly judged in the future if we were to lose that capability. People will be wondering what we were thinking when we lost that capability, why we allowed that to occur.”
Questioning whether the Army and Air Force should share the JCA program, Senate defense authorizers are directing the Pentagon to assign responsibility to the Air Force for all fixed-wing airlift functions and missions.
The language included in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the 2008 defense authorization bill highlights the debate over the two services’ roles and missions that has been building in Congress and at the Pentagon since acquisition czar Kenneth Krieg directed the two services to enter a joint program for a smaller cargo airplane.
Senate authorizers are directing the secretary of defense, acting through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to make the Air Force responsible for fixed-wing support for the Army’s logistics on the battlefield.
The language accompanies a shift of $157 million from the Army’s budget request for the JCA to the Air Force’s budget line in the Senate’s version of the 2008 defense authorization bill. Because the Air Force is not planning to buy the aircraft until 2010, its request for 2008 comes only in the science and technology budget line, while the Army — which has an immediate need for the aircraft — has requested money for the procurement of the aircraft.
In June, a team made up of L-3, Alenia North America and Boeing won the contract for the multibillion-dollar JCA with Alenia’s C-27J Spartan aircraft. The losing Raytheon-EADS North America team, which offered the C-295, filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office. The GAO response is due Oct. 1, coinciding with the start of the new fiscal year.
While the Army and the Air Force share the program office, the Army for the coming year has the lead in the program, also known as the “program executive.”
Blum said he feels comfortable with both the Army and Air Force National Guard flying the JCA.
“The roles and missions discussion is a legitimate discussion,” Blum said. Congress and the Pentagon “would have to look across all the services and find out why the Marine Corps needs fixed-wing aircraft — another land component — and why the Navy needs fixed-wing aircraft — a surface maritime component.”
Should the Air Force need to fly all airlift missions on the battlefield and elsewhere, it needs to be properly resourced to do so, Blum added.
The JCA program, which was intended to replace the beaten-up C-23 Sherpa and C-12 Huron aircraft, has had a rocky start, with a fair amount of behind-the-scenes controversy and questions as to whether the Air Force is committed to the program.
The Army fears that the language in the Senate’s version of the bill would take away its control of the JCA and prevent it from moving forward.
Now supporters of the program are launching efforts to craft language that would strip the authorizers’ language when the defense bill will be back on the Senate floor next week. It is as yet unclear which members are going to take the lead in a potentially uphill battle and whether it will be an amendment offered on the floor or part of a manager’s package.
Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.), the co-chairmen of the Senate National Guard Caucus, last week sent a letter to their colleagues inviting them to attend a comprehensive Friday briefing on the JCA.
The briefing was given by the Army’s director of aviation, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt; Brig. Gen. Alberto Jimenez of the Army National Guard; and the deputy director of the Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. Stanley Clark. The briefing followed several others by the same officers that took place during the summer recess.
Several sources familiar with the briefings and the issue said the active Air Force did not send any representatives and is keeping fairly quiet. Even though the Air Force would not say so openly, the service would prefer to buy more C-130Js rather than the JCA, according to several sources in industry and on the Hill.
Lockheed Martin, which produces the C-130J, has an offer in the works that would significantly reduce the price of the C-130J under a new potential multi-year buy. That move could make the JCA unattractive to the Air Force, according to a congressional source.
“The company has not formally submitted any restructured aircraft pricing on the C-130J to the Air Force but looks forward to any opportunity to do so,” said Peter Simmons, a Lockheed Martin spokesman.
Compounding the Army’s problem with the JCA is language in the House-passed 2008 defense authorization bill stipulating that funding for the program depends on the Pentagon submitting several pending reports. At least one of those reports is not due until December.
Senate appropriators are marking up the 2008 defense-spending bill Tuesday, where the fate of the JCA funding will be further determined. Meanwhile the House, while it trimmed the request, left the money in the Army’s budget.
Comments