AHC: Alter the Aviation Agreements between the US Air Force and Army

Driftless

Donor
The 1948 Key West Agreement and the 1966 Johnson-McConnell Agreement, essentially laid out aviation technology and mission separation between the US Army and the US Air Force. That technology separation had an indirect, but significant impact on doctrine as well.

Boiled down to its barest elements: Key West gave the Air Force all strategic assets and missions, along with most tactical and transport functions. The Army would retain reconnaissance and evac craft and missions. The Johnson-McConnell Agreement later refined that separation by giving the Air Force all fixed wing aircraft going forward, while the Army obtained the ability to develop and use rotary-winged aircraft as they saw fit.

Neither service were completely happy with the outcome, but the division of roles became more clear cut and shifted the inter-service squabbles to other fronts.



The challenge here is to alter those aviation separations

· Alter the dates of either or both agreements; with a suitable POD date.
and/or​
· Alter the gist of the agreements: for example, allow the Army to procure and deploy their own transport, or observation, or even CAS aircraft.

What changes in technology were likely to arise, and what doctrinal changes would come from altering the Agreement(s)?

(This thread idea comes out of the current Burton K Wheeler: USMC adopts OV-1 Mohawk thread. I’d bet there are several past discussions along these lines.)
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
In the year 2000 Le Fana de l'aviation magazine had a serie of articles about the AH-56 Cheyenne saga. It was a very interesting read. They discussed the 1948 and 1966 agreements and their consequences.
One of the most startling consequence was (indeed) the ground pounders. At the time I counted the number of false starts and prototypes.
There were
- AH-56 Cheyenne
- AH-1 Cobra (as stopgap)
- Fairchild YA-10 (winner, Air Force)
- Northrop YA-9 (loser, Air Force)
- Sikorsky S-67 Black Hawk
- Bell 309 Kingcobra
- AH-63 (loser)
- AH-64 Apache (winner)

So there was the Cheyenne, then, a stopgap (the AH-1 Cobra) then, a couple of aircrafts for the Air Force (YA-9 and YA-10) then, a pair of private entries (S-67 and Bell 309) the Army did not liked, so they started a new competition to replace the AH-56 with two prototypes, AH-63 (lost) and AH-64 (won). Finally, an Apache cost twice as much as a Cheyenne.

What is really mind-boggling is that the Air Force got the A-10 program running just to piss-off the Army and prove that aircrafts could bust tanks just like helicopters...

They bought no less than 700 A-10.

...and then the Air Force spend its time hating the A-10 and trying to get ride of the fleet.

In the 80's the Air Force tried to get ride of the A-10 saying it wasn't all weather.

So Republic build a two-seat, all weather A-10.

Then the Air Force said "it doesn't matter if two seat or all weather, the A-10 is too slow, we want supersonic"

So Vought brought back the A-7 with the (formidable) A-7F.

But the Air Force refused, and said the A-7 was being replaced by the F-16s in the ANG.

so they hatched a plan to put a miniature GAU-8 (25 mm) into a pod, and bolted the pod under a F-16 they rebranded the A-16.
This was tested in GW1 and was a miserable failure: the gun recoil made the pod vibrate, missing the target.

By this point, it was decided that the A-10 would be replaced by... the F-35.

The entire story is completely and insanely STUPID.
AH-1, AH-56, S-67, Bell 309, AH-63, AH-64, YA-9, A-10, A-10B, A-7F, A-16, F-35. Pick your choice among these 12.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
The DHC-4 Caribou's went from the US Army to the Air Force as part of the 1966 Johnson-McConnell agreement. The Army loved them, the Air Force less so... The Army very much appreciated their STOL performance and ruggedness (among other virtues) in Viet Nam and wanted them kept in service. The Air Force preferred the C-123's and C-130's for their larger payloads and range. Other countries flew the Caribou's into this century; so the plane had utility.

Is that a plane that might have had a much longer US military service life with a different J-M agreement? The hook would be defining where one service's role stops and the other starts. J-M made the division of technology easier to understand: Air Force = all fixed wing; both services had helos, with some overlap of missions.

With the Air Force often less than enthusiastic embrace of the CAS mission; The Army has tried and partially succeeded in slotting attack helicopters into that role.
 
Last edited:
In addition to the loss to the Army of the Caribou, the DHC-5 Buffalo became dead in the water. The C-27 began life as the FCA, Future Cargo Aircraft for the Army. There was another Air Force program, Light Cargo Aircraft, LCA. The Gummint got together and smoked some weed and decided to merge the two programs into the Joint Cargo Aircraft. New-built C-27s are going straight to long-term storage in an Arizona bone yard, as a cost-cutting measure.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Worse part of these agreements is the Air Force never wanted to support the ground pounders.
That's true of every independent Air Force not just the USAF. OTH, AFs have an "if it flies, its ours". mentality.

With a POD of 1948, I can see the US Army staying in the long-range Missile business (as it should have). A 1966 POD, then in addition to Caribou, I see Harriers in the US Army inventory. It would be a perfect Corps level asset. Can provide close support and point defence and release the USAF guys for other duties. Its not like coordination would be impossible, we already see SAM units coordinating with the Air Force.
 
Its not like coordination would be impossible, we already see SAM units coordinating with the Air Force.

There's a reason the ADA, Air Defense Artillery had picked up the nickname of Another Damn Army. Coordination isn't so great with the rest of the Army, but was really tuned into the AF and Luftwaffe during the Cold War in Europe
 

Archibald

Banned
Still it is better than the soviet SAMs that were shooting their own interceptors (to the great despair of soviet pilots).
 

Driftless

Donor
Are there ongoing missions that would be better served with a different set of rules? Are there expected developments that would be better dealt with by an altered set of agreements?

Use of drones comes to mind.
 
Top