An agreement inked last week by the Air Force and Army chiefs that called for the services to combine their divergent efforts to field a new fleet of intratheater lift aircraft also laid the groundwork for a new unmanned aerial vehicle partnership, Inside the Air Force has learned.

The Feb. 1 memorandum of understanding brings together the Air Force's Predator and the Army's Extended Range/Multi-Purpose (ER/MP) unmanned aircraft programs, stating the goal of the pact is to meet “full spectrum requirements of the joint commander.” ITAF this week obtained a copy of the five-point MOU, which bears the signatures of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker.

ITAF first reported last week that the two chiefs had signed the document after a reporter pressed Moseley during a conference in Lake Buena Vista, FL, on Air Force and Army efforts to adhere to an Office of the Secretary of Defense direction to merge their fledgling light cargo airlifter programs ( ITAF , Feb. 3, p1). In addition to the UAV programs, the MOU also sets forth an interservice pact on combining the Light Cargo Aircraft (Air Force) and Future Cargo Aircraft (Army) programs.

Titled “Way Ahead for Convergence of Complementary Capabilities,” the agreement's third bullet point states the two services have agreed to address “contingency operations” ranging from Employment strategies and training to personnel and facilities to better satisfy “warfighter needs across the full spectrum of operations.”

Further, the document indicates the two services will seek a “collaborative solution in terms of acquisition, logistics and employment.” The MOU adds officials from both services will “optimize funding and leverage current [and] future systems to rapidly field identified capabilities.”

The MOU could cover anything from new technologies to production line changes, Thomas Severyn, director of the Predator Systems Squadron at the Aeronautical Systems Center, told ITAF Feb. 8. The center, located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, manages the Air Force's Predator program.

Last August, the Army selected General Atomics Aeronautical Systems' longer-range unmanned aircraft as that service's new ER/MP UAV, a program valued at $1 billion. General Atomics' ER/MP demonstrator, dubbed the Warrior, is a follow-up to the company's Air Force's Predator.

The Feb. 1 agreement basically puts in writing that “the Air Force needs to look at what the Army is doing and vice-versa,” he said during a brief interview after prepared remarks at an industry conference in Washington. After taking a look at what the other service is working on, Air Force and Army officials will then determine “what is best of breed, where do the requirements overlap that we can do something common” to achieve greater savings, Severyn said.

“If you have a common complement, you could buy larger quantities and typically prices come down. The collaboration, I think, is an effort to couple the efforts to a certain extent,” Severyn said. He told ITAF he had reviewed a draft copy of the MOU.

“Now, if the [combatant] commands and the requirements generators for the Predator agree that the Army has a better set of requirements, we could go go that,” the Predator squadron director said.

The Army's Aviation Task Force director, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt, recently told reporters that the Office of the Secretary of Defense gave the Army and the Air Force 90 days to decide if the ER/MP aircraft program can work as a joint venture between the two services, sister publication Inside the Army reported last month.

“It you were to look at [the Air Force's Predator UAV and ER/MP], you would see the same thing, that's what has caused a lot of this friction,” Mundt told reporters during a Jan. 12 media roundtable at the Association of the Army's annual aviation conference. “Everybody says, ‘Well if the Army wants to buy Predators, go tell the Air Force to buy more Predators.' The ER/MP is not a Predator.”

The Army plans to conduct operational tests on the ER/MP toward the end of 2008 and support full-rate production around April 2009, according to the Defense Department's 2005 operational test and evaluation report, which was released late last month.

In response to a reporter's question about the ER/MP being cheaper than the Predator, Severyn said there is “a lot of misinformation around with that.” The Army plans to outfit only part of their envisioned fleet with satellite communication capability, which could lead to savings, he noted.

In addition, Severyn said the MOU likely will spawn efforts to examine how each service uses its UAV ground control stations. “There's no use to proliferate different ground control stations,” he added.

The last provision in the recently signed MOU calls for Air Force and Army officials to develop two “Joint Memorandums of Agreement,” one for ER/MP and Predator and another for the LCA/FCA platform, within 90 days of the Feb. 1 signing. Additionally, those joint agreements must be signed by the vice chiefs for each service and must articulate a way ahead for each military branch “in respect to developing these complementary capabilities,” the document states.

The coming airlifter agreement will mark the second step in bringing the two young programs under one roof.

Moseley told ITAF last week that Army and Air Force officials have yet to determine whether the joint program eventually will produce a single aircraft, or service-specific variants. “Well, we don't know that yet,” the air chief said. His comments came during a roundtable with reporters at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference in Lake Buena Vista, FL.

For months, the Army touted its FCA program as an organic asset that would replace it aging Sherpa fleet. The Air Force's LCA concept emerged as the Army inched closer to issuing a request for proposals. The LCA idea formed over the course of last fall and winter, with Moseley saying several times the LCA would be “more than a Sherpa replacement.”

The Army moved forward, prior to the late 2005 OSD order to combine their efforts, with its program much faster than the air service. Army officials were posed to release a request for proposals for the FCA effort once Pentagon acquisition czar Kenneth Krieg signed off on an acquisition strategy. Playing tortoise to the Army's hare, the Air Force was years away from formally asking industry to submit proposal to develop a new airlifter fleet that would haul cargo and personnel within an operational theater.

As the airlift debate raged, some in the defense community told ITAF it appeared a “turf war” over the two service's traditional “roles and missions” was under way within the Pentagon. The OSD directive extinguished that smoldering controversy.

Until the OSD merger direction, the Air Force was in the early stages of LCA development only late last year, gaining Air Force Requirements Oversight Council approval of a document that laid out the first formal need for a new intratheater lift aircraft ( ITAF , Jan. 20, p1). That AFROC approval also allowed the LCA program to enter the Pentagon's joint capabilities development process.

At Moseley's direction, the service was preparing to launch an analysis of alternatives focused on the new plane. The Army, meanwhile, has already completed such an assessment as part of the body of analytic work that supported its Sherpa-replacement initiative.

Meanwhile, the Air Force this week indicated it will ask lawmakers to earmark $15.8 million for the LCA program in fiscal year 2007, according to service budget documents. Though the service did not reveal how much it intends to spend on the LCA effort over the future years defense plan, an Air Force fact sheet on the FY-07 request states the service intends to purchase 24 aircraft over the FYDP, which spans FY-07 to FY-11.

The two services have various options as they form the new joint program. Under one, the Air Force could merely sign off and accept the findings of the Army AOA. Under another, the Air Force would move forward with its own AOA, which could produce a different set of conclusions.

Last week, Moseley indicated the Air Force has yet to decide which option under which it will move forward.