mattjmcd
05-12-10, 19:10
http://article.nationalreview.com/433585/short-on-tankers-short-on-time/thomas-c-pinckney
"Short on Tankers, Short on Time
Our military needs to improve its aerial-refueling capacity as soon as possible.
The military’s current aerial-refueling capacity is as much as 20 percent short of what it would need if faced with any of three potential scenarios, Air Force Brig. Gen. Michelle Johnson testified at a recent hearing on Capitol Hill.
She cited the U.S. Transportation Command’s latest mobility-requirements study. As reported in the Air Force Times, this study “looked at how forces could be moved around the globe during three taxing military scenarios. One scenario called on the U.S. to conduct two major land wars while also dealing with three domestic disasters. Another consisted of an air-and-sea campaign coinciding with an asymmetric threat, while the third involved a major ground war ‘against the backdrop of an ongoing irregular warfare campaign.’”
These scenarios sound far too close to reality for comfort. We are already involved in two ground wars nearly halfway around the world, both of which have asymmetric components, and either of which could get hot with the increased involvement of regular or irregular forces from neighboring countries. We are conducting special-forces operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. Then there is Iran, which is mocking world opinion and steadily heading toward development of nuclear weapons. Add a major terrorist attack, a natural disaster requiring a massive relief effort, or an ally in need, and there we are.
The U.S. military cannot project power or undertake global relief efforts without the use of aerial-refueling tankers. And our current fleet is nearly 50 years old. Planes that old require far more maintenance than newer planes, and a full 20 percent of the current fleet is in a maintenance hangar at any given time, unavailable for deployment.
Whether for transporting troops and equipment, launching air strikes, or gathering intelligence, air power is more vital than ever. And in humanitarian efforts such as the one in Haiti, we’ve seen how important airlift is to reach vulnerable populations in the first several hours of a crisis.
Military-readiness advocates began urging the government to procure a new fleet of tankers ten years ago. New tankers were badly needed then, and they are desperately needed now. But the Pentagon’s near-obsession with staging a competitive bid for the contract to build the tankers has been holding the process up.
Initially, the plan was for the European consortium EADS to face off against Boeing — EADS proposed building Airbus’s A-330 platform, and Boeing proposed the B-767. However, after both sides had submitted bids, EADS’s lead partner thought that the A-330 would lose, and withdrew. EADS decided to offer the A-330 anyway, but not before demanding a new bidding process with a July deadline, a two-month delay. Since the bids were to be reviewed by fall, that delay will almost certainly push the process past the next election, when a new set of faces on key committees might alter the European manufacturer’s odds for the better.
Our elected and appointed officials simply must give a new fleet of tankers the priority it deserves. With a 20 percent shortfall in tanker capacity, such delays are unacceptable. We need a new, dependable fleet of tankers, and we need it yesterday. The Pentagon should not allow its bureaucracy to be manipulated this way.
— Brig. Gen. Thomas C. Pinckney (Ret.), a decorated fighter pilot, served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly 30 years."
"Short on Tankers, Short on Time
Our military needs to improve its aerial-refueling capacity as soon as possible.
The military’s current aerial-refueling capacity is as much as 20 percent short of what it would need if faced with any of three potential scenarios, Air Force Brig. Gen. Michelle Johnson testified at a recent hearing on Capitol Hill.
She cited the U.S. Transportation Command’s latest mobility-requirements study. As reported in the Air Force Times, this study “looked at how forces could be moved around the globe during three taxing military scenarios. One scenario called on the U.S. to conduct two major land wars while also dealing with three domestic disasters. Another consisted of an air-and-sea campaign coinciding with an asymmetric threat, while the third involved a major ground war ‘against the backdrop of an ongoing irregular warfare campaign.’”
These scenarios sound far too close to reality for comfort. We are already involved in two ground wars nearly halfway around the world, both of which have asymmetric components, and either of which could get hot with the increased involvement of regular or irregular forces from neighboring countries. We are conducting special-forces operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. Then there is Iran, which is mocking world opinion and steadily heading toward development of nuclear weapons. Add a major terrorist attack, a natural disaster requiring a massive relief effort, or an ally in need, and there we are.
The U.S. military cannot project power or undertake global relief efforts without the use of aerial-refueling tankers. And our current fleet is nearly 50 years old. Planes that old require far more maintenance than newer planes, and a full 20 percent of the current fleet is in a maintenance hangar at any given time, unavailable for deployment.
Whether for transporting troops and equipment, launching air strikes, or gathering intelligence, air power is more vital than ever. And in humanitarian efforts such as the one in Haiti, we’ve seen how important airlift is to reach vulnerable populations in the first several hours of a crisis.
Military-readiness advocates began urging the government to procure a new fleet of tankers ten years ago. New tankers were badly needed then, and they are desperately needed now. But the Pentagon’s near-obsession with staging a competitive bid for the contract to build the tankers has been holding the process up.
Initially, the plan was for the European consortium EADS to face off against Boeing — EADS proposed building Airbus’s A-330 platform, and Boeing proposed the B-767. However, after both sides had submitted bids, EADS’s lead partner thought that the A-330 would lose, and withdrew. EADS decided to offer the A-330 anyway, but not before demanding a new bidding process with a July deadline, a two-month delay. Since the bids were to be reviewed by fall, that delay will almost certainly push the process past the next election, when a new set of faces on key committees might alter the European manufacturer’s odds for the better.
Our elected and appointed officials simply must give a new fleet of tankers the priority it deserves. With a 20 percent shortfall in tanker capacity, such delays are unacceptable. We need a new, dependable fleet of tankers, and we need it yesterday. The Pentagon should not allow its bureaucracy to be manipulated this way.
— Brig. Gen. Thomas C. Pinckney (Ret.), a decorated fighter pilot, served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly 30 years."