Another retired tanker commander speaks

First, a link to the AMC’s latest tanker White Paper.

http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/TheImperativeforNewTankerNow.pdf

Note there is ZERO mention of any need/desire for a tanker with greater fuel offload at range than the KC-135…

*

Everyone remember General John W. Handy, USAF (Ret.) [highly decorated four-star general retired from the Air Force October 1, 2005, where he served the last four years of his 39 years of service as Commander, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and Commander, Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.] who spoke out last year…

For those who don’t.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27374

*

Well last month ANOTHER retired Air Force tanker Commander spoke out. Posting a responce on Boeing’s unitedstatestanker.com blog & was reported in a number of online news sites a couple weeks ago.

The Right Tool For Combat

When you get past the politics, the taxpayer wants their money to go towards a combat system that is reliable and right for the task at hand. No one has done it better over the years than Boeing. As a former tanker planner and chief of tanker operations with several years of boots-on-the-ramp experience, combat, peacetime and special operations global employment, I can tell you unequivocally which of the competing platforms will deliver and the one I want to take to combat.

I assure you, the only proven manufacturer that comes close to meeting all the needs with an off-the-shelf aircraft, is Boeing. Whether it be footprint, ramp load-bearing compatibility, MOG, booms in the air, or cargo, Boeing produces the only viable system. Though I would rather see the engineers design a new platform to replace the 135, this is cost prohibitive, and the 767 comes as close as we can get to a real multi-role tanker replacement for the KC-135. One competitor will say they can put more fuel in the air, but I will argue, operating off a given ramp, I can beddown nearly twice as many of the Boeing aircraft. On a one-to-one basis, the competition may look OK, but when it comes to combat ops, it’s never one-to-one. I would challenge any seasoned commander, or air refueling planner, he/she would rather take 10 tankers to combat, vice 5. Numbers give flexibility, cover more airspace, service multiple A/R tracks, creating less of a bottle neck, and inherently take more fuel to the air in a multi-capable platform.

In a multi-purpose platform, true cargo capability is vital. “True” is the operative word here. Hauling 32 763L transload pallets is impressive, but is that more volume and less weight? Boeing has a true cargo floor that can withstand heavy weights, maximizing the 19 763L pallets, which is still one more pallet than our premiere airlifter, the C-17. When Air refueling is the primary mission, why do we need 32 pallets? But then I digress but you get my point. Cargo is important, Air EVAC is critical, and it’s imperative to have this secondary capability.

Several arguments can and will be made, but this seasoned combat veteran knows what weapon he wants to take to combat, and Boeing happens to make it! I trust that now that the Air Force has the stick on the decision, skilled and experienced, combat tested veterans in air refueling, will quickly come to the same boots-on-the-ramp perspective and conclusion, and choose the right tool for current and future combat operations. The Boeing 7A7 family!

by Stu on 10/19/2009 at 7:02 PM

Stu Pugh, a retired Air Force officer with 26 years of active duty service. Stu’s tanker experience includes a stint as the chief of Tanker Operations at the Tanker Airlift Control Center (TACC).