| 1. What have I learned from first-hand experience is: we have got enough wide body/heavy lift aircraft and don't need more! The Army/Marines need on an every day basis is trooplifters. The Marines in WestPac needed to move a battalion around and couldn't because AMC
a) didn't have the birds,
b) birds weren't in-theater (and you know who pays for repositioning them),
c) bird daily costs were way too high, and
d) the civilian charters could only accommodate about 2 dozen Marines at a time without weapons or gear!
2. The Army has the same problems elswhere, i.e moving battalion sized units around inside theathers. And that is why there is now Joint HSV acquisition project to buy 50 to 90 of them. A lot more capability for a lot less money.
3. Super big airlifters make NO sense when you are talking about inter- vice intra theater moves. Rumy's plan to bring the troops home will just make the airlift problem worse, and we will spend more money on fuel and we will need more airstrips abroad to land at, more $$$$ wasted.
4. Now think back, how many times in recent memory have airlifters been used to land tactical equipment in a combat zone? You can count them on one hand! This whole "my airplane can lift a tank" is a load of crap! It is an unnecessary capability! What the troops need is more C-130s. What their commanders want is a company of tanks or ASVs all at once driving up the road. In case you haven't noticed, the Army is having an incredibly hard time buying armored vehicles that are within airlifter payload limits. I say scrap the whole idea!
5. Fact: 95% of ALL materials have gotten to all conflicts since WWII by Sealift, not airlift. Tactical airlift is definitely needed, stategic airlift plays a limited role. |
