WT Forums

<i>Here is a business opportunity opening up. Full service gas stations in the sky, "Airgas R Us". The net effect of this from the hardware procurement aspect would be to shift the cost of the tankers to the private sector. It would be a very risky investment because the government can not be counted on to renew the refuelling contracts, leaving the tanker company with a useless asset. Anyone else see problems with this? Maybe we could propose outsourcing Close Air Support and see if they would award a lucrative study conract.</i>

<b>USAF Refueling Options Study To Be Expanded </b>(Posted: Tuesday, June 08, 2004)
[Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, June 8, 2004]

The U.S. Air Force will expand a review of its aerial refueling modernization options to include the possibility of hiring private firms to perform refueling, according to the Defense Department.

DOD revealed plans to widen the scope of the study, or analysis of alternatives (AOA), in response to a draft report by the General Accounting Office, which recommended that the AOA consider whether contractor-provided refueling could meet some of the Air Force's needs. The GAO's final report came out June 4.

The GAO was responding to a Feb. 24 memorandum by acting Pentagon acquisition chief Michael Wynne that outlined a host of possibilities the AOA would examine, but did not mention contractor-provided refueling. Wynne's memo said the AOA would assess such options as re-engining some of the Air Force's existing refueling aircraft, buying new tankers and converting used aircraft to tankers (DAILY, Feb. 27).

The GAO report said contractors could ease the strain on Air Force-owned tankers by performing non-combat missions, such as providing fuel to aircraft that are involved in training or being moved to a theater of operations. The report said the Navy has been pleased with a pilot program that uses a contractor's Boeing 707 tanker for training.

The AOA "would be more effective and useful it if included all potential options, especially the possibility of meeting at least a portion of tanker needs through the use of contractor-provided refueling," the GAO wrote.

_________________
????

dont see why not, we already do it (in airlift) with the CRAF. God only knows what the insurance rate would be ROFL

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Yeah, right. For training, i.e., definitely scheduled things, maybe. But let the first mission critical (crisis), out of sequence issue arise..."You want how many...WHERE? NOW? <L Corporate AO> Let's see, that'll be an additional $2million per sortie after the contract is renegotiated".<img src=newicons/anim_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

"Live every day like it's the last, 'cause one day you're gonna be right!" Ray Charles

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

I think the CRAF structure would work as well for this. In war time the "civil tanker" would pass gas from the CONUS to wherever and the mil would pick them up from there. It's do-able, makes good sense, and therefore will not be persued.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.