U.S. strategists have refocused a majority of our nation’s
attention onto the happenings within the Pacific region. As a rising global economic
heartland, China and the surrounding countries receive a significant portion of
attention. By adding in potential national security threats, it leaves America
with only one logical response, ever rising interest.
 |
| C-2A Aircraft |
Given the nature of the area, the United States has seen fit
for the Navy and Marine Corps to take the brunt of traffic within the region.
Their use of floating sea bases highlights the need for mobility and
flexibility within the Pacific environment, but do these abilities come at a
cost? One can imagine that supplying not only an increasing number of people in
the Pacific, but individuals out at sea and potentially in changing locations.
The military logistics necessary for such an operation is extensive.
For the past fifty years, the United States Navy has been utilizing
the C-2A Greyhound. This propeller driven airframe is capable to land on and
take off from an aircraft carrier, and does so often to distribute supplies
executing their mission of carrier onboard delivery. From a single aircraft
carrier, the planes are able to hit smaller warships and shore bases to
transfer and deliver supplies.
Unfortunately, the fleet of C-2A’s are reaching their end of
their lifetime within the next decade. There is potential to renovate the
planes with new wings and engines to extend their lifetime to beyond 2040, but
the Navy has recently considered procuring the V-22 Osprey as a replacement
aircraft to accomplish the mission.
Benefits of switching to the Osprey are significant and
include the versatility to land on almost any ship in the Navy with their
vertical launch capability, increased range, and increased cargo space. The
versatility of the Osprey to accomplish other types of missions also increases
its attraction as the fiscal situation continues to worsen.
However, what would the effect be on the logistical
situation within the Pacific. Utilizing the GTSR concept, the changes will be
quite significant. The need to first procure and build an entire fleet of
Ospreys may be too large of an undertaking for the Navy now. Add in the need
for properly trained pilots and maintenance crews, which will require serious
time investments, and the likelihood drops even more. Different transportation
networks will need to be evaluated and developed not only for the actual
missions of the Osprey, but also for needs such as sending out spare parts in
order to fix the aircrafts. The needs for sustaining the Osprey will be
drastically different as a newer aircraft, as well as a more complex one. The
sustainment of the C-2A’s has been proven repeatedly to be possible given their
long term of service. Will the Osprey be able to perform as well?
Adding to the GTSR needs of the new aircraft is the concept
of a logistical snowball. Clear examinations will be necessary to determine
potential consequences of procuring the new aircraft. Buying the V-22’s will
bring more individuals as pilots and maintenance men, greater need for
training, a new repair parts distribution system, and other potential needs. This
may create an even greater logistical need than what is currently being faced.
Will the efficiency and versatility of the Osprey be enough
to attract the navy during times of fiscal scarcity?
I think that this is a perfect example of the common phrase, "you will never know until you try." The Osprey has been seen in the past as a failure for the mission set that it was assigned. Maybe, by changing its mission, we would see a much greater effect from this futuristic airframe. The only downside that I can see from trying this alternative would be the cost to which it takes to begin testing the V-22. Regardless, it will be interesting to see where this goes over the next few years.
ReplyDeleteHistorically, the US Army has evolved and adapted technologically quite well. If this wasn't the case we would still rely on horse drawn buggies and massive wooden ships to move goods. At some point the US Army is going to need to upgrade and use the latest and greatest equipment that is the fittest for the current operational environment. Although it may take some time to readjust the current logistical network, this is a necessary and not unprecedented change. The US Army should highly consider making the change as soon as possible. As mentioned, the only main concern I see here is money.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting read. I like the title a lot. I’m curious on if you agree with the end of the C-2A’s? You discuss the pros and cons of the Osprey, however, your cons seem to be much greater than the pros. What are your thoughts on the switch? Is it smart or practical in the draw down phase we find ourselves in?
ReplyDelete