Americas Defense Meltdown - IT Acquisition Advisory Council

172 • Air Mobility Alternatives for a New Administration• Does the United States continue to grow AFSOC’s air fleet?• Does AFSOC continue to buy 50 CV-22s, reduce the number, or add more?• Do SOCOM and AFSOC continue the recapitalization of MC-130s with modifiedC-130Js or something new?• Can JCAs substitute for some of the planned C-130Js?• What are some new cost effective air innovations in SOCOM?• What should SOCOM do with some of its specialized air fleet?• Should AFSOC put more emphasis on Building Partnership Capacity (BPC)?(Historically, most of this has been done in AFSOC. If the magnitude of BPC increasessignificantly, it may require the BPC in other parts of the Air Force.)RecommendationsWe intend to provide viable and cost-effective solutions through our recommendations.While it is virtually impossible to get accurate cost and capability data for someof the proposed innovations because they are not available anywhere, the followingrecommendations are founded on an understanding of sound principles – the resultof decades of experience. We believe they are worthy of serious consideration.Spending for air refueling and airlift is at an historical high. 19 It is expected toclimb higher to pay for the new tanker (the first aircraft is the KC-X) 20 as it beginsproduction at a rate of approximately 15 tankers per year. The average spending onstrategic mobility has grown significantly even without accounting for the currentconflicts. 21 Since 2000, it has more than doubled. Spending on air refueling should nothave to be at the magnitudes proposed, even though recapitalization is a high priority,because this is an area where we have great advantage to leverage the private sectorfor cost-effective solutions. There are a number of innovative options that are moreplausible and attractive than other segments of the overall national defense portfolioproposed by others not contributing to this anthology.Historically, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has generally favored strategicairlift over strategic sealift – especially in the last 20 years. Similarly, the U.S. Air Forcehas favored strategic airlift over tactical airlift, aerial refueling and special operationsair. The strategic goal will be to continue relative dominance, but much more costeffectively while taking some allowable risk. The costs of the existing portfolios canbe reduced by at least 30 percent or more with little loss of capability. In the near- tomid-term, our recommendations favor an increased emphasis on aerial refueling,