Aerial Refueling - Key to American Airpower (Part One)

 

USAF KC-46A Pegasus refueling an A-10 Warthog *

Last week, the United States asked the Israeli government to increase the number of U.S. Air Force aerial refueling aircraft temporarily based at Ben Gurion International Airport. At the time of the request, there were about 60 tankers at Ben Gurion. The presence of this number of USAF aircraft has reduced the capacity of the airport by about 70 percent. 

Increasing the number of tankers to almost 100 aircraft would severly limit civilian air traffic into and out of Israel's primary and largest airport. Israel has agreed to the increased number of tankers, but they will be based at Israeli air bases instead.

Why does the USAF need so many tankers? Aerial refueling is a major mission for the USAF, and an important mission for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. The U.S. Army has only a few refuelable helicopters, mostly belonging the the 160th Special Operations Air Regiment - these are almost always refueled by the USAF Special Operations Command's MC-130 aircraft.

Why is aerial refueling important? I am going to use some graphics from one of my cruise ship presentations about the 2025 and 2026 Israeli and U.S. air operations against Iran. 

Given the distances between air bases and targets, aerial refueling plays a major role. For example, the distance between air bases in Israel and targets in Iran can be 1000 miles or more. 

Most Israeli aircraft cannot fly that distance unrefueled. Unfortunately, Israel has only six aging B707 refueling aircraft. They have ordered the KC-46A Pegasus, but they have not been delivered. 

Israeli Air Force refueling F-15I Ra'am aircraft

Because of that shortage, the USAF provided KC-46A tanker support to Israeli aircraft on their way to and from Iran during Operation Rising Lion.

USAF KC-46A refueling Israeli Air Force F-35

Given the lack of an adequate number of tanker aircraft, there are other solutions to extend the range of fighter aircraft. The Israelis make extensive use of conformal fuel tanks (CFT) and external drop tanks. CFT are attached to the aircraft and are aerodynamically designed to cause less drag than coventional drop tanks, which are carried under the fuselage and/or wings. 

Here are an F-15I and F-16I with CFT. Please note that these aircraft are also carrying drop tanks.

This picture below highlights the problem of not having sufficient aerial refueling capability.

F-16I Sufa ready to go to Iranian targets

Again, this F-16I is outfitted with CFT as well as three external drop tanks. It is only carrying two air-to-ground munitions, in this case SPICE 1000-pound precision-guided munitions, plus wingtip-mounted Python 5 air-to-air missiles in the off-chance that the virtually destroyed Iranian air force attempted to engage.

That's a long way to go to drop just two weapons. Most of the aircraft capability is tied up in carrying enough fuel to make the round-trip sortie.

This illustrates the fuel-munitions tradeoff. For those not familiar with air operations, a quick review. The limiting factor for air operations planners is the gross takeoff weight of an aircraft. Start with an aircraft with no fuel or munitions. For example, an empty F-15I weighs about 32,700 pounds, with a gross takeoff weight about 81,000 pounds. That leaves almost 50,000 pounds of payload. 

This is where the USAF excels in the use of aerial refueling. When possible, aircraft are loaded with a maximum munitions load and a minumum fuel load. Immediately after takeoff, the aircraft meets a tanker prepositioned near the base, where it takes on as full a fuel load as possible. Now, it is a fully armed and fully fueled aircraft.  

That's why we put so many of our resources into aerial refueling. It is a force multiplier. Fun fact: 75 percent of world's aerial refueling aircraft belong to the U.S. Air Force.

We do this better than anyone in the world.

Note: Part Two will discuss types of refueling and issues for some of our allies.
_____

* Yes, I know the official name of the A-10 is the Thunderbolt II. In over 27 years of service in the USAF, I can probably count on one hand the number of times anyone in the field called it anything but the Warthog, usually with admiration and respect. It is a fearsome weapon system.

The Strait of Hormuz: Iran's View of the MOU

 

Let's talk about the "Strait of Hormuz."

In an interview aired yesterday on Al Jazeera TV, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf spoke of his interpretation of Iran's future role as it concerns the Strait of Hormuz.

The takeaways:

 

• We will not permit the United States to interfere in the Strait of Hormuz.

• We have agreed with the Sultanate of Oman on the navigation mechanism in [the Strait of] Hormuz based on the fifth article of the memorandum of understanding.

• We are proceeding with the implementation of the [Strait of] Hormuz navigation mechanism and will consult with the countries bordering [our] territorial waters.

It is clear from Ghalibaf's statements that he views the Strait of Hormuz as the territorial waters of Iran, and if pressed, jointly owned by Iran and the Sultanate of Oman. In his view, it is anything but how the world sees the Strait - an international waterway with free access to all. He is on record claiming that control of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is Iran's right, and that Iran will not relinquish control under any circumstances.

Ghalibaf is not alone in this belief. Iran's deputy foreign minister unilaterally informed Omani officials that Iran alone will determine the transit routes in the Strait, and prohibit the use of other routes. Again, this is the Iranians ignoring the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is a declared international waterway according to the 1994 United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Strait is neither Iranian nor Omani territorial waters.

It gets even better. On May 18, Iran announced the creation of the Strait of Hormuz Administration. Iran unilaterally declared that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) will exercise control over the area shown in yellow on the map.

 

The lines run from the western edge of Qeshm island in Iran to Umm al-Quwayn in the UAE, and from Jabal Mubarak, Iran to Fujayrah, UAE. The area includes not only the international waterway, but also Omani territorial waters.

This attempt flies in the face of a variety of international agreements that prohibit either Iran or Oman from restricting passage through the strait or charging a toll.

Why are the Iranians taking these what I would call unwarranted actions? 

The answer is the imprecise wording of the last sentence in the fifth article of the memorandum of understanding between the Iran and the United States. It reads:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz."

Ghalibaf's comments suggest that Tehran interprets this sentence to mean that Iran and Oman will jointly administer and manage the Strait, rather than merely establish navigational procedures to ensure the safe passage of commercial shipping. The map and declaration that the IRGC will exercise control over a huge swath of the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman - including the entire Strait of Hormuz - far exceeds the provisions of this statement.

In the end, the Iranians and Omanis will have to allow free passage - the legal term is "right of transit" - through the Strait with no tolls or fees. If Iran attempts to enforce a contrary interpretation, it would almost certainly invite a direct challenge from the United States and possibly other maritime powers.

"Is My Daughter an American Citizen?"

 

American and Saudi Passports

Let's talk about "birthright citizenship.”

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming absolute birthright citizenship has generated considerable discussion on both sides of the issue. I have my own views, but it is not germane to this discussion of birthright citizenship.

It is January 17, 1991. Operation Desert Shield – the defense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – has transformed into Operation Desert Storm, the campaign to liberate the State of Kuwait. Throughout the night, hundreds of coalition aircraft pound targets in Baghdad and other key locations in Iraq.  

Before dawn the next morning, the Iraqis responded with al-Husayn ballistic missile attacks on Riyadh, Dhahran, and Israel. The war was on.

The atmosphere in Saudi Arabia had changed dramatically over the previous five months.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Four days later, President George H.W. Bush ordered American forces to Saudi Arabia. The lead elements—the "division-ready" brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division and the U.S. Air Force's 1st Tactical Fighter Wing—arrived on August 7.

In those months leading up to the war, we American troops spent a lot of time working alongside Saudi officers. When not interpreting for General Schwarzkopf, I worked in the in the Coalition Coordination, Communications, and Integration Center (C3IC). I had become close to several of the Saudi officers—they were intrigued with any American or Westerner who had learned their language.

Watching the change in their demeanor from our arrival in August to the attack on Iraq was fascinating. Many of the officers I came to know had grown up in relative privilege and had never imagined that their country might face a direct military threat. As tensions mounted and the coalition buildup accelerated, some quietly began looking for a safety net—a way out should the worst happen.

One afternoon, a Royal Saudi Air Defense Force brigadier with whom I had become friends, approached me and asked if we could speak in private.

Once alone in his office, he asked whether it was true that people born in the United States were automatically American citizens. I told him that I believed that to be true in most cases.

He explained that years earlier as a young officer, he had attended the U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery School at Fort Bliss, Texas. While there, his wife had given birth to their daughter at the post’s hospital. He wanted to know if his daughter was, in fact, a U.S. citizen.

Not being an immigration lawyer, I contacted a friend in the Consular Section of U.S. Embassy in Riyadh explained the situation. Her first question surprised me – did he have diplomatic status?

I hadn't even considered that. I asked the brigadier whether he had been assigned to the Saudi Embassy or had any form of diplomatic accreditation while he was in the United States. He had not. He had simply been a military student attending training at an Army post in Texas.

My friend at the Embassy clarified for me. If he had enjoyed diplomatic immunity, neither he nor his wife would have been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a key requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a foreign military officer attending school in the United States, he and his wife were fully subject to American civil and criminal law. Their daughter therefore acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.

Although she had been eligible since birth, her parents had never applied for documentation, not thinking that it would ever be needed.

Within a month, I had arranged for her U.S. passport, and presented it to her father along with an American flag. His smile said everything - he invited me to his office for “tea.” If you've ever served in Saudi Arabia, you know exactly what that means. 

_____

Note: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under his interpretation, the daughter may not have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth since her father was posted in the United States on a temporary basis. I get it, but it felt good to be able to do this for the brigadier and his daughter.