Dominant Logistics
Filling Gaps - The C-17 for Homeland Defense
To meet our future airlift requirements, it will be necessary to expand the currently proposed C-17 fleet to a total of about 200 aircraft. Unfortunately, at their current cost, it is impossible to justify this expense given today's defense budget crunch. While we need the airlift capacity, there are many other needs we must also address and this is forcing the C-17 onto the backnurner. But can we use C-17s to fill the other needs as well?
In recent years, it has become glaringly apparent that the United
States lacks sufficient means to combat large-scale forest fires. It seems as though
every year, we sit by and watch helplessly as another million plus acres goes up in
flames. Lives are lost, homes and businesses are destroyed, and the fires just seem
to keep getting worse.
But mixed in with the smoke of these tragedies is the smoke of September 11th and the
memories of those who died. Much effort has gone into preventing a further
occurrence of the events of that tragic day while ignoring the obvious - it is highly
unlikely that any group will ever attempt such an attack on America again. There
will be future attacks, but it is highly unlikely that similar methods will be used.
So what does fighting terrorism have to do with fighting fires? In the case of a
terrorist strike against a chemical plant or storage facility, these seemingly unrelated
tasks are actually very related. The most deadly of chemicals are gases that kill
its victims when inhaled. Of special concern to those protecting the United States
are events that occurred in Bhopal, India in the mid Eighties.
An explosion at a chemical plant in Bhopal released a toxic cloud that poisoned hundreds
of thousands of people. Concerns that this event could be reenacted in the United
States by terrorists led to the recent removal of disaster plans for chemical facilities
from the Internet. But what makes these toxic gases lethal is their ability to
remain airborne so that victims will inhale the gas.
The most effective technology to combat these effects to date has also been one of the
most primitive - rain. Rain defeats chemical gases through two means. First,
it dilutes the chemical agent itself reducing its potential lethality. Second, it
removes the chemical from the air through gravity. While this still poses some
potential issues on the ground, these are far and away easier to deal with than the threat
these chemicals pose in the air.
So what if we were to generate our own rain in response to a terrorist strike?
Anyone familiar with chemical attacks will know enough to initiate the strike when the
skies will be relatively clear but if we can produce our own rain, we can still wash away
the effects. And this is where fighting fires meets fighting terrorism. Today,
aircraft like the C-130 are used to drop large quantities of water and retardants on fires
to assist in putting them out. But these will not hold a sufficient quantity of
water to effectively take out a large chemical cloud. On the other hand, a larger
fire-fighting plane is available from Russia today that should fit the bill.
A modified version of the
Russian IL-76 is available with a capacity of 11,000 gallons of water. A
quantity of water this large should be capable of achieving the desired effect. Many
have suggested that this aircraft be used to supplement existing fire-fighting assets in
combating Western fires but the bureaucracy has stopped these proposals dead without even
so much as evaluating the potential. It would require virtually no effort whatsoever
to field a similar system for use in our own C-17 aircraft because all the system entails
is large, tube-shaped tanks that allow gravity to carry water out the end. A
palletized system could be placed in every C-17 available to have the capability on hand
at a moments notice.
Fielding a modest fleet of these aircraft would address a variety of needs within the
national defense paradigm. They could be used to effectively combat chemical
terrorism and fires but they could also serve in other, related roles. Currently,
the Air Force has a pressing need for modern fuel tankers and some of these aircraft could
easily be put into service to assist with this need in the Continental United States using
a palletized fuel system. They could also be used to transport large quantities of
potable water for relief missions to drought stricken areas using the standard
fire-fighting tanks.
Another critical problem we face in Homeland Defense is how to deal
with the potential effects of a terrorist nuclear strike on the United States.
Regardless of one's personal opinions of the likelihood of this event, the fact remains
that it is the responsibility of the armed forces to deal with these types of issues.
Perhaps the most dangerous effect of nuclear detonations is the resulting fires.
The inferno of a nuclear blast is hot enough to ignite materials that under normal
conditions would never burn. If no effective means exists to put these fires out,
they can easily spread out of control in an urban setting. Here again, the C-17
could be a major support asset in extinguishing the fires.
To sufficiently support our future airlift requirements will necessitate a significantly
larger fleet of C-17 aircraft but these are very expensive. We cannot justify their
purchase in large quantities if they are only to be used for airlift operations that may
never occur. With this system, the C-17 would become a major asset for OOTW as well
as Homeland Defense, in addition to filling a major role in combat operations. With
these expanded capabilities, the expense of expanding the fleet to the required 200
aircraft can be justified.
References:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm
http://www.g2mil.com/subatomicbombs.htm
http://www.oocities.org/dominantlogistics/bomberforce.html