Skip Navigation

The Administration is proceeding with plans to expand and update the Air Force's fleet of tanker aircraft. By providing airborne refueling, tankers serve both to extend the flying ranges of bombers for strategic nuclear missions and also to assist other military aircraft in conventional non-nuclear contingencies. Thus, the extent of future need for tanker resources will depend not only on the number and type of bombers fielded over the next decade, but also on the demand for support of conventional non-nuclear missions. Requested by the Senate Committee on Armed Services, this study examines likely tanker needs over the next dozen years, especially in light of bomber force modernization plans; it also examines alternative approaches to meeting that demand. In accordance with CBO's mandate to provide objective and nonpartisan analysis, this paper offers no recommendations.

The study was prepared by John J. Hamre and David S. Neill, with special assistance from Bonita Dombey, under the supervision of Robert F. Hale of CBO's National Security and International Affairs Division. The computer methodology was developed by David Neill in cooperation with Dr. Bart McGuire and the University of California's Graduate School of Public Policy at Berkeley. Helpful criticism was given by Alfred B. Fitt, Ronald P. Kelly, Bart McGuire, Rich Davison, and Bill Myers of CBO's Budget Analysis Division; Bill Myers also assisted with the cost estimates. (The assistance of external reviewers implies no responsibility for the final product, which rests solely with CBO.) The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Johanna Zacharias, who edited the paper, and Janet Stafford, who prepared the manuscript for publication.
 

Alice M. Rivlin
Director
March 1982
 
 

SUMMARY

CHAPTER I. A PERSPECTIVE ON THE TANKER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

• Expanded Requirements and the Need for Tanker Modernization
• Contending Approaches to Expand Tanker Resources
• Key Choices Before the Congress
• Glossary

CHAPTER II. TANKER DEMAND FOR FUTURE STRATEGIC NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL NON-NUCLEAR MISSIONS

• Strategic Tanker Missions
• Conventional Tanker Air Missions-Supporting the Rapid Deployment Force
• Tanker Shortage an Issue of Timing

CHAPTER III. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO MODERNIZING TANKER FORCES

• Performance Improvements With Tanker Modernization Alternatives
• Cost Effectiveness of Tanker Alternatives
• Alternative Tanker Fleet Modernization Stragetegies

APPENDIX A. STUDY METHODOLOGY AND SCENARIOS USED IN CBO ANALYSIS
 

TABLES
1.	TANKER DEMAND IN 1987 AND 1994. AS MEASURED IN KC-135A AIRCRAFT EQUIVALENTS
2.	CURRENT TANKER AND THREE ALTERNATIVES--AIR FORCE AND CBO MEASURES OF IMPROVED TANKER PERFORMANCE
3.	TANKER RE-ENGINING OPTIONS-MARGINAL IMPROVEMENT OF SUCCESSIVE INCREMENTS OF RE-ENGINED AIRCRAFT
4.	INVESTMENT COSTS OF ADDITIONAL TANKER EQUIVALENTS
5.	LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF PROVIDING 100 KC-135 EQUIVALENTS
6.	UNIT PURCHASES AND .PROGRAM COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE TANKER MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS
FIGURES
1.	PROJECTED U.S. TANKER AIRCRAFT DEMAND FOR STRATEGIC NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL NON-NUCLEAR MISSIONS, 1982-1995
2.	HYPOTHETICAL ATTACK MISSIONS USED IN CBO ANALYSIS OF TANKER AIRCRAFT MODERNIZATION ALTERNATIVES
3.	PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. BOMBER FORCES AND MISSIONS
4.	YEAR-BY-YEAR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OF TANKER AIRCRAFT ALTERNATIVES
5.	PROJECTED U.S. TANKER AIRCRAFT DEMAND AND ALTERNATIVE MODERNIZATION OPTIONS, 1982-1995
A-1.	EXPONENT MODEL FLOWCHART
A-2.	HYPOTHETICAL ATTACK MISSIONS USED IN CBO ANALYSIS OF TANKER AIRCRAFT MODERNIZATION ALTERNATIVES

 

Last October, the Reagan Administration announced a plan to update U.S. strategic nuclear forces. A centerpiece of that program was a commitment to build two new strategic bombers over the next decade. The first, a modified form of the B-l bomber (which had been cancelled by President Carter in 1977) would be fielded in 1986. The second, a new advanced technology bomber (ATB) incorporating "stealth" technologies, would be deployed in the early 1990s. The current fleet of B-52s now being converted to carry cruise missiles will eventually be retired or retained as standoff cruise missile carriers as the new bombers enter service.

Much public debate has focused on the bombers. As important as the bombers themselves, however, is the large fleet of tanker aircraft used to refuel bombers in flight. Bombers could not execute their missions without using tankers to extend their ranges. The bomber modernization program, and especially the plans to retire a major portion of B-52s, have tremendous implications for current tanker resources.

Tankers also now figure prominently in conventional non-nuclear war plans, and they could prove indispensible, for instance, in projecting the Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) to distant theaters of operation. The need for substantial tanker capacity emerged especially clearly during the Arab-Israeli war in 1973, when U.S. airlift missions in support of Israel were nearly halted for the lack of mid-course refueling.

These two sets of developments--planned bomber development and the need not to rely on ground refueling--have led to efforts to expand U.S. tanker resources.

This document is available in its entirety in PDF.