The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 6)

br> Sarasota, FL /p> p> IN FLIGHT SERVICE br> Re: Jed Babbin's Will Kane and Hamlet and replies in Reader Mail's Heavy Loads : /p>

Mr. Babbin's obsession with the RAF's aerial tanker fleet is puzzling, in particular as it amounts to approximately two dozen aircraft. One would think that the U.S. Air Force with its 500 or so KC-135s and 59 KC-10's (not to mention the Navy's and Marines' refuelers) would be able to handle all the tanking needs of an attack on Iraq. Yes, the Brits did make their tankers available during the attacks on Afghanistan, and yes they were gratefully accepted, but that was only because the vast majority of tactical aircraft sorties were flown by U.S. Navy carrier-based aircraft (who use a different refueling system than the Air Force, as do the British).

p>In an attack against Iraq the vast majority of tactical aircraft used will be from the Air Force, and the distances Navy aircraft will be required to fly will be much shorter than in the attacks in Afghanistan, allowing them to use their organic air refueling assets (converted S-3B Vikings). In short, the U.S. can take on Iraq with its own forces, and must do so should the British (or any other Allies) get cold feet. br> -- Patrick Bechet br> Cape Town, South Africa

topics:
John McCain, Law, Military, Iraq, NATO, Africa