Gulf War Air Power Survey
Download 5.55 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 60 Days** On Hand* 90 Days 120 Days
- Munitions Movement and Control
- Figure 44 United States Munitions Storage and Port Locations Figure 45 Total Munitions Tons Deployed
- Munitions Storage and Safety Conditions
- Figure 46 Munitions Storage Locations, 16 January 1991
- Desert Storm The “Air Bridge”
- Tempo and Training
- GBU-28 (Hard Target Penetration Munition)
column 2). On 21 August 1990, CENTAF Forward established a 30‑day requirement for the AOR (see column 3455). On 29 December 1990, CENTAF Forward established a 60-day requirement (see column 4456). On 24 January 1991, CENTAF Forward provided their estimate of a 90-day and a 120-day requirement for the theater (see columns 5 and 6457). Column 7 lists the amount of each munition expended in Desert Storm458, and column 8 shows the quantity on hand at the cease fire.459 Munitions Movement and Control Compounding the efforts required in determining munitions requirements for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm was the need to design a munitions flow or movement program in support of deploying forces. Both AF/LRC and the Ammunition Control Point pointed out the need early in Operation Desert Shield.460 Significant efforts were required to determine where the munitions were, locate available transportation support from both sea and air, and cope with “throughput” factors arising because only two explosives-capable ports of debarkation from the United States (Sunny Point in North Carolina and Concord in California) were available. Munitions were transported to the Gulf from limited explosives port facilities in the European Command (EUCOM) and the Pacific Command (PACOM), and the resultant flow from all sources descended on the Gulf's extremely limited and over-burdened ports of debarkation facilities.461 The problems associated with munitions transit to ports of embarkation complicated munitions movement activities throughout both Desert Shield and Desert Storm.462 Within U.S. Air Force Europe (USAFE), three major munitions depots were involved in supporting Desert Shield and Desert Storm: Royal Air Force Welford in the United Kingdom, Camp Darby in Italy, and Morbach in the Federal Republic of Germany. Each of these depots reported major problems with moving explosives over local roads and rail lines to ports, as well as problems with local national drivers accepting the responsibilities of handling munitions shipments.463 A shortage of explosives-capable semitrailer trucks and experienced drivers in the United States also stymied movement of munitions to the two explosives-capable port facilities in the United States: Sunny Point in North Carolina and Concord in California.464 Getting munitions to the Persian Gulf area to support CENTAF was a prime consideration of the logistics community throughout Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Figure 44 shows locations within the United States from which Air Force munitions were shipped to ports of embarkation on both U.S. coasts. Figure 45 depicts the movement of munitions throughout Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.465 Original planning factors for a CENTAF air campaign included approximately a forty-five-day “trip” to the Gulf.466 That length of time as Desert Shield unfolded proved to be far too optimistic. The munitions community found that the movement of munitions from U.S. storage locations to the Gulf required from fifty-five to seventy-two days under optimum conditions; in many cases, it took that long to get munitions to the Gulf explosives port, not the intended destination in theater.467 Figure 44 United States Munitions Storage and Port Locations Figure 45 Total Munitions Tons Deployed Munitions movement within the Gulf was also difficult and required exceptional management actions. Dealing with host nation drivers and vehicles was complicated, involving centuries-old distrust and national security concerns among the countries of Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. To solve the problem, the CENTAF Director of Logistics was afforded C-130 intratheater airlift to move critically short munitions and component stocks to Gulf locations.468 During the Gulf War effort, 32,000 short tons were shipped by tactical air and 49,000 short tons were line-hauled to points of intended use.469 An accurate accounting of munitions components was the key to understanding what munitions were on hand at operational locations. Unfortunately, the accounting had to be done manually by arriving personnel, since an accurate, automated munitions counting system was not available to the in-place forces in Desert Shield.470 The Combat Ammunition System (CAS), an automated management information system being developed by the Standard Systems Center at Gunter AFB in Alabama, had not been developed sufficiently to be of value to the munitions community during the Gulf War. As a result, manual accounting procedures were instituted in the Gulf region as well as locally developed data base systems on personal computers brought into the theater. Although CAS had been implemented at Tactical Air Command (TAC), USAFE, and PACAF, the data provided were not accurate and did not assist in tracking the worldwide munitions inventory. As a result, inventory tracking of munitions components throughout Desert Shield and Desert Storm was done manually, resulting in inaccuracies in reported inventories, poor tracking of munitions in transportation channels, and lack of credible munitions information for senior Air Force managers.471 Munitions Storage and Safety Conditions Once the munitions reached the theater, there were problems in storing them correctly. Supporting the munitions operations and delivering munitions to the point of intended use within the Gulf was to be a major undertaking. Command and control issues were immediately apparent in view of initial deployment size.472 From the original four permanent munitions storage locations in Southwest Asia (SWA) established at the initiation of operation Desert Shield to the twenty-four explosives storage locations established by the end of the air campaign, ensuring intratheater support was a major task for all involved.473 Figure 46 shows the munitions locations in support of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Constructing and organizing new bomb dumps in the desert was a major challenge; however, Persian Gulf nations were very cooperative in providing locations for munitions facilities. Figure 46 Munitions Storage Locations, 16 January 1991 To compensate for inadequate munitions storage capacity, a depot facility was established in the central region of Saudi Arabia in September 1990.474 This location, known as Al Kharj, provided USCENTAF with an explosives overflow capacity of 14 million pounds of class 1.1 (mass detonating) explosives. The location, coupled with construction of munitions storage areas at Jeddah, Al Minhad, Al Dhafra, Taif, and Doha, increased Gulf munitions storage capacity to 47.8 million pounds of net explosives weight.475 Explosives safety became a major concern throughout the build-up in the Gulf region. Detailed explosives storage planning factors, active explosives safety training programs, and strict emphasis on technical order discipline were key factors in maintaining a low explosives mishap rate throughout Desert Shield and Desert Storm.476 Only three reportable minor explosives incidents occurred during logistics operations. However, several munitions reliability issues came to the forefront during the air campaign. The early burst problem of the FMU‑139 bomb nose fuze was the most significant in the reliability arena and is discussed later. Explosives storage capability at most Gulf beddown locations was either nonexistent or insufficient to permit on-base storage of the required munitions stockpile. Deploying forces were faced with organizing munitions storage and accountability activities, developing flow plans and flight-line delivery functions, and organizing explosives safety programs. Because of the nature of combat preparation, none of the new bare-base beddown locations had the required explosives storage licensing arrangements completed by the Air Force Inspection and Safety Center before accepting explosives.477 However, CENTAF weapons safety and munitions personnel assessed proposed explosives locations, designed those locations to meet established explosives quantity distance criteria, established warehousing procedures, and wrote storage planning and training directives that included explosives quantity distance and basic weapons safety considerations. Where available, and with host nation approval, explosives storage locations were placed away from populated activities on base, thus decreasing explosives risks to base populations.478 Desert Storm The “Air Bridge” From the outset of Desert Shield, SAC underscored the need to have forward basing to employ conventional ordnance with maximum effectiveness. As a result, Moron in Spain, and RAF Fairford in England were ultimately chosen for additional bomber bases beyond that already established in Diego Garcia.479 The nearly threefold increase in B-52 aircraft sent munitions requirements “off the map” in January 1991, creating special concern for sustaining Moron forces.480 With the heavy M117, MK-82, and CBU loads that the B-52 force was able to carry, the Air Force Logistics Readiness Center, Ammunition Control Point, USAFE Director of Logistics, PACAF Director of Logistics, CENTAF Director of Logistics, TAC Director of Logistics, and SAC Director of Logistics began a concentrated effort to provide SAC with the necessary munitions. Major sealift actions continued, and an “air bridge” was developed. C-5, C-141, and Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF), aircraft transported critically required munitions to the B-52 operational units in Diego Garcia, Spain, and the United Kingdom481 The air bridge required the concerted actions of personnel involved in processing munitions from storage areas, line hauling them to aerial ports of debarkation, and accomplishing their aerial port transfers at both points of debarkation and embarkation.482 There were 693 sorties flown in support of the air bridge, which began on 15 January 1991 and terminated 27 February.483 The munitions were taken from Guam and RAF Welford because of their proximity to the CENTAF area of responsibility and the fact that U. S. port facilities were saturated. Airlift to the Gulf was necessary because: (1) the supply needs of the force applied far outstripped the supplies prepositioned and (2) the politically sensitive climate surrounding the operational bases prevented overt identification of ammunition required or shipment destination.484 Tempo and Training Munitions activity was on a continuous “high.” Forward operating locations were established, and redistributing munitions between depots, units, and between countries occurred on a daily basis to meet urgent operational tasking. Munitions personnel worked in 120-degree heat to meet critical mission takeoff times and to build up and deliver munitions to the flight line in support of Coalition air operations. They succeeded in the face of some of the most difficult conditions ever encountered by Air Force members, although they didn't come under fire, for the most part, and were not subjected to actual chemical or biological warfare conditions. Training of munitions personnel involved in Desert Shield and Desert Storm paid huge benefits to the Air Force. The five and one-half months of Desert Shield afforded senior leadership a rare opportunity to hone combat skills of the heterogeneous forces ordered to Southwest Asia. Interviews with many deputy commanders for maintenance revealed that personnel from as many as forty bases would be represented in the maintenance force at one Gulf base. Thus, training that newly formed force became essential. One statistic reveals most about quality munitions training: the zero significant explosives accidents involving Air Force personnel. That safety record is directly attributed to strong supervision, demand for following appropriate technical data, and emphasis placed on quality training and quality safety practices. A “force multiplier” in training the munitions personnel was offered by the Air Force Combat Ammunition Center (AFCOMAC) located at Sierra Army Depot in California. The Center was designed and developed as a combat-oriented, munitions production course offered to selected midgrade NCOs and junior officers directly supervising munitions production operations. In the early 1980s, Lt. Gen. Leo Marquez, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and Engineering, recognized that the Vietnam-experienced midlevel technicians and junior officers were leaving the Service. When nearly every Air Force base experienced problems in using live ordnance for mass munitions production, General Marquez ordered the establishment of a course designed to teach munitions combat production techniques. That course was developed, and facilities at Sierra Army Depot were offered as a location for instruction. The first class graduated in the spring of 1985, and by the time Operation Desert Shield began, nearly 3,000 students had completed the course. GBU-28 (Hard Target Penetration Munition) The GBU-28 Hard Target Penetration Munitions was specifically developed for Desert Storm. A need was established for a weapon with significantly more penetration power than that of the BLU‑109 2,000-pound precision-guided munition. Demand increased for such a weapon and in January 1991, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition surveyed organizations countrywide for ideas that could result in a quickly developed weapon for penetrating deep hardened targets. Aeronautical Systems Division worked closely with the Armament Division at Eglin AFB in Florida, the Tactical Air Warfare Center (TAWC) at Eglin, with competing contractor representatives from Lockeed, and Rockwell, and with several subsystem contractors including Texas Instruments. Around the clock operations began in both contractor and military facilities to produce the required weapon, test components, develop the explosives filler, and flight-test a weapon twice as heavy and nearly twice the length of any precision-guided munition in the Air Force inventory. On 2 February 1991, the Secretary of the Air Force directed Quick Look operational test of the newly developed GBU-28/B.485 The schedule was so tight that on 20 February, 1991, the bomb being used in the first captive test was still warm from the explosive filling process. Weapon testing was accomplished at the Tonopah Test Range and at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. On 26 February 1991, the 6585th Test Group conducted a sled run to test thick concrete penetration. Earlier that same day, two “production” GBU-28s were picked up from Eglin for delivery to the 48th Tactical Fighter Wing (Provisional) in Taif, Saudi Arabia. The 431st TES F-111s Weapons Officer, a weapons loader from TAWC, and contractors from Lockheed and Texas Instruments accompanied the bomb delivery. The 431st TES aircrew member carried a VCR tape of the Tonopah test and immediately began briefing F-111 aircrews. The targets included two command and control bunkers at and near Iraq's Al Taji air base, north of Baghdad. Within five hours of delivery, on 27 February 1991, the weapons were flown into combat. The first GBU-28 hit an underground bunker it was aimed at, but only clipped its corner due to crew error in designating the wrong aim point. The second GBU-28 made the successful “hit,” destroying a command and control complex containing senior staff members of the Iraqi military.486 The success of the GBU-28 weapon system development program resulted from rapid response, concurrent analysis and testing, a strong interaction between government and contractor agencies, and knowledgeable personnel in all aspects of the development and implementing groups. Further operational discussions of the GBU-28 are covered in the Operations and Effects volume of this survey.487 Directory: sgp -> library sgp -> Sgp country Programme Strategy for op6 sgp -> Itu-d study groups sgp -> Internship with Congressional Campaign Exploratory Committee — Only 4 spots left! sgp -> Using Well Logs in the Petroleum Industry sgp -> Telecommunication development bureau itu-d study groups Download 5.55 Mb. Share with your friends:
|