casey Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 The U.S. Senate on Thursday passed a measure by North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis that Tillis said would keep C130H aircraft at Fort Bragg’s Pope Airfield even if the Air Force goes ahead with plans to inactivate the 440th Airlift Wing. Tillis in a statement said that the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act would move nine upgraded C-130H aircraft to Pope Airfield at Fort Bragg. They would replace the six aircraft that the Air Force plans to remove, Tillis said. The Air Force plans to inactivate the air wing as a budget-saving move. The 440th Air Wing, which supports global response and special operations units, is staffed by more than 1,000 Reservists. “I am pleased that my Senate colleagues and I found a solution that would not only save, but increase and improve the C-130H presence at Fort Bragg, effectively stopping the Air Force leadership’s short-sighted and strategically flawed plan to remove all C-130Hs from Pope Airfield,” Tillis said in a statement. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., was one of the amendment’s co-sponsors. “I am tremendously pleased that Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg will remain the premier training ground for our nation’s combat ready paratroopers. They are the tip of the spear for our intelligence and special operations communities, Burr said in a statement. “Adding this amendment to the final Defense authorization bill ensures modernized aircraft will not be disposed of, but will instead fulfill their military purpose by directly contributing to the training and readiness of our airborne and special operations troops.” The amendment’s outcome isn’t certain. The Senate hasn’t voted yet on the National Defense Authorization Act. If it does vote and the bill passes, a conference committee that will merge the House and Senate versions would have to approve the C130H amendment. Tillis said the Air Force planned to get rid of five upgraded C-130H aircraft now based at Little Rock that will be moved to Fort Bragg under his plan instead. He said using the aircraft in North Carolina would save taxpayers $300 million. Four other C-130s will be upgrade with previously purchased kits and also transferred to the base. View original article: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article23139069.html Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article23139069.html#storylink=cpy View full article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olcatmech2 Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Well I am proud of the two NC senators for their efforts in this. I remember when Pope Air Force Base was a nice big base to visit and do exercises. Now with thepanty waists that run the AF, they want to call it Pope field! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railrunner130 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Um..... That last paragraph makes me wonder....Are they talking about moving the AMPed airplanes to Pope and then AMPing four more airplanes? If not, I'm not sure what else they could be talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 That's what it sounds like to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 When looking through the congressional record, it looks like the language was toned down quite abit, so that it doesn't grab the AMP planes. Harry Reid changed the language to require the AF to assess the needs of the 82nd before moving any C-130s out of Pope.Here's the record:"The thrust of the gentleman’samendment is that these aircraft betransferred to Pope Air Force Base inNorth Carolina, but they would notreally be effectively utilized by theforces there and would not, in my viewat least, contribute to the training andthe real-time operations of the 82ndAirborne Division, the XVIII AirborneCorps, and the special operations forcesthat are there.So rather than doing that, what wedid in the underlying legislation at section136 is to go through and quiteclearly have a careful review of theadequacy of aircraft to support operationsof the paratroop forces at FortBragg so that the Air Force is fullysupportive of this very importantissue. The 82nd is America’s mostready Army force, and of course weknow special forces operators are allacross the globe constantly.So my comments are that thisamendment would not essentially helpwhat I think is the underlying goal,which is to ensure that our airborneforces have the platforms necessary. Itwould, in fact, restrict the flexibility ofthe Air Force in terms of using C–130aircraft. It would practically have theeffect of simply taking aircraft thatbecause of their modification and theirnonstandardization are being parked atLittle Rock and moving them withouteffect, I think, on the operational capacityand capabilities of our airborneforces.So as a result, I believe our best approachis to stay with the language inthe underlying bill, section 136,which—to the credit of Senator TILLIS,he was very adamant about including—would have a careful review of theoperational capacity of the Air Forceto support the airborne operations.It would include the ability of commandersfrom the corps level, XVIIIAirborne Corps, 82nd, Special OperationsCommand, to comment effectivelyon whether the Air Force wasdoing this. After such a review andanalysis, we could make better decisionsabout the allocation of the AirForce aircraft.Again, ironically—and again itstrikes me that simply moving theseaircraft—which are sort of one-of-akindaircraft—to Pope would not helpthe airborne operations of our militaryforces. They would simply involve additionalcost, and they would not bepart of the ability of our Air Force andour mobility command to support awide range of missions. They wouldcomplicate, rather than simplify, ourability to respond.So for that, when this vote, which isscheduled later today, comes up for avote, I will oppose it, and I will do sobecause I believe—in the underlyinglegislation, through the work of SenatorTILLIS particularly—we have anappropriate response to the issue offlexibility, mobility, and operationalcapacity of our airborne forces at FortBragg.With that, I suggest the absence of aquorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.FLAKE). The clerk will call the roll.The senior assistant legislative clerkproceeded to call the roll.Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered."He also mistakenly stated there are 3 modified AMP birds, when in fact there are 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.