Lawmakers Keep Aerial Tankers on Life Support

[PhD]

Source: Washington Post

Once a week, at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, a crew chief on a tug tows one of a dozen or more aging KC-135E flying tankers a short distance just to keep the tires from going flat. Every 25 to 30 days, each of the planes is taxied to a special spot just to sit while its engines run so that the aircraft can be kept on a congressionally mandated standby status.

...

In its new budget request, the Air Force wants to retire 85 of the planes. It considers 52 of them "parked," which means pilots do not fly them anymore, and 21 of the aircraft are officially grounded because commanders believe they are unsafe.

...

But despite those concerns, he said, "We are prohibited from retiring any . . . during fiscal 2008."

Those prohibitions come from Congress, and Moseley's plea last week was "for Congress to please give us the authority to manage our inventory so we don't waste crew chiefs and manpower and time and money on these airplanes."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801125.html

[zabet]

1. Like the US has

sooo much money to throw around.
Gives new meaning to 'Daddy Warbucks'.

[PhD]

2. I think you miss the point...

Congress is forcing the Air Force to waste money in support of its own selfish whims.

[zabet]

3. Nope. Did not miss the point.

Piss Poor Management from the top down
has broken the piggy bank. This is just
another example of piss poor management,

[PhD]

4. If it is the management of Congress you refer too

I doubt you'll find many who disagree.

[tabasco]

5. They must not have that "new plane smell" that the USAF likes so much.

I expect the war profiteers want to outfit the USAF with some new, really expensive model that does the same thing.

This is just part of the propaganda campaign telling us about our "outdated" airplanes.

You can bet your ass if the USAF wants to retire any aircraft, they will want a shiny new one to take its place.

[PhD]

6. I'm sure you'd love flying aboard a 50 year old aircraft too

They have such excellent safety records.

[tabasco]

11. I've flown on a KC-135 many times.

Last time one dropped me off at Mogadishu airport.

Seemed to work just fine.

[hack89]

15. It's the cost per hour of flight that is the issue.

At some point it make economical sense to replace them - they can't fly forever.

[14thColony]

9. To be honest

the KC-135 fleet is in desperate need of replacement. The first of these were built in 1957, and I think the last ones were built in the very early 1960s, making these planes older than the B-52s, which are ancient. They have flown well past their service lives and are coming apart at the seams, to the point of becoming dangerous.

The real mismanagement here IS on the part of the USAF though. Since the 1970s and the take-over by the "Fighter Generals" anything big, ugly, and multi-engined was generally ignored in favor of sexy cool fighters like the F-15, F-22, and so on. The result is that our tanker and airlift fleets, which historically do most of the real day-to-day work, have been neglected to unprecedented levels.

[Cobalt-60]

10. Think Boeing 707, its very similar

They really are ready for retirement.

[tabasco]

12. I see your point.

This might be something they need to upgrade but they need to suck it up somewhere else.

Half a trillion a year for "defense" and we can't even get body armor to all of our troops.

Most of that ends up in some rich guy's pockets.

The days of the blank checks to the defense dept. must come to an end.

We are NOT an empire and we should not be outspending the WORLD on the military.

[14thColony]

14. I completely agree

We only really need a worldwide tanker fleet if we still feel a need to project long-range airpower worldwide. I would love to see that concept go by the wayside right along with most of our current imperial military structure. Using the word 'defense' in Department of Defense is a joke. We are about offense and little else. Go back to the old 'Department of War' title and we'd at least have truth in advertising. Want a military that's about defense?

- Move the army to a brigade structure, with about 15 US-based brigades, none permanently overseas
- Close most overseas bases, leaving only small staffs to represent us in NATO and other defensive alliances
- Reduce the USAF's long-range bomber fleet to a couple of squadrons, and the nuclear missile fleet to about 4 squadrons
- Retire all but about 4-5 aircraft carriers, base these in US home ports
- Significantly reduce the submarine force, relying on about half a dozen nuclear missile boats for deterence, plus about a dozen attack boats
- Prevent the National Guard from leaving US territory except in a declared (by Congress) war
- Repeal the War Powers Act; US forces may not act offensively unless in a state of declared war

I don't think we'll ever get back to the days of no standing regular forces, but the above structure gives a solid defensive capability, some limited force-projection capability for "show the flag" purposes, and a nuclear deterent - but not much left in terms of offensive capability.

We don't "defend freedom" by invading other countries. We defend freedom by being ready to stop an invasion on the beaches of Cape Hatteras. Since that's not going to happen anytime soon, the above structure is more than sufficient.

[hack89]

16. How do we protect the shipping lanes that we depend on?

Do you really want countries to be able to shut off our oil at a whim? Our economy is global - both imports and exports.

It is a given that if we withdraw militarily from the world, some one else will step into take our place - they wouldn't have to approach the shores of America to destroy our economy under your plan.

[14thColony]

17. Please note

that I didn't say NO naval power. Five fleet carriers have more firepower and force projection capability than most entire national militaries. One or two of our SSN688 class attack boats have the capability to virtually single-handedly eliminate an average Third World navy, plus neutralize land targets. I dispute that anyone would suddenly see us as weak and vulnerable simply because our navy was only 1,000 times more lethal than theirs versus 5,000 times more lethal. And if anyone decides to "shut off our oil" via naval interdiction they will also be shutting off the oil to a number of other nations as well, bringing their navies into along with ours. Look I like Alfred Thayer Mahan too, but his thesis isn't nearly as applicable today as it was in the late 19th century. Times have moved on a bit.

[HooptieWagon]

7. Several years back, there was a scandal

Congress had OK'd several hundred million to replace the aging tankers with new ones. One of the Pentagon persons writing up the new specifications then departed for an aircraft manufacturer (Boeing?) and helped them steer them the deal. Get this, the planes were going to be LEASED, not purchased, at a cost many times higher than an outright purchase. After media exposed the shady deal, the contract was cancelled . Not sure what happened after that.

[HooptieWagon]

8. here

Boeing Expects Air Force Contract
Firm Looks to Sell, Not Lease, Tankers

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 12, 2004; Page E01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25432-2004Oct11.html

Boeing Co. still expects to receive a contract to build 100 refueling planes for the Air Force, chief executive Harry C. Stonecipher said yesterday.

Under the 2005 defense authorization bill, the Air Force can buy as many as 100 of the tankers through a traditional purchase -- but not the lease-buy strategy it initially planned. The measure sets aside $100 million to start the program and requires the Air Force to hold a competition for a $5 billion contract to maintain the aircraft. Boeing had been awarded the maintenance work without competition.

Boeing is ready to compete, chief executive Harry C. Stonecipher says.

Even after passing the bill, House and Senate members continued to debate whether it requires the Air Force to hold a competition before pursuing the purchase of tankers. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a critic of the lease-buy strategy, has said it requires a competition, while some House members say it does not.

Stonecipher said there is "no doubt, none whatsoever" that a competition is not required by the bill. But, he added, "if the customer decides they want to compete it, you can bet that we're going to compete." A deal should "come to fruition" by next April or May, he said.

Stonecipher played down the threat of a competition against likely rival Airbus SAS, which was prevented from competing for the work in 2001 because it did not have the proper technology. "I don't see that they bring anything more today than they did when it was competed last time," Stonecipher said in a conference call with reporters.

European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., which owns Airbus, has spent $80 million developing technology to make its tankers compatible with U.S. military planes and has said it would be ready to compete.

The end of the lease-buy strategy may be a larger problem for Boeing and the Air Force than currently acknowledged, said Richard Aboulafia, aviation analyst for the Teal Group. The Air Force wanted to lease the planes because it couldn't afford to buy them immediately and still continue its planned purchases of fighter jets, he said.

"When it was a lease, it was financially digestible, but if it comes straight out of procurement, that is just a non-starter right now," he said. The Air Force could delay purchasing the planes until 2010, forcing Boeing to decide how to keep its 767 production line, which has faced declining commercial orders, open for the tanker program.

The proposal to begin replacing the Air Force's refueling planes with reconfigured Boeing 767s was derailed last December after the company fired Darleen A. Druyun for accepting a position with the company while still overseeing Boeing contracts for the Air Force. Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison Oct. 1 after admitting to giving Boeing preferential treatment for years, including inflating the price of the tanker program. The Air Force has said all of Druyun's procurement decisions are being reviewed.

"I don't know if they're tainted or not," Stonecipher said of the programs Druyun admitted improperly influencing. "I haven't seen the evidence that backs up the plea agreement. . . . But if they're tainted, we'll fix them."

--------

Air Force Asks for Broader Inquiry Into Boeing Contracts

October 12, 2004
By LESLIE WAYNE
The New York Time
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/12/business/12boeing.html

The Air Force asked the Pentagon yesterday to broaden its investigation into a procurement scandal to include more contracts that a former official admitted improperly awarding to Boeing, including a $4 billion contract to upgrade software on the C-130 transport airplane.

The request comes as Boeing faces new challenges as a result of an admission last week by the former No. 2 Air Force acquisition officer, Darleen A. Druyun, that she had favored Boeing in granting billions of dollars in contracts in an effort to get jobs for herself and her family.

Ms. Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison last week, after pleading guilty to violating federal conflict-of-interest laws.

In a related development, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which lost the C-130 contract to Boeing, said yesterday that it was consulting with its lawyers about filing a protest with either the government or in the courts, and could take that action as early as today.

Lockheed has 10 days since Ms. Druyun's admissions on Oct. 1 to lodge a protest with the Air Force; Congress's budget watchdog, the Government Accountability Office; or through the courts - although many legal specialists say that the company's chances of prevailing in any action are slim, given that the C-130 contract was let three years ago.

In the fallout at the Pentagon, Ms. Druyun's former boss, Marvin Sambur, the Air Force assistant secretary for acquisition, asked yesterday that the Pentagon's inspector general expand its investigation to include all Boeing contracts handled by Ms. Druyun since 2000, including the C-130 contract and a $412 million price adjustment on a C-17 cargo plane contract. Previously, the Pentagon had been looking only into contracts dating back two years.

"We intend to ask the inspector general to investigate any contract where there was a potential for Ms. Druyun to adversely affect Air Force interests," said Mr. Sambur in an e-mail message to Bloomberg News that was confirmed by an Air Force spokesman, Doug Karas.

The investigation is being led by Joseph Schmitz, the Pentagon inspector general.

"Based on Ms. Druyun's admissions, we have not specifically asked the inspector general to include in their investigation her activities on the C-130 contract," the e-mail message continued. "Upon completion of each investigation, we will take appropriate action."

While most military specialists do not expect the Air Force to remove Boeing from the C-130 contract, the company could face financial penalties or be barred from bidding on other contracts. One loser in the awarding of the C-130 contract was Lockheed, which had built the C-130 plane since the 1950's and had been awarded all previous upgrade contracts.

A Lockheed spokesman, Tom Jurkowsky, said that "we have confidence the government will fully explore this entire issue."

The awarding of the C-130 software upgrade contract to Boeing shocked many people in the military; other bidders were Raytheon and BAE Systems. The $4 billion C-130 upgrade contract extends through 2016, with slightly over $300 million having been spent already.

The Air Force's action follows another setback for Boeing. Late Thursday, a House-Senate conference committee killed a $23 billion proposal for the Air Force to lease and purchase as many as 100 Boeing 767's for use as aerial refueling tankers. The conference committee opened up the Air Force tanker modernization contract to further studies, as well as to new competition, most likely from Airbus, a rival European consortium.

The committee also established new rules to prohibit the Air Force from leasing the airplanes from Boeing and to provide stricter budgeting requirements for any tanker modernization program.

Ms. Druyun admitted, in her plea agreement, that she provided Boeing with an overly generous per-plane price under the tanker-lease proposal. She also admitted that she had given Boeing proprietary data from a bid submitted by Airbus.

In a telephone conference call with reporters yesterday, Boeing's chief executive, Harry C. Stonecipher, said that he was not certain whether the C-130 and C-17 contracts were tainted.

"I don't know if they are tainted or not," Mr. Stonecipher said. "I haven't seen the evidence that backs up the plea agreement. But if they're tainted, we'll fix them."

Mr. Stonecipher also expressed optimism that Boeing would be part of the competition in the tanker program. "We're used to competing for everything that we get," he said. "If the customer decides they want to compete it, you can bet that we're going to compete." The customer Mr. Stonecipher was referring to was the Pentagon.

He was brought back as chief executive late last year to address ethical problems at Boeing as it expanded into the military business. He stepped in after the resignation of Philip M. Condit following the initial revelations by Ms. Druyun and the firing of Boeing's chief financial officer, Michael M. Sears, who also pleaded guilty to similar conflict-of-interest charges and is awaiting a hearing.

Beside the Druyun-Air Force scandal, Boeing was forced to give back $1 billion in Air Force contracts and was suspended from new rocket launching contracts after it was found that Boeing employees had stolen proprietary documents from Lockheed.

The final of four contracts that Ms. Druyun said she tilted in favor of Boeing was a $100 million payment for the upgrading of NATO airborne early warning and control system aircraft.

[PhD]

13. There's currently a new competition for tankers

The competitors are versions of the Boeing 767 and Airbus A330. A winner is supposed to be announced before the end of the year.