CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION
March 9, 2009 – 9:26 p.m.
Obama Seeks to Delay Tanker, Cancel Bomber
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
The White House has given the Pentagon guidance to delay procurement of aerial refueling tankers by five years and cancel plans for a new long-range bomber, according to three sources close to the discussions.
No final decisions have been made, and the recommendations are part of negotiations between the Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department over possible budget trade-offs this year, the sources said. The guidance represents two of the offset options that OMB gave the Pentagon last month regarding the fiscal 2010 Defense budget request.
If the guidance survives the internal budget process, a huge protest will follow on Capitol Hill, where dozens of lawmakers are heavily invested in the battle over tanker procurement, which has raged for years.
Some Defense budget experts hailed the news as a step toward tighter fiscal discipline and a strong opening salvo in the battle to make hard choices over procurement programs as the military rebalances itself and budgets tighten.
“OMB is beginning to show itself as a breath of fresh air after decades of prostrate compliance with Pentagon wishes,” said Winslow Wheeler, head of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information.
Air power advocates and military officials contend that the moves, if enacted, would hurt U.S. strategic might and put at risk missions that depend on the aging tanker and bomber fleets.
“The Air Force needs a new tanker desperately,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Dunn, president of the Air Force Association. “The KC-135 tanker averages over 47 years old, and the B-52 bomber is almost as old.”
President Obama released limited details of his upcoming $533.7 billion fiscal 2010 Defense budget Feb. 26, with full details expected in April.
That top-line number was a compromise between OMB’s original guidance of $524 billion, which matched the last official Bush administration estimate, and a $584 billion “wish list” compiled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff last fall.
Tanker Battle Awaits
If OMB’s recommendations are enacted, the largest battle in Congress will be over the Air Force’s contract for a new fleet of midair refueling tankers, which the Pentagon delayed last September following a protest backed by the Government Accountability Office.
The competition, which ultimately will be worth as much as $100 billion, has pitted Boeing Co. against a consortium of Northrop Grumman Corp. and the North American arm of the European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
Lawmakers from states representing both companies reacted with dismay to the prospect that the tanker competition could be delayed again, especially for five years.
Sen. Jeff Sessions , R-Ala., said Congress would fight back against a delay in the tanker contract if it is submitted in the formal budget request. The Northrop Grumman contender for the contract would be assembled largely in his state.
“For a group who has been in the OMB for just a matter of weeks to come in and suggest the cancellation of the No. 1 Air Force priority for procurement is stunning, and I don’t think Congress will accept that,” Sessions said.
Congress has repeatedly called for the tanker contract to be competitively bid as soon as possible, Sessions said, adding that there would be an effort to include the money in either the war supplemental or regular Defense appropriation bill.
Sen. Sam Brownback , R-Kan., whose state would benefit if Boeing won the contract, called the OMB guidance “deeply disturbing.”
“The longer we wait to begin building tankers, the more we jeopardize our many global operations, from war-fighting to relief efforts, which depend on this vital platform,” he said.
The tanker program has support from more lawmakers than just those with parochial interests, one Democratic Senate aide said. Congressmen on defense-related committees and those who have large military constituencies will also fight any delay in tanker procurement.
“There is an effort among senior senators in both parties to make sure that we get moving quicker on the air refueling tanker contract,” said the aide, noting that Sens. Kent Conrad , D-N.D., and Orrin G. Hatch , R-Utah, are drafting a letter to Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn arguing that point.
Members of Congress largely agree that the current tankers are too old and delaying the new one takes on too much risk, the aide said. Although it was too early to talk strategy because the administration’s decision isn’t final, he said, “In the end, Congress will write the appropriations bills.”
Military Sees a Dangerous Gamble
Inside the military, the prospect of a delay in the tanker program and a cancellation of the long-range bomber is seen as a dangerous gamble that current fleets can be maintained despite their age.
“Next-generation tanker and bomber decisions today will have tremendous impact on our security in the future — and on America’s continued role as the world’s sole superpower,” said one senior Defense official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss budget matters.
The next-generation bomber, which is still in the early development phase and is not expected to fly until 2018, is needed for long-range strike capability, said the official, who added that canceling it would “surrender America’s capability to rapidly deliver and sustain power projection.”
John Pike, director of the Web site GlobalSecurity.org, said that the next-generation bomber program would be easier to eliminate politically because the program was still in its infancy. “It was just getting started and had not done a lot of constituency-building,” he said.
The current bomber fleet has plenty of life left, although it is not as advanced as some air power advocates would like, he said. “That program was a technology push rather than a requirement pull,” Pike said.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Feb. 26, “In the days to come, any information you may receive about budget or program decisions will undoubtedly be wrong,” because he intends to “wait until the end of our review process before making any decisions.”
OMB spokesman Kenneth Baer declined to comment on the inner workings of the budget process, saying, “Those details will come out when the full budget request comes out in April.”
Comments
Air force may buy a hybrid of Airbus tanker and Boeing tanker, Airbus could build the back section and Boeing could build the front section and call it's the ABK-787 or BAK-787. There is no need to replace the KC-135 E, R & T all the tanker only have 1400-1800 hours on their airframe and most of the tanker have or are being rebuild at San Antonio Texas by Boeing, The tanker have receives glass cockpit, been rewire and new skin. The only the 143 E model need to be upgraded to CFM-56 engine (build in France) same as the R & T model and the tanker only log 375 hours a year since is gone but at once time Strategic Air Command at fleet of bomber and other type airborne 24/7 The GAO report say the E model can be re engine for 23 million per plane, the current fleet is good till the years 2032. The GAO report state the 767 tanker does not offer a any advantage over the KC-135R & T , the 767 was design in 1975 and is being replace with the 787 The kc-135R can off load 200,000 while 767 can only offload 202,000 there no reason to use a 767. People should read the GAO report for the fact not the newspaper The 767 which is 24% smaller than kc-45 cost 42% more and is build in Japan with Chinese parts then the 767 is shipped to Everett and mated together than Flow to Italy to be turn into a tanker. What does the Air Force need with 179 new tankers with airliner interior? there 111 C-5 ,180 C-17 and C-19 (747) that could do that job and save on the price of the tanker . But the real question what would a new tanker refuel? there only 94 B-52H out date since 5-1-1960, 65 world recorded holder B-1B (33 are in the bone yard for lack of spare parts) 19 B-2a , 111 c-5, 180 c-17 , F-15, F-16,F/A-18 , F/A-22a, and handful of other type Most military plane like the c-130 do not have in-flight refueling capability The C-17 is design to be a tanker Northrop Build two kc-45 in six month it's took Boeing eight year to build the eight 767 tanker for Japan and Italy Boeing pays their lobbyist $ 20 million a years Boeing should never be allowed to have another government contact, the California borne fence, over charging on b-1b mod and allow Sea launch secret to fall into the hand of the USSR, the list go on Boeing offer to lease 100 tanker for 160 million that should only cost 100 million per tanker and buying off Darleen Druyun and more of Boeing senior staff should had gone to jail for paying off a USAF contactor person In December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) was begun. Some documents found in congressional investigation indicated the A330-based tanker met more of the USAF specifications than the Boeing tanker and had a lower proposed cost Druyun pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company Additional fallout included the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit and the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears.
There are so many things that are completely inaccurate with what thomas85225 wrote that it's not worth the time to refute it. Not to mention that it's not even coherent english. Where are these KC-135's with glass cockpits and new skin. What skins are you talking about? There is not one KC-135 that has a glass cockpit. I noticed you did not mention how many KC-135's are in depot (overhaul) at any given time. It's a large portion of the entire fleet and that's why the AF wants new tankers. Boeing had told the AF many time that the E models need new engines but they don't want to spend the money to put new engines on 40 year old airplanes.
You can not be serious! Our military is at risk and our own government is at the bottom of this. Shameful! Remove some of those frivilous earmarks to protect our military.
Mr obama needs to pay attention to his obligation to defend our counntry. That is a lot more important than welfare spending.
well, when all is said and done, people did elect the most liberal President ever and this was expected. I just don't understand why would it be more efficient to cancel jobs and with the money "saved" ( and security compromised) create new jobs? I guess its jobs re-distribution. Just like the stimulus package, which was wealth redistribution. God help us all. Especially us who work hard and pay taxes.
This country has to cut expenses in some areas and these tanks can be put off for the time being. President Obama may be a liberal and I thank God for it. He will keep America safe but he will do so wisely. If only Bush had had half the common sense and integrity of President Obama.
In reference to the mess of a post above... Looks like Airbus is really getting desperate after the A400 fiasco... You'd think they could afford better proof-readers for their propoganda posts...
Canceling the bomber would not surprise me. Even though large bombers have proved useful in Afghanistan and the bomber force is dwindling, it's hard to justify the expense of an entirely new aircraft given other more pressing priorities. Delaying a KC-135 replacement for another five years, however, is insane! The USAF has been needing a new tanker for at least 10 years since the KC-135 fleet is becoming impossible to maintain and a serious safety threat. I am amazed the Obama administration would take such a reckless position, and hope this story turns out to be untrue.
The Election Results: 53%, 66,882,230; 46%,58,343,671-Difference? 8,538,559 So when the Aliens invade(and the sooner the better) and ask for humans to feed their dying civilization, those 8,538,559 Americans should be the first to go. Directive 10-289 is in effect. And Project -X is on schedule.
Who was the biggest keynesian President before Mr. Obama? Simply it was Ronald Reagan and it isn't a joke. Stop with welfare for big business. Government must buy only what is needed for Defense and not throw away money in futuristic projects untested.
to Vicki above: They are tankers and not tanks. Please look up the difference before you comment. To DeWitte: Stop corporate welfare? Already too late and i would add stop personal welfare as well. Too late for that one , (please see 800 billion "stimulus"). To Joe: To assume that the most powerful country in the world that also has the most enemies does not need a new fleet of bombers is just ignorant
Hi! My buddy is a maintenance QC guy for the Air Force Reserve. His unit, like most of the KC-135 units flies the KC-135T. It has a glass cockpit, and has gotten rid of the navigator and his equipment (I used to fly the KC-135R, which had an old cockpit and still had the navigator). The KC-135s are programmed to be flown for a number of years into the future. If the DOD procurement contract process maid sense, the Air Force would've already had their new tankers, but Boeing and the DOD screwed that up. The F-22 and F-35 need to be cancelled, and we need to use the F-15 and F-16s years into the future, with modifications to keep them modern. The B-52s that the Air Force have now are VERY capable aircraft, and are nothing like those we used to fly. cliff GRB
Obama and the Democrats don't mind spending money on every liberal social program known to man but absolutely can't stand the thought of spending more money on defense related programs even though refueling tanker and new bomber programs would generate a lot more good paying jobs in this country than the pork laden so called stimulus bill passed a couple of weeks ago. As the poster about stated everyone who voted for Obama knew they were getting the most liberal polotician to ever run for the presidency and didn't care because he wasn't Bush. Sad.
dennisl59 I think you got your numbers mixed up. You should have said those 66,882,230 Americans should be the first to go!
He must think that our current planes can do the job which they can but both the F15 and F16 are 30 + years old and are in need of replacement. I have been in Aerospace Engineering for 45 years, been a jet fan since the Korean War and I simply have no words to explain the insanity of shelving the F22. We have a generation edge over other country's and if they do this it will probably be lost. How many country's have air forces with the latest russian planes? the Mig29 and SU27 are all over and are comparable to our own. The SU 37A will be coming on line soon if not already and it is the only other fighter to have vectored thurst, which means that it can out manouver both the F16 and F16. I don't think we would be able to recover from the cancellation of F-22. And we are going to need it. The same thing happened to the F-1 after Apollo. The raptor and the Eurofighter are the only planes that I know of that are capable of Super cruse which gives them a big advantage over other fighters. This is just another attempt to disarm the American Nation. When Reagan built up the defenses of this country we had very good employment and tax revenue. The Defense Industry is one of the Ultimate in Hi-tech. Cut it and we are doomed in more ways than one. Double it and we will work our way out of this recession, Obama and his minions understand this. If we let this happen we are doomed for the scrap heap of history. We are running out of time to remove the traitors who would leave us defenseless, hungry and sick. These people have a plan, this is not by accident. While there are no plans to build a new shuttle, but let's play Devil's Advocate, suppose we are to build a new shuttle. Can we? No. All the people with the shuttle building experience are gone. All the equipment is gone. No sparing parts. It would be very difficult to reconstruct a new shuttle from scratch. The last one was built with spare parts. Something nobody has mentioned is that if you eliminate these jobs, it is going to be VERY costly to reconstitute in four or five years when people wake up to how dangerous the world really is. We already have a problem with engineering in this country - it's a field that is essential to a technically advanced society, but is both underpaid and vastly under-respected. Aerospace engineering is a particularly stressed field. And if you start cutting major acquisition programs, you wind up driving people away from the field.
What crap. The President is willing to borrow hundreds of billions to pour down the drain just so he can be seen to be doing something, while our servicepeople's asses are left hanging. If one of his girls was flying on those old 40+ year old airframes as a crewmember, you can bet he'd be following a different policy. If he was really about jobs, why isn't he pushing the Boeing bid? Those airplanes need to be replaced, and the Pentagon's procurement wonks really dropped the ball. Hasn't anyone there ever thought about which country they're working for? If the freakin' government can't factor in a "Buy American" bias in their calculations, I hope they're satisfied when one of these days somebody's phone rings and they receive a report of a midair or a lost aircraft due to age-related component failure. I know, it would be difficult to encourage overseas companies to bid for contracts, but who needs 'em unless they're clearly overwhelmingly superior? As for Thomas85225, dude - learn to type, spell and punctuate. I respect the fact that you're involved and have a lot to say, but you come across like a ranting teenager. Vicki, your attitude is what gets people killed.
I think it's time to realized that we must keep our armed forces as large as possible with the best equipment we can make. If we continue to walk around thinking that we'll never be challenged we'll definily be crying someday. China's army is ready and waiting.
Wow. How about leasing them from Boeing since we can't affort to pay for them outright. Sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it? US workers making badly needed tankers sounds a lot better than more unemployment checks. Naa, give the $1T to AIG, GM, Chysler, and others that were incompetent.
Lets put off buying anything and leave the protection of the citizens up to the citizens instead of waiting for the Feds to do it for us. We the citizens can protect our selfs ar home and are in the mood to by weapons to do it. We know where BO's thoughts are. Its time we learned again to take care of our selfs. Semper Fi
It is increasingly obvious: the Pentagon is nothing more than a very dangerous vehicle for stupid, selfish Congressmembers and Senators to push through their favorite pork slices from the national budget. CUT THE PORK, NOW!!!!!
The so-called Next Generation Bomber (NGB) is about the dumbest idea I've heard in decades. As a former aircrewman in B-58 and B-52 bombers ... and R&D engineer in the B-1 program ... I find the whole notion of yet another strategic manned bomber just plain dumb.
to Phil Rowe- As a engineer with 25 yrs experience in the aerospace field, I sure like to hear details of why you think the NGB development is "dumb".
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: