Boeing KC-767 update

[Singlecoil]

Uhh, you might want to read that constitution again... it takes 60 votes to "control" the senate. One senator can hold the hold the entire senate hostage until 60 others decide its time for him to shut up.

So why did Dick Cheney cast the "tie-breaking" vote on the latest tax cut when the Senate was split 50-50?

A filibuster is seldom used, but you're right, it can be the ace in the hole for the minority party.

 

[HueyPilot]

Money, politics and the military

(Huey Pilot plugs both ears)

"Please make it stop! Please!"

I can't stand back-and-forth political arguing, because neither side is ever truly right.

All political entities (Democrats and Republicans included) have very keen ways of adding PORK into all bills, no matter who controls what.

If you haven't noticed, 9/11 was the Grand-daddy of all excuses to pass all kinds of useless pork. The US Government is currently buying millions of dollars of stuff that has a dubious requirement.

I'll agree that SOME of the KC-135 fleet needs to be retired, and ask any tanker pilot and they'll tell you it would be nice to have some added capability. Do we absolutely need the 767 tanker? Not just yet. Is it desirable? Yes, it is. The E-model tankers are very old, and they are running out of parts for those old TF-33 engines. Why spend all the extra money putting new engines on a 50-year old airframe when they can spend a little more and not only get brand new tankers, but get some added airlift capacity to boot?

All in all, you can argue that the Air Force needs the 767 tanker about as bad as they need an "F/A-22" fighter. If you ask me, the F-22 was turned into the F/A-22 to give it the "multi-role" excuse to keep the program viable. I've seen the proposed bomb loads of this new "multi-role" fighter and it's not all that impressive. I'm sure B-2 and B-1 pilots are laughing hard. F-15E pilots are probably rolling their eyes.

It's about like calling an AIM-9 armed A-10 a "multi-role" fighter just because it has a token air-to-air capability. What a joke.

No offense to F-15C drivers...in fact your job is an important one, but the role of Air Superiority has lessened in these times since the old Soviet Union has gone away. There just aren't many air arms out there that can put up much of a fight. 95% of the Air Forces in the world are primarily only useful against non-superpower neighbors (ie India v. Pakistan, Ecuador v. Peru, etc). So it's not suprising that the DoD just doesn't have a requirement for a huge fleet of Air Superiority fighters. And when they threatened to hack the order even further, the USAF decided to magically make the Raptor a "multi-role" fighter, thus giving it a perceived greater role. But wait, I thought the F-35 was the new multi-role ground attack aircraft? Doesn't making the F-22 the F/A-22 sorta make the F-35 a bit moot?

I don't know...I'm just up on my soap box. Nothing against fighter guys, but it seems every other airframe community (helos, heavies, etc) have to deal with 1960s or earlier airframes in their fleets, yet the fighter community moans and groans because (gasp) their airframes were developed in the 1970s and the bulk of the aircraft were made 15-20 years ago! (1980s and 1990s). True, the F-15 first flew in 1972. True, the first F-16 flew in 1976. But nearly all the active airframes in service are F-15C and F-16C models, which didn't start production until the early 1980s. The average age of the F-15 is like 15 years, and the average F-16 is like 10 years old. Not too bad actually.

Consider that the average active C-130 was produced in the late 1960s, the average active C-5 was made in the early 1970s, the average KC-135 was made in the late 1950s. Our "new" aircraft include the KC-10, produced in the late 70s and early 80s, and the small but rapidly growing C-17 fleet, which AMC jealously fights to continue to expand. If it weren't for the pork barrel saviors, the C-17 would probably get trampled by the F/A-22.

And it's not something I blame on fighter pilots...they don't have much to do with it. But since the majority of the USAF leadership has a background with the old TAC and the small "fastmover" community, that's where the money seems to gravitate to naturally.

It's not much different than the Army. As an Army aviator, I remember very vividly that we had to fight tooth and nail for each dollar. The Army is run by infantry and armor grunts, and of course they would like to see the money spent on their communities instead of aviation.

Luckily for the Navy, naval aviators pretty much run the Navy, and the carrier is now the centerpiece of the fleet. So of course they don't have as many funding problems.

Politics plays a big role in our military spending, and again, it doesn't matter what party you belong to, there's a way to sneak in your special interest one way or another.

 

[Spur]

Could you give a reference on where in the Constitution this is found?

Section 5, clause 2 gives each house the ability to write its own rules. The senate allows unlimited debate, but provided an "escape" with rule 22, which allows 3/5 members to vote to end debate and proceed with a vote.

 

[Andy Neill]

I understand the Rules of the Senate. However, I think this falls short of a Constitutional reference. Thanks none the less.

 

[Mud Eagle]

Re: Money, politics and the military

(The average age of the F-15 is like 15 years, and the average F-16 is like 10 years old. Not too bad actually.

Consider that the average active C-130 was produced in the late 1960s,

I don't think the issue here has ever been airframe life (except perhaps with a few exceptions). IMHO, it all has to do with capabilities -- making sure there are better radars, better avionics, better defensive suites, better munitions.

As the threats develop, so must our ability to operate in and against those threats.

While airframes may be able to live decades, the technology sitting in those airframes is short lived.

 

[Chunk]

The designation's not going actually be KC-767 is it?

 

[klhoard]

I guess we can always hope the Army will still get a shot at taking over the A-10 and AC-130 gunship program.

Having flown in the Army for 5 years, this would definately NOT be a good thing. . . .

The U.S. Army is all about infantry, tanks, and artillery. Anything with wings or rotors is used to extract money out of Congress to divert to the ground forces . . . .

 

[LJDRVR]

This reminds me of the Gulfstream debacle several years ago when the Air Staff, AMC and 89th got a new type of A/C shoved down their throats without anyone having asked for it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the 767 procurement in question is not in response to any specific DOD published request, study, requirement or RFP. In other words pure, unadulterated pork.

While I'm sure the 767 would make an excellent tanker, our elected officials and military leaders have a duty to perform some sort of moral due diligence here.

If the issue here is the E-model tankers, then let's take a look at the 7Q7 conversion. Four brand new JT8D-219's with TR's, total cost per airframe of 25 million. (This solves all the TF33 issues with not only the -E's, but the AWACS, RC's and EC's also.) Compare the costs of modification with this lease. 25 million per airframe plus spares, vs. 23 million a MONTH for a LEASE!

I got to watch the maiden flight of Omega's re-engined demonstrator in San Antonio. No smoke and the jet lept off the runway at a climb angle reminicent of the R model. This on a 707-330C airframe, which weighs a bit more than the KC-135.

Oh well, our tax dollars at work. Let us not forget that it was an aide who toned down Eishowers remarks, which the old man originally penned as "the military, industrial, CONGRESSIONAL complex." (emphasis added)

Here's a blasphemous question: Do we have any real leaders in the air staff who are willling to speak out publicly against such pork? Surely some four star has the integrity to sacrifice the last year or two of his career in order to do the right thing. Just a rhetorical question, I understand all too well how things at the pentagon work.

 

[Spur]

Compare the costs of modification with this lease. 25 million per airframe plus spares, vs. 23 million a MONTH for a LEASE!

Well, I'm not a math major, but:

$138 million/aircraft for 6 yr lease +
$40 million/aircraft to buy at end of lease
= $178 million

$178 million / 6 years => about $30 million per YEAR.

 

[Mud Eagle]

If the issue here is the E-model tankers, then let's take a look at the 7Q7 conversion.

Isn't part of the selling point also the amount of gas the airplanes can pass?