Obama Seeks to Delay Tanker, Cancel Bomber

Source: CQ Politics

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.



Read more: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003070256

it where the sun don't shine. I can hear the squeals of pain with a smile on my face.

Long overdue...

makes other products besides defense items. Companies that make things for the DoD include Boeing, GE, GM, Goodyear, and a host of others. Cutting production of anything these days means closing production lines and laying off workers. We seem so giddy to go spend trillions to employ people laying brick and filling potholes (industries that produce no technologically skilled workers and pay fairly low wages), yet boo the idea of employing workers in high-tech industries "just because" it produces a product for the department of defense.

The entire military industrial complex is built on this notion of make-work employment. The Pentagon's budget is dependent on thinking like yours. So, every once in a while we have to go to war to prove that these companies really are useful. Enough is enough!!

If they're making useful things with an actual market, those things need to keep being built. But the Defense Department is NOT a relief program. That bullshit needs to stop.

It will up unemployment considerably especially in Southern California.

I seem to recall a vast airliner parking lot out in the desert.

Jets taken out of service by the airlines were basking in the sun.
At least some of these should be suitable for conversion to tankers.
And as they're currently in Cali already, that's the place to do it.
I know a row of shiny new jumbos would be cooler.
But we're on out financial ass here.

I can say that converting would also cost a lot of money and when the money stops in defense they won't put any into conversions.

It would be great if people were somehow helped to move from one industry to another. We've been checking into green jobs and it would feel much better to do that kind of work but you can't just pop from one to the other. In between we'd lose everything.

It's inexcusable that California is running out of fresh water.
Megatons of water lap her sunny coast.
The only obstacle to its use are a few dissolved salts.
It's pretty simple.
An array of steel mirrors focus the sun on a salt water boiler.
Fresh water steam comes out by day, ready to condense and use.
Salt gets scooped out at night.
They stations would have to be made, deployed, and maintained.

Extreme age. Aircraft do not age gracefully.

Most would either be too old or too small.
But the boneyards should still be combed for suitable candidates.
Some craft were retired in relatively useful condition.
The effort involved in the search is small.

Go talk to the guys down at Robins AFB in Georgia. The E-8 Joint STARS aircraft were old Boeing 707s recovered from the boneyard and refitted. One of the guys that's based here (Baghdad) is normally stationed at Robins, and those aircraft are a mess mechanically. They go down for something all the time and are a huge pain to keep airworthy. There's nothing good about 50 year old airplanes, no matter how you slice it (unless you're trying to maintain a one-off vintage copy for historical reasons...even then, it's very expensive and you have the benefit of focusing on a single airplane that doesn't fly much...imagine a fleet of old airplanes that have to fly operational missions...not pretty).

And that is the Airbus A300 and A310 for which is young enough, available in large enough numbers and for which there is an off the shelf tanker conversion kit available, but that would be as politically impossible as the original Airbus tanker order since the right of Boeing to sodomize the taxpayer shalt not be infringed.

Yet you want to give a tanker contract to Europe just to give Boeing (which employs Americans) the shaft? Why? Boeing MAKES things, that actually helps our trade deficit. The aerospace industry is one of the few remaining industries that we still maintain a slim lead in. By the way, Boeing's commercial aircraft division makes way more money than the military division, so I don't see how you feel that Boeing exists to "sodomize the taxpayer". You'd rather have EADS "sodomize the taxpayer"?

A ton of the A300/A310's are owned by American lessors who would love to get rid of them, hell hit up AIG for the ones they own through ILFC and the rest is labor which can be done in the United States.

Boeing lost the tanker contract TWICE fair and square, once for fraud and once out of incompetence.

EADS was going to make a massive investment in the United States, an airbus widebody plant in Alabama, while Boeing wanted to sell a handful of overpriced 767's before shutting down the line for good.

Those companies want to unload those airplanes for a reason...they are tired and worn out. They probably have a ton of flying hours already on them. EADS investment in the US would be minor overall compared to where most of the money would go. And the primary reason they wanted the contract was to further reduce Boeing's influence. Perhaps you like the idea of America's last remaining airline manufacturer to crash and burn...I don't.

The first Boeing contract, people went to jail, and rightfully so. There were people on both sides (DoD and Boeing) that erred on that one. With the second contract, Boeing provided an aircraft that fit the RFP, and Airbus went above and beyond. Boeing protested because had the USAF wanted the extra capability, they would have proposed a tanker based on the 777 or the 787 and not the 767, and that was the meat behind why the protest was upheld. In a reverse scenario, it would be like Airbus offering the A321 or A310, and then Boeing saying "oh yeah, well we're offering a 747 version", and then the USAF declaring the other the winner just because it was a bigger aircraft.

As for costs, look at the history of contracting. Boeing's cost was closer to a more accurate amount because the 767 line was fully up and running and the logistical system was already in place to produce a 767 tanker...the R&D had even already been paid for. But Northrop/EADS plan had yet to be proven. Their costs were "estimated", and if history is any guide, contracts that involve multiple major sub-assembly contractors often run into problems because of logistics, and the costs often increase over time.

They are a "International Supply Chain Systems Integrator"

Converting a mid-90's A310 and pulling a 707 originally delivered to Pan Am that put in 30 years of service before being pulled out of the desert after a decade in storage aren't the same thing. For one thing the A300 family was still manufactured up until 2007, so OEM parts and support will be available for decades to come.

Boeing felt they should win the tanker contract because they met the bare minimum requirements, that is the attitude that allowed Airbus to take the lead in recent years. The A330 is the right sized plane for a great many jobs and has beat the 767 Tanker in every international competition since its launch.

The fact the 767 line is up and running doesn't really count for much since the 767 tankers they have already built for the Japanese and Italians are a fiasco in their own right and the varient Boeing proposed to build for the USAF was a confused mix of 767 varients that was barely at the conceptual stage.

The A330 Tanker is already flying, the 767 tankers already flying for the Japanese and Italians are a disgrace and their project performance on the Italian and Japanese 767 tankers is reason enough to reject their bid.

Boeing fucked this up, just like so many other things. When confronted with the runaway sales of the A330, they stretched the 767 into the 767-400 and sold a grand total of 40 of them. When they could no longer ignore the A330 they announced the 787 and sold damn near a thousand of them, only to discover they didn't know how to assemble it and that their outsourcing partners who had been selected based on corporate welfare were incompetent, cascading penalties for each late delivery may mean the project never turns a profit.

Boeing can go to hell,

Because once it's gone, it's never coming back, and EADS will be our airliner supplier, until the Chinese effort to develop an airliner manufacturing company begins to bear fruit.

Hard to see how this would be in America's best interests.

Unfortunately many companies are too rotten to be saved and the drive for short-term profits led to self-cannibalization and a toxic executive culture from which they may never recover.

The people who could have saved Boeing were fired 10 years ago,

Remember the programs during the depression--constructing buildings, making roads, etc. Things we actually need!

top out at about $50. Aerospace engineers do better than that. The other issue is that there is downtime switching from one industry to another. No matter what this is bad for aerospace engineers and their families. A lot of them may have options or be in good shape but we are not for other reasons. This could be devastating for my family. We are already in foreclosure.

But I realize that's just me--I'm in an education profession because I enjoy doing it, not because it rakes in the money.

I wish your family luck with the transition. In the long run you may be happier than ever before.

I used to be a teacher and now I'm a social worker. You don't do either of those for the big bucks so I understand your point. However, we have 4 children and for reasons I won't go into a lot of financial stress.

I'm saying that he needs to make roughly what he's making now. More would be great of course but we'd both prefer green jobs to military. I keep saying that my concern is that the transition from one to the other will wipe us out financially . . . and that's if he can even get a green job.

Yes, I give you that...we do need to invest in our infrastructure. Concrete doesn't last forever. But how will cutting union jobs that are on assembly lines producing products that are technologically advanced (and thus contributing overall to our country's ability to compete on a technology basis) and putting them to work filling potholes and laying brick going to help our nation's trade?

Sure, we'll have smoother roads, newer schools and nice parks to go visit. But we'll have to import even more stuff from China, buy our cars from Japan, and ride on European made airliners, all because we sacrificed some of the few industries that we actually led in just to "stick it to the man". The "man" is all of us...yes, there are "fat cats" that make money off those companies, but we all do at some point down the line. From those who invest in those companies, to those who are employed by them.

Our aerospace industry is one of the few industries left where we still maintain a lead worldwide (albeit a thin lead over Europe). Civil and military aerospace are intermeshed...innovations in one category are incorporated into the other, and vice versa. Sinking our military aerospace industry will only hurt our civil aerospace industry.

we should focus aerospace people. I understand the need to cut back on the military . . . that's not "sinking" it and it doesn't affect civil which is already struggling because commercial airlines are doing so poorly. These two programs won't sink military aerospace but they will thin out jobs significantly.
This has nothing to do with revenge or sticking it to the man. Sounds like you work in aerospace where that thinking is common. There is no need to keep building and building when we're hopefully getting out of the two very unnecessary wars we're in. Its overkill and the money can be spent better elsewhere . . . very few poor people have ever made money on those companies either through employment ofr investment. Since the ranks of the very poor are growing daily it does make sense to shift some money from over the top military spending to people who desperately need it.
However, my original concern about this was that people need to be trained quickly in order to transition from one industry to another and that the pay just won't cover it. Aerospace people will really struggle and we don't need more of that right now.

Generalities and future projections mean nothing...actually, worse than nothing, because they mislead.

Be so kind as to show me the specifics, and some numbers to go with them. I can't find much.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pV-c6t5fOVmNorqMpHvnCMw

The amount on that page alone is 18.5 billion.
A lot of the programs under energy are going to have some connection to green jobs.
Thanks for sending me this. It seems your quite negative about this. Why? Are you originally from western Michigan (GR/Holland area)? That might explain a lot.

I see glittery generalities about research, grants to study things, focus-group words.

Notably, I do see $6.5 billion for weatherization, which I presume means helping people insulate their houses. That is one of the few items there that will create jobs in the near term - but once that money is spent, those jobs go away.

Now, do the math, and say every dime of that $18.5 billion goes directly to paychecks. You get something like:

18,500,000,000 / 50,000 = 370,000 paychecks funded for a year.

In other words, if you took the whole "green" allocation, and spent it on paychecks for $50,000/yr jobs, you would get 370,000 jobs that would disappear one year from now.

That would leave nothing for any expenses associated with those jobs, no equipment, no facilities, no labs, no support staff, no research modeling computers or even laptops, nothing. More importantly, a salary as small as $50k would not get you very many smart people, either, especially near any medium or larger city. For a measly 370,000 soon-to-evaporate jobs. At a relatively measly $50k/yr...about what a new college grad in, say, solar engineering or computer science might hope to make. In other words, not the smartest or most experienced workers, but the cheapest.

In reality, if everything was run frugally, efficiently, and beneath long-term normal costs, you'd spend somewhere between three and five times as much per employee in facilities and support as you would in salary. (And these industries definitely will hew above norms.) Which means, in the rosiest scenario, maybe 100,000 of those $50k jobs. That last a year.

Meanwhile, *last month alone* the US shed 671,000 jobs. Throw those 100,000 green jobs against that tsunami of unemployment. Hell, double the number: you still get just *ten days' reprieve.* Might as well spit in the ocean. And, as shown above, there aren't going to be hundreds of thousands of new green jobs created. Because most of the "green" money isn't going to jobs.

Do you see my point?

Without specifics and without accountability, this is a pot of money that those in corporate America who are experienced at directing pots of government money to themselves will spirit away. As they ALWAYS do.

The political careers of those who wrote this bill in the House exist because they create such pots of money. They are locked in a symbiotic relationship with the recipients. I'm not saying it's an utterly corrupt process, but they want you to believe this is all going for the creation of lasting jobs and the stimulation of the economy, yet most of the money has only the vaguest description of how it will be spent, and most of it will not be spent on strong Keynesian stimulation. It gets worse. Most of it won't even be spent this year. So much for "stimulation." The jobs are a sideshow.

To answer your other question, no, I am not from the Western part of Michigan. I was born in East Lansing. In any case, I don't believe individuals should be judged by statistical averages of large geographic populations.

1. I grew up in W Mich and I KNOW that 99%+ are hard core conservative republicans and always have been. That only started changing during the last election. So, your beliefs are wrong.
2. The point I was making before you went off on this tangent is that aerospace engineers are a good match for green jobs but the transition will be tough.
3. Obviously not everybody can have a green job and there WILL be jobs "making roads" (as the previous poster stated) but not ALL of the jobs are making roads . . . or even green jobs.
4. Yes, weatherization and almost all the energy related jobs are green jobs. Pg 69 is only 18.5 billion of those jobs.
5. Just because the people in the last administration raped us in every way possible doesn't mean that's what will happen this time. Obama is serious about the economy . . . he's also serious about oversight and regulation.
6. Aerospace engineers make in excess of 100,000 for the most part. If the aerospace engineers DO switch to green jobs there is MUCH more likely to be 10-50,000 of them and they will need to keep making that kind of money. Not everyone who is unemployed is in aerospace or well-suited to green jobs.
7. I have absolutely no idea why you're directing your rant at me. Our two subjects are only distantly related. If you don't like the structuring of the stimulus you might want to talk to someone who was involved in writing it or is defending it. That's not me. I was pointing out a concern. Nothing else.

source of $ for jobs. The spending bill certainly covers that as well.

But maybe they will come up with other weapons of murder we can build. I know it's not the builders fault it's a job. I would be pissed if I were getting laid off. We do have other weapons that don't kill but incapacitate people. I think having god like weapons would be the better choice rather than bombs.

these same people can build something other than weapons.
Certainly man power can be used for something that is not destructive.

but there is inevitably downtime in between switching from one industry to another. He hates being involved in defense but its what he knows. I hate defense too but I'd hate for our kids to have to suffer even more than they have in the last 8 years which were devastating for us.

solar power and wind stuff? Why do we have to build killing stuff? Man this planet is seriously fucked up :eyes:

used for killing - just for "defense" and the idea that we're not to be messed with . . . however, quite a few in this industry ARE looking into green jobs, including my husband. The problem is that you just don't walk right out of one industry and into the other and have a smooth transition financially. In the meantime, you can lose your home, your kids suffer . . . just like any other industry that's in a downswing.

Granted, there is a need for aerial refueling tankers, but it's not so necessary that it can't wait a little longer.

As for the bomber, yeah, that needs to go. With the military threats we face today, if we were building new long-range bombers, we should be doing them on the cheap. As in make them modified airliners instead of $2-billion-a-piece stealth bombers. But at the moment, we don't even need bombers that are modified airliners - our current fleet of B-52s, B-1s and B-2s will suffice. The Cold War's over. We're not sending our military against technologically advanced enemies these days.

I would go ahead with the tanker. The ones we are flying are pretty old and the airframes I am sure need to be replaced. Newer and more efficient ones would be a good thing. As far as the bomber goes, I totally agree, with the standoff weapons we can field a modified 747 can do the trick with no problem.

And as another poster mentioned we need to cancel an aircraft carrier as well.

While high unit cost advanced bombers are probably not the best option- it is still important to think- and think ahead strategically.

We're living in the 21st Century- and there are PLENTY of conflicts ahead with yes, technologically advanced adversaries.

My hope of course is that we'll use America's edge intelligently- along with other nations. My hope is also that we relegate fundamentalists and neoconservatives back to the fringe. But that's not going to happen if the folks in power think everyone in the world is just going to break out in a chorus of Kumbaya.

Just Kidding :-) :-)

Some were delivered in 1955. The "new" KC-135s were delivered in the early to mid-1960s. They are suffering from airframe fatigue and corrosion. The only thing that keeps them going is the skill of the maintainers, and honestly they are becoming a huge burden to properly maintain to keep them airworthy. Several of the aircraft have been grounded due to structural concerns.

Speaking of the stealth bombers, they only reason they cost as much as they did is because all the research and development costs had to be spread out over 20 aircraft. The B-52 likely would have been equally expensive (in constant dollars) had they only made 20 of them, but several hundred were built (now fewer than 100 are in service due to age and structural concerns).

How much do we really need to invest in offensive weapons? The defense contractors can sell their offensive systems to other countries to make money. The missiles we already have sitting in silos is enough of a deterrent for anyone. Lately the focus has been on projecting power with offensive systems and that needs to stop.

Isolationism- PLUS selling advanced systems to others overseas.

The only difference (which makes the post even MORE insane) is reliance on nuclear deterrence.

Wow.

Sounds like a policy prescription crafted by Tim LaHaye, et al.

Since when has nuclear deterrence failed? "Sounds like..." blah blah. whatever. I'm not one of the DLC moderates that wants to keep the status quo. That's what's insane.

You're surely not DLC- and I submit- not a progressive.

Sounds more like "end times" type stuff to me. Or maybe just someone unable to think two moves ahead. Or both.

Of course a regular military is needed, geez. I just mean we could easily scale back all of our big money high tech nonsense that is bankrupting us. Nobody is going to attack us anyway in any serious way. The cold war is over and nobody has anything to gain from a big war with the US.

I'd support total disarmament. You still think I'm a non-progressive end times evangelistic loony? I just don't see that happening any time soon, so for the time being I'd like to see a reduction in offensive systems.

abandoned.

By one rough estimate, "almost certain destruction within my grandchildren's lifetimes".
Nothing works perfectly, accidents happen.
http://nuclearrisk.org/

But I'm not holding my breath.

They are force multipliers. Fighters (yes, fighters can be used in defensive roles as well) use a lot of fuel. Taking off with a full load of weapons and engaging in combat burns fuel like crazy. Without tankers, the fighters would be forced to cut combat short and return to base to refuel, versus fly a shorter distance and top off fuel of fuel. It not only allows them to stay engaged longer, it also reduces the overall amount of fuel used going back and forth between the combat area and the air base.

The F-22 Stealth Fighter needs to be halted with all exiting units mothballed

The DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyers should be canceled

The Reliable Replacement Warhead should be canceled

The Strategic Missile Defense should be canceled

The money from these programs should be used for Clean, Renewable Energy programs like the 'moon shot' of the 1960's.

I was GOING to say keep the F-22, but then I remembered the F-35 and realized we didn't need the F-22.

Definitely get rid of the SDI bullshit--it wouldn't work when Ronnie dreamed it up, and it still won't work.

at least two full squadrons in service. F-35 not the first production aircraft has left the assembly lines. Seems sorta ill thought out to cancel a A/C in production and wait for the bugs to be worked out of an A/C that may be several year away from assembly line ready. JMO

nt

This is change. We need to start reversing military spending.

They just love to Kill and Destroy with their war toys???

AF is seeking long term contracts to provide in flight refueling services from civilian contractors.

The longer we wait, the worse the situation is going to get with respect to getting new tankers. The KC-135 is based on the Boeing 707/720. I ask each of you to find me a civilian operator still using the 707 (aside from Omega)...

The airplanes are very old, suffering from structural fatigue and corrosion. It's time to get a new tanker sooner rather than later. Sure, push it off 5 years, and then it can be pushed off again (as it's already been pushed off several times).

Though it shouldn't be that complicated because most of the technology is off the shelf.

The B-52 fleet is way older then the pilots flying it, but I don't think thats as much of a priority.

Boeing isn't going to keep the line open that long, and thank god.

In this economy, I think the tanker contract should go to Boeing. Sure the EADS version might do a little more of this or a little more of that, but when you're really looking at it, it's a tanker. The A330 carries more cargo, great...except that AMC and TACC don't typically utilize tankers in a dual role...they do to some degree, but rarely. The KC-10 is also a dual-role tanker, and it was estimated that it only hauls cargo 5% of the time, and even then, that's usually carrying spare parts and maintenance personnel for a fighter squadron as it drags them over the ocean. The KC-10 has been around for about 30 years and it's hardly EVER been used to carry cargo. AMC and TACC have had the capacity to do so, but for operational reasons it's not as efficient as you might think to do so.

Do what you need to with the bomber...honestly, the F-35 (if we ever get them) will do a great job and our need for a long-range bomber (assuming we have aerial refueling capacity) isn't as critical a need as having a tanker.

Under its present leadership the only future Boeing has is to serve as a warning to others.

Sure, the local labor force might benefit, but the overall US trade deficit and aerospace industry would suffer. After all things are considered, an Airbus is an Airbus...it's a European product, not a US product. That's like saying Toyota trucks are US products because they are made here...wrong, they are Japanese products that are assembled here. The vast bulk of the capital, R&D and other benefits from that industry get shipped back to Japan. Sure, US workers benefit in a narrow way (they have jobs), but overall it's a net loss for the US economy.

Being a USAF pilot, I'd rather fly a US product than a European one, because when it comes down to it, I want to see our aerospace industry rebound instead of being undercut by people who simply want to see the execs founder. Truth be told, EADS is much like Boeing...they have their own corporate types, and the company isn't known for being efficient (it receives a boatload of EU incentives and subsidies to stay competitive).

While the finished product might get stamped Made In USA, Made in France or Made in Germany for Boeing and Airbus alike the value of the parts is pretty widely distributed. It isn't as though all the raw materials and value added labor goes in the same column.

EADS was simply offering the better product and won accordingly, and would have beat a 777 based tanker too.

I know a couple tanker pilots and they were all delighted with the selection of the Airbus tanker,