The Boeing KC-767 deal

[Vympel]

Inside the Boeing deal scandal

October 6, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Shame is unknown to the Boeing Co. team intent on sticking U.S. taxpayers with a $16 billion sweetheart deal for leasing 100 KC-767 planes as Air Force tankers. Although a massive document drop revealed the tawdry details of the Chicago-based company's incestuous relationship with the Air Force, Boeing last week covertly tried to stick the deal in the $87 billion appropriations bill for Iraq. Only Sen. John McCain's intervention stopped it.

A reference to tankers in the supplemental bill appeared benign, but would have been the seed for authorizing the deal in the Senate-House conference. Boeing tried to hinge corporate profit to U.S. troops in Iraq. When McCain warned he would hold up the bill, all mention of tankers was removed.

That was a victorious skirmish in what may be a losing war. The 7,500 pages of internal documents McCain forced Boeing to release provide extraordinary insight into the military-industrial complex. Boeing operatives, on a first-name basis with high Pentagon officials, openly display their conniving.

Mitch Daniels, then budget director, was Horatio at the bridge trying to stop the deal. Boeing's tentacles spread into the White House Oval Office and the offices of the speaker of the House and president pro-tem of the Senate.

''I never have seen anything that unsavory,'' McCain told me last week in describing the Boeing papers.

Last Dec. 19, both Daniels and I misinterpreted failure to act by the Defense Department's Leasing Panel as a sign the deal was dead. It was not, but Boeing was worried.

''We have re-engaged with Speaker,'' said a Boeing internal memo of Dec. 19. ''Novak piece is a direct attack.'' The memo reported that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert met with President Bush earlier that week ''and reportedly got a positive response (undefined, at least to us) out of president.'' It talked about working with ''senior consultants who have relationship'' with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld through membership on his Defense Policy Board.

Also on Dec. 19, executive vice president Jim Albaugh (Boeing's No. 2 official) wrote that ''our contacts with the Speaker indicate that he is ballistic'' over my column reporting Daniels' opposition ''and that he takes it as a personal affront.''

Albaugh concluded: ''I plan on remaining in D.C. until [chief Boeing lobbyist] Rudy [de Leon] and I are satisfied we have all the actions in place to get this deal done and the Novak article defused.''

Boeing had more than my column to worry about. A Feb. 10 report by the Pentagon's Program Analysis and Evaluation concluded that ''leasing will cost more than purchasing (several billion dollars more).'' After the Pentagon quietly approved the lease in May, PA&E director Ken Krieg on June 20 issued a report that leasing ''is more expensive in the long run'' than direct purchases.

On June 23, an internal memo shows then Secretary of the Air Force James Roche (now Army secretary-designate) in on the deal.

''We have a big problem'' with Krieg's report, Roche is quoted as saying. Roche urged Boeing to pressure Krieg ''to write a new letter essentially undoing the first letter.'' Boeing wanted it made clear to Krieg that his report was ''going to embarrass'' Rumsfeld.

Roche's lieutenant, Deputy Assistant Secretary Darleen Druyun, is reported in an April 1, 2002, Boeing memo as having ''told us several times to keep in mind'' that the Airbus price was $5 million to $17 million cheaper per plane than Boeing's 767.

''Darleen is fearful/concerned with Sen. McCain,'' the memo adds. She left the Pentagon in January to become a Boeing executive and is under investigation by the Defense Department's inspector general.

The Boeing document dump would supply a dozen docudramas, but perhaps the most shocking admission is found in a company memo of May 22, 2002: ''The [Boeing] team is still working the art of the possible in terms of obfuscating construction financing, transactions costs and lease administration.''

That deal is now wending its way to congressional approval.

I've been following this item with interest for some time- for the most part, coverage of this deal has been pretty negative- it stinks of blatant corporate welfare rather than actual military need (whether the USAF needs 100 new tankers or not, I am unsure, I've heard arguments for and against) and this seems to confirm what I thought. Note the author. At least he's not a total idiot.

[MKSheppard]

(whether the USAF needs 100 new tankers or not, I am unsure, I've heard arguments for and against)

...

From globalsecurity.org:

The Air Force currently has about 550 KC-135 tanker aircraft. The average age as of 2001 was 41 years

[Nathan F]

We really need to get the ball rolling on production of more KC-10s or start retrofitting old 707s to KC-135s. These planes are getting OLD.

[Vympel]

The Air Force currently has about 550 KC-135 tanker aircraft. The average age as of 2001 was 41 years

[/quote]

True, but GAO studies have shown that they still have tens of thousands of hours left on their airframes- how correct these bean-counting studies are, I don't know, but *points to B-52, cackles*

[Wicked Pilot]

We do need a replacement for the KC-135s, but political back deals are not the way we need to go about getting them.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Air Force currently has about 550 KC-135 tanker aircraft. The average age as of 2001 was 41 years

Thing is that almost all of the current fleet spent its 75% of its life sitting on alert for SAC, being maintained very heavily and flown only for training missions. As a result they still have vast amounts of airframe life left, though they do need some major upgrades if we really want to keep them much longer.

The KC-767 however has some major advantages; it can handle palletized cargo and it its self can be refueled in flight. With current KC-135's, they can either deploy or refueled other aircraft that are delaying, which results in any large scale air deployment needing a big shitload of tankers based along its path. Since the KC-767 can top off after takeoff it can also fuel up smaller aircraft as it deploys. That's a very valued capability, but only the limited KC-10 fleet currently has the capability. KC-767's should also be much cheaper to operate.

[Worlds Spanner]

41 years isn't tooold. There are still DC-3's flying that are God only knows how old, and those B-52's that are nearly as old as the tankers are still our most cost effective delivery system.

Upgrades would be good and all, but a well maintained airframe can last for a surprisingly long time.

[Nathan F]

41 years isn't tooold. There are still DC-3's flying that are God only knows how old, and those B-52's that are nearly as old as the tankers are still our most cost effective delivery system.

Upgrades would be good and all, but a well maintained airframe can last for a surprisingly long time.

Very good point. The US recently sold some old C-47s to the Columbian AF. They had new glass cockpits and new turboprop engines, but that's it. Same airframes, new engines.

And the BUFF is the perfect example of an old airplane lasting a long time under some heavy usage.

[Howedar]

The ability of the KC-767 to handle both USAF boom and probe-and-drogue at once would also be a valued capability. The USN is pretty damn short on tankers right now, if they even have any left at all (seems like they do buddy fueling these days). Its also nice to be able to fuel the aircraft of friendly nations in the same sortie as tanking USAF aircraft.

[phongn]

The KA-6D fleet has long been gone from the Navy.

[Howedar]

Yeah, thats what I thought.

I think they oughta do some S-3 conversions, but thats just me.

[Stuart Mackey]

41 years isn't tooold. There are still DC-3's flying that are God only knows how old, and those B-52's that are nearly as old as the tankers are still our most cost effective delivery system.

Upgrades would be good and all, but a well maintained airframe can last for a surprisingly long time.

Very good point. The US recently sold some old C-47s to the Columbian AF. They had new glass cockpits and new turboprop engines, but that's it. Same airframes, new engines.

And the BUFF is the perfect example of an old airplane lasting a long time under some heavy usage.

Quite right. If your current tanker fleet has had little airtime they should be ok for the job they were designed for. People point at B52's..I point at RNZAF C130's and tell you to thank your lucky stars.

[RogueIce]

Yeah, thats what I thought.

I think they oughta do some S-3 conversions, but thats just me.

They have some S-3s as tankers. I don't know if they're dedicated KS-3s or just have buddy stores, but they do use the S-3s as tankers (according to my NS instructor, that's sort of become a primary mission for them - I guess I might've asked when we were at the VS at Jax, but I didn't).

[Vympel]

The F/A-18E made quite a good tanker in Iraqi Freedom

[Tsyroc]

The F/A-18E made quite a good tanker in Iraqi Freedom

Now that's a good one.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah, thats what I thought.

I think they oughta do some S-3 conversions, but thats just me.

You know, the entire USN S-3 fleet now does nothing BUT tanker work with buddy stores, the plane no longer fly's ASW patrols and the equipment has been partly removed in some cases. Though the shortage of strike aircraft has led to a fairly recent upgrade to use Mavericks and a few other weapons, they flew a couple strike missions in the recent invasion of Iraq.

[Sea Skimmer]

41 years isn't tooold. There are still DC-3's flying that are God only knows how old, and those B-52's that are nearly as old as the tankers are still our most cost effective delivery system.

Upgrades would be good and all, but a well maintained airframe can last for a surprisingly long time.

Some C-47's are expected to have about 400 years worth of airframe life with regular usage, those calculations are based of planes that have already been flying about 80 years. However that is because of absurdly low wing loading and overall stress levels on the airframe, you cannot build a useful jet aircraft with the kind of loading it has and no jet will ever come close to lasting as long. It is just not possibul.

[The Dark]

They have some S-3s as tankers. I don't know if they're dedicated KS-3s or just have buddy stores, but they do use the S-3s as tankers (according to my NS instructor, that's sort of become a primary mission for them - I guess I might've asked when we were at the VS at Jax, but I didn't).

KS-3As are decommissioned or reconverted back to S-3B standard (as are the CS-3A and the US-3A). Most (but not all) S-3s have the ability to carry Buddy Stores, according to the information on them at the navy.mil website. S-3 can do (not saying they do do, just can do) ground attack, surface surveillance, ASW, and tanker roles. There's also the ELINT variant ES-3A.

[Sea Skimmer]

There's also the ELINT variant ES-3A.

All ES-3's where with drawn from service in 98/99 due purely to budget cuts. A valuable capability lost.

[Rubberanvil]

How long before the ELINT F/A-18s come into service?

[Sea Skimmer]

How long before the ELINT F/A-18s come into service?

Never as no such plane exists or is projected.

[Nathan F]

41 years isn't tooold. There are still DC-3's flying that are God only knows how old, and those B-52's that are nearly as old as the tankers are still our most cost effective delivery system.

Upgrades would be good and all, but a well maintained airframe can last for a surprisingly long time.

Some C-47's are expected to have about 400 years worth of airframe life with regular usage, those calculations are based of planes that have already been flying about 80 years. However that is because of absurdly low wing loading and overall stress levels on the airframe, you cannot build a useful jet aircraft with the kind of loading it has and no jet will ever come close to lasting as long. It is just not possibul.

Honestly, if someone started up a production line making DC-3s and C-47s (Both piston and turboprop) with updated avionics and using some newer design techniques, and then marketing them to short-medium haul cargo routes and smaller militaries and civilian agencies, It wouldn't surprise me if people would continue buying them. Heck, just market them with the slogan "They'll last 400 years...literally."

[RogueIce]

How long before the ELINT F/A-18s come into service?

Never as no such plane exists or is projected.

He probably means the EF-18G or something like that, the "Electric Hornet" or (I think I heard this) the "Growler." It's supposed to be the replacement to the EA-6B Prowler as EW (Electronic Warfare, or so I believe...basically, jam radars and shoot HARMs at 'em), but I honestly don't know what state it's in.

ELINT is Electronic Intelligence, which more or less means intercepting signals and fun stuff like that. I don't know too much about it though, since we haven't gone into any detail on it yet (and I probably won't until I get out in the Fleet, or maybe on a summer cruise, if even then).

[Sea Skimmer]

He probably means the EF-18G or something like that, the "Electric Hornet" or (I think I heard this) the "Growler." It's supposed to be the replacement to the EA-6B Prowler as EW (Electronic Warfare, or so I believe...basically, jam radars and shoot HARMs at 'em), but I honestly don't know what state it's in.

Yeah it's the Growler and it's coming along in development though still a while off. It will be using an new version of the Prowlers ALQ-99 jamming system with increased automation. Evidently it will also retain the full combat capability of the F/A-18, so once the radars are all dead or if the enemy never has many in the first place it can fly strike missions as well. That will be valuable asset given the decline of carrier groups, and the likeliness of even more cuts in F-35/FA-18E/F procurement.

[MKSheppard]

Evidently it will also retain the full combat capability of the F/A-18, so once the radars are all dead or if the enemy never has many in the first place it can fly strike missions as well.

Right, lets send in a highly trained wild weasel aircraft AND a
highly expensive dedicated wild weasel craft to do strike missions
where a golden BB can down it.