GovernmentExecutive.com

Congress is preparing to wage a high-stakes battle with the Pentagon over plans to cut 40 percent of the Air Force's venerable B-52 bomber fleet to make room in the service's constrained budget for higher priority programs.

With the Air Force is expected to make sweeping manpower and aircraft cuts over the next several years as part of a broader Defense Department effort to cut spending, this year's fight may prove more challenging than ever for the bomber's fiercely loyal supporters.

"It was the only way we could balance the books for the budget in the future," said retired Gen. John Loh, a former commander of Air Combat Command. With a single line in its recently released Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon revealed its intent to reduce the fleet from 94 B-52 H-model planes to 56.

The Air Force wants to pour those savings into upgrading the remaining B-52s, as well as B-1 and B-2 bombers. Much of lawmakers' arguments will center on the fact that B-52s, first fielded in 1955, cost half as much to fly as the B-1.

"Given our huge budget problem, it would make sense to me to keep the most efficient bombers in the fleet," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., a member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee who last year helped restore B-52 money in the fiscal 2006 budget.

The Louisiana and North Dakota delegations, whose states are home to the entire fleet of B-52s, have successfully thwarted previous efforts to retire portions of the fleet. They are wasting no time gearing up for another battle. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., discussed the issue Tuesday with leaders at Minot Air Force Base, the North Dakota home to 35 B-52Hs.

It would be unwise "to fly them off to the graveyard when we don't have a replacement and we still face contingencies that could require us to be in action half a world away in Iraq and at the same time be involved in some other distant part of the globe," Conrad told CongressDaily. The upgraded planes are in shape to fly until 2037, he added.

Meanwhile, Louisiana lawmakers will meet Tuesday with Air Force officials to discuss the proposal's impact on Barksdale Air Force Base, said an aide to Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. The Louisiana delegation jumped on the issue last month after a leaked draft document revealed the Air Force's plans.

"Despite the B-52's sterling record and prominent role in numerous military campaigns, debate has intensified about its very existence," lawmakers wrote Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Moseley Jan. 25. "We are deeply concerned the Air Force has created another justification for dismantling this all-important node in our nation's defense."

But with defense budgets expected to level off in coming years, the B-52 decision may be one of fiscal necessity, say former defense officials. The B-52 "is not like something you wouldn't want to have if you were a rich man and could have it all," said Jacques Gansler, who as Pentagon acquisition chief grappled with the issue in the late 1990s.

But political pressure prevailed and the B-52 fleet remained intact. Conrad said he suspects the latest proposal -- which would cut deeper than previous plans -- is a budget ploy. "They cut in a place that they know Congress won't agree with and [will] restore funding," he said.

COMMENTS

• Illegal immigration is against the law. Therefore it is a crime, and therefore it is criminal. If you don't want to enforce the minor laws, then quit and go be a "rent-a-cop." Rick Posted November 30, 2006 3:13 AM
• Well, it is apparent that Taxpayer has no job and spends all day sitting writing ill-informed responses to other posts and stories. In this particular case he's stepped over the line and truly shows his ignorance concerning the Vietnam conflict. Why don't you, Mr. Taxpayer, explain to the many widows of Air Force pilots shot down and killed supporting troops in Vietnam, just how those pilots never did anything but partied. Why don't you explain to all of us how the Air Force pilots that spent months or years in those wretched POW camps in Vietnam and Cambodia ended up there??? Do you think they partied their way into those camps? Do you think the South Vietnamese and Cambodians partied with them? It was no party Mr. Taxpayer, I assure you. You should be ashamed for making such statements. I hope you never run across one of these former POWs. GovExec.com reader Posted March 1, 2006 8:52 AM
• 1. The B-52 is the work horse bomber of the Air Force. We should keep the B-52s and get rid of the B-1 and hold the B-2 where it is without adding any new ones. 2. The Air Combat Command should give up almost all of its fighters. The F - whatevers should go to the Air National Guard to be spread around the United States for purposes of defense in the rare situation that the United States is attacked. 3. The Air Force fighters perform no useful mission. The fighter and fighter-bombers used in wars are those of the Navy operating off aircraft carriers. We need the Navy well armed and with carrier capacity to fight anywhere in the world. Air Force fighters at Langley AFB are of little or no use to the United States and cost us a lot of money. 4. The reduction in manpower only should apply to military personnel. The way to reduce the manpower is to stop recruiting people into the Air Force and reduce the general officer and colonel ranks significantly by stopping promotions of lieutenant colonels and majors. 5. Finally, eliminate Air Force bases and make them either Army bases (as they were before the Air Force) or Navy bases to train fighter pilots to land on carriers. My friends in VN tell me that they could not count on Air Force cover for ground troops because the Air Force was always busy with promotion, birthday and retirement parties. The ground troops tell me they relied on the Navy and Marines to provide troop cover in VN because the Air Force totally was unreliable in this area of support. Taxpayer Posted February 28, 2006 8:57 AM