GovernmentExecutive.com

Air Force leaders made another appeal Wednesday for the authority to retire scores of their oldest aircraft that they said cost $1.7 billion a year to maintain, money that could be used to buy urgently needed new planes.

The appeal by Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley drew bipartisan support from senior members of the House Armed Services Committee, but opposition from some members who have parochial interests in some of the aged aircraft. Wynne noted the Air Force's air fleet is the oldest in history, with an average age of about 25 years.

"We ask for your continued help in managing our fleet without congressional interference," he said.

Moseley said the three-year-old congressional restrictions force him to retain B-52 bombers and KC-135 aerial refueling tankers that are over 45 years old and costly to maintain, C-130 cargo planes that have serious wing cracks and are grounded or limited in the loads they can carry, and C-5A cargo aircraft that have low availability because of heavy maintenance requirements.

"Our desire would be to manage our fleet ... to work our way through that old iron," he said. Because of the restrictions, "we are wasting $1.7 billion a year" to support airplanes, many of which cannot fly, complained House Armed Services Air and Land Subcommittee ranking member Jim Saxton, R-N.J. That view was supported by Armed Services ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., in a statement read by Saxton.

Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., did not take a position on the restrictions, but noted in his opening statement that 14 percent of the Air Force's fleet "is either grounded or had mission-limiting restrictions" while the service is cutting flying hours, reducing its personnel and has an unfunded requirements list totaling $16.9 billion.

Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Vic Snyder, D-Ark., asked the Air Force officials for proposed legislation to lift the restrictions and other changes in the law they might need. The committee passed and the House approved language in last year's defense authorization to lift the restrictions, but the relief language was removed in the conference with the Senate.

The restrictions on retiring the oldest aircraft originated when some members of Congress feared that losing the planes would make bases in their districts or states more vulnerable to the 2005 base closing process. It has survived because those airplanes represent jobs for defense contractors or for the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve personnel who fly and maintain them.

That was evident during the hearing when Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., urged continuation of the effort to modernize the oldest C-5s, which is done at a Georgia-based Lockheed Martin Corp. factory, and Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairwoman Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., supported retention of the C-5s based at Travis Air Force Base in her district. At the same time, Tauscher supported continued purchases of the Boeing-built C-17 transports, which are produced in California.

But Moseley said the Air Force could not buy more C-17s unless it could retire the oldest C-5s. The general also said his priorities for the limited procurement funds were the new airborne tanker, a new search and rescue helicopter, space systems and the next generation long-range strike aircraft.

COMMENTS

• Oh, I forgot to read your last paragraph. Actually, Depot for the 135 has been back logged. We have aircraft waiting to get in becuase the depots can't process the aging aircraft as quickly as they used to due to all the repairs they have to make to the 45 plus year old parts. They can't simply "buy" new wings, bucause aircraft companies typically destroy or recycle the molds tools and manufacturing lines that built the original aircraft. Taking large structural sections from aircraft in the boneyard typically doesn't work either, i've been inolved in situations where that was tried and due to flight stresses often times sections from one aircraft (even a sister aircraft) won't fit another. And you can't just "fix" a crack. Try actually maintaining these aircraft before you make statements like that. Weld the door to your car if you like, but if I have to trust my life to the welded wing box of an aircraft, I want it fixed properly, and that costs lots of money. James Posted September 20, 2007 4:29 PM
• mr. taxpayer. Before you make comments about what actually occurs at depot, check your facts. Depot does not replace engines, radios, radar, etc. The essentially just tear apart and inspect the aircraft, replace worn or corroded structural surfaces, reassemble and repaint. Once in a while they may run some new wire if it is requested. I work on kc-135's, and I am here to tell you, markings on many of our aircraft date the parts to an excess of 52 years of age, let alone 45. As for your statement about yearly savings not exceeding the cost of new purchases - yes, you are right - for 1 year. it does not cost (per year) what it costs to purchase new aircraft. but over time, those costs add up subtantially, not to mention that our older aircraft ARE ALWAYS BROKEN no matter how hard we try to keep them fixed. This means increased cost due to lost missions, manpower, and reduced flexibility because our aircraft cannot perform all aspects of the missions they are required for. I know of aircraft that were out of service for over a year and a half while sections were being rebuilt at the cost of millions of dollars due to fatiguing of the metal - that whole time the aircraft was unusable. These planes have been flying for 50 years, and yes, while some have parts that are younger than ten years old, the majority of ALL of them are older than 45. Not to mention that while yes, government spending on the military does take away from money spent in the private sector, I would like to remind you that WWII brought us out of the depression due to all the military spending that created private sector jobs - people with jobs means people with money - people with money spend said money and THAT IS WHAT SPURS THE ECONOMY. I'd rather have the government put it into sustaining our armed forces (which in turn creates jobs) and ensuring we can continue to protect ourselves and allies rather than just giving handouts to people to lazy to get off their butt and get a job. James Posted September 20, 2007 4:27 PM
• Scott, I appreciate your comments and if they are true it should be easy for the generals to show the need rather than relying on words filled with value implied rather than value stated. All I am saying is that the case should be made on the numbers and not emotional statements. The opportunity cost of people is established by the courts in personal injury cases and easily can be incorporated into a proper analysis of the replacements. If the generals did a proper job of presenting an investment analysis rather than an emotional argument, they would have a lot more new aircraft and ships than they do now. taxpayer Posted March 6, 2007 9:31 AM