Posted on 06/24/2002 7:50:43 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
At any given time, the Air Force has about 200 "excess" tanker engines, worth $877 million, sitting "idle" in depots, the service's auditors said in a draft report obtained by Defense Week.If Air Force officials had used those fully functional, older engines instead of new ones in upgrading KC-135 tankers, and accomplished a few other efficiencies, they could have saved $1 billion, the internal report says. And they still can, if they decide to replace more of the engines.
But instead of upgrading more KC-135s, the Air Force wants to lease from Boeing 100 commercial 767 jetliners transformed into military tankers. It now appears that the Boeing arrangement would cost $25 billion more than upgrading the same number of existing KC-135s. The cost contrast forms one of the most fiscally significant, and least discussed, aspects of the defense budget.
Specifically, the White House Office of Management and Budget says the 767 lease could cost $27 billion. By contrast, after factoring in the $1 billion saved by using the allegedly excess engines, upgrading 100 KC-135s would cost just $1.9 billion—or almost 15 times less than the same number of 767s. What's more, the KC-135s could carry more fuel than the 767s and could be delivered to the field sooner.
Aging aircraft
Boeing did not return a call for comment, but in the past the company has said it can get the Air Force a better deal than the one described by the White House and other critics. But it would have to be a much better deal to make up the $25 billion difference.
The key question is whether it is worth investing in KC-135s that average 40 years of age. The Air Force says no.
"While newer, more efficient engines provide greater operational capability, they fail to mitigate aging aircraft issues such as corrosion, supportability, and technical obsolescence," the Air Force said in a statement. "Attempting to maintain and operate a fleet of 545 aircraft through 2040 (with aircraft over 80 years old) is uncharted territory, but would certainly result in increasing costs and decreasing aircraft availability."
These factors, the Air Force said, plus the costs of the war on terrorism, "demand our beginning to replace, not re-engine, the venerable KC-135."
However, while the KC-135s are old, they still retain most of their expected number of lifetime flight hours, experts say. For example, the White House said in a recent letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that "only six tankers would have to be retired before 2040 because they would exceed their airframe life."
In a 1996 letter to the General Accounting Office, the defense secretary's office at the time wrote that despite the average age then of 35 years, "With proper maintenance and upgrades, we believe the [KC-135] aircraft may be sustainable for another 35 years."
Even though a modified 767 would last longer than an old KC-135, it had better last a lot longer, some observers say, given the price difference.
Turning Es into Rs
When a KC-135E has several upgrades, most notably replacing its four Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines with CFM International CFM56 engines, the result is called a KC-135R.
The Air Force has already spent more than $6 billion replacing the engines in 412 of its 546 KC-135s, judging by the engine prices cited in the audit. The question now is whether the service will spend a few billion more to complete the re-engining of some or all of the remaining 134 KC-135Es or, alternatively, obtain the Boeing 767 tankers by lease or purchase.
In December, congressional appropriators, in a last-minute insertion in a defense-spending bill, instructed the Air Force to negotiate a leasing deal with Boeing for 100 of the tankers, plus four 737s for VIP transport. Negotiations are ongoing for the tankers. The Air Force has not said it will definitely consummate a deal. If the Air Force does ink an agreement, it then must be approved by a skeptical White House and by Congress.
On Capitol Hill, a vocal minority led by McCain has opposed the tanker lease as corporate welfare. Other lawmakers, including those from Washington state, where the planes would be built, have backed the leasing plan.
The General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office have all recently provided reports to McCain and others casting doubt on the fiscal wisdom of the leasing plan.
Sitting in depot
The undated draft Air Force Audit Agency document says that an average of 208 used-but-functional CFM56 engines are available in depots such as Tinker AFB, Okla., while the planes they rode in on undergo maintenance, which now averages more than a year. The auditors say that the engines should be used while the aircraft are in the shop.
"Engine managers did not consider the idle, uninstalled engines in depot maintenance facilities as available replacement engines," the audit said.
The managers have resisted using the idle engines, the audit said, because the managers believe they will need the engines for the planes that are in the shop. But the audit said the planes stay in the shop so long that the engines not only can be put in other planes, but they should be—because an engine's reliability declines the longer it sits idle.
Besides the $877 million in idle engines, another approximately $150 million could be saved by consolidating spare engines in fewer locations and other efficiencies. That brings the total potential savings to about $1 billion.
Finally, a sentence buried in an appendix to the audit reveals another area of potential savings. In a March report, the auditors found that officials managing procurement of engines for another Air Force plane, the C-5 Galaxy strategic transport, "did not consider commercial engine experience when computing spare engine requirements, overstating those requirements $463.2 million."
That amount of money could purchase 16 additional upgraded KC-135R tankers, but it would not buy even two leased Boeing 767 tankers, if the White House's figures for the cost of the lease hold true.
During the Korean war I lost many a friend due to tired worn out engines, remanufatured, overhauled or what have you. If the bean counters want to go with us, fine, somehow I suspicion they prefer to fly their desk with all their expertise.
I say, better off with too many extra engines than too few. Let's save that billion dollars by eliminating the Education Department, The Arts funding, Commerce, etc.
In that story they are retiring the B-1B in favor of the B-52. Yet in this story the KC-135 is "too old"?
As to the current plan, as any financial planner if you would be better off to buy or lease your next car? (Mine refers to them as a "Fleece")
I'll remember this part everytime I hear about another military plane crash.
The TF33 is the same engine used in the B-52H. If the KC-135 engines need to be replaced shouldn't the B-52 engines also be replaced?
We probably ought to upgrade all the KC-135Es to the R model. Also, we should start obaining 767 gradually so that the tanker fleet does not become worn out all at once. Also, why do we need to buy brand new planes for use as tankers. Tankers tend to spend a lot more time on the ground than commercial transports. Why not buy some DC-10 aircraft that still have been parked in the desert due to the post 9-11 decrease in air travel, and convert them to KC-10s? We could buy Used but servicable DC-10s much cheaper than brand new 767s. We could also obtain them much more quickly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.