WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 (UPI) -- Senator John McCain (R.-Ariz.) evidently admires President Eisenhower's legacy. In fact, he admires it so much he wants the military to keep using equipment introduced during his presidency. To achieve this aim, he is advancing economic arguments against a much-needed updating of military capabilities. Yet his arguments are simply a political game and the war hero Senator is endangering American servicemen by his actions.
The upgrading in question relates to the Air Force tanker fleet and the case for the upgrading is operational, not economic. Because of America's need to project force around the world, we require an operational fleet of tankers that can refuel our strike aircraft in mid-flight. The current fleet of over 500 KC-135 tankers (based on the successful 707 class) is over 35 years old. Some, the 100 or so KC-135E tankers, are over 45 years old, introduced when Eisenhower was President. The average aircraft age of 38 years compares unfavorably to the 23-24 years that represents the average age of the Air Force's other aircraft. In fact, the U.S. Government operates over 80 percent of the 1950s-era 707 class aircraft still flying today, largely due to the tanker fleet.
The fleet has been showing its age for some time. Air Force secretary Roche told the Senate last year, "Something is wrong if one-fifth of our 135 fleet has to be in major depot at any one time. ... At some point it's not wise to keep these things going. The 707s have catalytic corrosion problems where the dissimilar metals are no longer separated as they were originally. ... Some of the aluminum is delaminating." These are not the characteristics of a healthy fleet. And it will take a considerable amount of time for any replacements to enter into service. Air Force Lt. General Plummer told the Government Accounting Office last year, "Regardless of when we start [replacing the tankers], it will take over 25 years to completely recapitalize the existing fleet. Due to the sheer number of aircraft required, we will still be relying on some (by then) 70-year-old plus combat aircraft. The ongoing war and the advanced age of our fleet drive our urgency to recapitalize as soon as possible." It will be as if we had spent the 1980s patrolling the skies over Germany with World War I-era aircraft.
The operational burden on the ageing fleet has also increased with the advent of the war on terrorism. Tanker flying hours increased 45 percent in 2002 over 2001. During the operations in Afghanistan, 5,000 tanker sorties were flown, delivering 265 million pounds of badly-needed fuel during 29,000 hours of flight time. Homeland security operations over the United States itself required just as much time in the air. And during the combat phase of the war in Iraq, 9,000 tanker sorties were flown by U.S. and coalition aircraft, offloading 420 million pounds of fuel. This is a heavy burden to ask of a 50-year-old fleet.
As a result of this increased workload and the urgent need to provide some relief to the fleet, the Department of Defense has reached agreement with Boeing to lease 100 refueling tankers. Congress has thirty days to approve or deny this proposal. Unsurprisingly, given the evidence from the Generals and Secretary Roche, most members of Congress approve of this solution to the immediate problem.
Not so McCain, however. As Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, he is dragging his feet on the deal. He has dismissed the arguments that the existing fleet is on its last wheels, citing an Air Force study from 2001 that found that the tanker fleet was viable until 2040 and would not need to even commence replacement until 2013. Secretary Roche disavows the study, calling it faulty, but Sen. McCain demands more evidence. The fact that the study was carried out before the war on terrorism began appears to have escaped his notice.
McCain backs up his argument with demands for fiscal prudence and allegations that the lease deal is more expensive to the taxpayer than outright purchase, with the implication that the DOD is being fleeced. He also alleges that the deal is simply an attempt to end-around budget rules. He is wrong on all counts. It was Congress that suggested the lease deal in the first place, because it recognized the conflict between the immediate need for replacement aircraft and the strain put on the defense budget by the need to recover from years of cuts during the Clinton administration and the extra needs of the war on terrorism.
In suggesting that the DOD use innovative means of financing the tanker fleet replacement, Congress was recognizing that traditional procurement methods would be detrimental to the national interest in this case. The lease is in fact straightforward and based on how commercial airlines finance new aircraft. It makes something affordable that would not be with an outright purchase. The extra cost all-told is not an unbearable mark-up, but the premium needed to make the deal acceptable to both buyer and seller. So the argument is not lease against buy (if it was, McCain would have made a case that needs answering) but lease against status quo, and the status quo is unacceptable on national security grounds.
Mitch Daniels, then Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, recognized this when he wrote in the Seattle Times earlier this year, "From where this began, taxpayers will save at least $2 billion." Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics "Pete" Aldridge has also pointed out the cost of inaction that rises daily, and would cause costs to mount further if the traditional procurement process went forward: "As we go into the depots and look at what's happening when we put a KC-135 in, it's taking them much longer to go through the process of refurbishing it, and it's costing us a lot more money; it's going up every year."
If Sen. McCain had been told by a Senator during his service in Vietnam that he was going to have to fly 50-year-old aircraft and put up with them for another 20 years, he might have replied rather robustly. Yet he is happy to do that to America's servicemen today, presumably in order to score political points. If he's going to do that, he should choose an issue where American lives are not at stake, and step back from opposing this vital deal.
Iain Murray is Secretary of the Anglosphere Institute.
