« Afghanistan Taliban Leader Was at Gitmo | Main | Democrat Group The League of Conservation Voters for New Ad Using Rush »
March 12, 2009
Obama to Delay Tanker, Kill Bomber
Obama to Delay Tanker, Kill Bomber
The White House has given the Pentagon guidance to delay procurement of aerial refueling tankers by five years and cancel plans for a new long-range bomber, according to three sources close to the discussions.
No final decisions have been made, and the recommendations are part of negotiations between the Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department over possible budget trade-offs this year, the sources said. The guidance represents two of the offset options that OMB gave the Pentagon last month regarding the fiscal 2010 Defense budget request.
If the guidance survives the internal budget process, a huge protest will follow on Capitol Hill, where dozens of lawmakers are heavily invested in the battle over tanker procurement, which has raged for years.
A new long-range bomber may be an unnecessary extravagance given the nation's current fiscal problems, but the military faces an urgent need for a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers. John McCain scuttled the first attempt to deal with the problem when he exposed the corrupt inside dealing that had handed Boeing a contract to lease the tankers to the Air Force. The investigation landed senior officers for both the Air Force and Boeing in prison. Then Northrop won the contract to provide the tankers only to have Boeing protest the decision with bipartisan support from the Hill -- particularly from Democrats who represent Boeing's home state of Washington and their protectionist allies. Now Obama looks set to push off the issue for another five years, out past his reelection campaign.
With the government spending so many billions to stimulate the economy, it's hard to understand what kind of sense it makes to delay a program worth as much as $100 billion or more for five years. There is an urgent need. This is a shovel-ready project. And the only obvious upside to delaying production for another five years is avoiding the political mess produced every time this issue starts creeping onto the front pages again.
.
Wild Thing's comment.........
A Trillion for a phony BS stimulus plan, a grotesquely bloated 1/2 trillion budget, and he wants to slash military spending. This quisling needs to be ousted ASAP .
The AF has already come out and said that any further delays to a new tanker WILL impact their ability to perform their missions. No two ways about it. AR is absolutely VITAL to the AF. This decision is utterly anti-American and anti-Military.
Posted by Wild Thing at March 12, 2009 05:49 AM
Comments
I agree. At the same time Iran and N. Korea are persuing nuclear weapons and long range missles Obama is destroying our military.
Posted by: Bob A at March 12, 2009 06:48 AM
We had plenty of long range bombers that could have carried this nation for the next 50 years but Bush 41 sent them to the bone yard to be chopped up. We do need the air refueling tankers though. Our current fleet of KC-135's are showing their age and are going to need replacement soon.
Posted by: BobF at March 12, 2009 09:13 AM
We need new tankers. The British have this same problem with ageing tankers and bombers. The Brits won't spend money on their military and as a result they have soldiers being killed due to a lack of upgraded equipment and aircraft falling out of the sky.
Obama doesn't know a KC-135 from a Chinook. He just goes by what his also clueless advisors tell him and his own disdain for the military. We are likely to have Blackhawk Down again.
BobF - I agree with you on that needless political destruction of B-52s by Bush 41.
Posted by: TomR at March 12, 2009 12:42 PM
A quisling is a native turned trator. You give Obama too much credit.
As for long range bombers the two dozen B2s and less than a hundred B1Bs really should be designated as medium range bombers unless we have those refueling tankers. Without the tankers the only long range bombers the United States has are a few B52-H all of which are older than the oldest of their crews.
Posted by: Avitar at March 12, 2009 04:28 PM
Avitar, without the tankers, the H-models will only be medium range bombers too. Tankers are also needed to ferry fighters across the ocean. Troops on contingency deployments are carried about transport aircraft which are refuelled in-flight by tankers. For fighter aircraft to linger over a battlefield to support ground troops, you need tankers to refuel them. Without tankers, nobody rapidly deploys, fighters can't support, and bombers can make their bomb runs.
I spent 20 years maintaining the KC-135's and they're one of the best, most reliable aircraft in the Air Force inventory. There's a saying in the Tanker World: NKAWTG...Nobody Kicks Ass Without Tanker Gas.
Posted by: BobF at March 12, 2009 04:57 PM
Bob A., I agree, he really is and I am very concerned about our troops with Obama as CIC.
Posted by: Wild Thing at March 12, 2009 07:40 PM
Tom, thanks, I agree, I worry about our troops not having the very best. All these cut backs and not funding and the negative atttitude from obama as well all together is not good.
Posted by: Wild Thing at March 12, 2009 07:42 PM
Avitar, you are so right, thank you. I sure did give him too much credit and I did not mean too. haha
Posted by: Wild Thing at March 12, 2009 07:45 PM
BobF., thank you so much for your input.
"I spent 20 years maintaining the KC-135's and they're one of the best, most reliable aircraft in the Air Force inventory. There's a saying in the Tanker World: NKAWTG...Nobody Kicks Ass Without Tanker Gas."
Posted by: Wild Thing at March 12, 2009 07:47 PM
