When does a promise to cut government spending result in $8 billion of new government waste? When Defense Department procurement is involved.
Puzzling accounting in the Pentagon abounds. Weapon programs exceeded their budget by $300 billion in a single year. The Defense Department bought $13 billion in spare parts $7 billion of which our troops dont need. Now in its latest outrage the department wants to pour $13 billion into its aging fleet of C-5 Galaxy cargo planes rather than purchase more capable aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster III.
Cargo aircraft arent the sexiest planes in Americas arsenal but theyre essential for ferrying troops and equipment to battle. With our nation fighting two wars on the other side of the globe reliable and versatile cargo aircraft that are affordable to operate are as indispensable as the bullets in our soldiers rifles.
Thats why the Pentagons C-5 debacle is so worrisome. The Defense Department claims that refurbishing 111 C-5s will help rein in procurement costs while supporting our airlift needs. In reality its plan is like saying that its OK to max out your credit card if you shop only at the used car lot. In the end our troops will get an inferior aircraft and the nations budget will sink deeper into the red.
To weigh the relative value of the C-5A and the C-17 we need to understand that airlift is a matter of quality not just quantity.
For example refurbishing seven C-5As gives the Air Force only the additional capabilities of buying just one new C-17. What this means is that the modest increase in capability gained by refurbishing a C-5A is only about one-seventh the capability gained by adding a new C-17. And unlike the C-5A the modern C-17 can reliably perform the full range of missions demanded by our military such as the precision airdrop of a brigade the delivery of humanitarian assistance or acting as a flying ambulance to evacuate wounded warriors.
Now consider the cost. Fixing up those seven C-5As will cost us nearly $1 billion. The price tag for that single C-17: less than one-third as much at about $276 million.
Also consider how much it costs to operate these aircraft. Just as with buying a new car its total cost isnt only in the sticker price its also in how much youll spend on gas and maintenance. It costs the Pentagon nearly twice as much per hour to keep a C-5A in the air - $21000 - than it does to fly a C-17 - $12000.
And to come back to our car analogy you also have to account for reliability. Aviation experts and independent analysts from the Congressional Research Service report that the C-5A is the Fiat of the U.S. militarys cargo fleet. Its notoriously unreliable and unavailable to fly roughly half of the time. That is one reason the military spent $1 billion to lease Soviet-era aircraft to supplement our airlift in Iraq over a four-year period. In contrast the C-17 is the gold standard of cargo aircraft as its rated highest in reliability.
By all these measures purchasing new advanced C-17s rather than fixing up those old C-5s makes the most sense for Americas airlift capabilities our troops and our nations bottom line. But it might also be the right move for our ailing economy as well.
The Pentagon plan would immediately shutter the C-17 line which today supports jobs for more than 30000 Americans. It could also undermine Americas edge in military and commercial aerospace a sector our economic competitors are eying hungrily. And with the closing of C-17 facilities not a single plant would remain on U.S. soil with the capability of producing military cargo aircraft larger than a C-130.
In the face of the Pentagons long record of needless waste Secretary Robert Gates pledged to bring real change to the department and to rein in our governments largest and most unwieldy bureaucracy. If theres anyone who can do it its a man of his estimable talents.
But theres a larger lesson to consider: Budget cuts at the Pentagon or anywhere else in government must focus on real long-term savings rather than illusory short-term cost cutting that only shortchanges national needs. And in the case of modernizing the tired and aging C-5A fleet instead of buying new reliable C-17s shortchanging our troops is not the kind of change we need.
Antonio Gil Morales a U.S. Air Force veteran is former national commander of the American GI Forum.
When does a promise to cut government spending result in $8 billion of new government waste? When Defense Department procurement is involved.
Puzzling accounting in the Pentagon abounds. Weapon programs exceeded their budget by $300 billion in a single year. The Defense Department bought $13 billion in spare parts $7 billion of which our troops dont need. Now in its latest outrage the department wants to pour $13 billion into its aging fleet of C-5 Galaxy cargo planes rather than purchase more capable aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster III.
Cargo aircraft arent the sexiest planes in Americas arsenal but theyre essential for ferrying troops and equipment to battle. With our nation fighting two wars on the other side of the globe reliable and versatile cargo aircraft that are affordable to operate are as indispensable as the bullets in our soldiers rifles.
Thats why the Pentagons C-5 debacle is so worrisome. The Defense Department claims that refurbishing 111 C-5s will help rein in procurement costs while supporting our airlift needs. In reality its plan is like saying that its OK to max out your credit card if you shop only at the used car lot. In the end our troops will get an inferior aircraft and the nations budget will sink deeper into the red.
To weigh the relative value of the C-5A and the C-17 we need to understand that airlift is a matter of quality not just quantity.
For example refurbishing seven C-5As gives the Air Force only the additional capabilities of buying just one new C-17. What this means is that the modest increase in capability gained by refurbishing a C-5A is only about one-seventh the capability gained by adding a new C-17. And unlike the C-5A the modern C-17 can reliably perform the full range of missions demanded by our military such as the precision airdrop of a brigade the delivery of humanitarian assistance or acting as a flying ambulance to evacuate wounded warriors.
Now consider the cost. Fixing up those seven C-5As will cost us nearly $1 billion. The price tag for that single C-17: less than one-third as much at about $276 million.
Also consider how much it costs to operate these aircraft. Just as with buying a new car its total cost isnt only in the sticker price its also in how much youll spend on gas and maintenance. It costs the Pentagon nearly twice as much per hour to keep a C-5A in the air - $21000 - than it does to fly a C-17 - $12000.
And to come back to our car analogy you also have to account for reliability. Aviation experts and independent analysts from the Congressional Research Service report that the C-5A is the Fiat of the U.S. militarys cargo fleet. Its notoriously unreliable and unavailable to fly roughly half of the time. That is one reason the military spent $1 billion to lease Soviet-era aircraft to supplement our airlift in Iraq over a four-year period. In contrast the C-17 is the gold standard of cargo aircraft as its rated highest in reliability.
By all these measures purchasing new advanced C-17s rather than fixing up those old C-5s makes the most sense for Americas airlift capabilities our troops and our nations bottom line. But it might also be the right move for our ailing economy as well.
The Pentagon plan would immediately shutter the C-17 line which today supports jobs for more than 30000 Americans. It could also undermine Americas edge in military and commercial aerospace a sector our economic competitors are eying hungrily. And with the closing of C-17 facilities not a single plant would remain on U.S. soil with the capability of producing military cargo aircraft larger than a C-130.
In the face of the Pentagons long record of needless waste Secretary Robert Gates pledged to bring real change to the department and to rein in our governments largest and most unwieldy bureaucracy. If theres anyone who can do it its a man of his estimable talents.
But theres a larger lesson to consider: Budget cuts at the Pentagon or anywhere else in government must focus on real long-term savings rather than illusory short-term cost cutting that only shortchanges national needs. And in the case of modernizing the tired and aging C-5A fleet instead of buying new reliable C-17s shortchanging our troops is not the kind of change we need.
Antonio Gil Morales a U.S. Air Force veteran is former national commander of the American GI Forum.
