Wasteful Weapons and the Politicians Who Love Them

Remember Curtis LeMay, the Air Force general played to chilling effect by Sterling Hayden in the 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove? If you're too young for that reference, you probably don't recall when the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) dominated our military posture toward our Soviet enemy. I bring this up because the mid-air refueling tanker that the MAD warrior LeMay commissioned suddenly has become a controversy in the presidential campaign.

MAD was based on a triad of air, land and sea forces that would punish a Soviet first strike, ending all semblance of life on the one-sixth of the planet that comprised the old Soviet Union. Toward that end, we needed not only thousands of land-based weapons, but thousands of other weapons on ships and on airplanes. It was LeMay's insistence that nuclear-armed bombers be in the air 24/7 that gave rise to the mid-air refueling tankers that were in the news this past week. Controversy arose when the Government Accountability Office questioned an Air Force decision to award the contract for a new generation of those "gas stations in the sky" to one defense contractor instead of its rival.

The news was presented in a Wall Street Journal front-page story focusing on the profit potential rather than the military significance of the tanker. So, too, the account that led the New York Times business section, which detailed the good news in Boeing's revived chances to secure the refueling tanker contract. This deal, which would initially cost $35 billion but, as the Times pointed out, "... could eventually grow to $100 billion to build a fleet of 179 refueling planes, is one of the most lucrative (Pentagon contracts) ever."

Neither newspaper indicated why we needed $100 billion in tankers, other than in a revealing photo in the Times showing it refueling a B-2 bomber, which brings us back to Gen. LeMay and his MAD doctrine. The B-2 was designed to be the modern bomber in the triad confronting the Soviets. Its very expensive stealth cover would be able to penetrate a sophisticated Soviet radar system -- which was never built. That also assumes that the B-2's stealthy cover would stop deteriorating in the rain, as it was wont to do, but the test for this technology never occurred because of the untimely fall of the Soviet menace.

Despite having lost its purpose, production of the B-2 continued for a while as a jobs and profit program supported by key legislators from both parties, as has been the case with the tanker designed to fuel the planes. Woe to the legislator that dares take on any weapons program, and that is why John McCain has become the subject of criticism from the Democrats.

In one of his better performances as a senator, McCain distinguished himself by challenging a swindle that would have rewarded the Boeing company with a contract worth $100 billion for leasing Boeing aircraft, which were planes converted to refueling tankers from a model that was not selling in the depressed market. Thanks to McCain's insistence on a criminal investigation, the chief financial officer of Boeing and the top procurement officer in the Air Force wing of the Pentagon were sent to serve time in federal prison. The contract was canceled, and a new contract was awarded to Northrup Grumman and a European partner.

The Democratic National Committee now has criticized McCain for having opposed the Boeing deal, charging that McCain had "sent American jobs abroad." The DNC's attack on McCain speaks volumes to the bipartisan gut-checking in favor of military waste that has led us to squander trillions of taxpayer dollars since 9/11.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers responded to the scurrilous attack from the DNC, saying:

"Let's get this straight: John McCain led the charge to uncover the biggest boondoggle in Pentagon history, saved the taxpayers over $6 billion, helped send corrupt execs and government officials to jail, and the Democrats say he's the bad guy? It's absurd. Apparently to Barack Obama and the Democrats, corruption is OK, so long as it helps them politically. That's not change we can believe in."

Now, of course, McCain has done his bit to waste egregious amounts of taxpayer money by cheerleading for an Iraq war that has already burdened us with trillions in future debt, but that hardly exonerated the Democrats in once again attempting to one up the Republicans in throwing money at defense contractors.

Robert Scheer is the author, most recently, of "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America," published this month by Twelve Books.

Comments

[AlButerol]

The author of this post mentioned that the B2 was designed to "penetrate a sophisticated Soviet radar system -- which was never built.". He goes on to say "Despite having lost its purpose, production of the B-2 continued ...". I thought that the B2 could also penetrate existing radar systems that can detect non-stealth aircraft. I also thought B2s were used in both Iraqi wars because of this capability. If this is true than stealth aircraft do have an advantage in present and future combat situations. However the author of this post has implied that a strealth aircraft has no advantage since the Soviet Union collapsed and never built the alleged sophisticated radar system. Does anybody know if his claim is correct? Is the B2 a total waste of money or does it have some tactical advantage over other aircraft?

[MajorKong]

The B-2 does have some tactical advantages, but they are being eroded by advances in radar and passive detection systems. At some point, if they can't already, a country like Russia or China will be able to detect the B-2. When that happens, it will be just a very expensive B-52.

[AlButerol]

MajorKong, thank you for the information.

[Berettasskeeter]

I'm constantly tickled by the hypocritical attitudes of the Left! When told that military vehicles had not been armored because noone had the foresight to request funding for it, you folks cried for the scalps of the "neocons". When told that the body armor issued to the troops, who ALL had body armor, was not up to the needs of urban warfare and up-to-date combat, the Left cried for the scalps of the "neocons". Now, when noone can identify the exact date and conflict that new tankers MAY be needed, the Left calls for investigations and dismissals of the "neocons" involved.
Sorry folks, you can demand it, but you can't eat your cake and have it too!
Semper fi

[MajorKong]

I have over 1500 hours of flight time as an aircraft commander and instructor on tankers. Still want to lecture me on procurement of air refueling aircraft?

[MajorKong]

Tankers get used a lot for hauling cargo. The KC-10s have probably spend more time on cargo missions than air refueling over the years.

That being said, the KC-135s really don't have that many flying hours on them. They spent much of their time sitting on the alert pad during the Cold War. Despite their age, most probably have only 15,000 or so flying hours on them. That's not a lot for a heavy transport aircraft. Most have been updated over the years with modern engines and modern avionics. They've got quite a few more years left in them.

[Doofus]

The argument might have been, back in the day, that we
needed to have strategic bombers as our primary deterrent
against a perceived Soviet threat. That in order to use them,
we needed a tanker fleet. Then, once we had a tanker fleet,
it was sensible to keep bombers in the air all the time, 'deterrent-wise' (as Gen Turgidson might say). Things changed somewhat, later, when icbm's & slbm's came on-line. But we still had the tanker fleet, for which many other uses were found.

The problem NOW is that the appropriateness of this huge
'strategic' defense establishment (missiles & bombers) is
once again highly debatable. And calls into question the
need for tankers.

(Could we not 'get by' with missiles? Or maybe just pitchforks & clubs?)

[Doofus]

Make that 'FEASIBLE to keep bombers in the air all the time'.

Never exactly 'sensible', but it did seem to keep the Soviets in line, and the Pentagon was happy.

[KenFL]

Mr Scheer knows better than to state that the only, or even the primary, use for in-flight refueling tankers is strategic bombers, when their real mission is refueling fighter jets and virtually every other plane in the inventory. There are few missions that could be completed without them.

And I love the way he refers to the contract with Airbus (with NG as a US "fig leaf" partner) as a contract with NG and a European partner. The planes will be Airbuses, plain and simple.

It may end up being cheaper to buy foreign planes, but that is a policy decision. There are probably lots of folks who would think it's OK to pay somewhat more to keep the work in the US.

Any illegal actions by Boeing and Air Force officials should definitely be punished, but that is seperate from the policy decision to buy our military aircraft from foreign suppliers.

[Craig]

If taxpayers were presented options on how our federal fundswere spent , it would not amount to 40-60% (range of estimates for defense spending) for the military. In fact, I think most people would be shocked by this fact. It is the biggest entitlement program by far. Even though the Social Security program is miss-charcterized as an entitlement program, it is less than 10% of expenditures.

If we want ot grow our economy, be competitive, and at the same time lower taxes, we need to have an open and honest public debate about how to secure our national interests.

We could start by closing most of our international bases (Cold War posture) and relying on over the horizon rapid deployment forces, air craft carrier task forces, etc.

[Berettasskeeter]

Can you tell me where you found your estimates? The estimates I read say that spending on Defense is in the 6% range, or so.
Semper fi

[FLGuardsman]

Tanker deal made for some strange bedfellows. Brownback (R-KS), and Murray (D-WA), were doing a full court press in the media decrying the deal that would "outsource" jobs to Europe. Of course the Media played right along with it. Failing to mention that 30% of the Boeing plan was manufactured overseas (compared to 40% of the Northrop/EADS plane). We do spend too much money on the military; however, the Northrop deal was the best deal for the taxpayers. Now we are going to go through this whole deal again. If Boeing wins, they might as well not even try to sell anymore planes to Europe. Protectionism is a two way street. Boeing has probably just destroyed the chance for Lockheed, Northrop or any other American company competing on a level playing field in Europe again.

Oh and the Tanker sole purpose isn't to re-fuel nuclear equiped bombers. It is a force multiplier by refueling fighters, bombers, cargo, medical, recon planes mid-air, rather than having them return to base. It allows them to be on station longer.

[wldnswmmr]

I think the George C. Scott character, General Buck Turgidson, was the character modeled on LeMay. Sterling Hayden's General Ripper was simply the rogue nutball who set doomsday in motion by being the "human factor."

As to defense waste, the modern American military obviously has nothing to do with contemporary reality but is simply a government-favored industry that absorbs huge amounts of the available revenue in essentially non-productive work. Budgetary reality will one day soon force the government to choose between its pet military-industrial complex or the entitlement programs, and at that point the American electorate will see who actually "governs" their country.

[MajorKong]

General Ripper was very likely based on the real-life General Powers, who was commander of Strategic Air Command at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Doofus]

Was it not Gen LeMay who advocated for strategic
bombing of soviet missile sites in Cuba back in that
crisis, much to the chagrin of JFK?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1219-06.htm

He was a Ripper-like character, although he sure
didn't look much like Sterling Hayden, or George
C. Scott either.

[Doofus]

If you accept as fact that the huge US military-industrial complex
that has persisted & expanded in the 60 years after WW2 has in
effect been a total waste, then it would surely be an excellent
idea to shut it down, the sooner the better. Bear in mind, though
that what we know how to do best, is to build weapons to sell
around the world. So considerable economic re-jiggering will be called for.

[RabidRightRebel]

Excellent Post

If the primary reason why we need these tankers is enable the U.S. to engage in a total nuclear war they are not needed. Only a military madman would even consider, let alone engage in such a conflict.

Let's save the $100 billion or use it to pay down our deficit.

[Merlin7]

We Americans pride ourselves on being independent and freedom-loving, but actually we are among the most passive, gullible and politically ignorant people on the planet, which is why Washington has turned into a huge feeding trough for weapons makers and other contractors, many corrupt but well-connected. It's also funny to watch right-wingers desperately trying to come up with another Evil Empire to justify our obscene defense budgets. At the moment China is the most promising, but our old "frienemies" in Moscow are running a close second. You can bet that CNN and other de facto government organs will continue to ramp up reports about the new "strategic threats" posed by those hapless regimes, especially since it's increasingly obvious that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has the cajones to get into a real shooting war with Iran. I guess we'll have to settle for another Cold War, if we can find a way to make those Chinese and Russians stop acting so damn friendly and show some aggression for a change. Hey, the execs at Acme Tanks & Planes have kids in college, you know.

[davidly]

If there's one thing politicians love more than wasteful weapons, it's the efficient ones that are used to kill massive numbers of people. Both types make massive amounts of money, though, but not for the taxpayers, and not without their generous help.

[DaObamaMama]

It's not guns who kill people. It's people who kill people....­that said......­.If we get rid of guns then people will have to find something else to use to kill and hopefully during that time they will get hit by a bus.

[Epenthesis]

Isn't there a Republican, or a Libertarian, or any garden-variety dipshit that can respond to these charges instead of you?

Western civilzation is literally on the verge of collapse. Let Voldemort's minions bring that particular truth to light, if indeed it is true. (And if it is, so what. It reflects poorly on whatever DNC operative thought of it, and no one else.)