Report Will Give Naysayers More Ammo

Do you remember how Boeing inexplicably kept dropping the price on its767-based tankers? Do you remember how a lot of folks thought the Boeing-Air Force tanker deal sounded really sweet? Well, the General Accounting Office has issued a report called, "Information on Air Force Aerial Refueling Tankers." It's an interesting read. In case you don't have time to read the whole thing, here's the overview:

The Air Force fleet of KC-135 aircraft (which, at 543 aircraft, represents the bulk of U.S. refueling capability) is an average of about 42 years in age. The Air Force projects that the KC-135 aircraft have between 36,000 and 39,000 lifetime flying hours; according to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s are projected to reach these limits before 2040, although at that time some of the aircraft would be close to 80 years old. KC-135s are being flown an average of about 435 hours per year, on average, since September 2001. As the fleet has aged, the aircraft have become expensive to maintain, averaging about $4.6 million per year in total operations and support costs for the least capable aircraft. Those costs include personnel, fuel, maintenance, and spare parts.

[A more-useful comparison would have included the marginal differences in personnel, fuel, maintenance, and spares, between the two programs, over the projected life of the existing aircraft, including the expected retirements of KC135-E models (and also including weighted figures on the fleet's KC-10s -- above and right -- and KC-135-R models) --ed.]

KC-135s in the active duty forces are generally meeting the 85 percent goal for mission capable rates; rates were lower for aircraft in the reserve forces, ranging from 70 to 78 percent. The Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard operate over half of the KC-135s.

[All the active forces KC-135s are -R models, which the report says average $3.7 million/year. Higher fuel consumption, lighter effective payload, as well as higher maintenance and parts costs presumably raise the Guard-only KC-135E's costs --ed.]

What the new report says, politely, is that the current fleet should last decades longer, and that the USAF doesn't have any reliable information that says otherwise: "DOD does not have a current, validated study on which to base the size and composition of either the current fleet or a future aerial refueling force. An Air Force study called Tanker Requirements Study-05 (TRS-05) was conducted in 2000, but it was never formally completed nor were its preliminary results released. Drafts of the study identified a shortfall in tanker capability, but the study was based on the old strategy of supporting two major theater wars. There is no effort under way that we know of to update the TRS-05 study and release it or to conduct an analysis of alternatives for tanker modernization." Elsewhere, the report noted, "The Air Force indicated recently that it plans to conduct a new Tanker Requirements Study in the fiscal year 2004-2006 time frame."

FMI: www.gao.gov/new.items/d03938t.pdf