Boeing's proposal to replace the Air Force tanker fleet is crashing for the right reasons. Last week, in a report provided to some in Congress, the Defense Science Board, a key Pentagon advisory panel, concluded the Air Force does not need to replace the refueling planes immediately. That finding, which has not been made public, reinforces what the U.S. General Accounting Office said in 2002 and 2003. It also adds to the suspicion raised by the improper way the Air Force negotiated with Boeing. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should start the entire process over.
The board found "no compelling material or financial reason to initiate a replacement program" before considering other options. This blows a hole in the main argument behind the Boeing deal, which was to lease, and thereby fast-track, the replacement of a 40-year-old fleet, which the Air Force said was needed to maintain the nation's offensive military capability. After some in Congress balked at the costs, the Air Force agreed to lease 20 tankers and buy another 80 in a $23.5-billion deal. Tampa's MacDill Air Force Base was to receive some of the tankers in 2010 and 2011.
Several investigations are under way into how senior Air Force officials shepherded the Boeing deal through Congress. Last month, a former Air Force official who negotiated a job with Boeing even as she handled the tanker contract for the Air Force pleaded guilty to conspiracy. In April, the Pentagon's inspector general called on Rumsfeld to delay the tanker plan, saying contract irregularities could force taxpayers to spend $4.5-billion more than necessary. Auditors said the contract was skewed to benefit Boeing. Investigators are also examining whether the plane's need and capabilities were oversold to Congress and to Pentagon officials. Rumsfeld wants the investigations completed before he decides how to move ahead.
The science board's finding is compelling, because it marks the first time the contract has been challenged on its military worth, not simply the cost. The board reportedly called into question the Air Force's argument that corrosion was hampering fleet readiness and safety. It also states that some planes could be retrofit instead of being replaced. Previous reports have said that the existing tankers could fly another three decades or more.
