Third in a weekly series.

First, a recap. Round 1, the Obama Administration, as represented by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (the Challengers), announced on April, 6, 2009, their plans to end production of C-17s.

Round 2, the Defenders, The Boeing Company and a bipartisan host of elected officials from around the country, come out swinging fast and furious in a lobbying attempt to keep the production line open.

Round 3, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Was., announced on Monday, May 5, that the second fiscal 2009 supplemental Funding Bill will include $2.2 billion to buy 8 more C-17s. Two days later, no funding for more planes were included in the Administration's fiscal 2010 defense budget and the submitted budget included funds for an orderly shut down of the production line.

Round 4, the match continues.
The US House of Representatives passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 which includes "an additional amount for `Aircraft Procurement, Air Force', $5,138,268,000". This includes the $2.2 billion for 8 additional C-17s. The vote included some Democrats jumping ship and voting no and most Republicans crossing the aisle and voting yes. The final tally was 368 in favor and 60 against. All Republicans except for 9 voted in favor of the bill, while 51 Democrats voted against the measure.

Even though he has express support for continuing the C-17 program, U.S. Representative Ed Royce, Republican, 40th District of California, serving Los Alamitos and Rossmoor, voted against the bill. U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican, 46 District of California, serving Seal Beach, voted yes.

Next, the action shifts to the senate, where the Appropriations Committee passed the measure without the C-17s included. Nevertheless, the Defenders were optimistic after Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-CA) was quoted as expressing his support for adding the planes once the bill goes to the Senate floor for a final vote. The Challengers, on the other hand, showed no sign of backing down, but also were rather quiet on the two conflicting appropriations bills.

While the focus was on the 2009 supplemental appropriations bills, The Challengers were robust in supporting their FY 2010 budget (which does not include any additional C-17s). Several of the Challengers heavy hitters were out and about championing there broad plans, but the talk was clearly lacking in specific references to the C-17 cancellations, or even much about the supplemental bills at all. In fact, other than a brief reference to funding for shutting down the C-17 line, there was no other discussion about the planes at the Air Force's official budget presentation last week. Further, the only reference during the Air Force's presentation regarding planes included in the supplemental funding bill, was to the F-22; there was nothing about the C-17.

One of the frequent complaints made about the Challengers' decision to shut down C-17 production has been to assert a lack of combatant commanders input into the decision. At the Air Force briefing, Major General Larry Spencer, Air Force Director of Budget, said "The services and the combatant commanders, the Service Chief our Service Secretary were very much involved in this process. In fact I think Admiral Stanley mentioned in the OSD meeting that this process has probably demonstrated reaching out more to commanders both in the field and here in the Pentagon than he’s ever seen before."

The Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, and Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley both were quoted this week as defending cancellation. They both essentially restated the Challengers position that the Air Force simply does not need more of the planes and/or if more heavy transport was needed, there are cheaper ways of procuring it then building more C-17s. Also, Rep. John Campbell (R-Irvine) was quoted as saying "I am not going to support C-17 or any other project just because it happens to be built in my backyard".

It seems to your Editors the Challengers are either already conceding the match, or they are saving their knock out blows for later rounds. If the Challengers were planning to fight the supplemental funding bill, they would be much more public about attacking it then we are hearing. Thus, after 4 rounds, we say the Defenders have an increasing advantage.

while all this sparring is going on, on Tuesday, Boeing quietly--figuratively that is, definitely not literally--delivered C-17 number 187 to the Air Force. Click on the slide show to enlarge and scroll the photos.

Look for our article next Monday as the match continues. This Friday is the deadline set by the Challengers for passage of the supplemental funding bill. We expect to consider in our next article the rate at which the planes are actually being used by the Air Force.