The U.S. Congress is still on vacation, but--let the next round begin anyway!

Grab your seat, the C-17 budget boxing match between the Challengers and the Defenders is--shall we say--back in full swing? For those new to these pages, the Challengers are the Obama Administration, represented by the President himself, Secretary of Defense , Robert M. Gates, a few brave congressional representatives, and a host of others. The Defenders, include numerous elected officials--from U.S. Senators, to more humble folks, The Boeing Company, union leaders, and almost everybody else. Also, there are your Editors who are simply trying to make some sense of it all. The Challengers want to end production of everybody's favorite big plane--the C-17 Globemaster III heavy airlifter. The Defenders want to keep building the last large military airlifter still produced in the U.S. About 5,000 workers (and presumably, voters) assemble the big planes at Boeing's plant in Long Beach.

The action really picked up last week, with both sides coming out of their corners swinging fast and furious. First, on Monday, President Obama gave a major speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Phoenix, Arizona. Next, Boeing launched a major national PR campaign, then on Thursday, 18 U.S. senators (including California's two Democratic Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein) released a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran calling for continued funding of C-17 production.

First, to the President's speech, in which a probe for the term C-17 makes no bodily contact, i.e., he did not mention--not one word--about the C-17. For weeks everybody has been wondering which are the "red line items" which will draw a presidential veto. The President has been pretty clear about four of those red line items: more then requested F-22s, the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (the F-35), the Boeing 747 mounted anti-missile laser, and the new presidential helicopter. There is nothing new here, it is what Gates described back in April when he unveiled his 2010 defense budget proposal. But, what's missing? Of course, the C-17. Gates' budget also calls for an end to C-17 production. But not once that we have found did the Challengers include terminating C-17 production as a red line item. For the record, here's the relevant portion of the President's speech:
"But here's the simple truth: We cannot build the 21st-century military we need, and maintain the fiscal responsibility that America demands, unless we fundamentally reform the way our defense establishment does business. It's a simple fact. Every dollar wasted in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to care for our troops or protect America or prepare for the future.

You've heard the stories: the indefensible no-bid contracts that cost taxpayers billions and make contractors rich; the special interests and their exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget; the entrenched lobbyists pushing weapons that even our military says it doesn't want. The impulse in Washington to protect jobs back home building things we don't need has a cost that we can't afford. This waste would be unacceptable at any time, but at a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, it's inexcusable. It's an affront to the American people and to our troops. And it's time for it to stop...even as we increase spending on the equipment and weapons our troops do need, we've proposed cutting tens of billions of dollars in waste we don't need. Think about it. Hundreds of millions of dollars for an alternate second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter -- when one reliable engine will do just fine. Nearly $2 billion to buy more F-22 fighter jets -- when we can move ahead with a fleet of newer, more affordable aircraft. Tens of billions of dollars to put an anti-missile laser on a fleet of vulnerable 747s. And billions of dollars for a new presidential helicopter...So this is pretty straightforward: Cut the waste. Save taxpayer dollars. Support the troops. That's what we should be doing. The special interests, contractors, and entrenched lobbyists, they're invested in the status quo. And they're putting up a fight. But make no mistake, so are we. If a project doesn't support our troops, if it does not make America safer, we will not fund it. If a system doesn't perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it. We will do right by our troops and taxpayers, and we will build the 21st century military that we need."

But, that was then. Not to be overmatched, the Defenders launched a major PR campaign on Thursday. With full page newspaper ads--you remember, that old-media-tree-killing stuff--and a workers rally, the Defenders punched back. Just as Obama's lines were nothing new, neither did the Defenders have much new to add. Basically, their message is we need the jobs, the aircraft production skilled workforce, and the related infrastructure. And, we might even need more of the planes, but nobody actually knows this.

On the very same day the Boeing employees were rallying at their plant in Long Beach, the 18 senate Defenders were sending off their letter. In this letter, the Defenders upped the prize from the 3 more C-17s currently included in the House passed budget bill, to 12 more planes. One of the most interesting aspects of the senators letter is the inclusion of some actual information about the rate at which the existing fleet of C-17s is being used.

Other than when your Editors discussed aircraft utilization many weeks ago, we have not found any other reference to this very relevant information. AT the time of our article, we asked the Air Force about the current level of C-17 utilization and they never managed to get back to us. perhaps 18 U.S. Senators have a little more clout. Here's the excerpt from the letter:
"The Congressional Research Service has indicated that the C-17 was designed to fly 1,000 hours per year over 30 years, but as our overseas commitments have grown since 2001, the fleet has averaged 1,250 hours per aircraft over the last ten years. Some aircraft have even reached 2,400 flying hours in a single year. This heavy usage, coupled with the growing size of the Army and Marine Corps, has only increased the demand for this critical airlift capability."

Once again, we give this round to the Defenders and expect the congress to pass and the President to sign a budget bill which provides for more C-17s. The only question is how many. The congress comes back from vacation in September--stay tuned.