Procurement system is broken

I enlisted in the Air Force in 1969 and my first assignment was with an air refueling squadron equipped with KC-135 tankers. Our "Lead the Fleet" aircraft was from the initial block of aircraft produced by Boeing. Others of our 21 airplanes were produced in 1957 and 1962. They were old by commercial airplane standards, but still very serviceable. I saw one of those same airplanes at an air show at Mountain Home AFB last September, almost 40 years later.

We are putting our service men and women in peril by asking them to operate such old equipment.

Now our elected representatives are haggling over whether to buy both of the new tankers on the market while the clock ticks on those aging airframes. They should be ashamed! Sen. Patty Murray, who voted for every reduction in military spending through both Clinton administrations and touted the "Peace Dividend," now cries about the need for new hardware in the post 9/11 era. How disingenuous. The need for a new tanker has become a jobs program among the members of Congress, some of the same people who screwed up the last deal. There is absolutely no reason for us to have the slightest confidence in their ability to make a good choice.

What Rep. John Murtha suggests about a dual buy is absurd. To do that would mean twice the sustaining cost to operate the fleet for the life cycle of the airframe. We would need twice the training and crew proficiency facilities, simulators, spare parts, logistical support, technical support and much more.

The military procurement system is broken. Decisions are being made in Congress that have nothing to do with getting the best airframe for the Air Force or value for the taxpayer. I spent my working life in the aerospace industry and know the business pretty well and can say with conviction that the clock is ticking on aging airframes and our elected representatives should be ashamed of themselves for this political ploy.

Steven L. Pennington Sr.
Edmonds