Dorr: Panetta should ditch the Doomsday Plane

Dorr: Panetta should ditch the Doomsday Plane

Aviation columnist Robert F. Dorr has a suggestion for one way in which incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta can save a few bucks as a part of his budget-cutting mission: Panetta should ditch the hulking Air Force E-4B, affectionately known around the Palace as “The Doomsday Plane,” on which Secretary Gates has logged thousands of miles crisscrossing the globe. It’s too big and too expensive, Dorr writes — and it’s pretty worn out anyway — and Panetta should set a good example for Austerity America by getting something more reasonable.

Wrote Dorr:

The E-4B costs about $110,000 an hour to fly, or about four times the operating cost of the C-37A Gulfstream V used by other government executives, according to a source. It was never meant to be a luxury transport.


Gates uses the E-4B because he loves it. He has spoken glowingly about the plane publicly. The E-4B is a fine aircraft and the members of the 55th [Wing] who operate it do a fine job. But flying high-ranking officials around the world on routine trips isn’t what it was intended to do. Government leaders — and that’s definitely the defense secretary — need to set a good example. No one knows this better than Gates, who has been forceful about eliminating waste.

He continues:

No one should know better than the incoming defense secretary that it’s time for the gravy plane to stop, especially if he is going to cut $400 billion in defense spending by 2023 as promised by the Obama administration. And the best place for Panetta to start finding savings is in his own office. He needs take a plane intended for flying government officials. He needs to make sure every employee is busy doing legitimate work. The Pentagon’s culture of wanton disregard for public monies truly has to stop. And Panetta can start chipping away at it with one very symbolic move: a wave goodbye to the E-4B.

Dorr doesn’t mention the utility of having a defense secretary travel with the full load of communications gear, military staffers, reporters and equipment that Gates has been able to take aboard the Doomsday Plane. But he has made a provocative point — should Panetta give up the beloved E-4B as a symbol of economizing? Or would the savings be so minuscule in the context of the defense budget that they wouldn’t be worth the sacrifice in space and capability?

 

 

Join the Conversation

Keep the e-4b, like he said it caries his comms gear as well as his military advisors. Let’s think before we cut please…

Well said!

I’m always jealous of people like Dorr… I wish I could be completely incompetent and yet still have a job as an “expert” in the industry. The E-4B isn’t an oversized exec shuttle like Dorr suggests nor is it “worn out”. The plane carries the equipment and staff to litereally run the military from the aircraft. It seems that while we’re in a 2 front war with a side of skirmishes in a hot region it may be better to have our military chief in a system that allows him to perform his job anywhere in the world he may be, a capability the Gulfstream 550 does not have.

I think Dorr fails to consider a number of things… first is the lost utility, if Panetta uses a C-37A Gulfstream he will lose access to the equipment that the E-4B has, just as several posters have pointed out. Next the C-37A is a much smaller plane and Gates, and presumable Panetta as well, have large entourage. Panetta would need 6 C-37A to carry as many people as the E-4B and would still lose access to the specialized communication equipment. It isn’t just a question of operating cost of a E-4B being four times that of a C-37A, its a question of does a E-4B accomplish more than 4 times as much as a C-37A?-Yes it does, so its justified.

First, the $110,000 an hour figure is likely nonsense, and includes the salaries of all crew members, who get paid whether the plane flies or not. All of the normally reported military operating costs are dubious.

Second, the AF dropped a $2Billion service/upgrade contract for the E-4B fleet in 2005. Which should of just been completed in 2010. Which is funny, since Rumsfeld announced in 2006 that the fleet would be retired starting in 2009. Sec. Gates reversed the retirement plan in 2007, with the aircraft currently slated to be removed from service around 2015.

Frankly, with US forces involved in combat operations, in numerous locations all over the globe, I fail to see the problem of the SecDef using this platform when traveling overseas.

Does the USAF need all four A/C? Maybe not, and maybe one or more of the A/C can be pulled from service, with the equipment being removed, and used on a smaller, more economical platform. But, to just throw away a unique capability seems foolish.

Politicians make enough symbolic moves, Panetta can skip that and go right to cutting the fat if he really wants to impress.

If he wants to make a symobolic move he can just offer to let more officials “carpool” with him.

His entire premise is false and based on the wrong assumptions. He bases this entire idea on the concept that the SecDef uses the aircraft cause he “likes it”. Like its some kind of luxury SUV instead of a Prius. The Secretary manages the largest government agency. One that is currently engaged in three separate combat operations. The last thing I want is the guy running all of this to be half way across the Atlantic with his 11 closest friends on a Gulfstream V trying work the largest military organization on earth with a satellite phone when somebody gets shot down over Tripoli or our friends in North Korea decide that sinking a US ship would send a statement. This kind of expert advice makes me look forward to the coming “defense analyst” drawdown when our wars wind down.

I seem to remember FEMA using these planes during Hurricane Katrina. I may be wrong though but I think for there command and control capability even though normally of limited use is extremely important when they are used in command and control missions.

If they really want to save money and not lose capability when it comes time to replace the president’s fleet, replace all 6 of the planes at the same time with the same plane

One was used by FEMA after Hurricane Opal, but not during Katrina

The only mistake Dorr made was using the Gulfstream as the alternative aircraft. A 767 would do the job nicely and would work in with the new tanker buy. It is interesting how in the past the 707 airframe could do everything but as electronics got smaller, lighter and more powerful, the need for a larger airframe was somehow justified and you now have a fleet of 747’s. The most powerful country in the world doesn’t have to run around with the biggest of everything just to prove your are the biggest and baddest.

Sure it is great to have the SecDef in constant wideband comm all the time, but doesn’t he have a huge staff back at the Puzzle Palace? If he is in constant communication — couldn’t we shed the extra folks at the Pentagon? Otherwise, delegate while you are in transit and let the folks in DC earn their keep.
These guys love to stay in control all of the time, but we could survive if the SecDef let his staff make a decision — he could always get caught up when he landed.
Eliminate the big plane and let him travel on a Gulfstream.

Ummm, isn’t the “Puzzle Palace” the nickname for the NSA headquarters? I don’t think anyone calls the Pentagon the “Puzzle Palace”.

Kill the plane, it is a complete waste.

The Army is retiring old Hueys. Maybe he can use that instead.

In my 28 years in the AF, plenty of people referred to the Pentagon as the Puzzle Palace. NSA stood for No Such Agency, there was no nickname for it’s headquarters.

I would give Gates a cesna cub , that’s all he’s worth/ We should have built 500 F-22s and scrap the F-35s and build 1,800 x-47s for the Airforce and 500 X-47s for the navy. The Marine Corps should give up fixed wing aircraft, and get AH-64s and all rotor wing force , do what they are the best in the world at doing , kicking in doors and winning wars.

I wish people would quit pushing Boeing like it was the bible…Everything I have experienced from them is that they are more corrupt than anybody in the government could hope to aspire to…

You have to build a hardened aircraft from the ground up.

Nope… Need to Ditch F-35 and Press-on… The Platform is Killing the DOD.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement