Hope you'll read The New York Times story from Spain (one of the many European countries where Airbus plans to build their A-330 Tanker) in which EADS's North American CEO Sean O'Keefe criticizes the U.S. Air Force's draft Request for Proposal (RFP).
Boeing Defense, Space & Security CEO Dennis Muilenburg was quoted yesterday during a speech to the National Aeronautic Association as saying "We've chosen a path that says we understand the warfighter requirements - we're not questioning those requirements. It's our job to respond with the best offering to meet those requirements; that's still our position."
Obviously Boeing and Airbus are on two very different paths as we wait for the KC-X Tanker final RFP to be released. While it's unclear what our competitor will do next, America can count on the Boeing Company to provide a combat-ready tanker featuring max capability at lowest cost.
Comments
I couldn't help myself reading the NYT article on Airbus talking to the specs for the new tanker requirements, without taking exception. Airbus states that... “The current draft request for proposals is not a tanker modernization program, it is just a replacement program”. Well, I’m here to tell you, it's both!
The crux of the matter is we are replacing the existing fleet of 400+ KC-135 aircraft. The bonus is we get a modernized fleet that will have several capabilities that go beyond the success we have enjoyed for 50 plus years with the Boeing KC-135, and right sized too.
I could go into the advancements, such as, remote refueling, all airframes capable of both probe and drogue, the ability to take on fuel, true cargo capability, AIREVAC, special ops enhancements, avionics, and the list goes on, but there were two points that hit me. First, where Airbus states... “which means there is no evaluation of any capability that exceeds the baseline requirements. Anything bigger, better or longer in range is of less value”. If you understand air refueling, you will understand bigger is not better. As for the warfighter needs, this is way off the mark and qualifies for attention. The old adage, booms in the air for combat, fuel in the air for deployment, is still true. Bigger, (I question the better part), or longer in range is an attempt to make one think bigger is better. Houdini can't make this aircraft right sized! As I have stated in previous blog statements, too big is a non-starter. The A330 is too big. Additionally, there is no real mission return for its excess size, nearly 120K pounds more in gross weight than the 767. I have said before, you can put more 767 tails on any given ramp than you can A330’s. On some ramps, it is a 2:1 ratio, or more. For simplicity sake, I can employ 10 tails with much more combat effectiveness than I can 5 tails. Furthermore, any experienced tanker commander would opt for numbers and the flexibility it brings, with very few exceptions. In addition, I can show the 767 has more fuel offload capability per square foot of ramp space it occupies. The 120K greater gross weight in the A330 is a fuel degrade and offers nothing for combat ops. Finally, forget dual roll potential with the A330. With limited tails, you’ll be scrambling just to meet the combat air refueling requirement.
Secondly, the politics part. The Boeing 767 and Boeing Corp stand on a success proven air refueling record. There is no need to politicize this replacement aircraft. Politicizing makes up for what you don’t have in substance. The issue is, what is the right size tanker, with the right capability, offering the most flexibility, and the most employable weapon system, the taxpayer can give to the warfighter.
My 30 plus years of experience tells me the 767, hands down, is the best operational answer for what the warfighter needs. It’s not a political answer, it’s the right answer!