Subscribe to our RSS feed

Issue 30 - November 7, 2007

In this issue of the EADS North America Tanker Activity Update:

•	Competition works: Commentary by Fox News military analyst Tom McInerney

The Washington Times published the following article by Tom McInerney, a military analyst for Fox News.  McInerney is a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general who served as assistant vice chief of staff for the Air Force

Lt. Col. Oliver North's article in the Oct. 14 edition of The Washington Times presented a "not so fair and balanced" picture of the U.S. Air Force's number one priority program, the KC-X Tanker Replacement. This was very unusual for Col. North, a renowned author and television host. I am an ardent fan, but feel compelled to tell "the rest of the story," as Paul Harvey says.

“The benefits of competition couldn't be clearer”

I agree with Col. North on a fundamental point. Competition is absolutely imperative in the Air Force's KC-X Tanker Program to replace our aging KC-135 tanker fleet.

The Air Force had no competition in its previous attempt to replace them. Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and the Senate Armed Services Committee nixed the lease of 100 KC-767 tankers from Boeing for the cost of almost $24 billion, which led to the resignations of two senior civilian Air Force leaders and two Boeing executives going to jail.

Congress and the Air Force have embraced competition for the current KC-X tanker. Northrop Grumman has proposed its KC-30 tanker based on the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company's highly successful A-330 commercial aircraft. The KC-30 carries more fuel and is more modern and versatile than Boeing's KC-767 tanker. As a direct result of competition, the Air Force is now in a position to buy 179 tankers for approximately the same price Boeing was going to charge for leasing 100 KC-767s. The benefits of competition couldn't be clearer.

Furthermore, had Congress approved the previous KC-767 lease the Air Force would not have the tankers in the fleet. Why? Because Boeing is now four years behind schedule in delivering the KC-767 to the Italians and two years behind in delivering it to Japan.

Also, the KC-767 did not make an appearance at the Paris Air Show this summer. Most "industry watchers" were greatly surprised. By contrast, the Royal Australian Air Force sent its new KC-30B Multirole Tanker Transport to the world's most prestigious air show and was the "talk of the show." As a matter of fact, in the last three international tanker competitions, the KC-30 has beaten the KC-767.

The Australians, the British and United Arab Emirates will be proud owners of world's most capable and modern tankers that have technology that is 14 years newer than that on the KC-767. Wouldn't it look strange if our allies had more capable tankers than the USAF? Now Col. North also had his facts wrong describing the KC-767 and KC-30 capabilities. He indicated the KC-767 burns a ton less fuel per hour than the KC-30, but in fact the KC-767 only burns 800 pounds less per hour — a huge difference in impact considering that the KC-30 carries 43,000 more pounds of fuel to offload, making it far more efficient.

The KC-30 also has more cargo capability by a factor of almost two and can carry 40 more passengers. In addition, it is the KC-30 that can take off and land from shorter airfields. The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally.

Boeing's KC-767 proposed for the Air Force is a completely different aircraft than the tanker they sold to the Italians and Japanese. The USAF version is a one-of-a-kind aircraft and has never been built or flown. This is a risky proposal at best. Boeing has admitted to technical and developmental problems with its KC-767 for Italy and Japan over the past five years. The fact is that neither of those countries has taken delivery of a KC-767. We now know why Boeing did not propose the same aircraft to the Air Force.

Col. North's concern that the KC-30 is a "French" tanker is unfortunate. The fact of the matter is that the aerospace industry today is a global industry. Sixty percent of the KC-30 is built in the United States. By comparison, 85 percent of Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner is produced overseas — in China, Japan and Russia. Large sections of the KC-767 are built in Japan, Italy and Canada. As Alabama Gov. Bob Riley has said, "the KC-30 will be built in Alabama by Alabamians. It will be an Alabama tanker."

The bottom line is that there has been a great deal of misinformation about this subject. Both tankers will be assembled in the United States, helping our industrial base and creating new jobs for Americans. If the Air Force can't settle on one tanker to meet its requirements, then perhaps it should consider awarding contracts to both competitors to get the value of enduring competition.

Contact:
Guy Hicks
Vice President – Communications and Public Relations
EADS North America
Tel: 703 236-3300
e-mail: guy.hicks@eads-na.com