Theater Logistician Maj. Gen. Kenneth S. Dowd - KMI Media Group

Tanker Needs
Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.)
First, I congratulate you, the
men and women who maintain
and support our military equipment
and keep it in tremendous
shape regardless of its age! As
a group, you know better than
anyone that the U.S. Air Force
is in dire need of a replacement
for the aging KC-135s. You know
we can’t “get there from here” and effectively project power without
a robust tanker fleet. Your maintenance and supply personnel know
exactly how difficult and costly it is to sustain the current fleet and
know it isn’t going to get any easier or cheaper—big bills are on the
horizon to keep our 50-year-old tanker fleet flying.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has been trying to acquire a new tanker
since 2001. You know the story: The first try, a deal to lease Boeing
KC-767s, was riddled with corruption and unfortunately resulted
in both Boeing and USAF officials going to jail. The second attempt
introduced a competitor, the Northrop Grumman KC-45, based on the
commercial Airbus A-330 airframe. After a competitive source selection
between the KC-45 and the KC-767, the military decided in February
2008 the KC-45 best met its needs and made a contract award. Boeing
protested, the GAO found minor issues with the source selection
process, and the Pentagon ultimately canceled the second acquisition.
Now, here we go again—a new RFP is expected and a competition
between the same competitors will begin anew.
Frankly, there is more rhetoric and trash-talking about this competition
than there is back home about the Alabama/Auburn football
game. But in my view, the most relevant question—what it all comes
down to—is which aircraft best meets our military’s needs? Simply
put, the military deserves the aircraft that provides the best value.
Everything else is secondary.
Some, for example, say this competition should be about “Buy
America.” In reality, with the globalization of the aerospace industry,
both competing aircraft will contain foreign components, but both will
have well over 50 percent U.S. content required by the Buy America
Act.
Some say this competition should be about preserving American
jobs. In reality, both aircraft would be built in the U.S. by American
workers. KC-767 production will reportedly employ 44,000 U.S. workers;
Northrop Grumman’s analysis indicates KC-45 production will
employ 48,000 U.S. workers.
Some say this competition should be about preserving the U.S.
industrial base. In fact, a Northrop Grumman win will mean two brandnew
aircraft manufacturing factories in the U.S. Supplier factories are
likely to follow. This would represent an expansion of the U.S. industrial
base. Furthermore, EADS executives have made clear their desire to
manufacture commercial A-330 freighter aircraft on the U.S. production
line, adding even more jobs to the U.S. industrial base.
Setting these secondary arguments aside let’s return to the most
important question: which aircraft best meets our military’s needs?
The KC-45 is a derivative of the A-330 commercial airliner. The
A-330 is a 14-year newer design than the competing Boeing 767. The
A-330 uses modern fly-by-wire control systems; today’s Boeing tanker
aircraft does not. The A-330 continues to sell well in the commercial
marketplace; the Boeing aircraft is near the end of its commercial sales
life. The commercial, worldwide logistics chain for the A-330 should
remain robust for decades.
The KC-45 has the added advantage of offering an aircraft on the
ramp sooner than its competitor. The KC-45 offered to the USAF is very
similar to the tanker configuration being delivered to the air forces of
Australia, the U.K., UAE and Saudi Arabia. That configuration, including
a state-of-the-art boom, is nearing completion of flight test now. In
contrast, the KC-767 configuration most recently offered to the USAF
combines structural elements of the 767-200, 767-300 and 767-400.
Neither this aircraft configuration nor Boeing’s next generation boom
have been built, tested or flown.
Of course, the ability to offload fuel downrange is the primary job of
a tanker. The KC-45 can offload 153,000 pounds of fuel at 1,000 nautical
miles (nm); the KC-767 variant offered is projected to offload 117,000
pounds at 1,000 nm.
The ability to maintain time on station downrange is also critical.
The KC-45 can spend 14.2 hours on station at 1,000 nm, the KC-767
11.8 hours.
In addition, the KC-45, based on a more modern, efficient aircraft
design, can deliver 1.96 pounds of fuel for every pound burned. The
KC-767 delivers only 1.61 pounds for every pound burned.
Beyond its primary mission, similar advantages accrue to the
KC-45 with regard to a tanker’s secondary missions. The KC-45 can
carry more pallets, more passengers and more aeromedical evacuation
litters than its competitor.
The military requirements for the new tanker are clear: “More is
better”—more fuel downrange, more cargo, more passengers and more
flexibility to accomplish the mix of missions that will confront our military
for the next 40 years. Some have argued that the value of additional
capabilities over and above a minimum should not be considered. They
argue the Pentagon should simply conduct a “low-cost shoot-out” and
award to the lowest cost offer that meets the minimums. This simplistic
approach may be okay for buying #2 pencils, but it has no place when
it comes to buying complex weapon systems. It would incentivize competitors
to offer “stripped-down” tankers that would likely require costly
upgrades later. It would not allow the military to even consider the
value of “more,” such as additional fuel offload downrange, even though
that additional capability would have value to our military.
The Pentagon must move forward with increased urgency and conduct
a fair, best-value source selection. Then the Pentagon should pick
the aircraft that offers the best value in meeting its needs. We must not
make short-sighted decisions that will haunt us for decades to come. A
best-value approach is the only acceptable path.
Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) serves in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives
for Alabama’s first district.
www.MLF-kmi.com MLF 3.7 | 9