View From the Hill
Written by Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.)
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 of Representatives for Alabama’s first district.