Top 8 Reasons to Put Boeing to Work Building our Next Tanker Fleet
By Brigadier General Thomas C. Pinckney (US Air Force - Retired)
After several fits and starts, the Air Force is finally set to bid out a $40 billion contract to build a fleet of aerial refueling tankers to replace our current, Eisenhower-era fleet. Two companies are in the running to build the tankers – Chicago-based Boeing, and Airbus Industries, based in Toulouse, France. Boeing looks ready to build a tanker based on its B767 airliner, while Airbus will likely offer a tanker based on its A330 airliner.
While there are arguments for choosing either plane, here are this observer’s top ten reasons for keeping the contract in American hands.
1 – Experience. Boeing has been building America’s tankers for the past 50 years, and is now producing their fifth-generation refueling boom. Airbus is not fully operational with its first tanker, or its first boom.
2 – Time. Boeing has a factory producing 767s right now, while Airbus plans to ship A330 parts to be assembled in a yet-to-be-built facility in Alabama that will likely delay the program for another five years.
3 – Size. While the A330 is too large and heavy to land on many US and allied airfields, the B767 can access the same bases as our current fleet. That makes the Boeing plane more available, and cheaper, since the larger A330 would require large military construction costs for reinforcing and widening runways and building larger hangars.
4 – Safety. Airbus’ A330 is too large and heavy to perform emergency breakaway and over-run maneuvers critical to the safety of the refueling process, while Boeing’s medium-sized 767 is sized and powered appropriately for these maneuvers. Additionally, the larger, less agile A330 presents an easier target for an enemy.
5 – Security. Airbus and its parent company EADS (The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) are loyal to their own national interests, not ours. If EADS’ parent governments disagree with US military policy, if they are threatened by an enemy for providing military assistance to the US, or if they decide to seek profits by sharing our tanker technology with governments that may be hostile to the US, our national security interest could suffer.
6 – Reliability. Will Airbus stick to the terms of the contract, or charge more down the road? Citing Germany’s largest newspaper, Bloomberg’s Cornelius Rahn reported on January 1st that “Airbus is putting pressure on governments that have ordered its A400M transport plane to contribute more money to the financing of the project. … Airbus wants about 5.3 billion euros ($7.6 billion) more than the 20 billion euros agreed on in 2003 in order to deliver 180 of the military transports, the newspaper said.” If Airbus is willing to make shake its own governments down at the last minute for an additional 40 percent, what makes us believe the US Air Force will not receive a similar ultimatum?
7 – Subsidies. The World Trade Organization has recently ruled that Airbus has taken billions of dollars in illegal trade subsidies from European governments that were specifically intended to make Airbus’s prices competitive with Boeing. Such subsidies violate our free-trade agreements, and certainly our sense of fair play. If we ignore such blatant violations of our free-trade agreements, it will only serve to encourage other countries to cheat their way into US military contracts.
8 – Industry. The American industrial base is challenged on many fronts. And while we must adapt to the global economy and be competitive within it, we must also be judicious in maintaining an industrial base when it comes to vital strategic programs. Certainly we would not outsource nuclear missile production to a foreign government. Are the tankers that keep us a global military power any less important?
Now, Airbus may yet surprise us with some spectacular deal on an airplane we haven’t heard about, but unless and until that happens, these eight reasons are enough to convince this retired USAF pilot to go with what we know.
----------------------------
Retired Brigadier General Thomas C. Pinckney (US Air Force) is a decorated fighter pilot, served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly 30 years.
GQfluffy wrote:Could a combination of aircraft be best?
miamiair wrote:I know how screwed up contracting is, but I would make a split buy, 70/30 for the 767/A330F. Adjust the scale by the degree the OEM is willing to play ball.
Zak wrote:
3 – Size. What is the performance difference between the 767 and the 330 here? Which airfields can take the 767, but not the 330? (I'm not questioning the General's arguments here, just asking for a more detailed evaluation background.)
Zak wrote: 7 – Subsidies. Yep, he has a point there. Airbus is a political company. That is probably their weakest spot in that respect.
Queso wrote:Do you want another tanker that can still be flying in 50 years like the current one or do you want one that will have to be replaced again in 20 years? If you put it in those terms, the choice should be clear. The 767 is the right tool for this job, and will also be the workhorse for our next generation of AWACS and ELINT aircraft as well.
