The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Loose Canons

The Free Trade Air Force?

By on 7.6.10 @ 6:09AM

The malign influence of Sen. John McCain could again undermine the indispensable procurement of refueling tanker aircraft.

For nearly a decade the Air Force has been trying to replace its Eisenhower-era fleet of refueling tanker aircraft. It has failed twice in rather spectacular fashion. Once because a senior Boeing executive bribed an Air Force procurement chief with a job offer. And once because the Air Force broke federal contracting rules to award the contract to Boeing’s competitor (then a Northrop Grumman–European Aerospace Defense Systems consortium) for a too-large and too-slow Airbus aircraft.

And the double failures were due, in part, to the malign influence of Sen. John McCain (R?-AZ), who has been to the Air Force what malware is to your laptop.

This time, my alma mater had bloody well get it right. There is no more room for error. The refueling tanker is the most urgent and crucial weapon system acquisition in among all the other things the armed forces need. And that’s because the aged fleet of 415 KC-135s is too old, frail, and worn out to perform the mission.

Our KC-135 tankers are on average 46 years old. Only about 38 of them were able to fly in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and though many have been re-engined and maintained at great expense, too many cannot fly the unfriendly skies and the number that are on “operational restrictions” continues to climb. If a class-wide problem develops that grounds the whole fleet, it would impose catastrophic limitations on almost everything our military does. The older the fleet gets — and the harder it’s used — the likelihood of such a class-wide problem grows every day.

According to an Air Force briefing given when the last tanker procurement failed, the plan to buy fifteen aircraft per year — a very ambitious plan — will still mean the last KC-135 will be eighty years old when it is retired. We need to buy the right new tanker, and get it in the air as fast as possible.

Without the tankers, fighters can’t fight, bombers can’t bomb, and transport aircraft can’t enable the deployment of American forces around the world in a matter of hours. In short, no tankers, no superpower. Buying replacements should be pretty simple. But it’s not, because the Europeans contend that any restriction of the tanker buy to U.S.-built aircraft — regardless of the reason — is protectionism.

Those objections come from nations that refuse to invest in their own defense. European defense budgets — minuscule already — are being slashed to save social welfare programs across the EUnuchzone. And it should surprise no one that the French, according to one report, are increasing subsidies to restaurants by € 3 billion while cutting € 5 billion from their defense budget.

But those subsidies and cuts aren’t the issue on the tanker. The French, British, Spanish, and German subsidies (called “launch aid”) to Airbus are.

Later this week, the U.S. Air Force will receive yet another round of bids (called proposals in Pentagon contracting jargon) from the two companies competing for the 179-aircraft, $30 billion-plus program. One key question is whether the Air Force will account for the Euro subsidies in evaluating the prices proposed by Boeing and Airbus.

John McCain has said repeatedly that they shouldn’t and conducted a years-long campaign to prevent the Air Force from counting the subsidies against the Airbus price. But the Air Force can, and must both ignore McCain and factor in the subsidy.

The purpose of adding the subsidy is to level the playing field. If the French want to subsidize their aircraft workers to sit around smoking Gauloises, we don’t need to contribute $30 billion in U.S. dollars to their subsidies.

But last week, the World Trade Organization ruled that the “launch aid” subsidies that European nations use to enable Airbus to compete with Boeing were illegal.

At issue in the U.S. complaint against the EU subsidies were the “launch aid” low-cost loans, an indeterminate amount of which are never repaid, and other subsidies to a whole range of Airbus aircraft ranging from the huge new A-380 to the huge and not-so-new A330-200, which is the aircraft Airbus is offering to the Air Force for the tanker deal.

In truth, the Air Force should never have to consider the subsidies because the A330-200 is too big and too slow to perform the mission. As I’ve explained before, the laws of physics are the same wherever you go, and bad things happen when you ignore them. The A330 is too big, has too low a top speed and cannot accelerate fast enough to perform the tanker’s job of refueling our fighter aircraft. You’d have to assume that it could break the laws of physics to do the job the Air Force requires.

So price shouldn’t be an issue for the Airbus. It should be excluded from the competition before that question comes up. That the Air Force didn’t exclude it the last time around is one of the principal reasons the Government Accountability Office overturned the last contract award.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) |

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.10 @ 6:39AM

One would have to wonder about McCain's motives. Why would he prefer a French company over an American company? Especially in a recession.

Although those questions are not yet answered it's time for McCain to step down. He's just another progressive who has damaged this country as a politician.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.10 @ 10:29AM

Who is the Grand Old Potatoheads going to run in '12? Kato Kaelin?

L. Ross| 7.6.10 @ 11:10AM

Alan, my greatest concern is the GOP's astonishing ability to run the most un-electable candidate possible for president. Hell, Bob Dole ain't dead yet. Let's run him again.

vtwin| 7.6.10 @ 12:02PM

Economic meltdown, two failed wars, a $10 Trillion debt…., and you think the GOP’s problem was McCain?

RacerJim| 7.6.10 @ 1:10PM

The economic meltdown was ignited by Demoncraps Carter & Clinton ("Community Reinvestment Act"), Demoncraps = General "BetrayUs", and the Demoncrap super-majority Congress enacted the $10 Trillion debt...., yet you give Demoncraps a free pass?

Tim*| 7.6.10 @ 3:29PM

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17

Kipling| 7.6.10 @ 7:11AM

The French they are
A curious race.
They fight with their feet
And **** with their face.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.10 @ 11:06AM

"And **** with their face".

That's why the Vichy regime wore kneepads when they met with Germans.

vtwin| 7.6.10 @ 2:44PM

And what do conservative think with? …. Wrong. They don’t think.

The conservatives have squandered the retirement and medical saving of the elderly, borrowed from the socialists in Europe, and the Communists in Asian to finance foreign wars and a bloated military, that has to pay our “enemy” in Iraq not to fight so we can sneak out and concentrate on an “enemy” in Afghanistan that been kicking our butts for nine years, an “enemy” that walks, while carrying the weapons and ammo needed, to the battle field.

And, with a $13 Trillion debt, conservative want to borrow billions more for flying gas stations!

Dave| 7.7.10 @ 6:34AM

You are an as*. How do you pin a 13 trillion dollar debt on conservatives when Congress has been controlled by democrats for all but 12 years of my 52. Idiots like you are why this country is going down. You are ignorant and incapable of coming to a proper conclusion given the facts.

Grzmlyk| 7.7.10 @ 10:18AM

"And what do conservative (sic) think with? Wrong. They don't think."

This from a person who no doubt embraces the Krugman view of the economic universe? That is, if you take a dollar from the private sector, siphon off 30% to pay bloated government salaries and overhead expenses, and then throw the remaining 70 cents into an entitlement program, that will magically, through the Keynesian "multiplier," turn into $1.50.

Okey dokey. And we're the stupid ones.

I'd laugh if you morons weren't destroying this country so thoroughly. What again is the victory of a parasite that sucks all the life out of its host?

Grzmlyk| 7.7.10 @ 10:24AM

Or maybe we should take Nancy Pelosi's brilliant economic analysis to its logical conclusion: If extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks is a job creator, why not fire everybody in America and put them on unemployment in perpetuity?

Hm. Doesn't work, does it? But then again logic is not the province of the liberal. As long as you "feel good" about yourself, that's what matters.

The taxpayer will always come along and soak up your messes, right?

Convet| 7.9.10 @ 6:16PM

Want another watermelon, MORON?

A. C. Santore| 7.6.10 @ 7:22AM

You make it far too complicated, Mr. Babbin.

Without airborne refueling, we cannot fight. If we cannot fight, we lose.

If we give any other country the power to control whether we can fight, we're mad.

To Hades with the European concern over "protectionism." We have a country to defend, which is so much more important than their fake "principles" that we must reject them out of hand.

McCain is disappointing us and potentially hurting us. He must be sidestepped, nullified, or just plain bulled over and trampled under foot, and the U.S. put first.

Old Soldier| 7.6.10 @ 7:26AM

Our military procurement system has been politicized to the point that it is completely broken. Interfering members of Congress are one of the chief reasons. They are why we have no new tanker, why the F35 is an expensive disaster built in every district, and our troops are fighting with a rifle designed 50 years ago.

General Scott| 7.6.10 @ 8:41AM

McCain got burned in the Keating 5 scandal and has tried to be super-clean ever since. He shot down the Boeing rental deal on the grounds of undue influence (probably true) and this led to the contant rebidding and re jiggering ever since.
We need the tanker! Probably we need both planes as they're really designed for different missions.

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 9:00AM

The tanker fiasco is symptomatic of the overall collapse of the military procurement system. After all, we are not talking about an advanced weapon system, here, but simply a modified commercial airliner. Third world countries have managed to procure or even develop tanker aircraft faster and with less hassle than the USAF.

Beyond that, one has to ask why USAF wants to buy tankers at all, when it could just as easily lease them (as most airlines lease their aircraft), or even privatize most air refueling services altogether. Just what does a tanker do, most of the time? It travels to a designated point and then flies a racetrack pattern and delivers fuel to other aircraft on demand. With the exception of special operations tankers (a special case), they seldom if ever fly into or even near enemy airspace, hence they are not threatened by fighters or air defenses (and if they were, one could provide hazardous duty pay for specific missions). So, tanker services could be provided by a private company under constract to USAF (or DoD, if we wanted to make it a joint effort), on a "power by the hour" basis. It would not be difficult to recruit civilian pilots for the service, because there are many ex-USAF pilots and boomers available and willing to do the job.

This would free the Air Force from the need to maintain tanker squadrons, releasing all the pilots, air crew and ground personnel to perform other critical missions.

Bruce | 7.6.10 @ 9:17AM

This has to rank as one of the dumbest things I've yet read on AS. "Privatize" a military function critical to American defense? You're insane. Further - to suggest tankers rarely fly in combat zones is flat wrong as well. It would certainly come as a surprise to one of my buddies - who flew KC-135's in Desert Storm I and II and is now suffering from the effects of severe emphesema(sp) from flying through clouds of oil smoke, as diagnosed by the VA. He knows plenty of other pilots and first officers in the same circumstances due to combat related illnesses.

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 9:31AM

Lots of function critical to our defense have been privatized for a long time. Ever hear of CRAF, MRF or perhaps LOGCAP?

As for privatization, its been going on for a long time in other military services, and appears to work well. The British, for instance, have already privatized their aerial refueling operations, and their military satellite communications, too.

We have reached a point where military manpower is too scarce and expensive a commodity to waste on functions that do not actually require a uniformed soldier, sailor or airman.

As to your friend's story, I am pretty sure you either misunderstood or he was selling you a line. During Desert Storm, the aerial refueling racetracks were not over Kuwait at all, but over Saudi Arabia and Syria. Aircraft cruising at 25,000 feet may have flown through some residual oil smoke, but most of it was much closer to the ground--and mostly over Kuwait. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the oil wells were not torched, and, moreover, the racetracks were not over Iraq at all.

If there is any sort of enemy air defense, you do not deploy jet tankers over or forward of the FEBA, unless you want to lose them. Special operations tankers (mostly KC-130s) are another issue, as I said.

L. Ross| 7.6.10 @ 11:24AM

Stuart.

I have been flying KC-135s since 1986. I am a headquarters level subject matter expert on all aspects of air refueling. You are incorrect on many of your assumptions here.

Due to the incredible dominance of U.S. air power, we have moved tankers closer and closer to the fight, until we are now just plain old "in the fight". As the separation of powers that the services used to have has declined in the name of "Jointness", we have seen decisions made by Army generals on where our tanker tracks would be. These tracks have placed our tanker crews and aircraft in greater peril so that the Army guys the A-10 receivers were protecting would be at lesser peril. You are correct that there are no defensive systems on board the KC-135 at all, however, modern tanker doctrine emphasizes the need for such systems. We need to be where the receivers are, rather than have them always come to us. As far as the oil fires of Gulf War 1, trust me, our jets used to come home with black trails behind every single rivet from all the smoke we flew through. I'm not saying I suffer any ill effects, but it was much, much worse than L.A. smog. The oil fires burned so hot and bright you could see them from hundreds of miles away. Finally, there are plenty of special ops KC-135s. The KC-130s do not have a boom and can't refuel any Air Force aircraft except the V-22 and our helicopters.

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 1:38PM

Mr. Ross,

I know that U.S. tankers now operate over Afghanistan and Iraq on a regular basis. However, the situation that pertains there hardly qualifies as "normal", and would be a very bad basis for planning of future operations, particularly in light of the proliferation of very long range air defense systems such as the Russian S300PMU, or air-to-air missiles such as the Novator K100, specifically designed to bring down large, unmaneuverable support platforms like AWACS, JSTARS and tankers. In a situation where any sort of air defense exists, tankers will stay on our side of the line. And where no air defenses exist, there is no reason why civilian pilots cannot fly the mission. We already use charter aircraft for logistic support, and this would be no different.

On the matter of special ops KC-135s, what would they be refueling, other than MC-130 Combat Talons and HC-130 rescue birds? There is no way that a KC-135 could refuel a helo or even an Osprey, and certainly bringing one along on a deep penetration mission would border on suicidal in any case.

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 9:10AM

"In truth, the Air Force should never have to consider the subsidies because the A330-200 is too big and too slow to perform the mission. As I've explained before explained before, the laws of physics are the same wherever you go, and bad things happen when you ignore them. The A330 is too big, has too low a top speed and cannot accelerate fast enough to perform the tanker's job of refueling our fighter aircraft. You'd have to assume that it could break the laws of physics to do the job the Air Force requires."

I am puzzled by what Jed means here. Maximum speed is not really an issue for tankers, as they generally transit at an economical cruise speed, and that's pretty much the same for all airliners. When they arrive on station, they stooge around at loitering speed to maximize endurance--and this is also pretty much the same for all airliners.

Acceleration should not be an issue, since tankers usually have advanced warning of an upcoming fuel transfer, and besides, one can always trade some altitude for airspeed. Any airliner capable of Mach 0.7 (455 mph) or so is fast enough to refuel jet fighters. Larger aircraft--bombers, transports, AWACS, JSTARS, etc.--all have roughly the same performance envelope as commercial airliners (many of them are converted airliners themselves).

As for size, unless one believes the USAF is going to forward base its tankers at austere in-theater bases, the Boeing advantage in takeoff distance is pretty much irrelevant. On the other hand, carrying a larger fuel load allows a tanker to stay on station longer, and transfer more fuel. That's one reason a KC-10 is superior to a KC-135. Why USAF did not specify the largest aircraft practical escapes me--but Air Force procurement has been busted for quite some time.

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 9:22AM

I suppose I should address the "breakaway maneuver" issue that Mr. Babbin stressed in the article he referenced above. The redacted paragraph he quotes says that the A330 tanker lacks the necessary speed and acceleration to perform the maneuver when refueling the [redacted] aircraft. The plane in question can only be the F-22 Raptor, the only operational fighter capable of "supercruise" performance (i.e., the ability to fly faster than sound without using afterburners). Of course, no commercial airliner is capable of supersonic speed under any circumstances, so we can assume the Raptor would not be employing supercruise during refueling operations (leaving aside the problems of controlling a flying boom at greater than Mach 1).

The real limiter on acceleration in modern airliners is not thrust (most of them have plenty of power), but rather the slow spooling time of high bypass turbofan engines (i.e., the time needed for the engine to move from cruise to maximum thrust, which is a function of the very large fan blades that make such engines so efficient). Both the 767 and the A330 would have the same problem, so this complaint seems without merit.

Moreover, if it was an issue, a simple change of SOP would suffice to rectify the problem. Before it had the KC-135, USAF actually used a piston-engined tanker, the KC-97, whose maximum speed was quite close to the stall speed for SAC's jet bombers, the B-47 and B-52. Procedures were developed to allow them to refuel safely, and as the performance envelope of the A330 is much the same as the 767, this strikes me as a non-issue.

chester arthur| 7.6.10 @ 10:37AM

Using the old KC-97 argument doesn't really work.The 'procedure' developed to allow the ' ol 97 to refuel jet aircraft was to dive it near it's never exceed speed,which can get dicey with a heavily-laden plane with rather slow response to the controls.We really needed more of the KC-10's a few years ago,we need new tankers now more than ever,but the sluggish and clumsy and runway cracking A330 is not the answer.We need an American tanker that can use more of the runways now available.

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 1:24PM

I've seen pictures of late model KC-97s, complete with auxiliary J-47 turbojets, in a screaming dive, hooked up to a B-47 Stratojet whose nose is pointing up at the sky in a near stall. It must have been a fun ride. On the other hand, the old 97s soldiered on in ANG until 1978, and refueled just about everything in the inventory during that time.

On the KC-10, you'll get no disagreement from me, and given how many DC-10s are sitting in boneyards around the world, I fail to understand why these were not purchased for their salvage value, given a zero-time overhaul, and converted to tankers. But the KC-10 has a max TO weight of 590,000 lbs, while the A330 has a max TO weight of 520,000 lbs. If the A330 is a runway cracker, then what's a KC-10? An A330 is powered by two Rolls Royce Trent engines generating 72,000 lbs of thrust each, for a total of 144,000 lbs, and a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.28. The KC-10 has three GE F103 engines rated at 52,000 lbs each, a total of 156,000 lbs and a thrust-to-weight ration of 0.26. Neither aircraft can be described as "spritely".

Ray| 7.6.10 @ 11:10AM

"Acceleration should not be an issue, since tankers usually have advanced warning of an upcoming fuel transfer, and besides, one can always trade some altitude for airspeed."

Acceleration will be an issue when that tanker comes under attack! You do realize that tankers, being a vital support vessel, is a high value target during combat, right?

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 1:12PM

A tanker is limited to something like Mach 0.8. A missile can do Mach 3+. If they are shooting at you, it's too late to run. Active and passive defenses would have to do the job. And prayer.

JimH| 7.6.10 @ 9:17AM

Am I misunderstanding the subsidy issue? Is the complaint that we are being charged to much or not enough? If not enough, I don't see why we should not let EU taxpayers subsidize the American air force. In fact it is about time we got something back. On another point. Remember that McCain is navy. If tankers are not available for the air force it increases the need for carriers. The justification for carriers is becoming more dubious due to their increasing vulnerability and expense, so every bit helps.

Ray| 7.6.10 @ 11:19AM

There will always been a need for Carriers as it is a good idea to have planes as close as possible to their areas of patrol and attack. Carriers provide the military the ability for immediate action (that can't happen when the aircraft is half a world away) and greatly reduce pilot fatigue, a very real, and dangerous, problem with long duration flights like, once again, having to fly across 10,000 miles or more just to reach the combat area. That was a lesson we learned in the Persian Gulf War.

Thomas| 7.6.10 @ 9:49AM

There is a good reason why the subsidies are important to the bidding process. That that is that third party subsidies artificially reduce the projected cost of the aircraft and the spare parts needed to keep the aircraft flying for an extended period of time. Should the subsidies dry up, which is increasingly likely in these economic times, then the costs to the operator, the U.S. Air Force, would have to increase, or the contractor would lose money. This means that, without increased costs to the operator, the contractor may not be able to fulfill the contract.

Therefor, any subsidization has to be factored into the cost analysis of any long term procurement project. Remember, this is not a retail situation where a company can pass on increased procurement costs to their customers. Increased future costs have to be borne by the initial customer, the U.S. Government, and that means by us , the U.S. taxpayer. It is bad enough that the government allows virtually all government projects to exceed the agreed upon costs, without throwing a third party into the mix.

Au Contraire| 7.6.10 @ 10:15AM

So the Europeans want to give the Pentagon a good deal on an airplane at the expense of their own taxpayers? I fail to see the problem.

Also, there is a counter-suit against Boeing in the WTO for their various subsidies and preferential tax treatment in Washington state. Why did this writer fail to mention that aspect of this farcical drama? Fact is, big companies everywhere feast on corporate welfare. It's pretty funny to see them pointing fingers at each other across the Atlantic.

Howard| 7.6.10 @ 12:03PM

The problems is when subsidies are used to take American jobs and export them to Europeans. The main problem here is that the Europeans have been doing this for 40 years, and the American aerospace industry has suffered. We've lost 10s of thousands of jobs, and more importantly should the EU be successful in this the US would lose a key strategic capability. The Europeans have denied equipment to other countries when they disagreed with their policies. Just ask Israel about this.

The notion that domestic tax rates are somehow subject to the whims of some foreign control is absurd. First off it's not the governments money. It's the companies money. The company getting to have less of their pocket picked by the government isn't a subsidy. Though the Socialist Europeans would disagree, that isn't how we roll in the US. I predict that if the WTO were to make the ruling that internal tax rates (not related to exports) are somehow subject to WTO regulation, I could see the US pulling out of the WTO all together. We will not submit to foreign domination in that way.

Doctor Right| 7.6.10 @ 10:17AM

Can someone please (preferably someone he trusts, like a Democrat) tell John McCain that is it VERY good for one's health to go jogging at mid-day in Arizona..?

...How will we EVER be rid of this man?!?!?

And to think that we were forced to vote for him in 2012!

AAAAAAAGHHHH!!!!!

Al Adab| 7.6.10 @ 4:04PM

We, and Arizona, will be rid of him when the voters realize that retiring the Senator is more important than who they replace him with.

We followed him to defeat aq couple times. Why would we choose to follow him again? Tell your Arizona freinds.

MG| 7.6.10 @ 10:49AM

Gov issue supplemental tool kit (mil spec 100-789-56-cross fingers)
25- bobby pins
5- large rolls duct tape
1-spool bailing wire
10- packs of bazooka bubble gum
5- pair chinese chop sticks

You get the point. I feel sorry for those KC mechanics. Pulling rabbits out of hats to keep those relics in the air. Why should France be involved. This is a critical piece of hardware to the defense of this country. If Boeing is all there is then so be it. Get on with it!!!

John Thacker| 7.6.10 @ 12:51PM

"And the double failures were due, in part, to the malign influence of Sen. John McCain (R?-AZ), who has been to the Air Force what malware is to your laptop."

You're seriously blaming McCain for (chairing the committee that oversaw) catching Boeing's blatant bribery?

And I know a fair number of Northrop Grumman people that would dispute your characterization of the two bids.

I suppose that Babbin and people like him are willing to defend bribery, so long as it's American bribery.

Stuart Koehl| 7.7.10 @ 8:56AM

I don't defend bribery under any circumstances, but I find it amazing that the government will implement regulations to prevent or detect bribery that, in the long run, cost more to enforce than would have been lost to bribery in the first place. Simply complying with all the paperwork required for a defense contract drives up overhead and G&A costs for defense contracts to two or three times what they would be for commercial contracts. At the same time, the government limits fees/profits for defense contracts to a nominal 10%--though 5-6% is more common--vs.25-50% in the commercial sector.

Dustoff| 7.6.10 @ 1:21PM

Odd, for the people who know about aircraft. Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact. "AirBust" has never built a tanker. Heck the Brits have been using modified L-1011 for tankers.

Plus a question was asked about using older aircraft from the airlines. Tankers floor area and other parts must be reenforced to carry the fuel/stress loads. This type of mod would be very $$ when changing older aircraft and making them into tankers. Plus the birds have a bunch of cycle times.

Why buy an aircraft that is headed to the scrap in a few years.

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 4:22PM

What's the big deal about building a tanker? It is, in essence, a commercial airliner with additional fuel tankage in the cargo hold, to which one adds an in-flight refueling system--either a flying boom (used by USAF and the French Armee de l'Air) or a hose reel system. Both of those are after-market systems manufactured by subcontractors, which can be integrated into the airframe by any halfway competent aeronautical chop shop.

The real issue here has always been Boeing's attempt to maintain its monopoly in the large multi-engine military aircraft market, which they took for granted so much that their original tanker proposal was judged non-responsive, resulting in the award to the Northrop-Airbus team.

Thom| 7.6.10 @ 3:24PM

“for a too-large and too-slow Airbus aircraft.”,

There is not a shred of facts or truth to this statement presented. The re-engined KC135s, KC-767, KC-45A (A330) and KC-10 all have the same relative thrust to weight ratio. Look it up. The 700 KC-135 Tanker fleet delivered in the late 50s and early 60s had at least 40% less thrust to weight ratio and needed every foot of a 10,000 foot runway and water injection to get off with a full load of fuel. Emergency break away maneuvers aren’t performed by the tanker aircraft doing acrobatics or ACM. All the tanker has to do it pull up and accelerate.

“The refueling tanker is the most urgent and crucial weapon system acquisition in among all the other things the armed forces need. And that's because the aged fleet of 415 KC-135s is too old, frail, and worn out to perform the mission”.

Again not a single fact presented. The Tanker while important is not in the league of a weapon’s system in any shape form or fashion. Comparing it to one is a false choice. The KC-135 fleet split between two models have used about half their “hours” and have spent most of this life setting on a tarmac somewhere waiting for call to deploy. They are old and more expensive to maintain but that fact and the annual buy isn’t going to change the fact they are going to be in service at least another 40 years regardless of who wins and when we start buying 15 $200 million dollar commercial aircraft and converting them to “tankers” each year. Like the F-15As when they came on board in the mid 1970s and had availability problems, they weren’t down because they are worn out but because they weren’t being maintained to save money for other programs. The active duty birds are kept more maintained vs. the bulk of the fleet being assigned to “reserves”.

“Our KC-135 tankers are on average 46 years old. Only about 38 of them were able to fly in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and though many have been re-engined and maintained at great expense, too many cannot fly the unfriendly skies and the number that are on "operational restrictions" continues to climb”; “.the plan to buy fifteen aircraft per year -- a very ambitious plan -- will still mean the last KC-135 will be eighty years old when it is retired”, “

Again, not a single fact presented. By your own stats we aren’t going to produce enough to matter if they are truly “too old, frail and worn out”. As a class, the AWACs, JSTAR and other 707 airframes the Air Force uses are probably have more “hours” and are at least as difficult to maintain and keep flying but they seem to be there when needed.

Either way you look at it, there are only two free world commercial airline producers, both are monopolies in their own part of the pond and we are going to buy one monopoly’s product or the other. As they are different classes of aircraft it would be helpful if false and fraudulent statements weren’t put into the public domain by people that have a conflict of interest in the matter. Next you’ll be claiming the A330 class breaks up runways, can’t turn around on a runway and the KC-10 (a McDonald Douglas/Boeing product weighting nearly 100,000 lbs and requiring quite a bit more runway to take off and land) doesn’t do this and can meet the Air Force Emergency Break away requirements but the A330 can’t?

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 4:24PM

I fully concur, as your post essentially reiterated several of my earlier ones.

Thom| 7.6.10 @ 5:12PM

It gets worse. The Air Force wanted a mult-role airframe so they could get more use out of them and not have half their life left when they reached 40 years old vs. the 80+ we are going to have to get out the current fleet. What the Boeing mafia doesn’t get is we aren’t going to replace these airframes on a one for one basis and if you can get more in the air weight capacity and cargo volume at the same price as the smaller airframe it ultimately saves money for other programs. You simply can’t do the same work load with an equal number of 767 airframes and other cargo aircraft like the C-17s will have to be tasked to carry the cargo capacity the A330 can help with that the 767 can’t during a surge. The Boeing mafia has used every disadvantage of the 767 as its strength meaning another relatively single purpose airframe for refueling only operations that sits on the tarmac most of its operational life. If Boeing had an airframe in that class and they don’t they would have bid it. All they have is the smaller 767 and the larger 777 to work with until they can get up to speed on the 787 airframe. Given a choice I’m sure the Air Force would want the newer 787 airframe if they could get it but Boeing can’t deliver on that those thus a soon to be out of production airframe (767) is all they have to offer. Too many people can’t see beyond the “US vs. the French” thing to see that we (the US) is dangerously close to just having one choice in military hardware now and we’ve canceled the bulk of our new weapon systems since 1988 because of cost overruns brought about by smaller and smaller purchases of units. The F-15s, F-16, bulk of the F-18s are all going away well before the F-35 can replace a portion of those fleets and we won’t have enough F-22s to cover the tasks it will have to fulfill in place of the original F-15A/C buys. If we pay monopoly prices with sole contract bids we will not even have enough tankers to support the reduced numbers of “affordable” F-35s we will end up with 10-20 years down the road.

gene hauber| 7.6.10 @ 4:10PM

I've said it before and I will say it again.....without having read the whole article, I got its jist,
for the benefit of America, McCain should have died in the Hanoi Hilton...he's a RINO-DEM and sometimes worse.
NUFF SAID...
CASE CLOSED.

Stuart Koehl| 7.6.10 @ 4:26PM

I imagine a world where people who have nothing useful to say would take cognizance of that fact and resist the urge to share their vacuity with the rest of us.

davelnaf| 7.6.10 @ 9:30PM

For such an expensive procurement it is a little amazing that the Air Force would even be required consider a foreign made tanker. The Europeans get quite enough from us as it is.

Stuart Koehl| 7.7.10 @ 9:07AM

The reason for considering the Airbus bid is the excessive consolidation of the U.S. aerospace industry. There is only one company producing large, multi-engine airliners in this country--Boeing. Boeing's offerings, as has been indicated, are somewhat limited at this time. Moreover, as an effective monopoly, Boeing lacks the cost discipline that real competition conveys.

In the absence of domestic competition, international competition is needed to bring innovation and cost discipline back to the market. An award to Airbus would not have exported U.S. jobs, insofar as Airbus (a) would have built a final assembly plant in Alabama; (b) would eventually have transferred more of its major assemblies production on-shore; and (c) already has an extensive supply chain in the United States.

It's not widely know or well advertised, but the Airbus parent company, EADS, already has a large North American subsidiary, as do other major European defense companies. British Aerospace is the third largest American defense company after Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The Italian company Finnmeccanica has become a major power with the acquisition of DRS Technologies.

European defense and aerospace companies are moving into the U.S. market by establishing an onshore presence because this is the only market exhibiting sustained growth, and to play, one has to be here on the ground. In addition, as compared to European workers, U.S. workers are more productive and are not subject to such restrictive labor laws as in Europe, so moving production to the U.S. makes European companies more competitive here and abroad.

Instead of reflexive protectionism, one should look more dispassionately at the 2-way street in defense trade, and accept the need for greater transatlantic industrial integration.

Shameless Pitch: Those who are interested in the subject can buy my book, "Fortresses and Icebergs: The Evolution of the Transatlantic Defense Market and the Implications for U.S. National Security Policy" (2009), available through Amazon, Borders, Barnes & Noble and other on-line booksellers.

John - TMF| 7.6.10 @ 10:37PM

I stayed out of this for a while to see how it developed.

1. I am an airplane buff from before I can remember. Did my best to get into the Air Force (color blindness removed that life goal) So being a buff is not qualification for commenting on the entire performance envelope of any competing design, beyond what I know... contracts, technical stuff... and Logistics... supply chain...

Which brings me to number 2...

2. The proposed C-45 was (IMHO) a lie. I figure the airframe and aircraft could do the job or it wouldn't have been proposed. What I doubted was the totally bogus business model being presented to tickle the Air Force and Angels in Congress into accepting a foreign designed and manufactured aircraft as an Air Force mainstay.

Besides the sad commentary on our dwindling industrial base, the assertions and promises within the contract were close to insane, and completely unsupportable from a supply chain and manufacturing standpoint.

Airbus/EADS would have abandoned Alabama assembly of anything but paint, tail boom, and drogue hoses in the wing tips...

The truth is that the cost effective assembly point for the aircraft (such as it is within the supply chain and sub-assembly transportation web) is Toulouse, France. Why on Earth would any corporation cut a chunk out of its existing, paid for, supply chain... shift it thousands of miles over an ocean to the west, and offer to deliver the resulting aircraft in pieces for assembly in the US? (especially if that aircraft could be manufactured using the existing supply chain and logistics and just transport itself to the configuration point in Alabama)

It was an idiotic concept that attempted to do what FN Hertsal and Pietro Berretta did with their gun manufacturing concerns. Firearms aren't aircraft. Though some idiot Congress critters might not actually be able to tell the difference... Babs "Don't call me ma'am" Boxer comes to mind first.

The contract would have never generated the jobs, or the aircraft in Alabama past the first few. Then the Air Force, over a barrel would have to accept completed airframes self-delivered... to the tune of the loss of thousands of promised N-G jobs, and lots of US long green dumped into struggling EADS/Airbus coffers.

Stuart is right, this should be a no brainer... easy... and done. If the Air Force wanted a big tanker it could have purchased a long proposed tanker version of the 747. If it wanted a smaller one, the 767 airframe is perfectly fine for the job. If it wanted a new cargo plane... it could just buy more C-17's and C-130's and stop trying to gold plate a flying tanker truck.

We need the tankers more than we need this fan dance. Boeing is our last large aircraft manufacturer... Front line US Aircraft should be manufactured here. That's life.

Buy the danged 767s get them flying and get it over with.

:-/
TMF

John - TMF| 7.6.10 @ 10:44PM

Just so that you all know, the tanker version of the VC25/B747B and named the KC-33A. It had a swing away nose, and could carry a serious amount of cargo, too. It lost out to the KC-10 for reasons only known to the Almighty, since it was an aircraft with amazing potential and was a better airplane than the DC10.

Regards,
The Mighty Fahvaag

Stuart Koehl| 7.7.10 @ 9:09AM

I had forgotten about the KC-33A. An awesome beast it would have been, too. I always wondered, though, about the effects of wingtip vortices, and whether winglets or some other fix would be needed to reduce these to manageable levels at cruising speeds.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.7.10 @ 12:42AM

Um, perhaps some added perspective: qua (that's right, qua) a Mike Rove Dirty Jobs episode.

Seems air refueling tankers have sets of 'bladders'
from which aviation fuel is siphoned off to designated 'thirsty' all comer military aircraft.

What's the big deal now - monetarily speaking ?

Building from scratch?

Yo, retro-fit a fleet of Boeings' spacious 747s with an abundance of 'bladders' and we're in business!

Air Force 1 and it's backdrop 747 companion are suitable for diplomatic Presidential runabouts - apology tours - so it seems eminently fitting that Boeing 747s can handle the job of bowing to smaller aircraft in greater numbers per their flight assignments.

Speaking of bladders: day by day by day - senator McGoos' political incontinence is SHOWING!

Thanks senator McGoo - for facilitating BHOs installment to the Peoples White House!

And a few words from your buddy ole pal Don Imus - for additional perspective.

However, if senator McGoo would only spend time in ferreting out the whereabouts of that
Mao Zoo Dung White House Christmas tree ornament - his 'legacy' would be secured!

AMENBRO| 7.7.10 @ 9:16AM

God Bless you John McCain.

Thank you sincerely for your service..Isn't it time to RETIRE FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY?

NOW GET THE F87k off the stage and go write a book PLEASE.

Ken| 7.7.10 @ 11:04AM

Is the strategic oil reserve in France? No. It's in the U.S. because when a calamity causes us to use it we want to be able to protect it and make it available when and how we want. Two oceans and a stalwart ally to the north make seizure of it by our enemies unlikely. Geography then is a strategic advantage for North America. How many wars have been fought historically in Europe? How often has France and other Airbus resident countries been overwhelmed and devastated? Many, many times. If Airbus want to sell us military equipment then they can do what Mercedes, BMW, Fiat have done. Build factories here and build their products here. Otherwise, strategically we can't put the linchpin of our aerial assets behind the Maginot line that is France and the EU in general. Also, France is famous for the strikes that their 30 some hour a week employees have to force concessions from management. Will their workers strike during war time when we need spare parts? Will they be subject to war time restrictions and demands that our commander in chief levy on our economy? No. the EU is not as agile as our country since they have so many players at the table. It is entirely plausible for us to demand physical means of production be on U.S. soil. Is their military driving around in Fords and Chevys? Not likely. What about their postal service? Right drive Jeeps?

Mister B.| 7.8.10 @ 1:20PM

Perhaps if the air Force were as responsible in maintaining the KC-135's at the same levels as the B-52 fleet this drastic spending would not be needed.

Andrew Terhune| 7.8.10 @ 3:28PM

If the French want to subsidize their workers to build our tankers, I say let them. We get the benfit of lower cost tankers. After all, would we refuse them if the Europeans subsidized them so much that they were free? Of course not. So why would we reject them if they are more than free but still less expensive than they would otherwise be?

Bill Herlehy| 7.9.10 @ 2:15PM

Why is it that editorials, responses to the editor, and statements from our politicians on the subject of a replacement tanker never even mention the KC-10? The USAF have more than 50 of them in the inventory. They have been praised for their role in aerial refueling and the Air Force has current plans to keep them for at least 30 more years.
They can be bought for about 120 million a copy. The $30- to 35-billion budget will buy more than what is needed as indicated by the planned buy.
If there is a reason for it not being the best answer to a tanker replacement, so be it.
My question is why it not even being discussed?? if it is good enough for at least the next 30 years why is it not a viable replacement for the 135??

More Articles by Jed Babbin

More Articles From Loose Canons

How Long Is This War?

May 20, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Next: The Benghazi Select Committee

May 13, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Nobody Died in Watergate

May 9, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Benghazi Bullchips

May 6, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Obama’s Thin Red Line

April 29, 2013 | Jed Babbin

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/06/the-free-trade-air-force

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|99 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|56 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|31 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|19 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.