Hoping you'll read an interesting editorial ("This Time, Air Force Needs to Deliver") posted on the St. Petersburg Times website on the U.S. Air Force's KC-X Tanker competition. It mentions nearby MacDill AFB (home to the active duty 6th Air Mobility Wing and its associate Air Force Reserve Command 927th Air Refueling Wing) and the KC-135R fleet assigned there.
Most of the editorial focuses on the new competition and how changes from past acquisition efforts will allow the Department of Defense and Air Force to make an "apples-to-apples comparison of the bids."
While most will be picking apart the Draft Request for Proposal and trying to forecast who may win next summer, the most compelling part of this piece was the reference to Air Force folks having to build their own spare parts since they were no longer available for the Eisenhower-era Stratotanker.
It's no secret that the KC-135 fleet needs to be replaced immediately. But as we enter into the KC-X competition and prepare our bid, we always remind our team how critically important the tanker fleet is to this nation, the urgency to win this contract and to start building new tankers.
The St. Petersburg Times suggests that the Air Force "procure a plane that meets its mission requirements for the right price." We firmly believe the Boeing Company and our Tanker Team will do just that by offering a combat-ready KC-7A7 tanker with max capability at lowest cost.
Comments
I hope Boeing wins this contract. In the end, I hope they win because they offer the BEST aircraft. I disagree with anyone who wants to inject politics into this competition. Airbus makes great planes, and I have no doubt they will offer nothing less than a great plane to our military, and so will Boeing. The Air Force will award the company that offers the best plane, period. If the contract is awarded to Airbus, they will manufacture the plane here in the United States, so the notion of losing these jobs overseas is false.
I am a Boeing enthusiast, I love their products, but Airbus make an incredible product as well, and the notion that they are inferior in any way because they are European is childish. I am positive that either Boeing or Airbus will deliver their best, but in the end, the better of the two will win.
Bill, you are correct: this is a good editorial. It is also compelling that this editorial includes the following sentence:
"Members of Congress — with their eyes on the jobs these contracts can bring home to their districts — need to stay out of the way."
Boeing's supporters in Congress should take note. So should Northrop's. Let the USAF do their job and leave politics out of this.
I really do not understand why the C-17 was not offered with a retro boom and fuel tank that could be loaded on. The aircraft is the best of everthing we make and can already be converted to any configuration required. Why re-invent