The computer model at the heart of the Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA) simply calculates what is known as the "tail count:" the number of tanker aircraft needed to complete a mission in each of four different wartime scenarios according to a rigid computer simulation.

However, the last competition for the tanker contract also included a section called "insights and observations" that accounted for less than ideal contingencies such as base closure, shortening runways and other unforeseen problems. These insights and observations gave additional real-world depth and detail to the computer model used for the IFARA calculation.

This time around, those insights and observations have been omitted from the draft Request for Proposal. This year's IFARA model doesn't capture the number of parking spaces or air bases required or the amount of fuel burned - all critical resources for combatant commanders. The IFARA model does not penalize a bid for requiring additional bases to complete each mission, even though in real life this strains the limited parking resources of combatant commanders, requires additional logistics and maintenance teams to support tanker crews at distant bases and complicates every refueling mission. The IFARA model also does not account for the number of flight hours required (which can be much greater if distant bases are used) and real-world limitations on flight crew hours that restrict the number of trips each tanker crew can complete, particularly if they're based far from the mission. Like in golf, where we aim to minimize strokes to win the game, in a war zone, we certainly would aim to minimize the number of tanker bases required, parking spaces needed, flight hours flown and fuel burned to win the war.

We're communicating with the Air Force to learn how these changes will end up affecting the tanker evaluation so we can submit the best proposal for the warfighter.