The U.S. Air Force has clearly stated that the new KC-X tankers are expected to perform multi-role missions much more extensively than they have in the past, carrying fuel, cargo, passengers and patients. Senior defense officials have said that the new KC-X aircraft will be a "tanker by day, an airlifter by night."
The fuel cost/fuel burn calculations and anticipated flight hour utilization should reflect this new vision of Air Force roles and missions. The draft Request for Proposal (RFP) only estimates that the Air Force will use each new tanker an average of 489 flight hours per year based on the average flight hours of the older KC-135's.
But the KC-X will be a new, highly reliable aircraft that commanders are much more likely to call into action for any mission they are capable of performing.
An RFP from the Air Force's previous KC-X competition required 750 annual flight hours per aircraft, a much more realistic estimate for this multi-role tanker. The 35 percent decrease in flight hours from 750 to 489 in the current draft RFP impacts the fuel cost and fuel burn calculations. That change makes it more likely that the most probable life cycle costs of the KC-X tanker fleet will be underestimated.
A tanker decision based on unrealistically low fuel prices and annual flight hours per aircraft could potentially charge American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in unnecessary fuel costs over the next 40 years, and eliminate billions of dollars in potential fuel burn savings.
We believe that our KC-7A7 family of tankers will excel under real world conditions, with no hidden costs or vulnerabilities. We continue to work with the U.S. Air Force to understand the requirements in the draft RFP.
Comments
Why not use a scenario of low/medium/high hours - say 489/750/1,013 hours per year and rather than cost use total fuel in gallaons/tons used for each of the scenarios
and the apply an average cost (again 3 scnarios - low/medium/high costs) from multiple published sources). Also average flight hours per year times the number of projected years of service life can not exceed the specified design life without additional cost of life extension at the then current cost.
Interesting to read about what is assessed in the KC-X competition. It seems rather short-sighted of the USAF to use the KC-135's average flight hours if the new tanker is to be truely multi-role. Likewise with the fuel costs, where have they got such a low increase from?
On a separate point why do I see articles relating to the A400M on here. I thought this was a site dedicated to the KC-X, none of the articles refer to the KC-X competition. Unless of course your highlighting the state aid issue, which the USAF has already declared NOT a factor in the KC-X competition.