While a recent Reuters story described Pentagon leadership as willing to make minor changes to the terms of the KC-X tanker competition, it is clear that the U.S. Air Force has defined exactly what they need in a new tanker and made those requirements mandatory for all bidders.
Unlike our competitors have indicated, Boeing intends to submit our bid (whether it's a 767 or 777-based tanker) to meet the customer's requirements as defined in the draft RFP. We will satisfy the needs of the warfighter and we feel confident that our technology, expertise and range of proven commercial airframes will enable us to provide a next-generation multi-role tanker with a maximum set of capabilities at the best value to the taxpayer.
Our dialogue with the Air Force has sought to clarify elements of the requirements and address how the Air Force plans to evaluate performance, cost and risk in the upcoming tanker competition. It's unfortunate that there have been threats to boycott this competition as an apparent attempt to pressure the Air Force to change its fundamental operational requirements in ways that could result in the purchase of a tanker that does not meet our troops' needs.
We will continue to work with the Air Force to move forward with the RFP process and we look forward to participating in the tanker competition.
Comments
What possible advantage is there to US industry in shipping the tanker order to Airbus? Surely the maintaining of the 767 or 777 line is essential to US jobs. There is no such thing as free trade as we all know. The thought of the tanker contract going essentially of shore is ridiculous, don't they know there is a recession on?
Marksand
Auckland
New Zealand
Great that Boeing is ready to offer either/both models of aerial tankers. And, now that the USAF is being more clear on their requirements, Boeing can capitalize on the efficiency of the 767 or the power of the 777. While NG/EADS may decide not to participate, at least they can't take the ball and go home. The USAF will get the best machines for the job.
Why would our military even consider buying from another country? I will not fly on an airline in America that buys their new planes from Airbus. I drive American cars and trucks. Proud to be American! I want my tax dollars to buy Boeing. I don't care how much they cost. Let the Europeans fill their military aircraft with Airbus tankers. Who cares. This should be a no-brainer.
Once again, why are we using outdated technology (by that I mean an airliner that is being modified to a tanker). Now is the time to design a role specific tanker for the next 50 years. The KC-135 design was born in the 1940's developed in the 1950's and updated in the late 1980's. It's longevity was first because it was a "radical new design" and also because it sat "idle on SAC alert" for 20+ years. Now is the time to design a new airframe. By comparison, the KC-135R can carry about 30K of fuel, the 767-300 Freighter carries 24K of usable fuel, the 777 Freighter carries 47K of fuel. The problem: Once you go past operation requirements for a runway larger than 8,000' x 150', you limit your operating areas in the world. You can't be a force multiplier if you have to operate from "somewhere behind the lines" to quote Snoopy. Design a purpose built aircraft that is low to the ground, carries lots of fuel, puts the boom in the tail where the position belongs, and can operate without cargo planes full of support aircraft (sorry KC-10's). If possible, remove the cargo / passenger requirement...we've got enough problems with putting booms in the air for the demand without loading the aircraft down with cargo and passenger missions. It is, after all, a TANKER.