Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week that the wars of the future will most likely be similar to the conflicts we are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan: the struggle to defeat an irregular enemy of terrorists, insurgents and guerillas. He went on to say that “the kind of capabilities we will most likely need in the years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need today.” He said that “any major weapons program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that… are most likely to engage America’s military in the coming decades.” If we accept that very sound argument — and we should — it follows that the KC-767 tanker is the ideal plane for delivering the fuel to these fights of the future, just as the KC-135s have done so capably for decades. The KC-767 is the right size aircraft for bringing fuel in close enough to efficiently and effectively service our warfighters, land at smaller forward airfields, take advantage of existing infrastructure close to expected hot spots… and do it all with a more capable, lower cost, lower risk, more survivable tanker.
So we must ask the question: How could the Pentagon have chosen the Airbus KC-30, a larger, costlier, higher-risk tanker that falls far short of the requirements for fueling irregular, asymmetric conflicts of the future? The people Secretary Gates called “America’s key asymmetric advantage” — our men and women in the military — deserve the most capable and affordable answer: the KC-767 Advanced Tanker.
Atom
Comments (9)
You know why the USAF picked the KC-30? It's clearly the kid-in-the-candy-store mentality at work: More, more, more! Never mind that too much sugar (or, in this case, airplane) is bad for you.
Posted on May 17, 2008 00:28
It is shown that Boeing had made an effort to win back the hearts of the American. Yes, based on the facts, Boeing KC-767 is much fuel efficient than the KC-45A and requires lesser runway. It helps to increase more jobs in America, not Europe. America has faced high inflation, more jobs lost and even losing our home. Clearly, if the U.S Air Force support EADS, our people will lose job, more homeless and create a great depression II. Seriously, U.S Air Force have to rethink. Either spending the amount on your American company or European/American company. The extra fuel you carries and burn for no reason or using the money with MORE fuel efficient planes. Using the money you have to the Americans or using the money on KC-45A and the money you have to the Europeans?
Clearly, U.S Air Force should support its home based company and not a company that doesn't belong to America rather to the EU.
BENJAMIN
Posted on May 19, 2008 03:44
Shame on Boeing for challenging the Air Force Decision. Boeing failed to win. Accept it and move on.
Posted on May 23, 2008 08:46
Dear Fred,
If a procedure has been put in place for companies to protest when they feel, as Boeing has felt, there were serious discrepencies in the procurement process, then why should Boeing not use that procedure?
Apparently the GAO agrees with Boeing.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/pressReleases/idUKWAT00969020080618
Posted on June 18, 2008 12:18
Oh, Fred in Florida - You see I really want to keep our jobs here in our country and use AMERICAN taxpayers money here in AMERICA. Our military should have planes and equipment that we AMERICANS build and make.
Boeing is that company to keep AMERICA strong. I stand with Boeing in this effort.
Posted on June 20, 2008 07:21
THE U.S. AIRFORCE SHOULD CHOOSE BOEING FOR THE TANKER PROJECT. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT AMERICANS AND I REPEAT ONLY AMERICANS, SHOULD BUILD MILITARY PROJECTS. AIRBUS MANUFACTING PLANT IS IN EUROPE .WHY WOULD THE AIRFORCE EVEN CONSIDER LETING A FOREIGN COUNTRY BUILD THEIR EQUIPMENT. MILITARY PROJECTS ARE NATIONAL SECURITY, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY. DELAYING THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THE TANKER, PUTS THE COUNTRY IN A UNSUITABLE POISITION TO RESPOND IF TERRORIST THREATS SHOULD OCCUR.I BELEIVED THAT AMERICA SHOULD BE UNIFIED AND NOT DIVIDE ON ISSUE THAT CONCERN NATIONAL SECURITY. HAVING A STRONG MILITARY WILL ALWAYS KEEP AMERICA SAFE.
Posted on June 29, 2008 21:00
The facts speak for the 767 as they spoke for the B17
I spent 26 missions over Europe Boeing is far and away
the best.for the least.
Posted on July 4, 2008 08:24
The Air Force is obligated by the oat they took to protect and defend our nation, PERIOD! Not just militarily but if within their powers, economically. In this case, by out-sourcing the tankers, the Air Force is clearly hurting the the very people they swore to defend. Hey, here's an idea.
Posted on July 26, 2008 01:40
Hi,
I have been reading this blog for some time now but never bothered to comment until today. Wanted to let you know that I am a fan and enjoy your work.
Thanks,
_________________
short term stock picks | free penny stock picks | stock picks
Posted on August 3, 2008 05:06
We welcome your comments. However all comments are moderated and may not post immediately. Offensive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not treat any comments you submit as confidential information. Please do not submit comments that contain any confidential information belonging to anyone else.
By submitting a comment to Tanker Facts, you agree to our site terms and privacy policy, and to having your name displayed with your comment. All or part of your comment may be posted or cited in the blog. Your name and personal information will not be used for any other purpose, and we will not publish your e-mail address.