NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Procurement Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Buy American Or Else

September 24, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is under a lot of pressure not to make a mess of its second attempt to select a new aerial refueling aircraft to replace their half century old KC-135s. The air force says the problem last time around was lack of sufficient in-house technical experts. That problem has been solved by hiring over a hundred additional experts. But the real problem (choosing a politically acceptable supplier) is not acknowledged. There are two aircraft in contention, the Boeing KC-767 and Airbus MRTT/KC-30. The big problem is that the superior aircraft is made by a European firm (AirBus) which has been steadily gaining on the largest commercial aircraft manufacturer on the planet, the U.S. firm Boeing. Even though AirBus promised to do most of the work (and spend most of the money) in the United States, selecting the Boeing KC-767 means more jobs for Americans, and that means more votes for current members of Congress, in several key states.

When it comes to military equipment, especially high priced items, nations always try to build it themselves, even if it costs more, or results in an inferior weapon. Thus many European nations are buying the new European designed and Built Typhoon jet fighter, while other European nations are buying cheaper, and equally capable, American aircraft. Officially, everyone agrees that the best thing to do is buy a better, or cheaper, weapon from an ally, when such a deal is available. But in practice, politics (nationalism and local jobs) takes precedence. And so it will during the next attempt to select the American made KC-767 over the superior, but European made, KC-30. The air force is, unofficially, under tremendous pressure to "do the right thing", and make it look convincing. The AirBus lawyers are not ready to let this happen, unless something is officially, or unofficially, offered to them to assuage the pain.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article SOMALIA: Screw You


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

LB    Complete Rubbish   9/24/2009 6:11:32 AM
It is simply complete rubbish to call the KC-30 the "superior aircraft".  Part of the reason the contract was overturned was that the USAF did change the rules of contract.  It's not a superior aircraft if you have to spend a lot of money for new facilities and it can operate at far fewer airfields and is produced with a large subsidy from European nations- as demonstrated by the interim result from the WTO.
 
The KC-30 does indeed do specific things better than the KC-767 but the opposite is also true; moreover, there are other models of the 767 that could have been entered had the USAF been above board in the contract phase and perhaps models of the 777 as well.
 
In any case this article is extremely misleading.
 
Quote    Reply

J3       9/24/2009 7:55:57 AM
The political/economic tanker stalemate reminds me of the stalemates that occurred during the early 1990s in Congress for the same reasons over the closing of bases after the end of the Cold War.  The answer then, the creation of the Base Closing Commission with final power to close installations, may provide a model for ending Congress' current paralysis over the tanker contract and the awarding of other really big money military procurement contracts.  Congress would have to admit it was powerless to act on the contracts (I am not proposing a 12-step program) and create a procurement commission which would make decisions in cases where Congress could not.  The commission would be empowered to consider all aspects of a given procurement issue, including contract details and diplomatic and economic matters, and its decision would be final. 
 
I agree with LB that the GAO's reversal of the AF's original decision to buy the KC-30 was completely justified because of the AF's misleading contract specs.  But that does not mean that we should beat the drum so hard for buying the 767 because it is "US."  It is very important that we nurture our aviation relationships with the Europeans.  They are our military allies, and buy plenty of US aviation products (F-16, F-35, engines for all of Airbus' current models), and have for years.  We must find a way to make this tanker issue a win/win, not winner/loser.  Richard Aboulafia, the noted aviation analyst, has suggested a trade off in which the AF would buy all or mostly KC-30s manufactured entirely in Europe (but with lots of US content such as engines and electronics), and the Europeans would end or severly limit the A400M program and buy all or most of their medium and long range transports from us, made here. with some European content; eg C-130s and C-17s. We should be trying for something like that, not a bitter, angry and very divisive decision based only on a xenophobic view of American interests. 
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Why not C17? (or '777)   9/24/2009 9:05:37 AM
I don't know jack about the specifications for this procurement, but why was a tankerized C17 never considered? Too expensive, too much wake turbulence, too big, what?
I seems to me that the C17's large capacity, long range, ruggedness, versatility and rough-field capability would be just about right for a tanker, and the badass looks don't hurt either.
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       9/24/2009 11:33:33 AM

I don't know jack about the specifications for this procurement, but why was a tankerized C17 never considered? Too expensive, too much wake turbulence, too big, what?

I seems to me that the C17's large capacity, long range, ruggedness, versatility and rough-field capability would be just about right for a tanker, and the badass looks don't hurt either.



KC-17? It would be something like the KC-130 wouldn't it? You might be restricted to drogue systems. Don't know how they'd add a boom system to the C-17. Once you did, its likely no cargo could be carried.  Nonetheless, it might be a way to  keep the C-17 production going. Unfortunately, the C-17 is indeed more expensive to begin with. (KC-767: $130-$150M, base C-17: $180-$230+M).
 
 
Quote    Reply

OldApacheGuy       9/24/2009 1:33:29 PM
I agree with LB.  The fix was in by the USAF for the Airbus.  Boieng was marked by the upstairs folks at the Pentagon for punishment.  Too bad.
 
Boeing is American made. they have supplied the extremely faithfull KC-135 since 1954.  It is a wondeful airplane without peer in the real world.  The KC-10 was from McDonnel Douglas who is now Boeing owned.  You wilol not find many Air Force pilots complaining about the Boeing product line.  They seem to last forever. (B-52 first flew in the early 1950's and is still very viable) The Boeing Military Airplane Company has few peers.
 
Airbus is from EADS a European (mostly French and German) Consortium.  A member of Europe's military industrial complex.  In the 1986 raid on Libya, the US was refused permission by our "allie" France.  This caused a very difficult detour for US FB-111's staging from the UK. Germany is part of EADS also.  They don't often support US interest either.  Why would we give them the multi Billion Dollar Tanker transport contract?  Will they withold support when they don't like what we do with the aircraft?
 
It will always serve the US to make it's own weapons.  While buying small items from anywhere is just good shopping, we need to keep the US workers and companies going.  There is no need to outsource what we already do so well.  When the next world crisis errupts I would like to know our military is using the best US made and designed equipment.  Not worrying about having the supply line cut is our current allies agree with what we are fighting for.
 
Airbus uses a FBW (Fly By Wire) system that is suspect, it uses a computer that can't not be overriden by the pilot.  That makes be say "If it Boeing, I ain't going"
 
Keep the specifications even and don't change them on short notice.  The Boeing plane will compete.  If you want larger, Boeing will make larger aircraft.  777 or a larger version of the 767 compare much better than using a proven Boeing refueling system. 
 
Made in America fotr America's warfighters!  Keep the supply lines under US control.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    KC-30   9/25/2009 5:12:06 AM
If the KC-30 wins a new, and fairly conducted, tanker competition then it certainly sounds reasonable for the US purchase the aircraft.  The US has and does buy foreign weapons at times.  However, given the WTO now says Airbus has been given 200+ billion dollars of illegal support from European nations it would seem a tad problematic awarding airbus a contract.  Competition is great.  Giving away our aerospace industry to Europe because they are willing to plow billions into supporting Airbus is not in my view good defense industrial policy.
 
It's also worth noting that Boeing has a history of building strong airframes while Airbus not so much.  In any case the USAF needs to be clear in what it requires and then we can see how Airbus compares to Boeing.
 
The issue with procurement is less Congress and much more DOD having an incestuous relationship with the defense industry.  It is far too easy to be in charge of major procurement programs at DOD and then be hired shortly thereafter by the winning company.   Personally if the death penalty were applied in only one case I'd reserve it for treason and apply it some of these colluding in stealing tax dollars for the nations defense in time of war.  YMMV.
 
Quote    Reply

davidhughes       9/26/2009 9:44:35 AM

Most of the comments here display a traditional and unsettling "America is Best" attitude. For the record I am Canadian and therefore (relatively) unbiased. The general concensus (outside of the United States) is that the Airbus is a much superior aircraft, as shown by it winning all of the recent competitions. Its only weakness was its larger size (!?) and the original fact that its boom was untested. The latter issue has now been rectified. I would also seriously question the rather glib statement that ""Thus many European nations are buying the new European designed and Built Typhoon jet fighter, while other European nations are buying cheaper, and equally capable, American aircraft.""  Note quite. Europe is the one place where nations purchase with relative freedom considering source. I do not believe that unbiased and unchallenged evaluations have ever considered the F16 ti be equally capable as the Typhoon - cheaper yes but much outdated and only viable because of the addition of up-to-date electronic and weapon technology. The last more-or-less comparable evaluation rated the Typhoon as 1-2 versus the F-22 and 4-1 versus the F-16 and F-22.

 
Quote    Reply

W3    all is over rated   9/26/2009 8:30:40 PM
Sorry the tanker is just another comercial aircraft that has been militarized. But if the 777 was chosen how much of it is actually American? The KC-30 is a better package with a now proven record and more modern working boom. The Airbus frame would be shipped to the US and militarized in the a new US plant. One of the problems with Boeing is that that is it in the US. Thank god we have some people trying to keep Boeing honest and competitive.  Let the military have the best of their chosing. Let us keep real weapons made in the US and not worry so much on a simple airframe.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy