Kansas Makes Case For Refueling Tankers

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Kansas Makes Case For Refueling Tankers

By John Milburn, Associated Press Writer
Manufacturing.Net - March 13, 2009
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP)

The Obama administration is getting pressure from the Kansas congressional delegation to act quickly on awarding a new contract for Air Force refueling tankers.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt and Sen. Pat Roberts insist that a decision to build the next generation of tankers is vital to national security and the Kansas economy.

The two Kansas Republicans have gone so far as to invite Peter Orzsag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to come to Wichita's McConnell Air Force Base and fly in one of the tankers.

Many of the aircraft were delivered to the Air Force during the Eisenhower administration.

However, the Obama administration has suggested that any decision to award a new contract be delayed by up to five years.

The Air Force selected Northrop Grumman/EADS over rival Boeing Co. for the tanker project last year, but then it reopened the bidding after the Government Accounting Office found flaws with the decision. Had Chicago-based Boeing won the contract, the finishing militarization of the tanker would have been done at Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems plant in Wichita.

In a letter to Orzsag, Roberts and Tiahrt even provided a flight itinerary from Andrews Air Force Base to McConnell.

"We have no doubt that such a trip will illustrate better than anything else how important a new tanker is our nation," they wrote. "We also believe that it would be very worthwhile to see the next generation tankers Boeing Wichita has built for our allies."

McConnell is home of the 22nd Air Refueling Wing and soon to be the largest tanker base in the United States. But just as important is the Boeing factory on the west side of the base. A new contract for tankers could mean additional jobs for the Wichita plant.

The plant already completes work on tankers for Italy and Japan.

Tiahrt's office said Friday that Boeing estimates that employment at the its KC-X tanker finishing center in Wichita will be about 300 to 500 workers. Tiahrt said the resulting economic ripples would create approximately 3,800 jobs for Kansas and $145 million annually.

Tiahrt and Rep. Norm ****s, a Democrat from Washington, also sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking him to follow guidelines in awarding the next tanker contract. Above all, they said, the process must be fair to all parties.

The letter asks that the Pentagon consider, among other criteria, the cost over the life of the new tanker program and subsidies EADS receives from several nations. Some $5 billion in subsidies to develop the EADS tanker are the subject of a World Trade Organization complaint filed by the U.S.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that Gates was still reviewing the tanker issue and hadn't made a decision to delay the bid process.

"The secretary is going to make his decisions based upon what is in the best interest of our nation's security," Morrell said. "And ultimately it's up to the president and the Congress to decide if they want to adhere to his advice."

Gates has said that he intends to restart the tanker competition this spring.

Link (http://www.manufacturing.net/article.aspx?id=189768)

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Not trying to create controversy; just posting a news item.

[GrinchWSLG]

Kansas needs those jobs, bad. Got a buddy working for Cessna in Wichita, seems like half that town has already lost their jobs from the plane makers.

[Walter Sobchak]

Kansas needs those jobs, bad. Got a buddy working for Cessna in Wichita, seems like half that town has already lost their jobs from the plane makers.

America needs a tanker that is NOT an Airbus!

"If it isn't Boeing, I'm not going!"

[GrinchWSLG]

America needs a tanker that is NOT an Airbus!

"If it isn't Boeing, I'm not going!"

Well, the Airbus tanker would have been built in the US. Its still a matter of bringing jobs to an area that hasn't quite been clobbered by the recession or saving thousands of jobs that already exist in Kansas. As far as the debate between the aircraft's abilities, that's another thread.

[oldsoak]

plus the actual US content will be high anyways, whether you look at components or workforce. I cant see them shipping stuff trans-atlantic when they can get it interstate.

[Walter Sobchak]

Well, the Airbus tanker would have been built in the US. Its still a matter of bringing jobs to an area that hasn't quite been clobbered by the recession or saving thousands of jobs that already exist in Kansas. As far as the debate between the aircraft's abilities, that's another thread.

Yeah, but the plants in Alabama have not been built, nor one worker hired, and using the 767 airframe would save existing jobs and keep existing facilities busy. Plus, the 767 is smaller, uses less fuel and will deliver the same amount of refueling capacity as the larger, more expensive, more costly to operate A330 aircraft. The 767 uses less runway, can be parked in a smaller footprint and has a longer airframe life than an A330. Finally, Boeing has been building the boom refueling systems since they were invented, and Airbus' experience is confined to hose and drogue systems.

[TheSteve]

Yeah, but the plants in Alabama have not been built, nor one worker hired, and using the 767 airframe would save existing jobs and keep existing facilities busy. Plus, the 767 is smaller, uses less fuel and will deliver the same amount of refueling capacity as the larger, more expensive, more costly to operate A330 aircraft. The 767 uses less runway, can be parked in a smaller footprint and has a longer airframe life than an A330. Finally, Boeing has been building the boom refueling systems since they were invented, and Airbus' experience is confined to hose and drogue systems.
Yeah, didn't the airforce originally pick the Airbus A330 over the boeing aircraft?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/business/worldbusiness/11boeing.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=boeing%20tanker&st=cse

[Silent Reader]

Plus, the 767 is smaller, uses less fuel and will deliver the same amount of refueling capacity as the larger, more expensive, more costly to operate A330 aircraft.

The Airbus actually has a 20% bigger fuel capacity which then would also justify slightly higher costs

[Zoomie]

The Airbus actually has a 20% bigger fuel capacity which then would also justify slightly higher costs
But it does not mean it's the right plane for the job, because remember, it has to be able to land where the KC-135 and KC-10s currently operate in forward airbases.

[tercio67]

But it does not mean it's the right plane for the job, because remember, it has to be able to land where the KC-135 and KC-10s currently operate in forward airbases.

I hope you do not mean to imply that the KC-135 and KC-10s operate from duststrips.
They very much need hardened runways, even in a forward airbase.
The Airbus needs about a 100m more runway for take off when fully loaded and somewhat less when landing.

[Zoomie]

I hope you do not mean to imply that the KC-135 and KC-10s operate from duststrips.
They very much need hardened runways, even in a forward airbase.
The Airbus needs about a 100m more runway for take off when fully loaded and somewhat less when landing.
WTF? Where did I say that? All I said is that it has to operate where the current tanker fleet does.

[tercio67]

WTF? Where did I say that? All I said is that it has to operate where the current tanker fleet does.

My mistake then, they can use the same airfields without problem.

[AlfredoTP]

I really don't care if Airbus or Boeing. I fly myself a B737, and personally, I like Boeing more than Airbus, thus being an European myself. But the thing is not 'Buy American", that's BS, because the Airbus tanker would be build/assembled/etc. in the US, it's more 'which costs less on the long term(!) and which helps/supports our troops, etc.'
Anyway, they need tankers, and they need them NOW, for the jobs and for the troops; so I really don't understand the delay of... 5 years? Geeeee...:cantbeli:
(Put those politicos in a special payment: they get paid if they are being productive, and let's see how quick they start solving problems, stop creating new ones, etc.)

[Walter Sobchak]

My mistake then, they can use the same airfields without problem.

On the A330, an engine-out take-off is more problematic when loaded, where it is not so much on a 767. That also dictates field conditions, as does the relative V1 and VR points on the runway, which is also more of a problem for a heavier aircraft. Finally, there are some unanswered questions about the optimal refueling speed for the A330 and what, if any, problems fueling aircraft will have flying in close proximity. Finally, the A330 airframe does not have the anticipated service life of the 767. I mean, has anyone ever seen an airplane deliver the value to the Air Force as has the KC135s and B52?

Being a 737 guy, I bet Alfredo could learn to fly a 767 in an afternoon. The panel groupings are very similar. :)

[tercio67]

I personaly think that if the USA ever overcomes the NIOH syndrome, it will be able to buy stuff more costeffectivly and introduce that what is bought faster. This btw is not just a problem experienced exclusivly by the USA.

As for 767 and proven technology; a model T Ford is proven technology so why buy a Mercedes E220?