Controversy is brewing over the recent decision by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to award the contract for the next generation of air-refueling tanker to Airbus and Northrop Grumman. Currently the Air Force uses two tankers. The medium sized KC-135 which is based on a 50 year old platform and the larger newer KC-10 which entered service in 1981. Originally the KC-10 was supposed to replace the KC-135 but it was not suitable for many situations that the KC-135 was. I think that one advantage of the KC-135 was it's ability to use a wider range of runways. So that left us relying on an old but proven airframe.

Boeing was originally awarded a contract to start replacing the KC-135 with the medium sized 767 airframe. But the contract was stalled due to politics and some controversy about how the contract was awarded. So when the Air Force opened up their bid to replace the KC-135, Boeing presented the 767. However, the only real competition to the 767 was the Airbus A330 MRTT, a much larger aircraft. Larger than the current heavy tanker the KC-10. The problem lies in the fact that after the bidding started, the Air Force changed the requirements of the airframe so that the larger Airbus design would be able to compete. This put the smaller Boeing 767 at a disadvantage. If the Air Force would have changed the specifications before the bidding started, then Boeing could have switched to the 777 airframe which was more comparable to the A330.

What amazes me is that one, they are replacing the more numerous and versatile medium tanker KC-135 with a larger more restrictive airframe. Which means that even after the aircraft are purchased, we would still need the KC-135s! Why would they need to buy a newer heavy tanker when the KC-10 still has a lot of service life left? And if they decided that a larger tanker was needed, why didn't they give Boeing enough time to submit a bid for the 777 instead? Why did they choose the larger more expensive A330 over the medium size, and cheaper 767? It seems like the Air Force had already decided to give the contract to Airbus and changed the rules to make that happen.

With a decision such as this we should asked, cui bono? Who does this benefit?

- Thomas Paine 2

-

Technorati Tags: government, government corruption, politics