Freedom Fuel

THE COMPETITION TO REPLACE the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135 air-to-air refueling tankers has seen two of this country’s biggest defense firms–Northrop Grumman and Boeing–square off for one of the biggest defense contracts in history. The initial contract for 80 aircraft is valued at $40 billion, and the service has plans to purchase as many as 100 more at an as yet undetermined cost. Factor in the high probability that allied air forces will follow the Pentagon’s lead and the numbers add up to maybe as much as $80 billion over the life of the program (the Air Force currently flies 531 KC-135s, all built before 1965), with a final decision from the Pentagon likely to come down at the end of the year.

Which is why both competitors are pulling out all the stops. Boeing recently invited a small group of bloggers, your correspondents included, to see the company’s production line in Everett, Washington. We traveled aboard the Boeing company’s private jet–a luxurious 737 complete with master bedroom, gold-plated bathroom fixtures (or at least it looked like gold), and a host of other conveniences befitting the company jet of a company that makes jets. We got to walk through the massive hangar (the world’s largest building by volume at 472 million cubic feet) where the Boeing entry–a modified version of the venerable 767 airliner–will be built. For the main event, Boeing staged a rally inside the hangar, complete with a senator, three congressmen, a troop of Boy Scouts, and what appeared to a marching band, all waving little American flags.

It was a red-white-and-blue scene, and that’s exactly the message Boeing is trying to send. On the merits, the competition from Northrop Grumman is stiff. But there’s more to it than that. Northrop has partnered with Europe’s Airbus, Boeing’s primary competitor in the civil aviation market, to offer the KC-30, a modified version of the Airbus A330. So while final assembly of the KC-30 will be done here in the United States, much of the work will be done in . . . France.

Not surprisingly, Boeing is pitching a simple, and effective, message to anyone who will listen: Buy American. If the Pentagon doesn’t, the U.S. Air Force will be flying French airplanes, and Congress will have to explain why American tax dollars are subsidizing French industry.

And it isn’t just Boeing that’s making the pitch. The three Democratic congressmen who turned out for the Boeing rally, Reps. Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, and Rick Larsen, as well as Washington senator Patty Murray, were emphatic on the need to keep the tanker an American-made venture, both to maintain America’s industrial base and for reasons of national security. These Democratic lawmakers exuded a deep distrust of the Europeans and their ability to keep their word on building the tanker–in fact, they sounded an awful lot like Republicans.

Inslee explained, “We’re in the World Series of aerial refueling…when you’re in that situation … and it’s the bottom of the ninth, and the bases are loaded, you do not put in a new recruit from Single-A baseball from France who may be good at soccer but should never play baseball.”

“What if all the sudden somebody over in Europe is mad about the United States over some issues and decides we’re not going to supply parts to Airbus because we’re mad politically,” said Dicks, alluding to a Swiss company’s refusal to provide parts for smart bombs during the run up to the Iraq war. “The Europeans, you never know what they are going to do.”

But the KC-30 is hands-down the more capable aircraft. First off, it’s bigger, which means it can carry 20 percent more fuel, 20 percent more passengers, and 30 percent more cargo. Although it’s not clear how much that matters to the Air Force, which doesn’t select platforms based on how capable they are, but based on how closely they conform to the requirements of the mission and, more specifically, the requirements of the competition. Metrics are used here only to determine minimum thresholds. Once those thresholds are met, excess capability counts for very little. As Boeing reps will quickly point out, they could have offered a larger plane, say the 777, but they felt that the 767 most closely mirrored the requirements laid out in the Pentagon’s request for proposal. (Click here to see Northrop’s spider chart showing the superior capability of the KC-30 relative to both Boeing KC-767 and the current fleet of KC-135s, as well as an illustration of Boeing’s response: ‘We could’ve pitched the KC-777, which would have been even bigger than the KC-30.’)

Further, Boeing repeatedly asserts that the smaller KC-767 will mean “more booms in the sky.” But this can be a little confusing. The boom is the device that allows that tanker to offload fuel to other Air Force aircraft, and each tanker is fitted with one boom extending from the aircraft’s fuselage. The KC-767 can also deliver fuel to Navy aircraft, which rely on the “probe-and-drogue” system–two lines extending from the wings of the tanker, each fitted with a basket to which the receiver aircraft can attach. Both tankers will be fitted with booms and drogues, but no tanker can carry more than one boom. So what does Boeing mean by more booms in the sky?

Because the KC-767 is a smaller aircraft, Boeing claims that the Air Force will be able to fit more of them on any particular airstrip, meaning more tankers close to the fight. Also, Boeing claims that the KC-767 can take off and land from smaller and more austere airfields than the KC-30–Northrop disputes this, and the RFP requires that both be able to operate from a 7,000 foot runway.

Northrop reps also counter that because their aircraft can carry more fuel, 45,000 pounds more to be exact, it doesn’t need to be so close to the fight, but can fly from more remote bases and loiter in the air for longer periods of time. This means that all things being equal, at a range of 1,000 nautical miles Northrop’s KC-30 can offload 37,000 pounds more fuel than Boeing’s KC-767. If you’re wondering why the KC-30 carries 45,000 pounds more fuel than KC-30 but can only offload 37,000 pounds more, Boeing will be happy to explain. The KC-30 is not as fuel efficient as Boeing’s KC-767, which leads to one of Boeing’s sillier talking points: that the KC-767 has “a smaller carbon footprint” than Northrop’s KC-30.

If you follow aviation, you’re well aware of the industry’s current obsession with reducing carbon emissions. This corporate environmentalism dovetails neatly with the industry’s other obsession, reducing fuel costs. But whatever the real motive, companies want to talk about how green their respective aircraft are, and so does the Air Force–even if that means calling an aircraft that burns 85,000 pounds of fuel eco-friendly because the competition uses 92,000 pounds of fuel to perform a very similar mission. In any case, it’s hard to imagine a machine that does more environmental harm–if you believe in that sort of thing–than a tanker.

Another prominent issue in the debate is the relative age of the two airframes. Boeing’s 767 first entered commercial service in 1982 with production peaking in 1989. Boeing delivered just 10 copies of the aircraft to commercial buyers last year. In contrast, the Airbus A330, which first entered service in 1993, hit a new production peak last year with 63 delivered. With the 767 nearing the end of its commercial life, the availability of spare parts and the cost of maintenance are serious concerns. Also, the necessary modifications to the older 767 have been extensive, increasing the risk associated with an otherwise reliable airframe and leading one Northrop rep to refer to the KC-767 as the “Frankentanker.” (These modifications have delayed the delivery of one KC-767 tanker to the Japanese air force, with Boeing currently paying an undisclosed daily penalty until the FAA certifies the aircraft. Italy has also ordered a KC-767–it’s still in flight testing two years after the promised delivery date.)

But, to some extent, focusing on the merits of each aircraft misses the point–this competition is about politics, and jobs. The Air Force’s tanker acquisition has been a political hot potato since 2001 when Senator John McCain first raised questions about a no-bid contract that would have seen the Air Force lease, rather than buy, 100 tankers from Boeing. The fallout from that scandal saw Boeing’s CFO put behind bars. Six years later, the Air Force and Boeing are acutely aware of the immense scrutiny any award will face, and they appear to be acting accordingly.

On the question of jobs, Boeing claims that if its aircraft wins the competition, it will mean 44,000 new jobs nationwide, with a majority coming in Washington state. Northrop claims that its aircraft would create 25,000 American jobs, mostly along the Gulf coast, and particularly in Alabama, where the aircraft will be assembled (a clever scheme for getting Republicans on board). Of course, Boeing reps and boosters cast doubt on that claim. At the Boeing rally, Senator Patty Murray was asked about the boost the storm-ravaged Gulf coast might get from a Northrop win. Her answer: “This will revitalize Toulouse, okay. I’d rather revitalize Everett [Washington].” Both companies claim that their job numbers are conservative estimates.

Northrop claims that American-made components will make up some 52 percent of the KC-30, with a goal of 60 percent, and that only 12-25 percent of the components will be French. Boeing claims that over 85 percent of the KC-767 will be made here in the United States. And the only people that know what both planes might cost work inside the Pentagon.

But, no matter what the numbers are, there’s no denying that the KC-30 would be a French airplane–assembled in the United States by red-blooded American Joes, but largely built by guys with names like Francois and Pierre. Is it a better airplane? Perhaps. But as to whether it is better suited to the mission, or a better fit for the Air Force’s requirements, these are unanswered questions. And outside of the delegation from Alabama, there’s likely to be little appetite in Congress, among Republicans or Democrats, for a decision that sees American tax dollars spent by the billion in French factories.

Ultimately, a mixed fleet might be the best solution, providing the Air Force with both the large KC-30, capable of moving significant loads of cargo and fuel, and a fleet of smaller, more efficient KC-767s that, if necessary, could be moved closer to any potential conflict. But with the service struggling to fund numerous acquisition programs that are already underway, the Air Force’s acquisition chief recently said that the additional cost of such a move would be prohibitive.

Which makes all-American Boeing the heavy favorite.

Michael Goldfarb is online editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Bill Roggio writes on security issues at billroggio.com and is a contributor to THE WORLDWIDE STANDARD.