The KC-767 is the best air tanker for our nation's needs
There are no comments for this page [ Add Comment ]Friday, February 22, 2008
By THOMAS E. BINGHAM
Guest commentary
Most of us have never seen an air refueling tanker aircraft in action. The news coverage tends to be dominated by fighters and bombers, and how they are used to project power.
But those same fighter and bomber pilots would be the first to praise the role that tankers play. Nothing can happen without these critical aircraft. They enable us to protect the homeland, provide humanitarian assistance to those in need and accomplish national security missions around the world.
A large portion of that extraordinary capability, specifically the KC-135 fleet, was built in the 1950s, though, and needs replacing. Either the Boeing KC-767 or the Airbus A330 will be selected as the U.S. Air Force's next tanker in what many believe is a contract worth approximately $40 billion.
Beyond the dollar value of the work, our nation must select the best aircraft for our children and grandchildren to fly, and must ensure the best long-term value for taxpayers. I believe the KC-767 best meets both those requirements.
First and foremost, the KC-767 is the best aircraft because it provides military leaders true flexibility in how they use tankers.
Not only does it take off with a full fuel load from twice as many runways around the world as the competitor, it also provides three times the cargo, passenger and aero medical capability of the current KC-135 it will replace.
If you're a pilot in combat, your priority is finding as many flying gas stations as possible and loading up on fuel. The medium-sized KC-767 allows our military to access more bases closer to the action, deploy more tankers from those locations and ultimately offload more fuel than the Airbus A330.
Not only is the KC-767 technically and operationally superior to its competitor, it is also a better value. A recent study showed that a 767 fleet burned 24 percent less fuel than A330s and would save approximately $14.6 billion in fuel costs. That number is significant since the Air Force spent approximately $6.6 billion on aviation fuel costs in 2006.
This decision will also impact folks here in our state. If the Boeing KC-767 is selected, Utah will benefit from an estimated 600 direct and indirect jobs, and $22 million in annual economic impact.
From a national perspective, this program will support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers in more than 40 states.
In comparison, the Airbus tanker would be built in multiple European countries and shipped to the U.S. for final assembly.
From a personal perspective, it is difficult for me to believe that our nation would turn over a strategic national asset to be built by a consortium of international countries.
If we want future generations of Americans flying the best tanker, the decision is very straightforward: The KC-767 is the right choice for our national security, our military, the taxpayer, and most importantly for our children and grandchildren.
Bingham is president of the Utah Manufacturers Association.
Text 
