I was a few months shy of 5 years old when the U.S. Air Force got its first jet-powered refueling tanker in June 1957.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was president.
The Boeing-built KC-135 Stratotanker is still refueling Air Force jets today. Studies suggest that the fleet — which has an average of 12,000 to 14,000 hours in flight now — can keep doing its job until 2040 and beyond if it must. Some of the refueling jets will be in their 80s then.
I know machines and people are very different, but the idea of an 80-year-old tending to our fighting fleet doesn’t sit well with me.
I’m not even keen on a refueling fleet in its 50s, which is what we have today. Both people and machines in their 50s break down more often. And they need more maintenance.
What I’m leading up to here is that I think it’s way past the time for the Air Force to make a decision on a new tanker. It’s been trying to do that for the past decade, but something keeps getting in the way.
It has another shot now that the competitors — the Boeing Co. and EADS — submitted their bids last week on a $35 billion contract to make the first 179 new tankers.
Michelle Dunlop, our aerospace reporter, wrote a special section on the tanker issue in March. Her lead story was headlined “A Decade of Drama” and noted that Hollywood couldn’t have written a script with more twists and turns.
Boeing originally was offered the contract, but it was overturned when it was learned that Boeing had offered an Air Force official and her family jobs to steer the contract its way. Then there was a battle of old rivals that ended with a Northrup-EADS team being selected against Boeing. That ended when Boeing appealed and the government ruled that the Air Force had steered things Northrup’s way.
You can read Dunlop’s story at http://tinyurl.com/Boeingstory.
Now, for the third time around, it’s still a battle of the titans. Northrup has dropped out, but EADS, the parent company of Airbus, remains in the race.
Both sides have their political backers because so many jobs are at stake.
Boeing estimated that a tanker win for it would “support” 50,000 jobs in the United States.
Boeing would build its tanker based on Everett’s 767, and it has backers in Congress representing this area and in many Midwest states involved in the work. EADS would assemble its tanker, based on Europe’s A330, in Alabama and has political support from people hoping to expand the aircraft industry in the South.
The World Trade Organization recently ruled that the billions European governments have loaned to EADS for it to develop new jets amounted to inappropriate subsidies for the company. It has yet to rule on similar complaints about government support for Boeing.
The politicians have tried to have EADS’ bid derailed because of the “launch aid” issue. The Air Force has ruled that WTO decision won’t be a factor in its tanker decision.
I think it’s a smart move. It’s time for the Air Force to set aside politics and to dive into the bids. Boeing’s submittal was 8,000 pages. EADS sent in a 8,800-page document.
I won’t pretend to have analyzed those giant documents. But experts agree that Boeing’s 767 proposal offers a smaller, less expensive option. EADS offers a larger plane that can fly farther and carry more stuff.
This time, we need the Air Force to make the best choice and get some new tankers in the air.
I hope it chooses Boeing. We need the work and I know that the experienced people at the Everett plant would do the job well. But also I want a fair decision. I think Boeing can win it fair and square.
Let’s leave all the drama to Hollywood this time.
Mike Benbow: 425-339-3459, benbow@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
