Boeing didn’t offer a modern design

When I first heard of the loss of the KC-767 tanker bid to EADS-Northrop Grumman’s KC-30, I was upset, like most of us, for all the common reasons: Jobs and money going overseas, the support concerns regarding the U.S. military flying foreign hardware, national pride, etc. However, when I read the Saturday Herald, my thoughts about the loss were altered somewhat.

I still feel the same about the aforementioned, but I am less sympathetic to Boeing regarding the loss. The reason? They submitted a bid for an inferior aircraft, compared to the competition. And for that they have no one to blame but themselves.

The 30-year-old 767 platform (on which the tanker is based) is technologically obsolete. The 767 is still using old-fashioned hydraulic control systems (the KC-30 uses modern, fly-by-wire systems). Boeing has already said that without this contract, production of the model will cease. Why would the military by a new “old” aircraft when a modern platform is offered, especially considering the long life cycles associated with hardware such as this?

The KC-30 has a range and cargo capacity almost double that of the KC-767. For an aircraft with a mission like a military tanker, these last two points are highly important, and were mentioned specifically by the Air Force. Lastly, all the political intrigue associated with this contract prior to its award didn’t help Boeing either, I suspect.

While I still feel the same emotionally about the loss of the contract to a foreign company and all that it entails, the fact is that Boeing submitted a bid based on the wrong airframe. In my opinion (in hindsight, looking at the competition), a successful bid would have been one based on the 777 platform, an airplane similar in size and intent to the KC-30 (A330) and much more modern in its design.

Dave Martson

Marysville