|
This is turning into a dialogue between the two of us, BV. I can see that you are agitated about this deal but I don't think we are communicating our positions too well. I'll start over. The original intent of this thing was to get tankers into inventory faster than the AF had planned. The reason they did not plan to buy them now was because of the massive future commitment of funds for C-17, F-22, F-35, C-130J etc. aircraft. Many people in and out of the Air Force had the opinion that it is a ticking time bomb to have 90% of refuelling capacity in an asset that will be upwards of 50 years old. The risk of a massive fleet grounding is considerable, even with constant vigilance. So, after 9-11 these people, which undoubtedly included Boeing representatives as well as members of Congress and the AF, pushed for a resolution of this percieved problem. Sure, some were motivated by greed and power, but others were legitimately concerned. I imagine, the lease idea was some brainchild of a financial wizard that responded to a lament that the Air Force just didn't have all the cash flow necessary to do all the things they needed to do. Maybe they were connected with that RAF lease deal thing for the C-17 and thought it was successful. Just like families and companys do in the real world, they responded to the siren call that a lease deal will allow you to get the jet you want with a minimum monthly outlay. Suddenly (you think) you can afford it. If you examine the AF lease deal and the justification that goes with it, it was never going to be cheaper than buying. It only got them the tankers earlier with a monthly payment they could afford, and it was worth the extra cost to get them sooner. The centerpiece of McCain's argument is that we should live within our means and not be tempted to over extend, at least not this way. His rhetoric is a bit over the top and hyperbolic, but that is how you get people to notice in the political world. There is always the possibility that he is settling an old score too, killing two birds with one stone. Anyway, the rest of the Congress overruled him and authorized the tanker lease deal. Remember, everybody knows it cost more to lease, rather than buy. It was never concealed. I don't think they would have authorized this deal if it were not a Boeing product involved. Shoring up the US commercial aircraft industry was an added intention after the 9-11 attacks. It was in the best interests of all elected officials to preserve high value manufacturing jobs in the US. (As an aside, I do seem to remember that the USAF leased some Lear Jets back in the 80's. It was for a similar reason. All those Sabreliners were wearing out and the VIP's needed first class transportation, but they spent all the procurement money.) During the "due dillegence" phase, the AF asked Airbus to propose something equivalent. It was not realistic to think that Airbus had a shot at this project, it was only a negotiating tool to get the best out of Boeing. Of couse, knowing this, the Airbus proposal stuck it to Boeing by using the most optimistic schedules and favorable assumptions. They knew they would never need to perform on that proposal, so why not look as good as possible so the next time they can be considered a competitor? Now, about the A330 tanker. There is no doubt that Airbus Industrie could make a satisfactory tanker, given time and money, but why? The difference in potential performance between the A330 and 767 tankers is not worth discussing. One might have a little more available fuel offload at 1500 miles out than the other, but a reversal of fortunes may occur in airport performance. One would be smaller and cheaper but the other has more growth potential. They would be of equivalent utility. Neither one would be as optimized for the tanker role as the KC-10's and KC-135's are. For instance, the take off fuel fraction for the optimized tankers is about 60%, and for the commercial conversions, about 50%. What I'm getting at here is "better is the enemy of good". The extra time it would take to convert an A330 would kill the project right there because the whole lease thing depends on accelerating the procurement. Otherwise the finances don't work out. The 767 has that problem trying to meet some of the "desirements". That is probably why many features were negotiated out. Any delay jeopardizes the whole scheme. A serious full court press to have the A330 considered will cause that delay, and more. Collapse of the deals would result. This might allow companies like Lockheed and Boeing to synthesize a superior military tanker concept, which I would wholeheartedly support. It makes work for the working man, right? Those KC-135's are good till 2040 anyway. It says so in McCain's arguments. They will only be 80 years old then, only just broken in.
_________________
????
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
