Posted on 09/14/2021 8:01:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
While left wing staffers in the Biden Administration’s State Department are “concerned” that the death cult Taliban has an all-male government, moderate Democrats are (finally) beginning to push back on the insanity of the so-called progressive left. Indeed, when these same woke Administration staff requested, as part of the defense budget a weak, flaccid military spending line item, moderate Congressional Democrats pushed to expand that budget by $24 billion more.
But budget realities still need to be observed, and while we need to keep the military strong, we need to find efficiencies while doing so. The Air Force has the opportunity now to cut corners without sacrificing quality.
The Pentagon is choosing which refueling tanker to anoint for supporting the next generation of US military aircraft. They have a choice between the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus and Airbus’s multirole tanker transport based on its A330 jetliner, and the choice should be pretty clear. Top to bottom, the Pegasus beats the A330.
Regarding size, the Airbus tanker is 40 percent heavier than the Pegasus, takes up nearly 50 percent more space on the ground, and has a larger, more awkward turning radius. That sounds like might be advantageous in terms of total fuel volume, but missions in volatile, kinetic environments frequently prioritize agility over volume. Not all Air Force tanking missions are performed on landing strips at Dallas-Fort Worth airport. In the Pacific, for example, air bases operate in severely constrained environments, so a bigger plane means fewer tankers on the ramp, less room for fighters and bombers, and more time lost during refueling.
Bigger also means the fuel tanker requires…more fuel.
Furthermore, the Air Force is already using the Pegasus, and splitting a fleet of craft causes logistical problems. Fleet diversity causes challenges. After deciding which plane should be the bridge tanker, procurement officials will have to plan for new training programs for pilots and support crew, unique stores of spare parts, variable hanger construction, and so on. Economies of scale are also lost under diversification, so each tail will cost more.
The Air Force has repeatedly stated that it must reduce the number of aircraft types in its fleet to save money, and here’s the chance to do that.
Moreover, the Air Force already rejected Airbus as a provider of refueling tankers 10 years ago. If the Air Force were to hold a competition for the next lot of tankers, there’s no indication Airbus would have improved in that time, especially as capability upgrades would be unavoidable. While the Pegasus is built on a dedicated assembly line, whereas the Airbus tanker is built on a commercial assembly line and then modified at a different location – not the kind of military efficiency that the US Air Force needs to maintain air superiority.
The Pegasus comes fully loaded with flight deck armor and hardening against the EMP generated by nuclear weapons. Getting Airbus craft up to that standard will generate unusual engineering challenges. Because of this, the Airbus tanker is not certified by civil aviation authorities to the standard required by the Air Force. It would still need to go through a lengthy approval process by the Federal Aviation Administration that the Boeing craft doesn’t.
Furthermore, the fact that Airbus is a French company certainly shouldn’t eliminate it from consideration, but the fact that Boeing is an American company should give it priority. Airbus is trying to play three-card monte with the political system by sending tankers to a US based manufacturing plant, but US taxpayer dollars should not be outsourced to a French aerospace manufacturer for military aircraft when a comparable (or in this case superior) domestic alternative is available. Airbus surpassed Boeing in 2019 as the No. 1 airline manufacturer in the world, so they’ll be just fine if they lose a contract or two.
The Airbus tanker has all the signs of a budget-buster for the Air Force, at a time when maintaining technological superiority is critical for the stability of the planet. There may be members of Congress from Alabama pushing for it, because of Airbus’s presence in the state, but the Pentagon needs to politely decline. Bigger isn’t always better, and in this case it is worse, and needlessly bigger budgets are never, ever better.
I understand the shortcomings of the Boeing tanker, but there is no way we should purchase an Airbus product for the military.
I don’t have an issue if we buy a foreign rifle or other kind of equipment, but there is no way we should buy a big ticket item like that from another country.
I know others feel differently, so it is my opinion.
ping
And they still don't have the Boeing product working properly
How many times in period of political crisis have the French shown us the finger just to prove their independence?
This is huge.
One reason for the success of Southwest Airlines is that they fly 737s exclusively.
It helps for pilot currency and maintenance cost and efficiency (and quality).
And, this USAF Vet from over 50 yrs ago would hate it if we bought offshore when the domestic aircraft is superior.
Not to mention Xiden is in the process of losing Europe.
“. . . to the standards required by the Air Force.”
Well, once upon a time, performance standards meant something. Lately, and certainly into the near future, standards are compromised for money, politics, and Congressional whims.
There is no excuse for having a remote boom operator other than $$$. The problems being experienced now are not easily remedied. This article is correct, though, about needing flexibility. Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan experiences have shown that it is much better to have 2 smaller KC-135’s on station than just one jumbo tanker.
That’s just my own opinion, but it is not an uninformed one.
“. . . for NOT having . . ..” Whoops!
Thank you for that opinion, sir.
And thank you for your service to our nation.
I have a lot of issues with Boeing, their workforce, policies and such, but even with all that, I don’t think there is any way in Hell we should buy a foreign aircraft for our tanker fleet.
If the Boeing product was completely inferior or demonstrably unsafe, I might be swayed a little, but it would have to be convincing. Very convincing.
An Airbus for use in our Air Force? No way.
Safer Tankers?
What? Are our current tankers being shot down by the Luftwaffe and Imperial Japanese Navy Zeros?
What's the 1st line in the Airbus AFM/POH emergency procedures?
Press Ctrl+Alt+Del
Now, I don't care who you are, that is pretty funny!
Airbus has a much different design philosophy than Boeing.
Airbus produces aircraft that can be flown by companies of countries that do not have a constant flow of well trained and experienced pilots.
Examples:
1.The airbus aircraft can’t be aerodynamically stalled. 2.The pilot does not have to “trim” the airplane.
3.The pilot does not move the throttles after setting takeoff power. The “computer” sends all power signals to the engines, not the throttles.
It is a good airplane but it is not a “pilot’s airplane.”
I would stick with Boeing.
This is a perfectly stupid procurement initiative. NO, they never do learn a thing.
I’m trying to clean up my language and play by the rules here but it is hard in the face of such perfect stupidity.
Airbus and the F-35 combo.
Low price, does everything better then anything else... / s / s
https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/fly-by-wire-the-crash-of-air-france-flight-296-55f8ec38375b
Fly By Wire: The crash of Air France flight 296
Why is this even an issue? The Airbus proposal was turned down years ago and the Pegasus is in production. Heck, it’s even been delivered to to a couple of bases, and is in line to replace the KC-135 eventually, though most tanker pilots like the KC-135 more. How do I know, I work with them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.