The KC-X Files: The Truth on Fuel Cost is Out There

In anticipation of the new X-Files movie to be released this Friday, Tanker War Blog is launching a new series of posts we call The KC-X Files: The Truth is Out There.

Each post in this series will have a topic on which we will ask both sides of the Air Force tanker contract debate to submit information.

We will then release the information in a side-by-side fashion, much like our previous post on Dueling GAO Talking Points.

To start the series we have chosen the very important issue of fuel efficiency/economy/costs of the KC-30 and KC-767 tankers.

We ask that readers, both pro-EADS and pro-Boeing, please submit comments with any links on this issue, or e-mail us your views along with any PDF documents on tanker fuel usage that you might have. We hope to release the results of this inaugural KC-X File on Friday. [Update 7/25/2008: To date we have not received enought input about KC-30 fuel costs. The release of our finding will be delayed because of this.]

Remember, The Truth is Out There and We Want to Believe that DoD procurement will finally purchase the right sized aircraft for the mission.

Anyway, we'll see you at the movie.

The Air Force Has Some Explaining To Do

Although Tanker War Blog has had issues with some of his briefs in the past, we are glad to see that today highly regarded defense analyst Loren Thompson takes the Air Force to task for their lack of transparency on the tanker selection process.

In his latest brief Tanker Controversy: Questions the Air Force Must Answer Dr. Thompson specifically he calls into question:

1) Why the Air Force says both planes will cost the same to operate when the Airbus plane "burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour"?

2) How can the Air Force say that building the EADS/Airbus tanker presents the same risk when the EADS plant in Alabama and its workers don't yet exist?

3) How can the unrealistic assumptions used in the Air Force selection such as longer and stronger runways be relevant?

4) How can it be said that EADS/Airbus have record of superior past performance when they don't have a history of making tankers?

Dr. Thompson ends his brief with this assessment on the tanker selection process:

Whatever else this process may have been, it definitely was not transparent. Even now, neither of the competing teams really understands why the competition turned out the way it did. It would be nice to hear from the Air Force about how key tradeoffs were made, because at present it looks like a double standard prevailed in the evaluation of the planes offered by the two teams.

It is good to see that others are no longer simply accepting the DoD party line and are beginning to ask serious question about the tanker contract.

For too long EADS supporters have tried to paint questions about the selection as whining, or insults to the integrity of the U.S. Air Force, or even as slaps in the face of service members. EADS and its supporters are pained to admit it, but they must realize that demanding answers to these questions is good for the Air Force and is the only way we will get the right procurement decision.