KC-45 Tanker Truths: What About the Warfighter?

A number of media outlets, today, carry updates on the ongoing tanker debate. While examining it from a number of different angles, each of these stories highlights Boeing's now very transparent strategy of attempting to force another delay in the long overdue delivery of new aerial refueling tankers to the United States Air Force.

The Washington Post, Reuters and Business Week all give Boeing a chance to highlight its reasoning but what is most notable in all of these stories is what Boeing does not say. Nowhere is there a single word from Boeing about the needs of our men and women in uniform. It's not about what's best for our military or what is best for our national security, it is about what it has always been about - what is best for Boeing.

The experts - those who care most about the warfighter - have had enough.

"'I think there's a time urgency to this program,'" Reuters quotes former undersecretary of defense for acquisition Jacques Gansler as saying.
Gansler, who oversaw Pentagon procurement for five years says he doesn't care who wins but he sums up the appropriate reaction to Boeing's delay tactics by saying, "If they say they're not going to bid unless they get an extra six months - well fine, don't bid."

According to the Washington Post, "Some experts say Boeing is bluffing.
The company is threatening to pull out to 'see if the Defense Department blinks' and gives it more time, said David J. Berteau, a senior defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies."

Bluff or not, Boeing's rhetoric remains misleading and inaccurate. A Boeing spokesman tells Reuters that the extra time is justified because this is a "very new competition." Of course this is absolutely false.

Since 2007, when the original RFP was distributed, the Air Force has made it plain that it wants a tanker that can provide the maximum amount of fuel at the greatest range. Boeing got what it wanted when the GAO prompted the Department of Defense to clarify that requirement. There is nothing new in the draft amended RFP.

Apparently recognizing that this gambit has nothing to do with fairness and is really about Boeing's hopes to engineer a solution that guarantees it a win based on politics rather than merit, Gansler warns, "'This would set the United States back 100 years at least if that were to happen.'"

It's time to move forward. Seven years ago, the Air Force first articulated its need for a new tanker. A year ago, the Air Force laid out in minute detail exactly what it requires. Now, the Air Force has clarified those requirements, just as Boeing demanded. The Air Force needs that new tanker now. Northrop Grumman is ready, now, to provide it.