Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Duncan Hunter :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Best Aircraft Never Considered
by Duncan Hunter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The most remarkable aspect of the recent competition for the next Air Force refueling tanker contract was the absence of the best aircraft: the Boeing KC-777.

The CEO of FedEx, Fred Smith, had it right when he briefed Members of Congress on his choice. Smith argued that the KC-777 is clearly superior to Boeing’s 767 and the Airbus 330.

For Smith, one of the most compelling factors is the fuel offload of the KC-777 ER (with additional under floor body tanks) at 2,000 nautical miles, which is the amount of fuel available to feed fighters and bombers after flying this distance. At 2,000 miles, the KC-777 ER can offload an astounding 240,000 pounds of fuel. This is nearly three times as much as the “winning” A330.

With a maximum fuel load of over 320,800 pounds, the KC-777-200 carries 30% more fuel and 62% more cargo than the A330. And when you compare payload, passenger and aero-medical evacuation capability, the KC-777 is the clear winner at 39% more payload, 94 more passengers and 30 more patients than the A330.

In a world of cutting edge weapons technology, tanker aircraft do not qualify as high-tech systems. They are simply trucks in the sky, supplying the warfighing platforms with fuel and, presumably, filling in as cargo and passenger carriers.

Nonetheless, at $40 billion plus, the dollars associated with the “tanker buy” are huge. And the profits reaped from the sale will be available for reinvestment by the winning competitor for new generations of aircraft.

Further, the job displacement factor means that American taxpayers will be financing a European “stimulus package” of about 100,000 jobs. But it does not have to be this way.

There is no contractual right of Europe to take this $40 billion slice of U.S. tax dollars. The tanker competition is subject to the authorization and appropriation of dollars. The taxpayers, should, through their elected representatives, make the KC-777 the next Air Force tanker.

It beats the A330 in range, payload and fuel efficiency. Its dominance of the A330 is reflected in existing orders of 1,059 aircraft, awarded in direct competition with Europe’s A330 around the world.

The taxpayers and Congress should take Fred Smith’s advice and make the 777 the next Air Force tanker. And Boeing’s leadership should learn a lesson. Having “outsourced” materials and components extensively for the past several years, they have now found themselves on the verge of being outsourced.

A little patriotism in the Boeing front office in using American vendors, workers and sub-contractors would go a long way toward restoring confidence in America’s plane builder.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author


Congressman Duncan Hunter represents California's 52nd Congressional District consisting of eastern and northern San Diego County. He is a Vietnam veteran, who served in the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers.

To Get Back On The Subject...
Dear Folks:

It's always amazed me that the backbone of the USAF's tanker fleet remains the KC-135 after all these years. The Boeing 707- excellent aircraft though it is- still represents 1960s technology. The KC-10, as I understand it, was supposed to replace it long ago. It's only supplemented it... and the KC-10 is now old tech as well. No doubt, congressional appropriations lie at the heart of the problem (Mr. Hunter could likely comment on that in detail!), but the lack of priority on such a necessary asset to the Air Force mission is puzzling.

The pros and cons between Airbus and Boeing can be debated on and on. One factor, in particular, stands out. In the event of a major conflict, which company stands to best deliver the aircraft and the necessary parts to enable the mission? I'd suggest that a domestic supplier with a proven track record in reliablity would be preferential.

"Hey Duncan Hunter...."
...Why?? Why didn't you get your face on Townhall with articles like this a year ago? Would've most definitely helped your, now defunct, campaign. DD
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.