Aircraft is expensive - especially if it has a use for combat - and profitable - especially when the main client is the Pentagon. That is why business incentives and competitions have always been the means to to demand higher qualities and achieve one of the nation's military's main objectives, which is to maintain superiority in military technology over others. Yet, those means not only have downsides, but eventually become the ends themselves.
Defense contractor companies have been major contributors to keeping this nation's military the strongest and most advanced in the world. Ironically, the national government's determination to keep its military the strongest in the world has provided the contractors with a pathway for making profits and competing against one another. Now the government and businesses are lost and torn over what the priority should be - national defense or business interest? The latest example of the debate was the recent cacophony in Washington over $40 billion project to replace the old "tankers" in the air force.
The U.S. Air Force has been using planes first made from the Eisenhower-era to refuel other aircraft in the air as it is increasingly engaged in multiple conflicts around the world. The Air Force has asked for the replacements since seven years ago, yet the issue was used as a subject of cut-throat competition between two giant defense contractors; Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The Air Force had already made its decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman last March, but Boeing disputed the decision, threatened to pull out, and Government Accountability Office had found an error in the process, therefore annulling the award. This issue also turned into a political battle between the two main parties, which each one is heavily linked to a different contractor (Democrat with Boeing while Republican with Northrop Grumman). Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has finally stepped in to put an end to the mud-fight until the start of a new administration in the White House, also signaling the restart of the competition from scratch. While the need for the upgrade concerns the military objective of the nation, the government has been torn apart by business interests without benefiting anyone at the end. This was just a "missed opportunity" as put by acting Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.
What are Tankers?
It is important to first ask why those 179 new "tankers" are worth $40 billion - that is about $223 million per one. Those tankers serve the main purpose of "aerial refueling", literally meaning refueling other aircraft in the air by transfer. This is now the most commonly used method of refueling for the military especially in large scales for several reasons. First, it allows the aircraft in combat to stay longer in a flight, especially in the time of deployment. Second, each aircraft carrying weapons or cargo needs less amount of fuel and therefore it is a bit lighter and easier during take off.
The most commonly used tankers in the US and the world are now KC-135 Stratotanker, and KC-10 Extender. The first one was first made by Boeing in 1957 while the latter was developed by McDonnell Douglas for the Vietnam War. KC-135 is now the most widely used tanker, and is in a quick need of replacements.
The two competing models for the replacement are KC-45 (first named KC-30), which is a product of Northrup Grumman and EADS America, and KC-767, the product of Boeing. The first one is based on the Airbus's A330 model while the latter is a modified version of new Boeing 767 model. Boeing has now given more time to redesign the model to meet the Air Force's standards before the competition begins again next time.
Implications for the Future of Military Upgrade
The United States military overall is without a doubt the strongest and most technologically advanced in the world, and the air force branch is no exception. Contractors bidding against one another to provide the military with the best each one can offer has opened up options and privileges to the US government that few others have. But the recent fight in the mud that took place in Washington over the tanker contracts has shown that this nation now has to ask itself whether it should be the businesses serving the interest of the nation, or the nation serving the interest of the businesses?
1 comment:
The focus of your blog is intriguing for the main reason that it forces the reader to observe and analyze the aspects of military that often go over looked in today’s news obsessed world where the focus is on the political aspect of military and not the business and functionality of it. The scope of your first post stressed the main topic well but you may want to consider elaborating more on the importance of a “Tanker” focusing on the two main wars the United States are involved in. The post had a strong focus on the general importance of tankers which was fascinating to read about and with this you may be able to improve your future posts buy expressing the dispute that you describe between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. In this sentence you briefly explore what has happened after Boeing filed a claim, “The Air Force had already made its decision to award the contract to Northrop Grumman last March, but Boeing disputed the decision, threatened to pull out, and Government Accountability Office had found an error in the process, therefore annulling the award”; this sentence gives a good overview but there may be more room to focus on how this will affect the Air Force, there ability to integrate the new tanker, and the state of the Air Force’s relationship with both defense contractors.
The main focus of your blog is something that will appeal to many people because of its ability to condense a myriad of topics into a single blog post that would otherwise take hours for a reader to find. One stylistic aspect that you may want to consider altering is your links within your post; they seem to be a dark blue with the remaining text being black. This makes it a little difficult for the reader to locate, and a quick fix may be just altering the color of you links. For future posts, you may also want to make sure there are two pictures with the link going to the article. I cannot stress enough how enjoyable it was to read a blog that was not fanatically arguing a specific point but logically focusing on this current issue, analyzing, and critiquing it in a calm and focus manor.
Post a Comment