The U.S. Air Force Air Tanker Replacement Contract

Loren Thompson writing in Forbes magazine does a good job of clearly explaining what is at stake in the Air Force's effort to procure replacement aerial refueling aircraft. These are the high points of his analysis.

Airborne refueling tankers are the Air Force's answer to the navy's aircraft carriers. They allow it to operate its planes at much greater ranges than would otherwise be possible, giving it the ability to deploy aircraft anywhere in the world. But, the existing airborne tanker fleet is old (in many cases going on 50 years old with 1960s planes) and needs to be scrapped, whether or not these existing 220+ old tanker aircraft are replaced. 

A contract of 140-160 more airborne tankers, probably bigger than the KC-46 tankers ordered in 2011, is contemplated to replace many of these aging aircraft. The Air Force has two main options for its next big airborne tanker contract. 

One is a Boeing modification of the KC-46 Pegasus (which is itself a modified Boeing 767) that the U.S. ordered 179 of in 2011, a buy which has now run its course after many problems, a few of which are still not quite yet fully resolved (an issue the Air Force is down playing to avoid controversy that interrupts funding for the program). Air Force procurement officials have now grown comfortable with Boeing after working through the KC-46 mess with them together and aren't sure that a competitive bid is needed for them to choose this open.

The other is a Lockheed Martin LMXT design based upon the Airbus 330, with 40% more empty weight and 100% greater range than the KC-46. Because it is a bigger plane, "with a full load LMXT can use only 105 airfields in the region compared with 141 for KC-46." But "if its tanker carries an amount of fuel equal to what a full KC-46 load represents, LMXT can actually utilize 207 regional airfields—mainly because it would require 2,000 fewer feet of runway than a full KC-46." This is "in part from the fact that LMXT is equipped with thrust reversers and KC-46 is not." The LMXT would use the latest cameras and software to facilitate accurate and in some cases automated airborne refueling transactions (but Boeing is upgrading its cameras as well). 

Lockheed Martin claims it has more capacity to upgrade its sensors and technology, perhaps making the LMXT a dual function aircraft that "could accommodate sensors such as conformal radar that mimic the functionality of the Air Force’s E-series (electronic) aircraft."

Lockheed Martin has more money in the bank to devote to winning the next airborne tanker contract, and plans to build large portions of it in Alabama, Georgia and Arkansas, although the Boeing contender, built mostly in Washington State with U.S. made engines unlike the European engines of the Lockheed Martin Airbus based design, would have greater U.S. content. Thus, "the way a contest would unfold, the choice will look more like a “Democrat” plane assembled in Washington State versus a “Republican” plane produced in the South." Republicans are the ones pushing for a competitive bid for this round of airborne tankers.

Loren Thompson has also written recent articles for Forbes suggesting that the recent Air Force and Navy plans for responding to China are flawed, that the Air Force's AWACS radar planes need to be replaced promptly, and that the Marine Corps needs to pay more attention to potential threats other than China.