Boeing’s NewGen tanker inferior to EADS’ design
I am disturbed by the decision of Northrop Grumman and EADS [parent of European plane maker Airbus] to decline to rebid on the U.S. Air Force tanker contract [“Now sole bidder for tanker Boeing must get price right,” page one, March 9].
Boeing plans to offer a plane with 30-year-old airframe technology and parts built mainly overseas, then assembled in the U.S. The Northrop Grumman proposal was for a much newer, larger and more capable platform that was initially chosen by the Air Force as better fitting the needs of the war fighter. While built overseas, final outfitting would have been done in the U.S., bringing new jobs to the South, where there is a stable work force.
Boeing has claimed their proposal will save the taxpayer $10 billion in fuel cost and is American designed and built. This ignores the fact that much of it is built overseas and that it carries a one-third smaller payload than the competitor. So yes, the Northrop Grumman proposal will cost more to carry the same amount of fuel, but that also means it is not being used to its full potential.
The original win by Northrop Grumman was for about $184 million per tanker for the first 68 tankers. With the Department of Defense decision to procure a much smaller and less capable design, the taxpayer can expect a less costly plane.
While I am not against U.S. jobs and efforts to help American industry, I also want the Air Force to get the best possible plane and in this case it did not. However, the Air Force is used to flying terribly old planes — the current KC-135 tanker first flew in 1956 and the KC-10 tanker in 1980 — so they will not be disappointed with the Boeing choice.
— John Matthews, Everett