The U.S. Air Force is in the midst of a multi-decade effort to replace over 400 Cold War-era tankers in its aerial refueling fleet. The contract for the first increment of 179 tankers was awarded to Boeing
By that time, a new increment of 140-160 more tankers must be ready to commence deliveries, because most of the refuelers in the legacy fleet will be approaching 70 years of age and the service’s ability to keep them airworthy is by no means assured.
However, it is possible the next installment of tankers cannot be put under contract without holding a competition. Although the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year failed to support a move to mandate competition, proponents of a Lockheed Martin
If the GOP takes control of the House in midterm elections, a legislated competition becomes more likely because the Lockheed alternative, dubbed LMXT, will be assembled and modified in states thought to lean Republican. The Boeing tanker is built in Washington State (Boeing and Lockheed both contribute to my think tank).
A KC-46 Pegasus tanker refuels an A-10 attack aircraft during testing in 2019.
The prospective offerings are militarized versions of commercial transports. The KC-46 is based on Boeing’s 767, whereas LMXT is based on the Airbus A330. These same two planes competed in the first tanker competition a dozen years ago, with Lockheed’s offering being an evolved version of the Airbus Multi-Role Tanker Transport that has secured orders from a dozen countries.
Although Boeing’s tanker still faces a handful of lingering development issues, the company is confident it would fare well in any competition. Here are several points that company insiders cite as reasons for optimism on securing the next tranche of tankers.
KC-46 performance to date. Pegasus has been operational for years with the Air Force, having flown 11,000 sorties and passed 100 million pounds of fuel to diverse receivers. Boeing says the tanker has performed well in overseas deployments, and the Air Force has lifted previous flight restrictions. As of November 1, Boeing had delivered 65 of the tankers, more than the total number of Airbus tankers delivered to all customers. Israel and Japan are both buying KC-46.
The service is sufficiently happy with Pegasus that the head of Air Mobility Command, General Mike Minihan, says “The people that fly, fix, and support it, love it. The people who refuel off of it, love it.” Minihan goes on to observe that combatant commands are “big fans” of KC-46, and he describes it as “incredibly capable.” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has indicated that future refueling requirements may point to the need for more KC-46s rather than an all-new tanker.
Pacific basing. A key selling point for Lockheed’s larger LMXT is that it would have greater unrefueled range than KC-46, and deliver more fuel at any given distance. This is said to make it uniquely relevant to operations in the Western Pacific, now the main focus of U.S. military preparations. LMXT proponents state that when carrying an amount of fuel equivalent to the maximum load on a smaller KC-46, LMXT can access more regional bases than the Boeing offering, thanks in part to LMXT’s thrust reversers.
However, Boeing managers point out that the Air Force does not allow offerors to include the use of thrust reversers in basing calculations, and thus for purposes of comparison their tanker (which lacks thrust reversers) can still use more regional bases.
They also note that because LMXT’s footprint on the ground is 48% bigger than that of Pegasus, fewer tankers could be parked at a base. The size of LMXT thus might impact the Air Force’s ability to sustain tanking operations, or deprive other military aircraft of needed tarmac space. In addition, Boeing cites concern about whether runways at smaller airports can handle the greater weight of LMXT.
New technology. Although the key performance parameters for KC-46 were established a dozen years ago, Boeing says it has continuously assessed ideas for enhancing the tanker’s performance. For instance, it is replacing the boom operator’s black-and-white camera with a color camera that it says would be superior to the color camera used on the baseline Airbus tanker. Like Lockheed, Boeing has developed an automated refueling system that might one day eliminate the need for a human operator, and has conducted numerous airborne contacts testing the software.
Lockheed notes that because LMXT has greater carrying capacity than KC-46, it could potentially host more technology for new missions—meaning missions beyond its primary tanking and transport roles. Boeing has considered some of those missions, such as potentially weaponizing Pegasus, but the Air Force already describes its contributions to situational awareness and networked warfare as game-changing.
Sustainment costs. Boeing insiders acknowledge that LMXT is much bigger than KC-46—its empty weight is about 40% greater—and therefore each plane could carry more fuel or cargo. However, that added capacity would come at a substantial cost penalty, especially post-production when two-thirds of life cycle costs are incurred. A pure fleet of KC-46s would have unified training systems, maintenance procedures, spare parts stores and support infrastructure. A mixed fleet would have to duplicate all of these items for two very different aircraft.
Boeing figures a mixed fleet would more than double the Air Force’s cost burden for sustaining tankers across their operational lifetime. The burden would be even greater during early years, because hundreds of cold war tankers would require their own training and logistics tail until they exited the force. Thus, for many years the tanker fleet would have three separate sustainment systems working in parallel. A tanker as big as LMXT would also entail significant military construction costs, whereas KC-46 is able to utilize most of the existing infrastructure.
Development timelines. With the cold war tanker fleet already averaging over half a century of age, the Air Force has to keep tanker modernization on track. The current plan calls for the next increment of 140-160 tankers to commence deliveries in fiscal 2029, six years from today. That would not be a challenge for KC-46, but it could be an insurmountable hurdle for LMXT. KC-46 was designed to comply with 730 requirements derived from its key performance parameters, so starting over with all the necessary testing and certifications could be quite time-consuming.
Lockheed argues that the existing Airbus tanker has already met many of the testing and certification criteria required to conduct aerial refueling, but the Air Force is likely to have its own, unique take on what some of those criteria demand. Beyond that, there are other potential developments like a legal challenge to the tanker award that would chew up the time available for timely delivery of the next tanker tranche. Boeing execs think the service is already out of time to start over.
An American tanker. There is one other issue that Boeing managers believe will come into play in any renewed tanker competition. The KC-46 is purpose-built in America, relying largely on domestic suppliers. The LMXT, for all of Lockheed’s efforts to infuse American content, would still be based on a European commercial transport.
Boeing insiders are nearly certain that their tanker contains more domestic content than LMXT would, especially given the fact that the KC-46 is powered by Pratt & Whitney engines whereas LMXT would use either Rolls Royce or CFM engines. Beyond that, they point out that the World Trade Organization has ruled that every Airbus jetliner ever brought to market was illegally subsidized—at a substantial cost to the U.S. aerospace industry in terms of jobs and market share.
The Air Force wasn’t permitted to consider the subsidies issue the last time a tanker contract was awarded, but the next time around it could bulk large in the politics of tanker modernization.
As noted above, Boeing and Lockheed Martin both contribute to my think tank.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2022/11/04/why-boeing-believes-it-has-an-edge-in-any-new-air-force-tanker-competition/