Sounding Board »
Capability really does matter…and here’s why
This Sounding Board page is a regular forum for views on EADS North America’s KC-45 and the upcoming competition for America’s new aerial refueling aircraft. This latest commentary from Guy Hicks, EADS North America’s Vice President - Communications and Public Relations, was posted on June 28, 2010.
We’ve said before that the KC-45 can go farther, can carry more fuel and more cargo, and can sustain Air Force operations longer and more efficiently than our competitor’s plane…a difference that makes it a good fit for current and future military operational environments.
American tankers are often required to fly farther than previously expected due to changing political situations, and recently, thanks to weather conditions, greater distance was required for a tanker belonging to one of our most important allies, the United Kingdom. Few missions ever go exactly as planned, and especially in austere and remote environments, the ability to go the extra miles can be a game-changer: the difference between mission success and failure.
In selecting their next tankers, the U.K. – and three other allies – didn't settle for anything less than the tanker with the greatest range and fuel offload. They chose the A330 MRTT, the tanker we’re proposing to the U.S. as the KC-45.
Anticipating the missions American tankers will perform over the next 50 years, it’s probably safe to assume that there won’t always be a friendly base near our military operations, and unforeseen conditions will always occur. An aerial refueling tanker nearby, one that carries enough fuel to get the job done, can very well be the only lifeline to thirsty receiver aircraft as well as the key to putting bombs on the target or delivering lifesaving supplies where they’re needed most.
According to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Department of Defense’s force planning “stresses the importance of fielding forces that are versatile and that, in aggregate, can undertake missions across the full range of plausible challenges.”
The QDR goes on to say that, “Our national strategy…depends on our ability to rapidly project forces and resupply globally, giving us the ability to provide our operational commanders with forces and logistics superiority when and where needed.” In order to conduct operations across distance or on short notice in a highly dynamic environment, the document states, “Land-based and carrier-based aircraft will need greater average range, flexibility, and multi-mission versatility in order to deter and defeat adversaries that are fielding more potent anti-access capabilities.” This translates to a need for more gas and more capability from our tanker force than we have today.
The KC-45 is capable of rapid and efficient fuel transfer to a number of receiver aircraft, thanks to its substantial internal fuel capacity and proven boom and hose-and-drogue refueling systems. The KC-45 also is a flexible platform, able to refuel multiple aircraft at a time and switch to different types of receiver aircraft without having to land for reconfiguration. Efficiency extends to its capacity as well: with the KC-45, fewer sorties would be needed to transport the same amount of passengers or cargo. This has two benefits: 1) Fewer required sorties frees up scarce tanker resources to perform other priority missions that otherwise would be delayed or canceled. 2) The more distant or dispersed the basing, the more precious every gallon of fuel becomes.
Because of this, the KC-45’s ability to go the distance takes on even greater significance. In the last competition, we learned that the KC-45 is six percent more fuel efficient than our competitor’s plane up to a distance of 1,000 nautical miles. The KC-45’s efficiency increases with greater distance, reaching nearly 30 percent at a distance of 2,000 nautical miles. If you do the math -- and the Air Force did, in its Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA) -- this means the same work can be done with 22 fewer tankers. We consider that to be a major factor in reducing “operating costs” and increasing fleet-wide tanker mission performance.
We wouldn’t presume to tell the Department of Defense what it needs or how it should evaluate the aircraft in the 2010 KC-X competition. We simply want, as Americans, to give our warfighters the very best capability available.
