Global warming mythologist algore should be all over this one - big energy hogging tanker vs fuel efficient tanker. That should be a no brainer with the cost of jet fuel these days, right?
"The Air Force Times recently reported that Gen. Michael Moseley, the former service's chief of staff, said during a fuel conference at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. "jet fuel is $162 a barrel and going up, so we've got to be smarter about how we do it."
In the tanker acquisition process, the Air Force had an opportunity to select the KC-767- a proven, tested and fuel efficient tanker - or the oversized and untested KC-30 that will burn 24% more fuel than its competition.
With oil prices estimated at $150 per barrel, the KC-767 tanker will save American taxpayers $35 billion over the life of the fleet. That $35 billion in savings is equal to the cost of all 179 planes in the original contract.
Northrop Grumman agrees. "We do burn more fuel," Paul Meyer explained to Defense Daily (1/31/08). "We are a bigger airplane, so it has some attendant higher maintenance or operating costs over the life of the fleet in a 40-year time frame."
The Air Force missed a "smarter" opportunity to choose the proven, tested and fuel efficient KC-767.
We must keep the pressure on our leaders in Washington. Log on to our Action Center to send an e-mail to your members of congress, urging them to ensure that the DoD selects the most fuel efficient tanker that is the best value for American taxpayers and the most superior plane for the American warfighter. "
Jeff Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom
Posts
