Newest Conspiracy Theory on Why Boeing Lost The KC-45 Tanker Contract

by: Editors
March 12, 2008

Category: Airbus, Boeing, Contract Awards, U.S. Air Force | RSS 2.0

In an article in the Asia Times Online, Julian Delasantellis argues that Boeing lost the KC-45 tanker contract, because the Bush administration’s foreign policy requires the ability to bomb far-away countries at any time:

What if, stripped of all the flowery rhetoric you deliver once a year at the United Nations, the essence of your foreign policy is simply a never-ending search for new countries to bomb?

You need a way to get the benefits of land-based aircraft for power projection, without the drawbacks of needing to find friendly countries willing to host your local airfields.

In short, you need really good airborne refueling tankers – the coaling stations of the modern age.

This is what I believe led the Bush administration to forsake Boeing. The company’s own data states that the Northrup-Grumman and EADS contender for the KC-45 had a fuel cargo capacity almost 25% greater than Boeing’s. How many more bombing runs over Iran, over Syria, over Pakistan, or any other Muslim or other country that gains investiture to the “axis of evil” could you do with the extra bomber flight distances implied by the added capacities of the Northrup-Grumman and EADS refueler?

An interesting theory to say the least! Luckily for the reader, there is a lot of good stuff about the mood in Seattle post-award that makes up for all the grand theorizing. You can read the article in full here>

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


| Give a Comment | trackback