Lockheed Martin tanker concern offers major red flag

Lockheed Martin’s decision to abandon its participation in Airbus’ tanker program suggests it came to see the project as a waste of its time and resources. The defense giant decided to refocus its attention on the Air Force’s request for a stealthy tanker in its Next-Generation Air Refueling System (NGAS) program instead.  

No direct reason was given for its exit; however, that raises suspicious questions about Airbus and its handling of the project. Did Airbus fail to see where the Air Force’s interests were headed, or were there other serious issues that prompted Lockheed Martin to leave? 

After all, for 20 years, the  giant has shown its disregard for taxpayer dollars with its F-35 program. The entire program is expected to cost $1.7 trillion over its lifetime, roughly almost half of the cost of America’s involvement in the Second World War when adjusted for inflation. And a recent Government Accountability Office report shows that the program is billions of dollars above previous cost estimates.

That’s why Lockheed’s decision to end a five-year effort to secure an air refueling tanker contract worth billions of dollars is so notable. While no official reason was given, it came at the same time as Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall voiced support for Airbus’ tanker competitor, the Boeing KC-46, as well as a new request for proposal for the tanker contract. A Lockheed spokesperson gave little away, indicating that the company was simply shifting resources elsewhere.  

The decision leaves Lockheed’s partner, Airbus, having to go it alone. Bad news for Airbus – but good news for taxpayers.

First, we don’t need to be paying for Lockheed’s traditional disregard for taxpayer dollars. The KC-46 program has had its teething problems along the way; however, the problems have been corrected with private dollars instead of demanding taxpayers foot the bill. 

Second, Airbus’ tanker options is much bigger than the KC-46, boasting a wingspan of 198 feet versus 156 feet. This means that the Airbus plane takes up more space on the flightline at a time when space is at a premium. 

Third, Airbus’ model is a gas guzzler, which could present a problem for the Air Force at a time when the Pentagon budget has come under increased scrutiny. “If all Air Force tanking missions were conducted from the Dallas-Fort Worth airport, that might not be a problem. But in places like the Pacific, usable air bases are often severely constrained in terms of space, so a bigger plane means less tankers on the ramp, or (even worse) less room for fighters and bombers,” Lexington Institute Chief Operating Officer Loren Thompson wrote in Forbes. Thompson described the Airbus tanker as having “30% greater drag than the 767 airframe on which KC-46 is based,” and therefore using “1,000 more gallons of fuel per hour. Multiply the number of hours flown by the price of jet fuel, and operating costs over a 30-year service life become much higher than with KC-46.”

Fourth, the KC-46 also is hardened against the electromagnetic pulses generated by nuclear weapons in contrast with the Airbus plane. The U.S. Air Force uses an estimated 2 billion gallons of fuel each year. At a time when the Biden administration is calling for the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, buying the Airbus tanker with its colossal waste of fuel makes little sense. 

Again, Defense News noted in October that Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall preferred the Boeing plane, the same month Lockheed bailed on Airbus. This means Kendall is looking at the evidence, not at the politics. At a time when the Congressional Budget Office has noted that massive administration issues are dogging military equipment acquisition – “Delays in equipment acquisition schedules, cost overruns because of an increase in the scope of a program, failure to develop desired technologies, or issues in systems integration could result in a failure to achieve the desired capabilities” – Kendall’s support means someone may finally be looking out for effective national security and taxpayers’ best interests.

John Rossomando is a senior analyst for Defense Policy and served as Senior Analyst for Counterterrorism at The Investigative Project on Terrorism. His work has been featured at numerous national outlets such as The Daily Wire, The Epoch Times, & Newsmax.

Image via NARA.