"Matt" wrote in message ...
The UK Advanced Tanker/Transport is going to be leased because we're going
through a competitive bidding process, and the end product 'should' cost
less than buying outright over the product lifetime. Personally, I still
think they should buy outright - if they extend the aircraft's flying life,
like they've done with the VC-10 and Tristar, it gets expensive fast.
Besides, we tried this with the C-17's - and because of the masses of extra
time we've put on them through Afghanistan and Iraq, it's going to cost the
UK taxpayer a ton of cash.

The US tanker program, whilst very nessesary, is really just a sop to Boeing
because they didn't win the JSF program - and it's going to cost more than
buying outright even if they stick to the projections. Come on, no
competitive bidding process? As far as I know, the USAF is howling that they
should buy the tankers, not lease them - why, with that extra $5.6 billion,
they could buy one, maybe two extra F/A-22's!

*What* competitiive bidder is out there? Airbus? Which has still not
flown any kind of flying boom equipped aircraft (flying a couple of
passes with a fighter tucked in behind one of their jets is a long way
from proving they can deliver flying boom equipped tankers in a timely
manner). Boeing is the undisputed king of the hill when it comes to
producing such aircraft, as nobody else has done it (caveat--McD-D did
it with the KC-10, but guess who owns them now?). Selection of the 767
also offers greater future commonality (the E-10 is also going to be a
767 airframe).

Check back into what the USAF wants--it *wants* (many say urgently
*needs*) a replacement for the KC-135E's ASAP, not in the ten or
fifteen years it will have to wait if it proceeded with procurement
versus lease. I believe your read on their desires is a bit faulty.

If leasing is such a bad idea, why do most commercial air carriers use
this option? Why has the RAF not only pursued lease of those tankers,
but also is leasing aircraft as small (and cheap) as Beechcraft
Kingairs? For that matter, why is the private auto lease such a
popular route?

Yep, it may cost a few dollars more in the long run--but what price do
you place on trying to keep those E models flying for the additional
years required if a purchase option is chosen instead? How do you
value the greater utility of the 767 tanker, available for use eight
to ten years earlier under lease, versus those older KC-135 models?

Brooks


Matt

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
(John Bailey) wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28BROO.html
(quoting)
U.S. Air Force would lease 100 refueling tankers, modified Boeing
767's, from an entity controlled by the Boeing Corporation.
This whole mess started because the Air Force can't pay for new
tankers up front, so it tried to push back the costs by leasing.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will
cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will
appreciate that the deal also involves the use of "special purpose
entities," the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their
glory days. Speaker Dennis Hastert's effort to ram through an Air
Force tanker deal for the Boeing Corporation. This deal isn't just
shady ? it's the Encyclopaedia Britannica of shady. (end quotes)

John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

Gee, who'd have thunk the NYT would oppose something thet the USAF and
DoD want? What is Hastert's big gain in this? This all looks a bit
one-sided to me; maybe the NYT should go investigate why the RAF is
also pursuing a tanker lease program...

Brooks