Congress of the United States ‘Washington, DE 20515 February 9, 2011 The Honorable Robert M. Gates Secretary of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Room 3E880 Washington, DC 20301-1000 Dear Secretary Gates: ‘As you know, the Department of Defense is poised to award the $35 billion KC-X Next Generation Tanker contract within the coming weeks. The Department is years behind schedule on replacement of the Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers, which make up the vast majority of the USS. tanker fleet. With well-documented corrosion issues and inherent uncertainties with aircraft of this age, it is essential the Department move quickly to award the KC-X contract and establish recapitalization rates to meet current military requirements. ‘This decision will have a significant impact on our military, taxpayers, and workers for years to come. As the Department makes this crucial decision, I urge you to base your analysis on the facts and on the needs of the warfighter and nation. Over the past several years, the Boeing, Company and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company have been locked in competition to build the KC-135 replacement. When you examine the benefits to the warfighter, the cost to the taxpayer, and the impact to the American worker, the choice is clear: the Boeing NewGen Tanker is the best option, First ofall, Boeing’s NewGen Tanker is the right weapon system to accomplish the mission, given both reliability and size. On January 20", the EADS KC-30 aerial refueling boom, similar to the technology being offered in the Air Force tanker competition, broke off of an aircraft during the course of an air refueling mission with a Portuguese Air Force F-16. This concerning development must give the Department pause. I urge you to closely monitor the accident investigation. On the other hand, Boeing has 60 years of aerial refueling tanker experience with asafety record worthy of the KC-X program. In addition to reliability, the size of the aircraft plays an important role in accomplishing the KC- X mission, The U.S. Air Force currently operates two air-refueling tankers: the medium-sized KC-135 and the larger KC-10, While both are important, the KC-135s provide unique capabilities based on the smaller footprint of the aircraft. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER‘As outlined in the requirements and reflected in the Request for Proposal, the KC-X Tanker, as the KC-135 replacement, should share these inherent strengths of a medium-sized plane. The NewGen Tanker is the only option that closely resembles the KC-135’s footprint. EADS’ KC- 45 is 81% larger than the KC-135 and is even 27% larger than the KC-10. This would result in the Air Force having only large tankers in its inventory. Having solely large tankers in the fleet, however, goes against military analysis and the Air Force’s own best judgment. The 2005 Department of Defense Mobility Capability Study made a clear recommendation for maintaining both a medium and a large tanker. In addition, former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne stated in a 2007 Congressional hearing, “[O]ur hi motivation is actually medium-sized tankers. Then our highest motivation is mixed fleet. Our last thing we want to do is have a whole fleet of large airplanes.” In supporting the NewGen Tanker, General John Handy, the former head of the U.S. Transportation Command, explained the reason very clearly: “You need to deploy tankers in sufficient numbers to accomplish all the tasks. You need to bed them down on the maximum number of airfields around the world with or close to the customer — fighters, bombers, and other mobility assets in need of fuel over the fight or crisis. The NewGen Tanker puts more booms in the sky, more refueling orbits covered, wider geographic coverage, more aircraft refueled and more fuel provided. The NewGen Tanker takes up less ramp space and is more maneuverable on- the ground.” Not only is the NewGen Tanker the best choice for the warfighter, but it is also in the best interest of taxpayers. In an era of overwhelming debt and extreme pressure across the federal budget, every procurement choice must account for both short-term and long-term costs. The Boeing tanker represents the best value to the taxpayer. The Boeing 767, which is the platform for the NewGen Tanker, burns 24% less fuel than an Airbus A-330, which is the KC-45 platform. In addition, the A-330 is 22% more costly to maintain than the 767. Measured over 40-year life cycle, as required by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations, the fuel efficiency and maintenance deltas alone would add up to billions in additional costs for the EADS tanker. Finally, the U.S. Government's decision must not ignore the ramifications for the wider economy. With almost 10% unemployment across the nation, it simply does not make sense to award our largest defense contract to a foreign company. A decision to award this contract to Boeing would strengthen America’s manufacturing base and maintain America’s competitive advantage globally. ‘A.2010 study, conducted by renowned economist Dr. Robert Shapiro, concluded that a Boeing victory could result in 70,000 new American jobs, including at least 7,500 jobs in our home state of Kansas, While Airbus claims their bid would support tens of thousands of American jobs, the truth is that their aircraft would be built in Europe with only final touches made to the aircraft in ‘America. The Shapiro study showed that an EADS win would result in only 6,500 total ‘American jobs.As you make this important decision, please keep these issues in mind. I look forward to working with you on this and other issues facing our nation’s military. Sincerely, onfty Mike Pompeo Member of Congress