USAF Tanker Contract

[ORAC]

CNN - WASHINGTON (AP) (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/)-- [Air Force Secretary] Michael Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer.

He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.

The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (€15.75 billion).

[ORAC]

Seattle-Post Intelligencer: Aerospace Notebook: Boeing now offers the 777 as a tanker

For more than a year, The Boeing Co. has made it clear that if the Air Force wants a bigger tanker than the 767, it has just such a plane -- the 777, which last year set a commercial sales record. Tuesday, just one day after the Air Force issued a draft request for tanker bids, Boeing began publicly trumpeting the benefits of a 777 tanker.

Boeing used an Air Force Association convention in Washington, D.C., to brief reporters for the first time on the KC-777 tanker, which could substitute as a military cargo or troop plane.

Both the 777 and 767 commercial jets are assembled at Boeing's plant in Everett, and the tankers also would be built there. Much of the modification work required to turn the base planes into tankers also would be done at the Everett plant on dedicated tanker-assembly lines.

Mark McGraw, Boeing's vice president of tanker programs, told reporters that Boeing won't decide until later, after receiving the final request for proposals from the Air Force, whether to initially offer the Air Force the 767 or 777......

Market Watch: (http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B31E0C245-DBAC-423C-A8BF-C34D8F11BFE1%7D&keyword=) Boeing unveils 777 as alternative tanker proposal

........The proposed 777 tanker would have a much larger capacity for fuel, troops or cargo than either the 767 or a rival offer based on the Airbus A330. But it would cost more per plane and would need a longer runway, potentially reducing its flexibility in combat situations.

In documents distributed Tuesday, Boeing said the 777 tanker would have a maximum fuel capacity of more than 350,000 pounds, while the 767 has a maximum capacity of 200,000 pounds........... The Airbus tanker - to be developed by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. - would have a maximum fuel capacity of 250,000 pounds...

McGraw said he was pleased that the Air Force included what he called "neutral" language concerning a pending international trade dispute between Boeing and Airbus. In a draft proposal for the tanker issued Monday, the Air Force said "treaty compliance" is among numerous criteria that interested companies must meet.

The language is a reference to a dispute before the World Trade Organization involving Chicago-based Boeing and European jet maker Airbus. The United States has complained that Airbus receives subsidies from European governments. Airbus in turn has argued Boeing also receives government support.........

A Northrop spokesman said inclusion of the WTO dispute could favor Boeing and "does not represent fair and open competition."

McGraw disagreed, saying the language merely asked bidders to take into account the WTO dispute. "We want a fair and open competition. We want to win fair and square," he said.

[BEagle]

Dear old Boeing - getting rather desperate now!

Boeing themselves killed any idea of their plastic plane 7E7 becoming a tanker when senior vice president and general manager air force systems George Muellner said, in 2004, that it was unsuitable for the tanker mission: "The issue is not composites, but its configuration" - whatever that was supposed to mean.

So - 787 out of the running, KC767A mired by scandal, Italian 767 - very, very late. The KC-767A already needs a very long RW (more than is required by the A330) to take-off with full fuel. When limited to a 10000ft balanced field at sea level/ISA/still wind, on a 4hr sortie landing with the equivalent of another hours flight time as an approx. reserve figure, offloads available for various tankers were independently calculated as:

A310MRTT: 45500kg
A330MRTT: 82500kg

But for the KC-767A: 50000kg. On an unlimited RW, yes, it could offer 64800kg - but not from a 10000ft RW! With a 5th ACT offering a further 5700kg, even the A310MRTT would better that.

And now Boeing themselves admit that the 777 would need an even longer runway than the ground-gripping 767.....??

A310MRTT has been flying for over a year (currently being upgraded with improved mission avionics as is the CC150T Polaris tanker); the first A330MRTT for the RAAF is already in the hangar at Madrid being converted..

And now Boeing comes up with yet another design. One wonders why they didn't think of it earlier. Presumably they realise that the KC-30 wipes the floor with the KC-767A and are now getting pretty desperate. Particularly by trying any 'political treaty compliance' ploy they can rake up.

McGraw said both 767 or 777 could 'do the job', depending on what the Air Force needs. "It's not necessarily how much fuel you carry, but how much you can off-load in real" combat situations, he told reporters.

Presumably he learned that from the KC-767A's dismal balanced field requirements with anything close to max fuel?

[charliegolf]

Balanced Field.

BEagle- having a daft moment- Is balanced field a 'level playing field' for bidding fairness, or a tech term?

CG

[ORAC]

FAR Balanced Field Length (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-h.htm)

[charliegolf]

ORAC- cheers. Learn something new every day.

CG

[BEagle]

When obtaining the figures, we specified a 10000ft blanced field so that the liar who quoted the actual lift-off distance required by the KC-767A as being the 'runway length' needed wouldn't be able to do so a second time!

The immediate response from the 767 mob when we specified a 10000ft balanced field was "Can you make it 12000ft?".

Which met with the predictable answer!

You have to be careful with manufacturer's figures. Once, when touting for future tanker business, a certain Bungling Baron's mob managed to show that their product would better a VC10K in terms of available offload from a particular sea level aerodrome. On closer inspection, it was discovered that they'd used that well-known tanker base, Gibraltar! In the summer!!

[ORAC]

McGraw disagreed, saying the language merely asked bidders to take into account the WTO dispute. "We want a fair and open competition. We want to win fair and square," he said. Didn´t take long did it...... :hmm:

$110 million in perks if Airbus wins tanker contract (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/286715_eadsincentives28.html)

Background: Air Force backs off subsidy issue (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/286452_tankers26.html)

[BEagle]

"That leaves open the possibility that Boeing could eventually develop its 787 as a tanker"

Oh really? Boeing themselves killed any idea of their plastic plane 7E7 becoming a tanker when senior vice president and general manager air force systems George Muellner said, in 2004, that it was unsuitable for the tanker mission: "The issue is not composites, but its configuration"...

[Washington_Irving]

Anyone remember this story from last year?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601715.html

[L J R]

As a soon to retire future lager lout on the way to somewhere spanish and hot, I look forward to the choice.

[BenThere]

A 777 tanker has a lot of appeal from many perspectives. The evolved focus of the air force remains 'reach' in terms of auxiliary missions in addition to air refueling. As such, the 777 forte is 'reach'. It has the range in current configurations to meet the tanker mission, as well as the other anticipated lift capabilities desired. The politics of selecting other than an American prime for this contract are daunting, Northrup's participation notwithstanding. Airbus' setbacks with its A380 program affect analysis of contract performance risk as well, though probably not to the level of being deemed non-responsive or unqualified as a bidder.

A 777 augmented by additional body fuel tanks would present a formidable challenge for Airbus to equal with any current model design. Though I favor the idea of a competitive field, I can't see a very high probability of Airbus success against a 777 tanker, unless the Brit or French air forces fielded the Airbus tanker prior to the US award, demonstrating that it meets current, real world performance benchmarks.

[BEagle]

"Airbus' setbacks with its A380 program affect analysis of contract performance risk "

Whereas Boeing's 'setbacks' in failing to deliver a basic, modified 767-200 to Italy within the required time frame, its scandalous USAF performance with the 767 - and its loading of NRCs on the Japanese 767 AWACS programme have, of course, been beyond reproach.

One of Boeing's major observations about the A330 was its alleged aerodrome requirements. They reckoned that their KC-767A was less demanding in terms of support infrastructre (taxiways, parking, fuel requirements - but assuredly not RW requirements) than the A330..... This was touted as an advantage.

So now they advocate the 777 as being 'more capable' than the A330? Even though its aerodrome requirements exceed even those which they claimed were excessive for the A330?

Boeing snake oil salesmen - forget it. The KC-30 has you licked and well you know it. All your political cr@p and BS will not hide the fact that the 767 is too old and needs too long a RW - and the 777 is far too big and expensive. Then there are those unproven AAR pods which you thought were such a good idea...

Work is progressing well at Getafe on the world's most competent future tanker aircraft, the A330MRTT. And very nice it looks too in its grey RAAF paint job.

The first of many!

[Jackonicko]

NRCs, BEags? Explain, old chum.

[inawordavortex]

Love this "combat landing" crap when has anyone EVER seen a tanker land or depart from a dirt strip? They use civvy or mil runway that have been taken over (Balad/BIAP/KABUL/BRIZE (sorry had to add that last one) Tankers dont do that we all know that approaches might be a bit funky but not out of stress limits..... so selling an airframe as combat ready is pish (DAS aside). Buy a good tube as the yanks have (bloody old 707) and fill it with gas and a delivery system job done. Sometimes KISS works. For all those who dont know KISS= Keep it simple stupid.

[Magoodotcom]

A 777 augmented by additional body fuel tanks would present a formidable challenge for Airbus to equal with any current model design.
The 777 already has the additional body tanks in its -200LR guise, and it's currently being developed with a cargo door and floor in its freighter form. Half the work is pretty much done already or is underway - just need to qualify a boom and operator's station/console, and those being developed for the Japanese and Italian KC-767 should pretty much bolt on/in.
Though I favor the idea of a competitive field, I can't see a very high probability of Airbus success against a 777 tanker, unless the Brit or French air forces fielded the Airbus tanker prior to the US award, demonstrating that it meets current, real world performance benchmarks.
French? Not likely. Australia will be first to market with the KC-30B (A330) but due to development delays with the 'digital' boom, this won't be until late 2009 at this stage. The Brits likely won't have a boom, and the boom will be the deal-breaker for the US.

Magoo

[BEagle]

NRCs- Non-recurring costs.

Such as the initial development costs of a new product, rather than its production costs.

[BenThere]

BEagle,

Part of performance risk assessment is the financial capacity of the contestant, not just the hardware, and speculation is growing that the A380 program could end up sinking the Airbus consortium should orders be cancelled along with nonperformance penalties.

I agree, the 767 is less a less formidable counter KC. As Magoodotcom pointed out, the 777 ER freighter, in a current configuration, is a very good new option. Additional body fuel tanks to enable greater heavy lift airbridge performance, higher loiter and offload potential with fewer tankers than KC-30 could contemplate would take the prize IMHO.

As tankers generally don't consume high flying hours or cycles, the Airbus disadvantage in that respect shouldn't be too significant. Additionally, the world is full of available 10-12,000 foot runways to fully accommodate any of the airframe options. The concrete is there.

[BEagle]

Fewer tankers is all very well if you don't need the capability at different locations simultaneously. Half the size in 2 locations is often preferable. In fact, virtually always preferable.

We call it 'hoses in the sky'. A multi-tanker cell is often needed to refuel a large strike package. We used 3 VC10s and 8 Tornados in GW1 not because the VC10 had insufficient fuel, but because all receivers needed to be full close to the release point. They couldn't have done that if they'd had to rely upon a single large tanker.

Equally, no point in huge offloads if the one and only tanker goes U/S on the ground...

There is safety in multiplicity, particularly for critical missions. If Boeing haven't learned that yet, then they truly are showing their naiivety in offering a 777-based tanker.

A310MRTT or A330MRTT offer far greater flexibility and efficiency than any Boeing offering.